Number 62

(_Double Number_)

RIVERSIDE LITERATURE SERIES

THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCEBY JOHN FISKE

WITH MAPS, INDEX AND A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY BOSTON, NEW YORK, AND CHICAGO

The Riverside Press Cambridge

Price, paper 30 cents; linen, 40 cents

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Riverside Literature Series

THEWAR OF INDEPENDENCE

BYJOHN FISKE

WITH MAPS, INDEX, AND A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

[Decoration]

HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY

Boston: 4 Park Street; New York: 85 Fifth AvenueChicago: 378-388 Wabash Avenue

The Riverside Press, Cambridge

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COPYRIGHT, 1889BY JOHN FISKE

COPYRIGHT, 1894BY HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & CO. 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

PREFACE. 

This little book does not contain the substance of the lectures on theAmerican Revolution which I have delivered in so many parts of theUnited States since 1883. Those lectures, when completed and published, will make quite a detailed narrative; this book is but a sketch. It ishoped that it may prove useful to the higher classes in schools, as wellas to teachers. When I was a boy I should have been glad to get hold ofa brief account of the War for Independence that would have suggestedanswers to some of the questions that used to vex me. Was the conduct ofthe British government, in driving the Americans into rebellion, merelywanton aggression, or was it not rather a bungling attempt to solve apolitical problem which really needed to be solved? Why were New Jerseyand the Hudson river so important? Why did the British armies make SouthCarolina their chief objective point after New York? Or how didCornwallis happen to be at Yorktown when Washington made such a longleap and pounced upon him there? And so on. Such questions theold-fashioned text-books not only did not try to answer, they did noteven recognize their existence. As to the large histories, they ofcourse include so many details that it requires maturity of judgment todiscriminate between the facts that are cardinal and those that aremerely incidental. When I give lectures to schoolboys and schoolgirls, Iobserve that a reference to causes and effects always seems to heightenthe interest of the story. I therefore offer them this little book, notas a rival but as an aid to the ordinary text-book. I am aware that anarrative so condensed must necessarily suffer from the omission of manypicturesque and striking details. The world is so made that one oftenhas to lose a little in one direction in order to gain something inanother. This book is an experiment. If it seems to answer its purpose, I may follow it with others, treating other portions of American historyin similar fashion. 

CAMBRIDGE, _February 11, 1889_. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTENTS. 

CHAP. PAGE

 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF JOHN FISKE vii

 I. INTRODUCTION 1

 II. THE COLONIES IN 1750 4

 III. THE FRENCH WARS, AND THE FIRST PLAN OF UNION 26

 IV. THE STAMP ACT, AND THE REVENUE LAWS 39

 V. THE CRISIS 78

 VI. THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CENTRE 104

 VII. THE FRENCH ALLIANCE 144

VIII. BIRTH OF THE NATION 182

 COLLATERAL READING 195

 INDEX 197

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LIST OF MAPS. 

 _Facing page_

INVASION OF CANADA 92

WASHINGTON'S CAMPAIGNS IN NEW JERSEY AND PENNSYLVANIA 120

BURGOYNE'S CAMPAIGN 130

THE SOUTHERN CAMPAIGN 172

NOTE. --These maps are used by permission of, and by arrangement with, Messrs. Ginn & Company. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 

To relate, by way of leading up to this little book, all the previousachievements of its author would--without disrespect to the greater orthe less--have somewhat the appearance of putting a very big cart infront of a pony. But no idea could be more mistaken than that whichinduces people to believe a small book the easiest to write. Easyreading is hard writing; and a thoroughly good small book stands for somuch more than the mere process of putting it on paper, that its valueis not at all to be judged by its bulk. The offhand word of a man fullof knowledge is worth a great deal more than the carefully preparedutterance of a person who having spoken once has nothing more to say. Inour introduction to this work, therefore, we propose to reverse thecommon process of tracing the author's development upwards, and instead, after stating the mere events of Mr. Fiske's life, to begin with "TheWar of Independence" and to follow his work backwards, attempting verybriefly to show how each undertaking was built naturally upon somethingbefore it, and that the original basis of the structure was uncommonlybroad and strong. 

John Fiske was born in Hartford, Conn. , 30th March, 1842, and spentmost of his life, before entering Harvard as a sophomore in 1860, withhis grandmother's family in Middletown, Conn. Two years after taking hisdegree at Harvard, in 1863, he was graduated from the Harvard LawSchool, but he cared so much more for writing than for the law that hisattempt to practice it in Boston was soon abandoned. In 1861 he made hisfirst important contribution to a magazine, and ever since has done muchwork of the same sort. He has served Harvard College, as Universitylecturer on philosophy, 1869-71, in 1870 as instructor in history, andfrom 1872 to 1879 as assistant librarian. Since resigning from thatoffice he has been for two terms of six years each a member of the boardof overseers. In 1881 he began lecturing annually at WashingtonUniversity, St. Louis, on American history, and in 1884 was made aprofessor of the institution. Since 1871 he has devoted much time tolecturing at large. He has been heard in most of the principal cities ofAmerica, and abroad, in London and Edinburgh. All this time his home hasbeen in Cambridge, Mass. 

So much for the simple outward circumstances of Mr. Fiske's life. Turning to his studies and writings, one finds them reaching out intoalmost every direction of human thought; and this book, from which ourbackward course is to be taken, is but a page from the great body of hiswork. It is especially as a student of philosophy, science, and historythat Mr. Fiske is known to the world; and at the present it isparticularly as an historian of America that his name is spoken. In noother way more satisfactorily than in tracing the growth of his ownnation has he found it possible to study the laws of progress of thehuman race, and from the first, through all the time of his most activephilosophical and scientific work, this study of human progress has beenthe true interest of his life. With his historical works, then, let usbegin. 

In 1879 he delivered a course of six lectures on American history, atthe Old South Meeting House in Boston. In previous years he had writtenoccasional essays on historical subjects in general, but the impulsetowards American history in particular was given by the preparation forthese lectures, which were concerned especially with the colonialperiod. Of his own treatment of an historical subject he is quoted assaying: "I look it up or investigate it, and then write an essay or alecture on the subject. That serves as a preliminary statement, eitherof a large subject or of special points. It is a help to me to make astatement of the kind--I mean in the lecture or essay form. In fact italways assists me to try to state the case. I never publish anythingafter this first statement, but generally keep it with me for, it maybe, some years, and possibly return to it again several times. " Thus itmay safely be assumed that these Old South Lectures and the many othersthat have followed them have found or will find a permanent place in theseries of Mr. Fiske's historical volumes. 

The succession of these books has not been in the order of the periodsof which they treat; but from the similarity of their method and thefact that they cover a series of important periods in American history, they go towards making a complete, consecutive history of the country. The periods which are not yet covered Mr. Fiske proposes to deal with intime. One who has talked with him on the subject of his works reportsthe following statement as coming from Mr. Fiske's own lips: "I am nowat work on a general history of the United States. When John RichardGreen was planning his 'Short History of the English People, ' and he andI were friends in London, I heard him telling about his scheme. Ithought it would be a very nice thing to do something of the same sortfor American history. But when I took it up I found myself, instead ofcarrying it out in that way, dwelling upon special points; andinsensibly, without any volition on my part, I suppose, it has beenrather taking the shape of separate monographs. But I hope to go on inthat way until I cover the ground with these separate books, --that is, to cover as much ground as possible. But, of course, the scheme hasbecome much more extensive than it was when I started. "

Taken in the order of their subjects, the five works already contributedto this series are, "The Discovery of America, with some Account ofAncient America and the Spanish Conquest" (two volumes); "Old Virginiaand her Neighbours" (two volumes); "The Beginnings of New England, orthe Puritan Theocracy in its Relations to Civil and Religious Liberty;""The American Revolution" (two volumes); and "The Critical Period ofAmerican History, 1783-1789. " Allied with these books, though hardlytaking a place in the series, is "Civil Government in the United States, Considered with some Reference to its Origins, " "The War ofIndependence, " it will thus be seen, is the least ambitious of allthese historical works. "A History of the United States for Schools" isaddressed to the same audience, and in so far may be considered acompanion volume. 

What makes Mr. Fiske's histories just what they are? Another stepbackward in the stages of his own development will enable us to see, andthe sub-title, "Viewed from the Standpoint of Universal History, " of oneof his earlier books, "American Political Ideas, " will help towards anunderstanding of his power. It is due to the fact that he brings to hishistorical work on special subjects the broad philosophic and generalview of a man who is much more than a specialist, --the scientific habitof mind which must look for causes when effects are seen, and must pointout the relations between them. There could be no better preparation forthe writing of history than the apparently alien study of the questionswith which the names of Darwin and Spencer are inseparably associated. When Darwin's "Origin of Species" appeared, Mr. Fiske's own thought hadprepared him to take the place of an ardent apostle of Evolution, and itis held that no man has done more than he in expounding the theory inAmerica. Standing permanently for his work in this field are his books, "Excursions of an Evolutionist" and "Darwinism, and Other Essays. " Oneof his first important works was "Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy" (1874), and in more recent years "The Destiny of Man" and "The Idea of God"speak forth very distinctly, not as interpretations, but as his owncontributions to the progress of philosophic thought. One other phase ofthe use to which Mr. Fiske's mind has been put should surely bementioned in any summary of his qualifications for writing histories. Heis extremely fond of hearing and telling good stories. His book on"Myths and Myth-makers" (1872) gave early evidence of this fondness, andsurely there is the very spirit of the lover of tales in the Dedicationof the book, "To my dear Friend, William D. Howells, in remembrance ofpleasant autumn evenings spent among were-wolves and trolls and nixies. "Thus, besides the ability to see a story in all its bearings, Mr. Fiskehas the gift of telling it effectively, --a golden power without whichall the learning in the world would serve an historian as but so muchlead. 

But all of these works preceding Mr. Fiske's historical writings did notcome out of nothing. His mental acquirements as a young man and boy werevery extraordinary, and give to the last stage of his career at which weshall look--the earliest--perhaps the greatest interest of all. Adescription of it without a knowledge of what followed would be all tooapt to remind readers whose memories go back far enough of theinstances, all too common, of men whose early promise is not fulfilled. _Summa cum laude_ graduates settle down into lives of timid routine thatleads to nothing, just as often as the idle dreamers who stayconsistently at the foot of their classes wake up when the vital contactwith the world takes place, and do something astonishingly good. These, however, are the exceptions. A development like Mr. Fiske's follows thelines of nature. 

Happily, there were books in the house in which he was brought up. Atthe age of seven he was reading Rollin, Josephus, and Goldsmith'sGreece. Much of Milton, Pope, and Bunyan, and nearly all of Shakespearehe had read before he was nine; histories of many lands before eleven. At this age he filled a quarto blank book of sixty pages with achronological table, written from memory, of events between 1000 B. C. And 1820 A. D. 

All this would seem enough for one boy, but there were the other worldsof languages and science to conquer. It is almost discouraging merely towrite down the fact that at thirteen he had read a large part of Livy, Cicero, Ovid, Catullus, and Juvenal, and all of Virgil, Horace, Tacitus, Sallust, and Suetonius, --to say nothing of Cæsar, at seven. Greek wasdisposed of in like manner; and then came the modern languages, --German, Spanish, --in which he kept a diary, --French, Italian, andPortuguese. Hebrew and Sanskrit were kept for the years of seventeen andeighteen. In college, Icelandic, Gothic, Danish, Swedish, Dutch, andRoumanian were added, with beginnings in Russian. The uses to which heput these languages were not those to which the weary schoolboy puts hisfew scraps of learning in foreign tongues, but the true uses ofliterature, --reading for pleasure and mental stimulus. 

It is needless to relate the rapid course of Mr. Fiske's first studiesin science; it is no whit less remarkable than that of his otherintellectual enterprises. As mathematics is akin to music, it will beenough to say that when he was fifteen a friend's piano was left in hisgrandmother's house, and, without a master, the boy soon learned itssecrets well enough to play such works as Mozart's Twelfth Mass. Laterin life Mr. Fiske studied the science of music. He has printed manymusical criticisms, and has himself composed a mass and songs. 

Few boys can hope to take to college with them, or, for that matter, even away from it, a mind so well equipped as Mr. Fiske's was when hewent to Cambridge. Three years of stimulating university atmosphere, andof indefinitely wide opportunities for reading, left him prepared as fewmen have been for just the work he has done. He has had the wisdom tosee what he could do, and being possessed of the qualities that lead toaccomplishment, he has done it; and any reader who understands more thanthe mere words he reads will be very likely to discover in this smallvolume, "The War of Independence, " something of the spirit, and somesuggestions of the method which, in this sketch, we have endeavored topoint out as characteristic of one of the foremost living historians. 

THE WAR OF INDEPENDENCE. 

CHAPTER I. 

INTRODUCTION. 

Since the year 1875 we have witnessed, in many parts of the UnitedStates, public processions, meetings, and speeches in commemoration ofthe hundredth anniversary of some important event in the course of ourstruggle for national independence. This series of centennialcelebrations, which has been of great value in stimulating Americanpatriotism and awakening throughout the country a keen interest inAmerican history, will naturally come to an end in 1889. The close ofPresident Cleveland's term of office marks the close of the firstcentury of the government under which we live, which dates from theinauguration of President Washington on the balcony of the Federalbuilding in Wall street, New York, on the 30th of April, 1789. It was onthat memorable day that the American Revolution may be said to have beencompleted. The Declaration of Independence in 1776 detached the Americanpeople from the supreme government to which they had hitherto owedallegiance, and it was not until Washington's inauguration in 1789 thatthe supreme government to which we owe allegiance to-day was actuallyput in operation. The period of thirteen years included between thesetwo dates was strictly a revolutionary period, during which it was moreor less doubtful where the supreme authority over the United Statesbelonged. First, it took the fighting and the diplomacy of therevolutionary war to decide that this supreme authority belonged in theUnited States themselves, and not in the government of Great Britain;and then after the war was ended, more than five years of sore distressand anxious discussion had elapsed before the American people succeededin setting up a new government that was strong enough to make itselfobeyed at home and respected abroad. 

It is the story of this revolutionary period, ending in 1789, that wehave here to relate in its principal outlines. When we stand upon thecrest of a lofty hill and look about in all directions over thelandscape, we can often detect relations between distant points which wehad not before thought of together. While we tarried in the lowland, wecould see blue peaks rising here and there against the sky, and followbabbling brooks hither and thither through the forest. It was morehomelike down there than on the hilltop, for in each gnarled tree, inevery moss-grown boulder, in every wayside flower, we had a friend thatwas near to us; but the general bearings of things may well have escapedour notice. In climbing to our lonely vantage-ground, while the familiarscenes fade from sight, there are gradually unfolded to us thoseconnections between crag and meadow and stream that make the life andmeaning of the whole. We learn the "lay of the land, " and become, in ahumble way, geographers. So in the history of men and nations, while weremain immersed in the study of personal incidents and details, as whatsuch a statesman said or how many men were killed in such a battle, wemay quite fail to understand what it was all about, and we shall be sureoften to misjudge men's characters and estimate wrongly the importanceof many events. For this reason we cannot clearly see the meaning of thehistory of our own times. The facts are too near us; we are down amongthem, like the man who could not see the forest because there were somany trees. But when we look back over a long interval of years, we cansurvey distant events and personages like points in a vast landscape andbegin to discern the meaning of it all. In this way we come to see thathistory is full of lessons for us. Very few things have happened in pastages with which our present welfare is not in one way or anotherconcerned. Few things have happened in any age more interesting or moreimportant than the American Revolution. 

CHAPTER II. 

THE COLONIES IN 1750. 

It is always difficult in history to mark the beginning and end of aperiod. Events keep rushing on and do not pause to be divided intochapters; or, in other words, in the history which really takes place, anew chapter is always beginning long before the old one is ended. Thedivisions we make when we try to describe it are merely marks that wemake for our own convenience. In telling the story of the AmericanRevolution we must stop somewhere, and the inauguration of PresidentWashington is a very proper place. We must also begin somewhere, but itis quite clear that it will not do to begin with the Declaration ofIndependence in July, 1776, or even with the midnight ride of PaulRevere in April, 1775. For if we ask what caused that "hurry of hoofs ina village street, " and what brought together those five-and-fiftystatesmen at Philadelphia, we are not simply led back to the BostonTea-Party, and still further to the Stamp Act, but we find it necessaryto refer to events that happened more than a century before theRevolution can properly be said to have begun. Indeed, if we were goingto take a very wide view of the situation, and try to point out itsrelations to the general history of mankind, we should have to go backmany hundreds of years and not only cross the ocean to the England ofKing Alfred, but keep on still further to the ancient market-places ofRome and Athens, and even to the pyramids of Egypt; and in all this longjourney through the ages we should not be merely gratifying an idlecuriosity, but at every step of the way could gather sound practicallessons, useful in helping us to vote intelligently at the next electionfor mayor of the city in which we live or for president of the UnitedStates. 

 [Sidenote: The half-way station in American History]

We are not now, however, about to start on any such long journey. It isa much nearer and narrower view of the American Revolution that we wishto get. There are many points from which we might start, but we must atany rate choose a point several years earlier than the Declaration ofIndependence. People are very apt to leave out of sight the "good oldcolony times" and speak of our country as scarcely more than a hundredyears old. Sometimes we hear the presidency of George Washington spokenof as part of "early American history;" but we ought not to forget thatwhen Washington was born the commonwealth of Virginia was already onehundred and twenty-five years old. The first governor of Massachusettswas born three centuries ago, in 1588, the year of the Spanish Armada. Suppose we take the period of 282 years between the English settlementof Virginia and the inauguration of President Benjamin Harrison, anddivide it in the middle. That gives us the year 1748 as the half-waystation in the history of the American people. There were just as manyyears of continuous American history before 1748 as there have beensince that date. That year was famous for the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, which put an end to a war between England and France that had lastedfive years. That war had been waged in America as well as in Europe, andAmerican troops had played a brilliant part in it. There was now a brieflull, soon to be followed by another and greater war between the twomighty rivals, and it was in the course of this latter war that some ofthe questions were raised which presently led to the AmericanRevolution. Let us take the occasion of this lull in the storm to lookover the American world and see what were the circumstances likely tolead to the throwing off of the British government by the thirteencolonies, and to their union under a federal government of their ownmaking. 

 [Sidenote: The four New England colonies. ]

In the middle of the eighteenth century there were four New Englandcolonies. Massachusetts extended her sway over Maine, and the GreenMountain territory was an uninhabited wilderness, to which New York andNew Hampshire alike laid claim. The four commonwealths of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island had all been in existence, under one form or another, for more than a century. The men who were inthe prime of life there in 1750 were the great-grandsons andgreat-great-grandsons of the men who crossed the ocean between 1620 and1640 and settled New England. Scarcely two men in a hundred were of otherthan English blood. About one in a hundred could say that his familycame from Scotland or the north of Ireland; one in five hundred may havebeen the grandchild of a Huguenot. Upon religious and politicalquestions these people thought very much alike. Extreme poverty wasalmost unknown, and there were but few who could not read and write. Asa rule every head of a family owned the house in which he lived and theland which supported him. There were no cities; and from Boston, whichwas a town with 16, 000 inhabitants, down to the smallest settlement inthe White Mountains, the government was carried on by town-meetings atwhich, almost any grown-up man could be present and speak and vote. Except upon the sea-coast nearly all the people lived upon farms; butall along the coast were many who lived by fishing and by buildingships, and in the towns dwelt many merchants grown rich by foreigntrade. In those days Massachusetts was the richest of the thirteencolonies, and had a larger population than any other except Virginia. Connecticut was then more populous than New York; and when the four NewEngland commonwealths acted together--as was likely to be the case intime of danger--they formed the strongest military power on the Americancontinent. 

 [Sidenote: Virginia and Maryland]

Among what we now call southern states there were two that in 1750 weremore than a hundred years old. These were Virginia and Maryland. Thepeople of these commonwealths, like those of New England, had livedtogether in America long enough to become distinctively Americans. BothNew Englander and Virginian had had time to forget their familyrelationships with the kindred left behind so long ago in England;though there were many who did not forget it, and in our time scholarshave by research recovered many of the links that had been lost frommemory. The white people of Virginia were as purely English as those ofConnecticut or Massachusetts. But society in Virginia was very differentfrom society in New England. The wealth of Virginia consisted chiefly oftobacco, which was raised by negro slaves. People lived far apart fromeach other on great plantations, usually situated near the navigablestreams of which that country has so many. Most of the great plantershad easy access to private wharves, where their crops could be loaded onships and sent directly to England in exchange for all sorts of goods. Accordingly it was but seldom that towns grew up as centres of trade. Each plantation was a kind of little world in itself. There were notown-meetings, as the smallest political division was the division intocounties; but there were county-meetings quite vigorous withpolitical life. Of the leading county families a great many weredescended from able and distinguished Cavaliers or King's-men who hadcome over from England during the ascendency of Oliver Cromwell. Skillin the management of public affairs was hereditary in such families, andduring our revolutionary period Virginia produced more great leadersthan any of the other colonies. 

 [Sidenote: New York and Delaware]

There were yet two other American commonwealths that in 1750 were morethan a hundred years old. These were New York and little Delaware, whichfor some time was a kind of appendage, first to New York, afterward toPennsylvania. But there was one important respect in which these twocolonies were different alike from New England and from Virginia. Theirpopulation was far from being purely English. Delaware had been firstsettled by Swedes, New York by Dutchmen; and the latter colony had drawnits settlers from almost every part of western and central Europe. A manmight travel from Penobscot bay to the Harlem river without hearing asyllable in any other tongue than English; but in crossing Manhattanisland he could listen, if he chose, to more than a dozen languages. There was almost as much diversity in opinions about religious andpolitical matters as there was in the languages in which they wereexpressed. New York was an English community in so far as it had beenfor more than eighty years under an English government, but hardly inany other sense. Accordingly we shall find New York in the revolutionaryperiod less prompt and decided in action than Massachusetts andVirginia. In population New York ranked only seventh among the thirteencolonies; but in its geographical position it was the most important ofall. It was important commercially because the Mohawk and Hudson riversformed a direct avenue for the fur-trade from the region of the greatlakes to the finest harbour on all the Atlantic coast. In a militarysense it was important for two reasons; _first_, because the Mohawkvalley was the home of the most powerful confederacy of Indians on thecontinent, the steady allies of the English and deadly foes of theFrench; _secondly_, because the centre of the French power was atMontreal and Quebec, and from those points the route by which theEnglish colonies could be most easily invaded was formed by LakeChamplain and the Hudson river. New York was completely interposedbetween New England and the rest of the English colonies, so that anenemy holding possession of it would virtually cut the Atlanticsea-board in two. For these reasons the political action of New Yorkwas of most critical importance. 

 [Sidenote: The two Carolinas and Georgia; New Jersey and Pennsylvania]

Of the other colonies in 1750, the two Carolinas and New Jersey wererather more than eighty years old, while Pennsylvania had been settledscarcely seventy years. But the growth of these younger colonies hadbeen rapid, especially in the case of Pennsylvania and North Carolina, which in populousness ranked third and fourth among the thirteen. Thisrapid increase was mainly due to a large immigration from Europe kept upduring the first half of the eighteenth century, so that a largeproportion of the people had either been born in Europe, or were thechildren of people born in Europe. In 1750 these colonies had not hadtime enough to become so intensely American as Virginia and the NewEngland colonies. In Georgia, which had been settled only seventeenyears, people had had barely time to get used to this new home on thewild frontier. 

The population of these younger colonies was very much mixed. In SouthCarolina, as in New York, probably less than half were English. In bothCarolinas there were a great many Huguenots from France, and immigrantsfrom Germany and Scotland and the north of Ireland were still pouringin. Pennsylvania had many Germans and Irish, and settlers from otherparts of Europe, besides its English Quakers. With all this diversity ofrace there was a great diversity of opinions about political questions, as about other matters. 

 [Sidenote: Why Massachusetts and Virginia took the lead. ]

We are now beginning to see why it was that Massachusetts and Virginiatook the lead in bringing on the revolutionary war. Not only were thesetwo the largest colonies, but their people had become much morethoroughly welded together in their thoughts and habits and associationsthan was as yet possible with the people of the younger colonies. Whenthe revolutionary war came, there were very few Tories in the NewEngland colonies and very few in Virginia; but there were a great manyin New York and Pennsylvania and the two Carolinas, so that the actionof these commonwealths was often slow and undecided, and sometimes therewas bitter and bloody fighting between men of opposite opinions, especially in New York and South Carolina. 

 [Sidenote: The two republics; Connecticut and Rhode Island]

If we look at the governments of the thirteen colonies in the middle ofthe eighteenth century, we shall observe some interesting facts. All thecolonies had legislative assemblies elected by the people, and theseassemblies levied the taxes and made the laws. So far as thelegislatures were concerned, therefore, all the colonies governedthemselves. But with regard to the executive department of thegovernment, there were very important differences. Only two of thecolonies, Connecticut and Rhode Island, had governors elected by thepeople. These two colonies were completely self-governing. In almosteverything but name they were independent of Great Britain, and this wasso true that at the time of the revolutionary war they did not need tomake any new constitutions for themselves, but continued to live onunder their old charters for many years, --Connecticut until 1818, RhodeIsland until 1843. Before the revolution these two colonies hadcomparatively few direct grievances to complain of at the hands of GreatBritain; but as they were next neighbours to Massachusetts and closelyconnected with its history, they were likely to sympathize promptly withthe kind of grievances by which Massachusetts was disturbed. 

 [Sidenote: The proprietary governments: Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland]

Three of the colonies, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland, had apeculiar kind of government, known as _proprietary government_. Theirterritories had originally been granted by the crown to a person knownas the Lord Proprietary, and the lord-proprietorship descended fromfather to son like a kingdom. In Maryland it was the Calvert family thatreigned for six generations as lords proprietary. Pennsylvania andDelaware had each its own separate legislature, but over both coloniesreigned the same lord proprietary, who was a member of the Penn family. These colonies were thus like little hereditary monarchies, and they hadbut few direct dealings with the British government. For them the lordsproprietary stood in the place of the king, and appointed the governors. In Maryland this system ran smoothly. In Pennsylvania there was a gooddeal of dissatisfaction, but it generally assumed the form of a wish toget rid of the lords proprietary and have the governors appointed by theking; for as this was something they had not tried they were notprepared to appreciate its evils. 

 [Sidenote: The crown colonies and their royal governors]

In the other eight colonies--New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, NewJersey, Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia--the governors wereappointed by the king, and were commonly known as "royal governors. "They were sometimes natives of the colonies over which they wereappointed, as Dudley and Hutchinson of Massachusetts, and others; butwere more often sent over from England. Some of them, as Pownall ofMassachusetts and Spotswood of Virginia, were men of marked ability. Some were honest gentlemen, who felt a real interest in the welfare ofthe people they came to help govern; some were unprincipled adventurers, who came to make money by fair means or foul. Their position was one ofmuch dignity, and they behaved themselves like lesser kings. What withtheir crimson velvets and fine laces and stately coaches, they made muchmore of a show than any president of the United States would think ofmaking to-day. They had no fixed terms of office, but remained at theirposts as long as the king, or the king's colonial secretary, saw fit tokeep them there. 

 [Sidenote: The question as to salaries]

Now it was generally true of the royal governors that, whether they werenatives of America or sent over from England, and whether they were goodmen or bad, they were very apt to make themselves disliked by thepeople, and they were almost always quarrelling with their legislativeassemblies. Questions were always coming up about which the governor andthe legislature could not agree, because the legislature represented theviews of the people who had chosen it, while the governor representedhis own views or the views which prevailed three thousand miles awayamong the king's ministers, who very often knew little about America andcared less. One of these disputed questions related to the governor'ssalary. It was natural that the governor should wish to have a salary offixed amount, so that he might know from year to year what he was goingto receive. But the people were afraid that if this were to be done thegovernor might become too independent. They preferred that thelegislature should each year make a grant of money such as it shoulddeem suitable for the governor's expenses, and this sum it mightincrease or diminish according to its own good pleasure. This would keepthe governor properly subservient to the legislature. Before 1750 therehad been much bitter wrangling over this question in several of thecolonies, and the governors had one after another been obliged tosubmit, though with very ill grace. 

Sometimes the thoughts of the royal governors and their friends wentbeyond this immediate question. Since the legislatures were so frowardand so niggardly, what an admirable plan it would be to have thegovernors paid out of the royal treasury and thus made comparativelyindependent of the legislatures! The judges, too, who were quite poorlypaid, might fare much better if remunerated by the crown, and the samemight be said of some other public officers. But if the Britishgovernment were to undertake to pay the salaries of its officials inAmerica, it must raise a revenue for the purpose; and it would naturallyraise such a revenue by levying taxes in America rather than in England. People in England felt that they were already taxed as heavily as theycould bear, in order to pay the expenses of their own government. Theycould not be expected to submit to further taxation for the sake ofpaying the expenses of governing the American colonies. If further taxeswere to be laid for such a purpose, they must in fairness be laid uponAmericans, not upon Englishmen in the old country. 

Such was the view which people in England would naturally be expected totake, and such was the view which they generally did take. But there wasanother side to the question which was very clearly seen by most peoplein America. If the royal governors were to be paid by the crown and thusmade independent of their legislatures, there would be danger of theirbecoming petty tyrants and interfering in many ways with the libertiesof the people. Still greater would be the danger if the judges were tobe paid by the crown, for then they would feel themselves responsible tothe king or to the royal governor, rather than to their fellow-citizens;and it would be easy for the governors, by appointing corrupt men asjudges, to prevent the proper administration of justice by the courts, and thus to make men's lives and property insecure. Most Americans in1750 felt this danger very keenly. They had not forgotten how, in thetimes of their grandfathers, two of the noblest of Englishmen, LordWilliam Russell and Colonel Algernon Sidney, had been murdered by theiniquitous sentence of time-serving judges. They had not forgotten theruffian George Jeffreys and his "bloody assizes" of 1685. They wellremembered how their kinsmen in England had driven into exile the Stuartfamily of kings, who were even yet, in 1745, making efforts to recovertheir lost throne. They remembered how the beginnings of New England hadbeen made by stout-hearted men who could not endure the tyranny of thesesame Stuarts; and they knew well that one of the worst of the evils uponwhich Stuart tyranny had fattened had been the corruption of the courtsof justice. The Americans believed with some reason, that even now, inthe middle of the eighteenth century, the administration of justice intheir own commonwealths was decidedly better than in Great Britain; andthey had no mind to have it disturbed. 

 [Sidenote: "No taxation without representation. "]

But worse than all, if the expenses of governing America were to be paidby taxes levied upon Americans and collected from them by king orparliament or any power whatsoever residing in Great Britain, then theinhabitants of the thirteen American colonies would at once cease to befree people. A free country is one in which the government cannot takeaway people's money, in the shape of taxes, except for strictly publicpurposes and with the consent of the people themselves, as expressed bysome body of representatives whom the people have chosen. If people'smoney can be taken from them without their consent, no matter how smallthe amount, even if it be less than one dollar out of every thousand, then they are not politically free. They do not govern, but the powerthat thus takes their money without their consent is the power thatgoverns; and there is nothing to prevent such a power from using themoney thus obtained to strengthen itself until it can trample uponpeople's rights in every direction, and rob them of their homes andlives as well as of their money. If the British government could tax theAmericans without their consent, it might use the money for supporting aBritish army in America, and such an army might be employed inintimidating the legislatures, in dispersing town-meetings, indestroying newspaper-offices, or in other acts of tyranny. 

 [Sidenote: It was the fundamental principle of English liberty. ]

The Americans in the middle of the eighteenth century well understoodthat the principle of "no taxation without representation" is thefundamental principle of free government. It was the principle for whichtheir forefathers had contended again and again in England, and uponwhich the noble edifice of English liberty had been raised andconsolidated since the grand struggle between king and barons in thethirteenth century. It had passed into a tradition, both in England andin America, that in order to prevent the crown from becoming despotic, it was necessary that it should only wield such revenues as therepresentatives of the people might be pleased to grant it. In Englandthe body which represented the people was the House of Commons, in eachof the American colonies it was the colonial legislature; and indealing with the royal governors, the legislatures acted upon the samegeneral principles as the House of Commons in dealing with the king. 

 [Sidenote: Sometimes the royal governors were in the right, as to the particular question. ]

It was not until some time after 1750 that any grand assault was madeupon the principle of "no taxation without representation, " but thefrequent disputes with the royal governors were such as to keep peoplefrom losing sight of this principle, and to make them sensitive aboutacts that might lead to violations of it. In the particular disputes thegovernors were sometimes clearly right and the people wrong. One of theprincipal objects, as we shall presently see, for which the governorswanted money, was to maintain troops for defence against the French andthe Indians; and the legislatures were apt to be short-sighted andunreasonably stingy about such matters. Again, the people were sometimesseized with a silly craze for "paper money" and "wild-catbanks"--devices for making money out of nothing--and sometimes thegovernors were sensible enough to oppose such delusions but notaltogether sensible in their manner of doing it. Thus in 1740 there wasfierce excitement in Massachusetts over a quarrel between the governorand the legislature about the famous "silver bank" and "land bank. "These institutions were a public nuisance and deserved to be suppressed, but the governor was obliged to appeal to parliament in order tosucceed in doing it. This led many people to ask, "What business has aparliament sitting the other side of the ocean to be making laws forus?" and the grumbling was loud and bitter enough to show that this wasa very dangerous question to raise. 

 [Sidenote: Bitter memories; in Virginia. ]

It was in the eight colonies which had royal governors that troubles ofa revolutionary character were more likely to arise than in the otherfive, but there were special reasons, besides those already mentioned, why Massachusetts and Virginia should prove more refractory than any ofthe others. Both these great commonwealths had bitter memories. Thingshad happened in both which might serve as a warning, and which some ofthe old men still living in 1750 could distinctly remember. In Virginiathe misgovernment of the royal governor Sir William Berkeley had led in1675 to the famous rebellion headed by Nathaniel Bacon, and thisrebellion had been suppressed with much harshness. Many leading citizenshad been sent to the gallows and their estates had been confiscated. InMassachusetts, though there were no such scenes of cruelty to remember, the grievance was much more deep-seated and enduring. 

 [Sidenote: And in Massachusetts. ]

Massachusetts had not been originally a royal province, with itsgovernors appointed by the king. At first it had been a republic, suchas Connecticut and Rhode Island now were, with governors chosen by thepeople. From its foundation in 1629 down to 1684 the commonwealth ofMassachusetts had managed its own affairs at its own good pleasure. Practically it had been not only self-governing but almost independent. That was because affairs in England were in such confusion that untilafter 1660 comparatively little attention was paid to what was going onin America, and the liberties of Massachusetts prospered through theneglect of what was then called the "home government. " After Charles II. Came to the throne in 1660 he began to interfere with the affairs ofMassachusetts, and so the very first generation of men that had beenborn on the soil of that commonwealth were engaged in a long struggleagainst the British king for the right of managing their own affairs. After more than twenty years of this struggle, which by 1675 had come tobe quite bitter, the charter of Massachusetts was annulled in 1684 andits free government was for the moment destroyed. Presently a viceroywas sent over from England, to govern Massachusetts (as well as severalother northern colonies) despotically. This viceroy, Sir Edmund Andros, seems to have been a fairly well meaning man. He was not especiallyharsh or cruel, but his rule was a despotism, because he was notresponsible to the people for what he did, but only to the king. Inpoint of fact the two-and-a-half years of his administration werecharacterized by arbitrary arrests and by interference with privateproperty and with the freedom of the press. It was so vexatious thatearly in 1689, taking advantage of the Revolution then going on inEngland, the people of Boston rose in rebellion, seized Andros and threwhim into jail, and set up for themselves a provisional government. Whenthe affairs of New England were settled after the accession of Williamand Mary to the throne, Connecticut and Rhode Island were allowed tokeep their old governments; but Massachusetts in 1693 was obliged totake a new charter instead of her old one, and although this new charterrevived the election of legislatures by the people, it left thegovernors henceforth to be appointed by the king. 

In the political controversies of Massachusetts, therefore, in theeighteenth century, the people were animated by the recollection of whatthey had lost. They were somewhat less free and independent than theirgrandfathers had been, and they had learned what it was to have anirresponsible ruler sitting at his desk in Boston and signing warrantsfor the arrest of loved and respected citizens who dared criticise hissayings and doings. "Taxation without representation" was not for them amere abstract theory; they knew what it meant. It was as near to them asthe presidency of Andrew Jackson is to us; there had not been timeenough to forget it. In every contest between the popular legislatureand the royal governor there was some broad principle involved whichthere were plenty of well-remembered facts to illustrate. 

 [Sidenote: Grounds of sympathy between Massachusetts and Virginia. ]

These contests also helped to arouse a strong sympathy between thepopular leaders in Massachusetts and in Virginia. Between the people ofthe two colonies there was not much real sympathy, because there was agood deal of difference between their ways of life and their opinionsabout things; and people, unless they are unusually wise and generous ofnature, are apt to dislike and despise those who differ from them inopinions and habits. So there was little cordiality of feeling betweenthe people of Massachusetts and the people of Virginia, but in spite ofthis there was a great and growing political sympathy. This was because, ever since 1693, they had been obliged to deal with the same kind ofpolitical questions. It became intensely interesting to a Virginian towatch the progress of a dispute between the governor and legislature ofMassachusetts, because whatever principle might be victorious in thecourse of such a dispute, it was sure soon to find a practicalapplication in Virginia. Hence by the middle of the eighteenth centurythe two colonies were keenly observant of each other, and either one wasexceedingly prompt in taking its cue from the other. It is worth whileto remember this fact, for without it there would doubtless have beenrebellions or revolutions of American colonies, but there would hardlyhave been one American Revolution, ending in a grand American Union. 

CHAPTER III

THE FRENCH WARS, AND THE FIRST PLAN OF UNION. 

 [Sidenote: Disputed frontier between French and English colonies. ]

It was said a moment ago that one of the chief objects for which thegovernors wanted money was to maintain troops for defence against theFrench and the Indians. This was a very serious matter indeed. To anyone who looked at a map of North America in 1750 it might well haveseemed as if the French had secured for themselves the greater part ofthe continent. The western frontier of the English settlements wasgenerally within two hundred miles of the sea-coast. In New York it wasat Johnson Hall, not far from Schenectady; in Pennsylvania it was aboutat Carlisle; in Virginia it was near Winchester, and the first explorerswere just making their way across the Alleghany mountains. Westward ofthese frontier settlements lay endless stretches of forest inhabited bywarlike tribes of red men who, everywhere except in New York, werehostile to the English and friendly to the French. Since the beginningof the seventeenth century French towns and villages had been growing upalong the St. Lawrence, and French explorers had been pushing acrossthe Great Lakes and down the valley of the Mississippi river, near themouth of which the French town of New Orleans had been standing since1718. It was the French doctrine that discovery and possession of ariver gave a claim to all the territory drained by that river. Accordingto this doctrine every acre of American soil from which water flowedinto the St. Lawrence and the Mississippi belonged to France. The claimsof the French thus came up to the very crest of the Alleghanies, andthey made no secret of their intention to shut up the English foreverbetween that chain of mountains and the sea-coast. There were times whentheir aims were still more aggressive and dangerous, when they lookedwith longing eyes upon the valley of the Hudson, and would fain havebroken through that military centre of the line of English commonwealthsand seized the keys of empire over the continent. 

 [Sidenote: The Indian tribes. ]

From this height of their ambition the French were kept aloof by thedeadly enmity of the most fierce and powerful savages in the New World. The Indians of those days who came into contact with the white settlerswere divided into many tribes with different names, but they allbelonged to one or another of three great stocks or families. First, there were the _Mobilians_, far down south; to this stock belonged theCreeks, Cherokees, and others. Secondly, there were the _Algonquins_, comprising the Delawares to the south of the Susquehanna; the Miamis, Shawnees, and others in the western wilderness; the Ottawas in Canada;and all the tribes still left to the northeast of New England. Thirdly, there were the _Iroquois_, of whom the most famous were the Five Nationsof what is now central New York. These five great tribes--the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas--had for several generationsbeen united in a confederacy which they likened to a long wigwam withits eastern door looking out upon the valley of the Hudson and itswestern toward the falls of Niagara. It was known far and wide over thecontinent as the Long House, and wherever it was known it was dreaded. When Frenchmen and Englishmen first settled in America, this Iroquoisleague was engaged in a long career of conquest. Algonquin tribes allthe way from the Connecticut to the Mississippi were treated as itsvassals and forced to pay tribute in weapons and wampum. This conqueringcareer extended through the seventeenth century, until it was brought toan end by the French. When the latter began making settlements inCanada, they courted the friendship of their Algonquin neighbours, andthus, without dreaming what deadly seed they were sowing, they were ledto attack the terrible Long House. It was easy enough for Champlain in1609 to win a victory over savages who had never before seen a white manor heard the report of a musket; but the victory was a fatal one for theFrench, for it made the Iroquois their eternal enemies. The Long Houseallied itself first with the Dutch and afterwards with the English, andthus checked the progress of the French toward the lower Hudson. We tooseldom think how much we owe to those formidable savages. 

 [Sidenote: The French and the Iroquois. ]

The Iroquois pressed the French with so much vigour that in 1689 theyeven laid siege to Montreal. But by 1696 the French, assisted by all theAlgonquin tribes within reach, and led by their warlike viceroy, CountFrontenac, one of the most picturesque figures in American history, atlength succeeded in getting the upperhand and dealing the Long House aterrible blow, from the effects of which it never recovered. The leagueremained formidable, however, until the time of the revolutionary war. In 1715 its fighting strength was partially repaired by the adoption ofthe kindred Iroquois tribe of Tuscaroras, who had just been expelledfrom North Carolina by the English settlers, and migrated to New York. After this accession the league, henceforth known as the Six Nations, formed a power by no means to be despised, though much less bold andaggressive than in the previous century. 

After administering a check to the Iroquois, the French and Algonquinskept up for more than sixty years a desultory warfare against theEnglish colonies. Whenever war broke out between England and France, itmeant war in America as well as in Europe. Indeed, one of the chiefobjects of war, on the part of each of these two nations, was to extendits colonial dominions at the expense of the other. France and Englandwere at war from 1689 to 1697; from 1702 to 1713; and from 1743 to 1748. The men in New York or Boston in 1750, who could remember the past sixtyyears, could thus look back over at least four-and-twenty years of openwar; and even in the intervals of professed peace there was a good dealof disturbance on the frontiers. A most frightful sort of warfare itwas, ghastly with torture of prisoners and the ruthless murder of womenand children. The expense of raising and arming troops for defence wasgreat enough to subject several of the colonies to a heavy burden ofdebt. In 1750 Massachusetts was just throwing off the load of debt underwhich she had staggered since 1693; and most of this debt was incurredfor expeditions against the French and Algonquins. 

 [Sidenote: Difficulty of getting the English colonies to act in concert. ]

Under these circumstances it was natural that the colonial governmentsshould find it hard to raise enough money for war expenses, and that thegovernors should think the legislatures too slow in acting. They wereslow; for, as is apt to be the case when money is to be borrowed withoutthe best security, there were a good many things to be considered. Allthis was made worse by the fact that there were so many separategovernments, so that each one was inclined to hold back and wait for theothers. On the other hand, the French viceroy in Canada had despoticpower; the colony which he governed never pretended to beself-supporting; and so, if he could not squeeze money enough out of thepeople in Canada, he just sent to France for it and got it; for thegovernment of Louis XV. Regarded Canada as one of the brightest jewelsin its crown, and was always ready to spend money for damaging theEnglish. Accordingly the Frenchman could plan his campaign, call his redmen together, and set the whole frontier in a blaze, while thelegislatures in Boston or New York were talking about what had better bedone in case of invasion. No wonder the royal governors fretted andfumed, and sent home to England dismal accounts of the perverseness ofthese Americans! Many people in England thought that the colonies wereallowed to govern themselves altogether too much, and that for their owngood the British government ought to tax them. Once while Sir RobertWalpole was prime minister (1721-1742) some one is said to have advisedhim to lay a direct tax upon the Americans; but that wise old statesmanshook his head. It was bad enough, he said, to be scolded and abused byhalf the people in the old country; he did not wish to make enemies ofevery man, woman, and child in the new. 

 [Sidenote: Need of a union between the English colonies. ]

But if the power to raise American armies for the common defence, and tocollect money in America for this purpose, was not to be assumed by theBritish government, was there any way in which unity and promptness ofaction in time of war could be secured? There was another way, if peoplecould be persuaded to adopt it. The thirteen colonies might be joinedtogether in a federal union; and the federal government, withoutinterfering in the local affairs of any single colony, might be clothedwith the power of levying taxes all over the country for purposes ofcommon defence. The royal governors were inclined to favour a union ofthe colonies, no matter how it might be brought about. They thought itnecessary that some decisive step should be taken quickly, for it wasevident that the peace of 1748 was only an armed truce. Evidently agreat and decisive struggle was at hand. In 1750 the Ohio Company, formed for the purpose of colonizing the valley drained by that river, had surveyed the country as far as the present site of Louisville. In1753 the French, taking the alarm, crossed Lake Erie, and began tofortify themselves at Presque Isle, and at Venango on the Alleghanyriver. They seized persons trading within the limits of the OhioCompany, which lay within the territory of Virginia; and accordinglyGovernor Dinwiddie, of Virginia, selected George Washington--a venturousand hardy young land-surveyor, only twenty-one years old, but giftedwith a sagacity beyond his years--and sent him to Venango to warn offthe trespassers. It was an exceedingly delicate and dangerous mission, and Washington showed rare skill and courage in this first act of hispublic career, but the French commander made polite excuses andremained. Next spring the French and English tried each to forestall theother in fortifying the all-important place where the Alleghany andMonongahela rivers unite to form the Ohio, the place long afterwardcommonly known as the "Gateway of the West, " the place where the city ofPittsburgh now stands. In the course of these preliminary manoeuvresWashington was besieged in Fort Necessity by overwhelming numbers, andon July 4, 1754, was obliged to surrender the whole of his force, butobtained leave to march away. So the French got possession of themuch-coveted situation, and erected there Fort Duquesne as a menace toall future English intruders. As yet war had not been declared betweenFrance and England, but these skirmishings indicated that war in earnestwas not far off. 

 [Sidenote: The Congress at Albany, 1754. ]

In view of the approaching war a meeting was arranged at Albany betweenthe principal chiefs of the Six Nations and commissioners from severalof the colonies, that the alliance between English and Iroquois might befreshly cemented; and some of the royal governors improved the occasionto call for a Congress of all the colonies, in order to prepare someplan of confederation such as all the colonies might be willing toadopt. At the time of Washington's surrender such a Congress was insession at Albany, but Maryland was the most southerly colonyrepresented in it. The people nowhere showed any interest in it. Nopublic meetings were held in its favour. The only newspaper which warmlyapproved it was the "Pennsylvania Gazette, " which appeared with a uniondevice, a snake divided into thirteen segments, with the motto "Unite orDie!"

 [Sidenote: Franklin's plan for a Federal Union. ]

The editor of this paper was Benjamin Franklin, then eight-and-fortyyears of age and already one of the most famous men in America. In thepreceding year he had been appointed by the crown postmaster-general forthe American colonies, and he had received from the Royal Society theCopley medal for his brilliant discovery that lightning is a dischargeof electricity. Franklin was very anxious to see the colonies united ina federal body, and he was now a delegate to the Congress. He drew up aplan of union which the Congress adopted, after a very long debate; andit has ever since been known as the Albany Plan. The federal governmentwas to consist, _first_, of a President or Governor-general, appointedand paid by the crown, and holding office during its pleasure; and_secondly_, of a Grand Council composed of representatives elected everythird year by the legislatures of the several colonies. This federalgovernment was not to meddle with the internal affairs of any colony, but on questions of war and such other questions as concerned all thecolonies alike, it was to be supreme; and to this end it was to have thepower of levying taxes for federal purposes directly upon the people ofthe several colonies. Philadelphia, as the most centrally situated ofthe larger towns, was mentioned as a proper seat for the federalgovernment. 

The end of our story will show the wonderful foresightedness ofFranklin's scheme. If the Revolution had never occurred, we might verylikely have sooner or later come to live under a constitution resemblingthe Albany Plan. On the other hand, if the Albany Plan had been put intooperation, it might perhaps have so adjusted the relations of thecolonies to the British government that the Revolution would not haveoccurred. Perhaps, however, it would only have reproduced, on a largerscale, the irrepressible conflict between royal governor and popularassembly. The scheme failed for want of support. The Congressrecommended it to the colonial legislatures, but not one of them votedto adopt it. The difficulty was the same in 1754 that it was thirtyyears later, --only much stronger. The people of one colony saw butlittle of the people in another, had but few dealings with them, andcared not much about them. They knew and trusted their own localassemblies which sat and voted almost under their eyes; they were notinclined to grant strange powers of taxation to a new assembly distantby a week's journey. This was a point to which people could never havebeen brought except as the alternative to something confessedly worse. 

 [Sidenote: Its failure. ]

The failure of the Albany Plan left the question of providing formilitary defence just where it was before, and the great Seven Years'War came on while governors and assemblies were wrangling to no purpose. In 1755 Braddock's army was unable to get support except from thesteadfast personal exertions of Franklin, who used his great influencewith the farmers of Pennsylvania to obtain horses, wagons, andprovisions, pledging his own property for their payment. Nevertheless, as the war went on and the people of the colonies became fully alive toits importance, they did contribute liberally both in men and in money, and at last it appeared that in proportion to their wealth andpopulation they had done even more than the regular army and the royalexchequer toward overthrowing the common enemy. 

 [Sidenote: Overthrow of the French power in America. ]

When the war came to an end in 1763 the whole face of things in Americawas changed. Seldom, if ever, had the world seen so complete a victory. France no longer possessed so much as an acre of ground in all NorthAmerica. The unknown regions beyond the Mississippi river were handedover to Spain in payment for bootless assistance rendered to Francetoward the close of the war. Spain also received New Orleans, whileFlorida, which then reached westward nearly to New Orleans, passed fromSpanish into British hands. The whole country north of Florida and eastof the Mississippi river, including Canada, was now English. A strongcombination of Indian tribes, chiefly Algonquin, under the lead of theOttawa sachem Pontiac, made a last desperate attempt, after the loss oftheir French allies, to cripple the English; but by 1765, after manyharrowing scenes of bloodshed, these red men were crushed. There was nopower left that could threaten the peace of the thirteen colonies unlessit were the mother-country herself. "Well, " said the French minister, the Duke de Choiseul, as he signed the treaty that shut France out ofNorth America, "so we are gone; it will be England's turn next!" Andlike a prudent seeker after knowledge, as he was, the Duke presentlybethought him of an able and high-minded man, the Baron de Kalb, andsent him in 1767 to America, to look about and see if there were notgood grounds for his bold prophecy. 

CHAPTER IV. 

THE STAMP ACT, AND THE REVENUE LAWS. 

It did not take four years after the peace of 1763 to show how rapidlythe new situation of affairs was bearing fruit in America. The war hadtaught its lessons. Earlier wars had menaced portions of the frontier, and had been fought by single colonies or alliances of two or three. This war had menaced the whole frontier, and the colonies, acting forthe first time in general concert, had acquired some dim notion of theirunited strength. Soldiers and officers by and by to be arrayed againstone another had here fought as allies, --John Stark and Israel Putnam bythe side of William Howe; Horatio Gates by the side of Thomas Gage, --andit had not always been the regulars that bore off the palm for skill andendurance. One young man, of immense energy and fiery temper, united torare prudence and fertility of resource, had already become famousenough to be talked about in England; in George Washington theVirginians recognized a tower of strength. 

 [Sidenote: Consequences of the great French War. ]

 [Sidenote: Need for a steady revenue. ]

The overthrow of their ancient enemy, while further increasing theself-confidence of the Americans, at the same time removed theprincipal check which had hitherto kept their differences with theBritish government from coming to an open rupture. Formerly the dread ofFrench attack had tended to make the Americans complaisant toward theking's ministers, while at time it made the king's ministers unwillingto lose the good will of the Americans. Now that the check was removed, the continuance or revival of the old disputes at once forebodedtrouble; and the old occasions for dispute were far from having ceased. On the contrary the war itself had given them fresh vitality. If moneyhad been needed before, it was still more needed now. The war hadentailed a heavy burden of expense upon the British government as wellas upon the colonies. The national debt of Great Britain was muchincreased, and there were many who thought that, since the Americansshared in the benefits of the war they ought also to share in the burdenwhich it left behind it. People in England who used this argument didnot realize that the Americans had really contributed as much as couldreasonably be expected to the support of the war, and that it had leftbehind it debts to be paid in America as well as in England. But therewas another argument which made it seem reasonable to many Englishmenthat the colonists should be taxed. It seemed right that a smallmilitary force should be kept up in America, for defence of thefrontiers against the Indians, even if there were no other enemies to bedreaded. The events of Pontiac's war now showed that there was clearlyneed of such a force; and the experience of the royal governors for halfa century had shown that it was very difficult to get the coloniallegislatures to vote money for any such purpose. Hence there grew up inEngland a feeling that taxes ought to be raised in America as acontribution to the war debt and to the military defence of thecolonies; and in order that such taxes should be fairly distributed andpromptly collected, it was felt that the whole business ought to beplaced under the direct supervision and control of parliament. Inaccordance with this feeling the new prime minister, George Grenville in1764 announced his intention of passing a Stamp Act for the easiercollection of revenue in America. Meanwhile things had happened inAmerica which had greatly irritated the people, especially in Boston, sothat they were in the mood for resisting anything that looked likeencroachment on the part of the British government. To understand thisother source of irritation, we must devote a few words to the laws bywhich that government had for a long time undertaken to regulate thecommerce of the American colonies. 

 [Sidenote: What European colonies were supposed to be founded for. ]

When European nations began to plant colonies in America, they treatedthem in accordance with a theory which prevailed until it was upset bythe American Revolution. According to this ignorant and barbaroustheory, a colony was a community which existed only for the purpose ofenriching the country which had founded it. At the outset, the Spanishnotion of a colony was that of a military station, which might plunderthe heathen for the benefit of the hungry treasury of the Most Catholicmonarch. But this theory was short-lived, like the enjoyment of theplunder which it succeeded in extorting. According to the principles andpractice of France and England--and of Spain also, after the firstromantic fury of buccaneering had spent itself--the great object infounding a colony, besides increasing one's general importance in theworld and the area of one's dominions on the map, was to create adependent community for the purpose of trading with it. People's ideasabout trade were very absurd. It was not understood that when twoparties trade with each other freely, both must be gainers, or else onewould soon stop trading. It was supposed that in trade, just as ingambling or betting, what the one party gains the other loses. Accordingly laws were made to regulate trade so that, as far aspossible, all the loss might fall upon the colonies and all the gainaccrue to the mother-country. In order to attain this object, thecolonies were required to confine their trade entirely to England. NoAmerican colony could send its tobacco or its rice or its indigo toFrance or to Holland, or to any other country than England; nor could itbuy a yard of French silk or a pound of Chinese tea except from Englishmerchants. In this way English merchants sought to secure for themselvesa monopoly of purchases and a monopoly of sales. By a further provision, although American ships might take goods to England, the carrying-tradebetween the different colonies was strictly confined to British ships. Next, in order to protect British manufacturers from competition, it wasthought necessary to prohibit the colonists from manufacturing. Theymight grow wool, but it must be carried to England to be woven intocloth; they might smelt iron, but it must be carried to England to bemade into ploughshares. Finally, in order to protect British farmers andtheir landlords, corn-laws were enacted, putting a prohibitory tariff onall kinds of grain and other farm produce shipped from the colonies toports in Great Britain. 

Such absurd and tyrannical laws had begun to be made in the reign ofCharles II. , and by 1750 not less than twenty-nine acts of parliamenthad been passed in this spirit. If these laws had been strictlyenforced, the American Revolution would probably have come sooner thanit did. In point of fact they were seldom strictly enforced, because solong as the French were a power in America the British government feltthat it could not afford to irritate the colonists. In spite of laws tothe contrary, the carrying-trade between the different colonies wasalmost monopolized by vessels owned, built, and manned in New England;and the smuggling of foreign goods into Boston and New York and otherseaport towns was winked at. 

 [Sidenote: Writs of assistance. ]

It was in 1761, immediately after the overthrow of the French in Canada, that attempts were made to enforce the revenue laws more strictly thanheretofore; and trouble was at once threatened. Charles Paxton, theprincipal officer of the custom-house in Boston, applied to the SuperiorCourt to grant him the authority to use "writs of assistance" insearching for smuggled goods. A writ of assistance was a generalsearch-warrant, empowering the officer armed with it to enter, by forceif necessary, any dwelling-house or warehouse where contraband goodswere supposed to be stored or hidden. A special search-warrant was onein which the name of the suspected person, and the house which it wasproposed to search, were accurately specified, and the goods which itwas intended to seize were as far as possible described. In the use ofsuch special warrants there was not much danger of gross injustice oroppression, because the court would not be likely to grant one unlessstrong evidence could be brought against the person whom it named. Butthe general search-warrant, or "writ of assistance, " as it was calledbecause men try to cover up the ugliness of hateful things by givingthem innocent names, was quite a different affair. It was a blank formupon which the custom-house officer might fill in the names of personsand descriptions of houses and goods to suit himself. Then he could goand break into the houses and seize the goods, and if need be summon thesheriff and his _posse_ to help him in overcoming and browbeating theowner. The writ of assistance was therefore an abominable instrument oftyranny. Such writs had been allowed by a statute of the evil reign ofCharles II. ; a statute of William III. Had clothed custom-house officersin the colonies with like powers to those which they possessed inEngland; and neither of these statutes had been repealed. There cantherefore be little doubt that the issue of such search-warrants wasstrictly legal, unless the authority of Parliament to make laws for thecolonies was to be denied. 

 [Sidenote: James Otis. ]

James Otis then held the crown office of advocate-general, with an amplesalary and prospects of high favour from government. When the revenueofficers called upon him, in view of his position, to defend theircause, he resigned his office and at once undertook to act as counselfor the merchants of Boston in their protest against the issue of thewrits. A large fee was offered him, but he refused it. "In such acause, " said he, "I despise all fees. " The case was tried in thecouncil-chamber at the east end of the old town-hall, or what is nowknown as the "Old State-House, " in Boston. Chief-justice Hutchinsonpresided, and Jeremiah Gridley, one of the greatest lawyers of that day, argued the case for the writs in a very powerful speech. The reply ofOtis, which took five hours in the delivery, was one of the greatestspeeches of modern times. It went beyond the particular legal questionat issue, and took up the whole question of the constitutional relationsbetween the colonies and the mother-country. At the bottom of this, asof all the disputes that led to the Revolution, lay the ultimatequestion whether Americans were bound to yield obedience to laws whichthey had no share in making. This question, and the spirit that answeredit flatly and doggedly in the negative, were heard like an undertonepervading all the arguments in Otis's wonderful speech, and it wasbecause of this that the young lawyer John Adams, who was present, afterward declared that on that day "the child Independence was born. "Chief-justice Hutchinson was a man of great ability and as sincere apatriot as any American of his time. He could feel the force of Otis'sargument, but he believed that Parliament was the supreme legislativebody for the whole British empire, and furthermore that it was the dutyof a judge to follow the law as it existed. He reserved his decisionuntil advice could be had from the law-officers of the crown in London;and when next term he was instructed by them to grant the writs, thisresult added fresh impetus to the spirit that Otis's eloquence hadaroused. The custom-house officers, armed with their writs, beganbreaking into warehouses and seizing goods which were said to have beensmuggled. In this rough way they confiscated private property to thevalue of many thousands of pounds; but sometimes the owners ofwarehouses armed themselves and barricaded their doors and windows, andthus the officers were often successfully defied, for the sheriff wasfar from prompt in coming to aid them. 

 [Sidenote: Patrick Henry, and the Parsons' Cause. ]

While such things were going on in Boston, the people of Virginia werewrought into fierce excitement by what was known as the "Parsons'Cause. " The Church of England was at that time established by law inVirginia, and its clergymen, appointed by English bishops, wereunpopular. In 1758 the legislature, under the pressure of the Frenchwar, had passed an act which affected all public dues and incidentallydiminished the salaries of the clergy. Complaints were made to theBishop of London, and the act of 1758 was vetoed by the king incouncil. Several clergymen then brought suits to recover the unpaidportions of their salaries. In the first test case there could be nodoubt that the royal veto was legal enough, and the court thereforedecided in favour of the plaintiff. But it now remained to settle beforea jury the amount of the damages. It was on this occasion, in December, 1763, that the great orator Patrick Henry made his first speech in thecourt-room and at once became famous. He declared that no power on earthcould take away from Virginia the right to make laws for herself, andthat in annulling a wholesome law at the request of a favoured class inthe community "a king, from being the father of his people, degeneratesinto a tyrant, and forfeits all right to obedience. " This bold talkaroused much excitement and some uproar, but the jury instantlyresponded by assessing the parson's damages at one penny, and in 1765Henry was elected a member of the colonial assembly. 

Thus almost at the same time in Massachusetts and in Virginia thepreliminary scenes of the Revolution occurred in the court-room. In eachcase the representatives of the crown had the letter of the law on theirside, but the principles of the only sound public policy, by which aRevolution could be avoided, were those that were defended by theadvocates of the people. At each successive move on the part of theBritish government which looked like an encroachment upon the rights ofAmericans, the sympathy between these two leading colonies now grewstronger and stronger. 

It was in 1763 that George Grenville became prime minister, a man ofwhom Macaulay says that he knew of "no national interests except thosewhich are expressed by pounds, shillings, and pence. " Grenvilleproceeded to introduce into Parliament two measures which hadconsequences of which, he little dreamed. The first of these measureswas the Molasses Act, the second was the Stamp Act. 

 [Sidenote: The Molasses Act. ]

Properly speaking, the Molasses Act was an old law which Grenville nowmade up his mind to revive and enforce. The commercial wealth of the NewEngland colonies depended largely upon their trade with the fish whichtheir fishermen caught along the coast and as far out as the banks ofNewfoundland. The finest fish could be sold in Europe, but the poorersort found their chief market in the French West Indies. The Frenchgovernment, in order to ensure a market for the molasses raised in theseislands, would not allow the planters to give anything else in exchangefor fish. Great quantities of molasses were therefore carried to NewEngland, and what was not needed there for domestic use was distilledinto rum, part of which was consumed at home, and the rest carriedchiefly to Africa wherewith to buy slaves to be sold to the southerncolonies. All this trade required many ships, and thus kept up a livelydemand for New England lumber, besides finding employment for thousandsof sailors and shipwrights. Now in 1733 the British government took itinto its head to "protect" its sugar planters in the English West Indiesby compelling the New England merchants to buy all their molasses fromthem; and with this end in view it forthwith laid upon all sugar andmolasses imported into North America from the French islands a duty soheavy that, if it had been enforced, it would have stopped all suchimportation. It is very doubtful if this measure would have attained theend which the British government had in view. Probably it would not havemade much difference in the export of molasses from the English WestIndies to New England, because the islanders happened not to want thefish which their French neighbours coveted. But the New Englanders couldsee that the immediate result would be to close the market for theircheaper kinds of fish, and thus ruin their trade in lumber and rum, besides shutting up many a busy shipyard and turning more than 5000sailors out of employment. It was estimated that the yearly loss to NewEngland would exceed £300, 000. It was hardly wise in Great Britain toentail such a loss upon some of her best customers; for with theirincomes thus cut down, it was not to be expected that the people of NewEngland would be able to buy as many farming tools, dishes, and piecesof furniture, garments of silk or wool, and wines or other luxuries, from British merchants as before. The government in passing its act of1733 did not think of these consequences; but it proved to be impossibleto enforce the act without causing more disturbance than the governmentfelt prepared to encounter. Now in 1764 Grenville announced that the actwas to be enforced, and of course the machinery of writs of assistancewas to be employed for that purpose. Henceforth all molasses from theFrench islands must either pay the prohibitory duty or be seized withoutceremony. 

Loud and fierce was the indignation of New England over this revival ofthe Molasses Act. Even without the Stamp Act, it might very likely haveled that part of the country to make armed resistance, but in such caseit is not so sure that the southern and middle colonies would have cometo the aid of New England. But in the Stamp Act Grenville provided thecolonies with an issue which concerned one as much as another, and uponwhich they were accordingly sure to unite in resistance. It was also amuch better issue for the Americans to take up, for it was not a mererevival of an old act; it was a new departure; it was an imposition of akind to which the Americans had never before been called upon tosubmit, and in resisting it they were sure to enlist the sympathies of agood many powerful people in England. 

 [Sidenote: The Stamp Act. ]

The Stamp Act was a direct tax laid upon the whole American people byParliament, a legislative body in which they were not represented. TheBritish government had no tyrannical purpose in devising this tax. Astamp duty had already been suggested in 1755 by William Shirley, royalgovernor of Massachusetts, a worthy man and much more of a favouritewith the people than most of his class. Shirley recommended it as theleast disagreeable kind of tax, and the easiest to collect. It did notcall for any hateful searching of people's houses and shops, or anyunpleasant questions about their incomes, or about their invested orhoarded wealth. It only required that legal documents and commercialinstruments should be written, and newspapers printed, on stamped paper. Of all kinds of direct tax none can be less annoying, except for onereason; it is exceedingly difficult to evade such a tax; it enforcesitself. For these reasons Grenville decided to adopt it. He arranged itso that all the officers charged with the business of selling thestamped paper should be Americans; and he gave formal notice of themeasure in March, 1764, a year beforehand, in order to give the coloniestime to express their opinions about it. 

 [Sidenote: Samuel Adams. ]

In the Boston town-meeting in May, almost as soon as the news hadarrived, the American view of the case was very clearly set forth in aseries of resolutions drawn up by Samuel Adams. This was the first ofthe remarkable state papers from the pen of that great man, who now, atthe age of forty-two, was just entering upon a glorious career. SamuelAdams was a graduate of Harvard College in the class of 1740. He hadbeen reared in politics from boyhood, for his father, a deacon of theOld South Church, had been chief spokesman of the popular party in itsdisputes with the royal governors. Of all the agencies in organizingresistance to Great Britain none were more powerful than the New Englandtown-meetings, among which that of the people of Boston stoodpreëminent, and in the Boston town-meeting for more than thirty years noother man exerted so much influence as Samuel Adams. This was because ofhis keen intelligence and persuasive talk, his spotless integrity, indomitable courage, unselfish and unwearying devotion to the publicgood, and broad sympathy with all classes of people. He was a thoroughdemocrat. He respected the dignity of true manhood wherever he found it, and could talk with sailors and shipwrights like one of themselves, while at the same time in learned argument he had few superiors. He hasbeen called the "Father of the Revolution, " and was no doubt its mostconspicuous figure before 1775, as Washington certainly was after thatdate. 

This earliest state paper of Samuel Adams contained the first formal andpublic denial of the right of Parliament to tax the colonies, because itwas not a body in which their people were represented. The resolutionswere adopted by the Massachusetts assembly, and a similar action wastaken by Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and SouthCarolina. The colonies professed their willingness to raise money inanswer to requisitions upon their assemblies, which were the only bodiescompetent to lay taxes in America. Memorials stating these views weresent to England, and the colony of Pennsylvania sent Dr. Franklin torepresent its case at the British court. Franklin remained in Londonuntil the spring of 1775 as agent first for Pennsylvania, afterward forMassachusetts, New Jersey, and Georgia, --a kind of diplomaticrepresentative of the views and claims of the Americans. 

 [Sidenote: The Virginia Resolutions, 1765. ]

Grenville told Franklin that he wished to do things as pleasantly aspossible, and was not disposed to insist upon the Stamp Act, if theAmericans could suggest anything better. But when it appeared that noalternative was offered except to fall back upon the old clumsy systemof requisitions, Grenville naturally replied that there ought to be somemore efficient method of raising money for the defence of the frontier. Accordingly in March, 1765, the Stamp Act was passed, with so littledebate that people hardly noticed what was going on. But when the newsreached America there was an outburst of wrath that was soon heard andfelt in London. In May the Virginia legislature was assembled. GeorgeWashington was sitting there in his seat, and Thomas Jefferson, then alaw-student, was listening eagerly from outside the door, when PatrickHenry introduced the famous resolutions in which he declared, amongother things, that an attempt to vest the power of taxation in any otherbody than the colonial assembly was a menace to the common freedom ofEnglishmen, whether in Britain or in America, and that the people ofVirginia were not bound to obey any law enacted in disregard of thisprinciple. The language of the resolutions was bold enough, but a keeneredge was put upon it by the defiant note which rang out from Henry inthe course of the debate, when he commended the example of Tarquin andCæsar and Charles I. To the attention of George III. "If this betreason, " he exclaimed, as the speaker tried to call him to order, "ifthis be treason, make the most of it!"

The other colonies were not slow in acting. Massachusetts called for ageneral congress, in order that all might discuss the situation andagree upon some course to be pursued in common. South Carolina respondedmost cordially, at the instance of her noble, learned, and far-sightedpatriot, Christopher Gadsden. On the 7th of October, delegates from ninecolonies met in a congress at New York, adopted resolutions like thoseof Virginia, and sent a memorial to the king, whose sovereignty overthem they admitted, and a remonstrance to Parliament, whose authority totax them they denied. The meeting of this congress was in itself aprophecy of what was to happen if the British government should persistin the course upon which it had now entered. 

 [Sidenote: Stamp Act riots. ]

Meanwhile the summer had witnessed riots in many places, and one ofthese was extremely disgraceful. Chief-justice Hutchinson had tried todissuade the ministry from passing the Stamp Act, but an impression hadgot abroad among the wharves and waterside taverns of Boston that he hadnot only favoured it but had gone out of his way to send information toLondon, naming certain merchants as smugglers. Under the influence ofthis mistaken notion, on the night of the 26th of August a drunken mobplundered Hutchinson's house in Boston and destroyed his library, whichwas probably the finest in America at that time. Here, as is apt to bethe case, the mob selected the wrong victim. Its shameful act wasdenounced by the people of Massachusetts, and the chief-justice wasindemnified by the legislature. In the other instances the riots were ofan innocent sort. Stamp officers were forced to resign. Boxes ofstamped paper arriving by ship were burned or thrown into the sea, andat length the governor of New York was compelled by a mob to surrenderall the stamps entrusted to his care. These things were done for themost part under the direction of societies of workingmen known as "Sonsof Liberty, " who were pledged to resist the execution of the Stamp Act. At the same time associations of merchants declared that they would buyno more goods from England until the act should be repealed, and lawyersentered into agreements not to treat any document as invalidated by theabsence of the required stamp. As for the editors, they published theirnewspapers decorated with a grinning skull and cross-bones instead ofthe stamp. 

 [Sidenote: Repeal of the Stamp Act. ]

These demonstrations produced their effect in England. In July, 1765, the Grenville ministry fell, and the new government, with LordRockingham at its head, was more inclined to pay heed to the wishes andviews of the Americans. The debate over the repeal of the Stamp Actlasted nearly three months and was one of the fiercest that had beenheard in Parliament for many a day. William Pitt declared that herejoiced in the resistance of the Americans, and urged that the actshould be repealed because Parliament ought never to have passed it; butthere were very few who took this view. As the result of the longdebate, at the end of March, 1766, the Stamp Act was repealed, and aDeclaratory Act was passed in which Parliament said in effect that ithad a right to make such laws for the Americans if it chose to do so. 

The people of London, as well as the Americans, hailed with delight therepeal of the Stamp Act; but the real trouble had now only begun. Theresolutions of Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry and their approval by theCongress at New York had thrown the question of American taxation intothe whirlpool of British politics, and there it was to stay until itworked a change for the better in England as well as in America. 

 [Sidenote: How the question was affected by British politics. ]

The principle that people must not be taxed except by theirrepresentatives had been to some extent recognized in England for fivehundred years, and it was really the fundamental principle of Englishliberty, but it was only very imperfectly that it had been put intopractice. In the eighteenth century the House of Commons was very farfrom being a body that fairly represented the people of Great Britain. For a long time there had been no change in the distribution of seats, and meanwhile the population had been increasing very differently indifferent parts of the kingdom. Thus great cities which had grown up inrecent times, such as Sheffield and Manchester, had no representativesin Parliament, while many little boroughs with a handful of inhabitantshad their representatives. Some such boroughs had been grantedrepresentation by Henry VIII. In order to create a majority for hismeasures in the House of Commons. Others were simply petty towns thathad dwindled away, somewhat as the mountain villages of New England havedwindled since the introduction of railroads. The famous Old Sarum hadmembers in Parliament long after it had ceased to have any inhabitants. Seats for these rotten boroughs, as they were called, were simply boughtand sold. Political life in England was exceedingly corrupt; some of thebest statesmen indulged in wholesale bribery as if it were the mostinnocent thing in the world. The country was really governed by a fewgreat families, some of whose members sat in the House of Lords andothers in the House of Commons. Their measures were often noble andpatriotic in the highest degree, but when bribery and corruption seemednecessary for carrying them, such means were employed without scruple. 

 [Sidenote: George III. And his political schemes. ]

When George III. Came to the throne in 1760, the great families whichhad thus governed England for half a century belonged to the party knownas Old Whigs. Under their rule the power of the crown had been reducedto insignificance, and the modern system of cabinet government by aresponsible ministry had begun to grow up. The Tory families during thisperiod had been very unpopular, because of their sympathy with theStuart pretenders who had twice attempted to seize the crown and giventhe country a brief taste of civil war. By 1760 the Tories saw that thecause of the Stuarts was hopeless, and so they were inclined to transfertheir affections to the new king. George III. Was a young man of narrowintelligence and poor education, but he entertained very strong opinionsas to the importance of his kingly office. He meant to make himself areal king, like the king of France or the king of Spain. He wasdetermined to break down the power of the Old Whigs and the system ofcabinet government, and as the Old Whigs had been growing unpopular, itseemed quite possible, with the aid of the Tories, to accomplish this. George was quite decorous in behaviour, and, although subject to fits ofinsanity which became more troublesome in his later years, he had afairly good head for business. Industrious as a beaver and obstinate asa mule, he was an adept in political trickery. In the corrupt use ofpatronage he showed himself able to beat the Old Whigs at their owngame, and with the aid of the Tories he might well believe himselfcapable of reviving for his own benefit the lost power of the crown. 

 [Sidenote: The "New Whigs" and parliamentary reform. ]

Beside these two parties a third had been for some time growing up whichwas in some essential points opposed to both of them. This third partywas that of the New Whigs. They wished to reform the representation inParliament in such wise as to disfranchise the rotten boroughs and giverepresentatives to great towns like Leeds and Manchester. They held thatit was contrary to the principles of English liberty that theinhabitants of such great towns should be obliged to pay taxes inpursuance of laws which they had no share in making. The leader of theNew Whigs was the greatest Englishman of the eighteenth century, theelder William Pitt, now about to pass into the House of Lords as Earl ofChatham. Their leader next in importance, William Petty, Earl ofShelburne, was in 1765 a young man of eight-and-twenty, and afterwardcame to be known as one of the most learned and sagacious statesmen ofhis time. These men were the forerunners of the great liberal leaders ofthe nineteenth century, such men as Russell and Cobden and Gladstone. Their first decisive and overwhelming victory was the passage of LordJohn Russell's Reform Bill in 1832, but the agitation for reform wasbegun by William Pitt in 1745, and his famous son came very near winningthe victory on that question in 1782. 

Now this question of parliamentary reform was intimately related to thequestion of taxing the American colonies. From some points of view theymight be considered one and the same question. At a meeting ofPresbyterian ministers in Philadelphia, it was pertinently asked, "Havetwo men chosen to represent a poor English borough that has sold itsvotes to the highest bidder any pretence to say that they representVirginia or Pennsylvania? And have four hundred such fellows a right totake our liberties?" In Parliament, on the other hand, as well as atLondon dinner tables, and in newspapers and pamphlets, it was repeatedlyurged that the Americans need not make so much fuss about being taxedwithout being represented, for in that respect they were no worse offthan the people of Sheffield or Birmingham. To this James Otis replied, "Don't talk to us any more about those towns, for we are tired of such aflimsy argument. If they are not represented, they ought to be;" and bythe New Whigs this retort was greeted with applause. 

The opinions and aims of the three different parties were reflected inthe long debate over the repeal of the Stamp Act. The Tories wanted tohave the act continued and enforced, and such was the wish of the king. Both sections of Whigs were in favour of repeal, but for very differentreasons. Pitt and the New Whigs, being advocates of parliamentaryreform, came out flatly in support of the principle that there should beno taxation without representation. Edmund Burke and the Old Whigs, being opposed to parliamentary reform and in favour of keeping thingsjust as they were, could not adopt such an argument; and accordinglythey based their condemnation of the Stamp Act upon grounds of pureexpediency. They argued that it was not worth while, for the sake of alittle increase of revenue, to irritate three million people and run therisk of getting drawn into a situation from which there would be noescape except in either retreating or fighting. There was much practicalwisdom in this Old Whig argument, and it was the one which prevailedwhen Parliament repealed the Stamp Act and expressly stated that it didso only on grounds of expediency. 

 [Sidenote: Why George III. Was ready to pick a quarrel with the Americans. ]

There was one person, however, who was far from satisfied with thisresult, and that was George III. He was opposed to parliamentary reformfor much the same reason that the Old Whigs were opposed to it, becausehe felt that it threatened him with political ruin. The Old Whigs neededthe rotten boroughs in order to maintain their own control overParliament and the country. The king needed them because he felt himselfable to wrest them from the Old Whigs by intrigue and corruption, andthus hoped to build up his own power. He believed, with good reason, that the suppression of the rotten boroughs and the granting of fair andequal representation would soon put a stronger curb upon the crown thanever. Accordingly there were no men whom he dreaded and wished to putdown so much as the New Whigs; and he felt that in the repeal of theStamp Act, no matter on what ground, they had come altogether too nearwinning a victory. He felt that this outrageous doctrine that peoplemust not be taxed except by their representatives needed to be sternlyrebuked, and thus he found himself in the right sort of temper forpicking a fresh quarrel with the Americans. 

 [Sidenote: Charles Townshend and his revenue acts, 1767. ]

 [Sidenote: Lord North. ]

An occasion soon presented itself. One of the king's devices forbreaking down the system of cabinet government was to select hisministers from different parties, so that they might be unable to workharmoniously together. Owing to the peculiar divisions of parties inParliament he was for some years able to carry out this policy, andwhile his cabinets were thus weak and divided, he was able to use hiscontrol of patronage with telling effect. In July, 1766, he got rid ofLord Rockingham and his Old Whigs, and formed a new ministry made upfrom all parties. It contained Pitt, who had now, as Earl of Chatham, gone into the House of Lords, and at the same time Charles Townshend, asChancellor of the Exchequer. Townshend, a brilliant young man, withoutany political principles worth mentioning, was the most conspicuousamong a group of wire-pullers who were coming to be known as "the king'sfriends. " Serious illness soon kept Chatham at home, and left Townshendall-powerful in the cabinet, because he was bold and utterlyunscrupulous and had the king to back him. His audacity knew no limits, and he made up his mind that the time had come for gathering all thedisputed American questions, as far as possible, into one bundle, anddisposing of them once for all. So in May, 1767, he brought forward inParliament a series of acts for raising and applying a revenue inAmerica. The colonists, he said, had objected to a direct tax, but theyhad often submitted to port duties, and could not reasonably refuse todo so again. Duties were accordingly to be laid on glass, paper, lead, and painter's colours; on wine, oil, and fruits, if carried directly toAmerica from Spain and Portugal; and especially on tea. A board ofcommissioners was to be established at Boston, to superintend thecollection of revenue throughout the colonies, and writs of assistancewere to be expressly legalized. The salaries of these commissioners wereto be paid out of the revenue thus collected. Governors, judges, andcrown-attorneys were to be made independent of the colonial legislaturesby having their salaries paid by the crown out of this same fund. Asmall army was also to be kept up; and if after providing for thesevarious expenses, any surplus remained, it could be used by the crown ingiving pensions to Americans and thus be made to serve as acorruption-fund. These measures were adopted on the 29th of June, and asif to refute anybody who might be inclined to think that rashness couldno further go, Townshend accompanied them with a special act directedagainst the New York legislature, which had refused to obey an orderconcerning the quartering of troops. By way of punishment, Townshend nowsuspended the legislature. A few weeks after carrying these measuresTownshend died of a fever, and his place was taken by Lord North, eldestson of the Earl of Guilford. North was thirty-five years of age. He wasamiable and witty, and an excellent debater, but without force of will. He let the king rule him, and was at the same time able to show a stronghand in the House of Commons, so that the king soon came to regard himas a real treasure. Soon after North's appointment, Lord Chatham andother friends of America in the cabinet resigned their places and weresucceeded by friends of the king. From 1768 to 1782 George III. Was toall intents and purposes his own prime minister, and contrived to keep amajority in Parliament. During those fourteen years the Americanquestion was uppermost, and his policy was at all hazards to force thecolonists to abandon their position that taxation must go hand in handwith representation. 

 [Sidenote: What the Townshend acts really meant. ]

This purpose was already apparent in Charles Townshend's acts. They werenot at all like previous acts imposing port duties to which theAmericans had submitted. British historians sometimes speak of theAmerican Revolution as an affair which grew out of a mere dispute aboutmoney; and even among Americans, in ordinary conversation and sometimesin current literature, the unwillingness of our forefathers to pay a taxof threepence a pound on tea is mentioned without due reference to theattendant circumstances which made them refuse to pay such a tax. Wecannot hope to understand the fierce wrath by which they were animatedunless we bear in mind not only the simple fact of the tax, but also thespirit in which it was levied and the purpose for which the revenue wasto be used. The Molasses Act threatening the ruin of New Englandcommerce was still on the statute-book, and commissioners, armed withodious search-warrants for enforcing this and other tyrannical laws, were on their way to America. For more than half a century the peoplehad jealously guarded against the abuse of power by the royal governorsby making them dependent upon the legislatures for their salaries. Nowthey were all at once to be made independent, so that they might evendismiss the legislatures, and if need be call for troops to help them. The judges, moreover, with their power over men's lives and property, were no longer to be responsible to the people. If these changes were tobe effected, it would be nothing less than a revolution by which theAmericans would be deprived of their liberty. And, to crown all, themoney by which this revolution was to be brought about was to becontributed in the shape of port duties by the Americans themselves! Toexpect our forefathers to submit to such legislation as this was aboutas sensible as it would have been to expect them to obey an order to buyhalters and hang themselves. 

When the news of the Townshend acts reached Massachusetts, the assemblyat its next session took a decided stand. Besides a petition to the kingand letters to several leading British statesmen, it issued a circularletter addressed to the other twelve colonies, asking for their friendlyadvice and coöperation with reference to the Townshend measures. Thesepapers were written by Samuel Adams. The circular letter was really aninvitation to the other colonies to concert measures of resistance if itshould be found necessary. It enraged the king, and presently an ordercame across the ocean to Francis Bernard, royal governor ofMassachusetts, to demand of the assembly that it rescind its circularletter, under penalty of instant dissolution. Otis exclaimed that GreatBritain had better rescind the Townshend acts if she did not wish tolose her colonies. The assembly decided, by a vote of 92 to 17, that itwould not rescind. This flat defiance was everywhere applauded. Theassemblies of the other colonies were ordered to take no notice of theMassachusetts circular, but the order was generally disobeyed, and inseveral cases the governors turned the assemblies out of doors. Theatmosphere of America now became alive with politics; more meetings wereheld, more speeches made, and more pamphlets printed, than ever before. 

 [Sidenote: The quarrel was not between England and America, but between George III. And the principles which the Americans maintained. ]

In England the dignified and manly course of the Americans was generallygreeted with applause by Whigs of whatever sort, except those who hadcome into the somewhat widening circle of "the king's friends. " The OldWhigs, --Burke, Fox, Conway, Savile, Lord John Cavendish, and the Duke ofRichmond; and the New Whigs, --Chatham, Shelburne, Camden, Dunning, Barré, and Beckford; steadily defended the Americans throughout thewhole of the Revolutionary crisis, and the weight of the bestintelligence in the country was certainly on their side. Could they haveacted as a united body, could Burke and Fox have joined forces inharmony with Chatham and Shelburne, they might have thwarted the kingand prevented the rupture with America. But George III. Profited by thehopeless division between these two Whig parties; and as the quarrelwith America grew fiercer, he succeeded in arraying the national prideto some extent upon his side and against the Whigs. This made him feelstronger and stimulated his zeal against the Americans. He felt that ifhe could first crush Whig principles in America, he could then turn andcrush them in England. In this he was correct, except that hemiscalculated the strength of the Americans. It was the defeat of hisschemes in America that ensured their defeat in England. It is quitewrong and misleading, therefore, to remember the Revolutionary War as astruggle between the British people and the American people. It was astruggle between two hostile principles, each of which was representedin both countries. In winning the good fight, our forefathers won avictory for England as well as for America. What was crushed was GeorgeIII. And the kind of despotism which he wished to fasten upon America inorder that he might fasten it upon England. If the memory of George III. Deserves to be execrated, it is especially because he succeeded ingiving to his own selfish struggle for power the appearance of astruggle between the people of England and the people of America; and inso doing, he sowed seeds of enmity and distrust between two gloriousnations that, for their own sakes and for the welfare of mankind, oughtnever for one moment to be allowed to forget their brotherhood. Time, however, is rapidly repairing the damage which George III. 's policywrought, and it need in nowise disturb our narrative. In this briefsketch we must omit hundreds of interesting details; but, if we wouldlook at things from the right point of view, we must bear in mind thatevery act of George III. , from 1768 onward, which brought on and carriedon the Revolutionary War, was done in spite of the earnest protest ofmany of the best people in England; and that the king's wrong-headedpolicy prevailed only because he was able, through corrupt methods, tocommand a parliament which did not really represent the people. Had theprinciples in support of which Lord Chatham joined hands with SamuelAdams for one moment prevailed, the king's schemes would have collapsedlike a soap-bubble. 

As it was, in 1768 the king succeeded, in spite of strong opposition, incarrying his point. He saw that the American colonies were disposed toresist the Townshend acts, and that in this defiant attitudeMassachusetts was the ringleader. The Massachusetts circular pointedtoward united action on the part of the colonies. Above all things itwas desirable to prevent any such union, and accordingly the kingdecided to make his principal attack upon Massachusetts, while dealingmore kindly with the other colonies. Thus he hoped Massachusetts mightbe isolated and humbled, and in this belief he proceeded faster and morerashly than if he had supposed himself to be dealing with a unitedAmerica. In order to catch Samuel Adams and James Otis, and get themsent over to England for trial, he attempted to revive an old statute ofHenry VIII. About treason committed abroad; and in order to enforce therevenue laws in spite of all opposition, he ordered troops to be sent toBoston. 

 [Sidenote: Troops sent to Boston. ]

This was a very harsh measure, and some excuse was needed to justify itbefore Parliament. It was urged that Boston was a disorderly town, andthe sacking of Hutchinson's house could be cited in support of thisview. Then in June, 1768, there was a slight conflict betweentownspeople and revenue officers, in which no one was hurt, but whichled to a great town-meeting in the Old South Meeting-House, and gaveGovernor Bernard an opportunity for saying that he was intimidated andhindered in the execution of the laws. The king's real purpose, however, in sending troops was not so much to keep the peace as to enforce theTownshend acts, and so the people of Boston understood it. Except forthese odious and tyrannical laws, there was nothing that threateneddisturbance in Boston. The arrival of British troops at Long Wharf, inthe autumn of 1768, simply increased the danger of disturbance, and in acertain sense it may be said to have been the beginning of theRevolutionary War. Very few people realized this at the time, but SamuelAdams now made up his mind that the only way in which the Americancolonies could preserve their liberties was to unite in some sort offederation and declare themselves independent of Great Britain. It waswith regret that he had come to this conclusion, and he was very slow inproclaiming it, but after 1768 he kept it distinctly before his mind. Hesaw clearly the end toward which public opinion was gradually drifting, and because of his great influence over the Boston town-meeting and theMassachusetts assembly, this clearness of purpose made him for the nextseven years the most formidable of the king's antagonists in America. 

The people of Boston were all the more indignant at the arrival oftroops in their town because the king in his hurry to send them had evendisregarded the act of Parliament which provided for such cases. According to that act the soldiers ought to have been lodged in CastleWilliam on one of the little islands in the harbour. Even according toBritish-made law they had no business to be quartered in Boston so longas there was room for them, in the Castle. During the next seventeenmonths the people made several formal protests against their presence intown, and asked for their removal. But these protests were all fruitlessuntil innocent blood had been shed. The soldiers generally behaved noworse than rough troopers on such occasions are apt to do, and thetownspeople for the most part preserved decorum, but quarrels now andthen occurred, and after a while became frequent. In September, 1769, James Otis was brutally assaulted at the British Coffee House by one ofthe commissioners of customs aided and abetted by two or three armyofficers. His health was already feeble and in this affray he was struckon the head with a sword and so badly injured that he afterward becameinsane. After this the feeling of the people toward the soldiers wasmore bitter than ever. In February, 1770, there was much disturbance. Toward the end of the month an informer named Richardson fired from hiswindow into a crowd and killed a little boy about eleven years of age, named Christopher Snyder. The funeral of this poor boy, the first victimof the Revolution, was attended on Monday, the 26th, by a greatprocession of citizens, including those foremost in wealth andinfluence. 

 [Sidenote: The "Boston Massacre. "]

The rest of that week was full of collisions which on Friday almostamounted to a riot and led the governor's council to consider seriouslywhether the troops ought not to be removed. But before they had settledthe question the crisis came on Monday evening, March 5, in an affraybefore the Custom House on King street, when seven of Captain Preston'scompany fired into the crowd, killing five men and wounding severalothers. Two of the victims were innocent bystanders. Two were sailorsfrom ships lying in the harbour, and they, together with the remainingvictim, a ropemaker, had been actively engaged in the affray. One of thesailors, a mulatto or half-breed Indian of gigantic stature, namedCrispus Attucks, had been especially conspicuous. The slaughter of thesefive men secured in a moment what so many months of decorous protest hadfailed to accomplish. Much more serious bloodshed was imminent whenLieutenant-governor Hutchinson arrived upon the scene and promptlyarrested the offending soldiers. The next day there was an immensemeeting at the Old South, and Samuel Adams, at the head of a committee, came into the council chamber at the Town House, and in the name ofthree thousand freemen sternly commanded Hutchinson to remove thesoldiers from the town. Before sunset they had all been withdrawn to theCastle. When the news reached the ears of Parliament there was some talkof reinstating them in the town, but Colonel Barré cut short thediscussion with the pithy question, "if the officers agreed in removingthe soldiers to Castle William, what minister will dare to send themback to Boston?"

 [Sidenote: Lord North, as prime minister removes all duties except on tea, 1770. ]

Thus the so-called "Boston Massacre" wrought for the king a rebuff whichhe felt perhaps even more keenly than the repeal of the Stamp Act. Notonly had his troops been peremptorily turned out of Boston, but hispolicy had for the moment weakened in its hold upon Parliament. In thesummer of 1769 the assembly of Virginia adopted a very important seriesof resolutions condemning the policy of Great Britain and recommendingunited action on the part of the colonies in defence of their liberties. The governor then dissolved the assembly, whereupon its members met inconvention at the Raleigh tavern and adopted a set of resolves preparedby Washington, strictly forbidding importations from England until theTownshend acts should be repealed. These resolves were generally adoptedby the colonies, and presently the merchants of London, finding theirtrade falling off, petitioned Parliament to reconsider its policy. InJanuary, 1770, Lord North became prime minister. In April all the dutieswere taken off, except the duty on tea, which the king insisted uponretaining, in order to avoid surrendering the principle at issue. Theeffect of even this partial concession was to weaken the spirit ofopposition in America, and to create a division among the colonies. InJuly the merchants of New York refused to adhere any longer to thenon-importation agreement except with regard to tea, and they begansending orders to England for various sorts of merchandise. Rhode Islandand New Hampshire also broke the agreement. This aroused generalindignation, and ships from the three delinquent colonies were drivenfrom such ports as Boston and Charleston. 

 [Sidenote: Want of union. ]

Union among the colonies was indeed only skin deep. The only thingwhich kept it alive was British aggression. Almost every colony had somebone of contention with its neighbours. At this moment New York and NewHampshire were wrangling over the possession of the Green Mountains, andguerrilla warfare was going on between Connecticut and Pennsylvania inthe valley of Wyoming. It was hard to secure concerted action aboutanything. For two years after the withdrawal of troops from Boston therewas a good deal of disturbance in different parts of the country;quarrels between governors and their assemblies were kept up withincreasing bitterness; in North Carolina there was an insurrectionagainst the governor which was suppressed only after a bloody battlenear the Cape Fear river; in Rhode Island the revenue schooner Gaspeewas seized and burned, and when an order came from the ministryrequiring the offenders to be sent to England for trial, thechief-justice of Rhode Island, Stephen Hopkins, refused to obey theorder. But amid all these disturbances there appeared nothing likeconcerted action on the part of the colonies. In June, 1772, Hutchinsonsaid that the union of the colonies seemed to be broken, and he hoped itwould not be renewed, for he believed it meant separation from themother-country, and that he regarded as the worst of calamities. 

CHAPTER V. 

THE CRISIS. 

 [Sidenote: Salaries of the judges. ]

The surest way to renew and cement the union was to show that theministry had not relaxed in its determination to enforce the principleof the Townshend acts. This was made clear in August, 1772, when it wasordered that in Massachusetts the judges should henceforth be paid bythe crown. Popular excitement rose to fever heat, and the judges werethreatened with impeachment should they dare accept a penny from theroyal treasury. The turmoil was increased next year by the discovery inLondon of the package of letters which were made to support the unjustcharge against Hutchinson and some of his friends that they hadinstigated and aided the most extreme measures of the ministry. 

 [Sidenote: Committees of Correspondence. ]

In the autumn of 1772 Hutchinson refused to call an extra session of theassembly to consider what should be done about the judges. Samuel Adamsthen devised a scheme by which the towns of Massachusetts could consultwith each other and agree upon some common course of action in case ofemergencies. For this purpose each town was to appoint a standingcommittee, and as a great part of their work was necessarily done byletter they were called "committees of correspondence. " This was thestep that fairly organized the Revolution. It was by far the mostimportant of all the steps that preceded the Declaration ofIndependence. The committees did their work with great efficiency andthe governor had no means of stopping it. They were like an invisiblelegislature that was always in session and could never be dissolved; andwhen the old government fell they were able to administer affairs untila new government could be set up. In the spring of 1773 Virginia carriedthis work of organization a long step further, when Dabney Carrsuggested and carried a motion calling for committees of correspondencebetween the several colonies. From this point it was a comparativelyshort step to a permanent Continental Congress. 

It happened that these preparations were made just in time to meet thefinal act of aggression which brought on the Revolutionary War. TheAmericans had thus far successfully resisted the Townshend acts andsecured the repeal of all the duties except on tea. As for tea they hadplenty, but not from England; they smuggled it from Holland in spite ofcustom-houses and search-warrants. Clearly unless the Americans could bemade to buy tea from England and pay the duty on it, the king must ownhimself defeated. 

 [Sidenote: Tea ships sent by the king, as a challenge. ]

Since it appeared that they could not be forced into doing this, itremained to be seen if they could be tricked into doing it. A trulyingenious scheme was devised. Tea sent by the East India Company toAmerica had formerly paid a duty in some British port on the way. Thisduty was now taken off, so that the price of the tea for America mightbe lowered. The company's tea thus became so cheap that the Americanmerchant could buy a pound of it and pay the threepence duty beside forless than it cost him to smuggle a pound of tea from Holland. It wassupposed that the Americans would of course buy the tea which they couldget most cheaply, and would thus be beguiled into submission to thatprinciple of taxation which they had hitherto resisted. Ships laden withtea were accordingly sent in the autumn of 1773 to Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston; and consignees were appointed to receivethe tea in each of these towns. 

Under the guise of a commercial operation, this was purely a politicaltrick. It was an insulting challenge to the American people, and meritedthe reception which they gave it. They would have shown themselvesunworthy of their rich political heritage had they given it any other. In New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston mass-meetings of the peoplevoted that the consignees should be ordered to resign their offices, andthey did so. At Philadelphia the tea-ship was met and sent back toEngland before it had come within the jurisdiction of the custom-house. At Charleston the tea was landed, and as there was no one to receive itor pay the duty, it was thrown into a damp cellar and left there tospoil. 

 [Sidenote: How the challenge was received; the "Boston Tea Party, " Dec. 16, 1773. ]

In Boston things took a different turn. The stubborn courage of GovernorHutchinson prevented the consignees, two of whom were his own sons, fromresigning; the ships arrived and were anchored under guard of acommittee of citizens; if they were not unloaded within twenty days, thecustom-house officers were empowered by law to seize them and unloadthem by force; and having once come within the jurisdiction of thecustom-house, they could not go out to sea without a clearance from thecollector or a pass from the governor. The situation was a difficultone, but it was most nobly met by the men of Massachusetts. Theexcitement was intense, but the proceedings were characterized fromfirst to last by perfect quiet and decorum. In an earnest and solemn, almost prayerful spirit, the advice of all the towns in the commonwealthwas sought, and the response was unanimous that the tea must on noaccount whatever be landed. Similar expressions of opinion came fromother colonies, and the action of Massachusetts was awaited withbreathless interest. Many town-meetings were held in Boston, and theowner of the ships was ordered to take them away without unloading; butthe collector contrived to fritter away the time until the nineteenthday, and then refused a clearance. On the next day, the 16th ofDecember, 1773, seven thousand people were assembled in town-meeting inand around the Old South Meeting-House, while the owner of the ships wassent out to the governor's house at Milton to ask for a pass. It wasnightfall when he returned without it, and there was then but one thingto be done. By sunrise next morning the revenue officers would board theships and unload their cargoes, the consignees would go to thecustom-house and pay the duty, and the king's scheme would have beencrowned with success. The only way to prevent this was to rip open thetea-chests and spill their contents into the sea, and this was done, according to a preconcerted plan and without the slightest uproar ordisorder, by a small party of men disguised as Indians. Among them weresome of the best of the townsfolk, and the chief manager of theproceedings was Samuel Adams. The destruction of the tea has often beenspoken of, especially by British historians, as a "riot, " but nothingcould have been less like a riot. It was really the deliberate action ofthe commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the only fitting reply to theking's insulting trick. It was hailed with delight throughout thethirteen colonies, and there is nothing in our whole history of whichan educated American should feel more proud. 

 [Sidenote: The Retaliatory Acts, April, 1774. ]

The effect upon the king and his friends was maddening, and events werequickly brought to a crisis. In spite of earnest opposition retaliatoryacts were passed through Parliament in April, 1774. One of these was thePort Bill, for shutting up the port of Boston and stopping its tradeuntil the people should be starved and frightened into paying for thetea that had been thrown overboard. Another was the Regulating Act, bywhich the charter of Massachusetts was annulled, its free governmentswept away, and a military governor appointed with despotic power likeAndros. These acts were to go into operation on the 1st of June, and onthat day Governor Hutchinson sailed for England, in the vain hope ofpersuading the king to adopt a milder policy. It was not long before hisproperty was confiscated, like that of other Tories, and after six yearsof exile he died in London. The new governor, Thomas Gage, who had longbeen commander of the military forces in America, was a mild andpleasant man without much strength of character. His presence wasendured but his authority was not recognized in Massachusetts. Troopswere now quartered again in Boston, but they could not prevent thepeople from treating the Regulating Act with open contempt. Courtsorganized under that act were prevented from sitting, and councillorswere compelled to resign their places. The king's authority waseverywhere quietly but doggedly defied. At the same time the stoppage ofbusiness in Boston was the cause of much distress which all the coloniessought to relieve by voluntary contributions of food and other neededarticles. 

 [Sidenote: Continental Congress meets, Sept. 1774. ]

The events of the last twelve months had gone further than anythingbefore toward awakening a sentiment of union among the people of thecolonies. It was still a feeble sentiment, but it was strong enough tomake them all feel that Boston was suffering in the common cause. Thesystem of corresponding committees now ripened into the ContinentalCongress, which held its first meeting at Philadelphia in September, 1774. Among the delegates were Samuel and John Adams, Robert Livingston, John Rutledge, John Dickinson, Samuel Chase, Edmund Pendleton, RichardHenry Lee, Patrick Henry, and George Washington. Their action wascautious and conservative. They confined themselves for the present totrying the effect of a candid statement of grievances, and drew up aDeclaration of Rights and other papers, which were pronounced by LordChatham unsurpassed for ability in any age or country. In Parliament, however, the king's friends were becoming all-powerful, and the onlyeffect produced by these papers was to goad them toward further attemptsat coercion. Massachusetts was declared to be in a state of rebellion, as in truth she was. 

 [Sidenote: The Suffolk Resolves, Sept. 1774. ]

While Samuel Adams was at Philadelphia, the lead in Boston was taken byhis friend Dr. Warren. In a county convention held at Milton inSeptember, Dr. Warren drew up a series of resolves which fairly set onfoot the Revolution. They declared that the Regulating Act was null andvoid, and that a king who violates the chartered rights of his subjectsforfeits their allegiance; they directed the collectors of taxes torefuse to pay the money collected to Gage's treasurer; and theythreatened retaliation in case Gage should venture to arrest any one forpolitical reasons. These bold resolves were adopted by the conventionand sanctioned by the Continental Congress. Next month the people ofMassachusetts formed a provisional government, and began organizing amilitia and collecting military stores at Concord and other inlandtowns. 

 [Sidenote: Battle of Lexington, April 19, 1775. ]

General Gage's position at this time was a trying one for a man of histemperament. In an unguarded moment he had assured the king that fourregiments ought to be enough to bring Massachusetts into an attitude ofpenitence. Now Massachusetts was in an attitude of rebellion, and herealized that he had not troops enough to command the situation. Peoplein England were blaming him for not doing something, and late in thewinter he received a positive order to arrest Samuel Adams and hisfriend John Hancock, then at the head of the new provisional governmentof Massachusetts, and send them to England to be tried for high treason. On the 18th of April, 1775, these gentlemen were staying at a friend'shouse in Lexington; and Gage that evening sent out a force of 800 men toseize the military stores accumulated at Concord, with instructions tostop on the way at Lexington and arrest Adams and Hancock. But Dr. Warren divined the purpose of the movement, and his messenger, PaulRevere, succeeded in forewarning the people, so that by the time thetroops arrived at Lexington the birds were flown. The soldiers firedinto a company of militia on Lexington common and slew eight or ten oftheir number; but by the time they reached Concord the country wasfairly aroused and armed yeomanry were coming upon the scene byhundreds. In a sharp skirmish the British were defeated and, withouthaving accomplished any of the objects of their expedition, began theirretreat toward Boston, hotly pursued by the farmers who fired frombehind walls and trees after the Indian fashion. A reinforcement of 1200men at Lexington saved the routed troops from destruction, but thenumbers of their assailants grew so rapidly that even this larger forcebarely succeeded in escaping capture. At sunset the British reachedCharlestown after a march which was a series of skirmishes, leavingnearly 300 of their number killed or wounded along the road. By thattime yeomanry from twenty-three townships had joined in the pursuit. Thealarm spread like wildfire through New England, and fresh bands ofmilitia arrived every hour. Within three days Israel Putnam and BenedictArnold had come from Connecticut and John Stark from New Hampshire, acordon of 16, 000 men was drawn around Boston, and the siege of that townwas begun. 

 [Sidenote: Capture of Ticonderoga, May 10, 1775. ]

 [Sidenote: Washington appointed to command the army, June 15, 1775. ]

 [Sidenote: Charles Lee. ]

The belligerent feeling in New England had now grown so strong as toshow itself in an act of offensive warfare. On the 10th of May, justthree weeks after Lexington, the fortresses at Ticonderoga and CrownPoint, controlling the line of communication between New York andCanada, were surprised and captured by men from the Green Mountains andConnecticut valley under Ethan Allen and Seth Warner. The Congress, which met on that same day at Philadelphia, showed some reluctance insanctioning an act so purely offensive; but in its choice of a presidentthe spirit of defiance toward Great Britain was plainly shown. JohnHancock, whom the British commander-in-chief was under stringent ordersto arrest and send over to England to be tried for treason, was chosento that eminent position on the 24th of May. This showed that thepreponderance of sentiment in the country was in favour of supportingthe New England colonies in the armed struggle into which they haddrifted. This was still further shown two days later, when Congress inthe name of the "United Colonies of America" assumed the direction ofthe rustic army of New England men engaged in the siege of Boston. AsCongress was absolutely penniless and had no power to lay taxes, itproceeded to borrow £6000 for the purchase of gunpowder. It called forten companies of riflemen from Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, toreinforce what was henceforth known as the Continental army; and on the15th of June it appointed George Washington commander-in-chief. Thechoice of Washington was partly due to the general confidence in hisability and in his lofty character. In the French War he had won amilitary reputation higher than that of any other American, and he wasalready commander-in-chief of the forces of Virginia. But the choice wasalso partly due to sound political reasons. The Massachusetts leaders, especially Samuel Adams and his cousin John, were distrusted by somepeople as extremists and fire-eaters. They wished to bring about adeclaration of independence, for they believed it to be the onlypossible cure for the evils of the time. The leaders in other colonies, upon which the hand of the British government had not borne so heavily, had not yet advanced quite so far as this. Most of them believed thatthe king could be brought to terms; they did not realize that he wouldnever give way because it was politically as much a life and deathstruggle for him as for them. Washington was not yet clearly in favourof independence, nor was Jefferson, who a twelvemonth hence was to beengaged in writing the Declaration. It is doubtful if any of the leadingmen as yet agreed with the Adamses, except Dr. Franklin, who had justreturned from England after his ten years' stay there, and knew verywell how little hope was to be placed in conciliatory measures. TheAdamses, therefore, like wise statesmen, were always on their guard lestcircumstances should drive Massachusetts in the path of rebellion fasterthan the sister colonies were likely to keep pace with her. This waswhat the king above all things wished, and by the same token it was whatthey especially dreaded and sought to avoid. To appoint GeorgeWashington to the chief command was to go a long way toward irrevocablycommitting Virginia to the same cause with Massachusetts, and John Adamswas foremost in urging the appointment. Its excellence was obvious toevery one, and we hear of only two persons that were dissatisfied. Oneof these was John Hancock, who coveted military distinction and was vainenough to think himself fit for almost any position. The other wasCharles Lee, a British officer who had served in America in the FrenchWar and afterward wandered about Europe as a soldier of fortune. He hadreturned to America in 1773 in the hope of playing a leading part here. He set himself up as an authority on military questions, and pretendedto be a zealous lover of liberty. He was really an unprincipledcharlatan for whom, the kindest thing that can be said is that perhapshe was slightly insane. He had hoped to be appointed to the chiefcommand, and was disgusted when he found himself placed second among thefour major-generals. The first major-general was Artemas Ward ofMassachusetts; the third was Philip Schuyler of New York; the fourth wasIsrael Putnam of Connecticut. Eight brigadier-generals were appointed, among whom we may here mention Richard Montgomery of New York, WilliamHeath of Massachusetts, John Sullivan of New Hampshire, and NathanaelGreene of Rhode Island. The adjutant-general, Horatio Gates, was anEnglishman who had served in the French War, and since then had lived inVirginia. 

 [Sidenote: Battle of Bunker Hill, June 17, 1775. ]

While Congress was appointing officers and making regulations for theContinental army, reinforcements for the British had landed in Boston, making their army 10, 000 strong. The new troops were commanded byGeneral William Howe, a Whig who disapproved of the king's policy. Withhim came Sir Henry Clinton and John Burgoyne, who were more in sympathywith the king. Howe and Burgoyne were members of Parliament. On thearrival of these reinforcements Gage prepared to occupy the heights inCharlestown known as Breed's and Bunker's hills. These heights commandedBoston, so that hostile batteries placed there would make it necessaryfor the British to evacuate the town. On the night of June 16, theAmericans anticipated Gage in seizing the heights, and began erectingfortifications on Breed's Hill. It was an exposed position for theAmerican force, which might easily have been cut off and captured if theBritish had gone around by sea and occupied Charlestown Neck in therear. The British preferred to storm the American works. In twodesperate assaults, on the afternoon of the 17th, they were repulsedwith the loss of one-third of their number; and the third assaultsucceeded only because the Americans were not supplied with powder. Bydriving the Americans back to Winter Hill, the British won an importantvictory and kept their hold upon Boston. The moral effect of the battle, however, was in favour of the Americans, for it clearly indicated thatunder proper circumstances they might exhibit a power of resistancewhich the British would find it impossible to overcome. It was withGeorge III. As with Pyrrhus: he could not afford to win many victoriesat such cost, for his supply of soldiers for America was limited, andhis only hope of success lay in inflicting heavy blows. In winningBunker Hill his troops were only holding their own; the siege of Bostonwas not raised for a moment. 

The practical effect upon the British army was to keep it quiet forseveral months. General Howe, who presently superseded Gage, was a braveand well-trained soldier, but slothful in temperament. His way was tostrike a blow, and then wait to see what would come of it, hoping nodoubt that political affairs might soon take such a turn as to make itunnecessary to go on with this fratricidal war. This was fortunate forthe Americans, for when Washington took command of the army at Cambridgeon the 3d of July, he saw that little or nothing could be done with thatarmy until it should be far better organized, disciplined, and equipped, and in such work he found enough to occupy him for several months. 

 [Sidenote: Last petition to the king; and its answer. ]

[Illustration: Invasion of Canada by Montgomery and Arnold. ]

Meanwhile Congress, at the instance of John Dickinson of Pennsylvaniaand John Jay of New York, decided to try the effect of one more candidstatement of affairs, in the form of a petition to the king. This paperreached London on the 14th of August, but the king refused to receiveit, although it was signed by the delegates as separate individuals andnot as members of an unauthorized or revolutionary body. His only answerwas a proclamation dated August 23, in which he called for volunteersto aid in putting down the rebellion in America. At the same time heopened negotiations with the landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, the duke ofBrunswick, and other petty German princes, and succeeded in hiring20, 000 troops to be sent to fight against his American subjects. Whenthe news of this reached America it produced a profound effect. Perhapsnothing done in that year went so far toward destroying the lingeringsentiment of loyalty. 

 [Sidenote: Americans invade Canada, Aug. , 1775--June, 1776. ]

In the spring Congress had hesitated about encouraging offensiveoperations. In the course of the summer it was ascertained that thegovernor of Canada, Sir Guy Carleton, was planning an invasion ofnorthern New York and hoping to obtain the coöperation of the SixNations and the Tories of the Mohawk valley. Congress accordinglydecided to forestall him by invading Canada. Two lines of invasion wereadopted. Montgomery descended Lake Champlain with 2000 men, and after acampaign of two months captured Montreal on the 12th of November. At thesame time Benedict Arnold and Daniel Morgan set out from Cambridge with1200 men, and made their way through the wilderness of Maine, up thevalley of the Kennebec and down that of the Chaudière, coming out uponthe St. Lawrence opposite Quebec on the 13th of November. This longmarch through the primeval forest and over rugged and tracklessmountains was one of the most remarkable exploits of the war. It costthe lives of 200 men, but besides this the rear-guard gave out and wentback to Cambridge, so that when Arnold reached Quebec he had only 700men, too few for an attack upon the town. After Montgomery joined him, it was decided to carry the works by storm, but in the unsuccessfulassault on December 31, Montgomery was killed, Arnold disabled, andMorgan taken prisoner. During the winter Carleton was reinforced untilhe was able to recapture Montreal. The Americans were gradually drivenback, and by June, 1776, had retreated to Crown Point. Carleton thenresumed his preparations for invading New York. 

 [Sidenote: Washington takes Boston, March 17, 1776. ]

While the northern campaign was progressing thus unfavourably, theBritish were at length driven from Boston. Howe had unaccountablyneglected to occupy Dorchester heights, which commanded the town; andWashington, after waiting till a sufficient number of heavy guns couldbe collected, advanced on the night of March 4 and occupied them with2000 men. His position was secure. The British had no alternative but tocarry it by storm or retire from Boston. Not caring to repeat theexperiment of Bunker Hill, they embarked on the 17th of March and sailedto Halifax, where they busied themselves in preparations for anexpedition against New York. Late in April Washington transferred hisheadquarters to New York, where he was able to muster about 8000 men forits defence. Thus the line of the Hudson river was now threatened withattack at both its upper and lower ends. 

 [Sidenote: Lord Dunmore in Virginia. ]

This change in the seat of war marks the change that had come over thepolitical situation. It was no longer merely a rebellious Massachusettsthat must be subdued; it was a continental Union that must be broken up. During the winter and spring the sentiment in favour of a declaration ofindependence had rapidly grown in strength. In November, 1775, LordDunmore, royal governor of Virginia, sought to intimidate therevolutionary party by a proclamation offering freedom to such slaves aswould enlist under the king's banner. This aroused the country againstDunmore, and in December he was driven from Norfolk and took refuge in aship of war. On New Year's Day he bombarded the town and laid it inashes from one end to the other. This violence rapidly made converts tothe revolutionary party, and further lessons were learned from theexperience of their neighbours in North Carolina. 

 [Sidenote: North Carolina and Virginia. ]

That colony was the scene of fierce contests between Whigs and Tories. As early as May 31, 1775, the patriots of Mecklenburg county hadadopted resolutions pointing toward independence and forwarded them totheir delegates in Congress, who deemed it impolitic, however, to laythem before that body. Josiah Martin, royal governor of North Carolina, was obliged to flee on board ship in July. He busied himself with plansfor the complete subjugation of the southern colonies, and correspondedwith the government in London, as well as with his Tory friends ashore. In pursuance of these plans Sir Henry Clinton, with 2000 men, wasdetached in January, 1776, from the army in Boston, and sent to theNorth Carolina coast; a fleet under Sir Peter Parker was sent fromIreland to meet him; and a force of 1600 Tories was gathered to assisthim as soon as he should arrive. But the scheme utterly failed. Thefleet was buffeted by adverse winds and did not arrive; the Tories weretotally defeated on February 27 in a sharp fight at Moore's Creek; andClinton, thus deprived of his allies, deemed it most prudent for a whileto keep his troops on shipboard. On the 12th of April the patriots ofNorth Carolina instructed their delegates in Congress to concur withother delegates in a declaration of independence. On the 14th of MayVirginia went further, and instructed her delegates to propose such adeclaration. South Carolina, Georgia, and Rhode Island expressed awillingness to concur in any measures which Congress might think bestcalculated to promote the general welfare. In the course of Maytown-meetings throughout Massachusetts expressed opinions unanimously infavour of independence. 

Massachusetts had already, as long ago as July, 1775, framed a newgovernment in which the king was not recognized; and her example hadbeen followed by New Hampshire in January, 1776, and by South Carolinain March. Now on the 15th of May Congress adopted a resolution advisingall the other colonies to form new governments, because the king had"withdrawn his protection" from the American people, and all governmentsderiving their powers from him were accordingly set aside as of noaccount. This resolution was almost equivalent to a declaration ofindependence, and it was adopted only after hot debate and earnestopposition from the middle colonies. 

 [Sidenote: Richard Henry Lee's motion in Congress. ]

On the 7th of June, in accordance with the instructions of May 14 fromVirginia, Richard Henry Lee submitted to Congress the followingresolutions:--

"That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free andindependent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to theBritish Crown, and that all political connection between them and theState of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved;

"That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures forforming foreign alliances;

"That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to therespective colonies for their consideration and approbation. "

This motion of Virginia, in which Independence and Union went hand inhand, was at once seconded by Massachusetts, as represented by JohnAdams. It was opposed by John Dickinson and James Wilson ofPennsylvania, and by Robert Livingston of New York, on the ground thatthe people of the middle colonies were not yet ready to sever theconnection with the mother country. As the result of the discussion itwas decided to wait three weeks, in the hope of hearing from all thosecolonies which had not yet declared themselves. 

The messages from those colonies came promptly enough. As forConnecticut and New Hampshire, there could be no doubt; and theirdeclarations for independence, on the 14th and 15th of Junerespectively, were simply dilatory expressions of their sentiments. Theywere late, only because Connecticut had no need to form a new governmentat all, while New Hampshire had formed one as long ago as January. Theirsupport of the proposed declaration of independence was already secured, and it was only in the formal announcement of it that they were somewhatbelated. But with the middle colonies it was different. There theparties were more evenly balanced, and it was not until the last momentthat the decision was clearly pronounced. This was not because they wereless patriotic than the other colonies, but because their directgrievances were fewer, and up to this moment they had hoped that thequarrel was one which a change of ministry in Great Britain mightadjust. In the earlier stages of the quarrel they had been ready enoughto join hands with Massachusetts and Virginia. It was only on thisirrevocable decision as to independence that they were slow to act. 

 [Sidenote: The middle colonies. ]

But in the course of the month of June their responses to the invitationof Congress came in, --from Delaware on the 14th, from New Jersey on the22d, from Pennsylvania on the 24th, from Maryland on the 28th. Thisaction of the middle colonies was avowedly based on the ground that, inany event, united action was the thing most to be desired; so that, whatever their individual preferences might be, they were ready tosubordinate them to the interests of the whole country. The broad andnoble spirit of patriotism shown in their resolves is worthy of no lesscredit than the bold action of the colonies which, under the stimulus ofdirect aggression, first threw down the gauntlet to George III. 

On the 1st of July, when Lee's motion was taken up in Congress, all thecolonies had been heard from except New York. The circumstances of thiscentral colony were peculiar. We have already seen that the Tory partywas especially strong in New York. Besides this, her position was moreexposed to attack on all sides than that of any other state. As themilitary centre of the Union, her territory was sure to be the scene ofthe most desperate fighting. She was already threatened with invasionfrom Canada. As a frontier state she was exposed to the incursions ofthe terrible Iroquois, and as a sea-board state she was open to theattack of the British fleet. At that time, moreover, the population ofNew York numbered only about 170, 000, and she ranked seventh among thethirteen colonies. The military problem was therefore much harder forNew York than for Massachusetts or Virginia. Her risks were greater thanthose of any other colony. For these reasons the Whig party in New Yorkfound itself seriously hampered in its movements, and the 1st of Julyarrived before their delegates in Congress had been instructed how tovote on the question of independence. 

 [Sidenote: Difficulties in New York. ]

Richard Henry Lee had been suddenly called home to Virginia by theillness of his wife, and so the task of defending his motion fell uponJohn Adams who had seconded it. His speech on that occasion was so ablethat Thomas Jefferson afterward spoke of him as "the Colossus of thatdebate. " As Congress sat with closed doors and no report was made ofthe speech, we have no definite knowledge of its arguments. Fifty yearsafterwards, shortly after John Adams's death, Daniel Webster wrote animaginary speech containing what in substance he _might_ have said. Theprincipal argument in opposition was made by John Dickinson, who thoughtthat before the Americans finally committed themselves to a deadlystruggle with Great Britain, they ought to establish some strongergovernment than the Continental Congress, and ought also to secure apromise of help from some such country as France. This advice wascautious, but it was not sound and practical. War had already begun, andif we had waited to agree upon some permanent kind of government beforecommitting all the colonies to a formal defiance of Great Britain, therewas great danger that the enemy might succeed in breaking up the Unionbefore it was really formed. Besides, it is not likely that France wouldever have decided to go to war in our behalf until we had shown that wewere able to defend ourselves. It was now a time when the boldest advicewas the safest. 

 [Sidenote: The Declaration of Independence, July 1 to 4, 1776. ]

During this debate on the 1st of July Congress was sitting as acommittee of the whole, and at the close of the day a preliminary votewas taken. Like all the votes in the Continental Congress, it was takenby colonies. The majority of votes in each delegation determined thevote of that colony. Each colony had one vote, and two-thirds of thewhole number, or nine colonies against four, were necessary for adecision. On this occasion the New York delegates did not vote at all, because they had no instructions. One delegate from Delaware voted yeaand another nay; the third delegate, Cæsar Rodney, had been down in thelower counties of his little state, arguing against the loyalists. Aspecial messenger had been sent to hurry him back, but he had not yetarrived, and so the vote of Delaware was divided and lost. Pennsylvaniadeclared in the negative by four votes against three. South Carolinaalso declared in the negative. The other nine colonies all voted in theaffirmative, and so the resolution received just votes enough to carryit. A very little more opposition would have defeated it, and wouldprobably have postponed the declaration for several weeks. 

The next day Congress took the formal vote upon the resolution. Mr. Rodney had now arrived, so that the vote of Delaware was given in theaffirmative. John Dickinson and Robert Morris stayed away, so thatPennsylvania was now secured for the affirmative by three votes againsttwo. Though Dickinson and Morris were so slow to believe it necessary orprudent to declare independence, they were firm supporters of thedeclaration after it was made. Without Morris, indeed, it is hard tosee how the Revolution could have succeeded. He was the great financierof his time, and his efforts in raising money for the support of ourhard-pressed armies were wonderful. 

When the turn of the South Carolina delegates came they changed theirvotes in order that the declaration might go forth to the world as theunanimous act of the American people. The question was thus settled onthe 2d of July, and the next thing was to decide upon the form of thedeclaration, which Jefferson, who was weak in debate but strong with thepen, had already drafted. The work was completed on the 4th of July, when Jefferson's draft was adopted and published to the world. Five daysafterward the state of New York declared her approval of theseproceedings. The Rubicon was crossed, and the thirteen English colonieshad become the United States of America. 

CHAPTER VI. 

THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CENTRE. 

 [Sidenote: Lord Cornwallis. ]

While these things were going on at Philadelphia, the coast of SouthCarolina, as well as the harbour of New York, was threatened by theBritish fleet. When the delegates from South Carolina gave their voteson the question of independence, they did not know but the revolutionarygovernment in Charleston might already have been taken captive orscattered in flight. After a stormy voyage Sir Peter Parker's squadronat length arrived off Cape Fear early in May, and joined Sir HenryClinton. Along with Sir Peter came an officer worthy of especialmention. Charles, Earl Cornwallis, was then thirty-eight years old. Hehad long served with distinction in the British army, and had latelyreached the grade of lieutenant-general. In politics he was a New Whig, and had on several occasions signified his disapproval of the king'spolicy toward America. As a commander his promptness and vigourcontrasted strongly with the slothfulness of General Howe. Cornwalliswas the ablest of the British generals engaged in the Revolutionary War, and among the public men of his time there were few, if any, morehigh-minded, disinterested, faithful, and pure. After the war was over, he won great fame as governor-general of India from 1786 to 1794. He wasafterward raised to the rank of marquis and appointed lord-lieutenant ofIreland. In 1805 he was sent out again to govern India, and died there. 

 [Sidenote: Battle of Fort Moultrie, June 28, 1776. ]

 [Sidenote: Lord Howe's effort toward conciliation. ]

On the arrival of the fleet it was decided to attack and captureCharleston, and overthrow the new government there. General Charles Leewas sent down by Congress to defend the city, but the South Carolinapatriots proved quite able to take care of themselves. On Sullivan'sIsland in Charleston harbour Colonel William Moultrie built a lowelastic fortress of palmetto logs supported by banks of sand andmounting several heavy guns. In the cannonade which took place on the28th of June this rude structure escaped with little injury, while itsguns inflicted such serious damage upon the fleet that the British wereobliged to abandon for the present all thought of taking Charleston. Inthe course of July they sailed for New York harbour to reinforce GeneralHowe. On the 12th of that month the general's brother, Richard, LordHowe, arrived at Staten Island to take the chief command of the fleet. He was one of the ablest seamen of his time, and was a favourite withhis sailors, by whom, on account of his swarthy complexion, he wasfamiliarly known as "Black Dick. " Lord Howe and his brother wereauthorized to offer terms to the Americans and endeavour to restorepeace by negotiation. It was not easy, however, to find any one inAmerica with whom to negotiate. Lord Howe was sincerely desirous ofmaking peace and doing something to heal the troubles which had broughton the war; and he seems to have supposed that some good might beeffected by private interviews with leading Americans. To send a messageto Congress was, of course, not to be thought of; for that would beequivalent to recognizing Congress as a body entitled to speak for theAmerican people. He brought with him an assurance of amnesty and pardonfor all such rebels as would lay down their arms, and decided that itwould be best to send it to the American commander; but as it was notproper to recognize the military rank which had been conferred uponWashington by a revolutionary body, he addressed his message to "GeorgeWashington, Esq. , " as to a private citizen. When Washington refused toreceive such a message, his lordship could think of no one else toapproach except the royal governors. But they had all fled, exceptGovernor Franklin of New Jersey, who was under close confinement in EastWindsor, Connecticut. All British authority in the United States haddisappeared, and there was no one for Lord Howe to negotiate with, unless he should bethink himself of some way of laying his case beforeCongress. 

 [Sidenote: Change in the British military plan, due to the union of the colonies in the Declaration of Independence. ]

Military operations were now taken up in earnest by the British, andwere briskly carried on for nearly six months. They were for the mostpart concentrated upon the state of New York. Before 1776 it wasMassachusetts that was the chief object of military measures on the partof the British. That was the colony that since the summer of 1774 haddefied the king's troops and set at naught the authority of Parliament;and the first object of the British was to make an example of thatcolony, to suppress the rebellion there, and to reinstate the royalgovernment. The king believed that it would not take long to do this, and there is some reason for supposing that if he had succeeded inhumbling Massachusetts, he would have been ready to listen toHutchinson's request that the vindictive acts of April, 1774, should berepealed and the charter restored. At all events, he seems to have feltconfident that things could soon be made so quiet that Hutchinson couldreturn and resume the office of governor. If the king and his friendshad not entertained such ill-founded hopes, they would not have been soready to resort to violent measures. They made the fatal mistake ofsupposing that such a man as Samuel Adams represented only a smallparty and not the majority of the people. They had also supposed thatthe other colonies would not make common cause with Massachusetts. Butnow, before they had accomplished any of their objects, and while theirtroops had even been driven from Boston, they found that the rebellionhad spread through the whole country. They had a belligerent governmentto confront, and must now enter upon the task of conquering the UnitedStates. 

 [Sidenote: Why the British concentrated their attack upon the state of New York. ]

The first and most obvious method of attempting this was to strike atNew York as the military centre. In such a plan everything seemed tofavour the British. The state was comparatively weak in population andresources; a large proportion of the people were Tories; and close athand on the frontier, which was then in the Mohawk valley, were the mostformidable Indians on the continent. These Iroquois had long been underthe influence of the famous Sir William Johnson, of Johnson Hall, nearSchenectady, and his son Sir John Johnson. Their principal sachem, Joseph Brant, or Thayendanegea, was connected by the closest bonds offriendship with the Johnsons, and the latter were staunch Tories. Itmight reasonably be expected that the entire force of these Indianscould be enlisted on the British side. The work for the regular armyseemed thus to be reduced to the single problem of capturing the cityof New York and obtaining full control of the Hudson river. 

If this could be done, the United States would be cut in two. As theAmericans had no ships of war, they could not dispute the Britishcommand of the water. There was no way in which the New England statescould hold communication with the South except across the southern partof the state of New York. To gain this central position would thus be todeal a fatal blow to the American cause, and it seemed to the Britishgovernment that, with the forces now in the field, this ought easily tobe accomplished. General Carleton was ready to come down from the northby way of Lake Champlain, with 12, 000 men, and General Schuyler couldscarcely muster half as many to oppose him. On Staten Island there weremore than 25, 000 British troops ready to attack New York, whileWashington's utmost exertions had succeeded in getting together onlyabout 18, 000 men for the defence of the city. The American army was asyet very poor in organization and discipline, badly equipped, andscantily fed; and it seemed very doubtful whether it could long keep thefield in the presence of superior forces. 

 [Sidenote: Washington's military genius. ]

But in spite of all these circumstances, so favourable to the British, there was one obstacle to their success upon which at first they did notsufficiently reckon. That obstacle was furnished by the genius andcharacter of the wonderful man who commanded the American army. InWashington were combined all the highest qualities of a general, --doggedtenacity of purpose, endless fertility in resource, sleepless vigilance, and unfailing courage. No enemy ever caught him unawares, and he neverlet slip an opportunity of striking back. He had a rare geographicalinstinct, always knew where the strongest position was, and how to reachit. He was a master of the art of concealing his own plan and detectinghis adversary's. He knew better than to hazard everything upon theresult of a single contest, and because of the enemy's superior force hewas so often obliged to refuse battle that some of his impatient criticscalled him slow; but no general was ever quicker in dealing heavy blowswhen the proper moment arrived. He was neither unduly elated by victorynor discouraged by defeat. When all others lost heart he was bravest;and at the very moment when ruin seemed to stare him in the face, he wascraftily preparing disaster and confusion for the enemy. 

To the highest qualities of a military commander there were united inWashington those of a political leader. From early youth he possessedthe art of winning men's confidence. He was simple without awkwardness, honest without bluntness, and endowed with rare discretion and tact. Histemper was fiery and on occasion he could use pretty strong language, but anger or disappointment was never allowed to disturb the justice andkindness of his judgment. Men felt themselves safe in putting entiretrust in his head and his heart, and they were never deceived. Thus hesoon obtained such a hold upon the people as few statesmen have everpossessed. It was this grand character that, with his clear intelligenceand unflagging industry, enabled him to lead the nation triumphantlythrough the perils of the Revolutionary War. He had almost everyimaginable hardship to contend with, --envious rivals, treachery andmutiny in the camp, interference on the part of Congress, jealousiesbetween the states, want of men and money; yet all these difficulties hevanquished. Whether victorious or defeated on the field, he baffled theenemy in the first year's great campaign and in the second year's, andthen for four years more upheld the cause until heart-sickening delaywas ended in glorious triumph. It is very doubtful if without Washingtonthe struggle for independence would have succeeded as it did. Other menwere important, he was indispensable. 

 [Sidenote: Battle of Long Island, Aug. 27, 1776. ]

The first great campaign began, as might have been expected, with defeaton the field. In order to keep possession of the city of New York it wasnecessary to hold Brooklyn Heights. That was a dangerous position for anAmerican force, because it was entirely separated from New York by deepwater, and could thus be cut off from the rest of the American army bythe enemy's fleet. It was necessary, however, for Washington either tooccupy Brooklyn Heights or to give up the city of New York without astruggle. But the latter course was out of the question. It would neverdo to abandon the Whigs in New York to the tender mercies of the Tories, without at least one good fight. So the position in Brooklyn must befortified, and there was perhaps one chance in a hundred that, throughsome blunder of the enemy, we might succeed in holding it. Accordingly9000 men were stationed on Brooklyn Heights under Putnam, who threwforward about half of this force, under Sullivan and Stirling, to defendthe southern approaches through the rugged country between Gowanus bayand Bedford. On the 22d of August General Howe crossed from StatenIsland to Gravesend bay with 20, 000 men, and on the 27th he defeatedSullivan and Stirling in what has ever since been known as the battle ofLong Island. About 400 men were killed and wounded on each side, and1000 Americans, including both generals, were taken captive. A morefavourable result for the Americans was not to be expected, as theBritish outnumbered them four to one, and could therefore march wherethey pleased and turn the American flank without incurring the slightestrisk. The wonder is, not that 5000 half-trained soldiers were defeatedby 20, 000 veterans, but that they should have given General Howe a goodday's work in defeating them. 

 [Sidenote: Washington's skilful retreat. ]

The American forces were now withdrawn into their works on BrooklynHeights, and Howe advanced to besiege them. During the next two daysWashington collected boats and on the night of the 29th conveyed thearmy across the East River to New York. With the enemy's fleetpatrolling the harbour and their army watching the works, this was amost remarkable performance. To this day one cannot understand, unlesson the supposition that the British were completely dazed andmoonstruck, how Washington could have done it. 

 [Sidenote: Howe takes New York, Sept. 15, 1776. ]

People were much disheartened by the defeat on Long Island and theimmediate prospect of losing New York. Lord Howe turned his thoughtsonce more to negotiation, and at length, on September 11, succeeded inobtaining an informal interview with Franklin, John Adams, and EdwardRutledge. But nothing was accomplished, and seventeen eventful monthselapsed before the British again seriously tried negotiation. GeneralHowe had extended his lines northward, and on the 15th his army crossedthe East River in boats, and landed near the site of Thirty-Fourthstreet. On the same day Washington completed the work of evacuating thecity. His army was drawn up across the island from the mouth of Harlemriver to Fort Washington, and over on the Jersey side of the Hudson, opposite Fort Washington, a detachment occupied Fort Lee. It was hopedthat these two forts would be able to prevent British ships from goingup the Hudson river, but this hope soon proved to be delusive. 

On the 16th General Howe tried to break through the centre ofWashington's position at Harlem Heights, but after losing 300 men hegave up the attempt, and spent the next three weeks in studying thesituation. A sad incident came now to remind the people of the sternnessof military law. Nathan Hale, a young graduate of Yale College, captainof a company of Connecticut rangers, had been for several days withinthe British lines gathering information. Just as he had accomplished hispurpose, and was on the point of departing with his memoranda, he wasarrested as a spy and hanged next morning, lamenting on the gallows thathe had but one life to lose for his country. 

 [Sidenote: Battle of White Plains, Oct. 28, 1776. ]

As Howe deemed it prudent not to attack Washington in front, he tried toget around into his rear, and began on October 12 by landing a largeforce at Throg's Neck, in the Sound. But Washington baffled him bychanging front, swinging his left wing northward as far as White Plains. After further reflection Howe decided to try a front attack once more;on the 28th he assaulted the position at White Plains, and carried oneof the outposts, losing twice as many men as the Americans. Not wishingto continue the fight at such a disadvantage he paused again, andWashington improved the occasion by retiring to a still strongerposition at Northcastle. These movements had separated Washington's mainbody from his right wing at Forts Washington and Lee, and Howe nowchanged his plan. Desisting from the attempt against the American mainbody, he moved southward against this exposed wing. 

A sad catastrophe now followed, which showed how many obstaclesWashington had to contend with. It was known that Carleton's army was onthe way from Canada. Congress was nervously afraid of losing its holdupon the Hudson river, and Washington accordingly selected West Point asthe strongest position upon the river, to be fortified and defended atall hazards. He sent Heath, with 3000 men, to hold the Highland passes, and went up himself to inspect the situation and give directions aboutthe new fortifications. He left 7000 of his main body at Northcastle, incharge of Lee, who had just returned from South Carolina. He sent 5000, under Putnam, across the river to Hackensack; and ordered Greene, whohad some 5000 men at Forts Washington and Lee, to prepare to evacuateboth those strongholds and join his forces to Putnam's. 

If these orders had been carried out, Howe's movement against FortWashington would have accomplished but little, for on reaching thatplace, he would have found nothing but empty works, as at Brooklyn. TheAmerican right wing would have been drawn together at Hackensack, andthe whole army could have been concentrated on either bank of the greatriver, as the occasion might seem to require. If Howe should aim at theHighlands, it could be kept close to the river and cover all the passes. If, on the other hand, Howe should threaten the Congress atPhiladelphia, the whole army could be collected in New Jersey to holdhim in check. 

 [Sidenote: Howe takes Fort Washington, Nov. 16, 1776. ]

But Washington's orders were not obeyed. Congress was so uneasy that itsent word to Greene to hold both his forts as long as he could. Accordingly he strengthened the garrison at Fort Washington, just intime for Howe to overwhelm and capture it, on the 16th of November, after an obstinate resistance. In killed and wounded the British losswas three times as great as that of the garrison, but the Americans werein no condition to afford the loss of 8000 men taken prisoners. It was aterrible blow. On the 19th Greene barely succeeded in escaping from FortLee, with his remaining 2000 men, but without his cannon and stores. 

 [Sidenote: Treachery of Charles Lee. ]

Bad as the situation was, however, it did not become really alarminguntil it was complicated with the misconduct of General Lee. Washingtonhad returned from West Point on the 14th, too late to prevent thecatastrophe; but after all it was only necessary for Lee's wing of thearmy to cross the river, and there would be a solid force of 14, 000 menon the Jersey side, able to confront the enemy on something like equalterms, for Howe had to keep a good many of his troops in New York. Onthe 17th Washington ordered Lee to come over and join him; but Leedisobeyed, and in spite of repeated orders from Washington he stayed atNorthcastle till the 2d of December. General Ward had some time sinceresigned, so that Lee now ranked next to Washington. A good many peoplewere finding fault with the latter for losing the 3000 men at FortWashington, although, as we have seen, that was not his fault but thefault of Congress. Lee now felt that if Washington were ruined, he wouldsurely become his successor in the command of the army, and so, insteadof obeying his orders, he spent his time in writing letters calculatedto injure him. 

 [Sidenote: Washington's retreat through New Jersey. ]

Lee's disobedience thus broke the army in two, and did more for theBritish than they had been able to do for themselves since they startedfrom Staten Island. It was the cause of Washington's flight through NewJersey, ending on the 8th of December, when he put himself behind theDelaware river, with scarcely 3000 men. Here was another difficulty. TheAmerican soldiers were enlisted for short terms, and when they werediscouraged, as at present, they were apt to insist upon going home assoon as their time had expired. It was generally believed thatWashington's army would thus fall to pieces within a few days. Howe didnot think it worth while to be at the trouble of collecting boatswherewith to follow him across the Delaware. Congress fled to Baltimore. People in New Jersey began taking the oath of allegiance to the crown. Howe received the news that he had been knighted for his victory on LongIsland, and he returned to New York to celebrate the occasion. 

 [Sidenote: Arnold's naval battle at Valcour Island, Oct. 11, 1776. ]

While the case looked so desperate for Washington, events at the northhad taken a less unfavourable turn. Carleton had embarked on LakeChamplain early in the autumn with his fine army and fleet. Arnold hadfitted up a small fleet to oppose his advance, and on the 11th ofOctober there had been a fierce naval battle between the two nearValcour Island, in which Arnold was defeated, while Carleton sufferedserious damage. The British general then advanced upon Ticonderoga, butsuddenly made up his mind that the season was too late for operations inthat latitude. The resistance he had encountered seems to have made himdespair of achieving any speedy success in that quarter, and on the 3dof November he started back for Canada. This retreat relieved GeneralSchuyler at Albany of immediate cause for anxiety, and presently hedetached seven regiments to go southward to Washington's assistance. 

 [Sidenote: Charles Lee is captured by British dragoons, Dec. 13, 1776. ]

On the 2d of December Lee crossed the Hudson with 4000 men, andproceeded slowly to Morristown. Just what he designed to do was neverknown, but clearly he had no intention of going beyond the Delaware toassist Washington, whom he believed to be ruined. Perhaps he thoughtMorristown a desirable position to hold, as it certainly was. Whateverhis plans may have been, they were nipped in the bud. For some unknownreason he passed the night of the 12th at an unguarded tavern, aboutfour miles from his army; and there he was captured next morning by aparty of British dragoons, who carried him off to their camp atPrinceton. The dragoons were very gleeful over this unexpected exploit, but really they could not have done the Americans a greater service thanto rid them of such a worthless creature. The capture of Lee came in thenick of time, for it set free his men to go to the aid of Washington. Even after this force and that sent by Schuyler had reached thecommander-in-chief, he found he had only 6000 men fit for duty. 

 [Sidenote: Battle of Trenton, Dec. 26, 1776. ]

[Illustration: Washington's Campaigns IN NEW JERSEY & PENNSYLVANIA. ]

With this little force Washington instantly took the offensive. It wasthe turning-point in his career and in the history of the RevolutionaryWar. On Christmas, 1776, and the following nine days, all Washington'smost brilliant powers were displayed. The British centre, 10, 000 strong, lay at Princeton. The principal generals, thinking the serious businessof the war ended, had gone to New York. An advanced party of Hessians, 1000 strong, was posted on the bank of the Delaware at Trenton, andanother one lower down, at Burlington. Washington decided to attack boththese outposts, and arranged his troops accordingly, but when Christmasnight arrived, the river was filled with great blocks of floating ice, and the only division which succeeded in crossing was the one thatWashington led in person. It was less than 2500 in number, but themoment had come when the boldest course was the safest. By daybreakWashington had surprised the Hessians at Trenton and captured them all. The outpost at Burlington, on hearing the news, retreated to Princeton. By the 31st Washington had got all his available force across toTrenton. Some of them were raw recruits just come in to replace otherswho had just gone home. At this critical moment the army was nearlyhelpless for want of money, and on New Year's morning Robert Morris wasknocking at door after door in Philadelphia, waking up his friends toborrow the fifty thousand dollars which he sent off to Trenton beforenoon. The next day Cornwallis arrived at Princeton, and taking with himall the army, except a rear-guard of 2000 men left to protect hiscommunications, came on toward Trenton. 

When he reached that town, late in the afternoon, he found Washingtonentrenched behind a small creek just south of the town, with his backtoward the Delaware river. "Oho!" said Cornwallis, "at last we have rundown the old fox, and we will bag him in the morning. " He sent back toPrinceton, and ordered the rear-guard to come up. He expected nextmorning to cross the creek above Washington's right, and then press himback against the broad and deep river, and compel him to surrender. Cornwallis was by no means a careless general, but he seems to have goneto bed on that memorable night and slept the sleep of the just. 

 [Sidenote: Battle of Princeton, Jan. 3, 1777. ]

Washington meanwhile was wide awake. He kept his front line noisily atwork digging and entrenching, and made a fine show with his campfires. Then he marched his army to the right and across the creek, and gotaround Cornwallis's left wing and into his rear, and so went on gaylytoward Princeton. At daybreak he encountered the British rear-guard, fought a sharp battle with it and sent it flying, with the loss ofone-fourth of its number. The booming guns aroused Cornwallis too late. To preserve his communications with New York, he was obliged to retreatwith all haste upon New Brunswick, while Washington's victorious armypushed on and occupied the strong position at Morristown. 

There was small hope of dislodging such a general from such a position. But to leave Washington in possession of Morristown was to resign to himthe laurels of this half-year's work. For that position guarded theHighlands of the Hudson on the one hand, and the roads to Philadelphiaon the other. Except that the British had taken the city of NewYork--which from the start was almost a foregone conclusion--they wereno better off than in July when Lord Howe had landed on Staten Island. In nine days the tables had been completely turned. The attack upon anoutpost had developed into a campaign which quite retrieved thesituation. The ill-timed interference of Congress, which had begun theseries of disasters, was remedied; the treachery of Lee was checkmated;and the cause of American Independence, which on Christmas Eve hadseemed hopeless, was now fairly set on its feet. Earlier successes hadbeen local; this was continental. Seldom has so much been done with suchslender means. 

 [Sidenote: Effects of the campaign, in Europe. ]

The American war had begun to awaken interest in Europe, especially inFrance, whither Franklin, with Silas Deane and Arthur Lee, had beensent to seek for military aid. The French government was not yet readyto make an alliance with the United States, but money and arms weresecretly sent over to Congress. Several young French nobles had askedthe king's permission to go to America, but it was refused, and for thesake of keeping up appearances the refusal had something of the air of areprimand. The king did not wish to offend Great Britain prematurely. One of these nobles was Lafayette, then eighteen years of age, whofitted up a ship at his own expense, and sailed from Bordeaux in April, 1777, in spite of the royal prohibition, taking with him Kalb and otherofficers. Lafayette and Kalb, with the Poles, Kosciuszko and Pulaski, who had come some time before, and the German Steuben, who came in thefollowing December, were the five most eminent foreigners who receivedcommissions in the Continental army. 

 [Sidenote: Difficulty in raising an army. ]

During the winter season at Morristown the efforts of Washington weredirected toward the establishment of a regular army to be kept togetherfor three years or so long as the war should last. Hitherto the militarypreparations of Congress had been absurdly weak. Squads of militia hadbeen enlisted for terms of three or six months, as if there were anylikelihood of the war being ended within such a period. While the menthus kept coming and going, it was difficult either to maintaindiscipline or to carry out any series of military operations. Accordingly Congress now proceeded to call upon the states for an armyof 80, 000 men to serve during the war. The enlisting was to be done bythe states, but the money was to be furnished by Congress. Not half thatnumber of men were actually obtained. The Continental army was larger in1777 than in any other year, but the highest number it reached was only34, 820. In addition to these about 34, 000 militia turned out in thecourse of the year. An army of 80, 000 would have taken about the sameproportion of all the fighting men in the country as an army of1, 000, 000 in our great Civil War. Now in our Civil War the Union armygrew with the occasion until it numbered more than 1, 000, 000. But in theRevolutionary War the Continental army was not only never equal to theoccasion, but it kept diminishing till in 1781 it numbered only 13, 292. This was because the Continental Congress had no power to enforce itsdecrees. It could only _ask_ for troops and it could only _ask_ formoney. It found just the same difficulty in getting anything that theBritish ministry and the royal governors used to find, --the very samedifficulty that led Grenville to devise the Stamp Act. Everything had tobe talked over in thirteen different legislatures, one state would waitto see what another was going to do, and meanwhile Washington wasexpected to fight battles before his army was fit to take the field. Something was gained, no doubt, by Congress furnishing the money. But asCongress could not tax anybody, it had no means of raising a revenue, except to beg, borrow, or issue its promissory notes, the so-calledContinental paper currency. 

 [Sidenote: The British plan for conquering New York in 1777. ]

While Congress was trying to raise an adequate army, the Britishministry laid its plans for the summer campaign. The conquest of thestate of New York must be completed at all hazards; and to this end athreefold system of movements was devised:--

_First_, the army in Canada was to advance upon Ticonderoga, capture it, and descend the Hudson as far as Albany. This work was now entrusted toGeneral Burgoyne. 

_Secondly_, in order to make sure of efficient support from the SixNations and the Tories of the frontier, a small force under ColonelBarry St. Leger was to go up the St. Lawrence to Lake Ontario, land atOswego, and march down the Mohawk valley to reinforce Burgoyne on theHudson. 

_Thirdly_, after leaving a sufficient force to hold the city of NewYork, the main army, under Sir William Howe, was to ascend the Hudson, capture the forts in the Highlands, and keep on to Albany, so as toeffect a junction with Burgoyne and St. Leger. 

It was thought that such an imposing display of military force wouldmake the Tory party supreme in New York, put an end to all resistancethere, and effectually cut the United States in two. Then if thesouthern states on the one hand and the New England states on the otherdid not hasten to submit, they might afterward be attacked separatelyand subdued. 

In this plan the ministry made the fatal mistake of underrating thestrength of the feeling which, from one end of the United States to theother, was setting itself every day more and more decidedly against theTories and in favour of independence. This feeling grew as fast as theanti-slavery feeling grew among the northern people during our CivilWar. In 1861 President Lincoln thought it necessary to rebuke hisgenerals who were too forward in setting free the slaves of personsengaged in rebellion against the United States. In 1862 he announced hispurpose to emancipate all such slaves; and then it took less than threeyears to put an end to slavery forever. It was just so with thesentiment in favour of separation from Great Britain. In July, 1775, Thomas Jefferson expressly declared that the Americans had not raisedarmies with any intention of declaring their independence of themother-country. In July, 1776, the Declaration of Independence, writtenby Jefferson, was proclaimed to the world, though the consent of themiddle colonies and of South Carolina seemed somewhat reluctant. By thesummer of 1777 the Tories were almost everywhere in a hopeless minority. Every day of warfare, showing Great Britain more and more clearly as anenemy to be got rid of, diminished their strength; so that, even in NewYork and South Carolina, where they were strongest, it would not do forthe British ministry to count too much upon any support they might give. 

It was natural enough that King George and his ministers should fail tounderstand all this, but their mistake was their ruin. If they hadunderstood that Burgoyne's march from Lake Champlain to the Hudson riverwas to be a march through a country thoroughly hostile, perhaps theywould not have been so ready to send him on such a dangerous expedition. It would have been much easier and safer to have sent his army by sea toNew York, to reinforce Sir William Howe. Threatening movements mighthave been made by some of the Canada forces against Ticonderoga, so asto keep Schuyler busy in that quarter; and then the army at New York, thus increased to nearly 40, 000 men, might have had a fair chance ofoverwhelming Washington by sheer weight of numbers. Such a plan mighthave failed, but it is not likely that it would have led to thesurrender of the British army. And if they could have disposed ofWashington, the British might have succeeded. It was more necessary forthem to get rid of him than to march up and down the valley of theHudson. But it was not strange that they did not see this as we do. Itis always easy enough to be wise after things have happened. 

Even as it was, if their plan had really been followed, they might havesucceeded. If Howe's army had gone up to meet Burgoyne, the history ofthe year 1777 would have been very different from what it was. We shallpresently see why it did not do so. Let us now recount the fortunes ofBurgoyne and St. Leger. 

 [Sidenote: Burgoyne takes Ticonderoga, July 5, 1777. ]

Burgoyne came up Lake Champlain in June, and easily won Ticonderoga, because the Americans had failed to secure a neighbouring position whichcommanded the fortress. Burgoyne took Ticonderoga from Mount Defiance, just as the Americans would have taken Boston from Bunker Hill, if theyhad been able to stay there, just as they afterward did take it fromDorchester Heights, and just as Howe took New York after he had wonBrooklyn Heights. When you have secured a position from which you cankill the enemy twice as fast as he can kill you, he must of courseretire from the situation; and the sooner he goes, the better chance hehas of living to fight another day. The same principle worked in allthese cases, and it worked with General Howe at Harlem Heights and atWhite Plains. 

 [Sidenote: Schuyler and Gates. ]

When it was known that Burgoyne had taken Ticonderoga, there wasdreadful dismay in America and keen disappointment among those Whigs inEngland whose declared sympathies were with us. George III. Was besidehimself with glee, and thought that the Americans were finally defeatedand disposed of. But they were all mistaken. The garrison of Ticonderogahad taken the alarm and retreated, so that Burgoyne captured only anempty fortress. He left 1000 men in charge of it, and then pressed oninto the wilderness between Lake Champlain and the upper waters of theHudson river. His real danger was now beginning to show itself, andevery day it could be seen more distinctly. He was plunging into aforest, far away from all possible support from behind, and as he wenton he found that there were not Tories enough in that part of thecountry to be of any use to him. As Burgoyne advanced, General Schuylerprudently retreated, and used up the enemy's time by breaking downbridges and putting every possible obstacle in his way. Schuyler was arare man, thoroughly disinterested and full of sound sense; but he hadmany political enemies who were trying to pull him down. A large part ofhis army was made up of New England men, who hated him partly for themere reason that he was a New Yorker, and partly because as such he hadtaken part in the long quarrel between New York and New Hampshire overthe possession of the Green Mountains. The disaffection toward Schuylerwas fomented by General Horatio Gates, who had for some time heldcommand under him, but was now in Philadelphia currying favour with thedelegates in Congress, especially with those from New England, in thehope of getting himself appointed to the command of the northern army inSchuyler's place. Gates was an extremely weak man, but so vain that hereally believed himself equal to the highest command that Congress couldbe persuaded to give him. On the battle-field he seems to have beenwanting even in personal courage, as he certainly was in power to handlehis troops; but in society he was quite a lion. He had a smoothcourteous manner and a plausible tongue which paid little heed to thedifference between truth and falsehood. His lies were not veryingenious, and so they were often detected and pointed out. But whilemany people were disgusted by his selfishness and trickery, there werealways some who insisted that he was a great genius. History can pointto a good many men like General Gates. Such men sometimes shine for awhile, but sooner or later they always come to be recognized as humbugs. 

[Illustration: BURGOYNE'S CAMPAIGN. ]

 [Sidenote: Battle of Hubbardton, July 7, 1777. ]

While Gates was intriguing, Schuyler was doing all in his power toimpede the enemy's progress. It was on the night of July 5 that thegarrison of Ticonderoga, under General St. Clair, had abandoned thefortress and retreated southward. On the 7th a battle was fought atHubbardton between St. Clair's rear, under Seth Warner, and a portion ofthe British army under Fraser and Riedesel. Warner was defeated, butonly after such an obstinate resistance as to check the pursuit, so thatby the 12th St. Clair was able to bring his retreating troops in safetyto Fort Edward, where they were united with Schuyler's army. Schuylermanaged his obstructions so well that Burgoyne's utmost efforts wererequired to push into the wilderness at the rate of one mile per day;and meanwhile Schuyler was collecting a force of militia in the GreenMountains, under General Lincoln, to threaten Burgoyne in the rear andcut off his communications with Lake Champlain. 

Burgoyne was accordingly marching into a trap, and Schuyler was doingthe best that could be done. But on the first of August the intrigueagainst him triumphed in Congress, and Gates was appointed to supersedehim in the command of the northern army. Gates, however, did not arriveupon the scene until the 19th of August, and by that time Burgoyne'ssituation was evidently becoming desperate. 

On the last day of July Burgoyne reached Fort Edward, which Schuylerhad evacuated just before. Schuyler crossed the Hudson river, andcontinued his retreat to Stillwater, about thirty miles above Albany. Itwas as far as the American retreat was to go. Burgoyne was alreadygetting short of provisions, and before he could advance much further heneeded a fresh supply of horses to drag the cannon and stores. He beganto realize, when too late, that he had come far into an enemy's country. The hostile feelings of the people were roused to fury by the atrocitiescommitted by the Indians employed in Burgoyne's army. The Britishsupposed that the savages would prove very useful as scouts and guides, and that by offers of reward and threats of punishment they might berestrained from deeds of violence. They were very unruly, however, andapt to use the tomahawk when they found a chance. 

 [Sidenote: Jane McCrea. ]

The sad death of Miss Jane McCrea has been described in almost as manyways as there have been people to describe it, but no one really knowshow it happened. What is really known is that, on the 27th of July, while Miss McCrea was staying with her friend Mrs. McNeil, near FortEdward, a party of Indians burst into the house and carried off bothladies. They were pursued by some American soldiers, and a few shotswere exchanged. In the course of the scrimmage the party got scattered, and Mrs. McNeil was taken alone to the British camp. Next day an Indiancame into the camp with Miss McCrea's scalp, which her friend recognizedfrom its long silky hair. A search was made, and the body of the poorgirl was found lying near a spring, pierced with three bullet-wounds. The Indian's story, that she was accidentally killed by a volley fromthe American soldiers, may well enough have been true. It is also knownthat she was betrothed to David Jones, a lieutenant in Burgoyne's army, and, as her own home was in New Jersey, her visit to Mrs. McNeil mayvery likely have been part of a plan for meeting her lover. These factswere soon woven into a story, in which Jenny was said to have beenmurdered while on her way to her wedding, escorted by a party of Indianswhom her imprudent lover had sent to take charge of her. 

 [Sidenote: Battle of Bennington, Aug. 16, 1777. ]

The people of the neighbouring counties, in New York and Massachusetts, enraged at the death of Miss McCrea and alarmed for the safety of theirown firesides, began rising in arms. Sturdy recruits began marching tojoin Schuyler at Stillwater and Lincoln at Manchester in the GreenMountains. Meanwhile Burgoyne had made up his mind to attack the villageof Bennington, which was Lincoln's centre of supplies. By seizing thesesupplies, he could get for himself what he stood sorely in need of, while at the same time the loss would cripple Lincoln and perhaps obligehim to retire from the scene. Accordingly 1000 Germans were sent out, in two detachments under colonels Baum and Breymann, to capture thevillage. But instead they were captured themselves. Baum was firstoutmanoeuvred, surrounded, and forced to surrender by John Stark, after a hot fight, in which Baum was mortally wounded. Then Breymann wasput to flight and his troops dispersed by Seth Warner. Of the wholeGerman force, 207 were killed or wounded, and at least 700 captured. Notmore than 70 got back to the British camp. The American loss in killedand wounded was 56. 

This brilliant victory at Bennington had important consequences. Itchecked Burgoyne's advance until he could get his supplies, and itdecided that Lincoln's militia could get in his rear and cut off hiscommunications with Ticonderoga. It furthermore inspired the Americanswith the exulting hope that Burgoyne's whole army could be surroundedand forced to surrender. 

 [Sidenote: St. Leger in the Mohawk valley. ]

If, however, the British had been successful in gaining the Mohawkvalley and ensuring the supremacy over that region for the Tories, thefate of Burgoyne might have been averted. The Tories in that region, under Sir John Johnson and Colonel John Butler, were really formidable. As for the Indians of the Iroquois league, they had always been friendlyto the English and hostile to the French; but now, when it came tomaking their choice between two kinds of English--the Americans and theBritish, they hesitated and differed in opinion. The Mohawks took sideswith the British because of the friendship between Joseph Brant and theJohnsons. The Cayugas and Senecas followed on the same side; but theOnondagas, in the centre of the confederacy, remained neutral, and theOneidas and Tuscaroras, under the influence of Samuel Kirkland and othermissionaries, showed active sympathy with the Americans. It turned out, too, that the Whigs were much stronger in the valley than had beensupposed. 

 [Sidenote: Battle of Oriskany, Aug. 6, 1777. ]

After St. Leger had landed at Oswego and joined hands with his Tory andIndian allies, his entire force amounted to about 1700 men. Theprincipal obstacle to his progress toward the Hudson river was FortStanwix, which stood where the city of Rome now stands. On the 3d ofAugust St. Leger reached Fort Stanwix and laid siege to it. The placewas garrisoned by 600 men under Colonel Peter Gansevoort, and the Whigyeomanry of the neighbourhood, under the heroic General NicholasHerkimer, were on the way to relieve it, to the number of at least 800. Herkimer made an excellent plan for surprising St. Leger with an attackin the rear, while the garrison should sally forth and attack him infront. But St. Leger's Indian scouts were more nimble than Herkimer'smessengers, so that he obtained his information sooner than Gansevoort. An ambush was skilfully prepared by Brant in a ravine near Oriskany, andthere, on the 6th of August, was fought the most desperate and murderousbattle of the Revolutionary War. It was a hand to hand fight, in whichabout 800 men were engaged on each side, and each lost more thanone-third of its number. As the Tories and Indians were giving way, their retreat was hastened by the sounds of battle from Fort Stanwix, where the garrison was making its sally and driving back the besiegers. Herkimer remained in possession of the field at Oriskany, but his planhad been for the moment thwarted, and in the battle he had received awound from which he died. 

 [Sidenote: St. Leger's flight, Aug. 22, 1777. ]

Benedict Arnold had lately been sent by Washington to be of suchassistance as he could to Schuyler. Arnold stood high in the confidenceof both these generals. He had shown himself one of the ablest officersin the American army, he was especially skilful in getting good work outof raw troops, and he was a great favourite with his men. On hearing ofthe danger of Fort Stanwix, Schuyler sent him to the rescue, with 1200men. When he was within twenty miles of that stronghold, he contrived, with the aid of some friendly Oneidas and a Tory captive whose life hespared for the purpose, to send on before him exaggerated reports of thesize of his army. The device accomplished far more than he could haveexpected. The obstinate resistance at Oriskany had discouraged theTories and angered the Indians. Distrust and dissension were alreadyrife in St. Leger's camp, when such reports came in as to lead many tobelieve that Burgoyne had been totally defeated, and that the whole ofSchuyler's army, or a great part of it, was coming up the Mohawk. Thisnews led to riot and panic among the troops, and on August 22 St. Legertook to flight and made his way as best he could to his ships at Oswego, with scarcely the shred of an army left. This catastrophe showed howsadly mistaken the British had been in their reliance upon Tory help. 

The battle of Bennington was fought on the 16th of August. Now by theoverthrow of St. Leger, six days later, Burgoyne's situation had becomevery alarming. It was just in the midst of these events that Gatesarrived, on August 19, and took command of the army at Stillwater, whichwas fast growing in numbers. Militia were flocking in, Arnold's forcewas returning, and Daniel Morgan was at hand with 500 Virginiansharpshooters. Unless Burgoyne could win a battle against overwhelmingodds, there was only one thing that could save him; and that was thearrival of Howe's army at Albany, according to the ministry's programme. But Burgoyne had not yet heard a word from Howe; and Howe never came. 

 [Sidenote: Why Howe failed to coöperate with Burgoyne. ]

This failure of Howe to coöperate with Burgoyne was no doubt the mostfatal military blunder made by the British in the whole course of thewar. The failure was of course unintentional on Howe's part. He meant toextend sufficient support to Burgoyne, but the trouble was that heattempted too much. He had another plan in his mind at the same time, and between the two he ended by accomplishing nothing. While he kept oneeye on Albany, he kept the other on Philadelphia. He had not relishedbeing driven back across New Jersey by Washington, and the hope ofdefeating that general in battle, and then pushing on to the "rebelcapital" strongly tempted him. In such thoughts he was encouraged by theadvice of the captive General Lee. That unscrupulous busybody felthimself in great danger, for he knew that the British regarded him inthe light of a deserter from their army. While his fate was in suspense, he informed the brothers Howe that he had abandoned the American cause, and he offered them his advice and counsel for the summer campaign. Thisvillainy of Lee's was not known till eighty years afterward, when apaper of his was discovered that revealed it in all its blackness. TheHowes were sure to pay some heed to Lee's opinions, because he wassupposed to have acquired a thorough knowledge of American affairs. Headvised them to begin by taking Philadelphia, and supported this planby plausible arguments. Sir William Howe seems to have thought that hecould accomplish this early in the summer, and then have his hands freefor whatever might be needed on the Hudson river. Accordingly on the12th of June he started to cross the state of New Jersey with 18, 000men. 

 [Sidenote: Washington's masterly campaign in New Jersey, June, 1777. ]

But Sir William had reckoned without his host. In a campaign of eighteendays, Washington, with only 8000 men, completely blocked the way forhim, and made him give up the game. The popular histories do not havemuch to say about these eighteen days, because they were not marked bybattles. Washington won by his marvellous skill in choosing positionswhere Howe could not attack him with any chance of success. Howeunderstood this and did not attack. He could not entice Washington intofighting at a disadvantage, and he could not march on and leave such anenemy behind without sacrificing his own communications. Accordingly onJune 30 he gave up his plan and retreated to Staten Island. If thereever was a general who understood the useful art of wasting hisadversary's time, Washington was that general. 

Howe now decided to take his army to Philadelphia by sea. He waited awhile till the news from the north seemed to show that Burgoyne wascarrying everything before him; and then he thought it safe to start. He left Sir Henry Clinton in command at New York, with 7000 men, tellinghim to send a small force up the river to help Burgoyne, should there beany need of it, which did not then seem likely. Then he put to sea withhis main force of 18, 000 men, and went around to the Delaware river, which he reached at the end of July, just as Burgoyne was reaching FortEdward. 

 [Sidenote: Howe's strange movement upon Philadelphia, by way of Chesapeake bay. ]

Howe's next move was very strange. He afterward said that he did not goup the Delaware river, because he found that there were obstructions andforts to be passed. But he might have gone up a little way and landedhis forces on the Delaware coast at a point where a single march wouldhave brought them to Elkton, at the head of Chesapeake bay, about fiftymiles southwest from Philadelphia. Instead of this, he put out to seaagain and sailed four hundred miles, to the mouth of Chesapeake bay andup that bay to Elkton, where he landed his men on the 25th of August. Why he took such a roundabout course cannot be understood, unless he mayhave attached importance to Lee's advice that the presence of a Britishsquadron in Chesapeake bay would help to arouse the Tories in Maryland. The British generals could not seem to make up their minds that Americawas a hostile country. Small blame to them, brave fellows that theywere! They could not make war against America in such a fierce spirit asthat in which France would now make war against Germany if she could seeher way clear to do so. They were always counting on American sympathy, and this was a will-o'-the-wisp that lured them to destruction. 

On landing at Elkton, Howe received orders from London, telling him toascend the Hudson river and support Burgoyne, in any event. This orderhad left London in May. It was well for the Americans that the telegraphhad not then been invented. Now it was the 25th of August; Burgoyne wasin imminent peril; and Howe was three hundred miles away from him!

 [Sidenote: Battle of the Brandywine, Sept. 11, 1777. ]

All these movements had been carefully watched by Washington; and asHowe marched toward Philadelphia he found that general blocking the wayat the fords of the Brandywine creek. A battle ensued on the 11th ofSeptember. It was a well-contested battle. With 11, 000 men against18, 000, Washington could hardly have been expected to win a victory. Hewas driven from the field, but not badly defeated. He kept his army wellin hand, and manoeuvred so skilfully that the British were employedfor two weeks in getting over the twenty-six miles to Philadelphia. 

 [Sidenote: Battle of Germantown, Oct. 4, 1777. ]

Before Howe had reached that city, Congress had moved away to York inPennsylvania. When he had taken Philadelphia, he found that he couldnot stay there without taking the forts on the Delaware river whichprevented the British ships from coming up; for by land Washington couldcut off his supplies, and he could only be sure of them by water. SoHowe detached part of his army to reduce these forts, leaving the restof it at Germantown, six miles from Philadelphia. On the 4th of October, Washington attacked the force at Germantown in such a position thatdefeat would have quite destroyed it. The attempt failed at the criticalmoment because of a dense fog in which one American brigade fired intoanother and caused a brief panic. The forts on the Delaware werecaptured after hard fighting, and Washington went into winter quartersat Valley Forge. 

The result of the summer's work was that, because Howe had made severalmistakes and Washington had taken the utmost advantage of every one ofthem, the whole British plan was spoiled. Howe had used up the wholeseason in getting to Philadelphia, and Washington's activity had alsokept Sir Henry Clinton's attention so much occupied with what was goingon about the Delaware river as to prevent him from sending aid to thenorthward until it was too late. Sir Henry was once actually obliged tosend reinforcements to Howe. 

Thus Burgoyne was left to himself. He supposed that Howe was coming upthe Hudson river to meet him, and so on September 13 he crossed theriver and advanced to attack Gates's army, which was occupying a strongposition at Bemis Heights, between Stillwater and Saratoga. It was adesperate move. While Burgoyne was making it, Lincoln's men cut hiscommunications with Ticonderoga, so that his only hope lay in help frombelow; and such help never came. In this extremity he was obliged tofight on ground chosen by the Americans, because he must either fight orstarve. 

 [Sidenote: Burgoyne is defeated by Arnold, and surrenders his army, Oct. 17, 1777. ]

Under these circumstances Burgoyne fought two battles with consummategallantry. The first was on September 19, the second on October 7. Ineach battle the Americans were led by Arnold and Morgan, and Gatesdeserves no credit for either. In both battles Arnold was the leadingspirit, and in the second he was severely wounded at the moment ofvictory. In the first battle the British were simply repulsed, in thesecond they were totally defeated. This settled the fate of Burgoyne, and on the 17th of October he surrendered his whole army, now reduced toless than 6000 men, as prisoners of war. Before the final catastropheSir Henry Clinton had sent a small force up the river to relieve him, but it was too late. The relieving force succeeded in capturing some ofthe Highland forts, but turned back on hearing of Burgoyne's surrender. 

CHAPTER VII. 

THE FRENCH ALLIANCE. 

 [Sidenote: Lord North changes front, and France interferes, Feb. , 1778. ]

This capture of a British army made more ado in Europe than anythingwhich had happened for many a day. It was compared to Leuktra and theCaudine Fork. The immediate effect in England was to weaken the king andcause Lord North to change his policy. The tea-duty and the obnoxiousacts of 1774 were repealed, the principles of colonial independence ofParliament laid down by Otis and Henry were admitted, and commissionerswere sent over to America to negotiate terms of peace. It was hoped thatby such ample concessions the Americans might be so appeased as to bewilling to adopt some arrangement which would leave their country a partof the British Empire. As soon as the French government saw the firstsymptoms of such a change of policy on the part of Lord North, itdecided to enter into an alliance with the United States. There was muchsympathy for the Americans among educated people of all grades ofsociety in France; but the action of the government was determinedpurely by hatred of England. While Great Britain and her colonies wereweakening each other by war, France had up to this moment not cared tointerfere. But if there was the slightest chance of a reconciliation, itwas high time to prevent it; and besides, the American cause was nowprosperous, and something might be made of it. The moment had come forFrance to seek revenge for the disasters of the Seven Years' War; and onthe 6th of February, 1778, her treaty of alliance with the United Stateswas signed at Paris. 

 [Sidenote: Untimely death of Lord Chatham, May 11, 1778. ]

At the news of this there was an outburst of popular excitement inEngland. There was a strong feeling in favour of peace with America andwar with France, and men of all parties united with Lord North himselfin demanding that Lord Chatham, who represented such a policy, should bemade prime minister. It was rightly believed that he, if any one, couldboth conciliate America and humiliate France. There was only one way inwhich Chatham could have broken the new alliance which Congress had solong been seeking. The faith of Congress was pledged to France, and theAmericans would no longer hear of any terms that did not begin with theacknowledgment of their full independence. To break the alliance, itwould have been necessary to concede the independence of the UnitedStates. The king felt that if he were now obliged to call Chatham to thehead of affairs and allow him to form a strong ministry, it would be theend of his cherished schemes for breaking down cabinet government. There was no man whom George III. Hated and feared so much as LordChatham. Nevertheless the pressure was so great that, but for Chatham'suntimely death, the king would probably have been obliged to yield. IfChatham had lived a year longer, the war might have ended with thesurrender of Burgoyne instead of continuing until the surrender ofCornwallis. As it was, Lord North consented, against his own betterjudgment, to remain in office and aid the king's policy as far as hecould. The commissioners sent to America accomplished nothing, becausethey were not empowered to grant independence; and so the war went on. 

 [Sidenote: Change in the conduct of the war. ]

There was a great change, however, in the manner in which the war wasconducted. In the years 1776 and 1777 the British had pursued a definiteplan for conquering New York and thus severing the connection betweenNew England and the southern states. During the remainder of the wartheir only definite plan was for conquering the southern states. Theiroperations at the north were for the most part confined to burning andplundering expeditions along the coast in their ships, or on thefrontier in connection with Tories and Indians. The war thus assumed amore cruel character. This was chiefly due to the influence of LordGeorge Germaine, the secretary of state for the colonies. He was acontemptible creature, weak and cruel. He had been dismissed from thearmy in 1759 for cowardice at the battle of Minden, and he was sogenerally despised that when in 1782 the king was obliged to turn himout of office and tried to console him by raising him to the peerage asViscount Sackville, the House of Lords protested against the admissionof such a creature. George III. Had made this man his colonial secretaryin the autumn of 1775, and he had much to do with planning the campaignsof the next two years. But now his influence in the cabinet seems tohave increased. He was much more thoroughly in sympathy with the kingthan Lord North, who at this time was really to be pitied. Lord Northwould have been a fine man but for his weakness of will. He was nowkeeping up the war in America unwillingly, and was obliged to sanctionmany things of which he did not approve. In later years he bitterlyrepented this weakness. Now the truculent policy of Lord George Germainebegan to show itself in the conduct of the war. That minister took nopains to conceal his willingness to employ Indians, to burn towns andvillages, and to inflict upon the American people as much misery aspossible, in the hope of breaking their spirit and tiring them out. 

 [Sidenote: The Conway Cabal. ]

In America the first effect of Burgoyne's surrender was to strengthen afeeling of dissatisfaction with Washington, which had grown up in somequarters. In reality, as our narrative has shown, Washington had as muchto do with the overthrow of Burgoyne as anybody; for if it had not beenfor his skilful campaign in June, 1777, Howe would have takenPhiladelphia in that month, and would then have been free to assistBurgoyne. It is easy enough to understand such things afterward, butpeople never can see them at the time when they are happening. This isan excellent illustration of what was said at the beginning of thisbook, that when people are down in the midst of events they cannot seethe wood because of the trees, and it is only when they have climbed thehill of history and look back over the landscape that they can see whatthings really meant. At the end of the year 1777 people could only seethat Burgoyne had surrendered to Gates, while Washington had lost twobattles and the city of Philadelphia. Accordingly there were many whosupposed that Gates must be a better general than Washington, and in thearmy there were some discontented spirits that were only too glad totake advantage of this feeling. One of these malcontents was an Irishadventurer, Thomas Conway, who had long served in France and came overhere in time to take part in the battles of Brandywine and Germantown. He had a grudge against Washington, as Charles Lee had. He thought hecould get on better if Washington were out of the way. So he busiedhimself in organizing a kind of conspiracy against Washington, whichcame to be known as the "Conway Cabal. " The purpose was to put forwardGates to supersede Washington, as he had lately superseded the nobleSchuyler. Gates, of course, lent himself heartily to the scheme; suchintrigues were what he was made for. And there were some of our noblestmen who were dissatisfied with Washington, because they were ignorant ofthe military art, and could not understand his wonderful skill, asFrederick the Great did. Among these were John and Samuel Adams, whodisapproved of "Fabian strategy. " Gates and Conway tried to work uponsuch feelings. They hoped by thwarting and insulting Washington to woundhis pride and force him to resign. In this wretched work they hadaltogether too much help from Congress, but they failed ignominiouslybecause Gates's lies were too plainly discovered. The attempts to injureWashington recoiled upon their authors. Never, perhaps, was Washingtonso grand as in that sorrowful winter at Valley Forge. 

When the news of the French alliance arrived, in the spring of 1778, there was a general feeling of elation. People were over-confident. Itseemed as if the British might be driven from the country in the courseof that year. Some changes occurred in both the opposing armies. A greatdeal of fault was found in England with Howe and Burgoyne. The latterwas allowed to go home in the spring, and took his seat in Parliamentwhile still a prisoner on parole. He was henceforth friendly to theAmericans, and opposed the further prosecution of the war. Sir WilliamHowe resigned his command in May and went home in order to defend hisconduct. Shortly before his appointment to the chief command in America, he had uttered a prophecy somewhat notable as coming from one who wasabout to occupy such a position. In a speech at Nottingham he hadexpressed the opinion that the Americans could not be subdued by anyarmy that Great Britain could raise!

 [Sidenote: Howe is superseded by Clinton. ]

Howe was succeeded in the chief command by Sir Henry Clinton. Hisbrother, Lord Howe, remained in command of the fleet until the autumn, when he was succeeded by Admiral Byron. During the winter the Americanarmy had received a very important reinforcement in the person of Baronvon Steuben, an able and highly educated officer who had served on thestaff of Frederick the Great. Steuben was appointed inspector-generaland taught the soldiers Prussian discipline and tactics until theefficiency of the army was more than doubled. About the time of SirWilliam Howe's departure, Charles Lee was exchanged, and came back tohis old place as senior major-general in the Continental army. Sincehis capture there had been a considerable falling off in his reputation, but nothing was known of his treasonable proceedings with the Howes. Probably no one in the British army knew anything about that affairexcept the Howes and their private secretary Sir Henry Strachey. Lee sawthat the American cause was now in the ascendant, and he was as anxiousas ever to supplant Washington. 

 [Sidenote: The Americans take the offensive; Lee's misconduct at Monmouth, June 28, 1778. ]

The Americans now assumed the offensive. Count d'Estaing was approachingthe coast with a powerful French fleet. Should he be able to defeat LordHowe and get control of the Delaware river, the British army inPhiladelphia would be in danger of capture. Accordingly on the 18th ofJune that city was evacuated by Sir Henry Clinton and occupied byWashington. As there were not enough transports to take the British armyaround to New York by sea, it was necessary to take the more hazardouscourse of marching across New Jersey. Washington pursued the enemyclosely, with the view of forcing him to battle in an unfavourablesituation and dealing him a fatal blow. There was some hope of effectingthis, as the two armies were now about equal in size--15, 000 ineach--and the Americans were in excellent training. The enemy wereovertaken at Monmouth Court House on the morning of June 28, but theattack was unfortunately entrusted to Lee, who disobeyed orders andmade an unnecessary and shameful retreat. Washington arrived on thescene in time to turn defeat into victory. The British were driven fromthe field, but Lee's misconduct had broken the force of the blow whichWashington had aimed at them. Lee was tried by court-martial and atfirst suspended from command, then expelled from the army. It was theend of his public career. He died in October, 1782. 

After the battle of Monmouth the British continued their march to NewYork, and Washington moved his army to White Plains. Count d'Estaingarrived at Sandy Hook in July with a much larger fleet than the Britishhad in the harbour, and a land force of 4000 men. It now seemed as ifClinton's army might be cooped up and compelled to surrender, but onexamination it appeared that the largest French ships drew too muchwater to venture to cross the bar. All hope of capturing New York wasaccordingly for the present abandoned. 

[Siege of Newport, Aug. 1778. ]

The enemy, however, had another considerable force near at hand, besidesClinton's. Since December, 1776, they had occupied the island whichgives its name to the state of Rhode Island. Its position was safe andconvenient. It enabled them, if they should see fit, to threaten Bostonon the one hand and the coast of Connecticut on the other, and thus tomake diversions in aid of Sir Henry Clinton. The force on Rhode Islandhad been increased to 6000 men, under command of Sir Robert Pigott. TheAmericans believed that the capture of so large a force, could it beeffected, would so discourage the British as to bring the war to an end;and in this belief they were very likely right. The French fleetaccordingly proceeded to Newport; to the 4000 French infantry Washingtonadded 1500 of the best of his Continentals; levies of New Englandyeomanry raised the total strength to 13, 000; and the general command ofthe American troops was given to Sullivan. 

The expedition was poorly managed, and failed completely. There was somedelay in starting. During the first week of August the Americans landedupon the island and occupied Butts Hill. The French had begun to land onConanicut when they learned that Lord Howe was approaching with apowerful fleet. The count then reëmbarked his men and stood out to sea, manoeuvring for a favourable position for battle. Before the fight hadbegun, a terrible storm scattered both fleets and damaged them severely. When D'Estaing had got his ships together again, which was not till the20th of August, he insisted upon going to Boston for repairs, and tookhis infantry with him. This vexed Sullivan and disgusted the yeomanry, who forthwith dispersed and went home to look after their crops. GeneralPigott then tried the offensive, and attacked Sullivan in his strongposition on Butts Hill, on the 29th of August. The British weredefeated, but the next day Sullivan learned that Clinton was coming withheavy reinforcements, and so he was obliged to abandon the enterpriseand lose no time in getting his own troops into a safe position on themainland. In November the French fleet sailed for the West Indies, andClinton was obliged to send 5000 men from New York to the same quarterof the world. 

 [Sidenote: Wyoming and Cherry Valley, July-Nov. , 1778. ]

In the years 1778 and 1779 the warfare on the border assumed formidableproportions. The Tories of central New York, under the Johnsons andButlers, together with Brant and his Mohawks, made their headquarters atFort Niagara, from which they struck frequent and terrible blows at theexposed settlements on the frontier. Early in July, 1778, a force of1200 men, under John Butler, spread death and desolation through thebeautiful valley of Wyoming in Pennsylvania. On the 10th of November, Brant and Walter Butler destroyed the village of Cherry Valley in NewYork, and massacred the inhabitants. Many other dreadful things weredone in the course of this year; but the affairs of Wyoming and CherryValley made a deeper impression than all the rest. During the followingspring Washington organized an expedition of 5000 men, and sent it, under Sullivan, to lay waste the Iroquois country and capture the nestof Tory malefactors at Fort Niagara. While they were slowly advancingthrough the wilderness, Brant sacked the town of Minisink and destroyeda force of militia sent against him. But on the 29th of August a battlewas fought on the site of the present town of Elmira, in which theTories and Indians were defeated with great slaughter. The American armythen marched through the country of the Cayugas and Senecas, and laid itwaste. More than forty Indian villages were burned and all the corn wasdestroyed, so that the approach of winter brought famine and pestilence. Sullivan was not able to get beyond the Genesee river for want ofsupplies, and so Fort Niagara escaped. The Iroquois league had receiveda blow from which it never recovered, though for two years more theirtomahawks were busy on the frontier. 

 [Sidenote: Conquest of the northwestern territory, 1778-79. ]

At intervals during the Revolution there was more or less Indian warfareall along the border. Settlers were making their way into Kentucky andTennessee. Feuds with these encroaching immigrants led the powerfultribe of Cherokees to take part with the British, and they made troubleenough until they were crushed by John Sevier, the "lion of the border. "In 1778 Colonel Hamilton, the British commander at Detroit, attempted tostir up all the western tribes to a concerted attack upon the frontier. When the news of this reached Virginia, an expedition was sent outunder George Rogers Clark, a youth of twenty-four years, to carry thewar into the enemy's country. In an extremely interesting and romanticseries of movements, Clark took the posts of Kaskaskia and Cahokia, onthe Mississippi river, defeated and captured Colonel Hamilton atVincennes, on the Wabash, and ended by conquering the whole northwesternterritory for the state of Virginia. 

 [Sidenote: Storming of Stony Point, July 15, 1779. ]

The year 1779 saw very little fighting in the northern states betweenthe regular armies. The British confined themselves chiefly to maraudingexpeditions along the coast, from Martha's Vineyard down to the Jamesriver. These incursions were marked by cruelties unknown in the earlierpart of the war. Their chief purpose would seem to have been to carryout Lord George Germaine's idea of harassing the Americans asvexatiously as possible. But in Connecticut, which perhaps suffered theworst, there was a military purpose. In July, 1779, an attack was madeupon New Haven, and the towns of Fairfield and Norwalk were burned. Theobject was to induce Washington to weaken his force on the Hudson riverby sending away troops to protect the Connecticut towns. Clinton nowheld the river as far up as Stony Point, and he hoped by this diversionto prepare for an attack upon Washington which, if successful, might endin the fall of West Point. If the British could get possession of WestPoint, it would go far toward retrieving the disaster which had befallenthem at Saratoga. Washington's retort was characteristic of him. He did, as always, what the enemy did not expect. He called Anthony Wayne andasked him if he thought he could carry Stony Point by storm. Waynereplied that he could storm a very much hotter place than any known interrestrial geography, if Washington would plan the attack. Plan andperformance were equally good. At midnight of July 15 the fort wassurprised and carried in a superb assault with bayonets, without thefiring of a gun on the American side. It was one of the most brilliantassaults in all military history. It instantly relieved Connecticut, butWashington did not think it prudent to retain the fortress. The workswere all destroyed, and the garrison, with the cannon and stores, withdrawn. The American army was as much as possible concentrated aboutWest Point. In the general situation of affairs on the Hudson there wasbut little change for the next two years. 

It may seem strange that so little was done in all this time. But, infact, both England and the United States were getting exhausted, so faras the ability to carry on war was concerned. 

 [Sidenote: How England was weakened and hampered, 1778-81. ]

As regards England, the action of France had seriously complicated thesituation. England had now to protect her colonies and dependencies onthe Mediterranean, in Africa, in Hindustan, and in the West Indies. In1779 Spain declared war against her, in the hope of regaining Gibraltarand the Floridas. For three years Gibraltar was besieged by the alliedFrench and Spanish forces. A Spanish fleet laid siege to Pensacola. France strove to regain the places which England had formerly won fromher in Senegambia. War broke out in India with the Mahrattas, and withHyder Ali of Mysore, and it required all the genius of Warren Hastingsto save England's empire in Asia. We have already seen how Clinton, inthe autumn of 1778, was obliged to weaken his force in New York bysending 5, 000 men to the West Indies. Before the end of 1779 there were314, 000 British troops on duty in various parts of the world, but notenough could be spared for service in New York to defeat Washington'slittle army of 15, 000. We thus begin to realize what a great event wasthe surrender of Burgoyne. The loss of 6, 000 men by England was not initself irreparable; but in leading to the intervention of France it waslike the touching of a spring or the drawing of a bolt which sets inmotion a vast system of machinery. 

Under these circumstances George III. Tried to form an alliance withRussia, and offered the island of Minorca as an inducement. Russiadeclined the offer, and such action as she took was hostile to England. It had formerly been held that the merchant ships of neutral nations, employed in trade with nations at war, might lawfully be overhauled andsearched by war ships of either of the belligerent nations, and theirgoods confiscated. England still held this doctrine and acted upon it. But during the eighteenth century her maritime power had increased tosuch an extent that she could damage other nations in this way much morethan they could damage her. Other nations accordingly began to maintainthat goods carried in neutral ships ought to be free from seizure. Earlyin 1780 Denmark, Sweden, and Russia entered into an agreement known asthe Armed Neutrality, by which they pledged themselves to unite inretaliating upon England whenever any of her cruisers should molest anyof their ships. This league was a new source of danger to England, because it entailed the risk of war with Russia. 

 [Sidenote: Paul Jones, 1779. ]

During these years several bold American cruisers had made the stars andstripes a familiar sight in European waters. The most famous of thesecruisers, Paul Jones, made his name a terror upon the coasts of England, burned the ships in a port of Cumberland, sailed into the Frith of Forthand threatened Edinburgh, and finally captured two British war vesselsoff Flamborough Head, in one of the most desperate sea-fights onrecord. 

 [Sidenote: St. Eustatius, Feb. , 1781. ]

Paul Jones was a regularly commissioned captain in the American navy, but because the British did not recognize Congress as a legal body theycalled him a pirate. When he took his prizes into a port in Holland, they requested the Dutch government to surrender him into their hands, as if he were a mere criminal to be tried at the Old Bailey. But theDutch let him stay in port ten weeks and then depart in peace. Thiscaused much irritation, and as there was also perpetual quarrelling overthe plunder of Dutch ships by British cruisers, the two nations went towar in December, 1780. One of England's reasons for entering into thiswar was the desire to capture the little Dutch island of St. Eustatiusin the West Indies. An immense trade was carried on there betweenHolland and the United States, and it was believed that the stoppage ofthis trade would be a staggering blow to the Americans. It was capturedin February, 1781, by Admiral Rodney, private property was seized to theamount of more than twenty million dollars, and the inhabitants weretreated with shameful brutality. 

 [Sidenote: How the Americans were weakened and hampered. The want of union. ]

As England was thus fighting single-handed against France, Spain, Holland, and the United States, while the attitude of all the neutralpowers was unfriendly, we can find no difficulty in understanding theweakness of her military operations in some quarters. The United States, on the other hand, found it hard to carry on the war for very differentreasons. In the first place the country was really weak. The militarystrength of the American Union in 1780 was inferior to that of Holland, and about on a level with that of Denmark or Portugal. But furthermorethe want of union made it hard to bring out such strength as there was. In the autumn of 1777 the Articles of Confederation were submitted tothe several states for adoption; but the spring of 1781 had arrivedbefore all the thirteen states had ratified them. These articles leftthe Continental Congress just what it was before, a mere advisory body, without power to enlist soldiers or levy taxes, without federal courtsor federal officials, and with no executive head to the government. Aswe have already seen, the only way in which Congress could get moneyfrom the people was by requisitions upon the states, by _asking_ thestate-governments for it. This was always a very slow way to get money, and now the states were unusually poor. There was very littleaccumulated capital. Farming, fishing, ship-building, and foreign tradewere the chief occupations. Farms and plantations suffered considerablyfrom the absence of their owners in the army, and many were kept fromenlisting, because it was out of the question to go and leave theirfamilies to starve. As for ship-building, fishing, and foreign trade, these occupations were almost annihilated by British cruisers. No doubtthe heaviest blows that we received were thus dealt us on the water. 

 [Sidenote: Fall of the Continental currency:--"Not worth a Continental. "]

The people were so poor that the states found it hard to collect enoughrevenue for their own purposes, and most of them had a way of issuingpaper money of their own, which made things still worse. Under suchcircumstances they had very little money to give to Congress. It wasnecessary to borrow of France, or Spain, or Holland, and by the timethese nations were all at war, that became very difficult. From thebeginning of the war Congress had issued paper notes, and in 1778 thedepreciation in their value was already alarming. But as soon as theexultation over Burgoyne's surrender had subsided, as soon as the hopeof speedily driving out the British had been disappointed, people soonlost all confidence in the power of Congress to pay its notes, and in1779 their value began falling with frightful rapidity. In 1780 theybecame worthless. It took $150 in Continental currency to buy a bushelof corn, and an ordinary suit of clothes cost $2000. Then people refusedto take it, and resorted to barter, taking their pay in sheep orploughs, in jugs of rum or kegs of salt pork, or whatever they couldget. It thus became almost impossible either to pay soldiers, or toclothe and feed them properly and supply them with powder and ball. Wethus see why the Americans, as well as the British conducted the war solanguidly that for two years after the storming of Stony Point theirmain armies sat and faced each other by the Hudson river, without anymovements of importance. 

 [Sidenote: The British conquer Georgia, 1779. ]

In one quarter, however, the British began to make rapid progress. Theypossessed the Floridas, having got them from Spain by the treaty of1763. Next them lay Georgia, the weakest of the thirteen states, andthen came the Carolinas, with a strong Tory element in the population. For such reasons, after the great invasion of New York had failed, theBritish tried the plan of starting at the southern extremity of theUnion and lopping off one state after another. In the autumn of 1778General Prevost advanced from East Florida, and in a brief campaignsucceeded in capturing Savannah, Sunbury, and Augusta. General Lincoln, who had won distinction in the Saratoga campaign, was appointed tocommand the American forces in the South. He sent General Ashe, with1500 men, to threaten Augusta. At Ashe's approach, the British abandonedthe town and retreated toward Savannah. Ashe pursued too closely and atBriar Creek, March 3, 1779, the enemy turned upon him and routed him. The Americans lost nearly 1000 men killed, wounded, and captured, besides their cannon and small arms; and this victory cost the Britishonly 16 men killed and wounded. Augusta was reoccupied, the royalgovernor, Sir James Wright, was reinstated in office, and the machineryof government which had been in operation previous to 1776 was restored. Lincoln now advanced upon Augusta, but Prevost foiled him by returningthe offensive and marching upon Charleston. In order to protect thatcity, Lincoln was obliged to retrace his steps. It was now the middle ofMay, and little more was done till September, when D'Estaing returnedfrom the West Indies. On the 23d Savannah was invested by the combinedforces of Lincoln and D'Estaing, and the siege was vigorously carried onfor a fortnight. Then the French admiral grew impatient. On the 9th ofOctober a fierce assault was made, in which the allies were defeatedwith the loss of 1000 men, including the gallant Pulaski. The Frenchfleet then departed, and the British could look upon Georgia asrecovered. 

 [Sidenote: And capture Charleston, with Lincoln's army, May 12, 1780. ]

It was South Carolina's turn next. Washington was obliged to weaken hisown force by sending most of the southern troops to Lincoln'sassistance. Sir Henry Clinton then withdrew the garrisons from hisadvanced posts on the Hudson, and also from Rhode Island, and was thusable to leave an adequate force in New York, while he himself set sailfor Savannah, December 26, 1779, with a considerable army. After theBritish forces were united in Georgia, they amounted to more than13, 000 men, against whom Lincoln could bring but 7000. The fate of theAmerican army shows us what would probably have happened in New York in1776 if an ordinary general instead of Washington had been in command. Lincoln allowed himself to be cooped up in Charleston, and after a siegeof two months was obliged to surrender the city and his whole army onthe 12th of May, 1780. This was the most serious disaster the Americanshad suffered since the loss of Fort Washington. The dashing cavalryleader, Tarleton, soon cut to pieces whatever remnants of their armywere left in South Carolina. Sir Henry Clinton returned in June to NewYork, leaving Lord Cornwallis with 5000 men to carry on the work. TheTories, thus supported, got the upperhand in the interior of the state, which suffered from all the horrors of civil war. The American cause wassustained only by partisan leaders, of whom the most famous were FrancisMarion and Thomas Sumter. 

 [Sidenote: Battle of Camden, Aug. 16, 1780. ]

When the news of Lincoln's surrender reached the North, the emergencywas felt to be desperate. A fresh army was raised, consisting of about2000 superbly trained veterans of the Maryland and Delaware lines, underthe Baron de Kalb, and such militia as could be raised in Virginia andNorth Carolina. The chief command was given to Gates, whose conduct fromthe start was a series of blunders. The most important strategic pointin South Carolina was Camden, at the intersection of the principal roadsfrom the coast to the mountains and from north to south. In marchingupon this point Gates was met by Lord Cornwallis on the 16th of Augustand utterly routed. Kalb was mortally wounded at the head of theMaryland troops, who held their ground nobly till overwhelmed bynumbers; the Delaware men were cut to pieces; the militia were sweptaway in flight, and Gates with them. His northern laurels, as it wassaid, had changed into southern willows; and for the second time withinthree months an American army at the South had been annihilated. 

This was, on the whole, the darkest moment of the war. For a moment inJuly there had been a glimmer of hopefulness when the Count deRochambeau arrived with 6000 men who were landed on Rhode Island. TheBritish fleet, however, soon came and blockaded them there, and againthe hearts of the people were sickened with hope deferred. It seemed asif Lord George Germaine's policy of "tiring the Americans out" might begoing to succeed after all. When the value of the Continental papermoney now fell to zero, it was a fair indication that the people hadpretty much lost all faith in Congress. In the army the cases ofdesertion to the British lines averaged about a hundred per month. 

 [Sidenote: Benedict Arnold's treason, July-Sept. , 1780. ]

This was a time when a man of bold and impulsive temperament, prone tocherish romantic schemes, smarting under an accumulation of injuries, and weak in moral principle, might easily take it into his head that theAmerican cause was lost, and that he had better carve out a new careerfor himself, while wreaking vengeance on his enemies. Such seems to havebeen the case with Benedict Arnold. He had a great and well-earnedreputation for skill and bravery. His military services up to the timeof Burgoyne's surrender had been of priceless value, and he had alwaysstood high in Washington's favour. But he had a genius for getting intoquarrels, and there seem always to have been people who doubted hismoral soundness. At the same time he had good reason to complain of thetreatment which he received from Congress. The party hostile toWashington sometimes liked to strike at him in the persons of hisfavourite generals, and such admirable men as Greene and Morgan had tobear the brunt of this ill feeling. Early in 1777 five brigadiergenerals junior to Arnold in rank and vastly inferior to him in abilityand reputation had been promoted over him to the grade of major-general. On this occasion he had shown an excellent spirit, and when sent byWashington to the aid of Schuyler, he had signified his willingness toserve under St. Clair and Lincoln, two of the juniors who had beenraised above him. Arnold was a warm friend to Schuyler, and perhaps didnot take enough pains to conceal his poor opinion of Gates. Otherofficers in the northern army let it plainly be seen that they placedmore confidence in Arnold than in Gates, and the result was a bitterquarrel between the two generals, echoes of which were probablyafterwards heard in Congress. 

If Arnold's wound on the field of Saratoga had been a mortal wound, hewould have been ranked, among the military heroes of the Revolution, next to Washington and Greene. Perhaps, however, in a far worse sensethan is commonly conveyed by the term, it proved to be his death-wound, for it led to his being placed in command of Philadelphia. He wasassigned to that position because his wounded leg made him unfit foractive service. Congress had restored him to his relative rank, but nowhe soon got into trouble with the state government of Pennsylvania. Itis not easy to determine how much ground there may have been for thecharges brought against him early in 1779 by the state government. Oneof them concerned his personal honesty, the others were so trivial incharacter as to make the whole affair look somewhat like a case ofpersecution. They were twice investigated, once by a committee ofCongress and once by a court-martial. On the serious charge, whichaffected his pecuniary integrity, he was acquitted; on two of thetrivial charges, of imprudence in the use of some public wagons, and ofcarelessness in granting a pass for a ship, he was convicted andsentenced to be reprimanded. The language in which Washington couchedthe reprimand showed his feeling that Arnold was too harshly dealt with. 

If the matter had stopped here, posterity would probably have sharedWashington's feeling. But the government of Pennsylvania must have hadstronger grounds for distrust of Arnold than it was able to put into theform of definite charges. Soon after his arrival in Philadelphia he fellin love with a beautiful Tory lady, to whom he was presently married. Hewas thus thrown much into the society of Tories and was no doubtinfluenced by their views. He had for some time considered himselfill-treated, and at first thought of leaving the service and settlingupon a grant of land in western New York. Then, as the charges againsthim were pressed and his anger increased, he seems to have dallied withthe notion of going over to the British. At length in the early summerof 1780, after the reprimand, his treasonable purpose seems to havetaken definite shape. As General Monk in 1660 decided that the only wayto restore peace in England was to desert the cause of the Commonwealthand bring back Charles II. , so Arnold seems now to have thought that thecause of American independence was ruined, and that the best prospectfor a career for himself lay in deserting it and helping to bring backthe rule of George III. In this period of general depression, when eventhe unconquerable Washington said "I have almost ceased to hope, " onestaggering blow would be very likely to end the struggle. There could beno heavier blow than the loss of the Hudson river, and with basenessalmost incredible Arnold asked for the command of West Point, with theintention of betraying it into the hands of Sir Henry Clinton. The depthof his villainy on this occasion makes it probable that there were goodgrounds for the suspicions with which some people had for a long timeregarded him, although Washington, by putting him in command of the mostimportant position in the country, showed that his own confidence in himwas unabated. The successful execution of the plot seemed to call for apersonal interview between Arnold and Clinton's adjutant-general, MajorJohn André, who was entrusted with the negotiation. Such a secretinterview was extremely difficult to bring about, but it was effected onthe 21st of September, 1780. After a marvellous chapter of accidents, André was captured just before reaching the British lines. But for hishasty and quite unnecessary confession that he was a British officer, which led to his being searched, the plot would in all probability havebeen successful. The papers found on his person, which left no room fordoubt as to the nature of the black scheme, were sent to Washington;the principal traitor, forewarned just in the nick of time, escaped tothe British at New York; and Major André was condemned as a spy andhanged on the 2d of October. 

 [Sidenote: Battle of King's Mountain, Oct. 7, 1780. ]

Only five days after the execution of André an event occurred at theSouth which greatly relieved the prevailing gloom of the situation. Itwas the first of a series of victories which were soon to show that thedarkness of 1780 was the darkness that comes before dawn. After hisvictory at Camden, Lord Cornwallis found it necessary to give his armysome rest from the intense August heat. In September he advanced intoNorth Carolina, boasting that he would soon conquer all the states southof the Susquehanna river. But his line of march now lay far inland, andthe British armies were never able to accomplish much except in theneighbourhood of their ships, where they could be reasonably sure ofsupplies. In traversing Mecklenburg county Cornwallis soon found himselfin a very hostile and dangerous region, where there were no Tories tobefriend him. One of his best partisan commanders, Major Ferguson, penetrated too far into the mountains. The backwoodsmen of Tennessee andKentucky, the Carolinas, and western Virginia were aroused; and undertheir superb partisan leaders--Shelby, Sevier, Cleaveland, McDowell, Campbell, and Williams--gave chase to Ferguson, who took refuge uponwhat he deemed an impregnable position on the top of King's Mountain. Onthe 7th of October the backwoodsmen stormed the mountain, Ferguson wasshot through the heart, 400 of his men were killed and wounded, and allthe rest, 700 in number, surrendered at discretion. The Americans lost28 killed and 60 wounded. There were some points in this battle, whichremind one of the British defeat at Majuba Hill in southern Africa in1881. 

In the series of events which led to the surrender of Cornwallis, thebattle of King's Mountain played a part similar to that played by thebattle of Bennington in the series of events which led to the surrenderof Burgoyne. It was the enemy's first serious disaster, and itsimmediate result was to check his progress until the Americans couldmuster strength enough to overthrow him. The events, however, were muchmore complicated in Cornwallis's case, and took much longer to unfoldthemselves. Burgoyne surrendered within nine anxious weeks afterBennington; Cornwallis maintained himself, sometimes with fair hopes offinal victory, for a whole year after King's Mountain. 

[Illustration]

 [Sidenote: Greene takes command in South Carolina, Dec. 2, 1780. ]

As soon as he heard the news of the disaster he fell back toWinnsborough, in South Carolina, and called for reinforcements. Whilethey were arriving, the American army, recruited and reorganizedsince its crushing defeat at Camden, advanced into Mecklenburg county. Gates was superseded by Greene, who arrived upon the scene on the 2d ofDecember. Under Greene were three Virginians of remarkableability, --Daniel Morgan; William Washington, who was a distant cousin ofthe commander-in-chief; and Henry Lee, familiarly known as "Light-horseHarry, " father of the great general, Robert Edward Lee. The little armynumbered only 2000 men, but a considerable part of them were disciplinedveterans fully a match for the British infantry. 

In order to raise troops in Virginia to increase this little force, Steuben was sent down to that state. In order to interfere with suchrecruiting, and to make diversions in aid of Cornwallis, detachmentsfrom the British army were also sent by sea from New York to Virginia. The first of these detachments, under General Leslie, had been obligedto keep on to South Carolina, to make good the loss inflicted uponCornwallis at King's Mountain. To replace Leslie in Virginia, thetraitor Arnold was sent down from New York. The presence of thesesubsidiary forces in Virginia was soon to influence in a decisive waythe course of events. 

 [Sidenote: Battle of the Cowpens, Jan. 17, 1781. ]

Greene, on reaching South Carolina, acted with boldness and originality. He divided his little army into two bodies, one of which coöperatedwith Marion's partisans in the northeastern part of the state, andthreatened Cornwallis's communications with the coast. The other body hesent under Morgan to the southwestward, to threaten the inland posts andtheir garrisons. Thus worried on both flanks, Cornwallis presentlydivided his own force, sending Tarleton with 1100 men, to dispose ofMorgan. Tarleton came up with Morgan on the 17th of January, 1781, at agrazing-ground known as the Cowpens, not far from King's Mountain. Thebattle which ensued was well fought, and on Morgan's part it was awonderful piece of tactics. With only 900 men in open field hesurrounded and nearly annihilated a superior force. The British lost 230in killed and wounded, 600 prisoners, and all their guns. Tarletonescaped with 270 men. The Americans lost 12 killed and 61 wounded. 

 [Sidenote: Battle of Guilford, March 15, 1781. ]

The two battles, King's Mountain and the Cowpens, deprived Cornwallis ofnearly all his light-armed troops, and he was just entering upon a gamewhere swiftness was especially required. It was his object to interceptMorgan and defeat him before he could effect a junction with the otherpart of the American army. It was Greene's object to march the two partsof his army in converging directions northward across North Carolina andunite them in spite of Cornwallis. By moving in this direction Greenewas always getting nearer to his reinforcements from Virginia, whileCornwallis was always getting further from his supports in SouthCarolina. It was brilliant strategy on Greene's part, and entirelysuccessful. Cornwallis had to throw away a great deal of his baggage andotherwise weaken himself, but in spite of all he could do, he wasoutmarched. The two wings of the American army came together and werejoined by the reinforcements; so that at Guilford Court House, on the15th of March, Cornwallis found himself obliged to fight against heavyodds, two hundred miles from the coast and almost as far from thenearest point in South Carolina at which he could get support. 

The battle of Guilford was admirably managed by both commanders andstubbornly fought by the troops. At nightfall the British held thefield, with the loss of nearly one third of their number, and theAmericans were repulsed. But Cornwallis could not stay in such a place, and could not afford to risk another battle. There was nothing for himto do but retreat to Wilmington, the nearest point on the coast. Therehe stopped and pondered. 

 [Sidenote: Cornwallis retreats into Virginia. ]

His own force was sadly depleted, but he knew that Arnold in Virginiawas being heavily reinforced from New York. The only safe course seemedto march northward and join in the operations in Virginia; thenafterwards to return southward. This course Cornwallis pursued, arrivingat Petersburg and taking command of the troops there on the 20th of May. 

 [Sidenote: Greene takes Camden, May 10, 1781. ]

 [Sidenote: Battle of Eutaw Springs, Sept. 8, 1781. ]

Meanwhile Greene, after pursuing Cornwallis for about fifty miles fromGuilford, faced about and marched with all speed upon Camden, a hundredand sixty miles distant. Whatever his adversary might do, he was nowgoing to seize the great prize of the campaign, and break the enemy'shold upon South Carolina. Lord Rawdon held Camden. Greene stopped atHobkirk's Hill, two miles to the north, and sent Marion and Lee to takeFort Watson, and thus cut the enemy's communications with the coast. OnApril 23 Fort Watson surrendered; on the 25th Rawdon defeated Greene atHobkirk's Hill, but as his communications were cut, the victory did himno good. He was obliged to retreat toward the coast, and Greene tookCamden on the 10th of May. Having thus obtained the commanding point, Greene went on until he had reduced every one of the inland posts. Atlast on the 8th of September he fought an obstinate battle at EutawSprings, in which both sides claimed the victory. The facts were that hedrove the British from their first position, but they rallied upon asecond position from which he failed to drive them. Here, however, asalways after one of Greene's battles, it was the enemy who retreatedand he who pursued. His strategy never failed. After Eutaw Springs theBritish remained shut up in Charleston under cover of their ships, andthe American government was reëstablished over South Carolina. Among allthe campaigns in history that have been conducted with small armies, there have been few, if any, more brilliant than Greene's. 

 [Sidenote: Lafayette and Cornwallis in Virginia, May-Sept. , 1718. ]

There was something especially piquant in the way in which afterGuilford he left Cornwallis to himself. It reminds one of a chess-playerwho first gets the queen off the board, where she can do no harm, andthen wins the game against the smaller pieces. As for Cornwallis, whenhe reached Petersburg, May 20, he found himself at the head of 5000 men. Arnold had just been recalled to New York, and Lafayette, who had beensent down to oppose him, was at Richmond with 3000 men. A campaign ofnine weeks ensued, in the first part of which Cornwallis tried to catchLafayette and bring him to battle. The general movement was fromRichmond up to Fredericksburg, then over toward Charlottesville, thenback to the James river, then down the north bank of the river. Butduring the last part the tables were turned, and it was Lafayette, reinforced by Wayne and Steuben, that pursued Cornwallis on his retreatto the coast. At the end of July the British general reached Yorktown, where he was reinforced and waited with 7000 men. 

 [Sidenote: Washington's masterly movement. ]

We may now change our simile, and liken Cornwallis to a ball between twobats. The first bat, which had knocked him up into Virginia, was Greene;the second, which sent him quite out of the game, was Washington. Theremarkable movement which the latter general now proceeded to executewould have been impossible without French coöperation. A French fleet ofoverwhelming power, under the Count de Grasse, was approachingChesapeake bay. Washington, in readiness for it, had first movedRochambeau's army from Rhode Island across Connecticut to the Hudsonriver. Then, as soon as all the elements of the situation weredisclosed, he left part of his force in position on the Hudson, and in asuperb march led the rest down to Virginia. Sir Henry Clinton at NewYork was completely hoodwinked. He feared that the real aim of theFrench fleet was New York, in which case it would be natural that anAmerican land-force should meet it at Staten island. Now a glance at themap of New Jersey will show that Washington's army, starting from WestPoint, could march more than half the way toward Philadelphia and stillbe supposed to be aiming at Staten island. Washington was a master handfor secrecy. When his movement was first disclosed, his own generals, aswell as Sir Henry Clinton, took it for granted that Staten island wasthe point aimed at. It was not until he had passed Philadelphia thatClinton began to surmise that he might be going down to Virginia. 

When this fact at length dawned upon the British commander, he made afutile attempt at a diversion by sending Benedict Arnold to attack NewLondon. It was as weak as the act of a drowning man who catches at astraw. Arnold's expedition, cruel and useless as it was, crowned hisinfamy. A sad plight for a man of his power! If he had only had morestrength of character, he might now have been marching with his oldfriend Washington to victory. With this wretched affair at New London, the brilliant and wicked Benedict Arnold disappears from Americanhistory. He died in London, in 1801, a broken-hearted and penitent man, as his grandchildren tell us, praying God with his last breath toforgive his awful crime. 

 [Sidenote: Surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown, Oct. 19, 1781. ]

Washington's march was so swift and so cunningly planned that nothingcould check it. On the 26th of September the situation was complete. Washington had added his force to that of Lafayette, so that 16, 000 menblockaded Cornwallis upon the Yorktown peninsula. The great Frenchfleet, commanding the waters about Chesapeake bay, closed in behind andprevented escape. It was a very unusual thing for the French thus to getcontrol of the water and defy the British on their own element. It wasWashington's unwearied vigilance that, after waiting long for such achance, had seized it without a moment's delay. As soon as Cornwalliswas thus caught between a hostile army and a hostile fleet, the problemwas solved. On the 19th of October the British army surrendered. Washington presently marched his army back to the Hudson and made hisheadquarters at Newburgh. 

 [Sidenote: Overthrow of George III. 's political schemes, May, 1784. ]

When Lord North at his office in London heard the dismal news, he walkedup and down the room, wringing his hands and crying, "O God, it is allover!" Yorktown was indeed decisive. In the course of the winter theBritish lost Georgia. The embers of Indian warfare still smouldered onthe border, but the great War for Independence was really at an end. Theking's friends had for some time been losing strength in England, andYorktown completed their defeat. In March, 1782, Lord North's ministryresigned. A succession of short-lived ministries followed; first, LordRockingham's, until July, 1782; then Lord Shelburne's, until February, 1783; then, after five weeks without a government, there came into powerthe strange Coalition between Fox and North, from April to December. During these two years the king was trying to intrigue with one interestagainst another so as to maintain his own personal government. With thisend in view he tried the bold experiment of dismissing the Coalitionand making the young William Pitt prime minister, without a majority inParliament. After a fierce constitutional struggle, which lasted allwinter, Pitt dissolved Parliament, and in the new election in May, 1784, obtained the greatest majority ever given to an English minister. Butthe victory was Pitt's and the people's, not the king's. This electionof 1784 overthrew all the cherished plans of George III. In pursuance ofwhich he had driven the American colonies into rebellion. It establishedcabinet government more firmly than ever, so that for the next seventeenyears the real ruler of Great Britain was William Pitt. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

BIRTH OF THE NATION. 

 [Sidenote: The treaty of peace, 1782-83. ]

The year 1782 was marked by great victories for the British in the WestIndies and at Gibraltar. But they did not alter the situation inAmerica. The treaty of peace by which Great Britain acknowledged theindependence of the United States was made under Lord Shelburne'sministry in the autumn of 1782, and adopted and signed by the Coalitionon the 3d of September, 1783. The negotiations were carried on at Parisby Franklin, Jay, and John Adams, on the part of the Americans; and theywon a diplomatic victory in securing for the United States the countrybetween the Alleghany mountains and the Mississippi river. This was doneagainst the wishes of the French government, which did not wish to seethe United States become too powerful. At the same time Spain recoveredMinorca and the Floridas. France got very little except the satisfactionof having helped in diminishing the British empire. 

 [Sidenote: Troubles with the army, 1781-83. ]

The return of peace did not bring contentment to the Americans. BecauseCongress had no means of raising a revenue or enforcing its decrees, itwas unable to make itself respected either at home or abroad. For wantof pay the army became very troublesome. In January, 1781, there hadbeen a mutiny of Pennsylvania and New Jersey troops which at one momentlooked very serious. In the spring of 1782 some of the officers, disgusted with the want of efficiency in the government, seem to haveentertained a scheme for making Washington king; but Washington met thesuggestion with a stern rebuke. In March, 1783, inflammatory appealswere made to the officers at the headquarters of the army at Newburgh. It seems to have been intended that the army should overawe Congress andseize upon the government until the delinquent states should contributethe money needed for satisfying the soldiers and other public creditors. Gates either originated this scheme or willingly lent himself to it, butan eloquent speech from Washington prevailed upon the officers to rejectand condemn it. 

On the 19th of April, 1783, the eighth anniversary of Lexington, thecessation of hostilities was formally proclaimed, and the soldiers wereallowed to go home on furloughs. The army was virtually disbanded. Therewere some who thought that this ought not to be done while the Britishforces still remained in New York; but Congress was afraid of the armyand quite ready to see it scattered. On the 21st of June Congress wasdriven from Philadelphia by a small band of drunken soldiers clamorousfor pay. It was impossible for Congress to get money. Of the Continentaltaxes assessed in 1783, only one fifth part had been paid by the middleof 1785. After peace was made, France had no longer any end to gain bylending us money, and European bankers, as well as European governments, regarded American credit as dead. 

 [Sidenote: Congress unable to fulfil the treaty. ]

There was a double provision of the treaty which could not be carriedout because of the weakness of Congress. It had been agreed thatCongress should request the state governments to repeal various lawswhich they had made from time to time confiscating the property ofTories and hindering the collection of private debts due from Americanto British merchants. Congress did make such a request, but it was notheeded. The laws hindering the payment of debts were not repealed; andas for the Tories, they were so badly treated that between 1783 and 1785more than 100, 000 left the country. Those from the southern states wentmostly to Florida and the Bahamas; those from the north made thebeginnings of the Canadian states of Ontario and New Brunswick. A goodmany of them were reimbursed for their losses by Parliament. 

 [Sidenote: Great Britain retaliates, presuming upon the weakness of the feeling of union among the states. ]

When the British government saw that these provisions of the treaty werenot fulfilled, it retaliated by refusing to withdraw its troops fromthe northern and western frontier posts. The British army sailed fromCharleston on the 14th of December, 1782, and from New York on the 25thof November, 1783, but in contravention of the treaty small garrisonsremained at Ogdensburgh, Oswego, Niagara, Erie, Sandusky, Detroit, andMackinaw until the 1st of June, 1796. Besides this, laws were passedwhich bore very severely upon American commerce, and the Americans foundit impossible to retaliate because the different states would not agreeupon any commercial policy in common. On the other hand, the statesbegan making commercial war upon each other, with navigation laws andhigh tariffs. Such laws were passed by New York to interfere with thetrade of Connecticut, and the merchants of the latter state began tohold meetings and pass resolutions forbidding all trade whatever withNew York. 

The old quarrels about territory were kept up, and in 1784 the troublesin Wyoming and in the Green Mountains came to the very verge of civilwar. People in Europe, hearing of such things, believed that the Unionwould soon fall to pieces and become the prey of foreign powers. It wasdisorder and calamity of this sort that such men as Hutchinson hadfeared, in case the control of Great Britain over the colonies shouldcease. George III. Looked upon it all with satisfaction, and believedthat before long the states would one after another become repentant andbeg to be taken back into the British empire. 

 [Sidenote: The craze for paper money and the Shays rebellion, 1786. ]

The troubles reached their climax in 1786. Because there seemed to be noother way of getting money, the different states began to issue theirpromissory notes, and then tried to compel people by law to receive suchnotes as money. There was a strong "paper money" party in all the statesexcept Connecticut and Delaware. The most serious trouble was in RhodeIsland and Massachusetts. In both states the farmers had been muchimpoverished by the war. Many farms were mortgaged, and now and then onewas sold to satisfy creditors. The farmers accordingly clamoured forpaper money, but the merchants in towns like Boston or Providence, understanding more about commerce, were opposed to any such miserablemakeshifts. In Rhode Island the farmers prevailed. Paper money wasissued, and harsh laws were passed against all who should refuse to takeit at its face value. The merchants refused, and in the towns nearly allbusiness was stopped during the summer of 1786. 

In the Massachusetts legislature the paper money party was defeated. There was a great outcry among the farmers against merchants andlawyers, and some were heard to maintain that the time had come forwiping out all debts. In August, 1786, the malcontents rose inrebellion, headed by one Daniel Shays, who had been a captain in theContinental army. They began by trying to prevent the courts fromsitting, and went on to burn barns, plunder houses, and attack thearsenal at Springfield. The state troops were called out, under GeneralLincoln, two or three skirmishes were fought, in which a few lives werelost, and at length in February, 1787, the insurrection was suppressed. 

 [Sidenote: The Mississippi question, 1786. ]

At that time the mouth of the Mississippi river and the country on itswestern bank belonged to Spain. Kentucky and Tennessee were rapidlybecoming settled by people from Virginia and North Carolina, and thesesettlers wished to trade with New Orleans. The Spanish government wasunfriendly and wished to prevent such traffic. The people of New Englandfelt little interest in the southwestern country or the Mississippiriver, but were very anxious to make a commercial treaty with Spain. Thegovernment of Spain refused to make such a treaty except on conditionthat American vessels should not be allowed to descend the Mississippiriver below the mouth of the Yazoo. When Congress seemed on the point ofyielding to this demand, the southern states were very angry. The NewEngland states were equally angry at what they called the obstinacy ofthe South, and threats of secession were heard on both sides. 

 [Sidenote: The northwestern territory; the first national domain, 1780-87. ]

Perhaps the only thing that kept the Union from falling to pieces in1786 was the Northwestern Territory, which George Rogers Clark hadconquered in 1779, and which skilful diplomacy had enabled us to keepwhen the treaty was drawn up in 1782. Virginia claimed this territoryand actually held it, but New York, Massachusetts, and Connecticut alsohad claims upon it. It was the idea of Maryland that such a vast regionought not to be added to any one state, or divided between two or threeof the states, but ought to be the common property of the Union. Maryland had refused to ratify the Articles of Confederation until thefour states that claimed the northwestern territory should yield theirclaims to the United States. This was done between 1780 and 1785, andthus for the first time the United States government was put inpossession of valuable property which could be made to yield an incomeand pay debts. This piece of property was about the first thing in whichall the American people were alike interested, after they had won theirindependence. It could be opened to immigration and made to pay thewhole cost of the war and much more. During these troubled yearsCongress was busy with plans for organizing this territory, which atlength resulted in the famous Ordinance of 1787 laying down fundamentallaws for the government of what has since developed into the five greatstates of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. While otherquestions tended to break up the Union, the questions that arose inconnection with this work tended to hold it together. 

 [Sidenote: The convention at Annapolis, Sept. 11, 1786. ]

The need for easy means of communication between the old Atlantic statesand this new country behind the mountains led to schemes which ripenedin course of time into the construction of the Chesapeake and Ohio andthe Erie canals. In discussing such schemes, Maryland and Virginia foundit necessary to agree upon some kind of commercial policy to be pursuedby both states. Then it was thought best to seize the occasion forcalling a general convention of the states to decide upon a uniformsystem of regulations for commerce. This convention was held atAnnapolis in September, 1786, but only five states had sent delegates, and so the convention adjourned after adopting an address written byAlexander Hamilton, calling for another convention to meet atPhiladelphia on the second Monday of the following May, "to devise suchfurther provisions as shall appear necessary to render the constitutionof the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union. "

The Shays rebellion and the quarrel about the Mississippi river had bythis time alarmed people so that it began to be generally admitted thatthe federal government must be in some way strengthened. If there wereany doubt as to this, it was removed by the action of New York. Anamendment to the Articles of Confederation had been proposed, givingCongress the power of levying customs-duties and appointing thecollectors. By the summer of 1786 all the states except New York hadconsented to this. But in order to amend the articles, unanimous consentwas necessary, and in February, 1787, New York's refusal defeated theamendment. Congress was thus left without any immediate means of raisinga revenue, and it became quite clear that something must be done withoutdelay. 

 [Sidenote: The Federal Convention at Philadelphia, May-Sept. , 1787. ]

The famous Federal Convention met at Philadelphia in May, 1787, andremained in session four months, with Washington presiding. Its work wasthe framing of the government under which we are now living, and inwhich the evils of the old confederation have been avoided. The troublehad all the while been how to get the whole American people_represented_ in some body that could thus rightfully _tax_ the wholeAmerican people. This was the question which the Albany Congress hadtried to settle in 1754, and which the Federal Convention did settle in1787. 

In the old confederation, starting with the Continental Congress in1774, the government was all vested in a single body which representedstates, but did not represent individual persons. It was for thatreason that it was called a congress rather than a parliament. It wasmore like a congress of European states than the legislative body of anation, such as the English parliament was. It had no executive and nojudiciary. It could not tax, and it could not enforce its decrees. 

 [Sidenote: The new government, in which the Revolution was consummated, 1789. ]

The new constitution changed all this by creating the House ofRepresentatives which stood in the same relation to the whole Americanpeople as the legislative assembly of each single state to the people ofthat state. In this body the people were represented, and couldtherefore tax themselves. At the same time in the Senate the oldequality between the states was preserved. All control over commerce, currency, and finance was lodged in this new Congress, and absolute freetrade was established between the states. In the office of President astrong executive was created. And besides all this there was a system offederal courts for deciding questions arising under federal laws. Mostremarkable of all, in some respects, was the power given to the federalSupreme Court, of deciding, in special cases, whether laws passed by theseveral states, or by Congress itself, were conformable to the FederalConstitution. 

Many men of great and various powers played important parts in effectingthis change of government which at length established the AmericanUnion in such a form that it could endure; but the three who stoodforemost in the work were George Washington, James Madison, andAlexander Hamilton. Two other men, whose most important work camesomewhat later, must be mentioned along with these, for the sake ofcompleteness. It was John Marshall, chief justice of the United Statesfrom 1801 to 1835, whose profound decisions did more than those of anylater judge could ever do toward establishing the sense in which theConstitution must be understood. It was Thomas Jefferson, president ofthe United States from 1801 to 1809, whose sound democratic instinctsand robust political philosophy prevented the federal government frombecoming too closely allied with the interests of particular classes, and helped to make it what it should be, --a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people. " In the _making_ of the governmentunder which we live, these five names--Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Marshall--stand before all others. I mention them herechronologically, in the order of the times at which their influence wasfelt at its maximum. 

When the work of the Federal Convention was sanctioned by theContinental Congress and laid before the people of the several states, to be ratified by special conventions in each state, there was earnestand sometimes bitter discussion. Many people feared that the newgovernment would soon degenerate into a tyranny. But the century and ahalf of American history that had already elapsed had afforded suchnoble political training for the people that the discussion was, on thewhole, more reasonable and more fruitful than any that had ever beforebeen undertaken by so many men. The result was the adoption of theFederal Constitution, followed by the inauguration of George Washington, on the 30th of April, 1789, as President of the United States. And withthis event our brief story may fitly end. 

COLLATERAL READING. 

The following books may be recommended to the reader who wishes to get ageneral idea of the American Revolution:--

1. GENERAL WORKS. The most comprehensive and readable account iscontained in Mr. Fiske's larger work, _The American Revolution_, in twovolumes. The subject is best treated from the biographical point of viewin Washington Irving's _Life of Washington_, vols. I. -iv. Mr. Fiske hasabridged and condensed these four octavos into one stout duodecimoentitled _Washington and his Country_, Boston, Ginn & Co. , 1887. Ouryoung friends may find Frothingham's _Rise of the Republic_ rather closereading, but one can hardly name a book that will more richly rewardthem for their study. Green's _Historical View of the Revolution_ shouldbe read by every one. Carrington's _Battles of the Revolution_ makes themilitary operations quite clear with numerous maps. Very young readersfind it interesting to begin with Coffin's _Boys of Seventy-Six_, or C. H. Woodman's _Boys and Girls of the Revolution_. The social life of thetime is admirably portrayed in Scudder's _Men and Manners in America OneHundred Years Ago_. See also Thornton's _Pulpit of the Revolution_. Lossing's _Field Book of the Revolution_--two royal octavos profuselyillustrated--is an excellent book to browse in. Lecky's _England in theEighteenth Century_ gives an admirable statement of England's position. 

2. BIOGRAPHIES. Lodge's _George Washington_, 2 vols. , Scudder's _GeorgeWashington_, Tyler's _Patrick Henry_, Tudor's _Otis_, Hosmer's _SamuelAdams_, Morse's _John Adams_, Frothingham's _Warren_, Quincy's _JosiahQuincy_, Parton's _Franklin_ and _Jefferson_, Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_, Lossing's _Schuyler_, Riedesel's _Memoirs_, Stone's _Brant_, Arnold's_Arnold_, Sargent's _André_, Kapp's _Steuben_ and _Kalb_, Greene's_Greene_, Amory's _Sullivan_, Graham's _Morgan_, Simms's _Marion_, Abbott's _Paul Jones_, John Adams's _Letters to his Wife_, Morse's_Hamilton_, Gay's _Madison_, Roosevelt's _Gouverneur Morris_, Russell's_Fox_, Albemarle's _Rockingham_, Fitzmaurice's _Shelburne_, MacKnight's_Burke_, Macaulay's essay on _Chatham_. 

3. FICTION. Cooper's _Chainbearer_, Miss Sedgwick's _Linwoods_, Paulding's _Old Continental_, Mrs. Child's _Rebels_, Motley's _Morton'sHope_, Herman Melville's _Israel Potter_, Kennedy's _Horse ShoeRobinson_. There is an account of the battle of Bunker Hill in Cooper's_Lionel Lincoln_. Thompson's _Green Mountain Boys_ gives interestingdescriptions of many of the events in that region. The border warfare istreated in Grace Greenwood's _Forest Tragedy_ and Hoffman's _Greyslaer_. Simms's _Partisan_ and _Mellichampe_ deal with events in South Carolinain 1780, and later events are covered in his _Scout_, _KatharineWalford_, _Woodcraft_, _Forayers_, and _Eutaw_. See also Miss Sedgwick's_Walter Thornley_, and Cooper's _Pilot_ and _Spy_, and H. C. Watson's_Camp Fires of the Revolution_. The scenes of _Paul and Persis_, by MaryE. Brush, are laid in the Mohawk Valley. 

For further references, see Justin Winsor's _Reader's Handbook of theAmerican Revolution_, a book which is absolutely indispensable to everyone who wishes to study the subject. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INDEX. 

Adams, John, 46, 84, 88, 89, 98, 100, 113, 149, 182. 

Adams, Samuel, 53, 58, 68, 71, 72, 73, 75, 78, 82, 84, 85, 88, 107, 149. 

Aix-la-Chapelle, treaty of, 6. 

Albany Congress, 34, 190. 

Albany Plan, 35. 

Algonquins, 28-30, 37. 

Alleghany mountains, 27. 

Allen, Ethan, 87. 

André John, 170, 171. 

Andros, Sir Edmund, 22. 

Annapolis convention, 189. 

Antislavery feeling, 126. 

Armada, the Invincible, 6. 

Armed Neutrality, 159. 

Army, continental, 88, 124; disbanded, 183. 

Arnold, Benedict, 87, 93, 94, 118, 136, 137, 143, 167-171, 173, 175, 177, 179. 

Ashe, Samuel, 163. 

Attucks, Crispus, 75. 

Augusta, Ga. , 163. 

Bacon's rebellion, 21. 

Baltimore, Congress flees to, 118. 

Barons' War, 19. 

Barré, Isaac, 69, 75. 

Barter, 162. 

Baum, Col. , 134. 

Bemis Heights, 143. 

Bennington, 133, 134, 137, 172. 

Berkeley, Sir W. , 21. 

Bernard, Sir F. , 68, 72. 

Boston, 7, 44-47; "Massacre, " 72-75; "Tea Party, " 79-83; Port Bill, 83; siege of, 87-94. 

Braddock, Edward, 36. 

Brandywine, 141. 

Brant, Joseph, 108, 135, 136, 154, 155. 

Breymann, Col. , 134. 

Briar Creek, 163. 

Brooklyn Heights, 111-113, 128. 

Bunker Hill, 91, 128. 

Burgoyne, John, 90, 125-134, 137, 140-143, 148, 150, 158, 172. 

Burlington, N. J. , 120. 

Burke, Edmund, 62, 69. 

Butler, Col. John, 134, 154. 

Butts Hill, 154. 

Byron, Admiral, 150. 

Cahokia, 156. 

Calvert family, 13. 

Camden, Lord, 69. 

Camden, S. C. , 166, 171, 173, 176. 

Campbell, Col. William, 171. 

Canada, invasion of, 93, 94. 

Canals, 189. 

Carleton, Sir Guy, 93, 94, 109, 115, 118. 

Carlisle, Pa. , 26. 

Carr, Dabney, 79. 

Castle William, 73, 75. 

Caudine Fork, 144. 

Cavaliers, 9. 

Cavendish, Lord John, 69. 

Charles II. , 22, 43, 45. 

Charleston, S. C. , 80, 165. 

Charlestown, Mass. , 86

Chase, Samuel, 84. 

Cherry Valley, 154. 

Choiseul, Duke de, 38. 

Clark, George Rogers, 156, 188. 

Cleaveland, Col. , 171. 

Cleveland, Grover, 1. 

Clinton, Sir H. , 90, 96, 140, 142, 150-152, 156-158, 164, 165, 178, 179. 

Coalition ministry, 180. 

Cobden, Richard, 61. 

Colonial trade, 42-44. 

Committees of correspondence, 79. 

Commons, House of, 19, 58-61. 

Concord, 85, 86. 

Congress, Continental, 79, 84, 87-90, 100-103, 106, 115-117, 161, 162, 183, 184, 191. 

Congress, Stamp Act, 56. 

Connecticut, 13, 21, 23, 77, 98, 156. 

Conway, Henry, 69. 

Conway Cabal, 148, 149. 

Cornwallis, Lord, 104, 121, 122, 165, 171-180. 

Cowpens, 174. 

Cromwell, Oliver, 9. 

Crown Point, 87. 

Currency, Continental, 162, 166. 

Deane, Silas, 123. 

Declaration of Independence, 97-103, 127. 

Declaratory Act, 58. 

Delaware, 9, 10. 

Delaware river, 142. 

Denmark, 159. 

Desertions, 166. 

D'Estaing, Count, 151-154, 164. 

Dickinson, John, 84, 92, 98, 101, 102. 

Discovery, French doctrine of, 27. 

Dorchester Heights, 94, 128. 

Dunmore, Lord, 95. 

"Early" American history, 5. 

Edinburgh, 159. 

Elkton, 140, 141. 

Elmira, 155. 

Eutaw Springs, 176. 

Fairfield, Conn. , 156. 

Federal convention, 190, 191. 

Ferguson, Major, 171, 172. 

Five Nations, 29. 

Flamborough Head, 150. 

Fort Duquesne, 33; Edward, 131, 132, 140; Lee, 114-116; Moultrie, 105; Necessity, 33; Niagara, 154, 155; Stanwix, 135-137; Washington, 114-117, 165; Watson, 176. 

Forts on the Delaware, 141. 

Fox, Charles, 69, 180. 

Franklin, Benjamin, 34, 54, 89, 113, 123, 182. 

Franklin, William, 106. 

Fraser, Gen. , 131. 

Frederick the Great, 150. 

French power in Canada, 10, 20, 26-38. 

Frontenac, Count, 29. 

Frontier between English and French colonies, 26. 

Gage, Thomas, 29, 83, 85, 91, 92. 

Gansevoort, Peter, 135. 

Gaspee, schooner, 77. 

Gates, Horatio, 39, 90, 130, 131, 137, 143, 148, 165, 166, 168, 173. 

George III. , his character and schemes, 59-71, 146; glee over news from Ticonderoga, 120; tries to make an alliance with Russia, 158, 159; his schemes overthrown, 180, 181. 

Georgia, 11, 96, 163. 

Germaine, Lord George, 147, 156, 166. 

Germantown, 141. 

Gibraltar, 158, 182. 

Gladstone, W. E. , 61. 

Governments of the colonies, 13-16. 

Grasse, Count de, 178. 

Green Mountains, 77, 87, 131, 185. 

Greene, Nathanael, 90, 115, 116, 167, 173-177. 

Grenville, George, 41, 49, 51, 54, 124. 

Gridley, Jeremiah, 46. 

Guilford Court House, 175, 177. 

Hackensack, 115, 116. 

Hale, Nathan, 114. 

Hamilton, commandant at Detroit, 155. 

Hamilton, Alexander, 189, 192. 

Hancock, John, 80, 87, 89. 

Harlem Heights, 114, 129. 

Harrison, Benjamin, 6. 

Hastings, Warren, 158. 

Heath, William, 90, 115. 

Henry VIII. , 59. 

Henry, Patrick, 48, 55, 58, 84, 144. 

Herkimer, Nicholas, 135, 136. 

Hessian troops, 93. 

Hobkirk's Hill, 176. 

Holland and Great Britain, 160. 

Hopkins, Stephen, 77. 

Howe, Richard, Lord, 105, 106, 113, 150, 153. 

Howe, Sir William, 39, 90, 94, 104, 105, 112-118, 125, 127, 137-143, 148, 150. 

Hubbardton, 131. 

Hudson river, 95, 115, 128, 157, 170. 

Hutchinson, Thomas, 46, 56, 72, 75, 77, 78, 81, 83, 107, 185. 

Hyder, Ali, 158. 

Impost amendment defeated by New York, 190. 

Indian tribes, 27, 28. 

Iroquois, 28, 29. 

Jay, John, 92, 182. 

Jefferson, Thomas, 55, 89, 100, 103, 126, 127, 192. 

Jeffreys, George, 17. 

Johnson, Sir John, 108, 134. 

Johnson, Sir William, 108. 

Johnson Hall, 26, 108. 

Jones, David, 133. 

Jones, Paul, 159, 160. 

Kalb, John, 38, 123, 165, 166. 

Kaskaskia, 156. 

Kentucky, 155, 171, 187. 

King's friends, 64, 69, 84. 

King's Mountain, 171, 172, 174. 

Kirkland, Samuel, 135. 

Kosciuszko, Thaddeus, 123. 

Lafayette, 123, 177. 

Land Bank, 20. 

Lee, Arthur, 123. 

Lee, Charles, 89, 105, 117-119, 122, 138, 140, 148, 150-152. 

Lee, Henry, 173. 

Lee, Richard Henry, 84, 97, 100. 

Lee, Robert Edward, 173. 

Leslie, Gen. , 173. 

Leuktra, 144. 

Lexington, 86, 183. 

Lincoln, Abraham, 126. 

Lincoln, Benjamin, 131, 134, 143, 163-165, 167, 187. 

Livingston, Robert, 84, 98. 

Long House, 28, 29. 

Long Island, battle of, 112. 

Lords proprietary, 13. 

Louis XV. , 31. 

Macaulay, Lord, 49. 

McCrea, Jane, 132, 133. 

McDowell, Col. , 171. 

McNeil, Mrs. , 132, 133. 

Madison, James, 192. 

Mahratta war, 158. 

Majuba Hill, 172. 

Manchester, Vt. , 133. 

Marion, Francis, 165, 174. 

Marshall, John, 192. 

Martha's Vineyard, 156. 

Martin, Josiah, 96. 

Maryland, 8, 99, 140, 188. 

Massachusetts, 21, 22, 68, 71, 72, 83, 97, 107. 

Mecklenburg county, N. C. , 95, 171, 173. 

Minden, 147. 

Minisink, 155. 

Minorca, 158, 182. 

Mississippi valley, 182, 187. 

Mobilians, 27. 

Molasses Act, 49-51, 67. 

Monk, Gen. , 169. 

Monmouth, 151, 152. 

Montgomery, Richard, 90, 93, 94. 

Morgan, Daniel, 93, 94, 137, 143, 167, 173, 174. 

Morris, Robert, 102, 120. 

Morristown, 119, 122, 123. 

Moultrie, William, 105. 

New England colonies, 6-8. 

New Hampshire, 76, 98. 

New Haven, 156. 

New Jersey, 11, 99. 

New Whigs, 60-62, 69. 

New York, 9, 66, 76, 80, 100, 108, 125, 143, 190. 

Newburgh, 180, 183. 

Norfolk, Va. , 95. 

North, Lord, 66, 76, 144-147, 180. 

North Carolina, 11, 77, 96, 171-175. 

Northcastle, 115. 

Northwestern Territory, 188. 

Nullification of the Regulating Act, 85. 

Norwalk, 156. 

Ohio, 189. 

Ohio Company, 32. 

Old Sarum, 59. 

Old South church, 53, 72, 82. 

Old Whigs, 59-64, 69. 

Otis, James, 45-47, 62, 72, 74, 144. 

Paper money, 20, 162, 186. 

Parker, Sir Peter, 96, 104. 

Parsons' Cause, 47, 48. 

Paxton, Charles, 44. 

Pendleton, Edmund, 84. 

Penn family, 14. 

Pennsylvania, 11, 13, 77, 99, 102. 

Pensacola, 158. 

Periods in history, 4. 

Petersburg, Va. , 177. 

Petition (last) to the king, 92. 

Petty William (Earl of Shelburne), 61, 69, 180, 182. 

Philadelphia, 80, 84, 138-142, 151, 168, 183. 

Pigott, Sir Robert, 153. 

Pitt, William (Earl of Chatham), 57, 61, 62, 64, 66, 69, 71, 84, 145, 146. 

Pitt, William, the younger, 61, 181. 

Pontiac's war, 38, 41. 

Pownall, Thomas, 14. 

Preston, Capt. , 74. 

Prevost, Gen. , 163, 164. 

Princeton, 120, 121. 

Proprietary government, 13. 

Protectionist legislation, 43, 50. 

Pulaski, Casimir, 123, 164. 

Putnam, Israel, 39, 87, 90, 112, 115. 

Rawdon, Lord, 176. 

Reform, parliamentary, 61-63. 

Regulating Act, 83, 85; repealed, 144. 

Representation in England, 58-61. 

Requisitions, 31, 54, 161. 

Retaliatory acts, 83; repealed, 144. 

Revere, Paul, 4, 86. 

Rhode Island, 18, 21, 23, 70, 77, 96, 153, 154, 164, 166, 186. 

Riedesel, Gen. , 131. 

Riots in Boston, 56. 

Rochambeau, Count, 166, 178. 

Rockingham, Lord, 57, 64, 180. 

Rodney, Cæsar, 102. 

Rodney, George, 160. 

Rotten boroughs, 59, 62. 

Royal governors, 14-18. 

Russell, Lord John, 61. 

Russell, Lord William, 17. 

Russia, 159. 

Rutledge, Edward, 113. 

Rutledge, John, 84. 

St. Clair, Arthur, 131, 167. 

St. Eustatius, 160. 

St. Leger, Harry, 125, 126, 135-137. 

Salaries, 15-18, 65-68. 

Savannah, 163, 164. 

Savile, Sir George, 69. 

Schuyler, Philip, 90, 109, 119, 129-133, 136. 

Secession, threats of, 187. 

Senegambia, 158. 

Sevier, John, 155, 171. 

Shays rebellion, 186. 

Shelburne, Lord, 61, 69, 180, 182. 

Shelby, Isaac, 171. 

Shirley, William, 52. 

Sidney, Algernon, 17. 

Silver bank, 20. 

Six Nations, 29, 34, 93, 125. 

Snyder, Christopher, 74. 

Sons of Liberty, 57. 

South Carolina, 96, 102, 104, 105, 127, 173-177. 

Spain declares war with Great Britain, 158. 

Spanish possessions in North America, 37, 158, 182. 

Spotswood, Alexander, 14. 

Stamp Act, 4, 41, 52, 58, 124. 

Stark, John, 39, 87, 134. 

Staten Island, 109, 117, 122, 139, 178. 

Steuben, Baron, 123, 150, 173, 177. 

Stillwater, 132. 

Stirling, William Alexander, called Lord, 112. 

Stony Point, 156, 157, 163. 

Strachey, Sir Henry, 151. 

Stuart Kings, 17, 60. 

Suffolk resolves, 85. 

Sullivan, John, 90, 112, 153-155. 

Sumter, Thomas, 165. 

Sunbury, 163. 

Supreme court, 191. 

Sweden, 159. 

Tarleton, Banastre, 165, 174. 

Taxation, 16-20, 31, 52-54, 62. 

Tea Party, Boston, 4, 79-83. 

Tennessee, 155, 171, 187. 

Throg's Neck, 114. 

Ticonderoga, 87, 118, 125, 127, 128, 131, 134, 143. 

Tories, 12, 60, 93, 126, 154, 155, 163, 184. 

Town meetings, 7, 53. 

Townshend Acts, 64-68, 76, 78; repealed, 144. 

Treaty of peace, 182. 

Tuscaroras, 29. 

Union, want of, 34, 77, 161, 162, 182-191. 

Valcour, Island, 118. 

Venango, 33. 

Vincennes, 156. 

Virginia, 8, 21, 24, 47, 48, 76, 79, 96, 97, 173. 

Walpole, Sir Robert, 31. 

War expenses, 30-32, 36, 40, 41. 

Ward, Artemas, 90, 117. 

Warner, Seth, 87, 131, 134. 

Warren, Joseph, 85, 86. 

Washington, George, 1, 4, 5, 30, 55; his mission to Venango, 33; surrenders Fort Necessity, 33; in Virginia legislature, 76; in the Continental Congress, 84; appointed to command the army, 88; not yet in favour of independence, 89; takes command at Cambridge, 92; takes Boston, 94; addressed by Lord Howe, 106; his character as general and statesman, 110, 111; withdraws his army from Brooklyn Heights, 113; masterly campaign in New York and New Jersey, 114-122; endeavours to secure an efficient regular army, 123-125; campaign of June, 1777, in New Jersey, 139; Brandywine and Germantown, 141, 142; intrigues of his enemies, 148, 149; Monmouth, 151, 152; sends a force against the Iroquois, 154, 155; Stony Point, 156, 157; his favourite generals often ill used by Congress, 167; his superb march and capture of Yorktown, 178-180; scheme for making him king, 183; elected first president of the United States, 193. 

Washington, William, 173. 

Wayne, Anthony, 157, 177. 

Webster, Daniel, 101. 

West Point, 115, 117, 157, 170. 

Western frontier posts, 185. 

White Plains, 115, 129. 

Wildcat banks, 20. 

William III. , 45. 

Williams, James, 171. 

Wilson, James, 98. 

Winchester, Va. , 26. 

Winnsborough, S. C. , 172. 

Wright, Sir James, 164. 

Writs of assistance, 4, 47. 

Wyoming, 77, 154. 186. 

Yorktown, 178-180. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

HISTORY TEXT BOOKS

TAPPAN'S AMERICAN HERO STORIES

AMERICAN HERO STORIES. Twenty-nine stories of the great figures inAmerican history. The arrangement is chronological, and the men toldabout include explorers, colonists, pioneers, soldiers, presidents, etc. With 75 unusually interesting Illustrations. Cloth, crown 8vo, 265pages, 55 cents, _net. _

TAPPAN'S OUR COUNTRY'S STORY

OUR COUNTRY'S STORY. A connected account of the course of events inUnited States history. Available as a stepping-stone to Fiske's Historyof the United States for Schools, etc. With 265 Illustrations and Mapsin black and white, and 2 Maps in colors. Cloth, square 12mo, 267 pages, 65 cents, _net. _

FISKE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES FOR SCHOOLS. With 234 Illustrations andMaps in black and white, and 8 Maps in colors, of which 2 aredouble-page maps. Half leather, crown 8vo, 573 pages, $1. 00, _net. _

LARNED'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS. With 36 Maps inthe text and 17 full-page or double-page Maps. Half leather, crown 8vo, 717 pages, $1. 40, _net. _

TAPPAN'S ENGLAND'S STORY

ENGLAND'S STORY: A HISTORY OF ENGLAND FOR GRAMMAR SCHOOLS. WithSummaries and Genealogies, over 100 Illustrations in black and white, and 5 maps in colors. Cloth, crown 8vo, 370 pages, 85 cents, _net. _

LARNED'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND

A HISTORY OF ENGLAND FOR THE USE OF SCHOOLS AND ACADEMIES. With 144Illustrations and Maps in black and white, and 8 Maps in colors, ofwhich four are double-page maps. Half leather, crown 8vo, 675 pp. , $1. 25, _net. _

JOHNSTON AND SPENCER'S IRELAND'S STORY

IRELAND'S STORY. By CHARLES JOHNSTON and CARITA SPENCER. Crown 8vo, 389pages. Fully illustrated. _School Edition_, $1. 10, _net. _ Postpaid. 

PLOETZ'S EPITOME

EPITOME OF ANCIENT, MEDIÆVAL, AND MODERN HISTORY. Translated andenlarged by WILLIAM H. TILLINGHAST. Newly revised, with Additionscovering Recent Events. Crown 8vo, $3. 00. 

HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY

BOSTON NEW YORK CHICAGO

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Transcriber's Note: The following list of books has been combined fromthe front and back matter and consolidated in one list here. ]

RIVERSIDE LITERATURE SERIES

_All prices are net, postpaid. _

1. Longfellow's Evangeline. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. Nos. 1, 4, and 30, one vol. , _linen_, . 50. 

2. Longfellow's Courtship of Miles Standish; Elizabeth. _Pa. _, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

3. A Dramatization of The Courtship of Miles Standish. _Paper_, . 15. 

4. Whittier's Snow-Bound, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

5. Whittier's Mabel Martin, etc. _Paper_, . 15. Nos. 4, 5, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

6. Holmes's Grandmother's Story of Bunker Hill Battle, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. Nos. 6, 31, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

7, 8, 9. Hawthorne's Grandfather's Chair. In three parts. Each, _paper_, . 15. Nos. 7, 8, 9, complete, one vol. , _linen_, . 50. 

10. Hawthorne's Biographical Series. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. Nos. 29, 10, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

11. Longfellow's Children's Hour, etc. _Pa. _, . 15. Nos. 11, 63, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

12. Outlines--Longfellow, Whittier, Holmes, and Lowell. _Paper_, . 15. 

13, 14. Longfellow's Song of Hiawatha. In two parts, each, _paper_, . 15. Nos. 13, 14, complete, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

15. Lowell's Under the Old Elm, etc. _Pa. _, . 15. Nos. 30, 15, one vol. , _lin. _, . 40. 

16. Bayard Taylor's Lars. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

17, 18. Hawthorne's Wonder-Book. In two parts, each _paper_, . 15. Nos. 17, 18, complete, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

19, 20. Franklin's Autobiography. In two parts, each, _paper_, . 15. Nos. 19, 20, complete, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

21. Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac, etc. _Paper_, . 15. 

22, 23. Hawthorne's Tanglewood Tales. In two parts, each, _paper_, . 15. Nos. 22, 23, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

24. Washington's Farewell Addresses, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

25, 26. Longfellow's Golden Legend. In two parts, each, _paper_, . 15. Nos. 25, 26, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

27. Thoreau's Forest Trees, etc. _Paper_, . 15. Nos. 28, 37, 27, one vol. , _linen_, . 50. 

28. Burroughs's Birds and Bees. _Paper_, . 15. Nos. 28, 36, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

29. Hawthorne's Little Daffydowndilly, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

30. Lowell's Vision of Sir Launfal, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

31. Holmes's My Hunt after the Captain, etc. _Paper_, . 15. 

32. Lincoln's Gettysburg Speech, etc. _Paper_, . 15. Nos. 133, 32, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

33, 34, 35. Longfellow's Tales of a Wayside Inn. In three parts, each, _pa. _, . 15. Nos. 33, 34, 35, complete, one vol. , _linen_, . 50. 

36. Burroughs's Sharp Eyes, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

37. Warner's A-Hunting of the Deer, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

38. Longfellow's Building of the Ship, etc. _Paper_, . 15. 

39. Lowell's Books and Libraries, etc. _Paper_, . 15. Nos. 39, 123, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

40. Hawthorne's Tales of the White Hills, etc. _Paper_, . 15. Nos. 40, 69, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

41. Whittier's Tent on the Beach, etc. _Paper_, . 15. 

42. Emerson's Fortune of the Republic, etc. _Paper_, . 15. 

43. Ulysses among the Phæacians. Bryant. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

44. Edgeworth's Waste Not, Want Not, etc. _Paper_, . 15. 

45. Macaulay's Lays of Ancient Rome. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25

46. Old Testament Stories in Scripture Language. _Paper_, . 15. 

47, 48. Scudder's Fables and Folk Stories. In two parts, each, _paper_, . 15. Nos. 47, 48, complete, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

49, 50. Andersen's Stories. In two parts, each, _paper_, . 15. Nos. 49, 50, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

51. Irving's Rip Van Winkle, etc. _Paper_, . 15. 

52. Irving's The Voyage, etc. _Paper_, . 15. Nos. 51, 52, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

53. Scott's Lady of the Lake. _Paper_, . 30. _Also, in Rolfe's Students' Series, to Teachers_, . 53. 

54. Bryant's Thanatopsis, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

55. Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. Nos. 55, 67, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

56. Webster's First Bunker Hill Oration, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

57. Dickens's Christmas Carol. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

58. Dickens's Cricket on the Hearth. _Pa. _, . 15; Nos. 57, 58, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

59. Verse and Prose for Beginners in Reading. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

60, 61. Addison and Steele's The Sir Roger de Coverley Papers. In two parts. Each, _paper_, . 15. Nos. 60, 61, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

62. Fiske's War of Independence. _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, . 40. 

63. Longfellow's Paul Revere's Ride, etc. _Paper_, . 15. 

64, 65, 66. Lambs' Tales from Shakespeare. In three parts, each, _paper_, . 40. Nos. 64, 65, 66, one vol. , _linen_, . 50. 

67. Shakespeare's Julius Cæsar. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

68. Goldsmith's Deserted Village, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

69. Hawthorne's The Old Manse, etc. _Pa. _, . 15. Nos. 40, 69, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

70. A Selection from Whittier's Child Life in Poetry. _Paper_, . 15. 

71. A Selection from Whittier's Child Life in Prose. _Paper_, . 15. Nos 70, 71, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

72. Milton's Minor Poems. _Pa. _, . 15; _linen_, . 25. Nos. 72, 94, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

73. Tennyson's Enoch Arden, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

74. Gray's Elegy, etc. ; Cowper's John Gilpin, etc. _Paper_, . 15. 

75. Scudder's George Washington. _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, . 40. 

76. Wordsworth's On the Intimations of Immortality, etc. _Paper_, . 15. 

77. Burns's Cotter's Saturday Night, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

78. Goldsmith's Vicar of Wakefield. _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, . 40. 

79. Lamb's Old China, etc. _Paper_, . 15. 

80. Coleridge's Ancient Mariner, etc. ; Campbell's Lochiel's Warning, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

81. Holmes's Autocrat of the Breakfast-Table. _Paper_, . 45; _linen_, . 50. 

82. Hawthorne's Twice-Told Tales. _Paper_, . 50; _linen_, . 60. 

83. Eliot's Silas Marner. _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, . 40. 

84. Dana's Two Years Before the Mast. _Linen_, . 60. 

85. Hughes's Tom Brown's School Days. _Paper_, . 45; _linen_, . 50. 

86. Scott's Ivanhoe. _Paper_, . 50; _linen_, . 60. 

87. Defoe's Robinson Crusoe. _Paper_, . 50; _linen_, . 60. 

88. Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin. _Linen_, . 60. 

89. Swift's Gulliver's Voyage to Lilliput. _Paper_, . 15. 

90. Swift's Gulliver's Voyage to Brobdingnag. _Paper_, . 15. Nos. 89, 90, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

91. Hawthorne's House of the Seven Gables. _Paper_, . 50; _linen_, . 60. 

92. Burroughs's A Bunch of Herbs, etc. _Paper_, . 15. 

93. Shakespeare's As You Like It. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

94. Milton's Paradise Lost. Books I-III. _Paper_, . 15. 

95, 96, 97, 98. Cooper's Last of the Mohicans. In four parts, each, _paper_, . 15. Nos. 95-98, complete, _linen_, . 60. 

99. Tennyson's Coming of Arthur, etc. _Paper_, . 15. 

100. Burke's Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies. _Pa. _, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

101. Pope's Iliad. Books I, VI, XXII, XXIV. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

102. Macaulay's Johnson and Goldsmith. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

103. Macaulay's Essay on John Milton, _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

104. Macaulay's Life and Writings of Addison. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. Nos. 103, 104, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

105. Carlyle's Essay on Burns. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

106. Shakespeare's Macbeth. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

107, 108. Grimms' Tales. In two parts, each, _paper_, . 15. Nos. 107, 108, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

109. Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, . 40. 

110. De Quincey's Flight of a Tartar Tribe. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

111. Tennyson's Princess. _Paper_, . 30. _Also, in Rolfe's Students' Series to Teachers_, . 53. 

112. Virgil's Æneid. Books I-III. Translated by CRANCH. _Paper_, . 15. 

113. Poems from Emerson. _Paper_, . 15. Nos. 113, 42, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

114. Peabody's Old Greek Folk Stories. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

115. Browning's Pied Piper of Hamelin, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

116. Shakespeare's Hamlet. _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, . 40. 

117, 118. Stories from the Arabian Nights. In two parts, each, _paper_, . 15. Nos. 117, 118, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

119. Poe's The Raven, The Fall of the House of Usher, etc. _Paper_, . 15. 

120. Poe's The Gold-Bug, etc. _Paper_, . 15. Nos. 119, 120, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

121. Speech by Robert Young Hayne on Foote's Resolution. _Paper_, . 15. 

122. Speech by Daniel Webster in Reply to Hayne. _Paper_, . 15. Nos. 121, 122, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

123. Lowell's Democracy, etc. _Paper_, . 15. Nos. 39, 123, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

124. Aldrich's Baby Bell, etc. _Paper_, . 15. 

125. Dryden's Palamon and Arcite. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

126. Ruskin's King of the Golden River, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

127. Keats's Ode on a Grecian Urn, etc. _Paper_, . 15. 

128. Byron's Prisoner of Chillon, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

129. Plato's Judgment of Socrates. Translated by P. E. MORN. _Paper_, . 15. 

130. Emerson's The Superlative, and Other Essays. _Paper_, . 15. 

131. Emerson's Nature, and Compensation. _Paper_, . 15. 

132. Arnold's Sohrab and Rustum, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

133. Schurz's Abraham Lincoln. _Paper_, . 15. 

134. Scott's Lay of the Last Minstrel. _Paper_, . 30. _Also in Rolfe's Students' Series, to Teachers_, _net_ . 50. 

135. Chaucer's Prologue. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

136. Chaucer's The Knight's Tale, and The Nun's Priest's Tale. _Paper_, . 15. Nos. 135, 136, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

137. Bryant's Iliad. Books I, VI, XXII, and XXIV. _Paper_, . 15. 

138. Hawthorne's The Custom House, and Main Street. _Paper_, . 15. 

139. Howells's Doorstep Acquaintance, and Other Sketches. _Paper_, . 15. 

140. Thackeray's Henry Esmond. _Linen_, . 75. 

141. Three Outdoor Papers, by THOMAS WENTWORTH HIGGINSON. _Paper_, . 15. 

142. Ruskin's Sesame and Lilies. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

143. Plutarch's Life of Alexander the Great. North's Translation. _Paper_, . 15. 

144. Scudder's The Book of Legends, _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

145. Hawthorne's The Gentle Boy, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

146. Longfellow's Giles Corey. _Paper_, . 15. 

147. Pope's Rape of the Lock, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

148. Hawthorne's Marble Faun. _Linen_, . 60. 

149. Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

150. Ouida's Dog of Flanders, and the Nürnberg Stove. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

151. Ewing's Jackanapes, and The Brownies. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

152. Martineau's The Peasant and the Prince. _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, . 40. 

153. Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

154. Shakespeare's Tempest. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

155. Irving's Life of Goldsmith. _Paper_, . 45; _linen_, . 50. 

156. Tennyson's Gareth and Lynette, etc. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

157. The Song of Roland. Translated by ISABEL BUTLER. _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, . 40. 

158. Malory's Book of Merlin and Book of Sir Balin. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

159. Beowulf. Translated by C. G. CHILD. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

160. Spenser's Faerie Queene. Book I. _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, . 40. 

161. Dickens's Tale of Two Cities. _Paper_, . 45; _linen_, . 50. 

162. Prose and Poetry of Cardinal Newman. Selections. _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, . 40. 

163. Shakespeare's Henry V. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

164. De Quincey's Joan of Arc, and The English Mail-Coach. _Pa. _, . 15; _lin. _, . 25. 

165. Scott's Quentin Durward. _Paper_, . 50; _linen_, . 60. 

166. Carlyle's Heroes and Hero-Worship. _Paper_, . 45; _linen_, . 50. 

167. Norton's Memoir of Longfellow. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

168. Shelley's Poems. Selected. _Paper_, . 40; _linen_, . 50. 

169. Lowell's My Garden Acquaintance, etc. _Paper_, . 15. 

170. Lamb's Essays of Elia. Selected. _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, . 40. 

171, 172. Emerson's Essays. Selected. In two parts, each, _paper_, . 15. Nos. 171, 172, one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

173. Kate Douglas Wiggin's Flag-Raising. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

174. Kate Douglas Wiggin's Finding a Home. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

175. Bliss Perry's Memoir of Whittier. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

176. Burroughs's Afoot and Afloat. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

177. Bacon's Essays. _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, . 40. 

178. Selections from the Works of John Ruskin. _Paper_, . 45; _linen_, . 50. 

179. King Arthur Stories from Malory. _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, . 40. 

180. Palmer's Odyssey. _Abridged Edition. _ _Linen_, . 75. 

181, 182. Goldsmith's The Good-Natured Man, and She Stoops to Conquer. Each, _paper_, . 15; in one vol. , _linen_, . 40. 

183. Old English and Scottish Ballads. _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, . 40. 

184. Shakespeare's King Lear. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

185. Moores's Abraham Lincoln. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

186. Thoreau's Katahdin and Chesuncook. _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25. 

_EXTRA NUMBERS_

_A_ American Authors and their Birthdays. _Paper_, . 15. 

_B_ Portraits and Biographical Sketches of 20 American Authors. _Paper_, . 15. 

_C_ A Longfellow Night. _Paper_, . 15. 

_D_ Scudder's Literature in School. _Paper_, . 15. 

_E_ Dialogue and Scenes from Harriet Beecher Stowe. _Paper_, . 15. 

_F_ Longfellow Leaflets. _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, . 40. 

_G_ Whittier Leaflets. _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, _net_, . 40. 

_H_ Holmes Leaflets. _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, . 40. 

_J_ Holbrook's Northland Heroes. _Linen_, . 35. 

_K_ The Riverside Primer and Reader. _Linen_, . 30. 

_L_ The Riverside Song Book. _Paper_, . 30; _boards_, . 40. 

_M_ Lowell's Fable for Critics. _Paper_, . 30. 

_N_ Selections from the Writings of Eleven American Authors. _Paper_, . 15. 

_O_ Lowell Leaflets. _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, . 40. 

_P_ Holbrook's Hiawatha Primer. _Linen_, . 40. 

_Q_ Selections from the Writings of Eleven English Authors. _Paper_, . 15. 

_R_ Hawthorne's Twice-Told Tales. Selected. _Paper_, . 20; _linen_, . 30. 

_S_ Irving's Essays from Sketch Book. Selected. _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, . 40. 

_T_ Literature for the Study of Language (N. D. Course). _Paper_, . 30; _linen_, . 40. 

_U_ A Dramatization of The Song of Hiawatha. _Paper_, . 15. 

_V_ Holbrook's Book of Nature Myths. _Linen_, . 45. 

_W_ Brown's In the Days of Giants. _Linen_, . 50. 

_X_ Poems for the Study of Language (Illinois Course of Study). _Pa. _, . 30; _lin. _, . 40. Also in three parts, each, _paper_, . 15. 

_Y_ Warner's In the Wilderness. _Paper_, . 20; _linen_, . 30. 

_Z_ Nine Selected Poems. _N. Y. Regents' Requirements. _ _Paper_, . 15; _linen_, . 25.