Page images
PDF
EPUB

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

159

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

General social conditions in the colonies are described with commendable fullness in Channing, History of the United States, 3 vols. (1907-1912); Andrews, Colonial Self-Government (1904); Greene, Provincial America (1905); and Doyle, English Colonies in America, 5 vols. (1882-1907). On special sections or colonies see: Weeden, Economic and Social History of New England, 2 vols. (1896); Bruce, Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, 2 vols. (1896); Ibid., Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, 2 vols. (1910); Ibid., Social History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century (1907); William Byrd, Writings of (ed. 1901), the introduction, by J. S. Bassett, presents a history of the Byrd family with its various industrial, social, and political activities; McCrady, South Carolina under Royal Government (1899).

On conditions of labor see: McCormac, White Servitude in Maryland (Johns Hopkins Studies, 1904); Ballagh, White Servitude in Virginia (Ibid., 1895); Bassett, Servitude and Slavery in the Colony of North Carolina (Ibid., 1896); Geiser, Redemptioners and Indented Servants in Pennslyvania (Supplement to Yale Review, 1901); Brackett, The Negro in Maryland (1889); Ballagh, Slavery in Virginia (1902); Weeks, Southern Quakers and Slavery (1896); Du Bois, Suppression of the African Slave Trade (1896); and Channing, Narragansett Planters (Johns Hopkins Studies, 1886).

Books of travel are: Kalm, Travels in North America (trans. 1770, and later eds.), by a Swede who visited the colonies in 1749-1750; Madam Knight, Journal, 1704-1705 (ed. 1825, 1865), relates chiefly to New England; Whitefield, Journal of a Voyage from London to Savannah [1737-1738] (1739); and Keith, Travels from New Hampshire to Caratuck (1706, 1851), warmly Anglican and bitter against dissenters. A most valuable contemporary source is Samuel Sewall, Diary, 16741729 (Mass. Hist. Soc. Collections, 5th ser. V-VII).

See also: Dunton, Letters from New England, 1686 (Prince Society Publications, 1867); Alsop, Character of the Province of Maryland (1666, 1903); Hammond, Leah and Rachael, or the Two Fruitful Sisters, Virginia and Maryland (1656); Wilson, Account of the Province of Carolina (in Carroll, Hist. Collections, 2 vols. (1836); Ashe, Carolina, a Description of the Present State of the Country (Ibid.), both Wilson and Ashe deal with South Carolina; Denton, Brief Description of New York (1670, 1903); Miller, Description of the Province and City of New York (1695; 1903); Wolley, Two Years' Journal (1701, 1902); Thomas, Historical and Geographical Account of West New Jersey and Pensilvania (1698, 1903); and Budd, Good Order Established in Pennsylvania and New Jersey (1685, 1902).

For race element see: Kuhns, German and Swiss Settlements of Colonial Pennsylvania (1901), with a bibliography; Bernheim, German Settlements in North and South Carolina (1872); Fries, The Moravians in Georgia and North Carolina (1905); Green, Scotch-Irish in America (Am. Antiqu. Soc. Proceedings, vol. X), a good essay; and Baird, Huguenot Emigration to America, 2 vols. (1885), good for genealogical purposes.

On religious conditions: Cross, The Anglican Episcopate and the American Colonies (Harvard Studies, 1902); Anderson, The Church of England in the Colonies, 3 vols. (ed. 1856); Perry, History of the American Episcopal Church, 2 vols. (1885); W. Walker, Ten New England Leaders (1901); Dexter, Congregationalism as Seen in Its Literature (1880); Lauer, Church and State in New England (Johns Hopkins Studies, 1892); Backus, History of New England with Particular Reference to the Baptists (ed. 1871); Checkley; Evolution of Religious Tolerance in Massachusetts Bay, 2 vols. (1897); Upham, Salem Witchcraft, 2 vols. (1876), to be read with Poole's criticism (N. Am. Rev. CVIII); and Tracey, The Great Awakening (1842). Intellectual and educational development are described in: Tyler, History of American Literature, 1607-1765, 2 vols. (ed. 1897); Thomas, History of Printing (Am. Antiqu. Soc. Archæologia Americana, 1874); Trent, American Literature (1903), a short manual; Quincy, History of Harvard University, 2 vols. (ed. 1860):

Dexter, Sketch of the History of Yale University (1887); Kingsley, Yale College, 2 vols. (1879); Adams, The College of William and Mary (U. S. Bureau of Education, Circulars, 1887); and Thwing, History of Higher Education in America (1906).

On the colonial local government: Osgood, The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, 3 vols. (1904-1907); Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary Province (1901); Howard, Local Constitutional History, vol. I (1889); Channing, Town and County Government in the English Colonies (Johns Hopkins Studies, 1884); and Greene, The Provincial Governor (Harvard Studies, 1898).

For Independent Reading

Franklin, Autobiography (many eds.); Mrs. Earle, Sabbath in Puritan New England (1891); Fisher, Men, Women, and Manners in Colonial Times (1898); Wendell, Cotton Mather, the Puritan Priest (1891); Allen, Jonathan Edwards (1889); and Eliza Lucas, Journals and Letters (1850), on South Carolina matters.

CHAPTER VIII

THE CAUSES OF THE REVOLUTION

THE PRINCIPLES AT STAKE

Bute's

Policy.

WHEN the British government was about to make peace with France in 1763, it was suggested that the French hold Canada as a restraint on the colonies. The suggestion brought forth a pamphlet from Franklin in which he said the colonies would not desire independence if they were treated fairly. Pitt accepted his argument but was out of office before the treaty. was concluded. Bute, his successor, grasped at Canada, but forgot all about Franklin's stipulation that the colonies be treated fairly. In fact, if we interpret his policy in the way which seems most justifiable, he was bent on holding Canada and making British authority sufficiently energetic to deal with whatever spirit of self-assertion America might manifest. He meant that the colonies should contribute to the commercial support of England, that the king's prerogative should have ample scope in colonial administration, and that parliament should exercise the right to lay taxes on the colonists. That the colonists should consider this treatment fair was impossible; that they should find legal arguments in opposition to it was natural. Had the British government been in the hands of wise and wellinformed men, the crisis of 1763-1776 might have been avoided, which does not, however, mean that it would not have come later. But the government acted on a basis of strict legality. It was legal for parliament to legislate in any way it saw fit; it was legal for the crown to exercise its prerogative in the veto of laws; it was legal for the royal governors to interfere in many ways with the growth of colonial self-government; and finally it was legal for England to impose the navigation laws on the colonies and to exploit the children's labor for maternal prosperity. These things had been done until they had all the sanction of precedent. Moreover, the Englishman thought them reasonable. Of all the moderns he is least liable to take other people into consideration. A few statesmen have proved an exception to this rule, but George III, Lord Bute, and the existing cabinet were not of the number. Those who directed English colonial affairs in 1763 knew little of that better art of government by which the mind of the governed is as much respected as the interests of the governing class.

Legal Basis lish Policy.

of the Eng

Two Conflicting Principles.

The colonies were developing rapidly in numbers and in ideals. In twenty-five years the population had doubled, and with greater strength came greater confidence in the future; and they naturally felt disposed to demand a clearer definition of their relation to the British government. This was difficult because of two apparently conflicting principles which had hitherto been considered binding. One was that the colonists had all the fundamental rights of Englishmen. Under this they believed themselves entitled to the benefits of Magna Charta, the Habeas Corpus Acts, and such other great statements of personal liberty as the Bill of Rights of 1689. There was no disposition in England. to deny this claim in its abstract form, but the application given it by the Americans was disputed. From English experience the colonists also deduced the clear right of "no taxation without representation," a principle at the bottom of every great English reform of the preceding two centuries. The other principle related to the power of parliament to legislate for the colonies. From time immemorial Englishmen have held parliament absolute in regard to the scope of its authority. No colonial charter ever dealt with the matter explicitly; but in most of them the assembly was given the right to make such laws as did not conflict with the laws of England. It had come about that the assemblies dealt with local matters and had nothing to do with affairs involving the empire, such as external commerce, the regulation of money, and the collection of debts due to British subjects. To see that this principle was not violated, the king insisted on the right to veto colonial statutes, although Veto in Eng- in England his veto of an act of parliament was long since abandoned. The colonists could not but look on this as a wrong. Their own view of their rights was that a colonial assembly was in a small way another parliament, guardian of popular rights and liberties, and ruling its colony as formerly the Scottish parliament ruled Scotland under British supervision. They did not in general dispute the authority of parliament to legislate for the colonies; but they resented the exercise of the right in a very vital way. Never did a more perplexing problem of imperial federation and home rule arise in British political history; and in 1763 England was not ready for it.

land and in

the Colonies

GRENVILLE'S POLICY

The men into whose hands the problem fell were George III and George Grenville. The former had been three years king, and had just got the reins of government firmly in his hands. George III. The power of Newcastle and Pitt displeased him, and he drove them out of office by combining under his patronage all who had a grudge against either. The war was popular with the country

GRENVILLE'S POLICY

163

and enhanced Pitt's influence with the people. The king, therefore, hastened to make a peace which many Englishmen regarded as a sacrifice of national interests. The obloquy of it fell on Bute, the tool who formulated the terms of peace, and he was forced out of office. But George III would yield nothing to the old whig party. He made Grenville prime minister, and by favor and flattery consolidated a parliamentary majority in his support. From that time his purpose was to rule England. He knew little of the colonies and would not have distressed them capriciously. But his love of prerogative was a ruling passion, and once it was questioned by the Americans, his stubborn nature would risk much in its support.

Grenville.

Walpole and Newcastle had paid little attention to the colonies; Grenville, more conscientious and more given to detail, not only gave them attention, but prepared a definite scheme involving their relation to the empire. The national debt was exorbitant, 140,000,000 pounds, and much of it grew out of the late war, fought in behalf of the colonies. To protect the empire a large fleet and a standing army were necessary. To Grenville, logical and prosaic statesman, it seemed the most natural of conclusions that the colonies, a part of the empire, should share this imperial burden. He did not think of the practical difficulties before him, nor did he stop to look at the matter from the colonists' standpoint. His conclusion was

made, and three measures were devised to carry it into effect. The situation was well summed up in the remark of a treasury official that, "Grenville lost America because he read the American dispatches, which none of his predecessors had done."

tion Laws to

The first of these three momentous acts provided for the strict enforcement of the navigation and customs laws in America. On examination Grenville learned that the duties paid in America did not exceed 2000 pounds a year, and that it 1. Navigacost nearly 8000 pounds a year to collect this sum. Smug- be Enforced. gling existed on a large scale, and he proposed to break it up. Ships-of-war were sent to patrol the American coasts, rigid instructions were given to the resident customs officials, and delinquents in office were replaced by men who seemed more trustworthy. In 1764 the "molasses act" of 1733, which had been generally violated with the connivance of the government, was revived and enlarged by the addition of coffee, Spanish and Portuguese wines, and several other less important articles. Thus on the chief articles which New England received in return for her fish, lumber, staves, and food products sold in French and Spanish colonies, such duties must be paid as would practically annihilate the trade. The effects of this would be more far-reaching than Grenville could have known. Besides furs, New England and the middle colonies exported little to England, which did not take their flour, lumber, staves, and cheaper fish; and yet they bought English merchandise heavily. As a result,

« PreviousContinue »