Reminiscences of Sixty Years in Public Affairs, Vol. 1

by George S. Boutwell

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 gratitude is not dead within us—and finally, and above all, to thank God 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 petition, 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 shores.

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 institutions, 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 constitution 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 anticipations 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.