A study of "monarchical" tendencies in the United States, from 1776 to 1801

Front matter

mm^mm'mmm^

Class _E.1j_U1 Book >1) ^1

GcmSssX-

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

Preface 7

I. Attitude of the Americans towards Kingship on the

Preface

The present study is an attempt to add something of value and interest to the understanding of the nature, causes, and extent, as well as the evidences and influence of monarchical tendencies in the United States from 1776 to 1801. Many writers have touched upon the subject. Some have disposed of it with a few sweeping generalizations; others have given considerable space to certain of the more striking manifestations of monarchical tendencies. I have prepared a study which presents, so far as I know them, all the more important data on which justifiable generalizations can be based. By its relative completeness and by its arrangement of the facts, for the most part, in chronological order, this study should afford an account somewhat clearer and more comprehensive than those attempted in preceding treatments.

Foremost among numerous persons to whom I am indebted for valuable criticism and suggestions are Professor Theodore C. Pease and Professor Evarts B. Greene, of the University of Illinois. The latter assisted in an advisory capacity from the very outset of the work. Any errors in respect to fact or treatment are, of course, entirely my own.

Chapter I Attitude Of The Americans Towards

KINGSHIP ON THE EVE OF THE

REVOLUTION

In 1765 the Stamp Act Congress professed to be "sincerely devoted, with the warmest sentiments of affection and duty to his Majesty's person and government," and "inviolably attached to the present happy establishment of the Protestant succession. "^ In the closing paragraph of the Resolutions of the Congress George III is called "the best of sovereigns,"^ and four days later, in a similar document, the members declared, "We glory in being the subjects of the best of kings. "^ Assertions of this sort, often repeated in the immediately succeeding years, ill accord with the famous indictment of the King in the Declaration of Independence.^ The contrast is more or less evident in almost any historical treatment of the ten years prior to the Revolutionary War. The development of this hostility to King George and its extension to the very institution of kingship demands attention at the outset of our investigation.

Throughout the Stamp Act controversy, despite the high pitch of popular indignation,^ the Americans accorded respect to the King and cast the blame upon his ministers.^ Just as attention

^William Macdonald, Select Charters and other Documents Illustrative of American History, 1606-1775, 314.

mi. Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution, Petition to the House of Commons, 459.

^Journals of the Continental Congress, V, 511-514.

^For transcripts of official reports on the intensity of feeling see letters of Nov. 4, 5, 8, 1765, by General Gage, American Stamp Act Collection, Bancroft transcript. Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress. For secondary account see that by G. E. Howard, Preliminaries of the Revolution {The American Nation: A History, VIII), ch. viii.

^Jeremy Belknap comments on absence of disrespect to the King as illustrated by letters and papers passing between "the Sons of Liberty in Portsmouth and their brethren in Boston, Providence, Connecticut, New York, &c., during the time of the Stamp Act." Belknap Papers, I, 120-121 {Massachusetts Historical Society

10 MONARCHICAL TENDENCIES IN THE UNITED STATES [lO

centered upon the ministry as the hated oppressor, so attention centered upon the King as the source of deliverance and his part in the repeal was emphasized and exalted. In taking this attitude the Americans were probably influenced by the English newspaper account, which arrived on the same ship with the official dispatch. This described the King's participation in a truly impressive manner. For example, it declared that as he had gone through the streets on his way to the House of Lords to give his assent to the repeal, ** there was such a vast Concourse of People, huzzaing, clapping Hands, &c. that it was several Hours before his Majesty reached the House. "^ A diary entry expressed the general sentiment when it recorded the arrival of ** the glorious news of the total repeal of the Stamp Act, which was signed by his Majesty King George the 3d of ever glorious memory, which God long preserve and his illustrious house. "^

Again, the King was made the central figure in the jubilant celebrations of the event in America. Emblematical paintings were prepared in some places, box-like arrangements set one above another. Upon these the King was depicted in all his glory — and in model company! The upper compartment of the Boston pyramid was decorated by " heads of King and Queen & fourteen of ye Patriots, being four on a side."^ That at Newport was still more splendid. ** In the Centre of the third, [highest compartment] his Majesty in his Royal Robes sat enthroned, & with a most gracious Aspect, pointed to a Scroll . . . inscribed in Capitals, * Stamp Act Repealed 1766, G. R.* " Pitt, with Magna

Collections, 5th ser., II). A vivid account of the demonstrations against the ministry is contained in "An anonymous diary of Events in America" [by Ebenezer Hazard], Feb. 7, 1765, to June 30, 1770," American Stamp Act Collection, Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress. The famous incident of Patrick Henry's speech and the interrupting cries of "Treason" is told by himself in his Life and Correspondence and Speeches I, 81. See also Howard, Preliminaries of the Revolutiony 144. Compare American Historical Review, XXVI, 727-729, 745.

^Reprinted in America in handbill form. For facsimile see J. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, VI, 33.

^Diary of John Rowe, Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 2d ser., X, 62.

^P. 41, Stevens, Transcript of Hazard's narrative for 1765-1770, Stamp Act Congress, Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress.

Il] ON THE EVE OF THE REVOLUTION II

Charta, was at the right of the King, while Camden, with the Bill of Rights, completed this interesting group.^°

The above passages have been quoted not because they are quaint and amusing but because they indicate one of the most important features of the theory of kingship held by the American colonists.^^ The wearer of the crown was expected to be the champion of the rights of his people and accordingly was the center of popular interest in government.^^ If he should fail so much the worse for him, but the people would be slow to admit failure. Thus every year till after the bloodshed at Lexington and Concord there were expressions by Americans of loyalty to the King,^^

^°For other celebrations see Stevens, op. cif., June, 1766, and Rowe's Diary y May 19 and June 4, 1766, op. cit., 62.

^^A feature which has survived in the popular attitude towards the President, as depicted in an account like that by Gaillard Hunt, "The President of the United States;" Wisconsin Historical Publications, LXIII, 76-98.

^f course, the writer means this to apply to national or imperial government rather than local.

^^he references in the following cases are to issues of the Newport Mercury unless otherwise indicated. Most of the data is of a nature to have been also printed elsewhere and could be located by a person who did not have access to the Mercury but did have the other sources at hand. Some of the early issues of the Mercury carry two dates in their subtitle. In making citations below only the second is used. For example, the first reference is recorded as *W. M., Jan. 12, 1767," rather than *' Newport Mercury , from Monday, January 5, — to Monday, January 12, 1767."

Reply of the House of Burgesses to the Lieutenant Governor, Nov. 6, 1766, {N. M., Jan. 12, 1767, p. 1).

Reply of the Massachusetts House of Representatives to the Governor, Jan. 31,

Celebrations of first anniversary of Stamp Act repeal, (Rowe, Diary, in Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 2d ser., X, 63; N. M., Mar. 23, 1767, p. 1).

St. Patrick's Day feast in Boston, (Mar. 30, 1767, p. 1).

Article by "Liberus," {ibid., p. !)•

Massachusetts Circular Letter, Feb. 11, 1768, (S. Adams, Writings, I, 188).

Petition to the Governor by the inhabitants of Boston, June 14, 1768, (A^. M., June 27, 1768, p. 2).

Instructions to representatives of the town of Boston, June 17, 1768, (June 27,

Non-importation Agreement by New York merchants, Sept. 5, 1768, (Sept. 19, 1768, p. 3.) Extra-legal Convention in Massachusetts, Sept. 26, 1768, (Oct. 3, 1768, p. 2). Letter from London describing Dr. Franklin's activities, (Dec. 5, 1768, p. 2).

12 ''monarchical^' tendencies in the united states [I2

or rather to their theory of kingship, even though the last and perhaps most famous of these, the petition of Congress to the King July 8, 1775, was in a sense an ultimatum to King George. ^^ Loyalty waned but slowly despite the fact that the months and

Report in South Carolina Assembly, Nov. 18 (?), 1768, (Jan. 9, 1769, p. 1).

Resolutions in the Georgia Assembly, Dec. 24, 1768, (Jan. 30, 1769, p. 4).

Petitions of the Pennsylvania Assembly, Sept. 22, 1768, (Feb. 27, 1769, p. 1).

Instructions of the Town of Boston, May 8, 1769, (May 22, 1769, p. 2).

Resolves of House of Burgesses, May 16, 1679, (June 12, 1769, p. 1).

Celebrations of King's birthday, June 4, 1770, (Rowe, Diary, op. cit., 75).

Address of Council of Massachusetts, Mar. 20, 1770, (A^. M,, Apr. 2, 1770, p. 1).

Address to the King by "Sidney," from the Parliamentary Spy, (Apr. 23, 1770, pp. 1-2). Note how conspicuous a place is given to this reprint.

Complaint of House of Representatives of Massachusetts against Governor Bernard, (May 14, 1770, p. 2).

Message from Massachusetts House of Representatives to Lieutenant-Governor, Oct. 13, 1770, (Oct. 29, 1770, p. 2).

Celebration of Queen's birthday, Jan. 18, 1771, (Rowe, Diary, op. cit., 77.)

Virginia Petition to the King, (A^. M., Feb. 25, 1771, p. 1).

Reprint from Poor Richard's Almanac for the year 1758, (Mar. 6, 1771, p. 2).

Address by Massachusetts House of Representatives to the Governor, Apr. 24, 1771, (S. Adams, Writings, II, 168-169).

Article by "Candidus," in Boston Gazette, Sept. 16, 1771. (S. Adams, Writings, II, 220).

Celebration of King's birthday, June 4, 1772, (Rowe, Diary, op cit., 78).

Items relating to royal household, (A^. M., Apr. 20, 1772, p. 1; Apr. 27, p. 2; Supplement, Apr. 27, p. 1).

Celebrations of King's birthday and coronation anniversary, 1773, (Rowe, Diary, op. cit., 79).

Debates of the First Continental Congress, as recorded, contain no evidence of hostility to king or monarchy. (Journals, I; J. Adams' notes and account. Works, II, 365-401). For expressions favorable to monarchy see Journals, I, 82, 86.

Petition to the King by First Continental Congress, Oct., 1774, {ibid., I, SZ, 115-121).

Celebration at first appearance of the Newport Light-Infantry, {N.M. Apr. 17, 1775, p. 3).

Address of North Carolina Assembly to Governor, Apr. 7 (?), 1775, (May 1,1775, p. 1).

Letter from New York Committee of Association to Mayor of London, May 15, 1775, (June 5, 1775, p. 1).

Letter from New York Provincial Congress to the people of Quebec, June 2, 1775, (June 19, 1775, p. 2).

Correspondence between New York Provincial Congress and General Washington, June 26, 1775, (July 10, 1775, p. 3).

Second Petition of Congress to the King, July 8, 1775, {Journals, II, 158-161).

"J. Adams, Works, II, 410-411.

years had passed without the expected interposition by the King in behalf of the colonists. By 1771 a writer so widely read as "Candidas" was declaring that the only effect of loyal petitions had been to bring new burdens upon the Americans. ^^ But reproach was not at first directed against the King but rather against the ministry,^^ the Parliament, and even the English people. To be sure, the precedent of the tyranny of Charles I was cited in opposition to the quartering of royal troops in America.^^ Yet Samuel Adams cited the "unspotted loyalty" of the colonies as an argument against the necessity of the act. He placed express reliance upon the "wisdom and goodness of his present Majesty" and feared only a possible future tyrant.^^

Down to 1769 and 1770 American writers often lauded the British King and constitution in the same breath in which they denounced the ministry. ^^ They directed much of the brunt of their attack against the royal representatives in the colonies rather than against royalty.^^ They cast the blame upon Parlia-

«S. Adams, Writings, II, 282.

^^For an expression of this reproach by John Adams see his Works, X, 246.

^^By "Antoninus" in the Boston Evening Post, quoted in the Newport Mercury y Mar. 2, 1767, p. 1.

18$. Adams in the Boston Gazette, Dec. 26, 1768, Writings, I, 277, 275.

^^" Right, Wrong, and Reasonable, with regard to America," Newport Mercury , Aug. 3, 1767, pp. 2-3.

Reprint of "Sidney's" address to the King, Dec. 19, 1769, i^iJ, Apr. 23, 1770, pp. 1-2.

An inflammatory address against Lord North is found in the Supplement to the Newport Mercury, Aug. 8, 1774, p. 1.

Letter from Samuel Stillmen to Patience Wright, Boston, Nov. 13, 1774, Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 3d ser., X, 475.

Comment by Thomas Paine, Political Writings, I, 169-170, quoted by Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolution, I, 457.

Lines copied from "a London Paper," Newport Mercury, July 3, 1775, p. 4.

See also letter from New York provincial congress to the people of Quebec, June 2, 1775, ibid., June 19, 1775, p. 2.

20Letter from the Boston Gazette, Sept. 28, 1772, ibid., Oct. 5, 1772, p. 2.

Report that Edmund Burke had blamed colonial governors for the troubles, /^/^., May 16, 1774, p. 1.

Account of the burning in effigy of Hutchinson at Philadelphia, May 3, 1774, ibid.. May 16, 1774, p. 2.

See also John Adams, Works, X, 246, 454, 479.

ment^^ and even upon the English people^^ in a way which more or less exempted the King.

Nevertheless, during the two years just mentioned, American opposition to Government measures gained new force and confidence. ^^ One manifestation of this change was to be found in certain attacks upon the King himself. He was most disrespectfully ridiculed as the *'noodle to an old woman. "^4 The wish was expressed that "three quarters of the nation had not reason to think" that certain lines upon the obstinate Agamemnon were "very applicable at this present time:"

"That you are honest, we are sure, Yet, if you give to rascals power, The wrongs you suffer them to do.

Will all be justly laid on you."^^ The loyal addresses to the King were now parodied, as appears from an address "To his Sublime Majesty Oknookortunkogog" who is praised for his loving consideration for his people manifested in his "late order for the destruction of the poisonous weed tea."2«

"Address to the people of England in Boston Gazette, Sept. 21, 1767, Newport Mercury, Sept. 28, 1767, p. 1.

Address of New York Assembly to Governor, Nov. 23, 1767, ibid., Dec. 7, 1767, p. 2.

Article from the Public Ledger, Apr. 29, 1774, Newport Mercury, Aug. 15, 1774,

Virginia's instructions to deputies to Congress, Aug. 1-6, 1774, ibid., Sept. 5, 1774, p. 2.

Hall, History of Eastern Vermont, 199. (Resolutions of "eighteen delegates from twelve towns," Oct. 20, 1774.)

22Letters to Boston Gazette, Aug. 31 and Sept. 14, Newport Mercury, Sept. 7 and 21, 1767, pp. 2, 1, respectively.

Roger Martyn to the Boston Gazette, Newport Mercury, Sept. 21, 1767, pp. 1-2.

Note, on the other hand, the tendency to make common cause with the English people as shown by the large place given to the John Wilkes controversy (in the Newport Mercury, during 1769 and the first weeks of 1770), and such an address as that in the Boston Gazette, Sept. 21, 1767, Newport Mercury, Sept. 28, 1767, p. 1.

^For a convenient summary see J. S. Bassett, Short History of the United States, 171-174.

*^This refers, of course, to his deference to the dowager Queen. See Newport Mercury, Oct. 20,1169,^.1.

^Ibid.

^^From the Massachusetts Spy. His Majesty's answer is also recorded in the usual ceremonious style. Newport Mercury, Apr. 11, 1774, p. 2. A similar satire

One of the "Letters of Junius," appearing in America early in 1770, contained a very explicit account of monarchical ideas in the colonies.2^ Whatever his identity, ** Junius" was undoubtedly one of the most effective political writers of all time ^s and was widely read in America.^^ The passage in question will speak for itself.

"They [the colonies] were ready enough to distinguish between you [the King] and your Ministers. They complained of an Act of the Legislature, but traced the Origin of it no higher than to the Servants of the C - n: They pleased themselves with the Hope that their S-r-n, if not favourable to their Cause, at least was impartial. The decisive, personal Part you took against them, has effectually banished that first Distinction from their Minds. They consider you as united with your Servants against A-r-a, and know how to distinguish the S-r-n and a venal P-t on one Side, from the real Sentiments of the English People on the other. Looking forward to Independence, they might possibly receive you for their K-g; but, if ever you retire to A-r-a, be assured they will give you such a Covenant to digest, as the Presbytery of Scotland would have been ashamed to offer to Charles the Second. They left their native Land in Search of Freedom, and found it in a Desart. Divided as they are into a Thousand Forms of Policy and Religion, there is one Point in which they all agree: They equally detest the Pageantry of a K-g, and the supercilious Hypocrisy of a Bishop. "^^

In respect to his influence on public opinion "Junius" was a foreis found in what purported to be a Salem item regarding the coronation anniversary of George III, ibid., Oct. 12, 1772, p. 3.

27The letter of Dec. 16, 1769, directed to the King. Printed in the Newport Mercury, Feb. 19, 1770, pp. 1-3.

*^0n the identity of "Junius" and his superiority over other writers of political invective see Encyclopaedia Britannica, XV, 558.

If, perchance, "Junius" was Thomas Pownall, as is claimed by the biographer of the latter, the account is even more interesting to the present study than already indicated, for Pownall had spent years in America and was a serious student of its aifairs. See Life of Thomas Pownall by C. A. W. Pownall, chapter XII. See also the Literature of American History (Larned ed.), 873, for an estimate of Pownall's book on colonial government.

^9" The paper signed JUNIUS, which has been published in Boston, Rhode- Island, Philadelphia and this city, has also been re-printed in the South-Carolina Gazette of the 19th of February last, from the St. James's Chronicle of December the 21st". Newport Mercury, Mar. 19, 1770, p. 3.

i6 "monarchical" tendencies in the united states [i6

runner of Thomas Paine. Unlike the later writer, however, "Junius" did not attack monarchical institutions as such. He painted in glowing colors the happy days at the opening of the reign of George III, and asked no more of him than that he should "distinguish between the conduct, which becomes the permanent dignity of a K-g, and that which serves only to promote the temporary interest and miserable ambition of a Minister. "^i He had only praise for the readiness of men "to sacrifice their lives to save a good Prince, or to oppose a bad one."^^ f^e believed the character of the English people a sufficient safeguard against the tyrannical attempts of any English king.

Another indication that the censure of a king did not necessarily involve the censure of kingship is found in the expressed hope that King George might yet mend his ways. "A Chronological Table of Epithets" for British rulers, ranging from "The Glorious" to "The Never Right," suspended judgment in the case of George by leaving a blank space opposite his name.^^ The fable of "The Lion and the Fox" contained these lines:

"May gracious Kings have all the Reverence due, And ev'ry Stuart find his Cromwell too."^^ As late as July 3, 1775, the following verse appeared: "In time be wise, drive Traitors from thy breast, And let the just, the honest round thee move; So shall the sinking State once more be blest And thou be happy in thy people's love."^^ But, in addition to the attacks upon the King, already discussed, there were attacks upon the monarchical institution. An early and apparently isolated one appeared in the summer of 1768

^'^Newpori Mercury, Feb. 19, 1770, p. 1.

'^This expression is from a letter appearing later in 1770, in ibid., June 11, 1770, p. 1. For further attacks against the King rather than against the kingship see the taunts of the "Whisperer" {ibid., July 23, 1770, p. 1), the "Description of a Tory" {ibid., Sept. 2, 1771, p. 4), a Junius letter {ibid., Sept. 30, 1771, p. 1), comments by "Candidus" (Samuel Adams, Writings, II, 252, 262, 273, 292-293), extract from letter from London {Newport Mercury, Apr. 27, 1772, Supplement, p. 1), verses quoted from the North Briton {ibid., July 13, 1772, p. 2).

^Newport Mercury, Oct. 30, 1769, p. 2.

^Copied from "a London Paper," by the Newport Mercury of July 3, 1775, p. 4. The title is significant, "An Elegy to the Memory of the best of Kings."

17] ON THE EVE OF THE REVOLUTION I7

in an appeal by **A Son of Liberty "^^ to the ** Pennsylvania Farmer" to leave the "temporizers" in Philadelphia and unite with Mr. Otis. The latter is praised for his "'Jirm and manly spirit" which ''fears neither commissioners^ generals^ armies^ nor navies^ but, inspired with the eminations of arch [word nearly obliterated]"^ antimonarchical principles^ . . . rouses the inhabitants and heroically alienates their affection from Kingly and British subordination.''^^

A more characteristic attack on kingship was expressed in an article from the "North-Briton" reprinted in America in 1769. This subjected the King's speech of recent date to a most scathing criticism and cited the "fatal effects" upon popular opinion of a speech by King Charles in 1628. At the same time it professed to be criticising the ministry, not the King, by quoting the "maxim in the English constitution that the king can do no wrong'' The general effect was to expose the absurdity of the maxim cited.^^ An account, imbued with hostility to the institution of kingship, traced the development of British monarchy from the time of its introduction by "tyrannical Anglo-Saxon invaders." It called attention to repeated encroachments of the King and nobles upon the liberties of the people, and told of the happy success of the Italian cities in overthrowing their "haughty lords" and putting the power into the hands of the people.^° Some writers, however, were not content with citing the tyranny of the Stuarts and its results for King Charles, but vigorously attacked or ridiculed members of the succeeding line of rulers.^^ On the other

^"To J-H-N D-ck-n-s-n Esq." See below, page 19.

•^Both appearance and context suggest "arch."

^^Letter to the Pennsylvania Chronicle headed "Boston, June-1768," Newport Mercury, Aug. 15, 1768, p. 2. Contrast with letter of July 18, 1768, signed by James Otis and reprinted from the Political Register, Newport Mercury, Apr. 17, 1769, p. 1. For an interpretation see Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolution, I, 43.

^^Newport Mercury, Aug. 21, 1769, p. 4. Apparently the colonists, except some of ultra aristocratic and "High Church" proclivities, did not regard a king as a sacred personage. For an article along these lines see C. H. Van Tyne, "Influence of the Clergy, and of Religious and Sectarian Forces, on the American Revolution," American Historical Review, XIX, 4A-64. The footnote references as well as the text are very helpful to an understanding of the situation.

"Reprinted from the Royal Magazine by the Newport Mercury, Mar. 5, 1770, p. 1.

*^Article from the St. James's Chronicle reprinted in the Newport Mercury, Sept.

i8 ''monarchical" tendencies in the united states [i8

hand, one part of the British theory of monarchy could be, and actually was, acclaimed by opponents of its other features, namely, that the relation between King and subjects was purely contractual and dissolved by the tyranny of the former. ^^ ^g ^\i\ ]^q noted a little later this idea was the basis of the Declaration of Independence.^^

It is natural that the American attitude towards kings other than their own should have influenced their general conception of monarchical government. Thus examples of tyrannical rule, from antiquity to the time of writing, were cited early in 1767. Absolutism in Spain was deplored and a scathing reference made to "Prussia ... as absolute as any monarch of the East." This attack was not, however, directed against monarchical institutions in general but against the dangerous employment of the soldiery.^ A "Political Picture of Europe, for June, 1770" was published in an American paper. It is more antimonarchical in character and of considerable interest, especially since its brevity and humorous cast must have attracted the attention of any reader of the issue in which it appeared. A few quotations will indicate the character of this list of contemporary sovereigns:

"The French King leading Monarchs by the nose; the political Puppet-master of Europe."

"The King of Prussia, a fox in a bramble-bush; peeping first out at one corner, and then at another; but seeing an old woman watching him, whips in his head and sits still."

"The King of Poland a Monarch without a crown, wandering through a court, without Nobles."

"The Grand Seignior stretched in a melancholy posture on the borders of the Black Sea, half covered with ooze and seaweeds."

The dozen other rulers described fared little better in this account. The British King, at the end of the list, was pictured as "much puzzled; a fading Rose and a broken Trident lying at his feet. "45

7, 1772, p. 2., and article from the Gentleman's Magazine, ibid., Feb. 8, 1773, p. 3.

*'See especially "Extract of a Letter to the King, inserted in the London Evening Post, of Aug. 22, 1772," reprinted in the Newport Mercury, Nov. 9, 1772, pp. 2-3. The idea will be found in many of the attacks on the king already cited.

♦'See below, p. 21, footnote 65.

♦♦"Antoninus", quoted in the Newport Mercury, Mar. 2, 1767, p. 1. He was opposing the quartering of soldiers upon the population. See above, p. 13.

^Newport Mercury, Oct. 1, 1770, p. 2.

19] ON THE EVE OF THE REVOLUTION I9

Far abler than the antimonarchical writings just considered were three defences of kingship, contained respectively in the publications of the "Pennsylvania Farmer," the ** Westchester Farmer," and "The Farmer Refuted." Their wide circulation and popularity are well known, and their influence unquestioned. The writers supported kingship, whatever their other views might be. The first^ expressly approved the overthrow of the Stuarts as improving the condition of the English people. But he considered it no precedent for a revolt by the colonists, for, he said, "if once we are separated from our mother country, what new form of government shall we adopt. . . . Torn from the body, to which we are united by religion, liberty, laws, affections, relations, language and commerce, we must bleed at every vein."'^^ He felt sure of the general existence of loyalty to the King^^ yet he betrayed a dread that if the oppressive policy of government were not reversed popular opinion would be aroused against even the legal powers of the crown, as in the days of Charles I, and monarchy be again overthrown.^^

The "Westchester Farmer"^^ appeared upon the scene a few weeks after the closing of the Continental Congress of 1774.^^ Ablest of Loyalist writers, and equalled "for immediate effect upon the mass of readers" by no one, perhaps, but Thomas Paine,^2 j^jg utterances on monarchy compel our attention. His best known remark on the point, so far as present day readers are concerned, is probably his exclamation, " . . . if I must be enslaved, let it be by a KING at least, and not by a parcel of upstart, lawless committeemen."^^ In addition he denounced as heresy the theory advanced by the Continental Congress that

*®Writing in 1768. See Writings of John Dickinson (P. L. Ford, ed.), Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, XIV, 277-406.

It will be remembered that Dickinson also composed the "Declaration of Rights," of the Stamp Act Congress, the popular "Liberty Song," the "Olive Branch Petition, " and other important papers.

«See also il>id., pp. 387-388.

^°The Reverend Samuel Seabury, as is well known.

"Namely, Nov. 16, 1774, Tyler, Literary History of the American Revolution, I, 342.

American allegiance was due only to the King and not to Parliament, a doctrine he believed meant to pave the way to sedition.^'* On the contrary, the King held his position by act of Parliament, therefore to disown the authority of Parliament was virtually to renounce the King,^^ which would lead to the tyranny of Congress, the only tyranny Americans just then needed to fear.^^

With a hundred and thirty years of successful republican existence behind us, it is difficult to conceive that men could ever have expected an independent ** United States" to adopt a different government. But listen to the "Westchester Farmer," in 1774. In case of successful rebellion against England, ''Probably it would cost the blood of a great part of the inhabitants of America to determine what kind of government we should have, whether a monarchy or a republic. Another effusion of blood would be necessary to fix a monarch, or to establish a commonwealth."^^

Still more important is the fact that the able refutations^^ of the "Westchester Farmer," penned by the youthful Alexander Hamilton, upheld monarchical government and the ruling house. This is best illustrated by part of a paragraph near the close of "The Farmer Refuted," namely: "I earnestly lament the unnatural quarrel between the parent state and the colonies, and most ardently wish for a speedy reconciliation — a perpetual and mutually beneficial union. ... I am a warm advocate for limited monarchy, and an unfeigned well-wisher to the present Royal Family. "^^ By limited monarchy Hamilton meant exactly what the words say, and not a balance of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy as the definition was so often made. He wrote, "Perhaps, indeed, it may with propriety be said that the king is the only sovereign of the empire. The part which the people have in the legislature may more justly be considered as a limitation of