310 CONGRESS ADJOURNS; OPPOSITION TO ITS MEASURES. against the mother country. Regarding the Continental Congress, Curtis says: "It appears, therefore, very clear that an examination of the relations of the first Congress to the colonies which instituted it will not enable us to assign to it the character of a government. Its members were not elected for the express purpose of making a revolution. It was an Assembly convened from separate colonies, each of which had causes of complaint against the imperial government to which it acknowledged its allegiance to be due, and each of which regarded it as essential to its own interests to make common cause with the others, for the purpose of obtaining redress of its own grievances. The idea of separating themselves from the mother country had not been generally entertained by the people of any of the colonies. All their public proceedings from the commencement of the disputes down to the election of delegates to the first Congress, including the instructions given to those delegates, prove, as we have seen, that they looked for redress and relief to means which they regarded as entirely consistent with the principles of the British constitution. "Still, although this Congress did not take upon themselves the functions of a government, or propose revolution as a remedy for the wrongs of their constituents, they regarded and styled themselves as the guardians of the rights and liberties of the colonies'; and in that capacity they proceeded to declare the causes of complaint, and to take the necessary steps to obtain redress, in what they believed to be a constitutional mode. These steps, however, although not directly revolutionary, had a revolutionary tendency."† Congress completed its labors and adjourned on October 26, 1774, having made provision for another congress to meet the following May. Every * Coffin, The Province of Quebec and the Early American Revolution, p. 495 et seq. Curtis, History of the Constitution, vol. i., pp. 17-20; ibid, Constitutional History of the United States, vol. i., pp. 11-12. (Curtis first published the History of the Constitution in two volumes in 1854 and this work was reprinted unchanged as volume i. of his Constitutional History published in two volumes in 1880-1896, Harper & Bros.). subject brought to the attention of this body was discussed fully and fairly, and the papers issued by the Congress have been termed masterpieces of political wisdom and truth.* Washington probably took no share in the debates, but undoubtedly his influence was great in shaping the actions of the Congress. When asked whom he thought the greatest man in the Congress, Patrick Henry is reported to have said: "If you speak of eloquence, Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina, is by far the greatest orator; but if you speak of solid information and sound judgment, Colonel Washington is unquestionably the greatest man on that floor."+ The course taken by Congress met with a great deal of opposition. There were members of wealth and influence who doubted that the steps taken were proper and who dreaded * * *The eulogium of Lord Chatham on these state papers deserves to be quoted here: 'When your lordships look at the papers transmitted us from America, when you consider their decency, firmness and wisdom, you cannot but respect their cause and wish to make it your own. For myself, I must declare and avow that * for solidity of reasoning, force of sagacity, and wisdom of conclusion, no nation or body of men can stand in preference to the General Congress at Philadelphia. I trust it is obvious to your lordships that all attempts to impose servitude upon such men, to establish despotism over such a mighty continental nation, must be vain, must be fatal." There are several different versions of this speech. This is taken from Hansard's Parliamentary History, vol. xviii., pp. 155-156, note. See also Green, William Pitt, pp. 346-347. † Bancroft, vol. iv., p. 78; Wirt, Life of Patrick Henry, p. 113 (3d ed.); Sparks, Life of Washington, pp. 122-123; Irving, Life of Washington, vol. i., p. 431. DIFFERENCES OF OPINION; THE "WESTCHESTER FARMER." 311 the prospect of an open rupture with the mother country.* As Guizot says: "Men of very different dispositions. met together. Some, full of respect and attachment to the mother country, others passionately absorbed in that American fatherland which was rising under their eyes and by their hands; the former grieved and anxious, the latter daring and confident, but all governed and united by the same feeling of dignity, a like resolve of resistance, giving free play to the variety of their ideas and fancies, without any lasting or wide division occurring between them. On the contrary, respecting one another in their reciprocal liberty, and discussing the great affair of the country together with conscientious respect, with that spirit of mutual deference and of justice, which assures success and makes its purchase less costly." Nevertheless, whatever differences may have existed among the members of Congress, they were not known to the public, and to all appearances the * See Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, p. 377 et seq. for some expressions of denunciation and also of praise. See also Strauss, Origin of Republican Form of Government in the United States, p. 5; Von Holst, Constitutional and Political History of the United States, vol. i., p. 2 (English trans.); also Massachusetts Historical Collections, 4th series, vol. iv. On the subject of the Loyalists, their principles, their attitude toward independence, etc., see A. C. Flick, Loyalism in New York during the Revolution; Van Tyne, The Loyalists in the American Revolution; Sabine, American Loyalists; Ryerson, Loyalists of America; Elizabeth Johnston, Recollections of a Georgia Loyalist; Fisher, Struggle for American Independence, vol. i., p. 240 et seq. VOL. II - 21 various acts passed by this Assembly were the unanimous sentiments of the whole body.* The greatest endorsement of the measures came when the proceedings of Congress were made public. They were given a generous and hearty approbation, and the people everywhere began to make preparations for the final issue,† but the New York Assembly, which was now under Loyalist influence, refused to sanction the proceedings of Congress, and in the other colonies also more or less dissatisfaction existed. At this time, too, and for some time subsequent, appeared pamphlets written by by a attacking "Westchester Farmer the Whig arguments and the proceedings. To these Alexander Hamilton replied in an article entitled A Full Vindication of the Measures of the Congress from the Calumnies of their Enemies. The "Westchester Farmer" is now supposed to have been Samuel Seabury. Daniel Leonard also contributed seventeen papers * On the proceedings of Congress see Frothingham, Rise of the Republic, pp. 365-377; and the Journal of Congress; Bancroft, vol. iv., pp. 64-77. Hildreth, vol. iii., p. 51 et seq. On the situation in New York see Flick, Loyalism in New York, p. 25 et seq., and authorities cited; Roberts, New York, vol. ii., p. 393 et seq.; Pellew, John Jay, p. 41 et seq. See Seabury's Memorial in Magazine of Ameri· can History, vol. viii., pp. 119–121. See also Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolution, pp. 334-355, 384-391 for a review of the pamphlets and foot-notes on pp. 350-351 regarding authorship. Lodge says that these essays by Hamilton "little short of wonderful" as Hamilton was then a youth of only seventeen years. See Lodge's The Works of Alexander Hamilton, vol. i., p. 3, are 312 "MASSACHUSETTENSIS," AND OTHER ESSAYS. to the Massachusetts Gazette and Post Boy, a Tory paper, signing them "Massachusettensis." These papers appeared between the middle of December, 1774, and the middle of April, 1775, and finally resulted in the expulsion of the author and the confiscation of his property, who then sailed for England and later for Bermuda, where he died in 1829.* Another of these was Joseph Galloway, a member of Congress, who opposed resistance by force. His " Plan of the Proposed Union between Great Britain and the Colonies" had been rejected by the first Congress, of which he was a member. He refused reëlection, and began to attack the proceedings of Congress, his chief work being A Candid Examination of the Mutual Claims of Great Britain and the Colonies, etc. Perceiving that his convictions completely conflicted with the views of his compatriots, he retired from public life in the autumn of 1776, joined the British army, which he accompanied across Jersey, and while it was in Philadelphia rendered important services to it as superintendent of police, of the port and of prohibited articles, as well as in and the same author's Life of Alexander Hamilion, *See George A. Ward, The Journal and Letters of the Late Samuel Curwen, etc., pp. 434-443, 548; Sabine, Loyalists of the American Revolution, vol. ii., pp. 10-12. See also the review of the papers by Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolution, vol. i., pp. 356–368. enlisting Loyalist troops. He later * Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolution, vol. i., pp. 369-383. The account of his life in Sabine's Loyalists of the American Revolution, vol. i., pp. 453-457, should be read very discriminatingly. These writings, in the order named, will be found in Lodge's edition of The Works of Alexander Hamilton, vol. i., pp. 171–178, 189-200, 229273, 203-228. See John Adams' Works, vol. iv., pp. 3-177. |