The Birmingham age-herald., 1904-01-22

of again bringing into disputation the question what was the proportion or the colonists at any specified time who sided with the revolution ana independence. English writers particularly are interest ing themselves in it, and, as may be sup posed, settling 1t to suit their own precon- ceived opinions and prejudices past and present. The eonsessus of their opinion is that up to 1775, a majority of the colonists were opposed to separation. That Is, un- doubtedly, correct. John Adams and many other eminent and trustworthy authori- ties east and south can be quoted on that side, have been quoted by our earlier and later historians. But the battle of Bunker Hill changed the whole situation.
 The American revolution, in what 1t did and what 1t has done, the very greatest event In many ways in history, was growth. The seed of resistance to op- pression, to usurpation of power, to tyr any, went into the ground. It struck root. It came into the sunshine thriving seed- ling whose shade finally covered all the land. That is its genesis. The tree of liberty had, as it should have, stages Of development, every inch in its expanding glrth distinctly marked by ineffaceable lines They were not measured or guaged at the time. Sterner work made such dil- letante performance impossible 1T roy alist in those iron days had gone around with this tape measure he would deserv- edy and patriotically have been lynched. In hours of crisis, such as that was when the fate of humanity hangs in the bal ance, mathematicians of this Kind, Wltn their statistical notebooks are not in demand There is no use for them.
 In his efforts to support his position that the colonists were reacy to make terms with the mother country even ar ter the battle of Bunker Hill, Sir George Trevelyan lays very great stress upon the second petition to the king, drawn by John Dickinson, of Delaware, which was signed bv the members of the Continental Congress in July 1775. That petition really amounted to nothing. It was adopted purely as a compliment to Dicklnson. Thomas Jefferson, one Of the s1gners, gives its history in these words Con gress gave a signal proof Of their lndui- gence to Mir. Dickinson and Of tnelr great desire not to go too fast Tor any respec1a- ble part of our body in permitting him to draw their second petition to the king ac- cording to his own ideas, and passing 1t with scarcely any amendment The dis gust against this humility was general, and Mir. Dlckiasons delight at it's passage was the only circumstance which recon ciled them to It. The vote being passed. although further observation on II was out of order. he could not refrain from rising and expressing his satisfaction, ana concluded by saying: There is but one word, Mir President, in the paper which disapprove, and that is the word congress, on which Ben Harrison rose and said: There is but one word in the paper. Mr. President. which I approve, and that IS the word congress. This contempora- neous testimony of the great statesman, who drew the great declaration thirteen months later, Is certainly strong refuta- ton of the accuracy of what Sir George ,rrevelvan and some of his American re- viewers would have the world accept as authentic history. It Is not, and outside of Jefferson there Is abundant proof that 1t Is hot.
 Sir George Trevelyan has rendered an invaluable service to both his own coun- | trymen and to ourselves by the immense mass of evidence which he adduces to prove that a majority of the British peo- | ple were opposed to the coercive measures | instituted against the colonists by the | king and his ministers. It Is a most im- , nortant correction. not only of American hut even English historians who have written on the subject. If Sir George does not prove his side of the question conclu- sjvelv. he has asuredly brought to light mine of information which compes rad l ical reconstruction of what has come to be accepted as the actual situation of l affairs at the time. In the controversy to which the appearance Of the Ireveiyan volumes has given rise, 1t IS maintained h,. many English writers that at no pe-
 
 ma iority of the colonsts in it's favor. It is difficult to see what they would gain could they succeed in proving their con tention. which they certainly cannot IL evidently could not reflect any glory on Great Britain that she was beaten in the ,,ost monmentous struggle she ever en- oaeed in slngle-handed. by repeihous minority. All through the war many or the colonists thousands of them. sympa- thized with the royal cause put so Tar from heinz a majority. they were very s,snder minority The evidence Is all a.ainst the majority theory. First, there srsra tbe armies In the field. That alone ,s .ufficient to shatter this absurd as sumntion Those troops had to be fed' clothed md paid. It Is true that food. o,otbes and cash were frequently at the van,shinr point, but the supplies. poor and inadeauate as they were couid not have been obtained by a disloyel minority aga,nst n n loyal majority. The idea Is preposterous. Secondly, how is 1t that the majority. If 1t existed. never made itself heard ar felt in the proceedings of con gress7 It was nn elective body. Then there were the state legislatures, They also. were elective. Why did not the ma jority" manage te set some representation in them. and block the game ef revelu- tienf In the making of new constitutions British laws were being torn frem the statute beehs Why was the majority" silent under such anarehfal cireum- staneess Cenfseatien eAaetments were passed in every state legislature Why da not the ma jerity' raise it's vetee against tha thunder sf their praperty? It IS hard-