by which she put herself in open, actual opposition to the Home Govern

ment.

Salem is not, however, to claim any precedence or honor for this event, beyond what is involved in the circumstance that the deed was here performed, an honor similar to that claimed by Philadelphia in regard to the Declaration of Independence.

While the Legislature was thus employed, the people were busy arming and organizing the militia. Through the autumn and winter, colonels of regiments, and other military officers, who were not in known sympathy with the popular movement, were either forced to resign, or the men under their command voluntarily disbanded and reorganized under other leaders. New companies were started, beginning with an artillery company in Marblehead for which subscriptions were opened early in November.

The expedition of Col. Leslie, on the 26th of February, 1775, and the affair at the North Bridge in Salem, when the first bloodshed of the revolution occurred, present a theme inviting discussion, when the anniversary of that day arrives. To this subject I only advert, as to one incident among many, indicating to what lengths the people were then prepared to go in resenting what they deemed unconstitutional interference.

Col. Leslie's encounter, however, led to two other proceedings, important as illustrating the determined spirit of independence here prevalent. The surprise and indignation which that event excited were followed by a conviction of the necessity of more thorough preparation for hostilities. Accordingly, the town militia were more diligently exercised, and a general muster was ordered, to take place in School street, now Washington street, on the 14th of March. All persons liable to military duty were summoned to appear, equipped with proper arms and accoutrements.

Burning with indignation at the outrage attempted by Leslie, the recollection of which grew more exasperating with the lapse of time, the sight of the colors under which their invaders marched was intolerable to the militia. Another standard was therefore prepared, to be used for rallying the men, and, afterward, to be displayed at the muster; and an ample sheet of pure, white bunting, bearing on one side, a green pine-tree, and, on the reverse, the words, 66 an appeal to Heaven," was received with general applause. The brig Betsey, carrying, as passengers, two refugees from

1 Essex Gazette, 1775, No. 345.

2 The silence of the military journals of the revolution, and of the contemporary press and historians, on so important a matter as the flag borne by the colonial forces, has given rise to doubts, which have not yet been removed, as to the date of adoption and the extent of use of the several flags which are known to have preceded the "stars and stripes." Probably, in the beginning of the conflict, each colony chose its own device; and after the forces were combined a general standard was agreed upon which varied in some small particulars at different times and places. All that is known on the subject may be found in Preble's admirable "History of the American Flag." Albany: 1872.

The Massachusetts Assembly formally adopted the pine-tree flag, April 11, 1776; but it had been in use here the previous year. It was, undoubtedly, the flag mentioned in Paul Lunt's diary, July 18, 1775. In the autumn of 1775 it was used on the floating batteries about Boston, and also by our privateers.

The first vessel of the American navy, the "Alfred," Com. Hopkins, displayed a flag nearly identical with this in Dec. 1775. Naturally, vessels of war would adopt the standard recognized in the chief maritime towns, from which they either sailed or received enlistments, and the fact of the appearance of this flag in 1775 on the high seas would seem to confirm the uniform tradition that this was the "standard of liberty raised in Salem. A still stronger corroboration of the tradition was the display, at Salem, of the pine-tree banner, in the semi-centennial celebration of July 4, 1826, and the frequent reference then made to it as "the revolutionary banner," in the presence of many surviving soldiers of the revolution, chief among whom, and president of the day, was the veteran Col. Timothy Pickering.

Mr. Colman, the orator of the occasion, pointing to the banner, exclaimed, "There

Salem,' conveyed the news to Bristol, and, on the 17th of April, two days before the battle of Lexington, the "Gentlemen's Magazine" announced to the British public that the Americans had hoisted their standard of liberty at Salem.

If the spirits of the departed were ever permitted to take note of mundane affairs, the stern and pallid features of Endicott must have kindled with a glow of life and warmth, as he saw the symbol of idolatry which, one hundred and forty years before, he had cut out from the national ensign, with the point of his sword, now laid aside, first and forever, in the town which his energy helped to establish.

The old manual of exercises of 1764, which had been recommended by the Provincial Congress, was used at the muster; but the necessity of some improvement was manifest, and, on the very day of the muster, notice appeared in the Essex Gazette, that Col. Timothy Pickering's new manual, which he had been for some time preparing, would be ready in about three weeks. This laid the foundation of the military system of the Continental armies. Its author lived to see this handful of unskilled militia swell to a great army; to see that army stand before the trained legions of Europe, on many a bloody field, and finally, bear off, as well-earned trophies, the white damask flag of the Hessian mercenaries, and the proud ensign of Britain.

At this point let us pause and recapitulate the events which, in the brief period of nine months, gave our beloved town an enviable history.

Here, we have seen, were convened the last Provincial Assembly and the first Provincial Congress; here were chosen the first delegates to the Continental Congress; here the assembled province first formally renounced allegiance to the Imperial Legislature; here was made the first attempt to enforce the last oppressive acts of parliament, and here that attempt was resisted; here, though no mortal wound was given, was shed the first blood of the American Revolution; here was first organized the nucleus of an army; and here the banner of independence first spoke defiance, as it flapped and rustled in the wind.

I am aware that opposite views have been expressed concerning_the purposes of the leaders of the Revolution in respect to independence. But, with due deference to those whose study of the subject has brought them to a different conclusion, I venture to affirm that this contrariety of opinion hinges on the meaning of a word. Our English critics have been disposed

4

stands the simple and affecting memorial of this great event, upborne by the same hands which sustained it in that trying period; WE APPEAL TO HEAVEN.'” "The effect" of this allusion, says the Salem Gazette of July 7, 1826, was electrical." This banner, which was made for the occasion, is preserved in the cabinet of the Essex Institute.

66

If we bear in mind that the war was commenced by the colonists under sincere professions of loyalty to the crown, and only, as they maintained, in defence of their constitutional liberties against a tyrannical ministry, we shall not be surprised to find occasional mention of the display of the old flag of the province, by the colonial forces. This was very similar to the flag of the British army, the only difference being in the design in the canton or upper angle of the field next the staff. This device is represented as a pine-tree in one instance, and two hemispheres severed, in another.-Vide Preble, ut supra.

From a paper on file, in our county records, for the discovery of which we are indebted to the Hon. James Kimball, it appears that the old colonial flag of 1675 was red, with a white canton bearing the cross of St. George, also red, and a blue ball for difference. See Bulletin of the Essex Institute, vol. 4, pp. 50, 51.

1 Benjamin Pickman, Esq., and Capt. Thomas Poynton. Essex Gazette, 1774, No. 346. 2 Essex Gazette, 1775, No. 346.

3 It was adopted by the Massachusetts Assembly, May 1, 1776, and a copy of the second edition, published that year, is in the library of the Essex Institute.

4 It is remarkable that the uncertain application of the same word to parties in the great English revolution led Rapin to exclaim," After all my pains, I have not been able to

to trace the progress of independence, which they confound with separation, back to the earliest colonial times, and to charge the colonists with insincerity in their constant professions of loyalty. Others, applying the same meaning to the word, have denied that the idea of independence was entertained until about the time of the Declaration at Philadelphia. Both of these views are reconciled without impeaching the honor of our forefathers, ́ and without any perversion of history, when we admit that independence, in the sense of entire, local self-government, was always kept in view by the colonists, claimed by them as a right expressly conferred by their charters, or compacts with the sovereign, and defended, as their heritage by the fundamental common-law, or those acknowledged principles of government which limit, alike, the jurisdiction of parliament and the prerogatives of the crown, and are now embraced under the comprehensive name of the British Constitution.

"Inde

This was the independence that Samuel Adams intended when, as Hutchinson informs us, he concluded his speech, in 1769, with the words, pendent we are, and independent we will be!" and we have Jefferson's own statement that the independence he looked forward to was such exemption from the control of parliament as the kingdom of Hanover might claim, or such as Scotland maintained before the union. This was what the colonists universally demanded, and for this, and this alone, they resorted

to arms.

2

The right of the parent state to bind the colonies by such negotiations with foreign enemies or allies, as the welfare of all required, and to regulate navigation on the high seas, they never denied.

The assertion that under outward professions of loyalty the colonists secretly aspired to separation has never been, and, I venture to say, never will be proved. Had the claims of the colonies been granted, they would have had no motive for separation. Under such circumstances, it would have been but the exchange of the protection of an empire, for the empty glory of

a name.

Nothing but obstinate prepossession, or utter inattention to the arguments and statements repeatedly made, by and in behalf of the colonies, could lead to the conclusion that they did not mean what they professed, or that the only relations they were willing to maintain with the parent state, were inconsistent with loyalty, nominal, or absurd. Biassed by such prepossessions, and the suggestions of our enemies, too often did the privy council, and the Lords of trade, reach results unfavorable to our character and aims, from a view of facts that might, easily and naturally, have received a construction diametrically different.

But for the short-sightedness of Britain we might to-day have been her subjects. Would it have diminished her greatness, disturbed her peace, or injured her prosperity, if she had retained her hold upon us, by adopting the American policy, in accordance with the advice of her best and wisest

discover, precisely, the first rise of the Independent sect or faction." Mosheim, more profound and accurate than Rapin, was more successful. See Mosheim's Hist., Ed. 1790, vol. 5, pp. 405-6, note q.

The history of American Independence has been most thoroughly treated by Frothingham, in his masterly "Rise of the Republic,"'-a book which should be read in all our common schools. The author invariably uses the word independence in the sense of separation, but he does not suppress or pervert the facts.

2 "I took the ground that"

* "the relation between Great Britain and these colonies was exactly the same as that of England and Scotland, after the accession of James, and until the union, and the same as her present relations with Hanover, having the same executive chief, but no other necessary political connection."---Jefferson's Autobiography.

men? "Let us reflect," said the good Bishop of St. Asaph, in his speech intended for the House of Lords, on the bill for the better regulating the government of Massachusetts," Let us reflect that, before these innovations were thought of, by following the line of good conduct which had been marked out by our ancestors, we governed North America with mutual benefit to them and ourselves. It was a happy idea that made us first consider them rather as instruments of commerce than as objects of government." This is the New-England idea happily presented; and how do these generous sentiments shine, in contrast with the miserable doctrine of Sir William Blackstone, concerning the power of parliament over these colonies, a doctrine based on the fiction that ours was a conquered territory, and our rights, only such as were vouchsafed by the clemency or bounty of the conqueror !1 How unlike, too, those pettyfogging arguments on the abstract power of parliament, which could be logically reduced to the proposition that the solemn pledges of the Great Charter, and every article in the Bill of Rights, nay, even parliament itself, existed solely, by the sufference of the king's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in parliament, for the time being, assembled !

As the history of the revolution becomes more thoroughly studied, interest will not be so exclusively felt in those later scenes which have been oftenest depicted, the final separation from the mother country, the larger military movements, and the incidents attending and following the close of the war; the earlier stages,-of debate, of personal heroism, and of the first organized resistance, will be more eagerly studied. To the men and doings of the Puritan commonwealth, the student of English history is quickly remitted, to find a key to the sudden mastery of great ideas exhibited by the historic personages who gave lustre to the reign of William and Mary.

It

Our independence was not the growth of a year, or of ten years. began in the infancy of the colonies; and found its best tutelage here in New-England.

The founders of these states were Englishmen, with all the characteristics which that name implies when spoken of those who did most to establish the reputation and shape the destiny of England in the sixteenth century. Their clergymen were, almost without exception, graduates of the great English universities; well versed in the learning of their time, deeply interested in all political and ecclesiastical movements, and with a strong bias against un-English tendencies in church or state. Next to the Bible and the Catechism, they knew the old Charter. They discussed it line by line, and word by word; and, as, from the Pentateuch they were able to deduce a civil and moral code minutely particular, so, in this instrument, they found authority for, or, at least, no obstacle to, the advanced ideas of political liberty which they had imbibed elsewhere. Children were taught to consider it the source of inestimable blessings; and the old men were glad to relate its perilous history.

The sentiments which the fathers had entertained for the Charter of King Charles, were, by their posterity, transferred to the Charter of William and Mary. True, this new Charter reserved to the Crown the appointment of the chief executive officers of the province, a feature which was, at

1 See Sharswood's edition of Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. i. p. 107, and the note by the American editor.

first, earnestly opposed; but, as these officers, when not native born and enjoying public confidence, had, sometimes, commended themselves to popular favor in various ways, hostility to the Charter, on this account, grew feeble, and finally ceased. The king had also reserved in this instrument the right to reject the acts of their legislature; but this negative voice, though it might embarrass them and retard their progress in some directions, was not a positive encroachment on their independence.

In a school of politics thus peculiar, and confined to few and simple issues, our fathers were educated. The absence of complex interests in their political and civil affairs, led to clearness in their perception, and adroitness and force in their treatment, of topics of political controversy. For a long time before what the good Bishop of St. Asaph calls "these innovations" were started in parliament, they had, skilfully, and generally with success, conducted a diplomatic contest with the privy council, and the Lords of trade, who, from courteously advising and negativing, had begun, in a more imperious tone, to direct and order. From the privy council they had been inclined to appeal to parliament; not, indeed, with the idea of surrendering their independence, but to secure a powerful ally in the defence of their rights under the Charter, or as submitting their case to a referee accepted by their opponents. While the prospect of redress by parliament was fair, they were disposed to look too exclusively to that quarter for a remedy, and had well-nigh submitted to some encroachment, on their traditional autonomy. The joint operations of the home government and the colonies, in the wars with France and Spain, had the effect, in a great measure, to push aside, as of secondary importance, questions that in times of peace had appeared of vital moment.

When it was discovered that the chances of securing a recognition of their claims by parliament were even less encouraging than at the councilboard, they began to correct their recent error. They repudiated the authority of parliament; first, in matters of internal government. And, though they appealed in vain to their own courts for the preservation of their rights under the charter, their success in parliament encouraged them, in due time, to deny the authority of parliament in all matters of external government peculiaaly affecting them; and they came back, at length, to the original claim of the fathers, to entire exemption from legislative and executive interference in all matters of government, except in those particulars stipulated in the charter; in short, to the claim of local independence.

This point they had reached at the time of the events we have been considering.

Having thus viewed the outward incidents in which the event we commemorate is clothed, the garb in which it moves across the stage in the grand drama of history, and having, I fear, overstepped the limits which the occasion and your patience prescribe, by a too dry and a very imperfect representation of the interior processes which led up to this event, I shall not trespass upon your indulgence by pursuing these subjects further.

The theme is fruitful of suggestions, appropriate and deeply interesting. How it tempts us, for instance, to emphasize the distinction between liberty and independence, to look both backward and forward from this event, for epochs in the history of personal independence, of individual liberty; to trace the indebtedness of Massachusetts, for this blessing, to a despised sect, now fast dissolving in the beams of toleration; to note how that toleration had been secured in this colony by the meek persistency of the same sect,——