SECTION XXXVIII. CONCLUSION. Thus terminated the American Revolutionary war,-a war which might have been prevented by the timely concession of freedom from internal taxation, as imposed by the British parliament, and by an abstinence on the part of the crown from a violation in this important particular of chartered rights. The confidential letters of Doctor Franklin evince that it was with extreme reluctance the American patriots adopted the measure of severing the colonies from the mother country. But when they had taken this decisive step, by the declaration of independence, they firmly resolved to abide by the consequences of their own act; and, with the single exception of Georgia, never, even in the most distressful contingencies of the war, did any public body of the provinces shew any disposition to resume their allegiance to the king of Great Britain. Still, it may be a matter of doubt, if, when we consider the conduct of the inhabitants of the Jerseys, when Washington was flying before General Howe, whether, had the British commanders restrained their troops with the strictness of discipline, and exercised towards the American people the conciliatory spirit evinced in Canada by Sir Guy Carleton, the fervor of resistance might not have been abated and subdued. But civil wars are always conducted with cruelty and rancor. The Americans were treated by the British soldiery not as enemies entitled to the courtesies of war, but as rebels, whose lives and property lay at the mercy of In what way might the war have been prevented? What do the confidential letters of Doctor Franklin evince? After the declaration of independence how did the American patriots prosecute the War? What state is excepted? What may be considered a matter of doubt? How were the Americans treated by the British soldiery? the victors. Hence devastation marked the track of the invading forces, while the inhabitants found their truest safety in resistance, and their best shelter in the republican camp. Nor will he who reads with attention the minute details of this eventful contest be surprised, that the British ministry persevered in the war when success might have appeared to be hopeless. It is now well known that George III., revolted from the idea of concession to his disobedient subjects, and was determined to put all to the hazard rather than acknowledge their independence. Lord North, at an early period of the war, had misgivings as to its ultimate success, but he had not firmness enough to give his sovereign unwelcome advice; whilst Lord George Germaine and the other ministers fully sympathised with the royal feelings, and entered heartily into the views of their master. They were apprised, from time to time, of the destitute condition of the American army, but living as they did in luxury, and familiarized as they were with the selfishness and venality of courts and political parties, they could not conceive the idea of men sacrificing health, property, and life, for their country's good. When Washington was beaten in the field, such men imagined that the affairs of the Congress were desperate, and flattered themselves that the great body of the colonists, wearied and disheartened by successive defeats, would be glad to accept the royal mercy, and to return to their allegiance. In these notions they were confirmed by the loyalists, who, giving What marked the track of the invading forces? From what idea did George the III., revolt? About what had Lord North misgivings? What is said of Lord Germaine and the other ministers? What could they not conceive? What did they imagine when Washington was beaten in the field? utterance to their wishes, rather than stating the truth, afforded the most incorrect representations of the feelings and temper of their countrymen. Some of these coming over to England were received with favor in high circles, and by their insinuations kept up to the last a fatal delusion. These individuals at length fell the victims of their Traitors to their country, they lost their property by acts of confiscation, and while they lived on the bounty of the British crown, they had the mortification to see the country which they had deserted, rise to an exalted rank amongst the nations of the earth. own error. It must also be admitted that the people of England sympathised with their Government up to a late period, in the feelings which prompted perseverance in this iniquitous war. Excessive loyalty to the crown; a certain undefined appetite for military achievements; resentment against the Americans for questioning British supremacy, strongly impressed the public mind, and rendered the war disgracefully popular in many quarters. Such sentiments were fostered and encouraged by the accession of France, Spain, and Holland to the cause of her revolted States, and the prospect of naval victories. We may reasonably indulge the hope, that the lesson then, and during the French Revolutionary war, taught by experience, and the subsequent improvement of the public mind, will prevent it from ever again joining its government in such a conspiracy against freedom and justice. When the ministers of the king of France incited their master to enter into an alliance with the revolted colonies, How were they confirmed in these notions? How were these sentiments fostered? In what may we reasonably indulge the hope? they did so under the idea that the separation of those provinces from the parent State would ruin the resources of Great Britain. Events have proved how erroneous was their calculation. From her commercial intercourse with Independent America, Great Britain has derived more profit than she could have gained had her growth been stunted by the operation of restrictive laws. In a constitutional point of view, also, the disjunction of the thirteen provinces from the British empire will not be contemplated with any regret by those who are jealous of the influence of the crown, and who will reflect, that by the peace of 1782, it was deprived of the appointment of a host of governors, lieutenant-governors, chief justices, and other officers, selected from the scions of powerful families, and protected from the consequences of the abuse of their trusts by the influence of those whose dependants they are. NOTE. Some doubts having arisen as to whether the question which led to the separation of the colonies from the mother country was really confined to the point of taxation, and did not also involve the claim of Parliament to legislate generally for the colonies, the introduction into this note of a plain statement of the fact and the law may not be thought superfluous. It will be clearly seen by a reference to the preceding narrative, that in the lengthened discussions which were. carried on prior to the breaking out of hostilities, the point at issue was the right of Parliament to tax the colonies, and Under what idea did the ministers of the king of France incite him to enter into an alliance with the colonies? What have events proven? From what has Great Britain derived more profit? What is said in regard to a constitutional point of view? not its general power of legislation for them. This power Such was then the undisputed theory and practice of the constitution, even as recognised by the colonies themselves. But it has been supposed that although, prior to the revolution, the colonies never questioned the supreme legislative authority of the mother country, yet that parliament had by some act of its own divested itself of this authority. This, however, is not the case. On the contrary, the Act of 6 Geo. III. c. 12, commonly called the Declaratory Act, distinctly lays it down as the law of the realm, 'that the King, Lords, and Commons in Parliament assembled, had, hath, and of full right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind, in all cases whatsoever, the colonies subject to the British crown.' The Act remains unrepealed, and is still in full force, with one single exception from the universality of its declaration, which will be found in the 18th George III. c. 12. 1 |