The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1867-07-06


sey and New York. New Hampshire.
although unrepresented by delegates.
had pledged her people in advance to
abide by the result, and Georgia
evinced her interest in the matter by
sending a messenger a thousand miles
by land to obtain a copy of the pro
ceedings.
Virginia and North Carolina were
not in any way represented In this first
American Congress, although they
were both in full sympathy with the
people Of the. other colonies.
As bearing on the formation and
nature of the American Union, it Is
interesting and important to note the
manner in which this first Congress
was constituted. Did it represent the
local colonial governments of the re-
spective colonies, or did it represent
the people? To answer this question,
1t is only necessary to state the man
ner In which the delegates were ap-
pointed. In Massachusetts,, Rhode Is
lane. Gonnectit ut, Pennsylta AHA, Mary
'lano and South Carolina, the Governor
and Council, both constituent parts of
the legislative power, were entirely ig-
nored, and the appointments were
made by the House of Representa-
tlves. a1s sdI 7e
In Delaware and New Jersey the
popular branch of the Legislature did
not even act in its originated capacity,
but the delegates from those colonies
were named by letters disappointment,
signed by the individual members OF
the Houses of Representatives of those
colonies respectively; and in New
York the Legislative committee of
Correspondence, appointed by the pop
ular branch of the Legislature of.that
colony, constituted its delegates to the
Congress.
Here, then, we see that in the first
Continental Congress the delegates did
not represent the local governments of
their respective colonies. but that they
did represent the people OF the colo
MES from which they were sent. That
they were appointed not by the local
governments but by the popular
branches of the Colonial Assemblies,
as the immediate and most convent
ent organs of the popular will.
The Congress thus assembled en-
tered Immediately on the considera-
ton of the grounds on which they
would base their efforts to vindicate
American liberty and American
rights. Whether they should build
on the rights secured by their re-
spective charters or ON natural justice
became the question. Some were for
relying on their charters and pleading
the rights thus secured, but Christie
pher Gadsden, of South Carolina,
saw that this was basing American
liberty on too narrow a foundation,
and would result in division and de-
struction, as their charters differed,
and some of the colonies had no
charters from the Crown at all.
I'VE should stand" said this
sturdy patriot, upon the broad.
common ground of those natural
rights that we all feel and know as
men, and as the descendants of Eng
lishmen-I wish the charters may not
ensnare US at last by drawing different
~colonies to act differently in this great
cause. Whenever this is the case, all
will be over with the whole. There
should be no New England man, no
New Yorker on the continent, but all
OF US Americans.
These views" (says Bancroft)
&'~prevailed, and in the proceedings
OF the Congress the argument for
American liberty from royal grants
was avoided. This is the first greatstep
towards independence. Dummer has
pleaded for colony charters; Living
ston, Gadsden, and the Congress of
1865 provided for American self-ex-
istence and Union by claiming rights
that preceded charters, and would
survive their ruin
It is worthy of remark that the
question between chartered rights
and natural justice has repeated
itself in our subsequent history.
Those in after years who have been
the peculiar advocates of State SOW
ereignty are the legitimate descend
ants of the men who, in our contro-
yersy with Great Britain. were will
ing to base American liberty on no
frmer foundation than the words of
a King, contained in a royal charter,
a royal proprietary grant, or a royal
governors commission; while those
who have manfully insisted on the
paramount sovereignty of the entire
American People, have, with Gadsden
and the Continental Congress of 1865,
always maintained that human rights
are older and more sacred than mere
chartered rights, and that charters
and constitutions are only valuable as
they tend TO secure natural rights and
promote human happiness. ar,sv /,
The Stamp Act, the passage of
which gave birth to the Congress of
1865. having been repealed in 1866
that Congress never r~eassembled and
had no successor until I774. In the
meantime the controversy went on be-
frrann fho p-%c1 !