written constitutions were charters obtained from the King, in which were granted to the people of the colony certain privileges and rights of self-government which the English government could not justly take away from them. One of the unjust acts that did much to arouse the colonists to resistance, was the attempt of the English government in 1774, to annul the charter of Massachusetts by the Regulation Act. In this act was contained a precedent that (as Curtis says) "justly alarmed the entire continent, and in its principle affected all the colonies, since it assumed that none of them possessed constitutional rights which could not be altered or taken away by an act of Parliament." The charters were very liberal, granting almost entire self-government. As in the royal colonies, the executive was a governor, and the law-making branch a legislature of two houses.

In Massachusetts the governor was appointed by the Crown, and had a veto power. The Council or upper branch of the legislature was chosen annually by the lower house, but the governor had a right of veto on their choice. The lower house was elected by the people. In Connecticut and Rhode Island the governor, council, together with the assembly were chosen annually by popular vote, and all officers were appointed by them. In these two the governor had no right of veto, and the laws before going into execution did not require the royal approval.

Seven of the original colonies began under proprietary governments—New
York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North and South Carolina, Maryland and
New Jersey. Of these, four—New York, New Jersey, North and South
Carolina—became eventually provincial colonies, and Maryland was at one
time a proprietary.

Three of the colonies, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island, were settled under charters that were never surrendered. Three others, Virginia, Georgia and New Hampshire possessed charters for a while, but eventually became royal colonies.

Notwithstanding these diversities of government that have been pointed out, there were many features common to all the colonies. All considered themselves dependencies of the British Crown. All the colonists claimed the enjoyment of the privileges and rights of British-born subjects, and the benefit of the common law of England. The laws of all were required to be not repugnant to, but, as nearly as possible, in conformity with the laws of England. In all the colonies local legislatures existed, at least one branch of which consisted of representatives chosen by the people.

The general condition of the colonies at the time of the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, so far at least as concerns their governments, has now been given. What were the grounds upon which the colonists justified their resistance to the acts of English government?

In the first place, they claimed that their rights were received from, and their allegiance was due to the King, not to the Parliament. The colonists said the King was the only tie that bound them to England; that Parliament was composed of representatives from England alone, and therefore had powers of legislation only for England. Later, however, it was conceded that in matters of general interest to the whole United Kingdom, Parliament might exercise control, but that concerning all matters of domestic and internal interest, and of concern only to themselves, it was the right of their own legislatures to legislate, and that under this head came taxation.

Says Story:[1] "Perhaps the best summary of the rights and liberties asserted by all the colonies is contained in the celebrated declaration drawn up by the Congress of nine colonies assembled at New York in October, 1765 (Stamp Act Congress). That declaration asserted that the colonists 'owe the same allegiance to the Crown of Great Britain that is owing from his subjects born within the realm, and all due subordination to that august body, the parliament of Great Britain,' That the colonists 'are entitled to all the inherent rights and liberties of his (the King's) natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain. That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted rights of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them but with their own consent given personally or by their representatives.' That the 'people of the colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be represented in the House of Commons of Great Britain. That the only representatives of these colonies are persons chosen by themselves therein; and that no taxes ever have been or can be constitutionally imposed upon them but by their respective legislatures, and that trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject in these colonies.'"

[Footnote 1: Commentaries, Vol. I, p. 175.]

In opposition to these views, the English government held that Parliament had the authority to bind the colonies in all matters whatsoever, and that there were no vested rights possessed by the colonies, that could not be altered or annulled if Parliament so desired.

At the beginning of the Revolutionary War, complete independence was not claimed by the colonies. It was not until July 4, 1776, that they were driven to a declaration of full and entire independence and self-government. By this declaration the colonies threw off their colonial character, and assumed the position of states. This they did by simply taking into their own hands the powers previously exercised by the English King and Parliament. In the state constitutions which many colonies formed during the year, their old colonial forms of government were closely followed. Connecticut and Rhode Island, in fact, merely declared their allegiance to England absolved, and retained unchanged their old charters as their fundamental law. In Connecticut no other state constitution was adopted until 1818, nor in Rhode Island until 1842.

CHAPTER V.

Steps Toward Union.—Articles of Confederation.

Previous to 1774 the thirteen English colonies in America had had no political or governmental connection with each other. Any attempt on their part to unite without the consent of the English King or Parliament would have been considered an act beyond their powers and as insubordination towards the English government.

#New England Confederation.#—In 1643 there was formed a union of the four colonies of Connecticut, New Hampshire, Plymouth, and Massachusetts Bay, termed the "New England Confederation," which lasted forty years; but this was merely a union for mutual protection against their common foes, the French, the Dutch, and the Indians, and not for joint legislation or government. It was a defensive alliance.

#The Albany Convention.#—(Franklin's Plan.) In 1754, however, there was held a meeting of the colonies of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, called the "Albany Convention," in which was proposed a union of all the colonies under one government. Benjamin Franklin, the chief promoter of this scheme, drew up an elaborate constitution which was to be adopted. According to this plan there was to be a chief executive, elected by the king, and a council of 48 members, to be chosen by the legislatures of the several colonies. This scheme failed to obtain either the consent of the king or of the colonies themselves. It was too much of a union to suit the king, and not enough for the colonies. #The Stamp Act Congress.#—The indignation aroused by the attempt of England to tax her colonies without allowing them a voice in the Parliament which imposed such taxes, gave rise in 1765 to a meeting of delegates from eight of the colonies. This assembly was called the "Stamp Act