It has been seen with what readiness, zeal, and enthusiasm thousands and tens of thousands of volunteers offered their services during the year 1775, and the first part of the year 1776, in defence of British liberty, in union with the friends of civil liberty and defenders of American liberty in England; but when, after the Declaration of the 4th of July, 1776, the cause became one of Congressional liberty instead of British liberty, of separation from the mother country instead of union with it, of a new form of government instead of one to which they had sworn allegiance, and which they had ever lauded and professed to love,--then, in these novel circ.u.mstances, the provincial army dwindled from day to day by desertions, as well as from other causes, and recruiting its ranks could only be effected by bounties in money and the promise of lands; the uninterrupted victories of the colonists during the twelve months previous to the Declaration of Independence were succeeded by uninterrupted defeats during the twelve months succeeding it, with the exception of the brilliant and successful surprise raids which Washington made upon _Trenton_ and _Princeton_. But these exploits were wholly owing to Washington"s skill, and sleepless energy, and heroic courage, with feeble forces, in contrast to the lethargy and self-indulgence of the English officers on the one hand and the inactivity of Congress on the other.
The first trial of strength and courage between the English and revolutionary forces took place in August, a few weeks after the Declaration of Independence, in the battle of Long Island, in which Washington"s army was completely defeated; New York and all New Jersey soon fell into the hands of the British. For this success General Howe received the honour of knighthood, as did General Carlton for similar success in Canada--the one becoming Sir William Howe, and the other Sir Guy Carlton; but neither did much afterwards to merit the honour. The English officers seemed to have antic.i.p.ated a pastime in America instead of hard fighting and severe service, and the German mercenaries antic.i.p.ated rich plunder and sensual indulgence.
In the autumn and winter following Washington"s defeat at Long Island and forced evacuation of New York, and indeed of New Jersey, Sir William Howe buried himself in self-indulgent inactivity for six months in New York; while a portion of his army sought quarters and plunder, and committed brutal acts of sensuality, in the chief places of New Jersey.
Loyalty seems to have been the prevalent feeling of New Jersey on the first pa.s.sing of the King"s troops through it.[406]
This is stated on unquestionable authority (see the previous note); scarcely any of the inhabitants joined the American retreating army, while numbers were daily flocking to the royal army. But within twelve months, when that royal army pa.s.sed through the same country, on the evacuation of Philadelphia by Sir Henry Clinton (Sir William Howe having returned to England), the inhabitants were universally hostile, instead of being universally loyal, as the year before. The royal historian says:
"In setting out on this dangerous retreat, the British general clearly perceived that it would be indispensably necessary to provide for all possible contingencies. _His way lay entirely through an enemy"s country, where everything was hostile in the extreme, and from whence no a.s.sistance or help of any sort was to be expected._"[407]
The causes of this change in the feelings of the inhabitants of the Jerseys, in the s.p.a.ce of a few months, in regard to the British army and mother country, will be a subject of future inquiry; but, in the meantime, the manifest failure of the revolutionary army to maintain its position during the twelve months following the Declaration of Independence, its declining numbers, and the difficulty of recruiting its ranks, show that the act of violent severance from the mother country did not spring from the heart and intellect of the colonists, but from a portion of them which had obtained all the resources of material and military power, under the profession of defending their rights as British subjects, with a view to ultimate reconciliation and union with the mother country; but had used their advantages to declare severance from the mother country, to excite hatred against it, and establish themselves in sovereignty over America. Referring to the state of the colonies toward the close of 1777, the latest American historian, Mr. Frothingham, says:
"This was a period of great political languor. The burden of the war was severely felt. The blaze of freedom, it was said, that burst forth at the beginning had gone down, and numbers, in the thirst for riches, lost sight of the original object. (Independent Chronicle, March 12, 1778.) "Where," wrote Henry Laurens (successor to John Hanc.o.c.k as the President of the Congress) to Washington, "where is virtue, where is patriotism now, when almost every man has turned his thoughts and attention to gain and pleasures?"" (Letter, November 20, 1778.)[408]
VI. The Declaration of Independence was the avowed expedient and prelude to a sought-for alliance with France and Spain against the mother country, notwithstanding they had sought for a hundred years to extirpate the colonists, and had been prevented from "driving them into the sea" by the aid of the army and navy and vast expenditure of the mother country.
It seems difficult to reconcile with truthfulness, fairness, and consistency, the intrigues and proposed terms of alliance between the leaders of Congress and the King of France. These intrigues commenced several months before the Declaration of Independence, when the authors of it were disclaiming any wish or design to separate from England, and their desire for reconciliation with the mother country by a recognition of their rights as they existed in 1763. As early as December, 1775, six months before the Declaration of Independence, a Congress Secret Committee of Correspondence wrote to Arthur Lee, in London (a native of Virginia, but a practising barrister in London), and Charles Dumas, at the Hague, requesting them to ascertain the feeling of European Courts respecting America, enjoining "great circ.u.mspection and secrecy."[409]
They hoped most from France; but opposition was made in Congress when it was first suggested to apply for aid to the ancient enemy both of the colonies and England. Dr. Zubly, of Georgia, said: "A proposal has been made to apply to France and Spain. I apprehend the man who would propose it (to his const.i.tuents) would be torn to pieces like De Witt." Within three months after the utterance of these words in Congress, M. de Bouvouloir, agent of the French Government, appeared in Philadelphia, held secret conferences with the Secret Committee, and a.s.sured them that France was ready to aid the colonies on such conditions as might be considered equitable. These conferences were so secret that De Bouvouloir says that "the Committee met him at an appointed place after dark, each going to it by a different road."[410]
A few weeks later, the Secret Committee appointed Silas Deane commercial agent to Europe (March 3), to procure military supplies, and to state to the French Minister, Count Vergennes, the probability of the colonies totally separating from England; that France was looked upon as the power whose friendship they should most desire to cultivate; and to inquire whether, in case of their independence, France would acknowledge it, and receive their Amba.s.sadors.
In April, 1776, three months before the Declaration of Independence, the inquiry was made of Franklin, "When is the Continental Congress by general consent to be formed into a Supreme Legislature?" He replied, "Nothing seems wanting but that general consent. The novelty of the thing deters some; the doubt of success, others; _the vain hope of reconciliation, many_. Every day furnishes us with new causes of increasing enmity, and new reasons for _wishing an eternal separation_; so that there is a rapid increase of the _formerly small party_ who were for an independent government."[411]
From these words of Dr. Franklin, as well as from the facts stated in the preceding pages, it is clear the Declaration of Independence was not the spontaneous voice of a continent, as represented by many American historians, but the result of a persistent agitation on the part of the leaders in Congress, and their agents and partizans in the several provinces, who _now_ represented every act of the corrupt Administration in England as the act of the _nation_, and thus sought to alienate the affections of the colonists from the mother country. Upon Dr. Franklin"s own authority, it is clear that he was opposed to any reconciliation with England and in favour of an "eternal separation" months before the Declaration of Independence; that the party "for an independent government" were "the formerly small party," but had "a rapid increase,"
which Dr. Franklin and his friends knew so well how to promote, while they amused and deceived the friends of the unity of the empire, in both England and America, by professing an earnest desire for reconciliation with the mother country.
The same double game was played against England by the French Government and the secret leaders of the American Congress, the latter professing a desire for reconciliation with England, and the former professing the warmest friendship for England and disapprobation of the separation of the colonies from England, while both parties were secretly consulting together as to the means of dismembering the British empire. "It was,"
says Dr. Ramsay, "evidently the interest of France to encourage the Americans in their opposition to Great Britain; and it was true policy to do this by degrees, and in a private manner, lest Great Britain might take the alarm. It is certain that Great Britain was amused with declarations of the most pacific disposition on the part of France, at the time the Americans were liberally supplied with the means of defence; and it is equally certain that this was the true line of policy for promoting that dismemberment of the British empire which France had an interest in accomplishing. It was the interest of Congress to apply to the Court of France, and it was the interest of France to listen to their application."[412]
The application for alliance with France to war with England was far from being the voice of America. The fact that it was under discussion in Congress three months before it could be carried, shows how strong must have been the opposition to it in Congress itself, and how vigorous and persevering must have been the efforts to manipulate a majority of its members into acquiescing in an application for arms, money, and men to a Government which was and had always been the enemy of civil and Protestant liberty--which had hired savage Indians to butcher and scalp their forefathers, mothers, and children, without regard to age or s.e.x, and which had sought to destroy their very settlements, and drive them into the sea, while the British Government had preserved them from destruction and secured to them the American continent. It is easy to conceive how every British heart in America must have revolted at the idea of seeking to become brother warriors with the French against the mother country. Nor was the proceeding known in America until America was committed to it, for the Congress made itself a secret conclave; its sittings were held in secret; no divisions were allowed to be recorded; its debates were suppressed; its members were sworn to secrecy; the minorities had no means of making known their views to the public; it was decided by the majority that every resolution published should be reported as having been adopted _unanimously_, though actually carried by the slenderest majority. The proceedings of that elected Congress, which converted itself into a secret conclave, were never fully known until the present century, and many of them not until the present age, by the biographies of the men and the private correspondence of the times of the American Revolution. The United Empire Loyalists of those times were not permitted to speak for themselves, and their principles, character and acts were only known from the pens of their adversaries.
Had the heart of America been allowed to speak and act, there would have been no alliance of America, France, and Spain against England; the American colonies would have achieved their own n.o.blest freedom unstained by future bloodshed, and untainted by so unnatural an alliance; the Anglo-Saxon race and language would have been one, and greatly more advanced than it now is in the cause of the world"s freedom and civilization.
History has justly censured, in the severest language, the conduct of Lord North"s Administration for employing German mercenaries to aid in maintaining the a.s.sumed prerogative of King and Parliament in the colonies; but was it less censurable and more patriotic for the administrative leaders in Congress to engage French and Spanish forces, both at sea and land, to invade Great Britain and her possessions, and to unite with Republicans for the dismemberment of the British empire?
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 393: Judge Marshall"s History of the American Colonies, Chap.
XIV., pp. 449-451.]
[Footnote 394: _Ib._, p. 457.]
[Footnote 395: "The commencement of hostilities on the 19th of April, 1775, exhibited the parent State in an odious point of view. But, nevertheless, at that time, and for a twelvemonth after, a majority of the colonists wished for no more than to be re-established as subjects in their ancient rights. Had independence been their object, even at the commencement of hostilities, they would have rescinded the a.s.sociations which have been already mentioned, and imported more largely than ever.
Common sense revolts at the idea that colonists, unfurnished with military stores and wanting manufactures of every kind, should, at the time of their intending a serious struggle for independence, by a voluntary agreement, deprive themselves of the obvious means of procuring such foreign supplies as their circ.u.mstances might make necessary. Instead of pursuing a line of conduct which might have been dictated by a wish for independence, they continued their exports for nearly a year after they ceased to import. This not only lessened the debts they owed to Great Britain, but furnished additional means for carrying on war against themselves. To aim at independence, and at the same time to transfer their resources to their enemies, could not have been the policy of an enlightened people. It was not till some time in 1776 that the colonists began to take other ground, and contend that it was for their interest to be for ever separated from Great Britain."
(Dr. Ramsay"s History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap, xii., pp.
158, 159.)]
[Footnote 396: Lord Mahon says: "In framing this measure, he sought the aid and counsel of Dr. Franklin. Already, in the month of August preceding, they had become acquainted, through the mediation of Lord Stanhope, who carried Dr. Franklin to Hayes (the residence of Lord Chatham). Lord Chatham had then referred to the idea which began to _prevail in England, that America aimed at setting up for herself as a separate State. The truth of any such idea was loudly denied by Dr.
Franklin_. "I a.s.sured his lordship," Dr. Franklin said, "that having more than once travelled almost from one end of the continent to the other, and kept a great variety of company, eating and drinking and conversing with them freely, I never had heard from any person, drunk or sober, the least expression of a wish for separation, or hint that such a thing would be advantageous to America.... In fine, Lord Chatham expressed much satisfaction in my having called upon him, _and particularly in the a.s.surances I had given him that America did not aim at independence_."" (Works, Vol. V., p. 7, ed. 1844.)
The Earl of Chatham"s last speech was an appeal against the separation of the American colonies from England, and his last words were: "My lords, I rejoice that the grave has not closed upon me; that I am still alive to lift up my voice against the dismemberment of this ancient and most n.o.ble monarchy." (Bancroft, Vol. IX., p. 495.)]
[Footnote 397: "In the beginning of the memorable year 1776, there was a public opinion in favour of independence in New England, and but little more than individual preferences for it in the Middle or Southern colonies. So deeply seated was the affection for the mother country, that it required all the severe acts of war, directed by an inexorable Ministry and the fierce words from the throne, to be made fully known throughout America before the _majority_ of the people could be persuaded to renounce their allegiance and a.s.sume the sovereignty.
Jefferson says that Samuel Adams was constantly holding caucuses with distinguished men, in which the measures to be pursued were generally determined upon, and their several parts were a.s.signed to the actors who afterwards appeared in them." (Frothingham"s Rise of the Republic of the United States, pp. 468, 469.)]
[Footnote 398: Quoted by Bancroft, Vol. VII., p. 234.]
[Footnote 399: "Millions in England and Scotland" (said John Adams, who nominated Washington as Commander-in-Chief, and was afterwards President of the United States)--"millions in England and Scotland think it unrighteous, impolitic, and ruinous to make war upon us; and a Minister, though he may have a marble heart, will proceed with a desponding spirit. London has bound her members under their hands to a.s.sist us; Bristol has chosen two known friends of America; many of the most virtuous of the n.o.bility and gentry are for us, and among them a St.
Asaph, a Camden, and a Chatham; the best bishop that adorns the bench, as great a judge as the nation can boast, and the greatest statesman it ever saw." (Bancroft"s History of the United States, Vol. VII., Chap.
xxi, p. 235.)]
[Footnote 400: History of the American Revolution, Vol. I., Chap. xiii., p. 353.]
[Footnote 401: It was the plea then, as it had and has always been in all tyranny, whether wielded by an individual or an oligarchy or a committee, whether under the pretext of liberty or of order, to persecute all dissenting parties, under profession of preventing division and promoting unity. But the true friends of liberty, even in perilous times, have always relied upon the justice of their principles and excellence of their policy and measures for support and success, and not upon the prison, the gallows, and the impoverishment of the dissenters by plunder. The Congress itself had declared to England that the "colonists were a unit" in behalf of liberty; but their own enactments and proceedings against the Loyalists refuted their own statements. Even in England, tyrannical and corrupt as was the Government at the time, and divided as were both Parliament and people, and a.s.sailed by foreign and domestic enemies, the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament were open to the public; every member was not only free to express his opinions, but those opinions were forthwith published to the world, and every man throughout the kingdom enjoyed freedom of opinion. It was reserved for the American Congress, while professing to found liberty, to conduct its proceedings in secret for eleven years, to suppress the freedom of the press and individual freedom of opinion, and to treat as criminals those who dissented from its acts of policy. The private biography and letters of the princ.i.p.al actors in the American revolution, published during the present century, show (with the exception of Washington and very few others) that individual ambition had quite as much to do in the contest of separation from the mother country as patriotic love of const.i.tutional liberty, which, even at this day, in the United States, is not comparable with that of Great Britain--some of the ablest American writers being judges.]
[Footnote 402: Elliott"s New England History, Vol. II., Chap. xxvii., pp. 369-375.
"A large number of the merchants in all the chief commercial towns of the colonies were openly hostile, or but coldly inclined to the common cause. General Lee, sent to Newport (Rhode Island) to advise about throwing up fortifications, _called the princ.i.p.al persons among the disaffected before him, and obliged them by a tremendous oath to support the authority of Congress_. The a.s.sembly met shortly after, and pa.s.sed an Act subjecting to death, with confiscation of property, all who should hold intercourse with or a.s.sist the British ships. But to save Newport from destruction it presently became necessary to permit a certain stated supply to be furnished to the British ships from that town." (Hildreth"s History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap.
x.x.xii., p. 102.)
"In the Middle colonies the unwillingness to separate from Great Britain was greater than in the colonies either to the North or South. One reason probably was, that in this division were the towns of New York and Philadelphia, which greatly profited by their trade to England, and which contained a larger proportion of English and Scotch merchants, who, with few exceptions, were attached to the royal cause." (Tucker"s History of the United States, Vol. I., p. 150.)]
[Footnote 403: History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap. x.x.xiii., pp. 137, 138.
On the 18th of June, 1776, about two weeks before adopting the Declaration of Independence, Congress "_Resolved_,--That no man in these colonies charged with being a Tory, or unfriendly to the cause of American liberty, be injured in his person or property, unless the proceeding against him be founded on an order of Congress or Committee,"
etc. But this resolution amounted practically to nothing. It seems to have been intended to allay the fears and weaken the opposition of loyalists, but contributed nothing for their protection, or to mitigate the cruel persecutions everywhere waged against them.]
[Footnote 404: Life and Correspondence of President Reed, Vol. I., p.
195. Washington, however, in his public letter to Congress (unless Mr.
Jared Sparks has _improved_ this pa.s.sage), says that the troops had testified their "warmest approbation." (Writings, Vol. III., p. 457.)]
[Footnote 405: Lord Mahon"s History of England from the Peace of Utrecht, Vol. VI., Chap. liv., pp. 161, 162.
Lord Mahon adds: "It was at this inauspicious juncture, only a few hours after independence had been proclaimed in the ranks of his opponents, that the bearer of the pacific commission, Lord Howe, arrived off Sandy Hook. He had cause to regret most bitterly both the delay of his pa.s.sage and the limitation of his powers. He did not neglect, however, whatever means of peace were still within his reach. He sent on sh.o.r.e a declaration, announcing to the people the object of his mission. He despatched a friendly letter, written at sea, to Dr. Franklin, at Philadelphia. But when Franklin"s answer came it showed him wholly adverse to a reconciliation, expressing in strong terms his resentment of the "atrocious injuries" which, as he said, America had suffered from "your unformed and proud nation." Lord Howe"s next step was to send a flag of truce, with another letter, to Washington. But here a preliminary point of form arose. Lord Howe, as holding the King"s commission, could not readily acknowledge any rank or t.i.tle not derived from his Majesty. He had therefore directed his letter to "George Washington, Esq." On the other hand, Washington, feeling that, in his circ.u.mstances, to yield a punctilio would be to sacrifice a principle, declined to receive or open any letter not addressed to him as General.
Thus at the very outset this negotiation was cut short."--_Ib._, pp.
162, 163.]
[Footnote 406: After the battle of Long Island and the evacuation of New York, "six thousand men, led by Earl Cornwallis, were landed on the Jersey side. At their approach the Americans withdrew in great haste to Fort Lee, leaving behind their artillery and stores. Washington himself had no other alternative than to give way with all speed as his enemy advanced. He fell back successively upon Brunswick, upon Princeton, upon Trenton, and at last to the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware. To all these places, one after another, did Lord Cornwallis, though slowly, and with little vigour, pursue him.
"This fair province of the Jerseys, sometimes called the Garden of America, did not certainly on this occasion prove to be its bulwark. The scene is described as follows by one of their own historians, Dr.
Ramsay: "As the retreating Americans marched through the country, scarcely one of the inhabitants joined them, while numbers were daily flocking to the royal army to make their peace and obtain protection.
They saw on the one side a numerous, well-appointed, and full-clad army, dazzling their eyes with their elegance of uniforms; on the other a few poor fellows who, from their shabby clothing, were called ragam.u.f.fins, fleeing for their safety. Not only the common people changed sides in this gloomy state of public affairs, but some of the leading men in New Jersey and Pennsylvania adopted the same expedient."
"Yet it is scarcely just to the Americans to ascribe, with Dr. Ramsay, their change of sides to nothing beyond their change of fortune. May we not rather believe that a feeling of concern at the separation, hitherto suppressed in terror, was now first freely avowed--that in New Jersey, and not in New Jersey alone, an active and bold minority had been able to overrule numbers much larger, but more quiescent and complying?
"Another remark made by the same historian might, as history shows, be extended to other times and countries besides his own. The men who had been the vainest braggarts, the loudest bl.u.s.terers in favour of independence, were now the first to veer around or to slink away. This remark, which Dr. Ramsay makes only four years afterwards, is fully confirmed by other doc.u.ments of earlier date, but much later publication, by the secret correspondence of the time. Thus writes the Adjutant-General: "Some of our Philadelphia gentlemen, who came over on visits, upon the first cannon went off in a violent hurry. Your noisy Sons of Liberty are, I find, the quietest in the field." Thus again Washington, with felicitous expression, points a paragraph at the "chimney-corner heroes."
"At this period the effective force under Washington had dwindled down to four thousand men.