# VFW America 4: "How Settlements Were Planted"



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This post is to introduce a Kindle version of Volume 4 of the series entitled "AMERICA Great Crises In Our History Told by Its Makers" which was published as a print version by the Veterans of Foreign Wars. This forth volume covers the critical period just after the Revolution when a new nation was being formed. This Kindle version is published in partnership with the VFW who receive 50% of sales revenue. The article title refers to the last excerpt post from the book below.

*REVIEWERS WANTED!* If you would like to review any of the books in this series, PM me with your Amazon email address and I will gift copies to you.

*The title refers to the latest excerpt from the book which may be found at the bottom of the thread.*

This is the publisher description of Volume 4.

Volume 4 of this series of eye-witness accounts of American history sees the 
young republic facing bankruptcy, conflicting land claims and threatened 
mutinies. You'll read about the challenges and disputes, and the development and 
expansion of the Union. In their own words, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and 
colleagues report on the momentous Treaty of Paris, which established (for the 
time being) the western and northern boundaries of the USA. A wealth of 
fascinating contemporary material includes James Madison and Alexander Hamilton 
on the constitution.

There are eye-witness accounts of the north-west fur trade, and of Washington's 
inauguration as the new nation's first President. You'll read Senator Pinckney's 
tale of the bitter Presidential election of 1800, and Napoleon's own brother's 
account of the Emperor's determination to sell Louisiana. With these 
authoritative sources at your fingertips, you can establish own interpretation 
of these fascinating events.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Library4Science-

Welcome to KindleBoards and congratulations on your book!

(If you've gotten this welcome before, it's just as a matter of housekeeping. We like to put a copy of the "welcome letter" in each book thread. It doesn't mean you've done anything wrong, it just helps us know that you know the rules.)

A brief recap of our rules follows:

--We invite you to use your book cover as your avatar and have links to your book and website in your signature. Instructions are posted here

*--Please bookmark this thread (using your browser's bookmark/favorite function) so you can update it as we ask that authors have only one thread per book and add to it when there is more information.* You may start a separate thread for each book (or you may have one thread per series of books, or one thread for all of your books, it's your choice).

--While you may respond to member posts to your thread at any time, you may only bump your thread (back-to-back posts by you) once every seven days. Once you've responded to a member, that resets the clock to zero and you must wait seven days to post, unless another member posts before then.

--We ask that Amazon reviews not be repeated here as they are easy to find at your book link. Also, full reviews from other sites should not be posted here, but you may post a short blurb and a link to the full review instead.

--Although self-promotion is limited to the Book Bazaar, our most successful authors have found the best way to promote their books is to be as active throughout KindleBoards as time allows. This is your target audience--book lovers with Kindles! Please note that putting link information in the body of your posts constitutes self promotion; please leave your links for your profile signature that will automatically appear on each post. For information on more ways to promote here on KindleBoards, be sure to check out this thread:
Authors: KindleBoards Tips & FAQ.

All this, and more, is included in our Forum Decorum: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,36.0.html. Be sure to check it from time to time for the current guidelines and rules.

Oh, and one more thing: be sure to check out the index threads at the top of the Book Bazaar. . . .there are details there about how you can be listed so that our readers can find you.

Thanks for being part of KindleBoards! Feel free to send us a PM if you have any questions.

Betsy & Ann
Book Bazaar Moderators


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

I will be posting excerpts from Volume 4 weekly on this thread. This is the second entry in the volume.

*Facing Bankruptcy And Mutiny*

By John Fiske.

_THE fate of the Republic has never been more precarious than during the period that immediately followed the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown. There was no money to pay off the army, and the soldiers were daily becoming more restive and irritated.
_
_Newburgh, New York, was the headquarters of the army from March, 1782, until the latter part of 1783, and it was there that the Newburgh Addresses were circulated, that the army was disbanded, and that Washington received the famous Nicola letter proposing that he become King. There is no doubt, as the historian, Fiske, indicates, but that Washington could have formed a monarchy at this time and been almost unanimously supported by the army. Its mutinous temper is manifested in this review, taken from John Fiske's "Critical Period of American History" and is reprinted here by special arrangement with the publishers, Houghton, Mifflin and Company._

IMPOSSIBLE as Congress found it to fill the quotas of the army, the task of raising a revenue by requisitions upon the States was even more discouraging. Every State had its own war debt, and several were applicants for foreign loans not easy to obtain, so that none could without the greatest difficulty raise a surplus to hand over to Congress. The Continental rag money had ceased to circulate by the end of 1780, and our foreign credit was nearly ruined. The French Government began to complain of the heavy demands which the Americans made upon its exchequer, and Vergennes, in sending over a new loan in the fall of 1782, warned Franklin that no more must be expected. To save American credit from destruction it was at least necessary that the interest on the public debt should be paid. For this purpose Congress in 1781 asked permission to levy a five per cent. duty on imports. The modest request was the signal for a year of angry discussion. Again and again it was asked, If taxes could thus be levied by any power outside the State, why had we ever opposed the Stamp Act or the tea duties? The question was indeed a serious one, and as an instance of reasoning from analogy seemed plausible enough. After more than a year Massachusetts consented, by a bare majority of two in the House and one in the Senate, reserving to herself the right of appointing the collectors. The bill was then vetoed by Governor Hancock, though one day too late, and so it was saved. But Rhode Island flatly refused her consent, and so did Virginia, though Madison earnestly pleaded the cause of the public credit. For the current expenses of the government in that same year $9,000,000 were needed. It was calculated that $4,000,000 might be raised by a loan, and the other $5,000,000 were demanded of the States. At the end of the year $422,000 had been collected, not a cent of which came from Georgia, the Carolinas, or Delaware. Rhode Island, which paid $38,000, did the best of all according to its resources. Of the Continental taxes assessed in 1783, only one-fifth part had been paid by the middle of 1785. And the worst of it was that no one could point to a remedy for this state of things, or assign any probable end to it.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

I will be posting excerpts from Volume 4 weekly on this thread. This is the third entry in the volume.

*Mutinous Troops Threaten Congress*

By Elias Boudinot, President of Congress.

_THIS letter, dated Princeton, New Jersey, July 15, 1783, was written by the president of the Continental Congress to our ministers plenipotentiary, Adams, Franklin and Jay, who were in Paris negotiating the treaty of peace with Great Britain, which concluded the Revolutionary War. It was Boudinot who signed its ratification.

A few days before this letter was written, Congress, being openly defied and menaced by a considerable number of Pennsylvania recruits, who objected to being discharged from the army without pay, had hurriedly adjourned from Philadelphia to Princeton. Never before or since has the Congress of the United States undergone such a humiliating ordeal; and the episode clearly illustrates the general demoralization of the country in those trying days._

Boudinot was a member of the first three Congresses, was director of the Mint from 1795 to 1805, and was the first president of the American Bible Society.

AS CONGRESS has not yet elected any minister for foreign affairs, and knowing the importance of your being fully informed of every public transaction relative to these States, I have concluded that you would not think it amiss to hear from me on the subject of the removal of Congress to this place, though I can not consider this communication as official, but merely for your information in my individual capacity.

The state of our finances making it indispensably necessary to abridge the public expenses in every instance that would not endanger the Union, we concluded to reduce the army by discharging all the soldiers enlisted for the war, with a proportionate number of officers, on condition that the discharge should operate no otherwise than as a furlough, until the ratification of the definitive treaty.

This not only eased us of a heavy disbursement of ready cash for subsistence money and rations, but gratified many of the army who wished to be at home in the early part of the summer, to provide for the following winter. Three months' pay was ordered which could not otherwise be complied with, but by a paper anticipation of the taxes, payable in six months.

By an inevitable accident, the notes did not arrive at the army till six days after the soldiers were discharged and had left the camp. This, together with some difficulty in settling their accounts, created an uneasiness among the troops, but by the General's address and the good conduct of the officers, they all retired peaceably to their different States, though without a single farthing of cash to buy themselves a meal of victuals.

In the barracks in Philadelphia and at Lancaster, in the State of Pennsylvania, there were a number of new recruits, who had been enlisted since the months of December and January last, and who had not yet taken the field; these soldiers having not been brought under any regular discipline, made many objections against accepting their discharges, and gave their officers reasons to fear some difficulty in getting rid of them; but the Secretary of War thought he had satisfied them by assuring them of the like pay with the rest of the army. On the 15th of June a petition was received from the sergeants, requiring a redress of their grievances, in a very turbulent and indecent style, of which no notice was taken. . . . A committee was immediately appointed to confer with the executive council of Pennsylvania, and to endeavor to get them to call out the militia to stop the mutineers; but to no purpose ; the council thinking that the citizens would not choose to risk themselves when fair means might do. . . . On the 19th the troops arrived and joined those at the barracks in the city, who had been increased in number by a few companies of old soldiers arrived the day before from Charles Town.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from Volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*How Settlements Were Planted*

By William Cooper.

_THIS account of the hardships suffered by the frontier settlers of colonial and post-colonial days is from William Cooper's "Guide in the Wilderness," a pamphlet issued in Dublin, Ireland, in 1810, for the purpose of promoting immigration to Central New York State, where Cooper established a settlement now known as Cooperstown. He was the father of the first great American novelist, James Fenimore Cooper, whose early life in the wilderness resulted in his famous "Leatherstocking Tales."

The elder Cooper migrated from Burlington, N. J., with his wife and twelve children, in 1790, having acquired large tracts of land around Lake Otsego. He was the first judge of Otsego County, a Congressman, and in his prosperous latter years lived a semi-baronial life in a great mansion he built at the foot of Lake Otsego. His success encouraged similar enterprises throughout the border country and is a fine example of Pioneer achievement._

I BEGAN with the disadvantage of a small capital, and the incumbrance of a large family, and yet I have already settled more acres than any man in America. There are forty thousand souls now holding directly or indirectly under me, and I trust, that no one among so many can justly impute to me any act resembling oppression. I am now descending into the vale of life, and I must acknowledge that I look back with self-complacency upon what I have done, and am proud of having been an instrument in reclaiming such large and fruitful tracts from the waste of the creation. And I question whether that sensation is not now a recompense more grateful to me than all the other profits I have reaped. Your good sense and knowledge of the world will excuse this seeming boast; if it be vain, we all must have our vanities, let it at least serve to show that industry has its rewards, and age its pleasures, and be an encouragement to others to persevere and prosper.

In 1785 I visited the rough and hilly country of Otsego, where there existed not an inhabitant, nor any trace of a road; I was alone three hundred miles from home, without bread, meat, or food of any kind; fire and fishing tackle were my only means of subsistence. I caught trout in the brook, and roasted them on the ashes. My horse fed on the grass that grew by the edge of the waters. I laid me down to sleep in my watch-coat, nothing but the melancholy wilderness around me. In this way I explored the country, formed my plans of future settlement, and meditated upon the spot where a place of trade or a village should afterward be established.

In May, 1786, I opened the sales of 40,000 acres, which, in sixteen days, were all taken up by the poorest order of men. I soon after established a store, and went to live among them, and continued so to do until 1790, when I brought on my family. For the ensuing four years the scarcity of provisions was a serious calamity; the country was mountainous, there were neither roads nor bridges.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from Volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*Framing The Constitution*

By Delegate James Madison.

_MADISON'S services in framing the Constitution were eminent. Historians are agreed that the Constitution bears the stamp of his hand more notably than that of any other. To Madison also we are indebted for the completest and only adequate report of the Constitutional convention of 1787.

In an introduction to his report of these proceeding of June 27, 28 and 29, Madison writes that "I chose a seat in front of the presiding member, with the other members on my right and left hands. In this favorable position for hearing all that passed, I noted in terms legible and in abbreviations intelligible to myself, what was read from the chair or spoken by the members.

. . . I was not absent a single day, and was enabled to write out my notes during the session."_

MR. RUTLEDGE moved to postpone the sixth resolution, defining the powers of Congress, in order to take up the seventh and eighth, which involved the most fundamental points, the rules of suffrage in the two branches, which was agreed to. A question being proposed on the seventh resolution, declaring that the suffrage in the first branch should be according to an equitable ratio, Mr. L. Martin contended at great length and with great eagerness that the general government was meant merely to preserve the State governments, not to govern individuals. That its powers ought to be kept within narrow limits. That, if too little power was given to it, more might be added; but that, if too much, it could never be resumed. That individuals, as such, have little to do but with their own States, that the general government has no more to apprehend from the States composing the Union, while it pursues proper measures, than a government over individuals has to apprehend from its subjects. That to resort to the citizens at large for their sanction to a new government will be throwing them back into a state of nature; that the dissolution of the State Governments is involved in the nature of the process; that the people have no right to do this without the consent of those to whom they have delegated their power for State purposes. Through their tongues only they can speak, through their ears only can hear. That the States have shown a good disposition to comply with the acts of Congress, weak, contemptibly weak, as that body has been; and have failed through inability alone to comply. That the heaviness of the private debts and the waste of property during the war were the chief causes of this inability, that he did not conceive the instances mentioned by Mr. Madison of compacts between Virginia and Maryland, between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, or of troops raised by Massachusetts for defense against the rebels, to be violations of the Articles of Confederation. That an equal vote in each State was essential to the Federal idea, and was founded in justice and freedom, not merely in policy. That though the States may give up this right of sovereignty, yet they had not, and ought not. That the States, like individuals, were in a state of nature equally sovereign and free.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

*The Northwest Ordinance*

By Nathan Dane.

_IN THIS letter written to Daniel Webster in 1830, Dane, who had been chairman of the Congressional committee which sponsored the celebrated Northwest Ordinance of 1787, contemporary with the Constitution, asserts his authorship of it and denies that it was based upon an earlier plan drawn up by Thomas Jefferson. It was a constitution of government for the Northwest Territory which, it nominated, was to be divided into not less than three nor more than five States. They are Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. Jefferson would have named them Sylvania, Michigania, Chersonesus, Assenisipia, Mesopotamia, Illinoia, Washington, Polypotamia and Pelisipia.

It prohibited slavery and guaranteed, in addition to religious worship, the first permanent titles to property, completely republican, in Federal America. Its authorship also has been attributed to Manasseh Cutler, a Massachusetts lawyer, like Dane, who helped found Marietta, Ohio._

YOU recollect you ascribed to me the formation of the Ordinance of the Old Congress, of July 13, 1787. Since writing you last, I have seen Mr. Benton's speech on the subject, in the "National Intelligences," of March 6, 1830, in which, I find, on no authority, he ascribes its formation in substance to Mr. Jefferson ; that is, that Mr. Jefferson formed an ordinance in 1784, and he seems to infer from that the Ordinance of '87 was taken or copied. This inference of Benton's has not the least foundation, as thus appears: Mr. Jefferson's resolve, or plan (not ordinance), of April 23, 1784, is contained in two pages and a half; is a mere incipient plan, in no manner matured for practice, as may be seen. The Ordinance of July, 1787, contains eight pages; is in itself a complete system, and finished for practice; and, what is very material, there cannot be found in it more than twenty lines taken from Jefferson's plan, and these worded differently. In fact, his plan and this Ordinance are totally different, in size, in style, in form, and in principle. Air. Benton's assertion, so groundless, extorts from me the above, and the following exposition, in defense of those who have long ascribed to me the formation.

1. As I am the only member of Congress living who had any concern informing or in passing this Ordinance, no living testimony is to be expected.

2. In the "North American Review" of July, 1826, pages 1 to 41, is a review of my "General Abridgment," etc., of American Law. In page 40, it is said, I "was the framer of the celebrated Ordinance of Congress, of 1787." At present it is enough to add this fact, stated in the Inaugural Discourse of Judge Story, page 58.

Generally, when persons have asked me questions respecting the Ordinance, I have referred to the Ordinance itself, as evidently being the work of a Massachusetts lawyer on the face of it. I now make the same reference, and to its style, found in my "Abridgment," etc.

3. When I mention the formation of this Ordinance, it is proper to explain. It consists of three parts. 1st, The titles to estates, real and personal, by deed, by will, and by descent ; also personal, by delivery. These titles occupy the first part of the Ordinance, not a page, evidently selected from the laws of Massachusetts, except it omits the double share of the oldest son. These titles were made to take root in the first and early settlements, in 400,000 square miles. Such titles so taking root, we well know, are, in their nature, in no small degree permanent; so, vastly important. I believe these were the first titles to property, completely republican, in Federal America; being in no part whatever feudal or monarchical. 2d, It consists of the temporary parts that ceased with the territorial condition ; which, in the age of a nation, soon pass away, and hence are not important. These parts occupy about four pages. They designate the officers, their qualifications, appointments, duties, oaths, etc., and a temporary legislature. Neither those parts, nor the titles, were in Jefferson's plan, as you will see. The 3d part, about three pages, consists of the six fundamental articles of compact, expressly made permanent, and to endure forever; so, the most important and valuable part of the Ordinance.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*Anthony Wayne Routs The Ohio Indians*

By Richard Hildreth.

_HILDRETH, who was born in 1807, thirteen years after General "Mad Anthony" Wayne solved the Ohio frontier Indian problem by winning the Battle of Fallen Timber, is best remembered for his "History of the United States," from which this article is taken. In it he presents the founders of the Republic in their true character, without trying to heighten their virtues or disguise their faults.

Wayne, the hero of Stony Point, became Commander-in-Chief of the army in 1792, and began his Ohio campaign in the Fall of the following year. His decisive defeat of the Indians occurred in August, 1794, and shortly thereafter Wayne, with twelve of the Northwestern tribes, signed the Treaty of Greenville in which the United States acquired a large tract of territory.

Fort Wayne, Indiana, was originally built and garrisoned by this Revolutionary veteran, who died in 1796 while carrying out the terms of his peace negotiations with the Indians._

AFFAIRS on the Indian frontier still continued in an unsettled state. The commissioners appointed to negotiate with the hostile Northwestern tribes, accompanied by the missionary Heckewelder and by a deputation of Quakers, as the Indians had desired, on arriving at Fort Niagara, had been kindly received by Colonel Simcoe, commander, during the Revolutionary War, of a famous partisan corps in the British army, and just appointed governor of the newly erected province of Upper Canada. Embarking at Fort Erie, they landed presently at the entrance of the River Detroit, where they were met by a deputation from a preliminary council of the confederate Indians, then in session at the Maumee Rapids. These deputies desired to know if "their brothers the Bostonians," for so they designated the commissioners, were empowered to consent to the Ohio as a boundary. The commissioners replied that this was impossible, as settlements had been commenced north of the Ohio, which could not be abandoned; but they offered, if the Indians would confirm the limits established by the treaties of Forts McIntosh and Harmer, a larger present, in money and goods, than ever had been given at any one time since the white men set foot in the country.

They were authorized, in fact, to offer $50,000 down, and, in addition, annual presents forever to the amount of $10,000 a year. This answer of the commissioners having been reported to the Indian council, the question of accepting it was debated with a great deal of vehemence. The result was expressed in a written document sent to the commissioners, in which it was contended that the treaties of Forts McIntosh and Harmer, having been made by a few unauthorized chiefs, could not be considered as valid. As to confirming those treaties for money, that was of no value to them, while the land would afford means of subsistence to themselves and their children. This same money might better be employed in persuading the settlers north of the Ohio to remove. Since it was refused to concede the Ohio as a boundary, the negotiation was declared to be at an end.

The commissioners, much chagrined at this abrupt termination of their mission, without their having been admitted into the presence of the Indian council, ascribed the result to British influence. Very probably the inclination of the Indians was seconded by the advice of the Canadian traders and the British agents. Simcoe, however, had expressly denied having advised the Indians not to surrender any of their lands. He had also offered to act as mediator, but this offer the instructions of the commissioners would not allow them to accept.

Pending this negotiation, Wayne's troops had remained encamped in the vicinity of Cincinnati, where they suffered not a little from an epidemic influenza. Apprehending that the failure of the negotiation would be followed by an immediate attack upon the frontiers, Wayne marched with his army, and, leaving garrisons behind him at the intermediate posts, established himself, with twenty-six hundred regulars, in a fortified camp at Greenville, six miles in advance of Fort Jefferson. Here he was promptly joined by a thousand Kentucky volunteers, under General Scott, raised by dint of great exertions, but who arrived too late to be of any essential aid. These volunteers were soon dismissed; but, to serve as a protection to the frontier, and to be ready for ulterior operations in the spring, the army remained encamped at Greenville during the winter. As all the supplies had to be carried some seventy miles through the woods on pack-horses, the support of the troops in that position was an expensive affair. A part of the legionary cavalry, stationed for the winter in Kentucky, was placed at the disposal of Governor Shelby, for the suppression of any attempts, should such be made, to raise men, under French commissions, for an expedition against Louisiana a subject as to which information and orders had been sent to General Wayne and Governor St. Clair, as well as to Governor Shelby.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*How Napoleon Persisted In Selling Louisiana*

By Lucien Bonaparte.

_LUCIEN BONAPARTE was a younger brother of Napoleon and Joseph, who participated in this account in his Memoirs, published in Paris in 1882. As ambassador to Spain Lucien had negotiated the secret treaty of 1800 by which Spain retroceded Louisiana to France.

Spain had possessed Louisiana since the treaty of 1763, which concluded the French and Indian War. In 1803 President Jefferson sent James Monroe to join Robert R. Livingston in Paris and negotiate with Napoleon for the island of New Orleans and the Floridas. To their astonishment Napoleon offered to sell the entire province.

$20,000,000 was asked, and $16,000,000 finally was accepted for the territory of over a million square miles, including $4,000,000 for the debts which the United States was to assume. Napoleon hastened the sale because he doubted his ability to hold Louisiana against England, with whom he was at war._

HERE you are at last!" exclaimed my brother, I was afraid you were not coming. It is a fine time to go to the theater; I come to tell you a piece of news which will not make you feel like amusing yourself."

Continuing in the same tone, Joseph, replying to my question : "Do make haste and tell me what is up" said to me:

"No ; you will not believe it, and yet it is true. I give you a thousand guesses; the general (we still called Napoleon in that way), the general wishes to alienate Louisiana."

"Bah! who will buy it from him?"

"The Americans."

I was thunderstruck for a moment.

"The idea! if he could wish, the Chambers would not consent to it."

"And therefore he expects to do without their consent. That is what he replied to me when I said to him, as you do now, that the Chambers would not consent to it."

"What, he really said that to you? That is a little too much! But no, it is impossible. It is a bit of brag at your expense, as the other day on the subject of Bernadotte."

"No, no," insisted Joseph, "he spoke very seriously, and, what is more, he added to me that this sale would furnish him the first funds for war."

We talked together for a considerable time about the little coup d'etat which seemed to us to exceed in arbitrariness everything that had been accomplished under the Convention and the Directory.

It had become late. The plan of going to the theater was given up, and we separated, not without having agreed that I first should go the next morning to pay a visit to the First Consul.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*Funeral Oration On Washington*

By Major General Henry Lee.

_THIS eloquent tribute to the "Father of His Country" was rendered by General Lee before the two Houses of Congress on December 26, 1799, twelve days after Washington died at Mount Vernon. Methods of communication were so primitive in those days that the news of his death reached the national capital before it was known that Washington was ill. It was first communicated by a stage-coach passenger to an acquaintance on the street, and the report quickly reached Congress which was then in session. Sentiments of dismay and grief abounded, and Congress adjourned. Lee and Lafayette stood close together in the affection of Washington, and this oration was inspired by the deep love, almost amounting to adoration, which Lee had for his dead fellow Virginian and Chief.

This Lee, known as "Light Horse Harry, was the father of General Robert E. Lee, the great Confederate leader._

IN OBEDIENCE to your will, I rise, your humble organ, with the hope of executing a part of the system of public mourning which you have been pleased to adopt, commemorative of the death of the most illustrious and most beloved personage this country has ever produced; and which, while it transmits to posterity your sense of the awful event, faintly represents your knowledge of the consummate excellence you so cordially honor.

Desperate, indeed, is any attempt on earth to meet correspondingly this dispensation of Heaven; for, while with pious resignation we submit to the will of an all-gracious Providence, we can never cease lamenting, in our finite view of Omnipotent Wisdom, the heart-rending privation for which our nation weeps. When the civilized world shakes to its center; when every moment gives birth to strange and momentous changes; when our peaceful quarter of the globe, exempt as it happily has been from any share in the slaughter of the human race, may yet be compelled to abandon her pacific policy, and to risk the doleful casualties of war; what limit is there to the extent of our loss? None within the reach of my words to express; none which your feelings will not disavow.

The founder of our Federate Republic our bulwark in war, our guide in peace, is no more! O that this were but questionable! Hope, the comforter of the wretched, would pour into our agonizing hearts its balmy dew. But, alas! there is no hope for us; our Washington is removed forever! Possessing the stoutest frame and purest mind, he had passed nearly to his sixty-eighth year in the enjoyment of high health, when, habituated by his care of us to neglect himself, a slight cold, disregarded, became inconvenient on Friday, oppressive on Saturday, and, defying every medical interposition, before the morning of Sunday put an end to the best of men. An end, did I say? His fame survives! bounded only by the limits of the earth, and by the extent of the human mind. He survives in our hearts in the growing knowledge of our children in the affection of the good throughout the world. And when our monuments shall be done away; when nations now existing shall be no more; when even our young and far-spreading empire shall have perished; still will our Washington's glory unfaded shine, and die not, until love of virtue cease on earth, or earth itself sinks into chaos!

How, my fellow-citizens, shall I single to your grateful hearts his preeminent worth! Where shall I begin, in opening to your view a character throughout sublime? Shall I speak of his warlike achievements, all springing from obedience to his country's will, all directed to his country's good?

Will you go with me to the banks of the Monongahela, to see your youthful Washington supporting, in the dismal hour of Indian victory, the ill-fated Braddock, and saving, by his judgment and by his valor, the remains of a defeated army, pressed by the conquering savage foe? or when, oppressed America nobly resolving to risk her all in defense of her violated rights, he was elevated by the unanimous voice of Congress to the command of our her armies? Will you follow him to the high grounds of Boston, where, to an undisciplined, courageous and virtuous yeomanry, his presence gave the stability of system, and infused the invincibility of love of country? Or shall I carry you to the painful scenes of Long Island, York Island and New Jersey, when, combating superior and gallant armies, aided by powerful fleets, and led by chiefs high in the roll of fame, he stood the bulwark of our safety, undismayed by disaster, unchanged by change of fortune? Or will you view him in the precarious fields of Trenton, where deep gloom, unnerving every arm, reigned triumphant through our thinned, worn down, unaided ranks--himself unmoved? Dreadful was the night. It was about this time of winter. The storm raged. The Delaware, rolling furiously with floating ice, forbade the approach of man. Washington, self-collected, viewed the tremendous scene. His country called. Unappalled by surrounding dangers, he passed to the hostile shore; he fought; he conquered. The morning sun cheered the American world. Our country rose on the event; and her dauntless Chief, pursuing his blow, completed in the lawns of Princeton what his vast soul had conceived on the shores of Delaware.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*The Invention Of The Cotton Gin*

By Horace Greeley.

_THE story of the cotton gin, as told in Greeley's "American Conflict," from which this extract is taken, is one of the most fascinating in the annals of industry. Historians and economists agree on the great importance of this invention which, curiously enough, left its inventor, Eli Whitney, a bankrupt. It affected not only the American cotton industry, but the commercial relations with Great Britain and the world at large, and influenced the extension of slavery. This invention made it possible for the Southern States to substitute machinery for hand labor and so increase their output of cotton tremendously.

Horace Greeley, like Whitney, was a native of New England and a son of poor but hardworking parents. He was also a great journalist, and therefore well qualified to write this sympathetic article about the father of the cotton gin, who was likewise the inventor of the Springfield rifle._

IN THE British colonies now composing this country the experiment of cotton-planting was tried so early as 1621; and in 1666 the growth of the cotton-plant is on record. The cultivation slowly and fitfully expanded throughout the following century, extending northward to the eastern shore of Maryland and the southern-most point of New Jersey where, however, the plant was grown more for ornament than use. It is stated that "seven bags of cotton-wool" were among the exports of Charleston, S. C., in 1748, and that trifling shipments from that port were likewise made in 1754 and 1757. In 1784, it is recorded that eight bags, shipped to England, were seized at the custom-house as fraudulently entered; "cotton not being a production of the United States." The export of 1790, as returned, was eighty-one bags; and the entire cotton crop of the United States at that time was probably less than the product of some single plantation in our day.

For, though the plant grew luxuriantly and produced abundantly throughout tidewater Virginia and all that portion of our country lying southward and southwestward of Richmond, yet the enormous labor required to separate the seed from the tiny handful of fibers wherein it was imbedded, precluded its extensive and profitable cultivation. It was calculated that the perfect separation of one pound of fiber from the seed was an average day's work; and this fact presented a formidable barrier to the production of the staple in any but a region like India, where labor can be hired for a price below the cost of subsisting slaves, however wretchedly, in this country. It seemed that the limit of American cotton cultivation had been fully reached, when an event occurred which speedily revolutionized the industry of our slave-holding States and the commerce and manufacture of the world.

Eli Whitney, a native of Westborough, Worcester County, Massachusetts, born December 8, 1765, was descended on both sides from ancestors of English stock, who dated their migration from the old country nearly back to the memorable voyage of the Mayflower. They were generally farmers, and, like most farmers of those days, in very moderate circumstances. Eli's father, poor, industrious and ingenious, had a workshop wherein he devoted the inclement season to the making of wheels and of chairs. Here the son early developed a remarkable ingenuity and mechanical skill; establishing, when only fifteen years of age, the manufacture by hand of wrought nails, for which there was, in those later years of our Revolutionary struggle, a demand at high prices. Though he had had no instruction in nail-making, and his few implements were of the rudest description, he pursued the business through two winters with profit to his father, devoting the summers to the farm.

After the close of the war, his nails being no longer in demand, he engaged in the manufacture of the pins' then in fashion for fastening ladies' bonnets, and nearly monopolized the market through the excellence of his product. Walking canes also were among his winter manufactures, and were esteemed peculiarly well made and handsome. Meantime, he continued the devotion of his summers to the labors of the farm, attending the common school of his district through its winter session, and being therein noted for devotion to, and eminent skill in, arithmetic. At fourteen, he was looked upon by his neighbors as a very remarkable, energetic, and intelligent youth. At nineteen, he resolved to obtain a liberal education; but it was not until he had reached the mature age of twenty-three that he was enabled to enter college. By turns laboring with his hands and teaching school, he obtained the means of prosecuting his studies in Yale, which he entered in May, 1789. He borrowed some money to aid him in his progress, giving his note therefore, and paying it so soon as he could. On the decease of his father, some years afterward, he took an active part in settling the estate, but relinquished his portion to his coheirs. It is scarcely probable that the amount he thus sacrificed was large, but the generous spirit he evinced is not thereby obscured.

While in college, his natural superiority in mechanism and proclivity to invention were frequently manifested. On one occasion a tutor regretted to his pupils that he could not exhibit a desired philosophical experiment, because the apparatus was out of order, and could only be repaired in Europe. Young Whitney thereupon proposed to undertake the repair, and made it to perfect satisfaction. At another time, he asked permission to use at intervals the tools of a carpenter who worked near his boarding-place; but the careful mechanic declined to trust them in the hands of a student, unless the gentleman with whom Mr. Whitney boarded would become responsible for their safe return. The guarantee was given, and Mr. Whitney took the tools in hand; when the carpenter, surprised at his dexterity, exclaimed: "There was one good mechanic spoiled when you went to college."


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*American Characteristics*

By Benjamin Franklin.

_FRANKLIN was justly considered in Europe as a preeminent authority on all matters relating to social conditions in America. His writings enjoyed almost as large a circulation abroad as they did in this country, and his reputation grew with his success. "It was," wrote John Adams, "more universal than that of Leibnitz or Newton, Frederick the Great or Voltaire, and his character more beloved and esteemed than all of them."

Franklin was besieged by European publishers for pamphlets and for contributions of a literary character. This article was published in both London and Paris in 1784, the year after Franklin, then in France, had signed the definitive Treaty of Paris and asked to be relieved of his mission. His request was not granted until 1785 when Congress adopted a resolution permitting "the Honorable Benjamin Franklin to return to America as soon as convenient."_

MANY persons in Europe having directly or by letters, expressed to the writer of this, who is well acquainted with North America, their desire of transporting and establishing themselves in that country; but who appear to him to have formed through ignorance, mistaken ideas and expectations of what is to be obtained there; he thinks it may be useful, and prevent inconvenient, expensive and fruitless removals and voyages of improper persons, if he gives some clearer and truer notions of that part of the world than appear to have hitherto prevailed.

The truth is, that though there are in that country few people so miserable as the poor of Europe, there are also very few that in Europe would be called rich. It is rather a general happy mediocrity that prevails. There are few great proprietors of the soil, and few tenants; most people cultivate their own lands, or follow some handicraft or merchandise; very few are rich enough to live idly upon their rents or incomes; or to pay the high prices given in Europe, for painting, statues, architecture and the other works of art that are more curious than useful. Hence the natural geniuses that have arisen in America, with such talents, have uniformly quitted that country for Europe, where they can be more suitably rewarded. It is true that letters and mathematical knowledge are in esteem there, but they are at the same time more common than is apprehended; there being already existing nine colleges, or universities, viz. four in New England, and one in each of the provinces of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, all furnished with learned professors; besides a number of smaller academies. These educate many of their youth in the languages and those sciences that qualify men for the professions of divinity, law, or physic. Strangers indeed are by no means excluded from exercising those professions; and the quick increase of inhabitants everywhere gives them a chance of employ, which they have in common with the natives. Of civil offices or employments, there are few; no superfluous ones as in Europe; and it is a rule established in some of the States, that no office should be so profitable as to make it desirable.

These ideas prevailing more or less in all the United States, it cannot be worth any man's while, who has a means of living at home, to expatriate himself in hopes of obtaining a profitable civil office in America, and as to military offices, they are at an end with the war, the armies being disbanded. Much less is it advisable for a person to go thither who has no other quality to recommend him but his birth. In Europe it has indeed its value; but it is a commodity that cannot be carried to a worse market than to that of America, where people do not enquire concerning a stranger, "What is he?" but "What can he do?" If he has any useful art, he is welcome; and if he exercises it, and behaves well, he will be respected by all that know him; but a mere man of quality, who on that account wants to live upon the public, by some office or salary, will be despised and disregarded.

With regard to encouragements for strangers from Government, they are really only what are derived from good laws and liberty. Strangers are welcome because there is room enough for them all, and therefore the old inhabitants are not jealous of them; the laws protect them sufficiently, so that they have no need of the patronage of great men; and every one will enjoy securely the profits of his industry. But if he does not bring a fortune with him, he must work and be industrious to live. One or two years' residence give him all the rights of a citizen ; but the Government does not at present, whatever it may have done in former times, hire people to become settlers, by paying their passages, giving land, *******, utensils, stock, or any other kind of emolument whatsoever. In short, America is the land of labor, and by no means what the English call Lubberland, and the French Pays de Cocagne, where the streets are said to be paved with half-peck loaves, the houses tiled with pancakes, and where the fowls fly about ready roasted, crying, "Come eat me!"

Land being cheap in that country, from the vast forests still void of inhabitants, and not likely to be occupied in an age to come, insomuch that the propriety of a hundred acres of fertile soil full of wood may be obtained near the frontiers in many places, for eight or ten guineas, hearty young laboring men, who understand the husbandry of corn and cattle, which is nearly the same in that country as in Europe, may easily establish themselves there. A little money saved of the good wages they receive there while they work for others, enables them to buy the land and begin their plantation, in which they are assisted by the good will of their neighbors, and some credit. Multitudes of poor people from England, Ireland, Scotland and Germany, have by this means in a few years become wealthy farmers, who in their own countries, where all the lands are fully occupied, and the wages of labor low, could never have emerged from the mean condition wherein they were born.

From the salubrity of the air, the healthiness of the climate, the plenty of good provisions, and the encouragement to early marriages by the certainty of subsistence in cultivating the earth, the increase of inhabitants by natural generation is very rapid in America, and becomes still more so by the accession of strangers; hence there is a continual demand for more artisans of all the necessary and useful kinds, to supply those cultivators of the earth with houses, and with furniture and utensils of the grosser sorts, which cannot so well be brought from Europe. Tolerably good workmen in any of those mechanic arts, are sure to find employ, and to be well paid for their work, there being no restraints preventing strangers from exercising any art they understand, nor any permission necessary. If they are poor, they begin first as servants or journeymen; and if they are sober, industrious, and frugal, they soon become masters, establish themselves in business, marry, raise families, and become respectable citizens.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*Weathering A Crisis*

By George Washington.

To HENRY LEE:

_ALTHOUGH Washington was in retirement at Mount Vernon at this time (1786), he maintained his keen interest in public affairs, greatly regretting the general chaos, and helping by correspondence to bring the leading men of the country to a determination to form a more perfect Union.

These letters, dated respectively October 31 and November 5, 1786, were written to Henry Lee, of the famous Virginia family, nicknamed during the Revolution "Light Horse Harry," and now a delegate to Congress; and to James Madison, destined to be the fourth President of the United States. At the time of this correspondence Washington Was 54, Madison was 35 and Lee was 30 years old.

The wise patriotism displayed by Washington in his correspondence during this trying period did much to make him the unanimous choice of the country for its first President._

THE picture which you have exhibited, and the accounts which are published of the commotions and temper of numerous bodies in the eastern States, are equally to be lamented and deprecated. They exhibit a melancholy proof of what our transatlantic foe has predicted ; and of another thing perhaps, which is still more to be regretted, and is yet more unaccountable, that mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government. I am mortified beyond expression when I view the clouds that have spread over the brightest morn that ever dawned upon any country. In a word, I am lost in amazement when I behold what intrigue, the interested views of desperate characters, ignorance, and jealousy of the minor part, are capable of effecting, as a scourge on the major part of our fellow citizens of the Union; for it is hardly to be supposed, that the great body of the people, though they will not act, can be so shortsighted, or enveloped in darkness, as not to see rays of a distant sun through all this mist of intoxication and folly.

You talk, my good Sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found, or, if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is no government. Let us have one by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured, or let us know the worst at once. Under these impressions, my humble opinion is that there is a call for decision. Know precisely what the insurgents aim at. If they have real grievances, redress them if possible; or acknowledge the justice of them, and your inability to do it in the present moment. If they have not, employ the force of government against them at once. If this is inadequate, all will be convinced, that the superstructure is bad, or wants support. To be more exposed in the eyes of the world, and more contemptible than we already are, is hardly possible. To delay one or the other of these is to exasperate on the one hand, or to give confidence on the other, and will add to their numbers; for, like snow-balls, such bodies increase by every movement, unless there is something in the way to obstruct and crumble them before the weight is too great and irresistible.

These are my sentiments. Precedents are dangerous things. Let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the constitution be reprehended. If defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon while it has an existence.

With respect to the navigation of the Mississippi, you already know my sentiments thereon. They have been uniformly the same, and, as I have observed to you in a former letter, are controverted by one consideration only of weight, and that is the operation which the conclusion of it may have on the minds of the western settlers, who will not consider the subject in a relative point of view, or on a comprehensive scale, and may be influenced by the demagogues of the country to acts of extravagance and desperation, under a popular declamation that their interests are sacrificed. . . . But in all matters of great national moment the only true line of conduct, in my opinion, is dispassionately to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the measure proposed, and decide from the balance. The lesser evil, where there is a choice of them, should always yield to the greater. What benefits, more than we now enjoy, are to be obtained by such a treaty as you have delineated with Spain, I am not enough of a commercial man to give any opinion on.

TO JAMES MADISON

I THANK you for the communications in your letter of the 1st instant. The decision of the House on the question respecting a paper emission is portentous, I hope, of an auspicious session. It certainly may be classed with the important questions of the present day, and merited the serious attention of the Assembly. Fain would I hope, that the great and most important of all subjects, the Federal government, may be considered with that calm and deliberate attention, which the magnitude of it so critically and loudly calls for at this critical moment. Let prejudices, unreasonable jealousies, and local interests yield to reason and liberality. Let us look to our national character and to things beyond the present moment. No morn ever dawned more favorably than ours did; and no day was ever more clouded than the present. Wisdom and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm. Virginia has now an opportunity to set the latter, and has enough of the former, I hope, to take the lead in promoting this great and arduous work. Without an alteration in our political creed, the superstructure we have been seven years in raising, at the expense of so much treasure and blood, must fall. We are fast verging to anarchy and confusion.

By a letter which I have received from General Knox, who had just returned from Massachusetts, whither he had been sent by Congress consequent of the commotions in that State, is replete with melancholy accounts of the temper and designs of a considerable part of that people. Among other things he says:

"Their creed is, that the property of the United States has been protected from the confiscation of Britain by the joint exertions of all; and therefore ought to be the common property of all; and he that attempts opposition to this creed, is an enemy to equity and justice, and ought to be swept from off the face of the earth." Again: "They are determined to annihilate all debts, public and private, and have agrarian laws, which are easily effected by the means of unfunded paper money, which shall be a tender in all cases whatever." He adds: "The number of these people amount in Massachusetts to about one-fifth part of several populous counties, and to them may be collected people of similar sentiments from the States of Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Hampshire, so as to constitute a body of about twelve or fifteen thousand desperate and unprincipled men. They are chiefly of the young and active part of the community."

How melancholy is the reflection, that in so short a space we should have made such large strides towards fulfilling the predictions of our transatlantic foes! "Leave them to themselves, and their government will soon dissolve." Will not the wise and good strive hard to avert this evil? Or will their supineness suffer ignorance, and the arts of self-interested, designing, disaffected, and desperate characters, to involve this great country in wretchedness and contempt? What stronger evidence can be given of the want of energy in our government than these disorders? If there is not power in it to check them, what security has a man for life, liberty or property? To you I am sure I need not add aught on this subject. The consequences of a lax or inefficient government are too obvious to be dwelt upon. Thirteen sovereignties pulling against each other, and all tugging at the Federal head, will soon bring ruin on the whole; whereas a liberal and energetic Constitution, well guarded and closely watched to prevent encroachments, might restore us to that degree of respectability and consequences, to which we had a fair claim and the brightest prospect of attaining.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*The Discovery Of The Columbia River*

By Edward G. Porter.

_THIS article, which was first printed in the New England Magazine, June, 1892, the Oregon centennial year, under the title of "The Ship Columbia and the Discovery of Oregon," is the best connected account of one of the most important events in American history. In the dispute of 1826 between Great Britain and the United States over Oregon, our first and most valid claim to a territory as extensive in area as the British Isles was based upon Gray's voyage up the Columbia River in 1792.

If the English explorer, George Vancouver, whom Gray met shortly before making the discovery, had anticipated him, it is impossible to say how the extension and growth of the United States would have been affected.

The famous ship, after which the river was named, was long ago taken to pieces, and her records have mostly disappeared. Many of the facts set forth here were gathered by the Rev. Mr. Porter from private sources, giving his account a high original value as well as interest._

FEW ships, if any, in our merchant marine, since the organization of the Republic, have acquired such distinction as the Columbia. By two noteworthy achievements a hundred years ago she attracted the attention of the commercial world, and rendered a service to the United States unparalleled in our history. She was the first American vessel to carry the stars and stripes around the globe ; and, by her discovery of "the great river of the West," to which her name was given, she furnished us with the title to our possession of that magnificent domain, which to-day is represented by the flourishing young States of Oregon, Washington and Idaho.

The Columbia, a full-rigged ship, 83 feet long, measuring 212 tons, and mounted with 10 guns, commanded by Captain Robert Gray, left Boston on the 28th of September, 1790, calling only at the Falkland Islands, and arrived at Clayoquot June 4, 1791. Obedient to his instructions, the captain soon went on a cruise up the coast, passing along the east side of Washington's Islands (Queen Charlotte's) and exploring the numerous channels and harbors of that picturesque but lonely region.

It was Captain Gray's intention to go into winter quarters at Naspatee, in Bulfinch Sound, and he hastened that way; but, being thwarted by contrary winds, they put in at Clayoquot, and, finding excellent timber for the construction of the proposed sloop, he decided to remain there. The ship was made as snug as possible in a well-sheltered harbor, which they called Adventure Cove.

Gray soon after took his ship on a cruise which was destined to be the most important of all, one that will be remembered as long as the United States exist. On the 29th of April, 1792, he fell in with Vancouver, who had been sent out from England with three vessels of the Royal Navy as commissioner to execute the provisions of the Nootka Treaty, and to explore the coast. Vancouver said he had made no discoveries as yet, and inquired if Gray had made any. The Yankee captain replied that he had; that in latitude 46 10' he had recently been off the mouth of a river which for nine days he tried to enter, but the outset was so strong as to prevent. He was going to try it again, however. Vancouver said this must have been the opening passed by him two days before, which he thought might be "a small river," inaccessible on account of the breakers extending across it, the land behind not indicating it to be of any great extent. "Not considering this opening worthy of more attention," wrote Vancouver in his journal, "I continued our pursuit to the northwest." What a turn in the tide of events was that! Had the British navigator really seen the river, it would certainly have had another name and another history.

Gray continued his "pursuit" to the southeast, whither the star of his destiny was directing him. On the 7th of May he saw an entrance in latitude 46 58' "which had a very good appearance of a harbor, and, observing from the masthead a passage between the sand bars, he bore away and ran in. This he called Bulfinch Harbor, though it was very soon after called, as a deserved compliment to him, Gray's Harbor, the name which it still bears. Here he was attacked by the natives, and obliged in self-defence to fire upon them with serious results.

On the evening of May 10 Gray resumed his course to the south ; and at daybreak, on the 11th, he saw "the entrance of his desired port" a long way off. As he drew near about eight o'clock, he bore away with all sails set, and ran in between the breakers. To his great delight he found himself in a large river of fresh water, up which he steered ten miles. There were Indian villages at intervals along the banks, and many canoes came out to inspect the strange visitor.

The ship came to anchor at one o'clock in ten fathoms of water, half a mile from the northern shore and two miles and a half from the southern, the river being three or four miles wide all the way along. Here they remained three days busily trading and taking in water.

On the 14th he stood up the river some fifteen miles farther, "and doubted not it was navigable upwards of a hundred." He found the channel on that side, however, so very narrow and crooked that the ship grounded on the sandy bottom; but they backed off without difficulty. The jolly-boat was sent out to sound the channel, but, finding it still shallow, Gray decided to return; and on the 15th he dropped down with the tide, going ashore with his clerk "to take a short view of the country."

On the 16th he anchored off the village of Chenook, whose population turned out in great numbers. The next day the ship was painted, and all hands were busily at work. On the 19th they landed near the mouth of the river, and formally named it, after the ship, the Columbia, raising the American flag and planting coins under a large pine-tree, thus taking possession in the name of the United States. The conspicuous headland was named Cape Hancock, and the low sandspit opposite, Point Adams.

The writer is well aware that the word "discovery" may be taken in different senses. When it is claimed that Captain Gray discovered this river, the meaning is that he was the first white man to cross its bar and sail up its broad expanse, and give it a name. Undoubtedly, Carver to whom the word "Oregon" is traced may have heard of the river in 1767 from the Indians in the Rocky Mountains; and Heceta, in 1775, was near enough to its mouth to believe in its existence; and Meares, in 1788, named Cape Disappointment and Deception Bay. But none of these can be properly said to have discovered the river. Certainly, Meares, whose claim England maintained so long, showed by the very names he gave to the cape and the "bay" that he was, after all, deceived about it; and he gives no suggestion of the river on his map. D'Aguilar was credited with finding a great river as far back as 1603 ; but, according to his latitude, it was not this river; and, even if it was, there is no evidence that he entered it.

The honor of discovery must practically rest with Gray. His was the first ship to cleave its waters ; his, the first chart ever made of its shores; his, the first landing ever effected there by a civilized man; and the name he gave it has been universally accepted. The flag which he there threw to the breeze was the first ensign of any nation that ever waved over those unexplored banks. And the ceremony of occupation, under such circumstances, was something more than a holiday pastime. It was a serious act, performed in sober earnest, and reported to the world as soon as possible.

And when we remember that as a result of this came the Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804-5, and the settlement of Astoria in 1811, to say nothing of our diplomatic acquisition of the old Spanish rights, then we may safely say that the title of the United States to the Columbia River and its tributaries becomes incontestable. Such was the outcome of the "Oregon question" in 1846.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*Why The Confederation Failed To Work*

By James Madison.

_THIS extract is from the report of a speech of Madison's made in the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia (1787) against what was known as the New Jersey Plan, which left the relationship between the States and the Federal Government practically unchanged. In place of it, Madison wrote and proposed "the Virginia Plan," and throughout the convention rendered such effective service as to win for himself the title of "Father of the Constitution."

Adams urged the principle of proportional representation in both Houses of the Federal Congress. His notes on the debates of the Congress of the Confederation and of the Constitutional Convention are invaluable records of those critical times in the formation of the Republic._

IN some treaties, indeed, it is expressly stipulated, that a violation of particular articles shall not have this consequence, and even that particular articles shall remain in force during war, which is in general understood to dissolve all subsisting treaties. But are there any exceptions of this sort to the Articles of Confederation? So far from it, that there is not even an express stipulation that force shall be used to compel an offending member of the Union to discharge its duty. He [Mr. Madison] observed, that the violations of the Federal Articles had been numerous and notorious. Among the most notorious was an act of New Jersey herself; by which she expressly refused to comply with a constitutional requisition of Congress, and yielded no further to the expostulations of their deputies, than barely to rescind her vote of refusal, without passing any positive act of compliance. He did not wish to draw any rigid inferences from these observations. He thought it proper, however, that the true nature of the existing Confederacy should be investigated, and he was not anxious to strengthen the foundations on which it now stands.

Proceeding to the consideration of Mr. Patterson's plan, he stated the object of a proper plan to be twofold first, to preserve the Union; secondly, to provide a government that will remedy the evils felt by the states, both in their united and individual capacities. Examine Mr. Patterson's plan, and say whether it promises satisfaction in these respects.

1. Will it prevent the violations of the law of nations and of treaties, which, if not prevented, must involve us in the calamities of foreign wars? The tendency of the States to these violations has been manifested in sundry instances. The files of Congress contain complaints already, from almost every nation with which treaties have been formed. Hitherto, indulgence has been shown to us. This cannot be the permanent disposition of foreign nations. A rupture with other powers is among the greatest of national calamities; it ought, therefore, to be effectually provided that no part of a nation shall have it in its power to bring them on the whole. The existing Confederacy does not sufficiently provide against this evil. The proposed amendment to it does not supply the omission. It leaves the will of the States as uncontrolled as ever.

2. Will it prevent encroachments on the Federal authority? A tendency to such encroachments has been sufficiently exemplified among ourselves, as well as in every other confederated republic, ancient and modern. By the Federal Articles, transactions with the Indians appertain to Congress, yet in several instances the States have entered into treaties and wars with them. In like manner, no two or more States can form among themselves any treaties, &c., without the consent of Congress; yet Virginia and Maryland, in one instance Pennsylvania and New Jersey, in another have entered into compacts without previous application or subsequent apology. No State, again, can of right raise troops in time of peace without the like consent. Of all cases of the league, this seems to require the most scrupulous observance. Has not Massachusetts, notwithstanding, (the most powerful member of the Union,) already raised a body of troops? Is she not now augmenting them, without having even deigned to apprise Congress of her intentions? In fine, have we not seen the public land dealt out to Connecticut to bribe her acquiescence in the decree constitutionally awarded against her claim on the territory of Pennsylvania? for no other possible motive can account for the policy of Congress in that measure. If we recur to the examples of other confederacies, we shall find in all of them the same tendency of the parts to encroach on the authority of the whole.

He then reviewed the Amphictyonic and Achaean confederacies, among the ancients, and the Helvetic, Germanic, and Belgic, among the moderns; tracing their analogy to the United States in the Constitution and extent of their Federal authorities; in the tendency of the particular members to usurp on these authorities, and to bring confusion and ruin on the whole. He observed, that the plan of Mr. Patterson, besides omitting a control over the States, as a general defense of the Federal prerogatives, was particularly defective in two of its provisions. In the first place, its ratification was not to be by the people at large, but by the legislatures. It could not, therefore, render the acts of Congress, in pursuance of their powers, even legally paramount to the acts of the States. And, in the second place, it gave to the Federal tribunal an appellate jurisdiction only even in the criminal cases enumerated. The necessity of any such provision supposed a danger of undue acquittal in the State tribunals: of what avail would an appellate tribunal be after an acquittal? Besides, in most, if not all, of the States, the executives have, by their respective constitutions, the right of pardoning: how could this be taken from them by a legislative ratification only?

3. Will it prevent trespasses of the States on each other? Of these, enough has been already seen. He instanced acts of Virginia and Maryland, which gave a preference to their own citizens in cases where the citizens of other States are entitled to equality of privileges by the Articles of Confederation. He considered the emissions of paper money, and other kindred measures, as also aggressions. The States, relatively to one another, being each of them either debtor or creditor, the creditor States must suffer unjustly from every emission by the debtor States.

We have seen retaliating acts on the subject, which threatened danger, not to the harmony only, but the tranquillity of the Union. The plan of Mr. Patterson, not giving even a negative on the acts of the States left them as much at liberty as ever to execute their unrighteous projects against each other.

4. Will it secure the internal tranquillity of the States themselves? The insurrections in Massachusetts admonished all the States of the danger to which they were exposed. Yet the plan of Mr. Patterson contained no provisions for supplying the defect of the Confederation on this point. According to the republican theory, indeed, right and power, being both vested in the majority, are held to be synonymous. According to fact and experience, a minority may, in an appeal to force, be an overmatch for the majority; in the first place, if the minority happen to include all such as possess the skill and habits of military life, with such as possess the great pecuniary resources, one-third may conquer the remaining two-thirds ; in the second place, one-third of those who participate in the choice of rulers may be rendered a majority by the accession of those whose poverty disqualifies them from a suffrage, and who, for obvious reasons, must be more ready to join the standard of sedition than that of established government; and, in the third place, where slavery exists, the republican theory becomes still more fallacious.

5. Will it secure a good internal legislation and administration to the particular States? In developing the evils which vitiate the political system of the United States, it is proper to take into view those which prevail within the States individually, as well as those which affect them collectively; since the former indirectly affect the whole, and there is great reason to believe that the pressure of them had a full share in the motives which produced the present Convention.

Under this head he enumerated and animadverted on first, the multiplicity of the laws passed by the several States; secondly, the mutability of their laws; thirdly, the injustice of them; and, fourthly, the impotence of them; observing that Mr. Patterson's plan contained no remedy for this dreadful class of evils, and could not therefore be received as an adequate provision for the exigencies of the community.

6. Will it secure the Union against the influence of foreign powers over its members? He pretended not to say that any such influence had yet been tried; but it was naturally to be expected that occasions would produce it. As lessons which claimed particular attention, he cited the intrigues practiced among the Amphictyonic confederates, first by the kings of Persia, and afterwards, fatally, by Philip of Macedon; among the Achaeans, first by Macedon, and afterwards, no less fatally, by Rome; among the Swiss, by Austria, France, and the lesser neighboring Powers; among the members of the Germanic body, by France, England, Spain and Russia ; and in the Belgic Republic, by all the great neighboring Powers. The plan of Mr. Patterson, not giving to the general councils any negative on the will of the particular States, left the door open for the like pernicious machinations among ourselves.

7. He begged the smaller States, which were most attached to Mr. Patterson's plan, to consider the situation in which it would leave them. In the first place, they would continue to bear the whole expense of maintaining their delegates in Congress. It ought not to be said that, if they were willing to bear this burden, no others had a right to complain. As far as it led the smaller States to forbear keeping up a representation, by which the public business was delayed, it was evidently a matter of common concern. An examination of the minutes of Congress would satisfy every one, that the public business had been frequently delayed by this cause; and that the States most frequently unrepresented in Congress were not the larger States. He reminded the Convention of another consequence of leaving on a small State the burden of maintaining a representation in Congress. During a considerable period of the war, one of the representatives of Delaware, in whom alone, before the signing of the Confederation, the entire vote of that State, and after that event one half of its vote, frequently resided, was a citizen and resident of Pennsylvania, and held an office in his own State incompatible with an appointment from it to Congress. During another period, the same State was represented by three delegates, two of whom were citizens of Pennsylvania, and the third a citizen of New Jersey. These expedients must have been intended to avoid the burden of supporting delegates from their own State. But whatever might have been the cause, was not, in effect, the vote of one State doubled, and the influence of another increased by it? In the second place, the coercion on which the efficacy of the plan depends can never be exerted but on themselves. The larger States will be impregnable, the smaller only can feel the vengeance of it. He illustrated the position by the history of the Amphictyonic confederates ; and the ban of the German empire. It was the cobweb which could entangle the weak, but would be the sport of the strong.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*The Northwest Fur Trade*

By Captain William Sturgis.

_FROM 1788 to 1830 the fur trade between Boston, the Pacific Coast and China was an important stage in American expansion. It led to the discovery of the Columbia River, and to the annexation of two great States. Furthermore, it inaugurated our traditional friendly relations with China.

This is part of a lecture delivered in 1846 and reported in Hunt's Merchants Magazine (Boston). Its author was actively engaged in the Northwest Fur Trade between 1798 and 1829, when, on its ceasing to be profitable, he became a dominant factor in the California hide traffic. It was on one of his vessels that Richard H. Dana sailed "Two Years Before the Mast."

Keenly interested in the Oregon question, it was Sturgis's compromise boundary suggestion, published in pamphlet form in 1845, that influenced the negotiations which established the forty-ninth parallel between this country and Canada._

THE Northwest Fur Trade, in which our citizens largely participated, and at one period nearly monopolized, was principally limited to the sea-coast between the mouth of the Columbia river, in latitude 46 , to the numerous islands bordering this whole extent of coast, and the sounds, bays, and inlets, within these limits. Trade was always carried on alongside, or on board the ship, usually anchored near the shore, the Indians coming off in their canoes. It was seldom safe to admit many of the natives into the ship at the same time, and a departure from this prudent course, has, in numerous instances, been followed by the most disastrous and tragic results.

The vessels usually employed were from one hundred to two hundred and fifty tons burthen, each. The time occupied for a voyage by vessels that remained upon the coast only a single season, was from twenty-two months to two years, but they generally remained out two seasons, and were absent from home nearly three years. The principal object of the voyages was to procure the skins of the sea-otter, which were obtained from the natives by barter, carried to Canton, and there exchanged for the productions of the Celestial Empire, to be brought home or taken to Europe, thus completing what may be called a trading voyage.

Beaver and common otter skins, and other small furs, were occasionally procured in considerable quantities, but in the early period of the trade they were deemed unimportant, and little attention was given to collecting them. The sea-otter skins have ever been held in high estimation by the Chinese and Russians, as an ornamental fur; but its great scarcity and consequent cost, limits the wear to the wealthy and higher classes only. A full-grown prime skin, which has been stretched before drying, is about five feet long, and twenty-four to thirty inches wide, covered with very fine fur, about three-fourths of an inch in length, having a rich jet black, glossy surface, and exhibiting a silver color when blown open. Those are esteemed the finest skins which have some white hairs interspersed and scattered over the whole surface, and a perfectly white head.

After the expedition of Bering and Co., in 1741, these excursions were slowly extended to other groups between the two continents, and when Cook, in 1778, explored these northern regions, he met with Russian adventurers upon several of the islands in proximity with the American shore. It was, however, the publication of Cook's northern voyages, in 1785, that gave the great impulse to the Northwest Fur Trade, and drew adventurers from several nations to that quarter.

The published journal of Captain King, who succeeded to the command of one of the ships after the death of Captains Cook and Clark, and his remarks, setting forth the favorable prospects for this trade, doubtless roused the spirit of adventure. Between the time of the publication referred to, in 1785, and the close of 1787, expeditions were fitted out from Canton, Macao, Calcutta, and Bombay, in the East; London and Ostend in Europe ; and from Boston in the United States. In 1787, the first American expedition was fitted out, and sailed from Boston. It consisted of the ship Columbia, of two hundred and twenty, and the sloop Washington, of ninety tons burthen the former commanded by John Kendrick, the latter by Robert Gray.

It is scarcely possible, in the present age, when the departure or return of ships engaged in distant voyages is an every-day occurrence, to appreciate the magnitude of this undertaking, of the obstacles and difficulties that had to be surmounted in carrying it out.

The project of engaging in the fur trade of the North Pacific, from this country, was first brought forward by the celebrated American traveler, Ledyard. In his erratic wanderings, he entered on board the ship Resolution, as corporal of marines, with Captain Cook, upon his last voyage.

Bering, a Danish navigator in the service of Russia, who commanded the expedition just mentioned, was wrecked in 1741, upon an island that bears his name, and perished miserably in the course of the winter. He was the first navigator known to have passed through the strait that separates Asia from America; and Cook, who was the next to sail through it, in a commendable spirit of justice, gave to this strait the name of the unfortunate Bering. The fate of Cook is well known. He was killed by the natives of the Sandwich Islands, of which group he was the discoverer.

Kendrick was fated never to return. After remaining with both vessels two seasons on the northwest. coast, he sent the Columbia home, in charge of Captain Gray, and remained himself in the sloop Washington. He continued in her several years, trading on the coast and at the Sandwich Islands.

In 1792, while lying in the harbor of Honolulu, at one of these islands, and receiving, upon his birthday, a complimentary salute from the captain of an English trading vessel anchored near, he was instantly killed by a shot carelessly left in one of the guns fired on the occasion.

Captain Gray reached home in the Columbia, in the summer of 1790, and thus completed the first circumnavigation of the globe under the American flag. He was immediately fitted out for a second voyage in the same ship, and it was during this voyage that he discovered, entered, and gave the name to the Columbia river, a circumstance now relied upon as one of the strongest grounds to maintain our claim to the Oregon Territory. He died abroad some years ago.

The voyage of the Columbia was not profitable to her owners, in a pecuniary view, but it opened the way for other adventures, which were commenced on her return. In 1791, there were seven vessels from the United States in the North Pacific in pursuit of furs. For various reasons, the American traders so far gained the ascendency, that at the close of the eighteenth century, with the exception of the Russian establishment on the northern part of the coast, the whole trade was in our hands ; and so remained until the close of the war with Great Britain, in 1815. This trade was confined almost exclusively to Boston. It was attempted, unsuccessfully, from Philadelphia and New York, and from Providence and Bristol, in Rhode Island. Even the intelligent and enterprising merchants of Salem, failed of success; some of them, however, were interested in several of the most successful northwestern voyages carried on from Boston. So many of the vessels engaged in this trade belonged here, the Indians had the impression that Boston was our whole country. Had any one spoken to them of American ships, or American people, he would not have been understood. We were only known as Boston ships, and Boston people.

Subsequently, the war with Great Britain interrupted the trade for a time ; but after the peace of 1815, it was resumed, and flourished for some years. The difficulties and uncertainty in procuring furs became so serious, that in 1829 the business north of California was abandoned.

The narrative of Cook's voyage shows the value of a prime skin to have been, at the time of that voyage, $120. In 1802, when the largest collection was made, the average price of large and small skins, at Canton, was only about $20 each. At the present time, those of first quality would sell readily at $150. Some seventy or eighty ordinary California skins, brought home a few months ago, were sold here at nearly $60 each, to send to the north of Europe.

The trade on the coast was altogether a barter trade. It consisted in part of blankets, coarse cloths, greatcoats, fire-arms and ammunition, rice, molasses, and biscuit, coarse cottons, cutlery, and hard-ware, a great variety of trinkets, &c.; in fact, everything that one can imagine. Copper has long been known, and highly prized by the Indians. It was put to no use, but was considered very valuable, and a person having a few pieces was deemed a wealthy man.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*Mutinous Troops Threaten Congress*

By Elias Boudinot, President of Congress.

_THIS letter, dated Princeton, New Jersey, July 15, 1783, was written by the president of the Continental Congress to our ministers plenipotentiary, Adams, Franklin and Jay, who were in Paris negotiating the treaty of peace with Great Britain, which concluded the Revolutionary War. It was Boudinot who signed its ratification.

A few days before this letter was written, Congress, being openly defied and menaced by a considerable number of Pennsylvania recruits, who objected to being discharged from the army without pay, had hurriedly adjourned from Philadelphia to Princeton. Never before or since has the Congress of the United States undergone such a humiliating ordeal; and the episode clearly illustrates the general demoralization of the country in those trying days.

Boudinot was a member of the first three Congresses, was director of the Mint from 1795 to 1805, and was the first president of the American Bible Society._

AS CONGRESS has not yet elected any minister for foreign affairs, and knowing the importance of your being fully informed of every public transaction relative to these States, I have concluded that you would not think it amiss to hear from me on the subject of the removal of Congress to this place, though I can not consider this communication as official, but merely for your information in my individual capacity.

The state of our finances making it indispensably necessary to abridge the public expenses in every instance that would not endanger the Union, we concluded to reduce the army by discharging all the soldiers enlisted for the war, with a proportionate number of officers, on condition that the discharge should operate no otherwise than as a furlough, until the ratification of the definitive treaty.

This not only eased us of a heavy disbursement of ready cash for subsistence money and rations, but gratified many of the army who wished to be at home in the early part of the summer, to provide for the following winter. Three months' pay was ordered which could not otherwise be complied with, but by a paper anticipation of the taxes, payable in six months.

By an inevitable accident, the notes did not arrive at the army till six days after the soldiers were discharged and had left the camp. This, together with some difficulty in settling their accounts, created an uneasiness among the troops, but by the General's address and the good conduct of the officers, they all retired peaceably to their different States, though without a single farthing of cash to buy themselves a meal of victuals.

In the barracks in Philadelphia and at Lancaster, in the State of Pennsylvania, there were a number of new recruits, who had been enlisted since the months of December and January last, and who had not yet taken the field; these soldiers having not been brought under any regular discipline, made many objections against accepting their discharges, and gave their officers reasons to fear some difficulty in getting rid of them; but the Secretary of War thought he had satisfied them by assuring them of the like pay with the rest of the army. On the 15th of June a petition was received from the sergeants, requiring a redress of their grievances, in a very turbulent and indecent style, of which no notice was taken. . . . A committee was immediately appointed to confer with the executive council of Pennsylvania, and to endeavor to get them to call out the militia to stop the mutineers; but to no purpose ; the council thinking that the citizens would not choose to risk themselves when fair means might do. . . . On the 19th the troops arrived and joined those at the barracks in the city, who had been increased in number by a few companies of old soldiers arrived the day before from Charles Town.

The whole being very orderly and quiet, Congress adjourned on Friday the 20th, as usual, till Monday morning. On the 21st one of the committee called on me and informed that the soldiers at the barracks were very disorderly and had cast off the authority of their officers; that it was suspected they had a design, the following night, against the bank, and advised me to call Congress without delay. This I did, to meet in half an hour. The soldiers by accident hearing of it, very fortunately hastened their designs a day or two sooner than was intended. The Members of Congress had just got together, except one, when the State House (in which also the President and Supreme Executive Council were then sitting) was surrounded by about three hundred armed men with fixed bayonets under the command of seven sergeants. Congress immediately sent for General St. Clair and demanded the reason of this hostile appearance, who informed of his having just arrived in town from his seat in the country in obedience to the orders of Congress of the day preceding; that he had received information from the commanding officer of the mutinous disposition of the troops, who had marched from the barracks contrary to the orders of their officers, and that the veteran troops from Charles Town had been unwillingly forced into the measure. The president of the State then appeared, and produced the insolent paper which had been sent into him by the sergeants.

Congress determined they would enter on no deliberations while thus surrounded, but ordered General St. Clair immediately to endeavor to march the mutineers back to the barracks by such means as were in his power.

After several prudent and wise measures the General prevailed on the sergeants to return to their barracks, convincing them that if they were aggrieved they had a right to make it known in a decent manner through any persons they might think proper to appoint. But previous to this, after waiting, surrounded by this armed force for near three hours, Congress broke up and we passed through the files of the Mutineers without the least opposition, though at times before our adjournment the soldiers, many of whom were very drunk, threatened Congress by name.

The mutineers had taken possession of the powder house and several public arsenals in this city, with some field pieces from the public yard.

The committee, not being able to meet the council till Sunday morning, were then prevailed on to wait for an answer till Monday morning. However, hoping that the council would change their sentiments, the committee did not think proper to give me their advice till Tuesday at two o'clock in the afternoon. In the mean time the mutineers kept in arms, refusing all obedience to their officers, and in possession of the powder house and magazines of military stores. On Tuesday morning the officers reported to me that the preceding evening the sergeants, notwithstanding some talk of submission and return to their duty, had presented six officers with a commission each ; and one refusing to accept it, they threatened him with immediate death ; and that, at the time of the report, they were getting very drunk and in a very riotous state. By the second report of the committee you will be acquainted with the particulars of the transaction, with the addition that the behavior of the six officers was very mysterious and unaccountable. At two o'clock, agreeably to the advice of the committee, I summoned Congress to meet at this place on Thursday the 26th of June, issued a proclamation and left the city.

As soon as it was known that Congress was going, the council were informed that there was great reason to expect a serious attack on the Bank the night following, on which the president of the State collected about one hundred soldiers and kept guard all night. On Wednesday it was reported that Congress had sent for the Commander-in-Chief with the whole northern army and the militia of New Jersey, who were to be joined by the Pennsylvania militia, in order to quell the mutiny, which was no otherwise true than ordering a detachment of a few hundred men from the North River. The sergeants, being alarmed, soon proposed a submission, and the whole came in a body to the president of the State, making a most submissive acknowledgment of their misconduct, and charging the whole on two of the officers whom they had commissioned to represent their grievances (a Captain Carbery and Lieutenant Sullivan), who were to have headed them as soon as they should have proceeded to violence. These officers immediately escaped to Chester and then got on board a vessel bound to London.

The sergeants describe the plan laid by these officers as of the most irrational and diabolical nature, not only against Congress and the council, but also against the city and bank. They were to be joined by straggling parties from different parts of the country, and after executing their horrid purposes were to have gone off with their plunder to the East Indies. However incredible this may appear, the letters from Sullivan to Colonel Moyland, his commanding officer, from Chester and the capes, clearly show that it was a deep-laid scheme. It appears clearly to me that next to the continued care of Divine Providence, the miscarriage of this plan is owing to the unexpected meeting of Congress on Saturday, and their decided conduct in leaving the city until they could support the Federal government with dignity.

It is also said that two of the citizens have been concerned in this wicked plot, but they are not yet ascertained. They were certainly encouraged by some of the lower class as well as by the general supineness in not quelling the first movement. Some very suspicious circumstances attending the conduct of the other four officers, who were commissioned by the sergeants, have caused them to be arrested. The whole matter has so far subsided. The detachment under General Howe, from the northern army, has arrived in the vicinity of the city, and a court of enquiry is endeavoring to develop the whole affair The citizens are greatly chagrined at the predicament in which they stand, and endeavor to lay the blame on the council for not calling on them and proving them, while the council justify themselves by the advice of the militia officers, whom they called together for that purpose. The citizens are universally petitioning Congress to return to the city, assuring us of their constant protection.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*Our First Minister To England*

By John Adams.

_NO record of the foreign relations of the struggling Confederacy of this period, 1785, compares with that contained in the journal and letters of John Adams, first American minister to George III and second President of the United States. This letter, dated from the Bath Hotel, Westminster, June 2, 1785, was written to John Jay, then secretary of foreign affairs. Couched, as it is, in diplomatic language, it does not betray the early misgivings Adams had as to the success of his embarrassing mission.

In fact, the relations between the two countries were still such as to make life in London irksome to one of Adams's temperament, and he soon asked to be recalled. His request was dictated by the belief that the service he was trying to render was of no particular benefit to his country. Nevertheless, he remained at his post until 1788, when he returned to become our first Vice-President._

DURING my interview with the Marquis of Carmarthen, he told me that it was customary for every foreign minister, at his first presentation to the King, to make his Majesty some compliments conformable to the spirit of his letter of credence; and when Sir Clement Cottrell Dormer, the master of ceremonies, came to inform me that he should accompany me to the secretary of state and to Court, he said that every foreign minister whom he had attended to the Queen had always made a harangue to her Majesty, and he understood, though he had not been present, that they always harangued the King.

On Tuesday evening, the Baron de Lynden called upon me, and said he came from the Baron de Nolken, and they had been conversing upon the singular situation I was in, and they agreed in opinion that it was indispensable that I should make a speech, and that that speech should be as complimentary as possible. All this was conformable to the advice lately given by the Count de Vergennes to Mr. Jefferson; so that, finding it was a custom established at both these great Courts, and that this Court and the foreign ministers expected it, I thought I could not avoid it, although my first thought and inclination had been to deliver my credentials silently and retire.

At one, on Wednesday, the master of ceremonies called at my house, and went with me to the secretary of state's office, in Cleveland Row, where the Marquis of Carmarthen received me, and introduced me to his under secretary, Mr. Fraser, who has been, as his Lordship told me, uninterruptedly in that office, through all the changes in administration for thirty years, having first been appointed by the Earl of Holderness. After a short conversation upon the subject of importing my effects from Holland and France free of duty, which Mr. Fraser himself introduced, Lord Carmarthen invited me to go with him in his coach to Court.

When we arrived in the antechamber, the oeil de boeuf of St. James's, the master of the ceremonies met me and attended me, while the secretary of state went to take the commands of the King. While I stood in this place, where it seems all ministers stand upon such occasions, always attended by the master of ceremonies, the room very full of ministers of state, lords and bishops, and all sorts of courtiers, as well as the next room, which is the King's bedchamber, you may well suppose I was the focus of all eyes. I was relieved, however, from the embarrassment of it by the Swedish and Dutch ministers, who came to me, and entertained me in a very agreeable conversation during the whole time. Some other gentlemen, whom I had seen before, came to make their compliments too, until the Marquis of Carmarthen returned and desired me to go with him to his Majesty. I went with his Lordship through the levee room into the King's closet. The door was shut. and I was left with his Majesty and the secretary of state alone. I made the three reverences, one at the door, another about half way, and a third before the presence, according to the usage established at this and all the northern Courts of Europe, and then addressed myself to his Majesty in the following words:-
"I beg your Majesty's permission to add, that, although I have some time before been intrusted by my country, it was never in my whole life in a manner so agreeable to myself."

The King listened to every word I said, with dignity, but with an apparent emotion. Whether it was the nature of the interview, or whether it was my visible agitation, for I felt more than I did or could express, that touched him, I cannot say. But he was much affected, and answered me with more tremor than I had spoken with, and said :

"Sir, The circumstances of this audience are so extraordinary, the language you have now held is so extremely proper, and the feelings you have discovered so justly adapted to the occasion, that I must say that I not only receive with pleasure the assurance of the friendly dispositions of the United States, but that I am very glad the choice has fallen upon you to be their minister. I wish you, sir, to believe, and that it may be understood in America, that I have done nothing in the late contest but what I thought myself indispensably bound to do, by the duty which I owed to my people. I will be very frank with you. I was the last to consent to the separation; but the separation having been made, and having become inevitable, I have always said, as I say now, that I would be the first to meet the friendship of the United States as an independent power. The moment I see such sentiments and language as yours prevail, and a disposition to give to this country the preference, that moment I shall say, let the circumstances of language, religion and blood have their natural and full effect."

I dare not say that these were the King's precise words, and, it is even possible, that I may have in some particular mistaken his meaning; for, although his pronunciation is as distinct as I ever heard, he hesitated some time between his periods, and between the members of the same period. He was indeed much affected, and I confess I was not less so, and, therefore, I cannot be certain that I was so cool and attentive, heard so clearly, and understood so perfectly, as to be confident of all his words or sense; and, I think, that all which he said to me should at present be kept secret in America, unless his Majesty or his secretary Of state, who alone was present, should judge proper to report it. This I do say, that the foregoing is his Majesty's meaning as I then understood it, and his own words as nearly as I can recollect them.

The King then asked me whether I came last from France, and upon my answering in the affirmative, he put on an air of familiarity, and, smiling, or rather laughing, said, "there is an opinion among some people that you are not the most attached of all your countrymen to the manners of France." I was surprised at this, because I thought it an indiscretion and a departure from the dignity. I was a little embarrassed, but determined not to deny the truth on one hand, nor leave him to infer from it any attachment to England on the other. I threw off as much gravity as I could, and assumed an air of gayety and a tone of decision as far as was decent, and said, "that opinion, sir, is not mistaken; I must avow to your Majesty, I have no attachment but to my own country." The King replied, as quick as lightning, "an honest man will never have any other."


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*Washington As A Host At Mount Vernon*

By John Bernard.

_BERNARD, from whose "Retrospections of America, 1797-1811" (Harper and Brothers), this article is taken, was a brilliant English actor-manager who came to America in 1797, the year before he met Washington under the circumstances recounted. He was engaged by Wignell, the Philadelphia manager, at 1,000 a year, then a tremendous salary. It was in Philadelphia, where he played not only comedy parts but various Shakespearean roles, that Washington had seen Bernard on the stage and thus was able to recognize the actor in their chance encounter on a Virginia road.

Bernard was a close observer of men and manners. Much of his autobiography dealing with America was lost in manuscript. Of that which has been preserved, the account of his informal visit to Mount Vernon and impressions of Washington is most interesting._

A FEW weeks after my location at Annapolis I met with a most pleasing adventure, noless than an encounter with General Washington, under circumstances which most fully confirmed the impression I had formed of him. I had been to pay a visit to an acquaintance on the banks of the Potomac, a few miles below Alexandria, and was returning on horseback, in the rear of an old-fashioned chaise, the driver of which was strenuously urging his steed to an accelerated pace. The beast showed singular indifference until a lash, directed with more skill than humanity, took the skin from an old wound. The sudden pang threw the poor animal on his hind-legs, and the wheel swerving upon the bank, over went the chaise, flinging out upon the road a young woman who had been its occupant.

The minute before I had perceived a horseman approaching at a gentle trot, who now broke into a gallop, and we reached the scene of the disaster together. The female was our first care. She was insensible, but had sustained no material injury. My companion supported her, while I brought some water in the crown of my hat, from a spring some way off. The driver of the chaise had landed on his legs, and, having ascertained that his spouse was not dead, seemed very well satisfied with the care she was in, and set about extricating his horse. A gush of tears announced the lady's return to sensibility, and then, as her eyes opened, her tongue gradually resumed its office, and assured us that she retained at least one faculty in perfection, as she poured forth a volley of invectives on her mate. The horse was now on his legs, but the vehicle still prostrate, heavy in its frame, and laden with at least half a ton of luggage. My fellow-helper set me an example of activity in relieving it-of the external weight; and, when all was clear, we grasped the wheel between us and, to the peril of our spinal columns, righted the conveyance. The horse was then put in, and we lent a hand to help up the luggage. All this helping, hauling, and lifting occupied at least half an hour, under a meridian sun in the middle of July, which fairly boiled the perspiration out of our foreheads.

Our unfortunate friend somewhat relieved the task with his narrative. He was a New Englander who had emigrated to the South when young, there picked up a wife and some money, and was now on his way home, having, he told us, been "made very comfortable" by the death of his father; and when all was right, and we had assisted the lady to resume her seat, he begged us to proceed with him to Alexandria, and take a drop of "something sociable." Finding, however, that we were unsociable, he extended his hand (no distant likeness of a seal's fin), gripped ours as he had done the heavy boxes, and, when we had sufficiently felt that he was grateful, drove on. My companion, after an exclamation at the heat, offered very courteously to dust my coat, a favor the return of which enabled me to take a deliberate survey of his person. He was a tall, erect, well-made man, evidently advanced in years, but who appeared to have retained all the vigor and elasticity resulting from a life of temperance and exercise. His dress was a blue coat buttoned to the chin, and buckskin breeches. Though, the instant he took off his hat, I could not avoid the recognition of familiar lineaments which, indeed, I was in the habit of seeing on every sign-post and over every fireplace still I failed to identify him, and, to my surprise, I found that I was an object of equal speculation in his eyes. A smile at length lighted them up, and he exclaimed, "Mr. Bernard, I believe?" I bowed. "I had the pleasure of seeing you perform last winter in Philadelphia." I bowed again, and he added, "I have heard of you since from several of my friends at Annapolis. You are acquainted with Mr. Carroll?" I replied that that gentleman's society had made amends for much that I had lost in quitting England.

He then learned the cause of my presence in the neighborhood, and remarked, "You must be fatigued. If you will ride up to my house, which is not a mile distant, you can prevent any ill-effects from this exertion, by a couple of hours' rest." I looked round for his dwelling, and he pointed to a building which, the day before, I had spent an hour in contemplating.

"Mount Vernon!" I exclaimed; and then, drawing back, with a stare of wonder, "have I the honor of addressing General Washington?" With a smile, whose expression of benevolence I have rarely seen equaled, he offered his hand and replied, "An odd sort of introduction, Mr. Bernard; but I am pleased to find you can play so active a part in private, and without a prompter." He then pointed to our horses (which had stood like statues all this time, as though in sympathy with their fallen brother), and shrugged his shoulders at the inn. I needed no further stimulus to accept his friendly invitation. As we rode up to his house we entered freely into conversation, first, in reference to his friends at Annapolis, then respecting my own success in America and the impressions I had received of the country.

Flattering as such inquiries were from such a source, I must confess my own reflections on what had just passed were more absorbing. Considering that nine ordinary country gentlemen out of ten, who had seen a chaise upset near their estate, would have thought it savored neither of pride nor ill-nature to ride home and send their servants to its assistance, I could not but think that I had witnessed one of the strongest evidences of a great man's claim to his reputation the prompt, impulsive working of a heart which having made the good of mankind not conventional forms its religion, was never so happy as in practically displaying it. On reaching the house (which, in its compact simplicity and commanding elevation, was no bad emblem of its owner's mind), we found that Mrs. Washington was indisposed; but the general ordered refreshments in a parlor whose windows took a noble range of the Potomac, and, after a few minutes' absence, rejoined me.

Though I have ventured to offer some remarks on his less-known contemporaries, I feel it would be impertinence to say a word on the public merits of a man whose character has been burning as a beacon to Europe till its qualities are as well known as the names and dates of his triumphs. My retrospect of him is purely a social one, and much do I regret, for the interest of these pages, that it is confined to a single interview. The general impression I received from his appearance fully corresponded with the description of him by the Marquis de Chastelleux, who visited America at the close of the war.

"The great characteristic of Washington," says he, "is the perfect union which seems to subsist between his moral and physical qualities; so that the selection of one would enable you to judge of all the rest. If you are presented with medals of Trajan or Caesar, the features will lead you to inquire the proportions of their persons ; but if you should discover in a heap of ruins the leg or arm of an antique Apollo, you would not be curious about the other parts, but content yourself with the assurance that they were all conformable to those of a god." Though fourteen years had elapsed since this was written, I could perceive that it was far from being the language of mere enthusiasm. Whether you surveyed his face, open yet well-defined, dignified but not arrogant, thoughtful but benign; his frame, towering and muscular, but alert from its good proportion every feature suggested a resemblance to the spirit it encased, and showed simplicity in alliance with the sublime. The impression, therefore, was that of a most perfect whole; and though the effect of proportion is said to be to reduce the idea of magnitude, you could not but think you looked upon a wonder, and something sacred as well as wonderful a man fashioned by the hand of Heaven, with every requisite to achieve a great work. Thus a feeling of awe and veneration stole over you.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*The Death Of Washington*

By John Marshall.

_THIS account is taken from Marshall's "Life of Washington," written at the request of Washington's nephew, Bushrod Washington, and published in five volumes in 1804-07, the "Father of His Country" having died at Mount Vernon on December 14, 1799. The author, the most famous of American jurists, was Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and his home was on the Potomac, near Mount Vernon. He and Washington were friends as well as neighbors for many years, and no one was better qualified to estimate the character and appraise the greatness of our first President.

Although Marshall does not record them, it is well to remember that Washington's last words were, "I feel myself going. I thank you for your attentions; but I pray you to take no more trouble about me. Let me go off quietly. I cannot last long."_

ON Friday, the 13th of December, while attending to improvements on his estate, Washington was exposed to a light rain, by which his neck and hair became wet. Not apprehending danger from this circumstance, he passed the afternoon in the usual manner; but in the night was seized with an inflammatory affection of the windpipe. The disease commenced with a violent ague, accompanied with some pain in the upper and fore part of the throat, a sense of stricture in the same part, a cough, and a difficult deglutition, which were soon succeeded by fever, and a quick and laborious respiration.

Twelve or fourteen ounces of blood were taken from his arm, but he would not permit a messenger to be dispatched for his family physician until the appearance of day. About eleven in the morning, Doctor Craik arrived; and, perceiving the extreme danger of the case, requested that two consulting physicians should be immediately sent for. The utmost exertion of medical skill were applied in vain. The powers of life were manifestly yielding to the force of the disorder; speaking became most impracticable, respiration became more and more contracted and imperfect, until half-past eleven on Saturday night, when, retaining the full possession of his intellect, he expired without a struggle.

During the short period of his illness he economized his time in arranging those few concerns which required his attention; and anticipated his approaching dissolution with every demonstration of that equanimity for which his life was so uniformly and singularly conspicuous.

The deep and wide-spreading grief occasioned by this melancholy event, assembled a great concourse of people for the purpose of paying the last tribute of respect to the first of Americans. His body, attended by military honors, and the ceremonies of religion, was deposited in the family vault at Mount Vernon on Wednesday, the 28th of December.

At the seat of government the intelligence of his death preceded that of his indisposition. On receiving it both Houses of Congress adjourned. On the succeeding day, as soon as the orders were read, the House of Representatives passed several resolutions expressive of their deep feeling for the illustrious deceased, the last of which directed, "that a committee in conjunction with one from the Senate, be appointed to consider on the most suitable manner of paying honor to the memory of the man, first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his fellow citizens."

Immediately after the passage of these resolutions, a written message was received from the President accompanying a letter from Mr. Lear, [Washington's private secretary] in which he Said, "will inform you that it had pleased Divine Providence to remove from this life our illustrious fellow citizen George Washington, by the purity of his life, and a long series of services to his country, rendered illustrious through the world. It remains for an affectionate and grateful people, in whose hearts he can never die, to pay suitable honor to his memory."

The members of the House of Representatives waited on the President in pursuance of a resolution which had been passed, and the Senate addressed a letter to him condoling with him on the loss the nation had sustained, in terms expressing their deep sense of the worth of the deceased. The President reciprocated, in his communications to each House, the same deep-felt and affectionate respect "for the most illustrious and beloved personage America had ever produced."

The halls of both Houses were shrouded in black, and the members wore mourning for the residue of the session. The joint committee which had been appointed to devise the mode by which the nation should express its feelings on this melancholy occasion, reported the following resolutions :

"That a marble monument be erected by the United States at the city of Washington, and that the family of General Washington be requested to permit his body to be deposited under it; and that the monument be so designed as to commemorate the great events of his military and political life.

"That there be a funeral procession from Congress Hall to the German Lutheran Church, in memory of General Washington, on Thursday the 26th instant, and that an oration be prepared at the request of Congress, to be delivered before both Houses on that day; and that the President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House of Representatives, be desired to request one of the members of Congress to prepare and deliver the same.

"That it be recommended to the people of the United States to wear crape on the left arm as a mourning for thirty days.

"That the President of the United States be requested to direct a copy of these resolutions to be transmitted to Mrs. Washington, assuring her of the profound respect Congress will ever bear to her person and character, of their condolence on the late affecting dispensation of Providence, and entreating her assent to the interment of the remains of General Washington in the manner expressed in the first resolution.

"That the President be requested to issue his proclamation, notifying to the people throughout the United States the recommendation contained in the third resolution."

These resolutions passed both Houses unanimously; and those which would admit of immediate execution were carried into effect. The whole nation appeared in mourning. The funeral procession was grand and solemn; and the eloquent oration, which was delivered by General Lee, was heard with profound attention and with deep interest. Similar marks of affliction were exhibited throughout the United States. In every part of the continent funeral orations were delivered, and the best talents of the nation were devoted to an expression of its grief.

To the letter of the President which transmitted to Mrs. Washington the resolutions of Congress, that lady answered: "Taught by the great example which I have so long had before me, never to oppose my private wishes to the public will, I must consent to the request made by Congress, which you have had the goodness to transmit to me; and in doing this, I need not, I cannot say what a sacrifice of individual feeling I make to a sense of public duty."

The monument, however, has not been erected. That the great events of the political as well as military life of General Washington should be commemorated, could not be pleasing to those who had condemned, and who continued to condemn, the whole course of his administration. This resolution, although it passed unanimously, had many enemies. That party which had long constituted the opposition, and which, though the minority for the moment, nearly divided the House of Representatives, declared its preference for the equestrian statue which had been voted by Congress at the close of the war. The division between a statue and a monument was so nearly equal, that the session passed away without appropriation for either. The public feeling soon subsided, and those who quickly recovered their ascendency over the public sentiment, employed their influence to draw odium on the men who favored a monument; to represent that measure as a part of a general system to waste the public money; and to impress the idea that the only proper monument to the memory of a meritorious citizen was that which the people would erect in their affections. A man who professed an opinion in favor of the monument was soon branded with the mark of an anti-republican.

General Washington was rather above the common size. His frame was robust, and his constitution vigorous. His figure created in the beholder the idea of strength united with manly grace.

His manners were rather reserved than free; though on all proper occasions he could relax sufficiently to show how highly he was gratified by the charms of conversation, and the pleasures of society. His person and whole deportment exhibited an unaffected and indescribable dignity, unmingled with haughtiness, of which all who approached him were sensible; and the attachment of those who possessed his friendship and enjoyed his intimacy, though ardent, was always respectful.

His temper was humane, benevolent, and conciliatory; but there was a quickness in his sensibility to anything apparently offensive, which experience had taught him to watch and to correct.

In the management of his private affairs, he exhibited an exact yet liberal economy. His funds were not wasted on capricious and ill-examined schemes, nor refused to beneficial, though costly improvements. They remained, therefore, competent to that expensive establishment which his reputation, added to a hospitable temper, had, in some measure, imposed upon him; and to those donations which real distress has a right to claim from opulence.

He had no pretensions to that vivacity which fascinates, or to that wit which dazzles, and frequently imposes on the understanding. More solid than brilliant, judgment rather than genius constituted the prominent feature of his character.

No man has ever appeared upon the theater of human action whose integrity was more incorruptible, or whose principles were more perfectly free from the contamination of those selfish and unworthy passions which find their nourishment in the conflicts of party. His ends were always upright, and his means always pure. He exhibits the rare example of a politician to whom wiles were absolutely unknown. In him was fully exemplified the real distinction between wisdom and cunning, and the truth of the maxim that "honesty is the best policy."

Neither the extraordinary partiality of the American people, the extravagant praises which were bestowed upon him, nor the inveterate opposition and malignant calumnies which he encountered, had any visible influence on his conduct. The cause is to be looked for in the texture of his mind.

In him, that innate and unassuming modesty which adulation would have offended, which the voluntary plaudits of millions could not betray into indiscretion, and which never obtruded upon others his claims to superior consideration, was happily blended with a high and correct sense of personal dignity, and with a just consciousness of that respect which is due to station.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*The Public Land Problem*

By Thomas Paine.

_THIS attack by Thomas Paine on Virginia's unlimited claims to western territory followed closely upon an appeal to Congress from the settlers of Kentucky, denying the rights of Virginia to govern what was known as the Illinois country, or Northwest Territory, as a dependency, and asking to be taken into the Union as a State. The aforesaid territory, including Kentucky proper, had been acquired by conquest of Colonel George Rogers Clark the year before Paine wrote this remonstrance.

Following the British defeat at Yorktown, the conflicting claims of other colonies and land companies, and the refusal of Maryland otherwise to join the Union, led Virginia, in 1784, to cede the disputed territory to the Confederation largely as a result of public opinion growing out of this article reserving only a small portion for her war veterans._

THE condition of the vacant western territory of America makes a very different case to that of the circumstances of trade in any of the States. Those very lands, formed, in contemplation, the fund by which the debt of America would in a course of years be redeemed. They were considered as the common right of all; and it is only till lately that any pretension of claims has been made to the contrary.

In the year 1609, the South-Virginia company applied for new powers from the Crown of England, which were granted them in a new patent, and the boundaries of the grant enlarged; and this is the charter or patent on which some of the present Virginians ground their pretension to boundless territory.

But whether the charter, as it is called, ought to be extinct or not, cannot make a question with us. All the parties concerned in it are deceased, and no successors, in any regular line of succession, appear to claim. Neither the London company of adventurers, their heirs or assigns, were in possession of the exercise of this charter at the commencement of the Revolution; and therefore the State of Virginia does not, in point of fact, succeed to and inherit from the company.

But if, as I before mentioned, there was a charter, which bore such an explanation, and that Virginia stood in succession to it, what would that be to us any more than the will of Alexander, had he taken it in his head to have bequeathed away the world? Such a charter or grant must have been obtained by imposition and a false representation of the country, or granted in error, or both; and in any of, or all, these cases, the United States must reject the matter as something they can know nothing of, for the merits Will not bear an argument, and the pretention of right stands upon no better ground.

The claim being unreasonable in itself and standing on no ground of right, but such as, if true, must from the quarter it is drawn be offensive, has a tendency to create disgust and sour the minds of the rest of the states. Those lands are capable, under the management of the United States, of repaying the charges of the war, and some of which, as I shall hereafter show, might, I presume, be made an immediate advantage of.

I distinguish three different descriptions of lands in America at the commencement of the Revolution. Proprietary or chartered lands, as was the case in Pennsylvania. Crown lands, within the described limits of any of the crown governments; and crown residuary lands that were without or beyond the limits of any province; and those last were held in reserve whereon to erect new governments and lay out new provinces; as appears to have been the design by Lord Hillsborough's letter and the president's answer, wherein he says "with respect to the establishment of a new colony on the back of Virginia, it is a subject of too great political importance for me to presume to give an opinion upon ; however permit me, my lord, to observe, that when that part of the country shall become populated it may be a wise and prudent measure.

The expression is a "new colony on the back of Virginia and referred to lands between the heads of the rivers and the Ohio. This is a proof that those lands were not considered within but beyond the limits of Virginia as a colony; and the other expression in the letter is equally descriptive, namely, "We do not presume to say to whom our gracious sovereign shall grant his vacant lands." Certainly then, the same right, which, at that time, rested in the crown rests now in the more supreme authority of the United States.

It must occur to every person on reflection that those lands are too distant to be within the government of any of the present States.

It is only the United States, and not any single State, that can lay off new States and incorporate them in the union by representation; therefore the situation which the settlers on those lands will be in, under the assumed right of Virginia, will be hazardous and distressing, and they will feel themselves at last like aliens to the commonwealth of Israel, their habitations unsafe and their title precarious.

It seldom happens that the romantic schemes of extensive dominion are of any service to a government, and never to a people. They assuredly end at last in loss, trouble, division and disappointment. And was even the title of Virginia good, and the claim admissible, she would derive more lasting and real benefit by participating it than by attempting the management of an object so infinitely beyond her reach. Her share with the rest, under the supremacy of the United States, which is the only authority adequate to the purpose, would be worth more to her, than what the whole would produce under the management of herself alone, and that for several reasons.

First, because her claim not being admissible nor yet manageable, she cannot make a good title to the purchasers, and consequently can get but little for the lands.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*Facing Bankruptcy And Mutiny*

By John Fiske.

_THE fate of the Republic has never been more precarious than during the period that immediately followed the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown. There was no money to pay off the army, and the soldiers were daily becoming more restive and irritated.

Newburgh, New York, was the headquarters of the army from March, 1782, until the latter part of 1783, and it was there that the Newburgh Addresses were circulated, that the army was disbanded, and that Washington received the famous Nicola letter proposing that he become King. There is no doubt, as the historian, Fiske, indicates, but that Washington could have formed a monarchy at this time and been almost unanimously supported by the army. Its mutinous temper is manifested in this review, taken from John Fiske's "Critical Period of American History" and is reprinted here by special arrangement with the publishers, Houghton, Mifflin and Company._

IMPOSSIBLE as Congress found it to fill the quotas of the army, the task of raising a revenue by requisitions upon the States was even more discouraging. Every State had its own war debt, and several were applicants for foreign loans not easy to obtain, so that none could without the greatest difficulty raise a surplus to hand over to Congress. The Continental rag money had ceased to circulate by the end of 1780, and our foreign credit was nearly ruined. The French Government began to complain of the heavy demands which the Americans made upon its exchequer, and Vergennes, in sending over a new loan in the fall of 1782, warned Franklin that no more must be expected. To save American credit from destruction it was at least necessary that the interest on the public debt should be paid. For this purpose Congress in 1781 asked permission to levy a five per cent. duty on imports. The modest request was the signal for a year of angry discussion. Again and again it was asked, If taxes could thus be levied by any power outside the State, why had we ever opposed the Stamp Act or the tea duties? The question was indeed a serious one, and as an instance of reasoning from analogy seemed plausible enough. After more than a year Massachusetts consented, by a bare majority of two in the House and one in the Senate, reserving to herself the right of appointing the collectors. The bill was then vetoed by Governor Hancock, though one day too late, and so it was saved. But Rhode Island flatly refused her consent, and so did Virginia, though Madison earnestly pleaded the cause of the public credit. For the current expenses of the government in that same year $9,000,000 were needed. It was calculated that $4,000,000 might be raised by a loan, and the other $5,000,000 were demanded of the States. At the end of the year $422,000 had been collected, not a cent of which came from Georgia, the Carolinas, or Delaware. Rhode Island, which paid $38,000, did the best of all according to its resources. Of the Continental taxes assessed in 1783, only one-fifth part had been paid by the middle of 1785. And the worst of it was that no one could point to a remedy for this state of things, or assign any probable end to it.

Under such circumstances the public credit sank at home as well as abroad. Foreign creditors even France, who had been nothing if not generous with her loans might be made to wait; but there were creditors at home who, should they prove ugly, could not be so easily put off. The disbandment of the army in the summer of 1783, before the British troops had evacuated New York, was hastened by the impossibility of paying the soldiers and the dread of what they might do under such provocation. Though peace had been officially announced, Hamilton and Livingston urged that, for the sake of appearances if for no other reason, the army should be kept together so long as the British remained in New York, if not until they should have surrendered the western frontier posts. But Congress could not pay the army, and was afraid of it, and not without some reason. Discouraged at the length of time which had passed since they had received any money, the soldiers had begun to fear lest, now that their services were no longer needed, their honest claims would be set aside. . . . At this critical moment Washington had earnestly appealed to Congress, and against the strenuous opposition of Samuel Adams had at length extorted the promise of half-pay for life. In the spring of 1782, seeing the utter inability of Congress to discharge its pecuniary obligations, many officers began to doubt Whether the promise would ever be kept. It had been made before the Articles of Confederation, which required the assent of nine States to any such measure, had been finally ratified. It was well known that nine States had never been found to favor the measure, and it was now feared that it might be repealed or repudiated, so loud was the popular clamor against it.

All this comes of republican government, said some of the officers; too many cooks spoil the broth ; a dozen heads are as bad as no head; you do not know whose promises to trust; a monarchy, with a good king whom all men can trust, would extricate us from these difficulties. In this mood, Colonel Louis Nicola, of the Pennsylvania line, a foreigner by birth, addressed a long and well-argued letter to Washington, setting forth the troubles of the time, and urging him to come forward as a savior of society, and accept the crown at the hands of his faithful soldiers. Nicola was an aged man, of excellent character, and in making this suggestion he seemed to be acting as spokesman of a certain clique or party among the officers how numerous is not known. Washington instantly replied that Nicola could not have found a person to whom such a scheme could be more odious, and he was at a loss to conceive what he had ever done to have it supposed that he could for one moment listen to a suggestion so fraught with mischief to his country. Lest the affair, becoming known, should enhance the popular distrust of the army, Washington said nothing about it. But as the year went by, and the outcry against half-pay continued, and Congress showed symptoms of a willingness to compromise the matter, the discontent of the army increased. Officers and soldiers brooded alike over their wrongs. "The Army," said General Macdougall, "is verging to that state which, we are told, will make a wise man mad." The peril of the situation was increased by the well-meant but injudicious whisperings of other public creditors, who believed that if the army would only take a firm stand and insist upon a grant of permanent funds to Congress for liquidating all public debts, the States could probably be prevailed upon to make such a grant. Robert Morris, the able Secretary of Finance, held this opinion, and did not believe that the States could be brought to terms in any other way. His namesake and assistant, Gouverneur Morris, held similar views, and gave expression to them in February, 1783, in a letter to General Greene, who was still commanding in South Carolina. When Greene received the letter, he urged upon the legislature of that State, in most guarded and moderate language, the paramount need of granting a revenue to Congress, and hinted that the army would not be satisfied with anything less. The assembly straightway flew into a rage, and shouted, "No dictation by a Cromwell!" South Carolina had consented to the five per cent. impost, but now she revoked it, to show her independence ; and Greene's eyes were opened at once to the danger of the slightest appearance of military intervention in civil affairs.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*Why The West Would Not Secede*

By General Rufus Putnam.

_THE West referred to here comprised the country west of the Alleghenies extending southward from the Great Lakes and east of the Mississippi. At the time (January, 1790) that General Putnam wrote this letter to Fisher Ames, Congressman from Massachusetts, the Louisiana Purchase was not even contemplated.

Putnam, a Revolutionary veteran, was one of the organizers of the Ohio Company, to which Congress deeded 1,500,000 acres of land at the junction of the Ohio and Muskingum Rivers at 66 2/3 cents an acre. As director of the company, he led the first party of settlers to the new frontier, laying out Marietta, the first organized settlement in the Northwest Territory. He was one of the judges of its United States Court, and founded the first Bible society west of the Alleghenies.

No one in his time could speak with greater authority of anything pertaining to the vast territory comprising the eastern half of the Mississippi Basin._

IN conversation with you at New York in July last (if I recollect right), you made this a question: "Can we retain the western country within the government of the United States? And if we can, of what use will it be to them?"

That they may be retained appears to me evident from the following consideration, viz., that it will always be their interest that they should remain connected. . . . It is true that flour, hemp, tobacco, iron, potash and such bulky articles will go down the Mississippi to New Orleans for market, and there be sold, or shipped to the Atlantic States, Europe and West Indies; and it is also admitted that the countries west of the mountains and below or to the southward of the junction of the Ohio with the Mississippi may import goods from New Orleans; and then it is absolutely necessary that the people of the western country, in some way or other, at a proper period, should be possessed of the free navigation of the Mississippi River. It does not, however, follow from hence that it will be for their interest to lose their connection with the Atlantic States; but the contrary will appear if we consider that all the beef, pork, and mutton (from a very great part of the western country) will come to the seaports of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania to market. Also, most of the furs and skins, etc., obtained by the Indian trade can be sent to those places and New York much more to the advantage of the West country people than they can be sent to New Orleans and Quebec. Besides, all the goods for carrying on the Indian trade, as well as supplying the inhabitants even to the Kentucky and Wabash countries, are at present imported into that country from Philadelphia, Baltimore, Alexandria, etc., much cheaper than they can be obtained from New Orleans or Quebec.

There is also not the least doubt but when the navigation of the Potomac is completed, with the carrying-place to the Monongahela, according to the plan of the undertakers, the transport of goods into the western country will be lowered fifty per cent; and should other communication be opened, which no doubt will be, between the Susquehanna and Alleghany rivers, James river and the Great Kanawha, the expense of transportation will be reduced still lower. In short, from the seaports of the United States to Niagara, Detroit, and even of the Lake of the Woods, goods can be supplied much cheaper than from any other quarter.

From this statement of facts, which I presume can not be disproved, I conceive it fully appears to be the interest of the people of the Western country to remain a part of the United States. If it be said that they may be separated and yet retain all the advantages of trade here mentioned, I answer that it is possible, but by no means probable; for (admitting the separation was not hostile) it is by no means reasonable to suppose that the legislature of the United States would pay the same attention to the subjects of a foreign power as to their own. Nor is it to be presumed that those people will ever forget that while they remain a part of the Union, they will have their voice in the councils of the nation, and that no law can pass but what must affect their brethren on this side of the mountains, as well as themselves. To be deprived of a commerce with the United States would be greatly to the injury, if not the ruin, of that country; and to voluntarily deny themselves a voice in the regulation of that commerce, and trust themselves (without any check or control) in the hand of those whose interest would be distinct from their own, is a folly I trust they never will be guilty of.

But it may be said there are advantages to be gained which will overbalance all this loss. Pray let us attend a little to this matter. Will they put themselves under the viceroy of Canada? What will be their gain here? A legislative council of the King's own appointment gives law to the province, except that the whole is under the control of a military governor. A few, by permission from Lord Dorchester, or somebody else, may carry goods into the Indian country, but returns must be made to Quebec. Surely, this government can never suit their genius, nor be for their interest. Nor is the advantage to be derived from the Spanish government much better. It is true that New Orleans will be a great mart for their produce, but it is very doubtful if they were Spanish subjects whether they would enjoy greater privileges than they might without. The inhabitants would certainly have no voice in the matter, but must be subject to the will of a despot. They could expect no indulgence but what should comport with the interest of the governor and Spanish Court; and this they may reasonably expect, even should they remain part of the United States, so that if the object be to unite them with Great Britain or Spain, I see nothing that is in the least degree worth their attention.

Perhaps the idea is that they should set up for a separate independent government. This maggot, I know, is in the heads of some people; therefore we will consider it a little and see if we can find it to be for their interest. For argument's sake, we will suppose the United States to consent to all this, we will suppose, moreover, that they grant a free trade to the subjects of this new government, and then pray tell me what they will be the better for it? Nay, will they not be in a much worse situation? Will they not incur a great expense to support their new government beyond what their proportion to the old can possibly be? And can it then be for their interest to be separated?

It may be said that they want a free trade to New Orleans, and thence to the sea; that while they remain a part of the United States, this is not likely to be obtained; that the interest of the old States and theirs in this respect is inconsistent with each other; that the object is, first to separate themselves from the Union, and then to clear the river of the Spaniards. This, I have heard, is the language of some people in Kentucky; but is it rational? Will the measure be for their interest, and, if not for their interest, are we to suppose the measure will be pursued? Have these people considered that the United States are deeply interested in opposing such separation? Have they considered that driving the Spaniards out of the river will not give them a free trade to the sea? Do they know that the harbors of Pensacola and Havana are so situated that, a few cruisers from them sent into the Bay, not one vessel in a thousand going from or returning to the Mississippi would escape falling into their hands? No, Sir; so far would such a measure be from giving them a free trade to the sea, that it would put an end to their present market, and all reasonable prospects of a compensation for the loss. Nor do I conceive that the interests of the Atlantic States and the Western country, as it respects the navigation of the Mississippi, by any means clash. For it is for the interest of the United States that flour, tobacco, potash, iron and lumber of all kinds, with ships ready built, should be sent to Europe and the West Indies by way of remittance for goods obtained from those countries. If hemp, flax, iron and many other raw materials be of any use to be brought into the Atlantic States for the purpose of manufacturing, then it is the interest of those States that the navigation of the Mississippi should be free.

. . . I do not deny but what such circumstances may exist as shall not only make it the wish of some, but of all, the inhabitants of that country to be separated from the old States, but what I contend for is, that these circumstances do not, nor even can (if I may be allowed the expression) exist naturally. I allow that, should Congress give up her claim to the navigation of the Mississippi or cede it to the Spaniards, I believe the people in the Western quarter would separate themselves from the United States very soon. Such a measure, I have no doubt, would excite so much rage and dissatisfaction that the people would sooner put themselves under the despotic government of Spain than remain the indented servants of Congress ; or should Congress by any means fail to give the inhabitants of that country such protection as their present infant state requires, connected with the interest and dignity of the United States; in that case such events may take place as will oblige the inhabitants of that country to put themselves under the protection of Great Britain or Spain. . . . But . . . we are not to suppose that Congress will do wrong when it is their interest to do right.

. . . But there is another point of light in which we ought to consider this matter, for if we would know the real advantage that country must be to this, remaining united, we ought to consider what probable mischief will ensue by a division. Among these may be reckoned the loss of more than seventy-five million dollars in the sale of lands, an annual revenue of more than one hundred and sixty thousand dollars on European and West India goods, with all the advantages that can possibly arise from the peltry trade. And, what is a matter of serious consideration, it is more than probable (in case of a separation from the United States) that country would be divided between Great Britain and Spain, for I can see no reason to suppose they will maintain a separate existence. Then I suppose the western boundary of the United States must be the Alleghany Mountains. A miserable frontier this (and yet the best to be found if we give up the Western country) that will require more expense to guard than the protection of all the Western territory. The natural boundaries of the great lakes and the Mississippi River added to the inhabitants of the western quarter will give such strength and security to the old States, if properly attended to, as they must most sensibly feel the want of in case of a separation.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*View Of The Powers Vested In The Union*

By James Madison.

THE Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered under two general points of view. The first relates to the sum or quantity of power which it vests in the government, including the restraints imposed on the States. The second, to the particular structure of the government, and the distribution of this power among its several branches.

Under the first view of the subject, two important questions arise: 1. Whether any part of the powers transferred to the general government be unnecessary or improper? 2. Whether the entire mass of them be dangerous to the portion of jurisdiction left in the several States?

Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it? This is the first question.

It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good-sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field of rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the greater, not the perfect, good; and that, in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.

That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done, they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.

The powers falling within the first class are those of declaring war, and granting letters of marque; of providing armies and fleets; of regulating and calling forth the militia; of levying and borrowing money.

Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed and essential object of the American Union. The powers requisite for attaining it must be effectually confided to the Federal councils.

Is the power of declaring war necessary? No man will answer this question in the negative. It would be superfluous, therefore, to enter into a proof of the affirmative. The existing confederation establishes this power in the most ample form.

Is the power of raising armies and equipping fleets necessary? This is involved in the foregoing power. It is involved in the power of self-defense.

But was it necessary to give an indefinite power of raising troops, as well as providing fleets; and of maintaining both in peace as well as in war?

The answer to these questions has been too far anticipated in another place to admit an extensive discussion of them in this place. The answer indeed seems to be so obvious and conclusive, as scarcely to justify such a discussion in any place. With what color of propriety could the force necessary for defense be limited by those who cannot limit the force of offense? If a Federal Constitution could chain the ambition, or set bounds to the exertions of all other nations, then indeed might it prudently chain the discretion of its own government, and set bounds to the exertions for its own safety.

How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation? The means of security can only be regulated by the means and the danger of attack. They will in fact be ever determined by these rules, and by no others. It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation. It is worse than in vain: because it plants in the Constitution itself necessary usurpations of power, every precedent of which is a germ of unnecessary and multiplied repetitions. If one nation maintains constantly a disciplined army, ready for the service of ambition or revenge, it obliges the most pacific nations, who may be within the reach of its enterprises, to take corresponding precautions.

The clearest marks of this prudence are stamped on the proposed Constitution. The Union itself, which it cements and secures, destroys every pretext for a military establishment which could be dangerous. America united, with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition, than America disunited with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat. It was remarked, on a former occasion, that the want of this pretext had saved the liberties of one nation in Europe. Being rendered, by her insular situation and her maritime resources, impregnable to the armies of her neighbors, the rulers of Great Britain have never been able, by real or artificial dangers, to cheat the public into an extensive peace establishment. The distance of the United States from the powerful nations of the world, gives them the same happy security.

Next to the effectual establishment of the Union, the best possible precaution against danger from standing armies is a limitation of the term for which revenue may be appropriated to their support. This precaution the constitution has prudently added. I will not repeat here the observations, which I flatter myself have placed this subject in a just and satisfactory light. But it may not be improper to take notice of an argument against this part of the constitution, which has been drawn from the policy and practice of Great Britain. It is said that the continuance of an army in that kingdom requires an annual vote of the legislature, whereas the American constitution has lengthened this critical period to two years. This is the form in which the comparison is usually stated to the public: but is it a just form? is it a fair comparison? Does the British constitution restrain the parliamentary discretion to one year? Does the American impose on the congress appropriations for two years? On the contrary, it cannot be unknown to the authors of the fallacy themselves, that the British constitution fixes no limit whatever to the discretion of the legislature, and that the American ties down the legislature to two years, as the longest admissible term.

Had the argument from the British example been truly stated, it would have stood thus : the term for which supplies may be appropriated to the army establishment, though unlimited by the British constitution, has nevertheless in practice been limited by parliamentary discretion to a single year. Now, if in Great Britain, where the House of Commons is elected for seven years, where so great a proportion of the members are elected by so small a proportion of the people, where the electors are so corrupted by the representatives, and the representatives so corrupted by the crown, the representative body can possess a power to make appropriations to the army for an indefinite term, without desiring, or without daring, to extend the term beyond a single year; ought not suspicion herself to blush in pretending that the representatives of the United States, elected freely by the whole body of the people, every second year, cannot be safely intrusted with a discretion over such appropriations, expressly limited to the short period of two years?

A bad cause seldom fails to betray itself. Of this truth, the management of the opposition to the Federal government is an unvaried exemplification. But among all the blunders which have been committed, none is more striking than the attempt to enlist on that side the prudent jealousy entertained by the people, of standing armies. The attempt has awakened fully the public attention to that important subject; and has led to investigations which must terminate in a thorough and universal conviction, not only that the Constitution has provided the most effectual guards against danger from that quarter, but that nothing short of a Constitution fully adequate to the national defense, and the preservation of the Union, can save America from as many standing armies as it may be split into States or confederacies; and from such a progressive augmentation of these establishments in each, as will render them as burdensome to the properties, and ominous to the liberties of the people, as any establishment that can become necessary, under a united and efficient government, must be tolerable to the former and safe to the latter.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*A New World Power*

By Thomas Pownall.

_AT THE time Pownall wrote this article, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, he was a Member of Parliament and introduced a bill for making peace with the United States, which he previously had declared were lost forever as English colonies. The bill was defeated, largely because Pownall, although he had attended the Albany Congress in 1754, and had been governor of Massachusetts from 1757 to 1760, was regarded as a visionary. This is the first published prophecy of the future greatness of the United States as a sovereign nation.

Posterity credits Pownall with Possessing deep insight in foreseeing, among other things, the future preponderance of the English race in America. He had an instinctive grasp of American political tendencies, and was a supporter of the rights of the colonies._

NORTH AMERICA is become a new primary planet in the system of the world, which while it takes its own course, in its own orbit, must have effect on the orbit of every other planet, and shift the common center of gravity of the whole system of the European world.

North America is de facto an independent power which has taken its equal station with other powers, and must be so de jure. The politicians of the Governments of Europe may reason or negotiate upon this idea, as a matter sub lite. The powers of those Governments may fight about it as a new power coming into establishment; such negotiations, and such wars, are of no consequence either to the right or the fact. It would be just as wise, and just as effectual, if they were to go to war to decide, or set on foot negotiations to settle, to whom for the future the sovereignty of the moon should belong. The moon has been long common to them all, and they may all in their turns profit of her reflected light. The independence of America is fixed as fate; she is mistress of her own fortune; knows that she is so, and will actuate that power which she feels she has, so as to establish her own system, and to change the system of Europe.

If the powers of Europe will view the state of things as they do really exist, and will treat them as being what they are, the lives of thousands may be spared; the happiness of millions may be secured; and the peace of the whole world preserved. If they will not, they will be plunged into a sea of troubles, a sea of blood, fathomless and boundless. The war that has begun to rage betwixt Britain, France and Spain, which is almost gorged betwixt Britain and America, will extend itself to all the maritime, and most likely, afterwards, to all the inland powers of Europe; and like the Thirty Years' War of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, will not end, but as that did, by a new and general resettlement of powers and interests, according to the new spirit of the new system which has taken place.

There is nowhere in the European part of the old world such a greatness of interwoven and combined interest, communicating through such largeness of territory, as that in North America, possessed and actuated by the English nation. The northern and southern parts of Europe, are possessed by different nations, actuated by different spirits, and conducted under very different systems.

On the contrary, when the site and circumstances of the large extended territories of North America are examined, one finds everything united in it which forms greatness of dominions, amplitude and growth of state.

Whether the islands, in those parts called the West Indies, are naturally parts of this North American communion, is a question, in the detail of it, of curious speculation, but of no doubt as to the fact.

. . . The civilizing activity of the human race, is what forms the growth of state.

In this new world we see all the inhabitants not only free, but allowing an universal naturalization to all who wish to be so ; and an uncontrolled liberty of Using any mode of life they choose, or any means of getting a livelihood that their talents lead them to. Free of all restraints, which take the property of themselves out of their own hands, their souls are their own, and their reason; they are their own masters, and they act; their labor is employed on their own property, and what they produce is their own. In a country like this, where every man has the full and free exertion of his powers, where every man may acquire any share of the good things thereof, or of interest and power which his spirit can work him up to; there, an unabated application of the powers of individuals, and a perpetual struggle of their spirits, sharpens their wits, and gives constant training to the mind. The acquirement of information in things and business, which becomes necessary to this mode of life, gives the mind, thus sharpened, and thus exercised, a turn of inquiry and investigation which forms a character peculiar to these people, which is not to be met with, nor ever did exist in any other to the same degree, unless in some of the ancient republics, where the people were under the same predicament. This turn of character, which, in the ordinary occurrences of life, is called inquisitiveness, and which, when exerted about trifles, goes even to a degree of ridicule in many instances, is yet, in matters of business and commerce, a most useful and efficient talent.

. . . In America, the wisdom and not the man is attended to ; and America is peculiarly a poor man's country. . . . They find themselves at liberty to follow what mode they like ; they feel that they can venture to try experiments, and that the advantages of their discoveries are their own. They, therefore, try what the soil claims, what the climate permits, and what both will produce and sustain to the greatest advantage.

Although the civilizing activity of America does not, by artificial and false helps, contrary to the natural course of things, inconsistent with, and checking the first applications of, its natural labor, and before the community is ripe for such endeavor, attempt to force the establishment of manufactures; yet following, as use and experience lead, the natural progress of improvement, it is every year producing a surplus profit; which surplus, as it enters again into the circulation of productive employment, creates an accumulating accelerated progressive series of surpluses. With these accumulated surpluses of the produce of the earth and seas, and not with manufactures, the Americans carry on their commercial exertions. Their fish, wheat, flour, rice, tobacco, indigo, live stock, barrel pork and beef (some of these articles being peculiar to the country and staple commodities) form the exports of their commerce. This has given them a direct trade to Europe; and, with some additional articles, a circuitous trade to Africa and the West Indies.

The same ingenuity of mechanic handicraft, which arises concomitant with agriculture, does here also rise concomitant with commerce, and is exerted in shipbuilding: it is carried on, not only to serve all the Purposes of their own carriage, and that of the West Indies in part, but to an extent of sale, so as to supply great part of the shipping of Britain; and further, if it continues to advance with the same progress, it will supply great part of the trade of Europe also with shipping, at cheaper rates than they can anywhere, or by any means, supply themselves.

Thus their commerce, although subsisting (while they were subordinate provinces) under various restrictions, by its advancing progress in ship-building, has been striking deep root, and is now shot forth an active commerce, growing into amplitude of state and great power.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*Explaining The Treaty Of Paris*

By Adams, Franklin, Jay and Laurens.

_THIS is the official statement made by the four American ministers plenipotentiary to Robert R. Livingston, then superintendent of foreign affairs, of the conditions of the preliminary treaty. This document is dated Paris, December 14, 1782. The treaty it describes was made definitive on September 3, 1783, and thus ended the Revolutionary War. Simultaneously Great Britain made peace with France and Spain at Versailles.

As finally concluded the treaty recognized the Mississippi as the western boundary of the United States, and the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence as the northern boundary to the forty-fifth parallel. Americans were to enjoy practically the same fishing rights as the colonists had. Collection of debts was to be facilitated by both governments, and confiscations were to cease. The navigation of the Mississippi was declared free to both Britons and Americans. Featuring the negotiations leading to the recognition of American independence was the skill, talent and patience of the American commissioners._

WE have the honor to congratulate Congress on the signature of the preliminaries of a peace between the Crown of Great Britain and the United States of America, to be inserted in a definitive treaty so soon as the terms between the Crowns of France and Great Britain shall be agreed on. A copy of the articles is here inclosed, and we cannot but flatter ourselves that they will appear to Congress, as they do to all of us, to be consistent with the honor and interest of the United States, and we are persuaded Congress would be more fully of that opinion, if they were apprised of all thecircumstances and reasons which have influenced the negotiation. Although it is impossible for us to go into that detail, we think it necessary, nevertheless, to make a few remarks on such of the articles as appear most to require elucidation.

REMARKS ON ARTICLE 2ND, RELATIVE TO BOUNDARIES.

The Court of Great Britain insisted on retaining all the territories comprehended within the Province of Quebec, by the act of Parliament respecting it. They contended that Nova Scotia should extend to the River Kennebec; and they claimed not only all the lands in the western country and on the Mississippi, which were not expressly included in our charters and governments, but also such lands within them as remained ungranted by the King of Great Britain. It would be endless to enumerate all the discussions and arguments on the subject.

We knew this Court and Spain to be against our claims to the western country, and having no reason to think that lines more favorable could ever have been obtained, we finally agreed to those described in this article; indeed, they appear to leave us little to complain of, and not much to desire. Congress will observe, that although our northern line is in a certain part below the latitude of forty-five, yet in others it extends above it, divides the Lake Superior, and gives us access to its western and southern waters, from which a line in that latitude would have excluded us.

REMARKS ON ARTICLE 4TH. RESPECTING CREDITORS.

We had been informed that some of the States had confiscated British debts; but although each State has a right to bind its own citizens, yet, in our opinion, it appertains solely to Congress, in whom exclusively are vested the rights of making war and peace, to pass acts against the subjects of a power with which the confederacy may be at war. It therefore only remained for us to consider whether this article is founded in justice and good policy.

In our opinion, no acts of government could dissolve the obligations of good faith resulting from lawful contracts between individuals of the two countries prior to the war. We knew that some of the British creditors were making common cause with the refugees and other adversaries of our independence ; besides, sacrificing private justice to reasons of state and political convenience is always an odious measure; and the purity of our reputation in this respect, in all foreign commercial countries, is of infinitely more importance to us than all the sums in question. It may also be remarked that American and British creditors are placed on an equal footing.

REMARKS ON ARTICLE 5TH AND 6TH, RESPECTING REFUGEES.

These articles were among the first discussed and the last agreed to. And had not the conclusion of this business at the time of its date been particularly important to the British administration, the respect which both in London and Versailles is supposed to be due to the honor, dignity and interest of royalty, would probably have forever prevented our bringing this article so near to the views of Congress and the sovereign rights of the States as it now stands. When it is considered that it was utterly impossible to render this article perfectly consistent, both with American and British ideas of honor, we presume that the middle line adopted by this article, is as little unfavorable to the former as any that could in reason be expected.

As to the separate article, we beg leave to observe, that it was our policy to render the navigation of the River Mississippi so important to Britain as that their views might correspond with ours on that subject. Their possessing the country on the river north of the line from the Lake of the Woods affords a foundation for their claiming such navigation. And as the importance of West Florida to Britain was for the same reason rather to be strengthened than otherwise, we thought it advisable to allow them the extent contained in the separate article, especially as before the war it had been annexed by Britain to West Florida, and would operate as an additional inducement to their joining with us in agreeing that the navigation of the river should forever remain open to both. The map used in the course of our negotiations was Mitchell's.

As we had reason to imagine that the articles respecting the boundaries, the refugees and fisheries did not correspond with the policy of this Court, we did not communicate the preliminaries to the minister until after they were signed; (and not even then the separate article). We hope that these considerations will excuse our having so far deviated from the spirit of our instructions. The Count de Vergennes, on perusing the articles appeared surprised, (but not displeased), at their being so favorable to us.

We beg leave to add our advice, that copies be sent us of the accounts directed to be taken by the different States, of the unnecessary devastations and sufferings sustained by them from the enemy in the course of the war. Should they arrive before the signature of the definitive treaty, they might possibly answer very good purposes.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*Washington Becomes Our First President*

By William Maclay.

_CONGRESS was sitting in New York on April 30, 1789, when Washington took the oath of office as Chief Executive. The author of this account was present on the eventful occasion as a United States Senator from Pennsylvania.

Maclay had served in the French and Indian War, was attorney from the Penn family and a judge of the Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania. His term of two years in the United States Senate was characterized by a violent hostility to Washington, to whose presence in the Senate chamber he objected, and to the Federalist administration and policy generally. His bias is clearly shown in this extract from his "Journal," which is printed here by permission of its editor, Edgar S. Maclay, author of an authoritative "History of the Navy."

The house occupied by Washington in New York, where Senator Maclay was a dinner guest, faced on what is now known as Franklin Square._

AS THE company returned into the Senate chamber, the President took the chair and the Senators and Representatives their seats. He [Washington] rose, and all arose also, and addressed them. This great man was agitated and embarrassed more than ever he was by the leveled cannon or pointed musket. He trembled, and several times could scarce make out to read, though it must be supposed he had often read it before. He put part of the fingers of his left hand into the side of what I think the tailors call the fall of the breeches, changing the paper into his left hand. After some time he then did the same with some of the fingers of his right hand. When he came to the words all the world, he made a flourish with his right hand, which left rather an ungainly impression. I sincerely, for my part, wished all set ceremony in the hands of the dancing-masters, and that this first of men had read off his address in the plainest manner, without ever taking his eyes from the paper, for I felt hurt that he was not first in everything. He was dressed in deep brown, with metal buttons, with an eagle on them, white stockings, a bag, and sword.

[Aug. 27.] Senate adjourned early. At a little after four I called on Mr. Bassett, of the Delaware State. He went to the President's to dinner. The President and Mrs. Washington sat opposite each other in the middle of the table; the two secretaries, one at each end. It was a great dinner, and the best of the kind I ever was at. The room, however, was disagreeably warm.

First was the soup; fish roasted and boiled; meats, gammon, fowls, etc. This was the dinner. The middle of the table was garnished in the usual tasty way, with small images, flowers (artificial), etc. The dessert was, first apple-pies, puddings, etc.; then iced creams, jellies, etc., then watermelons, muskmelons, apples, peaches, nuts.

It was the most solemn dinner ever I sat at. Not a health drunk; scarce a word said until the cloth was taken away. Then the President, filling a glass of wine, with great formality drank to the health of every individual by name round the table. Everybody imitated him, charged glasses, and such a buzz of "health, sir," and "health, madam," and "thank you, sir," and "thank you, madam," never had I heard before. Indeed, I had liked to have been thrown out in the hurry; but I got a little wine in my glass, and passed the ceremony. The ladies sat a good while, and the bottles passed about ; but there was a dead silence almost. Mrs. Washington at last withdrew with the ladies.

I expected the men would now begin, but the same stillness remained. The President told of a New England clergyman who had lost a hat and wig in passing a river called the Brunks. He smiled, and everybody else laughed. He now and then said a sentence or two on some common subject, and what he said was not amiss. The President kept a fork in his hand, when the cloth was taken away, I thought for the purpose of picking nuts. He ate no nuts, however, but played with the fork, striking on the edge of the table with it. We did not sit long after the ladies retired. The President rose, went upstairs to drink coffee; the company followed. I took my hat and came home.

This was levee day, and I accordingly dressed and did the needful. It is an idle thing, but what is the life of men but folly? and this is perhaps as innocent as any of them, so far as respects the persons acting. The practise, however, considered as a feature of royalty, is certainly anti-republican. This certainly escapes nobody. The royalists glory in it as a point gained. Republicans are borne down by fashion and a fear of being charged with a want of respect to General Washington. If there is treason in the wish I retract it, but would to God this same General Washington were in heaven! We would not then have him brought forward as the constant cover to every unconstitutional and irrepublican act.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*The X Y Z Correspondence*

By Commissioners Pinckney, Marshall and Gerry.

_THESE dispatches were sent to the United States Government by C. C. Pinckney, John Marshall and Elbridge Gerry, who were in Paris in October 1797 as special envoys to the French Republic, between which and the United States strained relations prevailed. Talleyrand, the French Foreign Minister, refused to receive them, but through secret agents ("X", "Y" and "Z") made an unofficial demand for bribes as a necessary preliminary to any settlement.

As a result of these dispatches, war with France was declared in 1798. The American grievance was the illegal capture of our merchantmen; the French grievance was that commercial privileges had been allowed to England._

ALL of us having arrived at Paris on the evening of the 4th instant, on the next day we verbally, and unofficially, informed the Minister of Foreign Affairs therewith, and desired to know when he would be at leisure to receive one of our secretaries with the official notification. He appointed the next day at two o'clock, when Major Rutledge waited on him.

In the evening . . .M. X. called on General Pinckney, and after having sat some time, . . . whispered him that he had a message from M. Talleyrand to communicate when he was at leisure. . . . General Pinckney said he should be glad to hear it. M. X. replied that the Directory, and particularly two of the members of it, were exceedingly irritated at some passages of the President's speech, and desired that they should be softened; and that this step would be necessary previous to our reception. That, besides this, a sum of money was required for the pocket of the Directory and ministers, which would be at the disposal of M. Talleyrand; and that a loan would also be insisted on. M. X. said if we acceded to these measures, M. Talley-rand had no doubt that all our differences with France might be accommodated.

October the 21st, M. X. came before nine o'clock: M. Y. did not come until ten: he had passed the morning with M. Talleyrand. After breakfast the subject was immediately resumed. . . . He [ M. Y. ] said . . . that if we desired him to point out the sum which he believed would be satisfactory [to the Directory], he would do so. We requested him to proceed; and he said that there were thirty-two millions of florins, of Dutch inscriptions, worth ten shillings in the pound, which might be assigned to us at twenty shillings in the pound; and he proceeded to state to us the certainty that, after a peace, the Dutch Government would repay us the money; so that we should ultimately lose nothing, and the only operation of the measure would be, an advance from us to France of thirty-two millions, on the credit of the Government of Holland. We asked him whether the fifty thousand pounds sterling, as a douceur to the Directory, must be in addition to this sum. He answered in the affirmative.

We committed immediately to writing the answer we proposed, in the following words: "Our powers respecting a treaty are ample; but the proposition of a loan, in the form of Dutch inscriptions, or in any other form, is not within the limits of our instructions; upon this point, therefore, the Government must be consulted; one of the American ministers will, for the purpose, forthwith embark for America; provided the Directory will suspend all further captures on American vessels, and will suspend proceedings on those already captured, as well where they have been already condemned, as where the decisions have not yet been rendered; and that where sales have been made, but the money not yet received by the captors, it shall not be paid until the preliminary questions, proposed to the ministers of the United States, be discussed and decided:" which was read as a verbal answer; and we told them they might copy it if they pleased. M. Y. refused to do so; his disappointment was apparent; he said we treated the money part of the proposition as if it had proceeded from the Directory; whereas, in fact, it did not proceed even from the minister, but was only a suggestion from himself, as a substitute to be proposed by us, in order to avoid the painful acknowledgment that the Directory had determined to demand of us. It was told him that we understood that matter perfectly; that we knew the proposition was in form to be ours; but that it came substantially from the minister. We asked what had led to our present conversation? And General Pinckney then repeated the first communication from M. X.

ABOUT twelve we received another visit from M. X. . . . He mentioned the change in the state of things which had been produced by the peace with the emperor, as warranting an expectation of a change in our system; to which we only replied, that this event had been expected by us, and would not, in any degree, affect our conduct. M. X. urged, that the Directory had, since this peace, taken a higher and more decided tone with respect to us, and all other neutral nations, than had been before taken; that it had been determined, that all nations should aid them, or be considered and treated as their enemies. We answered, that such an effect had already been contemplated by us, as probable, and had not been overlooked when we gave to this proposition our decided answer; and further, that we had no powers to negotiate for a loan of money; that our Government had not contemplated such a circumstance in any degree whatever; that if we should stipulate a loan, it would be a perfectly void thing, and would only deceive France, and expose ourselves. M. X. again expatiated on the power and violence of France: he urged the danger of our situation, and pressed the policy of softening them, and of thereby obtaining time. The present men, he said, would very probably not continue long in power, and it would be very unfortunate if those who might succeed, with better dispositions towards us, should find the two nations in actual war. We answered, that if war should be made on us by France, it would be so obviously forced on us, that, on a change of men, peace might be made with as much facility as the present differences could be accommodated. We added, that all America deprecated a war with France; but that our present situation was more ruinous to us than a declared war could be; that at present our commence was plundered unprotected; but that if war was declared, we should seek the means of protection. M. X. said, he hoped we should not form a connection with Britain; and we answered, that we hoped so too; that we had all been engaged in our Revolutionary war, and felt its injuries; that it had made the deepest impression on us; but that if France should attack us, we must seek the best means of self-defense. M. X. again returned to the subject of money: Said he, gentlemen, you do not speak to the point; it is money: it is expected that you will offer money. We said that we had spoken to that point very explicitly : we had given an answer. No, said he, you have not: what is your answer? We replied, it is no; no; not a sixpence.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*How John Hancock Supported The Constitution*

By Stephen Higginson.

_THIS is one of a series of articles signed "Laco" which Higginson published in 1789 in an effort to prevent the reelection of John Hancock as Governor of Massachusetts. Higginson was a prominent Boston merchant and a stanch Federalist. Hancock, who had in his early manhood inherited a fortune of $400,000 from an uncle, had been president of the Continental Congress, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, first Governor of Massachusetts and, in 1788, presided over the Massachusetts convention which ratified the Federal Constitution.

Evidently Higginson detested Hancock, who is nevertheless generally considered to have been a Revolutionary patriot of considerable ability, whose usefulness at times was impaired by his vanity. The "Old Patriot" of the text was Samuel Adams._

THERE are men in every free society, who have not a common interest with the community at large; and who rely wholly on the popular affection in their favor, to give them promotion and support in public life. . . . Without abilities to make them really useful in public life, and devoid of principles or merits that can command respect, they have no dependence but upon popular inattention to bring them into view; and, having been long attentive to the popular pulse, and always acquainted with the darling object with the multitude for the time, they rarely fail to touch the right string, and to make the people sub-serve their own selfish and private views. . . . There cannot be found within the compass of our memory, an instance, so strongly verifying the preceding observation, as that of Mr. H. and his adhering dependents.

. . . The course of his conduct from his reassuming the chair, to the meeting of our State Convention, for considering and adopting the new form of government for the Union, was nothing more than a renewed exhibition of the same levities, and a uniform preference of his own private interest, to that of the public.

A scene now opens upon us, very interesting and important: The objects which [were] then presented for our consideration, were so novel, and of such magnitude, as deservedly engrossed the feelings and the attention of every man. No one could remain mute and indifferent, while the question as to the new Constitution was pending; and every one, who felt no other bias than a regard to the safety and happiness of our country must necessarily create, was most anxiously solicitous for its adoption. But the popular demagogues, and those [who] were very much embarrassed in their affairs, united to oppose it with all their might; and they labored incessantly, night and day, to alarm the simple and credulous, by insinuating, that, however specious its appearance, and that of its advocates, tyranny and vassalage would result from its principles. The former of those descriptions were conscious that a stable and efficient government would deprive them of all future importance, or support from the public; and the latter of them knew, that nothing but weakness and convulsions in government could screen them from payment of their debts.

How far Mr. H. was influenced by either, or both of those motives, it is not easy to determine; but no one who recollects his general habits, who knows his situation and views, and was acquainted with the open conversation and conduct of his cabinet counselors, can have a doubt of his being opposed to it. We all know, that Mr. Quondam, and Mr. Changeling, as well as the once venerable old patriot, who, by a notable defection, has lately thrown himself into, the arms of Mr. H. in violation of every principle; and for the paltry privilege of sharing in his smiles, has, at the eve of life, cast an indelible stain over his former reputation it is well known, I say, that these men do not dare to speak in public a language opposite to that of their patron; and it is equally notorious, that they were open in their opposition to the Constitution. They even went so far as to vilify its compilers, that they might thence draw an argument to support their suggestions of its containing the seeds of latent tyranny and oppression. They endeavored by every possible means in their power to create a popular clamor against the Constitution; but they failed in their attempt; and Mr. H. and his friends were obliged, upon their own principles, to grow more cautious in their opposition.

The good sense of the mechanics of Boston, had produced some manly and spirited resolutions, which effectually checked Mr. H. and his followers in their opposition to the Constitution; and eventually occasioned four votes in its favor, which otherwise would have been most certainly against it. Had those resolutions not made their appearance, Mr. H. and three others of our delegates would have been in the negative; but it was thought necessary by them, after they had appeared, to vote in favor of it. Having settled this point, the next thing was to do it with a good grace, and to profit as much by it as they could; and Mr. H. accordingly intimated to the advocates for the adoption that he would appear in its favor, if they would make it worth his while.

This intimation was given through a common friend, who assured the friends of the Constitution, that nothing more would be required on the part of Mr. H. than a promise to support him in the chair at the next election. This promise, though a bitter pill, was agreed to be given; for such was the state of things, that they were very much afraid to decide upon the question, while he was opposed to it. The famous conciliatory proposition of Mr. H., as it was called, was then prepared by the advocates, and adopted by him; but the truth is he never was consulted about it, nor knew its contents, before it was handed to him to bring forward in Convention.

At the appointed time, Mr. H. with all the parade of an arbiter of States, came out with the motion, not only in the words, but the very original paper that was given him; and, with a confidence astonishing to all who were in the secret, he called it his own, and said it was the result of his own reflections on the subject, in the short intervals of ease which he had enjoyed during a most painful disorder. In this pompous and farcical manner did he make that famous proposition upon which he and his adherents have arrogated so much; but neither he nor they have any other merit in the case than an attempt to deceive both parties can fairly entitle them. For, at the very time he was buoying up the hopes of the advocates, he was assuring the opposers of the Constitution, by his emissaries, that he was really averse to it; and upon the strictest scrutiny we cannot find that any one vote was gained by his being ostensibly in favor of it.

The votes of the old patriot, and Mr. Changeling, and Mr. Joyce, Junior, we know were determined in its favor, by the resolutions of the mechanics; but the votes of many others, who used implicitly to follow Mr. H., were in the negative, which were counted upon by the friends of the Constitution, as being certain on their side. This is a strong confirmation that Mr. H. was then playing a game, which these people well understood; and indeed they, some of them, explicitly declared it at the time. His subsequent conduct, in regard to amendments, is a clear proof also that by appearing in its favor in Convention, he did not mean to support it; and that he was not serious when he declared his proposition to be only conciliatory, and not to remedy any defects existing in his mind in the Constitution as reported, which he explicitly declared at the time was the case.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*The Meaning Of American Democracy*

By Francois Jean, Marquis de Chastellux.

_IN HIS "Travels in America During the Years 1780-1782," Chastellux, who was a major-general in the French army under Rochambeau and was present at the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown, recounts his interesting experiences and observations in this country. He wrote voluminously about America during and directly after the Revolution, and his writings all display the intelligent sympathy apparent in this extract from a letter addressed to Professor Madison, father of President Madison.

Chastellux draws what is regarded as a remarkably accurate picture of the United States in its formative critical period. Other of his written work was highly praised by Voltaire, who is said to have ranked it above that of Montesquieu._

IF . . . we wish to form an idea of the American Republic we must be careful not to confound the Virginians, whom warlike as well as mercantile, an ambitious as well as speculative genius brought upon the continent, with the New Englanders who owe their origin to enthusiasm ; we must not expect to find precisely the same men in Pennsylvania, where the first colonists thought only of keeping and cultivating the deserts, and in South Carolina where the production of some exclusive articles fixes the general attention on external commerce, and establishes unavoidable connections with the old world. Let it be observed, too, that agriculture which was the occupation of the first settlers, was not an adequate means of assimilating the one with the other, since there are certain species of culture which tend to maintain the equality of fortune, and others to destroy it.

These are sufficient reasons to prove that the same principles, the same opinions, the same habits do not occur in all the thirteen United States, although they are subject nearly to the same force [sort?] of government. For, notwithstanding that all their constitutions are not similar, there is through the whole a democracy, and a government of representation, in which the people give their suffrage by their delegates. But if we choose to overlook those shades which distinguish this confederated people from each other; if we regard the thirteen States only as one nation, we shall even then observe that she must long retain the impression of those circumstances, which have conducted her to liberty. Every philosopher acquainted with mankind, and who has studied the springs of human action, must be convinced that, in the present revolution, the Americans have been guided by two principles, while they imagined they were following the impulse of only one. He will distinguish, a positive and a negative principle, in their legislation, and in their opinions.

I call that principle positive which in so enlightened a moment as the present reason alone could dictate to a people making choice of that government which suited them the best; I call that a negative principle which they oppose to the laws and usages of a powerful enemy for whom they had contracted a well founded aversion. Struck with the example of the inconveniences offered by the English government, they had recourse to the opposite extreme, convinced that it was impossible to deviate from it too much.

In England, a septennial Parliament invites the King to purchase a majority on which he may reckon for a long period; the American assemblies therefore must be annual; on the other side of the water, the executive power, too uncontrolled in its action, frequently escapes the vigilance of the legislative authority; on this continent, each officer, each minister of the people must be under the immediate dependence of the assemblies, so that his first care on attaining office, will be to court the popular favor for a new election. Among the English, employments confer, and procure rank and riches, and frequently elevate their possessors to too great a height: among the Americans, offices neither conferring wealth, nor consideration, will not, it is true, become objects of intrigue or purchase, but they will be held in so little estimation as to make them avoided, rather than sought after, by the most enlightened citizens, by which means every employment will fall into the hands of new and untried men, the only persons who can expect to hold them to advantage.

In continuing to consider the thirteen United States under one general point of view, we shall observe still other circumstances which have influenced as well the principles of the government, as the national spirit. These thirteen States were at first colonies; now the first necessity felt in all rising colonies is population; I say in rising colonies, for I doubt much whether that necessity exists at present, so much as is generally imagined. Of this however I am very sure, that there will still be a complaint of want of population, long after the necessity has ceased; Americans will long continue to reason as follows : we must endeavor to draw foreigners among us, for which purpose it is indispensably necessary to afford them every possible advantage; every person once within the State, shall be considered therefore as a member of that State, as a real citizen. Thus one year's residence in the same place shall suffice to establish him an inhabitant, and every inhabitant shall have the right of voting, and shall constitute a part of the sovereign power; from whence it will result that this sovereignty will communicate and divide itself without requiring any pledge, any security from the person who is invested with it. This has arisen from not considering the possibility of other emigrants than those from Europe, who are supposed to fix themselves in the first spot where they may form a settlement; we shall one day, however, see frequent emigrations from State to State; workmen will frequently transplant themselves, many of them will be obliged even to change situations from the nature of their employments, in which case it will not be singular to see the elections for a district of Connecticut, decided by inhabitants of Rhode Island or New York.

Some political writers, especially the more modern, have advanced, that property alone should constitute the citizen. They are of opinion that he alone whose fortune is necessarily connected with its welfare has a right to become a member of the State. In America, a specious answer is given to this reasoning; among us, say they, landed property is so easily acquired, that every workman who can use his hands, may be looked upon as likely soon to become a man of property. But can America remain long in her present situation? And can the regimen of her infant state agree with her, now she has assumed the virile robe?

The following, Sir, is a delicate question which I can only propose to a philosopher like you. In establishing among themselves a purely democratic government, had the Americans a real affection for a democracy, And if they have wished all men to be equal, is it not solely, because, from the very nature of things, they were themselves nearly in that situation? For to preserve a popular government in all its integrity, it is not sufficient, not to admit either rank or nobility, riches alone never fail to produce marked differences, by so much the greater, as there exist no others. Now such is the present happiness of America that she has no poor, that every man in it enjoys a certain ease and independence, and that if some have been able to obtain a smaller portion of them than others, they are so surrounded by resources, that the future is more looked to, than their present situation. Such is the general tendency to a state of equality; that the same enjoyments which would be deemed superfluous in every other part of the world, are here considered as necessaries. . . . Now, Sir, let us suppose that the increase of population may one day reduce your artisans to the situation in which they are found in France and England. Do you in that case really believe that your principles are so truly democratic, as that the landholders and the opulent, will still continue to regard them as their equals?

. . . I shall ask you then, whether under the belief of possessing the most perfect democracy, you may not find that you have insensibly attained a point more remote from it, than every other Republic. . . . Now observe, Sir, that in your present form of government, you have not attached either sufficient grandeur, or dignity to any place, to render its possessor illustrious, still less the whole class from which he may be chosen. You have thrown far from you all hereditary honors, but have you bestowed sufficient personal distinctions? Have you reflected that these distinctions, far from being less considerable than those which took place among the Greeks and Romans, ought rather to surpass them? The reason of this is very obvious: the effect of honors and distinctions is by so much the more marked, as it operates on the greater number of men assembled together. . . . Men must be moved by some fixed principle; is it not better that this should be by vanity than interest? I have no doubt that love of country will always prove a powerful motive, but do not flatter yourself that this will long exist with the same spirit. The greatest efforts of the mind, like those of the body, are in resistance; and the same may happen with respect to the State, as in matters of opinion, to which we cease to be attached, when they cease to be contested.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*The Treaty Of Paris Negotiations*

By John Fiske.

_THIS account of the negotiations of the most important treaty (September 3, 1783) ever made by the United States is taken from John Fiske's "Critical Period of American History," the most popular and valuable of his contributions to American history. More than any other writer of his time (1842-1901) Fiske brought home to the national consciousness a philosophic view of American history, by his remarkable power of expression and his balanced judgments.

This article does much to confirm the evidence that the treaty of 1783 between Great Britain and the United States, which marked the close of the Revolution, was, on the part of the American commissioners, Adams, Franklin, Jay and Laurens, "one of the most brilliant triumphs in the whole history of modern diplomacy._

FROM the policy which George III pursued with regard to Lord Shelburne at this time, one would suppose that in his secret heart the King wished, by foul means since all others had failed, to defeat the negotiations for peace and to prolong the war. Seldom has there been a more oddly complicated situation. Peace was to be made with America, France, Spain and Holland. Of these powers, America and France were leagued together by one treaty of alliance, and France and Spain by another, and these treaties in some respects conflicted with one another in the duties which they entailed upon the combatants. Spain, though at war with England for purposes of her own, was bitterly hostile to the United States; and France, thus leagued with two allies which pulled in opposite directions, felt bound to satisfy both, while pursuing her own ends against England. To deal with such a chaotic state of things, an orderly and harmonious government in England should have seemed indispensably necessary. Yet on the part of England the negotiations of a treaty of peace was to be the work of two secretaries of state who were both politically and personally hostile to each other. Fox, as secretary of state for foreign affairs, had to superintend the negotiations with France, Spain, and Holland. Shelburne was secretary of state for home and colonial affairs; and as the United States were still officially regarded as colonies, the American negotiations belonged to his department. With such a complication of conflicting interests, George III might well hope that no treaty could be made.

The views of Fox and Shelburne as to the best method of conceding American independence were very different. Fox understood that France was really in need of peace, and he believed that she would not make further demands upon England if American independence should once be recognized. Accordingly, Fox would have made this concession at once as a preliminary to the negotiation. On the other hand, Shelburne felt sure that France would insist upon further concessions, and he thought it best to hold in reserve the recognition of independence as a consideration to be bargained for. Informal negotiations began between Shelburne and Franklin, who for many years had been warm friends. In view of the impending change of government, Franklin had in March sent a letter to Shelburne, expressing a hope that peace might soon be restored. When the letter reached London the new ministry had already been formed, and Shelburne, with the consent of the cabinet, answered it by sending over to Paris an agent, to talk with Franklin informally, and ascertain the terms upon which the Americans would make peace.

The person chosen for this purpose was Richard Oswald, a Scotch merchant, who owned large estates in America, a man of very frank disposition and liberal views, and a friend of Adam Smith. In April, Oswald had several conversations with Franklin. In one of these conversations Franklin suggested that, in order to make a durable peace, it was desirable to remove all occasion for future quarrel; that the line of frontier between New York and Canada was inhabited by a lawless set of men, who in time of peace would be likely to breed trouble between their respective governments; and that therefore it would be well for England to cede Canada to the United States. A similar reasoning would apply to Nova Scotia. By ceding these countries to the United States it would be possible, from the sale of unappropriated lands, to indemnify the Americans for all losses of private property during the war, and also to make reparation to the Tories, whose estates had been confiscated. By pursuing such a policy, England, which had made war on America unjustly, and had wantonly done it great injuries, would achieve not merely peace, but reconciliation, with America; and reconciliation, said Franklin, is "a sweet word." No doubt this was a bold tone for Franklin to take, and perhaps it was rather cool in him to ask for Canada and Nova Scotia; but he knew that almost every member of the Whig ministry had publicly expressed the opinion that the war against America was an unjust and wanton war; and being, moreover, a shrewd hand at a bargain, he began by setting his terms high.

Oswald doubtless looked at the matter very much from Franklin's point of view, for on the suggestion of the cession of Canada he expressed neither surprise nor reluctance. Franklin had written on a sheet of paper the main points of his conversation, and, at Oswald's request, he allowed him to take the paper to London to show to Lord Shelburne, first writing upon it a note expressly declaring its informal character. Franklin also sent a letter to Shelburne, describing Oswald as a gentleman with whom he found it very pleasant to deal. On Oswald's arrival in London, Shelburne did not show the notes of the conversation to any of his colleagues, except Lord Ashburton. He kept the paper over one night, and then returned it to Franklin without any formal answer. But the letter he showed to the cabinet, and on the 23d of April it was decided to send Oswald back to Paris, to represent to Franklin that, on being restored to the same situation in which she was left by the treaty of 1763, Great Britain would be willing to recognize the independence of the United States. Fox was authorized to make a similar representation to the French government, and the person whom he sent to Paris for this purpose was Thomas Grenville, son of the author of the Stamp Act.

As all British subjects were prohibited from entering into negotiations with the revolted colonies, it was impossible for Oswald to take any decisive step until an enabling act should be carried through Parliament. But while waiting for this he might still talk informally with Franklin. Fox thought that Oswald's presence in Paris indicated a desire on Shelburne's part to interfere with the negotiations with the French government; and indeed, the king, out of his hatred of Fox and his inborn love of intrigue, suggested to Shelburne that Oswald "might be a useful check on that part of the negotiations which was in other hands." But Shelburne paid no heed to this crooked advice, and there is nothing to show that he had the least desire to intrigue against Fox. If he had, he would certainly have selected some other agent than Oswald, who was the most straightforward of men, and scarcely close-mouthed enough for a diplomatist. He told Oswald to impress it upon Franklin that if America was to be independent at all she must be independent of the whole world, and must not enter into any secret arrangement with France which might limit her entire freedom of action in the future. To the private memorandum which desired the cession of Canada for three reasons, his answers were as follows: "1. By way of reparation. Answer. No reparation can be heard of. 2. To prevent future wars. Answer. It is to be hoped that some more friendly method will be found. 3. As a fund of indemnification to loyalists. Answer. No independence to be acknowledged without their being taken care of." Besides, added Shelburne, the Americans would be expected to make some compensation for the surrender of Charleston, Savannah, and the city of New York, still held by British troops. From this it appears that Shelburne, as well as Franklin, knew how to begin by asking more than he was likely to get.

The task of making a treaty of peace was simplified both by a change of the British ministry and by the total defeat of the Spaniards and French at Gibraltar in September. Six months before, England had seemed worsted in every quarter. Now England, though defeated in America, was victorious as regarded France and Spain. The avowed object for which France had entered into alliance with the Americans was to secure the independence of the United States, and this point was now substantially gained. The chief object for which Spain had entered into alliance with France was to drive the English from Gibraltar, and this point was now decidedly lost. France had bound herself not to desist from the war until Spain should recover Gibraltar; but now there was little hope of accomplishing this, except by some fortunate bargain in the treaty, and Vergennes tried to persuade England to cede the great stronghold in exchange for West Florida, which Spain had lately conquered, or for Oran or Guadaloupe. Failing in this, he adopted a plan for satisfying Spain at the expense of the United States; and he did this the more willingly as he had no love for the Americans, and did not wish to see them become too powerful. France had strictly kept her pledges; she had given us valuable and timely aid in gaining our independence; and the sympathies of the French people were entirely with the American cause. But the object of the French government had been simply to humiliate England, and this end was sufficiently accomplished by depriving her of her thirteen colonies.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*How Jefferson Was Elected*

By Senator Charles Pinckney.

_IN THE bitter Presidential campaign of 1800, the Republican candidates, Jefferson and Burr received the same number of votes, leaving the decision to Congress. Jefferson, to whom Senator Pinckney wrote this letter on October 12, 1800, was chosen, chiefly through the influence of his Federalist opponent, Alexander Hamilton, who Was too patriotic to support Burr. Although Pinckney enthusiastically supported Jefferson, his cousin, Charles C. Pinckney, was the Federal candidate for Vice-President.

Facing a threatened revolution, Jefferson behaved with such moderation on taking office as to draw from the Federalist Party much of its vital energy. He rode horseback, without attendants, from Monticello to Washington, tied his horse to the fence, and walked unceremoniously into the Senate chamber to take the oath of office. During his administration knee-breeches gave way to trousers._

I WISH to know how things will go in Maryland and Pennsylvania and Delaware and Jersey. The influence of the officers of the government and of the banks and of the British and mercantile interest will be very powerful in Charleston. I think we shall in the city as usual lose two-thirds of the representation, but the city has generally not much influence at Columbia [South Carolina]. Our country Republican interest has always been very strong, and I have no doubt will be so now. I have done everything to strengthen it and mean to go to Columbia to be at the election of electors. The twenty-four numbers of the Republican which I have written have been sent on to you, and I trust you have received and approved them. They are written in much moderation and have been circulated as much as possible. So has the little Republican Farmer I showed you in Philadelphia and which has been reprinted in all our Southern States. With these and my speeches on juries, judges, Ross' Bill, the Intercourse Bill and the Liberty of the Press, we have literally sprinkled Georgia and North Carolina from the mountains to the ocean. Georgia will be unanimous, North Carolina 8 or 9, Tennessee unanimous, and I am hopeful we shall also.

[October 16] Since the within was written we have had the election for Charleston, which by dint of the bank and Federal interest is reported by the managers to be against us 11 to 4 that is, the Federalists are reported to have 11 out of 15 the number for the city representation. Many of our members run within 28 and 30 and 40 and we think we get four in I believe 5. To show you what has been the contest and the abuse I have been obliged to bear, I enclose you some of the last days' publications. I suppose this unexpected opposition to my kinsman who has never been opposed here before as member for the city, will sever and divide me from him and his brother forever, for the Federalists all charge me with being the sole cause of any opposition in this State, where all our intelligence from the country convinces me we shall have a decided majority in our Legislature. . . . I never before this knew the full extent of the Federal interest connected with the British and the aid of the banks and the Federal treasury, and all their officers. They have endeavored to shake Republicanism in South Carolina to its foundations, but we have resisted it firmly and I trust successfully. Our country interest out of the reach of banks and custom houses and Federal officers is I think as pure as ever. I rejoice our Legislature meets 130 or 40 miles from the sea.

As much as I have been accustomed to politics and to study mankind this election in Charleston has opened to me a new view of things. Never certainly was such an election in America. We mean to contest it for 8 or 9 of the 15. It is said several hundred more voted than paid taxes; the lame, crippled, diseased and blind were either led, lifted or brought in carriages to the poll. The sacred right of ballot was struck at, for at a late hour, when too late to counteract it, in order to know how men, who were supposed to be under the influence of banks and Federal officers and English merchants voted, and that they might be watched to know whether they voted as they were directed, the novel and unwarrantable measure was used of voting with tickets printed on green and blue and red and yellow paper and men stationed to watch the votes. The contest lasted several days and nights.

. . I congratulate you most sincerely on the change in Maryland and the probable one in North Carolina and Rhode Island. In this State I have no doubt nor ever had.

[October 26] . . . I have just got a letter from Mr. Dawson confirming from the authority of Mr. Burr the business of Rhode Island. Is it possible? Can good come out of Galilee?

[November 22] I have just received your favor after an interval since its date of nearly one month. I am to particularly regret your not receiving my communications as I wanted some facts from you to aid me in the very delicate and arduous struggle I have in this State. Finding from my intelligence that the Pennsylvania Senate intended to contend for a concurrent vote in the choice of electors and thus to shield themselves under a pretended affection for the rights of their branch from the popular odium, I very early perceived that the choice of a President would in a great measure depend upon this State's vote. I therefore very assiduously have attended to this object since June and now wait the issue which is to be decided on Tuesday next. My anxiety on this subject is very much increased by a letter I have received from Governor Monroe in answer to one I wrote him on the subject; he seems to think with me that our State must decide it and that Pennsylvania is very uncertain. . . . Urged by those principles it is my duty never to forsake and well convinced that the election depends on this State I have taken post with some valuable friends at Columbia where our Legislature meet and are now in session, and here I mean to remain until the thing is settled. I am told I am to be personally insulted for being here while I ought to be in Washington, and that a motion will be made expressing the opinion of one of the branches that all their members ought to be present at the discussion of the French treaty. But I who know that the President's election is of more consequence than any treaty and who feel my presence here to be critically important, mean to remain with you who know the reason will readily excuse my absence. To weaken the Federal party in our Legislature, which is stronger than I ever knew it, an attempt is made to set aside the Charleston election and I have suggested a new idea to the petitioners, which is to suspend the sitting members immediately from their seats.

Whether they vote or not I think we shall carry the election, and the moment it is decided I will write you. My situation here is peculiarly delicate and singular. I am the only Member of Congress of either side present and the Federalists view me with a very jealous eye.

[December 2: 1800] The election is just finished and we have, thanks to Heaven's goodness, carried it.

[December 20] . . . It is with great concern I have just heard that my fears on the Rhode Island head were too well founded. I was always afraid that much good could not come out of either Nazareth or Galilee and I find I was right. New England is New England still and unless an earthquake could remove them and give them about ten degrees of our southern sun in their constitutions they will always remain so. You may as well attempt to separate the barnacle from the oyster, or a body of Caledonians as to divide New England. Not so our southern gentry. View Maryland and North Carolina and tell me by what policy can it be that we have lost so many votes from States that ought to cling to the southern Republican interest as to the rock of their earthly salvation States, too, with whom so much pains have been taken to direct them in the right road.

[January 24, 1801] . . . I write . . . to mention that having seen in the northern papers an account that a compromise was offered and rejected by the Federalists I do positively deny that any such compromise was offered by the body of the Republican interest or ever intended by them. If anything ever was said on that subject it must have been by some one or two of our friends who might have been very anxious to secure your election and would rather compromise than risk it, but if even one did whisper such a thing it was wholly unknown to me, or to the great body of Republican interest, for they were determined from the jump never to hear of any compromise, and so far from thinking of it they met at the academy hall in Columbia the very first night of the session and near seventy of them signed a paper and determined not to compromise but to support the ticket of the Republican interest as it was run and carried.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*The Importance Of Louisiana To The States*

By President Thomas Jefferson.

_IT IS made plain in the accompanying letters from Jefferson to Robert R. Livingston, American Minister at Paris, and, the second, to M. du Pont de Nemours, a Delaware powder manufacturer with influential French connections, that the retention of Louisiana by France would lead to war with the United States. Both letters were written by our third President, in Washington, April, 1802 shortly after news reached this country that Spain, by a secret treaty, had retroceded Louisiana and the Floridas to France. Also that Spain had withdrawn the right of deposit secured to the inhabitants of the United States by the treaty of 1795, and that the delivery was to be made at an early date.

Jefferson desired and was determined, so far as lay in his power, to keep the United States a self-sustained nation. This, he saw, would be impossible if France possessed the outlet of the Mississippi valley._

THE cession of Louisiana and the Floridas by Spain to France, works most sorely on the United States. On this subject the Secretary of State has written to you fully, yet I cannot forbear recurring to it personally, so deep is the impression it makes on my mind. It completely reverses all the political relations of the United States, and will form a new epoch in our political course. Of all nations of any consideration, France is the one which, hitherto, has offered the fewest points on which we could have any conflict of right, and the most points of a communion of interests. From these causes, we have ever looked to her as our natural friend, as one with which we never could have an occasion of difference. Her growth, therefore, we viewed as our own, her misfortunes ours. There is on the globe one single spot, the possessor of which is our natural and habitual enemy. It is New Orleans, through which the produce of three-eighths of our territory must pass to market, and from its fertility it will ere long yield more than half of our whole produce, and contain more than half of our inhabitants.

France, placing herself in that door, assumes to us the attitude of defiance. Spain might have retained it quietly for years. Her pacific dispositions, her feeble state, would induce her to increase our facilities there, so that her possession of the place would be hardly felt by us, and it would not, perhaps, be very long before some circumstance might rise, which might make the cession of it to us the price of something of more worth to her. Not so can it ever be in the hands of France: the impetuosity of her temper, the energy and restlessness of her character, placed in a point of eternal friction with us, and our character, which, though quiet and loving peace and the pursuit of wealth, is high-minded, despising wealth in competition with insult or injury, enterprising and energetic as any nation on earth; these circumstances render it impossible that France and the United States can continue long friends, when they meet in so irritable a position. They, as well as we, must be blind if they do not see this; and we must be very improvident if we do not begin to make arrangements on that hypothesis.

The day that France takes possession of New Orleans, fixes the sentence which is to restrain her forever within her low-water mark. It seals the union of two nations, who, in conjunction, can maintain exclusive possession of the ocean. From that moment, we must marry ourselves to the British fleet and nation. We must turn all our attention to a maritime force, for which our resources place us on very high ground; and having formed and connected together a power which may render reinforcement of her settlements here impossible to France, make the first cannon which shall be fired in Europe the signal for the tearing up any settlement she may have made, and for holding the two continents of America in sequestration for the common purposes of the United British and American nations.

This is not a state of things we seek or desire. It is one which this measure, if adopted by France, forces on us as necessarily, as any other cause, by the laws of nature, brings on its necessary effect. It is not from a fear of France that we deprecate this measure proposed by her. For however greater her force is than ours, compared in the abstract, it is nothing in comparison to ours, when to be exerted on our soil. But it is from a sincere love of peace, and a firm persuasion, that bound to France by the interests and the strong sympathies still existing in the minds of our citizens, and holding relative positions which insure their continuance, we are secure of a long course of peace. Whereas, the change of friends, which will be rendered necessary if France changes that position, embarks us necessarily as a belligerent power in the first war of Europe. In that case, France will have held possession of New Orleans during the interval of a peace, long or short, at the end of which it will be wrested from her. Will this short-lived possession have been an equivalent to her for the transfer of such a weight into the scale of her enemy? Will not the amalgamation of a young, thriving nation, continue to that enemy the health and force which are at present so evidently on the decline? And will a few years' possession of New Orleans add equally to the strength of France?

She may say she needs Louisiana for the supply of her West Indies. She does not need it in time of peace, and in war she could not depend on them, because they would be so easily intercepted. I should suppose that all these considerations might, in some proper form, be brought into view of the government of France. Though stated by us, it ought not to give offense; because we do not bring them forward as a menace, but as consequences not controllable by us, but inevitable from the course of things. We mention them, not as things which we desire by any means, but as things we deprecate; and we beseech a friend to look forward and to prevent them for our common interest.

If France considers Louisiana, however, as indispensable for her views, she might perhaps be willing to look about for arrangements which might reconcile it to our interests. If anything could do this, it would be the ceding to us the island of New Orleans and the Floridas. This would certainly, in a great degree, remove the causes of jarring and irritation between us, and perhaps for such a length of time, as might produce other means of making the measure permanently conciliatory to our interests and friendships. It would, at any rate, relieve us from the necessity of taking immediate measures for countervailing such an operation by arrangements in another quarter. But still we should consider New Orleans and the Floridas as no equivalent for the risk of a quarrel with France, produced by her vicinage.

I have no doubt you have urged these considerations, on every proper occasion, with the government where you are. They are such as must have effect, if you can find means of producing thorough reflection on them by that government. . . . Every eye in the United States is now fixed on the affairs of Louisiana. Perhaps nothing since the Revolutionary War, has produced more uneasy sensations through the body of the nation. Notwithstanding temporary bickerings have taken place with France, she has still a strong hold on the affections of our citizens generally. I have thought it not amiss, by way of supplement to the letters of the Secretary of State, to write you this private one, to impress you with the importance we affix to this transaction.

I THINK it safe to enclose you my letters for Paris. . . I leave the letters for Chancellor Livingston open for your perusal. . . . I wish you to be possessed of the subject, because you may be able to impress on the government of France the inevitable consequences of their taking possession of Louisiana; and though, as I here mention, the cession of New Orleans and the Floridas to us would be a palliation, yet I believe it would be no more, and that this measure will cost France, and perhaps not very long hence, a war which will annihilate her on the ocean, and place that element under the despotism of two nations, which I am not reconciled to the more because my own would be one of them. Add to this the exclusive appropriation of both continents of America as a consequence.

I wish the present order of things to continue, and with a view to this I value highly a state of friendship between France and us. You know too well how sincere I have ever been in these dispositions to doubt them. You know, too, how much I value peace, and how unwillingly I should see any event take place which would render war a necessary resource; and that all our movements should change their character and object. I am thus open with you, because I trust that you will have it in your power to impress on that government considerations, in the scale against which the possession of Louisiana is nothing. In Europe, nothing but Europe is seen, or supposed to have any right in the affairs of nations; but this little event of France's possessing herself of Louisiana, which is thrown in as nothing, as a mere make-weight in the general settlement of accounts, this speck which now appears as an almost invisible point in the horizon, is the embryo of a tornado which will burst on the countries on both sides of the Atlantic, and involve in its effects their highest destinies. That it may yet be avoided is my sincere prayer; and if you can be the means of informing the wisdom of Bonaparte of all its consequences, you have deserved well of both countries. Peace and abstinence from European interferences are our objects, and so will continue while the present order of things in America remain uninterrupted.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*The Necessity Of A Constitution*

By Alexander Hamilton.

_HERE are two of the eighty-five celebrated essays on the Constitution of the United States which were written and published, under the title of The Federalist, by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in the years 1787 and 1788. In newspaper and pamphlet form The Federalist had a wide circulation, and its influence was conspicuous in turning popular opinion in favor of the Constitution.

Following its translation into French, in 1792, Hamilton and Madison were granted honorary citizenship by vote of the National Assembly of France. It is ranked among the most distinguished contributions to political literature, and its reception as a contemporary interpretation of the Constitution by the two men preeminently concerned in its formation and adoption more than fulfill Washington's modest forecast that The Federalist would "merit the notice of posterity."_

THE necessity of a Constitution, at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the preservation of the Union, is the point at the, examination of which we are now arrived.

This inquiry will naturally divide itself into three branches the objects to be provided for by the federal government, the quantity of power necessary to the accomplishment of those objects, the persons upon whom that power ought to operate. Its distribution and organization will more properly claim our attention under the succeeding head.

The principal purposes to be answered by union are these the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries.

The authorities essential to the common defense are these: to raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist without limitation, because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. This power ought to be coextensive with all the possible combinations of such circumstances; and ought to be under the direction of the same councils which are appointed to preside over the common defense.

This is one of those truths which, to a correct and unprejudiced mind, carries its own evidence along with it; and may be obscured, but cannot be made plainer by argument or reasoning. It rests upon axioms as simple as they are universal; the means ought to be proportioned to the end; the persons, from whose agency the attainment of any end is expected, ought to possess the means by which it is to be attained.

Whether there ought to be a Federal government intrusted with the care of the common defense, is a question in the first instance, open for discussion; but the moment it is decided in the affirmative, it will follow that that government ought to be clothed with all the powers requisite to complete execution of its trust. And unless it can be shown that the circumstances which may affect the public safety are reducible within certain determinate Emits; unless the contrary of this position can be fairly and rationally disputed, it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence, that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community, in any matter essential to its efficacy that is, in any matter essential to the formation, direction, or support of the national forces.

Defective as the present Confederation has been proved to be, this principle appears to have been fully recognized by the framers of it; though they have not made proper or adequate provision for its exercise. Congress has an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations. As their requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the "common defense and general welfare." It was presumed that a sense of their true interests, and a regard to the dictates of good faith, would be found sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of the duty of the members to the federal head.

The experiment has, however, demonstrated that this expectation was ill-founded and illusory; and the observations, made under the last head, will, I imagine, have sufficed to convince the impartial and discerning, that there is an absolute necessity for an entire change in the first principles of the system; that if we are in earnest about giving the Union energy and duration, we must abandon the vain project of legislating upon the States in their collective capacities; we must extend the law of the Federal government to the individual citizens of America; we must discard the fallacious scheme of quotas and requisitions, as equally impracticable and unjust. The result from all this is that the Union ought to be invested with full power to levy troops; to build and equip fleets and to raise the revenues which will be required for the formation and support of an army and navy, in the customary and ordinary modes practiced in other governments.

If the circumstances of our country are such as to demand a compound instead of a simple, a confederate instead of a sole, government, the essential point which will remain to be adjusted will be to discriminate the objects, as far as it can be done, which shall appertain to the different provinces or departments of power; allowing to each the most ample authority for fulfilling the objects committed to its charge. Shall the Union be constituted the guardian of the common safety? Are fleets and armies and revenues necessary to this purpose? The government of the Union must be empowered to pass all laws, and to make all regulations which have relation to them. The same must be the case in respect to commerce, and to every other matter to which its jurisdiction is permitted to extend. Is the administration of justice between the citizens of the same State the proper department of the local governments? These must possess all the authorities which are connected with this object, and with every other that may be allotted to their particular cognizance and direction. Not to confer in each case a degree of power commensurate to the end, would be to violate the most obvious rules of prudence and propriety, and improvidently to trust the great interests of the nation to hands which are disabled from managing them with vigor and success.

Who is likely to make suitable provisions for the public defense, as that body to which the guardianship of the public safety is confided; which, as the center of information, will best understand the extent and urgency of the dangers that threaten; as the representative of the whole, will feel itself most deeply interested in the preservation of every part; which, from the responsibility implied in the duty assigned to it, will be most sensibly impressed with the necessity of proper exertions; and which, by the extension of its authority throughout the plans and measures by which the common safety is to be secured? Is there not a manifest inconsistency in devolving upon the Federal government the care of the general defense, and leaving in the State governments the effective powers by which it is to be provided for? Is not a want of cooperation the infallible consequence of such a system? And will not weakness, disorder, an undue distribution of the burdens and calamities of war, an unnecessary and intolerable increase of expense, be its natural and inevitable concomitants? Have we not had unequivocal experience of its effects in the course of the revolution which we have just accomplished?

Every view we may take of the subject, as candid inquirers after truth, will serve to convince us, that it is both unwise and dangerous to deny the federal government an unconfined authority, as to all those objects which are intrusted to its management. It will indeed deserve the most vigilant and careful attention of the people, to see that it be modeled in such a manner as to admit of its being safely vested with requisite powers. If any plan which has been, or may be, offered to our consideration, should not, upon a dispassionate inspection, be found to answer this description, it ought to be rejected. A government, the Constitution of which renders it unfit to be trusted with all the powers which a free people ought to delegate to any government, would be an unsafe and improper depositary of the national interests. Wherever these can with propriety be confided, the coincident powers may safely accompany them. This is the true result of all just reasoning upon the subject. And the adversaries of the plan promulgated by the convention ought to have confined themselves to showing, that the internal structure of the proposed government was such as to render it unworthy of the confidence of the people. They ought not to have wandered into inflammatory declamations and unmeaning cavils about the extent of the powers. The powers are not too extensive for the objects of Federal administration, or, in other words, for the management of our national interests; nor can any satisfactory argument be framed to show that they are chargeable with such an excess. If it be true, as has been insinuated by some of the writers on the other side, that the difficulty arises from the nature of the thing, and that the extent of the country will not permit us to form a government in which such ample powers can safely be reposed, it would prove that we ought to contract our views, and resort to the expedient of separate confederacies, which will move within more practicable spheres. For the absurdity must continually stare us in the face of confiding to a government the direction of the most essential national interests, without daring to trust it to the authorities which are indispensable to their proper and efficient management. Let us not attempt to reconcile contradictions, but firmly embrace a rational alternative.

I trust, however, that the impracticability of one general system cannot be shown. I am greatly mistaken, if any thing of weight has yet been advanced of this tendency; and I flatter myself, that the observations which have been made in the course of these papers have served to place the reverse of that position in as clear a light as any matter still in the womb of time and experience can be susceptible of. This, at all events, must be evident, that the very difficulty itself, drawn from the extent of the country, is the strongest argument in favor of an energetic government; for any other can certainly never preserve the Union of so large an empire. If we embrace the tenets of those who oppose the adoption of the proposed Constitution, as the standard of our political creed, we cannot fail to verify the gloomy doctrines which predict the impracticability of a national system pervading entire limits of the present Confederacy.


----------



## Library4Science (Apr 13, 2011)

This is an excerpt from volume 4 of America, Great Crises in our History.

*How Settlements Were Planted*

By William Cooper.

_THIS account of the hardships suffered by the frontier settlers of colonial and post-colonial days is from William Cooper's "Guide in the Wilderness," a pamphlet issued in Dublin, Ireland, in 1810, for the purpose of promoting immigration to Central New York State, where Cooper established a settlement now known as Cooperstown. He was the father of the first great American novelist, James Fenimore Cooper, whose early life in the wilderness resulted in his famous "Leatherstocking Tales."

The elder Cooper migrated from Burlington, N. J., with his wife and twelve children, in 1790, having acquired large tracts of land around Lake Otsego. He was the first judge of Otsego County, a Congressman, and in his prosperous latter years lived a semi-baronial life in a great mansion he built at the foot of Lake Otsego. His success encouraged similar enterprises throughout the border country and is a fine example of Pioneer achievement._

I BEGAN with the disadvantage of a small capital, and the incumbrance of a large family, and yet I have already settled more acres than any man in America. There are forty thousand souls now holding directly or indirectly under me, and I trust, that no one among so many can justly impute to me any act resembling oppression. I am now descending into the vale of life, and I must acknowledge that I look back with self-complacency upon what I have done, and am proud of having been an instrument in reclaiming such large and fruitful tracts from the waste of the creation. And I question whether that sensation is not now a recompense more grateful to me than all the other profits I have reaped. Your good sense and knowledge of the world will excuse this seeming boast; if it be vain, we all must have our vanities, let it at least serve to show that industry has its rewards, and age its pleasures, and be an encouragement to others to persevere and prosper.

In 1785 I visited the rough and hilly country of Otsego, where there existed not an inhabitant, nor any trace of a road; I was alone three hundred miles from home, without bread, meat, or food of any kind; fire and fishing tackle were my only means of subsistence. I caught trout in the brook, and roasted them on the ashes. My horse fed on the grass that grew by the edge of the waters. I laid me down to sleep in my watch-coat, nothing but the melancholy wilderness around me. In this way I explored the country, formed my plans of future settlement, and meditated upon the spot where a place of trade or a village should afterward be established.

In May, 1786, I opened the sales of 40,000 acres, which, in sixteen days, were all taken up by the poorest order of men. I soon after established a store, and went to live among them, and continued so to do until 1790, when I brought on my family. For the ensuing four years the scarcity of provisions was a serious calamity; the country was mountainous, there were neither roads nor bridges.

But the greatest discouragement was in the extreme poverty of the people, none of whom had the means of clearing more than a small spot in the midst of the thick and lofty woods, so that their grain grew chiefly in the shade; their maize did not ripen; their wheat was blasted, and the little they did gather they had no mill to grind within twenty miles distance; not one in twenty had a horse, and the way lay through rapid streams, across swamps, or over bogs. They had neither provisions to take with them, nor money to purchase them; nor if they had, were any to be found on their way. If the father of a family went abroad to labor for bread, it cost him three times its value before he could bring it home, and all the business on his farm stood still till his return.

I resided among them, and saw too clearly how bad their condition was. I erected a storehouse, and during each winter filled it with large quantities of grain, purchased in distant places. I procured from my friend Henry Drinker a credit for a large quantity of sugar kettles; he also lent me some potash kettles, which we conveyed as we best could; sometimes by partial roads on sleighs, and sometimes over the ice. By this means I established potash works among the settlers, and made them debtor for their bread and laboring utensils. I also gave them credit for their maple sugar and potash, at a price that would bear transportation, and the first year after the adoption of this plan I collected in one mass forty-three hogsheads Of sugar, and three hundred barrels of pot and pearl ash, worth about nine thousand dollars. This kept the people together and at home, and the country soon assumed a new face.

I had not funds of my own sufficient for the opening of new roads, but I collected the people at convenient seasons, and by joint efforts we were able to throw bridges over the deep streams, and to make, in the cheapest manner, such roads as suited our then humble purposes.

In the winter preceding the summer of 1789, grain rose in Albany to a price before unknown. The demand swept the whole granaries of the Mohawk country. The number of beginners who depended upon it for their bread greatly aggravated the evil, and a famine ensued, which will never be forgotten by those who, though now in the enjoyment of ease and comfort, were then afflicted with the cruelest of wants.

In the month of April I arrived among them with several loads of provisions, destined for my own use and that of the laborers I had brought with me for certain necessary operations ; but in a few days all was gone, and there remained not one pound of salt meat nor a single biscuit. Many were reduced to such distress as to live upon the roots of mild leeks; some more fortunate lived upon milk, while others supported nature by drinking a syrup made of maple sugar and water. The quantity of leeks they ate had such an effect upon their breath that they could be smelled at many paces distance, and when they came together it was like cattle that had pastured in a garlic field. A man of the name of Beets mistaking some poisonous herb for a leek, ate it, and died in consequence. Judge of my feeling at this epoch, with two hundred families about me, and not a morsel of bread.

A singular event seemed sent by a good Providence to our relief; it was reported to me that unusual shoals of fish were seen moving in the clear waters of the Susquehanna. I went and was surprised to find that they were herrings. We made something like a small net, by the interweaving of twigs, and by this rude and simple contrivance we were able to take them in thousands. In less than ten days each family had an ample supply with plenty of salt. I also obtained from the Legislature, then in session, seventeen hundred bushels of corn. This we packed on horses' backs, and on our arrival made a distribution among the families, in proportion to the number of individuals of which each was composed.

This was the first settlement I made, and the first attempted after the Revolution; it was, of course, attended with the greatest difficulties; nevertheless, to its success many others have owed their origin. It was besides the roughest land in all the State, and the most difficult of cultivation of all that has been settled; but for many years past it has produced everything necessary to the support and comfort of man. It maintains at present eight thousand souls, with schools, academies, churches, meeting-houses, turnpike roads, and a market town. It annually yields to commerce large droves of fine oxen, great quantities of wheat and other grain, abundance of pork, potash in barrels, and other provisions; merchants with large capitals, and all kinds of useful mechanics reside upon it; the waters are stocked with fish, the air is salubrious, and the country thriving and happy. When I contemplate all this, and above all, when I see these good old settlers meet together, and hear them talk of past hardships, of which I bore my share, and compare the misery they then endured with the comforts they now enjoy, my emotions border upon weakness, which manhood can scarcely avow. One observation more on the duty of landlords shall close my answer to your first inquiry.

If the poor man who comes to purchase land has a cow and a yoke of cattle to bring with him, he is of the most fortunate class, but as he will probably have no money to hire a laborer, he must do all his clearing with his own hands. Having no pasture for his cow and oxen, they must range the woods for subsistence; he must find his cow before he can have his breakfast, and his oxen before he can begin his work. Much of the day is sometimes wasted, and his strength uselessly exhausted. Under all these disadvantages, if in three years he attains a comfortable livelihood, he is pretty well off; he will then require a barn, as great losses accrue from the want of shelter for his cattle and his grain; his children, yet too young to afford him any aid, require a school, and are a burden upon him; his wife bearing children, and living poorly in an open house, is liable to sickness, and doctors' bills will be to pay.


----------

