[120] Ibid. 225.
[121] Writings, IV. 232.
[122] Journals, II. 475. A committee, at the head of which was Robert Morris, was appointed to transmit this resolve to General Washington, and in their letter they said: "We find by these resolves that your Excellency's hands will be strengthened by very ample powers; and a new reformation of the army seems to have its origin therein. Happy it is for this country, that the general of their forces can safely be intrusted with the most unlimited power, and neither personal security, liberty, nor property be in the least degree endangered thereby." In his reply, the General said to the committee: "Yours of the 31st of last month inclosed to me sundry resolves of Congress, by which I find they have done me the honor to intrust me with powers, in my military capacity, of the highest nature, and almost unlimited in extent. Instead of thinking myself freed from all civil obligations, by this mark of their confidence, I shall constantly bear in mind, that, as the sword was the last resort for the preservation of our liberties, so it ought to be the first thing laid aside when those liberties are firmly established. I shall instantly set about the most necessary reforms in the army; but it will not be in my power to make so great a progress as if I had a little leisure time upon my hands." Writings of Washington, IV. 257, 552.
[123] Writings of Washington, IV. 551.
[124] Writings of Washington, IV. 551.
[125] Journals, III. 35.
[126] "We have now to lament," said Robert Morris, in a private Letter to General Washington, under date of February 27th, 1777 "the absence from the public councils of America of Johnson, Jay, R. R. Livingston, Duane, Deane, W. Livingston, Franklin, Dickinson, Harrison, Nelson, Hooper, Rutledge, and others not less conspicuous, without any proper appointments to fill their places, and this at the very time they are most wanted, or would be so, if they had not very wisely supplied the deficiency by delegating to your Excellency certain powers, that they durst not have intrusted to any other man. But what is to become of America, and its cause, if a constant fluctuation is to take place among its counsellors, and at every change we find reason to view it with regret?" Writings of Washington, IV. 340, note.
[127] Massachusetts, in December, 1776, renewed the credentials of John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry, Francis Dana, and James Lovell, giving power to any three or more of them, with the delegates from the other American States, to concert, direct, and order such further measures as shall to them appear best calculated for the establishment of right and liberty to the American States, upon a basis permanent and secure against the power and art of the British administration; for prosecuting the present war, concluding peace, contracting alliances, establishing commerce, and guarding against any future encroachments and machinations of their enemies; with power to adjourn, &c. (Journals, IV. 14.) New Hampshire in the same month sent William Whipple, Josiah Bartlett, and Mathew Thornton, making any one of them a full delegation, without any other instructions than "to represent" the State in the Continental Congress for one year, and allowing only two of them to attend at a time. (Ibid. 41.) Virginia in the same month appointed Mann Page, in the room of George Wythe, with the same general instructions "to represent" the State. (Ibid. 42.) North Carolina in the same month appointed William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, and Thomas Burke, and invested them "with such powers as may make any act done by them, or any of them, or consent given in the said Congress in behalf of this State, obligatory upon every inhabitant thereof." (Ibid. 37.) South Carolina chose Arthur Middleton, Thomas Hayward, Jr., and Henry Laurens, with power "to concert, agree to, and execute every measure which one or all of them should judge necessary for the defence, security, or interest of this State in particular, and of America in general." (Ibid. 53.) Connecticut sent Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, Eliphalet Dyer, Oliver Wolcott, Richard Law, and William Williams, "to consult, advise, and resolve upon measures necessary to be taken and pursued for the defence, security, and preservation of the rights and liberties of the said United States, and for their common safety"; but requiring them "of such their proceedings and resolves to transmit authentic copies from time to time to the General Assembly of this state." (Ibid. 5.) Of the other states, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Georgia, which renewed their delegations somewhat later in the year, instructed them simply "to represent" the state in the Continental Congress; and Delaware empowered its delegates, on behalf of the state, "to concert, agree to, and execute any measure which they, together with a majority of the Continental Congress, should judge necessary for the defense, security, interest, and welfare of that State in particular, and America in general." (Ibid. 64, 315, 171, 169, 395, 54, 403, 86.)
[128] This was Mr. Abraham Clark, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Mr. Sparks has preserved a curious letter written by this gentleman on the subject. Writings of Washington, IV. 298.
[129] The whole of this alarm evidently arose from the use of the words "oath of allegiance" in General Washington's proclamation. Probably this phrase was used by him as a convenient description of the obligation which he intended to exact. He did not use it as a jurist, but as a general and a statesman. In a letter written by him on the 5th of February (1777) to the President of Congress, desiring that body to urge the States to adopt an oath of fidelity, he said: "From the first institution of civil government, it has been the national policy of every precedent state to endeavor to engage its members to the discharge of their public duty by the obligation of some oath"; and he then observes, with his characteristic wisdom, that "an oath is the only substitute that can be adopted to supply the defect of principle." He advised that every State should fix upon some oath or affirmation of allegiance, to be tendered to all the inhabitants without exception, and to outlaw those that refused it. (Writings, IV. 311, 312.) Afterwards, when the Legislative Council of New Jersey—where some of the people had refused to take the oath required by his proclamation—applied to him to explain the nature of the oath, and to be furnished with a copy of it, that they might know whether it was the oath prescribed by the General Assembly of that State, he informed them that he had prescribed no form, and had reverted to none prescribed by them; that his instructions to the brigadiers who attended to that duty were, to insist on nothing more than an obligation in no manner to injure the States; and that he had left the form to his subordinates; but that if he had known of any form adapted to the circumstances of the inhabitants, he would certainly have ordered it. (Ibid. 319, note.) This explanation makes it quite certain, that what General Washington called in his proclamation an oath of allegiance was merely a military exaction of an obligation in favor of a belligerent power against the enemy; and his advice on the subject of a general civil oath of allegiance, to be exacted by the States, shows that he understood the niceties of the subject as well as any casuist in or out of Congress. This topic may be dismissed by reverting here to the fact, that in February, 1778, Congress prescribed an oath or affirmation, to be taken by the officers of the army, and all others holding office under Congress, which was simply a renunciation of allegiance to the King of Great Britain, an acknowledgment of the independence of the United States, and a promise to support, maintain, and defend them against King George III. and his successors, and to serve the United States in the office mentioned with fidelity, and the best skill and understanding of the party taking the oath. Journals, IV. 49.