At the time Mr. Winthrop was the Whig candidate for Governor. He was present in the audience. In the course of Mr. Webster"s speech, he gave my administration an endors.e.m.e.nt in these words:--"I wish in the first place to say that from the bottom of my heart I wish entire success to your administration of the affairs of this State. Into whosoever hands these affairs may fall, if they are fairly and impartially administered, those hands shall have my hand in their support, and maintenance." These words were received by the audience and the people of the State as a more full endors.e.m.e.nt of my administration then the printed text justified. They gave Mr. Winthrop and his friends much uneasiness and it is quite likely that they contributed to Mr. Winthrop"s defeat and to my re-election. In the course of his speech Mr. Webster used these words speaking of the people of Ma.s.sachusetts: "And yet all are full of happiness, and all are, as we say in the country, well-to-do in the world and enjoying neighbor"s fare." This phrase puzzled me, but at length I reached the conclusion, that the people were living so well that they could invite a neighbor who called without notice to take a seat at table without making any change. In other words, that the daily fare of the people was good enough for the neighbors.
In the autumn of 1851 a meeting was called in aid of Smith O"Brien and his a.s.sociates, who then were in banishment at Van Diemen"s Land. Of the project for the meeting I knew nothing until I received a call from a committee of Irishmen asking me to preside. I saw no reason for declining, and I therefore accepted the invitation, and without any thought of its significance in politics. It was said afterwards that the meeting had been promoted by the friends of Mr. Winthrop, with the expectation that he would be invited to preside. Upon the vote in committee, the invitation came to me, by a majority of one vote only.
The meeting was a great success, and probably it gave me some votes among the Irish population.
XVI ACTON MONUMENT
While I held the office of Governor, two memorial events occurred, of some importance. The first was the erection and dedication of a monument in the town of Acton, to the memory of Captain Isaac Davis, and two others, who were killed the 19th of April, 1775, at the Old North Bridge in Concord. A feud had existed for many years between the towns of Concord and Acton each claiming the honors of the battlefield on that date. Of Concord it was alleged that not a drop of blood was lost on the occasion. Recently, however, it is claimed that one man was wounded. As to Acton there was no doubt that Captain Davis with his company was a.s.signed to the right of the line, and to the head of the advancing column, although he was not by seniority ent.i.tled to that place. Davis and two of his company were killed by the first fire of the enemy. In 1836 Concord had erected a monument which Emerson has immortalized in his dedication hymn. James T. Woodbury, a brother of Judge Levi Woodbury, was an orthodox minister settled in Acton. He was interested in politics, and in the year 1851 he was a member of the House of Representatives, where he championed the cause of Acton. He asked for an appropriation of one thousand dollars to enable the town to erect a suitable monument. He adorned his speech and gave effect to his oratory by the introduction of the shoe-buckles which Davis wore, and the powder horn which another of the victims carried on the day of the fight. The appropriation was granted. The preceding year the town of Concord had celebrated the seventy-fifth anniversary of the battle.
Robert Rantoul, Jr., delivered the oration. The town of Acton was represented, but the president of the day, the Hon. E. R. h.o.a.r, chose, as it was said, to avoid calling upon Parson Woodbury, as he was then designated. A Mr. Hayward, a man of some note, but not gifted in speech, was invited to respond to the toast to Acton. That he did in this manner: "Concord Fight. Concord furnished the ground, and Acton the men." This sally of history and sarcasm was attributed to Parson Woodbury.
The Governor was made a member of the committee to erect the monument.
Our first real difficulty was upon the inscription. It was claimed that Davis had said as he took his place at the head of the line "I haven"t a man who is afraid to go." This indicated that cowardice had been manifested in some quarter. Woodbury insisted that this expression should be included in the inscription. I was opposed to its use on account of the implication it contained, and also for the reason that it was no easy matter to incorporate it in a sentence that would be tolerable upon granite. Mr. Woodbury wrote two inscriptions.
General Cushing tried his hand. I prepared one or two. Finally Woodbury triumphed, and the monument bears the words attributed to Davis. I was invited to deliver the address at the dedication, October 29, 1851, and the Rev. John Pierpont was invited to deliver the poem.
The exercises were in a large tent capable of seating a thousand persons at dinner. The day was dull but the attendance was large. The soldiers were on duty at an early hour, and they were ready for dinner when they entered the tent at about eleven o"clock. The tables were spread and the soldiers and guests took their seats at the tables, but under an injunction that the repast would not begin until the address and poem had been delivered. Fortunately the address came first. The delivery occupied an hour or more. Mr. Pierpont commenced reading his poem, but before he had made any considerable progress, a slight clicking of knives was heard from the extreme portion of the tent. Mr.
Pierpont was an excitable man. He had a reputation as a preacher, lecturer and poet. It was apparent from his flushed face that his pride was wounded. I expected that Mr. Woodbury, who was president of the day, would rise and ask the guests to abstain from eating until Mr. Pierpont had finished reading his poem. The parson gave no sign, however. The disturbance increased, and finally, Mr. Pierpont, with face flushed to purple, threw down his ma.n.u.script under the box from which he was reading, and sat down. I then expected that the president would demand order. On the contrary, he stuck his hands straight into the air, and said: "Let us ask a blessing." This he did with singular brevity, and sitting down he helped himself from a plate of chicken that stood before him, and at the same time turning to Mr. Pierpont he said: "The listened very well, "till you got to Greece. They didn"t care anything about Greece."
In the preparation of my address I found from the records that the town of Acton had as early as the year 1774 declared, by resolution in town meeting, in favor of an American Republic, adding: "This is the only form of government we wish to see established." Upon my own investigation and upon the opinion of Mr. Webster, whom I consulted, I ventured to say that this was the earliest declaration in favor of a republic that was officially made in the American colonies.
My address ran as follows:
ADDRESS ON THE ACTON MONUMENT
The events of the American Revolution can never fail to interest Americans. This a.s.semblage, men of Middles.e.x, is an a.s.surance that you cherish the Revolutionary character of your county, and that you will be true to the obligations and duties which it imposes.
The event we commemorate is not of local interest only. It has, however, little value on account of the number of men who fought or fell; but it lives as the opening scene of a great revolution based on principle, and destined to change the character of human governments and the condition of the human race. The 19th of April, 1775, is not immortal because men fell in battle, but because they fell choosing death rather than servitude. The mere soldier who fights without a cause is unworthy our respect, but he who falls in defence of sound principles or valued rights deserves a nation"s grat.i.tude.
Hence the battlefields of the Revolution shall gain new l.u.s.tre, while Austerlitz and Waterloo shall be dimmed by the lapse of ages. Each nation cherishes and recurs to the leading events in its history.
Time increases the importance of some of them and diminishes the magnitude of others. Many of them are eras in the history of countries and the world. Such are the lives of great men--philosophers, poets, orators, and statesmen. Such are battles and conquests, the foundation of new empires and the fall of old ones, changes in governments, and the administrations of renowned monarchs. Such were the conquest of Greece, the division of the Macedonian empire, the rise and fall of Rome, the discovery and settlement of this continent, the English commonwealth, the accession of William and Mary to the British throne, the American Revolution, and, finally the wars, empire, and overthrow of Napoleon. A knowledge of these events is not only valuable in itself, but it enables us to penetrate the darkness which usually obscures the daily life and character of a people. A true view of the life of Socrates gives us an accurate idea of Athens and the Athenian people. The protectorate of Cromwell, the great event in all English history, presents a view of the British nation while pa.s.sing from an absolute government to a limited monarchy, slowly but certainly tending to republicanism.
The American Revolution was a clear indication in itself of what the colonies had been, and what the republic was destined to be. Had the Revolution been delayed, no history, however minute, could have given to the world as accurate knowledge of the colonists from 1770 to 1780 as it now possesses. It was the full development of all their history; it was the concise, vigorous, intelligible introduction to their future. It was a great ill.u.s.tration of pre-existing American character. Neither religious nor political fanaticism was an element of the American Revolution. It was altogether defensive--defensive in its a.s.sertion of principles--defensive in its warlike operations.
It is true that the Revolution was an important step towards freedom and equality, but the Revolutionists did not primarily contemplate the destruction or abandonment of the principles of the British government, but rather their preservation and perpetuity; and this in a great degree they accomplished. The two governments are dissimilar in many respects, but the principles which lie at the foundation of the one led to the formation of the other.
The Revolution was conservative. There was always a strong desire in the American mind to preserve, perpetuate, and improve existing inst.i.tutions. Our fathers were not the enemies of government. They were ready at all times to sustain a government founded upon and recognizing the principles of equality and justice. Nor did they imagine that society could exist without the agency of a government in which force should be an element. In the early part of the struggle, while they denounced the policy of the British Ministry, they gave to the principles of the British system an unequivocal support. Many looked only to a reproduction of the home government upon these sh.o.r.es, but that was as impossible as the continuance of English authority.
It is vain to search for the particular cause, or even occasion, of the Revolution. It is not contained in any act of Parliament, or declaration of rights, or a.s.sertion of authority. The truth is, the colonies had reached that point of conscious strength when they must become an integral part of the British Empire, or be separated entirely from it. If there ever had been, there was no longer a feeling of dependence: they were capable of self-support and protection. There could be no allegiance except upon principles of equality--and this England refused. The connection was unnatural and burdensome--the separation was natural and beneficial. It is not a declaration of the law alone which limits the control of the father over the son, but in the order of nature there is a time when the son is capable of self- judgment, and thereafter as regards rights they are on terms of equality, and all civil and social arrangements proceed upon that theory.
But had Great Britain proposed union in 1775 to us, as in 1800 she did to Ireland, the obstacles were so serious that a separation must ultimately have taken place. One was the breadth of ocean between the two parts of the empire--then, and for sixty years, a more serious obstacle than at present. Another was the peerage--a part of the British system which could not have been abolished without the overthrow of the government, and yet incapable of introduction here.
The proposition would have shocked the moral sentiment and the political principles of the whole people. And finally, our growing commerce, uneasy under monopolizing restraints and rival domination, demanded the freedom of the sea. Therefore it is evident that a union could not have been formed with any hope of permanence and power. Nor could the separation have taken place at a more fortunate time. The whole world would have had cause to regret our partic.i.p.ation in the wars of Napoleon, and from them we were saved by independence.
Although the existence of these natural sources of alienation and disunion must be admitted, they furnish no justification for the general policy of England--first negligent, then jealous, then oppressive, and finally reckless and sanguinary.
But we have come together from our various pursuits to contemplate the virtue and power of the American Revolution in itself and in its consequences, to show that the sentiment of grat.i.tude is not dead within us--and finally, and above all, to thank G.o.d for the choice displays of His goodness to the American people.
There are men who deny the virtue of the Revolution. They do it in obedience to the doctrine that all wars are wrong. But those only can consistently maintain this doctrine who also maintain that all governments are wrong. The idea of government includes the idea that there are governing and governed parties to it. In this country the two are united. But all governments which have ever existed, including our own, make war upon those who forcibly question their authority, undermine their power, violate their laws, outrage the persons or property of their citizens. These are acts of hostility against a state, and are prevented or redressed by force--the element of war.
Therefore, in principle, the daily operations of a government in time of peace are not to be distinguished from its movements in war; and in war as well as in peace each government is responsible for the manner in which it exercises its authority.
If we may employ force in support of good government, we may also employ force in the overthrow of a bad government. If we may forcibly defend a natural right, we may employ force to regain natural rights of which we have been disseized. It is admitted amongst us that of all wars the Revolution is the most easily to be defended; but I desire to see it occupy the high moral ground which the most paternal and beneficial government occupies when it defends the natural and inalienable rights of its citizens.
The real question was this: Who may of right govern the North American colonies? the colonists themselves, or the Parliament of Great Britain?
In the colonies there was no difference of opinion upon this point, though there was some as to the mode of securing its exercise. If, then, the right of self-government were in the colonists, did they use all proper means of securing its exercise previous to a resort to arms? They spent ten years in the work of pet.i.tion, remonstrance and expostulation--and those ten years of experience convinced the people that the policy of the British Ministry and Parliament was fixed and irreversible; that there was only resistance to the execution of this policy on the one hand, and submission, which must end in abject slavery, on the other. If the American Revolution be morally indefensible, then not only are all wars indefensible, but all human governments, the wisest and the best, equally so.
The sentiment of the Revolution was altogether moral. There was an entire absence of the spirit of revenge, or rapine, or blood. They never for a moment placed as much reliance upon their numbers and strength as upon the justice of their cause and the existence of a Supreme Ruler, who controls the affairs of men. Such was the tone of the press, the pulpit and the bar. Everywhere the morality of the contest was examined and the ground carefully tested at each step. Not by leading men only, but by all those who had a vote to give in a town meeting or an arm to sustain the weapons of war. They were no zealots, like the crusaders; but plain, careful men, of sound moral principles and correct judgment. It is true that they were descendants of those who rejoiced when Charles the First was beheaded and James the Second was dethroned. This feeling, however, had no mixture of cruelty in it, but it proceeded from a conviction that those monarchs were unworthy of the throne. Their impulses were always in favor of liberty. They sympathized with the members of the Republican Party in England, encouraged them at home, and welcomed them to these sh.o.r.es.
The Revolution was no sudden outbreak or the consummation of the wild enthusiasm which sometimes characterizes popular movements. All through our colonial and provincial history, questions had arisen and been discussed which prepared the public mind for independence. The strength of the revolutionary spirit in the different colonies bore a distinct relation to the fervor of the preceding local controversies.
It is impossible to say at what moment the public mind was steadily directed to independence, either as a possible or desirable termination of the controversies with the mother country. Both the war with France and the peace with France precipitated the American Revolution. The war, by developing the military courage and skill of our people, and by increasing the burdens of Great Britain, thus affording a pretext for additional taxation on America. The peace, by relieving the colonies of the presence of a foe which they dreaded on its own account, as well as for its active agency in stimulating the Indians to deeds of hostility. Thus, in fact, England exchanged the thirteen colonies to which she was allied by blood, language, and similarity of inst.i.tutions, for the provinces of France, whose people even now reject her religion and system of government. Thus the success of the combined British and American forces in the French war developed the revolutionary spirit, created new issues, and led to the early dismemberment of the British Empire.
But omitting the settlement of the country and the causes which led to it, there are incident all along our history which weakened the power of the home government. The most important, perhaps, were the decree in chancery of 1684, which annulled the colonial charter, and the grant of a new charter in 1692 by William and Mary. The first was an act of unmitigated despotism, the second of short-sighted selfishness. The decree in chancery was accepted, because the colonists had no hope of anything better. Thus the character of the government was changed fundamentally without the consent of the governed. The arrow aimed at colonial independence rankled in the public breast until the independence of America was achieved. The effort to strengthen British authority, in reality weakened it. Previous to 1684 religious profession was the basis of political rights, and the clergy gave direction to the policy of the state. John Cotton well states the result of the colony charter, to wit: "Such a form of government, as best serveth to establish their religion, should, by the consent of all, be established in the civil state. . . . The effect of this const.i.tution was, first, that none but members of the church were freemen of the state; secondly, as none could be church members whom the minister did not approve, it followed that the ecclesiastical ruler had an efficient negative on the admission of every freeman; and thereby, as excommunication from the church created a civil, as well as ecclesiastical disability, it also followed that both the attainment and continuance of political rights were, to all practical purposes, in the hands of ecclesiastical rulers." By the provincial charter all this was abolished. The new government had exclusively for its end "the things about which the civil power is usually conversant; goods, lands, honors, the liberties and peace of the outward man." The influence of the clergy, at all times very great in New England, was thus separated from the English government, and they were at once identified in sympathy, hopes, and prospects, with the people of the colony. As I shall have occasion hereafter to say, this influence was essential to the success of the Revolution.
It is not likely that any form of government which Great Britain could have established, especially if it excluded our people from its control, could have maintained the union twenty-five years longer than the relation actually existed. The future in some particulars was as full of hope then to them as it is now to us. Many of their antic.i.p.ations were so sanguine that the reality has not been equal to them. In 1763 an estimate was made that the population of New England in 1835 would be 4,000,000. From this it is apparent that they had already tasted prosperity and had come to understand the advantages of our country, especially in the character of its population, over the old countries of Europe.
The British Ministry did not discover the means by which the colonies were to be retained, if retained at all. Our ancestors had little respect for hereditary privileges and the pretensions of birth. They were for the most part believers in the equality of the human race; and, moreover, in their munic.i.p.al governments, they had learned the safety and power of universal suffrage. A few men only in England had an accurate idea of American principles, or the difficulty of holding in unwilling embrace three million people. Among the representatives of this small cla.s.s were the elder Pitt, Burke, and Wilkes.
Pitt declared that "three million people, so dead to all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of ourselves."
Said Wilkes, "Know, then, that a successful resistance is a revolution, not a rebellion. Who can tell whether in a few years the independent Americans may not celebrate the glorious era of the revolution of 1775 as we do that of 1688?" Nor did his prophetic eye fail to penetrate even the distant future. "Where your fleets and armies are stationed,"
said he, "the possession will be secured, while they continue; but all the rest will be lost. In the great scale of empire, you will decline, I fear, from the decision of this day; and the Americans will rise to independence, to power, to all the greatness of the most renowned states; for _they build on the solid basis of general public liberty."_ These were words of wisdom; but nations, like individual men, learn anything sooner than their own faults, and confess anything sooner than their own mistakes.
It is difficult for the historian to understand the policy of attempting to control America by force; for nothing is more certain than that, if we had failed in establishing our independence, Great Britain would also have failed in subjecting us to her schemes.
After the shedding of blood at Lexington, reconciliation was impossible; nor is it certain that it could have been accomplished after the ma.s.sacre in King Street, in 1770. To be sure the proceedings of the towns and the tone of all the memorials and pet.i.tions indicate this; but there were unquestionably men who thought it better that the connection should be dissolved at as early a period as possible. These men were right, both as regards our condition and the prosperity of England. Had we remained her subjects, like all colonies, we should have been of no advantage pecuniarily, and most likely a source of some expense. But with independence and the Const.i.tution came prosperity to us, in which, through trade and the increased demand for her manufactures, England has largely partic.i.p.ated.
Had she consented, in 1775, to the peaceful dismemberment of her empire, the independence of America, under such circ.u.mstances, would have increased her glory, spared her treasury, and saved her laborers form the pressure of taxes under which they have been weighed down. It may be, however, that the war was necessary to us. In ante- Revolutionary times there was not a strong tendency to union--in many parts of the country the opposite feeling existed. Even the Const.i.tution was framed with difficulty, and received with hesitation and doubt. The Const.i.tution is not so much the result as the cause of our national character. The colonies had had different foundations.
Some were English, some were Dutch, some were Roundheads, some Cavaliers, some were Catholics, some Protestants, some Baptists, some Quakers, some Congregationalists; and, finally, some of the colonies were free and some held slaves. It is apparent that there was not that tendency to union which was necessary to the formation of the Const.i.tution. But the mutual dependence which the mutual necessities of the war produced convinced many of the propriety of a common government--a government which should be adequate to a time of peace and to a condition of war--a government which should guard each State from civil commotion and protect its citizens and commerce in every part of the world. It is evident that the free surrender of jurisdiction would have left the colonies to many years of separate existence, and controversies which might have pa.s.sed into open hostility. The period between peace and the adoption of the Const.i.tution was hardly more desirable than the previous condition of war. The currency was disordered and without value, the revenue systems of the different States were various and injurious to legitimate commerce, while the want of uniform laws upon subjects altogether national, was everywhere observed. A general government, adequate to the necessities of the nation, was not established until the inadequacy of the State governments had been felt in peace and war; but war more than peace created bonds of sympathy, and inspired confidence among the States.
The Revolution opened in Ma.s.sachusetts. This province having been marked by the British Government, was not at all reluctant to take a prominent position in the controversies from 1765 to 1775. Therefore the attack was properly directed here, and here with equal propriety the first forcible resistance was made to British aggression.
The difficulties with Ma.s.sachusetts were a century old. The colony charter had been annulled--her territory on the Merrimack and the Narragansett had been transferred to neighboring colonies, and the men whom she had elected to preside in her House of Representatives had been repeatedly rejected.
There had been from the first an ardent desire in the colony to establish a free Christian commonwealth, and on the part of England to maintain, if not extend, the power of the British Parliament. In May, 1774, as the representative of the latter purpose, General Gage arrived in Boston, and was soon followed by considerable bodies of troops. In August of the same year measures were taken for a Provincial Congress, to concert and execute an effectual plan for counteracting the system of despotism which had been introduced. The Congress instructed the general officers "effectually to oppose and resist" all attempts to execute the obnoxious acts of the British Parliament; and by a singular coincidence on the same day, February 9, 1775, the Parliament pledged the lives and property of the Commons to the support of those laws.
On the side of the Americans, the courts were declared unconst.i.tutional and their officers traitors--and the practice of the military art was earnestly recommended.
By the 1st of September, 1774, the issue was fairly presented. The claim on one side was the supremacy of the British Parliament, and on the other the supremacy of the American people. Parliament claimed the right to legislate for or over the colonies in all cases whatsoever; this right the colonists denied. Parliament had a.s.serted its supremacy by the pa.s.sage, in May, 1774, of "An act for the better regulating the government of the province of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay," and "An act for the more impartial administration of justice in said province." Submission to these acts was the test. They would not execute themselves. Their precise character was of no great importance to the people. It was a question of right, of authority, and not of detail. Had the acts been less oppressive, or even more so, the principle at issue would not have been changed. In August, 1774, one hundred and fifty of the best men of Middles.e.x a.s.sembled in the adjacent town of Concord, and uttered these memorable words:
"We are obliged to say, however painful it may be to us, that the question now is, whether by a submission to some of the late acts of the Parliament of Great Britain, we are contented to be the most abject slaves, and entail that slavery on posterity after us, or, by a manly, joint and virtuous opposition, a.s.sert and support our freedom.
There is a mode of conduct which, in our very critical circ.u.mstances we wish to adopt--a conduct, on the one hand, never tamely submissive to tyranny and oppression; on the other, never degenerating into rage, pa.s.sion and confusion." Again, "We must now exert ourselves, or all those efforts which for ten years past have brightened the annals of this country, will be totally frustrated. Life and Death, or what is more, Freedom and Slavery, are in a peculiar sense now before us; and that choice and success, under G.o.d, depend greatly on ourselves. We are therefore bound, as struggling not only for ourselves, but for future generations, to express our sentiments in the following resolves --sentiments which we think are founded in truth and justice, and therefore sentiments we are determined to abide by." In conclusion they say "no danger shall affright, no difficulties intimidate us; and if, in support of our rights, we are called to encounter even death, we are yet undaunted, sensible that he can never die too soon who lays down his life in support of the laws and liberties of his country."
If we for a moment forget the territorial and popular influence which belongs to the action of sovereign States and large ma.s.ses of men, we shall see no material difference between this language and that of the Declaration of Independence. It was a pledge of life to the support of the laws and liberties of the land. It was at once a concise and forcible review of the past; a just and eloquent defence of the principles and conduct of the colony; a n.o.ble appeal in behalf of that and future generations. Memorable words for men to utter who led at Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill!
James Prescott, of Groton, was chairman of the convention, and Frances Faulkner, John Hayward and Ephraim Hapgood were members from the town of Acton. This was the most important step taken prior to the commencement of hostilities. The convention attracted universal notice. Copies of its proceedings were sent to the Continental Congress, then sitting at Philadelphia, and they received cordial approbation. But even as late as September, 1774, the patriots say to General Gage, "that their sole intention is to preserve pure and inviolate those rights to which, as men, and English Americans, they are justly ent.i.tled, and which have been guaranteed to them by his majesty"s royal predecessors." Thus anxious were they at every point of the controversy to define the ground on which they stood.
From August, 1774, to February, 1775, the British were engaged in examinations of the country, in landing and drilling the troops, and in vain attempts to check the progress or expression of the public sentiment of almost universal hostility.
The province was engaged in the organization and discipline of the minute men, and the collection and safe-keeping of stores, arms, and munitions of war; preparations for attack on the one side, and preparations for defence on the other. Nevertheless, this was a season for reflection. For six months after the issue was fairly presented, there were no evidences of fear, and but few indications of a disposition to conciliate.
General Gage, however, appears not to have entertained the common notion of English officers, that a small body of troops would put down all opposition. He informed his government that the time for "conciliation, moderation, reasoning was over," and that the first campaign should be opened by the presence of twenty thousand men. This was wise advice, because it was such advice as a wise man would have given under the circ.u.mstances. It was, however, a fortunate blunder in the English Government that they rejected it. They held Boston with the army they sent, and with a larger army they could have done nothing more. They might have made more frequent and more sanguinary forays into the country, but the result of the campaign would have been the same. It was neither possible nor politic for the Americans in the Revolution to a.s.semble large bodies of troops; therefore, the presence of twenty, or even fifty, thousand men, would not have been a matter of great importance to the colonies.
England held us in 1775, as she holds many of her provinces now--by their own consent, but not otherwise. That consent can be perpetual only by the recognition of the principles of freedom and equality. The cause of liberty raises up friends and advocates everywhere. None of its martyrs ever die unwept, unhonored or unsung. The human heart has never been truer to any principle than to that of liberty. It is not in America alone that the cause of freedom excites sympathy and enlists support. Its voice is as potential, its victories as grateful elsewhere as with us. And when its banner is borne down and trampled in the dust, it is not in America alone that true hearts sympathize and bleed. There are n.o.ble men in England, France, Germany, Italy, and Hungary, upon whom the blow falls, as upon the first victims of slavery. But in the wisdom of G.o.d, the nation that is not just shall stand finally
"Childless and crownless in her voiceless woe, An empty urn within her withered hands."