80

AUTHORITY OF THE DELEGATES.

2

maintain.1 This doctrine, by no means new, was laid down in fresh form by Blackstone in his lectures lately published, as the foundation of the laws of England. The Americans were the first people to accuse the King of violating the compact, for hitherto it had been violated as men were accustomed to say, only by mobs and revolutionists. The Suffolk convention had proclaimed a novel idea, that the violation might now be construed as the act of the King, and, in consequence, that the people were released from their obligations. At the time of the meeting of the Continental Congress, political thought was ready to make a further application of the Suffolk resolutions.

Delegates, who had not been formally elected by the assemblies, did not for a moment imagine that their credentials lacked any element of authority. There was no disposition to challenge credentials, and, indeed, had the question of authority been raised, undoubtedly an election by a Colonial or a County Convention would have been considered a more direct proof of popular approval than an election by an assembly. The phase of democracy into which the people were now passing was legal. All revolutionists are eager to have the law on their side, and if laws are lacking then new ones must be made, for it seems to be the common opinion of mankind that affairs of government must proceed in legal form. Theories of the state change, but every new theory must be set forth in a constitutional form. Public opinion in America was not yet thoroughly homogeneous and the delegates brought

1 Blackstone, Vol. I, 47.

2 The first American Edition of Blackstone's Commentary in four volumes was brought out in Philadelphia by Robert Bell in 1771. The younger members of the bar in America and the more active leaders of the revolution seemed to have become familiar with Blackstone.

PROGRESS OF THE REVOLUTION.

81

to their conference some elements of discord. The credentials of the members were approved, and, as a practical solution of the problem of representation, each colony was given one vote. With the unanimous approval of all the delegates, the daily sessions were opened with prayer, and a clergyman of the Church of England officiated, chosen on motion of Samuel Adams, one of the strictest of Congregationalists. Enthusiasm for liberty melted away many differences in political sentiment, yet it was soon discovered that any attempt to adjust or to regulate the economic affairs of the colonies would divide the Congress into factions and, probably, defeat the purpose for which it had assembled.

Not yet were the people prepared to go further than a discussion of their political rights; not yet were their delegates ready to institute a new administrative system. Each member was a famed man in his own colony and his first zeal, naturally, was to express his own sentiments and, if possible, to pronounce them to be those of his constituents. Yet, this noble body of men was not an assembly of mere debaters. From Rhode Island came the venerable Stephen Hopkins, too long experienced in democratic government to advocate premature administrative measures; and his colleague, Samuel Ward, followed his example. The Massachusetts members were too intent upon solving the serious problems in their own province to make any general proposition of an administrative nature. Thomas Cushing, the Chief Justice, had but recently identified himself with the popular cause, and by birth and training was not likely to depart far from the legal landmarks of liberty. Samuel Adams, "the man of the town meeting," knew better than any of his associates how to play on that difficult instrument, the people, but his profound acquaintance with human nature, his

82

THE PRINCIPLES INVOLVED.

extensive knowledge of public affairs and his unselfish zeal in defense of American rights, made him too cautious even to intimate that a radical change in administrative measures was yet expedient. His colleague, John Adams, viewed the situation with a lawyer's eye, and, though clearly discerning the principles involved, was not yet ready to go further than to advise a restatement of American claims. Paine showed no inclination to enter upon the discussion of administrative changes. The Maryland delegates, Matthew Tilghman, Thomas Johnson, William Paca and Samuel Chase, were neither united nor divided on any administrative measure, but yet were unanimously desirous of formulating the American cause more clearly. Thomas Johnson, the ablest man among them, was not ready to go further than John Adams. The Maryland delegates, however, were instructed "to effect one general plan of conduct bearing on the commercial connection of the colonies with the mother country."

The Connecticut delegates, Roger Sherman, Silas Deane and Eliphalet Dyer, were instructed to consult with the others, "on proper measures for advancing the best good of the colonies." Sherman, a shoemaker by trade, a democrat by birth and instinct, was a self-educated man and a fair type of the mass of his countrymen. No member of the Congress surpassed him in soundness of judgment, and he was destined to be the only American who should sign the three most important State papers in our history.1 John Sullivan and Nathaniel Folsom, from New Hampshire; James Kinsey, William Livingston, John Hart, Stephen Crane and Richard Smith from New Jersey, all eminent citizens, had no disposition to do more than to

1 The Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States; he also signed the Articles of Association of 1774 passed by this Congress.

INSTRUCTIONS TO DELEGATES.

83

join their colleagues in restoring "that peace and harmony and mutual confidence which once existed between the parent country and her colonies;" nor have we reason to believe that more than this was desired by Joseph Galloway, at heart a zealous loyalist; Samuel Rhoads, Thomas Mifflin, Charles Humphries, John Morton, George Ross and Edward Biddle, the members from Pennsylvania.

Delaware instructed its delegates, Cæsar Rodney, Thomas McKean and George Read, to aid in determining the lawful measures most expedient for the colonies and immediately to adopt them. The South Carolina members, Henry Middleton, John and Edward Rutledge, Thomas Lynch and Christopher Gadsden, were instructed to support whatever legal measures might lead to the repeal of the late acts of Parliament; but perhaps of greater importance was their instruction to consider "the unnecessary restraints and burdens on trade" which these acts had imposed. William Hooper, Joseph Hewes and Richard Caswell, of North Carolina, were invested with powers that made any acts done by them on behalf of the province "obligatory in honor" upon every one of its inhabitants, who was not "an alien to his country's good and an apostate to the liberties of Americans."

The New York members came with divided sentiments,1 and Duane, like Galloway, was not in full sympathy with the American cause. No delegation was more distin

1 James Duane, John Jay, Isaac Low, Philip Livingston were the delegates for the city and county of New York, and were also appointed by the committees of several districts in the county of Westchester to represent that county; also by the committee for Albany to represent that county and city; also by the county committee of Dutchess. The other New York delegates were William Floyd from Suffolk county, Henry Wisner of Orange county, John Alsopp, John Harrington and Sims Boerum; Boerum did not appear until the first of October.

84

WASHINGTON'S HOPE.

guished than that from Virginia. The Speaker of its House Burgesses, the venerable Peyton Randolph, was chosen President of the Congress, and Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry largely directed the course of its thought. They were supported by Edmund Pendleton, Richard Bland and Benjamin Harrison, who were eager "to procure a redress of grievances for the much injured province of Massachusetts." To secure British America from the ravages and ruin of arbitrary taxes and speedily to procure the restoration of that harmony and union so beneficial to the whole empire and so ardently desired by British America;" but they were instructed to procure this redress in "the most proper and effectual manner" by "operating upon the commercial connection of the colonies with the mother country."

Washington, one of the Virginia members, thus early appearing in the councils of his country, was not committed to radical measures, for as yet he was confident that harmony would ultimately prevail and he did not share the strong opinions of Henry, John Rutledge and Samuel Adams. Like John Adams and Thomas Johnson, he took a legal rather than an ecomonic view of public affairs. The members all desired peace and harmony with Great Britain. "They fell to work forthwith," says Trevelyan, in his account of the Congress, which is no less admirable for its brevity than for its fine comprehension, "and their labors were continuous, severe and admirably adapted to the particularity of the situation. Possessed of no constitutional authority to legislate or govern, they passed, after searching debate and minute revision, resolutions which had the moral force of laws and the practical effect of administrative decrees."

There were no visionary or hot-headed revolutionists

1 The American Revolution, Part I, 206.