syy-) 1jldM>^ i a^f *MJ 3 1 *r ■ - * ' I T~ 7 Abraham Lincoln. (The statue at Lincoln, Nebraska, unveiled September 2, 1912. Repro- duced with the courteous permission of the sculptor, Daniel C. French.) . . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the peo- ple, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth. — Gettysburg Address. American History and Government BY WILLIS MASON WEST SOMETIME PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AND HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 3j»i< ALLYN AND BACON / V, f - ' COPYRIGHT, 1913, BY WILLIS MASON WEST. - OLC Narfoooti $wg8 J. 8. Cushing Co. — Berwick & Smith Co. Norwood, Mass., U.S.A. C<^^AJt^>Ct>Mrlr |~. «d^AA>v* fr/7f FOREWORD This volume aims to fuse the study of social and industrial development with a study of political institutions. The pri- mary purpose in the book is History, not Government. And yet I hope, even on the side of political institutions, compensa- tion for minor detail may be found by presenting the vital organs of our government where each may be best understood as a product of progressive history — instead of treating the whole as a complex machine, unaccounted for save by perfunc- tory and costly digressions. The "History" part is not merely political history. The growth of our political democracy has been intertwined with the development of our economic and industrial conditions. I have tried to make this interaction the pervading principle in determining the arrangement and selection of material. Some details on the industrial side have failed to find room ; but the vital features, I hope, do stand out as conditioning our other progress. The volume is not a special plea. American democracy needs no special pleading. Its weaknesses, sins, blunders, are here portrayed, on occasion. But I should not have cared to write the book at all, if I had not believed that a fair presen- tation of American history gives to American youth a robust and aggressive faith in democracy. At the same time, I have tried to correct the common delusion which looks back to Jef- ferson or John Winthrop for a golden age, and to show instead that democracy has as yet been tried only imperfectly among us. These general considerations account for three features which appear in a degree peculiar among books of this class : the large place given to the study of Western development, with the interaction of the frontier upon the older parts of the iv FOREWORD country; 1 the emphasis laid upon the deeply significant labor movement of 1825-1840 ; 2 and the detailed story of the recent " progressive " movement. In connection with the last, there is presented a survey of the economic and political conditions of to-day, with brief statements of the main problems now con- fronting our people. Experienced teachers will, I trust, be patient with the profuse suggestions regarding methods of using the volume which ap- pear in the early portion. These are merely suggestions, and are meant for young teachers and for others overburdened with work. Constant reference is made, through the first half of the volume, to the author's Source Book, 3 which has been pre- pared as a companion volume. For the early part of our his- tory, a careful use of such a collection may profitably take the place of other library work, provided library reference has its due attention during the rest of the year. The use of the Source Book, however, is by no means indispensable to the volume, if the teacher prefer to use a library instead. It is impossible to acknowledge here all my indebtedness to friends and helpers. I must, however, take this opportunity to thank Professor Frank Maloy Anderson, of the University of Minnesota, both for constructive help and for the elimination of various faults. Miss Ethelyn Kemp, too, has saved me many hours of toil by her skill and trustworthiness in the use of documents. WILLIS MASON WEST. Windago Farm, September, 1913. 1 No text-book has been able altogether to neglect this topic since the ap- pearance of Frederick J. Turner's brilliant essays twenty years ago. 2 This chapter in our development had been practically lost until it was again made accessible two years ago by Dr. John R. Commons and Miss Helen Sumner in their "Labor Movements, 1825-1840" (volumes V and VI of the great Documentary History of American Industrial Society) . 8 Willis Mason West, Source Book of American History to 1790 : Illustra- tive Readings and Documents. 1913. Allyn and Bacon. Like my Modern History, this Source Book is referred to in the following pages by title only, without repetition of the author's name. CONTENTS List of Maps and Plans . . . . . . . . xi List of Illustrations xiii Introduction I. America as the English found It 1 II. European Rivals of England in America 7 PART I. THE ENGLISH IN AMERICA Chapter I. Southern Colonies to 1660 I. Conditions and Motives of Colonization 15 II. Virginia under the London Company, 1607-1624 . . .21 III. Virginia as a Neglected Royal Province, 1624-1660 ... 37 IV. Maryland: a Proprietary Province 44 Chapter II. New England to 1660 I. Commercialism and Puritanism as Factors in Colonization . 50 II. The Separatist Pilgrims at Plymouth 53 III. Massachusetts Bay — an aristocratic theocracy ... 66 A. Foundation in commercial enterprise .... 66 B. Becomes a corporate colony and a Puritan common- wealth 70 C. Political Development, to the establishment of repre- sentative government, 1630-1634 .... 77 D. Evolution of a two-House legislature (two-House legis- latures then and now) 86 E. Local government (the Virginia county and the New England town : later developments) ... 91 F. Evolution of political machinery . . . . .97 G. Evolution of a judicial system .99 H. Theocratic elements ; "persecution" .... 102 v vi CONTENTS PAGE IV. Other New England Colonies 109 V. The New England Confederation 114 Chapter III. 1660-1690 : Struggle to Preserve Self-Government I. General Tendencies (territorial expansion ; a colonial system ; navigation acts) 118 II. The Colonies in Detail . 124 Chapter IV. Provincial America, 1600-1760 I. Material Growth (immigration ; the West and the Scotch- Irish) 143 II. Intercolonial Wars (victory of English civilization) . . 146 III. Constitutional Development (Commercial control ; administra- tive control ; gains by the colonists) 147 Chapter V. Colonial Life f "Blue Laws"; Decay of Puritanism; Education; Population; Occupations; Labor; Home-life 156 PART II. THE MAKING OF A NATION Chapter VI. Separation from England, 1 763-1 783 I. Preparation in the Intercolonial Wars 172 II. The Question Opened (attempts at taxation) .... 174 III. Fundamental Causes (colonial system outgrown ; political con- ditions in England ; social unrest in America) . . .182 IV. Transition from Colonies to the United States A. Constitutional agitation : provincial and Continental congresses, 1774 196 B. Breakup of English authority : provincial congresses become de facto governments ; development of a new central government ; development of State governments 211 Or A union of independent States : making a constitution in Virginia; Declaration of Independence . .217 CONTENTS vii PAGE D. The Thirteen State Constitutions (formation ; ratifica- tion ; characteristics ; the franchise ; amending clauses ; State governments then and now) . . 225 E. The Congress and the war 235 Chapter VII. The West, 1 769-1 787 I. The Southwest : a self -developed section (Watauga, the Cum- berland settlements, and Kentucky ; the West in the war ; need of control of the Mississippi ; separatist movements) 249 II. The Northwest : a National domain (Maryland and the ces- sions ; Ordinances of '84 and '87 ; system of land survey : schools ; government to 1789) 264 [II. Meaning of the Frontier in American History .... 276 Chapter VIII. From League to Union, 1775- 1789 I. The Confederation of States (weaknesses and dangers ; causes analyzed ; discussion of the two types of federal govern- ment) 278 II. Making a New Constitution 293 Chapter IX. Federalist Organization, 1789-1800 I. Developments in Constitutional Law, Written and Unwritten . 333 II. Hamilton's "Plan" for the Finances ("Implied Powers") . 343 III. Sectional Lines . . . 348 IV. Rise of " Parties " (aristocracy and democracy) . . . 351 V. Foreign Relations (Jay Treaty and International Arbitration) 358 VI. Domestic Dissensions, 1797-1800 366 PART III. NATIONALITY AND DEMOCRACY Chapter X. America in 1800 Physical, social, and industrial conditions ; hopeful factors . . 378 Chapter XI. Jeff ersonian Republicanism I. " The Revolution of 1800" (political principles; the civil ser- vice ; attempts to republicanize the Judiciary ; Marshall and Jefferson ; limitation of the presidential term) . . 396 Vlll CONTENTS PAGE II. Expansion and Development (Louisiana Purchase; constitu- tional questions ; boundaries ; explorations ; westward movement ; the steamboat ; "internal improvements") . 408 III. The War of 1812 423 IV. New England and the Union in the War 428 Chapter XII. A New Americanism, 1815-1829 The New Forces 435 I. Growth of the West 437 II. Foreign Relations (Monroe Doctrine) 447 III. National Policies : internal improvements, tariff ; centraliza- tion by the courts 452 IV. Reaction (the " era of good-feeling" ; faction ; sectionalism ; State sovereignty) 464 I Chapter XIII. A New Democracy, 1829- 1850 I. The New Society A. The " New West " : one source of new democracy . 470 B. The awakening of labor : second factor in democratic progress 475 C. Moral and intellectual awakening: third factor (schools ; literature ; mechanical invention; social reform ; railroads) 491 II. The Political Narrative to 1841 A. Constitutional changes : manhood franchise and more direct exercise of the franchise ; new position of the presidency ; the veto ; spoils ; corresponding changes in State and local governments . . 499 B. Protection — and Nullification 506 C. The Government and the Bank (the Independent Treasury) 512 D. Public Land Policy : attitude of Eastern labor ; West- ern settlers' associations ; Preemption Act . . 516 E. Democracy Triumphant, 1841 ; disappearance of aristocratic politics .,,... 519 CONTENTS ix III. Political Machinery : National and local conventions and com- mittees ; spoils and bosses ; congressmen and patronage ; the Gerrymander ; Mr. Speaker and congressional com- mittees 523 Chapter XIV. Slavery and the Union I. To 1829: Slavery Defensive . . . . . . .533 II. 1829-1860: Slavery Aggressive A. To 1844: new issues : slavery and White men's rights 537 B. Slavery and expansion (war with Mexico) . . . 545 C. Contest to control the new territory .... 549 D. The breakdown of compromise after 1850 (Fugitive Slave Law and Dred Scott Decision) . . . 558 E. Contest for supremacy in 1860 : Lincoln's victory the signal for secession ...... 572 III. North and South in 1860 576 4 Chapter XV. Nationalism Victorious, 1861-1876 I. The Civil War 587 II. Reconstruction 618 PART IV. THE PEOPLE AND PRIVILEGE Chapter XVI. A Business Age General Phases 642 I. Railroads : extension and consolidation ; watered stock ; pool- ing and discriminations ; attempts at government regula- tion ; the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Courts ; recent developments 643 II. National Growth .652 III. " Big Business" : trust and trust-regulation ; special privilege and public corruption 657 IV, Political Narrative to 1896 : civil service ; the tariff ; free silver and currency 671 X CONTENTS Chapter XVII. A World Power PAGE Before 1898; the Spanish War; "Imperialism"; the Depend- encies ; the Panama Canal ; recent foreign relations . 689 Chapter XVIII. The People and Their Government To-Day Social Unrest ......... 703 I. The Labor Movement 706 II. Socialism and the Single Tax 720 III. The Progressive Movement 724 A. In the nation (Roosevelt ; election of 1908 ; disappoint- ment of Progressives ; the Payne-Aldrich Tariff and the " Insurgents " ; split in the Republican party ; elections of 1910 and 1912) . . .724 J5. In State and City (new activity in these units ; Austral- ian ballot ; direct nominations ; corrupt-practices acts ; the recall ; direct legislation ; home-rule for cities ; direct election of senators, and direct nomi- nation of Presidents. Oregon : a chapter in the history of Democracy. Democracy and our Com- mon Life 731 Appendix I. The Constitution, with Notes and Comment .... 751 II. A Select List of Books on American History and Govern- ment for High Schools 772 Index 777 MAPS AND PLANS MAP PAGE 1. Lines of Equal Temperature for the Northern Hemisphere . 2 2. Indian Portages and French Posts in the Seventeenth Century. Full page, colored facing 8 3. "Virginia," 1606-1608 22 4. Possible "Virginias" of 1609 27 5. Settled Area in Virginia in 1624 30 6. Virginia and " New England " in 1620 51 7. English America in 1660. Full page, colored . . facing 119 8. The Watercourse Fall Line 144 9. European Possessions in America at Three Periods, 1664- 1689, 1713-1754, 1773-1775; three maps. Full page, colored facing 147 10. Colonial Governments, Charter, Proprietary, and Royal, at Two Periods. Full page, colored .... facing 150 11. Boundaries proposed by France for the United States in 1782. Full page, colored facing 245 12. The United States in 1783, Nominal and Actual. Full page colored facing 246 13. Western Settlement, 1769-1784 256 14. The United States in 1783, State Claims and Cessions. Full page, colored facing 263 15. Proposed States by the Ordinance of 1784 .... 265 16. The United States Survey : Bases and Meridians for the Old Northwest 271 17. The United States Survey : Towns and Ranges . . .272 18. The United States Survey : a Township in Sections . .' . 273 19. The United States Survey : a Section subdivided . . . 273 20. Frontier Lines of 1774, 1790, and 1820. Full page, col- ored facing 275 xi Xll MAPS AND PLANS PAGE MAP 21. Ratification of the Constitution: Distribution of Votes for the State Conventions 328 22. Physical Map of the United States . . . . ... 379 23. Navigable Waterways of the United States .... 383 24. Sectional Elevation in Latitude 40° North 384 25. Movement of Centers of Population and of Manufactures, 1790-1910 386 26. The United States in 1800. Full page, colored . facing 393 27. North America in 1801. Full page, colored ." . facing 409 28. "-West Florida" under Spain, France, and the United States (three maps) 415 29. Explorations of Lewis and Clark and of Pike. Full page, col- ored facing 419 30. Cessions of Indian Lands after the War of 1812 . . . 439 31. Distribution of Population in 1820 445 32. The National Road 453 33. House Vote on the Tariff of 1816 458 34. House Vote on the Tariff of 1824 459 35. House Vote on the Tariff of 1828 461 36. Presidential Election of 1824 : Electoral Vote . . . .466 37. Presidential Election of 1825 : Vote in House of Representatives 467 38. Presidential Election of 1828 . . . ' . . . .468 39. Growth of the United States from 1800 to 1853. Full page, colored after 549 40. Election of 1848 552 41. Test Vote on the Compromise of 1850 557 42. Test Vote on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill 563 43. Presidential Election of 1856 566 44. Presidential Election of 1860. Double page, colored after 574 45. Density of Population in 1840 580 46. Density of Population in 1860 581 47. Railway Extension, 1830-1860. Full page, colored . facing 583 48. The Union and the Confederacy, 1862 597 49. Scene of the Civil War 601 50. Emancipation 609 MAPS AND PLANS xiii MAP PAGE 51. Reconstruction 629 52. Presidential Election of 1876. Full page, colored . after 632 63. Railway Extension, 1870-1880. Full page, colored . after 642 54. The United States of 1913. Double page, colored . after 652 55. Rate of Increase in Population, 1900-1910 . . . .654 56. The Philippines • . . . .698 ILLUSTRATIONS FIGURE PAGE 1 . Lincoln (from French's Statue at Lincoln, Nebraska) Frontispiece 2. The Mayflower Compact 58 3. Attempt to land a Bishop in America (from a Colonial publica- tion) 183 4. " We Dare," a Revolutionary Handbill against the Stamp Act . 198 5. Facsimile Heading from the Pennsylvania Journal announcing its Decease because of the Stamp Act 199 6. The Minute Man (from French's Statue at Concord) . . 214 7. A Frontier Post (Fort Steuben) in 1787 251 8. Campus Martius, Marietta, 1791 275 9. Ratification of the Constitution — "Eighth Federal Pillar reared " . 327 10. Cincinnati in 1810 419 11. Photographic Reproduction from the Boston Centinel of Novem- ber 9, 1814 (to illustrate the secession tendency in New England) 433 12. The " Gerrymander " 528 13. Antislavery Handbill of 1851 . 560 -^ \ <* AMERICAN HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT INTRODUCTION I. AMERICA AS THE ENGLISH FOUND IT A. Geography of the North Atlantic Coast 1. Geographical Influence in our Colonial History less than in Early European History. — The character of a country has much to do with the life of its people. We cannot understand the early history of the Greeks or Romans without studying care- fully the geography of Hellas and of Italy. But there are two reasons why the influence of geography upon early American history may be treated briefly. a. American history began when civilization was well advanced. The earliest colonists had command enough over nature not to be controlled by her to any such degree as the primitive Egyp- tians or Greeks or Latins were. Nature counted for less, and man for more, than in the early Old-World history. b. Tlie Atlantic coast region (with which alone our colonial history is concerned) was more like the European homes of the colonists than any other part of America is. The life of the early settlers, therefore, was less modified by their transfer to that region than if they had colonized the Mississippi valley or the Pacific district. 1 2. Important Contrasts between Colonial and European Geog- raphy. — At the same time, there were some striking differences between the European and the American coasts of the Atlantic. Two of these contrasts were especially important. 1 The western half of the continent differs radically from Europe, and con- tains many striking diversities within itself ; but these influences (§ 245) did not affect our history in its formative period. 1 2 AMERICA AS THE. ENGLISH FOUND IT a. At a place in America where the average temperature is the same as for a given part of England, the extremes are greater. The summers are hotter and the winters colder, and the changes are more sudden. This feature of American climate involved the first settlers in unforeseen difficulties. Thus Weymouth, who came to the coast of Maine in the spring of 1605, found a beautiful climate which he described truly as like that of southern France ; but the colonists who attempted settlement there two years later were cruelly disappointed by a winter like that of Nor- way (§ 45). i 6. The true zones of climate are narrower in America than in Europe. For a given distance from north to south, the climate Lines of Equal, Temperature. changes more rapidly on the American coast than on the Euro- pean. Between Nova Scotia and northern Florida the English colonists found as great variations of heat and cold as they would have found in the Old World if they had spread out from central Norway to the Sahara. Of course this variation was many times greater than they had known in their own little island. 1 See, too, the experience of Lord Baltimore in Nova Scotia (§ 38 and Source Book, No. 42.) GEOGRAPHICAL INFLUENCES 3 3. Two Other Physical Factors tending to the Growth of Sec- tionalism. — This sharp difference in climate from north to south in America helped to make the Virginian Englishman different from his cousin whose father had settled in New England. Out of a common stock each section developed a distinct type. And this divergence was reinforced by the different pursuits of the two regions and by lack of intercourse. a. Natural products varied from north to south. Each section, therefore, had its peculiar industry. Along the southern coast the fertile soil was suited to the cultivation of tobacco or rice or cotton, 1 in large tracts, by slaves or bond servants. The middle district was adapted to raising foodstuffs on a large scale. The north was relatively sterile j farming was not profitable there except in small holdings with trustworthy " help n ; but the pine forests of that region, its harbors, and the fish in its seas, invited to other industries. These differences in the occupations of the inhabitants north and south resulted in different habits of life (cf. § 124). b. Communication from north to south teas difficult. Colony was divided from colony, or, at best, groups of colonies were divided from one another, by arms of the sea. Even when two colonies lay side by side without intervening bays, still roads from north to south were lacking. At first the chief highways were the rivers. These ran from the mountains to the aea, and the early roads followed the same general course. In practice, as a rule, a colony found it about as convenient to hold communication with England as with its neighbor on either side. The consequent lack of intercourse made it easier for different types of character to develop in different sections, and harder for these types to understand or modify one another. 4. Advantages of the English Location. — In many ways these tend- encies toward sectionalism were a disadvantage to English colonization. 1 Rice came into prominence with the settlement of South Carolina. Cotton appeared much later as an important product. In the early days, tobacco was the staple for the south (cf. § 7). 4 AMERICA AS THE ENGLISH FOUND IT Still they made for a useful variety in colonial life ; and the evil in them was more than offset by certain advantages that geography gave to the English over their rivals in the contest for the continent. The territory colonized by England was at once more accessible and more compact than the American possessions of Frenchmen or Spaniards. It was easier for the English to get into America, and it was not so easy for them after- ward to weaken themselves by wide dispersion. a. (Accessibility.) The Atlantic coast from Maine to Georgia was marvelously open to the small sailing vessels of that day, and it invited European settlement much more than did the vast inland valleys of the St. Lawrence and the Mississippi, where the French cast their fortunes. Sometimes we speak of these great river systems as " gateways to the continent" ; and so they are to the interior : but, in the early days of colonization, men did not care to go far into the interior. They preferred the fringe of the continent, where they could keep closer touch with the Old World. Moreover, in the districts near the mouths of the great rivers, neither climate nor soil was especially suitable for European settlers. The forest-covered banks of the lower Mississippi were particu- larly repellent. b. (Compactness.) The Appalachian Mountains, whose many rivers made the Atlantic region so accessible, kept the colonists, -as they grew numerous, from spreading too rapidly. The English in America found themselves shut in between the mountains and the sea. The Appalachians, for so slight a height, were singularly impassable, covered as they were with tangled forests. Four streams broke the mountain wall, — the Potomac, Delaware, Susquehanna, and Hudson-Mohawk ; but, in the state of engineering of that day, only the last could be used as a road to the inner country, and that route was closed against the colonists by the powerful Iroquois (§§5-6). B. Natives and Native Products 5. Classification of Native Races. — To the student of our history the natives are of interest mainly as they affected the course of European settlement. Between the Mississippi and the Atlantic the colonists found three distinct groups of Indian peoples, — the Gulf Tribes, the Algonkins, and the Iroquois. a. The gulf tribes (Choctaws, Seminoles, Creeks) were the most advanced. They were in a rude agricultural stage, and NATIVES AND NATIVE PRODUCTS 5 they showed ability to pick up the somewhat better farming methods of the colonists. These tribes were too far south and west materially to affect white settlement until the be- ginnings of Georgia and Tennessee, almost at the. end of the colonial periodfe . b. The roamirw Algonkins were the largest of the three groups, but also the mjit primitive and disunited. Numbering from 75,000 to 100,000 souls, — thinly scattered in a multitude of petty, mutually hostile tribes, — they " haunted, rather than inhabited, a vast hunting preserve" stretching f^B the Atlantic to the Mississippi and from the Ohio to the far north. To this group belonged the ^owhatans, Delawares, Narragansetts, Pequods, Mohegans, and, indeed, nearly all the tribes with which the early English settleiPbame in hostile contact. c. The Iroquois Confederacy was the strongest native political organization north of Mexico. These tribes counted some 10,000 people, and occupied what is now western New York in comparatively compact villages. 1 6. Important political results followed from the distribution of the natives. The Spaniards in South and Central America cast their adventure among races gentler than any of the North American Indians. Spanish conquest was too rapid. The continent was overrun faster than it could be occupied. Span- ish rule was built upon the slavery of the natives. With this enslaved population the conquerors mixed their blood until the Spanish nationality was almost wholly absorbed. In Canada the French, in the weak days of their settlement, came into conflict with the formidable Iroquois ; and the deadly blows inflicted by this warlike confederacy played an important part in preventing French mastery of the continent (§§ 12-13). The English, in their time of weakness, touched only the dis- 1 We have little accurate knowledge about the numbers of the natives. Scholars now agree that those east of the Mississippi could not have exceeded 200,000, and that many a single city in our country to-day contains more people (to say nothing of the grade of people) than dwelt in all North America when Europeans first touched its shores. 6 AMERICA AS THE ENGLISH FOUND IT united Algonkins, by whom their settlement was never seri- ously threatened. At the same time, the Algonkins were untamable. They could not be enslaved to profit; hence the English did not mix blood with them. And they were dan- gerous enough to prevent the colonists from scattering rapidly into the interior. These Indian foes, then, along with the Appalachian mountains, were the cause why, down to the Revolution, the English colonies remained fairly compact ££ 4). Such compact settlement afforded opportunity for a truer civilizationjgbr more division of labor, and for more social intercourse. It made easier, also, the political union of the colonies and resistance to England, when the time came. Both nature and the natives, seeming unkind to the English colonist, were really kinder to him than to his French or Spanish rivals. 7. Maize and Tobacco. — At a later time the rich deposits of coal and metals were to influence history. At first the two native products of supreme value were maize and tobacco. One of these became the chief food supply of the colonist ; the other he exchanged in Europe for Euro- pean goods. Maize (already the basis of a rising culture among the natives) made the foundation of successful European settlement. European grains failed in the new climate season after season, while the colonist was learning the new conditions. Moreover, to clear and prepare the soil for wheat took much time. Maize was a surer crop and needed less toil. The colonist learned from the Indian to raise it, at need, without even clearing the forest, — merely. girdling the trees to kill the foliage, and planting among the standing trunks. It was no accident that this Indian grain came to be called " corn," the general name for European grains. And if Indian corn enabled the colonist to live through the first hard years, it was tobacco that first made him rich and enabled him to secure European comforts. For the later northern colonies, the place of tobacco was taken by fur, fish, and lumber. 8. Economic Dependence upon the Natives. — The economic develop- ment of the colonies was intimately connected with the natives. Will- ingly or unwillingly, the Indians furnished the first settlements with the corn that warded off starvation. Soon they taught the colonists to plant both corn and tobacco. They were the chief means of securing furs. Their wampum, at times, made an important part of colonial money. The forest trails, worn into deep paths by many generations of Red men, SPAIN IN AMERICA 7 became the iine of future highways. 1 The routes followed by the birch canoe became the lines of water communication for White men. And the stations for exchange of furs at the junction of leading trails and water- ways, marked out by native surveyors and pilots, became the sites of mighty cities, like Milwaukee, Chicago, St. Louis, and Duluth. II. THE EUROPEAN RIVALS OF ENGLAND A. Spain 9. Progress and Early Decay. — After the crusades, Medieval Europe came to depend upon Asiatic articles for luxury and for much of daily comfort. Trade, to supply these commod- ities, was carried on by way of the Black Sea or by caravans from the southeastern Mediterranean into central Asia. In the fifteenth century the gradual rise of the Turks in Asia Minor almost closed these routes. To get into the rear of the Turkish barbarians, Europe, just then astir with an intellectual awaken- ing, sought new routes. Portugal found one to the south around Africa. Columbus, in the interest of Spain, tried a still bolder western route — and stumbled upon America in his path. 2 These discoveries marked the close of the fifteenth cen- tury. TJie next century, so far as the New World ivas con- cerned, was Spain's. The story of her conquest is a tale of heroic endeavor and almost superhuman endurance, marred by revolting ferocity. The details, as a Spanish chronicler said, are " all horrid transactions, nothing pleasant in any of them." Not till twenty years after the discovery, did the Spaniards ad- vance to the mainland for settlement ; but, once begun, her handfuls of adventurers swooped north and south, until, by 1550, she held not only all South America (save Portugal's 1 Cf. map facing page 8. The New York Central Railroad follows the old Iroquois trail from Lake Erie to the Hudson ; and in Minneapolis one of the finest streets (Hennepin Avenue) is an ancient Indian trail from the neighbor- ing Lake Harriet to a point on the Mississippi a little above the Falls of St. Anthony. - Modern History, §§ 89, 103 (with notes), 196, 197. 8 EUROPEAN RIVALS OF ENGLAND Brazil), but also all Central America, Mexico, the Californias far up the Pacific coast, and the FJoridas. The Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean were Spanish lakes, and the whole Pacific was a "closed sea." For other Europeans to intrude into these waters was a crime, to be punished by death. Not content with this huge empire on land and sea, Spain was planning grandly to occupy the Mississippi valley and the Appalachian slope, when she received a fatal check in Europe, at the hand of England, in the ruin of her "Invincible Armada" (1588). * That event in Europe marks a parting of the ways in American colonization. Dread of Spain waned, and other European peoples were left free to try their fortunes in North America. During the next half century, every seaboard country of western Europe made attempts at colonizing the Atlantic coast ; but the real rivals, then and for long after, were France and England. > B. The French in America 10. Outline of the Story. — After a quarter century of exploration, a French colony was founded by Champlain at Quebec in 1608. Ex- plorers, missionaries, and traders soon traversed the Great Lakes and established stations at various points still known by French names. In 1682, after years of splendid effort, LaSalle succeeded in following the Mississippi to the Gulf, setting up a French claim to the entire valley. In later years New France consisted of the colony on the St. Lawrence in the far north, and the semi-tropical colony of New Orleans, joined to each other by a slight chain of trading posts and military stations along the in- terior waterways, — Detroit, Sault Ste. Marie, Vincennes, Kaskaskia, St. Louis, and the like. From the beginning of this colonization, it was apparent that France and England were rivals for the control of eastern North America ; but the real struggle between them did not begin until 1689. The contest then lasted, in a series of wars, three quarters of a century, until 1763, when France was thrust out of the continent (§ 114). The story is a tale of romantic heroism and charm ; but here we can note only certain characteristics of New France which helped to determine the result. 1 Modern History, § 223. This defeat alone did not ruin the might of Spain. Internal causes were at work to do that. The defeat checked her advance for the moment ; and internal decay prevented her resuming that advance. sv FRANCE IN AMERICA 9 11. French Advantages. — At home French statesmen aimed deliberately to build a French empire in America. The inspir- ing thought of such an empire animated also French explorers in the wilderness, — splendid patriots like Cham plain, Ribault, and LaSalle. France, too, sent forth the most zealous of mis- sionaries to convert the savages. TJiese two mighty motives, patriotism and missionary zeal, played a more prominent part in founding New France than in establishing either Spanish or English colonies. Moreover, the French could deal with the natives better than the less sympathetic English could; and their leaders were men of broad and far-reaching views. "The French leaders showed a capacity for understanding the large questions of political geography . . . and a genius for exploration, and a talent for dominion, in singular contrast with the blundering, narrow processes of their English rivals." — Parkman. 12. External Causes of Failure. — Why, then, did France fail ? Two kinds of weakness may be noted, — one external and ac- cidental, the other inherent in the nature of French colonization (§ 14). Of the first kind, there are two striking particulars. a. In the south the Spaniards from St. Augustine barbarously exterminated a French attempt to colonize the Atlantic coast. b. In the north the Iroquois were relentless foes. Curiously enough, it was the ability of the French to make friends with the natives which brought upon them this terrible scourge. Champlain (§ 10) came first in touch with Algonkin tribes, and was warmly received by them. These tribes were at war with the Iroquois. Champlain accompanied his new allies on the warpath, and so incurred Iroquois hatred for New France. 13. The Iroquois hindered French success in four distinct ways. a. They annihilated the Huron Indians, whom French missionaries, after many heroic martyrdoms, had christianized, and upon whom the French had hoped to build a native civilization. b. At times they struck terrible blows at New France itself. 1 1 Mrs. Catherwood's Romance of Dollard tells the glorious story of one critical conflict. Dollard and his band of heroes were to Quebec what Leon- idas and his Three Hundred were to Greece. 10 EUROPEAN RIVALS OF ENGLAND c They shielded the English colonies, during their weakness, from French attack. In the early intercolonial struggles, the French in Canada could strike at the English only by way of the route followed later by Burgoyne. Everywhere else the wilderness between Canada and the English settlements was impassable for military forces larger than prowling bands, which could do no permanent harm ; and this one possible military road was warded by the Iroquois. * d. The hostility of the Iroquois changed the whole course of French exploration, turning it to the north. The home of the confederacy was in western New York, — " the military key to the eastern half of the continent." l It commanded the headwaters of the Delaware, Susque- hanna, and Mohawk-Hudson system, and the portage at Niagara from Erie to Ontario, as well as part of the headwaters of the Ohio. The French, with their keen eye for military geography (§ 11 close), would certainly have seized this position at any cost, if they had been able to learn its character. If they had then fortified the Ohio by a chain of posts, as they did their other waterways, this would have buttressed their position on the Mississippi and the Lakes so strongly as almost to defy attack. As things really were, they did not learn the importance of the Ohio valley until too late. Montreal was founded as early as 1611 ; but the French traders, instead of proceeding to the interior by the upper St. Lawrence and Lake Erie, turned up the Ottawa, so as to avoid the Iroquois, and reached Lake Huron by portage from Nipissing. Lake Erie was the last, instead of the first, of the Lakes to be explored. It was practically unused until after 1700, and the country to the south re- mained unknown even longer. 2 When the French awakened to its value, the slower but more numerous English traders had begun to push into the Ohio valley, and the great opportunity for France was already lost. 14. The inherent weakness in French colonization, however, was the fundamental cause of French failure. Three essentials were lacking : homes, individual enterprise, and political life. a. New France ivas not a country of homes or of agriculture. Except for a few leaders and the missionaries, the settlers were either unprogressive peasants or reckless adventurers. For the most part they did not bring families, and they remained unmarried or chose Indian wives. Agriculture was the only 1 So Winfield Scott called it, and Ulysses S. Grant afterward. 2 Navigation was by fleets of canoes, which had to land frequently. The French could not follow the southern shore of Lake Erie, nor use the portage of Niagara, because the Iroquois controlled the shores. FRANCE IN AMERICA 11 safe basis for a permanent colony ; but these colonists were averse to regular labor. Instead, they turned to trapping and the fur trade, and tended to adopt Indian habits. The French government in Europe sought in vain to remedy this by sending over cargoes of "king's girls," and by offering bonuses for early marriages and large families. Parkman's Old Begime in Canada (ch. xiii) gives quaint details. The easiest remedy would have been to permit the Huguenots x to come to America. They were the most skillful artisans and agriculturalists of France, and they had shown some ability in self-government. Moreover, they were anxious to come, and to bring their families. But the government, which lavished money in sending out undesirable emigrants, refused to allow these heretics to establish a state in America. b. Government paternalism smothered private enterprise in industry. In all economic matters New France was taught to depend not upon herself, but upon the aid and direction of a government three thousand miles away. Trade was shackled by silly restrictions, and hampered almost as much by silly encouragements. The rulers did everything; the people did nothing. Aid was constantly asked from the king. " Send us money to build storehouses," ran the begging letters of Canadian officials ; " Send us a teacher to make sailors " ; " We want a surgeon " ; and so, at various times, requests for brickmakers, ironworkers, pilots, and other skilled workers. Such requests were usually granted ; but New France did not learn to walk alone. c. Political life was lacking. In the seventeenth century France itself was a centralized despotism ; 2 and in New France (to use the phrase of Tocqueville) "this deformity was seen magnified as through a microscope." No public meetings were permitted without a special license ; and such meetings, when held, could take no action worth while. All sorts of matters, like the regulation of inns and of pew rent, the order in which dignitaries should sit in church, the keeping of dogs and of cattle, the pay of chimney sweeps, were dealt with not by Modem History, §§ 226, 229, 260, 282. 2 j ^ §§ 298, 299. 12 EUROPEAN RIVALS OF ENGLAND local legislatures or village councils, but by ordinances of the governors at Quebec, who were sent over by the French king. " It is of the greatest importance," wrote one official, " that the people should not be at liberty to speak their minds." Worse than this, — the people had no mind to speak. It is not true that a new country of necessity breeds freedom. What a frontier life does is to emphasize former tendencies. As Theodore Roose- velt puts it, the frontier takes two men only a little way apart morally in an old community, and makes one of them a hero, and the other a horse thief. So it deals with nations. The French and the Spanish colonies developed despotic tendencies in America, and the English colonies developed political liberty, — each progressing along the direction of earlier movement at home. 15. A Striking Illustration. — In 1672, Frontenac, the greatest governor of New France, tried to introduce the elements of self-govern- ment. He provided a system of "estates" to advise with him, — a gathering of clergy, nobles, and commons (citizens and merchants) ; and he ordered that Quebec should have a sort of town meeting twice a year to elect aldermen and to discuss public business. The home government sternly disapproved these mild innovations, directing Frontenac to re- member that it was "proper that each should speak for himself, and no one for the whole " ; and the plan fell to pieces. The significant thing is, the people eared so little for it that they made no effort to save it. When some such plan was introduced in Virginia (which also, during its first years, had lacked such privileges), no mere paper decree could take it away again (§§ 29, 30, 33, 34). 16. Conclusion. — Spite of all the fostering care of the home government, when the final contest for the continent began in 1754, France, with a home population three times as large as England's, had less than one twentieth as many colonists in America (60,000 to 1,300,000). French colonization did not produce numbers. Moreover, despite the noble patriotism of great leaders, the mass of the French colonists possessed too little political activity to care much what country they belonged to, so long as they were treated decently. Centralization did enable a capable governor to wield effectively all the resources of the FRANCE IN AMERICA 13 colony; 1 while with the English there were disastrous jealousies and delays interminable. But the English needed only one decisive victory. Had Montcalm conquered Wolfe, arid had he been able to occupy Boston and New York, he could not have held them even as long as King George did a few years later; but on the other hand, Wolfe's victory at Quebec settled forever the fate of the continent. Two systems were at war ; and, in the long run, the despotic governor proved no match for the democratic town meeting. The lack of political vitality and of individualism in industry was the fatal weakness of New France. The opposite qualities were to make the English successful. Says John Fiske, — " It is to the self-government of England, and to no lesser cause, that we are to look for the secret of that boundless vitality which has given to men of English speech the uttermost parts of the earth for an inheritance" For Further Reading. — The plan of this volume forbids extended class work upon the topics touched in this Introduction ; but a brief bibliography is added for the student who desires to read further. On the Discovery and its Period. — Payne, " Age of Discovery" in Cambridge Modern History, I (an admirable treatment in thirty pages) ; Fiske, Discovery of America; Cheyney, European Background of American History. On England's Rivals. — Moses, Spanish Bule in America ; Bourne, Spain in America; Thwaites, France in America ; Parkman's Histories, especially, Montcalm and Wolfe, Half Century of Conflict, and The Old Begime in Canada. Gilbert Parker's earlier stories, especially The Trail of the Sword and parts of Pierre and His People, picture vividly the Canadian colonial type. Exercise. — Brief, rapid answers (oral or written) on the following topics, — the answers to be given concisely and, as a rule, in single words or phrases, rather than in sentences. 1 This advantage was offset in part by the tendency to corruption which always threatens such a bureaucratic system. Says Parkman {Montcalm and Wolfe, II, 30), "Canada was the prey of official jackals." Parkman gives many illustrations of official corruption in New France at critical moments. For other illustrations, see Thwaites' France in America, 220-221. The student will he reminded of the way in which like causes weakened Russia at the opening of her war with Japan. 14 EUROPEAN RIVALS OF ENGLAND 1. Two reasons why geography is less important in the study of Ameri- can than of early European history ? 2. Two contrasts between the Atlantic coast of Europe and that of North America which affected colonization materially ? 3. How did each of these factors work ? 4. Two advantages from physical geography to English colonization, as compared with French or Spanish colonization? {Two words suffice for this answer.) 5. Three distinct advantages possessed by the French in their attempt to occupy America ? 6. Three causes of French failure? 9. Three distinct ways in which the Iroquois hindered French success ? (Let each student present four or five more questions of similar character and weight.) ' - / ^ PART I THE ENGLISH IN AMEKIOA CHAPTER I SOUTHERN COLONIES TO 1660 I. CONDITIONS AND MOTIVES OF COLONIZATION "Virginia was founded by a great liberal movement aiming at the spread of English freedom and of English empire.' 11 — Henry Adams. Through the first half century of colonization, the English colonies were practically an outlying part of England. The settlers were not yet Americans. They were enterprising Englishmen in new surroundings. (§§ 17-18 should be accompanied by a careful reading of Nos. 2-14 in West's Source Book. With regard to the use of that volume, students and teacher may, at this point, consult the bibliography on page 4$i and see " Foreword.'''') 17. Motives of the English Promoters. — In studying the motives of English colonization, it is well to look separately at the motives of the settlers and at those of the Englishmen at home who helped generously with their energies and fortunes. First, then, of these Englishmen in the Old World. a. Patriotism. During the last quarter of the sixteenth century, when Elizabeth's reign was half completed, England entered openly upon a daring rivalry with the overshadowing might of Spain. Out of that rivalry, English America was born. Reckless and picturesque freebooters, like Drake and Hawkins, sought profit and honor for themselves, and injury to the foe, by raiding the Spanish Main. More far-sighted statesmen, like Raleigh, saw that English colonies in America 15 16 MOTIVES OF ENGLISH COLONIZATION would be " a great bridle to the Indies of the Kinge of Spaine" 1 and began deliberate attempts so to "put a byt in the anchent enyniy's mouth." 2 The first attempts were ruined by the death struggle with the Spanish Armada (§ 21) and by the long war that followed. Then James I became king (1603) and sought Spanish friend- ship ; and, ere long, Englishmen began to feel their chance for empire slipping through their fingers. But splendid memories of the great Elizabethan days still stirred men's hearts ; and, as a protest against the dastard Stuart policy in Europe, the fever for colonization awoke again in the hearts of the people. Men said a terrible mistake had been made when Henry VII refused to adopt the enterprise of Columbus ; and they insisted vehemently that England should not now abandon Virginia, — "this one enterprise left unto these days." An enthusiastic determination to extend the glories of English freedom and to check Spanish tyranny runs through the literature and pam- phlets of the early seventeenth century, in the days when Jamestown was being founded. b. Missionary zeal. A second motive was a desire to chris- tianize the savages. This purpose faded soon for most of the actual settlers (whose intercourse with the natives placed them quickly in the stern attitude of our later frontiersmen) ; but it continued long to be a powerful factor in England. The great clergymen who guided the Church of England (then recently cut off from Rome) could not rest content with "this little English paddock," while Rome was winning new continents i This phrase heads a chapter in a pamphlet on Western Planting written in 1584, at Raleigh's request, by Richard Hakluyt. The text contains these words: " If you touch him [Spain] in the Indies, you touch him in the apple of his eye; for, take away his treasure, which is nervus belli, and which he has almost wholly out of his West Indies, — his olde bandes of souldiers will soon be dissolved, his purposes defeated, his power and strength diminished, his pride abated, and his tyranie utterly suppressed." See Source Book, No. 3, for more of this passage. 2 This more concise figure was used by Dale, governor of Virginia, thirty years after Raleigh's failure. THE COLONISTS 17 to herself by her devoted missionaries ; nor could these good churchmen help squirming under the Catholic's taunt that the Koman Church alone converted the heathen. 1 The London Company, which sent out the Jamestown colony, was, in one leading aspect, a foreign missionary society, and the first such society in the Protestant world. It was this character of the Company that brought it some of its leading members, like the two Ferrars. 2 This, too, brought it a general moral support, and many gifts of money. 3 c. Financial gain. The colonizing Company was a commer- cial partnership, and it hoped for financial gain. For most stockholders this hope was a motive, but to few was it the sole motive. Many, too, who believed in ultimate profits, under- stood that there was little likelihood of gain in their own life- time. And certainly it was not greed, but high enthusiasms, which, in days of discouragement and distress, brought the noblest of Englishmen by hundreds to the rescue of the enter- prise and so finally carried it to success. 4 18. Motives of the Colonists. — In 1600, England needed an outlet for her crowded people. Population had doubled in the long peace since the Wars of the Roses, but the condition of the small farmers (the bulk of the people) had retrograded.* The island had only a tenth as many inhabitants as it has to-day ; but, with the poor industrial system of that age, it cared 1 " Yea," said the worthy Hakluyt with chagrin, " I myself have been de- manded of them how many infidels have been by us converted." Cf. note above, and see Source Book, No. 3. 2 Special topic ; and see references to the Ferrars in Source Book, Nos. 26, 28. 8 The Source Book (No. 26, c) gives the list for one year, with comment. 4 Cf . § 25. Francis Bacon, one of the stockholders in the London Company, in his essay " On Plantations," declares that " colonies are like trees ; returns must not be looked for under twenty years." The pamphlets by the Company and by its friends, asking for subscriptions to stock, did not place emphasis on the prospects of large dividends, but rather on the meanness and avarice of the man who would " save " his money when such glorious issues were at stake as the enlargement of the kingdom of God and the extension of English empire. See Source Book, Nos. 5-7, for illustrations. 6 Cf. Modern History, §§ 233-234. Says William Harrison (1577) of these yeomen, " These were they that in times past made all France afraid." 18 MOTIVES OF ENGLISH COLONIZATION for its four millions less efficiently than it cares now for forty millions. The hard-pressed yeomanry, who found material conditions cruel at home, furnished most of the manual labor in the colonies ; but there was need also of captains and capitalists. Happily, new conditions in England at the opening of the seventeenth century turned some of the best elements of the middle class toward American adventure. Until the peace with Spain (1604), the high-spirited youth, and especially the younger sons of gentry families for whom there was no career at home, fought in the Low Countries for Dutch independence, or made the " gentlemen adventurers," who, under Drake, Hawkins, and their fellows, paralyzed the vast domain of New Spain with fear. When peace came, these men sought occupa- tion and fortune in colonizing America. In the rapid economic changes of the time, too, some old families found themselves impoverished, 1 or at least unable to keep sail with their former associates; and such men often preferred leadership in the New World to taking in sail at home. These young adven- turers and broken gentlemen were unaccustomed to industry and were restless under discipline; and some of them drew down the wrath of stern commanders like Captain John Smith. But they were of " that restless, pushing material of which the world's best pathfinders have ever been made " ; and, when they had learned somewhat the needs of frontier life, their pluck and endurance made them admirable colonists. 2 It must be remembered also that among the settlers there were always a few rare men animated wholly by patriotic devotion or by religious zeal or by a lofty spirit of adventure. Even the first Jamestown expedition (not a fair sample, either) included, among its 104 souls, Bartholomew Gosnold, a knightly survivor of the spacious Elizabethan days; and doughty John Smith, a robust hero, "even though his imagination did sometimes transcend the narrow limits of fact" ; and the gentle and 1 Read Channing's United States, I, 143-144. 2 The same class have made the best of pioneers in later times on our western prairies and in the Australian bush. For contemporary testimony as to their worth in Virginia, see Source Book, No. 19. THE COLONISTS 19 lovable churchman, Robert Hunt ; to say nothing of worthies such as Percy and Newport. The modern community which, for each twenty souls, can show one built on a mold like these is not unhappy. The next three years, too, saw in Virginia many another gallant gentleman, like Thomas Gates, John Rolfe, and Francis West. On the whole, no doubt, the chief loadstone was some wild dream of wealth {Source Book, Nos. 8-9). In the first colonies, too, the expectations of sudden riches were more extravagant than in later attempts, and led for a time to more disastrous neglect of true interests. Still the motive was a proper one. It calls for no sneer. It was essentially the same desire to . better one's condition which in a later century lured the descend- ants of the first settlers to people the continent from the Appalachians to the Golden Gate. Moreover, the motive was not mere greed. Mingled with that element was a vision of romance and adventure. The youth was drawn partly by the glitter of gold, but quite as much by the mystery of new lands bosomed in the beauty of unknown seas. And, best of all, these motives of gain and of noble adventure were infused with a high patriotism. Englishmen knew that in building their own fortunes on that distant fron- tier, just as truly as when they had trod the deck of Drake's ship, they were widening the power of the little home island, which they rightly believed to be the world's best hope. 1 19. Difficulty and Cost. — To found a colony in the seven- 7^ J teenth century was more difficult than we can well comprehend -T^ to-day. The mere outlay of money was enormous for those times. Ships had little storage room, and freights were high. y Io carry a man from England to America cost from £10 to £12, or about $300 in our values. 2 To provide his outfit, and to support him -through the first season, until he could raise 1 At the end of a half century, other motives were to bring to Virginia a notable immigration (§ 102), but not until the forces outlined above had already made a noble frontier state. 2 Money was worth five or six times as much as now. And the best accom- modations for an ocean passage that money could buy were inferior to modern steerage accommodations. 20 COST OF ENGLISH COLONIZATION a crop, cost as much more. Thus to establish a family in America cost some thousands of dollars. Ordinary laborers who wished to try their fortunes beyond seas could not pay these sums, and were glad to become "servants" to a wealthy proprietor. That is, they mortgaged their labor in advance for a few years (from four to seven) in return for transportation and subsistence, and perhaps for a tract of wild land at the end of their term. Moreover, there were no ships ready for the business, and no supplies in stock suitable for such an enterprise. The directors of the colonizing movement encountered all sorts of expensive delays and vexations. They had to buy ships, or build them : and, in Professor Channing's phrase, they had to buy food for the voyages " on the hoof or in the shock," and clothing, not in a store, but on the sheep's back. Then there were many expenses of a general nature. The colonizing power must pro- vide government, medicines, fortifications, military supplies, and food to meet a possible crop failure. Much money, too, was sure to be lost in experimenting with unfit industries under untried conditions, — as in the natural but futile attempts to introduce silk culture and glassmaking in Virginia (§ 31). 20. Policy of the Crown. — The English crown founded no colonies, nor did it give money toward founding any. It did give charters to those men who were willing to risk their fortunes in the attempt. These char- ters were grants of territory and of authority over future settlers. Thus the English colonies (with a few accidental exceptions, which will be noticed) were at first proprietary. The proprietor might be an individual or an English corporation. In either case, the proprietor owned the land and ruled the settlers. 21. Preliminary Attempts. — The first colonial charter was granted by Elizabeth, in 1578, to Sir Humphrey Gilbert. 1 Gilbert made two attempts at a colony, on a large scale, — starting out the first time with eleven ships and nearly six hundred colonists, and the second time with two hundred and sixty picked settlers. A series of accidents, together 1 This document should be read carefully (Source Book, No. 15), because of its bearing upon later grants. The student should criticize, in the light of the document itself, the extravagant misstatement regarding it in Fiske's Old Virginia, I, 30-31. GILBERT AND RALEIGH 21 with Spanish hostility, kept the first expedition from reaching America. The second, in the spring of 1583, entered St. John's Harbor on the New Foundland coast. Gilbert's claims were recognized readily by the cap- tains of the "thirty-six ships of all nations" present there for the fish- eries, and he took formal possession of the country. He also made a few grants of land and promulgated some laws. But desertion and disaster weakened the colonists, and in August the survivors sailed for England. Gilbert had sunk his fortune, and he himself perished on the return. The enterprise was taken up at once by his half brother, Sir Walter Baleigh, perhaps the most romantic and gallant figure of that daring age. In 1584, Raleigh received a charter which was virtually a copy of Gilbert's. In the next three years he explored the coast of North Carolina and Virginia, 1 and sent three successive expeditions to Roanoke Island, each time in considerable fleets. One of these bands of settlers was found in distress by Drake, and was brought back to England. Supplies and re- inforcements for the other colonies were delayed by the struggle with the Spanish Armada ; and when the ships did arrive, the colonists had van- ished without trace. Raleigh had spent a vast fortune (a million dollars in our values) ; and, though he sent ships from time to time to search for the lost colonists, he made no further attempt at settlement. Still, despite their failures, Gilbert and Raleigh are the fathers of American colonization. The tremendous and unforeseen difficulties of the enterprise overmatched even the indomitable will of these Elizabethan heroes; but their efforts had aroused among their countrymen an interest which insured success in the near future. / \J II. VIRGINIA UNDER THE LONDON COMPANY, 1607-1624 A. Under King and Company, 1607-1609 {In connection with §§ £f, 83, the student should study the charter in the Source Book {No. 16) and the King's Instructions under it (ib., No. 17) and verify there the following statements.) 22. The Charter of 1606. — The failure of Gilbert and Kaleigh seemed to show that no one man could command wealth enough for the enterprise. Indeed, Kaleigh had secured part of his 1 Raleigh's first explorers declared the new land " the most plentiful, sweet, fruitful, and wholesome of all the world," and the natives were affirmed to be " such as live after the manner of the golden age." 22 VIRGINIA AND THE LONDON COMPANY funds by forming a partnership with a group of London mer- chants. Twenty years later, when England and Spain had made peace, some of these merchants organized a large com- pany, in two divisions, and secured from King James a patent VIRGINIA in 1606-1608 Southern Virginia {London Company) Northern Virginia {Plymouth Company) Open to either Company known as the Charter of 1606, or the First Virginia Charter. Four points demand particular notice. a. Grantees. One of the subcompanies was made up mainly of Londoners, and is known as the London Company. The other was made up of gentlemen from the west of England, and is called the Plymouth Company. These proprietary com- panies were to remain in England. b. Territory. The name Virginia then applied to the whole region claimed by England on the Atlantic coast, between the Spaniards on the south and the French on the north. This made a tract about 800 miles long, reaching from the 34th to FROM 1606 TO 1609 23 the 45th parallel. Within this territory, each company was to reoeive a district 100 miles along the coast and 100 miles inland, — the London Company's tract to be located some- where in southern Virginia, the Plymouth Company's some- where in the north. The exact location of these grants was to be determined by the position of the first settlements. The Londoners were to choose anywhere between the 34th and the 41st parallel (or between Cape Fear and the Hudson). The western merchants were to place their settlement somewhere between the 38th and the 45th parallel (between the Potomac and Maine) . Neither Company was to plant a colony within a hundred miles of one established by the other. This complicated arrangement left the middle district, from the Potomac to the Hudson, open to whichever Company should first occupy it. Probably the King's intention was to encourage rivalry ; but, in fact, the dubious overlapping region was avoided by both parties. c. Settlers'' rights. The charter gave the future settlers no share in governing themselves ; but it did promise them " the liberties, franchises, and immunities " of Englishmen. This clause {found also in Gilbert's and in nearly all later charters) did not refer to " the right to vote " or to hold office, for not all Englishmen had such privileges at home. It meant such rights as jury trial, habeas-corpus privileges, and free speech, as those rights were then understood in England. Channing {United States, I, 162) says of this passage: — "English colonization was to be unlike that of Spain, France, and the nations of antiquity. It was the fate ... of settlers of other nations to be looked upon as beings outside the laws and privileges of the dwellers in the home land. English colonies, on the other hand, were to enjoy the protection of the Common Law equally with the inhabitants of England. . . . This enunciation . . . marked an epoch in colonization." d. Government. In England there was to be a superior Council for the double company, with general but indefinite oversight. In each colony was to be a Council appointed by that higher Council ; and these local Councils were to govern the settlers according to laws to be drawn up by the king} 1 According to the Instructions drawn up by James before the first expedi- tion sailed (Source Book, No. 17), death or mutilation could be iurlicted upon 24 VIRGINIA AND THE LONDON COMPANY Thus the government was complicated and unsatisfactory, both in England and America. In England it was partly royal and partly proprietary, without a clear division between authorities. In the colonies there was no single governor, but an unwieldy- committee. No other English colonial charter was so im- perfect an instrument of government; but, under this crude grant, was founded the first permanent English colony. 23. Jamestown : a Plantation Colony. — In 1607, the Plym- outh Company made a fruitless attempt at settlement on the coast of- Maine (§45), and then remained inactive for twelve years. But in December of 1607 the London Company sent out, fti three small vessels, a more successful expedition to " southern Virginia." The 104 colonists reached the Chesapeake in the spring of 1607, and planted their town of Jamestown on the banks of a pleasant river flowing into the south side of the Bay. To avoid sudden Spanish attack from the sea, they chose a site some thirty miles up the stream. For some years this was the only regular settle- ment. During this time, and for a while even after other settle- ments grew up about the first one, the colony was really a great "plantation" The proprieters were the company of stock- holders in England. They directed the enterprise, selected settlers, appointed officers, furnished transportation and sup- plies and capital. The colonists were servants and employees. They faced shipwreck, disease, famine, and savage warfare. They performed the actual work of settlement, — clearing forests, building rude forts and towns, and raising crops. The managing Council at Jamestown was not primarily a politi- cal government, but rather an industrial overseer. Economic interests were supreme ; and the work of the officials was a kind of housekeeping on a large scale. no offender until after conviction by a jury, and for only a small number of crimes, for that day ; but the appointed Council were to punish minor offenses (such as idling and drunkenness) at their discretion, by whipping or im- prisonment. This authority seems extreme to us, but it was much like that possessed then by the justices of an English county. FROM 1606 TO 1609 25 The produce of the settlers' labor went into a common stock. Such products as promised profitable sale in Europe, — lumber, sassafras, dyestuffs, — were shipped to the Company to help meet expenses. Grain and other produce fit for the needs of the settlers were kept for distribu- tion in colonial storehouses under the charge of a public official. Here, too, were kept the supplies from England, — medicines, clothing, furni- ture, tools, arms and ammunition, seeds, stock of all kinds for breeding, and such articles of food as meal, bread, butter, cheese, salt, meat, and preserved fruits. For many years the existence of the colony depended on the prompt arrival, every few months, of a "supply"; and the colonists measured time by dating from "the First Supply," or "the Third Supply." 1 The system of " industry in common " has frequently been called an ex- periment in communism. In reality it was no more communism than was a Virginia slave plantation in 1850. The London Company would have been the last men to approve any theory of communism. The common in- dustry and undivided profits were simply clumsy results of management by a distant proprietary company. 24. Suffering. — The location of Jamestown was low and un- healthy ; the government was not suited to vigorous action ; and, at the best, only the stern school of experience could teach men in that day how to colonize an unknown continent. The first years were a time of cruel suffering and often of sad mis- management. The first summer saw two thirds of the settlers perish, while most of the rest were helpless with fever much of the time; and, for twenty years, each new immigration lost on the average half its members the first season.? The most attractive figure of the first three years is the burly, bustling John Smith. This effective leader, becoming President of the Council, usurped all the powers of government, and, by benefi- cent tyranny, saved the colony from extinction. 1 This description of the plantation features of the colony is condensed from Osgood, English Colonies, I, 30 ff. See also an article on " The Plantation Type of Colony " in the American Historical Review, VIII, 260 ff. 2 The First Supply, in the fall of 1607, found only 38 survivors at Jamestown. Channing ( I, 204) gives a table of deaths during the early years. See, also, Percy's " Discourse " in the Source Book. No. 19 a. 26 VIRGINIA AND THE LONDON COMPANY From one peril the colony was saved by its very misery.. Spain watched jealously this intrusion into a region which she claimed as her own, and contemplated an attack upon Jamestown. In particular, the Spanish ambassador at London urged his king repeatedly to have " those insolent people in Virginia annihilated." " It will be serving God," he wrote, "to drive these villains out and hang them." But the Spanish spies in the colony reported that it must fall of itself ; and the dilatory Spanish govern- ment, already slipping into decay and unwilling to make King" James an enemy, failed to act ( Source Book, No. 22). In 1609, Smith returned to England. The next winter was " the Starving Time." A special effort had been made, the summer before, to reinforce the colony ; and in the fall the number of settlers had risen to more than three hundred. Spring found only sixty gaunt survivors. These had embarked to abandon the colony, with slight chance of life whether they went or stayed, when they met Lord Delaware, the new gov- ernor, with a fleet bearing reinforcements and supplies. Had Delaware been later by three days, Jamestown would have been another failure, to count with Ealeiglvs at Roanoke. B. Under the Conservative Company, 1609-1619 ( With § 25, the charters of 1609 and 1612 should be studied carefully (Source Book), and each statement in the text should be verified from that study. Observe that these charters applied to only the London branch of the original Company. The Plymouth branch remained with- out reorganization till 1620.) 25. Reorganization: Charters of 1609 and 1612. — Meantime the year 1609 saw a remarkable outburst of enthusiasm in England in behalf of the sinking colony. Sermons and pam- phlets appealed to the patriotism of the nation not to let this new England perish. The list of stockholders was greatly multiplied, and came to include the most famous names in England, along with good men from all classes of society ; 1 !See note in Source Book to No. 20. Each of the 650 subscribers bought from one to ten shares of stock, at £12 10 s. a share, or about $400 a share in our values. (Cf . § 19, note, on the value of money.) The stock certificates were negotiable, with the approval of the Company's officers. f^A FROM 1609 TO 1616 27 t Comfort and the enlarged Company received enlarged powers through two new charters in 1609 and 1612. These documents are particularly memorable in three respects. a. TJie territory of the Company was extended. It was made to reach along the coast each way 200 miles from Point Com- fort, and " up into the land throughout from sea to sea, west and northwest" This clumsy Northwest clause was to in- fluence our later history in many ways (§ 178 ff.). 1 b. The authority retained by the king in the charter of 1606 was now turned over to the Company, and that body received a democratic organiza- tion. 2 It was to elect its own " Treasurer " and Council (President and Directors, in modern phrase), and to rule the colony in all respects. After 1612, the stockholders met each year at London in four " Great and General Courts " for important busi- 1 See map above for possible interpretations. Virginia had no trouble in deciding which to insist upon. Probably the words " west and northwest " were used vaguely, with the meaning, " toward the western ocean," which was supposed to lie rather to the northwest. Thus, the Company had in- structed the first Jamestown expedition, in making explorations, especially to investigate those rivers that came from the Northwest. The myth of a " Northwest Passage " long survived. 5,2 More accurately, the charter of 1000 transferred authority from the king to the Company's Council, and that of 1612 handed it on from the small Council to the whole body of stockholders. If Hannis Taylor's English Con- stitution is accessible, his amazing passage (I, 23) regarding these charters should be criticized by the class. The charter of 1600 refers to the " Council resident here." " Here," of course, means in England; but Mr. Taylor seems to take it to mean in America. Hence he finds in this charter the beginning of "local self-government." L.L. P0*TES ENQ. C0..N.Y. 28 VIRGINIA AND THE LONDON COMPANY ness, while smaller meetings were held from week to week to dispatch " casual and particular occurrences." c. A more efficient government was provided in the colony. True, there was no hint yet of self-government. The Com- pany in England made all laws and appointed all officers for the colony, and it could give its appointees arbitrary power of life and death over the settlers. But the inefficient plural head in the colony, with its divisions and jealousies, gave way to one " principal governor." 1 Virginia was now wholly a proprietary colony. The reorganized Company owned and ruled it for fifteen years (1609-1624). This period falls into two sharply contrasted parts. For the first ten years the Com- pany was despotic and absolute (§ 26). During the last five years it gave a large measure of self-government to the settlers (§27 ff.). 26. The " Time of Slavery." — Virginia had left anarchy behind, but she had not reached liberty, either in politics or industry. The Company decided to continue the " plantation " plan (Source Book, No. 20, closing note), and it put in force a military government with a savage code of laws. From 1611 to 1616, the chief officer in Virginia was Sir Thomas Dale, — a stern soldier, energetic but merciless, and not well fitted for civil administration. The charter of 1609 authorized martial law (that is, trial by military courts, without juries and without the other usual privileges of accused persons). It was intended, probably, that this extreme power should be used only "in cases of rebellion or mutiny," under the same conditions as in England. But, by an unwarranted stretch of authority, martial law was established for several years as the regular method of administering justice. At the same time there was put in force a particularly offensive set of laws, known as Dale's Code. Among other provisions, the code enforced attendance at divine worship daily, under penalty of six months in the galleys, and on Sundays on pain of death for repeated absence. Death was the penalty also for repeated blasphemy, for "speaking evil of any known article of the Christian faith," for refusing to answer the cate- chism of a clergyman, and for neglecting work. 1 The Company gave each governor a Council to assist him ; but, until 1619, its power was merely to advise. A LIBERAL COMPANY, 1619 TO 1624 29 Moreover, the military courts imposed ingeniously atrocious punish- ments, such as burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel, or leaving bound to a tree to starve, with a bodkin thrust through the tongue. Dale's rule was long known as "the time of slavery" ; and an old his- torian of Virginia fitly calls the system "very bloody and severe, ... in no wise agreeable to a free people or to the British constitution. " x But though Dale's harsh tyranny was little better than slave-gang rule, yet he did keep order and protect the colony efficiently from the Indians. In 1614, he even made a few three-acre allotments of land to private holders, with excellent results. Still, at his departure, in 1616, the population, scat- tered in eight little settlements, numbered only 351. 2 During the next two years, the tyranny which Dale had practiced for the public good was used by a new governor (Argall) for selfish ends. This hastened a crisis. Argall was recalled, to stand trial ; and a revolution took place in the government of both Company and colony. • C. Under the Liberal Company, 1619-1624 ~V 27. The Company becomes Liberal. — The London Company had split into factions. The element so far in power was con- servative, and belonged to the " court party " in politics ; 3 but, toward the end of 1618, control of the Company passed to a 1 A few years later, the Company solemnly declared that the code was put in force by Dale with the approval only of the "Treasurer" (Sir Thomas Smith), without ever having been sanctioned by a "General Court." Some writers try to excuse Dale on the plea that the settlers needed " a firm hand " ; but the absence of any disorder when this severity was suddenly given up (§ 28, b) raises a doubt whether it had been needed. Dale was conscientious and full of enthusiasm for Virginia. "Take the best four kingdoms of Europe," he wrote, " and put them all together, and they may no way com- pare with this country for commodity and goodness of soil." See also § 17 a, note, and Source Book, No. 12. 2 Of these, 65 were women and children. The 351 were the survivors of 2000 settlers who up to that time had landed in Virginia. Only 81 land allot- ments had been made, — or a small garden to one man out of four. Probably the other three men of every four were still " servants." 3 Modern History, § 238, close. 30 VIRGINIA AND THE LONDON COMPANY liberal and Puritan faction, led by the Earl of Southampton and Sir Edwin Sandys. These patriots were struggling gallantly in Parliament against King James' arbitrary rule ; and they at once granted a large measure of self-government to the Eng- lishmen across the Atlantic, over whom they themselves ruled. 1 Sir George Yeardley was sent out as governor, with instruc- tions which began a new era in Virginia. 28. Yeardley in Virginia. — With Yeardley's arrival, in April, 1619, the number of colonists was raised to about a thousand. They were still, mainly, indentured servants, and were distributed among eleven petty "plantations," 2 — mere patches on the wilderness, — ■ scattered along a narrow ribbon of territory, nowhere more than n six miles wide, curving up the Ihe Dots mark the Ribbon ' ° r of Settlement in 1624. James to a hundred miles from the sea. Industry was still in common (except for the slight beginning of private tillage under Dale) ; and martial law was still the prevailing govern- ment. According to his instructions from the Company, Yeardley at once introduced three great reforms. a. The system of common industry was abolished, and private ownership was established. All free immigrants received lib- eral grants of land for private possession. A large part of the settlers continued for some time to be "servants " of the Company, and these were employed as before on the Company's land. But each of the old free planters now received 100 acres ; each servant was given the same amount when his term of service expired ; and each new planter thereafter was to receive 50 acres for himself and as much more for each servant he brought with him. Grants of many 1 The quarrel within the Company grew out of business and personal dif- ferences, not out of political principles. But when the Sandys party found itself in control, it seized the chance to embody its principles of government in a free colony. 2 The word "plantation," as used here to indicate a distinct settlement, must not be confused with the word as used in § 22. FIRST REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY 31 hundred acres were made, too, to men who rendered valuable service to the colony. For many years, all grants were in strips fronting on rivers up which ships could ascend. b. Martial law and Bale's Code ivere set aside. As a later "Declaration" by the Old Planters puts it, Yeardley pro- claimed " that these crnell lawes by which we had soe longe been governed were abrogated, and that we -were now to be governed by those free lawes which his Majesties subjects live under in Englande." That is, Yeardley restored the private rights of Englishmen, to which the settlers were entitled both by the Common Law and by the Company's charter (§ 22). c. The settlers received a share in the government. A Repre- sentative Assembly was summoned, " freely to be elected by the inhabitants, ... to make and ordaine whatsoever lawes and orders should by them be thought good and profitable." This political privilege was a new thing, to which the colonists had no express claim, and for which, indeed, they had not / asked. ^jpf^ 29. The First Representative Assembly 1 in America met at JLr\j. Jamestown, August 9, 2 1619. It was not purely representative. Each of the eleven plantations sent two delegates ; but in the same " House " 3 with these elected "burgesses" sat the gov- ernor and his council (seven or eight in number), appointed from England. We have no account of the elections. 4 No doubt they were extremely informal. Of the thousand people in the colony, seven hundred must 1 The Records are given in the Source Book, No. 25. An exercise might well be spent upon them, along with § § 29-30 ; and cf. also Source Book, Nos. 23, 24. 2 The Old Style date, July 30, is often given. A discussion of Old and New Style is given in the Source Book, No. 20, note. 3 Eggleston {Beginners of a Nation, 55) says that the Assembly " con- tained in embryo the American system of ... a legislature of two houses " ; but certainly he does not mean that burgesses and council had as yet separated into two Houses, as the student sometimes understands him. 4 The student will find it instructive, in the light of this fact, to compare the circumstantial but highly imaginative picture in Brown's First Republic, 315. with a cautious statement like that in Doyle's English Colonies, I, 159. 32 VIRGINIA AND THE LONDON COMPANY have been "servants" without a vote ; and, of the three hundred or so free persons, a fraction were women and children. Probably there were not more than two hundred voters. They were distributed among eleven plantations ; and, at least in some of these, the only voters must have been the foreman and employees of a rich proprietor. It is not likely that polls were opened in more than two or three of the plantations. In many cases, the " election," no doubt, was really an appointment. The Assembly opened with prayer, and slipped with amaz- ing ease into the forms of an English parliament. It verified credentials of the delegates ; it gave all bills three "readings"; and, in two cases, it acted as a court of justice, trying ordinary criminals and imposing judgment. 1 Laws (which to-day would be stigmatized as " Blue Laws ") were passed against drunken- ness, gambling, idleness, absence from church, excess in apparel, and other misdemeanors. For that age, the penalties were light ; but death was prescribed for those offenders who endangered the colony by selling firearms to the Indians. The Church of England was made the established church, and aid was asked from the Company toward setting up a college. With all this business, the Assembly sat only six days. The work was done mostly in committees, and there was little debate. The governor possessed an absolute veto, but had no occasion to use it. Virginia had been transformed from a " plantation colony," ruled by a despotic overseer, into a self-governing political community. Rude as the organization was, this beginning of representative government in the wilderness has a simple grandeur and a striking significance. The pioneers manifested an instinct and fitness for representative govern- ment, a zest in it, and a deep sense of its value. It came as a gift; but, once given, it could not be withdrawn. 2 1 This mixture of legislative and judicial functions was found in the " Courts " of the Company in England and in all early colonial Assemblies. The clear separation into legislatures, on the one hand, and judicial courts, on the other, came later. We still have some survival of judical power in our senates in impeachment trials ; and, until a recent date, there was much more of that power in the English House of Lords. 2 Many American writers speak as though the colonists had created the Assembly. Thomas Hutchinson {History of Massachusetts Bay, 94, note) FIRST REPRESENTATIVE ASSEMBLY 33 Jury trial and representative government were both established upon a lasting foundation in America in 1619, while Virginia was the only Eng- lish colony. These two bulwarks of freedom were not then known in any large country except in England ; and they were not to take root in the colonies of any other country for more than two hundred years. Their establishment in Virginia made them inevitable in all other English colonies. 30. Charters to the Settlers. — Yeardley presented to the Assembly a long document from the Company. The Assembly called it a " Great Charter," and appointed two committees to examine it carefully, " because [it] is to binde us and our heyers forever." This " charter of 1618 " has been lost ; but it seems to have arranged for land grants, and certainly it guar- anteed a representative Assembly. Two years later, Francis Wyatt became governor, and the Company sent over by him a brief confirmation of the political rights of the colonists in a second " charter," known as the Ordinance of 1621. x Some historians, including even Channing {United States, I, 203), hold that the document presented by Yeardley was not a charter to the colony but only "instructions " from the Company to himself as governor. But a governor's instructions might be changed any time at the Company's will. The Assembly's language- does not fit mere "instructions." In- deed, they would have had no business with such a document, — unless it pledged the Company for the future to a specified policy ; and, if it did this, then, no matter what its form, it was really a " charter," as the Assembly called it. It became at once an inducement to emigrants ; and the English law regarded such a grant as a bargain, or contract. The grantor could not revoke it. Only the highest English courts or parlia- said that in 1619 representative government "broke out" in Virginia; and Story in his great Commentaries on the Constitution (I, § 166) said that the Assembly was " forced upon the proprietors " by the colonists. Influenced by such earlier authorities, John Fiske (Old Virginia, I, 186) explains the Assembly on the ground that " the people called for self-government." But this view is contrary to all evidence. For a good statement, see Channing, United States, I, 204. For the ardor, however, with which the settlers main- tained the privilege, in contrast to French indifference (§ 15), see §§ 33-36. 1 The class should discuss fully the scheme of government there provided (Source Book, No. 27). Note the remarkable promise at the close, and com- pare with one of the Assembly's petitions. For the methods of the Company, and its spirit, see extracts from its rules in Source Book, Nos. 23, 24, 26. 34 VIRGINIA AND THE LONDON COMPANY ment could set it aside. This contract character certainly belongs to the Ordinance of 1021, — though that document lacks somewhat the form of a charter. These "charters" of 1618 and 1621 were wholly different from royal grants to proprietors in England, like the charter of 1609. They were the first of many charters and " concessions " issued by the proprietors of various colonies to settlers in America, in order to set up ideals of government or to attract settlers. 31. Material Growth. — The new management of the Com- pany bestirred itself to build up the colony on the material side also. To supply the labor so much needed, Sandys (the " Treasurer " for 1619) sought throughout England for skilled artisans and husbandmen, and shipped to Virginia many hun- dred " servants " of less desirable character. Several cargoes of young women were induced to go out for wives to the settlers ; and supplies of all kinds were poured into the colony with a lavish hand. This generous paternalism was often unwise. Effort and money were wasted in trying to establish unsuitable industries, like the production of iron, glass, silk, and wine ; and the main industry that was to prove successful, tobacco raising, had to win its way against the Company's frowns. Moreover, pesti- lence and hardship continued to kill off a terrible proportion of the people. In the first three years after Yeardley's arrival, more than three thousand new settlers landed ; but in March, 1622, of the population old and new, only some twelve hundred survived, and that spring an Indian massacre swept away a third of that little band. In spite of all this, Virginia became prosperous under the Company's rule. Two years after the massacre, when the Company fell (§ 32), the population had risen again to twelve hundred, and the number of settlements had become nineteen. The Indians had been crushed. Fortunes were made in tobacco, and the homes of the colonists were taking on an air of com- fort. The period of experiment was past, and the era of rapid growth had just been reached. During the following ten years KING HOSTILE TO COMPANY 35 (1624-1634), the population grew fourfold, — to more than five thousand people, organized in eight counties. Thereafter, material development was uninterrupted. The first tobacco was grown for export in 1612 ; but both the Conserv- ative and Liberal management of the Company discouraged its cultiva- tion (in part, from moral reasons) ; and, even later, King Charles warned the Virginians not to " build solely on smoke." The product, however, brought high prices in Europe ; and, before 1624, it was apparent that a profitable industry had been found. Thereafter, Virginia needed no coddling. In Eggleston's words, the colony "was no longer a hothouse plant ; it had struck root in the outdoor soil of human interest." 32. The King overthrows the Company. — Meanwhile James became bitterly hostile to the Company. Sandys, the first Lib- eral " Treasurer," was particularly obnoxious. 1 When Sandys' term expired (in 1620), the King sent to the " General Court" the names of four men from whom he advised them to elect a new Treasurer. The Company (some hundreds of the best gentlemen of England present) remonstrated earnestly against this interference with the freedom of election guaran- teed by their charter; and James yielded, exclaiming petu- lantly, " Choose the Devil, an ye will ; only not Sir Edwin Sandys ! " Sandys then withdrew his name ; and the Company chose his friend Southampton, who was little more to the royal taste. 2 By general agreement, Sandys remained the real 1 Cf. §§ 27 and 31. Sandys replaced Sir Thomas Smith as the executive officer of the Company in England in 1619. He was prominent in parliament in opposing the king's arbitrary policy, and was reported to be " the king's greatest enemye." More than once he was committed to custody by royal order. One of his business associates testified that "there was not any man in the world that carried a more malitious hearte to the government of a Monarchic than Sir Edwin Sandys did,"- and that Sandys had said re- peatedly that he " aymed ... to make a free popular state there [in Virginia] in which the people should have noe government putt upon them but by their owne consents." 2 Southampton had been a friend of Shakespeare, and he was a Liberal leader in the House of Lords. The Company inquired whether Southampton would serve as Treasurer. " I know the King will be angry," replied the Earl, " but so this pious and glorious work ... be encouraged, let the Company do with me as they think good." Then "surceasing the ballot,". the meeting elected 36 VIRGINIA AND THE LONDON COMPANY manager. Again, when Southampton's second term expired (1622), James sent to the Court of Election five names. It would be pleasing to him, he said, if the Company chose a new Treasurer from the list ; but this time he carefully disclaimed any wish to infringe their "liberty of free election." The Company proceded to reelect Southampton by 117 ballots, to a total of 20 for the King's nominees. Then they sent a com- mittee to thank James " with great reverence " for his " gra- cious remembrance " and for his " regard for their liberty of election." It is reported that the King " flung away in a furi- ous passion." Small wonder, at all events, that he listened to the sly slur of the Spanish ambassador who called the Lon- don Company's General Court "the seminary for a seditious parliament." Since James could not secure control of the Company, he now decided to overthrow it. A revival of the old factions within it, and the massacre of 1622 in Virginia, furnished a pretext. Commissioners were sent to the colony, to gather further imformation unfavorable to the Company's rule ; but the Virginians supported the Company ardently, and made petition after petition to the King in its favor. The charter could be revoked only by a legal judgment ; but just at this time the English courts were basely subservient to the mon- arch, 1 and, spite of the Company's valiant defense, the King's lawyers, in 1624, secured judgment that its charter was void. 2 Thus ended the London Company, — " the greatest and noblest associ- ation ever organized by the English people." It had expended five million dollars, and had made no profits; but it had " added a fifth king- him " with much joy and applause, by erection of hands." These spicy an- ecdotes come mainly from the papers of the Ferrars, high officials of the Company. The most important official records are given in Source Book, No. 28. There the language is more courtly, but the spirit is equally definite. 1 Modern History, §241. Sir Edward Coke, the great Chief Justice, had been dismissed from office by James for refusing to degrade his position by consulting the King's will in his decisions. Such interference with the courts was a new thing in England, and was never to recur after the Stuart reigns. 2 The King's advocate pleaded that it was contrary to the public weal for a merchant company to exercise such vast powers over Englishmen. STRUGGLE TO PRESERVE SELF-GOVERNMENT 37 dom " to England, 1 and had established civil liberty therein. Its work was done. Its overthrow was not to hinder the future progress of Virginia^ IRGINIA A ROYAL PROVINCE (NEGLECTED) TO 1660 M.^y 33. Results of the Change. — Virginia had become a royal province. Four results call for attention. a. Land grants from the Company to individuals held good, — though for a time the colonists felt some uneasiness in the matter. b. All the land which had been granted to the Company by the charter, and which had not been transferred to individuals, became crown property 2 again. Thereafter the crown, through the royal governors, made grants to individuals upon much the same terms that the Company had used. c. The colony was now compelled to support itself. There were no more supplies from England. At first the settlers dreaded this result. They believed the colony could not survive without the fostering which it had enjoyed. In the next three years, they sent four petitions 3 to the crown for aid ; but the royal proprietor, quarreling with parliament and struggling for money enough to run the government at home, paid no attention to such prayers. This was fortunate. The colony found that it could walk alone. d. Political control over the colonists reverted wholly to the king. He was not bound by the charters of 1618 and 1621, as the Company would have been. When the Company fell, grants of jurisdiction from it be- came worthless. And as the colonists feared the king would help too little, so, with more reason, they feared that he would govern too much (§ 34) . 1 England, Scotland, Ireland, and France were claimed in the title of the English crown. 2 Virginia afterward claimed its "ancient bounds," as they had been de- fined in the charter of 1609. But that grant was not made to the colony ; and the king was strictly within his rights when he afterward granted Maryland, and other parts of the territory, to new proprietors. Still, as we shall see, the Virginia claim remained an important factor in our history. Cf., also, Safcrce Book, No. 34, and note. *^jie of these, carried to England by Yeardley, reads, in part : " The ground ^Jfor^Bf all is that there must bee a sufficient publique stock to goe through withffoe greate a worke ; which we can not compute to bee lesse than £20,000 a yeare. . . . For by it must be mainetayned the Governor and his Counsell and other officers here, the forest wonne and stocked with cattle, fortifications raysed, an army mainetayned, discoveries mayde by Sea and land, and all other things requisite in soe mainefold a business." Cf. Source Book, No. 31, b. 38 VIRGINIA A ROYAL PROVINCE, 1624-1660 34. Preservation of the Assembly. — There was real danger that King James would establish an arbitrary government in Virginia. In the spring of 1624, when the overthrow of the Company was imminent, a body of leading settlers, with the Assembly's approval, " humbly entreat . . . that the Gov- ernors [to be appointed by the king] may not have absolute authority, but be restrayned, as formerlie, by the consent of a Counsell . . . [and] above all . . . that we may retayne the Libertie of our General Assemblie, than which nothing can more conduce to our satisfaction or the public utilitie." At the same time the Assembly itself solemnly put on record its claim to control taxation, in a memorable enactment : — "That the Governor shall lay no taxes or ympositions upon the colony, its lands or goods, other way than by the authority of the General Assem- bly, to be levied and ymployed as the said Assembly shall appoynW'' l This was the first assertion on this continent of the English prin- ciple, "No taxation without representation." James was planning a despotic government for the colony; but he died (1624) before he had put his new "constitution " in form, and Charles I at once found himself so involved in quarrels at home and abroad that he could give little attention to a distant colony. Thus Virginia was left to develop with less interference than it would have encountered from the most liberal proprietary Company. The London Company had planted constitutional liberty in America; the settlers clung to it devotedly; and the careless royal government found it easier to use the institution than to uproot it. King James began his control by confirming Governor Wyatt and the former Council in their places in Virginia, — "to direct and governe [the Virginians], and execute ... all other matters concerning that Plantation as fullye and amplye as any Governor and Council resident there at any time within the Jive years now last past.''' 1 * A year later, Charles I copied this phrase, in appointing Yeard- ley governor again, and it became a regular form in subsequent 1 The law asserts the Assembly's control over the method of collecting and expending taxes, be it observed, as well as over merely granting them. The same Assembly passed two other acts (Source Book, No. 31, a) in the nature of a bill of rights, to guard personal and public liberty against the expected royal governor. 2 See extracts from the royal commission in Source Book, No. 29. STRUGGLE TO PRESERVE SELF-GOVERNMENT 39 commissions. The royal governors never received absolute authority, such as Dale held. They could do no important act without the Council, as the colony had petitioned. But nothing was said in the first commissions about a representative Assembly, and doubtless the royal intention was quietly to do away with it. At all events none was permitted for five years (1624- 1628). During just this time, however, the royal governors (Wyatt, Yeardley, and Francis West) were appointed from old officials of the Liberal Company. In various ways these men maintained liberal traditions ; 1 and each of them joined in a petition for the restoration of the Assembly. Yeardley was sent to England in 1625 to represent the desires of the colonists. He presented to the King's Council a long petition that the "Libertie of Generall Assemblies be confirmed," and urged strenu- ously that such assurance was needed to allay the universal distrust felt in Virginia, where " the people . . . justly fearing to fall into former miseries, resolve rather to seek the farthest part of the World" These petitions met with no direct response. But, in 1628, Charles wished a monopoly of the Virginia tobacco trade, and, hoping vainly that an Assembly would vote it to him, he ordered the governor to summon one. Soon after, Charles appointed Sir John Harvey governor. Harvey belonged to the court faction in England, and had been one of the royal commissioners sent to Virginia in 1623. Apparently he had learned there the indispensable need for an Assembly. His commission from Charles made no mention of one ; but, in 1629, before leaving England, he drew up for the King's con- sideration a list of seven "Propositions touching Virginia." One of these propositions asked for a representative Assembly as part of the government. The King seems to have been in- fluenced by this request from the courtier-governor more than by the petitions of the colony. He was just entering upon his eleven-year period of " No Parliament " in England, 2 but, 1 On two occasions, a number of leading colonists met with the Council to decide important matters, forming a sort of " Assembly." 2 Modem History, § 243. 40 VIRGINIA A ROYAL PROVINCE, 1624-1660 in his answer to Harvey, lie approved an Assembly for Virginia. 1 With this sanction, the Assembly continued regularly ; and formal directions to call Assemblies at regular intervals became a part in future of each governor's instructions. 2 35. The central government of the royal colony consisted, then, of three elements : — a. The governor, appointed by the king and acting under instructions from him. In dignity, the governor was the chief part of the govern- ment, and his authority was very great. True, he could do little without the approval of his Council of State ; but he had much influence over that body, and he possessed the right of absolute veto over both Council and Assembly. b. The Council of State (containing the governor as its president). This body comprised from ten to twenty leading Virginia gentlemen appointed by the king. It met frequently to assist and advise the gov- ernor, and to act as a high court of justice. c. The General Assembly (consisting of the Council of State and a larger number of burgesses elected by the counties and principal cities). The Assembly could meet only on the governor's summons (usually once or twice a year, for only a few weeks each time), and it could be dis- solved by him at will. Its business was mainly legislative, though it was also the highest judicial court if it chose to hear appeals from the Council. It was the only body to make laws or raise taxes ; and, more and more, it tended to become the dominant element in government. 36. The Mutiny of 1635. — For nearly a quarter of a century after the restoration of the Assembly, the political history of the colony has only one striking episode. This was con- nected with the administration of Governor Harvey. De- spite his " proposition " for an Assembly, Harvey was known to sympathize with arbitrary rule. For this reason, or because 1 Source Book, No. 32. 2 See extract from Berkeley's instructions (1642) in Source Book, No. 32, «. So far as the writer knows, all American historians assert or imply that the Assembly continued, after a short interruption, without English sanction until Wyatt's commission of 1639. Too little attention seems to have been paid to the Harvey Propositions and the royal reply. The continuance of the Assembly was dne, certainly, to the spirit of the colonists, — which was such that not even Harvey dared try to rule without that organ of government; but it is equally clear that, in form, royal sanction of some kind preceded the call for each meeting after the colony became a royal province. POLITICAL GAINS UNDER THE COMMONWEALTH 41 of some attempt by him to levy taxes, the Assembly of 1632 re- enacted, ivordfor word, the great law of 1624 regarding represen- tation and taxation. Harvey clashed continually with the settlers, and complained bitterly to the authorities in England about the "self-willed government" in Virginia. Finally, he tried to arrest some of his Council for " treason." Instead, the Council "thrust him out of his government," sent him prisoner to England, and chose John West governor in his place. The Assembly at once ratified this bloodless revolu- tion. Two years later, the king restored Harvey for a time, but replaced him, in 1639, by the liberal Wyatt, restoring to office, at the same time, the Councilors who had deposed Harvey. In 1641 Sir William Berkeley was sent over as governor. He had been an ardent royalist in England, and it is signifi- cant that his first Assembly enacted verbatim, for the third time, the law of 1624 regarding taxation. Soon after his ap- pointment, however, the Civil War began in England, and during that struggle, loyal sentiment was strong enough in Virginia to secure harmony with the King's governor. On his part, Berkeley ruled with much moderation, keeping in touch with the Assembly and showing no promise of the tyranny which was to mark his second governorship after the English Restoration (§§ 103-105). $ _ 37. Enlarged Self-government under the Commonwealth. — In J^ 1649, after the Civil War, England for a time became a repub- lican "Commonwealth." Parliament soon sent commissioners to America to secure the obedience of the colonies. Berkeley wished to resist the officers, but the Assembly quietly set him aside and made terms. 1 The government was reorganized so as to put more power into the hands of the Burgesses (whom Parliament could trust better than the more aristocratic ele- ments). Each year a House of Burgesses was to be chosen as formerly, but this body was now to elect the governor and Coun- 1 The treaty is given in the Source Book, No. 34. Let the class find author- ity in it for as many statements below as possible. 42 VIRGINIA A ROYAL PROVINCE, 1624-1660 cil. 1 For the first time, the 'government of England recognized in full the colonial Assembly's sole control over taxation and its practical control over all colonial legislation. During the next nine years (1652-1660), Virginia was almost an inde- pendent and democratic state. This democratic self-government was vigorously maintained. On one occasion (1657), a dispute arose between the Burgesses and the gov- ernor. Governor Matthews and the Council then declared the Assembly dissolved (as a royal governor would have done). The Burgesses held, logically, that the governor, having been made by them, could not un- make them, and that " we are not dissoluable by any power yet extant in Virginia but our owne." Matthews threatened to refer the matter to England. The Burgesses then deposed him, and proceeded to reelect him upon condition that he acknowledge their supreme authority. A year later, when Cromwell died and his son became Lord Protector in England, a new commission was sent to Virginia, authorizing the "Governor and his Council' 1 to manage "the affaires of that colony according to such good lawes and custones . . . as . . . heretofore used." This language might be taken to ignore the Burgesses ; but that body obliged the Governor and Council to appear in its presence and acknowledge "the supreme power to be by the present laws resident in the Grand Assembly." The Governor was required also to " joyne . . . in an address [to England] for confirmation of their present priviledges . . . that what was their priviledge now might be . . . their posterities hereafter." In March, 1660, Governor Matthews died. Charles II had just re- turned to the throne in England. The Assembly wished to conciliate Charles ; and so Berkeley, who had been living quietly in Virginia during the Commonwealth, was elected governor. An effort was made to save Commonwealth liberties by enacting that Berkeley " governe accord- ing to the ancient lawes of England and the established lawes of this country, and . . . that once in two years at least he call a Grand Assem- bly, and that he do not dissolve this Assembly without the consente of the major part of the House." The failure of this attempt to restrict the new governor belongs to a later chapter (§§ 103-105). 1 During the Commonwealth, the Burgesses and Council sat> in two "Houses," but after the Restoration the two orders again sat together, for the most part, until their final separation in 1688 (§ 106, note). POLITICAL GAINS UNDER THE COMMONWEALTH 43 For Further Reading. — This text-book can be used, like others of its kind, with the usual amount of supplementary reading from standard "secondary" works. The author has planned, however, for Part I to be accompanied instead with a rather full study of illustrative "sources" which he has collected for the purpose in a Source Book. Nos. 1-35 of that volume may be used to advantage with this chapter. Frequent directions and suggestions for the use of the more important documents there are given in this book. In addition, the teacher will rind many ways to relate the sources to the narrative. Oc- casional lessons may well be given wholly upon the Source Book. It is well to ask a student to find in a given document some important fact which is not mentioned in this text-book but which might well be men- tioned. In particular, it is a good exercise to set a student to find in a given "source" the authority for some statement in the text, or to find a possible basis for deciding between two authorities who differ about a matter covered by the "source." The teacher will bear in mind, of course, that the limited number of sources possible in a school volume must, on the whole, be illustrative of judgments, rather than a basis for judgments. Still, skillful handling can give the class some idea of histor- ical material and of how it is to be used. For the class which does not use the Source Book, or for the student who, in addition to it, finds time for reading, the following bibliography is suggested in connection with early Virginia. Eggleston, Beginners of a Nation, 1-97 (charming and scholarly) ; Fiske, Old Virginia and HerNeighhors, I, 1-224 ; Channing, History of the United States, I, 115-241 ; Osgood, American Colonies in the Seven- teenth Century, I, 1-99, and III, 1-141 (the most critical work, but not very attractive) ; Tyler, English in America, 1-117 (readable, but not always cautious in statement). Doyle's English Colonies, I, contains much good material, but it is not particularly well presented for young people ; it appeared before any of the works mentioned above, and was for a time the most scholarly work on the colonies. Alexander Brown's First Bepublic in America and English Politics in Early Virginian His- tory extend to about 1625 ; they contain much valuable material for an experienced teacher, but they are too detailed, and too partisan, for students. Keferences to collections of sources are given in the Source Book. In fiction, mention may be made, for this period, of Mary Johnston's To Have and to Hold and Eggleston's Pochahontas and Powhatan. Kingsley's Westward Ho pictures the rivalry between England and Spain in the Old World and the New. MARYLAND Suggestions and Questions for Study and Review 1. Quote from memory three or four memorable sentences or phrases (such as the quotations at the head of the chapter and in § 17, a). 2. Make a syllabus for Virginia to 1660. 3. Let each student present a list of twelve or fifteen questions for the others to answer, — the instructor criticizing when necessary. 4. Sample Questions. — (4) Who chose the chief executive in Virginia in 1607? In 1611? In 1620 ? In 1625 ? In 1655? (2) Distinguish between the Virginia General Assembly and the Virginia Company's Great and Gen- eral Court, as to place, composition, and powers. (-&) Did any of the royal charters to the Virginia Company suggest self-government for the settlers ? Justify the answer. (4) When and why did the Ordinance of 1621 cease to be valid ? (5) Distinguish two stages in the attack of King James upon the liberal* London Company. (6) Who had authority to make laws for the Virginians in 1608 ? In 1610 ? In 1616 ? In 1621 ? In 1631 ? (7) What facts about the colony in this period, not referred to in the text above, can you find in the Source Book ? (Students should be trained to answer briefly but inclusively. For the fifth question, some such answer as the following should be required : First he tried in vain to secure control of the Company by dominating its elections in 1620 and 1622 ; then, he secured its overthrow through a decree of his subservient courts against the validity of the Company's charter, in 1624.) IV. MARYLAND : A PROPRIETARY PROVINCE From 1607 to 1620 Virginia was the only English colony on the con- tinent. Then came the beginnings of New England ; but for some time more the two groups of colonies, north and south, were separated by vast stretches of wilderness and had little to do with each other's development. It is convenient, therefore, to pass at once to Maryland, Virginia's only neighbor in the first half century. A. Origins 38. George Calvert. — Like early Virginia, Maryland was a proprie- tary colony, but the proprieter was an individual. The plan of colonization returned to that of Raleigh's time. George Calvert, a high-minded gentle- man, had been interested for many years in the expansion of England. He was a member of the Virginia Company after 1609 and of the Plymouth Council of 1620 (§ 45) ; and in 1621, while still a member of these corpora- tions, he took upon his own shoulders a separate attempt to found a great ORIGINS 45 feudal domain in Newfoundland. He bought a vast tract there from an earlier adventurer, named it Avalon, and sent out several bodies of settlers. In 1623 King James confirmed Calvert's title to this province, and granted him remarkable powers over the settlers, in a charter which was to be copied a few years later ki the grant of Maryland. Soon after receiving the charter for Avalon, Calvert become a con- vert to Catholicism, which was then persecuted sternly in England. His life so far had been devoted mainly to the public service, but this step compelled him to withdraw from office. To reward his past services, King James made him Baron of Baltimore. The new peer now spent some time in his colony, only to learn by bitter experience that he had been misled sadly as to its climate and wealth. 1 Broken in health and fortune, he finally abandoned that harsh location, and applied to King Charles for a more southerly province. Before the formalities connected with a new grant were completed, Baltimore died. But in 1632 the Charter for Maryland was issued to his son, Cecelius Calvert ; and, two years later, a settlement of some two hundred souls was established in the new colony. 39. The charter of 1632 sanctioned representative self-govern- ment. It put the head of the Baltimore family in the position, practically, of a constitutional king over the settlers; but his great authority was limited by one supreme provision, not found in the charter to Raleigh. In raising taxes and making laws, the proprietor could act only with the advice and consent of an Assembly of the freemen 2 or of their representatives. This recognition of political rights for the settlers, in a royal charter, marks an onward step in the history of liberty. The creation of the Virginia Assembly, and the devotion of the Virginians to it, had borne fruit. Seemingly, between 1620 and 1630, it became a settled conviction for all Englishmen, at last even for the court circle (§ 34), that coloni- zation in America was possible only upon the basis of a large measure of self-government. 8 y 1 See Baltimore's letter to King Charles in Source Book, No. 41. The name Avalon, with such terms as Bay of Flowers and Harbor of Heartsease, suggest the rosy anticipations of the first expedition to Newfoundland. Cf. § 2, note. 2 In practice this term in Maryland was used as equivalent to freeholders. 3 The Source Book gives the charter in full, and — with comment— the clauses for self-government in the other royal charters of the period : the one to Baltimore for Avalon (1623), and those to Robert Heath and Edmund Plowden for their projects in Carolina (1629) and in " New Albion " (1634). 46 j^ , MARYLAND B. Political Development " It turned out, therefore, that the proprietary's power was so circum- scribed that the institutions of Maryland ultimately became the most liberal of any outside of Connecticut and llhode Island." 11 — Channing, History of the United States, I, 245. '•'■Among the people of Lord Baltimore'' s colony, as among English- speaking people in general, one might observe a fierce spirit of political liberty coupled with an ingrained respect for law and a disposition to achieve results by argument rather than by violence.' 1 '' — Fiske, Old Vir- ginia, II, 149. 40. — The Right of the Assembly to initiate Legislation. — The proprietors of Maryland did not live in the colony. They ruled it through vicegerents, or governors, whom they ap- pointed or dismissed at will, and to whom they delegated such authority as they chose. The governor was assisted by a small Council, also appointed by the proprietor. At first this proprietary machinery was the central fact in the government. The Assembly, the only popular element, could meet only at the governors call. But out of this feudal fief there was to grow a democratic commonwealth, with the Assembly for the center of authority. This transformation occupied a century, but the most important steps were taken in the first twenty years. Lord Baltimore's instructions to the first governor directed him to call an Assembly, but authorized him to adjourn and dissolve it at will and to veto any of its acts. Baltimore him- self reserved a further veto. Moreover, he intended to keep for himself the sole right to initiate legislation. He meant to draw up all laws in full, and to submit them to the Assembly only for approval or rejection. The charter declared that he was to make laws " with the advice and consent " of the free- men. But this phrase was the same that English kings had used for centuries to express the division of power between them- selves and parliament ; and meantime parliament had come to be the real lawmaking power. Accordingly, the people of Mary- land at once insisted upon taking the words in the sense which history had given them, rather than in their literal meaning. POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT 47 The first Assembly (1635) passed a code of laws. Baltimore vetoed them all, on the ground that the Assembly had exceeded its authority. To the next Assembly (1638) Baltimore sent a carefully drawn body of laws. After full debate, these were rejected by unanimous vote of all the repre- sentatives. Then the Assembly passed a number of bills, several of them based upon those that had been presented by Baltimore ; but all these fell before the proprietor's veto. In the following year, however, Baltimore wisely gave way. In a letter to the Assembly he announced his willingness that it should share with him in this right of initiating laws. Even this victory did not satisfy the champions of popular rights. The Assembly urged that Baltimore ought not to present fully drawn acts at any time, but, at the most, only " heads of bills," leaving all details to be worked out by the colonial legislature ; and after 1650 this policy prevailed. 41. The Assembly becomes Representative and Bicameral. — Another contest took place over the form of the Assembly. Representative government, simple as it seems to us, was not thoroughly understood in the seventeenth century, even by Englishmen; and events in Maryland mark great progress in clearing up ideas on the subject. The first Assemblies were "primary" gatherings, to which all freemen might come; but to the spring Assembly of 1639 each "hundred" (the local unit in early Maryland) chose two delegates. Notwithstanding this, from one of the hundreds there appeared two other men claiming a right to sit as members because they " had not con- sented" to the election ! Stranger still, the absurd claim was allowed. But the same Assembly decreed that in future there should sit only delegates duly chosen and gentlemen summoned by the governor's personal writs. In 1641 a defeated candi- date claimed a right to sit " in his own person," but this time the plea was promptly denied. At first the Council sat as part of the Assembly in one body with the freemen or their delegates. Moreover, the governor summoned other gentlemen, as many as he pleased, by personal writs, independent of election. These appointed members sym- pathized naturally with the proprietor and the governor, while the delegates sometimes stood for opposite interests. As early as 1642 the differences between the two elements, appointed 48 MARYLAND and elected, led the representatives to propose a division into two " Houses." The attempt failed because of the governor's veto ; but the arrangement became law in 1650. 1 Thus the first generation of Marylanders won from the Proprietor im- portant rights guaranteed to him by the charter. The form of the As- sembly was no longer determined by him from time to time : it was fixed, to suit democratic desires, by a lav) of the Assembly. The revolutionary Assembly of 1642 attempted also to secure stated meetings, independent of a governor's call, and to do away with the governor's right of dissolu- tion. In form, these radical attempts failed ; but in reality the Assembly soon learned to control its own sittings, except in extreme crises, through its power over taxation. It granted supplies only for a year at a time (so that it had to be called each year), and it deferred this vote of sup- plies in each session until it was ready to adjourn. C. Religious Toleration 42. A Refuge for Catholics. — After George Calvert's conversion to Catholicism, a religious design was added to his earlier motives for coloni- zation. He and his son intended that their new colony should be a ref- uge for their co-religionists in England. The charter, it is true, makes no reference to religious toleration and no provision for Catholic worship (which was forbidden rigorously by the English law). The only clause bearing directly upon the matter is a passage which gives Baltimore power to appoint clergymen to positions, and to consecrate church build- ings, "according to the ecclesiastical laws of England." So far as this goes, it establishes Episcopacy. On the other hand, the charter omits the usual reference to the oath of supremacy. Probably there was an under- standing between king and proprietor that Catholics would not be molested ; but Maryland was never a Catholic colony in the sense that the Catholics could have made their religion the state religion, or that they could have excluded other sects. The most that the devout, high- minded Baltimore could do for his fellow worshipers, — possibly all that he wished to do, — was to secure toleration for them by compelling them to tolerate others. 2 1 The first colony to establish a bicameral legislature was Massachusetts in 1644 (§ 69) ; but the attempt came first in Maryland. 2 From the first there were many Protestants in the colony, possibly a majority, though for a time the leaders were mainly of the Catholic Church. Baltimore's instructions to the governor of the first expedition enjoined him to permit no scandal or offense to be given to any of the Protestants and to TOLERATION AND PERSECUTION 49 43. The Toleration Act. — By the time of the Civil War in England, the Puritans had begun to swarm into Maryland and were trying to secure political supremacy there. When the Puritan Commonwealth was established in England, Lord Baltimore, to prevent disputes that might lose him his colony, proposed a wise law which was finally adopted by the Assembly and which is known as the Toleration Act of 1649. This great law it is true, threatened death to all non-Christians (including Jews and any Unitarians of that day) ; but it was far in ad- vance of the policy of almost all the governments of the world. It aimed to prevent acrimonious controversy between sects, and it provided that " no person . . . professing to believe in Jesus Christ, shall be in any wise moleste'H or discountenanced for his or her religion." 1 44. Later Religious History: Persecution of the Catholics. — The Parliamentary Commissioners of 1652 (§37) wished to deprive Baltimore of his province. Thus the Puritans came into control of the Assembly ; and, in 1654, they decreed that toleration should not extend to Catholics or Episcopalians. Cromwell, however, recognized Baltimore's rights, and in 1657 the Toleration Act was restored. After the English Revolution of 1688, however, the Catholic Baltimore family was deprived of all politi- cal power ; and, for a generation, Maryland became a royal province. In 1715 the Lord Baltimore of the day, having declared himself a convert to Protestantism, recovered his authority. Meantime the Episcopal Church had been established in Maryland and ferocious statutes 2 had been enacted against Catholics, to blacken the law books through the rest of the colonial period. For Futher Reading. — The narrative is given admirably in either Channing's United States, I, 241-271, or more fully inFiske's Old Virginia and Her Neighbors, I, 255-318, II, 131-173. Browne's Maryland (1-183), in the " Commonwealth " series, is good. A critical study may be found in Osgood's American Colonies, II, 5-10, 58-94. see that Catholic services be performed "as privately as maybe." One of the proprietor's chief difficulties was to enforce this wise and necessary policy upon zealots among his followers. 1 See important passages in Source Book, No. 45, and cf . Fiske's Old Vir- ginia, I, 309-311. 2 See brief statement in Fiske, Old Virginia, II, 167. 7 CHAPTER II NEW ENGLAND TO 1660 "After all that can be said for material and intellectual advantages, it remains true that moral causes determine the greatness of nations ; and no nation ever started on its career with a larger proportion of strong characters or a higher level of moral earnestness than the English col- onies in America.'''' — Lecky, England in the Eighteenth Century, II, 2. I. COMMERCE AND PURITANISM AS COLONIZING FORCES 45. Early Attempts. The New England Council. — After Gilbert's failure (§ 21), the English neglected the North Atlantic coast for many years. Soon after 1600, however, several voyages were made with a view to settlement at various points between Cape Cod and the St. Lawrence ; and, in particular, in 1607, the Plymouth branch of the Virginia Com- pany sent a promising expedition to the mouth of the Kennebec. A series of misfortunes caused this colony to be abandoned, like all its predecessors ; and there followed another period of neglect, until 1620. Then, roused by the success at Jamestown, some members of the Plymouth Company reorganized as "The Council resident in Plymouth ... for the planting of New England,' 1 and a royal charter gave this body powers similar to those of the London Company, with a grant of all North America between the fortieth parallel and the forty-eighth. 1 This proprietary Council sent out no colonists itself. Instead, it sold or granted tracts of land, with various privileges, to adventurers who undertook to found settlements. Two small trading stations were estab- lished in this way ; and then (in 1623) there followed a more ambitious attempt. Robert Gorges, son of the most active member of the Plymouth Council, was granted lands near Boston harbor, with a charter empower- 1 Source Book, No. 42. The Company is styled sometimes The Plymouth Council, sometimes The Council for New England, or The New England Council. Six years earlier, Captain John Smith, then in the employ of gen- tlemen connected with the old Plymouth Company, had explored and mapped 50 COMMERCIAL ATTEMPTS 51 ing him to rule settlers " according to such lawes as shall be hereafter estaW&hed by public authority of the state assembled in Parliament in New England." 11 1 Gorges brought to America an excellent company, containing several "gentlemen " and two clergymen, with farmers, traders, and mechanics ; but after one winter he returned home, 2 and his followers soon dispersed. VIRGINIA AND NEW ENGLAND 1620 these northern coasts, and had given to the region the name New England, suggested, the map says, by Prince Charles. The royal charter of 1(320 officially adopted this name for the vast district previously known vaguely as " the northern parts of Virginia." 1 The Plymouth Council was an aristocratic body, composed mainly of the nobility. This clause in a charter from that body, together with a still earlier charter issued to the Pilgrim colony (§ 47), shows that the influence of the London Company charters to the Virginians was far-reaching. Cf. § 39. Ex- tracts from the Gorges charter and Ferdinando Gorges' account of the expedi- tion are given in the Source Book, No. 51. 2 Gorges had also been commissioned by the New England Council as " General Governor " of all settlements in their territory. This caused some jealousies. The Pilgrim historian, Bradford, says, with unusually grim 52 BEGINNINGS OF NEW ENGLAND When the main Puritan migration began, six years later, there survived from all these commercial undertakings only seven small settlements, like that of Blackstone at Boston, with a total population of some fifty souls. One other colony — a weak Puritan settlement at Plymouth — had already appeared ; but its location in New P^ngland had been unin- tentional ; and in purpose and development (§§ 47-53) it ran a course distinct from the movements we have been tracing. 46. English Puritanism becomes a Factor in Colonization. — The factors so far at work in settling New England were essen- tially those that had finally succeeded in Virginia. If anything, the New England movement had drawn less from patriotic and missionary motives. This lack of idealism was now to be more than made good. Success in New England came from a new element just ready to appear as a colonizing for^. This force was Puritanism. The "established'' church in England was the Episcopalian; and within that church the dominant party had strong " High- church " leanings. This party, too, was ardently supported by the royal " head of the church," — Elizabeth, James, Charles, in turn ; but it was engaged in constant struggle with a large, aggressive Puritan element. Puritanism was much more than a religious sect. It was an ardent aspi- ration for reform, personal and social. In politics, it stood for an advance in popular rights ; in conduct, for stricter and higher morality; in theol- ogy, for the stern doctrines of Calvinism (which appealed powerfully to the strongest souls of that age); in church matters, for an extension of the "reformation " that had cut off the English Church from Rome. Two groups of Puritans, in religious organization, stood in sharp opposition to one another, — the influential " Loic- church " element within the church, and the despised Separatists outside of it. The Low-churchmen had no wish to separate church and state. They wished one national church, — a humor, that Gorges departed, " haveing scarce saluted the cuntrie of his Gov- ernment, not finding the state of things hear to answer his quallitie " ; but the fact seems to be that this very gallant gentleman found himself without funds enough to carry on his enterprise. PURITANISM AS A FACTOR 53 Low-church church, — to which everybody within England should conform. They desired to make the church a mdre far- reaching moral power. To that end they aimed to introduce more preaching into the service and to simplify ceremonies, — to do away with the surplice, with the ring in the marriage service, with the sign of the cross in baptism, and perhaps with the prayer book. As a body, for a long time, they did not care to change radically the organization of the English Church ; but they looked upon all church machinery as of human, not of divine, institution, and some among them spoke with scant respect of bishops. From the extreme wing of this party came the men who were to found Massachusetts Bay. Once in America, they soon threw episcopacy overboard, and, in many ways, drew nearer to the formerly despised Independ- ents. l The Independents, or "Puritans of the Separation," be- lieved that there should be no national church, but that reli- gious societies should be wholly separate from the state, — each local religious organization a little ecclesiastical democracy, in- dependent in government even of other churches. It was one of these Separatist congregations that founded the first Puritan settlement in America, the Pilgrim colony at Plymouth. II. THE PILGRIM SEPARATISTS AT PLYMOUTH "Next to the fugitives whom Moses led out of Egypt, the little shipload of outcasts who landed at Plymouth . . . are destined to influence the future of mankind. 11 — James Russell Lowell, New England Two Cen- turies Ago. "If Columbus discovered a new continent, the Pilgrims discovered the New World. 11 — Goldwin Smith. 47. The Pilgrims in Holland. — To all other sects the Separa- tists seemed the most dangerous of radicals, — mere anarchists in religion. They had been persecuted savagely by Queen 1 In England, on the contrary, before the middle of the century, this party merged itself largely with the Presbyterian movement, and indeed, for a time, made the English Church Presbyterian {Modern History, § 246). 54 PLYMOUTH COLONY Elizabeth, and some of their societies had fled to Holland. In 1608, early in the reign of James, one of their few remaining churches — -a little congregation from the village of Scrcoby, — managed to escape to that same land, " wher," says one of them, 1 "they heard was freedome of Religion for all men" : — "... acountrie wher they must learn a new language and get their livings they knew not how . . . not acquainted with trads or traffique, by which that countrie doth subsist, but . . . used to a plaine countrie life and the inocente trade of husbandrey." They first settled in Amsterdam, but had no sooner begun to feel safe in some measure, through toil and industry, from "the grime and grisly face of povertie coming upon them like an armed man," than it seemed needful to risk the perils of another removal. Other Independent congregations that had found refuge in Am- sterdam were torn with internal dissensions. 2 To avoid being drawn into these fatal squabbles, the Scrooby Pilgrims moved to Leyden ; and " being now hear pitchet, they fell to such trads and imployments as they best could, valewing peace and their spirituall comforte above all other riches . . . injoyinge much sweete and delightefull societie ... in the wayes of God "... but subject to such " greate labor and hard f are " that " many that desired to be with them . . . and to injoye the libertie of the gospel 1 . . . chose the prisons in England rather than this libertie in Holland." 1 William Bradford, in his History of Plymouth Plantation. The quoted passages in the following paragraphs upon Plymouth are from this source (Original Narratives edition), when no other authority is mentioned. 2 The unlettered folk who made up most of the Separatist congregations were particularly susceptible to the vagaries of religious cranks, and were liable to "separate" farther, into petty cliques, over the most fantastic quibbles. To the adherents of a national church with central authority, the unfortunate fate of some Separatist societies seemed to illustrate the logical outcome of their doctrine. From such disaster this particular society was saved largely by the breadth and superior intellectuality of its leaders, Robinson and Brewster. (The student should read the admirable paragraphs on this topic in Eggleston's Beginners of a Nation, 142 ff., especially 149-157.) Of Robinson his follower, Edward Winslow, wrote : " His study was peace and union, so far as might agree with faith and a good conscience ; and for schism and division, there was nothing in the world more hateful to him." Pastor Robinson gave a remarkable evidence of his willingness to ignore minor dif- ferences in a hesitating offer to take even the oath of supremacy to the Eng- lish king: " the oath of Supremacie we shall willingly take, if it be required of us, and [if] convenient satisfaction he not given by us taking the oath of Alleagence." (Bradford, 156 ; from a postscript in a letter by Robinson while the Pilgrims were negotiating for a charter in northern Virginia.) THE PILGRIMS IN HOLLAND 55 48. Reasons for Coming to America. — After some twelve years in Holland, the Pilgrims decided to remove once more, to the wilds of North America. Their motives, as Bradford gives them, may be summed up under three heads : (1 ) an easier livelihood, especially for their children ; l (2) removal of their children from contamination by the "licentiousness " 2 of easy- going Dutch society ; and (3) the extension of their religious principles. Winslow (another Pilgrim historian) places es- pecial emphasis upon a fourth reason, — an ardent patriotic desire to establish themselves under the English flag, — one of their chief griefs in Holland being that their children inter- married with the Dutch and were drawn away from their English tongue and manners. Of these motives, the third was beyond doubt the weightiest. In Holland, it was plain, there was no growth for their Society. It would die out, as the older members passed off the scene ; and with it would die their peculiar principles, represented almost alone now by their one congregation. But, if they es- tablished themselves in a New World, — " a greate hope and inward zeall they had of laying some good founda- tion for the propagating and advancing the gospell of the kingdome of Christ in those remote parts of the world ; yea, though they should be but even as stepping-stones unto others for the performing of so greate a work." 49. Negotiations for a Location and for Funds. — From the London Company the Pilgrims secured a grant of land and a charter; and, by entering into partnership with a group of 1 " Old age beganne to steale on many of them (and their greate and eon- tinuall labours . . . hastened it before the time). And many of their children that were of the best dispositions and gracious inclinations, having learnde to bear the yoake in their youth, and willing to bear parte of their parents bur- dens, were often times so oppressed with heavie labours that . . . their bodies . . . became decreped in their early youth, the vigour of nature being consumed in the very budd, as it were." ■ " But that which was ... of all sorrows most heavie to be borne, — many of their children, by these occasions and the greate licentiousnes in that countrie, and the manifold temptations of the place, were drawn away . . . into extravagante and dangerous courses, tending to dissolutenes and the danger of their souls." 56 PLYMOUTH COLONY London merchants, they secured the necessary money. Influ- ential friends of the enterprise urged King James to aid by granting to the proposed colony the privilege of its own form of worship. A formal promise of this kind was not secured ; but James allowed it to be understood that " he would connive at them . . . provided they carried themselves peaceably." For many months this opening business was " delayed by many rubbs ; for the Virginia Counsell was so disturbed with factions as no bussines could goe forward" (cf. §27 and Source Book, No. 49). But when Sandys and the Puritan faction fully attained supremacy in that Com- pany, the matter was quickly arranged, — the more quickly, perhaps, because Brewster, one of the Pilgrim leaders, had been a trusted steward of a manor belonging to the Sandys family. The charter was issued in the name of John Wincob (as trustee for the Pilgrims). Wincob was a clergyman in England. He intended to go with the expedition, but failed to do so. The London merchants who furnished funds must not be confused with the Virginia, or London, Company. These "merchant adventurers" subscribed stock in £10 shares. 1 Each emigrant was counted as holding one share for "adventuring" himself. That is, the emigrant and the capital that brought him to America went into equal partnership. Each emigrant who furnished money or supplies was given shares upon the same terms as the merchants. For seven years all wealth produced was to go into a common stock, but from that stock the colonists were to- have " meate, drink, apparell, and all provissions." The partnership was then to be dissolved, each colonist and each merchant taking from the common property according to his shares of stock. The arrangement was clumsy, because it involved a system of labor in common ; but it was generous toward the settlers. Penniless immigrants to Virginia became "servants," as separate, helpless individuals, to work for seven years under overseers, and at the end of the time to receive merely their freedom and possibly some raw land. The penniless Pilgrims were " servants" for a time, in a sense ; but only as one large body, and to a company of which they themselves were part ; while their persons were controlled, and their labors directed, only by officers chosen by them- selves from their own number. , 4. 1 According to Captain John Smith, there were seventy of the merchants in the partnership, who by 1623 had paid in £7000. (Smith's Works, 783.) This is probably an overstatement. The articles of partnership are given by Brad- ford, and may be found in the Source Book, No. 44. THE VOYAGE TO AMERICA 57 The settlers, it is true, were bitterly aggrieved that the merchants did not grant them also for themselves one third of their time, together with the houses they might build and the land they might improve. But it is clear now that under such an arrangement the merchants would have lost their whole venture. As it was, they made nothing. ajJ/" 50. Settlement at Plymouth. — Two heart-breaking years ' dragged along in these negotiations ; and the season of 1620 was far wasted when (September 16) the Mayflower at last set sail. Most of the Pilgrim congregation remained at Leyden, to await the outcome of this first expedition, and only one hundred and two embarked for the venture, — the younger and more robust of the company. They had meant to settle " in the northern parts of Virginia," — probably somewhere on the Delaware coast. But the little vessel was tossed by the autumn storms until, apparently, the captain lost his reckoning ; and they first made land, after ten weeks, on the bleak shore of New England, already in the clutch of winter (November 21). The tempestuous season, and the dangerous shoals off Cape Cod, made it unwise to continue the voyage. For some weeks they explored the coast in small boats, and finally decided to make their home at a place which Smith's map had already christened Plymouth ; but it was not till the fourth day of January ■ that they " beganne to erecte the first house, for commone use, to receive them and their goods." " Now, summer being done, all things stand upon them with a wether- beaten face ; and the whole countrie, full of woods and thickets, repre- sented a wild and savage hiew. ... In 2 or 3 months time, halfe their company dyed . . . wanting houses and other comforts ; [and of the rest] in the time of most distres, ther was but 6 or 7 sound persons" to care for all the sick and dying. Of the eighteen married women who landed in January, May found living only four. The settlement escaped the tomahawk that first terrible winter only because a plague (probably the smallpox, caught from some trading vessel) had destroyed the Indians in the neighborhood. But when Spring came and the Mayflower sailed for England, not one 1 These dates are New Style. Cf. § 29, note. Some common errors regard- ing the Pilgrim "landing " are criticized by Channing, I, 320. 58 PLYMOUTH COLONY person of the steadfast colony went with her. In Holland they had care- fully pondered the dangers that might assail them, and had highly con- cluded "that all greate and honorable actions must be enterprised and overcome with answerable courages." 51. Mayflower Compact and Early Political Organization. — The charter from the Virginia Company had provided that the Pilgrims should be governed by officers of their own choosing. 1 V ff*&J&**f Ceforr^ ^ y rT.t^^rtS- ?«r/j of KWrnr*-.^*,* o-nz of xno^Act^ Coux^uxmf^^co-mf\>xt oitrfefces 4ort ct&tr- w/»«r CttuVP SoSy f>9ft/*'c% ; f>'ry££<>4&r o rcterxruf^prq/cruaA'o* £ cA* 4 ^ £?e«*«ttc*-. offcnSs cxfiitfccxttj <*W fy i/trfux, /Ce*rof /* £*ff*~ ofy Co/o?i\l: <2»>iTfti No. 53, and comments at close. y, 2 Previously the governor had been Matthew Cradock, and his term would not have expired regularly until the next May. This position corresponded to that of " treasurer " in the London Company. It must not be confounded with ' the subordinate " governorship " held by Endicott, any more than Sandys' ^ r position as executive head of the London Company in 1619 is to be confounded ~1 JU^with the position of Yeardley in Virginia. Winthrop was the second governor 1 , t of the Company. When he came to America, he superseded Endicott (for \ i whose separate office there was no further need), and became second gov- J^CZ?! ernor of the colony also. The two offices merged. 8 Find authority for this in the Source Book. 4 Boston, Dorchester, Watertown, Roxbury, and minor settlements at Lynn and Newtown (afterward Cambridge) . & THE GREAT MIGRATION 73 along the Bay. But conditions proved sadly different from expectations. Two hundred immigrants returned home in the ships that brought them, or sought better prospects in other colonies, and two hundred more died before December; while only the early arrival of supplies (in February) saved the colony from utter destruction. 1 The deserters spread such dis- couragement in England that for the next two years emigra- tion practically ceased. In 1633, however, it began again. Soon the ship-money 2 troubles gave it new impetus, and it went on, at the average volume of three thousand people a year, until the Long Parliament was summoned. Thus the eleven years of "No Parliament" saw twenty-five thousand selected Englishmeyi transported to New Engand at the tremendous cost, for those times, of four million of dollars. In 1640 the movement stopped short. 3 Says Winthrop, " The parliament in England setting upon a general reformation both in church and state, . . . this caused all men to stay in England in expectation of a New World" there. Indeed, the migration turned the other way ; and many of the boldest and best New England Puritans hurried back to the old home, now that there was a chance to fight for Puritan principles there. 4 1 Immediately on his arrival, Winthrop, in fear of famine before summer, had sent back a ship for supplies. When it returned he had just given his last measure of meal to a destitute neighbor, if we may believe Cotton Mather's anecdote. 2 For this and other references to English history in this period, see Modern Histonj, §§ 241-244. 3 The sudden stop in immigration caused great industrial depression. Until that time the colony had been unable to raise sufficient supplies for its use. Newcomers brought money with them, and gladly paid for cattle and food the price in England plus the cost of transportation. In an instant this was changed. The colony had more of such supplies than it could use, and high freights made export impossible. Both Bradford and Winthrop lament the falling in prices, — for a cow from £20 to £5, etc., — without very clear ideas as to its cause. The phenomenon has been repeated many times on our moving frontiers. 4 Winthrop's third son and one of his nephews went back and rose to the rank of general under Cromwell, while the Reverend Hugh Peter, — rather a troublesome busybody in the colony, — became Cromwell's chaplain. Such 74 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TO 1660 New England was to have no further immigration of con- sequence until after the Revolution. All the more clearly, this coming of the Puritans during the ten years of hopeless- ness in England is one of the fruitful facts in history. For mere numbers, the exodus has no parallel until the migration to Pennsylvania, almost at the close of the century, and the twenty-five thousand are the ancestors of about a sixth of our population to-day. But the mighty significance of the move- ment lay in the character of the emigrants. To that we owe much more than a sixth of our higher life in America. Said an old Puritan preacher, with high insight, " God hath sifted a nation, that he might send choice grain into this ivilderness." This sifting took place just when England had been lifted to her highest pitch of moral grandeur; and that chosen seed has given to America not only " the New England conscience," but a finer thing, — a share of the Puritan's faith in ideals. This high character did not hold for all the twenty-five thousand im- migrants of the ten years. They were not all Puritans ; and the Puritans were not all saints. Some little communities, like Marblehead, 1 were made up wholly of rude fishermen with little interest in the Puritan movement ; and the Puritan settlements themselves contained many "servants" — about the same proportion, probably, as were usual in English society. 2 These were sometimes a bad lot, with the vices of an irresponsible, untrained, hopeless class. 3 facts help us to understand that the larger figures on the small New England stage, like Winthrop and his gallant son, John Winthrop, Jr., were fit compan- ions for the greatest actors on the great European stage in that great day. 1 Cotton Mather tells how a preacher from another town, visiting Marble- head and praising their devotion to principle, was interrupted by a rough voice, — " You think you are talking to the people of the Bay : we came here to catch fish." 2 Winthrop alone had some twenty male servants, some of them married, in his " household." 8 On the voyage, cheats and drunkards from this class had to receive severe punishment. After reaching America, the better ones were sometimes de- moralized by despair. They saw vastly greater opportunity for free labor than they had ever dreamed; but they had ignorantly bound themselves to service through the best years of their lives. Brooding upon this led some to crime or suicide. (Find authority for these statements in the Source Book.) ENGLAND THREATENS TO INTERFERE 75 Nor should we think of the most exalted Puritans as moved by ideal motives only. They, too, expected to better their wordly condition. Their title to heroism lies in the fact that, when this dream faded, the more steadfast spirits never wavered, proving that after all it was not material considerations, but higher aims, that moved them most. Even John Winthrop had been impelled to migration largely by the decay of his fortune in England, which was such (as he explained, in the third person, to his friends 1 ) that.," he cannot live in the same place and calling [as before] and so, if he should refuse this opportunity, that talent which God hath bestowed upon him for publick service were like to be buried." Many of the 1630 migration had been deluded by "the too large commendations" of New England which Higginson had sent back?, in the preceding summer, just after his arrival. Dudley, a disappointed/ but stout-hearted companion of Winthrop, in his Letter to the Countess of Lincoln (Source Book) speaks with charity of "falling short of ouf^, expectations, to our great prejudice [loss], by means of letters sent us ' hence into England, wherein honest men, out of a desire to draw others/ to them, wrote somewhat hyperbollically of many things here." So, too, after the first hard months, the disillusioned Winthrop wrote to his wife - in still nobler strain, "I do hope our days of affliction will soon have an end . . . Yet we may not look for great things here . . . [But] we here enjoy God and Jesus Christ. I thank God, I like so well to be here as I do not repent my coming; and if I were to come again, I would not have ^tered my course though I had forseen all these afflictions. mger of interference from England. — For a time, ex- treme peril threatened from the home government. In the first year after Win throp's arrival in America, two agents of Gorges in Massachusetts were arrested, severely handled, and shipped back to England. In 1632, Gorges brought the matter before the royal Council, claiming that the Massachusetts charter had been secured fraudulently and that the govern- ment there in any case had exceeded its authority. This first attack was resisted successfully by the friends of the planta- tion in England. But in 1634 the king appointed a standing committee of twelve members of his Council "to regulate all plantations." This first establishmeyit of a distinct organ ofgov- 1 Considerations for J. W. (Source Book, No. 59, 6. See also, No. 59, a.) Cf . § 18, for statement of like motives in bringing leaders to Virginia. r, afflictions. 76 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TO 1660 ernment to deal with the colonies was an exceedingly ivise step; but, unhappily for Massachusetts, at the head of these " Lords Commissioners of Plantations " was Archbishop Laud. Gorges, sure of a powerful sympathizer, now renewed his attack, with more effect. The committee ordered Cradock, governor of the original Massachusetts Company, to produce the charter and justify the acts of the colonial government. Wlien it was dis- covered that the charter was in America, a series of peremptory demands were sent to the authorities there for its return, and legal processes were begun in the courts to secure its over- throw. Meantime, in 1635, the New England Council surren- dered its charter, and Charles appointed Ferdinando Gorges " governor general " l over all New England. Gorges began to build a ship and to get together troops, and things looked dark for the Puritan experiment. The leaders in the colony did not weaken. After consult- ing with the ministers, it was agreed, " that, if a general governor were sent, we ought not to accept him, but defend our lawful possessions (if we are able) ; otherwise, to avoid or protract." At its next meeting the General Court voted a tax of £600 (many times larger than had before been known in the colony), and began a series of fortifications, not on the frontier against the Indians, but on the coast to resist an English ship. Bullets were made legal tender in place of small coin ; and a committee was appointed "to manage any war that may be- fall," with power to establish martial law. 2 No one thought of sending back the charter. Quaint excuses were sent in plenty; and, when these wore thin, the orders were quietly ignored, and, at last, openly defied. 1 This was the office that had heen given by the Plymouth Council to the younger Gorges some years before, when there were hardly any settlements to govern. Gorges' commission would have left the Massachusetts General Court ; but it would have superimposed another authority over it. 2 The committee, renewed from time to time, was authorized to imprison suspects without trial and to inflict a death penalty upon traitors after such trial as it saw fit. (Source Book, No. 72.) This was plainly in excess of the powers conferred by the charter. ARISTOCRACTIC USURPATIONS 77 This policy of " protracting " won. Gorges' ship was ruined by an accident in launching, and he could not get money to build another or to keep his troops together. The King, economizing rigidly, in the midst of the ship-money troubles, would give commissions, but no gold. The English courts did finally declare the charter void (1638); but the ship that brought word of this brought news also of the rising of the Scots, and the colony "thought it safe" bluntly to refuse obedience to the " strict order " for the surrender of the document, even hinting rebellion (Source Book, No. 76). In England, matters moved rapidly to the Civil War and the Commonwealth. Massachusetts was left untroubled to work out her experiment. Winthrop wrote, toward the close of 1638 : "The troubles which arose in Scotland about the book of common prayer, which the king would have forced upon the Scottish churches, did so take up the king and council that they had neither heart nor leisure to look after New England. " And, years later, Cotton exclaimed exultingly (regarding the wars in England, Scotland, and Ireland) : " God then rocqued three nations with shakeing dispensations, that He might provide some little peace for His people in this wildernesse." After the Restoration, the legal authorities in Eng- land decided that, since the charter had not actually been surrendered, the process against it was incomplete and ineffective. C. Political Development from Oligarchy to Repre- sentative Aristocracy, 1630-1634 (In the Source Book, Kos. 69-79, will be found much illustrative material besides that specifically referred to in the following paragraphs.) 62. Oligarchic Usurpation. — The Puritan fathers did not find it easy to stretch the charter of a merchant company into the constitution of a commonwealth, — especially as there were aristocratic and democratic factions in that commonwealth pulling different ways. According to the charter, all impor- tant matters of government were to be settled by the stock- holders ("freemen") in "General Courts." But only some twelve freemen of the corporation had come to America in 1630. These were all of the gentry class, and, before leaving England, had all been made magistrates (governor, deputy gov- ernor, and "Assistants"). Independently of such office, and 78 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TO 1660 merely as freemen, the twelve had sole authority to rule the tivo thousand settlers and make laws for them, in four stated "Gen- eral Courts " each year. The little oligarchy began at once to use this tremendous power. 1 A popular movement also showed itself at the very beginning ; but for a time it was half-hearted and ill-directed, and the first two years belonged to the oligarchy. The first General Court was held in October, 1630. By death and removal, the twelve possessors of power had shrunk to eight; and these eight gentlemen found themselves confronted by a gathering of one hundred and nine sturdy settlers demand- ing to be admitted freemen. Since the Company had become a political corporation, this was simply a demand for citizenship. Apparently, it represented concerted action by nearly all the heads of families above the station of unskilled laborers. To re- fuse the request was to risk the wholesale removal of dissatisfied colonists: to grant it was, possibly, to endanger the peculiar Puritan commonwealth at ichich the leaders aimed, and, cer- tainly, to introduce more democracy than they believed safe. In this dilemma, the shrewd leaders kept the substance and gave the shadow. They postponed action on the applica- tion until the next spring. Meantime they passed two laws — absolutely in violation of the charter — first (October, 1630), that the Assistants should make laws and choose the governor, and second (May, 1631), that the Assistants should hold office dur- ing good behavior instead of all going out of office at the end of a year. Then they admitted 116 new freemen, having left them no power except that of electing new Assistants "when these are to be chosen." A handful of oligarchs, under color of 1 Indeed, the Assistants from the first went beyond the charter provisions. At the first court of Assistants in America (Source Book, No. 69,) they created the office of justice of the peace, defined its powers, and appointed six of them- selves to that position. According to the charter, such action as this he- longed, not to the minor "Assistants' courts," hut only to the "Great and General Courts." The August meeting of Assistants also fixed the wages of laborers (forbidding a carpenter or mason to take more than two shillings a day) ; but this was a power that then belonged to magistrates in England, and it was regarded probably as an administrative, not a legislative, function. ARISTOCRATIC USURPATIONS 79 law, had usurped the power of electing the governor, making laws, and extending their own office indefinitely. 1 The applicants, in their anxiety to get into the body politic, agreed readily to these arrangements. Indeed, they were ignorant as to what their rights were. The charter was locked in Winthrop's chest, and only the magistrates had read it or heard it. For a year more, that little body of seven or eight continued to tax and legislate and rule, admitting a few new freemen now and then, as it saw fit. The chief founders of New England had a very real dread of democ- racy. John Cotton, the greatest of the clerical leaders, wrote : — "Democracy I do not conceive that God did ever ordain as a fit gov- ernment for either church or commonwealth. If the people be governors, who shall be governed ? As for monarchy and aristocracy, they are both clearly approved and directed in the Scriptures, — yet so as setteth up theocracy as the best form of government in the commonwealth as in the church." And the great Winthrop always refers to democracy with aversion. He asserts that it has "no warrant in Scripture," and that "among nations it has always been accounted the meanest and worst of all forms of government." At best, Winthrop and his friends believed in what they called "a mixt aristocracy," — a government in which the people (above the condition of day laborers) should choose their rulers, — provided they chose from still more select classes ; but in which the rulers so chosen were to possess practically absolute power, owning their offices somewhat as an ordinary man owned his farm. 2 With this idea, too, these leaders mingled a certain "divine right" idea for the elected magistrate, much as the Stuart kings did for hereditary magistrates. Calvin, the master of Puritan political thought, teaches that to resist even a bad magistrate is "to resist God" {Source Book, No. 61). His language is often followed closely by Winthrop. In 1639, after the people in Massachusetts had secured a little power, the magistrates tricked 1 Cf. Fiske's curious error as to all this in Beginnings of New England, 105. Besides a wrong view point, he mistakes a fact, and assumes that the new freemen were admitted in 1630. 2 Cf. Cotton's sermon, § 64. 80 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TO 1660 them out of most of it for a while by a law decreasing the number of deputies, so that they should not outvote the aristocratic magistrates in the court. Some of the people petitioned modestly for the repeal of this law. Winthrop looked upon the petition much as King James did upon the famous Millenary Petition (as "tending to sedition"). "The law- fulness" of such a petition, said Winthrop, "may well be questioned: for when the people have chosen men to be their rulers, now to combine together ... in a public petition to have an order repealed . . . savors of resisting an ordinance of God. For the people, having deputed others, have no power to make or alter laws themselves, but are to be subject.''' 1 1 .A* 63. The Watertown Protest: the Freemen resume Part of their Rights. — The first protest came, after good English precedent, upon a matter of taxation. In February, 1632, the Assistants voted a tax for fortifications. Watertown was called upon to pay eight pounds. Now, Watertown had been settled by a church almost of the Separatist type, and it in- clined, therefore, to democracy in politics also. Moreover, the magistrates had interfered with the minister and church there, and this may have piqued the inhabitants. At all events the minister now secured a resolution from the people " that it was not safe to pay moneys after that sort, for fear of bringing them- selves and posterity into bondage." Governor W T inthrop at once summoned the men of W T atertown before him at Boston as culprits, rebuked them for their " error," and so overawed them 1 The quotations from Winthrop come from his History of New Eng- land. (This invaluable "Journal" has been printed only with modernized spelling. When a Winthrop quotation is given with antique spelling, it comes from his Letters). Cf. Source Book, Nos. 67, 70, 73, and especially 77; also § 64, note, for illustrations of this undemocratic feeling. Winthrop regards the combining of citizens for a political purpose as a "conspiracy," just as English and American law long continued to regard any combining of workmen to negotiate for higher wages. This shows, in part, why the men of the American Revolution put so much stress upon the "right of petition" in all their Bills of Rights, commonplace as that right seems to us. It shows, too, how far Winthrop's theory of government was from Lincoln's idea of a government " of the people and by the people " ; but it savors strongly of some recent talk against modern democratic innovation. THE WATERTOWN PROTEST 81 that they " made a retraction and submission . . . and so their offence was pardoned." Probably, however, on the walk back to Watertown through the winter night, the " error " revived. Certainly, during the next months, there was much secret democratic plotting and sending to and fro among the towns of which we have no record ; for when the (general Court met, in May, the freemen calmly took back into their own hands the annual election of governor and of Assistants, and then sanc- tioned the Watertown protest by decreeing that each town should choose two representatives to act with the magistrates in matters of taxation. 1 This was not yet representative government. The town deputies acted in taxation only. The magistrates still kept their usurped power to make laws. And it will not do to say that the magistrates too were representatives, being elected each year. No one was so democratic as to dream of making a magistrate out of a common man under the rank of "gentleman" ; and gentlemen of prominence were not yet numerous. Therefore, though the charter ordered that eighteen Assistants should be chosen each year, the number was kept down to seven or eight at this period, and for many years did not rise above twelve. The same men were reelected year after year, almost inevitably, unless there was par- ticular grievance in some special case; and new men of station were elected even before they arrived in the colony, — so completely was the office of Assistant a property and a duty going with a certain social position. 2 For a time, too, the method of nomination made most elections in the 1 Our information comes almost wholly from the brief " Records " and from Winthrop's " Journal." The democrats never wrote their story, and many important steps have no history. A week before the General Court, Win- throp warned the Assistants " that he had heard the people intended ... to desire [vote] that the Assistants might be chosen anew every year, and that the governor might be chosen by the whole court, and not by the Assistants only." " Upon this," adds Winthrop's " Journal," "Mr. Ludlow [an Assistant] grew into a passion and said that then we should have no government, but there would be an interim ivherein every man might do what he pleased." 2 Thus Winthrop tells us of the elections at this court of 1632: "The old governor, John Winthrop, was chosen ; accordingly, all the rest [of the magis- trates] as before ; and Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Coddington, also, because they were daily expected." These were two English gentlemen, who, as a matter of fact, did not come until one and two years later. 82 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TO 1660 General Court only a polite form. The people did not nominate two or three candidates and then choose between them. The Secretary nominated the officer whose term had just expired. On this nomination the freemen had to vote. Unless they first deposed an old officer, they had no chance to try to elect a new one. Moreover, for three years more the vote was " by erection of hands," not by secret ballot. ' 64. The Revolution of 1634. — Two years later came the sec- ond step, which it is no exaggeration to call a peaceful revolu- tion. The impulse to this great movement was economic and social. It began as a protest against " special privilege." The people felt that the magistrates were legislating in the in- terest of their own class. A law authorizing the killing of swine found in grain fields was especially resented, and the attempts to fix wages may have contributed to a like feeling. 1 The common freemen determined to find out how far they had power to stop this class legislation. In April, 1634, the usual notice was sent out, calling the freemen to the General Court in May. Suddenly, on a given day, two men from each of the eight towns 2 came together in Boston, to agree upon a program. 3 This "convention" asked to see the charter, and at once called Winthrop's attention to the fact that, according to that document, the making of laws belonged to the whole body of freemen (now some two hundred). Winthrop told them loftily that "for the present they were not furnished with a sufficient number of men qualified for such a business, " but that they mighty once a year choose a committee to review the laws of the magistrates and suggest changes. This lordly condescension of the good governor was not enough. The " plotting " went on ; and, when the General Court met (May 14), three deputies appeared from each of the 1 Winthrop was as piously and honestly dismayed that workmen should ask higher wages as that they should aspire to a voice in affairs of state. Find authority for these statements in the Source Book. 2 § 60 and note. 8 By what steps were these deputies arranged for ? No record answers this question ; but plainly there must have been much democratic planning and journeying to secure it. THE REVOLUTION OF 1634 83 eight towns. This was revolutionary. The twenty-four depu- ties outnumbered the Assistants and made the Court really a representative body. Other freemen were present also to vote, but not to discuss. Neither charter nor laws knew anything of representatives. But the freemen saw very properly that the whole body could not engage in lawmaking on equal term? with the trained and compact body of Assistants, and so they fell back upon the English device of representation. The aristocrats evidently felt their power in danger. At the opening of the court, John Cotton preached a sermon, — "and delivered this doctrine, that a magistrate ought not to be turned into the condition of a private man, without just cause, and to be publicly convict, no more than the magistrate may not turn a private man out of his freehold, etc., without like public trial." l The answer of the freemen was to demand a ballot; 2 to drop Winthrop from the office he had held for four years ; 3 and to 1 At another time Winthrop tells, with evident approval, how "it was showed from the word of God that the magistracy ought to be for life." 2 We should not know this important fact except for a note, "chosen by papers," in the margin of Winthrop's manuscript, opposite the name of the new governor. " Papers " were used, undoubtedly, as (^democratic device, — to secure a free expression of opinion, where so influential a man as Winthrop might otherwise overawe voters. This was the first use of the ballot in America for political purposes ; but papers had been used before in a church election at Salem, and the ballot was familiar to English boroughs and busi- ness corporations, though unknown in parliamentary elections. (See Rules of the London Company, in Source Book, No. 23.) Now that one of these corporations had moved to America and become a political corporation, for it to use the ballot, as soon as differences of opinion arose, was inevitable. 8 As opportunity offered, the aristocratic doctrine of Cotton was further re- buked by the election of a new governor for each of the two following years also. Then, in a period of great trouble, the trusted Winthrop was chosen again, and kept in office by annual elections, except for five years, until his death in 1649. Even while out of the governor's chair, Winthrop was chosen Assistant each year; but, in 1635, Mr. Ludlow (see note above) was dropped out of office altogether. Winthrop says the people did this " partly to show their absolute power"; but he also shows a sufficient and proper reason. The deputies met before the election of the governor, and agreed to support a democratic gentleman, — who accordingly was chosen. The Assistants did this sort of thing constantly on their side. Indeed, they adopted a written rule 84 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TO 1660 impose fines upon some of the magistrates for abuse of power. The Court then proceeded to make the revolution permanent. It decreed that the four General Courts each year should con- sist (as this one did) of deputies elected by the several towns, and of the governor and Assistants. Only such Courts thereafter were to admit freemen, lay taxes, or make laws. The Court in May each year was to be also a Court of Elections for the choice of governor and Assistants. For this election, at the opening of the Court, all freemen might attend ; but when the choice had been made, all were to withdraw except the regular deputies and magistrates. The transfer of the charter to America and the liberal admission of freemen had transformed the charter of a merchant company into the constitution of a commonwealth; and that commonwealth had developed from a narrow oligarchy into a representative aristocracy. The early usurpa- tions of the Assistants were now all corrected. The freemen had recov- ered all the powers they could claim under the charter, and had found a way, outside the charter (the device of representation), to exercise their powers effectively. The revolutionary Court of 1634 took other democratic action. It ordered jury trial in all important criminal cases (§80), and it admitted eighty-one new freemen, increasing the voting body by a third. 1 But Massachusetts was still far short of a democracy (§ 65 ff.). 65. The Franchise. — The most obvious limitation upon democracy lay in the franchise. The " freemen " were only a fraction of the free men. The General Court of 1631, which admitted the first new freemen, decreed that thereafter only church members should be admitted. This did not mean that to consult together in private, so that their united voice in public "might bear as the voice of God." But Ludlow flew into a passion when the deputies caucused. He declared that for them to do such a thing was equivalent to conspiracy and that it rendered the whole election void. The freemen re- buked him by voting him out of office. The ballot was used in this election, also. 1 On the day the Court met, the Assistants had gone as far as they were willing to go, admitting twenty -three freemen. The representative Court at once admitted almost four times as many more. THE FRANCHISE 85 all church members could vote. The people comprised five distinct classes : — a. Gentlemen, who had a right to the title Master (Mr.) ; b. Skilled artisans and freeholders, the backbone of the colony, usually addressed as "Goodman Brown" or "Goodman Jones"; c. Unskilled laborers, for whose names no handle was needed, and for whom indeed the surname was not often used ; d. Servants, who eventually passed into class c or b; e. Slaves, of whom there were soon a small number, both negro and Indian. Men of the lowest three classes were often admitted to the church, but never to political citizenship ; while any man of the first two classes, who was also a member of an approved church (§ 83) and who applied to the General Court for citizenship, was pretty sure to be welcomed. Thus, law prescribed a reli- gious qualification for voting, and the feeling of the people added, in practice, a social and property qualification. Only about a fourth of the adidt males had the suffrage in Massachusetts at any time in the seventeenth century. (Certain other limita- tions upon democracy are noticed in §§ 66-70.) Gentlemen were set off from the lower classes by a social line hardly- less distinct than that which in England separated gentlemen from lords. About one family out of fourteen in early Massachusetts belonged to the gentry. That ordinary ' ' people ' ' should show subordination to these social superiors was almost as essential as to obey express law. For one distinct legal privilege, the gentleman was exempt from corporal punishment. Thus, in 1631, Mr. Josias Plaistowe was convicted of stealing corn from the Indians. His servants — who had assisted, under orders — were condemned to be flogged; but the court merely fined Plaistowe and ordered that thenceforward he " should be called by the name of Josias, and not Mr., as formerlie. 1 ' This was severe punishment, equivalent to degrading an officer to the ranks. For another offense, Josias would no doubt be whipped, like an ordinary man. This exemption of the aristoc- racy was embodied in written law in 1641. 1 Ten years later the court declared its "detestation" of the wearing of gold lace or silk by men or women "of mean condition, 1 ' admitting that such apparell was fitting for gentlemen (Source Book, No. 75, 6). The student will do well to 1 Body of Liberties, 43; in No. 78 of Source Book. * 86 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TO 1660 compare the class distinctions described for England by William Harrison in 1578 and those portrayed in Massachusetts in 1635 in the "Answer" to Lord Say and Lord Brooke {Source Book, Nos. 1 and 75). D. Evolution of a Two-chambered Legislature, 1634-1644 {The class may use JVos. 68, 75, 77, 79-80, of the Source Book at this point ; and look up authority there for the statements of the text.) 66. Lines of Division in the One-chambered General Court. — For ten years, deputies and Assistants continued to sit together in the General Court, as one body. But, from the first meet- ing, a distinct line of separation appeared between these two orders. The deputies were usually democratic in sympathy, and often came from a rank lower than that of " gentlemen." They held office for only a few days in the year, and their work was mainly legislative. The Assistants continued to be a highly aristocratic class, and, on the whole, the same men served year after year. The causes for the aristocratic charac- ter of the Assistants were partly in the political machinery, partly in the nature of their office, and partly in popular feeling. a. Method of nomination and election. The voters for Assist- ants, it is true, were the same men who chose deputies ; but the franchise was exercised in different ways for the two offices. The deputies were chosen two or three in a town by their own townsmen. It was easy, therefore, to elect a " common " free- man, known only within his town. The Assistants, on the contrary, were chosen at large, and in one general Court of Election. Only men of wealth or position such as to make them known throughout the w r hole colony could get consideration. 1 1 This truth has an important bearing upon politics to-day. Small electoral districts tend to give democratic results; larger ones, aristocratic results. In most of our States, the State senate is elected just as the lower House of the legislature is, except that the electoral districts for the senate are larger ; but the senates are made up of richer and better-known men. So, in a large city, if aldermen are elected by districts, one or two for each ward, it has hitherto proved easier for a workingman to be elected now and then, than if the election is at large, — all the aldermen for the city elected on one ticket. A TWO-CHAMBERED LEGISLATURE 87 For a time this tendency was intensified by the bad system of nomina- tions (§ 63, close). In 1635, to be sure, the ballot was introduced in the election of Assistants (as it had been a year earlier in the election of governor) ; but the nomination continued as before. The secretary named an Assistant already in office. The people brought in "papers." Those in favor of electing the nominee marked their papers with a scroll (they were not asked to write the name because so many freemen could not write) ; those opposed deposited blank ballots. If there were more marked papers than blanks, the candidate was declared elected. If he were defeated, another nomination might be made, to be accepted or rejected by itself in like manner. There was no opportunity to choose between two men, and ordinarily the man in office would be continued there. 1 b. The court of Assistants was largely a judicial court; and it was necessary that the Assistant should know something of law. Moreover, the Assistants had to meet frequently, and the office was unpaid. Only " gentlemen " were fitted for the work, or could spare time for it. c. The Assistants were "ruling magistrates," with consider- able executive and administrative "power. The most ardent democrats believed that such officers ought to come from the gentry class, not from the lower ranks of society. 67. Many matters of dispute arose between the two orders. Some were trivial, except for the class feeling involved. The deputies wished to fine heavily an unpopular " gentleman " for charging exorbitant prices for merchandise ; the Assistants insisted upon reducing or remitting the fine. Then the Assistants gave judgment for slander against a poor woman who had accused the same "gentleman" of stealing her pig (which had strayed into this gentleman's yard and after some time had been killed by him); the deputies sided with the woman. But more im- portant differences were not lacking. (1) The Assistants succeeded in getting a law passed in favor of a Council for Life ; but the deputies kept this Council from acquiring any real power, and after three years, they secured, indirectly, its abolition. (2) The Assistants tried to cut down the number of deputies, arguing that the freedom of the people lay not in the number of representatives, but "in the thing," — in having repre- 1 In 1643, the law ordered that kernels of corn should be used instead of papers, — the white to siguify election ; other colors, rejection. For changes in the system of nominations, see §78. 88 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TO 1660 sentatives at all; while the deputies, with their towns at their back, were anxious to have a number sufficient to outweigh the Assistants. 1 (3) The deputies wished a written code of laws ; and secured it, after six years' struggle, against active and passive opposition by the Assistants (§81). 68. The Negative Voice of the Magistrates. — Early in these conflicts, the Assistants put forward an amazing claim, under which they bade fair to rob the freemen of all that was really- worth while in the representative government they had won. The charter provided that a quorum of seven magistrates (out of eighteen) must be present to enable any Court to do busi- ness. To prevent embarrassment, in 1631, while they were keeping the number of Assistants small, the magistrates them- selves had enacted (unconstitutionally) that five should be a quorum. In the summer General Court of 1634 (the first court after the introduction of representative government), a vote obnoxious to some of the magistrates was passed by a good majority; but the magistrates (even those who had voted for the measure) declared it not carried "because there were not seven magistrates in the vote." That is, they not only re- stored the charter provision, now that it suited their class, but they interpreted it to mean that seven magistrates must vote in favor of a motion to enable it to carry, no matter what the vote of the deputies might be. Since there were then so few magistrates, this meant that the deputies could carry no meas- ure for which the Assistants were not practically unanimous. The Assistants called this their right to a negative voice. It was never recognized in law in just this form; but the ministers were brought in, upon occasion, to argue for it, when the deputies grew restive ; and, in practice, the few Assistants secured a veto upon the larger body of deputies. Israel Stoughton, a deputy from Dorchester, attacked this claim in a book with "many weak arguments," complaining also of the great dis- cretionary power of the Assistants in their judicial work. He was called up as a culprit, and made to recant. His book was burned, and he was dismissed from office and disfranchised for three years, despite a petition 1 This contest has been referred to in § 62. A BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE 89 in his favor by his constituents. Winthrop had written a book in favor of the negative voice. The magistrates saw nothing wrong in controversy on that side. 1 But free speech and a free press were no more part of the Puritan political scheme than was the right of petition (§ 62). 69. Separation into Two Houses. — After ten years of such disputes, deputies and Assistants agreed to separate into two Houses, — each House to have its own organization and to manage its own debates ; each to have the right to introduce bills ; and the consent of both to be necessary before any bill became law. Three steps may be traced in the evolution of this first bicameral legislature in America. a. In 1636 it was decreed that the two orders, still sitting to- gether, should vote separately, and that a majority of each order should be necessary to carry a measure. This was not at all equivalent to two Houses. It left the Assistants a great advantage. They would do most of the debating, and they could most easily combine upon a policy (being a permanent body with frequent meetings outside the General Court). The arrangement sanctioned their veto without granting any compensation to the deputies. 6. By 1641 the deputies were permitted to organize sepa- rately with a " speaker " of their own, whenever a special occasion made such action desirable. c. In 1644 the division became regular and permanent. The immediate occasion was the long dispute over the poor woman's stray pig (§ 67). Well does Winthrop say, — "There fell out a great matter upon a small occasion." But of course the real causes were the deeper differences. 2 1 The magistrates recognized the right of free debate in the General Court, because of the emphasis in English history upon freedom of speech in parlia- ment. Stoughton might have spoken his " weak arguments " in the meetings of the legislature with impunity. The thing in question was the right of a citizen outside the legislature to criticize the government. It is interesting to note that as soon as Stoughton' s " disfranchisement" had expired, the people elected him to the Board of Assistants. 2 When these disputes had rendered life under one roof unendurable, the existence of a two-House parliament in England pointed to a remedy. The law of Massachusetts in 1644 refers to European example as one justification for the change (Source Book, No. 80, close). The leaders had recognized for 90 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TO 1660 The magistrates kept their negative voice; but the deputies had won separate organization, freedom from interference in their debates, and greater dignity in their own eyes. In time, as their sense of independ- ence increased, their size gave them the preponderance. The separation came as the result of a democratic demand, and was at the time a democratic victory. (Cf. § 41, for Maryland.) < 70. Excursus': Two-House Legislatures Then and Now. 1 — Before the Revolution, all the colonies had two-House legislatures except the two latest founded, — Pennsylvania and Georgia, — and by 1790 these States also had adopted that form.' 2 That system has continued universal ever since in the States of our Union, and until recently its wisdom has hardly been questioned. It is clear, however, that the reasons given to-day for preserving the two-House arrangement never occurred to the men icho established it, and that their reasons have wholly faded away. In the seventeenth century, aristocracy was so strong that the aristo- cratic " Council " (whether elected as in Massachusetts, or appointed as in Virginia) dominated a one-House Assembly. The change to two Houses icas set in motion everywhere by the democratic element, as a step toward greater freedom of action. This condition has disappeared absolutely. When we reach the Revolution, democracy has gained in power; and it was the aristocracy which preserved the two-House system. The upper House was desired as a separate and coordinate branch, in order that property and station might intrench themselves safely in it, to veto further encroachment by the rising tide of democracy. The democratic forces, too, were reconciled to the plan by an argument which was falsely supposed to have democratic value. Government had so long meant despotism, that, for a while, men who loved liberty believed that government the best which was weakest and could not govern. Hence arose the favorite eight- eenth century device of weakening government by an elaborate system of checks and balances, setting one part over against another, and regarding a deadlock as a palladium of liberty. But to-day no one would openly use the aristocratic argument; nor do we any longer fear government. We do not look upon it as a dangerous enemy or a cruel master, to be chained, but as a helpful servant, to be made efficient ; and ardent demo- crats begin to question whether we should not strike from that servant's limbs these old seventeenth and eighteenth century fetters. some years that such a change must come. See the famous Cotton letter to Lords Say and Brooke in Source Book, No. 75, for evidence of this. 1 This section may be discussed in class, with books open. 2 Vermont had a one-House legislature from 1777, when she split off from New York (§ 154, note), until 1791, when she was admitted to the Union. LOCAL GOVERNMENT 91 A new reason, however, has been brought forward in favor of the divi- sion. Government, it is urged, should express the people's will, not their whim; and the deliberate action necessitated by a two-House arrange- ment prevents hasty and unconsidered action. Whether this is a suffi- cient reason to overbalance the inconveniences of the system is the question to be decided. The historian may point out that it is a new reason, and also that, outside America, two Houses is not the modern democratic custom. That plan is found, it is true, in many countries, either to intrench aristocracy or as a historic survival ; but the numerous states of Switzer- land, the new nations of the Balkans, and most of the Canadian prov- inces, all have one- House legislatures, — as did the Dutch republics in South Africa while they lasted. The desirability of two Houses in our national legislature is a somewhat different question. The Senate was adopted there partly to intrench wealth and aristocracy, as the debates of the Federal Convention show ( § 200 ) , but partly to suit the new federal plan, — one House to represent the State governments, the other to represent the people. A similar reason has led the Swiss, the Australians, and the Canadians each to make their central legislature on the two-House plan. f- E. Local Government " Town meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science.'''' — TOCQUEVILLE. 71. Origin of Town Government. — Most Xew England towns in the seventeenth century were mere agricultural villages. Farmers did not live scattered through the country, as now, each on his own farm. They dwelt together, somewhat after European fashion, 1 in villages of from thirty to a hundred or two hundred householders, with their fields stretching off in all directions. These local units developed a system of government for their local affairs wholly distinct from the general colonial government we have been studying. At first, the General Court and Assistants tried to care for the whole business of government, local as well as central, appointing justices and constables for each settlement. But this left multitudes of important matters unprovided for. So, in 1633, Dorchester 1 Modern History, § 36. 92 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TO 1660 and Watertown set up town governments, with a new ma- chinery of town meetings and selectmen. In 1634 several new towns were founded (§ 60), and the number increased rapidly in the next few years. All these units, old and new, quickly followed the Dorchester example ; and a little later the settle- ments in Plymouth colony took similar action (§ 53). From the first, on special occasions, the people of a town met to dis- cuss matters of interest, as at the famous Watertown meeting of 1632. But now the towns ordered that such meetings be held regularly (once a month, perhaps), to settle matters of local concern. Each town chose a town clerk, to keep records of the by-laws, or town laws, passed in the meetings, and elected a committee ("the seven men," "the nine men, 1 ' "the selected townsmen" 1 ) with a vague authority " to manage the prudentials of the town" between the town meetings. 72. Relation of the Town to the Colony. — These local govern- ments seem to have grown up, out of the needs of the people, without definite legal sanction ; but very soon the General Court adopted them as essential parts of the political scheme. In theory, the towns derived their powers from the central govern- ment, and possessed only such authority as that government delegated to them. 2 From this viewpoint, the town was pri- marily a division of the state for various purposes : (1) for military organization, — each town being compelled to maintain a train band; (2) for political organization, — delegates to the General Court being chosen by towns ; (3) for the organization of a school system ; (4) for the assessing and collecting of taxes; and (5) for the administration of justice. The central legislature located the town, gave it its territory, named it, and required it to maintain roads, schools, and certain military and 1 About the middle of the century, this term came to be written " Select- men " ; but the New Englander still pronounces it " Select Men." See Source Book, Nos. 66, 81, 83, 89, 105, c, for the growth and character of town govern- ment. 2 When the later colonies of Rhode Island and Connecticut were founded, it happened that towns came into existence before any definite central govern- ment had been provided. As a result, in these states the towns have always preserved a peculiar degree of independence. LOCAL GOVERNMENT 93 police arrangements. Fines were imposed by the legislature upon towns that failed to come up to the standard set by law. 73. Self-government of the Town. — In actual practice, how- ever, a marvelous degree of independence was left the town. The town meeting appointed all local officers, — not merely selectmen and clerk, but school trustees, hog reeve, fence viewer, constable, treasurer, pound keeper, sealer of weights and measures, measurer of corn and lumber, overseer of chim- neys, overseer of the village almshouse ; and for most of these officers it alone defined all the powers and duties. It divided the town lands among the inhabitants, — such a part as it chose to divide, — deciding also upon the size of building lots, whether quarter-acre, acre, two acres, or five ; and it passed ordinances regarding the remaining town fields and pastures, the keeping up of fences, the running of cattle and hogs, the term of the school and its support, the support of the church, and of the town poor. This town democracy had its disadvantages. Action was slow, and was often hindered by ignorance and petty neighbor- hood jealousies. But the best thing about the town meeting, — better than anything it did, — was the constant training in politics it gave to the mass of the people. Fitly it has been called the best school of political liberty the world ever saw. 74. Town Citizenship. — All the people in a town could come to town meeting and could speak there; 1 but not all could vote. At the base of society in every town was a class of " cottagers," or squatters, who were permitted to reside in the place at the town's pleasure only, 2 and who could not acquire land there, nor claim any legal right to the use of the town pasture, or " commons." Servants whose term of service was up, and strangers who drifted into the town as mere day laborers, usually passed at first into this class. 1 Body of Liberties (12), in Source Book, No. 78. 2 For instance, the Hartford Records contain a graut of " lotts " to certain "cottagers," "to have onely at the Tovmes courtesie, with libertie to fetch wood and keepe swine or cowes on the common." 94 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TO 1660 The people in a town who held full town citizenship were known as " inhabitants." This term had a fixed meaning. A " cottager," however worthy, or a newcomer, of whatever rank, could be " admitted inhabitant " only by vote of the town. In practice, this class included all gentlemen and industrious arti- sans and freeholders (§ 65). That is, it included all who had the colonial franchise, — all " freemen," — and many others, because church membership was not necessary for admission. Thus the town government in Massachusetts was more democratic than the central government 1 The body of citizens was more extensive, and the citizens acted directly, not through representatives. And this town de- mocracy was significant, because the town governments touched the life of the people at many more points, and at more vital ones, than did the central government. 75. Excursus: The Virginia County and the New England Town. — The political difference between Virginia and Massa- chusetts lay more in local government than in the central. Especially after 1691 (§ 101), the central governments of the two provinces grew much more alike, but the local governments grew farther and farther apart ; and the influence of local gov- ernment upon society is so great that Virginia as a whole grew more aristocratic, and Massachusetts more democratic. At bottom, the causes of the difference were largely physical. In Virginia the soil, climate, and products made it profitable to cultivate large plantations by cheap labor under overseers. In Massachusetts, with its sterile soil, farming was profitable only 1 This divergence was not pleasing to the central government. At first (September, 1635) the General Court decreed that the town franchise should belong only to freemen ; but this narrow policy quickly became a dead letter in practice. Then, the General Court tried to compel the towns to choose town officers only from "freemen " ; but the towns disregarded this restriction also; and in 1642 the Court decreed that other inhabitants might be chosen, provided a majority of the town board were freemen. In 1656 a law of the General Court set up a low property qualification for town citizenship. All inhabitants worth £24, in estate, were recognized as entitled to full citizenship for town purposes. This, of course, did not make them "freemen," but it removed all check upon their holding town office. LOCAL GOVERNMENT 95 when a man tilled his own ground, with at most one or two servants working under his own eyes. In Virginia, therefore, population became scattered, while in New England it remained grouped in little agricultural villages. In Virginia, all the people could not easily come together for effective action. The county became the political unit, and control fell naturally to the wealthy planters in small Boards (§ 103). New England had no counties for some time, and then only for judicial purposes. Throughout the colonial period, the town remained the political unit ; and all the people of the town came together frequently, to take part in matters that concerned their common life. The Virginia type of local government developed the most remarkable group of leaders that the world has ever seen. 1 The New Eng- land type trained a whole people to democracy by constant prac- tice at their own doors. Both contributed something to our national development; but the New England type has done most to Americanize our institutions. 76- Excursus : Later Developments in Local Government. — The Middle colonies, soon to be founded, developed an intermediate type of local government, with both towns and counties. 2 Then, after the Rev- olution, Virginia and New England became centers for distributing popu- lation south and west (ch. vii) . The people of each district carried with them their own form of local government. The Virginia county prevails generally over the South. In the West the result was mixed. The New Englanders carried the town to Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois; and the Vir- ginians, coming into the southern parts of the same States, brought the county. The two institutions wrestled, but neither won a complete vic- tory. Throughout the West there resulted a mixed type, somewhat like that of New York or Pennsylvania. Moreover, the extreme types have gradually come somewhat nearer 1 This will be more easily understood after a treatment of later Virginia history (§§ 102-106, and the references to Virginia in the story of the Revo- lutionary disturbances). If it seems best, §§ 76 and 77 can be deferred until after § 106 ; and in any case they may be reviewed then with profit. 2 In New York, which had many settlers from New England, the town was more important than the county ; while in Pennsylvania the county was the more important. 96 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TO 1660 one another in their first homes. In the South, the town system has made some gains; while in New England it has lost some of its early vitality — through the influx of foreign populations and the growth of city life. 1 In some States to-day, in the West and Central divisions, there is an annual town meeting (primarily for the election of officers), at which any business of the town can be settled ; while special meetings may be called on occasion. But no district out of New England has reproduced the weekly or monthly meeting ; and the town officers count for more in the West than in the original New England town. School matters are often managed by a distinct organization. In some States, where there is no town meeting proper, the voters do still elect a board of supervisors, who manage town affairs. The county usually has a legislative board of supervisors or commis- sioners, besides its administrative and judicial officers, with extensive powers over raising and expending county money, and over the care of the poor, of highways, and of public health. Exercise. 2 — 1. Study some " town " in your county (or in a neighbor- ing one) for size, population, amount of taxable property, rate of taxation. Make a table of the town officers, showing how elected, for what terms, with what general powers and duties. Has the town any judicial officers ? Are school affairs managed by the town or by a separate organization ? (If the latter, describe it.) Is there a town meeting ? 2. Study the early New England town in the Source Book, No. 83. 1 Outside New England, the nearest approach to the old-fashioned town meeting as an organ of frequent government is the school district meeting in small towns and villages in the West. The decay of the town meeting is a serious matter. It was a direct de- mocracy. Almost all modern local government is indirect, representative de- mocracy. The town meeting will never be restored to its old vitality; but many thinkers believe that some substitute must be found to give the politi- cal training which it once gave, and hope to find such a substitute in the de- vices of " direct democracy " known as the initiative, referendum, and recall (§§463-470). 2 This study may be carried on, by degrees, while the class is proceeding with the history ; but most of the historical background for an understand- ing of town and county government in the United States has now been sup- plied. The study of city government belongs to a later period (§ 465). The following references for local government may be useful : Bryce, American Commonwealth, chs. 48, 49; Wilson, The State, 524 ff. Much information may be found in the Legislative Manual for the State (of which every school should have copies) and in standard books upon the State government. POLITICAL MACHINERY 97 3. Are the members of your county board elected by districts or "at large"? For how long a term? Who collects taxes in your county? Make a table of administrative officers of the county, corresponding to that suggested above for town officers. Where are the county buildings, and what are their uses ? Who decides when a new one shall be built ? Who decides where they shall be located ? Compare (in any large atlas) the boundaries of the counties in the western States in general with those in the older States for regularity. F. Evolution of Political Machinery 77. The Ballot. — Reference has been made to the ballot in England (§ 64, note) and to its introduction into politics in Massachusetts, — first (1634) to' defeat Winthrop for governor, and then to drop Ludlow from the Board of Assistants. In both cases the voters resorted to the ballot to protect them- selves against intimidation. From this time its use was un- broken at the Court of Elections in choosing the officers of the central government. 1 The next step was to introduce the same democratic device in town elections. This was done first at Boston, in December, 1634, when a committee was chosen to divide public lands among the inhabitants. The people "feared that the richer men would give the poorer sort no great proportions of land," and they used the ballot in order the more easily to leave out the aristocratic element 2 In the following September, a law of the General Court established vote by secret ballot in the towns as the regular method of electing deputies to the Gen- eral Court. 1 See Source Book, Nos. 67, a, 70. 2 Source Book, No. 71. The seven men of the committee were all of " the inferior sort," except that Winthrop himself barely got on at the bottom of the poll. Winthrop tells the story with naive dignity. " Mr. Winthrop re- fused to be one upon such an election . . . telling them that though he did not apprehend any personal injury, . . . yet he was much grieved that Boston should be the first who should shake off their magistrates." Then Mr. Cotton " showed them that it was the Lord's order among the Israelites to have all such business committed to the elders," and persuaded them to have a new election. 98 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TO 1660 There is another way in which the ballot aids democracy. Its use makes it possible for men to vote at their own homes, in small election districts, instead of being required all to come to one central point. Such an arrangement permits more voters to take part in elections ; and the men of Massachusetts soon used the ballot for this purpose. In March, 1636, it was ordered that the freemen of six outlying towns might send " proxies " to the next Court of Elections. During the next December, Governor Vane resigned, and a special election was called. "In regard of the season," any freemen who chose were authorized "to send their votes in writing." And the next spring (March, 1637) this method of voting for governor and Assistants was made permanent. Out of the use of proxies a true ballot in the several towns had developed. 1 78. Nominations. — When men came to elect the governor and Assistants in the several towns, as just described (instead of all coming to the General Court in Boston for the purpose), it was necessary, of course, to know in advance from what names the choice was to be made. The old system of nomina- tion (§ 63, close, and § 66, a), always unsatisfactory and undemo- cratic, broke down ; and two democratic methods were tried. a. A primary election. In 1640, it was decreed that in each town in March the freemen should nominate Assistants by ballot, and the votes of all the towns should be carried to Boston and counted. The eighteen men having the highest total vote were declared nominated ; and at the elections in May no one could be voted for whose name was not on the list. At that election, if a nominee failed to get a majority of the votes cast, a vacancy was left on the Board until next year. b. A representative convention. The troublesome thing about this primary system in that t day was that different towns might vote for wholly different sets of nominees. No machinery had been devised for candidates to be suggested in advance to the entire colony. So, after two trials, in 1642, another system of 1 An admirable example of " development " : first some voters for one time ; then all voters for one time; then all for all times. THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 99 nomination was attempted. Each town chose one or two rep- resentatives, and these delegates met in a central convention to nominate candidates to be voted on at the next election. In the absence of political parties and other modern political machinery, neither system worked altogether satisfactorily ; and for years Massachu- setts oscillated back and forth between the two. At a later time in Ameri- can politics the convention became universal ; but a little before 1900 there began a drift to the primary election in a better form (§§ 323-324, 461). G. Evolution of a Judiciary 79. Courts. — Soon after Winthrop landed, the Assistants appointed from their own number a "justice of the peace " for each important town, to punish minor offenses and to decide minor cases (Source Book, No. 63 (1)). Above these local courts was the central Court of Assistants; and higher still was the " General Court," which sometimes dealt with judicial matters. But the exact relations between these grades of courts were not clearly defined. Any matter, however unim- portant, might come originally into the highest court if a mem- ber of that body chose to introduce it ; and the two higher courts mingled executive and legislative matters with their judicial functions at the same sittings. In 1636 and 1638 the system was reorganized. (1) The justices' court gave way to a more complete system of town courts, no longer wholly appointed from above, but elected in part by the local units. (2) The towns were grouped into four districts, known later as counties, each with its county court (" inferior quarter courts ") meeting four times a year. (3) The Assistants began to hold special meetings four times a year ("great quarter courts") solely to administer justice, leaving other business to other meetings. (4) The General Court kept its function of a " Supreme Court " on special occasions. The county courts were the new element. Like the town courts, they were partly democratic in composition. Each consisted of at least one Assistant, residing in the district, and of three or four other men chosen for 100 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TO 1660 the purpose by popular vote. This court could deal with all civil suits (suits about property) in which less than £20 was involved, and with criminal cases where the penalty did not extend to death or mutilation ; but any case might be appealed from it to the "great quarter court." That higher court, therefore, was an " appellate cou rt " for these minor matters, and also a " court. of original jurisdiction" 1 for the more important cases above the province of the county courts. It re- mained aristocratic in composition, and indeed was simply the Board of Assistants sitting for a special purpose at stated times. % 80. Juries. — Early in the first summer in Massachusetts, a man was found dead under suspicious circumstances. The magistrates at once appointed a body of sworn men to investi- gate the matter. This was a coroner's jury, an old English in- stitution. It accused a certain Palmer of murder. Palmer was trijed before the Assistants with a trial jury (petit jury) of twelve men. After hearing the evidence, this jury gave a \ verdict of "not guilty," and the magistrates declared Palmer acquitted. Soon after, a jury was impaneled to try Captain Endicott on a charge of assault and it gave a verdict against the hot-tempered captain. This was merely in accord with English custom. 2 There was no written law on the matter until 1634. Then the revolution- ary General Court, which set up representative government, established also this judicial bulwark of liberty, by enacting that thereafter all criminal trials involving life or limb must be held before a jury. 3 By custom, the jury continued to be used in minor criminal cases also. A year later the English jury of inquest was introduced. So far, offenders had been brought to trial only on the initiative of some magistrate ; but in the spring of 1635 the General Court ordered that two "grand juries" should meet each year, fall 1 The teacher may well afford time to illustrate such terms as " appellate " and "original jurisdiction," and "civil" and "criminal" cases, until the concepts are clear. 2 On the origin of the jury in England, see Modern History, §§ 130, 144. 8 The Plymouth code of 1636 provided for a jury in all cases. Cf. also the Massachusetts Body of Liberties in the Source Book, No. 78. THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 101 and spring, to present to the court all offenders against the law and the public welfare. 1 Thus the first five years in Massachusetts saw the adoption (first by- custom and then by statute law) of the English practice of juries in the administration of justice, — the grand jury for inquest (with its special variety, the coroners' jury for a particular kind of inquiry), and the petit jury for trial. It is sometimes said, with much exaggeration, that in the absence of written law, the Puritans always followed the Jewish law. Sometimes they did so in fixing penalties; but in this supremely important matter of legal machinery and methods they followed the English Common Law, not the Old Testament. 81. Written Laws. — At the spring Court of 1635, the depu- ties made a demand for a written code of laws, "conceiving great danger to our state, in regard that our magistrates, for want of positive laws, might proceed according to their discretions." The magistrates were making law, almost at will, in their judi- cial decisions, as cases arose, — sometimes, ex post facto laws. The demand of the democratic deputies was proper, 2 and too strong to be openly denied ; but for a time it was evaded. The Court appointed a committee of four magistrates to prepare a code ; but the committee failed to report. A year later, it was enlarged to eight, and ordered to report at the next Court ; but all the members still came from the gentleman class. Mr. Cot- 1 The terms grand and petit have reference only to the original size of the two kinds of juries in England. The first grand jury in Massachusetts, in the fall of 1635, indicted 100 offenders, showing itself much more active than the magistrates had been. 2 Cf. the democratic demand for a written code in early Athens, and in Rome (Ancient World, §§ 108, note, 313). To be sure, in Massachusetts the di- vision between classes was very much less than in those early states, but the same general tendency may be traced. In Massachusetts the magistrates gave one reason, not of a class nature, for resisting the demand. They had certain customs in church matters in direct conflict with English law. Such opposition was forbidden by their charter; and, if those customs were re- duced to writing, it could not be concealed. On the other hand, " the people thought their condition very unsafe while so much power rested in the dis- cretion of the magistrates." For ex post facto legislation by the judges, see Source Book, No. 65, and elsewhere. • 102 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TO 1660 ton, one of the committee, did present a code modeled wholly upon the Mosaic law ; but this was so unsatisfactory that no notice was taken of it. Two years later still (1638), the demo- cratic element had learned their lesson. They took the initia- tive into their own hands, ordering that the deputies should collect suggestions from the freemen of their several towns, and present the same in writing to a new committee made up partly of deputies. Now matters began to move. The suggestions from the towns were reduced to form in 1639, and sent back to all the towns for further consideration, " that the freemen might ripen their thought," and make further suggestion. The next lot of returns were referred to two clergymen, John Cotton and Nathaniel Ward ; and, in 1641, each of these gentlemen presented a full code to the General Court. After further deliberation and discussion, and some amendment, the code presented by Ward was adopted the same year. This is the famous Body of Liberties. In name and character it marks a great advance in the history of legislation. {Source Book, No. 78.) 9% H. Theocratic Elements in the Commonwealth 82. Religious Purpose of the Colonists. — In England the High-churchmen had been wont to reproach the Low-church- men with being secretly Separatists. The Low-church Puri- tans repelled the charge indignantly, and, to prove their good faith, joined vehemently in denouncing the Separatists. But when they reached America, they found themselves more in accord with that despised sect than they had themselves sus- pected. 1 Very soon they did separate wholly from the English 1 Thomas Hooker was one of the greatest of the Puritan clergy. Before he came to America, while a fugitive in Holland, he was called a Separatist. But Cotton Mather says he had " an extreme aversion " to that sect; and he himself wrote, " To separate from the faithful assemblies and churches in England, as no churches, is an error in judgment and a sin in practice, held and maintained by the Brownists [Separatists] ; and to communicate with them in this opinion is utterly unlawful." So, too, Francis Higginson ex- AN ARISTOCRATIC THEOCRACY 103 Church, refusing even to recognize its ordination of clergymen. On the other hand, they did not adopt the Separatist program regarding relation to the state, nor did they entirely separate one congregation from another in matters of church govern- ment. They wished to maintain a union between church and state. 1 Indeed, to their mind, the first use of the state was to preserve their religion and their church discipline. To preserve this union effectively, they adopted three distinct devices: (1) restriction of the franchise to church members; (2) restriction of churches to those approved by the govern- ment and by the other churches ; (3) reference of political questions to the clergy organized in synods. The first step was taken in 1631. The second was necessary to make the first effective, and it was taken in 1636. The third measure came abolit gradually. The ministers did not hold office, but from the first they were active in politics. 2 Their sermons abounded in political teaching; and from time to time individuals among them were consulted by the magistrates on mat- ters of importance. Soon, the government came to seek the collective opinion of the ministry by circulars of inquiry. This did not result in unanimity ; and the final step consisted in bringing the clergy together to formulate an opinion which might weigh as that of a united body. This was done first on a purely political occasion, — the question of resisting a governor from England (§ 61) ; but in 1637 the clergy began to hold synods for religious matters, and advantage was taken of this opportunity to secure greater clerical influence upon politics. 3 claimed, as the shores of England receded from view (§ 57): "We will not say, as the Separatists are wont to say, Farewell, Rome! Farewell, Babylon! But we will say, Farewell, dear England; Farewell, the Church of God in England, and all Christian friends there." Longer and more emphatic ex- pressions of this early attitude of the Puritans are given in the Source Book, No. 60 and the closing passages in Nos. 52 and 62, c. 1 Winthrop declared that their purpose in coming to America was " to seek out a place of cohabitation under a due form of government both civil and ecclesiastical." See the preamble to the Connecticut Fundamental Orders (Source Book, No. 93) for a fuller statement by a Puritan commonwealth. 2 Cf . the part of the minister of Watertown in 1632, and of Cotton at the General Court of 1634, and of Cotton and Ward in codifying the laws. 3 Winthrop tells, with evident approval, how Mr. Cotton, from numerous scriptural texts, " proved . . . that the rulers of the people should consult 104 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TO 1660 83. The Massachusetts ideal was an aristocratic theocracy, a govern- ment by the best, in accordance with the law of God. But, in practice, the ministers in politics proved a bulwark of class domination. In every controversy between aristocracy and democracy, the ministers found an interpretation of some Biblical passage which would support the aristoc- racy; and the "people" were able to make headway against this pre- ponderating influence only with great difficulty. Indeed, democratic progress depended, more than once, upon the appearance of a rare demo- cratic champion among the ministers, like Ward of Ipswich (§8i) or Hooker of Connecticut (§ 87). 1 84. Persecution. — The purpose of the early Massachusetts Puritans (in their own words) was "to build a City of G-od on earth." They came to the wilderness not so much to escape per- secution as to find a freer chance to build as they saw fit, where there should be none with right to "hinder them ; and they did not mean that intruders should mar their work. This plan forbade religious toleration. Religious freedom was no part of the Puritan's program. He never claimed that it was. It was fundamentally inconsistent with his program. The Puritan was trying a lofty experiment, for which he sacrificed home and ease ; but he could not try it at all without driving out from his " City of the Lord " those who differed with him. 2 The leaders claimed that the charter gave them power to ex- pel any who troubled them. Unfortunately for Puritan logic, the Massachusetts charter conferred very restricted authority in this respect. 3 Like all other charters, it sanctioned force against invaders ; but most charters also forbade newcomers to settle without the special permission of the government. No such provision was in this charter ; but none the less the Massa- with the ministers of the churches upon occasion of any war to be undertaken, and any other weighty business, though the case should seem never so clear, as David in the case of Ziklag." History, I, 283 (1853 edition). 1 By 1639 the democracy had learned a lesson from their opponents, and managed sometimes to put forward democratic ministers to preach "election sermons." Find evidence in the Sou?'ce Book, No. 77. 2 See statements by Winthrop's companions, in Source Book, No. 84. 8 Source Book, No. 53. RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION 105 chusetts government assumed authority to regulate immigration. In November, 1630, two "gentlemen" from England came to Massachusetts by way of Plymouth. They were introduced by Miles Standish ; " but," says Winthrop, " having no testimony, we would not receive them." 1 In the following March, the As- sistants shipped back to England six men at one time, without trial, merely upon the ground that they were " unmeete to in- habit here " ; while for years there were occasional entries in the records like the following : " Mr. Thomas Makepeace, because of his novile disposition, is informed that we are weary of him, unless he reform " ; or "John Smith is ordered to remove himself from this jurisdiction for divers dangerous opinions which he holdeth." All this gives the point of view from which to study the famous expulsions of Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson. Roger Williams was one of the most powerful and scholarly of the great Puritan clergy. He was a robust character, of the wildest contra- dictions. He had rare sweetness of temper ; but, along with it, a genius for getting into bitter controversy. He was broad-minded on great ques- tions ; but he could quarrel vehemently over fantastic quibbles. The charitable Bradford describes him as possessing "many precious parts, but very unsettled in judgment." 2 Driven from England by Laud, Williams came to Massachusetts in the supply ship in the winter of 1631 (§ 60). He was welcomed warmly by Winthrop as "a godly minister" ; but it was soon evident that he had adopted the opinions of the Separatists. In the pulpit he scolded at all who would not utterly renounce fellowship with English churches, and 1 Cases of this kind are totally different, of course, from banishment for crime, — though it is doubtful whether the colony had even that power, any more than the modern State of Massachusetts. The extreme caution in this particular case was due to the fact that these intending settlers were of the gentry class, and therefore sure to be influential. No such care was used, ordinarily, of common men. Cf. Source Book, No. 65 (4). 2 Bradford didn't like Williams : " I desire the Lord to show him his errors and reduce him into the way of truth, and give him a settled judgment and constancy in the same ; for I hope he belongs to the Lord." Eggleston hits off Williams' weakness well in saying that he lacked humor and sense of propor- tion, and "could put the questions of grace after meat and of religious free- dom into the same category." 106 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TO 1660 he preached against any union of church and state, holding that the magistrate had no right to punish for Sabbath-breaking or for other offenses against " the first table" (the first four of the Commandments). At Williams' arrival, it was intended to settle him in Boston ; but, with such views, Boston was no place for him. He went to Plymouth for a time, but soon returned to the larger colony as the pastor of Salem. 1 Just at this time that town wanted more lands. The court of Assistants paid no public attention to the request, but let it be known privately that, if Salem expected the grant, it bad best dismiss Williams. On his part, Williams referred to the other churches of the colony as "ulcered and gangrened," and called the clergy "false hirelings." An opportunity soon offered to get rid of him. He publicly denied the title of the colony to its lands, affirming that the King had told "a solemn lie " in the charter in claiming right to give title. Such words, unrebuked, might embroil the little colony with the home government, with which it was already in trouble enough (§61). The magistrates seized the ex- cuse, and ordered Williams back to England. 2 This was in winter. On account of the bitter season, the order was suspended until spring. The magistrates seem to have understood that Williams agreed meantime not to teach these troublesome doctrines. He continued to do so, how- ever ; and an officer was sent to place him on board ship. Forewarned by Winthrop, he escaped to the forest, and found his way to the Narra- gansett Indians. The next spring a few adherents joined him ; and the little band founded Providence, the beginning of the colony of Rhode Island (1636). Williams had few followers, and was easily disposed of. The Hutchin- son episode divided the colony for a time into not unequal parts ; and the majority, to maintain their tottering supremacy, resorted to dubious politi- cal devices. Anne Hutchinson is described by Winthrop (who hated her) as a woman of " ready wit and bold spirit. ' ' She was intellectual, eloquent, and enthusiastic. Her real offense seems to have been her keen contempt for many of the ministers and her disrespect toward the magistrates ; but she held religious views somewhat at variance with the prevailing ones. 3 i Cannot the student see, in the early history of Salem, a possible expla- nation why that town was more inclined to Separatist doctrines than was the rest of the Bay Colony ? 2 If Williams had been at one with them in religion, no doubt the magis- trates would have found some nominal punishment for his overzeal, — as they did with Endicott, who just at this time cut the cross out of the English flag, calling it an idolatrous symbol. 8 Just what the difference was it is hard to say. At one time Winthrop RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION 107 In particular, her language regarding an "inner light" was twisted by her critics into a claim that she enjoyed special and direct revelations from the Holy Spirit. For a time Boston supported her with great unanimity, but a majority in all the other churches was soon rallied against her. Among Mrs. Hutchinson's adherents were the minister Wheelwright, and young Harry Yane, governor at the time. In the winter of 1637, Wheelwright preached a sermon declaiming violently against the ministers of the opposing faction. For this the next General Court (in March) " questioned " him, and voted him guilty of sedition, in spite of a lengthy petition from Boston for freedom of speech. The majority adopted also a shrewd maneuver. To lessen the influence of heretical Boston, they voted to hold the approaching " Court of Elections " not at that town as usual, but at Newtown. When that Court assembled, in May, "there was great danger of tumult" ; l but the orthodox faction finally elected Winthrop over Vane, and even dropped three magistrates of the other party off the Board of Assistants. To prevent the minority from receiv- ing expected reinforcements from England, they then decreed that new- comers should not settle in the colony, nor even tarry there more than three weeks, without permission from the government. 2 In the following summer a synod of clergy solemnly condemned the Hutchinson and Wheelwright heresies. Winthrop regarded the dissen- tients as "clearly confuted and confounded" ; but they refused to be silenced ; and at the General Court in November the majority, " finding confessed, " Except men of good understanding, few could see where the dif- ferences were ; and indeed they seemed so small as (if men's affections had not been formerly alienated . . .) they might easily have come to a reconcili- ation." 1 "Those of that side [the Hutchinsonians] grew into fierce speeches, and some laid hands on others ; but, seeing themselves too weak, they grew quiet." With naive candor, Winthrop tells an incident which shows the unscrupu- lous determination of his party to seize advantage. " Boston, having de- ferred to choose deputies till the election was passed [i.e. the election of governor and magistrates] went home that night, and the next morning they sent Mr. Vane, the late governor, and [the other discarded magistrates] for their deputies. But the Court, being grieved at it, found a means to send them home again ; for two of the freemen of Boston had no notice of the election. [Winthrop and one other had remained at Newtown and so had not been formally notified of the town meeting.] So they went all home again, and the next morning they returned the same gentlemen again upon a new election [Winthrop being notified this time]; and the Court not finding how they might reject them, they were admitted." 2 No idle provision. A brother of Mrs. Hutchinson soon arrived, with many friends ; but Winthrop forbade them to remain. 108 MASSACHUSETTS BAY TO 1660 that two so opposite parties could not contain in the same body without hazard of ruin to the whole," determined to crush their opponents. The two leaders were banished after a farcical trial ; and " a fair opportunity " for destroying their party was discovered in the petition, now some nine months old, regarding Wheelwright. The three Boston deputies, because they had "agreed to the petition," were expelled from the Court and banished from the colony ; six other leading citizens were disfranchised ; and the remaining signers, seventy-six in number, were disarmed. 1 At the same time the arsenal of the colony was removed from Boston. In this persecution the Massachusetts Puritans were not behind their age: they merely were not in advance' 2 in this respect. In England the Puritan Long Parliament in 1641, demanding reform in the church., protested that it did not favor toleration : " We do declare it is far from our purpose to let loose the golden reins of discipline and government in the church, to leave private persons or particular congregations to take up what form of divine service they please. For we hold it requisite that there should be throughout the whole realm a conformity to that order which the laws enjoin." On the other hand, a few far-seeing men did reach to loftier vision. In that same year, Lord Brooke wrote nobly in a treatise on religion: "The individual should have liberty. No power on earth should force his practice. One that doubts with reason and humility may not, for aught I see, be forced by violence. . . . Fire and water may be restrained; but light cannot. It will in at every cranny. Now to 1 Fifty-eight of them lived in Boston ; the rest, scattered in five other towns. The Court pretended to justify this insult by referring to the excesses of the Munster Anabaptists of a century earlier (Modern History, § 208, note) : " Insomuch as there is just cause for suspition that they, as others in Germany in former times, may, upon some revelation, make a suddaine irruption upon those that differ with them," runs the preamble of the disarming order, with a sly dig at Mrs. Hutchinson's " revelations." And now Boston church was brought back into the fold. Taking advantage of the temporary absence of twelve more of the leaders of the congregation, Cotton and Winthrop succeeded in browbeating the cowed and leaderless society into excommunicating Mrs. Hutchinson. Says Winthrop, after telling the story: "At this time, the good providence of God so disposing, divers of the congregation (being the chief men of that party, her husband being one) were gone to Narragansett to seek out a new place for plantation." This assumption of divine help in a political trick is the most unlovely sentence Winthrop ever penned. 2 See Source Book, Nos. 84-86, on this whole matter. RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION 109 stint it is [to-morrow] to resist an enlightened and inflamed multi- tude. . . . Can we not dissent in judgment, but we must also disagree in affec- tion?" In America Roger Williams caught this truth clearly, and made it the foundation principle of his great experiment in Rhode Island (§ 86). For Further Reading. — The suggestions on page 43 regarding use of the Source Book are particularly applicable to all the study of Massa- chusetts. Secondary material should include at least Channing's History of the United States, I, 322-437. The most careful constitutional study is Osgood's American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century. An anti- Puritan viewpoint may be found in Brooks Adams' Emancipation of Massachusetts. Eggleston's Beginners of a Nation has admirable treatments of the Williams and the Hutchinson episodes. Twichell's John Winthrop, Straus' Boyer Williams, and Walker's Thomas Hooker are excellent brief biographies ; and interesting material will be found in Alice Morse Earle's Customs and Fashions in Old New England. • t/^%.< IV - OTHER NEW ENGLAND COLONIES JJ By 1640, when the great migration came to an end (§ 60), there were five colonies in New England besides Plym- outh and Massachusetts. English proprietors had founded fishing stations on the coasts of Maine and New Hampshire, and these settlements had been reinforced and Puritanized by Hutchinson sympathizers from Massachusetts. 1 The New Haven group of towns began with a Puritan migration from England in 1638. This colony closely resembled Massachu- setts; but it had in its make-up something more of an Old- Testament commonwealth, and something less of aristocracy. The two remaining colonies, Rhode Island and Connecticut, represented new ideals and played new parts in history. Each ivas born of rebellion against one part of the Massachusetts ideal : Rhode Island, against theocracy ; Connecticut, against aristocracy. In the long run the great Massachusetts plan broke down ; while these two little protesting colonies laid broad and deep 1 Soon after 1640, both these colonies came for a time under Massachusetts jurisdiction. Both were democratic in society. Seethe interesting "Exeter Agreement" in Source Book, No. 46, addendum. 110 RHODE ISLAND TO 1663 the foundations of America. Roger Williams in Rhode Island was the apostle of modern religions liberty ; and Thomas Hooker in Connecticut was the apostle of modern democracy. A. Rhode Island 86. Williams founded the town of Providence in the spring of 1636 (§84). From the Indians he bought a tract of land, and deeded it in joint ownership to twelve companions " and to such others as the major part of us shall admit into the same fellowship." Later comers, during the summer, signed an agreement to submit themselves " only in civil things,' 7 to orders made for the public good by the town fellowship, — in which they are freely granted an equal voice. " Civil " m this passage is used in its common English sense in that day, as opposed to "ecclesiastical." The point to the agreement is that the people did not purpose to submit to interference in religious matters by the government. No opportunity was lost to assert this doctrine. Tn i\ yU Williams secured from the Long Parliament a "Patent" authorizing the Rhode Island settlements to rule themselves "by such a form of civill government," and to make "such civill laws and constitutions " " as by the voluntary consent of all, or the greater part of them, they shall find most suitable to their estate and condition." Then, in 1663, when the colony received its first royal charter (§ 98), the fundamental idea was made yet more explicit: — " Whereas it is much on their hearts," says a preamble, quoting the petition of the colonists, " to hold forth a livelie experiment that a most flourishing civill state may stand . . . with a full libertie in religious con- cernments," accordingly, " noe person within the sayd colonye, at any tyme hereafter, shall bee any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences in opinione in matters 6f religion, and [i.e. provided he] doe not actually disturb the civill peace." J 1 Williams' opinion upon the possibility of maintaining civil order without compelling uniformity in religion is set forth admirably in his figure of a ship, where all, passengers and seamen, must obey the captain in matters of naviga- tion, though all need not attend the ship's prayers (Source Book, No. 90). RELIGIOUS FREEDOM 111 The practice of the colony kept to the high level of these professions. During the Commonwealth, Massachusetts com- plained that Rhode Island sheltered Quakers, who then swarmed across her borders to annoy her neighbors. Williams disliked the Quakers heartily ; but he now replied that they ought to be punished only when they had actually disturbed the peace, and not merely for being Quakers. " We have no law/' ran this noble argument, " to punish any for declaring by words their minds concerning the ways and things of God." Massa- chusetts threatened interference. The smaller colony appealed to Cromwell, praying, — " Whatever fortune may befall us, let us not be compelled to exercise power over men's consciences." In Rhode Island, religious freedom was not a mere means to timorous toleration, as in Maryland (§42). The chief purpose of this social " ex- ~ periment" was to prove that such freedom was compatible with orderly govern- ment and good morals. For a time there was much of turbulence in the colony. Providence became a "crank's paradise," "New England's dumping ground for the disorderly and excentric elements of her popula- tion." But with clear-eyed faith Williams and his friends persisted, and finally the great experiment worked itself out. 1 ^33^ B. Connecticut A, 87. Democratic Purpose. — Three Massachusetts towns had been especially prominent in the struggle against aristocracy, — Watertown, Dorchester, and Newtown. 2 In 1635-1636, dis- satisfied with their incomplete victory, the people of these towns made a new migration to the Connecticut valley, to try their own experiment of a democratic state. 3 1 For a partial surrender of this ideal later, see § 110, note. 2 Some instances of Watertown and Dorchester democracy have been given (§§63,68,71). With regard to Newtown, it was said that the people there " grew very jealous of their liberties " soon after the arrival of their pastor, Hooker, from England. 8 When the seceding towns enumerated their reasons for the migration, they put emphasis upon " the strong bent of our spirits to remove." This surely has reference to their dissatisfaction with the existing regime in Massachusetts. But other motives had part in the movement, — among them, a desire for the 112 CONNECTICUT TO 1662 The inspirer of this movement was Thomas Hooker, pastor of Newtown. Hooker became to Connecticut even more than Cot- ton to Massachusetts. These two great clerical leaders were widely different in their lives and feelings. Cotton belonged to the aristocratic English gentry. Hooker's father was a yeoman. He himself had been a menial " sizar " 1 at Cambridge Univer- sity, and his wife had been a ladies' maid. By birth and asso- ciation, as well as by conviction, he was a man of the people. 2 Over against the aristocratic doctrines of the great Massachu- setts leaders, Hooker stated admirably the case for democracy. When Winthrop wrote to him that democracy was "unwarrantable " because " the best part is always the least, and of that best part the wiser part is always the lesser," Hooker replied : " In matters . . . that concern the common good, a general council chosen by all, to transact business which concerns all, I conceive . . . most suitable to rule and most safe for relief of the whole." Winthrop and Cotton taught that the magistrates' au- thority had some undefined divine sanction (§63). Hooker preached a great political sermon to teach that (1) "the foundation of authority is laid in the consent of the governed'''' ; (2) the choice of magistrates belongs to the people " ; and (3) " those who have power to appoint officers, have also the right to set bounds to their authority. " Democratic theory found here its first clear expositor in America. Fiske calls Hooker " the father of American democracy." Alexander Johnston says, " It is under the mighty preaching of Thomas Hooker . . . that we draw the first breath of that atmosphere now so familiar to us ; the birthplace of American democracy is Hartford." JrfO 88. Constitution and Government. — For a time the three ^r* Connecticut towns kept their Massachusetts names. Later, they were known as Hartford, Wethersfield, and Windsor. At first they recognized a vague authority in certain commissioners appointed over them by Massachusetts ; but each town managed more fertile land of the valley. The journey through the forests, with women and children, herds, and household goods, was the first of the overland pil- grimages which were to become so characteristic of American life. 1 This term will be familiar to students who know Tom Brown at Oxford. 2 Sixty years later, the gossipy Cotton Mather insinuated that Hooker in- stigated the Connecticut migration because he was jealous of Cotton's fame in Massachusetts. This seems to be a wholly gratuitous slander, without a particle of evidence back of it, — although many later writers have repeated it. DEMOCRACY 113 freely its own local affairs, and, in 1639, an independent central government was provided by a mass meeting of the inhabit- ants of the colony. This gathering adopted a set of eleven "Fundamental Orders," — "the first written constitution" in the modern sense. 1 The document set up a plan of govern- ment similar to that which had been worked out in Massachu- setts, emphasizing, however, all democratic features found there and adding a few of its own. The " supreme power of the Commonwealth" was placed in a "Generall Courte" of deputies and magistrates. 2 The deputies were chosen by their respective towns. The magistrates corresponded to the Massa- chusetts "Assistants" or the Virginia "Council." They were nominated in a way more democratic than Massachusetts had then used, but which was soon imitated there (§ 78), and were elected at a " Courte of Elections," for one year only, by papers, just as the like officers in Massachusetts had been chosen since 1635. The governor held office for one year only, and he could not serve two terms in succession. 3 He had no veto, and in two other respects he lacked authority usually pos- sessed by an English executive : (1) the General Court could not be dissolved except by its own vote ; and (2) it could be elected and brought together, on occasion, without the governor's sum- mons. 4 The right of the General Court is expressly asserted to " call into question" magistrate or governor, and even (in modern phrase) to "recall" them during their short term of office. 1 The document deserves study (Source Book, No. 93, with comment). 2 They sat in one House until 1098. The constitution, however, guaranteed to the deputies the right of caucusing by themselves (as had come to pass in Massachusetts), and the power to judge of their own elections. 3 The democratic party had tried in vain to establish this rule by practice in Massachusetts. 4 In Massachusetts, the revolutionary General Court of 1634 had decreed that the legislature should be dissolved only by its own vote ; but the right of the legislature to come together without executive sanction was a new thing in all English history. The revolutionary Long Parliament tried to establish both these democratic measures two years later in England. Cf. § 38 for Virginia. This is an early example of the way in which the newer, progressive American communities have always reacted upon the older communities. 114 CONFEDERATION OF NEW ENGLAND The franchise was never restricted to church members, as in Massachusetts. At first it was regulated by the towns : any one whom a town allowed to vote in town meeting could vote also at colonial elections. In 1659 the General Court set up a property qualification : no one could be made a " freeman," according to this law, unless he were possessed of thirty pounds' worth of property, real or personal. Even in democratic Con- necticut this qualification stood, with slight change, until long after the American Revolution; but it was not necessary to own land in order to vote, as in Virginia or Maryland. 89. Connecticut did not intend to reject theocracy. Hooker be- lieved in a Bible commonwealth as zealously as Cotton did, though he understood his Bible differently on political matters. The governor had to be a member of a church ; the preamble of the Orders states the first purpose of the government to be the maintaining of " the discipline of the churches, which according to the truth of the gospell is now practiced amongst us" ; and the code of 1650 authorizes the government "to see [that] the force, ordinances, and rules of Christe bee observed in every Church according to his word." In actual fact, the General Court did, at times, place ministers, define their powers, and even decide who should be admitted to the sacraments. So far as the old theocracy was weakened at all in Connecticut, that weakening came incidentally, as a result of the democratic ideal. V. THE NEW ENGLAND FEDERATION 90. Origin. — The New England colonies had hardly estab- lished themselves in the wilderness before they began a movement toward federal union. The Connecticut valley was claimed by the Dutch of New Netherlands. Moreover, the English settlers in the valley found themselves at once in- volved in war with the Pequods. Connecticut felt keenly the need of protection by the other English colonies, and, in 1637, the leaders proposed to Massachusetts a federal compact. 1 1 Hooker of Connecticut was present at Boston in the synod of elders which had been called to condemn Mrs. Hutchinson, and it was at this time that the proposal was made. A sort of ecclesiastical union preceded the idea of political union. ORIGIN AND CONSTITUTION 115 For the moment the negotiations fell through because of States-rights jealousy. Much as Connecticut feared Dutchman and Indian, she feared interference in her own affairs hardly less, and hesitated to intrust any real authority to a central government. But, in 1643, commissioners from Massachu- setts, Connecticut, New Haven, and Plymouth met at Boston, and, after considerable deliberation, organized the New England Confederation} 91. The Articles of Confederation 2 established "a firm and perpetual league." Each colony was to keep its " peculiar juris- diction." For matters of common concern, there was created a congress of eight commissioners, two from each of the con- federating colonies, elected annually, with " full power from their severall General! Courtes respectively " to determine upon war or peace, divide spoils, admit new confederates, and manage "all things of like nature, which are the proper con- comitants or consequents of such a Confederation for amity, offence, and defence, not intermedlinq with the Government of any of the Jurisdictions, ivhich . . . is reserved entirely to them- selves" The vote of six commissioners was to be final in all matters ; but if in any case six could not agree, then the mat- ter was to be referred to the several colonial " Courts " for negotiation between them. Special provision was made for the surrender of fugitive criminals or " servants " escaping 1 Rhode Island and the New Hampshire towns asked in vain for admission to the union. The leaders of Massachusetts were wont to refer to Rhode Island as " that sewer " ; and regarding the exclusion of New Hampshire, Winthrop wrote : " They ran a different course from us, both in their ministry and civil administration . . . for they . . . had made a tailor their mayor and had enter- tained one Hull, an excommunicated person, and very contentious, to be their minister." 2 This document should be studied (Source Book, No. 94). The date sug- gests an important relation between English and American history. The union of the colonies without sanction from England was really a serious defiance of authority. The United States would not permit such a sub- ordinate union between a group of the States to-day. But war had just broken out in England between King Charles and the Puritans. Accordingly, the colonies could excuse themselves (as they did) on the ground of necessity, since the home government was temporarily unable to protect them ; while 116 CONFEDERATION OF NEW ENGLAND from one colony to another, and for arbitration of differences that might arise between any two colonies of the union. 92. Nullification. — This document compares well with the constitution of any earlier confederation in history. Its weak points were common to all previous unions. In practice, the great difficulty arose from the fact that one of the confederates was much larger than the others. Each of the three smaller colonies had about three thousand people : Massachusetts alone had fifteen thousand. Consequently she bore two thirds of all burdens, while she had only a fourth share in the govern- ment. The Bay Colony strove persistently to secure some precedence in the federal congress, — Jthe right to preside or to vote first, — and in 1648 she made an earnest demand for three commissioners. The smaller states unanimously resisted such claims. Under these conditions, the Bay Colony soon became dis- satisfied. In 1653 six of the federal commissioners voted a levy of five hundred men for war upon New Netherlands. Massachusetts, which was to furnish most of the men, felt least interested in the war ; and her General Court refused to obey the requisition. In the language of later times, she nullified the act of the federal congress. 1 After this, the commissioners were plainly only an advisory body. Then the absorption of New Haven by Connecticut, in 1662-1664, weakened the confederation still further; and it finally disappeared when Massachusetts lost her charter in 1684 (§§ 98-101). For Further Reading. — See suggestions on page 109. • Exercise. — Who chose the governor of Massachusetts colony in 1629 ? ___ il f ; really they were influenced still more by the fact that it could not interfere. The preamble to the Articles states all other motives for the union ad-. / mirably, but, naturally, it omits this last consideration. This is an illustra- tion of the fact that official " sources" sometimes omit the most significant matters, — which the historian must read in, between the lines 1 Source Boo k, Nos. 95, 96. NULLIFICATION BY MASSACHUSETTS 117 in 1631 ? in 1635 ? Who was the first governor of the colony ? of the Company ? When*was representative government established in Massa- chusetts ? After that event, why were the deputies more democratic than the Assistants? (Four or five distinct reasons.) When did the two orders separate into two Houses ? What intermediate forms of organiza- tion did they try between a one-House and a two-House plan ? While they sat together, what were the chief matters of difference between them ? How did Cotton's doctrine that it was wrong not to reelect a magistrate year after year differ from our modern idea of "civil service reform " f A man arrives in Boston in 1635 : under what conditions and by what steps can he become a "freeman" ? By what different devices was a union between church and state maintained in Massachusetts ? Give instances of political influence by Massachusetts ministers. Distin- guish between the ideals of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Distinguish between the id»als of Connecticut and Plymouth. What powers have been mentioned as exercised in Massachusetts which were not authorized by the charter of 1629? Name four limitations upon the usual power of a colonial governor in the Connecticut Fundamental Orders. How many of the "theme sentences" at the head of chap- ters or divisions can you repeat? What other phrases or passages in your reading have you found worthy of exact memorizing? Note instances in the history so far of the aristocratic classes trying indirectly to regain power which they had agreed to surrender. What distinction can you make, for Massachusetts history, between the colonial franchise and the local franchise ? If the class have access to the Source Book, let members phrase questions based upon material found there and not covered in this text, — especially as to town government. Let each member of the class make a list of ten questions on New England for brief answers by others of the class. CHAPTER III ENGLISH AMERICA FROM 1660 TO 1690 I. GENERAL TENDENCIES 93. The "Restoration" of Charles II in England began a new era for the English race ; but the two divisions of English- men on opposite sides of the Atlantic encountered very dif- ferent fates. In England itself, the second Stuart period (1660-1688) was a time of infamy and peril. In America, it was singularly progressive and attractive. For the first time the government of the home land took an active part in fostering the plantations ; and the separate colonies first began to have a common history. Three great characteristics mark the period : a. English territory in America is greatly expanded and con- solidated. b. The English government establishes its first real " colonial department" to regulate colonial affairs and to draw the planta- tions into a closer dependence upon England. c. This new attitude of the home government, both in its wise and unwise applications, stirs the colonists to a new in- sistence upon their rights of self-government. Thus there develops an " irrepressible conflict" between the natural and wholesome English demand for imperial unity and the even more in- dispensable American demand for local freedom. Of this struggle the culminating and most picturesque episodes are Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia (§ 105) and the Andros incident in New England (§ 100). The conflict was intensified by evil traits on both sides, — by the personal despotic inclinations of the sovereign and of some of his chosen agents in the colonies, and by pettiness and ignorance on the part of the colo- 118 i ■ ■ ■ ENGLISH AMERICA 1660-1690 English settlement, 1660 Dutch settlement. 1660 Swedish settlement, 1660 Limit of English occupation in 1690 i W 4- SELF-GOVERNMENT PRESERVED 119 nists ; and each party was blinded to what was good in the aims of the other. Still, the unquenchable determination of the colonists to manage their own affairs, even though inspired in part by narrow prejudice, is the central fact of the period. If we characterize the period by one phrase, we may best call it the era of the struggle to preserve self-government. 94. Territorial Expansion. — In 1660 the English held two patches of coast on the continent of North America; one, about the Chesapeake, the other, east of the Hudson. These two groups of settlements were separated by hundreds of miles of wilderness and by Dutch and Swedish possessions. Moreover, for more than twenty years no new English colony had been founded. Twenty years later the English colonies formed an unbroken band from the Penobscot to the Savannah. 1 To the south of Virginia the Carolinas had been added (1663) ; to the north of Maryland appeared the splendid colony of Pennsylvania (1681) ; while meantime the rest of the old intermediate region had become English by conquest (New York, New Jersey, and Delaware), and all the colonies had broadened their area of settlement toward the interior. Popu- lation rose from 60,000 in 1660 to 250,000 in 1690. 95. A Colonial System. — This transformation, from isolated patches of settlement into a continuous colonial empire, brought home to English rulers the need of a uniform colonial policy and of new machinery for carrying out a policy. The colonial " Council " of Charles I (§ 61), and a similar body appointed by the Long Parliament, had exercised no real control. In 1655 the conquest of Jamaica by Cromwell's government called forth from one of his officials certain " Overtures touching a Councill to bee erected for foraigne Plantations," suggesting various measures to make the colonies " understand . . . that their Head and Centre is Heere." After the Restoration this document seems to have secured the approval of the King; certainly much of it is incorporated in the Instructions issued by him for his new " Councill appointed for Forraigne Planta- tions " in 1660. 1 See map facing page 147. 120 ENGLISH AMERICA, 1660 TO 1690 This body contained many of the greatest men of the time. It was instructed to inform itself of the state of the planta- tions and of the colonial policies of other countries ; to secure copies of the colonial charters and of the laws and regulations in force under them ; and to have a general oversight of all colonial matters. In particular it was to endeavor " that the severall collonies bee drawn . . . into a more certaine, civill, and uniform waie of Government and distribution of publick Justice, in which they are at present scandalously defective" The creation of this "colonial department" marks the definite estab- lishment of a colonial policy which had its roots, in nearly all respects, in the Commonwealth period and which endured for a century longer. The fact that it remained so consistent, amid the many vicissitudes of English politics, "whether the ruler was called Oliver or Charles or William or George," suggests strongly that it grew out of actual needs. During the period now under consideration, the Council was hard-working, honest, and well-meaning ; but it was necessarily ignorant of the affairs, and out of touch with the people, that it was trying to rule. Its three great objects were : (1) greater uniformity and economy in colonial administration ; (2) more efficient military defense ; and (3) new commercial regulations, in the interest of the empire as a whole (§ 96). 1 96. Navigation Acts. — In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, European countries valued colonies (1) as a source of goods not readily produced at home, and (2) as a secure market for home manufactures. Consequently each colonizing country adopted " navigation acts " to restrict the trade of its colonies exclusively to itself. Without the prospect of such restrictions, it would not have seemed worth while to any one to found colonies at all. By modern standards, all these com- mercial systems were absurd and more or less tyrannical ; but, on the commercial as on the political side, the English system ivas more enlightened, and far less selfish and harsh, than that of Holland or France or Spain. 1 In 1674 the first "Council for Foreign Plantations " was succeeded by the " Lords of Trade," and in 1696 by the permanent " Board of Trade and Planta- tions." The first commission, of 1660, is in the Source Book, No. 99. See also Nos. 110, a and 111, a for work of the Council. THE NAVIGATION ACTS 121 At the other end of the scale was Spain. 1 For two hundred years all commerce from Spanish America could pass to the outer world only- through Spain, and through only one Spanish port, — first Seville, and afterward Cadiz. Worse still, until 1748, goods could be imported from Europe through only the one favored port in Old Spain, and, for all the wide-lying New Spain in North and South America, to only two Ameri- can ports, and at special times. Two fleets sailed each year from Spain, — one to Porto Bello on the Isthmus, for all the South American trade ; the other to Vera Cruz in Mexico. All other trade, even between the separate Spanish colonies, was prohibited under penalty of death. From the most distant districts, — Chile or Argentina, — goods for export had to be carried to Porto Bello to meet the annual fleet. Then was held a forty-days' fair, to exchange the European imports for precious metals, tropical woods, and hides. By this arrangement, in many parts of South America, the prices of European commodities were increased to five or six times the natural amount, while the products with which the colonies paid were robbed of value by the cost of transportation. There were no legal restrictions upon raising cattle in the vast plains of the Argentine, but all natural outlets for the products were closed ; and when those products had been carried across the continent to Peru, thence by sea to Panama, again across the Isthmus to Porto Bello, and (one chance a year) from that port to Seville, their value had vanished. In the early years of the eighteenth century, at Buenos Aires, an ox was worth a dollar, and a sheep three or four cents ; and values had risen to this point only be- cause of a considerable contraband trade that had sprung up, in spite of the terrible penalties. To go from Spain to America, except to a few favored places, was not merely to go into exile, but to renounce civilization. The restrictions on trade prevented the colonists from start- ing with the achievements of European civilization, and drove them back, in many cases, to the barbarism of the natives. Compared with this sort of thing, England's policy was modern. Eng- lish statesmen did not aim consciously to benefit the home island at the expense of the plantations. They hoped to make the parts of the empire mutually helpful. Their extreme intra-imperial system of " protection " was designed to render the empire as a whole self-supporting and eco- nomically independent of the rest of the world. 2 1 This paragraph is condensed from the admirable account in Bernard Moses' Establishment of Spanish Rule in America, 20-26 and 285-292. 2 Much the same motives as those which influenced Clay and Calhoun in establishing "protection" in the United States after the War of 1812 (§ 279). 122 ENGLISH AMERICA, 1660 TO 1690 As a continuous system, this policy began with the so-called "First JSTavigation Act" of 1660. l This law had two purposes. The original and main one was semi-military, to increase the shipping of the empire. For forty years, most European goods, even most English goods, had been carried to the colonies by Dutch vessels. England's navy had sunk low. But the safety of the island and of her colonies rested upon command of the seas. In that day, commercial vessels were transformed easily into war vessels ; and to build up a merchant marine was a natural measure of naval protection. Accordingly this law provided that all trade between England and the colonies should be carried only in ships owned, and, for the most part, manned, by Englishmen or colonials. 2 This part of the Act was eminently successful. Holland's carrying trade, and her naval supremacy, received a deadly blow. Nor did these provisions in any way discriminate against the colonies in the interest of England. Kather it directly benefited them, especially the northern ones. Temporarily, trade suffered from lack of ships, and from consequent high freights ; but the Act created the great shipbuilding industry of New England. In less than twenty years the colonies were selling ships to England. * By 1720 Massachusetts alone launched 150 ships a year, and the shipbuilders of England were petitioning parliament, in vain, for protection against this invasion upon their ancient industry. The carrying trade of the empire also passed largely into the hands of New Englanders ; and this trade was protected by the English war navy, to which the colonists contributed only a few masts from their forests. A second part of the law (added at the last moment by amendment) somewhat restricted exports. Certain enumerated 1 The germs of the policy are found in the tariff provisions of the first charters and in the restrictions on the early Virginia tobacco trade ; and it appears well developed in a law of the Long Parliament in 1651 (never en- forced) , which was the immediate model for the Act of 1660. 2 " . . . ships which truly . . . belong to the people of England or Ireland ... or are built of and belonging to any of the said Plantations or Terri- tories . . . and whereof the master and three fourths of the mariners at least are English." The word "English " always included all the subjects of the English crown, and therefore the colonials. In this case the word was specif- ically defined in this sense by a supplemental Act two years later. See Source Book for both laws (No. 100, a and note). i THE NAVIGATION ACTS 123 articles, — sugar, tobacco, cotton-wool, ginger, fustic and other dyewoods, — were thereafter to be carried from a colony only to England or another English colony. These "enumerated articles " were all semi-tropical ; and tobacco was the only one produced for export at that time on the continent of North America. New England could still send her lumber, furs, fish, oil, and rum to any part of the world — if only they were car- ried in her own or English ships. For the restriction on to- bacco, too, England gave an offset. She forbade her citizens to raise that commodity or import it from foreign colonies, so as to give Virginia and Maryland a monopoly of her market. The import trade was first restricted by the Navigation Act of 1663. Thereafter, it was ordered, all European goods must pass to the colonies only through English ports. This act was designed to keep colonial trade from falling into the hands of other countries. It increased the profits of English mer- chants ; but, to guard the colonists against paying double taxes, a rebate of the English import duties was allowed on all goods reshipped for the colonies. 1 This was as far as the system went in the Stuart period, (i) The subtropical colonies could export their products only to England or other English colonies ; (2) all imports to the colonies must come through Eng- land; (3) all ships in the colonial trade must be English or colonial. A Massachusetts ship could still carry any product of that colony to any part of the world, exchange for goods there, carry these goods to England, and then " reship " them for an American port, or exchange them for other European goods in the English markets, to be then carried to America. Says Channing {United States of America, Cambridge series, 32) : " It is impossible to say whether the net result of the system . . . was in favor of Great Britain or the colonies.'' Certainly, whenever the restric- tions on the import trade were seriously troublesome, they were evaded by smuggling. In 1700, it is estimated, one third the trade of New York was of this character. 1 In 16G0 tariff duties, both for the colonies and for England, had been im- posed on a long list of goods. In the colonies, however, this Act vias always practically a dead letter. There was no proper machinery to enforce it ; and no serious attempt was made to do so. 124 NEW ENGLAND, 1660 TO 1690 For Further Reading . — The best brief treatment of the general phases of this period is Andrews' Colonial Self- Government, 3-40. See also Channing's History of the United States, II, 1-13. Osgood's English Colonies, III, gives much material. II. THE COLONIES BY SECTIONS, 1660-1690 A. New England 97. Early Disturbances. — At his accession, Charles II found himself beset with accusations against Massachusetts. In 1656 Quakers had appeared in that colony. Three, who per- sisted in returning after banishment, had been hanged, while several others, women among them, had been flogged brutally. The Quakers complained to Charles, and he ordered the colony to send all the imprisoned Quakers to England for trial. But the men of Massachusetts were resolved to permit no appeal from their own courts. They chose rather to empty the jails before the royal order came, and temporarily to drop the persecution. 1 The King was irritated also by learning that Massachusetts had usurped the right to coin money (the famous "Pine Tree Shillings"), and that two of the "regicide n judges who had passed sentence on his father were sheltered in New England. Worst of all, perhaps, the Bay Colony dis- regarded the Navigation Acts, and, in 1661, even adopted a daring resolution styling such legislation " an infringement of our rights." 1 Afterward, for a time, the persecution was renewed with Charles' approval, though no more executions took place. Imprisonments and whippings were the common fate of Quakers in England and in all the other colonies of that time except Rhode Island. It must be borne in mind that these Quakers were not the quiet, sober brethren of later times. Many of them were half-mad fanatics. " It was a little hard," says Lowell, " to know what to do with a woman who persisted in interrupting your honored minister in his sermon, calling him Priest of Baal, and breaking empty bottles over his head " (in sign of his emptiness). None the less, the three executions remain a bloody blot on the fame of Massachusetts. Nowhere else was a death penalty inflicted by law. It does seem a little strained, however, to speak, as a recent historian does, of " wholesale hangings " of Quakers in Massachusetts. The Source Book, No. 88, gives some interesting documents from the Quaker side. LIBERAL CHARTERS 125 For the moment, however, Charles contented himself with demanding (1) that an oath of allegiance be taken in the colony ; (2) that the Episcopalian service be permitted ;• and (3) that the franchise be extended to all men orthodox in religion and " of competent estate." The colony complied-with the first demand, ignored the second, and evaded the third. An act of General Court did provide that a non-churchmember might be made a freeman, if his orthodoxy and good character were testified to by the minister of his town and if he paid a ten-shilling " rate n (local tax). But the Puritan ministers gave few such certificates to those outside their own folds, and it is doubtful whether under the existing system of taxation many men were called upon to pay ten shillings in a single rate. At all events, the number of freemen did not materially increase. 98. New Liberal Charters. — Connecticut, New Haven, and Rhode Island were all without any lawful standing in England. The people were squatters, and the governments unauthorized. Now that order was restored in England, it was plain that something must be done. All three colonies sent agents to England to secure royal charters. Connecticut and Rhode Island were successful almost beyond belief. They were left with very complete self-government, to be exercised practically as during the preceding period. In neither colony did the crown reserve the appointment of a governor or of any other important official. This remarkable liberality was due, pre- sumably, partly to the careless good nature of Charles in the early portion of his reign ; partly to the general enthusiasm among English officials just then for all colonial projects; and partly, perhaps, to a willingness to build up other New Eng- land governments to offset the stiff-necked Bay Colony. All that the Massachusetts charter had become through its un- sanctioned transfer to America and the stress of circumstances, — this and more these new charters were from the first. They created the body of settlers a "corporation upon the place," and sanctioned advanced democratic organization. ( Source Book, Nos. 97, 98. ) With good reason they were cherished and venerated. At the time of the Revolution they re- 126 NEW ENGLAND, 1660 TO 1690 ceived the name of constitutions ; and they continued in force without other alteration, in Connecticut until 1818, and in Rhode Island until 1842. A glance at the map shows sufficient reason why New Haven and Connecticut should not both receive charters. The question was which should swallow the other. New Haven used little diplomacy in her negotiations ; ] and possibly she was too much of the Massachusetts type to find favor in any case. Her territory was included in the Connecticut grant, and thus was begun the process of consolidation which was soon to be tried on a larger scale. 99. Continued Friction with Massachusetts. — Church of Eng- land men in Massachusetts continued to complain that for thirty years they had been deprived of civil and religious rights ; and in 1664 Charles sent commissioners to regulate affairs in New England. Receiving scant welcome in Massa- chusetts, they passed on to the smaller colonies and to the conquest of New Netherlands from the Dutch, with whom England was now at war. Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Plymouth recognized the authority of the commissioners cordially, 2 and permitted them to hear appeals from colonial courts. This matter of appeals (§ 98) was a chief point in their in- structions. It was to be the means of enforcing royal authority. But upon their return to Boston, they were completely thwarted. After some weeks of futile discussion, the commissioners an- nounced a day when they would sit as a court of appeals. At sunrise on that day, by order of the magistrates, a crier, with trumpet, passed through the city, warning all citizens against recognizing the court. No one of the discontented ventured to disobey the stern Puritan government, and the chagrined commissioners returned to England, recommending the over- throw of the Massachusetts charter. 1 See Johnston's Connecticut for material for an interesting report. 2 In New Hampshire they were hailed as deliverers by certain " petitioners," presumably Episcopalian, who complained of being " kept under Massachu- setts by an usurped power, whose laws are derogatory to the laws of Eng- land. Under which power, five or six of the richest men of the parish have ruled and ordered all offices, civil and military, at their pleasure, engrossing into their own hands the greatest part of the lands within this plantation." THE RULE OF ANDROS 127 But the next year the victorious Dutch fleet was in the Thames. Then came the great London fire and the plague, with various political distractions for Charles at home. The Colonial Board did repeatedly order Massachusetts to send an agent to England to arrange a settlement ; but the colony pro- crastinated stubbornly, and for ten years with success. In 1675, however, the great Indian outbreak, known as King Philip's War, weakened Massachusetts. Just at this time, King Charles, entering upon a more despotic period at home, began to act more vigorously toward the colonies also ; 1 and in 1684 the highest English court declared the charter of 1629 forfeited and void. 100. Rule of Andros. — The Lords of Trade had decided that to have so many independent governments " without a more immediate dependence upon the crown " was " prejudicial " to England's interest. They drew up a plan for the union of Massachusetts, Plymouth, and the Maine and New Hampshire towns, under one strong royal government. They would gladly have included Connecticut and Rhode Island, and so consolidated all New England into one province; but charters stood in the way. Unlike Massachusetts, the two smaller colonies had given little excuse for legal proceedings against them. Still, writs of quo-warranto were issued against their charters, but success in even the Stuart courts was doubtful. Meantime Charles died ; and, with high-handed tyranny, James II forced the union. He appointed Sir Edmund Andros governor-general of all New England, and instructed him to set aside the legal governments of Connecticut and Rhode Island by force. The original plan of the Lords of Trade had included one elected legislature for consolidated New England, and a royal governor-general. The King struck out the representative element, leaving the government despotic 2 as well as unified. x The Source Book (No. 110, a) gives Randolph's report of 1676. 2 This was done despite the declaration of the attorney-general in Engird that the colonists had the right " to consent to such laws and taxes as should be made or imposed on them." 128 NEW ENGLAND, 1660 TO 1690 He also once more extended the territory to which the plan should apply. He was already proprietor of New York and New Jersey, and these colonies were soon consolidated with New England under the rule of Andros. Andros was a bluff, hot-tempered soldier, but not brutal, nor tyrannical beyond his instructions. He was commander of the soldiery he brought with him and of the colonial militia ; and, with the consent of an appointed council, he was authorized to lay taxes, make laws, administer justice, and grant lands. His management of military affairs was admirable, and the colonists gave him scant credit for the services he rendered in protecting them against serious Indian danger. In other matters it was inevitable that he should clash violently with the settlers. No one act offended the Puritans more bitterly than his not unreasonable insistence that Episcopalian services should be held on at least part of each Sunday in one of the Boston churches. Land titles, too, were a fruitful source of irritation. In granting lands and recording titles, the colonies had paid little attention to the forms of English law or to any desirable precaution against future confusion. 1 Andros and his council now provided for surveys, and compelled old holders to take out new deeds, with small fees for registration. They treated all the common lands, too, as crown land. More serious to the modern student seems the total dis- appearance of self-government and even of civil rights. Andros ordered the old taxes to be continued. Some Massachusetts towns resisted, notably Ipswich, where a town meeting voted that such method of raising taxes "did infringe their liberty as free-born English subjects." The offenders were tried for " se- ditious votes and writings,'- not before the usual courts, but by a special commission. The jury was packed and browbeaten 2 i Cf . Source Book, No. 89. 2 The presiding judge bullied jury and defendants, telling them that "the laws of England would not follow them to the ends of the earth. . . . The King's subjects in New England did not differ much from slaves, and the only- difference was that they were not bought and sold." NEW ENGLAND AND WILLIAM III 129 into a verdict of guilty, and leading citizens who had joined in this opposition to tyranny were imprisoned and ruinously fined. This period of absolute government lasted two years and a half. It seems beyond doubt that rebellion was prepar- ing. Under ordinary conditions a rising would have been put down bloodily. Thanks to the " Glorious Revolution " of 1688 in Old England, 1 the rising when it came was successful and bloodless. In April, 1689, came the news that James II was a fugitive. The new king, William of Orange, had issued a "Declaration," inviting all boroughs in England, and all officials unjustly deprived of charters and positions by James, to resume their former powers. The colonists assumed that this sanctioned similar action by them also. The people of Boston and the surrounding towns rose at once, seized the fort and a war vessel in the harbor, imprisoned Andros, and re- established the government according to the old charter. In like manner, Connecticut and Rhode Island revived their former charter governments. 101. The Settlement of 1689-1691. — Though a constitutional monarch, William III would have been glad to continue part of the Stuart policy in America. Hewished, so far as possible, to consolidate small jurisdictions into large ones, and to infuse vigor and unity into the administration by keeping the executive and judiciary in each colony dependent upon himself. The Connecticut and Rhode Island charters stood in the way of a complete rearrangement along these lines. The King's legal advisers assured him that those grants remained valid, since the legal proceedings against them had never been completed. Massachusetts, however, did not fare so well. Her charter had been surrendered, and there was no legal obstacle to such a re- organization there as the King and the Board of Trade desired The colony strove strenuously and skillfully 2 to obtain a re-grant 1 Modern History, §§ 249, 250. 2 To conciliate William, the promised reform in the franchise was at last made effective. The certificate of a clergyman as to the applicant's fitness was not required, and the taxpaying qualification was reduced from ten shil- 130 NEW ENGLAND, 1660 TO 1690 of the original patent ; but the best it could do was to accept a new document, and the Charter of 1691 \ created a government more like that of Virginia than like that of Connecticut. Six features of the new charter may be noted. a. The crown reserved the appointment of the governor, whose powers were greatly augmented. b. The representative Assembly nominated the Council, but these nominations were valid only after the governor's approval. c. The governor could adjourn or dissolve the Assembly at will, and he held an absolute veto upon all its acts. The crown reserved a further veto upon legislation for three years after its passage. d. The higher judiciary were appointed by the governor ; and appeals from the colonial courts to the king in council were provided for, in cases where the sum in dispute amounted to £300 (cf. §§ 97, 99, and 110, note). e. Religious freedom for all Protestant sects was promised. /. The franchise was placed upon a property basis. All men owning freeholds of forty shillings annual value, or possessing forty pounds in personal estate, became voters. The last two provisions in great measure overthrew the old theocracy; the first four to all practical intents made Massachusetts a royal prov- ince. At the same time, Maine, Plymouth, and Nova Scotia were included in the Massachusetts jurisdiction , and New Hampshire became a royal province. For Further Reading on New England from 1660 to 1690, excellent material will be found in Andrews' Colonial Self-government (41-73, 252-272) and in Channing, II (65-79, 156-185). The Source Book has been referred to freely in the footnotes. lings to four. Then, in a few weeks, 909 new freemen were admitted — more than in the preceding sixteen years. Notwithstanding this sudden access of liberality, there were within the colony considerable bodies of people dissatisfied with the Puritan rule. Several petitions were sent to the King against the renewal of the old charter, — one with signatures of two hundred and fifty persons who call themselves " Mer- chants and inhabitants of Boston." Nos. 86 and 87 of the Source Book indi- cate the growth of such dissatisfaction. 1 Source Book, No. 110, 6. VIRGINIA AND THE CAVALIERS 131 B. Virginia, 1660-1690 > 102. 'The " Cavaliers." — During the Commonwealth and the early years of the Restoration, Virginia enjoyed a rapid growth and teeming prosperity. When the attempts of the Puritan Commonwealth at constitutional rule in England gave way to the despotism of the sword under Cromwell and his major generals, 2 the oppressed royalist gentry turned their faces toward the New World, — as the oppressed Puritan party had done in their hour of gloom a generation earlier. At the Restoration, Charles II did little for the dispossessed Cavaliers (except for a relatively small number of courtiers), and the movement to America received new impetus. Practically all this emigration went to Virginia. Between 1650 and 1670, the population of that colony rose from 15,000 to 40,000; and more than half of this increase must have come from immi- gration. No other migration of that century, except the ten-year Puritan movement, brought to American society so valuable a contribution. It was now that Virginia became the land of the Cavaliers. In this period, there appeared in America the an- cestors of our Revolutionary Harrisons, Lees, Masons, Madi- sons, Marshalls, Monroes, Nelsons, Nicholases, Pages, Peytons, Pendletons, Randolphs, Wythes, Washingtons. The party epithets, Cavalier and Roundhead, should not blind us to the intimate likeness between the gentry elements in Massachusetts and Vir- ginia. The " Cavalier " emigrants were not graceless, riotous hangers-on of the court, slavishly subservient to despotism, as jealous ignorance has sometimes pictured them. They were God-fearing, high-minded gentle- men, who had loved liberty only a degree less than they had feared anarchy, — men of the same social stamp and habits of thought as the Winthrops, Dudleys, and Humphreys of the Bay Colony, and the Hamp- dens, Pyms, and Eliots in England, with whom they had stood shoulder to shoulder there for a generation of constitutional struggle before the Civil War, and from whom they separated at last with mutual grief when the great war came to sunder friends and set brother against brother. J Reread §§ 22-37 before taking up this division. * Modern History, § 248. 132 VIRGINIA, 1660 TO 1690 These country gentry fitted into the rural organization of Virginia as natural leaders, and made there an attractive and lovable society, some- what less active intellectually than the Puritan leaders, less stimulated by the friction of town life and by religious controversy, less inclined to mark out new ways in state or church ; but instinct with the best tradi- tions of rural England in England's greatest century, — robust, dauntless, chivalrous, devout. The earlier migration to Virginia (§ 18) had given that colony a noble history ; but it was this Cavalier immigration of the fifties and sixties which a century later was to produce Virginia's splendid galaxy of Revolutionary leaders, and, a little later still, to justify to the Old Dominion her proud title, " Mother of Presidents." 103. Political Reaction. — In 1660 a new Virginia Assembly was elected, in the flush of enthusiasm for the Restoration. Naturally it brought to the front the hot-heads and extremists among the Cavalier party. Berkeley, moreover, in this second term (cf. close of § 38) was an old man, tortured by ill health, arrogant, peevish, vindictive, — an easy tool for a ring of greedy favorites. His administration (1660-1677) lasted so long, too, that the Council, to an unusual degree, became de- pendent upon him instead of acting as a check. The period, accordingly, was one of misgovernment and political reaction. The governor and Council had ceased, of course, to be elective (§ 37). Berkeley received a commission from King Charles which he regarded as superseding his election by the Assembly (§ 38) and as freeing him from the limitations that accompanied that election. According to the royal instructions, he resumed the veto and the ancient power of dissolv- ing Assemblies at will. These changes restored the government to the conditions preceding the Commonwealth. But this was far from all. By a new law of 1670, all non-freeholders were disfranchised ; and, by a wholly arbitrary stretch of authority, Berkeley in effect disfranchised all voters for half a generation. Since 1628, Assemblies had been elected at least once in two years. But in England the "Cavalier Parliament" of 1660 was kept alive by King Charles for eighteen years without a new election. In Virginia, Berkeley followed this example, keeping his " Cavalier Assembly " of 1660 icithout a new election until 1676} 1 The franchise in Virginia had been exceedingly liberal. All free white males seem to have had votes, — including servants, when their terms had POLITICAL REACTION 133 The restrictions upon democracy so far described concern the " central government." In local government, the loss was even more serious. The colony contained two kinds of smaller units, — counties and parishes. The parish was not important in matters of government. In the main it had to do with church affairs. Still (so close were church and state), the parish government cared for the poor, punished drunkenness and other minor offenses, and had some other functions that now belong to towns. 1 Its government had been democratic: it now became oligarchic. The governing body of the parish was the vestry. Until 1645 the ves- try meeting had been open to all free white males ("open vestry 1 " 1 ). It then became representative, — a law providing for the election from time to time in each parish of twelve vestrymen to regulate parish matters. In 1662 a law of Berkeley's Assembly turned the representative vestry into the closed vestry. The position became an office for life ; and, when a vacancy occurred, it was filled, not by popular election as before, but by the remaining vestrymen. If the parish was less important than the New England town, the county in Virginia was vastly more important than the county in New England. It had charge of almost all local taxation and the expenditure of local funds, and it passed " by-laws " of considerable importance. 2 At first these matters were managed by the county court, — a meeting of all free white males. After the Restoration, however, most of these powers were transferred from the open court to a Board of expired. In 1655, indeed, a law was passed restricting the right to "house- holders," but it was repealed the next year on the ground that it was " hard and unagreeable to reason that any shall pay equal taxes and not have a voice in elections." (Source Book, No. 35 ; cf . also No. 105 for the law of 1670.) The law of 1670 tried to justify itself by English precedent : " Whereas the laws of England grant a voyce in such election only to such as by their estates . . . have interest enough to tye them to the endeavor of the publique good ..." etc. 1 See an excellent account in Fiske's Old Virginia, II, 97. 2 In 1632 the county became the unit for the choice of representatives to the General Assembly. 134 VIRGINIA, 1660 TO 1690 eight "Justices" appointed by the governor from the more important landowners of each county. 1 Along with this political reaction went many other serious faults. Taxes were exorbitant, and were expended wastef ully. There was much unjust " class legislation," such as the exemption of counselors and their families from taxation. The sheriffs (appointed by the governor on the advice of the county justices) and other law officers charged oppres- sive fees for simple and necessary services. The governor granted to his favorites vexatious trade monopolies, which indirectly robbed the people. 104. Social and Economic Conditions. 2 — The forty thousand inhabitants of 1670 included two thousand Negro slaves and six thousand White bond servants. There were also several thousand ex-servants who had not acquired land and who re- mained as laborers on the plantations of others. The rest of the population consisted of a few hundred large planters and a large body of small planters. Discontent was chronic in the servant class, and now the small planters also were restless. They were practically un- represented, and they felt rightly that they were overtaxed and discriminated against. The navigation laws (§ 96) of the mother country intensified their grievances. The lack of ves- sels to transport tobacco to the English market was felt in only slight degree by the large planters, whose crops would be taken care of first ; but, for a time, the small planter often found his entire crop left on his hands, or (if he shipped at all) his small profits were eaten up by the increased freights. 1 This aristocratic type of local government had already come into force in England, to continue there until well toward the close of the nineteenth century. Cf. Modern History, §§ 538, 540. Few Virginia counties of that time contained more than four parishes, and the Justices usually were also vestry- men. Thus, in a county of three or four thousand people, only forty or fifty men had any legal control in local government. The other men still could come to the county courts as spectators, but their political power was limited to casting a vote now and then in the election of a new Assembly. 2Cf. Source Book, No. 104 (Berkeley's Report of 1(571). BACON'S REBELLION 135 105. Bacon's Rebellion was an armed 1 rising against " special 'privilege" The occasion of this remarkable movement was an Indian outbreak which Berkeley's inefficient government permitted to run without check. Finally the savages ravaged an outlying plantation of Nathaniel Bacon, a newly arrived energetic young planter. Bacon raised troops and punished the Indians terribly in two campaigns. Berkeley declared the young captain and his followers rebels, because no com- mission for military action had been given them. There followed an obscure quarrel over a commission extorted from the governor, recalled, and again secured; and this quarrel merged into a civil war. From a valiant Indian fighter, Bacon is suddenly transformed into a popular champion and a demo- cratic hero. Finding arms in their hands, he and his party tried to use them for social and political reform. The funda- mental cause of the rebellion was not disgust at the inefficiency of the government against the Indians, but social discontent. Berkeley was deserted. During much of the struggle, he could hardly muster a corporal's guard. The aristocracy, how- ever, did not join Bacon. They were too much opposed to rebellion, and too jealous toward the democratic features of the movement; so they simply held aloof from either side. But Bacon was supported by the great body of small planters. These honest, respectable people were villified, of course, especially- after the failure of the rebellion, by aristocratic contemporaries. One Virginian gentleman refers to them as " Tag, rag, and bobtail." Another declared that Bacon "seduced the Vulgar and most ignorant People (two thirds of each county being of that Sorte) Soe that theire whole hearts and hopes were set upon him." Another describes the rebels as "a Rabble of the basest sorte of People whose condicion was such as by a chaunge could not admitt of worse . . . not 20 in the whole Route but what were Idle and will not worke, or such whom Debaucherie or Idle Husbandry has brought in Debt beyond hopes or thought of payment." Every democratic movement in history has been similarly regarded by its adversaries. 1 Cf . § 64, opening. 136 VIRGINIA, 1660 TO 1690 When the rebellion had just begun, the popular clamor forced the governor to dissolve his fossilized Assembly. In the election of a new one, the restrictions upon the franchise were largely ignored. 1 This body is known as Bacon's Assem- bly, and its admirable attempts at reform are called Bacon's Laws. Representative vestries, for short terms, and manhood suffrage were restored ; a representative Board was established in each county to act with the Justices in all matters of taxation and local legislation ; the exemptions of the privileged families were abolished ; fees were strictly regulated ; and various minor abuses corrected. This legislation shows why Bacon's party wished to seize power. 2 Bacon himself seems, as a matter of fact, to have had little to do directly with the Assembly, but he stood for an even more democratic program. Soon after the meeting of the Assembly he held a convention of his party at "the Middle Plantation," and there issued a proclamation in the name of " the Commons of Virginia," signing it " Nath Bacon, Gen'l By the Consent of the People." This document 3 denounced the group of Berkeley's favorites as "sponges" that had sucked up the public treasure and as "juggling parasites," and declared all who sheltered them to be "traitors to the people." While Bacon was still in full tide of success, a sudden fever carried him off — and the Rebellion collapsed, for want of a leader. Berkeley took a shameful vengeance, until removed by the disgusted king. 106. Aristocratic Reorganization. — There followed a series of grasp- ing or inefficient governors during the rest of the Stuart rule, with constant friction between them and the colonists. At the king's direc- 1 One peevish gentleman declared, " Such was the prevalency of Bacon's Party that they chose, instead of Freeholders, Free men that had but lately crept out of the condition of Servants (which were never before Eligible) for theire Burgesses, and such as were eminent abettors to Bacon,— and for faction and ignorance fitt Representatives of them that chose them." 2 See Source Book, No. 106, for these laws. Cf . also No. 108 for explana- tions by the counties after the Rebellion had been crushed. s Cf. Source Book, No. 107. ARISTOCRATIC ORGANIZATION 137 tion, the Assembly declared void all of the reforms in Bacon's laws {Source Book, No. 109). The minor ones were reenacted by subsequent Assemblies ; but the limitation of the franchise to freeholders and the closed vestry became permanent features of Virginian life. This aristocratic or- ganization in politics, and especially in local government, was to continue for two centuries. At the close of the Stuart period, representative government won a significant victory. In 1686 Governor Effingham tried to make the Burgesses consent to the levy of taxes by governor and Council. This demand was resisted in a stormy session, during which the Burgesses even denied the governor's veto power and " boldly disputed the king's authority." The next year King James approved the governor's position. But the Assembly still resisted ; and its right to control taxation was promptly confirmed by William III after the English Revolution. 107. Excursus on the Franchise. — In spite of the restriction of the franchise to freeholders, a large part of the population took part in elec- tions, when there were any elections. There was none of the voting upon the many questions of local government, with general discussion, that marked the New England town ; nor was there the frequent choice of the many local officials that characterized New England politics. But, all the more, perhaps, the poorer Virginian was inclined to use his one political power, — that of voting once a year or once in two years for a member of the Assembly. The elections took place at the county courts, which be- came social gatherings also, with games and feasting ; and the speech- making on such occasions by rival candidates afforded no mean political training. Statistics seem to prove that a larger portion of the free white population voted in Virginia, through most of the colonial period, than in New England, though upon a much smaller range of matters and much less often. Indeed, after a few years, the limitation to freeholders was for a time generally evaded. Large landowners deeded small tracts of land to their hangers-on, — one or two acres of wild land to a man, — so as to make them "freeholders" within the letter of the law. There was no true democracy in this arrangement, of course. It merely intensified the aristocratic character of Virginian politics, and helped limit political struggles to the families with the largest following of clients. The abuse was so marked that in 1736 the term " freeholder" in the franchise law was defined to mean the owner of one hundred acres of wild land, or °f fifty acres of improved land, or a house and lot in town, the house to be not less than twenty-four feet square. Shortly before the American 138 THE MIDDLE COLONIES Revolution these qualifications were cut down each one half. In this reduced form they remained the law in Virginia until 1830. Exercise. — Review §§ 75, 76, on local government, with §§ 103-106. A freeholder came of age in 1661 in Virginia : how old must he have been before he could cast his first vote? (§ 103.) Let members of the class propose lists of questions, naming the parts of this book or of the Source Book where answers may be found. For Further Reading. — Andrews, Colonial Self-Government, 202- 231 ; Fiske's Old Virginia, II, 1-130, 174-267 ; Channing, II, 82-91. The Source Book contains much material. No. 108, not referred to in notes above, is especially valuable. C. New Colonies (In the opinion of the author, Division C should receive only one reading, with explanation of difficult points.) 108. New York. — In New Jersey and the Carolinas, during this period, the settlers waged a sturdy constitutional struggle for self-government, frequently ignoring or opposing the proprietary claims. But, instructive as the story is, it cannot be told here. Some features of New York and Pennsylvania history, however, demand attention.- While New York was the Dutch New Netherlands, there had been two distinct periods in its history. Until 1626 it was a huge plantation (like early Virginia) under the arbitrary rule of the "Director General" and his appointed Council. After 1626 this authority was modified by the presence of the almost independent governments of the patroons, — great landed proprietors with extensive jurisdiction over the settlers on their lands. But while the government had lost in efficiency and unity, it had not gained in democracy. Says Doyle {English Colonies, IV, 3) : " The Dutch settlers succumbed to difficulties which the English escaped, because the latter easily, almost spontaneously, adopted machinery which enabled the popular voice to make itself heard ; while the Dutch in like circum- stances were feeling for such machinery helplessly and blindly." The only promising movement for self-government under Dutch rule came from English immigrants. Four English towns had been estab- lished on Long Island, while it was claimed by Connecticut. These afterwards passed under the jurisdiction of New Netherlands. In 1653 a meeting of representatives from various parts of the colony was held, to demand from Director Stuyvesant a measure of self-government. This meeting was inspired by the English towns, and it was dominated by ENGLISH INFLUENCE IN NEW YORK 139 their delegates. The "remonstrance" to Stuyvesant was drawn in the English language ; the signatures are largely English names ; and the document contains the democratic English phrases of that day. Stuyve- sant, in explaining the matter to the authorities in Holland, wrote : " It ought to be remembered that the Englishmen, who are the authors and leaders in these innovations, enjoy more privileges than the Exemptions of New Netherlands grant to any Hollander." Before true representative government grew out of this agitation, came the English conquest of New Amsterdam in 1664. King Charles gave the conquered province to his brother James, Duke of York, for whom it was renamed. The population was mainly non-English ; and, as a conquered people, it had no constitutional claim to political rights. Accordingly, the charter to James gave him arbitrary power, making no reference to any share by the people in the government. Spite of this, and of the long Dutch precedent, the governor, Nichols, found himself obliged to satisfy the Long Island towns by promising them privileges "equal to those in the New England colonies," and it soon proved necessary to introduce a representative Assembly (1682). Down to the Revolution, however, the governor had more extensive prerogatives in New York than in any other colony. 109. Founding of Pennsylvania. — William Penn is one of the strik- ing figures in history. Son of a famous and wealthy admiral, and himself an intimate at court, he risked his inheritance, as well as all prospect of worldly promotion, at the call of conviction, in order to join the Quakers. Happily for the world, his material resources were not taken from him after all, and he kept the warm friendship of men so different from him- self as the royal brothers, Charles and James. Through his connection with the Duke of York, Penn helped some Quaker friends organize the colony of New Jersey, and thereby became interested in trying a " Holy Experiment" in a colony of his own. The Council for colonial affairs had already become jealous of proprietary grants ; but James readily gave Penn the Swedish settlements on the Delaware ; and, inasmuch as he wished a still freer field to work in, he secured from King Charles, in con- sideration of a large debt due him from the crown, a grant of wild terri- tory west of the Delaware between New York and Maryland. 1 The 1 Cf. Source Book, No. 102. Owing to geographical ignorance, the grant conflicted with those of Massachusetts and Connecticut, and especially with those of New York and Maryland. The adjustment with Maryland was not finally accomplished until 1767, when Mason and Dixon, two English survey- ors, ran the boundary line that goes by their name. 140 PENNSYLVANIA, 1681-1701 charter of 1680 gave Penn the usual proprietary jurisdiction (§ 39) with some limitations. Settlers were guaranteed the right of appeal from colonial courts to the king in council, 1 and all colonial laws were to be subject to a royal veto. 2 The Quaker colony was required to tolerate the established English church. Especial emphasis was placed upon obedience to the navigation laws ; and a unique clause renounced all authority on the part of the crown to tax the colonists without the consent of the Assembly or of parliament, — an indirect recognition of the possibility that parliament might tax the colony. 3 Pennsylvania knew none of the desperate hardships that make so large a part of the story of the earlier colonies. The wealthy Quakers of Eng- land and Wales helped on the enterprise cordially. The Mennonites (a German sect somewhat resembling Quakers) poured in a large and indus- trious immigration. 4 There were no Indian troubles, thanks to Penn's wise and just policy with the natives. Population increased rapidly, and material prosperity was unbroken. By 1700 (when only twenty years old) the colony stood next to Virginia and Massachusetts in wealth and numbers. Unlike other colonies, except conquered New York, the pop- ulation was at least half non-English from the first, — Welsh, German, Swedes, Dutch, French, Danes, and Finns. 110. Democratic Progress. — Penn took no thought to extend his own powers. His ideas, for the time, were broad and noble ; but many of his devices in government did not work smoothly. Perhaps he gave too little value to easy-running political machinery. " The nations want a precedent for a just and righteous government, 1 ' he wrote. ... " The people must rule." And again, in a letter to a friend, 1 The question of appeals arose soon after the Restoration (§§ 97, 96). The grant of New York to James in 1664 contained the first charter provision for such appeals; the Penn charter was the next opportunity; and the same provision was found in the Massachusetts charter of 1691 (§ 101). 2 This restriction appeared also in the next charter granted by the crown, that of Massachusetts in 1691 (§ 101). 3 The Delaware settlements were not covered by the charter. For them a separate form of government was devised, though they belonged to the same proprietor. 4 A settlement of German Mennonites voiced the first protest against slavery in America in 1687 : " Those who steal or rob men, and those who buy or purchase them, — are they not all alike ? Here is liberty of conscience . . . and here ought to be likewise liberty of the body. ... To bring men hither or to robb or sell them against their will, we stand against." DEMOCRATIC PROGRESS 141 "I propose ... to leave myself and successors no power of doing mis- chief — that the will of one man may not hinder the good of a whole coun- try." To the expected settlers he proclaimed (1681), "You shall be governed by laws of your own making, and live a free and, if you will, sober and industrious people. . . . Any government is free to the people under it, whatever be the frame, where the laws rule and the people are a party to those laws ; and more than this is tyranny, oligarchy, or confu- sion. . . . Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad." In 1683 Penn issued a charter to the colonists, — the famous " Frame of Government." The " freemen " (landholders or taxpayers) were to choose a " Council," — one third retiring each year/ — to prepare all laws. The proposals were to be posted in public places for a month, and then accepted or rejected (not discussed or amended) by a one-House " General Assembly" elected by the freemen. The proprietor reserved no veto power (except upon amendments to this constitution) and little more voice in the government than belonged to any elected member of the Council. But even with a proprietor so unselfish, and with settlers as good as Penn's, the colony saw many troubled years and much bad government. In 1684, Penn was called to England to de- fend his colony against the territorial claims of Lord Baltimore, and he delegated all his powers to the Council. Dissension of the bitterest character broke out at once between that body and successive Assemblies ; and each of the two bodies sought to encroach upon the authority of the other, heedless of Penn's entreaties for peace. In the midst of these troubles, came the English Revolution of 1688. Penn's proprietary rights were taken from him for a time, because of his friendship with the deposed James, and Pennsylvania was governed by royal ap- pointees. In 1694, however, the colony was restored to Penn. The question at once arose whether this act restored also the Frame of Government. The people, through the Assembly, forced the governor (appointed under royal rule and temporarily 1 This is the first example in American or English history of a permanent political body renewed one part at a time, like our National Senate to-day. 142 PENNSYLVANIA, 1681-1701 continued in office by Penn) to agree to a new and exceedingly radical constitution. Penn, however, refused to sanction this instrument. In 1699 Penn returned to the province, but, be- cause of attacks in England, was able to remain only two years. The great event of this period is the adoption of a new funda- mental law, — the Charter of 1701, granted by Penn and ac- cepted by the colonists. This document (Source Book, 103, b) remained the constitution of Penn- sylvania until 1776. Dr. Channing calls it " the most famous of all colo- nial constitutions, because it contained . . . many of the most important features of all workable written constitutions." The Council became an appointive body, with executive powers only, — to assist the governor. The governor was appointed by the proprietor, and had a veto upon all legislation. The elected one-House Assembly, however, had complete control over its own sittings. The charter fixed a date for the annual meet- ing, and provided that the Assembly should be dissolved only by its own vote. Freedom of conscience was guaranteed, as in the earlier charters from Penn, to all who believed in " one Almighty God " ; and political power was only restricted to those who accepted Christ as the " Savior of the World," — a clause which excluded Jews. 1 These religious pro- visions were placed beyond amendment, so far as the wording of the charter could accomplish such an arrangement. All other parts of the charter could be amended by the joint action of the proprietor and six sevenths of the Assembly. This was the first written constitution to provide a definite machinery for its own amendment. For Further Reading. — Channing's History of the United States, II, 94-129, 313-340, and Andrews' Colonial Self- Government, 75-128, 162-201. Exercise. — Name ten dates, worthy memorization, in the seventeenth century. Point out which ones stand for some important relation between American and English history. 1 Pennsylvania was the only colony in which Roman Catholics had political rights in the eighteenth century. Rhode Island disfranchised them in 1719. CHAPTER IV PROVINCIAL AMERICA, 1690-1760 I. MATERIAL PROSPERITY 111. Population; Non-English Immigration ; New Frontiers. — Despite the frequent wars, the seventy years between the English Revolution and the American Revolution (1690-1760) were a period of marvelous prosperity for the colonies. The older districts grew from straggling frontiers into rich and powerful communities marked by self-reliance and intense local patriotism. A new colony, Georgia, was added on the south (1732), and new frontiers were thrown out on the west. Population rose sixfold — from 250,000 at the opening of the period (§ 94) to 1,600,000 at the close ; and large non-English elements appeared, especially in the middle colonies. The most numerous of these were the German Protestants, driven from their homes in South Germany by religious persecution and the wars of Louis XIV. This immigration began to arrive about 1690. It went mainly to New York and the Carolinas and especially to Pennsylvania (§ 109). To the latter colony alone, more than 100,000 Germans came between 1700 and 1775. A smaller but exceedingly valuable contribu- tion to American blood was made by the Huguenots, driven from France after 1683 by the persecution of Louis XIV. 1 112. The " West " and the Scotch-Irish. — Another immigration of this period belongs especially to a new geographical section. The first frontier in America was the "tidewater" region, extending some fifty miles up the navigable streams. Near the mouth of such rivers, or on the harbors along the coast, 1 The Huguenots came mainly to the Carolinas; but some settled in New England, New York, and Virginia. The names Paul Revere, Peter Faneuil, and Governor Bowdoin suggest their services in Massachusetts. 143 144 PROVINCIAL AMERICA, 1690-1763 arose the first line of cities, — Boston, Portsmouth, Provi- dence, New York, Philadelphia, Annapolis, Charleston. By 1660 (that is, by the end of the first half century of coloni- zation), when the first frontier had been transformed into settled areas, a second thin frontier had pushed on fifty or a hundred miles farther inland, to the eastern foothills of the Appalachians. Here, during the next half century, at the head of navigation and on the site of abundant water power, appeared a second line of towns, — Trenton, Princeton, Rich- mond, Raleigh, Columbia, — while the frontier passed on over the mountain crest. So far, settlement had been fairly continuous. Frontier had kept in touch with settled area. Now, however, about 1700, when the third frontier leaped the first range of mountains, into the long, narrow valleys running north and south between the Alleghenies and the Blue Ridge, it left a tangled wilderness between itself and civili- zation. This condition created a new section- alism between East and West ; and the tendency was intensified by the further fact that this third frontier (like most of the successive frontiers for more than a hundred years) was made by a new type of American settler, the Pres- byterian Scotch-Irish. These were really neither Scotch nor Irish in blood, but Saxon English. For centuries their fathers had lived in the Lowlands of Scotland as frontiersmen against the Celtic Scots of the Highlands. In the reigns of Ele — & The Watercourse Fall Line. MATERIAL GROWTH 145 Elizabeth and James they had colonized northeastern Ireland, — fron- tiersmen again against the Catholic and Celtic Irish. But after the English Revolution, the new English navigation laws crushed their linen manu- factures, — the chief basis of their prosperity there, — and the English laws against the Irish Catholics bore heavily also upon these Presbyterian "dis- senters" from the English Church. So, soon after 1700, with hearts em- bittered toward England, they began once more to seek new homes, — this time in America. The volume of this immigration increased rapidly, and it has been estimated that between 1730 and 1750 it amounted to an average of 12,000 a year. In numbers and in significance, the Presby- terian English of the West rank in our nation-making alongside the Epis- copalian English of Virginia and the Congregational English of New Eng- land.* The Scotch-Irish came to America mainly through the ports of Phjla-. delphia in the north and. Charleston in Ahe south. Multitudes stopped in the settled areas ; but a steady stream passed on directly to the moun- tains and over them to the frontiers. Reaching the Appalachian valleys in the far north and south, the two currents drifted toward each other, un- til the center of the Scotch-Irish population was found in the Shenandoah valley in western Virginia ; and thence, just before the American Revolu- tion, under leaders like Boone and Robertson, they began to break through the western wall, to make a fourth frontier at the western foothills and farther west, in what we now call Kentucky and Tennessee (§§ 163-172). Unlike the areas east of the mountains, this new frontier had its real unity from north to south. Politically, it is true, the settlers were divided by the old established colonial boundary lines, running east and west ; but, from New York to Georgia, the people of this new West were one in race, 2 religion, and habits of life, — hard, dogged farmers, reckless fighters 1 In both Scotland and Ireland, there had been, no doubt, some mixture of blood ; but the dominant strain in the " Scotch-Irish " remained English. Non-English elements have played a great part in the making of America. In the colonial day, Frenchman, Dutchman, German, gave us much of our blood and even our thought; and later, Norseman, German, Irishman, and, last of all, Slav and Latin, have made the sinew of our national life. But after all, the forces that have shaped that life have been English, especially the three English elements here mentioned. Besides the general services hinted at in the text, the Scotch-Irish have furnished many leaders to our national life, — such as Andrew Jackson and "Stonewall" Jackson, Horace Greeley, Jefferson Davis, Patrick Henry, William McKinley. 2 A New England immigration was to come into Ohio and the northern parts of Illinois and Indiana, after the Revolution and in the first part of the next century ; but the Scotch-Irish made the great Middle West and Southwest. 146 PROVINCIAL AMERICA, 1690-1763 and hunters, tall and sinewy of frame, saturnine, restless, dauntless of temper. Other immigrants to the New World had forced themselves into the wilderness, for high reasons, with gallant resolution, against natural in- clination. But these men loved the wild for itself. Unorganized and un- captained, armed only with ax and rifle (in the use of which weapons they have never been equaled), they rejoiced grimly in their task of subduing a continent. First of American colonists did they in earnest face away from the Old World, and begin to look west toward the glorious destiny of the new continent. 113. New Viewpoints. — Thus the first half of the eighteenth century saw the mingling of the elements of a new nation, — young, strong, un- conscious as yet of its power. About 1700, the point of view for the study of our history shifts. In the seventeenth century, the colonists were still Englishmen in outlying America ; in the eighteenth, they had become colonial Americans, still dependent, it is true, upon England. To this dependence the colonies were held partly by affection for the mother country, partly by mere custom, and mainly by the pressing need of protection against the French terror on the north. The three phases of our history in this period are the material growth just treated, the constitutional agitation (§§ 115-119), and war. For the first two a somber background is furnished by the third. The almost in- cessant war with the French and their dreaded Red allies was a condition not for a moment to be forgotten by a colonist who moved his home in' search of cheaper or better lands, or who took part in a contest between an Assembly and royal governor over supplies or privileges. It. INTERCOLONIAL WAR 114. From 1689 to 1763, with slight pauses for breath, France and Eng- land wrestled for the splendid prize of the Mississippi valley. To tell the story in detail is not the province of this volume. Indeed, for the most part, the decisive campaigns were fought on European fields. The dissen- sions between various English colonies, the lack of a central governing authority, and lack of agreement in a given colony between governor and Assembly many times cost dear, — as did also the blundering stupidity of Till about 1850, they were the typical American frontiersmen. Other elements mingled with them, of course ; but their stock showed a marvelous ability to assimilate these other elements, — German, French, Welsh, and even the real Irish and the real Scotch, when these came, in small numbers, just before the Revolution. 1763-1775 English French J Spanish NEW COMMERCIAL RESTRICTIONS 147 a long series of third-class English generals in America. But at bottom the conflict was not determined on the battlefield. It was a contest between two opposing civilizations ; and the fundamental weaknesses of France have already been briefly suggested. In the closing chapter of the story, — the" Great French War, 1754-1763, — the interest heightens, centering about two heroic antagonists. But England's command of the seas made it impossible for France to send to Montcalm the supplies he pled for ; and Wolfe's victory at Quebec only showed to the world that the struggle was over. Far-reaching causes had determined that North America was to be English in speech and institutions (§§ 14-16). By the final treaties England received Florida from Spain, and Canada and the eastern half of the Mississippi valley from France. The rest of the valley France ceded to her ally, Spain ; and, except for some West Indian islands, she ceased to be an American power. North America was left to the vigorous English commonwealths and to decaying Spain, with a dividing line, temporarily, at the great central river. r^ III. CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT 115. General Features. — From the English Revolution to the American Revolution, constitutional history is dull and ob- scure. These seventy years have been called "a forgotten half century." There are no brilliant episodes, no heroic figures, and no new principles; but much is done in extend- ing institutions already established and in learning to work them. The central theme is the continuance of that inevi- table conflict that appeared in the preceding period (§ 93, c). Under the pressure of ceaseless war, England felt, even more keenly than before, the need of controlling her colonies effec- tively; and the colonies, realizing dimly their growing strength, felt more and more their right to regulate their own affairs. The projects of the English government to extend its influ- ence in the colonies had two phases, commercial and political, considered in the next two sections. A. New Navigation Acts 116. Restriction of Manufactures. — To the "enumerated articles " to be exported only through England (§ 96), rice was added in 1706, and copper, naval stores, and beaver skins in 148 PROVINCIAL AMERICA, 1690-1763 1722. 1 More important was a new kind of restriction upon American industry, — a series of attempts to restrict or prohibit manufactures. In 1696, a parliament of William III forbade any colony to export, even to England or to another colony, any ivoolen manufacture. In 1732, came a similar prohibition as to hats. 3 Bad as this was, the restrictions upon manufacturing so far were indirect : no colony had been forbidden to make any article for its own consumption. But in 1750 (almost at the close of the period) .the erection or preservation of steel furnaces and slitting mills was prohibited altogether. Unlike the un- pleasant features of the earlier commercial restrictions, top, this law could not be evaded. The half dozen iron mills that had appeared in the northern colonies were closed, and all manufacture of iron ceased, except for nails, bolts, and the simpler household and farm implements, such as in that day were turned out at the village smithy. 3 It has been claimed, with some force, that none of this legislation actually brought serious loss to the colonists. Franklin argued, as late as 1760, that it had not been hurtful. Beaver, he said, were gone, and the colonists had already been obliged again to import more hats than they made ; while other manufactures, without interference from England, had failed time and again to maintain themselves in competition with the allurement of free land. However this be, these three English laws were selfish and sinister, — the most ominous feature in all American colonial history. They must have become bitterly oppressive ere long, had the !It was soon arranged that the colonists might send rice directly to the southern European countries, which were the only important customers, — so that the restriction amounted to little so far as that article was concerned. Copper was hardly mined as yet. England did not want other countries to get American naval stores, — as a matter of military protection, — but she compen- sated the colonies by paying generous bounties upon such materials sent to her. 2 Making hats from beaver skins had been a prominent industry iu some northern colonies and in Pennsylvania. 8 Attempts were made to forbid even these simpler manufactures, hut such bills never passed parliament. It should be noted, too, that the vicious act of 1750 did take off English import duties on American pig iron and bar iron, so as to give colonial raw iron an advantage over foreign iron in English markets. To Virginia and other southern colonies, where the production of iron had never been carried beyond this stage, this law was a positive benefit. ATTEMPTS AT CLOSER CONTROL 149 colonists continued under English rule ; and at the time they deserved to the full the condemnation visited upon them by the great English economist, Adam Smith : "Those prohibitions, perhaps without cramp- ing the colonists' industry or restraining it from any employment into which it would have gone of itself, are only impertinent badges of slavery, imposed upon them without sufficient reason by the groundless jealousy of the manufacturers of the mother country." l B. Attempts at Closer Political Control 117. Efforts to make all Colonies into Royal Provinces. — For sixty years Virginia was the only royal province. In 1685 New York was added, to this class, when its proprietor became king. William III, at the opening of his reign, made Massa- chusetts practically a royal government (§ 101) ; and, by a stretch of authority, he cut off New Hampshire from Massa- chusetts jurisdiction and gave it a like form. Then came a seizes of attempts at even more rapid change. The Board of Trade found in the remaining colonies many just grounds for complaint. Besides the old offenses (evasion of navigation law r s, refusals to permit appeals to England, discrimination against the English Church, etc.), the Board was annoyed by Rhode Island's stubborn persistence in a shameful trade with pirates, by the refusal of Connecticut to recognize the authority of royal officers over her militia in war against the French, and by the absence in Pennsylvania and New Jersey of any militia whatever for the common 1 Unhappily the colonists seem to have felt aggrieved quite as much by the well-intended, if not always tactful, efforts of England to preserve American forests from careless and greedy destruction, and to prevent the issue of dis- honest colonial paper money. Another source of justifiable irritation, however, was the " Sugar Act " of 1733 (Source Book, No. 100, c). This Act placed duties on sugar and molasses from " foreign plantations " so high as to prevent the colonists from getting these articles any longer from the French West Indies, if the law had not been rendered nugatory by smuggling. The purpose of the law was to compel the colonies on the continent to buy their sugar from another English colony, Jamaica, where the sugar planters were in iinancial distress, and it did aim to take from the mass of American colonists for the benefit of a specially privileged class. It is said that the law was suggested by a Boston merchant who owned plantations in Jamaica. 150 PROVINCIAL AMERICA, 1690-1763 defense. Experience under the Stuarts had shown that writs of quo warranto against colonial charters were not to be de- pended upon ; and so, in 1701, in a forceful paper the Board recommended that the eight charter and proprietary govern- ments be " reunited " to the crown by act of parliament. A bill to this effect was introduced and pushed vigorously. It passed two readings, with little opposition ; but the hurried departure of King William for a campaign in Ireland forced a timely adjournment of parliament. The following year another bill was being prepared, when the death of the King forced a dissolution. In the next reign these efforts were re- newed. But time had been given for the proprietors in Eng- land and the colonial governments in America to rally all their influences, public and secret ; and the movement came to nothing. 1 The English government then fell back upon the early policy of William III, and attacked colonial grants one by one, as occasion offered. Before 1730, by taking advantage of a legal flaw, a serious disorder, or of the willingness of an em- barrassed proprietor to sell, it had extended the list of royal provinces so as to include New Jersey and North and South Caro- lina. Out of the last named, Georgia was carved for a pro- prietary province a little later; but it, too, soon came under a royal government. The usual distinction between royal, proprietary, and charter colonies is not of great consequence. Down to the Revolution, Connecticut and Rhode Island did keep their right to elect all branches of their govern- ment. Pennsylvania, not classed as a charter colony, possessed, through its grant from Penn, the next freest constitution, in the security of its legislature from executive interruption (§ no). Massachusetts, with its charter, had less valuable privileges, and resembled a royal province in all practical respects. But the really important thing about the colonial gov- ernments was their resemblances. All had representative Assemblies, with no small degree of control over their governors (§ 119) ; and all had the pri- 1 The report of the Board of Trade is in the Source Book (No. 111). Greene's Provincial America (58-02) gives an excellent account. I ^ r -~ >- 8 TYPES OF COLONIAL GOVERNMENTS 1682 Proprietary Governments. Royal Governments. ATTEMPTS AT CLOSER CONTROL 151 vate rights of Englishmen, — jury trial, free speech, freedom from arbitrary imprisonment, — which were not found in the colonies of any other country then or for long afterward. 118. Attempts at Closer Royal Control. — The next step in the new colonial policy was to attempt closer control in several respects, even in the charter and proprietary colonies : (1) to require royal approval for the appointment of proprietary governors; (2) to place the militia of charter colonies under the command of a neighboring royal governor ; l (3) to set up appointed admiralty courts, without juries, to prevent evasion of the navigation acts; (4) to compel colonial courts to permit appeal to the privy council in England ; (5) to enforce a royal veto upon colonial legislation ; 2 and (6) to free royal and proprietary governors from dependence upon colonial Assemblies. Even in a royal province, the governor often showed little desire to carry out English instructions in conflict with colonial views. Partly, this was because the governor, living in close touch with the colonists, was likely to see their side of the case; 3 but more commonly it was because his salary depended upon his keep- ing zip a good understanding with the colonial legislature. Every governor, in the words of a colonist, had "two Masters, one who gives him his commission, and one who gives him his Pay." If the Assembly passed a bill distasteful to the home government, the governor could veto it; but the Assembly might then cut down his salary, or leave it altogether out of the vote of supply, — which, according to good English custom, 1 Special report on Connecticut's resistance to Governor Fletcher of New- York. Cf. Source Book, No. Ill, d, for Fletcher's aggrieved letter. 2 In theory, the King always possessed a veto, just as in parliament; but, even in Virginia, so early a royal colony, he rarely exercised it until after Bacon's Rebellion. Thereafter, it was expressly reserved in all colonial grants (as in that to Penn and in the Massachusetts charter of 1691), and the right was emphasized in every commission to a governor of a royal province (cf. Source Book, No. 112). True, a colonial law went into effect pending adverse royal decision ; but the veto was no mere form. Scores of important statutes were disallowed, sometimes after they had been in force for years. Fifteen Massachusetts laws of 1(592 were vetoed in 1695; fifty Pennsylva- nia Acts in 1706; and, as late as 1754, eight statutes of North Carolina, 8 For illustrations, cf. Berkeley's Report (Source Book, No. 104). 152 PROVINCIAL AMERICA, 1690-1763 was always the last business of the session. To free the governors from this dependence upon the popular will, the English gov- ernment tried for many years, but tried in vain, to secure from the Assemblies a standing grant for such salaries. 1 In 1727, Burnet became governor of Massachusetts. His predecessor, because of quarrels with the Assembly over preservation of the forests, had received no salary for some years. Burnet at once laid before the As- sembly his instructions to secure from that body a fixed grant of £1000 a year. Refusal would be taken by the King as " a manifest mark of undutiful behavior." Burnet was popular, as well as able; and the Assembly voted him not £1000, but £1700, for one year. The governor indignantly refused to be " bribed " into proving false to his instructions. The Assembly raised their offer, still in vain. For three years the struggle continued. Then Burnet was killed in an accident, 2 and the contest was renewed with Governor Belcher, — a far less able man. In want of money, Belcher finally petitioned the crown to allow him to receive the annual grant temporarily, while the question was being settled. The English government assented, Massachusetts had won. 119. Constitutional Gains. — To the credit of the monarchs, no attempt was made, in this long contest, to suppress any colonial Assembly. Indeed, while the English government did in some respects extend its powers in the colonies, still the Assemblies also made substantial gains. Everywhere the elected Houses claimed the powers and privileges of the English House of Commons. Especially did they enlarge their control over finances. After long struggles, they excluded the appointed Councils from any authority over money bills ; 3 and they passed 1 For illustrations, cf. Berkeley's Report (Source Book, No. 104). 2 The Assembly seized the chance to show that it had not been haggling to save money. It gave Burnet a magnificent public funeral, at a cost of more than a thousand pounds, and voted two thousand pounds to his children. During each of the three years of the struggle, the Boston town meeting stepped in to hold up the hands of the Assembly (Source Book, No. Ill, c). On the third occasion, the town meeting bluntly called upon the Assembly " to oppose any bill . . .'that may in the least bear upon our natural rights and charter privileges, which, we apperhend, the giving in to the King's instructions would certainly do." 8 Just as in England, the appointed and hereditary House of Lords was no longer permitted to amend or reject bills of supply. CONSTITUTIONAL GAINS 153 beyond all English precedent in the creation in each colony of a Treasurer, elected, not by the governor, but by the Assembly} The whole constitutional conflict was one of the chief preparations for the Eevolution ; and the training secured by the colonists in the struggles explains the skill with which they waged the long opposition to George III, from 1760 to 1775, before the struggle became open war. The English historian, Doyle, says of the period 1690-1760: "The demands made upon the colonists, [and] the restrictions imposed upon them, were often in perfect conformity with equity and reason. [But] it can seldom be said that the method of enforcement [by England] was sympathetic, or even in- telligent. . . . The temper of mind, the habits of thought and action, which made successful resistance possible [at the time of the Revolution] had their origin in these disputes which had kept alive an abiding spirit of bitterness and vindictiveness between the colonists and those set in authority over them, and had furnished the former with continuous train- ing in the arts of political conflict.' 1 '' Private rights, too, were more clearly defined and extended. With the approval of the crown lawyers, the doctrine was es- tablished that the Common Law of England, with all its em- phasis on personal liberty, was also the common law of the colonies even without express enactment. At least one advance was made in the colonies over English custom in the matter of personal liberty — namely, a greater safety for a free press. In 1735, a tyrannical governor of New York removed the chief justice of the colony from office for personal reasons. John Zenger in his Weekly Journal published vigorous criticism of this action, declaring that, if unchecked, it threatened slavery to the people. Zenger was prosecuted for criminal libel. In England at that day such a prosecution, 1 This step grew out of an earlier practice of occasionally making the Speaker of the Assembly the guardian of funds appropriated for some partic- ular purpose. Sometimes an Assembly encroached upon the authority of the royal governor even further, by turning over executive functions to commis- sions appointed by itself. In this appearance of new officers alongside the governor, we have the germ of the character of our later State executives in America, — several heads (governor, auditor, treasurer, etc.), each independ- ent of the others. This is by no means the only case where a movement es- sential to liberty in one era has burdened later times with an unsatisfactory heritage. 154 PROVINCIAL AMERICA, 1690-1763 backed by the government, was sure of success. In New York, the new chief justice, too, showed a determination to secure a conviction. He tried to limit the jury's function to deciding only whether Zenger was responsible for the publication (a matter not denied), reserving to himself wholly the decision whether the words were punishable. This was the custom of English courts in such cases to a much later period. 1 But Zenger's lawyer in a great speech argued that public criticism is a necessary safeguard for free government, and that, to pre- vent the crushing out of a legitimate and needed criticism, the jury in such a trial must decide whether the words used were libellous or true. This cause, said he, is " not the Cause of a poor Printer alone, nor of New York alone," but of "every free Man on the Main of America." He called upon the jury to guard the liberty " to which Nature and the Laws of our Country have given us the Right, — the Liberty of exposing and opposing arbitrary Power (in these parts of the World at least) by speaking and writing the Truth." "A free people, 1 .'' he exclaimed bluntly, " are not obliged by any Law to support a Governor who goes about to destroy a Province.'''' The jury insisted upon this right to judge of the law, as well as of the fact of publication, and declared Zenger " Not guilty." G-ouverneur Morris afterward styled this acquittal " the morn- ing star of that liberty which subsequently revolutionized America." 2 For Further Reading. — The plan of this volume does not allow much time for library work upon this chapter. The Source Book, relatively to the text, has about the same amount of material as before. The two best treatments available (outside of special monographs) are Greene's Provincial America (1-80) and Channing's second volume (217-281). We lose the guidance of Osgood at the year 1700, and Doyle's two huge volumes on the eighteenth century are too bulky for secondary schools. Some special studies have been referred to in the notes. Both 1 Cf. Modern History, page 544, note 2. 2 This trial was one of several at about the same time. The fullest account in a general history is in Channing, II, 475-489. Zenger's own account, re- sembling a modern " report," is reproduced in the Source Book, No. 113. CONSTITUTIONAL GAINS 155 Channing and Greene give adequate treatments of the navigation acts, but a further and slightly more English view may be found in Ashley's " England and America, 1660-1760," in his Historical Surveys. Exercise. — Reread §§93-96, as a summary. Classify the "naviga- tion acts " under three heads, with subdivisions. Why are the restrictions on manufactures classed with navigation acts ? s*. CHAPTER V COLONIAL LIFE 120. "Blue Laws." — Much colonial legislation goes under the name of Blue Laws. The term is used somewhat loosely to signify either undue severity in punishing ordinary crime, or unreasonable interference with personal liberty. In the first sense (that of bloody laws), the colonists could not be blamed by Europeans of their day. Everywhere, life was still harsh and cruel ; but American legislation was more humane and ra- tional than that of England or France. Many barbarities did survive, however. The pillory and whipping post (with clip- ping of ears) were in universal use. As late as 1748, a Vir- ginian law (Source Book, No. 115) required every parish to have ready these instruments, and suggested also a ducking stool for " brabbling women." Prison life was unspeakably foul and horrible. Death was the penalty for many deeds not now considered capital crimes in any civilized land ; * and many punishments seem to us ingeniously repulsive, such as branding for robbery or adultery. If Hawthorne had placed the scene of his Scarlet Letter in Pennsylvania instead of Massachusetts, he would have had to represent Hester wearing an A, not on her clothing, but burned into her forehead. 1 When the colonies were growing up,*there were over fifty offenses pun- ishable with death in England. This number increased to about two hundred before the "sanguinary chaos" was reformed in the nineteenth century (cf. Modern History, § 529, note) ; but not more than eighteen offenses were ever " capital " in New England. Virginia ran the number up to twenty- seven ; but in large part this was due to her cruel slave laws, which were rarely enforced. Hog stealing was punishable by death in Virginia by a statute of 1643; but, to understand this properly, the student must remember the penalty inflicted for horse stealing in very modern times by vigilance committees all over our West. 156 DECAY OF PURITANISM 157 In the second sense, — that of inquisitorial legislation, — New England comes in for just criticism. Not that she stood far apart from the rest of the world even in that respect. To-day, as a rule, legislation aims to correct a man's conduct only where it directly affects other people ; but in that day, as for many centuries preceding, all over Christendom (because church and state were so connected), the state tried by law to regulate conduct purely personal. In Virginia, the colonial law required attendance at church, and forbade traveling on Sunday. 1 In the Puritan colonies such legislation was more minutely vexing, — and much more rigorously enforced. At the same time, the most common specific charges are wholly false. It is still widely believed that in Connecticut the law forbade a woman to kiss her child on Sunday; that it prohibited playing on " any instrument of music except the drum, trumpet, and jewsharp " ; and that it required " all males " to have their hair " cut round according to a cap." These " laws " are merely the ingenious vengeance of a fugi- tive Tory clergyman (S. A. Peters), who during the Eevolution (1781) published in England a History of Connecticut. This quaint book contains a list of forty-five " Blue Laws." Some are essentially correct, and most have some basis in fact ; but the " code " is popularly known almost alone by these malicious inventions. 2 121. Decay of Puritanism : Witchcraft Delusions. — The English historian, Freeman, complains that students of history go wrong because they think that " all the Ancients lived at the same time." It is essential for us to see the colonist of 1 Cf. § 29 and Source Book, No. 35. 2 The veracity of the Reverend Mr. Peters may be judged from other items in his History. He pictures the inhabitants of a Connecticut village fleeing from their beds, mistaking the croaking of an " army of thirsty frogs " (on their way from one pond to another) for the yells of an attacking party of French and Indians; and he describes the rapids of the Connecticut River thus, — " Here water is consolidated without frost, by pressure, by swiftness, between the pinching, sturdy rocks, to such a degree of induration that an iron crow [bar] floats smoothly down its current " ! 158 COLONIAL LIFE 1,730 or 1700 as a different creature from his greatgrandfather of 1660 or 1630. Even in the first century in Massachusetts, the three generations had each its own character. The first great generation of founders (the leaders, at least) were strong, genial, tactful men, broadened by European culture and by wide experience in camp and court, and preserving a fine dig- nity, sometimes tender graces even, in their stern frontier lives. 1 "Narrow! " exclaims Lowell, "yes, they had an edge to them." Their Puritanism was sometimes somber, but never petty. It was like the noble Puritanism of Miltou in his youth, — the splendid enthusiasm of the " spacious Elizabethan days," sobered and uplifted by moral earnestness and religious devotion. Winthrop and Cotton and their fellows, who had left ancestral manor houses to dwell in rude cabins for conscience' sake, lived an exalted poem day by day in their unfaltering convic- tion of the Divine abiding within them and around them. The sons and grandsons show Puritanism in the sere. True, the necessities of frontier life made them nimble-witted, in- quisitive, pushing, better able than their fathers " to find their way in the woods " and to rear crops and children under New World conditions. But the unceasing struggle and petty priva- tions (theirs not by choice now, but by compulsion), made their lives harsh and unlovely and bitter. Most of the finer thought and broad outlook of the first generation fell away. Faith gave way to formula ; inspiration was replaced by tradition and cant. The second generation lost the poetry out of Puritanism; the third generation began to lose its power. Much that is vital to man always remained. Puritanism continued to teach the supremacy of conscience with emphasis never excelled in reli- gious movements; and, in its darkest period, sweet and gentle lives sometimes blossomed out of it. But toward 1700 it did undergo a real and great decline. That decay was associated with three other phenomena that call for notice. a. The first is a marked increase in gloom in New England life. Gloom had heen an incident of Puritanism in its best day : now it became 1 See Winthrop's letters in the Source Book. DECAY OF PURITANISM 159 so dominant as to distort religion. The damnation scene of Wiggles worth's Day of Doom was long the most popular "poetry" in New England. Two extracts may indicate its character, whether for literature or for thought : — " They cry, they roar, for Anguish sore, And gnash their Tongues for horror : But get away without delay ; Christ pities not your Cry. Depart to Hell : there you may yell and roar eternally. ***** " God's direful Wrath their bodies hath Forever immortal made . . . And live they must, while God is just, That He may plague them so." 1 To modern ears this seems comic. But men of that day preferred Wiggles worth's ghastly doggerel to Milton ; and, as Lowell says with bit- ing satire, the damnation scene was "the solace of every Puritan fireside." Cotton Mather, who admired it, predicted that its popularity would endure until the day of doom itself. b. The second phenomenon is the "Salem witchcraft madness" of 1692. Throughout the seventeenth century, all but the rarest men be- lieved unquestioningly that the Devil walked the earth in bodily form and worked his will sometimes through men and women who had sold themselves to him in return for supernatural powers. These suspected " witches," — usually lonely, scolding old women, — were objects of uni- versal fear and hate. In Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, France, Great Britain, great numbers of such wretches were put to death, not merely by ignorant mobs, but by judicial processes before the most enlightened courts. In England, in 1603, parliament sanctioned this Common Law process by a statute denouncing the penalty of death for those who should have "Dealinges with evill Spirits," 2 and the New England code con- 1 Among these " damned," over whose fate the poet gloats in this way, he is careful to include all unbaptized infants as well as "civil honest men, That loved true Dealing and hated Stealing, Nor wronged their brethren," but whose righteousness had not been preceded by "effectual calling," in the grotesque phrase of the day. 2 This law remained on the English statute books until 1735; and in 1711 Jane Wenham was convicted under it of "conversing with the Devil in the shape of a cat." 160 COLONIAL LIFE tained similar legislation. In Virginia, Grace Sherwood was "swum for a witch" in 1705, and the jury declared her guilty; but she escaped punishment through the enlightened doubts of the gentry Justices. 1 In Maryland a woman was executed on the charge of witchcraft. But most of the American persecutions occurred in New England. Connecticut executed eleven witches, and about as many more suffered death in Massachusetts before 1690. Then came the frenzy at Salem ; and within a few months twenty were executed, while the prisons were crammed with many scores more of the accused. The clergy took a leading part in the prosecutions ; and the hideous follies of the trials are almost incred- ible. While the madness lasted, the flimsiest accusations were equivalent to proof. One neat woman had walked some miles over bad roads with- out getting herself muddy : "I scorn to be drabbled," she said. Plainly she must have been carried by the Devil ! And so, says Eggleston, " she was hanged for her cleanliness. 1 ' Finally the common sense of the people awoke, and the craze passed as suddenly as it had come. With it, closed all legal prosecution for witchcraft in New England, rather earlier than in the rest of the world. But the atrocities of the judicial murders crowded into those few months must always make a terrible chapter of history, and they must be charged in large measure to the weak fanaticism fostered by Puritanism in its decay. 2 c. In the early eighteenth century the reaction against the witchcraft delusion, the general decline of Puritanism, and the influx of dissenting Baptists and Episcopalians into New England greatly lowered the old in- fluence of the Puritan clergy in society and in politics. There began, too, here and there, a division within Puritan churches, foreshadowing the later Unitarian movement. This loss of religious unity brought with it for a time some loosening of morals, and part of the people ceased to have any close relation to the church, — though all were still compelled to go to service each Sunday. About 1735, a reaction from this indifference manifested itself in "the Great Awakening." The powerful preaching of Jonathan Edwards and 1 In other cases in Virginia, the juries were plainly convinced of the guilt of the accused, but no executions ever took place in that colony. In the more progressive Pennsylvania, the most that could be secured from a jury was a verdict against an accused woman of " guilty of haveing the Common fame of a witch, but not guilty as Shee stands Indicted." 2 Good brief treatments of the witchcraft delusion are found in Eggleston's Transit of Civilization, 15-34, and in Channing's History of the United States, II, 456-462. Longer treatments, containing some exaggerations, are given in James Russell Lowell's "Witchcraft" in his Works, and in Lecky's History of European Rationalism. EDUCATION 161 the impassioned oratory of George Whitfield were the immediate causes ^Bf . this first American revival movement. 122. Education. — Of the original immigrants below the gentry "nT class, a large proportion could not write their names ; and for y jjy many years, in most colonies except Massachusetts and Connecti- p i}r/ cut, there were few schools. Parents were sometimes exhorted * — by law to teach their children themselves ; but all lacked time, and many lacked ability. 1 The closing years of the seventeenth century were a period of deplorable ignorance, — the lowest point in book education ever reached in America. 2 With the dawn of the eighteenth century, and its greater prosperity, conditions began to improve. In Pennsylvania, parents were required, under penalty of heavy fine, to see that their children could read; and several free elementary schools were established. In Maryland the statute book provided that each county should maintain a school, with a teacher belonging to the established Episcopalian Church ; but, since most of the inhabitants were Catholics or Protestant dissenters, the law was ineffective. In Virginia, in 1671, Governor Berkeley had boasted, "I thank God there are no free schools here nor printing," and had hoped that for a hundred years the province might remain unvexed by those causes of " disobedience and heresy" ; but by 1724, twelve free schools had been established by endowments of wealthy planters, and some twenty more private schools were flourish- ing. South of that colony there was no system of schools what- ever. Here and there, however, the churches did something toward teaching children ; and of course the wealthy planters of South Carolina, like those of Virginia and Maryland, had x See the "marks" for signatures to a Rhode Island document of 1636 (Source Book, No. 89). There is much evidence of this sort. Priscilla Alden in Plymouth could not sign her name. In 1636 the authorities in that colony excused themselves for having as yet no school on the plea of poverty and the fact that " Divers of us take such paines as they can with their own " ; but, in view of the fact just stated, these pains probably produced little effect. Mary Williams, wife of Roger Williams, signed by her " mark." 2 For instance, the Watertown Records in the Source Book, No. 83, show a gross and increasing illiteracy after the middle of the century. 162 COLONIAL LIFE private tutors in their families, and sent their sons to colleges in their own or neighboring colonies or to the English Uni- versities. In New York, the Dutch churches had begun free schools ; but at a later time, because of the connection with the church, these almost disappeared. Massachusetts and Connecticut from the beginning had a remarkable system of public education (§123) ; and the other New England colonies gradually followed in their footsteps. By 1760, though the actual years of schooling for a child were usually few, an astonishingly large part of the population could read, — many times as large, probably, as in any other country of the world at that time ; but there was still dolefully little cul- ture of a much higher quality. Between 1700 and 1770 several small colleges were established, 1 in addition to the older Harvard (§123); but none of these institutions equaled a good high school of to-day in curriculum, or equipment, or faculty. With a few notable exceptions, the only private libraries of consequence were the theological collections of the clergy. In 1698 the South Caro- lina Assembly founded at Charleston the first public library in America, and about the middle of the eighteenth century Franklin started a sub- scription library at Philadelphia. In 1700 there was no American news- paper. The Boston News Letter appeared in 1704, and, by 1725, eight or nine weeklies were being published, pretty well distributed through the colonies. Ten years later, Boston alone had five weeklies. 123. Excursus : the Puritan School System. — The schools of early Massachusetts and Connecticut demand a longer treat- ment. Here was the splendor of Puritanism, — a glory that easily makes us forget the shame of the Quaker and witch- craft persecutions. The public school system of America to- day, in its essential features, is the gift of the Puritans. In Massachusetts private schools seem to have existed in some villages from the building of the first rude cabins. In 1 William and Mary, in Virgina, 1696 ; Yale, 1701 ; Princeton, in New Jersey, 1746; King's, in New York (now Columbia), 1754; the University of Pennsyl- vania (through the efforts of Franklin), 1755; and Brown, in Rhode Island, 1764. South of Virginia there was no educational institution of rank. EDUCATION 16 1635, five years after Winthrop's landing, a Boston town meet- ing adopted one of these private schools as a town school, ap- pointing a schoolmaster and appropriating from the poor town treasury fifty pounds (some twelve hundred dollars to-day) for its support. So Salem in 1637 and Cambridge in 1642. 1 Such schools were a new growth in this New World, suggested, no doubt, by the parish and endowed schools of England, but more generously planned for the whole public, by public authority. So far, the movement and control had been local. Next the commonwealth stepped in to adopt these town schools and weld them into a state system. This step, too, was taken by the men of the first generation, — pioneers, still struggling for existence on the fringe of a strange and savage continent. In 1642, in consideration of the neglect of many parents to train up their children "in learning and labor, which might be profit- able to the Commonwealth" the General Court passed a Compul- sory Education Act of the most stringent character, authorizing town authorities even to take children from their parents, if • needful, to secure their schooling. 2 This Act assumed that schools were accessible in each town. Five years later, the commonwealth required each town to maintain & primary school or a grammar school (Latin school), according to its size. This great law of 1647 (written with solemn eloquence, as if, in some dim way, the pioneers felt the grandeur of their deed) was the beginning of a state system, 1 In 1645 Dorchester — still a rude village — adopted a code of school laws of comprehensive nature, well illustrating educational ideals of the town. See extensive extracts in Source Book, No. 81. Note that these schools were free in the sense of being open to all. Commonly they were supported in part by taxation, but tuition was charged also to help cover the cost. 2 The Puritan purpose was good citizenship, as well as religious training. The preamble of the similar Connecticut Act of 1644 runs: " For as much as the good education of children is of singular behoof and benefit to any Common- wealth" etc. (Each Massachusetts educational statute was copied within two or three years in New Haven and Connecticut.) 164 COLONIAL LIFE and it remains one of the mighty factors that have influenced the destiny of the world. 1 James Kussell Lowell, after a delightful reminiscence of the New Eng- land crossroads schoolhouse, continues: "Now this little building, and others like it, were an original kind of fortification invented by the founders of New England. These are the martello-towers that protect our coast. This was the great discovery of our Puritan forefathers. They were the first lawgivers who saw clearly, and enforced practically, the simple moral and political truth, that knowledge was not an alms, to be dependent on the chance charity of private men or the precarious pit- tance of a trust-fund, but a sacred debt which the commonwealth owed to every one of its children. The opening of the first grammar-school was the opening of the first trench against monopoly in state and church ; the first row of pot-hooks and trammels which the little Shearjashubs and Elkanahs blotted and blubbered across their copy-books was the preamble to the Declaration of Independence." The Puritan plan embraced a complete state system from primary school to " university. " In 1636, a year after Boston established the first town school, Massachusetts had established her " state university " (as Har- vard truly was in the seventeenth century, though it was named for the good clergyman who afterward endowed it with his library) . The law of 1647 joined primary school and university in one whole, providing that each village of a hundred householders must maintain a "grammar- school, with a teacher able to instruct youth so as they may be fitted for the University." True, this noble attempt was too ambitious. Grinding poverty made it impossible for frontier villages of four or five hundred people to main- tain a Latin school ; and, despite heavy fines upon the towns that failed to do so, such schools gradually gave way, except in one or two large places, to a few private academies, — which came to represent the later New England idea in secondary education. Thus, the state system was broken at the middle, and both extremities suffered. The universities ceased finally to be state institutions ; and the primary schools deteriorated sadly, especially in the period of Puritan decline about 1700, with meager courses, short terms, and low aims. But with all its temporary failure in its first home, the Puritan ideal of a state system of public instruction 1 See Source Book, No. 82, for this Act in full, and for extracts from other school laws of the time. See, also, extracts in No. 83 as to town schools. POPULATION 165 was never lost in America ; and it was finally made real in a newer New England in the Northwest (§§ 183, close, and 291). J\cA> 124. Population : Immigration : Slaves and Servants. — A third s of the inhabitants in 1775 had been born in Europe. The Eng- lish nationality (if the Scotch-Irish be included), was the domi- nant element in every colony. In New England and tidewater Virginia — except for a small Huguenot immigration — and in Maryland, it was almost the only element. In the Carolinas the Huguenots were numerous, and in South Carolina and Georgia there was a large German population. South Carolina, too, had many Highland Scots. 1 The largest non-English ele- ments, however, and the greatest mixture of races, were found in the Middle colonies : Dutch and Germans in New York ; Dutch and Swedes in Delaware ; Germans, Welsh, and Celtic Irish in Pennsylvania. In the Carolinas, Virginia, and Penn- sylvania, the back counties were settled mainly by the Scotch- Irish, or Presbyterian English. In the fifteen years preceding the Eevolution (1760-1775), population had risen from 1,600,000 (§ 112) to 2,500,000. One fifth of all were Negro slaves. Nearly half the whole popu- lation was found south of Pennsylvania; but while there were some Negroes in every colony, most of them were massed south of Mason and Dixon's line, making nearly half the total popu- lation there. The South contained only a little more than half as many Whites as the North. 2 1 These came to America after the defeat at Culloden and the breaking up of the clan system. Among these fugitives was Scott's heroine, Flora Mac- Donald, and her husband. Curiously enough, these people were Tories, to a man, in the Revolution. The same conservative and loyal temper which had made them cling to the exiled House of Stuart in England made them in America adherents of King George. 2 In 1619, while Virginia was still the only English colony on the continent, she received her first importation of Negro slaves, twenty in number. As late as 1648, there were only 300 in her population of 15,000. By 1670 the number had risen to 2000 (out of a total of 40,000). A century later nearly half her population was Black; while in South Carolina, more than half was Black. In Maryland the proportion was about a fourth, and in 166 COLONIAL LIFE In New England, labor was in the main free : the inden- tured White servant had nearly- disappeared, though something very similar was provided for minors by the cruel appren- ticeship system of the time. White bond servants were still the chief supply of manual labor in the Middle colonies, and an important element in Virginia. The man who sold him- self into service for four or seven years, in return for passage money for himself or his family, was known as a "redemp- tioner" or " free-wilier." The German immigrants of the eighteenth century, like many of the English settlers (§ 19), came in this way. Besides this class, there had always been White convicts transported from England and condemned to a term of service, — seven or fourteen years. After 1717, this class increased rapidly in number, averaging 1000 a year for the fifty years preceding the Revolution. A third kind of White " servants " were those " spirited " from England by kid- napers; but except for several thousands such unfortunates in the times of Charles II, the number was small. Classed with the convicts in law, but very different from them in char- acter, were the political " convicts, " — prisoners sold into serv- ice by the victorious parties, each in turn, during the English civil wars of the seventeenth century. Often the convicts were not hardened criminals, but rather the vic- tims of the atrocious laws in England at the time. Many were intelli- gent and capable. In Maryland in 1773 a majority of all tutors and teachers are said to have been convicts. Some of them (like a much larger part of the redemptioners), after their term of service, became prosperous and useful citizens. 1 Even in aristocratic Virginia, a transported thief rose to become attorney-general. But of course a great many more were ex- ceedingly undesirable. Pennsylvania and Virginia made attempts by law to stop the importation of convict servants ; but such legislation was al- ways vetoed in England. New York, a seventh. North Carolina had fewer than the other southern colonies ; and there were few slaves in New England or Pennsylvania. 1 Charles Thomson, Secretary of the Continental Congress, was a " re- demptioner, " as was also one of the signers of the Declaration of Independ- ence. So, too, was Zenger (§ 119) ; and many members of colonial legislatures could be named who came to America as " bond servants." "SERVANTS" AND SLAVES 167 The condition of this large class of White servants was often a deplorable servitude (JSourqe Book, Nos. 116, 117). The colonial press, up to the Revolution, teems with advertisements offering rewards for runaway servants. More than seventy such notices are contained in the " Newspaper Extracts " pub- lished in the New Jersey Archives for that little colony, and for only the two years, 1771, 1772. This must have meant one runaway servant to each 1000 of the population ; and probably not half the runaways are in those advertisements. One run- away is described as " born in the colony" about 50 years old, and as having served in the last ivar (French War), and a car- penter by trade. There are still more significant and gruesome notices by jailers, proving that it was customary to arrest a vagrant workingman on suspicion of his being a runaway, and then, if no master appeared to claim him within a fixed time, to sell him into servitude jor his jail fees ! American law and custom permitted these barbarities upon the helpless poor in the days of Lexington and Bunker Hill. Negroes were not numerous enough in the North (except perhaps in New York) to affect the life of the people seri- ously. In the South, Black slavery degraded the condition of the indentured White " servant," and — more serious still — made it difficult for him .to* find profitable and honorable work when his term of service had expired. As early as 1735, the result appeared in the presence of the class known later as "poor whites.'* In that year William Byrd, a Virginian planter, declared that these " Ethiopians " " blow up the Pride and ruin the Industry of our White People, who, seeing a Rank of poor Creatures below them, detest work for Fear it should make them look like Slaves." l 1 In Virginia, as a rule, slavery was patriarchal and mild ; while in South Carolina and Georgia (where the rice plantations were supplied with ever fresh importations frum Africa) it was excessively brutal. In all colonies with a large slave population there were incredibly cruel " Black Laws,*' to keep slaves from running away or from rising against their masters; and 168 COLONIAL LIFE Dependence upon slave labor, too, helped to keep industry purely agricultural in the Soutja, since the slave was unfit for manufactures or for the work of a skilled artisan. Tobacco raising was the chief employment in the tidewater districts of Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina, and rice cultivation in South Carolina and Georgia. These tidewater staples were grown mainly on large plantations; and the Vir- ginia planter in particular sought to add estate to estate, and to keep land in his family by rigid laws of entail. 1 Between this class of large planters and the " poor whites," however, there was always a considerable number of small farmers in Virginia ; and in North Carolina this element was the main one in the population. The western counties of all the colo- nies were occupied exclusively in small farming. In the Middle colonies, foodstuffs were raised on a large scale. These colonies exported to the West Indies (both Eng- lish and French) most of the bread, flour, beer, beef, and pork used there. In these colonies, too, immigrant artisans from Germany early introduced rudimentary manufactures, — linen, pottery, glassware, hats, shoes, furniture. In New England, the majority of the people lived still in agricultural villages and tilled small farms ; but they could not wring all their subsistence from the scanty soil. Each farmer was a " Jack-at-all-trades." In the* winter days, he hewed out clapboards, staves, and shingles ; and in the long evenings, at a little forge in the fireplace, he hammered out nails and tacks from a bar of iron. 2 At the very beginning of New England everywhere the general attitude of the law toward the slave was one of in- difference to human rights. The worst phases of the law were not often ap- pealed to in actual practice ; but in New York in 1741, during a panic due to a supposed plot for a slave insurrection, fourteen negroes were burned at the stake (with legal formalities) and a still larger number were hanged, — all on very flimsy evidence. 1 " Entail " is a legal arrangement to prevent laud from being sold or willed away out of a fixed line of inheritance. 2 Even in the towns, all but the merchant and professional classes had to be able to turn their hands to a variety of work if they would prosper. Mr. OCCUPATIONS 169 colonization, too, rude sawmills, run by water, were used to convert the forest into simple forms of lumber; and the mak- ing of pearl-ash was an important industry through the whole period. Other manufactures appeared, though, with one excep- tion, on a smaller scale than in Pennsylvania. The exception was shipbuilding. New England built ships for both American and English markets. With her splendid timber at the water's edge, Massachusetts could launch an oak ship at about half the cost of a like vessel in an English shipyard ; and in 1775 at least a third of the vessels flying the English flag had been built in America. The swift-sailing schooner, perfected in this period, was peculiarly a New England creation. Another leading industry was the fisheries, — cod, mackerel, and finally, as these bred an unrivaled race of seamen, the whale fisheries of both polar oceans. New England, too, was preeminently the commercial section of America. Her merchants sent ships laden with fish, lumber, oil, and rum (manufactured from West India sugar) to all parts of the world, and carried on most of the trade between the other colonies. Thus in the South, industry was very simple, and was carried on largely by forced labor, White or Black. North of Maryland, it was more varied, carried on mainly by free men. Wages for this free labor were exceed- ingly low, — in 1750, about fifty cents a day for skilled artisans and thirty cents for unskilled workmen. All the colonies imported their better grades of clothing and of other manufactures from England. The southern planters dealt through agents in England, to whom they consigned their tobacco. For the other colo- nies the "circle of exchange" was a trifle more complex. They all im- ported from England more than they sold there. But they sold to the French and English West Indies more than they bought, receiving the balance in money, — mainly French and Spanish coins, —with which they settled the adverse balances in England. Weeden tells of a certain John Marshall, a constable at Braintree and a com- missioned officer in the militia company there, who " farmed a little, made laths in the winter, was painter and carpenter, messenger, and burned bricks, bought and sold live-stock," and who managed by these varied industries to earn about four shillings a day. 17* COLONIAL LIFE This drain of coin from America to England was incessant, and there were no "banks" to furnish currency. In the need of a "circulating medium" (especially during the Intercolonial Wars, when the govern- ments needed funds), nearly all the colonies at some time after 1690 issued paper money. The business was always badly handled, and great depreciation followed, with serious economic confusion. In consequence, the English government finally forbade any more such issues, to the great vexation of large elements in America. The South had few towns, — none of consequence (except Charleston) south of Baltimore. Most of the houses were frame structures, white, with a long porch in front, set at in- tervals of a mile or more apart, often in parklike grounds. The small class of wealthy planters lived on vaster estates, separated from neighbors by grander distances. In any -case, a true "plantation " ivas a unit social and economic, apart from the rest of the world. The planter's importations from Europe were unladen at his own wharf, and his tobacco (with that of the neighboring small farmers) was taken aboard. Leather was tanned ; clothing for the hundreds of slaves was made ; blacksmithing, woodworking, and other industries needful to the little community, were carried on, sometimes under the di- rection of White foremen. The mistress supervised weaving and spinning ; .the master rode over his fields to supervise cul- tivation. The two usually cared for the slaves, looked after them in sickness, allotted their daily rations, arranged " mar- riages." The central point in the plantation was the imposing mansion of brick or wood, surrounded by houses for foremen and other assistants and by a number of offices. At a distance was a little village of Negro cabins. The chief bond with the outer world was the lavish hospitality between the planter's family and neighbors of like position scattered over many miles of territory. A wholly different society was symbolized by even the ex- terior of New England, as suggested above, — small farms sub- divided into petty fields by stone fences (gathered from the soil), and the clustering of all habitations in hamlets which dotted the landscape, each marked by the spire of a white NORTH AND SOUTH ^71 church, and, seen closer, made up of a few wide, elm-shaded streets with rows of small but decent houses, each in its roomy yard. And yet, even in New England, people were expected to dress accord- ing to their social rank ; and inferiors were made to " keep their places," in churches and public inns. The club room and the inn parlor were for the gentry only ; the tradesman and his wife found places in the kitchen or tap room. For Further Reading. — Besides references in the footnotes, atten- tion is called to the following material : James Russell Lowell's es^ay "New England Two Centuries Ago" in his Works; Fiske's Old Vir- ginia, II, 174-269 ; Channing, II, 367-526 ; Alice Morse Earle's Customs and Fashions in Old New England and Home Life in Colonial Days ; C. F. Adams' Three Episodes of Massachusetts History. On American industries, see especially Shaler's United States, I, ch. 10 ; Eggleston's "Commerce in the Colonies" in the Century Magazine, III, V-VIII ; and Bishop's American Manufactures, I. Fiction: Mary Johnston's Prisoners of Hope ; F. J. Stimson's King Noanett. (Both these stories deal with White servitude.) M 9 PART II THE MAZING OP THE NATION CHAPTER VI SEPARATION FROM ENGLAND 125. The American Revolution is one of the great episodes of all his- tory. It established the first independent American state, — the first of many to follow through revolution against Old-World colonial policies. It helped to make the colonial policy of all countries less selfish and more enlightened. Through its influence upon the French Revolution, it re- acted upon the internal development of Europe. 1 It was the prelude to the creation in North America of a truer form of federal republic than the world had before known. It " split the English-speaking race, and so doubled its influence." The period of the revolution covers twenty years, — from 1763 to 1783. The first twelve were spent in constitutional wrangling ; the next eight in war (1763-1775* 1775-1783)- I. PREPARATION IN THE INTERCOLONIAL WARS The seventy years of intercolonial wars, with which we have dealt so briefly (§ 114), furnished one indispensable prepara- tion for the Revolution. Those wars closed in 1763. At the moment they seemed to have given England a new colonial empire ; but soon it appeared that instead they had endangered her old empire. The confidence of the colonists, due to their military experience with European soldiers, was highly impor- tant ; but there were three more vital influences. These wars had removed the need of English protection ; they had brought about attempts to tax America ; and they had partly prepared the colonies for union (§§ 126-128). 1 Modern History, § 308, note. 172 PREPARATION IN THE FRENCH WARS 173 126. Preparation for Federation. — In 1763, the colonies were still divided by sectional jealousies and prejudices to a degree almost inconceivable. Common danger, however, had already done something to bring them together politically. In 1698, near the beginning of the French wars, William Penn drew up a scheme for colonial federation ; and in 1754, Franklin pre- sented to the colonial governors in council at Albany his famous draft of a constitution for a federated colonial state. 1 Between these two dates, at least seven other plans of like nature had appeared. 2 True, the great body of colonists everywhere ig- nored or rejected these proposals; but the discussion prepared men for federation when a stronger motive should arise. With- out union, resistance to England would have been impossible. 127. The conquest of Canada removed the need of English pro- tection. For some time, far-sighted men had seen that the colonies must remain true to England while the dreaded French power threatened them from Canada. 3 These views were not 1 See Source Book, No. 114. 2 Howard's Preliminaries, 10-15, gives a good account of them. 3 Thus Peter Kalm, a shrewd Swedish traveler, wrote in 1748: "It is of great advantage to the crown of England that the colonies are near a country under the government of the French. . . . There is reason to believe that the king was never earnest in his attempts to expel the French from their posses- sions there, though it might easily have been done. ... I have been publicly told, not only by native Americans, but by English emigrants, that within thirty or fifty years the English colonies in North America may constitute a separate state, entirely independent of England. But as the whole country toward the sea is unguarded, and on the frontier is kept uneasy by the French, these dangerous neighbors are the reason why the love of these colonies for their metropolis does not utterly decline. So, too, Montcalm, dying at Quebec, consoled himself: "This defeat will one day be of more service to my country than a victory. . . . England will be the first victim of her colonies." Choiseul, the French minister, signing the treaty by which France surrendered her American empire, declared that he was signing also " the death warrant of English power in America." And Vergennes, then French minister at Constantinople, prophesied to an English traveler there : " England will soon repent of having removed the only check that could keep her colonies in awe. They no longer need her protection. She will call upon them to contribute toward the support of burdens they have helped bring upon her; and they will answer by striking off all dependence." 174 PRELIMINARIES OF THE REVOLUTION unknown to the English government. The ministry had re- fused to cooperate with the colonists for the conquest of Canada during King George's War (preceding the French and Indian War). Pitt's imperial views had now brought about that con- quest ; but William Burke (a friend and kinsman of the famous orator) published a forceful argument that England ought to restore Canada to France, perhaps in return for a West India island, but, if necessary, without compensation, merely to secure her own safety in America. 1 Such ignoble caution had been cast aside by Pitt's splendid ambition for his country and by his pride in the new Eng- land beyond seas. And if jPitt's views had continued to con- trol England's colonial policy, no trouble in the near future would have resulted. But when Pitt's influence waned, trouble for England did follow from the situation which his statesman- ship had created. 128. The intercolonial wars afforded the immediate occasion for con- troversy with the mother country. The colonies had been held to Eng- land by ties internal and external, — by sentiment and affection, and by fear of foreign peril. During the preceding century, however, the internal bond had been sapped, insensibly, by the large non-English immigration and by the incessant disputes over commercial regulations, paper money, royal vetoes, and governors' salaries (§119). Now that the external pressure was removed, only a shock was needed to separate the two halves of the empire. This shock the intercolonial wars provided, since they led parliament to tax the colonies (§§ 129 ff.). The colonists were then forced to ask themselves whether in the future the protection afforded by England would compensate them for their dependent position. II. THE QUESTION OPENED. ATTEMPTS AT TAXATION/ The situation created by the intercolonial wars led promptly to three attempts at taxation, — the " writs of assistance" to enforce old laws; the Sugar Act of 1764 ; and the Stamp Act. (Later provisions, like those of Townshend and Lord North [§§ 139-141] were designed not so much to raise revenue as to vindicate previous policy and assert authority.) 1 The student will find a striking extract from Burke's plea in Woodburn's Lecky's American Revolution, 3-5. WRITS OF ASSISTANCE 175 129. "Writs of Assistance" mark an attempt to enforce the old Navigation Acts with a new energy. This policy began with Pitt, during the French and Indian War, and its original purpose was, not to raise revenue, but to stop a shameful trade with the enemy. Lecky, the liberal English historian, writes: "At a time when the security of British America was one of the first objects of English policy, and when large sums were remitted from England to pay the colonists for fighting in their own cause, it was found that the French fleets and garri- sons were systematically supplied with large quantities of provisions by the New England colonists." Even Bancroft, with his strong American prej- udices, admits that Pitt's measures were intended not to enforce the trade laws in the interest of British commerce, but "solely, in time of war, to distress the enemy." The indignant preamble of Pitt's instructions to the colonial governors 1 runs: "The Commanders of His Majesty's Forces . . . having trans- mitted repeated and certain Intelligence of an illegal and most pernicious Trade carried on by the King's Subjects in North America ... to thei French Settlements ... by which the Enemy ... is supplied with Pro- visions and other Necessaries, whereby they are principally, if not alone enabled to sustain and protract this long and expensive War ...,'' therefore the officers of the crown are to .make stringent exertions to stop [' this dangerous and ignominious Trade.' 1 '' Such treasonable trade was largely condoned by public opin- ion in the colonies, and was easily confused with the ordinary smuggling which had long made parts of the navigation laws a dead letter. Accordingly, the customs officials fell back upon remedies worse than the evil. In 1755, they began to use general search ivarrants, known as " writs of assistance." This form of warrant was a recent abuse in English government, first sanctioned by law in the evil times of Charles* II. It ran counter to the ancient English principle that a man's house was p his castle," into which not even the officer of the law might enter without the owner's permission, except upon definite cause shoivn. Unlike ordinary (" special ") warrants, these new docu- ments did not name a particular place to be searched or a par- ticular thing to be searched for, nor did they make public the name of the informer upon whose testimony they were issued. 176 PRELIMINARIES OF THE REVOLUTION They authorized any officer to enter any house upon any sus- picion, and "were directed against a whole people." They might easily become instruments of tyranny, and even of per- sonal revenge by petty officials. George III came to the throne in 1760; and, according to law, all such writs of the past reign lost validity within six- months. Accordingly, in 1761, an official for the port of Bos- ton applied to the Superior Court of Massachusetts for their renewal. The Boston merchants determined to fight the case. James Otis, the brilliant young Advocate General, resigned his office rather than argue for the writs, and took the case for the merchants. He lost the case. The Massachusetts judges, with conservative subservience to precedent, were unanimous against him; and, when the General Court the next spring passed an act expressly forbidding general writs, the judges advised the governor to veto it. But meantime Otis' fiery argument stirred the minds of the people and opened the whole question of parliamentary control. "Otis was a flame of fire," declared John Adams, many years later; "then and there the child Independence was born." 1 Otis described the general warrants as "the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and of the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law book." He contended, he said, against "a kind of power, the exercise of which had cost one king of England his crown, and another his head." After picturing vividly the abuses to follow such an instrument of despotism, he concluded : "No Act of Parliament can establish such a writ. . . . An act against the constitution is void." 2 1 This comes from Adams' later account. The other quotations in the para- graph are from notes taken at the time by Adams, then a law student. 2 This final argument is natural to Americans to-day, familiar as we are with the idea of a written constitution as a fundamental law, to which all other law must conform. In England to-day such an argument would be al- most impossible, since there parliament has come to be so supreme that it can change the law and the "constitution " at will. In older English history, however, the Common Law and the great charters (especially in so far as they protected the rights of the individual) had been regarded somewhat as we regard our constitutions ; and in the time of Otis that view had not been ^ DECISION TO TAX AMERICA 177 Soon afterward Otis published his views upon the rights of the colo- nists in two pamphlets, which were widely read. "God made all men naturally equal," he affirms. Government is " instituted for the benefit of the governed," and harmful governments should be destroyed. Parlia- ment he recognizes as supreme (so long as it governs fitly), but he urges that the colonists, besides keeping their local legislatures, " should also be represented, in some proportion to their number and estates, in the grand legislature of the nation.'''' - . 130. Grenville's Policy. — In 1763, peace removed the special occasion for the writs of assistance ; and, in their enthusiastic gratitude to England for protection, the Americans were ready to forget their irritation. But, in that same year, George Grenville became head of the ministry, — an earnest, narrow man, without tact or statesmanship, bent upon raising a reve- nue in America. Merely as a matter of abstract logic, a good case could be made out for such action. The intercolonial wars had made England the greatest world power ; but they left her, too, stag- gering under a debt such as no country to that time had dreamed of. The colonists were prosperous and lightly bur- dened. Eight millions of Englishmen owed a war debt of ninety dollars a head - — incurred largely in defending two mil- lion colonials, whose public debt counted less than two dollars a head. The ministry were straining every resource at home to augment revenues, and they called upon the colonials to contribute a part toward their own future defense. Nor could the colonists excuse themselves adequately on the ground that they had done enough in the wars. The struggles in America had been little more than scattered skirmishes, altogether lost. Indeed a few years later (1766), the Court of the King's Bench declared "general warrants " in England unconstitutional. General " writs of assistance " (for enforcing customs duties), continued, however, to be used there until 1819. How profoundly the argument of Otis impressed America is seen from the fact that when Virginia in 177(5 adopted the first written state constitution, the declaration of rights prohibited " general warrants " (§§148, 149). This provision has appeared in nearly all our subsequent State constitutions, and it is found in the Federal Constitution (Amendment IV). 178 PRELIMINARIES OF THE REVOLUTION compared with the titanic conflicts in the Old World; ! and to the English fleet it was due that France had not made The con- test more serious on this side the Atlantic. 2 Moreover, even in America, England had furnished fully half the troops and nearly all the money, — repaying each colony for all expenses in_maintaining its own troops when outside its own borders. 3. The ministry had to face " not a theory, but a condition." The victory over France had brought not only burdens for the past, but also obliga- tions for the future. It seemed needful to maintain a garrison of ten thousand men in America, to guard against Indian outbreaks and against French reconquest. 4 But the colonists dreaded a standing army as an ii 1 Pitt had declared that he would "conquer [French] America in Ger- many," and he did so, by aiding and subsidizing Frederick the Great (Modern History, §277). 2 Refusing Montcalm's passionate calls for troops, the French government wrote : " If we sent a large reinforcement, there would be great fear lest the English might intercept them." 3 See Doyle's English Colonies, V, 486-487, and George Beers in Am. Hist. Association Report for 1906, I, 182-185. At Quebec, Wolfe had 8500 regulars and only 700 colonials — whom he described as " the dirtiest, most contempt- ible cowardly dogs . . . such rascals as are an encumbrance ... to an army." Amherst at Louisburg had only 100 colonials with his 11,000 troops. In the Crown Point expedition of 1755 (before war was formally declared), the 3000 Provincials made the whole force ; and of the 5000 troops in the field during the next year, 4000 were colonials. But after war was declared, the English troops plainly preponderated. Barry, the American historian, esti- mates the average proportions as about half and half. 4 Pontiac's War, the most terrible Indian outbreak the colonists ever knew, came just at the close of the French War, in 1763, and raged for more than a year, sweeping bare, with torch and tomahawk, a long stretch of western country running through three colonies and including many hundreds of square miles. A few British regiments, left in the country from the preced- ing French War, were the only reason the disaster was not unspeakably worse. For six months they were the only troops in the field. The Pennsylvania leg- islature, despite frantic appeals from the governor, delayed in its plain duty to provide defense for its own frontier, — partly perhaps from Quaker princi- ples, but more from a shameful dislike felt by the older districts for the Scotch-Irish western counties; while the savages, having worked their will in that province, carried their raids across its southern border, getting into the rear of a small force with which George Washington was striving gallantly to guard the western frontier of Virginia. Washington's force, too, was for months altogether insufficient even for its own task. His letters to the gov- THE SUGAR ACT OF 1764 179 strument of tyranny, and would do nothing to help support one. Gren- ville determined to supply the money partly from the English treasury, partly by taxing the colonists without their consent. He would turn the navigation acts into a source of revenue — instead of merely a means of reg- ulating trade and benefiting English merchants; and he would raise money in the colonies directly by internal taxes, which had never before been attempted. Grenville's purpose may have been justifiable; but his means must certainly be condemned. Whether the Americans were right or not in refusing to maintain a garrison by taxing themselves, they surely were right in opposing Grenville's attempt to force them to maintain one. Franklin, agent for Pennsylvania, urged, in conference with Grenville, that the colonists should be left to raise the necessary sums through their separate legislatures, upon requisitions from the crown ; but when asked how the amount should be apportioned and how payment could be assured, he was silenced. The method of requisitions had never worked, and no blame attaches to Grenville for refusing to be deluded longer by such a snare. The blame he incurs is for the substitute he chose. There was another alternative, stated by Lecky, which, if not satis- factory, was infinitely better than to break with fundamental principles of liberty : " It would have been far wiser ... to have abandoned the proj- ect of making the Americans pay for their army, and to have thrown the burden on the mother country [where most of it was to rest anyway]. Heavily taxed as Englishmen were . . . the support of a small American army would not have been overwhelming, while a conflict with the colo- nists on this matter could lead to no issue but disaster." There was still another possibility. If the English government had cared to do so, it could probably have secured the adoption of Franklin's " Albany Plan," with a central federal Assembly for the colonie s. With one Assembly (in place~of thirteen) the English government could have dealt satisfactorily. V, 131. The Sugar Act of 1764. — Grenville had already issued orders for rigid enforcement of the old navigation acts, which (except for Pitt's war measures) had slumbered for genera- ernor of Virginia complain bitterly; but the governor's many and earnest entreaties to his legislature for supplies and reinforcements bore fruit very slowly. Washington declared that he would have been wholly helpless for a long and critical period, had he not had under his command a small troop of English soldiers. 180 PRELIMINARIES OF THE REVOLUTION tions ; and zealous officers in America had begun to irritate the merchant class by numerous seizures of ships and cargoes. Then upon communities, angry and suspicious, fell news of new taxation by parliament. The French West Indies were an important market for the products of New England and the Middle colonies (§ 124), pay- ing in sugar and money/ With rum, manufactured from the sugar, New England merchants carried on other profitable trade (especially for slaves on the coast of Africa). The Sugar Act of 1733 (§ 116) had sought to check importation of French sugar, in the interest of the British West Indies ; but it had never been enforced. The " Sugar Act " of 1 764 announced the purpose, not of regulating trade, but of raising revenue in the colonies " for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the same." It was much more than a mere " sugar act n ; it was a revision of the navigation system in the interest of the new policy of revenue. It aiso provided machinery more efficient than ever before, to enforce the laws. But its most offensive feature at the moment was its absolute prohibi- tion of trade with the French colonies. The commercial colonies were driven into spasms of terror. They be- lieved with reason that enforcement of the new law meant, not merely a new and heavy tax on their trade, but its utter ruin, so that they would no longer be able to pay for the imports they needed from England. They had never so feared French conquest as they now feared the loss of French trade. With every mail from America, a storm of protests as- sailed the ministry, while for several months little noise was made about the Stamp Act, of which full notice had been given (§ 132). Indeed, the Sugar Act was the more dangerous. It, too, was taxation without representation (though the tax was external, not internal, — to use a favorite distinction of the time). But it was much more than a rev- enue measure. Merely as a tax, it was more severe, though less direct, than the Stamp Act; and, in its other aspects, it exercised a kind of power much more likely to be abused than the power of direct taxation. But the Sugar Act did not directly affect the southern colonies ; and therefore resistance to it could not arouse a united America. Moreover, though this law did aim to raise revenue, still in form it was like preced- ing navigation acts, to which the colonists, in theory at least, had long as- THE STAMP ACT 181 sented. As Dr. Howard well says, 1 the "economic grievance" of this law "lies at the bottom of the revolutionary contest," but the leaders of opinion needed a better rallying cry than it afforded. 132. The Stamp Act gave this opportunity. Early in 1764, Grenville had called together the agents of the colonies in London, to announce the nature of the proposed taxation. They argued earnestly against it, but proposed no other satis- factory method of supporting a garrison. Parliament, there- fore, promptly adopted resolutions approving the proposed policy ; but a year was given for the colonies to provide some other means. The colonies confined themselves to protests. In the fall of 1764, the Sugar Act fell into the background ; and from colonial town meetings and Assemblies petitions began to assail the ministry against the unconstitutional nature of the Stamp Act plan. These communications seem never to have been presented in parliament. In March, 1765, the law was enacted, almost without discussion, and with no suspicion of the storm about to break. The Stamp Act was modeled upon a law in force in Great Britain. As a tax it was not exorbitant. It required the use of stamps or stamped paper for newspapers, pamphlets, cards and dice, and for all legal docu- ments (wills, deeds, writs). In a few instances, where the document recorded some important grant, the cost of the stamp rose to several pounds ; but, as a rule, the tax ranged from a penny to a shilling or two. Not a penny was to benefit England or to help pay off past indebted- ness. The whole revenue was appropriated in advance to the future support of an American garrison. 2 Now came a significant change in the agitation in America. Astute leaders seized the chance to rally public dissatisfaction against England by appeals to the traditional cry, — "No taxa- tion without representation." The opposition to the Sugar Act had rested upon a concrete money grievance; but, from 1765, the colonists contended, not against actual oppression suffered, but against a principle which might lead to oppres- 1 See an admirable treatment in Preliminaries of the Revolution, 104-120. 2 See extracts from the law, and from the Sugar Act, in the Source Book. 182 CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTION sion. " They made their stand," says Moses Coit Tyler, " not against tyranny inflicted, but against tyranny anticipated." The Americans surpassed even the English of that day in what Burke called "the fierce spirit of liberty." The freest people of their age, they were fit for more freedom, and could wage a revolution for ideas. // III. FUNDAMENTAL CAUSES / jfore continuing the narrative, it will be well to understand certain underlying causes and conditions. America was of age, — able to set up for herself (§ 133); and, in growing up, she had grown away from the mother country (§134). Separation, or some radical readjustment, inevitable from these fundamental causes, was hastened by two other conditions, — the incompetence of the British King and ministry (§ 136), and a move- ment for greater democracy within American society (§ 137). 133. The Colonial System outgrown. — England's colonial system had guided and guarded the colonies while they needed help and protection. It was not tyrannical ; but it was some- times selfish and often short-sighted, and it always carried the possibility of further interference, economic, political, and ecclesiastical. 1 True, until 1764, actual interference had never been seriously hurtful. Often it had been helpful. But any interference was vexatious to a proud people, who now, through their own growth and the removal of foreign danger, felt safe enough and strong enough to manage their own affairs. 77ie Americans had outgrown any colonial system possible in that day. The time had come for independence. 1 Many ^shrewd observers (John Adams among others) believed that the Revolution was caused largely by dread of ecclesiastical interference. Several times it had been suggested that England should establish bishops in America. Even the most strongly Episcopalian colonies, like Virginia and Maryland, resisted this proposal (needful as bishops were to the true effi- ciency of their form of church organization)., and the other colonies were bitter in opposition, because of the political power of such officers of the church at that time. After the Revolution, bishops, consecrated in England, were received without a murmur. % ^ *JC &i<& «ftfe S»j- An Attempt to land a Bishop in America. (From a Colonial publication, illustrative of Colonial feeling. The vessel's name is taken from Lord Hillsborough, secretary for Colonial affairs.) cou 184 CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTION Mellin Chamberlain, in one of his historical addresses, puts the cause of the Revolution in a nutshell. Levi Preston was one of the minutemen of Danvers who ran sixteen miles to get into the Lexington fight. Nearly seventy years afterward, Mr. Chamberlain interviewed the old veteran as to his reasons that April morning. "Oppressions?" said the aroused veteran; "what were they? I didn't feel any. 1 ' "Stamp Act?" "I never saw one of the stamps." " Tea tax ? " "I never drank a drop of the stuff ; the boys threw it all overboard." " Well, I suppose you had been reading Sidney or Locke about the eternal principles of liberty." "Never heard of them. We read only the Bible, the Catechism, Watt's Hymns, and the Almanac." "Then what did you mean by going into that fight?" "Young man, what we meant in going for those redcoats was this : we always had governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They didn't mean we should." 134. Divergence of Institutions. — The blundering ministry Id not see that the Americans had become a nation. Worse still, they chose just this time for an irritating policy which made the Americans themselves see that tremendous fact sooner than otherwise they might. In part, at least, this colossal mistake was due to the other fundamental cause un- derlying the necessity of separation. The first part of our history has dealt with the development of colonial institutions out of selected English institutions trans- planted into a new environment. If all of England could have been picked up and set down, strung out along the thousand miles of American coast from Maine to Georgia, its develop- ment during the next two centuries would have been very dif- ferent from what it actually was in the little European island: the new physical conditions would have caused a difference (§§ l^S). But not all England, only certain selected people and selected institutions, had been transplanted, — upon the whole, too, the' more democratic elements 1 in English society and iThus, no hereditary nobility was established in America, and neither monarch nor bishop in person appeared in American society. Moreover, the relatively democratic elements that did come were drawn rapidly further toward democracy by the presence in America of unlimited free land. This helped to maintain equality in society and in industry, and so, indirectly, in politics. DIVERGENCE BETWEEN AMERICA AND ENGLAND 185 politics. Therefore, the divergence between the European English and the American English had been rapid. By the middle of the eighteenth century, this divergence had gone so far that the two peoples could no longer understand each other. The two branches of the English race spoke the same political phrases ; but on the two sides of the Atlantic these phrases no longer stood for the same ideas. " Personal liberty " had a broader significance in America than in England, as was seen in the libel trials (§ 119) and in the agita- tion over writs of assistance (§ 129). And while both sections of Eng- lishmen clung to the doctrine " No taxation without representation," still these words meant one thing in England and a very different thing in America. 1 In England, since 1688, representative institutions, always imperfect, had been shrinking, — becoming more and more vir- tual. 2 In America, representative institutions had been ex- panding, — becoming more and more real. The English system had become, in Macaulay's words, "a monstrous system of represented ruins and unrepresented cities." Originally it had been a representation of estates (classes), not of people; and, with growth of population and industrial changes, there had arisen great classes of population not represented at all. No attempt had been made (except one, soon undone, during the brief Puritan rule) to adjust representation to the population of the different parts of England ; and now, with the shifting of population, many populous cities had grown up without any representation whatever, while many decayed cities, perhaps without a single inhabitant, or with only a handful of voters (pocket or rotten boroughs), kept their ancient " representa- 1 This fundamental truth for the study of the Revolution has been stated so admirably by Dr. Channing in his Students' History of the United States (140-144) that subsequent writers have no choice except to follow his presen- tation. The student should read the passage in full in Channing's text. 2 A concise five-page account of that shrinkage of representative govern- ent in England in the eighteenth century will be found in the Modern History, § 527. 186 CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTION tion." In reality, a small body of landlords appointed a majority of the House of Commons, and many of these "rep- resentatives " were utterly unknown in the places they " repre- sented." The House of Commons had become hardly more representative than the House of Lords. To an Englishman, accustomed to the English system and content with it, " No taxation without representation V meant no taxation by royal edict, no taxation except by the House of Commons, a " representative " body. And such au English- man might argue (as Lord Mansfield did) that parliament represented Massachusetts as much as it did the English Manchester, which equally with Massachusetts was without votes for parliament. There are more men in England, it was urged, who are taxed and who cannot vote than there are in- habitants in all America. Parliament virtually represents the colonies, and therefore has the right to tax them. The argument was weak, even if representation was to re- main " virtual." Manchester, though without votes, was sure to influence parliament, and to be understood by parliament, far better than distant Massachusetts. 1 But the American was not content with virtual representation : he demanded real representation. True, there were imperfections in the Ameri- can system. Some colonies, notably Pennsylvania and the Carolinas, had been slow to grant a proper share in their legis- latures to their own western counties (§ 137, b). But upon the whole, the system was fair and adequate to the needs of the country. The electoral districts were about equal in popula- tion ; the franchise, without being universal, was extended far enough to reach most men with a little property; and each little district chose for its representative, at frequent intervals, a man resident in its midst and well known to the voters. To the American, " No taxation without representation " meant no taxation except by a representative body in his own colony, chosen under such conditions as these. 1 Find illustrations of this American argument in the Source Book. DIFFICULTIES OF IMPERIAL UNION 187 In this dispute the Englishman stood upon past history and upon the old meaning of the phrase in the English constitution. The American stood for a meaning that had come to pass in America, — a higher and truer meaning, because more in accord with future liberty and progress. The victory of the American idea was to make possible its adoption in England also at a somewhat later time. x 135. Problem of Imperial Unity. — The problem, however, was not merely one of method in taxation : it was a question also of maintaining the unity of the British Empire. To pre- serve the greatest free state the world had ever seen, appealed to a noble patriotism on both sides the Atlantic. But while Englishmen argued that, to preserve unity, the authority of parliament must be admitted supreme, Americans refused to recognize that authority in taxation, and so were driven soon to deny any authority in parliament. Even then, the colonists still clung to union with England as " the source of our greatest happiness," and strove to find some other bond between the parts of the empire. In this dilemma, many of the leaders were driven to a peculiar doctrine : the colonies, they said, were subject, not to parliament, but to the crown. The union between Massachusetts and England, ac- cording to this view of Jefferson and Franklin, was only "in the person of the sovereign," like the union between England and Scotland under James I. 2 George III was king in England and king in Massachusetts ; but parliament was the legislature of the British Isles only, as the General Court was the legisla- ture of Massachusetts. In the argument over taxation, the Americans had the best of it, be- cause they placed themselves upon modern conditions, ignoring dead theories. But in this second argument, it was the Americans who clung to a dead theory. In earlier times there had been some basis for the doctrine of the crown's sovereignty in America. The colonies were founded upon ' ' crown lands " ; and the kings tried to keep them as crown 1 Modern History, §§ 529-536. Cf. also Lecky's treatment of the English theory in Woodburn's Lecky's American Revolution, 77-78. 2 Modern History, § 281, a. 188 CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTION estates. In those days, the colonists had been glad to seek refuge in management by parliament. During the Commonwealth, parliament ex- ercised extensive control, and ever since, from time to time it had legislated for the colonies, — not merely in commercial regulations, but in various beneficent matters, as in the establishment of the colonial Post Office. Meantime, the English Revolution of 1688 had made parliament supreme over the king. George III was "king in Massachusetts " only because he was Icing of England ; and he was king of England only because of an Act of Parliament. 1 Indeed, had the king's power been real any longer, the colonists would never have appealed to a theory of "personal union." Tlie plea was a device to escape real control of any kind. . Neither the extreme English nor the extreme American theory fitted, because the situation was new. Within two or three gen- erations, England, had been transformed from a little island state, with a few outlying plantations, into the center of a world empire. Within the same period, the relative power of king and parliament had shifted greatly in the government of England itself. This change necessarily involved a new rela- tion between parliament and the colonies ; but just ichat that relation ought to be was not clearly agreed. Plainly this colonial theory of Franklin and Jefferson would not do. It was not at all in accord with the new liberal English constitution; nor would it secure any real imperial unity. In England, mean- while, some statesmen had evolved a new constitutional theory not satisfactory in some vital respects, but much more in accord with the new conditions of the empire. This theory is best stated in a noble passage toward the close of Burke's great oration on American Taxation : — " I look upon the imperial rights of Great Britain and the privileges which the colonists ought to enjoy under those rights to be just the most reconcilable things in the world. The parliament of Great Britain sits at the head of her extensive empire in two capacities : one as the local legis- lature of this island. . . . The other, and I think her nobler, capacity is what I call her imperial character, in which, as from the throne of heaven, she superintends all the inferior legislatures, and guides and controls them all, without annihilating any. ... It is necessary to coerce the negligent, 1 Act of Settlement ; ib., § 253. DIFFICULTIES OF IMPERIAL UNION 189 to restrain the violent, and to aid the weak ... by the over-ruling pleni- tude of her power." Parliament, the orator continues, is not to intrude into the place of an inferior colonial legislature while that body answers to its proper functions ; " but, to enable parliament.to accomplish these ends of beneficent superintendence, her power must be boundless," — including even the power to tax, Burke adds explicitly, though he regards that as a reserve power, to be used only in the last extremity, as "an instrument of empire, not a means of supply." That is, Burke would have had parliament recognized as possessing absolute power, in order that at need it might preserve the empire; but lie would have had it waive its authority in ordinary times in favor of the rights of the colo- nists to self-government through their local legislatures. Probably this would have been as nearly satisfactory as any solution of the problem then possible, 1 if union was to be maintained. If it had been adopted in good faith, and worked tactfully by the British government, separation would have been at least postponed. Fortunately, no doubt, the incompetent British government of the day adopted the first half of the theory, as to the supremacy of parliament, and worked that theory (not as Burke would have had them, but, as he warned them in another oration not to do) " with too much logic and too little sense " ; and the machinery collapsed. We must remember that most Englishmen and many Americans thought this imperial control infinitely more necessary for the sake of the colonies than for the sake of England. To say nothing of a supposed deficiency in population and wealth, each colony had been guilty, time after time during the past seventy years, of sacrificing the safety of a 1 Certainly it was better than the absurd contention to which William Pitt was driven, —that Parliament might govern the colonies in all other matters hut might not tax them, because "taxation is no part of the governing or legislative power." When Pitt's great intellect could find no way but this to reconcile freedom and empire, the difficulty must have been great indeed. One solution would have been correct theoretically, — to give the colonies adequate representation in a reformed parliament. This plan was suggested by James Otis, and was approved by Franklin in America and by Adam Smith in England; but, in practice, even had both parties been willing, such a solu- tion could not have worked in that day, while steam and electricity had not yet conquered time and space. 190 CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTION neighboring colony, and sometimes even that of its own frontier, to an ignorant and cruel parsimony or to mean and wicked jealousy. 1 In such miserable history there was abundant justification for the common and heartfelt conviction of the utter incapacity of the colonies to combine in their own defense, except under the beneficent constraint of England. But not merely do " new occasions teach new duties": new duties many and many a time call forth unsuspected energies and new capacities, in nations, as in individual men. So, almost at once, at the stirring call of Independence, the weak and divided colonies did unite efficiently enough to protect themselves not only without England, but against her. The men who in advance believed that the colonies could do so drew their conviction not from the multitude of disgraceful facts in recent history, but from a broad survey, or from a deeper faith in their country- men and in human nature — from "the evidence of things not seen." They were radicals, rather than conservatives, in temperament. er'T^'' 136. Relation of the Revolution to Reform in England. — That the governments of Townshend and Lord North (§§ 139, 141) were permitted by parliament to drive the colonists to rebellion was due, in part at least, to the fact before referred to (§ 123) that parliament represented England " virtually w rather than 1 Any detailed history of the intercolonial-war period abounds in illus- trations. John Fiske, New France and New England, 242 ff., gives one case where Massachusetts exposed her own borders, together with those of other New England colonies, to the terrible ravages of torch and scalping knife, because the legislature most unjustifiably objected to certain capa- ble but unpopular officers. Another striking instance has been referred to above (§132). Peter Kalm (cf. §127) wrote: "Not only is the sense of one province sometimes opposed to that of another, but frequently the views of the governor and those of the Assembly of the same province are quite different. ... It has commonly happened that while some provinces have been suffering from their enemies, the neighboring ones were quiet and inactive ... as if it did not in the least concern them. They have frequently taken two or three years in considering whether they should give assistance to an oppressed sister colony, and sometimes they have expressly declared themselves against it. There are instances of provinces . . . who even carried on a great trade with the Power which at the very time was attacking and laying waste some other provinces." Such considerations led James Otis him- self to write in 1765 : " God forbid these colonies should ever prove unduti- ful to their mother country. . . . Were the colonies left to themselves to- morrow, America would be a mere shamble of blood and confusion, before little petty states could be settled." RELATION TO ENGLISH REFORM 191 "really." That situation was not satisfactory to the great Whig leaders there ; and the contention between King George's government and the colonies became intermingled with a struggle for the reform of parliament at home. Extension of the franchise and reapportionment of the representation had been demanded vehemently for some time. If the demand of the Americans regarding taxation and representation was granted, then it would not be possible for the government much longer to refuse the demand for representation by English cities like Manchester, and parliament would have to be reformed. But this was just what George III dreaded. King George * thought it his duty to recover the kingly power that had vanished since the English Revolution. To do this, he must be able to control parliament. The easiest way to control parliament was to secure his own appointees in that body from rotten and pocket boroughs. In a reformed parliament, this would no longer be possible. These considerations led the King to throw his influence in with his ministers at a critical time in the dispute, and so turn the constitutional wrangle with the colonies into war. For that result the King was largely responsible. Says Fiske, " He was glad to force on the issue in America rather than in England, because it would be comparatively easy to enlist British local feeling against the Americans as a remote set of ' rebels ' . . . and thus obscure the real nature of the issue." 2 1 An American writer says well of George III (Ford, American Politics, 344) : " In his private life he exactly fulfilled the popular ideal of a good ruler. In an age when society was recklessly dissolute, he was chaste in conduct, temperate in diet, and simple in manners. While irreligion abounded, he kept a virtuous home, whose days, beginning with family prayer, were passed in laborious performance of duty." King George was exceedingly conscientious, and exceedingly wrong-headed and narrow-minded. He was a good man and a bad king. 2 The student should read Fiske's treatment, American Revolution, I, 43-45. Just how far the policy of parliament and King in driving America into war was supported by English public opinion, it is impossible to say. There were no adequate agencies then for the expression of public opinion. After war had begun, and especially after America had been joined by France and 192 CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTION The American Revolution is seen imperfectly, if it is looked upon solely as a struggle between England and America. It was a strife of principles. It was part of a thousand-year-long contest between the English-speaking people and their kings for more and more political liberty. In 1776 the most advanced part of that people lived on this side of the Atlantic. The popular claims were made here, and the struggle was fought out here ; but in many ways the Revolution was a true civil war, A large portion of the Americans were not in favor of fighting, and a large portion of Englishmen were glad that America did fight. This element found expression even within parliament. The resolution of Patrick Henry declaring that the attempt to tax America, if successful, would result in the ruin of British liberty also, was echoed by the great speech of William Pitt, when he "rejoiced' 1 that America had resisted, and declared that victory over the colonies would be of ill omen for Eng- lish liberty. " 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." When troops were sent to Boston in 1774, the Earl of Rockingham and other Whig lords presented a protest to be inscribed on the journals of parliament, and the Duke of Richmond broke out: "I hope from the bottom of my heart that the Americans may resist and get the better of the forces sent against them." Charles Fox, a Whig leader, spoke of Washington's first defeat as "the terrible news from Long Island," and, in common with many Whigs, repeatedly called the American cause "the cause of liberty." All this gave some color to the Tory claim, when the war had failed, that the failure was due other ancieut enemies of England, there is no question but that the English nation stood enthusiastically with the government. But during the preceding constitutional agitation, a large part of English society sided with the colo- nies. John Adams, writing in July, 1774, said : "If the sense of the whole empire could be fairly collected, it would appear, I believe, that a great major- ity would be against taxing us with or without our consent. ... It is verrj certain that the sense of parliament is not the sense of the empire." Franklin, whose judicial temper and long residence in England made him an even better judge, took the like ground, as late as October, 1775: " I am persuaded the body of the British people are our friends ; but they are changeable, and by your lying gazettes may soon be made our enemies." As late as 1782, only four months before peace was made, the younger William Pitt asserted in parliament that if the House of Commons had not imperfectly represented the nation, it would never have been possible to carry on that "most accursed, wicked, barbarous, cruel, unjust, and diabolical war." DEMOCRATIC UPHEAVAL IN AMERICAN SOCIETY 193 to the way in which the Whigs had thwarted and vexed the government, — "to the support and countenance given to Rebellion within this very iHouse." J.37. Social Unrest in the Colonies. — There are two aspects to the Revolution. The movement for independence was intertwined with a social upheaval within American society. The rejec- tion of external English authority receives chief attention ; and so it is sometimes said that the term "revolution" is not a fit name for the movement. But that name certainly does apply to this internal change. The social unrest had three phases. a. In nearly all the colonies, a group of families — special pets of the crown or of the proprietor — monopolized office, influence, and special privilege. Other rival families (like the Livingstones and Schuylers in New York) felt aggrieved, and therefore were perhaps more inclined to the movement for independence. b. The western sections of many colonies (notably in Penn- sylvania and the Carolinas, but also, in some degree, in Vir- ginia, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire) felt themselves oppressed by the older sections. The inhabitants of the new western counties sometimes differed from their eastern breth- ren in religion or even in race (§ 124) ; and they were not given their fair representation in the colonial legislature which taxed and governed them, — but which sometimes failed to protect them against Indians. Sheriffs and other officials were often non-residents, appointed from the eastern counties. Law courts also were controlled by the older sections ; and in these western districts they met at long intervals and at long dis- tances from much of the population. And fees exacted for court services and by all these appointed officers seemed ex- orbitant, and were sometimes made so by disreputable trickery. 1 The western settlers were usually more democratic than the older sections ; and their unrest helped not only to support the agitation for independence, but also, when inde- 1 A certain Edmund Fanning, a Yale graduate, was appointed Register for the county of Orange, in western North Carolina, in 1763. It was currently 194 CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTION pendence was secured, to make the new States much more demo- cratic than the colonies had been. In North Carolina, after several years of serious friction, the oppressed pioneers set up a revolutionary organization in 1769, known as committees of "Regulators," to prevent collection of taxes. The eastern counties, which controlled the legislature, raised an army, and, in 1772, ended the war of the "Regulation " after a bloody campaign. The Regulation vms not directed in any way against England, and must not be regarded as an opening campaign of the Revolution. Indeed, the militia that restored oppression was the militia which three years later rose against England. The defeated "Regulators," refusing to join their past oppressors, became Tories, almost to a man. But if the internal conflict could have been de- layed three or four years, the Westerners would no doubt have dominated the Revolution itself in their State. That was what happened in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania also was on the verge of civil war ; but, happily, internal conflict was postponed long enough so that in the disorders of the general movement against England, the western radicals, with their sympathizers elsewhere in the colony, found opportunity to seize the upper hand. In Pennsylvania, the Revolution was a true internal revolution. Old leaders were set aside ; the franchise was extended to the democratic element, at the same time that large numbers of the old conservative classes were indirectly disfran- chised ; and a new reapportionment brought the democratic West into power. In most of the colonies north of the Carolinas, a like influence was felt in some degree. c. Even in the older sections new men and a more demo- cratic portion of society came to the front. Especially in the years 1774-1775, the weight in favor of resistance to English reported that he was impecunious when he received the appointment, and that he accumulated £10,000 in two years by extortion. The following verses were current as early as 1765. "When Fanning first to Orange came, He looked both pale and wan ; An old patched coat upon his back, An old mare he rode on. Both man and mare warn't worth five pounds, As I've been often told ; But by his civil robberies He's laced his coat with gold." The Regulators at one time dragged Fanning from the courthouse by the heels and flogged him, and at a later date burned his house. DEMOCRATIC UPHEAVAL IN AMERICAN SOCIETY 195 control was often cast by a "union of mechanics/' as in Charleston and Philadelphia, against the more conservative tendencies of the aristocratic merchants and professional men. The debt America owes for her independence to these pred- ecessors of the trade-unions has been scantily acknowledged. And, quite as important, it is owing to these nameless working- men, and to the democratic frontier communities, that the accom- panying internal " revolution " extended the franchise and did away with the grossest forms of Wliite servitude. Aristocratic patriots, like John Adams, if they were not to fail, had to accept the aid not only of the artisans, but also of classes below them, which had not even possessed the franchise, — but which in times of disorder often seized it. 1 In Virginia, this democratic result was least noticeable ; be- cause in that colony the aristocratic gentry, almost to a man, took the patriot side and so maintained their leadership (al- though even there it was the solid support of the western counties which made it possible for Thomas Jefferson to cany his sweeping reforms and change the face of Virginian society in the midst of the foreign war). 2 But in New England, the old aristocracy were largely Tories, and were driven out. New England became more democratic, as a result of the war, partly because of a new assertion of democracy, but partly because of this removal of the aristocracy. Strange as it seems to us, one of the characteristics of colonial society was laziness. Observers so unlike as Hamilton and Jefferson agree in ascribing this quality to their countrymen ; and foreign visitors were at one in dwelling upon it as an American trait. Within forty years after 1 In many elections to early revolutionary conventions and congresses, the disfranchised classes voted, sometimes on explicit invitation of the revolution- ary committees and sometimes because it was not easy or desirable to stop them. In many cases, the new State governments found it necessary to recognize the power which had had so much to do with making them. It is said that the records of the Massachusetts towns in the early Revolution years show a marked increase of illiteracy,.— token of the lower social standing of the new men who were coming into control of town government. 2 § 252. 196 CONSTITUTIONAL AGITATION the Revolution, this characteristic had been replaced by that restless, pushing, nervous, strenuous activity which has ever since, in the eyes of all peoples, been the distinguishing mark of American life. One great factor in that tremendous and sudden change in a people's character was the Revolution, because it opened opportunities more equally to all, and so called forth new social energies. 1 This perhaps is its chief justification. ) fa****) ^fyjtjUf., !a _- Handbill posted in New York by the Sons of Liberty. (From O'Callagiian's Documents.) and September (as public feeling mounted under the stimulus of the Virginia resolutions), colony after colony named dele- gates, and the Stamp Act Congress was assured. Fervently protesting loyalty to the crown, that meeting drew up a noble Declaration of Eights and a group of admirable addresses to crown and parliament. It helped, mightily, to crystallize public opinion, and to give dignity to the agitation against the law. Meanwhile, payment of debts to British creditors was gen- RESISTANCE TO THE STAMP ACT 199 erally suspended, 1 and local associations pledged themselves to import no British goods until the law should be repealed. More violent resistance was taken care of by secret societies known as Sons of Liberty. Soon these organizations grew bold enough to make public their membership and program. They took for their special function to compel compliance with the non-importation agreements and to terrorize the stamp dis- tributors. In various places, the Tories were brutally handled. •nwrOy.M^j,, 176*. THE NUMB. n 9 J. PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL. A n d WEEKLY ADVERTISER. EXPIRING: In Hopes of a Rcfiii-TecHon to Life again. WfonytoU obltedfbeartheBurthen, »u» thought « eiprffa***^ ^^TL «»»»y »f »»»"» *■>■ (o Kouaint myH^|«>«To|.awhU 8 .inord.r«^ib« ra to.wl»l , ^ , «8 b ^' H »nJ. that they would ^H lo aoiuaint my He**- ■ to stop a w r>:[o, inoroer loouiberiie, «.**.■ ■- -o ""--' - — * "— "->J ,-=»» ■ -ere thiu«TheSTAMr . gtherany Methodic* be (bund to elude thel"""***^! DifrlMfge the*- refpeZuv Ar ■ SptaS ^ tin u» .fterlpoHJ-e SW,, which iuThopea, «2»|«W"*"V« f *™o *l"■» U ":* , • *»' ■H^H tS5-,r*rf-y«»/-to- e n.|the Urt Reprele n i*l,oni now made .^nd> b * ^'"' P"P*~* '« P"*«d •<}"« «•"> ■ fuin f? ,(S.e/i^r m«r|lhatAa. me. he ,flfca«J. Mean while,!""* r »P"> whence m open .ng RrthH • •••• •».« * A Reduced Facsimile. (From Schaep and Westcott's History of Philadelphia. This paper resumed publica- tion in one week.) A Boston mob sacked the house of Thomas Hutchinson ; and Andrew Oliver, stamp distributor for Massachusetts, standing under the " Liberty Tree " (on which he had been hanged in 1 This method of coercing English puhlic opinion was renewed in the later period of the struggle. In 1774 George Washington wrote to a friend in England: "As to withholding our remittances, that is a point on which I own I have my doubts on several accounts, but principally on that of justice." Writings, Ford's edition, II, 419. 200 CONSTITUTIONAL AGITATION effigy shortly before), was forced, in the presence of two thousand people, to read a solemn " recantation and detesta- tion " of his office, and to swear it before a justice of the peace. The law was to go into effect November 1. When that day came, every stamp distributor on the continent had been " persuaded " into resigning, and no stamps were to be had. After a short period of hesitation, the courts opened as usual in most of the colonies, newspapers resumed publication, and all forms of business ignored the law. 1 In England the ministry had changed, and the new govern- ment seems to have been genuinely amazed at the uproar in the colonies. It was deluged, too, with petitions for repeal from English merchants, who already felt the loss of remittances from America ; and, after one of the greatest of parliamentary debates, the Stamp Act was repealed (March 17, 1766). No serious attempt had been made to enforce it, and no demand was made for the punishment of the rioters, though the English government did ask the colonial assemblies to com- pensate the citizens who had suffered in the riots, — a request which was attended to very slowly and imperfectly. 139. Townshend renews the Contest. — Within a few months the English ministry was changed once more. Pitt was the head of the new government ; and, excepting for Charles Townshend, all its members were " friends of America." But Pitt went into the Lords, as Earl of Chatham, and was soon incapacitated for business by disease. The ministry was de- moralized ; and the brilliant but unscrupulous Townshend, backed by the King, seized the leadership. " From this time," says Lecky, " the conduct of the government toward America is little more than a series of deplorable blunders." Town- shend turned promptly to schemes of American taxation, and 1 The only use of stamps was in the case of some papers for the clearance of a few ships from the harbor of Savannah. A curious incident occurred in Maryland. When a county court decided, in defiance of the law, to open without stamped paper, the clerk of court protested, but was brought to time by threat of imprisonment for contempt of court ! THE TOWNSHEND AGTS 201 in May, 1767, he secured the enactment of duties on glass, red and white lead, paper, painters' colors, and tea imported into the colonies. In the Stamp Act discussions, some Americans had objected to the stamp duties as an internal tax. Now Townshend cynically professed his readiness to give them the external taxation they preferred. This tone would have been bad enough to a sensitive people flushed with recent victory; but two other features of the bill made it unendurable. Trials for attempted evasion of the law were to take place before admiralty courts without juries; and the revenue was appropriated to the payment of colonial governors and judges, so as to give the crown complete control over such officers. This law was a wanton attempt to demonstrate supremacy, without even the pretense of protecting America. It begins a new phase of the struggle. Townshend died before his law went into effect; but, for three years, his successor, Lord North, maintained his policy. Meantime the American continent seethed once more with pamphlets, addresses, and non-importation agreements. As- semblies denounced the law ; royal governors, under strict in- structions, ordered them to rescind, received defiant answers, and replied with messages of dissolution. Then, in the ab- sence of means for legal action, the colonists turned again to illegal violence. Mobs openly landed goods that had paid no tax, and sometimes tarred and feathered the customs officials. To check such resistance to law, parliament, in 1769, added to its offenses by providing that a colonist accused of treason might be carried to England for trial, — in flat defiance of the ancient English principle of trial by a jury of the neighborhood. This threat roused Virginia again. That colony had not been affected directly by the Townshend commercial regulations, and the ministry had been particularly gentle toward it, hop- ing to draw it away from the rest of America. But now the Assembly unanimously 1 adopted, and sent to the other colonies for their concurrence, a series of resolutions denouncing both 1 The Assembly had progressed since the close division on the Henry reso- lutions four years before, 202 BEGINNINGS OF REVOLUTIONARY ORGANIZATION the Townshend law and this recent enactment as unconstitu- tional and tyrannical. 1 The governor punished the House by- instant dissolution. The ex-burgesses (influential citizens still) gathered at a private residence and signed a stringent non- importation agreement, which they recommended to their former constituents with almost the force of law. 2 Other Assemblies copied the Virginia resolutions or adopted similar ones ; and non-importation agreements, enforced by semi- revolutionary committees, became nearly universal. One incident in the turmoil of the period deserves special attention. Two regiments bad been sent to Boston, in the fall of 1768, to overawe that turbulent community. This quartering of soldiery upon the town in time of peace, not for protection, but for intimidation, was one more infringement of fundamental English liberties. Incessant bickerings fol- lowed. Town officials quarreled with the governor, while the towns- people and the soldiers squabbled or indulged in fisticuffs in the streets. The troops were subjected to constant and bitter insult ; and on the even- ing of March .5, 1770, came the long-delayed collision. Soldiers and people had been called into the streets by an alarm of fire. Various fracases oc- curred. In particular, a sentinel on duty was pelted with epithets and snowballs. Six or seven of his companions, under an officer, came to his rescue. One of them, hit by a club, shot an assailant, and immediately the rest of the squad, believing an order to fire had been given, discharged a volley into the crowd. Five persons were killed and six injured. The next day, on the imperative demand of a crowded town meeting, and as the only way to prevent an organized attack by the citizens upon the troops (with the horrible slaughter sure to follow), Governor Hutchinson removed the regiments to the castle on the island. The troops had behaved well for many months, under intense provocation, and are not seriously to be blamed. 3 The mob, no doubt, deserved more blame. But the chief condemnation falls upon the British ministry which had deliberately created the situation that made this "Boston Massacre" inevitable. 1 Nicholas, one of the Virginia leaders, declared that the new law was " fraught with worse evils than the Stamp Act, by as much as life is more precious than property " ; and George Washington affirmed that this touched a matter " on which no one ought to hesitate to take up arms." 2 Extracts from all these Virginia proceedings are in the Source Book. 3 Some months later, the soldiers were tried before a Boston jury. John Adams and Josiah Quincy, leading patriots, volunteered as their counsel, ^ COMMITTEES OF CORRESPONDENCE 203 140. First Revolutionary Organization : Committees of Cor- respondence. — The Townshend Acts were a failure. They had driven the colonies to the verge of rebellion, while each penny collected under them had cost the English treasury a shilling, 1 and English merchants were suffering keenly from the colo- nial non-importation policy. On the day of the Boston Mas- sacre, Lord North moved the repeal, except for the insignificant tax on tea, giving notice also that the government would lay no more taxes in America. The tea tax was kept, at the King's insistence, — to mark the principle of parliamentary supremacy. The old navigation acts (including the objectionable Sugar Act) remained in force, however ; and instead of seeking real reconciliation, the British ministry took just this time to hector the various colonial Assemblies by arbitrary " orders " on many different subjects. When the Assemblies protested, the governors (under strict instructions) dissolved them ; and, at other times, their usual liberties (such as the choice of speakers and place of meeting) were needlessly infringed. Daring the distractions that followed, America learned to or- ganize itself in a semi-revolutionary manner. Since her Assembly was no longer free, Massachusetts effected an extra-legal union of her towns, through Sam Adams' town committees of corre- spondence (1772); and Virginia inaugurated the even mightier task of binding the colonies into a permanent union by intercolo- nial committees of correspondence (1773). Committees of correspondence here and there had been a familiar feature of the agitation; but now appeared standing committees to take the place of the legal organs of public risking gallantly, not merely their personal popularity, but their public influence in the crisis which they had so much at heart. Two of the soldiers were punished lightly for manslaughter ; the others were acquitted. 1 It was shown in the Commons that the total proceeds for the first year were less than £16,000, while the customs expense had eaten up all but £295 of that amount, and the extraordinary military expenses in America in the same period had been £170,000. 204 BEGINNINGS OF REVOLUTIONARY ORGANIZATION opinion. On the motion of Samuel Adams, 1 in November, 1772, a Boston town meeting appointed a committee of twenty-one to maintain correspondence with the other towns of the province upon the infringements of their liberties (Source Book). The two hundred other towns responded promptly by appointing similar committees, and soon a vigorous correspondence was going on throughout this complicated network. Adams' task was difficult because of the great number of local units in Massachusetts. It was relatively easy, when need arose, to organize a union of the few counties in Virginia or Maryland, led as they were by a few prominent families. But after all, each colony was fairly certain, sooner or later, to find a way to express itself through some revolutionary organization. It was not so certain that the indispensable task would be ac- complished of uniting the thirteen colonies by an efficient revo- lutionary machinery. Here the first step was taken by Virginia. The occasion was the attempt to arrest, for trial in England, 1 Sam Adams was the first American political "boss," in the better sense of the word. He played with unfailing skill upon the many strings of the town meeting, working his will through committees and faithful lieutenants. He has been called "the wedge that split England and America asunder." Dr. Howard says of him {Preliminaries of the Revolution, 253, 254) : "He pos- sessed precisely the qualities which belong to a consummate revolutionary leader. The very narrowness of view which often prevented him from seeing the merits of his adversaries only added to this power. He had unbounded faith in democratic self-government . . . and was almost fanatical in his zeal for constitutional liberty. He had indomitable will, great tenacity of purpose, and unflinching courage. ... He was poor in worldly goods, simple in man- ner and dress, and able to enter sympathetically into the thoughts and feelings of plain men. Much of his power lay in his ability to persuade and lead the fishermen, rope-makers and ship-masters of Boston. . . . [He] had a rare talent for practical politics. He displayed a capacity for organization, some- times lapsing into intrigue, and a foresight sometimes sinking into cun- ning." Every student should read Dr. Hosmer's delightful biography of Samuel Adams (Statesmen Series) . In a much earlier essay (in the Johns Hopkins University Studies), Dr Hosmer gave to his hero the title by which he is best known, " The Man of the Town Meeting." CONGRESSES, PROVINCIAL AND CONTINENTAL 205 the Rhode Islanders suspected of burning the Gaspee. 1 As in 1769, upon the same principle, the Virginia Assembly champi- oned American rights in ringing resolutions (March 12, 1773) ; but this time it went further. fThe Burgesses appointed a standing committee for intercolonial correspondence, and by formal letter invited all other Assemblies in America to appoint similar instruments of intercourse (Source Book). Within three months, committees had been set up in half the colonies, and ere long the machinery was complete. 2 July 2, the New Hampshire Gazette said of this movement : — " The Union of the Colonies which is now taking place is big with the most important Advantages to this Continent. . . . Let it be the study of all to make the Union firm and perpetual, as it will be the great Basis for Liberty and every public Blessing in America." 141. Coercion: Provincial Congresses and the Continental Con- gress. — The next step toward revolutionary government was to develop from the local committees a Provincial Congress, in colony after colony, and from the intercolonial committees of the continent a Continental Congress. This was brought about in the summer and fall of 1774, as M ie result of three events, — the attempt of the ministry to force taxed tea down the 1 A revenue schooner off the Rhode Island coast. " Her commander," says Lecky, "had become extremely obnoxious to the colony, in which smuggling was one of the most flourishing . . . trades." One evening, in pursuit of a smuggler's boat, the Gaspee ran aground. It was then boarded by an armed mob, led by a prominent merchant. The commander was shot, the crew put on shore, and the vessel burned. The English government created a special commission to secure the offenders for trial in England ; but, though the actors were well known to large numbers of people, no evidence against them could be secured. That fact prevented a possible collision ; for Stephen Hopkins, Chief Justice of the colony, declared he would commit to prison any officer who should attempt to remove a citizen from the limits of the commonwealth. 2 Writers very commonly speak as if this creation of intercolonial com- mittees was a mere extension of the Massachusetts infracolonial committees. This grossly obscures the facts. To use town committees to unite towns which always had had an Assembly to unite them was one thing : to find any machinery to unite colonies which had always refused to be united was a dif- ferent thing. The similarity of name ought not to blind the student who can get back of words to things. 206 BEGINNINGS OF REVOLUTIONARY ORGANIZATION throats of the colonists, the rather animated protest of the Bos- ton Tea Party, and the punishment of Boston by the Port Bill. (1) Ever since the repeal of the other Townshend duties, the animosi- ties of the conflict had been concentrated on the one taxed article, tea. 1 For six years the colonists, for the most part, had done without that luxury except for the smuggled article. In April of 1773 Lord North tried an appeal to American avarice. Tea paid a tax of a shilling a pound on reaching England, and, under the Townshend Act, threepence more on importation into America. Parliament now arranged that a rebate of the English tax (and of some other burdens) should be given merchants who reexported to America, — so that the colonists would pay only the threepence tax, and would get their tea cheaper than Englishmen could, — and cheaper than it could be smuggled. 2 Ships loaded with this gross bait were at once dispatched to the chief American ports. (2) The colonists were righteously indignant at the palpable attempt to trick them into paying a tax by appealing to their cupidity, and every- where forcible resistance kept the tea out of the market. At Charleston the consignees were forced to resign, and it was stored, until seized by the 1 At the close of a delightful summary which all students should read, Dr. Tyler says (Literary History of the American Revolution, I, 246-253) : " The latent comedy of the situation flashes upon us now from the grotesque prominence then given, in the politics of the British empire, to this coy and peace-loving tea plant. By a sort of sarcasm of fate, it happened that be- tween the years 1770 and 1775, this ministress of gentleness and peace, — this homelike, dainty, and consolatory herb of Cathay, — came to be regarded, both in America and England, as the one active and malignant cause of nearly all the ugly and disastrous business. . . . The innocent shrub . . . seldom receives in our literature for those years any less lurid description than . . . 1 pestilential herb.' Just south of the Potomac, a much-excited young woman, addicted, as she supposed, to poetry as well as to politics, sends forth to the world a number of stanzas entitled 'Virginia Banishing Tea,' wherein that valorous colony exclaims, — " ' Begone, pernicious, baleful Tea, With all Pandora's ills possessed ; Hyson, no more beguiled by thee My noble sons shall be oppressed.' " Tory punsters, on the other hand, were inclined to liken the whole disturb- ance to " a tempest in a teapot." 2 The saving to the colonies from the exceedingly complex provisions of the various tea tax laws was far greater than would appear from the simpli- fied statement in the text. The best authority upon the matter estimates that six-shilling tea in England could be sold in the colonies for three shil- lings (Farrand, " Taxation of Tea," in American Historical Review, III, 267). CONGRESSES, PROVINCIAL AND CONTINENTAL 207 Revolutionary government in 1776. At New York, Annapolis, and Phila- delphia the authorities were intimidated into sending the tea ships back to England. But in Boston the "Tories" were made of sterner stuff, and the clash was more serious. Governor Hutchinson stationed warships in the channel to prevent timid owner of the three tea vessels from send- ing them away, refusing all demands of a series of threatening town meet- ings ; and the customs officials prepared to land the tea by a force of marines as soon as the legal interval should expire. Boston exhausted all means but actual violence, — and then used that so skillfully as to avoid bloodshed. At the last moment, the final town meeting resolved itself into a band of Mohawks ("with whom," says Carlyle, "Sam Adams could speak without an interpreter "), and, seizing the vessels before they passed into the hands of the officials, emptied into Boston harbor some ninety thousand dollars' worth of tea (December 16, 1773). (3) The short-sighted English government now replied with a series of "repressive acts" 1 to punish Massachusetts. Town meetings were for- bidden, except as authorized in writing by the governor, and for business specified by him. All courts, high and low, with all their officials, were made absolutely dependent upon his appointing and removing power. So far as the election of the Council was concerned, the charter of 1691 was set aside, and the appointment given to the crown. But most immediately effective in rousing American indignation was another act of this series, the Boston Port Bill, which closed the port of Boston to commerce, with provision for a blockade by ships of war. Since the entire population depended, directly or indirectly, upon commerce for their living, the town was threatened with extreme suffering. Food and fuel at once be- came scarce and costly, and great numbers of men were unemployed. The town authorities, however, set up various municipal enterprises to furnish work and food ; and all parts of America forwarded money and supplies lavishly. May 12, two days after the arrival of the news of the Port Bill, the committees of eight near-by Massachusetts towns met 1 Classed with these acts, in the colonial mind, was the Quebec Act, which was passed at the same time. This legalized the Catholic religion, and re- stored part of the French law, for Canada, extending that province also to include the unsettled district west of the mountains between the Ohio and the Great Lakes. The purpose of this legislation was disinterested and amiable. The design was to conciliate the French settlers (almost the sole population), and to set up some authority to deal with the existing anarchy in the fur- trade regions. No act of the series, however, caused more bitter suspicion among the English colonies, with their bigoted fear of Catholicism. 208 REVOLUTIONARY ORGANIZATION at Boston. This gathering sent letters to the correspondence committees of the thirteen colonies recommending an absolute suspension of trade with Great Britain, and putting the ques- tion whether all America should not " consider Boston as suf- fering in the common cause, and resent the injury inflicted upon her." The first official response came from Virginia. May 24, the House of Burgesses set apart June 1 (when the Port Bill was to go into effect) "as a Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer, devoutly to implore the divine interposition for avert- ing the heavy Calamity which threatens Destruction to our Civil Rights, and the Evils of civil War, and to give us one heart and one Mind firmly to oppose by all just and proper means every injury to American Rights." Two days later the governor dissolved the Assembly with sharp rebuke. On the following day, the ex-Burgesses met at the Raleigh Taverg, and recommended an annual congress of delegates from all the colonies " to deliberate on those general measures which the united interests of America may from time to time require. A second meeting, on May 31, called the Virginia deputies to meet at Williamsburg on August 1, in order to appoint Virginia delegates for the proposed continental congress and to consider a plan for non-intercourse with England. The counties gen- erally ratified this call by expressly authorizing their ex-Bur- gesses to act for them at that meeting, or by choosing new representatives to do so. Here were the germs of revolutionary machinery, county, state, continental. On receipt of the Virginia suggestion, the Rhode Island Assembly appointed delegates for the general congress (June 15). Time and place had not yet been named, but two days later the Massachusetts Assembly supplied this omission; and, before August 20, all the colonies but Georgia had chosen delegates for the First Continental Congress, 1 to meet Septem- ber 1 at Philadelphia. 1 The story of the Massachusetts action — behind locked doors, to keep out the governor's message of dissolution — should be a special report, with wp FIRST CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 209 The "First Continental Congress 1 ' of 1774 was not in any sense a government, or a legislature. Indeed, the name "congress" was used to indicate the informal character of the gathering. No governing body had ever held that name. It was a meeting for consultation. Its function, as Albion Small has well said, ' ' was not to express a sovereign will [as American writers have too often claimed] , but to assist in the development of a common consciousness, so that there would, by and by, be a sov- ereign will to express." The meeting did not pretend to do more than advise and recommend ; and it could not claim more authority, either from the nature of its appointment or from the credentials of its members. In Pennsylvania, as in Rhode Island, the Assembly in regular session appointed delegates ; but the appointment lacked the governor's approval and so carried only moral weight. The Massachusetts appointments lacked the sanction of either Council or governor. In Connecticut, the delegates had been appointed by the committee of correspondence with the approval of the Assembly. Of these elections, those in Rhode Island and Connecticut were the only ones that could claim to be governmental acts. In the remaining colonies the action was still more irregular. The Delaware Assembly, then in adjournment, met at the suggestion of its speaker, in extra-legal session, to choose delegates. This meeting, legally, had no more weight than any other gathering of citizens. In South Caro- lina, a mass meeting of people interested, mainly from Charleston, made the election. 1 In New York, the city, or rather part of its wards, in an irregular election, chose five delegates ; three other counties held some sort of meetings to ratify these appointments, and three more chose still other delegates, — in some cases by the action of small minorities ; 2 while six counties refused to act at all. The delegates from the remaining six special reference to Sam Adams' delicate manipulation. Many Virginia records are given in the Source Book. Indeed, the story may be read there more fully than in this volume. 1 This appointment was afterward given greater moral weight by a curi- ous ratification by the Assembly. That body had been summoned, but the governor had determined to dissolve it on the moment of its gathering. The delegates outwitted him, however, by assembling half an hour ahead of the appointed time. Even their confirmation carried only moral weight, since it lacked the governor's sanction. 2 In one county it was claimed that twenty people, out of a thousand free- holders, got together for the purpose. 210 REVOLUTIONARY ORGANIZATION colonies were chosen by provincial conventions. Such bodies were rep- resentative of public opinion, but claimed no governmental position. 1 The credentials of the delegates to the general congress cor- responded to the informal character of these bodies that ap- pointed them. In no case were delegates given even pretended authority to bind their colony in law. The North Carolina convention did declare that the inhabitants of the province ought to be bound " in honor " by the action of their delegates. Some conventions authorized their representatives to take any "lawful" action to secure American liberties {i.e. action not in conflict with existing law). Other delegations were strictly enjoined merely "to consult and advise" with the delegates from the other colonies, and to agree upon a plan of action to be reported back to the Assemblies of their respective provinces for approval or disapproval. We know this Congress only from letters and later recollec- tions of its members and from some imperfect notes taken at the time by two or three delegates. It sat six weeks, and was one of the two or three most notable gatherings* in our history, — although, forty years later, John Adams described !The Virginia convention (the first called, though not the first to meet) is typical. During June and July, according to the recommendation of the ex- burgesses, each Virginia county chose delegates for the proposed Williams- burg convention. Usually the men chosen were the same who had served in the just-dissolved Assembly, and usually, too, the same men were formally elected as the county delegates to a new Assembly which the governor had summoned for August 11. Nearly every county also adopted lengthy resolu- tions, deserving of place among great state papers, — the work of men like Jefferson, Henry, and Mason. As a rule, the resolutions formally approved the plan for a general congress, and instructed the county delegation to co- operate at Williamsburg for the appointment of a Virginia representation. Most of them also recommended to the Virginia convention a plan of commer- cial non-intercourse with Great Britain, — while several counties ominously named saltpeter as an exception to the articles not to be imported. None of this first series of provincial conventions sat more than five or six days (most of them only for a day) ; and none of them took any action be- yond appointing delegates to Philadelphia and adopting resolutions, — except that one or two provided for a second convention, to be held after the general congress. THE ASSOCIATION 211 it as " one third Tories, one third Whigs and the rest Mongrels." 1 The moderate party (Adams' "Tories") de- sired still to depend upon peaceable constitutional agitation to secure redress of grievances. This element was led by- Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania, supported by John Jay of New York and Edward Rutledge of South Carolina. The radicals (no more patriotic or conscientious, but more daring and far-seeing) insisted that, as a prelude to reconciliation with England, the ministry must remove its troops and repeal its acts. After strenuous debate, Galloway's proposals were rejected by a vote of six colonies to Jive. The Congress then recommended the radical plan of a huge universal boycott, in the form of a solemn Association. The signers were to bind themselves neither to import any British goods nor to export 2 their own products to Great Britain. To enforce this agree- ment, efficient machinery was recommended. Every town and county was advised to choose a committee, acting under the supervision of the central committee of its province, " to ob- serve the conduct of all persons," and to have all violations "published in the gazette," that the foes to the rights of America might be "universally contemned." B. English Authority breaks Down 142. The Association and Committees of Observation: Party Lines. — New York and Georgia refused to ratify the Associa- tion. But within six months all the other colonies, either by regular Assemblies or by a second series of conventions, had adopted the plan; and everywhere "committees of public 1 Letter to Jefferson (Jefferson's Works, Washington ed. VI, 249). " There was not one member except Patrick Henry," adds Adams, "who seemed to me sensible of the precipice, or rather the pinnacle, on which we stood." The Source Book gives also Adams' impressions at the time. 2 Previous to 1744, attempts at non-intercourse had been restricted to im- portation, and usually to a few taxed articles. Students may be asked to report upon the other recommendations and addresses of this congress. For its most important documents, see Source Book. 212 REVOLUTIONARY ORGANIZATION safety " (and sometimes irresponsible mobs, claiming the sanc- tion of such authority) were terrorizing reluctant individuals into signing. Tar and feathers and " the birch seal " became common instruments of persuasion ; and respectable Loyalists and Moderates complained bitterly that, in the name of liberty, the populace refused all liberty of speech or action. A great revolution, however righteous, is sure to have its ugly phases. The precedent for anarchy had come from the government, even in this matter of the Association. Gage, the commander of the English forces in America and also the new governor of Massachusetts, as early as June of 1774, had ordered the arrest as traitors of all who signed or circulated a non-intercourse agreement. This was while the boycott was still a peace- ful one, — months before the action of the Continental Congress. The government disregarded the rights of the people under the law before the people disregarded the law. Party lines began to be drawn more closely. Tlie issue, too, had changed. The question, now, was not approval or dis- approval of Parliamentary taxation, but whether resistance should be forcible. The radical " Patriots " were probably a minority; but they were aggressive and organized, and even- tually they whipped into line the great body of timid and indifferent people without a positive program. The revolu- tionary organization, too, fell largely to the democratic artisan class. June 1, 1774, the governor of New York, writing to the English government regarding the excitement about the Boston Port Bill, says : " The Men who call'd themselves the Commit- tee [in New York] — who acted and dictated in the name of the People, were many of them of the lower Rank, and all the warmest zealots. . . . The more considerable Merchants and Citizens seldom or never appeared among them, but, I believe, were not displeased jWith the Clamor and opposition that was shown against internal Taxation by Parliament." And a few days later, a Loyalistxgentleman exulting (too soon) over the election of a new " committee," says: "The power ... is no longer in the hands of Sears, Lamb, and such unimportant per- NEW GOVERNMENTS 213 sons, who for six years past have been the demagogues of a very turbulent faction." The Radicals themselves did not yet think seriously of in- dependence. They still protested enthusiastic loyalty to King George. They were ready to fight ; but only, as Englishmen had often fought, to secure a change in " ministerial policy." Meantime, many earnest " Patriots " of the earlier agitation now became " Tories, " rather than commit themselves to armed rebellion, and many were driven into Loyalist ranks by repugnance to anarchy. 1 143. Conventions and Congresses become Governments. — The Revolution was not a single movement. It was a whirl of thirteen revolutions within a revolution, with cogs catching and arcs intersecting. We can trace, however, a general trend. In the winter and spring of 1775, regular government passed into abeyance. In colony after colony, the governors refused to let the legislature meet, and the people refused to let the governors' courts or other officials act. To prevent absolute lawlessness, in many places, county meetings or local com- mittees set up some sort of provisional government, to last until constitutional authority should again become effective " by the restoration of harmony with Great Britain." 2 During this turbulent disorder, second provincial conventions were held in several colonies, to act upon the recommendations of the First Continental Congress ; and some of these bodies became de facto colonial governments? organizing troops, raising money, and assuming civil powers far enough to alleviate the existing 1 Cf. Source Book, No. 140, a (John Adams' horse-jockey client). 2 Action of this kind in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, on May 30, 1775, through distorted recollections and inaccurate statements, gave rise, years later, to the curious but groundless legend of a Mecklenburg " Declara- tion of Independence." 3 Of course the " Tories " had refused to pay any attention to the " illegal " elections of such provincial conventions. Indeed, in some cases, they were even excluded by test oaths. In this way the Radicals came to control the only governments in existence; and this fact, even in colonies where they mads a minority, gave them a tremendous preponderance in action. 214 REVOLUTIONARY ORGANIZATION anarchy. In form, their acts were still recommendations, but the local committees enforced them as laiv. It was these second conventions (except where the regular Assemblies could act) which appointed delegates to the Sec- ond Continental Con- gress. Between the elec tion of that body and its meeting (May 10), Gage's attempt to seize Massa- chusetts military stores at Concord called from "embattled farmers" "the shot heard round the world " {April 19, 1775). Gage had sown dragon's teeth. From New England's soil twenty thousand volun- teers sprang up to besiege him in Boston. War had come. In consequence, the Second Continental Con- gress swiftly hecame a gov- ernment, to manage the continental revolution (§ 144). And, during the summer, a third lot of provincial conventions openly avowed themselves governments for their The Concord Minute Man. 1 1 A statue by Daniel C. French at Concord Bridge. On one face of the base is inscribed a stanza from Emerson's " Concord Hymn " : — ***** Here once the embattled farmers stood And fired the shot heard round the world. Across the stream, in a curve of the stone fence, is the grave of two British soldiers, over which have been carved the lines from Lowell*. — They came three thousand miles and died, To keep the Past upon its throne. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 215 respective colonies, — appointing committees of safety (in place of the royal governors, who had been set aside or driven out), and' themselves assuming even the forms of legislative bodies (§ 145). 144. Development of the Central Government. — The members of the Second Continental Congress had been elected with rather more uniformity than those of the First, 1 and their in- structions, on the whole, were somewhat less carefully limited. Still, like the First, they had been designed to formulate opinion, and to report their recommendations back to their colonies for approval. They had been appointed as a gathering of " com- mittees," rather than as a legislature. The war changed all that. A central government was imperative ; and the patriot party everywhere recognized the Congress as the fit agent to fill that place. For the first five weeks, that body continued to pass recommendations only. But June 15 it began its acts of government by adopting the irregular forces about Boston as a continental army, and appointing George Wash- ington commander in chief. A year later it proclaimed the Declaration of Independence. Between these two events it had created a navy, opened negotiations with foreign states, issued bills of credit on the faith of the colonies, and taken over (from the old English control) the management of Indian affairs and the general post office system. Its power continued to rest on revolutionary necessities, and on the in- formal acquiescence of the people, until 1781, when the ratifi- cation of the Articles of Confederation gave it constitutional sanction. 1 The legal New York Assembly (almost the only Assembly in session) refused by formal vote to send delegates (February 23) . Previously it had re- jected motions even to consider the action of the preceding Continental Con- gress, and to thank the New York delegates for their part therein. A motion to approve the non-importation policy also was lost. The regular government of this colony had now definitely abandoned the revolutionary movement. This was the last Assembly of New York. Its place was soon taken by revo- lutionary conventions. 216 REVOLUTIONARY ORGANIZATION 145. The development of State governments may be followed conven- iently in Massachusetts and Virginia. 1 The early overthrow of consti- tutional government in Massachusetts made the movement peculiarly rapid there. Even before the close of the First Continental Congress, Massachusetts had a full-grown revolutionary government. The colony refused to recognize the parliamentary acts that set aside its charter. Councilors, appointed under those acts, were forced to resign, and the governor-dominated courts were not permitted to meet. Governor Gage had called the Assembly for October 5 ; but afterward, foreseeing hopeless clashes with it, had forbidden it to meet. The members came together, however, and declared themselves a provincial congress (according to instructions from many towns for just such a contingency). This event marks the end of civil government under the crown in Massachusetts. The resolutions and decrees of the provincial congress (sitting at Concord or Cambridge) had the force of law. That body prepared the colony for war, organizing troops and providing stores. It appointed a " receiver general," to whom, instead of to the governor's officials, the towns were instructed to pay their State taxes ; and it chose a "committee of safety " to act in place of the governor. Subsequent congresses expanded this policy. Soon the courts of justice were reestablished under popular control ; and, in accord with advice requested from the Second Continental Congress, the form of the charter government was restored — as far as might be. The Third Provincial Congress provided for the election of an Assembly, after the usual method. That body organized at Concord, July 19, 1775, and nominated the usual Council, which became both upper House and executive. 2 This govern- ment, renewed by annual elections, was continued until the adoption of a new constitution in 1780. In Virginia the Assembly was prevented from meeting by successive prorogations ; but county gatherings in December and January (1774-5) approved the Continental Congress and set up the Association, so that a second convention was not necessary until it came time to appoint dele- gates to the Second Continental Congress. Meantime, however, many 1 Massachusetts is selected because in the van ; Virginia, because on the whole more typical, and because she was the first State to adopt a Declaration of Independence and a permanent constitution. 2 The charter provided that the Council should exercise executive powers in case of the absence of the governor and lieutenant governor ; and the colony now determined to regard these officers as constructively absent, "until a governor of his majesty's appointment will consent to govern . . . according to the charter." STATE GOVERNMENTS 217 counties, on their own initiative, organized and armed a revolutionary militia. 1 The First Convention (August, 1774 ; § 141) had authorized its chair- man to call a second when desirable. On such call, the Second Conven- tion met, March 20, 1775. It passed only " recommendations " in form ; but it did adopt and unify the revolutionary militia system inaugurated by the counties, and in this important matter, at least, acted as a de facto government. It sat only eight days ; but it recommended the counties at once to choose delegates to a Third Convention, to represent the colony for one year. Governor Dunmore forbade the elections as "acts of sedition" ; but they passed off with regularity. Meantime, the governor called the long- adjourned Assembly, to consider a proposal from Lord North, intended to draw Virginia away from the common cause. Instead of this program, the Assembly gave formal sanction to all the acts of the continental congresses and the Virginia conventions. In the squabbles that ensued, Dunmore took refuge on board a British man-of-war, to prevent his person being seized. The Assembly strenuously "deplored" that their governor should so "desert" the "loyal and suffering colony," and adjourned June 24. This ended the last vestige of royal government in Virginia. Three weeks later, the Third Convention gathered at Richmond (out of range of guns from warships), and promptly assumed all powers and forms of government. It gave all bills three readings, and enacted them as ordi- nances; 2 and it elected an executive (consisting of a committee), and appointed all other needful officials. In the winter of 1776, it dissolved, that a new body, fresher from the people, might act on the pressing questions of independence and of a permanent government (§ 148). C. A Union of Independent States /j 146. Growth of the Idea of Independence. — The Loyalists early began to accuse the Patriots of aiming at independence, or at least to warn them that soon they would find themselves doing so. But, until some months after Lexington, the radicals vehemently and unanimously disavowed such " villainy." Otis, Dickinson, Hamilton, in their printed pamphlets, all denounced any thought of independence as a crime. Continental congresses and provincial conventions solemnly repeated such disclaimers. 1 Source Book, No. 132, for Washington's county. 2 Letter of George Mason, in Source Book, No. 133, c. 218 THE REVOLUTION In October, 1774, Washington wrote that independence was " not desired by any thinking man in all North America," and in the following March, in London, Franklin declared th»t in America he had never heard a word in its favor "from any person drunk or sober." Two months later still, after Lexing- ton, Washington soothed the apprehensions of a Loyalist friend with the assurance " that if the friend ever heard of his [Wash- ington's] joining in any such measures, he had leave to set him down for everything wicked " ; and June 26, 1775, Washington assured the New Yorkers that he would exert himself to estab- lish " peace and harmony between the mother country and the colonies." In September, 1775, Jefferson was still " looking with fondness towards a reconciliation," and John Jay asserts that not until after that month did he ever hear a desire for inde- pendence from u an American of any description." Indeed, in February, 1776, when Gadsden in the South Carolina convention expressed himself in favor of independence, he roused merely a storm of dismayed protest and condemnation, and no support. For months after Bunker Hill, American chaplains, in public services before the troops, prayed for King George ; and, for long, Washington continued to refer to the British array merely as the "ministerial troops." As late as March, 1776, Mary- land instructed her delegates not to consent to any proposal for independence. 1 All this was honestly meant ; but the years of debate over grievances had sapped the ties of loyalty more than men really knew, and a few months of war hurried the process. In the fall of 1775, the King refused contemptuously even to receive a petition for reconciliation from Congress ; and soon afterward, the ministry arranged to send to America an army of " Hessians " hired out, for slaughter, by petty German princelings. More- over, it became apparent, that, to resist England, the colonies must have foreign aid; and no foreign power could be expected to give us open aid while we remained English colonies. i Source Book, No. 139. UNION AND INDEPENDENCE 219 Thus, unconsciously, American society was ready to change front on the matter of independence. Then came Thomas ' Paine' s daring and trenchant Common Sense. This fifty- page publication, in terse phrase and clarion tone, spoke out what the community hailed at once as its own unspoken thought. One hundred and twenty thousand copies sold in three months, — one for every three families in America ; and both sides ascribed to it an influence almost magical. Common Sense appeared in January, 1776. It was the first public argument for independence. At first the author's name was not given, and it was commonly attributed to one of the Adamses or to Franklin. Paine was a poor English emigrant whom Franklin had befriended for the "genius in his eyes." 1 It is impossible to take space here to give any idea of the convincing argument of the booklet, but a few lines may rep- resent the incisive style. "The period of debate is closed. Arms . . . must decide. ... By re- ferring the matter from argument to arms, a new era in politics is struck. ... All plans . . . prior to the nineteenth of April are like the almanacs of last year. ... All talk of filial affection for England has become archaic. . . . " Where, say some, is the king of America ? I'll tell you, friend. He reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind, like the royal brute of Britain. ... A government of our own is our natural right. ... Ye who oppose independence now, ye know not what ye do : ye are opening a door to eternal tyranny. . . . " ye that love mankind ! Ye that dare oppose not only tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth ! Every spot of the Old World is overran with oppression. Freedom has been hunted round the globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger ; and England has given her warning to depart. O, receive the fugitive and prepare in time an asylum for mankind." 147. Excursus : the Loyalists. — The Revolution, in im- portant aspects, was more like a civil war than even the great " Civil War " of 1861. In that sectional struggle, each section was essentially united within itself ; but in 1776, every com- munity was divided, neighbor warring upon neighbor. In New York, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, it seems certain that the 1 He had been in America only thirteen months. 220 THE REVOLUTION Loyalists were a majority ; and on the whole they made at least every third man in the colonies. To this million of Ameri- cans, independence meant disloyalty. The decision for in- dependence gave inspiration and energy to the Patriots, but it cost them some good men. Many dropped from the patriot cause, rather than reverse long-professed convictions on this matter. Society moved rapidly, and not all could keep the same pace. In July, 1776, the lines were draivn irretrievably. Men whom that month found standing where Washington or Jefferson had stood seven or eight months before, were " Tories." The Tories represented respectability and refinement. They came from (i) the old official classes, who naturally had the viewpoint of the government ; (2) commercial and capitalistic classes, always timid re- garding change ; (3) the professional classes, especially the clergy out- side the Puritan ranks ; and (4) that vast well-content part of the population which is always conservative in temper, but which (as Dr. Tyler points out in this connection) has its full share of "moral scru- pulousness, personal purity, and honor." 1 Prominent in the Tory ranks were great numbers of college graduates. In 1778 Massachusetts banished 310 leading Tories, — more than sixty of them Harvard graduates. Says Moses Coit Tyler {Literary History of the Revolution, I, 303) : "To any one familiar with the history of colonial New England, that list of men denounced to exile and loss of property on account of their opinions, will read almost like the beadroll of the oldest and noblest families concerned in the founding and upbuild- ing of New England civilization," and, says Lecky {England in the Eighteenth Century, III, 418) : " There were brave and honest men in America who were proud of the great free empire to which they belonged, and who had no desire to shrink from the burden of maintaining it . . . 1 The way in which prominent South Carolina families divided is illustrated by the following extract from a much longer list in McCrady's South Carolina. " William Bull (Lieutenant Governor) stood for the king; but his nephews, Stephen and William Bull, and William Henry Drayton, joined the Revolu- tionists. Rawlins Lowndes . . . we^ with the Revolutionary party ; but his brother remained loyal to the Crown. Four Pinckneys . . . were prominent in the Revolutionary cause; but [a fifth] is enrolled as a loyal subject. William . . . and Alexander Moultrie served ... in the continental army; but their brother John remained Lieutenant Governor of Florida under the King. . . ." THE STATES AND THE UNION 221 t and who, with nothing to hope for from the crown, were prepared to face the most brutal mob-violence and the invectives of a scurrilous press, to risk their fortunes, their reputations, and sometimes their lives, in order to avert civil war and ultimate separation. Most of them ended their days in poverty and exile ; and, as the supporters of a beaten cause, history has paid but a scanty tribute to their memory, but they comprised some of the best and ablest men America has ever produced." 148. Making a Constitution for an Independent State. — The access of disorder that followed Lexington led several colonies to apply to Congress for counsel. In reply, Congress " recom- mended " the provincial convention of New Hampshire •' to call a full and free representation of the people . . . [to] establish such a form of government as in their judgment will best produce the happiness of the people and most effectually secure peace and good order in that province, during the continuance of the present dispute between Great Britain and the colonies." Under such advice, early in 1776, New Hampshire and South Carolina set up provisional written constitutions. These docu- ments, however, did not imply independence. They pro- claimed their temporary character, and referred always to the commonwealths not as States, but as " colonies." May 15, 1776, Congress took more advanced action. It recommended the " assemblies and conventions " of all colonies, " where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs hath been hitherto established, to adopt such a govern- ment as shall, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their con- stituents in particular, and of America in general.' 7 Two days later, in a letter to his wife, John Adams hailed this action (for which he had been the foremost champion) as " a total, absolute independence . . . for such is the amount of the resolve of the 15th." 1 One colony at least had not waited for this counsel. The Fourth Virginia convention met ^ay 6, 1776, and turned at once to the question of independence and a constitution. The only 1 See Source Book for this significant letter, and for the resolution. 222 THE REVOLUTION • difference of opinion was as to method of procedure. 1 Should Virginia, standing alone, declare herself an independent State and frame a constitution for herself ? Or should she try to get the Continental Congress to make a declaration and to suggest a general model of government for all the Colonies ? Formal plans were presented, representing each of these views. On the fifteenth, after much debate, the convention determined upon a plan between the two extremes. Unanimously it instructed its representatives in Congress to move immediately for a general Declaration of Independence there; and it appointed committees to proceed at once to draw up a constitution for Virginia herself as an independent State. This convention, like the Second and Third (§145), was a govern- ing body, not purely a "constitutional convention" in the modern sense. Indeed, as a whole, it had no direct authorization from the people to form a constitution, although it seems to have been generally expected to take up the matter. The call for election had not mentioned this great purpose, but some counties had instructed their delegates to work for independence and for the adoption of a new "frame of government"; and the leaders had been in correspondence regarding a constitution. A plan from Patrick Henry appeared in print while the elections were in progress. The decisive vote was taken on the same day that the Continental Congress made its recommendation at Philadelphia for new State govern- ments. A common doctrine that the States adopted constitutions only on the recommendation of Congress is plainly false . The bill of rights ( the first part of the constitution ) was reported by the committee May 27, and adopted by the convention June 12. The "frame of government'''' was adopted June 29. To it at the last moment was prefixed a third part of the constitution, a declaration of independence for Virginia, earlier than the Continental Declaration (Source Book). 149. The Virginia Bill of Rights 2 was the first document of the kind in our history, and it remains one of our greatest state papers. Three !On May 10, Charles Lee wrote to Washington, "A noble spirit possesses the Convention. They are almost unanimous for independence, but differ as to the mode. Two days will decide." 2 Source Book, No. 136. The class should study it, and compare the opening passages with corresponding parts of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. See also comment there on the common neglect of the debt owed by American political theory to the document. VIRGINIA BILL OF RIGHTS 223 or four States at once copied its characteristic parts almost verbatim, and all the bills of rights of the revolutionary period were profoundly in- fluenced by it. Several provisions, such as those against excessivt bail, cruel or unusual punishments, arbitrary imprisonment, and the like, go back to ancient English charters, even for their wording. Recent grievances suggested certain other clauses, — the prohibition of " general warrants," the insistence upon freedom of the press, and the emphasis upon the idea that a jury must be "of the vicinage." Patrick Henry contributed a noble assertion of the principle of religious freedom. But the peculiar significance of this brief but immortal document is found in a few paragraphs not yet referred to. English bills of rights had insisted upon the historic rights of Englishmen, but had said nothing of any rights of man; they had protested against specific grievances, but had asserted no general principles. Such principles, however, had found fre- quent expression in English literature ; and the writings of Locke and of less famous but more democratic English pam- phleteers of the seventeenth century had made them household phrases with American political thinkers. 1 Now, these funda- mental principles, upon which American government rests, were incorporated by George Mason in this Virginia bill of rights, — a fact which distinguishes that document from all previous governmental documents of the English-speaking race. Two or three weeks later, Jefferson incorporated similar prin- ciples, clothed in phrase both more eloquent and more judicious, in the opening paragraphs of the Continental Declaration of In- dependence, — whence mainly, in later years, they have reached American thought. Among the principles of the Virginia document are the statements : — " That all men are by nature equally free 2 and independent, and have certain inherent rights. ..." 1 As to French influence, cf . Modern History, § 303, note. 2 According to Edmund Randolph, the phrase equally free was objected to as inconsistent with slavery and likely to involve civil tumult. The objectors were quieted with the amazing assurance "that slaves, not being constituent members of our society, could never pretend to any benefit from such a 224 THE REVOLUTION "That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people. " That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit of the people . . . and that when any government shall be found inade- quate ... to these ends, a majority of the community hath an indubi- table, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it. . . . "That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be pre- served . . . but . . . by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.*' 150. The Declaration of Independence. — Soon after the Vir- ginia instructions of May 15 reached Philadelphia, Eichard Henry Lee, one of the Virginia delegation in the Continental Congress, moved that the united colonies be declared "free and independent States " (June 7). After brief debate, action was postponed until July 1, to permit uninstructed delegates to consult their colonial Assemblies. North Carolina had already authorized its delegates "to join in " such a vote, if the matter came up ; while Massachusetts, Khode Island, and Georgia had passed vague resolutions which might be construed as author- ization (the last State, however, by a very irregular convention). Eight colonies had expressed no approval, and at least three of them had in most emphatic terms forbidden their delegates to participate in any such action. During the month of June, however, the Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania Assemblies rescinded these prohibitions, and Assemblies or Congresses in the other colonies gave the necessary authori- zation, — except in New York and South Carolina. The delegates from New York wrote home (June 10) for instructions ; but the Third New York Convention replied (on motion of John Jay) that the existing convention, having no mandate from the people of the colony on the question, could not presume to give authority. A new provincial congress was called at once, to act upon the matter ; but it did not assemble until July 9, and so the New York delegates at Philadelphia maxim." After all, the Fathers enunciated their splendid principles with mental reservations: or rather, let us say, their great declarations were history only in part, and in part prophecy. In Massachusetts, similar words in her bill of rights of 1780 were held by her courts, four years later, to have abolished slavery within her limits, although that result had not beeu thought of when the clause was adopted. In Virginia the matter never got into the courts ; and if it had, the decision would surely have been in accordance with the understanding in the convention. — THE STATES AND THE UNION 225 took no part in the votes. The South Carolina delegates fell back upon a clause in their instructions authorizing any action for the common good, — though the provincial congress that gave those instructions had not thought of independence. ♦ Meantime the Continental Congress appointed a committee to prepare a fitting and formal Declaration for use if Lee's motion should prevail. Happily, it fell to Thomas Jefferson actually to pen the document; and his splendid faith in democracy and his devotion to human rights gave it a convinc- ing eloquence which has made it ever since a mighty power in directing the destiny of the western world. 1 On July 1, Lee's motion was again taken up. The first vote was divided ; 2 but on the following day, the motion was ap- proved by twelve States. 3 The formal Declaration, as reported from the committee, was then considered in detail, and adopted on July 4. On the 9th, the Fourth New York Congress gave the assent of that State. August 2, the official copy of the Declaration, engrossed on parchment, was signed by the mem- bers of Congress then present. $#. D. The Thirteen State Constitutions {The following sections (151-155) may well be discussed with books open. Students should not be held responsible for details, but they should get strong general impressions.) 1 This does not mean that Jefferson coined new thought or new phrases. Most of the document was already common property, as to both ideas and ex- pression. Jefferson's fervor and literary skill added just the touch needed to perfect the form. Both the committee and Congress made slight changes; but the Declaration as we have it is essentially Jefferson's original draft, written without reference " to book or pamphlet." 2 Conservative Patriots, like Dickinson, still opposed the motion. On the first, nine States voted yes ; New York did not vote ; Delaware was evenly divided ; and Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted no. 3 John Adams regarded this vote, with its affirmative gains, as the decisive step. On the 3d of July he wrote to his wife: "The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great aniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to solemnized with 226 THE REVOLUTION 151. Conditions: the War in '76. — Military events fti '76 were indecisive. In the spring, after nearly a year's siege, Wash- ington forced the English out of Boston ; but he was unable to prevent their occupying New York. After the defeats of Long Island and White Plains, his sadly lessened troops fled through New Jersey into Pennsylvania ; but a few weeks later he cheered the Patriots by the dashing winter victories of Trenton and Princeton. 1 Meantime the revolution in governments went on. In the six months between the Declaration cf Independence and the Battle of Trenton, seven 2 States followed Virginia in adopting written constitutions. Georgia was hindered for a time by the predominance of her Tories ; and New York, because she was held by the enemy. These States followed in '77. 3 The re- maining three States had already set up provisional govern- ments (§§ 145, 148) which, in Massachusetts and New Hamp- shire, remained in force for some years. South Carolina, however, substituted a regular constitution in '78, pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, hells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore." 1 In the darkest of these days, Thomas Paine again thrilled the people with his pamphlet, The Crisis, which was a mighty factor in rilling the levies and dispelling despondency. Pages of it were on men's tongues, and one passage has passed into a byword, — " These are the times that try men's souls." 2 Connecticut and Rhode Island, it is true, each merely reenacted its colonial charter as a " constitution " of a " State "; and New Jersey, in like fashion, converted a provisional constitution, adopted as late as July 2, into a permanent one, by the change of a few words. 3 Thanks to the political instinct of the people, the institution of these new governments, even in the midst of war and invasion, was quietly accomplished, and civil order was soon on a far sounder basis than at any preceding time since the Boston Port Bill. Regarding the transition from colony to commonwealth in Virginia, Jeffer- son wrote (August 13, 77),— "The people seem to have laid aside the mo- narchic, and taken up republican government, with as much ease as would have attended the throwing off an old and putting on a new suit of clothes." Cf. Source Book, No. 138, for John Adams' account of the proceedings in South Carolina. THE STATES AND THE UNION 227 152. "Constitutional Conventions" and "Ratification." — Until we come to Massachusetts and New Hampshire in the Ws, no one of these constitutions was adopted and ratified in a modern manner. The conven- tions or congresses had to carry on the revolutionary government, as well as make constitutions. In some cases they had no authorization for con- stitution making, and in others, only a vague one, as in Virginia (§ 148). Some of the constitution-making bodies, indeed, had been elected months before there was any thought of independence. For the most part, too, the constitutions were adopted just as ordinary statutes were enacted, and, to our thought, would have been no more binding. None of the first eleven constitutions were submitted to a refer- endum. Jefferson urged such action in Virginia, arguing that otherwise the constitution would not really be fundamental, but could be modified, like any other statute, by subsequent legislatures, but this doctrine was too advanced to command sympathy. 1 When the New York provincial congress of June, '76, published its call for a new congress to act upon in- dependence and the adoption of a form of government, the statement aroused apprehensions in the "union of mechanics" in New York City. "We do not believe," said their address of remonstrance, " that it was intended for future delegates or yourselves to be vested with the power of framing a new constitution for this colony, and that its inhabitants at large should not exercise the right God has given them. . . . Many believe that we will not be allowed to approve or reject the new constitution, [and] they are terrified at the consequences. ..." This remonstrance was not regarded ; and the mechanics refrained from pressing it further in the face of war. It is the only popular demand, however, for a constitutional referendum, outside of New England; and, significantly enough, these mechanics in New York City were largely of New England birth or descent. 2 Here, better possibly than anywhere else in our history, is seen the supreme educational value of the New England town meeting in politics. The sovereignty of the people, and practical devices for exercising that sovereignty, were understood in New England by the ordinary artisan and farmer, as elsewhere only by lonely thinkers like Jefferson. 1 The highest Virginia court afterward upheld the constitution of 76 as amendable only by a duly called convention for that express purpose. But the highest court of South Carolina in '80 declared the constitutions of '76 and '78 in that State to be ordinary laws, so far as authority and power of altera- tion were concerned. This logical decision compelled that State to adopt a third constitution, by a true convention, in 1783. 2 Cf . §§ 137, c, 142, on the democratic influence of the artisan class. 228 THE REVOLUTION No reference to the people, it is true, was taken in the case of continu- ing the old governments of Rhode Island and Connecticut, because it was held that the people had already sanctioned them by long acquiescence. But in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, where new constitutions were to be adopted, there was no serious thought of acting without popular referendum. Indeed, that was not enough. The people of these States demanded a popular initiative, also, in the matter, and a true constitu- tional convention, — as will appear in the following paragraphs. Throughout the summer of '76, Massachusetts papers and pamphlets teemed with projects for a new government. 1 September 17 the Assembly recommended to the towns of the State that they authorize the existing Assembly to prepare a constitution, " to be made public for the inspection and perusal of the inhabitants, before the ratification thereof by the Assembly." This would have permitted popular suggestion only; Massa- chusetts would not tolerate such a plan, and a general opposition appeared to any action whatever by the ordinary legislature. A Worcester County convention voted, "That a State congress chosen for the sole purpose of forming a constitution is . . . more eligible than the House of Represen- tatives." May 5, 1777, the expiring Assembly recommended that its successor should be empowered, at the elections, to make a constitution. Many towns refused assent. Thus, a Boston town meeting instructed its delegates to resist the movement until the people at large should delegate " a select number for that purpose and that alone.'''' But there was suffi- cient approval so that the new Assembly felt justified in attempting the work. In February, 1778, a constitution was submitted to a popular vote, with the provision that an affirmative vote of two thirds of the towns should suffice to establish it. This first use of the referendum gave a rejection. Less than a tenth of the towns approved the document ! Many of them drew up lists of ob- jections ; and Boston improved the opportunity to point its moral as to the need of a true constitutional convention: "This Specimen we now have . . . has confirmed us fully, even to demonstration, [that] we were right in our conjectures that the Honorable body was improper for this business." Then the resolution insists again that the matter must be 1 Some of these were fantastic. Democracy, of course, will show its weak points. One "farmer" published a constitution of sixty articles, which, he boasted modestly, he had prepared for the commonwealth " between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m." Opposition to any executive was common. A.t a slightly later date, one town voted " that it is Our Opinniun that we do not want any Goviner but .the Guviner of the univarse and under him a States Gineral to Consult with the wrest of the united stats for the good of the whole." STATE CONSTITUTIONS 229 committed to " a convention for this purpose and this alone, whose exist- ence is known no longer than the constitution is forming." This method, joined with the referendum, was now adopted, and a con- stitution was secured in the most democratic and enlightened method yet known to man. At the elections to the next Assembly, the towns were asked to vote, (1) whether they desired a constitution to be framed, and, (2) if so, whether they would empower their delegates in the coming Assembly to call a Convention for the sole purpose of forming a constitu- tion. The responses were favorable, and a Convention was called for September 1, to be chosen as regular Assemblies were. That body drew up a constitution which (March 2) was submitted to the towns. More than two thirds the towns expressed their ratification, at their regular spring elections, and in June, 1780, the Convention declared the constitu- tion in effect. In New Hampshire a like method was followed, and four popular votes were necessary before a constitution was ratified in 1783. It was many years before this method became general, outside New England. 153. Characteristics. — The thirteen constitutions were strik- ingly alike} All were " republican" without a trace of heredi- tary political privilege. Nearly all safeguarded the rights of the individual by a distinct bill of rights, and the rest had many provisions of a like character scattered through the body of the document. Most of them formally adopted the English Common Laic as part of the law of the land ; and where the constitution did not make that statement, the courts none the less acted upon that principle. Except in Pennsylvania and Georgia, the legislature had two Houses (§ 70). Pennsylvania kept a plural 1 This was due mainly to the similarity between the preceding colonial gov- ernments, but in part to a remarkably active interchange of ideas among the leaders during the spring and summer of '76. Before the Virginia convention, Patrick Henry corresponded freely with the two Adamses, Members of Congress at Philadelphia constantly discussed forms of government at in- formal gatherings ; and, on several occasions, delegates from distant colonies returned home to take part in constitution-making. John Adams, whose early advocacy of independent State governments had brought him many inquiries as to what kind of government he had in mind, wrote much on the subject in his private correspondence, and finally published a pamphlet, Thoughts on Government, which was studied widely. Of this period Adams said, " The manufacture of governments is as much talked of as was the manufacture of saltpeter before." 230 THE REVOLUTION executive, — a council with one member designated as " presi- dent "; but elsewhere the revolutionary committees of safety gave way to a single " governor " or "president." 1 In all these constitutions the executive ivas shorn of much of the power of colonial times, mainly because the people did not yet clearly see the difference between trusting an officer chosen by themselves and one appointed by a distant king. New York and Massachusetts, however (the eleventh and twelfth States to act), had had time to learn the need of a firm executive. Accordingly, they strengthened that branch of government somewhat, though they left it weaker than is customary to- day. These two States also placed the election of the governor in the hands of the people directly. That was already the case in Connecticut and Rhode Island under the colonial charters. Everywhere else the dependence of the executive upon the legislature was increased by making him the appointee of the legislature. 2 Appointment was usually for one year, with pro- hibition upon more than three terms out of seven years. Everywhere the legislature overshadowed the two other branches of government. ( Tlte judiciary, even more uniformly than the executive, was chosen by the legislature, and in many cases was removable by executive and legislature without formal trial./ No one yet foresaw, in anything like its modern extent, the later power of the judiciary to declare legislative acts void when, in its opinion, contrary to the constitution. The old executive check upon the legislature, the absolute veto, nowhere appeared* and only two States devised the new qualified veto 1 " President " was the less imposing title ; but the president of South Caro- lina after all was a State executive, while the president of the council' in Pennsylvania was merely a presiding member in an executive council. The tendency to divide the executive between separate officers, — go vernor^ treas- urer, and so on, — continued (§ 119). 2 In the Virginia constituent convention a separate electoral college was suggested, such as was adopted later in the Federal Constitution for the President. Maryland did choose her senators by such a college. 3 In the conventions an absolute veto was advocated, as indispensable to stable government, by men so unlike as Patrick Henry and John Adams. STATE CONSTITUTIONS 231 (to be overridden by two thirds of each House), which has since become so common. New York gave this veto to governor and judiciary acting together, in a " re visionary council " ; Massa- chusetts gave it to the governor alone, — in other respects copying all the details, and even the words, of the New York plan. From the Massachusetts constitution this form of veto, with one important addition (§ 156, c) was to pass, words and all, into the Federal Constitution. ( One of the most common provisions was some religious dis- crimination. "Freedom of worship," it is true, was generally asserted in the bills of rights ; but this did not imply our modern separation of church and state. Office holding in several States was restricted to Protestant Christians, and some States kept a specially favored (" established ") church. The Massachusetts bill of rights provided that all citizens should be taxed for church support, but that each man should have the right to say to which church in his town or village his payment should go. Most places in Massachusetts had only a Congre- gational church, however, which, therefore, was maintained at public expense. Connecticut had a similar plan.^ Local government remained more nearly upon the pre-Revo- lutionary basis. There was, however, a distinct tendency toward decentralization. Some officers, formerly appointive, became elective in the local units ; and others were chosen now not by the governor, but by the legislature, usually on local nomination. Two remaining matters, the suffrage and the method of amendment, are so fundamental that they deserve distinct sections to themselves (§§ 154, 155). *& 154. The Franchise. — Democracy was more praised than practiced. Each 8f the thirteen States excluded a large part of even the free White males from voting. Some gave the franchise only to those who held land, and most of the others demanded the ownership of considerable taxable property of some kind as a qualification. Even the four most democratic States — Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Georgia, North Carolina — per- 232 THE REVOLUTION initted only taxpayers to vote. 1 The country over, probably not one White man in five held even the lowest degree of the suffrage. 2 The common requirement of more property to vote for the upper than for the lower House of the legislature was one of the devices to make the senates special protectors of property interests. Commonly, too, there was a still- higher qualification for sitting in the legislature, — often more for the upper House than for the lower, — and yet more for a governor. In several States, the upper House was chosen by the lower ; and in Mas- sachusetts, while all men who could vote for one House could vote for the other also, still in choosing the senate, the votes were so apportioned that a rich man counted for several poor men. 3 Here were four distinct ingenious devices against a dangerously en- croaching democracy: (i) an upper House (§ 70) ; (2) indirect election of that House, and of the executive and judiciary ; (3) property qualifica- tions, sometimes graded, for voting ; and (4) higher qualifications for holding office. All these had been developed in the colonial period. On the whole, the new States weakened the checks {and no State increased them) ; but every State retained some of them. North Carolina pretty well lost her democracy in these gradations. To vote for a representative, a man had only to be a taxpayer ; but to vote for senator, he must own 50 acres of land ; to sit as representative, he must have 100 acres ; as senator, 300 acres ; and as governor, £1000 of real estate. Massachusetts, beginning higher, graded her voters only indirectly (note, above) ; but a member of her lower House had to have 1 Curiously, these four States all put into their constitutions a provision for encouraging public education. It should be added that Pennsylvania and Georgia were a trifle more liberal with the franchise than the compact state- ment in the text would indicate. The first gave the suffrage to the grown-up sons of freeholders, and the second to certain classes of skilled artisans, whether taxpayers or not. 2 Even Jefferson's draft for a Virginia constitution (Works, Ford ed., II, 7 ff.) calls for a landed qualification, " I acre in a town or 25 acres in the coun- try." But see George Mason's more democratic proposal, Source Book, No. 136, and comment. 8 That is, the richer any part of the State, the smaller the senatorial dis- tricts, and the more of them. A man who paid taxes on $3000 had ten times the voting power of a man who paid on only $300. STATE CONSTITUTIONS 233 £100 in real estate or £200 in other property ; a senator, three times as much ; and a governor, £1000 in "real " property. 1 South Carolina re- quired her governor to hold £5000 in land, and so left only her great planters eligible. 2 155. Provision for Amendment. — To-day it is customary to say that the most important clause in any constitution — " the constitutional clause " — is the one that determines how the document may be changed. But half these first constitutions had no provision whatever in the matter. The omission was due partly to the political inexperience of that day ; partly to the vague expectation that, on occasion, by a sort of peaceful revolution, the people would " recur to fundamental princi- ples " in much the same way as in creating the original instru- ments. A definite method for amendment was prescribed in only six of the thirteen constitutions; and in some of these the method was very imperfect. In South Carolina the legislature gave ninety days' notice (that public opinion might be known), and then acted as in passing any law. In Maryland, an amendment became part of the constitution if passed by two successive legislatures. In Delaware five sevenths of one house and seven ninths of the other were required to carry an amendment, — which amounted to complete prohibition upon constitutional amendment. In Pennsylvania, amendments could be proposed only at intervals of seven 1 This qualification for governor was preserved in later Massachusetts con- stitutions. More than a century afterward (1890), when William E. Russell, a brilliant young reformer, was elected governor, it was found necessary, dur- ing the campaign, to put enough real estate to his name so that he could qualify. 2 Vermont, it is true, was a real democracy; but Vermont was not one of the thirteen colonies, nor did she become a State of the Union until 1791. Her territory had belonged to New York and New Hampshire ; but neither govern- ment was satisfactory to the inhabitants, and, during the early Revolutionary disorders, the Green Mountain districts set up a government of their own. Neither Congress nor any other State government "recognized" Vermont; but, in 1777, it adopted a constitution with manhood suffrage. This was due to the fact that Vermont, as a whole, was a frontier community, correspond- ing to the "back counties" of other States. Indeed, its "constitution" was regarded much as were the provisional and equally democratic governments set up about the same time by little frontier communities west of the moun- tains (§§ 167, 272). 234 THE REVOLUTION years, and only in a peculiar fashion. As a result, in these two States, amendment was finally accomplished by new conventions with disregard of the constitutional provisions. Georgia and Massachusetts provided for the calling of constitutional conventions in a modern fashion ; and Georgia went so far as to require a, popular initiative. A majority of voters in a majority of counties had to petition for an amendment, — which would then be submitted to a convention called by the legislature. Exercise. — Review (from §§ 140, 141, 145, 148, 149) the constitutional revolution in Virginia, from colony to commonwealth. (The following study may well be taken up, a paragraph at a time, while the class goes on with the advance work. It is to be continued after § 297. Every institution should have several copies of recent Legislative "Blue Books" accessible to a class in American History and Govern- ment. Any information called for below, and not found readily in such volumes, can be easily found in State Histories or State " Civics," or, for recent years, from resident members of the State legislature, who, perhaps, will address the class on some of the topics. Recent editions of the World Almanac will, of course, be at hand.) 156. Excursus: Suggestions for Study of State Governments Then and Now. — a. Distinguish clearly between a " constitu- tional convention " and an ordinary legislature. Which repre- sents the supreme power of the State the more completely ? (What is that supreme power ?) How was the present consti- tution of your State adopted ? (If the State has had more than one constitution, outline the history of each.) How can it be amended ? Are amendments frequent ? b. What classes of adults cannot vote in your State ? Would you prefer to enlarge or decrease the restrictions ? l c. Compare the bill of rights in your State constitution with the original Virginia bill of rights and with the Declaration of Independence. Do you know of any reported attempts in re- cent times by any branch of a State government to violate its 1 Women have the full suffrage in nine Western States (1913) . In nearly all others, they can vote on school affairs and hold school offices. This theme is suitable for school debates ; or a series of topics on the history of the woman suffrage movement and its present status may be assigned for special reports. THE CONGRESS AND THE WAR 235 bill of rights ? In such a case, what branch of the government would have the final say ? d. Read the veto clauses in the original New York and Massachusetts constitutions and in the Federal Constitution (in Appendix I), noting comment there on the pocket veto. What important acts of your last legislature were vetoed ? Have any important acts of your legislature in recent years been declared unconstitutional by the courts, State or Federal ? e. Make a table showing the system of courts for your State, with jurisdiction of each grade, method of appointing or elect- ing judges, term of office, and salary. (The early tendency to make the courts appointive has mostly disappeared.) The term of office is from twenty-one years to two, with an average per- haps of eight or nine. Do you find any State where the judges still hold for life ? What do you think of a twenty-year term ? (For State executive, and the relations of executive and legislature, see close of § 297.) E. The Congress and the War 157. Resources and their Utilization. — The population of Great Britain 1 was about three times that of the colonies, and its wealth much greater in proportion. But (as we know now better than any one did then) for eight million people to sub- due and hold two and a half million, at a distance of three thousand miles, is well-nigh impossible, — especially when the people to be conquered inhabit a large and scattered territory with no vital centers. The danger lay, not in England's strength, but in American disunion and in the governments inefficiency. Had the Americans been united in sentiment (as was our South in 1861, or the South African Boers in 1900), England would have had no chance at all ; and even with every third man sympathizing with England, if we had possessed a strong 1 Omitting Ireland's 3,000,000, which at this period was a source of anxiety rather than of strength to the empire. Ireland was part of the British state, but not part of " Great Britain " proper. 236 THE REVOLUTION central government able to gather and wield our resources, the British armies could have been driven into the sea in six months. From the 500,000 able-bodied, White males of the thirteen colonies, 1 the Americans should have put in the field an army of 100,000 men. In 1864 their great-grandsons went forth in that proportion to preserve the Union, and in much higher proportion, to escape from it (§ 375). But, if we leave out the militia, which now and again swarmed out for a few days to repel a local raid, the continental forces hardly reached a third that number at any time ; and, for the greater part of the war, the strength was nearer ten than thirty thousand. Even these few were ill-paid, ill-fed, and worse clothed. And this not so much from the poverty of the country, as from lack of organiza- tion, and, to some degree, from an amazing repugnance felt by Congress and State legislatures toward the army that fought for them. Said Washington: "In other countries, the prejudice against stand- ing armies exists only in time of peace, and this because the troops are a distinct body from its citizens ... it is our policy to be prejudiced against them in time of war, though they are citizens." And, as John Fiske well says, in referring to the dreadful sufferings of Washington's army at Valley Forge which "have called forth the pity and admiration of historians " : " The point of the story is lost unless we realize that this misery resulted from gross mismanagement rather than from the poverty of the country. As the soldiers marched on the seventeenth of December to their winter quarters, their route could be traced on the snow by the blood that oozed from bare, frost-bitten feet. Yet, at the same moment, . . . hogsheads of shoes, stockings, and clothing were lying at different places on the route and in the woods, perishing for want of teams." Fortunately, the English commanders were of second or third rate ability. Among the Americans, the war developed some excellent generals of the second rank, — Greene, Arnold, 1 French Canada and Spanish Florida, both then recently conquered by England, were repeatedly invited to join in the War for Independence. These colonies, however, had never known a less oppressive government, and they had little liking for their New England neighbors. So, in spite of race hatred for their English governors, they could not be induced to rise, even when an American army appeared in Canada. THE CONGRESS AND THE WAR 237 Marion, etc, but too many officers were marked mainly by incompetency, or self-seeking, or treacherous intrigue. After a real army had grown out of the vicious system of short-term levies that characterized the first two years, the faithful endur- ance of the common soldier was splendid. Said one observer, " Barefoot, he labors through Mud and Cold with a Song in his Mouth, extolling War and Washington." Yet at times even this soldiery was driven to conspiracy or open mutiny by the jealous unwillingness of Congress to make provision for their needs in the field or for their families at home. Out of all this murkiness, towers one bright and glorious figure. Pleading with Congress for justice to his soldiers, shaming or sternly compelling those justly dissatisfied soldiers to their duty, quietly ignoring repeated slights of Congress to himself, facing outnumbering forces of perfectty equipped veterans when his own army was a mere shell, Washiyigton, holding well in hand that fiery temper which still, on occasion, could make him swear " like an angel from heaven," was al- ways great-minded, dignified, indefatigable, steadfastly in- domitable ; a devoted patriot ; a sagacious statesman ; a con- summate soldier, patient to wait his chance and daring to seize it: th£ one indispensable man of the Revolution. \ 158. The Critical Years, 77 and '78. —In 1777, Howe invaded Pennsylvania. Washington maneuvered his inferior forces admirably. He retreated when he had to ; was robbed of a splendidly deserved, de- cisive victory at Germantown only by a mixture of chance and of lack of veteran discipline in his soldiers ; and, after spinning out the campaign for months, went into winter quarters at Valley Forge — then to grow famous for heroic suffering. Howe had won the empty glory of captur- ing "the Rebel Capital," and he settled down there to a winter of feast- ing and dancing ; but he had been decoyed from his chance to crush the American cause by making safe Burgoyne's invasion from Canada. Lacking this expected cooperation from the south, Burgoyne proved unable to secure the line of the Hudson, and was forced to surrender 1 to the incompetent, fortune-swollen Gates. 1 The inexcusable way in which Congress failed to ratify the terms of sur- render may be the subject of a special report. 238 THE REVOLUTION This capitulation of an entire English army turned the wavering policy of France into firm alliance with America against her ancient rival. From the first, the French government had furnished the Americans with much- needed money and supplies, secretly and indirectly ; and many adven- turous young noblemen like Lafayette, imbued with the new liberal phi- losophy of Rousseau, had volunteered for service under "Washington. Franklin had been acting as the American agent in Paris for some months without formal recognition. Now he quickly secured two treaties, — one of commerce, one of political and military alliance. The independence of the United States was recognized ; the possessions of the two powers in America were mutually guaranteed ; and it was agreed that peace with England should be made only after consultation and approval by both. allies. 1 France drew Spain in her train ; and, soon after, England quar- reled with Holland. Without an ally, England found herself facing not merely her own colonies, but the three greatest naval powers of the world (next to herself), while most of the rest of Europe held toward her an attitude of • ' armed neutrality ' ' — which meant instant readiness for hostility at the slightest opening. In America, however, the darkest months of the war were those inter- vening between the victory over Burgoyne and the news of the French alliance. The first flush of enthusiasm Was spent. The infamous Con- way Cabal (among officers and Congressmen) threatened to deprive the country of Washington's services. Nearly a fifth of the starving army deserted to the well-fed enemy in Philadelphia, and another fifth could not leave their winter huts for want of clothing. The paper money, issued by Congress in constantly increasing volume — the chief means of paying the soldiers and securing supplies — was nearly valueless. For- eign trade was impossible because England commanded the sea ; and domestic industry of all sorts was at a standstill because of the demorali- zation of the currency. To large numbers of patriots, even the news of the new ally was of doubtful cheer. Many began to fear that they had only exchanged the petty annoyances of English rule for the slavery of French despotism and of the Spanish Inquisition. {Source Book, No. 144.) Two results of the French treaty followed close upon its announce- ment. (1) The English general was ordered to evacuate Philadelphia and concentrate forces at New York. The watchful Washington was 1 Large sections of the French people felt a genuine enthusiasm for Amer- ica, but to the despotic French government the alliance was purely a " League of Hatred." Spain and Holland were never our allies: they were the allies of France. The treaty with France is the only alliance America has ever formed. THE CONGRESS AND THE WAR 239 close upon the rear of the retreating army, and at Monmouth his strategy and dash were again robbed of the fruit of victory, — this time by the misconduct or treason of General Charles Lee. (2) Lord North sent commissioners to America with an "olive branch " proposition : all the contentions of the Americans, previous to July 4, 1776, should be granted, together with a universal anmesty, if they would return to their alle- giance. By a unanimous vote, Congress refused to consider propositions "so derogatory to the honor of an independent nation." 159. A "War of Desolation." — In the northern states no British army of consequence again appeared in the field, and Washington's forces were too insufficient to undertake extensive projects. Except for minor operations, the war was transferred to the South, with swift alter- nations of success and failure through 1779 and 1780. In both North and South, after the summer of '78, the struggle took on a new character. It became a " war of desolation," — a succession of sudden raids to harry and distress a countryside or to burn a town or port, 1 varied by occasional bloody and vindictive combats like those at Cowpens and King's Moun- tain. The Loyalists who had been driven from their homes in Boston and Philadelphia with the retirement of the British forces, together with those living in the vicinity of New York, enrolled themselves in large numbers 2 under the English flag ; and, because of their knowledge of the country, these troops were used freely in these harrying expeditions. In consequence, the attitude of the Whig governments, State and local, toward even the passive sympathizers with England, became ferocious. Those unhappy men who had long since been deprived of their votes were now excluded from professions and many other employments, for- 1 A terrible feature of some of these raids was the use of Indian allies by the English. But it must be remembered that the Americans had first tried to secure such allies. Both Washington and John Adams had favored their enlistment. Montgomery had some Indians in the army with which he invaded Canada, and there were a few in the American army besieging Boston in 1775. It had been intended to use the friendship of the natives for the French in order to draw them into a force under Lafayette. The simple fact is that Indians had been used by both sides in America in all the intercolonial wars, and both parties in this new contest continued their use so far as possi- ble ; but the natives saw truly that the real enemy of their race was the American settler, and therefore turned against him. Cf. Parkman's Montcalm and Wolfe, II, 421; Roosevelt's Winning of the West, II, 87; Ferguson's Historical Essays, 204. 2 New York alone furnished 15,000 recruits to the English army, besides 8000 more Loyalist militia. It has been said that at important periods, more Americans were under arms against independence than for it. 240 THE REVOLUTION- bidden to move from place to place, ruined by manifold fines, drafted into the army, imprisoned on suspicion, sometimes deported with their families in herds to distant provinces, and constantly exposed to the most horrible forms of mob violence. If they succeeded in escaping to the British lines, their property was confiscated (oftentimes to enrich graft- ing speculators at corruptly managed sales), and they themselves, by hundreds at a time, were condemned to death in case of return or re- capture, — not by judicial trials, but, without a hearing, by bills of attainder. 1 Seemingly, the war had settled down to a test of endurance. Cam- paigns in Europe and the West Indies drained England's resources, glorious though the results were to her arms against those tremendous odds.' 2 Meantime, in America, Congress kept its sinking finances afloat by generous gifts and huge loans from France. The army, however, was dangerously discontented. Desertions to the enemy rose to a hundred or two hundred a month. Suddenly an unexpected chance offered. Washington, ever ready, grasped at it, and this time no evil fate intervened. With the indispensable cooperation of the French army and fleet, Cornwallis and his army were cooped up in Yorktown. With his surrender (October 19, 1781) war virtually closed, though peace was not signed, nor British troops withdrawn from the American coast, for many months. 1 A " bill of attainder" is a legislative act imposing penalties upon one or more individuals. The legislature condemns, not the courts ; and of course the accused lose all the ordinary securities against injustice. Such bills had been used occasionally in English history at the dictation of a despotic king, and sometimes by the party of liberty to strike down a powerful minister of a despot, whom the courts or ordinary impeachment could not convict. In the early mouths of the Long Parliament, when it became apparent that tech- nicalities would prevent the conviction of the traitor Wentworth in the im- peachment proceedings, Pym and the other radicals secured the punishment of the great criminal by a bill of attainder. (Cf . Modern History, § 244.) Such condemnation for treason or other high crimes, in the cruel law of the time, carried with it " attaint of blood." That is, the family of the condemned were made to suffer also, at least by the loss of property, and commonly by inability to hold office. By our constitution of 1787, it is provided that treason shall " not work attaint of blood," and bills of attainder are wholly forbid- den. Until the adoption of that instrument, however, many States did pass such bills against prominent Tories, — sometimes against great numbers of them. An attempt was made in the Virginia bill of rights to prohibit such bills ; but Patrick Henry urged that they might be indispensable in that time of war. Some States incorporated the prohibition in their first bill of rights. 2 Cf. West's Modern History, § 284. CONTINENTAL CURRENCY 241 160. Congress and the Paper Money. — The best excuse for the misrule of Congress was its real weakness and its conse- quent feeling of irresponsibility. In all internal matters, its power was limited almost wholly to recommendations, which the States grew to regard more and more lightly. It asked men to enlist, offering bounties to those who did so, but often found its offers outbid by the State governments to increase their own troops. It had no power to draft men into the ranks : only the State governments could do that. So, too, in the matter of finances. Congress could not tax : it only called on the States for contributions in a ratio agreed upon. Such contributions, even when reinforced by the loans from France, were not more than half of the amount neces- sary to carry on the war. At the very beginning, Congress was forced to issue paper money. Each scrap of such money was merely an indefinite promissory note from Congress to "bearer." In five years, printing presses supplied Congress with $241,000,000 of such "continental currency"; 1 and, with this, perhaps % 50,000,000 worth of services and supplies were bought. 2 Congress itself had no power to compel people to take this currency ; but, at the request of Congress, the States made it "legal tender." If the Americans failed in the war, of course the money would be wholly worthless ; and even if they succeeded, the redemption of the notes, it was clear, would be very uncertain. In 1776 (when only twenty millions had been issued), depreciation set in. In 1778, a dollar would buy only twelve cents' worth of goods. In 1780, Congress " redeemed " outstanding and worthless notes by neiv notes, at two and a half cents on a dollar ; but the new issue naturally lost value even more swiftly than the old. A cheap suit of clothes cost from one to two thousand dollars ; and the Tories 1 So called to distinguish this currency put forth hy the central govern- ment from similar issues hy the States. The State currency amounted to $200,000,000 more ; hut most of it had more value than the continental paper. 2 After depreciation began, even with a new issue Congress could not get nearly a dollar's worth of supplies for a paper dollar. 242 THE REVOLUTION laughed at men who had gone to war, they said, rather than pay threepence tax on tea and who now paid one hundred dollars a pound for that article. In 1781, Thomas Paine paid $300 for a pair of woolen stockings, and Jefferson records a fee of $3000 to a physician for two visits. "Not worth a continental " became a byword. Before the close of 1781, this currency ceased to circulate except as speculators bought it up, at perhaps a thousand dollars for one in coin. A mob used it to " tar and feather n a dog ; and McLaughlin tells of an en- terprising barber who papered his shop with continental notes. All this meant a reign of terror in business. Men who, in 1775, had loaned a neighbor $1000 in good money were compelled, three or four years later, to take in payment a pile of paper almost without value, but named $ 1000. Prices varied fantastically from one day to another, and in neighboring localities on the same day. Wages and salaries rose more slowly than prices (as is always the case), and large classes of the people suffered exceedingly in consequence. But it must be remembered that this " cheap money ' ' was the only money Congress could get. If a " note " had ever been repaid, it would have been in reality a "forced loan." Since it never was repaid, it amounted to a tax, or a confiscation of private property for public uses, — the tax being paid, not by one man, but by all the people through whose hands it passed. 1 Such taxation was horribly wasteful and demoralizing; but it was the only kind of tax to which the people would have submitted in the amount required. Without the paper money, the Revolution could not have been won. 161. Washington and the Newburg Addresses. — One famous episode occurred while the treaty negotiations dragged along. The pay of the soldiers and officers was several years in arrears, and Congress showed no desire to make any satisfac- tory arrangement. Soon the army would be no longer needed. 1 A sold a horse to the government for one hundred dollars in paper cur- rency ; when he passed the paper on to B, he received perhaps only ninety dollars in value for it. Ten dollars had been taken from him by tax, or con- fiscation. B perhaps got only seventy dollars' worth for the money; so he had been " taxed "• twenty dollars. The government had secured the horse for a piece of paper, and eventually the horse was paid for by the various people in whose hands the paper depreciated. THE TREATY OF PEACE 243 When disbanded, its members would be even less likely to secure justice. In this situation, a definite plan appeared in the camp at Newburg to secure better government by making Washington king. 1 When Washington repulsed the proposition with grieved anger, an anonymous address summoned a meeting of officers to adopt some method to redress their grievances, suggesting at least that the army should not disband until Con- gress had been forced to proper action. This incipient conflict between the civil and military powers, which would have so sullied the beginning of the new nation's career, was averted by the tact and unrivaled influence of Washington. He antici- pated the meeting of the officers by calling an earlier one himself, at which he prevailed upon their patriotism to aban- don all forms of armed compulsion ; and then he finally pre- vailed upon Congress to' pay a five years' salary in government certificates, worth perhaps twenty cents on the dollar, — a meager return, but perhaps all that the demoralized government at that date was equal to. 162. Treaty of 1783. — The negotiations for peace were car- ried on from Paris, with Franklin, John Jay, and John Adams to represent the United States. Spite of King George, the fall of Yorktown overthrew Lord North's ministry ; and the new English government contained statesmen friendly to America, such as Fox, Rockingham, and Shelburne 2 (§ 136). From this fact and from the remarkable ability of the Ameri- can negotiators, it resulted that the treaty was marvelously advantageous. Just before the war (1769), but contrary to orders of the English government, a few Virginians had crossed the western 1 Conservative patriots like Gouverneur Morris would perhaps have wel- comed the success of the plan. Cf. Source Book, No. 150. 2 England could not well avoid conceding American independence, hut Shelburne meant to do it in generous fashion. He intended not merely peace, he said, hut " reconciliation with America, on the noblest terms and by the noblest means." The well-disposed ministry lasted only long enough to make peace. 244 THE REVOLUTION mountains to settle in fertile lands between the Ohio and Cumberland rivers, in what we now call Kentucky and Ten- nessee (§ 163 ff.) ; and, during the war itself, many thousands had established homes in that region. From the Kentucky settlements, George Rogers Clark, a Virginia officer, in incredi- bly daring campaigns (1778-1779), had captured from England the old French posts Kaskaskia and Cahokia, on the Missis- sippi, and Vincennes on the Wabash ; and this district, though it contained still only old French settlers, had been organized, like Kentucky, as a Virginia county. Tlie Americans, there- fore, had ground for claiming territory to the Mississipjyi, 1 and such extension of territory was essential to our future development. England, however, was expected to demand our surrender of this thinly settled western region, in return for the evacuation of New York, Charleston, and other cities still held by her armies. Moreover, France and Spain secretly intended that the treaty should shut up our new nation between the Atlantic and the Appalachians, leaving to England the northwest terri- tory (which had been legally a part of Canada, § 141, note), and to Spain and the Indians the southwest, adjoining the Floridas, which Spain had now recovered from England. By the treaty of 1778, we were bound to make no peace with- out the consent of France, and our commissioners were now strictly instructed by Congress to act only with the advice of Vergennes, the French minister. Jay and Adams suspected Vergennes of bad faith, and finally persuaded Franklin to dis- regard the instructions. The peculiar and rather disgraceful instructions from Congress to the American negotiators ran, that they were "to make the most candid and confidential communications upon all subjects to the ministers of our generous ally . . . [and] to undertake nothing in the negotiations 1 In 1777, Clark received a letter of encouragement from Jefferson, who, even so early, felt keenly the importance of the West. "Much solicitude," he wrote, " will be felt for the outcome of your expedition ... If success- ful, it will have an important bearing in ultimately establishing our north- western boundary." THE TREATY OF PEACE 245 . . . without their knowledge and concurrence."' We were bound in honor and by treaty not to make peace without the consent of France, but we were under no obligation to depend in so humiliating a manner as this, in all preliminary negotiations, upon a power with interests necessarily different from ours. France perhaps had no desire to injure America, but she had no objection to leaving it helpless and dependent upon her favor, and she did wish to satisfy her ally Spain, whom she had dragged into the war. The story goes that, while Franklin and Jay were dis- cussing the situation, Franklin asked in surprise, " What ! would you break your instructions ? " " As I break this pipe," said Jay, throwing his pipe into the fireplace. Franklin had rendered incalculable diplomatic service to his country, but his long and intimate relations with the French government had unfitted him for an independent course in this crisis. Jay probably overestimated the hostile designs of France, but modern investigations prove that in general his suspicions were well founded. With patriotic daring, the American commissioners en- tered into secret negotiations with England and secured terms which Vergennes could not well refuse to approve when the draft of the treaty was placed before him. England acknowledged the independence of the United States, with territory reaching to the Mississippi and from the Great Lakes to the Floridas, 1 surrendering, without consideration, not only the seacoast cities she held, but also the Northwest posts, which had never been seen by an American army. She also granted to the Americans the right to share in the Newfound- land fisheries, from which most foreign nations were shut out. In return, the American Congress recommended to the various states a reasonable treatment of the Loyalists, 2 and promised 1 See map. East Florida corresponded pretty well with the modern State. West Florida reached to the Island of New Orleans. The northern boundary of the Floridas was declared to be the thirty-first parallel, but a secret article of the treaty (not made known to France) provided that if England should recover the Floridas from Spain, then Florida should extend north to the mouth of the Yazoo. Spain learned of this afterward and tried to secure that boundary for herself. 2 The American negotiators had told the English commissioners frankly that the "recommendation" regarding the Loyalists would carry no weight; and England herself afterwards appropriated large sums of money to com- pensate partially that unfortunate class of exiles. 246 THE REVOLUTION solemnly (a matter which should have gone without saying) that no State should interpose to prevent Englishmen from recovering in American courts the debts due from Americans before the war. Xo wonder that the chagrined Vergennes wrote : u The English buy the peace, rather than make it. . . . Their concessions regarding boundaries, fisheries, and the Loyalists exceed anything I had thought possible."' The territorial advantages of the treaty were not fullv en- joyed by the United States for some twelve years. When the English forces evacuated the American seaports, they carried away a few hundred Xegroes, who, they claimed, had become free by aiding them during the war, and whom they would not now surrender to their old masters. The American State gov- ernments made this a pretext for deliberately breaking one of the most reasonable articles of the treaty, — that regarding British debts. Despite the pledged faith of the central gov- ernment, State after State passed laws to prevent the collection of such debts in their courts. Meantime, the Americans had not at first been ready to take over the posts on the Great Lakes ; and when they desired to do so, England refused to surrender them, because of these infractions of the treaty. Spain, too, angered by news of the secret article with England regarding the boundary of the Floridas, did her best to keep hostile the Indians of the southwest, and declined to recog- nize our claims in that direction. Our actual territory north and south of the Ohio reached only to the watersheds. These difficulties were to be adjusted finally by the treaties of 1794 and 1795 (§§ 231, 233). The following summary of the Revolution is from Theodore Roose- velt's Gourerneitr Morris (4-6): — "England's treatment of her American subjects was thoroughly self- ish ; hut that her conduct towards them was a wonder of tyranny will not now be seriously asserted. On the contrary, she stood decidedly above the general European standard in such matters, and certainly treated her colonies far better than France and Spain did theirs ; and she herself had undoubted grounds for complaint in, for example, the readi- ness of the Americans to claim militarv help in time of danger, together ACTUAL OCCUPATION AND TREATY BOUNDARIES 1783 _ — Nominal Boundary of treaty of *TS3 ,-.— Real .*•;.".•/ Settlements west of the Mountains SCALE OF MILES 100 200 300 400 500 GOO w^&fcS* fc V \ \ \ . •r.- ( ( ' ■ } \'(-. / 0- '4-. -> / SUMMARY 247 with their frank reluctance to pay for it. ft was impossible that she should be so far in advance of the age as to treat her colonies as equals. . . . Yet, granting all this, the fact remains, that in the Revolutionary- War the Americans stood towards the British as the Protestant peoples stood towards the Catholic powers in the sixteenth century, as the Par- liamentarians stood towards the Stuarts in the seventeenth, or as the upholders of the American Union stood towards the confederate slave- holders in the nineteenth. That is, they warred victoriously for the right in a struggle whose outcome vitally affected the welfare of the whole human race. They settled, once for all, that thereafter the people of English stock should spread at will over the world's waste spaces, keeping all their old liberties and winning new ones ; and they took the first and longest step in establishing the great principle that thenceforth those Europeans who by their strength and daring founded new states abroad should be deemed to have done so for their own profit as free- men, and not for the benefit of their more timid, lazy, or contented brethren who stayed behind." For Further Reading. — Howard's Preliminaries of the Bevolution and Van Tyne's American Bevolution ("American Nation" series) make together an admirable treatment. Woodburn's Leckifs American Bevolution should be accessible, as a scholarly treatment by a great Eng- lish historian. Fiske's two volumes on the Revolution are delightful reading. Trevellyan's American Bevolution is probably the best history of the period, but it is rather bulky for high school students. Though written by an Englishman, it is sympathetically American in tone, and it is brilliant in treatment. The treaty of peace may be studied at length in the opening chapters of Fiske's Critical Period or of McLaughlin's Confederation and Constitution. The Source Book continues to have abundant material through the early years of the Revolution. »s / (JJVV. I j. o ^ > i? CHAPTER VII THE WEST " The West is the most American part of America. . . . What Europe is to Asia, ivhat England is to the rest of Europe, what America is to England, — that the western States and Territories are to the eastern States. — James Bryce. 163. Birth in the Revolution. — It is natural for us to think of the years 1775-1783 as given wholly to patriotic war for political independence. But during just those years thousands of earnest Americans turned away from that contest to win industrial independence for themselves and their children be- yond the mountains. While the old Atlantic sections were fighting England, a new section sprang into being, fighting Indians and the wilderness. How the Scotch-Irish, with Ger- man and Huguenot companions, moved into the long valleys of the Appalachians early in the eighteenth century has been told (§ 112). There they made the first "West." Now, a generation later, their Americanized sons were to make a greater and truer West in the basin of the Mississippi. During the Bevolution, settlement penetrated only into the " dark and bloody ground " between the Ohio and its southern branches. This district had long been a famous hunting ground, where Indians of the north and south slew the bison and one another. But, though frequent war parties flitted along its trails, no tribe claimed it for actual occupation. So here lay the " line of least resistance " to the on-pushing wave of settlement. 164. England's Futile Opposition to Western Settlement. — The first European mistress of the land between the Appalachians and the Missis- sippi was France. England claimed it from the first, however, and in- 248 WATAUGA 249 eluded it all in royal grants to her seaboard colonies. But when control actually passed to England, in 1763, no English colony was allowed to enter into possession. 1 England wished to avoid Indian wars, which were likely to follow the influx of the rude frontiersman ; and possibly the government was unduly influenced by commercial interests, which hoped fatuously to keep the vast river valley as a hunting preserve for the fur trader. Accordingly, the Boyal Proclamation of 1763 forbade settlers to trespass in the Indian country, ordering the royal governors to make no land grants west of the mountains ; and in 1774, parliament annexed the western territory, as far south as the Ohio, to the Province of Quebec (§ 141, note). A like policy led, in 1767, to enlarging "Florida" at the expense of the West (Map, facing p. 246). Even had England remained mistress, this policy of exclusion was doomed to certain failure. The restless border farmers already felt crowded in the old colonies, and were dissatisfied with their rugged and sterile soil. For some years stray hunters, who wandered sometimes as far as the Mississippi, 2 had stirred the frontier with romantic tales of the wonders and riches of the great western basin ; and just before the Revo- lution, hardy and adventurous families pushed the line of American settle- ment across the mountains (§§ 165-170). I. THE SOUTHWEST: A SELF-DEVELOPED SECTION A. Watauga 165. Causes. — In 1769 a few Virginia frontiersmen estab- lished their families in the valley of the Watauga, one of the headwaters of the Tennessee. At first the new settlement was thought to lie still within Virginia, and in the spring of 1771 it was reinforced by fugitive Eegulators from North Carolina, where attempted reforms had gone down in bloody defeat (§ 137, b). The same summer, however, a surveyor ran 1 Six thousand French settlers remained in the district under English rule until, some fifteen years later, Clark's campaigns brought them under Ameri- can authority (§162). They were distributed for the most part in three groups in the Northwest, — near Detroit, about Vincennes, and at the Missis- sippi towns, Kaskaskia and Cahokia. (Map, facing p. 246.) 2 All boys will read with delight Theodore Roosevelt's stirring story of " Boone and the Long Hunters, and their Hunting in No-man's Land " {Win- ning of the West, I, ch. vi). 250 THE SOUTHWEST out the southern boundary of Virginia and found that Watauga lay in the territory claimed by North Carolina. That dis- tracted colony was in no condition to care for so distant and inaccessible a section, 1 nor were the inhabitants at Watauga disposed to submit to further Carolina injustice. Accordingly, in 1772 they adopted a written constitution and became an independent, self-governing community — the first one west of the mountains. 166. Frontier Conditions. — Immigrants came in little groups of families, those from Carolina by a long detour through Virginia. No wagon roads pointed west ; and it was a genera- tion more before the white, canvas-covered wagon (afterward so familiar as the " prairie schooner ") became the token of the immigrant. At best, the early Southwest had dim and rugged trails (" traces "), along which men, rifle always in hand, led pack horses loaded with young children and with a few necessary supplies, while the women and older children drove the few lean cattle. Two men stand forth in this western movement into Ten- nessee, — James Robertson and John Sevier, playing parts similar to those taken at almost the same time in Kentucky by their friends, Daniel Boone and George Rogers Clark (§§ 168-171). Robertson was a mighty hunter who had spied out the land to find a better home for his family. A back- woodsman born, he had learned " letters and to spell " after marriage, from his wife ; but he was a natural leader, with splendid qualities of heart and head. Sevier was a " gentle- man" of old Huguenot family and of some culture. He was the most dashing figure of the early frontier, — a daring Indian 1 Communication with Virginia, though difficult enough, was possible, be- cause the long valleys trending to the northeast ran near together as they entered that State. But a hundred miles of forest-clad mountains, without a trail fit even for a pack horse, divided Watauga from the nearest settlements in North Carolina. Watauga itself lay with mountains to the west, as well as to the east; but its water communication with the Mississippi justifies us in regarding it as part of the land " west of the mountains." WATAUGA 251 fighter and an idolized statesman among his rongh com- panions. , The essential thing about Watauga, however, was not its leadership, but the remarkable individuality and democracy of its whole population. By 1774 the settlers were grouped in thirteen "stations." A " station " was a stock- aded fort of considerable size. One side was formed usually by a close row of log huts, facing in. The remain- ing sides, with a log " blockhouse " at each corner, were a close fence of hewn " pickets," considerably higher than a man's head, driven firmly into the ground and bound together. Within were supply sheds for a short siege, and sometimes a central and larger blockhouse, — a sort of inner "keep." Stockade and blockhouses were loopholed at convenient intervals for rifles, and, except for surprise or fire, such a fort was impregnable, even when de- fended by a relatively small force, against any attack without cannon. The fort, however, was only for times of extraordinary danger. Ordinarily, the families lived apart, each in its log cabin upon its own farm. These holdings were usually of from four hundred to a thousand acres; but for many years they remained forest-covered, except for a small stump-dotted "clearing," about each cabin. The clearings nearest one an- other were often separated by miles of primitive forest, with -.-. 30* s M -hjh.. '1 t - ,. Fort Steuben, 1787. (From a recent restoration.) 252 THE SOUTHWEST communication only by trails blazed with a hatchet on tree trunks ; and, at an alarm of Indians, all families of a " station " abandoned these scattered homes and sought ref age within the stockade. In contrast with the early New England "village" and with the southern "plantation," it is plain that this western type of settlement excelled, whether for combination against an outside foe or for individu- ality and equality. The two qualities that especially characterized this new West, says Theodore Roosevelt, were "capacity for self-help and capacity for combination." The latter was typified, not merely by the common stockade for war and by the gathering of " neighbors " from many miles for a "house raising," but, even more fundamentally, in the early political association to maintain social order(§ 167). 167. The Watauga " Articles." — In the spring of 1772 the men of the thirteen forts gathered at Robertson's station in mass meeting, to organize a government. This meeting adopted Articles of Association, — "a written constitution, the first ever adopted west of the mountains, or by a community of American-born freemen." 1 The document declared for abso- lute religious freedom, and based all action, without thought of other procedure, upon manhood suffrage. 2 A representative court of thirteen, one from each station, chose a smaller court of five members in whom were vested the immediate powers of government. 3 This body of commissioners held regular meet- ings, and managed affairs with sound sense, if with little regard for legal technicalities. In general they claimed to take the 1 The phrase is Roosevelt's, based upon an earlier but clumsier expression of Justin Winsor's. The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (§ 88) had been formed, of course, by English-nurtured men. 2 To give due credit to the men of Watauga, the student must remember how far short of such democracy fell the Revolutionary constitutions of the eastern states four or five years later (§§ 152-155). » This was "representative" democracy, not "direct democracy." The large farms in the Southwest inclined its people to the county type, rather >a.i the town-meeting type, of government. KENTUCKY 253 law of Virginia as a guide ; but, to all intents, Watauga was for six years an absolutely independent political community. Then, in 1778, when the Revolution had reformed North Caro- lina, Watauga recognized the authority of that State and became Washington County. B. Kentucky 168. The First of the Prairies. — Among the many daring hunters and Indian fighters, who, preceding settlement, had ventured from time to time into the bloody hunting grounds south of the Ohio, one man was more than hunter and explorer. As early as 1760, Daniel Boone hunted west of the mountains ; and in 1769 (the year W r atauga was founded) he went on a " long hunt " there with six companions. After five weeks' progress through the hitherto interminable forest stretching contin- uously from the shore of the Atlantic, this little party broke through its western fringe and stood upon the verge of the vast prairies of America. They had come to the now famous " blue- grass " district of Kentucky. Hitherto, except for petty Indian clearings, American colo- nists had had to win homes slowly with the axe from the stubborn forest. Now before the eyes of these explorers there spread away a lovely land, where stately groves and running waters intermingled with rich open prairies and grassy mead- ows, 1 inviting the husbandman to easy possession and teeming with game for the hunter, — herds of bison, elk, and deer, as well as bear and wolves, in abundance unguessed before by English-speaking men. In the following months, hard on the trails of the hunters, followed various small expeditions of backwoods surveyors and would-be settlers, spite of frequent death by the scalping lr The prairies proper, even when reached, did not at first attract settlers. The lack of fuel and often of water more than made up for difficulty of clear- ing forest land. But Kentucky offered a happy mixture. 254 THE SOUTHWEST knife and at the stake. 1 In particular, Boone returned again and again, and, in 1773, he sold his Carolina home, to settle in the new land of promise. His expedition was repulsed, however, by a savage Indian attack, and the next year the opening of a great Indian War along the Virginian and Penn- sylvanian border drove every settler out of Kentucky. 169. Lord Dunmore's War. — Without provocation, a dastard White trader had murdered the helpless family of Logan, a friendly Iroquois chieftain dwelling on a branch of the upper Ohio. In horrible retaliation for this infamous deed, a mighty Indian confederacy was soon busied with torch and tomahawk on the western frontiers. Pennsylvania was the worst sufferer ; but the dilatory government there failed to protect its citizens. Virginia, however, acted promptly. To crush the confederacy she sent an army far beyond her line of settlement, into the distant Northwest, — where, indeed, she had always claimed jurisdiction, though parliament had just annexed the territory to Quebec (§ 164). This force was com- posed chiefly of hardy frontier riflemen, uniformed in their customary deerskin hunting shirts ; but, by a curious contrast, it was led by an Eng- lish earl, the royal governor, Lord Dunmore. The rear division of the army, when about to cross the Ohio at the mouth of the Kanawha, was surprised, through the splendid generalship of the Indian leader Corn- stalk, by the whole force of the natives ; but, after a stubborn pitched battle, the frontiersmen won a decisive victory. This Battle of the Great Kanawha, with the war which it brought to a close, is as important in its consequences as any conflict ever waged be- tween Whites and Redmen. Says Theodore Roosevelt : " It so cowed the northern Indians that for two or three years they made no organized attempt to check the White advance. . . . [It] gave opportunity for Boone to settle in Kentucky [§ 170] and therefore for Robertson to settle Middle Tennessee [§ 171], and for Clark to conquer Illinois and the North- west. It was the first link in the chain of causes that gave us for our western boundary in 1783 the Mississippi, and not the Allegheniesy 170. Permanent settlement in central Kentucky began the next spring (1775). For a few months it had the form of a proprietary colony. Between 1740 and 1776, several attempts !Very soon, indeed, the colonists learned that the Woods Indian of the West — armed now almost as well as the Whites — was a far more formida- ble foe than the weak tribes of the coast had been to the original European settlers. KENTUCKY 255 had been made to colonize western territory by this method (sogtsef ul a century before on the Atlantic coast *) ; but none of the other projects had proceeded as far as this one did. A cer- tain Henderson, a citizen of North Carolina, bought from the southern Indians their rights to a great tract in central Ken- tucky and Tennessee. He named the proposed colony Tran- sylvania, and secured Boone as his agent. In March and April, Boone and a strong company marked out the Wilderness Road 2 and began to build "Boone's Fort,", where Henderson soon arrived with a considerable colony. Many small "forts" sprang up at almost the same time, without connection at first with Henderson's colony ; but it was the strength of Boones- boro that sheltered the others. 171. A Virginia County: Basis for the Conquest of the North- west. — Henderson made many land grants to settlers, and assembled a legislative body which passed various laws and which applied to the Continental Congress (1775) for admission as a separate colony into the colonial confederacy. But the Revolution ruined all prospect of English sanction for Hender- son's proprietary claims ; and in any case the frontiersmen had little notion for paying quit-rents, however small, for the lands they subdued. Virginia, too, firmly asserted her claim to the territory. In 1776, Henderson passed from the scene; and, the next year, Kentucky, with its present bounds, was organized as a county of Virginia. 1 This method has been revived in the nineteenth century in the coloniza- tion of Africa, — as in the British South African and the German West African Company. 2 This was merely a narrow bridle path, through the more passable parts of the forest and across the easiest fords, leading two hundred miles from the Holston River (near Watauga) into central Kentucky. In the worst places, the thick underbrush was cut out ; but much of the time only the direction was blazed on trees. The Wilderness Road (with a later branch into Virginia through the Cumberland Gap) long remained the chief means of communica- tion with the Atlantic regions. Immigrants soon began, it is true, to float down the Ohio ; but that route was much more exposed to Indian attack, and return up the river in that day was impossible. 256 THE SOUTHWEST In spite of savage Indian raids, and of a new Indian War in 1777, Kentucky was now definitely won for English-speaking America. With it, much more was won. Kentucky already contained several hundred fighting men, and it became the base from which George Rogers Clark conquered the Northwest (§ 162). 1 Before the close of the Revolution, Kentucky's population exceeded 25,000 ; and when peace made Indian hostility less likely, a still larger immigration began to crowd the Wilder- ness Road and the Ohio. Meanwhile, there had been established west of the mountains a third center of settlement (C below). C. Central Tennessee 172. The Cumberland Settlements. — Watauga was now ready to become the mother of a still more western colony. Popula- tion had grown rapidly, and an occasional straggling village Western Settlement, 1769-1784. had succeeded an earlier " fort." At the end of ten years, it was no longer a place for the real frontiersmen ; and, in 1779, Robertson, with some of his more restless neighbors, migrated once more to a new wilderness home in west-central Ten- Special Report. CUMBERLAND SETTLEMENTS 257 nessee, on the bend of the Cumberland. Romantic as is the history of this new island of civilization, we can stop only for its new illustration of a democracy founded on the unanimous consent of the governed. As in Kentucky, so in this fertile district, population thronged in, with, no doubt, the usual proportion of undesirable frontier characters ; and the settlers found it needful at once to provide a government. May 1, 1780, a convention of representatives at Nashboro adopted a " constitution," which, however, was styled by the makers merely " a temporary method of restraining the licentious." A few days later, this "social compact" was signed by every adult male settler, 256 in number. It provided for a court of twelve "judges," chosen by manhood suffrage and apportioned among the eight stations in proportion to their population. If dissatisfied with its representative, a station might at any time hold a new election (the modern "recall"). Like the early Watauga commissioners, the "judges" exercised all powers of government. This extreme democracy, however, expressly recognized the right of North Carolina to rule the district when she should be ready; and in 1783 that State organized the Cumberland settlements into Davidson County. D. Movements for Statehood and for "Separation" 173. Twofold Character of Separatist Movements. — For some years, only feeble ties held the Western settlements to the Atlantic States. The men of the West made continuous efforts for Statehood, contrary to the will of Virginia and North Carolina and of Congress ; and, at one time or another, in each of the three groups of settlements, these legitimate attempts merged obscurely in plots for complete separation from the eastern confederacy. 1 For even this extreme phase of the movement, there was great provocation in the gross neglect shown by the East toward pressing needs in the West (§§ 174, 175). 1 This twofold character is illustrated in the exceedingly interesting history of the State of Frankland (which should be made a subject for special report; cf. also Source Book, No. 148). The contrast between the political spirit of the French and English-speaking peoples in America is shown forcibly 258 THE SOUTHWEST "T 174. "Colonial Policy" of the\East. — The older States had just rebelled against the colonial policy of Great Britain, but they showed a strong inclination to retain a like selfish policy toward their own " colonies " in the West. Even in the imper- ative matter of protection against Indians, they hampered the frontier without giving aid. Repeated petitions were made by the Westerners (1) to control directly their own militia; (2) to be divided into smaller counties — with courts more accessible ; and (3) to have a " court of appeal " established on their side the mountains. 1 These reasonable requests were refused contemptuously by North Carolina, and granted only grudgingly by Virginia. More distant Eastern communities, too, notably New England, manifested a harsh jealousy (§ 205). -\- 175. The West and Spain. — For nearly all its course, one bank of the Mississippi was American ; but, by the treaties of 1783, toward the mouth both banks were Spain's. According to the commercial policy of past ages, Spain could close against us this sole commercial outlet. The surplus farm produce of the West could not be carried to the East over bridlepaths. Without some route to the outside world, it was valueless ; and the only possible route in that day was the huge arterial system of natural waterways to the Gulf. Early in the progress of Western settlement, the backwoods- men began to float their grain and stock in flatboats down the smaller streams to the Ohio, and so on down the great central river to New Orleans. They encountered shifting shoals, hid- den snags, treacherous currents, savage ambuscades, and the hardships and dangers of wearisome return on foot through the by comparing with such efforts at self-government in the Southwest the con- temporary complaints of the French settlers north of the Ohio. These settle- ments (§ 164, note) were subject to troubles like those of their southern neighbors ; but they seem not to have thought of asking, to say nothing of taking, enlarged powers of self-government. Instead, they sent to Congress a pitiful petition that " governors " might be appointed over them. Cf. Roosevelt, Winning of the West, II, 184. 1 Many a poor man found legal redress for wrong impossible because a richer opponent could appeal to a seaboard supreme court. STATEHOOD AND SEPARATION 259 Indian-haunted forests. These natural perils the frontier trader accepted light-heartedly ; but he was moved to bitter wrath, when — his journey accomplished — fatal harm be- fell him at his port. He had to have " right of deposit " at New Orleans, to reship to ocean vessels. Spanish governors granted or withheld that privilege at pleasure — until 1795, when a treaty secured it, nominally, for a brief and uncertain period (§ 233). Even then, ruinous bribes were still necessary to prevent confiscation by Spanish officials on some pretense. For many years our government had shown little eagerness in this life-or-death matter; and the West seethed with furious demands for possession of the mouth of the Mississippi. How to get it mattered little. The Westerners would help Congress win it from Spain; or they were ready to try to win it by themselves, setting up, if need be, as a separate nation ; or some of them were ready even to buy the essential privilege by putting their settlements under the Spanish flag. The last measure was never discussed widely ; but nearly every one of the great leaders was at some time concerned in such dubious negotiations with Spanish agents, — notably Sevier, Robertson, and Clark. 1 Ameri- can nationality and American patriotism were just in the making. It was natural for even good men to look almost exclusively to the welfare of their own section ; and the action of these really great leaders does not expose them to charges of lack of patriotism in any shameful sense, — as would be the case in a later day. Still we should see that they struggled in this matter on the wrong side. It was well that, about 1790, they were pushed aside by a new generation of immigrants, who were able to " think continentally." 176. Spain's Attitude. — On her side, Spain felt her possessions in America threatened by the new Republic, — especially by any advance of its rude strength beyond the Appalachians. She tried to check the peril (1) by arousing the Southwestern Indians against Kentucky and Tennessee ; (2) by fostering movements for independence in those com- munities, so that they might become buffer states between her and the 1 Cf. Roosevelt's Winning of the West, III. These men must not be con- founded with a fellow like General Wilkinson, who, while an American officer, took a pension from Spain for assisting her interests in the West. 260 THE NORTHWEST United States ; and (3) by inducing the Westerners to place themselves under her protection. How dangerous this last would have proved is suggested by later events in West Florida and Texas (§§261, 339). Indeed (if this is any excuse), it is possible that, under pretense of accepting Spanish sov- ereignty, Sevier and Clark expected to play the part of splendid free- booters, and rob that decaying power of vast realms for English-speaking civilization. II. THE NORTHWEST A NATIONAL DOMAIN 177. A significant contrast is indicated in the headings for Divisions I and II. Except for Henderson's futile project, there was no paternalism in the Southwest. Settlement there was predominantly individualistic. No statesman planned it; no general directed the conquest of territory ; no older government, State or Federal, fostered development. The Southwest was won from savage man and savage nature by little bands of self-associated backwoodsmen, piece by piece, from the Watauga to the Rio Grande, in countless bloody but isolated skirmishes and through self-determined action, generation after generation. Settlement preceded governmental organization. In the Northwest, government preceded settlement. The first colonists found (i) territorial divisions marked off for governments, and the form of government largely determined; (2) land surveys ready for the farmer; and (3) some military protection. All this was afforded in ad- vance by the national government. This child of the nation, therefore, escaped the tendencies to separatism which we have noted in the South- west. A. Creation of the National Domain 178. State Claims. 1 — Six States could make no claim to any part of the West, — Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island ; while the title of South Carolina applied only to a strip of land some twenty miles wide. But, immediately after the Revolution, the other six States reasserted loudly old claims to all the vast region between the mountains and the Mississippi. 1 The map facing page 265 should be studied as part of the text, for pur- poses of this topic. Cf. also Source Book, § 146. THE NATIONAL DOMAIN 261 Kentucky and Tennessee, it has been noted, were claimed by Virginia and North Carolina, and Georgia long insisted upon a flimsy title to a wide reach of land extending to the Mississippi. So far, there were at least no conflicts of title between the States. North of the Ohio, the case was more complex. Virginia claimed all the Northwest, under her old charter (§§ 25, a, 33, 37, note) ; and she had done much to give real life to this weak title by taking steps toward actual possession in Dun- more's War and Clark's conquest of Illinois, and, even more, in the organization and administration of the district from Vincennes to Kas- kaskia as the County of Illinois (1779-1784). New York also claimed all the Northwest, but by the slightest of all titles. The middle third of the Northwest was claimed also by Massachusetts and Connecticut on the basis of ancient charters. 179. Maryland insists upon a Common Domain and a New Co- lonial Policy. — New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, already hemmed in by larger neighbors, looked with rising alarm upon the probability of greater expansion for those neighbors through these amazing claims. Moreover, the States with western lands at once arranged to use them in paying Eevolutionary expenses, while the small States taxed themselves in hard cash for the war which really won this territory from England. These conditions gave rise to intense dissatisfaction, and four States refused to ratify the Articles of Confederation (§ 186). In a year or so, however, all but Maryland 1 submitted to the pressure from Congress. Indeed, they had been willing all along to leave jurisdiction over the western territory to the claimant States, if only they themselves might share in the money proceeds from the sale of lands. Maryland, no doubt, was roused to action by a like selfish motive ; but enlightened selfishness in her case led to the broadest patriotism. She devised, and, after a stubborn four-years' contest, she estab- lished for all America a wholly new and glorious colonial policy, — perhaps the most original American contribution to politics. 1 By the terms of the Articles, that constitution could not go into effeot A until ratified by every State. / V c 262 THE NORTHWEST As early as November, 1776, the Maryland Convention that framed a State constitution set forth also this resolution : "That the back lands, claimed by the British crown, if secured by the blood and treasure of all, ought, in reason, justice, and policy, to be considered a common stock, to be parcelled out by Congress into free, convenient, and independent Governments, as the wisdom of that body shall hereafter direct." Nearly a year later (October 15, 1777), the Maryland delegates in Congress sought to have that body proclaim that it should have power to fix the western bounds of the States claiming to the Mis- sissippi, and, at proper times, to lay out the lands west of such boundaries into new " States." The Articles of Confederation were then being considered by Congress ; and the only imme- diate result of Maryland's proposal was the addition to the Articles (at Virginia's insistence) of a provision that no State should ever be deprived of territory by Congress. The Arti- cles were submitted to the States for ratification in November, 1777 ; and by February, 1779, every State except Maryland had ratified. Further delay was in many ways perilous to the new Union ; and other States charged Maryland bitterly with lack of patriotism. Virginia, in particular, insinuated repeatedly that the western lands were only an "ostensible cause" for Maryland's delay. With clear-eyed purpose, however, that little State held out, throwing the blame for delay where it belonged, — on Virginia and the other States claiming the West ; and in May, 1779, she renewed her instructions to her delegates in Congress against signing the Articles, — repeat- ing in precise words her resolution of 1776. 180. The Cessions. — Even in the landed States, public opin- ion gradually shifted to the support of the view so gallantly championed by Maryland ; and a year later (October 10, 1780), the Continental Congress formally pledged the Union to the new policy. A Congressional resolution solemnly urged the States to cede the western lands to the central government, to be disposed of "for the common good of the United States," guaranteeing also that all lands so ceded would be "formed The United States in 1783— State Claims and Cessions THE NATIONAL DOMAIN 263 into separate republican States, ivhich shall become members of the federal union and have the same rights of freedom, sovereignty, and independence as the other States." l New York had already promised to relinquish her western claims, and now Connecticut promised to do likewise. In Jan- uary, 1781, Virginia's promise followed, for the lands north of the Ohio. The formal deeds of cession were delayed by long' negotiations over precise terms, but the general result was now certain. Maryland had won. Accordingly (March 1, 1781), she ratified the Articles. That constitution at last went into oper- ation, — and the new confederacy possessed a " national domain." Kentucky remained part of Virginia until admitted into the Union as a State in 1792 ; and Virginia did not actually cede the Northwest until 1784, — retaining then the "Military Reserve" (a triangular tract of several million acres just north of the Ohio) wherewith to pay her sol- diers. Connecticut completed her cession in 1785, and Massachusetts made hers in 1786. Connecticut retained 3,250,000 acres south of Lake Erie. This district was soon settled largely by New Englanders, and was long known as "The Western Reserve " ; but in 1800, when Connecticut had sold her property in the lands (to build up her school fund), she granted jurisdiction over the settlers to the United States. North Caro- lina ceded Tennessee in 1790, and South Carolina had given up her little tract three years earlier ; but Georgia clung to her claims until the year 1802. 2 1 This completed the suggestion for what has come to be the American plan of colonization. Previously, the world has known only two plans. Greek and Phoenician colonies became free by separating at once from the mother cities : the seventeenth and eighteenth century colonies of European countries had remained united to the mother countries, but in a condition of humiliating dependence. For the United States Maryland had devised a new plan combin- ing permanent union with freedom. The student will perceive that this great political invention was peculiarly adapted to & federal union, such as America was then forming. 2 Massachusetts had claimed also what is now western New York ; but in 1786 the two States agreed that New York should have the jurisdiction and Massachusetts the property. This dispute had delayed Massachusetts' surren- der of the lands farther to the West. Connecticut, too, had waged a long quarrel, rising almost to a war, with Pennsylvania, over her claims to land within that State. This matter was finally submitted to arbitration by Con- gress, which decided in favor of Pennsylvania. Resentment in Connecticut delayed for a time the cession of her other lands. 264 THE NORTHWEST B. National Organization 181. The Ordinance of 1784. — It was now for Congress to make good its promise in the resolution of October, 1780. Accordingly, when Thomas Jefferson, as a Virginia delegate in Congress, presented to that body Virginia's final cession, he also proposed a plan of government for all territory " ceded or to be ceded." This plan was soon enacted into law and is commonly known as the Ordinance of 178 Jf. It deserves study, as the first American legislation l for the political organization of " Territories " (or colonies), and for its influence upon its yet more important successor, the Ordinance of 1787 (§ 182). Jefferson assumed that the States would promptly complete their ces- sions. Accordingly, the Ordinance of 1784 cut up all the western terri- tory into proposed States. The old States were to be bounded on the west by the meridian passing through the mouth of the Kanawha. West of that line there were to be two tiers of new States, each one bounded by geographical parallels and meridians. Each State was to be two degrees 1 Some months before, in 1783, Jefferson had been made chairman of a committee to prepare a plan for government for the West ; and now the com- mittee reported. Although this was the first legislative action upon the mat- ter, it should not be forgotten that several individuals had proposed plans previously. Apparently, the earliest such plan was that suggested by Thomas Paine, in 1779, in The Public Good (written mainly to advocate the Maryland idea, against the policy of his adopted State, Virginia). Congress was to lay off the boundaries for a new State ; and, "as it must be supposed, not to be peopled when laid off," the central government was also to supply the new political unit in advance with a constitution "for a certain term of years (perhaps ten), or until the State becomes peopled to a certain number of inhabitants ; after which the sole right of modeling their government to rest with themselves." As to the relation of the new State to the Union, — "It ought to be incorporated into the Union, on the ground of a family right, such a State standing in the line of a younger child of the same stock ; but ... a new State requiring aid, rather than [being] capable of giving it, it might be most convenient to admit its immediate representative into Congress to sit, hear, and debate . . . but not to vote till after the expiration of seven years." Thus once more, in a constitutional crisis, Paine's fertile brain gave forth the path-breaking thought. His paragraph contains the essential details of our later legislation for Territories. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION 265 266 THE NORTHWEST in width from north to south ; and the meridian passing through the Falls of the Ohio was to divide the eastern from the western tier. 1 As to government, three stages were provided. (1) When any one of the districts should have sufficient population (the provision lacking in definiteness), either the inhabitants or Congress might call a representa- tive convention (to be elected by manhood suffrage) with power to adopt the constitution of any one of the original thirteen States ; according to the constitution so chosen, the inhabitants were to govern themselves during what we may call the provisional territorial stage. (2) Whenever the population reached twenty thousand, a second convention was to establish a " permanent constitution," and the " Territory" was to send a delegate to Congress, — who, however, should not hold a vote there. This stage may be called the regular territorial organization. (3) Full statehood, within the Union, was to be granted when the population equaled that of the smallest of the older States. As in all our later organization of Territories, certain provisions were to be made a matter of compact between the new State and the United States, not alterable therefore in future by the State alone. Thus, the State was forever to remain part of the United States, and to preserve a republican form of government ; it was to take over its share of the public debt, and not to tax United States lands within its borders, nor to tax non-residents more heavily than its own citizens. Strangely enough, this document from Jefferson's hand contained no real bill of rights (perhaps because that was thought a matter for the future State constitutions) ; but a remarkable attempt was made in it to exclude slavery from all the western territory after the year 1800. This provision, however, received the votes of only six States, and so failed of adoption. 2 1 Counting from the thirty-first parallel (our southern boundary) to the forty-fifth, this arrangement would give fourteen States ; and, in rather vague fashion, another seems to have been designed for the space between the western boundary of Pennsylvania and the first tier of new States. It is possible, however, that South Carolina and Georgia were expected to extend to the second tier, — in which case there would have been only twelve or thirteen States. To ten of them the original plan gave peculiar names, — Michigania, Mesopotamia, Polypotamia, Assenisipia, etc. (The Ordinance expressly provided that any fragments north of the forty-fifth parallel should be included In the States just south of them.) 2 Virginia (spite of Jefferson) and South Carolina voted No ; North Caro- lina was " divided " and so not counted ; New Jersey, Delaware, and Georgia were absent. Jefferson stated later that, but for the sickness of a delegate from New Jersey, that State would have been present and in the affirmative ; so that the proposition " failed for want of one vote." The proposal applied x< \f*' THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE 267 182. The Ordinance of 1787 ("The Northwest Ordinance").— These political provisions in the Ordinance of '84 were liberal and democratic ; but they were vague in places, and they left to the central government no convenient means of control, even in the earliest stage of settlement. In 1787, the law was replaced by the great Northwest Ordinance. This was a slightly more conservative law, drawn in more precise terms, with more machinery for central control and with some noble additional features, but on the same general plan. During the three years which had passed since the passage of the first ordinance, there had been no district in the ceded territory populous enough to organize under the law. Indeed, in the Northwest there were no English-speaking inhabitants. Meantime, some parts of the East had begun to look jealously at the prospect of so many new States, with weight in Congress to outvote the Atlantic section. Moreover, Monroe, after a hasty trip through the West, reported that much of the territory was "miserably poor," so that some of the proposed States would never contain a sufficient number of inhabitants to entitle them to membership in the confederacy. Congress, therefore, appointed a com- mittee to prepare a new plan of organization, with view particularly to reducing the number of future States. In 1786 a number of New England Revolutionary soldiers organized a "company of associates," to establish themselves in new homes on the Ohio. Early in 1787 this Ohio Company sent the shrewd Manasseh Cutler (one of their directors) to buy a large tract of western land from Con- gress. Cutler found the proposed Territorial ordinance under discussion . Congress was slowly dying (§ 188), and its dilatory habits might have pre- vented any new legislation, but it was stirred to action by the attractive prospect of paying part of its debts with wild lands. Negotiations for the land deal and for the new Territorial law (under which the settlers would have to place themselves) became intermingled. Cutler proved an adroit lobbyist. On one occasion he had to frighten the hesitating Congress into action by pretending to take leave ; but finally both meas- ures were passed. The ordinance, with a number of new provisions satisfactory to the New Englanders, became law on July 13 ; and a few days later the land sale was completed. 1 to the domain south of the Ohio, as well as to that north of the river. For the Ordinance as adopted, cf. Source Book, § 149, a. 1 The Ohio Company bought for itself 1,500,000 acres, at a nominal price of two thirds of a dollar an acre. Payment was made, however, in depreciated 268 THE NORTHWEST The " Northwest Ordinance " * (so-called because, unlike its predecessor, it applied only to. the territory north of the Ohio) has been styled second in importance only to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Under it, the new type of American colony was first actually established. Not less than three, nor more than five states were to be formed from the territory, but, until further Congressional action, the whole district was to be one unit. As in the older law, three stages of government were provided. (1) Until the district should contain five thousand free male inhabitants, there was no self-government. Congress 2 appointed a "governor" and three "judges." The governor created and filled all local offices ; and governor and judges together com- posed a sort of legislature to select laws suitable for Territorial needs from the codes of older states, — subject, however, to the veto of Congress. (2) In the second stage Congress still appointed the gov- ernor; but there was now to be a two-House legislature, — a House of Representatives elected by the people, and a Legisla- tive Council of five men selected by Congress from ten nomi- soldiers' " certificates " (§ 189, b), so that the real cost was only eight or nine cents. Unhappily, the purchase was carried through by connecting it with a "job." Influential members of Congress, as the price of their support, in- duced Cutler to take, at this rate, not merely the million and a half acres which he wanted, but also three and a half million more, which were after- ward privately transferred to another "company" composed of these con- gressmen and their friends. The matter came out ; but, in that day, moral standards for public life did not condemn such use of a position of public trust as severely as it would be reprobated to-day. 1 Cf . Source Book, No. 149, b. The class should study the document at least far enough to verify the statements made in the text regarding it. The prin- ciples of this law became so fixed during the next century that students are in danger of thinking of the Ordinance as no more open to change than the Con- stitution. Of course, in law, it was an ordinary statute, subject at any time to revision or abolition by Congress, and many details were modified or added afterward, even for Territories in the Northwest. 2 This law was passed, of course, by the Continental Congress. After the adoption of the Constitution, the next year, many powers here given to Con- gress were transferred to the President of the United States. THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE 269 nated by the Territorial lower House. This legislature was to send a Territorial delegate to Congress, with right to debate but not to vote. The appointed governor had an absolute veto upon all acts of the legislature and controlled its sittings, call- ing and dissolving sessions at will. Thus, in this stage, the inhabitants had about the same amount of self-government as in a royal province before the Revolution} Political rights, too, were based upon a graded otvnership of land : to vote for a Repre- sentative, one must have a freehold of fifty acres ; to be eligi- ble for the lower House, two hundred acres ; for the upper House, five hundred ; and for the governorship, a thousand. (3) The third stage was provided for in the following words : " Whenever any of the said States shall have sixty thousand 2 free inhabitants, such State shall be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on an equal footing with the original States in all respects ivhatever, and shall be at liberty to form a permanent constitution and State govern- ment." A true " bill of rights " was incorporated in the most solemn fashion : " And, for extending the fundamental princi- ples of civil and religious liberty . . . [and] to . . . establish those principles as the basis of all . . . governments which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory," six lengthy articles were declared to be "articles of compact be- tween the original States and the people ... in the said Territory . . . forever [to] remain unalterable, unless by com- mon consent." To similar provisions in the previous ordi- nance there was now added the right of individuals to free- dom of religion, to habeas corpus privileges, to bail (except upon capital charges), to exemption from cruel or unusual 1 Cf . especially the government of Massachusetts under her second charter. 2 This was intended to have the same effect as the corresponding require- ment in the Ordinance of '84. Sixty thousand was supposed to he about the population of the smallest States. The first census, three years later, gave Delaware fifty-nine thousand and Rhode Island sixty-nine thousand. 270 THE NORTHWEST punishments, and to jury trial. Guarantees were given for proportionate representation, for the Common Law procedure, for the inviolability of contracts, and for the equal division of estates (even of landed property) among the heirs of in- testates. 1 The Third Article declared that " schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged, " ; and the great Sixth Article prohibited slavery, with a provision, however, for the return of fugitive slaves escaping into the North- west from other States. The Northwest Ordinance did not make specific provision for public support of education, as many people suppose. That was done by two other ordinances of the Continental Congress, — one earlier, one just later, — which made smooth the way for western settlement and pro- foundly influenced its character( § 183). /- . 183. Survey Ordinance (1785), and Land Grants to "State Universities" (1787). — In 1785, Congress had passed an ordi- nance (originating with Jefferson) (1) providing for a rectan- gular land survey by the government, in advance of settlement ; (2) establishing land offices for sale of public lands at low prices and in small lots ; 2 and ( 3 ) giving one thirty-sixth of the national domain (in properly distributed tracts) to the new States, for the support of public schools. These three principles have ever since remained fundamental in Western develop- ment. For a rectangular survey, it was necessary first to fix a north-and-south and an east-and-west line (" Prime Meridian " and " Base Line"). The ordinance named two such lines ; and as the survey proceeded, others x In the older States, primogeniture was still the rule, or had been so until just before. Even in New England, the oldest son still inherited a double share. The principle of equal division of landed property had a special demo- cratic value, because of the connection between land and political power. 2 So that settlers could buy directly from the government. Previously, the public domain had been obtainable, iu practice, only in immense tracts, and therefore, in the first instance, only by wealthy speculators. This law made the unit for land sales the " section " (640 acres). This proved too large, and in 1800 it was reduced to 160 acres. In 1820 it was made 80, and later, 40 acres. THE SURVEY ORDINANCE 271 were located. Diagram A indicates those actually used for the North- west Territory. Oregon lands are surveyed from the Twenty-fourth Prime Meridian, < which runs through that State. Beginning at the intersection of any Prime Meridian and Base, the surveyors run out perpendicu- lars to each line at six- mile intervals. The intersections of the two sets Of lines mark off the domain into squares, 1 called town- ships, each containing thirty-six square miles. The first row of squares west of the Prime Meridian is called Bange One ; the second row, Range Two ; etc. Any square in the row just north of the Base is called Town One ; any one in the second row, Town Two. Thus to name both Town and Range is to locate any township beyond dispute. 2 Each township is subdivided into thirty-six smaller squares, called sections, each one mile square, numbered from one to thirty-six, beginning in the northeast corner of the township (Diagram C). Subsequent legislation provided for more minute divisions, cutting the sections into halves (320 acres), quarters Unitp:d States Survey : Diagram A. Bases and Meridians for the Old Northwest. 1 The north- and-south lines gradually approach one another toward the north ; and, to keep the "squares" more nearly square, it is necessary at frequent intervals to take a new parallel as a Correction Line, as shown in Diagram B. 2 Exercise.— In Diagram B, G is Town Three South, Range Four West. To reach it from X, one must go south twelve miles, and west eighteen. This would leave one at the northeast corner. Locate H, O, and other town- ships. 272 THE NORTHWEST (160 acres), and even quarters of quarter sections ("forties"). Each such subdivision is indicated by its geographical location (Diagrams C and D). 1 Having found the corner of a section I 1 1 1 H " Correction \ Line 1 ' r w 2 1 1 2 Base Line G .1 1 1 1 I Diagram B. Towns and Ranges. (as above), a stranger knows just how many rods to go, and in what direction, to reach the Northwest quarter of the South- west quarter. The surveyors mark each corner of each "section" in some permanent fashion; and the court house for each county contains a map of the survey within its limits and a record of the " marks." Location of land and settlement be- came possible without the costly and dubious aid of private surveyors. 2 1 Exercise. — Draw D with other distribution of subdivisions, naming each one. Name x in Diagram D. 2 Previous to this law of 1785, surveys in America had been irregular, over- lapping one another in places, and in other places leaving large fractions un- incorporated in any "description." The points of beginning, too, had been THE SURVEY ORDINANCE 273 In other indirect ways, this method of survey has affected Western life. County Boards run roads on the section lines, and, when necessary, on the geometric subdividing lines. The counties, made up of square town- ships, take on a more rectangular form, as compared with those in older States ; and the more Western States themselves tend to a similar form. (Cf. Map, after page 652.) An attempt to insert a provision in the Ordinance of 1785 to set aside section 15 of each township for the maintenance of 6 5 4 3 2 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 17 1 15 14 13 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 30 29 28 27 26 25 31 32 33 34 35 36 N WrJ- N W} X N Ei SIN W* Si Diagram C. A Township Subdivided into Diagram D. A Section Sections. Subdivided. religion was voted down; but each section 16 was granted to the future communities for the support of common schools. This provision preceded the vague phrase in the Ordinance of '87 re- arbitrarily chosen, and, if once lost, they were hard to determine again. At almost the date of this ordinance, the records of Jefferson County in Kentucky describe the land of Abraham Lincoln's grandfather as located on a fork of the Long Run, beginning about two miles up from the mouth of the fork, " at a Sugar Tree standing in the side of the same marked S DB and extending thence East 300 poles to a Poplar and Sugar Tree North 213£ poles to a Beech and Dogwood West 300 poles to a White Oak and Hickory South 213^ poles to the Beginning." The older portions of the country still keep these cumbersome and imperfect descriptions. 274 THE NORTHWEST garding encouragement to education ; and it ranks in importance with the exclusion of slavery by that document. The intention was to have each township use the proceeds from its sec- tion 16 for its own schools. Happily, it was soon decided to give the sale of school lands to State officials, rather than to local officers, and to turn all proceeds into a permanent State fund, of which only the interest is divided each year among various localities of the State, usually in propor- tion to their school attendance. The States admitted since 1842 have received also section 36 of each township for school purposes, or one eighteenth of the land within their limits, besides lavish grants for in- ternal improvements (§§ 312, 314). The other great act of the dying Continental Congress which deserves grateful remembrance was passed a few days after the Northwest Ordinance. Cutler was not content even with the generous terms he had secured for the Ohio Company (§ 182) ; and he obtained a further grant of forty-six thousand acres " of good land " in the proposed Territory " for the support of an institu- tion of higher learning" — the land to be located, and funds used, " as the future legislature of the proposed settlement may direct." Here begins the policy of national land grants to " State universities." When the Territory of Indiana was set off on the West, a like grant was made for it ; and so on, for each new Territory since. After 1873, such grants were doubled in amount/ \ 184. Early Settlement. — While the thirteen States were waging a hot political campaign over the adoption of a Federal Constitution (§ 210), the settlement of the Northwest began. The Ohio Company pressed its preparations eagerly, and adver- tised the riches of the West extravagantly, to sell its lands ; and in the winter of 1787-1788, fifty New Englanders under General Putnam made the western journey as far as Fort Pitt (Pittsburg). Here they built a huge boat, with sides protected by bullet-proof bulwarks, naming it the Mayflower in memory of their forefathers' migration to a new world. As soon as the ice broke up, they floated down the Ohio to the mouth of the Muskingum, and there founded Marietta. Various 1 1*2 EARLY DEVELOPMENT 275 hamlets soon clustered about this first settlement, — each, as a rule, centered about a mill, 1 — and within two years the colony contained a thousand people. Indeed, ten thousand are re- ported to have floated past Marietta during its first season, most of them bound for Kentucky, but many to establish them- selves at different points in the Northwest. In 1799 the second stage of Territorial government began, with a representative legislature. The next year Congress Campus Martius, Marietta, 1791. (As reconstructed in The American Pioneer, in 1841.) divided the district into two "Territories," — the eastern still going by the old name of the Northwest Territory ; the western receiving the name Indiana. In 1802, the eastern district was admitted to the Union as the State of Ohio. For many years, migration continued to be by wagon to Pittsburg or Wheeling, and thence by water on hundred-foot rafts carrying cattle and small houses, or on somewhat more manageable flatboats seventy feet long perhaps. Such vehicles were steered from rocks and sand bars by long " sweeps. " They floated lazily with the current by day, and tied up at the bank at night. Occasionally, long narrow keel boats were used ; and these were especially convenient, because, by the brawny arms of 1 Cf . § 124 for a suggestion as to the like importance of mills in early New England. 276 THE NORTHWEST t seven or eight men, they could be poled up tributary streams, to choice points for settlement. For a time, settlement was hampered by frequent Indian forays. The wars that followed, however, were managed by the Federal government, and the most important forces were "regulars." In 1790 and 1791, ex- peditions against the Indians were repulsed disastrously — the second cost- ing more than half the American force. But in 1794 General Wayne inflicted a crushing defeat upon the natives ; and, the same year, a new treaty with England secured to the United States actual possession of the Northwest posts (§ 231) . This deprived the Indians of all hope of English support,i and they ceased to molest settlement seriously until just before the War of 1812. III. SUMMARY 185. "'The Meaning of the West." — The early western commu- nities, it will be noted, reproduced the simplicity of the first communities on the Atlantic coast a century and a half before. Like the early Virginia Assembly or the Massachusetts General Court, the governing bodies on the Watauga and the Cumberland made little distinction between legisla- tive, judicial, and executive functions. One organ of government sufficed for all purposes. Differentiation came later, as it had already come in the East with the complex needs of denser populations. As that evo- lution in the new communities progressed, its course was determined largely by the experience of the older communities; and at the same time those eastern communities felt a wholesome reaction from the simplicity and democracy of the West. But the western societies did not merely copy Eastern development. They did not begin just where the Atlantic seaboard settlements did. They started on a different plane and with greater momentum. The At- 1 American writers used to assume that the Indian forays were directly fomented by the English officials in the Northwest posts. No doubt the presence of English troops there did have some effect upon Indian hopes. But after a careful examination of recently opened sources of informa- tion, Professor Andrew McLaughlin writes: — " I am glad to be able to state . . . that England and her ministers can be absolutely acquitted of the charge that they desired to foment war in the West. . . . There was never a time when the orders of the home government did not explicitly direct that war was to be deprecated, and that the Indians were to be encouraged to keep the peace." — Report of American Historical Association for 1894, 435 ff. MEANING OF THE WEST 277 lantic frontier had to work upon European germs. Moving westward, each new frontier has been more and more American, at the start. These considerations give the key to the meaning of the frontier in American history for the next century and a quarter (until there ceased to be a true frontier) . Says Frederick J. Turner, in words nobly chosen : " The pecAiliarity of American institutions is that they have been com- pelled to adapt themselves to the changes of an expanding people, — to the changes involved in crossing a continent, in winning a wilderness, and in developing at each new area of this progress out of the primitive economic and political conditions of the frontier into the complexity of city life." Other countries show development, continues Dr. Turner, but not the in- teraction of so many planes of development. Thus in the colonial period, "we have the familiar phenomenon of the evolution of institutions in a limited area : such as representative government ; the differentiation of simple governments into complex organs ; the progress from primitive in- dustrial society, without division of labor, up to manufacturing civiliza- tion." But we have also (as other nations have not) " a recurrence of this process in each new western area reached in the process of expansion. • . . . American social development has been continually beginning over again on the frontier. This perennial rebirth, this fluidity of American life, this expansion westward with its new opportunities, this continuous touch with the simplicity of primitive society, furnish the forces dominat- ing American character. The true point of view in the history of this nation is not the Atlantic coast : it is the Great West. . . . The frontier is the line of most rapid and effective Americanization." (American Historical Association Beport for 1893. ) l 1 Dr. Turner is the first true interpreter of the frontier in our history. But every student should read also Woodrow Wilson's " Course of Ameri- can History " in his volume Mere Literature, and Samuel Crothers' " Land of the Large and Charitable Air " in The Pardoner's Wallet. \ V ^ CHAPTER VIII PROM LEAGUE TO UNION I. THE CONFEDERATION OF STATES A. The Revolutionary Governments, 1776-1781 186. Formation of the "Articles." — Richard Henry Lee's motion for Independence on June 7, 1776 (§ 150), contained also a resolution that a "plan of confederation" be prepared and submitted to the States. A committee was appointed at once to draw up a plan. Not till Novem- ber, 1777, however, did Congress adopt the " Articles of Confederation " ; and ratification by the States was not secured until 1781 (§ 179), when the war was virtually over. 187. The States and the Declaration of Independence. — During the five years from 1776 to 1781, the central Congress rested such authority as it had upon revolutionary necessities and upon the informal and undefined acquiescence of the State gov- ernments. Men did not clearly determine for themselves in those troubled days whether the States were one nation or thirteen. Certainly, no one at the time thought the Declaration of Inde- pendence binding upon any State merely because of the action at Philadelphia, but, mainly if not wholly, because of the instructions or ratification by the State itself (§ 150). In this matter Congress did not even advise the States. It waited for the States to instruct their respective delegations. Then the vote was taken by States, and the delegates of no State * voted for the Declaration until expressly authorized by their own State Assembly. The action at Philadelphia amounted to a joint announcement, in order, in Franklin's phrase, that they might all "hang together," so as not to "hang separately." 1 Unless South Carolina is possibly an exception. Cf. § 150. 278 THE STATES AND INDEPENDENCE 279 True, the final paragraph of the Declaration has a reference to " the authority of the good people of these colonies " ; and, in later times, that one phrase has been tortured into proof that the Declaration was the act of a consolidated people, — a single nation. Such reasoning ignores the fact that three longer phrases in the same paragraph teach more emphatically the opposite doctrine, — of thirteen peoples; and that the signed copy was headed " The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States." It would be unwise, however, to draw positive conclusions from the wording of the document, alone, even were that wording in agreement throughout. The men of '76 had not yet learned, many of them, to use the common terms of political science, — such as independence, sovereign, state, nation, — with the nice precision that belongs to later days. More- over, they were thinking mainly of the relations of the States to Eng- land, not to each other or to Congress. These questions arose later, and cannot be answered from the language of the earlier day, except as that language agrees with action. Exercise. — The following questions are suggestive. Keep them, and the comment, in mind, as the study progresses, without answering them too definitely. Some material may be found in the Source Book. a. In 1776 was "United States" a singular noun? Was it even a collective, in all cases ? Was " united," or even " United," always a part of the noun, or was it sometimes merely a descriptive adjective? (See note below for one example.) Do you find the term " United States" in that period ever taking a singular verb or pronoun ? b. Would any one in Maryland, or out of it, have thought that State independent on July 4, 1776, if she had not previously rescinded her instructions against independence ? (Cf. § 150.) The same question for New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Did men think New York bound by that day's act ? 1 Did Virginians think their independence due to the vote at 1 Even Hamilton wrote, in 1784: "By the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, acceded to by our Convention on the ninth, the late colony of New York became an independent State:' (Works, Lodge ed., Ill, 470.) And it was John Jay who, in the Third New York Provincial Congress, moved the resolution of June 11, 1776 (§150), "That the good people of this colony have not, in the opinion of this Congress, authorized this Congress or the delegates of this colony in the Continental Congress, to declare this 280 THE CONFEDERATION Philadelphia, or to their own instructions to their delegates on May 15, and to their State declaration of June 29 ? (Cf. § 148.) c. June 3, 1776, John Adams wrote to Patrick Henry : "It has ever appeared to me that the natural order of things was this : for every colony to institute a government ; for all the colonies to confederate, and define the limits- of the continental constitution ; then to declare the colonies a sovereign State, or a number of confederated sovereign States . . . But I fear we cannot proceed systematically, and that we shall be obliged to declare ourselves independent states before we confederate ..." Would not Adams have said on July 4 (four weeks later), that this last antici- pation had been realized? Would he have thought the States (in his language above) "an independent state," or " a number of confederated states," or merely a number of states not yet confederated ? 1 In the middle third of the nineteenth century there dawned a great struggle, finally to be settled by the sword, between union and disunion. Unfortunately for historical truth, the progressive side, standing on what had come to be true in our national life, tried to date back that truth further than it really belonged, in their desire to claim for it all possible sanction of age. The splendid names of Story and Lincoln became connected with the dubious historical doctrine that the Union colony to be and continue independent of the Crown of Great Britain." Did Jay think that the Continental Congress spoke for New York on July 4 ? The opinion of the Pennsylvania Convention of the time appears in their resolu- tion approving the " cogent reasons" given "by the honorable Continental Congress for declaring .this, as well as the other United States of America free and independent," and asserting that " we will . . . maintain the freedom and independency of this and the other United States." (Is "United" in that last phrase part of a noun, or is it merely an adjective?) So, too, Con- necticut (October, 1776), when adopting her old charter for a constitution, declared, "This Republic (viz., Connecticut) is ... a free, sovereign, and independent State." 1 Another indication for the answer to the last question is found in a sen- tence by Adams several months later still, in the debates upon the proposed Articles of Confederation: "The confederacy is to make us one individual only; it is to fuse us, like separate parcels of metal, into one common mass." (Source Book, No. 146, and comment.) Adams, Hamilton, and Jay have been specially quoted in the passages above, because they were all strong advocates of national union, and because they used words with more than average precision for their day. THE STATES AND THE UNION 281 was older than the States and that it created the States. 1 Indeed, to the thought of most of our people, this error became identified with patriotism, and for two generations it was taught in text-books and many-volumed histories. The real basis for the position of those patriots, it is easy to see now, lay not in any theory about the past, but in the throbbing life of their own day, — in the need and the will of a living people. Now that the terrible practical danger of disunion has passed, men can look more calmly at the theories. In this new generation, critical scholars reject the patriotic fiction of the antiquity of the Union in its extreme form. And here is great gain for the truth of history. We not only cease to misread the years just before 1776, but we are also able better to see the real significance of many years that followed, — with their groivth toward nationality. Still, we must not be too dogmatic as to which created the other, — States or Union. That delicate question is not to be answered in a word. States and Union grew up together. The States grew into form fastest and first ; but, from the begin- ning, there was a general expectation that they would be com- bined in some sort of union. Without union, indeed, they could not have lasted long. The Union did not formally create the States ; but it did preserve them. The Declaration of July 4 was the act of States, through duly accredited agents. Im- mediately afterward, there was probably nothing but common sense to prevent any State from acting as a fully independent nation. 2 Some of them did so act, even in foreign relations. 1 Reformers of the English-speaking race have ever tried to persuade them- selves that they were only trying to get hack to the "good old days of King Edward." Progress, with us, tries to cloak itself in some legal fiction to the effect that it is not innovation, but merely restoration. The student of English history will be familiar with many illustrations. 2 Twenty years later, in 1796, this extreme view was asserted by Justice Chase in a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States : " I regard this [the Declaration of July 4, 1770] a declaration not that the united colonies in a collective capacity were independent States, but that each of them was a sovereign and independent State." (3 Dallas, 224.) 282 THE CONFEDERATION Virginia negotiated with Spain about the protection of their common trading interests in the West; and she even thought it necessary that her legislature should confirm the treaty made by Congress with France in 1778. But, on the whole, with great good sense, the States allowed any such possible independence' to lapse by disuse. As a rule, Congress exercised supreme power in foreign relations, managing the war and sending ministers to European powers ; and this practice was soon made the con- stitutional theory by the Articles of Confederation. For Further Reading. — Many discussions of this topic are made' obscure by metaphysical doctrines of sovereignty. There is an admirably clear statement in Van Tyne's American Revolution, 175-202. B. Under the Articles of Confederation, 1781-1789 {The "League of Friendship.' 1 ' 1 ') 188. Evils Intensified. — The adoption of the Articles, in 1781, merely gave formal sanction to the authority Congress had been trying to exercise without a constitution. In prac- tice, that authority was less after 1781 than before. The war was really over, and the States no longer felt it necessary to regard the claims of Congress. More and more, the feeling for nationality was lost in a narrow State patriotism. In the gen- erous glow of the first years of revolution, Patrick Henry had once exclaimed: "I am no longer a Virginian : I am an Ameri- can." But now the language of State sovereignty had become almost universal ; and in the Virginia Assembly, Richard Henry Lee spoke of Congress as "a foreign power." Such language threatened to end in action that would dis- solve the faint union which still lived. Even in internal af- fairs Congress had never held real power (§ 160), and now its weakness became notorious and shameful. In 1785 and 1786, for more than half its sessions, not enough members to do business could be got together. 1 Men of ability and ambition 1 The treaty of 1783 had to be ratified within six months of its signing at Paris ; but three months expired before the necessary nine States were repre- ^ WEAKNESS OF CONGRESS 283 deserted it for more influential positions in the State legisla- tures. Worse still, the new-born States themselves were drifting rapidly toward not merely disunion, but internal anarchy. The manifold evils of the critical years 1 783-1 788 may be classified under three heads : (1) the weakness of the Central government ; (2) conflicts between the States; and (3) anarchy within individual States. (§§ 189-192.) 189. The weakness of Congress was manifested most con- spicuously in (1) inability to negotiate with foreign powers to advantage, and (2) inability to raise funds for the bare necessities of government at home. a. Congress had proven unable to compel the States to respect even the treaty of peace with England (§ 162 close). When we wished to negotiate a further commercial treaty, the irritated English ministry asked whether they were to deal with one State or with thirteen ; and other countries cared little to spend effort on negotiations that promised to be waste paper. b. Congress was bankrupt. Eor a time it paid interest on the $6,000,000 it had borrowed from France, but only by borrowing $2,000,000 more from Holland ; and there came a period when it was impossible for Yankee ingenuity to wheedle more money from friendly Frenchman or Dutchman. At home, Congress had made no pretense of paying even interest. The $240,000,000 of paper currency was practically repudi- ated; and interest-bearing " certificates " issued by Congress to pay off the army (§ 161) passed, by 1788, at twelve cents on the dollar. Congress could get money only by calling upon the States for contributions. In 1781, while the war was still in sented in Congress. Twenty delegates, representing seven States, were pres- ent when Washington resigned command of the army. Rarely afterward were eleven States represented ; and more often three men (of the twenty or twenty- five present) could defeat any important measure, — requiring, as such meas- ures did, the assent of nine States (§ 193) . 284 THE CONFEDERATION progress, Congress called for $5,000,000. Less than a tenth was paid. Some States ignored the call, and New Jersey- answered it defiantly. During the six years 1783-1788 (after the war), Congress made requisitions amounting to $6,000,000 ; but less than $1,000,000 was ever paid, — not enough to care for the interest on the continental debt. This shame cannot be excused on any plea of poverty. The war had demoralized industry, and the first of our periodic financial panics seems to have come on in the later eighties ; but after all, the main difficulty was the desire of each State to shift its burden upon a neighbor, or its fear that it itself was being so served. Says Francis A. Walker {Making of the Nation, 9) : — " Our fathers at the close of the Revolution were not an impoverished people. They were able to give all that was demanded of them. It chiefly was a bad political mechanism which set every man and every State to evading obligations. . . . Under a thoroughly false system, such as this was, it is amazing how much meanness and selfishness will come out.^ 1 And says Professor McLaughlin : ' ' The fact is, however, that the people were not in destitution. There is abundance of contemporary evi- dence to show that at the end of the Eevolution the people were living with more ease and circumstance than before the war. . . . The trouble was not poverty, but commercial confusion, vicious politics, and a native disinclination to pay taxes" (Confederation and Constitution, 69, 70). 190. Strife between the States. — A wise provision of the Articles tried to establish Congress as the arbiter in dis- putes between the States ; bu'j bitter jealousies made this pro- vision a dead letter. Inconceivable rivalries animated the closest neighbors. Each State had its line of custom houses against all the others, with all sorts of varying discriminations, fruitful of discord. Connecticut taxed goods from Massachu- 1 The correctness of this judgment is proven by the fact that with a change of political machinery these evils vanished as by magic. Men sometimes oppose reform in political machinery by saying that machinery is of no con- sequence : that what we need is better men. This is silly, because it is the business of government to make it easier for the better qualities of men to come out, and harder for the meanness and selfishness. The change in American society that followed the exchange of the Articles for the Constitu- tion is a splendid object lesson in the value of political machinery. df (UlAJyQs STATE ANARCHY 285 i pM JjuUikjia^ h^Xxui (n,^ts^Za, etts inoreQthan the same\ articles from England, — in hope of drawing away British trade from the older colony ; and, on another frontier, she waged a small war with Pennsylvania over the ownership of the Wyoming valley (§ 180), while she seemed on the verge of war, for similar territorial reasons, with New York and New Hampshire. New York taxed ruinously the garden produce of the New Jersey farmers, who supplied her and who had no other market ; and New Jersey retaliated with a confiscatory tax of a thousand dollars upon a spot of sandy coast which New York had bought from her for the site of a lighthouse. South Carolina and Georgia were coming to blows over the navigation of the Savannah. Kentucky, Tennessee, Vermont, and Maine were all demanding independ- ence of the older States of which they were still legally a part. In all ages the two fruitful causes of war between neighboring nations have been disputes over trade and over boundaries ; and just such disputes were now threatening to turn the Atlantic coast into a stage for petty bloody wars. 191. Anarchy inside the States. — The long struggle against England's -control over the colonies led even some intelligent patriots, like Samuel Adams and Eichard Henry Lee, to object to any real control by Congress over the new States. It is not strange, therefore, that more ignorant men should have fallen into an attitude of opposition to any government, Central or State. They had for years, even before open war, associated service of liberty with- anti-social acts, — boycotts, breaking up courts, terrorizing officers of the law. And, having won easy reputation as patriots by refusing to pay honest debts due in England, they now felt it a hardship to pay debts to their neighbors. Demagogues openly declaimed, to applauding crowds, that all debts ought to be wiped out. (Source Book, No. 151, b, (2).) Large portions of society had been slow in settling down to regular industry. Wild theories as to com- mon ownership of property were in the air. A rude awakening all this proved to the patriots who had expected a golden age. " Good God ! " exclaimed Washing- 286 THE CONFEDERATION ton, of such disorders ; " Who but a Tory could have foreseen, or a Briton predicted, them ? " And again, in momentary despair, he declared that such commotions " exhibit a melan- choly proof . . . that mankind, when left to themselves, are un- fit for their own government." {Source Book, No. 151, b.) The worst of it was, too, that these semi-criminal forces of lawless- ness and confiscation were made formidable because reinforced by the bitter discontent of multitudes of well-meaning men, not very clear-headed perhaps, who were suffering real hard- ships in the readjustments of the times. Many an old soldier who had lost his home by mortgage foreclosure, or who was in danger of doing so, felt that the loss was due to his having received insufficient pay in worthless paper money ; while the law of the time drained his slender resources by extortionate court fees, and threatened Jbo condemn him to hopeless impris- onment for such undeserved debt. 1 The most widespread manifestation of this wild spirit was the fiat money craze that swept over half the States and threatened all the others, despite the recent grievous experience with such currency. In New Hampshire an armed mob besieged the legislature for such relief. 2 Rhode Island furnished at once the worst extravagance and a sugges- tion of a remedy. Paper money was the issue in the election of the legislature in 1785. The "cheap money" party won. Creditors fled, to escape accepting the new "legal tender" for old loans of good money ; but a law provided that in such case the debtor might secure a discharge of his debt by paying into court the face value in paper. Merchants closed their shops rather than sell goods for the worthless stuff ; then it was made a penal offense, punishable without jury trial, to refuse the paper in trade. Finally a certain Weeden, a butcher, who 1 Cf . Source Book, No. 151, a, for a statement of grievances. 2 All this has no application to an issue of paper money properly secured upon some adequate real value for which it can be exchanged ; hut most of the money of the period we are considering lacked this character altogether. Moreover, the paper money of the Revolution, however had economically, had been a political necessity. But now, when no such necessity existed, the man who lacked funds clamored to have the State make him rich by running white paper through a printing press. SHAYS' REBELLION 287 had refused to sell meat for paper to one Trevett, was brought to trial (1786). Weeden's lawyer pleaded that the law, refusing jury trial, was in conflict with the " constitution" 1 and was therefore void. The court took this view and dismissed the case. The legislature summoned the judges to defend themselves ; and, after hearing their defense, voted that it was unsatisfactory. At the next election, three of the four judges were defeated ; but their action had helped to lay the foundation for the tremendous power of the later American courts. 192. Shays' Rebellion. — Most important of all these anarchic move- ments was Shays' 1 Bebellion in Massachusetts. For six months in 1786- 1787, parts of the State were in armed insurrection against the regular State government. The courts in three large districts were broken up, to stop proceedings against debtors. And Daniel Shays, a Revolutionary captain, with nearly two thousand men, was barely repulsed from the Federal arsenal at Springfield. Says Francis A. Walker, "The insur- gents were* largely, at least in the first instance, sober, decent, industrious men, wrought to madness by what they deemed their wrongs ; but they were, of course, joined by the idle, the djssipated, the discontented, the destructive classes, as the insurrection grew." 2 Congress prepared to raise troops to aid Massachusetts, but, fearing to avow that purpose, pre- tended to be preparing for an Indian outbreak. In any case, Congress was too slow to help. The legislature of Massachusetts, too, proved timid and inefficient. But Governor Bowdoin, left to his own resources, acted with courageous decision. The State militia were called out (sup- ported by free-will contributions from wealthy merchants of Boston), and the rebels were dispersed in a sharp midwinter campaign. A few months later, however, Bowdoin was defeated for reelection by John Han- cock, who posed as a popular sympathizer ; and Shays and other rebel leaders were pardoned. This rebellion is one of the chief events leading to the new Federal Constitution. Men could look calmly at Rhode Island vagaries, and even at New Hampshire anarchy; but riot and rebellion in the staid, conservative, powerful Bay State was another matter. It seemed to prelude the dissolu- tion of all society, unless there could be formed at once 1 " Constitution " was used here, as by Otis in 1761, in the English sense, since the Rhode Island Charter made no specific reference to trial by jury. This makes the decision the more daring and remarkable. 2 Making of the Nation, 17. 288 THE CONFEDERATION a central government strong enough, "to ensure domestic tranquillity." When Henry Lee in Congress spoke of using influence to abate the Rebellion, Washington wrote him in sharp rebuke, " You talk, my good Sir, of using influ- ence. . . . Influence is no government. Let us have one [a government] by which our lives, liberties, and properties may be secured, or let us know the worst." At the same time, this reaction against the earlier fervor of Rev- olutionary days gave to the Constitutional Convention, which met a few months later, an unfortunately undemocratic bias (§ 200). C. The Evils axd the Articles 193. The Confederation called itself a " firm league of friend- ship," but avowedly it fell far short of a national union. The central authority was. vested in a Congress of delegates (not less than two nor more than seven from each State). These delegates were appointed annually by the State legisla- tures; and they were subject to recall by those legislatures, and were paid by them. Each State had one vote in Con- gress, 1 and nine States had to agree for important measures. Each State promised to the citizens of the other States all the privileges enjoyed by its own citizens (the greatest step toward real unity in the Articles) ; and the States were forbidden to enter into any treaty with foreign powers or with each other, or to make any law or impose any tariff that should contravene any treaty made by Congress with a foreign power. Congress was to have sole control over all foreign relations, including the making of war and peace, and the regulation of Indian affairs ; and, for internal matters, it was to manage the postal service and regulate weights and measures and the coinage. The final article read: "Every State shall abide by the determina- tion of the United States, in Congress assembled, on all questions which i For this rule in 1774, cf. Source Book, No. 130, a. For the contest over the matter in forming the Articles of Confederation, cf. ib., No. 146. THE "ARTICLES" 289 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. . . ." But a previous article provided, "Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." The Articles of Confederation have been reviled with much contempt, mostly unmerited. The evils we have discussed did flow mainly from the nature of that constitution ; but not be- cause the document was crude or clumsy of its kind. Probably it was the best constitution for a confederacy of states that the world had ever seen. Certainly it had many improvements over the ancient Greek confederations, and over the Swiss and Dutch unions of that day. The real trouble was, no mere con- federacy could answer the needs of the new American people. That people needed a national government, such as a confederation did not pretend to supply. The inadequacies of the Articles may be treated conveniently under four heads : (1) poor machinery of government ; (2) insufficient enumera- tion of powers ; (3) impossibility of amendment ; and (4) provision for action only upon States, not upon individual citizens (§§ 171-174). :"* 194. Machinery. — Three considerations call for mention un- Xc- der this head : (1) The requirement that nine States in Congress must agree for important business hindered action unduly, especially when for long periods not more than nine or ten States were represented. (2) The Achaean League and the contemporary Dutch Confederacy each had a true executive ; but the American union had none. (3) On the other hand, the Confederation had a more promising beginning for a federal judiciary, faint as the germ was, than any preceding federa- tion had known. 195. Enumeration of Powers. — No federal government had ever had a longer list of important matters committed to its control, but the list should have been lengthened by at least two particulars : poiver to regulate interstate commerce would have 290 THE CONFEDERATION prevented much civil strife ; and authority to levy a low tariff for revenue would have obviated the chief financial difficulties. 196. Impossibility of Amendment. — After all, the two classes of defects discussed in §§ 194-195 were matters of detail. They might have been remedied without departing from the fundamental principles of the union (as a league of sovereign States). And the States would have corrected them, in part at least, had it not been for the third and more im- portant evil. The amending clause 1 demanded the unanimous consent of the thirteen State legislatures for any change in the Articles. In practice, this proved equivalent to a prohibition upon any amendment whatever. In February, 1781, even before the Articles had gone into effect, Con- gress submitted to the States an amendment which would have added to its powers the authority to impose a five per cent tariff on imports, — the proceeds to be use'd in paying principal and interest on the national debt. The modest request for this absolutely indispensable power roused in- tense opposition. "If taxes can thus be levied by any power outside the States," cried misguided but ardent patriots, "why did we oppose the tea duties ? " After a year's discussion, twelve States consented ; but Rhode Island voted that to give financial independence to Congress would " en- danger the liberties of the States," and the amendment failed. 2 Another attempt was made at once (1783), similar to the former except that now the authority was to be granted Congress for only twenty-five years. Four States voted No. Congress made them a solemn appeal not to ruin the only means of redeeming the sacred faith of the Union. 3 Three of them 1 The close of the thirteenth Article ; see in Source Book. Cf. § 155 on im- portance of amending clauses in any constitution. 2 In Massachusetts the amendment passed by a majority of only two in one House and of one in the other House ; and then it was " vetoed " by Governor Hancock. But he had waited a day too long-in sending his message, and his veto was void. Virginia, which had once voted Yes, afterward repealed her vote. Thus Rhode Island does not bear the whole blame. 8 Virginia was one of the four States that at first refused. " This State," said Arthur Lee, " is resolved not to suffer the exercise of any foreign power or influence within it." And Richard Henry Lee affirmed that if such an amendment prevailed, Liberty would " become an empty name." Over against such nonsense, stood the moderate but unanswerable statement of the ap- peal of Congress (February 15, 1786), " The requisitions of Congress for THE "ARTICLES" 291 yielded, but New York (jealous now of her rapidly growing commerce) maintained her refusal ; and the amendment again failed, — after three years of negotiation. Far-seeing men then gave up hope of efficient amendment by constitutional means. Bevolution (peaceable or violent) or anarchy, — these were the alternatives. 197. Failure to act upon Individuals. — The fourth evil was fundamental. It could not be corrected except by changing the whole scheme of confederation of sovereign States into some kind of a national union. For three millions of weak subjects Congress might have passed laws. On thirteen powerful subjects it could merely make requisitions. John Smith or Henry Jones would hardly think of refusing obedi- ence to a command from a central government ; but New York or Virginia felt fully as strong as Congress itself, and would do as they pleased. If they refused, they could not be coerced without war, and probably some other States would then side with them rather than with Congress. A confederation of states is necessarily "government by supplication. " True, the States were bound by the most solemn pledges to obey the demands of Congress ; and Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Washington all favored an amendment to authorize Congress in express words to use force against a delinquent State. But it was just as well that such an amendment was not adopted. Expressed or implied, the power could not have been exercised to advantage. In the final outcome, it was fortunate that constitutional amendment was impossible. Otherwise, reasonable amendment might have patched up the Articles, for a time, improving machinery and extending powers far enough to keep the defective union alive. But no ordinary amendment (certainly none through State legislatures) could have reached this funda- mental evil. The Constitutional Convention of 1787, when it came, per- ceived the need clearly and met it courageously. For several years, from eight years past have been so irregular in their operation, so uncertain in collection, and so unproductive, that a reliance on them in future would be no less dishonorable to the understandings of those who entertain such confidence than dangerous to the welfare and peace of the Union." 292 THE CONFEDERATION 1 78 1 to 1787, essayists and pamphleteers had been groping towards the thought that we must have a new kind of federation, such that the central government could act directly upon individual citizens, and in that final year ideas had grown clear enough for Hamilton to write : — "The evils we experience do not proceed from minute or partial imperfections, but from fundamental errors in the structure, which cannot be amended otherwise than by an alteration in the first prin- ciples and main pillars of the fabric. The great radical vice of the existing confederacy is the principle of Legislation for States in their corporate or collective capacity, as contradistinguished from the Indi- viduals of which they consist." — Federalist, XI. 1 198. Excursus: Two Kinds of Federal Union. — In its funda- mental defect, just discussed, the American Confederation of 1781 resembled every federal union in earlier history. All had been confederations of states. The American Constitution of 1787 was to give to the world a new type of government, — a federal state. In the old type the constituent units remained sovereign states confederated. In the new type they had been fused, for certain purposes at least, into one sovereign unit. Of this feature in our Constitution Tocqueville 2 has said: " This Con- stitution, which may at first be confounded with federal constitutions which have preceded it, rests in truth upon a wholly novel theory, — a great discovery in modern political science. In all the confederations which preceded the American Constitution of 1787, the allied States, for a common object, agreed to obey the injunctions of a federal gov- ernment; but they reserved to themselves the right of ordaining and enforcing the laws of the Union. . . . [Then, after describing the way in which the American government claims directly the allegiance of every citizen, and acts upon each directly through its own courts and officers] this difference has produced the most momentous consequences. 1 ' 1 The variety of type, for emphasis, is found in Hamilton's writing. 2 Tocqueville's Democracy in America (1835) was the first careful and sym- pathetic study of our institutions by a foreigner. For sixty years it remained the best text-book upon our government, until superseded in great measure by the work of an English statesman (Bryce's American Commonwealth). Both these works may be used with advantage by high school students. On Tocqueville, see Modern History, § 415, note. THE PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION 293 The new federal state was a kind of government interme- diate between a consolidated state, like England or France, and the old style "league" of several states. It made the word "United" in the name United States no longer an adjective, but part of a noun. As will be seen in the following para- graphs, the men of 1787 did not aim consciously at just the result attained. One set of reformers wanted a consolidated state ; another wanted to preserve essentially the confederation of states. The compromise between the two produced what Tocqueville called a " discovery in political scienc e." * II. MAKING A NEW CONSTITUTION 199. The Philadelphia Convention called. — When the second reve- nue amendment failed in 1786 (§ 196), an interstate convention had already been called to consider more radical changes. The steps leading to this remarkable convention are worthy of memory. Suggestions for a continental convention to form a stronger govern- ment had been made from time to time by individuals 2 for several years ; and twice Hamilton had secured from the New York legislature a resolu- tion favoring such a measure. No concrete result followed, however, until these proposals attached themselves to a commercial undertaking. Washington had long been interested financially in Western lands, and at the close of the Revolution he owned some thirty thousand acres in the Virginia Military Reserve (§ 180). A visit to the West impressed him powerfully with the need of better communication with that region, both for business prosperity and as a bond of political union ; 3 and he urged Virginia to take up the construction of roadways to her Western posses- 1 The advantages of the new form of government led to its being imitated by Switzerland in 1848, by the Dominion of Canada in 1867, by the German Empire in 1871, and by Australia in 1900. 2 As early as 1776 Thomas Paine, whose recent arrival in America left him untroubled by the narrow patriotism of a New Englander or Virginian, had urged : "Nothing but a continental form of government can keep the peace of the continent. . . . Let a continental conference be held to frame a continental charter. . . . Our strength and happiness are continental, not provincial. We have every opportunity and every encouragement to form the noblest and purest constitution on the face of the earth." 3 Referring to the danger that the Westerners might join Spain, he wrote: "They . . . stand, as it were, upon a pivot. The touch of a feather would turn them either way." 294 MAKING a new constitution w sions. It was in pursuance of the same idea that he became president of a company for the improvement of the navigation of the Potomac. This matter required assent from both Virginia and Maryland. These two States were also in dispute over the tariffs at the mouth of Chesa- peake Bay. At Washington's invitation, commissioners from the two States met at Mt. Vernon, to discuss these matters ; and it was decided to hold another meeting to which Pennsylvania also should be invited, as she was interested in the improvement of Chesapeake Bay. Washing- ton had suggested that the proposed meeting, since it concerned improve- ment in the means of commerce, should consider also the possibility of uniform duties on that commerce, — in place of the varying policies then in effect in the different States. Maryland expressed approval, and added a query whether it might not be well to invite other States to the proposed informal conference ; and Virginia finally issued an invitation to all the States to send representatives to Annapolis, September 1, 1786. Only five States appeared. 1 Even Maryland failed to choose delegates. But New Jersey had instructed her representatives to try to secure, not only uniform duties, but also the recommendation of other measures which might seem necessary to render the Confederation adequate to the needs of the times. This thought was made the basis of a new call. The delegates at Annapolis adopted an address (drawn by Hamilton) urging all the States to send commissioners to Philadelphia the following May, "to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exi- gencies of the Union," and to report to Congress such an act "as when agreed to by them [Congress], and confirmed by the legislatures of every State, will effectually provide for " those exigencies (cf. Source Book, No. 153). At first this call attracted little attention. But the sudden increase of anarchy in the fall of 1786 brought men to recognize the need for immediate action. Here was the opportunity. Madison persuaded the Virginia legislature to appoint delegates, heading the list with the name of Washington. Other States followed promptly ; and the Phila- delphia Convention became a fact. 2 1 A keen French observer believed the failure part of a " plot " by the ad- vocates of a "strong" government to wait for more favorable conditions. Cf. Source Book, No. 152. 2 Even in Virginia there was warm opposition to a convention. Patrick Henry refused to attend, and the young Monroe thought the meeting unwise and unnecessary. Washington thought of declining his appointment, not because the meeting was not needed, but because he expected it to turn out a fizzle. Not until late in March did he agree to go, after three months of hesitation. q-^-" THE PHILADELPHIA CONVENTION 295 200. Composition : Distrust of Democracy. — Fifty-five men, at one time or another, sat in the famous Philadelphia Con- vention. 1 Twenty -nine of these had benefited by college life ; but among those who had missed that training were Franklin and Washington. With few exceptions the members were young men, several of the most active being under thirty. The entire body was English by descent and traditions. Three notable members — Alexander Hamilton of New York, and James Wilson and Eobert Morris of Pennsylvania — had been born English subjects outside the United States; and the great South Carolina delegates, Rutledge and the Pinckneys, had been educated in England. Virginia and New Jersey were to give their names to the two schemes that contended for mastery in the Convention ; and their delegations, therefore, are of special interest. Virginia sent seven members, — among them, Washington ; George Mason, who eleven years before had drawn the first " State constitution; Edmund Randolph, her brilliant young governor ; and Madison, who was to earn the title " Father of the Consti- tution." New Jersey sent four delegates, all tried statesmen: Living- stone, eleven times her Governor ; Patterson, ten times her Attorney- General ; Brearly, her great Chief Justice, who had taken the greatest step in America so far toward magnifying the function of the courts (§ 207, &, note) ; and Houston, many times her Congressman. These delegations were typical. "Hardly a man in the Convention," says McMaster, "but had sat in some famous assembly, had filled some high place, or had made himself conspicuous for learning, for scholarship, or for signal service rendered in the cause of liberty." 2 But, it must be added, this illustrious company of patriots did not believe in a " government of the people and by the people." In their political thought, they were much closer to John Winthrop than to Abraham Lincoln. They wished a gov- ernment for the people, but by what they were fond of calling "the wealth and intelligence of the country." At best, they 1 Seventy-three delegates were appointed, but eighteen failed to appear. For other absenteeism, cf. the following paragraphs. 2 Other names of note occur in §§ 200, 202, 203. For a description of most of them by an associate, cf . Source Book, No. 160. /e^x^^o y ^~ 312 A^ ^-THE NEW CONSTITUTION 206. The "Third Great Compromise," also, was concerned with slavery. New England wished Congress to have power over commerce, so that it might encourage American shipping against foreign competition. The South feared that Congress, with this power, might raise most of the Federal revenue by taxing the great Southern exports, cotton, rice, and tobacco, — or might even prevent further importation of slaves. 1 Finally Congress was given power to regulate commerce, providing, however, (1) that it should not tax exports; and (2) that it should not forbid the importation of slaves for twenty years, — though it might impose a tax, not to exceed ten dollars a head, upon such importation. 207. The Judiciary has been called fitly "that part of our government on which the rest hinges." It decides controversies between States, and between State and Nation ; it even over- rides Congress; and its life tenure makes it independent of control. (See a, b, c.) a. A final arbiter was needed somewhere, in case of conflict between State and Nation. The Virginia Plan gave the deci- sion to the Federal legislature (§ 202). The New Jersey Plan 1 Georgia and South Carolina felt that they must have more slaves to de- velop their rice swamps, and made it clear that they would not come into the Union unless their interests in this matter were guarded. Virginia, Dela- ware, and Maryland (and North Carolina in part) had already prohibited the foreign slave trade by State laws. The most powerful advocate of national prohibition upon the trade was George Mason, a great Virginia slaveholder. Pointing out the futility of State restrictions, if the great Northwest was to be filled with slaves through the ports of South Carolina and Georgia, and arguing therefore that the matter concerned not those States alone, he con- tinued: "Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the immigration of "Whites, who really strengthen a country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a country. As nations cannot be punished in the next world, they must be in this." (See also debates in Continental Congress in Source Booh, No. 146. Mason spoke with the greater vehemence because of his anger at Puritan New England, which, he believed, was striking an un- holy bargain with the two Southern States in the interest of its commerce and of a dangerously centralized government. Cf. Source Book, No. 163.) THE JUDICIARY 313 gave it to the State judiciaries. It was finally placed in the Federal judiciary. Virginia's proposal for a Congressional veto on State legislatures was twice agreed to, but was finally cut out after a strenuous debate (July 17). Luther Martin, a small-State leader, at once moved to insert a par- agraph from the New Jersey Plan regarding the power and duty of State judiciaries to treat Federal laws which were in accord with the Constitu- tion as "the supreme law of the respective States . . . anything in the laws of the individual States to the contrary notwithstanding." This was agreed to without debate. 1 Apparently, it was accepted as a substitute for the defeated proposition. It left the final arbiter a branch of the State governments. But the next day, when the Federal judiciary came up for considera- tion, Madison moved that its jurisdiction should extend "to all cases arising under the national laws, and to such other questions as may in- volve the national peace and harmony.'''' This likewise was accepted unanimously. Either the Convention did not see the need for defining more clearly the overlapping fields of State and Federal judiciaries, or the small-State and large-State forces did not choose to measure strength again, when the Connecticut Compromise had just been adopted. In this shape the matter went to the Committee on Detail ; and that Committee threw the weight into the national scale, by a new provision regarding appeals. On the Federal judiciary, the Virginia Plan and the conclusions of the Convention so far were vague. The Committee's re- port, however, was very detailed, following, in the main, the admirable suggestions of the New Jersey Plan, 2 with some extensions. That plan had suggested appeals from State courts, but only in cases arising under those Federal laivs which concerned taxation and commerce (and in cases affecting foreigners or foreign relations) . In place of so enumerating and limiting appeals, the Committee's report left the matter subject to future regulation by Congress. The Convention accepted this part of the Committee's report without discussion — which indicates that the State-sovereignty men did not sus- pect that they were so transferring the final arbiter from the States to the Federal government. Nor do the Nationalists seem to have at once ap- preciated their victory. Three weeks later (August 23) , Pinckney, Wilson, and Madison made one more desperate attempt to restore to Congress 1 This is the basis of § 2 of Article VI in the Constitution. 2 Article VI is based closely upon this report, rather than upon any preced- ing discussions or resolutions of the Convention. 314 THE NEW CONSTITUTION its veto upon the States, on the ground that without such power the Federal government could not defend itself against State encroachment. Said Wilson, " This is the keystone wanted to complete the wide arch of government we are raising." The motion was defeated, six States to five, by about the usual division between large and small-State parties. But the "keystone " had already been inserted. True, the provision regarding this appellate power of the judiciary was worthless without sub- sequent action by Congress. That body might have given narrow limits to appellate jurisdiction. But the First Congress did extend it in the most sweeping way possible, so as to include every case in which any authority of the Federal Government might be questioned (§217). This law has been sometimes threatened, but has never been repealed. To it, directly, is due the magnified position of the Federal judiciary. The clause of the Constitution which permits the law was "the sleeping lion of the Constitution." Its importance seems not to have been fully understood at the time, even in the Convention. Had its bearing been comprehended by the people of the country, the Constitution would al- most certainly have failed of ratification (§ 211). b. The power to void an Act of Coyigress is not derived from any express provision of the Constitution. It is based upon judicial custom in England and America. In conflicts between king and parliament, or between king and the Common Law, English courts had sometimes claimed the right to say which of the conflicting authorities should prevail (some half dozen times in several centuries) ; but this rare power of the English judiciary had already virtually disappeared, because the Eng- lish Revolution of 1688 had removed practically all possibility of such conflicts. Throughout colonial times, however, the English privy council, acting as a court of appeal, had voided Acts of colonial legislatures which it regarded as conflicting with colonial charters or with English laws (§ 118 (5), note). As soon as the colonies became States, the State courts followed a corresponding custom and assumed the right to decide be- tween State legislation and more fundamental law (a State con- stitution, or an ancient principle of the Common law). Such cases, however, had been very rare ; 1 and outside the lawyer 1 In New Jersey, in 1780, the highest court declared an act of the legislature void because inconsistent with the State Constitution (cf. " Holmes vs. Wal- THE JUDICIARY 315 class, the people resented the practice bitterly. 1 Even within the Convention, some members disliked the practice ; but it was seen clearly there that the Federal courts would test Federal legislation by comparing it with the Constitution, and would void such acts as were " plainly " unconstitutional. No provision to give the courts that power was inserted, because none was thought needful. Since that time, however, the power has been extended, both by Federal and State courts, to a degree undreamed in 1787 by its most ardent champions. Especially has this been true of the Federal Supreme Court, which, be- cause of its life tenure, 2 has been more independent of public opinion than State courts have been. Through this development, the Supreme Court has become not merely the " guardian " of the Constitution, but also the chief " amender " of the Constitution. It has vastly augmented the field of national authority, by approving as "constitutional" new powers assumed by Congress or President ; and again it has sometimes seriously limited that field by declaring unconstitutional certain laws which seemed to it likely to interfere with "vested interests." c. Life tenure. Hamilton and his group failed to secure life tenure for the executive and the Senate ; but they did secure it for the more important judiciary. In early English history, the judges had been removable at the king's pleasure. ton" in Amer. Hist. Review, IV, 456 ff.), and three of the New Jersey dele- gates at Philadelphia had been connected with the case, on the bench or as counsel. There was a like decision in Virginia in 1782, and an opinion to the same effect from the North Carolina court just as the Philadelphia Conven- tion was gathering. The Khode Island case has been described (§191). These seem to be the only instances from 1776 to 1787. But In one year recently (1906) 101 State laws were declared unconstitutional by supreme courts, State or Federal, and the total number of cases for the seven years 1902-1908 was 468. *For a striking illustration at a somewhat later time, see Baldwin, The American Judiciary, 112. 2 This peculiar American power of the courts is not a necessary accompani- ment of a written constitution. It is not found in any of the European repub- lics with written constitutions. In Switzerland and France, the legislature is the sole judge of the constitutionality of its own acts ; and public opinion can therefore secure more immediate action than with us. 316 THE NEW CONSTITUTION The Stuart tyrants abused this power to debase the courts into servile tools. Therefore, the English Revolution provided that thereafter judges should be removed only " on address" That is, a judge held for life, unless two thirds of parliament voted that he should be removed. For such action, however, no formal trial was necessary, nor even formal charges of wrong- doing. English courts were made dependent upon the approval of parliament. * In the State constitutions, so far, the judges usually had been "appointive (§ 153). If for long terms, then commonly they were removable " on address," as in England. But the Federal Constitution (like some State constitutions) gave the courts a tenure more independent than had ever been known in England. Federal judges hold " during good behavior," and can be re- moved only by impeachment, — i.e., conviction for "treason, bribery, or other high crime or misdemeanor" by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, after legal trial upon specific charges. With- out affording any opening for such charges, the judiciary may thwart the popular will and the will of every other branch of the government for years. 1 In the Federalist, Hamilton argued that in giving judges tenure for life, the Constitution merely followed the laudable practice of England, whose courts were recognized as models for learning and impartiality. This argument took no account of the tremendous difference between removal " on address " and removal only on "impeachment." In England the courts had been made independent of the irresponsible monarch, but only by bringing them into close dependence upon the popular branch of the government. In America, as Jefferson said, "we have made them in- dependent of the nation itself." Moreover, even if the English courts had been independent of the nation, it would have mattered less, because of their more limited functions. The boundless significance of the American arrangement lies in the combination of exemption from popular control with the vast powers treated in a and b above. 2 1 Can the student find in the Constitution whether Congress can lower the salaries of judges of whom it may disapprove? 2 When Jefferson, in Paris, learned of Madison's plan for a Congressional veto on State legislation, he wrote advising instead the Federal judicial veto UNDEMOCRATIC FEATURES 317 In simple fact, it has sometimes taken twenty years to change a majority of the Supreme Court by new appointments. 1 Certainly it is contrary to all principles of democracy that, even conceivably, a whole 'generation should be unable to control or change " that part of the government upon which all the rest hinges." To-day it is as probable that some reconstitu- tion of this part of the people's government will become a political issue, as it was probable twenty years ago in England that a like question would arise for the House of Lords. 2 Says Professor Channing {Jeffersonian System, 112): "Perhaps nothing in the Constitution of the United States is more extraordinary than the failure of that instrument to provide any means for getting rid of the judges of the Federal courts except by process of impeachment." And says a foreign scholar more at length (Boutmy, Constitutional Law, 117) : " This power [the Supreme Court] has the last word in the number- less questions which come under its jurisdiction. The sovereign people after a time conquers other powers, but this Court almost always remains beyond its reach. For more than twenty or even thirty years ... it may misuse its authority with impunity, may practically invalidate a law voted by all the other powers, or a policy unanimously accepted by public opinion. ... I do not know of any more striking political paradox than this supremacy of a non-elected power [which the same writer styles "a smau^oligarchy of nine irremovable judges "] in a democracy reputed to the extreme type." 3 208. Three other undemocratic features of the Constitution 4 need brief treatment. which was finally adopted — except, as he makes clear, that he expected the courts to remain dependent upon the popular will through Congress, accord- ing to the American and English practice of the time (Letter of June 20, 1787, to Madison). This suggestion, therefore, was in no way inconsistent with Jefferson's later stringent criticism of the Federal courts and their power. 1 Some limitations and threatened limitations upon the impunity of the courts have occurred, in later history, in times of great popular excitement (§§ 218, 240, 256-257, 353, and 390). 2 Since this passage was written, Theodore Roosevelt has suggested (1912) that whenever the Supreme Court declares a Congressional law unconstitu- tional, a referendum be provided to the people. 8 An extended and striking treatment of the Federal judiciary may be found in a recent work by an American scholar, — J. Allen Smith's Spirit of American Government, ch. v. 4 The indirect election of the Senate and its avowed undemocratic purpose have been dealt with (§ 200 and close of § 203), and the indirect election and 318 THE NEW CONSTITUTION a. Indirect election of the President. The men of the Con- vention meant to establish a true electoral college. They thought they had done so 5 and they prided themselves partic- ularly upon this part of their work. They supposed there would be chosen in each State l a, select body of men, of social standing and property, and that these several bodies would then deliberate calmly and use their best judgment in selecting a chief executive. Here the Convention failed utterly. The growth of senti- ment for popular government, together with the development of a party system and preliminary nomi?iations, has made the electo- ral college obsolete except in form. The form, indeed, survives. Technically each " elector " is still at liberty, after his elec- tion, to vote his private choice for President and to change his mind, before voting, as often as he likes. But, in reality, each " elector " is chosen to vote for a particular candidate ; and un- written law makes it impossible for him to think of doing otherwise. The " electors " have been transformed into " mere letter carriers." Indeed, the voter rarely reads their names on the tickets. 2 b. " Checks and balances. , ' > In England, before the year 1400, centuries of struggle against an irresponsible monarchy had built into the " constitution " a system of reciprocal checks. No one part of the government — king, lords, or commons — could do anything of consequence against the determined op- position of any other part. This elaborate system of balances life tenure of the judiciary (§207). One other like feature — the undue difficulty of amendment — has been briefly referred to, and will be treated more fully in § 242. 1 The Constitution leaves the method of appointing " electors " to the State legislatures. It was expected that those bodies themselves would commonly appoint, — and that thus we should have popular inclinations " refined by two successive filtrations." In the first election, indeed, several States did so choose their " electors " (§ 212), and some continued the practice for many years, — South Carolina until 1860 (§ 295). 2 A somewhat similar evasion of the Constitution is now (1912) going on in the election of senators (§ 467) . UNDEMOCRATl^\REATURES had been a victory for freedom, so far as it went ; and it came to be looked upon as a necessary feature of free government. After the publication of Blackstone's law writings (1770), the "separation of powers" (i.e. the reciprocal independence of executive, legislative, and judicial departments) became almost an axiom in English political thought. 1 In reality, however, as we can now see, English practice by 1787 was already a century ahead of the doctrine. The Revolu- tion of 1688 had made the popular branch of the government suj3reme_>_ except for a modified veto by the Lords. Thus, the system of " checks ,and balances " had practically disap- peared in England (in favor of a truer democracy), when it was adopted, in most elaborate form, in America. Moreover, ivhile in England it had been originally devised as a protection against an arbitrary monarch, it was adopted in America mainly as a protection against a " turbulent people." 2 The system reversed the general tendency in the early State constitu- tions, which had inclined toward supremacy by the popular branch of the government (§ 153 ff.). It must be added, however, that the adoption of this plan of checks was generally welcomed by extreme democrats at the time, because to them democracy was still largely synonymous with dis- trust of government (§ 70). Accordingly, they favored any arrangement which should keep it from governing. The result was an arrangement which may well be praised for having at times conduced to stability, but 1 Nearly two thousand years before, Aristotle had argued for such a " sep- aration," as a defense against tyranny. In 1748, the French writer, Montes- quieu, in The Spirit of Laws, gave the doctrine wide popularity. For a curious attempt to apply the principle in France, cf. Modern History, § 357. 2 Madison was the most prominent advocate of the system of "checks." He desired to prevent one part of the government from encroaching upon an- other; but fundamentally it was democracy which he sought to "check." Said he, " It is against the enterprising ambition of this department [the rep- resentative] that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions." Federalist, No. 48. Lecky (Democracy and Liberty, I, 9) describes this system of checks in the American Constitution as designed " to divide and restrict power, to secure property, to check appetite for organic change, to guard individual liberty against the tyranny of the mul- titude." The same critic calls all these devices " substitutes " for the desired but unattainable monarchy and aristocracy. 320 THE NEW CONSTITUTION which also has often produced embarrassing and harmful deadlocks. When the people, after a long campaign, have deliberately chosen a House of Representatives to carry out their settled policy, they often have to wait two years to get around a Presidential veto, and perhaps two years or four years more before they have a chance to change a hostile hold- over majority in the Senate. Even then, a Supreme Court, by a vote perhaps of five to four, may nullify the popular will for a generation longer. And all this says nothing of the almost insuperable difficulty of amending the Constitution itself, when the nation may wish to change some provision in that ancient document devised by men of other times and designed for other conditions than those of our day. c. Special protection for property rather tha?i for men. Re- peatedly the Convention refused to entertain a motion for a bill of rights for men ; * but, besides the guardianship expected from Senate, President, and Supreme Court, there were in- serted two express provisions to shield property. (1) Even the Federal government can take private property only "by due process of law," — i.e. through the decision of a court after judicial trial ; and (2) the States are forbidden to pass any law " impairing the obligation of contracts." By reason of these clauses, says President Hadley, property interests in America are " in a stronger position against any attempt at government control " than they are in any European country. 2 President Hadley points out that the first provision has re- sulted " in preventing a majority of the voters, acting in the legislature or through the courts (the convenient European j ^methods) from disturbing existing arrangements with regard to railroad building or factory operation, until the stockholders _ 1 Articles IV and VI of the Constitution, it is true, do contain some essential t> v, .' provisions of a bill of rights, — the strict definition of treason as compared with the meaning of that term in many other countries; the prohibition against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder (cf. § 159, note) ; and the ^ restriction upon suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Part of the Con- vention thought that such matters pertained only to State governments. There did remain, however, a serious want in this respect until the adoption of the first ten amendments (§ 216). 2 Arthur T. Hadley (President of Yale University), "The Constitutional Position of Property in America," in The Independent, April 16, 1908. UNDEMOCRATIC FEATURES 321 or owners have had opportunity to have the case tried in the courts"; and, as the same article intimates, the courts have usually been inclined to favor vested property interests. President Hadley asserts also that in the Convention " no man foresaw" this result from the clause; but careful students of the period must admit, that, fully foreseen or not, the result was at least in line with the desires of the Convention. The even more pernicious results of the second provision could not well have been foreseen. They have come about through a remarkable decision of the Supreme Court (the Dartmouth College Case, 1819; cf. § 280, c), extending the meaning of the word "contract" to include even the grants of privilege and power made by a State itself to public- service corporations. As a consequence, many such cor- porations have been inviolably intrenched, for an indefinite period 1 in the future, in special privileges which they secured from careless or corrupt legislatures and for which they render no adequate return to society, — to the grievous burden of tax- payers tind to the prevention of needed reforms. In the hun- dred years from 1803 to 1903, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional two hundred State laws : fifty-seven of ;these were voided on the ground that they impaired the obligation of some "contract." Most of these fifty-seven (ami many more of the two hundred, voided on other grounds) had 'aimed solely at needful regulation of great corporations in the interest of social well-being, — such legislation as is common in Euro- pean democracies like England or France or Switzerland. +■ 1 According to the spirit of this decision, unless the State has limited the lifetime of a grant, or has expressly reserved its own right to change the grant at will, the grant runs forever. In recent years, the States have in great measure guarded themselves against such danger for the future by expressly reserving their right to modify all such grants. An amendment to the con- stitution of Wisconsin runs: " All acts [dealing with corporations] may be altered and repealed by the legislature at any time:' This provision, now, is a part of the " contract " when the Wisconsin legislature grants a franchise to any corporation. U THE NEW CONSTITUTION 209. The Federal Franchise. — No doubt the Convention would have put forth a more aristocratic document but for two things. (1) The Nationalists feared the State governments more than they feared the people of the States ; and, some- times, it was practically necessary to intrust power to one or the other of these two. (2) If the Constitution were clearly and decidedly more undemocratic than a given State constitu- tion, it would be hard to secure ratification in that State, — and it was not going to be easy to get States enough at best. We owe such democratic character as the Constitution has, in great degree, to the relatively unknown men, who, ten years before, had framed the Revolutionary State constitutions. A good illustration of all this is seen in the settlement regarding the Federal franchise. The only part of the government left to be chosen directly by the people was the House of Representatives ; and, ap- parently, only the first cause mentioned above prevented this choice also being intrusted to the State legislatur^ Then the second cause saved us from a rigid limitation of the Federal franchise. When it had been decided to leave the matter to "the people," the question arose, who were "the people" in this political sense. Hamilton, Morris, and Dick- inson strove earnestly to limit the franchise to freeholders, — so as to exclude "those multitudes without property and without principle, with whom our country, like all others, will, in time, abound." 1 Even Madison expressed himself cautiously as theoretically in favor of such restriction, fearing that a propertyless majority would either plunder the rich or become the tools of an aristocracy. Franklin argued vigorously against the restriction, urging the educational value of the franchise for the masses ; and George Mason, in the language of his bill of rights of 1776, declared, " The true idea is that every man having evi- dence of attachment to the community, and permanent common interest with it, ought to share in all its rights and privileges." 2 But the defeat of the proposed restriction, it is plain, was due not to these lonely cham- pions, but to the reminder that in more than half the States the State franchise was already wider than landholding, and that no one holding the franchise in his own State could be expected to vote for a Constitution 1 These words are Dickinson's, but the sentiment was general. 2 Cf. § 154, and Source Book, No. 136, and comment. RATIFICATION 323 that would disfranchise him in the Federal government. * The provision finally adopted, therefore, aimed to keep the franchise as restricted as was compatible with probable ratification. The Federal franchise was to be no wider in any State than the State franchise in that State. In the outcome, this arrangement has worked for democracy. The States, acting one by one, modified their constitutions in the direction of greater democracy faster than one great unit like the Nation could have done ; and as any State extended its own franchise, so far it extended also the Federal franchise (cf. § 284). 210. Ratification. — The " two critical decisions " of the Con- vention, it has been said, were : (1) to substitute a new plan of government, — instead of trying merely to "patch up" the old constitution ; and (2) to put that new government into operation ivhen it should be accepted by nine States, without waiting for all of them. The last decision was directly contrary to instructions from the State legislatures which had appointed the delegates. Of course it was also in conflict with a specific provision in the Articles of Confederation, — to which the States had solemnly pledged " their sacred faith " (§ 196). But men had come to see that America must either remain passive, slowly strangling in the grip of the old constitution, or she must break its bonds. Constitutional remedy, it had been demonstrated, was im- possible. Wisely and patriotically, the Convention recom- mended, and the country adopted, an unconstitutional remedy. The ratification of the Constitution was a peaceful revolution. 2 1 The voters in the States were not to vote directly, it is true, in ratifying or rejecting the Constitution ; but they were to choose conventions for the ex- press purpose, and, commonly, they would pledge their delegates more or less definitely. 2 This was freely admitted. A friendly looker-on wrote : — "Here, too, I saw some pretty shows: a revolution without blows : For, as I understood the cunning elves, the people all revolted from them- selves." In a different tone, the States which, at first, refused to ratify the new govern- ment, reproached the majority bitterly for "seceding" unconstitutionally from the old Confederation. 324 THE NEW CONSTITUTION This method of establishing the new government without waiting for all the States was first suggested in the Convention x on June 5 by James Wilson ; and Pinckney at once mentioned nine States as sufficient. Seven weeks later, Gorham recurred briefly to this idea. On neither occasion, however, was there any debate or even a motion. The revolutionary sug- gestion came first before the Convention formally in a provision reported by the Committee on Detail : ' ' The ratification of the Conventions of . . . States shall be sufficient for organizing this Constitution." This part of the Committee's report was under discussion on August 30-31, and the blank was finally filled with "nine." Then Madison and King objected to the vague wording, which might imply that States which had not themselves ratified were still to be bound by the action of nine others ; and, "in order to confine the operation of the government to the States ratifying,'''' says Madison, an amendment added the words "between the said States." With slight change of wording by the Committee on Style and with no change of meaning, this provision is found in Article VII of the Constitution. In all the discussion, no one suggested that the Constitution ought to bind any State which did not itself accept it. Indeed, Wilson, strongest of centralizers, thought even King's amendment unnecessary, because, he argued, it was impossible to think that the first form would bind a State without its own consent. When Congress received the Constitution, it expressed nei- ther approval nor disapproval ; but it did approve the method provided for taking the sense of the States, and accordingly it recommended the State legislatures to call State conven- tions. Now the contest was transferred from Philadelphia to the country at large, and in every State men divided into parties. The advocates of the " new roof " shrewdly took to themselves the name Federalists, 2 instead of the unpopular 1 Such a method was first suggested, so far as the writer knows, by Stephen Higginson of Massachusetts in a letter to General Knox, February 8, 1787. Higginson argues ingeniously to prove that such ratification might be con- sidered constitutional. (Amer. Hist. Association Report for 1896, I, 748 ff.) 2 Luther Martin of Maryland was one of the delegates who withdrew from the Philadelphia Convention toward its close. In a letter to his legislature, justifying his action, he explains that the Convention had voted down a reso- lution for a " federal" form of government and instead had adopted a reso- lution for a " national government." " Afterwards the word ' national ' was struck out by them, because they thought the word might tend to alarm; and RATIFICATION 325 term Nationalists, and so left to their opponents only the weak appellation Antifederalists. A torrent of pamphlets and newspaper articles issued from the press, 1 and every cross- roads was a stage for vehement oratory. A strenuous nine- months' campaign gave a bare victory for the Constitution. [For general impression only.'] In public discussion, as in the ratifying conventions, the proposed Con- stitution was attacked partly for its encroachments on the States, partly for fanciful reasons, hut chiefly for its undemocratic features. Oppo- nents pointed to the absence of a bill of rights, — especially to the lack of guarantee for jury trial in Federal courts, — and to the infrequency of elec- tions, and to the vast powers of the President and Senate (parts of the government remote from popular control). The real source of apprehension, however, was not any specific pro- vision in the document so much as a vague distrust of the aristocratic Convention . 2 This suspicion was intensified by the secrecy with which that body had surrounded its deliberations ; and many people believed sincerely that the meeting at Philadelphia had been "as deep and dark a conspiracy against the liberties of a free people " as had ever been con- ceived in the darkest ages. In the closing days of the Convention, Mason had asserted that such a constitution " must end either in monarchy or tyrannical aristocracy." Soon, popular pamphlets exaggerated this view. An ironical democrat, claiming to be a " Turk," praised the Constitution for "its resemblance to our much-admired Sublime Porte," with detailed parallels; and "John Humble" exhorted his fellow "low-born" ("all but some six hundred of the inhabitants of America ") dutifully to allow the few "well-born" 2 to set up their "Divine Constitution" and rule the country. although now they who advocate this system pretend to call themselves fed- eralists, in Convention the distinction was quite the reverse. Those who opposed the system were there considered and styled the federal party , those who advocated it, the antifederal." — Elliot's Debates, I, 362. 1 The most famous collection of such essays is the long series which ap- peared week after week in New York papers under the title The Federalist. They were written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, and were soon republished in book form. They remain the most famous commentary on the Constitution. 2 Cf. Source Book, No. 100, for the large proportion of delegates of Phila- delphia who seem to have had little special qualification except that they were " gentlemen of good birth and large fortune." And cf. also No. 152. 326 THE NEW CONSTITUTION Still both parties had to admit the seriousness of the existing situa- tion. The Antifederalists had no remedy to propose. The Federalists offered one for which they claimed no peculiar excellence, but which, they urged, did offer escape from anarchy, — probably the only escape likely to be available. Under such pressure, and a sense of personal responsi- bility if he rejected a possible cure for his country's ills, many a flaming Antifederalist, elected to a State convention expressly to reject the Con- stitution, came over to its support. 1 Nor did the conventions realize the nationalizing character of the Constitution. Says Henry Cabot Lodge {Daniel Webster, 176), — practi- cal statesman and strong centralizer as he is, — " When the Constitution was adopted by the votes of States at Philadelphia, and accepted by the votes of States in popular conventions, it is safe to say that there was not a man in the country, from Washington and Hamilton on the one side to George Clinton and George Mason on the other, who regarded the new system as anything but an experiment, entered upon by the States, and from which each and every State had the right peaceably to withdraw — a right very likely to be exercised." This, no doubt, is an overstatement. It expresses the general opinion of the day ; but men like James Wilson of Pennsylvania certainly held stronger views of the national character of the new government. William McDonald's more moderate statement (Jacksonian Democracy, "Ameri- can Nation" series, 107) is well within the truth : " Had it been gener- ally understood that the Federal government, once established, would be beyond control of the States save by the prescribed process of amendment to the Constitution, or that the Federal judiciary was to be the final inter- preter of the Constitution in all cases whatsoever, it may well be doubted whether the ' new roof ' would have been accepted at all." (Cf. § 211.) [Details for later reference.] The Constitution was sent forth September 17, 1787. Or- ganized and ready, the Federalists at first carried all before them, securing ratification during December and January in Dela- ware, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, and, after a bitter struggle, in Pennsylvania. Somewhat later, Maryland and 1 More personal arguments were not neglected. In Massachusetts the Fed- eralists brought over Hancock by promising him a reelection as governor and perhaps implying strongly that he should be the first Vice President of the new government (Source Book, No. 164). RATIFICATION 327 South Carolina were added to the list. The remaining States long remained doubtful or opposed. North Carolina and Rhode Island refused to ratify. They could be spared, — as perhaps New Hampshire could have been ; 1 but a like failure in any one of Massachusetts, New York, or Virginia would almost surely have queered the whole movement. In all three of Eighth Federal PILLAR reared (From the Boston Independent Chronicle, June 12, 1783. ) 2 these States (as probably in most of the others) a direct vote of the people would certainly have rejected the Constitution. 3 Even in the conventions, there was at first a strong hostile majority in each of these three ; and, after the many weeks of argument and persuasion, to have defeated ratification would have required in the final vote a change in Massachusetts of only 10 votes out of 355 ; in Virginia, of only 5 out of 168 ; and in New York, of 2 out of 57. Even these slim majorities would have been impossible, except for pledges from the Federalists that they would join in securing certain desired amendments as soon as the new government should be in operation. The New Hampshire convention changed its mind, and ratified on June 15 (making the ninth State), but the absolutely essential accession of Virginia did not take place until June 25, — just in time for the news to reach the North for the *In New Hampshire a hostile convention had adjourned for some months. 2 The Chronicle guessed wrong as to the order of the approaching ratifica- tion. See text. 8 The Rhode Island legislature, instead of calling a convention, distributed copies of the Constitution among the voters and provided for a direct popular vote. The Federalists, certain of defeat, declaimed against this method as 328 THE NEW CONSTITUTION DISTRIBUTION OF VOTES IN RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION MIDDLE AND SOUTHERN STATES 1787-1788 Based on map prepared by O.G.Libby j j Federal Majority | j Anti-Federal Majority Evenly Divided * \ H , Pennsylvania, / £ fe >;-. S^ H U V H improper, and remained away from the polls. The vote stood 2708 to 232. Two years later, a convention accepted the Constitution 34 to 32. In general, the commercial centers favored the Constitution, while the agricultural and western sections opposed it. See map above, from Libby's " The Distribu- tion of the Vote for the Ratifying Conventions" in Wisconsin Historical Bulletin, I, No. 1. RATIFICATION 329 Fourth of July celebrations. 1 New York's ratification came still later, and was due primarily to Hamilton. Never did his splendid intellect render his country nobler service. Day by day, against almost hopeless odds, and for a time almost alone in debate, by powerful logic and gentle persuasion, he beat down and wore away the two thirds majority against the Con- stitution, until at last the greater leaders of the opposition came frankly to his side. yffZ^" {For reading in class orily.~\ 21l. Excursus: "We the People." — Who ratified the Constitu- tion ? The several States, as States ? or one consolidated people ? Of the second view, Professor William McDonald says very fitly, " No theory could have a slighter historical foundation"; 2 but that theory is still taught in many leading books, and is often regarded as identical with patriotism. It rests, however, wholly upon the opening words of the preamble to the Constitution: "We, the people of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution." Merely as lan- guage, these words have no more value than the Fifth Article of the Constitution, which explicitly says twice that the ratifying parties are the States ; and such slight significance as the preamble might otherwise have, disappears upon tracing its history. The preamble appeared first in the report of the Committee of Detail ; but it then read " We, the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island [and so on through the list] do ordain," etc. Plainly, this did not mean a consoli- dated nation. It meant thirteen peoples, each acting directly, 1 At Albany, on the Fourth, the news caused the wildest excitement. The Federalists celebrated by firing ten guns for the new government. The Antis retorted with thirteen guns for the Confederation, which, they claimed, was still the constitutional government. Afterwards, they made a bonfire of a copy of the new Constitution and of the handbills announcing Virginia's ratification. In the ashes, the rallied Federalists planted a lofty pole with another copy of the Constitution nailed to the top, and in the riot that fol- lowed, knives were used and some blood was shed. In Pennsylvania more serious riots took place, — if less picturesque, — with participation by militia and cannon. 2 Jacksonian Democracy (" American Nation " series), 109. 330 THE NEW CONSTITUTION not through legislatures. The Convention accepted the word- ing without debate. Almost at the close of the Conven- tion, the Committee on Style changed the words to their present form. No explanation was ever made by a member of the Convention for the change, but it explains itself. The Convention had now decided to put the new government into operation between the first nine States ratifying. It was impossible to name these in advance, and obviously it would be highly improper to* name any which might not come in at all ; so all names, were dropped out. No change of meaning was designed. Tlie new form, like the first, was accepted with- out debate. Outside the Convention, however, this was at first not under- stood ; and States-rights men vehemently attacked the word- ing, fearing that it did mean a consolidated people, — until Madison assured them that it did not. Samuel Adams wrote to Richard Henry Lee, " I stumble at the threshold " ; and, in the Virginia Convention, Patrick Henry exclaimed, — " What right had they to say, l We, the people ' . . . instead of 'We, the States'? If the States be not the parties to this compact, it must be one great consolidated national government of the people of all the States." Madison answered: "Who are the parties? The people; l but not the people as composing one great body: the people as composing thirteen sovereignties." Otherwise, he adds in proof, a majority would bind all the States ; " but, sir, no State is bound, as it is, without its own 1 The writer once heard a Federal judge, in a public address, quote this far, and stop here, to prove that Madison taught the doctrine of ratification by a consolidated nation. Horace Greeley's Great American Conflict (I, 81) contains a similar misrepresentation of the record. After quoting Henry's objections, with specific page reference to the records of the Virginia con- vention, Greeley continues, without page reference of course, — " These cavilers were answered frankly and firmly, " It is the work of the people of the United States, as distinguished from the States in their primary and sovereign capacity, and why should not the fact be truly stated." Of course, this is "newspaper history." That was the way Greeley thought Henry ought to have been answered. The real answer was the precise opposite. RATIFICATION 331 consent." 1 And lie goes on to explain that the words mean only that in each State the people act in 'the most solemn way, not merely through the usual legislative channel. 2 Twice before, Henry had made the same objection; but in his later attacks upon the Constitution, he does not recur to it. On this point Madison's answer was final. No other man could speak on this subject with so much authority. The idea of this method of ratification (by State conventions) had been original with Madison, 3 and all through the sessions of the Philadelphia Convention he had been its chief champion. 4 Thirty years later, the doctrine of ratification by a consolidated people, based on the opening words of the preamble, was revived by Chief Jus- tice Marshall, and was soon given added emphasis by the massive and patriotic oratory of Daniel Webster ; and the idea took its place in the mind of the North as an essential article in the creed of patriotism, — along with the much more excusable misunderstanding regarding the Declaration of Independence and the Union (§ 187). The plain historical fact, however, is that the several States, looking upon themselves as so many distinct sovereignties, and, feeling absolutely free either to accept 1 This argument of Madison disposes absolutely of the plea that a consoli- dated nation acted through the States as convenient election districts. 2 Madison amplified this last thought in the Federalist (No. 39) : Ratifica- tion "is to be given by the people, not as individuals, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the Supreme author- ity in each State, — the authority of the people themselves [not merely from the subordinate authority of the State legislature] . . . Each State, in ratify- ing the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the Constitution, if established, will be a federal, not a national, constitu- tion." 3 Cf. Madison's account of the preliminaries of the Philadelphia Conven- tion in the Preface to his Journal. 4 Part of the confusion was due to the loose use of political terms. Most members of the Convention used State as equivalent to State government or State legislature. Madison was one of the few men of the day who saw that the State was really the people and not the government. He desired ratification by the States, in this highest sense, and not merely by temporary agents of the States. 332 THE NEW CONSTITUTION or reject the Constitution, did decide to accept it,— and, by so doing, made possible the future development of a consolidated nation. Says William McDonald (Jacksonian Democracy, 109, 110): — "Web- ster's doctrine of • the people ' was a glorious fiction. It has entered into the warp and woof of our constitutional creed ; but it was fiction, never- theless. . . . If anything is clear in the history of the United States, it is that the Constitution was established by the States, acting through con- ventions authorized by the legislatures thereof, and not by the people of the United States, in any such sense as Webster had in mind." (Cf. the quotation from Senator Lodge, at the close of § 210.) For Further Reading. — The story of the struggle for a new consti- tution should be read if possible either in Fiske's Critical Period or in McLaughlin's Confederation and Constitution (chs. iii-vi and ix-xv). On constitutional interpretation, students cannot be asked to go beyond the specific footnote references given above. The Source Book contains considerable material. Exercise. — The constitution and notes in the Appendix shoidd be read in class and talked over at this stage, until the student is absolutely at home with such questions as accompany the docu- ment there. ■*& CHAPTER IX FEDERALIST ORGANIZATION I. CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT WRITTEN AND UNWRITTEN 212. The first elections 1 under the Constitution were very unlike those of the present time ; and they showed a striking variety among themselves. Presidential electors were chosen (1) by legislatures in six States out of the ten that took part ; 2 (2) by popular vote (put in districts) in Pennsylvania, Mary- land, and Virginia ; 3 and (3) in Massachusetts by a quaint mixture of the two methods. 4 In no State did the people choose them directly and on one general ticket, — the method so universal to-day. 5 1 The dying Congress of the Confederation provided for these elections by a vote of September 13, with nine States present. (Cf . § 188, note, for dwin- dling attendance during the preceding year.) A week later, the attendance had sunk to six States, and, by October 14, to two. Thereafter, to keep up a shadow of government, a few delegates met day by day, had their names recorded in the journal, and then, for want of a quorum, adjourned to some favorite tavern. The Congress expired for want of a quorum seven months before the new government was organized. a This was the method which had been generally anticipated. Cf. § 208 a and note. Can the student account for the missing three States of the thir- teen, — by help of a paragraph below for one of them ? 3 Virginia lost two of her votes, because in two districts no elections were held. Maryland, also, lost two votes. Two of her electors, after being chosen, failed to attend the electoral meeting, on account of gout and poor roads. 4 In each Congressional district, the people nominated three candidates, from whom the legislature chose one, — with two more "electors at large." Why did that make the proper number ? (See Constitution.) 5 New Hampshire tried popular election on a general ticket ; but there was no machinery for previous nominations, so that the people of one part of the State could know what set of candidates their friends elsewhere were sup- 333 334 FEDERALIST ORGANIZATION Two forcible illustrations were afforded of disregard of the popular will and of the public weal by "delegated" government. In elections by legislatures, custom favored a joint ballot (the two Houses voting as one body). This method was used in five of the six States which chose electors by legislatures. But in New Hampshire, the upper House was Federalist, while the more numerous and more representative lower House was Antifederalist. If the two voted in one body, the Antifeder- alists would prevail. Accordingly the Senate insisted upon election by concurrent vote — as ordinary bills are passed — so that it might have a veto on the other House. The wrangle lasted for weeks, until the mid- night preceding the day when the electors in the various States were to cast their ballots. Then, not to lose the vote of the State altogether, the larger House surrendered, and chose electors acceptable to the Senate. In New York, the situation was similar, but the outcome different. The farthest the Senate would go toward a compromise was that each Chamber should choose half the electors out of men nominated by the other. The Antifederalist House refused to yield its claim to a joint ballot ; and New York had no part in the Presidential election, — nor, for some time, did she have any United States Senators. There was no party organization, and there had been no formal nominations. All electors knew they were expected to vote for Washington for President, and he received the 69 votes cast. But for Vice President there was no such agree- ment. Some of the Antifederalists had even hoped to elect George Clinton of New York, Hamilton's chief adversary there ; but the plan fell to pieces when New York failed to take part in the election. Eleven names were voted for by the 69 electors, five States splitting their votes. Virginia divided her ten between Adams, Jay, Hancock, and Clinton. John Adams was elected, but by only thirty-four votes, — one less than half. 1 porting. Accordingly, no candidates received a majority of all votes cast; and the law required, in such case, that the election go to the legislature — with results given below. 1 Such a vote would not elect to-day. Explain why it did then. Part of this scattering was due to honest fear lest Adams receive the same vote as Washington, and so tie him for the Presidency [before the Twelfth Amendment] ; but in two States at least the scattering of the vote STRUGGLE FOR SIMPLICITY 335 The Continental Congress had named the first Wednesday in March for the inauguration of the new government at New York City. 1 On that day, however, only 8 Senators (out of 22) and 13 Representatives (out of 59) had arrived; and the electoral votes could not be counted, The two Houses met from day to day, for roll call and adjournment, sending occasional urgent entreaties to dilatory members in neighboring States ; but not till almost five weeks later (April 6) was the necessary quoruinsecured. Then matters moved rapidly ; and April 30, Cmgton was inaugurated with great state and solemnity. 2 213. The Struggle for Simplicity. — For nearly three weeks, Congress wrangled over matters of ceremony. After solemn deliberation, the Senate recommended that Washington be styled "His Highness, President of the United States of America and Protector of the Liberties of the Same." The more democratic Representatives insisted on giving only the title used in the Constitution — " President of the United States." Finally this House actually sent an address to Wash- ington by this title ; and the Senate had to lay aside its tinsel. 3 was due to trickery by Hamilton, who disliked Adams (McMaster, History of the People of the United States, I, 526-530). 1 In 1789, that Wednesday fell upon March 4; and ever since, that day has been kept for the inauguration of a new President. This has become exceed- ingly awkward. Elections now take place in November. The old President remains in charge for five months ; while the newly elected Congress (unless summoned in special session) does not assemble for thirteen months. The arrangement has sometimes left the government for many critical months in the hands of a President and Congress whom the nation has just repudiated at the polls. A much-needed change (which might be established by Con- gress and President at any time) is to inaugurate both branches of a newly chosen government within t vo months after the elections. 2 What were some of the essential proceedings, after Congress secured a quorum, before Washington could be inaugurated ? 3 William Maclay, one of the few democratic Senators, tells us that Adams (presiding in the Senate) spoke forty minutes from the chair in opposition to this simple form. " What," he exclai .ned, " will the common people of other countries, what will the sailors and soldiers, say of ' George Washington, President of United States'? They will despise him to all eternity" (Maclay '§ Journal, 27). 336 FEDERALIST ORGANIZATION The immediate occasion for this disturbance was the need to decide how to treat the speech with which Washington "opened" the sessions of Congress. That speech itself was couched in terms such as the king of England used toward parliament on like occasions. After the custom of parliament, each House replied with an " address of thanks," riding in carriages from the Halls of Congress to Washington's audience room, and standing in his presence while the addresses were read. All this procedure was another of the trappings of Old- World formalism which happily dropped from our practice at the inauguration of Jefferson (§ 254). Since that time, the President sends to Congress written " messages." During the debate over titles, one particularly quaint episode occurred. The Senate minutes referred to Washington's speech as " His most gra- cious speech," the form always used in parliament regarding the speech from the Throne. Senator Maclay objected to the phrase, and finally it was struck from the record. Vice President Adams, however, defended it hotly, declaring (according to Maclay) that if he could have foreseen such agitation, he " would never have drawn his sword'''' against England in the Revolution. 1 It has been too much the custom to ridicule the objectors to these "harmless" forms and titles. The titles were " harm- less"; but the spirit in which they were demanded was not. That spirit was quite as violent, and quite as ridiculous in its extravagance and lack of humor, as was the democratic oppo- sition to it. The aristocrats believed that government ought to be hedged about with ceremonial to secure due reverence. It is easy to find matter for laughter in the manifestations of the democratic opposition ; 2 but at least let us acknowledge gratefully our debt to it for turning the current of American practice away from childish or slavish ceremonial and verbiage, toward manly simplicity and common sense. 1 Soon after, the struggle was renewed on the bill to establish the mint. It was proposed that each coin should bear the image of the President during whose administration it was coined — after the fashion of all royal coinage. A few radicals attacked this " disposition to ape monarchic practice," and the proposal was dropped, in favor of the use of an emblematic " Goddess of Liberty." 2 Jefferson wrote from Paris, rejoicing at the defeat of the proposed title: "I hope the titles of Excellency, Honor, Worship, Esquire, forever dis- appeared from among us from that moment. I wish that of Mr. would follow them." " Mister " had not ceased to denote social rank in America. EXECUTIVE AND SENATE 337 214. Fixing the Constitutional Position of the Senate in its Executive Functions. — Another question of forms had to do not merely with ceremony, but directly with power. The Con- stitution requires the consent of the Senate to Presidential appointments and to treaties ; but does not say how that consent shall be given. Washington and his Cabinet were at first inclined to treat the Senate as an English monarch treated his Privy Council. When the first nomination for a foreign minister came up (June 17), Vice President Adams attempted to take the "advice and consent" of the Senators one by one, viva voce. This attack upon the independence of the Senate was foiled by Maclay, who insisted upon vote by ballot. August 22-23 occurred a more important incident of like nature. Through the Secretary of War, Washington had pre- pared a treaty with certain Indian tribes. Instead of sending the printed document to the Senate for consideration, Wash- ington came in person, took the Vice President's presiding chair, asked Secretary Knox to read the treaty aloud (which was done hurriedly and indistinctly), and then asked at once for "advice and consent," to be given in his presence. As Maclay properly observes, there was "no chance for a fair investigation while the President of the United States sat there with his Secretary of War to support his opinions and overawe the timid and neutral." Still the question was being put, when Maclay's sturdy republicanism once more intervened. He called for certain other papers bearing on the subject, and this resulted in a suggestion for postponement and for the sub- mission of all papers to a committee. Maclay asserts that Washington, who had received the first interruption with " an aspect of stern displeasure," now "started up in a violent fret," exclaiming, " This defeats every purpose of my coming here." 1 At length, however, he assented to the proposition for delay. 1 The Journal of William Maclay is a curious work which should be ac- cessible to every student of this period. Maclay, Senator from Pennsylvania, was an honest, well-meaning, rather suspicious man, without breadth of view, 338 FEDERALIST ORGANIZATION A little later, when Hamilton wished to appear in person to argue his financial plans, Congress refused to receive him. So was fixed the custom that Cabinet officers shall make all their recommendations, through the President, in written form ; and subsequent Presidents have made all their communications to Congress in writing. 215. Evolution of a "Cabinet." — The Constitution, by its language, suggests single heads for various executive depart- ments (rather than the committees customary under the old Confederation). Very early, therefore, Congress established three departments, — State, Treasury, and War, — together with an Attorney-generalship. Washington appointed as the three "Secretaries," Jefferson, Hamilton, and Henry Knox; and made Edmund Randolph the Attorney-general. 1 These officials were designed, separately, to advise and assist the President ; but neither the Act of Congress nor the Con- stitution made any reference to them as one collective body, — that is, as a " Cabinet." And yet, though very different from the English body of that name, the Cabinet has become by custom an important part of our constitutional machinery. The written Constitution provides only that the President " may require the opinion, in ivriting, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices." This gave no warrant for asking advice, for instance, from the Secretary of War upon a matter of finance or of diplomacy ; but almost at once Washington began to treat the group as one official family. or social graces, but with an ardent republicanism. He was no hero worshiper. John Adams (his pet aversion) is credited with "a very silly- kind of laugh . . . the most unmeaning simper that ever dimpled the face of folly." Madison is styled "His Littleness." Hamilton appears with "a very boyish, giddy manner." And even Jefferson wears "a rambling, vacant look." 1 At this time the Attorney-general was not head of a specific department, as were the several Secretaries. He was merely the general advisor of the President in legal complications. In 1870 he became head of a new " Depart- ment of Justice." ^v -- — — ^ — r EVOLUTION OF A CABINET 339 When he was troubled as to the constitutionality of the Bank Bill (§ 222), he asked both Hamilton and Jefferson for written opinions ; and, in 1793, when war between England and France raised serious questions as to the proper policy for America (§ 230), he called the three Secretaries and Randolph into per- sonal counsel in a body. This was the first " Cabinet meeting " of which we have definite knowledge. The name appears later in the same year. 1 President Adams lived at odds with his Cabinet (1797-1801), but Jefferson revived and confirmed the meetings as a regular procedure. From his day (1801-1809), there has been little change in the Cabinet except in size. 2 The Cabinet now meets at fixed times, one day of each week being known as Cabinet day. No minutes of the meetings are kept. Impor- tant matters are discussed, and sometimes votes are taken; but such votes are in no way binding upon the President. On one occasion, President Lincoln found every member of his Cabinet against him, and dismissed the matter by stating, ' ' Seven nays, one aye ; the ayes have it." One of the first official acts of a new President is to send to the Senate his nominations for heads of departments. The approval of even a hos- tile Senate for these nominations is usually a matter of form. In the First Congress, the casting vote of the Vice President established the absolute right of the President to dismiss at will these officials and other presidential appointees. 3 1 A letter of Washington of the preceding year seems to imply that such meetings were already practiced. 2 From time to time Congress has decreed new departments. In 1798 a Secretary of the Navy was given part of the duties of the old Department of War. The Post Office was established in 1790 as a part of the Treasury Depart- ment, but in 1829 the Postmaster-general became the equal of the other heads of departments. In 1849 there were added a Department of the Interior ; and out of this were carved the Department of Agriculture, in 1889, and the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903. 3 The consent of the Senate being required for the appointment, it was ar- gued that like consent was essential to dismissal. Further reason for this view was found in the fact that the precise duties of each " Secretary" are fixed by Congress, in the creation of the Department — not by the President. 40 FEDERALIST ORGANIZATION 216. The Bill of Rights. — Seven of the ratifying State con- ventions had proposed amendments, 124 in number. 1 Early in the first session of Congress, Madison introduced a list of twenty amendments. Twelve were adopted by Congress, and ten of these were ratified by legislatures in the necessary three .fourths of the States. 2 These ten amendments 3 are commonly known as " The Bill of Rights," and they were designed to supply that particular lack in the Constitution. They forbid 1 Congress to interfere with freedom of religion, freedom of the press, or freedom of petition, and they prohibit general warrants or excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishments. They further guarantee to citizens, in criminal accusations, a right to trial by a jury of the neighborhood (§§ 139, 140), and, in civil cases, the right to jury trial, if desired by either party, when the amount in dispute exceeds twenty dollars. The ninth and tenth amend- ments are general in character, and are intended to emphasize the idea that the Federal government is limited to those powers enumerated in the Constitution. 4 Still, the decision was wise. The President certainly should have complete freedom in naming and changing his chief advisers, upon whom in so great measure the success of his administration must rest. 1 Many of these, of course, were practically identical. The largest number from one State was 32 from New York. 2 In what other ways might the amendments have been proposed and adopted ? (Study carefully Article V of the Constitution.) The last of these State ratifications was not received until the close of 1791, after a period of two years. For some amendments, a much longer time has elapsed (four years, for the eleventh). This reveals a serious defect in Article V. Some specific time should have been provided within which ratification should take place. 3 Read the amendments in Appendix, and compare with this analysis. Of the two that failed, one dealt with reapportionment, and the other provided that any change in the pay of Congressmen should not apply to the Congress that passed the law (a sensible provision, which would have prevented "back-pay" scandals in our later history). 4 Since they were all additions, rather then modifications, it was natural to annex these amendments, as separate articles, at the close of the Constitution. The same practice, however, has been followed with later amendments, even where (notably with the eleventh and twelfth) the matter would have been THE JUDICIARY 341 All these amendments were intended to restrict the Central government, but this is expressed directly only in the first and last amendments, and many people think of the restrictions as applying to the States. It is unfortunate that that the wording is not more specific. Congress can give no religion preference over another ; but a State legislature may do so, — unless forbidden by the constitution. Indeed, some States did maintain religious establishments for many years after the ratification of this amendment to the Federal Constitution (§§ 291, 294). 217. The Judiciary augmented. — The Constitution made it the duty of Congress to provide a Supreme Court. The "original jurisdiction" of that Court was stated in the Con- stitution ; but Congress was left at liberty to regulate the " ap- pellate jurisdiction," and to provide inferior courts, or not, at its discretion. The great Judiciary Act of 1789 established a system of which the main features still remain. 1 a. It provided for a Supreme Court (a Chief Justice and five Associate Justices) to sit at the Capital. 2 b. It established two grades of inferior courts covering the entire Union. There were at first thirteen District Courts, each with a resident judge. These districts were grouped into three circuits, each with its Circuit Court intermediate between District Court and Supreme Court. At this time, there were no distinct Circuit Judges. Each Circuit Court consisted of a District Judge from one of the districts within its borders and of two Justices of the Supreme Court " on circuit." c. It provided for appeals to the Supreme Court, not only from inferior Federal courts, but also from any State couft, in all cases where such a court had denied any right or power much better managed by recasting a paragraph in the original document. Even the first amendments might well have found place in Article I, section 9. Let the class rewrite the main body of the Constitution in such fashion as to incorporate the various amendments, up to date. 1 Cf . Appendix I, and references there, for the most important changes since. 2 The number of Associate Justices is now eight (1912). 342 FEDERALIST ORGANIZATION claimed under' a Federal law or treaty or under the Constitu- tion. 1 218. Supreme Court limited by the Eleventh Amendment. — The first decision to draw public attention to the enormous powers of the Supreme Court was in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, in 1793. Chisholm, a citizen of South Carolina, sued in the Supreme Court to recover a debt from the State of Georgia. 2 The Constitution states that "the judicial power shall extend ... to controversies between a State and citizens of another State." Georgia, however, claimed that this phrase meant only that a State could sue private citizens in the Fed- eral Court, not that a State could itself be sued by private in- dividuals. If the language were used for the first time to-day, such interpretation would be unnatural ; but the ivords must be taken in the light of State-sovereignty ideas of that era, and, be- yond all doubt, the understanding of Georgia was the general understanding when the Constitution was ratified. In the discussions over ratification, fear was sometimes expressed that this clause might enable a private citizen to sue " a sovereign State." In all such cases, the leading Federalists explained that such meaning was impossible. Madison, in the Virginia convention, declared the objection " without reason," because " it is not In the power of individuals to call any State into court." In the same debate, John Marshall (afterwards Chief Justice), in defending the clause as it stood, exclaimed: "I hope no gentlemen will think that a State will be called at the bar of a Federal court. ... It is not natural to suppose that the sovereign power should be dragged before a court. The intent is to enable States to recover claims against individuals residing in other States.'''' And Hamilton in the Federalist (No. 81) declared any other view " altogether forced and unac- countable," because " it is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its own consent." 1 This was the most important portion of the law (cf. § 207 a) ; it is given in full in Appendix I. The establishment of inferior Federal courts (b) also greatly extended the authority of the Federal judiciary, in practice, at the expense of State courts, since it made the Federal courts so much more ac- cessible than if there had been only one court at Washington. 2 What authority is there in the Constitution for bringing this suit origi- nally in the Supreme Court, if it could be brought at all, rather than in a District Court? HAMILTON'S MEASURES 343 Now, however, influenced by the reasoning of Chief Justice Jay and Justice Wilson, the Court, by a divided vote, assumed jurisdiction. Georgia refused to appear, and judgment went against her. Georgia thereupon threatened death " without benefit of clergy " to any Federal marshal who should attempt to collect the award. 1 Similar suits were pending in other States, and there was widespread alarm. The legislatures of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia called for a constitu- tional amendment, and passed vigorous resolutions denouncing the Court's decision as " dangerous to the peace, safety, and independence of the several States, and repugnant to the first principles of a federal government"; and Congress by almost unanimous vote in both Houses submitted to the people the eleventh amendment, to reverse the decision of the Court and establish the interpretation of the Constitution maintained by Georgia. The ratification of the amendment was not formally announced until 1798 ; but no attempt was made to enforce the decision of the Court against Georgia. It follows from the eleventh amendment that, without its own consent, a State cannot be sued by private citizens, — .its own or from other States. Most States, therefore, have established a Court of Claims, in which any claim against the State may be presented ; and when a claim has there been declared valid, it is customary for the legislature to make the neces- sary appropriation for payment. If the State refuses to pay, it cannot be forced to do so. In several cases, States have repudiated bonds issued for the building of railways, and other like debts, where popular feeling suspected fraud or deceit in securing the loan. II. HAMILTON'S "PLAN," FINANCIAL AND CON- STITUTIONAL 219. Funding and Assumption. — For the first year, Congress made appropriations amounting to $ 640,000, 2 and provided 1 The bill to this effect passed the lower House of the Georgia legislature 19 to 8. Before the upper House took it up, the general movement for a reversal of the Court (as described below) had such headway that no further action was thought necessary. 2 About one hundredth as much per citizen as the cost of the national gov- ernment in recent years. 344 FEDERALIST ORGANIZATION for this expense by a low tariff. 1 Meanwhile, Hamilton's mar- velous industry and skill had worked out a comprehensive plan to care for the old debt and to reorganize the chaotic finances of the nation. He recommended that the new government formally take over the " Continental debt " (both the $ 11,500,000 due abroad and the $ 40,500,000 held at home), 2 and " fund " it, by taking it up, at face value, in exchange for new bonds payable in fifteen and twenty years. To make full provision for the foreign part of this debt was inevitable, if the United States was to have standing among the nations, and Congress gave unanimous approval to this portion of the funding scheme. With regard to creditors at home, however, there was no such compulsion ; and many members of Congress objected to taking over in full the old domestic debt. For the most part, the certificates had passed into the hands of speculators, at twelve or fifteen cents on the dollar ; and, it was argued, there was neither necessity nor propriety in voting fortunes out of the people's money to men who had so traded on their country's needs. 3 But Hamil- 1 On the third day after Congress had secured a quorum, Madison intro- duced the bill. In its original form, it was purely a revenue measure ; but, through the efforts of Pennsylvania members in particular (cf . § 124) , it was amended so as to include many duties designed mainly to " protect" Ameri- can manufactures. Indeed, this purpose (which is not named in the constitu- tional enumeration of the powers of Congress) was expressed in the title of the bill. Strictly speaking, however, the bill remained a bill for revenue, with incidental protective features. The law was based upon the idea in the pro- posed " revenue amendments " of 1781 and 1783 (§ 196), and the rates averaged about 1\ per cent. 2 About one eighth of the foreign and one third of the domestic debt con- sisted of unpaid interest. 3 Every one professed willingness to pay original holders of the certificates all that the certificates had meant to them. Indeed, Madison, parting com- pany now with Hamilton, prepared a complex scheme for a commission to pay off the domestic debt after full inquiry, paying original holders in full, where they still held the paper, and, in other cases, paying the later pur- chasers whatever they had given for the certificates, and giving the rest of the value to former holders. This proposal, perhaps, was nearer abstract justice than was Hamilton's ; but it was too cumbersome for practice. HAMILTON'S MEASURES 345 ton and his friends maintained forcefully that no other course would establish national credit or redeem the faith pledged by the old Congress as the price of Independence ; and this view- prevailed. 1 220. " Assumption." — A third part of the funding scheme was long in danger. Hamilton wished the Federal government to assume the war debts of the States (some twenty -two millions). The States that had already paid their debts resented bitterly the prospect of now having to help pay also the debts of other States ; States-rights men denied the constitutional right of Congress to assume debts that did not belong to the whole Union; and many patriots shuddered at the picture of the new- born nation setting out under a debt of seventy-four millions of dollars. 2 After a desperate and apparently hopeless struggle, this feature, too, was carried by a log-rolling bargain. Jeffer- son was persuaded to secure two Virginia congressmen for "assumption," in return for Hamilton's promise of enough Northern votes to locate the proposed Capital on the Potomac. 3 1 . 1 Even before Hamilton's proposals were made public, his purpose seems to have leaked out; and wealthy mea in New York and Philadelphia hastily- started agents in swift-sailing vessels for distant colonies, and on horseback for back counties, to buy up certificates at the prevailing prices, before the news should arrive. This fact intensified the opposition to the plan. Indeed, many believed that Hamilton himself was corruptly interested in this specu- lation. From this charge, happily, he can be absolutely acquitted; but it is possible that he had been careless in letting out official secrets to less scrupulous friends ; and some members of Congress who were to support his recommendations strongly were among these speculators. Cf. Maclay's Journal, 177-179, and elsewhere. The plan, proposed by Hamilton and adopted by Congress, offered to redeem also the continental currency at one cent on the dollar. Six millions of dollars were so " redeemed." No more was ever presented. 2 About $18 a head for the population, or about as much per head as the annual expenses of our government in recent years. 3 Exercise. — Let the student make clear to himself, from the text, the use of the terms funding and " assumption." Is it not clear why this ar- rangement between Hamilton and Jefferson cannot be called a compromise, but must be styled " log-rolling " ? Did Hamilton actually pay off any of the debt of the country ? 346 FEDERALIST ORGANIZATION All this was vigorous financiering. American credit was established at a stroke. Confidence returned at home. Money came out of hiding, and we entered upon an era of business prosperity. But it was more than mere financiering. Hamilton cared as much for the constitutional and political results as for the financial. He saw clearly that these measures would be " a powerful cement to union " "by array- ing property on the side of the new government." Especially was this true of assumption. If that part of the plan had failed, then all holders of State bonds would have been inclined to oppose national taxation as a hindrance to possible State taxation — whereby they themselves might be paid. After ' ' assumption ' ' carried, all such creditors were transformed into ardent advocates of the new government and of every extension of its powers ; because the stronger it grew and the more it taxed, the safer their own private fortunes. The commercial forces of the country were consolidated behind the new government, and pretexts were afforded for that government to reach out to the exercise of new powers. 1 (Cf. § 221.) 221. Revenue : The Whisky Rebellion. — The victory of " as- sumption " made necessary a large revenue. A second part of Hamilton's plan dealt with this. In accord with his recom- mendations, duties were increased slightly on goods imported from abroad ; and, in 1791, Congress imposed a heavy " excise n on spirits distilled at home. To-day such an excise falls chiefly upon large distilleries run by capitalists, who pay the tax first and then collect it again from the " ultimate consumer " in in- creased price. 2 But, in that time, whisky, a universal drink, 1 Jefferson soon regretted bitterly his aid to this centralizing force, and claimed that he had been tricked by Hamilton. "Hamilton's system," said he, " flowed from principles adverse to liberty, and was calculated to under- mine the Republic." And Maclay wrote during the contest, — "The Sec- retary's people scarce disguise their design, which is to create a mass of debts which will justify them in seizing all the [rejsources of government, thus annihilating the State legislatures and creating an empire on the basis of consolidation." 2 Tariffs and excises are indirect taxes (one external, the other internal) paid in the first instance by importer or mauufacturer, but in the end by the people who buy and use the goods. THE WHISKY REBELLION 347 was manufactured in countless petty "stills" scattered over the country, especially in the poorer western counties, where the farmer could not market his grain in any other way. 1 These small producers felt it a cruel hardship to have to pay a tax at all upon their peculiar product, particularly in advance of marketing it, when currency was almost unknown among them; and the whole western section believed that the Federal tax bore most heavily upon their part of the country, which was least able to bear taxation. Moreover, an excise involves a widespread machinery of inspectors and tax-collectors (very unlike a few custom houses on a frontier) and minute inquiry into private business. The legislatures of North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and Penn- sylvania passed vehement resolutions condemning the law; and in four western counties of Pennsylvania the United States officials were driven out or set at nought for three years, — by methods that make a curious parody upon the methods toward English officials in the years before the Battle of Lexington. This was the Whisky Rebellion. Finally, under Hamilton's advice, Washington marched 15,000 militia from neighboring States into the insurgent counties, and obedience was restored. TJie most important result of the whisky tax was not the increased revenue, but this constitutional result, — the demonstration that tlyznew government was able and determined to enforce its laws. 2 222. National Bank and Implied Powers. — Hamilton per- suaded Congress also to incorporate a National Bank. The government held part of the stock, and named some of the 1 A pack-horse could carry not more than four bushels of grain ; but, re- duced to the form of whisky, he could carry twenty-four bushels. Cf. § 175 on markets for Western settlers. Western Pennsylvania is said, alone, to have had 3000 stills. The student will know something of the modern feeling in the mountain districts of Southern States against the excise. 2 The Whisky Rebellion is worth a special report. It was the first rebellion against the Federal government. (Compare with Shays's Rebellion against a State.) Two leaders were tried for treason and condemned to death, but they were pardoned by Washington. Happily, the nation has never imposed a death penalty for political opposition. 348 FEDERALIST ORGANIZATION managing Board. In return, the Bank acted as the agent of the government in securing loans, and took care of the national funds. In other respects, it was like other banks, — receiving deposits, issuing paper notes (which in this case formed a safe and much-needed currency), transferring credits and cash from one part of the country to another, 1 and making loans on suitable security. 2 Banking facilities had been meager; and the convenience of this institution bound the commercial classes still more closely to the nevj government. The most significant thing about the Bank, however, is that its establishment led to the - development of the doctrine of " implied powers." To create a corporation is not among the powers enumerated for Congress. Indeed, efforts to include that particular power had been defeated in the Philadelphia Convention. Hamilton, however, insisted that it was covered by the " necessary and proper " clause (§ 204, b). " Necessary," he urged, meant only " suitable " ; and a national bank would be a suitable and convenient means to carry out the enumerated powers of borrowing money and caring for national finances. After serious hesitation, Washington signed the bill. 3 Exercise. — Review Hamilton's financial plan, making out an abstract of its various parts in the form of a "brief." Review carefully § 204 in connection with § 222. III. SECTIONAL DISPUTES 223. Slavery. — The first contests under the new government were sectional. The conflicts upon assumption, the tariff, and 1 There was a central hank at Philadelphia, with eight branches in leading cities. 2 Enemies soon pointed out a danger that a bank connected with the gov- ernment might exert tremendous political influence for the party in power by granting or refusing loans to business men. 3 He had invited opinions from Jefferson as well as from Hamilton ; and the debate between the two great Secretaries began the dispute as to " strict construction" and "loose" or "broad" construction of the Constitution. The arguments of both are given in full in MacDonald's Select Documents, 76-98. Thirty years later, Chief Justice Marshall affirmed the constitutional- ity of a second National Bank upon Hamilton's grounds (§ 280, 6). THE SLAVERY QUESTION 349 the Bank had all been conflicts mainly between North and South, — commercial section and agricultural section. This unhappy sectionalism was intensified from the first by the slavery question. In the North, as far as through Virginia indeed, antislavery sentiment was gradually growing. Some States had abolished slavery; others were making arrangements for gradual eman- cipation; still more had forbidden importation of more slaves into their territory. In the first session of the First Congress, a Virginia Representative moved a national tax of ten dollars a head upon all slaves imported into any State. After a bitter debate the matter was dropped. At the next session, petitions were presented from two Pennsylvania socie- ties praying Congress to use its " constitutional powers " to limit slavery and protect the Negro. The resulting debate was as fierce as any in our history, bristling with vituperation and with threats of secession ; and the House finally adopted resolutions declaring that it had no constitutional power to interfere with the treatment of slaves, or to abolish slavery, within any State. 1 The next aggressive move came from the South in a demand for a Fugitive Slave Law, and in 1793 there was passed a dis- graceful statute. The Constitution sanctioned slavery and made it the legal duty of Congress to provide the necessary machinery for the capture and return of fugitive slaves ; but the law should at least have given to any Negro claimed as a slave the benefit of the doubt until proof of the claim was complete. The presumption should have been in his favor. Such, indeed, was the maxim of the Roman Imperial law. 2 But this American law followed rather the medieval maxim that a masterless man must belong to some master. It was a base surrender of human rights to property rights. It as- 1 Mild statements were made as to the power of Congress to secure decent treatment of slaves in slave-ships on the high seas, but no action along this line was suggested. 2 Ancient World, § 535. 350 FEDERALIST ORGANIZATION sumed that the claim of a pretended master zvas good unless dis- proved by evidence. No jury trial was provided, and a free Negro, seized in a strange locality, might easily find it impos- sible to adduce proof of his freedom, — especially as the law failed to provide securities as to summoning witnesses. Every- thing was left to the judge, while a crushing fine was provided for any citizen aiding a Negro who might prove to be an escaped slave. In every detail the presumption of the law was against the Negro. In a more enlightened age the courts would have held the law uncon- stitutional, since it neither provided securities for the accused in criminal cases (if the claim that a Negro was an escaped slave constituted a crimi- nal case) nor insured the jury trial guaranteed by the seventh amend- ment in civil cases. But law, after all, is merely what the courts, sustained by public opinion, declare it to be. This abominable statute was sustained by American courts, and, under its sanction, gangs of kid- napers could, and sometimes did, carry off free men to a horrible slavery. After some fifty years (in the famous Prigg v. Pennsylvania case) the Supreme Court of the nation definitely upheld the constitutionality of the law, except as to the provision requiring State officials to act as Federal officers in carrying it out (1842). The more active public opinion of the forties took advantage of this leak to undermine the operation of the law. 1 Then the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 (§347) merely reenacted the old abuses with more efficient machinery, i.e. with special Federal commissioners to enforce them. 224. Expansion by Sections. — The reunion of the old thir- teen -States was completed by the ratification of the Constitu- tion in North Carolina (November, 1789) and in Rhode Island (1790). Almost at the same time began the expansion of the Union through the admission of new States, — Vermont in 1791, and Kentucky in 1792. Toward the close of the Fed- eralist period, Tennessee was admitted (1796); and in 1802, early in the following period, Ohio came in (§ 184). Regard- ing these new States, three matters call for consideration — one bad, two good. 1 In some parts of the Union public opinion made the law inoperative from the first. In 1793 a slave was rescued from pursuers in Massachusetts. EXPANSION 351 a. Sectionalism. Of the original thirteen States, seven were north of Mason and Dixon's line; but some of these were still slaveholding States, so that the Slave and Free sections were not unequal. The bills permitting the admis- sion of Kentucky and Vermont were passed within a few days of each other, and the action was consciously designed to main- tain the balance, — especially in the Senate, — between the forces for and against slavery. This policy long continued ; and the division of opinion in the North gave a practical advantage to the Slave States. b. Democracy. Both Kentucky and Vermont gave the fran- chise to all White males twenty-one years of age ; and though Tennessee and Ohio failed to go so far, still they also were much more democratic than the older States. TJie admission of neiv Western States began at once to change the political com- plexion of the Union in the direction of greater democracy. c. Nationality, Quite as important at that time was the impulse to nationality. Unlike the original thirteen States, the new commonwealths had never known political existence as sovereign bodies. 1 They were the children of the Union, created by it and fostered by it; and, after admission, the tendency to nationality was stronger within their borders than — other conditions being the same — within the original States. Probably the most powerful single force in our his- tory on the side of union has been this addition of the many new States carved out of the national domain. Left to itself, the union of the original States, with their traditions of State >' sovereignty, could hardly have lasted half a century. 7^\^- IV. RISE OF POLITfCAL PARTIES 225. The Elements. — The early years of Washington's administration saw no political parties, in any true sense. 1 Ohio was the only new State of this period to which these words apply in the strictest sense, hut this is the place to note the beginning of this new force in American life. The physiographic reasons for greater national feel- ing in the new States are suggested in § 244. 352 FEDERALIST ORGANIZATION The adoption of the Constitution had closed the first contest between national parties. The Federalists were left, almost without opposition, to organize the government they had estab- lished; 1 and, within a few months, party lines were wiped out. But elements were present for new divisions. Men soon found themselves for or against government policies according to their varying inclination to (1) aristocracy or democracy, (2) commercial or agricultural interests, (3) a strong or a weak government, and (4) English or French sympathies. These divergent views, too, had a logical grouping. The commercial interests wished a strong central government (§ 206), and favored England because our commerce was mainly with that country. 2 In the wars of the French Revolution, — which had now begun, — England stood for the old order, against demo- cratic France ; and so these commercial ^interests, already in- clined to aristocracy, received an added impulse in that direction. On the other hand, the democratic portion of society found its chief strength in agricultural districts ; re- tained its Revolutionary hatred for England, and was fervently attached to France (formerly our ally and now the European champion of democracy); and, according to universal demo- cratic feeling in that day, looked with distrust upon any strong government. 226. New Parties. — Hamilton stood for the aristocratic, pro- English tendency; Jefferson for the democratic, pro-French 1 It is sometimes said that Washington tried to reconcile the two old parties and so appointed to his Cabinet two leaders from the Antif ederalists, — Jef- ferson and Randolph. This is absurd. Jefferson had criticized the Consti- tution, — though less severely than Hamilton had, — but he had used his influence for its ratification ; and, though Randolph refused to sign the final draft of the Constitution at Philadelphia, he had, afterward, in the Virginia convention been one of the chief leaders for ratification. The Cabinet repre- sented merely the different wings of the old Federalist party. 2 After the Revolution almost as exclusively as before, — which suggests that the English navigation acts had not in great measure diverted colonial commerce from its natural channels. NEW PARTIES 353 view. Soon the two were contending in the Cabinet, as Jefferson puts it, " like cocks in a pit." ' By 1792 these diver- gent views in the country at large had crystallized into new political parties, — especially because of the feeling regarding Hamilton's financial policy. Jefferson believed that that policy, if not checked, would result in monarchy, and he called his own party "Republican" by contrast. His opponents tried to discredit it by stigmatizing it " Democratic." Hamilton's new party shrewdly took the old name " Federalist." Jefferson first uses the term ' ' Republican " in a party sense in a letter to Washington (May, 1792): "The Republican party among us, who wish to preserve the government in its present form. ..." Years later, he affirmed, "The real differences . . . consisted in their different de- grees of inclination to Monarchy or Republicanism"; and again, "A short review . . . will show that the contests of that day were contests of principle between the adherents of republican and of kingly government." The new parties were in no sense continuations of those of 1 787-1 788. Men were aligned anew, on new issues, after an interval when party organization and party names had been dropped. Madison became a Republican ; Patrick Henry and Luther Martin joined the new Federalists. It is true, however, that the Republicans were reproached with receiving into their ranks the greater part of the former Antif ederalists, — as the Federalists were denounced for receiving the Tories. Unhappily, from the beginning, the party lines were largely sectional. The North, especially New England, was mainly Federalist ; the South was predominantly Republican. 2 227. Working of Parties in Elections : Caucus Nominations. — Washington was a Federalist, but his fairness and patriotism so exalted him that the Kepublicans were unwilling to oppose his reelection. In 1793 he again received every electoral vote, while Adams became Vice President again by 77 votes to 50 for George Clinton. The Republicans were fatally handi- capped in their canvass for Clinton by their lack of a candi- 1 By 1793 both men had resigned. Hamilton was never again to hold office, but he continued to direct his party's policy in great degree. 2 Explain this fact from the occupations of the two sections. 354 FEDERALIST ORGANIZATION date of their own for the presidency ; but they secured a strong majority in the new House of Representatives. Washington refused to be a candidate for a third term. 1 Then, in 1796, came a party contest. The Federalist members of Congress in caucus 2 nominated Adams and Thomas Pinck- ney. Republican Congressmen nominated Jefferson. Adams won by three votes. Jefferson became Vice President. Before the Twelfth Amendment, each elector voted for two names without designating one for President, one for Vice President. If all Federalist electors had voted for both their candidates, there would have been no choice for first place. To prevent this result, several Federalist electors threw away their second votes, so that Pinckney (on the winning ticket) received fewer votes than Jefferson (on the other). The con- sequence was absurd, — President and Vice President from hostile parties. 228. Excursus: Party government was still a new thing in the world. The men who made the Constitution did not dream of permanent parties, or they thought of them only as a 1 Washington's noble " Farewell Address " warned his countrymen against 11 entangling alliances " abroad and sectional divisions at home. It should be read by all students. 2 It had become customary, just before, for members of each party in a State legislature to " caucus," in order to nominate candidates for State offices. This device was now seized upon for national nominations. Of course it rendered nugatory at once the intention of the Constitution as to the deliberation of the electors and their "refining" the popular will. It re- mained for them only to follow the " recommendation " of the party caucus. This matter illustrates the fact that the Constitution failed to foresee or pro- vide for party government. (Cf. § 228.) The nominating " caucus," self-appointed, originated in town government. John Adams has left the earliest account of it as it appeared in Boston (Diary for February, 1773) : "This day I learned that the caucus club meets at certain times in the garret of Tom Dawes. ... He has a large house, and he has a movable partition in his garret, which he takes down, and the whole club meets in one room. There they smoke tobacco till you cannot see from one end of the room to the other. There they drink flip, I suppose, and there they choose a moderator, who puts questions to vote regularly ; and select- men, assessors, collectors, firewards, and representatives are regularly chosen before they are chosen by the town." It was his control over this caucus which made Samuel Adams for so long the "boss " of Boston. NEW PARTIES 355 dreaded possibility. 1 The Constitution makes no provision for the chief force which was to run it, — which is a chief reason why our unwritten constitution has come to be so different from the written document. Government by party seems to be most wholesome when party lines "correspond in fair degree to the natural differences between conservatives and progressives in society. One portion of society sees most clearly the present good and the possible dangers in change, and feels that to maintain existing advan- tages is more important than to try for new ones. Another section sees most clearly the existing evils and the possible gain in change, and feels that to try to improve conditions, even at the risk of experiment, is more important than merely to preserve existing good. Each party draws its strength from some of the noblest and some of the basest of human qualities. The true reformer will find himself associated with reckless adventurers'and self-seeking demagogues ; while the thoughtful conservative, struggling to preserve society from harmful rev- olution, will find much of his support in the inertia, selfishness, and stupidity of comfortable respectability, and in the greed of " special privilege." " Stupidity is naturally Tory n ; but "Folly is naturally Liberal." 2 The term party government applies to countries where the people are divided into political parties, and the party with the most votes back of it controls the course of government. This system was developed in Eng- land, but in very imperfect fashion preceding the nineteenth century. 1 Said John Adams, in October, 1792 : " There is nothing which I dread so much as the division of the Republic into two great parties, each under its leader, concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be feared as the greatest political evil under our Constitu- tion." Jefferson, on the other hand, foresaw dimly the inevitableness of party divisions, " founded," as he said, " in the nature of man." 2 This paragraph is condensed roughly from a notable and much longer passage in Lecky's England in the Eighteenth Century (I, 513-515). Colonel Higginson had the final quotation in mind probably, when he wrote of these first American political parties, " Some men became Federalists because they were high-minded, and some because they were narrow-minded; while the more far-sighted and also the less scrupulous became Republicans." 356 FEDERALIST ORGANIZATION (Cf. Modem History, § 252.) To-day it is the mark of free government in all large units. One of its characteristics is moderation, because the shifting of only a small fraction of the total vote will usually displace the ruling party. In America the check of parties has replaced, for most useful purposes, the elaborate system of checks devised by the Phila- delphia Convention. 229. Party Feeling. — It took a generation for men to learn that political difference did not necessarily mean moral vicious- ness. Jefferson suspected his adversaries of plotting against the Republic (§ 226) ; and, still more absurdly, they accused him of wishing to subvert all society — in the interest of bloody anarchy or at least of a general proscription of property. Jefferson claimed to have heard Hamilton say that the Constitution was a "shilly-shally thing, of mere milk and water, which could not last and was good only as a step to something better.'''' Almost at his death, Hamilton did write of the Constitution: "Contrary to" all my antici- pations of its fate, as you know, I am still trying to prop the frail and worthless fabric ' ' (Works, Lodge ed., VII, 591). Such expressions were common among the Federalist leaders. Knowing Hamilton's ad- miration for the British form of government, it is not wholly amazing that Jefferson understood his ' ' something better " to be that type of monarchy. This, however, was unjust to Hamilton. He knew that mon- archy was impossible in America. The truth seems to be (1) that, in optimistic hours, he hoped to make the Constitution into "something better " through growth and interpretation ; * but (2) that, in moments of despair, he expected the Union to fail, as the old Confederation had failed, — to be replaced, possibly, by a still stronger government, after internal convulsion and civil war. 2 The real fault of the Federalist leaders was their fundamental disbelief in popular government. (Cf. also § 200.) After Jefferson's victory in 1 In later years, Madison characterized the division of parties more fairly : Hamilton, said he, " wished to administer the government into what he thought it ought to be; while the Republicans wished to keep it in conformity to its meaning as understood by the men who adopted it." 2 There is ground for thinking that Hamilton's desire to keep himself available for military leadership in such an anticipated struggle was his reason for not declining the duel in which Burr killed him. PARTY FEELING 357 1800, 1 this feeling found its most violent expression. Fisher Ames, a Boston idol, declared s " Our country is too big for union, too sordid for patriotism, too democratic for liberty. ... Its vice will govern it. . . . This is ordained for democracies." Cabot, another Massachusetts leader, declared, " We are democratic altogether, and I hold democracy, in its natural operation, to be the government of the worst." And Hamilton is reported to have exclaimed, pounding the table with clenched fist: " The people, sir ! Your people is a great beast." Dennie's Portfolio, the chief literary publication of the time, railed at greater length: "Democracy ... is on trial here, and the issue will be civil war, desolation, and anarchy. No wise man but discerns its im- perfections ; no good man but shudders at its miseries ; no honest man but proclaims its fraud ; and no brave man but draws his sword against its force. The institution of a scheme of policy so radically contemptible and vicious, ..." etc. And Theodore D wight of Connecticut (brother of the President of Yale College), in a Fourth of July oration, asserted : " The great object of Jacobinism 2 ... is to destroy every trace of civili- zation in the world, and force mankind back into a savage state. . . . We have a country governed by blockheads and knaves ; the ties of mar- riage are severed and destroyed ; our wives and daughters are thrown into the stews ; our children are cast into the world from the breast and forgotten ; filial piety is extinguished ; and our surnames, the only mark of distinction among families, are abolished. Can the imagination paint anything more dreadful on this side hell?" In one Connecticut town, while Jefferson was President, a much-applauded Fourth of July toast ran : "Thomas Jefferson, may he receive from his fellow-citizens the reward of his merit — a halter. ' ' It was one step more from such twaddle to suspect Jefferson and his friends of designs upon the property or the life of Federalist leaders. Gouverneur Morris' diary for 1804 contains the passage : "Wednesday, January 18, I dined at [Rufus] King's with General Hamilton. . . . They were both alarmed at the conduct of our rulers, and think the Constitution about to be overthrown : I think it already overthrown. They apprehend a bloody anarchy : I apprehend an anarchy in which property, not lives, will be sacrificed." With possibly some humorous exaggeration, Fisher Ames wrote: "My health is good for nothing, 1 Caution. — The student must not forget that the following expressions were spoken a few years later than the words of Jefferson with which they are contrasted. 2 A term borrowed from the French Revolution, and applied to the Repub- licans by their opponents. 358 FEDERALIST PERIOD but ... if the Jacobins make haste, I may yet live to be hanged," And Pickering, another New England leader, expatiates at length on the danger to himself and his friends from " the revenge, the malice, the ambition, the rapacity of the [Republican] leaders" ; and in a letter to Rufus King he writes: " I am disgusted with the men who now rule, and with their measures. At some manifestations of their malignancy, I am shocked. The cowardly wretch at their head, while, like a Parisian Revolutionary monster, prating about humanity, would feel an infernal pleasure in the utter destruction of his opponents." More briefly, Fisher Ames referred to Jefferson and Gallatin as ' ' knaves and cold-thinking villains." * V. FOREIGN RELATIONS Within a week of Washington's first inauguration, the French Revolu- tion began. Soon that tremendous movement involved all Europe in war. 2 Even the new-born American nation had only four years of quiet, in which to attend to pressing domestic concerns, before it too was drawn into complicated and troublesome foreign questions. These complica- tions were to absorb a great part of American energy, and to vitally affect the course of American development, for twenty years, closing with a great war. During the first part of that period (the remaining eight years of Federalist rule) they fall into four chapters (§§ 230-233). 230. Relations with France, to 1795. — Popular sympathy went out enthusiastically to the French Republic in its des- perate struggle against the "coalized despots." Everywhere in America there broke forth a rage for "civic feasts" and "Democratic clubs," and loud demands were voiced that we return to France, in her need, the aid we had received from her shortly before in our own Revolution. But on receiving news of war between France and England, in the spring of 1793, Washington called together his Cabinet (§ 215), and, with its unanimous approval, determined upon his famous 1 The real differences of opinion are suggested more fairly, perhaps, in a letter from Samuel Adams to John Adams (November 25, 1790) : " A Republic, you tell me, is a government in which the People have an essential share in the Sovereignty. Is not the whole Sovereignty, my friend, essentially in the. People? " 2 Modern History, §§ 329-343,- especially §§ 337, 313, FOREIGN RELATIONS 359 "Neutrality Proclamation." This document is one of our greatest state papers. Coming at that critical time, it went far toward starting America upon a century-long policy of wise separation from Old- World quarrels. 1 Washington had no authority to fix the policy of the nation. That belongs to Congress. Accordingly, the proclamation did not declare that the United States would remain neutral. It did not even use the word. But it did refer effectively to the duties and advantages of neutrality for America, and was really a stately recommendation of such a policy. Public opinion soon pronounced overwhelmingly for the policy so recom- mended, and it may be said to have been established by the informal mandate of the people. For a moment, however, the proclamation drew upon Washington loud abuse. Moreover, the new French minister, " Citizen" Genet, attempted to disregard it, by using American ports for French privateers, as if they had been ports of an allied country. In this and other attempts to embroil us with England, he had much popular sympathy. At last, however, Genet even threatened to appeal openly from the government to the people. American feeling rebelled at such presump- tuous interference by a representative of a foreign power; and the Administration was generally supported when it demanded that France recall its minister. 231. English relations were complicated by (1) unfulfilled conditions of the treaty of 1783; (2) our desire for trading 1 In Washington's day that policy was particularly wholesome, because we could enter European politics only as the tail to the French or English kite. Foreigners observed among us "many adherents of France, and some of England, but few advocates of an American policy." Washington's policy, persisted in for generations, gave us time to free ourselves from this degrad- ing "colonialism." Francis A. Walker's passage in this connection deserves to be quoted in full: "Colonialism is the disposition ... to look abroad for standards of thought, action, or manners; not to be satisfied with the approbation of its own taste, judgment, or conscience. . . . Colonialism, which ... is simply want of self-respect in a community, was the curse of our earlier politics as it was of our earlier society. The States which had become independent in government were still unduly dependent in thought and feeling upon the old World. ..." 360 FEDERALIST PERIOD privileges which we had enjoyed as colonies but had lost when we took ourselves out of the British Empire ; and (3) different views of international law * regarding the rights of neutrals in the great European war (a, b, c, below). a. England still held our " Northwest posts," and had made no compensation for slaves carried to freedom by her troops, while American pre-Revolutionary debts to Englishmen were still unpaid (§ 162). Moreover, indefinite terms in the treaty left an uncertain boundary line on the extreme Northeast (§ 232). b. England's "navigation acts" now shut our trade from her West Indies, just as if we had been Dutchmen or Spaniards. But that trade was more vitally important to us than to Euro- pean countries, and it was essential to the English colonies (§ 131). British governors had already found themselves forced at times to suspend the restrictions and invite American ships to the islands', to avoid famine ; while at other times much smuggling was carried on. We clamored for regular trading privileges with the islands. c. The English navy was trying to conquer France by shut- ting off foreign commerce. England looked upon our trade with France as an aid to the military resistance of that power. We regarded England's restrictions upon that trade as inter- ference with neutral rights. Five points here were in dispute. (1) Supreme on the sea, England declared the French coast under "blockade." This meant that an English war vessel might seize, any- where on the sea, a neutral ship whose official papers showed her bound for a "blockaded" port. America insisted that a blockade did not de- serve recognition unless a blockading fleet actually lay off each harbor, so as to make entrance practically impossible. We called the English meas- 1 International law is not law, but custom which has won general approval, and which defines how nations are expected to act toward one another under given conditions. This body of custom has grown more definite, and has changed greatly, during the past century ; but many of the points then in dis- pute between England and America are still unsettled. On the whole, how- ever, America stood for an advanced interpretation, and her contentions have gained ground, — to the gain of ourselves and the world. FOREIGN RELATIONS 361 ure a " paper blockade." England soon modified it, to apply only to the French coast along the Channel, which a fleet at each entrance could close effectively; but we were not content. 1 (2) France began (May, 1793) seizing American ships bound to Eng- land with foodstuffs, on the ground that such cargo was "contraband." England gladly followed this example, — offering payment, it is true, for the food seized. We held that only military supplies were contraband. 2 (3) England captured neutral vessels bound even to an unblockaded port, if they carried goods belonging to citizens of a country with which she was at war. America claimed, " Free ships make free goods.'''' 3 (4) In time of peace, French "navigation acts" shut foreign trade from the French West Indies. During the French and Indian War, un- able to carry on trade with these colonies herself because of England's fleet, France had suspended her restrictions, inviting neutral nations to do her carrying for her. England then proclaimed " The Bule of 1756" — namely, that commerce which France would not permit with French colonies in peace, England would not permit in war. Now France had again opened her island trade to neutrals, and England again announced her llule of '56. (5) More serious than any of these matters, to our eyes to-day, was the seizure of American seamen, — though at the time it awoke far less protest than the seizure of property. England had always recruited sailors for her men-of-war by the press gang ; and — so essential was the war navy — English courts had always refused to interfere. Great num- bers of British seamen deserted now to secure better wages and better conditions on American merchant ships ; and they were often protected by fraudulent papers of "citizenship," easily secured in American ports. English vessels claimed the right to search American ships and take back !The modern understanding of blockade is more nearly in accord with this final English position than with the rigid American claim, — which indeed we abandoned in our blockade of the Southern ports in the Civil War. Paper blockades are not recognized by international law. 2 The Russian-Japanese War proved that this is still a vexed question. Food for an army, or for a besieged town, comes under the head of military supplies. And if England to-day were at war, and should lose command of the sea, there is no doubt her enemies would try to starve her into submission by shutting out American food. 3 This maxim had been set up by Holland in 1650, and agreed to by north- ern European nations in 1780, except for England's opposition. War on land has long recognized, in considerable degree, that private property should be taken by a hostile army only as a necessary war measure, not merely for plunder. At sea, this civilizing doctrine has made slower progress, and pirati- cal customs have continued. 362 FEDERALIST PERIOD such sailors. Then the practice was extended to the impressment of other British subjects found there, and even to those who had been legally "naturalized" by American law. 1 Worse still, in irritation at the American encouragement to their deserters, English officers sometimes impressed born Americans, either by mistake or by set purpose. The " right of search " exists. In time of war, a war vessel of either power may stop and search a neutral trading vessel on the high seas to ascertain (1) whether it really is a neutral vessel as its flag proclaims ; (2) whether it is bound for any blockaded port ; (3) whether it carries " contraband." If strong presumption is found against the vessel on any of these points, it may be carried to a "prize court " for trial, and if ad- judged guilty, it becomes "lawful prize." But no "right of search" applies to seizing people ; and the "right" must always be exercised with discretion and without unduly embarrassing neutral trade. All England's vicious practices were carried out by other European belligerents also ; but England's navy was the only one able to injure us seriously. As scores of American vessels with valuable cargoes were swept into British prize courts, American feeling rose to war heat. In the spring of 1794 Congress laid a temporary embargo upon all American shipping ( that it might not be caught at sea, without warning, by the expected war), and threatened to seize all moneys in America due British creditors, to offset British seizures of American ships. This would have meant war. That disaster was averted only by the calm resolution of Washington. He appointed John Jay special envoy to negoti- ate with England ; and in November, 1794, " Jay's Treaty " was ready for ratification. By its terms, impressment was not mentioned nor blockade defined. England had her way, too, as to contrabrand and neutral ships ; but she agreed to vacate the Northwest posts, to open to American trade her West India ports under certain restrictions, 2 and to make compensation to 1 England denied the right of an* Englishman to change his allegiance. " Once an Englishman, always an Englishman." The American contention of a man's right to change his citizenship by " naturalization " has prevailed. 2 England offered to open the West India ports to American trade, but only to small coasting vessels, and upon condition that America promise for twelve years not to export to any part of the world molasses, sugar, coffee, cocoa, or FOREIGN RELATIONS 363 American citizens for recent seizures of ships and goods. 1 The American government dropped the claim for compensation for the deported Negroes, and promised to compensate British creditors who had been unable to collect pre-Bevolutionary debts. It took all Washington's influence to sectire ratification of the treaty in the Senate ; and even so, after bitter debates, there was not a vote to spare. 2 Among the people, excitement and opposition were intense. Jay was burned in effigy. Hamilton was stoned from a public platform where he advocated ratification. Washington himself was heaped with vituperation. The Virginia legislature voted down a resolution express- ing trust in her greatest son, and the national House of Representatives struck out the customary words "undiminished confidence' 1 ' 1 from an address to him. Had Jay been less sympathetic toward England or better acquainted with American conditions, it is barely possible he might have secured better terms. The treaty certainly left much to be desired; but at worst it was well worth while. America secured undisputed possession of her full territory and satisfaction for commercial injuries. 3 If we gained cotton. The English intention, probably, was simply to maintain her naviga- tion system with regard to other countries, by making sure that American vessels, admitted to the Island ports, should not carry the products of those colonies to other parts of the world as well as to the United States, and that such products, if brought first to the United States, should not be reexported. Jay, too, seems to have been ignorant that these restrictions would hamper American commerce. The twelfth article of the treaty, containing this trade provision, was particularly unpopular, and was cut out by the Senate before ratification. i England finally paid $6,000,000 to American claimants. 2 To carry out some provisions of the treaty (payment of British creditors) an appropriation was necessary ; and this had to be made by the House of Representatives. That chamber would not have ratified the treaty, if left to itself, and now showed disposition to defeat it indirectly. By a close vote, however, the position was maintained that treaty-making belongs, by the Constitution, to the President and Senate; and that it is the constitutional duty of the House to make the necessary appropriations. This precedent has been followed on later occasions, though not without some difference of opinion. 3 No treaty at that time could have secured from England the abandon- ment of impressment ; but that practice had not yet reached the height to which it came later. 364 FEDERALIST PERIOD little else, we gained what we needed most — time. To our new and unprepared nation, war at that moment would have been ruin. The treaty permitted, for seventeen years, an honorable escape. Moreover, one feature of the treaty was a distinct step onward for humanity, though at the time its significance was little appreciated. The Jay Treaty deserves to be held in honorable memory, because it provided for the first instance of international arbitration in modern times and in the modern sense (§ 232). 232. Arbitration. — The treaty of 1783 had named the St. Croix River as the boundary of Maine from the sea to the highlands. But that unexplored region contained several rivers bearing that name. The treaty -map, with its red-ink drawings, had been lost ; and several thousand square miles of territory had fallen into honest dispute. The treaty of 1794 submitted the question to adjudication by a commission (two men chosen by each power, they to have authority to choose a fifth) ; and each nation pledged itself to abide by the award. The commission was to act as an inter- national court, with somewhat of judicial procedure. It was not to be merely a meeting of diplomats, to make a bargain, or to seek out a compromise. It was to examine evidence and hear argument, and was sworn to do justice according to the real merits of the case, as an ordinary court decides title to property between private claimants. This rational agreement called forth violent outcry. In Eng- land, the ministry were assailed for " basely sacrificing British honor " ; and, on this side the water, there was much senseless clamor about "not surrendering American soil without first fighting to the last drop of our blood." To such silly, question- begging pretense of patriotism, Hamilton's reply was un- answerable : " It would be a horrid and destructive principle that nations could not terminate a dispute about a parcel of territory by peaceful arbitration, but only by war." 233- Spanish troubles have been treated in earlier chapters. In 1795, after vigorous negotiation, not unaccompanied with virtual threats of war, the Pinckney Treaty secured what seemed on paper a fairly satis- FOREIGN RELATIONS 365 factory adjustment. Spain (1) recognized the thirty-first parallel as the northern boundary of Florida (§ 162, note) ; (2) bound herself to restrain Indian hostilities ; (3) promised the "right of deposit" at New Orleans (§ 175) ; and (4) agreed to pay for previous seizures, after arbitration of claims by a mixed commission. 1 In practice, it is true, Spanish officials in America continued unwarranted abuses. 234. New Troubles with France: "The War of 1798." — If the Jay Treaty saved us from war with one country, it well- nigh plunged us into war with another. France was disap- pointed and angered ; and her government, in a violent protest, charged the United States with weakness and bad faith. Washington had just recalled Monroe, our minister to France, because of dislike for his pro-French conduct; and France insultingly refused to receive Pinckney, who had been ap- pointed to the place. Soon she withdrew her minister from America, and, to the full extent of her power, began aggressions upon our commerce. Meantime, the administration of Adams had opened, — to be occupied almost wholly by these troubles and by the disputes at home growing out of them. The new President sent Gerry, Pinckney, and John Marshall to France to negotiate a settle- ment. The French administrators first ignored these gentle- men, and then, through secret agents, tried to intimidate them and to demand tribute in money for their own private pockets. 2 The publication of this infamous matter in America, and Pinckney 7 s famous phrase, " Millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute," silenced the friends of France and fanned popular indignation to white heat. Even the Southern States elected Federalist congressmen; and, in 1798, the Federalists once more gained possession for a moment of all branches of the 1 Commissions had been provided also in the Jay Treaty to adjudicate the claims of English citizens for old debts, and of American citizens for recent losses. Such commissions, to decide the value of private claims, were a notable advance ; but they should not be confounded with a commission to decide between two nations. 2 Special report : The X. Y. Z. affair. 366 FEDERALIST PERIOD government. Meantime, in the old Congress, enough waverers were swept off on the Federalist tide to give that party a work- ing majority. In the summer of 1798, preparations for war were hastened. The army was reorganized, with Washington 1 as commander in chief and Hamilton as his second in com- mand; war vessels were built. War was not formally declared, it did exist in fact. Scores of ships were commissioned as privateers, to prey upon French merchantmen ; and the frigate Constellation fought and captured the French Vengeance. At this moment, in a roundabout way the French govern- ment intimated that it would be glad to renew negotiations. Adams had won great applause by his declaration, " I will never send another minister to France without assurance that he will be received, respected, and honored as becomes the represent- ative of a great, free, powerful, and independent nation n ; but now patriotically he threw away his popularity and the chance predominance of his party, in order to save his country from war. Even without the previous knowledge of his Cabinet, he appointed another embassy ; 2 and the treaty of 1800 secured our trade, for the time, from further French aggression. VI. DOMESTIC TROUBLES, 1797-1800 235. War Taxes : " Fries' Rebellion." — Preparation for war necessi- tated more revenue. The tariff was raised ; a Stamp Act was passed ; 3 and a "direct tax" of $2, 000,000 was apportioned among the States. All these measures caused loud outcry, and the last resulted in a "re- bellion." The direct tax was collected upon slaves and real estate. Houses were assessed according to size and number of windows. Officers were fre- 1 Washington had become so warm a partisan that he wished to exclude all Republicans from the army. 2 Adams showed a patriotic courage in this act, which is perhaps his best claim to grateful remembrance. He himself proposed for his epitaph, " Here lies John Adams, who took upon himself the responsibility for the peace with France, in 1800." 3 The Stamp Act was similar to the British Act of 1765. Read Walker's Making of the Nation, 144. ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS 367 quently insulted or resisted in their attempts to measure houses. 1 In Pennsylvania a number of rioters were arrested. They were promptly rescued by armed men led by a certain Fries. President Adams thought it necessary to call out an army to repress the " insurrection." Fries was condemned to be hung for treason, but was pardoned by the President (cf . § 220) , — to the indignation of leading Federalists, who clamored for an " example." 2 236. Alien and Sedition Acts, — Political controversy had grown excessively bitter. Republican editors poured forth upon the President and his administration abuse which in our better-mannered era would be regarded as blackguardism. The Federalists, made quite mad by their new lease of power, retorted with language equally foul, and with the notorious " alien and sedition " laws, — repressive, tyrannical, dangerous to the spirit of free institutions. A new Naturalization Act raised the period of necessary residence in the United States from five years to fourteen ; and an Alien Law authorized the President, without trial, 3 merely at his pleasure, to order out of the country "any aliens he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States," and, if they remained, to imprison them "so long as, in the opinion of the President, the public safety may require." 4 The Sedition Law provided fine and imprisonment for "com- bining" to oppose measures of the government, and for "any false, scandalous, or malicious writing against the government " or against its high officials, i with intent to bring them into disre- pute? 1 A favorite device was to pour slops on their heads from the windows. 2 Adams himself had blamed Washington severely for pardoning the leaders of the Whisky Rebellion. On the question of whether Fries' conduct really constituted " treason," cf. Walker's Making of the Nation, 147. 3 The denial of jury trial was defended on the ground that the Sixth Amend- ment applied only to "citizens." 4 A third Alien Act (regarding " alien enemies ") was perfectly proper and is still in force. It authorizes the President to expel from the country all citizens of a nation with which the United States is at v;ar, if he think such action needful. 368 FEDERALIST PERIOD Of course, seditious utterance and slander, if provable, were already punishable in State courts, under the Common Law. But, since the Zenger trial (§ 119), prosecutions of this sort for political utterances had become obsolete. The people, with sound instinct, had preferred to endure some bad manners, rather than to imperil liberty. This reenactment of obsolete practice by a national law, to be enforced in the Government's own courts, was a sinister indication of the Federalist disposition to stifle political criticism. In spirit at least it was in conflict with the first amendment. President Adams took no part in securing this legislation ; and he made no use of the Alien Act. But Federalist judges manifested a stern animosity in securing convictions under the Sedition Law. Mathew Lyon, a Vermont congressman, charged Adams with "unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp and for foolish adulation" and with "selfish avarice." For these words, he was punished by imprisonment for four months and by a fine of $1000. Nine other convictions followed in the few months remaining of Federalist rule ; and a few like cases occurred even in Federalist State courts. 1 One grand jury indicted a man for circulating a petition for repeal of a law. 237. Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. — To the Republi- cans this Federalist legislation appeared to be a conscious violation of the " bill of rights " in the Constitution, and they apprehended further attacks upon personal liberty. 2 Appeal to the violently partisan courts offered little chance of redress ; and they turned for protection to the State governments and 1 Cf. Professor Frank Maloy Anderson's articles in American Historical Review, October, 1899, and January, 1900. Forty years later, Congress reim- bursed Lyon's heirs with interest. 2 Jefferson wrote to George Mason (Works, Washington ed., IV, 257): " I consider those laws only an experiment on the American mind to see how far it will bear an avowed violation of the Constitution. If this goes down, we shall see attempted another act of Congress declaring that the President shall continue in office during life, reserving to another occasion the transfer of the succession to his heirs and the establishment of the Senate for life. That these things are in contemplation, I have no doubt." In the same passage, Jefferson suggests that " Monk " [Hamilton] " may be playing the game for the restoration of his most gracious majesty, George III." VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS 369 the doctrine of State sovereignty. The Federalists, drunk with power, had threatened tyranny: the Republicans, in frenzied panic, sought refuge in a doctrine of anarchy. Multi- tudes of popular meetings denounced the Alien and Sedition laws, properly enough ; and the Republican legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky passed mischievous resolutions of protest, asserting the principle of Nullification} [To be discussed with books open only.~\ The Virginia Resolutions called upon the other States to join in de- claring the Alien and Sedition acts unconstitutional and therefore void. Just how the laws were to be made void in practice, was not clear ; but the resolutions affirmed " That, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise [by the Central government] of . . . powers not granted by the said compact [the Constitution], the States . . . have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose.'" The first Kentucky Resolutions affirmed (1) "that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthori- tative, void, and of no force"; (2) "that the government created by this compact [the Constitution] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers"; (3) "that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming . . . the other party"; and (4) "that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infrac- tions as of the mode and measure of redress." It was further asserted "that this Commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, tamely to submit to undelegated . . . powers in no . . . body of men on earth " ; but the only action suggested is that the other States "unite with this Commonwealth in requesting the repeal [of the objec- tionable legislation] at the next session of Congress." 2 In debate, however, the leading advocate of the Resolutions added: " If upon the representations of the States, from whom they derive their 1 Jefferson wrote the first draft of the resolutions for Kentucky ; Madison, for Virginia, in somewhat gentler form. Indeed, the first set of Kentucky Resolutions, in 1798, did not contain the word Nullification, though it was used in debate, but it appeared explicitly in a second set, in 1799. 2 MacDonald's Select Documents gives these Resolutions and also the Alien and Sedition Laws (pp. 137 ff.). 370 FEDERALIST PERIOD powers, they [Congress] should nevertheless attempt to enforce [those laws], I hesitate not to declare it as my opinion that it is then the right and the duty of the several States to nullify those acts, and to protect their citizens from their operation. But I hope and trust such an event will never happen, and that Congress will always have sufficient virtue, wisdom, and prudence, upon the representation of a majority of the States, to expunge all obnoxious laws." > The Resolutions of 1799 were more strenuous in statement of principle, though even less emphatic as to proposed action. Irritated by the un- favorable responses from other States, the Kentucky legislature now used the word nullification, but was careful not to advise its application. It again asserted the central doctrine of its former resolutions — that the government is not judge of its own powers, and added (1) "that the several States who formed [the Constitution], being sovereign and inde- pendent, have the unquestionable right to judge"; and (2) "that a Nullification by these sovereignties of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument is the rightful remedy." But all this is a prel- ude to only " a solemn protest " against the Alien and Sedition acts. It has been noted that the war frenzy of 1798-1799 had mo- mentarily put the Federalists in control of most of the State legislatures, or at least of the lower Houses. This accidental predominance explains why the Southern States in general made no response to the Virginia and Kentucky appeals, while several Northern legislatures condemned those Resolutions severely, — sometimes expressing approval of the Alien and Sedition laws, always denying the right of a State govern- ment to judge of the constitutionality of Congressional acts. Several replies denied the Kentucky doctrine that there was "no common judge" between a State and the Union, affirming that the Supreme Court filled that position. This, of course, has come now to be the universal belief. 1 Apparently, then, these resolutions did not mean nullification by one State, unless a majority of States favored such action. If this champion had made the proportion three fourths, he would have had the number necessary to override a law by constitutional amendment. The matter was left vague ; and " nullification " in these resolutions is vastly different from the precise and definite claim of Calhoun iu 1830 as to the right of any State to act upon its own judgment (§ 300). VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS 371 In that day, however, the other doctrine — that there was " no common judge" — was not surprising. It grew naturally out of the vagueness or timidity of the Philadelphia Convention in this matter. The Supreme Court itself, we must remember, had not yet used the power to pass upon the constitutionality of the Acts of Congress. It had not even claimed that right, and was not to do so for some years more (§ 257) ; and the very New England States which now affirmed this mighty province for the Supreme Court denied it explicitly fifteen years later, adopting in express terms the doctrine of these Kentucky Resolutions (§§ 2G9, 270). It is well, however, for the student, at this stage, to realize that nulli- fication, whether of Jefferson's brand in 1798, or New England's in 1814, or Calhoun's in 1830, was absurd in logic, and would have been anarchic in practice. Any group of citizens or of States which feels itself suffi- ciently oppressed, has the natural right to rebel, and try to change the government by revolution, — as America did in 1776. The right of revolu- tion is the fundamental guarantee for liberty in organized society. The question regarding it is never one of abstract right, but always of con- crete righteousness under given conditions. In result, too, revolution means either the confirmation of the existing government or the substitu- tion of another government. But nullification meant a constitutional right to reduce the government to a shadow while claiming its protec- tion. VII. EXPIRING FEDERALISM 238. Causes of Federalist Overthrow. — The Federalist leaders had fallen into foolish blunders (like the house tax) because they did not understand popular feeling; and they had at- tempted reactionary and despotic measures (like the Sedition Act) because they did not believe in popular government. They were out of touch with the most ivholeso?ne tendency of the times. The brief reactionary movement in American life was dying, and the people had resumed their march toward democracy. When an arrogant French Directory threatened the Federalist administration, patriotism had temporarily rallied the nation 372 THE DOWNFALL OF FEDERALISM to its support; but with the passing of that foreign danger, passed also the chance of further Federalist rule. "Before it died, Federalism had degenerated into a senile Toryism, as much out of touch with the age, and as incapable of political activity, as Jacobitism * in England." — Ford, American Politics, 119. "The blunder of the Federalists [in passing the Alien and Sedition Acts] was not an accidental one ... It was thoroughly characteristic. It sprang out of a distrust of the masses ; a belief that the people must always be repressed or led; a reliance on Powers, Estates, and Vested Interests within the Commonwealth ; a readiness to use force ; — all of which were of the essence of the aristocratic politics of the last quarter of the eighteenth century." — Walker, Making of the Nation. 239. Disreputable Trickery in the Election of 1800. — The Federalists tried to bolster their cause by inducing Wash- ington to be a candidate once more, in 1800; but his refusal and death threw them back upon Adams, whose old Revolutionary popularity made him still their most available man. The Republican candidates were Jefferson and Burr (the latter a sharp New York politician). Lacking true majorities, the Federalists strove to manufacture false ones. The electoral vote finally stood only 73 to 65 against them ; but, if the twenty or so votes secured by disreputable trickery, against the will of the people, had been restored to the column where they belonged, their defeat would have shown over- whelmingly, and the vote would have stood about 100 to 40. Details throw light upon the political morality of the times. a. A Massachusetts law provided for choosing electors, in districts, by popular vote. Early Congressional elections showed a strong drift towards Republicanism, and it was certain that party would carry several, at least, of the sixteen electors. The old legislature, still Federalist by a small majority, was summoned, in special sessioii, and repealed the electoral law, choosing Federalist electors itself. New Hamp- shire took similar action. 1 A term applied to a small faction of reactionaries in England, who, even after the Revolution of 1688, still clung to the doctrine of Divine Right, and therefore claimed to owe allegiance to the exiled Jameses, or Jacobi. PARTISAN EXPEDIENTS 373 6. In Pennsylvania the new House of Representatives was strongly Republican, but hold-over members, from the war-election, kept the Senate Federalist. 1 So far, that State had always chosen its electors by popular vote. This time the Senate would not agree to the necessary law (since that method would give most of the districts to the Republicans) . There being no law on the matter, it was then necessary for the legis- lature itself to choose electors. All elections of officers by that body had been by joint ballot. The Senate now insisted upon a concurrent vote (cl § 212), and finally compromised upon a scheme which allowed it to name seven of the fifteen electors.' 2 c. In New York the law provided that electors should be chosen by the legislature. This choice would belong to a new (Republican) legis- lature just elected. Hamilton wrote to Governor Jay, urging him to prevent this result by calling a special session of the expiring Federalist legislature (as in Massachusetts) so that that body might repeal the law and turn the choice of electors over to the people, in districts, — in which case some Federalists might have been chosen. To Jay's honor, he refused to accept this suggestion, indorsing the paper with the words, " Proposing a measure for party purposes which I think it would not become me to adopt." d. When the contest was over, and it was plain that the people had turned the Federalists out of all the elective branches of the govern- ment, the expiring and repudiated Congress and President used the few days left them to intrench their party in the appointive branch of government, — the judiciary, — " that part of the government upon which all the rest hinges," and indulged in a desperate attempt to rob the majority even of its choice for the executive. These attempts call for more extended treatment (§§ 239, 240). 240. The Judiciary Act of 1801 was merely an unscrupulous attempt to perpetuate Federalist rule. 3 (1) Provision was 1 In a new constitution, in 1790, Pennsylvania exchanged its one-House legislation for the prevalent two-chambered system. 2 This shabby trick — a deliberate violation of a popular mandate — was loudly applauded by the Federalists as lofty patriotism. Said the Phila- delphia United States Gazette of the Federalist Senators: " [They] deserve the praises and blessings of all America. They have checked the mad enthu- siasm of a deluded populace (!) . . . They have saved a falling world." 8 The Federalist argument for the bill (when the question of repeal came up the next year) rested chiefly upon the necessity for separate circuit courts, in order to protect the Supreme Court Justices from riding circuit. But the Supreme Court, in plain matter of fact, had never been overworked. 374 THE DOWNFALL OF FEDERALISM made that the first vacancy in the Supreme Court should not be filled, but that the number of Justices should at that future time be reduced by one. In the natural order of things, this would prevent Jefferson from making any appointments to that bench. (2) New Circuit Courts were created (§ 217), and the number of circuits was increased to jsix, with three judges for each except the last. This made places for sixteen new judges, to be immediately appointed by Adams in the remain- ing nineteen days of his administration. (3) The number of District Courts was increased from thirteen to twenty-three, making places for eight more such appointments. In addition, of course, there were clerks and marshals to be named for all these new courts. Adams was not able to make his last appointments under this law until late on the last evening of his term of office ; and the judges so appointed have gone by the name of "the Midnight Judges" in our later history. One of the worst features of a thoroughly bad business was that these appointments were used to take care of Federalist politicians now thrown out of any other job. The Constitution prevented the appointment of members of the expiring Congress to any of the new judgeships just created by them (cf. § 200) ; but this constitutional provision was evaded with as little compunction as went to thwarting the will of the people. Former District judges were promoted to the new Circuit judgeships, and their former places were filled by "retired" Federalist congressmen. 1 Apart from this shallow evasion of a law in the Constitution, the appointments set a vicious example. The people at the polls had repudiated certain men for government positions ; but President Adams, the agent of the people, thought it proper to place those men in more important government positions for life, where the people could not touch them. This sad abuse of the Presidential power has had much later It had then only ten cases before it, and, in the preceding ten years of its life, it had had fewer cases than are customary in one year now. The weakness of the Federalist argument appears in the fact that the bill was repealed and the old order restored and maintained seventy years longer. 1 In urging repeal in 1802, John Randolph, Republican leader in Congress, declared that the Federalists had turned the Judiciary into " a hospital for decayed politicians." PARTISAN EXPEDIENTS 375 imitation. Such a practice is repugnant to every principle of representative government. 241. Attempt on the Presidency. — One other incident led almost to civil war, and resulted finally in the twelfth amend- ment. Jefferson and Burr had received the same electoral vote. Every Eepublican had intended Jefferson for President and Burr for second place, but, under the clumsy provision of the Constitution (cf. §§ 212, 227, note) the election between these two was now left to the old House of Representatives, in which the Federalists had their expiring war majority. 1 The Federalists planned at first to create a deadlock and prevent any election until after March 4, when they might declare government at a standstill and elect the presiding officer of the old Senate as President of the country. Jeffer- son wrote at the time that they were kept from this attempt only by definite threats that it would be the signal for the Middle States to arm and call a convention to revise the Con- stitution. Then they fell back upon a trick, more in agree- ment with the letter of the Constitution, but one which would equally have cheated the nation of its will. The House of Representatives had the legal right to choose Burr for Presi- dent, instead of Jefferson ; and seemed bent upon this course, until Hamilton rendered his last great service to his country by opposing such action. 2 Then, after a delay of five weeks, and thirty-six ballotings, the House chose Jefferson President; and early in the first session of the next Congress the twelfth amendment was proposed and ratified, for naming separately President and Vice President on the electoral ballots. 1 The new House, elected some months before, but not to meet for nearly a year longer, was overwhelmingly Republican ; but, by our clumsy arrange- ment, once more a repudiated party remained in control at a critical moment. Cf . § 212. , 2 Hamilton does not seem to have felt the enormity of the proposed viola- tion of the nation's will; but he knew Burr to be a reckless political ad- venturer, and thought his election more dangerous to the country than even the dreaded election of Jefferson. 376 THE DOWNFALL OF FEDERALISM 242. Excursus: Difficulty of Amendment. — The first ten amend- ments, we have seen, came in one body, as a part of the bargain by which ratification of the Constitution was secured. The eleventh and twelfth came in response to passions which might otherwise have led easily to civil war. The next three amendments — in one group — were to result from civil war (§§ 382-385). Between these and the twelfth, more than sixty years elapsed; and since the last of these Civil War amendments, forty years more have passed without further change in the written docu- ment of the Constitution — in spite of many long-continued popular demands. In practice, the amending clause has proven seriously defec- tive. A Constitution that can be modified, constitutionally, only through fear of war or as the result of war, is too " rigid." 1 J. W. Burgess, a conservative scholar, believes in a written constitu- tion as a check upon hasty action by a majority ; but he says — with dis- tinct reference to the situation in the United States: "When in a democratic political society, the well-matured, long and deliberately formed will of the majority can be successfully thwarted, in the amend- ment of its organic law, by the will of the minority, there is just as much danger to the State from revolution and violence as there is from the caprice of the majority where the sovereignty of the bare majority is acknowledged." Professor J. Allen Smith (Spirit of American Government, 46 ff.) counts some 2200 proposed amendments since 1789, including direct elec- tion of President and of the Senate, and legislative control over the judiciary. He estimates that ^ of the population constitutes a majority in the twelve smallest States, and so might defeat an amendment desired by ff after it had passed Congress. 243. Meaning of the Federalist Period. — Alexander Hamilton is the hero of the twelve-year Federalist period. He should be judged in the main by his work in the years 1789-1793. During that critical era, he stood forth — as no other man of the day could have done — as statesman-general in the conflict between order and anarchy, union and disunion. His construc- 1 Review §§ 196, 216, and Article V of the Constitution. Since this page was put in type, the Sixteenth Amendment has been ratified (February, 1913), making a Federal income tax constitutional. An attempt has been made in Congress to submit an amendment which will simplify the amending process. WHAT FEDERALISM EFFECTED 377 tive work and his genius for organization were then as indis- pensable to his country as Jefferson's democratic faith and inspiration were to be later. Except for Hamilton, there would hardly have been a Nation for Jefferson to Americanize. We may rejoice that Hamilton did not have his whole will, even in the matter of centralization ; but we must recognize that the centralizing forces he set in motion made the Union none too strong to withstand the trials of the years that followed. Those centralizing forces may be summarized concisely. The tremen- dous support of capital had been secured for almost any claim the govern- ment might make to doubtful powers. Congress had set the example of exercising doubtful and unenumerated powers; and a cover had been de- vised for such practice in the doctrine of implied powers. The appellate jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court was to enable it to defend and extend this doctrine. Congress had begun to add new States with greater dependence of feeling upon the National government. And the people at large had begun to feel a new dignity and many material gains from a strong Union. For Further Reading. — Bassett's Federalist Period ("American Nation 1 ' series) is a satisfactory treatment. Francis A. Walker's Making of the Nation (73-167) is an admirable brief account. Biographies of Washington, Adams, and Hamilton should be accessible. Source mate- rial can be found in many collections, — notably, MacDonald's Select Documents and Hart's Contemporaries HI. A X A*' *? PART III DEMOOEAOY AND NATIONALITY 1800-1876 CHAPTER X AMERICA IN 1800 (A proper introduction to this chapter is a rereading of §§111, 120-124, 137, and 185.) 244. Preliminary Survey. — From the election of Jefferson to the close of the Civil War, American history is marked by six great lines of development : our territory expanded tre- mendously ; we won. our intellectual independence from Old World standards; democracy spread and deepened in our na- tional life ; our industrial system grew vastly more complex ; slavery was abolished; and the spirit of Nationalism tri- umphed at last over all fear of disunion. These tendencies were intimately interrelated ; and it was the territorial expan- sion ivhich formed the chief medium through which ran the bonds between the others. The nineteenth century has for one of its chief marks for all the globe the expansion of civilization into waste or wild spaces. England, Russia, and the United States were the three powers most interested in this movement. The two others added more territory than we ; but not even for them was this growth so much the soul of things as for us. It is the key to our other growth. Territorial growth made us truly American. Our tidewater communities remained colonial in sentiment long after they became independent politically. Only when our people had 378 PRELIMINARY SURVEY 379 380 AMERICA IN 1800 climbed the mountain crests and turned their faces in earnest to the great West, did they cease to look to the Old World for standards of thought and culture and to hang timorously upon Old World approval. Our war for intellectual independ- ence was waged against the Appalachian forests. It made us democratic. The communities politically pro- gressive have always been the frontier elements, — first the western sections of the original States, and then successive layers of new States. It created our complex industrialism, with division of indus- tries and of labor, and the interdependence of sections ; and so it helped to bring about the inevitable conflict between slave and free labor. It lies at the root of our growth in nationality, as opposed to the jealous, particularistic, separatist tendencies in the original Thirteen States. It was expansion into the Mississippi valley, wrought out by nature for the home of one mighty industrial empire, that transformed a handful of jangling communities, scattered amid the forests and marshes of the Atlantic slope, into a continental nation. In all this change, throughout the nineteenth century, the ever shifting frontier, ivith its fluidity of life and its progressive temper, was " the line of most efective Americanization.''' 1 1 And so Americans have exulted, with right, in mere growth, — feeling truly, if not always clearly, that it was not mere growth. Sometimes this exultation has clothed itself in cheap spread-eagleism or insolent jingoism, offensive to the polite ears of people of refinement, whose culture has not been robust enough to dis- cern the sound instinct beneath the crude articulation. A good deal of fun has been poked at bumptious talk of "manifest destiny," 2 and many 1 Eeview § 185, on " the meaning of the frontier." 2 This talk, and especially the Western exuberance, is caricatured in a story of toasts at a dinner party of Americans in Paris during the exultation that followed the victory of the North in the Civil War. " Here's to the United States," said the first speaker (a Bostonian), " bounded on the north by British America, on the south by Mexico, on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the west by the Pacific." These words represented vast and recent achiev- ment, and still more recent preservation. "But," said the second speaker, from Chicago, " this is too limited a view. We must look to our Manifest PHYSICAL CONDITIONS 381 well-meaning critics — unable to read the great American poem in its prose version — have seen in this buoyant self-confidence only a vulgar and grotesque boastfulness of material bigness, and have lamented that the national ideals were so sordid and mean. Sordid, for a time, American ideals did become, in great measure ; but not until the later part of the nineteenth century, — when this period of expansion was over, and commercialism had replaced romance as the dominant note in our life (§407). Throughout the period now under consideration, the plain people felt, more or less consciously, the inner truth which the cultured critic missed. For the creation of the nation, and for its proper life, the conquest of our proper territory was first need- ful ; and this Titanic conflict with a continent became idealized to the heart and imagination of a hardy race. This was the hundred-year American epic, — its protagonist, the tall, sinewy, saturnine frontiersman, with his long rifle and well-poised ax, and usually with his Bible, en- camped in the wilderness to win a home for his children, and for a na- tion. " O strange New World ! That never yit wast young. Whose youth from thee by grippin' need was wrung ; Brown foundlin' o' the woods, whose baby-bed Was prowled roun' by the Injun's cracklin' tread, And who grewst strong thru shifts, and wants, and pains, Nursed by stern men with empires in their brains, Who saw in vision their young Ishmael strain In each hard hand a vassal Ocean's mane ! Thou taught by freedom, and by great events, To pitch new States as old- World men pitch tents ! " 1 245. Physical Conditions. — Since American history now turns away from the Atlantic border, it is needful to take account more fully of the geography of the continent and the marvel- Destiny. Here's to the United States, bounded on the North by the North Pole, on the south by the South Pole, on the east by the rising, and on the west by the setting, sun." Long and uproarious applause for this ambitious sentiment only stimulated a very serious gentleman from California, who next arose : " If we are to take our manifest destiny into account, why restrain ourselves within such narrow limits? I give you the United States, bounded on the North by the Aurora Borealis, on the south by the Precession of the Equinoxes, on the east by Primeval Chaos, and on the west by the Day of Judgment!" 1 Lowell's Big low Papers. 382 AMERICA IN 1800 ous physical advantages of the United States. 1 "For communi- cation with the outside world, the two oceans and the Gulf give to the United States of to-day a coast line of 18,000 miles, — a line greater in proportion to area than even the coast line of Europe. Rivers and the American shore of the Great Lakes add 19,000 miles of navigable interior waterways, — a condi- tion absolutely beyond parallel in any other large portion of the globe. More than four fifths of these internal water roads, too, are grouped in the vast systems of the Lakes and the Mississippi, — virtually one system, — opening on the sea on two sides and draining more than a million square miles of territory (the interior third of the United States). This gives to cities a thousand miles inland the advantages of seacoast ports, and binds together, for instance, Pittsburg and Bismarck, on opposite slopes of the great valley a thousand miles across. Above the limit of navigation, these streams, and others, furnish an unrivaled water power. Many years ago, Professor Shaler estimated that the energy already derived from the streams of this country exceeded that from the streams of all the rest of the world. This power was of particular impor- tance in colonial days. Then, for a hundred years, it lost value, relatively, after the invention of steam and the use of coal ; but now, with new devices to turn it into electric power, it looms again a chief factor in future wealth. The Appalachian system contains rich deposits of coal and iron in close neighborhood (an indispensable condition for development of the manufacturing arts in the nineteenth cen- tury); while the Great Lakes make communication easy be- tween Appalachian coal and Lake Superior iron. Other mineral deposits needful in industy exist in abundance, well distributed over the country, — copper, lead, zinc, build- ing stone, gold and silver, salt, phosphates, clays, cements, graphite, grindstones, and a small amount of aluminum. In 1800, great forests still stretched from the Atlantic to Illinois i Review §§ 1-9. PHYSICAL CONDITIONS 383 384 AMERICA IN 1800 and western Kentucky, and the vast woods of the Pacific slope were to become our heritage at a later date. The fertile soil and abundant rainfall of the Mississippi valley, and the tem- perate climate of great portions of it, need only to be sug- gested to be appreciated. It seems probable, too, that New World conditions tend to build the European immigrant into a stronger and larger man than could have developed in his original home. [ To be discussed with books open.'} Quite as marked are certain political results of our geog- raphy. The map of Western Europe makes clear why eight or nine distinct governments there divide an area smaller than that of the Mississippi valley. In like manner, the physical features of the Atlantic fringe of America tended to particu- larism, as we have seen, in industry and in politics.* But the great central valley, to become the center of American history 100 West from Greenwich Sectional Elevation op the United States in Latitude 40° North. (After Draper. Elevations magnified.) p-o, sea level ; a, Appalachian crest ; b, Mississippi ; c, beginning of saline plains ; d-e, Great Salt Lake region ; e-f, great elevated basin ; /, Coast range ; o-c, Atlantic sec- tion ; c-p, Pacific section. The slope bd is more than 1000 miles long, up to the mountain passes, which are about 10,000 feet above the sea (with peaks rising 4000 or 4300 feet higher). The true rise, there- fore, is less than 10 feet to a mile. soon after 1800, tended irresistibly to political and industrial unity. Europe is "convex toward the sky." Not merely do mountains and seas create walls and moats for military defense ; but, even more important, the rivers tend toward dispersion. America is "a vast concave." Its mountains guard the fron- tiers only. The streams of the interior tend to concentration, WESTERN MARCH OF POPULATION 385 of industry, trade, and population, and therefore to political unity. Two conditions which might have operated unfavorably upon Ameri- can development require mention. (a) The diagram opposite shows a section elevation of the United States along the fortieth parallel. The meridian 100 west from Greenwich cuts the country into fairly equal but very different halves. The eastern half is essentially of one character, and was easily made one section as to communication by railroads and canals. Neither fact holds good for the western half. That vast region contains, in succession (to quote Dr. Draper), " an arid, sandy district, the soil saline and sterile ; an enormous belt of elevated land without an equivalent in Europe, the eastern side a desert, the western Asiatic in character ; and^, on the rapid Pacific incline, the moist genial atmosphere of Great Britain and Spain; — a series of zones with all the contrasts of nature. . . . The imperial 'Republic has a Persia, an India,. -a Palestine, a Tartary of its own." These diverse zones from east to west had little opportunity, however, to operate in hostility to political union. The American people did not come under their influence at all until just before the great Civil War. The question of Union or Disunion was settled for generations to come by men reared under the influence of the uniform eastern half of the continent. (b) The lines of 22 and 41 degrees Fahrenheit, for January, may be taken as convenient bounds for the true "temperate" zone. (Map, p. 2.) By those, or any other suitable lines of "equal temperature," the climatic temperate zone in North America (in the interior as on the coast) is far narrower than in Europe. Its width in Europe is one of the causes for that continent's becoming the earliest home of true civilization. Its narrowness in America is in itself a condition unfavorable to progress ; but this influence was minimized by the late date of settlement and the advanced civilization of the early settlers (§ 1, a). 246. The population in 1800 counted five million (5,308,48s), 1 of whom a fifth were slaves. Two thirds of the Whites were north, of Mason and Dixon's line. Nine tenths of the whole population dwelt east of the mountains, and two thirds within fifty miles of tidewater. The land was untamed, — forests hardly touched, and minerals undisturbed. Even in the coast district, 1 The British Isles in 1801 had 15,000,000 people. The first American census, ten years earlier, showed a population of 4,000,000. Cf. also §§ 111, 94. 386 AMERICA IN 1800 settlement had only spotted the primeval wilderness ; and rough fishing hamlets marked havens where now bristle innu- merable masts and smokestacks. The great bulk of the people lived in little agricultural villages or in the outlying cabin farms. Less than one twentieth were "urban." By the first census (1790), only six towns had six thousand people. Richmond, the largest city of the most populous State, had less than four thousand. The Movement of Centers of Population (a) and Manufactures (+). (The Census Bureau did not determine the center of manufactures for 1910.) large cities were: Philadelphia, 42,500; New York, 32,000; Boston, 18,000 ; Charleston, 16,000 ; Baltimore, 14,000 ; and Providence, 6000. By 1800 these figures had risen to 70,000, 60,000, 24,000, 20,000, 26,000, and 8000. The first three cities had begun to pave their streets with cobblestones, and to light them with dimly flaring lamps, and they brought in wholesome drinking water in wooden pipes ; but police systems and lire protection hardly existed, and the complete absence of sewers resulted in incessant fevers and plagues. In 1800 Washington was still a village of contractors and workmen, living in sheds and boarding houses. The western march of our population had begun. In 1800 the "center of population" was eighteen miles west of Balti- more ; but, ten years before, it had been forty-one miles farther east. The half million people west of the mountains dwelt still in four or five isolated groups, all included in a broad, ir- regular wedge of territory with its apex reaching not quite to the Mississippi (map, facing p. 275). The greater part of our own ROADS AND TRAVEL 387 half of the great valley was yet unknown even to the frontiersman, and two thirds our total area was classed as "unsettled." In his inaugural of 1800, Jefferson, enthusiast that he was regarding his country's future, asserted that we then had " room enough for our descendants to the hundredth and even the thousandth generation." \ 247. Communication remained essentially upon the pre- Revolutionary footing. The States had little more social or commercial intercourse with one another, as yet, than the colonies had enjoyed. Postage was excessive. The lowest letter rate was eight cents ; and from New York to Boston it was twenty cents. A traveler could* go by clumsy and cramped stagecoach, at four miles an hour, from Boston to New York in three days, and on to Philadelphia in two days more — longer than it now takes to go from Boston to San Francisco. Such travel, too, cost from three to four times as much as modern travel by rail. South of Philadelphia (except on the one route to Baltimore, perhaps) a stage was exposed to serious delays, and, south of the Potomac, traveling was possible only on horseback — with frequent embarrassments from absence of bridges or ferries. A few turnpikes had recently been built, by licensed companies, which collected exorbitant tolls for their use ; and a good wagon road had been constructed from Philadelphia to Pittsburg. Elsewhere, in a wet season, the dirt roads were soon reduced to an almost impassable con- dition. West of the mountains, even such roads were still wanting, for the most part, though the " Wilderness Road " (§ 170) had been widened to a wagon track. A few canals were constructed between 1790 and 1800, and attention was turning enthusias- tically to the possibilities in that means of communication. But, even leaving the West out of account, freights by land aver- aged, it is computed, ten cents a mile per ton 2 — or ten times 1 In less than two generations, we were to treble that territory. 2 Read McMaster, III, 463, 465. 388 AMERICA IN 1800 the rates our railroads impose for even short hauls. To move sugar 300 miles by wagon cost more than sugar to-day is worth 1000 miles from the coast. 248. Occupations remained much as before the Revolution (§ 124), but manufactures were making somewhat more head- way, and the European wars favored our carrying trade. The year after the close of the Revolution had seen the first American voyage to China, and American shipmasters seized promptly and zealously upon the attractive profits of Oriental trade. John Jacob Astor set an example for the fur trade's following the furs into the far Northwest. A few iron mills had begun operations ; and, between 1790 and 1812, machinery for weaving and spinning cotton was introduced from recently invented English models. In England, Hargreaves invented the spinning jenny in 1767 ; Arkwright, the drawing frame two years later ; Crompton, the mule spinner in 1784 ; Cartwright, the power loom in 1785. By 1800, these inven- tions had changed the system of cotton manufacture in England from the "domestic" to the "factory" system, and had greatly increased its amount. Under the old " domestic" system, women had spun the cotton or flax thread and woolen yarn on the old-fashioned spinning wheels in their homes ; and single individuals, in like fashion, in their own homes, had woven the thread into cotton cloth on hand looms. If the work was carried on in a shop, the master worked alongside a half-dozen or a dozen employees, each of whom expected in time to become a "master." But this new machinery made it cheaper to bring all the processes of manufacture into one factory, with many workers under skilled direc- tion, with fixed hours of labor. These operatives could never hope to own mills themselves. Thus began a distinct labor class over against the new capitalistic class of factory owners. At the same time the change cut the cost of cheap cotton cloth to a fraction of the old cost. It led also to the massing of population in cities. 1 In America, however, this " Industrial Bevolution " made slight head- way until the War of 1812 cut us off from England (§§266ff.); and, even to 1830, the "domestic" system predominated. 1 Cf. Modern History, § 526, b. SOCIAL CONDITIONS 389 The new possibilities in cotton manufacture called for more cotton. Until 1800, England had secured most that her fac- tories used from India and Egypt. The southern colonies in America, even while colonies, and with their slave labor, had found the production of cotton discouragingly expensive, be- cause of the vast difficulty in " cleaning " it, or separating the fiber from the seed. But in 1793 Eli Whitney, a Connecticut schoolmaster in Georgia, devised a piece of machinery efficient for this work and at the same time simple enough to be run by a slave. The cotton gin soon made labor employed in cleaning cotton three hundred times as effective as by the old hand method. The cultivation of cotton now advanced by leaps, until there was no exaggeration in the boast, "Cotton is King.'* In 1794 Jay's treaty had proposed that America should promise not to export that commodity. Indeed, in 1791 we exported only 200,000 pounds ; but in 1800 the amount was 20,000,000 pounds, and this was doubled the third year after. 249. Wages ; Frugality. — In the cities a small class of mer- chants imitated in a quiet way the luxury of the corresponding class in England, — with spacious homes, silver-laden tables, and, on occasion, crimson-velvet attire. The great planters of the South, too, lived in open-handed wastefulness, but with little real comfort. Otherwise, American society was simple and frugal, — with a standard of living far below that of to-day. Necessities of life cost more (so far as they were not produced in the home), and wages were lower. Hodcarrier and skilled mason received about half the wage (in purchasing value) paid for corresponding labor to-day (and for a labor day lasting from sunrise to sunset), 1 and the income of the professional classes was insignificant by later standards. 1 And these wages were fifty per cent better than before the Revolution, — so that John Jay, in 1800, complains bitterly about the exorbitant wages demanded by artisans, much as John Winthrop did in 1632. For an example, — the unskilled laborers who toiled on the public buildings and streets of Wash- ington from 1793 to 1800 received seventy dollars a year " and found " (which did not include clothing) . 390 AMERICA IN 1800 Says Henry Adams: "Many a country clergyman, eminent for piety and even for hospitality, brought up a family and laid aside some savings on a salary of five hundred dollars a year. President Dwight [of Yale] . . . eulogizing the life of Abijah Weld, pastor of Attleborough, declared that on a salary of $250 Mr. Weld brought up eleven children, besides keeping a hospitable house and maintaining charity to the poor." 1 The homes of such professional men would now be considered plain in the extreme, lacking all luxuries and many things regarded as essentials to-day in the homes of mechanics. The farmers and mechanics of that time found clean sand a substitute for carpets, and pewter or wooden dishes sufficient for tableware. There was no linen on the table ; nor prints on the walls ; nor many books, nor any periodicals, in the house (unless perhaps a small weekly paper). Except for hats and shoes (which were made, as well as sold, at the village shop), all the' clothing of the family was home-made, and from homespun cloth and yarn. 2 The three meals of the day were formed from varying combinations of salt pork, salt fish, potatoes and turnips, rye bread, and dried apples, with fresh meat for the town mechanic perhaps once a week. Among vegetables not yet known were cauliflower, sweet corn, lettuce, cantaloupes, rhubarb, and tomatoes ; while tropical fruits, like oranges and bananas, were the rare luxuries of the rich. Even the rich could not have ice in summer. In all externals, life in 1800 in America was more like European life of a thousand years earlier than like our life of a hundred years later. To quote Henry Adams again : " The Saxon farmer of the eighth century enjoyed most of the comforts known to the Saxon farmer of the eight- eenth. . . . Even in New England, the ordinary farmhouse was hardly so well built, or so spacious, or so warm, as that of a well-to-do contem- porary of Charlemagne." Agricultural tools and methods had improved little in four thousand years. The American farmer of 1800 plowed with the clumsy wooden, home-made bull plow, sowed his grain broadcast (by 1 History of United States, I, 21. Cf. bibliography at close of chapter. Such pastors tilled small farms or gardens with their own hands, to eke out their salaries. 2 Hence, as Dr. Adams reminds us, came the awkward shapes of coat, hat, and trousers soon to disappear, but first to become fixed in Yankee caricature. In contrasting expenditure for clothing then and now, Professor MacMaster asserts : " Many a well-to-do father of a family of to-day . . . expends each year on coats and frocks and finery a sum sufficient a hundred years ago to have defrayed the public expenses of a flourishing village, — schoolmaster, constable, and highways included." SOCIAL CONDITIONS 391 hand), cut it with the sickle of Tubal Cain, and threshed it out on the barn floor with the flail of prehistoric times, — if he did not tread it out with his horses. Stock was poor and poorly cared for. Drainage and rotation of crops were unknown. The first threshing machine was invented in 1785, but was not yet in use, while the iron-wheeled plow, the drill, the reaper and binder, the hayrake, with the mulitude of later devices which were to revolutionize agriculture, were still in the future. Still the era of rapid change was just at hand£ **\ 250. Moral and Intellectual Conditions. — Political standards were low. Says Professor MacMaster (With the Fathers, 71) : — "A very little study of long-forgotten politics will suffice to show that in filibustering and gerrymandering (§ 327), in stealing governorships and legislatures, in using force at the polls, in 'colonizing,' 2 and dis- tributing patronage to whom patronage is due — in all the frauds and tricks that go to make up the worst form of ' practical politics ' — the men who founded our State and National governments were always our equals and often our masters." 3 Officials, so elected, were not scrupulous as to their official conduct. To be sure there was less bribery than in more recent times. The great corporations — railways, municipal lighting companies, etc. — which, in their contest for special privileges, were to become the chief source of corrupting later legislatures and city councils, had not yet appeared. Public servants had infinitely less temptation to betray their trust for private gain than now; but public opinion as to the crime was far less sensitive than to-day. 1 In 1800 the only agricultural machines drawn by horses were the wooden harrow and the clumsy plow. The first improvements in this last implement date from experiments by Thomas Jefferson upon the wooden moldboard. Of hand tools there were only the spade, fork, sickle, scythe, hoe, rake, flail, and ax. All of them, except the ax, were still heavy and awkward, calling lor great strength, and exhausting, even to such strength. When the cast-iron plow first appeared, about 1800, farmers declared it " poisoned the soil." By 1825, however, its adoption had made a new era. The cradle scythe for cutting grain was patented in 1803. 2 Bringing in voters from outside to carry a doubtful district. 3 Many illustrations of this unhappy truth have been given in preceding pages. On violence at elections, see McMaster's History, II, 14, 15. 392 AMERICA IN 1800 For private life, drunkenness was the American vice — with victims in all classes and in almost every family. The diet (§ 249) created a universal craving for strong drink. Foreigners complained, too, of a lack of cleanliness, and were shocked at the prevalence of brutal fights at fairs and other public gatherings, with biting off of ears and gouging out of eyes as common- place accompaniments. Likewise, they found American society coarse and immodest in conversation (like English society two generations earlier), but not immoral in conduct. As every- where else in the world, barbarous legal punishments and loathsome jail life still nourished. The insane were caged, like wild beasts, in dungeons underneath the ordinary prisons ; and debt brought more men to prison than any crime. There had begun, however, some protest from a growing spirit of greater gentleness and humanity, soon to sweep away the worst of these abominations. America was justly famous for its political writings in con- nection with the Revolution and the Constitution. Otherwise, after the death of Franklin, it had had no man of letters and little desire for literature. Painting reached a high point with Copley, Stuart, and Benjamin West ; but these American artists could not earn a mechanic's living at home, and were forced to seek appreciation and patronage in England. New England had developed her remarkable system of private endowed acad- emies, for a few bright and energetic boys, as fitting schools for college ; but the Boston Latin School was almost the only sur- vivor of the Puritan attempt at public " grammar schools " (high schools). A few more colleges had been organized toward 180.0 ; but college life was barren, and attendance was meager. Harvard had a faculty of a president, three pro- fessors, and four tutors. The elementary schools, even in New England, had decayed into a two-months' badly taught term in winter, for boys, and a like term, worse- taught, in summer, for girls. Distinct instruction in law and medicine was beginning in two or three of the larger colleges or universities ; but, for many years to come, most young men who entered these pro- (■ ■ e left 1 Horasste**a, the militia were flockmR to Cundeu from, all qiuirtm 7*4, or. (below), .loop Poll/, Gejer, from Wsldo- be«r\ with wood. On Sunday NfMA od from Providence for K.Y.M-k,earp>»ali, in po nr ssi n s of $ EnrfVv men, having bee»*aptaired on Tuesday U»t, oft' r*t Judith, by '*• Minerva privateer, and ordered for Halife « . Capt. Revcr * U rro.uestr.1 to take chirr* of the vrtewl. -ml pet h^r intn the ftrat port, and he n u - wdh i g Sj beoeght her in here, UMjnther with the imu-mv. On the an-md *4 the two vessels in the Urhner, ike P-ngHshmen took to tknir boat/sal neat me of the Wards. Pri\*aieer M** morn's Cruize. A%v, 7. On WiMUr armed prlrainrT SECOND PILLAR O/tuir F EDEM-tL EDIF ICE reared. LEGISLATUR E OF C OJfJfBCTICUT. h mttobd. aov. 7. The. joint Committee of the Legislature of this State to whom was referred the communication from the Govern- or of Massachusetts, have reported at much length and with great ability en the subjects connected with the objects of their nii*»i(m. la conclusion the Committee jay, » In what manner the multiped evib which we fcrt and fear, are to be remedied, m a queafieaof the highest moment, and ileaerves the rreaktt considerV i!uo. The documents transmitiid by His £xcvMency the Governor .of Majwaelmaetta. pretent, in. the ©pin- ion of the Committee, an eligible merlmd of combm- lag the Wisdom oV Nr w-KngUnd, in devising. An full consultation', a proper covrac to- be adopted, cons la- tent with our obligations to Uw United States." They therefore recommend, that Seven Del- egates from this State he appointed to meet the Delegate* from theCommonwealth of Mas* sacnusetts, aad of any other of tho Kew-Eng- land States, »t Hartford, on the ls(h Decem- ber, t» confer with them on the subjects pro- pose* by a Resolution of said Common weshh, and upon any other subjocta which may come before them, for the purpose of devising and recoannatnding soch measures for the safety and welfare of those States, aa may. consist with our obligations aa members of the na- tional Union. This report b*S been adopted in both Houses and the following persons have been appointed Delegates :— Hia Honor CHAUNCCY QOOIMJUCE, Kan. J AUKS. HILUIOUSB, Hon. JOHN THK M)WWJ, U.m. ZP.PHANtAH »WWT. Hon. NATHANIEL SMITH, Hon. CALVIN GODDARI*. Hon. UOGER M. SHERMAN. THIRD Pn.LAR BA1SBD. LEG t$UHV* 9 OF M HO DB-ISLJM-D. Hoviotuct, nov.s. On Tuesday the Le- K>slature of this State convened in this town. His Excellency Governor Jonas the same day sent them a message, containing an able, in- dependent and intelligent developcment of the situation of the National and Stale affairs, and communicated to them the Important Resolu- tions and Communications of the Governor and Legislature of MaaswOhuaetta, oa the subject Photographic Reproduction of Parts of Two Columns of the Centinel for November 9, 1814. (Itt the original there is an intervening column of lesslnterest.) Mammoth, Opt. Franklin, from a eruiar. •peftkinir and boarding a ntimht-r of Rntafl, French, Swednh and Portuguese ve*el*. the mad.- the fid- lowing Hriti«n prisv* .'—June 2d, 1814, aloop Par- mer, a rteafMure. Jnh IT, hrig Britannia, with hmv ber, &x burnt her. 20th, »ehV brothers,, with ftah, pti» priionors on bo*rM her, and ordered her to 8c John* 24 h, hrhr L>jni» snd r.rijr Ano-Eiiaa, both in hall«»4, and burnt them. 35th, brir Giiti, In bn> last, (rave her up to th» priMners. 2Wh, brig Aiea- Uy; lumber, be., acnrtlad her. Sfth, arh'r tteodm- lent, f»h, |f-4te her tip to poisoners. Aug- 2J, bng garsh, fair, took ont 60 boss, and .bunt bee it, brig Mr yjm.Ur, front W I far Holland, snr^sr, rum, sue. manned and ordered in. Sjme day, brirCfcurtotUv sugnr,kc ordered in. I!Mi, hrig No. «7, tranaport, it hallaat, hlowiugharh, barque Mary, oiLfce. tor lrela> . 276. Oregon Claimed. — Our basis for claiming Oregon * has been stated (§ 262). Both Russia and Spain claimed the "region because of adjacent possessions, the one in Alaska, the other in California. More serious were England's claims. Like all the claimants, England had territory adjacent to this "no man's land " ; like the United States, she needed, through that land, an opening on the Pacific from her inland territory; and she had other claims corresponding closely to our own. (1) To^, - leave out of account the ancient discovery by Captain Cook, Vancouver had explored the coast in an English vessel in 1792 (just before Gray sailed into the mouth of the Columbia), barely missing the mouth of the river. (2) The year following, Alex- J^v^KMer McKenzie, in the employ of the Hudson Bay Company, reached the region overland from Canada. Then (3) during the War of 1812, Hudson Bay officers seized Astoria. This had not been returned by the Treaty of Peace. Hence (4) England now had possession. But in the negotiations of 1818, John Quincy Adams (Monroe's Secretary of State) put forward emphatic claims to pily, the United States has asked, and received, from Canada, permission to abrogate the arrangemeut so far as to keep training vessels on the Lakes ; and though no direct harm has or will result, this action has undoubtedly made the great Convention somewhat less sacred in all eyes. 1 Oregon meant then an indefinite territory between Spanish and Russian possessions on the Pacific coast. No bounds to any one of the three regions had been drawn. Russia claimed specifically to the 51st parallel. THE MONROE DOCTRINE 449 the whole Oregon district. The "Convention" postponed settlement of the question, leaving the territory open for ten years to occupation by both parties "without prejudice to the claims of either." Then, in the Florida treaty of 1819-1821, Adams secured from Spain a waiver of any claim she might have had north of the 42d parallel. This "quitclaim" was construed by us as a recognition from Spain that Oregon be- longed to the United States. Thus the matter rested. In 1828 the agreement with England for joint occupation was renewed, subject to a year's notice by either coun- try. But the debates in our Congress had shown a preponderance of opinion that we could never occupy so inaccessible and "barren" a region, and ought noc to if we could. There were enthusiastic West- erners, however, whose robust faith foresaw (with our great Secretary) that in a few years Oregon would be nearer Washington than St. Louis had been a generation earlier, and that it was to make our indispensable gateway to the Western ocean and the lands of the Orient, — " the long- sought road to India." Said Benton of Missouri, in an impassioned oration, reproaching Eastern indifference, "It is time that Western men had some share in the destinies of this Republic." 1 /3 277. The Monroe Doctrine. — In 1821-1823 two foreign perils ^called forth from the Administration the proclamation of the new policy, America for Americans. (1) In 1821 the Tsar of Russia forbade citizens of other powers even to approach within a hundred miles of the Pacific coast, on the American side, north of the 51st parallel. Russia had no settlements within hundreds of miles of that line ; and this proclamation was practically an attempt to reserve new American territory for future Russian colonization. Moreover, it would have turned the Bering Sea, with its invaluable fisheries, into a Russian lake, absolutely closed to all other peoples. The idea was peculiarly abhorrent, both because of Russia's exclusive commercial policy (typified in the proc- 1 On these debates, see Turner's Rise of the New West, 128-133, or McMaster, V, 25-26. For a similar debate, at the renewal of the agreement in 1825, see McMaster, V, 481-482. 450 A NEW AMERICANISM, 1815-1/829 s lamation), and because the Tsar was the head of the despotic " Holy Alliance," which at just this time was planning to ex- tend its political system to South America anjl Mexico. (2) That plan was itself the second peril. In 1821 the United States recognized the independence of the revolted Spanish American States and appointed diplomatic agents to their governments. But the "league of despots," known as the Holy Alliance, having crushed an attempt at a republic in Spain itself, now planned to reduce the former American colonies of Spain to their old subjection. 1 Alone in Europe, England stood forth in determined oppo- sition ; and Canning, minister for Foreign Affairs, made four separate friendly suggestions to our minister in England that the two English-speaking powers join hands to forbid the project. President Monroe (and his unofficial advisers, Madi- son and Jefferson 2 ) wished to accept this offer for allied action ; but John Quincy Adams insisted strenuously that the United States must " not come in as a cockboat in the wake of the British man-of-war," and carried the Cabinet and Monroe with him in his plan for independent action. Meantime, Canning had acted, and, in his proud boast, " called the New World into existence, to redress the balance of the Old." His firm statement that England would resist the proposed attack upon the revolted American States put an abrupt close to the idea of intervention. But though the declaration by the Administration in the United States came later, it has had a greater permanent significance. Monroe, in his message to Congress (really a notice to European powers), December 2, 1823, adopted certain paragraphs written by Adams, since famous as the Monroe Doctrine : — 1 For a brief outline of all this story see Modem History, §§ 395-398. 2 Jefferson thought the matter " the most momentous since the Declaration of Independence." England's mighty weight — the only real peril to an independent American system — could now be brought to the side of freedom ; and the fact would " emancipate the continent at a stroke." The same result was attained, in the end, by separate action by the two countries. THE MONROE. DOCTRINE 451 [1] With special reference t6 Russia and Oregon, — " the American continents . . . are hmutfeforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.''' 1 £2]) With regard to the pro- posed "intervention" by the Holy Alliance,^" The political system of the allied powers is essentially different from that of America. 1 - . . . We owe it ... to those amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere, as dangerous to our peace and safety. 2 . . . With the existing colonies . . . of any European power we . . . shall not interfere. 8 But with the Gov- ernments . . . whose independence ^we^have . . . acknowledged, we could not view any interpositiowffor the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as a manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.'" 1 In justification of this position, the message proclaimed also that we intended not to meddle with European affairs. 4 We claimed primacy on this hemisphere; we would protect our weaker neighbors from European intrusion or molestation ; but we would leave the ^)ld World witheut interference from us. The message was thoroughly effective. England hailed it as making absolutely secure her policy of preventing European intervention in America ; and the Tsar agreed to move north 250 miles, and to accept the line of 54° 40' for the southern boundary of Russian Alaska. 1 This statement regarding the despotic character of the powers united in the Holy Alliance has, of course, little logical bearing upon any intervention in America to-day by the constitutional monarchies or republics of Europe. 2 This (like the final sentence quoted below) is the diplomatic way of say- ing that we should be justified in regarding such action as a declaration of war. 3 We would not, then, object to England's hold on Canada, or to any just claim she could show to Oregon at that time ; but we would oppose any at- tempt on her part to seize part of Mexico as a war indemnity, in case she should have war with that country, and, logically, we would interpose to pre- vent war itself, unless, in our opinion, justifiable. 4 To conform to this position, which Adams so strongly urged, Monroe modified certain expressions in the message, previously decided upon, which might have implied a possibility of interference by us in the intervention of the Holy Alliance in Spain itself, and in the Greek war for independence. 452 A NEW AMERICANISM, 1815-1829 The thought of this famous message was not novel. Part of it is found in Washington's utterances, and the best of it had been stated repeatedly by Jefferson (§ 253). But the practical application, in 1823, gave it a new significance. From an academic question, it was suddenly lifted into a question of practical international politics. In form, to be sure, the message was merely an expression of opinion by the President. No other branch of the government was asked even to express approval. But the cordial response of the nation, on this and all subsequent occasions, has made the Monroe Doctrine, in truth, the American Doctrine. The only real danger to its permanence is that we so act as to inspire our weaker American brethren with fear that we mean to use its high morality as a shield under cover of which we may ourselves plunder them at will. If it ever becomes probable that the 1 sheep dog wards off the wolves that he himself may have a fuller meal, his function will not long endure. 1 i/ III. NATIONAL POLICIES 278. Internal Improvements. — The Western communities, rising rapidly to political influence, clamored for national aid for roads and canals. To the Cumberland Road (§ 265) the government was already committed. Only twenty miles had been fully completed at the close of the war; but, in 1816, it received an appropriation of $300,000, followed by others as fast as they could be used. By 1820, with a cost of a million and a half, it reached Wheeling, on the upper Ohio waters. Thence, at a total cost of nearly seven millions 2 (carried by thirty-four appropriations from Congress), it was pushed on to Columbus, Indianapolis, and finally to Vandalia (then capital of Illinois). 1 Unhappily, at the moment the Monroe Doctrine was put forth, the United States was hoping eagerly for an opportunity to annex Cuba (special report), while the rising slave power in our government sought to keep that unfortu- nate island from becoming independent, lest it might free its Negroes, as the other Spanish-American States had done. 2 The cost east of Ohio exceeded twice the original " five per cent fund " from Ohio lands. The road was a true national undertaking, — though the fiction of merely " advancing funds " was long maintained, to dodge constitu- tional objections. 453 INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS From the lower waters of the Potomac almost to the Mississippi, cross- ing six States, this noble highway with its white milestones spanned the continent in a long band with few slight bends. The eastern part was formed of crushed stone on a thoroughly prepared foundation ; the west- The National Koad. ern portion was macadamized. It bridged streams on magnificent stone arches, and cut through lines of hills on easy grades. In 1856 (after railroads had superseded such means of transit in importance) Congress turned the road over to the various States in which it lay. For a time the energies set free by peace seemed to promise other vast routes of communication at government expense, — especially as the difficulty of transporting troops and supplies over unimproved roads had just been felt so keenly. The national revenues (with renewal of importations) rose at a leap from 11 to 47 millions. Madison's administration adopted a larger standing army and navy, and the annual expenditure was placed now at 27 millions ; but a large surplus was rolling up. The Message to Congress in December, 1816, renewed Jefferson's suggestion of a constitutional amendment to permit the use of this surplus in a " comprehensive system of roads and canals . . . such as will have the effect of drawing more closely together every part of our country" and of increasing "the share of every part in the common stock of national prosperity." A committee, to which this part of the Message was referred, ignored the suggestion for amendment, and recommended the immediate adoption of a plan for internal improvements copied from Gallatin's report of 1808. Before this report came up for action, the principle was settled in connection with Cal- houn's "Bonus Bill." An Act establishing a new National 454 A NEW AMERICANISM, 1815-1829 Bank 1 secured to the United States a "bonus" of 81,500,000 (for the special privileges of the charter), besides certain shares in future dividends. Calhoun's bill pledged these funds to the construction of roads and canals. To the bitter disappointment of the Young Republicans, on the last day of his term, Madi- son vetoed the bill, in a message which set forth at length the old Jeffersonian doctrine of strict construction. He expressed warm sympathy with the purpose of the Act, but insisted upon the necessity of the slow process of constitutional amendment. Calhoun was still in the nationalistic stage of his development, and he urged his bill on broad grounds. "Let it never be forgotten . . . that [the extent of our republic] exposes us to the greatest of all calamities, next to the loss of liberty itself (and even to that, in its consequences), — disunion. We are greatly and rapidly — I was about to say, fearfully — growing. This is our pride and our danger; our weakness and our strength. . . . We are under the most imperious obligation to counteract every tendency to disunion. ... If we permit a low, sordid, selfish sec- tional spirit to take possession of this House, this happy scene will vanish. We will divide ; and, in consequence, will follow misery and despotism." Whatever impeded intercourse between different parts of the country, he urged forcefully, weakened union. "Let us conquer space. . . . The mails and the press are the nerves of the body politic.' ' He wished the Westerner to be able to read the news of Boston " still moist from the press." Calhoun sought for constitutional authority in the clauses of the Con- stitution relating to post roads and to the regulation of commerce between the States, and even in the general-welfare clause. Merely as a matter of logic, Madison's veto overwhelmed this reasoning. To "establish" post roads, the President argued, meant only to designate, not to build. To regulate commerce against State discriminations did not mean to create commerce by national encouragement. And the general-welfare argu- ment he had no difficulty in consigning to ignominy (§ 204). For a time, national aid languished. President Monroe, in his inaugural and in his one veto, took ground akin to Madi- 1 The charter of the First Bank expired in 1811, and Republican opposition had prevented a renewal at that time. But, in 1816, the new Nationalism dis- regarded former scruples. The bill, championed especially by Calhoun and Clay, received almost a solid vote, and was approved by Madison. This last fact made his veto of the Bonus Bill (below) the more surprising. AA PROTECTIVE TARIFFS 455 ' son's. The enraged Congress retorted with, a remarkable series of resolutions condemning the President's position ; but it did not care to challenge more vetoes, or to make trial of the dubious process of amendment. The accession of John Quincy Adams marked a change of front by the executive. In 1807 Adams had moved in Con- gress the resolution which called out Gallatin's Report ; and now his inaugural announced internal improvements as a car- dinal policy. His first Message urged Congress to multiply roads, endow a National University, and establish an astro- nomical observatory — "a lighthouse of the skies." But Con- gress just then was less enthusiastic. It was broken into bitter factions, most of them hostile to the President; and many States had by this time begun improvements of their own, and did not wish to help pay for competing lines of communication elsewhere. Still Adams' four years show appropriations for such purposes totaling $2,310,000, — more than three times the amount for Monroe's eight years. ^^279. Protective Tariffs. — From 1807 to 1815 the embargo u and the war had prevented the importation of European manu- factures. This condition afforded an artificial "protection " for home manufactures. We had to use up our own raw cotton, wool, and iron, or let them go unused; and we had to supply our own clothing, fabrics, tools, and machinery, or do without. The new demand was met mainly in New England, where much capital and labor, formerly engaged in shipping, was temporarily unemployed. In 1807 New England cotton mills had only 8000 spindles in use (§ 248) ; in 1809 the number was 80,000 ; and, by the close of the war, 500,000, employing 100,000 workers. Woolen and iron manufactures had not grown quite so rapidly ; but they also were well under way. The total capital invested was about a hundred million dollars, — two fifths of it in the cotton industry. Plainly, this manufacturing industry, developed by unnatural conditions, could not sustain itself against restored competition. We could let it die, and permit the capital and labor to find Ifao --/**•*- fat 456 A NEW AMERICANISM, 1815-1829 their way back into other industries (after some period of greater or less demoralization); or we could now "protect" it from foreign competition by law. To do this, we would place high tariffs on foreign goods such as we manufactured. If we adopted this policy of "protection," we should con- tinue to pay more for the articles than if we let them come in, untaxed, from the Old World, where their cost was lower. But, it was urged, we should have more diversified industries, larger city populations, and so more of a home market for our raw materials and for foodstuffs, — and, after a time, even cheaper manufactures (when we should come to do the work efficiently and cheaply), because of the absence of ocean freights. The question of "protection" was not new. Earlier tariffs had been framed to carry "incidental protection" (§ 219) • and Hamilton's famous Beport on Manufactures had argued for a protective tariff. But all such requests had been for taxation in order to create manufactures. It was more effective to call upon Congress to preserve industries into which a national war had driven citizens. Moreover, the war had given special point to Calhoun's patriotic argument that economic independence xoas essential to real political independence. Against the eloquence of Calhoun and Clay, John Randolph raised his voice in almost solitary protest, in behalf of the "consumer." With keen insight, he warned the agricultural masses that they were to pay the bills, and that, in the discussion of future rates, they would never be able to make their needs and opinions felt in Congress as could the small body of interested and influential capitalists. "Alert, vigilant, enter- prising, active, the manufacturing interests are collected . . . ready to associate at a moment's notice for any purpose of general interest to their body. . . . Nay, they are always assembled. They are always on the Rialto ; and Shylock and Antonio meet every day, as friends, and com- pare notes. And they possess, in trick and intelligence, what, in the goodness of God to them, the others can never have." The sentiment for protection was victorious; and, against steadily increasing opposition, it carried three great tariff bills with steadily increasing rates. The Tariff of 1816 was enacted by a tivo-thirds vote as an avowed protective measure. Revenue had become the incident. Imported cottons and woolens were taxed twenty-five per cent, PROTECTIVE TARIFFS 457 and manufactured iron slightly more. But these rates proved too low for their purpose. English warehouses were horribly overstocked with the accumulations of the years during which the markets of the world had been closed to them ; and now these goods were dumped upon America at sacrifice prices. Moreover, in 1819, came the first world-wide industrial depres- sion. In America, the manufacturing interests ascribed this to insufficient " protection," and began to clamor for more. After the first three years, the rate was to be twenty per cent, and the law is often called a twenty per cent tariff ; but that rate never went into effect. A law of 1818 made permanent the twenty-five per cent rate. Moreover, on cheap grades of cloth the rate was really much higher, disguised by the device of a " minimum-price " clause. That is, the bill provided that, for purposes of taxation, no cotton cloth should be valued at less than 25 cents a yard. If the cloth was really worth only 13 cents, the tariff was still Q\ cents, or, in reality, fifty per cent. This effective device for placing the chief tariff burden upon the poorest classes has been much practiced in later tariffs. The American causes for the depression of 1819 resembled those of later "crises." (1) The promise of the tariff itself had caused over-in- vestment in manufactures in the East ; and (2)' in the West there had been reckless over-investment in public lands by thousands of poor immi- grants who were unduly allured by the " credit system " of sale for pub- lic lands (§§ 263, 272, 6). A third cause, which intensified the evil, was the recent multiplication of " wild-cat' ' State banks (after the expira- tion of the first National Bank in 1811), which had loaned money in ex- travagant amounts for both forms of investment mentioned, and for more questionable speculation. When at length these banks found themselves forced to begin to call in their loans, or to close their doors, they spread panic and confusion throughout society. b. The Tariff of 1824 found its leading champion in Clay, who now glorified the protective policy with the name, the American System. The chief opposition in debate came from Webster, who represented a commercial district in Massachu- setts, and who took his stand upon absolute free-trade policy. 1 1 Webster followed the teachings of all " the Fathers," except Hamilton. The Revolution, in no small degree, was fought for the right to trade at will 458 A NEW AMERICANISM, 1815-1829 In general, New England, wavering between manufactures and a return to its old shipping interests, was divided. The South had been almost solid for protection in 1816, but now it was solid in opposition, loudly denying its constitutionality. 1 The bill passed by bare majorities, through the union of the manu- with the world. This fact gave a free-trade tone to our thought for a gen- eration. By 1815, however, even Jefferson and Madison had modified their former views, and for a time inclined to protection. 1 The power to tax, it was argued, was given, plainly, only to raise reve- nue, not to build up manufactures in one part of the country by taxing other PROTECTIVE TARIFFS 459 facturing Middle States and the agricultural West, 1 which hoped to see a home market for its raw materials. The bill repre- ^ ^^^PST^q^ parts. Moreover, it was pointed out that a proposal to give Congress such power was defeated in the Philadelphia Convention. Protectionists replied that they based their constitutional right upon the power to regulate com- merce, not on the power to tax. 1 John Randolph's biting wit found entertainment in this situation : " The merchants and manufacturers of Massachusetts . . . repel this bill, whilst men in hunting-shirts, with deer-skin leggings and moccasins . . . want pro- tection for manufactures." 460 A NEW AMERICANISM, 1815-1829 sented an increase to about 33 per cent ; and, under this stimulus, the capital invested in manufactures trebled in three years. c. Tariff of 1828. Clamor continued for still higher pro- tection, and in four years Congress enacted the "Tariff of Abominations." The measure was engineered largely by men who planned to make Jackson President, and none of the other political leaders dared oppose it on the eve of a presi- dential campaign. Said John Eandolph, " This bill encour- ages manufactures of no sort but the manufacture of a Presi- dent." Webster now changed sides, frankly assigning as his reason that Massachusetts had accepted protection as a settled national policy, and had invested her capital in manufactures accordingly. New England and the South had exchanged posi- tions since the controversy of 18 16. 1 Opponents succeeded in making the bill a hotch-potch, in hope its authors would themselves refuse to swallow it, but in vain. The law raised the average of duties on taxed articles to Jf9 per cent, — far the highest point touched until the " war- tariffs" of the sixties. It gave rise to a new nullification movement (§ 304 ff.). 2 v 280. Judicial Decisions and Nationality. — The period (1816- 1828) is famous for a series of great decisions by the Supreme Court confirming and extending the supremacy of the national government. In particular, these decisions established (1) the authority of the Federal courts to declare void State laics in conflict with a national law, or treaty, or the Constitution ; 1 The South found that slavery shut her out from manufacturing industry, and her agricultural exports could not he sold to advantage unless the United States enjoyed a large and free commerce with other nations. The tariff threatened to shut off such trade. 2 Exercise. — Distinguish between free trade and protection. What is a revenue tariff ? How will the articles taxed in such a tariff differ from those taxed in a "protective tariff" ? If a large revenue is wanted, will it he secured more probably from a high tax on luxuries or a low tax on necessi- ties ? Would people pay willingly a direct tax equivalent to the indirect tax they pay on their morning coffee ? In a tax on necessities, do poor or rich pay most in proportion to their wealth ? THE JUDICIARY 461 (2) the means to enforce this authority by receiving appeals from State courts even when the State itself was a party; (3) a restriction upon State legislatures by an extension of the term "contract" ; and (4) an extension of the power of Congress under the doctrine of " implied powers," especially in acqui- sition of territory, creating corporations, and controlling rivers and other means of interstate commerce. Some details follow, for reading in class. 4L 462 A NEW AMERICANISM, 1815-1829 a. Martin v. Hunt er'' s Lessee {1816). Virginia had refused to permit an appearTronTher highest!5ourTto the national Supreme Court, charging that the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, providing for such appeals (§ 217), was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held the law constitutional, declaring the States and their legislatures bound_by__. the parangO 11 "* authority nf t.hp. Nation b. Cohens v. Virginia {1821). Virginia, in her own courts, had secured judgment against a certain Cohens. Cohens claimed that he had been denied privileges due him under the national Constitution, and that the judgment, therefore, was erroneous ; and he applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of error, to compel the Virginia court to permit an appeal. Chief Justice Marshall and the Court issued the writ, heard the appeal, and reversed the State court, despite the eleventh amendment, holding that, the State having begun the suit, it remained, in reality a — suit by the State against an individual, not by an individual against a State (§ 218), and otherwise confirming the right of appeals from State Courts. The two decisions (a and b, reinforced, too, by others in the same period) established beyond dispute the appellate power of the Federal Court from State Courts in any case M where the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States are drawn in question." x In 1831, indeed, an attempt was made in Congress to repeal the section of the Judiciary Act conferring this appellate power, but the bill mustered less than a fourth of the votes. C <(cS In the Dar£n}puth Collie, case (1819), the Court declared that "tate legislatures could not repeal charterer granted by previous legisla- es, since such grants were "contracts." The decision was secured, is generally held now, not wholly on legal reasoning, but partly by the mpathy of the Court for the noble little college, by Daniel Webster's eloquence in its behalf, and by great outside pressure. Cf. § 208, c. @ Gibbons y. Ogden (1824). New York had rewarded Fulton and Livingstone (§ 264) with a grant of a monopoly of the navigation of the Hudson by steam vessels for a period of years. The Supreme Court de clared the grant void, as conflicting with the power of the United States to regulate commerce. Thus "commerce" in the Constitution, was widened from the mere exchange of goods to transportation by water, — and of course by land, and, in time, to communication by telegraph. 1 Observe, in 1893 the Supreme Court had declared imconstitutional an- other section of this same law of 1789, — and a section giving power to itself. Now it was in good position, after such a precedent, to declare constitutional a section of that law giving to it a more important power= : ? THE JUDICIARY 463 g) McCulloch v. Ma rylan d {1819). A branch of the National Bank had been established in Maryland. The State banks were incensed, and the legislature tried to drive out the National Bank by taxing it ruinously. McCulloch, officer of the Bank, resisted the tax. The Maryland courts upheld it, denying the right of Congress to charter a Bank, since no such power was "enumerated" in the Constitution; but, on writ of error, (& above), the national Supreme Court (1) held the National law constitu- tional under the doctrine~oJ 7mp7?^r"poMJe?s7'and (2) declared the State law void because conflicting with a National law. 2 It was in strengthen- ing his position for this argument that Marshall revived the idea that "The people of the United States^" (in the preamble to the Constitution) meant one consolidated people. Cf. § 211. . ( ^ IV. BREAK-UP OF THE ERA 281. Party replaced by Faction. — The Federalists had been galvanized into life by the embargo and the war (§ 267, note) ; but in 1816 they cast only 35 electoral votes, none in 1820, and in 1824 they made no nominations. The old party lines had disappeared practically by 1820. In consequence, the period 1 Congress and President had acted previously, at times, on this doctrine; but this was the first judicial decision affirming the constitutionality of stich action. Chief Justice Marshall found the power to charter a bank a " neces- sary and proper" power in connection with the power to raise money and use it. The language defining " necessary and proper," and explaining " implied powers," is notable. " Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, — and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to the end, and which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional" (cf. §§ 204, b, 207, b, 217, 222, close). A later decision (Anderson v. Dunn, 1824) used even stronger language : " There is not in the whole of that admirable instrument a grant of powers which does not draw after it others, not expressed hut vital . . . not . . . independent, but auxiliary and subordinate. The idea is Utopian that govern- ment can exist without leaving the exercise of discretion somewhere." 2 In the %ases previously noticed, a State law had been voided only when in conflict with the Constitution. Opposition to the Bank appeared also in Kentucky and Ohio, and the Supreme Court had other opportunities in the next few years (of which it took advantage) to repeat and reinforce this doc- trine. The student should read the striking story of the Ohio case in McMaster, IV, 498 ff. Review, also, § 207, a. During this period the Court declared void laws of eleven of the twenty-four States. 464 REACTION AGAINST NATIONALISM has been miscalled an " Era of Good Feeling." In reality, it became an era of exceeding bad feeling among factions actuated by personal aims rather than by political principles. This became apparent in the campaign of 1824. Crawford of Georgia was nominated for the presidency by a Congressional caucus (§ 227 and note), which, however, was attended by less than a third of the members. Legislatures in the New Eng- land States nominated John Quincy Adams ; and in like fash- ion, Clay was nominated by Kentucky and Missouri, and Andrew Jackson by Tennessee and Pennsylvania. Jackson's candidacy was a surprise and an offense to the other statesmen of the period. He was a "military hero," and, to their eyes at that time, nothing more. 1 The campaign was marked by bitter personalities. Adams, whose forbidding manners kept him aloof from the multitude, was derided as an aristocrat, while Jackson was applauded as a "man of the people." Jackson had 99 votes; Adams, 84; Crawford, 41; Clay, 37. Thus (twelfth amendment) the House of Representatives had to choose between the three highest, and Adams became Presi- dent, through votes thrown to him by Clay. Adams afterward appointed Clay his Secretary of State ; and friends of Jackson declared that the " will of the people " had been thwarted by a "corrupt coalition between Puritan and blackleg." 2 Adams was thwarted at every turn throughout his four years, and the Jackson men began at once the campaign for the next election. New party lines began to appear. Sup- porters of Adams and Clay, standing for internal improve- ments and protection, took the name of National Republicans, ' 1 Never before had a man been a candidate for that office without long and distinguished service behind him. Moreover, a sort of succession had been established. Until after the twelfth amendment the Vice President had been considered the natural heir; after that time, the Secretary of State. Madi- son had succeeded Jefferson ; Monroe, Madison; Adams was next in line. 2 It was thought, unjustly, that Adams and Clay had bargained. The quoted phrase was John Randolph's. Clay challenged Randolph, and a duel was fought without injury to any one. Honor thus appeased, pleasant social relations were restored between the two, POLITICAL FACTIONS 465 to signify their centralizing tendencies; while Jackson men emphasized their claim to a truer democracy by the name Democratic Republicans, or, a little later, Democrats. 282. Reaction against Nationalism. — In the years just fol- lowing the War of 1812, Nationalism had seemed triumphant in every part of the Union. But so vital a change could not become permanent at a stroke ; and by 1820 reaction appeared, (1) in intensified sectionalism and (2) in a revival of State sovereignty. These elements of disunion were now most active in the South; and the two main causes were (1) dread of economic loss through protective tariffs, and (2) fear for the institution of slavery. After 1820, the tendency to State sovereignty manifested itself also in widespread denunciation of the great nationalistic decisions of the Su- preme Court (§280). Southern political writers, in particular, piled pamphlet upon pamphlet of strenuous criticism ; and nearly half the State governments protested or resisted some judicial decree. Ohio collected by force an unconstitutional tax from the National Bank, and held it six years (§ 280, e, note). Virginia made formal protest against the doctrine of the Court in Cohens v. Virginia. And Georgia nullified a treaty made by the Federal government with the Southern Indians within her borders, and threatened war if the treaty (backed by Supreme Court decisions) were enforced. 1 Assertion of State sovereignty has always been a refuge for a minor- ity feeling itself aggrieved by a national policy. The effect of the pro- tective tariffs in calling out this sort of response in the South (already referred to) will be treated later (§ 304 ff.). The development of sec- tionalism was hastened by a contest over slavery (§ 283). 283. The Missouri Compromise. — From the first, a careful balance had been maintained between free and slave States 1 " Georgia and State sovereignty " should be a subject for a special report, though the teacher may prefer to defer it until it may include the continu- ation in Jackson's period. On the whole subject of State hostility to the Federal judiciary, see Turner's New West, 299-305, or, more fully, McMaster, V, 412 ff . Details for Georgia are given in Dr. Phillipps' article in the Amer- ican Historical Association Reports for 1901, vol. II. 466 REACTION AGAINST NATIONALISM in admitting new commonwealths. Vermont offset Kentucky ; Ohio, Tennessee (§ 224). Louisiana (1812) made the number of free and slave States just equal ; but the free States grew so much faster in population that by 1820 (under the three- fifths rule) they had the larger number of representatives in the lower - House of Congress by a fourth. The South grew increasingly sensitive over this situation; and, on the other hand, a tide of antislavery feeling was rising in the North. Missouri had been settled mainly through Kentucky, with STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND SECTIONALISM 467 many slaveholders among its people. In 1819 a bill for its admission to the Union came before Congress. The proposed State lay north of the line of the Ohio, which, with Mason and Dixon's line, divided free and slave territory east of the Mississippi. The North ronsed itself to insist on maintaining that same line west of the river, -and meetings and legislative resolutions protested against admission with slavery. The South protested quite as vehemently against any restriction upon the wishes and rights of the Missouri people. The House of Representatives, by a majority of one vote, added 468 REACTION AGAINST NATIONALISM an amendment to the bill, prohibiting slavery in the proposed State. The Senate struck out this " Tallmadge amendment," 1 and the bill failed for that session. No one yet denied the constitutional power of Congress to forbid or regulate slavery in the Territories, but many Northerners, even, denied the right of Congress to impose restrictions upon a new State — so as to make it less " sovereign " than older States. At the next session of Congress, the Maine district of 1 Introduced by James Tallmadge of New York. STATE SOVEREIGNTY AND SECTIONALISM 469 Massachusetts was also an applicant for admission as a new State. The House passed both bills, restoring the Tallmadge amendment for Missouri. The Senate put the two bills into one (in order to coerce the North), and substituted for the Tall- madge prohibition of slavery the Missouri Compromise o/1820. Missouri was to be admitted, with permission to establish slavery, but no other slave State should be formed out of exist- ing national domain north of the southern boundary of Mis- souri {36° SO^jT After a sharp struggle, the House accepted this compromise. But when Missouri presented its constitution for approval, it was found to prohibit the immigration of free Negroes. This was a denial to citizens of other States rights guaranteed in the Constitution (Art. IV, sec. 1). Again Congress was in a furor. But Henry Clay arranged a minor com- promise, by which the objectionable provision was modified. [The greater part of the Louisiayia Purchase was saved for Freedom, and the policy of the Northwest Ordinance was reas- serted.) But sectional passions had been aroused, never again to sleep until after the Civil War. Soon Southern dissatisfac- tion was fanned to flame by the " tariff of abominations." But at this critical moment the election of Jackson (1828) gave hope of relief. Jackson received every electoral vote south of the Potomac and west of the Appalachians, besides those of New York and Pennsylvania. He was a Southerner by birth, arid a citizen of the Southwest. He was a violent pro- slavery man, and he was supposed to have State sovereignty sympathies. For Further Reading. — The closing chapters in Babcock's Bise of American Nationality (186-308) and Turner's Bise of the New West present the story of the period in the "American Nation" series. The closing volume of Henry Adams' great History is admirable for the first part of the period. McMaster is referred to frequently in the footnotes above, but, as usual, is too voluminous for general reference, though exceedingly graphic for this period. Excellent biographies (titles in Appendix) of Clay, Calhoun, Adams, and Webster should be read so far as they pertain to this period. CHAPTER XIII A NEW DEMOCRACY, 1830-1850 I. THE NEW SOCIETY j A. The New West \ 284. The Revolution of 1828, marked by the election of Andrew Jackson, was as significant as was that of 1800. A new generation had come upon the stage, and, indeed, upon a new stage. Jackson's victory was the victory of the new West over the old East, and, in the East itself, the victory of a newly enfranchised and awakened labor class over the classes which had formerly dominated society and politics. It was the victory of a new radical democracy, untrained, administered by " men of the people," over the moderate democracy of Jefferson, admin- istered by trained, leisured, and cultured "gentlemen." Once more we pause to survey a new United States, — that of the years 1830-1850. Population was still mainly of English stock, descended from pre- Revolutionary settlers (§§ in, 272 a). Between 1800 and 1830 it had increased from five and one third to thirteen millions, with a third, instead of a twentieth, west of the mountains. The total area and the "settled area" had each been doubled. Thirty-two cities (almost all in the North Atlantic section) had each a population of over eight thou- sand ; and this " urban " population had begun to gain upon the rural, though it had risen, so far, only from five per cent of the whole to seven. Two million of the people were slaves and a third of a million more were free Negroes — about half this last class in the North. The large cities in 1830 were NjjwJ^oj-k (203,000), Philadelphia (167,000), Baltimore (80,000), Boston (61,000), and New Orleans, with its old population of about 46,000. The Southern cities were falling behind, relatively ; and the West had not begun to grow towns in any number. Cincinnati was the only city of over three thousand people in the oldest State in the Northwest. 470 THE NEW WEST 471 285. The three sections require brief description. a. The North-Atlantic section, though still largely agricultural and commercial, had become also a manufacturing district. New England utilized the water power of her streams, by dams, for her cotton, woolen, and paper mills, — building up a new line of towns (the Fall line) at Lowell, Manchester, Lawrence, Holyoke, Fall River, etc.; while Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York accomplished even greater results in the same direction by the use of " stone coal " (anthracite). The New England factory towns were at first made up largely of the old farming population, moved in from the country. At Lowell, for in- stance, the employees in the cotton mills were almost exclusively farmers' daughters, who, after working fourteen hours a day in a factory, had still (for one generation) physical and intellectual energy for literary clubs and social activities. 1 In the thirties, however, these workers began to be replaced by immigrants fresh from Ireland. Then the sons and daughters of New England turned their faces westward. Especially after 1840 did they colonize the northern portions of Indiana and Illinois, making, also, in the early day, the chief element in the frontier common- wealths of Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. b. The South had become stationary in politics and in- dustry, and it grew only by slow degrees in population. The retarding influence of slavery upon economic development was plain to unprejudiced observers; but existing industries (tobacco and cotton) were based chiefly on that institution, and the South had begun to cherish it more blindly than in 1 Lucy Larcom's A Nevj England Girlhood pictures this society. I have also heard it described vividly by a valued friend, an old lady of strong- char- acter and fine culture, and of valued service to public education in a progres- sive State, who was herself a Lowell factory girl in the forties. At 4 :30 a.m. the bell summoned the workers from their beds. At five they must be within the mills, and the gates were closed. With a half hour later, for breakfast, and forty-five minutes for "dinner," the labor continued till 7 p.m. The manufacturing company provided plain lodgings and arrangements for cheap board at $1.50 per week. Skillful workers (paid by the piece) might earn that and possibly as much more. Churches and lectures and all the town's social activities arranged their meetings late enough in the evening to be attended by these eager working girls. The girls wrote, edited, and published a peri- odical of considerable literary merit. 472 JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY earlier years. Society was stratified as it no longer was in other parts of the country. (1) At the top were some six thousand families (25,000 or 30,000 peo- ple) of large planters, with numerous slaves, — sometimes a thousand to one owner. This aristocracy furnished the South's representation in the National government and almost all the higher State officials. (2) A hundred and thirty thousand families (650,000 people.) owned perhaps from one to four slaves each. These small slaveholders, with about as many more non-slaveholding but well-to-do farmers, made up the yeo- manry of the South, from whom were to come her famous soldiery. This class often differed from the aristocracy in political motives and aims ; but it lacked leaders, and it had no organization from State to State. (3) The "poor whites" without other property than a miserable cabin and a rough clearing, outnumbered the yeomanry two to one. 1 This class made the political following of the rich planters. (4) The 180,000 free Negroes were subject to oppressive legal restrictions, and had, of course, no political rights. They could not serve on juries ; nor were they allowed to move from place to place at will, or to receive any education. (c) Tlie New West of the Mississippi valley gave two more States to the Union in the decade following 1830, and doubled its population 7— while the country as a whole added only a third. Ohio added 70 per cent ; Indiana, 100 per cent ; Illi- nois trebled in numbers ; and Michigan multiplied her 32,000 people by seven. 2 The student must beware of classing the Mississippi of 1830 as M Southern," or Illinois as " Northern." Those terms then applied, in society and politics, only to the divisions of the Atlantic States. The country had three sections, — North, South, and West. During the next twenty years, however, the difference between the two systems of labor, free and slave, in its northern and southern portions split the West also into two sections, — which then merged with the corresponding Atlantic sections. In 1850 there were only two sections to the Union, — a North and a South. 1 These two classes are sometimes confused. 2 Arkansas was admitted in 1836, and Michigan in 1837. "What is indicated by the varying increase in the four States named ? The student should here review, for western society and growth, §§ 166, 185, 263, and especially 272, 273, THE NEW WEST 473 The Westerners of 1830 were developing a new American type — to remain the dominant one for two generations: tall, gannt men, adventurous and resolute, of masterful temper, daunted by no emergency. For a time, like their Southern ancestry, they lacked the education of books, and were easily subject to unreasoning prejudices. They were sometimes given, too, to fits of listless idleness, though capable, on occa- sion, of fierce energy and terrible intensity. Happily, the New England immigration of the thirties and forties infused a leaven of steadfast habits, regular industry, and high idealism. 286. One Source of American Democracy. — The West was democratic and self-confident. It believed in the worth of the common man, and in his capacity. Its chief habits of mind were a rude and wholesome optimism and an impatience of the claims of authority. With ardent patriotism it revered the old names of American history ; but in practice it repudiated the political ideals of Winthrop and Washington, Hamilton and Adams. Already the West had become " the most American part of. America." Here, in its especial home, the new nation thrilled most keenly with the flush of assured success. Here it showed best its raw youth, unpolished, but sound at heart; crude, ungainly, lacking the poise and repose and dignity of older societies, but buoyantly self-assured, throbbing with rude vigor, grappling unconcernedly with impossible tasks, getting them done somehow, and dreaming overnight of vaster ones for the morrow. Some small embarrassment it felt for its temporary ignorance of books and art; but it exulted boastfully in its mastery of nature and its daring social experiments, and it appealed, with sure faith, to the future to add the refinements and graces of life. All this boastfulness provoked natural criticism ; but it was the well-justified "American propensity to look forward to the future " for whatever it lacked in the present that partic- ularly amused the many supercilious and superficial English travelers of the day. These prejudice-blinded gentlemen 474 JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY delighted in portraying, with microscopic detail, skin-deep blemishes of American society ; but they failed utterly to see the most amazing spectacle of all history spread before their eyes: — a nation in the making; occupying and subduing a rebellious continent; felling forests, plowing prairies, clear- ing the rivers, hewing out roads ; founding farms and towns and commonwealths ; solving off-hand grave economic prob- lems, wastefully sometimes, but effectively for the purpose; and inventing and working out, on a gigantic scale, new and progressive principles of society and government. " You can't write books," carped the visitor. " We're busy just now," shouted the West over its shoulder, " but just wait till we get this bridge built, those prairies farmed, that new constitution framed." In 1820, Sidney Smith closed his tirade in the Edinburgh Beview with the famous passage : " Who, in the four quarters of the globe, reads an American hook ? or goes to an American play ? or looks at an American painting or statue ? . . . What new substances have their chemists dis- covered ? . . . Who drinks out of American glasses ? or eats from Amer- ican plates ? ... or sleeps in American blankets ? " To this charge, which the next twenty years were to make stupendously ridiculous, the North American Beview replied with the customary defense, — the appeal to the future. This resulted in more ridicule. "Others," laughed the English reviewer, "claim honor because of things done by a long line of ancestors : an American glories in the achievements of a dis- tant posterity. . . . Others appeal to history ; an American appeals to prophecy. ... If a traveller complains of the inns and hints a dislike for sleeping four in a bed, he . . . is told to wait a hundred years and see the superiority of American inns over British. If Shakspere, Milton, Newton, are mentioned, he is told again, ' Wait till we have cleared our land, till we have idle time, wait till 1900, and then see how much nobler our poets and profounder our philosophers and longer our telescopes, than any your decrepit old hemisphere will produce.' " That the retort might not seem so amusing "in 1900" never occurred to the English humorist, — "or that there was quite as much sense in taking pride in descendants (whom we will have some share in fashioning) as in ances- tors, who have only fashioned us. 1 1 Almost the only European visitor who appreciated the magnificent scene in America was the Frenchman, Tocqueville (§198, note). Even Charles AWAKENING OF LABOR 475 B. The Awakening of Labor, 1825-1837. **m 287. The Second Factor in Democratic Progress. — The laboring classes, organized in " mechanics' associations," x had been largely re- sponsible for the growth toward democracy in Revolutionary days, and indeed for the Revolution itself. This fact, together with the too com- mon tendency to ignore our debt, has been noted. Still deeper is our debt to labor regarding the social and political movements summed up under the name Jacksonian Democracy. That upheaval has been com- monly explained almost exclusively, on the political side, by reference to the farmers of the West with leaders like Clay and Jackson, and, on the social side, by reference to a humanitarian movement in the higher cir- cles of Eastern society with leaders like Horace Mann. These were real causes. But it is now proven that underlying them, and vitalizing them, was a mightier force, — the labor movement of the day, organized in "trade associations " and u Trades' Unions." Conclusive and voluminous evidence of this fact is collected in the recent Documentary History of American Industrial Society. 2 This publica- tion compels a radical recasting of the traditional history of American progress during the middle half of the nineteenth century. Henceforth, history must portray the development of the democratic free school (in place of "pauper schools "), the preemption and homestead features of our public land policy, even the political agitation for manhood suffrage, Dickens, whom America loved, saw chiefly the spittoons and the hurry at lunch counters (Martin Chuzzlewit and American Notes). Englishmen paid dearly for this flippant blindness by the rancor stirred in American hearts, which unhappily persisted long after England frankly confessed her error and tried to atone. One anecdote by Tocqueville to illustrate the new jovial democracy of the "common people" should be familiar to all students for its deeper meanings. In a crowded assembly certain dignitaries were trying to force a way through. " Make way there," they cried, " we are the representatives of the people." " Make way yourselves," came back the retort, " We are the people." 1 These associations were political only ; not industrial. 2 Ten octavo volumes (some 4000 pages) edited by John R. Commons, in association with four other scholars, and completed in 1910. The work should be accessible in every high school library. Volumes V and VI (edited by Dr. Commons and Helen L. Sumner), Labor Movements from 1820 to 1840, are especially valuable ; and the two following volumes hardly less so. The passages quoted in fine print in the following paragraphs, unless otherwise in- dicated, come from Vol. V, pp. 55-62 and 195-197. 476 JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY and still more the general movement for the recognition of human rights as superior to property rights, as all due primarily to the long-forgotten labor unions of the late twenties and the thirties. 1 288. Retrograde Conditions. — So long as labor had remained almost wholly agricultural, there had been little opportunity " for organization in order to raise wages and improve conditions. And there had been little need. The presence of free land at the door gave farm laborers a better leverage. Moreover, under the " domestic system," strikes had been infrequent even in manufacturing industries and in the trades. Each " master " worked side by side with his journeymen and apprentices, sharing all their hard conditions ; and each of the employees expected in time to become employer and " master." Hours of labor, it is true, were excessive, and wages were low ; but this was mainly because, in the dearth of machinery, labor produced little surplus wealth. There had been no sharp division between capital and labor, and no distinct and permanent labor class. But between 1800 and 1825, these conditions changed rapidly, — and not to the advantage of the workers. The mass of hired labor shifted from agriculture to the trades and manu- factures. The growth of cities (in which these industries more and more were concentrated) crowded the poorer population into squalid and unwholesome tenements, under conditions of destitution, disease, vice, and crime, — against which neither science nor law had begun to guard. The growth of machinery multiplied wealth, but left the increase almost ivholly in the hands of a new capitalist class, made up of large manufacturers, speculators, and "money kings." Wages had risen nominally; but really they had fallen, because they had risen less rapidly, by far, than prices. Child labor was a terrible abuse, as yet unchecked by law. Hours of toil remained ruinously long. 1 Ordinarily, a text-book is not the place to emphasize novel views. But in this all-important matter, it seems imperative to present this obligation of America (now thoroughly proven) in stronger and truer perspective than was possible to any general work before the appearance of the epoch-making Doc- umentary History. AWAKENING OF LABOR 477 In the trades (such as carpentry) men worked generally from sunrise to sunset, or even " from dark to dark," and the new- factory system ground even the children with a monotonous toil of from thirteen to fifteen hours a day. Meanwhile the old leverage of free land was lost. Land in the vicinity of the Eastern centers of population was no longer " free." The public domain in the West did afford refuge to individuals of self-reliance, and of some little capital ; but to the average work- man in the East, especially with a family, it seemed inaccessible from distance and expense, and still more from those legal un- certainties which were soon to be removed by our preemption and homestead laws (§§ 317, 367, 376). Professor Richard T. Ely wrote many years ago {Labor Movement in America, 49) : "The length of actual labor [in 1832] in . . . the Eagle Mill at Griswold (Connecticut) was fifteen hours and ten minutes. The regulations at Patterson, New Jersey, required women and children to be at work at half-past four in the morning. . . . Operatives were taxed by the companies for the support of religion. . . . Women and children were urged on by the use of the cowhide." We know now that such conditions were not exceptional : they were the rule. In the Massachusetts legislature of 1825, a committee on education tabulated replies from the mayor and aldermen of all Massachusetts factory towns regarding hours of labor for children and their opportunities for schooling. The report seems never to have been published. No doubt the replies were as favorable as shame, or local pride, could make them ; but no town claimed less than eleven hours of steady work per day for children (from six to seventeen years old) , and only two reported so short a day. The usual ." sun to sun " day was frankly reported in many cases ; and in others it was glossed by such phrases as "all day," "twelve hours," or "thirteen hours." Seekunk reported that its child operatives "work twelve hours; Some may get eight weeks' Schoolg." Waltham failed to state the hours of labor, but said " As much oppy for Schoolg as can be ex- pected " (t) Bellingham honestly reported, " Work twelve hours pr day. No oppy for School except by employg substitutes." [For this long labor day meant every day in the year, save Sundays, be it remembered, except in a few places where conditions made it more profitable to close the factories for some eight weeks of the winter.] Southbridge reported " Average twelve hours. These children are better off than their neigh- bors" (!) Boston said concisely, "No Schoolg." Fall River, with un- conscious irony, stated, " Work all day. There are good public and / 478 JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY private S. and a free Sunday School." The committee's very cautious and timid summary reads: "It appears that the time of employment is generally twelve or thirteen hours each day, excepting the Sabbath, which leaves little time for daily instruction (!) Regard is paid to the instruc- tion of these Juvenile laborers as opportunity permits, but some further legislative provisions may hereafter become necessary, that the children who at a future day are to become proprietors of these establishments, or at least greatly to influence their affairs, may not be subjected to too great devotion to pecuniary interest at the risk of more than an equivalent injury in the neglect of intellectual improvement." It is interesting to compare with this cowardly glossing of horrible con- ditions the temperate but comprehensive statement by " Many Operatives " in the Mechanics' 1 Free Press for August 21, 1830, regarding children in the Philadelphia factories : — " It is a well-known fact that the principal part of the helps in cotton factories consist of boys and girls, we may safely say from six to seventeen years of age, and [i.e. who] are confined to steady employment during the longest days of the year, from daylight until dark, allowing at the outside one hour and a half per day [for meals] . . . and that too with a small sum that is hardly sufficient to support nature, while [the employers] on the other hand are rolling in wealth off the vitals of these poor children. We noticed the observation of our Pawtucket friend in your number of June 19, lamenting the grievances of the children employed in those factories. We think his observation very correct, with regard to their being brought up as ignorant as Arabs of the Desert ; for we are confident that not more than one-sixth of the boys and girls employed in such factories are capable of reading or writing their own name. We have known many instances where parents who are capable of giving their children a trifling education, one at a time, [have been] deprived of that opportunity by their employers' threats that if they did take one child from their employ, a short time, for school, such family must leave the employment . . . and we have even known such threats put in execu- tion. . . . "! 1 The communication expresses indignation at the retort of an employer that legislation to shorten the factory day " would be an infringement on the rights of the people," and queries significantly " whether this individual, or the number employed by him, is the people." The writers were overcon- scious of their lack of fluent expression : "We see the evil that follows the system of long labor much better than we can express it ; but we hope our weak endeavors -may not prove ineffectual. We must acknowledge our inability prevents us from expressing our sentiment fluently, at present, but we hope to appear again in a more correct manner." AWAKENING OF LABOR 479 In 1832, in consequence of these and like complaints, there met at Bos- ton a convention of Ne,w England Mechanics and Workingmen, which organized an Association with provision for local branches in any manu- facturing village, and with a detailed constitution. Members, except farmers, pledged themselves to work not more than ten hours a day (except for extra pay). A committee on education reported at length. Various "fair specimens of the general state of things " are enumerated. 1 Then the summary continues : — " The children . . . employed in manufactories constitute about two fifths of the whole number of persons employed. ... On a general average the youth and children . . . are compelled to labor at least thirteen and a half, perhaps fourteen, hours per day, factory time. And in addition to this, there are about twenty or twenty-five minutes added, by reason of that time being slower than the true solar time [work be- gan by the sun time, appearance of light, and closed by the factory clock, at eight], thus making a day of labor to consist of at least four- teen hours, winter and summer, out of which is allowed, on an average not to exceed one hour for rest and refreshment. Your committee also learn that in general no child can be taken from a Cotton Mill, to be placed at school, for any length of time, however short, without certain loss of employ. . . . Nor are parents, having a number of children in a mill, allowed to withdraw one or more without withdrawing the whole, — for which reason, as such children are generally the offspring of parents whose poverty has made them entirely dependent on the will of their employers, they are very seldom taken from the mills to be placed in school. ... It is with regret that your committee are absolutely forced to the conclusion that the only opportunities allowed to children gener- ally, employed in manufactories, to obtain an education, are on the Sab- bath and after half-past 8 o'clock of the evening of other days. [Lowell is noted as an " honorable" exception, since there no children are admitted to the mills under twelve years of age. ] Your committee can- not, therefore, without the violation of a solemn trust, withhold their unanimous opinion that the opportunities allowed to children employed in manufactories to obtain an education suitable to the character of 1 For instance, Hope Factory (Rhode Island) is stated to " ring the first bell at ten minutes before the break of day, the second bell te% minutes after the first, in five minutes after which all hands are to be at their labor. The time for shutting the gates at night, as signal for labor to cease, is eight o'clock by the factory time, which is from twenty to twenty-five minutes behind the true time. And the only respite from labor during the day is twenty-five minutes at breakfast, and the same number at dinner." 480 JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY American freeman, and to the wives and mothers of such, are altogether inadequate to the purpose ; that the evils complained of are unjust and cruel ; and are no less than the sacrifice of the dearest interests of thou- sands of the rising generation to the cupidity and avarice of their em- ployers. And they can see no other result in prospect . . . from such practices, than generation on generation reared up in profound ignorance, and the final prostration of their liberties at the shrine of a powerful aristocracy." The committee concludes by recommending as follows : — " Besolved, that a committee of vigilance be appointed in each State represented in this convention, whose duty it shall be to collect and pub- lish facts respecting the condition of laboring men, women, and children, and abuses practiced on them by their employers ; that it shall also be the duty of said committees, as soon as may be, to get up memorials to the Legislatures of their respective States, praying for the regulation of the hours of labor, according to the standard adopted by this Associa- tion, and for wholesome regulations with regard to the education of chil- ly dren and youth employed in manufactories." |y^"T89. "Unions," Strikes, and Politics. — Labor "unions" appeared in America before 1800, but chiefly as " benevolent," or "mutual insurance," associations. Soon after 1800, the newspapers notice "combinations of capitalists" to raise prices. In imitation, the labor combinations began to " strike " in order to raise wages. Between 1802 and 1807, New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Baltimore each had one or more such strikes. At first, the leaders were promptly arrested, and punished sternly by the courts, for "conspiracy " — under the odious principles of the English Common Law. But in Baltimore, in 1807, the striking tailors threatened to tar and feather any lawyer who should take part in a prosecution ; and none was undertaken. Then, in 1825, a New York jury de- stroyed the terror of such trials for a time by awarding a fine of "one dollar" for the "crime" of "conspiring to raise wages." Advanced thinkers, like William Ellery Channing or Hor- ace Mann, saw and said that the labor question was the ques- tion of human welfare. In general, however, the " respectable classes" still regarded all labor unions as iniquitous and revolutionary j and in Boston a " combination " of merchants AWAKENING OF LABOR 481 publicly announced that their " union " had pledged itself to drive the shipwrights, caulkers, and gravers of that city to abandon u unions " or to starve, and that they had subscribed $ 20,000 for the purpose. The press was bitterly hostile ; and not till 1842 did the courts of any State recognize for laborers the same rights of organization and collective bargaining as were then possessed without question by employers. In that year the Massachusetts supreme court, in the celebrated Jour- neymen Bootmakers' Case, first upheld the legality of labor organizations to maintain advanced wages "by rules binding solely on members." In 1825 George Henry Evans and Frederick W. Evans (recent English immigrants) began at New York the publica- tion of the Working-man 1 s Advocate, the first labor paper in America ; and in 1827 appeared the Mechanics' Free Press at Philadelphia (§ 288). From 1825, too, dates a rapid multipli- cation of " unions " and a twelve-year period of strenuous labor war. In every large city the various trades succeeded in organizing. At first, each "trade-association" was local; and one trade had no connection with another of the same city. But in 1828 a more significant movement began, with the organization in Philadelphia of the " Mechanics' Union of Trade-Associations," — a federation of the various trade-associa- tions of the city. 1 Here, for the first time, was a definite labor- class movement. Said the Mechanics 1 Free Press of its first meeting : — " This is the first time that workingmen have attempted in public meeting to inquire whether they possess, as individuals or as a class, any- right to say by whom they shall be governed." In 1833 this advanced form of federation 2 spread rapidly 1 This Union of Trades grew out of general labor sympathy for the carpen- ter journeymen in an unsuccessful strike for a ten-hour day. 2 Terms have shifted. The appropriate name, Trades' Union, has been corrupted into "trade-union" for the name of the association of workers in one trade ; and consequently the more general union has had to seek new names, — such as Trades' Assembly, or Trades' Couneil. 482 JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY New York had its General Trades' Union 1 in that year and the like was soon true of the remaining large cities. Such a federation held considerable authority over the several local unions which composed it. It usually maintained a Trades' Union hall, with courses of public lectures and a labor paper, and it took an active part in supporting strikes (when approved by it) from the general treasury and by public meetings. In 1834 came the third stage in labor organization (and the final stage for this period). The various city Trades' Unions organized a national federation. This "republic of labor" held conventions in 1834, 1835, 1836, and 1837 ; but the organ- ization was imperfect, 2 and in 1837 it was ingulfed, with the rest of the labor movement, for that time, in the industrial depression that followed the panic (§ 313). 290. Political Action. — Recent extension of the franchise had made voters out of the mechanics (§ 299) ; and, from the first, the labor organizations turned to political activity. On August 11, 1828, the Philadelphia Trades' Union, at a public meeting, recommended " to the Mechanics and Working Men of the city to support such men only for the City Councils and State Legislature, as shall have pledged themselves ... to support the interests and claims of the Working Classes." It proceeded to arrange for a delegate convention to form a ticket for the coming elections, " without regard to party poli- tics." In October, the " Delegates of the Working Men " sent a circular letter to fourteen candidates for the legislature (for which seven members were to be chosen) "to obtain your views in relation to the following subjects : — ■ " First. An equal and general system of Education. "Second. The banking system, and all other exclusive monopolies (§ 309). 1 Growing out of a successful carpenters' strike for higher wages, a contest in which the carpenters had been supported actively by other trades. 2 Comparison with § 450 will bring out the difference between this early federation and the present " American Federation of Labor." AWAKENING OF LABOR 483 " Third. Lotteries, whether a total abolishment of them is not essential to the moral as well as to the pecuniary interest of society. ' ' * Attempts at wider organization followed in various places. In 1830 the Syracuse convention organized the Workingman's Party for New York. Its candidate for governor received only 3000 votes; but in New York City the party elected Ely Moore (president of the New York Trades' Union) to Congress for two terms (1832, 1834), and three labor candidates were chosen to the legislature. In 1831 the New England Associa- tion of Farmers, Mechanics, and Other Workingmen held a con- vention in Boston which declared for " the organization of the whole laboring population " in order to revise " our social and political system," hoping "to imbue . . . our offspring with . . . abhorrence for the usurpations of aristocracy . . . so . . . that they shall dedicate their lives to a completion of the work which their ancestors commenced in their struggle for national, and their sires have continued in their contest for personal, independence." And in 1834, in far-away eastern Tennessee, a similar labor party brought the tailor Andrew Johnson into public life as alderman in a mountain village. The larger political parties began eagerly to bid for the labor vote ; and helped, bit by bit, to enact much of its program into law. In New York, one wing of the rising Democratic Party (under the name of Loco-Focos, or the "Equal Eights Party " 2 ) was particularly friendly, and, in 1835, it absorbed bodily the Workingman's Party, which had thrown itself heart- ily into the support of Jackson against the " money power " 1 The circular continues : "Upon the important subject of Education we wish most distinctly to understand whether you do, or do not, consider it essential to the welfare of the rising generation, That an open school, and competent teachers, for every child in the State, from the lowest branch of an infant school to the lecture rooms of practical science, should be established, and those to superintend them to be chosen by the people. ... If your views should be in accordance with the interests of those we represent, we request you to allow us to place your name on our Ticket." 2 The Loco-Focos, like the Workingman's Party, opposed all special privileges and monopolies, like the United States Bank (§ 309). 484 JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY (§§ 309, 340). Soon after the labor organizations in other States were lost in the fully developed Democratic Party. For some years that party remained in large degree a working- man's party. When it surrendered to the Slave Power, the remnants of the labor forces made a leading element in the various Liberty and Free Soil parties (§§338, 345 ff.) ; but the movement for a distinct labor organization did not revive until after the Civil War. 291. Aims of Labor. — This early labor movement was not a factory movement, though it felt much sympathy for the help- less women and children in the factories. It was essentially a mechanics' movement. The division of feeling at first was not between employer and employee, but rather between work- ers and the idle rich or the unproductive speculator. The growth of a new speculative system in business (as, for in- stance, in the building trade with the rapid growth of cities), made master and journeymen alike feel themselves the victims of what is now called " sweating." At first, many mechanics' unions admitted the bosses ; x and a convention of the New York Workingman's Party in 1830 permitted employers to remain, but gave five minutes to " persons not living by some useful occupation, such as bankers, brokers, rich men," etc., to with- draw. As Frances Wright, the woman labor-agitator of the day, said of the whole movement: "It is labor rising up against idleness, industry against money, justice against law and privilege." The strikes of the period aimed : (1) to raise wages ; (2) to secure what we now call the " closed shop " {i.e. to compel the employment of union labor only, to the exclusion of nonunion men, known even then as " rats " and " scabs ") ; and (3), espe- cially, to shorten the working-day to ten hours. But, in its political action, the Workingman's Party turned away from these problems, vital as they were, to broader social reforms. The Philadelphia queries of legislative candidates (§ 290) i Later, the bosses allied themselves naturally with capital. AWAKENING OF LABOR 485 are typical. The only three tests there proposed were the attitude toward education (nobly denned), toward monopo- lies, and toward lotteries. Other matters which pressed to the front for legislative action at other times were: abolition of imprisonment for debt ; 'exemption of a laboring man's home and tools from execution for debt f and a more liberal policy by the nation in turning its public domain into homes. 1 The last of these can best be treated later (§ 367). The " closed- shop" principle failed, for the time, with the failure of the unions, in the panic of 1837. Some of the other aims demand larger notice here (§§ 292-293). 29$. The ten-hour day was finally secured, — in part by strikes, in part by political pressure. Philadelphia had been the scene of particu- larly strenuous strikes to replace the " sun-to-sun " day with a " six-to- six" day. 2 These failed, in the main; but monster petitions poured i In 1830 the Evans brothers carried at the head of every issue of their Workingman' s Advocate — which was now rechristened Young America — their version of ' ' The Twelve Demands of Labor : — " First. The right of man to the soil : ' Vote yourself a farm.' " Second. Down with monopolies, especially the United States Bank. " Third. Freedom of public lands. " Fourth. Homesteads made inalienable. " Fifth. Abolition of all laws for collection of debts. " Sixth. A general bankrupt law. " Seventh. A lien of the laborer upon his own work for his wages. " Eighth. Abolition of imprisonment for debt. " Ninth. Equal rights for women with men in all respects. " Tenth. Abolition of chattel slavery and of wages slavery. "Eleventh. Limitation of ownership of land to 160 acres per person [with provision for division of estates at death of owners until this condition should be secured]. " Twelfth. Mails to run on the Sabbath. 1! Eight of the twelve have oeen fully adopted, in the sense in which they were then understood. Even the eleventh came near adoption in the consti- tution of Wisconsin. The eleventh and the first were peculiar to a small wing of the labor party, led by the Evanses, who held doctrines regarding land closely akin to the later " Single Tax " movement. 2 This moderate demand was long resisted by the capitalist class, as though to grant it would subvert all social order. When the carpenter journeymen of Philadelphia first organized to secure a ten-hour day (in 1827), the em- 486 JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY t upon the city government to adopt the shorter day for workingmen em- ployed for the city, and, June 4, 1835, the city council yielded assent. Private concerns slowly followed. In Baltimore, the same year, a gen- eral strike established the ten-hour day for all business, public and pri- vate. But, in the Boston district, three great strikes for this object were crushed by irresistible combinations of capitalists pledged publicly to force their employees to keep the old " dawn-to-dark " day. Success there, and in many other centers, came about 1850. through the example of the Federal Government. Van Buren had been closely associated with the New York Loco-Focos (§ 290) ; and the National Convention of Trades' Unions in 1836 had brought all possible pressure to bear upon him, during his campaign, for Government action. Accordingly, in 1840, as President, Van Buren issued a notable order directing a ten-hour day in the navy yards and in all " public establishments " of the Govern- ment. (Cf. § 314, note.) 293. Free Schools. — Foremost in the demands of labor was placed the free school, supported by public taxes and con- trolled by the public will. In New England, in some measure, the principle was already accepted, — though even there the public schools were less efficient than the private ones. In Pennsylvania the constitution of 1790 declared, " The legisla- ture shall provide schools in which the poor may be taught gratis." The result was, that (outside Philadelphia, Pittsburg, and Lancaster) all public schools in Pennsylvania were pauper schools, — cheap private enterprises, in which poor children might be "educated M in return for funds appropriated by the plovers united in an address to the public complaining of the attempt to " de- prive employers of about one-fifth part of their usual time " ; viewing "with regret the formation of a society that has a tendency to subvert good order, and coerce or mislead those who have been industriously pursuing their avoca- tion and honestly maintaining their families " ; resolving, not to " employ any Journeyman who will not give his time and labor as usual ; in as much as we believe the present mode has not been, and is not now, oppressive to the workmen " {Doc. Hist. Am. Industrial Society, V, 81). The journeymen replied with an appeal for public sympathy, setting forth the reasonableness of their demands and closing : " Citizens of Philadelphia, to you we appeal ; with you rests the ultimate success or failure of our cause. Will you not assist us ? Remember we are men . . . and say will you com- bine with our employers to force us to be slaves " (lb. 80). LABOR AND FREE SCHOOLS 487 commissioners of the counties. In this State and in New York, labor insisted strenuously upon the public free school, in contrast to a pauper school. The documents are too long and many to be even indicated; but they are noble reading even to-day. In February, 1830, a committee of the Philadelphia Mechanics' Union reported to a meeting of "the friends of general and equal education" along and remarkable statement on conditions in Pennsylvania, with a draft of a bill to correct the evils. Three evenings were devoted by the meeting to dis- cussion of the report, after which it was unanimously adopted. The report was widely copied in labor papers. It protests against the absence of all schools in many districts, the -pauper character of such as exist, their limited instruction, and the absence of any attempt to supply a "judicious infant train- ing" for children under five. Their own bill, the committee claim, will extend schools throughout the whole common- wealth; will place them "immediately under the control and suffrage of the people " ; and " its benefits and privileges will not, as at present, be limited, as an act of charity, to the poor alone, but will extend equally and of right to all classes, and be supported at the expense of all." 1 1 One paragraph of the report runs : " In a republic, the people constitute the government, and by wielding its powers in accordance with the dictates, either of their intelligence or their ignorance, of their judgment or their caprices, are the makers and the rulers of their own good or evil destiny. ... It appears, therefore . . . that there can be no real liberty without a wide diffusion of real intelligence . . . and that education, instead of being limited as in our public poor schools, to a simple acquaintance with words and cyphers, should tend as far as possible, to the production of a just dispo- sition, virtuous habits, and a rational self-governing character." The capitalistic press of the day adopted toward all this a tone of conde- scension and reproof which to-day has an amusing sound. More of educa- tion was already attainable by the poor in America than anywhere else, it was insisted ; much more could never be expected. " The peasant must labor during those hours of the day which his wealthy neighbor can give to abstract culture : otherwise the earth would not yield enough for the subsistence of all." And again, "Education . . . must be the work of individuals. . . . If a government concern, nothing could prevent it from becoming a political job " (still one of the most effective cries against extension of public control 1 . 488 JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY In the following July, a Philadelphia city convention of the Workingman's Party issued a long address to the workingmen of the State, urging united political action to abolish: (1) the "foul blot" of imprisonment for debt; (2) "the granting of special favors in charters and monopolies, by which the profits arising from any branch of trade are taken from the commu- nity and given to favorites" ; (3) lotteries ; x (4) the compulsory militia system. But more than half the whole space is given to a plea for extending and improving the system of public education. Indeed, that part of the address which points out a specific program of reform begins with the words, "The main pillar of our system is general education." After pro- testing against the "pauper" idea so prominent in the ele- mentary schools of the day, and urging, through some pages, the earnest cooperation of all workers in the " glorious work of intellectual emancipation" of their children by the establish- ment of a broad State system, there follows the significant paragraph, "It may perhaps be owing to the non-existence of this desirable object that we have to complain of other evils affecting the interests of the workingman. ..." And, after dealing with some of those other evils, the address returns at its conclusion to the supreme matter of public education: " Education is alone the banner on which our civil and reli- gious liberty can be inscribed, never to be effaced." in other fields). Moreover, the projects were reviled as " Agrarianism," " an arbitrary division of property " ; and one editor deplores the taking away from "the more thriving members" of the working classes "one of their chief incitements to industry, — the hope of earning the means of educating their children." This would offer a "premium for comparative idleness." Indeed, it is hard to find any of the hoary arguments, still furbished anew against every democratic proposal, which was not worn threadbare in opposi- tion to a free-school system in the thirties. 1 " There are at present," says the address, "not less than 200 lottery offices in Philadelphia, and as many, if not more, persons engaged in hawk- ing tickets." And special complaint is directed at these " itinerant venders " who "assail the poor man at his labor, enter the abode of the needy, and, by holding out false promises of wealth, induce him to hazard his little all in the demoralizing system." LABOR AND FREE SCHOOLS It was to a people so awakened that Horace Mann began to appeal in behalf of educational reform. In 1837 he secured a State Board of Education in Massachusetts, and (in 1839) the establishment of the first Normal School in America, and so began to lift the elementary schools of the Bay State from the abyss into which they had slipped. Other eastern common- wealths followed with similar legislation. Meantime, the democratic West had already set up its ideal of a comprehen- sive system of free public education, such as the workingmen of the East desired. Elementary schools in the Northwestern States had some encourage- ment from the land grant in the Survey Ordinance of 1785 (§ 183) ; and " universities " were founded early to save the national grant for "higher institutions of learning." It was natural, therefore, for those States to return to the noble Puritan vision of a complete State system, and to try to link those two extremes by public " high schools." The first constitu- tion of Indiana (1816) declared it the duty of future legislatures to estab- lish " a general system of education, ascending in a regular gradation from township schools to a State University, — wherein tuition shall be gratis and equally open to alV In practice, however, even in the West, private academies, on the New England model, but of inferior grade, made the chief link between elementary schools and college for two generations more. 1 And even the elementary schools had their most vivid existence on paper. Ohio, in 1825, made the first legislative attempt at adequate public taxation for common schools for a whole State ; but the law was not then put actually into operation. Indeed, early laws for school taxation in various states were permissive only, leaving the application to the will of local units ; and the land endowments were often wasted or lost. Still, by 1840, pub- lic schools were frequent enough in the North and Northwest so that the poor boy with ambition and energy and self-denial could usually get at least " a common school education " ; but they were not yet so numer- ous or aggressive as to intrude in any great degree on the attention of the indifferent. 1 In 1831 Boston established an English High School alongside its ©Id Latin School. The new school, however, was not intended to fit for college, and, like other New England " high schools " of the next decades, it was not part of a " State system." 490 JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY :■ 294. Human Rights v. Property Rights. — As Professor Com- mons forcefully observes, the workingman of the thirties did not ask mere equality before the law: he asked to be given preference over property. He asked, as a right, that property of the wealthy should pay for educating his children. He asked not only that his person should no longer be seized for debt, but that most of his little property (homestead and means of livelihood) should be exempt. And instead of equality with other creditors, he asked that his wages should have a first claim. 1 No wonder that many good people of the time called such demands "agrarian" and communistic. The makers of the Constitution had said that the main end of government was to protect property; and even to-day many such good people, with much of our legal system, think only in terms of property and look on wages and labor as merely one kind of prop- erty, no better, at least, than other kinds. But, more or less consciously, our average modern thought and practice have shifted. Our viewpoint, like that of the workingman of the thirties, has come to be that of man, not that of property. It is seen that wages, as property, differ from the profits of the capitalist. The one may add to the graces and pleasures of life for a few : the other means life itself, and the maintenance of a decent standard of life, for the majority of men, — the very basis of our common society. Human welfare and the claims of property are not always one and the same thing. The law of the past had exalted the rights of property. The primitive custom of attaching the body of a debtor as a slave had been softened only to the hardly less cruel practice of confining him as the prisoner of the State. In his attack on this hoary abuse, the workingman found ready aid from other classes. And by degrees his claims (then first put forward) for exemption of his home, his chattels, and even his wages 1 Doc. History Am. Industrial Society. V, Introduction. Much of this and the following paragraph is paraphrased from the statements there. THE INTELLECTUAL FERMENT 491 have become fundamental principles of our jurisprudence. This means that we agree, in principle, to subordinate property- rights to human rights at least " when the home, the family, and the minimum of subsistence are at stake." This profound and wholesome revolution we owe to the labor movement of the thirties. C. Moral and Social Awakening ^ 295. The Flowering in Literature (Third Factor for Democratic Growth. — One manifestation of the new American energy was^ a marvelous outburst in literature. From Revolutionary days, America had held high place in political oratory ; but, until 1830, this nobly practical art was our only distinction in letters. From 1812 to 1830, leadership in oratory had been held by the great trio, Webster, Calhoun, and Clay, who, with Edward Everett added, were to continue its masters twenty years more. Between 1812 and 1830, too, had appeared the early work of ^Irving, Cooper, and Bryant; but the first real flowering of American letters came just after 1830. Between that date and 1845, began the public career of Emerson, Hawthorne, Holmes, Longfellow, Lowell, Poe, and Whittier Hn the literature of cre- ative imagination and spiritual power ; of Bancroft, Prescott, Palfrey, and Sparks in historical composition ; of Kent and Stctfy in legal commentary ; of Audubon, Agassiz, Dana, and ,Asa Gray in science. Noah Webster's Dictionary was pub- lished in 1828 ; ten years later, the Smithsonian Institution **"**c* was founded ; and, midway between, appeared the first penny^i^g^ daily, the New York Sun. fo*^uX\ None of the writers or scholars just mentioned belonged south of the Potomac or west of the mountains. This remarkable bloom of literature was confined to the North Atlantic section, and almost wholly to the New England district. It soon found, however, as eager an appreciation in wide areas of the West as in New England itself. And, in both sections, this intellectual awakening was both a cause and result of the progress in De~ mocracy. 492 JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY The finest part of this great literary movement was rooted in a New England religious awakening. Between 1815 and 1830, Unitarianism, organized by Channing, had deeply modified New England thought. Unitarianism was an intellectual revolt against the somber and rigid doctrines of the prevalent Cal- vinistic Congregationalism. It placed hope of salvation not in the dogma of the atonement, but in conduct ; it asserted, in op- position to the doctrine of total depravity, that there was essen- tial good in every man, with possibilities of infinite develop- ment ; it taught, not that man's fate was predestined, but that he was himself master of his fate. At first it was as sternly logical as Calvinism itself ; but the Emersonian " Transcenden- talists " of the thirties placed emphasis upon its cheering affirmations rather than its denials, and gave the movement a joyous moral enthusiasm. The old Congregationalism had been the fast ally of aristocratic Federalism : Unitarianism was an expression of a democratic age. Differ as they might in char- acteristics, Emerson and Andrew Jackson belonged funda- mentally to the same era, — the serene prophet of the spiritual worth and dignity of each soul, and the passionate apostle of political and social equality. Unitarianism never counted large in numbers ; but nearly all the famous names catalogued above were connected with it, and it early captured Harvard. Gradually, it permeated and transformed Calvinistic Congrega- tionalism. A less rigidly intellectual revolt against Calvinism, — more emotional than Unitarianism and equally optimistic and democratic, — gave rise to Universalism and to a great growth of the Methodist churches and of various new sects. 1 Before this combined attack, between 1815 and 1830, the Congregational church was disestablished in New England (§297). "Higher education," of course, received a marked impulse. The early colleges grew toward better standards, and many ex- cellent small colleges began to flourish, — Amherst, Bowdoin, 1 Said Emerson of this "theological thaw," '* "lis a whole population of ladies and gentlemen out in search of a religion." THE INTELLECTUAL FERMENT 493 Dartmouth, 1 Hobart, Williams, in the East, with numerous am- bitious imitators in the newer States. In 1830 Oberlin (Ohio) even opened its doors to women. It was twenty years before another institution of equal rank took this stand ; but special seminaries for girls soon appeared in large numbers. 296. The new intellectual ferment of the thirties and forties transformed society. Exact and profound scholarship was still lacking ; but an aspiration for knowledge, a hunger for culture, a splendid idealism, became characteristic of American life, — to remain dominant in our society until "fattened out," for a time, after 1875, by a gross material prosperity. During that long era, to welcome " high thinking " at the price of " plain living " was instinctive in an almost unbeliev- ably large portion of the people. English authors of a new sort of genius — Carlyle, Brown- ing, William Morris — as well as English scientists with new teachings, like Darwin and Huxley, reached appreciative audiences in America sooner than at home. 2 Many an English book, afterward recognized as epoch making, found its way into far western villages, and into the hands of eager young men and women there who had never worn evening dress or eaten a course dinner, long before it penetrated to even the "reading set" at Oxford University. 3 The North American Review and the Atlantic Monthly (periodicals of fine literary character and scholarly tone) could be seen in isolated farm- houses on western prairies. The village sewing society es- chewed gossip to listen to one of their number reading aloud while the others plied the needle. Each village had its lyceum, 1 Dartmouth was founded in colonial times ; but, like some other early col- leges of its class, its marked growth in usefulness belongs to this period. 2 Carlyle's long-delayed income from his books came first from reprints in America, managed by Emerson. 8 Before 1862, W. D. Howells, a young newspaper writer in a raw Western town, counted Browning and Thackeray among his favorite authors ; but Wal- ter Besant mentions in his Autobiography that these authors were not then known to his set at Cambridge University. 494 JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY for the winter evenings, with, literary programs, — readings, declamations, and debates — crude and quaint enough, some- times, but better than " refined vaudeville." Such villages, too, aspired to frequent courses of lectures, — with such eastern celebrities as Holmes and Everett on the program; and the proceeds of the lectures were used commonly to start a village library. 1 Twice, on such lecture tours, Emerson penetrated beyond the Mississippi, greeted in barn-like " halls " by hard- handed men and women, seated on wooden benches, but with eager faces agleam with keen intellectual delight. The nearest approach in all history to this intellectual ferment in a " populace" was that — far inferior in quantity and quality — to be seen in the idle Athenian multitudes who hung on the lips of Socrates ; or, perhaps in the more conservative Scotch of the eighteenth century, when the poverty-stricken hills of Scotland were sending forth schoolmasters over the whole globe wherever English was spoken. A caricature picturing a gaunt New England housewife on hands and knees to scrub, but pushing before her a stand holding an open copy of Emerson to which her eyes were glued, might have been applied, with no more exaggeration, to show the strenuous struggle for culture in many a modest home in Kansas or Minnesota. Ambitious boys, barefoot and in thread worn coats, thronged the little colleges, not for four years of a good time, but with genuine passion to break into the fairy realm of knowl- edge ; and their hard-earned dimes that did not have to go for plain food went for books. 2 1 In 1859 Edward Everett lectured at St. Cloud, a new, straggling village of a hundred houses, in Minnesota. The one-room schoolhouse in which he spoke was promptly named the Everett School ; and receipts from the " enter- tainment " were appropriated for a library which was kept for years in a pri- vate home. After the Civil War, a Woman's Aid Society, which had been earning money to send dainties and medicines to sick soldiers, continued its meetings and used its money to enlarge this choice collection of hooks. There, as a boy, the writer made first acquaintance with Carlyle, Marcus Aurelius, standard histories of that day, such as Prescott's Philip II and Motley's Rise of the Dutch Republic, and the novels of Scott, George Eliot, and Thackeray. This experience was typical. The few books, purchased by real book love-", were not yet buried in a mass of the commonplace. 2 In 1846 a . j of eighteen started for Knox College, at Galesburg, Illinois. By working as a farm hand (he harvested two weeks for a Virgil and a Latin Dictionary) , and by teaching school for a few months (and " boarding round ' ' ) ^ THE INTELLECTUAL FERMENT 495 297. Social Reform. — The intellectual and moral ferment of the time overflowed in manifold attempts at new forms of social organization and at various Utopias set off from ordinary society. New England Transcendentalists tried a cooperative society at Brook Farm (1841), with which Emerson and Haw- thorne were connected. 1 Robert Owen, who had already attempted a model industrial town in Scotland, founded New Harmony in Indiana, where labor and property were to be in common. 2 Scores of like communities were soon established in different parts of the West; and the old communistic societies of the " Shakers M spread rapidly. Said Emerson, with genial recognition of the humorous side of the upheaval, " Not a man you meet but has a draft of a new community in his pocket." Peculiar among these movements was Mormonism, with its institution of polygamy. Mormonism was founded at Palmyra (New York), in 1829, by Joseph Smith, who claimed to be a prophet and to have discov- ered the inspired Book of Mormon. Soon the "Latter-Day Saints" removed to Ohio ; then to Missouri ; and, driven thence by popular ha- tred, to Illinois, where, in 1841, they established at Nauvoo a " Holy City " of ten thousand people, industrious and prosperous, ruled by Smith after the fashion of an ancient Hebrew "Judge." Three years later, a mob from surrounding towns broke up the settlement and murdered Smith. at eight dollars a month, he had saved up ten dollars. He walked first to Chicago, the nearest town, for supplies ; but the unaccustomed temptation of the display in a bookstore window lured him within, and most of his capital went for a few books, which would seem old-fashioned, indeed, to the boys of to-day. The remaining cash bought only a pair of shoes and an Indian-blanket coat (with great stripes about the bottom). To save the precious shoes, he then walked the two hundred miles to Galesburg barefoot. His first day there, he built a fence for the President's cow pasture, to earn money for text-books, and found a place to work for his board through the college year. This man became one of the notable builders of a Western commonwealth. 1 Hawthorne's Blithedale Romance satirized the movement, and caricatured some of the participants. 2 Owen's leadership gave the name Owenism to the many American attempts at communism in this period. Spite of these failures, his influwjye was marked in spreading faith in human brotherhood and in arousing the men who were to lead the social reforms of the next generation. A X 496 JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY Then, under the youthful Brigham Young, the persecuted Mormons sought refuge in Utah, vaguely supposed to be a part of Mexico, but remote from any organized government and sheltered from " civilization " by the desert and the Rockies. Here their industry made the cactus sands to bloom, and they remained in peace until invaded by the rush of gold- seekers to California after '49. More effective than these semi-monastic reforms were a multitude of movements for social betterment within the exist- ing community. Massachusetts founded the first public hospital for the insane ; and Dorothy Dix spent a noble life in spreading such institutions in other States. /Special schools for the deaf arid the blind were instituted. State provision for the separa- tion of juvenile delinquents from hardened criminals was begun ; and for the criminals themselves more rational and ivholesome prison life was attempted. Temperance societies began in Bos- ton in 1824 ; and, in 1846, Maine adopted the first State-wide prohibition law. The thirties saw the beginning of a long agitation for " Woman's Rights" including coeducation, equality with men in property rights, 1 and the right to vote. The Abolition movement rose and spread, and soon this agita- tion against slavery became the chief manifestation of this great wave of moral earnestness. The last two reforms, like others noted in § 290, were earnestly championed by the Work- ingman's Party. 298 . Mechanical invention began now to revolutionize industry and life. From the inauguration of Washington to the War of 1812, patents for new inventions averaged less than eighty a year. From 1812 to 1820, they rose to nearly two hundred a year, and in 1830 the number was 544. Twenty years later, 1 The legal position of woman was everywhere in America still regulated by the medieval common law. An unmarried woman's earnings and "prop- erty " were not hers (any more than a slave's were his), but belonged legally to her father. A married woman's property (unless protected by express legal settlement) was her husband's, and, in many degrading respects, she was herself his chattel. The movement to reform this barbarous condition, by specific changes in the statute law, began in this period. THE RAILROAD 497 the thousand mark was passed, and in 1860, the number was nearly 5000. 1 The inventions marked by these patents saved time or tended to make life more comfortable and attractive. A few cases only can be mentioned. Axes, scythes, and other edged tools, formerly imported, were manufac- tured at home. The McCo rtnick reaver (to be drawn by horses) appeared in 1834, multiplying the farmer's efficiency hi the harvest field by twenty, and (with the general introduction of threshing machines) making possi- ble the utilization of vast grain lands in the Northwest. Planing mills created a new industry in wood. Colt's "revolver" (1835) replaced the one-shot pistol. Iron cookstoves began to rival the fireplace. Friction matches (invented in England in 1827) reduced the friction of life. Il- luminating gas for city streets improved city morals. In 1838, the Eng- lish Great Western, with scre w propeller and with coal to heat its boilers, established steam navigation across the Atlantic, — though the bulk of ocean freight continued long to be carried in American sailing ships. The same year saw the invention of the steam hammer and the successful application of anthracite coal to smelting iron.' 2 In 1841 the anaesthetic value of ether (an incomparable boon to suffering humanity) was discov- ered separately by Dr. Morton and Dr. Jackson. The magnetic telegraph, first invented in 1835, was made effective in 1844. The sewi ng machine_ was patented in 1846 ; the next year saw the first rotary printing press. In 1841 Americans had their full revenge for earlier British disdain, when a member of the English cabinet, in response to questions, declared in Parliament, " I apprehend that a majority of the really new inventions [lately introduced into England] have originated abroad, especially in America." The Railw ay deserves a fuller account. Tramways (lines of wooden rails for cars drawn by horses, for short distances) came into use in some American cities about 1807. As early as 1811, John Stevens began twenty years of fruitless efforts to 1 Special report : The United States Patent Law. 2 From about 1820, " stone-coal " had been in use for heating dwellings in eastern cities, and it had begun to be used as fuel to create steam power for manufactures. Indeed, attempts were made to market Lehigh coal as early as Washington's administration ; but success had to wait for the disappear- ance of wood and the appearance of canal transportation. Pittsburg was already the center of iron manufactures for the West. Now its neighborhood to both anthracite and iron made it a center of this great industry for the whole country. 498, JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY interest capital in his dream of a steam railway. In 1814, in England, George Stephenson completed a locomotive, which found employment in hauling coal on short tracks ; but no railway of consequence for passenger traffic was opened there until about 1830. After 1825, the question was much agitated in America ; and July 4, 1828, the aged Charles Carrol, signer of the Declaration of Independence, drove the golden spike that marked the beginning of the Baltimore and Ohio. The same year witnessed a score of charters to projected lines ; but construction was slow, from lack of experience and materials, and especially from lack of engineers to survey and construct roadbeds ; and it was still thought commonly that about the only, advantage for railroads over canals would lie in the freedom from interruption by ice during part of the year. In 1830 less than thirty miles of track were in use, — and this only for " coaches " drawn by horses ; l but in 1840, nearly three thousand miles were in operation, and, for long thereafter, the mileage doubled each five years. By 1850, the railroad had begun to outrun settlement, forging ahead into the wilderness, " to sow with towns the prairies broad," and to create the demand for transportation which was to feed it (§ 362 and map). It was natural to treat the railway like any other improved road or public highway, so far as conditions would permit. Some States, at first, per- mitted any one to run cars over a line by paying proper tolls. But, in the absence of scientific system and of telegraphic train-dispatching, so 1 In 1829 one of Stephenson's engines had been brought over from England ; and, with this as a model, American locomotives were soon constructed successfully". The early rails were of wood, protected from wear by a cover- ing of wrought-iron " straps," perhaps half-an inch thick, which had the awkward habit of curling up at a loosened end. The "coaches" were imi- tated in form from the stage coach; but finally a form more adapted to the new uses was devised. The rate of progress on the first roads rose to fifteen miles an hour, — something quite beyond previous imagination. A very full account of early railroads may be found in McMaster, V, 139 ff. Almost all public libraries contain special treatises on the subject. CONSTITUTIONAL PROGRESS 499 many accidents occurred, that this plan was given up. 1 Then roadbed and train fell to one ownership. It remained to decide whether that owner should be the public or a private corporation. Several States tried State ownership, as with canals (Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia) ; but lines ran from State to State in such a way as to make this practically impossible. No one in that day suggested that the nation should own and operate railroads ; and so these tremendously powerful forces were abandoned to private corporations. 2 Congress, however, has many times encouraged such corporations by immense grants of public lands along a proposed line in a " Territory," as State legislatures have done within State bor- ders. Unhappily, such grants have often been made carelessly, if not corruptly, without proper security for adequate return to the public wel- fare. Exercise. — Note the relation of the heading of this chapter to that of Chapter XII, and also especially the three forces for democratic progress mentioned under The New Society above. II. POLITICAL NARRATIVE A. Constitutional Changes 299. Manhood Suffrage (more directly exercised). — The victory of Jacksonian Democracy in the Nation had been made possible by an extension of franchise in the States. By 1821, fifteen of the twenty-four commonwealths had manhood suffrage, absolute or virtual. Between 1792 and 1821, eleven new States had been admitted. Tennessee had an ineffective restriction on the franchise (removed in a new constitution in 1833) ; Ohio at first required payment of taxes as a qualification for voting ; and Mississippi required either that or service in the militia. The other eight new states came in with manhood suffrage. Four of the older States also had followed in the footsteps of the progres- 1 " Single-tax " reformers believe that this plan should be reintroduced under the improved conditions of to-day. 2 Usually known to-day as "public-service " corporations (along with city gas companies, electric lighting companies, etc.) because they can exist only by grants of right-of-way and other privileges from the public, in return for expected services to the public. 500 JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY sive West. Maryland adopted manhood suffrage in 1810 ; Connecticut, in 1818 ; and, in 1821, Massachusetts and New York reduced their former qualifications to tax payment or militia service. 1 In 1826 New York removed even this restriction ; and by this time, too, the tax payment restriction had ceased to exclude seriously. This democratic success had brought with it other constitutional changes : (i) removal of property qualifications for holding office ; (2) direct popular election of governor, in place of appointment by leg- islatures ; (3) popular election even of the State courts ; and (4) aboli- tion of test oaths, and admission of Jews and Catholics to office, and the overthrow of the church establishments in Connecticut and Massachu- setts. 2 Social changes also followed. In Connecticut it was observed that after the democratic victory in 18 18, public officials no longer wore cockaded hats, powdered hair, or knee-breeches and silk stockings. These reforms were carried against vehement protest by the revered elder statesmen. The aged John Adams and the stalwart Webster joined in stubborn resistance in Massachusetts. In New York, Chancellor Kent pleaded with the convention not to " carry desolation through all the fabric erected by our fathers," or "put forth to the world a constitution such as will merit the scorn of the wise and tears of the patriot." In Virginia (1830), the contest was successful only in slight degree because of the opposition of Marshall, Madison, and Randolph, — three ancient foes, who now made common cause for their order, and succeeded in keeping 80,000 White citizens from the franchise till 1850. Not only was the franchise wider; it was also used more directly. In 1800 only six of the sixteen States chose "elec- tors " by popular vote (§ 239) ; in 1828 Delaware and South Carolina were the only two, out of twenty-four, not to do so, and, after the next election, Delaware abandoned choice by the legislature. Another change suited political convenience rather than democratic principle. The "general ticket" had replaced the "district" system 1 The significance of this change in New York is indicated by the following fact : in the fiercely contested campaign of 1789, that State, with a popula- tion of 324,270, cast only 12,300 votes ; after 1830, the proportion was seven times as large. 2 §§ 137, 153, 154, 156, 167, 172, 185, 209, 224 may well be reviewed for state- ments bearing upon previous constitutions. 3 d NEW POSITION OF THE PRESIDENT 501 in choosing electors (§ 212). This method deprives the minority within each State of all representation. Virginia made the change in 1800, to secure her solid vote to Jefferson ; and Jefferson acquiesced on the ground that it was a political necessity, when Federalist States were doing the same and worse things (§ 239). He advised, however, a constitutional amendment to compel the district system; and such an amendment was agitated until 1824. 1 & 300. The " Sovereign People" and its "Tribune" {New Position of the Presidency). — The wider franchise, and its more direct exercise, placed the President in a new light, and gave him new powers. He was no longer, even in theory, merely the choice of a select coterie. Jackson's friends called him " the chosen Tribune of the People." The Nation found it easier to express its will, and to place responsibility, in one man voted for over the whole Union, than in a Congress elected by hun- dreds of different localities and representing local interests. 2 In the break-up of the old Jeffersonian Democracy into two parties, Jacksonian Democracy finally managed to take to itself the prestige and traditions of Jefferson's name, mainly, it appears, because it stood in some measure for the old Jefferson doctrine of putting emphasis upon States Rights, while the party of Adams and Clay was emphasizing 1 The general ticket has now come to seem, to many people, the only con- stitutional method. In 1892 Michigan, usually Republican, chanced to have a Democratic legislature. To save some part of the electoral vote in the com- ing election, this legislature enacted a law providing for choice of electors by the ancient method of districts. The matter went to the Supreme Court before the opposing party would acquiesce in the constitutionality of such a measure. 2 In England, at just this period, democracy was conquering hereditary executive prerogative by subordinating it to Parliament {Modern History, §§ 581, 532). In America, democracy seized executive prerogative directly by making it truly elective and so responsive to popular will. The new importance of the Presidency was promptly reflected in the popu- lar vote. Before 1828, even in States where electors were chosen by the people, the vote for them had been much smaller than for Congressmen or for State officers. In 1824 such States cast 352,000 votes for electors ; in 1828 the same States cast three times that number. New Hampshire increased her vote from 4750 to 45,000; Connecticut doubled her vote; and the great States of Pennsylvania and Ohio showed a gain of nearly 300 per cent. Since that time the Presidential vote leads all others. 502 JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY Nationalism. But Jeffersonian Democracy and Jacksonian Democracy were at opposite poles in their attitude toward government in general. The one had feared government ; the other was eager to make use of it. The one taught that people must be governed as little as possible ; the other, that the people might govern as much as they wished. At last democracy had found its power ; and, intoxicated with that new sense, it inclined to insist not only that majorities were all-powerful, but also that they were always right. " Vox populi, vox Dei ! " Andrew Jackson dominated America for twelve years (1829-1841), for his control reached over into the administration of his successor and political heir, Van Buren. He was just the man to give standing to this new executive power, and to the principle of popular sovereignty back of it. He was of Scotch-Irish descent, and his boyhood had been passed in a North Carolina backwoods country, in bare poverty. Picking up some necessary scraps of knowledge, he removed to the newer frontier of Tennessee to practice law. He was a natural leader ; and his incisiveness and aggressiveness, rather than ambition, forced him to the front. Tennessee sent him as her first Representative to Congress, — for which life at that time he seems to have been little fitted. Gallatin noticed him only for his uncouth dress and manner, — unkept hair tied in an eel-skin cue, — and Jefferson was disgusted by the "passion" that "choked his utterance." Soon, however, Jackson found his place as military leader and Indian fighter ; and he came back to political leadership as a more imposing fig- ure, — the natural spokesman of western democracy. "Old Hickory" remained spare in person, with the active and abstemious living of the frontier ; his hair was now a silvered mane ; his manner marked by a stately dignity and, toward all women, by true courtliness. Beneath this exterior, he remained as pugnacious and fearless and self-confident as ever ; apt to jump to conclusions and stubborn in clinging to them ; * sure of his own good intentions, and, with somewhat less reason, of his good judgment ; trusting his friends (not always wisely chosen) as himself ; and moved by an unconscious vanity that made it easy for shrewd men to play upon him ; but, withal, with sound democratic instincts, hating monopoly and distrusting commercial greed and all appeals from it for alliance with the government, and believing devotedly in the "sovereignty of the people," a sovereign who " could do no wrong." 1 A choice bit of contemporary satire makes him say, " It has always bin my way, when I git a notion, to stick to it till it dies a natural death ; and the more folks talk agin my notions, the more I stick to 'em." t ) ■ GROWTH OF THE VETO 503 301. Growth of the Veto. — In some peculiarities, " the Reign of Andrew Jackson " owed its characteristics to the personal inclinations of the man. Thus, for a time, Cabinet meetings ceased, in favor of a group of unofficial advisors and old asso- ciates, whom the opposition press quickly dubbed " the Kitchen Cabinet." But in its bigger aspects the change was more fundamental. As the more express embodiment of the nation's will, it was natural and inevitable for Presidents to assume new power over Congress ; and all strong Presidents since 1828 have felt themselves rightly endowed with authority never claimed by the earlier executives of the Union. The most important phase of this new power has been the President's giving direction to national policy, and to Congressional legislation. The means to this end have been the President's control of patronage and his increased use of the veto. The preceding six Presidents together had vetoed nine bills (all on constitutional grounds) ; Jackson hailed twelve veto messages upon the astounded Congress, to influence general policy, besides using freely the " pocket veto," permitted by the Constitution (§§ i53> 156 a), but never before exercised. Strangely enough, in the matter on which the most vetoes were spent, the President failed of his will. Jackson was opposed to "internal im- provements 1 ' at national expense; and most of his vetoes, with all the pocket vetoes, were used to defeat appropriations for such purposes. He elaborated a theory that appropriations were proper only for improvements general in character, not local. But the distinction was difficult to apply ; and Congress met it by attaching internal-improvement appropriations, as "riders," to the appropriation bills necessary to support the govern- ment, so as to make veto impossible. In all, more than ten millions of dollars were devoted to internal improvements in Jackson's eight years, — double the rate even of Adams' time. 1 302. The Spoils System. — Since Jefferson's election in 1800, removal from office had not again become a burning question. 1 Canals and roads were no longer built at Government expense, since rail- ways had now replaced these means of communication in importance. Ap- propriations for internal improvements took the form (since maintained) of a River and Harbor Bill. Harbor improvement had become of pressing necessity, because of the increase in the size and draft of vessels. 504 JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY There had been no change of party, and, until 1824, no factional contest within the dominant party. In 1820 Senator Crawford of Georgia had secured a " four-year tenure-of -office bill," pro- viding that a great number of offices should thereafter always become vacant four years after appointment. 1 Adams, with high-minded dignity, refused to take advantage of this legal op- portunity to punish adversaries and hire supporters. Instead, he reappointed all fit officials affected by the law, and made altogether only twelve removals during his term. But a weapon had been forged for less scrupulous men. Jackson, indeed, needed no new weapon : the powers of the President under the Constitution were enough for him. His enemies were, to his mind, the nation's enemies, to be punished; and he was controlled by friends who brazenly proclaimed the doctrine, " To the victors belong the spoils of the enemy." 2 The first sin of the new democracy was its wrong attitude on this matter. Jackson men from distant States hastened to the Capital to attend the inauguration and press claims to appointments. Never had Washington seen such a horde of hungry politicians. 3 In the preceding forty years of the government, there had been less than two hundred re- movals from office for all causes. In his first year, Jackson made two thousand. But this was far too moderate to content the multitude. The policy of spoils was the Nation's blunder, not merely the President's ; and the Nation was to be shackled by it for more than a generation. 303. Executive, Legislature, and Spoils, in States and Local Units. — Much the same reasons that exalted President over Congress exalted also State governor and city mayor over legislature and council. 1 The excuse for this law was the need to prevent the growth of bureaucracy and to give opportunity for wholesome " rotation in office." In these principles, as opposed to the older idea that an officeholder had a vested property interest in his office, Jackson fully agreed. 2 The phrase was Senator Marcy's of New York. 8 McMaster (V, 521 ff.) gives a graphic picture. There is a briefer but more caustic one in McLaughlin's Cass (136, 137) : " The scrambling, punch-drinking mob which invaded Washington at the inauguration, crowding and pushing into the White House, tipping over tubs of punch and buckets of ices, standing with muddy, hobnailed shoes on the damask furniture, thrusting themselves into the nooks and corners of the executive mansion with the air of co- partners, who at last had an opportunity to take account of the assets of the firm. ..." THE SPOILS SYSTEM 505 The executive branch of government, of which the "Fathers " were espe- cially jealous, began now to be magnified in America over the legislative. Before Jackson gave new prominence to the executive veto, seven States had joined New York and Massachusetts (§153) in placing that power in their constitutions. Soon it became practically universal. Only three States at present (1912) fail to provide it in some form, — though several make it only a means to secure reconsideration by the legislature, and others permit it to be overruled by less than the custom- ary two-thirds vote. The pocket veto, too, is almost universal. About a third of the States have made the veto still more effective in practice by authorizing the executive to veto single items of appropriation bills. This tendency is recognized as a needed reform in other States, to counteract the ease with which a committee sometimes slips into a necessary "Omnibus Bill" certain unconsidered trifles, secured by cor- rupt or log-rolling influences. City governments have commonly given to their mayors a veto power corresponding to that of the State governor; and both city and State have developed the insidious poison of the spoils system. In the early State constitutions, the legislature was exalted over all other parts of government. But by 1830, democracy had begun to realize dimly its imperfect control over representative legislatures, and to resent it ; and a tendency to subordinate the legislative branch of State govern- ments to the executive had begun. This tendency, which grew more and more marked for half a century, was manifested in other ways besides the growth of the executive veto : (1) After the Civil War, in particular, constitutions for new States and new constitutions for old States swelled in bulk, until the usual length was many times that of the Federal Con- stitution or of any one of the first State constitutions. This additional matter consisted largely of restrictions, direct and indirect, upon the legislature. Multitudes of matters which formerly had been left to legis- lative discretion were now put into the constitution, to be altered only by the process of constitutional amendment, where the people had a referen- dum. (2) The length of legislative sessions was usually limited by con- stitutional provisions. (3) In most States (all but six in 1912), the session became a biennial affair instead of annual. 1 1 During this period of the decadence of State legislatures, public opinion, both in earnest and in semi-comic humor, seems to have looked upon each session of a legislature as a necessary evil. The close of a session usually called forth a general sigh of relief. 506 JACKSON IAN DEMOCRACY Exercise. — a. In what way does the constitution of your State place limitations on the legislature ? What reason can you discover for each limitation ? If the Exercise in § 156 has not previously been completed, it should now be finished and reviewed. b. The usual list of elective administrative officers, besides the gov- ernor, is as follows : lieutenant governor (who, after the fashion of the Federal Vice President, is the presiding officer of the State senate) ; sec- retary of State (little more than a keeper of public records) ; ■amlWfr or comptroller, with supervision over the expenditure of State funds and the selling or leasing of State lands, etc. ; treasurer, who keeps the State • funds ; attorney general, the legal advisor of the governor and other executive officers, and the counsel for the State in legal action. A State Board of Education or a State Superintendent of Public Instruction (usually appointed) has general supervision over the educational interests and over the enforcement of school laws. There are usually a number of other boards or bureaus or commissions (or else single commissioners), — * 1_# railway, labbr, heJBWmnsurance, public works, exanailTrag-^baa^rds (to*"^T license practitionenT^fnraw, medicine^pnarmacy, and dentistry), with far-reaching influence over public welfare. These boards are usually ap- pointed by the governor, subject to confirmation by two thirds the State senate. c. Make a table showing executive and administrative officers and boards of your State, — how elected or appointed, terms of office, and salaries. Give examples of beneficent action in your State in recent years by administrative boards or officers. (One such example a week might well be called for.) What penal, reformatory, and charitable institutions are maintained in your State, and how are they governed. (Let each one be the subject of a brief "special report." The school should have the printed annual reports of such institutions in its library.) — B. " Protection " and " Nullification " 304. The Question Stated.— The "tariff of abominations " (§ 279) had called out prompt and vigorous protests from five State legislatures in trie South, and no small talk of secession. Calhoun came forward with what he thought a milder remedy in his Exposition in the summer of 1828. Calhoun was of Scotch-Irish descent and of stern Calvinistic training. He had been Secretary of War under Monroe, and Vice President with PROTECTION AND NULLIFICATION 507 Adams, and had just been reelected to that office. He was now a very different Calhoun from the ardent young Nationalist of 1816, who had favored internal improvements, a Bank, and protective tariffs. On each of these points he had reversed his position, to go with his section. He still loved the Union devotedly ; but instead of placing emphasis now on Nationality, he placed it on the necessity of recognizing State sovereignty in order to preserve any nation at all. In 1816 he had thrust aside con- stitutional refinements disdainfully : in 1828 he took refuge in them and used them with rare skill and keen logic. Calhoun's Exposition (with later elaborations) set forth : (i) the argu- ment that the tariff was ruinous to the South; (2) that "protection" was unconstitutional ; (3) that, in the case of an Act so injurious and unconstitutional, any State had a constitutional right peacefully to nullify the law within her borders, until Congress should appeal to the States — and be sustained by three fourths of them — the number necessary to amend the Constitution and therefore competent to say what was and was not constitutional ; and (4) a practical method of attempting such nullification by referring it to a representative convention of the State called especially to decide upon the matter. 305. The Great Debate. — South Carolina did not press the matter at once, because she drew hope of relief from the election of Jackson. He was supposed to dislike the tariff and to sympathize with State sovereignty ; and his brief inaugu- ral declared his wish to show "a proper respect for the sovereign members of our Union." Then a few months later, the question was argued in a great debate on the floor of the Senate (January 19-29, 1830). Senator Foote had moved a resolution to restrict somewhat the sale of public lands. The Western States thought this an improper interference with their development, if not with their constitutional rights ; and there followed the most famous con- stitutional debate in our history, — ranging far from the original matter. Senator Hayne of South Carolina supported the doctrine of Calhoun's Exposition. Daniel Webster replied in two magnificent orations, laying bare the practical' absurdity of nullification and setting forth, in more vivid terms than had ever been done before, the doctrine of American Nationality. tL*~~. \^ > r^ CHAPTER XIV i/ THE SLAVERY STRUGGLE In I844 the Slave Power began to demand more territory ; and, for the next twenty years, slavery (with its movement for disunion) was the dominant question in American politics (§§339 ff.). Before entering upon this story, it will be well for the student to review the earlier phases of the question (§§ 329-338) . I. TO 1829: SLAVERY DEFENSIVE 329. Before the Revolution there is little trace of antislavery feeling. Slaves were held in every colony, though economic causes made them least numerous in the North (§ 124). The Revolution, with its new emphasis upon human rights, created the first antislavery movement. 1 This movement lasted until about 1820, though it spent its greatest force before 1800. It was a moral and religious movement, rather than political, belonging to the South quite as much as to the North ; and it was considerate of the slaveholder's difficulties. On their part, the slaveholders (outside Georgia and South Carolina) 2 usually apologized for slavery as an evil they would be glad to get rid of safely. Slavery seemed a dying institution. 330. State Emancipation. — Naturally it died quickest where slaves were fewest. Vermont's constitution of 1777 abolished slavery, as did that of Massachusetts, indirectly, in 1780 (§ 149, close), and that of New Hampshire in 1783. By law, Penn- sylvania decreed freedom for all children born to slave parents 1 So, too, Revolutionary France abolished slavery in her West Indies in 1794, as did the Spanish- American States, without exception, as they won their independence after 1815 (§ 277). 2 And a congressman from Georgia in the First Congress stated, without contradiction, that there was no one in his State who did not think slavery a curse. 533 534 THE SLAVERY STRUGGLE in her territory after 1780; and this sort of gradual emancipa- tion was adopted in Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784, in New York in 1799, and in New Jersey in 1804 ; while in most Southern States prominent statesmen and influential societies were^ urging similar action. -'After 1*804, no slave could be born north of Mason and Dixon's Line ; but nearly all the ' ' free States ' ' continued to contain slaves born before ' ' gradual emancipation ' ' began. The census of 1830 showed some twenty- seven hundred slaves in the North- Atlantic section ; and as late as 1850 New Jersey counted 236. So, too, all the States of the Old Northwest, except Michigan, contained some slaves in 1840, — survivors of those owned by the original French settlers. The antislavery provision in the Northwest Ordinance was interpreted, in practice, not to abolish existing slavery, but merely to forbid its further introduction. In the Southern States, where slaves were numerous, no one believed in general emancipation without provision for removing the Negroes. 1 This sentiment created the American Colonization Society, which, with much tribulation, established the Negro Kepublic of Liberia on the Afri- can coast as a home for ex-slaves. The Society proved unable, however, to colonize free Negroes in large numbers. The antislavery workers were the first agitators to make general use of organized societies to advance reform. The first antislavery society appeared among the Pennsylvania Quakers in 1775. Such organizations were especially strong in Southern States, and in 1820 were found in every Slave State except South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana. If slavery was to die in the remaining States, two things were essential. New slaves must not be imported from abroad (§ 331), and slavery must not spread into new territory (§ 332 ff.). 1 It had been part of Jefferson's plan, in his bill for gradual emancipation in Virginia (§ 254) , that children of slaves should thereafter be educated at State expense " to tillage, arts, or sciences, according to their geniuses," until of age, " when they should be colonized to such place as the circumstances . . . should render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of house- hold and of handicraft arts, seeds, pairs of useful animals, etc., to declare them a free and independent people, and extend to them our alliance and protection until they have acquired strength." So, fifty years later (1829), Henry Clay, supporting the Kentucky Colonization Society, declared his hate for slavery as the " deepest stain upon the character of our country," but an- nounced his belief that to free the Negroes, without at the same time coloniz- ing them in Africa, would bring upon society "an aggregate oT eyife • • • greater than all the evils of slavery." SLAVERY DEFENSIVE TO 1820 535 331. The foreign slave trade was condemned by resolutions of the Continental Congress in 1774 and 1776, and, during the Revolutionary period, was prohibited by every State except South Carolina and Georgia (§§ 205, 206). In deference to the demand of these two States, the Constitution permitted the importation of slaves for a limited time ; but as soon as the twenty-year period had expired, the trade was prohibited by Congress (§ 258). After 1807, England kept a naval patrol on the African coast to inter- cept "slavers," who were regarded as pirates by most European nations. Unhappily, England's invitations to the United States to join in this good work, in 1817 and 1824, were rejected by our Government. The War of 1812 had made us exceedingly sensitive regarding the "right of search," and we now refused to permit an English ship to search a vessel flying the American flag, even to ascertain whether that flag covered an American ship. Consequently our flag was used by slavers of all nations (especially, it must be confessed, of our own), engaged in the horrible and lucra- tive business of stealing Negroes in Africa to sell in Brazil or Cuba, or, after running our rather ineffective patrol, in the cities of South Carolina, where little disguise was made of defiance of the Eederal law. 1 332. Limitation of Territory. — The three great attempts in this period to prevent slavery from spreading into the national domain have been treated (§§ 181, 183. 283). It was extended, however, into the old Southwest Territory and into the southern parts of the Louisiana Pur- chase. The action of Congress was vacillating. It established slavery in the District of Columbia, 2 and it passed the infamous Fugitive Slave 1 St\rn. statujfes, on paper, were passed repeatedly by Congress, but little effort was made to enforce them ; and several thousand Negroes fresh from Africa were sold in Charleston every year. Special report : the horrors of this foreign trade. France early conceded to England this "right of search," to check the piratical slave trade; and other European states followed this example. In 1842, in the Ashburton Treaty (§ 317), the United States joined England in an agreement to keep & joint squadron off the coast of Africa to suppress the trade ; but we never took our proper share in this work until after the open- ing of the Civil War. 2 Congress reenacted the slave code of Virginia and Maryland for that District. Accordingly, under the shadow of the Capitol, a strange Negro might be arrested and advertised on the suspicion of being an escaped slave ; 536 THE SLAVERY STRUGGLE Act (§ 223) ; but, besides the restriction of the foreign slave trade (§ 258), it reenacted the anti-slavery provision of the Northwest Ordi- nance and resisted many attempts by the people of Indiana and Illinois to secure its repeal. Many immigrants from south of the Ohio wished to bring in their slaves with them. To attract such settlers, and to supply the labor so much needed in all new countries, the people of early Indiana and Illinois made repeated petitions to Congress to repeal that famous restriction in the Northwest Ordinance. When such efforts failed, the Territorial legis- latures tried evasion of the Federal law. Thousands of slaves were brought into the two Territories under forms of indenture or of " labor contracts "; and laws were enacted expressly to sanction this disguised slavery. These " Black laws " are a blot on the fame of the early Northwestern States, so nobly dedicated to freedom by the great Ordinance. Says McMaster (History, V, 188): "To all intents and purposes, slavery was as much a domestic institution of Illinois in 1820 as of Kentucky" ; and Professor Hart (Salmon P. Chase, 31) says of Ohio in the early thirties: "Ordinary principles of right to labor, of movement from place to place, of legal privileges, did not apply to men of dark skins." 333. Slavery Aggressive. — The years from the Missouri Compromise to the election of Jackson (1820-1829) form a transition period. Slavery was still defended as an evil, but as an evil inevitable and permanent. Its defenders still stood on the defensive, but they were less apologetic in tone. TJiis new attitude was due to a potent moneyed interest. Slavery ivas growing more profitable. The increased efficiency of slave- labor because of the cotton gin raised the value of a field hand from $200 in 1790 to $1000 in 1850. Accordingly, the Border States, where antislavery sentiment had been especially strong, looked upon the institution in a new light when they began to sell their surplus slaves at high prices to more south- ern communities. Moreover, the admission of Louisiana as a slave State, together with the extension of slavery into the and if no owner appeared to prove that suspicion, he might still be sold into slavery to satisfy the jailor's fees. This, however, had been a recent practice in Northern States for white vagrants (§ 124). SLAVERY AGGRESSIVE AFTER 1830 537 rest of the Southwest, made its ultimate overthrow seem less possible. The struggle over the Missouri Compromise (§ 283) was the first great indication of this changed attitude. The measure was distinctly Southern. It won Missouri and Arkansas to slavery ; and this extension was favored by Clay, Madison, and the aged Jefferson ! Not a Southern congressman voted for a " free " Missouri ; while only fifteen Northerners voted against the restriction on slavery — and only three of these secured reelection. Ten or twelve years later, the Slave Power had become aggres- sive. It advocated slavej^Jhereafter as a good, economic and moral, for both slaveand master, and as the only corner stone for the highest type of civilization. In consequence, the Negro was represented as animal rather than human, and wholly unfit for freedom. All these new views found an able champion in Calhoun, who devoted the remaining years of his life to their advocacy. II. 1829-1860: SLAVERY AGGRESSIVE 334. African Slavery and the Slave Power in their Last Period. — The character of slavery in colonial times has been briefly suggested (§ 124) ; and the classes of Southern people in 1830 have been noted (§ 284 b). By that date slavery had taken on somewhat darker phases than were characteristic of the earlier period. Slave life in Virginia and the Border States continued, on the whole, humane and semi-patriarchal, except for the distressing sale of parts of a slave family. But the planta- tion type of harsh, degrading slavery, formerly characteristic mainly of Carolina or Georgia rice swamps, had now been extended over vast cotton areas in all the "Lower South." Even in that district, of course, the house servants were petted and gently cared for, as a rule ; and often between masters and slaves there was warm affection. On most planta- tions, too, where the owner's family resided, master and mistress felt a high sense of duty to their helpless "charges," even of the field-hand class. 1 But the majority of plantations were managed by overseers, 1 The aged James B. Angell, in an address in 1910, recounting reminiscences of a horseback jonrney through the South in 1850, gave a forceful illustra- tion. On a certain Carolina plantation, in the evening, the hostess had 538 THE SLAVERY STRUGGLE drawn from the lower strata of the Whites, brutalized with irresponsible and despotic power, and forced to be hard taskmasters by the system under which they lived. 1 The overseer's reputation as a valuable man depended solely upon the number of bales of cotton he could turn out ; and he was tempted increasingly to drive harder and more mercilessly. It was the general belief that the Negro would work only under the lash or the fear of it ; and it was a common thing for the overseer to furnish long whips to the " drivers " (taken usually from the more brutal slaves), who stalked up and down between the rows of workers. In the ex- treme South, it was not unheard of for a master himself to avow the economic policy of working to death his gang of slaves every seven years or so, in favor of a new supply. 2 In general, however, critical observers had to confess that the same motives which secure reasonable treatment for a teamster's horses kept the slave in good condition. The Negroes lived in foul cabins — which, however, are commonly little better after forty years of freedom — and their food and clothing were of the cheapest, though the food was usually sufficient in quantity. Among the worst direct evils of the system were the elimination of incentive to improvement and the ruin to family life. 3 warmly denounced Northern antislavery agitation. In the early morning from his window, he chanced to see her returning from the group of Negro cabins, where, he learned, she had spent the later hours of the night in nurs- ing a dying Negro baby. 1 State laws forbade murdering a slave at the whipping-post ; but a loop- hole was usually provided by some clause pronouncing the owner or overseer guiltless if a slave "died " as the result of only "moderate correction." In any case, a Negro's testimony could not be taken against a White man, and often the merciless overseer was the only White present at his crimes. 2 After 1830, the piratical and unspeakably horrible foreign slave trade grew rapidly, until, in the decade 1850-1860, hundreds of thousands of savages from African jungles were brought to American slave markets— nor did any slaver receive the penalty of the law until the Civil War had begun. Worse, perhaps, because the victims had taken on more civilization, and therefore more capacity for suffering, was the " domestic " trade " down the river." A • curious self-condemnation of slavery lies in the fact that even in these times the slave dealer, so essential to the system, was a social outcast at the South. 8 The better sort of Whites tried to keep slave families together, but legislation did not compel this decency ; and, in practice the division of families was exceedingly common. Indeed, the Southern branches of the Protestant Churches, by formal resolution, recognized the separate sale of a husband or wife as a true "divorce," and permitted "remarriage " on such ground. In consequence of this condition, sex relations remained horribly degraded and confused. THE ABOLITIONISTS 539 On the other hand, the South pointed to the pitiful condition of the mass of labor in " free " countries, and argued eagerly that the slave was no worse off. Said DeBow's Beview, the leading Southern periodical, — " Where a man is compelled to labor at the will of another, and to give him much the greater portion of the product of his labor, there Slavery exists ; and it is immaterial by what sort of compulsion the will of the laborer be subdued. It is what no human being would do without some sort of compulsion (if not blows, then torture to his will by fear of starva- tion ior himself or his family)." * ■ A. From 1829 to 1844; New Forces and Old Issues 335. Garrisonian Abolitionists. — The new attitude of the Slave Power was in some degree caused by a new and more aggressive antislavery movement, known as Abolitionism, which cried out for immediate and complete destruction of slavery. For some years before 1830, Benjamin Lundy had published at Baltimore The Genius of Universal Emancipation, devoted to this teaching. In 1828 Lundy found a greater dis- ciple in one of his assistant printers, William Lloyd Garrison. Young, poor, friendless, in 1831 Garrison began in Boston the publication of the Liberator ; and the first number (printed on paper secured with difficulty on credit, and set up wholly by Garrison's own hand) carried at its head a declaration of war: — "Let Southern oppressors tremble ... I shall strenuously contend for immediate enfranchisement ... I will be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice ... I do not wish to think, or speak, or write with moderation ... I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not retreat a single inch — and i will be heard." To the end this remained the keynote of the Garrisonian Abolitionists. They sought to arouse the moral sense of the North against slavery as a wrong to human nature. For long years their vehemence made them social outcasts, even when 1 With the growing difficulty for a laborer to pass into the class of employers (§ 444), those words of the old slaveholder have become a clarion appeal for industrial and social reform among us to-day. 540 THE SLAVERY STRUGGLE they were not iu danger of physical violence. Among the group were Wendell Phillips, a youth of high social position and opportunity, who forsook his career to become the hated and despised orator of the Abolition cause ; Whittier, the gen- tle Quaker poet, whose verse rang like a bugle call ; Theodore Parker, a Unitarian minister of Boston, whose own denomina- tion refused, in considerable degree, to fellowship with the "terrible pastor of Abolition"; and, at a later time, James Russell Lowell, whose scathing satire in the Biglow Papers struck most effective blows for freedom, and whose established position helped to make Abolitionism " respectable." Of this body of agitators, Garrison remained the most ex- treme. He could see no part of the slaveholder's side, and he dealt only in stern denunciation of all opponents — and even of moderate supporters. He and his group had no direct influ- ence upon political action against slavery. Many of them disclaimed desire for any such influence. Garrison once burned in public a copy of the Constitution, defaming it as " a Covenant with Death and an agreement with Hell"; and the only political action advocated by him for Northern men was secession by the free States. 1 A more reasonable group of Abolitionists contained such men as William Ellery Channing and Samuel May (Unitarian ministers) , Emerson, Longfellow, Gerrit Smith, William Jay, and the aged Gallatin. For Channing's logical but temperate and patient indictment of slavery, Garrison, however, had only abuse. On the moderate side, Emerson at first condemned the Garrisonian extremists with unaccustomed harshness ; but later he said that " they might be wrong-headed, but they were wrong- headed in the right direction.'''' 1 So, too, Lowell's " Hosea Biglow " exclaims (opposing war with Mexico) : — " Ef I'd my way, I hed ruther We should go to work an' part,-^ They take one way, we take t'other, — Guess it wouldn't break my heart. Men hed ought to put asunder Them that God has noways jined ; An' I shouldn't gretly wonder Ef there's thousands of my mind." AND FREE SPEECH 541 Other foes of slavery, like Lincoln, rejected the name Abolitionist, altogether, and believed that the Garrisonian group harmed more than they helped. Such a charge is always made against extreme reformers. Garrison and his friends did rouse bitter antagonism and make their opponents more aggressive : but they achieved their purpose by being " heard. ." The nation would have been glad to forget the wrongs of slavery: these men made that impossible — sometimes by exaggerating and misrepresenting those wrongs — and they trusted to the moral sense of the people to do the rest. They made slavery a topic of discussion at every Northern fireside, — and slavery could not stand discussion. 336. Slave Insurrections. — A slave-holding community lives always over a sleeping volcano. The unspoken dread of all southern Whites was a possible slave insurrection, with its unimaginable horrors. Earlier in the century, two plots had been discovered, by fortunate accidents, just in time to avert terrible disaster. Then, in 1831, came Nat Turner's rising. Turner was a Negro preacher and slave in Virginia. The plot so far miscarried that only a handful of, slaves took part ; but sixty Whites, including several children, were ferociously massacred, and, before order was restored, a hundred Negroes (five times the number in the rising) were shot, hanged, tor- tured, or burned. The South was thrown into a frenzy of terror and rage. Excited opinion charged that the rising was due directly to inflammatory articles in Garrison's Liberator. Southern States enacted stricter laws against the education and freedom of movement of slaves, and even of free Negroes, and the legislature of Georgia offered a reward of $5000 to any kidnaper who should bring Garrison to that State for trial under her laws against inciting servile insurrection. y. 337. The Slave Power attacks the Rights of White Men. — After 1831 the former freedom of discussion about slavery vanished south of Mason and Dixon's Line. Antislavery societies dissolved ; antislavery meetings could no longer find halls or audiences ; antislavery publications were forced out. In many cases these ends were secured by mob violence ; and such violence, after due warning, was sanctioned by Southern society. 542 THE SLAVERY STRUGGLE In 1835 James G. Birney, a Kentuckian who had long worked valiantly against slavery in Alabama and his native State, was driven to move his antislavery paper across the Ohio to Cincinnati. He soon learned that this change of residence gave no immunity from personal violence. Within a few weeks (183G) his office was sacked, and his life sought, by a bloodthirsty proslavery mob, while respectable citizens merely advised him to seek safety in silence. The year before, a Boston mob, "in broadcloth and silk hats," had broken up one of Garrison's meetings, gutted his printing office, and dragged Garrison himself through the streets by a rope around his body — until he was rescued and protected by the mayor by being jailed. 1 And in Alton, Illinois, the year after (1837), mobs twice sacked the office of Elijah Lovejoy, an Abolitionist editor, and finally murdered Lovejoy, when he tried to defend his property from a third assault. A free press was the particular object of attack; and for many years practically every Abolitionist paper in cities large or small ran danger of such destruction. Scores of cases might be enumerated. For instance, in the little frontier village of St. Cloud, Minnesota, a proslavery mob sacked the printing office of Mrs. Jane G. Swisshelm, and threw her press into the Mississippi. There was this difference in the matter, hovjever, between North and South. In the South, discussion ivas absolutely strangled. In the North, Lovejoy was the only martyr to suffer death, — though several other mobs planned murder, and one victim was brutally tarred and feathered. But in Cincinnati or Boston or St. Cloud, resolute men and women found it possible to continue the discussion, and eventually to win a hearing? It is curious to note the cowardice of respectable people and of property interests in these conflicts. Alton, in a measure, was depend- ent upon trade from the Missouri side of the Mississippi. Cincinnati's prosperity, in like fashion, was supposed to depend upon Kentucky trade. In both towns the cry arose that antislavery publications alien- ated the Slave State visitors and customers, and " hurt business "; and, before this direful threat, mayors, ministers, bankers, and every news- 1 The mob was particularly vindictive on this occasion because a certain Thompson, an Englishman, had been advertised as a speaker at the meeting. A favorite device of the proslavery fanatics was to represent Abolition as an English, un-American movement, designed insidiously to destroy the Union. 2 At St. Cloud, a mass meeting, excited not in behalf of Abolitionism, but by the attack upon free speech, promptly subscribed money to replace the press, — no small thing in a petty and moneyless frontier village. AND FREE SPEECH 543 paper in both cities were whipped into base submission, so far at least as to counsel giving up all agitation of the question. The student can easily find many parallels in a like cry regarding thoroughgoing attempts at political reform in American cities in very recent days. They " hurt business." These attacks upon free speech, were ominous enough to all men who really cared for their own rights, and they sum- moned to the antislavery cause many who had never been moved by wrong to the Negro. Still more significant in this respect were certain demands of the South that the National government or the Northern States should by law stifle dis- cussion. The story is too long for detail ; but two incidents can be touched upon, — the frenzied attempts of the Slave Power to dictate Federal interference with the mails, and the arrogant denial in Congress of the ancient "right of petition." a. In 1835 a Charleston mob took certain Northern antislavery papers from the post office for a public bonfire. Southern societies and legislatures were already calling upon Northern States to prevent the publication of such " inflammatory" material, or at least to keep it from spreading beyond their own borders. Some postmasters in large Northern cities showed a willingness to comply, — and even did so, during an appeal to the Postmaster General. This official (Amos Kendall, member of Jackson's Cabinet) practically justified the mob by his equivocal words on the matter, but was forced to acknowledge that under existing legislation he had no power to exclude any such material from the mails. President Jackson promptly recommended Congress to enact the necessary legislation so that "incendiary publications" might be excluded. "But," cried antislavery men — and many others never before so counted — "Who is to judge what is incendiary? On such a charge, the Bible or the Constitution might be excluded." And after a sharp struggle, the bill failed to pass. b. After 1820, petitions poured upon Congress in ever increasing bulk for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. In the ordinary course, such a petition was referred to an appropriate committee, and if ever reported upon, it was rejected. But in 1836, the sensitive Southern members secured a "gag resolution" which each new Congress for eight years incorporated in its standing rules, — so that all petitions concerning slavery should be "laid on the table" without being discussed or printed or " committed " or read. 544 THE SLAVERY STRUGGLE The Slave Power thought exultantly that it had choked off discussion. Instead, in manner dangerous to itself, it had merely shifted discussion from the slavery of the Negro, to the " right of petition " by White men, and had taken one more step in identifying the antislavery movement with a traditional right of the English-speaking people. The " Old Man Eloquent," John Quincy Adams, now Representative from a Massachu- setts district and formerly indifferent to slavery, crowned his long public life with its chief glory by standing forth as the unconquerable champion of the right of petition, — which, he insisted, meant that his constituents and others had the right not merely to send petitions to the Congressional waste-paper basket, but the right to have their petitions read and consid- ered. Tireless, skillful, indomitable, unruffled by tirades of abuse, quick to take advantage of all parliamentary openings, Adams wore out his op- ponents and roused the country ; and in 1844 the gag rule was abandoned. 338. Political Abolitionists : The Liberty Party and the Election of 1844. — Thus while Garrisonian Abolitionists were trying to persuade the North that slavery was a moral wrong to the -Negro, the folly of the Slave Power called into being a new Abolitionist party which thought of slavery first and foremost as dangerous to Northern rights. 1 This party sought to limit slavery by all constitutional means, with a view to its ultimate extinction, and went into politics to accomplish its ends. It was strongest in the Middle and North Central States ; and among its leading representatives were Birney and the young lawyer, Salmon P. Chase. ' ' Like thousands of other antislavery men . . . Chase was aroused, not by the wrongs of the slave, but by the dangers to free white men. He did not hear the cries of the Covington whipping post across the river [the Ohio], but he could not mistake the shouts of the mob which destroyed Birney's property and sought his life; and his earliest act as an antislavery man was to stand for the everyday right of a fellow resident of Cincinnati to express his mind." Hart, Salmon P. Chase, 48. An autobiographical sketch by Chase himself says (after describing his indignation at the Bir- ney mobbing) : "I was opposed at this time to the views of the Aboli- 1 A parallel will suggest itself between this fact and the remarkable way, in recent years, in which the arrogant and open attempts of the Liquor inter- ests to dominate legislatures and city councils have driven into anti-liquor parties multitudes of citizens who never cared for the victims of the saloon. TEXAS 545 tionists ; but I now recognized the Slave Power as the great enemy of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of the person. I took an open part against the mob. Of the prominent citizens, very few stood decidedly on that side. . . . From this time, although not technically an Abolitionist, I became a decided opponent of slavery . . . and if any chose to call me an Abolitionist ... I was at no trouble to disclaim the name." In the campaign of 1844 the Birney Abolitionists appeared as the Liberty party. 1 Polk, the Democratic candidate, was squarely committed, with his party, to the acquisition of more slave territory by the annexation of Texas (§ 339 If.). The Whigs, with Clay for their candidate, tried to sidestep the issue. As had been hoped, and planned, Birney drew enough votes from Clay in the close State of New York to give its large electoral vote (and the presidency) to Polk. The Liberty party meant to force the Whigs into adopting antislavery principles, or to step into their place as the second great party. (^/ B. Slavery and Expansion y/ 339. Texas an Independent Slave State. — By the Louisiana purchase, the United States had acquired a possible title to Texas ; but by the Florida treaties of 1819-1821,' this claim had been given up (§ 261). In 1821 Mexico became independent, with Texas as one of her " States " ; and in 1827 she decreed gradual emancipation of all slaves. The settlers of Texas were mainly Americans from the southwestern States, who now prepared for rebellion and the formation of an independent slave State. In 1835 Santa Anna made himself Dictator of Mexico, and prepared to consolidate its various " States " — which had previously enjoyed a large degree of self-govern- ment. This hastened action by the Texan s. That State seceded, adopted a constitution which recognized slavery, and chose " Sam " Houston president. 2 A Mexican army captured 1 For the attitude and program of the Liberty party, see their own admir- able statement, in Hart's Chase, 59-61. 2 Houston was a Tennessee Indian fighter, and a friend of Andrew Jackson. 546 THE SLAVERY STRUGGLE a small Texan force in the Alamo (a fortified mission) after gallant resistance, and massacred every survivor. Somewhat later, the main body of Texas frontiersmen, under Houston, met the Mexican army (six times their number) for the decisive battle at San Jacinto (March 2, 1836), and charged with the vengeful cry, " Remember the Alamo." Their complete victory, and the capture of Santa Anna, established Texas in virtual independence, which was promptly recognized by the United States 1 and by many European countries.. Mexico, however, did not surrender her claims. The Texans hoped and expected annexation to the United States. There was not yet much Abolition sentiment in the North ; but there was sufficient opposition to further expansion of slavery to make Northern members of Congress hesitate. The Texas which was claimed by the Houston government was an enormous territory, large enough to make ten ordinary States ; and its annexation would mean a vast gain to the Slave Power. President Jackson urged annexation strenu- ously, during the closing months of his term ; but Van Buren skillfully kept the question out of discussion. Tyler renewed attempts for annexation, but a treaty for that purpose, pre- sented by him to the Senate, was rejected by an overwhelming vote. Then the cry was raised that England would annex Texas if we did not ; and the popular feeling for national ex- pansion was skillfully played upon. In 1844 the Democratic party boldly took for its slogan " the inoccupation of Oregon and the ^annexation of Texas." Their victory was accepted by Congress as a popular verdict for annexation ; and in the closing days of the Tyler administration a "joint resolution" for the annexation of Texas was passed through Congress and signed by Tyler {March 3, 1845). 340- Excursus : Oregon. — The Democrats had challenged England as well as Mexico, — in order to reinforce the expansion sentiment of the 1 President Jackson hastened the recognition of Texan independence with- out the consent of Congress, in a most arbitrary manner. WAR WITH MEXICO 547 Southwest with that of the Northwest ; and it seemed as though now the Polk administration might have two wars on its hands. The claim to all of the Oregon country had been summed up in the campaign cry, — "Fifty-four forty [54° 40'] or fight." It was not to be expected that England would surrender her claims, so like our own (§ 276), to such loud demands ; but wise moderation in both governments resulted in a peaceful and sensible division of Oregon, by extending the boundary line of the 49th parallel (already adopted east of the mountains) through the disputed district to the Pacific. This line was practically identical with the Northern watershed of the Columbia ; and it gave us all that we could claim on the basis of "occupation," leaving to England that half of the district which Englishmen had " occupied." 341 . Spoliation of Mexico. — Presid en t Polk wanted California, to which we had no claim whatever, quite as much, as he had wanted Texas. Mexico was weak ; but Polk could not bully her into selling the coveted district. Other means, however, remained. Texas extended without question to the Nueces River. Not content with that southern boundary, she claimed to the Rio Grande — on grounds worse than questionable. War with a proud and sensitive people, like the Mexicans, was already probable because of our annexation of Texas. For the United States to back up this amazing Texan claim to Mexican territory was to make war certain. General Zachary Taylor, under ex- press orders from the President, moved an American force into the disputed territory and on to the Rio Grande, where his position threatened a Mexican city across the river. The Mexicans demanded a withdrawal. Taylor refused, was at- tacked, won a victory, and crossed the river. Polk announced to Congress (May 11, 1846), "War exists, and, notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, exists by the act of Mexico." Con- gress accepted the pretext and adopted the Avar. 1 The unjust war was waged brilliantly. General Taylor in- 1 One Southern slaveholder had the manhood to oppose the war. Thundered Senator Benton of Missouri : " Why not march up to fifty-four forty as courageously as we can march to the Rio Grande ? Because Great Britain is powerful, and Mexico is weak." 548 THE SLAVERY STRUGGLE vaded from the north, and General Winfield Scott advanced from the Gulf. The Mexicans were both brave and subtle; but American armies won amazing victories over larger en- trenched forces, and the contest closed with the spectacular storming of the fortified heights of Chapultepec and the cap- ture of the City of Mexico (September 15, 1847). Promptly at the outbreak of the war American troops had been dispatched to seize California and New Mexico (territory which included, besides the modern States of those names, most of the present Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming). In the treaty of peace after ceding Texas as far as the Rio Grande, Mexico was forced to accept $15,000,000 for this other territory. Two members of the President's Cabinet wanted to take all of Mexico; but Polk wisely insisted upon a more moderate policy. To decide what to do with the territory acquired was quite enough to keep us busy for some years. 342. Gadsden Purchase ; Designs on Cuba. — A misunderstand- ing soon arose as to some forty-five thousand square miles of the '-Mexican cession," just south of the Gila; and Mexico threatened to fight again rather than surrender her claim. Finally, in 1853, the United States secured full title by pay- ment of ten millions dollars more, through our agent, Gadsden. This Gadsden Purchase was the last expansion of our territory before the overthrow of slavery ; but it was not the last attempt by the Slave Power. Southern politicians had long looked with covetous desire at Cuba. In earlier years, on more than one occasion, that island might have achieved independence of Spain (with the proffered aid of Mexico) ; but the Slave Power in American politics had used its influence to pre- serve Spanish rule, rather than permit a free Cuba, sure to abolish slavery. President Polk offered Spain a hundred million dollars for the island. Then, about 1854, Southern leaders were ready for a more extreme pro- gram, and began to advocate frankly the seizure of Cuba by force, to form more SJave States, if Spain should persist in refusing to sell it. 1 This 1 In 1851 the Lopez " fillibusters," five hundred strong, sailed from New Orleans to invade Cuba. This, and other like attempts upon Central America, ^M- ! \jUUM&4 . -r- (M \s- =*-\^ - LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE 569 More temperately, but quite as decidedly, the influential Springfield Republican said : " The majority of the Court rushed needlessly to the conclusions, and are justly open to suspicion of being induced to pro- nounce them by partisan or sectional influences. ... In this country, the court of last resort is the people. They will discuss and review the action of the Supreme Court, and, if it presents itself as a practical issue, they will vote against it." And Lincoln, in his more judicial mood, defend- ing the Republican party against the Democratic cry that it "resisted" the Supreme Court replied: "Who has . . . declared Dred Scott free, or resisted the authority of his master over him ? . . . But we think the decision erroneous. We know that the Court has often overruled its own decisions ; and ice shall do what ice can to have it overrule this one. We offer no resistance to it." In the same debates, Lincoln exposed the real fallacy in the " popu- lar sovereignty " plea. The " people most interested " were the slaves, said he, and they were not consulted. " I admit that the emigrant to Nebraska is competent to govern himself ; but I deny his right to govern any other person without that person's consent." 355. Lincoln-Douglas Debate, 1858. — The congressional elec- tions of the next year showed great Republican gains, and that party became the strongest of the four or five into which the lower House was now split. Douglas, " Little Giant " of de- bate, was himself returned to the Senate only after a desperate campaign, made famous by a series of joint debates between him and Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was defeated, but he attained his deliberate purpose. His acute and persistent questions forced Douglas to choose between the new doctrine of the Supreme Court — to which the South now clung vociferously — and his own old doctrine of squatter sovereignty — which was certainly as far as Illinois would go. If he placed himself in opposition to the Supreme Court, he would not be able to secure Southern support for the presidency at the next election — to which men's eyes were already turned. If he did not oppose the Court, he would lose the Senatorship and Northern support for the presidency. In any case, the Democratic party would be robbed of its most formidable candidate in 1860. Douglas was driven to main- 570 THE SLAVERY STRUGGLE tain that the legislature of a Territory, despite the Dred Scott decision, could keep slavery out by " unfriendly legislation," if it so wished. This admission was to make Lincoln Pres- ident in 1861. ^/ 356. John Brown Raid and Uncle Tom's Cabin. — Two other events must be noticed, before we take up the fateful election of 1860. a. In 1859 John Brown (§ 351) attempted to arouse a slave insurrection in Virginia. He seems hardly to have compre- hended the hideous results that would have followed a suc- cessful attempt. He planned to establish a camp in the mountains to which Negro fugitives might rally ; and his little force of twenty-two men seized the arsenal at Harper's Ferry, to get arms for slave recruits. The neighboring slaves did not rise, as he had hoped they would, and he was cap- tured, after a gallant defense. Virginia gave him a fair trial; and he was convicted of murder and of treason against that commonwealth. His unshaken fortitude and his death made his scaffold more formidable to slavery than ever the living man had been. The South began to feel that slavery would never be safe within the Union unless the whole Union adopted the institution. The North in general condemned Brown's action ; but its condemnation was tempered by a note of sympathy and admiration for the man that sounded ominous to Southern ears. b. In 1852 Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe had written Uncle Tom's Cabin, one of the greatest moral forces ever contained between book covers. The volume contained many errors, and presented an exaggerated view of the miseries of slavery, under ordinary Southern conditions ; but it did its great work in making the people of the North realize that the slave was a fellow man for whom any slavery was hateful. It was noted that, when the stoiy was dramatized, the Bowery gangs in the New York theaters, who, out of doors were ready to mob Abolitionists, went wild with sympathy and grief for the fugi- tive slave mother. The tremendous influence of the book, - ■ --. ' , "BLEEDING KANSAS" 571 however, despite its enormous stir, was not really felt for some years. Such books exercise their deepest control upon the young ; and the boys of fourteen to sixteen who read Uncle Tom's Cabin in 1852-1855 were just ready to give their vote to Abraham Lincoln in 1860. This explains in part, too, why the college youth, who had been generally proslavery in 1850 (§ 349), left the college halls vacant in 1861-1865 to join the Northern armies. 357. The Buchanan Administration. — In 1857 the free-State men won the Kansas elections so overwhelmingly that the pro- slavery organization could no longer expect open support from Washington. The expiring proslavery legislature, however, still provided for a proslavery convention, which met at Lecompton (November, 1857). President Buchanan had pur- chased for that body the privilege of meeting in peace by promis- ing that its work should be submitted to popular vote. This pledge was not kept. The convention arranged a " constitu- tion with slavery " and a " constitution with no slavery," which last, however, left in bondage the slaves then in the Territory, and forbade the residence of free Negroes. At the promised elec- tion, the voters were permitted merely to choose between these two constitutions: they were given no opportunity to reject both. The free-State men kept away from the polls ; and the " con- stitution with slavery " carried overwhelmingly, six thousand to less than six hundred. But the new free-State legislature provided for a new and proper expression of opinion. This time the proslavery men abstained from voting ; and the two constitutions together received less than two hundred votes, to more than ten thousand against both of them. Still, the South and the Administration at Washington strove violently to secure the admission of the State with the Lecompton pro- slavery constitution, pretending to regard the first election as valid. This nefarious attempt to rob the people of their will was defeated by the warm opposition of Douglas, who at least remained true to his doctrine of popular sovereignty as he had 572 THE SLAVERY STRUGGLE before expressed it. The Slave Power succeeded, however, in getting Congress to submit the Lecompton constitution to the people of Kansas for the third time, with a dazzling bribe of public lands if they should accept it. Kansas refused the bribe, eleven thousand to two thousand. Even then, the Demo- cratic Senate would not vote to admit the State with a " free " constitution; and Kansas statehood had to wait until 1861. Meantime, two other free States had come in, to establish Northern supremacy in the Senate, — Minnesota (1858) and Oregon (1859). The President made other earnest efforts to extend the realm of slavery. His first Message recommended the acquisition of Cuba and of parts of Central America and Mexico. In the light of his connection with the Ostend Manifesto (§ 342), such utterances pointed ominously to highway- man methods ; but no action resulted. Nor was time given for anything to come of the loud demands now voiced in the South for the legalizing of the foreign slave trade. E. The Contest for Supremacy in 1860 358. Programs and Nominations. — In February, 1860, Jeffer- son Davis of Mississippi introduced into the Senate a set of resolutions affirming the duty of Congress to defend slavery in the Territories, and condemning the Douglas doctrine of pos- sible " unfriendly legislation " as unconstitutional. His united Southern support was notice that the Slave Power would in- dorse no man for the presidency who would not accept these principles. Amid the tense excitement of the whole country, the Demo- cratic National Convention met at Charleston in April. A majority of the delegates favored Douglas' nomination, but the fight came on the platform. Resolutions according with the Davis program were defeated, in favor of more moderate ground. A strong minority of Southern extremists at once withdrew ; and, after ten days of fruitless negotiation between the two wings, the Convention adjourned, to meet at Baltimore in June, — at which session Douglas was nominated. The ELECTION OF 1860 573 seceders then placed in nomination John C. Breckenridge of Kentucky upon their extreme platform. Jtj-- Meantime, conservative representatives of the old Whig and Know-nothing parties organized as the Constitutional Union Party ; and their Convention (May 9) nominated John Bell of Tennessee, announcing the compromise platform, " No consti- tutional principles except the Constitution of the country, the Union of the States, and the enforcement of the laws." A week later, the Republican Convention met at Chicago in a vast "wigwam," amid wild enthusiasm from thousands of spectators. Seward was at first the leading candidate ; but he had many personal enemies, and the more moderate Republi- cans looked upon him as a theorist rather than a practical man. The third ballot nominated Abraham Lincoln, who was expected to be strong against Douglas in Illinois, one of the doubtful States. The platform declared for protection, and for a free Homestead Bill (§ 367), denounced strenuously the Dred Scott decision {claiming that the normal condition of the Territories was free, not slave), and demanded the immediate admission of Kansas with her free-State constitution. Lincoln was a strong candidate from the first, and his cause was skill- fully handled. On the morning of the nomination, the Seward men paraded the city in imposing fashion ; but when they reached the wigwam they found the center of the hall filled with a solid mass of Lincoln supporters (including some men whose stentorian lungs were their chief recommenda- tion) ; and grave observers believed that the greater volume of Lincoln noise had much to do with deciding wavering delegations. Moreover, the result was due immediately to an unhappy bargain made by Lincoln's managers with Senator Cameron, the political boss of Pennsylvania. Cameron transferred fifty delegates pledged to himself into the Lincoln column, in return for a promise of a place in the Cabinet. 1 Lincoln knew nothing of this at the time, and, indeed, had expressly forbidden any such "bargains" in his behalf ; but afterwards he made the pledge good — until Cameron became " impossible." 1 Pennsylvania was one of the doubtful States ; and the platform's emphasis on protection was calculated to appeal to her manufacturing interests. 574 THE SLAVERY STRUGGLE Most New England Republicans were deeply grieved. They believed that, in passing by Seward, principle had been sacrificed to a mistaken idea of expediency ; and they looked upon Lincoln as not only obscure, but ignorant, uncouth, and incapable. Most of his support, indeed, came from men who regarded him as " available " rather than particularly desirable. Almost no one of prominence yet dreamed of the wise, patient, steadfast, far-seeing man, of homely grandeur, that the next years were to reveal. 359. Meaning of the Contest. — With the Democratic party hopelessly divided, Republican victory in the electoral college was almost certain. To the South, that prospect was alarm- ing. The Republican platform had once more reasserted that Congress had no power to interfere with slavery in the States ; but in the 1858 debate with Douglas, Lincoln had said boldly and sagaciously : — " * A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this gov- ernment cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall ; but I expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other." So, even more impressively at the time, Seward had said of the slavery struggle : "It is an irrepressible conflict . . . and it means that the United States must, and will, sooner or later, become entirely a slaveholding nation or entirely a free-labor nation." Armed with the Dred Scott decision, the South meant to make the nation all a slaveholding nation, and it saw that these speeches represented the real platform to which the Republican Party would have to come. Republican success would mean eventually a reyersal of the Supreme Court, and continued progress toward Lincoln's " nation all free," if the nation held together at all. The South did not shrink. Deliberately, in advance, it • made preparations to break up the Union and save slavery. North and South no longer understood each other. In the seventy years since the adoption of the Constitution, the North had moved steadily toward new intellectual and moral stand- ards and a new system of industry : the South had remained stagnant. As a Southern writer said: "The whirl and rush low PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1860 From Chadwick's Causes of the Civil War, Copyright, by Harper & Brothers SCALE OF MILES 50 100 200 300 400 500 600 □ □ n n LINCOLN BRECKENRIDGE BELL Circle* show next highest vote for each candidate as above- Numbers show vote cast for highest and next highest. Gothic Numbers thus; 4 shotv electoral vote of state- Electoral vote of Stic Jersey was divided: 4 for Lincoln, 8 for Douglas, Breckenridge received 44-7 per cent of the Southern vote, and Bell received ' 110'' Longitude L F OF M E X l c o M H baH a^ ELECTION OF 1860 575 of progress encompassed the South on every side. . . . Yet alone in all the world she stood unmoved by it." The North had adopted the new Websterian views of the Constitution, in accord with modern needs : the South clung to the old, out- grown views expressed by Calhoun. The great Protestant denominations' — Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians — had already split apart into distinct churches, North and South, on the slavery issue. Southern associations were forming, pledged to non-importation of Northern manufactures, with a preference for importation from England. The North con- demned the South as a community built upon a great sin : the South despised and reviled the North as a race of "mudsills" and cheats, and boasted its own higher sense of honesty and honor. Unity was already gone in hearts, in industry, in religious organizations. It was going in com- mercial intercourse. It could not long endure, on such terms, politically. The election was to prove that neither section would surrender peacefully to the demands of the other. 1 360. The Vote. — Lincoln carried every Northern State (including California) except for three of the seven New Jersey electors. Douglas received only those three votes and the nine from Missouri, though his popular vote was nearly as large as Lincoln's even in most of the States which "went Republican." Bell carried the moderate Border States, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. All the other Southern States went to Breckenridge. Lincoln had 180 electoral votes to 163 for his three competitors combined ; but in the popular vote, he had only 1,857,610 out of a total of 4,645,390. 2 The victory was narrow ; and it was the victory of a divided section over a weaker but more united section. Before Christmas, secession had begun (§ 369). 1 Cf . § 134, for the'similar growing apart of two sections as a cause of the Revolution. 2 The popular vote for the other candidates stood : Douglas, 1,291,574 ; Breckenridge, 850,082 ; Bell, 646,124. Either Breckenridge' s or Bell's, added to Douglas', exceeded Lincoln's total, 576 THE UNITED STATES IN 1860 F. On the Eve (To prepare for this Division, the student is advised to review §§ 124, 244-251, 263,- 272-273, and especially 285-293. The intellectual move- ment which began in 1830-1845 continued unabated to the sixties ; but it has been treated in §§ 292-293 so fully that no further account is given here.) 361. Varying Viewpoints. — We have treated the period 1845- 1860 only in regard to the struggle for the extension or restriction of slavery. To most men of the time these years had a more engrossing aspect. The era was one of marvellous material prosperity. Comforts and luxuries multiplied as never before. In the twenty years following the panic of 1837, wealth increased fourfold, — for the first time in our history, faster than population. Men were absorbed in a mad race to share these new opportunities. They were compelled to stop, in a degree, for the slavery discussion, but the majority regarded it as an annoying interruption to the real business of life. 362. Commercial Fortunes. — Between 1850 and 1857, rail- way mileage multiplied enormously. In the old Northwest, it grew twenty times as fast as population (from one mile for 19,000 people to one for 900) ; and the map took on its modern gridiron look. Lines reached the Mississippi at ten points, and some projected themselves into the unsettled " plains." 1 With the railway, or ahead of it, spread the telegraph; and 1 Railway extension had been assisted materially by National land grants, like those to canals in the earlier period. In 1850 three million acres were given to Illinois for the Illinois Central (alternate sections along both sides of the proposed route) , and (as designed) the State legislature then transferred this domain to the Company building the road. Immense grants of like character were made to other western and southwestern States. In 1856 twenty million acres were given away. Mild attempts of legislatures to couple their transfers to the railways with conditions to secure the public interest achieved no marked success in this period. Most of the mileage was still single-track, with rickety roadbed and flimsy rolling stock, and without unity of management. Delays were annoying ; connections, uncertain and sometimes wanting ; and accidents appallingly common and destructive. Sleeping cars were not yet in use. The fast- est time between New York and Chicago (38 hours) was twice that of the year 1912. NATIONAL PROSPERITY 577 mail routes took swift advantage of rail transportation. In 1851, Congress reduced letter postage to three cents per half ounce for any distance under three thousand miles. 1 Thus began the era of commercial combinations (with its necessary handmaids, swift transportation and instant and cheap communication) ; and great fortunes piled up beyond previous dreams. Even for labor, the period was a golden age. -Between 1840 and 1860, wages rose 20 per cent, while prices rose on the average only 2 per cent. Pauperism was unobtrusive, and, to foreign observers, amazingly rare. 363. Changes in Routes and Centers. — Until 1850, the more distant West — Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, south- ern Illinois — had remained tributary commercially to New Orleans, by the river. Now, with the development of rail routes, this new Northwest suddenly faced toward New Eng- land and began even to feed Europe. This change in trade currents was more than merely economic : it killed the last hope of the South for continued political alliance with the West. The moral awakening on the subject of slavery had done much to draw the West away from its old political connections, and to ally it with the Northeast. The new commercial ties hastened the process. If the break between sections had come in 1850 instead of 1860, it is not so sure that the West would not have sided with the South. Between 1850 and 1860, grain crops swelled from 100,000,000 bushels to 171,000,000 ; and half the total came now from the Northwest. Graz- ing, too, ceased to be an eastern industry, passing to the far West and to Texas. In the East, however, manufactures enjoyed a marvelous growth — in just this era of low tariffs, 1842-1861 (§ 321). In 1850, for the first time, the value of manufactured products excelled that of agriculture (.$1,055,000,000 to $994,000,000) ; hut the census of 1860, after the panic of '57, again showed agriculture slightly in the lead. Our exports still came almost exclusively from agriculture, though we had begun to send cheap grades of cotton cloth to South America and the Orient. 1 For greater distance, it was six cents. The rate had been reduced twice before since 1800 (§ 247). In 1850, it was five cents for three hundred miles. \ 578 THE UNITED STATES IN 1860 England's repeal of her Corn Laws (Modem History, § 544) was one incentive to American agriculture for export in this period, while our own low tariffs encouraged imports. Foreign trade mounted by leaps ; and three fourths of it was carried in American shipping. In 1860 our mer- chant marine exceeded that of England. 1 Thus the twenty years preceding the Civil War saw an industrial transformation. There was no such revolution as marked the transition from the Domestic to the Factory system (§ 248) ; but machinery, espe- cially agricultural machinery, was multiplied and improved in marvelous fashion — too complicated for description outside a special treatise, but easily making one farm laborer worth more than three in earlier years. As with the growth of railways, so this development of machinery had an indirect social result more important than its economic value. The improved reapers and threshers, it has been said, won the Civil War. Without them, Northern grain fields could never have spared the men who marched with Grant and Sherman. As it was, the Northwest, with half its grown men under arms, increased its agricultural output during the war. 364. Beginnings of More Distant Communications. — The acquisition of California had been followed by a swift expansion of trade with Asia. Hawaii had been brought under American influence previously by Ameri- can missionaries and traders ; and in 1844 China was persuaded to open up five "treaty ports" to American trade. Japan continued the ori- ental policy of exclusion of foreigners until 1854, when Commodore Perry, in pursuance of orders from Washington, entered Japanese ports with his fleet of warships and secured a commercial treaty — which began the transformation of Japan into a modern nation. After the discovery of gold in California (and with the opening of these prospects of Oriental trade) the question of transportation across the Isthmus at once arose. Both Great Britain and the United States tried to secure control of routes for a canal from ocean to ocean ; and in 1850 the Clayton Bulwer treaty agreed that any canal across those nar- row lands should be neutral, and subject to common control by the two 1 Relatively, however, a decline had already set in. Americans clung to the xoooden " clipper " sailing vessel, with which we had won supremacy; but England was turning to the iron steamship which was to be the commerce car- rier of the future. Therefore, the coming interruption to our merchant marine in the Civil War was to prove fatal. Our carrying trade then passed to Eng- land, and we have never recovered it. POPULATION AND SECTIONS 579 countries. Actual construction remained a matter of the future ; but in 1855 a railway was opened across the Isthmus. The more ambitious project of an American railway from the Missis- sippi to the Pacific was agitated for ten years before 1860, but without definite action except for surveys, until 1862. In 1861, however, en- couraged by prospects of a government subsidy, the Western Union carried a telegraph line across the mountains to San Francisco. In 1858, thanks to the splendid enterprise of Gyrus W. Field, tele- graphic communication was established between Europe and America. After a few weeks, however, a break in the submarine cable interrupted communication until after the War, in 1866. 365. Credit Expansion and the Crisis of 1857 : Tariff Legisla- tion. — Between 1850 and 1857 the banks of the country doubled in numbers (rising to more than 1400), while bank currency and bank loans also doubled in amount. In New England and New York the lesson of conservative banking had been learned ; but in the West these institutions were still managed recklessly. In 1857 came another of our periodic years of financial distress, due, as in 1837, to speculation, reck- less inflation of credit, and premature investment of borrowed capital in enterprises which could render no immediate return. This time, however, the country recovered quickly from the disorder. In 1857 the national debt (augmented during the Mexican War) had been decreased to $29,000,000, and a large surplus was piling up in the Treasury vaults. Many ascribed the financial stringency to this withdrawal of money from circula- tion; and the tariff, already low, was reduced practically to a free-trade basis (§ 321). But the decrease in revenues due to hard times and to the falling off of imports soon re- sulted in the disappearance of the surplus, and ran the debt up to $65,000,000. Consequently, in 1861 (before the War), after a year's contest, Congress enacted the Morrill Tariff, on the protective principle. 366. Population ; Cities ; Resources. — Population had con- tinued to increase at about the old rate of 100 per cent in twenty-five years, besides the added volume of immigration in / sT 580 THE UNITED STATES IN 1860 the fifties. Between 1850 and 1860 onr numbers had risen from twenty-three million to thirty-one and a half; and the cities (eight thousand people and upwards) counted now 158. B H p °j s v ^-^ s T This was four times as many as twenty years earlier ; and the cities now contained one man in every six of the entire popula- tion, instead of one in twelve. The westward movement of population, too, continued unabated. POPULATION AND SECTIONS 581 The map (page 386) makes that movement appear even greater than in earlier decades ; but the westward leap of the "center of population" be- tween 1850 and 1860 is deceptive as an indication of the true distribution. Before 1850, the position of that point had been a roughly correct indica- tion, because, on the whole, except for a temporary gap at the Appalachi- ans (§ 112), settlement had been fairly contiguous. But between 1849 and 1860 half a million people had crossed to the Pacific Coast, leaving 582 THE UNITED STATES IN 1860 more than half the continent unsettled behind them, — so that in deter- mining this artificial "center of gravity," three men at San Francisco had as much weight as ten in New York. The cities of 1860 were still large towns gone to seed from rapid growth. They were unplanned, ugly, filthy, poorly policed ; and the larger ones were run by corrupt " rings " of politicians, who maintained their power by unblushing fraud. New York introduced a uniformed and disciplined "Metropolitan police" just before the War; and the invention of the steam fire engine, in 1853, promised somewhat better protection against the common devastating fires. The foreign-born inhabitants now numbered nearly one in eight of the total population. They were massed almost wholly in the North, making more than half the people of some States. The North, contained nineteen million of the thirty-one and a half million people of the Union J (a ratio of 19 to 12) ; and of the twelve and a half million in the South, four million were slaves. Moreover, when the war line was finally drawn, four slave-holding States (Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri) remained with the North. These States contained a fourth of the " Southern n population ; and the recruits which these divided districts sent to the South were about offset by recruits to the North from " West " Virginia and Eastern Ten- nessee. Thus, for totals, secession was to be supported by less than five and a half million Whites (with three and a half million slaves) against more than twenty-two millions. Or, the area of Secession contained one White man of military age to four in the North. The South too was less able to feed and clothe armies. She fur- nished seven eighths of the world's raw cotton ; but she had not raised her own full supply of food, and manufactures and mechanical skill were almost totally lacking. Minerals and water power were abundant, but unused. 2 Said a Charleston paper to its people : " Whence come your axes, hoes, scythes? Yes, even your plows, harrows, rakes, ax and 1 Cf. § 246 for the ratio in 1800. 2 The North combined the resources of "farm, shop, and factory," says Rhodes, "the South was but a farm," — and a farm which sent its produce abroad and received from abroad much, even, of its bread and meat. -E OF MILES NORTH AND SOUTH 583 auger handles? Your furniture, carpets, calicoes, and muslins? The cradle that rocks your infant, the top your boy spins, the doll your girl caresses, the clothes your children wear, the books from which they are educated ... all are imported into South Carolina." The North had three fourths the railway mileage and six sevenths of the cities of the Union, while the only Southern city of more than eighty thousand people (New Orleans) was dependent upon Northern trade for prosperity. New York City, with 800,000 people, contained more Whites than any Southern State. Slave labor, — or rather, perhaps, ignorant Negro labor, — was unprofitable in any diversified industry. Agriculture was almost the sole occupation of the South. Even so, only half as much of the land was cultivated there as in the North ; and the value of that was less than the value of similar land in the North, while the value of farm machin- ery to each cultivated acre was not half that in the North. 1 The cultivation of the great staples, cotton and tobacco, poured riches into the coffers of the large planters ; but the mass of even the White farmers remained poor. The difference was not due to climate, but to labor. It was apparent instantly upon crossing a State line. In 1796 George Washington noted the higher prices of land in Pennsylvania than in Maryland " though not of superior quality" ; and added his opinion, on that ground, that Vir- ginia must follow Pennsylvania's example of emancipation " at a period not far remote." Tocqueville (§ 198, note) noted the contrast b etween the north and south banks of the Ohio : thinly scattered population, with occasional gangs of indolent slaves in the few, " half-desert " fields, as over against " the busy hum of industry . . . fields rich with harvest . . . comfortable homes . . . prosperity on all sides. " In 1859 Frederick Law Olmsted made a journey through the Southern States ; and his acutt^ observations (summed up in his judicial Cotton Kingdom) proved that the industrial retardation of the South had been steadily increasing up to the final catastrophe. In other respects, also, slavery was revenged upon the masters. The poorer Whites were degraded by it, and the 1 By the census of 1860 the value per acre was 42 cents in the South and 94 in the North. Slaves could not be trusted with valuable machinery. 584 THE UNITED STATES IN 1860 slave owning class were exposed to all the temptations that necessarily assail petty but absolute tyrants. Slavery made Southern society unduly passionate, imperious, and willful. The 9,000,000 Whites of the slaveholding States composed some 1,800,000 families. One fifth of these owned slaves; but only eight or ten thousand families owned more than fifty apiece (§ 285 b). This small aristocracy had a peculiar charm — if only the ugly substructure could be forgotten. The men were leisured and cultivated (educated in Northern colleges or abroad), with a natural gift for leadership and a high sense of public duty. They were courageous, honorable, generous, with easy bearing and a chivalrous courtesy. Visitors from the Old World complained that Northern men were too absorbed in business cares, or too lacking in ease of manner, to be fit for society ; but they were always charmed by the aristocratic manners and cultivated taste of the gentry of the South. It must be added, however, not only that the great body of small slaveowners were destitute of this charm, but that they were grossly uneducated. The South produced little literature (except political speeches) and no art ; and it had almost no schools. On the other hand, Southern politics (dominated by this ruling aristocracy) had absolutely no taint of that cor- ruption which had appeared in the North. Man for man, in marching and fighting, the Southerner was far more than a match for the man of the North, — especially for the man of the Eastern cities. Southern outdoor life and familiarity with firearms counted for much in the early campaigns of the war. The North had been sadly deficient in athletics and in wholesome living, and was at its lowest ebb in physical condition. 1 The agricultural population of the West, however, resembled the South in physical characteristics ; and the men of the North, city or country, had a mechanical ability, useful in repairing or building bridges or engines, which was sadly lacking in the armies of the South. 1 Emerson ate " pie " for breakfast regularly ! FREE LAND AND FREE LABOR 585 367. Free Labor and Slavery and the Public Lands. — Happily, the political warfare on slavery had been intimately interwoven with a struggle for some of the privileges for which free labor cared most earnestly. The Free Soilers aimed not only to keep the soil of the public domain free from slavery, but also to keep it "free" for free labor. In 1852 their platform declared in accordance with the Labor parties of twenty years before : — " The public land of the United States belongs to the people, and should not be sold to individuals or granted to corporations, but should be held as a sacred trust for the benefit of the people, and should be granted in limited quantities, free of cost, to landless settlers." Other elements rallied to the movement. In 1845 Andrew Johnson (who had been connected with the early labor move- ment in Tennessee, § 290) introduced in Congress the first "Homestead Bill," — to give every homeless citizen a farm from the public lands. Several times such bills passed the House ; but the Slave Power now definitely set itself against this policy and defeated all such measures in the Senate. It saw truly that the increase of free immigration into the public domain would quickly end all chance to establish slavery there. But this new attitude of the South helped to make the masses of the North see more clearly the fundamental opposition of interest between the two systems of labor, and to array Northern workingmen more solidly against slavery} In June of 1860 the House passed a Homestead Bill giving any head of a family a quarter section after five years' residence thereon. The Kepublican platform of the same year "demanded" the passing by the Senate of that "complete and satisfactory measure," protesting also " against any view of the free homestead policy which regards the settlers as paupers or suppliants for public bounty." The Senate did pass the 1 While urging one of these Homestead Bills, Ben Wade of Ohio was taunted by Southern congressmen (who wished right of way for consideration of a scheme to purchase Cuba) with trying merely to "give lands to the land- less." Wade retorted with a phrase, famous in that day, that his adversaries sought only to " give Niggers to the Niggerless." 586 THE UNITED STATES IN 1860 Bill, after adding a twenty-five-cent-per-acre fee ; but, even in this modified form, Buchanan vetoed it : — (1) as "unjust" to earlier settlers who had paid for their land ; (2) as worthless to help artisans ; 1 (3) as likely to depopulate older States ; and (4) especially as tending to dangerous "agrarian" sentiments. 2 When the Slave Power had with- drawn from Congress, a Homestead Bill became law (May, 1862), on the same plan, but without the money fee. Exercise. — a. Topical reviews: (1) territorial expansion; (2) popu- lation, immigration, distribution, etc. ; (3) attempts to restrict slavery in the Territories ; (4) tariff legislation, to the War. b. Prepare a table of admission of States for reference. c. Prepare lists of terms relating to each decade down to 1860 for brief explanation. For Further Reading. — The standard anthority after 1850 is Rhodes' History of the United States. In the "American Nation" series the ground is covered by Hart's Slavery and Abolition and Smith's Parties and Slavery. The best brief account is perhaps Woodrow Wilson's Division and Reunion. Among the valuable special treatises are : Mary S. Locke's Antislavery in America; Marion G. McDougal's Fugitive Slaves; Siebert's Underground Railroad ; Dubois' African Slave Trade. Among the many valuable biographies are Hart's Chase; Riddle's Wade; Julian's Giddings ; Birney's Birney ; Morse's Lincoln; Storey's Charles Sumner; Johnson's Garrison and His Times; Frothingham's Gerrit Smith; Chadwick's Theodore Parker; Schurz's Clay ; Meigs' Benton; Davis' Jefferson Davis; and the admirable sketches in Trent's Southern Statesmen. 1 Buchanan failed to see the plain logic of the early Workingman's Party on this point (§ 315). 2 "The honest poor man," argued the President, "by frugality and in- dustry, can in any part of our country acquire a competence. ... He desires no charity. . . . This bill . . . will go far to demoralize the people, and repress this noble spirit of independence. It may introduce among us those pernicious social theories which have proved so disastrous in other countries." Such gracious and perfectly honest arguments by former conservatives against reforms which have become part of the warp of our daily life are valuable reading for the student. They suggest forcibly a doubt to the most obtuse whether such imposing authorities may not be wrong to-day, even when their rhetoric against progress is equally admirable. T> Six, ■ t 1 ^ c CHAPTER XV NATIONALISM VICTORIOUS (1860-1876) I. THE CIVIL WAR 368. Secession. — TJie legislature of South Carolina had as- sembled to choose electors (§ 295), and it remained in session to await the result in the nation at large. November 7, the day after the popular vote, it was clear that the "Black Re- publicans" had won the electoral college. Promptly, ac- cording to a program already fixed, the legislature appro- priated money for arms, and called a State convention to act on the question of secession. All over the State, Palmetto banners unfurled and " liberty poles" rose; and to these wild rejoicings a stern and solemn note was added by Puritan prayer and preaching, characteristic of a deeply religious people. December 17, the convention met. Three days later, it unanimously " repealed " the ratification of the Federal Constitution by the South Carolina convention of 1788, and declared that " the Union hitherto existing between this State and the other States of North America is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her place among the nations of the world." By February 1, like action had been taken in Georgia and the five Gulf States — the entire southern tier of States. The population of this "Lower South" (§ 272 c) was politically active, devoted to discussion and public meetings — which sometimes lasted a week at a time, with huge barbecues. But, except in Texas, where the convention had been called irregularly, no one seriously advo- cated a popular vote on secession. In the language of the South, the States seceded in the same manner in which they had acceded to the Union. Just as in 1788, the State conventions (elected on an express issue) were sovereign and their action final. 587 588 THE CIVIL WAR Northern writers have sometimes charged that the Southern leaders carried secession as a " conspiracy," and that they were afraid to refer the matter to a direct vote. This is absolutely wrong. Public opinion forced Jefferson Davis onward faster than he liked ; and the mass of small farmers were more ardent than the aristocracy — whose large prop- erty interests tended, perhaps, to keep them conservative. For more than a year, in the less aristocratic counties, popular conventions, local meetings, and newspapers had been threatening secession if a President unfriendly to the Dred Scott decision should be elected. Practically, the Southern people had just had a referendum on the subject. The large Southern majority for Breckenridge had been really a vote for secession (or at least a threat of it) in case of a Republican victory in the North ; while the small Bell and Douglas votes were a feeble protest against this avowed program. In November South Carolina papers began to charge that the North had " bought up " the hesitating Southern leaders ; and when even the "Fire-eater" Toombs paused for a moment, to contem- plate compromise, his constituents talked indignantly of presenting him with a tin sword. The South was vastly more united in 1861 than the colo- nies were in 1776. The leaders acted through conventions, not because they feared a popular vote, but because their political methods had re- mained unchanged for seventy years. In a recent scholarly study (" Southern Non-Slaveholders in the Elec- tion of 1860," in Political Science Quarterly, XXVI), Dr. David Y. Thomas demonstrates that the aristocracy was divided as to secession. Much of the Bell ("Union") vote, he shows, came from counties where the aristocracy was strongest, while the Breckenridge vote came largely from counties . made up mostly of small farmers and non-slaveholders. For partial explanation, Professor Thomas points to a parallel between this phenomenon and the ardent support for many decades to the " spe- cial privileges " of Big Business by the masses of the North. Dr. Rhodes, the standard authority, makes clear the spontaneity of the secession movement (History, III, 273-276, and, especially for South Carolina, 120-123). Cf. also Morse's Lincoln, 225-276. Woodrow Wilson pic- tures the people as following its leaders, but says forcefully : » " But the voting population of the Southern States was in a sense the most political in the world, — the least likely to follow blindly, because the most inter- ested in politics, sensitive to nothing more keenly than to new aspects of public affairs. It could be managed by its leaders only because it was so thoroughly homogeneous, only because it so thoroughly sympathized with their point of view." — Division and Beunion, 241. t SECESSION 589 Few Southerners questioned the right of a Sovereign State to secede if it so decided. Almost the sole difference of opinion was whether suf- ficient provocation existed to make such action wise; 1 and when a State convention had chosen, even the previous "Union men" went with their State, conscientiously and enthusiastically. Thus, Alexander H. Stephens, high-minded gentleman and a marvel of ability, made a desperate struggle in Georgia for the Union, both in the State campaign and in the convention ; but when the convention decided against him, 208 to 6g, 2 he cast himself devotedly into secession. To Southern thought any other course would have been treason. Allegiance, the South felt, was due primarily to one's State ; and secession was a constitutional right, to be exercised by a State at its discretion. It had nothing to do with " treason " or " rebellion " or even with " revolution." To understand the splendid devotion of the South to a hopeless cause during the bloody years that followed, we must appreciate this view- point, — from which, happily, the progressive North had grown away in its movement toward a true Union. The South fought " to keep the past upon its throne "; but it believed, with every drop of its blood, that it was fight- ing for the sacred right of self-government, against " conquest " by tyrannical " invaders. " 369. The Confederacy. — February 4, on the invitation of the Alabama convention, delegates from the seven seceding States met at Montgomery and soon drew up a provisional constitution 1 The vast majority felt intensely that there was also good reason for seces- sion. The South Carolina convention asserted that fourteen Northern States had violated the Constitution deliberately by " personal liberty laws " (§ 348), and that the remaining States were therefore released from obligation to that " compact" ; and Jefferson Davis, in his farewell to the Senate, turning to the Northern Senators, exclaimed: "You refuse us that equality without which we should be degraded. . . . You elect a candidate upon the basis of sectional hostility — one who has made a distinct declaration of war upon our institutions." Rhodes (III, 271 ff.) gives long extracts from that pathetic and impressive speech, and portrays Davis' night of prayer that followed. Harding's Select Orations gives the speech in full. 2 The real test vote had come a little earlier —165 to 130. This was the strongest Union vote in the Lower South. In Mississippi, the test stood 84 to 15; in Florida, 62 to 7; in Alabama, 61 to 39; in Louisiana, 113 to 17. In Texas, in spite of a vigorous Union campaign by Governor Sam Houston, the people voted three to one for secession. 590 THE CIVIL WAR for a new union, " The Confederate States of America." Jeffer- son Davis was chosen President, provisionally, and Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President. In March a permanent constitu- tion was adopted, and afterward ratified by State conventions ; and the first electoral college confirmed the choice of Davis and Stephens. The constitution was avowedly modeled upon that of the old Union, — with which, as they interpreted it, the seceding States were well satisfied. The changes were of two sorts : — ■ a. In a few cases the Southern view of disputed points in the old Con- stitution was more clearly affirmed. Each State was declared to ratify the union "in its sovereign character." Protective tariffs and internal improvements were expressly prohibited. The word slave was used frankly ; and the doctrine of the Dred Scott decision was affirmed. b. A few attempts were made to improve details. The President was to hold for six years, and to be ineligible for reelection. He was given the right to veto separate items of appropriation bills (cf . § 303) . Con- gress could make no appropriations not recommended by the executive, except by a two-thirds vote. Heads of executive departments were to have seats in the Congress, and the right of debate, but not of vote. These experiments, all worth trying, had no real try-out in the years of war that followed. One other provision is of interest. The constitution prohibited the foreign slave trade. This was a sop to English opinion, which the Con- federacy was very desirous to keep friendly, and at the same time it was an inducement to the remaining Slave States to join the Confederacy, — since, otherwise, they would lose their profitable business of selling surplus Negroes in more southern markets. 370. Indecision at the North. — The South did not believe the North would use force against secession. Still it made vigorous preparation for possible war. As each State seceded, its citizens in Congress and in the civil and military service of the United States resigned their offices. The small army and navy of the Union was in this way completely demoralized, — losing nearly half its officers. Each seceding State, too, seized promptly upon the Federal forts and arsenals within its limits, — sending commissioners to Washington to arrange for money compensation to the Federal government and for a proper di- INDECISION AT THE NORTH 591 vision of the national debt. In the seven seceded States, the Governriient retained only Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor, Fort Pickens at Pensacola, and two small forts on detached islands near Key West. Federal courts ceased to be held in the seceded States, because of the resignation of judges and other officials and the absolute impossibility of securing jurors. Federal tariffs were no longer collected. Only the post office remained as a* symbol of the old Union. President Buchanan had been strongly under the influence of Southern advisers. The withdrawal of those men from Congress and Cabinet left him sadly at sea. His message to Congress, in December, declared that the Constitution gave no State the right to secede, but — a curious paradox — that it gave the government no right " to coerce a sovereign state " even if it did secede. Accordingly, for the remaining critical months of his term (cf. § 212, final note) he let secession gather head as it liked. 1 This flabby policy, moreover, was much like the attitude of the masses of the North during those same months, — dismayed or incredulous regarding the storm, and waiting supinely for it possibly to blow over. For months, even from Republican leaders, resounded the cry, " Let the erring sisters go in peace." In October, General Scott, Commander of the army, suggested to the President a division of the country into four confederacies, — for which he outlined boundaries. Northern papers declared "coercion" both wrong and impossible. Horace Greeley's New York Tribune, for years the greatest antislavery organ and the chief molder of Republican opinion, expressed these views repeatedly. " If the Cotton States shall decide they can do better out of the Union than in it, we insist upon letting them go in peace. . . . We hope never to live in a republic, whereof one section is pinned to another by bayo- nets" (November 9); "Five millions of people ... of whom half a million are able and willing to shoulder muskets, can never be subdued while fighting around their own hearthstones" (November 30) ; "The 1 With homely wit, Seward wrote to his wife that the Message shows "con- clusively that it is the President's duty to execute the laws — unless some one opposes him ; and that no State has a right to go out of the Union — unless it wants to." 592 THE CIVIL WAR South has as good a right to secede from the Union as the colonies had to secede from Great Britain" (December 17) ; "If the Cotton States wish to form an independent nation, they have a clear moral right to do so" (February 23, 1861). For the moment, Lowell thought the seceding States would be " not worth conquering back, even if it could be done." And, April 9, Wendell Phillips asserted, "Abraham Lincoln has no right to a soldier in Fort Sumter." Another portion of the North, and especially of the Border States, urged one more try at compromise. A Peace Convention was called by Virginia. The delegates, from twenty-one States, sat at Washington throughout February, and proposed several amendments to the Consti- tution, to fortify slavery. Committees of Congress made like suggestions. Other proposals of similar nature rained from the Republican press. In general these proposals comprised: (1) division of the National Domain, present and future, between slavery and freedom, along the line of the old Missouri Compromise ; (2) repeal of Northern "personal liberty laws" (which several States were already repealing, to soothe Southern feeling) ; and (3) Federal compensation for escaped slaves. Even Seward seemed disposed to yield much ; and if the Southern members had remained in Congress and voted for such amendments, they might have been carried, and the country, apparently, would have ratified them, in its panic. But the Southerners would not accept such offers unless they were voted for by practically the whole body of Republican congressmen — so as to insure finality. Against this surrender, Lincoln cast his influence, advising his friends in Congress to yield nothing of the Republican position on the Territories, though he was quite willing to conciliate the South as to fugitive slaves. "The tug has come," he wrote ; " and now better than later" ; and he pointed out that to sur- render on the principle of Territories would merely invite fresh South- ern demands for the acquisition of Cuba. Accordingly, the only outcome of the compromise agitation was the submission to the country of an amendment prohibiting Congress from ever interfering with slavery in the States. This passed Congress with a solid Republican vote, and was ratified by three Northern States, before war stopped the process. It merely made express what was already im- plied clearly in the Constitution, as Lincoln said ; and it was wholly inadequate to satisfy the South. On the other hand, in the North, the seemingly apathetic masses needed only a blow or a leader to rally them for the preservation of the Union. South Carolina's firing on the flag at Sumter gave the blow ; and Abraham Lincoln's call for troops showed the leader (§ 372) . Talk of compromise and of peaceful secession ceased on the moment, or was drowned in the din of arms. ABRAHAM LINCOLN 593 371. Abraham Lincoln succeeded to the presidency on the fourth of March, and straightway stood forth as one of the supremely grand figures in all history. The inaugural address was an answer to Southern claims and a winning but firm declaration of policy. [As to the reason for secession]: " Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that . . . their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. ... 7 have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so ; and I have no inclina- tion to do so." [Turning to the theory of the constitutional " right " of secession] : "I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the union of these States is perpetual. . . . [But if the United States be not a government, but only a ' compact,' even then mutual consent would be required to rescind the compact.] It follows . . . that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union. ... I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is un- broken ; and [now as to policy] to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union shall be faithfully executed in all the States. ... In doing this there need be no bloodshed . . . unless it is forced upon the National authority. . . . " The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and collect the duties and imposts ; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects there will be no invasion, no using of force against the people anywhere." [Then, recognizing the right of revolution, the deplorable loss from any division of the Union is set forth] : "Physically speaking, we cannot separate : we cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country cannot do this. . . . Intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. 7s it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before f Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws ? " In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. "You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. 594 THE CIVIL WAR You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to ' preserve, protect, and defend ' it. " I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break, our bonds of affection. " The mystic cords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature." Seward, who had been made Secretary of State, expected to be the real head of the government. He came forward with wild and immoral proposals for war with England and France — to unite North and South against the foreigner — and with generous offers to take the management of such affairs into his own more experienced hands. Lincoln set him in his true place so firmly that he never doubted again who was President, but so tactfully that he could still, with self-respect, retain his office. Other leaders showered the new President with advice. Lincoln heard all patiently ; but his real efforts were given to keeping in touch, not with "leaders," but with the plain people whom he so well understood. His own eyes were set unwavering upon his goal — the preservation of the Union — while with unrivaled skill, he kept his finger on the Nation's pulse, to know how fast he might move toward that end. For a time he was railed at by noisy extremists, who would have had him faster or slower; but the silent masses responded to his sympathy and answered his appeal with love and perfect trust, and enabled him to carry through successfully the greatest task so far set for any American statesman. The country now paid heavily, through the wear upon its burdened chieftain, for its low tone toward the public service and the spoils system. With the change of parties, Washington was thronged, beyond all prece- dent, with office seekers, who were " Republicans for revenue " ; and the first precious weeks of the new administration had to go largely to settling petty personal disputes over plunder. According to one of his private secretaries, Lincoln compared himself to a man busied in assigning rooms in a palace to importunate applicants, while the structure itself was burning over his head ; and in 1862, when an Illinois visitor remarked on % THE CALL TO ARMS 595 his careworn face, he exclaimed with petulant humor, " It isn't this war that's killing me, Judge: it's your confounded Pepperton post office." Says Geo. W. Julian {Political Becollections, 193-194) : " A Republican member of Congress could form some idea of the President's troubles from his own. I fled from my home in the latter part of February [1861] in the hope of finding relief from importunities ; but on reaching Washington, I found the business greatly aggravated ... so that I could scarcely find time for my meals. ... I met at every turn a swarm of miscellaneous people, many of them looking as hungry as wolves, ready to pounce upon members as they passed. . . . After Fort Sumter had been taken . . . and the whole land was in a blaze, this scuffle for place was unabated, and the pressure upon the strength of the President unrelieved." 372. The Call to Arms. — In November, 1860, Major Ander- son commanded a force of sixty soldiers in dilapidated Fort Moultrie in Charleston harbor. Later, he removed to the more defensible Fort Sumter, in the same harbor, and pleaded in vain to Buchanan for reinforcements, while commissioners from South Carolina were trying to cajole that gentleman into surrendering the forts. In January, a threatened resigna- tion of his Cabinet (Northern Democrats now, who meant at least to defend the National property) shamed Buchanan into a feeble show of sending reinforcements. The unarmed vessel, weakly chosen for the purpose, was easily turned back by Secessionist shells ; and further efforts were made difficult by rising batteries — whose construction Anderson's orders did not permit him to prevent and which were soon strong enough to demolish the Federal fort. Five weeks after assuming office, President Lincoln gave notice that he was about to send supplies to Anderson. The Confederate government took this notice as a declaration of war, and attacked the fort. April 12, the bombardment began ; and thirty hours later, with the fortress in ruins, Major Ander- son surrendered. The next day (April 15) the wires flashed over the country Abraham Lincoln's stirring call for seventy- five thousand volunteers. Then came a magnificent uprising of the North. Laborers, mechanics, business men, professional men, college boys and 596 THE CIVIL WAR their learned teachers shouldered muskets side by side. From Maine to California, devotion and love for the Union spoke with one mighty voice. Banks offered huge loans without security, and wealthy men placed their private fortunes at the disposal of the government. By July, 310,000 men were in the field. Before the close of 1861, the number was 660,000, enlisted for " three years or the war." Party distinctions in the North faded. Douglas hastened to offer sup- port to Lincoln, and redeemed the pledge gallantly during the remaining weeks of his failing life ; and Buchanan, unable though he had been to act for himself, gave cordial aid now to the government. Lowell wrote (Atlantic Monthly , June, 1861) of " that first gun at Sumter which brought the free States to their feet as one man " ; and four years later he told again how "America lay asleep, like the princess of the fairy tale, en- chanted by prosperity. But at the fiery kiss of war the spell is broken, the blood tingles along her veins, and she awakens, conscious of her beauty and sovereignty. ' ' 373. The Remaining Slave States Choose. — The Confederacy sprang to arms with even greater unanimity. And now the remaining Slave States had to choose sides. Within six weeks the second tier (North Carolina and Virginia, Tennessee, Arkan- sas) had joined the Confederacy rather than join in attempts " to coerce sister States " ; l and the Confederate capital had 1 The North Carolina and Arkansas legislatures called conventions, which, it was expressly declared, should take final action. The Carolina convention voted for secession unanimously, and that of Arkansas with only one delegate in the negative. The legislature of Tennessee submitted the matter directly to the people; and the popular vote stood 105,000 to 47,000 (the eastern moun- tain counties, like their Virginia neighbors, containing a strong Union element) . In Virginia the convention vote was two to one for secession. There also the question was submitted to a popular vote; and the people, regarding the issue as already decided, sustained the convention by a vote of three to one in a total of nearly 130,000 — the opposition coming almost wholly from the western counties, which were about to secede from the State. (See below.) Says Eggleston's A Rebel's Recollections : " The unanimity . . . was marvelous. So long as the question of secession was under discussion, opinions were both various and violent. The moment secession was determined upon, a revolu- tion was wrought. There was no longer anything to discuss. . . . Men got ready for war, and delicate women sent them off with smiling faces." And a 597 THE BORDER STATES CHOOSE been moved from Montgomery to Richmond, within striking distance of Washington. The third tier of Slave States (Mary- land and Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri) were the true " Border States." Delaware alone stood firmly for the Union from the first ; but, spite of strong secession sentiment, the others were finally kept in the Union x by Lincoln's wise diplomacy and by Union Slates V//A First Group of Seceding Stales k'c-VI Second » Union and Confederacy, 1862. swift action of Union armies, — though their inhabitants sent many regiments to swell the Southern ranks. The lines were drawn, twenty-two States against eleven (§ 368). The people of the western counties in Virginia had been op- Virginian who had heen one of the Unionist delegates in the convention, when asked just afterward by a Northerner, "What will the Union men of Virginia do?" replied: "There are no Union men left in Virginia. We stand this day a united people. . . . We will give you a fight which will stand out on the page of history." 1 Missouri might have joined the Confederacy except for vigorous action by the many thousands of recent German immigrants in St. Louis, who stood stoutly for the Union. The governor had refused to obey Lincoln's call for troops (as did also the governors of Maryland and Kentucky) , stigmatizing it as "illegal, unconstitutional, and revolutionary in its object, and inhuman and diabolical." 598 THE CIVIL WAR posed to secession. When the State withdrew, they organized a separate State government, and (1863) were admitted to the Union as the State of West Virginia} 374. A Bird's-eye View of the Plan of Campaign. — The splen- did outburst of National spirit in the North was inspired. in part by a mistaken impression that it could end the conflict with one decisive blow. 2 From this idle dream the country awoke when the Union forces were utterly routed at Bull Run (July 21). Then, in more wholesome temper, it settled down fcp a stern war — which lasted four years and was one of the most tremendous struggles in history. To subdue the South, two things were essential. (1) A cordon must be drawn about the seceding States, so that they could receive no supplies from the outside world; and (2) they must be invaded and conquered on their own soil. On land, the overwhelming superiority of the North in num- bers made the first task fairly easy. The Border States were quickly occupied, and the South was kept upon the defensive except for some invasions into Kentucky and a cavalry raid across the Ohio, and for two formidable invasions across the Potomac, — the first turned back at Antietam (September 17, 1862), and the second (the "high-tide of the Confederacy"), at Gettysburg (July 1-3, 1863). On the three thousand miles of coast, the matter was more difficult. April 19, President Lincoln declared a blockade; 1 A constitutional difficulty was evaded by a legal fiction. The Constitution forbids Congress to divide a State without its own consent. But the govern- ment at Washington assumed that the only legal citizens were the "loyal" ones, and that the loyal legislature of the western counties was the legal repre- sentative of the entire State. 2 Andrew D. White (§ 348, note) tells us in his Autobiography that in June his uncle, a friend of Seward's, "a thoughtful man of affairs, successful in business, not at all prone to sanguine views" returned from a visit to Wash- ington and said: "Depend upon it, it is all right. Seward says they have decided to end the trouble at once, even if it is necessary to raise an army of fifty thousand men ( !) ; that they will send troops immediately to Richmond, and finish the whole thing, so that the country can go on quietly about its business." PLAN OF CAMPAIGNS 599 but this was little more than a statement of intention. Only twelve ships were at the immediate disposal of the government. The rest of the small navy of forty^nine ships had fallen into* Southern hands or was scattered far in foreign ports. But blockading squadrons were hurriedly bought, built, and adapted out of coasting steamers and ferryboats; and in a few months the paper blockade became real. From that time to the end, the throttling grip on Southern commerce clung closer and closer. The export crops, cotton and tobacco, were robbed of value. In 1§6D the cotton export amounted to nearly two hundred millions of dollars ; in 1861, it sank to forty -t wo million s ; and in 1862, to four millions. As arms, railway material, clothing, wore out, it was almost impossible to replenish the supply (§ 367). Before the end of the first year, there was an alarming scarcity of salt, butter, coffee, candles, and medicines. By recourse to homespun, and by raising 90m instead of cotton, part of the need was met. Part was beyond remedy. Only with extreme difficulty could the government smuggle in the paper on which to print its currency. For correspondence and for newspapers, wall paper or brown wrapping paper was soon in demand. Southern sympathizers and venturesome capitalists made it a business to build swift "blockade runners" to carry supplies to Confederate ports from the Bermudas, and to bring out the cotton piled up at Southern wharves and worth fabulous prices in the idle European factories. Fif- teen hundred such vessels were captured during the war ; and, before the close, they had nearly vanished from the seas. While trips could be made at all, profits were enormous. A ton of salt, costing $7.50 outside the Confederacy, could be sold inside in gold for a profit of 20,000 per cent. For one moment it looked as if the Union fleets would be swept from the seas, and the blockade raised. When the government troops aban- doned Norfolk navy yard (on the secession of Virginia), they left there, only partially destroyed, the frigate Merrimac. The Confederates built on her hull an iron roofing, and sent her forth as the Virginia against the wooden frigates of the United States in Hampton Roads. This first armored ram on the American coast l sank two towering ships (March 8, 1 Vessels had been covered with iron plates in some of the earlier cam- paigns on the Mississippi ; and England and France had constructed some ironclads ; but it was the spectacular battle of u the Monitor and Merrimac" 600 THE CIVIL WAR 1862) and steamed back to her anchorage, confident of completing her mission on the morrow. But, during that night, arrived at the Roads another type of iron vessel, the Monitor, with low, flat deck surmounted by a revolving turret mounting two huge guns, — a "cheese boxjDn a raft." After a sharp engagement, the Virginia was driven to seek shel- ter. The blockade was saved ; but the knell had sounded for wooden men-of-war. Invasion of the Confederacy on the land side had been simplified tre- mendously by the saving of the Border States to the Union. Three primary lines were now plainly indicated by the nature of the case. (1) The Army of the Potomac, with headquarters about Washington, must try to capture Richmond, the political center of the Confederacy, and crush the army of defense (the Army of Northern Virginia). (2) In the West, the Unionists must secure the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers, so opening roads into Mississippi and Alabama, and occupying Tennessee. And (3) the course of the Mississippi had to be secured by the capture of such Confederate strongholds as New Madrid, Island No. 10, Port Hudson, Memphis, and New Orleans. 1 Vicksburg, the last of these river fortresses to hold out, was forced to surrender to General Grant on July 3, 1863 (the final day of Gettysburg) ; so that the Father of Waters "once more rolled un vexed to the sea," cutting off Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas from the main body of the Confederacy. The second task had begun earlier, but lasted longer. Grant had captured Forts Donelson and Henry, commanding the lower courses of the Tennessee rivers, in 1862 ; but Union occupation of Ten- nessee, and indeed of Kentucky and the line of the Ohio, was incessantly threatened, until, after several oscillating and bloody campaigns, and, finally, some of the most desperate fighting of the war, Grant, Thomas, and Sherman drove the Confederates from the vicinity of Chattanooga, in November of 1863. This decisive victory opened up a fourth line of invasion, to Atlanta, — at the farther end of the Atlanta and Chattanooga Railway, — only 135 miles distant, but with an intervening region of rugged mountains. Atlanta was located in the iron and coal region of northern Georgia which demonstrated to the world the arrival of a new order — following the insolent victories of the Merrimac on the preceding day. The Monitor was the invention of a Swedish immigrant, John Ericsson ; and she had been just completed, after a hurried three months. 1 Secondary lines of invasion were pointed out by the location of the more important railways — especially those from west to east, such as the Memphis and Charleston Road — to secure which engagements were fought in 1862 at Corinth, Pittsburg Landing, Shiloh, and Memphis. PLAN OF CAMPAIGNS 601 and was becoming a center for manufacturing arms and railway ma- terial. As the only such center in the Confederacy, its capture was of supreme importance. This became Sherman's task, in a four months 1 campaign of the next summer, against the skillful opposition of the out- numbered Johnston and the pounding of his desperate successor, Hood. Atlanta was taken September 3, 1864. Leaving its factories in ashes, and detaching Thomas with sufficient force to engage Hood, Sherman Scene of the Civil War. then (November) struck out a fifth line of invasion through the heart of the Confederacy for Savannah, — living on the country and finding not even a militia to oppose him. Meantime, in the East, the genius of Lee 1 and the splendid fighting qualities of his devoted but diminishing army, aided, too, by geographi- iKobert E. Lee ranks among the noblest figures in American history. He loved the Union deeply ; but when Virginia seceded, he declined an offer of the command of the Union armies, and gave his sword to the Confederacy (§ 368) . The recent acceptance by Congress of his statue, to stand in Statuary Hall in the Capitol beside Virginia's other great son, Washington, fitly denotes the reunion of North and South as one people. }J 1 602 THE CIVIL WAR cal conditions, — broad streams subject to sudden floods, and trackless swamps, — held the Union forces at bay year after year, until Grant was brought from the West and given men in ever fresh multitudes to wear down his opponents. Even then, Lee's thinned and starving veterans remained unconquered, until the empty shell of the Confederacy had been pierced from circumference to circumference, and its absolute ex- haustion bared to the world, by Sherman's devastating "March to the Sea." The South did not yield : it was pulverized. 375. Forces. — In the North one man out of two bore arms at some period of the war; and one_man out of three served j three years. In the South nine men out of ten bore arms, and eight out of ten served three years. The total enlistments in the North counted 2,900^000 ; in the South, 1,400,000. The three-year average for the North was 1,557,000 ; for the South, 1,082,000. With far less effort than the South, the North kept a half more men in the field. But this does not take account of the slaves who served as teamsters, laborers on fortifications, cooks, and servants, in Southern armies, do- ing work that had to be performed by enlisted men on the other side. 1 The Southern forces, too, were able to concen- trate more rapidly, because they moved on the inside lines and knew the roads better. Perhaps, too, they were handled with greater skill. Certainly, until the final year, the armies in actual conflict did not often vary greatly in numbers. Then, indeed, the exhausted South could no longer make good her losses in battle — though her stern recruiting system did " rob the cradle and the grave." Her ranks shrank daily, while the Northern armies grew larger than ever. At the opening of that last terrible year of slaughter, from May 5 to June 12 (1864), — or from the Wilderness to Petersburg, — Grant hurled his 120,000 veterans almost daily at Lee's 70,000, suffering a loss of 60,000 to Lee's 14,000. New recruits were ready to step into the gaps in the Union regiments ; while the 1 On the plantations, too, under the management of women, slaves raised the food crops for the South. Wonderful to say, there was no hint of a slave-rising during the war, and, until 1863, very little increase of runaways. FORCES, NORTH AND SOUTH 603 Confederate ranks could only close up grimly. In the remain- ing campaigns, the Union forces usually outnumbered their opponents at least two to one. To add to the disparity, Grant's stern policy refused longer to exchange prisoners. 1 In 1863 there was a falling off of enlistment in the North, and Con- gress authorized a "draft," a conscription by lot from able-bodied males between the ages of twenty and forty. In enforcing this law, some officials seem to have discriminated against Democratic districts ; and violent anti-draft riots broke out in several Eastern cities. These were put down sternly by the military ; but not till New York had been three days in the hands of a murderous "nigger-hunting" mob, and only after a sacri- fice of a thousand lives. Altogether the draft furnished less than forty thousand troops. Its real work lay in influencing State legislatures to stimulate enlistment by generous bounties. Such moneys furnished support for dependent mothers and for children, and so enabled many a man to volunteer who otherwise must have worked at home. But it remains absolutely true, as Lowell said, that "the bounty which drew our best soldiers to the ranks was an idea.'''' For the South, this was even more true, mistaken though the idea was ; but even the South had recourse to conscription, extending it to boys of seventeen and men of fifty. In most districts, however, volunteer enlistment had left small gleanings for this desperate law. 1 Military prisons are always a sore subject. There is usually a tendency, in a long conflict, for their administration, on both sides, to fall to men less competent and less chivalrous than those who seek service at the front. Even in the early years of the war, there had been terrible misery in the prisons at the South — where medicines and supplies were wanting even for the Confederate soldiers. With less excuse, there had been cruel suffering also in Northern prison camps. Toward the close, when the South was unable to feed her soldiers at the front, or to spare adequate forces for guards, condi- . tions became horrible in the Southern prisous, — especially after Grant's refusal to exchange prisoners packed the already crowded Libby and Andersonville with Union soldiers. On this whole topic the student will do well to consult Rhodes' exhaustive and impartial treatment (History, V, 483-515) , and especially to note his conclusions : — " There was no intention on either side to maltreat the prisoners. A mass of men had to be cared for unexpectedly. Arrangements were made in a hurry, and, as neither side expected a long duration of the war, were only makeshifts. . . . There was bad management at the North and still worse at the South, owing to a less efficient organization, with meager resources. . . . All things considered, the statistics [of deaths] show no reason why the North should reproach the South." 604 THE CIVIL WAR Said Lowell, again, in 1865: "What splendid possibilities has not our trial revealed, even to ourselves ! What costly stuff whereof to make a Nation ! " The great Republic emerged from the battle-storm, glorious and whole, while the world stood amazed, convinced against its will. And yet the resources of the North were never lacking. They grew faster than they could be spent ; and the North had more men, more tilled acres, more manufactures in 1865 than in 1861. But for the South, as Woodrow Wilson says so well, "the great struggle was maintained by sheer spirit and self-devotion, in spite of constantly diminishing resources and constantly waning hope. . . . And all for a belated principle in government, an outgrown economy, an impossible purpose. There is in history no devotion not religious, no constancy not meant for success, that can furnish a parallel to the devo- tion and constancy of the South in this extraordinary war." The Ameri- can of to-day sorrows at the terrible sacrifice the South made for mistaken ends ; but his heart swells with patriotic emotion at the heroic vision of that chivalrous devotion to the Lost Cause, — that gallant constancy, that peerless courage. 376. War Finance. — The Buchanan administration left the treasury empty, a debt mounting, and credit dubious; but Salmon P. Chase, Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury, was supported loyally by Congress in a course of vigorous war finance. Year by year, bonds were sold at home or abroad in amounts which at any earlier time would have seemed fabulous. A direct tax of $20,000,000 was apportioned among the States. An income tax of 3 per cent on all incomes over $800 was imposed, and in 1864 this was raised to 4 per cent, with 5 and 10 per cent rates on very large surpluses. Internal excises and stamp duties of the most varied and searching description reached almost all callings, prod- ucts, and business transactions. Session by session Congress devised higher and higher " war-tariffs^ rising to rates before unheard of, to remain without change twenty years after the war was over. And a series of "Legal Tender Acts" provided half a billion of dollars of paper money, based only on the faith of the government and amounting to a "forced loan." 1 These "greenbacks" mentioned no specific date for redemption, nor did the law provide any specific security. The amount exceeded the 1 Distinguish between taxes and borrowings in this statement. WAR FINANCE 605 real need for a circulating medium ; and of course the value fluctuated with success or failure in the field. Depreciation set in at once. Gold was hoarded or sent abroad in trade; and on one dark day in 1864 it sold at 285, while most of the time after 1862, a dollar of paper was really worth only from fifty to seventy cents. Prices rose, for this reason and for other causes connected with the war, to some 90 per cent above the old level. Wages rose, too ; but more slowly, and only two thirds as much, — so that the laboring classes bore the great part of the cost of the war. Workingmen endured much suffering, even while " business" was exceedingly "prosperous." Toward the close of the war, taxation was bringing in half a billion a year; but in 1863 the expenditure had risen to two and a half millions a day — or four times the daily income. Business could not well stand more taxes ; nor could more money be borrowed by legal-tender issues. . The extra amount must be borrowed by selling new bonds. But how could the government induce capitalists to buy them in sufficient amounts ? Chase solved this problem in part by the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864 — the basis also of an admirable system of banks and bank currency, better than America had before known, im- perfect though it is for more recent needs. Any associations of five or more persons, with a capital of at least $100,000, were authorized to organize a National bank, purchase National bonds to the amount of one third the capital, deposit the bonds in the National Treasury, and issue "National bank notes" to the amount of 90 per cent of such deposit. 1 Thus the government would sell its bonds ; and the country would have a uniform bank currency guaranteed by the Nation, in place of the varying and uncertain State-bank issues. > v Just at first, little use was made of this law ; but a supplementary Act placed a tax of 10 per cent on notes issued by State banks. Then hundreds of State banks reorganized as National banks, and there was no more difficulty in placing bonds. 2 \^/vX 1 This system was based upon the successful "free-banking" system in force in New York, where bank issues were secured by State bonds. 2 Capital is notoriously timid, and business notoriously selfish. There were not wanting the customary shames of army contractors who swelled their fortunes by furnishing shoddy clothing, paper-soled shoes, and rotten food to the troops; while other more adventurous pirates of finance made fabulous profits by illicit or treasonable trade with the South. But more typical, after all, is Andrew D. White's story {Autobiography, I, 89) of the roughly expressed idealism of a multimillionaire J 606 THE CIVIL WAR Northern statesmanship also devoted itself deliberately and effectively to encouraging the production of wealth — that there might be more to tax. The demand for war supplies and the high tariffs stimulated manu- factures enormously- Congress gave vast amounts of land and money to the Union Pacific to enable that company to build a railway across the continent ; and other railways opened up great tracts of new territory to agriculture. In 1862 the Morrill Bill offered National land grants to State institutions providing scientific training in agriculture and in mechanical arts. The same year the long-delayed " Homestead Bill" (§367) offered free 160 acres of land to any head of a family who would live upon and improve it. The South had little wealth to tax. It had no capitalists to buy its bonds ; and they could not long be sold abroad. Paper money was issued in floods by both central and State governments, — and depreciated even faster than the famous "Continental currency" of Revolutionary days, so that in 1864, it was not unusual for a Southern soldier to pay $200 for a poor pair of shoes. The Confederacy did not formally make this paper a legal tender ; but, before the end of the war, it was forced to seize sup- plies from the fields and barns, and it could pay for them only in this money — at rates fixed from month to month by government decree. Neither bonds nor currency were ever redeemed. Thus the South lived upon itself. And the capital that could not be eaten, — that which was fixed in buildings and roads, — was burned or ruined by the Northern invaders. Southern wealth was gone before the survivors of her heroic men laid down their arms. The world has never seen another so vast and complete a devastation of a civilized land. 377. Slavery and the War. — Large elements in the North, devoted to the Union, cared nothing about abolishing slavery, or were positively averse to doing so ; while the loyal Border States were kept in the Union only by the repeated assurances — still a rare phenomenon in the sixties — who had " risen by hard work from simple beginnings to the head of an immense business ... a hard, determined, shrewd man of affairs, the last man in the world to show anything like senti- mentalism. ... He said something advising investment in the newly created national debt. I answered, ' You are not, then, one of those who believe that our debt will be repudiated ? ' He answered : • Repudiation or no repudiation, I am putting everything I can rake and scrape together into national bonds, to help this government maintain itself; for, by God, if I am not to have any country, I don't want any money.' " AND SLAVERY 607 of the government that the war was not intended to free slaves. The day after Bull Run, by 107 to 2, the Republican House reassured the War Democrats and the Border States to this effect. In the opening weeks of the struggle, it is true, Gen- eral Butler, at Fortress Monroe, refused to deliver to an owner in the Confederate army a runaway slave who had escaped to the Union lines, — on the ground that the man was "contra- band of war" (since he might be made useful to the enemy). This logic was so sound, and the phrase so caught the popular approval, that the government did not interfere with the Union generals who chose thereafter to free " contrabands " seeking refuge within their lines, 1 but when certain generals went far- ther, Lincoln felt constrained to interpose. Thus, General Fremont, in command in Missouri, proclaimed free the slaves of all citizens of that State who were in arms for the Con- federacy; but the order was promptly disavowed. For a year and more, all the public utterances of the President tried to keep true to his early promises ; and the Fugitive Slave Act was enforced for all slave owners in the loyal States. But it became more and more apparent that, if the North was successful, the result must be freedom for the Negro; and, in March, 1862, President Lincoln recommended to Congress that the States should be invited to decree gradual emancipation, and that, wherever this was done the United States should com- pensate the owners and colonize the freed negroes. 2 This wise plan was never adopted. In April Congress abolished slavery in the District of Columbia, it is true (with an appropriation of $1,000,000 to compensate the owners); and, in June, it abolished slavery in the Territories, without com- pensation. It also passed resolutions approving Lincoln's plan for the States. But the President's repeated and earnest ap- 1 For two years or more, the majority of the generals and higher officers were inclined rather to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act as to such refugees, even when their owners were serving in the Confederate army. 2 He pointed out that the cost of the war for three months would pay for all the slaves in the loyal States. 608 THE CIVIL WAR peals to the Union leaders of the Border to persuade their States to act promptly, and secure compensation for their slaves before it was too late, fell upon deaf ears. They could not yet believe his prophecy that soon they would find " bonds better property than bondsmen " ; and the opportunity passed. Moreover, Congress hesitated to grant the $200,000,000 of bonds which Lincoln asked to have placed at his disposal, for use in case any State should act; but it did pass a "Confisca- tion Act," authorizing Union generals to free the slaves of all "Rebels." Congress adjourned for the season on July 17. Five days later, Lincoln read to his surprised Cabinet the draft of a pro- posed Emancipation Proclamation. This was not to apply to the Border States, or to the Southern territory under Union control. The only warrant in the Constitution for such action by the President had to be found in his powers as Commander in Chief. The Proclamation, in form, was merely a war measure, designed to weaken the enemy. At Seward's sugges- tion, Lincoln put the matter aside, to wait for some signal victory — of which there had been few for a long year — that the Proclamation might not seem the act of a despair- ing government. 1 Two months later, Lee's retreat after Antietam (§ 374) furnished the appearance of a victory; and (September 23) the great Proclamation was given to the x The secret of Lincoln's purpose was perfectly kept, — with the curious result that the Northern radicals at just this time were loudest in abusing him for not acting against slavery. To a bitter protest, headed by Horace Greeley, Lincoln replied persuasively : " I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. ... If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless at the same time they could destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. ... If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. . . . I have stated my purpose according to my view of my official duty : and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere might be free." The student will find both parts of this interesting correspondence in Rhodes, IV, 73-74, or Morse's Lincoln, II, 105-110. AND SLAVERY 609 world, — to go into operation on the first day of the coming year (1863). The Proclamation made an era in history. At the moment, of course, it was a paper edict, and did not actually free a slave. But from that day the war became a war to free slaves; and, as Union armies slowly con- quered their way into the South, thousands, and finally millions, did become free. Abroad, too, the Proclamation put an end to all possibility of foreign intervention in behalf of the South. True, cautious as Lincoln had been, it seemed for a time as though he had moved too swiftly for Northern opinion. The fall elections gave anti-war majorities in several of the largest Northern States, before strongly Republican. In Ohio the Democrats carried 14 congressional districts out of 19; in Indiana, 8 out of n; in Illinois, 11 out of 14. Says Professor A. B. Hart (Salmon P. Chase, 270) : " No Republican majority could be secured out of the free States ; but a silent and drastic process was applied by the military in the loyal Border States, which caused them to furnish enough Republican members to make up the majority without which the war must have failed." New England and the West just balanced the Democratic gains in the North Central States ; but "strangely enough," as McCall's Thaddeus Stevens phrases it, it was Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland which furnished the small Republican majority, by electing 21 Republicans in a total of 26 districts ! 610 *THE CIVIL WAR But after an interval of dismay the Nation rallied. Emancipation was accepted as a settled policy ; and, in 1864, Lincoln was reelected triumphantly, carrying every loyal State except New Jersey, Delaware, and Kentucky. The doom of slavery had sounded. Before the close of the war, Mary- land, Missouri, and West Virginia abolished the institution within their limits, without compensation; and "Reconstruction governments' 1 (§ 382) in Tennessee, Louisiana, and Virginia freed the slaves in those parts of the Confederacy to which the great Proclamation had not ap- plied. Then "the whole thing was wound up," 1 — all informalities legalized, all possible gaps covered, and the institution itself forever forbidden, 2 — by the Thirteenth Amendment (ratified in December, 1865). It was this Amendment which freed the remaining slaves in Kentucky and Delaware. After the Emancipation Proclamation, the government began to re- ceive Negro regiments into the army. More than fifty thousand black men were enrolled during the remaining months of the war. 378. Foreign Relations. — At the opening of the war, the government tried to look upon the Confederates merely as rioters, — " combinations of individuals " obstructing the laws. This view would have entitled the United States to treat pris- oners as pirates. A threat, indeed, was made of such a policy ; but a prompt notice from the Confederacy that Union prisoners would be executed in retaliation put an end to this unwise proj- ect. Moreover, the proclamation of blockade had itself amounted to an acknowledgment that the South was a bel- ligerent power, outside the Union — since no nation would "blockade" its own ports. But when England and France 1 Lincoln's expressive phrase, in urging such an amendment upon Congress nearly a year before. 2 The Proclamation had freed slaves, but it had not made slavery subse- quently illegal. The government had no power to do that as a war measure. But the great Amendment runs — after the phrasing of the Northwest Ordi- nance — "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude . . . shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction." The contrast between this actual Thirteenth Amendment and the proposed "Thirteenth Amendment" of 1861, to guarantee slavery forever against national inter- ference (§ 370), measures part of the value of the war. AND ENGLAND 611 followed that proclamation by proclaiming neutrality between the " belligerents," the North was deeply incensed. Both North and South had counted upon English sympathy. The North felt that England must favor war against slavery, — forgetting, per- haps, that for more than a year it vociferated that it was not warring upon slavery, and ignoring also the fact that our mounting tariff, closing the usual market to English manufactures, was a constant irritation. The South hoped that England would break the blockade, to secure cotton, so as to give work to her idle factories and her hundreds of thousands of starving operatives. 1 The acknowledgment of belligerency was perhaps made with unneces- sary haste ; but it stated a fact of which foreign powers must necessarily soon have taken notice. It is now generally agreed that such action afforded no real cause for complaint. It granted to the Confederates certain rights for their privateers in English and French ports, which, as mere rioters or pirates, they would not have enjoyed ; but it was not at all a recognition of the Confederacy as an independent nation. That would almost certainly have been fatal to the Union. •There was real danger of this catastrophe. After Bull Run, English society generally believed that the South could not be conquered, and was more and more inclined to look upon the contest as one between em- pire and self-government. " In any case, since the South must win in the end," said they, " the sooner the matter is ended the better, so that our cotton mills may turn their spindles again and the danger of social revolu- tion from starving workmen here be removed." Moreover, now that it 1 Richard Cobden wrote to Charles Sumner (December 5, 1861) : " You know how ignorant we are of your history, geography, etc. . . . There are two subjects upon which we are unanimous and fanatical . . . personal free- dom and free trade. In your case we see a mighty struggle, — on one side pro- tectionists, on the other slave owners. The protectionists say they do not seek to put down slavery: the slave owners say they do want free trade. Need you wonder at the confusion in John Bull's head ? " — Quoted from Mss. by Rhodes (III, 529) . Punch put the same dilemma : — " The South enslaves those fellow men Whom we all love so dearly : The North keeps commerce bound again, Which touches us more nearly. Thus a divided duty we Perceive in this hard matter : Free trade or sable brother free ? O, won't we choose the latter? " 612 THE CIVIL WAR seemed safe, the governing aristocracy of that time 1 was glad to show sympathy for the corresponding aristocracy of the South. Said Gladstone — not yet fully out of his Tory period — ' ' Jefferson Davis and other leaders . . . have made an army ; they are making a navy ; they have made ... a nation." Still, so far as any act of the English government is concerned, Mr. Rhodes to-day and Motley 2 at the time agree that the North had no cause whatever for offense until November, 1861. Then came an incident, indeed, which heightened animosities and nearly led to war. The Confederacy appointed James Mason and John Slidell commis- sioners to England and France, to secure recognition and alliance. These gentlemen ran the blockade to Havana, and there took passage on the English steamship Trent. November 8, the Trent was overhauled by an over-zealous captain of an American man-of-war and compelled to submit to "search," — the two commissioners being taken from her decks and carried prisoners to Boston. The North burst into applause, though Lincoln and a few other cool heads saw that the government was placed in the wrong by this violation of a right of neutral vessels for which America had so long been ready to fight. England, too, had always prided herself particularly on afford- ing refuge to political offenders from other lands ; and there was now a burst of sincere indignation in that country. The aristocracy and the government used the opportunity to go far in showing Southern sympa- thies. Troops were hurried off for Canada, and a peremptory demand was made for the surrender of the prisoners and for an apology — softened though the form of the note was, from the original draft, through the in- fluence of the Prince Consort and the command of the Queen. After un- wise delay, due to fear of popular feeling, the American government yielded, and Mason and Slidell were placed on board an English steamer. The people of the North acquiesced ; but their bitterness toward England was intensified. In another international incident of more serious nature, the English government was deeply at fault. In the early years of the war, the South succeeded in getting a few cruisers to sea, to prey upon Northern com- merce. The most famous one never entered a Confederate port. This vessel was built in England. The United States' minister there, Charles Francis Adams, warned Lord Russell of the purpose of the vessel as it neared completion; but Russell was stupidly incredulous, and trusted to 1 This was before the Reform Bill of 1867, which first made England a democracy. Cf . Modern History. 2 One of America's chief representatives in Europe at the time. AND ENGLAND 613 reports of his subordinates and to the assurances of the builders that the vessel was a peaceful one. Thus the Alabama was allowed to escape to sea, where she took on her armament, and soon became a terror to the Northern merchant marine — until she was overtaken and sunk by the Kearsage. The North was inclined to believe that the English government acted in bad faith. But it is now certain that Russell was guilty only of culpable negligence — for which his country afterward atoned so far as possible by paying the u AlaJbama^claims'' (§ 393). More serious still would have been the barely defeated project of the South to build two iron-clad rams in England, with which to break up the blockade. These formidable vessels were nearly ready for sea ; and Mr. Adams' remonstrances apparently had moved Lord Russell only to inef- fectual precautions. At the last moment, Adams wrote to Russell, "It would be superfluous for me to point out to your lordship that this is war." But Russell had already awakened, and had just given effectual orders to seize the vessels. The North, then, had some cause to blame the government and the aristocracy of England. It had greater cause, not always duly recognized, for deep gratitude to the sound heart of the English masses, who felt dimly that the Union was fighting slavery, even while Unionists denied it loudly, and who therefore gave the North a heroic support through cruel privations — in many ways as severe as those borne by Americans. Says Von Hoist of this matter : " The attitude of the English workingmen is one of the great deeds in the world's history." They stood nobly by the cause of democracy and free labor, as their own cause ; and their attitude was so determined that, even though they had no votes, their aristo- cratic government did not venture to take offensive action against Amer- ica. It should be remembered, too, that, in the darkest hour, there were not wanting English leaders, like Richard Cobden, John Bright, and John Stuart Mill, to give enthusiastic support to the North. France, too, felt the economic pressure due to the lack of cotton, though far less than England, and the Emperor Napoleon III made specific pro- posals to the English government to join hands in recognizing the South and breaking the blockade. These repeated overtures were always re- fused. With perfect right, Cobden wrote to Sumner (Morley's Cobden, II, 408) : " You must not forget that we have been the only obstacle to what would have been almost a European recognition of the South." Then, after the emancipation proclamation had put the North in the true light on the matter of slavery, English opposition was hushed. English workingmen thronged great public meetings to voice loud enthu- 614 THE CIVIL WAR siasm for the Union, and Cobden wrote jubilantly that those meetings had "closed the mouths of those who had been advocating the side of the South. And I write now to assure you that any unfriendly act, no matter which of our aristocratic parties is in power, is not to be apprehended. ... A spirit would be instantly aroused which would drive that govern- ment from power " (February 13, 1863) .* ^79. Personal Liberty. — After the war was well under way, the Democrats who favored its prosecution ( War Democrats) generally united with the Republicans in a " Union Party." The Peace Democrats, opponents of the War, were commonly known as " Copperheads." Some of them believed that the Union could not be restored by arms ; some did not wish it restored. These opponents varied all the way from high- minded gentlemen, like Governor Seymour of New York or Robert C. Winthrop of Massachusetts, who criticized the tend- ency of the war government to overthrow private liberty, to real traitors who conspired to liberate Southern prisoners in the North and attack the Northern cities. , This last class, how- ever, was probably small in number at any time, though at the moment, such designs were imputed by the Unionists to all the members of an extensive secret organization in Ohio and Indiana known as the " Knights of the Golden Circle." From the beginning, the government committed many in- vasions of personal liberty, unwarranted by the Constitution or by the spirit of our institutions ; and this not merely near the theater of war, but all over the North. By executive order, 1 The House of Lords, says Mr. Rhodes, was almost unanimously for the South, as was a majority of the Commons, — elected in that day by about a million voters. But there were six million other Englishmen not yet enfran- chised ; and " nearly all of these, who had any opinion whatever, sympathized with the North ; and their hearty manifestations of friendship came at the most gloomy period of the war, when patriots at home and friends abroad despaired. . . . The Great Britain of to-day . . . would have been with the North." This greatest American authority agrees that even the England of that day " was the one insurmountable obstacle to the recognition of the Con- federacy by France and other European nations " {History, IV, 388). On the whole topic the interested student cannot do better than to read Rhodes, III, 417-129, 502-538, and IV, 76-92, and (especially) 337-394. PERSONAL LIBERTY 615 the President suspended the writ of habeas corpus ; 1 and thou- sands of men were imprisoned by military order, some- times without trial, or even a specific charge ; and others were punished by military courts, on the charge of " discouraging enlistments " or " giving aid and comfort to the enemy." Such prisoners included mayors, editors, judges, members of legis- latures. In some cases, prisoners, while in durance, were chosen by their neighbors to legislature or to Congress — as a proof of confidence in them and of resentment at the high-handed prac- tice of the government. Mr. Rhodes' judgment is that this policy of the government was "futile for good . . . inexpedient, unnecessary, and wrong" ; and that the sins against which it was aimed might have been controlled adequately by the ordinary process of law. The worst excesses were due to the " capricious- ness of power" in the hands of Seward and especially of Stanton, the patriotic but arbitrary and irritable Secretary of War; and they were aggravated by the insolence of subordinates and the cruelty and tyranny of some brutal provost marshals, who found it safer to gratify their pas- sions so than at the front, and who sometimes used their power to pay off personal grudges. Final responsibility, of course, has to rest upon the President. At the time, he was reviled by opponents as "Abraham the First." He did "wield greater power than any single Englishman since Crom- well," as James Bryce has said ; and this phase of the war is perhaps the least glorious to his fame. Military commissions were permitted to define "public enemies" so as to include the man "who overrates the success ... of our adversaries," or "seeks false causes of complaint against the officers of the government," or " inflames party spirit among our- selves." And, in the eye of the President's agents, as Dr. Dunning says, such doctrine made the line between political opposition to the President and treason extremely hazy. 2 Neither the despotic govern- !The power to suspend the great writ, " when public safety requires," in cases of rebellion or invasion, is named among the powers of Congress, not of the President. Months later, Congress " authorized " the President to suspend the writ at his discretion ; but a later decision of the Supreme Court (below) declared this legislation unconstitutional. 2 Dunning's Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction, 43-44. 616 THE CIVIL WAR ment in England during the French Revolutionary days, nor the govern- ment of Jefferson Davis, ventured so bluntly to ignore the constitutional rights of citizens. At the same time, it was just Lincoln's moderation and mercy and good sense which made the mass of the people willing to trust him with these enormous powers. Men knew that some mistakes must be made in those cruel days ; but they felt rightly that their lib- erties were fundamentally safe in the hands of "Honest Abe." Two cases were of particular importance. a. Vallandigham, a leader of the extreme Peace Democrats, was a candidate for nomination for the governorship of Ohio. After a speech at a public meeting, he was arrested by order of General Burnside, tried by a military commission, on the charge of " publicly expressing, in viola- tion of general orders, . . . sympathy for those in arms against . . . the United States . . . with the purpose of weakening the government," and was condemned to close imprisonment during the war (May 16, 1862). Lincoln felt that he could not well disavow such action ; but he turned the matter into a huge, if somewhat cruel joke, by "commuting" the sentence, — ordering instead that Vallandigham should be sent through the Union lines, " to his friends " in the Confederacy. From this banish- ment Vallandigham ventured back, soon after, to resume political activ- ity ; *and his reappearance was wisely ignored by the government. b. In October, 1864, Dr. Milligan and two associates were arrested by military order, tried by court martial, and condemned to death by hang- ing, on charges similar to those in the Vallandigham case. President Lincoln, however, would not order the execution, — though he did not release the prisoners. President Johnson, on accession (§ 383), fixed a date for the hanging. Governor Morton of Indiana, one of the greatest of the War Governors, at the suggestion of Justice David Davis of the Supreme Court of the United States, prevailed on the President finally to commute the sentence (three hours before the time fixed for the hanging) to imprisonment for life. The war being now over, Milligan at last secured a hearing from the Supreme Court 1 on application for a writ of habeas corpus. A year and a half later (December, 1866) , the Court unanimously ordered Milligan set free, and, five to four, declared that Congress had no authority under the Constitution, to authorize any such military commis- sions in regions where the civil courts were open. 1 During the war, the Court evaded all calls to interfere by alleging that the laws provided no form of appeal from military courts. Read Hart's Chase, 346, and, on the whole subject of military government in the North, see Rhodes' History, III, IV, V, in table of contents. THE COST 617 This decision was in line with the whole tradition of the English-speak- ing people ; but it was met, even at that late day, by a storm of vehement public criticism, and the narrow majority of the court indicates how unstable civil liberty might again become in case of a great war. 380. Cost. — The war cost more than 700,000 lives, — the loss nearly even between North and South. Says Professor Ross, " The blood of the nation was lastingly impoverished by that awful hemorrhage " {Foundations of Sociology). As many men more had their lives sadly shortened or rendered mis- erable by disease or wounds. Other darkened lives, in homes from which the light had gone out, cannot be computed. Nor can we count the heaviest cost of all, the lowering of moral tone, and the habits of vice, that came from life in camp and barracks. In money, the war cost the Union government about three and a half billions, nearly three billions of which remained as a huge national debt to plague the next genera- tion. The destruction of property, principally in the South, amounted to nearly as much more. Still, this expenditure of blood and treasure was well worth while. The war struck shackles from four million men. It ended forever the ideas of constitutional nullification and of peaceful secession. It decided beyond further appeal, that the United States is a Nation, not a confederacy. It was the means whereby the more progressive portion of the country had to force its advanced political thought and its better labor system upon the iveaker, stationary portion. It prevented the break-up of the country into squabbling communities, to be engaged in inces- sant bickerings over trade and boundaries, and it preserved the vast breadth of the continent for peace. It demonstrated to skeptical European aristocracies that the great Republic was not "a bubble," as some of them had hastened to exult in 1861, but " the most solid fact in history." 1 One part of the cost is yet to be counted. April 14, 1865, while the North was still blazing with illuminations and thrill- ^obden, in a congratulatory letter to Sumner. 618 RECONSTRUCTION ing with rejoicings over the capture of Lee's army and the end of the war, it was plunged into intense gloom by the assassina- tion of Lincoln. The great President was murdered by a crazed actor, a sympathizer of the South. No man was left to stand between North and South as mediator, and to bind up the wounds of the Nation with great-hearted pity and all-sufficing influence as Lincoln could have done. His death was an in- comparable loss to the South. It added fierce flame to the spirit of vengeance at the North, and it explains in great part the blunders and sins of the dominant party in the " Recon- struction " that followed the war. For Further Reading. — The best military story in brief form is Dodge's Bird's-eye View of the Civil War. Further details are given in an in- teresting series of articles, " Campaigns of the Civil War," written by- generals of both armies, in the Century, VII-XIII. On other phases of the period, besides the references in notes above, the student may consult Rhodes' History ; Hart's Chase ("American Statesmen" series) ; Morse's Lincoln (ib.) ; Schwab's Confederate States of America ; Stephens' War between the States ; Bancroft's Seward ("American Statesmen") ; Davis' Bise and Fall of the Confederate Government ; Lee's General Lee. Much source material is given in Hart's Contemporaries, IV, and Mac Donald's Select Statutes. Illustrative material is abundant. Special mention is due to Eggleston's BebeVs Becollections, and American War Ballads ; Gary's BebeVs Becol- lections ; T.N. Page's Among the Camps, and Burial of the Guns; Harold Frederic's Copperhead ; L. M. Alcott's Hospital Sketches; Avary's A Viriginia Girl in the Civil War. II. RECONSTRUCTION 381. Problems, North and South. — Peace brought new prob- lems. So far as the North was alone concerned, the most im- mediate ones were met satisfactorily. The million men under arms were paid off and sent to their homes at government ex- pense, at the rate of one or two hundred thousand a month, until, at the end of a year, only some fifty thousand remained to garrison the conquered South. The " old soldiers " for the most part found honorable and useful places in industry with SOUTHERN PROBLEMS 619 marvelous rapidity and with hardly a ripple upon the usual order, — one of the notable phenomena of history. 1 Internal taxes were promptly reduced or abolished ; and after 1869, the immense national debt was cut down steadily and resolutely, — so that by 1890, including the paper money, it amounted to less than half the amount of twenty years before. For the wrecked South, the problems were infinitely more difficult — and more pressing. The ex-Confederate soldiers toiled homeward painfully, mostly on foot, from Northern prison camps and from surrendered armies. In some districts, remote from the march of the Union armies, there was still abundance of food, with the Negroes at work in the fields ; but over wide areas the returned soldier found his home in ashes, his stock carried off, his family scattered, the labor system utterly gone. Many an aristocrat, who in April had ruled a veteran regiment, in July was hunting desperately for a mule, 2 that he might plow an acre or two, to raise food against the starvation of his delicately nurtured family. The destruction of bridges and tearing up of railroads left the various districts isolated and self-dependent ; and economic life had to be built up again from primitive conditions. No praise is too great for the quiet heroism with which the men of the South set them- selves to this immediate and unaccustomed task. • Before the end of the war, the Negroes along the lines of Northern in- vasion had begun to flock to the Federal camps ; and, in March, 1865, Congress had found it necessary to establish a " Freedman's Bureau," — a military organization, to feed these helpless multitudes, to start schools for them, and to stand to them in the place of guardian. Despite the best efforts of the noble men at the head of this organization, and notwith- standing the great services it did render, hundreds of thousands of ex- 1 Once more, "free land" helped us solve a tremendous problem. Thou- sands upon thousands of ex-soldiers, who found no immediate opening in their old homes, became " homesteaders " in the West. 2 At Lee's surrender, General Grant, with characteristic good sense and generosity, had told the men to keep their horses, which, said he, they would need for the spring work. Tbjs practice, followed by other Union com- manders, lightened in some sligBl degree the suffering of the South. 620 RECONSTRUCTION slaves drifted aimlessly about the country for months, expecting soon a division of property which should give each one at least " forty acres and a mule." Deprived of their usual order of life, this unhappy population wasted away in disease and want. After Christmas week, they began to recover from the universal delusion of a coming distribution of property, and thereafter they slowly returned to work ; but the habits of unaccus- tomed liberty to which they had been exposed led thereafter to unprece- dented violence and crime. To rebuild the industrial organization, beyond providing against im- mediate starvation, was a work not for individuals, but for organized political societies. But political organization was more completely wrecked even than the industrial system ; and, with a civilized people, the first need was to restore it. The military government preserved order in the South ; but civil liberties were in doubt, and civil government was lacking. Thus the problems for the South were (i) to find food for its people ; (2) to protect and control and uplift the Negro and find him a place again in the industrial system ; (3) to build new State governments ; and (4) to restore these reconstructed States to their old relation to the Union. Unfortunately, in practice, the second and third of these problems had to depend upon the fourth; and this problem the victorious North, after the assassination of Lincoln and the return of its emaciated pris- oners, was in no mood to solve in the best way. It followed that for twelve years (1865-1877), though war had ceased, a "state of war" continued, — the South garrisoned by Federal troops and, much of it, ruled by conquering generals, as though it were a hostile country. 382. Lincoln and Reconstruction, in the War. — At the open- ing of the war, the Republican party held that the States did not go out of the Union, and that their normal relations to the Union were merely interrupted temporarily by illegal " com- binations of individuals." President Lincoln kept this view consistently throughout; and under it, even while the war was in progress, he had tried to begin the political reconstruc- tion of such States as had been occupied by the Union armies. "Louisiana," said he, in 1862, "has nothing to do now but to take her place in the Union as it was — barring the broken eggs." In 1863 he issued a proclamation of amnesty for all AND LINCOLN 621 Southerners (with a few specified exceptions) who would take an oath of allegiance to the Union ; and he promised to recog- nize in any seceding State a civil government set up by such persons, — they being not less than 10 per cent of the number of voters of 1860. But the more radical wing of the Republicans began to fear that the " rebels/' getting back so easily into the Union, might get control of the Federal government and undo the results of the war. 1 Jealousy, too, developed as to whether President or Congress should manage the work of reconstruction. Thus, in July, 1864, the " Davis- Wade bill " was passed, (1) to make the process of reconstruction more difficult, and (2) to place control of it in Congress. President Lincoln killed this bill by a pocket veto, and appealed to the country with one of his persuasive proclamations ; and during the adjournment of Con- gress, upon his own responsibility, he " recognized " the " ten- per-cent governments" which he had helped to organize, in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Later, like action was taken for Virginia. Representatives and Senators from these States had not been admitted by Congress at Lincoln's death ; but three days before that calamity, the President, in a public address, repeated his views as to reconstruction. 383. Presidential Reconstruction after the War. — The new President, Andrew Johnson, had been a War Democrat and a Union man in Tennessee, where he had served efficiently as military governor in 1863-1864. He possessed great native force of character, of a rather pugnacious order, and a rugged integrity ; and, even in the aristocratic South before the war, he had passed from a tailor's bench to the highest offices of his State (cf . § 289). He was, however, sadly lacking in tact and good taste, and in generosity toward opponents, and he was possessed by a fatal itch for boastful and abusive public speech. 1 The fear long continued that in Congress they might repudiate the National debt, or perhaps assume the war debt of the Confederacy. 622 RECONSTRUCTION Julian, one of the radical Republican Congressmen, tells us {Political Becollections, 255) that at Lincoln's death, "while everybody was shocked, the feeling was nearly universal [among the radicals in Washington] that the accession of Johnson would prove a Godsend to the country. ' ' Two days later, Johnson received a committee of these radical politicians with mutual joy. Senator Wade greeted him: " Johnson, we have faith in you. By the gods, there will be no trouble now in running the gov- ernment." And the President rejoined with the declaration : " Treason is a crime, and crime must be punished. Treason must be made infamous, and traitors must be impoverished." For some weeks the new President seemed to keep this dangerous temper toward the South. He was ardent for the trial, by court martial, of Confederate leaders like Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, both of whom he accused, absurdly, of complicity in Lincoln's murder, and who, he urged, should be hung for treason anyway. Happily this scheme fell before the more conservative temper of the mass of the North and the attitude of the courts. And soon Johnson himself disappointed his radical associates by taking up the reconstruction policy just where his predecessor left it — but with infinitely less chance of success. Before Congress met, in December, he had brought about the organization of State governments in the remaining seven States of the defunct Confederacy, essentially upon Lincoln's plan. The process was as follows: (1) The appointed " governor " in each State arranged for registration of voters under the franchise laws in force in 1860, except for the exclusion of certain classes of the higher Confeder- ate officials, which classes were made somewhat larger by Johnson than they had been by Lincoln. (2) A convention, chosen by these voters, repealed the ordinance of secession, repudiated any share in the Confed- erate war debt, and adopted a constitution. (3) Under this constitution, the people chose a legislature and a new governor. (4) The legislature was required, before the State government was recognized by the Presi- dent, to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment to the National Constitution. 1 Thereupon President Johnson proclaimed civil government fully restored ; the legislatures proceeded to enact much legislation to restore society and 1 Mississippi did not take the last step. AND ANDREW JOHNSON 623 industry ,' and Senators and Representatives were chosen for Congress — who, however, were never to take their seats (§ 385). 384. Alarm at the North. — The North was taking alarm. In the " reconstructed " States, the governors and newly chosen Representatives were ex-Confederate generals. Such men were the only natural leaders of their people ; but the North could not understand this fact. Still less did it believe that these " rebel brigadiers " had accepted the result of the war in good faith — though now all agree that such was the case. Moreover, cause for irritation was found in the attitude of the reconstructed legislatures toward the freedmen. Some States forbade Negroes to carry weapons without special license, or to bear witness in court against Whites, or to own land ; while in at least three States, a magistrate might arrest an idle Negro as a vagraut, fine him, and sell him into service to work out the fine. A like penalty was often imposed for petty larceny, and for other minor offenses; and a common feature of these " Black Codes " was the provision that a court might " apprentice " Negro minors (who had no family sup- port) to White employers, preferably their former masters. To the Southerner, most of this legislation seemed inevitable ; and, except for its most extreme instances, it is approved to-day by Northern scholars. 1 But at the moment it seemed to the inflamed and uninstructed imagination of the North a deliber- ate and defiant attempt to reenslave " persons of color." Northern opinion, therefore, demanded that this Presidential " reconstruction " should be undone, until the Southern States 1 " This legislation, far from embodying any spirit of defiance towards the North . . . was in the main a conscientious and straightforward attempt to bring some sort of order out of the social and economic chaos." — Dunning, Reconstruction, Political and Economic (" American Nation " series), 57-58. "The trend of legislation . . . was distinctly favorable to the Negro." — Rhodes, History, VI, 27. Cf. ib-, 23-28, for illustrations, and for the judgment that the Northern opinion and the subsequent action of Congress were based upon " specious tales " and untrustworthy evidence. Cf . also the context of the reference above for Professor Dunning's full judgment. 624 RECONSTRUCTION should undo such legislation and should grant the franchise to the Blacks, — to enable those wards of the nation to protect themselves. Lincoln had advised his reconstructed governments that they would do well to give the franchise to Negroes who had fought for the Union or who could pass an educational test ; and President Johnson repeatedly urged a like policy. But no one of the reconstructed legislatures paid attention to such counsel. For this there is little wonder when we re- member that only six Northern States allowed the Negro to vote at this time, one of these with limitations not imposed upon Whites, and that in this same year (1865), State conventions in Wisconsin, Connecticut, and Minnesota refused the privilege. In 1867-1868, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, and Kansas rejected, by popular vote, constitutional amendments providing for Negro suffrage. 385. Congressional Reconstruction. — When Congress met in December, 1865, the Radicals had fully decided to ignore the President's work, and themselves to reconstruct the South over again. To suit this plan, the leaders devised new politi- cal theories. The Southern States, by attempting secession, had "committed State-suicide" and reverted to the position of Territories, subject of course to Congressional regulation. This was the theory put forward by Charles Sumner in the Senate. Thaddeus Stevens insisted upon the more extreme view that the South was a " conquered province," so that its people had no claim even to civil rights. Sumner was an un- selfish idealist, but unpractical and bigoted, with the one idea of doing justice to the Negro. Stevens was an unscrupulous politician and a vindictive partisan, determined to entrench Republican rule by Negro majorities in Southern States, and not averse incidentally .to punishing " rebels." The spirit of reckless retribution which stained the National legislation of the next months was due mainly to his harsh influence ; but, more and more, as the contest progressed, the Republican majority in Congress was actuated, aside from the leading motives just indicated, by a desire also to humiliate the President. AND CONGRESS 625 At the first roll call of the new Congress, the clerk, under Stevens' direction, omitted the reconstructed States, so that their representatives were not recognized. Later, the question of the readmission of those States to the Union was referred to a joint committee of the two Houses, — which then held the matter skillfully in abeyance. Meantime, steps were taken to secure the Negro against Southern oppression. The Freed- man's Bureau was continued, with authority to override State legislation ; and a Civil Rights Bill placed the civil equality of the Negro directly under the protection of the Federal courts — rather than of the State courts. Both these measures were passed over the President's veto, and the breach between legislature and executive widened daily. In June, 1866, the principle of the Civil Rights Bill was made more secure by the adoption in Congress of the Four- teenth Amendment This measure also held out to the South an inducement to give the suffrage to the Negro — in the pro- vision that if a State denied the suffrage to any citizens, its representation in Congress might be correspondingly reduced ; and it disqualified from office large classes of leading South- erners, such as made up the reconstructed governments. This last provision alone was sufficient to secure a prompt rejection of the Amendment by Southern legislatures, — the members refusing to be themselves the instruments of their own political degradation. Then the Radicals in Congress announced their program : Congress should not admit Representatives from any State until it did ratify the Amendment. On this issue they won a sweeping victory over the President in the fall election (1866), and then hastened to complete their work. The Pres- ident's power of dismissi ng ins ubordinate officials was taken away by an insulting "Tenure of Office" Act, and there was k enacted (beginning March 2, 1867) a series of atrocious Recon- struction Acts. These Acts divided the old Confederacy (except Tennessee, which had ratified the Amendment) into five military districts. Each district was placed under an army general, who, in practice, set aside at will the laws / 626 RECONSTRUCTION of the existing Southern legislatures, overruled the decisions of courts by military commissions, 1 and even superseded the will of the new State conventions which they themselves called. They appointed municipal authorities, regulated collection of debts, decreed (for instance) the non- manufacture of whisky, and aimed in general to exercise a minute paternal despotism. This situation was to continue until the following process should be complete : (i) Each commander was to register the voters in each State in his district, including the Negroes and excluding large classes of ex- Confederates. (2) State conventions, chosen by Negro suffrage, must ratify the Fourteenth Amendment and (3) adopt new State constitu- tions, — which must be satisfactory to Congress and which, in particular, must provide for future Negro suffrage. (4) These constitutions must then be ratified by the registered voters. (5) A State which complied with these requirements might be readmitted to the Union by Congress. By June of 1868, six more States had been reconstructed on this basis. Virginia, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas preferred military rule for three years more. Meantime Congress added the Fifteenth Amendment to the requirements for readmission, so placing Negro suffrage beyond the legal control of the States in the future. 386. Partisan Intolerance. — Annoyed by Johnson's veto messages, Congress now determined to remove him by impeachment. Ground was sought in his dismissal of Secretary Stanton from office, contrary, it was claimed, to the Tenure-of -Office Act; but it was shown promptly that Stanton's term had expired legally with President Lincoln's first term, and that he had never been reappointed and had no claim to pro- tection under the law. Indeed, with all his coarseness, Johnson had administered his high office with scrupulous fidelity to the laws ; and the impeachment necessarily became a frank attempt to depose him because he differed icith the majority of Congress. The attempt failed (May, 1868) for want of one vote to make the necessary two thirds; but every Northern Senator who voted against this partisan degradation of the presidency lost his seat at the first sub- sequent election. The North was even more mad than Congress. Julian, J In contemptuous defiance of the Supreme Court's decision in the Milligan Case a few months before (Cf. §§ 379 and 391). The Attorney-General of the United States formally decided that these officers had no right to set aside legislative acts^-but Congress promptly added that power to their functions by a special'ia'w. m0 IMPEACHMENT 627 himself then one of the Congressional leaders, wrote later: "It is im- possible now to realize how overmastering was the excitement of those days. The exercise of calm judgment was simply out of the question. . . . Passion ruled the hour. . . . The attempt to impeach was undoubtedly inspired by patriotic motives; but the spirit of intolerance among Re- publicans toward those who differed with them set all moderation and common sense at defiance. Patriotism and party animosity were . . . inextricably mingled and confounded." * A few months later, the Republicans elected General Grant to the Presidency in an enthusiastic campaign, by 214 electoral votes to 80. Still in the popular vote, Grant had a majority of only 300,000 out of 6,000,000. Part of the Southern States, too, were still unreconstructed, and had no vote ; while the others were controlled by Republican "car- petbaggers" (below). , 387. Carpetbagger Misgovernment. — Meantime, the Recon- struction Acts of '67 had been followed by extraordinary- anarchy and misgovernment in the South. In a few weeks, thousands of Northern adventurers, drawn by scent of plun- der, had thronged thither to exploit the ignorant Negro vote and to organize it as the Republican party. 2 These " carpetbaggers," joined by a few even more detested " scala- wags " (Southern Whites, largely of the former overseer class), with mobs of grossly ignorant and incapable ex-slaves, made up the bulk of the constitutional conventions and the subsequent State legislatures. Then, in the words of Wood- row Wilson, "a carnival of public crime set in under the forms of law." Irresponsible or rascally legislatures ruined the war-impover- ished South over again by stupendous taxes, bearing mainly on the property of the disfranchised Whites. Then these adven- turers, with their favorites, stole or wasted the proceeds. In Mississippi, a fifth of the total area of the State was sold for unpaid taxes. In New Orleans, the rate of taxation rose to 1 Political Recollections, 317-318. The student will do well to read the context. i 2 A favorite device, when one was needed, was to show the illiterate and credulous Negroes an "order" purporting to be signed by General Grant, commanding them to vote the Republican ticket. 628 RECONSTRUCTION 6 per cent, which meant confiscation. Enormous State debts, too, were piled up, to like unprofitable ends. Crime against individuals was rampant ; and vicious Negroes heaped indig- nities upon former masters. History fails to disclose a paral- lel to this legal revolution whereby a civilized society was subjected to ruin and insult by an ignorant barbarism led by brutal and greedy renegades. The nearest approach, perhaps, is the open military conquest of the Roman world of the fifth century by the Goths and Vandals. Says Rhodes (History, VI, 35) : " No law so unjust in its policy, so direful in its results, had passed the American Congress since the Kansas- Nebraska Act. . . . Douglas' repeal of the Missouri Compromise was in the interest of slavery, and precipitated the Civil War: Stevens' Recon- struction Acts, ostensibly in the interests of freedom, were an attack on Civilization." True, much of this extravagant legislation was generously intended by many members of the legislatures, — to place their States in economic and educational development alongside the more progressive North at a bound. Even so, says Dunning (Reconstruction, 208), " The result was legislation of incredible recklessness executed with inconceivable corruption and fraud." Perhaps the deepest sting lay in the fact that the tax-paying class was mostly disfranchised, and that it disapproved violently of some of the most unselfish purposes to which State funds were put — as in the attempts at book education for the Negroes. Some of the political adventurers from the North were men of personal integrity ; but at the best they were deeply obnoxious to Southern Whites as the leaders of Negro domination. Many other Northerners of high char- acter, with much-needed capital and enterprise, attempted to settle in the South, in order to take advantage of opportunities there for economic development. Unhappily Southern opinion confounded all "Yankee" immigrants with the political invasion ; and few of the more desirable set- tlers remained long, to face social ostracism. 388. Counter-revolution. — The Southern Whites, it should have been foreseen, would soon overthrow this vile supremacy, or perish. Peaceful and legal means for preserving White civilization there w*ere none ; open rebellion against Negro domination, while it was supported by Federal bayonets, was equally impossible; and so the Whites had recourse to the CARPETBAGGERS 629 only available methods, — which were very deplorable ones. 1 Secret societies intimidated Negro majorities by mysterious warnings ; and midnight patrols of white-robed, masked horse- men inflicted many floggings and hangings. By the close of 1870, the North, Jn law, had imposed its system of reconstruc- tion successfully Upon the South ; in actual fact, the South was rapidly carrying.out a counter-revolution. In the spring of- 1867, there spread over the South a spontaneous and elaborate organization of " The Invisible Empire" of Ku-Klux Klans, to establish White supremacy. The leaders hoped for a minimum of vio- lence ; but the lower-class Whites made the midnight patrols a means of RECONSTRUCTION SS Loyal governments set up under Lincoln Loyal governments set up under Johnson 'W.VA. / Upper date, Government recognized by Congress Lower date. Carpet-bagger government overthrown S-t860 - i,8B« ,^/J plunder and of gratifying brutal passions and personal spite. Alarmed at this tendency, in 1869 the head of the order sent forth a command to dis- band the organization ; but local bodies long continued a lamentable career of crime. Congress passed Force Bills (1870-1871), to protect the Negro in voting ; and the presence of Federal troops at the polls, often under the control of local Republican politicians or candidates, was a common feature of elections. In 1872, however, public feeling at the North com- pelled Congress to restore political rights to the ex- Confederates save for 1 Says William Garrett Brown (Lower South) , ' ' Never before had an end so clearly worth fighting for been so clearly unattainable by any good means." 630 RECONSTRUCTION a small class of some seven hundred in all ; and the consolidation of all Southern Whites in one (Democratic) party gave them a majority in most States over the Negroes. Thereafter violence toward the Blacks was rarely used ; but by threats of non-employment, by persuasion, by indirect bribery, or by vague intimidation, the Negro masses more and more were excluded from the polls. The Force Bills and State legislation had given the existing (Carpetbagger) governments authority to count election returns through their " Returning Boards," with what Professor Dunning calls justly " extraordinary facilities for fraud. " These facilities were used quite as unblushingly as was intimidation of the Negro by the Southern Whites. As a result, several States saw conflicting governments, with brief civil wars. 1 The government at Washington repeatedly secured the victory of the Carpetbaggers, by the use of Federal troops ; but this process became increasingly distasteful to President Grant and to the country. By 1875, Tennessee, Virginia, Georgia, and North Carolina had reverted to White rule ; and the remaining Southern States did so in the election of 1876, or as an immediate result of the settlement following that remarkable election (§ 389). 389. Presidential Elections and Need of "Reform." — In 1872, the Republicans began to divide on the question of military rule in the South. The conviction was growing that the North needed its energies, too, to carry out essential reforms at home. A " Liberal Republican " Convention nominated Horace Greeley for the presidency, on a platform calling for civil-service reform and for leaving the South to solve its own problems. The Democrats accepted program and candidate ; but they felt no enthusiasm for Greeley, — a life-long, violent opponent, — and the " regular " Republicans reelected Grant triumphantly. His second term, however, proved a period of humiliation for the simple-minded soldier. His confidence was abused basely by political " friends," and he showed himself a veritable babe in their unscrupulous hands. The public service had become honeycombed with inefficiency and corruption. In 1875 extensive frauds were disclosed whereby high officials had permitted a " Whisky Ring " to cheat the government of 1 For the curious and instructive situation in Louisiana in 1872-1873, see Dunning's Reconstruction, 217-219. NATIONAL CORRUPTION 631 millions of the internal revenue. Babcock, the President's private secretary, was deeply implicated, and Grant showed an ill-advised eagerness to save his friend from prosecution, while he allowed the Congressional friends of the convicted criminals to drive from office the Secretary of the Treasury, Be?ijamin H. Bristow, with all his active assistants, in unearth- ing the frauds. In 1876, Belknap, Secretary of War, was found to have accepted bribes, year after year, for appoint- ments to office in the matter of Indian affairs ; and of course the Indian officials had paid the bribes and enriched themselves by robbing the Indians. The Democratic House (see elections of 1874, below) began impeachment proceedings ; but Belknap resigned, and the President permitted him to escape punish- ment by hastily accepting the resignation. Grant had real sympathy with a movement then under way, for reform of the civil service (§ 415) ; but his most intimate friends and lieuten- ants in Congress, like the cynical Senator Conkling of New York, were bitter enemies of all reform, and in practice were permitted to embarrass well-meaning officers into resignation. In 1876, the President himself dismissed his Postmaster- General, — the only remaining member of his official family who showed a real interest in purifying the service. Designing public criminals and such stock market pirates as Jay Gould and James Fiske (§ 392) sought Grant's company in hopes to use him for their infamous purposes. On a visit to St. Louis he was lavishly enter- tained by a member of the " Whisky Ring," and even accepted from him a present of a span of fine horses, "with oriental nonchalance." 1 Low, however, as the honor of the government had fallen, no one imputes personal dishonesty to the President. The long domination of one political party, almost exempt from effective criticism, had demoralized Congress, also. The transcontinental railway was completed .in 1869, by the aid of enormous grants from the government. 2 The " Union Pacific " 1 Rhodes, VII, 184. Cf . context, and also Dunning's Reconstruction, 281-293. 2 This first transcontinental road was really built by government funds, though it was left private property. The Nation was so dazzled by the 632 RECONSTRUCTION had been managed financially by a corporation known as "The Credit Mobilier." This organization gave stock, or sold it far below market value, to members of Congress, to secure their votes. In 1873, an investigating committee reported absolute proof against two Congressmen, excused various others on the peculiar ground (not creditable to their intellects) that they had not understood the intent of corruption, and left many others, even the Vice President, under grave suspicion of dis- graceful motives. The public belief in the corruption of Con- gress was emphasized by the " salary grab," — a scandalous act increasing the pay of members of Congress and applying to the past two years (cf. § 216, note) as well as to the future. The elections of 1874 showed a popular revolt against these conditions by giving the Democrats a large majority in the lower House of Congress, and by placing them in control in several of the Northern State governments, even in that of Massachusetts. Then the presidential election of 1876 closed the long era of political reconstruction. The Democrats nomi- nated Samuel J. Tilden of New York (a prominent reformer) and adopted a " reform " platform. The Republicans named as their candidate Rutherford B. Hayes 1 of Ohio, and appealed romance of carrying an iron road through nearly two thousand miles of desert that it neglected its own interests in the matter. The "Union Pacific " — the main line from Omaha to California — ran through "Territories." To this company, Congress gave (1) right of way; (2) twenty square miles of land along each mile of road ; and (3) a loan of government honds to the amount of fifty millions, — which was inadequately secured and never repaid. The road might have been built directly by the government at less cost. 1 James G. Blaine, for many years preceding 1874 the Speaker of the House, and now the leader of the Republican minority there, had been a leading candidate. Shortly before the convention met, however, he was accused of complicity in the Credit Mobilier scandal. The evidence was supposed to be contained in letters from Blaine to a certain Mulligan. On pretense of examin- ing these letters, Blaine got hold of them and never permitted them to pass again from his hands. He read parts from them in a dramatic "justifica- tion " of himself before the House; but the "Mulligan Letters" made this great "magnetic" statesman thereafter an impossible candidate for National favor, and added one more count to the disgraceful imputations under which public life in America suffered. ^J&^O* v- I V? A e *f ELECTION OF 1876 633 chiefly to war-time prejudices by a vigorous "waving of the bloody shirt." On the morning after election, papers of both parties gener- ally announced a Democratic victory. That party had safely carried every " doubtful " Northern State (New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Indiana), and, on the face of the re- turns, they had majorities in every Southern State. In the nation at large their plurality was nearly as large as Grant's in 1868 ; and they claimed 204 electoral votes to 165. But in Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina, carpetbagger governments, hedged by the Federal bayonets, would have the canvassing of the returns, and they were promptly urged by desperate Republican politicians in the North to secure a favor- able count. These officials proved easily equal to the emer- gency. On the alleged ground of fraud and of intimidation to Negro voters, they threw out the vote of enough districts to declare the Eepublican electors chosen. 1 In Oregon, one of the Republican electors who had been chosen proved to be a postmaster; but the Constitution declares Federal officials ineligible to such position. In these four States, two sets of electors secured credentials from rival State governments or conflicting officials, and double sets of votes were sent to Washington. How should it be decided which sets were valid ? The Constitution was unhappily vague. Congress could not easily agree upon a law, because the lower House was Demo- cratic and the Senate Republican. Injudicious leadership 1 Louisiana was perhaps the most trying case. There the Democratic ticket had a majority of more than 0000, spite of the fact that the carpet- bagger officials freely employed "perjury, forgery, and shameless manipula- tion of the returns before publication" (Dunning, Reconstruction, 316, on authority of testimony taken two years later by a Congressional Committee). They ignored the legal requirements for a Democratic member of the canvass- ing board and " threw out returns on vague rumor and unsupported asser- tion," while they "ignored technical irregularities in returns that favored Republicans, but used the same defects as a ground for rejecting returns that favored the Democrats." (Dunning, as above.) Such methods manufactured a Republican majority of 3500. I 634 RECONSTRUCTION might easily have plunged the Nation again into civil war, which this time would not have been sectional. To elect Hayes, he had to be given every one of the disputed twenty votes. Any one of them would elect Til den ; and to reject both sets of returns from any State would have the same result. Finally (January, 1877), Congress created the famous Elec- toral Commission of fifteen, to pass upon the disputes, — five members chosen by the House, five by the Senate, and five justices of the Supreme Court, of which last five three were Republicans. After many painful weeks, by a strict party vote, the Commission decided every disputed point in favor of the Republicans. The end was reached only two days before the date for the inauguration of the new President. The "eight to seven" decisions became a by-word in politics, and they are generally regarded as proof that even members of the Supreme Court were controlled by partisan bias. But this discreditable result was more than offset by the notable spectacle of half a nation sub- mitting quietly, even in time of such intense party feeling, to a decision that had the form of law. Rarely, in any country, has free government been subjected to such a strain — or withstood one so triumphantly. The Democratic moderation was due in part to the fact that, in the closing days, the leaders had arrived at a secret under- standing whereby the South was to reap much of the fruit of victory after all. This agreement, too, was in full sympathy with President Hayes' personal inclination, though presum- ably he knew nothing of it at the time. In accordance with it, he promptly removed the Federal garrisons. Then the State governments to which his election had been due immedi- ately vanished, and were replaced by the rival Democratic governments. The South was to work out its salvation for itself as best it could. 390. The Courts and Reconstruction. — Throughout the Reconstruc- tion period, Congress showed a high-handed determination to override the courts, as it overrode the executive. The Supreme Court had been increased to ten Justices. Five of these were appointed by President AND THE COURTS 635 Lincoln. To prevent President Johnson from filling vacancies, Congress reduced the number to eight, when two of the older justices died. From 1865 to 1870, the five Justices named by Lincoln made a majority of the Court. As long as war lasted, the Court scrupulously avoided interfering with the President's extraordinary war powers. But, in 1866, by the decision in the Milligan case (§ 379) it sought to restore security for personal liberty in the future. The Radicals in Congress took alarm. They feared that the Court would proceed to demolish their program for military rule in the South. Stevens raved in the House : " That decision, though in terms, perhaps, not as infamous as the Dred Scott decision, is yet far more dangerous" (January 3, 1867). Suggestions were made for abolishing the Court, and Stevens introduced a bill to require a unanimous vote of the Court in decisions impairing the validity of an Act of Congress. The bill was not pressed to a vote, but, with some other like proposals, was held over the Court as a threat. Under such conditions, the Court grew cautious. When President Johnson's reconstructed State governments appealed to -it for protection against the military rule set over them by the Congressional Reconstruction Acts, it refused to accept jurisdiction, on the ground that in " political cases " it had no control ; and in 1872 (in White v. Hart) it pronounced a sweeping approval of Reconstruction: " The action of Congress is not to be inquired into. The case is clearly one in which the judicial is bound to follow the action of the political branch of the government." Later, however, the Court sought to revive constitutional theories which the war had overridden, describing the Nation as "an indestruc- tible Union of indestructible States." The theory of State sovereignty was dead ; but the doctrine of State Rights, essential to a federal form of government, was preserved. Indeed, in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1883) the Court restored to the States the control over their own citizens which the Fourteenth Amendment had been supposed to take from them. The stress of feeling following the war showed that the Court might be subject to another form of control. February 7, 1870, it declared uncon- stitutional the Legal Tender Act of 1862 (§ 376) , so far as that law made the " greenbacks" legal tender for a debt contracted before the passage of the law. Chief Justice Chase, who, as Secretary of the Treasury, had devised the law, wrote the decision, and the vote of the Court stood four to three. One of the eight Justices had just died, and Congress had pro- vided also for one additional member. President Grant now filled both 636 RECONSTRUCTION places — the day this decision was handed down. Promptly a new case of like character was brought before the Court. This time the new Justices voted with the former minority, and the constitutionality of the law was upheld, five to four. Loud complaint was made that the President and the Republican Senate had "packed the Court," to secure this re- versal ; l and an unfortunate feature of the business lies in the suspicion of influence by great corporations whose long-term bonds, about to expire, would have had to be paid in gold under the first decision, but which they now paid in the depreciated greenbacks — saving millions for corpo- ration coffers. It is certain, however, that the nominations had been set- tled upon before the first decision had been made public. At the same time, the opinions of the nominees upon the controverted point were known ; and the incident makes clear the dependence of the court, in times of great political excitement, upon the departments of govern- ment more immediately subject to popular control. 391. Excursus: The Negro Problem. — The blunders of Re- construction, together with the tremendous natural difficulties of the situation, have left America burdened with a frightful race problem. On the political side, Southern Whites have continued to agree in the necessity for keeping the Negro from the polls, — at least wherever his vote might be a real factor, — and that race remains (1913) practically destitute of political privi- lege. To keep it so, there has been created and preserved for a third of a century " the Solid South" in close alliance with the Democratic party, without the possibility of natural and whole- some division upon other issues. In 1890, the Republicans in Congress attempted to restore Federal supervision of congressional and presidential elections, in order to secure the Negro vote again for their party. The "Lodge Force Bill" failed, partly from the opposition of Northern capital invested now in Southern manufactures (§ 406), and partly from a new political alliance between the South and the Western " Silver " States. But the South took warn- ing, and has attempted since to protect its policy by the forms of consti- tutional right. The States have adopted property qualifications and x Even the Chief Justice stated publicly his belief that the appointments were designed expressly to secure a reversal of the Court. On the whole subject of the Court and the War, the interested student may consult Rhodes, Dunning, and Hart's Chase, 324-414. ! THE NE^/ QUESTION 637 educational tests for the franchise; 1 and then these qualifications, in practice, are invoked only against the Negro, not against the illiterate White. Sometimes the latter is protected further by the notorious "Grandfather clause," expressly declaring that the restrictions shall not exclude any one who could vote prior to January i, 1861, or who is the son or grandson of such voter. So plain an evasion of the Fifteenth Amendment might be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court ; but great reluctance is felt, even at the North, to interfere again in State control of the suffrage. One other feature of the situation concerns the North more directly. In 1888, Kansas and South Carolina had the same population, and ac- cordingly the same representation in Congress ; but South Carolina cast only one third as many votes as the Northern State. This contrast has led Northern politicians sometimes to threaten to deprive the South of part of its power in Congress, under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such proposals, however, have ended in talk, — as have the corresponding threats from the South to repeal the Fifteenth Amendment. On the side of civil equality, the Fourteenth Amendment is even more a dead letter. Just at the close of Keconstruction (in 1875), Congress made a final attempt to secure for Negroes the same accommodations as for Whites in hotels, railways, and theaters. In 1883, however, the Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional so far as it overrode State authority. Accordingly, the two races in the South live without social mingling. The Whites indeed are even more a unit on the policy of excluding the Negro from social than from political equality. The special cry of the South is "race integrity." Inter- marriage, it is insisted, shall not be permitted. Therefore there must be no social intercourse on terms of equality. Many noble leaders of the Negro race, too, like Booker Washington of Tuskegee and Charles Moten of Hampton Institute, desire 1 Mississippi led off (1890) by prescribing payment of a poll tax and the ability to read or understand the Constitution. Only 37,000 of the 147,000 adult Negro males could read ; few of these paid the tax ; only 8615 registered for the next election. 638 RECONSTRUCTION social segregation for the present, — but with a difference. To the White, Negro segregation means Negro inferiority. On the other hand, these leaders are eager for separate cars and separate schools for their people as a necessary step to help the Negro to " find himself " ; but they insist that the " Jim Crow car " shall be cared for and equipped as well as the car for Whites who pay the same rates, and that Negro schools shall receive their proportion of State funds and attention. As yet, this goal remains far distant. The governing class does not feel respo?isibility for those to whom it denies the power to ear e for themselves. 1 f 392. The Depreciated War Currency, 1865-1879. — For some years after the war, the half billion of Treasury notes and the third of a billion of National bank notes made the only money in circulation. Paper money was still depreciated, and prices were correspondingly inflated. In 1 868, the Secretary of the Treasury began to redeem four million dollars of the paper each month. This "contraction of the currency" was believed, however, to threaten "hard times" and to profit the monied classes at the expense of debtors ; and, in 1868, Congress put a stop to the process, — with 356 millions still outstanding. These notes were worth then 80 or 83 cents on the dollar, and they were subject to fluctuations in value according as the Wall Street speculators forced gold up or down. 2 To preserve National credit, the Government paid the interest on all its bonds in gold ; but, under such conditions, even this very proper policy had its repulsive side. The man who earned fifty dollars in the 1 The most complete recent study of the Negro problem is Hart's The Southern South. 2 In the summer of 1869, Jay Gould and "Jim" Fisk made the extreme attempt to corner gold, driving it, on Black Friday, to 162. The Secretary of the Treasury averted the ruin of business interests, and overwhelmed the pirates of finance, by suddenly throwing upon the market many millions of the government's gold reserve. That the government should possess such control over the business of the country, capable of exercise in either direc- tion, seemed ominous, however, to many people, and gave a sinister meaning to attempts by Go\jld and Fisk shortly before to cultivate an intimacy with President Grant (§ 389). FOREIGN RELATIONS 639 field, or who received that amount as interest on a small loan, had to .take his pay at its face in paper ; but the wealthy holder of a government bond, to whom fifty dolters of interest was due, could exchange his gold for sixty or seventy dollars in paper. Accordingly, the Democratic plat- form of 1868 demanded "one currency . . . for the producer and the bondholder," and urged that the government should pay its obligations in greenbacks except where the bond specifically named gold. Another kind of wrong was more serious. When paper money was worth fifty cents on a dollar, let us say, a farmer had mortgaged his two- thousand dollar farm for half its value, receiving $1000 in greenbacks, or $500 in gold. Now, as paper appreciated, approaching par, prices fell, until the farm was worth perhaps only $1000 in all, and the farmer must pay all of that to redeem. His property was halved, or his debt doubled, by the juggling tricks of varying currency. Many men, who saw the abuse clearly, jumped at a deceptive remedy. Local "Greenback" parties arose, to demand "fiat money " as a permanent policy. In 1876, the organization became national, with a candidate for the Presidency ; and two years later, it cast a million votes. Then it faded away before successful "resumption" (§428). Meantime the Republican party stood forth victoriously against all these vagaries as the champion of national credit and the "resumption of specie payment." In 1875, Congress provided for the accumulation of a gold reserve for that purpose, from the sale of bonds and from sur- plus revenues; and January 1, 1879, the Treasury announced its readi- ness to exchange gold for its greenbacks. Paper money rose at once to par, and no one cared longer to make the exchange. A third of a billion remained in circulation ; but notes are now redeemable on demand, and are "as good as gold." 393. Foreign Relations. — All general phases of internal de- velopment, except the one temporary matter treated in the preceding section, merge into the next period. Two incidents connected with foreign relations, however, can best be noted here. a. France in Mexico. — During the War, England, Spain, and France united in a military "demonstration," to secure from Mexico the pay- ment of debts due their citizens. England and Spain soon withdrew from the movement ; but Napoleon III of France proceeded to establish Maxi- milian, an Austrian Archduke, as Emperor of Mexico, and to maintain him there by a French army, in spite of vigorous protests^rom Washington 640 RECONSTRUCTION against this infraction of the Monroe Doctrine. At the close of the war, American troops were massed on the Rio Grande ; and Secretary Seward, renewed his representations. Napoleon withdrew his army. Then the "Emperor" was captured and shot by the Mexican Republicans (1867). b. Alabama Claims. — Much bitterness was still felt toward England for her government's conduct in the matter of the Alabama (§ 378). But in 1867 a franchise reform in that country put power at last in the hands of the workingmen, who had all along been friendly to the Union, and a new British ministry showed a desire for a fair settlement between the two nations. In the Treaty of Washington (1871), England apologized gracefully for any remissness on her part in permit- ting the Confederate cruiser to escape, and the question of liability for damages was submitted to arbitration. A Tribunal of Arbitration met at Geneva, — one member appointed by each of the five governments, the United States, England, Switzerland, Italy, and Brazil. At first the American government claimed "indirect damages" — for the cost of pursuing the Alabama, the longer continu- ance of the war, and the increased rates of insurance on merchant shipping. The Tribunal threw out these claims ; but it decided that England was responsible for damages to American commerce committed directly by the Alabama, because of England's lack of "due diligence" in preventing her escape. England paid to the United States the award of $15,500,000, to be distributed by us to the owners of destroyed property. The amount proved to be excessive, since claimants for much of it could never be found ; but the settlement was honorable to both nations, and it made the greatest victory up to that time for the principle of arbitration. 1 For Further Reading. — Dunning's Beconstruction ("American Na- tion" series) ; Rhodes' History, V-VII ; Woodrow Wilson's American People, V ; Brown's Lower South, 191-271 ; McCall's Thaddeus Stevens, 239 ff. ; Hart's Chase, 319-435 ; McCarthy's Lincoln's Plan of Becon- struction. 1 Another dispute between England and the United States concerned the proper dividing channel in Vancouver Straits on our Northwestern boundary. The Treaty of Washington also referred this to the German Emperor for set- tlement. The Emperor favored the American contention, and gave us the disputed island of San Juan. FOREIGN RELATIONS 641 Source material, as before, in Hart's Contemporaries, IV, and in McDonald's Select Statutes. Illustrative material : The best story for the Southern side is Thomas Nelson Page's Bed Bock, which every Northern student should read. Mention is due, also, to Tourgee's A FooVs Errand, Cable's John March, and Octave Thanet's Expiation. -i K [ PART IV THE PEOPLE vs. PEIVILEGE "The fundamental division of powers in the Constitution of the United States is between voters on the one hand and property owners on the other. The forces of democracy, on one side, divided between the executive and the legislature, are set over against the forces of property on the other side, with the judiciary as arbiter between them." — Arthur T. Hadley (President of Yale), in The Independent, April 16, 1908. CHAPTER XVI A "BUSINESS AGE" 394. General Phases. — The thirty -six years since Reconstruction (1876-1912) belong to "contemporary history." Leading actors are still living, and causes and motives in many cases are still unrevealed. Any narrative is necessarily sketchy : and yet just this history concerns us most deeply. The period has been taken up mainly with industrial and economic development. Wealth has multiplied enormously, and has been concen- trated in a few hands, with far-reaching domination over politics and over the daily life of every citizen. In practically every State one or more groups of capitalists have grown up, holding or hoping for special privileges. These groups (sometimes without seeing the full tendency of their acts, but often deliberately) have set themselves to fill legislatures and courts and governors' chairs with their creatures and to intrench themselves behind laws and constitutions framed for their advantage. Above these several groups, other groups of greater capital- ists, controlling the whole network of capitalistic combinations, have come to stand in like relation to the Union. The forms of popular government remained ; but, for some decades, the people permitted real mastery, in city,' State, and Nation, to slip from their own hands to 642 3 , ■^v ^ ........... V%&45 i Soo RAILROADS 643 a narrow plutocracy, which fed itself fatter and fatter at the general expense, and which, too often, made the trusted "representatives" of the people into its obedient errand boys. Combination in the management of industry follows naturally from modern facilities like the railway and telegraph. It makes possible the use of costlier machinery, utilizes former wastes into by-products, and saves labor of hand and brain. This tendency ought to have meant a cooperative saving for all: in actual fact, it has meant too often a monopoly privilege of plunder for a few. The problem of the age is to secure the proper gains of inevitable and wholesome combination and at the same time to restore to the individual his industrial and political liberty. I. RAILROADS 395. Extension. — The four years of war checked railway extension (§§ 290, 362); but the last five years of the sixties almost doubled the mileage of the country. The new lines were located mainly in the Northwestern States and Terri- tories ; and they were busied at first only in carrying settlers to the moving frontier, and then soon in bringing back farm produce. From 1873 to 1878, construction was checked again by one of the periodic business panics. Then by 1880, another almost fabulous burst raised the mileage to 92,000, and the' next ten years nearly doubled this, — to 164,000 miles. Since 1890, expansion has been less rapid; but the next twenty years (to 1910) raised the total to 237,000 miles. Since 1880, ' America has had a larger ratio of railway mileage to population than any other country. Railroads represent one seventh the total wealth of the Nation, and employ more than a million men. The eighties witnessed also a transformation in the old railroads. Heavier steel rails, thanks to the Bessemer invention, 1 replaced iron. This made possible the use of heavier locomotives and of steel cars of 1 It was this same invention that made possible also a transformation of cities in exterior, and in character of life, — a change symbolized by the re- placement of the old four or five-storied buildings by the new steel ten-to- thirty-storied structures. 644 A BUSINESS AGE greater size ; and this improvement called in turn for straightening curves, cutting down grades, and bettering bridges and roadbed. A huge amount of capital became "fixed" in these changes; but they greatly reduced the cost of transportation to the companies. Many safety appliances, too, were forced upon the roads by law. But the loss of life upon them remains a blot on American civilization, — far greater than the relative loss in any other country. Data on this matter were first collected in 1888 ; but since then the accidents have doubled. In 1905, the roads killed 9703 people, and injured 80,006. The Cuban War was less costly. For trainmen the danger is especially appalling. One out of every 133 was killed in that year ; and one of every 9 was maimed. This horrible destruction of life is due in part to the rush and recklessness of American society ; but it has important specific causes, such as the "economical" continuance of "grade crossings," even on crowded streets, and the cruel practice of compelling employees to work overtime — until senses become dulled and incapable of responding quickly. In 1907, Congress prohibited more than sixteen hours continu- ous service for men engaged in carrying interstate commerce. 396. Consolidation. — More significant than these physical changes was the consolidation of management. In 1860, no one company reached from the seaboard to Chicago, or controlled more than 500 miles of road. One short line led to another, and so to another, with awkward gaps, or annoying and costly transfers, and with corresponding changes in rates and sched- ules, and perhaps even in width of track. By 1880, gaps had • been filled, gauges unified, and small lines grouped into a much smaller number of larger systems. 1 Consolidation was a business necessity. Construction had far outrun demand; and the greatest burden of cost had had to be borne while there was still little business. For that little, the roads were driven to ferocious competition. Con- solidation ended the worst of this cutthroat process, and also made a more economical management possible. 1 Thus the Pennsylvania Road ran from Philadelphia to Pittsburg. In 1869, it bought up the Fort Wayne line, reaching to Chicago ; and by 1875 it had absorbed other lines, giving it terminals in St. Louis, Cinciunati, and New York. I WATERED STOCK 645 The panic of '73 was essentially a railroad panic. Before '78, half the mileage of the country had been sold under the hammer or had passed into the hands of "receivers," to be managed for the creditors. This condition gave special opportunity for the absorption of weak lines by strong ones. Railroad presidents explained the panic on this ground of over-invest- ment. Another cause, of which they said little, was over-capitalization. The operating companies really were poor ; but, as the people saw, the men who had built the roads had become fabulously rich. Often they had put in practically no money, — building the roads from National or State grants, 1 or with money borrowed by bond sales, secured on the future road. Then they had sold stock, to any amount which they could persuade a credulous public to buy, pocketing the millions of proceeds, and leaving the corporations upon which they had " unloaded " to extort in rates from the people the interest not only on the legitimate invest- ment, but also on this " watered stock." 397. Watered Stock. — When the stock and bonds of a corporatioi equal the money actually invested, the value is fully "capitalized." To make the legitimate investment "pay," it must secure an income sufficient to pay good interest on this capitalization (the rate varying somewhat according to the certainty or risk of the investment), together with adequate salaries and other running expenses, and also to set aside a fair amount to cover " depreciation " (as in the wearing out of engines or their passing out of use because of better inventions). Whenever more capital is put into improvements, it is proper for a board of directors to sell more stock or to issue more bonds, representing the increased value. But to sell more stock or bonds upon an old invest- ment already fully capitalized is to dilute values improperly, and is a fraud upon either the purchasers or the public, — usually the latter, since it is compelled to pay interest on this " water." If the improve- ments are paid for out of profits {above the normal dividends) instead of out of new capital, then the public is just as much defrauded — since it 1 Before 1873, more than 150 millions of acres had been granted to railroads out of the public domain (about as much as passed to settlers under the Homestead Act up to 1900), besides lavish "bounties" paid by rival towns along possible routes. In 1872, every party platform demanded that such National grants cease ; and some years later, President Cleveland's adminis- tration enforced the forfeiture to the government of many grants, for non- fulfilment of contracts by the companies. 646 A BUSINESS AGE really furnishes the capital at the time in unreasonable charges, and the dividends upon it afterward in a continuation of such charges. The public-service corporations, like railroads and city lighting-com- panies, have peculiar facilities in selling such over-issues of stock because of the monopoly privilege conferred upon them by society. Indeed, "watered stock" upon which dividends can really be paid, represents monopoly, natural or artificial. Whenever dividends become so large as to incur danger from popular indignation (say 12 per cent), it has been the practice of public-service corporations to disguise their profits by issu- ing more stock (each holder receiving perhaps two shares for one). The company then claims the right to charge enough to pay a " reasonable " dividend of at least 6 per cent upon this "water," urging especially the rights of " widows and orphans " who have acquired stock by inno- cent purchase. Such dividends represent an unreasonable tax upon the com- munity, including multitudes of other widows and orphans, who are forced to pay higher prices for almost all commodities. Over-capitalization of corpora- tions is unquestionably one cause of the " increased cost of living " which has marked recent years. Until quite lately, little attempt was made to prevent stock-watering, and public control is not yet efficient. In general, when the "water" has once been marketed, the courts have protected the corporations in their claims to dividend-paying rates. 398. Pooling and Discriminations. — The first period of rail- way consolidation closed about 1880, with some 1500 lines still doing business. From time to time, to prevent ruinous rate- wars, the lines within a given territory (say between Chicago and the Atlantic) now adopted the device of throwing their earnings into a common " pool," to be divided later according to some set ratio. This method was characteristic of the eighties. It restored the railroad to its natural position as a monopoly. Rates on freight did fall, but not so fast as did the cost of transporta- tion to the companies. At the close of the Civil War the average rate for one ton for one mile was about 2 cents (gold value). By 1877, it was if cents ; five years later, i\ ; and by 1900 only f of a cent. But, in spite of the apparently low average, many localities paid much higher rates. Moreover, long hauls in trains of car-load lots (as in hauling Montana cattle to Chicago, or Kansas wheat to New York) cost POOLING AND DISCRIMINATIONS - 647 the railroads so much less than small local business that they make large profits even at the lowest rates used, while, on the other hand, even those " low " rates confiscate the inland farmer's profits. As the country grew in population and production, railway profits became great enough to permit high dividends upon even the watered stock, after wasteful management. In fixing rates for localities where one road controlled the freight business, the maxim early became " all the traffic will bear.'"' The road, existing by virtue of a franchise from the people, and sometimes built by other gifts from the people, extorted from the people all their surplus profits above what it seemed advisable to leave them in order to induce them to go on producing more freight. Roads used their power, too, to destroy one city and build up another, sometimes perhaps to gratify caprice or to afford opportunity to those "on the inside" for profits in real estate, but more commonly "in the regular course of business." Often they favored large cities at the expense of small ones, and gave lower rates to large shippers than to small ones. a. The two statements in the last sentence can be readily illustrated. Faribault, a town of seven thousand people, is situated on a road from Chicago to Minneapolis, and is 65 miles nearer Chicago than Minneapolis is ; but freight from Chicago to Faribault was as high as on the same goods right through Faribault to Minneapolis and back again to the smaller town. Such practice was general. It built up the large centers, but drove mills and factories away from the small ones by artificial pressure. It was the first method to which the people woke up, out of many methods by which organized wealth had begun to govern the lives and everyday fortunes of individuals and communities. b. Farmers were subjected to a particularly irritating discrimination. The land grants to railroads were in the form of alternate sections. Farmers had settled the intervening sections, and thereby added value to the railroad lands, which, still unsold, kept the settlers unduly scattered, with all the disadvantages that followed such an arrangement. When the lands had become sufficiently valuable, they were sold in large amounts to " bonanza kings," who were then given better rates in shipping produce than were the poorer settlers about them. The worst abuses, however, of this discrimination between individuals were found in the cities, though they were there more secret, and though the companies were sometimes their unwilling victims themselves. To obtain the business of great shippers, they felt compelled to submit to demands for secret and lower rates ; and sometimes they even obliged such a shipper by imposing a tit. 648 ' ^^BU^SS^^^^W-^- y particularly high rate upon a competing shipper. Thus at one time the growing Standard Oil Company ordered a railway to "give another twist to the screw" upon a rival oil company which it desired to put out of business. 399. Attempts at State and National Regulation. — For long, " the intense desire for railway advantages prevented serious attempts at public regulation of these abuses. Only by slow degrees, indeed, did the public as a whole awake to their existence. In the early seventies, however, appeared organiza- tions of Western farmers, known as " Patrons of Husbandry," or Grangers, 1 for the special purpose of doing away with rail- road abuses. In 1871, Illinois established a State Railway Commission, with power to fix rates and to prevent discrimina- tions. This example was followed promptly -in Iowa, Wiscon- sin, Minnesota, and several other Western and Southern States ; and much other restrictive legislation was enacted. Much of this legislation was unreasonable, no doubt. It was enacted in the dark, because the roads refused to make public any information about their business ; and sometimes it was infused with a bitter spirit of retali- ation. The companies made it for the most part ineffective, by securing delays in the courts, the judges of which they had secretly assisted to ap- pointment or election, or had influenced by free passes and other dis- graceful favors. They bulldozed timid business interests, too, against even proper regulation, by ceasing railway extension, or threatening to cease it ; and most of the legislation was finally repealed. Railway Com- missions, however, are found now in nearly every State. In most cases their authority is limited to investigating charges and giving publicity to conditions ; and in some unhappy instances they have . become merely the creatures of the corporations they are elected to restrain. 1 Each local organization was called a "grange." The Grangers were the first workingman's party outside the cities ; and the movement represented a wholesome tendency to turn away from the spectacular work of ruling the distant South, in order to take up pressing problems nearer home. In 1872, too, a Labor party and a Prohibition party achieved National organizations. The Grangers had a social and economic as well as a political side. One of their attempts was to build up a system of cooperative elevators to store grain. RAILWAY PROBLEMS 649 At first, the Supreme Court seemed favorably inclined toward the Granger legislation ; x but in 1886, it decided that a State could not legislate regarding the carriage of goods billed to another State, even for that part of the journey within its own borders. This decision ended all prospect of effective regula- tion of railroads by the States. So far Congress had refused to act. Now, National control seemed imperative ; and in 1887 the Interstate Co mmerc e Act forbade pooling, secret rates, discriminations of all kinds (includ- ing especially a higher rate for a short haul than for a longer one on the same line, when the shorter distance was included within the longer, except under certain peculiar conditions of competition), and created a Commission of five persons to inves- tigate complaints and punish violations of these provisions. 400. Failure to Preserve Competition. — The roads now abandoned pooling for " rate agreements " and for a new period of consolidation, and so continued the old process under new names. The former period of consolidation had united short lines into " trunk " systems, several still in one terri- tory : the new tendency was to consolidate all the trunk lines of a given territory into one system. By 1895, the number of f\ separate lines was less than 800 , of which some forty included y more than half the mileage of the country. In 1897-1898, two yL decisions of the Supreme Court declared any rate agreement J/ a "conspiracy in restraint of trade," which had been made y\< illegal under the Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890 (f~3TI)UY Jr This merely hastened further consolidation, so that by 1904 all the important lines were controlled by seven or eight groups of capitalists. In 1904, the Court made a futile effort to stop this movement by declaring the consolidation of parallel lines illegal (Northern Securities Case) under the same Anti-trust Act. But, once more, combination to avoid competition was > merely driven to another disguise. The groups of capitalists ^ X 1 The Court was just then in the full swing of its disposition to maintain State Rights against the Reconstruction policy of Congress (cf. § 390). l^-4JU fa 650 A BUSINESS AGE no longer consolidate the stock of different companies into one, with one board of directors ; but they exchange among themselves the stock of the different companies which they control, and memberships in the different governing boards, and so maintain a community of ownership and management. 401. The Commission shorn by the Courts. — For a time, in regard to other abuses, the Interstate Commerce Act seemed to promise a better day. The roads, however, persistently evaded or disobeyed the law ; and its main intent was soon nullified by decisions of the courts. Con- gress meant to make the Commission the final authority as to facts, leaving to the Federal courts only a power to review the decisions, on appeals, as to their reasonableness upon the basis of those established facts. The courts, however, determined to permit the introduction of new evidence on such appeals. This meant a new trial in every case, and de- stroyed the character of the Commission. The Commission was hampered, too, by various decisions of the courts — as by one which set aside its authority to compel the companies to produce their books. As the veteran Justice Harlan declared indignantly, in a dissenting opinion, the Commission was " shorn by judicial interpretation of authority to do anything of effective character." In 1898, the Commission itself J^ formally declared its position "intolerable." O 402. The Hepburn Act of 1900 sought to revive the authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission, which was now impowered to fix "just and reasonable rates," subject to review by the Federal courts. The law also forbade roads (1) to grant free passes, (2) give "rebates" of any sort, or (3) carry their own produce. These prohibitions should be briefly discussed. a. Lavish grants of passes, good for a year, and renewed each New Year, extending sometimes to free travel across the continent and back, had been one of the most common means of indirect bribery of legisla- tors, congressmen, newspapers. Sometimes a judge traveled on such a pass to the court when he tried cases in which the railroad was a party. Apart from the corrupting influence of the practice, too, the public had of course to pay for the passes in higher rates. In this matter Con- gressional prohibition was preceded by similar prohibition in many of the States ; and this reform is probably really established. b. Rebates had long been one of the chief methods of evading the Interstate Commerce law against discriminations. Certain favored ship- INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION 651 pers, no longer given better rates than their neighbors directly, were still given secret rebates in coin, or, still less directly, were allowed to falsify their billing of freight, so as to come under a lower legal rate, or were paid unreasonable allowances for themselves storing or handling freight, or for the rent of private cars furnished by the customers. The receivers of the Baltimore and Ohio Road in 1898 testified that more than half the freight of the country was still carried on discriminating rates. Says Professor Davis R. Dewey {National Problems, in " American Nation " series, 103) : " The ingenuity of officials in breaking the spirit of the law knew no limit, and is a discouraging commentary on the dishonesty which had penetrated to the heart of business enterprise; " and one of the great railroad presidents mourned, in 1907, that good faith had " departed from the railroad world." When company and shipper agree in trying to deceive the authorities in such a matter, proof is exceedingly difficult ; and it is too much to suppose that the more stringent provisions of the Hepburn Act have done away with this demoralizing and infamous practice. The admirable State Railway Commission of Wisconsin, however, backed by the remarkable legislation of that State, seems to have completely abolished the evil in one State of the Union. c. Certain Pennsylvania Roads owned the most important coal mines of the Nation, and paid themselves what they pleased, out of one pocket into another, for carrying coal to'market, — so excusing themselves for a higher price to the consumer. The last prohibition referred to above (3) attempted to stop this practice. So far, the attempt is fruitless. The United States Steel Corporation mines iron in northern Minnesota. In deference to the Hepburn Act the Corporation is not also a railroad corporation ; but the same group of capitalists under another name own railroads (on the " community of interest " method) which carry the ore to market at extravagant rates. 403. Recent Phases. — In 1906-1908 a new series of attempts were made, over widely spread sections of the Union, to secure a two-cent passenger rate and lower freight rates by State legislation, on travel and commerce wholly intrastate. Many of these laws have been nullified as confiscatory by the courts. On the other hand, in 1910, Congress oi\ce more attempted to strengthen the hands of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 1 and created a new Court of Commerce, to hear appeals 1 The bill, as originally approved by President Taft and his cabinet, was a shrewd design to undermine whatever authority remained in the Com- mission. The measure, it Seems most probable, had really been dictated by 652 NATIONAL GROWTH, 1860-1913 from it. It is yet too early (1913) to speak positively of the workings of this law. But, the same fall, when the roads tried to get permission from the Interstate Commerce Commission to raise existing rates (on the ground that the higher prices of recent years increased their operating expenses), the Commission was able to forbid the change. On the other hand, when the Commission, later in the year, after careful investigation, ordered lower rates on Western traffic (where abuses had long been no- torious), the commerce Court promptly nullified their action. After this forty years of failure in public control, there are still many people who do not see why a railway should not be as free to charge one shipper more and another less as is a shoe manufacturer to sell to one retailer cheaper than to another. The distinction between private business, open to all on the same terms, and the business of a common carrier existing by right of a grant from the Commonwealth is always recognized both by common and by statute law. Attempts at public regulation of these mighty agencies, however, have proved so futile for almost two generations that many thinkers are turning to the alternative of public ownership. V II. NATIONAL GROWTH 404. Population . — Reconstruction practically came to a close with the centennial of the Republic. The Union then consisted of thirty-eight States. Kansas had been admitted in 1861, Nevada in 1864, Nebraska in 1867, and Colorado in 1876. In 1867, too, the public domain was augmented by 600,000 square miles (since found rich in coal and gold), by the purchase of Alaska from Russia. Between 1860 and 1880, popula- tion rose from 31 millions to oOjnjJJions. One fourth the gain during this twenty years (5^ jnillions) came from immigration. The urban population (one sixth in 1860) rose to one fifth the whole in 1870, and one fourth in 1880. During the same twenty-year period wealth multiplied two and a half times, 1 despite the ravages of war. railroad interests. But its weak and misleading features were exposed mercilessly and effectively by the gallant group of "Insurgents" (§ 457) in Congress, and the people made an irresistible demand for some real increase in protection against transportation monopoly. The bill as it passed was a wholesomely transformed measure. !The following comparison of per capita wealth for different sections at two periods is instructive: North Atlantic State* South Atlantic Western 1860 . . $528 . . $ 537 (including slaves) . . $434 1890 . . 1232 . . 579 2250 Longitude West c oc^^ "J*-'* U fl ALASKA , fl ;ou\t!inj--_ '-A i^^Galveston GULF G U L * " - Xatrtf THE UNITED STATES i PORTO RICO _6fL HAVAN 20 THE STATES 653 In the thirty years that have followed, this growth in wealth has been accelerated. The rate of growth of population for each decade, it is true, has slowly declined; but the total rose by 1890 to 63| millions ; by 1900 (not including the eight millions in the new possessions acquired in the Spanish War) to Ti\ millions; and in 1910, to 93 1 millions. The city population in 1910 had risen to almost one half of the whole (46.3 per cent). Farmers, formerly the dominant element in the population, now make less than one third. Immigration, it will be remembered, received a remarkable impulse about 1850. The panic of 1857 and the war checked it seriously ; and not till 1873 did the annual increase from this source rise again to 400,000. Then came another falling away, from the industrial depression of the next years. But in 1883, the newcomers numbered three fourths of a million, and the year 1905 passed the million mark. Until 1890, the character of immigration remained essentially as before the Civil War, — with an increase of the proportion of Scandinavians, who settled mainly in the Northwest. But since that year, more and more, the immigrants have come from Southern and Eastern Europe, — Italians, Russian Jews, Bohemians, Poles, Hungarians. A large part of these Southern European immigrants are illiterate and unskilled, with a "standard of living" lower than that of American workingmen. In 1880, they made only one twentieth of the immigrants ; in 1900, they made one fourth ; and the proportion is constantly increasing. Unlike the earlier immigrants, they settle mainly in the seaboard cities and in other great manufacturing centers, and add rapidly to the European character of the growing proletariat there. Meanwhile, the rapid decrease in the birthrate of families of the older American stocks (especially of the New England stock) alarms many observers, who raise the cry of "race-suicide." A curious fact is revealed by the census of 1910. Population in the agricultural Middle West (so long the scene of most rapid growth) has become practically stationary; while the old East (in its manufacturing districts) and the far West share between them the most rapid gains. It should be noted, too, that though the West has the largest percentage of gain, the East has gained far the most in actual numbers. 405. States and Territories. — In the eighties, the increase of popu- lation was still most characteristic of the new communities in the West. In the Dakotas, districts without a settler in March were perhaps organ- ized and settled counties in November. Soon North and South Dakota were knocking for admission into the Union. The Democratic strength in Congress, however, was unwilling to admit more States so certain to 654 NATIONAL GROWTH, 1860-1913 THE STATES 655 reinforce the Republican party. They had more hopes for themselves in Montana and Washington; and, in i88g, a compromise "omnibus" bill admitted all four States. The next year, the Republicans, now in full control, with equal partisanship, hurried the admission of Idaho and Wyoming with a population too small to entitle them properly to representation in Congress. The Mormons in Utah had long ceased to hope for the isolation they had sought in the desert. In 1862 (and more effectively in 1882) Con- gress prohibited polygamy in that Territory, and dissolved the Mormon church as a corporation. In 1890, the Mormon authorities renounced polygamy as a doctrine ; but, from suspicions of good faith, the Territory was refused admission as a State, though it possessed a population of over two hundred thousand people. In i8g6, however, it was finally admitted, with a State constitution forbidding plural marriages. The admission of Utah raised the number of States to forty-five, where it stood for eleven years, until the admission of Oklahoma (1907) 1 with a constitution remarkable for its democratic experiments. Arizona and New Mexico were the only remaining Territories on the continent. Congress planned to admit them together ; but Arizona placed the recall (applicable even to judges) in her constitution, and statehood was de- layed for some time on that account. After several failures, a bill for admission passed Congress in the special session of 191 1, with a pro- vision requiring the people of the Territory first to vote once more upon this clause of their constitution, but leaving the final determination in their hands. President Taft vetoed this bill; and, at his insistence, statehood was offered only on condition that the people should first vote down the recall provision. 2 This was done, in December of the same year. But, at the same election, anti-administration officials were chosen for the new State and all the leaders of the Territory proclaimed in advance that, statehood once secured, they would work to restore the recall to the constitution. This threat has since been made good (November, 1912). The admission of these two States (1912) leaves a solid block of forty-eight States in the vast region bounded by the two 1 In 1874, a strip of the " Indian Territory " was organized as the Territory of Oklahoma. In 1907, the two districts were reunited in the new State. 2 Many people who personally disbelieved in the recall were hotly indig- nant at this attempt to "bribe " a whole people into stultifying itself. This indignation played a part, a few weeks later, in a striking vote for the recall in the great State of California (§ 463) . 656 NATIONAL GROWTH, 1860-1913 oceans, east and west, and by Canada and Mexico north and south. Ere long, no doubt, the United States will be confronted with demands for statehood from distant possessions, — Alaska, Hawaii, or Porto Rico. 406. The New South, no longer distracted by political recon- struction, began to reap its share of the industrial development. The long-neglected advantages for cotton manufacture were first seized upon. Mills (built first by Northern capital) arose along the " Fall Line " ; and cheap labor was found by inducing the " Poor Whites " of the neighboring mountain folk to gather in factory villages — where the families might live on -the un- accustomed earnings of their children. The low standard of living, and the absence of legal restraint in the South on long hours of labor or on employment of young children, made manufacturing particularly profitable in this region, — where it reproduces still (1913) the shameful conditions which Eng- land and the North outgrew half a century ago. By 1880, the output of Southern factories was one fourth that of New England. The new spirit of enterprise began also to make use of the mines and forests of the South. In particular, attention turned to the vast mineral region stretching from West Virginia through Tennessee into northern Alabama — 700 miles long and 150 wide, — rich in coal and iron. By 1880, Alabama was sending pig iron to Northern markets, and soon she became herself one of the great centers of steel manufactures. Thus the old agricultural South has been transformed into a new South of diversified industries. And even agriculture has been transformed. Just after the war, attempts were made to cultivate huge plantations of the old type with gangs of hired Negroes. This proved a losing venture ; and soon the great plantations began to break up into smaller holdings rented on shares to Negroes or to Poor Whites. These renters have been growing rapidly into owners. The Negro's wholesome ambition to own a farm promises to be a chief source of industrial and social salvation to his race and to the whole South. - ' IMMORAL METHODS 657 III. U BIG BUSINESS 407. Business Immorality. — In the decades following the Civil War, an amazing lack of morals became increasingly noticeable in business. The tendency, too observable before the war (§ 366), had been strengthened by the flaunting success of corrupt army contractors, and was fostered no doubt for years afterward by the gambling spirit begotten of an unstable cur- rency and of the spectacle of multitudes of fortunes made over night in the oil wells of Pennsylvania x or in the new mining regions of Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, and Montana. In later years, too, the tremendous power over credits possessed by rail- road kings and other heads of great consolidations of capital has tempted them constantly from their true functions as " captains of industry " to play the part of buccaneers in the stock market. Unreasonable profits, too, in the regular line of business draw the controlling stockholders in multitudes of corporations to increase their own shares by juggling the smaller holders out of theirs. Sometimes the controlling stockholders of a corporation turn its affairs over to an operating company — composed of themselves alone — which then absorbs all the profits of the whole business in salaries or in other ways provided in the contract which the raiders have made with themselves. Or leading members of a railway company organize an inside company — like an express company — to which then the legitimate profits of the first company are largely diverted in the shape of excessive rates on cer- tain parts of the railroad business. Only one degree worse is the deliber- ate wrecking of a prosperous corporation, by intentional mismanagement, so that the insiders may buy up the stock for a song, and then rejuvenate it — to their huge profit. Step by step, the law has striven to cope with all such forms of robbery ; but numerous shrewd corporation lawyers find employment in steering " certain malefactors of great wealth " 2 1 Petroleum was discovered in Pennsylvania in 1859, but no marked develop- ment came in production till after the War. Then " to strike oil " soon be- came a byword for success — equivalent to a " ship come home " in the days of more primitive commerce. In 1872, petroleum ranked among our exports next to cotton, wheat, and meats. 2 A phrase of President Roosevelt's (§ 454). 658 "big business:: through the devious channels of " high finance " so as to avoid grazing the letter of the law. 1 One ruinous consequence of this lack of moral sense was a general indifference to the looting of the public domain by business interests and favored individuals. Thus, the timber on the public lands, with decent care, would have supplied all immediate wants and still have remained unimpaired for future generations. But with criminal recklessness, the people permitted a few individuals not only to despoil the future of its due heritage, but even to engross to themselves the vast immediate profits which properly belonged to present society as a whole. 2 Quaintly enough, this piteous spoliation and waste was excused and commended as " development of natural resources," and laws were made or twisted for its encouragement. Timber land, especially the pine forests of the Northwest, did not attract the genuine homesteader : too much labor was required to convert such lands into homes and farms, and the soil and distance from market were discouraging for agriculture. Such lands ought to have been with- drawn by the Government from homestead entry. But, as the law was then administered, a man could " enter " a quarter section, clear a patch upon it, appear upon it for a night every few months, and so fulfill all legal requirements to complete title ; — after which he had perfect right to sell the valuable timber, which had been his only motive in the transaction. Multitudes, less scrupulous about legal formalities, sold the timber immediately after making entry, without ever "proving up" at all. But these individual operations were trivial in amount. The big lumber kings extended their effect by hiring hundreds and thousands of " dummy " homesteaders to secure title in this way to vast tracts of forest and then turn it over, for a song, to the enterprising employer. Nor, in 1 Capable students, with access to periodicals, might well be called upon for topics regarding the New York Insurance Companies Scandal of 1905, and the stealings from the custom house by the Sugar Trust, disclosed in 1910. A peculiarly irritating phase of the latter scandal was the calm unconsciousness with which the Sugar Trust, after escaping by a fine, paid back the fine to itself by an increase in the price of sugar to the people. 2 And, in their haste to grasp these huge profits, the big lumbermen wasted more than they pocketed, — taking only the best log perhaps out of three, and leaving the others to rot or, along with the carelessly scattered slashings, to feed chance fires into irresistible conflagrations, which, it is estimated, have swept away at least a fourth of our whole forest wealth. CONSOLIDATION OF CAPITAL 659 early years, did any one see wrong in this process. Condemnation, none too severe anyway, was reserved for those lumbermen who took shorter cuts, by forging the entries or by using the same " dummies " more than once, in open defiance of the letter of the law. Like methods characterized the public sales of lands. Each land office received reports from its " cruisers " as to the timber standing on the various sections. The law forbade the official of the land office himself to bid at the sale ; but the general custom was for him to hand lists of choice sections to a friend, with the quiet injunction, " Get all of this that you can." The favored friend, so supplied with inside infor- mation, was often able to change dollars into thousands ; and at some proper time, unless unusually deficient in gratitude, he divided with his informant. All this was legal, and so society saw no harm in it ; and when a few restless agitators sought to amend the laws which had been framed to permit such loot, the interests which fattened by them were long able to interpose delays without society's growing any wiser. In ways simi- lar, but varied as to details, the State lands became the legalized booty of enterprising citizens. This epidemic of plunder and waste found its golden age in the seventies and early eighties; but even after the people began to grumble, the process went on, only a little less boast- fully. Finally, in the Roosevelt administration, the government awoke and zealously locked the stable door — upon such few steeds as remained unstolen (§ 454). * 408. Consolidation of capital and management was noticeable first on a large scale in transportation (railroads, above) ; but it was soon almost equally marked in nearly every line of pro- duction and commerce. Small stores merged into department stores; small firms into corporations ; corporations into " trusts." The age of small individual enterprise Las given way to an age of large combinations. Between 1880 and 1890, the number of woolen mills decreased from 1990 to 1311 ; iron and steel mills lessened a third in number ; and the 1 Every high school student should read William Allen White's A Certain Rich Man, — a sort of "Pilgrim's Progress " allegory of American life in the decades following the Civil War*. The phases, good and had, of this waste of the public domain, last treated, are pictured graphically in Stewart Edward White's two related stories, The Riverman and The Rules of the Game. Exercise. —Review the land policy of the United States. (See index.) 660 "BIG BUSINESS" manufacturies of farm implements sank in number from 1943 to 910 ; but in each of the three lines, the capital and the output was doubled or trebled. Half as many factories put forth twice as large a product. The forces back of this movement, and its advantages for the capitalist, have been noted briefly (§ 394). Six milk wagons, belonging to as many different milk companies, following one route, represent a waste of capital and labor : a milk " trust " could save both, with service just as good or better. The village slaughterhouse used to throw away horns and hoofs ; the Chicago packing house works all such refuse up into useful by-products. In general, the big enterprise makes it possible to cheapen production. Be it said once more, this saving ought to be regulated so as to benefit all. But, in actual fact, these combinations have been sheltered from public control, and even from public investigation, by the traditions and legal principles of an outgrown age of individualism, until they have become monopolies whereby the few plunder the many. Ownership of a water power, or of a mine, or of a pine forest, is a natural monopoly. Another slightly different sort of monopoly is repre- sented by certain kinds of business, like city lighting or street cars, where competition is either altogether impossible, or where at least it would be excessively silly and wasteful, — and so in the long run hurtful to society. Sometimes, in such cases, the government grants an exclu- sive franchise, and so constitutes a legal monopoly; but these forms of business are usually classed with the "natural monopolies," since they are monopolistic " in the nature of the case." They derive their existence, however, not from nature alone but directly from some franchise grant by society ; and so they are more generally looked upon as suitable for social control. " Big Business " creates a still different sort of monopoly. A great manufacturing " trust " calls for so much capital that a competitor can hardly afford to try to build factories and secure machinery, with the uncertainties of the certain commercial war before it. If the attempt is made, the stronger enterprise kills off the other, if necessary by selling below cost, — recouping itself afterward, of course, at public expense, when it again has the market to itself. This form of monopoly is so recent, and so resembles, in outer form, the competitive business of for- mer days, that society awakened only slowly to the need of regulating it effectively for the common good. 409. " Trusts." — In 1865, the Standard Oil Company was organized in Cleveland, with a capital of $100,000. Under "TRUSTS" 661 the skillful management of John D. Rockefeller it soon began to absorb the other companies in that city — which was already the center of the industry of refining crude petroleum. Thus it grew powerful enough, and its management was unscrupulous enough, to compel railway companies to set up secret discriminations for it, and against its rivals (§ 398), until it absorbed or killed off most of the oil companies in the country. In 1870, the Standard Oil was one of 250 competing companies, and its output was less than one twentieth the whole : in 1877, it controlled nineteen twentieths the output ; and of the few remaining companies the leading forty were " affiliated," and took orders from it. A few independent com- panies, however, were still putting up so stiff a fight that a closer organization seemed needful to insure success for the monopoly; and, in 1882, Rockefeller invented the " trust. " The forty affiliated companies turned over their property to one board of nine trustees, each stockholder in an old company receiving proper certificates of stock in the new organization. This board of trustees managed the whole business. The arrangement was secret and exceedingly informal and elastic. The trust was not incorporated. The trustees, when con- venient, could easily deny knowledge of the doings of subordi- nate companies, or disavow responsibility for them ; and, with better reason, the companies could throw responsibility upon the intangible " trust." Other industries seized at once upon this new device for con- solidating management and capital. It proved eminently satisfactory to the stockholder (though, in the process of organ- ization, many small companies were squeezed out of their property) ; but it abolished competition, which had always been regarded as the sole safeguard (1) of the consumer, (2) of the small producer of raw material, and (3) of the laborer. The Standard Oil Trust bought from the owner of an oil well at its own price, being practically the only buyer. So the Meat Trust bought from the cattle raiser. Then the Trust sold its finished product at its own rate, — which was sometimes an advance 662 "BIG BUSINESS" upon former prices, and which was never reduced enough to correspond with the decreased cost of production. The profits to the corporation have steadily mounted, even when prices have been somewhat lower ; and the " cost of living " has been made unduly high. Sometimes, as with tin and steel plate of some sorts, the absence of competition, together with the prevalent low busi- ness morality, led to scandalous deterioration in the goods put upon the market, and so robbed the consumer doubly. Labor- ers in a " trust " industry found, too, that they had now only one possible employer. They must accept its proffered wage, ' |Or^starve. '!r 410. Attempts to prevent Monopoly. — The people took alarm. States enacted anti-trust legislation (for the most part, futile) ; and, in 1882, Congress passed the Sherman Anti-trust Act, 1 forbidding " every combination " in restraint of interstate commerce. Again the Standard Oil led the way. With cheap, superficial obedience, it dissolved into twenty com- panies ; but one and the same group of capitalists retained the controlling interest in the stock of each company, and com- posed the twenty " inter-locking " boards of directors. Other trusts followed this method of maintaining "community of interest and management," as the railways were to do later (§ 400) ; or they reorganized openly as huge corporations. "The term " trust ' was abandoned as a technical business term ; but it remains properly enough in popular use to describe either of these forms by which aggregated capital monopolizes an industry. Indeed, the monopolistic movement had only begun. In 1890, there were a score of " trusts " in the United States with an aggregate capital of a third of a billion dollars. In 1899, there were about 150 r mostly organized within two years, with a total capital of over three billions. In 1901 came the 1 So-called from Senator John Sherman of Ohio, who, however, had little to do with drafting the law, though he advocated it in ardent speeches. N THE ANTI-TRUST ACTS 663 organization of the United States Steel Corporation, with a capital of $ 1,100,100,000, and bonded indebtedness to over three hundred millions more, the capitalization largely water ; and between 1900 and 1904 it is generally estimated that the num- ber of trusts was multiplied by eight or nine, and that the cap- italization rose from three billions to over thirty billions. Of this immense sum, a huge portion was in seven companies, and these had manifold and intricate ramifications ; so that three or four men, perhaps, possessed real control. In 1899 the Supreme Court undermined the Anti-trust law by holding that it applied only to transportation (commerce), not to the preliminary production and manufacture, although these " industrial " trusts were just what Congress had had in mind. Under compulsion from later legisla- tion and from public opinion this position has been abandoned ; but the attitude of the courts has so far (19 13) made efforts to punish monopoly vain, even when they have felt constrained to declare it illegal. Finally, in 191 1, the Supreme Court again weakened the Anti-trust act by affirm- ing that the words "every combination 1 ' in restraint of trade, mean only " every unreasonable combination," and that upon the courts it rests in each case to decide, on a formal trial, whether a given trust is reason- able or not. This decision, dissented from vigorously by Justice Harlan, as "dan- gerous judicial legislation, " is the more amazing, since an amendment to precisely that effect, strenuously urged by the monied power, had been voted down emphatically in Congress after full debate. The Supreme Court rewrote the law in just the form in which Congress, the constitu- tional law-making power, rejected it! True, the decision was part of an order to the Standard Oil Company to dissolve, as an "unreasonable" combination; and that order, out- wardly, has been complied with. But few people believe that more has been really accomplished thereby than, years before, by the farcical disso- lution of the Northern Securities Company (§ 400), after a similar order. It is not reasonable to suppose that capitalists can be punished for organiz- ing monopolies which may or may not be held "unreasonable" after years of delay and litigation ; and, without punishment for infraction of the law, the law is merely a matter of contempt. After long years of lit- igation and vast public expense, the violators of the law are left in posses- sion of the spoils illegally gained, and the crushed competitors and ruined 664 "BIG BUSINESS" lives are neither redressed nor avenged. As with the railroads, the attempt to prevent monopoly, or to regulate it, seems to have failed. New legislation, however, is being attempted. In yet another way, the Federal courts have protected an avowedly 11 bad" trust. In 1908, Judge Landis, of the Federal District of Illinois, imposed on the Standard Oil Company fines aggregating more than §29,000,000, after conviction for repeatedly violating the law against ask- ing and accepting rebates. The judgment was hailed as completing the Roosevelt program (§ 454) against the trusts ; but, in 1910, it was set aside, as unreasonably high, by the Federal Court of Appeals. 1 v \ 411. Attempts at State regulation of trusts to lessen the evils q? 9 . of monopoly, have taken the form of State laws which permit ^ incorporation only on condition that there shall be no stock- watering, that publicity of management shall be secured, and that officials may be held strictly to account. But such legisla- tion, though characteristic of nearly every State, was long rendered of no account by three " trust-owned " States, — New Jersey, Delaware, and West Virginia. These three merely opened the door wider than before to incorporations of every sort. A corporation organized in any State has constitutional sanction to do business in all, and can be deprived of its charter, the one effective penalty for misconduct, only by„ the home State. Accordingly, by 1907, 95 per cent of the American trusts had found refuge in these three States. In 1913 their citadel in the favorite State of New Jersey was overthrown by the resolute democracy and honest devotion to the public welfare of the governor, Woodrow Wilson ; 2 but their opportunity to pick any one of forty -eight States in which to corrupt a legis- lature, still makes it almost impossible for other States to con- trol them. Some States began an attempt to curb the power of monopoly, and to take back for the public at least a small part of its unreasonable 1 A court created in 1890 to take over part of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which was then some twelve hundred cases behind. 2 On his last day of office, after a splendid two-years' battle, Governor Wilson signed seven " anti-trust " bills, which made New Jersey perhaps the most " trust-proof " State in the Union. AND THE COURTS 665 profits, by taxing such corporations higher than ordinary individuals were taxed. This line of operation was also stopped at once (1882) by the Supreme Court, under authority of the Fourteenth Amendment. That Amendment forbade a State to discriminate among persons. In the Case of California vs. the Southern Pacific Railroad the Court held that a corporation is a "person," not only in the eye of the law gener- ally, but even in the meaning of the word person in this Amendment to the Constitution, though no one thought of such a thing when the Amend- ment was being ratified. Accordingly no taxation can be applied to corporations, even to specially favored public-service corporations, other than to other citizens. In no other civilized land is the government so powerless to deal with aggre- gated wealth as this decision makes the States of the Union. The Fourteenth Amendment had been robbed of its intent — to protect real persons, of dark skins, by previous decisions of the Court (§ 391). By this decision it was converted into a shield to protect artificial persons, in the shape of dangerous monopolies, from needful regulation by the people. The Southern Pacific Case is to be coupled with the Dartmouth College Case (§ 280) as explaining how the Constitution has been made a shelter to property interests against public control far beyond anything contemplated even by the founders of the Constitution. For the next thirty years the Southern Pacific was " king " in California (§ 459). Some democratic thinkers recognize that the trust, or at least consoli- dation of management, is inevitable in various lines of industry. Some such thinkers hold that the present evils will be corrected by the trusts themselves, under the influence of a more intelligent public opinion ; and they look with hope to the work of the Bureau of Corporations, estab- lished in 1903, — a branch of the government to investigate the organiza- tion and conduct of corporations engaged in interstate commerce. The report of this Bureau on the horrible conditions of the beef-packing houses in Chicago justified its establishment (1907) and led to prompt correction of the abuses. In no branch of the government are there more devoted and capable men than the band of scholarly, energetic, self-denying "soldiers of the commonweal " who compose the working force of this department. But all such investigation will probably prove valuable ultimately only as it may lead to more effective public control, or, in some lines, to public ownership. Very significant is a recent utterance of Attorney General Wickersham at Duluth, — a conservative member of President Taft's conservative Cabinet — that it may become necessary for the government 666 "BIG BUSINESS" to fix the prices on trust-controlled goods. It is to be hoped that some way will be found, however, to control trusts which will not so tempt the trusts each day to try to control the government. 412. The Extent of the Problem. — In 1893, according to conserva- tive students, 9 per cent of the people owned directly 71 per cent of the wealth. By 19 10, this estimate was generally put at one tenth the people for nine tenths the wealth. But the control of wealth (the essential thing) is much more concentrated even than direct ownership. In 1908, it was estimated ( World's Work, VII, 4259) that the men making up the board of directors of the United States Steel Corporation had a controlling in- terest in other corporations which together owned one twelfth the wealth of the country. Said Senator LaFollette, on the floor of the Senate, in that same year : " No student of economic changes in recent years can escape the conclusion that the railroads, telegraph, shipping, cable, tele- phone, traction, express, mining, iron, steel, coal, oil, gas, electric light, cotton, copper, sugar, tobacco, agricultural implements, and the food products are completely controlled and mainly owned by these hundred men." More recently, conscientious students have asserted that seven men, three from the Pierpont Morgan group and four from the Standard Oil group, control the fundamental industries and resources of the United States. Such estimates cannot have scientific accuracy ; but no authority doubts that they contain a large element of truth. This gives added point to the prophetic words of Senator Sherman in the debate on the Antitrust act, in 1890: "If the concentrated powers of this combination [the relatively small trusts of 1890] are intrusted to a single man, it is kingly prerogative, inconsistent with our form of gov- ernment. ... If we will not endure a king as a political power, we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, and sale of any of the necessities of life. If we would not submit to an emperor, we should not submit to an autocrat of trade with power to prevent competi- tion and fix the price of any commodity." The most serious power of such aggregated capital is exercised in indirect ways. It can, at will, withdraw money from circulation, com- pel banks, therefore, to contract loans ; force factories, accordingly, even those not in any way owned by the combination, to shut down or cut down output and discharge workmen ; and so bring on business depres- sion and starvation. There seems little doubt but that such power is often used in slight degree and for short flurries, to influence the stock market and favor gambling enterprises there ; and it is almost certain PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS 667 that the power has been used more than once (§ 454) to cause a " panic," in order to intimidate timid reformers from the firing line in the battle for civic righteousness, — which might otherwise soon interfere with the money trust's ownership of judges and congressmen. The same tremen- dous powjer, without question, aims intelligently at the control of higher educational institutions and at other chief means of informing and in- fluencing the people. It buys up the " muckraking " magazines, domi- nates multitudes of newspapers, and exerts great influence over such agencies of information as the Associated Press. 1 Two phases of their direct influence upon the lives of the people are particularly significant. They fix labor conditions in many trades, almost at will, and they drain huge revenue from the people to pay dividends on "water" (§ 397). It is estimated that in 191 2 thirty billions of corporation stock repr- esented merely " water," and that the yearly tribute on this, drawn from the nation, amounted to about $18 a head, or some $100 for each family in the land. 2 &¥ 413. Public Service Corporations and Political Corruption. — The first important "public service corporations" were the railways, already treated; but soon after the war the growth, of cities, along with new inventions for providing greater com- fort in city life, gave tremendous importance to other such corporations, each to serve some need of a single city, — gas companies, electric lighting companies, water companies, tele- phone companies, street car companies. The tendency toward municipal corruption, already strong before the Civil War, was frightfully augmented by the development of these corporations. Each had to secure the right to use the public streets for tracks or pipes or wires, in order to do business. Usually it tried, in the early decades of the period, to get such a charter as would give it exclusive use of the streets, for its kind of business, for 1 This control over news items is particularly sinister. Practically every large newspaper in the country " featured " Tom Johnson's alleged failure in his fight for three-cent street car fares in Cleveland ; but, except for a few radical ones, they ignored, or concealed in some obscure, fine print, three-line item, the fact that his contentions won soon afterward. 2 Progressive leaders hope to check and reduce this " overcapitalization." The trust magnates hope to legalize it permanently. 668 "BIG BUSINESS" a long term of years or in perpetuity. At the same time it sought to escape any real public control over its rates or over the service it should render, by making vague the charter clauses bearing on such matters, or by inserting "jokers" to destroy their apparent force. Shrewd men came to see that such grants would become in- creasingly profitable with the growth of city population ; and, to secure them, some corporations found it profitable to buy up public officials on a large scale. If the charter was by any chance decently just to the city, the corporation often prevented the enforcement of the best provisions for years by getting its own tools elected to legislatures or city councils or judge- ships, and by having other tools appointed to the inspector- ships which were supposed to see that the company's service was as good as called for in its contract. Standard Oil com- panies, railway corporations, and their like, worked in simi- lar manner upon the legislatures and judiciaries of State and Nation. These forces were largely responsible for an increased body of political "grafters" in the governing bodies of State and city, — ivho ivere then ready to extend their operations unblush- ingly to other parts of the public business, as in extorting bribes from business men who wished to secure the furnishing of sup- plies to the city or the contract for building a city improve- ment. Public graft became an organized business. City pay rolls were padded with names of men who rendered no service, sometimes of men who did not exist, but whose salaries were drawn to fatten the income of some "boss". Important offices were turned over to incompetents, favored for political service. The corruption of American city government was exceeded only by its inefficiency. 1 Commonly, too, it allied 1 About 1890, Andrew D. White visited many of the most important Euro- pean cities. At Constantinople, he wrote, the rotting docks and general evi- dence of inefficiency made him homesick : nowhere else had he been so reminded of American cities (!). PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATIONS 669 itself not only with public, but also with private 1 crime. Police departments permitted gamblers and thieves and thugs to ply their trades with impunity, so long as they did not become too notorious ; and in return the precinct captains col- lected each week regular pay envelopes from the criminals, — the greater part of which went ultimately to higher officials, chief of police, mayor, or political boss. The first case of city corruption to catch the public attention was the infamous Tweed Ring, which robbed New York City of a hundred millions of dollars in two years (i 869-1 870). ' 2 This ring was finally broken up, and "Boss" Tweed was sent to Sing-Sing, largely through the fearless skill of Samuel J. Tilden, soon after the Democratic candidate for the presidency (§ 389). For long it was a pet delusion of multitudes of " respectable " Republicans that the New York scandal was an excep- tional case, due to the deplorable fact that New York was controlled by a Democratic organization (Tammany) ; but later it developed that Tam- many's methods were coarse and clumsy by the side of those by which a Republican " ring " had looted Philadelphia. Slowly the people have learned that corruption has no party. The biggest " boss " naturally allies himself with whichever party is usually in control in his district ; but he has a perfect understanding with corrupt leaders of the other party, upon whom he can call for help against any revolt within his own organ- ization, so " playing both ends against the middle." The surest weapon at the service of these sly rogues is an appeal to the voters to be loyal to the party, — so dividing good men and obscuring real issues in local gov- ernment. Nor does one house cleaning and the punishment of a few rascals end the matter. Gains are too great. In a few years, New York and Philadelphia were again dominated by rings quite as bad as the first ones. With an occasional spasm of ineffectual reform, such conditions remained characteristic of practically every important city until the rising of the mighty tide of reform about the opening of the new century. The graduation of corrupted scoundrels from city and State politics into National politics is one cause of the degradation that befell the latter (§ 389). But National politics had also its own troubles. What a street 1 Against individuals, rather than against the city as a whole. 2 One building which should have cost $250,000 remained unfinished after six years and the expenditure of eight millions — most of which had come back into the pockets of the ring. 670 "BIG BUSINESS'! car company or a gas company was to a city council or to a State judi- ciary, a railroad or a Standard Oil Company was to Congress and the Federal bench. Corporations which wish to keep on good terms with the party machinery in State and Nation, have been the main sources of campaign funds. 1 Usuaily such a corporation has kept on the safe side by contributing to both parties, — somewhat more liberally to the one in power, from which favors are the more likely to come ; but of course it contributes not at all to any real reform party. The immense contribu- tions from such sources have' been a chief means of political corruption in campaigns. Meantime, the people have to pay these contributions indirectly in higher prices, — since the amounts are charged up to "operating expenses'' 1 by the corporations. This public corruption does not come in any considerable degree from ordinary competitive business. Public corruption comes from the desire to secure special privilege. The public service corporation in the city is the source of municipal corruption: the ordinary business man, who pays a bribe perhaps to secure a city contract, is rather a victim than a first cause. So in the Nation, the railroads, with their land grants or their desire to evade legal control ; and, later, the fattened trusts which wish to preserve some tariff "protection," are the source of national cor- ruption. The city or State "boss" who "delivers the goods" to these privileged corporations seems at first sight the front and substance of the corruption ; but, in real fact, he is merely an agent, permitted to pay himself in loot, but set in motion and protected by " the man higher up," the respectable head of great business interests.' 2 Such 'large interests draw after them the smaller business men, sometimes by brutal coercion, but more commonly by merely playing artfully upon the phrase that any attempt at reform " hurts business." Almost every genuine reform movement in America so far has found its chief foe, after a brief run, in this despicable phrase (cf . § 338) . lr rhe law of 1911 to compel publicity by the National Committees of all political parties as to the source of all their funds will probably help correct this evil. During the following election (1912), a congressional investigation proved conclusively, by the sworn testimony of the heads of the great " trusts," that there really had existed a close alliance between certain privileged interests and guiding forces in the government, such as the general public had only dimly suspected. 2 Every student should read Judge Ben. B. Lindsay's The Beast and the Jungle, — the best and most dramatic portrayal in literature of the truth above stated (Doubleday, 1910, $1.50). M/ CIVIL SERVICE 671 IV. POLITICAL OUTLINE, 1876-1898 414. From 1876 (§389) to 1898, the political narrative can be fol- lowed best in connection with the Civil Service, the Tariff, and the Cur- rency. The Spanish War diverted attention to questions of Imperialism (chapter XVII). But, about 1904, politics centered at last more clearly upon the fundamental issues of the day (chapter XVIII) . The following table will be convenient for reference. , Reference Table for Administrations, 1877-1913 Kepitblican ■ Democratic r House Democratic, whole 1877-1881. Hayes J _ pe "° ., 1Q - n * | Senate Democratic, 1879- l 1881 1881-1885. Garfield — Arthur (House Demo- cratic, 1883-1885, almost two to one) 1885-1889 Cleveland (Senate Re- publican) 1889-1893. Harrison (House Democratic, 1891-1893, by 231 to 88) 1893-1897 Cleveland (Senate and House Republican after 1894) 1897-1901. McKinley ' 1901-1905 . McKinley — Boosevelt 1905-1909. Roosevelt 1909-1913. Taft (House Democratic after 1910) 1913- Wilson A. Civil Service and the Tariff 415. Hayes and Civil Service Reform. — Until the days of the "muckraking 1 ' magazines (the "literature of exposure"), and of the Roosevelt administration (§ 454), the average respectable citizen knew little definitely about the corruption in business and in public life, and was usually inclined to dismiss all accusations as groundless. One evil, however, had long been too evident to be ignored. In 1871, public opinion forced Congress unwillingly to pass an Act to reform the Civil Service. 672 THE POLITICAL STORY, 1876-1913 A commission was created, to formulate and administer rules, approved by the President, for appointment to civil office under the government rit rather than f.r political spoils. President Grant favored the idea ; but, in practice, as has been noted above, he permitted his friends among the spoilsmen in Congress to thwart the Commission and make its work futile. Then, in 1874, trusting to the disgust of the public at the failure, Congress refused to renew the appropriation for the work. President Hayes was more ardent for reform. His few removals from office were mainly to get rid of spoilsmen at the head of important bodies of public servants, — as in the New York Customs House ; and he issued a notable "Civil Service Order" forbidding Federal employees to take part in political conventions or campaigns. But post-office politicians jeered the order ; and the people had not yet learned that no reform was possible except upon this basis. 416. Election of 1880. — In 1880, two minor parties were in the field, with real convictions but insignificant numbers, — the Prohibitionists and the Greenbackers (§ 392). So far as the two main parties were concerned, the campaign was a sti. uggle for office between the ins and the outs, to a degree unparalleled since 1824. Neither party took any definite stand upon any question of the day. The Republicans elected James^A t _GarJield, on their record as "the Grand Old Party tfiat saved the Union and freed the slave." 1 A feature of the campaign was the open pressure upon officeholders for " voluntary contributions " to the campaign funds. Every Federal official received a circular letter from the Republican National Committee (signed by a prominent United States Senator) assessing him at a certain per cent of his salary. Officials who neglected to pay were "reported " to the heads of their departments for discipline. The vast public ser- vice, numbering nearly two hundred thousand men, wa's turned into a machine to insure victory to the party in power. Unable to bring pres- 1 A desperate attempt in the Republican convention was made to nominate ex-President Grant ; but the tradition against a third term was too strong. Grant received from 302 to 312 votes ballot after ballot ; but 379 were necessary, and the nomination went finally to a "dark horse." No serious attempt to secure a third term had been made in our history since Jefferson's refusal (§258). CIVIL SERVICE 673 sure upon Federal officials, the Democrats took like action upon office- holders in those State governments which they controlled. 1 417. Garfield and the Spoilsmen ("Star Route" Scandal). — The new President found a third of his time taken up by office- seekers. They "waylaid him when he ventured from the shelter of his home, and followed him even to the doors of the church where he worshiped." A quarrel over patronage led to the spectacular resignation of the two New York Senators. Then, four months after the inauguration, the President was murdered by a crazed applicant for office ; and Chester A. Arthur succeeded from the Vice-presidency. Meantime, more scandal! T. W. Brady, Assistant Postmaster-Gen- eral, an official who had held over from Grant's time, had conspired with other officials and with a group of contractors, including a United States Senator, to defraud the Government of half a million dollars a year. On certain " star routes " secured by these contractors, the legal compensation had been enormously increased by secret agreements for pretended services, and the surplus was divided between the contractors and the officials. The Post-office Department, too, had been led into wildly extravagant policies, in order to afford a better cover for such robberies. The trial was spectacular. 2 Party papers impudently white- washed the offense ; and insolent boasts were made freely that no jury would convict such " high and influential men." The foreman of the jury was indicted for accepting a bribe. The guilt of the officials was shown clearly ; but finally the bigger criminals did all escape, through technicalities and the delays of the law. dr 418. The Civil Service Act. — These events focused atten- tion again on the need of reform. Congress, however, remained 1 The practice was not new, but it was followed up in this campaign with peculiar shamelessness. Such collections from State and local officers had already often been made the excuse for demanding higher salaries. As always, the people paid. 2 When the investigation began, Brady demanded that Garfield call it off; and, not gaining this favor, he published a letter written by Garfield during the campaign, implicating him unpleasantly in the collection of cam- paign contributions from officials. 674 THE POLITICAL STORY, 1876-1913 deaf in the session of 1881-1882 ; and, in the congressional elections of 1882, another assessment letter to Federal officials, urging them to contribute, as the persons " most interested in the success of the party," was signed by three leading Re- publican statesmen. A volunteer, non-partisan Civil Service Reform League took an active part in arousing the public con- science during the campaign ; and popular indignation made itself felt in the elections. The next session of the chastened Congress promptly passed the Civil Service Act (January, 1883), providing that vacancies in certain classes of offices should be filled in future from applicants whose fitness had been tested by competitive examination, and that such appointments should be revoked afterward only " for cause." A Civil Service Com- mission, to oversee the workings of the law, was established, — to consist of three persons appointed by the President, not more than two of the three from one political party. It was not expected that the law would apply to heads of large collectorships or post offices, or to any office where the President's nomina- tion requires confirmation hy the Senate ; and, indeed, it was left to the President to classify from time to time the offices to be protected. Presi- dent Arthur at once placed some 14,000 positions under the operation of the law. Some subsequent extensions, by succeeding Presidents, will be mentioned in the narrative. It is well to note here, however, that, by 1900, more than half the civil service had been so "classified," — all the clerkships in the departments at Washington, subordinate positions in the post offices and customhouses, and the railway postal clerks. The offices then remaining "unclassified" and unprotected were mainly the small (fourth-class) post offices, with a salary of less than a thousand dollars a year, where it seemed difficult to apply appointment by examina- tion. President Roosevelt, long identified with this reform (§ 421), added even these offices in the Eastern and North Central States, and also applied the principles of the law to appointments to the consular service. President Taft (§ 455), in the closing months of his term, extended the law to nearly all the remaining Federal offices. The heads of important offices remain subject to the spoils system ; but an aroused public opinion minimizes the evil even there. 419. Cleveland and the " Mugwumps," 1884. — For nearly twenty years, Mr. Blaine had been the idol of the Republican TARIFF AGITATION 675 masses. So far, however, the " reform " element within the party, aided by the ambition of rival leaders, had kept the presi- dential nomination from him (§ 389) ; but in the Republican convention of 1884 his friends were in control. Large numbers of " Mug wum ps " (largely college men, bent upon reform) then deserted the party, to support Grover Cleveland, the Demo- cratic candidate. As a courageous reform governor of New York, Cleveland had attracted attention by his fearless attitude toward the corrupt Tammany machine. His friends jubilantly shouted the slogan, — " We love him for the enemies he has made ; " and he was elected as a reform President, with the civil service issue in the foreground. For the first time since 1860, the Democrats controlled both executive and Congress. The great body of Democratic politicians were secretly or actively hos- tile to civil service reform ; and the President's position was more difficult even than Jefferson's had been three generations before (§ 255). Spite of the recent law, every Federal official was still a Republican. The Demo- cratic office seekers were ravening from their quarter-century fast ; and their pressure upon the head of their party for at least a share in the public service was overwhelming. With all his unquestioned sincerity and firm- ness, the President gave ground before this spoils spirit far enough to drive many Mugwumps, in disgust, back to the Republicans. Still, the admin- istration marks a notable advance for a non-partisan service, and the definite establishment, in practice, of the principle of Hayes' Civil Service Order, against pernicious partisanship by officials. 420. Tariff Agitation, 1884-1888. — President Cleveland's chief work was in committing the Democrats to tariff reduc- tion, — though results were slow to follow. In 1873, Congress had enacted a horizontal reduction of ten per cent on the war tariffs ; but the panic of the same yea,r was ascribed loudly by protectionists to tliat threatened decrease, and the law was at once repealed. When Cleveland became President, the war tariffs were still in force. By the trend of our history, too, high protection had become associated in the thought of the North with the preservation of the Union and the freeing of the slave, — a habit of thought of which the special interests, thriving on protection, knew how to take shrewd advantage. 676 THE POLITICAL STORY, 1876-1913 With dogged persistence, Cleveland clung to the task of educating his party. In message after message, he called at- tention to the dangerous piling up of the surplus from the needless revenue; to the consequent opportunities for extrava- gance and corruption in appropriations ; and especially to the unjust burdens upon the poorer classes of society from such taxation. In December, 1887, his message to Congress was given up wholly to this one topic, denouncing the existing tariff fiercely as " vicious " and " inequitable." During the following summer, the House was spurred into passing the Mills Bill, 1 placing a few important articles on the free-list and reducing the average tax from 47 per cent to 40 ; but the measure failed in the Senate 2 — after the unfavorable election in the fall. In the " educational campaign w of 1888, for the first time for almost sixty years, the tariff was the leading issue before the people. Mr. Blaine had replied to Cleveland's epoch- making message of '87 by a striking " interview," cabled from Paris, setting up protection as the desirable permanent policy. The Republican party rallied to this standard. The platform declared for reduction of the remaining internal taxes (on whisky), so as to remove opportunity to reduce tariff income. Orators like William McKinley represented tariff reduction as " unpatriotic " and " inspired by our foreign rivals"; and even the Republicans of the Northwest, where Republican conventions in State after State had been calling for reform, were whipped into line by the plea that the tariff, if revised at all, should at least be revised " by its friends." 1 Roger Q. Mills of Texas was the chief author of the measure and one of the few real tariff reformers of the period. The President enforced his argu- ment for the hill hy a despotic use of his power over congressional patronage (§326). 2 The Senate " substituted " a wholly different measure, by amendment, — to which the House refused to agree. This use of the Senate's power to amend, hut not to originate, revenue hills, is a clear infraction of the spirit of the Constitution ; hut it has been practiced many times. TARIFF AGITATION 677 The debate was marked by a notable shift of ground on the part of protectionists. Clay and the earlier protectionists advocated protection for " infant industries," as a temporary policy. This argument hardly applied now that those industries had become dominating influences in the country. Greeley, in the forties and fifties, had modified it into a plea for protection to higher wages for American workingmen compared with European laborers (§ 321). This now became the general argu- ment. It failed to take account of the higher cost of living to American workmen because of the tariff; nor was evidence submitted to show that the protected industries really paid higher wages in return for their tariff privileges. .„ 421. Harrison's Administration and Civil Service. — The Republicans elected Benjamin Harrison, though he received 100,000 fewer votes in the country at large than did Cleveland. The Republican manager, Matthew Quay, Senator from Pennsylvania, was a noted spoilsman, and had been already under suspicion of corruption in various offices held by him. " Protected " manufacturers were called on for huge contributions to the Republican funds ; and, according to general belief, money was spent more freely than ever before in buying votes in doubtful States. One scandal, made public a little later, was long remembered. A member of the National Republican Committee wrote to political lieutenants in In- diana, on which State it was thought the election would turn, — "Divide the voters into blocks of five, and put a trusted man with the necessary funds in charge of each five, and make him responsible that none get away and that all vote our ticket." The Republican platform had promised an extension of civil service reform ; but for months after the victory, the spoils system was rampant. Clarkson, the Assistant Postmaster-General, earned the title of "the Headsman," by decapitating 30,000 postmasters in the first year ; and, amid the applause of the Senate, Ingalls of Kansas declared, — "The purification of politics is an iridescent dream ; the Decalogue and the Golden Hide have no place in a political campaign.' 1 ' 1 This attitude of prominent leaders was rebuked, however, by the people in the Congres- sional elections of 1890, and President Harrison was thus encouraged to break with the spoilsmen. He rendered a great service, also, by appoint- ing to the Civil Service Commission Theodore Roosevelt of New York. This fearless young reformer at once injected new energy into the ad- ministration of the law, and rallied a fresh enthusiasm among the people to its support by his vigorous use of language. Hitherto, the spoilsmen had enjoyed a monopoly of strong language, and had reviled and ridiculed the mild-mannered gentlemen of the Commission at will : Roosevelt gave 678 THE POLITICAL STORY, 1876-1913 back epithet for epithet, with interest, — affirming, on one occasion, that a great part of the political contributions extorted from reluctant officials was "retained by the jackals who collected it." 422. The McKinley Tariff of 1890 raised rates even above the war standard. The committee in charge of the framing of the bill held " public hearings," at which any one interested might appear, to present his needs and views. In practice, this resulted in hearing the claims of the scores of great manufac- turers, but not at all of the millions of small consumers. 1 The special interests really framed the law. Thus the Binding Twine trust secured the power to tax every sheaf of the farmer's grain, by a tariff on twine, in spite of earnest but less organized opposition by the farmers of the country. A special effort, however, was made to conciliate the farmers by a new class of duties on agricultural products, as protection against competition by Canadian farmers. A novel feature of the bill was its " reciprocity " provisions. Foreign countries, incensed at our exclusion of their products, were threatening retaliatory tariffs on American foodstuffs ; and our farmers seemed in danger of a serious indirect loss. Mr. Blaine, a less extreme protection- ist than the leaders in control, had criticised the bill sharply, in its orig- inal form, on the ground that it failed to "open the market to another bushel of grain or another barrel of pork." Finally, it was arranged that the President might provide by treaty for the free admission of raw sugar, coffee, molasses, and hides, from any 'country which would admit free our products. Some treaties of this nature were afterward negotiated with Central and South American countries. A sudden fall in grain values seemed to show that the prom- ised protection to agriculture w r as a delusion, while a marked and immediate rise in prices on manufactured goods 2 made the law highly unpopular. The congressional elections of 1890 witnessed a "landslide" for the Democrats. Various 1 Cf . John Randolph's warning ; § 279. 2 The rise reached many forms of foodstuffs. Thus canned goods were raised because the canners had to pay more for tin plate, on which the tariff had been doubled. TARIFF AGITATION 679 House bills for tariff reduction, however, were buried in the hold-over Senate ; and the surplus in the Treasury had been dissipated by a policy of building costly war ships and by a huge increase in pensions for the veterans of the Civil War. Cleveland's first administration had witnessed a savage raid on the Treasury in the form of thousands of special pension bills. Many of these applied to meritorious cases which even the generous provisions of the general law did not reach ; but hundreds of others were gross frauds, which, in many cases, had already been exposed by the regular pension bureau. Cleveland vetoed 233 private pension bills ; l but still the flood which became law swelled the pension list enormously. Then Harrison's administration saw the pension rolls doubled by a new general law, with an increase of annual expenditure for this purpose from 88 millions to 159 millions. The same four years (1889-1893) saw the yearly expendi- ture for the navy mount from 17 to 33 millions. The Fifty-first Congress was the first "Billion-Dollar Congress." Philanthropic enthusiasts had striven to secure the Treasury surplus for the education of the Negro, — whose ignorance, it was argued, was a National peril, and to whom the Nation owed compensation for the miseries of slavery. To avoid constitutional objections, it was proposed to distribute a vast appropriation among the States. To reach the Negro especially, the proportion to each State was to be graded by its illiteracy. States-rights men were jealous of such exercise of power by the Federal government ; but a bill passed one or the other House on several occa- sions, in the eighties. The New South, however, was growing more and more able to bear its own burdens, and the disappearance of the sur- plus carried this agitation with it. 423. Cleveland's Second Administration. — The rebound against the McKinley Tariff elected Cleveland again in 1892. The Democratic platform had declared frankly for a tariff " for revenue only," asserting that " protection" of specially favored 1 In other respects also, Cleveland gave a new vigor to the veto power. President Johnson, in his Reconstruction quarrel with Congress, vetoed 21 bills, — many more than any predecessor, though several of these vetoes were overridden. Grant used the veto 43 times in his two terms. Up to Cleve- land's accession, there had been in all only 132 Presidential vetoes. In his first term Cleveland used the power 301 times — apart from pension matters three times as freely as any previous President. Cf. § 301 for summary of earlier history of the veto. 680 THE POLITICAL STORY, 1876-1913 industries by the government was unconstitutional. During the campaign, however, the leaders felt impelled to promise that reductions from existing rates should be made gradually, so as to permit business to readjust itself safely. Moreover, tariff reform was now hampered by currency questions, which had thrust themselves into the foreground (§ 425 ff.). A " Wilson Bill " did pass the House in form fairly satisfactory to tariff reformers ; but in the Senate (where the Democrats had a bare majority anyway) enough members deserted, in order to secure protection for special interests which they represented, 1 so as to transform the bill into what President Cleveland called bluntly a measure of " party perfidy." Cleveland felt constrained to let the bill become law — as the best thing attainable — though he would not sign it. It reduced the average of the duties from 49 to 40 per cent ; and it was accompanied by a sop to the radicals in the shape of a tax of two per cent on all incomes over §4000. But this intended compensation to the poorer classes was imme- diately destroyed. Tlie Supreme Court declared the income tax unconsti- tutional. 2 424. The Dingley Tariff. — The Eepublicans won the election of 1896 on the "sound money" issue (§ 430); but President 1 Sugar, in Louisiana; iron, in West Virginia and Alabama; etc. The Senate lost public confidence in great measure, from the disclosure that prom- inent members had speculated in stocks whose values would be affected by the law they were engaged in framing. Thus Senator Quay confessed that he had bought sugar stock " for a rise." 2 On the ground that it was a direct tax, and therefore to be collected only by apportionment among the States according to population. Such taxes, however, had been collected during the Civil War. In 1895, the question came up before the Supreme Court ; and that body divided four to four. On the recovery of a sick Justice, the case was reargued. The member before absent now voted for the tax ; but Justice Shiras, who had before voted for it, now changed to the opposition, and made the adverse vote five to four. So grave an authority as Professor Davis Rich Dewey does not hesitate to say : — " The country was so astonished by these divisions of opinion that interest in the tax itself was lost sight of in the revelations of fickleness and uncer- tainty in the highest court of the land." It was particularly unfortunate that such shiftiness should have operated as a protection to the wealthier classes only. TARIFF AGITATION 681 McKinley claimed the victory as a mandate to renew the high protection policy with which he had personally identified him- self. Accordingly, a special session of Congress enacted the Dingley Tariff, raising the average rate to 57 per cent, — much the highest point reached np to that time. These exorbitant rates were secured by the extreme protectionists in return for the insertion of a provision for wider reciprocity. It was agreed that, during the two years following, the President might make treaties with foreign countries, abating a fifth of the Dingley rates on their prod- ucts, in return for concessions by them to American commerce. Such rates would still have been almost up to the McKinley Tariff rates ; and the Republican masses regarded the higher figures of the Dingley bill mainly as a club to force reciprocity. But when President McKinley, from time to time, submitted seven such treaties to the Senate for ratifi- cation, that body, with an extreme of bad faith, hearkening only to the special interests which controlled the seats or fortunes of many members, failed to ratify. As with the preceding tariff, the bargain by which high rates had been secured was broken ; and again the loss fell upon the poor. Wherever the tariff did shield a raw material from real foreign compe- tition (as with wool), it gave a correspondingly higher protection to the manufacturer who was to use that material. Thus the wearer of woolen goods paid a double tax, — one to the wool grower, and another to the manufacturer. But as a rule, those items which had been added to the bill with a pretence of protecting the farmers proved again deceptive. A duty was placed on hides ; but the advantage was monopolized by the packing houses. The cattle raiser got none of it. He had to sell, as be- fore, to the trust at its own price (§ 409) ; but the trust could now make the shoe manufacturer pay more for leather. And the only noticeable result to the cattle raiser — and to every other ' ' ultimate consumer ' ' — was a higher price for shoes and harness. Critics pointed out, too, that the prohibitive duties on many foreign imports made it easier for monopo- listic combinations to control prices and output. The years following the enactment of the Dingley Tariff were just the years of most rapid devel- opment of such monopolies. "The tariff is the mother of the trusts" became a popular cry. Manufactures, of course, were tremendously stimulated. They now used most of the raw material produced in America — which, therefore, was no longer dependent upon a foreign market. Indeed American mills forged their way into the 682 THE POLITICAL STORY, 1876-1913 markets of the world, and underbid English and German manufacturers in Russia, India, China, and Australia. American machinery even invaded France and England. To do this, the American manufacturer sold his goods cheaper abroad than at home, and, indeed, was enabled to undersell the foreign manufacturer abroad by means of the unreasonable profits wrung from the American consumer. For a time the country was entranced by the appearance of " prosperity." But gradually the idea gained ground that this was a manufacturer's prosperity, paid for by the consumer. The cost of living rose so rapidly as to become a byword. Be- tween 1896 and 1904 it was computed to have increased a fourth ; and that was by no means the end. 1 This amounted, of course, to a savage cut in wages and all fixed incomes, and rapidly created a serious problem for people of small 'means, — especially after about 1906, when the effects had become most marked. 2 / B. Currency and "Free Silver" 425. Silver "demonetized." — From 1890 to 1900, all other ublic questions were cast into the background by an un- fortunate agitation for " free silver," — which, indeed, had been a disturbing factor for fifteen years before. Until 1873, any one could present gold or silver bullion at a government mint, and receive back the value in coin, less a small fee. A law of 1834 had fixed the ratio for coinage at sixteen to one. That is, one ounce of gold was worth sixteen ounces of silver in the market ; and so the silver dollar was made sixteen times 1 The more conservative figures of the Bureau of Labor place the increase in the period 1890-1909 at 26£ per cent. 2 For the final stage (to this writing) of the tariff controversy, see § 457. Of course the tariff is only one of several factors in the recent rise of prices. Another factor is the increased volume of gold — in which prices are measured (§ 435, close). But this last factor operates all over the world, — in England, presumably, as strongly as in America. The rise of prices in England, however, has been only about a third of that in the United States. "FREE SILVER" 683 as heavy as the gold dollar. After 1850, the gold discoveries in California slightly cheapened the value of gold; and the little silver that was mined between that time and 1870 could be sold more profitably for use in the arts than at the mint, so that very little silver was coined. 1 But, about 1870, new silver mines in Nevada and Colorado began to flood the markets with silver. Then, in 1873, Con- gress " demonetized " silver, — ceasing to authorize its coinage, except in small quantities for the oriental trade, and refusing legal-tender character at home to these "trade dollars." At about the same time, European countries began to abandon — "Hmfitaljflyn" for an exclusive gold standard. The increased output of silver, together with this decreased demand, forced down its value rapidly. 2 The mine owners now called vocifer- ously for coinage at the old rate. Moreover, the farmers of the West and many ardent reformers were persuaded that the " crime of '73 " had been manipulated by the money monop- olists of Wall Street to reduce the volume of the currency, and so enhance the value of their capital at the expense of the debtor class. This conviction was emphasized by the money stringency of the panic years, 1873-1878. Some advocates of silver believed that its unlimited coinage by the United States would insure a sufficient currency, and would restore silver to its old market value ; but the larger body of its sup- porters were animated by the crude fallacies of fiat money such as had inspired the old Greenback party. It was quite true that there was not enough gold coined to make a proper basis for the growing business of the country. Consequently, money was appreciating and prices depreciating. Creditors profited; debtors, like farmers with mortgages to meet, suffered. All reformers saw these evils. Some magnified them unduly, and 1 In 1870, the market ratio of the metals was 15.57. A silver dollar would have been worth $1.03, and they had all been melted down for this profit. 2 By 1876, the ratio of silver to gold had fallen to 17.87; and by 1893 to 28.25. At the latter rate, a silver " dollar " of the old weight was worth 56 cents in gold. 684 THE POLITICAL STORY, 1876-1913 impulsively caught at the proffered remedy of making silver a legal tender at the old rate. Others felt that such a depreciation of the coin- age would entail all the disasters of cheap money and bring in evils worse than those to be cured. This unhappy division in the ranks of the reformers seriously delayed correction of other more fundamental troubles in American life. A'd 426. The Bland Act, 1 of 1878, ordered the coinage of silver dollars, at a fixed weight, then worth about 90 cents in bullion, to the amount of from two millions to four millions a month. Such dollars did not pass into circulation ; but, in the Treasury vaults, they formed the basis for a new kind of Treasury notes (silver certificates), redeemable only in this specie. During the next twelve years, three fourths of a billion of dollars in such paper money was added to the currency of the country. Toward the close of the period, silver slumped in the market rapidly, until the coined dollar was worth only about 75 cents. In the same twelve years, nearly half a billion of gold had been coined ; but now this began to leave the country rapidly, and many people feared that once more " poor money " would "drive out good.*' The silver advocates, on the con- trary, were sure that silver slumped only because the government refused to take all that was offered, and they insisted that the increase in cur- rency had not kept pace with the marvelous growth of business. 427. The Populists. — Both Republicans and Democrats so far had shirked a positive position as to silver. Accordingly, a new party sprang into prominence. The Grangers (§ 399) had been succeeded by the Farmers' Alliance, which, however, kept out of partisan politics until about 1890, though it had used powerful influence within both parties for free silver. Then, fused with the Knights of Labor (§ 445), it formed the Populist party, with a platform calling for the unlimited coin- age of silver at 16 to 1, for a graduated income tax (§ 423), for postal savings banks, and for government ownership of railroads and of other natural monopolies. In the Presidential 1 Representative Bland, of Missouri, had secured from the House an abso- lute "16 to 1 " bill. The more cautious Senate added the restrictions as to weight and amount. Even in this form, President Hayes vetoed the measure ; but it became law over his veto. ELECTION OF 1896 685 election of 1892, General Weaver, the Populist candidate, secured 22 electors, with more than a million votes, to about five and a half millions to each of the main parties. Two years earlier, the party had captured several State govern- ments in the West and South, and had sent forty representa- tives to Congress. 428. The Sherman Act of 1890 replaced the Bland Act. It was a slight gain to the silver men. The Treasury was ordered to buy silver in the market, four and a half million ounces each month, paying for it in Treasury notes which should be redeemable on demand in either silver or gold. Enough of the purchased silver was to be coined to redeem these new notes. The sudden increase in demand raised silver for a brief time almost to its ratio with gold ; but soon it fell away again ; and in 1893, when the British government demonetized silver in India, it shrank to a lower point than ever before (note to § 425). Gold now was exported with a rush, and that remaining in the country was hoarded. 429. The Crash of 1893. 1 — A periodic crisis, due to over investment on credit, seems to have been about due ; but undoubtedly it was has- tened by widespread distrust of the currency and by uncertainty as to 1 The law which had brought about Resumption in 1879 (§ 392), had made it the duty of the President to maintain a gold reserve in the Treasury suffi- cient to meet any paper money presented for redemption. This reserve was the basis for the credit which kept paper at par. Now, in a few months, nearly half the reserve was drawn out (down to 68 millions) by Treasury notes presented for redemption. The panic had cut down the government's revenues, so that no funds were available with which to buy gold ; and so President Cleveland had to increase the National debt by selling bonds. The banks paid gold for these bonds ; but, owing to the clumsy confusion of our currency laws, they drew most of this gold out of the Treasury, just before- hand, by presenting Treasury notes there. "What was poured in through the funnel was first drawn out through the bunghole." By a quaint feature of the law, too, the Treasury notes had to be at once reissued. Thus, when the government had again to sell bonds, the same process could be repeated with the same currency, — in the dizziest of vicious circles, — so that to maintain a balance of a few millions of gold the President had to sell 264 millions in bonds. To lessen the evil, he cailed the Wall Street bankers into conference, to pledge them to take the bonds without withdrawing the gold to do it with; but he was at once accused of granting the money power unrea- sonable secret privileges. 686 THE POLITICAL STORY, 1876-1913 further action by Congress. Creditors began to insist on payments in gold. Nearly six hundred banks closed their doors, and more than fifteen thousand firms went to the wall, with losses amounting to a third of a billion. Industry was prostrated as at no previous panic. Farmers lost their homes, and the improvements of years, on small mortgages. Cities were thronged with hundreds of thousands of unemployed and desperate men. Every large place had its free " soup kitchen," and many towns, for the first time in America, opened "'relief works," to provide the starving with employment. The social unrest found outlet in dangerous strikes and in the ominous phenomena of " Coxey's Army " (§ 446 a). 430. The Campaign of 1896. — President Cleveland had alienated the radical wing of the Democratic party by uncom- promising hostility to silver legislation, 1 and in 1896 the party split on that issue. The National Convention afforded a dra- matic scene. William J. Bryan of Nebraska, a young man, hardly known in the East, swept the great assembly resist- lessly by an irnpassioned speech of splendid oratory and deep sincerity. The contest between silver and gold he pictured as a contest of wealth against the struggling masses. Turning to the "gold" delegates, he exclaimed, "You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon this cross of gold." With tremen- dous enthusiasm, the Convention declared, two to one, for the " unlimited coinage of both silver and gold at the ratio of six- teen to one," and nominated Bryan for the presidency. 2 A strong faction of the party, however, took the name of " Gold 1 It is, perhaps, fairer to say that this attitude seemed to the Radicals one more proof of Cleveland's alliance with the " Money Power," seen also, as it appeared to them, in his policy in the Chicago strike (§ 446 6), in his fiscal arrangements (§ 428), and in his delay in calling a special session to carry out his tariff program. 2 To men of conservative tendencies and associations, the new leader seemed a demagogue and adventurer. Later, they tried strenuously to re- gard him as a jest. But a new force had come into American life. William J. Bryan, defeated three times for the presidency, still molded public opinion during the coming years as only one or two Presidents have ever done, until his principles, then so revolutionary, outside the free silver heresy, have be- come the common property of every political platform. Cf. § 458. ELECTION OF 1896 687 Democrats " and nominated a ticket of their own ; while many more of like feeling voted the Republican ticket, subordinating tariff reform to their conviction of the need of " sound money." The Republicans had nominated William McKinley on an antisilver platform. The " Silver Republicans " of the West- ern States formally seceded from the organization; but this movement was much less important than the Democratic split. The Democratic campaign was hampered by lack of money; but the most was made of Mr. Bryan's oratory. Candidates had previously taken small part in campaigning. Mr. Bryan traveled eighteen thousand miles and spoke to vast numbers of people. The Republican coffers were supplied lavishly by the moneyed interests of the country ; and the campaign was man- aged by Mark Hanna, a typical representative of the big busi- ness interests. Workingmen were intimidated by posted notices that the factories would close if the Democrats won; and many orders with manufacturers were given with a provision for cancellation in like case. This fear of business catastrophe in case of the election of Bryan (a fear largely manufactured) was a chief factor in the Republican success. But as Cleve- land had committed the Democratic party to tariff reform, so Bryan now committed it to the cause of the masses against the "special interests" and " privileged" capital. Just at this point came an interruption to normal develop- ment, — the Spanish War and the question of imperialism. For Further Reading. — (On this chapter and the next two.) — ■ Dewey's National Problems; Latane's America the World Poicer ; Spark's National Development. Commons, Trade Unionism and Labor Problems; Bulletins of Com- missioner of Labor, 51, 53, 59 (on prices and wages) ; Adams and Sumner, Labor Problems; Bemis' "The Homestead Strike" (Journal Political Economy, 2 : 369) ; Brooks, The Union Label (Bulletin of Commissioner of Labor, 15) ; Mitchell, Organized Labor; Adams, u The Granger Movement" (N. Am. Bev., 120 :394) ; Beport of the Lndustrial Commission, Vol. VII (on labor organization). Taussig, " Tariff of 1909 " (Quarterly Journal of Economics, 24 : 1-38) ; Tarbell, "Tariff in Our Own Times" (American Magazine, Vols. 63-68); 688 THE POLITICAL STORY, 1876-1913 Ripley, Trusts, Pools, and Corporations ; Ripley, Bailway Problems; Meyer, Bailway Legislation in the United States; Tarbell, History of the Standard Oil Company. Dubois, "The Negro Farmer" {Bulletin of Department of Commerce and Labor, 8 : 69) ; Washington, Story of the Negro. Price, The Land We Live In (" Boys 1 Book of Conservation") ; Con- ference of Governors (Washington, 1909). Steiner, On the Trail of the Emigrant ; Howe, The City the Hope of Democracy ; Ross, Changing America ; Zeublin, American Municipal Progress ; Wilcox, The American City : a Problem in Democracy. Fiction : Foote, Coeur d'Alene (miners of Idaho) ; Norris, The Octo- pus, and The Pit ; Richardson, The Long Day ; cf. § 407, note, for other even more important titles. /jiAJ^n 0-vwj&> Jc*-*suy CHAPTER XVII AMERICA A WORLD POWER I. PREPARATORY TENDENCIES 431. Latin American Relations, 1889-1892. — Several incidents in the ten years preceding the Spanish War pointed to a more aggressive foreign policy, to correspond with our growing commercial interests abroad. In Harrison's administration the energetic Blaine was Secretary of State. A cardinal point in his policy was to extend the influence of the United States over Spanish America. In 1889 he brought together at Washington a notable Pan-American Congress which furthered com- mercial reciprocity (§ 422) and expressed a desire for standing treaties of arbitration between all American nations. Unhappily, the closer friendship with our neighbors, at which Mr. Blaine wisely aimed, was checked seriously, immediately afterward, by the President's bulldozing policy toward Chile 1 — an incident which roused deplorable suspicions of the good faith of the United States among the proud and sensitive Latin-American peoples. 432. Hawaii. — For fifty years, the United States had held close rela- tions with Hawaii. The islands had accepted Christianity from American missionaries ; and American planters and merchants were the chief ele- ment in a considerable White population. American capital, too, was largely interested in sugar raising in the islands. The native government, under the influence of foreign ideas, had been brought to the form of a constitutional monarchy. In January, 1893, a revolution deposed the native queen and set up a provisional republic. The leading spirits of the new government were Americans, and they asked for annexation to the United States. The United States minister to the old government ran up the United States flag, virtually declared a protectorate, and secured a force of marines from an American vessel in the harbor to overawe the natives. President Harrison had only a few weeks of office remaining. He 1 Special Report: Relations with Chile, 1891-1892. 690 AMERICA A WORLD POWER tried to hurry through a treaty of annexation ; but President Cleveland, on his accession, withdrew it from the Senate, and sent a special com- missioner to the islands to investigate. The report revealed the revolu- tion as a conspiracy, in which the American minister had taken a leading part to overthrow the government to which he was accredited ; while the provisional republic, it was shown, was supported by only a small fraction of the population. President Cleveland attempted to undo this "flagrant wrong" to a weak state. Despite the violent outcry of Re- publican papers, he "hauled down the American flag." Skillfully . en- trenched in possession by this time, however, the republican government maintained itself, unstably, against the native dynasty ; and, a few years later, the question of annexation was revived (§ 434). 433. The Venezuela Arbitration. — For half a century an obscure dis- pute had dragged along as to the boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana. In the eighties gold was discovered, and English miners began to crowd into the disputed wilderness. By 1895 the quarrel was acute. The English goverment made it clear to Venezuela that it intended to occupy the territory. Venezuela had already appealed to the United States for protection ; and now our government insisted vigorously that England submit the matter to arbitration. Lord Salisbury declined. Then President Cleveland electrified the world by a message to Congress (December 17, 1895) recommending the creation of an American com- mission to determine the true boundary, and pointing out that war must follow if England should persist in refusing to accept the award. For the first time the people in England awoke to the fact that a seri- ous quarrel was in progress. People, press, and public men made clear a warmth of friendship for the United States wholly unsuspected by the mass of Americans, 1 and it was immediately evident that even the irritat- ing tone of American diplomacy could not arouse a war feeling. War with the United States on such an issue, said Lord Rosebery, the Liberal leader, " would be the greatest crime on record " ; and the Conservative leader in Parliament, Mr. Balfour, added that such a contest would be invested " with the unnatural horrors of civil war." The ministry now offered to accept arbitration, suggesting, however, an international com- mission, in place of one appointed by our government alone, and the matter was so arranged. 2 It was worth much to have made plain that 1 This aspect of the affair was made more prominent by a remarkable dis- play a few weeks later of war feeling in England against Germany — an antagonist at that time much more to be dreaded than the United States. 2 The commission reported in 1899, favoring the English contention lor the most part. This result was perfectly satisfactory to the United States. THE SPANISH WAR 691 the United States would fight to protect the Western continent from out- side aggression ; but perhaps the incident is even more significant as a prophecy of agreement between powerful nations to compel arbitration of all such disputes. The English ministry now proposed to the United States a standing treaty for arbitration of future disputes between the two countries. The treaty was drawn up, and was strongly urged upon the Senate by Presi- dent Cleveland and later by President McKinley. But the Senate, now in its period of degradation, preferred to play politics, and refused to ratify this proposal for an advance in world peace. 1 II. TERRITORIAL EXPANSION 434. The Spanish War. — After 1824, only Cuba and Porto Rico were left to Spain of her once wide-lying American Empire. In Cuba, too, revolt was chronic. After a "Ten Years' Re- bellion " (1868-1878), Spain granted Cuba constitutional gov- ernment, with representation in the Spanish Cortez ; but many abuses continued. Taxation was exorbitant ; trade was shackled, in Spanish interests ; and the natives were despised by Spanish officials. In 1895 the island was again ablaze with revolt, — organized in great measure by a Cuban Junta in the United States and aided materially by filibustering expeditions from our shores. On both sides the war was barbarous. In particular, the cruel policy of the Spanish commander, Weyler, caused deadly suffering to women and children, gathered into recon- centrado camps without proper care or food. The " Gem of the Antilles " was rapidly turning to a desert and a graveyard. American capitalists had large interests in the sugar industry in the island, and used powerful influences, open and secret, to secure American intervention, with a view to subsequent annexation by Congress. Such forces played skillfully upon the humanitarian sympathies of the American people, and on their traditional inclination to assist any movement on this continent for political independence. In 1897 the country was 1 Modern History, § 594, for other details. 692 AMERICA A WORLD POWER seething with discontent at the continuance of Spanish rule, and Congress was eager for war ; but for some months more President McKinley steadfastly held such impulses in check, while he tried to secure satisfactory concessions to Cuba from Spain. Spain did recall Weyler, and the war was placed upon a "civilized" footing; but a new situation proved too strong for the President's resolution. February 15, 1898, the American battleship Maine, visiting in the Havana harbor, was blown up, with the loss of 260 of her men. The explosion may have come from a submarine mine operated by Cubans to produce the results which followed, or the mine may possibly have been operated by a few Spanish officers. No one now seriously believes that the Spanish government was responsible. At the moment, however, this was the almost universal assumption ; and a vengeful cry for blood reinforced irresistibly the pre- vious call for American interference. Congress gave a solemn pledge that the United States would not retain Cuba for her- self ; and the American army and navy soon completed the task of expelling Spain. 1 Meantime, a new aspect had been given to the war. Admiral Dewey, in command of a small American squadron in Asiatic waters, destroyed a Spanish fleet in the Philippines, and, some months later, in cooperation with native insurgents, captured Manila. The war was over by August. In the treaty of peace, Spain left Cuba free, and ceded to the United States Porto Rico, Guam (in the Ladrones), and the Philippines, receiving for the last the sum of $20,000,000. Other territorial expansion accompanied this acquisition of new terri- tory. In 1897 President McKinley had revived the attempt to annex Hawaii by treaty. The necessary two thirds vote in the Senate could 1 The American navy showed a surprising ability both in sailing and in gunnery. Equally amazing was the disgraceful collapse of the commissariat of land forces. The troops in camp at Tampa (in what should have resembled a pleasant picnic) lost more men by far than fell in battle ; and in Cuba the chief losses came from dysentery and fever, much of which was avoidable. THE ELECTION OF 1900 693 not be secured ; but after the opening of the Spanish War, with De ivey in need* of reinforcements at Manila, Congress annexed the Hawaiian Islands by a joint resolution — as Texas had been acquired many years before. About the same time, several small islands in the Pacific, not claimed by any civilized power, were seized for naval and telegraph sta- tions ; and, in rearrangements at Samoa, due to native insurrections and to conflicting claims by England, Germany, and the United States, this country secured the most important island in that group. 435. "Imperialism" in the Election of 1900. — The decision to hold the Philippines as an Asiatic dependency — as Eng- land holds India — was adopted by President McKinley's administration only after considerable hesitation ; and the policy was attacked vehemently by the Democrats as " Imperi- alism." The Anti-imperialists urged that such a policy not only involved bad faith with the Filipinos, but that it con- travened the fundamental principles of the Declaration of Independence. The attempt to rule against their consent twice as many people as George Washington had been presi- dent over was felt to be repugnant to the genius of our insti- tutions, likely to tend to despotism at home, and sure to divert energy from our own problems. On the other hand, the Imperialists, or " Expansionists," urged that the United States could no longer shirk responsibil- ities as a world power. The Filipinos were not fit for self- government ; American sentiment would not tolerate returning them to Spain ; and Dewey's conquest left America answerable not only for the Philippines themselves, but, more immediately, for European and American settlers and interests at Manila. For a decade, too, many thinkers had been looking with dread to Russia's steady advance in Asia, where she threatened to enforce a " closed door " to the rest of the world, and perhaps to organize the countless millions of China in a world conflict against Western civilization. America in the Philippines would be a factor in the Asiatic question, and with England and Germany might check Russian aggression. 1 To fulfill Japan had not yet given promise of the power soon to be shown. 694 AMERICA A WORLD POWER these high duties, it was argued, would help, not hinder, in inspiring courage to grapple with domestic evils. Cheek by- jowl with these idealistic forces for expansion, of course, masqueraded mere commercial greed and gross pride of power. Imperialism was a leading issue in the campaign of 1900 ; but Mr. Bryan, once more the Democratic candidate, compli- cated the matter unhappily by forcing into the Democratic platform a declaration for the dying " 16 to 1 " cause. Again the reform forces were divided. Some radicals believed in "expansion," and others, fearing " imperialism," feared free silver more Hanna, again the Republican manager, made skillful use of returned prosperity under Republican rule, appealing to workingmen with the campaign emblem of "the full dinner-pail." Mr. McKinley was reelected ; x but in the fall after his second inauguration he was assassinated by an anarchist, and the presidential chair passed to Theodore Roosevelt (§ 459). One phase in the Nation's outburst of grief for its murdered chief car- ried ominous implications. Americans had thought it not wholly unnat- ural that despotic European rulers, unreachable in other ways, should sometimes become a mark for the dagger or bomb ; but we had boasted that our free discussion and equality of political opportunity did away with all such danger to the chosen representatives of our people. The awakening maddened and dazed. A vengeful cry went up against all who were labeled "anarchists," blindly confusing philosophic thinkers, like the great Tolstoi, who disbelieve in governmental coercion, with the crazed or criminal individuals (anarchists of violence) who preach or practice the murder of heads of governments. Some excited legislatures hurriedly enacted repressive laws imperiling freedom of speech — one of the most precious of American rights ; and Congress was assailed with proposals similarly dangerous, especially with regard to the use of the mails. The mass of the people soon recovered their usual sanity ; but, in some degree, the deplorable event has strengthened a tendency in police 1 The Socialist Labor party and the Social Democratic party had tickets in the field, and cast together 127,000 votes. There was much apathy and uncer- tainty ; and the total vote was smaller than four years before — though the country contained at least a million more voters. DEPENDENCIES 695 authorities ever since, especially in great cities, to deal violently, beyond the law, with radical agitation and even with labor unrest. 1 436. Excursus: The Passing of "Free Silver." — Meantime, the intrusion of the currency question into the campaign had resulted in a law by the victorious Republicans definitely declaring for an exclusive gold standard. At the same time, however (1900), an addition was made to the Nation's currency by an amendment to the law regarding National banks. The bonds, issued during the Civil War at high rates of interest, rose above par soon after the war was over. It was then no longer profit- able for a National bank to keep large amounts tied up in such bonds as a basis for its notes : it paid better to withdraw the currency and sell the bonds. Accordingly, the bank note circulation had fallen away, — from 339 millions in 1865 to 162 millions in 1891. This contraction was a serious grievance to the Free Silver party. In 1900 Congress gave new life to the National bank circulation by (1) per- mitting a bank to issue notes to 100 per cent of its bond deposit (instead of 90), (2) reducing the tax on bank circulation from 1 per cent to ^ per cent, and (3) authorizing banks with only $25,000 capital (instead of §50,000) in small towns. In the next five years, under this stimulus, bank currency was increased by a third of a billion of dollars. More important still was another source of currency expansion. In 1898 gold was discovered in Alaska; and soon that wild country was pouring a yellow flood into the mints of the world. Between 1898 and 1904, three quarters of a billion of gold money was coined in the United States. The debtor class could no longer claim that currency was con- tracting. The question of " free silver," therefore, passed into oblivion. DEPENDENCIES AND PROTECTORATES 437. Settlement in Cuba. — During the struggle of the Cu- bans against Spain, Americans had been wont to compare the leader Gomez and his followers to George Washington and his patriot army. On closer view, many Americans began to doubt whether Cuba was fit for self-government ; but, as such things go, the pledge to leave Cuba independent was honorably kept. There was a necessary interval of military occupation. This endured for more than three years (till April, 1902), and con- 1 Illustration of this last statement can be gathered for the years 1901-1912 from any labor paper. 696 AMERICA A WORLD POWER ferred great blessings on the island. It not only established order and relieved immediate suffering, but it also organized a permanent and noble system of hospitals and schools, built roads, cleaned up cities, and created adequate water supplies. For the first time in 140 years Havana was freed from yellow fever. The sanitary work of the American government in the pest-ridden island amazed the world. It was in the course of this work that Major Walter Reed, a United States surgeon, proved that yellow fever is transmitted by the mosquito bite, — a discovery which ranks among the foremost achievements of modern science. Meantime General Wood, the American military governor, had arranged for elections ; and a Cuban constitutional conven- tion devised a republican constitution. The convention was compelled to accept certain terms dictated by Congress, con- senting that the United States should hold points' on the coast for naval stations, and should have the right to interfere in order to preserve the island from outside encroachments or from domestic convulsions. The first Cuban government represented mainly the educated planters of Spanish descent. The bulk of the people, of mixed Indian and Negro blood, laborers on the great plantations, were excluded from the fran- chise by educational or property qualifications. 1 These masses were dissat- isfied ; and, in 1906, they broke out in insurrection. President Roosevelt dispatched American troops to the island, to restore order. This second occupation lasted until 1909. Meantime, Gomez, representing the mass of the Cuban people, became president. It now seems probable that Cuba will be left to work out her own destiny, with somewhat less of anarchy than fell to the older Spanish American republics. 2 1 A census taken by General Wood shows that three fourths of the adult popu- lation could not read. 2 The various contests in the United States over the relations of Cuba to the United States have been marked by an unseemly contest between the " Sugar Trust," which wants Cuba annexed so that it may get raw Cuban sugar free of tariff duties for its refineries, and the Beet Sugar combine, which wants to keep Cuba a foreign country so that Cuban sugar may be excluded by a high tariff. DEPENDENCIES 697 438- The Settlement in Hawaii and Porto Rico. — In 1900 Hawaii was organized as a Territory, on essentially the usual self-governing basis. Porto Rico with its large Spanish element, civilized but un- friendly, presented a difficult problem. At present, the government con- tains a representative element; but real control is vested in officials appointed by the United States, — somewhat after the analogy of certain British colonies intermediate between " crown colonies " and " responsible governments." 2 439. The Philippines contain 115,000 square miles, broken into a thousand islands, 2 with eight million inhabitants. These are distributed in eighty tribes, ranging from primitive savagery (of the poisoned arrow stage) to civilization, and speaking a score of different tongues and dia- lects. Five sevenths of the whole number are Catholics; the stalwart Moros are Mohammedan; the "wild" half million are divided among primitive superstitions. The centuries of Spanish rule have left much Spanish blood, mixed with native, in the more civilized districts; and commercial interests account for a considerable European population at Manila and some other ports. In 1896 the islanders attempted one of their many risings against Spanish rule. The Spanish government brought it to a close by promising reforms and paying Aguinaldo and other leaders to leave the islands. The reforms were not carried out, and only a part of the promised money was paid ; and when Dewey was about to attack the Spanish in the islands, he invited Aguinaldo to return with him from China, in order to organize a native insurrection to cooperate with the American invasion. The insurgents hailed the Americans as deliverers, and took an active part in the siege and capture of Manila. Soon, however, the American com- manders received instructions from Washington not to treat the insur- gents as allies, but to assert American sovereignty over them. This led to war. After two years of regular campaigns against 50,000 American troops, the natives took to guerrilla warfare — in which their ferocious barbarities were sometimes imitated all too successfully by the Americans. In 1902 the United States declared the " rebellion " subdued. The supreme authority is intrusted to an "Insular Commission," ap- pointed by the President, composed mainly of Americans. The islands are marked off into provinces, and these are divided into municipal dis- tricts. In each municipal district of the more civilized provinces a coun- 1 Modern History, § 558, close. 2 Two thirds of these are too small for habitation ; and half the total area is comprised in two islands. 698 AMERICA A WORLD POWER cil is elected by all the people who can read and write either Spanish or English, or who possess a little property; but these local governments are mainly administrative, — to carry out instructions from above ; and they are subject to strict supervision. In each such civilized province, the municipal councils choose a provincial "governor." Two other officials, however, ap- pointed by the Insular Com- mission, act with the gov- ernor, and can overrule him ; and this governing board is supervised by the central Com- mission. In 1907, in accord- ance with a decree of the American Congress, a Philip- pine Assembly, with limited powers, was convened. In spite of these forms of self-government, the Philip- pine people have no real con- trol yet over even their local affairs ; but if they show ca- pacity to work representative institutions, American feeling will probably insist on passing over to them larger and larger powers, —possibly retain- ing only a protectorate as to foreign relations, as with Cuba. Imperialism is no longer a party issue. All parties are ready to pledge extension of self-government as rapidly as may be consistent with good order. The victory of Japan over Russia in 1904 removed one of the leading incen- tives for American intervention in the Orient. It is now apparent that the Oriental peoples will prove masters of their own destinies. American government has conferred many undoubted benefits upon the Philippines. The choice lands, held by the friars, have been pur- chased and opened to native acquisition ; , and the school system that has been introduced merits high praise. On the other hand, Congress has not extended to the people in the dependencies all the civil rights CHINA J? g ) Can *22-*>»^ FORMOSA! % * ^^jOlongkong y , k Q • •• »-< SOUTH f c \ \ ° 1 WW Manija - X<«™« CHINA V^>S MINDOROI.\\ o CATANDUANES ^ ° J^M^ARi. SEA J?* ' i^ PALAWAN \.f/ NEGROS g m ^y vV jJN ft SULU SEA , Balabac Strait if jMLNDANAO 1.1 XborneoV. •*-•* Celebes Sea\f The Philippines. 1 Though, in the administration of President Taft, the Sugar Trust (not a Philippine organization) acquired 65,000 acres of these lands at about a third of what our government had paid for them. ft George B. McClellan Nelson W. Aldrich Richard Croker Tom L. Johnson Joseph W. Folk Robert M. La Follette jr Woodrow Wilson y William J. Bryan Chauncey M. Depew v William H. Taft Theodore Roosevelt Supervisor of Public Property Gifford Pinchot Richard A. Ballinger 1 This ballot (with one change of name here) was used at public meetings in the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1911, to illustrate this method of voting which was proposed in a new Home Rule charter then before the citi- zens for adoption. 2 A little practice will show that this provision enables a voter to vote against every one to whom he is positively opposed. Let the class or school try such an election to realize better the workings, first informing themselves upon each of the men named. 744 PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRACY certain Mr. Lorimer had aroused the country. True, a Senate committee of a Standpatters " made the usual whitewashing report ; but it was riddled pitifully by the Insurgents and by the progressive press. Still on the vote to expel, the Stand- patters managed to rally the one third vote necessary to save their colleague. A resolution for an amendment to provide for popular election of Senators was then pending, and it was soon after defeated by almost precisely the same vote. Then, in the spring came the extra session of the new Congress (§ 458), with large progressive gains. This time, however, the States- Rights jealousy of the Southern Senators was aroused suffi- ciently to delay action so long that the measure was finally lost in the shuffle at the close of the session. At the close of the next regular session, however (1912), Lorimer was expelled and the amendment passed. It now waits only the certain ratification of the States. 1 Meantime, some States have secured the desired result by indirection through their own legislation. Oregon led the way. In 1904 a law provided that each party might nominate a United States Senator, when one was to be chosen, at the regular party primaries. Then, at the regular election, the people decided between the candidates so nominated. This, of course, was in law only a recommendation. Other States had done this much; but the people's will had been readily dis- regarded by the legislatures. Oregon went further. At the same election at which the people express their choice for Senator, they choose also the members of their own legislature. Each candidate for the legislature is given a chance at the open- ing of the campaign to sign " Statement No. 1," promising, if elected, to vote for the people's choice for Senator, or "State- ment No. 2" declaring that he ivill hold the people's expression merely as a recommendation, to be disregarded by him " if the reason for doing so seems to me to be sufficient." Needless to say, in any Senatorial year, the great majority of the State 1 Ratified in April, 1913, while these pages were in press. IN STATE AND NATION 745 legislature are bound in advance by written pledges to vote for the people's choice. In his Chicago address (§ 464), Mr. Uren explained in detail how this law was intended to "side-step the Constitution," and then added: u That question was voted on directly again last year [1908]. One of the things the opposition had claimed as to this Statement No. 1, was that it was a trick, — that we had inserted it as a 'joker' in the primary law, and that the people did not know it was there. So [the progressives] brought out, on initiative petition, a bill reading like this : " Be it enacted by the people of the State of Oregon, That we, the people of the State of Oregon, do hereby instruct our representatives and our sena- tors, in our legislative assembly, to always vote as such officers for those candidates for the United States Senate who have received the highest number of the people's votes at the preceding general elections. . . . " We carried it by 70,000 to 21,000. Then all the politicians and every- body in Oregon knew that the people of Oregon thought they understood Statement No. 1 and intended that it should be obeyed." In 1909 the principle victoriously withstood the severest possible test. The people had indicated Mr. G. E. Chamberlin, a trusted public servant, as their choice for Senator. Mr. Chamberlin was a Democrat ; the legislature was overwhelm- ingly Republican: then followed the unique episode of a Republican legislature electing a Democrat to the United States Senate. 1 The plan has spread rapidly. Nowhere else has it received so striking a vindication ; but, in this or in some less binding form, Senators are named by popular vote to-day (1912) in more than half the States. A movement is just under way to extend this principle to the nomination of President and Vice President, in order to do away with the manipulation of bosses in National Conventions and to bring the candidates to a closer accountability to the people. Any State with " direct primaries " finds it easy to extend them so that each party 1 Some members of the legislature, who hesitated, were brought to a sense of the binding character of their pledges by a hint that the recall would be put at work. 746 PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRACY may name in them its delegates to the National Convention, and at the same time may instruct such delegates for whom to vote. In 1911-1912 several States adopted this plan, while three others have an older and less satisfactory practice aiming at the same end. This, too, is plainly a reform destined for universal adoption within a few years. 469. Democracy in a Chosen Home. — There seems no better way to close this study in American democracy than to sum- marize recent progress in one of the forty-eight common- wealths. For this purpose, no other State is quite so fit as Oregon. In 1891 Oregon adopted the Australian ballot, not in the vicious New York form of that day, but in the best form, without any party designations whatever. In 1899 it supplemented this by an admirable registration law. In 1902 a vote of 62,000 to 6000 adopted the initiative and referen- dum as part of the State constitution. Then things began to move, most of the subsequent advances having been secured by these agencies, against the will of the bosses and the " inter- ests." In 1904 a direct primary law, proposed by the initia- tive, was carried by 56,000 to 16,000 — with application to all officers, from constable to the governor and the State supreme court, and, indirectly but effectively, to the United States Senators (§468). In 1905 the legislature, still con- trolled by the old bosses, refused to extend the initiative and referendum to city governments within the State, but the radicals took the measure to the people directly, and car- ried it by an overwhelming majority. In that session the legislature, under pressure of public opinion, passed an anti- pass law, to lessen the control of railroads over legislatures and courts. Because of certain suspected "jokers" and unsat- isfactory features, the radicals vetoed the law in a referendum vote, and the next year a better law was secured. The legis- lature, for two sessions, defeated bills for taxing gross in- comes of telegraph and telephone and express companies (having large revenues but little tangible property) ; but, by the initiative, the bills were carried (1905) by a vote of nearly AND THE COMMON LIFE 747 12 to 1. In 1906 the initiative secured two constitutional amendments, one providing home rule for cities, and the other placing the "recall" in the constitution, applicable to every public official in the State. A Corrupt Practices act, turned down by the legislature in 1907, was adopted promptly by the people. In 1908 an initiative amendment confirmed the pop- ular election of United States Senators. In 1910 the Presi- dential primary, and in 1912 woman suffrage were added to the constitution. With all this democracy, Oregon is one of the States grow- ing most rapidly in population and in property. That com- monwealth is a great object lesson to the world. Scholarly critics, with scrupulous academic honesty, point out many pos- sible abuses in the initiative and referendum, forgetting, it would seem sometimes, the certain and proven evils from their absence. In 1911 Woodrow Wilson, once a scholar only, now a practical statesman as well, advocated this " Oregon plan " for his own State. Taxed with inconsistency, — according to much of his earlier writings, — his sufficient reply as a statesman was : " Yes, for fifteen years I taught my classes that the ini- tiative and referendum would not work. I can prove it now. But the trouble is, they do work." This is Oregon's answer to her critics for the other features of her advanced democracy : It does ivork. Three centuries ago, Englishmen brought to our Atlantic coasts, in Virginia and in Massachusetts, a fosterling infant in swaddling clothes, — soon to grow into a strapping, troublesome youth, scolded and reviled under its abusive nickname DEMOCRACY. We, have followed its long march and its slow development, from stage to stage, throughout this United States, to the splendid vigor of robust and honored manhood in the far Pacific commonwealths. 470. Progressivism and the Common Life. — Outside the field of politics, but in close alliance, the spirit of progressiv- ism is finding many ways to make our common life more sweet and wholesome. To check various forms of social disease, — child labor, food adulteration, industrial injuries to workmen, 748 PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRACY and the like, — recourse has been taken to democratic politics as a matter of course. A newer development is a like recourse to check physical disease. Thus, in 1903, Dr. Charles W. Stiles, a scientist in the National Bureau of Animal Industry, an- nounced that a vast number of people in the South were suf- fering from the hookworm. This parasite, he proved, enters the body through the soles of the bare feet, common among the poorer classes in that region, and causes much of the de- plorable inefficiency and low vitality supposed formerly to be inherent in the " Poor Whites." The discovery was combated by shouts of ridicule at the "bug of laziness," and then by solemn protests from press and pulpit against so maligning the South and "hurting business." The early stages of the investigation had been assisted by benefactions from Mr. Rocke- feller. But now the statesmen-scientists, allied with the dis- coverer, went straight to the people most interested. A " campaign of education," with popular lectures and lantern slides, resulted in a tremendous uprising ; and multitudes of local units have taken up the great work of curing the disease, paying the cost out of local funds. In nine years some 150,000 recorded " cases " have been restored to a stronger and happier and more useful life, and the work is going on at a pace con- stantly accelerating. But, after all, the most significant thing about it is the way in which the movement has led to an ex- tension of the field of self-government. In like fashion com- munities throughout the land are fighting other physical plagues, such as tuberculosis, the fly, the mosquito. Even more significant are the community organizations, not to combat disease, but to secure positive advance physically and socially, — as in the playground movement, the social center movement, the extension of rural delivery, the estab- lishment of a parcels post. American democracy, not content to wait the imperfect atonement of philanthropic trust mag- nates in benefactions to schools and libraries and hospitals, is learning to trust itself for a steadier and more independent prog- ress toward a finer and higher life for all the people. AND THE COMMON LIFE 749 Exercise. — What is a political party for ? When ought a voter to leave his party ? When should he vote against some of its candidates ? What are the dates for elections in your State ? Does your city elect its government at the general or at separate city elections ? What are your laws as to (a) registration ; (b) election officers ; (c) canvassing the vote ? Have you the direct primary ? If so, to what officers does it apply ? What other democratic features named in §§ 459 ff . has your State ? Has your city a Home Rule charter ? If not, is the responsibility upon the city, in your case, or upon the legislature ? If you have a Home Rule charter, do you have the "commission form," or what form of city government ? Do you have the initiative, referendum, and recall in your city government ? It is desirable that large schools should conduct their school and class elections by the Australian ballot system, with preferential voting, to accustom students to the method. Explain the political terms — Stalwart, Mugwump, Standpatter, In- surgent, giving the origin and period of each. Make a list of ten other such terms for explanation by the class. Review the table of contents, to get the interrelation of the parts of the book. What theme sentences from the headings can you quote from APPENDIX I THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION (Recommended by the Philadelphia Convention to the States, Septem- ber 17, 1787 ; ratified by the ninth State, June 21, 1788 ; in effect, April 30, 1789"~(B210,212). The text is that authorized by the Department of State and printed in the Revised Statutes (1878), except for the footnote references and the brackets used in a few instances to inclose portions of the document no longer effective, and for the omission of numbers for the paragraphs. Interpolated explanatory matter is in the same type as this paragraph, and is placed within marks of parenthesis.) \ We the People 1 of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide f of the common defence, promote the general Welfare, 2 and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ARTICLE I Section i. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. 3 No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers [which shall be determined by adding to the iCf. § 211. 2 § 204 a. » Modified by the Fifteenth Amendment; and cf. § 209. 751 If 752 APPENDIX I whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years], and excluding Indians not taxed, [three fifths of all other Persons]. 1 The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. 2 The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, 3 but each State shall have at Least one Representative; [and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New- York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three ]. When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies. The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen [by the Legislature thereof,] 4 for six Years ; and each Senator shall have one Vote. «^- [Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the fi?st Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expira- tion of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year], so that one third may be chosen every second Year; 5 and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make tem- porary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies. ^ No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age 1 The abolition of slavery has rendered obsolete the clauses within brack- ets in this paragraph. 2 Cf. § 205 b. The first census was taken in 1790, the second year of the new government, and one has been taken in the closing year of each decade since. 3 The First Congress made the number 33,000. It is now (1911) 193,284. 4 Superseded by the Seventeenth Amendment. 5 Precedents for this principle of "partial renewals" were found in sevei'al State Constitutions. APPENDIX I 753 of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they 1 be equally divided. The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside : And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence, of two thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States : but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, v and Punishment, according to Law. Section 4. The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. 2 The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day. Section 5. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of 1 What is the antecedent ? 2 A law of 1872 requires all Representatives to he chosen on " the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November " in each even-numbered year; and a law of 1871 had already ordered that all such elections should he by ballot. An Act of 1866 provided a uniform method of electing Senators : the legisla- tion of each state (in which such an election is to be made) to vote first in separate Houses, and, if no one candidate received a majority in each House, then thereafter in joint session, taking at least one ballot daily until some candidate received a majority, or until the legislative session came to an end without an ejection. Forty-seven years later (1913), this law was superseded by the Seventeenth Amendment. 754 APPENDIX I absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide. Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal. Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sittings Section 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Com- pensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. 1 They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office. 2 Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections, to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall iHow does this compare with the rule of the Articles of Confederation? 2 This paragraph, designed to prevent corruption by direct use of the exec- utive patronage, was vehemently opposed by Hamilton and ' Gouverneur Morris. Cf . § 200. See also a similar clause in Articles of Confederation. APPENDIX I 755 likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent jts Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. 1 !The first veto provision in a State Constitution (New York, 1777) ran as follows : — " Section III. And whereas laws inconsistent with the spirit of this con- stitution, or with the public good, may be hastily and unadvisedly passed : Be it ordained that the governor for the time being, the chancellor, and the judges of the supreme court, or any two of them together with the governor, shall be and hereby are constituted a council to revise all bills about to be passed into laws by the legislature .... [Provision for veto procedure and reconsideration in language essentially the same as in Massachusetts provi- sion given below.] "And in order to prevent unnecessary delays, be it further ordained that if any bill shall not be returned by the council within ten days after it shall have been presented, the same shall be a law, unless the Legislature shall, by their adjournment, render a return of the said bill within ten days im- practicable ; in which case the bill shall be returned on the first day of the Legislature after the expiration of the ten days." The Veto Provision in Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 ran : — "Article II. No bill or resolve of the senate or house of representatives shall become a law, and have force as such, until it shall have been laid before the governor for his revisal ; and if he, upon such revision, approve thereof, he shall signify his approbation by signing the same. But if he have any objec- tion to the passing of such bill or resolve, he shall return the same, together with his objections thereto, in writing, to the senate or house of representa- tives, in whatsoever the same shall have originated, who shall enter the objec- tions sent down by the governor, at large, on their records, and proceed to reconsider the said bill or resolve ; but if after such reconsideration, two- thirds of the said senate or house of representatives shall, notwithstanding the objections, agree to pass the same, it shall, together with the objections, be sent to the other branch of the legislature, when it shall also be" reconsid- ered, and if approved by two-thirds of the members present, shall have the force of law ; but in all such cases, the vote of both houses shall be deter- mined by yeas and nays ; and the names of the persons voting for or against the said bill or resolve shall be entered upon the public records of the Com- monwealth. " And in order to prevent unnecessary delays, if any bill or resolve shall not 756 APPENDIX I Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and \ Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill. — ■'] Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; ! but all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the Credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, 2 and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; be returned by the governor within five days after it shall have been pre- sented, the same shall have the force of law." The Virginia Plan recommended essentially the New York method. The Massachusetts delegates at Philadelphia, however, contended strenuously for the plan in use in their State, and finally carried their point. The "pocket- veto " clause (the last provision of the text above) was original in the Federal Constitution. 1 Observe punctuation and paragraphing ; and see, for comment, § 204 a. 2 Citizenship, in practice, comes by birth or by admission by a court of record under authority of a law of Congress. Two classes of people are citi- zens by birth: (1) according to the Fourteenth Amendment, all who are born Avithin the limits of the United States (except children of official representa- tives of foreign states, of a foreign army occupying part of our territory) ; (2) according to a law of Congress, all who are born of parents who are Amer- ican citizens but who were temporarily residing abroad. No one not included in one of the above classes can become a citizen except by (1) a special Act of Congress, or (2) by admission by a court of record under authority of the general law passed by Congress. That law has varied from time to time (cf . index, for some of the more important variations) ; but the usual period of residence required for an alien, previous to admission, has been five years, — which is also the present requirement (1913) . The present law (passed in 1906) requires also a two-years' previous " notice of intention," and excludes all who cannot " speak " English (unless homesteaders), all polygamists, and all who disbelieve in " organized government." Some States, however, permit aliens to vote after receiving their "first papers," — i. e. after making the preliminary "declaration of intention" before a clerk of court. The final APPENDIX I 757 To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appoint- ment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress : To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of partic- ular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock- Yards, and other needful Buildings; — And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper x for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Depart- ment or Officer thereof. admission rests with a judge,— who may make his examination of the appli- cant rigid or a mere matter of form. The power has been sometimes abused for political purposes, both in excluding and in admitting unfit aliens. *For comment and reference, see §§ 204 b, 222, 280 b. Cf. also with enumer- ation of powers in Articles of Confederation. 758 APPENDIX I Section 9. [The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be pro- hibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. ] The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. No Capitation, or other direct, 1 Tax shall be laid, unless in Propor- tion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State. No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another. 2 No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States : And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the' Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. Section 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation ; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal ; coin Money ; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or. Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Im- posts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws : and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, 1 Modified, so far as "direct" income taxes are concerned, by the Six- teenth Amendment. 2 With what clause in Section 8 might this paragraph have been combined? APPENDIX I 759 or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. 1 (Exercise on Article One. — Are the names in Section I new in American history ? Can Congress constitutionally provide for woman suffrage by law ? If a Senator from your State were to die to-morrow, how would his place be filled ? Would it have been filled differently, if it had happened at any other time during the year ? How long would the new Senator keep his seat ? (The same questions as to a Representative. ) How many Representatives has your State ? When did it last gain or lose one ? How many has the largest State in the Union (cf. World Almanac)? How many has the smallest State ? Do you need a World Almanac to answer the last question ? Under what possible conditions can the pre- siding officer of the Senate vote even when there is no tie ? With what provision in Section 9 is the last paragraph of Section 3 logically connected ? If a Representative utters plain treason on the floor of the House, can he be punished ? How ? Commit to memory Section 8. Make two questions upon naturalization and citizenship, based upon the note on page 756. Write appropriate headings for each section ; i.e. for Section 8, "Powersof Congress.") ARTICLE H Section i. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the. United States, shall be appointed an Elector. [The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House 1 Additional prohibitions upon the States are contained in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, just as certain additional prohibitions upon Congress are contained in Amendments 1-8. Compare with Section 10 the summary of prohibitions upon the States in the Articles of Confederation. 760 APPENDIX I of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Elec- tors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from tlie five highest on -the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President. ] 1 The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation, or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. 2 1 Superseded by Twelfth Amendment, which might have been substituted for this paragraph in the body of the document. 2 In 1792 Congress provided that the president pro tern of the Senate should be next in succession, and after him the Speaker of the House. In 1886 (Jan. 19), this undesirable law was supplanted by a new one placing the succession (after the Vice President) in the following order : Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of War, Attorney General, Postmaster General, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the Interior. Cannot the student see on what ground these officers are named in this order? Cf. § 215 and note. This provides securely against any interregnum, and (what is almost as im- portant) against a transfer by accident to an opposite political party. APPENDIX I 761 The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Com- pensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them. 1 Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the fol- lowing Oath or Affirmation : — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, 2 and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shaffnominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, 3 shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Depart- ments. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Infor- 1 What is the antecedent of " them " ? The salary of George Washington was fixed by the First Congress at $25,000. This amount remained unchanged until 1871, when it was made $50,000. In 1909 the salary was raised to $75,000. Large allowances are made also, in these latter days, for expenses of various sorts, — one item of $25,000, for instance, for traveling expenses, — which is the reason the salary is commonly referred to as $100,000. 2 For the development of the " Cabinet," cf . § 215. 3 For different views, at the beginning of the government, as to this clause, and for the settlement in practice, see § 214. 762 APPENDIX I mation of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient ; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commis- sion all the Officers of the United States. Section 4. The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Mis- demeanours. ARTICLE m Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Com- pensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of tl^e United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Contro- versies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens or another State 1 ; — between Citizens of different States, — between Citizens of the same State claiming lands under Grants of different States,— and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Con- suls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by 1 Limited by the Eleventh Amendment to cases begun by a State as plaintiff. Cf. § 218. \ - ; APPENDIX I 763 » Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in * levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. ,W The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason^ but no attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. 1 (On the appellate jurisdiction, cf. §§ 207 a and 2^7. Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, still in force, defines that jurisdiction as follows : " And be it further enacted, That a final judgment or decree in any suit, in the highest court of law or equity of a State in which a decision in the suit could be had, when is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against their validity ; or when is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of such their validity ; or when is drawn in question the construction of any clause of the Con- stitution, or of a treaty, or statute of, or commission held under, the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege, or exemption, specially set up or claimed . . . under such clause of the said Constitution, treaty, statute, or commission, may be re-examined, and revised or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States upon \ a writ of error ..." On the establishment of "inferior courts," cf. § 217. Such courts at present (1913) are, from the bottom up : — 1. District Courts. Over ninety in 1911 ; the law of 1789 provided for thirteen. 2. Circuit Courts. Nine, each three justices. The first law, 1789, provided three circuit courts, but no special circuit judges ; a circuit court then consisted of a justice of the Supreme Court " or circuit " and one or more judges of district courts included within the circuit. This remained 1 The last thi-ee paragraphs of this section might have been included ad- vantageously in a " bill of rights." What preceding paragraphs might have been so disposed of? ,1 f \* *' t 7 pivrr 764 APPENDIX I the rule with a brief attempt at change in 1801, as described in § 240, until 1866, when separate circuit justices were provided. 3. Circuit Courts of Appeals: One for each of the nine circuits, com- posed of a justice of the Supreme Court and of other Federal judges — not less than three in all, and not including any justice from whose decision the appeal is taken. This order of courts was instituted in 1891, to relieve the Supreme Court which was then hopelessly overburdened with appeals from lower courts. In most cases, now, the decision of the circuit court of appeals is final. 4. The Supreme Court. One Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. Its business now is confined very largely to those supremely important matters specified in the Constitution and in the law of 1789 quoted above. There are also three special courts, somewhat outside this system : (1) the Federal Court of Claims, to determine money claims against the United States,^established in 1855 ; (2) Court of Customs Appeals, established in 1909 ; and (3) the CommerceTCourt, created in 1910, to revise the work of the Interstate Commerce Commission.) ARTICLE IV Section i. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Section 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privi- leges and immunities of Citizens in the several States. 1 A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime. [No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due]. 2 Section 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Juris- diction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of 1 Extended by Fourteenth Amendment. 2 Superseded by Thirteenth Amendment so far as it relates te slaves. APPENDIX I 765 two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legis- latures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to 1 the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. ARTICLE V 2 The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided [that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and] that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. ARTICLE VI All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, 1 On the significance of this language as to Territory, cf . § 260 c. 2 Article V, as far as to the brackets, should be committed to memory. Note the four varieties of amendment provided. Only one has ever been used (1913). Congress has always proposed, and State legislatures ratified. On the amending clause in general, cf . index. 766 APPENDIX I any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 1 The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Mem- bers of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be require^ as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. ARTICLE VII The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratify- ing the Same. {Exercise. — Write headings for each Article in the Constitution. Re- state Sections 1 and 2 of Article IV in form appropriate for insertion in Section 10 of Article I. Cf. with corresponding provisions in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the New England Confederation {Source Book, if accessible). Can you restate Sections 3 and 4 so as to fit them for insertion under any preceding Article ? Observe that Articles I, II, III, and V give the framework. Article VII, highly important at the time, was temporary only in significance. ) AMENDMENTS [i] 2 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I ^ ' ' ' ' 1 On the history of this clause, cf . § 207 a. 2 Originally, the first twelve amendments were not numbered in the official manuscripts. APPENDIX I 767 [Hi] No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, with- out the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by Law. [iv] The right of the people to be se^ire in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, sup- ported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. M v No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infa- mous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [vi] In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. [vii] In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 768 APPENDIX I [ix] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [x] 1 The powers not delegated to the Ignited States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people. [xi] 2 The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. [xii] 3 The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for Presi- dent, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from 1 These first ten amendments were in force after November 3, 1791. Cf. comment in § 216. They are usually referred to as the Bill of Rights. It is a suggestive exercise to rewrite the "hill of rights," incorporating all those features of that character which are included in the body of the Constitution. 2 Proclaimed to be in force Jan. 8, 1798. For the history, cf. § 217. 3 Proclaimed in force Sept. 25, 1804. Cf. § 241. APPENDIX I 769 each State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. — The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice President, shall be the Vice President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice President ; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of Presi- dent shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States. [xiii] 1 Section i. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their juris- diction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. [xiv] 2 Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole num- ber of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, 1 Proclaimed in force Dec. 18, 1865. On Amendments Thirteen to Fifteen inclusive, cf . §§ 377, 385 ff. 2 Proclaimed in force July 28, 1868. 770 APPENDIX I the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the pro- portion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty one years of age in such State. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitu- tion of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two- thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emanci- pation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. [XV] 1 Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. 1 Proclaimed in force March 30, 1870. 2 Ratified in 1913, while these pages were at press. APPENDIX I 771 [xviij » The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof for six years ; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of elec- tion to fill such vacancies : Provided, that the Legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. « f 1 Ratified in 1913, while these pages were at press. APPENDIX II A SELECT LIBRARY ON AMERICAN HISTORY Adams (Brooks). Emancipation of Massachusetts (an anti-Puritan account of the overthrow of Puritan theocracy). Houghton. $1.50. Adams (Henry). History of the United States in the Administration of Jefferson. (This is part of a larger work continuing the story to 1824. In all there are nine volumes. Volumes I and II ($2.00 each) may profit- ably be used by students.) Scribner. Adams and Sumner. Labor Problems. Macmillan. $1.50. Andrews (C. M.). Colonial Self-government. (American Nation Series.) Harpers. $2.00. The Colonial Period. (Home University Library.) Holt. $.50. Babcock (K. C). Rise of American Nationality. (American Nation Series.) Harpers. $2.00. Baldwin (S. E.). American Judiciary. (American State Series.) Century. $1.25. Bassett (J. S.). The Federalist System. (American Nation Series.) Harp- ers. $2.00. Bourne (E. G.). Spain in America. (American Nation Series.) Harpers. $2.00. Bradford (William). History of Plymouth Plantation. (Original Narrative Series.) Scribner. $3.00. Brown (W. G.). Andrew Jackson. Houghton. $.50. Browne (W.H.). Maryland. (American Commonwealth Series.) Houghton. $1.50. Bruce (Philip A.). Social Life of Virginia in Seventeenth Century. (Rich- mond). $1.50. Bryce (James). The American Commonwealth. 2 vols. Macmillan. $4.00. Channing (Edward). The Jeffersouian System. (American Nation Series.) Harpers. $2.00. History of the United States. (Three volumes ready, through the Revo- lution.) Macmillan. $2.50 a volume. 772 APPENDIX II 773 Cheyney (E.P.). European Background for American History. (American Nation Series.) Harpers. $2.00. Commons (John R.), editor. Documentary History of American Industrial Society. 10 vols. A. H. Clark. $50.00. editor. Trade Unionism and Labor Problems. Ginn. $2.40. Cooley (T. M.). Michigan. (American Commonwealth Series.) Houghton. $1.25. Dewey (Davis Rich) . National Problems. (American Nation Series.) Har- pers. $2.00. Dodge (T. A.). Bird's-eye View of our Civil War. Houghton. $1.00. Dunn (J. P.). Indiana. (American Commonwealth Series.) Houghton. $1.50. Dunning (W. A.). Reconstruction. (American Nation Series.) Harpers. $2.00. Earle (Alice Morse) . Customs and Fashions in Old New England. Houghton. $1.50. Eggleston (Edward). Beginners of a Nation. Appleton. $2.00. Eggleston (G. C). A Rebel's Recollections. Putnam. $1.00. Farrand (Livingston) . Basis of American History. (American Nation Series.) Harpers. $2.00. Farrand (Max), editor. Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. 3 vols. Yale University Press. $15.00. Fiske (John). Discovery of America. 2 vols. Houghton. $4.00. Old Virginia and her Neighbors. 2 vols. Houghton. $4.00. American Revolution. 2 vols. Houghton. $4.00. The Critical Period. Houghton. $2.00. Ford (H. J.). American Politics. Macmillan. Garrison (G. P.). Westward Extension. (American Nation Series.) Har- pers. $2.00. . Greene (E. B.). Provincial America. (American Nation Series.) Harpers. $2.00. Hart (A. B.) . American History Told by Contemporaries. 4 vols. Macmil- lan. $6.00. Slavery and Abolition. (American Nation Series.) Harpers. $2.00. The Southern South. Appleton. $1.50. Haworth (P. L.). Reconstruction and Union. (Home University Library.) Holt. $.50. Hosmer (James K.). Samuel Adams. (American Statesman Series.) Houghton. $1.50. 774 APPENDIX II Howard (G. E.). Preliminaries of the Revolution. (American Nation Series.) Harpers. $2.00. Howe (P. C). The City the Hope of Democracy. Scribners. $1.50. Lee (Robert E.). Recollections and Letters of General Robert E. Lee. Doubleday. $2.50. Lodge (Henry Cabot). George Washington. (American Statesman Series.) 2 vols. Houghton. $3.00. Daniel Webster. (American Statesman Series.) Houghton. $1.50. McDonald (William). Select Documents illustrative of the History of the United States, 1776-1861. Macmillan. $1.50. Jacksonian Democracy. (American Nation Series.) Harpers. $2.00. McLaughlin (Andrew C .) . Confederation and Constit ution . (American Nation Series.) Harpers. $2.00. Morse (J. Torrey, Jr.). John Adams. (American Statesman Series.) Houghton. $1.50. John Quincy Adams. (American Statesman Series.) Houghton. $1.50. Abraham Lincoln. (American Statesman Series.) 2 vols. Houghton. $3.00. Munroe (William B.). Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Appleton. $1.50. Page (Thomas Nelson). The Old South. Scribner. $1.25. Parkman (Francis). Half-Century of Conflict. 2 vols. Little, Brown, & Co. $3.00. Montcalm and Wolfe. 2 vols. Little, Brown, & Co. $3.00. Conspiracy of Pontiac. Dutton. 2 vols. Each $.35. Paxson (F. L.). The Civil War (1854-1865). (Home University Library.) Holt. $.50. Price (Overton). The Land We Live In ("Boys' Book of Conservation"). Small, Maynard & Co. $1.50. Rhodes (J. P.). History of the United States after 1850. 7 vols. Macmillan. $17.50. Ripley (W. Z.). Railway Problems. Ginn. $2.25. Roosevelt (Theodore). Thomas Benton. (American Statesman Series.) Houghton. $1.50. Gouverneur Morris. (American Statesman Series.) Houghton. $1.50. Winning of the West. 6 vols. Putnam. $3.00. Schouler (James). Thomas Jefferson. (Makers of America Series.) Dodd. $1.00. Schurz (Carl) . Henry Clay. (American Statesman Series.) Houghton. $1.50. APPENDIX II 775 Shaler (N. S.). Kentucky. (American Commonwealth Series.) Houghton. $1.50. Sparks (E.E.). National Development. (American Nation Series.) Harpers. $2.00. Spring (L. W.). Kansas. (American Commonwealth Series.) Houghton. $1.50. Steiner (E. A.) . On the Trail of the Emigrant. Revell. $1.50. Straus (O. S.). Roger Williams. (Makers of America Series.) Century. $1.00. Tarbell (Ida M.) . History of the Standard Oil Company. 2 vols. Macmillan. $5.00. Thwaites (R. G.). France in America. (American Nation Series.) Harpers. $2.00. Tocqueville (Alexis de). Democracy in America. Barnes. $2.50. Turner (Frederic J.). Rise of the New West. (American Nation Series.) Harpers. $2.00. Twichell (John). John Winthrop. (Makers of America Series.) Century. $1.00. Von Hoist (H. E.). John C. Calhoun. (American Statesman Series.) Houghton. $1.50. Walker (Francis A.) . Making of the Nation. Scribner. $1.00. Washington (Booker T.). Story of the Negro. 2 vols. Doubleday. $3.00. West (W. M.), editor. Source Book in American History, to 1789. Allyn and Bacon. $1.50. Wilcox (DelosF.). The American City : a Problem in Democracy. Macmillan. $1.50. Wilson (Woodrow). Congressional Government. Houghton. $1.25. Division and Reunion. Longmans. $1.25. Winthrop (John). History of New England. (Original Narrative Series.) 2 vols. Scribner. $6.00. Woodburn (J. A.), editor. Lecky's American Revolution. Appleton. $1.00. Zeublin (Charles) . American Municipal Progress. Macmillan. $1.50. ILLUSTRATIVE FICTION Austin (Jane G.). Standish of Standish. Houghton. $1.25. Avary (M. L.). A Virginia Girl in the Civil War. Appleton. $1.25. Eggleston and Seelye. Pocahontas. Dodd. $1.25. Foote (Mary Hallock). Cceur d'Alene. Houghton. $1.25. 776 APPENDIX II Johnston (Mary). To Have and to Hold. Houghton. $1.50. Prisoners of Hope. Houghton. $1.50. Kingsley (Charles) . Westwood Ho. (Everyman's Library.) Dutton. $.35. Larcom (Lucy). A New England Girlhood. Houghton. $.60. Norris (Frank). The Octopus. Grosset. $.75. The Pit. Grosset. $.50. Page (T.N.) . Red Rock. Scribner. $1.50. Among the Camps. Scribner. $1.50. Stimson (F.J.). King Noanett. Scribner. $1.00. White (Stewart Edward). The Rive rm an. Doubleday. $1.35. The Rules of the Game. Doubleday. $1.40. White (William Allen) . A Certain Rich Man. Macmillan. $1.50. INDEX References are to sections Abolitionists. See Slavery. Adams, Charles Francis, and Eng- land, regarding the Alabama, 379. Adams, John, on Otis' speech, 129; on causes of Revolution, 133, note ; defends British soldiers after Boston Massacre, 139, note ; on Con- tinental Congress, 141 ; on July 2, 1776, 150; and State constitutions, 153, note ; and treaty of 1763, 162 ; on States and Declaration of Inde- pendence, 187 (Exercise) ; and peace negotiations, 162; Vice President, 212 ; affection for monarchic forms, 213 and note; President, 227; on origin of caucus, 227; on party government, 228, note ; French troubles, 234, 235; Fries Rebellion, 235; defeated for reelection, 239; "midnight judges," 240; and civil service, 255, note; opposes man- hood suffrage, 299. Adams, John Quincy, and claims for Oregon, 276; and Monroe Doc- trine, 277; President. 281; "Old Man Eloquent," the " right of petition," 337. Adams, Samuel, and town meeting and committees of correspondence, 140; on the Constitution, 211. Addison, Justice, denunciation of democracy, 256. Admistrations, 1877-1913 (table of), 414. Agassiz, 295. Agriculture, deficient in French colonies, 14 a; in English colo- nies, 124; about 1800, 251 b ; and inventions, 298, and transpor- tation, 175, 273, 298, 363. Aguinaldo, 439. Alabama claims, 379. See Arbitra- tion. Alaska, 393 a, 436. Alden, John, 54. Algonkins, 5. Alien and Sedition Acts, 236, 238. Altgeld, Governor, 446 b. Amending- clauses in constitu- tions, in Penn's charter to Penn- sylvania, 1701 ; in Revolutionary State constitutions, 155 ; in Articles of Confederation, 196; in Federal Constitution, 204, close, and note, and 242. Amendments to Constitution, general discussion, 242. See Bill of Rights, and by numbers, and also Amending Clauses. American Colonization Society, 330. American Federation of Labor, 445. Ames, Fisher, on Democracy, 229. Andros, Sir Edmund, 93 a, 100. Angel, James B., on the South in 1850, 334, note. Annapolis Convention, 199. Antietam, 374. Antifederalists, name, 210, note. Anti-Masonic Party, 310. Anti-rent riots in New York, 322 a. Anti-trust Act (The Sherman) , 410 ; amended by Supreme Court, ib. Appalachians, effect on early settle- ment, 4 b. Appeals (from colonial courts to England), 99, 101, 109, and note. Appellate jurisdiction, explained, 79; in Massachusetts colony, ib. (see Appeals to England) ; of Su- preme Court, 207, 217 c ; upheld by court, 280 ; attempt to repeal, 280 b. Ill 778 INDEX References are to sections Arbitration, in Jay Treaty, 232; in Pinckney Treaty, 231, note; Alabama claims, 393 b ; Vancouver Straits, ib., note; Venezuela, 433; proposals for general arbitration treaties, 433. Archibald (Justice), impeachment, 256, note. Arizona, and the recall, 405, 463. Arthur, Chester A., and civil serv- ice reform, 418. Articles of Confederation, 179, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192; defects, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198; attempts to amend, 196. Astoria, 262. Attainder, bill of, 159, note. Audubon, 295. Australian ballot, 460. Avalon, Province of, and charter, 38. Bacon, Francis, 17 c, note. Bacon's Laws (in Virginia), 105, 106. Bacon's Rebellion, 93 c, 104. Ballinger, Richard, 456. Ballot, use of in London Company in England, 32; in early Massa- chusetts, 63 and note ; adopted by law in Massachusetts, 66 a; de- velopment, 77; adopted for local elections in the colony, 77 ; its two democratic purposes, 77. See Australian ballot. Baltimore. See Calvert. Baptists, in New England, 121 c. Benton, Thomas, on need of West- ern influence in the government, 276. Berger, Victor, 452. Berkeley, Sir William, 34, 36, 37, 103-105; on schools, 122. Bicameral legislatures, demanded in Maryland colony, 41; evolution in Massachusetts, 66-69; "then and now," 70; in Revolutionary States, 153. "Big- Business," 407 ff . ; immoral methods, 407 ; consolidation, 408 ; control of news agencies, 412; ex- tent and danger, ib. ; and campaign funds, 413, 420; and tariff bills, 422, 423, 424, 458; and panic of 1907, 454, and Senator Lorimer, 468. See Trusts, and individual trusts by name. Bill of Rights, the (first ten amend- ments)^^. Bills of Rights (State), in First Virginia Constitution, 149; in other Revolutionary constitutions, 153; in Northwest Ordinance, 182; wanting in the Constitution, 210; supplied by first ten amendments, 216. Black Belt, the (after 1815), 272. Black Hawk War, 308, note. Blackstone, William, 45. Blaine, James G., attempts for presidential nomination, 389, 419; Credit Mobilier scandal, 389, note; and the tariff, 420; " reciprocity," 422 ; Secretary of State, 431 ; Pan- American Congress, ib. Blockade, discussed, 231 c and note; in European wars, 1793-1815, ib. ; in Civil War, 374. Blue Laws, in early Virginia, 26, 29; in colonies in general, 120. — > Board of Trade (English), 95 and note ; attempts to strengthen royal control over colonies, 117. Body of Liberties, the, 81. Bonaparte, Napoleon, makes peace with America, 234; forces all "Louisiana" on American nego- tiators, 259; decrees as to com- merce, 266. Boone, Daniel, Scotch Irish, 112; in Kentucky, 168-170. "Boss" (in politics), 325, 326. See "Big Business." Boston, founded, 60, note; first town school, 123; " tea party, " 141. " Boston Massacre," 139. Bowdoin, Governor, 111, note. Bradford, William, historian of Plymouth, 47 and note, 48-52, 55; Governor, 52, 53 ; Plymouth charter of 1630, 55; on Roger Williams, 84 and note. r. INDEX References are to sections 779 Brewster, William, 47, 49. Bristow, Benjamin H., 389. Brooke, Lord, on religious freedom, 84. Brook Farm, 297. Brown, John, 351, 356. Brown University, 122, note. Bryan, William J., champion of the people, 430 and passim; nominated for presidency, 430, 435, 455; in Democratic Convention of 1912, 458. Bryant, William Cullen, 295. Bryce, James, on amendment of American Constitution by stretch- ing it, 204, note. Buchanan, James, " Ostend Mani- festo," 342; presidency, 352 ff . ; veto of homestead bill, 307; mes- sage on secession, 372; supports the Union when out of office, 372. Bull Run, Battle of, 374. Bureau of Corporations, 411. Burgoyne's Invasion, 158. Burke, Edmund, on colonies and the British empire, 135. Burke, William, advises return of Canada to France, 127. Burnet (English Governor), quarrel with Massachusetts over fixed salary, 117 and note. Burr, Aaron, 239, 241. Butler, Benjamin F., 377. Cabinet, the, evolution and history, 215. Cabot, George, distrust of de- mocracy, 229. Cahokia, 162. Calhoun, John C, a " Warhawk," 267 ; urges internal improvements (1816) on basis of "general wel- fare" clause, 278; protectionist in 1816, 279 ; theory of nullification (against protection), 305; Com- promise of 1833, 307 ; and theory of slavery in the Territories, 344; and Compromise of 1850, 347. California, acquired, 341; Spanish civilization in, 344; discovery of gold, ib., and the vigilantes, 346; a "free State," 347 ; and the Southern Pacific, 411, 459; and the recall, 463. California vs. Southern Pacific (Case of), 411. Calvert, Cecelius (Second Lord Baltimore) , 39. Calvert, George (Lord Baltimore), 2,38. Calvin, John, denounces democracy, 62; political teacher of the Puri- tans, ib. Cambridge Agreement, the, 59. Campaign funds, and " big busi- ness," 413, 462; and office holders, 416, 418 ; and Garfield, 417, note ; publicity of, 462. Canning, George, and Monroe Doc- trine, 277. Cannon, Joseph, 328, note. Carolinas, the, founded, 94, 117, 124. Carpet-baggers, 387, 388. Carver, John, 51, 53. Caucus, origin, 227; congressional, for nomination of presidents, 227, 281 ; weak points, 310 and note ; and control of committees and leg- islation, 328 and note. See Nomi- nations. 11 Cavalier Assembly," the, 103. Cavaliers, the, 102, 103. Champlain, 10-12. Charming, Edward (quoted), on War of 1812, 266, note ; on life ten- ure of judiciary, 207 ; on impeach- ment of Justice Chase, 256. Channing, William Ellery, and Unitarianism, 295; abolitionist, 335; " higher law," 347, note. Charles I, 34, 38, 39, 45, 57. Charles II, 95, 97-99. Charters, colonial, 20 ; Raleigh's, 21 ; Virginia, 22, 25, 26, 32; Maryland (and Avalon and others), 31, 32; New England Council, 45; Massa- chusetts Bay, 57; Rhode Island and Connecticut, 98; Province of Massachusetts, 101 ; Pennsylvania, 109, 110. See special colonies by name for proprietary grants. 780 INDEX References are to sections Charter colonies (value of the dis- tinction), 117. , Chase, Salmon P., why an abolition- ist, 338; secretary of the treasury, 376; Chief Justice, on Legal Ten- der Act, 390; on "packing" of Supreme Court, ib. Chase, Samuel (Justice of Supreme Court), on Declaration of Inde- pendence and State sovereignty, 187, note; partisan condemnation of democracy, 256 and note; fail- ure of impeachment, 256. Chattanooga, battle of, 374. "Checks and balances," 70; in constitution, 207 b. Cherokees, 5 b. Child labor, in 1830, 288 ; regulation after 1870, 450 e; unregulated in the South, ib., and note. Children's Bureau, 450. China, and the United States, 440. Chisholm vs. Georgia, 218. Cities, growth of. See Population. Civil Service, under Washington and Adams, 255; Jefferson and, 255; J. Q. Adams, 302; Crawford's four-year bill, ib. ; spoils system, 302, 325; under Lincoln, 371; re- form, 389, 415, 417, 418, 421. Civil War, the (see Slavery and State Sovereignty for causes), secession of South Carolina and first tier of slave states, 368 ; inde- cision at North, 370; call to arms and national uprising, 372; seces- sion of second tier of Slave States, 372; Border States saved, ib. ; campaigns, 374 ; blockade, ib. ; forces, 367, 375; Southern heroism, 375 ; prisoners in, 375 and note ; draft, ib. ; Northern " prosperity " in, 375; war finance, 376; cost falls on the poor, ib.; slavery in, 377; foreign relations and, 378; and personal liberty at the North, 379 ; cost, 380 ; results, 380. Clark, Champ, 328, note. Clark, George Rogers, 162, 175, 176. Clay, Henry, a "Warhawk," 267, 268; protectionist, 279; nominee for presidency, 281 ; duel with Randolph, ib., note; and Missouri compromise, 283 ; and compromise of 1833, 307 ; and Jackson and the bank, 309; and public domain, 316; speaker, 328; and slavery, 330, note, and ff. ; compromise of 1850, 347. " Clermont," the, 264. Cleveland, Grover, election to presidency, 419; and civil service, ib. ; commits party to tariff reform, 420 ff. ; and private pension bills, 422 , and veto power, 422 and note ; second administration 423 ff. ; and Wilson tariff, 423 ; and bond issues, 428; alienates radicals, 430; and Hawaii, 432; and Venezuelan arbi- tration, 433; and Pullman strike, 446 6. Clinton, DeWitt, 272 c. " Closed shop," 448. Coal strike (1902), 446 c. Cohens vs. Virginia, 280 b. Colonial Assemblies (see sepa- rate colonies), gains in 1690-1760, 119. Colonial history, to 1690 (see Vir- ginia, New England, and separate colonies for 1690-1760), 115-119. Colonial industries, 124. "Colonialism," 230. Columbia River, discovery, 262. Columbus, Christopher, 9, 17. Committees of Correspondence (Revolutionary) , 140. Commerce, colonial, 124; and navi- gation acts (which see) ; in Euro- pean wars of 1793 ff ., 231 ; in 1800, 247, 248; in 1830, 298, 362, 363, 364. Commission government, for cities, 466. Committee of the Whole, ex- plained, 202, note. Common Law, the, in colonial char- ters, 22 a ; restored in Virginia by Yeardley, 28 6 ; in colonial usage, INDEX 781 References are to sections 119 ; in Revolutionary State consti- tutions, 153; and labor organiza- tions in the thirties, 289 ; and Work- ingmen's Compensation Acts, 450 g. Commons, John R., quoted, 294. Commonwealth (the English), ef- fect on colonies, 37. Communication, means of, colonial, 124; in 1800, 247 (see Railroad, Steamboat, Telegraph) ; in the fif- ties, 363, ,364. Communism, attempts at, 297. Not in early Virginia or Plymouth, 23, 52. Compromises, the Great, in Con- stitution, 203, 205, 206; of 1820, 283; of 1833, 307; of 1850, 347. Conant, Roger, 56, 57. Concord, battle of, 144. Congregationalism, disestablished in New England, 295, 299. Congressional caucus. See Cau- cus. Congressional committees, 328. See Speaker. Connecticut, democracy, 85, 87; Fundamental Orders, 88; and the- ocracy, 89; in New England Fed- eration, 90-92; charter of 1662, 98 ; and royal control of militia, 117; Congregationalism disestablished , 299. Connecticut Compromise, the, 203. " Conservation," 454. " Constellation," the, and the Ven- geance, 234. Constitution, the Federal, new type of government, 198, 201 ; the making (see Philadelphia Conven- tion) , compromises in (which see) ; enumerated powers, 203 ; judiciary, 207 ; electoral college, 208 ; undem- ocratic features, 202, 207 c; fran- chise in, 209 ; ratification, 210, 211 ; "We, the people," 211; and first elections, 212; and the Cabinet, 215; and the Territories, 260 and passim,; and slavery (which see). See Amendments. Document in Appendix. Continental Congress, first, 141; second, 144 ff . ; weakness, 157, 188- 190; and papter money, 160; ex- pires, 212, note. Continental currency. See Paper money. Continental debt, 189, 219, 220. Contraband of War, 231 c and note. " Contrabands," 377. " Contract," Inviolability of, and Dartmouth College case, 207 and note. "Convention" of 1818, with Eng- land, 274. Conway Cabal, 158. Cooley, Justice, on State govern- ments, 204, note. Cooper, James Fenimore, 295. " Copperheads," 379. Corporate colony, Plymouth, 52; Massachusetts, 56, 64; Rhode Island and Connecticut, 98. Corrupt Practices Acts, 462. Cotton, before and after the cotton gin, 248; in Civil War, 374. Cotton gin, 248. Cotton, John, denounces democracy, 62, 63 ; presents undesirable laws, 81. County, the, beginnings of in Massa- chusetts, 79 ; more fundamental in Virginia, 103, 104. See Local Government. Court of Appeals (Federal), 410, note. Court of Claims (State) , 218. Court of Commerce, 403. Courts. See Judiciary. Cowpens, battle of, 159. Coxey's "Army," 430, 446a. Cradock, Mathew, 59, 61. Crawford, W. H., 302. " Credit Mobilier," 389. Crisis (financial) . See Panic. Cuba, 342, 434, 437. Cumberland settlements, 172. Cutler, Manesseh, 182. Dale, Sir Thomas, in Virginia, 26; enthusiasm for the colony, 17 a, note, 26, note. 782 INDEX References are to sections Dale's Code, 26. Dana, Chief Justice of Massachusetts, partisan denunciation of democ- racy, 256. Dartmouth College Case, 208, 288. Davis, Jefferson, 112, note, 272, 368, 369. DeBow's Review, quoted on Nor- thern " labor slavery," 334. Declaration of Independence, 147-150 ; and the States, 187. Delaware, 94, 109. Democracy, at Plymouth, inciden- tal, 54; distrusted by Puritan leaders, 62, 63; growth in the Revolution, 137 c; and Revolu- tionary State constitutions, 153- 155; distrusted in Philadelphia Convention of 1787, 200 ff., esp., 205, 207 c, 208, 209 ; struggle for in Washington's administration, 213 Federalist fear of, after 1800, 229 aided by growth of the West, 244 and Jeffersonian Republicanism, 252, 254 ; denounced by Federalist courts, 256, note; and the New West of 1830, 286 ; and the early labor movement of the thirties, 289 ff. ; and the intellectual ferment of the thirties, 295 ; extension of franchise after 1820, 299; State movements about 1840, 322; new political machinery in the Jackson era, 323-328 ; and Special Privilege, 394-470 ; better political machinery as a means, 459-469. Democratic party, origin, 310; unit rule, 323. See passim. Dennie's Portfolio, denounces de- mocracy, 229. Departments of State, Treasury, etc., 215 and note. Dewey, Admiral George, at Ma- nila, 434. Dickinson, John, opposes Declara- tion of Independence, 150; in Philadelphia Convention distrusts democracy, 200; desires limita- tion of franchise to freeholders, 209. Direct legislation, 464. See Refer- endum. Direct Primaries, 324, 468. Disarmament on the Lakes, by Convention of 1817, 274. "Distribution of the Surplus" in 1835, 312. Domestic system of manufac- tures, 248. Dorchester, 60, note ; initiates town government, 71; migration to Con- necticut, 87; code of school law, 123, note. Dorchester Company, colony at Cape Ann, 56; reorganized as Massachusetts Bay Company, 57. Dorr, Thomas Wilson, martyr to democracy, 322 6. Doug-las, Stephen A., Kansas- Nebraska bill, 350; debates with Lincoln: forced to deny principle of Dred Scott decision, 355 ; saves Kansas from pro-slavery fraud, 357 ; candidate for presidency, 358, 360; supports the government in 1861, 372. Draft riots in Civil War, 375. Drake, Francis, 17, 18, 21. Dred Scott Case, 353-357. Ducking- Stool, 120. Dunmore, Governor of Virginia, 145. Dutch settlements, 90, 92, 107, 108. D wight, Theodore, denounces de- mocracy, 229. East Florida, 162, note, and map. Education, in the colonies, 122, 123; in 1800, 250; and child labor in first half of 19th century, 288; "free schools " vs. pauper schools, and labor organizations, 293; ad- vance in second third of 19th century, 295. Edwards, Jonathan, 121c. Eight-hour day, 450 b. Elections. See Presidential elec- tions. Electoral Commission of 1877, 389. Eleventh Amendment, 218. INDEX 783 References are to sections Ellsworth, Oliver, 203, 204, note. Emancipation. See Slavery. Emancipation Proclamation, 377. Embargo of 1807, 206; and New England nullification movement, 269. Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 295, 296, 297. Endicott, John, 57, 80, 84. England, colonial policy : contrasted with France, 16; motives, 17, 18; cost, 19; the crown and, 20; char- ters, 20; rights of colonists, 22c ; first colonial department, 93, 95; commercial policy, 96 ; attempts at colonial consolidation, 100, 101; English colonists become colonial Americans, 113; royal governors, 118 ; and separation from America, see Revolution ; and foreign slave trade, 331 ; and the Civil War, 378, and note; Venezuela arbitration, 433 ; friendly feeling for America, 433. Entail, 124, note; abolished in Vir- ginia, 252. Episcopal Church, 44, 100, 121c; and the Revolution, 133. " Era of Good Feeling," 281. Ericsson, John, 374. Erie Canal, 272 c. Erie, Lake, exclusion of French ex- plorers from, 13 d. Evans, Frederick W., 289. Evans, George Henry, 289. Evans, Oliver, 264. Everett, Edward, 295. Expansion. See Territorial growth. Factory Acts, 450/. Fall Line, the, 112. Faneuil, Peter, 111, note. Fanning, Edward, and the Regu- lators, 137, note. Farm tools of 1800, 249. Farmers' Alliance, 427. Federal government, types of, 197, 198. Federalist party of 1787-1789, 210, 212. Federalist party of 1792 and after, 226 ff . ; distrust of democ- racy, 229; revived by "war with France," 234; and Alien and Sedition Acts, 236; overthrow, 238; desperate methods in 1800, 239; attempts on Judiciary and presidency, 240-241 ; opposed to Louisiana Purchase, 260; revived by embargo of 1807, 266 ; in 1812, 267 ; in War of 1812, 268-270 ; dis- appearance, 270, 281. Fifteenth Amendment, 385. Filibustering (in legislative bodies), 328. Fisheries, in early colonial history, 21, 56; expected source of wealth in New England, 52; and treaty of 1783, 162; after War of 1812, 275. Fiske, James, 389. Fitch, John, 264. Flatboat trade, 175, 263, 272 c. Florida, boundary fixed by Pinckney treaty, 233. Foote Resolution, the, 305, 369. See Slavery. Foreign slave trade, prohibited in constitution of Southern Con- federacy, 369. Fourteenth Amendment, 385; in practice, 391 ; converted into shield for " big business," 411. Fox, Charles, 136, 162. France, in America, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16; contrast with English colonial system, 114 ; cedes Canada, 114; and Louisiana to Spain, 114; ally of America in Revolution, 158; desires to limit American territory at the peace, 162; troubles of 1792-1815, 230 ff . ; "war" of 1797, 234; secures Louisiana again, 259; cedes to America, ib. ; relations with America from 1800 to 1812, 266 ; in Civil War, 378 ; and Mexico, 393. Franchise, colonial: Virginia, 103 and note, 106, 107; Massachusetts, 65; Connecticut, 88. In early State constitutions, gradations, 784 INDEX References are to sections 154; in Vermont, 154, note; in Watauga, 167; in Cumberland settlements, 172; in Federal Con- stitution, 209; extension after 1790, 256; after 1820, 299. See Woman Suffrage. Franklin, Benjamin, on English navigation laws, 116 ; and Univer- sity of Pennsylvania, 122, note ; subscription library, 122; colonial .agent, 130; and theory of "per- sonal" union with England, 134; on the Stamp Act, 138 and note; rejects idea of independence in March of 1775, 146; befriends Thomas Paine, 146, note ; minister to France, 158 ; in negotiations for peace, 162; in Philadelphia Con- vention, 200. Freedman's Bureau, 381, 385. Free land, 251 a ; disappearance, one cause of social unrest, 444 a. Free press, denied in early Massa- chusetts, 68; vindicated in the Zenger case in colonial New York, 119. See Alien and Sedition Acts. "Free Silver," 425; the "crime of '73," 425 ; Bland Act, 426 and note ; and the Populists, 427; Sherman Act, 428; and election of 1896, 430 ; in 1900, 435 ; question disap- pears, 436. Free Soil Party, the, 345. Free speech, threatened by recent police methods, 435. See Alien and Sedition Laws. "Freeman," in Maryland, 39 and note ; in Massachusetts, 62 ff. Freemont, John C, 352. French Spoliation Claims, 234, note. Friends, Society of. See Quakers. Fries' Rebellion, 235. Frontenac, 15. Frontier, accentuates traits, 14; the successive, in American colonial history, 112, 185. See The West. Fulton, Robert, 264. Fundamental Orders, of Connect- icut, 88. Fur trade, in early New England, 52, 56 ; and Astor, 248. Gadsen, Christopher, advocates in- dependence, vainly, in February of 1776, 146. Gadsen purchase, the, 342. Gag rules, in Congress, 337 b. Gage, royal governor of Massa- chusetts, gives precedent for anarchy, 142. Gallatin, Albert, 252 and note; civil service principles, 255 and note; and internal improvements, 265 and note. Garfield, James A., election to presidency, 416 ; and the spoilsmen, 417. Garrison, William Lloyd, 335, 336. Gaspee, burning of, the signal for in- tercolonial committees, 140. General search warrants, 129; Otis' argument, ib.; in Virginia bill of rights, 148, 149. " General welfare " clause (in the Constitution), discussed, 204 a; used even by Jeffevsonian Republi- cans, 260 a, note, and by Calhoun in 1816,' 278. Genet, French agent, 230. Geography, influence on early colo- nial history, 2, 3, 4 ; on local govern- ment, North and South, 75; on later colonial history, 112, 165, note, 175; and National History, 245. George, Henry, and the Single Tax, 453 ; and the Australian ballot, 460. George III, 136. Georgia, founded, 111; royal prov- ince, 117 ; and States' Rights, 218, 282, 308. Georgia vs. Chisholm, 218. German immigration, in colonial days, 111; after 1848, 343, note; saves Missouri to the Union 372. INDEX 785 References are to sections Germantown, battle of, 158. Gerry, Elbridge, distrust of democ- racy in Philadelphia Convention, 202; envoy to France, 234; and Gerrymander, 327. Gerrymander, 327. Gettysburg, battle of, 374. Gilbert, Humphrey, 21, 22. Gladstone, on American Constitu- tion, 201 ; on Southern Confederacy, 378. Glavis, Louis, and patriotic a in- subordination," 456 and note. Gompers, Samuel, 447. Gorges, Sir Perdinando, 57, note, 61. Gorges, Robert, 45, 56, note, 57, note. Gosnold, Bartholomew, 18. Gould, Jay, and the stock market, 389. "Government by Injunction," 447. Grangers, political party, 399. Grant, U. S., in Civil War, 374, 375; generous terms to the conquered, 381 ; chosen President, 386 ; re- elected, 389; humiliation of second term, ib.; and the spoilsmen, ib.; and appointments to Supreme Court, 390; attempts at "third term," 416, note. Gray, Captain, and the Columbia, 262. Great French War, the, 114; in- fluence of sea power in, ib. Greeley, Horace, Scotch-Irish, 112, note ; on protective tariffs, 320 ; and secession, in 1860, 370; candi- date for presidency, 389. Greenback party, 392. Greenbacks, 376; after the war, 392. See Legal tender decisions. Grenville, George, and American taxation, 130. Hadley, Arthur T., on property privileges in the Constitution, 207 c, 394 (heading). Hakluyt, quoted, 17 a and b. Hamilton, Alexander, New York a " Sovereign State," 187 (exercise) ; on new type of Federal govern- ment, 197; efforts for Federal Convention, 199, note; writes Annapolis call, 199; disbelief in democracy, in Philadelphia Con- vention, 200 and note; small in- fluence in Convention, 203, note; on Federal Judiciary, 207 c; on limitation of franchise to free- holders, 209; secures ratification in New York, 210; intrigues against Adams, 212; Secretary of Treasury, 215; denies power of Supreme Court to summon a "Sovereign State," 218; financial plan, 219-222; the Bank and "im- plied powers," 222; constitutional results, 220; as seen by opponents, 229 and note ; and Jay treaty, 231 ; defends arbitration, 232; in army of 1797, 234; proposes political trick to Jay, 239 c; discourages plan to elect Burr over Jefferson, 241; significance in American his- tory, 243. Hancock, John, poses as Shays' sympathizer, 192 ; vetoes " revenue amendment," 196, note; support for Federal Constitution secured, 210, note. Hanna, Mark, Republican campaign manager and representative of " big business," 430, 435. Harlan, Justice, great dissenting opinions, 401, 410. Harrison, Benjamin F., and civil service, 421 ; and Hawaii, 432. Harrison, William H., Tippecanoe, 272 b ; President, 319, 321. Hart, A. B., quoted, on " Black laws" of Ohio, 332; on choice of antago- nists in 1812, 266, note ; andpassim. Hartford Convention, 270. Harvard, founded, 122, 123; a " state university," 123; in 1800, 250. Harvey, Sir John, governor of Virginia, 34, 35. Hawaii, 432, 434, 438. 786 INDEX References are to sections Hawthorne, 295, 297. Hay, John, Secretary of State, and China, 440. Hayes, R. B., President, 389; and civil service, 415. Hayne, R. Y., debate with Webster, 305. Henry, Patrick, Scotch-Irish, 112, note; Stamp Act Resolutions, 138; and religious freedom, 149; and bill of attainder, 159, note ; " I am an American," 188; opposes Fed- eral Convention, 199; and ratifica- tion of Constitution, 211; "High Federalist," 226. Hepburn Act, the, 402. Higginson, Francis (Puritan minis- ter), 57, 60, 82, note. Higginson, Stephen, suggests rati- fication by nine States, 210, note. Higginson, Thomas Wentworth, abolitionist, 348. " High cost of living " after 1890, 424. Holmes, Oliver Wendell, 295, 296. Holmes vs. "Walton, 207 b. Home Rule, for cities, 465. Homestead bill, agitation for, 367 ; Buchanan's veto, ib.; law of 1862, 376 ; abuses under, 407. See Public Domain. Hooker, Thomas, apostle of democ- racy in Connecticut, 85, 87; leads migration to Connecticut, 87; in- spires Fundamental Orders, 88; and " Separatists," 82, note. Horseshoe Bend, battle of, 2726. Huguenots, forbidden in French America, 14 a; immigration to English colonies, 111, and note ; in Carolinas, 124. Hutchinson, Ann, 84. Hutchinson, Thomas, governor of Massachusetts colony, 138, 139, 141. Illinois, and slavery, 332; and in- ternal improvements, 278. Illiteracy, in the colonies, 122. Immigration, from 1690 to Revolu- tion, 111; to 1815, 272a; and to 1830, ib., note; to Civil War, 343; since the War, 404. Impeachment, Justice Pickering, 256 ; Justice Chase, ib. ; Consti- tutional difficulties, ib. ; Justice Archibald, 256, note ; President Johnson, 386. " Imperialism," 435. Implied powers, 204, doctrine de- veloped by Hamilton, 222 ; adopted by Jeffersonian Republicans to de- fend Louisiana Purchase, 260 ; growth of, after War of 1812, 271 b ff. ; extended by Supreme Court, 280, especially e. Impressment, 231, 266, 267, 268. Income tax (graduated), in Civil War, 376; Act accompanying Wilson tariff, 424 and note ; voided by Supreme Court, ib. ; Amend- ment for, ib., note. Independent Treasury, 314 and note. Independents. See Separatists. Indiana, and attempts to introduce slavery, 332. Indiana Territory, 184. Indians, classification, 5; numbers, 5, note ; bearing on English settle- ment, 6 ; influence on early colonial industries, 8; and early Virginia, 31, 32; and Plymouth, 52; King Philip's War, 99; Pontiac's War, 130, note ; and the Revolution, 159, note; Lord Dunmore's War, 169; and Western settlement, 168-169, 184; and War of 1812, and subse- quent land cessions, 272 b ; and Georgia, 308; later Indian Wars, 308, note. See Algonkins, Iroquois, etc. Industrial development, early colonial, 7, 8, 23, 26, 28 a, 31, 52, 104; later colonial, 124; about 1800, 246, 247, 248, 249, 251; after War of 1812, 272, 278, 279; about 1830, 285; and labor movements, 287-292; and invention, 298; and INDEX 787 References are to sections land policy, 317, 318; and slavery, 343 ; about 1860, 362-367 ; since the Civil War, 391-405, 406-413, • 445- 453. Industry in common, in early Virginia (not communism), 23 ff. ; in Plymouth, 52. Ingalls, Senator, derides civil serv- vice reform, 421. " Initiative," see Referendum. " Insurgents," Republican, in Con- gress, in 1910, 329, 456. Intellectual ferment of society, from 1830 to 1860, 295, 296. Intercolonial wars, 114, 126^-197; English and American troops in, 130 and note. Internal Improvements, 265, 272, 278, 301. International law, 230 and note. Interstate Commerce Act, 399. Interstate Commerce Com- mission, 399, 401, 402, 403. Invention (mechanical), American talent for, 251 c ; early history, to 1830, 298; transforms American life, ib. "Invincible Armada," the, 9. Ipswich, resistance to Andros, 100. Irish famine, a cause of immigration to America, 272. Iron manufactures, colonial, re- stricted by English laws, 116; about 1830, 273 and note, 298 and note. Iroquois, location and numbers, 5 c ; hinders French empire in America, 4, 6, 12, 13. Irving, Washington, 295. Jackson, Andrew, Scotch-Irish, 112, note; at New Orleans, 268; at Horseshoe Bend, 272; candidate for presidency, 281; elected, 283; and " revolution of 1828," 284 ; and Workingmen's party, 290; and Emerson, 295 ; and new position of the presidency, 300; "reign" of, 301 ff. ; and veto power, 301 ; and internal improvements, ib. ; and nullification, 306-308; and the Bank, 309-311 ; and the panic, 313. Jacksonian Democracy, and Jef- fersonian, 300. James I, 17, 22, 32 m, 34, 49. James II, 100. • Jamestown, 18-24; a "plantation colony," 23. Jay, John, 142, 146, 162, 187 (exercise) , 232, 239 c. Jay, treaty, the, 234, 235. Jefferson, Thomas, on idea of inde- pendence in September of '75, 146 ; plan for Virginia constitution and declaration of independence, 148; writes Declaration of Independence, 148, 149 ; urges referendum on con- stitutions, 152; encourages George Rogers Clark to conquer the West, 162, note; and Ordinance of 1884, 181; and Survey Ordinance, 183; criticizes judiciary as "independ- ent of the nation," 207 c; on titles and Old World forms, 213; Secre- tary of State, 215 ; and the Capital bargain, 220, and note; not an Antifederalist, 225; and the Re- publican party, 226; views as to monarchic tendencies of opponents, 226 ; Vice President, 227 ; and party feeling, 229; and Alien and Sedi- tion Laws, 237 ; criticizes judiciary, 237, 241 ; improves the plow, 249, note; and "Revolution of 1800," 252; power from 1800 to 1809, 252 ff. ; personality, 252 ; early reforms in Virginia, 252; on Europe and America, ib. ; political principles, 253; Jeffersonian simplicity, 254; economy, 254; and civil service, 255; attempts on the judiciary, 256; reelection, 258; and "third term" principle, 258 ;„ and the West, 259 and note ; Louisiana Pur- chase, 259 ; Constitutional scruples, 260; and exploration of Oregon, etc., 262 ; new views as to desirable centralization, 265; weak foreign policy, 266 ; proposes alliance with England to check Holy Alliance in 788 INDEX References are to sections America, 277, note; and slavery, 330, 333. Jeffersonian Republicanism, 244, 246-251; modified by victory, 258. Johnson, Andrew, President, 383; takes up Lincoln's plan for recon- struction, ib. ; conflict with Con- gress, 383, 385; impeachment, 386; and Workingman's movement in the thirties, 290 ; author of Home- stead bill, 367. Johnson, Hiram W., redeems Cali- fornia from control of Southern Pacific, 459. Judiciary, in Constitution, 207 ; final arbiter (appellate j urisdiction) , 207 a; power to void legislation, 191, 207 6; life tenure, 207 c; power augmented by Act of 1789, 217 ; and partisan law of Federalists in 1801, 240 ; repeal of Act, 254 ; Jefferson's attacks, 256; nationalizing deci- sions (1816-1828), 280; and first Fugitive Slave Law, 223 ; and slav- ery in the Territories (Dred Scot case), 353; denounced by Lincoln and the Republicans, 354 ; and the war-time suspension of habeas cor- pus, 379 ; and Reconstruction, 390; and protection of property inter- ests, 208, 399, 401, 410, 41 f, 449 ; re- cent definition of "police power," 449 c, note. See Supreme Court. Julian, George W., 383, 386; on Republican demand for spoils in 1861, 371. Jury, in Plymouth laws, 54 ; in Massa- chusetts colony, 80. Kanawha, battle of the Great, 169. Kansas, struggle for, 351; and Bu- chanan's administration, 357; ad- mitted, 370. Kansas-Nebraska Act, 350. Kaskaskia, 162. Kent, Chancellor, 295; denounces democracy, 299. Kentucky, early settlement, 162, 163, 168-171; basis of Clark's conquest of the Northwest, 162, 171; a county of Virginia, 171; admitted as a State, 224; democratic fran- chise, 224 b. Kentucky Resolutions (of 1798 and 1799), 237. Key, Francis Scott, 268. King- Philip's War, 99. King's College, 122. King's Mountain, battle of, 159. Kitchen Cabinet, the, 301. Knights of Labor, 427, 445. Knights of the Golden Circle, 379. Know Nothing party, 349. Ku Klux, 388. Labor movement, awakening of labor, 287 ff . ; retrograde condi- tions in early 19th century, 288; child labor in 1830, ib. ; early unions and strikes, 289; prosecu- tion for " conspiracy," ib. ; national and local unions of the thirties, 289; political action in 1828-1835, 290; and ten-hour day, 292; and free schools, 293; and human rights, 294. After the Civil War, 445 ff . ; strikes and labor war, 446 ; and government by injunction, 447; boycott, 447; "closed shop," 448; and use of violence, 449; con- ciliation boards, 449; gains, 450; child labor, 450 e ; factory legisla- tion, 450 /; workingmen's com- pensation, 450 g ; and politics, 451. Lafayette, 158, 159. LaFollette, Robert M., 412, 458, 459. Land policy. See Public Domain. Land Survey, United States, origin and character, 183 (with diagrams) . Lee, Richard Henry, 150, 188. Lee, Robert E., 374, 375. Legal Tender Act, 376. Legal tender decisions, 390. Lewis and Clark's expedition, 262. Lexington, battle of, 144. ! Liberal Republicans, 389. INDEX 789 References are to sections Liberia, 330. Liberty party, the, 338. Lincoln, Abraham, boyhood, 272; denounces Dred Scott decision, 354; debates with Douglas, 355; "house divided against itself" speech, 359; nominated for Presi- dency, 358; elected, 360; refuses to favor compromise on slavery and Territories, 370 ; favors com- promise on fugitive slaves, ib. ; ad- ministration, 371 ff . ; inaugural, 371 ; and Seward, 371 ; touch with the people, ib. ; and wear of the spoils system, ib. ; attempts for compensated emancipation, 377 ; Emancipation Proclamation, 377; and personal liberty in the North, 379 ; assassinated, 380 ; and Recon- struction, 382; and qualified Negro suffrage, 384. Lindsay, Benjamin P., 413, note. Literary outburst, about 1830, 295. Local government, development in Massachusetts colony, 71-74 ; New England and Virginia types com- pared, 75; established in Virginia on aristocratic basis, 103, 106; in Revolutionary State constitutions, 153; later developments, 76. See Municipal Government. Loco-Focos, 290. Lodge, Henry Cabot, quoted on State sovereignty in 1789, 210. Logan (Indian chief), 169. " Log Cabin " campaign, 319. London Company, foreign mission- ary society character, 17 ; founds Jamestown, 23; reorganized by charters of 1609 and 1612, 25 ; con- servative rule, 26; becomes liberal, 27 ; establishes self-government in Virginia, 28-31; overthrown, 32; negotiations with the Pilgrims, 49 ; charter to same, 49. Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth, 295. Loose and Strict construction, 204 ; close, 222. Lord Dunmore's War, 169. Lorimer, Senator, expelled, 468. Louisiana, Territorial organization, 260. Louisiana Purchase, 259; and right to acquire territory, 2150 a ; and treaty rights of inhabitants, 260 b ; boundaries, 261. L' Overture, Toussaint, and the Louisiana Purchase, 259. Lowell, James Russell, on New England schools, 123 ; on secession in 1860, 370; on the call to arms, 372, 375. Lowell factory girls, 285, and note. Lower South, the, 272 ; political ac- tivity, 368. Loyalists (in the Revolution), 147, 159, 162. Lundy, Benjamin, 335. Lundy's Lane, 268. Lyon, Mathew, and Sedition Law, 236. Maclay, "William (democratic Sen- ator Irom 1789 to 1791), on presi- dential titles, 213; foils attempt to turn Senate into a Privy Council, 214; his "Journal," 214, note. McCulloch vs. Maryland, 280 e. McDonald, Professor William, on "We, the People," 211, close ; on Webster's views of the Constitu- tion, 305; on Compromise of 1833, 307. McKinley, William, Scotch-Irish, 112, note; and tariff, 420; Presi- dent, 424 ; tries to keep peace with Spain, 434; reelection and assassi- nation, 435. McNamara brothers, 449. Madison, James, efforts for Federal Convention, 199; distrust of de- mocracy, 200; "Journal" of the Convention, 202, note ; author of Virginia Plan, 202; champion of "checks and balances," especially to check democracy, 207 b and note ; on restriction of franchise, 209; on convention method of 790 INDEX References are to sections ratification, -211 ; introduces first j amendments in Congress, 216; on jurisdiction of Supreme Court over States, 218 ; first tariff bill, 219; opposes Hamilton's financial plan, ib. ; on Hamilton's designs, 229, note ; author of Virginia Resolu- tions, 237 ; Secretary of State, 252: instructions to Livingstone as to purchase of New Orleans, 259; Presidency, 267 ; weak foreign pol- icy, 266; second term, 267, note; seizure of West Florida, 261; op- poses extension of suffrage in Vir- ginia, in 1830, 299. " Maine " (battleship), the, explosion of, 434. Maize, importance in early settle- ment, 7, 8. Mann, Horace, 293. Manufactures, colonial, restricted after 1690, 116, 124; from 1800 to 1830, 248; domestic and factory systems, 248; remain essentially "domestic" till War of 1812, ib.; artificially protected by embargo and war, from 1807 to 1815 ; rapid growth, 279; demand for protec- tion after the War, ib. ; (see Tariff) from 1840 to 1860, 363; for first time, excel value of agricultural products, ib.; after Civil War: the New South, 406; consolidation of plants, 408; "trusts," 409, 412; stimulated by McKinley and Ding- ley tariffs, so as to compete with English and German in the world markets, 424. See map, page 386, for "center" at each census. Marbury vs. Madison, 257. Marshall, John, in Virginia conven- tion denies power of Supreme Court to summon sovereign States, 218; envoy to France, 234 ; Chief Justice, 257 ; influence, ib. ; decisions, 257, 280 ; opposes manhood franchise in 1830, 299. Martial law, explained, 26; in early Virginia, ib. ; set aside, 28 b ; in the North in the Civil War, 379. Martin, Luther, on the name Feder- alist, 210, note ; small-State leader, 207, 210. Maryland, 36, 39; political develop- ment, 40, 41 ; religious questions, 42-44; instructs against independ- ence in March of 1776, 146 ; rescinds, 150 ; and a broad policy for the Na- tional Domain, 179; manhood suf- frage, 299. Mason, George, author of Virginia bill of rights, 149 ; in Philadelphia Convention, 200, fears " necessary and proper" clause, 204, note; ad- vocates equality for future States, 205 ; denounces slavery, 206 ; favors democratic franchise, 209; refuses to sigu Constitution, 202; objec- tions, 210. Mason and Dixon's Line, 109 ; divid- ing line between " North " and "South," 124. Mason and Slidell, 379. Massachusetts, colony: foundation in commercial enterprise, 56; Sa- lem, 56, 57; becomes a Puritan commonwealth and corporate col- ony, 57, 58 ff . ; the "great migra- tion," 60; danger of interference from England, 61 ; political devel- opment — establishment of repre- sentative government, 62-64 ; social classes in, 65; evolution of bicam- eral legislature, 66-69 ; Body of Lib- erties, 67, 81; local government, 71-74 ; evolution of the ballot, 77 ; judiciary, 79; juries, 80; written laws, 81 ; English Common Law in, 80, 81; and theocracy, 82; ideals, 83; religious persecution, 84; in New England Confederation, 90-92 ; and Charles II, 97, 99 ; rule of An- dros, 100; second charter (1691), 101 ; Royal Province, salary of gov- ernor, 118; in Revolution, 141-144, 145, ff . ; transition from colony to commonwealth, 145; government in early years of Revolution, 145; State constitution, 152 ; first con- stitution to receive popular rati- INDEX 791 References are to sections fication, ib. ; and slavery, 149, 330. Massachusetts Bay Charter, 56, 59, 61, 90, 101. Massachusetts Bay Company, 57, 58. Matthews, Samuel, governor of Virginia, 37. Mayflower, the, 50. Mayflower Compact, the, 51, 53, 55. Mechanics' Free Press, the, 288; founded, 287 ; and the public do- main, 316, note. Mecklenburg- county, legend of declaration of independence, 143, note. " Merrimac " (" Virginia "), the, 374. Methodist church, 295. Mexican War, 341. " Midnight judges," 257. Minimum valuation clause, in tariffs, 279 c. Missouri Compromise, the, 283; vote on, 333. Mitchell, John, head of coal miners, 446, 447. " Monitor " and " Merrimac," 374. MonmOuth, battle of, 158. Monopoly, natural, 408; legalized, ib. ; "big business," ib. ; trusts, 409; attempts to regulate, 410 ; and Supreme Court, 411 ; extent and danger, 412. Monroe Doctrine, the, 277 ; and the French in Mexico, 393; and Eng- land and Venezuela, 433; and in- solvent Spanish American states, 441. Monroe, James, on the West, 182; and Louisiana Purchase, 259 ; Pres- idency, 278 ; Monroe Doctrine, 277. Montcalm, 16, 114. Moore, Ely, representative of labor, 290. Morgan, J. Pierpont, 412. Mormonism, 297, 405. Morrill bill (National aid to State institutions), 376. Morris, Gouverneur, denounces democracy in Philadelphia Conven- tion, 200; words the Constitution, 202 ; attempts to limit influence of new States, 205; wishes only free- holders to vote, 209; expects an- archy after Jefferson's election, 229; hopes for New England's se- cession in War of 1812, 270. Morris, Robert, 200. Moten, Charles, 391. Mugwump, 419. Municipal government, 303, 366, 413,465-467. See Caucus, "Boss," Local Government, Cities. Narragansetts, the, 84. National Bank, the First, 222; the Second, 278 and note; and Jack- son, 309-311. National banks, 376, 436. National debt, in 1790, 219, 220 ; in 1800, 254; in 1809, ib.; after War of 1812, 268 ; paid off in 1835, 312 ; in Civil War, and since, 376, 381. National Nominating Conven- tion, origin, 310; discussed, 323, 324; modified by Direct Presiden- tial Primaries, 468 ; Republican and Democratic of 1860, 358; Demo- cratic in 1912, 458. National Road, the, 265, 272 a, 278. Naturalization, American doctrine of, 231 c (5) and note ; fraudulent, 231; Act of 1798, 235, and repeal, 254 ; present law, Constitution and note in Appendix. Navigation Acts, English, 96 ; dis- regarded by Massachusetts, 97; hard upon small planters in Vir- ginia, 104; second series, after 1710, 116; attempts to enforce in Intercolonial Wars by " writs of as- sistance," 129; Sugar Act of 1764, 131. "Necessary and Proper " clause, in Constitution, discussed, 204 b; Chief Justice Marshall, upon, 280 e, note. Negroes, in colonial times, 124; de- moralized labor system at close of War, 381 (and see Freedman'sBu- 792 INDEX References are to sections reau) ; "Black laws" of "recon- structed" Southern States, 384; Civil Rights bill, 390 (and see Four- teenth and Fifteenth amendments) ; since Reconstruction, 391; land- owners, 407; franchise, 384, 385, 387, 388, 390, 391; Lincoln and Negro suffrage, 384. (See Slavery for period to 1865.) Neutrality Proclamation, Wash- ington's, 230. Newburg Address, 161. New England, to 1660, 45-92 ; New England Confederation, '90-92; and Charles II, 97-99 ; and Andros, 100 ; settlement of 1691 , 101 ; decay of Puritanism after 1660, 121; gloom, ib. ; " blue laws," 120 ; schools, 123 : society in colonial times, industries, etc., 124; traitorous attitude in War of 1812, 268-270; earlier plots for secession, 269; Hartford Con- vention, 270 ; about 1830, 285 a ; lit- erary supremacy, 295. New England Confederation, 90- 92. New England Council (Plymouth Council), 45 ff., 55, 61. New England Mechanics' Con- vention, in 1832, on education and child labor, 288. New Harmony, 297. New Jersey, and the trusts, 411. New Jersey plan, the. in Philadel- phia Convention, 200 a; and Fed- eral Judiciary, 207 a. New Netherlands, 92, 98, 108. New Orleans, battle of, 268. New Orleans, Territory of, 260 b. New South, the, 406. Newspapers, colonial, 122; first daily, 295. Newtown, 60, note ; democratic, 87. New York, 94, 100, 108, 117; and Declaration of Independence, 150; extends franchise, 299; gradual emancipation, 330. Nominations, systems of : in colonial Massachusetts, 63, 66 a; attempts at conventions and at direct prima- ries, 78; the caucus (which see), 227, 281, 310; by legislatures in 1807, 258, and in 1824, 281 ; national conventions after 1830, 324 ; and the "bosses," 325; modified or super- seded by direct primaries, 325, 461, 468. I North Carolina, industries in colo- nial days, 124 ; democratic constitu- tion in 1776, 154; accedes to the Union, 224. Northeast boundary disputes, arbitration, 232, 321. Northern Securities case, 409, 410. North, Lord, 139, 140, 158. Northwest posts, retained by Great Britain, 162; surrendered, 231 a. Northwest Territory, 182, 184. See Northwest, the Old. Northwest, the Old, England's ac- quisition, and attempt to restrict settlement, 164; French settle- ments in, 164 ; annexed to Quebec, ib.; Clark's conquest, 162; a National domain, 177 ff. ; State claims, 178 ; Maryland insists upon a common domain, 179; cessions, 180; National organization, 181- 183; Ordinance of 1784, 181; of 1787, 182; Survey Ordinance, 183; early settlement, 184 ; slavery sur- vival in, 330; attempts to perpetu- ate slavery in, 332. Nullification, by Massachusetts colony in New England Confedera- tion, 94; doctrine in Kentucky Resolutions, 237; asserted and practiced by New England after Jefferson's embargo, 269, and in War of 1812, 270; Calhoun's " Ex- position," 304; Webster-Hayne debate, 305; attempted by South Carolina, 306. Oberlin, admits women, 295. Ohio, admitted, 184; growth from 1800 to 1810, 263 ; and Black laws, 332. Oklahoma, reforms, 459. INDEX 793 References are to sections "Old Style" and "New Style," 29, note. Oliver, Andrew, stamp distributor, 138. Ordinances of 1787, etc. See Northwest. Oregon, exploration and title to, 262; claimed by United States, 276; titles of other countries, ib. ; controversy with ' England, 339, 340 ; compromise boundary, 340 ; a leading State in political and social reform, 459, 460, 468, 469. Ostend Manifesto, 342. Otis, James, 129, 134, 138. Owen, Robert, 297 and note. Paine, Thomas, 146 and note; "Common Sense," 146; proposes Territorial organization, 181, note; proposes a " Continental Constitu- tion," 199, note. Panama Canal, 442. Panics, Industrial, perhaps in 1786, 191; in 1819, 279; in 1837, 313; in 1857, 365; in 1873, 396, 346; of 1893, 429; "manufactured" in 1907, 412. Paper money, colonial, 124; Conti- nental, 160, 189, 219; State fiat money after 1783, 191, 192 ; in Civil War, 376 ; after, 392, 426-428, 436. See Legal tender decisions, and Greenback party. Parcels post, 470. Parish, unit for local government in Virginia, 103, 106. Party government, rise of, 226; first trial, 227; explained, 228-229; and power of the Speaker, 328. Paternalism, in government, in French colonies, 14; in Virginia under the company, 31. Patterson, William, in Philadelphia Convention, 200. 202 Peace Convention of 1861, 370. Penn, William, 109, 110; grants charter of privileges to settlers, 110. Pennsylvania, 109, 110 ; and colonial industries, 124 ; and independence, 150; and internal improvements, 265; and slavery, 330. Pensions (for Civil War), 422. Pequods, the, 5. Pet banks, Jackson's, 311. Peters, Samuel A. (Rev.), inven- tor of " blue law " myth, 120. Petersburg-, battle of, 375. Philadelphia Convention (the Federal), 199 ff . ; distrust of de- mocracy, 200 and passim; mem- bers, 200; problems and models, 201; parties in, 201, 203, note re- gard for experience, 201 ; stages of procedure, 202; records, 202, note; Virginia plan, 202; New Jersey plan, 202; Connecticut Compromise, 203; second great compromise (on wealth) , 205 ; third (on slavery) 206 ; work. See Con- stitution. Philippines, 434, 435, 439. Phillips, Wendell, 335 ; on right of secession, 370. Pickering, Thomas, New England Federalist, distrusts democracy, 229; plots for New England se- cession, 269, note, 270. Pike, Zebulon, exploration, 262. "Pilgrims," the, in Holland, 47; reasons for coming to America, 48 ; negotiation with London Com- pany, 49 and note, 50; Wincob charter, 49, 51, note; London partners and terms, 49; settlement at Plymouth, 50. See Plymouth. Pillory, in colonies, 120. Pinchot, Chief Forester, 454. Pinckney, CO., in Philadelphia Convention, 207 ; envoy to France, 233. Pinckney, Thomas, minister to Spain, 233. Pinckney, treaty of 1795, 233. 11 Pine Tree Shillings," 97. Pitt, William, imperial policy, 127 ; attempt to reconcile parliamentary control over colonies with exemp- tion from taxation, 135; goes into the Lords, 139. 794 INDEX References are to sections Pitt, William, the Younger, on the American Revolution, 136. Plank roads, 273, note. Plantation, the Southern, described for colonial times, 124. Plymouth, place named by John Smith, 50; selected by Pilgrims, ib. ; early history, 49 ff. ; May- flower Compact, 51; industry in common, and failure, 49, 51; false expectations of wealth, 52* settle- ment with London partners, 52 ; and private ownership, 52; a "corpo- rate colony," ib. ; political develop- ment, 53; frame of government, 53; representative government late, 53 6 ; local government — late development, 53 c; meaning in history, 54; democracy, 54; char- ters, 55 ; annexed to Massachusetts, 55, 101. Plymouth Company, 22, 23; reor- ganized by charter of 1620 as New England Council, which see. Poe, Edgar Allan, 295. "Police power," the, as means of constitutional growth, 450 c and note. Political morals, low in 1787-1800, 182, note, 239, 250. Polk, James K., presidency, 340, 341. Pontiac's "War, 130, note. Population, of England and France compared with their colonies in 17th century, 16; of England, 18; in Virginia colony, 24, 29, 31, 102, 104; in Plymouth, 54; in Massa- chusetts colony; 60; in New England Confederation, in 1643, 92; colonial, in 1660, 94; in 1690, 95; in 1760, 111; in 1775, 124; mixed elements in 1760, 124; in 1790, 246, note ; in 1800, 246 ; west- ward movement of, from 1800 to 1810, 263; same from 1810 to 1830, 273; centers of, map page 386; census of 1830, 284, 285; of 1840 and 1850, 343 ; in 1860, 366, 368 ; for each decade since the Civil War, 404. Populists, the, 427. Porto Rico, 434, 438. Postage, in 1800, 247; in 1850 and after, 362. Preemption Act, the, 317. See Public Domain. Preferential voting, 467. Presbyterians, Scotch-Irish, 112. Presidency, the, electoral college, 208 ; term, unwritten limitation, 258 ; new importance after Jack- son, 300; and patronage, 326. Presidential elections, 1789, 212; 1792, 1796, 227; 1800, 239, 241 ; 1804, 258 ; 1808 and 1812, 267 and note ; 1816 and 1820 and 224, 281 ; 1828, 283 ; 1832, 310 ; 1840, 313, 319 ; 1844, 338,339; 1848, 345; 1852, 348, 349; 1856, 352; I860, 358-360; 1864, 377; 1868, 386 ; 1872 and 1776, 389 ; 1880, 416 ; 1884, 419 ; 1888, 420, 421 ; 1892, 423; 1896, 430; 1900, 435; 1904, 454; 1908, 455 ; 1912, 458. Presidential veto. See Veto. Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, 223. Primary elections. See Nomina- tions. Princeton College, 122, note. Priscilla (Alden), unable to write, 122, note. " Progress and Poverty," 453. Progressives, the, 454-470. Progressive party, the, 458. "Protection." See Tariff. Public Domain, the, creation, 178- 180 ; National organization, 181- 182 ; land survey, 183 ; and public schools, 183; and State universi- ties, ib. ; first steps in land policy, 183 ; credit system of 1800, 263, 272, note ; reforms in 1820, 272 ; oppos- ing policies in 1830, 315 ; Organized Labor and, 315; as a source for homes, not revenue, 315-317, 367; Clay and, 316; Preemption Act, 317; grants to States, 317; Set- tlers' Associations, 318; struggle for Homestead law, 367; passed, 376; looting of the domain, 407; and Roosevelt's administration, ib. ; and the Ballinger treachery, 458. INDEX 795 References are to sections Public service corporations, fran- chises and the Constitution, 207 c and note; and corruption in poli- tics, 413. Pullman strike, the, 446. Puritanism, factor in colonization, 46; described, ib.; in Maryland, 43, 44; in Holland, 47; in Ply- mouth, 48-55; in Massachusetts colony, 56-85 ; decay in latter part of 17th century, 121; survival in South Carolina, 368. Quakers, in Massachusetts, 97; and antislavery movements, 223, 330. See Penn and Pennsylvania. Quay, Senator, 423 and note. Quebec Act, 141. Quincy, Josiah, denounces admis- sion of Louisiana, 260 b and note ; on national law for enlistment in War of 1812, 270. Railroads, early history, 298; since 1860, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400^03, 410. Raleigh. Sir Walter, 17, 21, 22. Randolph, Edmund, 149, 200, 202, 205, 215. Randolph, John, warning to con- sumers in 1816 tariff debates, 279; opposes extension of franchise, 299. Recall, the, 463. See Arizona. Reconstruction, 381-392. Referendum, the, 464. Regulators, War of, 137. Religious freedom, toleration in Catholic Maryland, 42-44; refused by English Church in Maryland, 44; denied to Separatists in Eng- land, 47; found in Holland, 47; in Plymouth, 54; rejected by Mas- sachusetts Puritans, 84; and by Long Parliament in England, ib. ; ideal stated by Lord Brooke in 1641, 84; Puritan persecution of dissenters, 84, 85; and Rhode Is- land, 86; and Pennsylvania, 110; in Virginia bill of rights, 149; not absolute in most State constitu- tions of the Revolutionary period, 153; in first amendment to Fed- eral Constitution, 216. Representative government (co- lonial), appearance in Virginia as gift of London Company, 29, 30; preserved by the colonists against royal attack, 34 ; character in Vir- ginia in 1630-1660, 35; Assembly asserts control over taxation, 34, 36; enlarged power in Virginia during Commonwealth, 37; in Maryland, suggested in charter from the king, 39; development, 40, 41 ; in Massachusetts, struggle for, and victory, 62-64; movement for in New Netherlands due to English settlers, 134 ; imperfections in the colonies, 134, 137 b. Republican party, of Jefferson, 226 ff. Republican party, the, organized out of the anti-Nebraska men ; ele- ments from all the old parties, 352 ; and Dred Scott decision, 353, 354, 355; campaign of 1860, 358; vic- tory, 360 and passim. "Restoration," the English, char- acter of the period in colonial his- tory, 93, 103. Revere, Paul, 111, note. Revolution, the American, 136- 162. " Revolution of 1800," the, 252. " Revolution of 1828," the, 284 ff. Rhode Island, 84, 85; ideal con- trasted with Massachusetts and Connecticut, 85; contrasted with Maryland, 86; refuses to ratify Constitution, 210; accedes to the Union, 210 and note; Dorr's Rebel- lion, 322 b ; reforms of 1842, ib. " Rights of Man," in Virginia bill of rights, 149. Right of search, explained, 231 c; and the slave trade, 331. Robertson, James, founder of Watauga, 112, 166, 172, 175. Robinson, Pastor, 47, 51, 52, 54. 796 INDEX References are to sections Roosevelt, Theodore, and civil service, 418, 421 ; and Jap-Russian War, 440; and Spanish- American states, 441 ; and Panama Canal, 442 ; early career, 454 ; administra- tion, 435, 454 ; and the Coal strike, 446 c ; on the judiciary, 450 c, note ; candidate for Republican nomina- tion in 1912, 458; founds new party, ib. Royal provinces, Virginia after 1624, 33 ff., Massachusetts after 1691, 101; New Hampshire, 101, 117 ; attempts to convert other col- onies into, 117. Rule of '56, 231 c. Rutledge, Edward, 142, 200. " Salary grab," the, 389. Salem, 57, 84. Samoa, 434. Sandys, Sir Edwin, leader of liber- als in London Company, 27, 31; obnoxious to King James, 27, 32; relation to Puritan colonies, 49, note. Scotch-Irish, in American history, 112, 124. Scots (Highlanders), in colonies, 124. Scott, Winfleld, in Mexican War, 341 ; presidential candidate, 348. Scrooby, English home of the Pil- grims, 47. Secession, by South Carolina and Gulf States, 368; second tier of States, 373 ; Southern constitutional theory of, ib. See Civil War. Sedition Act. See Alien and Sedi- tion Acts. Selectmen, 71, note. Seminole War, 308, note. Senate of the United States, method of election by State legis- latures advocated as an assimila- tion to House of Lords, 200; designed for a guardian of property, 200 ff . ; in Connecticut Compromise made a representative of the States, 203; relations with the executive settled in Washington's adminis- tration, 214; direct elections, amendment and practice, 461, 468. Separatists (Brownists), 46; de- nounced by other Puritans, 82, note. See Pilgrims, Plymouth, Puritans. "Servants" indentured, occasion for, 19 ; large element in early Vir- ginia, 25, 26, 28, 104; in Plymouth, 51 ; in Massachusetts colony, 57, 59 ; character in Massachusetts, 60 ; social rank, 65 d; at the period of the Revolution in the colonies, 124. Seventeenth Amendment, the, 468, note. Sevier, John, 166, 175, 176. Seward, W. H., on Buchanan's "secession" message, 370, note; Secretary of State, 370, 371. Shays' Rebellion, 192. Shelbourne, Lord, " friend to America," 136; and treaty of 1783, 162. Sherman, John, 410, and note; on danger of money kings, 412. Sherman, Roger, 200 ff. Sherman, W. T., march to the sea, 374. Shipping, encouraged in New Eng- land by English navigation acts, 96; colonial, in 18th century, 124; growth during European wars, 1793-1815, 266. Single Tax, the, 453. Sixteenth Amendment, the, 424 and note. Slaughter House cases, 390. Slavery, in Virginia colony, 104; in colonies in general, 124 ; abolished in Massachusetts by bill of rights (but not by same clause in Vir- ginia document), 149, note; State emancipation to 1804, 330; in the Philadelphia Convention, 205, 206 ; attempt to exclude from the Na- tional Domain, in Ordinance of 1884, 181, note; and in Northwest Ordinance, 182; in Washington's administration, 223 ; first Fugitive Slave law, ib. ; foreign trade for- INDEX 797 References are to sections bidden after 1808, 258; effect of American Revolution on, 329; slav- ery on the defensive from 1776 to 1820,329-333; State emancipation, 330 ; survival in Old Northwest to 1840, 330; Colonization societies, 330; and Quakers, ib.; antislavery societies, 330 ; foreign trade, despite the law, 331, 334, note; and Dis- trict of Columbia, 332; "Black laws of Northwestern States," 332 ; Slave Power, reinforced by new commercial interests, and by pur- chase of Louisiana Territory, 330 ; Missouri Compromise, 283; slavery aggressive after 1830, 334 ff . ; do- mestic slave trade, 334, note ; and the abolitionists, 335 ; slave insur- rections and slave codes, 336; and right of free speech for white men, 337; antislavery parties, 338 ff . ; and territorial expansion, 339 ff. ; and Mexican War, 341; effect on distribution of immigration, 343 ; Wilmot proviso, 344; Compromise of 1850, 347; enforcement of new Fugitive Slave law, 348 ; repeal of Missouri Compromise, by Kansas- Nebraska bill, 350 ; Popular Sover- eignty doctrine, ib. ; " bleeding Kansas," 351 ; birth of Republican party, and first campaign, 352 ; Dred Scott decision, 353; "Uncle Tom's Cabin " and John Brown raid, 356 ; and election of 1860, 358 -360; effect on Southern society and industries, 366; in the War, 375, 377 ; proposals for compensated emancipation, 377; abolished in District of Columbia, ib. ; in Terri- tories, ib. ; Emancipation Procla- mation, ib. ; and reaction at North, 377 ; abolished in Border States, ib. ; Thirteenth Amendment, ib. Smith, Adam, 116, 134. Smith, John, 18, 24, 50, 52. Smith, Sir Thomas, Treasurer of London Company, 26, 32, note. Smithsonian Institution, 295. Socialism, 435, 452, 453, 458. Social reform, of the thirties, 297 ; of our own day, 470. Social unrest, 444 ff. See Labor movement, Progressive movement, etc. Sons of Liberty, 138. South, the, in colonial times, 124; in 1830, 285 b ; before the Civil War, 366. See Lower South and New South. Southampton, Earl of, 27, 32. South Carolina, see Carolinas. Convention refuses to consider Gadsen's motion for Independence in February of 1776, 146; chooses presidential electors by legislature to 1860, 207 a, 299 ; and nullifica- tion movement, 304-306 ; secession, 368. Southern Confederacy, 369 ff. Spain, rival of England in America, 9, 17, 24; cedes Florida to England, 114; receives Louisiana from France, 114; and the trade of the Western settlements, 175, 176 ; and the Revolutionaiy War, 158 ; bound- ary disputes, 162, note ; settlement, 233; Spanish War of 1898, 434. Speaker, Mr., growth of poAver, 328. Special Privilege vs. the People, 394 ff. See Public Service Corpo- rations, Tariff, Raihoays. Specie Circular, 313. Spoils system, the, 302, 325. See Civil Service. Squatters' rights, to public land preemption, 318. Stamp Act, of 1775, 131, 132. Stamp Act Congress, 138. Standard Oil Company, 398; "trust," 410,411,412. Star Route scandal, 417. Star Spang-led Banner, 268. State, the, distinguished from State government, 211, and note. State constitutions, in Revolution- ary days, provisional, 147 ; Vir- ginia, 148, 149; others, 151; method of adoption, 152; characteristics, 153; limited franchise in, 154; 798 INDEX References are to sections amending clauses, 155 ; suggestions for study of present-day constitu- tions, 156. States, the, and the Nation, 204. States, admission of, 224, 265, 260, and note, 273, 285, note, 339, 343, 347, 357, 370, 404, 405. States, awakening' of, 459 ff . States Rights, see Constitution (fed- eral) ; also, 260, 269, 270, 282, and passim. State universities, and National land grants, 183. Steamboat, the, 264, 272. Steel trust, the, 402, 410; and its workmen, 444. Stephens, Alexander H., 368, 369. Stevens, Thaddeus, 385, 390. Stiles, Dr., discoverer of the hook- worm, 470. Stoughton, Israel, disfranchised hy Massachusetts colony for criticizing veto of magistrates, 68. Sugar Acts, of 1733, 116, note; of 1764, 131. Sugar trust, the, cheating, 407, note ; and relations with Cuha, 437, note. Sumner, Charles, 385. Sumter, Fort, 370. Supreme Court, the, in Constitu- tion, 207 ; in Judiciary Act of 1789, 217 a; Chisholm vs. Georgia, 218; original jurisdiction limited by Eleventh Amendment, ib. ; asserted by some State legislatures to be final arbiter, in reply to Kentucky Resolutions, 237 ; Marbury vs. Mad- ison. See Judiciary (Federal). Taft, William H., veto of Arizona statehood, 405; and civil service, 418 ; elected President, 455 ; reac- tionary policies, 456 ff. ; and Payne- Aldrich tariff, 457 ; defeat in 1912, 458. Tallmadge, James W., 323 and note. Tammany, 413. Tariff, of 1789, 219 and note ; growth to 1815, 235, 279; new conditions due to the artificial " protection " to industries during War period, 279; change to policy of tariff for pro- tection, rather than revenue, ib. ; arguments pro and con, ib. ; tariff of 1816, 1824, and 1828, 279, a, b, c; exercise on protective and rev- enue tariffs, close of, 279; and threats of secession at South, and tariff of 1832, 304 ff. ; compromise tariff of 1833, 307; Greeley's doc- trine of. protection to labor, 320; and further tariff legislation to Civil War, 321 ; return to protection in Morrill tariff of 1861, 365; " war tariffs," 376; futile attempt to re- duce in 1873, 420; Cleveland and, 420 ; Mills bill, ib. ; McKinley tariff, 422; "big business" and, 422 ff . ; reciprocity provisions, ib. ; Wilson tariff, 423; Dingley, 424; Payne- Aldrich tariff, and Insurgent move- ment, 457. Taxation, direct and indirect, 221, note. Taxation and Representation, principle asserted by Virginia in 1623, 34; reenacted, 36; different understanding of in England and the colonies, 134 ; claim of Pitt that taxation was no part of govern- ment, 134. Taylor, Zachary, in Mexican War, 341 ; presidency, 345, 347. Tea, in American Revolution, 141 and note. Tecumthe, 272 b. Tennessee. See Watauga, Cum- berland settlements, etc. ; admitted, 224 ; franchise, 299. Territorial growth, and American ideals, 244; treaty of 1783, 162; Louisiana Purchase, 259; West Florida, 261 ; and slavery, 339 ff . ; Texas, 339; Oregon, 340; Mexican War, 341, and seizure of territory, ib. ; Gadsen Purchase, 342 ; Alaska Purchase, 393 ; Hawaii, Samoa, etc., 434; Porto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines (in Spanish War), 434. INDEX 799 References are to sections Territories. See Public Domain. Territory, power to acquire, 260 a. Texas, question as to inclusion in Louisiana Purchase, 261; history and annexation, 339; secession* 368. | Thames, battle of, 268; notable for death of Tecumthe, 272 b. Theocracy, in Massachusetts colony, 82-84. Thirteenth amendment, 377. Tilden, Samuel J., 389. Tobacco, and early industries, 7, 8; in early Virginia, 31. Tocqueville, Alexis de, on the Federal Constitution, 198 and note. Toleration Act of 1649, in Mary- land, 43. Townshend, Charles, 139. Transcendentalists (in New Eng- land), 297. Transylvania, 170. Trevett vs. Weeden, 191. Turner, Frederick J., quoted on meaning of the frontier, 185. Tweed ring, 413. Twelfth amendment, and election of 1800, 241. Tyler, John, 319, 321, 322. Union Pacific land grants, 376; and Credit Mobilier, 389. Unitarianism, 295. "United States," two territorial meanings, 260 c, 439. University of Pennsylvania, 122, note. University of Virginia, and Jeffer- son, 252. Uren, William, progressive leader, and Single Taxer, 459 ; on direct legislation in Oregon, 464 ; on direct nomination of United States Sena- ators in Oregon, 468. Vallandigham case, 379 a. Valley Forge, 158. Van Buren, presidency, 313, 314; and ten-hour day, 292; and Inde- pendent Treasury, 314. Vane, Sir Harry, 84. Vergennes, 162. Vermont, a de facto State, with man- hood suffrage in 1777-1791, 154, note; admitted 224; emancipation, 330. Vestry. See Parish. Veto, of royal governors in colonies, 35, and passim ; denied in Virginia during " Commonwealth, 37 ; con- trolled by colonial power over sal- ary appropriations, 118 ; of king • on colonial legislation, 118, note, and elsewhere ; in Revolutionary State constitutions, 153 ; New York and Massachusetts clauses, of 1777 and 1880, in notes to Constitution, in Appendix ; in Federal Constitu- tion, ib. ; growth in hands of Jack- son (along with new position of presidency), 301 ; history to Cleve- land's administration, and growth at that time, 422 and note ; in State governments, since 1830, 303. Vicksburg, siege of, 374. Virginia, patriotic and missionary motives back of colonization, 17- 19; under the London Company, 22-32; charter of 1606, 22; early history, see Jamestoion ; charter of 1609 and 1612, 25 ; claims to " North- west," ib. ; "Time of slavery," under Dale, 26: Yeardley's re- forms, 27; representative govern- ment granted by Company, 28-30; a royal province, 33; free govern- ment preserved, 34, 35 ; '* Mutiny " of 1635, 36; enlarged self-govern- ment under the Commonwealth, 37; after the Restoration, 102-106; Bacon's Rebellion, 105 ; aristocratic organization confirmed, 106; fran- chise, 105-107; blue laws, 120; colonial society, 124; and the American Revolution, 138-149; initiates intercolonial Committees of Correspondence, 140 ; calls First Continental Congress, and a Pro- vincial Convention, 141; county meetings to appoint delegates to provincial convention, 145; transi- tion from colony to commonwealth, 145; instructs delegates at Phila- 800 INDEX References are to sections delphia for independence, 148; adopts State declaration of inde- pendence, 148; the bill of rights, 149; and Lord Dunmore's War, 169 ; authority over Kentucky and Illinois, 162, 165 ; cession of West- ern territory, 180; and Military Reserve, 180; champion of the • West in Philadelphia Conven- tion, 205 b ; Jefferson's reforms in, 252; mother of Western States, 273; and democracy, 299; seces- sion, 373. Virginia plan, in Philadelphia Con- vention, 200. Virginia Resolutions of 1797, 237. Wade, " Ben," on Southern designs on Cuba, 367, note; on Lincoln's death, 383. "Wages, in early Massachusetts regu- lated by the aristocratic govern- ment, 62, note ; in colonies in general, 124; in 1800, 249. See Labor movement. Walker, Francis A., on intellec- tuality of American farmers, 251 and note. War of 1812, 266 ff. ; preceding com- mercial war, 266; " Warhawks " and decision for war, 267 ; weakly conducted, 267; victories on sea, 267 ; worth while, 271 ; results, in American history, 272 ff . " War Governors," 370. Ward, Nathaniel, and " Body of Liberties," 81. " Warhawks," the, 267, 268. Washington, capital located, 220; burned in 1814, 268. Washington, Booker T., 391. Washington, George, in Pontiac's War, 130, note ; dislikes refusal to pay British debts, 138, note; on British Act for transporting colo- nists for trial,139,note ; commander in chief of American forces, 144 ; in June of 1775 denies thought of independence, 146; in the Revolu- tion, 157, 158; and the Newburg address, 161 ; discouraged by anarchy after Revolution, 191 ; and the Federal Convention, 199 ff . ; interest in the West, 199; Presi- ding 212 ff . ; forms and ceremonies, 213; tries to use Senate as privy council, 215 ; and approval of Bank Bill, 222; reelection, 227; declines third term, 227 ; Neutrality Procla- mation, 230; reviled for Jay's treaty, 231 ; commander of army for expected war with France, 234; refuses to be candidate in 1800, 239; and civil service, 255 ; approves Justice Dana's partisanship, 256. Watauga, 165; Articles of, 167; be- comes county of North Carolina, 106. "Watered Stock," 397; attempts to check, 411 ; amount and danger, 412, close. Water power, 245. See Fall Line. Watertown, 60, note; protest against taxation without represen- tation in 1632, 63 ; leads in setting up town government, 71. Waterways, 245 and map. Wayne, Anthony, 184. "We the People," 210, 211. Weaver, General, 427. Webster, Daniel, and tariff of 1824, 279; changes sides on tariff of 1828, 279 c; opposes manhood suffrage, 299; debate with Hayne, 305; Secretary of State, 321; Ashburton treaty, ib. ; and Com- promise of 1850, 347. Webster, Noah, on American learn- ing in 1800, 250 ; Dictionary, 295. West, the, western parts of original colonies, 112 ; discriminated against by older sections, 124, 137; in the Revolution, 137; democratic influ- ence of, 137; the second "West," beyond the mountains, born in the Revolution, 163; the Southwest self-developed, 165 ff. (see Wa- tauga) ; frontier conditions, 166 ; settlement and organization, 167- 172; movements for statehood or separation, 173-176; need of the INDEX 801 References are to sections Mississippi, 175; Eastern jealousy of, 174; the "Old Northwest " a national domain, 177-180; organi- zation, 181, 182; settlement, 184; attempt to discriminate against in Philadelphia Convention, 205 ; first new States from, 224; and in- fluence for Nationality and democ- racy, ib.; rapid growth (1800- 1810), 263; another "New West" after 1815, 272 ff . ; new roads, new land policy, 262; in 1830, 285; de- mocracy of, 286; political victory of in 1828, 284. West Florida, 162, 261, and map. West Virginia, 373, 410. " Western Reserve," the (of Con- necticut), 180. Wheelwright, John, adherent of Ann Hutchinson, 84. Whig party, 310 ; and Tyler, 321. Whisky Rebellion, 221. Whisky Ring, the, 389. White, Rev. John, 57, note. Whitfield, George, 121 c. Whitney, Ely, 248. Whittier, John Greenleaf, 295; quoted (Ichahod) on Webster, 347. Wigglesworth's " Day of Doom," 121 and note. "Wild cat" banks, and crisis of 1819, 279. Wilderness, battles of, 375. Wilderness Road, the, 170, 247. William and Mary College, 122, note. Williams, Roger, characterized, 84; arrival in Massachusetts, ib. ; banishment, ib.; founds Rhode Island, 84, 86; apostle of religious liberty, 85, 86; wife unable to write, 122, note. Wilmot Proviso, 344. Wilson, James, 200, 207. Winslow, Edward, historian of Plymouth, 47, note, 48. Winthrop, John, on reasons for a Puritan colony, 58 ; leads migra- tion, 59; distrust of democracy, 62; rebukes Watertown protest, 63; attempts to stop democratic movement, 63; defeated for re- election, 64; long service later, ib., note. Wisconsin, and railoads, 402 b ; and Workingman's Compensation Act, 450 <7; a leading State in reform, 459. Witchcraft, 121 b. * Wolfe, General James, at Quebec, 16, 114; opinion of colonial troops, 130, note. Woman Suffrage, 295, 297, and note, 459, note. Women, in higher schools, 295 ; legal rights of, 297 ; in industry, 444 d. Wood, General, in Cuba, 437. Woodrow Wilson, quoted on Pbila- delphia Convention as a class movement, 200, note ; on Webster- Hayne debate, 305; on South in Civil War, 375; redeems New Jersey, 411 ; progressive democ- racy, 458; President, 458. Workingday, sun to sun, in 1800, 249 ; and in 1830, 288; ten-hour, agita- tion for, 291, 292; secured, 292, 314 ; agitation for eight-hour day, 450 b. See Child Labor. " Workingman's Advocate, " the, 289. Workingmen, in American Revolu- tion, 137; ask a referendum in New York on State constitution, in 1776, 152. See Labor Movement. Wright, Prances, labor agitator in 1830, 291. Writs of Assistance, 129. See General Warrants. Wyatt, Francis, 30, 34, 36. Wyoming Valley, dispute over, 190. XYZ affair, the, 234. Yale, 122, note; proslavery in 1850, 348, note. Yeardley, Sir George, 28, 33, 34. Zenger, Peter, and freedom of the press, 119; a " redemptioner," 124, note. y ■' ^^jL 4 ruu. Y w * £ ^**^JL^ /3^H^>^ }^^^^ aA ^ A HI- « ^^adw^ - r«.. < » Ti«*lU>^ J^^ > r \ -sc^* ^iC «► - « • v ^ ^ - -.1. 7i • r k HtM* £ ' . 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED EDUCATION - PSYCHOLOGY LIBRARY This book is due on the last date stamped below, or on the date to which renewed. Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 7 DAY USE DURING SUMMER SESSIONS NOV 1 2 1963 NOV 13 1963 JAN 1)5 IS81 ND W 1 ' REC'D |2y 1 -MAM APR26I98I L ?D 2 6 4 A 7lsW)l76 3 Uri^tfjSrni. YC 44232 / M292007 £/7f • / THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY SMITH BROS. BOOKSELLrl •■>,. ART DEALEP DISTl-tJ nc-wrtt : : :i . ; : i i i yiUliij ■ : ; ; .'': : • %