If the Tea Party angered the British, the Coercive Acts "Intolerable Acts," the colonists called them -inflamed the provincials even more. In Massachusetts Hutchinson was replaced by General Thomas Gage, who as both civil and military governor was to execute the new laws affecting that colony. The radicals in their turn resolved to ignore the new government and called for the election of a "provincial congress" to act as a provisional government in planning resistance.

Whether this bold course would be supported by the other colonies was the crucial question. Many of the moderates thought that the quarrel should be ended by paying the East India Company for the damage done to it, but the radicals would not consent to this course, and they gained ground daily. The popular movement brought the voteless workingmen of the towns into union with the back-country people who clamored for proportional representation in the assemblies, and led to the meeting in several colonies of irregular bodies in which the common people were represented and began to influence the course of events.

The radicals urged that the cause of Massachusetts was the cause of all. The Boston Port Act was to go into effect June 1, 1774. The Virginia House of Burgesses set aside this day for fasting and prayer. For this the governor dissolved the assembly. Some of the members then reassembled at the Raleigh tavern and issued calls for a continental congress to consider the "united interests of America," and for a convention in Virginia to elect delegates. The choice of delegates to the First Continental Congress by every province but Georgia was the answer to the question whether America would support Massachusetts. The Congress assembled in Carpenters' Hall, Philadelphia, in September, 1774. From only two or three colonies came delegates chosen by the assemblies; in others the choice was made by "conventions" or irregular bodies composed with little attention to the legal right of the members to vote. The Congress was fairly representative of colonial opinion, however, for it included conservative as well as radical elements. Divergent views had therefore to be reconciled if the body was to speak with the "united voice of America."

The conservatives were led by Joseph Galloway, of Pennsyl

vania. They hoped to formulate some plan of reconciliation which would safeguard rights in future; and their program was set out in the "Galloway Plan." It proposed a union of the colonies quite like that contemplated by the Albany Plan of twenty years before, with control over the common interests of the colonies; but a new feature was the provision that no measure relating to such interests should become law without the concurrence of Parliament and the general council of the colonies. In essence this council was to be a third house of Parliament.

The Galloway Plan was a worthy effort in the direction of an imperial constitution. Although cumbersome it might have worked well enough to lead to something better; but it was unacceptable to the radicals, who insisted that the British must be forced to recognize the colonists' view of their rights. Consequently it was decided to draw up a Declaration of Rights and Grievances as a kind of ultimatum.

The discussion of the contents of this Declaration showed the divergence of view as to what American rights were. Some held that Parliament was without legislative power over the colonies, while others clung to the opinion that it had authority in matters of general concern. Some ambiguity resulted from the attempt to frame a statement which all could accept. In the end the Declaration claimed all of the rights derived from "the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts." Some Americans had long maintained that even the navigation acts were not binding in the colonies unless reënacted by their legislatures. This idea seems to have been behind the provision of the Declaration which denied the legislative supremacy of Parliament but promised acquiescence in measures for the bona-fide regulation of trade. External taxes were thus excluded, while the necessity was recognized of some central body for controlling commerce.

In connection with the Declaration a demand was made for the repeal of a number of laws which were held to contravene colonial rights. A petition to the King was prepared looking to the same end, and an appeal to British public opinion was attempted through an Address to the People of England. No petition was sent to Parliament, whose authority was now so nearly repudiated. Canada was invited to make common cause

in an address to the inhabitants of Quebec. Finally, in adjourning in October, the Congress resolved to reassemble in the following May in case the appeal for redress of grievances proved fruitless.

Another measure was intended to "put teeth" into the demand for justice. This was the agreement known as the "Association." It revived and extended the non-importation agreements which had proved efficacious on former occasions, and threatened nonexportation to England and the West Indies after a year in case American demands were not heeded. Members had great faith that commercial coercion would again win concessions. A Maryland delegate believed that it would mean nothing less than bankruptcy for the English, while Richard Henry Lee declared that the same ship which carried the news of the Association to England would bring back redress. To enforce the agreement a system of committees was to be organized throughout the colonies. The efforts of the Congress seemed for a time likely to bring results. Pitt, now Lord Chatham, commended the Declaration of Rights for "solidity of reason, force of sagacity, and wisdom of conclusion." He hoped for some agreement, such as Galloway had outlined, which should define the powers of Parliament and the colonies respectively and prevent further controversy. Burke pleaded for a return to the old régime of the days before 1763. Many merchants, alarmed at the prospect of a new interruption of trade, petitioned for such a modification of program as would avert that disaster.

The King, however, was determined not to yield, and an election showed that he had the support of the voters. He refused to receive the petition of the Continental Congress. A motion by Chatham for the withdrawal of the troops from Boston received only eighteen votes in the House of Lords. Both houses by large majorities pledged their support to the King in putting down "rebellion," and in the course of the winter military and naval preparations were hurried forward. Lord North, indeed, proposed to exempt from parliamentary taxation any province whose assembly would pledge itself to raise a stipulated sum for imperial purposes, but the offer, coming at the same time with the warlike preparations, was regarded by the provincials as an attempt to divide them.

Meantime, in America, party divisions crystallized, with the radicals, now called "Whigs," in the ascendant, especially in Massachusetts and Virginia. Conservatives began to fear that Whig plans must end in separation from England, and many who opposed the course of the British thought that such a cure would be worse than the disease. One part of these continued to act with the Whigs, still hoping for reconciliation. Another part believed that the Whig party was hopelessly under the influence of extremists, and sharing Hutchinson's opinions, became the party of the "Loyalists," or "Tories." It had a numerous following among the wealthy families in every colony who had social and political position and feared the rising power of the people. Many of the merchants in Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania chose this side. The Quakers had strong Loyalist leanings, in part because peace was their creed. Even John Dickinson hesitated long enough to bring himself under suspicion of Toryism. The planters, on the contrary, were as a class moderate Whigs, and in Virginia worked well with the radical leaders from the western counties. Farther south Loyalism was strong in the back settlements. The old conflict between coast and interior caused the frontiersmen to lean to the side opposite to that taken by their antagonists.

Taking the colonies as a whole the Loyalists were numerous and of the most prominent class, but they agreed only in fearing that resistance to England might be carried too far. Lack of a positive program reduced their weight to the minimum. On the other hand the Whigs were active and well-knit. Their local committees suppressed the utterance of Loyalist opinions and rigidly enforced the Association by social ostracism, and if need be by physical violence.

The Whigs understood that the unyielding attitude of the King might lead to armed resistance as their own next step. The winter of 1774-1775 was therefore spent in collecting military supplies and drilling the patriot militia. They had no intention of starting hostilities, but by the spring of 1775 the situation was such that conflict was inevitable. Lord Dunmore, governor of Virginia, almost came to blows with the colonial militia, while Gage in Massachusetts found the authority of his government confined substantially to Boston.

In the gray light of early morn on April 19 a detachment of red-coated soldiers was in motion along one of the rude lanes serving as roads which led northwest from Boston. Word had come to Gage that the Whigs, led by Samuel Adams, were collecting arms and ammunition at Concord village. To prevent mischief, the governor had resolved to seize these stores, and, if possible, to arrest Adams. Hoping to accomplish his purpose by surprise, the troops

had marched all night; but from rustics seized along the way they learned that the countryside was apprised of their approach. Now, as they entered Lexington through which their road led, they found upon the green about the meeting-house a company of provincial militia drawn up as if to dispute their passage.

MASSACHUSETTS

Springfield

CONNECTICUT

LEXINGTON AND CONCORD.

Ordering his men not to fire unless the word was given, Major Pitcairn rode towards the Americans and commanded them to disperse. In view of the great disparity of numbers, Captain John Parker, commander of the militia, likewise gave the order to withdraw. The provincials were in the act of obeying when suddenly a single shot rang out. An American may have fired it, or in the confusion a red-coat may have mistaken Pitcairn's command. None the less, this shot, American or British, was the opening gun of the Revolution. Britain and her subjects had drifted into a war from which thirteen colonies were to emerge independent states.

After a brief engagement the troops proceeded to Concord where they overcame further resistance, but their return to Boston was converted into a rout by the Americans who lined the