Opening the text

Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. 6 (of 8): The United States of North America, Part I

History

Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. 6 (of 8): The United States of North America, Part I

America -- Discovery and exploration; America -- History; United States -- History

Some show of reason for charging upon the patriots duplicity and lack
of downright frankness was found in their professions of a steadfast,
but still a qualified, loyalty. If there was not at first some
confusion or vagueness in their own ideas on this point, they certainly
set themselves open to such a misunderstanding by the ministry as
to leave it in doubt whether they knew their own minds or candidly
declared them. The controversy, from its beginning till its close,
was constantly alleged to start from this discriminating standard of
loyalty: the colonists repudiated the exercise of authority over them
by Parliament and the ministry, and yet avowed themselves faithful and
loyal subjects of the king. The king could govern and act only through
Parliament. How could they repudiate the authority of Parliament and
respect that of the king? What was to be the basis, scope, and mode
of exercise of his authority? They certainly could not have in view
the exercise of an autocracy over them, the restoration of the old
royal prerogative which a previous glorious revolution had shattered.
The king could exercise his authority in the colonial assemblies only
through governors, and those governors had been rendered powerless
here. Even the sage and philosophic Franklin found himself perplexed
on this point. Writing from London to his son in New Jersey, March 13,
1768, he says: "I know not what the Boston people mean; what is the
subordination they acknowledge in their Assembly to Parliament, while
they deny its power to make laws for them?"[686] Galloway pertinently
asked of the first Congress, "if they had any other union of the two
countries more constitutional in view, why did they not petition
for it?" "The Congress, while they professed themselves subjects,
spoke in the language of allies, and were openly acting the part of
enemies."[687] How are we to reconcile two statements made by Pitt
in the same speech, in January, 1776: "This kingdom has no right to
lay a tax on the colonies." "At the same time, on every real point of
legislation, I believe the authority of Parliament to be fixed as the
Polar Star." Without any attempt to conceive or fashion a definition of
their ideal, the good common sense of the patriots at last worked out
the conclusion that their emancipation from the Parliament involved a
dispensing with the king.[688]

Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.

Opening the text

History

Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. 6 (of 8): The United States of North America, Part I

America -- Discovery and exploration; America -- History; United States -- History

Some show of reason for charging upon the patriots duplicity and lack
of downright frankness was found in their professions of a steadfast,
but still a qualified, loyalty. If there was not at first some
confusion or vagueness in their own ideas on this point, they certainly
set themselves open to such a misunderstanding by the ministry as
to leave it in doubt whether they knew their own minds or candidly
declared them. The controversy, from its beginning till its close,
was constantly alleged to start from this discriminating standard of
loyalty: the colonists repudiated the exercise of authority over them
by Parliament and the ministry, and yet avowed themselves faithful and
loyal subjects of the king. The king could govern and act only through
Parliament. How could they repudiate the authority of Parliament and
respect that of the king? What was to be the basis, scope, and mode
of exercise of his authority? They certainly could not have in view
the exercise of an autocracy over them, the restoration of the old
royal prerogative which a previous glorious revolution had shattered.
The king could exercise his authority in the colonial assemblies only
through governors, and those governors had been rendered powerless
here. Even the sage and philosophic Franklin found himself perplexed
on this point. Writing from London to his son in New Jersey, March 13,
1768, he says: "I know not what the Boston people mean; what is the
subordination they acknowledge in their Assembly to Parliament, while
they deny its power to make laws for them?"[686] Galloway pertinently
asked of the first Congress, "if they had any other union of the two
countries more constitutional in view, why did they not petition
for it?" "The Congress, while they professed themselves subjects,
spoke in the language of allies, and were openly acting the part of
enemies."[687] How are we to reconcile two statements made by Pitt
in the same speech, in January, 1776: "This kingdom has no right to
lay a tax on the colonies." "At the same time, on every real point of
legislation, I believe the authority of Parliament to be fixed as the
Polar Star." Without any attempt to conceive or fashion a definition of
their ideal, the good common sense of the patriots at last worked out
the conclusion that their emancipation from the Parliament involved a
dispensing with the king.[688]

Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.

Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. 6 (of 8): The United States of North America, Part I

Narrative and Critical History of America, Vol. 6 (of 8): The United States of North America, Part I

No reviews yet