Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume XVI.djvu/174

very large, and they had suffered severely from the enemy during the mismanagement of the first half of the contest. Nevertheless they had gained greatly by the struggle. The conquest of Canada, of Louisburg, and of the military posts on their western frontier, extinguished their chief source of anxiety and danger, and freed them for ever from any serious dread of the Indians, who were really formidable only when supported by the French. Then, too, the incapacity of the English generals and the defeats sustained by large bodies of English troops had materially weakened their superstitious reverence for the power of the mother country, while their own exploits in the war had given them a confidence in their strength hitherto unfelt. The general characteristics of the people were intelligence, industry, and a high degree of moral and religious culture. They were descended for the most part from intelligent and enterprising ancestors, who had emigrated from the old world either to secure to themselves greater freedom to worship God or better opportunities to acquire competence or wealth. The passage across the Atlantic was tedious and expensive, and life in the new settlements hard and perilous. The lazy, the timid, the improvident, the brutally ignorant, shrank from the terrors of the sea and the wilderness, and the vast majority of the emigrants were of the respectable and energetic middle class. Religious influences operated powerfully, not only in giving an impulse to emigration, but on the character of the emigrants in their new homes; and not only on the Puritans, Huguenots, and Quakers, who came avowedly from the highest motives, but on vast bodies of churchmen, Dutch Calvinists, and Scotch-Irish Presbyterians. Much care was devoted to the education of children, and especially to training them in a knowledge of the Bible and the catechism, and in reverence for the sabbath. In Virginia the laws enacted that in every settlement there should be “a house for the worship of God.” Absence from church was punished by a fine, and travelling or shooting on the sabbath was forbidden. In the Carolines there were similar laws, and in Pennsylvania acts were passed against “stage plays, playing of cards, dice, May games, masques, and balls.” Similar also was the legislation of the New England colonies, where in addition at some periods sumptuary laws and laws regulating the use of tobacco were in force. The spirit of political freedom was strongly developed among the colonists, and republican ideas and feelings transmitted from the period of the commonwealth in England were widely diffused, though at the same time a warm attachment existed for the mother country and a devoted loyalty to the crown. This attachment was disinterested, for though England afforded protection during the wars with the French, these wars, with the single exception of that recently concluded, had originated in Europe, and were waged for objects with which America had neither concern nor sympathy. In many other respects the connection was injurious to the colonies. Their trade and manufactures were systematically restricted for the selfish benefit of England; but though these oppressive enactments were heavily felt by the colonists, they made no resistance so long as the imperial authority confined itself to measures which, however harsh or injurious, were not clearly unconstitutional. But in 1761 parliament authorized sheriffs and officers of the customs to use “writs of assistance” or general search warrants which empowered them to enter stores and private dwellings and search for merchandise which it was suspected had not paid duty. These writs were first used in Massachusetts, where they roused great excitement and opposition. Obedience was refused to them on the ground of illegality, and a trial ensued in which the eloquent James Otis, the advocate general of the crown, refused to defend them, but resigned his office and appeared in behalf of the people. His speech made a profound impression. The judges evaded a decision, and the writs, although secretly granted, were never executed. In Virginia two years later occurred a collision between the royal prerogative and the colonial legislation on the subject of dues to the clergy, in which the cause of the colony was defended by Patrick Henry. It was at length decided in England to tax the colonies directly in spite of all their protests, and the stamp act passed the house of commons on Feb. 27, 1765, and the house of lords on March 8, and received the royal assent on March 22. This act declared that every document used in trade or legal proceedings, to be valid, must have affixed to it a stamp, the lowest in value costing a shilling, and the duty increasing indefinitely in proportion to the value of the writing. To enforce the act, against which while it was under discussion the colonies had vehemently remonstrated, parliament authorized the ministry to send as many troops as they saw proper to America, for whom the colonies were required to find “quarters, fuel, cider or rum, candles, and other necessaries.” These acts created great excitement and indignation in America. The Virginia assembly passed resolutions, introduced by Patrick Henry, declaring that the general assembly of that colony possessed the sole right and power to lay taxes on its inhabitants. The legislature of Massachusetts resolved that the courts should conduct their business without the use of stamps. In New York and Pennsylvania the opposition, though not so genera], was yet very strong. Everywhere the people determined not to use the stamps, and associations calling themselves “sons of liberty” were organized in opposition to the act and for the general defence of the rights of the colonies. So powerful were these combinations, and so intense the popular indignation, that when the day came (Nov. 1) on which the obnoxious law was to go into