USA > Massachusetts > Commonwealth history of Massachusetts, colony, province and state, volume 3 > Part 16
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 | Part 53
In the middle of May (1776), Congress recommended that every colony form an independent government, and on June 7, Richard Henry Lee moved: "That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States
162
IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
[and] That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation." The General Court of Massachusetts had already (May 1) passed an act that on and after June 1 all political authority was to be performed in the name of "The Government and People of the Massachusetts Bay in New England".
June meetings in the Massachusetts towns were, moreover, voting with enthusiasm to sustain a declaration of independ- ence. A town meeting in Taunton (June 3, 1776) announced that if the American Congress should declare independence of Great Britain, the inhabitants "with their lives and for- tunes, do solemnly engage to support them in the same". Scituate, Methuen, Hanover, Tyringham, Alfred, Norwich, Palmer, and Acton as well as many other communities gave similar assurance of their allegiance, often justifying their position by a studied statement of their grievances.
THE PART OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE DECLARATION OF 1776
In Congress such sentiments were worthily reflected. El- bridge Gerry "laid out his whole soul" in furtherance of the resolution introduced by Lee. One of his colleagues informs us, indeed, that "There was an honesty and sincerity about him that was better than the thunder of Demosthenes." Years afterwards, Jefferson assured Daniel Webster that Adams was "our colossus on the floor". Lacking, perhaps, the grace and fluency of other speakers, "he yet came out with a power both of thought and expression, which moved us from our seats."
It was he who, with what may be supposed was ill-con- cealed eagerness, rose to second the resolution that both his colleagues and his constituents had so long hoped for; and while his part in the ensuing debates are lost to us, Webster in his famous eulogy of Adams and Jefferson wrote eloquently what well might have been his words :
"Sir, before God, I believe the hour is come. My judgment approves this measure, and my whole heart is in it. All that I have, and all that I am, and all that I hope, in this life, I am now ready here to stake upon it; and I leave off as I began, that live or die, survive or perish, I am for the Declara-
163
PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT
tion. It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God it shall be my dying sentiment, Independence nowe, and INDE- PENDENCE FOR EVER."
The committee appointed to draft the declaration consisted of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Sherman and Robert R. Liv- ingston; but when the articles were decided upon, a sub-com- mittee consisting of Jefferson and Adams was appointed to "draw them up in form". This, at least, is Adams's version. Jefferson tells us, however, that he alone was designated to draft the document, but before reporting it to the committee he submitted it to both Adams and Franklin for their correc- tions. At all events, the report was made to the Congress on June 28, considered on July 1, passed on the second by a vote of twelve colonies, and on the fourth received the signatures of the delegates. On the eighteenth it was read publicly from the balcony of the State House in Boston in the presence "of a vast concourse of the citizens"; and after a great parade and general rejoicing the "king's arms were taken down, and a public dinner given on the occasion."
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IN MASSACHUSETTS (1775)
July 19, 1775, the third Provincial Congress concluded its sessions. At the best it was an expedient to deal with neces- sary matters that, because of the irregularity of the times, would otherwise have gone unattended. As early as the sum- mer of 1774, proposals had been made to utilize the old colonial charter of the seventeenth century, or the provincial charter of 1691, as the basis for a constitution adequate for the rapidly developing commonwealth.
A memorial was sent to the Continental Congress (May 16, 1775) stating these conditions and asking advice. It was read before that body June 2, 1775, and a few days later a reply was made suggesting a conformance "as near as may be, to the spirit and substance of the charter", and recom- mending the election (upon the initiative of the Provincial Congress) of Representatives from the various towns, who in turn were to elect councillors. The two bodies thus formed were thenceforth "to exercise the powers of Government, un- til a Governor, of his Majesty's appointment, will consent to govern the colony according to its charter."
164 IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
Acting upon this advice, the necessary arrangements were made, the elections held, and the representatives thus chosen assembled in Watertown on the appointed day. The Provin- cial Congress in the meantime continued its sessions,-indeed, it was still sitting on the morning of July 19 when the new congress convened. The strict continuity as well as the har- mony that accompanied the change to the new government is shown in the last order before dissolution which, upon pro- viding a committee to consider a minor financial matter, re- quired that "in case they cannot report to this Congress, to make report to the next House of Representatives." It was this assembly that guided Massachusetts through the trying months of the fall and spring of 1775 and 1776, as well as through the succeeding years to the establishment of the com- monwealth constitution in 1780.
MASSACHUSETTS DELEGATES TO THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS (1774-1782)
The leadership of Massachusetts in active operations in the field, in the colonial Assembly, and in the Continental Congress was set forth in the delegates who for eight years represented the Colony in Philadelphia.
1774
John Adams Samuel Adams Thomas Cushing Robert Treat Paine
1776
John Adams Samuel Adams Elbridge Gerry John Hancock Robert Treat Paine
1775
John Adams Samuel Adams
Thomas Cushing John Hancock Robert Treat Paine
1777
John Adams Samuel Adams Francis Dana
Elbridge Gerry John Hancock James Lovell Robert Treat Paine
From a print
Courtesy of Mr. Frank W. Bayley
ELBRIDGE GERRY
165
THE PERSONNEL
1778
1780
Samuel Adams
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Elbridge Gerry
Francis Dana
John Hancock
Elbridge Gerry
Samuel Holten
John Hancock
James Lovell
Samuel Holten
George Partridge
James Lovell
Artemas Ward
Robert Treat Paine
1779
Samuel Adams
Francis Dana
1781
Timothy Edwards
Samuel Adams
Elbridge Gerry
Elbridge Gerry
John Hancock
James Lovell
Samuel Holten
Samuel Osgood
James Lovell
George Partridge
George Partridge
Artemas Ward
THE PERSONNEL (1774 -1781)
Besides those leaders who have been mentioned in connection with the first Continental Congress, the above list contained important names. Elbridge Gerry of Marblehead was known as one of the wealthiest and most enterprising merchants in the Province. He began his political career as a member of the Assembly, served prominently in the Provincial Congress, for some nine years (save for slight intervals) sat in the Continental Congress, and later in the Constitutional Conven- tion of 1787. Francis Dana (born in Charlestown), gradu- ated from Harvard College (1762), studied law in Boston, was admitted to the bar in 1767 and served actively in the political assemblies of the period. His later life was to be occupied by extensive public service in foreign capitals, and marked by one of the most distinguished juristic careers of his period.
James Lovell was from Boston. A Harvard man (class of 1756), he taught in his father's school in Boston until the siege, was taken to Halifax by the British upon the evacua- tion, was subsequently exchanged, and served in the Continen- tal Congress from December, 1776, until the beginning of the Confederation. Samuel Holten was born in Danvers. With extensive public services as a member of the General Court,
166
IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
a delegate to the Provincial Congress as well as to the Essex County convention, he combined with political success a repu- tation as an eminent physician as well as a man of "majestic form, graceful person and engaging manners."
There remain three others who gave extensively of their time and effort: George Partridge, Artemas Ward, and Samuel Osgood. All were born in Massachusetts,-Duxbury, Shrewsbury, and Andover, respectively-and all were Har- vard men. George Partridge studied theology, became a teacher, and entered public service with the opening of the Provincial Congress. Artemas Ward was a man of extensive military experience gained during the troubled years of Indian warfare. Becoming active in political matters on the side of the colonies he lost his commission as early as 1766. The Provincial Congress, however, made him a brigadier general in October, 1774, and captain-general in the spring of the following year. He was in nominal command at Bunker Hill, and was appointed the first major general under Washington.
Samuel Osgood completes the group. He had been re- peatedly a member of the Massachusetts legislature, a dele- gate to the Essex County Convention, and had served on im- portant committees of the Provincial Congress. In addition he distinguished himself as a captain at Lexington and Cam- bridge in April, 1775. These were the men who carried the influence of Massachusetts into shaping the first constitution of the United States,-the famous Articles of Confederation that marked the prelude to a firmer union.
STEPS TOWARD A CONFEDERATION (1775-1776)
As the war progressed, the difficulties of Massachusetts as well as those of the other colonies, were demanding extensive cooperation for their solution, if anything like a permanent settlement was to be found. As has been seen, the oneness of colonial action was given effect (in so far as it was effec- tive) through the second Continental Congress, and the first constitutional task that this assembly completed was to give form to the Declaration of Independence. The steps leading to the adoption of this document, as well as the part the Massachusetts delegates played in the procedure, have been traced and attention elsewhere called to the extensive
:
167
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION
super-structure of acts-national and local, civil and military, official and unofficial-that were designed not merely to make the Declaration secure, but to give also stability and perma- nence to union among the Colonies that separation from Great Britain was everywhere supposed to require.
Hardly had the war begun when Franklin proposed (July 21, 1775) to Congress a plan for colonial union,-"a firm League of Friendship with each other, binding on themselves and their Posterity." This was almost a year before the Dec- laration of Independence, and the colonies were not ready as a group to commit themselves so far. Franklin accordingly did not push the plan.
With the agitation for independence, the question became more urgent. Abraham Clark of New Jersey is reported to have said : "We must apply for pardons if we don't confed- erate." When Lee introduced his famous motion of June 7, 1776, declaring the colonies "free and independent states," he likewise urged that a confederation be formed "to bind the colonies more closely together." A committee of thirteen (one from each colony, in which Samuel Adams represented Massachusetts) was accordingly chosen (June 12) to make an appropriate draft. One month later (July 12) a plan was reported "in the hand-writing of J. Dickinson," and during the succeeding weeks "was debated from time to time," and a new draft reported on August 20, 1776.
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION COMPLETED (1777 - 1778)
The press of more immediate matters intervened, and it was April, 1777, before further consideration was seriously given to the matter, at which time the debates commenced and continued intermittently throughout the summer and fall. Final revision of the work was completed on November 14, minor amendments were made next day. On November 17, 1777, the Articles were ordered to be submitted to the state's for ratification, accompanied by a circular letter defending and explaining their provisions. By the middle of the fol- lowing summer, ten states had ratified the proposals. The General Court of Massachusetts gave its approval March 10, 1778-feeling that "no plan could have been proposed better adapted to the circumstances of all." A short time later,
168
IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
New Jersey and Delaware followed; but Maryland refused her consent, and around this refusal there developed an im- portant controversy of significance to Massachusetts.
There were three phases of the plan that particularly aroused argument : first, the question of apportioning taxation according to population; second, the arrangement whereby each state was to have one vote in the proposed Congress, and third, the plan to confer upon the governing authority the power to alter state boundaries.
John Adams presented his views of the issues as follows:
"If a Confederation should take place," he wrote to Mrs. Adams, "one great question is, how we shall vote. Whether each colony shall count one? or whether each shall have a weight in proportion to its number, or wealth, or exports and imports, or a compound ratio of all? Another is, whether Congress shall have authority to limit the dimensions of each colony, to prevent those, which claim by charter, or proclama- tion, or commission to the south sea, from growing too great and powerful, so as to be dangerous to the rest?"
Just what was said in the Congress or what action was taken on each point under discussion is not certain. No ver- batim records of the debates were officially preserved; but both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson made notes concerning many important points. In addition, a few scattered notes were made by other members, and the Secret Journals of the Acts and Proceedings of Congress afford still further infor- mation. But the delegates from Massachusetts were as active and as influential as they had previously been; and in the pre- liminary debates in the summer of 1776, as well as in these of the next year, did much to shape the final result.
JOHN ADAMS AS A FOREIGN ENVOY (1775 - 1778)
That French money was helping the situation in Massa- chusetts was due partly to the initiative of John Adams. As far back as November 29, 1775, the Continental Congress had appointed a committee of five members (Benjamin Har- rison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Johnson, John Dickinson, and John Jay) "for the sole purpose of corresponding with our friends in Great Britain, Ireland, and other parts of the world". It appeared to this committee that the Congress
169
JOHN ADAMS AS A FOREIGN ENVOY
should have an agent in France to "sound out" its government in the direction of more positive support; and Silas Deane, delegate from Connecticut, was accordingly selected for this post. His letter of instructions (written by the versatile Franklin) was dated March 3, 1776, and set forth in detail the carefully guarded steps he was to follow in carrying out his mission. But so important did the work appear, that it seemed unwise to trust so much to one man, and in September of that year, Franklin and Jefferson were selected to join Deane, and upon the withdrawal of Jefferson, Arthur Lee was appointed in his place.
John Adams had been foremost in urging this move. March 1, 1776, he had raised pertinent questions in Congress : "Is it the interest of France to stand neuter, to join with Britain, or to join with the Colonies? Is it not her interest to dismember the British empire? Will her dominions be safe, if Great Britain and America remain connected? Can she preserve her possessions in the West Indies?" The answer seemed ob- vious, and in considering the possibility of obtaining assistance from France, he stipulated purely "a commercial connection" -nothing more than "a treaty to receive her ships into our ports .... our ships into her ports", and to furnish us "with arms, cannon, saltpetre, powder, duck, steel." There was to be no "political connection" nor any agreement that might directly or indirectly subject the Colonies to French authority.
On June 12, 1776, a committee of five (John Dickinson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Benjamin Harrison and Robert Morris) was appointed "to prepare a plan of treaties to be proposed to foreign powers", and a little over a month later, reported what it deemed to be a suitable project. The original draft, with proper forms and certificates appended, was in the handwriting of John Adams, and in content it ranks among the important documents of the period.
It set forth principles which to that time had received scant consideration in any treaty, but which have since been recog- nized by practically all nations. It defined neutrality better than ever before, and it guaranteed certain privileges to com- merce that had not been previously enjoyed. It was strictly commercial, in accordance with Adams's views: "Our nego- tiations with France ought to be conducted with great cau- tion," he said in his report, "and with all the foresight we
170
IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
could possibly obtain; we ought not to enter into any alliance which should entangle us in any future wars in Europe."
The plan was read, considered, slightly amended, and on September 17, 1776, received the approval of Congress. On the twenty-fourth of that month, instructions to the American agents were agreed to, charging them to negotiate as far as possible in accordance with the plan proposed. Both Congress and the American agents in Paris were thereupon ready to proceed; and on February 6, 1778, two treaties of the utmost importance were signed,-one a Treaty of Amity and Com- merce, and the other a Treaty of Alliance, Eventual and De- fensive, the sole purpose of the latter being (Article 2) the independence of the United States :
"The essential and direct End of the present defensive al- liance is to maintain effectually the liberty, Sovereignty, and independence absolute and unlimited of the said United States, as well in Matters of Gouvernement as of commerce."
The personal relations existing among the American com- missioners, however, had been far from satisfactory. Frank- lin's two companions, Silas Deane and Arthur Lee, were not only inferior to him in ability, but less capable of making the social adjustments necessary to harmonious action. Even ig- noring the question of ultimate blame, the embarrassments that Deane caused the Continental Congress were sufficient to require his recall (November 21, 1777), and a few days later (November 28) Elbridge Gerry moved the appointment of John Adams in his place.
The news reached Adams while he was engaged in hearing a case before the admiralty court at Portsmouth, New Hamp- shire. It came with letters urging his acceptance. "I am charged", wrote James Lovell, "by all those who are truly anxious here for the best prosperity of our affairs in France, to press your acceptance of the commission which has this day been voted you. The great sacrifices which you have made of private happiness have encouraged them to hope that you will not allow the consideration of your partial defect in the language to weigh anything, when you surmount others of a different nature. Dr. Franklin's age alarms us. We want one man of inflexible integrity on the embassy". And in spite of a great inclination to remain at home, Adams ac- cepted the appointment and prepared for the journey. He
171
SECOND MISSION OF JOHN ADAMS
reached Bordeaux in safety, was received with honors, and arrived in Paris, April 8, 1778.
Here he plunged into his work with eagerness. Desiring as far as possible to keep aloof from the personal animosities that had beset the commission, he turned his attention to in- troducing more effective methods into the work at hand. He was successful-at least he appears to have stopped some of the more flagrant abuses-but he soon saw that extensive change in the structure of the delegation was necessary if the real difficulties were to be reached. Letters were accordingly written to his friends at home (particularly to Samuel Adams and to Elbridge Gerry) urging the separation of diplomatic and commercial matters and the centering of responsibility in the hands of a single person.
SECOND MISSION OF JOHN ADAMS (1779 - 1781)
Such suggestions (with similar ones from Franklin) were received by Congress with favor, and the result was the abolition of the old commission. Franklin was made sole minister. Lee was sent to Madrid. Provision was made for a consul-general with wide power to settle accounts. But Adams appears to have received no additional appointment. Indeed, he seems to have been quite forgotten. In spite of Franklin's advice to him to await patiently for further orders, he was determined to end what had become a period of prac- tical idleness, and to return home at the earliest time possible. After numerous delays, he arrived in Boston, August 2, 1779.
Next to the French alliance, the most important event in foreign relations was the treaty with Holland, and this was entirely the work of Adams. In September, 1779, Congress selected Adams to negotiate for peace with Great Britain whenever His Majesty's government was willing to become reconciled to existing conditions ; and on November 13, Adams was again on the high seas bound for Paris. He arrived in February, 1780, and while awaiting a suitable opportunity to undertake his mission, was directed to negotiate a commercial treaty with Holland,-a task originally assigned to Henry Laurens, captured by the British en route to his post.
Upon his arrival in France, Adams encountered difficulty with Franklin as well as with the French Minister of Foreign
172
IN THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
Affairs, Vergennes, and his removal to Amsterdam was prob- ably welcome. It was certainly fortunate for his country. After great difficulties throughout some two years of negotia- tions, he obtained a treaty of commerce particularly valuable as a recognition of independence and as a means of encourag- ing badly needed loans. Adams was highly elated over his success. In his diary he records a conversation at dinner with some French admirers:
"The compliment of 'Monsieur, vous êtres le Washington de la négociation', was repeated to me by more than one per- son. I answered, 'Monsieur, vous me faites le plus grand hon- neur, et le compliment le plus sublime possible.' 'Eh, Mon- sieur, en vérité, vous l'avez bien mérité.' A few of these compliments would kill Franklin, if they should come to his ears."
QUESTION OF EQUAL VOTE IN THE CONFEDERATION (1776 - 1778)
John Adams likewise did much to dispose of the second disputed issue. Article XVII provided that "In determin- ing questions, each colony shall have one vote." This was an extremely delicate matter. The larger colonies had threatened not to enter the confederation at all if their weight were not equal to the number of people that they added to the confederation; while the smaller ones were equally ad- verse to any arrangement forbidding them an equal vote for the protection of their rights. Many proposals were made to reach an agreement. Franklin was flatly in favor of voting in proportion to numbers. Arthur Middleton of South Caro- lina thought the vote should be arranged in proportion to what each state paid to the common treasury. Roger Sherman of Connecticut felt that the Congress was designed to represent states, and not individuals, and suggested that the vote be taken in two ways,-call the colonies and call the individuals and the majority of both be made necessary to a choice.
John Adams came out strongly in opposition to the original article and in favor of "voting in proportion to numbers." Jefferson records his remarks to have been that, "we stand here as the representatives of the people, that in some states the people are many, and in others they are few; that there-
173
APPORTIONING THE TAXES
fore their vote here should be proportioned to the numbers from whom it comes .... A. has £50 B. £500 and C £1000 in partnership, is it just that they should equally dispose of the monies of the partnership?" In the revision of August 20, the text of the article remained unaltered except that "state" was inserted in place of "colony." Indeed, the ques- tion was destined to plague the government throughout the intervening years until the Constitutional Convention of 1787 settled it through the famous compromise of equal represen- tation in the Senate and proportional in the House.
APPORTIONING THE TAXES
In the meantime, the Articles of Confederation were being extensively debated. Article XI of the proposals for a con- federation, as reported in the first draft of the committee on July 12, 1776, provided that all charges incurred for the common defense or general welfare should be defrayed from a common treasury "which shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes ... . " To this there was serious objection from the southern states. Samuel Chase of Maryland moved that quotas should be fixed, not by the number of inhabitants of every kind, but on the basis of the "white inhabitants." He seemed to believe that inhabitants were a "tolerably good criterion" of property, negroes were a kind of property, and could not be distinguished from lands or personalities held in those states where there were few slaves.
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.