USA > Massachusetts > Commonwealth history of Massachusetts, colony, province and state, volume 2 > Part 41
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52
his Francis W. X McLane mark
Signed and sealed in the presence of us David Thomson
John Hall"
J. McDonald
Thus did the Colonial soldier dispose of his land grant, and that too for an amount not exceeding the cost of a few pots of beer. The exact position of the land being undefined, it afforded an excellent opportunity by influence at the court of the royal governor to secure a most eligible allowance of land.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Much of this chapter is based on matter in the personal collection of George A. Plimpton.)
AKINS, THOMAS BEAMISH .- Selections from the Public Documents of the Province of Nova Scotia (Halifax, Annand, 1869)-These documents show why it seemed necessary to expatriate the Acadians.
BANCROFT, GEORGE .- History of the United States of America; the Auth- or's Last Revision (6 vols., N. Y., Appleton, 1883)-See Vol. II.
BAXTER, JAMES PHINNEY .- Pioneers of France in New England, with Contemporary Letters and Documents (Albany, Munsell, 1894).
BROWN, THOMAS .- A plain Narrative of the Uncommon Sufferings and Remarkable Deliverances of Thomas Brown, of Charlestown, How he was taken Captive and carried to Canada and from thence to the Mississippi (Boston, Fowle and Draper, 1760)-Reprinted in The Magazine of History with Notes and Queries, Extra Number-No. 4.
CANADA : ARCHIVES .- The Northcliffe Collection (Ottawa, 1926)-A digest of papers that relate mainly to the fall of New France.
CHAUNCY, CHARLES .- A Second Letter To a Friend, Giving a more par- ticular Account of the Defeat of the French Army at Lake-George (Boston, Edes and Gill, 1755).
DOOLITTLE, THOMAS .- A Short Narrative of Mischief done by the French and Indian Enemy, on the Western Frontiers of the Province of the Massachusetts-Bay; From the Beginning of the French War, pro claimed 1744, to August 2d 1748 (Boston, S. Kneeland, 1750)-Re- printed in The Magazine of History with Notes and Queries, Extra Number-No. 7.
DRAKE, SAMUEL GARDNER .- A Particular History of the Five Years French and Indian War, 1744-1749 (Privately printed, Boston, 1870).
DURELL, PHILIP .- A Particular Account Of the Taking Cape Breton from the French by Admiral Warren, and Sir William Pepperrell. With a Description of the Place (London, W. Bickerton, 1745)-Written in Louisburg harbor by the captain of H. M. S. Superbe.
DWIGHT, NATHANIEL .- The Journal of Captain Nathaniel Dwight of Belchertown, Mass., during the Crown Point Expedition, 1755 (N. Y., Wright, 1902).
GIBSON, JAMES .- A Journal of the Late Siege by the Troops from North America against the French at Cape Breton, the City of Louisburg, and the Territories thereunto Belonging (London, J. Newbury, 1745)-An accurate journal by a Bostonian.
HANNAY, JAMES .- The History of Acadia, from its First Discovery to its Surrender to England by the Treaty of Paris (St. John, [N. B.,] Mc- Millan, 1879).
HART, ALBERT BUSHNELL .- American History Told by Contemporaries (4 vols., N. Y., Macmillan, 1897-1901)-See Vol. II, chaps. XVIII-XX.
452
453
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
HIGGINSON, THOMAS WENTWORTH .- "The French and Indian Wars" (Jus- TIN WINSOR, editor, Memorial History of Boston, 4 vols., Boston, Osgood, 1880-1881)-See Vol. II, chap. III.
HILDRETH, RICHARD .- The History of the United States of America (6 vols., N. Y., Harper, 1880)-See especially Vol. II.
HOLDEN, DAVID .- Journal Kept by Sergeant David Holden of Groton, Mass., during February 20-November 29, 1760 (Cambridge, Wilson, 1889)-Edited by S. A. Green.
HOLMES, ABIEL .- American Annals; or, A Chronological History of Amer- ica (2 vols., Cambridge, Hilliard, 1805).
HUIDEKOPER, FREDERIC LOUIS .- Some Important Colonial Military Opera- tions (Society of Colonial Wars in the District of Columbia, Histor- ical Papers, No. 8, Washington, 1914)-Treats of operations before Louisburg and in the Ohio Valley.
KNOX, JOHN .- An Historical Journal of the Campaigns in North-America for the Years 1757, 1758, 1759 and 1760; Particularly The Two Sieges of Quebec, &c., &c., the Orders of the Admirals and General Officers, &c., &c., by Captain John Knox (2 vols., privately printed, London, 1769)-Reprinted in the Champlain Society, Publications (Vols. VIII- IX, Toronto, 1914-1916).
LINCOLN, CHARLES HENRY, editor .- Manuscript Records of the French and Indian War in the Library of the Society (American Antiquarian Society, Transactions and Collections, Vol. XI, Worcester, 1909)- Contains MSS. of Sir William Johnson, Col. John Bradstreet, and others; also the Lieut. William Henshaw orderly book.
LINCOLN, WALDO .- "The Province Snow, Prince of Orange" (Amer. Anti- quarian Society, Proceedings, New Series, Vol. XIV, pp. 251-305, Worcester, 1902).
MAHON, Lord .- History of England from the Peace of Utrecht to the Peace of Versailles, 1713-1763 (7 vols., London, Murray, 1858).
MINOT, GEORGE RICHARDS .- Continuation of the History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, from the Year 1748 (2 vols., Boston, Manning & Loring, 1798-1803)-Covers the period to 1765.
PARKMAN, FRANCIS .- The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada (2 vols., N. Y., Dutton, 1908).
PARKMAN, FRANCIS .- A Half Century of Conflict (2 vols., Boston, Little, Brown, 1892)-Covers the period 1702-1748.
PARKMAN, FRANCIS .- Montcalm and Wolfe (2 vols., Boston, Little, Brown, 1885).
PEPPERRELL, SIR WILLIAM .- Pepperrell Papers (Mass. Historical Society, Collections, Sixth Series, Vol. X, Boston, 1899).
REA, CALEB .- "Journal of Dr. Caleb Rea Written during the Expedition against Ticonderoga in 1758" (Essex Institute, Historical Collections, Vol. XV, pp. 81-120, 177-205).
ROGERS, ROBERT .- Journals of Major Robert Rogers: Containing An Ac- count of the Several Excursions he made during the late War (Pri- vately printed, London, 1765).
SHIRLEY, WILLIAM .- Correspondence, 1731-1760 (2 vols., N. Y., Macmillan, 1912)-Edited by C. H. Lincoln.
454 FRENCH AND INDIAN WARS
SHUTE, DANIEL .- "A Journal of the Rev. Daniel Shute, Chaplain in the Expedition to Canada in 1758" (Essex Institute, Historical Collections, Vol. XII, pp. 132-151, Salem, 1874).
SMITH, CHARLES C .- "The Wars on the Seaboard: Acadia and Cape Breton" (JUSTIN WINSOR, editor, Narrative and Critical History of America, 8 vols., Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1884-1889)-See Vol. V, chap. VII.
WINSOR, JUSTIN .- "The Struggle for the Great Valleys of North America" (JUSTIN WINSOR, editor, Narrative and Critical History of America, 8 vols., Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1884-1889)-See Vol. V, chap VIII.
CHAPTER XV
CONTROVERSIES OVER BRITISH CONTROL (1753-1765)
BY CLIFFORD CHESLEY HUBBARD Professor of History and Political Science, Wheaton College
THE FRENCH PORTENT
In the struggle between the French and English for the possession of North America, the most vulnerable point in the line of English defence was the Hudson Valley. Since west- ern Massachusetts reached that region, the province was in- dividually concerned with the French danger from 1753 to 1761. Fortunately for the English the Hudson country was the home of the Iroquois Indians, longstanding enemies of the French. Like a buffer, their occupation of the upper Hud- son and of what is now central New York kept the French away from the important valley, and also endangered the French line of communication along the lakes between the St. Lawrence and the Ohio.
With the approach of the great struggle for possession, which was clearly foreseen by both sides, preparations were on foot months before actual hostilities began. Among other things the French, with their superior aptitude in affiliating themselves with Indian life, were making what seemed to the English serious inroads on the loyalty of the Iroquois to their neighbors on the south. An exemplification of this pressure is the establishing by the French of a line of forts, twenty or thirty miles apart, with provision for maintaining in them the squaws and papooses while the braves should be away at war. The English on their side were strangely neglectful of their Indian allies. One of the Indians at the Albany Conference dramatically expressed the English treatment of his people by throwing behind his back an old stick picked up from the ground.
455
456 CONTROVERSIES OVER BRITISH CONTROL
PROPOSITION OF COMMON ACTION (1753)
It was in view of this situation that the Lords of Trade, in a circular letter issued in September, 1753, called a conference at Albany with the Indians, and ordered the governors of seven of the northern provinces to arrange with their assem- blies for the appointment of commissioners to meet and confer.
In Massachusetts, Governor Shirley sent a message April 2, 1754, to the General Court on the situation. "Coalition of the Colonies," he declared, "would be a convincing Proof to (the Indians) that they might safely depend upon His Maty for Protection, and confirm them in their ancient Alliance with the English." Asking for the appointment of commis- sioners to the approaching "interview" at Albany, the Gover- nor desired that they be given full powers to agree with the other governments. As to quotas of money and men, he argued that "such a Union of Councils . .. may lay a Founda- tion for a general one among all His Majesty's Colonies, for the mutual Support and Defence against the present dangerous Enterprizes of the French on every Side of them . . . The colo- nies are superior in numbers and strength, but this without union will be of little avail."
A week later (April 9) the General Court replied to the Governor's message with one of its own, a custom of the time which has since disappeared from American legislative pro- cedure. The danger from the French was faced. Without in terms mentioning the proposed Congress the following general expression of opinion as to the union was declared. "Your Excellency must be Sensible that an Union of the Several Governments for their mutual Defense and for the Annoyance of the Enemy, has long been desired by this Prov- ince and Proposals made for this Purpose. We are Still in the same Sentiments and shall use our Endeavours to effect it."
The cooperation of Massachusetts in the Albany Confer- ence had, however, already been assured before this message of the Assembly. April 3, the very day of the receipt of the Governor's message, resolutions were passed to participate in the conference and £300 was appropriated to provide for a
457
COMMISSIONERS AT ALBANY
present for the Six Nations and to defray the expenses of the commissioners.
A few days later Samuel Welles, John Chandler, Thomas Hutchinson, Oliver Partridge, and John Worthington, being two from the Council and three from the House of Represent- atives, were appointed as the commissioners. At different times before their departure these commissioners were empow- ered to treat with the New York commissioners over the bound- ary line between the two provinces; and also to pass upon the "squatter" rights of those who in the Stockbridge region had taken up land which had not yet been surveyed or deeded.
MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSIONERS AT ALBANY (1754)
While the commissioners were "fully authorized and im- powered to represent and appear for this Province," yet a committee of the General Court was appointed to draw up in- structions for them from time to time-an interesting instance of how the colonial legislatures managed to keep many execu- tive matters within their control. Among such instructions, presented to the commissioners as late as June 6, number 4 was as follows: "As the important ends of the proposed con- federacy cannot be attained without a steady union of counsels, you are to endeavor that hereafter the several confederate gov- ernments by their commissioners have stated interviews (either annually or otherwise as the present commissioners shall judge to be necessary) and that the place or places as well as the times for such interviews be agreed on and ascertained."
The Conference, called for June 14, got under way at Albany June 17. Seven of the colonies as well as the Six Nations were represented. After due discussion, June 24, it was voted unanimously that "a union of all the colonies is . .. at present absolutely necessary for their security and defense." A com- mittee was appointed "to prepare and receive plans or schemes for the union of the colonies and to digest them into one general plan for the inspection of this board." Thomas Hutch- inson was the Massachusetts representative on this committee. Various plans were submitted and the committee made re- ports from time to time, which led to debates. Unfortunately no records of the tenor of these debates was kept in either the
458 CONTROVERSIES OVER BRITISH CONTROL
Journal of the Conference or in the newspapers, all of which were weeklies. Nevertheless long excerpts were made in the Journal from the speeches passing between the English and Indian delegates to the conference, probably indicating a greater interest in this matter than in the question of union. The plan of union finally agreed upon closely followed a draft made by Benjamin Franklin of the Pennsylvania delegation. It is important in the constitutional history of the United States because some important features were later introduced into the first draft of Articles of Confederation drawn up by Benjamin Franklin in 1776.
THE ALBANY PLAN (1754)
The document laid before the Congress was the first pro- posal emanating from the colonial side of the ocean for a colo- nial union, since the termination of the New England Con- federation in 1679. That it was a good suggestion is clear, for it included principles which were later embodied in the Federal Constitution. Much water was to go over the dam in later years before Americans were ready for the adoption of these principles.
The plan provided for a central government composed of a president-general and a grand council- the former to be appointed by the Crown, and the latter in the first instance to consist of representatives from the various colonies, roughly apportioned to the size of each. The total membership was to be 48.
To Massachusetts and Virginia were assigned extra large delegations. Nevertheless, after the first three years, colonial representation was to be in proportion to the amount of money appropriated from each colony to the treasury of the union, with the reservation that no colony should have more than seven or less than two. The Council members were to be elected by the House of Representatives in each colony.
The grand council was to have the power of taxation. This seems to have been a partial preservation of the English parlia- mentary principle that taxes must originate in the lower house. Governor Shirley wrote that this provision was made because the grand council was to have the "power to levy taxes upon
459
ALBANY PLAN IN MASSACHUSETTS
the people, which it is thought could not be exercised by any council whatsoever in the colonies which should not be wholly chosen by the people, or at least by their representatives, with- out raising a general dissatisfaction." This concession, how- ever, was not sufficient to win the approval of the colonial lower houses to a plan which involved some loss of their control over taxation. No act of the grand council was to be effective unless it received the approval of the president-gen- eral,-a concession which did not satisfy the royalists.
As Governor Shirley pointed out, while the president-gen- eral had an absolute negative, he could initiate nothing with- out of the action of the grand council.
The powers of the proposed central government were specif- ically delegated by the document, the method followed later by both the Articles of Confederation and the Federal Consti- tution. These powers may be divided into three groups: the regulation of Indian relations; the making of war, although soldiers might not be drafted in any colony without the con- sent of its legislature; and the raising of taxes. In taxation, the central government was empowered to make direct impo- sition on the people, rather than on the colonial governments. This provision alone rendered the plan impossible of accept- ance to the colonial assemblies, which refused to curtail their existing control over taxation. In the absence of any provi- sion to the contrary the union inaugurated by the plan was in- tended to be permanent instead of merely to meet the emer- gency constituted by the French war then impending.
THE ALBANY PLAN IN MASSACHUSETTS (1754)
The journal of the Albany Congress and the text of the plan of union were officially brought before the Massachusetts House of Representatives, October 19, 1754. Three days later a committee was appointed to take the plan under considera- tion. The matter came up for settlement, December 4. The com- mittee made a report but was directed to sit again and "report such Plan of an Union as to them appears the most Salutary." According to the journal of the House, the Albany Plan was debated for the whole of the following two days. Unfortu- nately none of the arguments have been preserved. During
460 CONTROVERSIES OVER BRITISH CONTROL
the next few days the matter was before the Council; Decem- ber 12 it was back in the House. Here it was debated for three more days. Finally (December 14), the Albany Plan came to a formal vote and was defeated.
In the meanwhile the committee had been working on an alternative plan which would provide for two separate unions, one of the northern colonies and the other of the southern. This, the so called "partial plan," was put to vote immediately after the Albany plan but was also rejected.
Then followed a third decision, this time on a resolution as to "whether it be the Mind of the House, that there be a General Union of his Majesty's Colonies on this Continent, except those of Nova-Scotia and Georgia." This passed in the affirmative by the close vote of 41 to 37. In order to ascer- tain whether the feelings for and against union were governed by geographical considerations in different parts of the prov- ince, the present writer has aligned the vote by counties, as follows :
County
Yes
No
No Vote
Suffolk
6
4
6
Essex
7
9
2
Middlesex
9
9
3
Hampshire
2
1
6
Worcester
4
5
4
Plymouth
7
4
1
Barnstable
1
0
1
Bristol
4
1
4
York
1
4
4
Nantucket
0
0
1
Totals
41
37
32
It is evident, of course, that there was no predominant senti- ment in any section of the province, as represented by the members of the House. The large number of members not voting may indicate lack of interest, or may be due to non- attendance. The difficulties of travel always greatly affected the attendance in those times. The resolution, thus passed by the close vote of 41 to 37, was an acceptance of the principle of
461
OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAN
union. Although some specific features of the two defeated plans were unwelcome, the main issue was that the Colony then, and for thirty-four years to come, was not ready to sur- render any substantial powers to a central American body.
OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAN (1754)
The objections to the Albany plan are best set forth in the letter drafted by Willard, the secretary of the province, to Bollan, its agent in London, and approved by the two houses, December 31, 1754. "The plan of Union propos'd by the the Commissioners at Albany hath after mature deliberation been almost unanimously disapproved by both Houses; that they therefore expect, you will use your utmost endeavours to prevent the establishment of an Union upon that plan, if it should be attempted. ... Several objections were made against the Plan, which appear'd to be of weight with many of the members of the Court: such as the perpetuity of the propos'd Union; the great sway which the Southern Colonies (the In- habitants whereof are but little disposed to and less acquainted with affairs of war) would have in all the determinations of the Grand Council &c. But the great and prevailing reason urged against it was, that in its Operation, it would be sub- versive of the most valuable rights & Liberties of the several Colonies included in it; as a new Civil Government is thereby proposed to be establish'd over them with great & extraordi- nary power to be exercis'd in time of Peace, as well as war; such as those of making Laws to be of force in all the Colonies ; building Forts and Ships of War, and purchasing Lands at discretion; and for these purposes raising monies from the several Colonies in such Sums and in such manner as the President and Council shall think fit. These powers are in the Judgment of the two Houses inconsistent with the funda- mental rights of these Colonies, and would be destructive of our happy Constitution."
ALTERNATIVE PLANS OF UNION
To meet the objections as set forth in the above letter, two alternative plans were proposed in Massachusetts. The first was the so-called partial plan, which excluded the southern
462 CONTROVERSIES OVER BRITISH CONTROL
and middle colonies, by creating a union of "the several Colonies of the Massachusetts Bay, New-York, New-Hamp- shire, Connecticut, and Rhode-Island" to be known as "The Grand Court of the Five United British Colonies." It pro- vided a president and a council, the latter to consist of twenty- one members of whom Massachusetts was to be allotted seven.
"The Constitution above proposed" (one of the earliest uses of that fateful word, "constitution," in the history of American federation) was to remain in force only for six years unless there should be war at the end of that time between Great Britain and France, in which case until peace should be concluded.
This plan met some of the objections to the Albany plan; inasmuch as it was a union of the northern colonies only, and was prepared only for the French war. It was debated in the Massachusetts House along with the Albany plan. It was re- jected on the afternoon of December 14, immediately after the Albany plan had been voted down. At the same time a resolu- tion favoring a union of all the colonies was passed as de- scribed above, and a committee appointed to report a plan.
The day after Christmas such a plan was reported. It was practically the same as the Albany plan in providing for a union of all the colonies; but it differed from that plan in that the union was not to be permanent. Like the partial plan which had been rejected December 14, it provided for a union only for six years, or until the end of a French war if one were going on at that time.
ACTION OF THE TOWNS (1754-1755)
The next day, December 27, it was voted that consideration of the report of the committee submitting this latest plan "be suspended until the Members have an Opportunity to consult their Constituents." Such a referendum was nothing new in New England. The practice of the deputies consulting with their town meetings on important bills remained in force until far into the nineteenth century, when the town meetings in the important towns gave way to city governments.
In the Boston Town Meeting the proposed plans of union were taken up on January 17, 1755. The quaint language of
463
GOVERNOR SHIRLEY'S IDEAS
the records tells us there was "a long debate" in the morning and in the afternoon "a very long debate" ; but unfortunately nothing has come down to us as to what were the arguments in these debates. The meeting, however, ended with the follow- ing resolution: "That the Gentlemen the Representatives of the Town be and hereby are Instructed to Use their ut- most Endeavours to prevent the Plan now under Consideration of the General Court for an Union of the several Govern- ments on the Continent taking Effect-and that they also Op- pose any other Plan for an Union that may come under the Consideration of said General Court, whereby they shall Apprehend the Liberties and Priviledges of the People are endangered." That the other town meetings must have con- curred with Boston is indicated by the fact that no further at- tention was given the question by the General Court.
GOVERNOR SHIRLEY'S IDEAS AS TO UNION (1754)
As early as January, 1754, writing to the Lords of Trade, the Governor advocated a "well concerted Scheme for uniting all His Majesty's Colonies ... in a mutual Defence of each other." His message to the legislature of April 2 has already been mentioned. Writing to the new governor of Pennsyl- vania, October 21, he said, "The Best Advice I can give you is to lose no time for promoting the Plan of an Union of Colo- nies for their mutual Defence to be concerted at home, and establish'd by Act of Parliamt, as soon as is possible. The proceedings of the Commrs at Albany, from the general Gov- ernmts will shew you the necessity of it. I am labouring this point, totis viribus. It would ease you of a great part of the burthen, your Governmt may bring upon you otherwise, in the managemt of Military and Indian Affairs."
In a letter of December 24, 1754, to Sir Thomas Robinson, Secretary of the Lords of Trade, Shirley discloses his entire attitude on the question of union. Believing that the differ- ences among the colonies would make it impossible for them to agree upon a plan, yet he declares the work done at Albany has "pav'd the way clearly for His Majesty's ordering a plan of an Union to be form'd at home, and the execution of it enforc'd here by Act of Parliament." The particular difficulty
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.