1765. June.

colonies with a trap of our own making will be deemed, in the ministerial cant, an infamous, atrocious, and nefarious crime." "A colonist," murmured a Boston man, who had dipped into Grenville's pamphlet," a colonist cannot make a horseshoe or a hobnail but some ironmonger of Britain shall bawl that he is robbed by the 'American republican."""Yes, they are even stupid enough," it was said in the town of Providence, “to judge it criminal for us to become our own manufacturers.”

"We will eat no lamb," promised the multitude, seeking to retaliate; 66 we will wear no mourning at funerals." "We will none of us import British goods," said the traders in the towns. The inhabitants of North Carolina set up looms for weaving their own clothes, and South Carolina was ready to follow the example. "The people," wrote Lieutenant-governor Sharpe, of Maryland, "will go on upon manufactures." "We will have homespun markets of linens and woollens," passed from mouth to mouth, till it found its way across the Atlantic, and alarmed the king in council; "the ladies of the first fortune shall set the example of wearing homespun." "It will be accounted a virtue in them to wear a garment of their own spinning." "A little attention to manufactures will make us ample amends for the distresses of the present day, and render us a great, rich, and happy people."

When the churchmen of New York preached loyalty to the king as the Lord's anointed, "The people," retorted William Livingston, "are the Lord's anointed. Though named 'mob' and 'rabble,' the people are the darling of Providence." Was the Bible quoted as demanding deference to all in authority? "This," it was insisted, "is to add dulness to impiety." For "tyranny," they cried, "is no government; the gospel promises liberty, glorious liberty." "The gospel," so preached Mayhew, of Boston," the gospel permits resistance."

And then patriots would become maddened with remembering that " some high or low American had had a hand in procuring every grievance." "England," it was said, "is deceived and deluded by place-men and office

seekers." "Yes," exclaimed the multitude; "it all comes of the horse-leeches." When" the friends to government" sought to hush opposition by terror of parliament, "You are cowards," was the answer; are fools, parasites, or, rather, parricides.”

66 you

1765. June.

"Power is a sad thing," wrote the Presbyterians of Philadelphia: "our mother should remember we are children, and not slaves." "When all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them," responded the Calvinists of the north, "the people answered the king, saying: 'What portion have we in David? what inheritance in the son of Jesse? To your tents, O Israel! Now see to thine own house, David!"" "Who cares," reasoned the more hardy, "whether George or Louis is the sovereign, if both are alike?" "The beast of burden," continued others, "asks not whose pack it carries." "I would bear allegiance to King George," said one who called himself a lover of truth, "but not be a slave to his British subjects."

"But the members of parliament," argued the royalists, "are men of wisdom and integrity, and incapable of dealing unjustly." "One who is bound to obey the will of another," retorted Hopkins, "is as really a slave, though he may have a good master, as if he had a bad one; and this is stronger in politic bodies than in natural ones."

"It is an insult on the most common understanding," thought James Habersham, of Georgia, and every American from the Savannah to Maine, "to talk of our being virtually represented in parliament." "It is an insult on common sense to say it," repeated the Presbyterian ministers of the middle states. "Are persons chosen for the representatives of London and Bristol in like manner chosen to be the representatives of Philadelphia or Boston? Have two men chosen to represent a poor English borough that has sold its votes to the highest bidder any pretence to say that they represent Virginia or Pennsylvania? And have four hundred such fellows a right to take our liberties?

But it was argued again and again: "Manchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield, like America, return no members." "Why," rejoined Otis, and his answer won applause in

1765. June.

England, "why ring everlasting changes to the colonists on them? If they are not represented, they ought to be." "Every man of a sound mind," he continued, "should have his vote." "Ah, but," replied the royalists, holding Otis to his repeated concessions, "you own that parliament is the supreme legislature; will you question its jurisdiction?" And his answer was on the lips of all patriots, learned and unlearned: "Lord Coke declares that it is against Magna Charta and against the franchises of the land for freemen to be taxed but by their own consent; Lord Coke rules that an act of parliament against common law is void."

Thus opinion was echoed from mind to mind, as the sun's rays beam from many clouds, all differing in tints, but every one taking their hue from the same fires. In the midst of the gloom, light broke forth from the excitement of a whole people. Associations were formed in Virginia, as well as in New England, to resist the stamp act by all lawful means. Hope began to rise that American rights and liberties might safely be trusted "to the watchfulness of a united continent."

The insolence of the royal officers provoked to insulated acts of resistance. The people of Rhode Island, angry with the commander of a ship-of-war, who had boarded their vessels and impressed their seamen, seized his boat, and burned it on Newport common. Men of New England, "of a superior sort," had obtained of the government of New Hampshire a warrant for land down the western slope of the Green Mountains, on a branch of the Hoosic, twenty miles east of the Hudson River. They formed already a community of sixty-seven families, in as many houses, with an ordained minister, their own municipal officers, three several public schools, their meeting-house among the primeval forests of beech and maple; in a word, they enjoyed the flourishing state which springs from rural industry, intelligence, and piety. They called their village Bennington. The royal officers at New York disposed anew of that town, as well as of others near it, so that the king was known to the settlers near the Green Mountains chiefly by his agents, who

had knowingly sold his lands twice over. In this way, the soil of Bennington became a fit battle-ground for independence.

Events like these sowed the seeds of discontent; but there was no present relief for America, unless union could be perfected. Union was the hope of Otis; union that "should knit and work into the very blood and bones of the original system every region, as fast as settled." Yet how comprehensive and how daring the idea! The traditions of the board of trade branded it as "mutinous." Massachusetts had proceeded timidly, naming for its delegates to the proposed congress, with the patriot Otis, two others who were "friends to government."

Virginia was ready to convince the world that her people were firm and unanimous in the cause of liberty, but its newly elected assembly was not suffered by Fauquier to come together. New Jersey received the circular letter of Massachusetts on the twentieth of June, the last day of the session of its legislature. The speaker, a friend to the British government, at first inclined to urge sending delegates to the proposed congress; but, on some “advice from the governor, changed his mind, and the house, in the hurry preceding the adjournment, rather from uncertainty than the want of good-will, unanimously declined the invitation. The assembly of New Hampshire seemed to approve, but did not adopt it. Nothing will be done in consequence of this intended congress," wrote Bernard, in July; and he seized the opportunity to press "more and more upon the government at home "the necessity of taking into their hands the appointment of the American civil list," as well as changing the council of the province. Even the liberal governor of Maryland reported "that the resentment of the colonists would probably die out; and that, in spite of the violent outcries of the lawyers, the stamp act would be carried into execution."

66

1765.

July 25.

But, far away towards the lands of the sun, the assembly of South Carolina was in session; and, on the twenty-fifth of July, debated the circular from Massachusetts. Many objections were made to the legality, the

VOL. III.

31

1762. July.

expediency, and most of all to the efficiency of the proposed measure; and many eloquent words were uttered, especially by the youthful John Rutledge, when the subject, on the deliberate resolve of a small majority, was referred to a committee, of which Gadsden was the chairman. He was a man of deep and clear convictions; thoroughly sincere; of an unbending will and a sturdy, impetuous integrity, which drove those about him, like a mountain torrent dashing on an over-shot wheel, though sometimes clogging with back water from its own violence. He possessed not only that courage which defies danger, but that persistence which neither peril nor imprisonment nor the threat of death can shake. Full of religious faith, and at the same time inquisitive and tolerant, methodical, yet lavish of his fortune for public ends, he had in his nature nothing vacillating or low, and knew not how to hesitate or feign. After two legislatures had held back, South Carolina, by "his achievement," pronounced for union. "Our state," he used to say, particularly attentive to the interest and feelings of America, was the first, though at the extreme end, and one of the weakest, as well internally as externally, to listen to the call of our northern brethren in their distresses. Massachusetts sounded the trumpet, but to Carolina is it owing that it was attended to. Had it not been for South Carolina, no congress would then have happened."

As the united American people spread through the vast expanse over which their jurisdiction now extends, be it remembered that the blessing of union is due to the warmheartedness of South Carolina. "She was all alive, and felt at every pore." And when we count up those who, above others, contributed to the great result, we are to name the inspired "madman," James Otis, and the magnanimous, unwavering lover of his country, Christopher Gadsden.

Otis now seemed to himself to hear the prophetic song of the "Sibyls," chanting the spring-time of a "new empire."