republic is born a pigmy: A day will come when it will be a giant ; even a Colossus, formidable to these countries." For a decade or more the predictions of the cynics seemed likely of fulfillment; but time has vindicated the foresight of the Spaniard.

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR CHAPTER VIII

The military side of the war can be followed in the histories of the Revolution cited in Chapter VII, in Van Tyne, The American Revolution, and in Wrong, Washington and His Comrades in Arms. Roosevelt, Winning of the West, and Henderson, Conquest of the Old Southwest, tell the story of the western phases of the war.

Special studies of the Declaration of Independence are: Friedenwald, The Declaration of Independence, an Interpretation and Analysis; Hazelton, The Declaration of Independence; and Becker, The Declaration of IndependThe last is quite recent.

ence.

On our relations with France, see the excellent work by Corwin, French Policy and the American Alliance, and Tower, Lafayette in the American Revolution. A valuable monograph on French and Spanish relations is Phillips, The West in the Diplomacy of the American Revolution.

The peace negotiations are narrated at length in Winsor, America, VII, chap. 2. A more popular account is given by Foster, A Century of American Diplomacy. Brief but excellent on questions of foreign relations is Fish, American Diplomacy.

Good biographies are: Fisher, The True Benjamin Franklin, Morse, Benjamin Franklin, and Pellew, John Jay.

CHAPTER IX

GOVERNMENT IN TRANSITION

THE STATE GOVERNMENTS

The story of the setting up of new governments in the states runs parallel in time to the story of the war. In response to the recommendation of Congress in the spring of 1776 (see page 144), Virginia was the first state to frame a constitution. This was in May, several weeks before Congress passed the Declaration of Independence. One by one the other states followed the example of Virginia, and by 1783 nearly all had adopted constitutions in place of the temporary devices of the early period of the war.

The Virginia instrument, drafted by George Mason as a member of the provincial convention, was put in force by that body without a vote of the people. This process was not quite satisfactory in a country where so much was being said about the popular origin of government, and as the other states took action a more consistent procedure was evolved. Delaware's course in August, 1776, marked a step in advance of that of Virginia, in that a convention of delegates chosen for the purpose drew up the new frame of government; but the Massachusetts convention of 1780 went still further and submitted its work to the voters for their approval or rejection.

Each of the new constitutions had a double purpose. The one aim was to provide a frame of government, the other to set forth the philosophy on which the constitution rested and to list the rights of man which the government was forbidden to violate.

It is a remarkable fact that as to its frame of government every state followed closely the model of its government before the Revolution. Connecticut and Rhode Island deemed it unnecessary to make any change at all; their charters being essentially constitutions of self-governing republics, they now merely pro

claimed in a formal way that the charters were to be the constitutions of free and independent states. Americans were not dissatisfied with the forms of government under which they had been living. All the evidence goes to show that they were deeply imbued with the spirit of English institutions, and desired to follow beaten paths rather than to attempt experiments and innovations. The Revolution was directed against external control; it was a fight for home rule. The states therefore made only such changes as were required by the new status of independGovernors, councilors, and judges could no longer receive their appointments from the English Crown; the authority which the Crown had exercised passed to the people, and the new constitutions vested the choice of all officials directly or indirectly in the voters.

The most considerable changes were in the governor's status. In some of the states that officer became elective by the voters; in others the choice was made by the assembly. In general the office was shorn of part of its powers. Choice by the assembly tended to subordinate the executive to the legislature. In some states the governor was surrounded by an executive council, which shared and restricted his responsibility. Quite generally he was deprived of the veto, which had been a vexatious power when used by the royal governors.

The whole series of limitations placed upon the governor reveals a suspicion of that office born of the continual friction between the colonial assemblies representing popular interests and the governor representing crown interests. This suspicion was illogical when the governor's authority was no longer derived from the Crown. During the early days of independence the people reposed confidence chiefly in the elected members of the law-making body, because in the old days they had been the champions of colonial rights. It took them a generation to learn that this bias was without valid foundation.

In carrying over the features of the colonial governments the restrictions on the right to vote and hold office were also retained. This fact is surprising at first thought, since the Revolution was in part a popular movement which aimed to destroy the privileged position of the merchant and planting classes. Indeed, the philosophy avowed by the new constitutions was demo

cratic. For example, the Massachusetts instrument declared that "the body politic is formed by a voluntary Association of individuals; it is a social compact, by which the whole covenants with each citizen, and each with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good." "The people alone have an incontestible, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government, and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."

The other constitutions contained equivalent, if less explicit, expressions. If one looked no further, one might easily conclude that the cause of extreme democracy had triumphed through the Revolution. But the clause of the Massachusetts constitution dealing with the suffrage restricted the right to vote to owners of a freehold of the annual value of three pounds, or other estate worth sixty pounds, and in this respect the Massachusetts constitution is again typical. In other words, there is a decided inconsistency between the theory of the constitutions and the practice which they provided for. They embody the philosophy which underlay the revolt against England; it so permeated thought that it was certain to find expression in the plans of government; but its full implications were probably not grasped at the time. At any rate, the working provisions of the constitutions left the old ruling classes in control. As a forward movement towards democracy the Revolution miscarried for the time being. Another half-century was required for the leaven of these doctrines to bring about equality of political privileges even for all white men.1

Another notable characteristic of the constitutions is that they took the form of written documents. How did it happen that they were put in writing? In the first place, the charters which nearly all of the colonies had possessed at some time had served virtually as constitutions, and had familiarized the inhabitants with written schemes of government. Then many Americans had come to hold the view set forth in the Massachusetts Circular Letter, that "in every free state the constitution is fixed," and to apply it even to the unwritten British con

1 Vestiges of the religious discriminations of earlier days survived in some of the constitutions in clauses restricting officeholding to Protestants.

stitution. The idea of fixity was much more readily associated with a written instrument. Finally, the belief that the body politic results from a social compact, as declared by the Massachusetts constitution, led naturally to the view that the articles of compact, like business contracts, should be put in writing to avoid misunderstandings and disputes.

The written constitutions of the revolutionary era, emanating theoretically from the people, fixed the powers and duties of each branch and officer of government. No branch was made the sole judge of the extent of its own powers, but in accordance with Montesquieu's doctrine of checks and balances each was checked by the others. Abuses of power by executive and judicial officers could be checked by impeachment and removal by the legislature. The executive veto, where it existed, was a check upon the legislative power, and the two houses checked each other. There was no explicit provision empowering courts to declare legislative acts void, but they promptly began to do so if such acts were in conflict with the fundamental law.

THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS

We have had occasion to note from time to time various plans of union from the New England Confederation of 1643 to Galloway's plan of 1774. The Stamp Act Congress is significant because it marked the first attempt to unite against the mother country, but it aimed only at a union of opinion in a temporary crisis. The rejection of Galloway's plan gave a similar character to the First Continental Congress.

Early in the sessions of the Second Continental Congress (summer of 1775) Franklin submitted a new plan of union, much like the Albany Plan, but more detailed. No action was taken upon it at the time. The following June, when Richard Henry Lee moved the resolution in favor of a declaration of independence, he offered a second looking toward a permanent confederation. Various delays prevented the adoption of anything of the sort until the war was almost over. Meantime the task of conducting the common business fell upon the Continental Congress, which met in session after session from May, 1775, to March, 1781.