Vol. XVI, Nos. 1-2 The Significance of Yorktown.

95

said that the English on the East coast were almost surrounded by the French at the time of the Revolution. This is very significant for the reason that France was looking for an opportunity to assist the colonies against England, her ancient foe.

Up to 1700 each colony was a little unit all to itself. A thousand impulses filled the colonists in successive waves, but each little commonwealth "had its own interest, its own struggles, and looked forward to its own future." The constant disturbances by wars with the Indians, recurring domestic political quarrels, and constant disputes with the mother country gradually brought the colonies to cultivate each other's friendship. The commerce and industry so rapidly growing up in the colonies brought many immigrants and much capital, and the country as a whole grew very rapidly between 1700 and 1760. Many of the charters were attached by England, and this was a surprise to the little states, which heretofore had not regarded seriously any interference from England.

These then were the elements which in time of need came together and organized for the common defense. They were daring spirits-adventurous, unafraid. They would not submit for long to any attempt on the part of the mother country to extend bureaucratic methods and control across the sea, to exploit by taxing, to punish by diversion of commerce and through other oppressive measures. After their coming their energies were directed to the subduing of the wilderness, to the development of resources, to the creation of wealth, to the opening up of opportunities for those to come later. They were exhilarated by their freedom and determined to maintain it. There was an important group in England who understood the colonial attitude and whose influence caused the repeal of acts calculated to develop resistance, but these repeal measures were always enacted too late to repair the damage. Coercive measures were again put in force, and the final break came. King's judgments and Tory mentalities were utterly incapable of understanding the needs and attitudes of these pioneer, hard working people, who were hard at the task of conquering and developing a new world, and who were soon to be called on to organize and launch a new plan of government destined to become a great power for good throughout the world.

On the political side we have not always been safe, for while the blending of many nationalities to form one nation was not a new experiment, yet it was not accomplished without much difficulty. Fiske says that "the need for union was not generally felt by the people. The sympathies of the colonies were weak and likely to be overborne by prejudices arising from rivalry or from differences in social structure. To the merchant of Boston the Virginia planter was still almost a foreigner, although both the one and the other were pureblood Englishmen. Commercial jealousies were very keen, boundary disputes not uncommon.'

The blending of these various elements may be considered almost a miracle. The one great thought that dominated all was freedom, and the hardest fight in all the efforts to combine the colonies against the mother country was to effect a union without losing any of the freedom exercised by the individual colonies. The various colonies were up to the time of the Revolution several independent states. They knew no restrictions from their neighbors and very little from England. They were therefore afraid they would lose by union what they had gained in isolation. They were in sight of the long sought freedom; why should they bind themselves into a union whereby they would have to give all or part of it up? Was there any way to get out from under the wing of England without losing any of the freedom they had learned to enjoy? These were questions of extreme importance to all the colonies. The large plantations of Virginia were small empires all to themselves, and the independent merchants of Boston had developed channels of commerce that they did not wish to share with others.

The framing of the Articles of Confederation was an attempt at a middle course. It was an evidence of a need of union and at the same time an effort to maintain the largest possible degree of independence among the colonists.

Whatever the source of their political ideals, the colonists blended into a cosmopolitan republic having drawn their citizenship from the four quarters of the globe, though the first settlers were almost entirely from the west coast of Europe. The colonies evidently got their ideas of government from as many sources as the people came from, but some of the funda

mental ideas that were inherited from the early English institutions are:

1. The idea of the supremacy of law.

2. The conception of an unwritten law, or the binding power of custom, which probably is the source of most of our "common law."

3. The conception of a law superior to the law-making body from which the charters originated on which the colonies were founded. Before the courts and before the tax-gatherers all England stood practically on the same basis, and this has been the ideal for which the American Republic has striven. since Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown in 1781.

While in their efforts to work out a system of government the colonies followed rather closely the English institutions, there was a fundamental difference in that American integration from the beginning has been federal, while the English method was always absorptive, incorporative. Up to the time of and during the Revolution the union of the colonies was distinctly federative-a matter of concession and contract. At the close of the Revolution the time had come for these loosely constructed units of government to take stock of their political structure and to build themselves into a common state. They did not have a law for this federation till the framing of the Articles of Confederation in 1777. Before then they had cooperated by common consent, but without any determinative law. In 1781 the Articles of Confederation were adopted, but the colonies found themselves bound together so loosely that they had to reconstruct the entire instrument, and this resulted in the written Constitution of the United States adopted by the Continental Congress in session in the summer of 1787.

Your forebears won. The French, who at the time were developing the ferment leading to a new political and economic freedom, were of master service in enabling the colonists to drop the "prelude" curtain of the now-to-be-presented new political drama entitled "Representative Government, By and For the People." The plot for the new presentation came from the experience, understandings and vision of a courageous, determined, industrious, intelligent, freedomloving, history-comprehending people, possessing a high order of organizing ability and a genius for compromising serious

differences. The text for the drama was written by men of rare culture and understanding. The language used was English, and no translations were necessary. The story is still being presented to a steadily increasing and generally appre ciative audience. Many of the acts have disclosed rare heroism and unselfishness. Some have proven dull, even sordid. Out of it all has come great good to many people; unusual opportunities for success in attaining material comforts and the finer things of life; religious freedom; education; travel.

It has been said that Britain wins but one battle in her wars—the last one. Britain lost at Yorktown, but Britain and the Empire gained much from the losing. She learned that her sons and daughters when they became colonists must and will live their own lives and work out their own destinies. They may perhaps listen to advice, but they will not take orders. They will voluntarily contribute to the common good, but they will not honor demand drafts. England learned that the problem of the pioneer must be solved by the pioneer, and on the spot; that Colonial Offices and officious home bureaucrats are talking to the winds if they attempt to direct the movements of their sons across seas. All this they learned many years ago. The pre-war Colonial Office of Germany, through the local governor general, advised their Southeast African colonists where and what to plant on their newly settled farms. Did the German Government successfully colonize? It did not.

Britain also learned another lesson-that a war, when it is over, should be kept over; and has always worked hard to bring this about. The handling of the Boers after the war with those fine people is a splendid example of appreciation by a government of the feelings and aspirations of a former enemy, and from this treatment came the superb loyalty and support of the Boers in the late war and in the peace councils. Equality and fraternity in practice.

As has been said, England learned much of value from the Revolution and from the developments of the succeeding years. France was stirred. The old feudal divine right theory was still going strong in other Continental countries, and the American experiment was anathema. Monarchies always have

Se onder

but th

the p

nd ot

crats oveme

by ret

ngh.

Affi

d fars

It

shown bulldog characteristics both as to hang-on and mentality. Liberal ideas and changes never did appeal to them. As "two heads are better than one", and as many of these states didn't have much of one head, their progress was slow. Gradually parliamentary governments were introduced and those of importance were given the vote. One may safely say that the continuing success of the American plan has profoundly impressed other governments and has made for greater freedom.

The framers of the new government resented outside control. They feared too much central authority. They limited the power and authority of the federal government by a written constitution. Good government starts with the private home, and is reflected in community life. If the ability to direct and protect is not found in the community, its lack is immediately reflected in the political bodies selected by the community. The approvers of the Constitution wanted to run their home affairs themselves. They were keen on preventing federal pilfering of their local responsibilities. Nowadays this doesn't seem to be resented. Many newcomers are here, men trained under monarchial conditions and accustomed to the rule of a centralized government occupying a comparatively small area. They know little about our plan of government and the causes which led to its adoption, and do not oppose a federal encroachment on state powers and responsibilities which is worrying many thoughtful people who fear bureaucratic government. As a nation it behooves us to both keep watch over our institutions and to endeavor to educate the newcomer in the proper direction.

Since the Revolutionary War many peoples have come to our hospitable shores and have been incorporated in our citizenry. Social and economic disturbance has had much to do with their coming. In 1846 the potato rot in Ireland and the following famine caused a million and a quarter of the Irish to come here, between the years 1845 and 1855. German migration reached flood tide in 1854, on political grounds, and in 1882 on military and economic grounds. The English and Scandinavians came in large numbers during the middle of the nineteenth century. The Italians began coming in large numbers about 1882, and gradually increased till in 1895, 287,000 migrated to America. The Russian Empire is third in the rank