LONGHUNTERS-L Archives

From: "James Butler" <>
Subject: History part 43
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 07:59:14 -0700

author J. Benson Lossing LL. D Our Country 1905
(Part 43)

In time newspapers began to appear in the colonies, but were of
little
worth, as vehicles of general information, until the period of our
Revolution.
The first one issued in America was published in Boston in September,
1690.
It was printed on three pages seven by eleven inches square, on a folded
sheet, and was entitled "Public Occurrences both Foreign and Domestic."
The
editor said of it "It is designed that the country shall be furnished
once a
month (or if any glut of occurrences happen, oftener) with an account of
such
considerable things as have arrived unto our notice." And he gave
warning in
his first number that his paper should be the vehicle for exposing
slanderers
and false reporters, saying: "It is supposed that none will dislike this
proposal, but such as intend to be guilty of so villainous a crime."
Only one
number of this newspaper was published. The first permanent newspaper
was
"The Boston News-Letter," first issued in the spring of 1704. The first
in
Pennsylvania was "The American," published in Philadelphia in 1719. The
first
in New York was "The New York Gazette," in 1725 the first in Maryland was
"The
Maryland Gazette," issued at Annapolis in the summer of 1728. "The South
Carolina Gazette," printed at Charleston at the beginning of 1732, was
the
first issued in that province; the first in Rhode Island was "The Rhode
Island
Gazette," printed at Newport in 1732; the first in Virginia was "The
Virginia
Gazette," printed at Williamsburg in 1736; the first in Connecticut was
"The
Connecticut Gazette," printed at New Haven in 1755 the first in North
Carolina
was "The North Carolina Gazette," printed at New Berne the same year; and
the
first in New Hampshire was "The New Hampshire Gazette," printed at
Portsmouth
in the summer of 1756. At the period of the French and Indian war
newspapers
were printed in all of the colonies excepting in New Jersey, Delaware and
Georgia. The printing machines on which all the colonial newspapers and
books
were printed were simple in form and rude in construction, as may be seen
in
the picture of the Ephrata printing press here given. Of the number of
the
inhabitants of the colonies at that time, we have no exact enumeration.
Mr.
Bancroft, after a careful examination of many official returns and
private
computations, estimated the number of white inhabitants of all the
colonies to
be 1,165,000, and the blacks (who were mostly slaves) to be 260,000.

Since the English Revolution in 1688 - a period of only sixty-six
years -
the growth of the colonies in population had been marvelous. New England
had
increased from 75,000 to 425,000; New York, from 20,000 to 85,000; New
Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland, from 47,000 to 372,000; Virginia,
from
50,000 to 168,000; and the Carolinas and Georgia, from 8,000 to 135,000.
The
assertion of a letter of an "American Farmer" was almost literally true
when
he wrote "We are all tillers of the earth from Nova Scotia to West
Florida.
We are a people of cultivation, scattered over an immense territory
communicating with each other by means of good roads and navigable
rivers;
united by the silken bands of mild government; all respecting the laws,
without dreading their power because they are equitable."

While the English-American colonists were treated by the mother
country
as minor children or as absolute subjects to be governed, without
questionings, by her capricious will and while every measure of the
British
ministry was calculated to trammel their advance toward local self-
government, that lofty idea was working out in America the great problem
of
republicanism, whose demonstration by actual achievements the monarchs of
Europe were dreading. It was an idea that had spontaneous birth in the
minds
of all the colonists when they first felt the stimulating air of the
freedom
of their forest homes; and it grew into a mighty force in the Bosoms of
individuals before any one dared to openly promulgate it. It was the
early
inspiration out of which grew the democracy that finally impelled the
colonists to proclaim themselves independent and to establish a nation
here.

The common danger, as we have seen, caused a confederation of New
England
colonies in 1643, but the national idea was lacking, and it was short
lived.
A half a century later, William Penn put forth a plan for a general union
of
all the colonies, for their mutual welfare, in which he proposed the
appointment of persons in each colony, who should meet at specified
times, in
a general congress to mature plans for the common good, whose presiding
officer should be a high commissioner appointed by the crown, and in time
of
war should command all of the colonial forces. Penn's plan was commended
by
many thoughtful persons, and it was likened to the Grecian Amphictyonic
Council. After that, writers in England and the colonies publicly
discussed
the topic, not with any idea of the independence of the colonists as
subjects
of Great Britain, but with a feeling that a national union here would
redound
to the glory and happiness of Great Britain and her American citizens.
When,
early in the last century, public attention was called to the evident
designs
of the French to supplant the English in America, Daniel Coxe, who had
been a
prominent man in New Jersey, published a volume in London (1722), in
which he
proposed that all the British colonies here should be united by a
national
covenant, in a national government, over which a supreme viceroy or
governor,
appointed by the crown, should preside in some part of America, the
governors
of the several colonies to be subordinate to him; and also that there
should
be a general congress of deputies chosen by the several colonies to
promote
unity of action in times of danger. Men of all shades of political
opinion
made similar suggestions; and Dinwiddie, governor of Virginia,
recommended,
not only a union of the colonies for mutual defence, but a confederation
of
the Indians then friendly toward the English, with the tribes more in the
interior and under the influence of the French.

Meanwhile there had been several congresses or conventions of
leading men
in the colonies, having for their object the union of the people of the
several provinces for the public good, or to cultivate the friendship of
the
Indians. One of these was held at Albany in 1684, composed of the
officers of
the governments of Massachusetts, New York, Maryland and Virginia, and
sachems
of the Five Nations. In 1693, Governor Fletcher, of New York, in
compliance
with a letter of instructions from the king, called a congress of
commissioners from New England and other colonies to consult about the
quotas
of men and money which the several provinces should raise for common
defence
against the French. The call was so feebly answered that nothing was
done by
the few present. Thin was followed the next year by a meeting of
commissioners at Albany with sachems of the Iroquois Confederacy, the
object
being to prevent the Five Nations from making a peace with the French in
Canada.

When it was resolved to invade Canada with a land and naval force,
in
1711, a convention was held at New London, Connecticut, to consult upon
the
matter, at which the governors of several of the colonies appeared and
agreed
upon the quotas. The expedition that followed, under Colonel Nicholson
on
land and Sir Hovenden Walker on the water, proved disastrous, as we have
seen.
In 1722, a congress of colonial officials and Indian sachems was held at
Albany for the promotion of a friendly feeling and the strengthening of
the
alliance then existing with the Iroquois Confederacy. And in 1744, a
similar
congress, for the same purpose, met at Lancaster, in Pennsylvania,
whereat
over two hundred and fifty representatives of the Six (late Five) Nations
were
in attendance.

The last of these colonial congresses, all exhibiting tendencies
toward a
national union, was held at Albany in the summer of 1748, soon after news
had
reached the colonies of a preliminary treaty of peace having been signed
by
the commissioners of England and France. The congress was called for a
two-fold purpose. The antagonisms between the royal governors and the
people
were alarming to the crown officers in America, and the latter wished to
secure a colonial revenue through British interference, and not be
subjected,
in the matter, to the will or caprice of colonial assemblies, Foremost
among
these crown officers who were willing to abridge the rights of the
people,
were Governor Clinton, of New York, and Governor Shirley, of
Massachusetts.
They had promoted the assembling of the congress with a hope that that
body
would favor their scheme, and they were both there with their political
friends. Another purpose of the meeting was the strengthening of the
bond of
friendship between the Six Nations and their savage neighbors on the
west, and
the English. A vast concourse of barbarians were there. The royal
governors
gained nothing for themselves; but a satisfactory arrangement was made
with
the Indians. They agreed 'that no Frenchman should abide within their
borders; also, not to send any delegation to Canada, and to have their
warriors ready for the service of the English whenever they should be
called
for.

A crisis in political affairs in the colonies was now at hand. The
royal
governors perceived that something must speedily be done to curb the
democratic spirit of the people, or local self-government would supersede
royal authority. It was necessary to convince parliament of this truth.
Only
through the Lords of Trade and Plantations could this be done. This was
a
Board or Committee appointed by the crown in 1696, to whom was entrusted
a
general oversight of the affairs of the American colonies. It was
originally
composed of seven members and a president. To them the royal governors
were
requested to give frequent and full information of the condition of their
respective governments concerning political and commercial affairs, and
particularly of the proceedings of the assemblies also of the
appropriations
for the public service, and how they were expended. To this Board the
royal
agents in the colonies addressed their letters. "It was the lion's
mouth,"
says Frothingham in his "Rise of the Republic of the United States,"
"into
which the accusations and complaints against the colonies were
indiscriminately cast."

To arouse the Lords of Trade and Plantations to action, some overt
act of
disobedience on the part of the colonies must be obtained. The bluff
Admiral
Clinton, then governor of New York, was chosen to bring on the crisis,
and
that province was to be the theatre of the collision. The royal
governors
were to aid him by representations to the Board of the turbulence of the
people and their disloyalty. Governor Shirley took occasion, when the
people
of Boston had liberated some of their citizens from the grasp of a
British
admiral who had impressed them into the naval service, to represent the
act as
a rebellious insurrection. "The chief cause of the mobbish turn of a
town
inhabited by twenty thousand inhabitants," he continued, "is its
constitution,
by which the management of it devolves on the populace, assembled in
their
town meetings." Royalists in Pennsylvania wrote words of warning, saying
that
"the obstinate, wrong-headed Assembly of Quakers" in that colony,
"pretended
not to be accountable to his majesty or his government," and that "they
may,
in time, apply the public money to purposes injurious to the crown and
the
mother country." "Virginia," wrote its governor, "formerly an orderly
province, has nothing more at heart than to lessen the influence of the
crown." In a similar strain loyalists wrote from all the provinces; and
the
Earl of Halifax, a young man a little more than thirty years of age, who
had
been placed at the head of The Lords of Trade, was satisfied that royal
authority in the colonies was in peril, and so informed the ministry. In
a
letter to Governor Glen, of South Carolina, he promised "a very serious
consideration on the just prerogatives of the crown and those defects of
the
constitution which have spread themselves over many of the plantations,
and
are destructive to all order and government."

Governor Clinton sought, and soon found an occasion for a quarrel
with
the New York Assembly. He demanded of that body an appropriation for the
support of the government, for five years next ensuing, with a view of
making
himself, as governor, independent of the assembly. As he expected, they
refused their compliance. Then he warned them of the danger of incurring
the
displeasure of parliament, and dissolved the assembly. He at once wrote
letters to the Lords of Trade, complaining of the rebellious tendencies
of a
greater portion of the assembly, charging them with claiming all the
powers
and privileges of parliament that they had set up the people as the high
court
of American appeal that they had "virtually assumed all of the public
money
into their own hands, and issued it without warrant from the governor,"
and,
also, had assumed the right to nominate all officers of government to
reward
all services by granting the salaries annually, "not to the office, but
by
name to the person in the office," and that the system if not speedily
remedied, "would effect the dependency of the colonies on the crown." He
besought the king to "make a good example for all America, by regulating
the
government of New York." He declared that until that should be done he
could
not "meet the assembly without danger of exposing the king's authority,"
and
himself, "to contempt."

After violent quarrels with all political factions in the province,
Clinton abandoned the government in disgust, and returned home. He was
succeeded by Sir Danvers Osborne, who came with instructions to demand
from
the assembly a permanent revenue to be disbursed solely by himself. His
council assured him that the assembly would refuse compliance with the
demand.
Foreseeing much trouble ahead, he became despondent. This state of mind
was
aggravated by grief because of the recent death of his wife, and he
hanged
himself with his pocket-handkerchief to the garden fence at his lodgings
in
New York.

The attitude of the New York Assembly was applauded by the leaders
of
popular opinion in the other colonies; and had measures for the
maintenance of
the royal prerogative and the supreme authority of parliament which
Halifax
proposed been pressed with vigor much longer, the revolution which broke
out
about twenty years later would doubtless have occurred then. But more
urgent
considerations occupied the attention of the British government and the
American colonies at that time. Ever since the English captured
Louisburg, in
1745, and D'Anville experienced his naval disasters, the French had put
forth
the most vigorous efforts for the extension and strengthening of their
dominion in America. They were resolved on a persistent strife for
power; and
their aggressive movements about the year 1753, aroused the British
government
and the American colonial assemblies and people to the necessity of
employing
equally vigorous measures for opposing their common enemy. Then the
colonists
united among themselves and with the Home Government in defence of
British
dominion in America. Then began the conflict known in America as the
French
and Indian War, and in Europe as the Seven Years War, which we will now
consider.
(continued)

This thread:

• History part 43 by "James Butler" <>