ing with the other a sword, trampling upon tyranny, under the figure of a prostrate man, having near him a crown fallen from his head, and bearing in one hand a broken chain, and in the other a scourge. At the foot was charactered the word "Virginia," and round the effigy of Virtue, was inscribed, "Sic semper tyrannis." The reverse represented a group of figures; in the middle stood Liberty, with her wand and cap; on one side was Ceres, with the horn of plenty in the right hand, and a sheaf of wheat in the left; upon the other appeared Eternity, with the globe and the phœnix. At the foot were found these words, "Deus nobis hæc otia fecit."

In the midst of these transports, nothing was forgotten that might tend to inspire the people with affection for the new order of things, and a violent hatred not only towards tyranny, but also against monarchy; the former being considered as the natural result from the latter.

Thus, on the one hand, the American patriots, by their secret combinations, and then by a daring resolution; and on the other, the British ministers, at first by oppressive laws, and afterwards by hesitating counsels, gave origin to a crisis which eventually produced the dismemberment of a splendid and powerful empire. So constant are men in the pursuits of liberty, and so obstinate in ambition.

Paul Allen, in his History of the Revolution, remarks: "The declaration of independence, once published to the world with such solemnity, gave a new character to the contest, not only in the colonies, but in Europe. Before this decisive step, the American pea

ple were regarded by many able and good men as well as sound politicians, on both sides of the Atlantick, rather as children struggling for doubtful privileges with a parent, than as men contending with men for their natural and undisputable rights.

But this deliberate appeal to the nations of the earth, to posterity, and to the God of battles, gave a new political character, an immediate dignity and manhood, to their cause. It was no longer the unholy struggle of subjects against their monarch-of children against their parent-of rash and turbulent men who never measure nor weigh the consequences of their deeds: it was no longer a contest for mere matters of opinion, but for a national existence-for life or death. It became, under the awful sanction of that assembly, the temperate and determined stand of men who had entrenched themselves within the certain and thoroughly understood limits of their rights-of men who had counted the cost dispassionately, and measured the event without- shrinking-of men who felt, deliberated, and acted as the representatives of a whole people, conscious of their infirmities and their responsibility, knowing the might of their adversaries and the weakness of their friends, but determined to do their duty to their children, and leave them their inheritance undisturbed and unimpaired. Or if that might not be, and the liberties of Englishmen were no longer the protection of their wives or the birthright of their children, to leave them as widows and orphans to the charity of Heaven."

The declaration of independence was, of itself, a victory-a victory over the passions, prejudices, and fears of a multitude. It drew a line for ever, between

the friends and the foes of America.

It left no neu

trals. He who was not for independence, unconditional independence, was an enemy. The effect produced on the publick mind by the boldness and unanimity manifested on this occasion by the delegates of the several colonies, operated on the general confidence of the people as much as a similar declaration would have done, had it been adopted and signed by the whole population of the states. In the publick exultation at the time, the murmurs of disapprobation were unheard, and the opposition to be expected from the discontented and factious, who were always a formidable minority, and in the very bosom of the country, was entirely overlooked.

CHAPTER II.

Ir is one of the inconsistencies of human nature, that the British parliament should claim that authority over, and impress those burdens on the colonists, against which, when applied to themselves, they had murmured, protested, and rebelled. There cannot be a more striking parallel, than between the English revolution of 1688, and the North American revolution of 1776. In both cases, previous discussion had fairly put the disputed question in issue; each party to the dispute had fully weighed and settled its principles, its claims, and its duties; the people of England and the people of America were in both cases on the defensive; not aiming at establishing new rights, or setting up new pretensions against old established despotism, but defending against encroachment on liberties which they had always enjoyed, and seeking new guarantees to secure them.— Broken charters, insulted legislatures, and violated judiciaries, arbitrary acts defended by arbitrary principles, and injustice supported by violence, drove the English nation in 1688, and the English colonies in 1776, to declare that the respective sovereigns had abdicated the government.

The American revolution was complete in 1776, but it still remained to defend it by arms.

On Friday, July 12, 1776, the committee appointed to draw the articles of confederation between the thirteen states, reported them to Congress; and on the 22d, the house resolved themselves into a committee to take them into consideration. The institution of new government by a people reeking from tyranny and oppression, is a sight, which, whilst it engages the solicitous attention of the patriot and philanthropist, is no less calculated to alarm their fears. Smarting from their wrongs, and still fresh in their indignation, it is to be apprehended that every curb of restraint will be removed, and that liberty may degenerate into violence or licentiousness. The French revolution reads a most terrifick lesson on this subject. It was not so with those heroick men who had just placed their hands to the Declaration of Independence; and the articles of confederation, if they do not guard against every evil, or provide for every future contingency, were yet the result of virtue and wisdom, and calculated for the promotion of rational freedom. The notes of Mr. Jefferson contain the earlier debates on some of these articles; and as circumstances connected with the infant government of the country, and as displaying the powers of the most prominent men in it, to these notes we shall again have reference.*

On the 30th and 31st of that month, (July,) and 1st of the ensuing, those articles were debated which de

*The course of deliberation was conducted with profound secrecy, and no other record now remains of that wisdom and intelligence, of that capacious and accurate view of political science and ethical philosophy, which a discussion of the principles of government must have drawn forth from the accom plished civilians who were members of that Congress.