The sun., 1903-07-19


edly in Boston small party who, IL they
had not even in their own minds formu-
ated any scheme for independence, were
fully determined TO pare down britiSn
control to a nullity and to utilize every
administrative error or difficulty TO that end
and for whom the prospect Of independence
as a possible result Of their strategy had no
terrors At their head was f,a muel Adams,
a man of humble social position but OF good
education and great ability, personally
disinterested, but combining public spirit
with unscrupulousness in his choice OF meth
ods, in fashion which recalls an Italian
politician of the age OF Machiavelli' hmons
his supporters was his namesake ana DIS
tant kinsma IL, John Adams, young lawyer
gifted with great powers OK Thought ana
expression. egotistical, yet capable Oh sub
ordinating his egotism to the public good
In the following sentence occurs an extra =
ordinary error, Mr. Doyle appea ring to oon-
found Joseph Warren with James Otis:
"There we're also less worthy and less va lu-
able members OF the party, such as James
Warren, irresponsible young men, with a
pa sson for rhetoric q nd for abst ract theo-
ries, and inca pa BILE Of considering political
disputes with any approach to judicial
attitude" On the whole, Mr.. Doyle opines
(page 1859 hat the best justification that ca
be offered for the action OF the colonists
undertaking rmed resistan to the mother
country "lay in the character and antece-
dents Of the King himself. The colonists
might feel much al y the Par menta rians felt
respecting Charles that the royal concep-
ton Of public morality and OF the relations
between sovereign and subject made nego-
tiations impossible. 1t was in this spirit
that Congress drew up vehement nd rhetor-
ical appeals for sympathetic support ad-
dressed to the people Of Ireland and ia
maica. To make general attack on the
whole fabric OF the British Empire Wa s vir-
tually TO decla re that all desire for reconcile
alton wasat end" Mr.. Doyle recognizes
that among the many errorrs committed
by the English Government in the prosecu-
tion Of the war there was hardly any more
harmful than the hiring Of Hessian troops
This proceeding emphasized the fact that
Englishmen no longer looked upon the
colonists as fellow subjects, while the anger
caused by the misconduct OF which some
of the Germans were guilty and the dis
credit which was thus brought on the
British army far more than outweighed
their military services.
Let us hear what this English historian
has TO say about our Declaration OF lnde'
pendence. "If,' we read, ]we regard the
Declaration as an assertion OF an abstract
political theory, criticism and condemna'
ton are easy. II sets out with genera
proposition so vague as to be practically
useless The doctrine Of equality Of men
unless it be qualified and conditioned by
full reference TO special circumstances, Il
either barren truism or delusion. Bu'
though this limitation is not explicitly
stated, it is present. We must judge the
opening sentence with reference to what
follows and 10 the actual facts present ir
the minds of those who drafted 1t. That
sentence ia little more than formal pre-
amble TO what follows; namely, to the state
ment of the wrongs which the colonists
had suffered from their sovereign. Nc
one now would accept that statement as G
fair historical account Of what had hap
pened. OF the eighteen heads OF indict
ment, each beginning he has there II
hardly one which does not demand some
modification or admit Of some palliative
| That part of the Declaration must be lookec
on as a criminal indictment drawn by al
advocate with just that lack OF scruplt
which advocacy is generally held to justify
And though the assertion of human equal
ity may have no exact or scientific basis
vet it is description roughly correct o
the theory which underlay the political lif'
of the colonies and which had been gradu
! ally separating them from the mother
country. In the Declaration Of Inde
pendence that democratic system which
| had gradually, through force of circum
stances, established itself in the colonies
! was blended with that element OF senti
ment, rhetorically expressed, which wa
needed if democracy was to be the quicken
ing principle Of a great popular movement.
III.
Prof NJ. NJ. Bigelow, in chapter en-
| tirely allotted to the Declaration Of Inde
pendence and to the events leading thereto
| points out that the Continental Congress
of September, l774, put the claim of thu
colonies to exemption from the genera
authority Of Parliament on three grounds
to wit, rights, fxed first by the "immut
! able laws" of human nature; secondly, bI
the British Constitution, and, thirdly, b.
| the colonial charters. He proceeds t.
show how the claim was supported ir
America by the Patriots, and how it wal
opposed by the Loyalists. As regard
the so-called laws of nature, the Patriots
contended that the rights Of the colonist
were not all or chiefly derived from th'
sovereign power OF Great Britain or from
Great Britain in any way Rights wer'
not necessarily created by legislatures o
by municipal law: they were not necessa
rily created at all. The greatest right
were original, inherent In man. The,
arose from law, indeed, but from that Law
only which, through the social instinct
draws men together in social relations
The State itself was nothing but bod,
of men in social relations, with powe
! given to it, or created with power, TO en-
force the obligations arising therefrom
In other words, the patriots maintaine,
that the chief rights of men arose from
human nature Instead of being created
by municipal law these rights themselve
gave rise to all laws enforced by the States
Such was the position of the Patriots.
The Loyalists in America, on the othe
hand denied that the rights Of life, libert,
and property, or any other rights OF tn,
colonists, were beyond the power of Parlia
ment Seabury, New York rector, con
fined himself to the assertion that tn,
colonies had no inherent or natural riRh