Revolutionary Reader: Reminiscences and Indian Legends

---

JOHN MARTIN.

When quite a little boy in his home in Caroline County, Virginia, John Martin adopted as his motto: "I will do my best." It helped him even in childhood to have this motto, for whenever he had any difficult task to perform, either at home or school, he remembered his motto and did his best.

In his veins flowed the blood of a noble ancestry and many sterling merited qualities helped him in the formation of a manly character.

He was born in 1751, amid turbulent scenes in Virginia, for the Indians were frequently incited by the French to commit deeds of violence and cruelty upon the English colonists, and in consequence of this, his early impressions were of preparations for war. At a tender age John witnessed the departure of his father, Abner Martin, to join Colonel Washington on his way to Fort Duquesne. He saw him buckle on his sword and sabre and mount his charger and set his face towards the Ohio Valley. And after that parting he experienced some of the horrors of war, for in the silent hour of night, the stealthy tread of the Indian noiselessly approached the Martin plantation and applied the torch to the barns and outhouses, and morning found them in ruins. He shared the general feeling of uneasiness and insecurity that had settled down upon the home circle in consequence of his father's absence, and his grandfather's illness. His mother at this time was for him his tower of strength, and his ark of safety, for she it was who devised means for their protection and safety. As he grew older and thought upon these stirring scenes, no wonder that his martial spirit was stirred within him and that he resolved "some day I'll go too, and I can if I do my best," and he did.

About 1768, the Martin family removed from Virginia to South Carolina and settled at Edgefield. The sons were sent to Virginia to be educated, and it was there that John formed a close personal friendship for George Washington, which ripened with the coming years. When the war for American Independence was declared, John Martin, and his seven brothers, all officers, had his life's desire fulfilled, and following the footsteps of his father saw service in the defence of his country. He also served with distinction in the state legislature and afterward was made General in command of the South Carolina state troops. He married Elizabeth, the daughter of Colonel Nathaniel Terry, of Virginia. Many years later General John Martin was on a visit to his son Marshall Martin, in Meriwether County, Georgia at the time when Georgia was called upon to furnish her quota of troops for the war of 1812. John Martin was then 70 years old and still the fires of patriotism were not extinguished nor the love of battle front subdued.

The talk of another war with England made him forget his years, and his infirmities, and as his son Marshall recounted the probabilities of renewed encounters, and spoke of his own enlistment, the old "war horse sniffing the battle from afar," exclaimed excitedly, "My son let me go in your stead."

After this visit John Martin returned to his Edgefield home, where he died in 1820.

Boys and girls who would develop fine character must have high ideals even in childhood. "Sow a thought and you reap a habit, sow a habit and you reap a character, sow a character and you reap a destiny"—M. M. Park, David Meriwether Chapter, D. A. R., Greenville.

---

JOHN STARK, REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIER.

The victory of the little band of patriots at Bennington early in the Revolutionary War made John Stark famous, and shortly afterward he was christened "Old Bennington," first by the soldiers and then by the American colonists generally. At the time of the victory Stark was close to fifty years of age, and had had a long and distinguished career as an Indian fighter.

In early life John Stark was a New Hampshire farmer, and in that state he was born of Irish parents, and there he died in 1822, at the advanced age of 94. His farm was located in the wildest part of the forest country of New Hampshire, and Indian fighting was a hobby with him. Several years prior to the Revolution he and his little band of frontiersmen had succeeded in driving the Indians from their neighborhood, so that they were no longer troubled with them. Then for several years Stark settled down to the enjoyment of farm life. At this vocation he continued until tidings reached him of the battle of Lexington.

Promptly upon the receipt of this news he mounted his horse, and at the head of several hundred of his neighbors, set out to join the Colonial Army at Cambridge. Upon his arrival there he was appointed a colonel, and in one day he had organized a regiment of 800 hardy backswoodsmen.

Then came the memorable Bunker Hill day. Stark and his men were stationed a few miles away from the scene of this conflict, but in full sight of both Bunker and Breed's hills. Seeing that a battle was inevitable, he waited for no orders, but set out at once for the ground, which he reached just before the conflict began. He led his men into the fight saying: "Boys aim at their waistbands," an order that has become historical.

In the heat of this action a soldier came to Stark with the report that his son, a youth of 16, who was with him on the field had been killed.

"This is not the moment to talk of private affairs," was the grim reply; "go back to your post."

As it proved, the report was false, and young Stark served as a staff officer through the war.

After the patriots were compelled to evacuate Boston, Stark marched with his regiment to New York, but was shortly directed to take part in the ill-starred expedition against Canada. The retreating army reached Ticonderoga on the 7th of July. Here on the following day the Declaration of Independence reached the soldiers in the field and Col. Stark had the satisfaction, on the scene of his former exploits, to hear the proclamation read to his cheering troops.

Then Gen. Stark proceeded south to assist Washington and to gain his full share of applause in the battle of Trenton. In March, 1777, he returned to his native state to recruit the ranks of his regiment, and while there news came to him that a new list of promotions had been made in which his name was omitted, while younger officers had been advanced in rank. This injustice he bitterly resented and resigned from the army and retired to his farm.

But Stark was still the patriot and when the information reached him that the enemy were moving south from Canada, and that Gen. St. Clair had retreated and that Ticonderoga had been captured, New Hampshire flew to arms and called for Stark to command her troops.

Stark was at Bennington when he learned that a detachment of six hundred men under Col. Baum had been dispatched by Burgoyne on a foraging expedition in that section, sending a party of Indians in advance on a scouting raid. Upon learning of this Stark sent out expresses to call in the militia of the neighborhood, he marched out to meet Baum, who entrenched himself in a strong position about six miles from Bennington.

This was on the 14th of August. A few miles out he met Lieut.-Col. Gregg retreating, with the enemy close at hand. Stark at once halted and drew up his men in order of battle. The enemy, seeing this, at once stopped also and entrenched themselves. Thus the armies remained for two days, contenting themselves with skirmishing, in which the Americans had much the best of the game. Baum's Indians began to desert, saying that "the woods were filled with Yankees."

On the morning of the sixteenth Stark prepared for an attack. Before advancing he addressed his men with that brief but telling address which has made his name historic: "There are the red coats; we must beat them to-day or to-night Molly Stark sleeps a widow."

They beat them and "Molly" had the satisfaction of long enjoying the fame that came to John, instead of wearing the widow's weeds. The victory was decisive and by a band of raw militia, poorly armed and without discipline, but led by one of the most fearless men of the revolution.

Of the one thousand British soldiers engaged in this fight, not more than a hundred escaped, and it was this victory of "Old Bennington" which led ultimately to the surrender of Burgoyne at Saratoga. Col. Baum, who was mortally wounded, said of the provisionals, "They fought more like hell-hounds than like soldiers." Washington spoke of the engagement as "the great stroke struck by Gen. Stark near Bennington" and Baroness Riedessel, then in the British camp, wrote: "This unfortunate event paralyzed our operations."

"Old Bennington" was a splendid type of the class of men who gave success to the American Revolution. Congress, after Bennington, hastened to repair its former action by appointing Stark a brigadier-general, and he continued in the army till the end of the war. He lived to see the country firmly established, and when he died in 1822 he was buried on the banks of the Merrimac River at Manchester.

---

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN.

By George Fitch.

Benjamin Franklin was an ordinary man with an extraordinary supply of common sense who flourished in the eighteenth century and is still regarded as one of the finest of American products.

Franklin was born in Boston, but was one of the few Boston wise men to succeed in getting away from that city. His family was not distinguished and when he left Boston, after having run a newspaper with more brilliance than success, no committee of city officials appeared to bid him goodbye.

Franklin arrived in Philadelphia with enough money left to buy two rolls of bread and paraded the town wearing one loaf under his arm and eating the other. This successfully quarantined him from Philadelphia society and he was enabled to put all his time into the printing business with such success that he was sent to London in 1824 by the governor to get a printing outfit. He worked for eighteen months in a London printing house and was probably the most eminent employee that London Journalism ever had, though England has not yet waked up to this fact.

Franklin then returned to Philadelphia and purchased The Gazette, which he began to edit with such success that he frequently had to spend all day making change for eager subscribers. It might be well to mention here that at this time he was only 23 years old, having been born January 17, 1706, and having been a full-fledged editor at the age of 15. Genius often consists in getting an early start and keeping started.

At the age of 26 Franklin's "Poor Richard's Almanac," the sayings of a wise old man, had the largest circulation of anything printed in the Colonies, and people sought his advice on everything from love to chicken raising. At the age of 31 he was a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly. At 40 he had diagnosed lightning and had exhibited the first electricity ever in captivity in a bottle, having caught it with a kite string and a key. He had also charted the course of North American storms, and explained the gulf stream.

Franklin helped the Colonies to declare their independence and secured the treaty of alliance with France. At 79 he was elected governor of Pennsylvania. At 82 he helped write the Constitution of the United States. He also devised the American postal system. He died at the age of 84, and Philadelphia is prouder of his tombstone than she is of the Liberty Bell.

Through all his long and busy life Franklin never had time to dress up and adopt the social usages of his day. But this did not prevent him from dazzling the exquisite court of France at its most brilliant and useless period. He was one of the few men who gave to the earth more wisdom than he absorbed from it, but he never was a bonanza for the tailors. Had he spent his youth keeping four tailors and three haberdashers in affluence, Franklin relics would probably not command the high price which they now do.

---

CAPTAIN MUGFORD RAN THE BRITISH BLOCKADE AND CAPTURED POWDER SHIP.

Had Great Britain made peace with the American colonies after the British army had been driven from Boston, James Mugford would be a popular hero today. But Great Britain continued the war for eight long years, and so many heroes were made that the name of James Mugford, "the world forgetting, and by the world forgot," was lost.

Mugford died in 1776. He and his 27 companions were attacked by 200 British marines. They fought most all night, and the British were whipped, but the gallant captain was killed by a pike thrust.

The British under General Gage evacuated Boston, in March, 1776. The British fleet remained behind in Boston to blockade the port. General Washington hurried to New York with the main Colonial army to dispute the proposed British landing there. General Artemas Ward was left in command of a pretty sizeable American army around Boston; but Washington had taken all the powder and most of the guns.

The Americans were at the mercy of the British ships, only the British didn't know it. General Ward zealously guarded the fact that his powder supply was nil, and planned to fill his magazines at the invader's expense.

Accordingly two small ships, the schooners Hancock and Franklin, were outfitted and ordered to sea for the purpose of capturing a supply ship. Captain Samuel Tucker commanded the Hancock. James Mugford, a citizen of Marblehead, Mass., was appointed master of the Franklin. His vessel carried a crew of 21, including himself.

On May 7 Captain Tucker captured two brigs laden with valuable supplies; but no powder. He took his prizes to Lynn. General Ward communicated with Captain Mugford and explained to him the desperate straits the army was fronting.

"I'll get some powder," said the short-spoken Marblehead. And he did.

The British ship Hope, carrying war munitions for the British, was due. It had powder for the fleet. Captain Mugford heard of its expected arrival and put to sea.

Almost within sight of the British fleet he met the Hope and captured it. But how to land the prize? He didn't have men enough to take it to Lynn or any other port very distant. The British fleet lay between him and the American army in Boston.

Captain Mugford chose to run the British blockade and fight the whole fleet of a dozen ships or more, if necessary. He put a few of his best men aboard the Hope and made the British crew sail it. Then, in the Franklin, he arrogantly sailed toward the British fleet and dropped a few cannon balls its way.

The British were astounded. What could this crazy skipper mean by attacking a fleet with one dinky little schooner? They would teach him a lesson. The whole fleet maneuvered round to blow the Franklin off the bay. Meanwhile the Hope sneaked in the harbor, and then Captain Mugford outsailed the British fleet and got in himself. In the hold of the Hope the Americans found 75 tons of powder and other war stores needed just then more than men or gold. Mugford had made good his word.

Very naturally the British were angry. The admiral issued an order that James Mugford was to be captured by any hook or crook and promptly killed. Somebody told Captain Mugford about the order.

"Oh, piffle!" he said, or something like that. "I'll run by his derned old fleet every day in the week and twice on Sunday if I want."

The Sunday following, May 19, 1776, Captain Mugford, in the Franklin, with 21 men, and Captain Cunningham, in the privateer Lady Washington, a vessel carrying seven men and a few small swivel guns, started to puncture the British blockade again. They would have succeeded, but the Franklin grounded. A flotilla of small boats from the fleet, carrying 200 well-armed men, started for the attack. Captain Cunningham refused to leave his companion, so both he and Captain Mugford prepared for battle.

It was a fiercely fought contest and lasted the better part of the night. On May 20 General Ward made the following report of the engagement:

"Captain Mugford was very fiercely attacked by 12 or 13 boats full of men, but he and his men exerted themselves with remarkable bravery, beat off the enemy, sunk several of their boats and killed a number of their men; it is supposed they lost 60 or 70. The intrepid Captain Mugford fell a little before the enemy left his schooner. He was run through with a lance while he was cutting off the hands of the pirates as they were attempting to board him, and it is said that with his own hands he cut off five pairs of theirs. No other man was killed or wounded on the Franklin."—Kansas City Star.

---

GOVERNOR JOHN CLARKE.

Among the historical sketches penned by Miss Annie M. Lane for the American Journal of History, that touching the life of Governor John Clarke, received the highest award, and through the kindness of the author we are permitted to reproduce it.

I sometimes think there are more interesting things and people under the ground than above it, yet we who are above it do not want to go below it to get acquainted with them, but if we can find out anything from the outside we enjoy it. In a previous article, I said there was no spot in Georgia so full of buried romance as Wilkes County, and no manuscript so fascinating as the musty and yellow old records of a hundred years ago, which lie unmolested in our courthouse, especially those of 1777.

One cannot but feel after reading these books that he has been face to face with the grand old gentlemen of Revolutionary days: the men who walked our streets with their ruffled shirts—three-cornered hats and dangling swords—yet so different are they in personality and character that the weaving together of their lives makes to me a grand and beautiful fabric, "a tapestry of reminiscent threads." Some rich, some dark and sombre in shade, making a background so fitting for the crimson and purple and gold—for the conspicuous, inflaming color of impetuous natures, toned down with characters as white and cool as the snowflakes which fall upon our Southern violets.

You have but to close your eyes to the scene of today to recall ex-Governor Talbot, Governor Matthews, General Clarke, together with Jesse Mercer, Mr. Springer and Duncan C. Campbell, who were familiar figures once upon the streets of Washington.

In the painting of character sketches we would not do the individual justice if we did not remember his environments, and above all his inherited nature, for are we not all bound by heredity? My last sketch was of Jesse Mercer, now it is of John Clarke. How striking the contrast. The life of Jesse Mercer was as quiet and majestic as was his nature. John Clarke just three years his senior, born and reared at no great distance had a life of adventure. He was the son of our stalwart General Elijah Clarke and his wife, Hannah, and was the youngest soldier whose name appears upon the roster of Kettle Creek, being 13 years of age. (Battle of Kettle Creek, 1779, John Clarke, born 1766.)

I will refer you to history to convince you of how his whole nature was fired by the blood within his veins, inherited from both mother and father. He came of fighting stock in a fighting age! In "White's Historical Collections of Georgia," there is an account of the life of Hannah Clarke, who survived her husband, Elijah Clarke, twenty years, dying at the age of 90 (in 1829.) The burning of her house by a party of British and Tories is recorded, and the turning out of herself and children while General Clarke was away.

When General Clarke was so desperately wounded at Long Cane in Carolina, she started to him and was robbed of the horse on which she was riding. On one campaign she accompanied him and when she was moving from a place of danger, the horse on which she and two of her younger children were riding was shot from under her. Later, she was at the siege of Augusta. All this time General Elijah Clarke's right hand man was young John. Being reared in the army, this boy became wild and impetuous; by nature he was intense, so when cupid's dart entered his heart it was inflamed as deeply with love as it had been with hatred for the British. His love story ends with Meredith's words, "Whom first we love, we seldom wed."

About four miles from the hill on which the little battle of Kettle Creek was fought, there lived an orphan girl, the stepdaughter of Artnial Weaver, and the youngest sister of Sabina Chivers, who married Jesse Mercer. John Clarke loved this girl, but there was opposition to the union. But as yet not knowing the meaning of the word defeat, he induced her to elope with him.

It was his thought to take her to the home of a friend of his father's, Daniel Marshall, near Kiokee, but the weather was severe, and a snowstorm set in. They were compelled to stop at a farm house where lived the mother of Major Freeman (related to Dr. S. G. Hillyer.) Miss Chivers was taken ill that night with congestion of the lungs, and died. In the absence of flowers the good woman of the house adorned the dead girl with bunches of holly, entwined them in her beautiful black hair and placed them in her clasped hands. The grave they covered with the same beautiful crimson and green holly, upon which the snow recently fell. This was the first real sorrow in the life of John Clarke and many were to follow.

To some the years come and go like beautiful dreams, and life seems only as a fairy tale that is told, yet there are natures for which this cannot be. Some hands reach forth too eagerly to cull life's sweet, fair flowers, and often grasp hidden thorns. Feet that go with quick, fearless steps are most apt to be wounded by jutting stones, and alas! John Clarke found them where 'er he went through life's bright sunlight or its shaded paths, these cruel, sharp piercing thorns; those hard, cold, hurting stones.

We next see John Clarke just before he enters into his political life. From "The History of Wilkes County," in our library, I copy the following, viz: "Micajah Williamson kept a licensed tavern in the town of Washington—on record, we find that he sold with meals, drinks as follows: Good Jamaica spirits, per gill, 2d; good Madeira wine, per bottle, 4s 8d; all white wines, per battle, 3s 6d; port, per bottle, 1s 9d; good whiskey and brandy, per gill, 6d & C. & C. at that time a shilling was really 22c., a penny 7-5 of a cent."

In front of this tavern was a large picture of George Washington hanging as a swinging sign. John Clarke used to come to town, and like most men of his day got drunk. They all did not "cut up," however, as he did on such occasions. He went into stores and smashed things generally, as tradition says, but he always came back and paid for them like a gentleman. Once he came into town intoxicated and galloped down Court street and fired through the picture of General Washington before the tavern door. This was brought up against him later when he was a candidate for governor, but his friends denied it.

Soon after this he married the oldest daughter of Micajah Williamson, while Duncan C. Campbell married the youngest.

The stirring events which followed we have all learned in history, how the state was divided into two factions, the Clarkeites and those for Crawford and Troup. The state was so evenly divided that the fight was fierce. The common people and owners of small farms were for Clarke, the "gentry" and well-to-do educated folk for Crawford, and sent him to the United States Senate. Clarke and Crawford from youth had been antagonistic. Clarke, while uneducated, was brilliantly intelligent, but deeply sensitive. Crawford was polished and of courtly bearing, a man of education, but was very overbearing. Had he lived today our public school boy would say "he was always nagging at Clarke." Be that as it may, it was nip and tuck between them in the gubernatorial campaign. Clarke fought a duel with Crawford at High Shoals, and shattered his wrist. Later he tried to get Crawford to meet him again, but he persistently refused. One ugly thing to me was the horsewhipping of Judge Tate by Governor Clarke on the streets of Milledgeville, then the capital. This did Clarke no good.

General Clarke twice defeated Mr. Troup for governor. Troup was at last elected, defeating Matthew Talbot, who was on Clarke's side in 1823. General Clarke was defeated by Talbot himself. There is never an article written about Clarke that his bad spelling is not referred to. Not long ago I read in a magazine published in Georgia that Clarke spelled coffee "kaughphy." This is not true, that honor belongs to Matthews, another one of the familiar figures once on the streets of Washington. Even the best educated of our Revolutionary heroes did not spell correctly as we call it, from George Washington down.

I rather enjoy their license for I think English spelling is a tyrannical imposition. After the defeat of Clarke the tide was against him. Many untrue things were said about him and they cut him deeply. He was misunderstood often, and in chagrin he left the state.

Beneath the rough exterior there never beat a kinder heart than that in the breast of John Clarke. Although he had the brusque manner of a soldier of Revolutionary days, with those he loved he was as tender and gentle as a child. On one occasion soon after his first election to the governorship of Georgia there was a banquet given in his honor. The decorations on the white linen of the table were wreaths of holly, thought to be very beautiful and tasty. When the governor entered with his friends he stopped stock still in the doorway turning deathly pale. He ordered every piece of holly dashed from the window. The occurrence was spread far and wide all over the state and criticism ran high, and even his friends disapproved of the uncivil act of one in his high station. He never made an explanation until years afterwards.

Memories with him did not die, though beneath the ashes of the silent past. If he might call them dead, and bury them, it seems they only slept, and ere he knew, at but a word, a breath, the softest sigh, they woke once more and moved here as he thought they would not evermore. Clarke owned large tracts of land in Wilkes county (before it was cut up into other counties.) One deed is made to Wylie Pope in 1806. He reserves twenty feet where his two children are buried, Elijah Clarke and George Walton Clarke. Leaving Georgia he settled in Washington county, Florida, on the shores of the beautiful "Old Saint Andrews." Here he entertained his friends and here he spent the last ten years of his life within the sound of the restless, surging waters of the gulf. October 12th, 1832, Governor Clarke passed from this life, and eight days later his wife joined him in the Great Beyond. They were buried near the seashore in a beautiful grove of live oaks, and a marble shaft erected over them bears the following inscription:

Here reposes the remains of
John Clarke
Late Governor of Georgia
And
Nancy Clarke
His Wife

(North Face of Monument)

John Clarke
Born Feb. 28th, 1760
Died October 12th, 1832
As an officer he was vigilant and brave
As a statesman energetic and faithful
As a father and friend devoted and sincere.

(West Face)

This monument was erected by their surviving children, Ann Campbell and Wylie P. Clarke.

Not far from the monument are two little graves with flat slabs and the following inscription:

Erected to the memory of John W. and Ann W. Campbell.
Ann Hand
Born January 24th, 1823
Died Sept. 3rd, 1829
Marcus Edwin
Born Feb. 25th, 1831
Died Feb. 3rd, 1833
"Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven."

Seventy-five years have passed and the once beautiful spot is now desecrated. The oaks are cut, the tombstones are broken, and the grave of Georgia's governor is trespassed upon in a shameful manner. However, overshadowing his tomb, and keeping guard is a holly tree in all its beauty, filled with long waving wreathes of Spanish moss, and no doubt it whispers to the passing breeze that hurries on to ocean, the story of a lost love!

---

PARTY RELATIONS IN ENGLAND AND THEIR EFFECT ON THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

(A paper read before the Ralph Humphreys Chapter, Daughters of the American Revolution, of Jackson, Mississippi, by Dr. James Elliott Walmsley, professor of history in Millsaps College.)

George Eliot says somewhere that all beginnings are make-believes. Especially is this statement found true in attempting to trace the origin of the American Revolution. Every cause assigned is at once seen to be the effect of some more remote cause, until one might go back step by step to the liberty-loving ancestors of the early Saxons in their forest home of Northern Germany. Without undertaking any work so elaborate it is the purpose of this study to show the effects of one of these causes.

All free governments have developed parties, but as the word is used at present true political parties in England did not arise till after the wars of the Puritans and Cavaliers in the seventeenth century. The men who migrated to America, with the exception of the aristocratic element that located largely in the South between 1640 and 1660, were of the party who believed in restricting the power of the king, and were opposed by the party who professed implicit faith in the divine right of kings. By the time of the accession of William of Orange the former party was recognized by the name of Whigs, while the loyal devotees of regal infallibility were called Tories.

The first king of the Hanover line, George I, was seated on his throne through a successful piece of Whig politics, so admirably described by Thackeray in Henry Esmond, and his government was conducted by a Whig minister, Robert Walpole, assisted by a Whig cabinet. The power remained in the hands of a few families, and this condition, which amounted to an aristocratic rule of "Old Whigs," lasted down to the accession of George III, in 1760. The new king, who was destined to be the last king in America, was not like his father and grandfather, a German-speaking prince who knew nothing of England and her people, but one who gloried in the name Briton. Brought up by his mother with the fixed idea he should never forget that he was king, his ambition was to restore the autocratic power of William I. or Henry II. To attain this end he set himself to overthrow the Whig party and so recall to favor the Tories, who had by this time given up their dreams of "Bonnie Prince Charlie" and Stuart restorations.

This misguided monarch, who was a model of Christian character in private life, but who in the words of a great English historian, wrought more lasting evil to his country than any other man in its history, determined first to overthrow William Pitt, the elder, the greatest statesman that the English speaking race has ever produced—that man who sat in his room in London and planned campaigns in the snow covered mountains of Silesia and the impassable swamps of Prussia, on the banks of the Hugli in India and on the Plain of Abraham in Canada, in the spicy islands of the East Indies and the stormy waters of the Atlantic, who brought England from the depths of lowest dejection to a point where the gifted Horace Walpole could say in 1759, "We must inquire each morning what new victory we should celebrate." This great man was overthrown by the king in 1761, and there came into power the extreme Tory wing, known as the "king's friends," whose only rule of political guidance was the royal wish. These men, led by the Earl of Bute, followed the king on one of the wildest, maddest courses that English partisan politics has known.

At this point we must pause and examine the constitution of the British Empire. England, Scotland, and Wales were governed by their own Parliament, but so defective was the method of representation that villages which had formerly flourished but had now fallen into decay or even like Old Sarum, were buried under the waves of the North Sea, still returned their two members to Parliament, while important cities like Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham, which had grown up in the last hundred years, were entirely unrepresented. The Whigs in England, as least the New Whigs, the progressive element, were contending for the same principle of representation that inspired the Americans. In addition to the home-land, England ruled, as colonies, Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, sea fortresses, such as Gibraltar and Malta, Asiatic possessions, including in India an empire twenty times as populous as the ruling country, Canada, Jamaica, the Barbadoes, the Thirteen Colonies, etc. Our own thirteen colonies, which were not united among themselves and which were not different in the eyes of an Englishman from any other of the colonies, formed a small part geographically of the empire and had for their peculiar distinction only the larger proportion of English residents.

Furthermore, the modern idea of governing colonies for the welfare of the colonies had not yet been invented. A colony was considered as a farm or any other wealth producing piece of property. Adam Smith's epoch-making work, "The Wealth of Nations," the first serious attempt to discuss Political Economy, was not published till 1776, and in his chapter on colonies he for the first time proposed the doctrine of removing restrictions and allowing to colonies free trade and free government. It is significant of the contentions of this article that Adam Smith's book was at once read and quoted in Parliament by the leaders of the Whigs, especial attention being given to it by the young William Pitt, who was described by an enthusiastic Whig as "not a chip of the old block but the old block itself."

With this preliminary statement we can take up the course of party relations. One of the first distinctively party acts of George's reign was the Stamp Act passed against the active opposition of the Whigs; and the downfall of the Grenville ministry and the accession of the Marquis of Rockingham, the Whig prime minister, marked by the repeal of this act in 1766. In the next year, however, the Rockingham ministry fell, and Townshend, the moving spirit in the succeeding administration, carried through the series of acts that led directly to the Boston Tea Party and its momentous results.

Finally when George III, who openly proclaimed himself a Tory, succeeded in becoming supreme in the government, he called into office, in 1770, Lord George North, who for twelve years was the king's tool in carrying out a policy which he disliked. It was only his "lazy good nature and Tory principles," which led him to defer to the king's judgment and advocate the doctrine, in a far different sense from the present meaning of the words, that "the king can do no wrong." From this day it was natural that the Whigs in opposition should oppose the government measures and should identify the cause of free government in America with that in England and that every New Whig should become an enthusiastic supporter of the American contentions. In fact George and the Tory party realized that if the American theory of taxation conditioned on representation prevailed it would be necessary to yield to the demand of the New Whigs for reform in the representation in England.

This fact explains some intricate points in the politics of the time. It shows for instance why we fought a war with England and then in securing a treaty of peace conspired with our enemy, England, to wrest more favorable terms from our ally, France. We fought a Tory England, but Lord North's ministry fell when the news of Yorktown came, and we made a treaty of peace with a whig England, and the Whigs were our friends. The Whigs in Parliament spoke of the American army as "our army," Charles Fox spoke of Washington's defeat as the "terrible news from Long Island," and Wraxall says that the famous buff and blue colors of the Whig party were adopted from the Continental uniform. Even the "Sons of Liberty" took their name from a phrase struck out by Colonel Barre, the comrade of Wolfe at Quebec, in the heat of a parliamentary debate.

Illustrations of this important point might be multiplied, but it may be better to take up more minutely the career of one man and show how the conflict of Whig and Tory politics affected the actual outcome of the struggle. Lord George Howe was the only British officer who was ever really loved by the Americans, and there is to-day in Westminster Abbey a statue erected to his memory by the people of Massachusetts. After his death at Ticonderoga in 1758 his mother issued an address to the electors of Nottingham asking that they elect her youngest son William to Parliament in his place. William Howe, known in American history as General Howe, considered himself as the successor of his brother and as the especial friend of the Americans. When war was threatened in 1774 he told his constituents that on principle the Americans were right and that if he were appointed to go out against them he would as a loyal Whig refuse. Of course this was a reckless statement, for an officer in the army can not choose whom he will fight. He was put in supreme command in America when General Gage was recalled, but was directed by his government to carry the olive branch in one hand. That he obeyed this command, which was to his own liking, even too literally, is easily established.

There is one almost unwritten chapter in American history which I would like to leave in oblivion, but candor demands its settlement. Our people were not as a whole enthusiastic over the war, in many sections a majority were opposed to it, those who favored it were too often half-hearted in their support. Had the men of America in 1776 enlisted and served in the same proportion in which the men of the Southern States did in 1861, when fighting for their "independence," Washington would have had at all times over 60,000 in his army. As a matter of fact there never were as many as 25,000 in active service at any one time, the average number was about 4,000, and at certain critical times he had not over 1,000. General Knox's official figures of 252,000 are confessedly inaccurate, and by including each separate short enlistment make up the total enlistment for the six years, sometimes counting the same man as often as five times. At the very time when Washington's men were starving and freezing at Valley Forge the country people were hauling provisions past the camp and selling them to the British in Philadelphia.

Much more might be said, but enough for a disagreeable subject. No careful historian to-day will deny that considering the lack of support given to Washington and his army, the Revolution could have been crushed in the first year, long before the French alliance was a possibility, had the English shown one-half the ability of the administration in the recent South African War. Among the causes assignable for this state of incompetence the political situation deserves more attention than it has hitherto been given.

No one has ever explained Howe's inexcusable carelessness in letting Washington escape after Long Island, no one can explain his foolish inactivity during the succeeding winter, except by the fact that Howe was a Whig, his sympathies were with the Americans, the Whigs had said repeatedly that the Americans could hold out against a good army and it seemed now that they were helping fulfill their own prophecy.

It is rarely stated in our American histories that Howe was investigated by a committee of Parliament after his evacuation of Philadelphia, that he was severely condemned for not assisting Burgoyne and for not capturing Washington's starving handful of men at Valley Forge, that Joseph Galloway, the noted American loyalist, who was a member of the first Continental Congress, openly accused him of being in league with a large section of Whigs to let the Revolution go by default and to give America its independence, and that immediately after his return to England he resumed his seat in Parliament and spoke and worked in opposition to the king and in behalf of the Americans.

The case of General Howe is typical and can be duplicated in the other departments of the government. The leading Tory ministers claimed that the rebellion would have failed but for the sympathy in the House of Commons, and this charge was made in the very House itself.

It would be a gross exaggeration to say that our Revolution was merely the result of a party quarrel in England, but the unfortunate party attitude of King George III. certainly was one of the most potent causes of trouble, and the progress of the war reacted most strongly on the party situation in England. When William Pitt, the younger, at the age of twenty-five took into his hands the premiership of England in December 1783, he did it as the representative of the English people, and the revolution which began in this country was completed in the English Parliament. Up to 1776 the history of America and England flowed in the same channel, Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Pitt are ours as much as England's, and it should always be remembered that just when the countries were in the act of separating the system of George III. was shaken off and shattered by the free people of the two great Anglo-Saxon powers, and the Whig statesmen of England could join with their party friends in America in welcoming a new self-governing people to the council of nations.—American Monthly Magazine.

---

EARLY MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION BY LAND AND WATER.

The facilities for conveniently carrying persons or property from one place to another affects in a measure the physical welfare of every human being, and all progressive nations desire to secure the advantages to be derived from the best systems of transportation. This country of ours has tried many experiments and been rapidly benefited in the results obtained. It hardly seems to us possible, in this day of improved and rapid travel, that the entire system of transportation is still in the transition state, and in some parts of the country the very expedients which we have tried, improved upon and cast away, are at present in use. But our topic deals with other days than these, and we must hasten back to the beginning of things here in America.

According to Indian tradition, it is believed that within a brief period prior to the discovery of America by Columbus, the Indians had travelled over a large portion of the country between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and were familiar with the topographical features of the continent. Their frequent wars and their long continuance in the hunter state, made them necessarily a migratory race and their pathways were the first trails for the white settlers when they came. When we travel over crooked roads and even crooked streets in our towns, how many of us stop to think that we are travelling the same road as blazed out for us by an Indian or trodden down for us by an early settler's straying cow?

As the Indian, as a guide through the almost impenetrable forests was of great aid to the early settlers, so also was the canoe of the Indian a great service. Of course the white man crossed the ocean in larger boats, but when it came to travelling from point to point, after reaching America, the lighter craft of the Indians was the only possible means of water travel, for the numerous falls or rapids, and the frequent portages between distinct water systems, made the use of a heavy boat impossible. These canoes were of birch bark, buffalo skin, stretched over wooden frames, or even large trees felled, the trunk cut into sections and split, then hollowed out by burning first and the ashes scooped out with the hands or pieces of shell, until the sides and bottom were reduced to the utmost thinness consistent with buoyancy and security. The method of propelling these canoes was usually by paddle, but some had sails. The size varied from twelve feet to forty feet in length, and they were capable of carrying from two to forty men. Of course the larger canoes were used principally for state occasions, military purposes, or when large stores of supplies were to be transported.

One old historian tells of the way the sails were used. The Indian stood in the bow of the canoe and with his hands held up two corners of his blanket, and the other two corners were either fastened to his ankles or simply placed under each foot, while in the stern of the canoe, the squaw sat and steered. The scheme was an ingenious one and must have been a grateful change to the poor squaw, who otherwise would have had to propel the canoe by means of the paddle.

Of the Indian canoe Longfellow says:

On account of the dense forests and the difficulty experienced in penetrating them, the early settlements were upon the banks of streams and consequently the water channels and seaports, for communication between the various settlements, as well as with the mother country, were a necessity and the very first legislation with regard to transportation related to boats, canoes and landings. It was a long time before any internal development of the land took place, because these waterways formed the main reliance for all movements of persons or property. Each of the thirteen original colonies had one or more seaports and the main current of trade, during the colonial period, and in fact up to much later times, was between these ports and the interior districts on the one hand, and the outer world and the ocean on the other. Commerce between the colonies was limited and all movements from one colony to another were by various kinds of sea going vessels. All the boats subsequently built by the European settlers showed the influence of the Indian canoe. The raft was another method of the Indian for transporting property, and from this grew the various kinds of floatboats. The raft itself is still in use but more as a means of transporting the lumber of which it is composed than as a means for carrying other freight.

For land travel, when the Indians had burdens to carry they did it by means of the burden strap, an arrangement of leather bands which fitted around the forehead and was lashed to a litter borne upon the back. It was usually about fifteen feet in length and braided into a belt in the center, three or four inches wide. This carrying of burdens upon the back is the one method of transportation which combines the greatest amount of human effort with the least practical effect. But it was at the time the only method available and formed one of the most serious privations and discomforts of savage life.

It is recorded in the case of a white man, who helped the Indians in one of their wars, early in 1600, that he was wounded and could not walk. Thereupon he was placed in a basket of wicker work, doubled up, and fastened with cords until he could scarcely move, and so carried upon the backs of Indians for several days.

In winter we are told they had some sort of primitive sledges, and they used dogs in some sections. Then, of course, they had the snow shoe, which, to them, was a rapid way of travelling, but when the poor white explorers or captives travelled with the Indians on winter expeditions, they suffered sharply until they caught the hang of it. Chilblains were not the worst of the suffering, for the tie over the instep and the loops over the toes caused friction, and bleeding, frozen feet were the result.

When the white man came, he, in time, brought horses and these were much appreciated by the Indians, who seemed to know intuitively how to manage and use them. In place of carrying burdens upon his own back, the red man fastened one end of his tent poles to the horse and fastened upon them the skins which composed his tent, and allowed the poles to trail upon the ground. This support furnished a method of transporting baggage, household effects and even women and children vastly superior to the old way.

The old trails of the red man, over which for many years they had traveled with their peculiar but rapid walk, now furnished bridle paths for the white man and his horse, and many of those bridle paths are today in use. Of course, the first sturdy settlers walked these trails as did the Indians, and we have the history of one journey of Governor Winthrop, when he was carried, at least over streams, "pick-a-pack" upon the back of an Indian. This is a very human, if undignified, picture of the worthy governor.

An early explorer in Virginia said that had she "but horses and kine and were inhabited with English, no realm in Christendom were comparable to it." As these blessings were all added to Virginia in course of time, we must believe her the fairest of colonies. As the Indians were too poor to buy the carefully guarded horses of the early settlers, and could not steal them, they were compelled to wait until races of wild horses were developed from the horses brought to Florida, Mexico and California by the Spaniards. The better grade of horse was used by the warrior and for travel, but the poorer horses for the drudgery and were quite naturally called "squaw ponies." In the early days before the carriage was introduced, wounded or sick persons were carried upon stretchers between two horses.

The early means of transportation on land, in the colonies, was by horseback, for either persons or property, and this was the universal method of travel until nearly the beginning of the 19th century. It was a common custom for the post rider to also act as a squire of dames, and sometimes he would have in charge four or six women travelling on horseback from one town to another. It was to the north that the carriage came first, and in the early days only the very wealthy families had them. And with the coming of the carriage, the colonists realized that they needed something better than an Indian trail or bridle path, and the agitation for good roads had its birth. One can form some idea of what the so-called roads must have been in 1704, when we read that the mail from Philadelphia to New York "is now a week behind and not yet com'd in." The mail after 1673 was carried by horseback between New York and Boston, but as late as 1730, the postmaster was advertising for applications from persons who desired to perform the foot post to Albany that winter. The route was largely up the Hudson river on skates. In 1788 it took four days for mail to go through from New York to Boston in good weather—in winter much longer.

The commerce between the settlements on the coast and those in southwestern Pennsylvania and western Virginia was carried on by pack horse. The people in these districts sent their peltry and furs by pack horse to the coast and there exchanged them for such articles as they needed in their homes and for work upon their farms. Several families would form an association, a master-driver would be chosen and the caravan move on its slow way to the settlement east of the mountains. Afterwards this pack horse system was continued by common carrier organizations.

The earliest legislation in reference to highways was in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1639, providing for supervisors, and the relaying of the roads so as to be more convenient for travel, with authority to "lay out the highways where they may be most convenient, notwithstanding any man's property, or any corne ground, so as it occasion not the pulling down of any man's house, or laying open any garden or orchard." The law in force in Pennsylvania, prior to the grant to Penn was part of the system established for the New York Colony in 1664. In 1700 a revision of existing road laws was made, giving control of county roads to county officials, but the king's highway and public roads to be controlled by governor and council.

The fact appears that while the early roads in the American colonies were bad, England had few, if any, good roads, and the improvement, when begun, was so rapid that driving for pleasure was introduced here long before it was known in England. In fact, the idea was carried back to England by officers who fought in the Revolution.

When stage coaches were started in the colonies in 1718, from Boston to Rhode Island, there was no wagon road over this route, it not being built until 1721. It was a common thing for the passengers of the early stage coaches to have to get out, and help lift or push the stage coach out of the mud, and the objection raised to this was the reason for the introduction of the corduroy road. If one has had the doubtful pleasure of riding over a short portion of such road, one knows that it was a question whether long stretches of it and being shaken around in the coach like peas in a pod, was much improvement over being dumped out into the mud, while the coach was lifted out of the mire with which the old roads were padded. With the development of stage routes, came bridges, ferries, turnpikes and national roads. As the passengers and light baggage were carried by stage, the freight traffic was carried on by the old time teamsters, with their huge wagons, with six or eight horses attached to each, and moving along the turnpikes, traveling together for company and protection. These turnpikes presented a bustling appearance, with the dashing stage coaches, parties on horseback, the long trains of teamsters' huge wagons, and the many taverns that lined these thoroughfares. The passenger on the stage coach had time to study nature and his surroundings as he passed along, and to be fortunate enough to secure the box seat with the stage driver and hear, as one rode along, the gossip of the route, made a joy one does not experience in our days of rapid travel.

Following the institution of national roads and staging, came the introduction of canals and artificial waterways, as a means of transportation for freight in the carrying on of commerce. A short canal, for the transporting of stone, was built in Orange County, New York, as early as 1750. The first public canal company was the James River Company, incorporated in 1785. From that time on there have been vast improvements in methods and much of our freight is moved by means of the large canals all over our country.

The next development in transportation facilities was the railroad, the first of which was the "Experiment" railroad built to carry stone to Bunker Hill Monument. Oliver Evans, in 1772, began to experiment upon the construction of a steam carriage to run upon the ground, but it remained for John Stevens to combine the steam carriage and the railway. The first rail cars, or coaches, were run by horse power. It is interesting to read Mr. Evans' prediction, which is as follows:

"I do verily believe that the time will come when carriages propelled by steam will be in general use, as well for the transportation of passengers as goods, travelling at the rate of fifteen miles an hour, or three hundred miles per day." In 1813 he predicted that the time would come when a traveller could leave Washington in the morning, breakfast at Baltimore, dine at Philadelphia and sup at New York, all in the same day, travelling "almost as fast as birds fly, fifteen to twenty-miles an hour."

In 1811, Robert Fulton, journeying by stage to Pittsburgh, said, "The day will come, gentlemen, I may not live to see it, though some of you who are younger will probably—when carriages will be drawn over these mountains by steam engines at a rate more rapid than that of a stage on the smoothest turnpike."

A howl of protest went up from the old stage drivers when the railroad was projected, but as every public necessity had its will, the railroads had come to stay. There were many accidents on these primitive roads, and these were made the most of by the opposition. One old stager said, "You got upset in a stage coach, and there you were. You got upset in a rail car—and where are you?"

From trail in the days of the Indians to T-rail of recent years seems a slow, tedious advance, but as some one has said:

"When we reflect upon the obstinate opposition that has been made by a great majority to every step towards improvement; from bad roads to turnpikes, from turnpikes to canals, from canal to railways for horse carriages, it is too much to expect the monstrous leap from bad roads to railways for steam carriages at once. One step in a generation is all we can hope for."—Clara D. Patterson, Easton, Pennsylvania.

---

COLONEL BENJAMIN HAWKINS.

By Mrs. J. L. Walker, Waycross.

Colonel Hawkins, patriot, soldier, United States senator and Indian agent, was born August 15, 1754, in the county of Butts, now Warren County, North Carolina. He was the son of Colonel Philemon and Delia Hawkins. He attended Princeton College until his senior year when the institution was closed on account of the Revolutionary War.

His knowledge of the French language led Washington to press him into service as a member of his staff to act as interpreter with the French allies. He was one of the founders of the Society of Cincinnati in 1783.

He was a gallant Revolutionary soldier, having participated in several important engagements, among the number the Battle of Monmouth. After North Carolina ratified the federal constitution he was elected United States Senator from that state, taking his seat in 1790. At the close of his term in the senate he was appointed agent of the three great Indian tribes east of the Mississippi and entered upon his duties in the part of Georgia now known as Crawford County, but at that time called "The Agency Reserve."

This place became an important trading post and was selected by Colonel Hawkins as a convenient locality for the transaction of duties that devolved upon him. He infused progression, activity and thrift into the little village. Mills, workshops, and comfortable homes appeared on every side.

"Colonel Hawkins brought his own slaves from his old home in North Carolina, and under the right conceded to his office, he opened and cultivated a large plantation at the agency, making immense crops of corn and other provisions."

"While he lived his cattle brand was rigidly respected by the red men; although soon as his death, if reports be true, the Creeks, oblivious of former obligations, stole numbers of his cows and hogs."

To him does the state of Georgia owe a debt of special gratitude. He not only risked his life for the state of his adoption, but preserved the history of the Creek country, some of which is most valuable and interesting.

The French general, Moreau, who in exile, was his guest for some time, was so much impressed with his character and labors, that he pronounced him one of the most remarkable men he met in America.

Colonel Hawkins possessed great adaptability and through his beneficence he acquired the respect of the Indians. It is said he gained their love and bound them to him by "ties as loyal and touching as those of old feudal allegiance and devotion."

He was closely associated with Generals Floyd, Blackshear and John McIntosh, and Governors Troup, Mitchell and Early.

The Indians of Chehaw were closely allied to Colonel Hawkins. They frequently furnished him with valuable information in regard to the treachery of the British and the unfriendly Indians.

It has been conceded to some of our patriots that they were great in war. Benjamin Hawkins was not only great in war, but, like Washington, was great in peace. It was he who most strongly advocated terminating the War of 1812. He knew well how to approach the "children of the forest." The simple and diplomatic way in which he addressed the Indians is displayed in his quaint letter to the Ammic-cul-le, who lived at the Indian town of Chehaw:

"The time is come when we are to compel our enemies to be at peace, that we may be able to sit down and take care of our families and property without being disturbed by their threatening and plundering of us.

"General Blackshear is with you to protect and secure the friendly Indians on your river, and to aid in punishing the mischief-makers. Go you to him; see him; take him by the hand, and two of you must keep him. You must point out sixty of your young warriors, under two chiefs, to be with, and act under the orders of the general till you see me. He will supply them with provisions and some ammunition.

"You must be very particular about spies. You know all the friendly Indians, and all who are hostile. If any spies come about you of the hostiles, point them out to the general. And your warriors, acting with the general must be as quick and particular as his white soldiers to apprehend or put to death any enemy you meet with. Your warriors will receive the same pay as the soldiers in the service of the United States.

"Tell your women and children not to be afraid,—that friends have come for their protection, and that I am at the head of the Creek warriors.

"I am your friend and the friend of your nation."

Colonel Hawkins was closely identified in the negotiation of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with the Indians. His name, together with George Clymer and Andrew Pickens, was signed as commissioners on the part of the United States to the Treaty held at Coleraine, in Camden County, Georgia, March 18, 1797.

A treaty of limits between the United States and the Creek nation of Indians, was held near Milledgeville, at Fort Wilkinson, on the part of the United States. The signers were Benjamin Hawkins and Andrew Pickens. This treaty was signed by forty chiefs and warriors. Treaty with the Creeks at the agency, near Flint River, on November 3, 1794, signed by Hopoie Micco and other Indians, also bore Hawkins' signature.

"In 1802 Colonel Hawkins recommended the establishing of a fort and trading post on the Old Ocmulgee Fields." The right to establish such a post was obtained by the Fort Wilkinson treaty. Colonel Hawkins selected a site on an eminence near the river where the city of Macon now stands. A tract of one hundred acres of land was set apart for the use of the post.

Fort Hawkins was built in 1806 and was garrisoned by troops from Fort Wilkinson early in the following year. The fort was named in honor of Benjamin Hawkins, one of the few honors bestowed upon him by the state he had so ably served. "This fort was considered one of the most formidable on the frontier. Two block houses, each twenty-eight feet square with two stories and a basement were built with heavy mortised logs. This place was provided with port holes for both cannon and musketry, and stood at the southeast and northwest corner of a strong stockade. During the war of 1812 the fort was a strong point for the mobilization of troops."

Colonel Hawkins died at the agency in Crawford County, June 6, 1816, and was "buried on a wooded bluff overlooking the Flint River." The little graveyard that served as a last resting place for those who lived around the agency has long since been abandoned. The unmarked grave of a patriot is there, sleeping unhonored amid the tangled vines and weeds.