Thus terminated a war, which originated in an attempt on the part of the French to surround the English colonists, and chain them to a narrow strip of country along the coast of the Atlantic; and ended with their giving up the whole of what was then their only valuable territory in North America. The immediate advantage the colonies derived from the successful issue of the contest was great and apparent. Although, for a short period after the conquest of Canada had been effected, they were subject to attacks from the Indian tribes attached to the French, and also from the Cherokees on their south-western borders, they were soon enabled to visit their cruelties with severe retribution, and to procure a lasting repose, as the Indians had no forts to which to repair for protection or aid. But the indirect results, though almost unperceived at first, were far more important, and prepared the way for those momentous efforts which issued in the loss to Great Britain of the fairest portion of her colonies, and the establishment of her vassal as a rival. The colonists became inured to the habits and hardships of a military life, and skilled in the arts of European warfare; while the desire of revenge for the loss of Canada, which France did not fail to harbor, was preparing for them a most efficient friend, and making way for the anomalous exhibition of a despotic sovereign exerting all his power in the cause of liberty and independence.
COMMENCEMENT OF THE REVOLUTION.
Our limits will not permit us to enter into any speculations as to the remote origin of the American revolution. The immediate and exciting causes of the spirit of opposition to the government were twofold; the rigorous execution of the navigation laws, which destroyed a most important and profitable, though contraband and illegal trade; and the assertion by the British parliament of its right to tax the colonies. The latter so speedily followed the former, and afforded so preferable a ground on which to make a stand, that the navigation laws were seldom exhibited as one of the chief grievances; although, had not the stamp act and other similar measures been brought forward, the laws affecting the trade of the colonies would inevitably have excited the same opposition.
The attempt to hold a people, circumstanced as were the American colonists, under the legislation of Great Britain, was as irrational as it wasunjust. Financial embarrassments called forth the erroneous policy into action, which, as often happens in private life, deeply aggravated the evil it was designed to remedy; and the attempt to wring a few thousands per annum from the colonists, terminated in plunging Great Britain into debt, and in depriving her of an immense territory, which, under a just and liberal management, might still have continued one of the most illustrious appendages of the British crown.
Plans of laying internal taxes, and of drawing a revenue from the colonies, had been at various times suggested to the ministry, and particularly to Sir Robert Walpole. This statesman, however, was too wise and sagacious to adopt them. ‘I will leave the taxation of the Americans,’ Walpole answered, ‘for some of my successors, who may have more courage than I have, and be less friendly to commerce than I am. It has been a maxim with me,’ he added, ‘during my administration, to encourage the trade of the American colonies to the utmost latitude; nay, it has been necessary to pass over some irregularities in their trade with Europe; for, by encouraging them to an extensive and growing foreign commerce, if they gain five hundred thousand pounds, I am convinced that, in two years afterwards, full two hundred and fifty thousand of this gain will be in his majesty’s exchequer by the labor and product of this kingdom, as immense quantities of every kind of our manufactures go thither; and as they increase in the foreign American trade, more of our produce will be wanted. This is taxing them more agreeably to their own constitution and laws.’ The first Pitt, also, in his celebrated speech on the repeal of the stamp act, referring to the conduct of the several preceding administrations, says, ‘None of these thought, or even dreamed, of robbing the colonies of their constitutional rights. That was reserved to mark an era of the late administration; not that there were wanting some, when I had the honor to serve his majesty, to propose to me to burn my fingers with an American stamp act. With the enemy at their back, with our bayonets at their breasts, in the day of their distress, perhaps the Americans would have submitted to the imposition; but it would have been taking an ungenerous and unjust advantage.’
Whatever might have been the views or wishes of any individual of the British cabinet, at any period, relative to drawing a revenue directly from the colonies, no one had been bold enough to make the attempt until after the reduction of the French power in America. This was deemed a favorable moment to call upon the Americans for taxes, to assist in the payment of a debt, incurred,as was alleged, in a great measure, for their protection against a powerful enemy, now no longer an object of their dread.[103] A British statesman should have reflected, that, if the Americans were relieved from the dread of their ancient enemy, they no longer required the protection of the parent country against that enemy; and that the strongest hold on their dependence was gone when Canada was gained.
The conquest of Canada had scarcely been effected, when rumors were extensively prevalent that a different system of government was about to be adopted by the parent state; that the charters would be taken away, and the colonies reduced to royal governments. The officers of the customs began to enforce with strictness all the acts of parliament regulatingthe trade of the colonies, several of which had been suspended, or had become obsolete. Governor Bernard, of Massachusetts, who was always a supporter of the royal prerogative, appears to have entered fully into these views, and to have indicated, by his appointment of confidential advisers, that his object would be to extend the power of the government to any limits which the ministry might require. The first demonstration of the new course intended to be pursued, was the arrival of an order in council to carry into effect the acts of trade, and to apply to the supreme judicature of the province for writs of assistance, to be granted to the officers of the customs. According to the ordinary course of law, no searches or seizures can be made without a special warrant, issued upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly designating the place to be searched and the goods to be seized. But the writ of assistance was to command all sheriffs and other civil officers to assist the person to whom it was granted in breaking open and searching every place where he might suspect any prohibited or uncustomed goods to be concealed. It was a sort of commission, during pleasure, to ransack the dwellings of the citizens, for it was never to be returned, nor any account of the proceedings under it rendered to the court whence it issued. Such a weapon of oppression in the hands of the inferior officers of the customs might well alarm even innocence, and confound the violators of the law.
The mercantile part of the community united in opposing the petition, and was in a state of great anxiety as to the result of the question. The officers of the customs called upon Mr. Otis for his official assistance, as advocate-general, to argue their cause: but as he believed these writs to be illegal and tyrannical, he resigned the situation, though very lucrative, and if filled by a compliant spirit, leading to the highest favors of government. The merchants of Salem and Boston applied to Otis and Thacher, who engaged to make their defence. The trial took place in the council chamber of the old town-house, in Boston. The judges were five in number, including lieutenant governor Hutchinson, who presided as chief justice; and the room was filled with all the officers of government and the principal citizens, to hear the arguments in a cause that inspired the deepest solicitude. The case was opened by Mr. Gridley, who argued it with much learning, ingenuity, and dignity, urging every point and authority that could be found, after the most diligent search, in favor of the custom-house petition; making all his reasoning depend on this consideration,—‘if the parliament of Great Britain is the sovereign legislator of the British empire.’ He was followed by Mr. Thacher on the opposite side, whose reasoning was ingenious and able, delivered in a tone of great mildness and moderation. ‘But,’ in the language of president Adams, ‘Otis was a flame of fire; with a promptitude of classical allusion, a depth of research, a rapid summary of historical events and dates, a profusion of legal authorities, a prophetic glance into futurity, and a rapid torrent of impetuous eloquence, he hurried away all before him. American independence was then and there born. The seeds of patriots and heroes to defend the Non sine Diis animosus infans, to defend the vigorous youth, were then and there sown. Every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assistance. Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child Independence wasborn. In fifteen years, i. e. in 1776, he grew up to manhood and declared himself free.’[104]
In consequence of this argument, the popularity of Otis was without bounds, and at the next election he was for the first time chosen a member of the house of representatives, by an almost unanimous vote. Some idea of the state of public sentiment at that period may be derived from the following remarkable language of the governor, in his speech at the commencement of the session. ‘Let me recommend to you to give no attention to declamations tending to promote a suspicion of the civil rights of the people being in danger. Such harangues might suit well in the times of Charles and James, but in the times of the Georges they are groundless and unjust. Since the accession of the first George, there has been no instance of the legal privileges of any corporate body being attacked by any of the king’s ministers or servants, without public censure ensuing. His present majesty has given uncommon assurances how much he has at heart the preservation of the liberty, rights, and privileges of all his subjects. Can it be supposed that he can forfeit his word; or that he will suffer it to be forfeited by the acts of any servant of his with impunity? An insinuation so unreasonable and injurious I am sure will never be well received among you.’
In the following session governor Bernard informed the house of representatives, that, during the recess of the legislature, he had appropriated a small sum towards fitting out the sloop Massachusetts to protect the fishery. The committee appointed to prepare an answer reported to the house a message, in which, after desiring his excellency to restore the sloop to her former condition, they add, ‘Justice to ourselves and to our constituents obliges us to remonstrate against the method of making or increasing establishments by the governor and council. It is in effect taking from the house their most darling privilege, the right of originating all taxes. It is, in short, annihilating one branch of the legislature. And when once the representatives of a people give up this privilege, the government will very soon become arbitrary. No necessity, therefore, can be sufficient to justify a house of representatives in giving up such a privilege; for it would be of little consequence to the people whether they were subject to George or Louis, the king of Great Britain or the French king, if both were arbitrary, as both would be if both could levy taxes without parliament.’ ‘Treason, treason!’ cried one of the members when these words were read; but the report was accepted, and the message sent unaltered to the governor. The same day he returned it, accompanied by a letter requesting that a part of it might be expunged, as disrespectful to the king. It was then proposed to insert an amendment in the message, expressive of loyalty; but a certain member crying ‘Rase them, rase them,’ the obnoxious words, which had been underlined by the governor, were erased; ‘it being obvious that the remonstrance would be the same in effect with or without them.’ The governor sent a vindication of his conduct to the house, and prorogued the assembly before there was time to answer it.