ページの画像
PDF
ePub

they were satisfied with the existing order of things, and in that state of mind found it easy to indulge the sentiment of loyalty which inheres in the British subject, in all lands, so long as he is allowed to do as he pleases. Not that the Tories were fonder of paying taxes than were the patriots, but they were content when the obnoxious tax was repealed, and were disinclined to make an issue on the Declaratory Act of the parliamentary right to tax. To these political sentiments was united the profoundest conviction that the colonists, unaided, could never withstand the power of the empire when put forth in its might, and that the hope of friendly intervention by the continental powers of Europe was a dream sure to be interrupted by a rude awakening. As the event showed, this was their fatal mistake.

Such was the party of the government, or the Loyalists. Such was the formidable party, intrenched in wealth, office and social influence, which confronted John Adams and his associates; and it is his and their glory to have overthrown

it.

THE PATRIOTIC PARTY.

The patriotic party is less easily described, since it contained many heterogeneous elements. As a whole, it was the party of the opposition, such as is always found under all forms of government. In Massachusetts, its formation on well-defined issues antedates by more than a hundred years the resistance to the Stamp Act, and was coeval with the inauguration by Charles II. of those measures designed to reduce the colonies to subjection. The real purpose of this party, though seldom avowed, was, from the first, sub

independence in view. Works, ii. 512. This, of course, is John Adams's statement, and it contains so much of truth and significance as to enhance our estimate of his candor.

stantial independence of the Crown of England. At no time was it troubled with scruples. It hoped immunity from the chastisement threatened by the king in his embroilment in foreign wars.' It resisted the abrogation of the old charter; it imprisoned Andros and Dudley; and when resistance proved unavailing, it sought to save the liberties of the people by neutralizing the anti-democratic elements in the new charter of 1692. The struggle thus begun never changed its character, and, as we have already seen, never ceased until the peace of 1783. Two things must never be lost sight of. First, that this resistance was the resist-> ance of a party. From the first stage of the contest to the last, there was a Tory party which counselled submission; and this party was proportionally more numerous in its early than in its later stage. Secondly, that, from first to last, the action of the patriotic party was resistance and obstruction. It was not the attitude of slaves seeking their freedom, but of freemen resisting subjugation. The difference is immense, and on its perception depends a knowledge of the real character of the American Revolution, which was the final victory. in a hundred years of party strife, with unbroken continuity of unvaried purpose, the maintenance of independence rather than its acquirement, - originating in a province, but at length, and mainly through the influence of John Adams, enkindling the heart of a continent.

Besides reasons of state which embittered the colonists were some of a personal nature, affecting those especially who suffered under the usurpation of Andros, or were dis

"They say," writes a commissioner in 1665, "they can easily spin out seven years by writing, and before that time a change may come; nay, some have dared to say, who knows what the event of this Dutch war may be?" Calendar of State Papers, quoted by Prof. Seeley, Expansion of England, 68, n.

placed by Dudley. This personal element was never absent from the contest in any of its stages, and finally became one of the most potent forces in arraying the Massachusetts colonists in armed hostility to British authority.

The lull of political excitement during the French war was only temporary. With the restoration of peace the people, no longer distressed by the anxieties occasioned by war and irritated by the operations of the Anglican hierarchy, were ready to give ear to the whisperings concerning the ministerial purpose to raise a revenue in America. The passage of the Stamp Act in 1765 left no doubt on that subject. This was the occasion for the re-opening of old party questions, and party strife ensued, which continued with scarcely any mitigation until the war.

But this was true chiefly of Massachusetts. In the colonies to the southward the repeal of the Act was followed by the general apathy which so much alarmed and disgusted Jefferson. The facts verified the conjecture of Franklin. In his examination before the Commons in 1766, he was asked if the Americans would be satisfied with the repeal of the Stamp Act, notwithstanding the resolutions of Parliament as to the right; and his answer was, "I think the resolutions of Right will give them very little concern if they are never attempted to be carried into practice."

Additional reasons for the apparent change in public sentiment may be conjectured. At first it seems not to have been generally understood that all sums raised in America by taxation were to be expended there in the defence and government of the country. To this there doubtless were good practical and constitutional objections; but these would not be likely to strike the common mind with the same force as a project to replenish the British exchequer from the pockets of the colonists. Nor was it unlikely that the acts of violence

which everywhere accompanied the popular expression of disapprobation of the measure, should, on second thought, cause some apprehension in the minds of those friendly to law and order. Property also became alarmed.

But whatever may have been the reasons for the popular falling off, there can be no question as to the fact; and if it had been true in the same degree in Massachusetts as in the other colonies, it is doubtful whether the conflict would have occurred when it did.

In Massachusetts, however, there was to be no peace. The Stamp Act was repealed, but the Declaratory Act remained, and the Bishop of London did not stay his hand. The Puritan pulpit rang with unceasing alarm until its voice was drowned in the clangor of arms. Not one of the causes which had kept the royal governors in contention for sixty years was settled or in abeyance. New causes were constantly arising, often made; and it was the evident determination of the patriotic party that they should be settled. only in one way—with substantial independence of British authority in all matters of domestic policy. To these causes must be added the personal hostility, which had become deadly, between Bernard and Hutchinson on one side, and James Otis, Jr., and Samuel Adams on the other.

The last-mentioned causes kept the contest alive in Massachusetts, which seemed to be in a state of collapse in other colonies, until the arrival of the East India Company's teas revived colonial interest in public affairs.

SAMUEL ADAMS THE GREAT PARTY LEADER.

In the early stages of the controversy, international as well as local, James Otis, Jr., was the leader; but after a while his light began to flicker, and in 1771 went out and was seen no more. Thacher, less to be pitied than Otis, had

found an early grave. Joseph Hawley and Samuel Adams remained; but Hawley's residence was remote from the scene of immediate conflict, and occasional fits of despondency rendered unreliable for sudden exigencies one of the most able and interesting, but little-known, patriots of the Revolution. Samuel Adams remained, and in all local, religious, political and personal relations, the Revolution in Massachusetts found in him its greatest leader.1

If his colony was not quite ripe for armed resistance, nor all of them strong enough, unaided, to carry through the contest if entered upon; or if, as was the judgment of Hawley, and as later events seemed to indicate, there was danger, on one hand, that the conflict would be precipitated without adequate preparation, and on the other, that the people would grow weary of the strife, it was Samuel Adams who kept alive the spirit of resistance, and with infallible sagacity piloted the bark of liberty through these dangerous seas. Apathy might prevail elsewhere, but in Massachusetts it was not allowed to prevail. At one time there seemed to be danger; but never was an exigency in human affairs more clearly discerned nor more resolutely met. Never was opposition more thoroughly organized, nor led with more consummate skill. To this work Samuel Adams gave his time without stint, his whole heart, and his admirable ability.

His

166 Adams, I believe, has the most thorough understanding of liberty and her resources in the temper and character of the people though not in the law and constitution, as well as the most habitual, radical love of it, of any of them, as well as the most correct, genteel and artful pen. He is a man of refined policy, steadfast integrity, exquisite humanity, genteel erudition, obliging, engaging manners, real as well as professed piety, and a universal good character, unless it should be admitted that he is too attentive to the public, and not enough so to himself and his family." John Adams in 1765. Works, ii. 163.

2 See a remarkable letter on this point, written from Northampton, February 22, 1775, to Thomas Cushing, in Mass. Hist. Coll. xxxiv. 393.

« 前へ次へ »