New Advent
 Home   Encyclopedia   Summa   Fathers   Bible   Library 
 A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z 
Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > U > The United States of America

The United States of America

Boundaries and area

On the east the boundary is formed by the St. Croix River and an arbitrary line to the St. John, and on the north by the Aroostook Highlands, the 45th parallel of N. lat., the St. Lawrence, and the Great Lakes. West of Lake Superior, the Rainy River, Rainy Lake, and the Lake of the Woods form the boundary; thence to Puget Sound the 49th parallel. Thereafter it drops down to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, leaving Vancouver Island to the Dominion of Canada. The Atlantic Ocean washes the entire eastern shore. On the south the Gulf of Mexico serves as the boundary to the mouth of the Rio Grande del Norte. That river separates the United States from the Republic of Mexico until at the city of El Paso it turns northward; from that point to the Colorado River an arbitrary line marks the boundary of the two republics. The Pacific Ocean forms the western boundary.

The total area is 3,026,789 sq. miles. The United States is divided into two unequal parts by the Mississippi River, which flows almost directly south from its source in a lake below the 49th parallel. The portion east of that great river is subdivided into two parts by the Ohio and the Potomac Rivers. The section west of the Mississippi is divided into two very unequal parts by the Missouri River.

In a physiographic view, however, the area of the United States may be divided into the Appalachian belt, the Cordilleras, and the central plains.

The first of these divisions includes the middle Appalachian region, or that between the Hudson and the James Rivers; the north-eastern Appalachian region, which overlaps New England at many points; the south-western Appalachian, which includes the country from Maryland to the Carolinas. In North Carolina the mountain belt reaches its greatest altitude, falling away in Georgia and Alabama. Much of the early history of the United States is concerned with the Atlantic coastal plain. In New England the mountains almost front the sea, and harbour and hill are within sight of each other. From New York, however, the interval which separates them gradually widens toward the southward, until in the State of Georgia it extends into the interior about 120 miles, after which it unites with the Gulf coastal plain. In New York is the rugged Adirondack region, which was very late in being settled. The characteristics of the region of the Great Lakes, which is a projection of the Laurentian Highlands in eastern Canada, are well known.

Of almost inexhaustible fertility and of immense area is the region included by the Prairie States. Roughly speaking, it may be bounded by the Ohio and Missouri Rivers on the south, and by the Great Lakes on the north. The Prairies are the gift of the glacial period. The Gulf coastal plain has been alluded to. Authorities on physical geography also distinguish a Texas coastal plain.

Passing by the great valley of the Mississippi, the next division is the region known as the Great Plains, which extends from the 97th meridian of W. longitude to the base of the Rocky Mountains. To the elevated section between the Great Plains and the Pacific is given the name Cordilleras. This includes the Rocky Mountains, the Basin range, the plateau province, and the Pacific ranges (Cascade and Sierra Nevada).

Around desirable harbours and in situations favourable for defence the first European settlements were made in what is now the United States. In this connexion are suggested the names: Boston, Salem, Plymouth, Providence, New York, Philadelphia, Charleston. For a long time the waterways not only influenced the social and political life of the people, but determined the direction of their movements when they went to new regions. Thus were the early westward movements of population conditioned by the river systems. This, too, explains the irregular character of the frontier line until railways became numerous, when it moved regularly toward the west.

Geology

The Laurentian uplift, seen in the Adirondacks and the region of the Great Lakes, was clearly in the earliest geological periods. The rock structure and the character of the deposits tend to support this opinion. The Cordilleras, on the contrary, are of comparatively recent formation, and exhibit evidences of late volcanic action. The volcanoes of Mexico and of Alaska, indeed, are not yet extinct. Many of the valleys in the Cordilleras are vast lava beds. The entire region, including New England, New York to the Ohio River, and westward to the prairies and the great plains, exhibits evidences that a great glacial sheet had in practically recent times spread over it. In its retreat were left fertile prairie in the United States and unnumbered lakes and water-courses as well in that country as in Canada.

In 1902 the United States produced about one third of the entire coal supply of the world. In the east it is generally distributed, except the anthracite variety, which is found in only a limited field. It is also found in many sections of the west. Still more valuable than the production of coal is that of iron, which in the year mentioned amounted to $367,000,000. Approximately the value of the gold produced yearly in the United States is $80,000,000; copper comes next with an estimated value of $77,000,000. Silver amounts to $29,000,000, lead to $22,000,000, and zinc to $14,000,000. Aluminium and quicksilver are less important. Montana and the Lake Superior region lead in the output of copper; gold is found in many of the western states, and silver is widely distributed. The zinc deposits in northern New Jersey are among the richest in the world. The non-metallic mineral products are also of great value, e.g. petroleum, clay, gypsum, salt, and natural gas. Of the tin, antimony, sulphur, and platinum consumed in the United States much is imported.

Colonization

In April, 1606, King James I created a company with two branches, viz, the London and the Plymouth. The former was given permission to make settlements between 34 and 41 N. lat., and was to receive grants of land extending fifty miles north and south from its first settlement, -- a coast front of 100 miles and the same distance inland. The Plymouth merchants were permitted to make their first settlement between 38 and 45 N. lat., and were also given a block 100 miles square. To prevent disputes, the branch making the second settlement should locate at least 100 miles from the colony first established. Each branch was very careful to fix its first settlement on territory to which the other had no right whatever. The two branches are always mentioned as two companies. King James's patent of 10 April, 1606, is a document of interest. It provides that English colonists and their posterity "shall have and enjoy all liberties, franchises, and immunities within any of Our other dominions, to all intents and purposes as if they had been abiding and born within this Our realm of England or any other of Our said dominions". A similar provision was found in the earlier patent granted to Raleigh, and even in that obtained by Gilbert. On the other hand, the colonists of France, Spain, and other nations were regarded as persons outside the laws, privileges and immunities enjoyed by those who continued to dwell in the mother land. It will thus appear that English settlers carried with them as much of the common law of their country as was applicable to their new situation. In colonization this principle marked an epoch.

The London company was composed of merchants and gentlemen in the vicinity of London, and the Plymouth company of persons dwelling in the west of England. In some respects the British government had no more enlightened a conception of colonization than did contemporary governments. England was "to monopolize the consumption of the colonies and the carriage of their produce". This led to the enactment of the celebrated Navigation Laws. Commercial legislation affecting colonial trade falls under two heads: acts controlling exportation and importation, and those controlling production. By a law of 1660 certain enumerated commodities, being all the chief products of the colonies, could be landed only in British ports. Two later acts further extended this restriction. Under the Navigation Act of 1660, European goods could not be imported into the colonies except in ships of Britain or of British colonies, sailing from British ports. We are not now concerned with the Act of 1733. If strictly enforced this would have oppressed the New England colonies, but, fortunately for them, the revenue officers winked at their frequent infractions of the law.

The London Company was the first to establish a settlement, viz, that at Jamestown in 1607. The vicissitudes of that colony and the general outline of English colonial development will be found in the articles on the thirteen original states, viz. Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. This summary can touch upon them but briefly. On 6 May, 1607, the first Virginia settlers, 120 in number, entered Chesapeake Bay, and sailed about thirty miles up the James River, so named after the king. Toward evening they landed, and were attacked by the Indians. In a few months Captain Newport, who had brought out the first settlers, returned to England, collected supplies and recruits, and in January, 1608, was again at James Fort, as the settlement was then called. Fever, hunger, and Indian arrows had swept off more than half of those he had first brought over, among them some members of the council. Wingfield, the first president, was under arrest, and John Smith, an influential man in the colony, was awaiting execution.

At the end of three months, when Newport again sailed for England, one-half of those who were alive in January had died. Edward Maria Wingfield, the first president of the local council, was the only person among the patentees who came with the colonists. With suffering came dissension. Ratcliffe, Martin, and Smith removed Wingfield not only from the presidency but from the council. In the circumstances his overthrow was easy. It was charged that he was a Catholic, some authorities say an atheist, that he brought no Bible with him, and also that he had conspired with the Spaniards to destroy Virginia. In April, 1608, Wingfield left Jamestown, and later in England made to the authorities an interesting statement in his own defence. For considerably more than two hundred years Captain John Smith was universally regarded as the ablest and the most useful of the first Jamestown settlers. Indeed, he was believed to have been the founder and the preserver of the colony. As a matter of fact, he was a mere adventurer, responsible for much of the dissension among the first settlers. His "General History" is an absurd eulogy of himself and an unfair criticism of his fellows. Perhaps it was no misfortune to Virginia when the accidental explosion of a bag of gunpowder compelled him to return to England for medical treatment. Smith was never afterward employed by the Virginia Company. The five hundred new settlers sent to Jamestown in 1609 were "a worthless set picked up in the streets of London or taken from the jails, and utterly unfit to become the founders of a state in the New World". This, however, while true of a particular band of immigrants, will not serve for a description of those who came later. During the seventeenth century there arrived numerous knights, and numbers of the nobility of every rank, representatives of the best families and the best intellect in England.

In the beginning the population of Virginia was almost exclusively English; indeed, Virginia was very much like an English shire. As early as 1619 the company had sent out a few Frenchmen to test the soil for its capacity to produce a superior variety of grapes. Other French immigrants continued to arrive in the colony throughout the seventeenth century. After the English took New Amsterdam, in 1664, many Dutchmen went from New Netherland to Virginia. Germans and Italians were never numerous in that province. During the era of Cromwellian ascendency many Irish were sent to Virginia. Again in 1690 and afterwards there arrived many Irishmen who were captured at the Boyne and on other battlefields. These non-English elements in the population do not appear, however, to have exerted much social or other influence. They soon melted into the population around them. The name of Edward Maria Wingfield has been mentioned as that of the only patentee who came over with the colonists. If there is any doubt as to the Catholicism of the first president of the council there is none concerning the religious belief of the Earl of Southampton. That nobleman had a keen interest in English colonization.

While England was engaged in developing the Province of Virginia, four other European powers, Spain, France, Holland, and Sweden, were establishing themselves on parts of the Atlantic coast of North America. In 1655 the Dutch conquered New Sweden, and nine years later New Netherland was acquired by the English. The latter conquest was facilitated by the former, because New Netherland had reduced itself to a condition of bankruptcy in order to send its warlike armament into Delaware Bay. After the failures of Ribaut and Laudonnière the French made no attempt to settle the south Atlantic coast. That nation, however, did not abandon American colonization. From the founding of Quebec, in 1608, great activity was manifested in Canada and later in Louisiana. On the Atlantic coast, therefore, Spain and England were the chief rivals. The former manifested little interest to the northward of the Mexican Gulf, and after 1664 England was free to develop her maritime colonies in her own way. In the meantime France was exploring the interior, establishing garrisons, and in other ways strengthening her hold on the most desirable part of the continent. Between the outposts of the two nations collisions were inevitable.

Inter-colonial wars

It is not possible to discuss here either the causes or the conduct of those wars which in 1763 ended in the complete triumph of British arms. Between 1689 and 1763 four separate struggles took place between these ancient enemies.

King Williams' War

The first, which began in 1689, is known as King William's War, ending in 1697 by the treaty of Ryswick.

Queen Anne's War

The second conflict was Queen Anne's War, known in European history as the War of the Spanish Succession. Though not so widespread as the preceding one, in America it was marked by the same characteristics. In 1710, with the assistance of ships sent from England, Port Royal was again captured. With it the whole of Acadia passed into the hands of the English. The name of the town was changed to Annapolis Royal, in honour of Queen Anne. Acadia became Nova Scotia, or New Scotland. In 1713 this war was ended by the treaty of Utrecht. The extent of the country designated as Acadia was somewhat vague, and as to the regions included under that name new disputes were destined to arise.

King George's War

The War of the Austrian Succession (1744-1748), occurring in the reign of George II, is known in American history as King George's War. The French promptly swept down on and captured the little town of Canso, in Nova Scotia. They carried off its garrison and then attacked Annapolis, but were repulsed. The most important event of this war was the expedition against Louisburg, on Cape Breton Island. Though Louisburg had been fortified at an expense estimated at $10,000,000, it was compelled to surrender. Later there came the alarming report that a French armada was on the way to retake Acadia and Louisburg, and to destroy Boston. Though the armada reached American waters, it was dispersed by a tempest off the coast of Nova Scotia, and its crest-fallen crews soon returned to France. At this stage of the war both sides were freely assisted by savages. One of the French expeditions attacked the outpost of Saratoga, killed thirty persons, and took a hundred prisoners. By the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in July, 1748, all conquests were mutually restored. The news of the surrender of Louisburg, which had been chiefly won and defended at the expense of New England, caused the greatest dissatisfaction throughout the colonies, and strained somewhat the relations with the mother country.

The French and Indian War

Having emerged from the last war without loss of territory, France went to work more vigorously than ever with her preparations for excluding the British altogether from the Mississippi valley. In 1749 the Governor of Canada despatched Céloron de Bienville with a band of men in birch-bark canoes to take formal possession of the Ohio valley, the only highway still unguarded. Once on the Allegheny River, the ceremony of taking possession began. The men were drawn up by their commanders, and Louis XV was proclaimed king of all the country drained by the Ohio. Then the arms of France were nailed to a tree, at the foot of which was buried a leaden plate with an inscription claiming the Ohio and all its tributaries for the King of France. At various points along the Ohio similar plates were hidden. Forts were built along the Allegheny. This activity on the part of the French alarmed Governor Dinwiddie of Virginia. He determined to demand the withdrawal of the French, and for his messenger chose George Washington, then an officer of the Virginia militia. Washington proceeded to Fort Le Boeuf, where he delivered Dinwiddie's letter to the commandant, Saint-Pierre, who promised to forward the letter to the authorities in Canada. In the meantime he would continue to hold the fort.

When Dinwiddie received the reply of Saint-Pierre, he knew that the time for action had come. He sent forward to the forks of the Ohio a party of forty men, who began the erection of a stockade, intended to surround a fort, on the site of the present city of Pittsburgh. On 17 April, 1754, while the English were still engaged at their work, a body of French and Indians from Fort Le Boeuf ordered them to leave the valley. The English commander was allowed to march off with his men. The French then completed the work thus begun, and in honour of the Governor of Canada called it Fort Duquesne. The surrender at the forks of the Ohio was soon known to the governors of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Virginia acted promptly and raised a force, of which Frye was commander, with Washington as lieutenant-colonel. Near a place called Great Meadows, Washington with a few men killed or captured a small party of French. On 4 July, 1754, he was himself besieged by a party of French and Indians, and after a brave resistance compelled to surrender. Thus was begun what the English colonists called the French and Indian War. The British in 1755 sent over Major-General Braddock as commander-in-chief in America. The colonial governors met him at Alexandria, Virginia. Four expeditions were agreed upon:

There was no opposition until his troops had crossed the Monongahela River and had arrived within eight miles of Fort Duquesne. Suddenly they came face to face with an army of the Indians and French. It was not in any sense an ambuscade, but the French and their Indian allies instantly disappeared behind bushes and trees, and poured a merciless and incessant fire into the ranks of the British. Braddock would not allow his men to fight in Indian fashion; therefore they stood huddled in groups, targets for the Indians and the French, till the extent of his loss compelled him to order a retreat. Had it not been for Washington and his Virginians the British force would probably have perished to a man. Braddock, wounded in the battle, died soon afterwards. The expedition against Niagara was a failure. That against Crown Point was partially successful.

The French Government now appeared to see vaguely the great importance of the contest in America. The demands of the European war had kept the French armies employed at home; therefore, no considerable force could be sent to America. The king, however, sent over the Marquess de Montcalm, the ablest French officer that ever commanded on this continent, and there followed for the British two years of disastrous war. Montcalm won over the Indians to the side of France, captured and burned the post at Oswego, and threatened to send a strong fleet against New England. Until the elder William Pitt became influential in the councils of Great Britain, no progress was made against the French. In the year 1758 the strong fortress of Louisburg surrendered to a joint military and naval force under Amherst and Boscawen. In the same year Washington took Fort Duquesne, which was renamed Fort Pitt. Fort Frontenac, on Lake Ontario, was destroyed by a provincial officer named Bradstreet. With the loss of Fort Duquesne this second disaster cut off the Ohio country from Quebec.

On 8 July, 1758, General Abercrombie, with an army of at least 15,000 men, made a furious and persistent assault on the strong post of Ticonderoga. The fort was defended by Montcalm with about 3100 men. The battle raged all day in front of Ticonderoga, its outlying breastworks, and its formidable abattis of fallen trees. When the British, under cover of darkness, withdrew, they left behind them 1944 killed, wounded, and missing. The French reported a loss of 377.

In a fiercely contested battle on the plains of Abraham, 13 Sept., 1759, the French were defeated, and Wolfe and Montcalm were among the dead. In the following year Montreal was taken, and the American phase of the war came to an end. In Europe the conflict continued until peace was made at Paris in February, 1763. By that treaty France gave to Spain for her assistance in the war, all that part of the country lying west of the middle of the Mississippi River from its source to a point almost as far south as New Orleans. To Great Britain she surrendered all her territory east of this line.

After the French and Indian War (1759-1774)

From the beginning of the inter-colonial wars, in 1689, the Middle Colonies gave assistance to New England in its expeditions against the French strongholds in Canada. When the last conflict broke out the lower states of the south sent troops into Pennsylvania. Some of these served under Washington at Fort Necessity. Whenever troops from the different colonies acted together, as they frequently did, they used the name "provincials" to distinguish themselves from the British troops. There is a popular notion that all the proposals after 1643, when the United Confederation of New England was formed, were suggested by military necessity. In a measure, but not wholly, such necessity was the sole influence tending toward their union. As early as 1660 an agreement was entered into by Maryland, Virginia, and Carolina to restrict the production of tobacco. Even though nothing came of this commercial agreement, it indicates the existence among the colonies of interests other than military. As early as the eighteenth century (1720) Deputy-governor Keith, of Pennsylvania, submitted to the Lords of Trade and Plantations a plan, or a recommendation, for a union of England's North American colonies. In the treatises on the development of the idea of union this document is overlooked. It will be found, however, among the printed papers of Sir William Keith.

The French and Indian War was the prelude to the American Revolution. It trained officers and men for that struggle. During its campaigns the commander-in-chief in the War for Independence acquired his first knowledge of strategy. This War released the colonies from the pressure of the French in Canada and developed in them a consciousness of strength and unity. Besides it gave to the colonies an unlimited western expansion. In this great acquisition of territory is to be found one of the earliest causes of the quarrel with the mother country. Though the provinces had fought for territorial extension, a royal proclamation was issued (1763) forbidding present land sales west of the Alleghenies, thus reserving the conquered territory as a crown domain. Though they did not clearly perceive it, the war had welded the thirteen colonies into one people. It was in this era that there grew up the feeling that this conquered territory did not belong to the Crown but to the colonies collectively. So afterwards, when independence was achieved, it was contended that these western lands did not belong to the respective states but to the union collectively, because the domain had been won by their joint exertions. By the proclamation of 1763 a line was drawn around the head-waters of all those rivers in the United States which flow into the Atlantic Ocean, and west of that line the colonists were forbidden to settle. All the valley from the Great Lakes to the Florida country and from the proclamation line westward to the Mississippi was set apart for the Indians. Out of the conquered territory England created three new provinces: in Canada the Province of Quebec; out of the country conquered from Spain, two provinces, namely, East Florida and West Florida. The Appalachicola separated the Floridas. The land between the Altamaha and the St. Mary's was annexed to the Province of Georgia.

In order to provide for the military defence of the colonies, it was decided to enforce the Navigation Acts. These required:

Not unconnected with this measure, perhaps, was an intention of establishing permanently in America a body of 10,000 British troops, for whose maintenance it was decided to provide at least in part by a Parliamentary tax in the colonies. These were among the measures which led ultimately to a division of the empire.

While these measures of Grenville's administration were in contemplation, information of the design of the ministry was received in Boston from the colonial agent in England, who asked counsel in the emergency. In the spring of 1764 a Boston town-meeting gave the subject special consideration. For the guidance of newly-elected members a committee was appointed to prepare instructions. This important work was assigned to Samuel Adams. While motives of policy suggested the language of loyalty and dependence, it is not difficult to see behind these instructions of Adams the spirit of a determined patriot who had long and thoughtfully considered the whole question of the relation of the colonies to the mother country, for he furnished Americans with arguments that never ceased to be urged till the separation from Great Britain was complete.

By drawing into question the right of the Crown to put an absolute negative upon the act of a colonial legislature, the Virginian orator merely revived in another form that struggle against prerogative which with varying success had long been maintained on both sides of the Atlantic. The resolutions of the Boston town-meeting, however, had a different purpose, marking, as they do, the first organized action against taxation.

Trade with the French and the Spanish West Indies not only stimulated the prosperity of the commercial centres in every colony, but was a chief source of wealth to all New England. For the abundant supply of timber standing in her forests, for her fish, and for her cattle, these islands furnished a convenient and profitable market. By the vessels engaged in this extensive trade, cargoes of sugar and molasses were unloaded at Boston and other New England ports. A Parliamentary statute of 1733 had imposed on both commodities a prohibitive duty, which but for the connivance of revenue officers would even then have accomplished the ruin of a flourishing commerce. When this law, after several renewals, was about to expire in 1763, the colonists actively opposed its re-enactment, but Grenville was resolved to improve the finances in his own way, and against the successive remonstrances of colonial agents, of merchants, and of even a royal governor, renewed the act, says Bancroft, in a form "greatly to the disadvantage of America". Commissioners of customs, regarding their places as sinecures, had hitherto resided in England. Now they were ordered at once to their posts; the number of revenue officers was increased, and, to assist in executing the new regulations, warships patrolled the harbours and the coast. These were instructed to seize all vessels suspected of smuggling. Army officers were commanded to co-operate. The jurisdiction of admiralty courts, in which cases were tried without juries, was greatly extended.

Both the promise of emolument from confiscated property and the fear of dismissal for neglect of duty sharpened the vigilance of those engaged in enforcing the acts of navigation, and it was soon perceived that their unusual activity and violence threatened to destroy not only contraband, but menaced the very existence of even legitimate, trade. At this time 164,000 sterling was the estimated annual value of the Massachusetts fisheries; and to supply the provisions, casks, and sundry articles yearly required in the business, there was needed an additional capital of 23,700. The importance of this industry may be easily estimated from the extent to which it had been carried by a single community. A rigorous execution of the Act of April, 1764, meant to Americans the annihilation of this natural and legal branch of commerce, for if the planters in the French West Indies could not sell their sugar and molasses, they would not buy fish, and any deficiency or any great irregularity in the supply of molasses would have been fatal to the distilleries of Boston and other New England towns. Ships would have been almost worthless on the hands of their owners, and the 5000 seamen employed yearly in carrying fish to Portugal and Spain would have been without an occupation. The severity of the new regulations, by which property amounting to 3000 was soon swept into prize courts, coupled with the declared intention of raising by imperial authority a revenue for the defence of the colonies, created a constitutional question of the gravest character.

Since 1763, when the war ended, the British Government had time to consider a system of revenue. The importunities of British merchants, who were creditors of American importers, as much at least as a feeling of tenderness for the colonists, influenced Grenville to suspend for almost a year his purpose of laying a stamp duty on America. An expectation of mastering the subject was undoubtedly an additional cause of delay. His purpose, however, remained unchanged, and neither petitions nor remonstrances, nor even the solemn pledges of the colonies to honour as hitherto all royal requisitions, availed to overcome his obstinacy, and on 6 Feb., 1765, in a carefully prepared speech, he introduced his fifty-five resolutions for a stamp act. In the colonies this aroused a bitter spirit; the stamp distributors were induced to abandon their offices by persuasion or intimidation, and delegates from nine colonies met in New York to express disapproval.

Patrick Henry, of Virginia, led the opposition with the resolutions: that the first Virginia colonists brought with them "all the privileges and immunities that have at any time been held" by "the people of Great Britain"; that their descendants held these rights; that by royal charters the people of Virginia had been declared entitled to all the rights of Englishmen "born within the realm of England"; that one of these rights was that of being taxed "by their own assembly"; that they were not bound to obey any law taxing them without consent of their assembly. The Virginia Resolutions were passed 29 May, 1765. This action by the southern colony was followed on the part of Massachusetts by a call for a congress to meet at New York City. This assembly, known as the Stamp Act Congress, began its sessions in New York on 5 Oct., 1765, and was attended by delegates from nine of the colonies. New Hampshire, Virginia, Georgia, and North Carolina were unrepresented. The representatives from six of the nine colonies present (Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, New York, and Massachusetts) signed a "Declaration of Rights and Grievances", setting forth that the Americans were subjects of the British Crown; that it was the natural right of a British subject to pay no taxes unless he had a voice in laying them; that Americans were not represented in Parliament; that Parliament, therefore, could not tax them, and that any attempt to do so was an attack on the rights of Englishmen and the liberty of self-government. The grievances were five in number: taxation without representation; trial without jury (in the admiralty courts); the Sugar Act; the Stamp Act; restrictions on trade.

The "Sons of Liberty" promptly associated for resistance to that measure. At first they demanded no more than that the stamp distributors should resign their offices. Their refusal was the occasion of violence and serious riots. 1 Nov., 1765, was the day fixed for the Stamp Act to go into force. During the next six months every known piece of stamped paper was seized and burned; handbills were posted denouncing the law, and public meetings were called; mobs frequently paraded the streets, shouting: "Liberty, property, and no stamps!" Merchants pledged themselves not to import English goods till the Stamp Act was repealed. These agreements among the mercantile classes were widespread. The effect was to leave on the hands of British exporters goods intended for America. By its restraint on production it threw out of employment multitudes of English labourers. This led English merchants to flood Parliament with petitions calling for the repeal of the Stamp Act. The distress occasioned in England forced Parliament to yield, and in March, 1766, the law was repealed. Both in America and England rejoicings and votes of thanks greeted the repeal.

The term of rejoicing was brief. In England the king as well as his friends conceived for the authors of that conciliatory measure the most bitter dislike, which expressed itself in the driving from power of the supporters of Rockingham, and soon after, under a more compliant ministry, adopting a new form of taxation. At this unexpected course the indignation among the colonists far surpassed the outbreak which marked the first attempt upon their liberties. The new measures of taxation were known as the Townshend Acts:

Though these taxes were not burdensome, they involved the important principle of the right of Parliament to tax people not represented in it, and once more the colonists rose in resistance; again there were non-importation agreements, correspondence between assemblies, and a revival of the Sons of Liberty. For the Massachusetts Assembly, Samuel Adams drafted a circular letter, which was sent to the other colonies. It contained expressions of loyalty, re-asserted the rights of the colonists, and appealed for united action in opposing the new taxes. Many of the legislatures were dismissed or dissolved for their connexion with the circular letter, or for complaining of the unfair treatment of some sister colony.

The proroguing of colonial assemblies became frequent. The Massachusetts legislature was dissolved for refusing to recall the letter. In other words, the king had been defied. He ordered two regiments to Boston to assist the authorities in enforcing the new system of taxation. The people of Boston accused the soldiers of corrupting the morals of the town, "of desecrating the Sabbath with fife and drum; of striking citizens who insulted them; and of using language violent, threatening, and profane". This excited state of feeling led to frequent quarrels between the townspeople and the soldiers, and culminated on 5 March, 1770, in a riot known as the "Boston Massacre". More, perhaps, than anything which had yet happened this event hastened the revolution. A few years later (1773) a considerable quantity of tea which had arrived on ships from England was thrown into Boston Harbour. In Charleston, Annapolis, and Philadelphia also there was determined opposition to receiving the consignments of tea, which, though cheap, yet concealed a tax. When tidings of these events reached England, Parliament determined to punish Massachusetts, and proceeded to pass five laws so severe that the colonists called them the "Intolerable Acts". These were: the Boston Port Bill, which closed the port of Boston; the Transportation Bill, which gave the authorities power to send persons, accused of murder in resisting the laws to another colony or to England for trial; the Massachusetts Bill, which changed the charter of the province, provided for it a military governor, and prohibited the people from holding public meetings for any purpose other than the election of town officers, without permission from the governor; the Quartering Act, which made it lawful to quarter troops on the people; and the Quebec Act, which enlarged the Province of Quebec to include all the territory between the Great Lakes, the Ohio River, the Mississippi River, and Pennsylvania. When the Puritan element in the colonies found that this law practically established the Catholic religion in the new territory, its traditional feeling of intolerance revived.

The news of these Acts of Parliament crystallized almost every element of union in the colonies. When, in May, 1774, the Virginia legislature heard of the passage of the Boston Port Bill, it passed a resolution that the day when the law went into effect in Boston should be one of "fasting, humiliation, and prayer" in Virginia. For this conduct the legislature was at once dissolved by the governor. Before separating, however, the members appointed a committee to correspond with the other colonies on the advisability of holding another general congress. There was a unanimous approval, and New York requested Massachusetts to name the time and place of meeting. To this request she agreed, selecting Philadelphia as the place, and 1 Sept., 1774, as the date. The Congress assembled in that city on 5 Sept. It included delegates from all the colonies except Georgia, and hence is commonly known as the First Continental Congress. It adopted addresses to the king, to the people of the colonies, of Quebec, and of Great Britain; passed a declaration of rights, summing up the various Acts of Parliament which were believed to be violative of those rights. This body had met, of course, in virtue of no existing law. In other words, it was a revolutionary assembly, though it assumed revolutionary functions slowly. In the matter of the petition it ignored Parliament; it prepared Articles of Association, to be signed by people everywhere, and to be enforced by committees of safety. The members of these committees were to be chosen by the inhabitants of the cities and towns. The articles bound the people to import nothing from Great Britain and Ireland, also to export nothing to those countries. Henceforth the Committees of Safety were to perform an important service in promoting the Revolution. On 8 Oct. the Congress adopted the following resolution: "That this Congress approve the opposition of the inhabitants of the Massachusetts Bay to the execution of the late Acts of Parliament; and, if the same shall be attempted to be carried into execution by force, in such case all America ought to support them in their opposition." Before the Congress adjourned it was ordered that another Congress should meet on 10 May, 1775, in order to consider the result of the petition to the king. It then adjourned.

When the king and his friends heard of the proceedings of the Congress, they were more determined than ever to make them submit. On the other hand, the friends of the colonists exerted themselves to promote conciliation, but neither the influence of Pitt nor the eloquence of Burke could alter the resolution of the king's party. The ultimatum of the First Continental Congress led to considerable military activity. When it was seen that force would be met by force, the people began to arm. As was generally foreseen, the conflict between the people and the royal forces occurred before the meeting of the Second Continental Congress. An encounter was likely to occur anywhere, but most likely to take place in Massachusetts. Up to the meeting of the First Continental Congress there were in America thirteen local governments. From that time there came into existence a new body politic, with aims and with authority superior to the local governments. These several governments had actually formed a new state. The Declaration of Independence was merely an announcement of an established fact.

National history

War of the Revolution

When the Stamp Act was passed, the Congress which assembled acted as an advisory rather than as a legislative body. Perhaps the chief result of its meeting was that it accustomed the colonists to the idea of union. This feeling was confirmed when the First Continental Congress convened (1774). On 10 May, 1775, the Second Continental Congress assembled. By that time the notion of union was much more familiar; besides, the military phase of the war had begun three weeks earlier. Tidings soon came of the taking of Ticonderoga by a force under Ethan Allen. This was the key of the route to Canada. Thus far the chief object of the Americans had been to secure a redress of grievances. Independence was advocated by nobody, and a little earlier John Adams said that it would not have been safe even to discuss it. However, events moved rapidly. Separation was discussed, and on 4 July 1776 a Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Congress, which had already become a revolutionary body. It had ceased to be an advisory assembly, and for some time had been exercising the powers of a national government. A constitution, entitled "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union", was proposed, but it was not until March, 1781, that it was adopted by all the states. For the conduct of the war in which they found themselves engaged they were wretchedly prepared: they had no money, no system of taxation, no navy.

Early in the war Congress sent to Canada a commission to win over its people to the side of the insurgent colonists. This body included Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase, and Charles Carroll. A cousin of the last-named, Rev. John Carroll, accompanied the commission to assist in promoting its patriotic purpose. By virtue of the Quebec Act the Canadians were enjoying religious liberty, and they must have wondered what they could gain from an alliance with a people who considered that measure of toleration as a ground of reproach to England. As to the enlargement of the Province of Quebec, already noticed, the people of Canada must have been somewhat indifferent. These and other considerations led them generally to adopt a policy of neutrality. The presence in the American army of one or two small battalions of Canadians did not to any considerable extent affect the sentiments of the French population. During the progress of the war their loyalty was often suspected by British officials, perhaps not without cause.

Under General Montgomery an army also was sent into Canada. A co-operating force under Benedict Arnold reached Canada by way of the Kennebec River and the Maine wilderness. Montgomery had won several small advantages, but the joint attack on Quebec, 31 Dec., 1775, resulted in his death, in the wounding of Arnold, and the defeat of their forces. Then was begun a disastrous retreat toward the State of New York. Either this step of Congress or the plans of the British War Office led to a counter invasion. A force under St. Leger, moving by way of Oswego and Fort Stanwix (Rome), was intended to create a diversion in favour of the main army under Burgoyne, which was advancing leisurely from Canada. With these two commands Clinton was expected to co-operate along the line of the Hudson. St. Leger's army was defeated or dispersed, and, instead of co-operating with Burgoyne, General Clinton had gone off to attack Philadelphia. A detachment from Burgoyne's army was defeated at Bennington, Vermont. This event left nearly all New England free to act on Burgoyne's line of communications. After two severe battles he surrendered, near Saratoga, on 17 Oct., 1777, his entire army of nearly six thousand men. Thus ended the struggle for the possession of the Hudson. The event influenced France to form an alliance, Feb., 1778, with the young Republic.

After the commission had returned from Canada, several agents were sent to represent the United States in Europe, and Franklin's ability had much to do with the establishment of friendly relations with France. When in March, 1776, Washington drove the British from Boston, he brought his army southward and occupied New York and Long Island. That portion of his force in Long Island met with disaster in the following August. To avoid capture, he turned northward, crossed the Hudson, entered New Jersey, and passed over into Pennsylvania. From his camp in that state he surprised a regiment of his pursuers at Trenton, 25 Dec., 1776, recrossed to Pennsylvania, and early in the following year again encountered the enemy at Princeton. This ended the first stage of the struggle for the Delaware. Cornwallis gradually retired towards New York.

In the West, Colonel George Rogers Clark took Kaskaskia, 4 July, 1778. The influence of Father Pierre Gibault, its parish priest, enabled Clark speedily to recruit two companies at that place and in the neighbouring settlement at Cahokia. A generous loan by François Vigo enabled him to complete his equipment for the march on Vincennes, which, after terrible hardships, was surprised and taken. These were the first steps in the winning of the West. That term included the region now covered by Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and a part of Minnesota. In this great achievement of Clark's, Catholics acted a very praiseworthy part. When that commander arrived at Kaskaskia, he was not unexpected; the terms of enlistment of many of his men had already expired, and in the battalions with which he marched to Vincennes there was a great preponderance of Catholics. In the conquest of that place he was also assisted by the inhabitants of the town. Indeed he felt encouraged during the entire campaign by the friendship of the Spanish governor beyond the Mississippi.

When General Clinton should have co-operated with Burgoyne he set out for the conquest of Philadelphia, the capital of the new union. Transporting his army by the Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay, he landed in Maryland, marched towards Philadelphia and, after defeating Washington's army on the Brandywine, occupied the capital. Though the fighting around Philadelphia was not decisive, the patriot army, as shown in the engagement at Germantown (Oct., 1777), was improving in efficiency. To defend the Continental military stores, as well as to menace Philadelphia, Washington went into winter quarters at Valley Forge. It is unnecessary to repeat the familiar story of the sufferings of the patriot army. One thing, however, was accomplished during that terrible winter. The little army of Washington was rigorously drilled by the German volunteer, Baron Von Steuben. Thereafter the Continentals were a match for the best-drilled troops of England. In the spring of 1778 there was a rumour that a French fleet had sailed for the Delaware. This consideration, together with the improvement in the condition of Washington's army, persuaded the British to return across New Jersey to New York City. During this march a severe engagement occurred at Monmouth Court House, N.J., 28 June, 1778. It was only the treachery of General Charles Lee that prevented Washington from winning a more complete victory.

The alliance with France has been noticed. The operations of its fleet at Newport are popularly regarded in America as having been somewhat useless. As a matter of fact, the activity of the allies put the British on the defensive at the very moment that they had decided to wage aggressive war. At an early stage Beaumarchais had forwarded military supplies to the United States. After Feb., 1778, his government loaned large sums of money ($6,352,500), used its armies wherever the opportunity offered, and into every quarter of the globe, even into the Indian Ocean, sent its warships to fight England.

When New England and the Middle States were believed to be lost, the British endeavoured to win back the South. This policy brought Cornwallis into the Carolinas. After a crushing defeat of one of his subordinates at King's Mountain he retired into Virginia, watched by the vigilant General Greene. That officer had been sent South to reorganize and to command the army that had been ruined by the incapacity of General Gates. While he won no great victories, Greene found himself a little stronger after each engagement; the discipline and the equipment of his army also were constantly improving. He succeeded in drawing Cornwallis farther and farther from his base of supplies on the coast. The posts forming Cornwallis's line of communication were successively surprised by partisan bands commanded by such officers as Marion, Sumter, and Pickens. With Greene's army growing stronger, the independent forces more bold, and his own force melting away, nothing appears to have been left for Cornwallis but to fortify himself in Virginia. His army with a smaller force under Arnold (who had deserted to the British) destroyed much private property in that state. A small force under General Lafayette had been sent by Washington to watch the movements of the enemy. It was about this time that there arrived from Europe a great French fleet under the Count de Grasse, perhaps the most powerful armament that had put to sea since the days of the Spanish Armada. It defeated a great British fleet off the capes of the Chesapeake and gave Washington the opportunity for which he had yearned. It then approached the position of Cornwallis at Yorktown. Meanwhile the commander-in-chief was hurrying southward from New York with his own army and a fine French army under General Rochambeau to join the force under Lafayette. Further to embarrass Cornwallis, a French force under the Marquess Saint-Simon was landed. The allied armies under Washington promptly began the siege of Yorktown, which ended, 19 Oct., 1781, in the surrender of the army of Cornwallis. Thus ended the military phase of the War for Independence, and thus culminated a party struggle that had long been in progress on both sides of the Atlantic. The Whigs, whether English or American, had been endeavouring to diminish the power of the king; the Tories, both English and American, would preserve that power unimpaired. The Whig opposition in England and Ireland finally forced George III to apply to Russia for troops, and, when they were refused, to hire Waldeckers, Brunswickers, and Hessians. Besides these foreign soldiers there was in America a large number of Loyalists or Tories. These fought in the armies of the king, and when the war was over, because of the hostility of the patriots, settled in England or in Canada.

When the Revolutionary War began, there were few Catholics in the United States. Perhaps their number did not exceed 26,000. However, members of that faith were to be found on all her borders, and everywhere they were either neutral, as were many in Canada, or friendly, as in the Spanish colonies around the Mexican Gulf and in the French settlements of the Illinois country. The services of the latter have been noticed, while those of the Spaniards of New Orleans would require much space to describe. The reader who desires to examine this neglected phase of the Revolution will find ample materials in the unpublished papers of Oliver Pollock, on file in the Library of Congress. It is well known that Spain declared war against England (1779) and loaned money to the United States. It is known also that the Dutch Republic was friendly to America and that among all the Netherland elements who favoured its independence Catholics were conspicuous. During the progress of the war Frederick the Great had urged the United Provinces, as he had urged France, to join in the war against England. The withholding by George III of the subsidy that had formerly been granted to Prussia incensed its ruler against his former ally.

It has been stated that the colonies were wretchedly prepared for engaging in war with the mother country. In July, 1775, it was voted to issue due bills for 2,000,000 Spanish milled dollars to be sunk by taxes in four successive years, beginning 30 Nov., 1779, the taxes to be levied and collected by the states in proportion to population. These bills Congress petitioned the states to make legal tender. In different ways and at different times this was done, and before 4 July, 1776, $9,000,000 in due bills were out. To distinguish it from the issues of the states this was called "Continental" currency. From this time forward fiat money got possession of the American people, and by 1779 the issues amounted to $242,000,000 in a single year. By 1781 the whole mass became worthless.

Up to this time the fatal error was the belief that the credit and currency of continental money could be maintained by acts of compulsion. From this delusion, which affected governments, state and national, few persons were exempt. By October, 1779, Boston was on the verge of starvation; money transactions had nearly ceased, and business was done by barter. In May, 1779, there was a mutiny of certain Connecticut regiments on account of bad pay. In January, 1781, there was a mutiny of the Pennsylvania Line for the same reason. In that disturbance the soldiers killed a captain who tried to bring them to submission. This is not so much to be wondered at when one learns that $7.00, the monthly pay of an enlisted man, dropped by depreciation to .33. Before Washington could move his army to Yorktown it was necessary to give the soldiers their back pay. To do this, Robert Morris had to borrow hard money from Rochambeau. In March, 1780, there was outstanding $200,000,000 of continental money. Congress declared this to be worth forty dollars for one dollar of a "new tenor". In other words, of that entire amount Congress repudiated all but $5,000,000. The "old tenor" fell to 500 to 1 in Philadelphia, when it ceased to circulate. To complete the misfortunes of this experiment, counterfeiters successfully imitated the issues of Congress and hastened the death of paper money. Then hard money sprang to life, and was abundant for all purposes. Much had been hoarded and great quantities had been brought in by the armies and navies of both France and England. As early as 1779 Congress attempted the expedient of specific supplies. Requisitions were made upon the states for meat, flour, forage etc. Because of the defective system of transportation, and for other reasons, it became necessary to abandon this resource. The impressment of horses, wagons etc. was perceived to be dangerous and was soon given up. The income of the Continental Treasury from 1775 to 1783 was $65,863,825. This was received from domestic loans, foreign loans, taxes, paper money, and from miscellaneous sources. Outstanding certificates of indebtedness amounted to $16,708,000. Besides these sums, the total cost of the war included the expenditures of the several states.

The Confederation and the Constitution

Though prepared soon after independence was declared, the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" were not adopted until 1781, when the war was nearly won. This was due chiefly to the opposition of Maryland, which refused to confederate until states having western lands should cede them to the Union; as it was claimed that all such lands had been held only by the joint exertion of the states. Under the Articles all measures of government were directed to the states as corporations; there was no national executive; the Congress was a body of only one chamber; the states paid, and had the power to recall, their delegates; in theory it was difficult to amend this constitution, and in practice it had proved impossible; finally there was no efficient system for obtaining a federal revenue. In other words, the government under the confederation had no independent income, but depended entirely upon the contributions of the various states. These defects soon produced consequences so alarming that the leading patriots brought about a constitutional convention which attempted to amend the fundamental law. When this was found to be impossible, they framed a new constitution of government (1787). This provided for a national executive, a national legislature, and a national judiciary; also for a simpler method for its own amendment. It gave to Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for federal purposes.

The Congress was further empowered to borrow money on the credit of the United States; to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; to coin money and regulate the value thereof; to regulate commerce with foreign nations, with the Indian tribes, and among the several states. To the National Legislature was also given power to declare war; to maintain and equip an army and a navy; to exercise exclusive legislative power over such tract as may, by cession of particular states become the capital of the United States; to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property of the United States. The body vested with the powers just enumerated was a bicameral one. In its upper house (Senate) each state has two senators, while in the lower house each has representatives in proportion to population. The House of Representatives is merely a legislative body. The Senate, on the other hand, performs a threefold function. Primarily it assists the house in making laws; in ratifying treaties or confirming nominations to office it performs executive functions; in trying an impeachment it acts as a judicial body. The duration of a session of Congress is two years, the term for which representatives are elected. Senators are chosen for a term of six years. In construing an act of the National Legislature one is to assume that it has no power to pass such act unless the authority is conferred by the Constitution, or may be fairly derived from some grant of powers enumerated therein. In examining the constitutionality of a state law one is to assume that the state legislature has power to pass all acts whatever, unless they are prohibited by the Constitution of the United States or by the constitution of the state.

Under the Articles of Confederation there was no national executive. The Constitution, however, vests the supreme executive authority in a President of the United States, who, with a vice-president, is chosen for a term of four years. Both officers are chosen by an electoral college. In this college each state has a number of electors equal to its whole number of senators and representatives in Congress. Originally the electors of president and vice-president looked over the country and selected some distinguished public character for each office. In a little while, however, they ceased to exercise such discretion, and nominations for both the presidency and vice-presidency were made in congressional caucuses. The contest of 1824 brought this method into disfavour. Thereafter, for a brief period, many of the states nominated some favourite son. An evident disadvantage of this system was the great number of candidates, of whom none was likely to receive, as the Constitution requires, a majority of all the votes cast. About 1831 there began to take shape the present system of a national nominating convention. In this extra-constitutional institution the states are represented according to population, each sending twice as many delegates as it has senators and representatives in Congress. The District of Columbia, the Territory of Alaska, and some of the insular possessions are also entitled to send delegates. To obtain the nomination in a Republican National Convention a majority of the delegates is sufficient, whereas in that held by the Democratic party a two-thirds vote is necessary.

Presidential electors are chosen on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every fourth year. No person except a natural-born citizen is eligible to the office of president or of vice-president. The president shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states when called into the actual service of the United States. He has power to grant reprieves and pardons for all offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment; by and with the advice and consent of the Senate he has the power to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. In addition to these powers he can nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the United States Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution. He is empowered to convoke Congress in special session and to dissolve that body when the two houses are unable to agree upon a time for adjournment. Like other civil officers, the president and vice-president may be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of, treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanours.

By the Constitution the judicial power of the United States is vested in a supreme court, and such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. In order to secure the independence of the judiciary the judges of both the supreme and inferior courts hold their offices during good behaviour, and, for their services, receive a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. The judicial power is commensurate with the legislative, and extends to all cases, in law and equity, arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. It also extends to cases affecting foreign representatives (ambassadors, ministers, and consuls), to cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, to controversies to which the United States shall be a party, to controversies between two or more states, etc. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases it possesses appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make.

In addition to the division of political power among the three departments mentioned, the Constitution also provides for inter-state comity. For example, it is provided that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. It also provides that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states; for the return of fugitives from justice and for the admission of new states. By the Constitution the United States is required to guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government, and to protect each of them against invasion, and, in certain circumstances, against domestic violence. Amendments to the Constitution may be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by the legislatures of two-thirds of the states. Amendments proposed in either manner become valid as parts of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths of them. Congress is empowered to propose the method of ratification. The schedule provided that the ratification by conventions of nine states should be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states ratifying the same.

Owing to the opposition to its adoption, especially in Virginia and New York, it was agreed by the friends of the Constitution that a bill of rights should be added to it. Accordingly, many amendments were proposed; these were grouped under ten heads, familiar as the first ten amendments, and known to students of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights. The eleventh amendment, declared a part of the Constitution in 1798, interprets a part of Article III, and prevents the citizens of a state from suing another state, or a foreign citizen or subject from bringing suit against one of the states. The twelfth amendment, which became a part of the Constitution in 1804, makes a change in the method of choosing a president. It made the ballot of the elector more definite, and in case the election went into the House of Representatives, it restricted the choice of that body to the three candidates highest on the list. The remaining amendments, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth, grew out of the Civil War. Contrary to a popular notion, the framers of the Federal Constitution had had considerable experience in the making of constitutions before they set about the establishment of their crowning work. Shortly after independence was declared, the states were advised to prepare constitutions of government. All complied promptly, except Rhode Island and Connecticut, both of which retained their liberal colonial charters. The establishment of any state religion is prohibited by the Constitution. The regulation of charities, education, marriages, land tenures, religious corporations, etc., about which it says nothing, is reserved, by inference, to the various states.

The period from 1783, when the definitive treaty of peace was signed, until 1789, is known as the critical era of American history. The federal government was in distress; many of the states were on the verge of civil war. Relations, external and internal, were highly unsatisfactory. Indeed, the situation was worse than at any time during the progress of military operations. When George III, for himself and his successors, acknowledged the independence of the United States, the several commonwealths, claiming to be sovereign, adopted policies more or less selfish. This disposition begot a number of domestic quarrels. In addition to dissension at home, foreign relations were not too harmonious. The young republic had nearly forfeited the confidence of its own citizens, and was beginning to incur the contempt of the world outside. It was these alarming symptoms that forced upon a few leaders the idea of amending the fundamental law. When, however, the Constitution was submitted to the people, a majority of them appeared to oppose its adoption. This opposition was overcome by the influence and activity of the leading patriots. In this great work the services of Washington cannot be overestimated. His brilliant lieutenants, Hamilton and Madison, ably supported his efforts in conventions and in the Press. The names of the friends of the Constitution would make a considerable list, and no list would be complete. Of course, all those who signed the instrument worked for its adoption. The Constitution also had friends who were not members of the Convention. Among the ablest and the most useful of these was Pelatiah Webster, an able student of public finance and of constitutional systems. In 1788 the proposed Constitution was ratified by the requisite number of states (nine), and on 4 March, 1789, the first Congress assembled under it. Much of its time and energy was devoted to considering means for improving the public credit and to organizing the various departments of government. In this work Congress was greatly assisted by Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury. On 30 April, 1789, General Washington had been inaugurated president. John Adams had been chosen vice-president. Internal relations and external relations were speedily improved by the wisdom of Washington. The measures of his administration soon established domestic tranquillity and general prosperity.

Starting the government

In his exercise of the appointing power Washington observed the greatest care. His nominations to office were remarkable for their accuracy. He set an example, however, which none of his successors has seen fit to imitate. He appointed to the most important position in his cabinet Thomas Jefferson, the head of an opposition which a little later assumed more definite form. Ultimately Hamilton and Jefferson quarrelled, and both resigned from the administration. Hamilton, however, had done his work. His report on manufactures, a remarkable document, and one still consulted by statesmen, among other things justifies the tariff policy then adopted. Measures involving a still broader construction of the Constitution were enacted. One was the organization of the First United States Bank. To its establishment there was social, sectional, and constitutional opposition. There was also considerable hostility toward the measure for assuming the Revolutionary debts of the states. The enactment of these laws was chiefly responsible for the rise of a new political party, the Republican party of Jefferson. The revenue system established by Congress led to an insurrection in western Pennsylvania. That outbreak was suppressed in 1794 by sending the militia of New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia, and some troops of Pennsylvania, into the troubled region. This indicated the energetic policy that was adopted by the new government. Armies under Generals Harmer and St. Clair were defeated by the Miamis. In 1795, after their defeat by General Wayne, the tribe made a cession of nearly the whole of Ohio. In 1794-95 John Jay, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, negotiated a very unpopular treaty with Great Britain. After the people of France had put their king and queen to death, President Washington issued his Neutrality Proclamation, thus taking the first step in the foreign policy of the United States. Though Washington was honoured by a second election, his administration continued to be attacked with considerable energy and great bitterness. After enacting the laws referred to, tracing the foreign policy of his country, and organizing its departments, Washington determined to retire from public life. Before doing so he issued his "Farewell Address". Washington's refusal of a third term was, perhaps, not unconnected with the attacks upon him by the coarse journalists of that time.

John Adams, who had served two terms as vice-president, was chosen to succeed Washington. His majority over Jefferson, who was elected to the vice-presidency, was very slight. An effort of this administration to negotiate a commercial treaty with France resulted in the celebrated "XYZ" correspondence. In portions of the country there was opposition to the new taxes. A graver problem with the administration was the question of dealing with those citizens and resident aliens who attacked the president and the members of his administration. The Alien and Sedition Laws were designed to meet the emergency. By a majority of the people the Sedition Law was regarded as a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the Press. By the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky these measures were criticised, and the latter came near to proclaiming nullification as the rightful remedy. Madison was the author of the Virginia resolutions, while Jefferson prepared those passed by Kentucky. These resolutions connect with the Hartford Convention, Nullification, and Secession. In the third presidential election the administration was embarrassed by the taxes necessary for building up a navy, by the Alien and Sedition Laws, and by dissension among the Federalist leaders. Hamilton attacked President Adams with great severity, and contributed to the defeat of the Federalist party, of which he had been the intellectual head.

Early political parties

In the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia there were many discrepant elements. We are now concerned with only two, viz., those who favoured the foedus, or union, under the proposed system and those who opposed it. The former were known as Federalists, the latter as Anti-Federalists. When the Constitution was finally adopted, the Anti-Federalists became "strict constructionists" and the Federalists "loose constructionists". President Washington had generally acted with the Federalists. Adams also belonged to that party. It was during his presidency that Congress enacted the celebrated Alien and Sedition Laws. These measures were unpopular, and, combined with the attitude of the Federalists during the War of 1812, led to their complete overthrow. They had organized the government and given it its tendency, but after the administration of Adams they became little more than a party of protest. In 1800 the followers of Jefferson, then known as Republicans, won the presidency. They had previously obtained control of Congress. At that time the conflict in progress between England and France divided the American people on the question of foreign relations. The Federalists, who were strongest in New England, favoured England, while the Republicans generally sympathized with France, the late ally of the United States.

After the War of 1812 party lines had been almost effaced. President Monroe was practically the unanimous choice of the American people. The rivalry of Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay led, after 1829, to the rise of a new political party. The followers of Clay were known as Whigs, those of Jackson as Democrats. Clay and his friends favoured internal improvements at federal expense, and the continuance of the United States Bank, an institution first chartered by the Federalists. They also favoured a tariff for protection. These principles formed what is known as the "American" system. Of course, the Whigs were "loose constructionists" of the Constitution. To these principles the Democrats were opposed. That organization is generally regarded as being identical with the Jeffersonian party. William Henry Harrison, the first Whig president, served for one month. His successor, Vice-President Tyler, though an admirer of Henry Clay, was a "strict constructionist". Again in 1848 the Whigs elected General Zachary Taylor and Millard Fillmore. This was their last victory. Their attitude toward the Fugitive Slave Law impaired their popularity, and in 1852 they met with a crushing defeat. In 1856 a new organization, composed chiefly of anti-slavery elements nominated Fremont and Dayton, the first candidates of the Republican party. They were defeated. After 1860, however, they won all the presidential elections except those of 1884 and 1892, when Grover Cleveland, the Democratic candidate, was chosen. The third parties, generally parties of moral ideas, will be noticed presently.

Territorial accessions

After 1800 the successive acquisitions of territory are to be noticed. In point of time the Louisiana Purchase, in 1803, came first. This was acquired from France after she had lost the important colonial possession of Hayti, and when Napoleon had decided to renew the war with England. Florida was acquired from Spain in 1821, when the United States surrendered any claim they may have had to the Texan country. At that time and by the same purchase the United States succeeded to Spain's rights in the Oregon country. Having achieved her independence from Mexico, Texas was annexed in 1845 by a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress. The constitutionality of that act has been challenged. The settlement of the Oregon dispute was a contemporary event. To that country America had several distinct titles. Oregon was claimed by right of Captain Gray's discovery of the Columbia River, which he named after his ship; when President Jefferson had bought Louisiana he sent Lewis and Clark to explore that region; in 1811 the fur-trading station Astoria was established there. The right acquired with the purchase of Florida has already been mentioned. These claims, reinforced by American occupation, ultimately gave the vast Oregon country to the United States. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848), which concluded the war with Mexico, gave to the United States an immense region in the southwest. This included the whole of California, Nevada, Utah, a small part of Wyoming, more than a third of Colorado, and considerable portions of Arizona and New Mexico. In 1853 the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico completed the boundary of the United States in that region. Alaska was purchased in 1867 for $7,200,000 from Russia. In our own time (1899) Porto Rico and the Philippine archipelago were acquired, as a result of the war with Spain. Less important insular possessions in the Pacific (Hawaiian Islands, Guam, Samoan Islands) were also acquired about this time.

Foundations of foreign policy

The Neutrality Proclamation of President Washington has been mentioned. A second important step in the development of America's foreign policy was taken in 1823 when President Monroe sent to Congress his annual message. Between 1816 and 1822 a revolutionary government had been established in each of the Spanish colonies from the Rio Grande to Cape Horn. Upon due consideration, the United States had acknowledged their independence. After the overthrow of Napoleon the Holy Alliance had restored absolutism on the continent of Europe. The project was then considered of restoring to Spain her lost dependencies in South America. England, however, was opposed to such intervention. Her attitude was chiefly determined by the profitable commercial interests which had sprung up since the overthrow of Spanish dominion in that region. It was in these circumstances that Canning, the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, proposed to Dr. Rush, the United States Minister in England, that the two powers issue a joint declaration against the proposed intervention of the Holy Alliance. Another element in the situation was the attitude of Russia, which had been establishing trading posts in the North-West. It was feared that she would endeavour to extend her dominion farther down the coast. John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State, protested against this action, and informed the Russian Minister that the United States would assume the position that the American continents were no longer open to future colonization by European nations.

President Monroe sought the advice of ex-Presidents Jefferson and Madison, and was encouraged by both in the stand which he was about to take. In his message to Congress, Dec., 1823, the president, in speaking of America's foreign policy, said that hitherto the United States had not interfered in the internal affairs of the Allied Powers; that

"We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers, to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States".

And,

"It was impossible that the Allied Powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor could any one believe that 'our Southern brethren', if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It was equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference".

The part of the message referring to Russia declared that

"occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American Continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power".

These announcements of the president have since been collectively known as the "Monroe Doctrine". When these bold declarations were made, the United States felt confident of the support of Great Britain. Their joint navies would have made it impossible for the Allied Powers to conduct any military operations in the western hemisphere.

Sectional conflict

In the Constitutional Convention (1787) it was clear that the North and the South had interests which were somewhat different. Notwithstanding this fact, they agreed upon a fundamental law by adopting a number of compromises. In the endeavour to administer the government other compromises were adopted between 1789 and 1860 when the Southern States were convinced that further compromises would be useless. It has already been stated that one form of opposition to the establishment of the First United States Bank was sectional. It was regarded as a Northern measure; was supported chiefly by Northern members of Congress, and received few votes from the South.

In 1820 the difference between the sections assumed a very different form. At that time it was bound up with the institution of slavery. In 1818 the Territory of Missouri applied for admission into the Union as a state. That application had not been acted upon in 1819 when Representative Tallmadge, of New York, proposed an amendment to the effect "that the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited, and that all children of slaves born within the said state after the admission thereof into the Union shall be free at the age of twenty-five". This raised an important constitutional question, namely, whether under the Constitution, Congress had the power to impose conditions upon the admission of new states which were not imposed by the Constitution on the original states. The amendment of Tallmadge passed the House, but failed in the Senate. The discussions on the anti-slavery amendment created the greatest excitement throughout the country. The matter was finally settled by the first of the great compromises between the sections. Missouri was admitted without any restrictions upon slavery, but in all other territory north of its southern boundary (36 30' N. lat.) slavery was prohibited forever. Bound up with this controversy was the application of the District of Maine, which since 1691 had been a part of Massachusetts. Maine was admitted as a free state, thus preserving in the United States Senate the balance between the two sections. The Missouri constitution contained a provision excluding free negroes. This was a palpable violation of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees to the citizens of each state the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states. This part of the controversy was set at rest by the influence of Henry Clay. It was provided that this discrimination of the Missouri constitution would not be enforced. This ended the first controversy over the question of slavery. In the division of the Louisiana Territory thus effected, the North gained much more territory than the South.

Grave as was the constitutional question that arose on the application of Missouri for admission to the Union, that which grew up about 1830 was much more alarming. After the war of 1812 the successive Congresses enacted tariff laws. So great was the opposition to that which was passed in 1828 that it was called the "Tariff of Abominations". The feeling between the sections showed itself when Senator Foote, of Connecticut, introduced a resolution proposing an inquiry as to whether or not it was desirable temporarily to suspend the sale of public lands, excepting such as were already surveyed. It also proposed to abolish the office of surveyor-general. Senator Hayne, of South Carolina, chose to regard this as a manifestation of the Eastern jealousy of the West. He made Foote's resolution the occasion of a general and energetic attack upon New England and a pretence for expounding the doctrine of nullification. By "nullification", in American history, is meant the claim by a state of the right to suspend within her own territory the operation of any act of Congress which the state deems injurious to her own interests. Hayne's brilliant oration was replied to by Webster (1830) in, perhaps, the greatest speech ever delivered in the Senate. It has been said that Webster took ground on a position toward which the greater part of the nation was steadily advancing, that is in the direction of nationalism. Hayne's sentiments found favour in the South alone. The theory which he had championed South Carolina soon sought to put into practice. In 1832 Congress passed a new tariff law, which omitted many of the objectionable features of the Act of 1828, though it still contained the principle of protection.

In South Carolina, where the objection to the law was strongest, the governor convoked the legislature in special session. That body issued a call for a state convention to meet at Columbia 19 Nov., 1832, and on 24 Nov. there was passed by that convention the famous Ordinance of Nullification. This declared the tariff law null and void so far as concerned South Carolina, forbade the payment of duties after 1 Feb., 1833, and prohibited appeals arising under the law from being taken to the United States courts. If Congress attempted to reduce the state to obedience, South Carolina would regard her connexion with the Union as dissolved. The legislature passed several laws to carry the ordinance into effect. Among them was an act that provided for placing the state on a war footing for the purpose of resisting the authority of the United States. Another act provided a test oath for all officers of the state, by means of which Union men were to be excluded from holding positions of honour or trust under South Carolina. President Jackson, who had been re-elected in 1832, does not appear to have been alarmed at the condition of affairs in South Carolina. He instructed the collector of customs at Charleston to perform the duties of his office, and, if necessary, to use force. He also issued an address to the Nullifiers. In it he urged them to yield; he likewise told them that "the laws of the United States must be executed. . . . Those who told you that you might peacefully prevent their execution deceived you. . . . Their object is disunion, and disunion by armed force is treason". When Congress met in December, 1832, the president wanted the passage of an act giving him power to collect tariff duties by force of arms. A great debate followed on this measure, which was known as the Force Act. Speaking for the South, Calhoun asserted the right of a state to nullify acts of Congress deemed injurious to her interests, and also the right to secede from the Union. Webster denied the right of nullification and secession, and upheld the Union and the Constitution. Henry Clay, fearing a civil war now came forward with a compromise. He proposed that the tariff of 1832 should be reduced gradually till 1842, when on all imported articles there should be an ad valorem duty of twenty per cent. This Compromise Tariff became a law in March, 1833. A second convention met in South Carolina, and repealed the Ordinance of Nullification.

The acquisition of territory from Mexico led to another great controversy between North and South, or rather between the free and the slave states. In August, 1846, President Polk asked Congress for $2,000,000 "for the settlement of the boundary question with Mexico". Mexico had abolished slavery long before (1827), and David Wilmot of Pennsylvania moved that the money should be granted, provided that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should exist in any territory that might be acquired from Mexico. The bill passed the House of Representatives, the Southern members voting almost solidly against it; in the Senate it never came to a vote. When finally the measure did pass, the Wilmot proviso was stricken out. Later it was sought to attach this anti-slavery provision to other bills. While it did not pass, it aroused the most bitter feeling in the South. At a meeting of Southern members of Congress an address written by Calhoun was adopted and signed, and then circulated throughout the country. Among other things it complained of the constant agitation of the slavery question by the Abolitionists. In 1849 the legislature of Virginia adopted resolutions of which one declared that "the attempt to enforce the Wilmot Proviso" would rouse the people of Virginia to "determined resistance at all hazards and to the last extremity". The Missouri legislature also protested against the principle of the Wilmot proviso. One of the toasts at a dinner to Senator Butler, in South Carolina, was "A Southern Confederacy". Besides this general Southern opposition to the Wilmot proviso, that section complained of the difficulty of recovering slaves who had escaped to the free states. In almost every part of the South there was a demand that the territories be opened to slavery. Some of the legislatures contended that the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia would be a direct attack on the institutions of the Southern States.

In the North, public sentiment was not less excited. The legislatures of the free states, except Iowa, resolved that Congress had the power and was in duty bound to prohibit slavery in the territories. Many states instructed their congressmen to do everything possible toward abolishing the slave trade in the District of Columbia. When Congress met in December, 1849, it had serious business on hand. It then seemed as if the Union were about to be broken up, and that in its place there were to be two republics -- one composed of free states and one made up of slave states. As in the excitement of 1832, so now again Henry Clay came forward as a peacemaker. In his patriotic task he was assisted by both Webster and Calhoun. Several bills were at last passed by Congress. Collectively they are known as the Compromise Measures of 1850. By this treaty between the sections it was provided that California be admitted as a free state, and that the slave trade, but not the institution of slavery, be prohibited in the District of Columbia. These bills were agreeable to the North.

The measures in which the South was interested were: territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico without any restriction on slavery; and the payment to Texas of $10,000,000, for abandoning her claim to considerable neighbouring territory, and for having surrendered her revenue system to the United States at the time of her annexation. The measure in which the South was most interested, however, was a more stringent law for the return of fugitive slaves. During the debates on the measure, President Taylor died (9 July, 1850). He was succeeded by the vice-president, Millard Fillmore. A law relative to the return of fugitive slaves had been passed in the administration of President Washington (1793). The new law empowered United States commissioners to turn over a coloured person to anybody who claimed him as an escaped slave. It also provided that the negro could not give testimony. It further provided that all citizens, when summoned to do so, were required to assist in the capture of the slave, or, if it seemed necessary</