66 66 desirable for the colonies as a means of preserving peace on SECT. III. their borders, it would be attended with disadvantages overbalancing this consideration, which had become of the less moment from the military strength they had acquired, and the impression they had made upon the Indian nations. He took one particular view of their case, which belongs to history, and should be offered to my readers as equally striking and just. "I do not think that our blood and treasure have been expended,' as the author of the pamphlet intimates, in the "cause of the colonies, and that England is making conquests "for them;' yet I believe this is too common an error; I do not say that they are altogether unconcerned in the event. "The inhabitants of them are, in common with other sub"jects of Great Britain, anxious for the glory of her crown, "the extent of her power and commerce, the welfare and "future repose of the whole British people. They could not, "therefore, but take a large share in the affronts offered to "Britain; and have been animated with a truly British spirit, "to exert themselves beyond their strength, and against their "evident interests. Yet so unfortunate have they been, that "their virtue has made against them; for upon no better foun"dation than this have they been supposed the authors of the war, and has it been said to be carried on for their advan"tage only." Adam Smith strengthened the common error, and unwittingly promoted the ministerial scheme of deception, by the following loose passage of the seventh chapter of the fourth book of his Wealth of Nations.-"The English colonists have never yet contributed any thing towards the defence of the mother country, or towards the support of its civil government. They, themselves, on the contrary, have hitherto been defended almost entirely at the expense of the mother country." These propositions are inconsistent with the tenor of the opinions which I have quoted from the same chapter, and have not the least hold in the colonial history. A direct and complete refutation of them is to be found in Franklin's writings. With respect to the war of 1756 particularly, which Adam Smith had, no doubt, immediately in view, the American champion placed the question in its true light to the House of Commons, in his examination before that body. His doctrine passed without contradiction at the moment. "I know the last war "is commonly spoken of here as entered into for the defence, "or for the sake of the people in America. I think it is quite "misunderstood. It began about the limits between Canada "and Nova Scotia; about territories to which the crown indeed PART I. laid claim, but which were not claimed by any British colo66 ny; none of the lands had been granted to any colonists, we "had therefore no particular concern or interest in that dispute. "As to the Ohio, the contest there began about your right of 66 trading in the Indian country, a right you had by the treaty "of Utrecht, which the French infringed; they seized the tra"ders and their goods, which were your manufactures; they "took a fort which a company of your merchants, and their "factors and correspondents, had erected there, to secure that "trade. Braddock was sent with an army to retake that fort, "(which was looked on here as another encroachment on the "king's territory,) and to protect your trade. It was not till "after his defeat that the colonies were attacked. They were "before in perfect peace with both French and Indians; the 66 troops were not therefore sent for their defence.” The whole subject, including the motives and ends of what were called the colonial contests of the European powers, was taken up by Brougham, in his work on their colonial policy, and so treated as to be no longer a field of controversy. He has satisfactorily shown, that "the quarrels of the mother country alone were, in almost every instance, the causes which involved every part of the empire in wars;" that "the foreign relations of the colonies were almost always subservient, and postponed to those of the parent state;" and that, "so far from involving her in their quarrels, they suffered more than any part of the system, by the proper quarrels of the metropolis." The following desultory extracts from his first volume contain general views, which I think it important to present, upon such authority, and some facts, of which the force will be more felt, when they are so avouched. "The supporters of the different economical systems have considered a colony as a mother country, held in subjection by another state; not as a part of that state, connected with it by various ties. It appears more proper to view the establishment of distant colonies, as an extension of a country's dominions, into regions which enjoy a diversity of soil and climate. While the colonies then are only to be viewed as distant provinces of the same country, it is absurd to represent their defence and government as a burden, either to the treasury or to the forces of the mother country." "The wars which a state undertakes, apparently for the defence of the colonial dominions, are, in reality, very seldom the consequence, even of her possessing those distant territories. Two nations, who would commence hostilities on account of their colonies, would never want occasions for quarrelling, bad they no possessions. In fact, any influence which the circumstances of the colonies can exert on the dispositions of the parent state, is much more likely to be of a nature favourable to the maintenance of peace.**Whatever effects may be attributed to the attention which has been paid to colonial policy, it is probable that instead of increasing, it has diminished the frequency of wars in modern times. Whatever circumstances may have involved SECT. III. Great Britain in a colonial warfare in 1739 and 1756, a little reflection will show us, that the contests were not occasioned by the possession of territories in America, but only broke out in that quarter of the globe, as well as in Europe, in consequence of the relations of European politics between the different powers possessing territories on both sides of the Atlantic." "It should seem, that in ascribing to the possession of colonies, the wars of 1739, 1756, and 1778, philosophers have been led into an error, not uncommon in any of the departments of science, and in none more frequent than in politics,-the mistake of the occasion for the cause, and of a collateral effect for a principle of causation. They have searched in America for the origin of misfortunes, of which the seeds lay near home-in the mutual relations of the European powers, the diversity of national character, and the belligerent nature of man.” "The colonies occasion a diversion in favour of the tranquillity and security of the parent states. The strength and valour which might otherwise be exerted, in committing to the chance of war the independence of the European powers, are displayed in the distant regions of the New World, and exhausted without danger to the capitals." "While their colonies thus render to the great maritime powers of Europe the important service of determining (as it were) the eruption of hostilities, to the extremities, where it may spend a force that would have proved fatal to the nobler parts of the system, the structure of those distant communities, is, in general, of a less delicate nature, and better adapted to sustain the shock of military operations." "The old colonies of North America, besides 'defraying the whole expenses of their internal administration, were enabled, from their situation, to render very active assistance to the mother country, upon seve ral occasions, not peculiarly interesting to themselves. They uniformly asserted, that they would never refuse contributions even for purposes strictly imperial, provided these were constitutionally demanded. Nor did they stop at mere professions of zeal." "The whole expense of civil government in the British North American colonies, previous to the revolution, did not amount to eighty thousand pounds sterling; which was paid by the produce of their taxes. The military establishment, the garrisons, and the forts, in the old colonies, cost the mother country nothing." "In the war of 1739, when their population and resources were very trifling, they sent three thousand men to join the expedition to Carthagena. The privateers fitted out in the different ports of America, and Belonging to the colonies, were even in that time, both in numbers of men and guns, more powerful than the whole British navy, at the era of its victory over the Spanish armada. Many parts of the colonies have, at all times, furnished large supplies to the naval force that was destined to protect them. The fisheries of New England, in particular, used to contribute a vast number of excellent seamen to the British navy." VOL. I.-N 98 SECTION IV. PART I. OF THE MILITARY EFFORTS AND SUFFERINGS OF THE 1. THE colonies took an active part, and had even an excessive share, in the almost continuous wars which Great Britain waged between the years 1680 and 1763. As soon as hostilities broke out in Europe, towards the close of the seventeenth century, the belligerent powers industriously kindled the fiercest animosities between their respective American dependencies. Those of the French and Spaniards being greatly inferior in internal strength, thought to compensate themselves for this disparity, by arraying the Indians on their side, and keeping their merciless auxiliaries in perpetual action. They animated and led them, in irruptions into the British provinces, memorable for the worst evils which characterize Indian warfare. The destruction of the settlements of Port Royal, on the southern frontier of Carolina, by the Spaniards of St. Augustine, in 1686,-the murderous expedition of the French against Schenectady and Corlar, in New York, and their successful attacks upon Salmon Falls and Casco, in 1690, may be cited as specimens, of what is to be considered as the mere prelude, to the similar hostilities with which the English colonists were afflicted, almost without intermission, for more than half a century afterwards. They began nearly at the same time, to act vigorously on the offensive; less, however, by the proxy of the Indians, whom they could attach to their cause, than in their own persons, and with their own resources. We find New England twice engaged during 1690, in attempts upon a large scale, to reduce Canada. In that year, Sir William Phipps, governor of Massachusetts, with a fleet of eight small vessels, and eight hundred men, made himself master of the fort of Port Royal in Acadia, and took possession of the whole coast from that place to the New England settlements. Another, and more considerable armament was despatched immediately after, under the same commander, against Quebec, but it proved highly disastrous, owing to the incapacity of the royal governor.* One thousand SECT.IV. of the New England troops perished in this bold enterprise, and the vessels employed in it, were all lost on their return; the colonies that had so nobly strained their means, incurred a debt of £140,000, and the necessity of issuing bills of credit-the first paper money (born in an evil hour,) which is mentioned in our annals. The contingent of men, which Connecticut and New York had stipulated to send against Montreal, as a diversion in favour of the forces directed against Quebec, was arrested in camp, and dreadfully reduced by the small pox. This, and other malignant epidemics, made, at different times, great havoc throughout the North American communities, and are to be classed among the most formidable of the numerous obstacles to their progress. These enterprises of New England originated in her own sagacity and intrepidity. The mother country took no part and little interest in them. Sir William Phipps made a voyage to London, in order to solicit aid and encouragement for the prosecution of the object, but met with no success. "It would be amazing," says the Universal History," that the English court should all the while express so little, or no concern, for so fine and well situated a country as Acadia, did we not consider that king William and the English government had at this time on their hands, two great wars in Europe, one in Ireland, and one in Flanders. Whatever had been done against the French in New France, was effected by the New England forces, without any assistance from Old England, farther than that the king and ministry there signed commissions." The fruits of the success at Port Royal were lost by the restoration of the whole territory taken, at the peace of Ryswick. The In 1693, the British cabinet yielding at length to the instances of New England, undertook to assist her with a considerable force towards another invasion of Canada. fleet designated for the purpose, was, however, first employed in an attempt upon Martinico, and experienced there, disasters which unfitted it for any further operations. In the mean while, the colonies eagerly made preparations, in conformity with the plan concerted in England; which were so great, says the Universal History, that they probably would have been Universal Military History, vol. xl. † Some years after, Colonel Schuyler, of New York, went to England, at his private expense, on the same errand. Vol. xxxix. |