Volume II Part 6 (1/2)
Franklin informed me that Articles were signed. The reservation retained on our account does not save the infraction of the promise which we have made to each other, not to sign except conjointly. * * This negotiation has not yet so far advanced in regard to ourselves as that of the United States; not but what the King, if he had shown as little delicacy in his proceedings as the American Commissioners, might have signed articles with England long before them.'”--_Ib._, pp. 298, 299.]
[Footnote 61: It was self-contradictory to say that Congress had power to confiscate property, and yet had no power to restore it when confiscated.]
[Footnote 62: Lord Mahon's History of England, etc., Vol. VII., Chap.
lxvi., pp 295, 296.]
[Footnote 63: History of the United States, Vol. X., Chap, xxix., pp.
555, 583, 589, 590, 591.]
[Footnote 64: Dr. Ramsay's History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap, xxvii., pp. 489, 490, 491.]
[Footnote 65: Hildreth's History of the United States, Vol. III., Chap, xlv., p. 439.]
[Footnote 66: The royal historian, Dr. Andrews, remarks strongly on this subject as follows:
”The demands of rest.i.tution to the Loyalists of their property confiscated during the war, for their attachment to our cause, had been refused by the American Commissioners, on pretence that neither they, nor Congress itself, could comply with it, any farther than by recommendation of it to the different States. The demand was in itself so just, and founded on so many historical precedents, that Congress could not possibly plead a want of foresight that it would be made. It had been usual in all ages, on the cessation of civil war, to grant a general amnesty. No other motive but that of the basest and most barbarous revenge could induce men to express an averseness to so humane and necessary a measure. Next to the cruelty of such a refusal was the meanness of those who submitted to it.
”Circ.u.mstances empowered this nation to have acted with such firmness as to compel the Americans to relax their obstinacy in this particular.
Until they had consented to a generous treatment of the Loyalists, we ought to have withheld the rest.i.tution of the many strong places still remaining in our hands, and made the surrender of them the price of their acquiescence in our demands in favour of the brave and faithful people who had suffered so much on our account.” (Dr. Andrews' History of the Late War, Vol. IV., pp. 401, 402.)
”All parties in the Commons unanimously demanded amnesty and indemnity for the Loyalists.” (Bancroft, Vol. X., Chap, xxix., p. 586.)]
[Footnote 67: Dr. Ramsay justly remarks: ”The operation of treason laws added to the calamities of the war. Individuals on both sides, while they were doing no more than they supposed to be their duty, were involved in the penal consequences of capital crimes. The Americans, in conformity to the usual policy of nations, demanded the allegiance of all who resided among them; but many preferred the late royal government, and were disposed, when opportunity offered, to support it.
While they acted in conformity to these sentiments, the laws enacted for the security of the new government condemned them to death. Of all wars, civil are most to be dreaded. They are attended with the bitterest of resentments, and produce the greatest quant.i.ty of human woes. In the American war the distresses of the country were greatly aggravated from the circ.u.mstance that every man was obliged, some way or other, to be in the public service. In Europe, where the military operations are carried on by armies hired and paid for the purpose, the common people partake but little of the calamities of the war; but in America, where the whole people were enrolled as a militia, and where both sides endeavoured to strengthen themselves by oaths and by laws, denouncing the penalties of treason on those who aided or abetted the opposite party, the sufferings of individuals were renewed as often as fortune varied her standard.
Each side claimed the co-operation of the inhabitants, and was ready to punish them when it was withheld.
”In the first inst.i.tution of the American governments the boundaries of authority were not properly fixed. Committees exercised legislative, executive, and judicial powers. It is not to be doubted that in many instances these were improperly used, and that private resentments were often covered under the specious veil of patriotism. The sufferers, in pa.s.sing over to the Loyalists, carried with them a keen remembrance of the vengeance of Committees, and when opportunity presented were tempted to retaliate. From the nature of the case, the original offenders were less frequently the objects of retaliation than those who were entirely innocent. One instance of severity begat another, and they continued to increase in a proportion that doubled the evils of common war. * * The Royalists raised the cry of persecution, and loudly complained that, merely for supporting the Government under which they were born, and to which they owed a natural allegiance, they were doomed to suffer all the penalties of capital offenders. Those of them who acted from principle felt no consciousness of guilt, and could not but look with abhorrence upon a Government which could inflict such severe punishments for what they deemed a laudable line of conduct. Humanity would shudder at a particular recital of the calamities which the Whigs inflicted on the Tories and the Tories on the Whigs. It is particularly remarkable, that many on both sides consoled themselves with the belief that they were acting and suffering in a good cause.” (History of the United States, Vol. II., Chap. xxvi., pp. 467, 468, 469.)]
CHAPTER x.x.xII.
ORIGIN OF REPUBLICANISM AND HATRED OF MONARCHY IN AMERICA--THOMAS PAINE: A SKETCH OF HIS LIFE, CHARACTER, AND WRITINGS, AND THEIR EFFECTS.
No social or political phenomenon in the history of nations has been more remarkable than the sudden transition of the great body of the American colonists, in 1776, from a reverence and love of monarchical inst.i.tutions and of England, in which they had been trained from their forefathers, to a renunciation of those inst.i.tutions and a hatred of England. Whatever influence the oppressive policy of the British Administration may have had in producing this change, was confined to comparatively few in America, was little known to the ma.s.ses, and had little influence over them. This sudden and marvellous revolution in the American mind was produced chiefly by a pamphlet of forty pages, written at the suggestion of two or three leaders of the American revolutionists, over the signature of ”An Englishman.” This Englishman was no other than Thomas Paine, better known in after years as Tom Paine, ”the blasphemous infidel and beastly drunkard,” as the New York _Observer_, in answer to a challenge, proved him to be beyond the possibility of successful contradiction. Tom Paine was of a Quaker family; was a staymaker by trade, but an agitator by occupation. He had obtained an appointment as exciseman, but was dismissed from his office, and emigrated to America in 1774. He somehow obtained an introduction to Dr. Franklin in London, who gave him a letter of introduction to a gentleman in Philadelphia, through whom he procured employment in the service of a bookseller. Beginning forthwith to write for a leading newspaper on the agitated questions of the day, his articles attracted attention and procured him the acquaintance of some influential persons, and he at length became editor of the ”Pennsylvania Magazine.” He was the master of a singularly attractive, lucid, and vituperative style, scarcely inferior to that of _Junius_ himself. At the suggestion of Franklin and one or two other leaders of the revolution, he wrote a pamphlet of forty pages in favour of Independence, ent.i.tled ”Common Sense,” and over the signature of ”An Englishman,” yet bitter against England and English inst.i.tutions. It was addressed to the inhabitants of America, and was arranged under four heads: first, ”Of the origin and design of government in general, with concise remarks on the English Const.i.tution;” secondly, ”Of monarchy and hereditary succession;”
thirdly, ”Thoughts on the present state of military affairs;” fourth, ”Of the present ability of America, with some miscellaneous reflections.” Mr. Frothingham says: ”The portion on Government has little of permanent value; the glance at the English Const.i.tution is superficial; and the attack on Monarchy is coa.r.s.e. The treatment of the American question under the two last heads gave the pamphlet its celebrity.”[68]
Mr. Gordon says that ”No publication so much promoted the cause of Independence as that. The statements which are now adopted were then strange, and Paine found difficulty in procuring a publisher to undertake it.”
Dr. Ramsay says: ”The style, manner, and language of Thomas Paine's performance were calculated to interest the pa.s.sions and to rouse all the active powers of human nature. With the view of operating on the sentiments of religious people, Scripture was pressed into his service; and the powers and name of a king were rendered odious in the eyes of numerous colonists who had read and studied the history of the Jews, as recorded in the Old Testament. Hereditary succession was turned into ridicule. The absurdity of subjecting a great continent to a small island on the other side of the globe was represented in such striking language as to interest the honour and pride of the colonists in renouncing the government of Great Britain. The necessity, the advantage and practicability of independence were forcibly demonstrated.
”Nothing could be better timed than this performance. It was addressed to freemen, who had just received convincing proof that Great Britain had thrown them out of her protection, and engaged foreign mercenaries to make war upon them, and seriously designed to compel their unconditional submission to her unlimited power. It found the colonists most thoroughly alarmed for their liberties, and disposed to do and suffer anything that promised their establishment. In union with the feelings and sentiments of the people, it produced surprising effects.
Many thousands were convinced, and were led to approve and long for a separation from the mother country. Though that measure, a few months before, was not only foreign to their wishes, but the object of their abhorrence, the current suddenly became so strong in its favour that it bore down all opposition. The mult.i.tude was hurried down the stream; but some worthy men could not easily reconcile themselves to the idea of an eternal separation from a country to which they had long been bound by the most endearing ties. * * The change of the public mind of America respecting connection with Great Britain is without a parallel. In the short s.p.a.ce of two years, nearly three millions of people pa.s.sed over from the love and duty of loyal subjects to the hatred and resentment of enemies.”[69]
The American press and all the American historians of that day speak of the electric and marvellous influence of Tom Paine's appeal against kings, against monarchy, against England, and in favour of American independence.
The following remarks of the London _Athenaeum_ are quoted by the New York _Observer_ of the 10th of April, 1879:
”A more despicable man than Tom Paine cannot be found among the ready writers of the eighteenth century. He sold himself to the highest bidder, and he could be bought at a very low price. He wrote well; sometimes as pointedly as Junius or Cobbett (who had his bones brought to England). Neither excelled him in coining telling and mischievous phrases; neither surpa.s.sed him in popularity-hunting. He had the art, which was almost equal to genius, of giving happy t.i.tles to his productions. When he denounced the British Government in the name of 'Common Sense,' he found willing readers in the rebellious American colonists, and a rich reward from their grateful representatives. When he wrote on behalf of the 'Rights of Man,' and in furtherance of the 'Age of Reason,' he convinced thousands by his t.i.tle-pages who were incapable of perceiving the inconclusiveness of his arguments. His speculations have long since gone the way of all shams; and his charlatanism as a writer was not redeemed by his character as a man.