Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. 6 (of 8) / The United States of North America, Part I

by Unknown

The proposed measures of Congress, associated with the leading one of independence, were most sagaciously devised for dignifying the primary resolve and elevating the action which should sustain it above the character of a mere rebellion. Those measures assumed the rights and responsibilities of nationality. The issuing of letters of marque and reprisal, the making free of all the ports for commerce with all the world except Great Britain, and the inviting of foreign alliances, were exercises of the prerogatives of sovereignty, and were the reasons assigned by France for regarding the United States as a nation at war with another nation. On July 12th Congress appointed a committee of one delegate from each colony charged with reporting a plan of confederation, and another committee of five to propose a plan for foreign alliances.

The Declaration marked a crisis alike in the forum and for the people. It was read to Washington's army, and drew wild plaudits from officers and from the ranks. As rapidly as panting couriers could disperse it over the country it was formally received with parade and observance, and read in town and village. It gave life and inspiration for every successive measure to turn a purpose into an accomplished fact.[669]

Many of our writers, in tracing the working of the various opinions which aided in fostering the spirit of independence, have found reason to ascribe much influence to strong religious animosities, especially to hostility to the state religion of England. It might perhaps be difficult to trace sharply and directly through all the colonies any lines of division of this character attributable to such an agency, as distinct and positive as those which manifested themselves in secular affairs, but there can be no question that sectarian influences had an important part in the animosities of the time. It would have been but natural that in this matter the line between the loyal and the disloyal should have been drawn between the English Church and the dissenters, who were the vast majority of the colonists; but this rule was by no means without many marked exceptions. All the Episcopal ministers officiating in the colonies had received ordination in England. Their oath bound them to loyalty. Most of them, too, in the northern provinces, were pensioners of an English missionary society. The test applied to them when the spirit of rebellion was strengthening was whether they would read or omit in their services the prayers for the king. It stood little for them to plead in their defence their oath and their dependence on a foreign fund. Such a plea was a poor one, as being strictly personal and selfish, born of a love of ease and of a cringing spirit. Some of them left their pulpits, and maintained a discreet silence. Those who insisted upon fulfilling all the pledges and duties of their office were in many cases roughly handled. It is to be considered, however, that so far as sectarianism in religion would alienate the colonies from Great Britain, it could not have been a prime agent in the case, for then it would have alienated them from each other, to which result it did not avail. The Tory refugee Judge Jones uses the terms Presbyterians and Episcopalians as almost synonymous with the terms rebels and loyalists. But this was by no means true.[670] The leading patriot John Jay, with many others from his province, was an Episcopalian. The Episcopalians of Virginia, of Maryland, and of the Carolinas were as stiffly opposed to the importation here of English prelates as were the Congregationalists of New England. The Tory Galloway[671] traced our rebellious spirit to the same source as that of the English civil war, viz., to Puritanism. He wrote: "The disaffection is confined to two sets of dissenters, while the people of the Established Church, the Methodists, Lutherans, German Calvinists, Quakers, Moravians, etc., are warmly attached to the British government." Galloway exceeded the strict truth in that statement.

The numbers, position, and experiences of Episcopal ministers in the provinces at the period of the war have been recently presented in an elaborate and well-authenticated monograph on the subject.[672] From this it appears that there were at the time not far from two hundred and fifty clergymen, all of foreign ordination. The lack of Episcopal supervision brought with it laxity of discipline. At the southward the church gathered into it the wealthy, the officials of the government and of the army and navy, professional men, and merchants. But their clergy, instead of being, like their few brethren at the North, stipendiaries of a foreign society, largely derived their support from those to whom they ministered, and so, though being under the oath of allegiance, were more free to share the patriotic sentiments of the laity, and they did so. Clergy and laity in the Southern provinces seem, many of them, to have been as strongly opposed, for temporary or other reasons, to the introduction of a foreign prelacy as were those at the North. Several of the Episcopal clergy in the Middle and Southern provinces proved themselves most ardent patriots, not only in discourse but by taking chaplaincies in the Continental armies, and even serving in the ranks and as officers in command. The trial test for deciding their position was in the religious services required of them on the days appointed by Congress for thanksgiving or fasting. Their choice was not a free one between a full or a mutilated service of prayer. The severest sufferers of this class were among the Episcopal ministers of New York and Connecticut, who resolved to stand for loyalty. Some, however, trimmed to time and necessity; others were patriots. Provoost, afterwards the first Bishop of New York, espoused the side of the people.[673]

It was in New England that the "Puritanism" of which Galloway wrote had the prevailing influence; and a very energetic and effective influence it was, working with other agencies in making the English civil government all the more odious because of the lordly prelates, who ruled not only in church, but in state. The inherited and traditionary spirit of New England had kept alive the memory of the ecclesiastical tyranny which had developed Puritanism in Old England, and of the trials and sacrifices by which deliverance had been secured. Those very New England colonies in which the rebellious spirit was most vigorous had been in but recent years, by help alike of sympathizers and opponents, conservatives of the old ways and reformers with the new, working their own way of relief from their theocratic basis of government, and securing freedom for themselves in belief and worship, with progress in the severance of church and state. They could not patiently contemplate the establishment of prelacy among them. Two occasions, operating as warnings, had freshened the old Puritan spirit of New England just previous to the opening of civil contention. One was the project, which had been zealously pressed, of sending English bishops into the colonies, whose functions the popular mind refused to distinguish between those which they exercised as lords, both spiritual and temporal, in England and those of ordination and confirmation, etc., which was all that was required of them as "superior clergy" here. An animated pamphlet controversy had been waging on this subject a decade before the outbreak of hostilities, in which appeared as a champion on one side the bold and able minister Jonathan Mayhew of Boston, and on the other, Secker, Archbishop of Canterbury.[674] No English prelate ever had functions or presence on our territory. The other reason, for a revival of the hostility here against the Established Church, was found in the coming hither into the old Congregational parishes, and the maintenance here by an English missionary society, of a number of Episcopal ministers. It was charged—not, however, justly—that the benevolent founders of that society had endowed it solely for the support of missionaries to neglected and forlorn persons,—fishermen and others in the colonies,—whereas it was used to promote division and disaffection in places well provided with a ministry. This charge was overstrained, for no missionary was sent to any place where there were not those, few or many, who were actual members of the English Church, or who stood out against the doctrine and discipline of Congregationalism. None the less did hostility to the English Church help largely to stimulate the spirit of rebellion.[675]

The first provincial congress of Massachusetts, assembled in 1774, knew very well the grounds of their reliance when by resolution they sent an address to each and all of the ministers in the province, reminding them of the valued aid and sympathy which their common ancestors in the years of former trials had found in their religious guides, and earnestly appealing for their help and strong efforts among their people in resistance of the tyranny of the mother country. The New England ministers were not slow in responding to—indeed, they had in many cases anticipated—this appeal of their civil leaders. They had a marvellous skill for discerning the vital relations between politics and religion, while they had a strong repugnance to what was conveyed by the terms "church and state." With very few exceptions,—such, however, there were, in rare cases, of pastors in years and of timid spirits,—the ministers were foremost in inspiriting patriotism and in meeting all the emergencies of the times.[676]

The only organized and official measures taken by any one of the religious denominations in sympathy with the American Revolution was that of the Presbyterians, who had freed themselves from dependence on a civil establishment. The Scotch-Irish Presbyterians on the frontiers of Virginia and North Carolina had stoutly vindicated their religious rights against the Established Church in Virginia, and were among the foremost in asserting their independence of the mother country. With the sturdiest resolution they had successfully triumphed over the Episcopal party in New York and thwarted government influence in its behalf. John Witherspoon, the only clergyman in the Congress of 1776, gave by delegated authority the vote of the Presbyterians for independence.[677]

And now the question may well be asked, Where rests the chief responsibility for bringing to this result the protracted controversy between the mother realm and her colonies? The Declaration of Independence was yet to be made good by a severe struggle on the part of the colonies, and to be accepted by the other party in the issue. It is rarely, if indeed the case has any historical parallel, when so large a measure of the responsibility for bringing about a signal revolution in the great affairs of a nation can, as in this instance, be directly charged upon an individual, and that was his majesty George III.[678] The facts of the case with their full evidence stand now clearly certified. That Declaration, with the event which it signified, might have come in other ways. Agencies and events were working to it. But that it came when it did, and as it did, he at whose heavy cost it came was largely the conspicuous agent and cause of it. That this is so, let the following tracing of the stages of the developments attest. And by the charge here alleged is meant that the king was mainly instrumental in bringing about the result, not merely by an official or representative responsibility, nor by prerogative, but by the prompting of personal feeling and private decision. It is also to be admitted that the king may have been guided by the purest motives and the loftiest sense of duty to preserve in any way the jewels of his crown and the integrity of his empire. But none the less it was his will and resolve that decided the issue.

As we have seen, the effect of every measure of the British government brought to bear upon the colonies was directly the opposite of what had been intended. Threats and penalties exasperated, but did not intimidate. Seeming concessions and retractions did not conciliate. Contempt and defiance called out corresponding and reciprocal feelings. There was a strict parallelism between the ministerial inventions for securing the mastery and the patriot ingenuity and earnestness for nullifying them. The few incidental accompaniments of popular violence and mobs were so familiar to the people of England at home as to count for little. They were to be regretted and condemned, but they were fully offset by the indiscriminate and vengeful punishments which government visited upon them.