Page images
PDF
EPUB

4. In the Northern Division there were MASSACHUSETTS, settled in 1620; CONNECTICUT, settled in 1633; RHODE ISLAND, settled in 1636, and NEW HAMPSHIRE, settled in 1623. What now constitutes the state of Maine, then belonged to Massachusetts; and the territory of the present state of Vermont, containing only a few inhabitants at that time, was claimed both by New Hampshire and New York.

5. These were the colonies which took part in the French and Indian War, of which we have just given an account. Although the British government sent over ships, men, and money to aid in that war, yet on the colonies fell the heaviest share of the burden, and to them chiefly belongs the merit of the great success that attended the conflict.

6. In this war, the colonies, as we have seen, did not act separately as in the beginning; they united as all belonging to one country, and thus laid the foundation of that union which bound them during the Revolution, and which now binds them, as a republic of many states, forming one nation.

7. Hitherto, our history has been an account of the rise and progress of separate colonies; from this time forward, it is the history of a nation. We are now about to enter upon the events which caused a state of hostility between the colonies and the mother country, and which, resulting in a long and severe war, ended in a final separation between them. Hitherto we have spoken of the people of this country as English; we must henceforth regard them as Americans.

4 What of Maine? Vermont? 5. What part did these thirteen colonies take ir the French and Indian war? To whom does the chief credit of the success of the war belong! 6. Describe the union of the colonies in this war. Of what did this union lay the foundation? 7 What has our preceding history been? What have we called the people of this country hitherto? What may we consider the ga hereafter?

What will the subsequent part be?

TAXATION OF THE COLONIES.

165

CHAPTER LXXV.

PERIOD OF EVENTS LEADING TO THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

Taxation of the Colonies.-The Sugar Act.

1. We now come to that period in our history when Great Britain entered upon a system of measures which caused the colonies to resist the government of the mother country, and finally to achieve their independence. This system consisted mainly in the laying of taxes upon sugar, stamps, tea, and various other articles imported into, or used in this country.

2. As will be hereafter seen, the chief ground of opposition to these measures was, that the colonies were not represented by any members of their own country, in the British government, and that it was alike unjust, dangerous, and contrary to the British constitution for any people to be taxed by the government in which they had no representatives to watch over and vindicate their rights and interests.

3. As early as the year 1651, Great Britain had begun to pass laws to restrain and direct the colonial trade. Similar attempts were made in 1660; again in 1672, 1676, 1691, and 1692. In the year 1696, a pamphlet was published-not indeed by the ministry, but by some person of distinction-in which it was recommended to lay a tax on one of the colonies.

4. This pamphlet was answered by two others, which denied the power to tax colonies which were not represented in parliament, and which had never consented to such taxation. Indeed, the colonies had always felt aggrieved by the British restrictions upon their trade and commerce; and Massachusetts and New York had shown their dissatisfaction by public acts of their assemblies.

5. It is true that the British had incurred a heavy expense on account of the colonies, but then the trade of the latter was of immense value to them. Still they seemed determined to impose taxes in some form. In 1764, it was distinctly stated in the English papers, that they were about to defray the expenses of quartering a body of troops among our countrymen, by requiring a duty on sugar, molasses, indigo, coffee, etc.

CHAP. LXXV.-1. What period do we now come to in our history? What was the system of measures which induced the American colonies to resist the government of the mother country? What was the final result of their resistance to the British government? 2. What was the chief ground of opposition on the part of the colonies to this system of taxation? 3 What passed between the years 1691 and 1696? 4. How was the pamphlet answered? What of the colonies ? 5. What of British taxation? What was

done in 1764?

6. The Sugar Act, as it was called, was passed the 5th of April of this year, 1764; and it was at the same time determined that ten thousand soldiers should be kept in America. The British had a large standing army, and they must be quartered somewhere; and why not, they doubtless thought, keep a part of them in America, where there was of late such a frequent demand for their services?

7. But the colonists complained loudly of both these measures, especially as they had not given their assent to them. The Massachusetts agent in England had indeed partially assented to them, but the colonists had immediately protested against the concession, as admitting a principle which they had never intended to yield. It was all to no purpose, however; the parliament were determined to make the experiment of taxation without representation.

8. How much the British were influenced, at this time, by a fear of the rising power of the colonies, who had shown themselves able to overcome, almost single-handed, the whole host of French and Indians from Newfoundland to the Gulf of Mexico, cannot now be known. Certain it is, however, that they began to entertain hostile, or at least jealous feelings toward our country on this account.

9. On the other hand, the determination of the mother country to pay no regard to the complaints of the colonies, respecting taxation without representation, had laid the foundation of much ill-will, on the part of the colonies, toward her; and much was said and written on the subject by their ablest statesmen and writers, especially by James Otis, of Boston, and Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia.

10. The sugar act led to a great deal of smuggling, and finally to an almost entire extinction of the colonial trade with the French and Spanish West Indies. The colonies, to retaliate, resolved not to purchase clothing of the English, but to use, as much as possible, their own manufactures.

11. This resolution was so generally adhered to, that the consumption of British merchandise was greatly diminished in the colonies, especially in the large and populous towns. In Boston, alone, having then about fifteen thousand inhabitants, it was lessened, in the year 1764, more than ten thousand pounds sterling in value, that is, about fifty thousand dollars. But this, instead of inducing the English to relax the severity of their measures, only induced them to persevere in their oppression.

6. What was determined upon? 7 What of the colonists? What of Massachusetts ? What were the Parliament determined to do? 8. What cannot be known? What is certain? 9. What of the determination of the mother country? Who wrote on the subet of taxation? 10. What of the sugar act? Up n what did the colonies resolve? 11 What of the consumption of British merchandise? What of the English?

THE STAMP ACT.

167

CHAPTER LXXVI.

The Stamp Act.-Dr. Franklin in London. - Patrick Henry's celebrated Speech.-A Congress of the Colonies. 1. IN 1765, the British parliament passed what has always been

known by the

[graphic]
[blocks in formation]

PATRICK HENRY.

act, no colonial instruments in writing, such as deeds, bonds, and notes, were to be binding, or of any force whatever, unless they were executed on stamped paper, for which a duty was to be paid to the crown of Great Britain.

2. As the result of this act,

ream of stamped bail-bonds would come to one hundred pounds sterling, or nearly five hundred dollars, and a ream of stamped policies of insurance to one hundred and ninety pounds; whereas, before this, the former cost only fifteen pounds, and the latter twenty. It was, however, only a tax of one or two dollars on each sheet, and was not, in itself, aside from the principle on which it was based, very op pressive.

3. Though the act passed the IIouse of Lords in Great Britain unanimously, it met with opposition in the House of Commons. Colonel Bar'-re, in particular, spoke against it with great warmth and eloquence. And when the question was put, whether or not it should be passed, fifty members out of three hundred were against it.

CHAP. LXXVI.-1. What was done in 1765? 2. What was the result of this act? 3. What of Colonel Barre?

4. It is also worthy of note that, while the act was thus under debate, Dr. Franklin, who was then in London, and much respected for his good sense, was sent for and consulted. He told them plainly the Americans would never submit to it. After the act passed, he wrote to a friend: "The sun of liberty is set. The Americans must

now light the torches of industry and economy."

5. But the opposition the stamp act had met with in England was as nothing compared to the resistance it was destined to meet with in the colonies.* A general burst of indignation pervaded the country, and most of the legislative assemblies passed resolves, and some of them protests, against it. Nowhere, however, was more spirit manifested on the subject than in Virginia.

6. The assembly of this colony having met soon after the news of the stamp act arrived, a series of resolutions, strongly expressive of disapprobation, was introduced, which occasioned a warm debate and some very hard words. It was on this occasion that Patrick Henry, then quite a young man, by a bold remark of his, gave an impulse that was felt from one end of the continent to the other.

7. He had been asserting that the British king had acted the part of a tyrant. Then, alluding to the fate of other tyrants, he observed, "Cæsar had his Brutus, Charles I. his Cromwell, and George III.

-" Here he paused; upon which the cry of "Treason! treason!" being raised in the house, he only added, “may profit by their example! If that be treason, make the most of it."

8. A Congress of the colonies having been recommended by Massachusetts, one was accordingly convened in New York, in October. It consisted of three members from each of the colonies of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina. They remonstrated against the stamp act, and drew up a declaration of their rights, deslaring taxation and representation to be inseparable.

9. But the public disapprobation was expressed in another way. The people had burned, or reshipped, or hid, the stamped paper already in the colonies, so that on the day in which the act went into operation, little, if any, could be found. They would not even receive the Canadian gazettes, because they were on stamped paper. Such a course was indeed equivalent to the suspension of nearly all business, but it was resolutely persevered in.

4. Relate the anecdote of Franklin. 5 What effect had the stamp act in the colonies? 6. What resolutions were passed? What of Patrick Henry? 7. Relate the anecdote of him. 5. What of a congress of the colonies? 9. How was disapprobation otherwise expressed? * Massachusetts had passed a stamp act of her own, in 1759, which included even newspapers; but she was not willing to be taxed by the British government.

« PreviousContinue »