<h2 id="c7"><span class="h2line1">Chapter VII</span> <br/><span class="h2line2">A Quarrel with the Mother Country</span></h2>
<p>We must now consider the reasons for the
quarrel with the mother country. “Woe to
the law breaker!” The law breaker causing
this disagreement was the English government.
According to the English constitution, new
taxes could not be laid upon the people without the
consent of their representatives. It now suddenly
occurred to the government to tax the colonies
without asking their permission. Thus it was acting
contrary to the principles of the constitution.
All right-thinking people will agree that one of the
saddest spectacles in history is to see a government,
whose sacred duty it is to be the guardian of the law,
working for its overthrow. The Anglo-American
disagreement furnishes this mournful spectacle.</p>
<div class="pb" id="Page_69">69</div>
<p>Lord Camden, one of those astute statesmen in
England who foresaw the consequences of such
action, said to Franklin: “In spite of your oft-protested
love for England, I know that some day
you Americans will shake off the bonds which unite
you to us and raise the flag of independence.” This
remark was afterward recalled and the reasons for
it were sought and not in vain. The English government
seems to have been possessed by a spirit of
lawlessness at that time, while the American colonies
were distinguished, just at the same period, in an
extraordinary degree, by a high regard for law.
Thus Lord Camden saw the day approaching when
the unjust demands of the government would arouse
the resistance of the Americans. Franklin had
assured Camden that nothing was farther from the
thoughts of his countrymen than a separation from
the mother country and the formation of an independent State.
Franklin indeed added the words,
“That is, unless you treat us shamefully,” to which
Lord Camden answered significantly, “That is true;
and that is precisely one of the reasons which I
foresee will bring this to pass.”</p>
<div class="pb" id="Page_70">70</div>
<p>Lord Camden’s predictions were fulfilled. The
ministry of King George arbitrarily imposed duties
upon certain articles in the colonies. This illegal
procedure was answered by the American population
refusing to buy the taxed goods sent over from
England. The act was annulled, but not on the
ground of unlawfulness, but because it was determined
to tax a class of goods which, it was thought,
America could not do without. The government
said to itself: Contracts shall be legal only when
they are executed upon stamped paper. As there
are innumerable contracts entered into between
the merchants in the colonies, and stamps must
be purchased for them, there will be no alternative,
the inhabitants will be compelled to pay the tax
which we shall lay upon these documents. Here it
made another mistake; the Americans, in their business
dealings, now employed only verbal promises
and oaths—the English tax-agents could not sell a
single stamped paper.</p>
<p>There was more or less unrest here and there.
The evident injustice of the measure caused some
outbreaks among the people, but the leaders tried
to keep the agitation within legal bounds. Even
yet Washington was far from thoughts of a separation.
He wrote to a friend: “I can testify that in
fact independence is neither the desire nor for the
interest of the colonies. But,” he added, “you
may be sure that not one of them will ever allow
those valuable rights to be destroyed which are
essential to the happiness of a free country and
without which life, liberty, and property are without
security.” Parliament was blind enough to give
its approval to the arbitrary measures of the government.
In spite of this the wish was general among
the great majority of American citizens that matters
should not come to a real break. The question was
prayed over in the churches, petitions were sent to
London to the King and to Parliament. Washington
wrote to a member of that body: “The repeal, to
whatever cause owing, ought much to be rejoiced at,
for, had the Parliament of Great Britain resolved
upon enforcing it, the consequences, I conceive,
would have been more direful than is generally apprehended,
both to the mother country and her colonies.
All, therefore, who were instrumental in procuring
the repeal are entitled to the thanks of every British
subject, and have mine cordially.” The Stamp Act
was now annulled, but again only because nothing
had been accomplished by it. The evil intent
toward the American colonies remained.</p>
<div class="pb" id="Page_71">71</div>
<p>It was not long before the English government,
with the assistance of Parliament, imposed a new
duty on tea, paper, glass, and painters’ colors. This
embittered every one anew. Immediately leagues
were formed in several colonies, whose members
pledged themselves not to buy goods imported from
England, except in case of the greatest necessity.
It was hoped that this would cause English citizens
at home to persuade the government to cancel this
new duty. Washington wrote to a friend: “At a
time when our lordly masters in Great Britain will
be satisfied with nothing less than the deprivation
of American freedom, it seems highly necessary that
something should be done to avert the stroke and
maintain the liberty which we have derived from
our ancestors. But the manner of doing it to
answer the purpose effectually is the point in question.
That no man should scruple, or hesitate a
moment, to use arms in defence of so valuable a
blessing is clearly my opinion. Yet arms, I would
beg leave to add, should be the last resource, the
<i>dernier resort</i>. We have already, it is said, proved
the inefficacy of addresses to the throne and remonstrances
to Parliament. How far, then, their attention
to our rights and privileges is to be awakened
or alarmed by starving their trade and manufactures,
remains to be tried. The northern colonies, it
appears, are endeavoring to adopt this scheme. In
my opinion it is a good one, and must be attended
with salutary effects, provided it can be carried
pretty generally into execution.”</p>
<div class="pb" id="Page_72">72</div>
<p>This letter of Washington shows the attitude of
the best men of the time toward the illegal measures
of Parliament. But England went farther still
along the hazardous path on which she had entered.
One wrong begets another. It was determined to
treat the resistance to the duties as high treason.
As the American judges would not agree to this, the
government arbitrarily introduced new courts composed
of British naval officers, whose attitude was
assured beforehand. Besides this, it set aside magistrates—this,
again, contrary to the laws of the land—and
created new ones. Finally it was ordained
that in future all of the more serious crimes should
be tried in England instead of in the colonies. This
despotic behavior increased the bitterness in the
minds of the Americans. Here and there their anger
blazed up. One heard of bloody encounters between
the American populace and British soldiers. The
latter gave the Americans the nickname of Yankees,
which in the Iroquois tongue meant <i>cowardly</i> and
<i>bad</i>. The people retorted by calling the British
soldiers crabs and bloodhounds, in allusion to their
red uniforms.</p>
<div class="pb" id="Page_73">73</div>
<p>For a time ships which brought tea from England
were refused admission to Boston Harbor, whereupon
the harbor was surrounded by British ships and it
was proclaimed that the refusal of tea ships would
no longer be tolerated. This so aroused the ire of
the Bostonians that it was determined to destroy the
tea. A band of men disguised as Indians boarded
the ships at night, and three hundred and forty-two
chests of tea were thrown into the water. In consequence
of this act the port of Boston was closed by
the British. That was a heavy blow for the city,
whose commerce was practically destroyed by this
measure. But the inhabitants did not yield.</p>
<div class="pb" id="Page_74">74</div>
<p>Upon this the English government, through the
Parliament in London, instructed the other colonies
to treat the inhabitants of Massachusetts as rebels.
Arguments were made in Parliament for and against
this course. A general, who denounced the attitude
of the citizens of Boston with extreme bitterness,
said that he would pledge himself to drive the whole
lot of American rebels from one end of the world to
the other with five regiments of infantry. Others
defended the Americans. Wilkes showed that the
British had adopted an unjust and inequitable
course against the colonists. “It is our ministers,”
he continued, “who wish to loose the bonds which
unite North America with Great Britain, while the
colonists wish for nothing but peace, freedom, and
security.” He adjured Parliament to adopt a more
just procedure toward them. “It is possible,” he
concluded, “that you might be able to burn Boston,
or to place a strong garrison there, but the whole
province will be lost to you. From this moment
I see America’s independence growing and gathering
strength; I see her, in her freedom, attaining a
greatness equal to the richest and mightiest empires
in the world. Do you wish to push the Americans
to desperation? Good! You will see them defend
their property with that courage which hatred of
tyranny inspires, with the courage that comes down
to them from our illustrious forefathers, who fought
in defence of their threatened liberties!” The warning
was in vain. The majority in Parliament shared
the blindness of the ministry and not only the inhabitants
of Boston, but of the whole province were
declared rebels; that is, they were put under military
law. This was equal to a declaration of war.</p>
<div class="pb" id="Page_75">75</div>
<p>As soon as the decree was made known in Massachusetts,
the representatives of the colony met at
Salem and from there issued a call to all the American
colonies to a general congress. The call was
accepted by nearly all of them, though the delegates
from Georgia did not arrive until later. Philadelphia
was chosen as the place of meeting and the first
Continental Congress convened on the fourth of
September, 1774. The greater part of the fifty-one
members were thoughtful, dignified men. Washington
was the most distinguished amongst them. He
had written a short time before this to a friend:
“What is it we are contending against? Is it against
paying the duty of threepence per pound on tea,
because burdensome? No, it is our right only that
we have all along disputed.... If I had no doubt
that the British Parliament had a right to tax us
without our consent, and contrary to our charters
and our constitution, I should consider entreaties,
and entreaties only, the sole means through which
we should seek redress. But my firm conviction is
that the British Parliament has no more right to
put its hand in my pocket than I have to put mine
into my neighbor’s.”</p>
<p>The proposal to open the Congress with prayer
was adopted unanimously. The minister began his
petition for God’s aid in a just cause with the
words of the Thirty-fifth Psalm: “Plead my cause,
O Lord, with them that strive with me: fight against
them that fight against me. Take hold of shield
and buckler, and stand up for mine help.” Next
a “declaration of rights” was drawn up, which
stated the lawful rights of the colonies clearly and
concisely. Furthermore the resolution to refrain
from buying English goods until the unlawful demands
had been withdrawn was renewed, and finally
an address to the English people, a memorial to the
American people, and a petition to the King were
framed. They were anxious not to destroy the
possibility of a peaceable adjustment, even at the
last moment.</p>
<div class="pb" id="Page_76">76</div>
<p>The English people were addressed with firmness
and dignity. “You have been told,” the address says,
“that we are rebels who are weary of submission to
authority and seek independence. Be assured that
this is calumny. Grant us the same freedom that you
enjoy and we shall glory in our union with you and
esteem it our greatest happiness. We shall always
be ready to sacrifice all that lies in our power for the
welfare of the empire; we shall consider your enemies
our enemies, and your interests our interests. But
should you be determined to allow your ministers to
trifle with human dignity, should neither the voice of
justice, nor the precepts of the law, nor the basis of
the constitution, nor feelings of humanity, deter you
from shedding our blood—we must declare to you
that we shall never debase ourselves to become the
slaves of any minister or of any nation in the world.”</p>
<p>The King, as well as the ministry and Parliament,
persisted in their blindness. The greatest English
statesman, Chatham, warned his countrymen in
vain and pleaded with enthusiasm, but fruitlessly,
the just and honorable cause of the Americans.
“When your Lordships,” he cried, “look at the
papers transmitted us from America, when you consider
their decency, firmness, and wisdom, you can
not but respect their cause and wish to make it your
own. For myself, I must avow that in all my reading—and
I have read Thucydides and have studied
and admired the master States of the world—for
solidity of reason, force of sagacity, and wisdom of
conclusion under a complication of difficult circumstances,
no body of men can stand in preference to
the General Congress at Philadelphia.” At another
time he said: “I rejoice that America has resisted.
Three millions of people so dead to all the feelings of
liberty, as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would
have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest.”</p>
<div class="pb" id="Page_77">77</div>
<p>Not only Washington’s whole previous life and
career, but particularly his attitude at the Congress,
caused his countrymen to look to him with the
greatest confidence. When one of the most prominent
members, Patrick Henry, was asked on his
return home whom he considered the most important
man among the members, he answered: “If you
refer to eloquence, Rutledge of South Carolina is by
far the greatest orator; but if you speak of thorough
knowledge and sound judgment, without question
Colonel Washington is the greatest man in that
body.”</p>
<p>It was a comfort to all who had reached the
conclusion that the day of conflict was not far distant
that Washington not only had great gifts as a
statesman, but had already proved himself an
accomplished soldier.</p>
<div class="pb" id="Page_78">78</div>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />
1 of 2
2 of 2
Previous
Next
Update Required
To play the media you will need to either update your browser to a recent version or update your Flash plugin.