HISTORY

OF THE

UNITED STATES

BY

CHARLES A. BEARD

AND

MARY R. BEARD

New York

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

1921

_All rights reserved_

COPYRIGHT, 1921, BY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. 

Set up and electrotyped. Published March, 1921. 

Norwood Press

J. S. Cushing Co. --Berwick & Smith Co. 

NORWOOD, MASS. , U. S. A. 

PREFACE

As things now stand, the course of instruction in American history inour public schools embraces three distinct treatments of the subject. Three separate books are used. First, there is the primary book, whichis usually a very condensed narrative with emphasis on biographies andanecdotes. Second, there is the advanced text for the seventh or eighthgrade, generally speaking, an expansion of the elementary book by theaddition of forty or fifty thousand words. Finally, there is the highschool manual. This, too, ordinarily follows the beaten path, givingfuller accounts of the same events and characters. To put it bluntly, wedo not assume that our children obtain permanent possessions from theirstudy of history in the lower grades. If mathematicians followed thesame method, high school texts on algebra and geometry would include themultiplication table and fractions. 

There is, of course, a ready answer to the criticism advanced above. Itis that teachers have learned from bitter experience how little historytheir pupils retain as they pass along the regular route. No teacher ofhistory will deny this. Still it is a standing challenge to existingmethods of historical instruction. If the study of history cannot bemade truly progressive like the study of mathematics, science, andlanguages, then the historians assume a grave responsibility in addingtheir subject to the already overloaded curriculum. If the successivehistorical texts are only enlarged editions of the first text--morefacts, more dates, more words--then history deserves most of the sharpcriticism which it is receiving from teachers of science, civics, andeconomics. 

In this condition of affairs we find our justification for offering anew high school text in American history. Our first contribution is oneof omission. The time-honored stories of exploration and thebiographies of heroes are left out. We frankly hold that, if pupils knowlittle or nothing about Columbus, Cortes, Magellan, or Captain JohnSmith by the time they reach the high school, it is useless to tell thesame stories for perhaps the fourth time. It is worse than useless. Itis an offense against the teachers of those subjects that aredemonstrated to be progressive in character. 

In the next place we have omitted all descriptions of battles. Ourreasons for this are simple. The strategy of a campaign or of a singlebattle is a highly technical, and usually a highly controversial, matterabout which experts differ widely. In the field of military and navaloperations most writers and teachers of history are mere novices. Todispose of Gettysburg or the Wilderness in ten lines or ten pages isequally absurd to the serious student of military affairs. Any one whocompares the ordinary textbook account of a single Civil War campaignwith the account given by Ropes, for instance, will ask for no furthercomment. No youth called upon to serve our country in arms would thinkof turning to a high school manual for information about the art ofwarfare. The dramatic scene or episode, so useful in arousing theinterest of the immature pupil, seems out of place in a book thatdeliberately appeals to boys and girls on the very threshold of life'sserious responsibilities. 

It is not upon negative features, however, that we rest our case. It israther upon constructive features. 

_First. _ We have written a topical, not a narrative, history. We havetried to set forth the important aspects, problems, and movements ofeach period, bringing in the narrative rather by way of illustration. 

_Second. _ We have emphasized those historical topics which help toexplain how our nation has come to be what it is to-day. 

_Third. _ We have dwelt fully upon the social and economic aspects of ourhistory, especially in relation to the politics of each period. 

_Fourth. _ We have treated the causes and results of wars, the problemsof financing and sustaining armed forces, rather than military strategy. These are the subjects which belong to a history for civilians. Theseare matters which civilians can understand--matters which they mustunderstand, if they are to play well their part in war and peace. 

_Fifth. _ By omitting the period of exploration, we have been able toenlarge the treatment of our own time. We have given special attentionto the history of those current questions which must form the subjectmatter of sound instruction in citizenship. 

_Sixth. _ We have borne in mind that America, with all her uniquecharacteristics, is a part of a general civilization. Accordingly wehave given diplomacy, foreign affairs, world relations, and thereciprocal influences of nations their appropriate place. 

_Seventh. _ We have deliberately aimed at standards of maturity. Thestudy of a mere narrative calls mainly for the use of the memory. Wehave aimed to stimulate habits of analysis, comparison, association, reflection, and generalization--habits calculated to enlarge as well asinform the mind. We have been at great pains to make our text clear, simple, and direct; but we have earnestly sought to stretch theintellects of our readers--to put them upon their mettle. Most of themwill receive the last of their formal instruction in the high school. The world will soon expect maturity from them. Their achievements willdepend upon the possession of other powers than memory alone. Theeffectiveness of their citizenship in our republic will be measured bythe excellence of their judgment as well as the fullness of theirinformation. 

 C. A. B. M. R. B. 

 NEW YORK CITY, February 8, 1921. 

=A SMALL LIBRARY IN AMERICAN HISTORY=

_=SINGLE VOLUMES:=_

BASSETT, J. S. _A Short History of the United States_ELSON, H. W. _History of the United States of America_

_=SERIES:=_

"EPOCHS OF AMERICAN HISTORY, " EDITED BY A. B. HART

HART, A. B. _Formation of the Union_THWAITES, R. G. _The Colonies_WILSON, WOODROW. _Division and Reunion_

"RIVERSIDE SERIES, " EDITED BY W. E. DODD

BECKER, C. L. _Beginnings of the American People_DODD, W. E. _Expansion and Conflict_JOHNSON, A. _Union and Democracy_PAXSON, F. L. _The New Nation_

CONTENTS

PART I. THE COLONIAL PERIOD

CHAPTER PAGE I. THE GREAT MIGRATION TO AMERICA 1 The Agencies of American Colonization 2 The Colonial Peoples 6 The Process of Colonization 12

 II. COLONIAL AGRICULTURE, INDUSTRY, AND COMMERCE 20 The Land and the Westward Movement 20 Industrial and Commercial Development 28

 III. SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PROGRESS 38 The Leadership of the Churches 39 Schools and Colleges 43 The Colonial Press 46 The Evolution in Political Institutions 48

 IV. THE DEVELOPMENT OF COLONIAL NATIONALISM 56 Relations with the Indians and the French 57 The Effects of Warfare on the Colonies 61 Colonial Relations with the British Government 64 Summary of Colonial Period 73

PART II. CONFLICT AND INDEPENDENCE

 V. THE NEW COURSE IN BRITISH IMPERIAL POLICY 77 George III and His System 77 George III's Ministers and Their Colonial Policies 79 Colonial Resistance Forces Repeal 83 Resumption of British Revenue and Commercial Policies 87 Renewed Resistance in America 90 Retaliation by the British Government 93 From Reform to Revolution in America 95

 VI. THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION 99 Resistance and Retaliation 99 American Independence 101 The Establishment of Government and the New Allegiance 108 Military Affairs 116 The Finances of the Revolution 125 The Diplomacy of the Revolution 127 Peace at Last 132 Summary of the Revolutionary Period 135

PART III. FOUNDATIONS OF THE UNION AND NATIONAL POLITICS

 VII. THE FORMATION OF THE CONSTITUTION 139 The Promise and the Difficulties of America 139 The Calling of a Constitutional Convention 143 The Framing of the Constitution 146 The Struggle over Ratification 157

 VIII. THE CLASH OF POLITICAL PARTIES 162 The Men and Measures of the New Government 162 The Rise of Political Parties 168 Foreign Influences and Domestic Politics 171

 IX. THE JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICANS IN POWER 186 Republican Principles and Policies 186 The Republicans and the Great West 188 The Republican War for Commercial Independence 193 The Republicans Nationalized 201 The National Decisions of Chief Justice Marshall 208 Summary of Union and National Politics 212

PART IV. THE WEST AND JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY

 X. THE FARMERS BEYOND THE APPALACHIANS 217 Preparation for Western Settlement 217 The Western Migration and New States 221 The Spirit of the Frontier 228 The West and the East Meet 230

 XI. JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY 238 The Democratic Movement in the East 238 The New Democracy Enters the Arena 244 The New Democracy at Washington 250 The Rise of the Whigs 260 The Interaction of American and European Opinion 265

 XII. THE MIDDLE BORDER AND THE GREAT WEST 271 The Advance of the Middle Border 271 On to the Pacific--Texas and the Mexican War 276 The Pacific Coast and Utah 284 Summary of Western Development and National Politics 292

PART V. SECTIONAL CONFLICT AND RECONSTRUCTION

 XIII. THE RISE OF THE INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM 295 The Industrial Revolution 296 The Industrial Revolution and National Politics 307

 XIV. THE PLANTING SYSTEM AND NATIONAL POLITICS 316 Slavery--North and South 316 Slavery in National Politics 324 The Drift of Events toward the Irrepressible Conflict 332

 XV. THE CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION 344 The Southern Confederacy 344 The War Measures of the Federal Government 350 The Results of the Civil War 365 Reconstruction in the South 370 Summary of the Sectional Conflict 375

PART VI. NATIONAL GROWTH AND WORLD POLITICS

 XVI. THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC EVOLUTION OF THE SOUTH 379 The South at the Close of the War 379 The Restoration of White Supremacy 382 The Economic Advance of the South 389

 XVII. BUSINESS ENTERPRISE AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 401 Railways and Industry 401 The Supremacy of the Republican Party (1861-1885) 412 The Growth of Opposition to Republican Rule 417

XVIII. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GREAT WEST 425 The Railways as Trail Blazers 425 The Evolution of Grazing and Agriculture 431 Mining and Manufacturing in the West 436 The Admission of New States 440 The Influence of the Far West on National Life 443

 XIX. DOMESTIC ISSUES BEFORE THE COUNTRY (1865-1897) 451 The Currency Question 452 The Protective Tariff and Taxation 459 The Railways and Trusts 460 The Minor Parties and Unrest 462 The Sound Money Battle of 1896 466 Republican Measures and Results 472

 XX. AMERICA A WORLD POWER (1865-1900) 477 American Foreign Relations (1865-1898) 478 Cuba and the Spanish War 485 American Policies in the Philippines and the Orient 497 Summary of National Growth and World Politics 504

PART VII. PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRACY AND THE WORLD WAR

 XXI. THE EVOLUTION OF REPUBLICAN POLICIES (1901-1913) 507 Foreign Affairs 508 Colonial Administration 515 The Roosevelt Domestic Policies 519 Legislative and Executive Activities 523 The Administration of President Taft 527 Progressive Insurgency and the Election of 1912 530

 XXII. THE SPIRIT OF REFORM IN AMERICA 536 An Age of Criticism 536 Political Reforms 538 Measures of Economic Reform 546

XXIII. THE NEW POLITICAL DEMOCRACY 554 The Rise of the Woman Movement 555 The National Struggle for Woman Suffrage 562

 XXIV. INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY 570 Coöperation between Employers and Employees 571 The Rise and Growth of Organized Labor 575 The Wider Relations of Organized Labor 577 Immigration and Americanization 582

 XXV. PRESIDENT WILSON AND THE WORLD WAR 588 Domestic Legislation 588 Colonial and Foreign Policies 592 The United States and the European War 596 The United States at War 604 The Settlement at Paris 612 Summary of Democracy and the World War 620

APPENDIX 627

A TOPICAL SYLLABUS 645

INDEX 655

MAPS

 PAGEThe Original Grants (color map) _Facing_ 4

German and Scotch-Irish Settlements 8

Distribution of Population in 1790 27

English, French, and Spanish Possessions in America, 1750 (color map) _Facing_ 59

The Colonies at the Time of the Declaration of Independence (color map) _Facing_ 108

North America according to the Treaty of 1783 (color map) _Facing_ 134

The United States in 1805 (color map) _Facing_ 193

Roads and Trails into Western Territory (color map) _Facing_ 224

The Cumberland Road 233

Distribution of Population in 1830 235

Texas and the Territory in Dispute 282

The Oregon Country and the Disputed Boundary 285

The Overland Trails 287

Distribution of Slaves in Southern States 323

The Missouri Compromise 326

Slave and Free Soil on the Eve of the Civil War 335

The United States in 1861 (color map) _Facing_ 345

Railroads of the United States in 1918 405

The United States in 1870 (color map) _Facing_ 427

The United States in 1912 (color map) _Facing_ 443

American Dominions in the Pacific (color map) _Facing_ 500

The Caribbean Region (color map) _Facing_ 592

Battle Lines of the Various Years of the World War 613

Europe in 1919 (color map) _Between_ 618-619

 "THE NATIONS OF THE WEST" (popularly called "The Pioneers"), designed by A. Stirling Calder and modeled by Mr. Calder, F. G. R. Roth, and Leo Lentelli, topped the Arch of the Setting Sun at the Panama-Pacific Exposition held at San Francisco in 1915. Facing the Court of the Universe moves a group of men and women typical of those who have made our civilization. From left to right appear the French-Canadian, the Alaskan, the Latin-American, the German, the Italian, the Anglo-American, and the American Indian, squaw and warrior. In the place of honor in the center of the group, standing between the oxen on the tongue of the prairie schooner, is a figure, beautiful and almost girlish, but strong, dignified, and womanly, the Mother of To-morrow. Above the group rides the Spirit of Enterprise, flanked right and left by the Hopes of the Future in the person of two boys. The group as a whole is beautifully symbolic of the westward march of American civilization. 

[Illustration: _Photograph by Cardinell-Vincent Co. , San Francisco_

"THE NATIONS OF THE WEST"]

HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

PART I. THE COLONIAL PERIOD

CHAPTER I

THE GREAT MIGRATION TO AMERICA

The tide of migration that set in toward the shores of North Americaduring the early years of the seventeenth century was but one phase inthe restless and eternal movement of mankind upon the surface of theearth. The ancient Greeks flung out their colonies in every direction, westward as far as Gaul, across the Mediterranean, and eastward intoAsia Minor, perhaps to the very confines of India. The Romans, supportedby their armies and their government, spread their dominion beyond thenarrow lands of Italy until it stretched from the heather of Scotland tothe sands of Arabia. The Teutonic tribes, from their home beyond theDanube and the Rhine, poured into the empire of the Cæsars and made thebeginnings of modern Europe. Of this great sweep of races and empiresthe settlement of America was merely a part. And it was, moreover, onlyone aspect of the expansion which finally carried the peoples, theinstitutions, and the trade of Europe to the very ends of the earth. 

In one vital point, it must be noted, American colonization differedfrom that of the ancients. The Greeks usually carried with themaffection for the government they left behind and sacred fire from thealtar of the parent city; but thousands of the immigrants who came toAmerica disliked the state and disowned the church of the mothercountry. They established compacts of government for themselves and setup altars of their own. They sought not only new soil to till but alsopolitical and religious liberty for themselves and their children. 

THE AGENCIES OF AMERICAN COLONIZATION

It was no light matter for the English to cross three thousand miles ofwater and found homes in the American wilderness at the opening of theseventeenth century. Ships, tools, and supplies called for huge outlaysof money. Stores had to be furnished in quantities sufficient to sustainthe life of the settlers until they could gather harvests of their own. Artisans and laborers of skill and industry had to be induced to riskthe hazards of the new world. Soldiers were required for defense andmariners for the exploration of inland waters. Leaders of good judgment, adept in managing men, had to be discovered. Altogether such anenterprise demanded capital larger than the ordinary merchant orgentleman could amass and involved risks more imminent than he dared toassume. Though in later days, after initial tests had been made, wealthyproprietors were able to establish colonies on their own account, it wasthe corporation that furnished the capital and leadership in thebeginning. 

=The Trading Company. =--English pioneers in exploration found aninstrument for colonization in companies of merchant adventurers, whichhad long been employed in carrying on commerce with foreign countries. Such a corporation was composed of many persons of different ranks ofsociety--noblemen, merchants, and gentlemen--who banded together for aparticular undertaking, each contributing a sum of money and sharing inthe profits of the venture. It was organized under royal authority; itreceived its charter, its grant of land, and its trading privileges fromthe king and carried on its operations under his supervision andcontrol. The charter named all the persons originally included in thecorporation and gave them certain powers in the management of itsaffairs, including the right to admit new members. The company was infact a little government set up by the king. When the members of thecorporation remained in England, as in the case of the Virginia Company, they operated through agents sent to the colony. When they came over theseas themselves and settled in America, as in the case of Massachusetts, they became the direct government of the country they possessed. Thestockholders in that instance became the voters and the governor, thechief magistrate. 

[Illustration: JOHN WINTHROP, GOVERNOR OF THE MASSACHUSETTS BAYCOMPANY]

Four of the thirteen colonies in America owed their origins to thetrading corporation. It was the London Company, created by King James I, in 1606, that laid during the following year the foundations of Virginiaat Jamestown. It was under the auspices of their West India Company, chartered in 1621, that the Dutch planted the settlements of the NewNetherland in the valley of the Hudson. The founders of Massachusettswere Puritan leaders and men of affairs whom King Charles I incorporatedin 1629 under the title: "The governor and company of the MassachusettsBay in New England. " In this case the law did but incorporate a groupdrawn together by religious ties. "We must be knit together as one man, "wrote John Winthrop, the first Puritan governor in America. Far to thesouth, on the banks of the Delaware River, a Swedish commercial companyin 1638 made the beginnings of a settlement, christened New Sweden; itwas destined to pass under the rule of the Dutch, and finally under therule of William Penn as the proprietary colony of Delaware. 

In a certain sense, Georgia may be included among the "companycolonies. " It was, however, originally conceived by the moving spirit, James Oglethorpe, as an asylum for poor men, especially those imprisonedfor debt. To realize this humane purpose, he secured from King GeorgeII, in 1732, a royal charter uniting several gentlemen, includinghimself, into "one body politic and corporate, " known as the "Trusteesfor establishing the colony of Georgia in America. " In the structure oftheir organization and their methods of government, the trustees did notdiffer materially from the regular companies created for trade andcolonization. Though their purposes were benevolent, their transactionshad to be under the forms of law and according to the rules of business. 

=The Religious Congregation. =--A second agency which figured largely inthe settlement of America was the religious brotherhood, orcongregation, of men and women brought together in the bonds of a commonreligious faith. By one of the strange fortunes of history, thisinstitution, founded in the early days of Christianity, proved to be apotent force in the origin and growth of self-government in a land faraway from Galilee. "And the multitude of them that believed were of oneheart and of one soul, " we are told in the Acts describing the Church atJerusalem. "We are knit together as a body in a most sacred covenant ofthe Lord . .. By virtue of which we hold ourselves strictly tied to allcare of each other's good and of the whole, " wrote John Robinson, aleader among the Pilgrims who founded their tiny colony of Plymouth in1620. The Mayflower Compact, so famous in American history, was but awritten and signed agreement, incorporating the spirit of obedience tothe common good, which served as a guide to self-government untilPlymouth was annexed to Massachusetts in 1691. 

[Illustration: THE ORIGINAL GRANTS]

Three other colonies, all of which retained their identity until the eveof the American Revolution, likewise sprang directly from thecongregations of the faithful: Rhode Island, Connecticut, and NewHampshire, mainly offshoots from Massachusetts. They were founded bysmall bodies of men and women, "united in solemn covenants with theLord, " who planted their settlements in the wilderness. Not until many ayear after Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson conducted their followersto the Narragansett country was Rhode Island granted a charter ofincorporation (1663) by the crown. Not until long after the congregationof Thomas Hooker from Newtown blazed the way into the Connecticut RiverValley did the king of England give Connecticut a charter of its own(1662) and a place among the colonies. Half a century elapsed before thetowns laid out beyond the Merrimac River by emigrants from Massachusettswere formed into the royal province of New Hampshire in 1679. 

Even when Connecticut was chartered, the parchment and sealing wax ofthe royal lawyers did but confirm rights and habits of self-governmentand obedience to law previously established by the congregations. Thetowns of Hartford, Windsor, and Wethersfield had long lived happilyunder their "Fundamental Orders" drawn up by themselves in 1639; so hadthe settlers dwelt peacefully at New Haven under their "FundamentalArticles" drafted in the same year. The pioneers on the Connecticutshore had no difficulty in agreeing that "the Scriptures do hold forth aperfect rule for the direction and government of all men. "

=The Proprietor. =--A third and very important colonial agency was theproprietor, or proprietary. As the name, associated with the word"property, " implies, the proprietor was a person to whom the kinggranted property in lands in North America to have, hold, use, and enjoyfor his own benefit and profit, with the right to hand the estate downto his heirs in perpetual succession. The proprietor was a rich andpowerful person, prepared to furnish or secure the capital, collect theships, supply the stores, and assemble the settlers necessary to foundand sustain a plantation beyond the seas. Sometimes the proprietorworked alone. Sometimes two or more were associated like partners in thecommon undertaking. 

Five colonies, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and the Carolinas, owe their formal origins, though not always their first settlements, norin most cases their prosperity, to the proprietary system. Maryland, established in 1634 under a Catholic nobleman, Lord Baltimore, andblessed with religious toleration by the act of 1649, flourished underthe mild rule of proprietors until it became a state in the Americanunion. New Jersey, beginning its career under two proprietors, Berkeleyand Carteret, in 1664, passed under the direct government of the crownin 1702. Pennsylvania was, in a very large measure, the product of thegenerous spirit and tireless labors of its first proprietor, the leaderof the Friends, William Penn, to whom it was granted in 1681 and inwhose family it remained until 1776. The two Carolinas were firstorganized as one colony in 1663 under the government and patronage ofeight proprietors, including Lord Clarendon; but after more than half acentury both became royal provinces governed by the king. 

[Illustration: WILLIAM PENN, PROPRIETOR OF PENNSYLVANIA]

THE COLONIAL PEOPLES

=The English. =--In leadership and origin the thirteen colonies, exceptNew York and Delaware, were English. During the early days of all, savethese two, the main, if not the sole, current of immigration was fromEngland. The colonists came from every walk of life. They were men, women, and children of "all sorts and conditions. " The major portionwere yeomen, or small land owners, farm laborers, and artisans. Withthem were merchants and gentlemen who brought their stocks of goods ortheir fortunes to the New World. Scholars came from Oxford andCambridge to preach the gospel or to teach. Now and then the son of anEnglish nobleman left his baronial hall behind and cast his lot withAmerica. The people represented every religious faith--members of theEstablished Church of England; Puritans who had labored to reform thatchurch; Separatists, Baptists, and Friends, who had left it altogether;and Catholics, who clung to the religion of their fathers. 

New England was almost purely English. During the years between 1629 and1640, the period of arbitrary Stuart government, about twenty thousandPuritans emigrated to America, settling in the colonies of the farNorth. Although minor additions were made from time to time, the greaterportion of the New England people sprang from this original stock. Virginia, too, for a long time drew nearly all her immigrants fromEngland alone. Not until the eve of the Revolution did othernationalities, mainly the Scotch-Irish and Germans, rival the English innumbers. 

The populations of later English colonies--the Carolinas, New York, Pennsylvania, and Georgia--while receiving a steady stream ofimmigration from England, were constantly augmented by wanderers fromthe older settlements. New York was invaded by Puritans from New Englandin such numbers as to cause the Anglican clergymen there to lament that"free thinking spreads almost as fast as the Church. " North Carolina wasfirst settled toward the northern border by immigrants from Virginia. Some of the North Carolinians, particularly the Quakers, came all theway from New England, tarrying in Virginia only long enough to learn howlittle they were wanted in that Anglican colony. 

=The Scotch-Irish. =--Next to the English in numbers and influence werethe Scotch-Irish, Presbyterians in belief, English in tongue. Bothreligious and economic reasons sent them across the sea. Their Scotchancestors, in the days of Cromwell, had settled in the north of Irelandwhence the native Irish had been driven by the conqueror's sword. Therethe Scotch nourished for many years enjoying in peace their own form ofreligion and growing prosperous in the manufacture of fine linen andwoolen cloth. Then the blow fell. Toward the end of the seventeenthcentury their religious worship was put under the ban and the export oftheir cloth was forbidden by the English Parliament. Within two decadestwenty thousand Scotch-Irish left Ulster alone, for America; and allduring the eighteenth century the migration continued to be heavy. Although no exact record was kept, it is reckoned that the Scotch-Irishand the Scotch who came directly from Scotland, composed one-sixth ofthe entire American population on the eve of the Revolution. 

[Illustration: SETTLEMENTS OF GERMAN AND SCOTCH-IRISHIMMIGRANTS]

These newcomers in America made their homes chiefly in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas. Coming late uponthe scene, they found much of the land immediately upon the seaboardalready taken up. For this reason most of them became frontier peoplesettling the interior and upland regions. There they cleared the land, laid out their small farms, and worked as "sturdy yeomen on the soil, "hardy, industrious, and independent in spirit, sharing neither theluxuries of the rich planters nor the easy life of the leisurelymerchants. To their agriculture they added woolen and linenmanufactures, which, flourishing in the supple fingers of their tirelesswomen, made heavy inroads upon the trade of the English merchants inthe colonies. Of their labors a poet has sung:

 "O, willing hands to toil; Strong natures tuned to the harvest-song and bound to the kindly soil; Bold pioneers for the wilderness, defenders in the field. "

=The Germans. =--Third among the colonists in order of numericalimportance were the Germans. From the very beginning, they appeared incolonial records. A number of the artisans and carpenters in the firstJamestown colony were of German descent. Peter Minuit, the famousgovernor of New Motherland, was a German from Wesel on the Rhine, andJacob Leisler, leader of a popular uprising against the provincialadministration of New York, was a German from Frankfort-on-Main. Thewholesale migration of Germans began with the founding of Pennsylvania. Penn was diligent in searching for thrifty farmers to cultivate hislands and he made a special effort to attract peasants from the Rhinecountry. A great association, known as the Frankfort Company, boughtmore than twenty thousand acres from him and in 1684 established acenter at Germantown for the distribution of German immigrants. In oldNew York, Rhinebeck-on-the-Hudson became a similar center fordistribution. All the way from Maine to Georgia inducements were offeredto the German farmers and in nearly every colony were to be found, intime, German settlements. In fact the migration became so large thatGerman princes were frightened at the loss of so many subjects andEngland was alarmed by the influx of foreigners into her overseasdominions. Yet nothing could stop the movement. By the end of thecolonial period, the number of Germans had risen to more than twohundred thousand. 

The majority of them were Protestants from the Rhine region, and SouthGermany. Wars, religious controversies, oppression, and poverty drovethem forth to America. Though most of them were farmers, there were alsoamong them skilled artisans who contributed to the rapid growth ofindustries in Pennsylvania. Their iron, glass, paper, and woolen mills, dotted here and there among the thickly settled regions, added to thewealth and independence of the province. 

[Illustration: _From an old print_

A GLIMPSE OF OLD GERMANTOWN]

Unlike the Scotch-Irish, the Germans did not speak the language of theoriginal colonists or mingle freely with them. They kept to themselves, built their own schools, founded their own newspapers, and publishedtheir own books. Their clannish habits often irritated their neighborsand led to occasional agitations against "foreigners. " However, noserious collisions seem to have occurred; and in the days of theRevolution, German soldiers from Pennsylvania fought in the patriotarmies side by side with soldiers from the English and Scotch-Irishsections. 

=Other Nationalities. =--Though the English, the Scotch-Irish, and theGermans made up the bulk of the colonial population, there were otherracial strains as well, varying in numerical importance but contributingtheir share to colonial life. 

From France came the Huguenots fleeing from the decree of the king whichinflicted terrible penalties upon Protestants. 

From "Old Ireland" came thousands of native Irish, Celtic in race andCatholic in religion. Like their Scotch-Irish neighbors to the north, they revered neither the government nor the church of England imposedupon them by the sword. How many came we do not know, but shippingrecords of the colonial period show that boatload after boatload leftthe southern and eastern shores of Ireland for the New World. Undoubtedly thousands of their passengers were Irish of the nativestock. This surmise is well sustained by the constant appearance ofCeltic names in the records of various colonies. 

[Illustration:_From an old print_

OLD DUTCH FORT AND ENGLISH CHURCH NEAR ALBANY]

The Jews, then as ever engaged in their age-long battle for religiousand economic toleration, found in the American colonies, not completeliberty, but certainly more freedom than they enjoyed in England, France, Spain, or Portugal. The English law did not actually recognizetheir right to live in any of the dominions, but owing to the easy-goinghabits of the Americans they were allowed to filter into the seaboardtowns. The treatment they received there varied. On one occasion themayor and council of New York forbade them to sell by retail and onanother prohibited the exercise of their religious worship. Newport, Philadelphia, and Charleston were more hospitable, and there largeJewish colonies, consisting principally of merchants and their families, flourished in spite of nominal prohibitions of the law. 

Though the small Swedish colony in Delaware was quickly submergedbeneath the tide of English migration, the Dutch in New York continuedto hold their own for more than a hundred years after the Englishconquest in 1664. At the end of the colonial period over one-half of the170, 000 inhabitants of the province were descendants of the originalDutch--still distinct enough to give a decided cast to the life andmanners of New York. Many of them clung as tenaciously to their mothertongue as they did to their capacious farmhouses or their Dutch ovens;but they were slowly losing their identity as the English pressed inbeside them to farm and trade. 

The melting pot had begun its historic mission. 

THE PROCESS OF COLONIZATION

Considered from one side, colonization, whatever the motives of theemigrants, was an economic matter. It involved the use of capital to payfor their passage, to sustain them on the voyage, and to start them onthe way of production. Under this stern economic necessity, Puritans, Scotch-Irish, Germans, and all were alike laid. 

=Immigrants Who Paid Their Own Way. =--Many of the immigrants to Americain colonial days were capitalists themselves, in a small or a large way, and paid their own passage. What proportion of the colonists were ableto finance their voyage across the sea is a matter of pure conjecture. Undoubtedly a very considerable number could do so, for we can trace thefamily fortunes of many early settlers. Henry Cabot Lodge is authorityfor the statement that "the settlers of New England were drawn from thecountry gentlemen, small farmers, and yeomanry of the mothercountry. .. . Many of the emigrants were men of wealth, as the old listsshow, and all of them, with few exceptions, were men of property andgood standing. They did not belong to the classes from which emigrationis usually supplied, for they all had a stake in the country they leftbehind. " Though it would be interesting to know how accurate thisstatement is or how applicable to the other colonies, no study has asyet been made to gratify that interest. For the present it is anunsolved problem just how many of the colonists were able to bear thecost of their own transfer to the New World. 

=Indentured Servants. =--That at least tens of thousands of immigrantswere unable to pay for their passage is established beyond the shadow ofa doubt by the shipping records that have come down to us. The greatbarrier in the way of the poor who wanted to go to America was the costof the sea voyage. To overcome this difficulty a plan was worked outwhereby shipowners and other persons of means furnished the passagemoney to immigrants in return for their promise, or bond, to work for aterm of years to repay the sum advanced. This system was calledindentured servitude. 

It is probable that the number of bond servants exceeded the originaltwenty thousand Puritans, the yeomen, the Virginia gentlemen, and theHuguenots combined. All the way down the coast from Massachusetts toGeorgia were to be found in the fields, kitchens, and workshops, men, women, and children serving out terms of bondage generally ranging fromfive to seven years. In the proprietary colonies the proportion of bondservants was very high. The Baltimores, Penns, Carterets, and otherpromoters anxiously sought for workers of every nationality to tilltheir fields, for land without labor was worth no more than land in themoon. Hence the gates of the proprietary colonies were flung wide open. Every inducement was offered to immigrants in the form of cheap land, and special efforts were made to increase the population by importingservants. In Pennsylvania, it was not uncommon to find a master withfifty bond servants on his estate. It has been estimated that two-thirdsof all the immigrants into Pennsylvania between the opening of theeighteenth century and the outbreak of the Revolution were in bondage. In the other Middle colonies the number was doubtless not so large; butit formed a considerable part of the population. 

The story of this traffic in white servants is one of the most strikingthings in the history of labor. Bondmen differed from the serfs of thefeudal age in that they were not bound to the soil but to the master. They likewise differed from the negro slaves in that their servitude hada time limit. Still they were subject to many special disabilities. Itwas, for instance, a common practice to impose on them penalties farheavier than were imposed upon freemen for the same offense. A freecitizen of Pennsylvania who indulged in horse racing and gambling waslet off with a fine; a white servant guilty of the same unlawful conductwas whipped at the post and fined as well. 

The ordinary life of the white servant was also severely restricted. Abondman could not marry without his master's consent; nor engage intrade; nor refuse work assigned to him. For an attempt to escape orindeed for any infraction of the law, the term of service was extended. The condition of white bondmen in Virginia, according to Lodge, "waslittle better than that of slaves. Loose indentures and harsh laws putthem at the mercy of their masters. " It would not be unfair to add thatsuch was their lot in all other colonies. Their fate depended upon thetemper of their masters. 

Cruel as was the system in many ways, it gave thousands of people in theOld World a chance to reach the New--an opportunity to wrestle with fatefor freedom and a home of their own. When their weary years of servitudewere over, if they survived, they might obtain land of their own orsettle as free mechanics in the towns. For many a bondman the gambleproved to be a losing venture because he found himself unable to riseout of the state of poverty and dependence into which his servitudecarried him. For thousands, on the contrary, bondage proved to be a realavenue to freedom and prosperity. Some of the best citizens of Americahave the blood of indentured servants in their veins. 

=The Transported--Involuntary Servitude. =--In their anxiety to securesettlers, the companies and proprietors having colonies in Americaeither resorted to or connived at the practice of kidnapping men, women, and children from the streets of English cities. In 1680 it wasofficially estimated that "ten thousand persons were spirited away" toAmerica. Many of the victims of the practice were young children, forthe traffic in them was highly profitable. Orphans and dependents weresometimes disposed of in America by relatives unwilling to support them. In a single year, 1627, about fifteen hundred children were shipped toVirginia. 

In this gruesome business there lurked many tragedies, and very fewromances. Parents were separated from their children and husbands fromtheir wives. Hundreds of skilled artisans--carpenters, smiths, andweavers--utterly disappeared as if swallowed up by death. A few thusdragged off to the New World to be sold into servitude for a term offive or seven years later became prosperous and returned home withfortunes. In one case a young man who was forcibly carried over the sealived to make his way back to England and establish his claim to apeerage. 

Akin to the kidnapped, at least in economic position, were convictsdeported to the colonies for life in lieu of fines and imprisonment. TheAmericans protested vigorously but ineffectually against this practice. Indeed, they exaggerated its evils, for many of the "criminals" wereonly mild offenders against unduly harsh and cruel laws. A peasantcaught shooting a rabbit on a lord's estate or a luckless servant girlwho purloined a pocket handkerchief was branded as a criminal along withsturdy thieves and incorrigible rascals. Other transported offenderswere "political criminals"; that is, persons who criticized or opposedthe government. This class included now Irish who revolted againstBritish rule in Ireland; now Cavaliers who championed the king againstthe Puritan revolutionists; Puritans, in turn, dispatched after themonarchy was restored; and Scotch and English subjects in general whojoined in political uprisings against the king. 

=The African Slaves. =--Rivaling in numbers, in the course of time, theindentured servants and whites carried to America against their willwere the African negroes brought to America and sold into slavery. Whenthis form of bondage was first introduced into Virginia in 1619, it waslooked upon as a temporary necessity to be discarded with the increaseof the white population. Moreover it does not appear that those planterswho first bought negroes at the auction block intended to establish asystem of permanent bondage. Only by a slow process did chattel slaverytake firm root and become recognized as the leading source of the laborsupply. In 1650, thirty years after the introduction of slavery, therewere only three hundred Africans in Virginia. 

The great increase in later years was due in no small measure to theinordinate zeal for profits that seized slave traders both in Old and inNew England. Finding it relatively easy to secure negroes in Africa, they crowded the Southern ports with their vessels. The English RoyalAfrican Company sent to America annually between 1713 and 1743 from fiveto ten thousand slaves. The ship owners of New England were not farbehind their English brethren in pushing this extraordinary traffic. 

As the proportion of the negroes to the free white population steadilyrose, and as whole sections were overrun with slaves and slave traders, the Southern colonies grew alarmed. In 1710, Virginia sought to curtailthe importation by placing a duty of £5 on each slave. This effort wasfutile, for the royal governor promptly vetoed it. From time to timesimilar bills were passed, only to meet with royal disapproval. SouthCarolina, in 1760, absolutely prohibited importation; but the measurewas killed by the British crown. As late as 1772, Virginia, not dauntedby a century of rebuffs, sent to George III a petition in this vein:"The importation of slaves into the colonies from the coast of Africahath long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity and under itspresent encouragement, we have too much reason to fear, will endangerthe very existence of Your Majesty's American dominions. .. . Deeplyimpressed with these sentiments, we most humbly beseech Your Majesty toremove all those restraints on Your Majesty's governors of this colonywhich inhibit their assenting to such laws as might check so verypernicious a commerce. "

All such protests were without avail. The negro population grew by leapsand bounds, until on the eve of the Revolution it amounted to more thanhalf a million. In five states--Maryland, Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia--the slaves nearly equalled or actually exceeded the whitesin number. In South Carolina they formed almost two-thirds of thepopulation. Even in the Middle colonies of Delaware and Pennsylvaniaabout one-fifth of the inhabitants were from Africa. To the North, theproportion of slaves steadily diminished although chattel servitude wason the same legal footing as in the South. In New York approximately onein six and in New England one in fifty were negroes, including a fewfreedmen. 

The climate, the soil, the commerce, and the industry of the North wereall unfavorable to the growth of a servile population. Still, slavery, though sectional, was a part of the national system of economy. Northernships carried slaves to the Southern colonies and the produce of theplantations to Europe. "If the Northern states will consult theirinterest, they will not oppose the increase in slaves which willincrease the commodities of which they will become the carriers, " saidJohn Rutledge, of South Carolina, in the convention which framed theConstitution of the United States. "What enriches a part enriches thewhole and the states are the best judges of their particular interest, "responded Oliver Ellsworth, the distinguished spokesman of Connecticut. 

=References=

E. Charming, _History of the United States_, Vols. I and II. 

J. A. Doyle, _The English Colonies in America_ (5 vols. ). 

J. Fiske, _Old Virginia and Her Neighbors_ (2 vols. ). 

A. B. Faust, _The German Element in the United States_ (2 vols. ). 

H. J. Ford, _The Scotch-Irish in America_. 

L. Tyler, _England in America_ (American Nation Series). 

R. Usher, _The Pilgrims and Their History_. 

=Questions=

1. America has been called a nation of immigrants. Explain why. 

2. Why were individuals unable to go alone to America in the beginning?What agencies made colonization possible? Discuss each of them. 

3. Make a table of the colonies, showing the methods employed in theirsettlement. 

4. Why were capital and leadership so very important in earlycolonization?

5. What is meant by the "melting pot"? What nationalities wererepresented among the early colonists?

6. Compare the way immigrants come to-day with the way they came incolonial times. 

7. Contrast indentured servitude with slavery and serfdom. 

8. Account for the anxiety of companies and proprietors to securecolonists. 

9. What forces favored the heavy importation of slaves?

10. In what way did the North derive advantages from slavery?

=Research Topics=

=The Chartered Company. =--Compare the first and third charters ofVirginia in Macdonald, _Documentary Source Book of American History_, 1606-1898, pp. 1-14. Analyze the first and second Massachusetts chartersin Macdonald, pp. 22-84. Special reference: W. A. S. Hewins, _EnglishTrading Companies_. 

=Congregations and Compacts for Self-government. =--A study of theMayflower Compact, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut and theFundamental Articles of New Haven in Macdonald, pp. 19, 36, 39. Reference: Charles Borgeaud, _Rise of Modern Democracy_, and C. S. Lobingier, _The People's Law_, Chaps. I-VII. 

=The Proprietary System. =--Analysis of Penn's charter of 1681, inMacdonald, p. 80. Reference: Lodge, _Short History of the EnglishColonies in America_, p. 211. 

=Studies of Individual Colonies. =--Review of outstanding events inhistory of each colony, using Elson, _History of the United States_, pp. 55-159, as the basis. 

=Biographical Studies. =--John Smith, John Winthrop, William Penn, LordBaltimore, William Bradford, Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson, ThomasHooker, and Peter Stuyvesant, using any good encyclopedia. 

=Indentured Servitude. =--In Virginia, Lodge, _Short History_, pp. 69-72;in Pennsylvania, pp. 242-244. Contemporary account in Callender, _Economic History of the United States_, pp. 44-51. Special reference:Karl Geiser, _Redemptioners and Indentured Servants_ (Yale Review, X, No. 2 Supplement). 

=Slavery. =--In Virginia, Lodge, _Short History_, pp. 67-69; in theNorthern colonies, pp. 241, 275, 322, 408, 442. 

=The People of the Colonies. =--Virginia, Lodge, _Short History_, pp. 67-73; New England, pp. 406-409, 441-450; Pennsylvania, pp. 227-229, 240-250; New York, pp. 312-313, 322-335. 

CHAPTER II

COLONIAL AGRICULTURE, INDUSTRY, AND COMMERCE

THE LAND AND THE WESTWARD MOVEMENT

=The Significance of Land Tenure. =--The way in which land may beacquired, held, divided among heirs, and bought and sold exercises adeep influence on the life and culture of a people. The feudal andaristocratic societies of Europe were founded on a system of landlordismwhich was characterized by two distinct features. In the first place, the land was nearly all held in great estates, each owned by a singleproprietor. In the second place, every estate was kept intact under thelaw of primogeniture, which at the death of a lord transferred all hislanded property to his eldest son. This prevented the subdivision ofestates and the growth of a large body of small farmers or freeholdersowning their own land. It made a form of tenantry or servitudeinevitable for the mass of those who labored on the land. It alsoenabled the landlords to maintain themselves in power as a governingclass and kept the tenants and laborers subject to their economic andpolitical control. If land tenure was so significant in Europe, it wasequally important in the development of America, where practically allthe first immigrants were forced by circumstances to derive theirlivelihood from the soil. 

=Experiments in Common Tillage. =--In the New World, with its broadextent of land awaiting the white man's plow, it was impossible tointroduce in its entirety and over the whole area the system of lordsand tenants that existed across the sea. So it happened that almostevery kind of experiment in land tenure, from communism to feudalism, was tried. In the early days of the Jamestown colony, the land, thoughowned by the London Company, was tilled in common by the settlers. Noman had a separate plot of his own. The motto of the community was:"Labor and share alike. " All were supposed to work in the fields andreceive an equal share of the produce. At Plymouth, the Pilgrimsattempted a similar experiment, laying out the fields in common anddistributing the joint produce of their labor with rough equality amongthe workers. 

In both colonies the communistic experiments were failures. Angry at thelazy men in Jamestown who idled their time away and yet expected regularmeals, Captain John Smith issued a manifesto: "Everyone that gatherethnot every day as much as I do, the next day shall be set beyond theriver and forever banished from the fort and live there or starve. " Eventhis terrible threat did not bring a change in production. Not untileach man was given a plot of his own to till, not until each gatheredthe fruits of his own labor, did the colony prosper. In Plymouth, wherethe communal experiment lasted for five years, the results were similarto those in Virginia, and the system was given up for one of separatefields in which every person could "set corn for his own particular. "Some other New England towns, refusing to profit by the experience oftheir Plymouth neighbor, also made excursions into common ownership andlabor, only to abandon the idea and go in for individual ownership ofthe land. "By degrees it was seen that even the Lord's people could notcarry the complicated communist legislation into perfect and wholesomepractice. "

=Feudal Elements in the Colonies--Quit Rents, Manors, andPlantations. =--At the other end of the scale were the feudal elements ofland tenure found in the proprietary colonies, in the seaboard regionsof the South, and to some extent in New York. The proprietor was in facta powerful feudal lord, owning land granted to him by royal charter. Hecould retain any part of it for his personal use or dispose of it all inlarge or small lots. While he generally kept for himself an estate ofbaronial proportions, it was impossible for him to manage directly anyconsiderable part of the land in his dominion. Consequently he eithersold it in parcels for lump sums or granted it to individuals oncondition that they make to him an annual payment in money, known as"quit rent. " In Maryland, the proprietor sometimes collected as high as£9000 (equal to about $500, 000 to-day) in a single year from thissource. In Pennsylvania, the quit rents brought a handsome annualtribute into the exchequer of the Penn family. In the royal provinces, the king of England claimed all revenues collected in this form from theland, a sum amounting to £19, 000 at the time of the Revolution. The quitrent, --"really a feudal payment from freeholders, "--was thus a materialsource of income for the crown as well as for the proprietors. Whereverit was laid, however, it proved to be a burden, a source of constantirritation; and it became a formidable item in the long list ofgrievances which led to the American Revolution. 

Something still more like the feudal system of the Old World appeared inthe numerous manors or the huge landed estates granted by the crown, thecompanies, or the proprietors. In the colony of Maryland alone therewere sixty manors of three thousand acres each, owned by wealthy men andtilled by tenants holding small plots under certain restrictions oftenure. In New York also there were many manors of wide extent, most ofwhich originated in the days of the Dutch West India Company, whenextensive concessions were made to patroons to induce them to bring oversettlers. The Van Rensselaer, the Van Cortlandt, and the Livingstonmanors were so large and populous that each was entitled to send arepresentative to the provincial legislature. The tenants on the NewYork manors were in somewhat the same position as serfs on old Europeanestates. They were bound to pay the owner a rent in money and kind; theyground their grain at his mill; and they were subject to his judicialpower because he held court and meted out justice, in some instancesextending to capital punishment. 

The manors of New York or Maryland were, however, of slight consequenceas compared with the vast plantations of the Southern seaboard--hugeestates, far wider in expanse than many a European barony and tilled byslaves more servile than any feudal tenants. It must not be forgottenthat this system of land tenure became the dominant feature of a largesection and gave a decided bent to the economic and political life ofAmerica. 

[Illustration: SOUTHERN PLANTATION MANSION]

=The Small Freehold. =--In the upland regions of the South, however, andthroughout most of the North, the drift was against all forms ofservitude and tenantry and in the direction of the freehold; that is, the small farm owned outright and tilled by the possessor and hisfamily. This was favored by natural circumstances and the spirit of theimmigrants. For one thing, the abundance of land and the scarcity oflabor made it impossible for the companies, the proprietors, or thecrown to develop over the whole continent a network of vast estates. Inmany sections, particularly in New England, the climate, the stony soil, the hills, and the narrow valleys conspired to keep the farms within amoderate compass. For another thing, the English, Scotch-Irish, andGerman peasants, even if they had been tenants in the Old World, did notpropose to accept permanent dependency of any kind in the New. If theycould not get freeholds, they would not settle at all; thus they forcedproprietors and companies to bid for their enterprise by selling land insmall lots. So it happened that the freehold of modest proportionsbecame the cherished unit of American farmers. The people who tilled thefarms were drawn from every quarter of western Europe; but the freeholdsystem gave a uniform cast to their economic and social life in America. 

[Illustration: _From an old print_

A NEW ENGLAND FARMHOUSE]

=Social Effects of Land Tenure. =--Land tenure and the process of westernsettlement thus developed two distinct types of people engaged in thesame pursuit--agriculture. They had a common tie in that they bothcultivated the soil and possessed the local interest and independencewhich arise from that occupation. Their methods and their culture, however, differed widely. 

The Southern planter, on his broad acres tilled by slaves, resembled theEnglish landlord on his estates more than he did the colonial farmer wholabored with his own hands in the fields and forests. He sold his riceand tobacco in large amounts directly to English factors, who took hisentire crop in exchange for goods and cash. His fine clothes, silverware, china, and cutlery he bought in English markets. Loving theripe old culture of the mother country, he often sent his sons to Oxfordor Cambridge for their education. In short, he depended very largely forhis prosperity and his enjoyment of life upon close relations with theOld World. He did not even need market towns in which to buy nativegoods, for they were made on his own plantation by his own artisans whowere usually gifted slaves. 

The economic condition of the small farmer was totally different. Hiscrops were not big enough to warrant direct connection with Englishfactors or the personal maintenance of a corps of artisans. He neededlocal markets, and they sprang up to meet the need. Smiths, hatters, weavers, wagon-makers, and potters at neighboring towns supplied himwith the rough products of their native skill. The finer goods, boughtby the rich planter in England, the small farmer ordinarily could notbuy. His wants were restricted to staples like tea and sugar, andbetween him and the European market stood the merchant. His communitywas therefore more self-sufficient than the seaboard line of greatplantations. It was more isolated, more provincial, more independent, more American. The planter faced the Old East. The farmer faced the NewWest. 

=The Westward Movement. =--Yeoman and planter nevertheless were alike inone respect. Their land hunger was never appeased. Each had the eye ofan expert for new and fertile soil; and so, north and south, as soon asa foothold was secured on the Atlantic coast, the current of migrationset in westward, creeping through forests, across rivers, and overmountains. Many of the later immigrants, in their search for cheaplands, were compelled to go to the border; but in a large part the pathbreakers to the West were native Americans of the second and thirdgenerations. Explorers, fired by curiosity and the lure of themysterious unknown, and hunters, fur traders, and squatters, followingtheir own sweet wills, blazed the trail, opening paths and sending backstories of the new regions they traversed. Then came the regularsettlers with lawful titles to the lands they had purchased, sometimessingly and sometimes in companies. 

In Massachusetts, the westward movement is recorded in the founding ofSpringfield in 1636 and Great Barrington in 1725. By the opening of theeighteenth century the pioneers of Connecticut had pushed north and westuntil their outpost towns adjoined the Hudson Valley settlements. In NewYork, the inland movement was directed by the Hudson River to Albany, and from that old Dutch center it radiated in every direction, particularly westward through the Mohawk Valley. New Jersey was earlyfilled to its borders, the beginnings of the present city of NewBrunswick being made in 1681 and those of Trenton in 1685. InPennsylvania, as in New York, the waterways determined the main lines ofadvance. Pioneers, pushing up through the valley of the Schuylkill, spread over the fertile lands of Berks and Lancaster counties, layingout Reading in 1748. Another current of migration was directed by theSusquehanna, and, in 1726, the first farmhouse was built on the bankwhere Harrisburg was later founded. Along the southern tier of countiesa thin line of settlements stretched westward to Pittsburgh, reachingthe upper waters of the Ohio while the colony was still under the Pennfamily. 

In the South the westward march was equally swift. The seaboard wasquickly occupied by large planters and their slaves engaged in thecultivation of tobacco and rice. The Piedmont Plateau, lying back fromthe coast all the way from Maryland to Georgia, was fed by two streamsof migration, one westward from the sea and the other southward from theother colonies--Germans from Pennsylvania and Scotch-Irish furnishingthe main supply. "By 1770, tide-water Virginia was full to overflowingand the 'back country' of the Blue Ridge and the Shenandoah was fullyoccupied. Even the mountain valleys . .. Were claimed by sturdy pioneers. Before the Declaration of Independence, the oncoming tide ofhome-seekers had reached the crest of the Alleghanies. "

[Illustration: DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION, 1790]

Beyond the mountains pioneers had already ventured, harbingers of aninvasion that was about to break in upon Kentucky and Tennessee. Asearly as 1769 that mighty Nimrod, Daniel Boone, curious to huntbuffaloes, of which he had heard weird reports, passed through theCumberland Gap and brought back news of a wonderful country awaiting theplow. A hint was sufficient. Singly, in pairs, and in groups, settlersfollowed the trail he had blazed. A great land corporation, theTransylvania Company, emulating the merchant adventurers of earliertimes, secured a huge grant of territory and sought profits in quitrents from lands sold to farmers. By the outbreak of the Revolutionthere were several hundred people in the Kentucky region. Like the oldercolonists, they did not relish quit rents, and their opposition wreckedthe Transylvania Company. They even carried their protests into theContinental Congress in 1776, for by that time they were our "embryofourteenth colony. "

INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Though the labor of the colonists was mainly spent in farming, there wasa steady growth in industrial and commercial pursuits. Most of thestaple industries of to-day, not omitting iron and textiles, have theirbeginnings in colonial times. Manufacturing and trade soon gave rise totowns which enjoyed an importance all out of proportion to theirnumbers. The great centers of commerce and finance on the seaboardoriginated in the days when the king of England was "lord of thesedominions. "

[Illustration: DOMESTIC INDUSTRY: DIPPING TALLOW CANDLES]

=Textile Manufacture as a Domestic Industry. =--Colonial women, inaddition to sharing every hardship of pioneering, often the heavy laborof the open field, developed in the course of time a national industrywhich was almost exclusively their own. Wool and flax were raised inabundance in the North and South. "Every farm house, " says Coman, theeconomic historian, "was a workshop where the women spun and wove theserges, kerseys, and linsey-woolseys which served for the common wear. "By the close of the seventeenth century, New England manufactured clothin sufficient quantities to export it to the Southern colonies and tothe West Indies. As the industry developed, mills were erected for themore difficult process of dyeing, weaving, and fulling, but carding andspinning continued to be done in the home. The Dutch of New Netherland, the Swedes of Delaware, and the Scotch-Irish of the interior "were notone whit behind their Yankee neighbors. "

The importance of this enterprise to British economic life can hardly beoverestimated. For many a century the English had employed their finewoolen cloth as the chief staple in a lucrative foreign trade, and thegovernment had come to look upon it as an object of special interest andprotection. When the colonies were established, both merchants andstatesmen naturally expected to maintain a monopoly of increasing value;but before long the Americans, instead of buying cloth, especially ofthe coarser varieties, were making it to sell. In the place ofcustomers, here were rivals. In the place of helpless reliance uponEnglish markets, here was the germ of economic independence. 

If British merchants had not discovered it in the ordinary course oftrade, observant officers in the provinces would have conveyed the newsto them. Even in the early years of the eighteenth century the royalgovernor of New York wrote of the industrious Americans to his homegovernment: "The consequence will be that if they can clothe themselvesonce, not only comfortably, but handsomely too, without the help ofEngland, they who already are not very fond of submitting to governmentwill soon think of putting in execution designs they have long harbouredin their breasts. This will not seem strange when you consider what sortof people this country is inhabited by. "

=The Iron Industry. =--Almost equally widespread was the art of ironworking--one of the earliest and most picturesque of colonialindustries. Lynn, Massachusetts, had a forge and skilled artisans withinfifteen years after the founding of Boston. The smelting of iron beganat New London and New Haven about 1658; in Litchfield county, Connecticut, a few years later; at Great Barrington, Massachusetts, in1731; and near by at Lenox some thirty years after that. New Jersey hadiron works at Shrewsbury within ten years after the founding of thecolony in 1665. Iron forges appeared in the valleys of the Delaware andthe Susquehanna early in the following century, and iron masters thenlaid the foundations of fortunes in a region destined to become one ofthe great iron centers of the world. Virginia began iron working in theyear that saw the introduction of slavery. Although the industry soonlapsed, it was renewed and flourished in the eighteenth century. Governor Spotswood was called the "Tubal Cain" of the Old Dominionbecause he placed the industry on a firm foundation. Indeed it seemsthat every colony, except Georgia, had its iron foundry. Nails, wire, metallic ware, chains, anchors, bar and pig iron were made in largequantities; and Great Britain, by an act in 1750, encouraged thecolonists to export rough iron to the British Islands. 

=Shipbuilding. =--Of all the specialized industries in the colonies, shipbuilding was the most important. The abundance of fir for masts, oakfor timbers and boards, pitch for tar and turpentine, and hemp for ropemade the way of the shipbuilder easy. Early in the seventeenth century aship was built at New Amsterdam, and by the middle of that centuryshipyards were scattered along the New England coast at Newburyport, Salem, New Bedford, Newport, Providence, New London, and New Haven. Yards at Albany and Poughkeepsie in New York built ships for the tradeof that colony with England and the Indies. Wilmington and Philadelphiasoon entered the race and outdistanced New York, though unable to equalthe pace set by New England. While Maryland, Virginia, and SouthCarolina also built ships, Southern interest was mainly confined to thelucrative business of producing ship materials: fir, cedar, hemp, andtar. 

=Fishing. =--The greatest single economic resource of New England outsideof agriculture was the fisheries. This industry, started by hardysailors from Europe, long before the landing of the Pilgrims, flourishedunder the indomitable seamanship of the Puritans, who labored with thenet and the harpoon in almost every quarter of the Atlantic. "Look, "exclaimed Edmund Burke, in the House of Commons, "at the manner inwhich the people of New England have of late carried on the whalefishery. Whilst we follow them among the tumbling mountains of ice andbehold them penetrating into the deepest frozen recesses of Hudson's Bayand Davis's Straits, while we are looking for them beneath the arcticcircle, we hear that they have pierced into the opposite region of polarcold, that they are at the antipodes and engaged under the frozenserpent of the south. .. . Nor is the equinoctial heat more discouragingto them than the accumulated winter of both poles. We know that, whilstsome of them draw the line and strike the harpoon on the coast ofAfrica, others run the longitude and pursue their gigantic game alongthe coast of Brazil. No sea but what is vexed by their fisheries. Noclimate that is not witness to their toils. Neither the perseverance ofHolland nor the activity of France nor the dexterous and firm sagacityof English enterprise ever carried this most perilous mode of hardindustry to the extent to which it has been pushed by this recentpeople. "

The influence of the business was widespread. A large and lucrativeEuropean trade was built upon it. The better quality of the fish caughtfor food was sold in the markets of Spain, Portugal, and Italy, orexchanged for salt, lemons, and raisins for the American market. Thelower grades of fish were carried to the West Indies for slaveconsumption, and in part traded for sugar and molasses, which furnishedthe raw materials for the thriving rum industry of New England. Theseactivities, in turn, stimulated shipbuilding, steadily enlarging thedemand for fishing and merchant craft of every kind and thus keeping theshipwrights, calkers, rope makers, and other artisans of the seaporttowns rushed with work. They also increased trade with the mothercountry for, out of the cash collected in the fish markets of Europe andthe West Indies, the colonists paid for English manufactures. So anever-widening circle of American enterprise centered around this singleindustry, the nursery of seamanship and the maritime spirit. 

=Oceanic Commerce and American Merchants. =--All through the eighteenthcentury, the commerce of the American colonies spread in every directionuntil it rivaled in the number of people employed, the capital engaged, and the profits gleaned, the commerce of European nations. A modernhistorian has said: "The enterprising merchants of New England developeda network of trade routes that covered well-nigh half the world. " Thiscommerce, destined to be of such significance in the conflict with themother country, presented, broadly speaking, two aspects. 

On the one side, it involved the export of raw materials andagricultural produce. The Southern colonies produced for shipping, tobacco, rice, tar, pitch, and pine; the Middle colonies, grain, flour, furs, lumber, and salt pork; New England, fish, flour, rum, furs, shoes, and small articles of manufacture. The variety of products was in factastounding. A sarcastic writer, while sneering at the idea of anAmerican union, once remarked of colonial trade: "What sort of dish willyou make? New England will throw in fish and onions. The middle states, flax-seed and flour. Maryland and Virginia will add tobacco. NorthCarolina, pitch, tar, and turpentine. South Carolina, rice and indigo, and Georgia will sprinkle the whole composition with sawdust. Such anabsurd jumble will you make if you attempt to form a union among suchdiscordant materials as the thirteen British provinces. "

On the other side, American commerce involved the import trade, consisting principally of English and continental manufactures, tea, and"India goods. " Sugar and molasses, brought from the West Indies, supplied the flourishing distilleries of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. The carriage of slaves from Africa to the Southerncolonies engaged hundreds of New England's sailors and thousands ofpounds of her capital. 

The disposition of imported goods in the colonies, though in partcontrolled by English factors located in America, employed also a largeand important body of American merchants like the Willings and Morrisesof Philadelphia; the Amorys, Hancocks, and Faneuils of Boston; and theLivingstons and Lows of New York. In their zeal and enterprise, theywere worthy rivals of their English competitors, so celebrated forworld-wide commercial operations. Though fully aware of the advantagesthey enjoyed in British markets and under the protection of the Britishnavy, the American merchants were high-spirited and mettlesome, ready tocontend with royal officers in order to shield American interestsagainst outside interference. 

[Illustration: THE DUTCH WEST INDIA WAREHOUSE IN NEW AMSTERDAM(NEW YORK CITY)]

Measured against the immense business of modern times, colonial commerceseems perhaps trivial. That, however, is not the test of itssignificance. It must be considered in relation to the growth of Englishcolonial trade in its entirety--a relation which can be shown by a fewstartling figures. The whole export trade of England, including that tothe colonies, was, in 1704, £6, 509, 000. On the eve of the AmericanRevolution, namely, in 1772, English exports to the American coloniesalone amounted to £6, 024, 000; in other words, almost as much as thewhole foreign business of England two generations before. At the firstdate, colonial trade was but one-twelfth of the English export business;at the second date, it was considerably more than one-third. In 1704, Pennsylvania bought in English markets goods to the value of £11, 459; in1772 the purchases of the same colony amounted to £507, 909. In short, Pennsylvania imports increased fifty times within sixty-eight years, amounting in 1772 to almost the entire export trade of England to thecolonies at the opening of the century. The American colonies wereindeed a great source of wealth to English merchants. 

=Intercolonial Commerce. =--Although the bad roads of colonial times madeoverland transportation difficult and costly, the many rivers andharbors along the coast favored a lively water-borne trade among thecolonies. The Connecticut, Hudson, Delaware, and Susquehanna rivers inthe North and the many smaller rivers in the South made it possible forgoods to be brought from, and carried to, the interior regions in littlesailing vessels with comparative ease. Sloops laden with manufactures, domestic and foreign, collected at some city like Providence, New York, or Philadelphia, skirted the coasts, visited small ports, and sailed upthe navigable rivers to trade with local merchants who had for exchangethe raw materials which they had gathered in from neighboring farms. Larger ships carried the grain, live stock, cloth, and hardware of NewEngland to the Southern colonies, where they were traded for tobacco, leather, tar, and ship timber. From the harbors along the Connecticutshores there were frequent sailings down through Long Island Sound toMaryland, Virginia, and the distant Carolinas. 

=Growth of Towns. =--In connection with this thriving trade and industrythere grew up along the coast a number of prosperous commercial centerswhich were soon reckoned among the first commercial towns of the wholeBritish empire, comparing favorably in numbers and wealth with suchports as Liverpool and Bristol. The statistical records of that time aremainly guesses; but we know that Philadelphia stood first in size amongthese towns. Serving as the port of entry for Pennsylvania, Delaware, and western Jersey, it had drawn within its borders, just before theRevolution, about 25, 000 inhabitants. Boston was second in rank, withsomewhat more than 20, 000 people. New York, the "commercial capital ofConnecticut and old East Jersey, " was slightly smaller than Boston, butgrowing at a steady rate. The fourth town in size was Charleston, SouthCarolina, with about 10, 000 inhabitants. Newport in Rhode Island, acenter of rum manufacture and shipping, stood fifth, with a populationof about 7000. Baltimore and Norfolk were counted as "considerabletowns. " In the interior, Hartford in Connecticut, Lancaster and York inPennsylvania, and Albany in New York, with growing populations andincreasing trade, gave prophecy of an urban America away from theseaboard. The other towns were straggling villages. Williamsburg, Virginia, for example, had about two hundred houses, in which dwelt adozen families of the gentry and a few score of tradesmen. Inland countyseats often consisted of nothing more than a log courthouse, a prison, and one wretched inn to house judges, lawyers, and litigants during thesessions of the court. 

The leading towns exercised an influence on colonial opinion all out ofproportion to their population. They were the centers of wealth, for onething; of the press and political activity, for another. Merchants andartisans could readily take concerted action on public questions arisingfrom their commercial operations. The towns were also centers for news, gossip, religious controversy, and political discussion. In the marketplaces the farmers from the countryside learned of British policies andlaws, and so, mingling with the townsmen, were drawn into the maincurrents of opinion which set in toward colonial nationalism andindependence. 

=References=

J. Bishop, _History of American Manufactures_ (2 vols. ). 

E. L. Bogart, _Economic History of the United States_. 

P. A. Bruce, _Economic History of Virginia_ (2 vols. ). 

E. Semple, _American History and Its Geographical Conditions_. 

W. Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_. (2 vols. ). 

=Questions=

1. Is land in your community parceled out into small farms? Contrast thesystem in your community with the feudal system of land tenure. 

2. Are any things owned and used in common in your community? Why didcommon tillage fail in colonial times?

3. Describe the elements akin to feudalism which were introduced in thecolonies. 

4. Explain the success of freehold tillage. 

5. Compare the life of the planter with that of the farmer. 

6. How far had the western frontier advanced by 1776?

7. What colonial industry was mainly developed by women? Why was it veryimportant both to the Americans and to the English?

8. What were the centers for iron working? Ship building?

9. Explain how the fisheries affected many branches of trade andindustry. 

10. Show how American trade formed a vital part of English business. 

11. How was interstate commerce mainly carried on?

12. What were the leading towns? Did they compare in importance withBritish towns of the same period?

=Research Topics=

=Land Tenure. =--Coman, _Industrial History_ (rev. Ed. ), pp. 32-38. Special reference: Bruce, _Economic History of Virginia_, Vol. I, Chap. VIII. 

=Tobacco Planting in Virginia. =--Callender, _Economic History of theUnited States_, pp. 22-28. 

=Colonial Agriculture. =--Coman, pp. 48-63. Callender, pp. 69-74. Reference: J. R. H. Moore, _Industrial History of the American People_, pp. 131-162. 

=Colonial Manufactures. =--Coman, pp. 63-73. Callender, pp. 29-44. Special reference: Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_. 

=Colonial Commerce. =--Coman, pp. 73-85. Callender, pp. 51-63, 78-84. Moore, pp. 163-208. Lodge, _Short History of the English Colonies_, pp. 409-412, 229-231, 312-314. 

Chapter III

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PROGRESS

Colonial life, crowded as it was with hard and unremitting toil, leftscant leisure for the cultivation of the arts and sciences. There waslittle money in private purses or public treasuries to be dedicated toschools, libraries, and museums. Few there were with time to read longand widely, and fewer still who could devote their lives to things thatdelight the eye and the mind. And yet, poor and meager as theintellectual life of the colonists may seem by way of comparison, heroicefforts were made in every community to lift the people above the planeof mere existence. After the first clearings were opened in the foreststhose efforts were redoubled, and with lengthening years told upon thethought and spirit of the land. The appearance, during the struggle withEngland, of an extraordinary group of leaders familiar with history, political philosophy, and the arts of war, government, and diplomacyitself bore eloquent testimony to the high quality of the Americanintellect. No one, not even the most critical, can run through thewritings of distinguished Americans scattered from Massachusetts toGeorgia--the Adamses, Ellsworth, the Morrises, the Livingstons, Hamilton, Franklin, Washington, Madison, Marshall, Henry, the Randolphs, and the Pinckneys--without coming to the conclusion that there wassomething in American colonial life which fostered minds of depth andpower. Women surmounted even greater difficulties than the men in theprocess of self-education, and their keen interest in public issues isevident in many a record like the _Letters_ of Mrs. John Adams to herhusband during the Revolution; the writings of Mrs. Mercy Otis Warren, the sister of James Otis, who measured her pen with the Britishpropagandists; and the patriot newspapers founded and managed by women. 

THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CHURCHES

In the intellectual life of America, the churches assumed a rôle of highimportance. There were abundant reasons for this. In many of thecolonies--Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New England--the religious impulsehad been one of the impelling motives in stimulating immigration. In allthe colonies, the clergy, at least in the beginning, formed the onlyclass with any leisure to devote to matters of the spirit. They preachedon Sundays and taught school on week days. They led in the discussion oflocal problems and in the formation of political opinion, so much ofwhich was concerned with the relation between church and state. Theywrote books and pamphlets. They filled most of the chairs in thecolleges; under clerical guidance, intellectual and spiritual, theAmericans received their formal education. In several of the provincesthe Anglican Church was established by law. In New England the Puritanswere supreme, notwithstanding the efforts of the crown to overbear theirauthority. In the Middle colonies, particularly, the multiplication ofsects made the dominance of any single denomination impossible; and inall of them there was a growing diversity of faith, which promised intime a separation of church and state and freedom of opinion. 

=The Church of England. =--Virginia was the stronghold of the Englishsystem of church and state. The Anglican faith and worship wereprescribed by law, sustained by taxes imposed on all, and favored by thegovernor, the provincial councilors, and the richest planters. "TheEstablished Church, " says Lodge, "was one of the appendages of theVirginia aristocracy. They controlled the vestries and the ministers, and the parish church stood not infrequently on the estate of theplanter who built and managed it. " As in England, Catholics andProtestant Dissenters were at first laid under heavy disabilities. Onlyslowly and on sufferance were they admitted to the province; but whenonce they were even covertly tolerated, they pressed steadily in, until, by the Revolution, they outnumbered the adherents of the establishedorder. 

The Church was also sanctioned by law and supported by taxes in theCarolinas after 1704, and in Georgia after that colony passed directlyunder the crown in 1754--this in spite of the fact that the majority ofthe inhabitants were Dissenters. Against the protests of the Catholicsit was likewise established in Maryland. In New York, too, notwithstanding the resistance of the Dutch, the Established Church wasfostered by the provincial officials, and the Anglicans, embracing aboutone-fifteenth of the population, exerted an influence all out ofproportion to their numbers. 

Many factors helped to enhance the power of the English Church in thecolonies. It was supported by the British government and the officialclass sent out to the provinces. Its bishops and archbishops in Englandwere appointed by the king, and its faith and service were set forth byacts of Parliament. Having its seat of power in the English monarchy, itcould hold its clergy and missionaries loyal to the crown and socounteract to some extent the independent spirit that was growing up inAmerica. The Church, always a strong bulwark of the state, therefore hada political rôle to play here as in England. Able bishops and far-seeingleaders firmly grasped this fact about the middle of the eighteenthcentury and redoubled their efforts to augment the influence of theChurch in provincial affairs. Unhappily for their plans they failed tocalculate in advance the effect of their methods upon dissentingProtestants, who still cherished memories of bitter religious conflictsin the mother country. 

=Puritanism in New England. =--If the established faith made for imperialunity, the same could not be said of Puritanism. The Plymouth Pilgrimshad cast off all allegiance to the Anglican Church and established aseparate and independent congregation before they came to America. ThePuritans, essaying at first the task of reformers within the Church, soon after their arrival in Massachusetts, likewise flung off their yokeof union with the Anglicans. In each town a separate congregation wasorganized, the male members choosing the pastor, the teachers, and theother officers. They also composed the voters in the town meeting, wheresecular matters were determined. The union of church and government wasthus complete, and uniformity of faith and life prescribed by law andenforced by civil authorities; but this worked for local autonomyinstead of imperial unity. 

The clergy became a powerful class, dominant through their learning andtheir fearful denunciations of the faithless. They wrote the books forthe people to read--the famous Cotton Mather having three hundred andeighty-three books and pamphlets to his credit. In coöperation with thecivil officers they enforced a strict observance of the PuritanSabbath--a day of rest that began at six o'clock on Saturday evening andlasted until sunset on Sunday. All work, all trading, all amusement, andall worldly conversation were absolutely prohibited during those hours. A thoughtless maid servant who for some earthly reason smiled in churchwas in danger of being banished as a vagabond. Robert Pike, a devoutPuritan, thinking the sun had gone to rest, ventured forth on horsebackone Sunday evening and was luckless enough to have a ray of light strikehim through a rift in the clouds. The next day he was brought into courtand fined for "his ungodly conduct. " With persons accused of witchcraftthe Puritans were still more ruthless. When a mania of persecution sweptover Massachusetts in 1692, eighteen people were hanged, one was pressedto death, many suffered imprisonment, and two died in jail. 

Just about this time, however, there came a break in the uniformity ofPuritan rule. The crown and church in England had long looked upon itwith disfavor, and in 1684 King Charles II annulled the old charter ofthe Massachusetts Bay Company. A new document issued seven years laterwrested from the Puritans of the colony the right to elect their owngovernor and reserved the power of appointment to the king. It alsoabolished the rule limiting the suffrage to church members, substitutingfor it a simple property qualification. Thus a royal governor and anofficial family, certain to be Episcopalian in faith and monarchist insympathies, were forced upon Massachusetts; and members of all religiousdenominations, if they had the required amount of property, werepermitted to take part in elections. By this act in the name of thecrown, the Puritan monopoly was broken down in Massachusetts, and thatprovince was brought into line with Connecticut, Rhode Island, and NewHampshire, where property, not religious faith, was the test for thesuffrage. 

=Growth of Religious Toleration. =--Though neither the Anglicans ofVirginia nor the Puritans of Massachusetts believed in toleration forother denominations, that principle was strictly applied in RhodeIsland. There, under the leadership of Roger Williams, liberty inmatters of conscience was established in the beginning. Maryland, bygranting in 1649 freedom to those who professed to believe in JesusChrist, opened its gates to all Christians; and Pennsylvania, true tothe tenets of the Friends, gave freedom of conscience to those "whoconfess and acknowledge the one Almighty and Eternal God to be thecreator, upholder, and ruler of the World. " By one circumstance oranother, the Middle colonies were thus early characterized by diversityrather than uniformity of opinion. Dutch Protestants, Huguenots, Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, New Lights, Moravians, Lutherans, Catholics, and other denominations became too strongly intrenched andtoo widely scattered to permit any one of them to rule, if it haddesired to do so. There were communities and indeed whole sections whereone or another church prevailed, but in no colony was a legislaturesteadily controlled by a single group. Toleration encouraged diversity, and diversity, in turn, worked for greater toleration. 

The government and faith of the dissenting denominations conspired witheconomic and political tendencies to draw America away from the Englishstate. Presbyterians, Quakers, Baptists, and Puritans had no hierarchyof bishops and archbishops to bind them to the seat of power in London. Neither did they look to that metropolis for guidance in interpretingarticles of faith. Local self-government in matters ecclesiasticalhelped to train them for local self-government in matters political. Thespirit of independence which led Dissenters to revolt in the Old World, nourished as it was amid favorable circumstances in the New World, madethem all the more zealous in the defense of every right againstauthority imposed from without. 

SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

=Religion and Local Schools. =--One of the first cares of each Protestantdenomination was the education of the children in the faith. In thiswork the Bible became the center of interest. The English version wasindeed the one book of the people. Farmers, shopkeepers, and artisans, whose life had once been bounded by the daily routine of labor, found inthe Scriptures not only an inspiration to religious conduct, but also abook of romance, travel, and history. "Legend and annal, " says JohnRichard Green, "war-song and psalm, state-roll and biography, the mightyvoices of prophets, the parables of Evangelists, stories of missionjourneys, of perils by sea and among the heathen, philosophic arguments, apocalyptic visions, all were flung broadcast over minds unoccupied forthe most part by any rival learning. .. . As a mere literary monument, theEnglish version of the Bible remains the noblest example of the Englishtongue. " It was the King James version just from the press that thePilgrims brought across the sea with them. 

For the authority of the Established Church was substituted theauthority of the Scriptures. The Puritans devised a catechism based upontheir interpretation of the Bible, and, very soon after their arrival inAmerica, they ordered all parents and masters of servants to be diligentin seeing that their children and wards were taught to read religiousworks and give answers to the religious questions. Massachusetts wasscarcely twenty years old before education of this character wasdeclared to be compulsory, and provision was made for public schoolswhere those not taught at home could receive instruction in reading andwriting. 

[Illustration: A PAGE FROM A FAMOUS SCHOOLBOOK

 A In ADAM'S Fall We sinned all. 

 B Heaven to find, The Bible Mind. 

 C Christ crucify'd For sinners dy'd. 

 D The Deluge drown'd The Earth around. 

 E ELIJAH hid by Ravens fed. 

 F The judgment made FELIX afraid. ]

Outside of New England the idea of compulsory education was not regardedwith the same favor; but the whole land was nevertheless dotted withlittle schools kept by "dames, itinerant teachers, or local parsons. "Whether we turn to the life of Franklin in the North or Washington inthe South, we read of tiny schoolhouses, where boys, and sometimesgirls, were taught to read and write. Where there were no schools, fathers and mothers of the better kind gave their children the rudimentsof learning. Though illiteracy was widespread, there is evidence to showthat the diffusion of knowledge among the masses was making steadyprogress all through the eighteenth century. 

=Religion and Higher Learning. =--Religious motives entered into theestablishment of colleges as well as local schools. Harvard, founded in1636, and Yale, opened in 1718, were intended primarily to train"learned and godly ministers" for the Puritan churches of New England. To the far North, Dartmouth, chartered in 1769, was designed first as amission to the Indians and then as a college for the sons of New Englandfarmers preparing to preach, teach, or practice law. The College of NewJersey, organized in 1746 and removed to Princeton eleven years later, was sustained by the Presbyterians. Two colleges looked to theEstablished Church as their source of inspiration and support: Williamand Mary, founded in Virginia in 1693, and King's College, now ColumbiaUniversity, chartered by King George II in 1754, on an appeal from theNew York Anglicans, alarmed at the growth of religious dissent and the"republican tendencies" of the age. Two colleges revealed a drift awayfrom sectarianism. Brown, established in Rhode Island in 1764, and thePhiladelphia Academy, forerunner of the University of Pennsylvania, organized by Benjamin Franklin, reflected the spirit of toleration bygiving representation on the board of trustees to several religioussects. It was Franklin's idea that his college should prepare young mento serve in public office as leaders of the people and ornaments totheir country. 

=Self-education in America. =--Important as were these institutions oflearning, higher education was by no means confined within their walls. Many well-to-do families sent their sons to Oxford or Cambridge inEngland. Private tutoring in the home was common. In still more familiesthere were intelligent children who grew up in the great colonial schoolof adversity and who trained themselves until, in every contest of mindand wit, they could vie with the sons of Harvard or William and Mary orany other college. Such, for example, was Benjamin Franklin, whosecharming autobiography, in addition to being an American classic, is afine record of self-education. His formal training in the classroom waslimited to a few years at a local school in Boston; but hisself-education continued throughout his life. He early manifested a zealfor reading, and devoured, he tells us, his father's dry library ontheology, Bunyan's works, Defoe's writings, Plutarch's _Lives_, Locke's_On the Human Understanding_, and innumerable volumes dealing withsecular subjects. His literary style, perhaps the best of his time, Franklin acquired by the diligent and repeated analysis of the_Spectator_. In a life crowded with labors, he found time to read widelyin natural science and to win single-handed recognition at the hands ofEuropean savants for his discoveries in electricity. By his own effortshe "attained an acquaintance" with Latin, Italian, French, and Spanish, thus unconsciously preparing himself for the day when he was to speakfor all America at the court of the king of France. 

Lesser lights than Franklin, educated by the same process, were foundall over colonial America. From this fruitful source of native ability, self-educated, the American cause drew great strength in the trials ofthe Revolution. 

THE COLONIAL PRESS

=The Rise of the Newspaper. =--The evolution of American democracy into agovernment by public opinion, enlightened by the open discussion ofpolitical questions, was in no small measure aided by a free press. Thattoo, like education, was a matter of slow growth. A printing press wasbrought to Massachusetts in 1639, but it was put in charge of anofficial censor and limited to the publication of religious works. Fortyyears elapsed before the first newspaper appeared, bearing the curioustitle, _Public Occurrences Both Foreign and Domestic_, and it had notbeen running very long before the government of Massachusetts suppressedit for discussing a political question. 

Publishing, indeed, seemed to be a precarious business; but in 1704there came a second venture in journalism, _The Boston News-Letter_, which proved to be a more lasting enterprise because it refrained fromcriticizing the authorities. Still the public interest languished. WhenFranklin's brother, James, began to issue his _New England Courant_about 1720, his friends sought to dissuade him, saying that onenewspaper was enough for America. Nevertheless he continued it; and hisconfidence in the future was rewarded. In nearly every colony a gazetteor chronicle appeared within the next thirty years or more. BenjaminFranklin was able to record in 1771 that America had twenty-fivenewspapers. Boston led with five. Philadelphia had three: two in Englishand one in German. 

=Censorship and Restraints on the Press. =--The idea of printing, unlicensed by the government and uncontrolled by the church, was, however, slow in taking form. The founders of the American colonies hadnever known what it was to have the free and open publication of books, pamphlets, broadsides, and newspapers. When the art of printing wasfirst discovered, the control of publishing was vested in clericalauthorities. After the establishment of the State Church in England inthe reign of Elizabeth, censorship of the press became a part of royalprerogative. Printing was restricted to Oxford, Cambridge, and London;and no one could publish anything without previous approval of theofficial censor. When the Puritans were in power, the popular party, with a zeal which rivaled that of the crown, sought, in turn, to silenceroyalist and clerical writers by a vigorous censorship. After therestoration of the monarchy, control of the press was once more placedin royal hands, where it remained until 1695, when Parliament, byfailing to renew the licensing act, did away entirely with the officialcensorship. By that time political parties were so powerful and soactive and printing presses were so numerous that official review of allpublished matter became a sheer impossibility. 

In America, likewise, some troublesome questions arose in connectionwith freedom of the press. The Puritans of Massachusetts were no lessanxious than King Charles or the Archbishop of London to shut out fromthe prying eyes of the people all literature "not mete for them toread"; and so they established a system of official licensing forpresses, which lasted until 1755. In the other colonies where there wasmore diversity of opinion and publishers could set up in business withimpunity, they were nevertheless constantly liable to arrest forprinting anything displeasing to the colonial governments. In 1721 theeditor of the _Mercury_ in Philadelphia was called before theproprietary council and ordered to apologize for a political article, and for a later offense of a similar character he was thrown into jail. A still more famous case was that of Peter Zenger, a New York publisher, who was arrested in 1735 for criticising the administration. Lawyers whoventured to defend the unlucky editor were deprived of their licenses topractice, and it became necessary to bring an attorney all the way fromPhiladelphia. By this time the tension of feeling was high, and theapprobation of the public was forthcoming when the lawyer for thedefense exclaimed to the jury that the very cause of liberty itself, notthat of the poor printer, was on trial! The verdict for Zenger, when itfinally came, was the signal for an outburst of popular rejoicing. Already the people of King George's province knew how precious a thingis the freedom of the press. 

Thanks to the schools, few and scattered as they were, and to thevigilance of parents, a very large portion, perhaps nearly one-half, ofthe colonists could read. Through the newspapers, pamphlets, andalmanacs that streamed from the types, the people could follow thecourse of public events and grasp the significance of politicalarguments. An American opinion was in the process of making--anindependent opinion nourished by the press and enriched by discussionsaround the fireside and at the taverns. When the day of resistance toBritish rule came, government by opinion was at hand. For every personwho could hear the voice of Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, there were athousand who could see their appeals on the printed page. Men who hadspelled out their letters while poring over Franklin's _Poor Richard'sAlmanac_ lived to read Thomas Paine's thrilling call to arms. 

THE EVOLUTION IN POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS

Two very distinct lines of development appeared in colonial politics. The one, exalting royal rights and aristocratic privileges, was thedrift toward provincial government through royal officers appointed inEngland. The other, leading toward democracy and self-government, wasthe growth in the power of the popular legislative assembly. Eachmovement gave impetus to the other, with increasing force during thepassing years, until at last the final collision between the two idealsof government came in the war of independence. 

=The Royal Provinces. =--Of the thirteen English colonies eight wereroyal provinces in 1776, with governors appointed by the king. Virginiapassed under the direct rule of the crown in 1624, when the charter ofthe London Company was annulled. The Massachusetts Bay corporation lostits charter in 1684, and the new instrument granted seven years laterstripped the colonists of the right to choose their chief executive. Inthe early decades of the eighteenth century both the Carolinas weregiven the provincial instead of the proprietary form. New Hampshire, severed from Massachusetts in 1679, and Georgia, surrendered by thetrustees in 1752, went into the hands of the crown. New York, transferred to the Duke of York on its capture from the Dutch in 1664, became a province when he took the title of James II in 1685. NewJersey, after remaining for nearly forty years under proprietors, wasbrought directly under the king in 1702. Maryland, Pennsylvania, andDelaware, although they retained their proprietary character until theRevolution, were in some respects like the royal colonies, for theirgovernors were as independent of popular choice as were the appointeesof King George. Only two colonies, Rhode Island and Connecticut, retained full self-government on the eve of the Revolution. They alonehad governors and legislatures entirely of their own choosing. 

The chief officer of the royal province was the governor, who enjoyedhigh and important powers which he naturally sought to augment at everyturn. He enforced the laws and, usually with the consent of a council, appointed the civil and military officers. He granted pardons andreprieves; he was head of the highest court; he was commander-in-chiefof the militia; he levied troops for defense and enforced martial law intime of invasion, war, and rebellion. In all the provinces, exceptMassachusetts, he named the councilors who composed the upper house ofthe legislature and was likely to choose those who favored his claims. He summoned, adjourned, and dissolved the popular assembly, or the lowerhouse; he laid before it the projects of law desired by the crown; andhe vetoed measures which he thought objectionable. Here were in Americaall the elements of royal prerogative against which Hampden hadprotested and Cromwell had battled in England. 

[Illustration: THE ROYAL GOVERNOR'S PALACE AT NEW BERNE]

The colonial governors were generally surrounded by a body ofoffice-seekers and hunters for land grants. Some of them were noblemenof broken estates who had come to America to improve their fortunes. Thepretensions of this circle grated on colonial nerves, and privilegesgranted to them, often at the expense of colonists, did much to deepenpopular antipathy to the British government. Favors extended toadherents of the Established Church displeased Dissenters. Thereappearance of this formidable union of church and state, from whichthey had fled, stirred anew the ancient wrath against that combination. 

=The Colonial Assembly. =--Coincident with the drift towardadministration through royal governors was the second and oppositetendency, namely, a steady growth in the practice of self-government. The voters of England had long been accustomed to share in taxation andlaw-making through representatives in Parliament, and the idea was earlyintroduced in America. Virginia was only twelve years old (1619) whenits first representative assembly appeared. As the towns ofMassachusetts multiplied and it became impossible for all the members ofthe corporation to meet at one place, the representative idea wasadopted, in 1633. The river towns of Connecticut formed a representativesystem under their "Fundamental Orders" of 1639, and the entire colonywas given a royal charter in 1662. Generosity, as well as practicalconsiderations, induced such proprietors as Lord Baltimore and WilliamPenn to invite their colonists to share in the government as soon as anyconsiderable settlements were made. Thus by one process or another everyone of the colonies secured a popular assembly. 

It is true that in the provision for popular elections, the suffrage wasfinally restricted to property owners or taxpayers, with a leaningtoward the freehold qualification. In Virginia, the rural voter had tobe a freeholder owning at least fifty acres of land, if there was nohouse on it, or twenty-five acres with a house twenty-five feet square. In Massachusetts, the voter for member of the assembly under the charterof 1691 had to be a freeholder of an estate worth forty shillings a yearat least or of other property to the value of forty pounds sterling. InPennsylvania, the suffrage was granted to freeholders owning fifty acresor more of land well seated, twelve acres cleared, and to other personsworth at least fifty pounds in lawful money. 

Restrictions like these undoubtedly excluded from the suffrage a veryconsiderable number of men, particularly the mechanics and artisans ofthe towns, who were by no means content with their position. Nevertheless, it was relatively easy for any man to acquire a smallfreehold, so cheap and abundant was land; and in fact a large proportionof the colonists were land owners. Thus the assemblies, in spite of thelimited suffrage, acquired a democratic tone. 

The popular character of the assemblies increased as they became engagedin battles with the royal and proprietary governors. When called upon bythe executive to make provision for the support of the administration, the legislature took advantage of the opportunity to make terms in theinterest of the taxpayers. It made annual, not permanent, grants ofmoney to pay official salaries and then insisted upon electing atreasurer to dole it out. Thus the colonists learned some of themysteries of public finance, as well as the management of rapaciousofficials. The legislature also used its power over money grants toforce the governor to sign bills which he would otherwise have vetoed. 

=Contests between Legislatures and Governors. =--As may be imagined, manyand bitter were the contests between the royal and proprietary governorsand the colonial assemblies. Franklin relates an amusing story of howthe Pennsylvania assembly held in one hand a bill for the executive tosign and, in the other hand, the money to pay his salary. Then, with slyhumor, Franklin adds: "Do not, my courteous reader, take pet at ourproprietary constitution for these our bargain and sale proceedings inlegislation. It is a happy country where justice and what was your ownbefore can be had for ready money. It is another addition to the valueof money and of course another spur to industry. Every land is not soblessed. "

It must not be thought, however, that every governor got off as easilyas Franklin's tale implies. On the contrary, the legislatures, likeCæsar, fed upon meat that made them great and steadily encroached uponexecutive prerogatives as they tried out and found their strength. Ifwe may believe contemporary laments, the power of the crown in Americawas diminishing when it was struck down altogether. In New York, thefriends of the governor complained in 1747 that "the inhabitants ofplantations are generally educated in republican principles; uponrepublican principles all is conducted. Little more than a shadow ofroyal authority remains in the Northern colonies. " "Here, " echoed thegovernor of South Carolina, the following year, "levelling principlesprevail; the frame of the civil government is unhinged; a governor, ifhe would be idolized, must betray his trust; the people have got theirwhole administration in their hands; the election of the members of theassembly is by ballot; not civil posts only, but all ecclesiasticalpreferments, are in the disposal or election of the people. "

Though baffled by the "levelling principles" of the colonial assemblies, the governors did not give up the case as hopeless. Instead they evolveda system of policy and action which they thought could bring theobstinate provincials to terms. That system, traceable in their lettersto the government in London, consisted of three parts: (1) the royalofficers in the colonies were to be made independent of the legislaturesby taxes imposed by acts of Parliament; (2) a British standing army wasto be maintained in America; (3) the remaining colonial charters were tobe revoked and government by direct royal authority was to be enlarged. 

Such a system seemed plausible enough to King George III and to manyministers of the crown in London. With governors, courts, and an armyindependent of the colonists, they imagined it would be easy to carryout both royal orders and acts of Parliament. This reasoning seemed bothpractical and logical. Nor was it founded on theory, for it came freshfrom the governors themselves. It was wanting in one respect only. Itfailed to take account of the fact that the American people were growingstrong in the practice of self-government and could dispense with thetutelage of the British ministry, no matter how excellent it might be orhow benevolent its intentions. 

=References=

A. M. Earle, _Home Life in Colonial Days_. 

A. L. Cross, _The Anglican Episcopate and the American Colonies_ (HarvardStudies). 

E. G. Dexter, _History of Education in the United States_. 

C. A. Duniway, _Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts_. 

Benjamin Franklin, _Autobiography_. 

E. B. Greene, _The Provincial Governor_ (Harvard Studies). 

A. E. McKinley, _The Suffrage Franchise in the Thirteen English Colonies_(Pennsylvania University Studies). 

M. C. Tyler, _History of American Literature during the Colonial Times_(2 vols. ). 

=Questions=

1. Why is leisure necessary for the production of art and literature?How may leisure be secured?

2. Explain the position of the church in colonial life. 

3. Contrast the political rôles of Puritanism and the EstablishedChurch. 

4. How did diversity of opinion work for toleration?

5. Show the connection between religion and learning in colonial times. 

6. Why is a "free press" such an important thing to American democracy?

7. Relate some of the troubles of early American publishers. 

8. Give the undemocratic features of provincial government. 

9. How did the colonial assemblies help to create an independentAmerican spirit, in spite of a restricted suffrage?

10. Explain the nature of the contests between the governors and thelegislatures. 

=Research Topics=

=Religious and Intellectual Life. =--Lodge, _Short History of the EnglishColonies_: (1) in New England, pp. 418-438, 465-475; (2) in Virginia, pp. 54-61, 87-89; (3) in Pennsylvania, pp. 232-237, 253-257; (4) in NewYork, pp. 316-321. Interesting source materials in Hart, _AmericanHistory Told by Contemporaries_, Vol. II, pp. 255-275, 276-290. 

=The Government of a Royal Province, Virginia. =--Lodge, pp. 43-50. Special Reference: E. B. Greene, _The Provincial Governor_ (HarvardStudies). 

=The Government of a Proprietary Colony, Pennsylvania. =--Lodge, pp. 230-232. 

=Government in New England. =--Lodge, pp. 412-417. 

=The Colonial Press. =--Special Reference: G. H. Payne, _History ofJournalism in the United States_ (1920). 

=Colonial Life in General. =--John Fiske, _Old Virginia and HerNeighbors_, Vol. II, pp. 174-269; Elson, _History of the United States_, pp. 197-210. 

=Colonial Government in General. =--Elson, pp. 210-216. 

CHAPTER IV

THE DEVELOPMENT OF COLONIAL NATIONALISM

It is one of the well-known facts of history that a people looselyunited by domestic ties of a political and economic nature, even apeople torn by domestic strife, may be welded into a solid and compactbody by an attack from a foreign power. The imperative call to commondefense, the habit of sharing common burdens, the fusing force of commonservice--these things, induced by the necessity of resisting outsideinterference, act as an amalgam drawing together all elements, except, perhaps, the most discordant. The presence of the enemy allays the mostvirulent of quarrels, temporarily at least. "Politics, " runs an oldsaying, "stops at the water's edge. "

This ancient political principle, so well understood in diplomaticcircles, applied nearly as well to the original thirteen Americancolonies as to the countries of Europe. The necessity for commondefense, if not equally great, was certainly always pressing. Though ithas long been the practice to speak of the early settlements as foundedin "a wilderness, " this was not actually the case. From the earliestdays of Jamestown on through the years, the American people wereconfronted by dangers from without. All about their tiny settlementswere Indians, growing more and more hostile as the frontier advanced andas sharp conflicts over land aroused angry passions. To the south andwest was the power of Spain, humiliated, it is true, by the disaster tothe Armada, but still presenting an imposing front to the Britishempire. To the north and west were the French, ambitious, energetic, imperial in temper, and prepared to contest on land and water theadvance of British dominion in America. 

RELATIONS WITH THE INDIANS AND THE FRENCH

=Indian Affairs. =--It is difficult to make general statements about therelations of the colonists to the Indians. The problem was presented indifferent shape in different sections of America. It was not handledaccording to any coherent or uniform plan by the British government, which alone could speak for all the provinces at the same time. Neitherdid the proprietors and the governors who succeeded one another, in anirregular train, have the consistent policy or the matured experiencenecessary for dealing wisely with Indian matters. As the difficultiesarose mainly on the frontiers, where the restless and pushing pioneerswere making their way with gun and ax, nearly everything that happenedwas the result of chance rather than of calculation. A personal quarrelbetween traders and an Indian, a jug of whisky, a keg of gunpowder, theexchange of guns for furs, personal treachery, or a flash of bad temperoften set in motion destructive forces of the most terrible character. 

On one side of the ledger may be set innumerable generous records--ofSquanto and Samoset teaching the Pilgrims the ways of the wilds; ofRoger Williams buying his lands from the friendly natives; or of WilliamPenn treating with them on his arrival in America. On the other side ofthe ledger must be recorded many a cruel and bloody conflict as thefrontier rolled westward with deadly precision. The Pequots on theConnecticut border, sensing their doom, fell upon the tiny settlementswith awful fury in 1637 only to meet with equally terrible punishment. Ageneration later, King Philip, son of Massasoit, the friend of thePilgrims, called his tribesmen to a war of extermination which broughtthe strength of all New England to the field and ended in his owndestruction. In New York, the relations with the Indians, especiallywith the Algonquins and the Mohawks, were marked by periodic anddesperate wars. Virginia and her Southern neighbors suffered as did NewEngland. In 1622 Opecacano, a brother of Powhatan, the friend of theJamestown settlers, launched a general massacre; and in 1644 heattempted a war of extermination. In 1675 the whole frontier was ablaze. Nathaniel Bacon vainly attempted to stir the colonial governor to put upan adequate defense and, failing in that plea, himself headed a revoltand a successful expedition against the Indians. As the Virginiaoutposts advanced into the Kentucky country, the strife with the nativeswas transferred to that "dark and bloody ground"; while to thesoutheast, a desperate struggle with the Tuscaroras called forth thecombined forces of the two Carolinas and Virginia. 

[Illustration: _From an old print. _

VIRGINIANS DEFENDING THEMSELVES AGAINST THE INDIANS]

From such horrors New Jersey and Delaware were saved on account of theirgeographical location. Pennsylvania, consistently following a policy ofconciliation, was likewise spared until her western vanguard came intofull conflict with the allied French and Indians. Georgia, by clevernegotiations and treaties of alliance, managed to keep on fair termswith her belligerent Cherokees and Creeks. But neither diplomacy norgenerosity could stay the inevitable conflict as the frontier advanced, especially after the French soldiers enlisted the Indians in theirimperial enterprises. It was then that desultory fighting became generalwarfare. 

[Illustration: ENGLISH, FRENCH, AND SPANISH POSSESSIONS IN AMERICA, 1750]

=Early Relations with the French. =--During the first decades of Frenchexploration and settlement in the St. Lawrence country, the Englishcolonies, engrossed with their own problems, gave little or no thoughtto their distant neighbors. Quebec, founded in 1608, and Montreal, in1642, were too far away, too small in population, and too slight instrength to be much of a menace to Boston, Hartford, or New York. It wasthe statesmen in France and England, rather than the colonists inAmerica, who first grasped the significance of the slowly convergingempires in North America. It was the ambition of Louis XIV of France, rather than the labors of Jesuit missionaries and French rangers, thatsounded the first note of colonial alarm. 

Evidence of this lies in the fact that three conflicts between theEnglish and the French occurred before their advancing frontiers met onthe Pennsylvania border. King William's War (1689-1697), Queen Anne'sWar (1701-1713), and King George's War (1744-1748) owed their originsand their endings mainly to the intrigues and rivalries of Europeanpowers, although they all involved the American colonies in struggleswith the French and their savage allies. 

=The Clash in the Ohio Valley. =--The second of these wars had hardlyclosed, however, before the English colonists themselves began to beseriously alarmed about the rapidly expanding French dominion in theWest. Marquette and Joliet, who opened the Lake region, and La Salle, who in 1682 had gone down the Mississippi to the Gulf, had been followedby the builders of forts. In 1718, the French founded New Orleans, thustaking possession of the gateway to the Mississippi as well as the St. Lawrence. A few years later they built Fort Niagara; in 1731 theyoccupied Crown Point; in 1749 they formally announced their dominionover all the territory drained by the Ohio River. Having asserted thislofty claim, they set out to make it good by constructing in the years1752-1754 Fort Le Boeuf near Lake Erie, Fort Venango on the upperwaters of the Allegheny, and Fort Duquesne at the junction of thestreams forming the Ohio. Though they were warned by George Washington, in the name of the governor of Virginia, to keep out of territory "sonotoriously known to be property of the crown of Great Britain, " theFrench showed no signs of relinquishing their pretensions. 

[Illustration: _From an old print_

BRADDOCK'S RETREAT]

=The Final Phase--the French and Indian War. =--Thus it happened that theshot which opened the Seven Years' War, known in America as the Frenchand Indian War, was fired in the wilds of Pennsylvania. There began theconflict that spread to Europe and even Asia and finally involvedEngland and Prussia, on the one side, and France, Austria, Spain, andminor powers on the other. On American soil, the defeat of Braddock in1755 and Wolfe's exploit in capturing Quebec four years later were thedramatic features. On the continent of Europe, England subsidizedPrussian arms to hold France at bay. In India, on the banks of theGanges, as on the banks of the St. Lawrence, British arms weretriumphant. Well could the historian write: "Conquests equaling inrapidity and far surpassing in magnitude those of Cortes and Pizarro hadbeen achieved in the East. " Well could the merchants of London declarethat under the administration of William Pitt, the imperial genius ofthis world-wide conflict, commerce had been "united with and made toflourish by war. "

From the point of view of the British empire, the results of the warwere momentous. By the peace of 1763, Canada and the territory east ofthe Mississippi, except New Orleans, passed under the British flag. Theremainder of the Louisiana territory was transferred to Spain and Frenchimperial ambitions on the American continent were laid to rest. Inexchange for Havana, which the British had seized during the war, Spainceded to King George the colony of Florida. Not without warrant didMacaulay write in after years that Pitt "was the first Englishman of histime; and he had made England the first country in the world. "

THE EFFECTS OF WARFARE ON THE COLONIES

The various wars with the French and the Indians, trivial in detail asthey seem to-day, had a profound influence on colonial life and on thedestiny of America. Circumstances beyond the control of popularassemblies, jealous of their individual powers, compelled coöperationamong them, grudging and stingy no doubt, but still coöperation. TheAmerican people, more eager to be busy in their fields or at theirtrades, were simply forced to raise and support armies, to learn thearts of warfare, and to practice, if in a small theater, the science ofstatecraft. These forces, all cumulative, drove the colonists, sotenaciously provincial in their habits, in the direction of nationalism. 

=The New England Confederation. =--It was in their efforts to deal withthe problems presented by the Indian and French menace that theAmericans took the first steps toward union. Though there were manycommon ties among the settlers of New England, it required a deadlyfear of the Indians to produce in 1643 the New England Confederation, composed of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven. Thecolonies so united were bound together in "a firm and perpetual leagueof friendship and amity for offense and defense, mutual service andsuccor, upon all just occasions. " They made provision for distributingthe burdens of wars among the members and provided for a congress ofcommissioners from each colony to determine upon common policies. Forsome twenty years the Confederation was active and it continued to holdmeetings until after the extinction of the Indian peril on the immediateborder. 

Virginia, no less than Massachusetts, was aware of the importance ofintercolonial coöperation. In the middle of the seventeenth century, theOld Dominion began treaties of commerce and amity with New York and thecolonies of New England. In 1684 delegates from Virginia met at Albanywith the agents of New York and Massachusetts to discuss problems ofmutual defense. A few years later the Old Dominion coöperated loyallywith the Carolinas in defending their borders against Indian forays. 

=The Albany Plan of Union. =--An attempt at a general colonial union wasmade in 1754. On the suggestion of the Lords of Trade in England, aconference was held at Albany to consider Indian relations, to devisemeasures of defense against the French, and to enter into "articles ofunion and confederation for the general defense of his Majesty'ssubjects and interests in North America as well in time of peace as ofwar. " New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were represented. After a long discussion, aplan of union, drafted mainly, it seems, by Benjamin Franklin, wasadopted and sent to the colonies and the crown for approval. Thecolonies, jealous of their individual rights, refused to accept thescheme and the king disapproved it for the reason, Franklin said, thatit had "too much weight in the democratic part of the constitution. "Though the Albany union failed, the document is still worthy of studybecause it forecast many of the perplexing problems that were not solveduntil thirty-three years afterward, when another convention of whichalso Franklin was a member drafted the Constitution of the UnitedStates. 

[Illustration: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN]

=The Military Education of the Colonists. =--The same wars that showedthe provincials the meaning of union likewise instructed them in the artof defending their institutions. Particularly was this true of the lastFrench and Indian conflict, which stretched all the way from Maine tothe Carolinas and made heavy calls upon them all for troops. The answer, it is admitted, was far from satisfactory to the British government andthe conduct of the militiamen was far from professional; but thousandsof Americans got a taste, a strong taste, of actual fighting in thefield. Men like George Washington and Daniel Morgan learned lessons thatwere not forgotten in after years. They saw what American militiamencould do under favorable circumstances and they watched British regularsoperating on American soil. "This whole transaction, " shrewdly remarkedFranklin of Braddock's campaign, "gave us Americans the first suspicionthat our exalted ideas of the prowess of British regular troops had notbeen well founded. " It was no mere accident that the Virginia colonelwho drew his sword under the elm at Cambridge and took command of thearmy of the Revolution was the brave officer who had "spurned thewhistle of bullets" at the memorable battle in western Pennsylvania. 

=Financial Burdens and Commercial Disorder. =--While the provincials werelearning lessons in warfare they were also paying the bills. All theconflicts were costly in treasure as in blood. King Philip's war leftNew England weak and almost bankrupt. The French and Indian struggle wasespecially expensive. The twenty-five thousand men put in the field bythe colonies were sustained only by huge outlays of money. Papercurrency streamed from the press and debts were accumulated. Commercewas driven from its usual channels and prices were enhanced. When theend came, both England and America were staggering under heavyliabilities, and to make matters worse there was a fall of pricesaccompanied by a commercial depression which extended over a period often years. It was in the midst of this crisis that measures of taxationhad to be devised to pay the cost of the war, precipitating the quarrelwhich led to American independence. 

=The Expulsion of French Power from North America. =--The effects of thedefeat administered to France, as time proved, were difficult toestimate. Some British statesmen regarded it as a happy circumstancethat the colonists, already restive under their administration, had noforeign power at hand to aid them in case they struck for independence. American leaders, on the other hand, now that the soldiers of King Louiswere driven from the continent, thought that they had no other countryto fear if they cast off British sovereignty. At all events, France, though defeated, was not out of the sphere of American influence; for, as events proved, it was the fortunate French alliance negotiated byFranklin that assured the triumph of American arms in the War of theRevolution. 

COLONIAL RELATIONS WITH THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT

It was neither the Indian wars nor the French wars that finally broughtforth American nationality. That was the product of the long strifewith the mother country which culminated in union for the war ofindependence. The forces that created this nation did not operate in thecolonies alone. The character of the English sovereigns, the course ofevents in English domestic politics, and English measures of controlover the colonies--executive, legislative, and judicial--must all betaken into account. 

=The Last of the Stuarts. =--The struggles between Charles I (1625-49)and the parliamentary party and the turmoil of the Puritan régime(1649-60) so engrossed the attention of Englishmen at home that they hadlittle time to think of colonial policies or to interfere with colonialaffairs. The restoration of the monarchy in 1660, accompanied byinternal peace and the increasing power of the mercantile classes in theHouse of Commons, changed all that. In the reign of Charles II(1660-85), himself an easy-going person, the policy of regulating tradeby act of Parliament was developed into a closely knit system andpowerful agencies to supervise the colonies were created. At the sametime a system of stricter control over the dominions was ushered in bythe annulment of the old charter of Massachusetts which conferred somuch self-government on the Puritans. 

Charles' successor, James II, a man of sterner stuff and jealous of hisauthority in the colonies as well as at home, continued the policy thusinaugurated and enlarged upon it. If he could have kept his throne, hewould have bent the Americans under a harsh rule or brought on in hisdominions a revolution like that which he precipitated at home in 1688. He determined to unite the Northern colonies and introduce a moreefficient administration based on the pattern of the royal provinces. Hemade a martinet, Sir Edmund Andros, governor of all New England, NewYork, and New Jersey. The charter of Massachusetts, annulled in the lastdays of his brother's reign, he continued to ignore, and that ofConnecticut would have been seized if it had not been spirited away andhidden, according to tradition, in a hollow oak. 

For several months, Andros gave the Northern colonies a taste ofill-tempered despotism. He wrung quit rents from land owners notaccustomed to feudal dues; he abrogated titles to land where, in hisopinion, they were unlawful; he forced the Episcopal service upon theOld South Church in Boston; and he denied the writ of _habeas corpus_ toa preacher who denounced taxation without representation. In the middleof his arbitrary course, however, his hand was stayed. The news camethat King James had been dethroned by his angry subjects, and the peopleof Boston, kindling a fire on Beacon Hill, summoned the countryside todispose of Andros. The response was prompt and hearty. The hatedgovernor was arrested, imprisoned, and sent back across the sea underguard. 

The overthrow of James, followed by the accession of William and Maryand by assured parliamentary supremacy, had an immediate effect in thecolonies. The new order was greeted with thanksgiving. Massachusetts wasgiven another charter which, though not so liberal as the first, restored the spirit if not the entire letter of self-government. In theother colonies where Andros had been operating, the old course ofaffairs was resumed. 

=The Indifference of the First Two Georges. =--On the death in 1714 ofQueen Anne, the successor of King William, the throne passed to aHanoverian prince who, though grateful for English honors and revenues, was more interested in Hanover than in England. George I and George II, whose combined reigns extended from 1714 to 1760, never even learned tospeak the English language, at least without an accent. The necessity oftaking thought about colonial affairs bored both of them so that thestoutest defender of popular privileges in Boston or Charleston had noground to complain of the exercise of personal prerogatives by the king. Moreover, during a large part of this period, the direction of affairswas in the hands of an astute leader, Sir Robert Walpole, who betrayedhis somewhat cynical view of politics by adopting as his motto: "Letsleeping dogs lie. " He revealed his appreciation of popular sentimentby exclaiming: "I will not be the minister to enforce taxes at theexpense of blood. " Such kings and such ministers were not likely toarouse the slumbering resistance of the thirteen colonies across thesea. 

=Control of the Crown over the Colonies. =--While no English ruler fromJames II to George III ventured to interfere with colonial matterspersonally, constant control over the colonies was exercised by royalofficers acting under the authority of the crown. Systematic supervisionbegan in 1660, when there was created by royal order a committee of theking's council to meet on Mondays and Thursdays of each week to considerpetitions, memorials, and addresses respecting the plantations. In 1696a regular board was established, known as the "Lords of Trade andPlantations, " which continued, until the American Revolution, toscrutinize closely colonial business. The chief duties of the board wereto examine acts of colonial legislatures, to recommend measures to thoseassemblies for adoption, and to hear memorials and petitions from thecolonies relative to their affairs. 

The methods employed by this board were varied. All laws passed byAmerican legislatures came before it for review as a matter of routine. If it found an act unsatisfactory, it recommended to the king theexercise of his veto power, known as the royal disallowance. Any personwho believed his personal or property rights injured by a colonial lawcould be heard by the board in person or by attorney; in such cases itwas the practice to hear at the same time the agent of the colony soinvolved. The royal veto power over colonial legislation was not, therefore, a formal affair, but was constantly employed on thesuggestion of a highly efficient agency of the crown. All this was inaddition to the powers exercised by the governors in the royalprovinces. 

=Judicial Control. =--Supplementing this administrative control over thecolonies was a constant supervision by the English courts of law. Theking, by virtue of his inherent authority, claimed and exercised highappellate powers over all judicial tribunals in the empire. The rightof appeal from local courts, expressly set forth in some charters, was, on the eve of the Revolution, maintained in every colony. Any subject inEngland or America, who, in the regular legal course, was aggrieved byany act of a colonial legislature or any decision of a colonial court, had the right, subject to certain regulations, to carry his case to theking in council, forcing his opponent to follow him across the sea. Inthe exercise of appellate power, the king in council acting as a courtcould, and frequently did, declare acts of colonial legislatures dulyenacted and approved, null and void, on the ground that they werecontrary to English law. 

=Imperial Control in Operation. =--Day after day, week after week, yearafter year, the machinery for political and judicial control overcolonial affairs was in operation. At one time the British governors inthe colonies were ordered not to approve any colonial law imposing aduty on European goods imported in English vessels. Again, when NorthCarolina laid a tax on peddlers, the council objected to it as"restrictive upon the trade and dispersion of English manufacturesthroughout the continent. " At other times, Indian trade was regulated inthe interests of the whole empire or grants of lands by a coloniallegislature were set aside. Virginia was forbidden to close her ports toNorth Carolina lest there should be retaliation. 

In short, foreign and intercolonial trade were subjected to a controlhigher than that of the colony, foreshadowing a day when theConstitution of the United States was to commit to Congress the power toregulate interstate and foreign commerce and commerce with the Indians. A superior judicial power, towering above that of the colonies, as theSupreme Court at Washington now towers above the states, kept thecolonial legislatures within the metes and bounds of established law. Inthe thousands of appeals, memorials, petitions, and complaints, and therulings and decisions upon them, were written the real history ofBritish imperial control over the American colonies. 

So great was the business before the Lords of Trade that the colonieshad to keep skilled agents in London to protect their interests. Ascommon grievances against the operation of this machinery of controlarose, there appeared in each colony a considerable body of men, withthe merchants in the lead, who chafed at the restraints imposed on theirenterprise. Only a powerful blow was needed to weld these bodies into acommon mass nourishing the spirit of colonial nationalism. When to therepeated minor irritations were added general and sweeping measures ofParliament applying to every colony, the rebound came in the Revolution. 

=Parliamentary Control over Colonial Affairs. =--As soon as Parliamentgained in power at the expense of the king, it reached out to bring theAmerican colonies under its sway as well. Between the execution ofCharles I and the accession of George III, there was enacted an immensebody of legislation regulating the shipping, trade, and manufactures ofAmerica. All of it, based on the "mercantile" theory then prevalent inall countries of Europe, was designed to control the overseasplantations in such a way as to foster the commercial and businessinterests of the mother country, where merchants and men of finance hadgot the upper hand. According to this theory, the colonies of theBritish empire should be confined to agriculture and the production ofraw materials, and forced to buy their manufactured goods of England. 

_The Navigation Acts. _--In the first rank among these measures ofBritish colonial policy must be placed the navigation laws framed forthe purpose of building up the British merchant marine and navy--arms soessential in defending the colonies against the Spanish, Dutch, andFrench. The beginning of this type of legislation was made in 1651 andit was worked out into a system early in the reign of Charles II(1660-85). 

The Navigation Acts, in effect, gave a monopoly of colonial commerce toBritish ships. No trade could be carried on between Great Britain andher dominions save in vessels built and manned by British subjects. NoEuropean goods could be brought to America save in the ships of thecountry that produced them or in English ships. These laws, which werealmost fatal to Dutch shipping in America, fell with severity upon thecolonists, compelling them to pay higher freight rates. The adverseeffect, however, was short-lived, for the measures stimulatedshipbuilding in the colonies, where the abundance of raw materials gavethe master builders of America an advantage over those of the mothercountry. Thus the colonists in the end profited from the restrictivepolicy written into the Navigation Acts. 

_The Acts against Manufactures. _--The second group of laws wasdeliberately aimed to prevent colonial industries from competing toosharply with those of England. Among the earliest of these measures maybe counted the Woolen Act of 1699, forbidding the exportation of woolengoods from the colonies and even the woolen trade between towns andcolonies. When Parliament learned, as the result of an inquiry, that NewEngland and New York were making thousands of hats a year and sendinglarge numbers annually to the Southern colonies and to Ireland, Spain, and Portugal, it enacted in 1732 a law declaring that "no hats or felts, dyed or undyed, finished or unfinished" should be "put upon any vesselor laden upon any horse or cart with intent to export to any placewhatever. " The effect of this measure upon the hat industry was almostruinous. A few years later a similar blow was given to the ironindustry. By an act of 1750, pig and bar iron from the colonies weregiven free entry to England to encourage the production of the rawmaterial; but at the same time the law provided that "no mill or otherengine for slitting or rolling of iron, no plating forge to work with atilt hammer, and no furnace for making steel" should be built in thecolonies. As for those already built, they were declared publicnuisances and ordered closed. Thus three important economic interests ofthe colonists, the woolen, hat, and iron industries, were laid under theban. 

_The Trade Laws. _--The third group of restrictive measures passed by theBritish Parliament related to the sale of colonial produce. An act of1663 required the colonies to export certain articles to Great Britainor to her dominions alone; while sugar, tobacco, and ginger consigned tothe continent of Europe had to pass through a British port paying customduties and through a British merchant's hands paying the usualcommission. At first tobacco was the only one of the "enumeratedarticles" which seriously concerned the American colonies, the restcoming mainly from the British West Indies. In the course of time, however, other commodities were added to the list of enumeratedarticles, until by 1764 it embraced rice, naval stores, copper, furs, hides, iron, lumber, and pearl ashes. This was not all. The colonieswere compelled to bring their European purchases back through Englishports, paying duties to the government and commissions to merchantsagain. 

_The Molasses Act. _--Not content with laws enacted in the interest ofEnglish merchants and manufacturers, Parliament sought to protect theBritish West Indies against competition from their French and Dutchneighbors. New England merchants had long carried on a lucrative tradewith the French islands in the West Indies and Dutch Guiana, where sugarand molasses could be obtained in large quantities at low prices. Actingon the protests of English planters in the Barbadoes and Jamaica, Parliament, in 1733, passed the famous Molasses Act imposing duties onsugar and molasses imported into the colonies from foreigncountries--rates which would have destroyed the American trade with theFrench and Dutch if the law had been enforced. The duties, however, werenot collected. The molasses and sugar trade with the foreigners went onmerrily, smuggling taking the place of lawful traffic. 

=Effect of the Laws in America. =--As compared with the strict monopolyof her colonial trade which Spain consistently sought to maintain, thepolicy of England was both moderate and liberal. Furthermore, therestrictive laws were supplemented by many measures intended to befavorable to colonial prosperity. The Navigation Acts, for example, redounded to the advantage of American shipbuilders and the producersof hemp, tar, lumber, and ship stores in general. Favors in Britishports were granted to colonial producers as against foreign competitorsand in some instances bounties were paid by England to encouragecolonial enterprise. Taken all in all, there is much justification inthe argument advanced by some modern scholars to the effect that thecolonists gained more than they lost by British trade and industriallegislation. Certainly after the establishment of independence, whenfree from these old restrictions, the Americans found themselveshandicapped by being treated as foreigners rather than favored tradersand the recipients of bounties in English markets. 

Be that as it may, it appears that the colonists felt little irritationagainst the mother country on account of the trade and navigation lawsenacted previous to the close of the French and Indian war. Relativelyfew were engaged in the hat and iron industries as compared with thosein farming and planting, so that England's policy of restricting Americato agriculture did not conflict with the interests of the majority ofthe inhabitants. The woolen industry was largely in the hands of womenand carried on in connection with their domestic duties, so that it wasnot the sole support of any considerable number of people. 

As a matter of fact, moreover, the restrictive laws, especially thoserelating to trade, were not rigidly enforced. Cargoes of tobacco wereboldly sent to continental ports without even so much as a bow to theEnglish government, to which duties should have been paid. Sugar andmolasses from the French and Dutch colonies were shipped into NewEngland in spite of the law. Royal officers sometimes protested againstsmuggling and sometimes connived at it; but at no time did they succeedin stopping it. Taken all in all, very little was heard of "the gallingrestraints of trade" until after the French war, when the Britishgovernment suddenly entered upon a new course. 

SUMMARY OF THE COLONIAL PERIOD

In the period between the landing of the English at Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607, and the close of the French and Indian war in 1763--a period ofa century and a half--a new nation was being prepared on this continentto take its place among the powers of the earth. It was an epoch ofmigration. Western Europe contributed emigrants of many races andnationalities. The English led the way. Next to them in numericalimportance were the Scotch-Irish and the Germans. Into the melting potwere also cast Dutch, Swedes, French, Jews, Welsh, and Irish. Thousandsof negroes were brought from Africa to till Southern fields or labor asdomestic servants in the North. 

Why did they come? The reasons are various. Some of them, the Pilgrimsand Puritans of New England, the French Huguenots, Scotch-Irish andIrish, and the Catholics of Maryland, fled from intolerant governmentsthat denied them the right to worship God according to the dictates oftheir consciences. Thousands came to escape the bondage of poverty inthe Old World and to find free homes in America. Thousands, like thenegroes from Africa, were dragged here against their will. The lure ofadventure appealed to the restless and the lure of profits to theenterprising merchants. 

How did they come? In some cases religious brotherhoods banded togetherand borrowed or furnished the funds necessary to pay the way. In othercases great trading companies were organized to found colonies. Again itwas the wealthy proprietor, like Lord Baltimore or William Penn, whoundertook to plant settlements. Many immigrants were able to pay theirown way across the sea. Others bound themselves out for a term of yearsin exchange for the cost of the passage. Negroes were brought on accountof the profits derived from their sale as slaves. 

Whatever the motive for their coming, however, they managed to getacross the sea. The immigrants set to work with a will. They cut downforests, built houses, and laid out fields. They founded churches, schools, and colleges. They set up forges and workshops. They spun andwove. They fashioned ships and sailed the seas. They bartered andtraded. Here and there on favorable harbors they established centers ofcommerce--Boston, Providence, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, andCharleston. As soon as a firm foothold was secured on the shore linethey pressed westward until, by the close of the colonial period, theywere already on the crest of the Alleghanies. 

Though they were widely scattered along a thousand miles of seacoast, the colonists were united in spirit by many common ties. The majorportion of them were Protestants. The language, the law, and theliterature of England furnished the basis of national unity. Most of thecolonists were engaged in the same hard task; that of conquering awilderness. To ties of kinship and language were added ties created bynecessity. They had to unite in defense; first, against the Indians andlater against the French. They were all subjects of the samesovereign--the king of England. The English Parliament made laws forthem and the English government supervised their local affairs, theirtrade, and their manufactures. Common forces assailed them. Commongrievances vexed them. Common hopes inspired them. 

Many of the things which tended to unite them likewise tended to throwthem into opposition to the British Crown and Parliament. Most of themwere freeholders; that is, farmers who owned their own land and tilledit with their own hands. A free soil nourished the spirit of freedom. The majority of them were Dissenters, critics, not friends, of theChurch of England, that stanch defender of the British monarchy. Eachcolony in time developed its own legislature elected by the voters; itgrew accustomed to making laws and laying taxes for itself. Here was apeople learning self-reliance and self-government. The attempts tostrengthen the Church of England in America and the transformation ofcolonies into royal provinces only fanned the spirit of independencewhich they were designed to quench. 

Nevertheless, the Americans owed much of their prosperity to theassistance of the government that irritated them. It was the protectionof the British navy that prevented Holland, Spain, and France fromwiping out their settlements. Though their manufacture and trade werecontrolled in the interests of the mother country, they also enjoyedgreat advantages in her markets. Free trade existed nowhere upon theearth; but the broad empire of Britain was open to American ships andmerchandise. It could be said, with good reason, that the disadvantageswhich the colonists suffered through British regulation of theirindustry and trade were more than offset by the privileges they enjoyed. Still that is somewhat beside the point, for mere economic advantage isnot necessarily the determining factor in the fate of peoples. Athousand circumstances had helped to develop on this continent a nation, to inspire it with a passion for independence, and to prepare it for adestiny greater than that of a prosperous dominion of the Britishempire. The economists, who tried to prove by logic unassailable thatAmerica would be richer under the British flag, could not change thespirit of Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, or GeorgeWashington. 

=References=

G. L. Beer, _Origin of the British Colonial System_ and _The Old ColonialSystem_. 

A. Bradley, _The Fight for Canada in North America_. 

C. M. Andrews, _Colonial Self-Government_ (American Nation Series). 

H. Egerton, _Short History of British Colonial Policy_. 

F. Parkman, _France and England in North America_ (12 vols. ). 

R. Thwaites, _France in America_ (American Nation Series). 

J. Winsor, _The Mississippi Valley_ and _Cartier to Frontenac_. 

=Questions=

1. How would you define "nationalism"?

2. Can you give any illustrations of the way that war promotesnationalism?

3. Why was it impossible to establish and maintain a uniform policy indealing with the Indians?

4. What was the outcome of the final clash with the French?

5. Enumerate the five chief results of the wars with the French and theIndians. Discuss each in detail. 

6. Explain why it was that the character of the English king mattered tothe colonists. 

7. Contrast England under the Stuarts with England under theHanoverians. 

8. Explain how the English Crown, Courts, and Parliament controlled thecolonies. 

9. Name the three important classes of English legislation affecting thecolonies. Explain each. 

10. Do you think the English legislation was beneficial or injurious tothe colonies? Why?

=Research Topics=

=Rise of French Power in North America. =--Special reference: FrancisParkman, _Struggle for a Continent_. 

=The French and Indian Wars. =--Special reference: W. M. Sloane, _FrenchWar and the Revolution_, Chaps. VI-IX. Parkman, _Montcalm and Wolfe_, Vol. II, pp. 195-299. Elson, _History of the United States_, pp. 171-196. 

=English Navigation Acts. =--Macdonald, _Documentary Source Book_, pp. 55, 72, 78, 90, 103. Coman, _Industrial History_, pp. 79-85. 

=British Colonial Policy. =--Callender, _Economic History of the UnitedStates_, pp. 102-108. 

=The New England Confederation. =--Analyze the document in Macdonald, _Source Book_, p. 45. Special reference: Fiske, _Beginnings of NewEngland_, pp. 140-198. 

=The Administration of Andros. =--Fiske, _Beginnings_, pp. 242-278. 

=Biographical Studies. =--William Pitt and Sir Robert Walpole. ConsultGreen, _Short History of England_, on their policies, using the index. 

PART II. CONFLICT AND INDEPENDENCE

CHAPTER V

THE NEW COURSE IN BRITISH IMPERIAL POLICY

On October 25, 1760, King George II died and the British crown passed tohis young grandson. The first George, the son of the Elector of Hanoverand Sophia the granddaughter of James I, was a thorough German who nevereven learned to speak the language of the land over which he reigned. The second George never saw England until he was a man. He spoke Englishwith an accent and until his death preferred his German home. Duringtheir reign, the principle had become well established that the king didnot govern but acted only through ministers representing the majority inParliament. 

GEORGE III AND HIS SYSTEM

=The Character of the New King. =--The third George rudely broke theGerman tradition of his family. He resented the imputation that he was aforeigner and on all occasions made a display of his British sympathies. To the draft of his first speech to Parliament, he added the popularphrase: "Born and educated in this country, I glory in the name ofBriton. " Macaulay, the English historian, certainly of no liking forhigh royal prerogative, said of George: "The young king was a bornEnglishman. All his tastes and habits, good and bad, were English. Noportion of his subjects had anything to reproach him with. .. . His age, his appearance, and all that was known of his character conciliatedpublic favor. He was in the bloom of youth; his person and address werepleasing; scandal imputed to him no vice; and flattery might withoutglaring absurdity ascribe to him many princely virtues. "

Nevertheless George III had been spoiled by his mother, his tutors, andhis courtiers. Under their influence he developed high and mightynotions about the sacredness of royal authority and his duty to checkthe pretensions of Parliament and the ministers dependent upon it. Hismother had dinned into his ears the slogan: "George, be king!" LordBute, his teacher and adviser, had told him that his honor required himto take an active part in the shaping of public policy and the making oflaws. Thus educated, he surrounded himself with courtiers who encouragedhim in the determination to rule as well as reign, to subdue allparties, and to place himself at the head of the nation and empire. 

[Illustration: _From an old print. _

GEORGE III]

=Political Parties and George III. =--The state of the political partiesfavored the plans of the king to restore some of the ancient luster ofthe crown. The Whigs, who were composed mainly of the smallerfreeholders, merchants, inhabitants of towns, and Protestantnon-conformists, had grown haughty and overbearing through longcontinuance in power and had as a consequence raised up many enemies intheir own ranks. Their opponents, the Tories, had by this time given upall hope of restoring to the throne the direct Stuart line; but theystill cherished their old notions about divine right. With theaccession of George III the coveted opportunity came to them to rallyaround the throne again. George received his Tory friends with openarms, gave them offices, and bought them seats in the House of Commons. 

=The British Parliamentary System. =--The peculiarities of the BritishParliament at the time made smooth the way for the king and his allieswith their designs for controlling the entire government. In the firstplace, the House of Lords was composed mainly of hereditary nobles whosenumber the king could increase by the appointment of his favorites, asof old. Though the members of the House of Commons were elected bypopular vote, they did not speak for the mass of English people. Greattowns like Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham, for example, had norepresentatives at all. While there were about eight million inhabitantsin Great Britain, there were in 1768 only about 160, 000 voters; that isto say, only about one in every ten adult males had a voice in thegovernment. Many boroughs returned one or more members to the Commonsalthough they had merely a handful of voters or in some instances novoters at all. Furthermore, these tiny boroughs were often controlled bylords who openly sold the right of representation to the highest bidder. The "rotten-boroughs, " as they were called by reformers, were a publicscandal, but George III readily made use of them to get his friends intothe House of Commons. 

GEORGE III'S MINISTERS AND THEIR COLONIAL POLICIES

=Grenville and the War Debt. =--Within a year after the accession ofGeorge III, William Pitt was turned out of office, the king treating himwith "gross incivility" and the crowds shouting "Pitt forever!" Thedirection of affairs was entrusted to men enjoying the king'sconfidence. Leadership in the House of Commons fell to George Grenville, a grave and laborious man who for years had groaned over the increasingcost of government. 

The first task after the conclusion of peace in 1763 was the adjustmentof the disordered finances of the kingdom. The debt stood at the highestpoint in the history of the country. More revenue was absolutelynecessary and Grenville began to search for it, turning his attentionfinally to the American colonies. In this quest he had the aid of azealous colleague, Charles Townshend, who had long been in publicservice and was familiar with the difficulties encountered by royalgovernors in America. These two men, with the support of the entireministry, inaugurated in February, 1763, "a new system of colonialgovernment. It was announced by authority that there were to be no morerequisitions from the king to the colonial assemblies for supplies, butthat the colonies were to be taxed instead by act of Parliament. Colonial governors and judges were to be paid by the Crown; they were tobe supported by a standing army of twenty regiments; and all theexpenses of this force were to be met by parliamentary taxation. "

=Restriction of Paper Money (1763). =--Among the many complaints filedbefore the board of trade were vigorous protests against the issuance ofpaper money by the colonial legislatures. The new ministry provided aremedy in the act of 1763, which declared void all colonial lawsauthorizing paper money or extending the life of outstanding bills. Thislaw was aimed at the "cheap money" which the Americans were fond ofmaking when specie was scarce--money which they tried to force on theirEnglish creditors in return for goods and in payment of the interest andprincipal of debts. Thus the first chapter was written in the longbattle over sound money on this continent. 

=Limitation on Western Land Sales. =--Later in the same year (1763)George III issued a royal proclamation providing, among other things, for the government of the territory recently acquired by the treaty ofParis from the French. One of the provisions in this royal decreetouched frontiersmen to the quick. The contests between the king'sofficers and the colonists over the disposition of western lands hadbeen long and sharp. The Americans chafed at restrictions onsettlement. The more adventurous were continually moving west and"squatting" on land purchased from the Indians or simply seized withoutauthority. To put an end to this, the king forbade all further purchasesfrom the Indians, reserving to the crown the right to acquire such landsand dispose of them for settlement. A second provision in the sameproclamation vested the power of licensing trade with the Indians, including the lucrative fur business, in the hands of royal officers inthe colonies. These two limitations on American freedom and enterprisewere declared to be in the interest of the crown and for thepreservation of the rights of the Indians against fraud and abuses. 

=The Sugar Act of 1764. =--King George's ministers next turned theirattention to measures of taxation and trade. Since the heavy debt underwhich England was laboring had been largely incurred in the defense ofAmerica, nothing seemed more reasonable to them than the propositionthat the colonies should help to bear the burden which fell so heavilyupon the English taxpayer. The Sugar Act of 1764 was the result of thisreasoning. There was no doubt about the purpose of this law, for it wasset forth clearly in the title: "An act for granting certain duties inthe British colonies and plantations in America . .. For applying theproduce of such duties . .. Towards defraying the expenses of defending, protecting and securing the said colonies and plantations . .. And formore effectually preventing the clandestine conveyance of goods to andfrom the said colonies and plantations and improving and securing thetrade between the same and Great Britain. " The old Molasses Act had beenprohibitive; the Sugar Act of 1764 was clearly intended as a revenuemeasure. Specified duties were laid upon sugar, indigo, calico, silks, and many other commodities imported into the colonies. The enforcementof the Molasses Act had been utterly neglected; but this Sugar Act had"teeth in it. " Special precautions as to bonds, security, andregistration of ship masters, accompanied by heavy penalties, promiseda vigorous execution of the new revenue law. 

The strict terms of the Sugar Act were strengthened by administrativemeasures. Under a law of the previous year the commanders of armedvessels stationed along the American coast were authorized to stop, search, and, on suspicion, seize merchant ships approaching colonialports. By supplementary orders, the entire British official force inAmerica was instructed to be diligent in the execution of all trade andnavigation laws. Revenue collectors, officers of the army and navy, androyal governors were curtly ordered to the front to do their full dutyin the matter of law enforcement. The ordinary motives for the dischargeof official obligations were sharpened by an appeal to avarice, fornaval officers who seized offenders against the law were rewarded bylarge prizes out of the forfeitures and penalties. 

=The Stamp Act (1765). =--The Grenville-Townshend combination movedsteadily towards its goal. While the Sugar Act was under considerationin Parliament, Grenville announced a plan for a stamp bill. The nextyear it went through both Houses with a speed that must have astoundedits authors. The vote in the Commons stood 205 in favor to 49 against;while in the Lords it was not even necessary to go through the formalityof a count. As George III was temporarily insane, the measure receivedroyal assent by a commission acting as a board of regency. Protests ofcolonial agents in London were futile. "We might as well have hinderedthe sun's progress!" exclaimed Franklin. Protests of a few opponents inthe Commons were equally vain. The ministry was firm in its course andfrom all appearances the Stamp Act hardly roused as much as a languidinterest in the city of London. In fact, it is recorded that the fatefulmeasure attracted less notice than a bill providing for a commission toact for the king when he was incapacitated. 

The Stamp Act, like the Sugar Act, declared the purpose of the Britishgovernment to raise revenue in America "towards defraying the expensesof defending, protecting, and securing the British colonies andplantations in America. " It was a long measure of more than fiftysections, carefully planned and skillfully drawn. By its provisionsduties were imposed on practically all papers used in legaltransactions, --deeds, mortgages, inventories, writs, bail bonds, --onlicenses to practice law and sell liquor, on college diplomas, playingcards, dice, pamphlets, newspapers, almanacs, calendars, andadvertisements. The drag net was closely knit, for scarcely anythingescaped. 

=The Quartering Act (1765). =--The ministers were aware that the StampAct would rouse opposition in America--how great they could notconjecture. While the measure was being debated, a friend of GeneralWolfe, Colonel Barré, who knew America well, gave them an ominouswarning in the Commons. "Believe me--remember I this day told you so--"he exclaimed, "the same spirit of freedom which actuated that people atfirst will accompany them still . .. A people jealous of their libertiesand who will vindicate them, if ever they should be violated. " Theanswer of the ministry to a prophecy of force was a threat of force. Preparations were accordingly made to dispatch a larger number ofsoldiers than usual to the colonies, and the ink was hardly dry on theStamp Act when Parliament passed the Quartering Act ordering thecolonists to provide accommodations for the soldiers who were to enforcethe new laws. "We have the power to tax them, " said one of the ministry, "and we will tax them. "

COLONIAL RESISTANCE FORCES REPEAL

=Popular Opposition. =--The Stamp Act was greeted in America by anoutburst of denunciation. The merchants of the seaboard cities took thelead in making a dignified but unmistakable protest, agreeing not toimport British goods while the hated law stood upon the books. Lawyers, some of them incensed at the heavy taxes on their operations and othersintimidated by patriots who refused to permit them to use stampedpapers, joined with the merchants. Aristocratic colonial Whigs, who hadlong grumbled at the administration of royal governors, protestedagainst taxation without their consent, as the Whigs had done in oldEngland. There were Tories, however, in the colonies as in England--manyof them of the official class--who denounced the merchants, lawyers, andWhig aristocrats as "seditious, factious and republican. " Yet theopposition to the Stamp Act and its accompanying measure, the QuarteringAct, grew steadily all through the summer of 1765. 

In a little while it was taken up in the streets and along thecountryside. All through the North and in some of the Southern colonies, there sprang up, as if by magic, committees and societies pledged toresist the Stamp Act to the bitter end. These popular societies wereknown as Sons of Liberty and Daughters of Liberty: the former includingartisans, mechanics, and laborers; and the latter, patriotic women. Bothgroups were alike in that they had as yet taken little part in publicaffairs. Many artisans, as well as all the women, were excluded from theright to vote for colonial assemblymen. 

While the merchants and Whig gentlemen confined their efforts chiefly todrafting well-phrased protests against British measures, the Sons ofLiberty operated in the streets and chose rougher measures. They stirredup riots in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston when attemptswere made to sell the stamps. They sacked and burned the residences ofhigh royal officers. They organized committees of inquisition who bythreats and intimidation curtailed the sale of British goods and the useof stamped papers. In fact, the Sons of Liberty carried their operationsto such excesses that many mild opponents of the stamp tax werefrightened and drew back in astonishment at the forces they hadunloosed. The Daughters of Liberty in a quieter way were making a veryeffective resistance to the sale of the hated goods by spurring ondomestic industries, their own particular province being the manufactureof clothing, and devising substitutes for taxed foods. They helped tofeed and clothe their families without buying British goods. 

=Legislative Action against the Stamp Act. =--Leaders in the colonialassemblies, accustomed to battle against British policies, supported thepopular protest. The Stamp Act was signed on March 22, 1765. On May 30, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a set of resolutions declaringthat the General Assembly of the colony alone had the right to lay taxesupon the inhabitants and that attempts to impose them otherwise were"illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust. " It was in support of theseresolutions that Patrick Henry uttered the immortal challenge: "Cæsarhad his Brutus, Charles I his Cromwell, and George III. .. . " Cries of"Treason" were calmly met by the orator who finished: "George III mayprofit by their example. If that be treason, make the most of it. "

[Illustration: PATRICK HENRY]

=The Stamp Act Congress. =--The Massachusetts Assembly answered the callof Virginia by inviting the colonies to elect delegates to a Congress tobe held in New York to discuss the situation. Nine colonies respondedand sent representatives. The delegates, while professing the warmestaffection for the king's person and government, firmly spread on recorda series of resolutions that admitted of no double meaning. Theydeclared that taxes could not be imposed without their consent, giventhrough their respective colonial assemblies; that the Stamp Act showeda tendency to subvert their rights and liberties; that the recent tradeacts were burdensome and grievous; and that the right to petition theking and Parliament was their heritage. They thereupon made "humblesupplication" for the repeal of the Stamp Act. 

The Stamp Act Congress was more than an assembly of protest. It markedthe rise of a new agency of government to express the will of America. It was the germ of a government which in time was to supersede thegovernment of George III in the colonies. It foreshadowed the Congressof the United States under the Constitution. It was a successful attemptat union. "There ought to be no New England men, " declared ChristopherGadsden, in the Stamp Act Congress, "no New Yorkers known on theContinent, but all of us Americans. "

=The Repeal of the Stamp Act and the Sugar Act. =--The effect of Americanresistance on opinion in England was telling. Commerce with the colonieshad been effectively boycotted by the Americans; ships lay idly swingingat the wharves; bankruptcy threatened hundreds of merchants in London, Bristol, and Liverpool. Workingmen in the manufacturing towns of Englandwere thrown out of employment. The government had sown folly and wasreaping, in place of the coveted revenue, rebellion. 

Perplexed by the storm they had raised, the ministers summoned to thebar of the House of Commons, Benjamin Franklin, the agent forPennsylvania, who was in London. "Do you think it right, " askedGrenville, "that America should be protected by this country and pay nopart of the expenses?" The answer was brief: "That is not the case; thecolonies raised, clothed, and paid during the last war twenty-fivethousand men and spent many millions. " Then came an inquiry whether thecolonists would accept a modified stamp act. "No, never, " repliedFranklin, "never! They will never submit to it!" It was next suggestedthat military force might compel obedience to law. Franklin had a readyanswer. "They cannot force a man to take stamps. .. . They may not find arebellion; they may, indeed, make one. "

The repeal of the Stamp Act was moved in the House of Commons a few dayslater. The sponsor for the repeal spoke of commerce interrupted, debtsdue British merchants placed in jeopardy, Manchester industries closed, workingmen unemployed, oppression instituted, and the loss of thecolonies threatened. Pitt and Edmund Burke, the former near the closeof his career, the latter just beginning his, argued cogently in favorof retracing the steps taken the year before. Grenville refused. "America must learn, " he wailed, "that prayers are not to be brought toCæsar through riot and sedition. " His protests were idle. The Commonsagreed to the repeal on February 22, 1766, amid the cheers of thevictorious majority. It was carried through the Lords in the face ofstrong opposition and, on March 18, reluctantly signed by the king, nowrestored to his right mind. 

In rescinding the Stamp Act, Parliament did not admit the contention ofthe Americans that it was without power to tax them. On the contrary, itaccompanied the repeal with a Declaratory Act. It announced that thecolonies were subordinate to the crown and Parliament of Great Britain;that the king and Parliament therefore had undoubted authority to makelaws binding the colonies in all cases whatsoever; and that theresolutions and proceedings of the colonists denying such authority werenull and void. 

The repeal was greeted by the colonists with great populardemonstrations. Bells were rung; toasts to the king were drunk; andtrade resumed its normal course. The Declaratory Act, as a mere paperresolution, did not disturb the good humor of those who again cheeredthe name of King George. Their confidence was soon strengthened by thenews that even the Sugar Act had been repealed, thus practicallyrestoring the condition of affairs before Grenville and Townshendinaugurated their policy of "thoroughness. "

RESUMPTION OF BRITISH REVENUE AND COMMERCIAL POLICIES

=The Townshend Acts (1767). =--The triumph of the colonists was brief. Though Pitt, the friend of America, was once more prime minister, andseated in the House of Lords as the Earl of Chatham, his severe illnessgave to Townshend and the Tory party practical control over Parliament. Unconvinced by the experience with the Stamp Act, Townshend broughtforward and pushed through both Houses of Parliament three measures, which to this day are associated with his name. First among hisrestrictive laws was that of June 29, 1767, which placed the enforcementof the collection of duties and customs on colonial imports and exportsin the hands of British commissioners appointed by the king, resident inthe colonies, paid from the British treasury, and independent of allcontrol by the colonists. The second measure of the same date imposed atax on lead, glass, paint, tea, and a few other articles imported intothe colonies, the revenue derived from the duties to be applied towardthe payment of the salaries and other expenses of royal colonialofficials. A third measure was the Tea Act of July 2, 1767, aimed at thetea trade which the Americans carried on illegally with foreigners. Thislaw abolished the duty which the East India Company had to pay inEngland on tea exported to America, for it was thought that English teamerchants might thus find it possible to undersell American teasmugglers. 

=Writs of Assistance Legalized by Parliament. =--Had Parliament beencontent with laying duties, just as a manifestation of power and right, and neglected their collection, perhaps little would have been heard ofthe Townshend Acts. It provided, however, for the strict, even theharsh, enforcement of the law. It ordered customs officers to remain attheir posts and put an end to smuggling. In the revenue act of June 29, 1767, it expressly authorized the superior courts of the colonies toissue "writs of assistance, " empowering customs officers to enter "anyhouse, warehouse, shop, cellar, or other place in the British coloniesor plantations in America to search for and seize" prohibited orsmuggled goods. 

The writ of assistance, which was a general search warrant issued torevenue officers, was an ancient device hateful to a people whocherished the spirit of personal independence and who had made actualgains in the practice of civil liberty. To allow a "minion of the law"to enter a man's house and search his papers and premises, was too muchfor the emotions of people who had fled to America in a quest forself-government and free homes, who had braved such hardships toestablish them, and who wanted to trade without official interference. 

The writ of assistance had been used in Massachusetts in 1755 to preventillicit trade with Canada and had aroused a violent hostility at thattime. In 1761 it was again the subject of a bitter controversy whicharose in connection with the application of a customs officer to aMassachusetts court for writs of assistance "as usual. " This applicationwas vainly opposed by James Otis in a speech of five hours' duration--aspeech of such fire and eloquence that it sent every man who heard itaway "ready to take up arms against writs of assistance. " Otis denouncedthe practice as an exercise of arbitrary power which had cost one kinghis head and another his throne, a tyrant's device which placed theliberty of every man in jeopardy, enabling any petty officer to workpossible malice on any innocent citizen on the merest suspicion, and tospread terror and desolation through the land. "What a scene, " heexclaimed, "does this open! Every man, prompted by revenge, ill-humor, or wantonness to inspect the inside of his neighbor's house, may get awrit of assistance. Others will ask it from self-defense; one arbitraryexertion will provoke another until society is involved in tumult andblood. " He did more than attack the writ itself. He said that Parliamentcould not establish it because it was against the British constitution. This was an assertion resting on slender foundation, but it was quicklyechoed by the people. Then and there James Otis sounded the call toAmerica to resist the exercise of arbitrary power by royal officers. "Then and there, " wrote John Adams, "the child Independence was born. "Such was the hated writ that Townshend proposed to put into the hands ofcustoms officers in his grim determination to enforce the law. 

=The New York Assembly Suspended. =--In the very month that Townshend'sActs were signed by the king, Parliament took a still more drastic step. The assembly of New York, protesting against the "ruinous andinsupportable" expense involved, had failed to make provision for thecare of British troops in accordance with the terms of the QuarteringAct. Parliament therefore suspended the assembly until it promised toobey the law. It was not until a third election was held that compliancewith the Quartering Act was wrung from the reluctant province. In themeantime, all the colonies had learned on how frail a foundation theirrepresentative bodies rested. 

RENEWED RESISTANCE IN AMERICA

=The Massachusetts Circular (1768). =--Massachusetts, under theleadership of Samuel Adams, resolved to resist the policy of renewedintervention in America. At his suggestion the assembly adopted aCircular Letter addressed to the assemblies of the other coloniesinforming them of the state of affairs in Massachusetts and roundlycondemning the whole British program. The Circular Letter declared thatParliament had no right to lay taxes on Americans without their consentand that the colonists could not, from the nature of the case, berepresented in Parliament. It went on shrewdly to submit toconsideration the question as to whether any people could be called freewho were subjected to governors and judges appointed by the crown andpaid out of funds raised independently. It invited the other colonies, in the most temperate tones, to take thought about the commonpredicament in which they were all placed. 

[Illustration: _From an old print. _

SAMUEL ADAMS]

=The Dissolution of Assemblies. =--The governor of Massachusetts, hearingof the Circular Letter, ordered the assembly to rescind its appeal. Onmeeting refusal, he promptly dissolved it. The Maryland, Georgia, andSouth Carolina assemblies indorsed the Circular Letter and were alsodissolved at once. The Virginia House of Burgesses, thoroughly aroused, passed resolutions on May 16, 1769, declaring that the sole right ofimposing taxes in Virginia was vested in its legislature, asserting anewthe right of petition to the crown, condemning the transportation ofpersons accused of crimes or trial beyond the seas, and beseeching theking for a redress of the general grievances. The immediate dissolutionof the Virginia assembly, in its turn, was the answer of the royalgovernor. 

=The Boston Massacre. =--American opposition to the British authoritieskept steadily rising as assemblies were dissolved, the houses ofcitizens searched, and troops distributed in increasing numbers amongthe centers of discontent. Merchants again agreed not to import Britishgoods, the Sons of Liberty renewed their agitation, and women set aboutthe patronage of home products still more loyally. 

On the night of March 5, 1770, a crowd on the streets of Boston began tojostle and tease some British regulars stationed in the town. Thingswent from bad to worse until some "boys and young fellows" began tothrow snowballs and stones. Then the exasperated soldiers fired into thecrowd, killing five and wounding half a dozen more. The day after the"massacre, " a mass meeting was held in the town and Samuel Adams wassent to demand the withdrawal of the soldiers. The governor hesitatedand tried to compromise. Finding Adams relentless, the governor yieldedand ordered the regulars away. 

The Boston Massacre stirred the country from New Hampshire to Georgia. Popular passions ran high. The guilty soldiers were charged with murder. Their defense was undertaken, in spite of the wrath of the populace, byJohn Adams and Josiah Quincy, who as lawyers thought even the worstoffenders entitled to their full rights in law. In his speech to thejury, however, Adams warned the British government against its course, saying, that "from the nature of things soldiers quartered in a populoustown will always occasion two mobs where they will prevent one. " Two ofthe soldiers were convicted and lightly punished. 

=Resistance in the South. =--The year following the Boston Massacre somecitizens of North Carolina, goaded by the conduct of the royal governor, openly resisted his authority. Many were killed as a result and sevenwho were taken prisoners were hanged as traitors. A little later royaltroops and local militia met in a pitched battle near Alamance River, called the "Lexington of the South. "

=The _Gaspee_ Affair and the Virginia Resolutions of 1773. =--On sea aswell as on land, friction between the royal officers and the colonistsbroke out into overt acts. While patrolling Narragansett Bay looking forsmugglers one day in 1772, the armed ship, _Gaspee_, ran ashore and wascaught fast. During the night several men from Providence boarded thevessel and, after seizing the crew, set it on fire. A royal commission, sent to Rhode Island to discover the offenders and bring them toaccount, failed because it could not find a single informer. The veryappointment of such a commission aroused the patriots of Virginia toaction; and in March, 1773, the House of Burgesses passed a resolutioncreating a standing committee of correspondence to develop coöperationamong the colonies in resistance to British measures. 

=The Boston Tea Party. =--Although the British government, finding theTownshend revenue act a failure, repealed in 1770 all the duties exceptthat on tea, it in no way relaxed its resolve to enforce the othercommercial regulations it had imposed on the colonies. Moreover, Parliament decided to relieve the British East India Company of thefinancial difficulties into which it had fallen partly by reason of theTea Act and the colonial boycott that followed. In 1773 it agreed toreturn to the Company the regular import duties, levied in England, onall tea transshipped to America. A small impost of three pence, to becollected in America, was left as a reminder of the principle laid downin the Declaratory Act that Parliament had the right to tax thecolonists. 

This arrangement with the East India Company was obnoxious to thecolonists for several reasons. It was an act of favoritism for onething, in the interest of a great monopoly. For another thing, itpromised to dump on the American market, suddenly, an immense amount ofcheap tea and so cause heavy losses to American merchants who had largestocks on hand. It threatened with ruin the business of all those whowere engaged in clandestine trade with the Dutch. It carried with it anirritating tax of three pence on imports. In Charleston, Annapolis, NewYork, and Boston, captains of ships who brought tea under this act wereroughly handled. One night in December, 1773, a band of Boston citizens, disguised as Indians, boarded the hated tea ships and dumped the cargointo the harbor. This was serious business, for it was open, flagrant, determined violation of the law. As such the British government viewedit. 

RETALIATION BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT

=Reception of the News of the Tea Riot. =--The news of the tea riot inBoston confirmed King George in his conviction that there should be nosoft policy in dealing with his American subjects. "The die is cast, " hestated with evident satisfaction. "The colonies must either triumph orsubmit. .. . If we take the resolute part, they will undoubtedly be verymeek. " Lord George Germain characterized the tea party as "theproceedings of a tumultuous and riotous rabble who ought, if they hadthe least prudence, to follow their mercantile employments and nottrouble themselves with politics and government, which they do notunderstand. " This expressed, in concise form, exactly the sentiments ofLord North, who had then for three years been the king's chief minister. Even Pitt, Lord Chatham, was prepared to support the government inupholding its authority. 

=The Five Intolerable Acts. =--Parliament, beginning on March 31, 1774, passed five stringent measures, known in American history as the five"intolerable acts. " They were aimed at curing the unrest in America. The_first_ of them was a bill absolutely shutting the port of Boston tocommerce with the outside world. The _second_, following closely, revoked the Massachusetts charter of 1691 and provided furthermore thatthe councilors should be appointed by the king, that all judges shouldbe named by the royal governor, and that town meetings (except to electcertain officers) could not be held without the governor's consent. A_third_ measure, after denouncing the "utter subversion of all lawfulgovernment" in the provinces, authorized royal agents to transfer toGreat Britain or to other colonies the trials of officers or otherpersons accused of murder in connection with the enforcement of the law. The _fourth_ act legalized the quartering of troops in Massachusettstowns. The _fifth_ of the measures was the Quebec Act, which grantedreligious toleration to the Catholics in Canada, extended the boundariesof Quebec southward to the Ohio River, and established, in this westernregion, government by a viceroy. 

The intolerable acts went through Parliament with extraordinarycelerity. There was an opposition, alert and informed; but it wasineffective. Burke spoke eloquently against the Boston port bill, condemning it roundly for punishing the innocent with the guilty, andshowing how likely it was to bring grave consequences in its train. Hewas heard with respect and his pleas were rejected. The bill passed bothhouses without a division, the entry "unanimous" being made upon theirjournals although it did not accurately represent the state of opinion. The law destroying the charter of Massachusetts passed the Commons by avote of three to one; and the third intolerable act by a vote of four toone. The triumph of the ministry was complete. "What passed in Boston, "exclaimed the great jurist, Lord Mansfield, "is the overt act of HighTreason proceeding from our over lenity and want of foresight. " Thecrown and Parliament were united in resorting to punitive measures. 

In the colonies the laws were received with consternation. To theAmerican Protestants, the Quebec Act was the most offensive. Thatproject they viewed not as an act of grace or of mercy but as a directattempt to enlist French Canadians on the side of Great Britain. TheBritish government did not grant religious toleration to Catholicseither at home or in Ireland and the Americans could see no good motivein granting it in North America. The act was also offensive becauseMassachusetts, Connecticut, and Virginia had, under their charters, large claims in the territory thus annexed to Quebec. 

To enforce these intolerable acts the military arm of the Britishgovernment was brought into play. The commander-in-chief of the armedforces in America, General Gage, was appointed governor ofMassachusetts. Reinforcements were brought to the colonies, for now KingGeorge was to give "the rebels, " as he called them, a taste of strongmedicine. The majesty of his law was to be vindicated by force. 

FROM REFORM TO REVOLUTION IN AMERICA

=The Doctrine of Natural Rights. =--The dissolution of assemblies, thedestruction of charters, and the use of troops produced in the coloniesa new phase in the struggle. In the early days of the contest with theBritish ministry, the Americans spoke of their "rights as Englishmen"and condemned the acts of Parliament as unlawful, as violating theprinciples of the English constitution under which they all lived. Whenthey saw that such arguments had no effect on Parliament, they turnedfor support to their "natural rights. " The latter doctrine, in the formin which it was employed by the colonists, was as English as theconstitutional argument. John Locke had used it with good effect indefense of the English revolution in the seventeenth century. Americanleaders, familiar with the writings of Locke, also took up his thesis inthe hour of their distress. They openly declared that their rights didnot rest after all upon the English constitution or a charter from thecrown. "Old Magna Carta was not the beginning of all things, " retortedOtis when the constitutional argument failed. "A time may come whenParliament shall declare every American charter void, but the natural, inherent, and inseparable rights of the colonists as men and as citizenswould remain and whatever became of charters can never be abolisheduntil the general conflagration. " Of the same opinion was the young andimpetuous Alexander Hamilton. "The sacred rights of mankind, " heexclaimed, "are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or mustyrecords. They are written as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of humandestiny by the hand of divinity itself, and can never be erased orobscured by mortal power. "

Firm as the American leaders were in the statement and defense of theirrights, there is every reason for believing that in the beginning theyhoped to confine the conflict to the realm of opinion. They constantlyavowed that they were loyal to the king when protesting in the strongestlanguage against his policies. Even Otis, regarded by the loyalists as afirebrand, was in fact attempting to avert revolution by winningconcessions from England. "I argue this cause with the greaterpleasure, " he solemnly urged in his speech against the writs ofassistance, "as it is in favor of British liberty . .. And as it is inopposition to a kind of power, the exercise of which in former periodscost one king of England his head and another his throne. "

=Burke Offers the Doctrine of Conciliation. =--The flooding tide ofAmerican sentiment was correctly measured by one Englishman at least, Edmund Burke, who quickly saw that attempts to restrain the rise ofAmerican democracy were efforts to reverse the processes of nature. Hesaw how fixed and rooted in the nature of things was the Americanspirit--how inevitable, how irresistible. He warned his countrymen thatthere were three ways of handling the delicate situation--and onlythree. One was to remove the cause of friction by changing the spirit ofthe colonists--an utter impossibility because that spirit was groundedin the essential circumstances of American life. The second was toprosecute American leaders as criminals; of this he begged hiscountrymen to beware lest the colonists declare that "a governmentagainst which a claim of liberty is tantamount to high treason is agovernment to which submission is equivalent to slavery. " The third andright way to meet the problem, Burke concluded, was to accept theAmerican spirit, repeal the obnoxious measures, and receive the coloniesinto equal partnership. 

=Events Produce the Great Decision. =--The right way, indicated by Burke, was equally impossible to George III and the majority in Parliament. Totheir narrow minds, American opinion was contemptible and Americanresistance unlawful, riotous, and treasonable. The correct way, in theirview, was to dispatch more troops to crush the "rebels"; and that veryact took the contest from the realm of opinion. As John Adams said:"Facts are stubborn things. " Opinions were unseen, but marching soldierswere visible to the veriest street urchin. "Now, " said GouverneurMorris, "the sheep, simple as they are, cannot be gulled as heretofore. "It was too late to talk about the excellence of the Britishconstitution. If any one is bewildered by the controversies of modernhistorians as to why the crisis came at last, he can clarify hisunderstanding by reading again Edmund Burke's stately oration, _OnConciliation with America_. 

=References=

G. L. Beer, _British Colonial Policy_ (1754-63). 

E. Channing, _History of the United States_, Vol. III. 

R. Frothingham, _Rise of the Republic_. 

G. E. Howard, _Preliminaries of the Revolution_ (American Nation Series). 

J. K. Hosmer, _Samuel Adams_. 

J. T. Morse, _Benjamin Franklin_. 

M. C. Tyler, _Patrick Henry_. 

J. A. Woodburn (editor), _The American Revolution_ (Selections from theEnglish work by Lecky). 

=Questions=

1. Show how the character of George III made for trouble with thecolonies. 

2. Explain why the party and parliamentary systems of England favoredthe plans of George III. 

3. How did the state of English finances affect English policy?

4. Enumerate five important measures of the English government affectingthe colonies between 1763 and 1765. Explain each in detail. 

5. Describe American resistance to the Stamp Act. What was the outcome?

6. Show how England renewed her policy of regulation in 1767. 

7. Summarize the events connected with American resistance. 

8. With what measures did Great Britain retaliate?

9. Contrast "constitutional" with "natural" rights. 

10. What solution did Burke offer? Why was it rejected?

=Research Topics=

=Powers Conferred on Revenue Officers by Writs of Assistance. =--See awrit in Macdonald, _Source Book_, p. 109. 

=The Acts of Parliament Respecting America. =--Macdonald, pp. 117-146. Assign one to each student for report and comment. 

=Source Studies on the Stamp Act. =--Hart, _American History Told byContemporaries_, Vol. II, pp. 394-412. 

=Source Studies of the Townshend Acts. =--Hart, Vol. II, pp. 413-433. 

=American Principles. =--Prepare a table of them from the Resolutions ofthe Stamp Act Congress and the Massachusetts Circular. Macdonald, pp. 136-146. 

=An English Historian's View of the Period. =--Green, _Short History ofEngland_, Chap. X. 

=English Policy Not Injurious to America. =--Callender, _EconomicHistory_, pp. 85-121. 

=A Review of English Policy. =--Woodrow Wilson, _History of the AmericanPeople_, Vol. II, pp. 129-170. 

=The Opening of the Revolution. =--Elson, _History of the United States_, pp. 220-235. 

CHAPTER VI

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

RESISTANCE AND RETALIATION

=The Continental Congress. =--When the news of the "intolerable acts"reached America, every one knew what strong medicine Parliament wasprepared to administer to all those who resisted its authority. Thecause of Massachusetts became the cause of all the colonies. Oppositionto British policy, hitherto local and spasmodic, now took on a nationalcharacter. To local committees and provincial conventions was added aContinental Congress, appropriately called by Massachusetts on June 17, 1774, at the instigation of Samuel Adams. The response to the summonswas electric. By hurried and irregular methods delegates were electedduring the summer, and on September 5 the Congress duly assembled inCarpenter's Hall in Philadelphia. Many of the greatest men in Americawere there--George Washington and Patrick Henry from Virginia and Johnand Samuel Adams from Massachusetts. Every shade of opinion wasrepresented. Some were impatient with mild devices; the majority favoredmoderation. 

The Congress drew up a declaration of American rights and stated inclear and dignified language the grievances of the colonists. Itapproved the resistance to British measures offered by Massachusetts andpromised the united support of all sections. It prepared an address toKing George and another to the people of England, disavowing the idea ofindependence but firmly attacking the policies pursued by the Britishgovernment. 

=The Non-Importation Agreement. =--The Congress was not content, however, with professions of faith and with petitions. It took one revolutionarystep. It agreed to stop the importation of British goods into America, and the enforcement of this agreement it placed in the hands of local"committees of safety and inspection, " to be elected by the qualifiedvoters. The significance of this action is obvious. Congress threwitself athwart British law. It made a rule to bind American citizens andto be carried into effect by American officers. It set up a state withinthe British state and laid down a test of allegiance to the new order. The colonists, who up to this moment had been wavering, had to chooseone authority or the other. They were for the enforcement of thenon-importation agreement or they were against it. They either boughtEnglish goods or they did not. In the spirit of the toast--"May Britainbe wise and America be free"--the first Continental Congress adjournedin October, having appointed the tenth of May following for the meetingof a second Congress, should necessity require. 

=Lord North's "Olive Branch. "=--When the news of the action of theAmerican Congress reached England, Pitt and Burke warmly urged a repealof the obnoxious laws, but in vain. All they could wring from the primeminister, Lord North, was a set of "conciliatory resolutions" proposingto relieve from taxation any colony that would assume its share ofimperial defense and make provision for supporting the local officers ofthe crown. This "olive branch" was accompanied by a resolution assuringthe king of support at all hazards in suppressing the rebellion and bythe restraining act of March 30, 1775, which in effect destroyed thecommerce of New England. 

=Bloodshed at Lexington and Concord (April 19, 1775). =--Meanwhile theBritish authorities in Massachusetts relaxed none of their efforts inupholding British sovereignty. General Gage, hearing that militarystores had been collected at Concord, dispatched a small force to seizethem. By this act he precipitated the conflict he had sought to avoid. At Lexington, on the road to Concord, occurred "the little thing" thatproduced "the great event. " An unexpected collision beyond the thoughtor purpose of any man had transferred the contest from the forum to thebattle field. 

=The Second Continental Congress. =--Though blood had been shed and warwas actually at hand, the second Continental Congress, which met atPhiladelphia in May, 1775, was not yet convinced that conciliation wasbeyond human power. It petitioned the king to interpose on behalf of thecolonists in order that the empire might avoid the calamities of civilwar. On the last day of July, it made a temperate but firm answer toLord North's offer of conciliation, stating that the proposal wasunsatisfactory because it did not renounce the right to tax or repealthe offensive acts of Parliament. 

=Force, the British Answer. =--Just as the representatives of Americawere about to present the last petition of Congress to the king onAugust 23, 1775, George III issued a proclamation of rebellion. Thisannouncement declared that the colonists, "misled by dangerous andill-designing men, " were in a state of insurrection; it called on thecivil and military powers to bring "the traitors to justice"; and itthreatened with "condign punishment the authors, perpetrators, andabettors of such traitorous designs. " It closed with the usual prayer:"God, save the king. " Later in the year, Parliament passed a sweepingact destroying all trade and intercourse with America. Congress wassilent at last. Force was also America's answer. 

AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE

=Drifting into War. =--Although the Congress had not given up all hope ofreconciliation in the spring and summer of 1775, it had firmly resolvedto defend American rights by arms if necessary. It transformed themilitiamen who had assembled near Boston, after the battle of Lexington, into a Continental army and selected Washington as commander-in-chief. It assumed the powers of a government and prepared to raise money, wagewar, and carry on diplomatic relations with foreign countries. 

[Illustration: _From an old print_

SPIRIT OF 1776]

Events followed thick and fast. On June 17, the American militia, bythe stubborn defense of Bunker Hill, showed that it could make Britishregulars pay dearly for all they got. On July 3, Washington took commandof the army at Cambridge. In January, 1776, after bitter disappointmentsin drumming up recruits for its army in England, Scotland, and Ireland, the British government concluded a treaty with the Landgrave ofHesse-Cassel in Germany contracting, at a handsome figure, for thousandsof soldiers and many pieces of cannon. This was the crowning insult toAmerica. Such was the view of all friends of the colonies on both sidesof the water. Such was, long afterward, the judgment of the conservativehistorian Lecky: "The conduct of England in hiring German mercenaries tosubdue the essentially English population beyond the Atlantic madereconciliation hopeless and independence inevitable. " The news of thiswretched transaction in German soldiers had hardly reached Americabefore there ran all down the coast the thrilling story that Washingtonhad taken Boston, on March 17, 1776, compelling Lord Howe to sail withhis entire army for Halifax. 

=The Growth of Public Sentiment in Favor of Independence. =--Events werebearing the Americans away from their old position under the Britishconstitution toward a final separation. Slowly and against theirdesires, prudent and honorable men, who cherished the ties that unitedthem to the old order and dreaded with genuine horror all thought ofrevolution, were drawn into the path that led to the great decision. Inall parts of the country and among all classes, the question of the hourwas being debated. "American independence, " as the historian Bancroftsays, "was not an act of sudden passion nor the work of one man or oneassembly. It had been discussed in every part of the country by farmersand merchants, by mechanics and planters, by the fishermen along thecoast and the backwoodsmen of the West; in town meetings and from thepulpit; at social gatherings and around the camp fires; in countyconventions and conferences or committees; in colonial congresses andassemblies. "

[Illustration: _From an old print_

THOMAS PAINE]

=Paine's "Commonsense. "=--In the midst of this ferment of Americanopinion, a bold and eloquent pamphleteer broke in upon the hesitatingpublic with a program for absolute independence, without fears andwithout apologies. In the early days of 1776, Thomas Paine issued thefirst of his famous tracts, "Commonsense, " a passionate attack upon theBritish monarchy and an equally passionate plea for American liberty. Casting aside the language of petition with which Americans had hithertoaddressed George III, Paine went to the other extreme and assailed himwith many a violent epithet. He condemned monarchy itself as a systemwhich had laid the world "in blood and ashes. " Instead of praising theBritish constitution under which colonists had been claiming theirrights, he brushed it aside as ridiculous, protesting that it was "owingto the constitution of the people, not to the constitution of thegovernment, that the Crown is not as oppressive in England as inTurkey. "

Having thus summarily swept away the grounds of allegiance to the oldorder, Paine proceeded relentlessly to an argument for immediateseparation from Great Britain. There was nothing in the sphere ofpractical interest, he insisted, which should bind the colonies to themother country. Allegiance to her had been responsible for the many warsin which they had been involved. Reasons of trade were not less weightyin behalf of independence. "Our corn will fetch its price in any marketin Europe and our imported goods must be paid for, buy them where wewill. " As to matters of government, "it is not in the power of Britainto do this continent justice; the business of it will soon be tooweighty and intricate to be managed with any tolerable degree ofconvenience by a power so distant from us and so very ignorant of us. "

There is accordingly no alternative to independence for America. "Everything that is right or natural pleads for separation. The blood ofthe slain, the weeping voice of nature cries ''tis time to part. ' . .. Arms, the last resort, must decide the contest; the appeal was thechoice of the king and the continent hath accepted the challenge. .. . Thesun never shone on a cause of greater worth. 'Tis not the affair of acity, a county, a province or a kingdom, but of a continent. .. . 'Tis notthe concern of a day, a year or an age; posterity is involved in thecontest and will be more or less affected to the end of time by theproceedings now. Now is the seed-time of Continental union, faith, andhonor. .. . O! ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose not only thetyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth. .. . Let names of Whig and Tory beextinct. Let none other be heard among us than those of a good citizen, an open and resolute friend, and a virtuous supporter of the rights ofmankind and of the free and independent states of America. " As more than100, 000 copies were scattered broadcast over the country, patriotsexclaimed with Washington: "Sound doctrine and unanswerable reason!"

=The Drift of Events toward Independence. =--Official support for theidea of independence began to come from many quarters. On the tenth ofFebruary, 1776, Gadsden, in the provincial convention of South Carolina, advocated a new constitution for the colony and absolute independencefor all America. The convention balked at the latter but went half wayby abolishing the system of royal administration and establishing acomplete plan of self-government. A month later, on April 12, theneighboring state of North Carolina uttered the daring phrase from whichothers shrank. It empowered its representatives in the Congress toconcur with the delegates of the other colonies in declaringindependence. Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Virginia quicklyresponded to the challenge. The convention of the Old Dominion, on May15, instructed its delegates at Philadelphia to propose the independenceof the United Colonies and to give the assent of Virginia to the act ofseparation. When the resolution was carried the British flag on thestate house was lowered for all time. 

Meanwhile the Continental Congress was alive to the course of eventsoutside. The subject of independence was constantly being raised. "Arewe rebels?" exclaimed Wyeth of Virginia during a debate in February. "No: we must declare ourselves a free people. " Others hesitated andspoke of waiting for the arrival of commissioners of conciliation. "Isnot America already independent?" asked Samuel Adams a few weeks later. "Why not then declare it?" Still there was uncertainty and delegatesavoided the direct word. A few more weeks elapsed. At last, on May 10, Congress declared that the authority of the British crown in Americamust be suppressed and advised the colonies to set up governments oftheir own. 

[Illustration: _From an old print_

THOMAS JEFFERSON READING HIS DRAFT OF THE DECLARATION OFINDEPENDENCE TO THE COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS]

=Independence Declared. =--The way was fully prepared, therefore, when, on June 7, the Virginia delegation in the Congress moved that "theseunited colonies are and of right ought to be free and independentstates. " A committee was immediately appointed to draft a formaldocument setting forth the reasons for the act, and on July 2 all thestates save New York went on record in favor of severing their politicalconnection with Great Britain. Two days later, July 4, Jefferson's draftof the Declaration of Independence, changed in some slight particulars, was adopted. The old bell in Independence Hall, as it is now known, rangout the glad tidings; couriers swiftly carried the news to the uttermosthamlet and farm. A new nation announced its will to have a place amongthe powers of the world. 

To some documents is given immortality. The Declaration of Independenceis one of them. American patriotism is forever associated with it; butpatriotism alone does not make it immortal. Neither does the vigor ofits language or the severity of its indictment give it a secure place inthe records of time. The secret of its greatness lies in the simple factthat it is one of the memorable landmarks in the history of a politicalideal which for three centuries has been taking form and spreadingthroughout the earth, challenging kings and potentates, shaking downthrones and aristocracies, breaking the armies of irresponsible power onbattle fields as far apart as Marston Moor and Château-Thierry. Thatideal, now so familiar, then so novel, is summed up in the simplesentence: "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of thegoverned. "

Written in a "decent respect for the opinions of mankind, " to set forththe causes which impelled the American colonists to separate fromBritain, the Declaration contained a long list of "abuses andusurpations" which had induced them to throw off the government of KingGeorge. That section of the Declaration has passed into "ancient"history and is seldom read. It is the part laying down a new basis forgovernment and giving a new dignity to the common man that has become ahousehold phrase in the Old World as in the New. 

In the more enduring passages there are four fundamental ideas which, from the standpoint of the old system of government, were the essence ofrevolution: (1) all men are created equal and are endowed by theirCreator with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty, and thepursuit of happiness; (2) the purpose of government is to secure theserights; (3) governments derive their just powers from the consent of thegoverned; (4) whenever any form of government becomes destructive ofthese ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it andinstitute new government, laying its foundations on such principles andorganizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely toeffect their safety and happiness. Here was the prelude to the historicdrama of democracy--a challenge to every form of government and everyprivilege not founded on popular assent. 

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF GOVERNMENT AND THE NEW ALLEGIANCE

=The Committees of Correspondence. =--As soon as debate had passed intoarmed resistance, the patriots found it necessary to consolidate theirforces by organizing civil government. This was readily effected, forthe means were at hand in town meetings, provincial legislatures, andcommittees of correspondence. The working tools of the Revolution werein fact the committees of correspondence--small, local, unofficialgroups of patriots formed to exchange views and create public sentiment. As early as November, 1772, such a committee had been created in Bostonunder the leadership of Samuel Adams. It held regular meetings, sentemissaries to neighboring towns, and carried on a campaign of educationin the doctrines of liberty. 

[Illustration: THE COLONIES OF NORTH AMERICA AT THE TIME OF THEDECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE]

Upon local organizations similar in character to the Boston committeewere built county committees and then the larger colonial committees, congresses, and conventions, all unofficial and representing therevolutionary elements. Ordinarily the provincial convention was merelythe old legislative assembly freed from all royalist sympathizers andcontrolled by patriots. Finally, upon these colonial assemblies wasbuilt the Continental Congress, the precursor of union under theArticles of Confederation and ultimately under the Constitution of theUnited States. This was the revolutionary government set up within theBritish empire in America. 

=State Constitutions Framed. =--With the rise of these new assemblies ofthe people, the old colonial governments broke down. From the royalprovinces the governor, the judges, and the high officers fled in haste, and it became necessary to substitute patriot authorities. The appeal tothe colonies advising them to adopt a new form of government forthemselves, issued by the Congress in May, 1776, was quickly acted upon. Before the expiration of a year, Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Georgia, and New York had drafted new constitutionsas states, not as colonies uncertain of their destinies. Connecticut andRhode Island, holding that their ancient charters were equal to theirneeds, merely renounced their allegiance to the king and went on asbefore so far as the form of government was concerned. South Carolina, which had drafted a temporary plan early in 1776, drew up a new and morecomplete constitution in 1778. Two years later Massachusetts with muchdeliberation put into force its fundamental law, which in most of itsessential features remains unchanged to-day. 

The new state constitutions in their broad outlines followed colonialmodels. For the royal governor was substituted a governor or presidentchosen usually by the legislature; but in two instances, New York andMassachusetts, by popular vote. For the provincial council there wassubstituted, except in Georgia, a senate; while the lower house, orassembly, was continued virtually without change. The old propertyrestriction on the suffrage, though lowered slightly in some states, wascontinued in full force to the great discontent of the mechanics thusdeprived of the ballot. The special qualifications, laid down in severalconstitutions, for governors, senators, and representatives, indicatedthat the revolutionary leaders were not prepared for any radicalexperiments in democracy. The protests of a few women, like Mrs. JohnAdams of Massachusetts and Mrs. Henry Corbin of Virginia, against agovernment which excluded them from political rights were treated asmild curiosities of no significance, although in New Jersey women wereallowed to vote for many years on the same terms as men. 

By the new state constitutions the signs and symbols of royal power, ofauthority derived from any source save "the people, " were swept asideand republican governments on an imposing scale presented for the firsttime to the modern world. Copies of these remarkable documents preparedby plain citizens were translated into French and widely circulated inEurope. There they were destined to serve as a guide and inspiration toa generation of constitution-makers whose mission it was to begin thedemocratic revolution in the Old World. 

=The Articles of Confederation. =--The formation of state constitutionswas an easy task for the revolutionary leaders. They had only to buildon foundations already laid. The establishment of a national system ofgovernment was another matter. There had always been, it must beremembered, a system of central control over the colonies, but Americanshad had little experience in its operation. When the supervision of thecrown of Great Britain was suddenly broken, the patriot leaders, accustomed merely to provincial statesmanship, were poorly trained foraction on a national stage. 

Many forces worked against those who, like Franklin, had a vision ofnational destiny. There were differences in economic interest--commerceand industry in the North and the planting system of the South. Therewere contests over the apportionment of taxes and the quotas of troopsfor common defense. To these practical difficulties were added localpride, the vested rights of state and village politicians in theirprovincial dignity, and the scarcity of men with a large outlook uponthe common enterprise. 

Nevertheless, necessity compelled them to consider some sort offederation. The second Continental Congress had hardly opened its workbefore the most sagacious leaders began to urge the desirability of apermanent connection. As early as July, 1775, Congress resolved to gointo a committee of the whole on the state of the union, and Franklin, undaunted by the fate of his Albany plan of twenty years before, againpresented a draft of a constitution. Long and desultory debates followedand it was not until late in 1777 that Congress presented to the statesthe Articles of Confederation. Provincial jealousies delayedratification, and it was the spring of 1781, a few months before thesurrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown, when Maryland, the last of thestates, approved the Articles. This plan of union, though it was allthat could be wrung from the reluctant states, provided for neither achief executive nor a system of federal courts. It created simply aCongress of delegates in which each state had an equal voice and gave itthe right to call upon the state legislatures for the sinews ofgovernment--money and soldiers. 

=The Application of Tests of Allegiance. =--As the successive steps weretaken in the direction of independent government, the patriots devisedand applied tests designed to discover who were for and who were againstthe new nation in the process of making. When the first ContinentalCongress agreed not to allow the importation of British goods, itprovided for the creation of local committees to enforce the rules. Suchagencies were duly formed by the choice of men favoring the scheme, allopponents being excluded from the elections. Before these bodies thosewho persisted in buying British goods were summoned and warned orpunished according to circumstances. As soon as the new stateconstitutions were put into effect, local committees set to work in thesame way to ferret out all who were not outspoken in their support ofthe new order of things. 

[Illustration: MOBBING THE TORIES]

These patriot agencies, bearing different names in different sections, were sometimes ruthless in their methods. They called upon all men tosign the test of loyalty, frequently known as the "association test. "Those who refused were promptly branded as outlaws, while some of themore dangerous were thrown into jail. The prison camp in Connecticut atone time held the former governor of New Jersey and the mayor of NewYork. Thousands were black-listed and subjected to espionage. Theblack-list of Pennsylvania contained the names of nearly five hundredpersons of prominence who were under suspicion. Loyalists or Tories whowere bold enough to speak and write against the Revolution weresuppressed and their pamphlets burned. In many places, particularly inthe North, the property of the loyalists was confiscated and theproceeds applied to the cause of the Revolution. 

The work of the official agencies for suppression of opposition wassometimes supplemented by mob violence. A few Tories were hanged withouttrial, and others were tarred and feathered. One was placed upon a cakeof ice and held there "until his loyalty to King George might cool. "Whole families were driven out of their homes to find their way as bestthey could within the British lines or into Canada, where the Britishgovernment gave them lands. Such excesses were deplored by Washington, but they were defended on the ground that in effect a civil war, as wellas a war for independence, was being waged. 

=The Patriots and Tories. =--Thus, by one process or another, those whowere to be citizens of the new republic were separated from those whopreferred to be subjects of King George. Just what proportion of theAmericans favored independence and what share remained loyal to theBritish monarchy there is no way of knowing. The question of revolutionwas not submitted to popular vote, and on the point of numbers we haveconflicting evidence. On the patriot side, there is the testimony of acareful and informed observer, John Adams, who asserted that two-thirdsof the people were for the American cause and not more than one-thirdopposed the Revolution at all stages. 

On behalf of the loyalists, or Tories as they were popularly known, extravagant claims were made. Joseph Galloway, who had been a member ofthe first Continental Congress and had fled to England when he saw itstemper, testified before a committee of Parliament in 1779 that notone-fifth of the American people supported the insurrection and that"many more than four-fifths of the people prefer a union with GreatBritain upon constitutional principles to independence. " At the sametime General Robertson, who had lived in America twenty-four years, declared that "more than two-thirds of the people would prefer theking's government to the Congress' tyranny. " In an address to the kingin that year a committee of American loyalists asserted that "the numberof Americans in his Majesty's army exceeded the number of troopsenlisted by Congress to oppose them. "

=The Character of the Loyalists. =--When General Howe evacuated Boston, more than a thousand people fled with him. This great company, accordingto a careful historian, "formed the aristocracy of the province byvirtue of their official rank; of their dignified callings andprofessions; of their hereditary wealth and of their culture. " The actof banishment passed by Massachusetts in 1778, listing over 300 Tories, "reads like the social register of the oldest and noblest families ofNew England, " more than one out of five being graduates of HarvardCollege. The same was true of New York and Philadelphia; namely, thatthe leading loyalists were prominent officials of the old order, clergymen and wealthy merchants. With passion the loyalists foughtagainst the inevitable or with anguish of heart they left as refugeesfor a life of uncertainty in Canada or the mother country. 

=Tories Assail the Patriots. =--The Tories who remained in America joinedthe British army by the thousands or in other ways aided the royalcause. Those who were skillful with the pen assailed the patriots ineditorials, rhymes, satires, and political catechisms. They declaredthat the members of Congress were "obscure, pettifogging attorneys, bankrupt shopkeepers, outlawed smugglers, etc. " The people and theirleaders they characterized as "wretched banditti . .. The refuse anddregs of mankind. " The generals in the army they sneered at as "men ofrank and honor nearly on a par with those of the Congress. "

=Patriot Writers Arouse the National Spirit. =--Stung by Tory taunts, patriot writers devoted themselves to creating and sustaining a publicopinion favorable to the American cause. Moreover, they had to combatthe depression that grew out of the misfortunes in the early days of thewar. A terrible disaster befell Generals Arnold and Montgomery in thewinter of 1775 as they attempted to bring Canada into the revolution--adisaster that cost 5000 men; repeated calamities harassed Washington in1776 as he was defeated on Long Island, driven out of New York City, andbeaten at Harlem Heights and White Plains. These reverses were almosttoo great for the stoutest patriots. 

Pamphleteers, preachers, and publicists rose, however, to meet the needsof the hour. John Witherspoon, provost of the College of New Jersey, forsook the classroom for the field of political controversy. The poet, Philip Freneau, flung taunts of cowardice at the Tories and celebratedthe spirit of liberty in many a stirring poem. Songs, ballads, plays, and satires flowed from the press in an unending stream. Fast days, battle anniversaries, celebrations of important steps taken by Congressafforded to patriotic clergymen abundant opportunities for sermons. "Does Mr. Wiberd preach against oppression?" anxiously inquired JohnAdams in a letter to his wife. The answer was decisive. "The clergy ofevery denomination, not excepting the Episcopalian, thunder and lightenevery Sabbath. They pray for Boston and Massachusetts. They thank Godmost explicitly and fervently for our remarkable successes. They prayfor the American army. "

Thomas Paine never let his pen rest. He had been with the forces ofWashington when they retreated from Fort Lee and were harried from NewJersey into Pennsylvania. He knew the effect of such reverses on thearmy as well as on the public. In December, 1776, he made a second greatappeal to his countrymen in his pamphlet, "The Crisis, " the first partof which he had written while defeat and gloom were all about him. Thistract was a cry for continued support of the Revolution. "These are thetimes that try men's souls, " he opened. "The summer soldier and thesunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of hiscountry; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of menand women. " Paine laid his lash fiercely on the Tories, branding everyone as a coward grounded in "servile, slavish, self-interested fear. " Hedeplored the inadequacy of the militia and called for a real army. Herefuted the charge that the retreat through New Jersey was a disasterand he promised victory soon. "By perseverance and fortitude, " heconcluded, "we have the prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice andsubmission the sad choice of a variety of evils--a ravaged country, adepopulated city, habitations without safety and slavery withouthope. .. . Look on this picture and weep over it. " His ringing call toarms was followed by another and another until the long contest wasover. 

MILITARY AFFAIRS

=The Two Phases of the War. =--The war which opened with the battle ofLexington, on April 19, 1775, and closed with the surrender ofCornwallis at Yorktown on October 19, 1781, passed through two distinctphases--the first lasting until the treaty of alliance with France, in1778, and the second until the end of the struggle. During the firstphase, the war was confined mainly to the North. The outstandingfeatures of the contest were the evacuation of Boston by the British, the expulsion of American forces from New York and their retreat throughNew Jersey, the battle of Trenton, the seizure of Philadelphia by theBritish (September, 1777), the invasion of New York by Burgoyne and hiscapture at Saratoga in October, 1777, and the encampment of Americanforces at Valley Forge for the terrible winter of 1777-78. 

The final phase of the war, opening with the treaty of alliance withFrance on February 6, 1778, was confined mainly to the Middle states, the West, and the South. In the first sphere of action the chief eventswere the withdrawal of the British from Philadelphia, the battle ofMonmouth, and the inclosure of the British in New York by deployingAmerican forces from Morristown, New Jersey, up to West Point. In theWest, George Rogers Clark, by his famous march into the Illinoiscountry, secured Kaskaskia and Vincennes and laid a firm grip on thecountry between the Ohio and the Great Lakes. In the South, the secondperiod opened with successes for the British. They captured Savannah, conquered Georgia, and restored the royal governor. In 1780 they seizedCharleston, administered a crushing defeat to the American forces underGates at Camden, and overran South Carolina, though meeting reverses atCowpens and King's Mountain. Then came the closing scenes. Cornwallisbegan the last of his operations. He pursued General Greene far intoNorth Carolina, clashed with him at Guilford Court House, retired to thecoast, took charge of British forces engaged in plundering Virginia, andfortified Yorktown, where he was penned up by the French fleet from thesea and the combined French and American forces on land. 

=The Geographical Aspects of the War. =--For the British the theater ofthe war offered many problems. From first to last it extended fromMassachusetts to Georgia, a distance of almost a thousand miles. It wasnearly three thousand miles from the main base of supplies and, thoughthe British navy kept the channel open, transports were constantlyfalling prey to daring privateers and fleet American war vessels. Thesea, on the other hand, offered an easy means of transportation betweenpoints along the coast and gave ready access to the American centers ofwealth and population. Of this the British made good use. Though earlyforced to give up Boston, they seized New York and kept it until the endof the war; they took Philadelphia and retained it until threatened bythe approach of the French fleet; and they captured and held bothSavannah and Charleston. Wars, however, are seldom won by the conquestof cities. 

Particularly was this true in the case of the Revolution. Only a smallportion of the American people lived in towns. Countrymen back from thecoast were in no way dependent upon them for a livelihood. They lived onthe produce of the soil, not upon the profits of trade. This very factgave strength to them in the contest. Whenever the British ventured farfrom the ports of entry, they encountered reverses. Burgoyne was forcedto surrender at Saratoga because he was surrounded and cut off from hisbase of supplies. As soon as the British got away from Charleston, theywere harassed and worried by the guerrilla warriors of Marion, Sumter, and Pickens. Cornwallis could technically defeat Greene at Guilford farin the interior; but he could not hold the inland region he had invaded. Sustained by their own labor, possessing the interior to which theirarmies could readily retreat, supplied mainly from native resources, theAmericans could not be hemmed in, penned up, and destroyed at one fellblow. 

=The Sea Power. =--The British made good use of their fleet in cuttingoff American trade, but control of the sea did not seriously affect theUnited States. As an agricultural country, the ruin of its commerce wasnot such a vital matter. All the materials for a comfortable thoughsomewhat rude life were right at hand. It made little difference to anation fighting for existence, if silks, fine linens, and chinaware werecut off. This was an evil to which submission was necessary. 

Nor did the brilliant exploits of John Paul Jones and Captain John Barrymaterially change the situation. They demonstrated the skill of Americanseamen and their courage as fighting men. They raised the rates ofBritish marine insurance, but they did not dethrone the mistress of theseas. Less spectacular, and more distinctive, were the deeds of thehundreds of privateers and minor captains who overhauled British supplyships and kept British merchantmen in constant anxiety. Not until theFrench fleet was thrown into the scale, were the British compelled toreckon seriously with the enemy on the sea and make plans based upon thepossibilities of a maritime disaster. 

=Commanding Officers. =--On the score of military leadership it isdifficult to compare the contending forces in the revolutionary contest. There is no doubt that all the British commanders were men of experiencein the art of warfare. Sir William Howe had served in America during theFrench War and was accounted an excellent officer, a strictdisciplinarian, and a gallant gentleman. Nevertheless he loved ease, society, and good living, and his expulsion from Boston, his failure tooverwhelm Washington by sallies from his comfortable bases at New Yorkand Philadelphia, destroyed every shred of his military reputation. JohnBurgoyne, to whom was given the task of penetrating New York fromCanada, had likewise seen service in the French War both in America andEurope. He had, however, a touch of the theatrical in his nature andafter the collapse of his plans and the surrender of his army in 1777, he devoted his time mainly to light literature. Sir Henry Clinton, whodirected the movement which ended in the capture of Charleston in 1780, had "learned his trade on the continent, " and was regarded as a man ofdiscretion and understanding in military matters. Lord Cornwallis, whoseachievements at Camden and Guilford were blotted out by his surrender atYorktown, had seen service in the Seven Years' War and had undoubtedtalents which he afterward displayed with great credit to himself inIndia. Though none of them, perhaps, were men of first-rate ability, they all had training and experience to guide them. 

[Illustration: GEORGE WASHINGTON]

The Americans had a host in Washington himself. He had long beeninterested in military strategy and had tested his coolness under fireduring the first clashes with the French nearly twenty years before. Hehad no doubts about the justice of his cause, such as plagued some ofthe British generals. He was a stern but reasonable disciplinarian. Hewas reserved and patient, little given to exaltation at success ordepression at reverses. In the dark hour of the Revolution, "what heldthe patriot forces together?" asks Beveridge in his _Life of JohnMarshall_. Then he answers: "George Washington and he alone. Had hedied or been seriously disabled, the Revolution would have ended. .. . Washington was the soul of the American cause. Washington was thegovernment. Washington was the Revolution. " The weakness of Congress infurnishing men and supplies, the indolence of civilians, who lived atease while the army starved, the intrigues of army officers against himsuch as the "Conway cabal, " the cowardice of Lee at Monmouth, even thetreason of Benedict Arnold, while they stirred deep emotions in hisbreast and aroused him to make passionate pleas to his countrymen, didnot shake his iron will or his firm determination to see the war throughto the bitter end. The weight of Washington's moral force wasimmeasurable. 

Of the generals who served under him, none can really be said to havebeen experienced military men when the war opened. Benedict Arnold, theunhappy traitor but brave and daring soldier, was a druggist, bookseller, and ship owner at New Haven when the news of Lexington calledhim to battle. Horatio Gates was looked upon as a "seasoned soldier"because he had entered the British army as a youth, had been wounded atBraddock's memorable defeat, and had served with credit during the SevenYears' War; but he was the most conspicuous failure of the Revolution. The triumph over Burgoyne was the work of other men; and his crushingdefeat at Camden put an end to his military pretensions. NathanaelGreene was a Rhode Island farmer and smith without military experiencewho, when convinced that war was coming, read Cæsar's _Commentaries_ andtook up the sword. Francis Marion was a shy and modest planter of SouthCarolina whose sole passage at arms had been a brief but desperate brushwith the Indians ten or twelve years earlier. Daniel Morgan, one of theheroes of Cowpens, had been a teamster with Braddock's army and had seensome fighting during the French and Indian War, but his militaryknowledge, from the point of view of a trained British officer, wasnegligible. John Sullivan was a successful lawyer at Durham, NewHampshire, and a major in the local militia when duty summoned him tolay down his briefs and take up the sword. Anthony Wayne was aPennsylvania farmer and land surveyor who, on hearing the clash of arms, read a few books on war, raised a regiment, and offered himself forservice. Such is the story of the chief American military leaders, andit is typical of them all. Some had seen fighting with the French andIndians, but none of them had seen warfare on a large scale with regulartroops commanded according to the strategy evolved in Europeanexperience. Courage, native ability, quickness of mind, and knowledge ofthe country they had in abundance, and in battles such as were foughtduring the Revolution all those qualities counted heavily in thebalance. 

=Foreign Officers in American Service. =--To native genius was addedmilitary talent from beyond the seas. Baron Steuben, well schooled inthe iron régime of Frederick the Great, came over from Prussia, joinedWashington at Valley Forge, and day after day drilled and manoeuvered themen, laughing and cursing as he turned raw countrymen into regularsoldiers. From France came young Lafayette and the stern De Kalb, fromPoland came Pulaski and Kosciusko;--all acquainted with the arts of waras waged in Europe and fitted for leadership as well as teaching. Lafayette came early, in 1776, in a ship of his own, accompanied byseveral officers of wide experience, and remained loyally throughout thewar sharing the hardships of American army life. Pulaski fell at thesiege of Savannah and De Kalb at Camden. Kosciusko survived the Americanwar to defend in vain the independence of his native land. To thesedistinguished foreigners, who freely threw in their lot with Americanrevolutionary fortunes, was due much of that spirit and discipline whichfitted raw recruits and temperamental militiamen to cope with a militarypower of the first rank. 

=The Soldiers. =--As far as the British soldiers were concerned theirannals are short and simple. The regulars from the standing army whowere sent over at the opening of the contest, the recruits drummed upby special efforts at home, and the thousands of Hessians boughtoutright by King George presented few problems of management to theBritish officers. These common soldiers were far away from home andenlisted for the war. Nearly all of them were well disciplined and manyof them experienced in actual campaigns. The armies of King Georgefought bravely, as the records of Bunker Hill, Brandywine, and Monmouthdemonstrate. Many a man and subordinate officer and, for that matter, some of the high officers expressed a reluctance at fighting againsttheir own kin; but they obeyed orders. 

The Americans, on the other hand, while they fought with grimdetermination, as men fighting for their homes, were lacking indiscipline and in the experience of regular troops. When the war brokein upon them, there were no common preparations for it. There was nocontinental army; there were only local bands of militiamen, many ofthem experienced in fighting but few of them "regulars" in the militarysense. Moreover they were volunteers serving for a short time, unaccustomed to severe discipline, and impatient at the restraintsimposed on them by long and arduous campaigns. They were continuallyleaving the service just at the most critical moments. "The militia, "lamented Washington, "come in, you cannot tell how; go, you cannot tellwhere; consume your provisions; exhaust your stores; and leave you atlast at a critical moment. "

Again and again Washington begged Congress to provide for an army ofregulars enlisted for the war, thoroughly trained and paid according tosome definite plan. At last he was able to overcome, in part at least, the chronic fear of civilians in Congress and to wring from thatreluctant body an agreement to grant half pay to all officers and abonus to all privates who served until the end of the war. Even thisscheme, which Washington regarded as far short of justice to thesoldiers, did not produce quick results. It was near the close of theconflict before he had an army of well-disciplined veterans capable ofmeeting British regulars on equal terms. 

Though there were times when militiamen and frontiersmen did valiant andeffective work, it is due to historical accuracy to deny thetime-honored tradition that a few minutemen overwhelmed more numerousforces of regulars in a seven years' war for independence. They didnothing of the sort. For the victories of Bennington, Trenton, Saratoga, and Yorktown there were the defeats of Bunker Hill, Long Island, WhitePlains, Germantown, and Camden. Not once did an army of militiamenovercome an equal number of British regulars in an open trial by battle. "To bring men to be well acquainted with the duties of a soldier, " wroteWashington, "requires time. .. . To expect the same service from raw andundisciplined recruits as from veteran soldiers is to expect what neverdid and perhaps never will happen. "

=How the War Was Won. =--Then how did the American army win the war? Forone thing there were delays and blunders on the part of the Britishgenerals who, in 1775 and 1776, dallied in Boston and New York withlarge bodies of regular troops when they might have been dealingparalyzing blows at the scattered bands that constituted the Americanarmy. "Nothing but the supineness or folly of the enemy could have savedus, " solemnly averred Washington in 1780. Still it is fair to say thatthis apparent supineness was not all due to the British generals. Theministers behind them believed that a large part of the colonists wereloyal and that compromise would be promoted by inaction rather than by awar vigorously prosecuted. Victory by masterly inactivity was obviouslybetter than conquest, and the slighter the wounds the quicker thehealing. Later in the conflict when the seasoned forces of France werethrown into the scale, the Americans themselves had learned many thingsabout the practical conduct of campaigns. All along, the British wereembarrassed by the problem of supplies. Their troops could not foragewith the skill of militiamen, as they were in unfamiliar territory. Thelong oversea voyages were uncertain at best and doubly so when thewarships of France joined the American privateers in preying on supplyboats. 

The British were in fact battered and worn down by a guerrilla war andoutdone on two important occasions by superior forces--at Saratoga andYorktown. Stern facts convinced them finally that an immense army, whichcould be raised only by a supreme effort, would be necessary to subduethe colonies if that hazardous enterprise could be accomplished at all. They learned also that America would then be alienated, fretful, and thescene of endless uprisings calling for an army of occupation. That was aprice which staggered even Lord North and George III. Moreover, therewere forces of opposition at home with which they had to reckon. 

=Women and the War. =--At no time were the women of America indifferentto the struggle for independence. When it was confined to the realm ofopinion they did their part in creating public sentiment. Mrs. ElizabethTimothee, for example, founded in Charleston, in 1773, a newspaper toespouse the cause of the province. Far to the north the sister of JamesOtis, Mrs. Mercy Warren, early begged her countrymen to rest their caseupon their natural rights, and in influential circles she urged theleaders to stand fast by their principles. While John Adams was tossingabout with uncertainty at the Continental Congress, his wife was writingletters to him declaring her faith in "independency. "

When the war came down upon the country, women helped in every field. Insustaining public sentiment they were active. Mrs. Warren with atireless pen combatted loyalist propaganda in many a drama and satire. Almost every revolutionary leader had a wife or daughter who renderedservice in the "second line of defense. " Mrs. Washington managed theplantation while the General was at the front and went north to face therigors of the awful winter at Valley Forge--an inspiration to herhusband and his men. The daughter of Benjamin Franklin, Mrs. SarahBache, while her father was pleading the American cause in France, setthe women of Pennsylvania to work sewing and collecting supplies. Evennear the firing line women were to be found, aiding the wounded, haulingpowder to the front, and carrying dispatches at the peril of theirlives. 

In the economic sphere, the work of women was invaluable. They harvestedcrops without enjoying the picturesque title of "farmerettes" and theycanned and preserved for the wounded and the prisoners of war. Of theirlabor in spinning and weaving it is recorded: "Immediately on being cutoff from the use of English manufactures, the women engaged within theirown families in manufacturing various kinds of cloth for domestic use. They thus kept their households decently clad and the surplus of theirlabors they sold to such as chose to buy rather than make forthemselves. In this way the female part of families by their industryand strict economy frequently supported the whole domestic circle, evincing the strength of their attachment and the value of theirservice. "

For their war work, women were commended by high authorities on morethan one occasion. They were given medals and public testimonials evenas in our own day. Washington thanked them for their labors and paidtribute to them for the inspiration and material aid which they hadgiven to the cause of independence. 

THE FINANCES OF THE REVOLUTION

When the Revolution opened, there were thirteen little treasuries inAmerica but no common treasury, and from first to last the Congress wasin the position of a beggar rather than a sovereign. Having no authorityto lay and collect taxes directly and knowing the hatred of theprovincials for taxation, it resorted mainly to loans and paper money tofinance the war. "Do you think, " boldly inquired one of the delegates, "that I will consent to load my constituents with taxes when we can sendto the printer and get a wagon load of money, one quire of which willpay for the whole?"

=Paper Money and Loans. =--Acting on this curious but appealing politicaleconomy, Congress issued in June, 1776, two million dollars in bills ofcredit to be redeemed by the states on the basis of their respectivepopulations. Other issues followed in quick succession. In all about$241, 000, 000 of continental paper was printed, to which the severalstates added nearly $210, 000, 000 of their own notes. Then cameinterest-bearing bonds in ever increasing quantities. Several millionswere also borrowed from France and small sums from Holland and Spain. Indesperation a national lottery was held, producing meager results. Theproperty of Tories was confiscated and sold, bringing in about$16, 000, 000. Begging letters were sent to the states asking them toraise revenues for the continental treasury, but the states, burdenedwith their own affairs, gave little heed. 

=Inflation and Depreciation. =--As paper money flowed from the press, itrapidly declined in purchasing power until in 1779 a dollar was worthonly two or three cents in gold or silver. Attempts were made byCongress and the states to compel people to accept the notes at facevalue; but these were like attempts to make water flow uphill. Speculators collected at once to fatten on the calamities of therepublic. Fortunes were made and lost gambling on the prices of publicsecurities while the patriot army, half clothed, was freezing at ValleyForge. "Speculation, peculation, engrossing, forestalling, " exclaimedWashington, "afford too many melancholy proofs of the decay of publicvirtue. Nothing, I am convinced, but the depreciation of our currency. .. Aided by stock jobbing and party dissensions has fed the hopes ofthe enemy. "

=The Patriot Financiers. =--To the efforts of Congress in financing thewar were added the labors of private citizens. Hayn Solomon, a merchantof Philadelphia, supplied members of Congress, including Madison, Jefferson, and Monroe, and army officers, like Lee and Steuben, withmoney for their daily needs. All together he contributed the huge sum ofhalf a million dollars to the American cause and died broken in purse, if not in spirit, a British prisoner of war. Another Philadelphiamerchant, Robert Morris, won for himself the name of the "patriotfinancier" because he labored night and day to find the money to meetthe bills which poured in upon the bankrupt government. When his ownfunds were exhausted, he borrowed from his friends. Experienced in thehandling of merchandise, he created agencies at important points todistribute supplies to the troops, thus displaying administrative aswell as financial talents. 

[Illustration: ROBERT MORRIS]

Women organized "drives" for money, contributed their plate and theirjewels, and collected from door to door. Farmers took worthless paper inreturn for their produce, and soldiers saw many a pay day pass withoutyielding them a penny. Thus by the labors and sacrifices of citizens, the issuance of paper money, lotteries, the floating of loans, borrowings in Europe, and the impressment of supplies, the Congressstaggered through the Revolution like a pauper who knows not how hisnext meal is to be secured but is continuously relieved at a crisis by akindly fate. 

THE DIPLOMACY OF THE REVOLUTION

When the full measure of honor is given to the soldiers and sailors andtheir commanding officers, the civilians who managed finances andsupplies, the writers who sustained the American spirit, and the womenwho did well their part, there yet remains the duty of recognizing theachievements of diplomacy. The importance of this field of activity waskeenly appreciated by the leaders in the Continental Congress. They werefairly well versed in European history. They knew of the balance ofpower and the sympathies, interests, and prejudices of nations and theirrulers. All this information they turned to good account, in openingrelations with continental countries and seeking money, supplies, andeven military assistance. For the transaction of this delicate business, they created a secret committee on foreign correspondence as early as1775 and prepared to send agents abroad. 

=American Agents Sent Abroad. =--Having heard that France was inclining afriendly ear to the American cause, the Congress, in March, 1776, sent acommissioner to Paris, Silas Deane of Connecticut, often styled the"first American diplomat. " Later in the year a form of treaty to bepresented to foreign powers was drawn up, and Franklin, Arthur Lee, andDeane were selected as American representatives at the court of "HisMost Christian Majesty the King of France. " John Jay of New York waschosen minister to Spain in 1779; John Adams was sent to Holland thesame year; and other agents were dispatched to Florence, Vienna, andBerlin. The representative selected for St. Petersburg spent twofruitless years there, "ignored by the court, living in obscurity andexperiencing nothing but humiliation and failure. " Frederick the Great, king of Prussia, expressed a desire to find in America a market forSilesian linens and woolens, but, fearing England's command of the sea, he refused to give direct aid to the Revolutionary cause. 

=Early French Interest. =--The great diplomatic triumph of the Revolutionwas won at Paris, and Benjamin Franklin was the hero of the occasion, although many circumstances prepared the way for his success. LouisXVI's foreign minister, Count de Vergennes, before the arrival of anyAmerican representative, had brought to the attention of the king theopportunity offered by the outbreak of the war between England and hercolonies. He showed him how France could redress her grievances and"reduce the power and greatness of England"--the empire that in 1763 hadforced upon her a humiliating peace "at the price of our possessions, of our commerce, and our credit in the Indies, at the price of Canada, Louisiana, Isle Royale, Acadia, and Senegal. " Equally successful ingaining the king's interest was a curious French adventurer, Beaumarchais, a man of wealth, a lover of music, and the author of twopopular plays, "Figaro" and "The Barber of Seville. " These two men hadalready urged upon the king secret aid for America before Deane appearedon the scene. Shortly after his arrival they made confidentialarrangements to furnish money, clothing, powder, and other supplies tothe struggling colonies, although official requests for them wereofficially refused by the French government. 

=Franklin at Paris. =--When Franklin reached Paris, he was received onlyin private by the king's minister, Vergennes. The French people, however, made manifest their affection for the "plain republican" in"his full dress suit of spotted Manchester velvet. " He was known amongmen of letters as an author, a scientist, and a philosopher ofextraordinary ability. His "Poor Richard" had thrice been translatedinto French and was scattered in numerous editions throughout thekingdom. People of all ranks--ministers, ladies at court, philosophers, peasants, and stable boys--knew of Franklin and wished him success inhis mission. The queen, Marie Antoinette, fated to lose her head in arevolution soon to follow, played with fire by encouraging "our dearrepublican. "

For the king of France, however, this was more serious business. Englandresented the presence of this "traitor" in Paris, and Louis had to becautious about plunging into another war that might also enddisastrously. Moreover, the early period of Franklin's sojourn in Pariswas a dark hour for the American Revolution. Washington's brilliantexploit at Trenton on Christmas night, 1776, and the battle withCornwallis at Princeton had been followed by the disaster at Brandywine, the loss of Philadelphia, the defeat at Germantown, and the retirementto Valley Forge for the winter of 1777-78. New York City andPhiladelphia--two strategic ports--were in British hands; the Hudsonand Delaware rivers were blocked; and General Burgoyne with his Britishtroops was on his way down through the heart of northern New York, cutting New England off from the rest of the colonies. No wonder theking was cautious. Then the unexpected happened. Burgoyne, hemmed infrom all sides by the American forces, his flanks harried, his foragingparties beaten back, his supplies cut off, surrendered on October 17, 1777, to General Gates, who had superseded General Schuyler in time toreceive the honor. 

=Treaties of Alliance and Commerce (1778). =--News of this victory, placed by historians among the fifteen decisive battles of the world, reached Franklin one night early in December while he and some friendssat gloomily at dinner. Beaumarchais, who was with him, grasped at oncethe meaning of the situation and set off to the court at Versailles withsuch haste that he upset his coach and dislocated his arm. The king andhis ministers were at last convinced that the hour had come to aid theRevolution. Treaties of commerce and alliance were drawn up and signedin February, 1778. The independence of the United States was recognizedby France and an alliance was formed to guarantee that independence. Combined military action was agreed upon and Louis then formallydeclared war on England. Men who had, a few short years before, foughtone another in the wilderness of Pennsylvania or on the Plains ofAbraham, were now ranged side by side in a war on the Empire that Pitthad erected and that George III was pulling down. 

=Spain and Holland Involved. =--Within a few months, Spain, rememberingthe steady decline of her sea power since the days of the Armada andhoping to drive the British out of Gibraltar, once more joined theconcert of nations against England. Holland, a member of a league ofarmed neutrals formed in protest against British searches on the highseas, sent her fleet to unite with the forces of Spain, France, andAmerica to prey upon British commerce. To all this trouble for Englandwas added the danger of a possible revolt in Ireland, where the spiritof independence was flaming up. 

=The British Offer Terms to America. =--Seeing the colonists about to bejoined by France in a common war on the English empire, Lord Northproposed, in February, 1778, a renewal of negotiations. By solemnenactment, Parliament declared its intention not to exercise the rightof imposing taxes within the colonies; at the same time it authorizedthe opening of negotiations through commissioners to be sent to America. A truce was to be established, pardons granted, objectionable lawssuspended, and the old imperial constitution, as it stood before theopening of hostilities, restored to full vigor. It was too late. Eventshad taken the affairs of America out of the hands of Britishcommissioners and diplomats. 

=Effects of French Aid. =--The French alliance brought ships of war, large sums of gold and silver, loads of supplies, and a considerablebody of trained soldiers to the aid of the Americans. Timely as was thishelp, it meant no sudden change in the fortunes of war. The Britishevacuated Philadelphia in the summer following the alliance, andWashington's troops were encouraged to come out of Valley Forge. Theyinflicted a heavy blow on the British at Monmouth, but the treasonableconduct of General Charles Lee prevented a triumph. The recovery ofPhiladelphia was offset by the treason of Benedict Arnold, the loss ofSavannah and Charleston (1780), and the defeat of Gates at Camden. 

The full effect of the French alliance was not felt until 1781, whenCornwallis went into Virginia and settled at Yorktown. Accompanied byFrench troops Washington swept rapidly southward and penned the Britishto the shore while a powerful French fleet shut off their escape by sea. It was this movement, which certainly could not have been executedwithout French aid, that put an end to all chance of restoring Britishdominion in America. It was the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown thatcaused Lord North to pace the floor and cry out: "It is all over! It isall over!" What might have been done without the French alliance lieshidden from mankind. What was accomplished with the help of Frenchsoldiers, sailors, officers, money, and supplies, is known to all theearth. "All the world agree, " exultantly wrote Franklin from Paris toGeneral Washington, "that no expedition was ever better planned orbetter executed. It brightens the glory that must accompany your name tothe latest posterity. " Diplomacy as well as martial valor had itsreward. 

PEACE AT LAST

=British Opposition to the War. =--In measuring the forces that led tothe final discomfiture of King George and Lord North, it is necessary toremember that from the beginning to the end the British ministry at homefaced a powerful, informed, and relentless opposition. There werevigorous protests, first against the obnoxious acts which precipitatedthe unhappy quarrel, then against the way in which the war was waged, and finally against the futile struggle to retain a hold upon theAmerican dominions. Among the members of Parliament who thunderedagainst the government were the first statesmen and orators of the land. William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, though he deplored the idea of Americanindependence, denounced the government as the aggressor and rejoiced inAmerican resistance. Edmund Burke leveled his heavy batteries againstevery measure of coercion and at last strove for a peace which, whilegiving independence to America, would work for reconciliation ratherthan estrangement. Charles James Fox gave the colonies his generoussympathy and warmly championed their rights. Outside of the circle ofstatesmen there were stout friends of the American cause like DavidHume, the philosopher and historian, and Catherine Macaulay, an authorof wide fame and a republican bold enough to encourage Washington inseeing it through. 

Against this powerful opposition, the government enlisted a whole armyof scribes and journalists to pour out criticism on the Americans andtheir friends. Dr. Samuel Johnson, whom it employed in this business, was so savage that even the ministers had to tone down his pamphletsbefore printing them. Far more weighty was Edward Gibbon, who was intime to win fame as the historian of the _Decline and Fall of the RomanEmpire_. He had at first opposed the government; but, on being given alucrative post, he used his sharp pen in its support, causing hisfriends to ridicule him in these lines:

 "King George, in a fright Lest Gibbon should write The story of England's disgrace, Thought no way so sure His pen to secure As to give the historian a place. "

=Lord North Yields. =--As time wore on, events bore heavily on the sideof the opponents of the government's measures. They had predicted thatconquest was impossible, and they had urged the advantages of a peacewhich would in some measure restore the affections of the Americans. Every day's news confirmed their predictions and lent support to theirarguments. Moreover, the war, which sprang out of an effort to relieveEnglish burdens, made those burdens heavier than ever. Military expenseswere daily increasing. Trade with the colonies, the greatest singleoutlet for British goods and capital, was paralyzed. The heavy debts dueBritish merchants in America were not only unpaid but postponed into anindefinite future. Ireland was on the verge of revolution. The Frenchhad a dangerous fleet on the high seas. In vain did the king assert inDecember, 1781, that no difficulties would ever make him consent to apeace that meant American independence. Parliament knew better, and onFebruary 27, 1782, in the House of Commons was carried an address to thethrone against continuing the war. Burke, Fox, the younger Pitt, Barré, and other friends of the colonies voted in the affirmative. Lord Northgave notice then that his ministry was at an end. The king moaned:"Necessity made me yield. "

In April, 1782, Franklin received word from the English government thatit was prepared to enter into negotiations leading to a settlement. Thiswas embarrassing. In the treaty of alliance with France, the UnitedStates had promised that peace should be a joint affair agreed to byboth nations in open conference. Finding France, however, opposed tosome of their claims respecting boundaries and fisheries, the Americancommissioners conferred with the British agents at Paris withoutconsulting the French minister. They actually signed a preliminary peacedraft before they informed him of their operations. When Vergennesreproached him, Franklin replied that they "had been guilty ofneglecting _bienséance_ [good manners] but hoped that the great workwould not be ruined by a single indiscretion. "

=The Terms of Peace (1783). =--The general settlement at Paris in 1783was a triumph for America. England recognized the independence of theUnited States, naming each state specifically, and agreed to boundariesextending from the Atlantic to the Mississippi and from the Great Lakesto the Floridas. England held Canada, Newfoundland, and the West Indiesintact, made gains in India, and maintained her supremacy on the seas. Spain won Florida and Minorca but not the coveted Gibraltar. Francegained nothing important save the satisfaction of seeing England humbledand the colonies independent. 

The generous terms secured by the American commission at Paris calledforth surprise and gratitude in the United States and smoothed the wayfor a renewal of commercial relations with the mother country. At thesame time they gave genuine anxiety to European diplomats. "This federalrepublic is born a pigmy, " wrote the Spanish ambassador to his royalmaster. "A day will come when it will be a giant; even a colossusformidable to these countries. Liberty of conscience and the facilityfor establishing a new population on immense lands, as well as theadvantages of the new government, will draw thither farmers and artisansfrom all the nations. In a few years we shall watch with grief thetyrannical existence of the same colossus. "

[Illustration: NORTH AMERICA ACCORDING TO THE TREATY OF 1783]

SUMMARY OF THE REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD

The independence of the American colonies was foreseen by many Europeanstatesmen as they watched the growth of their population, wealth, andpower; but no one could fix the hour of the great event. Until 1763 theAmerican colonists lived fairly happily under British dominion. Therewere collisions from time to time, of course. Royal governors clashedwith stiff-necked colonial legislatures. There were protests against theexercise of the king's veto power in specific cases. Nevertheless, onthe whole, the relations between America and the mother country weremore amicable in 1763 than at any period under the Stuart régime whichclosed in 1688. 

The crash, when it came, was not deliberately willed by any one. It wasthe product of a number of forces that happened to converge about 1763. Three years before, there had come to the throne George III, a young, proud, inexperienced, and stubborn king. For nearly fifty years hispredecessors, Germans as they were in language and interest, had allowedthings to drift in England and America. George III decided that he wouldbe king in fact as well as in name. About the same time England broughtto a close the long and costly French and Indian War and was staggeringunder a heavy burden of debt and taxes. The war had been fought partlyin defense of the American colonies and nothing seemed more reasonableto English statesmen than the idea that the colonies should bear part ofthe cost of their own defense. At this juncture there came intoprominence, in royal councils, two men bent on taxing America andcontrolling her trade, Grenville and Townshend. The king was willing, the English taxpayers were thankful for any promise of relief, andstatesmen were found to undertake the experiment. England therefore setout upon a new course. She imposed taxes upon the colonists, regulatedtheir trade and set royal officers upon them to enforce the law. Thisaction evoked protests from the colonists. They held a Stamp ActCongress to declare their rights and petition for a redress ofgrievances. Some of the more restless spirits rioted in the streets, sacked the houses of the king's officers, and tore up the stamped paper. 

Frightened by uprising, the English government drew back and repealedthe Stamp Act. Then it veered again and renewed its policy ofinterference. Interference again called forth American protests. Protests aroused sharper retaliation. More British regulars were sentover to keep order. More irritating laws were passed by Parliament. Rioting again appeared: tea was dumped in the harbor of Boston andseized in the harbor of Charleston. The British answer was more force. The response of the colonists was a Continental Congress for defense. Anunexpected and unintended clash of arms at Lexington and Concord in thespring of 1775 brought forth from the king of England a proclamation:"The Americans are rebels!"

The die was cast. The American Revolution had begun. Washington was madecommander-in-chief. Armies were raised, money was borrowed, a hugevolume of paper currency was issued, and foreign aid was summoned. Franklin plied his diplomatic arts at Paris until in 1778 he inducedFrance to throw her sword into the balance. Three years later, Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown. In 1783, by the formal treaty ofpeace, George III acknowledged the independence of the United States. The new nation, endowed with an imperial domain stretching from theAtlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River, began its career among thesovereign powers of the earth. 

In the sphere of civil government, the results of the Revolution wereequally remarkable. Royal officers and royal authorities were drivenfrom the former dominions. All power was declared to be in the people. All the colonies became states, each with its own constitution or planof government. The thirteen states were united in common bonds under theArticles of Confederation. A republic on a large scale was instituted. Thus there was begun an adventure in popular government such as theworld had never seen. Could it succeed or was it destined to break downand be supplanted by a monarchy? The fate of whole continents hung uponthe answer. 

=References=

J. Fiske, _The American Revolution_ (2 vols. ). 

H. Lodge, _Life of Washington_ (2 vols. ). 

W. Sumner, _The Financier and the Finances of the American Revolution_. 

O. Trevelyan, _The American Revolution_ (4 vols. ). A sympathetic accountby an English historian. 

M. C. Tyler, _Literary History of the American Revolution_ (2 vols. ). 

C. H. Van Tyne, _The American Revolution_ (American Nation Series) and_The Loyalists in the American Revolution_. 

=Questions=

1. What was the non-importation agreement? By what body was it adopted?Why was it revolutionary in character?

2. Contrast the work of the first and second Continental Congresses. 

3. Why did efforts at conciliation fail?

4. Trace the growth of American independence from opinion to the sphereof action. 

5. Why is the Declaration of Independence an "immortal" document?

6. What was the effect of the Revolution on colonial governments? Onnational union?

7. Describe the contest between "Patriots" and "Tories. "

8. What topics are considered under "military affairs"? Discuss each indetail. 

9. Contrast the American forces with the British forces and show how thewar was won. 

10. Compare the work of women in the Revolutionary War with their laborsin the World War (1917-18). 

11. How was the Revolution financed?

12. Why is diplomacy important in war? Describe the diplomatic triumphof the Revolution. 

13. What was the nature of the opposition in England to the war?

14. Give the events connected with the peace settlement; the terms ofpeace. 

=Research Topics=

=The Spirit of America. =--Woodrow Wilson, _History of the AmericanPeople_, Vol. II, pp. 98-126. 

=American Rights. =--Draw up a table showing all the principles laid downby American leaders in (1) the Resolves of the First ContinentalCongress, Macdonald, _Documentary Source Book_, pp. 162-166; (2) theDeclaration of the Causes and the Necessity of Taking Up Arms, Macdonald, pp. 176-183; and (3) the Declaration of Independence. 

=The Declaration of Independence. =--Fiske, _The American Revolution_, Vol. I, pp. 147-197. Elson, _History of the United States_, pp. 250-254. 

=Diplomacy and the French Alliance. =--Hart, _American History Told byContemporaries_, Vol. II, pp. 574-590. Fiske, Vol. II, pp. 1-24. Callender, _Economic History of the United States_, pp. 159-168; Elson, pp. 275-280. 

=Biographical Studies. =--Washington, Franklin, Samuel Adams, PatrickHenry, Thomas Jefferson--emphasizing the peculiar services of each. 

=The Tories. =--Hart, _Contemporaries_, Vol. II, pp. 470-480. 

=Valley Forge. =--Fiske, Vol. II, pp. 25-49. 

=The Battles of the Revolution. =--Elson, pp. 235-317. 

=An English View of the Revolution. =--Green, _Short History of England_, Chap. X, Sect. 2. 

=English Opinion and the Revolution. =--Trevelyan, _The AmericanRevolution_, Vol. III (or Part 2, Vol. II), Chaps. XXIV-XXVII. 

PART III. THE UNION AND NATIONAL POLITICS

CHAPTER VII

THE FORMATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

THE PROMISE AND THE DIFFICULTIES OF AMERICA

The rise of a young republic composed of thirteen states, each governedby officials popularly elected under constitutions drafted by "the plainpeople, " was the most significant feature of the eighteenth century. Themajority of the patriots whose labors and sacrifices had made thispossible naturally looked upon their work and pronounced it good. ThoseAmericans, however, who peered beneath the surface of things, saw thatthe Declaration of Independence, even if splendidly phrased, and paperconstitutions, drawn by finest enthusiasm "uninstructed by experience, "could not alone make the republic great and prosperous or even free. Allaround them they saw chaos in finance and in industry and perils for theimmediate future. 

=The Weakness of the Articles of Confederation. =--The government underthe Articles of Confederation had neither the strength nor the resourcesnecessary to cope with the problems of reconstruction left by the war. The sole organ of government was a Congress composed of from two toseven members from each state chosen as the legislature might direct andpaid by the state. In determining all questions, each state had onevote--Delaware thus enjoying the same weight as Virginia. There was nopresident to enforce the laws. Congress was given power to select acommittee of thirteen--one from each state--to act as an executive bodywhen it was not in session; but this device, on being tried out, proveda failure. There was no system of national courts to which citizens andstates could appeal for the protection of their rights or through whichthey could compel obedience to law. The two great powers of government, military and financial, were withheld. Congress, it is true, couldauthorize expenditures but had to rely upon the states for the paymentof contributions to meet its bills. It could also order theestablishment of an army, but it could only request the states to supplytheir respective quotas of soldiers. It could not lay taxes nor bringany pressure to bear upon a single citizen in the whole country. Itcould act only through the medium of the state governments. 

=Financial and Commercial Disorders. =--In the field of public finance, the disorders were pronounced. The huge debt incurred during the war wasstill outstanding. Congress was unable to pay either the interest or theprincipal. Public creditors were in despair, as the market value oftheir bonds sank to twenty-five or even ten cents on the dollar. Thecurrent bills of Congress were unpaid. As some one complained, there wasnot enough money in the treasury to buy pen and ink with which to recordthe transactions of the shadow legislature. The currency was in utterchaos. Millions of dollars in notes issued by Congress had become meretrash worth a cent or two on the dollar. There was no other expressionof contempt so forceful as the popular saying: "not worth aContinental. " To make matters worse, several of the states were pouringnew streams of paper money from the press. Almost the only good money incirculation consisted of English, French, and Spanish coins, and thepublic was even defrauded by them because money changers were busyclipping and filing away the metal. Foreign commerce was unsettled. Theentire British system of trade discrimination was turned against theAmericans, and Congress, having no power to regulate foreign commerce, was unable to retaliate or to negotiate treaties which it could enforce. Domestic commerce was impeded by the jealousies of the states, whicherected tariff barriers against their neighbors. The condition of thecurrency made the exchange of money and goods extremely difficult, and, as if to increase the confusion, backward states enacted laws hinderingthe prompt collection of debts within their borders--an evil whichnothing but a national system of courts could cure. 

=Congress in Disrepute. =--With treaties set at naught by the states, thelaws unenforced, the treasury empty, and the public credit gone, theCongress of the United States fell into utter disrepute. It called uponthe states to pay their quotas of money into the treasury, only to betreated with contempt. Even its own members looked upon it as a solemnfutility. Some of the ablest men refused to accept election to it, andmany who did take the doubtful honor failed to attend the sessions. Again and again it was impossible to secure a quorum for the transactionof business. 

=Troubles of the State Governments. =--The state governments, free topursue their own course with no interference from without, had almost asmany difficulties as the Congress. They too were loaded withrevolutionary debts calling for heavy taxes upon an already restivepopulation. Oppressed by their financial burdens and discouraged by thefall in prices which followed the return of peace, the farmers ofseveral states joined in a concerted effort and compelled theirlegislatures to issue large sums of paper money. The currency fell invalue, but nevertheless it was forced on unwilling creditors to squareold accounts. 

In every part of the country legislative action fluctuated violently. Laws were made one year only to be repealed the next and reënacted thethird year. Lands were sold by one legislature and the sales werecanceled by its successor. Uncertainty and distrust were the naturalconsequences. Men of substance longed for some power that would forbidstates to issue bills of credit, to make paper money legal tender inpayment of debts, or to impair the obligation of contracts. Men heavilyin debt, on the other hand, urged even more drastic action againstcreditors. 

So great did the discontent of the farmers in New Hampshire become in1786 that a mob surrounded the legislature, demanding a repeal of thetaxes and the issuance of paper money. It was with difficulty that anarmed rebellion was avoided. In Massachusetts the malcontents, under theleadership of Daniel Shays, a captain in the Revolutionary army, organized that same year open resistance to the government of the state. Shays and his followers protested against the conduct of creditors inforeclosing mortgages upon the debt-burdened farmers, against thelawyers for increasing the costs of legal proceedings, against thesenate of the state the members of which were apportioned among thetowns on the basis of the amount of taxes paid, against heavy taxes, andagainst the refusal of the legislature to issue paper money. They seizedthe towns of Worcester and Springfield and broke up the courts ofjustice. All through the western part of the state the revolt spread, sending a shock of alarm to every center and section of the youngrepublic. Only by the most vigorous action was Governor Bowdoin able toquell the uprising; and when that task was accomplished, the stategovernment did not dare to execute any of the prisoners because they hadso many sympathizers. Moreover, Bowdoin and several members of thelegislature who had been most zealous in their attacks on the insurgentswere defeated at the ensuing election. The need of national assistancefor state governments in times of domestic violence was everywhereemphasized by men who were opposed to revolutionary acts. 

=Alarm over Dangers to the Republic. =--Leading American citizens, watching the drift of affairs, were slowly driven to the conclusion thatthe new ship of state so proudly launched a few years before wascareening into anarchy. "The facts of our peace and independence, " wrotea friend of Washington, "do not at present wear so promising anappearance as I had fondly painted in my mind. The prejudices, jealousies, and turbulence of the people at times almost stagger myconfidence in our political establishments; and almost occasion me tothink that they will show themselves unworthy of the noble prize forwhich we have contended. "

Washington himself was profoundly discouraged. On hearing of Shays'srebellion, he exclaimed: "What, gracious God, is man that there shouldbe such inconsistency and perfidiousness in his conduct! It is but theother day that we were shedding our blood to obtain the constitutionsunder which we now live--constitutions of our own choice and making--andnow we are unsheathing our sword to overturn them. " The same year heburst out in a lament over rumors of restoring royal government. "I amtold that even respectable characters speak of a monarchical governmentwithout horror. From thinking proceeds speaking. Hence to acting isoften but a single step. But how irresistible and tremendous! What atriumph for our enemies to verify their predictions! What a triumph forthe advocates of despotism to find that we are incapable of governingourselves!"

=Congress Attempts Some Reforms. =--The Congress was not indifferent tothe events that disturbed Washington. On the contrary it put forth manyefforts to check tendencies so dangerous to finance, commerce, industries, and the Confederation itself. In 1781, even before thetreaty of peace was signed, the Congress, having found out how futilewere its taxing powers, carried a resolution of amendment to theArticles of Confederation, authorizing the levy of a moderate duty onimports. Yet this mild measure was rejected by the states. Two yearslater the Congress prepared another amendment sanctioning the levy ofduties on imports, to be collected this time by state officers andapplied to the payment of the public debt. This more limited proposal, designed to save public credit, likewise failed. In 1786, the Congressmade a third appeal to the states for help, declaring that they had beenso irregular and so negligent in paying their quotas that furtherreliance upon that mode of raising revenues was dishonorable anddangerous. 

THE CALLING OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

=Hamilton and Washington Urge Reform. =--The attempts at reform by theCongress were accompanied by demand for, both within and without thatbody, a convention to frame a new plan of government. In 1780, theyouthful Alexander Hamilton, realizing the weakness of the Articles, sowidely discussed, proposed a general convention for the purpose ofdrafting a new constitution on entirely different principles. Withtireless energy he strove to bring his countrymen to his view. Washington, agreeing with him on every point, declared, in a circularletter to the governors, that the duration of the union would be shortunless there was lodged somewhere a supreme power "to regulate andgovern the general concerns of the confederated republic. " The governorof Massachusetts, disturbed by the growth of discontent all about him, suggested to the state legislature in 1785 the advisability of anational convention to enlarge the powers of the Congress. Thelegislature approved the plan, but did not press it to a conclusion. 

[Illustration: ALEXANDER HAMILTON]

=The Annapolis Convention. =--Action finally came from the South. TheVirginia legislature, taking things into its own hands, called aconference of delegates at Annapolis to consider matters of taxation andcommerce. When the convention assembled in 1786, it was found that onlyfive states had taken the trouble to send representatives. The leaderswere deeply discouraged, but the resourceful Hamilton, a delegate fromNew York, turned the affair to good account. He secured the adoption ofa resolution, calling upon the Congress itself to summon anotherconvention, to meet at Philadelphia. 

=A National Convention Called (1787). =--The Congress, as tardy as ever, at last decided in February, 1787, to issue the call. Fearing drasticchanges, however, it restricted the convention to "the sole and expresspurpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. " Jealous of its ownpowers, it added that any alterations proposed should be referred to theCongress and the states for their approval. 

Every state in the union, except Rhode Island, responded to this call. Indeed some of the states, having the Annapolis resolution before them, had already anticipated the Congress by selecting delegates before theformal summons came. Thus, by the persistence of governors, legislatures, and private citizens, there was brought about thelong-desired national convention. In May, 1787, it assembled inPhiladelphia. 

=The Eminent Men of the Convention. =--On the roll of that memorableconvention were fifty-five men, at least half of whom were acknowledgedto be among the foremost statesmen and thinkers in America. Every fieldof statecraft was represented by them: war and practical management inWashington, who was chosen president of the convention; diplomacy inFranklin, now old and full of honor in his own land as well as abroad;finance in Alexander Hamilton and Robert Morris; law in James Wilson ofPennsylvania; the philosophy of government in James Madison, called the"father of the Constitution. " They were not theorists but practical men, rich in political experience and endowed with deep insight into thesprings of human action. Three of them had served in the Stamp ActCongress: Dickinson of Delaware, William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut, and John Rutledge of South Carolina. Eight had been signers of theDeclaration of Independence: Read of Delaware, Sherman of Connecticut, Wythe of Virginia, Gerry of Massachusetts, Franklin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, and James Wilson of Pennsylvania. All but twelve had atsome time served in the Continental Congress and eighteen were membersof that body in the spring of 1787. Washington, Hamilton, Mifflin, andCharles Pinckney had been officers in the Revolutionary army. Seven ofthe delegates had gained political experience as governors of states. "The convention as a whole, " according to the historian Hildreth, "represented in a marked manner the talent, intelligence, andespecially the conservative sentiment of the country. "

THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION

=Problems Involved. =--The great problems before the convention were ninein number: (1) Shall the Articles of Confederation be revised or a newsystem of government constructed? (2) Shall the government be founded onstates equal in power as under the Articles or on the broader and deeperfoundation of population? (3) What direct share shall the people have inthe election of national officers? (4) What shall be the qualificationsfor the suffrage? (5) How shall the conflicting interests of thecommercial and the planting states be balanced so as to safeguard theessential rights of each? (6) What shall be the form of the newgovernment? (7) What powers shall be conferred on it? (8) How shall thestate legislatures be restrained from their attacks on property rightssuch as the issuance of paper money? (9) Shall the approval of all thestates be necessary, as under the Articles, for the adoption andamendment of the Constitution?

=Revision of the Articles or a New Government?=--The moment the firstproblem was raised, representatives of the small states, led by WilliamPaterson of New Jersey, were on their feet. They feared that, if theArticles were overthrown, the equality and rights of the states would beput in jeopardy. Their protest was therefore vigorous. They cited thecall issued by the Congress in summoning the convention whichspecifically stated that they were assembled for "the sole and expresspurpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. " They cited alsotheir instructions from their state legislatures, which authorized themto "revise and amend" the existing scheme of government, not to make arevolution in it. To depart from the authorization laid down by theCongress and the legislatures would be to exceed their powers, theyargued, and to betray the trust reposed in them by their countrymen. 

To their contentions, Randolph of Virginia replied: "When the salvationof the republic is at stake, it would be treason to our trust not topropose what we find necessary. " Hamilton, reminding the delegates thattheir work was still subject to the approval of the states, frankly saidthat on the point of their powers he had no scruples. With the issueclear, the convention cast aside the Articles as if they did not existand proceeded to the work of drawing up a new constitution, "laying itsfoundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form"as to the delegates seemed "most likely to affect their safety andhappiness. "

=A Government Founded on States or on People?--TheCompromise. =--Defeated in their attempt to limit the convention to amere revision of the Articles, the spokesmen of the smaller statesredoubled their efforts to preserve the equality of the states. Thesignal for a radical departure from the Articles on this point was givenearly in the sessions when Randolph presented "the Virginia plan. " Heproposed that the new national legislature consist of two houses, themembers of which were to be apportioned among the states according totheir wealth or free white population, as the convention might decide. This plan was vehemently challenged. Paterson of New Jersey flatlyavowed that neither he nor his state would ever bow to such tyranny. Asan alternative, he presented "the New Jersey plan" calling for anational legislature of one house representing states as such, notwealth or people--a legislature in which all states, large or small, would have equal voice. Wilson of Pennsylvania, on behalf of the morepopulous states, took up the gauntlet which Paterson had thrown down. Itwas absurd, he urged, for 180, 000 men in one state to have the sameweight in national counsels as 750, 000 men in another state. "Thegentleman from New Jersey, " he said, "is candid. He declares his opinionboldly. .. . I will be equally candid. .. . I will never confederate on hisprinciples. " So the bitter controversy ran on through many excitingsessions. 

Greek had met Greek. The convention was hopelessly deadlocked and on theverge of dissolution, "scarce held together by the strength of a hair, "as one of the delegates remarked. A crash was averted only by acompromise. Instead of a Congress of one house as provided by theArticles, the convention agreed upon a legislature of two houses. In theSenate, the aspirations of the small states were to be satisfied, foreach state was given two members in that body. In the formation of theHouse of Representatives, the larger states were placated, for it wasagreed that the members of that chamber were to be apportioned among thestates on the basis of population, counting three-fifths of the slaves. 

=The Question of Popular Election. =--The method of selecting federalofficers and members of Congress also produced an acrimonious debatewhich revealed how deep-seated was the distrust of the capacity of thepeople to govern themselves. Few there were who believed that no branchof the government should be elected directly by the voters; still fewerwere there, however, who desired to see all branches so chosen. One ortwo even expressed a desire for a monarchy. The dangers of democracywere stressed by Gerry of Massachusetts: "All the evils we experienceflow from an excess of democracy. The people do not want virtue but arethe dupes of pretended patriots. .. . I have been too republicanheretofore but have been taught by experience the danger of a levelingspirit. " To the "democratic licentiousness of the state legislatures, "Randolph sought to oppose a "firm senate. " To check the excesses ofpopular government Charles Pinckney of South Carolina declared that noone should be elected President who was not worth $100, 000 and that highproperty qualifications should be placed on members of Congress andjudges. Other members of the convention were stoutly opposed to such"high-toned notions of government. " Franklin and Wilson, both fromPennsylvania, vigorously championed popular election; while men likeMadison insisted that at least one part of the government should rest onthe broad foundation of the people. 

Out of this clash of opinion also came compromise. One branch, the Houseof Representatives, it was agreed, was to be elected directly by thevoters, while the Senators were to be elected indirectly by the statelegislatures. The President was to be chosen by electors selected as thelegislatures of the states might determine, and the judges of thefederal courts, supreme and inferior, by the President and the Senate. 

=The Question of the Suffrage. =--The battle over the suffrage was sharpbut brief. Gouverneur Morris proposed that only land owners should bepermitted to vote. Madison replied that the state legislatures, whichhad made so much trouble with radical laws, were elected by freeholders. After the debate, the delegates, unable to agree on any propertylimitations on the suffrage, decided that the House of Representativesshould be elected by voters having the "qualifications requisite forelectors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. " Thusthey accepted the suffrage provisions of the states. 

=The Balance between the Planting and the Commercial States. =--After thedebates had gone on for a few weeks, Madison came to the conclusion thatthe real division in the convention was not between the large and thesmall states but between the planting section founded on slave labor andthe commercial North. Thus he anticipated by nearly three-quarters of acentury "the irrepressible conflict. " The planting states had neitherthe free white population nor the wealth of the North. There were, counting Delaware, six of them as against seven commercial states. Dependent for their prosperity mainly upon the sale of tobacco, rice, and other staples abroad, they feared that Congress might imposerestraints upon their enterprise. Being weaker in numbers, they wereafraid that the majority might lay an unfair burden of taxes upon them. 

_Representation and Taxation. _--The Southern members of the conventionwere therefore very anxious to secure for their section the largestpossible representation in Congress, and at the same time to restrainthe taxing power of that body. Two devices were thought adapted to theseends. One was to count the slaves as people when apportioningrepresentatives among the states according to their respectivepopulations; the other was to provide that direct taxes should beapportioned among the states, in proportion not to their wealth but tothe number of their free white inhabitants. For obvious reasons theNorthern delegates objected to these proposals. Once more a compromiseproved to be the solution. It was agreed that not all the slaves butthree-fifths of them should be counted for both purposes--representationand direct taxation. 

_Commerce and the Slave Trade. _--Southern interests were also involvedin the project to confer upon Congress the power to regulate interstateand foreign commerce. To the manufacturing and trading states this wasessential. It would prevent interstate tariffs and trade jealousies; itwould enable Congress to protect American manufactures and to breakdown, by appropriate retaliations, foreign discriminations againstAmerican commerce. To the South the proposal was menacing becausetariffs might interfere with the free exchange of the produce ofplantations in European markets, and navigation acts might confine thecarrying trade to American, that is Northern, ships. The importation ofslaves, moreover, it was feared might be heavily taxed or immediatelyprohibited altogether. 

The result of this and related controversies was a debate on the meritsof slavery. Gouverneur Morris delivered his mind and heart on thatsubject, denouncing slavery as a nefarious institution and the curse ofheaven on the states in which it prevailed. Mason of Virginia, aslaveholder himself, was hardly less outspoken, saying: "Slaverydiscourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performedby slaves. They prevent the migration of whites who really strengthenand enrich a country. "

The system, however, had its defenders. Representatives from SouthCarolina argued that their entire economic life rested on slave laborand that the high death rate in the rice swamps made continuousimportation necessary. Ellsworth of Connecticut took the ground thatthe convention should not meddle with slavery. "The morality or wisdomof slavery, " he said, "are considerations belonging to the states. Whatenriches a part enriches the whole. " To the future he turned anuntroubled face: "As population increases, poor laborers will be soplenty as to render slaves useless. Slavery in time will not be a speckin our country. " Virginia and North Carolina, already overstocked withslaves, favored prohibiting the traffic in them; but South Carolina wasadamant. She must have fresh supplies of slaves or she would notfederate. 

So it was agreed that, while Congress might regulate foreign trade bymajority vote, the importation of slaves should not be forbidden beforethe lapse of twenty years, and that any import tax should not exceed $10a head. At the same time, in connection with the regulation of foreigntrade, it was stipulated that a two-thirds vote in the Senate should benecessary in the ratification of treaties. A further concession to theSouth was made in the provision for the return of runaway slaves--aprovision also useful in the North, where indentured servants were aboutas troublesome as slaves in escaping from their masters. 

=The Form of the Government. =--As to the details of the frame ofgovernment and the grand principles involved, the opinion of theconvention ebbed and flowed, decisions being taken in the heat ofdebate, only to be revoked and taken again. 

_The Executive. _--There was general agreement that there should be anexecutive branch; for reliance upon Congress to enforce its own laws andtreaties had been a broken reed. On the character and functions of theexecutive, however, there were many views. The New Jersey plan calledfor a council selected by the Congress; the Virginia plan provided thatthe executive branch should be chosen by the Congress but did not statewhether it should be composed of one or several persons. On this matterthe convention voted first one way and then another; finally it agreedon a single executive chosen indirectly by electors selected as thestate legislatures might decide, serving for four years, subject toimpeachment, and endowed with regal powers in the command of the armyand the navy and in the enforcement of the laws. 

_The Legislative Branch--Congress. _--After the convention had made thegreat compromise between the large and small commonwealths by givingrepresentation to states in the Senate and to population in the House, the question of methods of election had to be decided. As to the Houseof Representatives it was readily agreed that the members should beelected by direct popular vote. There was also easy agreement on theproposition that a strong Senate was needed to check the "turbulence" ofthe lower house. Four devices were finally selected to accomplish thispurpose. In the first place, the Senators were not to be chosen directlyby the voters but by the legislatures of the states, thus removing theirelection one degree from the populace. In the second place, their termwas fixed at six years instead of two, as in the case of the House. Inthe third place, provision was made for continuity by having onlyone-third of the members go out at a time while two-thirds remained inservice. Finally, it was provided that Senators must be at least thirtyyears old while Representatives need be only twenty-five. 

_The Judiciary. _--The need for federal courts to carry out the law washardly open to debate. The feebleness of the Articles of Confederationwas, in a large measure, attributed to the want of a judiciary to holdstates and individuals in obedience to the laws and treaties of theunion. Nevertheless on this point the advocates of states' rights wereextremely sensitive. They looked with distrust upon judges appointed atthe national capital and emancipated from local interests andtraditions; they remembered with what insistence they had claimedagainst Britain the right of local trial by jury and with whatconsternation they had viewed the proposal to make colonial judgesindependent of the assemblies in the matter of their salaries. Reluctantly they yielded to the demand for federal courts, consenting atfirst only to a supreme court to review cases heard in lower statecourts and finally to such additional inferior courts as Congress mightdeem necessary. 

_The System of Checks and Balances. _--It is thus apparent that theframers of the Constitution, in shaping the form of government, arrangedfor a distribution of power among three branches, executive, legislative, and judicial. Strictly speaking we might say four branches, for the legislature, or Congress, was composed of two houses, elected indifferent ways, and one of them, the Senate, was made a check on thePresident through its power of ratifying treaties and appointments. "Theaccumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in thesame hands, " wrote Madison, "whether of one, a few, or many, and whetherhereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced thevery definition of tyranny. " The devices which the convention adopted toprevent such a centralization of authority were exceedingly ingeniousand well calculated to accomplish the purposes of the authors. 

The legislature consisted of two houses, the members of which were to beapportioned on a different basis, elected in different ways, and toserve for different terms. A veto on all its acts was vested in aPresident elected in a manner not employed in the choice of eitherbranch of the legislature, serving for four years, and subject toremoval only by the difficult process of impeachment. After a law hadrun the gantlet of both houses and the executive, it was subject tointerpretation and annulment by the judiciary, appointed by thePresident with the consent of the Senate and serving for life. Thus itwas made almost impossible for any political party to get possession ofall branches of the government at a single popular election. As Hamiltonremarked, the friends of good government considered "every institutioncalculated to restrain the excess of law making and to keep things inthe same state in which they happen to be at any given period as morelikely to do good than harm. "

=The Powers of the Federal Government. =--On the question of the powersto be conferred upon the new government there was less occasion for aserious dispute. Even the delegates from the small states agreed withthose from Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia that new powersshould be added to those intrusted to Congress by the Articles ofConfederation. The New Jersey plan as well as the Virginia planrecognized this fact. Some of the delegates, like Hamilton and Madison, even proposed to give Congress a general legislative authority coveringall national matters; but others, frightened by the specter ofnationalism, insisted on specifying each power to be conferred andfinally carried the day. 

_Taxation and Commerce. _--There were none bold enough to dissent fromthe proposition that revenue must be provided to pay current expensesand discharge the public debt. When once the dispute over theapportionment of direct taxes among the slave states was settled, it wasan easy matter to decide that Congress should have power to lay andcollect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises. In this way the nationalgovernment was freed from dependence upon stubborn and tardylegislatures and enabled to collect funds directly from citizens. Therewere likewise none bold enough to contend that the anarchy of statetariffs and trade discriminations should be longer endured. When thefears of the planting states were allayed and the "bargain" over theimportation of slaves was reached, the convention vested in Congress thepower to regulate foreign and interstate commerce. 

_National Defense. _--The necessity for national defense was realized, though the fear of huge military establishments was equally present. Theold practice of relying on quotas furnished by the state legislatureswas completely discredited. As in the case of taxes a direct authorityover citizens was demanded. Congress was therefore given full power toraise and support armies and a navy. It could employ the state militiawhen desirable; but it could at the same time maintain a regular armyand call directly upon all able-bodied males if the nature of a crisiswas thought to require it. 

_The "Necessary and Proper" Clause. _--To the specified power vested inCongress by the Constitution, the advocates of a strong nationalgovernment added a general clause authorizing it to make all laws"necessary and proper" for carrying into effect any and all of theenumerated powers. This clause, interpreted by that master mind, ChiefJustice Marshall, was later construed to confer powers as wide as therequirements of a vast country spanning a continent and taking its placeamong the mighty nations of the earth. 

=Restraints on the States. =--Framing a government and endowing it withlarge powers were by no means the sole concern of the convention. Itsvery existence had been due quite as much to the conduct of the statelegislatures as to the futilities of a paralyzed Continental Congress. In every state, explains Marshall in his _Life of Washington_, there wasa party of men who had "marked out for themselves a more indulgentcourse. Viewing with extreme tenderness the case of the debtor, theirefforts were unceasingly directed to his relief. To exact a faithfulcompliance with contracts was, in their opinion, a harsh measure whichthe people could not bear. They were uniformly in favor of relaxing theadministration of justice, of affording facilities for the payment ofdebts, or of suspending their collection, and remitting taxes. "

The legislatures under the dominance of these men had enacted papermoney laws enabling debtors to discharge their obligations more easily. The convention put an end to such practices by providing that no stateshould emit bills of credit or make anything but gold or silver legaltender in the payment of debts. The state legislatures had enacted lawsallowing men to pay their debts by turning over to creditors land orpersonal property; they had repealed the charter of an endowed collegeand taken the management from the hands of the lawful trustees; and theyhad otherwise interfered with the enforcement of private agreements. Theconvention, taking notice of such matters, inserted a clause forbiddingstates "to impair the obligation of contracts. " The more venturous ofthe radicals had in Massachusetts raised the standard of revolt againstthe authorities of the state. The convention answered by a briefsentence to the effect that the President of the United States, to beequipped with a regular army, would send troops to suppress domesticinsurrections whenever called upon by the legislature or, if it was notin session, by the governor of the state. To make sure that therestrictions on the states would not be dead letters, the federalConstitution, laws, and treaties were made the supreme law of the land, to be enforced whenever necessary by a national judiciary and executiveagainst violations on the part of any state authorities. 

=Provisions for Ratification and Amendment. =--When the frame ofgovernment had been determined, the powers to be vested in it had beenenumerated, and the restrictions upon the states had been written intothe bond, there remained three final questions. How shall theConstitution be ratified? What number of states shall be necessary toput it into effect? How shall it be amended in the future?

On the first point, the mandate under which the convention was sittingseemed positive. The Articles of Confederation were still in effect. They provided that amendments could be made only by unanimous adoptionin Congress and the approval of all the states. As if to give force tothis provision of law, the call for the convention had expressly statedthat all alterations and revisions should be reported to Congress foradoption or rejection, Congress itself to transmit the documentthereafter to the states for their review. 

To have observed the strict letter of the law would have defeated thepurposes of the delegates, because Congress and the state legislatureswere openly hostile to such drastic changes as had been made. Unanimousratification, as events proved, would have been impossible. Thereforethe delegates decided that the Constitution should be sent to Congresswith the recommendation that it, in turn, transmit the document, not tothe state legislatures, but to conventions held in the states for thespecial object of deciding upon ratification. This process was followed. It was their belief that special conventions would be more friendly thanthe state legislatures. 

The convention was equally positive in dealing with the problem of thenumber of states necessary to establish the new Constitution. Attemptsto change the Articles had failed because amendment required theapproval of every state and there was always at least one recalcitrantmember of the union. The opposition to a new Constitution wasundoubtedly formidable. Rhode Island had even refused to take part inframing it, and her hostility was deep and open. So the convention castaside the provision of the Articles of Confederation which requiredunanimous approval for any change in the plan of government; it decreedthat the new Constitution should go into effect when ratified by ninestates. 

In providing for future changes in the Constitution itself theconvention also thrust aside the old rule of unanimous approval, anddecided that an amendment could be made on a two-thirds vote in bothhouses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. Thischange was of profound significance. Every state agreed to be bound inthe future by amendments duly adopted even in case it did not approvethem itself. America in this way set out upon the high road that ledfrom a league of states to a nation. 

THE STRUGGLE OVER RATIFICATION

On September 17, 1787, the Constitution, having been finally drafted inclear and simple language, a model to all makers of fundamental law, wasadopted. The convention, after nearly four months of debate in secretsession, flung open the doors and presented to the Americans thefinished plan for the new government. Then the great debate passed tothe people. 

=The Opposition. =--Storms of criticism at once descended upon theConstitution. "Fraudulent usurpation!" exclaimed Gerry, who had refusedto sign it. "A monster" out of the "thick veil of secrecy, " declaimed aPennsylvania newspaper. "An iron-handed despotism will be the result, "protested a third. "We, 'the low-born, '" sarcastically wrote a fourth, "will now admit the 'six hundred well-born' immediately to establishthis most noble, most excellent, and truly divine constitution. " ThePresident will become a king; Congress will be as tyrannical asParliament in the old days; the states will be swallowed up; the rightsof the people will be trampled upon; the poor man's justice will be lostin the endless delays of the federal courts--such was the strain of theprotests against ratification. 

[Illustration: AN ADVERTISEMENT OF _The Federalist_]

=Defense of the Constitution. =--Moved by the tempest of opposition, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay took up their pens in defense of theConstitution. In a series of newspaper articles they discussed andexpounded with eloquence, learning, and dignity every important clauseand provision of the proposed plan. These papers, afterwards collectedand published in a volume known as _The Federalist_, form the finesttextbook on the Constitution that has ever been printed. It takes itsplace, moreover, among the wisest and weightiest treatises on governmentever written in any language in any time. Other men, not so gifted, wereno less earnest in their support of ratification. In privatecorrespondence, editorials, pamphlets, and letters to the newspapers, they urged their countrymen to forget their partisanship and accept aConstitution which, in spite of any defects great or small, was theonly guarantee against dissolution and warfare at home and dishonor andweakness abroad. 

[Illustration: CELEBRATING THE RATIFICATION]

=The Action of the State Conventions. =--Before the end of the year, 1787, three states had ratified the Constitution: Delaware and NewJersey unanimously and Pennsylvania after a short, though savage, contest. Connecticut and Georgia followed early the next year. Then camethe battle royal in Massachusetts, ending in ratification in February bythe narrow margin of 187 votes to 168. In the spring came the news thatMaryland and South Carolina were "under the new roof. " On June 21, NewHampshire, where the sentiment was at first strong enough to defeat theConstitution, joined the new republic, influenced by the favorabledecision in Massachusetts. Swift couriers were sent to carry the news toNew York and Virginia, where the question of ratification was stillundecided. Nine states had accepted it and were united, whether more sawfit to join or not. 

Meanwhile, however, Virginia, after a long and searching debate, hadgiven her approval by a narrow margin, leaving New York as the next seatof anxiety. In that state the popular vote for the delegates to theconvention had been clearly and heavily against ratification. Eventsfinally demonstrated the futility of resistance, and Hamilton by goodjudgment and masterly arguments was at last able to marshal a majorityof thirty to twenty-seven votes in favor of ratification. 

The great contest was over. All the states, except North Carolina andRhode Island, had ratified. "The sloop Anarchy, " wrote an ebullientjournalist, "when last heard from was ashore on Union rocks. "

=The First Election. =--In the autumn of 1788, elections were held tofill the places in the new government. Public opinion was overwhelminglyin favor of Washington as the first President. Yielding to theimportunities of friends, he accepted the post in the spirit of publicservice. On April 30, 1789, he took the oath of office at Federal Hallin New York City. "Long live George Washington, President of the UnitedStates!" cried Chancellor Livingston as soon as the General had kissedthe Bible. The cry was caught by the assembled multitude and given back. A new experiment in popular government was launched. 

=References=

M. Farrand, _The Framing of the Constitution of the United States_. 

P. L. Ford, _Essays on the Constitution of the United States_. 

_The Federalist_ (in many editions). 

G. Hunt, _Life of James Madison_. 

A. C. McLaughlin, _The Confederation and the Constitution_ (AmericanNation Series). 

=Questions=

1. Account for the failure of the Articles of Confederation. 

2. Explain the domestic difficulties of the individual states. 

3. Why did efforts at reform by the Congress come to naught?

4. Narrate the events leading up to the constitutional convention. 

5. Who were some of the leading men in the convention? What had beentheir previous training?

6. State the great problems before the convention. 

7. In what respects were the planting and commercial states opposed?What compromises were reached?

8. Show how the "check and balance" system is embodied in our form ofgovernment. 

9. How did the powers conferred upon the federal government help curethe defects of the Articles of Confederation?

10. In what way did the provisions for ratifying and amending theConstitution depart from the old system?

11. What was the nature of the conflict over ratification?

=Research Topics=

=English Treatment of American Commerce. =--Callender, _Economic Historyof the United States_, pp. 210-220. 

=Financial Condition of the United States. =--Fiske, _Critical Period ofAmerican History_, pp. 163-186. 

=Disordered Commerce. =--Fiske, pp. 134-162. 

=Selfish Conduct of the States. =--Callender, pp. 185-191. 

=The Failure of the Confederation. =--Elson, _History of the UnitedStates_, pp. 318-326. 

=Formation of the Constitution. =--(1) The plans before the convention, Fiske, pp. 236-249; (2) the great compromise, Fiske, pp. 250-255; (3)slavery and the convention, Fiske, pp. 256-266; and (4) the frame ofgovernment, Fiske, pp. 275-301; Elson, pp. 328-334. 

=Biographical Studies. =--Look up the history and services of the leadersin the convention in any good encyclopedia. 

=Ratification of the Constitution. =--Hart, _History Told byContemporaries_, Vol. III, pp. 233-254; Elson, pp. 334-340. 

=Source Study. =--Compare the Constitution and Articles of Confederationunder the following heads: (1) frame of government; (2) powers ofCongress; (3) limits on states; and (4) methods of amendment. Every lineof the Constitution should be read and re-read in the light of thehistorical circumstances set forth in this chapter. 

CHAPTER VIII

THE CLASH OF POLITICAL PARTIES

THE MEN AND MEASURES OF THE NEW GOVERNMENT

=Friends of the Constitution in Power. =--In the first Congress thatassembled after the adoption of the Constitution, there were elevenSenators, led by Robert Morris, the financier, who had been delegates tothe national convention. Several members of the House ofRepresentatives, headed by James Madison, had also been at Philadelphiain 1787. In making his appointments, Washington strengthened the newsystem of government still further by a judicious selection ofofficials. He chose as Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, who had been the most zealous for its success; General Knox, head of theWar Department, and Edmund Randolph, the Attorney-General, were likewiseconspicuous friends of the experiment. Every member of the federaljudiciary whom Washington appointed, from the Chief Justice, John Jay, down to the justices of the district courts, had favored theratification of the Constitution; and a majority of them had served asmembers of the national convention that framed the document or of thestate ratifying conventions. Only one man of influence in the newgovernment, Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, was reckoned as adoubter in the house of the faithful. He had expressed opinions both forand against the Constitution; but he had been out of the country actingas the minister at Paris when the Constitution was drafted and ratified. 

=An Opposition to Conciliate. =--The inauguration of Washington amid theplaudits of his countrymen did not set at rest all the political turmoilwhich had been aroused by the angry contest over ratification. "Theinteresting nature of the question, " wrote John Marshall, "the equalityof the parties, the animation produced inevitably by ardent debate had anecessary tendency to embitter the dispositions of the vanquished and tofix more deeply in many bosoms their prejudices against a plan ofgovernment in opposition to which all their passions were enlisted. " Theleaders gathered around Washington were well aware of the excited stateof the country. They saw Rhode Island and North Carolina still outsideof the union. [1] They knew by what small margins the Constitution hadbeen approved in the great states of Massachusetts, Virginia, and NewYork. They were equally aware that a majority of the state conventions, in yielding reluctant approval to the Constitution, had drawn a numberof amendments for immediate submission to the states. 

=The First Amendments--a Bill of Rights. =--To meet the opposition, Madison proposed, and the first Congress adopted, a series of amendmentsto the Constitution. Ten of them were soon ratified and became in 1791 apart of the law of the land. These amendments provided, among otherthings, that Congress could make no law respecting the establishment ofreligion, abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the rightof the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for aredress of grievances. They also guaranteed indictment by grand jury andtrial by jury for all persons charged by federal officers with seriouscrimes. To reassure those who still feared that local rights might beinvaded by the federal government, the tenth amendment expresslyprovided that the powers not delegated to the United States by theConstitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to thestates respectively or to the people. Seven years later, the eleventhamendment was written in the same spirit as the first ten, after aheated debate over the action of the Supreme Court in permitting acitizen to bring a suit against "the sovereign state" of Georgia. Thenew amendment was designed to protect states against the federaljudiciary by forbidding it to hear any case in which a state was sued bya citizen. 

=Funding the National Debt. =--Paper declarations of rights, however, paid no bills. To this task Hamilton turned all his splendid genius. Atthe very outset he addressed himself to the problem of the huge publicdebt, daily mounting as the unpaid interest accumulated. In a _Report onPublic Credit_ under date of January 9, 1790, one of the first andgreatest of American state papers, he laid before Congress the outlinesof his plan. He proposed that the federal government should call in allthe old bonds, certificates of indebtedness, and other promises to paywhich had been issued by the Congress since the beginning of theRevolution. These national obligations, he urged, should be put into oneconsolidated debt resting on the credit of the United States; to theholders of the old paper should be issued new bonds drawing interest atfixed rates. This process was called "funding the debt. " Such aprovision for the support of public credit, Hamilton insisted, wouldsatisfy creditors, restore landed property to its former value, andfurnish new resources to agriculture and commerce in the form of creditand capital. 

=Assumption and Funding of State Debts. =--Hamilton then turned to theobligations incurred by the several states in support of the Revolution. These debts he proposed to add to the national debt. They were to be"assumed" by the United States government and placed on the same securefoundation as the continental debt. This measure he defended not merelyon grounds of national honor. It would, as he foresaw, give strength tothe new national government by making all public creditors, men ofsubstance in their several communities, look to the federal, rather thanthe state government, for the satisfaction of their claims. 

=Funding at Face Value. =--On the question of the terms of consolidation, assumption, and funding, Hamilton had a firm conviction. That millionsof dollars' worth of the continental and state bonds had passed out ofthe hands of those who had originally subscribed their funds to thesupport of the government or had sold supplies for the Revolutionaryarmy was well known. It was also a matter of common knowledge that avery large part of these bonds had been bought by speculators at ruinousfigures--ten, twenty, and thirty cents on the dollar. Accordingly, ithad been suggested, even in very respectable quarters, that adiscrimination should be made between original holders and speculativepurchasers. Some who held this opinion urged that the speculators whohad paid nominal sums for their bonds should be reimbursed for theiroutlays and the original holders paid the difference; others said thatthe government should "scale the debt" by redeeming, not at full valuebut at a figure reasonably above the market price. Against theproposition Hamilton set his face like flint. He maintained that thegovernment was honestly bound to redeem every bond at its face value, although the difficulty of securing revenue made necessary a lower rateof interest on a part of the bonds and the deferring of interest onanother part. 

=Funding and Assumption Carried. =--There was little difficulty insecuring the approval of both houses of Congress for the funding of thenational debt at full value. The bill for the assumption of state debts, however, brought the sharpest division of opinions. To the Southernmembers of Congress assumption was a gross violation of states' rights, without any warrant in the Constitution and devised in the interest ofNorthern speculators who, anticipating assumption and funding, hadbought up at low prices the Southern bonds and other promises to pay. New England, on the other hand, was strongly in favor of assumption;several representatives from that section were rash enough to threaten adissolution of the union if the bill was defeated. To this dispute wasadded an equally bitter quarrel over the location of the nationalcapital, then temporarily at New York City. 

[Illustration: FIRST UNITED STATES BANK AT PHILADELPHIA]

A deadlock, accompanied by the most surly feelings on both sides, threatened the very existence of the young government. Washington andHamilton were thoroughly alarmed. Hearing of the extremity to which thecontest had been carried and acting on the appeal from the Secretary ofthe Treasury, Jefferson intervened at this point. By skillful managementat a good dinner he brought the opposing leaders together; and thus oncemore, as on many other occasions, peace was purchased and the unionsaved by compromise. The bargain this time consisted of an exchange ofvotes for assumption in return for votes for the capital. EnoughSouthern members voted for assumption to pass the bill, and a majoritywas mustered in favor of building the capital on the banks of thePotomac, after locating it for a ten-year period at Philadelphia tosatisfy Pennsylvania members. 

=The United States Bank. =--Encouraged by the success of his funding andassumption measures, Hamilton laid before Congress a project for a greatUnited States Bank. He proposed that a private corporation be charteredby Congress, authorized to raise a capital stock of $10, 000, 000(three-fourths in new six per cent federal bonds and one-fourth inspecie) and empowered to issue paper currency under proper safeguards. Many advantages, Hamilton contended, would accrue to the government fromthis institution. The price of the government bonds would be increased, thus enhancing public credit. A national currency would be created ofuniform value from one end of the land to the other. The branches of thebank in various cities would make easy the exchange of funds so vital tocommercial transactions on a national scale. Finally, through the issueof bank notes, the money capital available for agriculture and industrywould be increased, thus stimulating business enterprise. Jeffersonhotly attacked the bank on the ground that Congress had no powerwhatever under the Constitution to charter such a private corporation. Hamilton defended it with great cogency. Washington, after weighing allopinions, decided in favor of the proposal. In 1791 the billestablishing the first United States Bank for a period of twenty yearsbecame a law. 

=The Protective Tariff. =--A third part of Hamilton's program was theprotection of American industries. The first revenue act of 1789, thoughdesigned primarily to bring money into the empty treasury, declared infavor of the principle. The following year Washington referred to thesubject in his address to Congress. Thereupon Hamilton was instructed toprepare recommendations for legislative action. The result, after adelay of more than a year, was his _Report on Manufactures_, anotherstate paper worthy, in closeness of reasoning and keenness ofunderstanding, of a place beside his report on public credit. Hamiltonbased his argument on the broadest national grounds: the protectivetariff would, by encouraging the building of factories, create a homemarket for the produce of farms and plantations; by making the UnitedStates independent of other countries in times of peace, it would doubleits security in time of war; by making use of the labor of women andchildren, it would turn to the production of goods persons otherwiseidle or only partly employed; by increasing the trade between the Northand South it would strengthen the links of union and add to politicalties those of commerce and intercourse. The revenue measure of 1792 borethe impress of these arguments. 

THE RISE OF POLITICAL PARTIES

=Dissensions over Hamilton's Measures. =--Hamilton's plans, touchingdeeply as they did the resources of individuals and the interests of thestates, awakened alarm and opposition. Funding at face value, said hiscritics, was a government favor to speculators; the assumption of statedebts was a deep design to undermine the state governments; Congress hadno constitutional power to create a bank; the law creating the bankmerely allowed a private corporation to make paper money and lend it ata high rate of interest; and the tariff was a tax on land and labor forthe benefit of manufacturers. 

Hamilton's reply to this bill of indictment was simple andstraightforward. Some rascally speculators had profited from the fundingof the debt at face value, but that was only an incident in therestoration of public credit. In view of the jealousies of the states itwas a good thing to reduce their powers and pretensions. TheConstitution was not to be interpreted narrowly but in the full light ofnational needs. The bank would enlarge the amount of capital so sorelyneeded to start up American industries, giving markets to farmers andplanters. The tariff by creating a home market and increasingopportunities for employment would benefit both land and labor. Out ofsuch wise policies firmly pursued by the government, he concluded, werebound to come strength and prosperity for the new government at home, credit and power abroad. This view Washington fully indorsed, addingthe weight of his great name to the inherent merits of the measuresadopted under his administration. 

=The Sharpness of the Partisan Conflict. =--As a result of the clash ofopinion, the people of the country gradually divided into two parties:Federalists and Anti-Federalists, the former led by Hamilton, the latterby Jefferson. The strength of the Federalists lay in the cities--Boston, Providence, Hartford, New York, Philadelphia, Charleston--among themanufacturing, financial, and commercial groups of the population whowere eager to extend their business operations. The strength of theAnti-Federalists lay mainly among the debt-burdened farmers who fearedthe growth of what they called "a money power" and planters in allsections who feared the dominance of commercial and manufacturinginterests. The farming and planting South, outside of the few towns, finally presented an almost solid front against assumption, the bank, and the tariff. The conflict between the parties grew steadily inbitterness, despite the conciliatory and engaging manner in whichHamilton presented his cause in his state papers and despite theconstant efforts of Washington to soften the asperity of thecontestants. 

=The Leadership and Doctrines of Jefferson. =--The party dispute had notgone far before the opponents of the administration began to look toJefferson as their leader. Some of Hamilton's measures he had approved, declaring afterward that he did not at the time understand theirsignificance. Others, particularly the bank, he fiercely assailed. Morethan once, he and Hamilton, shaking violently with anger, attacked eachother at cabinet meetings, and nothing short of the grave and dignifiedpleas of Washington prevented an early and open break between them. In1794 it finally came. Jefferson resigned as Secretary of State andretired to his home in Virginia to assume, through correspondence andnegotiation, the leadership of the steadily growing party of opposition. 

Shy and modest in manner, halting in speech, disliking the turmoil ofpublic debate, and deeply interested in science and philosophy, Jefferson was not very well fitted for the strenuous life of politicalcontest. Nevertheless, he was an ambitious and shrewd negotiator. He wasalso by honest opinion and matured conviction the exact opposite ofHamilton. The latter believed in a strong, active, "high-toned"government, vigorously compelling in all its branches. Jefferson lookedupon such government as dangerous to the liberties of citizens andopenly avowed his faith in the desirability of occasional popularuprisings. Hamilton distrusted the people. "Your people is a greatbeast, " he is reported to have said. Jefferson professed his faith inthe people with an abandon that was considered reckless in his time. 

On economic matters, the opinions of the two leaders were alsohopelessly at variance. Hamilton, while cherishing agriculture, desiredto see America a great commercial and industrial nation. Jefferson wasequally set against this course for his country. He feared theaccumulation of riches and the growth of a large urban working class. The mobs of great cities, he said, are sores on the body politic;artisans are usually the dangerous element that make revolutions;workshops should be kept in Europe and with them the artisans with theirinsidious morals and manners. The only substantial foundation for arepublic, Jefferson believed to be agriculture. The spirit ofindependence could be kept alive only by free farmers, owning the landthey tilled and looking to the sun in heaven and the labor of theirhands for their sustenance. Trusting as he did in the innate goodness ofhuman nature when nourished on a free soil, Jefferson advocated thosemeasures calculated to favor agriculture and to enlarge the rights ofpersons rather than the powers of government. Thus he became thechampion of the individual against the interference of the government, and an ardent advocate of freedom of the press, freedom of speech, andfreedom of scientific inquiry. It was, accordingly, no mere factiousspirit that drove him into opposition to Hamilton. 

=The Whisky Rebellion. =--The political agitation of the Anti-Federalistswas accompanied by an armed revolt against the government in 1794. Theoccasion for this uprising was another of Hamilton's measures, a lawlaying an excise tax on distilled spirits, for the purpose of increasingthe revenue needed to pay the interest on the funded debt. It sohappened that a very considerable part of the whisky manufactured in thecountry was made by the farmers, especially on the frontier, in theirown stills. The new revenue law meant that federal officers would nowcome into the homes of the people, measure their liquor, and take thetax out of their pockets. All the bitterness which farmers felt againstthe fiscal measures of the government was redoubled. In the westerndistricts of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina, they refused topay the tax. In Pennsylvania, some of them sacked and burned the housesof the tax collectors, as the Revolutionists thirty years before hadmobbed the agents of King George sent over to sell stamps. They were ina fair way to nullify the law in whole districts when Washington calledout the troops to suppress "the Whisky Rebellion. " Then the movementcollapsed; but it left behind a deep-seated resentment which flared upin the election of several obdurate Anti-Federalist Congressmen from thedisaffected regions. 

FOREIGN INFLUENCES AND DOMESTIC POLITICS

=The French Revolution. =--In this exciting period, when all America wasdistracted by partisan disputes, a storm broke in Europe--theepoch-making French Revolution--which not only shook the thrones of theOld World but stirred to its depths the young republic of the New World. The first scene in this dramatic affair occurred in the spring of 1789, a few days after Washington was inaugurated. The king of France, LouisXVI, driven into bankruptcy by extravagance and costly wars, was forcedto resort to his people for financial help. Accordingly he called, forthe first time in more than one hundred fifty years, a meeting of thenational parliament, the "Estates General, " composed of representativesof the "three estates"--the clergy, nobility, and commoners. Actingunder powerful leaders, the commoners, or "third estate, " swept asidethe clergy and nobility and resolved themselves into a nationalassembly. This stirred the country to its depths. 

[Illustration: _From an old print_

LOUIS XVI IN THE HANDS OF THE MOB]

Great events followed in swift succession. On July 14, 1789, theBastille, an old royal prison, symbol of the king's absolutism, wasstormed by a Paris crowd and destroyed. On the night of August 4, thefeudal privileges of the nobility were abolished by the nationalassembly amid great excitement. A few days later came the famousDeclaration of the Rights of Man, proclaiming the sovereignty of thepeople and the privileges of citizens. In the autumn of 1791, Louis XVIwas forced to accept a new constitution for France vesting thelegislative power in a popular assembly. Little disorder accompaniedthese startling changes. To all appearances a peaceful revolution hadstripped the French king of his royal prerogatives and based thegovernment of his country on the consent of the governed. 

=American Influence in France. =--In undertaking their great politicalrevolt the French had been encouraged by the outcome of the AmericanRevolution. Officers and soldiers, who had served in the American war, reported to their French countrymen marvelous tales. At the frugal tableof General Washington, in council with the unpretentious Franklin, or atconferences over the strategy of war, French noblemen of ancient lineagelearned to respect both the talents and the simple character of theleaders in the great republican commonwealth beyond the seas. Travelers, who had gone to see the experiment in republicanism with their own eyes, carried home to the king and ruling class stories of an astoundingsystem of popular government. 

On the other hand the dalliance with American democracy was regarded byFrench conservatives as playing with fire. "When we think of the falseideas of government and philanthropy, " wrote one of Lafayette's aides, "which these youths acquired in America and propagated in France with somuch enthusiasm and such deplorable success--for this mania of imitationpowerfully aided the Revolution, though it was not the sole cause ofit--we are bound to confess that it would have been better, both forthemselves and for us, if these young philosophers in red-heeled shoeshad stayed at home in attendance on the court. "

=Early American Opinion of the French Revolution. =--So close were theties between the two nations that it is not surprising to find everystep in the first stages of the French Revolution greeted with applausein the United States. "Liberty will have another feather in her cap, "exultantly wrote a Boston editor. "In no part of the globe, " soberlywrote John Marshall, "was this revolution hailed with more joy than inAmerica. .. . But one sentiment existed. " The main key to the Bastille, sent to Washington as a memento, was accepted as "a token of thevictory gained by liberty. " Thomas Paine saw in the great event "thefirst ripe fruits of American principles transplanted into Europe. "Federalists and Anti-Federalists regarded the new constitution of Franceas another vindication of American ideals. 

=The Reign of Terror. =--While profuse congratulations were beingexchanged, rumors began to come that all was not well in France. Manynoblemen, enraged at the loss of their special privileges, fled intoGermany and plotted an invasion of France to overthrow the new system ofgovernment. Louis XVI entered into negotiations with his brothermonarchs on the continent to secure their help in the same enterprise, and he finally betrayed to the French people his true sentiments byattempting to escape from his kingdom, only to be captured and takenback to Paris in disgrace. 

A new phase of the revolution now opened. The working people, excludedfrom all share in the government by the first French constitution, became restless, especially in Paris. Assembling on the Champs de Mars, a great open field, they signed a petition calling for anotherconstitution giving them the suffrage. When told to disperse, theyrefused and were fired upon by the national guard. This "massacre, " asit was called, enraged the populace. A radical party, known as"Jacobins, " then sprang up, taking its name from a Jacobin monastery inwhich it held its sessions. In a little while it became the master ofthe popular convention convoked in September, 1792. The monarchy wasimmediately abolished and a republic established. On January 21, 1793, Louis was sent to the scaffold. To the war on Austria, already raging, was added a war on England. Then came the Reign of Terror, during whichradicals in possession of the convention executed in large numberscounter-revolutionists and those suspected of sympathy with themonarchy. They shot down peasants who rose in insurrection against theirrule and established a relentless dictatorship. Civil war followed. Terrible atrocities were committed on both sides in the name of liberty, and in the name of monarchy. To Americans of conservative temper it nowseemed that the Revolution, so auspiciously begun, had degenerated intoanarchy and mere bloodthirsty strife. 

=Burke Summons the World to War on France. =--In England, Edmund Burkeled the fight against the new French principles which he feared mightspread to all Europe. In his _Reflections on the French Revolution_, written in 1790, he attacked with terrible wrath the whole program ofpopular government; he called for war, relentless war, upon the Frenchas monsters and outlaws; he demanded that they be reduced to order bythe restoration of the king to full power under the protection of thearms of European nations. 

=Paine's Defense of the French Revolution. =--To counteract the campaignof hate against the French, Thomas Paine replied to Burke in another ofhis famous tracts, _The Rights of Man_, which was given to the Americanpublic in an edition containing a letter of approval from Jefferson. Burke, said Paine, had been mourning about the glories of the Frenchmonarchy and aristocracy but had forgotten the starving peasants and theoppressed people; had wept over the plumage and neglected the dyingbird. Burke had denied the right of the French people to choose theirown governors, blandly forgetting that the English government in whichhe saw final perfection itself rested on two revolutions. He had boastedthat the king of England held his crown in contempt of the democraticsocieties. Paine answered: "If I ask a man in America if he wants aking, he retorts and asks me if I take him for an idiot. " To the chargethat the doctrines of the rights of man were "new fangled, " Painereplied that the question was not whether they were new or old butwhether they were right or wrong. As to the French disorders anddifficulties, he bade the world wait to see what would be brought forthin due time. 

=The Effect of the French Revolution on American Politics. =--The courseof the French Revolution and the controversies accompanying it, exercised a profound influence on the formation of the first politicalparties in America. The followers of Hamilton, now proud of the name"Federalists, " drew back in fright as they heard of the cruel deedscommitted during the Reign of Terror. They turned savagely upon therevolutionists and their friends in America, denouncing as "Jacobin"everybody who did not condemn loudly enough the proceedings of theFrench Republic. A Massachusetts preacher roundly assailed "theatheistical, anarchical, and in other respects immoral principles of theFrench Republicans"; he then proceeded with equal passion to attackJefferson and the Anti-Federalists, whom he charged with spreading falseFrench propaganda and betraying America. "The editors, patrons, andabettors of these vehicles of slander, " he exclaimed, "ought to beconsidered and treated as enemies to their country. .. . Of all traitorsthey are the most aggravatedly criminal; of all villains, they are themost infamous and detestable. "

The Anti-Federalists, as a matter of fact, were generally favorable tothe Revolution although they deplored many of the events associated withit. Paine's pamphlet, indorsed by Jefferson, was widely read. Democraticsocieties, after the fashion of French political clubs, arose in thecities; the coalition of European monarchs against France was denouncedas a coalition against the very principles of republicanism; and theexecution of Louis XVI was openly celebrated at a banquet inPhiladelphia. Harmless titles, such as "Sir, " "the Honorable, " and "HisExcellency, " were decried as aristocratic and some of the more excitedinsisted on adopting the French title, "Citizen, " speaking, for example, of "Citizen Judge" and "Citizen Toastmaster. " Pamphlets in defense ofthe French streamed from the press, while subsidized newspapers kept thepropaganda in full swing. 

=The European War Disturbs American Commerce. =--This battle of wits, orrather contest in calumny, might have gone on indefinitely in Americawithout producing any serious results, had it not been for the warbetween England and France, then raging. The English, having command ofthe seas, claimed the right to seize American produce bound for Frenchports and to confiscate American ships engaged in carrying French goods. Adding fuel to a fire already hot enough, they began to search Americanships and to carry off British-born sailors found on board Americanvessels. 

=The French Appeal for Help. =--At the same time the French Republicturned to the United States for aid in its war on England and sent overas its diplomatic representative "Citizen" Genêt, an ardent supporter ofthe new order. On his arrival at Charleston, he was greeted with fervorby the Anti-Federalists. As he made his way North, he was wined anddined and given popular ovations that turned his head. He thought thewhole country was ready to join the French Republic in its contest withEngland. Genêt therefore attempted to use the American ports as the baseof operations for French privateers preying on British merchant ships;and he insisted that the United States was in honor bound to help Franceunder the treaty of 1778. 

=The Proclamation of Neutrality and the Jay Treaty. =--Unmoved by therising tide of popular sympathy for France, Washington took a firmcourse. He received Genêt coldly. The demand that the United States aidFrance under the old treaty of alliance he answered by proclaiming theneutrality of America and warning American citizens against hostile actstoward either France or England. When Genêt continued to hold meetings, issue manifestoes, and stir up the people against England, Washingtonasked the French government to recall him. This act he followed up bysending the Chief Justice, John Jay, on a pacific mission to England. 

The result was the celebrated Jay treaty of 1794. By its terms GreatBritain agreed to withdraw her troops from the western forts where theyhad been since the war for independence and to grant certain slighttrade concessions. The chief sources of bitterness--the failure of theBritish to return slaves carried off during the Revolution, the seizureof American ships, and the impressment of sailors--were not touched, much to the distress of everybody in America, including loyalFederalists. Nevertheless, Washington, dreading an armed conflict withEngland, urged the Senate to ratify the treaty. The weight of hisinfluence carried the day. 

At this, the hostility of the Anti-Federalists knew no bounds. Jeffersondeclared the Jay treaty "an infamous act which is really nothing morethan an alliance between England and the Anglo-men of this country, against the legislature and the people of the United States. " Hamilton, defending it with his usual courage, was stoned by a mob in New York anddriven from the platform with blood streaming from his face. Jay wasburned in effigy. Even Washington was not spared. The House ofRepresentatives was openly hostile. To display its feelings, it calledupon the President for the papers relative to the treaty negotiations, only to be more highly incensed by his flat refusal to present them, onthe ground that the House did not share in the treaty-making power. 

=Washington Retires from Politics. =--Such angry contests confirmed thePresident in his slowly maturing determination to retire at the end ofhis second term in office. He did not believe that a third term wasunconstitutional or improper; but, worn out by his long and arduouslabors in war and in peace and wounded by harsh attacks from formerfriends, he longed for the quiet of his beautiful estate at MountVernon. 

In September, 1796, on the eve of the presidential election, Washingtonissued his Farewell Address, another state paper to be treasured andread by generations of Americans to come. In this address he directedthe attention of the people to three subjects of lasting interest. Hewarned them against sectional jealousies. He remonstrated against thespirit of partisanship, saying that in government "of the popularcharacter, in government purely elective, it is a spirit not to beencouraged. " He likewise cautioned the people against "the insidiouswiles of foreign influence, " saying: "Europe has a set of primaryinterests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence shemust be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which areessentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it would beunwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinaryvicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisionsof her friendships or enmities. .. . Why forego the advantages of sopeculiar a situation?. .. It is our true policy to steer clear ofpermanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world. .. . Takingcare always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on arespectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporaryalliances for extraordinary emergencies. "

=The Campaign of 1796--Adams Elected. =--On hearing of the retirement ofWashington, the Anti-Federalists cast off all restraints. In honor ofFrance and in opposition to what they were pleased to call themonarchical tendencies of the Federalists, they boldly assumed the name"Republican"; the term "Democrat, " then applied only to obscure anddespised radicals, had not come into general use. They selectedJefferson as their candidate for President against John Adams, theFederalist nominee, and carried on such a spirited campaign that theycame within four votes of electing him. 

The successful candidate, Adams, was not fitted by training or opinionfor conciliating a determined opposition. He was a reserved and studiousman. He was neither a good speaker nor a skillful negotiator. In one ofhis books he had declared himself in favor of "government by anaristocracy of talents and wealth"--an offense which the Republicansnever forgave. While John Marshall found him "a sensible, plain, candid, good-tempered man, " Jefferson could see in him nothing but a "monocrat"and "Anglo-man. " Had it not been for the conduct of the Frenchgovernment, Adams would hardly have enjoyed a moment's genuinepopularity during his administration. 

=The Quarrel with France. =--The French Directory, the executivedepartment established under the constitution of 1795, managed, however, to stir the anger of Republicans and Federalists alike. It regarded theJay treaty as a rebuke to France and a flagrant violation of obligationssolemnly registered in the treaty of 1778. Accordingly it refused toreceive the American minister, treated him in a humiliating way, andfinally told him to leave the country. Overlooking this affront in hisanxiety to maintain peace, Adams dispatched to France a commission ofeminent men with instructions to reach an understanding with the FrenchRepublic. On their arrival, they were chagrined to find, instead of adecent reception, an indirect demand for an apology respecting the pastconduct of the American government, a payment in cash, and an annualtribute as the price of continued friendship. When the news of thisaffair reached President Adams, he promptly laid it before Congress, referring to the Frenchmen who had made the demands as "Mr. X, Mr. Y, and Mr. Z. "

This insult, coupled with the fact that French privateers, like theBritish, were preying upon American commerce, enraged even theRepublicans who had been loudest in the profession of their Frenchsympathies. They forgot their wrath over the Jay treaty and joined withthe Federalists in shouting: "Millions for defense, not a cent fortribute!" Preparations for war were made on every hand. Washington wasonce more called from Mount Vernon to take his old position at the headof the army. Indeed, fighting actually began upon the high seas and wenton without a formal declaration of war until the year 1800. By that timethe Directory had been overthrown. A treaty was readily made withNapoleon, the First Consul, who was beginning his remarkable career aschief of the French Republic, soon to be turned into an empire. 

=Alien and Sedition Laws. =--Flushed with success, the Federalistsdetermined, if possible, to put an end to radical French influence inAmerica and to silence Republican opposition. They therefore passed twodrastic laws in the summer of 1798: the Alien and Sedition Acts. 

The first of these measures empowered the President to expel from thecountry or to imprison any alien whom he regarded as "dangerous" or "hadreasonable grounds to suspect" of "any treasonable or secretmachinations against the government. "

The second of the measures, the Sedition Act, penalized not only thosewho attempted to stir up unlawful combinations against the governmentbut also every one who wrote, uttered, or published "any false, scandalous, and malicious writing . .. Against the government of theUnited States or either House of Congress, or the President of theUnited States, with intent to defame said government . .. Or to bringthem or either of them into contempt or disrepute. " This measure washurried through Congress in spite of the opposition and the clearprovision in the Constitution that Congress shall make no law abridgingthe freedom of speech or of the press. Even many Federalists feared theconsequences of the action. Hamilton was alarmed when he read the bill, exclaiming: "Let us not establish a tyranny. Energy is a very differentthing from violence. " John Marshall told his friends in Virginia that, had he been in Congress, he would have opposed the two bills because hethought them "useless" and "calculated to create unnecessary discontentsand jealousies. "

The Alien law was not enforced; but it gave great offense to the Irishand French whose activities against the American government's policyrespecting Great Britain put them in danger of prison. The Sedition law, on the other hand, was vigorously applied. Several editors of Republicannewspapers soon found themselves in jail or broken by ruinous fines fortheir caustic criticisms of the Federalist President and his policies. Bystanders at political meetings, who uttered sentiments which, thoughungenerous and severe, seem harmless enough now, were hurried beforeFederalist judges and promptly fined and imprisoned. Although theprosecutions were not numerous, they aroused a keen resentment. TheRepublicans were convinced that their political opponents, havingsaddled upon the country Hamilton's fiscal system and the Britishtreaty, were bent on silencing all censure. The measures therefore hadexactly the opposite effect from that which their authors intended. Instead of helping the Federalist party, they made criticism of it morebitter than ever. 

=The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. =--Jefferson was quick to takeadvantage of the discontent. He drafted a set of resolutions declaringthe Sedition law null and void, as violating the federal Constitution. His resolutions were passed by the Kentucky legislature late in 1798, signed by the governor, and transmitted to the other states for theirconsideration. Though receiving unfavorable replies from a number ofNorthern states, Kentucky the following year reaffirmed its position anddeclared that the nullification of all unconstitutional acts of Congresswas the rightful remedy to be used by the states in the redress ofgrievances. It thus defied the federal government and announced adoctrine hostile to nationality and fraught with terrible meaning forthe future. In the neighboring state of Virginia, Madison led a movementagainst the Alien and Sedition laws. He induced the legislature to passresolutions condemning the acts as unconstitutional and calling upon theother states to take proper means to preserve their rights and therights of the people. 

=The Republican Triumph in 1800. =--Thus the way was prepared for theelection of 1800. The Republicans left no stone unturned in theirefforts to place on the Federalist candidate, President Adams, all theodium of the Alien and Sedition laws, in addition to responsibility forapproving Hamilton's measures and policies. The Federalists, divided incouncils and cold in their affection for Adams, made a poor campaign. They tried to discredit their opponents with epithets of "Jacobins" and"Anarchists"--terms which had been weakened by excessive use. When thevote was counted, it was found that Adams had been defeated; while theRepublicans had carried the entire South and New York also and securedeight of the fifteen electoral votes cast by Pennsylvania. "Our belovedAdams will now close his bright career, " lamented a Federalistnewspaper. "Sons of faction, demagogues and high priests of anarchy, nowyou have cause to triumph!"

[Illustration: _An old cartoon_

A QUARREL BETWEEN A FEDERALIST AND A REPUBLICAN IN THE HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES]

Jefferson's election, however, was still uncertain. By a curiousprovision in the Constitution, presidential electors were required tovote for two persons without indicating which office each was to fill, the one receiving the highest number of votes to be President and thecandidate standing next to be Vice President. It so happened that AaronBurr, the Republican candidate for Vice President, had received the samenumber of votes as Jefferson; as neither had a majority the election wasthrown into the House of Representatives, where the Federalists held thebalance of power. Although it was well known that Burr was not even acandidate for President, his friends and many Federalists beganintriguing for his election to that high office. Had it not been for thevigorous action of Hamilton the prize might have been snatched out ofJefferson's hands. Not until the thirty-sixth ballot on February 17, 1801, was the great issue decided in his favor. [2]

=References=

J. S. Bassett, _The Federalist System_ (American Nation Series). 

C. A. Beard, _Economic Origins of Jeffersonian Democracy_. 

H. Lodge, _Alexander Hamilton_. 

J. T. Morse, _Thomas Jefferson_. 

=Questions=

1. Who were the leaders in the first administration under theConstitution?

2. What step was taken to appease the opposition?

3. Enumerate Hamilton's great measures and explain each in detail. 

4. Show the connection between the parts of Hamilton's system. 

5. Contrast the general political views of Hamilton and Jefferson. 

6. What were the important results of the "peaceful" French Revolution(1789-92)?

7. Explain the interaction of opinion between France and the UnitedStates. 

8. How did the "Reign of Terror" change American opinion?

9. What was the Burke-Paine controversy?

10. Show how the war in Europe affected American commerce and involvedAmerica with England and France. 

11. What were American policies with regard to each of those countries?

12. What was the outcome of the Alien and Sedition Acts?

=Research Topics=

=Early Federal Legislation. =--Coman, _Industrial History of the UnitedStates_, pp. 133-156; Elson, _History of the United States_, pp. 341-348. 

=Hamilton's Report on Public Credit. =--Macdonald, _Documentary SourceBook_, pp. 233-243. 

=The French Revolution. =--Robinson and Beard, _Development of ModernEurope_, Vol. I, pp. 224-282; Elson, pp. 351-354. 

=The Burke-Paine Controversy. =--Make an analysis of Burke's _Reflectionson the French Revolution_ and Paine's _Rights of Man_. 

=The Alien and Sedition Acts. =--Macdonald, _Documentary Source Book_, pp. 259-267; Elson, pp. 367-375. 

=Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. =--Macdonald, pp. 267-278. 

=Source Studies. =--Materials in Hart, _American History Told byContemporaries_, Vol. III, pp. 255-343. 

=Biographical Studies. =--Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, ThomasJefferson, and Albert Gallatin. 

=The Twelfth Amendment. =--Contrast the provision in the originalConstitution with the terms of the Amendment. _See_ Appendix. 

FOOTNOTES:

[1] North Carolina ratified in November, 1789, and Rhode Island in May, 1790. 

[2] To prevent a repetition of such an unfortunate affair, the twelfthamendment of the Constitution was adopted in 1804, changing slightly themethod of electing the President. 

CHAPTER IX

THE JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICANS IN POWER

REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES

=Opposition to Strong Central Government. =--Cherishing especially theagricultural interest, as Jefferson said, the Republicans were in thebeginning provincial in their concern and outlook. Their attachment toAmerica was, certainly, as strong as that of Hamilton; but they regardedthe state, rather than the national government, as the proper center ofpower and affection. Indeed, a large part of the rank and file had beenamong the opponents of the Constitution in the days of its adoption. Jefferson had entertained doubts about it and Monroe, destined to be thefifth President, had been one of the bitter foes of ratification. Theformer went so far in the direction of local autonomy that he exaltedthe state above the nation in the Kentucky resolutions of 1798, declaring the Constitution to be a mere compact and the states competentto interpret and nullify federal law. This was provincialism with avengeance. "It is jealousy, not confidence, which prescribes limitedconstitutions, " wrote Jefferson for the Kentucky legislature. Jealousyof the national government, not confidence in it--this is the ideal thatreflected the provincial and agricultural interest. 

=Republican Simplicity. =--Every act of the Jeffersonian party during itsearly days of power was in accord with the ideals of government which itprofessed. It had opposed all pomp and ceremony, calculated to giveweight and dignity to the chief executive of the nation, as symbols ofmonarchy and high prerogative. Appropriately, therefore, Jefferson'sinauguration on March 4, 1801, the first at the new capital atWashington, was marked by extreme simplicity. In keeping with thisprocedure he quit the practice, followed by Washington and Adams, ofreading presidential addresses to Congress in joint assembly and adoptedin its stead the plan of sending his messages in writing--a custom thatwas continued unbroken until 1913 when President Wilson returned to theexample set by the first chief magistrate. 

=Republican Measures. =--The Republicans had complained of a greatnational debt as the source of a dangerous "money power, " givingstrength to the federal government; accordingly they began to pay it offas rapidly as possible. They had held commerce in low esteem and lookedupon a large navy as a mere device to protect it; consequently theyreduced the number of warships. They had objected to excise taxes, particularly on whisky; these they quickly abolished, to the intensesatisfaction of the farmers. They had protested against the heavy costof the federal government; they reduced expenses by discharging hundredsof men from the army and abolishing many offices. 

They had savagely criticized the Sedition law and Jefferson refused toenforce it. They had been deeply offended by the assault on freedom ofspeech and press and they promptly impeached Samuel Chase, a justice ofthe Supreme Court, who had been especially severe in his attacks uponoffenders under the Sedition Act. Their failure to convict Justice Chaseby a narrow margin was due to no lack of zeal on their part but to theFederalist strength in the Senate where the trial was held. They hadregarded the appointment of a large number of federal judges during thelast hours of Adams' administration as an attempt to intrenchFederalists in the judiciary and to enlarge the sphere of the nationalgovernment. Accordingly, they at once repealed the act creating the newjudgeships, thus depriving the "midnight appointees" of their posts. They had considered the federal offices, civil and military, as sourcesof great strength to the Federalists and Jefferson, though committed tothe principle that offices should be open to all and distributedaccording to merit, was careful to fill most of the vacancies as theyoccurred with trusted Republicans. To his credit, however, it must besaid that he did not make wholesale removals to find room for partyworkers. 

The Republicans thus hewed to the line of their general policy ofrestricting the weight, dignity, and activity of the nationalgovernment. Yet there were no Republicans, as the Federalists asserted, prepared to urge serious modifications in the Constitution. "If there beany among us who wish to dissolve this union or to change its republicanform, " wrote Jefferson in his first inaugural, "let them standundisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion maybe tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. " After reciting thefortunate circumstances of climate, soil, and isolation which made thefuture of America so full of promise, Jefferson concluded: "A wise andfrugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits ofindustry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labour thebread it has earned. This is the sum of good government; and this isnecessary to close the circle of our felicities. "

In all this the Republicans had not reckoned with destiny. In a fewshort years that lay ahead it was their fate to double the territory ofthe country, making inevitable a continental nation; to give theConstitution a generous interpretation that shocked many a Federalist;to wage war on behalf of American commerce; to reëstablish the hatedUnited States Bank; to enact a high protective tariff; to see theirFederalist opponents in their turn discredited as nullifiers andprovincials; to announce high national doctrines in foreign affairs; andto behold the Constitution exalted and defended against the pretensionsof states by a son of old Virginia, John Marshall, Chief Justice of theSupreme Court of the United States. 

THE REPUBLICANS AND THE GREAT WEST

=Expansion and Land Hunger. =--The first of the great measures whichdrove the Republicans out upon this new national course--the purchaseof the Louisiana territory--was the product of circumstances rather thanof their deliberate choosing. It was not the lack of land for hischerished farmers that led Jefferson to add such an immense domain tothe original possessions of the United States. In the Northwestterritory, now embracing Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and a portion of Minnesota, settlements were mainly confined to thenorth bank of the Ohio River. To the south, in Kentucky and Tennessee, where there were more than one hundred thousand white people who hadpushed over the mountains from Virginia and the Carolinas, there werestill wide reaches of untilled soil. The Alabama and Mississippi regionswere vast Indian frontiers of the state of Georgia, unsettled and almostunexplored. Even to the wildest imagination there seemed to be territoryenough to satisfy the land hunger of the American people for a centuryto come. 

=The Significance of the Mississippi River. =--At all events the East, then the center of power, saw no good reason for expansion. The plantersof the Carolinas, the manufacturers of Pennsylvania, the importers ofNew York, the shipbuilders of New England, looking to the seaboard andto Europe for trade, refinements, and sometimes their ideas ofgovernment, were slow to appreciate the place of the West in nationaleconomy. The better educated the Easterners were, the less, it seems, they comprehended the destiny of the nation. Sons of Federalist fathersat Williams College, after a long debate decided by a vote of fifteen toone that the purchase of Louisiana was undesirable. 

On the other hand, the pioneers of Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, unlearned in books, saw with their own eyes the resources of thewilderness. Many of them had been across the Mississippi and had beheldthe rich lands awaiting the plow of the white man. Down the great riverthey floated their wheat, corn, and bacon to ocean-going ships bound forthe ports of the seaboard or for Europe. The land journeys over themountain barriers with bulky farm produce, they knew from experience, were almost impossible, and costly at best. Nails, bolts of cloth, tea, and coffee could go or come that way, but not corn and bacon. A freeoutlet to the sea by the Mississippi was as essential to the pioneers ofthe Kentucky region as the harbor of Boston to the merchant princes ofthat metropolis. 

=Louisiana under Spanish Rule. =--For this reason they watched with deepsolicitude the fortunes of the Spanish king to whom, at the close of theSeven Years' War, had fallen the Louisiana territory stretching from NewOrleans to the Rocky Mountains. While he controlled the mouth of theMississippi there was little to fear, for he had neither the army northe navy necessary to resist any invasion of American trade. Moreover, Washington had been able, by the exercise of great tact, to secure fromSpain in 1795 a trading privilege through New Orleans which satisfiedthe present requirements of the frontiersmen even if it did not allaytheir fears for the future. So things stood when a swift succession ofevents altered the whole situation. 

=Louisiana Transferred to France. =--In July, 1802, a royal order fromSpain instructed the officials at New Orleans to close the port toAmerican produce. About the same time a disturbing rumor, long current, was confirmed--Napoleon had coerced Spain into returning Louisiana toFrance by a secret treaty signed in 1800. "The scalers of the Alps andconquerors of Venice" now looked across the sea for new scenes ofadventure. The West was ablaze with excitement. A call for war ranthrough the frontier; expeditions were organized to prevent the landingof the French; and petitions for instant action flooded in uponJefferson. 

=Jefferson Sees the Danger. =--Jefferson, the friend of France and swornenemy of England, compelled to choose in the interest of America, neverwinced. "The cession of Louisiana and the Floridas by Spain to France, "he wrote to Livingston, the American minister in Paris, "works sorely onthe United States. It completely reverses all the political relations ofthe United States and will form a new epoch in our political course. .. . There is on the globe one single spot, the possessor of which is ournatural and habitual enemy. It is New Orleans through which the produceof three-eighths of our territory must pass to market. .. . France, placing herself in that door, assumes to us an attitude of defiance. Spain might have retained it quietly for years. Her pacificdispositions, her feeble state would induce her to increase ourfacilities there. .. . Not so can it ever be in the hands of France. .. . The day that France takes possession of New Orleans fixes the sentencewhich is to restrain her forever within her low water mark. .. . It sealsthe union of the two nations who in conjunction can maintain exclusivepossession of the ocean. From that moment we must marry ourselves to theBritish fleet and nation. .. . This is not a state of things we seek ordesire. It is one which this measure, if adopted by France, forces on usas necessarily as any other cause by the laws of nature brings on itsnecessary effect. "

=Louisiana Purchased. =--Acting on this belief, but apparently seeingonly the Mississippi outlet at stake, Jefferson sent his friend, JamesMonroe, to France with the power to buy New Orleans and West Florida. Before Monroe arrived, the regular minister, Livingston, had alreadyconvinced Napoleon that it would be well to sell territory which mightbe wrested from him at any moment by the British sea power, especiallyas the war, temporarily stopped by the peace of Amiens, was once moreraging in Europe. Wise as he was in his day, Livingston had at first nothought of buying the whole Louisiana country. He was simply dazed whenNapoleon offered to sell the entire domain and get rid of the businessaltogether. Though staggered by the proposal, he and Monroe decided toaccept. On April 30, they signed the treaty of cession, agreeing to pay$11, 250, 000 in six per cent bonds and to discharge certain debts dueFrench citizens, making in all approximately fifteen millions. Spainprotested, Napoleon's brother fumed, French newspapers objected; but thedeed was done. 

=Jefferson and His Constitutional Scruples. =--When the news of thisextraordinary event reached the United States, the people were filledwith astonishment, and no one was more surprised than Jefferson himself. He had thought of buying New Orleans and West Florida for a small sum, and now a vast domain had been dumped into the lap of the nation. He waspuzzled. On looking into the Constitution he found not a lineauthorizing the purchase of more territory and so he drafted anamendment declaring "Louisiana, as ceded by France, --a part of theUnited States. " He had belabored the Federalists for piling up a bignational debt and he could hardly endure the thought of issuing morebonds himself. 

In the midst of his doubts came the news that Napoleon might withdrawfrom the bargain. Thoroughly alarmed by that, Jefferson pressed theSenate for a ratification of the treaty. He still clung to his originalidea that the Constitution did not warrant the purchase; but he lamelyconcluded: "If our friends shall think differently, I shall certainlyacquiesce with satisfaction; confident that the good sense of ourcountry will correct the evil of construction when it shall produce illeffects. " Thus the stanch advocate of "strict interpretation" cut loosefrom his own doctrine and intrusted the construction of the Constitutionto "the good sense" of his countrymen. 

=The Treaty Ratified. =--This unusual transaction, so favorable to theWest, aroused the ire of the seaboard Federalists. Some denounced it asunconstitutional, easily forgetting Hamilton's masterly defense of thebank, also not mentioned in the Constitution. Others urged that, if "thehowling wilderness" ever should be settled, it would turn against theEast, form new commercial connections, and escape from federal control. Still others protested that the purchase would lead inevitably to thedominance of a "hotch potch of wild men from the Far West. " Federalists, who thought "the broad back of America" could readily bear Hamilton'sconsolidated debt, now went into agonies over a bond issue of less thanone-sixth of that amount. But in vain. Jefferson's party with a highhand carried the day. The Senate, after hearing the Federalist protest, ratified the treaty. In December, 1803, the French flag was hauled downfrom the old government buildings in New Orleans and the Stars andStripes were hoisted as a sign that the land of Coronado, De Soto, Marquette, and La Salle had passed forever to the United States. 

[Illustration: THE UNITED STATES IN 1805]

By a single stroke, the original territory of the United States was morethan doubled. While the boundaries of the purchase were uncertain, it issafe to say that the Louisiana territory included what is now Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and largeportions of Louisiana, Minnesota, North Dakota, Colorado, Montana, andWyoming. The farm lands that the friends of "a little America" on theseacoast declared a hopeless wilderness were, within a hundred years, fully occupied and valued at nearly seven billion dollars--almost fivehundred times the price paid to Napoleon. 

=Western Explorations. =--Having taken the fateful step, Jefferson wiselybegan to make the most of it. He prepared for the opening of the newcountry by sending the Lewis and Clark expedition to explore it, discover its resources, and lay out an overland route through theMissouri Valley and across the Great Divide to the Pacific. The story ofthis mighty exploit, which began in the spring of 1804 and ended in theautumn of 1806, was set down with skill and pains in the journal ofLewis and Clark; when published even in a short form, it invited theforward-looking men of the East to take thought about the westernempire. At the same time Zebulon Pike, in a series of journeys, exploredthe sources of the Mississippi River and penetrated the Spanishterritories of the far Southwest. Thus scouts and pioneers continued thework of diplomats. 

THE REPUBLICAN WAR FOR COMMERCIAL INDEPENDENCE

=The English and French Blockades. =--In addition to bringing Louisianato the United States, the reopening of the European War in 1803, after ashort lull, renewed in an acute form the commercial difficulties thathad plagued the country all during the administrations of Washington andAdams. The Republicans were now plunged into the hornets' nest. Theparty whose ardent spirits had burned Jay in effigy, stoned Hamilton fordefending his treaty, jeered Washington's proclamation of neutrality, and spoken bitterly of "timid traders, " could no longer take refuge incriticism. It had to act. 

Its troubles took a serious turn in 1806. England, in a determinedeffort to bring France to her knees by starvation, declared the coast ofEurope blockaded from Brest to the mouth of the Elbe River. Napoleonretaliated by his Berlin Decree of November, 1806, blockading theBritish Isles--a measure terrifying to American ship owners whosevessels were liable to seizure by any French rover, though Napoleon hadno navy to make good his proclamation. Great Britain countered with astill more irritating decree--the Orders in Council of 1807. It modifiedits blockade, but in so doing merely authorized American ships notcarrying munitions of war to complete their voyage to the Continent, oncondition of their stopping at a British port, securing a license, andpaying a tax. This, responded Napoleon, was the height of insolence, andhe denounced it as a gross violation of international law. He thenclosed the circle of American troubles by issuing his Milan Decree ofDecember, 1807. This order declared that any ship which complied withthe British rules would be subject to seizure and confiscation by Frenchauthorities. 

=The Impressment of Seamen. =--That was not all. Great Britain, in direneed of men for her navy, adopted the practice of stopping Americanships, searching them, and carrying away British-born sailors found onboard. British sailors were so badly treated, so cruelly flogged fortrivial causes, and so meanly fed that they fled in crowds to theAmerican marine. In many cases it was difficult to tell whether seamenwere English or American. They spoke the same language, so that languagewas no test. Rovers on the deep and stragglers in the ports of bothcountries, they frequently had no papers to show their nativity. Moreover, Great Britain held to the old rule--"Once an Englishman, always an Englishman"--a doctrine rejected by the United States infavor of the principle that a man could choose the nation to which hewould give allegiance. British sea captains, sometimes by mistake, andoften enough with reckless indifference, carried away into servitude intheir own navy genuine American citizens. The process itself, even whenexecuted with all the civilities of law, was painful enough, for itmeant that American ships were forced to "come to, " and compelled torest submissively under British guns until the searching party had priedinto records, questioned seamen, seized and handcuffed victims. Saintscould not have done this work without raising angry passions, and onlysaints could have endured it with patience and fortitude. 

Had the enactment of the scenes been confined to the high seas andknowledge of them to rumors and newspaper stories, American resentmentmight not have been so intense; but many a search and seizure was madein sight of land. British and French vessels patrolled the coasts, firing on one another and chasing one another in American waters withinthe three-mile limit. When, in the summer of 1807, the American frigate_Chesapeake_ refused to surrender men alleged to be deserters from KingGeorge's navy, the British warship _Leopard_ opened fire, killing threemen and wounding eighteen more--an act which even the British ministrycould hardly excuse. If the French were less frequently the offenders, it was not because of their tenderness about American rights but becauseso few of their ships escaped the hawk-eyed British navy to operate inAmerican waters. 

=The Losses in American Commerce. =--This high-handed conduct on the partof European belligerents was very injurious to American trade. By theirenterprise, American shippers had become the foremost carriers on theAtlantic Ocean. In a decade they had doubled the tonnage of Americanmerchant ships under the American flag, taking the place of the Frenchmarine when Britain swept that from the seas, and supplying Britain withthe sinews of war for the contest with the Napoleonic empire. TheAmerican shipping engaged in foreign trade embraced 363, 110 tons in1791; 669, 921 tons in 1800; and almost 1, 000, 000 tons in 1810. Such wasthe enterprise attacked by the British and French decrees. Americanships bound for Great Britain were liable to be captured by Frenchprivateers which, in spite of the disasters of the Nile and Trafalgar, ranged the seas. American ships destined for the Continent, if theyfailed to stop at British ports and pay tribute, were in great danger ofcapture by the sleepless British navy and its swarm of auxiliaries. American sea captains who, in fear of British vengeance, heeded theOrders in Council and paid the tax were almost certain to fall a prey toFrench vengeance, for the French were vigorous in executing the MilanDecree. 

=Jefferson's Policy. =--The President's dilemma was distressing. Both thebelligerents in Europe were guilty of depredations on American commerce. War on both of them was out of the question. War on France wasimpossible because she had no territory on this side of the water whichcould be reached by American troops and her naval forces had beenshattered at the battles of the Nile and Trafalgar. War on GreatBritain, a power which Jefferson's followers feared and distrusted, waspossible but not inviting. Jefferson shrank from it. A man of peace, hedisliked war's brazen clamor; a man of kindly spirit, he was startled atthe death and destruction which it brought in its train. So for theeight years Jefferson steered an even course, suggesting measure aftermeasure with a view to avoiding bloodshed. He sent, it is true, Commodore Preble in 1803 to punish Mediterranean pirates preying uponAmerican commerce; but a great war he evaded with passionateearnestness, trying in its place every other expedient to protectAmerican rights. 

=The Embargo and Non-intercourse Acts. =--In 1806, Congress passed andJefferson approved a non-importation act closing American ports tocertain products from British dominions--a measure intended as a clubover the British government's head. This law, failing in its purpose, Jefferson proposed and Congress adopted in December, 1807, the EmbargoAct forbidding all vessels to leave American harbors for foreign ports. France and England were to be brought to terms by cutting off theirsupplies. 

The result of the embargo was pathetic. England and France refused togive up search and seizure. American ship owners who, lured by hugeprofits, had formerly been willing to take the risk were now restrainedby law to their home ports. Every section suffered. The South and Westfound their markets for cotton, rice, tobacco, corn, and baconcurtailed. Thus they learned by bitter experience the nationalsignificance of commerce. Ship masters, ship builders, longshoremen, andsailors were thrown out of employment while the prices of foreign goodsdoubled. Those who obeyed the law were ruined; violators of the lawsmuggled goods into Canada and Florida for shipment abroad. 

Jefferson's friends accepted the medicine with a wry face as the onlyalternative to supine submission or open war. His opponents, withoutoffering any solution of their own, denounced it as a contemptible planthat brought neither relief nor honor. Beset by the clamor that arose onall sides, Congress, in the closing days of Jefferson's administration, repealed the Embargo law and substituted a Non-intercourse actforbidding trade with England and France while permitting it with othercountries--a measure equally futile in staying the depredations onAmerican shipping. 

=Jefferson Retires in Favor of Madison. =--Jefferson, exhausted byendless wrangling and wounded, as Washington had been, by savagecriticism, welcomed March 4, 1809. His friends urged him to "stay by theship" and accept a third term. He declined, saying that election forlife might result from repeated reëlection. In following Washington'scourse and defending it on principle, he set an example to all hissuccessors, making the "third term doctrine" a part of Americanunwritten law. 

His intimate friend, James Madison, to whom he turned over the burdensof his high office was, like himself, a man of peace. Madison had been aleader since the days of the Revolution, but in legislative halls andcouncil chambers, not on the field of battle. Small in stature, sensitive in feelings, studious in habits, he was no man for the roughand tumble of practical politics. He had taken a prominent anddistinguished part in the framing and the adoption of the Constitution. He had served in the first Congress as a friend of Hamilton's measures. Later he attached himself to Jefferson's fortunes and served for eightyears as his first counselor, the Secretary of State. The principles ofthe Constitution, which he had helped to make and interpret, he was nowas President called upon to apply in one of the most perplexing momentsin all American history. In keeping with his own traditions andfollowing in the footsteps of Jefferson, he vainly tried to solve theforeign problem by negotiation. 

=The Trend of Events. =--Whatever difficulties Madison had in making uphis mind on war and peace were settled by events beyond his own control. In the spring of 1811, a British frigate held up an American ship nearthe harbor of New York and impressed a seaman alleged to be an Americancitizen. Burning with resentment, the captain of the _President_, anAmerican warship, acting under orders, poured several broadsides intothe _Little Belt_, a British sloop, suspected of being the guilty party. The British also encouraged the Indian chief Tecumseh, who weldedtogether the Indians of the Northwest under British protection and gavesigns of restlessness presaging a revolt. This sent a note of alarmalong the frontier that was not checked even when, in November, Tecumseh's men were badly beaten at Tippecanoe by William HenryHarrison. The Indians stood in the way of the advancing frontier, and itseemed to the pioneers that, without support from the British in Canada, the Red Men would soon be subdued. 

=Clay and Calhoun. =--While events were moving swiftly and rumors wereflying thick and fast, the mastery of the government passed from theuncertain hands of Madison to a party of ardent young men in Congress, dubbed "Young Republicans, " under the leadership of two members destinedto be mighty figures in American history: Henry Clay of Kentucky andJohn C. Calhoun of South Carolina. The former contended, in a flair offolly, that "the militia of Kentucky alone are competent to placeMontreal and Upper Canada at your feet. " The latter with a light heartspoke of conquering Canada in a four weeks' campaign. "It must not beinferred, " says Channing, "that in advocating conquest, the Westernerswere actuated merely by desire for land; they welcomed war because theythought it would be the easiest way to abate Indian troubles. Thesavages were supported by the fur-trading interests that centred atQuebec and London. .. . The Southerners on their part wished for Floridaand they thought that the conquest of Canada would obviate some Northernopposition to this acquisition of slave territory. " While Clay andCalhoun, spokesmen of the West and South, were not unmindful of whatNapoleon had done to American commerce, they knew that their followersstill remembered with deep gratitude the aid of the French in the warfor independence and that the embers of the old hatred for George III, still on the throne, could be readily blown into flame. 

=Madison Accepts War as Inevitable. =--The conduct of the Britishministers with whom Madison had to deal did little to encourage him inadhering to the policy of "watchful waiting. " One of them, a high Tory, believed that all Americans were alike "except that a few are lessknaves than others" and his methods were colored by his belief. On therecall of this minister the British government selected another no lesshigh and mighty in his principles and opinions. So Madison becamethoroughly discouraged about the outcome of pacific measures. When thepressure from Congress upon him became too heavy, he gave way, signingon June 18, 1812, the declaration of war on Great Britain. Inproclaiming hostilities, the administration set forth the causes whichjustified the declaration; namely, the British had been encouraging theIndians to attack American citizens on the frontier; they had ruinedAmerican trade by blockades; they had insulted the American flag bystopping and searching our ships; they had illegally seized Americansailors and driven them into the British navy. 

=The Course of the War. =--The war lasted for nearly three years withoutbringing victory to either side. The surrender of Detroit by GeneralHull to the British and the failure of the American invasion of Canadawere offset by Perry's victory on Lake Erie and a decisive blowadministered to British designs for an invasion of New York by way ofPlattsburgh. The triumph of Jackson at New Orleans helped to atone forthe humiliation suffered in the burning of the Capitol by the British. The stirring deeds of the _Constitution_, the _United States_, and the_Argus_ on the seas, the heroic death of Lawrence and the victories of ahundred privateers furnished consolation for those who suffered from theiron blockade finally established by the British government when it cameto appreciate the gravity of the situation. While men love the annals ofthe sea, they will turn to the running battles, the narrow escapes, andthe reckless daring of American sailors in that naval contest with GreatBritain. 

All this was exciting but it was inconclusive. In fact, never was agovernment less prepared than was that of the United States in 1812. Ithad neither the disciplined troops, the ships of war, nor the suppliesrequired by the magnitude of the military task. It was fortune thatfavored the American cause. Great Britain, harassed, worn, andfinancially embarrassed by nearly twenty years of fighting in Europe, was in no mood to gather her forces for a titanic effort in America evenafter Napoleon was overthrown and sent into exile at Elba in the springof 1814. War clouds still hung on the European horizon and the conflicttemporarily halted did again break out. To be rid of American anxietiesand free for European eventualities, England was ready to settle withthe United States, especially as that could be done without concedinganything or surrendering any claims. 

=The Treaty of Peace. =--Both countries were in truth sick of a war thatoffered neither glory nor profit. Having indulged in the usualdiplomatic skirmishing, they sent representatives to Ghent to discussterms of peace. After long negotiations an agreement was reached onChristmas eve, 1814, a few days before Jackson's victory at New Orleans. When the treaty reached America the people were surprised to find thatit said nothing about the seizure of American sailors, the destructionof American trade, the searching of American ships, or the support ofIndians on the frontier. Nevertheless, we are told, the people "passedfrom gloom to glory" when the news of peace arrived. The bells wererung; schools were closed; flags were displayed; and many a rousingtoast was drunk in tavern and private home. The rejoicing couldcontinue. With Napoleon definitely beaten at Waterloo in June, 1815, Great Britain had no need to impress sailors, search ships, andconfiscate American goods bound to the Continent. Once more the terriblesea power sank into the background and the ocean was again white withthe sails of merchantmen. 

THE REPUBLICANS NATIONALIZED

=The Federalists Discredited. =--By a strange turn of fortune's wheel, the party of Hamilton, Washington, Adams, the party of the grand nation, became the party of provincialism and nullification. New England, finding its shipping interests crippled in the European conflict andthen penalized by embargoes, opposed the declaration of war on GreatBritain, which meant the completion of the ruin already begun. In thecourse of the struggle, the Federalist leaders came perilously near totreason in their efforts to hamper the government of the United States;and in their desperation they fell back upon the doctrine ofnullification so recently condemned by them when it came from Kentucky. The Senate of Massachusetts, while the war was in progress, resolvedthat it was waged "without justifiable cause, " and refused to approvemilitary and naval projects not connected with "the defense of ourseacoast and soil. " A Boston newspaper declared that the union wasnothing but a treaty among sovereign states, that states could decidefor themselves the question of obeying federal law, and that armedresistance under the banner of a state would not be rebellion ortreason. The general assembly of Connecticut reminded the administrationat Washington that "the state of Connecticut is a free, sovereign, andindependent state. " Gouverneur Morris, a member of the convention whichhad drafted the Constitution, suggested the holding of anotherconference to consider whether the Northern states should remain in theunion. 

[Illustration: _From an old cartoon_

NEW ENGLAND JUMPING INTO THE HANDS OF GEORGE III]

In October, 1814, a convention of delegates from Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and certain counties of New Hampshire andVermont was held at Hartford, on the call of Massachusetts. The counselsof the extremists were rejected but the convention solemnly went onrecord to the effect that acts of Congress in violation of theConstitution are void; that in cases of deliberate, dangerous, andpalpable infractions the state is duty bound to interpose its authorityfor the protection of its citizens; and that when emergencies occur thestates must be their own judges and execute their own decisions. ThusNew England answered the challenge of Calhoun and Clay. Fortunately itsactions were not as rash as its words. The Hartford convention merelyproposed certain amendments to the Constitution and adjourned. At theclose of the war, its proposals vanished harmlessly; but the men whomade them were hopelessly discredited. 

=The Second United States Bank. =--In driving the Federalists towardsnullification and waging a national war themselves, the Republicans lostall their old taint of provincialism. Moreover, in turning to measuresof reconstruction called forth by the war, they resorted to the nationaldevices of the Federalists. In 1816, they chartered for a period oftwenty years a second United States Bank--the institution whichJefferson and Madison once had condemned as unsound andunconstitutional. The Constitution remained unchanged; times andcircumstances had changed. Calhoun dismissed the vexed question ofconstitutionality with a scant reference to an ancient dispute, whileMadison set aside his scruples and signed the bill. 

=The Protective Tariff of 1816. =--The Republicans supplemented the Bankby another Federalist measure--a high protective tariff. Clay viewed itas the beginning of his "American system" of protection. Calhoundefended it on national principles. For this sudden reversal of policythe young Republicans were taunted by some of their older partycolleagues with betraying the "agricultural interest" that Jefferson hadfostered; but Calhoun refused to listen to their criticisms. "When theseas are open, " he said, "the produce of the South may pour anywhereinto the markets of the Old World. .. . What are the effects of a war witha maritime power--with England? Our commerce annihilated . .. Ouragriculture cut off from its accustomed markets, the surplus of thefarmer perishes on his hands. .. . The recent war fell with peculiarpressure on the growers of cotton and tobacco and the other greatstaples of the country; and the same state of things will recur in theevent of another war unless prevented by the foresight of this body. .. . When our manufactures are grown to a certain perfection, as they soonwill be under the fostering care of the government, we shall no longerexperience these evils. " With the Republicans nationalized, theFederalist party, as an organization, disappeared after a crushingdefeat in the presidential campaign of 1816. 

=Monroe and the Florida Purchase. =--To the victor in that politicalcontest, James Monroe of Virginia, fell two tasks of nationalimportance, adding to the prestige of the whole country and deepeningthe sense of patriotism that weaned men away from mere allegiance tostates. The first of these was the purchase of Florida from Spain. Theacquisition of Louisiana let the Mississippi flow "unvexed to the sea";but it left all the states east of the river cut off from the Gulf, affording them ground for discontent akin to that which had moved thepioneers of Kentucky to action a generation earlier. The uncertainty asto the boundaries of Louisiana gave the United States a claim to WestFlorida, setting on foot a movement for occupation. The Florida swampswere a basis for Indian marauders who periodically swept into thefrontier settlements, and hiding places for runaway slaves. Thus thesanction of international law was given to punitive expeditions intoalien territory. 

The pioneer leaders stood waiting for the signal. It came. PresidentMonroe, on the occasion of an Indian outbreak, ordered General Jacksonto seize the offenders, in the Floridas, if necessary. The high-spiritedwarrior, taking this as a hint that he was to occupy the coveted region, replied that, if possession was the object of the invasion, he couldoccupy the Floridas within sixty days. Without waiting for an answer tothis letter, he launched his expedition, and in the spring of 1818 wasmaster of the Spanish king's domain to the south. 

There was nothing for the king to do but to make the best of theinevitable by ceding the Floridas to the United States in return forfive million dollars to be paid to American citizens having claimsagainst Spain. On Washington's birthday, 1819, the treaty was signed. Itceded the Floridas to the United States and defined the boundary betweenMexico and the United States by drawing a line from the mouth of theSabine River in a northwesterly direction to the Pacific. On thisoccasion even Monroe, former opponent of the Constitution, forgot toinquire whether new territory could be constitutionally acquired andincorporated into the American union. The Republicans seemed far awayfrom the days of "strict construction. " And Jefferson still lived!

=The Monroe Doctrine. =--Even more effective in fashioning the nationalidea was Monroe's enunciation of the famous doctrine that bears hisname. The occasion was another European crisis. During the Napoleonicupheaval and the years of dissolution that ensued, the Spanish coloniesin America, following the example set by their English neighbors in1776, declared their independence. Unable to conquer them alone, theking of Spain turned for help to the friendly powers of Europe thatlooked upon revolution and republics with undisguised horror. 

_The Holy Alliance. _--He found them prepared to view his case withsympathy. Three of them, Austria, Prussia, and Russia, under theleadership of the Czar, Alexander I, in the autumn of 1815, had enteredinto a Holy Alliance to sustain by reciprocal service the autocraticprinciple in government. Although the effusive, almost maudlin, languageof the treaty did not express their purpose explicitly, the Alliance waslater regarded as a mere union of monarchs to prevent the rise andgrowth of popular government. 

The American people thought their worst fears confirmed when, in 1822, aconference of delegates from Russia, Austria, Prussia, and France met atVerona to consider, among other things, revolutions that had just brokenout in Spain and Italy. The spirit of the conference is reflected in thefirst article of the agreement reached by the delegates: "The highcontracting powers, being convinced that the system of representativegovernment is equally incompatible with the monarchical principle andthe maxim of the sovereignty of the people with the divine right, mutually engage in the most solemn manner to use all their efforts toput an end to the system of representative government in whatevercountry it may exist in Europe and to prevent its being introduced inthose countries where it is not yet known. " The Czar, who incidentallycoveted the west coast of North America, proposed to send an army to aidthe king of Spain in his troubles at home, thus preparing the way forintervention in Spanish America. It was material weakness not want ofspirit, that prevented the grand union of monarchs from making open waron popular government. 

_The Position of England. _--Unfortunately, too, for the Holy Alliance, England refused to coöperate. English merchants had built up a largetrade with the independent Latin-American colonies and they protestedagainst the restoration of Spanish sovereignty, which meant a renewal ofSpain's former trade monopoly. Moreover, divine right doctrines had beenlaid to rest in England and the representative principle thoroughlyestablished. Already there were signs of the coming democratic floodwhich was soon to carry the first reform bill of 1832, extending thesuffrage, and sweep on to even greater achievements. British statesmen, therefore, had to be cautious. In such circumstances, instead ofcoöperating with the autocrats of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, theyturned to the minister of the United States in London. The British primeminister, Canning, proposed that the two countries join in declaringtheir unwillingness to see the Spanish colonies transferred to any otherpower. 

_Jefferson's Advice. _--The proposal was rejected; but President Monroetook up the suggestion with Madison and Jefferson as well as with hisSecretary of State, John Quincy Adams. They favored the plan. Jeffersonsaid: "One nation, most of all, could disturb us in this pursuit [offreedom]; she now offers to lead, aid, and accompany us in it. Byacceding to her proposition we detach her from the bands, bring hermighty weight into the scale of free government and emancipate acontinent at one stroke. .. . With her on our side we need not fear thewhole world. With her then we should most sedulously cherish a cordialfriendship. "

_Monroe's Statement of the Doctrine. _--Acting on the advice of trustedfriends, President Monroe embodied in his message to Congress, onDecember 2, 1823, a statement of principles now famous throughout theworld as the Monroe Doctrine. To the autocrats of Europe he announcedthat he would regard "any attempt on their part to extend their systemto any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. "While he did not propose to interfere with existing colonies dependenton European powers, he ranged himself squarely on the side of those thathad declared their independence. Any attempt by a European power tooppress them or control their destiny in any manner he characterized as"a manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. "Referring in another part of his message to a recent claim which theCzar had made to the Pacific coast, President Monroe warned the OldWorld that "the American continents, by the free and independentcondition which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not tobe considered as subjects for future colonization by any Europeanpowers. " The effect of this declaration was immediate and profound. Menwhose political horizon had been limited to a community or state wereled to consider their nation as a great power among the sovereignties ofthe earth, taking its part in shaping their international relations. 

=The Missouri Compromise. =--Respecting one other important measure ofthis period, the Republicans also took a broad view of their obligationsunder the Constitution; namely, the Missouri Compromise. It is true, they insisted on the admission of Missouri as a slave state, balancedagainst the free state of Maine; but at the same time they assented tothe prohibition of slavery in the Louisiana territory north of the line36° 30'. During the debate on the subject an extreme view had beenpresented, to the effect that Congress had no constitutional warrant forabolishing slavery in the territories. The precedent of the NorthwestOrdinance, ratified by Congress in 1789, seemed a conclusive answer frompractice to this contention; but Monroe submitted the issue to hiscabinet, which included Calhoun of South Carolina, Crawford of Georgia, and Wirt of Virginia, all presumably adherents to the Jeffersonianprinciple of strict construction. He received in reply a unanimousverdict to the effect that Congress did have the power to prohibitslavery in the territories governed by it. Acting on this advice heapproved, on March 6, 1820, the bill establishing freedom north of thecompromise line. This generous interpretation of the powers of Congressstood for nearly forty years, until repudiated by the Supreme Court inthe Dred Scott case. 

THE NATIONAL DECISIONS OF CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL

=John Marshall, the Nationalist. =--The Republicans in the lower rangesof state politics, who did not catch the grand national style of theirleaders charged with responsibilities in the national field, wereassisted in their education by a Federalist from the Old Dominion, JohnMarshall, who, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates from 1801 to 1835, lost no occasion to exalt the Constitutionabove the claims of the provinces. No differences of opinion as to hispolitical views have ever led even his warmest opponents to deny hissuperb abilities or his sincere devotion to the national idea. All willlikewise agree that for talents, native and acquired, he was an ornamentto the humble democracy that brought him forth. His whole career wasAmerican. Born on the frontier of Virginia, reared in a log cabin, granted only the barest rudiments of education, inured to hardship andrough life, he rose by masterly efforts to the highest judicial honorAmerica can bestow. 

On him the bitter experience of the Revolution and of later days made alasting impression. He was no "summer patriot. " He had been a soldier inthe Revolutionary army. He had suffered with Washington at Valley Forge. He had seen his comrades in arms starving and freezing because theContinental Congress had neither the power nor the inclination to forcethe states to do their full duty. To him the Articles of Confederationwere the symbol of futility. Into the struggle for the formation of theConstitution and its ratification in Virginia he had thrown himself withthe ardor of a soldier. Later, as a member of Congress, a representativeto France, and Secretary of State, he had aided the Federalists inestablishing the new government. When at length they were driven frompower in the executive and legislative branches of the government, hewas chosen for their last stronghold, the Supreme Court. By historicirony he administered the oath of office to his bitterest enemy, ThomasJefferson; and, long after the author of the Declaration of Independencehad retired to private life, the stern Chief Justice continued toannounce the old Federalist principles from the Supreme Bench. 

[Illustration: JOHN MARSHALL]

=Marbury _vs. _ Madison--An Act of Congress Annulled. =--He had been inhis high office only two years when he laid down for the first time inthe name of the entire Court the doctrine that the judges have the powerto declare an act of Congress null and void when in their opinion itviolates the Constitution. This power was not expressly conferred on theCourt. Though many able men held that the judicial branch of thegovernment enjoyed it, the principle was not positively establisheduntil 1803 when the case of Marbury _vs. _ Madison was decided. Inrendering the opinion of the Court, Marshall cited no precedents. Hesought no foundations for his argument in ancient history. He rested iton the general nature of the American system. The Constitution, ran hisreasoning, is the supreme law of the land; it limits and binds all whoact in the name of the United States; it limits the powers of Congressand defines the rights of citizens. If Congress can ignore itslimitations and trespass upon the rights of citizens, Marshall argued, then the Constitution disappears and Congress is supreme. Since, however, the Constitution is supreme and superior to Congress, it is theduty of judges, under their oath of office, to sustain it againstmeasures which violate it. Therefore, from the nature of the Americanconstitutional system the courts must declare null and void all actswhich are not authorized. "A law repugnant to the Constitution, " heclosed, "is void and the courts as well as other departments are boundby that instrument. " From that day to this the practice of federal andstate courts in passing upon the constitutionality of laws has remainedunshaken. 

This doctrine was received by Jefferson and many of his followers withconsternation. If the idea was sound, he exclaimed, "then indeed is ourConstitution a complete _felo de se_ [legally, a suicide]. For, intending to establish three departments, coördinate and independentthat they might check and balance one another, it has given, accordingto this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules forthe government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelectedby and independent of the nation. .. . The Constitution, on thishypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary whichthey may twist and shape into any form they please. It should beremembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whateverpower in any government is independent, is absolute also. .. . A judiciaryindependent of a king or executive alone is a good thing; butindependence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in arepublican government. " But Marshall was mighty and his view prevailed, though from time to time other men, clinging to Jefferson's opinion, likewise opposed the exercise by the Courts of the high power of passingupon the constitutionality of acts of Congress. 

=Acts of State Legislatures Declared Unconstitutional. =--Had Marshallstopped with annulling an act of Congress, he would have heard lesscriticism from Republican quarters; but, with the same firmness, he setaside acts of state legislatures as well, whenever, in his opinion, theyviolated the federal Constitution. In 1810, in the case of Fletcher_vs. _ Peck, he annulled an act of the Georgia legislature, informing thestate that it was not sovereign, but "a part of a large empire, . .. Amember of the American union; and that union has a constitution . .. Which imposes limits to the legislatures of the several states. " In thecase of McCulloch _vs. _ Maryland, decided in 1819, he declared void anact of the Maryland legislature designed to paralyze the branches of theUnited States Bank established in that state. In the same year, in thestill more memorable Dartmouth College case, he annulled an act of theNew Hampshire legislature which infringed upon the charter received bythe college from King George long before. That charter, he declared, wasa contract between the state and the college, which the legislatureunder the federal Constitution could not impair. Two years later hestirred the wrath of Virginia by summoning her to the bar of the SupremeCourt to answer in a case in which the validity of one of her laws wasinvolved and then justified his action in a powerful opinion rendered inthe case of Cohens _vs. _ Virginia. 

All these decisions aroused the legislatures of the states. They passedsheaves of resolutions protesting and condemning; but Marshall neverturned and never stayed. The Constitution of the United States, hefairly thundered at them, is the supreme law of the land; the SupremeCourt is the proper tribunal to pass finally upon the validity of thelaws of the states; and "those sovereignties, " far from possessing theright of review and nullification, are irrevocably bound by thedecisions of that Court. This was strong medicine for the authors of theKentucky and Virginia Resolutions and for the members of the Hartfordconvention; but they had to take it. 

=The Doctrine of Implied Powers. =--While restraining Congress in theMarbury case and the state legislatures in a score of cases, Marshallalso laid the judicial foundation for a broad and liberal view of theConstitution as opposed to narrow and strict construction. In McCulloch_vs. _ Maryland, he construed generously the words "necessary and proper"in such a way as to confer upon Congress a wide range of "impliedpowers" in addition to their express powers. That case involved, amongother things, the question whether the act establishing the secondUnited States Bank was authorized by the Constitution. Marshall answeredin the affirmative. Congress, ran his reasoning, has large powers overtaxation and the currency; a bank is of appropriate use in the exerciseof these enumerated powers; and therefore, though not absolutelynecessary, a bank is entirely proper and constitutional. "With respectto the means by which the powers that the Constitution confers are to becarried into execution, " he said, Congress must be allowed thediscretion which "will enable that body to perform the high dutiesassigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people. " In short, the Constitution of the United States is not a strait jacket but aflexible instrument vesting in Congress the powers necessary to meetnational problems as they arise. In delivering this opinion Marshallused language almost identical with that employed by Lincoln when, standing on the battle field of a war waged to preserve the nation, hesaid that "a government of the people, by the people, for the peopleshall not perish from the earth. "

SUMMARY OF THE UNION AND NATIONAL POLITICS

During the strenuous period between the establishment of Americanindependence and the advent of Jacksonian democracy the great Americanexperiment was under the direction of the men who had launched it. Allthe Presidents in that period, except John Quincy Adams, had taken partin the Revolution. James Madison, the chief author of the Constitution, lived until 1836. This age, therefore, was the "age of the fathers. " Itsaw the threatened ruin of the country under the Articles ofConfederation, the formation of the Constitution, the rise of politicalparties, the growth of the West, the second war with England, and theapparent triumph of the national spirit over sectionalism. 

The new republic had hardly been started in 1783 before its troublesbegan. The government could not raise money to pay its debts or runningexpenses; it could not protect American commerce and manufacturesagainst European competition; it could not stop the continual issues ofpaper money by the states; it could not intervene to put down domesticuprisings that threatened the existence of the state governments. Without money, without an army, without courts of law, the union underthe Articles of Confederation was drifting into dissolution. Patriots, who had risked their lives for independence, began to talk of monarchyagain. Washington, Hamilton, and Madison insisted that a newconstitution alone could save America from disaster. 

By dint of much labor the friends of a new form of government inducedthe Congress to call a national convention to take into account thestate of America. In May, 1787, it assembled at Philadelphia and formonths it debated and wrangled over plans for a constitution. The smallstates clamored for equal rights in the union. The large states vowedthat they would never grant it. A spirit of conciliation, fair play, andcompromise saved the convention from breaking up. In addition, therewere jealousies between the planting states and the commercial states. Here, too, compromises had to be worked out. Some of the delegatesfeared the growth of democracy and others cherished it. These factionsalso had to be placated. At last a plan of government was drafted--theConstitution of the United States--and submitted to the states forapproval. Only after a long and acrimonious debate did enough statesratify the instrument to put it into effect. On April 30, 1789, GeorgeWashington was inaugurated first President. 

The new government proceeded to fund the old debt of the nation, assumethe debts of the states, found a national bank, lay heavy taxes to paythe bills, and enact laws protecting American industry and commerce. Hamilton led the way, but he had not gone far before he encounteredopposition. He found a formidable antagonist in Jefferson. In time twopolitical parties appeared full armed upon the scene: the Federalistsand the Republicans. For ten years they filled the country withpolitical debate. In 1800 the Federalists were utterly vanquished by theRepublicans with Jefferson in the lead. 

By their proclamations of faith the Republicans favored the statesrather than the new national government, but in practice they addedimmensely to the prestige and power of the nation. They purchasedLouisiana from France, they waged a war for commercial independenceagainst England, they created a second United States Bank, they enactedthe protective tariff of 1816, they declared that Congress had power toabolish slavery north of the Missouri Compromise line, and they spreadthe shield of the Monroe Doctrine between the Western Hemisphere andEurope. 

Still America was a part of European civilization. Currents of opinionflowed to and fro across the Atlantic. Friends of popular government inEurope looked to America as the great exemplar of their ideals. Eventsin Europe reacted upon thought in the United States. The FrenchRevolution exerted a profound influence on the course of politicaldebate. While it was in the stage of mere reform all Americans favoredit. When the king was executed and a radical democracy set up, Americanopinion was divided. When France fell under the military dominion ofNapoleon and preyed upon American commerce, the United States made readyfor war. 

The conduct of England likewise affected American affairs. In 1793 warbroke out between England and France and raged with only a slightintermission until 1815. England and France both ravaged Americancommerce, but England was the more serious offender because she hadcommand of the seas. Though Jefferson and Madison strove for peace, thecountry was swept into war by the vehemence of the "Young Republicans, "headed by Clay and Calhoun. 

When the armed conflict was closed, one in diplomacy opened. Theautocratic powers of Europe threatened to intervene on behalf of Spainin her attempt to recover possession of her Latin-American colonies. Their challenge to America brought forth the Monroe Doctrine. The powersof Europe were warned not to interfere with the independence or therepublican policies of this hemisphere or to attempt any newcolonization in it. It seemed that nationalism was to have a peacefultriumph over sectionalism. 

=References=

H. Adams, _History of the United States, 1800-1817_ (9 vols. ). 

K. C. Babcock, _Rise of American Nationality_ (American Nation Series). 

E. Channing, _The Jeffersonian System_ (Same Series). 

D. C. Gilman, _James Monroe_. 

W. Reddaway, _The Monroe Doctrine_. 

T. Roosevelt, _Naval War of 1812_. 

=Questions=

1. What was the leading feature of Jefferson's political theory?

2. Enumerate the chief measures of his administration. 

3. Were the Jeffersonians able to apply their theories? Give thereasons. 

4. Explain the importance of the Mississippi River to Western farmers. 

5. Show how events in Europe forced the Louisiana Purchase. 

6. State the constitutional question involved in the Louisiana Purchase. 

7. Show how American trade was affected by the European war. 

8. Compare the policies of Jefferson and Madison. 

9. Why did the United States become involved with England rather thanwith France?

10. Contrast the causes of the War of 1812 with the results. 

11. Give the economic reasons for the attitude of New England. 

12. Give five "nationalist" measures of the Republicans. Discuss each indetail. 

13. Sketch the career of John Marshall. 

14. Discuss the case of Marbury _vs. _ Madison. 

15. Summarize Marshall's views on: (_a_) states' rights; and (_b_) aliberal interpretation of the Constitution. 

=Research Topics=

=The Louisiana Purchase. =--Text of Treaty in Macdonald, _DocumentarySource Book_, pp. 279-282. Source materials in Hart, _American HistoryTold by Contemporaries_, Vol. III, pp. 363-384. Narrative, Henry Adams, _History of the United States_, Vol. II, pp. 25-115; Elson, _History ofthe United States_, pp. 383-388. 

=The Embargo and Non-Intercourse Acts. =--Macdonald, pp. 282-288; Adams, Vol. IV, pp. 152-177; Elson, pp. 394-405. 

=Congress and the War of 1812. =--Adams, Vol. VI, pp. 113-198; Elson, pp. 408-450. 

=Proposals of the Hartford Convention. =--Macdonald, pp. 293-302. 

=Manufactures and the Tariff of 1816. =--Coman, _Industrial History ofthe United States_, pp. 184-194. 

=The Second United States Bank. =--Macdonald, pp. 302-306. 

=Effect of European War on American Trade. =--Callender, _EconomicHistory of the United States_, pp. 240-250. 

=The Monroe Message. =--Macdonald, pp. 318-320. 

=Lewis and Clark Expedition. =--R. G. Thwaites, _Rocky MountainExplorations_, pp. 92-187. Schafer, _A History of the Pacific Northwest_(rev. Ed. ), pp. 29-61. 

PART IV. THE WEST AND JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY

CHAPTER X

THE FARMERS BEYOND THE APPALACHIANS

The nationalism of Hamilton was undemocratic. The democracy of Jeffersonwas, in the beginning, provincial. The historic mission of unitingnationalism and democracy was in the course of time given to new leadersfrom a region beyond the mountains, peopled by men and women from allsections and free from those state traditions which ran back to theearly days of colonization. The voice of the democratic nationalismnourished in the West was heard when Clay of Kentucky advocated hisAmerican system of protection for industries; when Jackson of Tennesseecondemned nullification in a ringing proclamation that has taken itsplace among the great American state papers; and when Lincoln ofIllinois, in a fateful hour, called upon a bewildered people to meet thesupreme test whether this was a nation destined to survive or to perish. And it will be remembered that Lincoln's party chose for its banner thatearlier device--Republican--which Jefferson had made a sign of power. The "rail splitter" from Illinois united the nationalism of Hamiltonwith the democracy of Jefferson, and his appeal was clothed in thesimple language of the people, not in the sonorous rhetoric whichWebster learned in the schools. 

PREPARATION FOR WESTERN SETTLEMENT

=The West and the American Revolution. =--The excessive attention devotedby historians to the military operations along the coast has obscuredthe rôle played by the frontier in the American Revolution. The actionof Great Britain in closing western land to easy settlement in 1763 wasmore than an incident in precipitating the war for independence. Americans on the frontier did not forget it; when Indians were employedby England to defend that land, zeal for the patriot cause set theinterior aflame. It was the members of the western vanguard, like DanielBoone, John Sevier, and George Rogers Clark, who first understood thevalue of the far-away country under the guns of the English forts, wherethe Red Men still wielded the tomahawk and the scalping knife. It wasthey who gave the East no rest until their vision was seen by theleaders on the seaboard who directed the course of national policy. Itwas one of their number, a seasoned Indian fighter, George Rogers Clark, who with aid from Virginia seized Kaskaskia and Vincennes and securedthe whole Northwest to the union while the fate of Washington's army wasstill hanging in the balance. 

=Western Problems at the End of the Revolution. =--The treaty of peace, signed with Great Britain in 1783, brought the definite cession of thecoveted territory west to the Mississippi River, but it left unsolvedmany problems. In the first place, tribes of resentful Indians in theOhio region, even though British support was withdrawn at last, had tobe reckoned with; and it was not until after the establishment of thefederal Constitution that a well-equipped army could be provided toguarantee peace on the border. In the second place, British garrisonsstill occupied forts on Lake Erie pending the execution of the terms ofthe treaty of 1783--terms which were not fulfilled until after theratification of the Jay treaty twelve years later. In the third place, Virginia, Connecticut, and Massachusetts had conflicting claims to theland in the Northwest based on old English charters and Indian treaties. It was only after a bitter contest that the states reached an agreementto transfer their rights to the government of the United States, Virginia executing her deed of cession on March 1, 1784. In the fourthplace, titles to lands bought by individuals remained uncertain in theabsence of official maps and records. To meet this last situation, Congress instituted a systematic survey of the Ohio country, laying itout into townships, sections of 640 acres each, and quarter sections. Inevery township one section of land was set aside for the support ofpublic schools. 

=The Northwest Ordinance. =--The final problem which had to be solvedbefore settlement on a large scale could be begun was that of governingthe territory. Pioneers who looked with hungry eyes on the fertilevalley of the Ohio could hardly restrain their impatience. Soldiers ofthe Revolution, who had been paid for their services in land warrantsentitling them to make entries in the West, called for action. 

Congress answered by passing in 1787 the famous Northwest Ordinanceproviding for temporary territorial government to be followed by thecreation of a popular assembly as soon as there were five thousand freemales in any district. Eventual admission to the union on an equalfooting with the original states was promised to the new territories. Religious freedom was guaranteed. The safeguards of trial by jury, regular judicial procedure, and _habeas corpus_ were established, in orderthat the methods of civilized life might take the place of therough-and-ready justice of lynch law. During the course of the debate onthe Ordinance, Congress added the sixth article forbidding slavery andinvoluntary servitude. 

This Charter of the Northwest, so well planned by the Congress under theArticles of Confederation, was continued in force by the first Congressunder the Constitution in 1789. The following year its essentialprovisions, except the ban on slavery, were applied to the territorysouth of the Ohio, ceded by North Carolina to the national government, and in 1798 to the Mississippi territory, once held by Georgia. Thus itwas settled for all time that "the new colonies were not to be exploitedfor the benefit of the parent states (any more than for the benefit ofEngland) but were to be autonomous and coördinate commonwealths. " Thisoutcome, bitterly opposed by some Eastern leaders who feared the triumphof Western states over the seaboard, completed the legal steps necessaryby way of preparation for the flood of settlers. 

=The Land Companies, Speculators, and Western Land Tenure. =--As in theoriginal settlement of America, so in the opening of the West, greatcompanies and single proprietors of large grants early figured. In 1787the Ohio Land Company, a New England concern, acquired a million and ahalf acres on the Ohio and began operations by planting the town ofMarietta. A professional land speculator, J. C. Symmes, secured a millionacres lower down where the city of Cincinnati was founded. Otherindividuals bought up soldiers' claims and so acquired enormous holdingsfor speculative purposes. Indeed, there was such a rush to make fortunesquickly through the rise in land values that Washington was moved to cryout against the "rage for speculating in and forestalling of land on theNorth West of the Ohio, " protesting that "scarce a valuable spot withinany tolerable distance of it is left without a claimant. " He thereforeurged Congress to fix a reasonable price for the land, not "tooexorbitant and burdensome for real occupiers, but high enough todiscourage monopolizers. "

Congress, however, was not prepared to use the public domain for thesole purpose of developing a body of small freeholders in the West. Itstill looked upon the sale of public lands as an important source ofrevenue with which to pay off the public debt; consequently it thoughtmore of instant income than of ultimate results. It placed no limit onthe amount which could be bought when it fixed the price at $2 an acrein 1796, and it encouraged the professional land operator by making thefirst installment only twenty cents an acre in addition to the smallregistration and survey fee. On such terms a speculator with a fewthousand dollars could get possession of an enormous plot of land. If hewas fortunate in disposing of it, he could meet the installments, whichwere spread over a period of four years, and make a handsome profit forhimself. Even when the credit or installment feature was abolished in1821 and the price of the land lowered to a cash price of $1. 75 an acre, the opportunity for large speculative purchases continued to attractcapital to land ventures. 

=The Development of the Small Freehold. =--The cheapness of land and thescarcity of labor, nevertheless, made impossible the triumph of the hugeestate with its semi-servile tenantry. For about $45 a man could get afarm of 160 acres on the installment plan; another payment of $80 wasdue in forty days; but a four-year term was allowed for the discharge ofthe balance. With a capital of from two to three hundred dollars afamily could embark on a land venture. If it had good crops, it couldmeet the deferred payments. It was, however, a hard battle at best. Manya man forfeited his land through failure to pay the final installment;yet in the end, in spite of all the handicaps, the small freehold of afew hundred acres at most became the typical unit of Westernagriculture, except in the planting states of the Gulf. Even the landsof the great companies were generally broken up and sold in small lots. 

The tendency toward moderate holdings, so favored by Western conditions, was also promoted by a clause in the Northwest Ordinance declaring thatthe land of any person dying intestate--that is, without any willdisposing of it--should be divided equally among his descendants. Hildreth says of this provision: "It established the importantrepublican principle, not then introduced into all the states, of theequal distribution of landed as well as personal property. " All theseforces combined made the wide dispersion of wealth, in the early days ofthe nineteenth century, an American characteristic, in marked contrastwith the European system of family prestige and vast estates based onthe law of primogeniture. 

THE WESTERN MIGRATION AND NEW STATES

=The People. =--With government established, federal arms victorious overthe Indians, and the lands surveyed for sale, the way was prepared forthe immigrants. They came with a rush. Young New Englanders, weary oftilling the stony soil of their native states, poured through New Yorkand Pennsylvania, some settling on the northern bank of the Ohio butmost of them in the Lake region. Sons and daughters of German farmers inPennsylvania and many a redemptioner who had discharged his bond ofservitude pressed out into Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, or beyond. Fromthe exhausted fields and the clay hills of the Southern states camepioneers of English and Scotch-Irish descent, the latter in greatnumbers. Indeed one historian of high authority has ventured to say that"the rapid expansion of the United States from a coast strip to acontinental area is largely a Scotch-Irish achievement. " While nativeAmericans of mixed stocks led the way into the West, it was not longbefore immigrants direct from Europe, under the stimulus of companyenterprise, began to filter into the new settlements in increasingnumbers. 

The types of people were as various as the nations they represented. Timothy Flint, who published his entertaining _Recollections_ in 1826, found the West a strange mixture of all sorts and conditions of people. Some of them, he relates, had been hunters in the upper world of theMississippi, above the falls of St. Anthony. Some had been still farthernorth, in Canada. Still others had wandered from the South--the Gulf ofMexico, the Red River, and the Spanish country. French boatmen andtrappers, Spanish traders from the Southwest, Virginia planters withtheir droves of slaves mingled with English, German, and Scotch-Irishfarmers. Hunters, forest rangers, restless bordermen, and squatters, like the foaming combers of an advancing tide, went first. Then followedthe farmers, masters of the ax and plow, with their wives who sharedevery burden and hardship and introduced some of the features ofcivilized life. The hunters and rangers passed on to new scenes; thehome makers built for all time. 

=The Number of Immigrants. =--There were no official stations on thefrontier to record the number of immigrants who entered the West duringthe decades following the American Revolution. But travelers of the timerecord that every road was "crowded" with pioneers and their families, their wagons and cattle; and that they were seldom out of the sound ofthe snapping whip of the teamster urging forward his horses or the crackof the hunter's rifle as he brought down his evening meal. "During thelatter half of 1787, " says Coman, "more than nine hundred boats floateddown the Ohio carrying eighteen thousand men, women, and children, andtwelve thousand horses, sheep, and cattle, and six hundred and fiftywagons. " Other lines of travel were also crowded and with the passingyears the flooding tide of home seekers rose higher and higher. 

=The Western Routes. =--Four main routes led into the country beyond theAppalachians. The Genesee road, beginning at Albany, ran almost due westto the present site of Buffalo on Lake Erie, through a level country. Inthe dry season, wagons laden with goods could easily pass along it intonorthern Ohio. A second route, through Pittsburgh, was fed by threeeastern branches, one starting at Philadelphia, one at Baltimore, andanother at Alexandria. A third main route wound through the mountainsfrom Alexandria to Boonesboro in Kentucky and then westward across theOhio to St. Louis. A fourth, the most famous of them all, passed throughthe Cumberland Gap and by branches extended into the Cumberland valleyand the Kentucky country. 

Of these four lines of travel, the Pittsburgh route offered the mostadvantages. Pioneers, no matter from what section they came, when oncethey were on the headwaters of the Ohio and in possession of a flatboat, could find a quick and easy passage into all parts of the West andSouthwest. Whether they wanted to settle in Ohio, Kentucky, or westernTennessee they could find their way down the drifting flood to theirdestination or at least to some spot near it. Many people from the Southas well as the Northern and Middle states chose this route; so it cameabout that the sons and daughters of Virginia and the Carolinas mingledwith those of New York, Pennsylvania, and New England in the settlementof the Northwest territory. 

=The Methods of Travel into the West. =--Many stories giving exactdescriptions of methods of travel into the West in the early days havebeen preserved. The country was hardly opened before visitors from theOld World and from the Eastern states, impelled by curiosity, made theirway to the very frontier of civilization and wrote books to inform oramuse the public. One of them, Gilbert Imlay, an English traveler, hasgiven us an account of the Pittsburgh route as he found it in 1791. "Ifa man . .. " he writes, "has a family or goods of any sort to remove, hisbest way, then, would be to purchase a waggon and team of horses tocarry his property to Redstone Old Fort or to Pittsburgh, according ashe may come from the Northern or Southern states. A good waggon willcost, at Philadelphia, about £10 . .. And the horses about £12 each; theywould cost something more both at Baltimore and Alexandria. The waggonmay be covered with canvass, and if it is the choice of the people, theymay sleep in it of nights with the greatest safety. But if they dislikethat, there are inns of accommodation the whole distance on thedifferent roads. .. . The provisions I would purchase in the same manner[that is, from the farmers along the road]; and by having two or threecamp kettles and stopping every evening when the weather is fine uponthe brink of some rivulet and by kindling a fire they may soon dresstheir own food. .. . This manner of journeying is so far from beingdisagreeable that in a fine season it is extremely pleasant. " Theimmigrant once at Pittsburgh or Wheeling could then buy a flatboat of asize required for his goods and stock, and drift down the current to hisjourney's end. 

[Illustration: ROADS AND TRAILS INTO THE WESTERN TERRITORY]

=The Admission of Kentucky and Tennessee. =--When the eighteenth centurydrew to a close, Kentucky had a population larger than Delaware, RhodeIsland, or New Hampshire. Tennessee claimed 60, 000 inhabitants. In 1792Kentucky took her place as a state beside her none too kindly parent, Virginia. The Eastern Federalists resented her intrusion; but they tooksome consolation in the admission of Vermont because the balance ofEastern power was still retained. 

As if to assert their independence of old homes and conservative ideasthe makers of Kentucky's first constitution swept aside the landedqualification on the suffrage and gave the vote to all free white males. Four years later, Kentucky's neighbor to the south, Tennessee, followedthis step toward a wider democracy. After encountering fierce oppositionfrom the Federalists, Tennessee was accepted as the sixteenth state. 

=Ohio. =--The door of the union had hardly opened for Tennessee whenanother appeal was made to Congress, this time from the pioneers inOhio. The little posts founded at Marietta and Cincinnati had grown intoflourishing centers of trade. The stream of immigrants, flowing down theriver, added daily to their numbers and the growing settlements allaround poured produce into their markets to be exchanged for "storegoods. " After the Indians were disposed of in 1794 and the last Britishsoldier left the frontier forts under the terms of the Jay treaty of1795, tiny settlements of families appeared on Lake Erie in the "WesternReserve, " a region that had been retained by Connecticut when shesurrendered her other rights in the Northwest. 

At the close of the century, Ohio, claiming a population of more than50, 000, grew discontented with its territorial status. Indeed, two yearsbefore the enactment of the Northwest Ordinance, squatters in thatregion had been invited by one John Emerson to hold a convention afterthe fashion of the men of Hartford, Windsor, and Wethersfield in oldConnecticut and draft a frame of government for themselves. This trueson of New England declared that men "have an undoubted right to passinto every vacant country and there to form their constitution and thatfrom the confederation of the whole United States Congress is notempowered to forbid them. " This grand convention was never held becausethe heavy hand of the government fell upon the leaders; but the spiritof John Emerson did not perish. In November, 1802, a convention chosenby voters, assembled under the authority of Congress at Chillicothe, drew up a constitution. It went into force after a popular ratification. The roll of the convention bore such names as Abbot, Baldwin, Cutler, Huntington, Putnam, and Sargent, and the list of counties from whichthey came included Adams, Fairfield, Hamilton, Jefferson, Trumbull, andWashington, showing that the new America in the West was peopled and ledby the old stock. In 1803 Ohio was admitted to the union. 

=Indiana and Illinois. =--As in the neighboring state, the frontier inIndiana advanced northward from the Ohio, mainly under the leadership, however, of settlers from the South--restless Kentuckians hoping forbetter luck in a newer country and pioneers from the far frontiers ofVirginia and North Carolina. As soon as a tier of counties swingingupward like the horns of the moon against Ohio on the east and in theWabash Valley on the west was fairly settled, a clamor went up forstatehood. Under the authority of an act of Congress in 1816 theIndianians drafted a constitution and inaugurated their government atCorydon. "The majority of the members of the convention, " we are told bya local historian, "were frontier farmers who had a general idea of whatthey wanted and had sense enough to let their more erudite colleaguesput it into shape. "

Two years later, the pioneers of Illinois, also settled upward from theOhio, like Indiana, elected their delegates to draft a constitution. Leadership in the convention, quite properly, was taken by a man born inNew York and reared in Tennessee; and the constitution as finallydrafted "was in its principal provisions a copy of the then existingconstitutions of Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana. .. . Many of the articlesare exact copies in wording although differently arranged andnumbered. "

=Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. =--Across the Mississippi to thefar south, clearing and planting had gone on with much bustle andenterprise. The cotton and sugar lands of Louisiana, opened by Frenchand Spanish settlers, were widened in every direction by planters withtheir armies of slaves from the older states. New Orleans, a good marketand a center of culture not despised even by the pioneer, grew apace. In1810 the population of lower Louisiana was over 75, 000. The time hadcome, said the leaders of the people, to fulfill the promise made toFrance in the treaty of cession; namely, to grant to the inhabitants ofthe territory statehood and the rights of American citizens. Federalistsfrom New England still having a voice in Congress, if somewhat weaker, still protested in tones of horror. "I am compelled to declare it as mydeliberate opinion, " pronounced Josiah Quincy in the House ofRepresentatives, "that if this bill [to admit Louisiana] passes, thebonds of this Union are virtually dissolved . .. That as it will be theright of all, so it will be the duty of some [states] to preparedefinitely for a separation; amicably if they can, violently if theymust. .. . It is a death blow to the Constitution. It may afterwardslinger; but lingering, its fate will, at no very distant period, beconsummated. " Federalists from New York like those from New England hadtheir doubts about the wisdom of admitting Western states; but the partyof Jefferson and Madison, having the necessary majority, granted thecoveted statehood to Louisiana in 1812. 

When, a few years later, Mississippi and Alabama knocked at the doors ofthe union, the Federalists had so little influence, on account of theirconduct during the second war with England, that spokesmen from theSouthwest met a kindlier reception at Washington. Mississippi, in 1817, and Alabama, in 1819, took their places among the United States ofAmerica. Both of them, while granting white manhood suffrage, gave theirconstitutions the tone of the old East by providing landedqualifications for the governor and members of the legislature. 

=Missouri. =--Far to the north in the Louisiana purchase, a newcommonwealth was rising to power. It was peopled by immigrants who camedown the Ohio in fleets of boats or crossed the Mississippi fromKentucky and Tennessee. Thrifty Germans from Pennsylvania, hardy farmersfrom Virginia ready to work with their own hands, freemen seekingfreemen's homes, planters with their slaves moving on from worn-outfields on the seaboard, came together in the widening settlements of theMissouri country. Peoples from the North and South flowed together, small farmers and big planters mingling in one community. When theirnumbers had reached sixty thousand or more, they precipitated a contestover their admission to the union, "ringing an alarm bell in the night, "as Jefferson phrased it. The favorite expedient of compromise withslavery was brought forth in Congress once more. Maine consequently wasbrought into the union without slavery and Missouri with slavery. At thesame time there was drawn westward through the rest of the Louisianaterritory a line separating servitude from slavery. 

THE SPIRIT OF THE FRONTIER

=Land Tenure and Liberty. =--Over an immense western area there developedan unbroken system of freehold farms. In the Gulf states and the lowerMississippi Valley, it is true, the planter with his many slaves evenled in the pioneer movement; but through large sections of Tennessee andKentucky, as well as upper Georgia and Alabama, and all throughout theNorthwest territory the small farmer reigned supreme. In this immensedominion there sprang up a civilization without caste or class--a bodyof people all having about the same amount of this world's goods andderiving their livelihood from one source: the labor of their own handson the soil. The Northwest territory alone almost equaled in area allthe original thirteen states combined, except Georgia, and its system ofagricultural economy was unbroken by plantations and feudal estates. "Inthe subdivision of the soil and the great equality of condition, " asWebster said on more than one occasion, "lay the true basis, mostcertainly, of popular government. " There was the undoubted source ofJacksonian democracy. 

[Illustration: A LOG CABIN--LINCOLN'S BIRTHPLACE]

=The Characteristics of the Western People. =--Travelers into theNorthwest during the early years of the nineteenth century were agreedthat the people of that region were almost uniformly marked by thecharacteristics common to an independent yeomanry. A close observer thusrecorded his impressions: "A spirit of adventurous enterprise, awillingness to go through any hardship to accomplish an object. .. . Independence of thought and action. They have felt the influence ofthese principles from their childhood. Men who can endure anything; thathave lived almost without restraint, free as the mountain air or as thedeer and the buffalo of their forests, and who know they are Americansall. .. . An apparent roughness which some would deem rudeness ofmanner. .. . Where there is perfect equality in a neighborhood of peoplewho know little about each other's previous history or ancestry butwhere each is lord of the soil he cultivates. Where a log cabin is allthat the best of families can expect to have for years and of course canpossess few of the external decorations which have so much influence increating a diversity of rank in society. These circumstances have laidthe foundation for that equality of intercourse, simplicity of manners, want of deference, want of reserve, great readiness to makeacquaintances, freedom of speech, indisposition to brook real orimaginary insults which one witnesses among people of the West. "

This equality, this independence, this rudeness so often described bythe traveler as marking a new country, were all accentuated by thecharacter of the settlers themselves. Traces of the fierce, unsociable, eagle-eyed, hard-drinking hunter remained. The settlers who followed thehunter were, with some exceptions, soldiers of the Revolutionary army, farmers of the "middling order, " and mechanics from the towns, --English, Scotch-Irish, Germans, --poor in possessions and thrown upon the labor oftheir own hands for support. Sons and daughters from well-to-do Easternhomes sometimes brought softer manners; but the equality of life and theleveling force of labor in forest and field soon made them one in spiritwith their struggling neighbors. Even the preachers and teachers, whocame when the cabins were raised in the clearings and rude churches andschoolhouses were built, preached sermons and taught lessons thatsavored of the frontier, as any one may know who reads PeterCartwright's _A Muscular Christian_ or Eggleston's _The HoosierSchoolmaster_. 

THE WEST AND THE EAST MEET

=The East Alarmed. =--A people so independent as the Westerners and soattached to local self-government gave the conservative East many a rudeshock, setting gentlemen in powdered wigs and knee breeches agog withthe idea that terrible things might happen in the Mississippi Valley. Not without good grounds did Washington fear that "a touch of a featherwould turn" the Western settlers away from the seaboard to theSpaniards; and seriously did he urge the East not to neglect them, lestthey be "drawn into the arms of, or be dependent upon foreigners. "Taking advantage of the restless spirit in the Southwest, Aaron Burr, having disgraced himself by killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel, laidwild plans, if not to bring about a secession in that region, at leastto build a state of some kind out of the Spanish dominions adjoiningLouisiana. Frightened at such enterprises and fearing the dominance ofthe West, the Federalists, with a few conspicuous exceptions, opposedequality between the sections. Had their narrow views prevailed, theWest, with its new democracy, would have been held in perpetual tutelageto the seaboard or perhaps been driven into independence as the thirteencolonies had been not long before. 

=Eastern Friends of the West. =--Fortunately for the nation, there weremany Eastern leaders, particularly from the South, who understood theWest, approved its spirit, and sought to bring the two sections togetherby common bonds. Washington kept alive and keen the zeal for Westernadvancement which he acquired in his youth as a surveyor. He never grewtired of urging upon his Eastern friends the importance of the landsbeyond the mountains. He pressed upon the governor of Virginia a projectfor a wagon road connecting the seaboard with the Ohio country and wasactive in a movement to improve the navigation of the Potomac. Headvocated strengthening the ties of commerce. "Smooth the roads, " hesaid, "and make easy the way for them, and then see what an influx ofarticles will be poured upon us; how amazingly our exports will beincreased by them; and how amply we shall be compensated for any troubleand expense we may encounter to effect it. " Jefferson, too, wasinterested in every phase of Western development--the survey of lands, the exploration of waterways, the opening of trade, and even thediscovery of the bones of prehistoric animals. Robert Fulton, theinventor of the steamboat, was another man of vision who for many yearspressed upon his countrymen the necessity of uniting East and West by acanal which would cement the union, raise the value of the public lands, and extend the principles of confederate and republican government. 

=The Difficulties of Early Transportation. =--Means of communicationplayed an important part in the strategy of all those who sought tobring together the seaboard and the frontier. The produce of theWest--wheat, corn, bacon, hemp, cattle, and tobacco--was bulky and thecost of overland transportation was prohibitive. In the Eastern market, "a cow and her calf were given for a bushel of salt, while a suit of'store clothes' cost as much as a farm. " In such circumstances, theinhabitants of the Mississippi Valley were forced to ship their produceover a long route by way of New Orleans and to pay high freight ratesfor everything that was brought across the mountains. Scows of from fiveto fifty tons were built at the towns along the rivers and piloted downthe stream to the Crescent City. In a few cases small ocean-goingvessels were built to transport goods to the West Indies or to theEastern coast towns. Salt, iron, guns, powder, and the absoluteessentials which the pioneers had to buy mainly in Eastern markets werecarried over narrow wagon trails that were almost impassable in therainy season. 

=The National Road. =--To far-sighted men, like Albert Gallatin, "thefather of internal improvements, " the solution of this problem was theconstruction of roads and canals. Early in Jefferson's administration, Congress dedicated a part of the proceeds from the sale of lands tobuilding highways from the headwaters of the navigable waters emptyinginto the Atlantic to the Ohio River and beyond into the Northwestterritory. In 1806, after many misgivings, it authorized a greatnational highway binding the East and the West. The Cumberland Road, asit was called, began in northwestern Maryland, wound through southernPennsylvania, crossed the narrow neck of Virginia at Wheeling, and thenshot almost straight across Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, into Missouri. By 1817, stagecoaches were running between Washington and Wheeling; by1833 contractors had carried their work to Columbus, Ohio, and by 1852, to Vandalia, Illinois. Over this ballasted road mail and passengercoaches could go at high speed, and heavy freight wagons proceed insafety at a steady pace. 

[Illustration: THE CUMBERLAND ROAD]

=Canals and Steamboats. =--A second epoch in the economic union of theEast and West was reached with the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825, offering an all-water route from New York City to the Great Lakes andthe Mississippi Valley. Pennsylvania, alarmed by the advantagesconferred on New York by this enterprise, began her system of canals andportages from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, completing the last link in1834. In the South, the Chesapeake and Ohio Company, chartered in 1825, was busy with a project to connect Georgetown and Cumberland whenrailways broke in upon the undertaking before it was half finished. About the same time, Ohio built a canal across the state, affordingwater communication between Lake Erie and the Ohio River through a richwheat belt. Passengers could now travel by canal boat into the West withcomparative ease and comfort, if not at a rapid speed, and the bulkiestof freight could be easily handled. Moreover, the rate charged forcarrying goods was cut by the Erie Canal from $32 a ton per hundredmiles to $1. New Orleans was destined to lose her primacy in theMississippi Valley. 

The diversion of traffic to Eastern markets was also stimulated bysteamboats which appeared on the Ohio about 1810, three years afterFulton had made his famous trip on the Hudson. It took twenty men tosail and row a five-ton scow up the river at a speed of from ten totwenty miles a day. In 1825, Timothy Flint traveled a hundred miles aday on the new steamer _Grecian_ "against the whole weight of theMississippi current. " Three years later the round trip from Louisvilleto New Orleans was cut to eight days. Heavy produce that once had tofloat down to New Orleans could be carried upstream and sent to the Eastby way of the canal systems. 

[Illustration: _From an old print_

AN EARLY MISSISSIPPI STEAMBOAT]

Thus the far country was brought near. The timid no longer hesitated atthe thought of the perilous journey. All routes were crowded withWestern immigrants. The forests fell before the ax like grain before thesickle. Clearings scattered through the woods spread out into a greatmosaic of farms stretching from the Southern Appalachians to LakeMichigan. The national census of 1830 gave 937, 000 inhabitants to Ohio;343, 000 to Indiana; 157, 000 to Illinois; 687, 000 to Kentucky; and681, 000 to Tennessee. 

[Illustration: DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION, 1830]

With the increase in population and the growth of agriculture camepolitical influence. People who had once petitioned Congress now senttheir own representatives. Men who had hitherto accepted withoutprotests Presidents from the seaboard expressed a new spirit of dissentin 1824 by giving only three electoral votes for John Quincy Adams; andfour years later they sent a son of the soil from Tennessee, AndrewJackson, to take Washington's chair as chief executive of thenation--the first of a long line of Presidents from the Mississippibasin. 

=References=

W. G. Brown, _The Lower South in American History_. 

B. A. Hinsdale, _The Old North West_ (2 vols. ). 

A. B. Hulbert, _Great American Canals_ and _The Cumberland Road_. 

T. Roosevelt, _Thomas H. Benton_. 

P. J. Treat, _The National Land System_ (1785-1820). 

F. J. Turner, _Rise of the New West_ (American Nation Series). 

J. Winsor, _The Westward Movement_. 

=Questions=

1. How did the West come to play a rôle in the Revolution?

2. What preparations were necessary to settlement?

3. Give the principal provisions of the Northwest Ordinance. 

4. Explain how freehold land tenure happened to predominate in the West. 

5. Who were the early settlers in the West? What routes did they take?How did they travel?

6. Explain the Eastern opposition to the admission of new Westernstates. Show how it was overcome. 

7. Trace a connection between the economic system of the West and thespirit of the people. 

8. Who were among the early friends of Western development?

9. Describe the difficulties of trade between the East and the West. 

10. Show how trade was promoted. 

=Research Topics=

=Northwest Ordinance. =--Analysis of text in Macdonald, _DocumentarySource Book_. Roosevelt, _Winning of the West_, Vol. V, pp. 5-57. 

=The West before the Revolution. =--Roosevelt, Vol. I. 

=The West during the Revolution. =--Roosevelt, Vols. II and III. 

=Tennessee. =--Roosevelt, Vol. V, pp. 95-119 and Vol. VI, pp. 9-87. 

=The Cumberland Road. =--A. B. Hulbert, _The Cumberland Road_. 

=Early Life in the Middle West. =--Callender, _Economic History of theUnited States_, pp. 617-633; 636-641. 

=Slavery in the Southwest. =--Callender, pp. 641-652. 

=Early Land Policy. =--Callender, pp. 668-680. 

=Westward Movement of Peoples. =--Roosevelt, Vol. IV, pp. 7-39. 

Lists of books dealing with the early history of Western states aregiven in Hart, Channing, and Turner, _Guide to the Study and Reading ofAmerican History_ (rev. Ed. ), pp. 62-89. 

=Kentucky. =--Roosevelt, Vol. IV, pp. 176-263. 

CHAPTER XI

JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY

The New England Federalists, at the Hartford convention, prophesied thatin time the West would dominate the East. "At the adoption of theConstitution, " they said, "a certain balance of power among the originalstates was considered to exist, and there was at that time and yet isamong those parties a strong affinity between their great and generalinterests. By the admission of these [new] states that balance has beenmaterially affected and unless the practice be modified must ultimatelybe destroyed. The Southern states will first avail themselves of theirnew confederates to govern the East, and finally the Western states, multiplied in number, and augmented in population, will control theinterests of the whole. " Strangely enough the fulfillment of thisprophecy was being prepared even in Federalist strongholds by the riseof a new urban democracy that was to make common cause with the farmersbeyond the mountains. 

THE DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT IN THE EAST

=The Aristocratic Features of the Old Order. =--The Revolutionaryfathers, in setting up their first state constitutions, although theyoften spoke of government as founded on the consent of the governed, didnot think that consistency required giving the vote to all adult males. On the contrary they looked upon property owners as the only safe"depositary" of political power. They went back to the colonialtradition that related taxation and representation. This, they argued, was not only just but a safeguard against the "excesses of democracy. "

In carrying their theory into execution they placed taxpaying orproperty qualifications on the right to vote. Broadly speaking, theselimitations fell into three classes. Three states, Pennsylvania (1776), New Hampshire (1784), and Georgia (1798), gave the ballot to all whopaid taxes, without reference to the value of their property. Three, Virginia, Delaware, and Rhode Island, clung firmly to the ancientprinciples that only freeholders could be intrusted with electoralrights. Still other states, while closely restricting the suffrage, accepted the ownership of other things as well as land in fulfillment ofthe requirements. In Massachusetts, for instance, the vote was grantedto all men who held land yielding an annual income of three pounds orpossessed other property worth sixty pounds. 

The electors thus enfranchised, numerous as they were, owing to the widedistribution of land, often suffered from a very onerous disability. Inmany states they were able to vote only for persons of wealth becauseheavy property qualifications were imposed on public officers. In NewHampshire, the governor had to be worth five hundred pounds, one-half inland; in Massachusetts, one thousand pounds, all freehold; in Maryland, five thousand pounds, one thousand of which was freehold; in NorthCarolina, one thousand pounds freehold; and in South Carolina, tenthousand pounds freehold. A state senator in Massachusetts had to be theowner of a freehold worth three hundred pounds or personal propertyworth six hundred pounds; in New Jersey, one thousand pounds' worth ofproperty; in North Carolina, three hundred acres of land; in SouthCarolina, two thousand pounds freehold. For members of the lower houseof the legislature lower qualifications were required. 

In most of the states the suffrage or office holding or both werefurther restricted by religious provisions. No single sect was powerfulenough to dominate after the Revolution, but, for the most part, Catholics and Jews were either disfranchised or excluded from office. North Carolina and Georgia denied the ballot to any one who was not aProtestant. Delaware withheld it from all who did not believe in theTrinity and the inspiration of the Scriptures. Massachusetts andMaryland limited it to Christians. Virginia and New York, advanced fortheir day, made no discrimination in government on account of religiousopinion. 

=The Defense of the Old Order. =--It must not be supposed that propertyqualifications were thoughtlessly imposed at the outset or considered oflittle consequence in practice. In the beginning they were viewed asfundamental. As towns grew in size and the number of landless citizensincreased, the restrictions were defended with even more vigor. InMassachusetts, the great Webster upheld the rights of property ingovernment, saying: "It is entirely just that property should have itsdue weight and consideration in political arrangements. .. . Thedisastrous revolutions which the world has witnessed, those politicalthunderstorms and earthquakes which have shaken the pillars of societyto their deepest foundations, have been revolutions against property. "In Pennsylvania, a leader in local affairs cried out against a plan toremove the taxpaying limitation on the suffrage: "What does the delegatepropose? To place the vicious vagrant, the wandering Arabs, the Tartarhordes of our large cities on the level with the virtuous and good man?"In Virginia, Jefferson himself had first believed in propertyqualifications and had feared with genuine alarm the "mobs of the greatcities. " It was near the end of the eighteenth century before heaccepted the idea of manhood suffrage. Even then he was unable toconvince the constitution-makers of his own state. "It is not an idlechimera of the brain, " urged one of them, "that the possession of landfurnishes the strongest evidence of permanent, common interest with, andattachment to, the community. .. . It is upon this foundation I wish toplace the right of suffrage. This is the best general standard which canbe resorted to for the purpose of determining whether the persons to beinvested with the right of suffrage are such persons as could be, consistently with the safety and well-being of the community, intrustedwith the exercise of that right. "

=Attacks on the Restricted Suffrage. =--The changing circumstances ofAmerican life, however, soon challenged the rule of those with property. Prominent among the new forces were the rising mercantile and businessinterests. Where the freehold qualification was applied, business menwho did not own land were deprived of the vote and excluded from office. In New York, for example, the most illiterate farmer who had one hundredpounds' worth of land could vote for state senator and governor, whilethe landless banker or merchant could not. It is not surprising, therefore, to find business men taking the lead in breaking downfreehold limitations on the suffrage. The professional classes also wereinterested in removing the barriers which excluded many of them frompublic affairs. It was a schoolmaster, Thomas Dorr, who led the popularuprising in Rhode Island which brought the exclusive rule by freeholdersto an end. 

In addition to the business and professional classes, the mechanics ofthe towns showed a growing hostility to a system of government thatgenerally barred them from voting or holding office. Though notnumerous, they had early begun to exercise an influence on the course ofpublic affairs. They had led the riots against the Stamp Act, overturnedKing George's statue, and "crammed stamps down the throats ofcollectors. " When the state constitutions were framed they took a livelyinterest, particularly in New York City and Philadelphia. In June, 1776, the "mechanicks in union" in New York protested against putting the newstate constitution into effect without their approval, declaring thatthe right to vote on the acceptance or rejection of a fundamental law"is the birthright of every man to whatever state he may belong. " Thoughtheir petition was rejected, their spirit remained. When, a few yearslater, the federal Constitution was being framed, the mechanics watchedthe process with deep concern; they knew that one of its main objectswas to promote trade and commerce, affecting directly their daily bread. During the struggle over ratification, they passed resolutions approvingits provisions and they often joined in parades organized to stir upsentiment for the Constitution, even though they could not vote formembers of the state conventions and so express their will directly. After the organization of trade unions they collided with the courts oflaw and thus became interested in the election of judges and lawmakers. 

Those who attacked the old system of class rule found a strong moralsupport in the Declaration of Independence. Was it not said that all menare created equal? Whoever runs may read. Was it not declared thatgovernments derive their just power from the consent of the governed?That doctrine was applied with effect to George III and seemedappropriate for use against the privileged classes of Massachusetts orVirginia. "How do the principles thus proclaimed, " asked thenon-freeholders of Richmond, in petitioning for the ballot, "accord withthe existing regulation of the suffrage? A regulation which, instead ofthe equality nature ordains, creates an odious distinction betweenmembers of the same community . .. And vests in a favored class, not inconsideration of their public services but of their private possessions, the highest of all privileges. "

=Abolition of Property Qualifications. =--By many minor victories ratherthan by any spectacular triumphs did the advocates of manhood suffragecarry the day. Slight gains were made even during the Revolution orshortly afterward. In Pennsylvania, the mechanics, by taking an activepart in the contest over the Constitution of 1776, were able to forcethe qualification down to the payment of a small tax. Vermont came intothe union in 1792 without any property restrictions. In the same yearDelaware gave the vote to all men who paid taxes. Maryland, reckoned oneof the most conservative of states, embarked on the experiment ofmanhood suffrage in 1809; and nine years later, Connecticut, equallyconservative, decided that all taxpayers were worthy of the ballot. 

Five states, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, Rhode Island, and NorthCarolina, remained obdurate while these changes were going on aroundthem; finally they had to yield themselves. The last struggle inMassachusetts took place in the constitutional convention of 1820. ThereWebster, in the prime of his manhood, and John Adams, in the closingyears of his old age, alike protested against such radical innovationsas manhood suffrage. Their protests were futile. The property test wasabolished and a small tax-paying qualification was substituted. New Yorksurrendered the next year and, after trying some minor restrictions forfive years, went completely over to white manhood suffrage in 1826. Rhode Island clung to her freehold qualification through thirty years ofagitation. Then Dorr's Rebellion, almost culminating in bloodshed, brought about a reform in 1843 which introduced a slight tax-payingqualification as an alternative to the freehold. Virginia and NorthCarolina were still unconvinced. The former refused to abandon ownershipof land as the test for political rights until 1850 and the latter until1856. Although religious discriminations and property qualifications foroffice holders were sometimes retained after the establishment ofmanhood suffrage, they were usually abolished along with the monopoly ofgovernment enjoyed by property owners and taxpayers. 

[Illustration: THOMAS DORR AROUSING HIS FOLLOWERS]

At the end of the first quarter of the nineteenth century, the whitemale industrial workers and the mechanics of the Northern cities, atleast, could lay aside the petition for the ballot and enjoy with thefree farmer a voice in the government of their common country. "Universal democracy, " sighed Carlyle, who was widely read in the UnitedStates, "whatever we may think of it has declared itself the inevitablefact of the days in which we live; and he who has any chance to instructor lead in these days must begin by admitting that . .. Where nogovernment is wanted, save that of the parish constable, as in Americawith its boundless soil, every man being able to find work andrecompense for himself, democracy may subsist; not elsewhere. " Amid thegrave misgivings of the first generation of statesmen, America wascommitted to the great adventure, in the populous towns of the East aswell as in the forests and fields of the West. 

THE NEW DEMOCRACY ENTERS THE ARENA

The spirit of the new order soon had a pronounced effect on themachinery of government and the practice of politics. The enfranchisedelectors were not long in demanding for themselves a larger share inadministration. 

=The Spoils System and Rotation in Office. =--First of all they wantedoffice for themselves, regardless of their fitness. They thereforeextended the system of rewarding party workers with governmentpositions--a system early established in several states, notably NewYork and Pennsylvania. Closely connected with it was the practice offixing short terms for officers and making frequent changes inpersonnel. "Long continuance in office, " explained a champion of thisidea in Pennsylvania in 1837, "unfits a man for the discharge of itsduties, by rendering him arbitrary and aristocratic, and tends to beget, first life office, and then hereditary office, which leads to thedestruction of free government. " The solution offered was the historicdoctrine of "rotation in office. " At the same time the principle ofpopular election was extended to an increasing number of officials whohad once been appointed either by the governor or the legislature. Evengeologists, veterinarians, surveyors, and other technical officers weredeclared elective on the theory that their appointment "smacked ofmonarchy. "

=Popular Election of Presidential Electors. =--In a short time the spiritof democracy, while playing havoc with the old order in stategovernment, made its way upward into the federal system. The framers ofthe Constitution, bewildered by many proposals and unable to agree onany single plan, had committed the choice of presidential electors tothe discretion of the state legislatures. The legislatures, in turn, greedy of power, early adopted the practice of choosing the electorsthemselves; but they did not enjoy it long undisturbed. Democracy, thundering at their doors, demanded that they surrender the privilege tothe people. Reluctantly they yielded, sometimes granting popularelection and then withdrawing it. The drift was inevitable, and theclimax came with the advent of Jacksonian democracy. In 1824, Vermont, New York, Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana, though somehad experimented with popular election, still left the choice ofelectors with the legislature. Eight years later South Carolina aloneheld to the old practice. Popular election had become the final word. The fanciful idea of an electoral college of "good and wise men, "selected without passion or partisanship by state legislatures acting asdeliberative bodies, was exploded for all time; the election of thenation's chief magistrate was committed to the tempestuous methods ofdemocracy. 

=The Nominating Convention. =--As the suffrage was widened and thepopular choice of presidential electors extended, there arose a violentprotest against the methods used by the political parties in nominatingcandidates. After the retirement of Washington, both the Republicans andthe Federalists found it necessary to agree upon their favorites beforethe election, and they adopted a colonial device--the pre-electioncaucus. The Federalist members of Congress held a conference andselected their candidate, and the Republicans followed the example. Ina short time the practice of nominating by a "congressional caucus"became a recognized institution. The election still remained with thepeople; but the power of picking candidates for their approval passedinto the hands of a small body of Senators and Representatives. 

A reaction against this was unavoidable. To friends of "the plainpeople, " like Andrew Jackson, it was intolerable, all the more sobecause the caucus never favored him with the nomination. Moreconservative men also found grave objections to it. They pointed outthat, whereas the Constitution intended the President to be anindependent officer, he had now fallen under the control of a caucus ofcongressmen. The supremacy of the legislative branch had been obtainedby an extra-legal political device. To such objections were addedpractical considerations. In 1824, when personal rivalry had taken theplace of party conflicts, the congressional caucus selected as thecandidate, William H. Crawford, of Georgia, a man of distinction but nogreat popularity, passing by such an obvious hero as General Jackson. The followers of the General were enraged and demanded nothing short ofthe death of "King Caucus. " Their clamor was effective. Under theirattacks, the caucus came to an ignominious end. 

In place of it there arose in 1831 a new device, the national nominatingconvention, composed of delegates elected by party voters for the solepurpose of nominating candidates. Senators and Representatives werestill prominent in the party councils, but they were swamped by hundredsof delegates "fresh from the people, " as Jackson was wont to say. Infact, each convention was made up mainly of office holders and officeseekers, and the new institution was soon denounced as vigorously asKing Caucus had been, particularly by statesmen who failed to obtain anomination. Still it grew in strength and by 1840 was firmlyestablished. 

=The End of the Old Generation. =--In the election of 1824, therepresentatives of the "aristocracy" made their last successful stand. Until then the leadership by men of "wealth and talents" had beenundisputed. There had been five Presidents--Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe--all Eastern men brought up in prosperousfamilies with the advantages of culture which come from leisure and thepossession of life's refinements. None of them had ever been compelledto work with his hands for a livelihood. Four of them had beenslaveholders. Jefferson was a philosopher, learned in natural science, amaster of foreign languages, a gentleman of dignity and grace of manner, notwithstanding his studied simplicity. Madison, it was said, was armed"with all the culture of his century. " Monroe was a graduate of Williamand Mary, a gentleman of the old school. Jefferson and his threesuccessors called themselves Republicans and professed a genuine faithin the people but they were not "of the people" themselves; they werenot sons of the soil or the workshop. They were all men of "the grandold order of society" who gave finish and style even to populargovernment. 

Monroe was the last of the Presidents belonging to the heroic epoch ofthe Revolution. He had served in the war for independence, in theCongress under the Articles of Confederation, and in official capacityafter the adoption of the Constitution. In short, he was of the age thathad wrought American independence and set the government afloat. Withhis passing, leadership went to a new generation; but his successor, John Quincy Adams, formed a bridge between the old and the new in thathe combined a high degree of culture with democratic sympathies. Washington had died in 1799, preceded but a few months by Patrick Henryand followed in four years by Samuel Adams. Hamilton had been killed ina duel with Burr in 1804. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were yet alivein 1824 but they were soon to pass from the scene, reconciled at last, full of years and honors. Madison was in dignified retirement, destinedto live long enough to protest against the doctrine of nullificationproclaimed by South Carolina before death carried him away at the ripeold age of eighty-five. 

=The Election of John Quincy Adams (1824). =--The campaign of 1824 markedthe end of the "era of good feeling" inaugurated by the collapse of theFederalist party after the election of 1816. There were four leadingcandidates, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, and W. H. Crawford. The result of the election was a division of the electoralvotes into four parts and no one received a majority. Under theConstitution, therefore, the selection of President passed to the Houseof Representatives. Clay, who stood at the bottom of the poll, threw hisweight to Adams and assured his triumph, much to the chagrin ofJackson's friends. They thought, with a certain justification, thatinasmuch as the hero of New Orleans had received the largest electoralvote, the House was morally bound to accept the popular judgment andmake him President. Jackson shook hands cordially with Adams on the dayof the inauguration, but never forgave him for being elected. 

While Adams called himself a Republican in politics and often spoke of"the rule of the people, " he was regarded by Jackson's followers as "anaristocrat. " He was not a son of the soil. Neither was he acquainted atfirst hand with the labor of farmers and mechanics. He had been educatedat Harvard and in Europe. Like his illustrious father, John Adams, hewas a stern and reserved man, little given to seeking popularity. Moreover, he was from the East and the frontiersmen of the West regardedhim as a man "born with a silver spoon in his mouth. " Jackson'ssupporters especially disliked him because they thought their heroentitled to the presidency. Their anger was deepened when Adamsappointed Clay to the office of Secretary of State; and they set up acry that there had been a "deal" by which Clay had helped to elect Adamsto get office for himself. 

Though Adams conducted his administration with great dignity and in afine spirit of public service, he was unable to overcome the oppositionwhich he encountered on his election to office or to win popularity inthe West and South. On the contrary, by advocating government assistancein building roads and canals and public grants in aid of education, arts, and sciences, he ran counter to the current which had set inagainst appropriations of federal funds for internal improvements. Bysigning the Tariff Bill of 1828, soon known as the "Tariff ofAbominations, " he made new enemies without adding to his friends in NewYork, Pennsylvania, and Ohio where he sorely needed them. Handicapped bythe false charge that he had been a party to a "corrupt bargain" withClay to secure his first election; attacked for his advocacy of a highprotective tariff; charged with favoring an "aristocracy ofoffice-holders" in Washington on account of his refusal to dischargegovernment clerks by the wholesale, Adams was retired from the WhiteHouse after he had served four years. 

=The Triumph of Jackson in 1828. =--Probably no candidate for thepresidency ever had such passionate popular support as Andrew Jacksonhad in 1828. He was truly a man of the people. Born of poor parents inthe upland region of South Carolina, schooled in poverty and adversity, without the advantages of education or the refinements of cultivatedleisure, he seemed the embodiment of the spirit of the new Americandemocracy. Early in his youth he had gone into the frontier of Tennesseewhere he soon won a name as a fearless and intrepid Indian fighter. Onthe march and in camp, he endeared himself to his men by sharing theirhardships, sleeping on the ground with them, and eating parched cornwhen nothing better could be found for the privates. From localprominence he sprang into national fame by his exploit at the battle ofNew Orleans. His reputation as a military hero was enhanced by thefeeling that he had been a martyr to political treachery in 1824. Thefarmers of the West and South claimed him as their own. The mechanics ofthe Eastern cities, newly enfranchised, also looked upon him as theirfriend. Though his views on the tariff, internal improvements, and otherissues before the country were either vague or unknown, he was readilyelected President. 

The returns of the electoral vote in 1828 revealed the sources ofJackson's power. In New England, he received but one ballot, fromMaine; he had a majority of the electors in New York and all of them inPennsylvania; and he carried every state south of Maryland and beyondthe Appalachians. Adams did not get a single electoral vote in the Southand West. The prophecy of the Hartford convention had been fulfilled. 

[Illustration: ANDREW JACKSON]

When Jackson took the oath of office on March 4, 1829, the government ofthe United States entered into a new era. Until this time theinauguration of a President--even that of Jefferson, the apostle ofsimplicity--had brought no rude shock to the course of affairs at thecapital. Hitherto the installation of a President meant that anold-fashioned gentleman, accompanied by a few servants, had driven tothe White House in his own coach, taken the oath with quiet dignity, appointed a few new men to the higher posts, continued in office thelong list of regular civil employees, and begun his administration withrespectable decorum. Jackson changed all this. When he was inaugurated, men and women journeyed hundreds of miles to witness the ceremony. Greatthrongs pressed into the White House, "upset the bowls of punch, brokethe glasses, and stood with their muddy boots on the satin-coveredchairs to see the people's President. " If Jefferson's inauguration was, as he called it, the "great revolution, " Jackson's inauguration was acataclysm. 

THE NEW DEMOCRACY AT WASHINGTON

=The Spoils System. =--The staid and respectable society of Washingtonwas disturbed by this influx of farmers and frontiersmen. To speak ofpolitics became "bad form" among fashionable women. The clerks andcivil servants of the government who had enjoyed long and secure tenureof office became alarmed at the clamor of new men for their positions. Doubtless the major portion of them had opposed the election of Jacksonand looked with feelings akin to contempt upon him and his followers. With a hunter's instinct, Jackson scented his prey. Determined to havenone but his friends in office, he made a clean sweep, expelling oldemployees to make room for men "fresh from the people. " This was a newcustom. Other Presidents had discharged a few officers for engaging inopposition politics. They had been careful in making appointments not tochoose inveterate enemies; but they discharged relatively few men onaccount of their political views and partisan activities. 

By wholesale removals and the frank selection of officers on partygrounds--a practice already well intrenched in New York--Jacksonestablished the "spoils system" at Washington. The famous slogan, "tothe victor belong the spoils of victory, " became the avowed principle ofthe national government. Statesmen like Calhoun denounced it; poets likeJames Russell Lowell ridiculed it; faithful servants of the governmentsuffered under it; but it held undisturbed sway for half a centurythereafter, each succeeding generation outdoing, if possible, itspredecessor in the use of public office for political purposes. If anyone remarked that training and experience were necessary qualificationsfor important public positions, he met Jackson's own profession offaith: "The duties of any public office are so simple or admit of beingmade so simple that any man can in a short time become master of them. "

=The Tariff and Nullification. =--Jackson had not been installed in powervery long before he was compelled to choose between states' rights andnationalism. The immediate occasion of the trouble was the tariff--amatter on which Jackson did not have any very decided views. His minddid not run naturally to abstruse economic questions; and owing to thedivided opinion of the country it was "good politics" to be vague andambiguous in the controversy. Especially was this true, because thetariff issue was threatening to split the country into parties again. 

_The Development of the Policy of "Protection. "_--The war of 1812 andthe commercial policies of England which followed it had accentuated theneed for American economic independence. During that conflict, theUnited States, cut off from English manufactures as during theRevolution, built up home industries to meet the unusual call for iron, steel, cloth, and other military and naval supplies as well as thedemands from ordinary markets. Iron foundries and textile mills sprangup as in the night; hundreds of business men invested fortunes inindustrial enterprises so essential to the military needs of thegovernment; and the people at large fell into the habit of buyingAmerican-made goods again. As the London _Times_ tersely observed of theAmericans, "their first war with England made them independent; theirsecond war made them formidable. "

In recognition of this state of affairs, the tariff of 1816 wasdesigned: _first_, to prevent England from ruining these "infantindustries" by dumping the accumulated stores of years suddenly uponAmerican markets; and, _secondly_, to enlarge in the manufacturingcenters the demand for American agricultural produce. It accomplishedthe purposes of its framers. It kept in operation the mills and furnacesso recently built. It multiplied the number of industrial workers andenhanced the demand for the produce of the soil. It brought aboutanother very important result. It turned the capital and enterprise ofNew England from shipping to manufacturing, and converted her statesmen, once friends of low tariffs, into ardent advocates of protection. 

In the early years of the nineteenth century, the Yankees had bent theirenergies toward building and operating ships to carry produce fromAmerica to Europe and manufactures from Europe to America. For thisreason, they had opposed the tariff of 1816 calculated to increasedomestic production and cut down the carrying trade. Defeated in theirefforts, they accepted the inevitable and turned to manufacturing. Soonthey were powerful friends of protection for American enterprise. As themoney invested and the labor employed in the favored industriesincreased, the demand for continued and heavier protection grew apace. Even the farmers who furnished raw materials, like wool, flax, and hemp, began to see eye to eye with the manufacturers. So the textile interestsof New England, the iron masters of Connecticut, New Jersey, andPennsylvania, the wool, hemp, and flax growers of Ohio, Kentucky, andTennessee, and the sugar planters of Louisiana developed into aformidable combination in support of a high protective tariff. 

_The Planting States Oppose the Tariff. _--In the meantime, the cottonstates on the seaboard had forgotten about the havoc wrought during theNapoleonic wars when their produce rotted because there were no ships tocarry it to Europe. The seas were now open. The area devoted to cottonhad swiftly expanded as Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana were openedup. Cotton had in fact become "king" and the planters depended for theirprosperity, as they thought, upon the sale of their staple to Englishmanufacturers whose spinning and weaving mills were the wonder of theworld. Manufacturing nothing and having to buy nearly everything exceptfarm produce and even much of that for slaves, the planters naturallywanted to purchase manufactures in the cheapest market, England, wherethey sold most of their cotton. The tariff, they contended, raised theprice of the goods they had to buy and was thus in fact a tribute laidon them for the benefit of the Northern mill owners. 

_The Tariff of Abominations. _--They were overborne, however, in 1824 andagain in 1828 when Northern manufacturers and Western farmers forcedCongress to make an upward revision of the tariff. The Act of 1828 knownas "the Tariff of Abominations, " though slightly modified in 1832, was"the straw which broke the camel's back. " Southern leaders turned inrage against the whole system. The legislatures of Virginia, NorthCarolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama denounced it; a generalconvention of delegates held at Augusta issued a protest of defianceagainst it; and South Carolina, weary of verbal battles, decided toprevent its enforcement. 

_South Carolina Nullifies the Tariff. _--The legislature of that state, on October 26, 1832, passed a bill calling for a state convention whichduly assembled in the following month. In no mood for compromise, itadopted the famous Ordinance of Nullification after a few days' debate. Every line of this document was clear and firm. The tariff, it opened, gives "bounties to classes and individuals . .. At the expense and to theinjury and oppression of other classes and individuals"; it is aviolation of the Constitution of the United States and therefore nulland void; its enforcement in South Carolina is unlawful; if the federalgovernment attempts to coerce the state into obeying the law, "thepeople of this state will thenceforth hold themselves absolved from allfurther obligations to maintain or preserve their political connectionwith the people of the other states and will forthwith proceed toorganize a separate government and do all other acts and things whichsovereign and independent states may of right do. "

_Southern States Condemn Nullification. _--The answer of the country tothis note of defiance, couched in the language used in the Kentuckyresolutions and by the New England Federalists during the war of 1812, was quick and positive. The legislatures of the Southern states, whilecondemning the tariff, repudiated the step which South Carolina hadtaken. Georgia responded: "We abhor the doctrine of nullification asneither a peaceful nor a constitutional remedy. " Alabama found it"unsound in theory and dangerous in practice. " North Carolina repliedthat it was "revolutionary in character, subversive of the Constitutionof the United States. " Mississippi answered: "It is disunion byforce--it is civil war. " Virginia spoke more softly, condemning thetariff and sustaining the principle of the Virginia resolutions butdenying that South Carolina could find in them any sanction for herproceedings. 

_Jackson Firmly Upholds the Union. _--The eyes of the country were turnedupon Andrew Jackson. It was known that he looked with no friendlyfeelings upon nullification, for, at a Jefferson dinner in the spring of1830 while the subject was in the air, he had with laconic firmnessannounced a toast: "Our federal union; it must be preserved. " When twoyears later the open challenge came from South Carolina, he replied thathe would enforce the law, saying with his frontier directness: "If asingle drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws ofthe United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hands onengaged in such conduct upon the first tree that I can reach. " He madeready to keep his word by preparing for the use of military and navalforces in sustaining the authority of the federal government. Then in along and impassioned proclamation to the people of South Carolina hepointed out the national character of the union, and announced hissolemn resolve to preserve it by all constitutional means. Nullificationhe branded as "incompatible with the existence of the union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorizedby its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it wasfounded, and destructive of the great objects for which it was formed. "

_A Compromise. _--In his messages to Congress, however, Jackson spoke thelanguage of conciliation. A few days before issuing his proclamation hesuggested that protection should be limited to the articles of domesticmanufacture indispensable to safety in war time, and shortly afterwardhe asked for new legislation to aid him in enforcing the laws. With twopropositions before it, one to remove the chief grounds for SouthCarolina's resistance and the other to apply force if it was continued, Congress bent its efforts to avoid a crisis. On February 12, 1833, Henry Clay laid before the Senate a compromise tariff bill providing forthe gradual reduction of the duties until by 1842 they would reach thelevel of the law which Calhoun had supported in 1816. About the sametime the "force bill, " designed to give the President ample authority inexecuting the law in South Carolina, was taken up. After a short butacrimonious debate, both measures were passed and signed by PresidentJackson on the same day, March 2. Looking upon the reduction of thetariff as a complete vindication of her policy and an undoubted victory, South Carolina rescinded her ordinance and enacted another nullifyingthe force bill. 

[Illustration: _From an old print. _

DANIEL WEBSTER]

_The Webster-Hayne Debate. _--Where the actual victory lay in thisquarrel, long the subject of high dispute, need not concern us to-day. Perhaps the chief result of the whole affair was a clarification of theissue between the North and the South--a definite statement of theprinciples for which men on both sides were years afterward to lay downtheir lives. On behalf of nationalism and a perpetual union, the stanchold Democrat from Tennessee had, in his proclamation on nullification, spoken a language that admitted of only one meaning. On behalf ofnullification, Senator Hayne, of South Carolina, a skilled lawyer andcourtly orator, had in a great speech delivered in the Senate inJanuary, 1830, set forth clearly and cogently the doctrine that theunion is a compact among sovereign states from which the parties maylawfully withdraw. It was this address that called into the arenaDaniel Webster, Senator from Massachusetts, who, spreading the mantleof oblivion over the Hartford convention, delivered a reply to Haynethat has been reckoned among the powerful orations of all time--a pleafor the supremacy of the Constitution and the national character of theunion. 

=The War on the United States Bank. =--If events forced the issue ofnationalism and nullification upon Jackson, the same could not be saidof his attack on the bank. That institution, once denounced by everytrue Jeffersonian, had been reëstablished in 1816 under theadministration of Jefferson's disciple, James Madison. It had not beenin operation very long, however, before it aroused bitter opposition, especially in the South and the West. Its notes drove out of circulationthe paper currency of unsound banks chartered by the states, to thegreat anger of local financiers. It was accused of favoritism in makingloans, of conferring special privileges upon politicians in return fortheir support at Washington. To all Jackson's followers it was "aninsidious money power. " One of them openly denounced it as aninstitution designed "to strengthen the arm of wealth and counterpoisethe influence of extended suffrage in the disposition of publicaffairs. "

This sentiment President Jackson fully shared. In his first message toCongress he assailed the bank in vigorous language. He declared that itsconstitutionality was in doubt and alleged that it had failed toestablish a sound and uniform currency. If such an institution wasnecessary, he continued, it should be a public bank, owned and managedby the government, not a private concern endowed with special privilegesby it. In his second and third messages, Jackson came back to thesubject, leaving the decision, however, to "an enlightened people andtheir representatives. "

Moved by this frank hostility and anxious for the future, the bankapplied to Congress for a renewal of its charter in 1832, four yearsbefore the expiration of its life. Clay, with his eye upon thepresidency and an issue for the campaign, warmly supported theapplication. Congress, deeply impressed by his leadership, passed thebill granting the new charter, and sent the open defiance to Jackson. His response was an instant veto. The battle was on and it raged withfury until the close of his second administration, ending in thedestruction of the bank, a disordered currency, and a national panic. 

In his veto message, Jackson attacked the bank as unconstitutional andeven hinted at corruption. He refused to assent to the proposition thatthe Supreme Court had settled the question of constitutionality by thedecision in the McCulloch case. "Each public officer, " he argued, "whotakes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will supportit as he understands it, not as it is understood by others. "

Not satisfied with his veto and his declaration against the bank, Jackson ordered the Secretary of the Treasury to withdraw the governmentdeposits which formed a large part of the institution's funds. Thisaction he followed up by an open charge that the bank had used moneyshamefully to secure the return of its supporters to Congress. TheSenate, stung by this charge, solemnly resolved that Jackson had"assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred by theConstitution and laws, but in derogation of both. "

The effects of the destruction of the bank were widespread. When itscharter expired in 1836, banking was once more committed to the controlof the states. The state legislatures, under a decision rendered by theSupreme Court after the death of Marshall, began to charter banks understate ownership and control, with full power to issue paper money--thisin spite of the provision in the Constitution that states shall notissue bills of credit or make anything but gold and silver coin legaltender in the payment of debts. Once more the country was flooded bypaper currency of uncertain value. To make matters worse, Jacksonadopted the practice of depositing huge amounts of government funds inthese banks, not forgetting to render favors to those institutions whichsupported him in politics--"pet banks, " as they were styled at thetime. In 1837, partially, though by no means entirely, as a result ofthe abolition of the bank, the country was plunged into one of the mostdisastrous panics which it ever experienced. 

=Internal Improvements Checked. =--The bank had presented to Jackson avery clear problem--one of destruction. Other questions were not sosimple, particularly the subject of federal appropriations in aid ofroads and other internal improvements. Jefferson had strongly favoredgovernment assistance in such matters, but his administration wasfollowed by a reaction. Both Madison and Monroe vetoed acts of Congressappropriating public funds for public roads, advancing as their reasonthe argument that the Constitution authorized no such laws. Jackson, puzzled by the clamor on both sides, followed their example withoutmaking the constitutional bar absolute. Congress, he thought, mightlawfully build highways of a national and military value, but hestrongly deprecated attacks by local interests on the federal treasury. 

=The Triumph of the Executive Branch. =--Jackson's reëlection in 1832served to confirm his opinion that he was the chosen leader of thepeople, freed and instructed to ride rough shod over Congress and eventhe courts. No President before or since ever entertained in times ofpeace such lofty notions of executive prerogative. The entire body offederal employees he transformed into obedient servants of his wishes, asign or a nod from him making and undoing the fortunes of the humble andthe mighty. His lawful cabinet of advisers, filling all of the highposts in the government, he treated with scant courtesy, preferringrather to secure his counsel and advice from an unofficial body offriends and dependents who, owing to their secret methods and backstairs arrangements, became known as "the kitchen cabinet. " Under theleadership of a silent, astute, and resourceful politician, AmosKendall, this informal gathering of the faithful both gave and carriedout decrees and orders, communicating the President's lightest wish orstrictest command to the uttermost part of the country. Resolutely andin the face of bitter opposition Jackson had removed the deposits fromthe United States Bank. When the Senate protested against this arbitraryconduct, he did not rest until it was forced to expunge the resolutionof condemnation; in time one of his lieutenants with his own hands wasable to tear the censure from the records. When Chief Justice Marshallissued a decree against Georgia which did not suit him, Jackson, according to tradition, blurted out that Marshall could go ahead andenforce his own orders. To the end he pursued his willful way, finallyeven choosing his own successor. 

THE RISE OF THE WHIGS

=Jackson's Measures Arouse Opposition. =--Measures so decided, policiesso radical, and conduct so high-handed could not fail to arouse againstJackson a deep and exasperated opposition. The truth is the conduct ofhis entire administration profoundly disturbed the business and financesof the country. It was accompanied by conditions similar to those whichexisted under the Articles of Confederation. A paper currency, almost asunstable and irritating as the worthless notes of revolutionary days, flooded the country, hindering the easy transaction of business. The useof federal funds for internal improvements, so vital to the exchange ofcommodities which is the very life of industry, was blocked by executivevetoes. The Supreme Court, which, under Marshall, had held refractorystates to their obligations under the Constitution, was flouted; states'rights judges, deliberately selected by Jackson for the bench, began tosap and undermine the rulings of Marshall. The protective tariff, underwhich the textile industry of New England, the iron mills ofPennsylvania, and the wool, flax, and hemp farms of the West hadflourished, had received a severe blow in the compromise of 1833 whichpromised a steady reduction of duties. To cap the climax, Jackson'sparty, casting aside the old and reputable name of Republican, boldlychose for its title the term "Democrat, " throwing down the gauntlet toevery conservative who doubted the omniscience of the people. All thesethings worked together to evoke an opposition that was sharp anddetermined. 

[Illustration: AN OLD CARTOON RIDICULING CLAY'S TARIFF AND INTERNALIMPROVEMENT PROGRAM]

=Clay and the National Republicans. =--In this opposition movement, leadership fell to Henry Clay, a son of Kentucky, rather than to DanielWebster of Massachusetts. Like Jackson, Clay was born in a home hauntedby poverty. Left fatherless early and thrown upon his own resources, hewent from Virginia into Kentucky where by sheer force of intellect herose to eminence in the profession of law. Without the martial gifts orthe martial spirit of Jackson, he slipped more easily into the socialhabits of the East at the same time that he retained his hold on theaffections of the boisterous West. Farmers of Ohio, Indiana, andKentucky loved him; financiers of New York and Philadelphia trusted him. He was thus a leader well fitted to gather the forces of oppositioninto union against Jackson. 

Around Clay's standard assembled a motley collection, representing everyspecies of political opinion, united by one tie only--hatred for "OldHickory. " Nullifiers and less strenuous advocates of states' rights wereyoked with nationalists of Webster's school; ardent protectionists werebound together with equally ardent free traders, all fraternizing in onegrand confusion of ideas under the title of "National Republicans. " Thusthe ancient and honorable term selected by Jefferson and his party, nowabandoned by Jacksonian Democracy, was adroitly adopted to cover thesupporters of Clay. The platform of the party, however, embraced all theold Federalist principles: protection for American industry; internalimprovements; respect for the Supreme Court; resistance to executivetyranny; and denunciation of the spoils system. Though Jackson waseasily victorious in 1832, the popular vote cast for Clay should havegiven him some doubts about the faith of "the whole people" in thewisdom of his "reign. "

=Van Buren and the Panic of 1837. =--Nothing could shake the General'ssuperb confidence. At the end of his second term he insisted onselecting his own successor; at a national convention, chosen by partyvoters, but packed with his office holders and friends, he nominatedMartin Van Buren of New York. Once more he proved his strength bycarrying the country for the Democrats. With a fine flourish, heattended the inauguration of Van Buren and then retired, amid theapplause and tears of his devotees, to the Hermitage, his home inTennessee. 

Fortunately for him, Jackson escaped the odium of a disastrous panicwhich struck the country with terrible force in the following summer. Among the contributory causes of this crisis, no doubt, were thedestruction of the bank and the issuance of the "specie circular" of1836 which required the purchasers of public lands to pay for them incoin, instead of the paper notes of state banks. Whatever the dominatingcause, the ruin was widespread. Bank after bank went under; boom townsin the West collapsed; Eastern mills shut down; and working people inthe industrial centers, starving from unemployment, begged for relief. Van Buren braved the storm, offering no measure of reform or assistanceto the distracted people. He did seek security for government funds bysuggesting the removal of deposits from private banks and theestablishment of an independent treasury system, with governmentdepositaries for public funds, in several leading cities. This plan wasfinally accepted by Congress in 1840. 

Had Van Buren been a captivating figure he might have lived down thediscredit of the panic unjustly laid at his door; but he was far frombeing a favorite with the populace. Though a man of many talents, heowed his position to the quiet and adept management of Jackson ratherthan to his own personal qualities. The men of the frontier did not carefor him. They suspected that he ate from "gold plate" and they could notforgive him for being an astute politician from New York. Still theDemocratic party, remembering Jackson's wishes, renominated himunanimously in 1840 and saw him go down to utter defeat. 

=The Whigs and General Harrison. =--By this time, the NationalRepublicans, now known as Whigs--a title taken from the party ofopposition to the Crown in England, had learned many lessons. Taking aleaf out of the Democratic book, they nominated, not Clay of Kentucky, well known for his views on the bank, the tariff, and internalimprovements, but a military hero, General William Henry Harrison, a manof uncertain political opinions. Harrison, a son of a Virginia signer ofthe Declaration of Independence, sprang into public view by winning abattle more famous than important, "Tippecanoe"--a brush with theIndians in Indiana. He added to his laurels by rendering praiseworthyservices during the war of 1812. When days of peace returned he wasrewarded by a grateful people with a seat in Congress. Then he retiredto quiet life in a little village near Cincinnati. Like Jackson he washeld to be a son of the South and the West. Like Jackson he was amilitary hero, a lesser light, but still a light. Like Old Hickory herode into office on a tide of popular feeling against an Eastern manaccused of being something of an aristocrat. His personal popularity wassufficient. The Whigs who nominated him shrewdly refused to adopt aplatform or declare their belief in anything. When some Democratasserted that Harrison was a backwoodsman whose sole wants were a jug ofhard cider and a log cabin, the Whigs treated the remark not as aninsult but as proof positive that Harrison deserved the votes of Jacksonmen. The jug and the cabin they proudly transformed into symbols of thecampaign, and won for their chieftain 234 electoral votes, while VanBuren got only sixty. 

=Harrison and Tyler. =--The Hero of Tippecanoe was not long to enjoy thefruits of his victory. The hungry horde of Whig office seekers descendedupon him like wolves upon the fold. If he went out they waylaid him; ifhe stayed indoors, he was besieged; not even his bed chamber was spared. He was none too strong at best and he took a deep cold on the day of hisinauguration. Between driving out Democrats and appeasing Whigs, he fellmortally ill. Before the end of a month he lay dead at the capitol. 

Harrison's successor, John Tyler, the Vice President, whom the Whigs hadnominated to catch votes in Virginia, was more of a Democrat thananything else, though he was not partisan enough to please anybody. TheWhigs railed at him because he would not approve the founding of anotherUnited States Bank. The Democrats stormed at him for refusing, untilnear the end of his term, to sanction the annexation of Texas, which haddeclared its independence of Mexico in 1836. His entire administration, marked by unseemly wrangling, produced only two measures of importance. The Whigs, flushed by victory, with the aid of a few protectionistDemocrats, enacted, in 1842, a new tariff law destroying the compromisewhich had brought about the truce between the North and the South, inthe days of nullification. The distinguished leader of the Whigs, DanielWebster, as Secretary of State, in negotiation with Lord Ashburtonrepresenting Great Britain, settled the long-standing dispute betweenthe two countries over the Maine boundary. A year after closing thischapter in American diplomacy, Webster withdrew to private life, leavingthe President to endure alone the buffets of political fortune. 

To the end, the Whigs regarded Tyler as a traitor to their cause; butthe judgment of history is that it was a case of the biter bitten. Theyhad nominated him for the vice presidency as a man of views acceptableto Southern Democrats in order to catch their votes, little reckoningwith the chances of his becoming President. Tyler had not deceived themand, thoroughly soured, he left the White House in 1845 not to appear inpublic life again until the days of secession, when he espoused theSouthern confederacy. Jacksonian Democracy, with new leadership, servinga new cause--slavery--was returned to power under James K. Polk, afriend of the General from Tennessee. A few grains of sand were to runthrough the hour glass before the Whig party was to be broken andscattered as the Federalists had been more than a generation before. 

THE INTERACTION OF AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN OPINION

=Democracy in England and France. =--During the period of JacksonianDemocracy, as in all epochs of ferment, there was a close relationbetween the thought of the New World and the Old. In England, thesuccesses of the American experiment were used as arguments in favor ofoverthrowing the aristocracy which George III had manipulated with sucheffect against America half a century before. In the United States, onthe other hand, conservatives like Chancellor Kent, the stout opponentof manhood suffrage in New York, cited the riots of the British workingclasses as a warning against admitting the same classes to a share inthe government of the United States. Along with the agitation of opinionwent epoch-making events. In 1832, the year of Jackson's secondtriumph, the British Parliament passed its first reform bill, whichconferred the ballot--not on workingmen as yet--but on mill owners andshopkeepers whom the landlords regarded with genuine horror. The initialstep was thus taken in breaking down the privileges of the landedaristocracy and the rich merchants of England. 

About the same time a popular revolution occurred in France. The Bourbonfamily, restored to the throne of France by the allied powers aftertheir victory over Napoleon in 1815, had embarked upon a policy ofarbitrary government. To use the familiar phrase, they had learnednothing and forgotten nothing. Charles X, who came to the throne in1824, set to work with zeal to undo the results of the FrenchRevolution, to stifle the press, restrict the suffrage, and restore theclergy and the nobility to their ancient rights. His policy encounteredequally zealous opposition and in 1830 he was overthrown. The popularparty, under the leadership of Lafayette, established, not a republic assome of the radicals had hoped, but a "liberal" middle-class monarchyunder Louis Philippe. This second French Revolution made a profoundimpression on Americans, convincing them that the whole world was movingtoward democracy. The mayor, aldermen, and citizens of New York Cityjoined in a great parade to celebrate the fall of the Bourbons. Mingledwith cheers for the new order in France were hurrahs for "the people'sown, Andrew Jackson, the Hero of New Orleans and President of the UnitedStates!"

=European Interest in America. =--To the older and more settledEuropeans, the democratic experiment in America was either a menace oran inspiration. Conservatives viewed it with anxiety; liberals withoptimism. Far-sighted leaders could see that the tide of democracy wasrising all over the world and could not be stayed. Naturally the countrythat had advanced furthest along the new course was the place in whichto find arguments for and against proposals that Europe should makeexperiments of the same character. 

=De Tocqueville's _Democracy in America_. =--In addition to the casualtraveler there began to visit the United States the thoughtful observerbent on finding out what manner of nation this was springing up in thewilderness. Those who looked with sympathy upon the growing popularforces of England and France found in the United States, in spite ofmany blemishes and defects, a guarantee for the future of the people'srule in the Old World. One of these, Alexis de Tocqueville, a Frenchliberal of mildly democratic sympathies, made a journey to this countryin 1831; he described in a very remarkable volume, _Democracy inAmerica_, the grand experiment as he saw it. On the whole he wasconvinced. After examining with a critical eye the life and labor of theAmerican people, as well as the constitutions of the states and thenation, he came to the conclusion that democracy with all its faults wasboth inevitable and successful. Slavery he thought was a painfulcontrast to the other features of American life, and he foresaw whatproved to be the irrepressible conflict over it. He believed thatthrough blundering the people were destined to learn the highest of allarts, self-government on a grand scale. The absence of a leisure class, devoted to no calling or profession, merely enjoying the refinements oflife and adding to its graces--the flaw in American culture that gavedeep distress to many a European leader--de Tocqueville thought anecessary virtue in the republic. "Amongst a democratic people wherethere is no hereditary wealth, every man works to earn a living, or hasworked, or is born of parents who have worked. A notion of labor istherefore presented to the mind on every side as the necessary, natural, and honest condition of human existence. " It was this notion of agovernment in the hands of people who labored that struck the Frenchpublicist as the most significant fact in the modern world. 

=Harriet Martineau's Visit to America. =--This phase of American lifealso profoundly impressed the brilliant English writer, HarrietMartineau. She saw all parts of the country, the homes of the rich andthe log cabins of the frontier; she traveled in stagecoaches, canalboats, and on horseback; and visited sessions of Congress and auctionsat slave markets. She tried to view the country impartially and thething that left the deepest mark on her mind was the solidarity of thepeople in one great political body. "However various may be the tribesof inhabitants in those states, whatever part of the world may have beentheir birthplace, or that of their fathers, however broken may be theirlanguage, however servile or noble their employments, however exalted ordespised their state, all are declared to be bound together by equalpolitical obligations. .. . In that self-governing country all are held tohave an equal interest in the principles of its institutions and to bebound in equal duty to watch their workings. " Miss Martineau was alsoimpressed with the passion of Americans for land ownership andcontrasted the United States favorably with England where the tillers ofthe soil were either tenants or laborers for wages. 

=Adverse Criticism. =--By no means all observers and writers wereconvinced that America was a success. The fastidious traveler, Mrs. Trollope, who thought the English system of church and state was ideal, saw in the United States only roughness and ignorance. She lamented the"total and universal want of manners both in males and females, " addingthat while "they appear to have clear heads and active intellects, "there was "no charm, no grace in their conversation. " She foundeverywhere a lack of reverence for kings, learning, and rank. Othercritics were even more savage. The editor of the _Foreign Quarterly_petulantly exclaimed that the United States was "a brigandconfederation. " Charles Dickens declared the country to be "so maimedand lame, so full of sores and ulcers that her best friends turn fromthe loathsome creature in disgust. " Sydney Smith, editor of the_Edinburgh Review_, was never tired of trying his caustic wit at theexpense of America. "Their Franklins and Washingtons and all the othersages and heroes of their revolution were born and bred subjects of theking of England, " he observed in 1820. "During the thirty or fortyyears of their independence they have done absolutely nothing for thesciences, for the arts, for literature, or even for the statesmanlikestudies of politics or political economy. .. . In the four quarters of theglobe who reads an American book? Or goes to an American play? Or looksat an American picture or statue?" To put a sharp sting into his taunthe added, forgetting by whose authority slavery was introduced andfostered: "Under which of the old tyrannical governments of Europe isevery sixth man a slave whom his fellow creatures may buy and sell?"

Some Americans, while resenting the hasty and often superficialjudgments of European writers, winced under their satire and tookthought about certain particulars in the indictments brought againstthem. The mass of the people, however, bent on the great experiment, gave little heed to carping critics who saw the flaws and not theachievements of our country--critics who were in fact less interested inAmerica than in preventing the rise and growth of democracy in Europe. 

=References=

J. S. Bassett, _Life of Andrew Jackson_. 

J. W. Burgess, _The Middle Period_. 

H. Lodge, _Daniel Webster_. 

W. Macdonald, _Jacksonian Democracy_ (American Nation Series). 

Ostrogorski, _Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties_, Vol. II. 

C. H. Peck, _The Jacksonian Epoch_. 

C. Schurz, _Henry Clay_. 

=Questions=

1. By what devices was democracy limited in the first days of ourRepublic?

2. On what grounds were the limitations defended? Attacked?

3. Outline the rise of political democracy in the United States. 

4. Describe three important changes in our political system. 

5. Contrast the Presidents of the old and the new generations. 

6. Account for the unpopularity of John Adams' administration. 

7. What had been the career of Andrew Jackson before 1829?

8. Sketch the history of the protective tariff and explain the theoryunderlying it. 

9. Explain the growth of Southern opposition to the tariff. 

10. Relate the leading events connected with nullification in SouthCarolina. 

11. State Jackson's views and tell the outcome of the controversy. 

12. Why was Jackson opposed to the bank? How did he finally destroy it?

13. The Whigs complained of Jackson's "executive tyranny. " What did theymean?

14. Give some of the leading events in Clay's career. 

15. How do you account for the triumph of Harrison in 1840?

16. Why was Europe especially interested in America at this period? Whowere some of the European writers on American affairs?

=Research Topics=

=Jackson's Criticisms of the Bank. =--Macdonald, _Documentary SourceBook_, pp. 320-329. 

=Financial Aspects of the Bank Controversy. =--Dewey, _Financial Historyof the United States_, Sections 86-87; Elson, _History of the UnitedStates_, pp. 492-496. 

=Jackson's View of the Union. =--See his proclamation on nullification inMacdonald, pp. 333-340. 

=Nullification. =--McMaster, _History of the People of the UnitedStates_, Vol. VI, pp. 153-182; Elson, pp. 487-492. 

=The Webster-Hayne Debate. =--Analyze the arguments. Extensive extractsare given in Macdonald's larger three-volume work, _Select Documents ofUnited States History, 1776-1761_, pp. 239-260. 

=The Character of Jackson's Administration. =--Woodrow Wilson, _Historyof the American People_, Vol. IV, pp. 1-87; Elson, pp. 498-501. 

=The People in 1830. =--From contemporary writings in Hart, _AmericanHistory Told by Contemporaries_, Vol. III, pp. 509-530. 

=Biographical Studies. =--Andrew Jackson, J. Q. Adams, Henry Clay, DanielWebster, J. C. Calhoun, and W. H. Harrison. 

CHAPTER XII

THE MIDDLE BORDER AND THE GREAT WEST

"We shall not send an emigrant beyond the Mississippi in a hundredyears, " exclaimed Livingston, the principal author of the Louisianapurchase. When he made this astounding declaration, he doubtless hadbefore his mind's eye the great stretches of unoccupied lands betweenthe Appalachians and the Mississippi. He also had before him the historyof the English colonies, which told him of the two centuries required tosettle the seaboard region. To practical men, his prophecy did not seemfar wrong; but before the lapse of half that time there appeared beyondthe Mississippi a tier of new states, reaching from the Gulf of Mexicoto the southern boundary of Minnesota, and a new commonwealth on thePacific Ocean where American emigrants had raised the Bear flag ofCalifornia. 

THE ADVANCE OF THE MIDDLE BORDER

=Missouri. =--When the middle of the nineteenth century had been reached, the Mississippi River, which Daniel Boone, the intrepid hunter, hadcrossed during Washington's administration "to escape from civilization"in Kentucky, had become the waterway for a vast empire. The center ofpopulation of the United States had passed to the Ohio Valley. Missouri, with its wide reaches of rich lands, low-lying, level, and fertile, welladapted to hemp raising, had drawn to its borders thousands of plantersfrom the old Southern states--from Virginia and the Carolinas as well asfrom Kentucky and Tennessee. When the great compromise of 1820-21admitted her to the union, wearing "every jewel of sovereignty, " as aflorid orator announced, migratory slave owners were assured that theirproperty would be safe in Missouri. Along the western shore of theMississippi and on both banks of the Missouri to the uttermost limits ofthe state, plantations tilled by bondmen spread out in broad expanses. In the neighborhood of Jefferson City the slaves numbered more than afourth of the population. 

Into this stream of migration from the planting South flowed anothercurrent of land-tilling farmers; some from Kentucky, Tennessee, andMississippi, driven out by the onrush of the planters buying andconsolidating small farms into vast estates; and still more from theEast and the Old World. To the northwest over against Iowa and to thesouthwest against Arkansas, these yeomen laid out farms to be tilled bytheir own labor. In those regions the number of slaves seldom rose abovefive or six per cent of the population. The old French post, St. Louis, enriched by the fur trade of the Far West and the steamboat traffic ofthe river, grew into a thriving commercial city, including among itsseventy-five thousand inhabitants in 1850 nearly forty thousandforeigners, German immigrants from Pennsylvania and Europe being thelargest single element. 

=Arkansas. =--Below Missouri lay the territory of Arkansas, which hadlong been the paradise of the swarthy hunter and the restlessfrontiersman fleeing from the advancing borders of farm and town. Insearch of the life, wild and free, where the rifle supplied the game anda few acres of ground the corn and potatoes, they had filtered into theterritory in an unending drift, "squatting" on the land. Without so muchas asking the leave of any government, territorial or national, theyclaimed as their own the soil on which they first planted their feet. Like the Cherokee Indians, whom they had as neighbors, whose verycustoms and dress they sometimes adopted, the squatters spent their daysin the midst of rough plenty, beset by chills, fevers, and the ills ofthe flesh, but for many years unvexed by political troubles or therestrictions of civilized life. 

Unfortunately for them, however, the fertile valleys of the Mississippiand Arkansas were well adapted to the cultivation of cotton and tobaccoand their sylvan peace was soon broken by an invasion of planters. Thenewcomers, with their servile workers, spread upward in the valleytoward Missouri and along the southern border westward to the Red River. In time the slaves in the tier of counties against Louisiana ranged fromthirty to seventy per cent of the population. This marked the doom ofthe small farmer, swept Arkansas into the main current of plantingpolitics, and led to a powerful lobby at Washington in favor ofadmission to the union, a boon granted in 1836. 

=Michigan. =--In accordance with a well-established custom, a free statewas admitted to the union to balance a slave state. In 1833, the peopleof Michigan, a territory ten times the size of Connecticut, announcedthat the time had come for them to enjoy the privileges of acommonwealth. All along the southern border the land had been occupiedlargely by pioneers from New England, who built prim farmhouses andadopted the town-meeting plan of self-government after the fashion ofthe old home. The famous post of Detroit was growing into a flourishingcity as the boats plying on the Great Lakes carried travelers, settlers, and freight through the narrows. In all, according to the census, therewere more than ninety thousand inhabitants in the territory; so it wasnot without warrant that they clamored for statehood. Congress, busy asever with politics, delayed; and the inhabitants of Michigan, unable torestrain their impatience, called a convention, drew up a constitution, and started a lively quarrel with Ohio over the southern boundary. Thehand of Congress was now forced. Objections were made to the newconstitution on the ground that it gave the ballot to all free whitemales, including aliens not yet naturalized; but the protests wereoverborne in a long debate. The boundary was fixed, and Michigan, thoughshorn of some of the land she claimed, came into the union in 1837. 

=Wisconsin. =--Across Lake Michigan to the west lay the territory ofWisconsin, which shared with Michigan the interesting history of theNorthwest, running back into the heroic days when French hunters andmissionaries were planning a French empire for the great monarch, LouisXIV. It will not be forgotten that the French rangers of the woods, theblack-robed priests, prepared for sacrifice, even to death, the trappersof the French agencies, and the French explorers--Marquette, Joliet, andMenard--were the first white men to paddle their frail barks through thenorthern waters. They first blazed their trails into the black forestsand left traces of their work in the names of portages and littlevillages. It was from these forests that Red Men in full war paintjourneyed far to fight under the _fleur-de-lis_ of France when thesoldiers of King Louis made their last stand at Quebec and Montrealagainst the imperial arms of Britain. It was here that the British flagwas planted in 1761 and that the great Pontiac conspiracy was formed twoyears later to overthrow British dominion. 

When, a generation afterward, the Stars and Stripes supplanted the UnionJack, the French were still almost the only white men in the region. They were soon joined by hustling Yankee fur traders who did battleroyal against British interlopers. The traders cut their way throughforest trails and laid out the routes through lake and stream and overportages for the settlers and their families from the states "backEast. " It was the forest ranger who discovered the water power laterused to turn the busy mills grinding the grain from the spreading farmlands. In the wake of the fur hunters, forest men, and farmers cameminers from Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri crowding in to exploit thelead ores of the northwest, some of them bringing slaves to work theirclaims. Had it not been for the gold fever of 1849 that drew thewielders of pick and shovel to the Far West, Wisconsin would early havetaken high rank among the mining regions of the country. 

From a favorable point of vantage on Lake Michigan, the village ofMilwaukee, a center for lumber and grain transport and a place of entryfor Eastern goods, grew into a thriving city. It claimed twenty thousandinhabitants, when in 1848 Congress admitted Wisconsin to the union. Already the Germans, Irish, and Scandinavians had found their way intothe territory. They joined Americans from the older states in clearingforests, building roads, transforming trails into highways, erectingmills, and connecting streams with canals to make a network of routesfor the traffic that poured to and from the Great Lakes. 

=Iowa and Minnesota. =--To the southwest of Wisconsin beyond theMississippi, where the tall grass of the prairies waved like the sea, farmers from New England, New York, and Ohio had prepared Iowa forstatehood. A tide of immigration that might have flowed into Missouriwent northward; for freemen, unaccustomed to slavery and slave markets, preferred the open country above the compromise line. With incredibleswiftness, they spread farms westward from the Mississippi. With Yankeeingenuity they turned to trading on the river, building before 1836three prosperous centers of traffic: Dubuque, Davenport, and Burlington. True to their old traditions, they founded colleges and academies thatreligion and learning might be cherished on the frontier as in thestates from which they came. Prepared for self-government, the Iowanslaid siege to the door of Congress and were admitted to the union in1846. 

Above Iowa, on the Mississippi, lay the territory of Minnesota--the homeof the Dakotas, the Ojibways, and the Sioux. Like Michigan andWisconsin, it had been explored early by the French scouts, and thefirst white settlement was the little French village of Mendota. To thepeople of the United States, the resources of the country were firstrevealed by the historic journey of Zebulon Pike in 1805 and by Americanfur traders who were quick to take advantage of the opportunity to plytheir arts of hunting and bartering in fresh fields. In 1839 anAmerican settlement was planted at Marina on the St. Croix, the outpostof advancing civilization. Within twenty years, the territory, boastinga population of 150, 000, asked for admission to the union. In 1858 theplea was granted and Minnesota showed her gratitude three years later bybeing first among the states to offer troops to Lincoln in the hour ofperil. 

ON TO THE PACIFIC--TEXAS AND THE MEXICAN WAR

=The Uniformity of the Middle West. =--There was a certain monotony aboutpioneering in the Northwest and on the middle border. As the longstretches of land were cleared or prepared for the plow, they were laidout like checkerboards into squares of forty, eighty, one hundred sixty, or more acres, each the seat of a homestead. There was a strikinguniformity also about the endless succession of fertile fields spreadingfar and wide under the hot summer sun. No majestic mountains relievedthe sweep of the prairie. Few monuments of other races and antiquitywere there to awaken curiosity about the region. No sonorous bells inold missions rang out the time of day. The chaffering Red Man barteringblankets and furs for powder and whisky had passed farther on. Thepopulation was made up of plain farmers and their families engaged insevere and unbroken labor, chopping down trees, draining fever-breedingswamps, breaking new ground, and planting from year to year the samerotation of crops. Nearly all the settlers were of native American stockinto whose frugal and industrious lives the later Irish and Germanimmigrants fitted, on the whole, with little friction. Even the Dutchoven fell before the cast-iron cooking stove. Happiness and sorrow, despair and hope were there, but all encompassed by the heavy tedium ofprosaic sameness. 

[Illustration: SANTA BARBARA MISSION]

=A Contrast in the Far West and Southwest. =--As George Rogers Clark andDaniel Boone had stirred the snug Americans of the seaboard to seektheir fortunes beyond the Appalachians, so now Kit Carson, James Bowie, Sam Houston, Davy Crockett, and John C. Frémont were to lead the wayinto a new land, only a part of which was under the American flag. Thesetting for this new scene in the westward movement was thrown out in awide sweep from the headwaters of the Mississippi to the banks of theRio Grande; from the valleys of the Sabine and Red rivers to Montana andthe Pacific slope. In comparison with the middle border, this regionpresented such startling diversities that only the eye of faith couldforesee the unifying power of nationalism binding its communities withthe older sections of the country. What contrasts indeed! The blue grassregion of Kentucky or the rich, black soil of Illinois--the painteddesert, the home of the sage brush and the coyote! The level prairies ofIowa--the mighty Rockies shouldering themselves high against thehorizon! The long bleak winters of Wisconsin--California of endlesssummer! The log churches of Indiana or Illinois--the quaint missions ofSan Antonio, Tucson, and Santa Barbara! The little state ofDelaware--the empire of Texas, one hundred and twenty times its area!And scattered about through the Southwest were signs of an ancientcivilization--fragments of four-and five-story dwellings, ruined dams, aqueducts, and broken canals, which told of once prosperous peopleswho, by art and science, had conquered the aridity of the desert andlifted themselves in the scale of culture above the savages of theplain. 

The settlers of this vast empire were to be as diverse in their originsand habits as those of the colonies on the coast had been. Americans ofEnglish, Irish, and Scotch-Irish descent came as usual from the Easternstates. To them were added the migratory Germans as well. Now for thefirst time came throngs of Scandinavians. Some were to make their homeson quiet farms as the border advanced against the setting sun. Otherswere to be Indian scouts, trappers, fur hunters, miners, cowboys, Texasplanters, keepers of lonely posts on the plain and the desert, stagedrivers, pilots of wagon trains, pony riders, fruit growers, "lumberjacks, " and smelter workers. One common bond united them--a passion forthe self-government accorded to states. As soon as a few thousandsettlers came together in a single territory, there arose a mighty shoutfor a position beside the staid commonwealths of the East and the South. Statehood meant to the pioneers self-government, dignity, and the rightto dispose of land, minerals, and timber in their own way. In the questfor this local autonomy there arose many a wordy contest in Congress, each of the political parties lending a helping hand in the admission ofa state when it gave promise of adding new congressmen of the "rightpolitical persuasion, " to use the current phrase. 

=Southern Planters and Texas. =--While the farmers of the North found thebroad acres of the Western prairies stretching on before them apparentlyin endless expanse, it was far different with the Southern planters. Ever active in their search for new fields as they exhausted the virginsoil of the older states, the restless subjects of King Cotton quicklyreached the frontier of Louisiana. There they paused; but only for amoment. The fertile land of Texas just across the boundary lured them onand the Mexican republic to which it belonged extended to them a morethan generous welcome. Little realizing the perils lurking in a"peaceful penetration, " the authorities at Mexico City opened wide thedoors and made large grants of land to American contractors, who agreedto bring a number of families into Texas. The omnipresent Yankee, in theperson of Moses Austin of Connecticut, hearing of this good news in theSouthwest, obtained a grant in 1820 to settle three hundred Americansnear Bexar--a commission finally carried out to the letter by his sonand celebrated in the name given to the present capital of the state ofTexas. Within a decade some twenty thousand Americans had crossed theborder. 

=Mexico Closes the Door. =--The government of Mexico, unaccustomed tosuch enterprise and thoroughly frightened by its extent, drew back indismay. Its fears were increased as quarrels broke out between theAmericans and the natives in Texas. Fear grew into consternation whenefforts were made by President Jackson to buy the territory for theUnited States. Mexico then sought to close the flood gates. It stoppedall American colonization schemes, canceled many of the land grants, puta tariff on farming implements, and abolished slavery. These barrierswere raised too late. A call for help ran through the western border ofthe United States. The sentinels of the frontier answered. DavyCrockett, the noted frontiersman, bear hunter, and backwoods politician;James Bowie, the dexterous wielder of the knife that to this day bearshis name; and Sam Houston, warrior and pioneer, rushed to the aid oftheir countrymen in Texas. Unacquainted with the niceties of diplomacy, impatient at the formalities of international law, they soon made itknown that in spite of Mexican sovereignty they would be their ownmasters. 

=The Independence of Texas Declared. =--Numbering only about one-fourthof the population in Texas, they raised the standard of revolt in 1836and summoned a convention. Following in the footsteps of theirancestors, they issued a declaration of independence signed mainly byAmericans from the slave states. Anticipating that the government ofMexico would not quietly accept their word of defiance as final, theydispatched a force to repel "the invading army, " as General Houstoncalled the troops advancing under the command of Santa Ana, the Mexicanpresident. A portion of the Texan soldiers took their stand in theAlamo, an old Spanish mission in the cottonwood trees in the town of SanAntonio. Instead of obeying the order to blow up the mission and retire, they held their ground until they were completely surrounded and cut offfrom all help. Refusing to surrender, they fought to the bitter end, thelast man falling a victim to the sword. Vengeance was swift. Withinthree months General Houston overwhelmed Santa Ana at the San Jacinto, taking him prisoner of war and putting an end to all hopes for therestoration of Mexican sovereignty over Texas. 

The Lone Star Republic, with Houston at the head, then sought admissionto the United States. This seemed at first an easy matter. All that wasrequired to bring it about appeared to be a treaty annexing Texas to theunion. Moreover, President Jackson, at the height of his popularity, hada warm regard for General Houston and, with his usual sympathy for roughand ready ways of doing things, approved the transaction. Through anAmerican representative in Mexico, Jackson had long and anxiouslylabored, by means none too nice, to wring from the Mexican republic thecession of the coveted territory. When the Texans took matters intotheir own hands, he was more than pleased; but he could not marshal theapproval of two-thirds of the Senators required for a treaty ofannexation. Cautious as well as impetuous, Jackson did not press theissue; he went out of office in 1837 with Texas uncertain as to herfuture. 

=Northern Opposition to Annexation. =--All through the North theopposition to annexation was clear and strong. Anti-slavery agitatorscould hardly find words savage enough to express their feelings. "Texas, " exclaimed Channing in a letter to Clay, "is but the first stepof aggression. I trust indeed that Providence will beat back and humbleour cupidity and ambition. I now ask whether as a people we areprepared to seize on a neighboring territory for the end of extendingslavery? I ask whether as a people we can stand forth in the sight ofGod, in the sight of nations, and adopt this atrocious policy? Soonerperish! Sooner be our name blotted out from the record of nations!"William Lloyd Garrison called for the secession of the Northern statesif Texas was brought into the union with slavery. John Quincy Adamswarned his countrymen that they were treading in the path of theimperialism that had brought the nations of antiquity to judgment anddestruction. Henry Clay, the Whig candidate for President, taking intoaccount changing public sentiment, blew hot and cold, losing the stateof New York and the election of 1844 by giving a qualified approval ofannexation. In the same campaign, the Democrats boldly demanded the"Reannexation of Texas, " based on claims which the United States oncehad to Spanish territory beyond the Sabine River. 

=Annexation. =--The politicians were disposed to walk very warily. VanBuren, at heart opposed to slavery extension, refused to press the issueof annexation. Tyler, a pro-slavery Democrat from Virginia, by a strangefling of fortune carried into office as a nominal Whig, kept his mindfirmly fixed on the idea of reëlection and let the troublesome matterrest until the end of his administration was in sight. He then listenedwith favor to the voice of the South. Calhoun stated what seemed to be aconvincing argument: All good Americans have their hearts set on theConstitution; the admission of Texas is absolutely essential to thepreservation of the union; it will give a balance of power to the Southas against the North growing with incredible swiftness in wealth andpopulation. Tyler, impressed by the plea, appointed Calhoun to theoffice of Secretary of State in 1844, authorizing him to negotiate thetreaty of annexation--a commission at once executed. This scheme wasblocked in the Senate where the necessary two-thirds vote could not besecured. Balked but not defeated, the advocates of annexation drew up ajoint resolution which required only a majority vote in both houses, and in February of the next year, just before Tyler gave way to Polk, they pushed it through Congress. So Texas, amid the groans of Boston andthe hurrahs of Charleston, folded up her flag and came into the union. 

[Illustration: TEXAS AND THE TERRITORY IN DISPUTE]

=The Mexican War. =--The inevitable war with Mexico, foretold by theabolitionists and feared by Henry Clay, ensued, the ostensible causebeing a dispute over the boundaries of the new state. The Texans claimedall the lands down to the Rio Grande. The Mexicans placed the border ofTexas at the Nueces River and a line drawn thence in a northerlydirection. President Polk, accepting the Texan view of the controversy, ordered General Zachary Taylor to move beyond the Nueces in defense ofAmerican sovereignty. This act of power, deemed by the Mexicans aninvasion of their territory, was followed by an attack on our troops. 

President Polk, not displeased with the turn of events, announced thatAmerican blood had been "spilled on American soil" and that war existed"by the act of Mexico. " Congress, in a burst of patriotic fervor, brushed aside the protests of those who deplored the conduct of thegovernment as wanton aggression on a weaker nation and granted money andsupplies to prosecute the war. The few Whigs in the House ofRepresentatives, who refused to vote in favor of taking up arms, accepted the inevitable with such good grace as they could command. Allthrough the South and the West the war was popular. New Englandgrumbled, but gave loyal, if not enthusiastic, support to a conflictprecipitated by policies not of its own choosing. Only a handful of firmobjectors held out. James Russell Lowell, in his _Biglow Papers_, flungscorn and sarcasm to the bitter end. 

=The Outcome of the War. =--The foregone conclusion was soon reached. General Taylor might have delivered the fatal thrust from northernMexico if politics had not intervened. Polk, anxious to avoid raising upanother military hero for the Whigs to nominate for President, decidedto divide the honors by sending General Scott to strike a blow at thecapital, Mexico City. The deed was done with speed and pomp and twoheroes were lifted into presidential possibilities. In the Far West athird candidate was made, John C. Frémont, who, in coöperation withCommodores Sloat and Stockton and General Kearney, planted the Stars andStripes on the Pacific slope. 

In February, 1848, the Mexicans came to terms, ceding to the victorCalifornia, Arizona, New Mexico, and more--a domain greater in extentthan the combined areas of France and Germany. As a salve to the wound, the vanquished received fifteen million dollars in cash and thecancellation of many claims held by American citizens. Five years later, through the negotiations of James Gadsden, a further cession of landsalong the southern border of Arizona and New Mexico was secured onpayment of ten million dollars. 

=General Taylor Elected President. =--The ink was hardly dry upon thetreaty that closed the war before "rough and ready" General Taylor, aslave owner from Louisiana, "a Whig, " as he said, "but not an ultraWhig, " was put forward as the Whig candidate for President. He himselfhad not voted for years and he was fairly innocent in matters political. The tariff, the currency, and internal improvements, with a magnificentgesture he referred to the people's representatives in Congress, offering to enforce the laws as made, if elected. Clay's followersmourned. Polk stormed but could not win even a renomination at the handsof the Democrats. So it came about that the hero of Buena Vista, celebrated for his laconic order, "Give 'em a little more grape, CaptainBragg, " became President of the United States. 

THE PACIFIC COAST AND UTAH

=Oregon. =--Closely associated in the popular mind with the contest aboutthe affairs of Texas was a dispute with Great Britain over thepossession of territory in Oregon. In their presidential campaign of1844, the Democrats had coupled with the slogan, "The Reannexation ofTexas, " two other cries, "The Reoccupation of Oregon, " and "Fifty-fourForty or Fight. " The last two slogans were founded on Americandiscoveries and explorations in the Far Northwest. Their appearance inpolitics showed that the distant Oregon country, larger in area than NewEngland, New York, and Pennsylvania combined, was at last receiving fromthe nation the attention which its importance warranted. 

_Joint Occupation and Settlement. _--Both England and the United Stateshad long laid claim to Oregon and in 1818 they had agreed to occupy theterritory jointly--a contract which was renewed ten years later for anindefinite period. Under this plan, citizens of both countries were freeto hunt and settle anywhere in the region. The vanguard of British furtraders and Canadian priests was enlarged by many new recruits, withAmericans not far behind them. John Jacob Astor, the resourceful NewYork merchant, sent out trappers and hunters who established a tradingpost at Astoria in 1811. Some twenty years later, Americanmissionaries--among them two very remarkable men, Jason Lee and MarcusWhitman--were preaching the gospel to the Indians. 

Through news from the fur traders and missionaries, Eastern farmersheard of the fertile lands awaiting their plows on the Pacific slope;those with the pioneering spirit made ready to take possession of thenew country. In 1839 a band went around by Cape Horn. Four years later agreat expedition went overland. The way once broken, others followedrapidly. As soon as a few settlements were well established, thepioneers held a mass meeting and agreed upon a plan of government. "We, the people of Oregon territory, " runs the preamble to their compact, "for the purposes of mutual protection and to secure peace andprosperity among ourselves, agree to adopt the following laws andregulations until such time as the United States of America extend theirjurisdiction over us. " Thus self-government made its way across theRocky Mountains. 

[Illustration: THE OREGON COUNTRY AND THE DISPUTED BOUNDARY]

_The Boundary Dispute with England Adjusted. _--By this time it wasevident that the boundaries of Oregon must be fixed. Having made thequestion an issue in his campaign, Polk, after his election in 1844, pressed it upon the attention of the country. In his inaugural addressand his first message to Congress he reiterated the claim of theDemocratic platform that "our title to the whole territory of Oregon isclear and unquestionable. " This pretension Great Britain firmlyrejected, leaving the President a choice between war and compromise. 

Polk, already having the contest with Mexico on his hands, sought andobtained a compromise. The British government, moved by a hint from theAmerican minister, offered a settlement which would fix the boundary atthe forty-ninth parallel instead of "fifty-four forty, " and give itVancouver Island. Polk speedily chose this way out of the dilemma. Instead of making the decision himself, however, and drawing up atreaty, he turned to the Senate for "counsel. " As prearranged with partyleaders, the advice was favorable to the plan. The treaty, duly drawn in1846, was ratified by the Senate after an acrimonious debate. "Oh!mountain that was delivered of a mouse, " exclaimed Senator Benton, "thyname shall be fifty-four forty!" Thirteen years later, the southern partof the territory was admitted to the union as the state of Oregon, leaving the northern and eastern sections in the status of a territory. 

=California. =--With the growth of the northwestern empire, dedicated bynature to freedom, the planting interests might have been content, hadfortune not wrested from them the fair country of California. Upon thishuge territory they had set their hearts. The mild climate and fertilesoil seemed well suited to slavery and the planters expected to extendtheir sway to the entire domain. California was a state of more than155, 000 square miles--about seventy times the size of the state ofDelaware. It could readily be divided into five or six large states, ifthat became necessary to preserve the Southern balance of power. 

_Early American Relations with California. _--Time and tide, it seems, were not on the side of the planters. Already Americans of a fardifferent type were invading the Pacific slope. Long before Polk everdreamed of California, the Yankee with his cargo of notions had beenaround the Horn. Daring skippers had sailed out of New England harborswith a variety of goods, bent their course around South America toCalifornia, on to China and around the world, trading as they went andleaving pots, pans, woolen cloth, guns, boots, shoes, salt fish, navalstores, and rum in their wake. "Home from Californy!" rang the cry inmany a New England port as a good captain let go his anchor on hisreturn from the long trading voyage in the Pacific. 

[Illustration: THE OVERLAND TRAILS]

_The Overland Trails. _--Not to be outdone by the mariners of the deep, western scouts searched for overland routes to the Pacific. ZebulonPike, explorer and pathfinder, by his expedition into the Southwestduring Jefferson's administration, had discovered the resources of NewSpain and had shown his countrymen how easy it was to reach Santa Féfrom the upper waters of the Arkansas River. Not long afterward, traderslaid open the route, making Franklin, Missouri, and later FortLeavenworth the starting point. Along the trail, once surveyed, pouredcaravans heavily guarded by armed men against marauding Indians. Sandstorms often wiped out all signs of the route; hunger and thirst didmany a band of wagoners to death; but the lure of the game and theprofits at the end kept the business thriving. Huge stocks of cottons, glass, hardware, and ammunition were drawn almost across the continentto be exchanged at Santa Fé for furs, Indian blankets, silver, andmules; and many a fortune was made out of the traffic. 

_Americans in California. _--Why stop at Santa Fé? The question did notlong remain unanswered. In 1829, Ewing Young broke the path to LosAngeles. Thirteen years later Frémont made the first of his celebratedexpeditions across plain, desert, and mountain, arousing the interest ofthe entire country in the Far West. In the wake of the pathfinders wentadventurers, settlers, and artisans. By 1847, more than one-fifth of theinhabitants in the little post of two thousand on San Francisco Bay werefrom the United States. The Mexican War, therefore, was not thebeginning but the end of the American conquest of California--a conquestinitiated by Americans who went to till the soil, to trade, or to followsome mechanical pursuit. 

_The Discovery of Gold. _--As if to clinch the hold on California alreadysecured by the friends of free soil, there came in 1848 the suddendiscovery of gold at Sutter's Mill in the Sacramento Valley. When thisexciting news reached the East, a mighty rush began to California, overthe trails, across the Isthmus of Panama, and around Cape Horn. Beforetwo years had passed, it is estimated that a hundred thousand people, insearch of fortunes, had arrived in California--mechanics, teachers, doctors, lawyers, farmers, miners, and laborers from the four corners ofthe earth. 

[Illustration: _From an old print_

SAN FRANCISCO IN 1849]

_California a Free State. _--With this increase in population therenaturally resulted the usual demand for admission to the union. Insteadof waiting for authority from Washington, the Californians held aconvention in 1849 and framed their constitution. With impatience, thedelegates brushed aside the plea that "the balance of power between theNorth and South" required the admission of their state as a slavecommonwealth. Without a dissenting voice, they voted in favor of freedomand boldly made their request for inclusion among the United States. President Taylor, though a Southern man, advised Congress to admit theapplicant. Robert Toombs of Georgia vowed to God that he preferredsecession. Henry Clay, the great compromiser, came to the rescue and in1850 California was admitted as a free state. 

=Utah. =--On the long road to California, in the midst of forbidding andbarren wastes, a religious sect, the Mormons, had planted a colonydestined to a stormy career. Founded in 1830 under the leadership ofJoseph Smith of New York, the sect had suffered from many cruel buffetsof fortune. From Ohio they had migrated into Missouri where they wereset upon and beaten. Some of them were murdered by indignant neighbors. Harried out of Missouri, they went into Illinois only to see theirdirector and prophet, Smith, first imprisoned by the authorities andthen shot by a mob. Having raised up a cloud of enemies on account ofboth their religious faith and their practice of allowing a man to havemore than one wife, they fell in heartily with the suggestion of a newleader, Brigham Young, that they go into the Far West beyond the plainsof Kansas--into the forlorn desert where the wicked would cease fromtroubling and the weary could be at rest, as they read in the Bible. In1847, Young, with a company of picked men, searched far and wide untilhe found a suitable spot overlooking the Salt Lake Valley. Returning toIllinois, he gathered up his followers, now numbering several thousand, and in one mighty wagon caravan they all went to their distant haven. 

_Brigham Young and His Economic System. _--In Brigham Young the Mormonshad a leader of remarkable power who gave direction to the redemption ofthe arid soil, the management of property, and the upbuilding ofindustry. He promised them to make the desert blossom as the rose, andverily he did it. He firmly shaped the enterprise of the colony alongco-operative lines, holding down the speculator and profiteer with onehand and giving encouragement to the industrious poor with the other. With the shrewdness befitting a good business man, he knew how to drawthe line between public and private interest. Land was given outright toeach family, but great care was exercised in the distribution so thatnone should have great advantage over another. The purchase of suppliesand the sale of produce were carried on through a coöperative store, theprofits of which went to the common good. Encountering for the firsttime in the history of the Anglo-Saxon race the problem of aridity, theMormons surmounted the most perplexing obstacles with astounding skill. They built irrigation works by coöperative labor and granted waterrights to all families on equitable terms. 

_The Growth of Industries. _--Though farming long remained the majorinterest of the colony, the Mormons, eager to be self-supporting inevery possible way, bent their efforts also to manufacturing and laterto mining. Their missionaries, who hunted in the highways and byways ofEurope for converts, never failed to stress the economic advantages ofthe sect. "We want, " proclaimed President Young to all the earth, "acompany of woolen manufacturers to come with machinery and take the woolfrom the sheep and convert it into the best clothes. We want a companyof potters; we need them; the clay is ready and the dishes wanted. .. . Wewant some men to start a furnace forthwith; the iron, coal, and moldersare waiting. .. . We have a printing press and any one who can take goodprinting and writing paper to the Valley will be a blessing tothemselves and the church. " Roads and bridges were built; millions werespent in experiments in agriculture and manufacturing; missionaries at ahuge cost were maintained in the East and in Europe; an army was keptfor defense against the Indians; and colonies were planted in theoutlying regions. A historian of Deseret, as the colony was called bythe Mormons, estimated in 1895 that by the labor of their hands thepeople had produced nearly half a billion dollars in wealth since thecoming of the vanguard. 

_Polygamy Forbidden. _--The hope of the Mormons that they might foreverremain undisturbed by outsiders was soon dashed to earth, for hundredsof farmers and artisans belonging to other religious sects came tosettle among them. In 1850 the colony was so populous and prosperousthat it was organized into a territory of the United States and broughtunder the supervision of the federal government. Protests againstpolygamy were raised in the colony and at the seat of authority threethousand miles away at Washington. The new Republican party in 1856proclaimed it "the right and duty of Congress to prohibit in theTerritories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery. " Indue time the Mormons had to give up their marriage practices which werecondemned by the common opinion of all western civilization; but theykept their religious faith. Monuments to their early enterprise are seenin the Temple and the Tabernacle, the irrigation works, and the greatwealth of the Church. 

SUMMARY OF WESTERN DEVELOPMENT AND NATIONAL POLITICS

While the statesmen of the old generation were solving the problems oftheir age, hunters, pioneers, and home seekers were preparing newproblems beyond the Alleghanies. The West was rising in population andwealth. Between 1783 and 1829, eleven states were added to the originalthirteen. All but two were in the West. Two of them were in theLouisiana territory beyond the Mississippi. Here the process ofcolonization was repeated. Hardy frontier people cut down the forests, built log cabins, laid out farms, and cut roads through the wilderness. They began a new civilization just as the immigrants to Virginia orMassachusetts had done two centuries earlier. 

Like the seaboard colonists before them, they too cherished the spiritof independence and power. They had not gone far upon their coursebefore they resented the monopoly of the presidency by the East. In 1829they actually sent one of their own cherished leaders, Andrew Jackson, to the White House. Again in 1840, in 1844, in 1848, and in 1860, theMississippi Valley could boast that one of its sons had been chosen forthe seat of power at Washington. Its democratic temper evoked a cordialresponse in the towns of the East where the old aristocracy had been putaside and artisans had been given the ballot. 

For three decades the West occupied the interest of the nation. UnderJackson's leadership, it destroyed the second United States Bank. Whenhe smote nullification in South Carolina, it gave him cordial support. It approved his policy of parceling out government offices among partyworkers--"the spoils system" in all its fullness. On only one point didit really dissent. The West heartily favored internal improvements, theappropriation of federal funds for highways, canals, and railways. Jackson had misgivings on this question and awakened sharp criticism byvetoing a road improvement bill. 

From their point of vantage on the frontier, the pioneers pressed onwestward. They pushed into Texas, created a state, declared theirindependence, demanded a place in the union, and precipitated a war withMexico. They crossed the trackless plain and desert, laying out trailsto Santa Fé, to Oregon, and to California. They were upon the scene whenthe Mexican War brought California under the Stars and Stripes. They hadlaid out their farms in the Willamette Valley when the slogan"Fifty-Four Forty or Fight" forced a settlement of the Oregon boundary. California and Oregon were already in the union when there arose theGreat Civil War testing whether this nation or any nation so conceivedand so dedicated could long endure. 

=References=

G. P. Brown, _Westward Expansion_ (American Nation Series). 

K. Coman, _Economic Beginnings of the Far West_ (2 vols. ). 

F. Parkman, _California and the Oregon Trail_. 

R. S. Ripley, _The War with Mexico_. 

W. C. Rives, _The United States and Mexico, 1821-48_ (2 vols. ). 

=Questions=

1. Give some of the special features in the history of Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota. 

2. Contrast the climate and soil of the Middle West and the Far West. 

3. How did Mexico at first encourage American immigration?

4. What produced the revolution in Texas? Who led in it?

5. Narrate some of the leading events in the struggle over annexation tothe United States. 

6. What action by President Polk precipitated war?

7. Give the details of the peace settlement with Mexico. 

8. What is meant by the "joint occupation" of Oregon?

9. How was the Oregon boundary dispute finally settled?

10. Compare the American "invasion" of California with the migrationinto Texas. 

11. Explain how California became a free state. 

12. Describe the early economic policy of the Mormons. 

=Research Topics=

=The Independence of Texas. =--McMaster, _History of the People of theUnited States_, Vol. VI, pp. 251-270. Woodrow Wilson, _History of theAmerican People_, Vol. IV, pp. 102-126. 

=The Annexation of Texas. =--McMaster, Vol. VII. The passages onannexation are scattered through this volume and it is an exercise iningenuity to make a connected story of them. Source materials in Hart, _American History Told by Contemporaries_, Vol. III, pp. 637-655; Elson, _History of the United States_, pp. 516-521, 526-527. 

=The War with Mexico. =--Elson, pp. 526-538. 

=The Oregon Boundary Dispute. =--Schafer, _History of the PacificNorthwest_ (rev. Ed. ), pp. 88-104; 173-185. 

=The Migration to Oregon. =--Schafer, pp. 105-172. Coman, _EconomicBeginnings of the Far West_, Vol. II, pp. 113-166. 

=The Santa Fé Trail. =--Coman, _Economic Beginnings_, Vol. II, pp. 75-93. 

=The Conquest of California. =--Coman, Vol. II, pp. 297-319. 

=Gold in California. =--McMaster, Vol. VII, pp. 585-614. 

=The Mormon Migration. =--Coman, Vol. II, pp. 167-206. 

=Biographical Studies. =--Frémont, Generals Scott and Taylor, SamHouston, and David Crockett. 

=The Romance of Western Exploration. =--J. G. Neihardt, _The SplendidWayfaring_. J. G. Neihardt, _The Song of Hugh Glass_. 

PART V. SECTIONAL CONFLICT AND RECONSTRUCTION

CHAPTER XIII

THE RISE OF THE INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM

If Jefferson could have lived to see the Stars and Stripes planted onthe Pacific Coast, the broad empire of Texas added to the plantingstates, and the valley of the Willamette waving with wheat sown byfarmers from New England, he would have been more than fortified in hisfaith that the future of America lay in agriculture. Even a stanch oldFederalist like Gouverneur Morris or Josiah Quincy would have mournfullyconceded both the prophecy and the claim. Manifest destiny never seemedmore clearly written in the stars. 

As the farmers from the Northwest and planters from the Southwest pouredin upon the floor of Congress, the party of Jefferson, christened anewby Jackson, grew stronger year by year. Opponents there were, no doubt, disgruntled critics and Whigs by conviction; but in 1852 FranklinPierce, the Democratic candidate for President, carried every state inthe union except Massachusetts, Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Thisvictory, a triumph under ordinary circumstances, was all the moresignificant in that Pierce was pitted against a hero of the Mexican War, General Scott, whom the Whigs, hoping to win by rousing the martialardor of the voters, had nominated. On looking at the election returns, the new President calmly assured the planters that "the generalprinciple of reduction of duties with a view to revenue may now beregarded as the settled policy of the country. " With equal confidence, he waved aside those agitators who devoted themselves "to the supposedinterests of the relatively few Africans in the United States. " Like awatchman in the night he called to the country: "All's well. "

The party of Hamilton and Clay lay in the dust. 

THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

As pride often goeth before a fall, so sanguine expectation is sometimesthe symbol of defeat. Jackson destroyed the bank. Polk signed the tariffbill of 1846 striking an effective blow at the principle of protectionfor manufactures. Pierce promised to silence the abolitionists. Hissuccessor was to approve a drastic step in the direction of free trade. Nevertheless all these things left untouched the springs of power thatwere in due time to make America the greatest industrial nation on theearth; namely, vast national resources, business enterprise, inventivegenius, and the free labor supply of Europe. Unseen by the thoughtless, unrecorded in the diaries of wiseacres, rarely mentioned in the speechesof statesmen, there was swiftly rising such a tide in the affairs ofAmerica as Jefferson and Hamilton never dreamed of in their littlephilosophies. 

=The Inventors. =--Watt and Boulton experimenting with steam in England, Whitney combining wood and steel into a cotton gin, Fulton and Fitchapplying the steam engine to navigation, Stevens and Peter Cooper tryingout the "iron horse" on "iron highways, " Slater building spinning millsin Pawtucket, Howe attaching the needle to the flying wheel, Morsespanning a continent with the telegraph, Cyrus Field linking the marketsof the new world with the old along the bed of the Atlantic, McCormickbreaking the sickle under the reaper--these men and a thousand more weredestroying in a mighty revolution of industry the world of thestagecoach and the tallow candle which Washington and Franklin hadinherited little changed from the age of Cæsar. Whitney was to makecotton king. Watt and Fulton were to make steel and steam masters of theworld. Agriculture was to fall behind in the race for supremacy. 

=Industry Outstrips Planting. =--The story of invention, that tribute tothe triumph of mind over matter, fascinating as a romance, need not betreated in detail here. The effects of invention on social and politicallife, multitudinous and never-ending, form the very warp and woof ofAmerican progress from the days of Andrew Jackson to the latest hour. Neither the great civil conflict--the clash of two systems--nor theproblems of the modern age can be approached without an understanding ofthe striking phases of industrialism. 

[Illustration: A NEW ENGLAND MILL BUILT IN 1793]

First and foremost among them was the uprush of mills managed bycaptains of industry and manned by labor drawn from farms, cities, andforeign lands. For every planter who cleared a domain in the Southwestand gathered his army of bondmen about him, there rose in the North amagician of steam and steel who collected under his roof an army of freeworkers. 

In seven league boots this new giant strode ahead of the Southern giant. Between 1850 and 1859, to use dollars and cents as the measure ofprogress, the value of domestic manufactures including mines andfisheries rose from $1, 019, 106, 616 to $1, 900, 000, 000, an increase ofeighty-six per cent in ten years. In this same period the totalproduction of naval stores, rice, sugar, tobacco, and cotton, thestaples of the South, went only from $165, 000, 000, in round figures, to$204, 000, 000. At the halfway point of the century, the capital investedin industry, commerce, and cities far exceeded the value of all the farmland between the Atlantic and the Pacific; thus the course of economyhad been reversed in fifty years. Tested by figures of production, KingCotton had shriveled by 1860 to a petty prince in comparison, for eachyear the captains of industry turned out goods worth nearly twenty timesall the bales of cotton picked on Southern plantations. Iron, boots andshoes, and leather goods pouring from Northern mills surpassed in valuethe entire cotton output. 

=The Agrarian West Turns to Industry. =--Nor was this vast enterpriseconfined to the old Northeast where, as Madison had sagely remarked, commerce was early dominant. "Cincinnati, " runs an official report in1854, "appears to be a great central depot for ready-made clothing andits manufacture for the Western markets may be said to be one of thegreat trades of that city. " There, wrote another traveler, "I heard thecrack of the cattle driver's whip and the hum of the factory: the Westand the East meeting. " Louisville and St. Louis were already famous fortheir clothing trades and the manufacture of cotton bagging. Fivehundred of the two thousand woolen mills in the country in 1860 were inthe Western states. Of the output of flour and grist mills, which almostreached in value the cotton crop of 1850, the Ohio Valley furnished arapidly growing share. The old home of Jacksonian democracy, whereFederalists had been almost as scarce as monarchists, turned slowlybackward, as the needle to the pole, toward the principle of protectionfor domestic industry, espoused by Hamilton and defended by Clay. 

=The Extension of Canals and Railways. =--As necessary to mechanicalindustry as steel and steam power was the great market, spread over awide and diversified area and knit together by efficient means oftransportation. This service was supplied to industry by the steamship, which began its career on the Hudson in 1807; by the canals, of whichthe Erie opened in 1825 was the most noteworthy; and by the railways, which came into practical operation about 1830. 

[Illustration: _From an old print_

AN EARLY RAILWAY]

With sure instinct the Eastern manufacturer reached out for the marketsof the Northwest territory where free farmers were producing annuallystaggering crops of corn, wheat, bacon, and wool. The two great canalsystems--the Erie connecting New York City with the waterways of theGreat Lakes and the Pennsylvania chain linking Philadelphia with theheadwaters of the Ohio--gradually turned the tide of trade from NewOrleans to the Eastern seaboard. The railways followed the same paths. By 1860, New York had rail connections with Chicago and St. Louis, oneof the routes running through the Hudson and Mohawk valleys and alongthe Great Lakes, the other through Philadelphia and Pennsylvania andacross the rich wheat fields of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Baltimore, not to be outdone by her two rivals, reached out over the mountains forthe Western trade and in 1857 had trains running into St. Louis. 

In railway enterprise the South took more interest than in canals, andthe friends of that section came to its aid. To offset the magnetdrawing trade away from the Mississippi Valley, lines were built fromthe Gulf to Chicago, the Illinois Central part of the project being amonument to the zeal and industry of a Democrat, better known inpolitics than in business, Stephen A. Douglas. The swift movement ofcotton and tobacco to the North or to seaports was of common concern toplanters and manufacturers. Accordingly lines were flung down along theSouthern coast, linking Richmond, Charleston, and Savannah with theNorthern markets. Other lines struck inland from the coast, giving arail outlet to the sea for Raleigh, Columbia, Atlanta, Chattanooga, Nashville, and Montgomery. Nevertheless, in spite of this enterprise, the mileage of all the Southern states in 1860 did not equal that ofOhio, Indiana, and Illinois combined. 

=Banking and Finance. =--Out of commerce and manufactures and theconstruction and operation of railways came such an accumulation ofcapital in the Northern states as merchants of old never imagined. Thebanks of the four industrial states of Massachusetts, Connecticut, NewYork, and Pennsylvania in 1860 had funds greater than the banks in allthe other states combined. New York City had become the money market ofAmerica, the center to which industrial companies, railway promoters, farmers, and planters turned for capital to initiate and carry on theiroperations. The banks of Louisiana, South Carolina, Georgia, andVirginia, it is true, had capital far in excess of the banks of theNorthwest; but still they were relatively small compared with thefinancial institutions of the East. 

=The Growth of the Industrial Population. =--A revolution of suchmagnitude in industry, transport, and finance, overturning as it did theagrarian civilization of the old Northwest and reaching out to the veryborders of the country, could not fail to bring in its trainconsequences of a striking character. Some were immediate and obvious. Others require a fullness of time not yet reached to reveal theircomplete significance. Outstanding among them was the growth of anindustrial population, detached from the land, concentrated in cities, and, to use Jefferson's phrase, dependent upon "the caprices andcasualties of trade" for a livelihood. This was a result, as the greatVirginian had foreseen, which flowed inevitably from public and privateefforts to stimulate industry as against agriculture. 

[Illustration: LOWELL, MASSACHUSETTS, IN 1838, AN EARLY INDUSTRIALTOWN]

It was estimated in 1860, on the basis of the census figures, thatmechanical production gave employment to 1, 100, 000 men and 285, 000women, making, if the average number of dependents upon them bereckoned, nearly six million people or about one-sixth of the populationof the country sustained from manufactures. "This, " runs the officialrecord, "was exclusive of the number engaged in the production of manyof the raw materials and of the food for manufacturers; in thedistribution of their products, such as merchants, clerks, draymen, mariners, the employees of railroads, expresses, and steamboats; ofcapitalists, various artistic and professional classes, as well ascarpenters, bricklayers, painters, and the members of other mechanicaltrades not classed as manufactures. It is safe to assume, then, thatone-third of the whole population is supported, directly, or indirectly, by manufacturing industry. " Taking, however, the number of personsdirectly supported by manufactures, namely about six millions, revealsthe astounding fact that the white laboring population, divorced fromthe soil, already exceeded the number of slaves on Southern farms andplantations. 

_Immigration. _--The more carefully the rapid growth of the industrialpopulation is examined, the more surprising is the fact that such animmense body of free laborers could be found, particularly when it isrecalled to what desperate straits the colonial leaders were put insecuring immigrants, --slavery, indentured servitude, and kidnappingbeing the fruits of their necessities. The answer to the enigma is to befound partly in European conditions and partly in the cheapness oftransportation after the opening of the era of steam navigation. Shrewdobservers of the course of events had long foreseen that a flood ofcheap labor was bound to come when the way was made easy. Some, amongthem Chief Justice Ellsworth, went so far as to prophesy that whitelabor would in time be so abundant that slavery would disappear as themore costly of the two labor systems. The processes of nature were aidedby the policies of government in England and Germany. 

_The Coming of the Irish. _--The opposition of the Irish people to theEnglish government, ever furious and irrepressible, was increased in themid forties by an almost total failure of the potato crop, the mainsupport of the peasants. Catholic in religion, they had been compelledto support a Protestant church. Tillers of the soil by necessity, theywere forced to pay enormous tributes to absentee landlords in Englandwhose claim to their estates rested upon the title of conquest andconfiscation. Intensely loyal to their race, the Irish were subjected inall things to the Parliament at London, in which their small minority ofrepresentatives had little influence save in holding a balance of powerbetween the two contending English parties. To the constant politicalirritation, the potato famine added physical distress beyonddescription. In cottages and fields and along the highways the victimsof starvation lay dead by the hundreds, the relief which charityafforded only bringing misery more sharply to the foreground. Those whowere fortunate enough to secure passage money sought escape to America. In 1844 the total immigration into the United States was less thaneighty thousand; in 1850 it had risen by leaps and bounds to more thanthree hundred thousand. Between 1820 and 1860 the immigrants from theUnited Kingdom numbered 2, 750, 000, of whom more than one-half wereIrish. It has been said with a touch of exaggeration that the Americancanals and railways of those days were built by the labor of Irishmen. 

_The German Migration. _--To political discontent and economic distress, such as was responsible for the coming of the Irish, may likewise betraced the source of the Germanic migration. The potato blight that fellupon Ireland visited the Rhine Valley and Southern Germany at the sametime with results as pitiful, if less extensive. The calamity inflictedby nature was followed shortly by another inflicted by the despoticconduct of German kings and princes. In 1848 there had occurredthroughout Europe a popular uprising in behalf of republics anddemocratic government. For a time it rode on a full tide of success. Kings were overthrown, or compelled to promise constitutionalgovernment, and tyrannical ministers fled from their palaces. Then camereaction. Those who had championed the popular cause were imprisoned, shot, or driven out of the land. Men of attainments and distinction, whose sole offense was opposition to the government of kings andprinces, sought an asylum in America, carrying with them to the land oftheir adoption the spirit of liberty and democracy. In 1847 over fiftythousand Germans came to America, the forerunners of a migration thatincreased, almost steadily, for many years. The record of 1860 showedthat in the previous twenty years nearly a million and a half had foundhomes in the United States. Far and wide they scattered, from the millsand shops of the seacoast towns to the uttermost frontiers of Wisconsinand Minnesota. 

_The Labor of Women and Children. _--If the industries, canals, andrailways of the country were largely manned by foreign labor, stillimportant native sources must not be overlooked; above all, the womenand children of the New England textile districts. Spinning and weaving, by a tradition that runs far beyond the written records of mankind, belonged to women. Indeed it was the dexterous housewives, spinsters, and boys and girls that laid the foundations of the textile industry inAmerica, foundations upon which the mechanical revolution was built. Asthe wheel and loom were taken out of the homes to the factories operatedby water power or the steam engine, the women and, to use Hamilton'sphrase, "the children of tender years, " followed as a matter of course. "The cotton manufacture alone employs six thousand persons in Lowell, "wrote a French observer in 1836; "of this number nearly five thousandare young women from seventeen to twenty-four years of age, thedaughters of farmers from the different New England states. " It was notuntil after the middle of the century that foreign lands proved to bethe chief source from which workers were recruited for the factories ofNew England. It was then that the daughters of the Puritans, outdone bythe competition of foreign labor, both of men and women, left thespinning jenny and the loom to other hands. 

=The Rise of Organized Labor. =--The changing conditions of Americanlife, marked by the spreading mill towns of New England, New York, andPennsylvania and the growth of cities like Buffalo, Cincinnati, Louisville, St. Louis, Detroit, and Chicago in the West, naturallybrought changes, as Jefferson had prophesied, in "manners and morals. " Afew mechanics, smiths, carpenters, and masons, widely scattered throughfarming regions and rural villages, raise no such problems as tens ofthousands of workers collected in one center in daily intercourse, learning the power of coöperation and union. 

Even before the coming of steam and machinery, in the "good old days" ofhandicrafts, laborers in many trades--printers, shoemakers, carpenters, for example--had begun to draw together in the towns for the advancementof their interests in the form of higher wages, shorter days, andmilder laws. The shoemakers of Philadelphia, organized in 1794, conducted a strike in 1799 and held together until indicted seven yearslater for conspiracy. During the twenties and thirties, local laborunions sprang up in all industrial centers and they led almostimmediately to city federations of the several crafts. 

As the thousands who were dependent upon their daily labor for theirlivelihood mounted into the millions and industries spread across thecontinent, the local unions of craftsmen grew into national craftorganizations bound together by the newspapers, the telegraph, and therailways. Before 1860 there were several such national trade unions, including the plumbers, printers, mule spinners, iron molders, and stonecutters. All over the North labor leaders arose--men unknown to generalhistory but forceful and resourceful characters who forged links bindingscattered and individual workers into a common brotherhood. An attemptwas even made in 1834 to federate all the crafts into a permanentnational organization; but it perished within three years through lackof support. Half a century had to elapse before the American Federationof Labor was to accomplish this task. 

All the manifestations of the modern labor movement had appeared, ingerm at least, by the time the mid-century was reached: unions, laborleaders, strikes, a labor press, a labor political program, and a laborpolitical party. In every great city industrial disputes were a commonoccurrence. The papers recorded about four hundred in two years, 1853-54, local affairs but forecasting economic struggles in a largerfield. The labor press seems to have begun with the founding of the_Mechanics' Free Press_ in Philadelphia in 1828 and the establishment ofthe New York _Workingman's Advocate_ shortly afterward. Thesesemi-political papers were in later years followed by regular tradepapers designed to weld together and advance the interests of particularcrafts. Edited by able leaders, these little sheets with limitedcirculation wielded an enormous influence in the ranks of the workers. 

=Labor and Politics. =--As for the political program of labor, the mainplanks were clear and specific: the abolition of imprisonment for debt, manhood suffrage in states where property qualifications stillprevailed, free and universal education, laws protecting the safety andhealth of workers in mills and factories, abolition of lotteries, repealof laws requiring militia service, and free land in the West. 

Into the labor papers and platforms there sometimes crept a note ofhostility to the masters of industry, a sign of bitterness that excitedlittle alarm while cheap land in the West was open to the discontented. The Philadelphia workmen, in issuing a call for a local convention, invited "all those of our fellow citizens who live by their own laborand none other. " In Newcastle county, Delaware, the association ofworking people complained in 1830: "The poor have no laws; the laws aremade by the rich and of course for the rich. " Here and there anextremist went to the length of advocating an equal division of wealthamong all the people--the crudest kind of communism. 

Agitation of this character produced in labor circles profound distrustof both Whigs and Democrats who talked principally about tariffs andbanks; it resulted in attempts to found independent labor parties. InPhiladelphia, Albany, New York City, and New England, labor candidateswere put up for elections in the early thirties and in a few cases werevictorious at the polls. "The balance of power has at length got intothe hands of the working people, where it properly belongs, "triumphantly exclaimed the _Mechanics' Free Press_ of Philadelphia in1829. But the triumph was illusory. Dissensions appeared in the laborranks. The old party leaders, particularly of Tammany Hall, theDemocratic party organization in New York City, offered concessions tolabor in return for votes. Newspapers unsparingly denounced "trade unionpoliticians" as "demagogues, " "levellers, " and "rag, tag, and bobtail";and some of them, deeming labor unrest the sour fruit of manhoodsuffrage, suggested disfranchisement as a remedy. Under the influenceof concessions and attacks the political fever quickly died away, andthe end of the decade left no remnant of the labor political parties. Labor leaders turned to a task which seemed more substantial andpractical, that of organizing workingmen into craft unions for thedefinite purpose of raising wages and reducing hours. 

THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND NATIONAL POLITICS

=Southern Plans for Union with the West. =--It was long the design ofSouthern statesmen like Calhoun to hold the West and the South togetherin one political party. The theory on which they based their hope wassimple. Both sections were agricultural--the producers of raw materialsand the buyers of manufactured goods. The planters were heavy purchasersof Western bacon, pork, mules, and grain. The Mississippi River and itstributaries formed the natural channel for the transportation of heavyproduce southward to the plantations and outward to Europe. Therefore, ran their political reasoning, the interests of the two sections wereone. By standing together in favor of low tariffs, they could buy theirmanufactures cheaply in Europe and pay for them in cotton, tobacco, andgrain. The union of the two sections under Jackson's management seemedperfect. 

=The East Forms Ties with the West. =--Eastern leaders were not blind tothe ambitions of Southern statesmen. On the contrary, they alsorecognized the importance of forming strong ties with the agrarian Westand drawing the produce of the Ohio Valley to Philadelphia and New York. The canals and railways were the physical signs of this economic union, and the results, commercial and political, were soon evident. By themiddle of the century, Southern economists noted the change, one ofthem, De Bow, lamenting that "the great cities of the North haveseverally penetrated the interior with artificial lines until they havetaken from the open and untaxed current of the Mississippi the commerceproduced on its borders. " To this writer it was an astounding thing tobehold "the number of steamers that now descend the upper MississippiRiver, loaded to the guards with produce, as far as the mouth of theIllinois River and then turn up that stream with their cargoes to beshipped to New York _via_ Chicago. The Illinois canal has not only sweptthe whole produce along the line of the Illinois River to the East, butit is drawing the products of the upper Mississippi through the samechannel; thus depriving New Orleans and St. Louis of a rich portion oftheir former trade. "

If to any shippers the broad current of the great river sweeping down toNew Orleans offered easier means of physical communication to the seathan the canals and railways, the difference could be overcome by thecredit which Eastern bankers were able to extend to the grain andproduce buyers, in the first instance, and through them to the farmerson the soil. The acute Southern observer just quoted, De Bow, admittedwith evident regret, in 1852, that "last autumn, the rich regions ofOhio, Indiana, and Illinois were flooded with the local bank notes ofthe Eastern States, advanced by the New York houses on produce to beshipped by way of the canals in the spring. .. . These moneyed facilitiesenable the packer, miller, and speculator to hold on to their produceuntil the opening of navigation in the spring and they are no longerobliged, as formerly, to hurry off their shipments during the winter bythe way of New Orleans in order to realize funds by drafts on theirshipments. The banking facilities at the East are doing as much to drawtrade from us as the canals and railways which Eastern capital isconstructing. " Thus canals, railways, and financial credit were swiftlyforging bonds of union between the old home of Jacksonian Democracy inthe West and the older home of Federalism in the East. The nationalismto which Webster paid eloquent tribute became more and more real withthe passing of time. The self-sufficiency of the pioneer was broken downas he began to watch the produce markets of New York and Philadelphiawhere the prices of corn and hogs fixed his earnings for the year. 

=The West and Manufactures. =--In addition to the commercial bondsbetween the East and the West there was growing up a common interest inmanufactures. As skilled white labor increased in the Ohio Valley, theindustries springing up in the new cities made Western life more likethat of the industrial East than like that of the planting South. Moreover, the Western states produced some important raw materials forAmerican factories, which called for protection against foreigncompetition, notably, wool, hemp, and flax. As the South had little orno foreign competition in cotton and tobacco, the East could not offerprotection for her raw materials in exchange for protection forindustries. With the West, however, it became possible to establishreciprocity in tariffs; that is, for example, to trade a high rate onwool for a high rate on textiles or iron. 

=The South Dependent on the North. =--While East and West were drawingtogether, the distinctions between North and South were becoming moremarked; the latter, having few industries and producing little save rawmaterials, was being forced into the position of a dependent section. Asa result of the protective tariff, Southern planters were compelled toturn more and more to Northern mills for their cloth, shoes, hats, hoes, plows, and machinery. Nearly all the goods which they bought in Europein exchange for their produce came overseas to Northern ports, whencetransshipments were made by rail and water to Southern points ofdistribution. Their rice, cotton, and tobacco, in as far as they werenot carried to Europe in British bottoms, were transported by Northernmasters. In these ways, a large part of the financial operationsconnected with the sale of Southern produce and the purchase of goods inexchange passed into the hands of Northern merchants and bankers who, naturally, made profits from their transactions. Finally, Southernplanters who wanted to buy more land and more slaves on credit borrowedheavily in the North where huge accumulations made the rates of interestlower than the smaller banks of the South could afford. 

=The South Reckons the Cost of Economic Dependence. =--As Southerndependence upon Northern capital became more and more marked, Southernleaders began to chafe at what they regarded as restraints laid upontheir enterprise. In a word, they came to look upon the planter as atribute-bearer to the manufacturer and financier. "The South, "expostulated De Bow, "stands in the attitude of feeding . .. A vastpopulation of [Northern] merchants, shipowners, capitalists, and otherswho, without claims on her progeny, drink up the life blood of hertrade. .. . Where goes the value of our labor but to those who, takingadvantage of our folly, ship for us, buy for us, sell to us, and, afterturning our own capital to their profitable account, return laden withour money to enjoy their easily earned opulence at home. "

Southern statisticians, not satisfied with generalities, attempted tofigure out how great was this tribute in dollars and cents. Theyestimated that the planters annually lent to Northern merchants the fullvalue of their exports, a hundred millions or more, "to be used in themanipulation of foreign imports. " They calculated that no less thanforty millions all told had been paid to shipowners in profits. Theyreckoned that, if the South were to work up her own cotton, she wouldrealize from seventy to one hundred millions a year that otherwise wentNorth. Finally, to cap the climax, they regretted that planters spentsome fifteen millions a year pleasure-seeking in the alluring cities andsummer resorts of the North. 

=Southern Opposition to Northern Policies. =--Proceeding from thesepremises, Southern leaders drew the logical conclusion that the entireprogram of economic measures demanded in the North was without exceptionadverse to Southern interests and, by a similar chain of reasoning, injurious to the corn and wheat producers of the West. Cheap laborafforded by free immigration, a protective tariff raising prices ofmanufactures for the tiller of the soil, ship subsidies increasing thetonnage of carrying trade in Northern hands, internal improvementsforging new economic bonds between the East and the West, a nationalbanking system giving strict national control over the currency as asafeguard against paper inflation--all these devices were regarded inthe South as contrary to the planting interest. They were constantlycompared with the restrictive measures by which Great Britain more thanhalf a century before had sought to bind American interests. 

As oppression justified a war for independence once, statesmen argued, so it can justify it again. "It is curious as it is melancholy anddistressing, " came a broad hint from South Carolina, "to see howstriking is the analogy between the colonial vassalage to which themanufacturing states have reduced the planting states and that whichformerly bound the Anglo-American colonies to the British empire. .. . England said to her American colonies: 'You shall not trade with therest of the world for such manufactures as are produced in the mothercountry. ' The manufacturing states say to their Southern colonies: 'Youshall not trade with the rest of the world for such manufactures as weproduce. '" The conclusion was inexorable: either the South must controlthe national government and its economic measures, or it must declare, as America had done four score years before, its political and economicindependence. As Northern mills multiplied, as railways spun theirmighty web over the face of the North, and as accumulated capital roseinto the hundreds of millions, the conviction of the planters and theirstatesmen deepened into desperation. 

=Efforts to Start Southern Industries Fail. =--A few of them, seeing thepredominance of the North, made determined efforts to introducemanufactures into the South. To the leaders who were averse to secessionand nullification this seemed the only remedy for the growing disparityin the power of the two sections. Societies for the encouragement ofmechanical industries were formed, the investment of capital was sought, and indeed a few mills were built on Southern soil. The results weremeager. The natural resources, coal and water power, were abundant; butthe enterprise for direction and the skilled labor were wanting. Thestream of European immigration flowed North and West, not South. TheIrish or German laborer, even if he finally made his home in a city, hadbefore him, while in the North, the alternative of a homestead onWestern land. To him slavery was a strange, if not a repelling, institution. He did not take to it kindly nor care to fix his home whereit flourished. While slavery lasted, the economy of the South wasinevitably agricultural. While agriculture predominated, leadership withequal necessity fell to the planting interest. While the plantinginterest ruled, political opposition to Northern economy was destined togrow in strength. 

=The Southern Theory of Sectionalism. =--In the opinion of the statesmenwho frankly represented the planting interest, the industrial system wasits deadly enemy. Their entire philosophy of American politics wassummed up in a single paragraph by McDuffie, a spokesman for SouthCarolina: "Owing to the federative character of our government, thegreat geographical extent of our territory, and the diversity of thepursuits of our citizens in different parts of the union, it has sohappened that two great interests have sprung up, standing directlyopposed to each other. One of these consists of those manufactures whichthe Northern and Middle states are capable of producing but which, owingto the high price of labor and the high profits of capital in thosestates, cannot hold competition with foreign manufactures without theaid of bounties, directly or indirectly given, either by the generalgovernment or by the state governments. The other of these interestsconsists of the great agricultural staples of the Southern states whichcan find a market only in foreign countries and which can beadvantageously sold only in exchange for foreign manufactures which comein competition with those of the Northern and Middle states. .. . Theseinterests then stand diametrically and irreconcilably opposed to eachother. The interest, the pecuniary interest of the Northernmanufacturer, is directly promoted by every increase of the taxesimposed upon Southern commerce; and it is unnecessary to add that theinterest of the Southern planter is promoted by every diminution oftaxes imposed upon the productions of their industry. If, under thesecircumstances, the manufacturers were clothed with the power of imposingtaxes, at their pleasure, upon the foreign imports of the planter, nodoubt would exist in the mind of any man that it would have all thecharacteristics of an absolute and unqualified despotism. " The economicsoundness of this reasoning, a subject of interesting speculation forthe economist, is of little concern to the historian. The historicalpoint is that this opinion was widely held in the South and with theprogress of time became the prevailing doctrine of the plantingstatesmen. 

Their antagonism was deepened because they also became convinced, onwhat grounds it is not necessary to inquire, that the leaders of theindustrial interest thus opposed to planting formed a consolidated"aristocracy of wealth, " bent upon the pursuit and attainment ofpolitical power at Washington. "By the aid of various associatedinterests, " continued McDuffie, "the manufacturing capitalists haveobtained a complete and permanent control over the legislation ofCongress on this subject [the tariff]. .. . Men confederated together uponselfish and interested principles, whether in pursuit of the offices orthe bounties of the government, are ever more active and vigilant thanthe great majority who act from disinterested and patriotic impulses. Have we not witnessed it on this floor, sir? Who ever knew the tariffmen to divide on any question affecting their confederated interests?. .. The watchword is, stick together, right or wrong upon every questionaffecting the common cause. Such, sir, is the concert and vigilance andsuch the combinations by which the manufacturing party, acting upon theinterests of some and the prejudices of others, have obtained a decidedand permanent control over public opinion in all the tariff states. "Thus, as the Southern statesman would have it, the North, in mattersaffecting national policies, was ruled by a "confederated interest"which menaced the planting interest. As the former grew in magnitude andattached to itself the free farmers of the West through channels oftrade and credit, it followed as night the day that in time the planterswould be overshadowed and at length overborne in the struggle of giants. Whether the theory was sound or not, Southern statesmen believed it andacted upon it. 

=References=

M. Beard, _Short History of the American Labor Movement_. 

E. L. Bogart, _Economic History of the United States_. 

J. R. Commons, _History of Labour in the United States_ (2 vols. ). 

E. R. Johnson, _American Railway Transportation_. 

C. D. Wright, _Industrial Evolution of the United States_. 

=Questions=

1. What signs pointed to a complete Democratic triumph in 1852?

2. What is the explanation of the extraordinary industrial progress ofAmerica?

3. Compare the planting system with the factory system. 

4. In what sections did industry flourish before the Civil War? Why?

5. Show why transportation is so vital to modern industry andagriculture. 

6. Explain how it was possible to secure so many people to labor inAmerican industries. 

7. Trace the steps in the rise of organized labor before 1860. 

8. What political and economic reforms did labor demand?

9. Why did the East and the South seek closer ties with the West?

10. Describe the economic forces which were drawing the East and theWest together. 

11. In what way was the South economically dependent upon the North?

12 State the national policies generally favored in the North andcondemned in the South. 

13. Show how economic conditions in the South were unfavorable toindustry. 

14. Give the Southern explanation of the antagonism between the Northand the South. 

=Research Topics=

=The Inventions. =--Assign one to each student. Satisfactory accounts areto be found in any good encyclopedia, especially the Britannica. 

=River and Lake Commerce. =--Callender, _Economic History of the UnitedStates_, pp. 313-326. 

=Railways and Canals. =--Callender, pp. 326-344; 359-387. Coman, _Industrial History of the United States_, pp. 216-225. 

=The Growth of Industry, 1815-1840. =--Callender, pp. 459-471. From 1850to 1860, Callender, pp. 471-486. 

=Early Labor Conditions. =--Callender, pp. 701-718. 

=Early Immigration. =--Callender, pp. 719-732. 

=Clay's Home Market Theory of the Tariff. =--Callender, pp. 498-503. 

=The New England View of the Tariff. =--Callender, pp. 503-514. 

CHAPTER XIV

THE PLANTING SYSTEM AND NATIONAL POLITICS

James Madison, the father of the federal Constitution, after he hadwatched for many days the battle royal in the national convention of1787, exclaimed that the contest was not between the large and the smallstates, but between the commercial North and the planting South. Fromthe inauguration of Washington to the election of Lincoln the sectionalconflict, discerned by this penetrating thinker, exercised a profoundinfluence on the course of American politics. It was latent during the"era of good feeling" when the Jeffersonian Republicans adoptedFederalist policies; it flamed up in the contest between the Democratsand Whigs. Finally it raged in the angry political quarrel whichculminated in the Civil War. 

SLAVERY--NORTH AND SOUTH

=The Decline of Slavery in the North. =--At the time of the adoption ofthe Constitution, slavery was lawful in all the Northern states exceptMassachusetts. There were almost as many bondmen in New York as inGeorgia. New Jersey had more than Delaware or Tennessee, indeed nearlyas many as both combined. All told, however, there were only about fortythousand in the North as against nearly seven hundred thousand in theSouth. Moreover, most of the Northern slaves were domestic servants, notlaborers necessary to keep mills going or fields under cultivation. 

There was, in the North, a steadily growing moral sentiment against thesystem. Massachusetts abandoned it in 1780. In the same year, Pennsylvania provided for gradual emancipation. New Hampshire, wherethere had been only a handful, Connecticut with a few thousanddomestics, and New Jersey early followed these examples. New York, in1799, declared that all children born of slaves after July 4 of thatyear should be free, though held for a term as apprentices; and in 1827it swept away the last vestiges of slavery. So with the passing of thegeneration that had framed the Constitution, chattel servitudedisappeared in the commercial states, leaving behind only suchdiscriminations as disfranchisement or high property qualifications oncolored voters. 

=The Growth of Northern Sentiment against Slavery. =--In both sections ofthe country there early existed, among those more or lessphilosophically inclined, a strong opposition to slavery on moral aswell as economic grounds. In the constitutional convention of 1787, Gouverneur Morris had vigorously condemned it and proposed that thewhole country should bear the cost of abolishing it. About the same timea society for promoting the abolition of slavery, under the presidencyof Benjamin Franklin, laid before Congress a petition that seriousattention be given to the emancipation of "those unhappy men who alonein this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage. " WhenCongress, acting on the recommendations of President Jefferson, providedfor the abolition of the foreign slave trade on January 1, 1808, severalNorthern members joined with Southern members in condemning the systemas well as the trade. Later, colonization societies were formed toencourage the emancipation of slaves and their return to Africa. JamesMadison was president and Henry Clay vice president of such anorganization. 

The anti-slavery sentiment of which these were the signs wasnevertheless confined to narrow circles and bore no trace of bitterness. "We consider slavery your calamity, not your crime, " wrote adistinguished Boston clergyman to his Southern brethren, "and we willshare with you the burden of putting an end to it. We will consent thatthe public lands shall be appropriated to this object. .. . I deprecateeverything which sows discord and exasperating sectional animosities. "

=Uncompromising Abolition. =--In a little while the spirit of generositywas gone. Just as Jacksonian Democracy rose to power there appeared anew kind of anti-slavery doctrine--the dogmatism of the abolitionagitator. For mild speculation on the evils of the system wassubstituted an imperious and belligerent demand for instantemancipation. If a date must be fixed for its appearance, the year 1831may be taken when William Lloyd Garrison founded in Boston hisanti-slavery paper, _The Liberator_. With singleness of purpose andutter contempt for all opposing opinions and arguments, he pursued hiscourse of passionate denunciation. He apologized for having ever"assented to the popular but pernicious doctrine of gradual abolition. "He chose for his motto: "Immediate and unconditional emancipation!" Hepromised his readers that he would be "harsh as truth and uncompromisingas justice"; that he would not "think or speak or write withmoderation. " Then he flung out his defiant call: "I am in earnest--Iwill not equivocate--I will not excuse--I will not retreat a singleinch--and I will be heard. .. . 

 'Such is the vow I take, so help me God. '"

Though Garrison complained that "the apathy of the people is enough tomake every statue leap from its pedestal, " he soon learned how alive themasses were to the meaning of his propaganda. Abolition orators werestoned in the street and hissed from the platform. Their meeting placeswere often attacked and sometimes burned to the ground. Garrison himselfwas assaulted in the streets of Boston, finding refuge from the angrymob behind prison bars. Lovejoy, a publisher in Alton, Illinois, for hiswillingness to give abolition a fair hearing, was brutally murdered; hisprinting press was broken to pieces as a warning to all those whodisturbed the nation's peace of mind. The South, doubly frightened by aslave revolt in 1831 which ended in the murder of a number of men, women, and children, closed all discussion of slavery in that section. "Now, " exclaimed Calhoun, "it is a question which admits of neitherconcession nor compromise. "

As the opposition hardened, the anti-slavery agitation gathered in forceand intensity. Whittier blew his blast from the New England hills:

 "No slave-hunt in our borders--no pirate on our strand; No fetters in the Bay State--no slave upon our land. "

Lowell, looking upon the espousal of a great cause as the noblest aim ofhis art, ridiculed and excoriated bondage in the South. Thoseabolitionists, not gifted as speakers or writers, signed petitionsagainst slavery and poured them in upon Congress. The flood of them wasso continuous that the House of Representatives, forgetting itstraditions, adopted in 1836 a "gag rule" which prevented the reading ofappeals and consigned them to the waste basket. Not until the Whigs werein power nearly ten years later was John Quincy Adams able, after arelentless campaign, to carry a motion rescinding the rule. 

How deep was the impression made upon the country by this agitation forimmediate and unconditional emancipation cannot be measured. If thepopular vote for those candidates who opposed not slavery, but itsextension to the territories, be taken as a standard, it was slightindeed. In 1844, the Free Soil candidate, Birney, polled 62, 000 votesout of over a million and a half; the Free Soil vote of the nextcampaign went beyond a quarter of a million, but the increase was due tothe strength of the leader, Martin Van Buren; four years afterward itreceded to 156, 000, affording all the outward signs for the belief thatthe pleas of the abolitionist found no widespread response among thepeople. Yet the agitation undoubtedly ran deeper than the ballot box. Young statesmen of the North, in whose hands the destiny of frightfulyears was to lie, found their indifference to slavery broken and theirconsciences stirred by the unending appeal and the tireless reiteration. Charles Sumner afterward boasted that he read the _Liberator_ two yearsbefore Wendell Phillips, the young Boston lawyer who cast aside hisprofession to take up the dangerous cause. 

=Early Southern Opposition to Slavery. =--In the South, the sentimentagainst slavery was strong; it led some to believe that it would alsocome to an end there in due time. Washington disliked it and directed inhis will that his own slaves should be set free after the death of hiswife. Jefferson, looking into the future, condemned the system by whichhe also lived, saying: "Can the liberties of a nation be thought securewhen we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds ofthe people that their liberties are the gift of God? Are they not to beviolated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when Ireflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever. " Nordid Southern men confine their sentiments to expressions of academicopinion. They accepted in 1787 the Ordinance which excluded slavery fromthe Northwest territory forever and also the Missouri Compromise, whichshut it out of a vast section of the Louisiana territory. 

=The Revolution in the Slave System. =--Among the representatives ofSouth Carolina and Georgia, however, the anti-slavery views ofWashington and Jefferson were by no means approved; and the drift ofSouthern economy was decidedly in favor of extending and perpetuating, rather than abolishing, the system of chattel servitude. The inventionof the cotton gin and textile machinery created a market for cottonwhich the planters, with all their skill and energy, could hardlysupply. Almost every available acre was brought under cotton culture asthe small farmers were driven steadily from the seaboard into theuplands or to the Northwest. 

The demand for slaves to till the swiftly expanding fields was enormous. The number of bondmen rose from 700, 000 in Washington's day to more thanthree millions in 1850. At the same time slavery itself was transformed. Instead of the homestead where the same family of masters kept the samefamilies of slaves from generation to generation, came the plantationsystem of the Far South and Southwest where masters were ever moving andever extending their holdings of lands and slaves. This in turn reactedon the older South where the raising of slaves for the market became aregular and highly profitable business. 

[Illustration: _From an old print_

JOHN C. CALHOUN]

=Slavery Defended as a Positive Good. =--As the abolition agitationincreased and the planting system expanded, apologies for slavery becamefainter and fainter in the South. Then apologies were superseded byclaims that slavery was a beneficial scheme of labor control. Calhoun, in a famous speech in the Senate in 1837, sounded the new note bydeclaring slavery "instead of an evil, a good--a positive good. " Hisreasoning was as follows: in every civilized society one portion of thecommunity must live on the labor of another; learning, science, and thearts are built upon leisure; the African slave, kindly treated by hismaster and mistress and looked after in his old age, is better off thanthe free laborers of Europe; and under the slave system conflictsbetween capital and labor are avoided. The advantages of slavery in thisrespect, he concluded, "will become more and more manifest, if leftundisturbed by interference from without, as the country advances inwealth and numbers. "

=Slave Owners Dominate Politics. =--The new doctrine of Calhoun waseagerly seized by the planters as they came more and more to overshadowthe small farmers of the South and as they beheld the menace ofabolition growing upon the horizon. It formed, as they viewed matters, amoral defense for their labor system--sound, logical, invincible. Itwarranted them in drawing together for the protection of an institutionso necessary, so inevitable, so beneficent. 

Though in 1850 the slave owners were only about three hundred and fiftythousand in a national population of nearly twenty million whites, theyhad an influence all out of proportion to their numbers. They were knittogether by the bonds of a common interest. They had leisure and wealth. They could travel and attend conferences and conventions. Throughout theSouth and largely in the North, they had the press, the schools, and thepulpits on their side. They formed, as it were, a mighty union for theprotection and advancement of their common cause. Aided by thosemechanics and farmers of the North who stuck by Jacksonian Democracythrough thick and thin, the planters became a power in the federalgovernment. "We nominate Presidents, " exultantly boasted a Richmondnewspaper; "the North elects them. "

This jubilant Southern claim was conceded by William H. Seward, aRepublican Senator from New York, in a speech describing the power ofslavery in the national government. "A party, " he said, "is in one sensea joint stock association, in which those who contribute most direct theaction and management of the concern. .. . The slaveholders, contributingin an overwhelming proportion to the strength of the Democratic party, necessarily dictate and prescribe its policy. " He went on: "Theslaveholding class has become the governing power in each of theslaveholding states and it practically chooses thirty of the sixty-twomembers of the Senate, ninety of the two hundred and thirty-threemembers of the House of Representatives, and one hundred and five of thetwo hundred and ninety-five electors of President and Vice-President ofthe United States. " Then he considered the slave power in the SupremeCourt. "That tribunal, " he exclaimed, "consists of a chief justice andeight associate justices. Of these, five were called from slave statesand four from free states. The opinions and bias of each of them werecarefully considered by the President and Senate when he was appointed. Not one of them was found wanting in soundness of politics, according tothe slaveholder's exposition of the Constitution. " Such was the Northernview of the planting interest that, from the arena of national politics, challenged the whole country in 1860. 

[Illustration: DISTRIBUTION OF SLAVES IN THE SOUTHERN STATES]

SLAVERY IN NATIONAL POLITICS

=National Aspects of Slavery. =--It may be asked why it was that slavery, founded originally on state law and subject to state government, wasdrawn into the current of national affairs. The answer is simple. Therewere, in the first place, constitutional reasons. The Congress of theUnited States had to make all needful rules for the government of theterritories, the District of Columbia, the forts and other propertyunder national authority; so it was compelled to determine whetherslavery should exist in the places subject to its jurisdiction. UponCongress was also conferred the power of admitting new states; whenevera territory asked for admission, the issue could be raised as to whetherslavery should be sanctioned or excluded. Under the Constitution, provision was made for the return of runaway slaves; Congress had thepower to enforce this clause by appropriate legislation. Since thecontrol of the post office was vested in the federal government, it hadto face the problem raised by the transmission of abolition literaturethrough the mails. Finally citizens had the right of petition; itinheres in all free government and it is expressly guaranteed by thefirst amendment to the Constitution. It was therefore legal forabolitionists to present to Congress their petitions, even if they askedfor something which it had no right to grant. It was thus impossible, constitutionally, to draw a cordon around the slavery issue and confinethe discussion of it to state politics. 

There were, in the second place, economic reasons why slavery wasinevitably drawn into the national sphere. It was the basis of theplanting system which had direct commercial relations with the North andEuropean countries; it was affected by federal laws respecting tariffs, bounties, ship subsidies, banking, and kindred matters. The planters ofthe South, almost without exception, looked upon the protective tariffas a tribute laid upon them for the benefit of Northern industries. Asheavy borrowers of money in the North, they were generally in favor of"easy money, " if not paper currency, as an aid in the repayment of theirdebts. This threw most of them into opposition to the Whig program for aUnited States Bank. All financial aids to American shipping they stoutlyresisted, preferring to rely upon the cheaper service rendered byEnglish shippers. Internal improvements, those substantial ties thatwere binding the West to the East and turning the traffic from NewOrleans to Philadelphia and New York, they viewed with alarm. Freehomesteads from the public lands, which tended to overbalance the Southby building free states, became to them a measure dangerous to theirinterests. Thus national economic policies, which could not by any twistor turn be confined to state control, drew the slave system and itsdefenders into the political conflict that centered at Washington. 

=Slavery and the Territories--the Missouri Compromise (1820). =--Thoughmen continually talked about "taking slavery out of politics, " it couldnot be done. By 1818 slavery had become so entrenched and theanti-slavery sentiment so strong, that Missouri's quest for admissionbrought both houses of Congress into a deadlock that was broken only bycompromise. The South, having half the Senators, could prevent theadmission of Missouri stripped of slavery; and the North, powerful inthe House of Representatives, could keep Missouri with slavery out ofthe union indefinitely. An adjustment of pretensions was the lastresort. Maine, separated from the parent state of Massachusetts, wasbrought into the union with freedom and Missouri with bondage. At thesame time it was agreed that the remainder of the vast Louisianaterritory north of the parallel of 36° 30' should be, like the oldNorthwest, forever free; while the southern portion was left to slavery. In reality this was an immense gain for liberty. The area dedicated tofree farmers was many times greater than that left to the planters. Theprinciple was once more asserted that Congress had full power to preventslavery in the territories. 

[Illustration: THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE]

=The Territorial Question Reopened by the Wilmot Proviso. =--To theSouthern leaders, the annexation of Texas and the conquest of Mexicomeant renewed security to the planting interest against the increasingwealth and population of the North. Texas, it was said, could be dividedinto four slave states. The new territories secured by the treaty ofpeace with Mexico contained the promise of at least three more. Thus, aseach new free soil state knocked for admission into the union, theSouth could demand as the price of its consent a new slave state. Nowonder Southern statesmen saw, in the annexation of Texas and theconquest of Mexico, slavery and King Cotton triumphant--secure for alltime against adverse legislation. Northern leaders were equallyconvinced that the Southern prophecy was true. Abolitionists andmoderate opponents of slavery alike were in despair. Texas, theylamented, would fasten slavery upon the country forevermore. "No livingman, " cried one, "will see the end of slavery in the United States!"

It so happened, however, that the events which, it was thought, wouldsecure slavery let loose a storm against it. A sign appeared first onAugust 6, 1846, only a few months after war was declared on Mexico. Onthat day, David Wilmot, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, introduced intothe House of Representatives a resolution to the effect that, as anexpress and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territoryfrom the republic of Mexico, slavery should be forever excluded fromevery part of it. "The Wilmot Proviso, " as the resolution was popularlycalled, though defeated on that occasion, was a challenge to the South. 

The South answered the challenge. Speaking in the House ofRepresentatives, Robert Toombs of Georgia boldly declared: "In thepresence of the living God, if by your legislation you seek to drive usfrom the territories of California and New Mexico . .. I am fordisunion. " South Carolina announced that the day for talk had passed andthe time had come to join her sister states "in resisting theapplication of the Wilmot Proviso at any and all hazards. " A conference, assembled at Jackson, Mississippi, in the autumn of 1849, called ageneral convention of Southern states to meet at Nashville the followingsummer. The avowed purpose was to arrest "the course of aggression" and, if that was not possible, to provide "in the last resort for theirseparate welfare by the formation of a compact and union that willafford protection to their liberties and rights. " States that hadspurned South Carolina's plea for nullification in 1832 responded tothis new appeal with alacrity--an augury of the secession to come. 

[Illustration: _From an old print. _

HENRY CLAY]

=The Great Debate of 1850. =--The temper of the country was white hotwhen Congress convened in December, 1849. It was a memorable session, memorable for the great men who took part in the debates and memorablefor the grand Compromise of 1850 which it produced. In the Senate satfor the last time three heroic figures: Webster from the North, Calhounfrom the South, and Clay from a border state. For nearly forty yearsthese three had been leaders of men. All had grown old and gray inservice. Calhoun was already broken in health and in a few months was tobe borne from the political arena forever. Clay and Webster had but twomore years in their allotted span. 

Experience, learning, statecraft--all these things they now marshaled ina mighty effort to solve the slavery problem. On January 29, 1850, Clayoffered to the Senate a compromise granting concessions to both sides;and a few days later, in a powerful oration, he made a passionate appealfor a union of hearts through mutual sacrifices. Calhoun relentlesslydemanded the full measure of justice for the South: equal rights in theterritories bought by common blood; the return of runaway slaves asrequired by the Constitution; the suppression of the abolitionists; andthe restoration of the balance of power between the North and the South. Webster, in his notable "Seventh of March speech, " condemned the WilmotProviso, advocated a strict enforcement of the fugitive slave law, denounced the abolitionists, and made a final plea for the Constitution, union, and liberty. This was the address which called forth fromWhittier the poem, "Ichabod, " deploring the fall of the mighty one whomhe thought lost to all sense of faith and honor. 

=The Terms of the Compromise of 1850. =--When the debates were closed, the results were totaled in a series of compromise measures, all ofwhich were signed in September, 1850, by the new President, MillardFillmore, who had taken office two months before on the death of ZacharyTaylor. By these acts the boundaries of Texas were adjusted and theterritory of New Mexico created, subject to the provision that all orany part of it might be admitted to the union "with or without slaveryas their constitution may provide at the time of their admission. " TheTerritory of Utah was similarly organized with the same conditions as toslavery, thus repudiating the Wilmot Proviso without guaranteeingslavery to the planters. California was admitted as a free state under aconstitution in which the people of the territory had themselvesprohibited slavery. 

The slave trade was abolished in the District of Columbia, but slaveryitself existed as before at the capital of the nation. This concessionto anti-slavery sentiment was more than offset by a fugitive slave law, drastic in spirit and in letter. It placed the enforcement of its termsin the hands of federal officers appointed from Washington and soremoved it from the control of authorities locally elected. It providedthat masters or their agents, on filing claims in due form, mightsummarily remove their escaped slaves without affording their "allegedfugitives" the right of trial by jury, the right to witness, the rightto offer any testimony in evidence. Finally, to "put teeth" into theact, heavy penalties were prescribed for all who obstructed or assistedin obstructing the enforcement of the law. Such was the Great Compromiseof 1850. 

[Illustration: AN OLD CARTOON REPRESENTING WEBSTER "STEALING CLAY'STHUNDER"]

=The Pro-slavery Triumph in the Election of 1852. =--The results of theelection of 1852 seemed to show conclusively that the nation was wearyof slavery agitation and wanted peace. Both parties, Whigs andDemocrats, endorsed the fugitive slave law and approved the GreatCompromise. The Democrats, with Franklin Pierce as their leader, sweptthe country against the war hero, General Winfield Scott, on whom theWhigs had staked their hopes. Even Webster, broken with grief at hisfailure to receive the nomination, advised his friends to vote forPierce and turned away from politics to meditate upon approaching death. The verdict of the voters would seem to indicate that for the timeeverybody, save a handful of disgruntled agitators, looked upon Clay'ssettlement as the last word. "The people, especially the business men ofthe country, " says Elson, "were utterly weary of the agitation and theygave their suffrages to the party that promised them rest. " The FreeSoil party, condemning slavery as "a sin against God and a crime againstman, " and advocating freedom for the territories, failed to carry asingle state. In fact it polled fewer votes than it had four yearsearlier--156, 000 as against nearly 3, 000, 000, the combined vote of theWhigs and Democrats. It is not surprising, therefore, that PresidentPierce, surrounded in his cabinet by strong Southern sympathizers, couldpromise to put an end to slavery agitation and to crush the abolitionmovement in the bud. 

=Anti-slavery Agitation Continued. =--The promise was more difficult tofulfill than to utter. In fact, the vigorous execution of one measureincluded in the Compromise--the fugitive slave law--only made mattersworse. Designed as security for the planters, it proved a powerfulinstrument in their undoing. Slavery five hundred miles away on aLouisiana plantation was so remote from the North that only thestrongest imagination could maintain a constant rage against it. "Slavecatching, " "man hunting" by federal officers on the streets ofPhiladelphia, New York, Boston, Chicago, or Milwaukee and in the hamletsand villages of the wide-stretching farm lands of the North was anothermatter. It brought the most odious aspects of slavery home to thousandsof men and women who would otherwise have been indifferent to thesystem. Law-abiding business men, mechanics, farmers, and women, whenthey saw peaceful negroes, who had resided in their neighborhoodsperhaps for years, torn away by federal officers and carried back tobondage, were transformed into enemies of the law. They helped slaves toescape; they snatched them away from officers who had captured them;they broke open jails and carried fugitives off to Canada. 

Assistance to runaway slaves, always more or less common in the North, was by this time organized into a system. Regular routes, known as"underground railways, " were laid out across the free states intoCanada, and trusted friends of freedom maintained "underground stations"where fugitives were concealed in the daytime between their long nightjourneys. Funds were raised and secret agents sent into the South tohelp negroes to flee. One negro woman, Harriet Tubman, "the Moses of herpeople, " with headquarters at Philadelphia, is accredited with nineteeninvasions into slave territory and the emancipation of three hundrednegroes. Those who worked at this business were in constant peril. Oneunderground operator, Calvin Fairbank, spent nearly twenty years inprison for aiding fugitives from justice. Yet perils and prisons did notstay those determined men and women who, in obedience to theirconsciences, set themselves to this lawless work. 

[Illustration: HARRIET BEECHER STOWE]

From thrilling stories of adventure along the underground railways camesome of the scenes and themes of the novel by Harriet Beecher Stowe, "Uncle Tom's Cabin, " published two years after the Compromise of 1850. Her stirring tale set forth the worst features of slavery in vivid wordpictures that caught and held the attention of millions of readers. Though the book was unfair to the South and was denounced as a hideousdistortion of the truth, it was quickly dramatized and played in everycity and town throughout the North. Topsy, Little Eva, Uncle Tom, thefleeing slave, Eliza Harris, and the cruel slave driver, Simon Legree, with his baying blood hounds, became living specters in many a home thatsought to bar the door to the "unpleasant and irritating business ofslavery agitation. "

THE DRIFT OF EVENTS TOWARD THE IRREPRESSIBLE CONFLICT

=Repeal of the Missouri Compromise. =--To practical men, after all, the"rub-a-dub" agitation of a few abolitionists, an occasional riot overfugitive slaves, and the vogue of a popular novel seemed of slight ortransient importance. They could point with satisfaction to the electionreturns of 1852; but their very security was founded upon shiftingsands. The magnificent triumph of the pro-slavery Democrats in 1852brought a turn in affairs that destroyed the foundations under theirfeet. Emboldened by their own strength and the weakness of theiropponents, they now dared to repeal the Missouri Compromise. The leaderin this fateful enterprise was Stephen A. Douglas, Senator fromIllinois, and the occasion for the deed was the demand for theorganization of territorial government in the regions west of Iowa andMissouri. 

Douglas, like Clay and Webster before him, was consumed by a strongpassion for the presidency, and, to reach his goal, it was necessary towin the support of the South. This he undoubtedly sought to do when heintroduced on January 4, 1854, a bill organizing the Nebraska territoryon the principle of the Compromise of 1850; namely, that the people inthe territory might themselves decide whether they would have slavery ornot. Unwittingly the avalanche was started. 

After a stormy debate, in which important amendments were forced onDouglas, the Kansas-Nebraska Bill became a law on May 30, 1854. Themeasure created two territories, Kansas and Nebraska, and provided thatthey, or territories organized out of them, could come into the union asstates "with or without slavery as their constitutions may prescribe atthe time of their admission. " Not content with this, the law went on todeclare the Missouri Compromise null and void as being inconsistent withthe principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the statesand territories. Thus by a single blow the very heart of the continent, dedicated to freedom by solemn agreement, was thrown open to slavery. Adesperate struggle between slave owners and the advocates of freedom wasthe outcome in Kansas. 

If Douglas fancied that the North would receive the overthrow of theMissouri Compromise in the same temper that it greeted Clay'ssettlement, he was rapidly disillusioned. A blast of rage, terrific inits fury, swept from Maine to Iowa. Staid old Boston hanged him ineffigy with an inscription--"Stephen A. Douglas, author of the infamousNebraska bill: the Benedict Arnold of 1854. " City after city burned himin effigy until, as he himself said, he could travel from the Atlanticcoast to Chicago in the light of the fires. Thousands of Whigs andFree-soil Democrats deserted their parties which had sanctioned or atleast tolerated the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, declaring that the startlingmeasure showed an evident resolve on the part of the planters to rulethe whole country. A gage of defiance was thrown down to theabolitionists. An issue was set even for the moderate and timid who hadbeen unmoved by the agitation over slavery in the Far South. That issuewas whether slavery was to be confined within its existing boundaries orbe allowed to spread without interference, thereby placing the freestates in the minority and surrendering the federal government wholly tothe slave power. 

=The Rise of the Republican Party. =--Events of terrible significance, swiftly following, drove the country like a ship before a gale straightinto civil war. The Kansas-Nebraska Bill rent the old parties asunderand called into being the Republican party. While that bill was pendingin Congress, many Northern Whigs and Democrats had come to theconclusion that a new party dedicated to freedom in the territories mustfollow the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Several places claim to bethe original home of the Republican party; but historians generallyyield it to Wisconsin. At Ripon in that state, a mass meeting of Whigsand Democrats assembled in February, 1854, and resolved to form a newparty if the Kansas-Nebraska Bill should pass. At a second meeting afusion committee representing Whigs, Free Soilers, and Democrats wasformed and the name Republican--the name of Jefferson's old party--wasselected. All over the country similar meetings were held and politicalcommittees were organized. 

When the presidential campaign of 1856 began the Republicans entered thecontest. After a preliminary conference in Pittsburgh in February, theyheld a convention in Philadelphia at which was drawn up a platformopposing the extension of slavery to the territories. John C. Frémont, the distinguished explorer, was named for the presidency. The resultsof the election were astounding as compared with the Free-soil failureof the preceding election. Prominent men like Longfellow, WashingtonIrving, William Cullen Bryant, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and George WilliamCurtis went over to the new party and 1, 341, 264 votes were rolled up for"free labor, free speech, free men, free Kansas, and Frémont. "Nevertheless the victory of the Democrats was decisive. Their candidate, James Buchanan of Pennsylvania, was elected by a majority of 174 to 114electoral votes. 

[Illustration: SLAVE AND FREE SOIL ON EVE OF CIVIL WAR]

=The Dred Scott Decision (1857). =--In his inaugural, Buchanan vaguelyhinted that in a forthcoming decision the Supreme Court would settle oneof the vital questions of the day. This was a reference to the DredScott case then pending. Scott was a slave who had been taken by hismaster into the upper Louisiana territory, where freedom had beenestablished by the Missouri Compromise, and then carried back into hisold state of Missouri. He brought suit for his liberty on the groundthat his residence in the free territory made him free. This raised thequestion whether the law of Congress prohibiting slavery north of 36°30' was authorized by the federal Constitution or not. The Court mighthave avoided answering it by saying that even though Scott was free inthe territory, he became a slave again in Missouri by virtue of the lawof that state. The Court, however, faced the issue squarely. It heldthat Scott had not been free anywhere and that, besides, the MissouriCompromise violated the Constitution and was null and void. 

The decision was a triumph for the South. It meant that Congress afterall had no power to abolish slavery in the territories. Under the decreeof the highest court in the land, that could be done only by anamendment to the Constitution which required a two-thirds vote inCongress and the approval of three-fourths of the states. Such anamendment was obviously impossible--the Southern states were toonumerous; but the Republicans were not daunted. "We know, " said Lincoln, "the Court that made it has often overruled its own decisions and weshall do what we can to have it overrule this. " Legislatures of Northernstates passed resolutions condemning the decision and the Republicanplatform of 1860 characterized the dogma that the Constitution carriedslavery into the territories as "a dangerous political heresy atvariance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself . .. Withlegislative and judicial precedent . .. Revolutionary in tendency andsubversive of the peace and harmony of the country. "

=The Panic of 1857. =--In the midst of the acrimonious dispute over theDred Scott decision, came one of the worst business panics which everafflicted the country. In the spring and summer of 1857, fourteenrailroad corporations, including the Erie, Michigan Central, and theIllinois Central, failed to meet their obligations; banks and insurancecompanies, some of them the largest and strongest institutions in theNorth, closed their doors; stocks and bonds came down in a crash on themarkets; manufacturing was paralyzed; tens of thousands of workingpeople were thrown out of employment; "hunger meetings" of idle men wereheld in the cities and banners bearing the inscription, "We wantbread, " were flung out. In New York, working men threatened to invadethe Council Chamber to demand "work or bread, " and the frightened mayorcalled for the police and soldiers. For this distressing state ofaffairs many remedies were offered; none with more zeal and persistencethan the proposal for a higher tariff to take the place of the law ofMarch, 1857, a Democratic measure making drastic reductions in the ratesof duty. In the manufacturing districts of the North, the panic wasascribed to the "Democratic assault on business. " So an old issue wasagain vigorously advanced, preparatory to the next presidentialcampaign. 

=The Lincoln-Douglas Debates. =--The following year the interest of thewhole country was drawn to a series of debates held in Illinois byLincoln and Douglas, both candidates for the United States Senate. Inthe course of his campaign Lincoln had uttered his trenchant saying that"a house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this governmentcannot endure permanently half slave and half free. " At the same time hehad accused Douglas, Buchanan, and the Supreme Court of acting inconcert to make slavery national. This daring statement arrested theattention of Douglas, who was making his campaign on the doctrine of"squatter sovereignty;" that is, the right of the people of eachterritory "to vote slavery up or down. " After a few long-distance shotsat each other, the candidates agreed to meet face to face and discussthe issues of the day. Never had such crowds been seen at politicalmeetings in Illinois. Farmers deserted their plows, smiths their forges, and housewives their baking to hear "Honest Abe" and "the Little Giant. "

The results of the series of debates were momentous. Lincoln clearlydefined his position. The South, he admitted, was entitled under theConstitution to a fair, fugitive slave law. He hoped that there might beno new slave states; but he did not see how Congress could exclude thepeople of a territory from admission as a state if they saw fit to adopta constitution legalizing the ownership of slaves. He favored thegradual abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia and the totalexclusion of it from the territories of the United States by act ofCongress. 

Moreover, he drove Douglas into a hole by asking how he squared"squatter sovereignty" with the Dred Scott decision; how, in otherwords, the people of a territory could abolish slavery when the Courthad declared that Congress, the superior power, could not do it underthe Constitution? To this baffling question Douglas lamely replied thatthe inhabitants of a territory, by "unfriendly legislation, " might makeproperty in slaves insecure and thus destroy the institution. Thisanswer to Lincoln's query alienated many Southern Democrats who believedthat the Dred Scott decision settled the question of slavery in theterritories for all time. Douglas won the election to the Senate; butLincoln, lifted into national fame by the debates, beat him in thecampaign for President two years later. 

=John Brown's Raid. =--To the abolitionists the line of argument pursuedby Lincoln, including his proposal to leave slavery untouched in thestates where it existed, was wholly unsatisfactory. One of them, a grimand resolute man, inflamed by a hatred for slavery in itself, turnedfrom agitation to violence. "These men are all talk; what is needed isaction--action!" So spoke John Brown of New York. During the sanguinarystruggle in Kansas he hurried to the frontier, gun and dagger in hand, to help drive slave owners from the free soil of the West. There hecommitted deeds of such daring and cruelty that he was outlawed and aprice put upon his head. Still he kept on the path of "action. " Aided byfunds from Northern friends, he gathered a small band of his followersaround him, saying to them: "If God be for us, who can be against us?"He went into Virginia in the autumn of 1859, hoping, as he explained, "to effect a mighty conquest even though it be like the last victory ofSamson. " He seized the government armory at Harper's Ferry, declaredfree the slaves whom he found, and called upon them to take up arms indefense of their liberty. His was a hope as forlorn as it was desperate. Armed forces came down upon him and, after a hard battle, captured him. Tried for treason, Brown was condemned to death. The governor ofVirginia turned a deaf ear to pleas for clemency based on the groundthat the prisoner was simply a lunatic. "This is a beautiful country, "said the stern old Brown glancing upward to the eternal hills on his wayto the gallows, as calmly as if he were returning home from a longjourney. "So perish all such enemies of Virginia. All such enemies ofthe Union. All such foes of the human race, " solemnly announced theexecutioner as he fulfilled the judgment of the law. 

The raid and its grim ending deeply moved the country. Abolitionistslooked upon Brown as a martyr and tolled funeral bells on the day of hisexecution. Longfellow wrote in his diary: "This will be a great day inour history; the date of a new revolution as much needed as the oldone. " Jefferson Davis saw in the affair "the invasion of a state by amurderous gang of abolitionists bent on inciting slaves to murderhelpless women and children"--a crime for which the leader had met afelon's death. Lincoln spoke of the raid as absurd, the deed of anenthusiast who had brooded over the oppression of a people until hefancied himself commissioned by heaven to liberate them--an attemptwhich ended in "little else than his own execution. " To Republicanleaders as a whole, the event was very embarrassing. They were tauntedby the Democrats with responsibility for the deed. Douglas declared his"firm and deliberate conviction that the Harper's Ferry crime was thenatural, logical, inevitable result of the doctrines and teachings ofthe Republican party. " So persistent were such attacks that theRepublicans felt called upon in 1860 to denounce Brown's raid "as amongthe gravest of crimes. "

=The Democrats Divided. =--When the Democratic convention met atCharleston in the spring of 1860, a few months after Brown's execution, it soon became clear that there was danger ahead. Between the extremeslavery advocates of the Far South and the so-called pro-slaveryDemocrats of the Douglas type, there was a chasm which no appeals toparty loyalty could bridge. As the spokesman of the West, Douglas knewthat, while the North was not abolitionist, it was passionately setagainst an extension of slavery into the territories by act of Congress;that squatter sovereignty was the mildest kind of compromise acceptableto the farmers whose votes would determine the fate of the election. Southern leaders would not accept his opinion. Yancey, speaking forAlabama, refused to palter with any plan not built on the propositionthat slavery was in itself right. He taunted the Northern Democrats withtaking the view that slavery was wrong, but that they could not doanything about it. That, he said, was the fatal error--the cause of alldiscord, the source of "Black Republicanism, " as well as squattersovereignty. The gauntlet was thus thrown down at the feet of theNorthern delegates: "You must not apologize for slavery; you mustdeclare it right; you must advocate its extension. " The challenge, sobluntly put, was as bluntly answered. "Gentlemen of the South, "responded a delegate from Ohio, "you mistake us. You mistake us. We willnot do it. "

For ten days the Charleston convention wrangled over the platform andballoted for the nomination of a candidate. Douglas, though in the lead, could not get the two-thirds vote required for victory. For more thanfifty times the roll of the convention was called without a decision. Then in sheer desperation the convention adjourned to meet later atBaltimore. When the delegates again assembled, their passions ran ashigh as ever. The division into two irreconcilable factions wasunchanged. Uncompromising delegates from the South withdrew to Richmond, nominated John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky for President, and put fortha platform asserting the rights of slave owners in the territories andthe duty of the federal government to protect them. The delegates whoremained at Baltimore nominated Douglas and endorsed his doctrine ofsquatter sovereignty. 

=The Constitutional Union Party. =--While the Democratic party was beingdisrupted, a fragment of the former Whig party, known as theConstitutional Unionists, held a convention at Baltimore and selectednational candidates: John Bell from Tennessee and Edward Everett fromMassachusetts. A melancholy interest attached to this assembly. It wasmainly composed of old men whose political views were those of Clay andWebster, cherished leaders now dead and gone. In their platform theysought to exorcise the evil spirit of partisanship by inviting theirfellow citizens to "support the Constitution of the country, the unionof the states, and the enforcement of the laws. " The party thatcampaigned on this grand sentiment only drew laughter from the Democratsand derision from the Republicans and polled less than one-fourth thevotes. 

=The Republican Convention. =--With the Whigs definitely forced into aseparate group, the Republican convention at Chicago was fated to besectional in character, although five slave states did send delegates. As the Democrats were split, the party that had led a forlorn hope fouryears before was on the high road to success at last. New and powerfulrecruits were found. The advocates of a high protective tariff and thefriends of free homesteads for farmers and workingmen mingled withenthusiastic foes of slavery. While still firm in their opposition toslavery in the territories, the Republicans went on record in favor of ahomestead law granting free lands to settlers and approved customsduties designed "to encourage the development of the industrialinterests of the whole country. " The platform was greeted with cheerswhich, according to the stenographic report of the convention, becameloud and prolonged as the protective tariff and homestead planks wereread. 

Having skillfully drawn a platform to unite the North in opposition toslavery and the planting system, the Republicans were also adroit intheir selection of a candidate. The tariff plank might carryPennsylvania, a Democratic state; but Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois wereequally essential to success at the polls. The southern counties ofthese states were filled with settlers from Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky who, even if they had no love for slavery, were no friendsof abolition. Moreover, remembering the old fight on the United StatesBank in Andrew Jackson's day, they were suspicious of men from the East. Accordingly, they did not favor the candidacy of Seward, the leadingRepublican statesman and "favorite son" of New York. 

After much trading and discussing, the convention came to the conclusionthat Abraham Lincoln of Illinois was the most "available" candidate. Hewas of Southern origin, born in Kentucky in 1809, a fact that toldheavily in the campaign in the Ohio Valley. He was a man of the soil, the son of poor frontier parents, a pioneer who in his youth had laboredin the fields and forests, celebrated far and wide as "honest Abe, therail-splitter. " It was well-known that he disliked slavery, but was noabolitionist. He had come dangerously near to Seward's radicalism in his"house-divided-against-itself" speech but he had never committed himselfto the reckless doctrine that there was a "higher law" than theConstitution. Slavery in the South he tolerated as a bitter fact;slavery in the territories he opposed with all his strength. Of hissincerity there could be no doubt. He was a speaker and writer ofsingular power, commanding, by the use of simple and homely language, the hearts and minds of those who heard him speak or read his printedwords. He had gone far enough in his opposition to slavery; but not toofar. He was the man of the hour! Amid lusty cheers from ten thousandthroats, Lincoln was nominated for the presidency by the Republicans. Inthe ensuing election, he carried all the free states except New Jersey. 

=References=

P. E. Chadwick, _Causes of the Civil War_ (American Nation Series). 

W. E. Dodd, _Statesmen of the Old South_. 

E. Engle, _Southern Sidelights_ (Sympathetic account of the Old South). 

A. B. Hart, _Slavery and Abolition_ (American Nation Series). 

J. F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vols. I and II. 

T. C. Smith, _Parties and Slavery_ (American Nation Series). 

=Questions=

1. Trace the decline of slavery in the North and explain it. 

2. Describe the character of early opposition to slavery. 

3. What was the effect of abolition agitation?

4. Why did anti-slavery sentiment practically disappear in the South?

5. On what grounds did Calhoun defend slavery?

6. Explain how slave owners became powerful in politics. 

7. Why was it impossible to keep the slavery issue out of nationalpolitics?

8. Give the leading steps in the long controversy over slavery in theterritories. 

9. State the terms of the Compromise of 1850 and explain its failure. 

10. What were the startling events between 1850 and 1860?

11. Account for the rise of the Republican party. What party had usedthe title before?

12. How did the Dred Scott decision become a political issue?

13. What were some of the points brought out in the Lincoln-Douglasdebates?

14. Describe the party division in 1860. 

15. What were the main planks in the Republican platform?

=Research Topics=

=The Extension of Cotton Planting. =--Callender, _Economic History of theUnited States_, pp. 760-768. 

=Abolition Agitation. =--McMaster, _History of the People of the UnitedStates_, Vol. VI, pp. 271-298. 

=Calhoun's Defense of Slavery. =--Harding, _Select Orations IllustratingAmerican History_, pp. 247-257. 

=The Compromise of 1850. =--Clay's speech in Harding, _Select Orations_, pp. 267-289. The compromise laws in Macdonald, _Documentary Source Bookof American History_, pp. 383-394. Narrative account in McMaster, Vol. VIII, pp. 1-55; Elson, _History of the United States_, pp. 540-548. 

=The Repeal of the Missouri Compromise. =--McMaster, Vol. VIII, pp. 192-231; Elson, pp. 571-582. 

=The Dred Scott Case. =--McMaster, Vol. VIII, pp. 278-282. Compare theopinion of Taney and the dissent of Curtis in Macdonald, _DocumentarySource Book_, pp. 405-420; Elson, pp. 595-598. 

=The Lincoln-Douglas Debates. =--Analysis of original speeches inHarding, _Select Orations_ pp. 309-341; Elson, pp. 598-604. 

=Biographical Studies. =--Calhoun, Clay, Webster, A. H. Stephens, Douglas, W. H. Seward, William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, and HarrietBeecher Stowe. 

CHAPTER XV

THE CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION

"The irrepressible conflict is about to be visited upon us through theBlack Republican nominee and his fanatical, diabolical Republicanparty, " ran an appeal to the voters of South Carolina during thecampaign of 1860. If that calamity comes to pass, responded the governorof the state, the answer should be a declaration of independence. In afew days the suspense was over. The news of Lincoln's election camespeeding along the wires. Prepared for the event, the editor of theCharleston _Mercury_ unfurled the flag of his state amid wild cheersfrom an excited throng in the streets. Then he seized his pen and wrote:"The tea has been thrown overboard; the revolution of 1860 has beeninitiated. " The issue was submitted to the voters in the choice ofdelegates to a state convention called to cast off the yoke of theConstitution. 

THE SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY

=Secession. =--As arranged, the convention of South Carolina assembled inDecember and without a dissenting voice passed the ordinance ofsecession withdrawing from the union. Bells were rung exultantly, theroar of cannon carried the news to outlying counties, fireworks lightedup the heavens, and champagne flowed. The crisis so long expected hadcome at last; even the conservatives who had prayed that they mightescape the dreadful crash greeted it with a sigh of relief. 

[Illustration: THE UNITED STATES IN 1861

The border states (in purple) remained loyal. ]

South Carolina now sent forth an appeal to her sister states--statesthat had in Jackson's day repudiated nullification as leading to "thedissolution of the union. " The answer that came this time was in adifferent vein. A month had hardly elapsed before five otherstates--Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana--hadwithdrawn from the union. In February, Texas followed. Virginia, hesitating until the bombardment of Fort Sumter forced a conclusion, seceded in April; but fifty-five of the one hundred and forty-threedelegates dissented, foreshadowing the creation of the new state of WestVirginia which Congress admitted to the union in 1863. In May, NorthCarolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee announced their independence. 

=Secession and the Theories of the Union. =--In severing their relationswith the union, the seceding states denied every point in the Northerntheory of the Constitution. That theory, as every one knows, wascarefully formulated by Webster and elaborated by Lincoln. According toit, the union was older than the states; it was created before theDeclaration of Independence for the purpose of common defense. TheArticles of Confederation did but strengthen this national bond and theConstitution sealed it forever. The federal government was not acreature of state governments. It was erected by the people and derivedits powers directly from them. "It is, " said Webster, "the people'sConstitution, the people's government; made for the people; made by thepeople; and answerable to the people. The people of the United Stateshave declared that this Constitution shall be the supreme law. " When astate questions the lawfulness of any act of the federal government, itcannot nullify that act or withdraw from the union; it must abide by thedecision of the Supreme Court of the United States. The union of thesestates is perpetual, ran Lincoln's simple argument in the firstinaugural; the federal Constitution has no provision for its owntermination; it can be destroyed only by some action not provided for inthe instrument itself; even if it is a compact among all the states theconsent of all must be necessary to its dissolution; therefore no statecan lawfully get out of the union and acts of violence against theUnited States are insurrectionary or revolutionary. This was the systemwhich he believed himself bound to defend by his oath of office"registered in heaven. "

All this reasoning Southern statesmen utterly rejected. In their opinionthe thirteen original states won their independence as separate andsovereign powers. The treaty of peace with Great Britain named them alland acknowledged them "to be free, sovereign, and independent states. "The Articles of Confederation very explicitly declared that "each stateretains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence. " The Constitutionwas a "league of nations" formed by an alliance of thirteen separatepowers, each one of which ratified the instrument before it was put intoeffect. They voluntarily entered the union under the Constitution andvoluntarily they could leave it. Such was the constitutional doctrine ofHayne, Calhoun, and Jefferson Davis. In seceding, the Southern stateshad only to follow legal methods, and the transaction would be correctin every particular. So conventions were summoned, elections were held, and "sovereign assemblies of the people" set aside the Constitution inthe same manner as it had been ratified nearly four score years before. Thus, said the Southern people, the moral judgment was fulfilled and theletter of the law carried into effect. 

[Illustration: JEFFERSON DAVIS]

=The Formation of the Confederacy. =--Acting on the call of Mississippi, a congress of delegates from the seceded states met at Montgomery, Alabama, and on February 8, 1861, adopted a temporary plan of union. Itselected, as provisional president, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, aman well fitted by experience and moderation for leadership, a graduateof West Point, who had rendered distinguished service on the field ofbattle in the Mexican War, in public office, and as a member ofCongress. 

In March, a permanent constitution of the Confederate states wasdrafted. It was quickly ratified by the states; elections were held inNovember; and the government under it went into effect the next year. This new constitution, in form, was very much like the famous instrumentdrafted at Philadelphia in 1787. It provided for a President, a Senate, and a House of Representatives along almost identical lines. In thepowers conferred upon them, however, there were striking differences. The right to appropriate money for internal improvements was expresslywithheld; bounties were not to be granted from the treasury nor importduties so laid as to promote or foster any branch of industry. Thedignity of the state, if any might be bold enough to question it, wassafeguarded in the opening line by the declaration that each acted "inits sovereign and independent character" in forming the Southern union. 

=Financing the Confederacy. =--No government ever set out upon its careerwith more perplexing tasks in front of it. The North had a monetarysystem; the South had to create one. The North had a scheme of taxationthat produced large revenues from numerous sources; the South had toformulate and carry out a financial plan. Like the North, theConfederacy expected to secure a large revenue from customs duties, easily collected and little felt among the masses. To this expectationthe blockade of Southern ports inaugurated by Lincoln in April, 1861, soon put an end. Following the precedent set by Congress under theArticles of Confederation, the Southern Congress resorted to a directproperty tax apportioned among the states, only to meet the failure thatmight have been foretold. 

The Confederacy also sold bonds, the first issue bringing into thetreasury nearly all the specie available in the Southern banks. Thisspecie by unhappy management was early sent abroad to pay for supplies, sapping the foundations of a sound currency system. Large amounts ofbonds were sold overseas, commanding at first better terms than thoseof the North in the markets of London, Paris, and Amsterdam, many anEnglish lord and statesman buying with enthusiasm and confidence tolament within a few years the proofs of his folly. The difficulties ofbringing through the blockade any supplies purchased by foreign bondissues, however, nullified the effect of foreign credit and forced theConfederacy back upon the device of paper money. In all approximatelyone billion dollars streamed from the printing presses, to fall in valueat an alarming rate, reaching in January, 1863, the astounding figure offifty dollars in paper money for one in gold. Every known device wasused to prevent its depreciation, without result. To the issues of theConfederate Congress were added untold millions poured out by the statesand by private banks. 

=Human and Material Resources. =--When we measure strength for strengthin those signs of power--men, money, and supplies--it is difficult tosee how the South was able to embark on secession and war with suchconfidence in the outcome. In the Confederacy at the final reckoningthere were eleven states in all, to be pitted against twenty-two; apopulation of nine millions, nearly one-half servile, to be pittedagainst twenty-two millions; a land without great industries to producewar supplies and without vast capital to furnish war finances, joined inbattle with a nation already industrial and fortified by property wortheleven billion dollars. Even after the Confederate Congress authorizedconscription in 1862, Southern man power, measured in numbers, waswholly inadequate to uphold the independence which had been declared. How, therefore, could the Confederacy hope to sustain itself againstsuch a combination of men, money, and materials as the North couldmarshal?

=Southern Expectations. =--The answer to this question is to be found inthe ideas that prevailed among Southern leaders. First of all, theyhoped, in vain, to carry the Confederacy up to the Ohio River; and, withthe aid of Missouri, to gain possession of the Mississippi Valley, thegranary of the nation. In the second place, they reckoned upon a largeand continuous trade with Great Britain--the exchange of cotton for warmaterials. They likewise expected to receive recognition and open aidfrom European powers that looked with satisfaction upon the breakup ofthe great American republic. In the third place, they believed thattheir control over several staples so essential to Northern industrywould enable them to bring on an industrial crisis in the manufacturingstates. "I firmly believe, " wrote Senator Hammond, of South Carolina, in1860, "that the slave-holding South is now the controlling power of theworld; that no other power would face us in hostility. Cotton, rice, tobacco, and naval stores command the world; and we have the sense toknow it and are sufficiently Teutonic to carry it out successfully. TheNorth without us would be a motherless calf, bleating about, and die ofmange and starvation. "

There were other grounds for confidence. Having seized all of thefederal military and naval supplies in the South, and having left thenational government weak in armed power during their possession of thepresidency, Southern leaders looked to a swift war, if it came at all, to put the finishing stroke to independence. "The greasy mechanics ofthe North, " it was repeatedly said, "will not fight. " As to disparity innumbers they drew historic parallels. "Our fathers, a mere handful, overcame the enormous power of Great Britain, " a saying of ex-PresidentTyler, ran current to reassure the doubtful. Finally, and this pointcannot be too strongly emphasized, the South expected to see a weakenedand divided North. It knew that the abolitionists and the Southernsympathizers were ready to let the Confederate states go in peace; thatLincoln represented only a little more than one-third the voters of thecountry; and that the vote for Douglas, Bell, and Breckinridge meant adecided opposition to the Republicans and their policies. 

=Efforts at Compromise. =--Republican leaders, on reviewing the samefacts, were themselves uncertain as to the outcome of a civil war andmade many efforts to avoid a crisis. Thurlow Weed, an Albany journalistand politician who had done much to carry New York for Lincoln, proposeda plan for extending the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific. Jefferson Davis, warning his followers that a war if it came would beterrible, was prepared to accept the offer; but Lincoln, remembering hiscampaign pledges, stood firm as a rock against it. His followers inCongress took the same position with regard to a similar settlementsuggested by Senator Crittenden of Kentucky. 

Though unwilling to surrender his solemn promises respecting slavery inthe territories, Lincoln was prepared to give to Southern leaders astrong guarantee that his administration would not interfere directly orindirectly with slavery in the states. Anxious to reassure the South onthis point, the Republicans in Congress proposed to write into theConstitution a declaration that no amendment should ever be madeauthorizing the abolition of or interference with slavery in any state. The resolution, duly passed, was sent forth on March 4, 1861, with theapproval of Lincoln; it was actually ratified by three states before thestorm of war destroyed it. By the irony of fate the thirteenth amendmentwas to abolish, not guarantee, slavery. 

THE WAR MEASURES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

=Raising the Armies. =--The crisis at Fort Sumter, on April 12-14, 1861, forced the President and Congress to turn from negotiations to problemsof warfare. Little did they realize the magnitude of the task beforethem. Lincoln's first call for volunteers, issued on April 15, 1861, limited the number to 75, 000, put their term of service at three months, and prescribed their duty as the enforcement of the law againstcombinations too powerful to be overcome by ordinary judicial process. Disillusionment swiftly followed. The terrible defeat of the Federals atBull Run on July 21 revealed the serious character of the task beforethem; and by a series of measures Congress put the entire man power ofthe country at the President's command. Under these acts, he issued newcalls for volunteers. Early in August, 1862, he ordered a draft ofmilitiamen numbering 300, 000 for nine months' service. The results weredisappointing--ominous--for only about 87, 000 soldiers were added to thearmy. Something more drastic was clearly necessary. 

In March, 1863, Lincoln signed the inevitable draft law; it enrolled inthe national forces liable to military duty all able-bodied malecitizens and persons of foreign birth who had declared their intentionto become citizens, between the ages of twenty and forty-fiveyears--with exemptions on grounds of physical weakness and dependency. From the men enrolled were drawn by lot those destined to activeservice. Unhappily the measure struck a mortal blow at the principle ofuniversal liability by excusing any person who found a substitute forhimself or paid into the war office a sum, not exceeding three hundreddollars, to be fixed by general order. This provision, so crass and soobviously favoring the well-to-do, sowed seeds of bitterness whichsprang up a hundredfold in the North. 

[Illustration: THE DRAFT RIOTS IN NEW YORK CITY]

The beginning of the drawings under the draft act in New York City, onMonday, July 13, 1863, was the signal for four days of rioting. In thecourse of this uprising, draft headquarters were destroyed; the officeof the _Tribune_ was gutted; negroes were seized, hanged, and shot; thehomes of obnoxious Unionists were burned down; the residence of themayor of the city was attacked; and regular battles were fought in thestreets between the rioters and the police. Business stopped and a largepart of the city passed absolutely into the control of the mob. Notuntil late the following Wednesday did enough troops arrive to restoreorder and enable the residents of the city to resume their dailyactivities. At least a thousand people had been killed or wounded andmore than a million dollars' worth of damage done to property. The drafttemporarily interrupted by this outbreak was then resumed and carriedout without further trouble. 

The results of the draft were in the end distinctly disappointing to thegovernment. The exemptions were numerous and the number who preferredand were able to pay $300 rather than serve exceeded all expectations. Volunteering, it is true, was stimulated, but even that resource couldhardly keep the thinning ranks of the army filled. With reluctanceCongress struck out the $300 exemption clause, but still favored thewell-to-do by allowing them to hire substitutes if they could find them. With all this power in its hands the administration was able by January, 1865, to construct a union army that outnumbered the Confederates two toone. 

=War Finance. =--In the financial sphere the North faced immensedifficulties. The surplus in the treasury had been dissipated by 1861and the tariff of 1857 had failed to produce an income sufficient tomeet the ordinary expenses of the government. Confronted by military andnaval expenditures of appalling magnitude, rising from $35, 000, 000 inthe first year of the war to $1, 153, 000, 000 in the last year, theadministration had to tap every available source of income. The dutieson imports were increased, not once but many times, producing hugerevenues and also meeting the most extravagant demands of themanufacturers for protection. Direct taxes were imposed on the statesaccording to their respective populations, but the returns weremeager--all out of proportion to the irritation involved. Stamp taxesand taxes on luxuries, occupations, and the earnings of corporationswere laid with a weight that, in ordinary times, would have drawn forthopposition of ominous strength. The whole gamut of taxation was run. Even a tax on incomes and gains by the year, the first in the history ofthe federal government, was included in the long list. 

Revenues were supplemented by bond issues, mounting in size and interestrate, until in October, at the end of the war, the debt stood at$2, 208, 000, 000. The total cost of the war was many times the money valueof all the slaves in the Southern states. To the debt must be addednearly half a billion dollars in "greenbacks"--paper money issued byCongress in desperation as bond sales and revenues from taxes failed tomeet the rising expenditures. This currency issued at par onquestionable warrant from the Constitution, like all such paper, quicklybegan to decline until in the worst fortunes of 1864 one dollar in goldwas worth nearly three in greenbacks. 

=The Blockade of Southern Ports. =--Four days after his call forvolunteers, April 19, 1861, President Lincoln issued a proclamationblockading the ports of the Southern Confederacy. Later the blockade wasextended to Virginia and North Carolina, as they withdrew from theunion. Vessels attempting to enter or leave these ports, if theydisregarded the warnings of a blockading ship, were to be captured andbrought as prizes to the nearest convenient port. To make the ordereffective, immediate steps were taken to increase the naval forces, depleted by neglect, until the entire coast line was patrolled with sucha number of ships that it was a rare captain who ventured to run thegantlet. The collision between the _Merrimac_ and the _Monitor_ inMarch, 1862, sealed the fate of the Confederacy. The exploits of theunion navy are recorded in the falling export of cotton: $202, 000, 000 in1860; $42, 000, 000 in 1861; and $4, 000, 000 in 1862. 

The deadly effect of this paralysis of trade upon Southern war power maybe readily imagined. Foreign loans, payable in cotton, could benegotiated but not paid off. Supplies could be purchased on credit butnot brought through the drag net. With extreme difficulty could theConfederate government secure even paper for the issue of money andbonds. Publishers, in despair at the loss of supplies, were finallydriven to the use of brown wrapping paper and wall paper. As therailways and rolling stock wore out, it became impossible to renew themfrom England or France. Unable to export their cotton, planters on theseaboard burned it in what were called "fires of patriotism. " In theirlurid light the fatal weakness of Southern economy stood revealed. 

[Illustration: A BLOCKADE RUNNER]

=Diplomacy. =--The war had not advanced far before the federal governmentbecame involved in many perplexing problems of diplomacy in Europe. TheConfederacy early turned to England and France for financial aid and forrecognition as an independent power. Davis believed that the industrialcrisis created by the cotton blockade would in time literally compelEurope to intervene in order to get this essential staple. The crisiscame as he expected but not the result. Thousands of English textileworkers were thrown out of employment; and yet, while on the point ofstarvation, they adopted resolutions favoring the North instead ofpetitioning their government to aid the South by breaking the blockade. 

With the ruling classes it was far otherwise. Napoleon III, the Emperorof the French, was eager to help in disrupting the American republic; ifhe could have won England's support, he would have carried out hisdesigns. As it turned out he found plenty of sympathy across the Channelbut not open and official coöperation. According to the eminenthistorian, Rhodes, "four-fifths of the British House of Lords and mostmembers of the House of Commons were favorable to the Confederacy andanxious for its triumph. " Late in 1862 the British ministers, thussustained, were on the point of recognizing the independence of theConfederacy. Had it not been for their extreme caution, for the constantand harassing criticism by English friends of the United States--likeJohn Bright--and for the victories of Vicksburg and Gettysburg, bothEngland and France would have doubtless declared the Confederacy to beone of the independent powers of the earth. 

[Illustration: JOHN BRIGHT]

While stopping short of recognizing its independence, England and Francetook several steps that were in favor of the South. In proclaimingneutrality, they early accepted the Confederates as "belligerents" andaccorded them the rights of people at war--a measure which aroused angerin the North at first but was later admitted to be sound. OtherwiseConfederates taken in battle would have been regarded as "rebels" or"traitors" to be hanged or shot. Napoleon III proposed to Russia in 1861a coalition of powers against the North, only to meet a firm refusal. The next year he suggested intervention to Great Britain, encounteringthis time a conditional rejection of his plans. In 1863, not daunted byrebuffs, he offered his services to Lincoln as a mediator, receiving inreply a polite letter declining his proposal and a sharp resolution fromCongress suggesting that he attend to his own affairs. 

In both England and France the governments pursued a policy offriendliness to the Confederate agents. The British ministry, withindifference if not connivance, permitted rams and ships to be built inBritish docks and allowed them to escape to play havoc under theConfederate flag with American commerce. One of them, the _Alabama_, built in Liverpool by a British firm and paid for by bonds sold inEngland, ran an extraordinary career and threatened to break theblockade. The course followed by the British government, against theprotests of the American minister in London, was later regretted. By anaward of a tribunal of arbitration at Geneva in 1872, Great Britain wasrequired to pay the huge sum of $15, 500, 000 to cover the damages wroughtby Confederate cruisers fitted out in England. 

[Illustration: WILLIAM H. SEWARD]

In all fairness it should be said that the conduct of the Northcontributed to the irritation between the two countries. Seward, theSecretary of State, was vindictive in dealing with Great Britain; had itnot been for the moderation of Lincoln, he would have pursued a courseverging in the direction of open war. The New York and Boston paperswere severe in their attacks on England. Words were, on one occasion atleast, accompanied by an act savoring of open hostility. In November, 1861, Captain Wilkes, commanding a union vessel, overhauled the Britishsteamer _Trent_, and carried off by force two Confederate agents, Masonand Slidell, sent by President Davis to represent the Confederacy atLondon and Paris respectively. This was a clear violation of the rightof merchant vessels to be immune from search and impressment; and, inanswer to the demand of Great Britain for the release of the two men, the United States conceded that it was in the wrong. It surrendered thetwo Confederate agents to a British vessel for safe conduct abroad, andmade appropriate apologies. 

=Emancipation. =--Among the extreme war measures adopted by the Northerngovernment must be counted the emancipation of the slaves in the statesin arms against the union. This step was early and repeatedly suggestedto Lincoln by the abolitionists; but was steadily put aside. He knewthat the abolitionists were a mere handful, that emancipation mightdrive the border states into secession, and that the Northern soldiershad enlisted to save the union. Moreover, he had before him a solemnresolution passed by Congress on July 22, 1861, declaring the solepurpose of the war to be the salvation of the union and disavowing anyintention of interfering with slavery. 

The federal government, though pledged to the preservation of slavery, soon found itself beaten back upon its course and out upon a new tack. Before a year had elapsed, namely on April 10, 1862, Congress resolvedthat financial aid should be given to any state that might adopt gradualemancipation. Six days later it abolished slavery in the District ofColumbia. Two short months elapsed. On June 19, 1862, it swept slaveryforever from the territories of the United States. Chief Justice Taneystill lived, the Dred Scott decision stood as written in the book, butthe Constitution had been re-read in the light of the Civil War. Thedrift of public sentiment in the North was being revealed. 

While these measures were pending in Congress, Lincoln was slowly makingup his mind. By July of that year he had come to his great decision. Near the end of that month he read to his cabinet the draft of aproclamation of emancipation; but he laid it aside until a militaryachievement would make it something more than an idle gesture. InSeptember, the severe check administered to Lee at Antietam seemed tooffer the golden opportunity. On the 22d, the immortal document wasgiven to the world announcing that, unless the states in arms returnedto the union by January 1, 1863, the fatal blow at their "peculiarinstitution" would be delivered. Southern leaders treated it with slightregard, and so on the date set the promise was fulfilled. Theproclamation was issued as a war measure, adopted by the President ascommander-in-chief of the armed forces, on grounds of militarynecessity. It did not abolish slavery. It simply emancipated slaves inplaces then in arms against federal authority. Everywhere else slavery, as far as the Proclamation was concerned, remained lawful. 

[Illustration: ABRAHAM LINCOLN]

To seal forever the proclamation of emancipation, and to extend freedomto the whole country, Congress, in January, 1865, on the urgentrecommendation of Lincoln, transmitted to the states the thirteenthamendment, abolishing slavery throughout the United States. By the endof 1865 the amendment was ratified. The house was not divided againstitself; it did not fall; it was all free. 

=The Restraint of Civil Liberty. =--As in all great wars, particularlythose in the nature of a civil strife, it was found necessary to usestrong measures to sustain opinion favorable to the administration'smilitary policies and to frustrate the designs of those who sought tohamper its action. Within two weeks of his first call for volunteers, Lincoln empowered General Scott to suspend the writ of _habeas corpus_along the line of march between Philadelphia and Washington and thus toarrest and hold without interference from civil courts any one whom hedeemed a menace to the union. At a later date the area thus ruled bymilitary officers was extended by executive proclamation. By an act ofMarch 3, 1863, Congress, desiring to lay all doubts about thePresident's power, authorized him to suspend the writ throughout theUnited States or in any part thereof. It also freed military officersfrom the necessity of surrendering to civil courts persons arrestedunder their orders, or even making answers to writs issued from suchcourts. In the autumn of that year the President, acting under the termsof this law, declared this ancient and honorable instrument for theprotection of civil liberties, the _habeas corpus_, suspended throughoutthe length and breadth of the land. The power of the government was alsostrengthened by an act defining and punishing certain conspiracies, passed on July 31, 1861--a measure which imposed heavy penalties onthose who by force, intimidation, or threat interfered with theexecution of the law. 

Thus doubly armed, the military authorities spared no one suspected ofactive sympathy with the Southern cause. Editors were arrested andimprisoned, their papers suspended, and their newsboys locked up. Thosewho organized "peace meetings" soon found themselves in the toils of thelaw. Members of the Maryland legislature, the mayor of Baltimore, andlocal editors suspected of entertaining secessionist opinions, wereimprisoned on military orders although charged with no offense, and weredenied the privilege of examination before a civil magistrate. A Vermontfarmer, too outspoken in his criticism of the government, found himselfbehind the bars until the government, in its good pleasure, saw fit torelease him. These measures were not confined to the theater of war norto the border states where the spirit of secession was strong enough toendanger the cause of union. They were applied all through the Northernstates up to the very boundaries of Canada. Zeal for the national cause, too often supplemented by a zeal for persecution, spread terror amongthose who wavered in the singleness of their devotion to the union. 

These drastic operations on the part of military authorities, so foreignto the normal course of civilized life, naturally aroused intense andbitter hostility. Meetings of protest were held throughout the country. Thirty-six members of the House of Representatives sought to put onrecord their condemnation of the suspension of the _habeas corpus_ act, only to meet a firm denial by the supporters of the act. Chief JusticeTaney, before whom the case of a man arrested under the President'smilitary authority was brought, emphatically declared, in a long andlearned opinion bristling with historical examples, that the Presidenthad no power to suspend the writ of _habeas corpus_. In Congress andout, Democrats, abolitionists, and champions of civil liberty denouncedLincoln and his Cabinet in unsparing terms. Vallandigham, a Democraticleader of Ohio, afterward banished to the South for his opposition tothe war, constantly applied to Lincoln the epithet of "Cæsar. " WendellPhillips saw in him "a more unlimited despot than the world knows thisside of China. "

Sensitive to such stinging thrusts and no friend of wanton persecution, Lincoln attempted to mitigate the rigors of the law by paroling manypolitical prisoners. The general policy, however, he defended in homelylanguage, very different in tone and meaning from the involved reasoningof the lawyers. "Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of the wily agitator who induces him todesert?" he asked in a quiet way of some spokesmen for those whoprotested against arresting people for "talking against the war. " Thissummed up his philosophy. He was engaged in a war to save the union, andall measures necessary and proper to accomplish that purpose werewarranted by the Constitution which he had sworn to uphold. 

=Military Strategy--North and South. =--The broad outlines of militarystrategy followed by the commanders of the opposing forces are cleareven to the layman who cannot be expected to master the details of acampaign or, for that matter, the maneuvers of a single great battle. The problem for the South was one of defense mainly, though even fordefense swift and paralyzing strokes at the North were later deemedimperative measures. The problem of the North was, to put it baldly, oneof invasion and conquest. Southern territory had to be invaded andSouthern armies beaten on their own ground or worn down to exhaustionthere. 

In the execution of this undertaking, geography, as usual, played asignificant part in the disposition of forces. The Appalachian ranges, stretching through the Confederacy to Northern Alabama, divided thecampaigns into Eastern and Western enterprises. Both were of signalimportance. Victory in the East promised the capture of the Confederatecapital of Richmond, a stroke of moral worth, hardly to beoverestimated. Victory in the West meant severing the Confederacy andopening the Mississippi Valley down to the Gulf. 

As it turned out, the Western forces accomplished their task first, vindicating the military powers of union soldiers and shaking theconfidence of opposing commanders. In February, 1862, Grant capturedFort Donelson on the Tennessee River, rallied wavering unionists inKentucky, forced the evacuation of Nashville, and opened the way for twohundred miles into the Confederacy. At Shiloh, Murfreesboro, Vicksburg, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, desperate fighting followed and, in spite ofvarying fortunes, it resulted in the discomfiture and retirement ofConfederate forces to the Southeast into Georgia. By the middle of 1863, the Mississippi Valley was open to the Gulf, the initiative taken out ofthe hands of Southern commanders in the West, and the way prepared forSherman's final stroke--the march from Atlanta to the sea--a maneuverexecuted with needless severity in the autumn of 1864. 

[Illustration: GENERAL ULYSSES S. GRANT]

[Illustration: GENERAL ROBERT E. LEE]

For the almost unbroken succession of achievements in the West byGenerals Grant, Sherman, Thomas, and Hooker against Albert SidneyJohnston, Bragg, Pemberton, and Hood, the union forces in the Eastoffered at first an almost equally unbroken series of misfortunes anddisasters. Far from capturing Richmond, they had been thrown on thedefensive. General after general--McClellan, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, andMeade--was tried and found wanting. None of them could administer acrushing defeat to the Confederate troops and more than once the unionsoldiers were beaten in a fair battle. They did succeed, however, indelivering a severe check to advancing Confederates under General RobertE. Lee, first at Antietam in September, 1862, and then at Gettysburg inJuly, 1863--checks reckoned as victories though in each instance theConfederates escaped without demoralization. Not until the beginning ofthe next year, when General Grant, supplied with almost unlimited menand munitions, began his irresistible hammering at Lee's army, did thefinal phase of the war commence. The pitiless drive told at last. General Lee, on April 9, 1865, seeing the futility of further conflict, surrendered an army still capable of hard fighting, at Appomattox, notfar from the capital of the Confederacy. 

[Illustration: _Copyright by Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

THE FEDERAL MILITARY HOSPITAL AT GETTYSBURG]

=Abraham Lincoln. =--The services of Lincoln to the cause of union defydescription. A judicial scrutiny of the war reveals his thought andplanning in every part of the varied activity that finally crownedNorthern arms with victory. Is it in the field of diplomacy? DoesSeward, the Secretary of State, propose harsh and caustic measureslikely to draw England's sword into the scale? Lincoln counselsmoderation. He takes the irritating message and with his own handstrikes out, erases, tones down, and interlines, exchanging for wordsthat sting and burn the language of prudence and caution. Is it a matterof compromise with the South, so often proposed by men on both sidessick of carnage? Lincoln is always ready to listen and turns away onlywhen he is invited to surrender principles essential to the safety ofthe union. Is it high strategy of war, a question of the general bestfitted to win Gettysburg--Hooker, Sedgwick, or Meade? Lincoln goes inperson to the War Department in the dead of night to take counsel withhis Secretary and to make the fateful choice. 

Is it a complaint from a citizen, deprived, as he believes, of his civilliberties unjustly or in violation of the Constitution? Lincoln is readyto hear it and anxious to afford relief, if warrant can be found for it. Is a mother begging for the life of a son sentenced to be shot as adeserter? Lincoln hears her petition, and grants it even against theprotests made by his generals in the name of military discipline. Dopoliticians sow dissensions in the army and among civilians? Lincolngrandly waves aside their petty personalities and invites them to thinkof the greater cause. Is it a question of securing votes to ratify thethirteenth amendment abolishing slavery? Lincoln thinks it not beneathhis dignity to traffic and huckster with politicians over the triflingjobs asked in return by the members who hold out against him. Does a NewYork newspaper call him an ignorant Western boor? Lincoln's reply is aletter to a mother who has given her all--her sons on the field ofbattle--and an address at Gettysburg, both of which will live as long asthe tongue in which they were written. These are tributes not only tohis mastery of the English language but also to his mastery of all thosesentiments of sweetness and strength which are the finest flowers ofculture. 

Throughout the entire span of service, however, Lincoln was beset bymerciless critics. The fiery apostles of abolition accused him ofcowardice when he delayed the bold stroke at slavery. Anti-war Democratslashed out at every step he took. Even in his own party he found nopeace. Charles Sumner complained: "Our President is now dictator, _imperator_--whichever you like; but how vain to have the power of agod and not to use it godlike. " Leaders among the Republicans sought toput him aside in 1864 and place Chase in his chair. "I hope we may neverhave a worse man, " was Lincoln's quiet answer. 

Wide were the dissensions in the North during that year and theRepublicans, while selecting Lincoln as their candidate again, cast offtheir old name and chose the simple title of the "Union party. "Moreover, they selected a Southern man, Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, tobe associated with him as candidate for Vice President. This combinationthe Northern Democrats boldly confronted with a platform declaring that"after four years of failure to restore the union by the experiment ofwar, during which, under the pretence of military necessity or war powerhigher than the Constitution, the Constitution itself has beendisregarded in every part and public liberty and private right aliketrodden down . .. Justice, humanity, liberty, and public welfare demandthat immediate efforts be made for a cessation of hostilities, to theend that peace may be restored on the basis of the federal union of thestates. " It is true that the Democratic candidate, General McClellan, sought to break the yoke imposed upon him by the platform, saying thathe could not look his old comrades in the face and pronounce theirefforts vain; but the party call to the nation to repudiate Lincoln andhis works had gone forth. The response came, giving Lincoln 2, 200, 000votes against 1, 800, 000 for his opponent. The bitter things said abouthim during the campaign, he forgot and forgave. When in April, 1865, hewas struck down by the assassin's hand, he above all others inWashington was planning measures of moderation and healing. 

THE RESULTS OF THE CIVIL WAR

There is a strong and natural tendency on the part of writers to stressthe dramatic and heroic aspects of war; but the long judgment of historyrequires us to include all other significant phases as well. Like everygreat armed conflict, the Civil War outran the purposes of those whotook part in it. Waged over the nature of the union, it made arevolution in the union, changing public policies and constitutionalprinciples and giving a new direction to agriculture and industry. 

=The Supremacy of the Union. =--First and foremost, the war settled forall time the long dispute as to the nature of the federal system. Thedoctrine of state sovereignty was laid to rest. Men might still speak ofthe rights of states and think of their commonwealths with affection, but nullification and secession were destroyed. The nation was supreme. 

=The Destruction of the Slave Power. =--Next to the vindication ofnational supremacy was the destruction of the planting aristocracy ofthe South--that great power which had furnished leadership of undoubtedability and had so long contested with the industrial and commercialinterests of the North. The first paralyzing blow at the planters wasstruck by the abolition of slavery. The second and third came with thefourteenth (1868) and fifteenth (1870) amendments, giving the ballot tofreedmen and excluding from public office the Confederateleaders--driving from the work of reconstruction the finest talents ofthe South. As if to add bitterness to gall and wormwood, the fourteenthamendment forbade the United States or any state to pay any debtsincurred in aid of the Confederacy or in the emancipation of theslaves--plunging into utter bankruptcy the Southern financiers who hadstripped their section of capital to support their cause. So theSouthern planters found themselves excluded from public office and ruledover by their former bondmen under the tutelage of Republican leaders. Their labor system was wrecked and their money and bonds were asworthless as waste paper. The South was subject to the North. That whichneither the Federalists nor the Whigs had been able to accomplish in therealm of statecraft was accomplished on the field of battle. 

=The Triumph of Industry. =--The wreck of the planting system wasaccompanied by a mighty upswing of Northern industry which made the oldWhigs of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania stare in wonderment. The demandsof the federal government for manufactured goods at unrestricted pricesgave a stimulus to business which more than replaced the lost markets ofthe South. Between 1860 and 1870 the number of manufacturingestablishments increased 79. 6 per cent as against 14. 2 for the previousdecade; while the number of persons employed almost doubled. There wasno doubt about the future of American industry. 

=The Victory for the Protective Tariff. =--Moreover, it was henceforth tobe well protected. For many years before the war the friends ofprotection had been on the defensive. The tariff act of 1857 imposedduties so low as to presage a tariff for revenue only. The war changedall that. The extraordinary military expenditures, requiring heavy taxeson all sources, justified tariffs so high that a follower of Clay orWebster might well have gasped with astonishment. After the war was overthe debt remained and both interest and principal had to be paid. Protective arguments based on economic reasoning were supported by aplain necessity for revenue which admitted no dispute. 

=A Liberal Immigration Policy. =--Linked with industry was the laborsupply. The problem of manning industries became a pressing matter, andRepublican leaders grappled with it. In the platform of the Union partyadopted in 1864 it was declared "that foreign immigration, which in thepast has added so much to the wealth, the development of resources, andthe increase of power to this nation--the asylum of the oppressed of allnations--should be fostered and encouraged by a liberal and justpolicy. " In that very year Congress, recognizing the importance of theproblem, passed a measure of high significance, creating a bureau ofimmigration, and authorizing a modified form of indentured labor, bymaking it legal for immigrants to pledge their wages in advance to paytheir passage over. Though the bill was soon repealed, the practiceauthorized by it was long continued. The cheapness of the passageshortened the term of service; but the principle was older than thedays of William Penn. 

=The Homestead Act of 1862. =--In the immigration measure guaranteeing acontinuous and adequate labor supply, the manufacturers saw an offset tothe Homestead Act of 1862 granting free lands to settlers. The Homesteadlaw they had resisted in a long and bitter congressional battle. Naturally, they had not taken kindly to a scheme which lured men awayfrom the factories or enabled them to make unlimited demands for higherwages as the price of remaining. Southern planters likewise had fearedfree homesteads for the very good reason that they only promised to addto the overbalancing power of the North. 

In spite of the opposition, supporters of a liberal land policy madesteady gains. Free-soil Democrats, --Jacksonian farmers andmechanics, --labor reformers, and political leaders, like Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, kept up theagitation in season and out. More than once were they able to force ahomestead bill through the House of Representatives only to have itblocked in the Senate where Southern interests were intrenched. Then, after the Senate was won over, a Democratic President, James Buchanan, vetoed the bill. Still the issue lived. The Republicans, strong amongthe farmers of the Northwest, favored it from the beginning and pressedit upon the attention of the country. Finally the manufacturers yielded;they received their compensation in the contract labor law. In 1862Congress provided for the free distribution of land in 160-acre lotsamong men and women of strong arms and willing hearts ready to buildtheir serried lines of homesteads to the Rockies and beyond. 

=Internal Improvements. =--If farmers and manufacturers were earlydivided on the matter of free homesteads, the same could hardly be saidof internal improvements. The Western tiller of the soil was as eagerfor some easy way of sending his produce to market as the manufacturerwas for the same means to transport his goods to the consumer on thefarm. While the Confederate leaders were writing into theirconstitution a clause forbidding all appropriations for internalimprovements, the Republican leaders at Washington were planning suchexpenditures from the treasury in the form of public land grants torailways as would have dazed the authors of the national road bill halfa century earlier. 

=Sound Finance--National Banking. =--From Hamilton's day to Lincoln's, business men in the East had contended for a sound system of nationalcurrency. The experience of the states with paper money, painfullyimpressive in the years before the framing of the Constitution, had beenconvincing to those who understood the economy of business. TheConstitution, as we have seen, bore the signs of this experience. Stateswere forbidden to emit bills of credit: paper money, in short. Thisprovision stood clear in the document; but judicial ingenuity hadcircumvented it in the age of Jacksonian Democracy. The states hadenacted and the Supreme Court, after the death of John Marshall, hadsustained laws chartering banking companies and authorizing them toissue paper money. So the country was beset by the old curse, the banksof Western and Southern states issuing reams of paper notes to helpborrowers pay their debts. 

In dealing with war finances, the Republicans attacked this ancientevil. By act of Congress in 1864, they authorized a series of nationalbanks founded on the credit of government bonds and empowered to issuenotes. The next year they stopped all bank paper sent forth under theauthority of the states by means of a prohibitive tax. In this way, bytwo measures Congress restored federal control over the monetary systemalthough it did not reëstablish the United States Bank so hated byJacksonian Democracy. 

=Destruction of States' Rights by Fourteenth Amendment. =--These acts andothers not cited here were measures of centralization and consolidationat the expense of the powers and dignity of the states. They were all ofhigh import, but the crowning act of nationalism was the fourteenthamendment which, among other things, forbade states to "deprive anyperson of life, liberty or property without due process of law. " Theimmediate occasion, though not the actual cause of this provision, wasthe need for protecting the rights of freedmen against hostilelegislatures in the South. The result of the amendment, as wasprophesied in protests loud and long from every quarter of theDemocratic party, was the subjection of every act of state, municipal, and county authorities to possible annulment by the Supreme Court atWashington. The expected happened. 

Few negroes ever brought cases under the fourteenth amendment to theattention of the courts; but thousands of state laws, municipalordinances, and acts of local authorities were set aside as null andvoid under it. Laws of states regulating railway rates, fixing hours oflabor in bakeshops, and taxing corporations were in due time to beannulled as conflicting with an amendment erroneously supposed to bedesigned solely for the protection of negroes. As centralized power overtariffs, railways, public lands, and other national concerns went toCongress, so centralized power over the acts of state and localauthorities involving an infringement of personal and property rightswas conferred on the federal judiciary, the apex of which was theSupreme Court at Washington. Thus the old federation of "independentstates, " all equal in rights and dignity, each wearing the "jewel ofsovereignty" so celebrated in Southern oratory, had gone the way of allflesh under the withering blasts of Civil War. 

RECONSTRUCTION IN THE SOUTH

=Theories about the Position of the Seceded States. =--On the morning ofApril 9, 1865, when General Lee surrendered his army to General Grant, eleven states stood in a peculiar relation to the union now declaredperpetual. Lawyers and political philosophers were much perturbed andhad been for some time as to what should be done with the members of theformer Confederacy. Radical Republicans held that they were "conqueredprovinces" at the mercy of Congress, to be governed under such laws asit saw fit to enact and until in its wisdom it decided to readmit any orall of them to the union. Men of more conservative views held that, asthe war had been waged by the North on the theory that no state couldsecede from the union, the Confederate states had merely attempted towithdraw and had failed. The corollary of this latter line of argumentwas simple: "The Southern states are still in the union and it is theduty of the President, as commander-in-chief, to remove the federaltroops as soon as order is restored and the state governments ready tofunction once more as usual. "

=Lincoln's Proposal. =--Some such simple and conservative form ofreconstruction had been suggested by Lincoln in a proclamation ofDecember 8, 1863. He proposed pardon and a restoration of property, except in slaves, to nearly all who had "directly or by implicationparticipated in the existing rebellion, " on condition that they take anoath of loyalty to the union. He then announced that when, in any of thestates named, a body of voters, qualified under the law as it stoodbefore secession and equal in number to one-tenth the votes cast in1860, took the oath of allegiance, they should be permitted toreëstablish a state government. Such a government, he added, should berecognized as a lawful authority and entitled to protection under thefederal Constitution. With reference to the status of the former slavesLincoln made it clear that, while their freedom must be recognized, hewould not object to any legislation "which may yet be consistent as atemporary arrangement with their present condition as a laboring, landless, and homeless class. "

=Andrew Johnson's Plan--His Impeachment. =--Lincoln's successor, AndrewJohnson, the Vice President, soon after taking office, proposed topursue a somewhat similar course. In a number of states he appointedmilitary governors, instructing them at the earliest possible moment toassemble conventions, chosen "by that portion of the people of the saidstates who are loyal to the United States, " and proceed to theorganization of regular civil government. Johnson, a Southern man and aDemocrat, was immediately charged by the Republicans with being tooready to restore the Southern states. As the months went by, theopposition to his measures and policies in Congress grew in size andbitterness. The contest resulted in the impeachment of Johnson by theHouse of Representatives in March, 1868, and his acquittal by the Senatemerely because his opponents lacked one vote of the two-thirds requiredfor conviction. 

=Congress Enacts "Reconstruction Laws. "=--In fact, Congress was in astrategic position. It was the law-making body, and it could, moreover, determine the conditions under which Senators and Representatives fromthe South were to be readmitted. It therefore proceeded to pass a seriesof reconstruction acts--carrying all of them over Johnson's veto. Thesemeasures, the first of which became a law on March 2, 1867, betrayed ananimus not found anywhere in Lincoln's plans or Johnson's proclamations. 

They laid off the ten states--the whole Confederacy with the exceptionof Tennessee--still outside the pale, into five military districts, eachcommanded by a military officer appointed by the President. They orderedthe commanding general to prepare a register of voters for the electionof delegates to conventions chosen for the purpose of drafting newconstitutions. Such voters, however, were not to be, as Lincoln hadsuggested, loyal persons duly qualified under the law existing beforesecession but "the male citizens of said state, twenty-one years old andupward, of whatever race, color, or previous condition, . .. Except suchas may be disfranchised for participation in the rebellion or for felonyat common law. " This was the death knell to the idea that the leaders ofthe Confederacy and their white supporters might be permitted to sharein the establishment of the new order. Power was thus arbitrarily thrustinto the hands of the newly emancipated male negroes and the handful ofwhites who could show a record of loyalty. That was not all. Each statewas, under the reconstruction acts, compelled to ratify the fourteenthamendment to the federal Constitution as a price of restoration to theunion. 

The composition of the conventions thus authorized may be imagined. Bondmen without the asking and without preparation found themselves thegoverning power. An army of adventurers from the North, "carpet baggers"as they were called, poured in upon the scene to aid in"reconstruction. " Undoubtedly many men of honor and fine intentions gaveunstinted service, but the results of their deliberations onlyaggravated the open wound left by the war. Any number of politicaldoctors offered their prescriptions; but no effective remedy could befound. Under measures admittedly open to grave objections, the Southernstates were one after another restored to the union by the grace ofCongress, the last one in 1870. Even this grudging concession of theformalities of statehood did not mean a full restoration of honors andprivileges. The last soldier was not withdrawn from the last Southerncapital until 1877, and federal control over elections long remained asa sign of congressional supremacy. 

=The Status of the Freedmen. =--Even more intricate than the issuesinvolved in restoring the seceded states to the union was the questionof what to do with the newly emancipated slaves. That problem, often putto abolitionists before the war, had become at last a real concern. Thethirteenth amendment abolishing slavery had not touched it at all. Itdeclared bondmen free, but did nothing to provide them with work orhomes and did not mention the subject of political rights. All thesematters were left to the states, and the legislatures of some of them, by their famous "black codes, " restored a form of servitude under theguise of vagrancy and apprentice laws. Such methods were in fact partlyresponsible for the reaction that led Congress to abandon Lincoln'spolicies and undertake its own program of reconstruction. 

Still no extensive effort was made to solve by law the economic problemsof the bondmen. Radical abolitionists had advocated that the slaves whenemancipated should be given outright the fields of their formermasters; but Congress steadily rejected the very idea of confiscation. The necessity of immediate assistance it recognized by creating in 1865the Freedmen's Bureau to take care of refugees. It authorized the issueof food and clothing to the destitute and the renting of abandoned andcertain other lands under federal control to former slaves at reasonablerates. But the larger problem of the relation of the freedmen to theland, it left to the slow working of time. 

Against sharp protests from conservative men, particularly among theDemocrats, Congress did insist, however, on conferring upon the freedmencertain rights by national law. These rights fell into broad divisions, civil and political. By an act passed in 1866, Congress gave to formerslaves the rights of white citizens in the matter of making contracts, giving testimony in courts, and purchasing, selling, and leasingproperty. As it was doubtful whether Congress had the power to enactthis law, there was passed and submitted to the states the fourteenthamendment which gave citizenship to the freedmen, assured them of theprivileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and declaredthat no state should deprive any person of his life, liberty, orproperty without due process of law. Not yet satisfied, Congressattempted to give social equality to negroes by the second civil rightsbill of 1875 which promised to them, among other things, the full andequal enjoyment of inns, theaters, public conveyances, and places ofamusement--a law later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. 

The matter of political rights was even more hotly contested; but theradical Republicans, like Charles Sumner, asserted that civil rightswere not secure unless supported by the suffrage. In this samefourteenth amendment they attempted to guarantee the ballot to all negromen, leaving the women to take care of themselves. The amendmentdeclared in effect that when any state deprived adult male citizens ofthe right to vote, its representation in Congress should be reduced inthe proportion such persons bore to the voting population. 

This provision having failed to accomplish its purpose, the fifteenthamendment was passed and ratified, expressly declaring that no citizenshould be deprived of the right to vote "on account of race, color, orprevious condition of servitude. " To make assurance doubly secure, Congress enacted in 1870, 1872, and 1873 three drastic laws, sometimesknown as "force bills, " providing for the use of federal authorities, civil and military, in supervising elections in all parts of the Union. So the federal government, having destroyed chattel slavery, sought bylegal decree to sweep away all its signs and badges, civil, social, andpolitical. Never, save perhaps in some of the civil conflicts of Greeceor Rome, had there occurred in the affairs of a nation a socialrevolution so complete, so drastic, and far-reaching in its results. 

SUMMARY OF THE SECTIONAL CONFLICT

Just as the United States, under the impetus of Western enterprise, rounded out the continental domain, its very existence as a nation waschallenged by a fratricidal conflict between two sections. This stormhad been long gathering upon the horizon. From the very beginning incolonial times there had been a marked difference between the South andthe North. The former by climate and soil was dedicated to a plantingsystem--the cultivation of tobacco, rice, cotton, and sugar cane--and inthe course of time slave labor became the foundation of the system. TheNorth, on the other hand, supplemented agriculture by commerce, trade, and manufacturing. Slavery, though lawful, did not flourish there. Anabundant supply of free labor kept the Northern wheels turning. 

This difference between the two sections, early noted by closeobservers, was increased with the advent of the steam engine and thefactory system. Between 1815 and 1860 an industrial revolution tookplace in the North. Its signs were gigantic factories, huge aggregationsof industrial workers, immense cities, a flourishing commerce, andprosperous banks. Finding an unfavorable reception in the South, the newindustrial system was confined mainly to the North. By canals andrailways New York, Boston, and Philadelphia were linked with thewheatfields of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. A steel net wove North andNorthwest together. A commercial net supplemented it. Western trade wasdiverted from New Orleans to the East and Eastern credit sustainedWestern enterprise. 

In time, the industrial North and the planting South evolved differentideas of political policy. The former looked with favor on protectivetariffs, ship subsidies, a sound national banking system, and internalimprovements. The farmers of the West demanded that the public domain bedivided up into free homesteads for farmers. The South steadily swungaround to the opposite view. Its spokesmen came to regard most of thesepolicies as injurious to the planting interests. 

The economic questions were all involved in a moral issue. The Northernstates, in which slavery was of slight consequence, had early abolishedthe institution. In the course of a few years there appeareduncompromising advocates of universal emancipation. Far and wide theagitation spread. The South was thoroughly frightened. It demandedprotection against the agitators, the enforcement of its rights in thecase of runaway slaves, and equal privileges for slavery in the newterritories. 

With the passing years the conflict between the two sections increasedin bitterness. It flamed up in 1820 and was allayed by the Missouricompromise. It took on the form of a tariff controversy andnullification in 1832. It appeared again after the Mexican war when thequestion of slavery in the new territories was raised. Againcompromise--the great settlement of 1850--seemed to restore peace, onlyto prove an illusion. A series of startling events swept the countryinto war: the repeal of the Missouri compromise in 1854, the rise of theRepublican party pledged to the prohibition of slavery in theterritories, the Dred Scott decision of 1857, the Lincoln-Douglasdebates, John Brown's raid, the election of Lincoln, and secession. 

The Civil War, lasting for four years, tested the strength of both Northand South, in leadership, in finance, in diplomatic skill, in materialresources, in industry, and in armed forces. By the blockade of Southernports, by an overwhelming weight of men and materials, and by relentlesshammering on the field of battle, the North was victorious. 

The results of the war were revolutionary in character. Slavery wasabolished and the freedmen given the ballot. The Southern planters whohad been the leaders of their section were ruined financially and almostto a man excluded from taking part in political affairs. The union wasdeclared to be perpetual and the right of a state to secede settled bythe judgment of battle. Federal control over the affairs of states, counties, and cities was established by the fourteenth amendment. Thepower and prestige of the federal government were enhanced beyondimagination. The North was now free to pursue its economic policies: aprotective tariff, a national banking system, land grants for railways, free lands for farmers. Planting had dominated the country for nearly ageneration. Business enterprise was to take its place. 

=References=

NORTHERN ACCOUNTS

J. K. Hosmer, _The Appeal to Arms_ and _The Outcome of the Civil War_(American Nation Series). 

J. Ropes, _History of the Civil War_ (best account of militarycampaigns). 

J. F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vols. III, IV, and V. 

J. T. Morse, _Abraham Lincoln_ (2 vols. ). 

SOUTHERN ACCOUNTS

W. E. Dodd, _Jefferson Davis_. 

Jefferson Davis, _Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government_. 

E. Pollard, _The Lost Cause_. 

A. H. Stephens, _The War between the States_. 

=Questions=

1. Contrast the reception of secession in 1860 with that given tonullification in 1832. 

2. Compare the Northern and Southern views of the union. 

3. What were the peculiar features of the Confederate constitution?

4. How was the Confederacy financed?

5. Compare the resources of the two sections. 

6. On what foundations did Southern hopes rest?

7. Describe the attempts at a peaceful settlement. 

8. Compare the raising of armies for the Civil War with the methodsemployed in the World War. (See below, chapter XXV. )

9. Compare the financial methods of the government in the two wars. 

10. Explain why the blockade was such a deadly weapon. 

11. Give the leading diplomatic events of the war. 

12. Trace the growth of anti-slavery sentiment. 

13. What measures were taken to restrain criticism of the government?

14. What part did Lincoln play in all phases of the war?

15. State the principal results of the war. 

16. Compare Lincoln's plan of reconstruction with that adopted byCongress. 

17. What rights did Congress attempt to confer upon the former slaves?

=Research Topics=

=Was Secession Lawful?=--The Southern view by Jefferson Davis inHarding, _Select Orations Illustrating American History_, pp. 364-369. Lincoln's view, Harding, pp. 371-381. 

=The Confederate Constitution. =--Compare with the federal Constitutionin Macdonald, _Documentary Source Book_, pp. 424-433 and pp. 271-279. 

=Federal Legislative Measures. =--Prepare a table and brief digest of theimportant laws relating to the war. Macdonald, pp. 433-482. 

=Economic Aspects of the War. =--Coman, _Industrial History of the UnitedStates_, pp. 279-301. Dewey, _Financial History of the United States_, Chaps. XII and XIII. Tabulate the economic measures of Congress inMacdonald. 

=Military Campaigns. =--The great battles are fully treated in Rhodes, _History of the Civil War_, and teachers desiring to emphasize militaryaffairs may assign campaigns to members of the class for study andreport. A briefer treatment in Elson, _History of the United States_, pp. 641-785. 

=Biographical Studies. =--Lincoln, Davis, Lee, Grant, Sherman, and otherleaders in civil and military affairs, with reference to local "wargovernors. "

=English and French Opinion of the War. =--Rhodes, _History of the UnitedStates_, Vol. IV, pp. 337-394. 

=The South during the War. =--Rhodes, Vol. V, pp. 343-382. 

=The North during the War. =--Rhodes, Vol. V, pp. 189-342. 

=Reconstruction Measures. =--Macdonald, _Source Book_, pp. 500-511;514-518; 529-530; Elson, pp. 786-799. 

=The Force Bills. =--Macdonald, pp. 547-551; 554-564. 

PART VI. NATIONAL GROWTH AND WORLD POLITICS

CHAPTER XVI

THE POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC EVOLUTION OF THE SOUTH

The outcome of the Civil War in the South was nothing short of arevolution. The ruling class, the law, and the government of the oldorder had been subverted. To political chaos was added the havoc wroughtin agriculture, business, and transportation by military operations. Andas if to fill the cup to the brim, the task of reconstruction wascommitted to political leaders from another section of the country, strangers to the life and traditions of the South. 

THE SOUTH AT THE CLOSE OF THE WAR

=A Ruling Class Disfranchised. =--As the sovereignty of the planters hadbeen the striking feature of the old régime, so their ruin was theoutstanding fact of the new. The situation was extraordinary. TheAmerican Revolution was carried out by people experienced in the arts ofself-government, and at its close they were free to follow the generalcourse to which they had long been accustomed. The French Revolutionwitnessed the overthrow of the clergy and the nobility; but middleclasses who took their places had been steadily rising in intelligenceand wealth. 

The Southern Revolution was unlike either of these cataclysms. It wasnot brought about by a social upheaval, but by an external crisis. Itdid not enfranchise a class that sought and understood power, butbondmen who had played no part in the struggle. Moreover it struck downa class equipped to rule. The leading planters were almost to a manexcluded from state and federal offices, and the fourteenth amendmentwas a bar to their return. All civil and military places under theauthority of the United States and of the states were closed to everyman who had taken an oath to support the Constitution as a member ofCongress, as a state legislator, or as a state or federal officer, andafterward engaged in "insurrection or rebellion, " or "given aid andcomfort to the enemies" of the United States. This sweeping provision, supplemented by the reconstruction acts, laid under the ban most of thetalent, energy, and spirit of the South. 

=The Condition of the State Governments. =--The legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the state governments thus passed into thecontrol of former slaves, led principally by Northern adventurers orSouthern novices, known as "Scalawags. " The result was a carnival ofwaste, folly, and corruption. The "reconstruction" assembly of SouthCarolina bought clocks at $480 apiece and chandeliers at $650. Topurchase land for former bondmen the sum of $800, 000 was appropriated;and swamps bought at seventy-five cents an acre were sold to the stateat five times the cost. In the years between 1868 and 1873, the debt ofthe state rose from about $5, 800, 000 to $24, 000, 000, and millions of theincrease could not be accounted for by the authorities responsible forit. 

=Economic Ruin--Urban and Rural. =--No matter where Southern men turnedin 1865 they found devastation--in the towns, in the country, and alongthe highways. Atlanta, the city to which Sherman applied the torch, layin ashes; Nashville and Chattanooga had been partially wrecked; Richmondand Augusta had suffered severely from fires. Charleston was describedby a visitor as "a city of ruins, of desolation, of vacant houses, ofrotten wharves, of deserted warehouses, of weed gardens, of miles ofgrass-grown streets. .. . How few young men there are, how generally theyoung women are dressed in black! The flower of their proud aristocracyis buried on scores of battle fields. "

Those who journeyed through the country about the same time reporteddesolation equally widespread and equally pathetic. An English travelerwho made his way along the course of the Tennessee River in 1870 wrote:"The trail of war is visible throughout the valley in burnt-up ginhouses, ruined bridges, mills, and factories . .. And large tracts ofonce cultivated land are stripped of every vestige of fencing. Theroads, long neglected, are in disorder and, having in many places becomeimpassable, new tracks have been made through the woods and fieldswithout much respect to boundaries. " Many a great plantation had beenconfiscated by the federal authorities while the owner was inConfederate service. Many more lay in waste. In the wake of the armiesthe homes of rich and poor alike, if spared the torch, had beendespoiled of the stock and seeds necessary to renew agriculture. 

=Railways Dilapidated. =--Transportation was still more demoralized. Thisis revealed in the pages of congressional reports based upon first-handinvestigations. One eloquent passage illustrates all the rest. FromPocahontas to Decatur, Alabama, a distance of 114 miles, we are told, the railroad was "almost entirely destroyed, except the road bed andiron rails, and they were in a very bad condition--every bridge andtrestle destroyed, cross-ties rotten, buildings burned, water tanksgone, tracks grown up in weeds and bushes, not a saw mill near the lineand the labor system of the country gone. About forty miles of the trackwere burned, the cross-ties entirely destroyed, and the rails bent andtwisted in such a manner as to require great labor to straighten and alarge portion of them requiring renewal. "

=Capital and Credit Destroyed. =--The fluid capital of the South, moneyand credit, was in the same prostrate condition as the material capital. The Confederate currency, inflated to the bursting point, had utterlycollapsed and was as worthless as waste paper. The bonds of theConfederate government were equally valueless. Specie had nearlydisappeared from circulation. The fourteenth amendment to the federalConstitution had made all "debts, obligations, and claims" incurred inaid of the Confederate cause "illegal and void. " Millions of dollarsowed to Northern creditors before the war were overdue and payment waspressed upon the debtors. Where such debts were secured by mortgages onland, executions against the property could be obtained in federalcourts. 

THE RESTORATION OF WHITE SUPREMACY

=Intimidation. =--In both politics and economics, the process ofreconstruction in the South was slow and arduous. The first battle inthe political contest for white supremacy was won outside the halls oflegislatures and the courts of law. It was waged, in the main, by secretorganizations, among which the Ku Klux Klan and the White Camelia werethe most prominent. The first of these societies appeared in Tennesseein 1866 and held its first national convention the following year. Itwas in origin a social club. According to its announcement, its objectswere "to protect the weak, the innocent, and the defenceless from theindignities, wrongs, and outrages of the lawless, the violent, and thebrutal; and to succor the suffering, especially the widows and orphansof the Confederate soldiers. " The whole South was called "the Empire"and was ruled by a "Grand Wizard. " Each state was a realm and eachcounty a province. In the secret orders there were enrolled over half amillion men. 

The methods of the Ku Klux and the White Camelia were similar. Solemnparades of masked men on horses decked in long robes were held, sometimes in the daytime and sometimes at the dead of night. Noticeswere sent to obnoxious persons warning them to stop certain practices. If warning failed, something more convincing was tried. Fright was theemotion most commonly stirred. A horseman, at the witching hour ofmidnight, would ride up to the house of some offender, lift his headgear, take off a skull, and hand it to the trembling victim with therequest that he hold it for a few minutes. Frequently violence wasemployed either officially or unofficially by members of the Klan. Tarand feathers were freely applied; the whip was sometimes laid onunmercifully, and occasionally a brutal murder was committed. Often themembers were fired upon from bushes or behind trees, and swiftretaliation followed. So alarming did the clashes become that in 1870Congress forbade interference with electors or going in disguise for thepurpose of obstructing the exercise of the rights enjoyed under federallaw. 

In anticipation of such a step on the part of the federal government, the Ku Klux was officially dissolved by the "Grand Wizard" in 1869. Nevertheless, the local societies continued their organization andmethods. The spirit survived the national association. "On the whole, "says a Southern writer, "it is not easy to see what other course wasopen to the South. .. . Armed resistance was out of the question. And yetthere must be some control had of the situation. .. . If force was denied, craft was inevitable. "

=The Struggle for the Ballot Box. =--The effects of intimidation weresoon seen at elections. The freedman, into whose inexperienced hand theballot had been thrust, was ordinarily loath to risk his head by theexercise of his new rights. He had not attained them by a long andlaborious contest of his own and he saw no urgent reason why he shouldbattle for the privilege of using them. The mere show of force, the mereexistence of a threat, deterred thousands of ex-slaves from appearing atthe polls. Thus the whites steadily recovered their dominance. Nothingcould prevent it. Congress enacted force bills establishing federalsupervision of elections and the Northern politicians protested againstthe return of former Confederates to practical, if not official, power;but all such opposition was like resistance to the course of nature. 

=Amnesty for Southerners. =--The recovery of white supremacy in this waywas quickly felt in national councils. The Democratic party in the Northwelcomed it as a sign of its return to power. The more moderateRepublicans, anxious to heal the breach in American unity, sought toencourage rather than to repress it. So it came about that amnesty forConfederates was widely advocated. Yet it must be said that the strugglefor the removal of disabilities was stubborn and bitter. Lincoln, withcharacteristic generosity, in the midst of the war had issued a generalproclamation of amnesty to nearly all who had been in arms against theUnion, on condition that they take an oath of loyalty; but Johnson, vindictive toward Southern leaders and determined to make "treasoninfamous, " had extended the list of exceptions. Congress, even morerelentless in its pursuit of Confederates, pushed through the fourteenthamendment which worked the sweeping disabilities we have just described. 

To appeals for comprehensive clemency, Congress was at first adamant. Invain did men like Carl Schurz exhort their colleagues to crown theirvictory in battle with a noble act of universal pardon and oblivion. Congress would not yield. It would grant amnesty in individual cases;for the principle of proscription it stood fast. When finally in 1872, seven years after the surrender at Appomattox, it did pass the generalamnesty bill, it insisted on certain exceptions. Confederates who hadbeen members of Congress just before the war, or had served in otherhigh posts, civil or military, under the federal government, were stillexcluded from important offices. Not until the summer of 1898, when thewar with Spain produced once more a union of hearts, did Congress relentand abolish the last of the disabilities imposed on the Confederates. 

=The Force Bills Attacked and Nullified. =--The granting of amnestyencouraged the Democrats to redouble their efforts all along the line. In 1874 they captured the House of Representatives and declared war onthe "force bills. " As a Republican Senate blocked immediate repeal, theyresorted to an ingenious parliamentary trick. To the appropriation billfor the support of the army they attached a "rider, " or condition, tothe effect that no troops should be used to sustain the Republicangovernment in Louisiana. The Senate rejected the proposal. A deadlockensued and Congress adjourned without making provision for the army. Satisfied with the technical victory, the Democrats let the army billpass the next session, but kept up their fight on the force laws untilthey wrung from President Hayes a measure forbidding the use of UnitedStates troops in supervising elections. The following year they againhad recourse to a rider on the army bill and carried it through, puttingan end to the use of money for military control of elections. Thereconstruction program was clearly going to pieces, and the SupremeCourt helped along the process of dissolution by declaring parts of thelaws invalid. In 1878 the Democrats even won a majority in the Senateand returned to power a large number of men once prominent in theConfederate cause. 

The passions of the war by this time were evidently cooling. A newgeneration of men was coming on the scene. The supremacy of the whitesin the South, if not yet complete, was at least assured. Federalmarshals, their deputies, and supervisors of elections still possessedauthority over the polls, but their strength had been shorn by thewithdrawal of United States troops. The war on the remaining remnants ofthe "force bills" lapsed into desultory skirmishing. When in 1894 thelast fragment was swept away, the country took little note of the fact. The only task that lay before the Southern leaders was to write in theconstitutions of their respective states the provisions of law whichwould clinch the gains so far secured and establish white supremacybeyond the reach of outside intervention. 

=White Supremacy Sealed by New State Constitutions. =--The impetus tothis final step was given by the rise of the Populist movement in theSouth, which sharply divided the whites and in many communities threwthe balance of power into the hands of the few colored voters whosurvived the process of intimidation. Southern leaders now devised newconstitutions so constructed as to deprive negroes of the ballot by law. Mississippi took the lead in 1890; South Carolina followed five yearslater; Louisiana, in 1898; North Carolina, in 1900; Alabama andMaryland, in 1901; and Virginia, in 1902. 

The authors of these measures made no attempt to conceal their purposes. "The intelligent white men of the South, " said Governor Tillman, "intendto govern here. " The fifteenth amendment to the federal Constitution, however, forbade them to deprive any citizen of the right to vote onaccount of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. This madenecessary the devices of indirection. They were few, simple, andeffective. The first and most easily administered was the ingeniousprovision requiring each prospective voter to read a section of thestate constitution or "understand and explain it" when read to him bythe election officers. As an alternative, the payment of taxes or theownership of a small amount of property was accepted as a qualificationfor voting. Southern leaders, unwilling to disfranchise any of the poorwhite men who had stood side by side with them "in the dark days ofreconstruction, " also resorted to a famous provision known as "thegrandfather clause. " This plan admitted to the suffrage any man who didnot have either property or educational qualifications, provided he hadvoted on or before 1867 or was the son or grandson of any such person. 

The devices worked effectively. Of the 147, 000 negroes in Mississippiabove the age of twenty-one, only about 8600 registered under theconstitution of 1890. Louisiana had 127, 000 colored voters enrolled in1896; under the constitution drafted two years later the registrationfell to 5300. An analysis of the figures for South Carolina in 1900indicates that only about one negro out of every hundred adult males ofthat race took part in elections. Thus was closed this chapter ofreconstruction. 

=The Supreme Court Refuses to Intervene. =--Numerous efforts were made toprevail upon the Supreme Court of the United States to declare such lawsunconstitutional; but the Court, usually on technical grounds, avoidedcoming to a direct decision on the merits of the matter. In one casethe Court remarked that it could not take charge of and operate theelection machinery of Alabama; it concluded that "relief from a greatpolitical wrong, if done as alleged, by the people of a state and by thestate itself, must be given by them, or by the legislative and executivedepartments of the government of the United States. " Only one of theseveral schemes employed, namely, the "grandfather clause, " was held tobe a violation of the federal Constitution. This blow, effected in 1915by the decision in the Oklahoma and Maryland cases, left, however, themain structure of disfranchisement unimpaired. 

=Proposals to Reduce Southern Representation in Congress. =--Theseprovisions excluding thousands of male citizens from the ballot did not, in express terms, deprive any one of the vote on account of race orcolor. They did not, therefore, run counter to the letter of thefifteenth amendment; but they did unquestionably make the states whichadopted them liable to the operations of the fourteenth amendment. Thelatter very explicitly provides that whenever any state deprives adultmale citizens of the right to vote (except in certain minor cases) therepresentation of the state in Congress shall be reduced in theproportion which such number of disfranchised citizens bears to thewhole number of male citizens over twenty-one years of age. 

Mindful of this provision, those who protested against disfranchisementin the South turned to the Republican party for relief, asking foraction by the political branches of the federal government as theSupreme Court had suggested. The Republicans responded in their platformof 1908 by condemning all devices designed to deprive any one of theballot for reasons of color alone; they demanded the enforcement inletter and spirit of the fourteenth as well as all other amendments. Though victorious in the election, the Republicans refrained fromreopening the ancient contest; they made no attempt to reduce Southernrepresentation in the House. Southern leaders, while protesting againstthe declarations of their opponents, were able to view them as idlethreats in no way endangering the security of the measures by whichpolitical reconstruction had been undone. 

=The Solid South. =--Out of the thirty-year conflict against "carpet-bagrule" there emerged what was long known as the "solid South"--a Souththat, except occasionally in the border states, never gave an electoralvote to a Republican candidate for President. Before the Civil War, theSouthern people had been divided on political questions. Take, forexample, the election of 1860. In all the fifteen slave states thevariety of opinion was marked. In nine of them--Delaware, Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri, Maryland, Louisiana, Kentucky, Georgia, andArkansas--the combined vote against the representative of the extremeSouthern point of view, Breckinridge, constituted a safe majority. Ineach of the six states which were carried by Breckinridge, there was alarge and powerful minority. In North Carolina Breckinridge's majorityover Bell and Douglas was only 849 votes. Equally astounding to thosewho imagine the South united in defense of extreme views in 1860 was thevote for Bell, the Unionist candidate, who stood firmly for theConstitution and silence on slavery. In every Southern state Bell's votewas large. In Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee it was greaterthan that received by Breckinridge; in Georgia, it was 42, 000 against51, 000; in Louisiana, 20, 000 against 22, 000; in Mississippi, 25, 000against 40, 000. 

The effect of the Civil War upon these divisions was immediate anddecisive, save in the border states where thousands of men continued toadhere to the cause of Union. In the Confederacy itself nearly alldissent was silenced by war. Men who had been bitter opponents joinedhands in defense of their homes; when the armed conflict was over theyremained side by side working against "Republican misrule and negrodomination. " By 1890, after Northern supremacy was definitely broken, they boasted that there were at least twelve Southern states in which noRepublican candidate for President could win a single electoral vote. 

=Dissent in the Solid South. =--Though every one grew accustomed to speakof the South as "solid, " it did not escape close observers that in anumber of Southern states there appeared from time to time a fairlylarge body of dissenters. In 1892 the Populists made heavy inroads uponthe Democratic ranks. On other occasions, the contests between factionswithin the Democratic party over the nomination of candidates revealedsharp differences of opinion. In some places, moreover, there grew up aRepublican minority of respectable size. For example, in Georgia, Mr. Taft in 1908 polled 41, 000 votes against 72, 000 for Mr. Bryan; in NorthCarolina, 114, 000 against 136, 000; in Tennessee, 118, 000 against135, 000; in Kentucky, 235, 000 against 244, 000. In 1920, Senator Harding, the Republican candidate, broke the record by carrying Tennessee as wellas Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Maryland. 

THE ECONOMIC ADVANCE OF THE SOUTH

=The Break-up of the Great Estates. =--In the dissolution of chattelslavery it was inevitable that the great estate should give way beforethe small farm. The plantation was in fact founded on slavery. It wascontinued and expanded by slavery. Before the war the prosperousplanter, either by inclination or necessity, invested his surplus inmore land to add to his original domain. As his slaves increased innumber, he was forced to increase his acreage or sell them, and heusually preferred the former, especially in the Far South. Still anotherelement favored the large estate. Slave labor quickly exhausted the soiland of its own force compelled the cutting of the forests and theextension of the area under cultivation. Finally, the planter took anatural pride in his great estate; it was a sign of his prowess and hissocial prestige. 

In 1865 the foundations of the planting system were gone. It wasdifficult to get efficient labor to till the vast plantations. Theplanters themselves were burdened with debts and handicapped by lack ofcapital. Negroes commonly preferred tilling plots of their own, rentedor bought under mortgage, to the more irksome wage labor under whitesupervision. The land hunger of the white farmer, once checked by theplanting system, reasserted itself. Before these forces the plantationbroke up. The small farm became the unit of cultivation in the South asin the North. Between 1870 and 1900 the number of farms doubled in everystate south of the line of the Potomac and Ohio rivers, except inArkansas and Louisiana. From year to year the process of breaking upcontinued, with all that it implied in the creation of land-owningfarmers. 

=The Diversification of Crops. =--No less significant was the concurrentdiversification of crops. Under slavery, tobacco, rice, and sugar werestaples and "cotton was king. " These were standard crops. The methods ofcultivation were simple and easily learned. They tested neither theskill nor the ingenuity of the slaves. As the returns were quick, theydid not call for long-time investments of capital. After slavery wasabolished, they still remained the staples, but far-sightedagriculturists saw the dangers of depending upon a few crops. The mildclimate all the way around the coast from Virginia to Texas and thecharacter of the alluvial soil invited the exercise of more imagination. Peaches, oranges, peanuts, and other fruits and vegetables were found togrow luxuriantly. Refrigeration for steamships and freight cars put themarkets of great cities at the doors of Southern fruit and vegetablegardeners. The South, which in planting days had relied so heavily uponthe Northwest for its foodstuffs, began to battle for independence. Between 1880 and the close of the century the value of its farm cropsincreased from $660, 000, 000 to $1, 270, 000, 000. 

=The Industrial and Commercial Revolution. =--On top of the radicalchanges in agriculture came an industrial and commercial revolution. TheSouth had long been rich in natural resources, but the slave system hadbeen unfavorable to their development. Rivers that would have turnedmillions of spindles tumbled unheeded to the seas. Coal and iron bedslay unopened. Timber was largely sacrificed in clearing lands forplanting, or fell to earth in decay. Southern enterprise was consumed inplanting. Slavery kept out the white immigrants who might have suppliedthe skilled labor for industry. 

[Illustration: _Copyright by Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

STEEL MILLS--BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA]

After 1865, achievement and fortune no longer lay on the land alone. Assoon as the paralysis of the war was over, the South caught theindustrial spirit that had conquered feudal Europe and the agriculturalNorth. In the development of mineral wealth, enormous strides weretaken. Iron ore of every quality was found, the chief beds being inVirginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Arkansas, and Texas. Five important coal basins were uncovered:in Virginia, North Carolina, the Appalachian chain from Maryland toNorthern Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Texas. Oil pools were foundin Kentucky, Tennessee, and Texas. Within two decades, 1880 to 1900, theoutput of mineral wealth multiplied tenfold: from ten millions a year toone hundred millions. The iron industries of West Virginia and Alabamabegan to rival those of Pennsylvania. Birmingham became the Pittsburghand Atlanta the Chicago of the South. 

[Illustration: _Copyright by Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

A SOUTHERN COTTON MILL IN A COTTON FIELD]

In other lines of industry, lumbering and cotton manufacturing took ahigh rank. The development of Southern timber resources was in everyrespect remarkable, particularly in Louisiana, Arkansas, andMississippi. At the end of the first decade of the twentieth century, primacy in lumber had passed from the Great Lakes region to the South. In 1913 eight Southern states produced nearly four times as much lumberas the Lake states and twice as much as the vast forests of Washingtonand Oregon. 

The development of the cotton industry, in the meantime, was similarlyastounding. In 1865 cotton spinning was a negligible matter in theSouthern states. In 1880 they had one-fourth of the mills of thecountry. At the end of the century they had one-half the mills, the twoCarolinas taking the lead by consuming more than one-third of theirentire cotton crop. Having both the raw materials and the power at hand, they enjoyed many advantages over the New England rivals, and at theopening of the new century were outstripping the latter in theproportion of spindles annually put into operation. Moreover, the cottonplanters, finding a market at the neighboring mills, began to lookforward to a day when they would be somewhat emancipated from absolutedependence upon the cotton exchanges of New York, New Orleans, andLiverpool. 

Transportation kept pace with industry. In 1860, the South had about tenthousand miles of railway. By 1880 the figure had doubled. During thenext twenty years over thirty thousand miles were added, most of theincrease being in Texas. About 1898 there opened a period ofconsolidation in which scores of short lines were united, mainly underthe leadership of Northern capitalists, and new through service openedto the North and West. Thus Southern industries were given easy outletsto the markets of the nation and brought within the main currents ofnational business enterprise. 

=The Social Effects of the Economic Changes. =--As long as the slavesystem lasted and planting was the major interest, the South was boundto be sectional in character. With slavery gone, crops diversified, natural resources developed, and industries promoted, the social orderof the ante-bellum days inevitably dissolved; the South became more andmore assimilated to the system of the North. In this process severallines of development are evident. 

In the first place we see the steady rise of the small farmer. Even inthe old days there had been a large class of white yeomen who owned noslaves and tilled the soil with their own hands, but they labored undersevere handicaps. They found the fertile lands of the coast and rivervalleys nearly all monopolized by planters, and they were by the forceof circumstances driven into the uplands where the soil was thin and thecrops were light. Still they increased in numbers and zealously workedtheir freeholds. 

The war proved to be their opportunity. With the break-up of theplantations, they managed to buy land more worthy of their plows. Byintelligent labor and intensive cultivation they were able to restoremuch of the worn-out soil to its original fertility. In the meantimethey rose with their prosperity in the social and political scale. Itbecame common for the sons of white farmers to enter the professions, while their daughters went away to college and prepared for teaching. Thus a more democratic tone was given to the white society of the South. Moreover the migration to the North and West, which had formerly carriedthousands of energetic sons and daughters to search for new homesteads, was materially reduced. The energy of the agricultural population wentinto rehabilitation. 

The increase in the number of independent farmers was accompanied by therise of small towns and villages which gave diversity to the life of theSouth. Before 1860 it was possible to travel through endless stretchesof cotton and tobacco. The social affairs of the planter's familycentered in the homestead even if they were occasionally interrupted bytrips to distant cities or abroad. Carpentry, bricklaying, andblacksmithing were usually done by slaves skilled in simple handicrafts. Supplies were bought wholesale. In this way there was little place inplantation economy for villages and towns with their stores andmechanics. 

The abolition of slavery altered this. Small farms spread out whereplantations had once stood. The skilled freedmen turned to agriculturerather than to handicrafts; white men of a business or mechanical bentfound an opportunity to serve the needs of their communities. So localmerchants and mechanics became an important element in the socialsystem. In the county seats, once dominated by the planters, businessand professional men assumed the leadership. 

Another vital outcome of this revolution was the transference of a largepart of planting enterprise to business. Mr. Bruce, a Southern historianof fine scholarship, has summed up this process in a single tellingparagraph: "The higher planting class that under the old system gave somuch distinction to rural life has, so far as it has survived at all, been concentrated in the cities. The families that in the time ofslavery would have been found only in the country are now found, with afew exceptions, in the towns. The transplantation has been practicallyuniversal. The talent, the energy, the ambition that formerly soughtexpression in the management of great estates and the control of hostsof slaves, now seek a field of action in trade, in manufacturingenterprises, or in the general enterprises of development. This was forthe ruling class of the South the natural outcome of the great economicrevolution that followed the war. "

As in all other parts of the world, the mechanical revolution wasattended by the growth of a population of industrial workers dependentnot upon the soil but upon wages for their livelihood. When JeffersonDavis was inaugurated President of the Southern Confederacy, there wereapproximately only one hundred thousand persons employed in Southernmanufactures as against more than a million in Northern mills. Fiftyyears later, Georgia and Alabama alone had more than one hundred andfifty thousand wage-earners. Necessarily this meant also a materialincrease in urban population, although the wide dispersion of cottonspinning among small centers prevented the congestion that hadaccompanied the rise of the textile industry in New England. In 1910, New Orleans, Atlanta, Memphis, Nashville, and Houston stood in the samerelation to the New South that Cincinnati, Chicago, Cleveland, andDetroit had stood to the New West fifty years before. The problems oflabor and capital and municipal administration, which the earlierwriters boasted would never perplex the planting South, had come in fullforce. 

[Illustration: _Copyright by Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

A GLIMPSE OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE]

=The Revolution in the Status of the Slaves. =--No part of Southernsociety was so profoundly affected by the Civil War and economicreconstruction as the former slaves. On the day of emancipation, theystood free, but empty-handed, the owners of no tools or property, themasters of no trade and wholly inexperienced in the arts of self-helpthat characterized the whites in general. They had never been accustomedto looking out for themselves. The plantation bell had called them tolabor and released them. Doles of food and clothing had been regularlymade in given quantities. They did not understand wages, ownership, renting, contracts, mortgages, leases, bills, or accounts. 

When they were emancipated, four courses were open to them. They couldflee from the plantation to the nearest town or city, or to the distantNorth, to seek a livelihood. Thousands of them chose this way, overcrowding cities where disease mowed them down. They could remainwhere they, were in their cabins and work for daily wages instead offood, clothing, and shelter. This second course the major portion ofthem chose; but, as few masters had cash to dispense, the new relationwas much like the old, in fact. It was still one of barter. The planteroffered food, clothing, and shelter; the former slaves gave their laborin return. That was the best that many of them could do. 

A third course open to freedmen was that of renting from the formermaster, paying him usually with a share of the produce of the land. Thisway a large number of them chose. It offered them a chance to becomeland owners in time and it afforded an easier life, the renter being, toa certain extent at least, master of his own hours of labor. The finaland most difficult path was that to ownership of land. Many a masterhelped his former slaves to acquire small holdings by offering easyterms. The more enterprising and the more fortunate who started life asrenters or wage-earners made their way upward to ownership in so manycases that by the end of the century, one-fourth of the colored laborerson the land owned the soil they tilled. 

In the meantime, the South, though relatively poor, made relativelylarge expenditures for the education of the colored population. By theopening of the twentieth century, facilities were provided for more thanone-half of the colored children of school age. While in many respectsthis progress was disappointing, its significance, to be appreciated, must be derived from a comparison with the total illiteracy whichprevailed under slavery. 

In spite of all that happened, however, the status of the negroes in theSouth continued to give a peculiar character to that section of thecountry. They were almost entirely excluded from the exercise of thesuffrage, especially in the Far South. Special rooms were set aside forthem at the railway stations and special cars on the railway lines. Inthe field of industry calling for technical skill, it appears, from thecensus figures, that they lost ground between 1890 and 1900--a conditionwhich their friends ascribed to discriminations against them in law andin labor organizations and their critics ascribed to their lack ofaptitude. Whatever may be the truth, the fact remained that at theopening of the twentieth century neither the hopes of the emancipatorsnor the fears of their opponents were realized. The marks of the"peculiar institution" were still largely impressed upon Southernsociety. 

The situation, however, was by no means unchanging. On the contrarythere was a decided drift in affairs. For one thing, the proportion ofnegroes in the South had slowly declined. By 1900 they were in amajority in only two states, South Carolina and Mississippi. InArkansas, Virginia, West Virginia, and North Carolina the proportion ofthe white population was steadily growing. The colored migrationnorthward increased while the westward movement of white farmers whichcharacterized pioneer days declined. At the same time a part of theforeign immigration into the United States was diverted southward. Asthe years passed these tendencies gained momentum. The already hugecolored quarters in some Northern cities were widely expanded, as wholecounties in the South were stripped of their colored laborers. The racequestion, in its political and economic aspects, became less and lesssectional, more and more national. The South was drawn into the mainstream of national life. The separatist forces which produced thecataclysm of 1861 sank irresistibly into the background. 

=References=

H. W. Grady, _The New South_ (1890). 

H. A. Herbert, _Why the Solid South_. 

W. G. Brown, _The Lower South_. 

E. G. Murphy, _Problems of the Present South_. 

B. T. Washington, _The Negro Problem_; _The Story of the Negro_; _TheFuture of the Negro_. 

A. B. Hart, _The Southern South_ and R. S. Baker, _Following the ColorLine_ (two works by Northern writers). 

T. N. Page, _The Negro, the Southerner's Problem_. 

=Questions=

1. Give the three main subdivisions of the chapter. 

2. Compare the condition of the South in 1865 with that of the North. Compare with the condition of the United States at the close of theRevolutionary War. At the close of the World War in 1918. 

3. Contrast the enfranchisement of the slaves with the enfranchisementof white men fifty years earlier. 

4. What was the condition of the planters as compared with that of theNorthern manufacturers?

5. How does money capital contribute to prosperity? Describe the plightof Southern finance. 

6. Give the chief steps in the restoration of white supremacy. 

7. Do you know of any other societies to compare with the Ku Klux Klan?

8. Give Lincoln's plan for amnesty. What principles do you think shouldgovern the granting of amnesty?

9. How were the "Force bills" overcome?

10. Compare the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments with regard to thesuffrage provisions. 

11. Explain how they may be circumvented. 

12. Account for the Solid South. What was the situation before 1860?

13. In what ways did Southern agriculture tend to become like that ofthe North? What were the social results?

14. Name the chief results of an "industrial revolution" in general. Inthe South, in particular. 

15. What courses were open to freedmen in 1865?

16. Give the main features in the economic and social status of thecolored population in the South. 

17. Explain why the race question is national now, rather thansectional. 

=Research Topics=

=Amnesty for Confederates. =--Study carefully the provisions of thefourteenth amendment in the Appendix. Macdonald, _Documentary SourceBook of American History_, pp. 470 and 564. A plea for amnesty inHarding, _Select Orations Illustrating American History_, pp. 467-488. 

=Political Conditions in the South in 1868. =--Dunning, _Reconstruction, Political and Economic_ (American Nation Series), pp. 109-123; Hart, _American History Told by Contemporaries_, Vol. IV, pp. 445-458, 497-500; Elson, _History of the United States_, pp. 799-805. 

=Movement for White Supremacy. =--Dunning, _Reconstruction_, pp. 266-280;Paxson, _The New Nation_ (Riverside Series), pp. 39-58; Beard, _AmericanGovernment and Politics_, pp. 454-457. 

=The Withdrawal of Federal Troops from the South. =--Sparks, _NationalDevelopment_ (American Nation Series), pp. 84-102; Rhodes, _History ofthe United States_, Vol. VIII, pp. 1-12. 

=Southern Industry. =--Paxson, _The New Nation_, pp. 192-207; T. M. Young, _The American Cotton Industry_, pp. 54-99. 

=The Race Question. =--B. T. Washington, _Up From Slavery_ (sympatheticpresentation); A. H. Stone, _Studies in the American Race Problem_(coldly analytical); Hart, _Contemporaries_, Vol. IV, pp. 647-649, 652-654, 663-669. 

CHAPTER XVII

BUSINESS ENTERPRISE AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

If a single phrase be chosen to characterize American life during thegeneration that followed the age of Douglas and Lincoln, it must be"business enterprise"--the tremendous, irresistible energy of a virilepeople, mounting in numbers toward a hundred million and applied withoutlet or hindrance to the developing of natural resources of unparalleledrichness. The chief goal of this effort was high profits for thecaptains of industry, on the one hand; and high wages for the workers, on the other. Its signs, to use the language of a Republican orator in1876, were golden harvest fields, whirling spindles, turning wheels, open furnace doors, flaming forges, and chimneys filled with eager fire. The device blazoned on its shield and written over its factory doors was"prosperity. " A Republican President was its "advance agent. " Releasedfrom the hampering interference of the Southern planters and theconfusing issues of the slavery controversy, business enterprise sprangforward to the task of winning the entire country. Then it flung itsoutposts to the uttermost parts of the earth--Europe, Africa, and theOrient--where were to be found markets for American goods and naturalresources for American capital to develop. 

RAILWAYS AND INDUSTRY

=The Outward Signs of Enterprise. =--It is difficult to comprehend allthe multitudinous activities of American business energy or to appraiseits effects upon the life and destiny of the American people; for beyondthe horizon of the twentieth century lie consequences as yet undreamedof in our poor philosophy. Statisticians attempt to record itsachievements in terms of miles of railways built, factories opened, menand women employed, fortunes made, wages paid, cities founded, riversspanned, boxes, bales, and tons produced. Historians apply standards ofcomparison with the past. Against the slow and leisurely stagecoach, they set the swift express, rushing from New York to San Francisco inless time than Washington consumed in his triumphal tour from Mt. Vernonto New York for his first inaugural. Against the lazy sailing vesseldrifting before a genial breeze, they place the turbine steamer crossingthe Atlantic in five days or the still swifter airplane, in fifteenhours. For the old workshop where a master and a dozen workmen andapprentices wrought by hand, they offer the giant factory where tenthousand persons attend the whirling wheels driven by steam. They writeof the "romance of invention" and the "captains of industry. "

[Illustration: _Copyright by Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

A CORNER IN THE BETHLEHEM STEEL WORKS]

=The Service of the Railway. =--All this is fitting in its way. Figuresand contrasts cannot, however, tell the whole story. Take, for example, the extension of railways. It is easy to relate that there were 30, 000miles in 1860; 166, 000 in 1890; and 242, 000 in 1910. It is easy to showupon the map how a few straggling lines became a perfect mesh of closelyknitted railways; or how, like the tentacles of a great monster, the fewroads ending in the Mississippi Valley in 1860 were extended andmultiplied until they tapped every wheat field, mine, and forest beyondthe valley. All this, eloquent of enterprise as it truly is, does notreveal the significance of railways for American life. It does notindicate how railways made a continental market for American goods; norhow they standardized the whole country, giving to cities on theadvancing frontier the leading features of cities in the old East; norhow they carried to the pioneer the comforts of civilization; nor yethow in the West they were the forerunners of civilization, the makers ofhomesteads, the builders of states. 

=Government Aid for Railways. =--Still the story is not ended. Thesignificant relation between railways and politics must not beoverlooked. The bounty of a lavish government, for example, madepossible the work of railway promoters. By the year 1872 the Federalgovernment had granted in aid of railways 155, 000, 000 acres of land--anarea estimated as almost equal to Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. TheUnion Pacific Company alone secured from the federal government a freeright of way through the public domain, twenty sections of land witheach mile of railway, and a loan up to fifty millions of dollars securedby a second mortgage on the company's property. More than half of thenorthern tier of states lying against Canada from Lake Michigan to thePacific was granted to private companies in aid of railways and wagonroads. About half of New Mexico, Arizona, and California was also givenoutright to railway companies. These vast grants from the federalgovernment were supplemented by gifts from the states in land and bysubscriptions amounting to more than two hundred million dollars. Thehistory of these gifts and their relation to the political leaders thatengineered them would alone fill a large and interesting volume. 

=Railway Fortunes and Capital. =--Out of this gigantic railway promotion, the first really immense American fortunes were made. Henry Adams, thegrandson of John Quincy Adams, related that his grandfather on hismother's side, Peter Brooks, on his death in 1849, left a fortune of twomillion dollars, "supposed to be the largest estate in Boston, " then oneof the few centers of great riches. Compared with the opulence thatsprang out of the Union Pacific, the Northern Pacific, the SouthernPacific, with their subsidiary and component lines, the estate of PeterBrooks was a poor man's heritage. 

The capital invested in these railways was enormous beyond theimagination of the men of the stagecoach generation. The total debt ofthe United States incurred in the Revolutionary War--a debt which thoseof little faith thought the country could never pay--was reckoned at afigure well under $75, 000, 000. When the Union Pacific Railroad wascompleted, there were outstanding against it $27, 000, 000 in firstmortgage bonds, $27, 000, 000 in second mortgage bonds held by thegovernment, $10, 000, 000 in income bonds, $10, 000, 000 in land grantbonds, and, on top of that huge bonded indebtedness, $36, 000, 000 instock--making $110, 000, 000 in all. If the amount due the United Statesgovernment be subtracted, still there remained, in private hands, stocksand bonds exceeding in value the whole national debt of Hamilton'sday--a debt that strained all the resources of the Federal government in1790. Such was the financial significance of the railways. 

[Illustration: RAILROADS OF THE UNITED STATES IN 1918]

=Growth and Extension of Industry. =--In the field of manufacturing, mining, and metal working, the results of business enterprise faroutstripped, if measured in mere dollars, the results of railwayconstruction. By the end of the century there were about ten billiondollars invested in factories alone and five million wage-earnersemployed in them; while the total value of the output, fourteen billiondollars, was fifteen times the figure for 1860. In the Eastern statesindustries multiplied. In the Northwest territory, the old home ofJacksonian Democracy, they overtopped agriculture. By the end of thecentury, Ohio had almost reached and Illinois had surpassedMassachusetts in the annual value of manufacturing output. 

That was not all. Untold wealth in the form of natural resources wasdiscovered in the South and West. Coal deposits were found in theAppalachians stretching from Pennsylvania down to Alabama, in Michigan, in the Mississippi Valley, and in the Western mountains from NorthDakota to New Mexico. In nearly every coal-bearing region, iron was alsodiscovered and the great fields of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesotasoon rivaled those of the Appalachian area. Copper, lead, gold, andsilver in fabulous quantities were unearthed by the restless prospectorswho left no plain or mountain fastness unexplored. Petroleum, firstpumped from the wells of Pennsylvania in the summer of 1859, made newfortunes equaling those of trade, railways, and land speculation. Itscattered its riches with an especially lavish hand through Oklahoma, Texas, and California. 

=The Trust--an Instrument of Industrial Progress. =--Business enterprise, under the direction of powerful men working single-handed, or of smallgroups of men pooling their capital for one or more undertakings, hadnot advanced far before there appeared upon the scene still mightierleaders of even greater imagination. New constructive genius now broughttogether and combined under one management hundreds of concerns orthousands of miles of railways, revealing the magic strength ofcoöperation on a national scale. Price-cutting in oil, threatening ruinto those engaged in the industry, as early as 1879, led a number ofcompanies in Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia to unite inprice-fixing. Three years later a group of oil interests formed a closeorganization, placing all their stocks in the hands of trustees, amongwhom was John D. Rockefeller. The trustees, in turn, issuedcertificates representing the share to which each participant wasentitled; and took over the management of the entire business. Such wasthe nature of the "trust, " which was to play such an unique rôle in theprogress of America. 

The idea of combination was applied in time to iron and steel, copper, lead, sugar, cordage, coal, and other commodities, until in each fieldthere loomed a giant trust or corporation, controlling, if not most ofthe output, at least enough to determine in a large measure the pricescharged to consumers. With the passing years, the railways, mills, mines, and other business concerns were transferred from individualowners to corporations. At the end of the nineteenth century, the wholeface of American business was changed. Three-fourths of the output fromindustries came from factories under corporate management and onlyone-fourth from individual and partnership undertakings. 

[Illustration: JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER]

=The Banking Corporation. =--Very closely related to the growth ofbusiness enterprise on a large scale was the system of banking. In theold days before banks, a person with savings either employed them in hisown undertakings, lent them to a neighbor, or hid them away where theyset no industry in motion. Even in the early stages of modern business, it was common for a manufacturer to rise from small beginnings byfinancing extensions out of his own earnings and profits. This state ofaffairs was profoundly altered by the growth of the huge corporationsrequiring millions and even billions of capital. The banks, once anadjunct to business, became the leaders in business. 

[Illustration: _Copyright by Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

WALL STREET, NEW YORK CITY]

It was the banks that undertook to sell the stocks and bonds issued bynew corporations and trusts and to supply them with credit to carry ontheir operations. Indeed, many of the great mergers or combinations inbusiness were initiated by magnates in the banking world with millionsand billions under their control. Through their connections with oneanother, the banks formed a perfect network of agencies gathering up thepennies and dollars of the masses as well as the thousands of the richand pouring them all into the channels of business and manufacturing. In this growth of banking on a national scale, it was inevitable that afew great centers, like Wall Street in New York or State Street inBoston, should rise to a position of dominance both in concentrating thesavings and profits of the nation and in financing new as well as oldcorporations. 

=The Significance of the Corporation. =--The corporation, in fact, becamethe striking feature of American business life, one of the mostmarvelous institutions of all time, comparable in wealth and power andthe number of its servants with kingdoms and states of old. The effectof its rise and growth cannot be summarily estimated; but some specialfacts are obvious. It made possible gigantic enterprises once entirelybeyond the reach of any individual, no matter how rich. It eliminatedmany of the futile and costly wastes of competition in connection withmanufacture, advertising, and selling. It studied the cheapest methodsof production and shut down mills that were poorly equipped ordisadvantageously located. It established laboratories for research inindustry, chemistry, and mechanical inventions. Through the sale ofstocks and bonds, it enabled tens of thousands of people to becomecapitalists, if only in a small way. The corporation made it possiblefor one person to own, for instance, a $50 share in a million dollarbusiness concern--a thing entirely impossible under a régime ofindividual owners and partnerships. 

There was, of course, another side to the picture. Many of thecorporations sought to become monopolies and to make profits, not byeconomies and good management, but by extortion from purchasers. Sometimes they mercilessly crushed small business men, theircompetitors, bribed members of legislatures to secure favorable laws, and contributed to the campaign funds of both leading parties. Wherevera trust approached the position of a monopoly, it acquired a dominionover the labor market which enabled it to break even the strongest tradeunions. In short, the power of the trust in finance, in manufacturing, in politics, and in the field of labor control can hardly be measured. 

=The Corporation and Labor. =--In the development of the corporationthere was to be observed a distinct severing of the old ties betweenmaster and workmen, which existed in the days of small industries. Forthe personal bond between the owner and the employees was substituted anew relation. "In most parts of our country, " as President Wilson oncesaid, "men work, not for themselves, not as partners in the old way inwhich they used to work, but generally as employees--in a higher orlower grade--of great corporations. " The owner disappeared from thefactory and in his place came the manager, representing the usuallyinvisible stockholders and dependent for his success upon his ability tomake profits for the owners. Hence the term "soulless corporation, "which was to exert such a deep influence on American thinking aboutindustrial relations. 

=Cities and Immigration. =--Expressed in terms of human life, this era ofunprecedented enterprise meant huge industrial cities and an immenselabor supply, derived mainly from European immigration. Here, too, figures tell only a part of the story. In Washington's day nine-tenthsof the American people were engaged in agriculture and lived in thecountry; in 1890 more than one-third of the population dwelt in towns of2500 and over; in 1920 more than half of the population lived in townsof over 2500. In forty years, between 1860 and 1900, Greater New Yorkhad grown from 1, 174, 000 to 3, 437, 000; San Francisco from 56, 000 to342, 000; Chicago from 109, 000 to 1, 698, 000. The miles of city tenementsbegan to rival, in the number of their residents, the farm homesteads ofthe West. The time so dreaded by Jefferson had arrived. People were"piled upon one another in great cities" and the republic of smallfarmers had passed away. 

To these industrial centers flowed annually an ever-increasing tide ofimmigration, reaching the half million point in 1880; rising tothree-quarters of a million three years later; and passing the millionmark in a single year at the opening of the new century. Immigration wasas old as America but new elements now entered the situation. In thefirst place, there were radical changes in the nationality of thenewcomers. The migration from Northern Europe--England, Ireland, Germany, and Scandinavia--diminished; that from Italy, Russia, andAustria-Hungary increased, more than three-fourths of the entire numbercoming from these three lands between the years 1900 and 1910. Theselater immigrants were Italians, Poles, Magyars, Czechs, Slovaks, Russians, and Jews, who came from countries far removed from thelanguage and the traditions of England whence came the founders ofAmerica. 

In the second place, the reception accorded the newcomers differed fromthat given to the immigrants in the early days. By 1890 all the freeland was gone. They could not, therefore, be dispersed widely among thenative Americans to assimilate quickly and unconsciously the habits andideas of American life. On the contrary, they were diverted mainly tothe industrial centers. There they crowded--nay, overcrowded--intocolonies of their own where they preserved their languages, theirnewspapers, and their old-world customs and views. 

So eager were American business men to get an enormous labor supply thatthey asked few questions about the effect of this "alien invasion" uponthe old America inherited from the fathers. They even stimulated theinvasion artificially by importing huge armies of foreigners undercontract to work in specified mines and mills. There seemed to be nolimit to the factories, forges, refineries, and railways that could bebuilt, to the multitudes that could be employed in conquering acontinent. As for the future, that was in the hands of Providence!

=Business Theories of Politics. =--As the statesmen of Hamilton's schooland the planters of Calhoun's had their theories of government andpolitics, so the leaders in business enterprise had theirs. It wassimple and easily stated. "It is the duty of the government, " theyurged, "to protect American industry against foreign competition bymeans of high tariffs on imported goods, to aid railways by generousgrants of land, to sell mineral and timber lands at low prices toenergetic men ready to develop them, and then to leave the rest to theinitiative and drive of individuals and companies. " All governmentinterference with the management, prices, rates, charges, and conduct ofprivate business they held to be either wholly pernicious or intolerablyimpertinent. Judging from their speeches and writings, they conceivedthe nation as a great collection of individuals, companies, and laborunions all struggling for profits or high wages and held together by agovernment whose principal duty was to keep the peace among them andprotect industry against the foreign manufacturer. Such was thepolitical theory of business during the generation that followed theCivil War. 

THE SUPREMACY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY (1861-85)

=Business Men and Republican Policies. =--Most of the leaders in industrygravitated to the Republican ranks. They worked in the North and theRepublican party was essentially Northern. It was moreover--at least sofar as the majority of its members were concerned--committed toprotective tariffs, a sound monetary and banking system, the promotionof railways and industry by land grants, and the development of internalimprovements. It was furthermore generous in its immigration policy. Itproclaimed America to be an asylum for the oppressed of all countriesand flung wide the doors for immigrants eager to fill the factories, manthe mines, and settle upon Western lands. In a word the Republicansstood for all those specific measures which favored the enlargement andprosperity of business. At the same time they resisted governmentinterference with private enterprise. They did not regulate railwayrates, prosecute trusts for forming combinations, or prevent railwaycompanies from giving lower rates to some shippers than to others. Tosum it up, the political theories of the Republican party for threedecades after the Civil War were the theories of Americanbusiness--prosperous and profitable industries for the owners and "thefull dinner pail" for the workmen. Naturally a large portion of thosewho flourished under its policies gave their support to it, voted forits candidates, and subscribed to its campaign funds. 

=Sources of Republican Strength in the North. =--The Republican party wasin fact a political organization of singular power. It originated in awave of moral enthusiasm, having attracted to itself, if not theabolitionists, certainly all those idealists, like James Russell Lowelland George William Curtis, who had opposed slavery when opposition wasneither safe nor popular. To moral principles it added practicalconsiderations. Business men had confidence in it. Workingmen, wholonged for the independence of the farmer, owed to its indulgent landpolicy the opportunity of securing free homesteads in the West. Theimmigrant, landing penniless on these shores, as a result of the samebeneficent system, often found himself in a little while with an estateas large as many a baronial domain in the Old World. Under a Republicanadministration, the union had been saved. To it the veterans of the warcould turn with confidence for those rewards of service which thegovernment could bestow: pensions surpassing in liberality anything thatthe world had ever seen. Under a Republican administration also thegreat debt had been created in the defense of the union, and to theRepublican party every investor in government bonds could look for thefull and honorable discharge of the interest and principal. The spoilssystem, inaugurated by Jacksonian Democracy, in turn placed all thefederal offices in Republican hands, furnishing an army of party workersto be counted on for loyal service in every campaign. 

Of all these things Republican leaders made full and vigorous use, sometimes ascribing to the party, in accordance with ancient politicalusage, merits and achievements not wholly its own. Particularly was thistrue in the case of saving the union. "When in the economy ofProvidence, this land was to be purged of human slavery . .. TheRepublican party came into power, " ran a declaration in one platform. "The Republican party suppressed a gigantic rebellion, emancipated fourmillion slaves, decreed the equal citizenship of all, and establisheduniversal suffrage, " ran another. As for the aid rendered by themillions of Northern Democrats who stood by the union and the tens ofthousands of them who actually fought in the union army, the Republicansin their zeal were inclined to be oblivious. They repeatedly charged theDemocratic party "with being the same in character and spirit as when itsympathized with treason. "

=Republican Control of the South. =--To the strength enjoyed in theNorth, the Republicans for a long time added the advantages that camefrom control over the former Confederate states where the newlyenfranchised negroes, under white leadership, gave a grateful support tothe party responsible for their freedom. In this branch of politics, motives were so mixed that no historian can hope to appraise them all attheir proper values. On the one side of the ledger must be set thevigorous efforts of the honest and sincere friends of the freedmen towin for them complete civil and political equality, wiping out not onlyslavery but all its badges of misery and servitude. On the same sidemust be placed the labor of those who had valiantly fought in forum andfield to save the union and who regarded continued Republican supremacyafter the war as absolutely necessary to prevent the former leaders insecession from coming back to power. At the same time there wereundoubtedly some men of the baser sort who looked on politics as a gameand who made use of "carpet-bagging" in the South to win the spoils thatmight result from it. At all events, both by laws and presidential acts, the Republicans for many years kept a keen eye upon the maintenance oftheir dominion in the South. Their declaration that neither the law norits administration should admit any discrimination in respect ofcitizens by reason of race, color, or previous condition of servitudeappealed to idealists and brought results in elections. Even SouthCarolina, where reposed the ashes of John C. Calhoun, went Republican in1872 by a vote of three to one!

Republican control was made easy by the force bills described in aprevious chapter--measures which vested the supervision of elections infederal officers appointed by Republican Presidents. These drasticmeasures, departing from American tradition, the Republican authorsurged, were necessary to safeguard the purity of the ballot, not merelyin the South where the timid freedman might readily be frightened fromusing it; but also in the North, particularly in New York City, where itwas claimed that fraud was regularly practiced by Democratic leaders. 

The Democrats, on their side, indignantly denied the charges, replyingthat the force bills were nothing but devices created by the Republicansfor the purpose of securing their continued rule through systematicinterference with elections. Even the measures of reconstruction weredeemed by Democratic leaders as thinly veiled schemes to establishRepublican power throughout the country. "Nor is there the slightestdoubt, " exclaimed Samuel J. Tilden, spokesman of the Democrats in NewYork and candidate for President in 1876, "that the paramount object andmotive of the Republican party is by these means to secure itselfagainst a reaction of opinion adverse to it in our great populousNorthern commonwealths. .. . When the Republican party resolved toestablish negro supremacy in the ten states in order to gain to itselfthe representation of those states in Congress, it had to begin bygoverning the people of those states by the sword. .. . The next was thecreation of new electoral bodies for those ten states, in which, byexclusions, by disfranchisements and proscriptions, by control overregistration, by applying test oaths . .. By intimidation and by everyform of influence, three million negroes are made to predominate overfour and a half million whites. "

=The War as a Campaign Issue. =--Even the repeal of force bills could notallay the sectional feelings engendered by the war. The Republicanscould not forgive the men who had so recently been in arms against theunion and insisted on calling them "traitors" and "rebels. " TheSoutherners, smarting under the reconstruction acts, could regard theRepublicans only as political oppressors. The passions of the war hadbeen too strong; the distress too deep to be soon forgotten. Thegeneration that went through it all remembered it all. For twentyyears, the Republicans, in their speeches and platforms, made "astraight appeal to the patriotism of the Northern voters. " Theymaintained that their party, which had saved the union and emancipatedthe slaves, was alone worthy of protecting the union and uplifting thefreedmen. 

Though the Democrats, especially in the North, resented this policy anddubbed it with the expressive but inelegant phrase, "waving the bloodyshirt, " the Republicans refused to surrender a slogan which made such aready popular appeal. As late as 1884, a leader expressed the hope thatthey might "wring one more President from the bloody shirt. " Theyrefused to let the country forget that the Democratic candidate, GroverCleveland, had escaped military service by hiring a substitute; and theymade political capital out of the fact that he had "insulted theveterans of the Grand Army of the Republic" by going fishing onDecoration Day. 

=Three Republican Presidents. =--Fortified by all these elements ofstrength, the Republicans held the presidency from 1869 to 1885. Thethree Presidents elected in this period, Grant, Hayes, and Garfield, hadcertain striking characteristics in common. They were all of originhumble enough to please the most exacting Jacksonian Democrat. They hadbeen generals in the union army. Grant, next to Lincoln, was regarded asthe savior of the Constitution. Hayes and Garfield, though lesser lightsin the military firmament, had honorable records duly appreciated byveterans of the war, now thoroughly organized into the Grand Army of theRepublic. It is true that Grant was not a politician and had never votedthe Republican ticket; but this was readily overlooked. Hayes andGarfield on the other hand were loyal party men. The former had servedin Congress and for three terms as governor of his state. The latter hadlong been a member of the House of Representatives and was Senator-electwhen he received the nomination for President. 

All of them possessed, moreover, another important asset, which was notforgotten by the astute managers who led in selecting candidates. Allof them were from Ohio--though Grant had been in Illinois when thesummons to military duties came--and Ohio was a strategic state. It laybetween the manufacturing East and the agrarian country to the West. Having growing industries and wool to sell it benefited from theprotective tariff. Yet being mainly agricultural still, it was notwithout sympathy for the farmers who showed low tariff or free tradetendencies. Whatever share the East had in shaping laws and framingpolicies, it was clear that the West was to have the candidates. Thisdivision in privileges--not uncommon in political management--was alwaysaccompanied by a judicious selection of the candidate for VicePresident. With Garfield, for example, was associated a prominent NewYork politician, Chester A. Arthur, who, as fate decreed, was destinedto more than three years' service as chief magistrate, on theassassination of his superior in office. 

=The Disputed Election of 1876. =--While taking note of the long years ofRepublican supremacy, it must be recorded that grave doubts exist in theminds of many historians as to whether one of the three Presidents, Hayes, was actually the victor in 1876 or not. His Democratic opponent, Samuel J. Tilden, received a popular plurality of a quarter of a millionand had a plausible claim to a majority of the electoral vote. At allevents, four states sent in double returns, one set for Tilden andanother for Hayes; and a deadlock ensued. Both parties vehementlyclaimed the election and the passions ran so high that sober men did notshrink from speaking of civil war again. Fortunately, in the end, thecounsels of peace prevailed. Congress provided for an electoralcommission of fifteen men to review the contested returns. TheDemocrats, inspired by Tilden's moderation, accepted the judgment infavor of Hayes even though they were not convinced that he was reallyentitled to the office. 

THE GROWTH OF OPPOSITION TO REPUBLICAN RULE

=Abuses in American Political Life. =--During their long tenure ofoffice, the Republicans could not escape the inevitable consequences ofpower; that is, evil practices and corrupt conduct on the part of somewho found shelter within the party. For that matter neither did theDemocrats manage to avoid such difficulties in those states and citieswhere they had the majority. In New York City, for instance, the localDemocratic organization, known as Tammany Hall, passed under the sway ofa group of politicians headed by "Boss" Tweed. He plundered the citytreasury until public-spirited citizens, supported by Samuel J. Tilden, the Democratic leader of the state, rose in revolt, drove the ringleaderfrom power, and sent him to jail. In Philadelphia, the local Republicanbosses were guilty of offenses as odious as those committed by New Yorkpoliticians. Indeed, the decade that followed the Civil War was marredby so many scandals in public life that one acute editor was moved toinquire: "Are not all the great communities of the Western World growingmore corrupt as they grow in wealth?"

In the sphere of national politics, where the opportunities weregreater, betrayals of public trust were even more flagrant. Onerevelation after another showed officers, high and low, possessed withthe spirit of peculation. Members of Congress, it was found, acceptedrailway stock in exchange for votes in favor of land grants and otherconcessions to the companies. In the administration as well as thelegislature the disease was rife. Revenue officers permitted whiskydistillers to evade their taxes and received heavy bribes in return. Aprobe into the post-office department revealed the malodorous "starroute frauds"--the deliberate overpayment of certain mail carriers whoselines were indicated in the official record by asterisks or stars. Evencabinet officers did not escape suspicion, for the trail of the serpentled straight to the door of one of them. 

In the lower ranges of official life, the spoils system became morevirulent as the number of federal employees increased. The holders ofoffices and the seekers after them constituted a veritable politicalarmy. They crowded into Republican councils, for the Republicans, beingin power, could alone dispense federal favors. They filled positions inthe party ranging from the lowest township committee to the nationalconvention. They helped to nominate candidates and draft platforms andelbowed to one side the busy citizen, not conversant with partyintrigues, who could only give an occasional day to political matters. Even the Civil Service Act of 1883, wrung from a reluctant Congress twoyears after the assassination of Garfield, made little change for a longtime. It took away from the spoilsmen a few thousand governmentpositions, but it formed no check on the practice of rewarding partyworkers from the public treasury. 

On viewing this state of affairs, many a distinguished citizen becameprofoundly discouraged. James Russell Lowell, for example, thought hesaw a steady decline in public morals. In 1865, hearing of Lee'ssurrender, he had exclaimed: "There is something magnificent in having acountry to love!" Ten years later, when asked to write an ode for thecentennial at Philadelphia in 1876, he could think only of a bitingsatire on the nation:

 "Show your state legislatures; show your Rings; And challenge Europe to produce such things As high officials sitting half in sight To share the plunder and fix things right. If that don't fetch her, why, you need only To show your latest style in martyrs, --Tweed: She'll find it hard to hide her spiteful tears At such advance in one poor hundred years. "

When his critics condemned him for this "attack upon his native land, "Lowell replied in sadness: "These fellows have no notion of what love ofcountry means. It was in my very blood and bones. If I am not anAmerican who ever was?. .. What fills me with doubt and dismay is thedegradation of the moral tone. Is it or is it not a result of democracy?Is ours a 'government of the people, by the people, for the people, ' ora Kakistocracy [a government of the worst], rather for the benefit ofknaves at the cost of fools?"

=The Reform Movement in Republican Ranks. =--The sentiments expressed byLowell, himself a Republican and for a time American ambassador toEngland, were shared by many men in his party. Very soon after the closeof the Civil War some of them began to protest vigorously against thepolicies and conduct of their leaders. In 1872, the dissenters, callingthemselves Liberal Republicans, broke away altogether, nominated acandidate of their own, Horace Greeley, and put forward a platformindicting the Republican President fiercely enough to please the mostuncompromising Democrat. They accused Grant of using "the powers andopportunities of his high office for the promotion of personal ends. "They charged him with retaining "notoriously corrupt and unworthy men inplaces of power and responsibility. " They alleged that the Republicanparty kept "alive the passions and resentments of the late civil war touse them for their own advantages, " and employed the "public service ofthe government as a machinery of corruption and personal influence. "

It was not apparent, however, from the ensuing election that anyconsiderable number of Republicans accepted the views of the Liberals. Greeley, though indorsed by the Democrats, was utterly routed and diedof a broken heart. The lesson of his discomfiture seemed to be thatindependent action was futile. So, at least, it was regarded by most menof the rising generation like Henry Cabot Lodge, of Massachusetts, andTheodore Roosevelt, of New York. Profiting by the experience of Greeleythey insisted in season and out that reformers who desired to rid theparty of abuses should remain loyal to it and do their work "on theinside. "

=The Mugwumps and Cleveland Democracy in 1884. =--Though aided byRepublican dissensions, the Democrats were slow in making headwayagainst the political current. They were deprived of the energetic andcapable leadership once afforded by the planters, like Calhoun, Davis, and Toombs; they were saddled by their opponents with responsibility forsecession; and they were stripped of the support of the prostrateSouth. Not until the last Southern state was restored to the union, notuntil a general amnesty was wrung from Congress, not until whitesupremacy was established at the polls, and the last federal soldierwithdrawn from Southern capitals did they succeed in capturing thepresidency. 

The opportune moment for them came in 1884 when a number ofcircumstances favored their aspirations. The Republicans, leaving theOhio Valley in their search for a candidate, nominated James G. Blaineof Maine, a vigorous and popular leader but a man under fire from thereformers in his own party. The Democrats on their side were able tofind at this juncture an able candidate who had no political enemies inthe sphere of national politics, Grover Cleveland, then governor of NewYork and widely celebrated as a man of "sterling honesty. " At the sametime a number of dissatisfied Republicans openly espoused the Democraticcause, --among them Carl Schurz, George William Curtis, Henry WardBeecher, and William Everett, men of fine ideals and undoubtedintegrity. Though the "regular" Republicans called them "Mugwumps" andlaughed at them as the "men milliners, the dilettanti, and carpetknights of politics, " they had a following that was not to be despised. 

The campaign which took place that year was one of the most savage inAmerican history. Issues were thrust into the background. The tariff, though mentioned, was not taken seriously. Abuse of the opposition wasthe favorite resource of party orators. The Democrats insisted that "theRepublican party so far as principle is concerned is a reminiscence. Inpractice it is an organization for enriching those who control itsmachinery. " For the Republican candidate, Blaine, they could hardly findwords to express their contempt. The Republicans retaliated in kind. They praised their own good works, as of old, in saving the union, anddenounced the "fraud and violence practiced by the Democracy in theSouthern states. " Seeing little objectionable in the public record ofCleveland as mayor of Buffalo and governor of New York, they attackedhis personal character. Perhaps never in the history of politicalcampaigns did the discussions on the platform and in the press sink toso low a level. Decent people were sickened. Even hot partisans shrankfrom their own words when, after the election, they had time to reflecton their heedless passions. Moreover, nothing was decided by theballoting. Cleveland was elected, but his victory was a narrow one. Achange of a few hundred votes in New York would have sent his opponentto the White House instead. 

=Changing Political Fortunes (1888-96). =--After the Democrats hadsettled down to the enjoyment of their hard-earned victory, PresidentCleveland in his message of 1887 attacked the tariff as "vicious, inequitable, and illogical"; as a system of taxation that laid a burdenupon "every consumer in the land for the benefit of our manufacturers. "Business enterprise was thoroughly alarmed. The Republicanscharacterized the tariff message as a free-trade assault upon theindustries of the country. Mainly on that issue they elected in 1888Benjamin Harrison of Indiana, a shrewd lawyer, a reticent politician, adescendant of the hero of Tippecanoe, and a son of the old Northwest. Accepting the outcome of the election as a vindication of theirprinciples, the Republicans, under the leadership of William McKinley inthe House of Representatives, enacted in 1890 a tariff law imposing thehighest duties yet laid in our history. To their utter surprise, however, they were instantly informed by the country that their programwas not approved. That very autumn they lost in the congressionalelections, and two years later they were decisively beaten in thepresidential campaign, Cleveland once more leading his party to victory. 

=References=

L. H. Haney, _Congressional History of Railways_ (2 vols. ). 

J. P. Davis, _Union Pacific Railway_. 

J. M. Swank, _History of the Manufacture of Iron_. 

M. T. Copeland, _The Cotton Manufacturing Industry in the United States_(Harvard Studies). 

E. W. Bryce, _Progress of Invention in the Nineteenth Century_. 

Ida Tarbell, _History of the Standard Oil Company_ (Critical). 

G. H. Montague, _Rise and Progress of the Standard Oil Company_(Friendly). 

H. P. Fairchild, _Immigration_, and F. J. Warne, _The Immigrant Invasion_(Both works favor exclusion). 

I. A. Hourwich, _Immigration_ (Against exclusionist policies). 

J. F. Rhodes, _History of the United States, 1877-1896_, Vol. VIII. 

Edward Stanwood, _A History of the Presidency_, Vol. I, for thepresidential elections of the period. 

=Questions=

1. Contrast the state of industry and commerce at the close of the CivilWar with its condition at the close of the Revolutionary War. 

2. Enumerate the services rendered to the nation by the railways. 

3. Explain the peculiar relation of railways to government. 

4. What sections of the country have been industrialized?

5. How do you account for the rise and growth of the trusts? Explainsome of the economic advantages of the trust. 

6. Are the people in cities more or less independent than the farmers?What was Jefferson's view?

7. State some of the problems raised by unrestricted immigration. 

8. What was the theory of the relation of government to business in thisperiod? Has it changed in recent times?

9. State the leading economic policies sponsored by the Republicanparty. 

10. Why were the Republicans especially strong immediately after theCivil War?

11. What illustrations can you give showing the influence of war inAmerican political campaigns?

12. Account for the strength of middle-western candidates. 

13. Enumerate some of the abuses that appeared in American politicallife after 1865. 

14. Sketch the rise and growth of the reform movement. 

15. How is the fluctuating state of public opinion reflected in theelections from 1880 to 1896?

=Research Topics=

=Invention, Discovery, and Transportation. =--Sparks, _NationalDevelopment_ (American Nation Series), pp. 37-67; Bogart, _EconomicHistory of the United States_, Chaps. XXI, XXII, and XXIII. 

=Business and Politics. =--Paxson, _The New Nation_ (Riverside Series), pp. 92-107; Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. VII, pp. 1-29, 64-73, 175-206; Wilson, _History of the American People_, Vol. IV, pp. 78-96. 

=Immigration. =--Coman, _Industrial History of the United States_ (2ded. ), pp. 369-374; E. L. Bogart, _Economic History of the United States_, pp. 420-422, 434-437; Jenks and Lauck, _Immigration Problems_, Commons, _Races and Immigrants_. 

=The Disputed Election of 1876. =--Haworth, _The United States in Our OwnTime_, pp. 82-94; Dunning, _Reconstruction, Political and Economic_(American Nation Series), pp. 294-341; Elson, _History of the UnitedStates_, pp. 835-841. 

=Abuses in Political Life. =--Dunning, _Reconstruction_, pp. 281-293; seecriticisms in party platforms in Stanwood, _History of the Presidency_, Vol. I; Bryce, _American Commonwealth_ (1910 ed. ), Vol. II, pp. 379-448;136-167. 

=Studies of Presidential Administrations. =--(_a_) Grant, (_b_) Hayes, (_c_) Garfield-Arthur, (_d_) Cleveland, and (_e_) Harrison, in Haworth, _The United States in Our Own Time_, or in Paxson, _The New Nation_(Riverside Series), or still more briefly in Elson. 

=Cleveland Democracy. =--Haworth, _The United States_, pp. 164-183;Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. VIII, pp. 240-327; Elson, pp. 857-887. 

=Analysis of Modern Immigration Problems. =--_Syllabus in History_ (NewYork State, 1919), pp. 110-112. 

CHAPTER XVIII

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GREAT WEST

At the close of the Civil War, Kansas and Texas were sentinel states onthe middle border. Beyond the Rockies, California, Oregon, and Nevadastood guard, the last of them having been just admitted to furnishanother vote for the fifteenth amendment abolishing slavery. Between thenear and far frontiers lay a vast reach of plain, desert, plateau, andmountain, almost wholly undeveloped. A broad domain, extending fromCanada to Mexico, and embracing the regions now included in Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, the Dakotas, andOklahoma, had fewer than half a million inhabitants. It was laid outinto territories, each administered under a governor appointed by thePresident and Senate and, as soon as there was the requisite number ofinhabitants, a legislature elected by the voters. No railway linestretched across the desert. St. Joseph on the Missouri was the terminusof the Eastern lines. It required twenty-five days for a passenger tomake the overland journey to California by the stagecoach system, established in 1858, and more than ten days for the swift pony express, organized in 1860, to carry a letter to San Francisco. Indians stillroamed the plain and desert and more than one powerful tribe disputedthe white man's title to the soil. 

THE RAILWAYS AS TRAIL BLAZERS

=Opening Railways to the Pacific. =--A decade before the Civil War theimportance of rail connection between the East and the Pacific Coast hadbeen recognized. Pressure had already been brought to bear on Congressto authorize the construction of a line and to grant land and money inits aid. Both the Democrats and Republicans approved the idea, but itwas involved in the slavery controversy. Indeed it was submerged in it. Southern statesmen wanted connections between the Gulf and the Pacificthrough Texas, while Northerners stood out for a central route. 

The North had its way during the war. Congress, by legislation initiatedin 1862, provided for the immediate organization of companies to build aline from the Missouri River to California and made grants of land andloans of money to aid in the enterprise. The Western end, the CentralPacific, was laid out under the supervision of Leland Stanford. It washeavily financed by the Mormons of Utah and also by the stategovernment, the ranchmen, miners, and business men of California; and itwas built principally by Chinese labor. The Eastern end, the UnionPacific, starting at Omaha, was constructed mainly by veterans of theCivil War and immigrants from Ireland and Germany. In 1869 the twocompanies met near Ogden in Utah and the driving of the last spike, uniting the Atlantic and the Pacific, was the occasion of a greatdemonstration. 

Other lines to the Pacific were projected at the same time; but thepanic of 1873 checked railway enterprise for a while. With the revivalof prosperity at the end of that decade, construction was renewed withvigor and the year 1883 marked a series of railway triumphs. In Februarytrains were running from New Orleans through Houston, San Antonio, andYuma to San Francisco, as a result of a union of the Texas Pacific withthe Southern Pacific and its subsidiary corporations. In September thelast spike was driven in the Northern Pacific at Helena, Montana. LakeSuperior was connected with Puget Sound. The waters explored by Jolietand Marquette were joined to the waters plowed by Sir Francis Drakewhile he was searching for a route around the world. That same year alsoa third line was opened to the Pacific by way of the Atchison, Topekaand Santa Fé, making connections through Albuquerque and Needles withSan Francisco. The fondest hopes of railway promoters seemed to berealized. 

[Illustration: UNITED STATES IN 1870]

=Western Railways Precede Settlement. =--In the Old World and on ourAtlantic seaboard, railways followed population and markets. In the FarWest, railways usually preceded the people. Railway builders plannedcities on paper before they laid tracks connecting them. They sentmissionaries to spread the gospel of "Western opportunity" to people inthe Middle West, in the Eastern cities, and in Southern states. Thenthey carried their enthusiastic converts bag and baggage in long trainsto the distant Dakotas and still farther afield. So the development ofthe Far West was not left to the tedious processes of time. It waspushed by men of imagination--adventurers who made a romance ofmoney-making and who had dreams of empire unequaled by many kings of thepast. 

These empire builders bought railway lands in huge tracts; they got morefrom the government; they overcame every obstacle of cañon, mountain, and stream with the aid of science; they built cities according to theplans made by the engineers. Having the towns ready and railway andsteamboat connections formed with the rest of the world, they carriedout the people to use the railways, the steamships, the houses, and theland. It was in this way that "the frontier speculator paved the way forthe frontier agriculturalist who had to be near a market before he couldfarm. " The spirit of this imaginative enterprise, which laid outrailways and towns in advance of the people, is seen in an advertisementof that day: "This extension will run 42 miles from York, northeastthrough the Island Lake country, and will have five good North Dakotatowns. The stations on the line will be well equipped with elevators andwill be constructed and ready for operation at the commencement of thegrain season. Prospective merchants have been active in securingdesirable locations at the different towns on the line. There are stillopportunities for hotels, general merchandise, hardware, furniture, anddrug stores, etc. "

[Illustration: _Copyright by Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

A TOWN ON THE PRAIRIE]

Among the railway promoters and builders in the West, James J. Hill, of the Great Northern and allied lines, was one of the most forcefulfigures. He knew that tracks and trains were useless without passengersand freight; without a population of farmers and town dwellers. Hetherefore organized publicity in the Virginias, Iowa, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Nebraska especially. He sent out agents to tellthe story of Western opportunity in this vein: "You see your childrencome out of school with no chance to get farms of their own because thecost of land in your older part of the country is so high that you can'tafford to buy land to start your sons out in life around you. They haveto go to the cities to make a living or become laborers in the mills orhire out as farm hands. There is no future for them there. If you aredoing well where you are and can safeguard the future of your childrenand see them prosper around you, don't leave here. But if you wantindependence, if you are renting your land, if the money-lender iscarrying you along and you are running behind year after year, you cando no worse by moving. .. . You farmers talk of free trade and protectionand what this or that political party will do for you. Why don't youvote a homestead for yourself? That is the only thing Uncle Sam willever give you. Jim Hill hasn't an acre of land to sell you. We are notin the real estate business. We don't want you to go out West and make afailure of it because the rates at which we haul you and your goods makethe first transaction a loss. .. . We must have landless men for a manlessland. "

Unlike steamship companies stimulating immigration to get the fares, Hill was seeking permanent settlers who would produce, manufacture, anduse the railways as the means of exchange. Consequently he fixed lowrates and let his passengers take a good deal of live stock andhousehold furniture free. By doing this he made an appeal that wasanswered by eager families. In 1894 the vanguard of home seekers leftIndiana in fourteen passenger coaches, filled with men, women, andchildren, and forty-eight freight cars carrying their household goodsand live stock. In the ten years that followed, 100, 000 people from theMiddle West and the South, responding to his call, went to the Westerncountry where they brought eight million acres of prairie land undercultivation. 

When Hill got his people on the land, he took an interest in everythingthat increased the productivity of their labor. Was the output of foodfor his freight cars limited by bad drainage on the farms? Hill theninterested himself in practical ways of ditching and tiling. Werefarmers hampered in hauling their goods to his trains by bad roads? Inthat case, he urged upon the states the improvement of highways. Did thetraffic slacken because the food shipped was not of the best quality?Then live stock must be improved and scientific farming promoted. Didthe farmers need credit? Banks must be established close at hand toadvance it. In all conferences on scientific farm management, conservation of natural resources, banking and credit in relation toagriculture and industry, Hill was an active participant. His was thelong vision, seeing in conservation and permanent improvements thefoundation of prosperity for the railways and the people. 

Indeed, he neglected no opportunity to increase the traffic on thelines. He wanted no empty cars running in either direction and no wheatstored in warehouses for the lack of markets. So he looked to the Orientas well as to Europe as an outlet for the surplus of the farms. He sentagents to China and Japan to discover what American goods and producethose countries would consume and what manufactures they had to offer toAmericans in exchange. To open the Pacific trade he bought two oceanmonsters, the _Minnesota_ and the _Dakota_, thus preparing foremergencies West as well as East. When some Japanese came to the UnitedStates on their way to Europe to buy steel rails, Hill showed them howeasy it was for them to make their purchase in this country and ship byway of American railways and American vessels. So the railway builderand promoter, who helped to break the virgin soil of the prairies, livedthrough the pioneer epoch and into the age of great finance. Before hedied he saw the wheat fields of North Dakota linked with the spinningjennies of Manchester and the docks of Yokohama. 

THE EVOLUTION OF GRAZING AND AGRICULTURE

=The Removal of the Indians. =--Unlike the frontier of New England incolonial days or that of Kentucky later, the advancing lines of homebuilders in the Far West had little difficulty with warlike natives. Indian attacks were made on the railway construction gangs; GeneralCuster had his fatal battle with the Sioux in 1876 and there were minorbrushes; but they were all of relatively slight consequence. The formerpractice of treating with the Indians as independent nations wasabandoned in 1871 and most of them were concentrated in reservationswhere they were mainly supported by the government. The supervision oftheir affairs was vested in a board of commissioners created in 1869 andinstructed to treat them as wards of the nation--a trust whichunfortunately was often betrayed. A further step in Indian policy wastaken in 1887 when provision was made for issuing lands to individualIndians, thus permitting them to become citizens and settle down amongtheir white neighbors as farmers or cattle raisers. The disappearance ofthe buffalo, the main food supply of the wild Indians, had made themmore tractable and more willing to surrender the freedom of the hunterfor the routine of the reservation, ranch, or wheat field. 

=The Cowboy and Cattle Ranger. =--Between the frontier of farms and themountains were plains and semi-arid regions in vast reaches suitable forgrazing. As soon as the railways were open into the Missouri Valley, affording an outlet for stock, there sprang up to the westward cattleand sheep raising on an immense scale. The far-famed American cowboy wasthe hero in this scene. Great herds of cattle were bred in Texas; withthe advancing spring and summer seasons, they were driven northwardacross the plains and over the buffalo trails. In a single year, 1884, it is estimated that nearly one million head of cattle were moved out ofTexas to the North by four thousand cowboys, supplied with 30, 000horses and ponies. 

During the two decades from 1870 to 1890 both the cattle men and thesheep raisers had an almost free run of the plains, using public landswithout paying for the privilege and waging war on one another over thepossession of ranges. At length, however, both had to go, as thehomesteaders and land companies came and fenced in the plain and desertwith endless lines of barbed wire. Already in 1893 a writer familiarwith the frontier lamented the passing of the picturesque days: "Theunique position of the cowboys among the Americans is jeopardized in athousand ways. Towns are growing up on their pasture lands; irrigationschemes of a dozen sorts threaten to turn bunch-grass scenery intofarm-land views; farmers are pre-empting valleys and the sides ofwaterways; and the day is not far distant when stock-raising must bedone mainly in small herds, with winter corrals, and then the cowboy'sdays will end. Even now his condition disappoints those who knew himonly half a dozen years ago. His breed seems to have deteriorated andhis ranks are filling with men who work for wages rather than for thelove of the free life and bold companionship that once tempted men intothat calling. Splendid Cheyenne saddles are less and less numerous inthe outfits; the distinctive hat that made its way up from Mexico may ormay not be worn; all the civil authorities in nearly all towns in thegrazing country forbid the wearing of side arms; nobody shoots up thesetowns any more. The fact is the old simon-pure cowboy days are gonealready. "

=Settlement under the Homestead Act of 1862. =--Two factors gave aspecial stimulus to the rapid settlement of Western lands which sweptaway the Indians and the cattle rangers. The first was the policy of therailway companies in selling large blocks of land received from thegovernment at low prices to induce immigration. The second was theoperation of the Homestead law passed in 1862. This measure practicallyclosed the long controversy over the disposition of the public domainthat was suitable for agriculture. It provided for granting, without anycost save a small registration fee, public lands in lots of 160 acreseach to citizens and aliens who declared their intention of becomingcitizens. The one important condition attached was that the settlershould occupy the farm for five years before his title was finallyconfirmed. Even this stipulation was waived in the case of the Civil Warveterans who were allowed to count their term of military service as apart of the five years' occupancy required. As the soldiers of theRevolutionary and Mexican wars had advanced in great numbers to thefrontier in earlier days, so now veterans led in the settlement of themiddle border. Along with them went thousands of German, Irish, andScandinavian immigrants, fresh from the Old World. Between 1867 and1874, 27, 000, 000 acres were staked out in quarter-section farms. Intwenty years (1860-80), the population of Nebraska leaped from 28, 000 toalmost half a million; Kansas from 100, 000 to a million; Iowa from600, 000 to 1, 600, 000; and the Dakotas from 5000 to 140, 000. 

=The Diversity of Western Agriculture. =--In soil, produce, andmanagement, Western agriculture presented many contrasts to that of theEast and South. In the region of arable and watered lands the typicalAmerican unit--the small farm tilled by the owner--appeared as usual;but by the side of it many a huge domain owned by foreign or Easterncompanies and tilled by hired labor. Sometimes the great estate took theshape of the "bonanza farm" devoted mainly to wheat and corn andcultivated on a large scale by machinery. Again it assumed the form ofthe cattle ranch embracing tens of thousands of acres. Again it was avast holding of diversified interest, such as the Santa Anita ranch nearLos Angeles, a domain of 60, 000 acres "cultivated in a glorious sweep ofvineyards and orange and olive orchards, rich sheep and cattle pasturesand horse ranches, their life and customs handed down from the Spanishowners of the various ranches which were swept into one estate. "

=Irrigation. =--In one respect agriculture in the Far West was unique. Ina large area spreading through eight states, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of adjoiningstates, the rainfall was so slight that the ordinary crops to which theAmerican farmer was accustomed could not be grown at all. The Mormonswere the first Anglo-Saxons to encounter aridity, and they were baffledat first; but they studied it and mastered it by magnificent irrigationsystems. As other settlers poured into the West the problem of thedesert was attacked with a will, some of them replying to thecommiseration of Eastern farmers by saying that it was easier to scoopout an irrigation ditch than to cut forests and wrestle with stumps andstones. Private companies bought immense areas at low prices, builtirrigation works, and disposed of their lands in small plots. Someranchers with an instinct for water, like that of the miner for metal, sank wells into the dry sand and were rewarded with gushers that "sousedthe thirsty desert and turned its good-for-nothing sand intogood-for-anything loam. " The federal government came to the aid of thearid regions in 1894 by granting lands to the states to be used forirrigation purposes. In this work Wyoming took the lead with a law whichinduced capitalists to invest in irrigation and at the same timeprovided for the sale of the redeemed lands to actual settlers. Finallyin 1902 the federal government by its liberal Reclamation Act added itsstrength to that of individuals, companies, and states in conquering"arid America. "

"Nowhere, " writes Powell, a historian of the West, in his picturesque_End of the Trail_, "has the white man fought a more courageous fight orwon a more brilliant victory than in Arizona. His weapons have been thetransit and the level, the drill and the dredge, the pick and the spade;and the enemy which he has conquered has been the most stubborn of allfoes--the hostile forces of Nature. .. . The story of how the white manwithin the space of less than thirty years penetrated, explored, andmapped this almost unknown region; of how he carried law, order, andjustice into a section which had never had so much as a speakingacquaintance with any one of the three before; of how, realizing thenecessity for means of communication, he built highways of steel acrossthis territory from east to west and from north to south; of how, undismayed by the savageness of the countenance which the desert turnedupon him, he laughed and rolled up his sleeves, and spat upon his hands, and slashed the face of the desert with canals and irrigating ditches, and filled those ditches with water brought from deep in the earth orhigh in the mountains; and of how, in the conquered and submissive soil, he replaced the aloe with alfalfa, the mesquite with maize, the cactuswith cotton, forms one of the most inspiring chapters in our history. Itis one of the epics of civilization, this reclamation of the Southwest, and its heroes, thank God, are Americans. 

"Other desert regions have been redeemed by irrigation--Egypt, forexample, and Mesopotamia and parts of the Sudan--but the people of allthose regions lay stretched out in the shade of a convenient palm, metaphorically speaking, and waited for some one with more energy thanthemselves to come along and do the work. But the Arizonians, mindful ofthe fact that God, the government, and Carnegie help those who helpthemselves, spent their days wielding the pick and shovel, and theirevenings in writing letters to Washington with toil-hardened hands. After a time the government was prodded into action and the great damsat Laguna and Roosevelt are the result. Then the people, organizingthemselves into coöperative leagues and water-users' associations, tookup the work of reclamation where the government left off; it is to theseenergetic, persevering men who have drilled wells, plowed fields, anddug ditches through the length and breadth of that great region whichstretches from Yuma to Tucson, that the metamorphosis of Arizona isdue. "

The effect of irrigation wherever introduced was amazing. Stretches ofsand and sagebrush gave way to fertile fields bearing crops of wheat, corn, fruits, vegetables, and grass. Huge ranches grazed by browsingsheep were broken up into small plots. The cowboy and ranchman vanished. In their place rose the prosperous community--a community unlike thetownship of Iowa or the industrial center of the East. Its intensivetillage left little room for hired labor. Its small holdings drewfamilies together in village life rather than dispersing them on thelonely plain. Often the development of water power in connection withirrigation afforded electricity for labor-saving devices and lifted manya burden that in other days fell heavily upon the shoulders of thefarmer and his family. 

MINING AND MANUFACTURING IN THE WEST

=Mineral Resources. =--In another important particular the Far Westdiffered from the Mississippi Valley states. That was in thepredominance of mining over agriculture throughout a vast section. Indeed it was the minerals rather than the land that attracted thepioneers who first opened the country. The discovery of gold inCalifornia in 1848 was the signal for the great rush of prospectors, miners, and promoters who explored the valleys, climbed the hills, washed the sands, and dug up the soil in their feverish search for gold, silver, copper, coal, and other minerals. In Nevada and Montana thedevelopment of mineral resources went on all during the Civil War. AlderGulch became Virginia City in 1863; Last Chance Gulch was named Helenain 1864; and Confederate Gulch was christened Diamond City in 1865. AtButte the miners began operations in 1864 and within five years hadwashed out eight million dollars' worth of gold. Under the gold theyfound silver; under silver they found copper. 

Even at the end of the nineteenth century, after agriculture was welladvanced and stock and sheep raising introduced on a large scale, minerals continued to be the chief source of wealth in a number ofstates. This was revealed by the figures for 1910. The gold, silver, iron, and copper of Colorado were worth more than the wheat, corn, andoats combined; the copper of Montana sold for more than all the cerealsand four times the price of the wheat. The interest of Nevada was alsomainly mining, the receipts from the mineral output being $43, 000, 000 ormore than one-half the national debt of Hamilton's day. The yield of themines of Utah was worth four or five times the wheat crop; the coal ofWyoming brought twice as much as the great wool clip; the minerals ofArizona were totaled at $43, 000, 000 as against a wool clip reckoned at$1, 200, 000; while in Idaho alone of this group of states did the wheatcrop exceed in value the output of the mines. 

[Illustration: _Photograph from Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

LOGGING]

=Timber Resources. =--The forests of the great West, unlike those of theOhio Valley, proved a boon to the pioneers rather than a foe to beattacked. In Ohio and Indiana, for example, the frontier line ofhomemakers had to cut, roll, and burn thousands of trees before theycould put out a crop of any size. Beyond the Mississippi, however, there were all ready for the breaking plow great reaches of almosttreeless prairie, where every stick of timber was precious. In the otherparts, often rough and mountainous, where stood primeval forests of thefinest woods, the railroads made good use of the timber. They consumedacres of forests themselves in making ties, bridge timbers, andtelegraph poles, and they laid a heavy tribute upon the forests fortheir annual upkeep. The surplus trees, such as had burdened thepioneers of the Northwest Territory a hundred years before, they carriedoff to markets on the east and west coasts. 

=Western Industries. =--The peculiar conditions of the Far Weststimulated a rise of industries more rapid than is usual in new country. The mining activities which in many sections preceded agriculture calledfor sawmills to furnish timber for the mines and smelters to reduce andrefine ores. The ranches supplied sheep and cattle for the packinghouses of Kansas City as well as Chicago. The waters of the Northwestafforded salmon for 4000 cases in 1866 and for 1, 400, 000 cases in 1916. The fruits and vegetables of California brought into existenceinnumerable canneries. The lumber industry, starting with crude sawmillsto furnish rough timbers for railways and mines, ended in specializedfactories for paper, boxes, and furniture. As the railways precededsettlement and furnished a ready outlet for local manufactures, so theyencouraged the early establishment of varied industries, thus creating astate of affairs quite unlike that which obtained in the Ohio Valley inthe early days before the opening of the Erie Canal. 

=Social Effects of Economic Activities. =--In many respects the sociallife of the Far West also differed from that of the Ohio Valley. Thetreeless prairies, though open to homesteads, favored the great estatetilled in part by tenant labor and in part by migratory seasonal labor, summoned from all sections of the country for the harvests. The mineralresources created hundreds of huge fortunes which made the accumulationsof eastern mercantile families look trivial by comparison. Othermillionaires won their fortunes in the railway business and still morefrom the cattle and sheep ranges. In many sections the "cattle king, " ashe was called, was as dominant as the planter had been in the old South. Everywhere in the grazing country he was a conspicuous and importantperson. He "sometimes invested money in banks, in railroad stocks, or incity property. .. . He had his rating in the commercial reviews and couldhobnob with bankers, railroad presidents, and metropolitan merchants. .. . He attended party caucuses and conventions, ran for the statelegislature, and sometimes defeated a lawyer or metropolitan 'businessman' in the race for a seat in Congress. In proportion to their numbers, the ranchers . .. Have constituted a highly impressive class. "

Although many of the early capitalists of the great West, especiallyfrom Nevada, spent their money principally in the East, others tookleadership in promoting the sections in which they had made theirfortunes. A railroad pioneer, General Palmer, built his home at ColoradoSprings, founded the town, and encouraged local improvements. Denverowed its first impressive buildings to the civic patriotism of HoraceTabor, a wealthy mine owner. Leland Stanford paid his tribute toCalifornia in the endowment of a large university. Colonel W. F. Cody, better known as "Buffalo Bill, " started his career by building a "boomtown" which collapsed, and made a large sum of money supplying buffalomeat to construction hands (hence his popular name). By his famous WildWest Show, he increased it to a fortune which he devoted mainly to thepromotion of a western reclamation scheme. 

While the Far West was developing this vigorous, aggressive leadershipin business, a considerable industrial population was springing up. Eventhe cattle ranges and hundreds of farms were conducted like factories inthat they were managed through overseers who hired plowmen, harvesters, and cattlemen at regular wages. At the same time there appeared otherpeculiar features which made a lasting impression on western economiclife. Mining, lumbering, and fruit growing, for instance, employedthousands of workers during the rush months and turned them out at othertimes. The inevitable result was an army of migratory laborers wanderingfrom camp to camp, from town to town, and from ranch to ranch, withoutfixed homes or established habits of life. From this extraordinarycondition there issued many a long and lawless conflict between capitaland labor, giving a distinct color to the labor movement in wholesections of the mountain and coast states. 

THE ADMISSION OF NEW STATES

=The Spirit of Self-Government. =--The instinct of self-government wasstrong in the western communities. In the very beginning, it led to theorganization of volunteer committees, known as "vigilantes, " to suppresscrime and punish criminals. As soon as enough people were settledpermanently in a region, they took care to form a more stable kind ofgovernment. An illustration of this process is found in the Oregoncompact made by the pioneers in 1843, the spirit of which is reflectedin an editorial in an old copy of the _Rocky Mountain News_: "We claimthat any body or community of American citizens which from any cause orunder any circumstances is cut off from or from isolation is so situatedas not to be under any active and protecting branch of the centralgovernment, have a right, if on American soil, to frame a government andenact such laws and regulations as may be necessary for their ownsafety, protection, and happiness, always with the condition precedent, that they shall, at the earliest moment when the central governmentshall extend an effective organization and laws over them, give it theirunqualified support and obedience. "

People who turned so naturally to the organization of localadministration were equally eager for admission to the union as soon asany shadow of a claim to statehood could be advanced. As long as aregion was merely one of the territories of the United States, theappointment of the governor and other officers was controlled bypolitics at Washington. Moreover the disposition of land, mineralrights, forests, and water power was also in the hands of nationalleaders. Thus practical considerations were united with the spirit ofindependence in the quest for local autonomy. 

=Nebraska and Colorado. =--Two states, Nebraska and Colorado, had littledifficulty in securing admission to the union. The first, Nebraska, hadbeen organized as a territory by the famous Kansas-Nebraska bill whichdid so much to precipitate the Civil War. Lying to the north of Kansas, which had been admitted in 1861, it escaped the invasion of slave ownersfrom Missouri and was settled mainly by farmers from the North. Thoughit claimed a population of only 67, 000, it was regarded with kindlyinterest by the Republican Congress at Washington and, reduced to itspresent boundaries, it received the coveted statehood in 1867. 

This was hardly accomplished before the people of Colorado to thesouthwest began to make known their demands. They had been organizedunder territorial government in 1861 when they numbered only a handful;but within ten years the aspect of their affairs had completely changed. The silver and gold deposits of the Leadville and Cripple Creek regionshad attracted an army of miners and prospectors. The city of Denver, founded in 1858 and named after the governor of Kansas whence came manyof the early settlers, had grown from a straggling camp of log huts intoa prosperous center of trade. By 1875 it was reckoned that thepopulation of the territory was not less than one hundred thousand; thefollowing year Congress, yielding to the popular appeal, made Colorado amember of the American union. 

=Six New States (1889-1890). =--For many years there was a deadlock inCongress over the admission of new states. The spell was broken in 1889under the leadership of the Dakotas. For a long time the Dakotaterritory, organized in 1861, had been looked upon as the home of thepowerful Sioux Indians whose enormous reservation blocked the advance ofthe frontier. The discovery of gold in the Black Hills, however, markedtheir doom. Even before Congress could open their lands to prospectors, pioneers were swarming over the country. Farmers from the adjoiningMinnesota and the Eastern states, Scandinavians, Germans, and Canadians, came in swelling waves to occupy the fertile Dakota lands, now famouseven as far away as the fjords of Norway. Seldom had the plow of man cutthrough richer soil than was found in the bottoms of the Red RiverValley, and it became all the more precious when the opening of theNorthern Pacific in 1883 afforded a means of transportation east andwest. The population, which had numbered 135, 000 in 1880, passed thehalf million mark before ten years had elapsed. 

Remembering that Nebraska had been admitted with only 67, 000inhabitants, the Dakotans could not see why they should be kept underfederal tutelage. At the same time Washington, far away on the PacificCoast, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, boasting of their populations andtheir riches, put in their own eloquent pleas. But the members ofCongress were busy with politics. The Democrats saw no good reason foradmitting new Republican states until after their defeat in 1888. Nearthe end of their term the next year they opened the door for North andSouth Dakota, Washington, and Montana. In 1890, a Republican Congressbrought Idaho and Wyoming into the union, the latter with womansuffrage, which had been granted twenty-one years before. 

=Utah. =--Although Utah had long presented all the elements of awell-settled and industrious community, its admission to the union wasdelayed on account of popular hostility to the practice of polygamy. Thecustom, it is true, had been prohibited by act of Congress in 1862; butthe law had been systematically evaded. In 1882 Congress made anotherand more effective effort to stamp out polygamy. Five years later iteven went so far as to authorize the confiscation of the property of theMormon Church in case the practice of plural marriages was not stopped. Meanwhile the Gentile or non-Mormon population was steadily increasingand the leaders in the Church became convinced that the battleagainst the sentiment of the country was futile. At last in 1896 Utahwas admitted as a state under a constitution which forbade pluralmarriages absolutely and forever. Horace Greeley, who visited Utah in1859, had prophesied that the Pacific Railroad would work a revolutionin the land of Brigham Young. His prophecy had come true. 

[Illustration: THE UNITED STATES IN 1912]

=Rounding out the Continent. =--Three more territories now remained outof the Union. Oklahoma, long an Indian reservation, had been opened forsettlement to white men in 1889. The rush upon the fertile lands of thisregion, the last in the history of America, was marked by all the frenzyof the final, desperate chance. At a signal from a bugle an army of menwith families in wagons, men and women on horseback and on foot, burstinto the territory. During the first night a city of tents was raised atGuthrie and Oklahoma City. In ten days wooden houses rose on the plains. In a single year there were schools, churches, business blocks, andnewspapers. Within fifteen years there was a population of more thanhalf a million. To the west, Arizona with a population of about 125, 000and New Mexico with 200, 000 inhabitants joined Oklahoma in asking forstatehood. Congress, then Republican, looked with reluctance upon theaddition of more Democratic states; but in 1907 it was literallycompelled by public sentiment and a sense of justice to admit Oklahoma. In 1910 the House of Representatives went to the Democrats and withintwo years Arizona and New Mexico were "under the roof. " So thecontinental domain was rounded out. 

THE INFLUENCE OF THE FAR WEST ON NATIONAL LIFE

=The Last of the Frontier. =--When Horace Greeley made his trip west in1859 he thus recorded the progress of civilization in his journal:

 "May 12th, Chicago. --Chocolate and morning journals last seen on the hotel breakfast table. 

 23rd, Leavenworth (Kansas). --Room bells and bath tubs make their final appearance. 

 26th, Manhattan. --Potatoes and eggs last recognized among the blessings that 'brighten as they take their flight. '

 27th, Junction City. --Last visitation of a boot-black, with dissolving views of a board bedroom. Beds bid us good-by. "

[Illustration: _Copyright by Panama-California Exposition_

THE CANADIAN BUILDING AT THE PANAMA-CALIFORNIA INTERNATIONALEXPOSITION, SAN DIEGO, 1915]

Within thirty years travelers were riding across that country in Pullmancars and enjoying at the hotels all the comforts of a standardizedcivilization. The "wild west" was gone, and with it that frontier ofpioneers and settlers who had long given such a bent and tone toAmerican life and had "poured in upon the floor of Congress" such a longline of "backwoods politicians, " as they were scornfully styled. 

=Free Land and Eastern Labor. =--It was not only the picturesque featuresof the frontier that were gone. Of far more consequence was thedisappearance of free lands with all that meant for American labor. Formore than a hundred years, any man of even moderate means had been ableto secure a homestead of his own and an independent livelihood. For ahundred years America had been able to supply farms to as manyimmigrants as cared to till the soil. Every new pair of strong armsmeant more farms and more wealth. Workmen in Eastern factories, mines, or mills who did not like their hours, wages, or conditions of labor, could readily find an outlet to the land. Now all that was over. Byabout 1890 most of the desirable land available under the Homestead acthad disappeared. American industrial workers confronted a new situation. 

=Grain Supplants King Cotton. =--In the meantime a revolution was takingplace in agriculture. Until 1860 the chief staples sold by America werecotton and tobacco. With the advance of the frontier, corn and wheatsupplanted them both in agrarian economy. The West became the granary ofthe East and of Western Europe. The scoop shovel once used to handlegrain was superseded by the towering elevator, loading and unloadingthousands of bushels every hour. The refrigerator car and ship made thepacking industry as stable as the production of cotton or corn, and gavean immense impetus to cattle raising and sheep farming. So the meat ofthe West took its place on the English dinner table by the side of breadbaked from Dakotan wheat. 

=Aid in American Economic Independence. =--The effects of this economicmovement were manifold and striking. Billions of dollars' worth ofAmerican grain, dairy produce, and meat were poured into Europeanmarkets where they paid off debts due money lenders and acquiredcapital to develop American resources. Thus they accelerated theprogress of American financiers toward national independence. Thecountry, which had timidly turned to the Old World for capital inHamilton's day and had borrowed at high rates of interest in London inLincoln's day, moved swiftly toward the time when it would be among theworld's first bankers and money lenders itself. Every grain of wheat andcorn pulled the balance down on the American side of the scale. 

=Eastern Agriculture Affected. =--In the East as well as abroad theopening of the western granary produced momentous results. Theagricultural economy of that part of the country was changed in manyrespects. Whole sections of the poorest land went almost out ofcultivation, the abandoned farms of the New England hills bearing solemnwitness to the competing power of western wheat fields. Sheep and cattleraising, as well as wheat and corn production, suffered at least arelative decline. Thousands of farmers cultivating land of the lowergrade were forced to go West or were driven to the margin ofsubsistence. Even the herds that supplied Eastern cities with milk werefed upon grain brought halfway across the continent. 

=The Expansion of the American Market. =--Upon industry as well asagriculture, the opening of vast food-producing regions told in athousand ways. The demand for farm machinery, clothing, boots, shoes, and other manufactures gave to American industries such a market as evenHamilton had never foreseen. Moreover it helped to expand far into theMississippi Valley the industrial area once confined to the Northernseaboard states and to transform the region of the Great Lakes into anindustrial empire. Herein lies the explanation of the growth ofmid-western cities after 1865. Chicago, with its thirty-five railways, tapped every locality of the West and South. To the railways were addedthe water routes of the Lakes, thus creating a strategic center forindustries. Long foresight carried the McCormick reaper works toChicago before 1860. From Troy, New York, went a large stove plant. Thatwas followed by a shoe factory from Massachusetts. The packing industryrose as a matter of course at a point so advantageous for cattle raisersand shippers and so well connected with Eastern markets. 

To the opening of the Far West also the Lake region was indebted for alarge part of that water-borne traffic which made it "the Mediterraneanbasin of North America. " The produce of the West and the manufactures ofthe East poured through it in an endless stream. The swift growth ofshipbuilding on the Great Lakes helped to compensate for the decline ofthe American marine on the high seas. In response to this stimulusDetroit could boast that her shipwrights were able to turn out a tenthousand ton Leviathan for ore or grain about "as quickly as carpenterscould put up an eight-room house. " Thus in relation to the Far West theold Northwest territory--the wilderness of Jefferson's time--had takenthe position formerly occupied by New England alone. It was supplyingcapital and manufactures for a vast agricultural empire West and South. 

=America on the Pacific. =--It has been said that the Mediterranean Seawas the center of ancient civilization; that modern civilization hasdeveloped on the shores of the Atlantic; and that the future belongs tothe Pacific. At any rate, the sweep of the United States to the shoresof the Pacific quickly exercised a powerful influence on world affairsand it undoubtedly has a still greater significance for the future. 

Very early regular traffic sprang up between the Pacific ports and theHawaiian Islands, China, and Japan. Two years before the adjustment ofthe Oregon controversy with England, namely in 1844, the United Stateshad established official and trading relations with China. Ten yearslater, four years after the admission of California to the union, thebarred door of Japan was forced open by Commodore Perry. The commercewhich had long before developed between the Pacific ports and Hawaii, China, and Japan now flourished under official care. In 1865 a shipfrom Honolulu carried sugar, molasses, and fruits from Hawaii to theOregon port of Astoria. The next year a vessel from Hongkong broughtrice, mats, and tea from China. An era of lucrative trade was opened. The annexation of Hawaii in 1898, the addition of the Philippines at thesame time, and the participation of American troops in the suppressionof the Boxer rebellion in Peking in 1900, were but signs and symbols ofAmerican power on the Pacific. 

[Illustration: _From an old print_

COMMODORE PERRY'S MEN MAKING PRESENTS TO THE JAPANESE]

=Conservation and the Land Problem. =--The disappearance of the frontieralso brought new and serious problems to the governments of the statesand the nation. The people of the whole United States suddenly wereforced to realize that there was a limit to the rich, new land toexploit and to the forests and minerals awaiting the ax and the pick. Then arose in America the questions which had long perplexed thecountries of the Old World--the scientific use of the soils andconservation of natural resources. Hitherto the government had followedthe easy path of giving away arable land and selling forest and minerallands at low prices. Now it had to face far more difficult and complexproblems. It also had to consider questions of land tenure again, especially if the ideal of a nation of home-owning farmers was to bemaintained. While there was plenty of land for every man or woman whowanted a home on the soil, it made little difference if single landlordsor companies got possession of millions of acres, if a hundred men inone western river valley owned 17, 000, 000 acres; but when the good landfor small homesteads was all gone, then was raised the real issue. Atthe opening of the twentieth century the nation, which a hundred yearsbefore had land and natural resources apparently without limit, wascompelled to enact law after law conserving its forests and minerals. Then it was that the great state of California, on the very border ofthe continent, felt constrained to enact a land settlement measureproviding government assistance in an effort to break up large holdingsinto small lots and to make it easy for actual settlers to acquire smallfarms. America was passing into a new epoch. 

=References=

Henry Inman, _The Old Santa Fé Trail_. 

R. I. Dodge, _The Plains of the Great West_ (1877). 

C. H. Shinn, _The Story of the Mine_. 

Cy Warman, _The Story of the Railroad_. 

Emerson Hough, _The Story of the Cowboy_. 

H. H. Bancroft is the author of many works on the West but his writingswill be found only in the larger libraries. 

Joseph Schafer, _History of the Pacific Northwest_ (ed. 1918). 

T. H. Hittel, _History of California_ (4 vols. ). 

W. H. Olin, _American Irrigation Farming_. 

W. E. Smythe, _The Conquest of Arid America_. 

H. A. Millis, _The American-Japanese Problem_. 

E. S. Meany, _History of the State of Washington_. 

H. K. Norton, _The Story of California_. 

=Questions=

1. Name the states west of the Mississippi in 1865. 

2. In what manner was the rest of the western region governed?

3. How far had settlement been carried?

4. What were the striking physical features of the West?

5. How was settlement promoted after 1865?

6. Why was admission to the union so eagerly sought?

7. Explain how politics became involved in the creation of new states. 

8. Did the West rapidly become like the older sections of the country?

9. What economic peculiarities did it retain or develop?

10. How did the federal government aid in western agriculture?

11. How did the development of the West affect the East? The South?

12. What relation did the opening of the great grain areas of the Westbear to the growth of America's commercial and financial power?

13. State some of the new problems of the West. 

14. Discuss the significance of American expansion to the Pacific Ocean. 

=Research Topics=

=The Passing of the Wild West. =--Haworth, _The United States in Our OwnTimes_, pp. 100-124. 

=The Indian Question. =--Sparks, _National Development_ (American NationSeries), pp. 265-281. 

=The Chinese Question. =--Sparks, _National Development_, pp. 229-250;Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. VIII, pp. 180-196. 

=The Railway Age. =--Schafer, _History of the Pacific Northwest_, pp. 230-245; E. V. Smalley, _The Northern Pacific Railroad_; Paxson, _The NewNation_ (Riverside Series), pp. 20-26, especially the map on p. 23, andpp. 142-148. 

=Agriculture and Business. =--Schafer, _Pacific Northwest_, pp. 246-289. 

=Ranching in the Northwest. =--Theodore Roosevelt, _Ranch Life_, and_Autobiography_, pp. 103-143. 

=The Conquest of the Desert. =--W. E. Smythe, _The Conquest of AridAmerica_. 

=Studies of Individual Western States. =--Consult any good encyclopedia. 

CHAPTER XIX

DOMESTIC ISSUES BEFORE THE COUNTRY (1865-1897)

For thirty years after the Civil War the leading political parties, although they engaged in heated presidential campaigns, were not sharplyand clearly opposed on many matters of vital significance. During noneof that time was there a clash of opinion over specific issues such asrent the country in 1800 when Jefferson rode a popular wave to victory, or again in 1828 when Jackson's western hordes came sweeping into power. The Democrats, who before 1860 definitely opposed protective tariffs, federal banking, internal improvements, and heavy taxes, now spokecautiously on all these points. The Republicans, conscious of the factthat they had been a minority of the voters in 1860 and warned by theearly loss of the House of Representatives in 1874, also moved withconsiderable prudence among the perplexing problems of the day. Againand again the votes in Congress showed that no clear line separated allthe Democrats from all the Republicans. There were Republicans whofavored tariff reductions and "cheap money. " There were Democrats wholooked with partiality upon high protection or with indulgence upon thecontraction of the currency. Only on matters relating to the coercion ofthe South was the division between the parties fairly definite; thiscould be readily accounted for on practical as well as sentimentalgrounds. 

After all, the vague criticisms and proposals that found their way intothe political platforms did but reflect the confusion of mind prevailingin the country. The fact that, out of the eighteen years between 1875and 1893, the Democrats held the House of Representatives for fourteenyears while the Republicans had every President but one showed that thevoters, like the politicians, were in a state of indecision. Hayes had aDemocratic House during his entire term and a Democratic Senate for twoyears of the four. Cleveland was confronted by a belligerent Republicanmajority in the Senate during his first administration; and at the sametime was supported by a Democratic majority in the House. Harrison wassustained by continuous Republican successes in Senatorial elections;but in the House he had the barest majority from 1889 to 1891 and lostthat altogether at the election held in the middle of his term. Theopinion of the country was evidently unsettled and fluctuating. It wasstill distracted by memories of the dead past and uncertain as to thetrend of the future. 

THE CURRENCY QUESTION

Nevertheless these years of muddled politics and nebulous issues provedto be a period in which social forces were gathering for the greatcampaign of 1896. Except for three new features--the railways, thetrusts, and the trade unions--the subjects of debate among the peoplewere the same as those that had engaged their attention since thefoundation of the republic: the currency, the national debt, banking, the tariff, and taxation. 

=Debtors and the Fall in Prices. =--For many reasons the currencyquestion occupied the center of interest. As of old, the farmers andplanters of the West and South were heavily in debt to the East forborrowed money secured by farm mortgages; and they counted upon the saleof cotton, corn, wheat, and hogs to meet interest and principal whendue. During the war, the Western farmers had been able to dispose oftheir produce at high prices and thus discharge their debts withcomparative ease; but after the war prices declined. Wheat that sold attwo dollars a bushel in 1865 brought sixty-four cents twenty yearslater. The meaning of this for the farmers in debt--and nearlythree-fourths of them were in that class--can be shown by a singleillustration. A thousand-dollar mortgage on a Western farm could be paidoff by five hundred bushels of wheat when prices were high; whereas ittook about fifteen hundred bushels to pay the same debt when wheat wasat the bottom of the scale. For the farmer, it must be remembered, wheatwas the measure of his labor, the product of his toil under the summersun; and in its price he found the test of his prosperity. 

=Creditors and Falling Prices. =--To the bondholders or creditors, on theother hand, falling prices were clear gain. If a fifty-dollar coupon ona bond bought seventy or eighty bushels of wheat instead of twenty orthirty, the advantage to the owner of the coupon was obvious. Moreoverthe advantage seemed to him entirely just. Creditors had suffered heavylosses when the Civil War carried prices skyward while the interestrates on their old bonds remained stationary. For example, if a man hada $1000 bond issued before 1860 and paying interest at five per cent, hereceived fifty dollars a year from it. Before the war each dollar wouldbuy a bushel of wheat; in 1865 it would only buy half a bushel. Whenprices--that is, the cost of living--began to go down, creditorstherefore generally regarded the change with satisfaction as a return tonormal conditions. 

=The Cause of Falling Prices. =--The fall in prices was due, no doubt, tomany factors. Among them must be reckoned the discontinuance ofgovernment buying for war purposes, labor-saving farm machinery, immigration, and the opening of new wheat-growing regions. The currency, too, was an element in the situation. Whatever the cause, thediscontented farmers believed that the way to raise prices was to issuemore money. They viewed it as a case of supply and demand. If there wasa small volume of currency in circulation, prices would be low; if therewas a large volume, prices would be high. Hence they looked with favorupon all plans to increase the amount of money in circulation. Firstthey advocated more paper notes--greenbacks--and then they turned tosilver as the remedy. The creditors, on the other hand, naturallyapproved the reduction of the volume of currency. They wished to see thegreenbacks withdrawn from circulation and gold--a metal more limited involume than silver--made the sole basis of the national monetary system. 

=The Battle over the Greenbacks. =--The contest between these factionsbegan as early as 1866. In that year, Congress enacted a law authorizingthe Treasury to withdraw the greenbacks from circulation. The papermoney party set up a shrill cry of protest, and kept up the fight until, in 1878, it forced Congress to provide for the continuous re-issue ofthe legal tender notes as they came into the Treasury in payment oftaxes and other dues. Then could the friends of easy money rejoice:

 "Thou, Greenback, 'tis of thee Fair money of the free, Of thee we sing. "

=Resumption of Specie Payment. =--There was, however, another side tothis victory. The opponents of the greenbacks, unable to stop thecirculation of paper, induced Congress to pass a law in 1875 providingthat on and after January 1, 1879, "the Secretary of the Treasury shallredeem in coin the United States legal tender notes then outstanding ontheir presentation at the office of the Assistant Treasurer of theUnited States in the City of New York in sums of not less than fiftydollars. " "The way to resume, " John Sherman had said, "is to resume. "When the hour for redemption arrived, the Treasury was prepared with alarge hoard of gold. "On the appointed day, " wrote the assistantsecretary, "anxiety reigned in the office of the Treasury. Hour afterhour passed; no news from New York. Inquiry by wire showed that all wasquiet. At the close of the day this message came: '$135, 000 of notespresented for coin--$400, 000 of gold for notes. ' That was all. Resumption was accomplished with no disturbance. By five o'clock thenews was all over the land, and the New York bankers were sipping theirtea in absolute safety. "

=The Specie Problem--the Parity of Gold and Silver. =--Defeated in theirefforts to stop "the present suicidal and destructive policy ofcontraction, " the advocates of an abundant currency demanded an increasein the volume of silver in circulation. This precipitated one of thesharpest political battles in American history. The issue turned onlegal as well as economic points. The Constitution gave Congress thepower to coin money and it forbade the states to make anything but goldand silver legal tender in the payment of debts. It evidentlycontemplated the use of both metals in the currency system. Such, atleast, was the view of many eminent statesmen, including no less apersonage than James G. Blaine. The difficulty, however, lay inmaintaining gold and silver coins on a level which would permit them tocirculate with equal facility. Obviously, if the gold in a gold dollarexceeds the value of the silver in a silver dollar on the open market, men will hoard gold money and leave silver money in circulation. When, for example, Congress in 1792 fixed the ratio of the two metals at oneto fifteen--one ounce of gold declared worth fifteen of silver--it wassoon found that gold had been undervalued. When again in 1834 the ratiowas put at one to sixteen, it was found that silver was undervalued. Consequently the latter metal was not brought in for coinage and silveralmost dropped out of circulation. Many a silver dollar was melted downby silverware factories. 

=Silver Demonetized in 1873. =--So things stood in 1873. At that time, Congress, in enacting a mintage law, discontinued the coinage of thestandard silver dollar, then practically out of circulation. This actwas denounced later by the friends of silver as "the crime of '73, " aconspiracy devised by the money power and secretly carried out. Thiscontention the debates in Congress do not seem to sustain. In the courseof the argument on the mint law it was distinctly said by one speaker atleast: "This bill provides for the making of changes in the legal tendercoin of the country and for substituting as legal tender, coin of onlyone metal instead of two as heretofore. "

=The Decline in the Value of Silver. =--Absorbed in the greenbackcontroversy, the people apparently did not appreciate, at the time, thesignificance of the "demonetization" of silver; but within a few yearsseveral events united in making it the center of a political storm. Germany, having abandoned silver in 1871, steadily increased her demandfor gold. Three years later, the countries of the Latin Union followedthis example, thus helping to enhance the price of the yellow metal. Allthe while, new silver lodes, discovered in the Far West, were pouringinto the market great streams of the white metal, bearing down theprice. Then came the resumption of specie payment, which, in effect, placed the paper money on a gold basis. Within twenty years silver wasworth in gold only about half the price of 1870. 

That there had been a real decline in silver was denied by the friendsof that metal. They alleged that gold had gone up because it had beengiven a monopoly in the coinage markets of civilized governments. Thismonopoly, they continued, was the fruit of a conspiracy against thepeople conceived by the bankers of the world. Moreover, they went on, the placing of the greenbacks on a gold basis had itself worked acontraction of the currency; it lowered the prices of labor and produceto the advantage of the holders of long-term investments bearing a fixedrate of interest. When wheat sold at sixty-four cents a bushel, theirsearch for relief became desperate, and they at last concentrated theirefforts on opening the mints of the government for the free coinage ofsilver at the ratio of sixteen to one. 

=Republicans and Democrats Divided. =--On this question both Republicansand Democrats were divided, the line being drawn between the East on theone hand and the South and West on the other, rather than between thetwo leading parties. So trusted a leader as James G. Blaine avowed, in aspeech delivered in the Senate in 1878, that, as the Constitutionrequired Congress to make both gold and silver the money of the land, the only question left was that of fixing the ratio between them. Heaffirmed, moreover, the main contention of the silver faction that areopening of the government mints of the world to silver would bring itup to its old relation with gold. He admitted also that their mostominous warnings were well founded, saying: "I believe the struggle nowgoing on in this country and in other countries for a single goldstandard would, if successful, produce widespread disaster throughoutthe commercial world. The destruction of silver as money and theestablishment of gold as the sole unit of value must have a ruinouseffect on all forms of property, except those investments which yield afixed return. "

This was exactly the concession that the silver party wanted. "Three-fourths of the business enterprises of this country are conductedon borrowed capital, " said Senator Jones, of Nevada. "Three-fourths ofthe homes and farms that stand in the names of the actual occupants havebeen bought on time and a very large proportion of them are mortgagedfor the payment of some part of the purchase money. Under the operationof a shrinkage in the volume of money, this enormous mass of borrowers, at the maturity of their respective debts, though nominally paying nomore than the amount borrowed, with interest, are in reality, in theamount of the principal alone, returning a percentage of value greaterthan they received--more in equity than they contracted to pay. .. . Inall discussions of the subject the creditors attempt to brush aside theequities involved by sneering at the debtors. "

=The Silver Purchase Act (1878). =--Even before the actual resumption ofspecie payment, the advocates of free silver were a power to be reckonedwith, particularly in the Democratic party. They had a majority in theHouse of Representatives in 1878 and they carried a silver bill throughthat chamber. Blocked by the Republican Senate they accepted acompromise in the Bland-Allison bill, which provided for huge monthlypurchases of silver by the government for coinage into dollars. Sostrong was the sentiment that a two-thirds majority was mustered afterPresident Hayes vetoed the measure. 

The effect of this act, as some had anticipated, was disappointing. Itdid not stay silver on its downward course. Thereupon the silver factionpressed through Congress in 1886 a bill providing for the issue of papercertificates based on the silver accumulated in the Treasury. Stillsilver continued to fall. Then the advocates of inflation declared thatthey would be content with nothing short of free coinage at the ratio ofsixteen to one. If the issue had been squarely presented in 1890, thereis good reason for believing that free silver would have received amajority in both houses of Congress; but it was not presented. 

=The Sherman Silver Purchase Act and the Bond Sales. =--Republicanleaders, particularly from the East, stemmed the silver tide by adiversion of forces. They passed the Sherman Act of 1890 providing forlarge monthly purchases of silver and for the issue of notes redeemablein gold or silver at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury. Ina clause of superb ambiguity they announced that it was "the establishedpolicy of the United States to maintain the two metals on a parity witheach other upon the present legal ratio or such other ratio as may beprovided by law. " For a while silver was buoyed up. Then it turned oncemore on its downward course. In the meantime the Treasury was in a sadplight. To maintain the gold reserve, President Cleveland felt compelledto sell government bonds; and to his dismay he found that as soon as thegold was brought in at the front door of the Treasury, notes werepresented for redemption and the gold was quickly carried out at theback door. Alarmed at the vicious circle thus created, he urged uponCongress the repeal of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act. For this he wasroundly condemned by many of his own followers who branded his conductas "treason to the party"; but the Republicans, especially from theEast, came to his rescue and in 1893 swept the troublesome sections ofthe law from the statute book. The anger of the silver faction knew nobounds, and the leaders made ready for the approaching presidentialcampaign. 

THE PROTECTIVE TARIFF AND TAXATION

=Fluctuation in Tariff Policy. =--As each of the old parties was dividedon the currency question, it is not surprising that there was someconfusion in their ranks over the tariff. Like the silver issue, thetariff tended to align the manufacturing East against the agriculturalWest and South rather than to cut directly between the two parties. Still the Republicans on the whole stood firmly by the rates imposedduring the Civil War. If we except the reductions of 1872 which weresoon offset by increases, we may say that those rates were substantiallyunchanged for nearly twenty years. When a revision was brought about, however, it was initiated by Republican leaders. Seeing a huge surplusof revenue in the Treasury in 1883, they anticipated popular clamor byrevising the tariff on the theory that it ought to be reformed by itsfriends rather than by its enemies. On the other hand, it was theRepublicans also who enacted the McKinley tariff bill of 1890, whichcarried protection to its highest point up to that time. 

The Democrats on their part were not all confirmed free traders or evenadvocates of tariff for revenue only. In Cleveland's firstadministration they did attack the protective system in the House, wherethey had a majority, and in this they were vigorously supported by thePresident. The assault, however, proved to be a futile gesture for itwas blocked by the Republicans in the Senate. When, after the sweepingvictory of 1892, the Democrats in the House again attempted to bringdown the tariff by the Wilson bill of 1894, they were checkmated bytheir own party colleagues in the upper chamber. In the end they weredriven into a compromise that looked more like a McKinley than a Calhountariff. The Republicans taunted them with being "babes in the woods. "President Cleveland was so dissatisfied with the bill that he refused tosign it, allowing it to become a law, on the lapse of ten days, withouthis approval. 

=The Income Tax of 1894. =--The advocates of tariff reduction usuallyassociated with their proposal a tax on incomes. The argument whichthey advanced in support of their program was simple. Most of theindustries, they said, are in the East and the protective tariff whichtaxes consumers for the benefit of manufacturers is, in effect, atribute laid upon the rest of the country. As an offset they offered atax on large incomes; this owing to the heavy concentration of richpeople in the East, would fall mainly upon the beneficiaries ofprotection. "We propose, " said one of them, "to place a part of theburden upon the accumulated wealth of the country instead of placing itall upon the consumption of the people. " In this spirit the sponsors ofthe Wilson tariff bill laid a tax upon all incomes of $4000 a year ormore. 

In taking this step, the Democrats encountered opposition in their ownparty. Senator Hill, of New York, turned fiercely upon them, exclaiming:"The professors with their books, the socialists with their schemes, theanarchists with their bombs are all instructing the people in the . .. Principles of taxation. " Even the Eastern Republicans were hardly assavage in their denunciation of the tax. But all this labor was wasted. The next year the Supreme Court of the United States declared the incometax to be a direct tax, and therefore null and void because it was laidon incomes wherever found and not apportioned among the states accordingto population. The fact that four of the nine judges dissented from thisdecision was also an index to the diversity of opinion that divided bothparties. 

THE RAILWAYS AND TRUSTS

=The Grangers and State Regulation. =--The same uncertainty about therailways and trusts pervaded the ranks of the Republicans and Democrats. As to the railways, the first firm and consistent demand for theirregulation came from the West. There the farmers, in the earlyseventies, having got control in state legislatures, particularly inIowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois, enacted drastic laws prescribing themaximum charges which companies could make for carrying freight andpassengers. The application of these measures, however, was limitedbecause the state could not fix the rates for transporting goods andpassengers beyond its own borders. The power of regulating interstatecommerce, under the Constitution, belonged to Congress. 

=The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. =--Within a few years, the movementwhich had been so effective in western legislatures appeared atWashington in the form of demands for the federal regulation ofinterstate rates. In 1887, the pressure became so strong that Congresscreated the interstate commerce commission and forbade many abuses onthe part of railways; such as discriminating in charges between oneshipper and another and granting secret rebates to favored persons. Thislaw was a significant beginning; but it left the main question ofrate-fixing untouched, much to the discontent of farmers and shippers. 

=The Sherman Anti-Trust Law of 1890. =--As in the case of the railways, attacks upon the trusts were first made in state legislatures, where itbecame the fashion to provide severe penalties for those who formedmonopolies and "conspired to enhance prices. " Republicans and Democratsunited in the promotion of measures of this kind. As in the case of therailways also, the movement to curb the trusts soon had spokesmen atWashington. Though Blaine had declared that "trusts were largely aprivate affair with which neither the President nor any private citizenhad any particular right to interfere, " it was a Republican Congressthat enacted in 1890 the first measure--the Sherman Anti-TrustLaw--directed against great combinations in business. This act declaredillegal "every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce among the severalstates or with foreign nations. "

=The Futility of the Anti-Trust Law. =--Whether the Sherman law wasdirected against all combinations or merely those which placed an"unreasonable restraint" on trade and competition was not apparent. Senator Platt of Connecticut, a careful statesman of the old school, averred: "The questions of whether the bill would be operative, of howit would operate, or whether it was within the power of Congress toenact it, have been whistled down the wind in this Senate as idle talkand the whole effort has been to get some bill headed: 'A bill to punishtrusts, ' with which to go to the country. " Whatever its purpose, itseffect upon existing trusts and upon the formation of new combinationswas negligible. It was practically unenforced by President Harrison andPresident Cleveland, in spite of the constant demand for harsh actionagainst "monopolies. " It was patent that neither the Republicans nor theDemocrats were prepared for a war on the trusts to the bitter end. 

THE MINOR PARTIES AND UNREST

=The Demands of Dissenting Parties. =--From the election of 1872, whenHorace Greeley made his ill-fated excursion into politics, onward, thereappeared in each presidential campaign one, and sometimes two or moreparties, stressing issues that appealed mainly to wage-earners andfarmers. Whether they chose to call themselves Labor Reformers, Greenbackers, or Anti-monopolists, their slogans and their platforms allpointed in one direction. Even the Prohibitionists, who in 1872 startedon their career with a single issue, the abolition of the liquortraffic, found themselves making declarations of faith on other mattersand hopelessly split over the money question in 1896. 

A composite view of the platforms put forth by the dissenting partiesfrom the administration of Grant to the close of Cleveland's second termreveals certain notions common to them all. These included among manyothers: the earliest possible payment of the national debt; regulationof the rates of railways and telegraph companies; repeal of the specieresumption act of 1875; the issue of legal tender notes by thegovernment convertible into interest-bearing obligations on demand;unlimited coinage of silver as well as gold; a graduated inheritancetax; legislation to take from "land, railroad, money, and other giganticcorporate monopolies . .. The powers they have so corruptly and unjustlyusurped"; popular or direct election of United States Senators; womansuffrage; and a graduated income tax, "placing the burden of governmenton those who can best afford to pay instead of laying it on the farmersand producers. "

=Criticism of the Old Parties. =--To this long program of measures thereformers added harsh and acrid criticism of the old parties andsometimes, it must be said, of established institutions of government. "We denounce, " exclaimed the Labor party in 1888, "the Democratic andRepublican parties as hopelessly and shamelessly corrupt and by reasonof their affiliation with monopolies equally unworthy of the suffragesof those who do not live upon public plunder. " "The United StatesSenate, " insisted the Greenbackers, "is a body composed largely ofaristocratic millionaires who according to their own party papersgenerally purchased their elections in order to protect the greatmonopolies which they represent. " Indeed, if their platforms are to beaccepted at face value, the Greenbackers believed that the entiregovernment had passed out of the hands of the people. 

=The Grangers. =--This unsparing, not to say revolutionary, criticism ofAmerican political life, appealed, it seems, mainly to farmers in theMiddle West. Always active in politics, they had, before the Civil War, cast their lot as a rule with one or the other of the leading parties. In 1867, however, there grew up among them an association known as the"Patrons of Husbandry, " which was destined to play a large rôle in thepartisan contests of the succeeding decades. This society, whichorganized local lodges or "granges" on principles of secrecy andfraternity, was originally designed to promote in a general way theinterests of the farmers. Its political bearings were apparently notgrasped at first by its promoters. Yet, appealing as it did to the mostactive and independent spirits among the farmers and gathering to itselfthe strength that always comes from organization, it soon found itselfin the hands of leaders more or less involved in politics. Where a fewvotes are marshaled together in a democracy, there is power. 

=The Greenback Party. =--The first extensive activity of the Grangers wasconnected with the attack on the railways in the Middle West whichforced several state legislatures to reduce freight and passenger ratesby law. At the same time, some leaders in the movement, no doubtemboldened by this success, launched in 1876 a new political party, popularly known as the Greenbackers, favoring a continued re-issue ofthe legal tenders. The beginnings were disappointing; but two yearslater, in the congressional elections, the Greenbackers swept wholesections of the country. Their candidates polled more than a millionvotes and fourteen of them were returned to the House ofRepresentatives. To all outward signs a new and formidable party hadentered the lists. 

The sanguine hopes of the leaders proved to be illusory. The quietoperations of the resumption act the following year, a revival ofindustry from a severe panic which had set in during 1873, the SilverPurchase Act, and the re-issue of Greenbacks cut away some of thegrounds of agitation. There was also a diversion of forces to the silverfaction which had a substantial support in the silver mine owners of theWest. At all events the Greenback vote fell to about 300, 000 in theelection of 1880. A still greater drop came four years later and theparty gave up the ghost, its sponsors returning to their formerallegiance or sulking in their tents. 

=The Rise of the Populist Party. =--Those leaders of the old parties whonow looked for a happy future unvexed by new factions were doomed todisappointment. The funeral of the Greenback party was hardly overbefore there arose two other political specters in the agrariansections: the National Farmers' Alliance and Industrial Union, particularly strong in the South and West; and the Farmers' Alliance, operating in the North. By 1890 the two orders claimed over threemillion members. As in the case of the Grangers many years before, theleaders among them found an easy way into politics. In 1892 they held aconvention, nominated a candidate for President, and adopted the name of"People's Party, " from which they were known as Populists. Theirplatform, in every line, breathed a spirit of radicalism. They declaredthat "the newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled; public opinionsilenced; business prostrate; our homes covered with mortgages; and theland concentrating in the hands of capitalists. .. . The fruits of thetoil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for afew. " Having delivered this sweeping indictment, the Populists putforward their remedies: the free coinage of silver, a graduated incometax, postal savings banks, and government ownership of railways andtelegraphs. At the same time they approved the initiative, referendum, and popular election of Senators, and condemned the use of federaltroops in labor disputes. On this platform, the Populists polled over amillion votes, captured twenty-two presidential electors, and sent apowerful delegation to Congress. 

=Industrial Distress Augments Unrest. =--The four years interveningbetween the campaign of 1892 and the next presidential election broughtforth many events which aggravated the ill-feeling expressed in theportentous platform of Populism. Cleveland, a consistent enemy of freesilver, gave his powerful support to the gold standard and insisted onthe repeal of the Silver Purchase Act, thus alienating an increasingnumber of his own party. In 1893 a grave industrial crisis fell upon theland: banks and business houses went into bankruptcy with startlingrapidity; factories were closed; idle men thronged the streets huntingfor work; and the prices of wheat and corn dropped to a ruinous level. Labor disputes also filled the crowded record. A strike at the Pullmancar works in Chicago spread to the railways. Disorders ensued. PresidentCleveland, against the protests of the governor of Illinois, John P. Altgeld, dispatched troops to the scene of action. The United Statesdistrict court at Chicago issued an injunction forbidding the presidentof the Railway Union, Eugene V. Debs, or his assistants to interferewith the transmission of the mails or interstate commerce in any form. For refusing to obey the order, Debs was arrested and imprisoned. Withfederal troops in possession of the field, with their leader in jail, the strikers gave up the battle, defeated but not subdued. To cap theclimax the Supreme Court of the United States, the following year (1895)declared null and void the income tax law just enacted by Congress, thusfanning the flames of Populist discontent all over the West and South. 

THE SOUND MONEY BATTLE OF 1896

=Conservative Men Alarmed. =--Men of conservative thought and leaning inboth parties were by this time thoroughly disturbed. They looked uponthe rise of Populism and the growth of labor disputes as the signs of arevolutionary spirit, indeed nothing short of a menace to Americaninstitutions and ideals. The income tax law of 1894, exclaimed thedistinguished New York advocate, Joseph H. Choate, in an impassionedspeech before the Supreme Court, "is communistic in its purposes andtendencies and is defended here upon principles as communistic, socialistic--what shall I call them--populistic as ever have beenaddressed to any political assembly in the world. " Mr. Justice Field inthe name of the Court replied: "The present assault upon capital is butthe beginning. It will be but the stepping stone to others larger andmore sweeping till our political conditions will become a war of thepoor against the rich. " In declaring the income tax unconstitutional, hebelieved that he was but averting greater evils lurking under its guise. As for free silver, nearly all conservative men were united in callingit a measure of confiscation and repudiation; an effort of the debtorsto pay their obligations with money worth fifty cents on the dollar; theclimax of villainies openly defended; a challenge to law, order, andhonor. 

=The Republicans Come Out for the Gold Standard. =--It was among theRepublicans that this opinion was most widely shared and firmly held. Itwas they who picked up the gauge thrown down by the Populists, though ahost of Democrats, like Cleveland and Hill of New York, also battledagainst the growing Populist defection in Democratic ranks. When theRepublican national convention assembled in 1896, the die was sooncast; a declaration of opposition to free silver save by internationalagreement was carried by a vote of eight to one. The Republican party, to use the vigorous language of Mr. Lodge, arrayed itself against "notonly that organized failure, the Democratic party, but all the wanderingforces of political chaos and social disorder . .. In these bitter timeswhen the forces of disorder are loose and the wreckers with their falselights gather at the shore to lure the ship of state upon the rocks. "Yet it is due to historic truth to state that McKinley, whom theRepublicans nominated, had voted in Congress for the free coinage ofsilver, was widely known as a bimetallist, and was only with difficultypersuaded to accept the unequivocal indorsement of the gold standardwhich was pressed upon him by his counselors. Having accepted it, however, he proved to be a valiant champion, though his major interestwas undoubtedly in the protective tariff. To him nothing was morereprehensible than attempts "to array class against class, 'the classesagainst the masses, ' section against section, labor against capital, 'the poor against the rich, ' or interest against interest. " Such was thelanguage of his acceptance speech. The whole program of Populism he nowviewed as a "sudden, dangerous, and revolutionary assault upon law andorder. "

=The Democratic Convention at Chicago. =--Never, save at the greatdisruption on the eve of the Civil War, did a Democratic nationalconvention display more feeling than at Chicago in 1896. From theopening prayer to the last motion before the house, every act, everyspeech, every scene, every resolution evoked passions and soweddissensions. Departing from long party custom, it voted down in anger aproposal to praise the administration of the Democratic President, Cleveland. When the platform with its radical planks, including freesilver, was reported, a veritable storm broke. Senator Hill, tremblingwith emotion, protested against the departure from old tests ofDemocratic allegiance; against principles that must drive out of theparty men who had grown gray in its service; against revolutionary, unwise, and unprecedented steps in the history of the party. SenatorVilas of Wisconsin, in great fervor, avowed that there was no differencein principle between the free coinage of silver--"the confiscation ofone-half of the credits of the nation for the benefit of debtors"--andcommunism itself--"a universal distribution of property. " In the triumphof that cause he saw the beginning of "the overthrow of all law, alljustice, all security and repose in the social order. "

[Illustration: _Copyright by Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

WILLIAM J. BRYAN IN 1898]

=The Crown of Thorns Speech. =--The champions of free silver replied instrident tones. They accused the gold advocates of being the aggressorswho had assailed the labor and the homes of the people. William JenningsBryan, of Nebraska, voiced their sentiments in a memorable oration. Hedeclared that their cause "was as holy as the cause of liberty--thecause of humanity. " He exclaimed that the contest was between the idleholders of idle capital and the toiling millions. Then he named thosefor whom he spoke--the wage-earner, the country lawyer, the smallmerchant, the farmer, and the miner. "The man who is employed for wagesis as much a business man as his employer. The attorney in a countrytown is as much a business man as the corporation counsel in a greatmetropolis. The merchant at the cross roads store is as much a businessman as the merchant of New York. The farmer . .. Is as much a businessman as the man who goes upon the board of trade and bets upon the priceof grain. The miners who go a thousand feet into the earth or climb twothousand feet upon the cliffs . .. Are as much business men as the fewfinancial magnates who in a back room corner the money of the world. .. . It is for these that we speak. We do not come as aggressors. Ours is nota war of conquest. We are fighting in defense of our homes, ourfamilies, and our posterity. We have petitioned and our petitions havebeen scorned. We have entreated and our entreaties have beendisregarded. We have begged and they have mocked when our calamity came. We beg no longer; we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defythem. .. . We shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying tothem, 'You shall not press upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold. '"

=Bryan Nominated. =--In all the history of national conventions never hadan orator so completely swayed a multitude; not even Yancey in hismemorable plea in the Charleston convention of 1860 when, with grave andmoving eloquence, he espoused the Southern cause against the impendingfates. The delegates, after cheering Mr. Bryan until they could cheer nomore, tore the standards from the floor and gathered around the Nebraskadelegation to renew the deafening applause. The platform as reported wascarried by a vote of two to one and the young orator from the West, hailed as America's Tiberius Gracchus, was nominated as the Democraticcandidate for President. The South and West had triumphed over the East. The division was sectional, admittedly sectional--the old combination ofpower which Calhoun had so anxiously labored to build up a centuryearlier. The Gold Democrats were repudiated in terms which were clear toall. A few, unable to endure the thought of voting the Republicanticket, held a convention at Indianapolis where, with the sanction ofCleveland, they nominated candidates of their own and endorsed the goldstandard in a forlorn hope. 

=The Democratic Platform. =--It was to the call from Chicago that theDemocrats gave heed and the Republicans made answer. The platform onwhich Mr. Bryan stood, unlike most party manifestoes, was explicit inits language and its appeal. It denounced the practice of allowingnational banks to issue notes intended to circulate as money on theground that it was "in derogation of the Constitution, " recallingJackson's famous attack on the Bank in 1832. It declared that tariffduties should be laid "for the purpose of revenue"--Calhoun's doctrine. In demanding the free coinage of silver, it recurred to the practiceabandoned in 1873. The income tax came next on the program. The platformalleged that the law of 1894, passed by a Democratic Congress, was "instrict pursuance of the uniform decisions of the Supreme Court fornearly a hundred years, " and then hinted that the decision annulling thelaw might be reversed by the same body "as it may hereafter beconstituted. "

The appeal to labor voiced by Mr. Bryan in his "crown of thorns" speechwas reinforced in the platform. "As labor creates the wealth of thecountry, " ran one plank, "we demand the passage of such laws as may benecessary to protect it in all its rights. " Referring to the recentPullman strike, the passions of which had not yet died away, theplatform denounced "arbitrary interference by federal authorities inlocal affairs as a violation of the Constitution of the United Statesand a crime against free institutions. " A special objection was lodgedagainst "government by injunction as a new and highly dangerous form ofoppression by which federal judges, in contempt of the laws of statesand rights of citizens, become at once legislators, judges, andexecutioners. " The remedy advanced was a federal law assuring trial byjury in all cases of contempt in labor disputes. Having made thisdeclaration of faith, the Democrats, with Mr. Bryan at the head, raisedtheir standard of battle. 

=The Heated Campaign. =--The campaign which ensued outrivaled in therange of its educational activities and the bitterness of its tone allother political conflicts in American history, not excepting the fatefulstruggle of 1860. Immense sums of money were contributed to the funds ofboth parties. Railway, banking, and other corporations gave generouslyto the Republicans; the silver miners, less lavishly but with the sameanxiety, supported the Democrats. The country was flooded withpamphlets, posters, and handbills. Every public forum, from the greatauditoriums of the cities to the "red schoolhouses" on the countryside, was occupied by the opposing forces. 

Mr. Bryan took the stump himself, visiting all parts of the country inspecial trains and addressing literally millions of people in the openair. Mr. McKinley chose the older and more formal plan. He receiveddelegations at his home in Canton and discussed the issues of thecampaign from his front porch, leaving to an army of well-organizedorators the task of reaching the people in their home towns. Parades, processions, and monster demonstrations filled the land with politics. Whole states were polled in advance by the Republicans and the doubtfulvoters personally visited by men equipped with arguments and literature. Manufacturers, frightened at the possibility of disordered publiccredit, announced that they would close their doors if the Democrats wonthe election. Men were dismissed from public and private places onaccount of their political views, one eminent college president beingforced out for advocating free silver. The language employed byimpassioned and embittered speakers on both sides roused the public to astate of frenzy, once more showing the lengths to which men could go inpersonal and political abuse. 

=The Republican Victory. =--The verdict of the nation was decisive. McKinley received 271 of the 447 electoral votes, and 7, 111, 000 popularvotes as against Bryan's 6, 509, 000. The congressional elections wereequally positive although, on account of the composition of the Senate, the "hold-over" Democrats and Populists still enjoyed a power out ofproportion to their strength as measured at the polls. Even as it was, the Republicans got full control of both houses--a dominion of theentire government which they were to hold for fourteen years--until thesecond half of Mr. Taft's administration, when they lost possession ofthe House of Representatives. The yoke of indecision was broken. Theparty of sound finance and protective tariffs set out upon its lease ofpower with untroubled assurance. 

REPUBLICAN MEASURES AND RESULTS

=The Gold Standard and the Tariff. =--Yet strange as it may seem, theRepublicans did not at once enact legislation making the gold dollar thestandard for the national currency. Not until 1900 did they take thatpositive step. In his first inaugural President McKinley, as if stilluncertain in his own mind or fearing a revival of the contest justclosed, placed the tariff, not the money question, in the forefront. "The people have decided, " he said, "that such legislation should be hadas will give ample protection and encouragement to the industries anddevelopment of our country. " Protection for American industries, therefore, he urged, is the task before Congress. "With adequate revenuesecured, but not until then, we can enter upon changes in our fiscallaws. " As the Republicans had only forty-six of the ninety Senators, andat least four of them were known advocates of free silver, thediscretion exercised by the President in selecting the tariff forcongressional debate was the better part of valor. 

Congress gave heed to the warning. Under the direction of Nelson P. Dingley, whose name was given to the bill, a tariff measure levying thehighest rates yet laid in the history of American imposts was preparedand driven through the House of Representatives. The oppositionencountered in the Senate, especially from the West, was overcome byconcessions in favor of that section; but the duties on sugar, tin, steel, lumber, hemp, and in fact all of the essential commoditieshandled by combinations and trusts, were materially raised. 

[Illustration: _Copyright by Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

PRESIDENT MCKINLEY AND HIS CABINET]

=Growth of Combinations. =--The years that followed the enactment of theDingley law were, whatever the cause, the most prosperous the countryhad witnessed for many a decade. Industries of every kind were soonrunning full blast; labor was employed; commerce spread more swiftlythan ever to the markets of the world. Coincident with this progress wasthe organization of the greatest combinations and trusts the world hadyet seen. In 1899 the smelters formed a trust with a capital of$65, 000, 000; in the same year the Standard Oil Company with a capital ofover one hundred millions took the place of the old trust; and theCopper Trust was incorporated under the laws of New Jersey, its parvalue capital being fixed shortly afterward at $175, 000, 000. A yearlater the National Sugar Refining Company, of New Jersey, started with acapital of $90, 000, 000, adopting the policy of issuing to thestockholders no public statement of its earnings or financial condition. Before another twelvemonth had elapsed all previous corporate financingwas reduced to small proportions by the flotation of the United StatesSteel Corporation with a capital of more than a billion dollars, anenterprise set in motion by the famous Morgan banking house of New York. 

In nearly all these gigantic undertakings, the same great leaders infinance were more or less intimately associated. To use the language ofan eminent authority: "They are all allied and intertwined by theirvarious mutual interests. For instance, the Pennsylvania Railroadinterests are on the one hand allied with the Vanderbilts and on theother with the Rockefellers. The Vanderbilts are closely allied with theMorgan group. .. . Viewed as a whole we find the dominating influences inthe trusts to be made up of a network of large and small capitalists, many allied to one another by ties of more or less importance, but allbeing appendages to or parts of the greater groups which are themselvesdependent on and allied with the two mammoth or Rockefeller and Morgangroups. These two mammoth groups jointly . .. Constitute the heart of thebusiness and commercial life of the nation. " Such was the picture oftriumphant business enterprise drawn by a financier within a few yearsafter the memorable campaign of 1896. 

America had become one of the first workshops of the world. It was, byvirtue of the closely knit organization of its business and finance, oneof the most powerful and energetic leaders in the struggle of the giantsfor the business of the earth. The capital of the Steel Corporationalone was more than ten times the total national debt which the apostlesof calamity in the days of Washington and Hamilton declared the nationcould never pay. American industry, filling domestic markets tooverflowing, was ready for new worlds to conquer. 

=References=

F. W. Taussig, _Tariff History of the United States_. 

J. L. Laughlin, _Bimetallism in the United States_. 

A. B. Hepburn, _History of Coinage and Currency in the United States_. 

E. R. A. Seligman, _The Income Tax_. 

S. J. Buck, _The Granger Movement_ (Harvard Studies). 

F. H. Dixon, _State Railroad Control_. 

H. R. Meyer, _Government Regulation of Railway Rates_. 

W. Z. Ripley (editor), _Trusts, Pools, and Corporations_. 

R. T. Ely, _Monopolies and Trusts_. 

J. B. Clark, _The Control of Trusts_. 

=Questions=

1. What proof have we that the political parties were not clearlydivided over issues between 1865 and 1896?

2. Why is a fall in prices a loss to farmers and a gain to holders offixed investments?

3. Explain the theory that the quantity of money determines the pricesof commodities. 

4. Why was it difficult, if not impossible, to keep gold and silver at aparity?

5. What special conditions favored a fall in silver between 1870 and1896?

6. Describe some of the measures taken to raise the value of silver. 

7. Explain the relation between the tariff and the income tax in 1894. 

8. How did it happen that the farmers led in regulating railway rates?

9. Give the terms of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. What was its immediateeffect?

10. Name some of the minor parties. Enumerate the reforms theyadvocated. 

11. Describe briefly the experiments of the farmers in politics. 

12. How did industrial conditions increase unrest?

13. Why were conservative men disturbed in the early nineties?

14. Explain the Republican position in 1896. 

15. Give Mr. Bryan's doctrines in 1896. Enumerate the chief features ofthe Democratic platform. 

16. What were the leading measures adopted by the Republicans aftertheir victory in 1896?

=Research Topics=

=Greenbacks and Resumption. =--Dewey, _Financial History of the UnitedStates_ (6th ed. ), Sections 122-125, 154, and 378; MacDonald, _Documentary Source Book of American History_, pp. 446, 566; Hart, _American History Told by Contemporaries_, Vol. IV, pp. 531-533; Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. VIII, pp. 97-101. 

=Demonetization and Coinage of Silver. =--Dewey, _Financial History_, Sections 170-173, 186, 189, 194; MacDonald, _Documentary Source Book_, pp. 174, 573, 593, 595; Hart, _Contemporaries_, Vol. IV, pp. 529-531;Rhodes, _History_, Vol. VIII, pp. 93-97. 

=Free Silver and the Campaign of 1896. =--Dewey, _National Problems_(American Nation Series), pp. 220-237, 314-328; Hart, _Contemporaries_, Vol. IV, pp. 533-538. 

=Tariff Revision. =--Dewey, _Financial History_, Sections 167, 180, 181, 187, 192, 196; Hart, _Contemporaries_, Vol. IV, pp. 518-525; Rhodes, _History_, Vol. VIII, pp. 168-179, 346-351, 418-422. 

=Federal Regulation of Railways. =--Dewey, _National Problems_, pp. 91-111; MacDonald, _Documentary Source Book_, pp. 581-590; Hart, _Contemporaries_, Vol. IV, pp. 521-523; Rhodes, _History_, Vol. VIII, pp. 288-292. 

=The Rise and Regulation of Trusts. =--Dewey, _National Problems_, pp. 188-202; MacDonald, _Documentary Source Book_, pp. 591-593. 

=The Grangers and Populism. =--Paxson, _The New Nation_ (RiversideSeries), pp. 20-37, 177-191, 208-223. 

=General Analysis of Domestic Problems. =--_Syllabus in History_ (NewYork State, 1920), pp. 137-142. 

CHAPTER XX

AMERICA A WORLD POWER (1865-1900)

It has now become a fashion, sanctioned by wide usage and by eminenthistorians, to speak of America, triumphant over Spain and possessed ofnew colonies, as entering the twentieth century in the rôle of "a worldpower, " for the first time. Perhaps at this late day, it is useless toprotest against the currency of the idea. Nevertheless, the truth isthat from the fateful moment in March, 1775, when Edmund Burke unfoldedto his colleagues in the British Parliament the resources of aninvincible America, down to the settlement at Versailles in 1919 closingthe drama of the World War, this nation has been a world power, influencing by its example, by its institutions, by its wealth, trade, and arms the course of international affairs. And it should be said alsothat neither in the field of commercial enterprise nor in that ofdiplomacy has it been wanting in spirit or ingenuity. 

When John Hay, Secretary of State, heard that an American citizen, Perdicaris, had been seized by Raisuli, a Moroccan bandit, in 1904, hewired his brusque message: "We want Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead. "This was but an echo of Commodore Decatur's equally characteristicanswer, "Not a minute, " given nearly a hundred years before to thepirates of Algiers begging for time to consider whether they would ceasepreying upon American merchantmen. Was it not as early as 1844 that theAmerican commissioner, Caleb Cushing, taking advantage of the BritishOpium War on China, negotiated with the Celestial Empire a successfulcommercial treaty? Did he not then exultantly exclaim: "The laws of theUnion follow its citizens and its banner protects them even within thedomain of the Chinese Empire"? Was it not almost half a century beforethe battle of Manila Bay in 1898, that Commodore Perry with an adequatenaval force "gently coerced Japan into friendship with us, " leading allthe nations of the earth in the opening of that empire to the trade ofthe Occident? Nor is it inappropriate in this connection to recall thefact that the Monroe Doctrine celebrates in 1923 its hundredthanniversary. 

AMERICAN FOREIGN RELATIONS (1865-98)

=French Intrigues in Mexico Blocked. =--Between the war for the union andthe war with Spain, the Department of State had many an occasion topresent the rights of America among the powers of the world. Only alittle while after the civil conflict came to a close, it was calledupon to deal with a dangerous situation created in Mexico by theambitions of Napoleon III. During the administration of Buchanan, Mexicohad fallen into disorder through the strife of the Liberal and theClerical parties; the President asked for authority to use Americantroops to bring to a peaceful haven "a wreck upon the ocean, driftingabout as she is impelled by different factions. " Our own domestic crisisthen intervened. 

Observing the United States heavily involved in its own problems, thegreat powers, England, France, and Spain, decided in the autumn of 1861to take a hand themselves in restoring order in Mexico. They enteredinto an agreement to enforce the claims of their citizens against Mexicoand to protect their subjects residing in that republic. They invitedthe United States to join them, and, on meeting a polite refusal, theyprepared for a combined military and naval demonstration on their ownaccount. In the midst of this action England and Spain, discovering thesinister purposes of Napoleon, withdrew their troops and left the fieldto him. 

The French Emperor, it was well known, looked with jealousy upon thegrowth of the United States and dreamed of establishing in the Westernhemisphere an imperial power to offset the American republic. Intervention to collect debts was only a cloak for his deeper designs. Throwing off that guise in due time, he made the Archduke Maximilian, abrother of the ruler of Austria, emperor in Mexico, and surrounded histhrone by French soldiers, in spite of all protests. 

This insolent attack upon the Mexican republic, deeply resented in theUnited States, was allowed to drift in its course until 1865. At thatjuncture General Sheridan was dispatched to the Mexican border with alarge armed force; General Grant urged the use of the American army toexpel the French from this continent. The Secretary of State, Seward, counseled negotiation first, and, applying the Monroe Doctrine, was ableto prevail upon Napoleon III to withdraw his troops. Without the supportof French arms, the sham empire in Mexico collapsed like a house ofcards and the unhappy Maximilian, the victim of French ambition andintrigue, met his death at the hands of a Mexican firing squad. 

=Alaska Purchased. =--The Mexican affair had not been brought to a closebefore the Department of State was busy with negotiations which resultedin the purchase of Alaska from Russia. The treaty of cession, signed onMarch 30, 1867, added to the United States a domain of nearly sixhundred thousand square miles, a territory larger than Texas and nearlythree-fourths the size of the Louisiana purchase. Though it was adistant colony separated from our continental domain by a thousand milesof water, no question of "imperialism" or "colonization foreign toAmerican doctrines" seems to have been raised at the time. The treatywas ratified promptly by the Senate. The purchase price, $7, 200, 000, wasvoted by the House of Representatives after the display of someresentment against a system that compelled it to appropriate money tofulfill an obligation which it had no part in making. Seward, whoformulated the treaty, rejoiced, as he afterwards said, that he had keptAlaska out of the hands of England. 

=American Interest in the Caribbean. =--Having achieved this diplomatictriumph, Seward turned to the increase of American power in anotherdirection. He negotiated, with Denmark, a treaty providing for thepurchase of the islands of St. John and St. Thomas in the West Indies, strategic points in the Caribbean for sea power. This project, longafterward brought to fruition by other men, was defeated on thisoccasion by the refusal of the Senate to ratify the treaty. Evidently itwas not yet prepared to exercise colonial dominion over other races. 

Undaunted by the misadventure in Caribbean policies, President Grantwarmly advocated the acquisition of Santo Domingo. This little republichad long been in a state of general disorder. In 1869 a treaty ofannexation was concluded with its president. The document Granttransmitted to the Senate with his cordial approval, only to have itrejected. Not at all changed in his opinion by the outcome of hiseffort, he continued to urge the subject of annexation. Even in his lastmessage to Congress he referred to it, saying that time had only provedthe wisdom of his early course. The addition of Santo Domingo to theAmerican sphere of protection was the work of a later generation. TheState Department, temporarily checked, had to bide its time. 

=The _Alabama_ Claims Arbitrated. =--Indeed, it had in hand a far moreserious matter, a vexing issue that grew out of Civil War diplomacy. TheBritish government, as already pointed out in other connections, hadpermitted Confederate cruisers, including the famous _Alabama_, built inBritish ports, to escape and prey upon the commerce of the Northernstates. This action, denounced at the time by our government as a gravebreach of neutrality as well as a grievous injury to American citizens, led first to remonstrances and finally to repeated claims for damagesdone to American ships and goods. For a long time Great Britain wasfirm. Her foreign secretary denied all obligations in the premises, adding somewhat curtly that "he wished to say once for all that HerMajesty's government disclaimed any responsibility for the losses andhoped that they had made their position perfectly clear. " StillPresident Grant was not persuaded that the door of diplomacy, thoughclosed, was barred. Hamilton Fish, his Secretary of State, renewed thedemand. Finally he secured from the British government in 1871 thetreaty of Washington providing for the arbitration not merely of the_Alabama_ and other claims but also all points of serious controversybetween the two countries. 

The tribunal of arbitration thus authorized sat at Geneva inSwitzerland, and after a long and careful review of the arguments onboth sides awarded to the United States the lump sum of $15, 500, 000 tobe distributed among the American claimants. The damages thus allowedwere large, unquestionably larger than strict justice required and it isnot surprising that the decision excited much adverse comment inEngland. Nevertheless, the prompt payment by the British governmentswept away at once a great cloud of ill-feeling in America. Moreover, the spectacle of two powerful nations choosing the way of peacefularbitration to settle an angry dispute seemed a happy, if illusory, omenof a modern method for avoiding the arbitrament of war. 

=Samoa. =--If the Senate had its doubts at first about the wisdom ofacquiring strategic points for naval power in distant seas, the samecould not be said of the State Department or naval officers. In 1872Commander Meade, of the United States navy, alive to the importance ofcoaling stations even in mid-ocean, made a commercial agreement with thechief of Tutuila, one of the Samoan Islands, far below the equator, inthe southern Pacific, nearer to Australia than to California. Thisagreement, providing among other things for our use of the harbor ofPago Pago as a naval base, was six years later changed into a formaltreaty ratified by the Senate. 

Such enterprise could not escape the vigilant eyes of England andGermany, both mindful of the course of the sea power in history. TheGerman emperor, seizing as a pretext a quarrel between his consul in theislands and a native king, laid claim to an interest in the Samoangroup. England, aware of the dangers arising from German outposts in thesouthern seas so near to Australia, was not content to stand aside. Soit happened that all three countries sent battleships to the Samoanwaters, threatening a crisis that was fortunately averted by friendlysettlement. If, as is alleged, Germany entertained a notion ofchallenging American sea power then and there, the presence of Britishships must have dispelled that dream. 

The result of the affair was a tripartite agreement by which the threepowers in 1889 undertook a protectorate over the islands. But jointcontrol proved unsatisfactory. There was constant friction between theGermans and the English. The spheres of authority being vague and opento dispute, the plan had to be abandoned at the end of ten years. England withdrew altogether, leaving to Germany all the islands exceptTutuila, which was ceded outright to the United States. Thus one of thefinest harbors in the Pacific, to the intense delight of the Americannavy, passed permanently under American dominion. Another triumph indiplomacy was set down to the credit of the State Department. 

=Cleveland and the Venezuela Affair. =--In the relations with SouthAmerica, as well as in those with the distant Pacific, the diplomacy ofthe government at Washington was put to the test. For some time it hadbeen watching a dispute between England and Venezuela over the westernboundary of British Guiana and, on an appeal from Venezuela, it hadtaken a lively interest in the contest. In 1895 President Cleveland sawthat Great Britain would yield none of her claims. After hearing thearguments of Venezuela, his Secretary of State, Richard T. Olney, in anote none too conciliatory, asked the British government whether it waswilling to arbitrate the points in controversy. This inquiry heaccompanied by a warning to the effect that the United States could notpermit any European power to contest its mastery in this hemisphere. "The United States, " said the Secretary, "is practically sovereign onthis continent and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which itconfines its interposition. .. . Its infinite resources, combined with itsisolated position, render it master of the situation and practicallyinvulnerable against any or all other powers. "

The reply evoked from the British government by this strong statementwas firm and clear. The Monroe Doctrine, it said, even if not so widelystretched by interpretation, was not binding in international law; thedispute with Venezuela was a matter of interest merely to the partiesinvolved; and arbitration of the question was impossible. This responsecalled forth President Cleveland's startling message of 1895. He askedCongress to create a commission authorized to ascertain by researchesthe true boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana. He added that itwould be the duty of this country "to resist by every means in itspower, as a willful aggression upon its rights and interests, theappropriation by Great Britain of any lands or the exercise ofgovernmental jurisdiction over any territory which, after investigation, we have determined of right belongs to Venezuela. " The serious characterof this statement he thoroughly understood. He declared that he wasconscious of his responsibilities, intimating that war, much as it wasto be deplored, was not comparable to "a supine submission to wrong andinjustice and the consequent loss of national self-respect and honor. "

[Illustration: GROVER CLEVELAND]

The note of defiance which ran through this message, greeted by shrillcries of enthusiasm in many circles, was viewed in other quarters as aportent of war. Responsible newspapers in both countries spoke of anarmed settlement of the dispute as inevitable. Congress created thecommission and appropriated money for the investigation; a body oflearned men was appointed to determine the merits of the conflictingboundary claims. The British government, deaf to the clamor of thebellicose section of the London press, deplored the incident, courteously replied in the affirmative to a request for assistance inthe search for evidence, and finally agreed to the proposition that theissue be submitted to arbitration. The outcome of this somewhat perilousdispute contributed not a little to Cleveland's reputation as "asterling representative of the true American spirit. " This was notdiminished when the tribunal of arbitration found that Great Britain wason the whole right in her territorial claims against Venezuela. 

=The Annexation of Hawaii. =--While engaged in the dangerous Venezuelacontroversy, President Cleveland was compelled by a strange turn inevents to consider the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands in themid-Pacific. For more than half a century American missionaries had beenactive in converting the natives to the Christian faith and enterprisingAmerican business men had been developing the fertile sugar plantations. Both the Department of State and the Navy Department were fullyconscious of the strategic relation of the islands to the growth of seapower and watched with anxiety any developments likely to bring themunder some other Dominion. 

The country at large was indifferent, however, until 1893, when arevolution, headed by Americans, broke out, ending in the overthrow ofthe native government, the abolition of the primitive monarchy, and theretirement of Queen Liliuokalani to private life. This crisis, arepetition of the Texas affair in a small theater, was immediatelyfollowed by a demand from the new Hawaiian government for annexation tothe United States. President Harrison looked with favor on the proposal, negotiated the treaty of annexation, and laid it before the Senate forapproval. There it still rested when his term of office was brought to aclose. 

Harrison's successor, Cleveland, it was well known, had doubts about thepropriety of American action in Hawaii. For the purpose of making aninquiry into the matter, he sent a special commissioner to the islands. On the basis of the report of his agent, Cleveland came to theconclusion that "the revolution in the island kingdom had beenaccomplished by the improper use of the armed forces of the UnitedStates and that the wrong should be righted by a restoration of thequeen to her throne. " Such being his matured conviction, though thefacts upon which he rested it were warmly controverted, he could donothing but withdraw the treaty from the Senate and close the incident. 

To the Republicans this sharp and cavalier disposal of their plans, carried out in a way that impugned the motives of a RepublicanPresident, was nothing less than "a betrayal of American interests. " Intheir platform of 1896 they made clear their position: "Our foreignpolicy should be at all times firm, vigorous, and dignified and all ourinterests in the Western hemisphere carefully watched and guarded. TheHawaiian Islands should be controlled by the United States and noforeign power should be permitted to interfere with them. " There was nomistaking this view of the issue. As the vote in the election gavepopular sanction to Republican policies, Congress by a joint resolution, passed on July 6, 1898, annexed the islands to the United States andlater conferred upon them the ordinary territorial form of government. 

CUBA AND THE SPANISH WAR

=Early American Relations with Cuba. =--The year that brought Hawaiifinally under the American flag likewise drew to a conclusion anotherlong controversy over a similar outpost in the Atlantic, one of the lastremnants of the once glorious Spanish empire--the island of Cuba. 

For a century the Department of State had kept an anxious eye upon thisbase of power, knowing full well that both France and England, alreadywell established in the West Indies, had their attention also fixed uponCuba. In the administration of President Fillmore they had united inproposing to the United States a tripartite treaty guaranteeing Spain inher none too certain ownership. This proposal, squarely rejected, furnished the occasion for a statement of American policy which stoodthe test of all the years that followed; namely, that the affair was onebetween Spain and the United States alone. 

In that long contest in the United States for the balance of powerbetween the North and South, leaders in the latter section often thoughtof bringing Cuba into the union to offset the free states. Anopportunity to announce their purposes publicly was afforded in 1854 bya controversy over the seizure of an American ship by Cuban authorities. On that occasion three American ministers abroad, stationed at Madrid, Paris, and London respectively, held a conference and issued thecelebrated "Ostend Manifesto. " They united in declaring that Cuba, byher geographical position, formed a part of the United States, thatpossession by a foreign power was inimical to American interests, andthat an effort should be made to purchase the island from Spain. In casethe owner refused to sell, they concluded, with a menacing flourish, "byevery law, human and divine, we shall be justified in wresting it fromSpain if we possess the power. " This startling proclamation to the worldwas promptly disowned by the United States government. 

[Illustration: _=An old cartoon. =_

A SIGHT TOO BAD

_Struggling Cuba. _ "You must be awfully near-sighted, Mr. President, notto recognize me. " _U. S. G. _ "No, I am far-sighted: for I can recognizeFrance. "]

=Revolutions in Cuba. =--For nearly twenty years afterwards the Cubanquestion rested. Then it was revived in another form during PresidentGrant's administrations, when the natives became engaged in adestructive revolt against Spanish officials. For ten years--1868-78--aguerrilla warfare raged in the island. American citizens, by virtue oftheir ancient traditions of democracy, naturally sympathized with a warfor independence and self-government. Expeditions to help the insurgentswere fitted out secretly in American ports. Arms and supplies weresmuggled into Cuba. American soldiers of fortune joined their ranks. Theenforcement of neutrality against the friends of Cuban independence, nopleasing task for a sympathetic President, the protection of Americanlives and property in the revolutionary area, and similar matters keptour government busy with Cuba for a whole decade. 

A brief lull in Cuban disorders was followed in 1895 by a renewal of therevolutionary movement. The contest between the rebels and the Spanishtroops, marked by extreme cruelty and a total disregard for life andproperty, exceeded all bounds of decency, and once more raised the oldquestions that had tormented Grant's administration. Gomez, the leaderof the revolt, intent upon provoking American interference, laid wastethe land with fire and sword. By a proclamation of November 6, 1895, heordered the destruction of sugar plantations and railway connections andthe closure of all sugar factories. The work of ruin was completed bythe ruthless Spanish general, Weyler, who concentrated the inhabitantsfrom rural regions into military camps, where they died by the hundredsof disease and starvation. Stories of the atrocities, bad enough insimple form, became lurid when transmuted into American news and deeplymoved the sympathies of the American people. Sermons were preached aboutSpanish misdeeds; orators demanded that the Cubans be sustained "intheir heroic struggle for independence"; newspapers, scouting theordinary forms of diplomatic negotiation, spurned mediation and demandedintervention and war if necessary. 

[Illustration: _Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

CUBAN REVOLUTIONISTS]

=President Cleveland's Policy. =--Cleveland chose the way of peace. Heordered the observance of the rule of neutrality. He declined to act ona resolution of Congress in favor of giving to the Cubans the rights ofbelligerents. Anxious to bring order to the distracted island, hetendered to Spain the good offices of the United States as mediator inthe contest--a tender rejected by the Spanish government with the broadhint that President Cleveland might be more vigorous in putting a stopto the unlawful aid in money, arms, and supplies, afforded to theinsurgents by American sympathizers. Thereupon the President returned tothe course he had marked out for himself, leaving "the public nuisance"to his successor, President McKinley. 

=Republican Policies. =--The Republicans in 1897 found themselves in aposition to employ that "firm, vigorous, and dignified" foreign policywhich they had approved in their platform. They had declared: "Thegovernment of Spain having lost control of Cuba and being unable toprotect the property or lives of resident American citizens or to complywith its treaty obligations, we believe that the government of theUnited States should actively use its influence and good offices torestore peace and give independence to the island. " The Americanproperty in Cuba to which the Republicans referred in their platformamounted by this time to more than fifty million dollars; the commercewith the island reached more than one hundred millions annually; and theclaims of American citizens against Spain for property destroyed totaledsixteen millions. To the pleas of humanity which made such an effectiveappeal to the hearts of the American people, there were thus addedpractical considerations of great weight. 

=President McKinley Negotiates. =--In the face of the swelling tide ofpopular opinion in favor of quick, drastic, and positive action, McKinley chose first the way of diplomacy. A short time after hisinauguration he lodged with the Spanish government a dignified protestagainst its policies in Cuba, thus opening a game of thrust and parrywith the suave ministers at Madrid. The results of the exchange ofnotes were the recall of the obnoxious General Weyler, the appointmentof a governor-general less bloodthirsty in his methods, a change in thepolicy of concentrating civilians in military camps, and finally apromise of "home rule" for Cuba. There is no doubt that the Spanishgovernment was eager to avoid a war that could have but one outcome. TheAmerican minister at Madrid, General Woodford, was convinced that firmand patient pressure would have resulted in the final surrender of Cubaby the Spanish government. 

=The De Lome and the _Maine_ Incidents. =--Such a policy was defeated byevents. In February, 1898, a private letter written by Señor de Lome, the Spanish ambassador at Washington, expressing contempt for thePresident of the United States, was filched from the mails and passedinto the hands of a journalist, William R. Hearst, who published it tothe world. In the excited state of American opinion, few gave heed tothe grave breach of diplomatic courtesy committed by breaking openprivate correspondence. The Spanish government was compelled to recallDe Lome, thus officially condemning his conduct. 

At this point a far more serious crisis put the pacific relations of thetwo negotiating countries in dire peril. On February 15, the battleship_Maine_, riding in the harbor of Havana, was blown up and sunk, carryingto death two officers and two hundred and fifty-eight members of thecrew. This tragedy, ascribed by the American public to the malevolenceof Spanish officials, profoundly stirred an already furious nation. When, on March 21, a commission of inquiry reported that the ill-fatedship had been blown up by a submarine mine which had in turn set offsome of the ship's magazines, the worst suspicions seemed confirmed. Ifany one was inclined to be indifferent to the Cuban war forindependence, he was now met by the vehement cry: "Remember the_Maine_!"

=Spanish Concessions. =--Still the State Department, under McKinley'ssteady hand, pursued the path of negotiation, Spain proving more pliableand more ready with promises of reform in the island. Early in April, however, there came a decided change in the tenor of American diplomacy. On the 4th, McKinley, evidently convinced that promises did not meanperformances, instructed our minister at Madrid to warn the Spanishgovernment that as no effective armistice had been offered to theCubans, he would lay the whole matter before Congress. This decision, every one knew, from the temper of Congress, meant war--a prospect whichexcited all the European powers. The Pope took an active interest in thecrisis. France and Germany, foreseeing from long experience in worldpolitics an increase of American power and prestige through war, soughtto prevent it. Spain, hopeless and conscious of her weakness, at lastdispatched to the President a note promising to suspend hostilities, tocall a Cuban parliament, and to grant all the autonomy that could bereasonably asked. 

=President McKinley Calls for War. =--For reasons of his own--reasonswhich have never yet been fully explained--McKinley ignored the finalprogram of concessions presented by Spain. At the very moment when hispatient negotiations seemed to bear full fruit, he veered sharply fromhis course and launched the country into the war by sending to Congresshis militant message of April 11, 1898. Without making public the lastnote he had received from Spain, he declared that he was brought to theend of his effort and the cause was in the hands of Congress. Humanity, the protection of American citizens and property, the injuries toAmerican commerce and business, the inability of Spain to bring aboutpermanent peace in the island--these were the grounds for action thatinduced him to ask for authority to employ military and naval forces inestablishing a stable government in Cuba. They were sufficient for apublic already straining at the leash. 

=The Resolution of Congress. =--There was no doubt of the outcome whenthe issue was withdrawn from diplomacy and placed in charge of Congress. Resolutions were soon introduced into the House of Representativesauthorizing the President to employ armed force in securing peace andorder in the island and "establishing by the free action of the peoplethereof a stable and independent government of their own. " To the formand spirit of this proposal the Democrats and Populists took exception. In the Senate, where they were stronger, their position had to bereckoned with by the narrow Republican majority. As the resolutionfinally read, the independence of Cuba was recognized; Spain was calledupon to relinquish her authority and withdraw from the island; and thePresident was empowered to use force to the extent necessary to carrythe resolutions into effect. Furthermore the United States disclaimed"any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, orcontrol over said island except for the pacification thereof. " Finalaction was taken by Congress on April 19, 1898, and approved by thePresident on the following day. 

=War and Victory. =--Startling events then followed in swift succession. The navy, as a result in no small measure of the alertness of TheodoreRoosevelt, Assistant Secretary of the Department, was ready for thetrial by battle. On May 1, Commodore Dewey at Manila Bay shattered theSpanish fleet, marking the doom of Spanish dominion in the Philippines. On July 3, the Spanish fleet under Admiral Cervera, in attempting toescape from Havana, was utterly destroyed by American forces underCommodore Schley. On July 17, Santiago, invested by American troopsunder General Shafter and shelled by the American ships, gave up thestruggle. On July 25 General Miles landed in Porto Rico. On August 13, General Merritt and Admiral Dewey carried Manila by storm. The war wasover. 

=The Peace Protocol. =--Spain had already taken cognizance of sternfacts. As early as July 26, 1898, acting through the French ambassador, M. Cambon, the Madrid government approached President McKinley for astatement of the terms on which hostilities could be brought to a close. After some skirmishing Spain yielded reluctantly to the ultimatum. OnAugust 12, the preliminary peace protocol was signed, stipulating thatCuba should be free, Porto Rico ceded to the United States, and Manilaoccupied by American troops pending the formal treaty of peace. OnOctober 1, the commissioners of the two countries met at Paris to bringabout the final settlement. 

=Peace Negotiations. =--When the day for the first session of theconference arrived, the government at Washington apparently had not madeup its mind on the final disposition of the Philippines. Perhaps, beforethe battle of Manila Bay, not ten thousand people in the United Statesknew or cared where the Philippines were. Certainly there was in theautumn of 1898 no decided opinion as to what should be done with thefruits of Dewey's victory. President McKinley doubtless voiced thesentiment of the people when he stated to the peace commissioners on theeve of their departure that there had originally been no thought ofconquest in the Pacific. 

The march of events, he added, had imposed new duties on the country. "Incidental to our tenure in the Philippines, " he said, "is thecommercial opportunity to which American statesmanship cannot beindifferent. It is just to use every legitimate means for theenlargement of American trade. " On this ground he directed thecommissioners to accept not less than the cession of the island ofLuzon, the chief of the Philippine group, with its harbor of Manila. Itwas not until the latter part of October that he definitely instructedthem to demand the entire archipelago, on the theory that the occupationof Luzon alone could not be justified "on political, commercial, orhumanitarian grounds. " This departure from the letter of the peaceprotocol was bitterly resented by the Spanish agents. It was withheaviness of heart that they surrendered the last sign of Spain'sancient dominion in the far Pacific. 

=The Final Terms of Peace. =--The treaty of peace, as finally agreedupon, embraced the following terms: the independence of Cuba; thecession of Porto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines to the United States;the settlement of claims filed by the citizens of both countries; thepayment of twenty million dollars to Spain by the United States for thePhilippines; and the determination of the status of the inhabitants ofthe ceded territories by Congress. The great decision had been made. Itsissue was in the hands of the Senate where the Democrats and thePopulists held the balance of power under the requirement of thetwo-thirds vote for ratification. 

=The Contest in America over the Treaty of Peace. =--The publication ofthe treaty committing the United States to the administration of distantcolonies directed the shifting tides of public opinion into two distinctchannels: support of the policy and opposition to it. The trend inRepublican leadership, long in the direction marked out by the treaty, now came into the open. Perhaps a majority of the men highest in thecouncils of that party had undergone the change of heart reflected inthe letters of John Hay, Secretary of State. In August of 1898 he hadhinted, in a friendly letter to Andrew Carnegie, that he sympathizedwith the latter's opposition to "imperialism"; but he had added quickly:"The only question in my mind is how far it is now possible for us towithdraw from the Philippines. " In November of the same year he wrote toWhitelaw Reid, one of the peace commissioners at Paris: "There is a wildand frantic attack now going on in the press against the wholePhilippine transaction. Andrew Carnegie really seems to be off hishead. .. . But all this confusion of tongues will go its way. The countrywill applaud the resolution that has been reached and you will return inthe rôle of conquering heroes with your 'brows bound with oak. '"

Senator Beveridge of Indiana and Senator Platt of Connecticut, acceptingthe verdict of history as the proof of manifest destiny, called forunquestioning support of the administration in its final step. "Everyexpansion of our territory, " said the latter, "has been in accordancewith the irresistible law of growth. We could no more resist thesuccessive expansions by which we have grown to be the strongest nationon earth than a tree can resist its growth. The history of territorialexpansion is the history of our nation's progress and glory. It is amatter to be proud of, not to lament. We should rejoice that Providencehas given us the opportunity to extend our influence, our institutions, and our civilization into regions hitherto closed to us, rather thancontrive how we can thwart its designs. "

This doctrine was savagely attacked by opponents of McKinley's policy, many a stanch Republican joining with the majority of Democrats indenouncing the treaty as a departure from the ideals of the republic. Senator Vest introduced in the Senate a resolution that "under theConstitution of the United States, no power is given to the federalGovernment to acquire territory to be held and governed permanently ascolonies. " Senator Hoar, of Massachusetts, whose long and honorablecareer gave weight to his lightest words, inveighed against the wholeprocedure and to the end of his days believed that the new drift intorivalry with European nations as a colonial power was fraught withgenuine danger. "Our imperialistic friends, " he said, "seem to haveforgotten the use of the vocabulary of liberty. They talk about givinggood government. 'We shall give them such a government as we think theyare fitted for. ' 'We shall give them a better government than they hadbefore. ' Why, Mr. President, that one phrase conveys to a free man and afree people the most stinging of insults. In that little phrase, as in aseed, is contained the germ of all despotism and of all tyranny. Government is not a gift. Free government is not to be given by all theblended powers of earth and heaven. It is a birthright. It belongs, asour fathers said, and as their children said, as Jefferson said, and asPresident McKinley said, to human nature itself. "

The Senate, more conservative on the question of annexation than theHouse of Representatives composed of men freshly elected in the stirringcampaign of 1896, was deliberate about ratification of the treaty. TheDemocrats and Populists were especially recalcitrant. Mr. Bryan hurriedto Washington and brought his personal influence to bear in favor ofspeedy action. Patriotism required ratification, it was said in onequarter. The country desires peace and the Senate ought not to delay, itwas urged in another. Finally, on February 6, 1899, the requisitemajority of two-thirds was mustered, many a Senator who voted for thetreaty, however, sharing the misgivings of Senator Hoar as to the"dangers of imperialism. " Indeed at the time, the Senators passed aresolution declaring that the policy to be adopted in the Philippineswas still an open question, leaving to the future, in this way, thepossibility of retracing their steps. 

=The Attitude of England. =--The Spanish war, while accomplishing thesimple objects of those who launched the nation on that course, like allother wars, produced results wholly unforeseen. In the first place, itexercised a profound influence on the drift of opinion among Europeanpowers. In England, sympathy with the United States was from the firstpositive and outspoken. "The state of feeling here, " wrote Mr. Hay, thenambassador in London, "is the best I have ever known. From every quarterthe evidences of it come to me. The royal family by habit and traditionare most careful not to break the rules of strict neutrality, but evenamong them I find nothing but hearty kindness and--so far as isconsistent with propriety--sympathy. Among the political leaders on bothsides I find not only sympathy but a somewhat eager desire that 'theother fellows' shall not seem more friendly. "

Joseph Chamberlain, the distinguished Liberal statesman, thinking nodoubt of the continental situation, said in a political address at thevery opening of the war that the next duty of Englishmen "is toestablish and maintain bonds of permanent unity with our kinsmen acrossthe Atlantic. .. . I even go so far as to say that, terrible as war maybe, even war would be cheaply purchased if, in a great and noble cause, the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack should wave together over anAnglo-Saxon alliance. " To the American ambassador he addedsignificantly that he did not "care a hang what they say about it on thecontinent, " which was another way of expressing the hope that thewarning to Germany and France was sufficient. This friendly Englishopinion, so useful to the United States when a combination of powers tosupport Spain was more than possible, removed all fears as to theconsequences of the war. Henry Adams, recalling days of humiliation inLondon during the Civil War, when his father was the Americanambassador, coolly remarked that it was "the sudden appearance ofGermany as the grizzly terror" that "frightened England into America'sarms"; but the net result in keeping the field free for an easy triumphof American arms was none the less appreciated in Washington where, despite outward calm, fears of European complications were never absent. 

AMERICAN POLICIES IN THE PHILIPPINES AND THE ORIENT

=The Filipino Revolt against American Rule. =--In the sphere of domesticpolitics, as well as in the field of foreign relations, the outcome ofthe Spanish war exercised a marked influence. It introduced at onceproblems of colonial administration and difficulties in adjusting traderelations with the outlying dominions. These were furthermorecomplicated in the very beginning by the outbreak of an insurrectionagainst American sovereignty in the Philippines. The leader of therevolt, Aguinaldo, had been invited to join the American forces inoverthrowing Spanish dominion, and he had assumed, apparently withoutwarrant, that independence would be the result of the joint operations. When the news reached him that the American flag had been substitutedfor the Spanish flag, his resentment was keen. In February, 1899, thereoccurred a slight collision between his men and some American soldiers. The conflict thus begun was followed by serious fighting which finallydwindled into a vexatious guerrilla warfare lasting three years andcosting heavily in men and money. Atrocities were committed by thenative insurrectionists and, sad to relate, they were repaid in kind;it was argued in defense of the army that the ordinary rules of warfarewere without terror to men accustomed to fighting like savages. In vaindid McKinley assure the Filipinos that the institutions and lawsestablished in the islands would be designed "not for our satisfactionor for the expression of our theoretical views, but for the happiness, peace, and prosperity of the people of the Philippine Islands. " Nothingshort of military pressure could bring the warring revolutionists toterms. 

=Attacks on Republican "Imperialism. "=--The Filipino insurrection, following so quickly upon the ratification of the treaty with Spain, moved the American opponents of McKinley's colonial policies to redoubletheir denunciation of what they were pleased to call "imperialism. "Senator Hoar was more than usually caustic in his indictment of the newcourse. The revolt against American rule did but convince him of thefolly hidden in the first fateful measures. Everywhere he saw aconspiracy of silence and injustice. "I have failed to discover in thespeeches, public or private, of the advocates of this war, " he contendedin the Senate, "or in the press which supports it and them, a singleexpression anywhere of a desire to do justice to the people of thePhilippine Islands, or of a desire to make known to the people of theUnited States the truth of the case. .. . The catchwords, the cries, thepithy and pregnant phrases of which their speech is full, all meandominion. They mean perpetual dominion. .. . There is not one of thesegentlemen who will rise in his place and affirm that if he were aFilipino he would not do exactly as the Filipinos are doing; that hewould not despise them if they were to do otherwise. So much at leastthey owe of respect to the dead and buried history--the dead and buriedhistory so far as they can slay and bury it--of their country. " In theway of practical suggestions, the Senator offered as a solution of theproblem: the recognition of independence, assistance in establishingself-government, and an invitation to all powers to join in a guaranteeof freedom to the islands. 

=The Republican Answer. =--To McKinley and his supporters, engaged in asanguinary struggle to maintain American supremacy, such talk was morethan quixotic; it was scarcely short of treasonable. They pointed outthe practical obstacles in the way of uniform self-government for acollection of seven million people ranging in civilization from the mostignorant hill men to the highly cultivated inhabitants of Manila. Theincidents of the revolt and its repression, they admitted, were painfulenough; but still nothing as compared with the chaos that would followthe attempt of a people who had never had experience in such matters toset up and sustain democratic institutions. They preferred rather thegradual process of fitting the inhabitants of the islands forself-government. This course, in their eyes, though less poetic, wasmore in harmony with the ideals of humanity. Having set out upon it, they pursued it steadfastly to the end. First, they applied forcewithout stint to the suppression of the revolt. Then they devoted suchgenius for colonial administration as they could command to thedevelopment of civil government, commerce, and industry. 

[Illustration: _Copyright by Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

A PHILIPPINE HOME]

=The Boxer Rebellion in China. =--For a nation with a world-wide trade, steadily growing, as the progress of home industries redoubled the zealfor new markets, isolation was obviously impossible. Never was thisclearer than in 1900 when a native revolt against foreigners in China, known as the Boxer uprising, compelled the United States to join withthe powers of Europe in a military expedition and a diplomaticsettlement. The Boxers, a Chinese association, had for some time carriedon a campaign of hatred against all aliens in the Celestial empire, calling upon the natives to rise in patriotic wrath and drive out theforeigners who, they said, "were lacerating China like tigers. " In thesummer of 1900 the revolt flamed up in deeds of cruelty. Missionariesand traders were murdered in the provinces; foreign legations werestoned; the German ambassador, one of the most cordially despisedforeigners, was killed in the streets of Peking; and to all appearancesa frightful war of extermination had begun. In the month of June nearlyfive hundred men, women, and children, representing all nations, werebesieged in the British quarters in Peking under constant fire ofChinese guns and in peril of a terrible death. 

=Intervention in China. =--Nothing but the arrival of armed forces, madeup of Japanese, Russian, British, American, French, and German soldiersand marines, prevented the destruction of the beleaguered aliens. Whenonce the foreign troops were in possession of the Chinese capital, diplomatic questions of the most delicate character arose. For more thanhalf a century, the imperial powers of Europe had been carving up theChinese empire, taking to themselves territory, railway concessions, mining rights, ports, and commercial privileges at the expense of thehuge but helpless victim. The United States alone among the greatnations, while as zealous as any in the pursuit of peaceful trade, hadrefrained from seizing Chinese territory or ports. Moreover, theDepartment of State had been urging European countries to treat Chinawith fairness, to respect her territorial integrity, and to give herequal trading privileges with all nations. 

=The American Policy of the "Open Door. "=--In the autumn of 1899, Secretary Hay had addressed to London, Berlin, Rome, Paris, Tokyo, andSt. Petersburg his famous note on the "open door" policy in China. Inthis document he proposed that existing treaty ports and vestedinterests of the several foreign countries should be respected; thatthe Chinese government should be permitted to extend its tariffs to allports held by alien powers except the few free ports; and that thereshould be no discrimination in railway and port charges among thecitizens of foreign countries operating in the empire. To theseprinciples the governments addressed by Mr. Hay, finally acceded withevident reluctance. 

[Illustration: AMERICAN DOMINIONS IN THE PACIFIC]

On this basis he then proposed the settlement that had to follow theBoxer uprising. "The policy of the Government of the United States, " hesaid to the great powers, in the summer of 1900, "is to seek a solutionwhich may bring about permanent safety and peace to China, preserveChinese territorial and administrative entity, protect all rightsguaranteed to friendly powers by treaty and international law, andsafeguard for the world the principle of equal and impartial trade withall parts of the Chinese empire. " This was a friendly warning to theworld that the United States would not join in a scramble to punish theChinese by carving out more territory. "The moment we acted, " said Mr. Hay, "the rest of the world paused and finally came over to our ground;and the German government, which is generally brutal but seldom silly, recovered its senses, and climbed down off its perch. "

In taking this position, the Secretary of State did but reflect thecommon sense of America. "We are, of course, " he explained, "opposed tothe dismemberment of that empire and we do not think that the publicopinion of the United States would justify this government in takingpart in the great game of spoliation now going on. " Heavy damages werecollected by the European powers from China for the injuries inflictedupon their citizens by the Boxers; but the United States, finding thesum awarded in excess of the legitimate claims, returned the balance inthe form of a fund to be applied to the education of Chinese students inAmerican universities. "I would rather be, I think, " said Mr. Hay, "thedupe of China than the chum of the Kaiser. " By pursuing a liberalpolicy, he strengthened the hold of the United States upon theaffections of the Chinese people and, in the long run, as he remarkedhimself, safeguarded "our great commercial interests in that Empire. "

=Imperialism in the Presidential Campaign of 1900. =--It is not strangethat the policy pursued by the Republican administration in disposing ofthe questions raised by the Spanish War became one of the first issuesin the presidential campaign of 1900. Anticipating attacks from everyquarter, the Republicans, in renominating McKinley, set forth theirposition in clear and ringing phrases: "In accepting by the treaty ofParis the just responsibility of our victories in the Spanish War thePresident and Senate won the undoubted approval of the American people. No other course was possible than to destroy Spain's sovereigntythroughout the West Indies and in the Philippine Islands. That coursecreated our responsibility, before the world and with the unorganizedpopulation whom our intervention had freed from Spain, to provide forthe maintenance of law and order, and for the establishment of goodgovernment and for the performance of international obligations. Ourauthority could not be less than our responsibility, and whereversovereign rights were extended it became the high duty of the governmentto maintain its authority, to put down armed insurrection, and to conferthe blessings of liberty and civilization upon all the rescued peoples. The largest measure of self-government consistent with their welfare andour duties shall be secured to them by law. " To give more strength totheir ticket, the Republican convention, in a whirlwind of enthusiasm, nominated for the vice presidency, against his protest, TheodoreRoosevelt, the governor of New York and the hero of the Rough Riders, sopopular on account of their Cuban campaign. 

The Democrats, as expected, picked up the gauntlet thrown down with suchdefiance by the Republicans. Mr. Bryan, whom they selected as theircandidate, still clung to the currency issue; but the main emphasis, both of the platform and the appeal for votes, was on the "imperialisticprogram" of the Republican administration. The Democrats denounced thetreatment of Cuba and Porto Rico and condemned the Philippine policy insharp and vigorous terms. "As we are not willing, " ran the platform, "tosurrender our civilization or to convert the Republic into an empire, wefavor an immediate declaration of the Nation's purpose to give to theFilipinos, first, a stable form of government; second, independence;third, protection from outside interference. .. . The greedy commercialismwhich dictated the Philippine policy of the Republican administrationattempts to justify it with the plea that it will pay, but even thissordid and unworthy plea fails when brought to the test of facts. Thewar of 'criminal aggression' against the Filipinos entailing an annualexpense of many millions has already cost more than any possible profitthat could accrue from the entire Philippine trade for years to come. .. . We oppose militarism. It means conquest abroad and intimidation andoppression at home. It means the strong arm which has ever been fatal tofree institutions. It is what millions of our citizens have fled from inEurope. It will impose upon our peace-loving people a large standingarmy, an unnecessary burden of taxation, and would be a constant menaceto their liberties. " Such was the tenor of their appeal to the voters. 

With the issues clearly joined, the country rejected the Democraticcandidate even more positively than four years before. The popular votecast for McKinley was larger and that cast for Bryan smaller than in thesilver election. Thus vindicated at the polls, McKinley turned withrenewed confidence to the development of the policies he had so faradvanced. But fate cut short his designs. In the September following hissecond inauguration, he was shot by an anarchist while attending theBuffalo exposition. "What a strange and tragic fate it has been ofmine, " wrote the Secretary of State, John Hay, on the day of thePresident's death, "to stand by the bier of three of my dearest friends, Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley, three of the gentlest of men, all risento the head of the state and all done to death by assassins. " OnSeptember 14, 1901, the Vice President, Theodore Roosevelt, took up thelines of power that had fallen from the hands of his distinguishedchief, promising to continue "absolutely unbroken" the policies he hadinherited. 

SUMMARY OF NATIONAL GROWTH AND WORLD POLITICS

The economic aspects of the period between 1865 and 1900 may be readilysummed up: the recovery of the South from the ruin of the Civil War, theextension of the railways, the development of the Great West, and thetriumph of industry and business enterprise. In the South many of thegreat plantations were broken up and sold in small farms, crops werediversified, the small farming class was raised in the scale of socialimportance, the cotton industry was launched, and the coal, iron, timber, and other resources were brought into use. In the West the freearable land was practically exhausted by 1890 under the terms of theHomestead Act; gold, silver, copper, coal and other minerals werediscovered in abundance; numerous rail connections were formed with theAtlantic seaboard; the cowboy and the Indian were swept away before astandardized civilization of electric lights and bathtubs. By the end ofthe century the American frontier had disappeared. The wild, primitivelife so long associated with America was gone. The unity of the nationwas established. 

In the field of business enterprise, progress was most marked. Theindustrial system, which had risen and flourished before the Civil War, grew into immense proportions and the industrial area was extended fromthe Northeast into all parts of the country. Small business concernswere transformed into huge corporations. Individual plants were mergedunder the management of gigantic trusts. Short railway lines wereconsolidated into national systems. The industrial population ofwage-earners rose into the tens of millions. The immigration of aliensincreased by leaps and bounds. The cities overshadowed the country. Thenation that had once depended upon Europe for most of its manufacturedgoods became a competitor of Europe in the markets of the earth. 

In the sphere of politics, the period witnessed the recovery of whitesupremacy in the South; the continued discussion of the old questions, such as the currency, the tariff, and national banking; and theinjection of new issues like the trusts and labor problems. As of old, foreign affairs were kept well at the front. Alaska was purchased fromRussia; attempts were made to extend American influence in the Caribbeanregion; a Samoan island was brought under the flag; and the Hawaiianislands were annexed. The Monroe Doctrine was applied with vigor in thedispute between Venezuela and Great Britain. 

Assistance was given to the Cubans in their revolutionary struggleagainst Spain and thus there was precipitated a war which ended in theannexation of Porto Rico and the Philippines. American influence in thePacific and the Orient was so enlarged as to be a factor of great weightin world affairs. Thus questions connected with foreign and "imperial"policies were united with domestic issues to make up the warp and woofof politics. In the direction of affairs, the Republicans took theleadership, for they held the presidency during all the years, excepteight, between 1865 and 1900. 

=References=

J. W. Foster, _A Century of American Diplomacy_; _American Diplomacy inthe Orient_. 

W. F. Reddaway, _The Monroe Doctrine_. 

J. H. Latané, _The United States and Spanish America_. 

A. C. Coolidge, _United States as a World Power_. 

A. T. Mahan, _Interest of the United States in the Sea Power_. 

F. E. Chadwick, _Spanish-American War_. 

D. C. Worcester, _The Philippine Islands and Their People_. 

M. M. Kalaw, _Self-Government in the Philippines_. 

L. S. Rowe, _The United States and Porto Rico_. 

F. E. Chadwick, _The Relations of the United States and Spain_. 

W. R. Shepherd, _Latin America_; _Central and South America_. 

=Questions=

1. Tell the story of the international crisis that developed soon afterthe Civil War with regard to Mexico. 

2. Give the essential facts relating to the purchase of Alaska. 

3. Review the early history of our interest in the Caribbean. 

4. Amid what circumstances was the Monroe Doctrine applied inCleveland's administration?

5. Give the causes that led to the war with Spain. 

6. Tell the leading events in that war. 

7. What was the outcome as far as Cuba was concerned? The outcome forthe United States?

8. Discuss the attitude of the Filipinos toward American sovereignty inthe islands. 

9. Describe McKinley's colonial policy. 

10. How was the Spanish War viewed in England? On the Continent?

11. Was there a unified American opinion on American expansion?

12. Was this expansion a departure from our traditions?

13. What events led to foreign intervention in China?

14. Explain the policy of the "open door. "

=Research Topics=

=Hawaii and Venezuela. =--Dewey, _National Problems_ (American NationSeries), pp. 279-313; Macdonald, _Documentary Source Book_, pp. 600-602;Hart, _American History Told by Contemporaries_, Vol. IV, pp. 612-616. 

=Intervention in Cuba. =--Latané, _America as a World Power_ (AmericanNation Series), pp. 3-28; Macdonald, _Documentary Source Book_, pp. 597-598; Roosevelt, _Autobiography_, pp. 223-277; Haworth, _The UnitedStates in Our Own Time_, pp. 232-256; Hart, _Contemporaries_, Vol. IV, pp. 573-578. 

=The War with Spain. =--Elson, _History of the United States_, pp. 889-896. 

=Terms of Peace with Spain. =--Latané, pp. 63-81; Macdonald, pp. 602-608;Hart, _Contemporaries_, Vol. IV, pp. 588-590. 

=The Philippine Insurrection. =--Latané, pp. 82-99. 

=Imperialism as a Campaign Issue. =--Latané, pp. 120-132; Haworth, pp. 257-277; Hart, _Contemporaries_, Vol. IV, pp. 604-611. 

=Biographical Studies. =--William McKinley, M. A. Hanna, John Hay;Admirals, George Dewey, W. T. Sampson, and W. S. Schley; and Generals, W. R. Shafter, Joseph Wheeler, and H. W. Lawton. 

=General Analysis of American Expansion. =--_Syllabus in History_ (NewYork State, 1920), pp. 142-147. 

PART VII. PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRACY AND THE WORLD WAR

CHAPTER XXI

THE EVOLUTION OF REPUBLICAN POLICIES (1901-13)

=The Personality and Early Career of Roosevelt. =--On September 14, 1901, when Theodore Roosevelt took the oath of office, the presidency passedto a new generation and a leader of a new type recalling, if comparisonsmust be made, Andrew Jackson rather than any Republican predecessor. Roosevelt was brusque, hearty, restless, and fond of action--"a youngfellow of infinite dash and originality, " as John Hay remarked of him;combining the spirit of his old college, Harvard, with the breezyfreedom of the plains; interested in everything--a new species of game, a new book, a diplomatic riddle, or a novel theory of history orbiology. Though only forty-three years old he was well versed in the artof practical politics. Coming upon the political scene in the earlyeighties, he had associated himself with the reformers in the Republicanparty; but he was no Mugwump. From the first he vehemently preached thedoctrine of party loyalty; if beaten in the convention, he voted thestraight ticket in the election. For twenty years he adhered to thisrule and during a considerable portion of that period he held office asa spokesman of his party. He served in the New York legislature, as headof the metropolitan police force, as federal civil service commissionerunder President Harrison, as assistant secretary of the navy underPresident McKinley, and as governor of the Empire state. Politicalmanagers of the old school spoke of him as "brilliant but erratic"; theysoon found him equal to the shrewdest in negotiation and action. 

[Illustration: _Copyright by Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

ROOSEVELT TALKING TO THE ENGINEER OF A RAILROAD TRAIN]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

=The Panama Canal. =--The most important foreign question confrontingPresident Roosevelt on the day of his inauguration, that of the PanamaCanal, was a heritage from his predecessor. The idea of a water routeacross the isthmus, long a dream of navigators, had become a livingissue after the historic voyage of the battleship _Oregon_ around SouthAmerica during the Spanish War. But before the United States could actit had to undo the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, made with Great Britain in1850, providing for the construction of the canal under jointsupervision. This was finally effected by the Hay-Pauncefote treaty of1901 authorizing the United States to proceed alone, on condition thatthere should be no discriminations against other nations in the matterof rates and charges. 

This accomplished, it was necessary to decide just where the canalshould be built. One group in Congress favored the route throughNicaragua; in fact, two official commissions had already approved thatlocation. Another group favored cutting the way through Panama afterpurchasing the rights of the old French company which, under thedirection of De Lesseps, the hero of the Suez Canal, had made a costlyfailure some twenty years before. After a heated argument over themerits of the two plans, preference was given to the Panama route. Asthe isthmus was then a part of Colombia, President Roosevelt proceededto negotiate with the government at Bogota a treaty authorizing theUnited States to cut a canal through its territory. The treaty waseasily framed, but it was rejected by the Colombian senate, much to thePresident's exasperation. "You could no more make an agreement with theColombian rulers, " he exclaimed, "than you could nail jelly to a wall. "He was spared the necessity by a timely revolution. On November 3, 1903, Panama renounced its allegiance to Colombia and three days later theUnited States recognized its independence. 

[Illustration: _Courtesy of Panama Canal, Washington, D. C. _

DEEPEST EXCAVATED PORTION OF PANAMA CANAL, SHOWING GOLD HILL ONRIGHT AND CONTRACTOR'S HILL ON LEFT. JUNE, 1913]

This amazing incident was followed shortly by the signature of a treatybetween Panama and the United States in which the latter secured theright to construct the long-discussed canal, in return for a guaranteeof independence and certain cash payments. The rights and property ofthe French concern were then bought, and the final details settled. Alock rather than a sea-level canal was agreed upon. Construction by thegovernment directly instead of by private contractors was adopted. Scientific medicine was summoned to stamp out the tropical diseasesthat had made Panama a plague spot. Finally, in 1904, as the Presidentsaid, "the dirt began to fly. " After surmounting formidabledifficulties--engineering, labor, and sanitary--the American forces in1913 joined the waters of the Atlantic and the Pacific. Nearly eightthousand miles were cut off the sea voyage from New York to SanFrancisco. If any were inclined to criticize President Roosevelt forthe way in which he snapped off negotiations with Colombia andrecognized the Panama revolutionists, their attention was drawn to themagnificent outcome of the affair. Notwithstanding the treaty with GreatBritain, Congress passed a tolls bill discriminating in rates in favorof American ships. It was only on the urgent insistence of PresidentWilson that the measure was later repealed. 

=The Conclusion of the Russo-Japanese War. =--The applause which greetedthe President's next diplomatic stroke was unmarred by censure of anykind. In the winter of 1904 there broke out between Japan and Russia aterrible conflict over the division of spoils in Manchuria. The fortunesof war were with the agile forces of Nippon. In this struggle, it seems, President Roosevelt's sympathies were mainly with the Japanese, althoughhe observed the proprieties of neutrality. At all events, Secretary Haywrote in his diary on New Year's Day, 1905, that the President was"quite firm in his view that we cannot permit Japan to be robbed asecond time of her victory, " referring to the fact that Japan, ten yearsbefore, after defeating China on the field of battle, had been forced byRussia, Germany, and France to forego the fruits of conquest. 

Whatever the President's personal feelings may have been, he was awarethat Japan, despite her triumphs over Russia, was staggering under aheavy burden of debt. At a suggestion from Tokyo, he invited bothbelligerents in the summer of 1905 to join in a peace conference. Thecelerity of their reply was aided by the pressure of European bankers, who had already come to a substantial agreement that the war must stop. After some delay, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, was chosen as the meetingplace for the spokesmen of the two warring powers. Roosevelt presidedover the opening ceremonies with fine urbanity, thoroughly enjoying thejustly earned honor of being for the moment at the center of the world'sinterest. He had the satisfaction of seeing the conference end in atreaty of peace and amity. 

=The Monroe Doctrine Applied to Germany. =--Less spectacular than theRusso-Japanese settlement but not less important was a diplomaticpassage-at-arms with Germany over the Monroe Doctrine. This clash grewout of the inability or unwillingness of the Venezuelan government topay debts due foreign creditors. Having exhausted their patience innegotiations, England and Germany, in December 1901, sent battleships toestablish what they characterized as "a peaceful blockade" of Venezuelanports. Their action was followed by the rupture of diplomatic relations;there was a possibility that war and the occupation of Venezuelanterritory might result. 

While unwilling to stand between a Latin-American country and itscreditors, President Roosevelt was determined that debt collectingshould not be made an excuse for European countries to seize territory. He therefore urged arbitration of the dispute, winning the assent ofEngland and Italy. Germany, with a somewhat haughty air, refused to takethe milder course. The President, learning of this refusal, called theGerman ambassador to the White House and informed him in very preciseterms that, unless the Imperial German Government consented toarbitrate, Admiral Dewey would be ordered to the scene with instructionsto prevent Germany from seizing any Venezuelan territory. A week passedand no answer came from Berlin. Not baffled, the President again tookthe matter up with the ambassador, this time with even more firmness; hestated in language admitting of but one meaning that, unless withinforty-eight hours the Emperor consented to arbitration, Americanbattleships, already coaled and cleared, would sail for Venezuelanwaters. The hint was sufficient. The Kaiser accepted the proposal andthe President, with the fine irony of diplomacy, complimented himpublicly on "being so stanch an advocate of arbitration. " In terms ofthe Monroe Doctrine this action meant that the United States, while notdenying the obligations of debtors, would not permit any move on thepart of European powers that might easily lead to the temporary orpermanent occupation of Latin-American territory. 

=The Santo Domingo Affair. =--The same issue was involved in acontroversy over Santo Domingo which arose in 1904. The Dominicanrepublic, like Venezuela, was heavily in debt, and certain Europeancountries declared that, unless the United States undertook to lookafter the finances of the embarrassed debtor, they would resort to armedcoercion. What was the United States to do? The danger of having someEuropean power strongly intrenched in Santo Domingo was too imminent tobe denied. President Roosevelt acted with characteristic speed, andnotwithstanding strong opposition in the Senate was able, in 1907, toeffect a treaty arrangement which placed Dominican finances underAmerican supervision. 

In the course of the debate over this settlement, a number ofinteresting questions arose. It was pertinently asked whether theAmerican navy should be used to help creditors collect their debtsanywhere in Latin-America. It was suggested also that no sanction shouldbe given to the practice among European governments of using armed forceto collect private claims. Opponents of President Roosevelt's policy, and they were neither few nor insignificant, urged that such mattersshould be referred to the Hague Court or to special internationalcommissions for arbitration. To this the answer was made that the UnitedStates could not surrender any question coming under the terms of theMonroe Doctrine to the decision of an international tribunal. Theposition of the administration was very clearly stated by PresidentRoosevelt himself. "The country, " he said, "would certainly decline togo to war to prevent a foreign government from collecting a just debt;on the other hand, it is very inadvisable to permit any foreign power totake possession, even temporarily, of the customs houses of an Americanrepublic in order to enforce the payment of its obligations; for such atemporary occupation might turn into a permanent occupation. The onlyescape from these alternatives may at any time be that we mustourselves undertake to bring about some arrangement by which so much aspossible of a just obligation shall be paid. " The Monroe Doctrine wasnegative. It denied to European powers a certain liberty of operation inthis hemisphere. The positive obligations resulting from its applicationby the United States were points now emphasized and developed. 

=The Hague Conference. =--The controversies over Latin-American relationsand his part in bringing the Russo-Japanese War to a close naturallymade a deep impression upon Roosevelt, turning his mind in the directionof the peaceful settlement of international disputes. The subject wasmoreover in the air. As if conscious of impending calamity, thestatesmen of the Old World, to all outward signs at least, seemedsearching for a way to reduce armaments and avoid the bloody and costlytrial of international causes by the ancient process of battle. It wasthe Czar, Nicholas II, fated to die in one of the terrible holocaustswhich he helped to bring upon mankind, who summoned the delegates of thenations in the first Hague Peace Conference in 1899. The conference didnothing to reduce military burdens or avoid wars but it did recognizethe right of friendly nations to offer the services of mediation tocountries at war and did establish a Court at the Hague for thearbitration of international disputes. 

Encouraged by this experiment, feeble as it was, President Roosevelt in1904 proposed a second conference, yielding to the Czar the honor ofissuing the call. At this great international assembly, held at theHague in 1907, the representatives of the United States proposed a planfor the compulsory arbitration of certain matters of internationaldispute. This was rejected with contempt by Germany. Reduction ofarmaments, likewise proposed in the conference, was again deferred. Infact, nothing was accomplished beyond agreement upon certain rules forthe conduct of "civilized warfare, " casting a somewhat lurid light uponthe "pacific" intentions of most of the powers assembled. 

=The World Tour of the Fleet. =--As if to assure the world then that theUnited States placed little reliance upon the frail reed of peaceconferences, Roosevelt the following year (1908) made an imposingdisplay of American naval power by sending a fleet of sixteenbattleships on a tour around the globe. On his own authority, he orderedthe ships to sail out of Hampton Roads and circle the earth by way ofthe Straits of Magellan, San Francisco, Australia, the Philippines, China, Japan, and the Suez Canal. This enterprise was not, as somecritics claimed, a "mere boyish flourish. " President Roosevelt knew howdeep was the influence of sea power on the fate of nations. He was awarethat no country could have a wide empire of trade and dominion withoutforce adequate to sustain it. The voyage around the world thereforeserved a double purpose. It interested his own country in the navalprogram of the government, and it reminded other powers that theAmerican giant, though quiet, was not sleeping in the midst ofinternational rivalries. 

COLONIAL ADMINISTRATION

=A Constitutional Question Settled. =--In colonial administration, as inforeign policy, President Roosevelt advanced with firm step in a pathalready marked out. President McKinley had defined the principles thatwere to control the development of Porto Rico and the Philippines. TheRepublican party had announced a program of pacification, gradualself-government, and commercial improvement. The only remaining questionof importance, to use the popular phrase, --"Does the Constitution followthe flag?"--had been answered by the Supreme Court of the United States. Although it was well known that the Constitution did not contemplate thegovernment of dependencies, such as the Philippines and Porto Rico, theCourt, by generous and ingenious interpretations, found a way forCongress to apply any reasonable rules required by the occasion. 

=Porto Rico. =--The government of Porto Rico was a relatively simplematter. It was a single island with a fairly homogeneous populationapart from the Spanish upper class. For a time after military occupationin 1898, it was administered under military rule. This was succeeded bythe establishment of civil government under the "organic act" passed byCongress in 1900. The law assured to the Porto Ricans Americanprotection but withheld American citizenship--a boon finally granted in1917. It provided for a governor and six executive secretaries appointedby the President with the approval of the Senate; and for a legislatureof two houses--one elected by popular native vote, and an upper chambercomposed of the executive secretaries and five other persons appointedin the same manner. Thus the United States turned back to the provincialsystem maintained by England in Virginia or New York in old colonialdays. The natives were given a voice in their government and the powerof initiating laws; but the final word both in law-making andadministration was vested in officers appointed in Washington. Such wasthe plan under which the affairs of Porto Rico were conducted byPresident Roosevelt. It lasted until the new organic act of 1917. 

[Illustration: _Photograph from Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

A SUGAR MILL, PORTO RICO]

=The Philippines. =--The administration of the Philippines presented farmore difficult questions. The number of islands, the variety oflanguages and races, the differences in civilization all combined tochallenge the skill of the government. Moreover, there was raging in1901 a stubborn revolt against American authority, which had to befaced. Following the lines laid down by President McKinley, theevolution of American policy fell into three stages. At first theislands were governed directly by the President under his suprememilitary power. In 1901 a civilian commission, headed by William HowardTaft, was selected by the President and charged with the government ofthe provinces in which order had been restored. Six years later, underthe terms of an organic act, passed by Congress in 1902, the third stagewas reached. The local government passed into the hands of a governorand commission, appointed by the President and Senate, and alegislature--one house elected by popular vote and an upper chambercomposed of the commission. This scheme, like that obtaining in PortoRico, remained intact until a Democratic Congress under PresidentWilson's leadership carried the colonial administration into its fourthphase by making both houses elective. Thus, by the steady pursuit of aliberal policy, self-government was extended to the dependencies; but itencouraged rather than extinguished the vigorous movement among thePhilippine natives for independence. 

[Illustration: _Copyright by Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

MR TAFT IN THE PHILIPPINES]

=Cuban Relations. =--Within the sphere of colonial affairs, Cuba, thoughnominally independent, also presented problems to the government atWashington. In the fine enthusiasm that accompanied the declaration ofwar on Spain, Congress, unmindful of practical considerations, recognized the independence of Cuba and disclaimed "any disposition orintention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over saidisland except for the pacification thereof. " In the settlement thatfollowed the war, however, it was deemed undesirable to set the youngrepublic adrift upon the stormy sea of international politics without aguiding hand. Before withdrawing American troops from the island, Congress, in March, 1901, enacted, and required Cuba to approve, aseries of restrictions known as the Platt amendment, limiting her powerto incur indebtedness, securing the right of the United States tointervene whenever necessary to protect life and property, and reservingto the United States coaling stations at certain points to be agreedupon. The Cubans made strong protests against what they deemed"infringements of their sovereignty"; but finally with good graceaccepted their fate. Even when in 1906 President Roosevelt landedAmerican troops in the island to quell a domestic dissension, theyacquiesced in the action, evidently regarding it as a distinct warningthat they should learn to manage their elections in an orderly manner. 

THE ROOSEVELT DOMESTIC POLICIES

=Social Questions to the Front. =--From the day of his inauguration tothe close of his service in 1909, President Roosevelt, in messages, speeches, and interviews, kept up a lively and interesting discussion oftrusts, capital, labor, poverty, riches, lawbreaking, good citizenship, and kindred themes. Many a subject previously touched upon only byrepresentatives of the minor and dissenting parties, he dignified by acareful examination. That he did this with any fixed design or policy inmind does not seem to be the case. He admitted himself that when hebecame President he did not have in hand any settled or far-reachingplan of social betterment. He did have, however, serious convictions ongeneral principles. "I was bent upon making the government, " he wrote, "the most efficient possible instrument in helping the people of theUnited States to better themselves in every way, politically, socially, and industrially. I believed with all my heart in real andthorough-going democracy and I wished to make the democracy industrialas well as political, although I had only partially formulated themethod I believed we should follow. " It is thus evident at least that hehad departed a long way from the old idea of the government as nothingbut a great policeman keeping order among the people in a struggle overthe distribution of the nation's wealth and resources. 

=Roosevelt's View of the Constitution. =--Equally significant wasRoosevelt's attitude toward the Constitution and the office ofPresident. He utterly repudiated the narrow construction of our nationalcharter. He held that the Constitution "should be treated as thegreatest document ever devised by the wit of man to aid a people inexercising every power necessary for its own betterment, not as astrait-jacket cunningly fashioned to strangle growth. " He viewed thepresidency as he did the Constitution. Strict constructionists of theJeffersonian school, of whom there were many on occasion even in theRepublican party, had taken a view that the President could do nothingthat he was not specifically authorized by the Constitution to do. Roosevelt took exactly the opposite position. It was his opinion that itwas not only the President's right but his duty "to do anything that theneeds of the nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by theConstitution or the laws. " He went on to say that he acted "for thecommon well-being of all our people whenever and in whatever manner wasnecessary, unless prevented by direct constitutional or legislativeprohibition. "

=The Trusts and Railways. =--To the trust question, Roosevelt devotedespecial attention. This was unavoidable. By far the larger part of thebusiness of the country was done by corporations as distinguished frompartnerships and individual owners. The growth of these giganticaggregations of capital had been the leading feature in Americanindustrial development during the last two decades of the nineteenthcentury. In the conquest of business by trusts and "the resultingprivate fortunes of great magnitude, " the Populists and the Democratshad seen a grievous danger to the republic. "Plutocracy has taken theplace of democracy; the tariff breeds trusts; let us destroy thereforethe tariff and the trusts"--such was the battle cry which had been takenup by Bryan and his followers. 

President Roosevelt countered vigorously. He rejected the idea that thetrusts were the product of the tariff or of governmental action of anykind. He insisted that they were the outcome of "natural economicforces": (1) destructive competition among business men compelling themto avoid ruin by coöperation in fixing prices; (2) the growth of marketson a national scale and even international scale calling for vastaccumulations of capital to carry on such business; (3) the possibilityof immense savings by the union of many plants under one management. Inthe corporation he saw a new stage in the development of Americanindustry. Unregulated competition he regarded as "the source of evilswhich all men concede must be remedied if this civilization of ours isto survive. " The notion, therefore, that these immense business concernsshould be or could be broken up by a decree of law, Roosevelt consideredabsurd. 

At the same time he proposed that "evil trusts" should be prevented from"wrong-doing of any kind"; that is, punished for plain swindling, formaking agreements to limit output, for refusing to sell to customers whodealt with rival firms, and for conspiracies with railways to ruincompetitors by charging high freight rates and for similar abuses. Accordingly, he proposed, not the destruction of the trusts, but theirregulation by the government. This, he contended, would preserve theadvantages of business on a national scale while preventing the evilsthat accompanied it. The railway company he declared to be a publicservant. "Its rates should be just to and open to all shippers alike. "So he answered those who thought that trusts and railway combinationswere private concerns to be managed solely by their owners without letor hindrance and also those who thought trusts and railway combinationscould be abolished by tariff reduction or criminal prosecution. 

=The Labor Question. =--On the labor question, then pressing to the frontin public interest, President Roosevelt took advanced ground for histime. He declared that the working-man, single-handed and empty-handed, threatened with starvation if unemployed, was no match for the employerwho was able to bargain and wait. This led him, accordingly, to acceptthe principle of the trade union; namely, that only by collectivebargaining can labor be put on a footing to measure its strength equallywith capital. While he severely arraigned labor leaders who advocatedviolence and destructive doctrines, he held that "the organization oflabor into trade unions and federations is necessary, is beneficent, andis one of the greatest possible agencies in the attainment of a trueindustrial, as well as a true political, democracy in the UnitedStates. " The last resort of trade unions in labor disputes, the strike, he approved in case negotiations failed to secure "a fair deal. "

He thought, however, that labor organizations, even if wisely managed, could not solve all the pressing social questions of the time. The aidof the government at many points he believed to be necessary toeliminate undeserved poverty, industrial diseases, unemployment, and theunfortunate consequences of industrial accidents. In his first messageof 1901, for instance, he urged that workers injured in industry shouldhave certain and ample compensation. From time to time he advocatedother legislation to obtain what he called "a larger measure of socialand industrial justice. "

=Great Riches and Taxation. =--Even the challenge of the radicals, suchas the Populists, who alleged that "the toil of millions is boldlystolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few"--challenges which hispredecessors did not consider worthy of notice--President Rooseveltrefused to let pass without an answer. In his first message he deniedthe truth of the common saying that the rich were growing richer and thepoor were growing poorer. He asserted that, on the contrary, the averageman, wage worker, farmer, and small business man, was better off thanever before in the history of our country. That there had been abuses inthe accumulation of wealth he did not pretend to ignore, but he believedthat even immense fortunes, on the whole, represented positive benefitsconferred upon the country. Nevertheless he felt that grave dangers tothe safety and the happiness of the people lurked in great inequalitiesof wealth. In 1906 he wrote that he wished it were in his power toprevent the heaping up of enormous fortunes. The next year, to theastonishment of many leaders in his own party, he boldly announced in amessage to Congress that he approved both income and inheritance taxes, then generally viewed as Populist or Democratic measures. He even tookthe stand that such taxes should be laid in order to bring about a moreequitable distribution of wealth and greater equality of opportunityamong citizens. 

LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE ACTIVITIES

=Economic Legislation. =--When President Roosevelt turned from the fieldof opinion he found himself in a different sphere. Many of his viewswere too advanced for the members of his party in Congress, and whereresults depended upon the making of new laws, his progress was slow. Nevertheless, in his administrations several measures were enacted thatbore the stamp of his theories, though it could hardly be said that hedominated Congress to the same degree as did some other Presidents. TheHepburn Railway Act of 1906 enlarged the interstate commerce commission;it extended the commission's power over oil pipe lines, expresscompanies, and other interstate carriers; it gave the commission theright to reduce rates found to be unreasonable and discriminatory; itforbade "midnight tariffs, " that is, sudden changes in rates favoringcertain shippers; and it prohibited common carriers from transportinggoods owned by themselves, especially coal, except for their own properuse. Two important pure food and drug laws, enacted during the sameyear, were designed to protect the public against diseased meats anddeleterious foods and drugs. A significant piece of labor legislationwas an act of the same Congress making interstate railways liable todamages for injuries sustained by their employees. When this measure wasdeclared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court it was reënacted with theobjectionable clauses removed. A second installment of labor legislationwas offered in the law of 1908 limiting the hours of railway employeesengaged as trainmen or telegraph operators. 

[Illustration: _Courtesy United States Reclamation Service. _

THE ROOSEVELT DAM, PHOENIX, ARIZONA]

=Reclamation and Conservation. =--The open country--the deserts, theforests, waterways, and the public lands--interested President Rooseveltno less than railway and industrial questions. Indeed, in his firstmessage to Congress he placed the conservation of natural resourcesamong "the most vital internal problems" of the age, and forciblyemphasized an issue that had been discussed in a casual way sinceCleveland's first administration. The suggestion evoked an immediateresponse in Congress. Under the leadership of Senator Newlands, ofNevada, the Reclamation Act of 1902 was passed, providing for theredemption of the desert areas of the West. The proceeds from the saleof public lands were dedicated to the construction of storage dams andsluiceways to hold water and divert it as needed to the thirsty sands. Furthermore it was stipulated that the rents paid by water users shouldgo into a reclamation fund to continue the good work forever. Construction was started immediately under the terms of the law. Withinseventeen years about 1, 600, 000 acres had been reclaimed and more than amillion were actually irrigated. In the single year 1918, the crops ofthe irrigated districts were valued at approximately $100, 000, 000. 

In his first message, also, President Roosevelt urged the transfer ofall control over national forests to trained men in the Bureau ofForestry--a recommendation carried out in 1907 when the Forestry Servicewas created. In every direction noteworthy advances were made in theadministration of the national domain. The science of forestry wasimproved and knowledge of the subject spread among the people. Lands inthe national forest available for agriculture were opened to settlers. Water power sites on the public domain were leased for a term of yearsto private companies instead of being sold outright. The area of thenational forests was enlarged from 43 million acres to 194 million acresby presidential proclamation--more than 43 million acres being added inone year, 1907. The men who turned sheep and cattle to graze on thepublic lands were compelled to pay a fair rental, much to theirdissatisfaction. Fire prevention work was undertaken in the forests on alarge scale, reducing the appalling, annual destruction of timber. Millions of acres of coal land, such as the government had beencarelessly selling to mining companies at low figures, were withdrawnfrom sale and held until Congress was prepared to enact laws for thedisposition of them in the public interest. Prosecutions wereinstituted against men who had obtained public lands by fraud and vasttracts were recovered for the national domain. An agitation was begunwhich bore fruit under the administrations of Taft and Wilson in lawsreserving to the federal government the ownership of coal, water power, phosphates, and other natural resources while authorizing corporationsto develop them under leases for a period of years. 

=The Prosecution of the Trusts. =--As an executive, President Rooseveltwas also a distinct "personality. " His discrimination between "good" and"bad" trusts led him to prosecute some of them with vigor. On hisinitiative, the Northern Securities Company, formed to obtain control ofcertain great western railways, was dissolved by order of the SupremeCourt. Proceedings were instituted against the American Tobacco Companyand the Standard Oil Company as monopolies in violation of the ShermanAnti-Trust law. The Sugar Trust was found guilty of cheating the NewYork customs house and some of the minor officers were sent to prison. Frauds in the Post-office Department were uncovered and the offendersbrought to book. In fact hardly a week passed without stirring news of"wrong doers" and "malefactors" haled into federal courts. 

=The Great Coal Strike. =--The Roosevelt theory that the President coulddo anything for public welfare not forbidden by the Constitution and thelaws was put to a severe test in 1902. A strike of the anthracite coalminers, which started in the summer, ran late into the autumn. Industries were paralyzed for the want of coal; cities were threatenedwith the appalling menace of a winter without heat. Governors and mayorswere powerless and appealed for aid. The mine owners rejected thedemands of the men and refused to permit the arbitration of the pointsin dispute, although John Mitchell, the leader of the miners, repeatedlyurged it. After observing closely the course affairs, PresidentRoosevelt made up his mind that the situation was intolerable. Hearranged to have the federal troops, if necessary, take possession ofthe mines and operate them until the strike could be settled. He theninvited the contestants to the White House and by dint of hard laborinduced them to accept, as a substitute or compromise, arbitration by acommission which he appointed. Thus, by stepping outside theConstitution and acting as the first citizen of the land, PresidentRoosevelt averted a crisis of great magnitude. 

=The Election of 1904. =--The views and measures which he advocated withsuch vigor aroused deep hostility within as well as without his party. There were rumors of a Republican movement to defeat his nomination in1904 and it was said that the "financial and corporation interests" werein arms against him. A prominent Republican paper in New York Cityaccused him of having "stolen Mr. Bryan's thunder, " by harrying thetrusts and favoring labor unions. When the Republican conventionassembled in Chicago, however, the opposition disappeared and Rooseveltwas nominated by acclamation. 

This was the signal for a change on the part of Democratic leaders. Theydenounced the President as erratic, dangerous, and radical and decidedto assume the moderate rôle themselves. They put aside Mr. Bryan andselected as their candidate, Judge Alton B. Parker, of New York, a manwho repudiated free silver and made a direct appeal for the conservativevote. The outcome of the reversal was astounding. Judge Parker's votefell more than a million below that cast for Bryan in 1900; of the 476electoral votes he received only 140. Roosevelt, in addition to sweepingthe Republican sections, even invaded Democratic territory, carrying thestate of Missouri. Thus vindicated at the polls, he became moreoutspoken than ever. His leadership in the party was so widelyrecognized that he virtually selected his own successor. 

THE ADMINISTRATION OF PRESIDENT TAFT

=The Campaign of 1908. =--Long before the end of his elective term, President Roosevelt let it be known that he favored as his successor, William Howard Taft, of Ohio, his Secretary of War. To attain this endhe used every shred of his powerful influence. When the Republicanconvention assembled, Mr. Taft easily won the nomination. Though theparty platform was conservative in tone, he gave it a progressive tingeby expressing his personal belief in the popular election of UnitedStates Senators, an income tax, and other liberal measures. PresidentRoosevelt announced his faith in the Republican candidate and appealedto the country for his election. 

The turn in Republican affairs now convinced Mr. Bryan that the signswere propitious for a third attempt to win the presidency. The disasterto Judge Parker had taught the party that victory did not lie in aconservative policy. With little difficulty, therefore, the veteranleader from Nebraska once more rallied the Democrats around hisstandard, won the nomination, and wrote a platform vigorously attackingthe tariff, trusts, and monopolies. Supported by a loyal following, heentered the lists, only to meet another defeat. Though he polled almosta million and a half more votes than did Judge Parker in 1904, the palmwent to Mr. Taft. 

=The Tariff Revision and Party Dissensions. =--At the very beginning ofhis term, President Taft had to face the tariff issue. He had met it inthe campaign. Moved by the Democratic demand for a drastic reduction, hehad expressed opinions which were thought to imply a "downwardrevision. " The Democrats made much of the implication and theRepublicans from the Middle West rejoiced in it. Pressure was comingfrom all sides. More than ten years had elapsed since the enactment ofthe Dingley bill and the position of many industries had been alteredwith the course of time. Evidently the day for revision--at best athankless task--had arrived. Taft accepted the inevitable and calledCongress in a special session. Until the midsummer of 1909, RepublicanSenators and Representatives wrangled over tariff schedules, thePresident making little effort to influence their decisions. When onAugust 5 the Payne-Aldrich bill became a law, a breach had been made inRepublican ranks. Powerful Senators from the Middle West had spokenangrily against many of the high rates imposed by the bill. They hadeven broken with their party colleagues to vote against the entirescheme of tariff revision. 

=The Income Tax Amendment. =--The rift in party harmony was widened byanother serious difference of opinion. During the debate on the tariffbill, there was a concerted movement to include in it an income taxprovision--this in spite of the decision of the Supreme Court in 1895declaring it unconstitutional. Conservative men were alarmed by theevident willingness of some members to flout a solemn decree of thateminent tribunal. At the same time they saw a powerful combination ofRepublicans and Democrats determined upon shifting some of the burden oftaxation to large incomes. In the press of circumstances, a compromisewas reached. The income tax bill was dropped for the present; butCongress passed the sixteenth amendment to the Constitution, authorizingtaxes upon incomes from whatever source they might be derived, withoutreference to any apportionment among the states on the basis ofpopulation. The states ratified the amendment and early in 1913 it wasproclaimed. 

=President Taft's Policies. =--After the enactment of the tariff bill, Taft continued to push forward with his legislative program. Herecommended, and Congress created, a special court of commerce withjurisdiction, among other things, over appeals from the interstatecommerce commission, thus facilitating judicial review of the railwayrates fixed and the orders issued by that body. This measure was quicklyfollowed by an act establishing a system of postal savings banks inconnection with the post office--a scheme which had long been opposed byprivate banks. Two years later, Congress defied the lobby of the expresscompanies and supplemented the savings banks with a parcels post system, thus enabling the American postal service to catch up with that of otherprogressive nations. With a view to improving the businessadministration of the federal government, the President obtained fromCongress a large appropriation for an economy and efficiency commissioncharged with the duty of inquiring into wasteful and obsolete methodsand recommending improved devices and practices. The chief result ofthis investigation was a vigorous report in favor of a national budgetsystem, which soon found public backing. 

President Taft negotiated with England and France general treatiesproviding for the arbitration of disputes which were "justiciable" incharacter even though they might involve questions of "vital interestand national honor. " They were coldly received in the Senate and soamended that Taft abandoned them altogether. A tariff reciprocityagreement with Canada, however, he forced through Congress in the faceof strong opposition from his own party. After making a serious breachin Republican ranks, he was chagrined to see the whole scheme come tonaught by the overthrow of the Liberals in the Canadian elections of1911. 

=Prosecution of the Trusts. =--The party schism was even enlarged by whatappeared to be the successful prosecution of several great combinations. In two important cases, the Supreme Court ordered the dissolution of theStandard Oil Company and the American Tobacco Company on the ground thatthey violated the Sherman Anti-Trust law. In taking this step ChiefJustice White was at some pains to state that the law did not apply tocombinations which did not "unduly" restrain trade. His remark, construed to mean that the Court would not interfere with corporationsas such, became the subject of a popular outcry against the Presidentand the judges. 

PROGRESSIVE INSURGENCY AND THE ELECTION OF 1912

=Growing Dissensions. =--All in all, Taft's administration from the firstday had been disturbed by party discord. High words had passed over thetariff bill and disgruntled members of Congress could not forget them. To differences over issues were added quarrels between youth and oldage. In the House of Representatives there developed a group of young"insurgent" Republicans who resented the dominance of the Speaker, Joseph G. Cannon, and other members of the "old guard, " as they namedthe men of long service and conservative minds. In 1910, the insurgentswent so far as to join with the Democrats in a movement to break theSpeaker's sway by ousting him from the rules committee and depriving himof the power to appoint its members. The storm was brewing. In theautumn of that year the Democrats won a clear majority in the House ofRepresentatives and began an open battle with President Taft bydemanding an immediate downward revision of the tariff. 

=The Rise of the Progressive Republicans. =--Preparatory to the campaignof 1912, the dissenters within the Republican party added the prefix"Progressive" to their old title and began to organize a movement toprevent the renomination of Mr. Taft. As early as January 21, 1911, theyformed a Progressive Republican League at the home of Senator LaFollette of Wisconsin and launched an attack on the Taft measures andpolicies. In October they indorsed Mr. La Follette as "the logicalRepublican candidate" and appealed to the party for support. Thecontroversy over the tariff had grown into a formidable revolt againstthe occupant of the White House. 

=Roosevelt in the Field. =--After looking on for a while, ex-PresidentRoosevelt took a hand in the fray. Soon after his return in 1910 from ahunting trip in Africa and a tour in Europe, he made a series ofaddresses in which he formulated a progressive program. In a speech inKansas, he favored regulation of the trusts, a graduated income taxbearing heavily on great fortunes, tariff revision schedule by schedule, conservation of natural resources, labor legislation, the directprimary, and the recall of elective officials. In an address before theOhio state constitutional convention in February, 1912, he indorsed theinitiative and referendum and announced a doctrine known as the "recallof judicial decisions. " This was a new and radical note in Americanpolitics. An ex-President of the United States proposed that the peopleat the polls should have the right to reverse the decision of a judgewho set aside any act of a state legislature passed in the interests ofsocial welfare. The Progressive Republicans, impressed by theseaddresses, turned from La Follette to Roosevelt and on February 24, induced him to come out openly as a candidate against Taft for theRepublican nomination. 

=The Split in the Republican Party. =--The country then witnessed thestrange spectacle of two men who had once been close companions engagedin a bitter rivalry to secure a majority of the delegates to theRepublican convention to be held at Chicago. When the conventionassembled, about one-fourth of the seats were contested, the delegatesfor both candidates loudly proclaiming the regularity of their election. In deciding between the contestants the national committee, after theusual hearings, settled the disputes in such a way that Taft received asafe majority. After a week of negotiation, Roosevelt and his followersleft the Republican party. Most of his supporters withdrew from theconvention and the few who remained behind refused to answer the rollcall. Undisturbed by this formidable bolt, the regular Republicans wenton with their work. They renominated Mr. Taft and put forth a platformroundly condemning such Progressive doctrines as the recall of judges. 

=The Formation of the Progressive Party. =--The action of the Republicansin seating the Taft delegates was vigorously denounced by Roosevelt. Hedeclared that the convention had no claim to represent the voters of theRepublican party; that any candidate named by it would be "thebeneficiary of a successful fraud"; and that it would be deeplydiscreditable to any man to accept the convention's approval under suchcircumstances. The bitterness of his followers was extreme. On July 8, acall went forth for a "Progressive" convention to be held in Chicago onAugust 5. The assembly which duly met on that day was a unique politicalconference. Prominence was given to women delegates, and "politicians"were notably absent. Roosevelt himself, who was cheered as a conqueringhero, made an impassioned speech setting forth his "confession offaith. " He was nominated by acclamation; Governor Hiram Johnson ofCalifornia was selected as his companion candidate for Vice President. The platform endorsed such political reforms as woman suffrage, directprimaries, the initiative, referendum, and recall, popular election ofUnited States Senators, and the short ballot. It favored a program ofsocial legislation, including the prohibition of child labor and minimumwages for women. It approved the regulation, rather than thedissolution, of the trusts. Like apostles in a new and lofty cause, theProgressives entered a vigorous campaign for the election of theirdistinguished leader. 

=Woodrow Wilson and the Election of 1912. =--With the Republicansdivided, victory loomed up before the Democrats. Naturally, a terrificcontest over the nomination occurred at their convention in Baltimore. Champ Clark, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and GovernorWoodrow Wilson, of New Jersey, were the chief contestants. After tossingto and fro for seven long, hot days, and taking forty-six ballots, thedelegates, powerfully influenced by Mr. Bryan, finally decided in favorof the governor. As a professor, a writer on historical and politicalsubjects, and the president of Princeton University, Mr. Wilson hadbecome widely known in public life. As the governor of New Jersey he hadattracted the support of the progressives in both parties. With grimdetermination he had "waged war on the bosses, " and pushed through thelegislature measures establishing direct primaries, regulating publicutilities, and creating a system of workmen's compensation inindustries. During the presidential campaign that followed GovernorWilson toured the country and aroused great enthusiasm by a series ofaddresses later published under the title of _The New Freedom_. Hedeclared that "the government of the United States is at present thefoster child of the special interests. " He proposed to free the countryby breaking the dominance of "the big bankers, the big manufacturers, the big masters of commerce, the heads of railroad corporations and ofsteamship corporations. "

In the election Governor Wilson easily secured a majority of theelectoral votes, and his party, while retaining possession of the Houseof Representatives, captured the Senate as well. The popular verdict, however, indicated a state of confusion in the country. The combinedProgressive and Republican vote exceeded that of the Democrats by1, 300, 000. The Socialists, with Eugene V. Debs as their candidate again, polled about 900, 000 votes, more than double the number received fouryears before. Thus, as the result of an extraordinary upheaval theRepublicans, after holding the office of President for sixteen years, passed out of power, and the government of the country was intrusted tothe Democrats under the leadership of a man destined to be one of theoutstanding figures of the modern age, Woodrow Wilson. 

=General References=

J. B. Bishop, _Theodore Roosevelt and His Time_ (2 vols. ). 

Theodore Roosevelt, _Autobiography_; _New Nationalism_; _ProgressivePrinciples_. 

W. H. Taft, _Popular Government_. 

Walter Weyl, _The New Democracy_. 

H. Croly, _The Promise of American Life_. 

J. B. Bishop, _The Panama Gateway_. 

J. B. Scott, _The Hague Peace Conferences_. 

W. B. Munro (ed. ), _Initiative, Referendum, and Recall_. 

C. R. Van Hise, _The Conservation of Natural Resources_. 

Gifford Pinchot, _The Fight for Conservation_. 

W. F. Willoughby, _Territories and Dependencies of the United States_(1905). 

=Research Topics=

=Roosevelt and "Big Business. "=--Haworth, _The United States in Our OwnTime_, pp. 281-289; F. A. Ogg, _National Progress_ (American NationSeries), pp. 40-75; Paxson, _The New Nation_ (Riverside Series), pp. 293-307. 

=Our Insular Possessions. =--Elson, _History of the United States_, pp. 896-904. 

=Latin-American Relations. =--Haworth, pp. 294-299; Ogg, pp. 254-257. 

=The Panama Canal. =--Haworth, pp. 300-309; Ogg, pp. 266-277; Paxson, pp. 286-292; Elson, pp. 906-911. 

=Conservation. =--Haworth, pp. 331-334; Ogg, pp. 96-115; Beard, _AmericanGovernment and Politics_ (3d ed. ), pp. 401-416. 

=Republican Dissensions under Taft's Administration. =--Haworth, pp. 351-360; Ogg, pp. 167-186; Paxson, pp. 324-342; Elson, pp. 916-924. 

=The Campaign of 1912. =--Haworth, pp. 360-379; Ogg, pp. 187-208. 

=Questions=

1. Compare the early career of Roosevelt with that of some otherPresident. 

2. Name the chief foreign and domestic questions of the Roosevelt-Taftadministrations. 

3. What international complications were involved in the Panama Canalproblem?

4. Review the Monroe Doctrine. Discuss Roosevelt's applications of it. 

5. What is the strategic importance of the Caribbean to the UnitedStates?

6. What is meant by the sea power? Trace the voyage of the fleet aroundthe world and mention the significant imperial and commercial pointstouched. 

7. What is meant by the question: "Does the Constitution follow theflag?"

8. Trace the history of self-government in Porto Rico. In thePhilippines. 

9. What is Cuba's relation to the United States?

10. What was Roosevelt's theory of our Constitution?

11. Give Roosevelt's views on trusts, labor, taxation. 

12. Outline the domestic phases of Roosevelt's administrations. 

13. Account for the dissensions under Taft. 

14. Trace the rise of the Progressive movement. 

15. What was Roosevelt's progressive program?

16. Review Wilson's early career and explain the underlying theory of_The New Freedom_. 

CHAPTER XXII

THE SPIRIT OF REFORM IN AMERICA

AN AGE OF CRITICISM

=Attacks on Abuses in American Life. =--The crisis precipitated by theProgressive uprising was not a sudden and unexpected one. It had beenlong in preparation. The revolt against corruption in politics whichproduced the Liberal Republican outbreak in the seventies and theMugwump movement of the eighties was followed by continuous criticism ofAmerican political and economic development. From 1880 until his deathin 1892, George William Curtis, as president of the Civil Service ReformAssociation, kept up a running fire upon the abuses of the spoilssystem. James Bryce, an observant English scholar and man of affairs, inhis great work, _The American Commonwealth_, published in 1888, bypicturing fearlessly the political rings and machines which dominatedthe cities, gave the whole country a fresh shock. Six years later HenryD. Lloyd, in a powerful book entitled _Wealth against Commonwealth_, attacked in scathing language certain trusts which had destroyed theirrivals and bribed public officials. In 1903 Miss Ida Tarbell, an authorof established reputation in the historical field, gave to the public anaccount of the Standard Oil Company, revealing the ruthless methods ofthat corporation in crushing competition. About the same time LincolnSteffens exposed the sordid character of politics in severalmunicipalities in a series of articles bearing the painful heading: _TheShame of the Cities_. The critical spirit appeared in almost every form;in weekly and monthly magazines, in essays and pamphlets, in editorialsand news stories, in novels like Churchill's _Coniston_ and Sinclair's_The Jungle_. It became so savage and so wanton that the opening yearsof the twentieth century were well named "the age of the muckrakers. "

=The Subjects of the Criticism. =--In this outburst of invective, nothingwas spared. It was charged that each of the political parties had falleninto the hands of professional politicians who devoted their time tomanaging conventions, making platforms, nominating candidates, anddictating to officials; in return for their "services" they sold officesand privileges. It was alleged that mayors and councils had bargainedaway for private benefit street railway and other franchises. It wasasserted that many powerful labor unions were dominated by men whoblackmailed employers. Some critics specialized in descriptions of thepoverty, slums, and misery of great cities. Others took up "frenziedfinance" and accused financiers of selling worthless stocks and bonds toan innocent public. Still others professed to see in the accumulationsof millionaires the downfall of our republic. 

=The Attack on "Invisible Government. "=--Some even maintained that thecontrol of public affairs had passed from the people to a sinisterminority called "the invisible government. " So eminent and conservativea statesman as the Hon. Elihu Root lent the weight of his great name tosuch an imputation. Speaking of his native state, New York, he said:"What is the government of this state? What has it been during the fortyyears of my acquaintance with it? The government of the Constitution?Oh, no; not half the time or half way. .. . From the days of Fenton andConkling and Arthur and Cornell and Platt, from the days of David B. Hill down to the present time, the government of the state has presentedtwo different lines of activity: one, of the constitutional andstatutory officers of the state and the other of the party leaders; theycall them party bosses. They call the system--I don't coin thephrase--the system they call 'invisible government. ' For I don't knowhow many years Mr. Conkling was the supreme ruler in this state. Thegovernor did not count, the legislature did not count, comptrollers andsecretaries of state and what not did not count. It was what Mr. Conkling said, and in a great outburst of public rage he was pulleddown. Then Mr. Platt ruled the state; for nigh upon twenty years heruled it. It was not the governor; it was not the legislature; it wasMr. Platt. And the capital was not here [in Albany]; it was at 49Broadway; Mr. Platt and his lieutenants. It makes no difference whatname you give, whether you call it Fenton or Conkling or Cornell orArthur or Platt or by the names of men now living. The ruler of thestate during the greater part of the forty years of my acquaintance withthe state government has not been any man authorized by the constitutionor by law. .. . The party leader is elected by no one, accountable to noone, bound by no oath of office, removable by no one. "

=The Nation Aroused. =--With the spirit of criticism came also the spiritof reform. The charges were usually exaggerated; often wholly false; butthere was enough truth in them to warrant renewed vigilance on the partof American democracy. President Roosevelt doubtless summed up thesentiment of the great majority of citizens when he demanded thepunishment of wrong-doers in 1907, saying: "It makes not a particle ofdifference whether these crimes are committed by a capitalist or by alaborer, by a leading banker or manufacturer or railroad man or by aleading representative of a labor union. Swindling in stocks, corruptinglegislatures, making fortunes by the inflation of securities, bywrecking railroads, by destroying competitors through rebates--theseforms of wrong-doing in the capitalist are far more infamous than anyordinary form of embezzlement or forgery. " The time had come, he added, to stop "muckraking" and proceed to the constructive work of removingthe abuses that had grown up. 

POLITICAL REFORMS

=The Public Service. =--It was a wise comprehension of the needs ofAmerican democracy that led the friends of reform to launch and tosustain for more than half a century a movement to improve the publicservice. On the one side they struck at the spoils system; at the rightof the politicians to use public offices as mere rewards for partisanwork. The federal civil service act of 1883 opened the way to reform byestablishing five vital principles in law: (1) admission to office, noton the recommendation of party workers, but on the basis of competitiveexaminations; (2) promotion for meritorious service of the governmentrather than of parties; (3) no assessment of office holders for campaignfunds; (4) permanent tenure during good behavior; and (5) no dismissalsfor political reasons. The act itself at first applied to only 14, 000federal offices, but under the constant pressure from the reformers itwas extended until in 1916 it covered nearly 300, 000 employees out of anexecutive force of approximately 414, 000. While gaining steadily atWashington, civil service reformers carried their agitation into thestates and cities. By 1920 they were able to report ten states withcivil service commissions and the merit system well intrenched in morethan three hundred municipalities. 

In excluding spoilsmen from public office, the reformers were, in asense, engaged in a negative work: that of "keeping the rascals out. "But there was a second and larger phase to their movement, oneconstructive in character: that of getting skilled, loyal, and efficientservants into the places of responsibility. Everywhere on land and sea, in town and country, new burdens were laid upon public officers. Theywere called upon to supervise the ships sailing to and from our ports;to inspect the water and milk supplies of our cities; to construct andoperate great public works, such as the Panama and Erie canals; toregulate the complicated rates of railway companies; to safeguard healthand safety in a thousand ways; to climb the mountains to fight forestfires; and to descend into the deeps of the earth to combat the deadlycoal gases that assail the miners. In a word, those who labored tomaster the secrets and the powers of nature were summoned to the aid ofthe government: chemists, engineers, architects, nurses, surgeons, foresters--the skilled in all the sciences, arts, and crafts. 

Keeping rascals out was no task at all compared with the problem offinding competent people for all the technical offices. "Now, " said thereformers, "we must make attractive careers in the government work forthe best American talent; we must train those applying for admission andincrease the skill of those already in positions of trust; we must seeto it that those entering at the bottom have a chance to rise to thetop; in short, we must work for a government as skilled and efficient asit is strong, one commanding all the wisdom and talent of America thatpublic welfare requires. "

=The Australian Ballot. =--A second line of attack on the politicalmachines was made in connection with the ballot. In the early dayselections were frequently held in the open air and the poll was taken bya show of hands or by the enrollment of the voters under names of theirfavorite candidates. When this ancient practice was abandoned in favorof the printed ballot, there was still no secrecy about elections. Eachparty prepared its own ballot, often of a distinctive color, containingthe names of its candidates. On election day, these papers were handedout to the voters by party workers. Any one could tell from the color ofthe ballot dropped into the box, or from some mark on the outside of thefolded ballot, just how each man voted. Those who bought votes were surethat their purchases were "delivered. " Those who intimidated voterscould know when their intimidation was effective. In this way the partyballot strengthened the party machine. 

As a remedy for such abuses, reformers, learning from the experience ofAustralia, urged the adoption of the "Australian ballot. " That ballot, though it appeared in many forms, had certain constant features. It wasofficial, that is, furnished by the government, not by party workers; itcontained the names of all candidates of all parties; it was given outonly in the polling places; and it was marked in secret. The first stateto introduce it was Massachusetts. The year was 1888. Before the end ofthe century it had been adopted by nearly all the states in the union. The salutary effect of the reform in reducing the amount of cheatingand bribery in elections was beyond all question. 

=The Direct Primary. =--In connection with the uprising against machinepolitics, came a call for the abolition of the old method of nominatingcandidates by conventions. These time-honored party assemblies, whichhad come down from the days of Andrew Jackson, were, it was said, merelyconclaves of party workers, sustained by the spoils system, anddominated by an inner circle of bosses. The remedy offered in this casewas again "more democracy, " namely, the abolition of the partyconvention and the adoption of the direct primary. Candidates were nolonger to be chosen by secret conferences. Any member of a party was tobe allowed to run for any office, to present his name to his party bysecuring signatures to a petition, and to submit his candidacy to hisfellow partisans at a direct primary--an election within the party. Inthis movement Governor La Follette of Wisconsin took the lead and hisstate was the first in the union to adopt the direct primary forstate-wide purposes. The idea spread, rapidly in the West, more slowlyin the East. The public, already angered against "the bosses, " graspedeagerly at it. Governor Hughes in New York pressed it upon the unwillinglegislature. State after state accepted it until by 1918 Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, and New Mexico were the only states that had notbowed to the storm. Still the results were disappointing and at thatvery time the pendulum was beginning to swing backward. 

=Popular Election of Federal Senators. =--While the movement for directprimaries was still advancing everywhere, a demand for the popularelection of Senators, usually associated with it, swept forward tovictory. Under the original Constitution, it had been expressly providedthat Senators should be chosen by the legislatures of the states. Inpractice this rule transferred the selection of Senators to secretcaucuses of party members in the state legislatures. In connection withthese caucuses there had been many scandals, some direct proofs ofbrazen bribery and corruption, and dark hints besides. The Senate wascalled by its detractors "a millionaires' club" and it was looked uponas the "citadel of conservatism. " The prescription in this case waslikewise "more democracy"--direct election of Senators by popular vote. 

This reform was not a new idea. It had been proposed in Congress asearly as 1826. President Johnson, an ardent advocate, made it thesubject of a special message in 1868 Not long afterward it appeared inCongress. At last in 1893, the year after the great Populist upheaval, the House of Representatives by the requisite two-thirds voteincorporated it in an amendment to the federal Constitution. Again andagain it passed the House; but the Senate itself was obdurate. AbleSenators leveled their batteries against it. Mr. Hoar of Massachusettsdeclared that it would transfer the seat of power to the "great citiesand masses of population"; that it would "overthrow the whole scheme ofthe Senate and in the end the whole scheme of the national Constitutionas designed and established by the framers of the Constitution and thepeople who adopted it. "

Failing in the Senate, advocates of popular election made a rear assaultthrough the states. They induced state legislatures to enact lawsrequiring the nomination of candidates for the Senate by the directprimary, and then they bound the legislatures to abide by the popularchoice. Nevada took the lead in 1899. Shortly afterward Oregon, by theuse of the initiative and referendum, practically bound legislators toaccept the popular nominee and the country witnessed the spectacle of aRepublican legislature "electing" a Democrat to represent the state inthe Senate at Washington. By 1910 three-fourths of the states hadapplied the direct primary in some form to the choice of Senators. Menselected by that method began to pour in upon the floors of Congress;finally in 1912 the two-thirds majority was secured for an amendment tothe federal Constitution providing for the popular election of Senators. It was quickly ratified by the states. The following year it wasproclaimed in effect. 

=The Initiative and Referendum. =--As a corrective for the evils whichhad grown up in state legislatures there arose a demand for theintroduction of a Swiss device known as the initiative and referendum. The initiative permits any one to draw up a proposed bill; and, onsecuring a certain number of signatures among the voters, to require thesubmission of the measure to the people at an election. If the bill thusinitiated receives a sufficient majority, it becomes a law. Thereferendum allows citizens who disapprove any act passed by thelegislature to get up a petition against it and thus bring about areference of the measure to the voters at the polls for approval orrejection. These two practices constitute a form of "direct government. "

These devices were prescribed "to restore the government to the people. "The Populists favored them in their platform of 1896. Mr. Bryan, twoyears later, made them a part of his program, and in the same year SouthDakota adopted them. In 1902 Oregon, after a strenuous campaign, added adirect legislation amendment to the state constitution. Within ten yearsall the Southwestern, Mountain, and Pacific states, except Texas andWyoming, had followed this example. To the east of the Mississippi, however, direct legislation met a chilly reception. By 1920 only fivestates in this section had accepted it: Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio, Michigan, and Maryland, the last approving the referendum only. 

=The Recall. =--Executive officers and judges, as well as legislatures, had come in for their share of criticism, and it was proposed that theyshould likewise be subjected to a closer scrutiny by the public. Forthis purpose there was advanced a scheme known as the recall--whichpermitted a certain percentage of the voters to compel any officer, atany time during his term, to go before the people at a new election. This feature of direct government, tried out first in the city of LosAngeles, was extended to state-wide uses in Oregon in 1908. It failed, however, to capture popular imagination to the same degree as theinitiative and referendum. At the end of ten years' agitation, only tenstates, mainly in the West, had adopted it for general purposes, andfour of them did not apply it to the judges of the courts. Still it wasextensively acclaimed in cities and incorporated into hundreds ofmunicipal laws and charters. 

As a general proposition, direct government in all its forms wasbitterly opposed by men of a conservative cast of mind. It was denouncedby Senator Henry Cabot Lodge as "nothing less than a complete revolutionin the fabric of our government and in the fundamental principles uponwhich that government rests. " In his opinion, it promised to break downthe representative principle and "undermine and overthrow the bulwarksof ordered liberty and individual freedom. " Mr. Taft shared Mr. Lodge'sviews and spoke of direct government with scorn. "Votes, " he exclaimed, "are not bread . .. Referendums do not pay rent or furnish houses, recalls do not furnish clothes, initiatives do not supply employment orrelieve inequalities of condition or of opportunity. "

=Commission Government for Cities. =--In the restless searching out ofevils, the management of cities early came under critical scrutiny. Citygovernment, Mr. Bryce had remarked, was the one conspicuous failure inAmerica. This sharp thrust, though resented by some, was accepted as awarning by others. Many prescriptions were offered by doctors of thebody politic. Chief among them was the idea of simplifying the citygovernment so that the light of public scrutiny could shine through it. "Let us elect only a few men and make them clearly responsible for thecity government!" was the new cry in municipal reform. So, many citycouncils were reduced in size; one of the two houses, which severalcities had adopted in imitation of the federal government, wasabolished; and in order that the mayor could be held to account, he wasgiven the power to appoint all the chief officials. This made the mayor, in some cases, the only elective city official and gave the voters a"short ballot" containing only a few names--an idea which some proposedto apply also to the state government. 

A further step in the concentration of authority was taken in Galveston, Texas, where the people, looking upon the ruin of their city wrought bythe devastating storm of 1901, and confronted by the difficult problemsof reconstruction, felt the necessity for a more businesslike managementof city affairs and instituted a new form of local administration. Theyabolished the old scheme of mayor and council and vested all power infive commissioners, one of whom, without any special prerogatives, wasassigned to the office of "mayor president. " In 1908, the commissionform of government, as it was soon characterized, was adopted by DesMoines, Iowa. The attention of all municipal reformers was drawn to itand it was hailed as the guarantee of a better day. By 1920, more thanfour hundred cities, including Memphis, Spokane, Birmingham, Newark, andBuffalo, had adopted it. Still the larger cities like New York andChicago kept their boards of aldermen. 

=The City Manager Plan. =--A few years' experience with commissiongovernment revealed certain patent defects. The division of the workamong five men was frequently found to introduce dissensions andirresponsibility. Commissioners were often lacking in the technicalability required to manage such difficult matters as fire and policeprotection, public health, public works, and public utilities. Some onethen proposed to carry over into city government an idea from thebusiness world. In that sphere the stockholders of each corporationelect the directors and the directors, in turn, choose a businessmanager to conduct the affairs of the company. It was suggested that thecity commissioners, instead of attempting to supervise the details ofthe city administration, should select a manager to do this. The schemewas put into effect in Sumter, South Carolina, in 1912. Like thecommission plan, it became popular. Within eight years more than onehundred and fifty towns and cities had adopted it. Among the largermunicipalities were Dayton, Springfield (Ohio), Akron, Kalamazoo, andPhoenix. It promised to create a new public service profession, that ofcity manager. 

MEASURES OF ECONOMIC REFORM

=The Spirit of American Reform. =--The purification of the ballot, therestriction of the spoils system, the enlargement of direct popularcontrol over the organs of government were not the sole answers made bythe reformers to the critics of American institutions. Nor were they themost important. In fact, they were regarded not as ends in themselves, but as means to serve a wider purpose. That purpose was the promotion ofthe "general welfare. " The concrete objects covered by that broad termwere many and varied; but they included the prevention of extortion byrailway and other corporations, the protection of public health, theextension of education, the improvement of living conditions in thecities, the elimination of undeserved poverty, the removal of grossinequalities in wealth, and more equality of opportunity. 

All these things involved the use of the powers of government. Althougha few clung to the ancient doctrine that the government should notinterfere with private business at all, the American people at largerejected that theory as vigorously as they rejected the doctrines of anextreme socialism which exalts the state above the individual. Leadersrepresenting every shade of opinion proclaimed the government aninstrument of common welfare to be used in the public interest. "We mustabandon definitely, " said Roosevelt, "the _laissez-faire_ theory ofpolitical economy and fearlessly champion a system of increasedgovernmental control, paying no attention to the cries of worthy peoplewho denounce this as socialistic. " This view was shared by Mr. Taft, whoobserved: "Undoubtedly the government can wisely do much more . .. Torelieve the oppressed, to create greater equality of opportunity, tomake reasonable terms for labor in employment, and to furnish vocationaleducation. " He was quick to add his caution that "there is a line beyondwhich the government cannot go with any good practical results inseeking to make men and society better. "

=The Regulation of Railways. =--The first attempts to use the governmentin a large way to control private enterprise in the public interest weremade by the Northwestern states in the decade between 1870 and 1880. Charges were advanced by the farmers, particularly those organized intoGranges, that the railways extorted the highest possible rates forfreight and passengers, that favoritism was shown to large shippers, that fraudulent stocks and bonds were sold to the innocent public. Itwas claimed that railways were not like other enterprises, but were"quasi-public" concerns, like the roads and ferries, and thus subject togovernment control. Accordingly laws were enacted bringing the railroadsunder state supervision. In some cases the state legislature fixed themaximum rates to be charged by common carriers, and in other casescommissions were created with the power to establish the rates after aninvestigation. This legislation was at first denounced in the East asnothing less than the "confiscation" of the railways in the interest ofthe farmers. Attempts to have the Supreme Court of the United Statesdeclare it unconstitutional were made without avail; still a principlewas finally laid down to the effect that in fixing rates statelegislatures and commissions must permit railway companies to earn a"fair" return on the capital invested. 

In a few years the Granger spirit appeared in Congress. An investigationrevealed a long list of abuses committed by the railways againstshippers and travelers. The result was the interstate commerce act of1887, which created the Interstate Commerce Commission, forbadediscriminations in rates, and prohibited other objectionable practiceson the part of railways. This measure was loosely enforced and theabuses against which it was directed continued almost unabated. A demandfor stricter control grew louder and louder. Congress was forced toheed. In 1903 it enacted the Elkins law, forbidding railways to chargerates other than those published, and laid penalties upon the officersand agents of companies, who granted secret favors to shippers, and uponshippers who accepted them. Three years later a still more drastic stepwas taken by the passage of the Hepburn act. The Interstate CommerceCommission was authorized, upon complaint of some party aggrieved, andafter a public hearing, to determine whether just and reasonable rateshad been charged by the companies. In effect, the right to fix freightand passenger rates was taken out of the hands of the owners of therailways engaged in interstate commerce and vested in the hands of theInterstate Commerce Commission. Thus private property to the value of$20, 000, 000, 000 or more was declared to be a matter of public concernand subject to government regulation in the common interest. 

=Municipal Utilities. =--Similar problems arose in connection with thestreet railways, electric light plants, and other utilities in the greatcities. In the beginning the right to construct such undertakings wasfreely, and often corruptly, granted to private companies by citycouncils. Distressing abuses arose in connection with such practices. Many grants or franchises were made perpetual, or perhaps for a term of999 years. The rates charged and services rendered were left largely tothe will of the companies holding the franchises. Mergers or unions ofcompanies were common and the public was deluged with stocks and bondsof doubtful value; bankruptcies were frequent. The connection betweenthe utility companies and the politicians was, to say the least, notalways in the public interest. 

American ingenuity was quick to devise methods for eliminating suchevils. Three lines of progress were laid out by the reformers. One groupproposed that such utilities should be subject to municipal or stateregulation, that the formation of utility companies should be underpublic control, and that the issue of stocks and bonds must be approvedby public authority. In some cases state, and in other cases municipal, commissions were created to exercise this great power over "quasi-publiccorporations. " Wisconsin, by laws enacted in 1907, put all heat, light, water works, telephone, and street railway companies under thesupervision of a single railway commission. Other states followed thisexample rapidly. By 1920 the principle of public control over municipalutilities was accepted in nearly every section of the union. 

A second line of reform appeared in the "model franchise" for utilitycorporations. An illustration of this tendency was afforded by theChicago street railway settlement of 1906. The total capital of thecompany was fixed at a definite sum, its earnings were agreed upon, andthe city was given the right to buy and operate the system if it desiredto do so. In many states, about the same time, it was provided that nofranchises to utility companies could run more than twenty-five years. 

A third group of reformers were satisfied with nothing short ofmunicipal ownership. They proposed to drive private companies entirelyout of the field and vest the ownership and management of municipalplants in the city itself. This idea was extensively applied to electriclight and water works plants, but to street railways in only a fewcities, including San Francisco and Seattle. In New York the subways areowned by the city but leased for operation. 

=Tenement House Control. =--Among the other pressing problems of thecities was the overcrowding in houses unfit for habitation. An inquiryin New York City made under the authority of the state in 1902 revealedpoverty, misery, slums, dirt, and disease almost beyond imagination. Theimmediate answer was the enactment of a tenement house law prescribingin great detail the size of the rooms, the air space, the light and thesanitary arrangement for all new buildings. An immense improvementfollowed and the idea was quickly taken up in other states having largeindustrial centers. In 1920 New York made a further invasion of therights of landlords by assuring to the public "reasonable rents" forflats and apartments. 

=Workmen's Compensation. =--No small part of the poverty in cities wasdue to the injury of wage-earners while at their trade. Every year thenumber of men and women killed or wounded in industry mounted higher. Under the old law, the workman or his family had to bear the loss unlessthe employer had been guilty of some extraordinary negligence. Even inthat case an expensive lawsuit was usually necessary to recover"damages. " In short, although employers insured their buildings andmachinery against necessary risks from fire and storm, they allowedtheir employees to assume the heavy losses due to accidents. Theinjustice of this, though apparent enough now, was once not generallyrecognized. It was said to be unfair to make the employer pay forinjuries for which he was not personally responsible; but the argumentwas overborne. 

[Illustration: AN EAST SIDE STREET IN NEW YORK]

About 1910 there set in a decided movement in the direction of liftingthe burden of accidents from the unfortunate victims. In the firstplace, laws were enacted requiring employers to pay damages in certainamounts according to the nature of the case, no matter how the accidentoccurred, as long as the injured person was not guilty of willfulnegligence. By 1914 more than one-half the states had such laws. In thesecond place, there developed schemes of industrial insurance in theform of automatic grants made by state commissions to persons injured inindustries, the funds to be provided by the employers or the state or byboth. By 1917 thirty-six states had legislation of this type. 

=Minimum Wages and Mothers' Pensions. =--Another source of poverty, especially among women and children, was found to be the low wages paidfor their labor. Report after report showed this. In 1912 Massachusettstook a significant step in the direction of declaring the minimum wageswhich might be paid to women and children. Oregon, the following year, created a commission with power to prescribe minimum wages in certainindustries, based on the cost of living, and to enforce the rates fixed. Within a short time one-third of the states had legislation of thischaracter. To cut away some of the evils of poverty and enable widows tokeep their homes intact and bring up their children, a device known asmothers' pensions became popular during the second decade of thetwentieth century. At the opening of 1913 two states, Colorado andIllinois, had laws authorizing the payment from public funds of definitesums to widows with children. Within four years, thirty-five states hadsimilar legislation. 

=Taxation and Great Fortunes. =--As a part of the campaign waged againstpoverty by reformers there came a demand for heavy taxes upon greatfortunes, particularly taxes upon inheritances or estates passing toheirs on the decease of the owners. Roosevelt was an ardent champion ofthis type of taxation and dwelt upon it at length in his message toCongress in 1907. "Such a tax, " he said, "would help to preserve ameasurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generationsgrowing to manhood. .. . Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out:the fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously notequal; but also to insist that there should be equality of self-respectand of mutual respect, an equality of rights before the law, and atleast an approximate equality in the conditions under which each manobtains the chance to show the stuff that is in him when compared withhis fellows. "

The spirit of the new age was, therefore, one of reform, not ofrevolution. It called for no evolutionary or utopian experiments, butfor the steady and progressive enactment of measures aimed at admittedabuses and designed to accomplish tangible results in the name of publicwelfare. 

=General References=

J. Bryce, _The American Commonwealth_. 

R. C. Brooks, _Corruption in American Life_. 

E. A. Ross, _Changing America_. 

P. L. Haworth, _America in Ferment_. 

E. R. A. Seligman, _The Income Tax_. 

W. Z. Ripley, _Railroads: Rates and Regulation_. 

E. S. Bradford, _Commission Government in American Cities_. 

H. R. Seager, _A Program of Social Reform_. 

C. Zueblin, _American Municipal Progress_. 

W. E. Walling, _Progressivism and After_. 

_The American Year Book_ (an annual publication which contains reviewsof reform legislation). 

=Research Topics=

="The Muckrakers. "=--Paxson, _The New Nation_ (Riverside Series), pp. 309-323. 

=Civil Service Reform. =--Beard, _American Government and Politics_ (3ded. ), pp. 222-230; Ogg, _National Progress_ (American Nation Series), pp. 135-142. 

=Direct Government. =--Beard, _American Government_, pp. 461-473; Ogg, pp. 160-166. 

=Popular Election of Senators. =--Beard, _American Government_, pp. 241-244; Ogg, pp. 149-150. 

=Party Methods. =--Beard, _American Government_, pp. 656-672. 

=Ballot Reform. =--Beard, _American Government_, pp. 672-705. 

=Social and Economic Legislation. =--Beard, _American Government_, pp. 721-752. 

=Questions=

1. Who were some of the critics of abuses in American life?

2. What particular criticisms were advanced?

3. How did Elihu Root define "invisible government"?

4. Discuss the use of criticism as an aid to progress in a democracy. 

5. Explain what is meant by the "merit system" in the civil service. Review the rise of the spoils system. 

6. Why is the public service of increasing importance? Give some of itsnew problems. 

7. Describe the Australian ballot and the abuses against which it isdirected. 

8. What are the elements of direct government? Sketch their progress inthe United States. 

9. Trace the history of popular election of Senators. 

10. Explain the direct primary. Commission government. The city managerplan. 

11. How does modern reform involve government action? On what theory isit justified?

12. Enumerate five lines of recent economic reform. 

CHAPTER XXIII

THE NEW POLITICAL DEMOCRACY

=Women in Public Affairs. =--The social legislation enacted in responseto the spirit of reform vitally affected women in the home and inindustry and was promoted by their organizations. Where they did notlead, they were affiliated with movements for social improvement. Nocause escaped their attention; no year passed without widening the rangeof their interests. They served on committees that inquired into theproblems of the day; they appeared before legislative assemblies toadvocate remedies for the evils they discovered. By 1912 they were aforce to be reckoned with in national politics. In nine states completeand equal suffrage had been established, and a widespread campaign for anational suffrage amendment was in full swing. On every hand layevidences that their sphere had been broadened to include publicaffairs. This was the culmination of forces that had long beenoperating. 

=A New Emphasis in History. =--A movement so deeply affecting importantinterests could not fail to find a place in time in the written recordof human progress. History often began as a chronicle of kings andqueens, knights and ladies, written partly to amuse and partly toinstruct the classes that appeared in its pages. With the growth ofcommerce, parliaments, and international relations, politics anddiplomacy were added to such chronicles of royal and princely doings. After the rise of democracy, industry, and organized labor, thetransactions of everyday life were deemed worthy of a place in the pagesof history. In each case history was rewritten and the past rediscoveredin the light of the new age. So it will be with the rise and growth ofwomen's political power. The history of their labor, their education, their status in society, their influence on the course of events will beexplored and given its place in the general record. 

It will be a history of change. The superior position which women enjoyin America to-day is the result of a slow evolution from an almostrightless condition in colonial times. The founders of America broughtwith them the English common law. Under that law, a married woman'spersonal property--jewels, money, furniture, and the like--became herhusband's property; the management of her lands passed into his control. Even the wages she earned, if she worked for some one else, belonged tohim. Custom, if not law, prescribed that women should not take part intown meetings or enter into public discussions of religious questions. Indeed it is a far cry from the banishment of Anne Hutchinson fromMassachusetts in 1637, for daring to dispute with the church fathers, tothe political conventions of 1920 in which women sat as delegates, madenominating speeches, and served on committees. In the contrast betweenthese two scenes may be measured the change in the privileges of womensince the landing of the Pilgrims. The account of this progress is anarrative of individual effort on the part of women, of organizationsamong them, of generous aid from sympathetic men in the long agitationfor the removal of civil and political disabilities. It is in part alsoa narrative of irresistible economic change which drew women intoindustry, created a leisure class, gave women wages and incomes, andtherewith economic independence. 

THE RISE OF THE WOMAN MOVEMENT

=Protests of Colonial Women. =--The republican spirit which producedAmerican independence was of slow and steady growth. It did not springup full-armed in a single night. It was, on the contrary, nourishedduring a long period of time by fireside discussions as well as bydebates in the public forum. Women shared that fireside sifting ofpolitical principles and passed on the findings of that scrutiny inletters to their friends, newspaper articles, and every form of writtenword. How widespread was this potent, though not spectacular force, isrevealed in the collections of women's letters, articles, songs, dramas, and satirical "skits" on English rule that have come down to us. In thissearch into the reasons of government, some women began to take thoughtabout laws that excluded them from the ballot. Two women at least lefttheir protests on record. Abigail, the ingenious and witty wife of JohnAdams, wrote to her husband, in March, 1776, that women objected "to allarbitrary power whether of state or males" and demanded politicalprivileges in the new order then being created. Hannah Lee Corbin, thesister of "Lighthorse" Harry Lee, protested to her brother against thetaxation of women without representation. 

[Illustration: ABIGAIL ADAMS]

=The Stir among European Women. =--Ferment in America, in the case ofwomen as of men, was quickened by events in Europe. In 1792, MaryWollstonecraft published in England the _Vindication of the Rights ofWomen_--a book that was destined to serve the cause of liberty amongwomen as the writings of Locke and Paine had served that of men. Thespecific grievances which stirred English women were men's invasion ofwomen's industries, such as spinning and weaving; the denial of equaleducational opportunities; and political disabilities. In France alsothe great Revolution raised questionings about the status of women. Therights of "citizenesses" as well as the rights of "citizens" wereexamined by the boldest thinkers. This in turn reacted upon women in theUnited States. 

=Leadership in America. =--The origins of the American woman movement areto be found in the writings of a few early intellectual leaders. Duringthe first decades of the nineteenth century, books, articles, andpamphlets about women came in increasing numbers from the press. LydiaMaria Child wrote a history of women; Margaret Fuller made a criticalexamination of the status of women in her time; and Mrs. Elizabeth Elletsupplemented the older histories by showing what an important part womenhad played in the American Revolution. 

=The Struggle for Education. =--Along with criticism, there was carriedon a constructive struggle for better educational facilities for womenwho had been from the beginning excluded from every college in thecountry. In this long battle, Emma Willard and Mary Lyon led the way;the former founded a seminary at Troy, New York; and the latter made thebeginnings of Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts. Oberlin College inOhio, established in 1833, opened its doors to girls and from it weregraduated young students to lead in the woman movement. Sarah J. Hale, who in 1827 became the editor of a "Ladies' Magazine, " published inBoston, conducted a campaign for equal educational opportunities whichhelped to bear fruit in the founding of Vassar College shortly after theCivil War. 

=The Desire to Effect Reforms. =--As they came to study their own historyand their own part in civilization, women naturally became deeplyinterested in all the controversies going on around them. The temperancequestion made a special appeal to them and they organized to demand theright to be heard on it. In 1846 the "Daughters of Temperance" formed asecret society favoring prohibition. They dared to criticize thechurches for their indifference and were so bold as to ask thatdrunkenness be made a ground for divorce. 

The slavery issue even more than temperance called women into publiclife. The Grimké sisters of South Carolina emancipated their bondmen, and one of these sisters, exiled from Charleston for her "Appeal to theChristian Women of the South, " went North to work against the slaverysystem. In 1837 the National Women's Anti-Slavery Convention met in NewYork; seventy-one women delegates represented eight states. Three yearslater eight American women, five of them in Quaker costume, attended theWorld Anti-Slavery Convention in London, much to the horror of the men, who promptly excluded them from the sessions on the ground that it wasnot fitting for women to take part in such meetings. 

In other spheres of activity, especially social service, women steadilyenlarged their interest. Nothing human did they consider alien to them. They inveighed against cruel criminal laws and unsanitary prisons. Theyorganized poor relief and led in private philanthropy. Dorothea Dixdirected the movement that induced the New York legislature to establishin 1845 a separate asylum for the criminal insane. In the same yearSarah G. Bagley organized the Lowell Female Reform Association for thepurpose of reducing the long hours of labor for women, safeguarding "theconstitutions of future generations. " Mrs. Eliza Woodson Farnham, matronin Sing Sing penitentiary, was known throughout the nation for hersocial work, especially prison reform. Wherever there were misery andsuffering, women were preparing programs of relief. 

=Freedom of Speech for Women. =--In the advancement of their causes, ofwhatever kind, women of necessity had to make public appeals and takepart in open meetings. Here they encountered difficulties. Theappearance of women on the platform was new and strange. Naturally itwas widely resented. Antoinette Brown, although she had credentials as adelegate, was driven off the platform of a temperance convention in NewYork City simply because she was a woman. James Russell Lowell, editorof the "Atlantic Monthly, " declined a poem from Julia Ward Howe on thetheory that no woman could write a poem; but he added on second thoughtthat he might consider an article in prose. Nathaniel Hawthorne, another editor, even objected to something in prose because to him "allink-stained women were equally detestable. " To the natural resentmentagainst their intrusion into new fields was added that aroused by theirideas and methods. As temperance reformers, they criticized in a causticmanner those who would not accept their opinions. As opponents ofslavery they were especially bitter. One of their conventions, held atPhiladelphia in 1833, passed a resolution calling on all women to leavethose churches that would not condemn every form of human bondage. Thisstirred against them many of the clergy who, accustomed to having womensit silent during services, were in no mood to treat such a revoltleniently. Then came the last straw. Women decided that they wouldpreach--out of the pulpit first, and finally in it. 

=Women in Industry. =--The period of this ferment was also the age of theindustrial revolution in America, the rise of the factory system, andthe growth of mill towns. The labor of women was transferred from thehomes to the factories. Then arose many questions: the hours of labor, the sanitary conditions of the mills, the pressure of foreignimmigration on native labor, the wages of women as compared with thoseof men, and the right of married women to their own earnings. Labororganizations sprang up among working women. The mill girls of Lowell, Massachusetts, mainly the daughters of New England farmers, published amagazine, "The Lowell Offering. " So excellent were their writings thatthe French statesman, Thiers, carried a copy of their paper into theChamber of Deputies to show what working women could achieve in arepublic. As women were now admittedly earning their own way in theworld by their own labor, they began to talk of their "economicindependence. "

=The World Shaken by Revolution. =--Such was the quickening of women'sminds in 1848 when the world was startled once more by a revolution inFrance which spread to Germany, Poland, Austria, Hungary, and Italy. Once more the people of the earth began to explore the principles ofdemocracy and expound human rights. Women, now better educated and more"advanced" in their ideas, played a rôle of still greater importance inthat revolution. They led in agitations and uprisings. They sufferedfrom reaction and persecution. From their prison in France, two of themwho had been jailed for too much insistence on women's rights exchangedgreetings with American women who were raising the same issue here. Bythis time the women had more supporters among the men. Horace Greeley, editor of the New York _Tribune_, though he afterwards recanted, usedhis powerful pen in their behalf. Anti-slavery leaders welcomed theiraid and repaid them by urging the enfranchisement of women. 

=The Woman's Rights Convention of 1848. =--The forces, moral andintellectual, which had been stirring among women, crystallized a fewmonths after the outbreak of the European revolution in the firstWoman's Rights Convention in the history of America. It met at SenecaFalls, New York, in 1848, on the call of Lucretia Mott, Martha Wright, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Mary Ann McClintock, three of them Quakers. Accustomed to take part in church meetings with men, the Quakersnaturally suggested that men as well as women be invited to attend theconvention. Indeed, a man presided over the conference, for thatposition seemed too presumptuous even for such stout advocates ofwoman's rights. 

The deliberations of the Seneca Falls convention resulted in aDeclaration of Rights modeled after the Declaration of Independence. Forexample, the preamble began: "When in the course of human events itbecomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume amongthe people of the earth a position different from that which they havehitherto occupied. .. . " So also it closed: "Such has been the patientsuffering of women under this government and such is now the necessitywhich constrains them to demand the equal station to which they areentitled. " Then followed the list of grievances, the same number whichhad been exhibited to George III in 1776. Especially did they assail thedisabilities imposed upon them by the English common law imported intoAmerica--the law which denied married women their property, their wages, and their legal existence as separate persons. All these grievances theyrecited to "a candid world. " The remedies for the evils which theyendured were then set forth in detail. They demanded "equal rights" inthe colleges, trades, and professions; equal suffrage; the right toshare in all political offices, honors, and emoluments; the right tocomplete equality in marriage, including equal guardianship of thechildren; and for married women the right to own property, to keepwages, to make contracts, to transact business, and to testify in thecourts of justice. In short, they declared women to be persons as menare persons and entitled to all the rights and privileges of humanbeings. Such was the clarion call which went forth to the world in1848--to an amused and contemptuous world, it must be admitted--but to aworld fated to heed and obey. 

=The First Gains in Civil Liberty. =--The convention of 1848 did not makepolitical enfranchisement the leading issue. Rather did it emphasize thecivil disabilities of women which were most seriously under discussionat the time. Indeed, the New York legislature of that very year, as theresult of a twelve years' agitation, passed the Married Woman's PropertyAct setting aside the general principles of the English common law asapplied to women and giving them many of the "rights of man. " Californiaand Wisconsin followed in 1850; Massachusetts in 1854; and Kansas in1859. Other states soon fell into line. Women's earnings andinheritances were at last their own in some states at least. In a littlewhile laws were passed granting women rights as equal guardians of theirchildren and permitting them to divorce their husbands on the grounds ofcruelty and drunkenness. 

By degrees other steps were taken. The Woman's Medical College ofPennsylvania was founded in 1850, and the Philadelphia School of Designfor Women three years later. In 1852 the American Women's EducationalAssociation was formed to initiate an agitation for enlargededucational opportunities for women. Other colleges soon emulated theexample of Oberlin: the University of Utah in 1850; Hillsdale College inMichigan in 1855; Baker University in Kansas in 1858; and the Universityof Iowa in 1860. New trades and professions were opened to women and oldprejudices against their activities and demands slowly gave way. 

THE NATIONAL STRUGGLE FOR WOMAN SUFFRAGE

=The Beginnings of Organization. =--As women surmounted one obstacleafter another, the agitation for equal suffrage came to the front. Ifany year is to be fixed as the date of its beginning, it may very wellbe 1850, when the suffragists of Ohio urged the state constitutionalconvention to confer the vote upon them. With apparent spontaneity therewere held in the same year state suffrage conferences in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts; and connections were formed among theleaders of these meetings. At the same time the first national suffrageconvention was held in Worcester, Massachusetts, on the call ofeighty-nine leading men and women representing six states. Accounts ofthe convention were widely circulated in this country and abroad. English women, --for instance, Harriet Martineau, --sent words ofappreciation for the work thus inaugurated. It inspired a leadingarticle in the "Westminster Review, " which deeply interested thedistinguished economist, John Stuart Mill. Soon he was the champion ofwoman suffrage in the British Parliament and the author of a powerfultract _The Subjection of Women_, widely read throughout theEnglish-speaking world. Thus do world movements grow. Strange to relatethe women of England were enfranchised before the adoption of thefederal suffrage amendment in America. 

The national suffrage convention of 1850 was followed by anextraordinary outburst of agitation. Pamphlets streamed from the press. Petitions to legislative bodies were drafted, signed, and presented. There were addresses by favorite orators like Garrison, Phillips, andCurtis, and lectures and poems by men like Emerson, Longfellow, andWhittier. In 1853 the first suffrage paper was founded by the wife of amember of Congress from Rhode Island. By this time the last barrier towhite manhood suffrage in the North had been swept away and the woman'smovement was gaining momentum every year. 

=The Suffrage Movement Checked by the Civil War. =--Advocates of womansuffrage believed themselves on the high road to success when the CivilWar engaged the energies and labors of the nation. Northern women becameabsorbed in the struggle to preserve the union. They held no suffrageconventions for five years. They transformed their associations intoLoyalty Leagues. They banded together to buy only domestic goods whenforeign imports threatened to ruin American markets. They rolled upmonster petitions in favor of the emancipation of slaves. In hospitals, in military prisons, in agriculture, and in industry they bore theirfull share of responsibility. Even when the New York legislature tookadvantage of their unguarded moments and repealed the law giving themother equal rights with the father in the guardianship of children, they refused to lay aside war work for agitation. As in all other wars, their devotion was unstinted and their sacrifices equal to thenecessities of the hour. 

=The Federal Suffrage Amendment. =--Their plans and activities, when thewar closed, were shaped by events beyond their control. The emancipationof the slaves and their proposed enfranchisement made prominent thequestion of a national suffrage for the first time in our history. Friends of the colored man insisted that his civil liberties would notbe safe unless he was granted the right to vote. The woman suffragistsvery pertinently asked why the same principle did not apply to women. The answer which they received was negative. The fourteenth amendment tothe federal Constitution, adopted in 1868, definitely put women aside bylimiting the scope of its application, so far as the suffrage wasconcerned, to the male sex. In making manhood suffrage national, however, it nationalized the issue. 

This was the signal for the advocates of woman suffrage. In March, 1869, their proposed amendment was introduced in Congress by George W. Julianof Indiana. It provided that no citizen should be deprived of the voteon account of sex, following the language of the fifteenth amendmentwhich forbade disfranchisement on account of race. Support for theamendment, coming from many directions, led the suffragists to believethat their case was hopeful. In their platform of 1872, for example, theRepublicans praised the women for their loyal devotion to freedom, welcomed them to spheres of wider usefulness, and declared that thedemand of any class of citizens for additional rights deserved"respectful consideration. "

[Illustration: _Copyright by Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

SUSAN B. ANTHONY]

Experience soon demonstrated, however, that praise was not the ballot. Indeed the suffragists already had realized that a tedious contest laybefore them. They had revived in 1866 their regular national convention. They gave the name of "The Revolution" to their paper, edited byElizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. They formed a nationalsuffrage association and organized annual pilgrimages to Congress topresent their claims. Such activities bore some results. Many eminentcongressmen were converted to their cause and presented it ably to theircolleagues of both chambers. Still the subject was ridiculed by thenewspapers and looked upon as freakish by the masses. 

=The State Campaigns. =--Discouraged by the outcome of the nationalcampaign, suffragists turned to the voters of the individual states andsought the ballot at their hands. Gains by this process were painfullyslow. Wyoming, it is true, while still a territory, granted suffrage towomen in 1869 and continued it on becoming a state twenty years later, in spite of strong protests in Congress. In 1893 Colorado establishedcomplete political equality. In Utah, the third suffrage state, thecause suffered many vicissitudes. Women were enfranchised by theterritorial legislature; they were deprived of the ballot by Congress in1887; finally in 1896 on the admission of Utah to the union theyrecovered their former rights. During the same year, 1896, Idahoconferred equal suffrage upon the women. This was the last suffragevictory for more than a decade. 

=The Suffrage Cause in Congress. =--In the midst of the meager gainsamong the states there were occasional flurries of hope for immediateaction on the federal amendment. Between 1878 and 1896 the Senatecommittee reported the suffrage resolution by a favorable majority onfive different occasions. During the same period, however, there werenine unfavorable reports and only once did the subject reach the pointof a general debate. At no time could anything like the requiredtwo-thirds vote be obtained. 

=The Changing Status of Women. =--While the suffrage movement waslagging, the activities of women in other directions were steadilymultiplying. College after college--Vassar, Bryn Mawr, Smith, Wellesley, to mention a few--was founded to give them the advantages of highereducation. Other institutions, especially the state universities of theWest, opened their doors to women, and women were received into theprofessions of law and medicine. By the rapid growth of public highschools in which girls enjoyed the same rights as boys, education wasextended still more widely. The number of women teachers increased byleaps and bounds. 

Meanwhile women were entering nearly every branch of industry andbusiness. How many of them worked at gainful occupations before 1870 wedo not know; but from that year forward we have the records of thecensus. Between 1870 and 1900 the proportion of women in the professionsrose from less than two per cent to more than ten per cent; in trade andtransportation from 24. 8 per cent to 43. 2 per cent; and in manufacturingfrom 13 to 19 per cent. In 1910, there were over 8, 000, 000 womengainfully employed as compared with 30, 000, 000 men. When, during the waron Germany, the government established the principle of equal pay forequal work and gave official recognition to the value of their servicesin industry, it was discovered how far women had traveled along the roadforecast by the leaders of 1848. 

=The Club Movement among Women. =--All over the country women's societiesand clubs were started to advance this or that reform or merely to studyliterature, art, and science. In time these women's organizations of allkinds were federated into city, state, and national associations anddrawn into the consideration of public questions. Under the leadershipof Frances Willard they made temperance reform a vital issue. They tookan interest in legislation pertaining to prisons, pure food, publichealth, and municipal government, among other things. At their sessionsand conferences local, state, and national issues were discussed untilfinally, it seems, everything led to the quest of the franchise. Bysolemn resolution in 1914 the National Federation of Women's Clubs, representing nearly two million club women, formally endorsed womansuffrage. In the same year the National Education Association, speakingfor the public school teachers of the land, added its seal of approval. 

=State and National Action. =--Again the suffrage movement was in fullswing in the states. Washington in 1910, California in 1911, Oregon, Kansas, and Arizona in 1912, Nevada and Montana in 1914 by popular voteenfranchised their women. Illinois in 1913 conferred upon them the rightto vote for President of the United States. The time had arrived for anew movement. A number of younger suffragists sought to use the votes ofwomen in the equal suffrage states to compel one or both of the nationalpolitical parties to endorse and carry through Congress the federalsuffrage amendment. Pressure then came upon Congress from everydirection: from the suffragists who made a straight appeal on thegrounds of justice; and from the suffragists who besought the women ofthe West to vote against candidates for President, who would not approvethe federal amendment. In 1916, for the first time, a leadingpresidential candidate, Mr. Charles E. Hughes, speaking for theRepublicans, endorsed the federal amendment and a distinguishedex-President, Roosevelt, exerted a powerful influence to keep it anissue in the campaign. 

[Illustration: _Copyright by Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

CONFERENCE OF MEN AND WOMEN DELEGATES AT A NATIONAL CONVENTION IN1920]

=National Enfranchisement. =--After that, events moved rapidly. The greatstate of New York adopted equal suffrage in 1917. Oklahoma, SouthDakota, and Michigan swung into line the following year; several otherstates, by legislative action, gave women the right to vote forPresident. In the meantime the suffrage battle at Washington grewintense. Appeals and petitions poured in upon Congress and thePresident. Militant suffragists held daily demonstrations in Washington. On September 30, 1918, President Wilson, who, two years before, hadopposed federal action and endorsed suffrage by state adoption only, went before Congress and urged the passage of the suffrage amendment tothe Constitution. In June, 1919, the requisite two-thirds vote wassecured; the resolution was carried and transmitted to the states forratification. On August 28, 1920, the thirty-sixth state, Tennessee, approved the amendment, making three-fourths of the states as requiredby the Constitution. Thus woman suffrage became the law of the land. Anew political democracy had been created. The age of agitation wasclosed and the epoch of responsible citizenship opened. 

=General References=

Edith Abbott, _Women in Industry_. 

C. P. Gilman, _Woman and Economics_. 

I. H. Harper, _Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony_. 

E. R. Hecker, _Short History of Woman's Rights_. 

S. B. Anthony and I. H. Harper, _History of Woman Suffrage_ (4 vols. ). 

J. W. Taylor, _Before Vassar Opened_. 

A. H. Shaw, _The Story of a Pioneer_. 

=Research Topics=

=The Rise of the Woman Suffrage Movement. =--McMaster, _History of thePeople of the United States_, Vol. VIII, pp. 116-121; K. Porter, _History of Suffrage in the United States_, pp. 135-145. 

=The Development of the Suffrage Movement. =--Porter, pp. 228-254; Ogg, _National Progress_ (American Nation Series), pp. 151-156 and p. 382. 

=Women's Labor in the Colonial Period. =--E. Abbott, _Women in Industry_, pp. 10-34. 

=Women and the Factory System. =--Abbott, pp. 35-62. 

=Early Occupations for Women. =--Abbott, pp. 63-85. 

=Women's Wages. =--Abbott, pp. 262-316. 

=Questions=

1. Why were women involved in the reform movements of the new century?

2. What is history? What determines the topics that appear in writtenhistory?

3. State the position of women under the old common law. 

4. What part did women play in the intellectual movement that precededthe American Revolution?

5. Explain the rise of the discussion of women's rights. 

6. What were some of the early writings about women?

7. Why was there a struggle for educational opportunities?

8. How did reform movements draw women into public affairs and what werethe chief results?

9. Show how the rise of the factory affected the life and labor ofwomen. 

10. Why is the year 1848 an important year in the woman movement?Discuss the work of the Seneca Falls convention. 

11. Enumerate some of the early gains in civil liberty for women. 

12. Trace the rise of the suffrage movement. Show the effect of theCivil War. 

13. Review the history of the federal suffrage amendment. 

14. Summarize the history of the suffrage in the states. 

CHAPTER XXIV

INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY

=The New Economic Age. =--The spirit of criticism and the measures ofreform designed to meet it, which characterized the opening years of thetwentieth century, were merely the signs of a new age. The nation haddefinitely passed into industrialism. The number of city dwellersemployed for wages as contrasted with the farmers working on their ownland was steadily mounting. The free land, once the refuge of restlessworkingmen of the East and the immigrants from Europe, was a thing ofthe past. As President Roosevelt later said in speaking of the greatcoal strike, "a few generations ago, the American workman could havesaved money, gone West, and taken up a homestead. Now the free landswere gone. In earlier days, a man who began with a pick and shovel mightcome to own a mine. That outlet was now closed as regards the immensemajority. .. . The majority of men who earned wages in the coal industry, if they wished to progress at all, were compelled to progress not byceasing to be wage-earners but by improving the conditions under whichall the wage-earners of the country lived and worked. "

The disappearance of the free land, President Roosevelt went on to say, also produced "a crass inequality in the bargaining relation of theemployer and the individual employee standing alone. The greatcoal-mining and coal-carrying companies which employed their tens ofthousands could easily dispense with the services of any particularminer. The miner, on the other hand, however expert, could not dispensewith the companies. He needed a job; his wife and children would starveif he did not get one. .. . Individually the miners were impotent whenthey sought to enter a wage contract with the great companies; theycould make fair terms only by uniting into trade unions to bargaincollectively. " It was of this state of affairs that President Taft spokewhen he favored the modification of the common law "so as to putemployees of little power and means on a level with their employers inadjusting and agreeing upon their mutual obligations. "

John D. Rockefeller, Jr. , on the side of the great captains of industry, recognized the same facts. He said: "In the early days of thedevelopment of industry, the employer and capital investor werefrequently one. Daily contact was had between him and his employees, whowere his friends and neighbors. .. . Because of the proportions whichmodern industry has attained, employers and employees are too oftenstrangers to each other. .. . Personal relations can be revived onlythrough adequate representation of the employees. Representation is aprinciple which is fundamentally just and vital to the successfulconduct of industry. .. . It is not consistent for us as Americans todemand democracy in government and practice autocracy in industry. .. . With the developments what they are in industry to-day, there is sure tocome a progressive evolution from aristocratic single control, whetherby capital, labor, or the state, to democratic, coöperative control byall three. "

COÖPERATION BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYEES

=Company Unions. =--The changed economic life described by the threeeminent men just quoted was acknowledged by several great companies andbusiness concerns. All over the country decided efforts were made tobridge the gulf which industry and the corporation had created. Amongthe devices adopted was that of the "company union. " In one of theWestern lumber mills, for example, all the employees were invited tojoin a company organization; they held monthly meetings to discussmatters of common concern; they elected a "shop committee" to conferwith the representatives of the company; and periodically the agents ofthe employers attended the conferences of the men to talk over mattersof mutual interest. The function of the shop committee was to considerwages, hours, safety rules, sanitation, recreation and other problems. Whenever any employee had a grievance he took it up with the foremanand, if it was not settled to his satisfaction, he brought it before theshop committee. If the members of the shop committee decided in favor ofthe man with a grievance, they attempted to settle the matter with thecompany's agents. All these things failing, the dispute was transferredto a grand meeting of all the employees with the employers'representatives, in common council. A deadlock, if it ensued from such aconference, was broken by calling in impartial arbitrators selected byboth sides from among citizens outside the mill. Thus the employees weregiven a voice in all decisions affecting their work and welfare; rightsand grievances were treated as matters of mutual interest rather thanindividual concern. Representatives of trade unions from outside, however, were rigidly excluded from all negotiations between employersand the employees. 

=Profit-sharing. =--Another proposal for drawing capital and labortogether was to supplement the wage system by other ties. Sometimes lumpsums were paid to employees who remained in a company's service for adefinite period of years. Again they were given a certain percentage ofthe annual profits. In other instances, employees were allowed to buystock on easy terms and thus become part owners in the concern. Thislast plan was carried so far by a large soap manufacturing company thatthe employees, besides becoming stockholders, secured the right to electrepresentatives to serve on the board of directors who managed theentire business. So extensive had profit-sharing become by 1914 that theFederal Industrial Relations Committee, appointed by the President, deemed it worthy of a special study. Though opposed by regular tradeunions, it was undoubtedly growing in popularity. 

=Labor Managers and Welfare Work. =--Another effort of employers to meetthe problems of the new age appeared in the appointment of specialists, known as employment managers, whose task it was to study the relationsexisting between masters and workers and discover practical methods fordealing with each grievance as it arose. By 1918, hundreds of bigcompanies had recognized this modern "profession" and universities weregiving courses of instruction on the subject to young men and women. Inthat year a national conference of employment managers was held atRochester, New York. The discussion revealed a wide range of dutiesassigned to managers, including questions of wages, hours, sanitation, rest rooms, recreational facilities, and welfare work of every kinddesigned to make the conditions in mills and factories safer and morehumane. Thus it was evident that hundreds of employers had abandoned theold idea that they were dealing merely with individual employees andthat their obligations ended with the payment of any wages they saw fitto fix. In short, they were seeking to develop a spirit of coöperationto take the place of competition and enmity; and to increase theproduction of commodities by promoting the efficiency and happiness ofthe producers. 

THE RISE AND GROWTH OF ORGANIZED LABOR

=The American Federation of Labor. =--Meanwhile a powerful association ofworkers representing all the leading trades and crafts, organized intounions of their own, had been built up outside the control of employers. This was the American Federation of Labor, a nation-wide union ofunions, founded in 1886 on the basis of beginnings made five yearsbefore. At the time of its establishment it had approximately 150, 000members. Its growth up to the end of the century was slow, for the totalenrollment in 1900 was only 300, 000. At that point the increase becamemarked. The membership reached 1, 650, 000 in 1904 and more than 3, 000, 000in 1919. To be counted in the ranks of organized labor were severalstrong unions, friendly to the Federation, though not affiliated withit. Such, for example, were the Railway Brotherhoods with more than halfa million members. By the opening of 1920 the total strength oforganized labor was put at about 4, 000, 000 members, meaning, if weinclude their families, that nearly one-fifth of the people of theUnited States were in some positive way dependent upon the operations oftrade unions. 

=Historical Background. =--This was the culmination of a long andsignificant history. Before the end of the eighteenth century, theskilled workmen--printers, shoemakers, tailors, and carpenters--had, aswe have seen, formed local unions in the large cities. Between 1830 and1860, several aggressive steps were taken in the American labormovement. For one thing, the number of local unions increased by leapsand bounds in all the industrial towns. For another, there wasestablished in every large manufacturing city a central labor bodycomposed of delegates from the unions of the separate trades. In thelocal union the printers or the cordwainers, for example, consideredonly their special trade problems. In the central labor union, printers, cordwainers, iron molders, and other craftsmen considered commonproblems and learned to coöperate with one another in enforcing thedemands of each craft. A third step was the federation of the unions ofthe same craftsmen in different cities. The printers of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and other towns, for instance, drew together andformed a national trade union of printers built upon the local unions ofthat craft. By the eve of the Civil War there were four or five powerfulnational unions of this character. The expansion of the railway madetravel and correspondence easier and national conventions possible evenfor workmen of small means. About 1834 an attempt was made to federatethe unions of all the different crafts into a national organization; butthe effort was premature. 

_The National Labor Union. _--The plan which failed in 1834 was triedagain in the sixties. During the war, industries and railways hadflourished as never before; prices had risen rapidly; the demand forlabor had increased; wages had mounted slowly, but steadily. Hundreds ofnew local unions had been founded and eight or ten national trade unionshad sprung into being. The time was ripe, it seemed, for a nationalconsolidation of all labor's forces; and in 1866, the year after thesurrender of General Lee at Appomattox, the "National Labor Union" wasformed at Baltimore under the leadership of an experienced organizer, W. H. Sylvis of the iron molders. The purpose of the National Labor Unionwas not merely to secure labor's standard demands touching hours, wages, and conditions of work or to maintain the gains already won. It leanedtoward political action and radical opinions. Above all, it sought toeliminate the conflict between capital and labor by making workingmenthe owners of shops through the formation of coöperative industries. Forsix years the National Labor Union continued to hold conferences andcarry on its propaganda; but most of the coöperative enterprises failed, political dissensions arose, and by 1872 the experiment had come to anend. 

_The Knights of Labor. _--While the National Labor Union wasexperimenting, there grew up in the industrial world a more radicalorganization known as the "Noble Order of the Knights of Labor. " It wasfounded in Philadelphia in 1869, first as a secret society with rituals, signs, and pass words; "so that no spy of the boss can find his way intothe lodge room to betray his fellows, " as the Knights put it. In formthe new organization was simple. It sought to bring all laborers, skilled and unskilled, men and women, white and colored, into a mightybody of local and national unions without distinction of trade or craft. By 1885, ten years after the national organization was established, itboasted a membership of over 700, 000. In philosophy, the Knights ofLabor were socialistic, for they advocated public ownership of therailways and other utilities and the formation of coöperative societiesto own and manage stores and factories. 

As the Knights were radical in spirit and their strikes, numerous andprolonged, were often accompanied by violence, the organization alarmedemployers and the general public, raising up against itself a vigorousopposition. Weaknesses within, as well as foes from without, started theKnights on the path to dissolution. They waged more strikes than theycould carry on successfully; their coöperative experiments failed asthose of other labor groups before them had failed; and the rank andfile could not be kept in line. The majority of the members wantedimmediate gains in wages or the reduction of hours; when their hopeswere not realized they drifted away from the order. The troubles wereincreased by the appearance of the American Federation of Labor, a stillmightier organization composed mainly of skilled workers who heldstrategic positions in industry. When they failed to secure theeffective support of the Federation in their efforts to organize theunskilled, the employers closed in upon them; then the Knights declinedrapidly in power. By 1890 they were a negligible factor and in a shorttime they passed into the limbo of dead experiments. 

=The Policies of the American Federation. =--Unlike the Knights of Labor, the American Federation of Labor sought, first of all, to be verypractical in its objects and methods. It avoided all kinds ofsocialistic theories and attended strictly to the business of organizingunions for the purpose of increasing wages, shortening hours, andimproving working conditions for its members. It did not try to includeeverybody in one big union but brought together the employees of eachparticular craft whose interests were clearly the same. To prepare forstrikes and periods of unemployment, it raised large funds by imposingheavy dues and created a benefit system to hold men loyally to theunion. In order to permit action on a national scale, it gave thesuperior officers extensive powers over local unions. 

While declaring that employers and employees had much in common, theFederation strongly opposed company unions. Employers, it argued, wereaffiliated with the National Manufacturers' Association or with similaremployers' organizations; every important industry was now national inscope; and wages and hours, in view of competition with other shops, could not be determined in a single factory, no matter how amicablemight be the relations of the company and its workers in that particularplant. For these reasons, the Federation declared company unions andlocal shop committees inherently weak; it insisted that hours, wages, and other labor standards should be fixed by general trade agreementsapplicable to all the plants of a given industry, even if subject tolocal modifications. 

At the same time, the Federation, far from deliberately antagonizingemployers, sought to enlist their coöperation and support. It affiliatedwith the National Civic Federation, an association of business men, financiers, and professional men, founded in 1900 to promote friendlyrelations in the industrial world. In brief, the American Federation ofLabor accepted the modern industrial system and, by organization withinit, endeavored to secure certain definite terms and conditions for tradeunionists. 

THE WIDER RELATIONS OF ORGANIZED LABOR

=The Socialists. =--The trade unionism "pure and simple, " espoused by theAmerican Federation of Labor, seemed to involve at first glance nothingbut businesslike negotiations with employers. In practice it did notwork out that way. The Federation was only six years old when a neworganization, appealing directly for the labor vote--namely, theSocialist Labor Party--nominated a candidate for President, launchedinto a national campaign, and called upon trade unionists to desert theolder parties and enter its fold. 

The socialistic idea, introduced into national politics in 1892, hadbeen long in germination. Before the Civil War, a number of reformers, including Nathaniel Hawthorne, Horace Greeley, and Wendell Phillips, deeply moved by the poverty of the great industrial cities, hadearnestly sought relief in the establishment of coöperative orcommunistic colonies. They believed that people should go into thecountry, secure land and tools, own them in common so that no one couldprofit from exclusive ownership, and produce by common labor the foodand clothing necessary for their support. For a time this movementattracted wide interest, but it had little vitality. Nearly all thecolonies failed. Selfishness and indolence usually disrupted the best ofthem. 

In the course of time this "Utopian" idea was abandoned, and another setof socialist doctrines, claiming to be more "scientific, " appearedinstead. The new school of socialists, adopting the principles of aGerman writer and agitator, Karl Marx, appealed directly to workingmen. It urged them to unite against the capitalists, to get possession of themachinery of government, and to introduce collective or public ownershipof railways, land, mines, mills, and other means of production. TheMarxian socialists, therefore, became political. They sought to organizelabor and to win elections. Like the other parties they put forwardcandidates and platforms. The Socialist Labor party in 1892, forexample, declared in favor of government ownership of utilities, freeschool books, woman suffrage, heavy income taxes, and the referendum. The Socialist party, founded in 1900, with Eugene V. Debs, the leader ofthe Pullman strike, as its candidate, called for public ownership of alltrusts, monopolies, mines, railways; and the chief means of production. In the course of time the vote of the latter organization rose toconsiderable proportions, reaching almost a million in 1912. It declinedfour years later and then rose in 1920 to about the same figure. 

In their appeal for votes, the socialists of every type turned first tolabor. At the annual conventions of the American Federation of Laborthey besought the delegates to endorse socialism. The president of theFederation, Samuel Gompers, on each occasion took the floor againstthem. He repudiated socialism and the socialists, on both theoreticaland practical grounds. He opposed too much public ownership, declaringthat the government was as likely as any private employer to oppresslabor. The approval of socialism, he maintained, would split theFederation on the rock of politics, weaken it in its fight for higherwages and shorter hours, and prejudice the public against it. At everyturn he was able to vanquish the socialists in the Federation, althoughhe could not prevent it from endorsing public ownership of the railwaysat the convention of 1920. 

=The Extreme Radicals. =--Some of the socialists, defeated in theirefforts to capture organized labor and seeing that the gains inelections were very meager, broke away from both trade unionism andpolitics. One faction, the Industrial Workers of the World, founded in1905, declared themselves opposed to all capitalists, the wages system, and craft unions. They asserted that the "working class and theemploying class have nothing in common" and that trade unions onlypitted one set of workers against another set. They repudiated allgovernment ownership and the government itself, boldly proclaiming theirintention to unite all employees into one big union and seize therailways, mines, and mills of the country. This doctrine, sorevolutionary in tone, called down upon the extremists the condemnationof the American Federation of Labor as well as of the general public. Atits convention in 1919, the Federation went on record as "opposed toBolshevism, I. W. W. -ism, and the irresponsible leadership that encouragessuch a policy. " It announced its "firm adherence to American ideals. "

=The Federation and Political Issues. =--The hostility of the Federationto the socialists did not mean, however, that it was indifferent topolitical issues or political parties. On the contrary, from time totime, at its annual conventions, it endorsed political and socialreforms, such as the initiative, referendum, and recall, the abolitionof child labor, the exclusion of Oriental labor, old-age pensions, andgovernment ownership. Moreover it adopted the policy of "rewardingfriends and punishing enemies" by advising members to vote for oragainst candidates according to their stand on the demands of organizedlabor. 

[Illustration: _Copyright by Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

SAMUEL GOMPERS AND OTHER LABOR LEADERS]

This policy was pursued with especial zeal in connection with disputesover the use of injunctions in labor controversies. An injunction is abill or writ issued by a judge ordering some person or corporation to door to refrain from doing something. For example, a judge may order atrade union to refrain from interfering with non-union men or tocontinue at work handling goods made by non-union labor; and he may fineor imprison those who disobey his injunction, the penalty beinginflicted for "contempt of court. " This ancient legal device came intoprominence in connection with nation-wide railway strikes in 1877. Itwas applied with increasing frequency after its effective use againstEugene V. Debs in the Pullman strike of 1894. 

Aroused by the extensive use of the writ, organized labor demanded thatthe power of judges to issue injunctions in labor disputes be limited bylaw. Representatives of the unions sought support from the Democrats andthe Republicans; they received from the former very specific and cordialendorsement. In 1896 the Democratic platform denounced "government byinjunction as a new and highly dangerous form of oppression. " Mr. Gompers, while refusing to commit the Federation to Democratic politics, privately supported Mr. Bryan. In 1908, he came out openly and boastedthat eighty per cent of the votes of the Federation had been cast forthe Democratic candidate. Again in 1912 the same policy was pursued. Thereward was the enactment in 1914 of a federal law exempting trade unionsfrom prosecution as combinations in restraint of trade, limiting the useof the injunction in labor disputes, and prescribing trial by jury incase of contempt of court. This measure was hailed by Mr. Gompers as the"Magna Carta of Labor" and a vindication of his policy. As a matter offact, however, it did not prevent the continued use of injunctionsagainst trade unions. Nevertheless Mr. Gompers was unshaken in hisconviction that organized labor should not attempt to form anindependent political party or endorse socialist or other radicaleconomic theories. 

=Organized Labor and the Public. =--Besides its relations to employers, radicals within its own ranks, and political questions, the Federationhad to face responsibilities to the general public. With the passing oftime these became heavy and grave. While industries were small andconflicts were local in character, a strike seldom affected anybody butthe employer and the employees immediately involved in it. When, however, industries and trade unions became organized on a nationalscale and a strike could paralyze a basic enterprise like coal mining orrailways, the vital interests of all citizens were put in jeopardy. Moreover, as increases in wages and reductions in hours often addeddirectly to the cost of living, the action of the unions affected thewell-being of all--the food, clothing, and shelter of the whole people. 

For the purpose of meeting the issue raised by this state of affairs, itwas suggested that employers and employees should lay their disputesbefore commissions of arbitration for decision and settlement. PresidentCleveland, in a message of April 2, 1886, proposed such a method fordisposing of industrial controversies, and two years later Congressenacted a voluntary arbitration law applicable to the railways. Theprinciple was extended in 1898 and again in 1913, and under theauthority of the federal government many contentions in the railwayworld were settled by arbitration. 

The success of such legislation induced some students of industrialquestions to urge that unions and employers should be compelled tosubmit all disputes to official tribunals of arbitration. Kansasactually passed such a law in 1920. Congress in the Esch-Cummins railwaybill of the same year created a federal board of nine members to whichall railway controversies, not settled by negotiation, must besubmitted. Strikes, however, were not absolutely forbidden. Generallyspeaking, both employers and employees opposed compulsory adjustmentswithout offering any substitute in case voluntary arbitration should notbe accepted by both parties to a dispute. 

IMMIGRATION AND AMERICANIZATION

=The Problems of Immigration. =--From its very inception, the AmericanFederation of Labor, like the Knights of Labor before it, was confrontedby numerous questions raised by the ever swelling tide of aliens comingto our shores. In its effort to make each trade union all-inclusive, ithad to wrestle with a score or more languages. When it succeeded inthoroughly organizing a craft, it often found its purposes defeated byan influx of foreigners ready to work for lower wages and thus underminethe foundations of the union. 

At the same time, persons outside the labor movement began to beapprehensive as they contemplated the undoubted evil, as well as thegood, that seemed to be associated with the "alien invasion. " They sawwhole sections of great cities occupied by people speaking foreigntongues, reading only foreign newspapers, and looking to the Old Worldalone for their ideas and their customs. They witnessed an expandingarmy of total illiterates, men and women who could read and write nolanguage at all; while among those aliens who could read few there werewho knew anything of American history, traditions, and ideals. Officialreports revealed that over twenty per cent of the men of the draft armyduring the World War could not read a newspaper or write a letter home. Perhaps most alarming of all was the discovery that thousands of alienmen are in the United States only on a temporary sojourn, solely to makemoney and return home with their savings. These men, willing to work forlow wages and live in places unfit for human beings, have no stake inthis country and do not care what becomes of it. 

=The Restriction of Immigration. =--In all this there was, strictlyspeaking, no cause for surprise. Since the foundation of our republicthe policy of the government had been to encourage the coming of thealien. For nearly one hundred years no restraining act was passed byCongress, while two important laws positively encouraged it; namely, thehomestead act of 1862 and the contract immigration law of 1864. Notuntil American workingmen came into open collision with cheap Chineselabor on the Pacific Coast did the federal government spread the firstmeasure of limitation on the statute books. After the discovery of gold, and particularly after the opening of the railway construction era, ahorde of laborers from China descended upon California. Accustomed tostarvation wages and indifferent to the conditions of living, theythreatened to cut the American standard to the point of subsistence. By1876 the protest of American labor was loud and long and both theRepublicans and the Democrats gave heed to it. In 1882 Congress enacteda law prohibiting the admission of Chinese laborers to the United Statesfor a term of ten years--later extended by legislation. In a littlewhile the demand arose for the exclusion of the Japanese as well. Inthis case no exclusion law was passed; but an understanding was reachedby which Japan agreed not to issue passports to her laborers authorizingthem to come to the United States. By act of Congress in 1907 thePresident was empowered to exclude any laborers who, having passports toCanada, Hawaii, or Mexico, attempted to enter our country. 

These laws and agreements, however, did not remove all grounds for theagitation of the subject. They were difficult to enforce and it wasclaimed by residents of the Coast that in spite of federal authorityOriental laborers were finding their way into American ports. Moreover, several Western states, anxious to preserve the soil for Americanownership, enacted laws making it impossible for Chinese and Japanese tobuy land outright; and in other ways they discriminated againstOrientals. Such proceedings placed the federal government in anembarrassing position. By treaty it had guaranteed specific rights toJapanese citizens in the United States, and the government at Tokyocontended that the state laws just cited violated the terms of theinternational agreement. The Western states were fixed in theirdetermination to control Oriental residents; Japan was equallypersistent in asking that no badge of inferiority be attached to hercitizens. Subjected to pressure on both sides, the federal governmentsought a way out of the deadlock. 

Having embarked upon the policy of restriction in 1882, Congress readilyextended it. In that same year it barred paupers, criminals, convicts, and the insane. Three years later, mainly owing to the pressure of theKnights of Labor, it forbade any person, company, or association toimport aliens under contract. By an act of 1887, the contract laborrestriction was made even more severe. In 1903, anarchists were excludedand the bureau of immigration was transferred from the TreasuryDepartment to the Department of Commerce and Labor, in order to providefor a more rigid execution of the law. In 1907 the classes of personsdenied admission were widened to embrace those suffering from physicaland mental defects and otherwise unfit for effective citizenship. Whenthe Department of Labor was established in 1913 the enforcement of thelaw was placed in the hands of the Secretary of Labor, W. B. Wilson, whowas a former leader in the American Federation of Labor. 

=The Literacy Test. =--Still the advocates of restriction were notsatisfied. Still organized labor protested and demanded more protectionagainst the competition of immigrants. In 1917 it won a thirty-yearbattle in the passage of a bill excluding "all aliens over sixteen yearsof age, physically capable of reading, who cannot read the Englishlanguage or some other language or dialect, including Hebrew orYiddish. " Even President Wilson could not block it, for a two-thirdsvote to overcome his veto was mustered in Congress. 

This act, while it served to exclude illiterates, made no drastic cut inthe volume of immigration. Indeed a material reduction was resolutelyopposed in many quarters. People of certain nationalities already in theUnited States objected to every barrier that shut out their own kinsmen. Some Americans of the old stock still held to the idea that the UnitedStates should continue to be an asylum for "the oppressed of the earth. "Many employers looked upon an increased labor supply as the means ofescaping what they called "the domination of trade unions. " In the babelof countless voices, the discussion of these vital matters went on intown and country. 

=Americanization. =--Intimately connected with the subject of immigrationwas a call for the "Americanization" of the alien already within ourgates. The revelation of the illiteracy in the army raised the cry andthe demand was intensified when it was found that many of the leadersamong the extreme radicals were foreign in birth and citizenship. Innumerable programs for assimilating the alien to American life weredrawn up, and in 1919 a national conference on the subject was held inWashington under the auspices of the Department of the Interior. Allwere agreed that the foreigner should be taught to speak and write thelanguage and understand the government of our country. Congress wasurged to lend aid in this vast undertaking. America, as ex-PresidentRoosevelt had said, was to find out "whether it was a nation or aboarding-house. "

=General References=

J. R. Commons and Associates, _History of Labor in the United States_ (2vols. ). 

Samuel Gompers, _Labor and the Common Welfare_. 

W. E. Walling, _Socialism as It Is_. 

W. E. Walling (and Others), _The Socialism of Today_. 

R. T. Ely, _The Labor Movement in America_. 

T. S. Adams and H. Sumner, _Labor Problems_. 

J. G. Brooks, _American Syndicalism_ and _Social Unrest_. 

P. F. Hall, _Immigration and Its Effects on the United States_. 

=Research Topics=

=The Rise of Trade Unionism. =--Mary Beard, _Short History of theAmerican Labor Movement_, pp. 10-18, 47-53, 62-79; Carlton, _OrganizedLabor in American History_, pp. 11-44. 

=Labor and Politics. =--Beard, _Short History_, pp. 33-46, 54-61, 103-112; Carlton, pp. 169-197; Ogg, _National Progress_ (American NationSeries), pp. 76-85. 

=The Knights of Labor. =--Beard, _Short History_, pp. 116-126; Dewey, _National Problems_ (American Nation Series), pp. 40-49. 

=The American Federation of Labor--Organization and Policies. =--Beard, _Short History_, pp. 86-112. 

=Organized Labor and the Socialists. =--Beard, _Short History_, pp. 126-149. 

=Labor and the Great War. =--Carlton, pp. 282-306; Beard, _ShortHistory_, pp. 150-170. 

=Questions=

1. What are the striking features of the new economic age?

2. Give Mr. Rockefeller's view of industrial democracy. 

3. Outline the efforts made by employers to establish closer relationswith their employees. 

4. Sketch the rise and growth of the American Federation of Labor. 

5. How far back in our history does the labor movement extend?

6. Describe the purposes and outcome of the National Labor Union and theKnights of Labor. 

7. State the chief policies of the American Federation of Labor. 

8. How does organized labor become involved with outside forces?

9. Outline the rise of the socialist movement. How did it come intocontact with the American Federation?

10. What was the relation of the Federation to the extreme radicals? Tonational politics? To the public?

11. Explain the injunction. 

12. Why are labor and immigration closely related?

13. Outline the history of restrictions on immigration. 

14. What problems arise in connection with the assimilation of the aliento American life?

CHAPTER XXV

PRESIDENT WILSON AND THE WORLD WAR

"The welfare, the happiness, the energy, and the spirit of the men andwomen who do the daily work in our mines and factories, on ourrailroads, in our offices and ports of trade, on our farms, and on thesea are the underlying necessity of all prosperity. " Thus spoke WoodrowWilson during his campaign for election. In this spirit, as President, he gave the signal for work by summoning Congress in a special sessionon April 7, 1913. He invited the coöperation of all "forward-lookingmen" and indicated that he would assume the rôle of leadership. As anevidence of his resolve, he appeared before Congress in person to readhis first message, reviving the old custom of Washington and Adams. Thenhe let it be known that he would not give his party any rest until itfulfilled its pledges to the country. When Democratic Senators balked attariff reductions, they were sharply informed that the party hadplighted its word and that no excuses or delays would be tolerated. 

DOMESTIC LEGISLATION

=Financial Measures. =--Under this spirited leadership Congress went towork, passing first the Underwood tariff act of 1913, which made adownward revision in the rates of duty, fixing them on the average abouttwenty-six per cent lower than the figures of 1907. The protectiveprinciple was retained, but an effort was made to permit a moderateelement of foreign competition. As a part of the revenue act Congresslevied a tax on incomes as authorized by the sixteenth amendment to theConstitution. The tax which roused such party passions twenty yearsbefore was now accepted as a matter of course. 

Having disposed of the tariff, Congress took up the old and vexatiouscurrency question and offered a new solution in the form of the federalreserve law of December, 1913. This measure, one of the most interestingin the history of federal finance, embraced four leading features. Inthe first place, it continued the prohibition on the issuance of notesby state banks and provided for a national currency. In the secondplace, it put the new banking system under the control of a federalreserve board composed entirely of government officials. To prevent thegrowth of a "central money power, " it provided, in the third place, forthe creation of twelve federal reserve banks, one in each of twelvegreat districts into which the country is divided. All local nationalbanks were required and certain other banks permitted to become membersof the new system and share in its control. Finally, with a view toexpanding the currency, a step which the Democrats had long urged uponthe country, the issuance of paper money, under definite safeguards, wasauthorized. 

Mindful of the agricultural interest, ever dear to the heart ofJefferson's followers, the Democrats supplemented the reserve law by theFarm Loan Act of 1916, creating federal agencies to lend money on farmmortgages at moderate rates of interest. Within a year $20, 000, 000 hadbeen lent to farmers, the heaviest borrowing being in nine Western andSouthern states, with Texas in the lead. 

=Anti-trust Legislation. =--The tariff and currency laws were followed bythree significant measures relative to trusts. Rejecting utterly theProgressive doctrine of government regulation, President Wilsonannounced that it was the purpose of the Democrats "to destroy monopolyand maintain competition as the only effective instrument of businessliberty. " The first step in this direction, the Clayton Anti-trust Act, carried into great detail the Sherman law of 1890 forbidding andpenalizing combinations in restraint of interstate and foreign trade. Inevery line it revealed a determined effort to tear apart the greattrusts and to put all business on a competitive basis. Its terms werereinforced in the same year by a law creating a Federal Trade Commissionempowered to inquire into the methods of corporations and lodgecomplaints against concerns "using any unfair method of competition. " Inonly one respect was the severity of the Democratic policy relaxed. Anact of 1918 provided that the Sherman law should not apply to companiesengaged in export trade, the purpose being to encourage largecorporations to enter foreign commerce. 

The effect of this whole body of anti-trust legislation, in spite ofmuch labor on it, remained problematical. Very few combinations weredissolved as a result of it. Startling investigations were made intoalleged abuses on the part of trusts; but it could hardly be said thathuge business concerns had lost any of their predominance in Americanindustry. 

=Labor Legislation. =--By no mere coincidence, the Clayton Anti-trust lawof 1914 made many concessions to organized labor. It declared that "thelabor of a human being is not a commodity or an article of commerce, "and it exempted unions from prosecution as "combinations in restraint oftrade. " It likewise defined and limited the uses which the federalcourts might make of injunctions in labor disputes and guaranteed trialby jury to those guilty of disobedience (see p. 581). 

The Clayton law was followed the next year by the Seamen's Act givinggreater liberty of contract to American sailors and requiring animprovement of living conditions on shipboard. This was such a drasticlaw that shipowners declared themselves unable to meet foreigncompetition under its terms, owing to the low labor standards of othercountries. 

Still more extraordinary than the Seamen's Act was the Adamson law of1916 fixing a standard eight-hour work-day for trainmen on railroads--ameasure wrung from Congress under a threat of a great strike by the fourRailway Brotherhoods. This act, viewed by union leaders as a triumph, called forth a bitter denunciation of "trade union domination, " but itwas easier to criticize than to find another solution of the problem. 

Three other laws enacted during President Wilson's administration werepopular in the labor world. One of them provided compensation forfederal employees injured in the discharge of their duties. Anotherprohibited the labor of children under a certain age in the industriesof the nation. A third prescribed for coal miners in Alaska aneight-hour day and modern safeguards for life and health. There werepositive proofs that organized labor had obtained a large share of powerin the councils of the country. 

=Federal and State Relations. =--If the interference of the governmentwith business and labor represented a departure from the old idea of"the less government the better, " what can be said of a large body oflaws affecting the rights of states? The prohibition of child laboreverywhere was one indication of the new tendency. Mr. Wilson had oncedeclared such legislation unconstitutional; the Supreme Court declaredit unconstitutional; but Congress, undaunted, carried it into effectunder the guise of a tax on goods made by children below the age limit. There were other indications of the drift. Large sums of money wereappropriated by Congress in 1916 to assist the states in building andmaintaining highways. The same year the Farm Loan Act projected thefederal government into the sphere of local money lending. In 1917millions of dollars were granted to states in aid of vocationaleducation, incidentally imposing uniform standards throughout thecountry. Evidently the government was no longer limited to the duties ofthe policeman. 

=The Prohibition Amendment. =--A still more significant form ofintervention in state affairs was the passage, in December, 1917, of anamendment to the federal Constitution establishing national prohibitionof the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors as beverages. Thiswas the climax of a historical movement extending over half a century. In 1872, a National Prohibition party, launched three years before, nominated its first presidential candidate and inaugurated a campaign ofagitation. Though its vote was never large, the cause for which itstood found increasing favor among the people. State after state bypopular referendum abolished the liquor traffic within its borders. By1917 at least thirty-two of the forty-eight were "dry. " When the federalamendment was submitted for approval, the ratification was surprisinglyswift. In a little more than a year, namely, on January 16, 1919, it wasproclaimed. Twelve months later the amendment went into effect. 

COLONIAL AND FOREIGN POLICIES

=The Philippines and Porto Rico. =--Independence for the Philippines andlarger self-government for Porto Rico had been among the policies of theDemocratic party since the campaign of 1900. President Wilson in hisannual messages urged upon Congress more autonomy for the Filipinos anda definite promise of final independence. The result was the JonesOrganic Act for the Philippines passed in 1916. This measure providedthat the upper as well as the lower house of the Philippine legislatureshould be elected by popular vote, and declared it to be the intentionof the United States to grant independence "as soon as a stablegovernment can be established. " This, said President Wilson on signingthe bill, is "a very satisfactory advance in our policy of extending tothem self-government and control of their own affairs. " The followingyear Congress, yielding to President Wilson's insistence, passed a neworganic act for Porto Rico, making both houses of the legislatureelective and conferring American citizenship upon the inhabitants of theisland. 

[Illustration: THE CARIBBEAN REGION]

=American Power in the Caribbean. =--While extending more self-governmentto its dominions, the United States enlarged its sphere of influence inthe Caribbean. The supervision of finances in Santo Domingo, inauguratedin Roosevelt's administration, was transformed into a protectorate underWilson. In 1914 dissensions in the republic led to the landing ofAmerican marines to "supervise" the elections. Two years later, anofficer in the American navy, with authority from Washington, placedthe entire republic "in a state of military occupation. " He proceeded tosuspend the government and laws of the country, exile the president, suppress the congress, and substitute American military authority. In1919 a consulting board of four prominent Dominicans was appointed toaid the American military governor; but it resigned the next year aftermaking a plea for the restoration of independence to the republic. Forall practical purposes, it seemed, the sovereignty of Santo Domingo hadbeen transferred to the United States. 

In the neighboring republic of Haiti, a similar state of affairsexisted. In the summer of 1915 a revolution broke out there--one of along series beginning in 1804--and our marines were landed to restoreorder. Elections were held under the supervision of American officers, and a treaty was drawn up placing the management of Haitian finances andthe local constabulary under American authority. In taking this action, our Secretary of State was careful to announce: "The United Statesgovernment has no purpose of aggression and is entirely disinterested inpromoting this protectorate. " Still it must be said that there werevigorous protests on the part of natives and American citizens againstthe conduct of our agents in the island. In 1921 President Wilson wasconsidering withdrawal. 

In line with American policy in the West Indian waters was the purchasein 1917 of the Danish Islands just off the coast of Porto Rico. Thestrategic position of the islands, especially in relation to Haiti andPorto Rico, made them an object of American concern as early as 1867, when a treaty of purchase was negotiated only to be rejected by theSenate of the United States. In 1902 a second arrangement was made, butthis time it was defeated by the upper house of the Danish parliament. The third treaty brought an end to fifty years of bargaining and theStars and Stripes were raised over St. Croix, St. Thomas, St. John, andnumerous minor islands scattered about in the neighborhood. "It would besuicidal, " commented a New York newspaper, "for America, on thethreshold of a great commercial expansion in South America, to suffer aHeligoland, or a Gibraltar, or an Aden to be erected by her rivals atthe mouth of her Suez. " On the mainland American power was strengthenedby the establishment of a protectorate over Nicaragua in 1916. 

=Mexican Relations. =--The extension of American enterprise southwardinto Latin America, of which the operations in the Caribbean regionswere merely one phase, naturally carried Americans into Mexico todevelop the natural resources of that country. Under the iron rule ofGeneral Porfirio Diaz, established in 1876 and maintained with only ashort break until 1911, Mexico had become increasingly attractive to ourbusiness men. On the invitation of President Diaz, they had investedhuge sums in Mexican lands, oil fields, and mines, and had laid thefoundations of a new industrial order. The severe régime instituted byDiaz, however, stirred popular discontent. The peons, or serfs, demandedthe break-up of the great estates, some of which had come down from thedays of Cortez. Their clamor for "the restoration of the land to thepeople could not be silenced. " In 1911 Diaz was forced to resign andleft the country. 

Mexico now slid down the path to disorder. Revolutions and civilcommotions followed in swift succession. A liberal president, Madero, installed as the successor to Diaz, was deposed in 1913 and brutallymurdered. Huerta, a military adventurer, hailed for a time as another"strong man, " succeeded Madero whose murder he was accused ofinstigating. Although Great Britain and nearly all the powers of Europeaccepted the new government as lawful, the United States steadilywithheld recognition. In the meantime Mexico was torn by insurrectionsunder the leadership of Carranza, a friend of Madero, Villa, a bandit ofgenerous pretensions, and Zapata, a radical leader of the peons. Withoutthe support of the United States, Huerta was doomed. 

In the summer of 1914, the dictator resigned and fled from the capital, leaving the field to Carranza. For six years the new president, recognized by the United States, held a precarious position which hevigorously strove to strengthen against various revolutionary movements. At length in 1920, he too was deposed and murdered, and another militarychieftain, Obregon, installed in power. 

These events right at our door could not fail to involve the governmentof the United States. In the disorders many American citizens lost theirlives. American property was destroyed and land owned by Americans wasconfiscated. A new Mexican constitution, in effect nationalizing thenatural resources of the country, struck at the rights of foreigninvestors. Moreover the Mexican border was in constant turmoil. Even inthe last days of his administration, Mr. Taft felt compelled to issue asolemn warning to the Mexican government protesting against theviolation of American rights. 

President Wilson, soon after his inauguration, sent a commissioner toMexico to inquire into the situation. Although he declared a generalpolicy of "watchful waiting, " he twice came to blows with Mexicanforces. In 1914 some American sailors at Tampico were arrested by aMexican officer; the Mexican government, although it immediatelyreleased the men, refused to make the required apology for the incident. As a result President Wilson ordered the landing of American forces atVera Cruz and the occupation of the city. A clash of arms followed inwhich several Americans were killed. War seemed inevitable, but at thisjuncture the governments of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile tendered theirgood offices as mediators. After a few weeks of negotiation, duringwhich Huerta was forced out of power, American forces were withdrawnfrom Vera Cruz and the incident closed. 

In 1916 a second break in amicable relations occurred. In the spring ofthat year a band of Villa's men raided the town of Columbus, New Mexico, killing several citizens and committing robberies. A punitive expeditionunder the command of General Pershing was quickly sent out to capturethe offenders. Against the protests of President Carranza, Americanforces penetrated deeply into Mexico without effecting the object ofthe undertaking. This operation lasted until January, 1917, when theimminence of war with Germany led to the withdrawal of the Americansoldiers. Friendly relations were resumed with the Mexican governmentand the policy of "watchful waiting" was continued. 

THE UNITED STATES AND THE EUROPEAN WAR

=The Outbreak of the War. =--In the opening days of August, 1914, theage-long jealousies of European nations, sharpened by new imperialambitions, broke out in another general conflict such as had shaken theworld in the days of Napoleon. On June 28, the heir to theAustro-Hungarian throne was assassinated at Serajevo, the capital ofBosnia, an Austrian province occupied mainly by Serbs. With a view tostopping Serbian agitation for independence, Austria-Hungary laid theblame for this incident on the government of Serbia and made humiliatingdemands on that country. Germany at once proposed that the issue shouldbe regarded as "an affair which should be settled solely betweenAustria-Hungary and Serbia"; meaning that the small nation should beleft to the tender mercies of a great power. Russia refused to take thisview. Great Britain proposed a settlement by mediation. Germany backedup Austria to the limit. To use the language of the German authorities:"We were perfectly aware that a possible warlike attitude ofAustria-Hungary against Serbia might bring Russia upon the field andthat it might therefore involve us in a war, in accordance with ourduties as allies. We could not, however, in these vital interests ofAustria-Hungary which were at stake, advise our ally to take a yieldingattitude not compatible with his dignity nor deny him our assistance. "That made the war inevitable. 

Every day of the fateful August, 1914, was crowded with momentousevents. On the 1st, Germany declared war on Russia. On the 2d, theGermans invaded the little duchy of Luxemburg and notified the King ofBelgium that they were preparing to violate the neutrality of his realmon their way to Paris. On the same day, Great Britain, anxiouslybesought by the French government, promised the aid of the British navyif German warships made hostile demonstrations in the Channel. August3d, the German government declared war on France. The following day, Great Britain demanded of Germany respect for Belgian neutrality and, failing to receive the guarantee, broke off diplomatic relations. On the5th, the British prime minister announced that war had opened betweenEngland and Germany. The storm now broke in all its pitiless fury. 

=The State of American Opinion. =--Although President Wilson promptlyproclaimed the neutrality of the United States, the sympathies of alarge majority of the American people were without doubt on the side ofGreat Britain and France. To them the invasion of the little kingdom ofBelgium and the horrors that accompanied German occupation were odiousin the extreme. Moreover, they regarded the German imperial governmentas an autocratic power wielded in the interest of an ambitious militaryparty. The Kaiser, William II, and the Crown Prince were the symbols ofroyal arrogance. On the other hand, many Americans of German descent, inmemory of their ties with the Fatherland, openly sympathized with theCentral Powers; and many Americans of Irish descent, recalling theirlong and bitter struggle for home rule in Ireland, would have regardedBritish defeat as a merited redress of ancient grievances. 

Extremely sensitive to American opinion, but ill informed about it, theGerman government soon began systematic efforts to present its cause tothe people of the United States in the most favorable light possible. Dr. Bernhard Dernburg, the former colonial secretary of the Germanempire, was sent to America as a special agent. For months he filled thenewspapers, magazines, and periodicals with interviews, articles, andnotes on the justice of the Teutonic cause. From a press bureau in NewYork flowed a stream of pamphlets, leaflets, and cartoons. A magazine, "The Fatherland, " was founded to secure "fair play for Germany andAustria. " Several professors in American universities, who had receivedtheir training in Germany, took up the pen in defense of the CentralEmpires. The German language press, without exception it seems, theNational German Alliance, minor German societies, and Lutheran churchescame to the support of the German cause. Even the English languagepapers, though generally favorable to the Entente Allies, opened theircolumns in the interest of equal justice to the spokesmen for all thecontending powers of Europe. 

Before two weeks had elapsed the controversy had become so intense thatPresident Wilson (August 18, 1914) was moved to caution his countrymenagainst falling into angry disputes. "Every man, " he said, "who reallyloves America will act and speak in the true spirit of neutrality whichis the spirit of impartiality and fairness and friendliness to allconcerned. .. . We must be impartial in thought as well as in action, mustput a curb upon our sentiments as well as upon every transaction thatmight be construed as a preference of one party to the struggle beforeanother. "

=The Clash over American Trade. =--As in the time of the Napoleonic wars, the conflict in Europe raised fundamental questions respecting rights ofAmericans trading with countries at peace as well as those at war. Onthis point there existed on August 1, 1914, a fairly definite body ofprinciples by which nations were bound. Among them the following were ofvital significance. In the first place, it was recognized that an enemymerchant ship caught on the high seas was a legitimate prize of warwhich might be seized and confiscated. In the second place, it wasagreed that "contraband of war" found on an enemy or neutral ship was alawful prize; any ship suspected of carrying it was liable to search andif caught with forbidden goods was subject to seizure. In the thirdplace, international law prescribed that a peaceful merchant ship, whether belonging to an enemy or to a neutral country, should not bedestroyed or sunk without provision for the safety of crew andpassengers. In the fourth place, it was understood that a belligerenthad the right, if it could, to blockade the ports of an enemy andprevent the ingress and egress of all ships; but such a blockade, to belawful, had to be effective. 

These general principles left undetermined two important matters: "Whatis an effective blockade?" and "What is contraband of war?" The task ofanswering these questions fell to Great Britain as mistress of the seas. Although the German submarines made it impossible for her battleships tomaintain a continuous patrol of the waters in front of blockaded ports, she declared the blockade to be none the less "effective" because hernavy was supreme. As to contraband of war Great Britain put such a broadinterpretation upon the term as to include nearly every importantarticle of commerce. Early in 1915 she declared even cargoes of grainand flour to be contraband, defending the action on the ground that theGerman government had recently taken possession of all domestic stocksof corn, wheat, and flour. 

A new question arose in connection with American trade with the neutralcountries surrounding Germany. Great Britain early began to interceptships carrying oil, gasoline, and copper--all war materials of primeimportance--on the ground that they either were destined ultimately toGermany or would release goods for sale to Germans. On November 2, 1914, the English government announced that the Germans wore sowing mines inopen waters and that therefore the whole of the North Sea was a militaryzone. Ships bound for Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were ordered to comeby the English Channel for inspection and sailing directions. In effect, Americans were now licensed by Great Britain to trade in certaincommodities and in certain amounts with neutral countries. 

Against these extraordinary measures, the State Department at Washingtonlodged pointed objections, saying: "This government is reluctantlyforced to the conclusion that the present policy of His Majesty'sgovernment toward neutral ships and cargoes exceeds the manifestnecessity of a belligerent and constitutes restrictions upon the rightsof American citizens on the high seas, which are not justified by therules of international law or required under the principle ofself-preservation. "

=Germany Begins the Submarine Campaign. =--Germany now announced that, onand after February 18, 1915, the whole of the English Channel and thewaters around Great Britain would be deemed a war zone and that everyenemy ship found therein would be destroyed. The German decree addedthat, as the British admiralty had ordered the use of neutral flags byEnglish ships in time of distress, neutral vessels would be in danger ofdestruction if found in the forbidden area. It was clear that Germanyintended to employ submarines to destroy shipping. A new factor was thusintroduced into naval warfare, one not provided for in the accepted lawsof war. A warship overhauling a merchant vessel could easily take itscrew and passengers on board for safe keeping as prescribed byinternational law; but a submarine ordinarily could do nothing of thesort. Of necessity the lives and the ships of neutrals, as well as ofbelligerents, were put in mortal peril. This amazing conduct Germanyjustified on the ground that it was mere retaliation against GreatBritain for her violations of international law. 

The response of the United States to the ominous German order was swiftand direct. On February 10, 1915, it warned Germany that if hercommanders destroyed American lives and ships in obedience to thatdecree, the action would "be very hard indeed to reconcile with thefriendly relations happily subsisting between the two governments. " TheAmerican note added that the German imperial government would be held to"strict accountability" and all necessary steps would be taken tosafeguard American lives and American rights. This was firm and clearlanguage, but the only response which it evoked from Germany was asuggestion that, if Great Britain would allow food supplies to passthrough the blockade, the submarine campaign would be dropped. 

=Violations of American Rights. =--Meanwhile Germany continued to ravageshipping on the high seas. On January 28, a German raider sank theAmerican ship, _William P. Frye_, in the South Atlantic; on March 28, aBritish ship, the _Falaba_, was sunk by a submarine and many on board, including an American citizen, were killed; and on April 28, a Germanairplane dropped bombs on the American steamer _Cushing_. On the morningof May 1, 1915, Americans were astounded to see in the newspapers anadvertisement, signed by the German Imperial Embassy, warning travelersof the dangers in the war zone and notifying them that any who venturedon British ships into that area did so at their own risk. On that day, the _Lusitania_, a British steamer, sailed from New York for Liverpool. On May 7, without warning, the ship was struck by two torpedoes and in afew minutes went down by the bow, carrying to death 1153 personsincluding 114 American men, women, and children. A cry of horror ranthrough the country. The German papers in America and a few Americanpeople argued that American citizens had been duly warned of the dangerand had deliberately taken their lives into their own hands; but theterrible deed was almost universally condemned by public opinion. 

=The _Lusitania_ Notes. =--On May 14, the Department of State atWashington made public the first of three famous notes on the_Lusitania_ case. It solemnly informed the German government that "nowarning that an unlawful and inhumane act will be committed can possiblybe accepted as an excuse or palliation for that act or as an abatementof the responsibility for its commission. " It called upon the Germangovernment to disavow the act, make reparation as far as possible, andtake steps to prevent "the recurrence of anything so obviouslysubversive of the principles of warfare. " The note closed with a clearcaution to Germany that the government of the United States would not"omit any word or any act necessary to the performance of its sacredduty of maintaining the rights of the United States and its citizens andof safeguarding their free exercise and enjoyment. " The die was cast;but Germany in reply merely temporized. 

In a second note, made public on June 11, the position of the UnitedStates was again affirmed. William Jennings Bryan, the Secretary ofState, had resigned because the drift of President Wilson's policy wasnot toward mediation but the strict maintenance of American rights, ifneed be, by force of arms. The German reply was still evasive and Germannaval commanders continued their course of sinking merchant ships. In athird and final note of July 21, 1915, President Wilson made it clear toGermany that he meant what he said when he wrote that he would maintainthe rights of American citizens. Finally after much discussion andshifting about, the German ambassador on September 1, 1915, sent a briefnote to the Secretary of State: "Liners will not be sunk by oursubmarines without warning and without safety of the lives ofnon-combatants, provided the liners do not try to escape or offerresistance. " Editorially, the New York _Times_ declared: "It is atriumph not only of diplomacy but of reason, of humanity, of justice, and of truth. " The Secretary of State saw in it "a recognition of thefundamental principles for which we have contended. "

=The Presidential Election of 1916. =--In the midst of this crisis camethe presidential campaign. On the Republican side everything seemed todepend upon the action of the Progressives. If the breach created in1912 could be closed, victory was possible; if not, defeat was certain. A promise of unity lay in the fact that the conventions of theRepublicans and Progressives were held simultaneously in Chicago. Thefriends of Roosevelt hoped that both parties would select him as theircandidate; but this hope was not realized. The Republicans chose, andthe Progressives accepted, Charles E. Hughes, an associate justice ofthe federal Supreme Court who, as governor of New York, had won anational reputation by waging war on "machine politicians. "

In the face of the clamor for expressions of sympathy with one or theother of the contending powers of Europe, the Republicans chose a middlecourse, declaring that they would uphold all American rights "at homeand abroad, by land and by sea. " This sentiment Mr. Hughes echoed in hisacceptance speech. By some it was interpreted to mean a firmer policy indealing with Great Britain; by others, a more vigorous handling of thesubmarine menace. The Democrats, on their side, renominated PresidentWilson by acclamation, reviewed with pride the legislative achievementsof the party, and commended "the splendid diplomatic victories of ourgreat President who has preserved the vital interests of our governmentand its citizens and kept us out of war. "

In the election which ensued President Wilson's popular vote exceededthat cast for Mr. Hughes by more than half a million, while hiselectoral vote stood 277 to 254. The result was regarded, and notwithout warrant, as a great personal triumph for the President. He hadreceived the largest vote yet cast for a presidential candidate. TheProgressive party practically disappeared, and the Socialists suffered asevere set-back, falling far behind the vote of 1912. 

=President Wilson Urges Peace upon the Warring Nations. =--Apparentlyconvinced that his pacific policies had been profoundly approved by hiscountrymen, President Wilson, soon after the election, addressed "peacenotes" to the European belligerents. On December 16, the German Emperorproposed to the Allied Powers that they enter into peace negotiations, asuggestion that was treated as a mere political maneuver by the opposinggovernments. Two days later President Wilson sent a note to the warringnations asking them to avow "the terms upon which war might beconcluded. " To these notes the Central Powers replied that they wereready to meet their antagonists in a peace conference; and Allied Powersanswered by presenting certain conditions precedent to a satisfactorysettlement. On January 22, 1917, President Wilson in an address beforethe Senate, declared it to be a duty of the United States to take partin the establishment of a stable peace on the basis of certainprinciples. These were, in short: "peace without victory"; the right ofnationalities to freedom and self-government; the independence ofPoland; freedom of the seas; the reduction of armaments; and theabolition of entangling alliances. The whole world was discussing thePresident's remarkable message, when it was dumbfounded to hear, onJanuary 31, that the German ambassador at Washington had announced theofficial renewal of ruthless submarine warfare. 

THE UNITED STATES AT WAR

=Steps toward War. =--Three days after the receipt of the news that theGerman government intended to return to its former submarine policy, President Wilson severed diplomatic relations with the German empire. Atthe same time he explained to Congress that he desired no conflict withGermany and would await an "overt act" before taking further steps topreserve American rights. "God grant, " he concluded, "that we may not bechallenged to defend them by acts of willful injustice on the part ofthe government of Germany. " Yet the challenge came. Between February 26and April 2, six American merchant vessels were torpedoed, in most caseswithout any warning and without regard to the loss of American lives. President Wilson therefore called upon Congress to answer the Germanmenace. The reply of Congress on April 6 was a resolution, passed withonly a few dissenting votes, declaring the existence of a state of warwith Germany. Austria-Hungary at once severed diplomatic relations withthe United States; but it was not until December 7 that Congress, actingon the President's advice, declared war also on that "vassal of theGerman government. "

=American War Aims. =--In many addresses at the beginning and during thecourse of the war, President Wilson stated the purposes which actuatedour government in taking up arms. He first made it clear that it was awar of self-defense. "The military masters of Germany, " he exclaimed, "denied us the right to be neutral. " Proof of that lay on every hand. Agents of the German imperial government had destroyed American livesand American property on the high seas. They had filled our communitieswith spies. They had planted bombs in ships and munition works. They hadfomented divisions among American citizens. 

Though assailed in many ways and compelled to resort to war, the UnitedStates sought no material rewards. "The world must be made safe fordemocracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations ofpolitical liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire noconquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves. "

In a very remarkable message read to Congress on January 8, 1918, President Wilson laid down his famous "fourteen points" summarizing theideals for which we were fighting. They included open treaties of peace, openly arrived at; absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas; theremoval, as far as possible, of trade barriers among nations; reductionof armaments; adjustment of colonial claims in the interest of thepopulations concerned; fair and friendly treatment of Russia; therestoration of Belgium; righting the wrong done to France in 1871 in thematter of Alsace-Lorraine; adjustment of Italian frontiers along thelines of nationality; more liberty for the peoples of Austria-Hungary;the restoration of Serbia and Rumania; the readjustment of the TurkishEmpire; an independent Poland; and an association of nations to affordmutual guarantees to all states great and small. On a later occasionPresident Wilson elaborated the last point, namely, the formation of aleague of nations to guarantee peace and establish justice among thepowers of the world. Democracy, the right of nations to determine theirown fate, a covenant of enduring peace--these were the ideals for whichthe American people were to pour out their blood and treasure. 

=The Selective Draft. =--The World War became a war of nations. Thepowers against which we were arrayed had every able-bodied man inservice and all their resources, human and material, thrown into thescale. For this reason, President Wilson summoned the whole people ofthe United States to make every sacrifice necessary for victory. Congress by law decreed that the national army should be chosen from allmale citizens and males not enemy aliens who had declared theirintention of becoming citizens. By the first act of May 18, 1917, itfixed the age limits at twenty-one to thirty-one inclusive. Later, inAugust, 1918, it extended them to eighteen and forty-five. From the menof the first group so enrolled were chosen by lot the soldiers for theWorld War who, with the regular army and the national guard, formed theAmerican Expeditionary Force upholding the American cause on thebattlefields of Europe. "The whole nation, " said the President, "must bea team in which each man shall play the part for which he is bestfitted. "

=Liberty Loans and Taxes. =--In order that the military and naval forcesshould be stinted in no respect, the nation was called upon to place itsfinancial resources at the service of the government. Some urged the"conscription of wealth as well as men, " meaning the support of the warout of taxes upon great fortunes; but more conservative counselsprevailed. Four great Liberty Loans were floated, all the agencies ofmodern publicity being employed to enlist popular interest. The firstloan had four and a half million subscribers; the fourth more thantwenty million. Combined with loans were heavy taxes. A progressive taxwas laid upon incomes beginning with four per cent on incomes in thelower ranges and rising to sixty-three per cent of that part of anyincome above $2, 000, 000. A progressive tax was levied upon inheritances. An excess profits tax was laid upon all corporations and partnerships, rising in amount to sixty per cent of the net income in excess ofthirty-three per cent on the invested capital. "This, " said adistinguished economist, "is the high-water mark in the history oftaxation. Never before in the annals of civilization has an attempt beenmade to take as much as two-thirds of a man's income by taxation. "

=Mobilizing Material Resources. =--No stone was left unturned to providethe arms, munitions, supplies, and transportation required in thegigantic undertaking. Between the declaration of war and the armistice, Congress enacted law after law relative to food supplies, raw materials, railways, mines, ships, forests, and industrial enterprises. No powerover the lives and property of citizens, deemed necessary to theprosecution of the armed conflict, was withheld from the government. Thefarmer's wheat, the housewife's sugar, coal at the mines, labor in thefactories, ships at the wharves, trade with friendly countries, therailways, banks, stores, private fortunes--all were mobilized and laidunder whatever obligations the government deemed imperative. Never was anation more completely devoted to a single cause. 

A law of August 10, 1917, gave the President power to fix the prices ofwheat and coal and to take almost any steps necessary to preventmonopoly and excessive prices. By a series of measures, enlarging theprinciples of the shipping act of 1916, ships and shipyards were broughtunder public control and the government was empowered to embark upon agreat ship-building program. In December, 1917, the government assumedfor the period of the war the operation of the railways under apresidential proclamation which was elaborated in March, 1918, by act ofCongress. In the summer of 1918 the express, telephone, and telegraphbusiness of the entire country passed under government control. By warrisk insurance acts allowances were made for the families of enlistedmen, compensation for injuries was provided, death benefits wereinstituted, and a system of national insurance was established in theinterest of the men in service. Never before in the history of thecountry had the government taken such a wise and humane view of itsobligations to those who served on the field of battle or on the seas. 

=The Espionage and Sedition Acts. =--By the Espionage law of June 15, 1917, and the amending law, known as the Sedition act, passed in May ofthe following year, the government was given a drastic power over theexpression of opinion. The first measure penalized those who conveyedinformation to a foreign country to be used to the injury of the UnitedStates; those who made false statements designed to interfere with themilitary or naval forces of the United States; those who attempted tostir up insubordination or disloyalty in the army and navy; and thosewho willfully obstructed enlistment. The Sedition act was still moresevere and sweeping in its terms. It imposed heavy penalties upon anyperson who used "abusive language about the government or institutionsof the country. " It authorized the dismissal of any officer of thegovernment who committed "disloyal acts" or uttered "disloyal language, "and empowered the Postmaster General to close the mails to personsviolating the law. This measure, prepared by the Department of Justice, encountered vigorous opposition in the Senate, where twenty-fourRepublicans and two Democrats voted against it. Senator Johnson ofCalifornia denounced it as a law "to suppress the freedom of the pressin the United States and to prevent any man, no matter who he is, fromexpressing legitimate criticism concerning the present government. " Theconstitutionality of the acts was attacked; but they were sustained bythe Supreme Court and stringently enforced. 

[Illustration: _Copyright by Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

THE LAUNCHING OF A SHIP AT THE GREAT NAVAL YARDS, NEWARK, N. J. ]

=Labor and the War. =--In view of the restlessness of European laborduring the war and especially the proletarian revolution in Russia inNovember, 1917, some anxiety was early expressed as to the stand whichorganized labor might take in the United States. It was, however, soondispelled. Samuel Gompers, speaking for the American Federation ofLabor, declared that "this is labor's war, " and pledged the unitedsupport of all the unions. There was some dissent. The Socialist partydenounced the war as a capitalist quarrel; but all the protests combinedwere too slight to have much effect. American labor leaders were sent toEurope to strengthen the wavering ranks of trade unionists in war-wornEngland, France, and Italy. Labor was given representation on theimportant boards and commissions dealing with industrial questions. Trade union standards were accepted by the government and generallyapplied in industry. The Department of Labor became one of the powerfulwar centers of the nation. In a memorable address to the AmericanFederation of Labor, President Wilson assured the trade unionists thatlabor conditions should not be made unduly onerous by the war andreceived in return a pledge of loyalty from the Federation. Recognitionof labor's contribution to winning the war was embodied in the treaty ofpeace, which provided for a permanent international organization topromote the world-wide effort of labor to improve social conditions. "The league of nations has for its object the establishment of universalpeace, " runs the preamble to the labor section of the treaty, "and sucha peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice. .. . The failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labor is anobstacle in the way of other nations which desire to improve theconditions in their own countries. "

=The American Navy in the War. =--As soon as Congress declared war thefleet was mobilized, American ports were thrown open to the warships ofthe Allies, immediate provision was made for increasing the number ofmen and ships, and a contingent of war vessels was sent to coöperatewith the British and French in their life-and-death contest withsubmarines. Special effort was made to stimulate the production of"submarine chasers" and "scout cruisers" to be sent to the danger zone. Convoys were provided to accompany the transports conveying soldiers toFrance. Before the end of the war more than three hundred Americanvessels and 75, 000 officers and men were operating in European waters. Though the German fleet failed to come out and challenge the sea powerof the Allies, the battleships of the United States were always ready todo their full duty in such an event. As things turned out, the serviceof the American navy was limited mainly to helping in the campaign thatwore down the submarine menace to Allied shipping. 

=The War in France. =--Owing to the peculiar character of the warfare inFrance, it required a longer time for American military forces to getinto action; but there was no unnecessary delay. Soon after thedeclaration of war, steps were taken to give military assistance to theAllies. The regular army was enlarged and the troops of the nationalguard were brought into national service. On June 13, General John J. Pershing, chosen head of the American Expeditionary Forces, reachedParis and began preparations for the arrival of our troops. In June, thevanguard of the army reached France. A slow and steady stream followed. As soon as the men enrolled under the draft were ready, it became aflood. During the period of the war the army was enlarged from about190, 000 men to 3, 665, 000, of whom more than 2, 000, 000 were in Francewhen the armistice was signed. 

Although American troops did not take part on a large scale until thelast phase of the war in 1918, several battalions of infantry were inthe trenches by October, 1917, and had their first severe encounter withthe Germans early in November. In January, 1918, they took over a partof the front line as an American sector. In March, General Pershingplaced our forces at the disposal of General Foch, commander-in-chief ofthe Allied armies. The first division, which entered the Montdidiersalient in April, soon was engaged with the enemy, "taking with splendiddash the town of Cantigny and all other objectives, which were organizedand held steadfastly against vicious counter attacks and gallingartillery fire. "

[Illustration: _Copyright by Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

TROOPS RETURNING FROM FRANCE]

When the Germans launched their grand drives toward the Marne and Paris, in June and July, 1918, every available man was placed at General Foch'scommand. At Belleau Wood, at Château-Thierry, and other points along thedeep salient made by the Germans into the French lines, Americansoldiers distinguished themselves by heroic action. They also played animportant rôle in the counter attack that "smashed" the salient anddrove the Germans back. 

In September, American troops, with French aid, "wiped out" the Germansalient at St. Mihiel. By this time General Pershing was ready for thegreat American drive to the northeast in the Argonne forest, while healso coöperated with the British in the assault on the Hindenburg line. In the Meuse-Argonne battle, our soldiers encountered some of the mostsevere fighting of the war and pressed forward steadily against the moststubborn resistance from the enemy. On the 6th of November, reportedGeneral Pershing, "a division of the first corps reached a point on theMeuse opposite Sedan, twenty-five miles from our line of departure. Thestrategical goal which was our highest hope was gained. We had cut theenemy's main line of communications and nothing but a surrender or anarmistice could save his army from complete disaster. " Five days laterthe end came. On the morning of November 11, the order to cease firingwent into effect. The German army was in rapid retreat anddemoralization had begun. The Kaiser had abdicated and fled intoHolland. The Hohenzollern dreams of empire were shattered. In thefifty-second month, the World War, involving nearly every civilizednation on the globe, was brought to a close. More than 75, 000 Americansoldiers and sailors had given their lives. More than 250, 000 had beenwounded or were missing or in German prison camps. 

[Illustration: WESTERN BATTLE LINES OF THE VARIOUS YEARS OF THEWORLD WAR]

THE SETTLEMENT AT PARIS

=The Peace Conference. =--On January 18, 1919, a conference of the Alliedand Associated Powers assembled to pronounce judgment upon the Germanempire and its defeated satellites: Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, andTurkey. It was a moving spectacle. Seventy-two delegates spoke forthirty-two states. The United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, andJapan had five delegates each. Belgium, Brazil, and Serbia were eachassigned three. Canada, Australia, South Africa, India, China, Greece, Hedjaz, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, Siam, and Czechoslovakia wereallotted two apiece. The remaining states of New Zealand, Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and Uruguay each had one delegate. President Wilson spoke in person forthe United States. England, France, and Italy were represented by theirpremiers: David Lloyd George, Georges Clémenceau, and Vittorio Orlando. 

[Illustration: PREMIERS LLOYD GEORGE, ORLANDO AND CLÉMENCEAU ANDPRESIDENT WILSON AT PARIS]

=The Supreme Council. =--The real work of the settlement was firstcommitted to a Supreme Council of ten representing the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan. This was later reduced to fivemembers. Then Japan dropped out and finally Italy, leaving onlyPresident Wilson and the Premiers, Lloyd George and Clémenceau, the"Big Three, " who assumed the burden of mighty decisions. On May 6, theirwork was completed and in a secret session of the full conference thewhole treaty of peace was approved, though a few of the powers madereservations or objections. The next day the treaty was presented to theGermans who, after prolonged protests, signed on the last day of grace, June 28. This German treaty was followed by agreements with Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Turkey. Collectively these great documents formedthe legal basis of the general European settlement. 

=The Terms of the Settlement. =--The combined treaties make a hugevolume. The German treaty alone embraces about 80, 000 words. Collectively they cover an immense range of subjects which may besummarized under five heads: (1) The territorial settlement in Europe;(2) the destruction of German military power; (3) reparations fordamages done by Germany and her allies; (4) the disposition of Germancolonies and protectorates; and (5) the League of Nations. 

Germany was reduced by the cession of Alsace-Lorraine to France and theloss of several other provinces. Austria-Hungary was dissolved anddismembered. Russia was reduced by the creation of new states on thewest. Bulgaria was stripped of her gains in the recent Balkan wars. Turkey was dismembered. Nine new independent states were created:Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Esthonia, Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Armenia, and Hedjaz. Italy, Greece, Rumania, and Serbia were enlarged bycessions of territory and Serbia was transformed into the great state ofJugoslavia. 

The destruction of German military power was thorough. The entire navy, with minor exceptions, was turned over to the Allied and AssociatedPowers; Germany's total equipment for the future was limited to sixbattleships and six light cruisers, with certain small vessels but nosubmarines. The number of enlisted men and officers for the army wasfixed at not more than 100, 000; the General Staff was dissolved; and themanufacture of munitions restricted. 

Germany was compelled to accept full responsibility for all damages; topay five billion dollars in cash and goods, and to make certain otherpayments which might be ordered from time to time by an inter-alliedreparations commission. She was also required to deliver to Belgium, France, and Italy, millions of tons of coal every year for ten years;while by way of additional compensation to France the rich coal basin ofthe Saar was placed under inter-allied control to be exploited underFrench administration for a period of at least fifteen years. Austriaand the other associates of Germany were also laid under heavyobligations to the victors. Damages done to shipping by submarines andother vessels were to be paid for on the basis of ton for ton. 

The disposition of the German colonies and the old Ottoman empirepresented knotty problems. It was finally agreed that the Germancolonies and Turkish provinces which were in a backward stage ofdevelopment should be placed under the tutelage of certain powers actingas "mandatories" holding them in "a sacred trust of civilization. " Anexception to the mandatory principle arose in the case of German rightsin Shantung, all of which were transferred directly to Japan. It wasthis arrangement that led the Chinese delegation to withhold theirsignatures from the treaty. 

=The League of Nations. =--High among the purposes which he had in mindin summoning the nation to arms, President Wilson placed the desire toput an end to war. All through the United States the people spoke of the"war to end war. " No slogan called forth a deeper response from thepublic. The President himself repeatedly declared that a generalassociation of nations must be formed to guard the peace and protect allagainst the ambitions of the few. "As I see it, " he said in his addresson opening the Fourth Liberty Loan campaign, "the constitution of theLeague of Nations and the clear definition of its objects must be apart, in a sense the most essential part, of the peace settlementitself. "

Nothing was more natural, therefore, than Wilson's insistence at Parisupon the formation of an international association. Indeed he had goneto Europe in person largely to accomplish that end. Part One of thetreaty with Germany, the Covenant of the League of Nations, was due tohis labors more than to any other influence. Within the League thuscreated were to be embraced all the Allied and Associated Powers andnearly all the neutrals. By a two-thirds vote of the League Assembly theexcluded nations might be admitted. 

The agencies of the League of Nations were to be three in number: (1) apermanent secretariat located at Geneva; (2) an Assembly consisting ofone delegate from each country, dominion, or self-governing colony(including Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and India); (3)and a Council consisting of representatives of the United States, GreatBritain, France, Italy, and Japan, and four other representativesselected by the Assembly from time to time. 

The duties imposed on the League and the obligations accepted by itsmembers were numerous and important. The Council was to take steps toformulate a scheme for the reduction of armaments and to submit a planfor the establishment of a permanent Court of International Justice. Themembers of the League (Article X) were to respect and preserve asagainst external aggression the territorial integrity and existingpolitical independence of all the associated nations. They were tosubmit to arbitration or inquiry by the Council all disputes which couldnot be adjusted by diplomacy and in no case to resort to war until threemonths after the award. Should any member disregard its covenants, itsaction would be considered an act of war against the League, which wouldaccordingly cut off the trade and business of the hostile member andrecommend through the Council to the several associated governments themilitary measures to be taken. In case the decision in any arbitrationof a dispute was unanimous, the members of the League affected by itwere to abide by it. 

Such was the settlement at Paris and such was the association of nationsformed to promote the peace of the world. They were quickly approved bymost of the powers, and the first Assembly of the League of Nations metat Geneva late in 1920. 

=The Treaty in the United States. =--When the treaty was presented to theUnited States Senate for approval, a violent opposition appeared. Inthat chamber the Republicans had a slight majority and a two-thirds votewas necessary for ratification. The sentiment for and against the treatyran mainly along party lines; but the Republicans were themselvesdivided. The major portion, known as "reservationists, " favoredratification with certain conditions respecting American rights; while asmall though active minority rejected the League of Nations in itsentirety, announcing themselves to be "irreconcilables. " The grounds ofthis Republican opposition lay partly in the terms of peace imposed onGermany and partly in the Covenant of the League of Nations. Exceptionwas taken to the clauses which affected the rights of American citizensin property involved in the adjustment with Germany, but the burden ofcriticism was directed against the League. Article X guaranteeingagainst external aggression the political independence and territorialintegrity of the members of the League was subjected to a speciallyheavy fire; while the treatment accorded to China and the sectionsaffecting American internal affairs were likewise attacked as "unjustand dangerous. " As an outcome of their deliberations, the Republicansproposed a long list of reservations which touched upon many of thevital parts of the treaty. These were rejected by President Wilson asamounting in effect to a "nullification of the treaty. " As a deadlockensued the treaty was definitely rejected, owing to the failure of itssponsors to secure the requisite two-thirds vote. 

[Illustration: EUROPE]

=The League of Nations in the Campaign of 1920. =--At this juncture thepresidential campaign of 1920 opened. The Republicans, while condemningthe terms of the proposed League, endorsed the general idea of aninternational agreement to prevent war. Their candidate, SenatorWarren G. Harding of Ohio, maintained a similar position without sayingdefinitely whether the League devised at Paris could be recast in such amanner as to meet his requirements. The Democrats, on the other hand, while not opposing limitations clarifying the obligations of the UnitedStates, demanded "the immediate ratification of the treaty withoutreservations which would impair its essential integrity. " The Democraticcandidate, Governor James M. Cox, of Ohio, announced his firm convictionthat the United States should "go into the League, " without closing thedoor to mild reservations; he appealed to the country largely on thatissue. The election of Senator Harding, in an extraordinary "landslide, "coupled with the return of a majority of Republicans to the Senate, madeuncertain American participation in the League of Nations. 

=The United States and International Entanglements. =--Whether Americaentered the League or not, it could not close its doors to the world andescape perplexing international complications. It had ever-increasingfinancial and commercial connections with all other countries. Ourassociates in the recent war were heavily indebted to our government. The prosperity of American industries depended to a considerable extentupon the recovery of the impoverished and battle-torn countries ofEurope. 

There were other complications no less specific. The United States wascompelled by force of circumstances to adopt a Russian policy. Thegovernment of the Czar had been overthrown by a liberal revolution, which in turn had been succeeded by an extreme, communist"dictatorship. " The Bolsheviki, or majority faction of the socialists, had obtained control of the national council of peasants, workingmen, and soldiers, called the soviet, and inaugurated a radical régime. Theyhad made peace with Germany in March, 1918. Thereupon the United Statesjoined England, France, and Japan in an unofficial war upon them. Afterthe general settlement at Paris in 1919, our government, whilewithdrawing troops from Siberia and Archangel, continued in its refusalto recognize the Bolshevists or to permit unhampered trade with them. President Wilson repeatedly denounced them as the enemies ofcivilization and undertook to lay down for all countries the principleswhich should govern intercourse with Russia. 

Further international complications were created in connection with theWorld War, wholly apart from the terms of peace or the League ofNations. The United States had participated in a general Europeanconflict which changed the boundaries of countries, called into beingnew nations, and reduced the power and territories of the vanquished. Accordingly, it was bound to face the problem of how far it was preparedto coöperate with the victors in any settlement of Europe'sdifficulties. By no conceivable process, therefore, could America bedisentangled from the web of world affairs. Isolation, if desirable, hadbecome impossible. Within three hundred years from the founding of thetiny settlements at Jamestown and Plymouth, America, by virtue of itsinstitutions, its population, its wealth, and its commerce, had becomefirst among the nations of the earth. By moral obligations and bypractical interests its fate was thus linked with the destiny of allmankind. 

SUMMARY OF DEMOCRACY AND THE WORLD WAR

The astounding industrial progress that characterized the periodfollowing the Civil War bequeathed to the new generation many perplexingproblems connected with the growth of trusts and railways, theaccumulation of great fortunes, the increase of poverty in theindustrial cities, the exhaustion of the free land, and the acquisitionof dominions in distant seas. As long as there was an abundance of landin the West any able-bodied man with initiative and industry couldbecome an independent farmer. People from the cities and immigrants fromEurope had always before them that gateway to property and prosperity. When the land was all gone, American economic conditions inevitablybecame more like those of Europe. 

Though the new economic questions had been vigorously debated in manycircles before his day, it was President Roosevelt who first discussedthem continuously from the White House. The natural resources of thecountry were being exhausted; he advocated their conservation. Hugefortunes were being made in business creating inequalities inopportunity; he favored reducing them by income and inheritance taxes. Industries were disturbed by strikes; he pressed arbitration uponcapital and labor. The free land was gone; he declared that labor was ina less favorable position to bargain with capital and therefore shouldorganize in unions for collective bargaining. There had been wrong-doingon the part of certain great trusts; those responsible should bepunished. 

The spirit of reform was abroad in the land. The spoils system wasattacked. It was alleged that the political parties were dominated by"rings and bosses. " The United States Senate was called "a millionaires'club. " Poverty and misery were observed in the cities. Statelegislatures and city governments were accused of corruption. 

In answer to the charges, remedies were proposed and adopted. Civilservice reform was approved. The Australian ballot, popular election ofSenators, the initiative, referendum, and recall, commission and citymanager plans for cities, public regulation of railways, compensationfor those injured in industries, minimum wages for women and children, pensions for widows, the control of housing in the cities--these and ahundred other reforms were adopted and tried out. The national watchwordbecame: "America, Improve Thyself. "

The spirit of reform broke into both political parties. It appeared inmany statutes enacted by Congress under President Taft's leadership. Itdisrupted the Republicans temporarily in 1912 when the Progressive partyentered the field. It led the Democratic candidate in that year, Governor Wilson, to make a "progressive appeal" to the voters. Itinspired a considerable program of national legislation under PresidentWilson's two administrations. 

In the age of change, four important amendments to the federalconstitution, the first in more than forty years, were adopted. Thesixteenth empowered Congress to lay an income tax. The seventeenthassured popular election of Senators. The eighteenth made prohibitionnational. The nineteenth, following upon the adoption of woman suffragein many states, enfranchised the women of the nation. 

In the sphere of industry, equally great changes took place. The majorportion of the nation's business passed into the hands of corporations. In all the leading industries of the country labor was organized intotrade unions and federated in a national organization. The power oforganized capital and organized labor loomed upon the horizon. Theirstruggles, their rights, and their place in the economy of the nationraised problems of the first magnitude. 

While the country was engaged in a heated debate upon its domesticissues, the World War broke out in Europe in 1914. As a hundred yearsbefore, American rights upon the high seas became involved at once. Theywere invaded on both sides; but Germany, in addition to assailingAmerican ships and property, ruthlessly destroyed American lives. Sheset at naught the rules of civilized warfare upon the sea. Warnings fromPresident Wilson were without avail. Nothing could stay the hand of theGerman war party. 

After long and patient negotiations, President Wilson in 1917 calledupon the nation to take up arms against an assailant that had in effectdeclared war upon America. The answer was swift and firm. The nationalresources, human and material, were mobilized. The navy was enlarged, adraft army created, huge loans floated, heavy taxes laid, and the spiritof sacrifice called forth in a titanic struggle against an autocraticpower that threatened to dominate Europe and the World. 

In the end, American financial, naval, and military assistance countedheavily in the scale. American sailors scoured the seas searching forthe terrible submarines. American soldiers took part in the last greatdrives that broke the might of Germany's army. Such was the nation'sresponse to the President's summons to arms in a war "for democracy" and"to end war. "

When victory crowned the arms of the powers united against Germany, President Wilson in person took part in the peace council. He sought toredeem his pledge to end wars by forming a League of Nations to keep thepeace. In the treaty drawn at the close of the war the first part was acovenant binding the nations in a permanent association for thesettlement of international disputes. This treaty, the President offeredto the United States Senate for ratification and to his country forapproval. 

Once again, as in the days of the Napoleonic wars, the people seriouslydiscussed the place of America among the powers of the earth. The Senaterefused to ratify the treaty. World politics then became an issue in thecampaign of 1920. Though some Americans talked as if the United Statescould close its doors and windows against all mankind, the victor in theelection, Senator Harding, of Ohio, knew better. The election returnswere hardly announced before he began to ask the advice of hiscountrymen on the pressing theme that would not be downed: "What partshall America--first among the nations of the earth in wealth andpower--assume at the council table of the world?"

=General References=

Woodrow Wilson, _The New Freedom_. 

C. L. Jones, _The Caribbean Interests of the United States_. 

H. P. Willis, _The Federal Reserve_. 

C. W. Barron, _The Mexican Problem_ (critical toward Mexico). 

L. J. De Bekker, _The Plot against Mexico_ (against Americanintervention). 

Theodore Roosevelt, _America and the World War_. 

E. E. Robinson and V. J. West, _The Foreign Policy of Woodrow Wilson_. 

J. S. Bassett, _Our War with Germany_. 

Carlton J. H. Hayes, _A Brief History of the Great War_. 

J. B. McMaster, _The United States in the World War_. 

=Research Topics=

=President Wilson's First Term. =--Elson, _History of the United States_, pp. 925-941. 

=The Underwood Tariff Act. =--Ogg, _National Progress_ (The AmericanNation Series), pp. 209-226. 

=The Federal Reserve System. =--Ogg, pp. 228-232. 

=Trust and Labor Legislation. =--Ogg, pp. 232-236. 

=Legislation Respecting the Territories. =--Ogg, pp. 236-245. 

=American Interests in the Caribbean. =--Ogg, pp. 246-265. 

=American Interests in the Pacific. =--Ogg, pp. 304-324. 

=Mexican Affairs. =--Haworth, pp. 388-395; Ogg, pp. 284-304. 

=The First Phases of the European War. =--Haworth, pp. 395-412; Ogg, pp. 325-343. 

=The Campaign of 1916. =--Haworth, pp. 412-418; Ogg, pp. 364-383. 

=America Enters the War. =--Haworth, pp. 422-440; pp. 454-475. Ogg, pp. 384-399; Elson, pp. 951-970. 

=Mobilizing the Nation. =--Haworth, pp. 441-453. 

=The Peace Settlement. =--Haworth, pp. 475-497; Elson, pp. 971-982. 

=Questions=

1. Enumerate the chief financial measures of the Wilson administration. Review the history of banks and currency and give the details of theFederal reserve law. 

2. What was the Wilson policy toward trusts? Toward labor?

3. Review again the theory of states' rights. How has it fared in recentyears?

4. What steps were taken in colonial policies? In the Caribbean?

5. Outline American-Mexican relations under Wilson. 

6. How did the World War break out in Europe?

7. Account for the divided state of opinion in America. 

8. Review the events leading up to the War of 1812. Compare them withthe events from 1914 to 1917. 

9. State the leading principles of international law involved and showhow they were violated. 

10. What American rights were assailed in the submarine campaign?

11. Give Wilson's position on the _Lusitania_ affair. 

12. How did the World War affect the presidential campaign of 1916?

13. How did Germany finally drive the United States into war?

14. State the American war aims given by the President. 

15. Enumerate the measures taken by the government to win the war. 

16. Review the part of the navy in the war. The army. 

17. How were the terms of peace formulated?

18. Enumerate the principal results of the war. 

19. Describe the League of Nations. 

20. Trace the fate of the treaty in American politics. 

21. Can there be a policy of isolation for America?

APPENDIX

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

We the people of the United States, in order to form a moreperfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, providefor the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure theblessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain andestablish this Constitution for the United States of America. 

ARTICLE I

SECTION 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in aCongress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and Houseof Representatives. 

SECTION 2. 1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of memberschosen every second year by the people of the several States, and theelectors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite forelectors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature. 

2. No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained tothe age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of theUnited States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of thatState in which he shall be chosen. 

3. Representatives and direct taxes[3] shall be apportioned among theseveral States which may be included within this Union, according totheir respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to thewhole number of free persons, including those bound to service for aterm of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of allother persons. [3] The actual enumeration shall be made within threeyears after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, andwithin every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shallby law direct. The number of representatives shall not exceed one forevery thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least onerepresentative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State ofNew Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New Yorksix, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgiathree. 

4. When vacancies happen in the representation from any State, theexecutive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill suchvacancies. 

5. The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and otherofficers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment. 

SECTION 3. 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of twosenators from each State, chosen by the legislature thereof, for sixyears; and each senator shall have one vote. [4]

2. Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the firstelection, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the senators of the first class shall be vacated at theexpiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration ofthe fourth year, and of the third class at the expiration of the sixthyear, so that one-third may be chosen every second year; and ifvacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of thelegislature of any State, the executive thereof may make temporaryappointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall thenfill such vacancies. [5]

3. No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the ageof thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, andwho shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which heshall be chosen. 

4. The Vice-President of the United States shall be President of theSenate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. 

5. The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President_pro tempore_, in the absence of the Vice-President, or when he shallexercise the office of President of the United States. 

6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. Whensitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When thePresident of the United States is tried, the chief justice shallpreside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence oftwo-thirds of the members present. 

7. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than toremoval from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any officeof honor, trust, or profit under the United States: but the partyconvicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law. 

SECTION 4. 1. The times, places, and manner of holding elections forsenators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by thelegislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make oralter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators. 

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and suchmeeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall bylaw appoint a different day. 

SECTION 5. 1. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returnsand qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shallconstitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjournfrom day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance ofabsent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each Housemay provide. 

2. Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish itsmembers for disorderly behaviour, and, with the concurrence oftwo-thirds, expel a member. 

3. Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time totime publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgmentrequire secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House onany question shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, beentered on the journal. 

4. Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without theconsent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any otherplace than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. 

SECTION 6. 1. The senators and representatives shall receive acompensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid outof the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, excepttreason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrestduring their attendance at the sessions of their respective Houses, andin going to and returning from the same; and, for any speech or debatein either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place. 

2. No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he waselected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of theUnited States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereofshall have been increased during such time; and no person, holding anyoffice under the United States, shall be a member of either House duringhis continuance in office. 

SECTION 7. 1. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the Houseof Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendmentsas on other bills. 

2. Every bill, which shall have passed the House of Representatives; andthe Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the Presidentof the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not heshall return it with his objections to that House, in which it shallhave originated, who shall enter the objections at large on theirjournal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsiderationtwo-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shalllikewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Housesshall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the personsvoting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of eachHouse respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the Presidentwithin ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented tohim, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in whichcase it shall not be a law. 

3. Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of theSenate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on aquestion of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of theUnited States and before the same shall take effect, shall be approvedby him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds ofthe Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules andlimitations prescribed in the case of a bill. 

SECTION 8. The Congress shall have power: 1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for thecommon defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the severalStates, and with the Indian tribes;

4. To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws onthe subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, andfix the standard of weights and measures;

6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities andcurrent coin of the United States;

7. To establish post offices and post roads;

8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing forlimited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to theirrespective writings and discoveries;

9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the highseas, and offences against the law of nations;

11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rulesconcerning captures on land and water;

12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to thatuse shall be for a longer term than two years;

13. To provide and maintain a navy;

14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land andnaval forces;

15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of theUnion, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions;

16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the serviceof the United States, reserving to the States respectively theappointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militiaaccording to the discipline prescribed by Congress. 

17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over suchdistrict (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession ofparticular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of thegovernment of the United States, and to exercise like authority over allplaces purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in whichthe same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings;--and

18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carryinginto execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by thisConstitution in the government of the United States, or in anydepartment or officer thereof. 

SECTION 9. 1. The migration or importation of such persons as any of theStates now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibitedby the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding tendollars for each person. 

2. The privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_ shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety mayrequire it. 

3. No bill of attainder or _ex post facto_ law shall be passed. 

4. No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless inproportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to betaken. [6]

5. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State. 

6. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenueto the ports of one State over those of another: nor shall vessels boundto, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties inanother. 

7. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence ofappropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of thereceipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published fromtime to time. 

8. No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and noperson, holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, withoutthe consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign State. 

SECTION 10. 1. No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, orconfederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emitbills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender inpayment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, _ex post facto_ law, orlaw impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title ofnobility. 

2. No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any impostsor duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessaryfor executing its inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties andimposts, laid by any State on imports or exports, shall be for the useof the Treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subjectto the revision and control of the Congress. 

3. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty oftonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into anyagreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, orengage in war unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger aswill not admit of delay. 

ARTICLE II

SECTION 1. 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of theUnited States of America. He shall hold his office during the term offour years, and, together with the Vice-President, chosen for the sameterm, be elected, as follows:

2. Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereofmay direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senatorsand representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress;but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trustor profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. [7] Theelectors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot fortwo persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the sameState with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the personsvoted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shallsign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government ofthe United States, directed to the president of the Senate. ThePresident of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and Houseof Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall thenbe counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be thePresident, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electorsappointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, andhave an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shallimmediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no personhave a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said Houseshall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing thePresident, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation fromeach State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of amember or members from two-thirds of the States and a majority of allthe States shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after thechoice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votesof the electors shall be the Vice-President. But if there should remaintwo or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them byballot the Vice-President. [8]

3. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and theday on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the samethroughout the United States. 

4. No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the UnitedStates, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall beeligible to the office of President; neither shall any person beeligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age ofthirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the UnitedStates. 

5. In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the saidoffice, the same shall devolve on the Vice-President, and the Congressmay by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, orinability both of the President and Vice-President, declaring whatofficer shall then act as President, and such officer shall actaccordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall beelected. 

6. The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services acompensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during theperiod for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receivewithin that period any other emolument from the United States, or any ofthem. 

7. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take thefollowing oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that Iwill faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend theConstitution of the United States. "

SECTION 2. 1. The President shall be commander-in-chief of the army andnavy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may requirethe opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of theexecutive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of theirrespective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves andpardons for offences against the United States, except in cases ofimpeachment. 

2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of theSenate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators presentconcur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent ofthe Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers andconsuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of theUnited States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vestthe appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in thePresident alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. 

3. The President shall have power to fill all vacancies that may happenduring the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shallexpire at the end of their next session. 

SECTION 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress informationon the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration suchmeasures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, onextraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and incase of disagreement between them, with respect to the time ofadjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper;he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall takecare that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all theofficers of the United States. 

SECTION 4. The President, Vice-President, and all civil officers of theUnited States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, andconviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. 

ARTICLE III

SECTION 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested inone Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may fromtime to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme andinferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, andshall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, whichshall not be diminished during their continuance in office. 

SECTION 2. 1. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law andequity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--toall cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--toall cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies towhich the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between twoor more States;--between a State and citizens of anotherState;[9]--between citizens of different States;--between citizens ofthe same State claiming lands under grants of different States;--andbetween a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, or subjects. 

2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers andconsuls and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Courtshall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases beforementioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both asto law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as theCongress shall make. 

3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be byjury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimesshall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, thetrial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law havedirected. 

SECTION 3. 1. Treason against the United States shall consist only inlevying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving themaid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on thetestimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession inopen court. 

2. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeitureexcept during the life of the person attainted. 

ARTICLE IV

SECTION 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to thepublic acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. Andthe Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which suchacts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. 

SECTION 2. 1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to allprivileges and immunities of citizens in the several States. 

2. A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall ondemand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, bedelivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of thecrime. 

3. No person held to service or labor in one State, under the lawsthereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law orregulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shallbe delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor maybe due. 

SECTION 3. 1. New States may be admitted by the Congress into thisUnion; but no new State shall be formed or erected within thejurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the junctionof two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of thelegislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. 

2. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needfulrules and regulations respecting the territory or other propertybelonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shallbe so construed as to prejudice any claims, of the United States, or ofany particular State. 

SECTION 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in thisUnion a republican form of government, and shall protect each of themagainst invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of theexecutive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domesticviolence. 

ARTICLE V

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem itnecessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on theapplication of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the severalStates, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or theother mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; providedthat no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eighthundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourthclauses in the ninth Section of the first article; and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in theSenate. 

ARTICLE VI

1. All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before theadoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the UnitedStates under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. 

2. This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall bemade in pursuance thereof and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law ofthe land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anythingin the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrarynotwithstanding. 

3. The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members ofthe several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound byoath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious testshall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trustunder the United States. 

ARTICLE VII

The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficientfor the establishment of this Constitution between the States soratifying the same. 

Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the States present theseventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand sevenhundred and eighty-seven and of the independence of the United States ofAmerica the twelfth. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed ournames, G^O. WASHINGTON-- Presidt. And Deputy from Virginia

[and thirty-eight members from all the States except Rhode Island. ]

 * * * * *

Articles in addition to, and amendment of, the Constitution of theUnited States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by thelegislatures of the several States pursuant to the fifth article of theoriginal Constitution. 

ARTICLE I[10]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably toassemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

ARTICLE II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a freeState, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not beinfringed. 

ARTICLE III

No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, withoutthe consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to beprescribed by law. 

ARTICLE IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not beviolated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the placeto be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 

ARTICLE V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamouscrime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except incases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when inactual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person besubject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life orlimb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witnessagainst himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, withoutdue process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 

ARTICLE VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to aspeedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and districtwherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall havebeen previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature andcause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses againsthim; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence. 

ARTICLE VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceedtwenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and nofact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of theUnited States, than according to the rules of the common law. 

ARTICLE VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, norcruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 

ARTICLE IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not beconstrued to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 

ARTICLE X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, norprohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 

ARTICLE XI[11]

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extendto any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of theUnited States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjectsof any foreign State. 

ARTICLE XII[12]

The electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballotfor President and Vice-President, one of whom at least shall not be aninhabitant of the same State with themselves; they shall name in theirballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots theperson voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct listsof all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for asVice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists theyshall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of thegovernment of the United States, directed to the President of theSenate;--The President of the Senate shall, in presence of the Senateand House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votesshall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votesfor President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority ofthe whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have suchmajority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceedingthree on the list of those voted for as President, the House ofRepresentatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. Butin choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, therepresentation from each State having one vote; a quorum for thispurpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of theStates, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a Presidentwhenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourthday of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act asPresident, as in the case of the death or other constitutionaldisability of the President. The person having the greatest number ofvotes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number bea majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no personhave a majority, then from the two highest members on the list, theSenate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shallconsist of two-thirds of the whole number of senators, and a majority ofthe whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no personconstitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligibleto that of Vice-President of the United States. 

ARTICLE XIII[13]

SECTION 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as apunishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to theirjurisdiction. 

SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article byappropriate legislation. 

ARTICLE XIV[14]

SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, andsubject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United Statesand of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce anylaw which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of theUnited States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person withinits jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

SECTION 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several Statesaccording to their respective numbers, counting the whole number ofpersons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the rightto vote at any election for the choice of electors for President andVice-President of the United States, representatives in Congress, theexecutive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of thelegislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of suchState, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or othercrime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in theproportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to thewhole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. 

SECTION 3. No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil ormilitary, under the United States, or under any State, who, havingpreviously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer ofthe United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as anexecutive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitutionof the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellionagainst the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. ButCongress may by two-thirds vote of each House, remove such disability. 

SECTION 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions andbounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shallnot be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shallassume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection orrebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss oremancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claimsshall be held illegal and void. 

SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriatelegislation, the provisions of this article. 

ARTICLE XV[15]

SECTION 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall notbe denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account ofrace, color, or previous condition of servitude. 

SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article byappropriate legislation. 

ARTICLE XVI[16]

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, fromwhatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. 

ARTICLE XVII[17]

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators fromeach State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and eachsenator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have thequalifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of theState legislature. 

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election tofill such vacancies: _Provided_ that the legislature of any State mayempower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until thepeople fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. 

This amendment shall not be so construed as to effect the election orterm of any senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of theConstitution. 

ARTICLE XVIII[18]

SECTION 1. After one year from the ratification of this article themanufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, theimportation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the UnitedStates and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof forbeverage purposes is hereby prohibited. 

SECTION 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrentpower to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 

SECTION 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have beenratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of theseveral States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years fromthe date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. 

ARTICLE XIX[19]

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be deniedor abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex. 

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriatelegislation. 

POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES, BY STATES: 1920, 1910, 1900

+---------------------+--------------------------------------------+| STATES | POPULATION |+ +--------------+--------------+--------------+| | 1920 | 1910 | 1900 |+---------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+|United States | 105, 708, 771 | 91, 972, 266 | 75, 994, 575 |+---------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+|Alabama | 2, 348, 174 | 2, 138, 093 | 1, 828, 697 ||Arizona | 333, 903 | 204, 354 | 122, 931 ||Arkansas | 1, 752, 204 | 1, 574, 449 | 1, 311, 564 ||California | 3, 426, 861 | 2, 377, 549 | 1, 485, 053 ||Colorado | 939, 629 | 799, 024 | 539, 700 ||Connecticut | 1, 380, 631 | 1, 114, 756 | 908, 420 ||Delaware | 223, 003 | 202, 322 | 184, 735 ||District of Columbia | 437, 571 | 331, 069 | 278, 718 ||Florida | 968, 470 | 752, 619 | 528, 542 ||Georgia | 2, 895, 832 | 2, 609, 121 | 2, 216, 331 ||Idaho | 431, 866 | 325, 594 | 161, 772 ||Illinois | 6, 485, 280 | 5, 638, 591 | 4, 821, 550 ||Indiana | 2, 930, 390 | 2, 700, 876 | 2, 516, 462 ||Iowa | 2, 404, 021 | 2, 224, 771 | 2, 231, 853 ||Kansas | 1, 769, 257 | 1, 690, 949 | 1, 470, 495 ||Kentucky | 2, 416, 630 | 2, 289, 905 | 2, 147, 174 ||Louisiana | 1, 798, 509 | 1, 656, 388 | 1, 381, 625 ||Maine | 768, 014 | 742, 371 | 694, 466 ||Maryland | 1, 449, 661 | 1, 295, 346 | 1, 188, 044 ||Massachusetts | 3, 852, 356 | 3, 366, 416 | 2, 805, 346 ||Michigan | 3, 668, 412 | 2, 810, 173 | 2, 420, 982 ||Minnesota | 2, 387, 125 | 2, 075, 708 | 1, 751, 394 ||Mississippi | 1, 790, 618 | 1, 797, 114 | 1, 551, 270 ||Missouri | 3, 404, 055 | 3, 293, 335 | 3, 106, 665 ||Montana | 548, 889 | 376, 053 | 243, 329 ||Nebraska | 1, 296, 372 | 1, 192, 214 | 1, 066, 300 ||Nevada | 77, 407 | 81, 875 | 42, 335 ||New Hampshire | 443, 407 | 430, 572 | 411, 588 ||New Jersey | 3, 155, 900 | 2, 537, 167 | 1, 883, 669 ||New Mexico | 360, 350 | 327, 301 | 195, 310 ||New York | 10, 384, 829 | 9, 113, 614 | 7, 268, 894 ||North Carolina | 2, 559, 123 | 2, 206, 287 | 1, 893, 810 ||North Dakota | 645, 680 | 577, 056 | 319, 146 ||Ohio | 5, 759, 394 | 4, 767, 121 | 4, 157, 545 ||Oklahoma | 2, 028, 283 | 1, 657, 155 | 790, 391 ||Oregon | 783, 389 | 672, 765 | 413, 536 ||Pennsylvania | 8, 720, 017 | 7, 665, 111 | 6, 302, 115 ||Rhode Island | 604, 397 | 542, 610 | 428, 556 ||South Carolina | 1, 683, 724 | 1, 515, 400 | 1, 340, 316 ||South Dakota | 636, 547 | 583, 888 | 401, 570 ||Tennessee | 2, 337, 885 | 2, 184, 789 | 2, 020, 616 ||Texas | 4, 663, 228 | 3, 896, 542 | 3, 048, 710 ||Utah | 449, 396 | 373, 351 | 276, 749 ||Vermont | 352, 428 | 355, 956 | 343, 641 ||Virginia | 2, 309, 187 | 2, 061, 612 | 1, 854, 184 ||Washington | 1, 356, 621 | 1, 141, 990 | 518, 103 ||West Virginia | 1, 463, 701 | 1, 221, 119 | 958, 800 ||Wisconsin | 2, 632, 067 | 2, 333, 860 | 2, 069, 042 ||Wyoming | 194, 402 | 145, 965 | 92, 531 |+---------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

FOOTNOTES:

[3] Partly superseded by the 14th Amendment, p. 639. 

[4] See the 17th Amendment, p. 641. 

[5] _Ibid. _, p. 641. 

[6] See the 16th Amendment, p. 640. 

[7] The following paragraph was in force only from 1788 to 1803. 

[8] Superseded by the 12th Amendment, p. 638. 

[9] See the 11th Amendment, p. 638. 

[10] First ten amendments proposed by Congress, Sept. 25, 1789. Proclaimed to be in force Dec. 15, 1791. 

[11] Proposed Sept. 5, 1794. Declared in force January 8, 1798. 

[12] Adopted in 1804. 

[13] Adopted in 1865. 

[14] Adopted in 1868. 

[15] Proposed February 27, 1869. Declared in force March 30, 1870. 

[16] Passed July, 1909; proclaimed February 25, 1913. 

[17] Passed May, 1912, in lieu of paragraph one, Section 3, Article I, of the Constitution and so much of paragraph two of the same Section asrelates to the filling of vacancies; proclaimed May 31, 1913. 

[18] Ratified January 16, 1919. 

[19] Ratified August 26, 1920. 

APPENDIX

TABLE OF PRESIDENTS

NAME STATE PARTY YEAR IN VICE-PRESIDENT OFFICE1 George Washington Va. Fed. 1789-1797 John Adams2 John Adams Mass. Fed. 1797-1801 Thomas Jefferson3 Thomas Jefferson Va. Rep. 1801-1809 Aaron Burr George Clinton4 James Madison Va. Rep. 1809-1817 George Clinton Elbridge Gerry5 James Monroe Va. Rep. 1817-1825 Daniel D. Tompkins6 John Q. Adams Mass. Rep. 1825-1829 John C. Calhoun7 Andrew Jackson Tenn. Dem. 1829-1837 John C. Calhoun Martin Van Buren8 Martin Van Buren N. Y. Dem. 1837-1841 Richard M. Johnson9 Wm. H. Harrison Ohio Whig 1841-1841 John Tyler10 John Tyler[20] Va. Whig 1841-184511 James K. Polk Tenn. Dem. 1845-1849 George M. Dallas12 Zachary Taylor La. Whig 1849-1850 Millard Fillmore13 Millard Fillmore[20] N. Y. Whig 1850-185314 Franklin Pierce N. H. Dem. 1853-1857 William R. King15 James Buchanan Pa. Dem. 1857-1861 J. C. Breckinridge16 Abraham Lincoln Ill. Rep. 1861-1865 Hannibal Hamlin Andrew Johnson17 Andrew Johnson[20] Tenn. Rep. 1865-186918 Ulysses S. Grant Ill. Rep. 1869-1877 Schuyler Colfax Henry Wilson19 Rutherford B. Hayes Ohio Rep. 1877-1881 Wm. A. Wheeler20 James A. Garfield Ohio Rep. 1881-1881 Chester A. Arthur21 Chester A. Arthur[20] N. Y. Rep. 1881-188522 Grover Cleveland N. Y. Dem. 1885-1889 Thomas A. Hendricks23 Benjamin Harrison Ind. Rep. 1889-1893 Levi P. Morton24 Grover Cleveland N. Y. Dem. 1893-1897 Adlai E. Stevenson25 William McKinley Ohio Rep. 1897-1901 Garrett A. Hobart Theodore Roosevelt26 Theodore Roosevelt[20]N. Y. Rep. 1901-1909 Chas. W. Fairbanks27 William H. Taft Ohio Rep. 1909-1913 James S. Sherman28 Woodrow Wilson N. J. Dem. 1913-1921 Thomas R. Marshall29 Warren G. Harding Ohio Rep. 1921- Calvin Coolidge

FOOTNOTES:

[20] Promoted from the vice-presidency on the death of the president. 

POPULATION OF THE OUTLYING POSSESSIONS: 1920 AND 1910

----------------------------------------+--------------+--------------- AREA | 1920 | 1910----------------------------------------+--------------+---------------United States with outlying possessions |117, 857, 509 | 101, 146, 530 +--------------+---------------Continental United States |105, 708, 771 | 91, 972, 266Outlying Possessions | 12, 148, 738 | 9, 174, 264 +--------------|--------------- Alaska | 54, 899 | 64, 356 American Samoa | 8, 056 | 7, 251[21] Guam | 13, 275 | 11, 806 Hawaii | 255, 912 | 191, 909 Panama Canal Zone | 22, 858 | 62, 810[21] Porto Rico | 1, 299, 809 | 1, 118, 012 Military and naval, etc. , service | | abroad | 117, 238 | 55, 608 Philippine Islands |10, 350, 640[22]| 7, 635, 426[23] Virgin Islands of the United States | 26, 051[24]| 27, 086[25]----------------------------------------+--------------+---------------

FOOTNOTES:

[21] Population in 1912. 

[22] Population in 1918. 

[23] Population in 1903. 

[24] Population in 1917. 

[25] Population in 1911. 

A TOPICAL SYLLABUS

As a result of a wholesome reaction against the purely chronologicaltreatment of history, there is now a marked tendency in the direction ofa purely topical handling of the subject. The topical method, however, may also be pushed too far. Each successive stage of any topic can beunderstood only in relation to the forces of the time. For that reason, the best results are reached when there is a combination of thechronological and the topical methods. It is therefore suggested thatthe teacher first follow the text closely and then review the subjectwith the aid of this topical syllabus. The references are to pages. 

=Immigration=

 I. Causes: religious (1-2, 4-11, 302), economic (12-17, 302-303), and political (302-303). II. Colonial immigration. 1. Diversified character: English, Scotch-Irish, Irish, Jews, Germans and other peoples (6-12). 2. Assimilation to an American type; influence of the land system (23-25, 411). 3. Enforced immigration: indentured servitude, slavery, etc. (13-17). III. Immigration between 1789-1890. 1. Nationalities: English, Irish, Germans, and Scandinavians (278, 302-303). 2. Relations to American life (432-433, 445). IV. Immigration and immigration questions after 1890. 1. Change in nationalities (410-411). 2. Changes in economic opportunities (411). 3. Problems of congestion and assimilation (410). 4. Relations to labor and illiteracy (582-586). 5. Oriental immigration (583). 6. The restriction of immigration (583-585). 

=Expansion of the United States=

 I. Territorial growth. 1. Territory of the United States in 1783 (134 and color map). 2. Louisiana purchase, 1803 (188-193 and color map). 3. Florida purchase, 1819 (204). 4. Annexation of Texas, 1845 (278-281). 5. Acquisition of Arizona, New Mexico, California, and other territory at close of Mexican War, 1848 (282-283). 6. The Gadsden purchase, 1853 (283). 7. Settlement of the Oregon boundary question, 1846 (284-286). 8. Purchase of Alaska from Russia, 1867 (479). 9. Acquisition of Tutuila in Samoan group, 1899 (481-482). 10. Annexation of Hawaii, 1898 (484). 11. Acquisition of Porto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam at close of Spanish War, 1898 (493-494). 12. Acquisition of Panama Canal strip, 1904 (508-510). 13. Purchase of Danish West Indies, 1917 (593). 14. Extension of protectorate over Haiti, Santo Domingo, and Nicaragua (593-594). II. Development of colonial self-government. 1. Hawaii (485). 2. Philippines (516-518). 3. Porto Rico (515-516). III. Sea power. 1. In American Revolution (118). 2. In the War of 1812 (193-201). 3. In the Civil War (353-354). 4. In the Spanish-American War (492). 5. In the Caribbean region (512-519). 6. In the Pacific (447-448, 481). 7. The rôle of the American navy (515). 

=The Westward Advance of the People=

 I. Beyond the Appalachians. 1. Government and land system (217-231). 2. The routes (222-224). 3. The settlers (221-223, 228-230). 4. Relations with the East (230-236). II. Beyond the Mississippi. 1. The lower valley (271-273). 2. The upper valley (275-276). III. Prairies, plains, and desert. 1. Cattle ranges and cowboys (276-278, 431-432). 2. The free homesteads (432-433). 3. Irrigation (434-436, 523-525). IV. The Far West. 1. Peculiarities of the West (433-440). 2. The railways (425-431). 3. Relations to the East and Europe (443-447). 4. American power in the Pacific (447-449). 

=The Wars of American History=

 I. Indian wars (57-59). II. Early colonial wars: King William's, Queen Anne's, and King George's (59). III. French and Indian War (Seven Years' War), 1754-1763 (59-61). IV. Revolutionary War, 1775-1783 (99-135). V. The War of 1812, 1812-1815 (193-201). VI. The Mexican War, 1845-1848 (276-284). VII. The Civil War, 1861-1865 (344-375). VIII. The Spanish War, 1898 (485-497). IX. The World War, 1914-1918 [American participation, 1917-1918] (596-625). 

=Government=

 I. Development of the American system of government. 1. Origin and growth of state government. _a. _ The trading corporation (2-4), religious congregation (4-5), and proprietary system (5-6). _b. _ Government of the colonies (48-53). _c. _ Formation of the first state constitutions (108-110). _d. _ The admission of new states (_see_ Index under each state). _e. _ Influence of Jacksonian Democracy (238-247). _f. _ Growth of manhood suffrage (238-244). _g. _ Nullification and state sovereignty (180-182, 251-257). _h. _ The doctrine of secession (345-346). _i. _ Effects of the Civil War on position of states (366, 369-375). _j. _ Political reform--direct government--initiative, referendum, and recall (540-544). 2. Origin and growth of national government. _a. _ British imperial control over the colonies (64-72). _b. _ Attempts at intercolonial union--New England Confederation, Albany plan (61-62). _c. _ The Stamp Act Congress (85-86). _d. _ The Continental Congresses (99-101). _e. _ The Articles of Confederation (110-111, 139-143). _f. _ The formation of the federal Constitution (143-160). _g. _ Development of the federal Constitution. (1) Amendments 1-11--rights of persons and states (163). (2) Twelfth amendment--election of President (184, note). (3) Amendments 13-15--Civil War settlement (358, 366, 369, 370, 374, 375). (4) Sixteenth amendment--income tax (528-529). (5) Seventeenth amendment--election of Senators (541-542). (6) Eighteenth amendment--prohibition (591-592). (7) Nineteenth amendment--woman suffrage (563-568). 3. Development of the suffrage. _a. _ Colonial restrictions (51-52). _b. _ Provisions of the first state constitutions (110, 238-240). _c. _ Position under federal Constitution of 1787 (149). _d. _ Extension of manhood suffrage (241-244). _e. _ Extension and limitation of negro suffrage (373-375, 382-387). _f. _ Woman suffrage (560-568). II. Relation of government to economic and social welfare. 1. Debt and currency. _a. _ Colonial paper money (80). _b. _ Revolutionary currency and debt (125-127). _c. _ Disorders under Articles of Confederation (140-141). _d. _ Powers of Congress under the Constitution to coin money (_see_ Constitution in the Appendix). _e. _ First United States bank notes (167). _f. _ Second United States bank notes (257). _g. _ State bank notes (258). _h. _ Civil War greenbacks and specie payment (352-353, 454). _i. _ The Civil War debt (252). _j. _ Notes of National Banks under act of 1864 (369). _k. _ Demonetization of silver and silver legislation (452-458). _l. _ The gold standard (472). _m. _ The federal reserve notes (589). _n. _ Liberty bonds (606). 2. Banking systems. _a. _ The first United States bank (167). _b. _ The second United States bank--origin and destruction (203, 257-259). _c. _ United States treasury system (263). _d. _ State banks (258). _e. _ The national banking system of 1864 (369). _f. _ Services of banks (407-409). _g. _ Federal reserve system (589). 3. The tariff. _a. _ British colonial system (69-72). _b. _ Disorders under Articles of Confederation (140). _c. _ The first tariff under the Constitution (150, 167-168). _d. _ Development of the tariff, 1816-1832 (252-254). _f. _ Tariff and nullification (254-256). _g. _ Development to the Civil War--attitude of South and West (264, 309-314, 357). _h. _ Republicans and Civil War tariffs (352, 367). _i. _ Revival of the tariff controversy under Cleveland (422). _j. _ Tariff legislation after 1890--McKinley bill (422), Wilson bill (459), Dingley bill (472), Payne-Aldrich bill (528), Underwood bill (588). 4. Foreign and domestic commerce and transportation (_see_ Tariff, Immigration, and Foreign Relations). _a. _ British imperial regulations (69-72). _b. _ Confusion under Articles of Confederation (140). _c. _ Provisions of federal Constitution (150). _d. _ Internal improvements--aid to roads, canals, etc. (230-236). _e. _ Aid to railways (403). _f. _ Service of railways (402). _g. _ Regulation of railways (460-461, 547-548). _h. _ Control of trusts and corporations (461-462, 589-590). 5. Land and natural resources. _a. _ British control over lands (80). _b. _ Early federal land measures (219-221). _c. _ The Homestead act (368, 432-445). _d. _ Irrigation and reclamation (434-436, 523-525). _e. _ Conservation of natural resources (523-526). 6. Legislation advancing human rights and general welfare (_see_ Suffrage). _a. _ Abolition of slavery: civil and political rights of negroes (357-358, 373-375). _b. _ Extension of civil and political rights to women (554-568). _c. _ Legislation relative to labor conditions (549-551, 579-581, 590-591). _d. _ Control of public utilities (547-549). _e. _ Social reform and the war on poverty (549-551). _f. _ Taxation and equality of opportunity (551-552). 

=Political Parties and Political Issues=

 I. The Federalists _versus_ the Anti-Federalists [Jeffersonian Republicans] from about 1790 to about 1816 (168-208, 201-203). 1. Federalist leaders: Hamilton, John Adams, John Marshall, Robert Morris. 2. Anti-Federalist leaders: Jefferson, Madison, Monroe. 3. Issues: funding the debt, assumption of state debts, first United States bank, taxation, tariff, strong central government _versus_ states' rights, and the Alien and Sedition acts. II. Era of "Good Feeling" from about 1816 to about 1824, a period of no organized party opposition (248). III. The Democrats [former Jeffersonian Republicans] _versus_ the Whigs [or National Republicans] from about 1832 to 1856 (238-265, 276-290, 324-334). 1. Democratic leaders: Jackson, Van Buren, Calhoun, Benton. 2. Whig leaders: Webster and Clay. 3. Issues: second United States bank, tariff, nullification, Texas, internal improvements, and disposition of Western lands. IV. The Democrats _versus_ the Republicans from about 1856 to the present time (334-377, 388-389, 412-422, 451-475, 489-534, 588-620). 1. Democratic leaders: Jefferson Davis, Tilden, Cleveland, Bryan, and Wilson. 2. Republican leaders: Lincoln, Blaine, McKinley, Roosevelt. 3. Issues: Civil War and reconstruction, currency, tariff, taxation, trusts, railways, foreign policies, imperialism, labor questions, and policies with regard to land and conservation. V. Minor political parties. 1. Before the Civil War: Free Soil (319) and Labor Parties (306-307). 2. Since the Civil War: Greenback (463-464), Populist (464), Liberal Republican (420), Socialistic (577-579), Progressive (531-534, 602-603). 

=The Economic Development of the United States=

 I. The land and natural resources. 1. The colonial land system: freehold, plantation, and manor (20-25). 2. Development of the freehold in the West (220-221, 228-230). 3. The Homestead act and its results (368, 432-433). 4. The cattle range and cowboy (431-432). 5. Disappearance of free land (443-445). 6. Irrigation and reclamation (434-436). 7. Movement for the conservation of resources (523-526). II. Industry. 1. The rise of local and domestic industries (28-32). 2. British restrictions on American enterprise (67-69, 70-72). 3. Protective tariffs (see above, 648-649). 4. Development of industry previous to the Civil War (295-307). 5. Great progress of industry after the war (401-406). 6. Rise and growth of trusts and combinations (406-412, 472-474). III. Commerce and transportation. 1. Extent of colonial trade and commerce (32-35). 2. British regulation (69-70). 3. Effects of the Revolution and the Constitution (139-140, 154). 4. Growth of American shipping (195-196). 5. Waterways and canals (230-236). 6. Rise and extension of the railway system (298-300). 7. Growth of American foreign trade (445-449). IV. Rise of organized labor. 1. Early phases before the Civil War: local unions, city federations, and national unions in specific trades (304-307). 2. The National Trade Union, 1866-1872 (574-575). 3. The Knights of Labor (575-576). 4. The American Federation of Labor (573-574). _a. _ Policies of the Federation (576-577). _b. _ Relations to politics (579-581). _c. _ Contests with socialists and radicals (577-579). _d. _ Problems of immigration (582-585). 5. The relations of capital and labor. _a. _ The corporation and labor (410, 570-571). _b. _ Company unions and profit-sharing (571-572). _c. _ Welfare work (573). _d. _ Strikes (465, 526, 580-581). _e. _ Arbitration (581-582). 

=American Foreign Relations=

 I. Colonial period. 1. Indian relations (57-59). 2. French relations (59-61). II. Period of conflict and independence. 1. Relations with Great Britain (77-108, 116-125, 132-135). 2. Establishment of connections with European powers (128). 3. The French alliance of 1778 (128-130). 4. Assistance of Holland and Spain (130). III. Relations with Great Britain since 1783. 1. Commercial settlement in Jay treaty of 1794 (177-178). 2. Questions arising out of European wars [1793-1801] (176-177, 180). 3. Blockade and embargo problems (193-199). 4. War of 1812 (199-201). 5. Monroe Doctrine and Holy Alliance (205-207). 6. Maine boundary--Webster-Ashburton treaty (265). 7. Oregon boundary (284-286). 8. Attitude of Great Britain during Civil War (354-355). 9. Arbitration of _Alabama_ claims (480-481). 10. The Samoan question (481-482) 11. The Venezuelan question (482-484). 12. British policy during Spanish-American War (496-497). 13. Controversy over blockade, 1914-1917 (598-600). 14. The World War (603-620). IV. Relations with France. 1. The colonial wars (59-61). 2. The French alliance of 1778 (128-130). 3. Controversies over the French Revolution (128-130). 4. Commercial questions arising out of the European wars (176-177, 180, 193-199). 5. Attitude of Napoleon III toward the Civil War (354-355). 6. The Mexican entanglement (478-479). 7. The World War (596-620). V. Relations with Germany. 1. Negotiations with Frederick, king of Prussia (128). 2. The Samoan controversy (481-482). 3. Spanish-American War (491). 4. The Venezuelan controversy (512). 5. The World War (596-620). VI. Relations with the Orient. 1. Early trading connections (486-487). 2. The opening of China (447). 3. The opening of Japan (448). 4. The Boxer rebellion and the "open door" policy (499-502). 5. Roosevelt and the close of the Russo-Japanese War (511). 6. The Oriental immigration question (583-584). VII. The United States and Latin America. 1. Mexican relations. _a. _ Mexican independence and the Monroe Doctrine (205-207). _b. _ Mexico and French intervention--policy of the United States (478-479). _c. _ The overthrow of Diaz (1911) and recent questions (594-596). 2. Cuban relations. _a. _ Slavery and the "Ostend Manifesto" (485-486). _b. _ The revolutionary period, 1867-1877 (487). _c. _ The revival of revolution (487-491). _d. _ American intervention and the Spanish War (491-496). _e. _ The Platt amendment and American protection (518-519). 3. Caribbean and other relations. _a. _ Acquisition of Porto Rico (493). _b. _ The acquisition of the Panama Canal strip (508-510). _c. _ Purchase of Danish West Indies (593). _d. _ Venezuelan controversies (482-484, 512). _e. _ Extension of protectorate over Haiti, Santo Domingo, and Nicaragua (513-514, 592-594). 

INDEX

Abolition, 318, 331

Adams, Abigail, 556

Adams, John, 97, 128, 179ff. 

Adams, J. Q. , 247, 319

Adams, Samuel, 90, 99, 108

Adamson law, 590

Aguinaldo, 497

Alabama, admission, 227

_Alabama_ claims, 480

Alamance, battle, 92

Alamo, 280

Alaska, purchase, 479

Albany, plan of union, 62

Algonquins, 57

Alien law, 180

Amendment, method of, 156

Amendments to federal Constitution: first eleven, 163 twelfth, 184, note thirteenth, 358 fourteenth, 366, 369, 387 fifteenth, 358 sixteenth, 528 seventeenth, 542 eighteenth, 591 nineteenth, 563ff. 

American expeditionary force, 610

American Federation of Labor, 573, 608

Americanization, 585

Amnesty, for Confederates, 383

Andros, 65

Annapolis, convention, 144

Antietam, 357

Anti-Federalists, 169

Anti-slavery. _See_ Abolition

Anthony, Susan, 564

Appomattox, 363

Arbitration: international, 480, 514, 617 labor disputes, 582

Arizona, admission, 443

Arkansas, admission, 272

Arnold, Benedict, 114, 120

Articles of Confederation, 110, 139ff. , 146

Ashburton, treaty, 265

Assembly, colonial, 49ff. , 89ff. 

Assumption, 164ff. 

Atlanta, 361

Australian ballot, 540

Bacon, Nathaniel, 58

Ballot: Australian, 540 short, 544

Baltimore, Lord, 6

Bank: first U. S. , 167 second, 203, 257ff. 

Banking system: state, 300 U. S. National, 369 services of, 407 _See also_ Federal reserve

Barry, John, 118

Bastille, 172

Bell, John, 341

Belleau Wood, 611

Berlin decree, 194

Blockade: by England and France, 193ff. Southern ports, 353 law and practice in 1914, 598ff. 

Bond servants, 13ff. 

Boone, Daniel, 28, 218

Boston: massacre, 91 evacuation, 116 port bill, 94

Bowdoin, Governor, 142

Boxer rebellion, 499

Brandywine, 129

Breckinridge, J. C. , 340

Bright, John, 355

Brown, John, 338

Brown University, 45

Bryan, W. J. , 468ff. , 495, 502, 503, 527

Buchanan, James, 335, 368

Budget system, 529

Bull Run, 350

Bunker Hill, 102

Burgoyne, General, 116, 118, 130

Burke, Edmund, 87, 96ff. , 132, 175

Burr, Aaron, 183, 231

Business. _See_ Industry

Calhoun, J. C. , 198ff. , 203, 208, 281, 321, 328

California, 286ff. 

Canada, 61, 114, 530

Canals, 233, 298, 508

Canning, British premier, 206

Cannon, J. G. , 530

Cantigny, 611

Caribbean, 479

Carpet baggers, 373

Cattle ranger, 431ff. 

Caucus, 245

Censorship. _See_ Newspapers

Charles I, 3

Charles II, 65

Charleston, 36, 116

Charters, colonial, 2ff. , 41

Chase, Justice, 187

Château-Thierry, 611

Checks and balances, 153

_Chesapeake_, the, 195

Chickamauga, 361

Child labor law, 591

China, 447, 499ff. 

Chinese labor, 583

Churches, colonial, 39ff. , 42, 43

Cities, 35, 36, 300ff. , 395, 410, 544

City manager plan, 545

Civil liberty, 358ff. , 561

Civil service, 419, 536, 538ff. 

Clarendon, Lord, 6

Clark, G. R. , 116, 218

Clay, Henry, 198, 203, 248, 261, 328

Clayton anti-trust act, 489

Clergy. _See_ Churches

Cleveland, Grover, 421, 465, 482, 484, 489, 582

Clinton, Sir Henry, 119

Colorado, admission, 441

Combination. _See_ Trusts

Commerce, colonial, 33ff. Disorders after 1781, 140 Constitutional provisions on, 154 Napoleonic wars, 176, 193ff. Domestic growth of, 307 congressional regulation of, 460ff. , 547 _See also_ Trusts and Railways

Commission government, 544

Committees of correspondence, 108

_Commonsense_, pamphlet, 103

Communism, colonial, 20f. 

Company, trading, 2f. 

Compromises: of Constitution, 148, 150, 151 Missouri, 325, 332 of 1850, 328ff. Crittenden, 350

Conciliation, with England, 131

Concord, battle, 100

Confederacy, Southern, 346ff. 

Confederation: New England, 61f. _See also_ Articles of

Congregation, religious, 4

Congress: stamp act, 85 continental, 99ff. Under Articles, 139f. Under Constitution, 152 powers of, 153

Connecticut: founded, 4ff. Self-government, 49 _See also_ Suffrage constitutions, state

Conservation, 523ff. 

Constitution: formation of, 143ff. _See also_ Amendment

_Constitution_, the, 200

Constitutions, state, 109ff. , 238ff. , 385ff. 

Constitutional union party, 340

Contract labor law, 584

Convention: 1787, 144ff. Nominating, 405

Convicts, colonial, 15

Conway Cabal, 120

Cornwallis, General, 116, 119, 131

Corporation and labor, 571. _See also_ Trusts

Cotton. _See_ Planting system

Cowboy, 431ff. 

Cowpens, battle, 116

Cox, J. M. , 619

_Crisis, The_, pamphlet, 115

Crittenden Compromise, 350

Cuba, 485ff. , 518

Cumberland Gap, 223

Currency. _See_ Banking

Danish West Indies, purchased, 593

Dartmouth College, 45

Daughters of liberty, 84

Davis, Jefferson, 346ff. 

Deane, Silas, 128

Debs, E. V. , 465, 534

Debt, national, 164ff. 

Decatur, Commodore, 477

Declaration of Independence, 101ff. 

Defense, national, 154

De Kalb, 121

Delaware, 3, 49

De Lome affair, 490

Democratic party, name assumed, 260 _See also_ Anti-Federalists

Dewey, Admiral, 492

Diplomacy: of the Revolution, 127ff. Civil War, 354

Domestic industry, 28

Donelson, Fort, 361

Dorr Rebellion, 243

Douglas, Stephen A. , 333, 337, 368

Draft: Civil War, 351 World War, 605

Draft riots, 351

Dred Scott case, 335, 338

Drug act, 523

Duquesne, Fort, 60

Dutch, 3, 12

East India Company, 93

Education, 43ff. , 557, 591

Electors, popular election of, 245

Elkins law, 547

Emancipation, 357ff. 

Embargo acts, 186ff. 

England: Colonial policy of, 64ff. Revolutionary War, 99ff. Jay treaty, 177 War of 1812, 198ff. Monroe Doctrine, 206 Ashburton treaty, 265 Civil War, 354 _Alabama_ claims, 480 Samoa, 481 Venezuela question, 482 Spanish War, 496 World War, 596ff. 

Erie Canal, 233

Esch-Cummins bill, 582

Espionage act, 607

Excess profits tax, 606

Executive, federal, plans for, 151

Expunging resolution, 260

Farm loan act, 589

Federal reserve act, 589

Federal trade commission, 590

_Federalist_, the, 158

Federalists, 168ff. , 201ff. 

Feudal elements in colonies, 21f. 

Filipino revolt. _See_ Philippines

Fillmore, President, 485

Finances: colonial, 64 revolutionary, 125ff. Disorders, 140 Civil War, 347, 352ff. World War, 606 _See also_ Banking

Fishing industry, 31

Fleet, world tour, 515

Florida, 134, 204

Foch, General, 611

Food and fuel law, 607

Force bills, 384 ff. , 375

Forests, national, 525ff. 

Fourteen points, 605

Fox, C. J. , 132

France: colonization, 59ff. French and Indian War, 60ff. American Revolution, 116, 123, 128ff. French Revolution, 165ff. Quarrel with, 180 Napoleonic wars, 193ff. Louisiana purchase, 190 French Revolution of 1830, 266 Civil War, 354 Mexican affair, 478 World War, 596ff. 

Franchises, utility, 548

Franklin, Benjamin, 45, 62, 82, 86, 128, 134

Freedmen. _See_ Negro

Freehold. _See_ Land

Free-soil party, 319

Frémont, J. C. , 288, 334

French. _See_ France

Friends, the, 5

Frontier. _See_ Land

Fugitive slave act, 329

Fulton, Robert, 231, 234

Fundamental articles, 5

Fundamental orders, 5

Gage, General, 95, 100

Garfield, President, 416

Garrison, William Lloyd, 318

_Gaspee_, the, 92

Gates, General, 116, 120, 131

Genêt, 177

George I, 66

George II, 4, 66, 82

George III, 77ff. 

Georgia: founded, 4 royal province, 49 state constitution, 109 _See also_ Secession

Germans: colonial immigration, 9ff. In Revolutionary War, 102ff. Later immigration, 303

Germany: Samoa, 481 Venezuela affair, 512 World War, 596f. 

Gerry, Elbridge, 148

Gettysburg, 362

Gibbon, Edward, 133

Gold: discovery, 288 standard, 466, 472

Gompers, Samuel, 573, 608

Governor, royal, 49ff. 

Grandfather clause, 386f. 

Grangers, 460ff. 

Grant, General, 361, 416, 480, 487

Great Britain. _See_ England

Greeley, Horace, 420

Greenbacks, 454ff. 

Greenbackers, 462ff. 

Greene, General, 117, 120

Grenville, 79ff. 

Guilford, battle, 117

Habeas corpus, 358

Hague conferences, 514

Haiti, 593

Hamilton, Alexander, 95, 143, 158, 162, 168ff. , 231

Harding, W. G. , 389, 619

Harlem Heights, battle, 114

Harper's Ferry, 339

Harrison, Benjamin, 422, 484

Harrison, W. H. , 198, 263f. 

Hartford convention, 201ff. , 238

Harvard, 44

Hawaii, 484f. 

Hay, John, 477, 500ff. 

Hayne, Robert, 256

Hays, President, 416f. 

Henry, Patrick, 85

Hepburn act, 523

Hill, James J. , 429

Holland, 130

Holy Alliance, 205

Homestead act, 368, 432

Hooker, Thomas, 5

Houston, Sam, 279ff. 

Howe, General, 118

Hughes, Charles E. , 602

Huguenots, 10

Hume, David, 132

Hutchinson, Anne, 5

Idaho, admission, 442

Income tax, 459, 466, 528, 588, 606

Inheritance tax, 606

Illinois, admission, 226

Illiteracy, 585

Immigration: colonial, 1-17 before Civil War, 302, 367 after Civil War, 410ff. Problems of, 582ff. 

Imperialism, 494ff. , 498f. , 502ff. 

Implied powers, 212

Impressment of seamen, 194

Indentured servants, 13f. 

Independence, Declaration of, 107

Indiana, admission, 226

Indians, 57ff. , 81, 431

Industry: colonial, 28ff. Growth of, 296ff. During Civil War, 366 after 1865, 390ff. , 401ff. , 436ff. , 559 _See also_ Trusts

Initiative, the, 543

Injunction, 465, 580

Internal improvements, 260, 368

Interstate commerce act, 461, 529

Intolerable acts, 93

Invisible government, 537

Iowa, admission, 275

Irish, 11, 302

Iron. _See_ Industry

Irrigation, 434ff. , 523ff. 

Jackson, Andrew, 201, 204, 246, 280

Jacobins, 174

James I, 3

James II, 65

Jamestown, 3, 21

Japan, relations with, 447, 511, 583

Jay, John, 128, 158, 177

Jefferson, Thomas: Declaration of Independence, 107 Secretary of State, 162ff. Political leader, 169 as President, 183ff. Monroe Doctrine, 206, 231

Jews, migration of, 11

Johnson, Andrew, 365, 368, 371f. 

Johnson, Samuel, 132

Joliet, 59

Jones, John Paul, 118

Judiciary: British system, 67 federal, 152

Kansas, admission, 441

Kansas-Nebraska bill, 333

Kentucky: admission, 224 Resolutions, 182

King George's War, 59

King Philip's War, 57

King William's War, 59

King's College (Columbia), 45

Knights of Labor, 575ff. 

Kosciusko, 121

Ku Klux Klan, 382

Labor: rise of organized, 304 parties, 462ff. Question, 521 American Federation, 573ff. Legislation, 590 World War, 608ff. 

Lafayette, 121

La Follette, Senator, 531

Land: tenure 20ff. Sales restricted, 80 Western survey, 219 federal sales policy, 220 Western tenure, 228 disappearance of free, 445 new problems, 449 _See also_ Homestead act

La Salle, 59

Lawrence, Captain, 200

League of Nations, 616ff. 

Le Boeuf, Fort, 59

Lee, General Charles, 131

Lee, R. E. , 357

Lewis and Clark expedition, 193

Lexington, battle, 100

Liberal Republicans, 420

Liberty loan, 606

Lincoln: Mexican War, 282 Douglas debates, 336f. Election, 341 Civil War, 344ff. Reconstruction, 371

Literacy test, 585

Livingston, R. R. , 191

Locke, John, 95

London Company, 3

Long Island, battle, 114

Lords of trade, 67ff. 

Louis XVI, 171ff. 

Louisiana: ceded to Spain, 61 purchase, 190ff. Admission, 227

Loyalists. _See_ Tories

_Lusitania_, the, 601ff. 

McClellan, General, 362, 365

McCulloch _vs. _ Maryland, 211

McKinley, William, 422, 467ff. , 489ff. 

Macaulay, Catherine, 132

Madison, James, 158, 197ff. 

Maine, 325

_Maine_, the, 490

Manila Bay, battle, 492

Manors, colonial, 22

Manufactures. _See_ Industry

Marbury _vs. _ Madison, 209

Marietta, 220

Marion, Francis, 117, 120

Marquette, 59

Marshall, John, 208ff. 

Martineau, Harriet, 267

Maryland, founded, 6, 49, 109, 239, 242

Massachusetts: founded, 3ff. _See also_ Immigration, Royal province, Industry, Revolutionary War, Constitutions, state, Suffrage, Commerce, and Industry

Massachusetts Bay Company, 3 founded, 3ff. _See also_ Immigration, Royal province

_Mayflower_ compact, 4

Mercantile theory, 69

Merchants. _See_ Commerce

_Merrimac_, the, 353

Meuse-Argonne, battle, 612

Mexico: and Texas, 278ff. Later relations, 594f. 

Michigan, admission, 273

Midnight appointees, 187

Milan Decree, 194

Militia, Revolutionary War, 122

Minimum wages, 551

Minnesota, admission, 275

Mississippi River, and West, 189f. 

Missouri Compromise, 207, 227, 271, 325, 332

Molasses act, 71

Money, paper, 80, 126, 155, 369

_Monitor_, the, 353

Monroe, James, 204ff. , 191

Monroe Doctrine, 205, 512

Montana, admission, 442

Montgomery, General, 114

Morris, Robert, 127

Mothers' pensions, 551

Mohawks, 57

Muckraking, 536f. 

Mugwumps, 420

Municipal ownership, 549

Napoleon I, 190

Napoleon III: Civil War, 354f. Mexico, 477

National Labor Union, 574

National road, 232

Nationalism, colonial, 56ff. 

Natural rights, 95

Navigation acts, 69

Navy: in Revolution, 188 War of 1812, 195 Civil War, 353 World War, 610. _See also_ Sea Power

Nebraska, admission, 441

Negro: Civil rights, 370ff. In agriculture, 393ff. Status of, 396ff. _See also_ Slavery

New England: colonial times, 6ff. , 35, 40ff. _See also_ Industry, Suffrage, Commerce, and Wars

New Hampshire: founded, 4ff. _See also_ Immigration, Royal province, Suffrage, and Constitutions, state

New Jersey, founded, 6. _See also_ Immigration, Royal province, Suffrage, and Constitutions, state

Newlands, Senator, 524

New Mexico, admission, 443

New Orleans, 59, 190 battle, 201

Newspapers, colonial, 46ff. 

New York: founded by Dutch, 3 transferred to English, 49 _See also_ Dutch, Immigration, Royal province, Commerce, Suffrage, and Constitutions, state

New York City, colonial, 36

Niagara, Fort, 59

Nicaragua protectorate, 594

Non-intercourse act, 196ff. 

Non-importation, 84ff. , 99

North, Lord, 100, 131, 133

North Carolina: founded, 6. _See also_ Royal province, Immigration, Suffrage, and Constitutions, state

North Dakota, admission, 442

Northwest Ordinance, 219

Nullification, 182, 251ff. 

Oglethorpe, James, 3

Ohio, admission, 225

Oklahoma, admission, 443

Open door policy, 500

Oregon, 284ff. 

Ostend Manifesto, 486

Otis, James, 88, 95f. 

Pacific, American influence, 447

Paine, Thomas, 103, 115, 175

Panama Canal, 508ff. 

Panics: 1837, 262 1857, 336 1873, 464 1893, 465

Parcel post, 529

Parker, A. B. , 527

Parties: rise of, 168ff. Federalists, 169ff. Anti-Federalists (Jeffersonian Republicans), 169ff. Democrats, 260 Whigs, 260ff. Republicans, 334ff. Liberal Republicans, 420 Constitutional union, 340 minor parties, 462ff. 

Paterson, William, 196ff. 

Penn, William, 6

Pennsylvania: founded, 6 _See also_ Penn, Germans, Immigration, Industry, Revolutionary War, Constitutions, state, Suffrage

Pennsylvania University, 45

Pensions, soldiers and sailors, 413, 607 mothers', 551

Pequots, 57

Perry, O. H. , 200

Pershing, General, 610

Philadelphia, 36, 116

Philippines, 492ff. , 516ff. , 592

Phillips, Wendell, 320

Pierce, Franklin, 295, 330

Pike, Z. , 193, 287

Pilgrims, 4

Pinckney, Charles, 148

Pitt, William, 61, 79, 87, 132

Planting system, 22f. , 25, 149, 389, 393ff. 

Plymouth, 4, 21

Polk, J. K. , 265, 285f. 

Polygamy, 290f. 

Populist party, 464

Porto Rico, 515, 592

Postal savings bank, 529

Preble, Commodore, 196

Press. _See_ Newspapers

Primary, direct, 541

Princeton, battle, 129 University, 45

Profit sharing, 572

Progressive party, 531f. 

Prohibition, 591f. 

Proprietary colonies, 3, 6

Provinces, royal, 49ff. 

Public service, 538ff. 

Pulaski, 121

Pullman strike, 465

Pure food act, 523

Puritans, 3, 7, 40ff. 

Quakers, 6ff. 

Quartering act, 83

Quebec act, 94

Queen Anne's War, 59

Quit rents, 21f. 

Radicals, 579

Railways, 298, 402, 425, 460ff. , 547, 621

Randolph, Edmund, 146, 147, 162

Ratification, of Constitution, 156ff. 

Recall, 543

Reclamation, 523ff. 

Reconstruction, 370ff. 

Referendum, the, 543

Reign of terror, 174

Republicans: Jeffersonian, 179 rise of present party, 334ff. Supremacy of, 412ff. _See also_ McKinley, Roosevelt, and Taft

Resumption, 454

Revolution: American, 99ff. French, 171ff. Russian, 619

Rhode Island: founded, 4ff. Self-government, 49 _See also_ Suffrage

Roosevelt, Theodore, 492, 500ff. , 531, 570

Royal province, 49ff. 

Russia, 205, 207, 355, 479, 619

Russo-Japanese War, 511f. 

Saint Mihiel, 612

Samoa, 481

San Jacinto, 280

Santa Fé trail, 287

Santo Domingo, 480, 513, 592

Saratoga, battle, 116, 130

Savannah, 116, 131

Scandinavians, 278

Schools. _See_ Education

Scott, General, 283, 330

Scotch-Irish, 7ff. 

Seamen's act, 590

Sea power: American Revolution, 118 Napoleonic wars, 193ff. Civil War, 353 Caribbean, 593 Pacific, 447 World War, 610ff. 

Secession, 344ff. 

Sedition: act of 1798, 180ff. , 187 of 1918, 608

Senators, popular election, 527, 541ff. 

Seven Years' War, 60ff. 

Sevier, John, 218

Seward, W. H. , 322, 342

Shafter, General, 492

Shays's rebellion, 142

Sherman, General, 361

Sherman: anti-trust law, 461 silver act, 458

Shiloh, 361

Shipping. _See_ Commerce

Shipping act, 607

Silver, free, 455ff. 

Slavery: colonial, 16f. Trade, 150 in Northwest, 219 decline in North, 316f. Growth in South, 320ff. And the Constitution, 324 and territories, 325ff. Compromises, 350 abolished, 357ff. 

Smith, Joseph, 290

Socialism, 577ff. 

Solid South, 388

Solomon, Hayn, 126

Sons of liberty, 82

South: economic and political views, 309ff. _See also_ Slavery and Planting system, and Reconstruction

South Carolina: founded, 6 nullification, 253ff. _See also_ Constitutions, state, Suffrage, Slavery, and Secession

South Dakota, 442

Spain: and Revolution, 130 Louisiana, 190 Monroe Doctrine, 205 Spanish War, 490ff. 

Spoils system, 244, 250, 418, 536ff. 

Stamp act, 82ff. 

Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, 564

States: disorders under Articles of Confederation, 141 constitutions, federal limits on, 155 position after Civil War, 366ff. _See also_ Suffrage, Nullification, and Secession

Steamboat, 234

Stowe, H. B. , 332

Strikes: of 1877, 581 Pullman, 581 coal, 526 _See also_ Labor

Submarine campaign, 600ff. 

Suffrage: colonial, 42, 51 first state constitutions, 239 White manhood, 242 Negro, 374ff. , 385f. Woman, 110, 562ff. 

Sugar act, 81

Sumner, Charles, 319

Sumter, Fort, 350

Swedes, 3, 13

Taft, W. H. , 527ff. 

Tammany Hall, 306, 418

Taney, Chief Justice, 357

Tariff: first, 167 of 1816, 203 development of, 251ff. Abominations, 249, 253 nullification, 251 of 1842, 264 Southern views of, 309ff. Of 1857, 337 Civil War, 367 Wilson bill, 459 McKinley bill, 422 Dingley bill, 472 Payne-Aldrich, 528 Underwood, 588

Taxation: and representation, 149 and Constitution, 154 Civil War, 353 and wealth, 522, 551 and World War, 606

Tea act, 88

Tea party, 92

Tenement house reform, 549

Tennessee, 28, 224

Territories, Northwest, 219 South of the Ohio, 219 _See also_ Slavery and Compromise

Texas, 278ff. 

Tippecanoe, battle, 198

Tocqueville, 267

Toleration, religious, 42

Tories, colonial, 84 in Revolution, 112

Townshend acts, 80, 87

Trade, colonial, 70 legislation, 70. _See_ Commerce

Transylvania company, 28

Treasury, independent, 263

Treaties, of 1763, 61 alliance with France, 177 of 1783 with England, 134 Jay, 177, 218 Louisiana purchase, 191f. Of 1815, 201 Ashburton, 265 of 1848 with Mexico, 283 Washington with England, 481 with Spain, 492 Versailles (1919), 612ff. 

Trenton, battle, 116

Trollope, Mrs. , 268

Trusts, 405ff. , 461, 472ff. , 521, 526, 530

Tweed, W. M. , 418

Tyler, President, 264ff. , 281, 349

"Uncle Tom's Cabin, " 332

Union party, 365

Unions. _See_ Labor

Utah, 290ff. , 329, 442

Utilities, municipal, 548

Vallandigham, 360

Valley Forge, 116, 129

Van Buren, Martin, 262

Venango, Fort, 59

Venezuela, 482ff. , 512

Vermont, 223

Vicksburg, 361

Virginia: founded, 3. _See also_ Royal province, Constitutions, state, Planting system, Slavery, Secession, and Immigration

Walpole, Sir Robert, 66

Wars: colonial, 57ff. Revolutionary, 99ff. Of 1812, 199ff. Mexican, 282ff. Civil, 344ff. Spanish, 490ff. World, 596ff. 

Washington: warns French, 60 in French war, 63 commander-in-chief, 101ff. And movement for Constitution, 142ff. As President, 166ff. Farewell Address, 178

Washington City, 166

Washington State, 442

Webster, 256, 265, 328

Welfare work, 573

Whigs: English, 78 colonial, 83 rise of party, 260ff. , 334, 340

Whisky Rebellion, 171

White Camelia, 382

White Plains, battle, 114

Whitman, Marcus, 284

William and Mary College, 45

Williams, Roger, 5, 42

Wilmot Proviso, 326

Wilson, James, 147

Wilson, Woodrow, election, 533f. Administrations, 588ff. 

Winthrop, John, 3

Wisconsin, admission, 274

Witchcraft, 41

Wollstonecraft, Mary, 556

Women: colonial, 28 Revolutionary War, 124 labor, 305 education and civil rights, 554ff. Suffrage, 562ff. 

Workmen's compensation, 549

Writs of assistance, 88

Wyoming, admission, 442

X, Y, Z affair, 180

Yale, 44

Young, Brigham, 290

Zenger, Peter, 48

 * * * * *

Printed in the United States of America. 

 * * * * *

[Transcriber's notes:

Punctuation normalized in all _Underwood and Underwood, N. Y. _

Superscripted letters are denoted with a caret. For example, G^OWASHINGTON. 

Period added after Mass on verso page. Original read "Mass, U. S. A. "

Chapter I, page 19, period added to pp. 55-159 and pp. 242-244. 

Chapter IV, page 61 cooperation changed to coöperation twice to matchrest of text usage. Also on page 620. 

Chapter VI, page 121 changed maneuvered to manoevered. 

Chapter VIII, page 185, period added to "Vol. " Original read "Vol III, "

Chapter X, page 219, changed coordinate to coördinate to reflect rest oftext usage. 

Chapter X, page 234, Italicized habeus corpus to match rest of text. 

Chapter XI, page 257 changed reestablished to reëstablished to conformto rest of text usage. 

Chapter XI, page 259 changed reelection to reëlection

Chapter XII, page 269 added period after "Vol" Vol. II

Chapter XII, page 270. Title of work reads "_Selected Documents ofUnited States History, 1776-1761_". Research shows the document doeshave this title. 

Chapter XV, page 351. Changed "bout" to "about". "for only about"

Chapter XVI, page 385. Changed "provisons" to "provisions". 

Chapter XX, page 478. Changed "aniversary" to "anniversary". 

Chapter XXIV, page 579 word "on" changed to "one" "five commissioners, one of whom, "

Topical Syllabus. Missing periods added to normalize punctuation inentries such as on page 648 (4) Sixteenth Amendment--income tax(528-529). 

Appendix, page 631, comma changed to semi-colon on "bills of credit;" tomatch rest of list. Also on "obligation of contracts;"

Index, page 657, changed "Freesoil" to Free-soil to match rest of textusage. 

Index, page 660, space removed from "396 ff. " changed to "status of, 396ff. "

Index, Page 662, added comma to States: disorders under Articles ofConstitution, 141]