peaceable measures, and recourse was had to force, questions of law were naturally little considered. The Declaration of Independence put them aside completely. The question now was one of facts, and the facts were as related above.

Even in the regulation and transformation of their internal affairs, the individual colonies did not take the initiative, although they refused obedience to the constituted powers in so far as these sided with England. It was not until congress' had recommended them to do so that they took the reins into their own hands.2

As far as the legality or illegality of this step is concerned, it is entirely indifferent whether it was the legislative bodies of the several colonies themselves, or congress, or the spontaneous act of the people of the several colonies, that gave the impetus to it; it was under any and all circumstances illegal. The colonies were engaged in a revolution, and therefore there is nothing to be said of a legal sanction of their measures. But the same blow which had destroyed the bonds between the colonies and the mother country, threw down the walls which had hitherto prevented the political union of the thirteen colonies. They were, in fact, thrown together so as to constitute them. one people, endeavoring to conquer their national independence with the sword. This fact could be changed in nothing, no matter how much it was desired, when the new state

May 10, 1776. Journal of Congress, II., pp., 166, 174. Farrar Manual of the Constitution, p. 95. Story, Com., I., § 204.

New Hampshire alone had, before this recommendation of congress given herself a government (Dec., 1775), but she expressly declared the new order of things to be provisional "during the unhappy and unnatural contest with Great Britain." The declarations of New Jersey and of South Carolina contained similar clauses, but more explicitly framed. Virginia alone completely dissolved her government as it existed formerly under the crown of Great Britain. The other states obeyed the recommendation of congress only after the publication of the Declaration of Independence.

9

POWERS OF THE CONGRESS.

was being subsequently organized on a legal basis, to retain something of the separate existence of the colonial period. Congress had, with the consent of the people, taken the initiative in the transformation of the thirteen colonies into one sovereign state. It became thereby per se the national government de facto and by the success of the Revolution gave its acts, both earlier and later, an additional and legally binding force.

Political theories had nothing to do with this development of things. It was the natural result of given circumstances and was an accomplished fact before anyone thought of the legal consequences which might subsequently be deduced from it. But it was clear from the very first that the masses of the people, as well as the leaders of the movement, would almost unanimously oppose to the utmost the practical enforcement of these legal consequences.

If the Revolution threw down the barriers which divided the English dependencies in America into thirteen independent colonies; if it, in fact, constituted an American. people,—it is obvious that both law and equity demanded that not the former thirteen colonies should be represented in congress, but the population of the colonies as a part of the people. This consequence was too palpably plain to remain completely unnoticed. Patrick Henry of Virginia showed how this was at once the irresistible conclusion of reason, and the only right policy. In the congress of 1774 he thus solemnly expressed himself: "Government is dissolved. . . . . Where are your landmarks, your boundaries of colonies? . . . . The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian: I am an American. Slaves are to be thrown out of the question, and if the freemen can be represented according to their numbers, I am satisfied. I go upon the supposition that government

is at an end. All distinctions are thrown down; all America is thrown into one mass.' 991

Congress could not resolve at once to take a decided position on this question. It decreed that "each colony or province" should have one vote; the congress not being possessed of, nor then able to procure, materials for ascertaining the importance of each colony.2

Patrick Henry's view was then indirectly looked upon as right in principle, whereas the opposite principle had been virtually adopted before, and sedulous efforts were made to avoid any definite expression of the view that was to prevail. Thus was begun that infinite series of compromises by which the American people have endeavored to put to one side, by devising and passing resolutions which might be construed at will in senses the most diametrically opposite, difficulties which they ought to have grappled with and overcome. By this mode of procedure delay has been gained in every instance, and this gain has frequently been of the highest importance. But when the direct conflict of opposing views could no longer be postponed, the struggle became more obstinate and embittered, in proportion as the delay was greater. It is not possible, at this distance of time, to say with any certainty, whether the urgency of circumstances, the en

1 Works of John Adams, II., pp. 365, 368. Wirt, in his Life of Patrick Henry, pp. 124, 125, gives a glowing description of this speech. The few sentences to be found in Adams are all that have come down to posterity, but the audience unanimously testified to the powerful impression it made on them. See Curtis, History of the Const., I., p. 15; DeWitt, Th. Jefferson, p. 76; Greene, Historical View of the American Revolution, p. 81.

2

* Sept. 6, 1774. Elliott, Debates, V., p. 181; Pitkin, A Political and Civil History of the United States of America, I., p. 283. The dele. gates of Connecticut wrote, October 10, 1774, to governor Trumbull: "The mode of voting in this congress was first resolved upon; which was, that each colony should have one voice; but as this was objected to as unequal, an entry was made on the journals to prevent its being drawn into precedent."

thusiasm of the hour, or a want of insight into the importance of the question, moved congress to postpone its final decision; but it is probable that the three causes cooperated to this end. This much is certain, however, that nearly all the representatives, the moment they gave any real attention to the matter, declared, without a moment's hesitation, against Patrick Henry's views.

Franklin's confederation scheme of 1754 suited the colonies as little as it did the mother country. It imposed no limitations or restrictions whatever in the interest of the general good, although the French invasion called most urgently for common action. And there had been no essential change as yet in this feeling, although the magnitude of the dangers threatening the colonies, and the importance of the matters in controversy, made them more inclined to a firmer union among themselves, so far as this was necessary to resist the common enemy. But in regard to their relations to one another they were involved in the same short-sighted and ungenerous particularism as before. 66 A little colony has its all at stake as well as a great one," major Sullivan bluntly replied to the patriotic effusion of Patrick Henry. This showed clearly that only the common interests of the colonies induced them to make opposition to England their common cause, or at least that their community of interests did vastly more to bring this about than did a feeling of nationality, for which the war first paved the way.

The colonists were certainly not wanting in a kind of national feeling; but it did more to dampen the energy of their opposition to England than to increase it. It had scarcely any influence on their attitude towards one another; for it had its roots, not in the soil of the new world, but in the home of their ancestors. As long as it was not be

'John Adams, Works, II., p. 366.

"This fact is frequently too much lost sight of in Europe. The col onists severed themselves from England with bleeding hearts. Greene

yond a doubt that the breach with England was incurable, and until the old love and veneration for the mother country was changed to bitter hatred, nearly all the colonists were first the children of their own particular colony and then of England. The name American was up to that time little more than a beautiful prophetic vision. It received the impress of a definite and lasting reality only through the war of Independence.2

Hence the question, how the people were to be represented and to vote in congress was decided even before it was raised. Luther Martin says rightly in his celebrated

describes their feelings for the mother country in the following words: "They loved their mother country with the love of children who, forsaking their homes under strong provocation, turn back to them in thought, when time has blunted the sense of injury, with a lively recol lection of early associations and endearments, a tenderness and a longing not altogether free from self-reproach. To go to England was to go home. To have been there was a claim to special consideration. They studied English history as the beginning of their own; a first chapter which all must master thoroughly who would understand the sequel. England's literature was their literature. Her great men were their great men. And when her flag waved over them, they felt as if the spirit which had borne it in triumph over so many bloody fields had descended upon them with all its inspiration and all its glory They loved to talk of Saint Paul's and Westminster Abbey; and with the Hudson and the Potomac before their eyes, could hardly persuade themselves that the Thames was not the first of rivers. More especially did they rejoice to see Englishmen and converse with them. The very name was a talisman that opened every door, broke down the barriers of the most exclusive circle, and transformed the dull retailer of crude opinions and stale jests into a critic and a wit." (Hist. View of the American Rev., pp. 5, 6.) The relation of England to the colonies he, on the other hand, characterizes as "a mere business relation." Ibid, p. 12. The same judg ment was expressed by very distinguished Englishmen. Thus Adam Smith: "A great empire has been established for the sole purpose of raising up a nation of customers, who should be obliged to buy from the shops of our different producers all the goods with which those could supply them." Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, II., p. 517.

2 See an article in the London Public Advertiser, March 14, 1781. Moore, Diary of the American Revolution, II, p. 395.