The Great Republic by the Master Historians Political Development in America byBancroft, Hubert H.
[The French and Indian War had other important results than that of removing the
great rival to English power in America. In this it cleared the field for
another and greater war yet to come, while it educated the colonists in the
military art, and prepared them for the task of encountering the ablest soldiers
of Europe in deadly conflict on their own soil. It served, also, as a school of
training for many of the officers who were afterwards to grow prominent in the
Revolutionary War, and in particular gave to George Washington his first lessons
in that art in which he was soon to acquire a world-wide fame. Names crop up
throughout the course of this conflict which we shall meet in marked prominence
in the events next to be described,--names not only of soldiers, but also of
statesmen, for it is a political as well as a military revolution with which we
have to deal, and its grand results are due to the legislator quite as much as
to the soldier. The military struggle, indeed, was preceded by a long and fierce
political contest, of which it formed the inevitable conclusion. For this
contest the people of America had been prepared, not by their years of war, but
by their years of peace, for the whole political history of the American
colonies is a history of instruction in the principles of democracy, and the
republic of the United States was only in an immediate sense the work of the men
of the Revolution, but in its fullest sense was the work of the colonists of
America from their first entrance upon the trans-Atlantic shores. A
consideration of the political struggle leading to the war of independence,
therefore, properly requires a preceding review of the political history of the
colonies from their first settlement, since only in this way can we comprehend
the preparation of the whole people for the radical change of government they
were so soon to undergo, and the strong spirit of democracy which stood behind
the labors of congresses and conventions and gave the cue to the work which they
were to perform. In default of finding any sufficiently brief statement of this
political evolution in the works of historians, the editor offers the following
outline sketch, as an essential preliminary to the chapter of American history
which now demands our attention.]
The several British colonies of America were formed under a variety of differing
conditions. The settlement of Virginia was the work of a company of London
merchants, that of New England of a body of Puritan refugees from persecution.
Most of the other colonies were formed through the efforts of proprietors, to
whom the king had made large grants of territory. None of them were of royal or
parliamentary establishment, the nearest to this being the colony of New York,
which was appropriated from its Dutch founders by the king's brother,--soon to
become king himself. The government of the mother-country, therefore, took no
part in the original formation of the government of the colonies, except in the
somewhat flexible requirements of the charters granted to the proprietors. Lord
Baltimore was left at full liberty to establish a form of government for
Maryland, William Penn for Pennsylvania, and the body of proprietors for the
Carolinas, while the London Company of merchants largely used their own
discretion in modelling that of Virginia. As for the government of Plymouth, it
was formed without any restriction or suggestion from abroad, by a body of men
who had crossed the ocean to enjoy religious liberty and who were prepared by
their previous history for the duties of self-government. The Massachusetts
colony was a chartered one, but from the first it took its government into its
own hands, and began to exist under that same simple form of democracy which had
been established by its Plymouth predecessor. In fact, a colony composed of
equals, unprovided with a royal governor, and to a large extent unrestricted in
its action, could scarcely assume any other than the one form of government,
that of a democracy in which every man was a citizen and had a full voice in the
management of affairs. There was only one restriction to this universal suffrage
and self government,--that of religious orthodoxy. The colonists were Puritan
sectaries, and were determined that their form of religion alone should prevail
in the colony. Not only were those of heterodox views incapable of exercising
full rights of citizenship, but they were soon driven from the community, as an
element of discordance hostile to the well-being of this bigoted body politic.
To the extent here indicated, therefore, democracy in America was first
established in 1620, not in 1776. And it made considerable progress in New
England and elsewhere ere it encountered any decided interference from the
crown. The growth of this democratic spirit is of high interest, and is worthy
of a much fuller consideration than we have space to devote to it.
The first government of New England was formed on board the Mayflower, before
the landing of the Pilgrims. It was the democratic government of the Puritan
church congregation transferred to the body politic, the Pilgrims choosing their
governor as they chose their pastor, by the voice of the congregation. "For
eighteen years all laws were enacted in a general assembly of all the colonists.
The governor, chosen annually, was but president of a council, in which he had a
double vote. It consisted first of one, then of five, and finally of seven
members, called assistants." The colonists gradually assumed all the
prerogatives of government, even the power of capital punishment. Yet so little
were political honors desired that it became necessary to fine those who, being
chosen, declined to act as governor or assistant.
The colony of Massachusetts Bay was organized under a charter granted by the
king, but its primary management was of the same nature as that of Plymouth. In
1630 the charter and the government were transferred from England to
Massachusetts, John Winthrop was chosen governor by the people, and the first
General Court, or legislative assembly, was held at Boston on the 19th of
October of that year. From that time until 1686 the people of New England
governed themselves, under a system based on general election, all power being
in the hands of the people, and the government essentially a republic. The only
restriction to the right of franchise was the requirement that all citizens must
be members of some church within the limits of the colony. In 1634 another
important step of progress in self-government was made. Settlements were now
dotted around the circumference of Massachusetts Bay, and it had become
inconvenient for the citizens to exercise the duties of freemen in person. They
therefore chose deputies to represent them, and the primitive form of democracy
was changed to a representative one.
In the formation of the other New England colonies the same principle of
government was adopted. The constitution of the Connecticut settlements, formed
in 1639, paid no heed to the existence of a mother-country. The governor and
legislature were to be chosen annually by the freemen, whose oath of allegiance
was to the common-wealth, not to the English monarch, and the "general court"
possessed the sole power of making and repealing laws. The royal charter granted
by Charles II. in 1662 fully confirmed the constitution which the people had
thus made for themselves. Rhode Island was chartered by the English Parliament
in 1644, and formally organized its government in 1647, adopting a democracy
similar to that of the other colonies, except that there was no religious
restriction to the rights of citizenship, it being declared that "all men might
walk as their consciences persuaded them, without molestation, every one in the
name of his God." The colonies of Maine and New Hampshire became proprietary
governments, under royal grants to Sir Ferdinando Gorges and Captain John Mason.
But they quickly came under the influence of the Massachusetts colony, and in
1641 New Hampshire placed itself under the protection of Massachusetts and
ignored the claims of the proprietors. Its adopted form of government differed
from that of Massachusetts only in the fact that neither the freemen nor the
deputies of the colony were required to be church members.
In 1643 a further step of progress in the evolution of a representative republic
was made. As a measure of protection against the Indians and the other dangers
which threatened them, the colonies of Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Haven,
and Plymouth united themselves into a confederacy, under the title of The United
Colonies of New England. Rhode Island was not admitted into this confederacy,
because she would not consent to be incorporated with Plymouth. New Hampshire,
as we have seen, formed then a portion of the Massachusetts colony. The
governing body of the confederacy consisted of an annual Assembly, composed of
two deputies from each colony, which dealt with all matters relating to the
common interests, while the separate interests of each colony were managed by
its local government, as before.
We perceive in the events above described a remarkable progress towards a
federal republic, of the same type as that now existing in the United States of
America, and constituting a noble school for the teaching of those principles of
self-government which have become so deeply instilled into the minds of the
American people. It may seem strange that England so quietly permitted this
colonial republic to be formed. But the governing powers of England had work
enough for themselves at home. Originally the colonies were too insignificant
for their acts to call for much attention, and when the home government did show
some disposition to interfere with them, the colonists, with much shrewdness and
show of respect, yet with great tenacity, held on to the rights they had
acquired, and baffled by a policy of delay and negation every effort to
interfere with their privileges. Ere long the English royalists became engaged
in a death-struggle with democracy at home, during which they had little leisure
to attend to affairs abroad; and the subsequent overthrow of the government, and
the establishment of a military democracy in England, were circumstances highly
favorable to the growth of republicanism in America. During this period the
self-governing principle made progress in all the colonies, though largely
through the example and in fluence of New England.
The people knew thoroughly what they were about, in the formation of the New
England system of government. The doctrine of rotation in office was early
established, "lest there should be a governor for life." When it was proposed
that the office should be a life one, the deputies immediately resolved that no
magisterial office of any kind should be held for more than a year. In one case
where a caucus of justices nominated certain persons for election, the people
took good care to elect none of the persons so proposed. Another important
democratic principle was early adopted, that of making provision for the pay of
public officers annually, and avoiding the fixation of salaries. This system
proved very useful subsequently, in the conflict with the representatives of
royalty. Originally the councillors, with the governor, constituted the whole
governing body. When representatives were first chosen they sat in the same room
with the governor and council. In 1644 it was ordained that the two bodies
should meet in separate chambers Thus was first constituted the American
legislature of two houses, the councillors being annually chosen by the whole
body of freemen, the representatives by the separate settlements. The local
government of each township remained in its own hands, and the whole
organization was a miniature predecessor of that now existing within the United
States of America. It was distinctively democratic. The early prejudices in
favor of rank and title quickly disappeared, perfect equality was aimed at, and
even such titles as those of Esquire and Mr. were applied to but few persons,
Goodman and Goodwife being the ordinary appellations. Aristocratic connections
in time became a bar to public favor.
It was not until after the restoration of Charles II. to the throne of England
that any disposition to interfere with the republican government that had
quietly grown up in New England was manifested. The only restrictions which
England had placed upon the freedom of these colonies were of a commercial
character. These had been removed during the era of the Commonwealth, but were
renewed after the Restoration. Only English vessels were permitted to trade with
the colonies. All articles of American produce for which there was a demand in
England were forbidden to be shipped to foreign markets. The colonies were even
restricted from the privilege of free trade with one another; and finally they
were forbidden to manufacture, for use at home or abroad, any article that would
compete with English manufactures. These restrictions gave rise to much
complaint on the part of the colonists, and were evaded at every opportunity.
Other sources of difficulty arose from the severe treatment of Quakers and
others by the New England churchmen. To settle all such complaints, royal
commissioners were sent to Boston in 1664, empowered to act upon all causes of
colonial disturbance.
The coming of these commissioners was not viewed with favor by the colonists.
They were naturally alarmed at a measure which might result in a restriction of
their liberties, and were disposed to oppose the king's agents at every step.
The commissioners were resisted, secretly or openly, in all the colonies except
Rhode Island, which alone received them with deference. Massachusetts boldly
asserted her rights under the charter, and denied the authority of the
commissioners, while professing the sincerest loyalty to the king. Eventually
their mission proved a failure, the colonists in great part ignoring their
measures. They were recalled, and the colonial governments went on as before.
Many years passed away before any other active measure was taken by the king
against the colonists. In 1677 Maine became part of the province of
Massachusetts, through a decision against the claim of the proprietors. In 1680
New Hampshire was separated from Massachusetts, and was made a royal province,--
the first instance of this kind in New England. In 1681 new sources of trouble
arose. The vigorous resistance which Massachusetts had long made to the
restrictions imposed on the freedom of commerce culminated in the defeat of a
custom-house officer who was sent over for the collection of dues. By a policy
of passive resistance, delay, and obstruction, all his efforts were negatived,
and he was finally obliged to return empty-handed to England.
The time had now arrived for the first open conflict between the throne and the
colonies. The king had long entertained the project of taking the government of
the colonies into his own hands, and seized this opportunity for effecting his
purpose. English judges declared that Massachusetts had forfeited her charter,
through disobedience to the laws of England. Before any further steps could be
taken, the king died; but his successor, James II., proceeded vigorously to
carry out his plans. In 1686 the charter government of Massachusetts was
succeeded by a royal government, under Joseph Dudley, appointed by the king. In
December of the same year Sir Edmund Andros arrived at Boston with a royal
commission as governor of all the New England colonies. The acts of Andros we
have already considered, in a former article, with his prompt expulsion from the
country on the tidings of the revolution in England. The people at once renewed
their former mode of government, with no immediate objection from the new
monarch. Earnest efforts were made by Massachusetts to obtain a restoration of
her charter, but without success, the king and his councillors secretly deeming
this too liberal. In 1692 a new charter was granted, which vested the
appointment of governor in the king. Beyond this there was little interference
with colonial liberty, but the representatives of the people for many years kept
up a violent controversy with the royal governors. The latter demanded a fixed
and permanent salary. With this demand the Assembly refused to comply, claiming
the right to vary the salary each year at their pleasure, and so manipulating
this right that the amount of the governor's salary was made to depend upon the
character of his administration. The people had learned their lesson well, and
held firmly in hand this useful method of enforcing a government in accordance
with their ideas of justice and utility. The controversy finally ended in a
compromise, in which the claim of the Assembly was admitted, while it was agreed
that a fixed sum should be voted annually.
We have given special attention to the political history of New England, from
its great importance as the birthplace of American democracy. The other
colonies, though founded on more aristocratic principles, were strongly affected
by its example, and strove vigorously to gain similarly liberal institutions.
The earliest of these, that of Virginia, was, by its first charter, under the
supreme government of a council residing in England and appointed by the king,
who likewise appointed a council of members of the colony, for its local
administration. Thus all executive and legislative powers were directly
controlled by the king, and no rights of self-government were granted the
people. Virginia formed the only British colony in America of which the monarch
thus retained the control. The colonial councils consisted of seven persons, who
were to elect a president from their own number. John Smith was made president
in 1608, the year after their arrival. In 1609 a new charter was given to the
London Company, by which the English councillors were to have the privilege of
filling vacancies by their own votes, and were empowered to appoint a governor
for Virginia, whose powers were very despotic. The lives, liberty, and property
of the colonists were placed almost at his sole disposal. The governor
appointed, Lord Delaware, and his successor, Sir Thomas Dale, fortunately proved
men of moderate and wise views. In 1612 still another charter was granted. This
abolished the superior council, and transferred its powers to the company as a
whole. But it failed to give any political rights to the colonists. Under the
administration of George Yeardley, appointed governor in 1619, the first step
towards popular rights was taken. Martial law, which had before prevailed, was
abolished, and a colonial Assembly was convened, consisting of two burgesses or
representatives from each of the eleven boroughs into which the colony was
divided. But the measures passed by the Assembly were to be of no force until
ratified by the company in England. In 1621 a written constitution was granted
to the colony by the company, which ratified the arrangement made by Yeardley
and added to it the highly-important provision that no orders of the company in
England should have binding force upon the colony until ratified by the
Assembly. Trial by jury was also established, and courts on the English model
were organized. The privileges granted by this constitution were ever afterwards
claimed as rights, and constituted a valuable preliminary towards complete civil
liberty in Virginia. Soon afterwards the king, not relishing the freedom of
debate manifested in the colonial Assembly, and the contests between the
liberalists and the loyalists, with the growing prevalence of liberal
sentiments, sought to overawe the Assemblies and thus control the elections of
officers. As this proved inefficacious, a judicial decision against the
corporation was obtained, and the company dissolved, the king taking direct
control of the colony and erecting it into a royal government. Yet no effort was
made to wrest from the colonists the right to a representative government, which
the company had granted them. This privilege they ever afterwards retained, and
the fact of its possession under royal auspices formed a valuable lesson for the
future proprietaries, who could not hope to obtain colonists for their lands
under a constitution more stringent that of Virginia, though they could not be
expected to concede the full measure of freedom enjoyed in New England. The
government was now administered by a governor and ten councillors, acting under
the instructions of the king, but the colonial Assembly continued its annual
sessions. In fact, Virginia, through its whole history, was the most loyal of
the colonies. It was the one colony which had been settled largely by royalists
and members of the Established Church, and the Virginians continued warmly loyal
to the throne and the Church while Puritanism and republicanism were rapidly
gaining the control in England. The intolerance in religious matters which New
England displayed in favor of Puritanism was here manifested in favor of the
Church of England, and the legislature ordered that no minister should preach
except in conformity to the doctrines of that Church. After the formation of the
Commonwealth in England the Virginian royalists recognized Charles II. as their
sovereign, and it required the presence of a Parliamentary naval force in their
harbors to bring them into a recognition of the Commonwealth. The news of the
restoration of Charles II. was gladly received in the colony, and the friends of
royalty quickly gained controlling power in the Assembly.
Yet the people soon had reason to regret the change of government. The policy of
commercial restriction was made more stringent than ever, and Virginia suffered
from it more severely than any of the other colonies. It was decided that all
the export and import trade of the colonies should employ none but English
vessels, and that tobacco, the principal product of Virginia, should be sent
only to England. The trade between the colonies was likewise taxed for the
benefit of England. Remonstrances against these oppressive laws proved of no
avail, while discontent was also caused by large grants of Virginia territory to
royal favorites. Meanwhile, the aristocratic party in the legislature had
seriously abridged the liberties of the people. Religious intolerance increased,
Quakers and Baptists were heavily fined, the taxes became oppressive, and the
Assembly, instead of dissolving at the end of its term, continued in session,
thus virtually abolishing the representative system of government. These were
some of the evils which gave rise to the so-called "rebellion" of Nathaniel
Bacon, and which caused so many of the planters to sustain him. His effort,
however, proved of no efficacy in restoring the liberties of the people, and the
oppressive system of government long continued.
Of the proprietary colonies of America the oldest was that of Maryland, which
was founded under a grant of land made to Lord Baltimore in 1632. Its charter
was of marked liberality, the emigrants having the right to worship God as they
wished, while politically they were equals. The laws of the province were to be
subject to the approbation of a majority of the freemen or their deputies. At
first the members of the colony convened in General Assembly for legislative
purposes, the first Assembly being held in 1635. But in 1639 a representative
government was adopted, the people sending delegates to the Assembly. The
governor of the province was appointed by the proprietor. In a preceding article
we have considered the succession of political events in Maryland, and it will
suffice to say here that, after a long subversion of the proprietary government,
the Calverts again gained control, and that Maryland continued under their rule
until the Revolution.
The Carolinas were granted to a body of eight proprietors in 1653, under a
charter which gave the people religious freedom and a voice in legislation, but
reserved nearly the whole power to the proprietary corporation. Somewhat later
Locke's despotic scheme of government (explained in a preceding article) was
adopted. Yet the effort to establish it proved abortive. The people saw the
colonies to the north of them governing themselves, and refused to submit to a
government in which they had no voice. They established a republican government
of their own, elected delegates to a popular Assembly, drove out tyrannical
governors and replaced them by men of their own choice, and in all displayed an
aptness for and a tendency to self-government equal to those of any other of the
colonies. For a short period the Church of England was made supreme in South
Carolina by the proprietors, and all dissenters were excluded from the
legislature. Complaint was made to the English Parliament, and soon after the
disfranchising laws were repealed by the colonial Assembly; but the Church of
England remained the established form of religion till the Revolution.
In New York, under the Dutch, the example of self-government displayed in New
England caused much dissatisfaction with the arbitrary rule which prevailed, and
gave rise to popular demands for greater privileges and a share in the
government. The people were very ready, on the occasion of the English invasion,
to submit to their new rulers, in the hope of gaining increased liberty. Yet
they found themselves under as severe a despotism as before, and made the same
protest that had been heard in the other colonies, that taxation without
representation was unjust and oppressive. They obtained answer from their
governor that the taxes should be made so heavy that they would have time to
think of nothing else but how to pay them. This oppression continued till 1683,
when, under the advice of William Penn, the Duke of York ordered the governor to
call an Assembly of representatives. This Assembly passed an important "charter
of liberties," which was approved by the governor. This charter placed the
supreme legislative power in the governor, council, and people met in general
assembly, gave to every freeman full right to vote for representatives,
established trial by jury, required that no tax whatever should be assessed
without the consent of the Assembly, and that no professing Christian should be
questioned concerning his religion. The privileges here claimed were not fully
conceded. Several of the governors proved oppressive and ruled the colony
despotically. But the right of self-government, so far as it had been attained,
was never again yielded. The dispute, of which we have previously spoken, in
1732, between the liberal and the aristocratic parties, which was decided in
favor of the former, showed clearly the prevailing liberal sentiments of the
people. The editor who had been thrown into prison for a libel against the
government was acquitted, and Andrew Hamilton, one of his counsel, was highly
applauded for his eloquent defence of the rights of mankind and of free speech
by the press.
The charter granted by Charles II. to William Penn for the government of
Pennsylvania was very liberal in its provisions, but not sufficiently so to meet
the enlarged views of the proprietor, who at the outstart promised his colonists
that they should be a free people and be governed by laws of their own making.
In 1682 he published his "frame of government," which was to be submitted to the
people of the province for approval. In 1683 this was amended, in the second
Assembly of the province, and a charter of liberties granted which made
Pennsylvania almost fully a representative democracy. The right of appointment
of judicial and executive officers, which was reserved by the proprietors of the
other colonies, was surrendered by William Penn to the people, and the
government consisted of the proprietor and the Assembly, with no intermediate
council, as in Maryland and elsewhere. Yet, liberal as this constitution was,
the people soon demanded further concessions and privileges, and Penn, in his
last visit to his province, granted a new charter, still more liberal, and
conferring greater powers upon the people, who from this time forward possessed
a very full measure of political liberty.
The brief review we have here given of the development of political institutions
in the English colonies in America will serve to show that they had attained a
fair measure of political liberty at the period which we have now reached (the
close of the French and Indian War), and had little or no occasion for
discontent concerning their governmental rights and privileges. Unlike the
French and Spanish colonists, who had no experience of parliamentary government
and readily submitted to the rule of despotic governors, the British colonists
were thoroughly indoctrinated in legislative principles, and came from a country
in which at the period of some of the emigrations the people were rising in
defence of their natural rights, and at the period of others had subverted the
monarchy and founded a democracy on its ruins. Very naturally, therefore, the
American colonists insisted upon a considerable degree of self-government in
their new home, and extended this civil liberty even beyond the measure of that
of the English Commonwealth, taking advantage of the many opportunities afforded
them by the dissensions existing in the mother-country. As a consequence of this
persistent struggle for the privilege of self-government, New England became
almost a full republic, Pennsylvania was little behind it in the legislative
freedom of its people, and the other colonies gained the right of making their
own laws, with more or less interference from the royal governors.
So far, therefore, as legislative power and religious freedom were concerned,
the colonists had little to complain of, and had there been no deeper cause of
discontent the American Revolution would never have taken place. And through
this long experience of self-government by the people of the colonies was
acquired an extended knowledge of the principles of government, and a vigorous
democratic sentiment, which rendered the form of government adopted by
independent America an inevitable necessity of the situation, while the
political ability displayed by its founders was the resultant of a long
experience in self-rule, and no original outburst of legislative genius, as is
so generally supposed.
The causes of the discontent which we have now to consider were industrial and
executive, not legislative, and consisted of those stringent commercial and
manufacturing regulations, and the claim of the crown to unrestricted powers of
taxation, which had for a long period been resisted by the colonies. In their
earlier and weaker days these evils were of secondary importance, but with every
step of growth in population, and of development of the resources of America,
the right to trade with whom they pleased and to manufacture what they pleased
became of greater importance to the colonists, until finally the restrictions in
these respects grew insupportable. In regard to the question of taxation, the
people of Massachusetts at an early date strongly disputed the right of taxation
without representation. As time went on, this sentiment spread to the other
colonies, and had become vigorously implanted in the minds of all Americans by
the era immediately preceding the Revolution. That principle which had been long
fought for and eventually gained in the home country, that the people, through
their representatives, alone had the power to lay taxes, was naturally claimed
in America as an essential requisite of a representative government; and it was
mainly to the effort of the English authorities to deprive the colonists of this
right that the American Revolution was due.
