Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

on his head the ensigns of her disgust. It is kissing the hand that boxes his ears and proposes to renew the exchange.

The thought is as servile as the war is wicked and shows the last scene of the drama as inconsistent as the first.

As America is gone, the only act of manhood is to let her go. Your Lordship had no hand in the separation and you will gain no honor by temporizing politics. Besides, there is something so exceedingly whimsical, unsteady, and even insincere in the present conduct of England that she exhibits herself in the most dishonorable colors.

On the second of August last General Carlton and Admiral Digby wrote to General Washington in these words:

"The resolution of the House of Commons of the twentyseventh of February last has been placed in Your Excellency's hands, and intimations given at the same time that further pacific measures were likely to follow. Since which, until the present time, we have had no direct communications from England; but a mail is now arrived which brings us very important information. We are acquainted, sir, by authority, that negotiations for a general peace have already commenced at Paris, and that Mr. Grenville is invested with full, powers to treat with all the parties at war, and is now at Paris in the execution of his commission.

"And we are further, sir, made acquainted that His Majesty, in order to remove any obstacles to that peace which he so ardently wishes to restore, has commanded his ministers to direct Mr. Grenville that the independence of the Thirteen United Provinces should be proposed by him in the first instance, instead of making it a condition of a general treaty."

Now, taking your present measures into view and comparing them with the declaration in this letter, pray, what is the word of your King, or his ministers, or the Parliament good for? Must we not look upon you as a confederated body of faithless, treacherous men, whose assurances were fraud and their language deceit? What opinion can we possibly form of you, but that you are a lost, abandoned, profligate nation, who sport even with your own character, and to be held by nothing but the bayonet or the halter?

To say, after this, that the sun of Great Britain will be set whenever she acknowledges the independence of America, when the not doing it is the unqualified lie of government, can be no other than the language of ridicule, the jargon of inconsistency. There were thousands in America who predicted the delusion, and looked upon it as a trick of treachery, to take us from our

guard, and draw off our attention from the only system of finance by which we can be called, or deserve to be called, a sovereign, independent people. The fraud, on your part, might be worth attempting, but the sacrifice to obtain it is too high.

There are others who credited the assurance because they thought it impossible that men who had their characters to establish would begin it with a lie. The prosecution of the war by the former ministry was savage and horrid, since which it has been mean, trickish, and delusive. The one went greedily into the passion of revenge, the other into the subtleties of low contrivances; till, between the crimes of both, there is scarcely left a man in America, be he Whig or Tory, who does not despise or detest the conduct of Britain.

The management of Lord Shelburne, whatever may be his views, is a caution to us, and must be to the world, never to regard British assurances. A perfidy so notorious cannot be hid. It stands, even in the public papers of New York, with the names of Carlton and Digby affixed to it. It is a proclamation that the King of England is not to be believed; that the spirit of lying is the governing principle of the ministry. It is holding up the character of the House of Commons to public infamy, and warning all men not to credit them. Such are the consequences which Lord Shelburne's management has brought upon his country.

After the authorized declarations contained in Carlton and Digby's letter you ought, from every motive of honor, policy, and prudence, to have fulfilled them, whatever might have been the event. It was the least atonement you could possibly make to America, and the greatest kindness you could do to yourselves; for you will save millions by a general peace, and you will lose as many by continuing the war.

Philadelphia, October 29, 1782.

COMMON SENSE.

PARLIAMENT'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMERICAN INDE

PENDENCE

At last the ministry and the King realized that independence would have to be explicitly granted, and so agreed to a provisional treaty which should do this.

Preliminary treaties between Great Britain and France and Spain were also signed (on January 20, 1783). These and the American treaty were laid before

Parliament in February and precipitated a violent debate, which resulted in forcing Shelburne to resign, and, indeed, a new ministry to be appointed, the Duke of Portland becoming prime minister, and Lord North and Mr. Fox, by an extraordinary coalition, secretaries of state. In April the new administration sent David Hartley to Paris to complete the treaty. On the 15th of the same month the American Congress ratified the terms. The definitive treaty, differing little from the provisional, was signed at Paris on September 3, 1783, and was ratified by Congress on January 14, 1784.

[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small]

CHAPTER IX

THE CONFEDERATION

[INCLUDING TEXT OF THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION]

Proposed Articles of Confederation by Dr. Benjamin Franklin [Pa.]—Report of Committee on the Confederation-Thomas Jefferson's Notes on the Debate on the Committee's Articles: Principal Speakers, Samuel Chase [Md.], John Adams [Mass.], Benjamin Harrison [Va.], James Wilson [Pa.], Dr. John Witherspoon [N. J.], Dr. Franklin, Dr. Benjamin Rush [Pa.], and Stephen Hopkins [R. I.]-The Adoption of the Articles-Text of the Articles-Speech of Dr. David Ramsay [S. C.] on "Our Independent Constitutions"-Proposal for National Revenue— Oliver Ellsworth [Ct.], James Madison [Va.], and Alexander Hamilton [N. Y.] Frame an Address on Public Revenue: "An Appeal to National Honor-Gen. Washington's Address to the States on a Stable Government-Failure of the Plan-Congress Proposes a Commercial Treaty with "Great Britain-Lord Sheffield's Speech in Opposition to Treaty: "" 'Observations on the Commerce of the American States"-Rejection of Proposal-Ordinance of 1787 Organizing the Northwest TerritoryFinancial Distress of the States-George Washington on the Failure of the Confederacy.

T

HE need of a definite form of union was early felt, but, owing to the prevalent idea of primary allegiance to the States, was not easily agreed upon. Even before the Declaration of Independence was adopted, Dr. Franklin had, on July 21, 1775, presented to Congress a draft of Articles of Confederation as a plan of colonial union. Though not copied in the Journal of Congress, they remained on file in his handwriting, and had a considerable influence in the formation of the Articles of Confederation which were afterward adopted.

As Jefferson has stated (page 191), on June 11, 1776, Congress appointed a committee to prepare the form of a confederation to be entered into between the colonies. On July 12 the committee made its report.

238

In the debate which ensued upon the report the principal speakers were: Samuel Chase [Md.], John Adams [Mass.], Benjamin Harrison [Va.], James Wilson [Pa.], Dr. John Witherspoon [N. J.], Dr. Benjamin Franklin [Pa.], Dr. Benjamin Rush [Pa.], and Stephen Hopkins [R. I.].

Jefferson has given the following notes of the debate upon the proposed Articles of Confederation:

DEBATE ON THE CONFEDERATION

NOTES OF THOMAS JEFFERSON

On Friday, July 12, the committee appointed to draw the Articles of Confederation reported them, and on the 22d the House resolved themselves into a committee to take them into consideration. On the 30th and 31st of that month and 1st of the ensuing those articles were debated which determined the proportion, or quota, of money which each State should furnish to the common treasury, and the manner of voting in Congress. The first of these articles was expressed in the original draft in these words:

"Art. XI. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare and allowed by the United States assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes, in each colony-a true account of which, distinguishing the white inhabitants, shall be triennially taken and transmitted to the Assembly of the United States."

MR. CHASE moved that the quotas should be fixed, not by the number of inhabitants of every condition, but by that of the "white inhabitants." He admitted that taxation should be always in proportion to property; that this was, in theory, the true rule; but that, from a variety of difficulties, it was a rule which could never be adopted in practice. The value of the property in every State could never be estimated justly and equally. Some other measures for the wealth of the State must therefore be devised, some standard referred to, which would be more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a tolerably good criterion of property, and that this might always be obtained. He therefore thought it the best mode which we could adopt, with one exception only: he observed that negroes

« PředchozíPokračovat »