CHAPTER XIV

EARLY STAGES OF THE REVOLUTION

It is impossible to assign the beginning of the Revolution to any particular year or decade. Traces of the state of mind which made it possible are discernible in the great Puritan migration to New England, and in the movement toward the frontier which began a short time after the first settlements were made. Both the desire and the determination to run their affairs in their own way were almost a part of Puritan dogma, while those who disliked Puritanism expressed their disapproval and went elsewhere. Colonies established by dissenters and peopled by the dissatisfied were likely to generate a sense of restlessness under any authority too obviously exercised. They were likewise not disinclined to listen to those who made a specialty of pointing out the evils amid which they were living. Given even a limited amount of genuine grievance, especially of that sort which pertains to income, and the agitator, or prophet, under whatever name he works, finds it easy to arouse the mob spirit. So in trying to explain the Revolution, it is necessary to take into account the whole story of American growth, as well as the objectionable features of British policy. As a result of this growth, as the preceding chapters show, the colonies had developed a form of government which left them with comparatively little dependence upon England, and an economic organization which seemed to American merchants to be relatively free from English connections. Under these circumstances, the substitution of any sort of more definite control, after the free and easy-going colonial policy which preceded the Seven Years' War, would naturally arouse resentment.

Reference has been made to the attack upon the Customs service in Massachusetts occasioned by the newly-formed decision to enforce the old Molasses Act, and to Otis's speech against the Writs of Assistance. This episode is typical of much that happened after 1760. Laboring under the weight of problems created by the war and by the Peace of Paris, the British officials tried experiments that were inconsistent with their time-honored policy of neglect, while the

dissatisfied colonists stubbornly refused to accept the alterations. Out of this preliminary contest in Massachusetts there developed a sort of bloc in the legislature, whose policy it was to oppose the royal officials in all particulars. The size of this group fluctuated from time to time, in accordance with the ebb and flow of feeling over the new British policy. A minority until 1765, it became a majority then, and remained in control of the General Court until 1771. The leaders of this party in Massachusetts were James Otis, Samuel Adams, and John Hancock. It will be described more fully later. The point here is that the attempt of the British government to enforce some of the old laws of trade marked the beginning of a political group, the business of which was opposition to imperial policies. With this organization already in existence and at work, there was little chance of success with any measure that seemed to violate American traditions.

In Virginia, the leading colony of the southern or plantation group, there were also signs of a lively party controversy in the legislature. Ever since the seventeenth century the House of Burgesses had held an important place in the social, as well as the political life of the colony. As the tidewater aristocracy developed during the eighteenth century, the members turned to politics as a means of gaining distinction for themselves. They were well-trained men, in many cases educated in English universities, able in all respects to take high rank in legislative work. Naturally men of this type were conservative, and inclined to accept the British system as they found it. By the middle of the eighteenth century, a new element, more typically American than the Tidewater aristocracy, was demanding recognition in the House of Burgesses. This was the group of democratic representatives from the Piedmont, whose leaders were always trying to gain more influence in affairs of government, both for themselves, and for their counties. Thus there developed a kind of sectional contest in Virginia, in which each side eagerly grasped any issue to promote its own interests.

In 1765 the group of political dissenters in the House acquired a genuine leader in the person of Patrick Henry, a young lawyer who had suddenly become famous two years before. He had found his opportunity in the "Parsons' Cause," a controversy over the payment

of salaries to the Episcopal clergymen in Virginia. Under arrangements prevailing until 1758, every clergyman there received as his salary seventeen thousand two hundred eighty pounds of tobacco, regardless of the size of his parish, his own abilities, or the current price of tobacco. Since this varied from 1d. to 6d. per pound, the clergymen fared well in good years. In 1758, when tobacco was high, the Virginia legislature passed a law, ordering the payment of these salaries in money, at the rate of 2d. per pound of tobacco. In view of the fact that the market price that year was about three times as much, the clergymen felt that they were being cheated, and they carried their grievances to the Crown. The Privy Council disallowed the law, and then the "parsons" brought suit in the Virginia courts to recover all the back pay due them. In 1763 Patrick Henry was retained by one of the vestries, to oppose the claims of the local clergyman. The "parson" had all the law on his side, but Henry made such a clever appeal to the jury that instead of giving the clergyman the amount to which the law clearly entitled him, they gave him one penny The basis of Henry's argument was a flat denial of the right of the Privy Council to disallow acts of the colonial legislature. It was on the strength of this speech to the jury that he was elected to the House of Burgesses. Once there, he seized every chance to oppose the tidewater aristocracy. Both in Massachusetts and in Virginia, therefore, the two lawyers who had come out strongly in opposition to certain forms of British authority found themselves clothed with new power as representatives of more or less powerful, cohesive groups.

REPRESENTATION IN PENNSYLVANIA

In Pennsylvania there was another type of contest, slightly different from those in Massachusetts and Virginia, but equally favorable for the capitalization of any dispute over British power. In this proprietary colony the dominant group in the government, corresponding to the tidewater planters in Virginia, was composed of the Quakers in the three eastern counties: Philadelphia, Chester, and Bucks. The opposition included the Germans and Scotch-Irish, in the western counties, and workingmen in the city of Philadelphia. The western farmers found that their natural economic connections were with the city of Baltimore in Maryland, rather than with Philadelphia, and this tended to widen the gap. Then, the Philadelphia artisans, who

did not enjoy the right to vote, felt that they were ill-treated and oppressed by the Quaker aristocracy. Thus a common grievance tied these two very dissimilar factions together.

The concrete issues in the dispute between the aristocracy and their opponents were the vitally important matters of taxation and representation. From 1760 to 1776 the struggle between the two continued, and then it was merged into the larger controversy of the Revolution.

In the matter of representation, the grievance of the western counties was genuine enough. As these newer regions increased in population, they had not been granted representation in the legislature commensurate with their numbers. The older counties, in power at the beginning, detc.mined to keep what they had by the very simple, thoroughly undemocratic method of ignoring the just claims of the West. The following table shows what the situation

The three eastern counties, including the city of Philadelphia, had twenty-six representatives for sixteen thousand two hundred twentyone taxable inhabitants, while the five western counties had only ten representatives for fifteen thousand four hundred forty-three taxables. This was the situation in 1760, and it remained entirely unchanged until 1769, in spite of the fact that the five newer counties were steadily increasing in population. In 1771, 1772, 1773, a new county was organized each year, with one representative each, so there was no change in principle until 1776. No further explanation is needed to show why the Quaker aristocracy of the East was meeting with bitter opposition.

During the early stages of the Revolutionary movement, that is,

after 1760, the Quakers joined with those in the other colonies who actively opposed the new British policy. This was especially true in the case of the Stamp Act. But these Pennsylvania conservatives soon learned that the very arguments which they were using against the authority of Parliament were being taken up by the malcontents in their own colony, and turned against themselves. The Quakers consequently came to realize that the success of the opposition to British authority would mean a corresponding success of the unrepresented western counties, and the loss of their own commanding position. Hence, when the Revolution finally came, many of the eastern aristocrats became "loyalists."

In trying to cut down the power of the eastern leaders, the ScotchIrish and Germans evolved a political organization which, if necessary, could be used to upset British authority. Had it not been for the bitter local controversy in Pennsylvania, it is more than doubtful whether the dispute with England, in that particular colony, could have gone on. For Pennsylvania there were no serious grievances after 1770, and after the storms over the Stamp Act and non-importation, it was the unfranchised workingmen in Philadelphia and the western farmers, with their committees, conventions, and political machinery generally, that made it possible for the leaders to continue the struggle. The colonial revolution, destined to come sooner or later, thus furnished the opportunity to carry the larger movement

to success.

BRITISH POLITICS

Controversies such as those just described, the combination of local political disputes with opposition to certain objectionable British measures, did not necessarily mean separation from England. To be sure they revealed a delicate situation, one that needed to be handled with extreme care, but one by no means beyond the powers of good statesmanship. But at that particular time the level of statesmanship in England was low. In order to explain the blundering in connection with American affairs throughout this period, it is necessary to bear in mind the nature of English politics during the eighteenth century. For the forty years preceding 1760 the Whigs had controlled the government. The two leading prime ministers, Walpole and Newcastle, had both used the same methods: the purchase of votes, and something not unlike bribery to retain the votes once bought. During the reigns of the first two Georges, the ministry