out here; but in many ways the Revolution was a true civil war. Many. Americans were not in favor of fighting, and many Englishmen were glad that America did fight. This feeling found expression even within parliament. The resolution of Patrick Henry declaring that the attempt to tax America, if successful, would result in the ruin of British liberty also, was echoed by the great speech of William Pitt, when he "rejoiced" that America had resisted, and declared that victory over the colonies would be of ill omen for English liberty: "America, if she fell, would fall like the strong man: she would embrace the pillars of the state, and pull down the constitution along with her." When troops were sent to Boston in 1774, the Earl of Rockingham and other Whig lords presented a protest to be inscribed on the journals of parliament, and the Duke of Richmon broke out: "I hope from the bottom of my heart that the Americans may resist and get the better of the forces sent against them." Charles Fox, a Whig leader, spoke of Washington's first defeat as "the terrible news from Long Island," and, in common with many Whigs, repeatedly called the American cause "the cause of liberty." As late as 1782, only four months before peace was made, the younger William Pitt asserted in parliament that if the House of Commons had not imperfectly represented the nation, it would never have been possible to carry on that "most accursed, wicked, barbarous, cruel, unjust, and diabolical war." 231. The American movement for independence was intertwined, too, with a social upheaval. This social unrest had three phases. a. In nearly all the colonies, a group of families - pets of the crown or of the proprietor — monopolized office and special privilege. Other great families (like the Livingstones and Schuylers in New York) felt aggrieved, and therefore were perhaps more inclined to the movement for independence. b. The western sections of many colonies1 felt themselves oppressed by the older sections. The inhabitants of the new 1 Notably of Pennsylvania and the Carolinas, but also, in some degree, of Virginia, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. § 231] SOCIAL UPHEAVAL IN AMERICA 193 western counties sometimes differed from their eastern brethren in religion or even in race; and they were not giver their fair representation in the colonial legislature which taxed and governed them, but which sometimes failed to protect them against Indians. In 1780 Thomas Jefferson declared that "19,000 men below the Falls [in Virginia] give law to 30,000 in other [western] parts" of the State. Sheriffs and other officials of the western counties, too, were often non-residents, appointed from the eastern counties. Law courts were controlled by the older sections; and in the western districts they met at long intervals and at long distances from much of the population. And fees exacted for court services and by all these appointed officers seemed exorbitant, and were sometimes made so by disreputable trickery. In 1763, a certain Edmund Fanning was appointed Register for the county of Orange in western North Carolina. It was commonly reported that he was impecunious when he received the appointment, and that he accumulated £10,000 in two years by extortion. The following verses were current as early as 1765. "When Fanning first to Orange came, He looked both pale and wan; An old patched coat upon his back, An old mare he rode on. Both man and mare warn't worth five pounds, As I've been often told; But by his civil robberies He's laced his coat with gold." The "Regulators" at one time dragged Fanning from the courthouse by the heels and flogged him, and at a later date burned his house. In North Carolina, after several years of serious friction, the oppressed pioneers set up a revolutionary organization in 1769 known as committees of "Regulators," to prevent the collection of taxes. But the eastern counties, which controlled the legislature, raised an army, and, in 1772, ended the "War of the Regulation" after a bloody campaign. The Regulation was not directed in any way against England, and must not be regarded as an opening campaign of the Revolution. Indeed, the militia that restored oppression was the militia which three years later rose against England; and the defeated "Regulators," refusing to join their past oppressors, in large part became Tories. But if the internal conflict could have been delayed three or four years, the Westerners would no doubt have dominated the Revolution itself in their State. That was what happened in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania also was on the verge of civil war; but, happily, internal conflict was postponed long enough so that in the disorders of the general movement against England, the western radicals, with their sympathizers elsewhere in the colony, found opportunity to seize the upper hand. In Pennsylvania, the Revolution was a true internal revolution. Old leaders were set aside; the franchise was extended to the democratic element; and a new reapportionment brought the democratic West into power. In most of the colonies north of the Carolinas, a like influence was felt in some degree, notably in Virginia (§§ 234, 444, note). c. Even in the older sections new men and a more democratic portion of society came to the front. Especially in the years 1774-1775, the weight in favor of resistance to English control was often cast by a "union of mechanics," as in Charleston and Philadelphia, against the wishes of the more conservative merchants and professional men. And aristocratic patriots, like John Adams, if they were not to fail, had to accept the aid not only of the artisans but even of classes still lower, men who had not possessed a vote but who now, in times of disorder, often seized it. In many half-formal elections to early Revolutionary "conventions," the disfranchised classes voted, sometimes on the explicit invitation of the Revolutionary committees, sometimes because it was not easy to stop them. Afterward, the new State governments found it hard not to recognize in some degree the power that had helped make them—especially as they continued to need that help. It was due largely to the nameless workingmen, § 232] THE CHANGE IN AMERICAN CHARACTER 66 revolution 195 and to the democratic frontier communities, that the internal widened the franchise somewhat and did away with the grossest forms of White servitude. 232. Colonial Americans had been lazy. Critics so unlike as Hamilton and Jefferson agree in ascribing this quality to their countrymen; and all foreign observers dwelt upon it as an American trait. But within forty years after the Revolution this characteristic had been replaced by that restless, pushing, nervous, strenuous activity which has ever since, in the eyes of all peoples, been the distinguishing mark of American life. One great factor in that tremendous and sudden change in a people's character was the Revolution, because it opened opportunities more equally to all, and so called forth new social energies. Englishmen of that day sometimes believed sincerely that the Revolution was the work of a group of "soreheads." George Washington as a youth had been refused a coveted commission in the British Army. Sam Adams' father had been ruined by the wise British veto of a proposed Massachusetts "Land Bank." The older Otis had failed to secure an appointment on the Massachusetts Bench. Alexander Hamilton was a penniless and briefless law student, with no chance for special advancement unless by fishing in troubled waters. All this, of course, as an explanation of the part played by Washington, Adams, Otis, and Hamilton, was as absurd as was the view of many Americans that high-minded men like Chief Justice Oliver and Governor Hutchinson of Massachusetts were Loyalists simply in order to cling to office and salary. But had the British charge been true, what greater condemnation could be devised for the old colonial system than that under it George Washington could not get a petty lieutenant's appointment, and that a genius like Hamilton had practically no chance for advancement unless taken up by some great gentlemen? Such a system needed overthrowing, in the interest, not of these individuals, but of society as a whole CHAPTER XXI TEN YEARS OF AGITATION, 1765-1774 233. The Stamp Act was to go into effect in November. The news reached the colonies in April and May. The colonists had done all they could to prevent the law from being made; but now that it was law, nearly all the old leaders at first expected it to be obeyed. Even Otis declared it to be the "duty of all humbly to acquiesce in the decision of the supreme legislature." And Franklin wrote home, thinking chiefly, it would seem, of the money burden, "We might as well have hindered the sun's setting. Since it is down make as good a night of it as we can. Frugality and industry will go a great way toward indemnifying us." Franklin even solicited the English government to appoint his friends as stamp distributors. let us 234. But while the old leaders sought to reconcile themselves to the law, popular discontent was smoldering; and soon a new leader fanned it into flame. May 29, in the Virginia House of Burgesses (sitting in committee of the whole), Patrick Henry moved a set of seven resolutions denouncing the Stamp Act and urging resistance to it (Source Book, No. 120 a). Henry had appeared in the Assembly for the first time only nine days before; and in the "most bloody debate" that followed he was ridiculed by "all the cyphers of the aristocracy."1 Through the cordial support of the western counties, however, the resolutions were approved. The next day the House, in regular session, adopted five of them, though only by a major 1 Thomas Jefferson, a young law student, stood in the door, and has left us his later recollections of the struggle. |