[393] Judge Marshall's History of the American Colonies, Chap. XIV., pp. 449-451.

[394] Ib., p. 457.

[395] "The commencement of hostilities on the 19th of April, 1775, exhibited the parent State in an odious point of view. But, nevertheless, at that time, and for a twelvemonth after, a majority of the colonists wished for no more than to be re-established as subjects in their ancient rights. Had independence been their object, even at the commencement of hostilities, they would have rescinded the associations which have been already mentioned, and imported more largely than ever. Common sense revolts at the idea that colonists, unfurnished with military stores and wanting manufactures of every kind, should, at the time of their intending a serious struggle for independence, by a voluntary agreement, deprive themselves of the obvious means of procuring such foreign supplies as their circumstances might make necessary. Instead of pursuing a line of conduct which might have been dictated by a wish for independence, they continued their exports for nearly a year after they ceased to import. This not only lessened the debts they owed to Great Britain, but furnished additional means for carrying on war against themselves. To aim at independence, and at the same time to transfer their resources to their enemies, could not have been the policy of an enlightened people. It was not till some time in 1776 that the colonists began to take other ground, and contend that it was for their interest to be for ever separated from Great Britain." (Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap, xii., pp. 158, 159.)

[396] Lord Mahon says: "In framing this measure, he sought the aid and counsel of Dr. Franklin. Already, in the month of August preceding, they had become acquainted, through the mediation of Lord Stanhope, who carried Dr. Franklin to Hayes (the residence of Lord Chatham). Lord Chatham had then referred to the idea which began to prevail in England, that America aimed at setting up for herself as a separate State. The truth of any such idea was loudly denied by Dr. Franklin. 'I assured his lordship,' Dr. Franklin said, 'that having more than once travelled almost from one end of the continent to the other, and kept a great variety of company, eating and drinking and conversing with them freely, I never had heard from any person, drunk or sober, the least expression of a wish for separation, or hint that such a thing would be advantageous to America.... In fine, Lord Chatham expressed much satisfaction in my having called upon him, and particularly in the assurances I had given him that America did not aim at independence.'" (Works, Vol. V., p. 7, ed. 1844.)

The Earl of Chatham's last speech was an appeal against the separation of the American colonies from England, and his last words were: "My lords, I rejoice that the grave has not closed upon me; that I am still alive to lift up my voice against the dismemberment of this ancient and most noble monarchy." (Bancroft, Vol. IX., p. 495.)

[397] "In the beginning of the memorable year 1776, there was a public opinion in favour of independence in New England, and but little more than individual preferences for it in the Middle or Southern colonies. So deeply seated was the affection for the mother country, that it required all the severe acts of war, directed by an inexorable Ministry and the fierce words from the throne, to be made fully known throughout America before the majority of the people could be persuaded to renounce their allegiance and assume the sovereignty. Jefferson says that Samuel Adams was constantly holding caucuses with distinguished men, in which the measures to be pursued were generally determined upon, and their several parts were assigned to the actors who afterwards appeared in them." (Frothingham's Rise of the Republic of the United States, pp. 468, 469.)

[398] Quoted by Bancroft, Vol. VII., p. 234.

[399] "Millions in England and Scotland" (said John Adams, who nominated Washington as Commander-in-Chief, and was afterwards President of the United States)—"millions in England and Scotland think it unrighteous, impolitic, and ruinous to make war upon us; and a Minister, though he may have a marble heart, will proceed with a desponding spirit. London has bound her members under their hands to assist us; Bristol has chosen two known friends of America; many of the most virtuous of the nobility and gentry are for us, and among them a St. Asaph, a Camden, and a Chatham; the best bishop that adorns the bench, as great a judge as the nation can boast, and the greatest statesman it ever saw." (Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VII., Chap. xxi, p. 235.)

[400] History of the American Revolution, Vol. I., Chap. xiii., p. 353.

[401] It was the plea then, as it had and has always been in all tyranny, whether wielded by an individual or an oligarchy or a committee, whether under the pretext of liberty or of order, to persecute all dissenting parties, under profession of preventing division and promoting unity. But the true friends of liberty, even in perilous times, have always relied upon the justice of their principles and excellence of their policy and measures for support and success, and not upon the prison, the gallows, and the impoverishment of the dissenters by plunder. The Congress itself had declared to England that the "colonists were a unit" in behalf of liberty; but their own enactments and proceedings against the Loyalists refuted their own statements. Even in England, tyrannical and corrupt as was the Government at the time, and divided as were both Parliament and people, and assailed by foreign and domestic enemies, the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament were open to the public; every member was not only free to express his opinions, but those opinions were forthwith published to the world, and every man throughout the kingdom enjoyed freedom of opinion. It was reserved for the American Congress, while professing to found liberty, to conduct its proceedings in secret for eleven years, to suppress the freedom of the press and individual freedom of opinion, and to treat as criminals those who dissented from its acts of policy. The private biography and letters of the principal actors in the American revolution, published during the present century, show (with the exception of Washington and very few others) that individual ambition had quite as much to do in the contest of separation from the mother country as patriotic love of constitutional liberty, which, even at this day, in the United States, is not comparable with that of Great Britain—some of the ablest American writers being judges.

[402] Elliott's New England History, Vol. II., Chap. xxvii., pp. 369-375.

"A large number of the merchants in all the chief commercial towns of the colonies were openly hostile, or but coldly inclined to the common cause. General Lee, sent to Newport (Rhode Island) to advise about throwing up fortifications, called the principal persons among the disaffected before him, and obliged them by a tremendous oath to support the authority of Congress. The Assembly met shortly after, and passed an Act subjecting to death, with confiscation of property, all who should hold intercourse with or assist the British ships. But to save Newport from destruction it presently became necessary to permit a certain stated supply to be furnished to the British ships from that town." (Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. xxxii., p. 102.)

"In the Middle colonies the unwillingness to separate from Great Britain was greater than in the colonies either to the North or South. One reason probably was, that in this division were the towns of New York and Philadelphia, which greatly profited by their trade to England, and which contained a larger proportion of English and Scotch merchants, who, with few exceptions, were attached to the royal cause." (Tucker's History of the United States, Vol. I., p. 150.)

[403] History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. xxxiii., pp. 137, 138.

On the 18th of June, 1776, about two weeks before adopting the Declaration of Independence, Congress "Resolved,—That no man in these colonies charged with being a Tory, or unfriendly to the cause of American liberty, be injured in his person or property, unless the proceeding against him be founded on an order of Congress or Committee," etc. But this resolution amounted practically to nothing. It seems to have been intended to allay the fears and weaken the opposition of loyalists, but contributed nothing for their protection, or to mitigate the cruel persecutions everywhere waged against them.

[404] Life and Correspondence of President Reed, Vol. I., p. 195. Washington, however, in his public letter to Congress (unless Mr. Jared Sparks has improved this passage), says that the troops had testified their "warmest approbation." (Writings, Vol. III., p. 457.)

[405] Lord Mahon's History of England from the Peace of Utrecht, Vol. VI., Chap. liv., pp. 161, 162.

Lord Mahon adds: "It was at this inauspicious juncture, only a few hours after independence had been proclaimed in the ranks of his opponents, that the bearer of the pacific commission, Lord Howe, arrived off Sandy Hook. He had cause to regret most bitterly both the delay of his passage and the limitation of his powers. He did not neglect, however, whatever means of peace were still within his reach. He sent on shore a declaration, announcing to the people the object of his mission. He despatched a friendly letter, written at sea, to Dr. Franklin, at Philadelphia. But when Franklin's answer came it showed him wholly adverse to a reconciliation, expressing in strong terms his resentment of the 'atrocious injuries' which, as he said, America had suffered from 'your unformed and proud nation.' Lord Howe's next step was to send a flag of truce, with another letter, to Washington. But here a preliminary point of form arose. Lord Howe, as holding the King's commission, could not readily acknowledge any rank or title not derived from his Majesty. He had therefore directed his letter to 'George Washington, Esq.' On the other hand, Washington, feeling that, in his circumstances, to yield a punctilio would be to sacrifice a principle, declined to receive or open any letter not addressed to him as General. Thus at the very outset this negotiation was cut short."—Ib., pp. 162, 163.

[406] After the battle of Long Island and the evacuation of New York, "six thousand men, led by Earl Cornwallis, were landed on the Jersey side. At their approach the Americans withdrew in great haste to Fort Lee, leaving behind their artillery and stores. Washington himself had no other alternative than to give way with all speed as his enemy advanced. He fell back successively upon Brunswick, upon Princeton, upon Trenton, and at last to the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware. To all these places, one after another, did Lord Cornwallis, though slowly, and with little vigour, pursue him.

"This fair province of the Jerseys, sometimes called the Garden of America, did not certainly on this occasion prove to be its bulwark. The scene is described as follows by one of their own historians, Dr. Ramsay: 'As the retreating Americans marched through the country, scarcely one of the inhabitants joined them, while numbers were daily flocking to the royal army to make their peace and obtain protection. They saw on the one side a numerous, well-appointed, and full-clad army, dazzling their eyes with their elegance of uniforms; on the other a few poor fellows who, from their shabby clothing, were called ragamuffins, fleeing for their safety. Not only the common people changed sides in this gloomy state of public affairs, but some of the leading men in New Jersey and Pennsylvania adopted the same expedient.'

"Yet it is scarcely just to the Americans to ascribe, with Dr. Ramsay, their change of sides to nothing beyond their change of fortune. May we not rather believe that a feeling of concern at the separation, hitherto suppressed in terror, was now first freely avowed—that in New Jersey, and not in New Jersey alone, an active and bold minority had been able to overrule numbers much larger, but more quiescent and complying?

"Another remark made by the same historian might, as history shows, be extended to other times and countries besides his own. The men who had been the vainest braggarts, the loudest blusterers in favour of independence, were now the first to veer around or to slink away. This remark, which Dr. Ramsay makes only four years afterwards, is fully confirmed by other documents of earlier date, but much later publication, by the secret correspondence of the time. Thus writes the Adjutant-General: 'Some of our Philadelphia gentlemen, who came over on visits, upon the first cannon went off in a violent hurry. Your noisy Sons of Liberty are, I find, the quietest in the field.' Thus again Washington, with felicitous expression, points a paragraph at the 'chimney-corner heroes.'

"At this period the effective force under Washington had dwindled down to four thousand men.

"The Congress at this juncture, like most other public assemblies, seemed but slightly affected by the dangers which as yet were not close upon them. On the 11th of December they passed some resolutions contradicting, as false and malicious, a report that they intended to remove from Philadelphia. They declared that they had a higher opinion of the good people of these States than to suppose such a measure requisite, and that they would not leave the city of Philadelphia 'unless the last necessity shall direct it.' These resolutions were transmitted by the President to Washington, with a request that he would publish them to the army in General Orders. Washington, in reply, excused himself from complying with that suggestion. In thus declining it, he showed his usual sagacity and foresight; for on the very next day after the first resolution, the Congress underwent a sudden revulsion of opinion, and did not scruple to disperse in all haste, to meet again the 20th of the same month, not at Philadelphia, but at Baltimore." (Lord Mahon's History of England, etc., Vol. VI., Chap. liv., pp. 189-193.)

[407] Dr. Andrews' History of the American War, etc., Vol. III., Chap. xxxv., p. 111.

[408] Frothingham's Rise of the American Republic, Chap. xii., p. 572.

[409] The Life of Arthur Lee (I., p. 53) contains the letter to Lee, copied from the original MSS. in the handwriting of Franklin, dated December 12, 1775, and signed by Franklin, Dickenson, and Jay.

[410] Frothingham's Rise of the American Republic, Chap, xi., p. 488.

[411] Franklin to Josiah Quincy, April 15, 1776. Sparks' Works, Vol. VIII., p. 181.

[412] History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xv., pp. 242, 243.

The same historian observes: "On the 11th of June, Congress appointed a Committee to prepare a plan of a treaty to be proposed to foreign powers. The discussion of this novel subject engaged their attention till the latter end of September. Congress having agreed on the plan of the treaty which they intended to propose to the King of France, proceeded to elect commissioners to solicit its acceptance. Dr. Franklin, Silas Deane, and Thomas Jefferson were chosen. The latter declining to serve, Arthur Lee, who was then in London, and had been very serviceable to his country in a variety of ways, was elected in his room. It was resolved that no member should be at liberty to divulge anything more of these transactions than 'that Congress had taken such steps as they judged necessary for obtaining foreign alliances.'"—Ib.,p., 242, 243.

It is worthy of remark, that although Dr. Franklin consented to act as one of the commissioners to France, he opposed the application itself; for he himself wrote a few months afterwards as follows: "I have never yet changed the opinions I gave in Congress, that a virgin state should preserve a virgin character, and not go about suitoring for alliances, but wait with decent dignity for the applications of others. I was overruled, perhaps for the best." (Works, Vol. VIII., p. 209.)