The Stamp Act was passed in February, 1765.
What powers the Parliament might rightfully exercise over us, and whether any, had never been declared either by them or us. They had very early taken the gigantic step of passing the Navigation Act. The colonies remonstrated violently against it, and one of them, Virginia, when she capitulated to the commonwealth of England, expressly capitulated for a free trade. [See the articles on the Notes on Virginia, p. 201.] This capitulation, however, was as little regarded as the original right, restored by it, had been. The navigation act was re-enacted by Charles, and was enforced. And we had been so long in the habit of seeing them consider us merely as objects for the extension of their commerce, and of submitting to every duty or regulation imposed with that view, that we had ceased to complain of them. But when they proposed to consider us as objects of taxation, all the States took the alarm. Yet so little had we attended to this subject, that our advocates did not at first know on what ground to take their stand. Mr. Dickenson, a lawyer of more ingenuity than sound judgment, and still more timid than ingenious, not daring to question the authority to regulate commerce so as best to answer their own purpose, to which we had so long submitted, admitted that authority in its utmost extent. He acknowledged * * * * * that they could levy duties, internal or external, payable in Great Britain or in the States. He only required that these duties should be bonâ fide for the regulation of commerce, and not to raise a solid revenue. He admitted, therefore, that they might control our commerce, but not tax us. This mysterious system took, for a moment, in America as well as in Europe. But sounder heads saw in the first moment, that he who could put down the loom, could stop the spinning wheel, and he who could stop the spinning wheel could tie the hands which turned it. They saw that this flimsey fabric could not be supported. Who were to be judges whether duties were imposed with a view to burthen and suppress a branch of manufacture, or to raise a revenue? If either party, exclusively of the other, it was plain where that would end. If both parties, it was plain where that would end also. They saw, therefore, no sure clue to lead them out of their difficulties but reason and right. They dared to follow them, assured that they alone could lead them to defensible ground. The first elements of reason showed that the members of Parliament could have no power which the people of the several counties had not. That these had naturally a power over their own farms, and, collectively, over all England. That if they had any power over counties out of England, it must be founded on compact or force. No compact could be shown, and neither party chose to bottom their pretensions on force. It was objected that this annihilated the navigation act. True, it does. The navigation act, therefore, becomes a proper subject of treaty between the two nations. Or if Great Britain does not choose to have its basis questioned, let us go on as we have done. Let no new shackles be imposed, and we will continue to submit to the old. We will consider the restrictions on our commerce, now actually existing, as compensations yielded by us for the protection and privileges we actually enjoy, only trusting that if Great Britain, on a revisal of these restrictions, is sensible that some of them are useless to her and oppressive to us, she will repeal them. But on this she shall be free. Place us in the condition we were when the king came to the throne, let us rest so, and we will be satisfied. This was the ground on which all the States very soon found themselves rallied, and that there was no other which could be defended.
I will now proceed with remarks on the history. I do not think that M. Soulés mentioned the affair of the Cedars, which happened in April, 1775. This was an affair of no small importance. A committee was appointed by Congress to institute inquiries concerning it, as may be seen by the journal of June 14, 1776. The report of that committee is inserted in the journal of July the 10th, and I can assure M. Soulés, that the facts therein stated were proved unhesitatingly to the committee by witnesses present at the transactions, and who were on watch. I have the originals of that inquiry in my possession in America. The Captain Foster therein mentioned, was afterwards taken with Burgoyne's army, though permitted to go at large on his parole. He was not received into any American company, nor did the British officers, his fellow-prisoners, choose to be seen in company with him—so detestable had been the transaction, &c. Vol. i. p. 324. I have been very well informed, that during all the latter part of the defence, the garrison were obliged to return the cannon balls of the enemy, with which, indeed, the ground was covered, having none of their own left.
Page 325. "Il Peut un Serjent," &c. This particular truly related in Andrews.
Page 5. "Ils en vinrent," &c. See the journal of Congress. That it was on that day put off to the 1st of July. This was done at the instance of the members opposed to it. The friends of the resolution objected, that if it were not agreed to till the 1st of July, they would after that have to frame a Declaration of Independence, and that more time would then be lost. It was therefore agreed between the two, that the resolution should be put off till the 1st of July; and that a committee should be immediately appointed to draw a Declaration of Independence, conformable to the resolution, should it be adopted. A committee was accordingly appointed the next day. On the 1st of July the resolution was proposed, and when ready for a vote, a State required it to be put off till the next day. It was done, and was passed the next day, 2d of July. The Declaration of Independence was debated the 2d, 3d and 4th days of July, and on the last of these was passed and signed.
Page 6th. A "se retirèrent ensuite du Congres." I do not remember that the delegates of Maryland retired from Congress, and I think I could not have forgotten such a fact. On the contrary, I find by the journal of Congress, that they were present, and acting on the 11th, 12th, 17th, 18th and 24th of June.
Page 7. A "la plus grande partie." It should rather be the most important parts.
Page 7, 6. "Les états ferraient encore aujourd'hui partie de l'empire Britannique." M. Soulés may be assured that the submission of the States could not have been effected but by a long course of disasters, and such, too, as were irreparable in their nature. Their resources were great, and their determination so rooted, that they would have tried the last of them. I am as satisfied as I can be of anything, that the conjecture here stated would not have been verified by the event.
Page 14. "Provinces unis," should not this always be "états unis?"
Page 15. "Mais qu'on pouvoir aussi les interpreter," &c. His exact answer was, "That it was true the, &c. might include anything, but that might also include nothing."