But, though the attitude of the French court toward the Americans was friendly, and though it continued to send secret aid, and to exert a favourable influence upon Spain, yet it could not be French- induced to abandon its outward appearance of American neutrality until after the news of Burgoyne's Alliance, surrender arrived. Then the real purpose of the French government was r+vealed. On the 6th of February 1778 the treaties were signed, and in the following summer war between France and England began. The influence of France under the Family Compact was also persistently used to bring Spain into the alliance. The latter was naturally hostile to England, but her aversion to colonial revolts and her desire to substitute mediation for war kept her from declaring against England until April 1779. In October 1779 Henry Laurens (q.v.) was elected minister to the Netherlands, and sailed for Europe, taking with him a plan of a commercial treaty. But Laurens and his papers were captured by the British at sea, and partly by that event the Netherlands were forced into war with England. With the other states of northern Europe they undertook to defend the interests of neutrals against the arrogant enforcement by Great Britain of the rights of search at sea. Thus the conflict expanded into a commercial and naval war, Great Britain being confronted by the larger part of Europe. 68. The conclusion of the treaty of alliance by France was immediately followed by the equipment of a fleet under the comte d'Estaing, which sailed from Toulon in April 1778, having on board M Conrad Alexandre Gerard de Rayneval, who had been accredited as minister to the United States, and Silas Deane, who was returning to report to Congress. Sir Henry Clinton had now succeeded Howe in command of the British army. The certainty that a French fleet would soon appear in American waters made it necessary for the British to evacuate Philadelphia and return to a point on the coast where the army could be in easy communication with the fleet. This fact shows how the French affiance had changed the nature of the war. It now became to a large extent a contest between the two navies, the principal evolutions of which occurred in West Indian and European seas. (See AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.) In the north the British now relatively neglected the land war, and refrained from sending such forces to the eastern coast as had supported Howe in 1776. The Americans, on the other hand, had a naval force upon which they relied, in the hope that the blockade of their coasts might be raised and trade routes opened more freely. On the evacuation of Philadelphia in June Washington's army pursued the British as they retired toward New York, and the indecisive battle of Monmouth was fought on the 28th of June. It did not prevent Clinton from reaching New York, and that city continued to be the centre of British power and operations in the north until the close of the war. The Congress returned to Philadelphia, where Gerard was received, and where he was soon exercising an influence favourable to the policies of Washington and opposed to the clique of which General Horatio Gates was the leader. Washington's army came gradually to occupy a line of forts, of which West Point in the Highlands of the Hudson was the citadel. From there as a centre it was possible to communicate with Newport on the east and with the Delaware region on the south, and at the same time to prevent the British from gaining access to the interior of the country. Though the fleet of D'Estaing carried a heavier equipment of cannon than did that of Admiral Howe, the French commander did not choose to risk an attack on New York, but passed eastward to Newport. Howe followed him, while Washington and his generals planned active co-operation with the new allies by land. But a sudden storm so dispersed and injured the fleets that the French admiral retired to Boston for repairs and later sailed for the West Indies. 6g. While the war and foreign relations were thus developing, the states were organizing their governments and Congress was beginning to consider articles of confederation state c.. between the states. In this way an effort was made satutions. to gather up and make permanent the positive results of the revolution. As under the chartered and royal governments of the colonial period the source of political authority had been the Crown, now by a necessary reaction this was sought in the people. This principle had been stated in the Declaration of Independence, and had been implied ,throughout the earlier controversy and in much of the history of the colonies as well. The colonies had insisted on a more precise definition of the powers of government; they had opposed parliament because its powers were undefined and therefore dangerous. Following these ideas, the states now described their institutions of government and defined their powers by means of written constitutions. These were formulated by the provincial congresses—which had now become the legislatures—or, as they came to insist upon a more specific expression of the popular will, by conventions chosen for the purpose by the electors. Connecticut and Rhode Island retained their colonial charters. In the earlier days of hasty and temporary devices, the constitutions, like statutes, had been promulgated by the legislatures which formed them and had been put into force by their authority alone. But as time passed and more permanent arrangements became necessary an express popular approval of the instruments was insisted upon and was obtained before they were put into force. The establishment of state governments in this way began before the issue of the Declaration of Independence. It was actively continued during 1776 and the early months of the following year, by which time all of the states had secured at least a temporary constitution. South Carolina and New Hampshire revised theirs before the close of the war. Massachusetts did not secure a constitution which suited her until 178o, but then her procedure corresponded in all particulars with what was to be later American practice in such matters. Of the constitutions of the revolutionary period the two most striking features were the bills of rights and the provisions which were made concerning the executives and their relations to the legislatures. The men of that generation were jealous of government. They insisted upon individual rights, not as acquired and guaranteed by the state, but as original, natural and inhering in time prior to all governments. Governments were instituted for the common benefit, protection and security. Officials were trustees and were accountable to the people. There should be no hereditary title to office or power. There should be no titles of nobility, and in Virginia the system of entails was swept away. Monopolies were declared to be inconsistent with the spirit of a free state. The doctrine that it was unlawful to resist arbitrary power was declared to be absurd. Freedom of the press and of conscience was asserted, and no obstacles to fair and speedy jury trials were to be tolerated. Elections should be free and frequent, and a preference was expressed for short terms of office. The legislature was universally regarded as the most important department of government. Although the principle of the separation of powers was recognized, in eight states provision was made that the executives should be elected by the legislatures, eleven withheld from them the veto, and the states generally provided for a council to advise them. So manifold and important, however, were the restrictions on suffrage that the states were as yet far from being democracies. On the other hand, many wild and impractical ideas were cherished, and there were anarchic tendencies, which were revealed soon after the war and still later, under the influence of the French Revolution. 70. The first draft of the Articles of Confederation between the states was prepared by John Dickinson in the early summer TheArticlesOf 1776 and was reported. The report was debated ofcon- for some weeks after the issue of the Declaration of federation. Independence. Owing to the pressure of war it was then laid aside until the autumn of 1777. By that time the feeling in favour of state sovereignty had so increased that the impossibility of securing assent to the articles in any form had begun to be feared. But the document was completed and submitted to the states in November 1777, when all were encouraged by the news of Burgoyne's surrender. The system for which provision was made in this document was a " confederacy," or " firm league of friendship " between the states, for their common defence, security and general welfare. The Congress was to be continued, and was to consist of delegates annually appointed by the legislature of each state and paid by their states. No attempt was made to create an executive for the confederacy, though authority was given to Congress to appoint a council of state which should manage general affairs, especially during recesses of Congress. To Congress various general powers were entrusted, as deciding on peace and war and superintending the conduct of the same, building a navy, controlling diplomatic relations, coining money and emitting bills of credit, establishing post offices, regulating Indian trade, adjusting boundary disputes between the states. The financial powers entrusted to Congress included those of borrowing money and determining necessary expenditures, but not the power to tax. For supplies the general government had to depend on requisitions from the states. The same system also had to suffice for the raising and equipment of troops. Congress could not make its laws or orders effective in any matter of importance. This was simply a continuation of the policy under which the revolution was being conducted. The Americans had thought that the military and financial concerns of the British Empire could be managed under a system of requisitions, and now they were bent upon trying it in their own imperial relations. The control of trade was also practically left with the states, the Americans in this matter failing to live up to the requirements of the British system. The predominance of the states was further ensured by the provision that no votes, except those for daily adjournment, could be carried with-out the assent of a majority of all the states, and no important measure without the consent of nine states. But a common citizenship was declared to exist, and Congress received authority to establish a court of appeal which might pass finally on all disputes between states. Taken as a whole, the Articles of Con-federation would bear favourable comparison with other schemes of their kind, and they fairly represented the stage of development to which the American states had then attained. The defects which existed in them were reflections of the immaturity, political and social, which had always been apparent in the Americans as colonists and which was to characterize them as a nation for generations to come. 71. We have seen that, on the whole, the attitude of Great Britain, after the peace of 1763, was not favourable to the colonization of the Mississippi Valley. To the colonists the Quebec Act gained in offensiveness by seeming to imply that it was intended to exclude them from the West. But all such plans were swept away by the outbreak of the War of Independence. Already, before the beginning of The West. hostilities, emigrants had begun to flock across the mountains. Plans were on foot for the establishment of a number of commonwealths, or proprietary provinces, as the case might be. Vandalia was planned in western Virginia, Watauga in western North Carolina. Daniel Boone and his associates pushed farther west into the Kentucky region, and there it was proposed to establish the commonwealth of Transylvania. Other similar projects were started, all repeating in one form or another the political methods which were used when the seaboard colonies were first settled. The backwoodsmen who managed these enterprises were extreme individualists, believed in the propriety of resistance to governments, and were in full sympathy with the War of Independence. They desired to escape to the free land and life of the West and be rid of the quit-rents and other badges of dependence which still lingered in the East. The states which had claims in the West opposed the founding of independent settlements there and, if possible, induced the settlers to be content with the status of counties within some one of the eastern states. After the beginning of the War of Independence, the British from Detroit incited Indian raids for the purpose of destroying or driving out the settlers, especially in Kentucky. These provoked the expeditions of George Rogers Clark (q.v.), in 1778 and 1779. With a force of Virginians he seized Kaskaskia and later, after a long march, captured Vincennes and compelled General Henry Hamilton, who had come with a relief force from Detroit, to surrender. This secured to the Americans a permanent hold upon the North-West. But Spain, after she entered upon the war, was determined, if possible, to wrest the valley of the Mississippi from the British and to keep all, or the larger part of it, for herself. To that end, operating from New Orleans, her troops took possession of Natchez, and other posts on the lower Mississippi, and occupied Mobile and Pensacola. These events prevented the possibility of the expulsion of the Americans from the West, but devolved upon their representatives at Paris the necessity of engaging in a diplomatic contest against Spain for the purpose of securing the Mississippi as the western boundary of the United States. But meanwhile the occupation of the West by Americans had a notable influence upon the ratification of the Articles of Confederation. 72. Within the Confederacy a fundamental line of cleavage was that between the large and small states. It was jealousy on the part of the latter, their fear lest they might Articles of be absorbed by their larger neighbours, which had Confederanecessitated the adoption of the plan that in the aon Rats-Congress the delegates should vote by states. When fled ;the articles were referred to the states for ratification, the difficulty reappeared. Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York, with Virginia and the three states to the south of it, had large claims to territory between the Appalachians and the Mississippi. New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland, which were without hope of westward extension, hesitated to enter the Confederacy, if the large states were to be still further increased by additions to their areas of vast stretches of western country. They insisted that before ratification the states which had claims to western lands should surrender these for the common benefit of the United States. Maryland insisted upon this until, in the end, the cause of state equality and of nationality triumphed. Congress declared that the ceded lands should be formed into states, which should become members of the union with the same rights as other states. When, in 1781, this course of action had become possible, Maryland ratified the articles and they came into effect. The possibility of the expansion of the United States through the development of territories was thus ensured. 73. So far as the North American continent was concerned, the character of the last stage of the struggle with Great Britain was determined by the fact that the British resolved to transfer the main seat of war to the Southern states, in the hope that Georgia and South Carolina might be detached from the Union. At the close of 1778 Savannah was captured. In September 1779 D'Estaing returned and assaulted The warm Savannah, but, failing to capture it, sailed for France. the South. In 178o Clinton sailed from New York, besieged Charleston with a force much superior to that of Lincoln, and captured it (May 12). State government in South Carolina ceased. But the chance of detaching those states from the Union and of bringing the war in that region to an end was finally lost by the British. This was chiefly due to an order which recalled the paroles of many of those who had surrendered at Charleston and required that they should perform military service under the British. The attempt to enforce this order, with the barbarities of Colonel Banastre Tarleton and certain Tory bands, provoked a bloody partisan conflict in the upper districts, especially of South Carolina, which contributed more than any other cause to turn the scale against the British in the remote South. By the winter of 1781 they were forced back to Charleston and Savannah. (See AMERICAN WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.) 74. During the summer of 1780 Washington was prevented from accomplishing anything in the North by the demoralized condition of the finances and by the decline of public spirit. It was very difficult to secure recruits or supplies. The pay of the troops had fallen so into arrears that some of them had already begun mutiny. A second French squadron and military force, under De Ternay and Rochambeau, landed at Newport, but they were at once shut up there by the British. Clinton and Cornwallis were now planning that the latter, having put down resistance in the remote South, should march through North Carolina and Virginia to Baltimore and Philadelphia and that a junction of the two British forces should be effected which, it was believed, would complete the ruin of the American cause. This, too, was the period of Arnold's treason and the death of Andre. But the turn of the tide in favour of the Americans began with the partisan warfare in South Carolina, which delayed the northward march of Cornwallis, who retired to Yorktown. Wilmington and thence marched north with a small force into Virginia, and in July retired to Yorktown, in the peninsula of Virginia. Washington and Rochambeau had meantime been planning a joint move against the British at New York, or possibly in Virginia, and a letter was sent to De Grasse, the French admiral in the West Indies, suggesting his co-operation. De Grasse replied that he would sail for the Chesapeake. This confirmed Washington and Rochambeau in the opinion that they should march at once for Virginia and, after junction with the force of Lafayette, co-operate with De Grasse against Cornwallis. By well-timed movements the forces were brought together before Yorktown (q.v.), and Cornwallis was forced to surrender on the 19th of October 1781. 75. As the effect of this event was to drive Lord North from power in England, it proved to be the last important operation of the war in America. The king was compelled to give way. Rockingham was called into office at the head of a cabinet which considered the recognition of American independence to be indispensable. The negotiations fell into the hands of Shelburne, the friend of Franklin and disciple of Adam Smith. Richard Oswald was the leading British agent, while Franklin, Jay, John Adams and Henry Laurens were the American negotiators. From the first the acknowledgment of independence, the settlement of the boundaries and the freedom of fishing were insisted on as necessary terms by the Americans. Free commercial intercourse and the cession of Canada to the United States, partly in payment of war claims and partly to create a fund for the compensation of loyalists, were also put forward as advisable conditions of peace. The first three points were early conceded by the British. They also agreed to restrict Canada to its ancient limits. But discussions later arose over the right to dry fish on the British coasts, over the payment of debts due to British subjects prior to the war,and over the compensation of the loyalists. Adams vigorously insisted upon the right to dry and cure fish on British coasts, and finally this concession was secured. Franklin was opposed to the demands of the loyalists, and they had to be content with a futile recommendation by Congress to the states that their claims should be adjusted. It was also agreed that creditors on either side should meet with no lawful impediment to the collection of their debts. Both France and Spain considered the claims of the Americans to be excessive, and were not inclined to yield to them. But the Americans negotiated directly with the British and the articles were signed without consultation with the French government. This course was offensive to Vergennes, but it was insisted upon as necessary, especially by Jay and Adams, while the diplomatic skill of Franklin prevented a breach with France. Peace was formally ratified on the 3rd of September 1783. 76. The American army was now disbanded. Since the close of active military operations both officers and men had been striving to secure their pay, which was hopelessly in arrears. Congress had voted half-pay to the officers for life, and many had agreed to accept a commutation of this in the form of full pay for a certain number of years. Certificates for these amounts were issued. But in this, as in other cases, it was found impossible to procure the money for the purpose from the states. Parts of the army repeatedly mutinied, and it was only the influence of Washington which prevented a general outbreak against Congress and the civil government. When the disbandment was finally effected the officers found their certificates depreciated in value and the states indisposed to honour them. They consequently received only a small part of their due, and the privates scarcely anything. This deplorable result was due in part to poverty, but quite as much to bad faith. The country was left in a most demoralized condition, the result of the long war and the general collapse of public and private credit which had accompanied it. It should not be forgotten that the conflict had taken to a considerable extent the form of a civil war. In many of the states Loyalists and Whigs had been arrayed against one another, and had been more or less fully incorporated with the two contending armies. In general the Loyalists showed less capacity for combined action than did their opponents, and in the end they were everywhere defeated. The real tragedy of the conflict will be found, not in the defeat of the British, but in the ruin of the Loyalists. It was accompanied by wholesale confiscations of property in many quarters, and by the permanent exile of tens of thousands of the leading citizens of the republic. These were the emigres of the War of American Independence, and their removal deeply affected property relations and the tone and structure of society in general. Many of those who had been social and political leaders were thus removed, or, if they remained, their influence was destroyed (see LOYALISTS). New men and new families rose in their places, but of a different and in some ways of an inferior type. By this process sympathizers with the War of-Independence gained and kept the ascendancy. British and monarchical influences were weakened, and in the end the permanence of republican institutions was ensured. But, as had been foreseen, society in this period of transition exhibited so many repulsive features as almost to cause the stoutest hearts to despair. Treaty of Peace. colonial period. Connecticut has printed The Colonial Records of Connecticut (15 vols., Hartford, 1850-189o), and the Records of the Colony of New Haven, 1638-1665 (2 vols., Hartford, 1857-1858). The Records of the Colony of Rhode Island fill io vols. (Providence, 1856-1865). New York has published the Laws and Ordinances of New Netherland (i vol.), the Colonial Laws of New York from 1664 to the Revolution (5 vols., Albany, 1894), The Journal of the Legislative Council, 1691-1775 (2 vols., 1861), the Journal of the Votes and Proceedings of the General Assembly, 1691-1765 (2 vols., 1764-1766), the Documents relating to the Colonial History of New York (15 vols., 18J3-1883), Minutes of the Albany Commissioners for Detecting Conspiracies (3 vols., 1909-1910) and the Documentary History of the State of New York (4 vols., 1849-1851). New Jersey has published the Grants and Concessions (I vol.), edited by Learning and Spier, and 28 vols. of The Archives of the State of New Jersey (Newark, 188o sqq.). Pennsylvania has published 16 vols. of Colonial Records,1683-1790 (Philadelphia,' 852) and four series of Pennsylvania Archives (1852-1856, 1874-1893, 1894-1895, &c.), the latter containing miscellaneous records relating to the colonies and the War of Independence. Under the title of Statutes at Large (11 vols.) its laws to the close of the War of Independence have been published. The Archives of Maryland (27 vols., Baltimore) contain the proceedings of the council, the assembly and the provincial court, with the laws, for a part of the colonial period. The Records of the Virginia Company of London (2 vols., Washington, 1906) have been printed; also Henning's Statutes at Large (13 vols., 1819-1823), and the Journal of the House of Burgesses for the later provincial period. Under the titles of Colonial Records (1886- ) and State Records, North Carolina has published the sources of her early history very fully, except the land papers and laws. Thomas Cooper's Statutes of South Carolina (4 vols., to 1782) contain practically all of its sources which that state has published. Georgia has published 12 vols. of Colonial Records, containing minutes of the trustees and of the governor and council. The Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574-1660 (London, 186o), and for 1661-1700 (13 vols., London, 1880-1910), the Acts of the Privy Council Colonial, 1613-1720 (2 vols., London,1908-1910) ,and the Calendars of Treasury Papers (for the 18th century) cover relations between the British government and the colonies. Additional matter may also be found in many of the reports of the British Historical MSS. Commission. Hazard's Historical Collections (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1792-1794) is still valuable. B. Perley Poore's Federal and State Constitutions (2 vols., Washington, 1877) contains the texts of the colonial charters and state constitutions; and a similar collection was edited by F. N. Thorpe (7 vols., ibid., 1909). The records of many New England towns have been printed, as also those of New York City, Philadelphia and Albany. The Original Narratives of Early American History (1906-1910), edited by J. F. Jameson, contain reprints of much source material. Cobbett's Parliamentary History, Almon's Remembrancer (17 vols., London, 1775-1784), and the writings of the British statesmen of the period, contain much material which is indispensable to the history of the War of Independence on its British side. Of official matters relating to the period of the War of Independence, special reference should be made to the Public Journals of the Continental Congress (13 vols.), and the Secret Journals (4 vols.). A new and improved edition (1908 sqq.) has been edited by W. C. Ford and G. Hunt. Indispensable to the student is Peter Force's American Archives (9 vols., Washington, 1837-1853), covering the years 1774 to 1776 inclusive. Francis Wharton's Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols., Washington, 1889), and the earlier and less complete edition of the same by Jared Sparks (12 vols., Boston, 1829—1830), are also of great value. Alden Bradford's Massachusetts State Papers is valuable for that province. The journals of committees of safety, provincial congresses, conventions and early state legislatures are also for the most part in print. The colonial and revolutionary newspapers contain material of great variety. Semi-official also are the writings of the states-men of the War of Independence—John and Samuel Adams, Jefferson, Dickinson, Franklin, Washington, Jay, all of which exist in very satisfactory editions. Henri Doniol's Histoire de la participation de la France a l'e'tablissement des Etats-Unis d'Amerique (5 vols., Paris, 1886-1900) is a diplomatic history of the War of Independence and the peace, dealing chiefly with France. The states all have historical societies, and there are many private and local societies in addition. Of these the most prominent are the societies of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. In addition, mention should be made of the Prince Society of Boston, the American Antiquarian Society of Worcester, Mass., the Essex Institute of Salem, Mass., the Narragansett Club of Providence, R.I., and the Colonial Society of Massachusetts. The American Historical Association (Washington, D.C.) publishes valuable monographs; the second volume of the Report of the Association for 1905 is a detailed Bibliography of American Historical Societies (Washington, 1907). Standard Histories: Of these the histories of the states first demand attention. Jeremy Belknap's History of New Hampshire (3 vols., 1784-1792; enlarged, 3 vols., Boston, 1813); Thomas Hutchinson's History of the Province of Massachusetts Bay (3 vols., Boston, 1767, and vol. iii., London, 1828) ; Samuel Greene Arnold's History of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, 1636-1790 '(2 vols., New York, 1859-186o); Benjamin Trumbull's Complete History of Connecticut, Civil and Ecclesiastical, to 1764 (New Haven, 1818; revised, 2 vols., New London, 1898); John Romeyn Brodhead's History of the State of New York (2 vols., New York, 1853-1871); William Smith's History of the Late Province of New York, from its Discovery to 1762 (2 vols., New York, 1829—'830); Samuel Smith's History of the Colony of Nova Ca:saria, or New Jersey, to 1721 (Burlington, N.J., 1765; 2nd ed., Trenton, 1877) ; Robert Proud's History of Pennsylvania from 1681 till after the year 1742 (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1797-1798) ; John Leeds Bozman's History of Maryland, 1633-166o (2 vols., Baltimore, 1837) ; John V. L. McMahon's A Historical View of the Government of Mary-land from its Colonization to the Present Day (Baltimore, 183; William Stith's History of the First Discovery and Settlement of Virginia (Williamsburg, 1747) ; John Daly Burk's History of Virginia (3 vols., Petersburg, 18o4-18o5); Francois Xavier Martin's History of North Carolina (2 vols., New Orleans, 1829) ; William James Rivers's Sketch of the History of South Carolina to the Close of the Proprietary Government by the Revolution of 1719 (Charleston, 1856) ; Edward McCrady's South Carolina (4 vols., New York, 1897-1902)—covering the period from 167o to 1783—and Charles Colcock Jones's (jun.) History of Georgia (2 vols., Boston, 1883) are especially noteworthy. William Bradford's History of Plimouth Plantation (latest edition, Boston, 1898), and John Winthrop's History of New England. 1630-1649 (2 vols., Boston, 1825-1826), are essentially original sources, as are the Writings of Captain John Smith (Arber's ed.) for early Virginia. So are Alexander Brown's Genesis of the United States (2 vols., Boston, 189o), and the First Republic in America (Boston, 1898). Philip Alexander Bruce's Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century (2 vols., New York, 1896) and W. B. Weeden's Economic and Social History of New England (2 vols., Boston, 189o) are of great value. Edmund B. O'Callaghan's History of New Netherland (2 vols., New York, 1846-1848), John Gorham Palfrey's History of New England (5 vols., Boston, 1858-189o) and I. B. Richman's Rhode Island, its Making and its Meaning (New York, 1902), are valuable for colonial New York, New England and Rhode Island respectively. George Bancroft's History of the United States (6 vols., 1884-1885) still has a great reputation, though it is altogether inadequate for the colonial period. Richard Hildreth's History of the United States (6 vols., New York, 1849-1852) is dry but accurate. John Andrew Doyle's English in America (5 vols., New York, 1882-1907) is valuable for the 17th century. Herbert L. Osgood's American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century (3 vols., New York, 1904-1907) discusses the institutional history of the period. John Fiske has popularized the history of the times in a number of excellent works, some of them of 'decided originality. Francis Parkman's France and England in North America (12 vols., latest ed., Boston, 1898) is a classic on the history of Canada and its relations with the British colonies. William Kingsford's History of Canada (io vols., Toronto, 1887-1898), and Francois Xavier Garneau's Histoire du Canada (4 vols., Quebec, 1845-1852), may be cited as holding places of special authority. Justin Winsor's Christopher Columbus (Boston, 1891), Cartier to Frontenac (ibid., 1894), and later volumes,-are especially valuable for the history of exploration, discovery and cartography. The American Nation (22 vols., New York, 1903-1907), a co-operative history, edited by A. B. Hart, outlines the political history of the country as a whole. Edward Channing's History of the United States (8 vols., New York, 1905 sqq.), and Elroy McKendree Avery's History of the United States and Its People (15 vols., Cleveland, Ohio, 1905 sqq.) devote much space to the colonies and War of Independence. Sir George Otto Trevelyan's American Revolution (3 vols., London, 1899-1904) is a brilliant literary performance. Of special value is Lecky's study of the same subject in his History of England in the Eighteenth Century (8 vols., London, 1878-189o). George Louis Beer's Origins of the British Colonial System (New York, 1908) and his British Colonial Policy, 1754-1765 (New York, 1907), Justin Harvey Smith's Our Struggle for the Fourteenth Colony (2 vols., New York, 1907) and S. G. Fisher's Struggle for American Independence (2 vols., Philadelphia, 1908) are valuable monographs. For biography see the " American Statesmen Series " (16 vols., Boston) and Samuel V. Wells's Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (3 vols., Boston, 1865) ; James Kendall Hosmer's Life of Thomas Hutchinson (Boston, 1896) ; William Garrott Brown's Life of Oliver Ellsworth (New York, 1905) ; B. J. Lossing's Life and Times of Philip Schuyler (2 vols., New York, 186o-1873) and Bayard Tucker-man's Philip Schuyler, Major-General in the American Revolution (New York, 1903) ; George Washington Greene's Life of Nathanael Greene (3 vols., Boston, 1867-1871) and William Johnson's Sketches of the Life and Correspondence of Nathanael Greene (Charleston, 1822) ; William Thompson Reed's Life and Correspondence of George Reed (Philadelphia, 1870) ; Charles Janeway Stille's Life and Times of John Dickinson (Philadelphia, 1891); William Wirt Henry's Patrick Henry (3 vols., New York, 1891) ; John Marshall's Life of George Washington (5 vols., Philadelphia, 1804-1807) ; C. Tower's The Marquis de La Fayette in the American Revolution (2 vols., ibid., 1895) F. Kapp's Life of Frederick William von Steuben (New York, I859), and his Life of John Kalb (New York, 1884). Moses Coit Tyler's Literary History of the American Revolution (2 vols., New York. 1897) is of unique interest. Lorenzo Sabine's Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution (2 vols., Boston, 1864), and Claude Halstead Van Tyne's The Loyalists in the American Revolution (New York, 1902); Herbert Friedenwald's The Declaration of Independence (New York, 1904), and John Hampden Hazelton's the Declaration of Independence—Its History (New York, 1906), are valuable special studies. Many important monographs have appeared in the "Johns Hopkins University Studies," "the Columbia University Studies," the "Harvard Historical Studies,' and among the publications of the universities of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The Carnegie Institution has issued the first volume of a report.. edited by C. M. Andrews and F. G. Davenport, on materials in British archives for the period before 1783. The bibliography of American history receives adequate treatment in Justin Winsor's Narrative and Critical History of America (8 vols., Boston, 1886–1889) and in J. N. Larned's Literature of American History (Boston, 1902). (H. L. O.) F.—The Struggle for National Government, 178,3–1789. 77. The long struggle to secure the ratification of the Articles of Confederation had given time for careful consideration of the new scheme of government. Maryland's persistent criticism had prepared men to find defects in them. Conventions of New England states, pamphlets, and private correspondence had found flaws in the new plan; but a public trial of it was a necessary preliminary to getting rid of it. The efforts of the individual states to maintain the war, the disposition of each state to magnify its own share in the result, the popular jealousy of a superior power, transferred now from parliament to the central government, were enough to ensure the articles some lease of life. A real national government had to be extorted through the " grinding necessities of a reluctant people." 78. Congress and its committees had already begun to declare that it was impossible to carry on a government efficiently under the articles. Its expostulations were to be continued for several years before they were heard. In the meantime it did not neglect the great subject which concerned the essence of nationality—the western territory. Virginia had made a first offer to cede her claims, but it was not accepted. A committee of Congress now made a report (1782) maintaining the validity of the rights which New York had transferred to Congress; and Territorial in the next year Virginia made an acceptable offer. cessions, Her deed was accepted (March 1, 1784); the other claimant states followed; and Congress, which was not authorized by the articles to hold or govern territory, became the sovereign of a tract of some 430,000 sq. m., covering all the country between the Atlantic tier of states and the Mississippi river, from the British possessions nearly to the Gulf of Mexico. 79. In this territory Congress had now on its hands the same question of colonial government in which the British Territorial parliament had so signally failed. The manner in Qovernment. which Congress dealt with it has made the United States the country that it is. The leading feature of its plan was the erection, as rapidly as possible, of states, similar in powers to the original states. The power of Congress over the Territories was to be theoretically absolute, but it was to be exerted in encouraging the development of thorough self-government, and in granting it as fast as the settlers should The Ord)- become capable of exercising it. Copied in succeed-nonce of ing acts for the organization of Territories, and still 1787. controlling the spirit of such acts, the Ordinance of 1787 (July 13, 1787) is the foundation of almost everything which makes the modern American system peculiar. 80. The preliminary plan of Congress was reported by a committee of which Thomas Jefferson (q.v.) was chairman, and was adopted by Congress on the 23rd of April 1784. It provided for the erection of seventeen states, north and south of the Ohio, with some odd names, such as Sylvania, Assenisipia, Metropotamia, Polypotamia and Pelisipia. "These states were for ever to be a part of the United States, and to have republican governments. The provision, "After the year 1800 there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said states, other than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted," represented Jefferson's feeling on this subject. but was lost for want of seven states in its favour. 81. The final plan of 1787 was reported by a committee of which Nathan -Dane, of Massachusetts, was chairman. The prohibitionof slavery was made perpetual, and a fugitive slave clause was added. The ordinance covered only the territory north of the Ohio, and provided for not less than three nor more than five states. Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin have been the resultant states. At first Congress was to appoint the governor, secretary, judges and militia generals, and the governor and judges were, until the organization of a legislature, to make laws subject to the veto of Congress. When the population reached 5000 free male adult inhabitants the Territory was to have an assembly of its own, to consist of the governor, a legislative council of five, selected by Congress from ten nominations by the lower house, and a lower House of Representatives of one delegate for every 500 free male inhabitants.' This assembly was to choose a delegate to sit, but not to vote, in Congress, and was to make laws not repugnant to " the principles and articles " established and declared in the ordinance. These were as follows: the new states or Territories were to maintain freedom of worship, the benefits of the writ ot habeas corpus, trial by jury, proportionate representation, bail, moderate fines and punishments, and the preservation of liberty, property and private contracts; they were to encourage education and keep faith with the Indians; they were to remain for ever a part of the United States; and they were not to interfere with the disposal of the soil by the United States, or to tax the lands of the United States, or to tax any citizen of the United States for the use of the navigable waters leading into the Mississippi or St Lawrence rivers. These articles were to be unalterable unless by mutual consent of a state and the United States. The transformation of the Territory, with its limited government, into a state, with all the powers of an original state, was promised by Congress as soon as the population should reach 6o,0oo free inhabitants, or, under certain conditions, before that time. 82. The Constitution, which was adopted almost immediately afterwards, provided merely (art. iv, § 3) that " Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting, the territory or other property belonging to the United States," and that " new states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." Opinions have varied as to the force of the Ordinance of 1787. The Southern school of writers have been inclined to consider it ultra vices and void ; and they adduce the fact that the new Congress under the Constitution thought it necessary to re-enact the ordinance (Aug. 7, 1789). The opposite school have inclined to hold the ordinance as still in force. Even as to the Territorial provision of the Constitution, opinions have varied. 83. In the interval of the settlement of the territorial question the affairs of the " league of friendship," known as the United States, had been going from bad to worse, culminat- Difficulties ing in 1786. The public debt amounted in 1783 of the Con-to about $42,000,000, of which $8,000,000 was federation. owed abroad—in Holland, France and Spain. Congress had no power to levy taxes for the payment of interest or principal; it could only make requisitions on the states. In the four years ending in 1786 requisitions had been made for $Io,000,000 and the receipts from them had amounted to but one-fourth of what had been called for. Even the interest on the debt was falling into arrears, and the first instalment of the principal fell due in 1787. To pay this, and subsequent annual instalments of $r,000,000, was quite impossible. Robert Morris, the financier of the War of Independence, resigned in 1783 rather than " be the minister of injustice," hoping thus to force upon the states the necessity of granting taxing powers to Congress. Washing-ton, on retiring from the command-in-chief, wrote a circular letter to the governors of all the states, urging the necessity of granting to Congress some power to provide a national revenue. Congress (April 18,1783) appealed to the states for power to levy specific duties on certain enumerated articles, and 5% on others. It was believed that with these duties and the requisitions, which were now to be met by internal taxation, $2,500,000 per annum could be raised. Some of the states ratified the proposal; others ratified it with modifications; others rejected it, or changed their votes; and it never received the necessary ratification of all the states. The obedience to the requisitions grew more lax. In 1786 a committee of Congress reported that any further reliance on requisitions would be " dishonourable to the understandings of those who entertain such confidence." ' When the total number should reach 25, the legislature itself was to have the power of regulating the number and proportion. Property qualifications were prescribed for electors, representatives and members ot the council. 84. In the states the case was even worse. Some of them had been seduced into issuing paper currency in such profusion that they were almost bankrupt. Great Britain, the in the treaty of peace, had recognized the indePen- St Statetes. dence of the individual states, naming them in order; and her government followed the same system in all its inter-course with its late colonies. Its restrictive system was maintained, and the states, vying with each other for commerce, could adopt no system of counteracting measures. Every possible burden was thus shifted to American commerce; and Congress could do nothing, for, though it asked for the power to regulate commerce for fifteen years, the states refused it. The decisions of the various state courts began to conflict, and there was no power to reconcile them or to prevent the consequences of the divergence. Several states, towards the end of this period, began to prepare or adopt systems of protection of domestic productions or manufactures, aimed at preventing competition by neighbouring states. The Tennessee settlers were in insurrection against the authority of North Carolina; and the Kentucky settlers were disposed to cut loose from Virginia. Poverty, with the rigid execution of process for debt, drove the farmers of western Massachusetts into an insurrection (Shays's Insurrection) which the state had much difficulty in suppressing; and Congress was so incompetent to aid Massachusetts that it was driven to the expedient of imagining an Indian war in that direction, in order to transfer troops thither. Congress itself olCongress.was in danger of disappearance from the scene. The necessity for the votes of nine of the thirteen states for the passage of important measures made the absence of a state's delegation quite as effective as a negative vote. Congress even had to make repeated appeals to obtain a quorum for the ratification of the treaty of peace with Great Britain. In 1784 Congress actually broke up in disgust, and the French minister reported to his government—" There is now in America no general government—neither Congress, nor president, nor head of any one administrative department." Everywhere there were symptoms of a dissolution of the Union. 85. Congress was evidently incompetent to frame a new plan of national government; its members were too dependent on Proposals their states, and would be recalled if they took part for a in framing anything stronger than the articles. Conventlon.The idea of a convention of the states, independent of Congress, was in the minds and mouths of many; Thomas Paine .had suggested it as long ago as his Common Sense pamphlet: " Let a continental conference be held . . . to frame a continental charter . . . fixing the number and manner of choosing members of Congress, members of assembly ... drawing the line of business and jurisdiction between them." To a people as fond of law and the forms of law as the Americans there was a difficulty in the way. The articles had provided that no change should be made in them but by the assent of every state legislature. If the work of such a convention was to be subject to this rule, its success would be no greater than that of Congress; if its plan was to be put into force on the ratification of less than the whole number of states, the step would be more or less revolutionary. In the end the latter course was taken, though not until every other expedient had failed; but the act of taking it showed the underlying consciousness that union, independence and nationality were now inextricably complicated, and that the thirteen had become one in some senses. 86. The country drifted into a convention by a roundabout way. The navigation of Chesapeake Bay and the Potomac needed regulation; and the states of Maryland and Virginia, having plenary power in the matter, appointed delegates to arrange such rules. The delegates met (1785) at Alexandria, Va. (q.v.), and at Washington's house, Mount Vernon. Maryland, in adopting their report, proposed that Pennsylvania and Dela- ware be asked to nominate commissioners, and Convention of 1786. Virginia went further and proposed a meeting of commissioners from all the states to frame commercial regulations for the whole. The convention met (1786) at Annapolis (q.v.), Maryland, but only five states wererepresented, and their delegates adjourned, after recommending another convention at Philadelphia in May 1787. 87. Congress had failed in its last resort—a proposal that the states should grant it the impost power alone; New York's veto had put an end to this last hope. Confessing its helplessness, Congress approved the call for A. second convention 011787. convention; twelve of the states (all but Rhode Island) chose delegates; and the convention met at Philadelphia (May 25, 1787), with an abler body of men than had been seen in Congress since the first two Continental Congresses. . Among others, Virginia sent Washington, James Madison, Edmund Randolph, George Mason and George Wythe; Pennsylvania: Franklin, Robert and Gouverneur Morris and James Wilson; Massachusetts: Rufus King, Elbridge Gerry and Caleb Strong; Connecticut: William S. Johnson, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth; New York : Alexander Hamilton; New Jersey: William Paterson; and South Carolina the two Pinckneys and John Rutledge. With hardly an exception the fifty-five delegates were clear-headed, moderate men, with positive views of their own and firm purpose, but with a willingness to compromise. 88. Washington was chosen to preside, and the convention began the formation of a new Constitution, instead of proposing changes in the old one. Two parties were formed The vlrglala at once.