E 302 
 
 ,D5 H6 
 iCopy 1 
 
 The True 
 JOHN DICKINSON 
 
 A Paper read February 23, 
 1912, before 
 
 The Hamilton Library Association 
 Carlisle, Pa. 
 
 BY 
 
 PROFESSOR CHARLES F. HIMES 
 
 The Historical Society of Cumberland 
 
 County, Pennsylvania 
 
 1912 
 
 r 
 
The True 
 JOHN DICKINSON 
 
 A Paper read February 23, 
 1912, before 
 
 The Hamilton Library Association 
 Carlisle, Pa. 
 
 BY 
 
 PROFESSOR CHARLES F. HIMES 
 
 The Historical Society of Cumberland 
 County, Pennsylvania 
 
 1912 
 
^s^ 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 
 ©\tt 
 

 THE TRUE JOHN DICKINSON 
 
 It would be a sufficient explanation, if any were needed, 
 of the selection of "John Dickinson" as a subject of a paper 
 before this Association, that his name has been identified 
 with an institution that has been the pride of our ancient 
 borough for more than a century and a quarter, and that has 
 carried its name far beyond our borders, or even the borders 
 of our state; for the names of Dickinson College and Carhsle 
 are inseparably linked in tlie minds and memories of many 
 who have gone forth from them to achieve prominence in the 
 nation. 
 
 But aside from this purely local interest in the man, John 
 Dickinson is worthy of our consideration on account of his 
 high character as a Pennsylvania statesman, not simply con- 
 spicuous but of profound influence in his day in the councils 
 of his country. The charter of the college, in naming it 
 "Dickinson College," in recognition of this fact says: "the 
 name and title of which said College and the Constitution 
 thereof, shall be and are hereby declared to be as is hereafter 
 mentioned and defined, that is to say, 
 
 1. In memory of the great and important services render- 
 ed to his country by his excellency John Dickinson, Esquire, 
 President of the Supreme Executive Council, and in commem- 
 oration of his very liberal donation to the Institution, the 
 said College shall be forever hereafter called and known by the 
 name of "Dickinson College." 
 
 But I have been led more particularly to the considera- 
 tion of his character this evening, because there is, perhaps, 
 no prominent statesman of his period who has been more com- 
 pletely misunderstood or more unjustly judged, or the study 
 of whose character more essentially requires the historic 
 perspective afforded by lapse of time for a just and complete 
 estimate of him as a statesman and patriot. This fact first 
 
 (3) 
 
impressed nic some years ago in the preparation of a history 
 of Dickinson College. It seemed that a brief sketch, at least, 
 of the man after whom it was named would naturally be look- 
 ed for in an account of the institution which bore his name. 
 
 No comprehensive and authentic biography of him could 
 at that time be found. Other statesmen of the period in which 
 he was a prominent actor, often of far less prominence or in- 
 fluence than he, were as a rule fully written up. Whilst no 
 history of the country in the eventful period 1760-1783 or 
 1787, preceding, during, and for sometime in the formative 
 period subsequent to the Revolution, can be written without 
 full consideration of his participation and influence, the sketches 
 of him were not only brief arid fragmentary, but even in the 
 best and standard histories the treatment of him was frequent- 
 ly from a one-sided point of view, and if not written by un- 
 friendly hands, controlled by predjudice and bias, was at 
 least by those unappreciative of, I am almost inclined to say 
 incapable of appreciating, the full worth of his character, and 
 his profound and lasting influence in the councils of the nation. 
 
 It is not proposed, in the limited time of this paper, to 
 attempt a complete sketch of our subject, but rather to pre- 
 sent some salient facts in their connection, that may exhibit 
 his character as a patriot and statesman, that may give us a 
 glimpse at least of the true John Dickinson. 
 
 The grave fact in regard to John Dickinson, more gener- 
 ally known, almost the only fact known by many and upon 
 which judgment of him rests, is that he was not a signer of the 
 Declaration of Independence; on the other hand that he was 
 recognized as its ablest opponent at the time, and refused to 
 vote for it. As a boy I remember well the feeling akin to morti- 
 fication, that to Pennsylvania belonged the bad eminence of 
 such a character. Nothing else that he had done, or in any 
 way contributed toward the inauguration or success of the 
 war of the Colonies against the encroachments of the mother 
 country upon their liberties, seemed to be known or worth 
 knowing, as a palliative of that unpardonable offense, whether 
 the controlling motives were of the highest and purest, and 
 
 (4) 
 
exhibited the highest moral courage or not. The nearest to 
 an apology for him was that his course was due to a natural 
 timidity that made him over cautious. 
 
 It is not surprising, when we consider the temper of the 
 times, that the reasons for his course, and his arguments in 
 support of it were not then fairly considered, nor his motives 
 even honestly represented. But in due time, much sooner, 
 and more complete than could have been expected, vindica- 
 tion came with the highest civic honors his state could bestow. 
 With the successful close of the war of the Revolution in 1783, 
 after a most exciting political contest, in which his opponents 
 left no stone unturned to defeat him, he was placed in the 
 chief executive office of the then acknowledged independent 
 state of Pennsylvania. It is also worthy of remark that 
 during the campaign he refused to pay attention to any of 
 the old vamped-up assaults upon his character, reserving com- 
 plete and conclusive reply to them until his fellow citizens 
 had given their verdict. , 
 
 As to the suggestion of timidity or want of physical 
 courage, the significant fact is, that whilst others were signing 
 the immortal document, for it was not completely signed until 
 August, he was on the firing line with his regiment, risking 
 his life in support of the Declaration, and was the only one 
 of that Continental Congress that went to the front. What- 
 ever may have been his judgment as to the wisdom of the 
 measure at that time, or his own private feehngs in regard to 
 it, he regarded its passage as the voice of his country to which 
 he gave no hestitating or half-hearted response. 
 
 As to the wisdom of his course, which related to the time 
 as inopportune rather than to the act itself, we will find side 
 by side with him many of the purest patriots and ablest states- 
 men of the colonies in his opposition to the Declaration of In- 
 dependence at that time. Among these were James Wilson, 
 and Robert Morris, of Pennsylvania and even Washington 
 himself was late in adopting indei^endence as unavoidable. I 
 make these preliminary statements as a brief of the proposed 
 paper, and that your judgment in regard to the man may be 
 
 (5) 
 
kept open until we have come to the close of our consideration 
 of him. 
 
 We will take but little time with his genealogy. He was, 
 as most prominent men of Pennsylvania of that day, wholly 
 of English descent. The first immigrants of the family were 
 three brothers, who came to America about 1654, and settled 
 in Virginia. They were Quakers in rehgious belief. One of 
 them Walter removed from there to Talbot County, Mary- 
 land, in 1659, where John Dickinson was born, November 8, 
 1732. He was the second son of Samuel, a grandson of Walter. 
 Samuel was a lawyer by profession. He purchased, as early 
 as 1715, a large body of land in Kent County, Delaware, and 
 removed there 1740, where he became a very influential 
 citizen, and judge of the County Court. At his decease in 
 1760 his landed estate there had increased to 1300 acres. 
 
 It may be well to call attention to a fact here that may 
 prevent some confusion when we speak of the public life of 
 Dickinson. 
 
 He was by birth a native of Maryland, but after his 
 eighth year, from what has been stated must be regarded as a 
 citizen of what is now the state of Delaware, except when he 
 was a citizen of Pennsylvania. But citizenship of Delaware, 
 or for that matter of Pennsylvania, had a different significance 
 than at present. The "three lower Counties of the Delaware," 
 as they were called, were up to the time of the Revolution so 
 intimately connected with Pennsylvania, that, though not an 
 integral part of it, and always retaining their separate name, 
 they were under the same proprietary government of William 
 Penn, not by reason of the same grant as Pennsylvania, but 
 by deed from the Duke of York to him of "the three lower 
 Counties on the Delaware." Thus they recognized the same 
 proprietary governor, and whilst they had nearly from the 
 l)eginning an Assembly of their own, there were times when 
 their Representatives formed part of the Assembly of Penn- 
 sylvania. As a consequence citizens of one Province were 
 recognized as citizens of the other, and eligible to office in 
 both. 
 
 (6) 
 
Dickinson then was a citizen of Pennsylvania or Delaware 
 for the greater part of his political life, and as such is found 
 holding office in either or both. 
 
 His father was particularly solicitous in regard to his 
 education. His removal to Delaware was prompted by mo- 
 tives of that character. There were few good classical schools 
 at that time. He had considered sending him to England, as 
 was very usual in those days, but the loss of two sons made 
 him reluctant to do so, as we can well understand; for England 
 was much further away in those days of sailing vessels than 
 at present. He therefore, according to a custom very prevalent 
 with the wealthier citizens of the time, employed a private 
 tutor for his son. He was fortunate in securing the services of 
 a talented young Irishman, William Killen, who not only 
 proved to be an excellant teacher, and who took great personal 
 interest in his pupil, but who was also ambitious for his own 
 future. He became an inspiration to his pupil to ihat thorough- 
 ness of classical study, that influenced his mode of thought, as 
 well as had much to do with the finished style manifest in all 
 his literary productions, conceded by all, and that justified 
 the opinion expressed by Jefferson: ''That he was one of the 
 most accomplished scholars the country has produced." It 
 is gratifying to know that the teacher realized his highest 
 ambition. He became not only a highly successful lawyer, 
 but eventually Chief Justice and Chancellor of the state of 
 Delaware. 
 
 Young Dickinson at eighteen years of age entered upon 
 the study of the law, with John Moland, of Philadelphia, 
 perhaps the leading lawyer of that city. In our day this seems 
 an early age at which to enter upon serious professional study. 
 But among his fellow students in the same office, one who be- 
 came his intimate and life-long friend and an eminent lawyer 
 and statesman, as well as one of the Signers from Delaware, 
 George Read, was only fifteen years of age. 
 
 After his admission to the bar in 1753 he went to London 
 and entered the Inns of Court for the completion of his legal 
 studies. He was doubtless influenced somewhat to this course 
 
 (7) 
 
by the fact that his preceptor Moland, had received his 
 legal education there. He was much elated at the prospect, 
 and went with all the enthusiasm of a young man. 
 
 These Inns of Court were not inaptly called by Ben John- 
 son : "the noblest nurseries of humanity and liberty in the king- 
 dom." They occupy today with their Chambers and Halls 
 and the antique historic Temple Church, with its graves and 
 effigies of crusaders, ample grounds in the heart of the city of 
 London. They were almost as historic when Dickinson en- 
 tered them as today. They constitute still the institution 
 through which students of law are licensed to practice in the 
 English Courts; through which alone, indeed, a British sub- 
 ject may become a barrister. It is not a single school nor 
 even a collection of schools of law, as we might understand it, 
 but rather associations or societies of men pursuing the study 
 of law under established requirements and regulations. The 
 course though modified by time has much that is medieval 
 left. It consists of so-called "bolts" or arguments in private 
 on assigned cases; "moots" or public arguments on legal ques- 
 tions; readings and lectures, and what was equally obligatory 
 and remains so today, the eating of a prescribed number of 
 dinners in the dining hall of the society to which the student 
 belongs. Young Dickinson became a mem})er of the Middle 
 Temple as it was then, and is still called. Its large dining-hall 
 is one of the most perfect specimens of the Elizabethan period. 
 In it, it is said, a play of Shakespeare's — Twelfth Night — was 
 performed in the poet's time, and the walls are covered with 
 portraits of many great, well-known men in English history. 
 Many of England's greatest jurists and statesmen ate here 
 their required number of dinners, and completed their legal 
 studies. The Amercian pre-Revolutionary students are not 
 over-looked today. The old Usher, who proudly shows the 
 Hall, and dilates upon its glories, runs glibly over the names 
 of the great Americans, that were once inmates there. To my 
 surprise he began the list with John Dickinson, but without 
 historic accuracy, put him among the "Signees," which he 
 seemed to esteem a great honor. 
 
 (8) 
 
Dickinson associated here with those who were to become 
 the great lawyers and judges and statesmen of England, to 
 say nothing of prominent students from what we might call 
 his own country, were it not that they were all then of his own 
 country. This association was an education of itself; and the 
 profound influence of these formative years of study and life 
 must not be lost sight of in the interpretation of his attitude in 
 his subsequent career toward distinctively American questions, 
 especially when it is remembered that his most determined 
 and violent, we might almost say unfair, or at least unappre- 
 ciative opponents and detractors, were the leaders from New 
 England, who had not enjoyed the advantages of such as- 
 sociation, or thorough training in the Common Law of England 
 and its principles that dominated him, and that made every 
 question to him first of all a legal question, and restrained him 
 from the appeal to the ^dtima ratio of the sword until all 
 legal methods and resources had been exhausted. 
 
 On his return to America he entered upon the practice 
 of the law in Philadelphia, where he was regarded as an able 
 lawyer, and soon acquired a large practice. But as he was not 
 dependent upon his practice, he did not make his talents 
 and acquirements merely subservient to increasing his wealth, 
 but gave much of his time to the study of great questions of 
 state. These he did not consider simply as legal questions, and 
 he became even more a statesman than a lawyer, not surpass- 
 ed, if equalled by anyone in the Colonies in his profound 
 knowledge of these subjects. At all times, one effect of his 
 residence in England was to impress him with the grandeur 
 and greatness of the British Empire, of which he acknowledged 
 himself a citizen, and the superiority of his country over every 
 other on the globe. He was filled with patriotic pride, and 
 well might be as he read history, to be a citizen of that empire 
 to which he not only owed allegiance, but for which he had a 
 fervent attachment, and of which, he regarded the American 
 Colonies as an integral part. 
 
 Combined with his training and studies his natural dis- 
 position gave him a trend toward political life, which he soon 
 
 (9) 
 
followed, and from which a growing and lucrative legal practice 
 did not deflect him. He began his political career as a member 
 of the Assembly of the Province of Pennsylvania in 1764. The 
 great question agitating the Province at that time was a pro- 
 posed change of the government of the Province from Pro- 
 prietary under the Penns, to Royal, more immediately under 
 the King of England; for the government of Pennsylvania 
 differed greatly in this respect from that of the New England 
 Colonies. The Province had been prosperous under the Penns. 
 It may have been administered selfishly at times, but it could 
 not be administered arbitrarily except as backed by the 
 English Court. The question then was, shall the Province 
 remain under the limited control of the Penns, as Proprietaries, 
 or shall it pass under a Royal Charter, and pass more di- 
 rectly under the rule of the King and his ministry. It was a 
 battle of giants. The question was a revolutionary one, with 
 Franklin with his able political lieutenant Galloway on the side 
 of a Royal Charter, and Dickinson in opposition. Although the 
 question changed its aspect and soon lost its importance, in 
 the greater questions that were then already pressing to the 
 front, the lines then drawn, ran through the whole eventful 
 subsequent period; Dickinson and Frankhn were always on 
 opposite sides, and Galloway went eventually, actively into 
 the Tory camp. The debates were of the highest order. 
 Dickinson boldly championed the unpopular cause. He was 
 entirely without personal interest on the side that he espoused. 
 The question is a complicated one in its entirety. To state 
 it briefly; there was frequent conflict between the governors 
 appointed by the Penns and the Assembly on two important 
 points, viz : the voting of supplies and the mode of raising money 
 for them. The Assembly under the influence of Franklin 
 resorted to loans and paper money to which the Proprietaries 
 were opposed. Defence of the frontiers was often weak by 
 reason of these disputes. The Quakers were sometimes blam- 
 ed for opposition to military supplies, and doubtless they were 
 to some extent, and in 1755 Franklin ])resented a petition in 
 London praying that Quakers might not be eligible to seats 
 in the Assembly. 
 
 (10) 
 
f 
 
 In 1763, whilst a bitter Indian war was raging, the As- 
 sembly in earnest response to appeals for help by the Scotch- 
 Irish, who were located as buffers to Indian attacks on the 
 frontier, voted money and men, and as a means of raising the 
 money taxed the lands of the Proprietaries as well as of others. 
 The Governor John Penn, absolutely refused to carry out 
 the latter provision of the law, and the Assembly, moved by 
 the distressing conditions of the settlers, yielded that point, 
 raised the money, and Bouquet's expedition was dispatched. 
 Some of those most exposed, exasperated by the delay, and 
 attributing it to Quaker influence, committed the outrages 
 on the Indians known as "Outrages of the Paxtang boys." 
 
 Great unanimity, therefore, as might be expected, prevail- 
 ed against the Proprietaries and their Governors, without 
 whose consent no legislation could be enacted, whilst they 
 were in no way responsible to the people, with the resulting 
 inequality of taxation and feebleness of the defence of the 
 Province. Resolutions proposed in the Assembly by Galloway 
 setting forth the grievances against the Proprietaries and rec- 
 ommending the appointment of a committee were unanimous- 
 ly passed by the Assembly; and Franklin at a subsequent 
 meeting reported a petition to the King proposed by himself, 
 asking His Majesty "to resume the government of the Province." 
 The petition Avas numerously signed, but singular to say the 
 Presbyterians of Eastern Pennsylvania, with changed front, 
 circulated a counter petition, deprecating rash action, and 
 expressing fears of abridgement of the privileges enjoyed 
 under the charter. Dickinson, who was not present when the 
 resolutions were passed, at once attacked the petition. Whilst 
 admitting the defects of the Proprietary administration, his 
 knowledge of the British ministry led him to fear that it would 
 be dangerous to place any confidence in them; that the very 
 worst acts of the proprietaries were those in which they were 
 supported by the ministry; that the change would render in- 
 secure the priceless privileges that had made Pennsylvania 
 what she was in the eyes of the world. The speech has been 
 pronounced the strongest of all his productions, from the logic 
 
 (11) 
 
of which it is impossible to escape. The petition, however, 
 passed with only four opposing votes, and in less than three 
 months, Dickinson's worst predictions were realized. In 
 this speech, three months before the passage of the Stamp Act, 
 he suggested forcibly the designs of the British Ministry on 
 the liberties of the Colonies; he regarded the direct govern- 
 ment of the King as no remedy for the evils complained of, 
 but as fraught with danger to the Colonies; and urged that 
 "with unremitting vigilance and with undaunted virtue 
 should a free people watch against the encroachment of power, 
 and remove every pretext for its extension." 
 
 The speech had its effect outside of the Assembly on the 
 Proprietaries and on public opinion in regard to the Ministry. 
 The rupture between Dickinson and Galloway, the dominant 
 political leader of the Province, was complete and permanent. 
 The very able speech pubhshed as Galloway's was denounced 
 by Dickinson as not the one actually delivered by him. He 
 regarded him justly with suspicion, and this fact must not be 
 lost sight of in considering his course in the grave political 
 movements in the Province that rapidly followed. He was 
 affected, if not controlled largely by his consideration of him 
 as a powerful political factor, always to be reckoned with in 
 the Province, devoted to the side of the Ministry, as he proved 
 eventually to be by his open resort to the British lines. As 
 the result of Dickinson's course in this case he lost his seat in 
 the Assembly. He was not, however, indifferent to events 
 transpiring around him, or idle. The Ministry in its efforts to 
 raise revenue turned to the Colonies, as it were to an untouched 
 source. In March, 1764, Parliament passed the so-callled 
 Sugar Act, which was intended, practically, to turn all the 
 commerce of foreign countries with the Colonies through 
 London. A Stamp Act was at the same time proposed. The 
 news of these Acts stirred the Colonies. The Assembly of 
 Pennsylvania protested against th(»m. Much was written, and 
 there were as many opinions as writers on this comparative- 
 ly new subject. Dickinson with his full command of English 
 history and law turned his attention to it. He wrotc^ a pamph- 
 
 (12) 
 
let, primarily intended to influence the English merchants 
 against the measure, in which he set forth not only the injustice 
 of it, but the great impolicy of it, as violative of the elementary 
 principles of political ecomony. The passage of the Stamp 
 Act shortly after threw the colonies into a still more violent 
 ferment. Much confusion arose in the discussion of the now 
 clearly evident purpose of the Ministry to assert the paramount 
 power of Parliament over the Colonies, including the right to 
 tax them for Imperial purposes. A proposition for a Congress 
 of the Colonies to consider the situation was acceded to by 
 nine Colonies. This known as the Stamp Act Congress, met 
 in New York, October, 1765. Although the proceedings were 
 private, it is known that the discussions were at times violent 
 The presiding officer was a prominent tory, who found his 
 way into the British lines. The governor of New York even 
 threatened to break up the Congress. In this first historic 
 Congress of the Colonies, Dickinson was appointed to bring 
 order out of chaos by drafting resolutions expressive of their 
 views. This notable paper, which practically included a Bill 
 of Rights, was adopted by six of the nine Colonies represented. 
 The repeal of the Stamp Act, which followed soon after, only 
 enlarged and intensified the discussion, by the declaration 
 accompanying it of the right of Parliament to tax the Colonies 
 for Imperial purposes. The great struggle was on. In this 
 crisis amid the confusion and doubt arising from the variety 
 of, often conflicting opinions, Dickinson came to the front as 
 a leader. In the Pennsylvania Chronicle of December, 1767, 
 he bagan a series of letters, which at once attracted public 
 attention throughout the Colonies, and the "Letters of the 
 Farmer" were looked for weekly with intense interest. There 
 were fourteen in all. He began: 'T am a farmer, settled 
 after a variety of fortunes, near the banks of the river Dela- 
 ware in the Province of Pennsylvania. I have received a liberal 
 eductaion, and have been engaged in the busy scenes of life, 
 but am now convinced that a man may be as happy without 
 bustle as with it. Being generally master of my time, I spend 
 a good deal of it in my library, which I think the most valuable 
 
 (13) 
 
part of my small estate. I have acquired, I believe, a greater 
 knowledge of history and of the laws and constitution of my 
 country than is generally attained by men of my class." 
 These letters, as they were styled, of a Pennsylvania Farmer, 
 soon became known not only throughout the Colonies, but in 
 England as well, and even in France through a translation, 
 published by Franklin, who was then in England. Clear, 
 simple, eloquent and forcible in style, abounding in illustra- 
 tions founded on an examination of all the statutes since 
 the settlement of the Colonies, they set forth exhaustively 
 and definitely their rights and grievances in such a way as 
 to impress the Colonists, to quote his own words, that "a 
 most dangerous innovation upon their liberties was about 
 to be attempted by the British Ministry; and whilst hie 
 recommendation was, "immediately, vigorously and unani- 
 mously to exert themselves in the most firm, but peaceable 
 manner for obtaining relief," he added, "if an inveterate reso- 
 lution is formed to annihilate the liberties of the governed, 
 Efiglish history affords examples of resistance by force." As 
 Bancroft says, "the Farmer's Letters carried conviction 
 through the thirteen colonies." But they did more. They in a 
 great measure molded public sentiment. They united the 
 Colonies in sympathy and in action and encouraged them. 
 They became in fact the text-book of the Colonists on that 
 subject. Nowhere was the appreciation of the Farmer's op- 
 portune help more sincere than at Boston. A letter of thanks 
 reported to an adjourned town-meeting by a committee, 
 which included Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and Doctor 
 Warren, unanimously adopted and ordered to be published, 
 set forth the ol)ligations of America to him for a most reason- 
 able, sensible, loyal and vigorous vindication of her invaded 
 rights and liberties." The College of New Jersey, according 
 to a letter of Madison, then a student there, 1769, to his 
 father, conferrcnl the unusual honor of LL.D. upon "John 
 Dickinson the Farmer." 
 
 As events rapidly developed his position as an acknowl- 
 edged political leader in Pennsylvania gave him still more dc- 
 
 (14) 
 
eided prominence in Colonial affairs. It required no ordinary 
 ability to occupy such a position in Pennsylvania, on account 
 of the numerous conflicting, irreconcileable political factors. 
 Whilst at times he seems to check a popular tendency toward 
 a rupture with Great Britain, and consequent independence, a 
 closer study of the situation shows that he was in advance of 
 the controlling elements of the state in this respect, and com- 
 prehended fully the character, influence and numbers of those 
 "who cherished," as he puts it, "a passionate desire for recon- 
 ciliation with the mother country." 
 
 The Farmer's letters were unimpassioned, free from threats 
 or invective, appealing only to their rights as British subjects 
 under the Constitution; and without suggestion of inde- 
 pendence, they were as firm as they Avere concihatory. They 
 met the views fully of the Middle and Southern Colonies, 
 whose leading men like Dickinson were lawyers, many of 
 them trained in the Temple as he was. There were few law- 
 yers of that kind among the leaders of New England. Already 
 in the Stamp Act Parliament they began to speak of natural 
 rights, and to base their action on higher law. 
 
 Whilst American institutions may all today be considered 
 as resting on law higher even than written constitutions, 
 it was a doctrine not recognized then. We are familiar with 
 it now. It was that recognition of a higher law than consti- 
 tutional provisions that led to the great Civil War. and its 
 results. And even today should the rights of the people 
 become enmeshed in judiciary decisions, in which for any 
 reason they may have lost full confidence, appeal might be 
 made to the same higher law. But New England had not 
 only this revolutionary tendency, but it was naturally restive 
 under the repressive measures that affected it particularly. 
 Samuel Adams requested Dickinson to use his pen in their 
 behalf, suggesting the particular topic. Dickinson replied 
 courteously declining; but between the fines could be read, 
 that he only wrote from strong convictions of his own, and 
 under sense of public duty; not at the suggestion of, or to 
 please others. They sent Paul Revere from Boston to Phila- 
 
 (15) 
 
(lolphia, Ma}^, 1774, asking expression of sympathy and co- 
 operation, after the passage of the Boston Port Bill. They 
 called on Dickinson, knowing the influence of his name. 
 They were accompanied by some of his most intimate personal 
 friends, and tried in every way, to persuade him to be present at 
 a meetingto encourage the people of Boston. They tried the so- 
 cial cup, and even flattery as the author of the Farmer's Let- 
 ters. But he could not be brought to approve of their violent 
 measures. Finally, he consented to attend the meeting and 
 make a short speech expressing sympathy and advising them 
 to request the Governor to convene the Assembly to consider 
 the condition. In Dickinson's absence resolutions expressing 
 sympathy with Boston were drawn up, and suggesting pay- 
 ment for the tea that' had been destroyed. This letter was, 
 as John Adams said, "coldly received in Boston." Dickinson 
 lost and never recovered the place in their estimation; and 
 their historians taking their cue and their information from 
 them have at least been heedless in many cases of the injustice 
 done him, which has waited the tardy years for its complete 
 correction, as will be noted. Thus Bancroft, whilst he speaks 
 of him as having been taught from his infancy to love humanit}- 
 and liberty, and of his claims to public respect as indisputable, 
 of the honor showed for his spotless morals, of his eloquence 
 and services in the colonial Legislature, and of the writings 
 that had endeared him to America as a sincere friend of liberty, 
 speaks, in this connection, of his maturing a scheme in the 
 solitude of his retreat to control the meeting at Philadelphia 
 after the receipt of the Boston Port Bill, and that he embodied 
 with calculating reserve in a letter to Boston the system 
 which for the coming year was to form the poHcy of America. 
 Now we have seen that the course of Dickinson at this 
 meeting was delil)erately determined on in free consultation 
 with most ardent patriots, and with the approval of Charles 
 Thomspon, Secretary of the Congress, and styled for his 
 radical patriotism, the Sam. Adams of Philadeplhia. The 
 letter, though it did embody the policy of Dickinson, and 
 was long attributetl to him, was written by anotiier, during his 
 
 (16) 
 
absence from the meeting, and although received with im- 
 patience in Boston was endorsed by Sam. Adams, who con- 
 fessed himself fully of the Farmer's sentiments, "violence and 
 submission would be at this time equally fatal." But after 
 that so-called chilling letter to Boston, he took an active, a 
 controlling part in bringing Pennsylvania into line on that 
 point with the other Colonies. At a large meeting of citizens 
 in State House Square he presided; he had been active in call- 
 ing the meeting. It declared against the Boston Port Bill but 
 what was more practical created a Committee of Correspon- 
 dence, not simply with the other Colonies, but with similar 
 committees in all the counties of the Province, thus originating 
 the effective machinery for carrying out the resolves of the 
 people. Dickinson was made chairman of this committee. 
 It called a conference of delegates from the counties of the 
 Province. That irregularly constituted conference boldly 
 assumed not only to instruct the regular assembly to elect 
 delegates to a Congress of the Colonies, but to draw up com- 
 plete instructions as to the election and action of the dele- 
 gates. The conference passed three important papers, all 
 drawn up by Dickinson. With Galloway, a thorough loyalist 
 as speaker, the Assembly could not be expected to do any 
 thing of its own motion, but fearing if it did nothing the 
 Conference would act, and elect the delegates, it adopted 
 unanimously the recommendations of the Conference, but, 
 with a political cleverness equal to anything in our day, ex- 
 cluded Dickinson and others from eligibility, by confining, 
 the selection of delegates to members of the Assembly, of 
 which Dickinson was not then a member. It did seem sin- 
 gular that the "Farmer," who had done so much to create 
 and mold public sentiment should not be a member of the 
 body that was to formulate measures. But at the election, 
 Get. 17, 1774, he was elected to the Assembly of Pennsylvania, 
 with practical unanimity, and was immediately added to 
 the delegation in Congress. Here he was at once added to 
 the Committee appointed to prepare an address to the King, 
 and although it was only a week before the adjournment of the 
 
 (17) 
 
Congress, he drafted the paper, which with but Httle amend- 
 ment, was adopted. It was a paper described as penned 
 with extraordinary force and animation, frequently rising 
 to a high strain of eloquenice, and was one of the papers that 
 eUcited the celebrated encomium of Catham upon the Con- 
 tinental Congress. Its authorship was attributed to Adams, 
 and Henry and Lee, and at a comparativelj' recent date 
 was ascribed by an eminent individual in an historical address 
 to John Adams. But there is no question on this point. Even 
 Chief Justice John Marshall in his life of Washington attri- 
 buted it to Lee. Dickinson called his attention to it through 
 a friend, and also that in several volumes of published writings 
 of his, it was given as his, which could not have been done 
 without his knowledge, adding the following words: "The 
 question whether I wrote the first Petition to the King is of 
 little moment, but the question whether I have countenanced 
 an opinion that I did write it, though in reality I did not, is 
 to me of vast importance." The Chief Justice fully explained 
 his mistake, after an examination of the minutes of the Con- 
 gress, with expressions of sincere regret. 
 
 An address was also issued by this first Congress, 1774, 
 to the inhabitants of Quebec. This was a matter of great 
 delicacy, in view of its recent acquisition from France. This 
 paper entrusted to Dickinson had the same high character. 
 It was a clear and forcible statement to these people, lately 
 brought under English rule, of their rights as British subjects. 
 
 At this time he resided at his fine country seat of Fair 
 Hill, then one of th(» suburl)s of Philadelphia, now a densely 
 poi)ulated jiortion of it, surrounded by all the comforts and 
 advantage's of wealth and high social and prof(\ssional posi- 
 tion. His marriage with Miss Mary Norris, the daughter of 
 the Speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly, had no tendencj^ 
 to repress his literary or jiolitical activity. His mode of life 
 is frequently alluded to by John Achinis in his diary. In not- 
 ing his first meeting with him he says: "The Farmer of 
 Pennsylvania came in his coach with four beautiful horses 
 to see us." His residence he afterward characterized as "very 
 
 (18) 
 
fine with its beautiful prospect of tlie city, the river, the coun- 
 try, the gardens and the very grand library." The latter 
 was very largely the accumulation of his father-in-law, Isaac 
 Norris, the Speaker of the Assembly of Pennsylvania, whose 
 book-plate appears in many volumes in the College library, 
 presented by Dickinson. With magnificent hospitality, 
 characteristic of the Philadelphia of that day, he welcomed 
 the delegates from the sister Colonies to that first Continental 
 Congress, and earnestly and anxiously discussed the crisis 
 in public affairs. How his conduct was regarded by the Gov- 
 ernment of Great Britian is best indicated by the fact that 
 this Mansion of Fair Hill was destroyed after the battle of 
 Germantown as the property of the "d — d rebel Dickinson." 
 
 After the adjournment of the Congress, it was of the ut- 
 most importance to have the measures adopted by it — 
 endorsed by the separate Colonies. Dickinson made it a 
 point to attend the Assembly of Pennsylvania, and there, 
 in spite of Galloway, the experienced and shrewd and popular 
 leader of the large and influential loyalist faction, he secured 
 the approval of the proceedings of the Congress; and Pennsyl- 
 cania was under his leadership thus the first Colony to take 
 such action. But he went further, as Chairman of the Com- 
 mittee of Correspondence of the Colony, its directing and 
 organizing body, he called a convention to meet in Philadel- 
 phia in Jan., 1775, which was only the second convention of 
 the kind called. There he urged the observance of the non- 
 importation act. Whilst he was working and hoping for a 
 peaceable solution of the difficulties with the mother country, 
 he was no less active in organizing a military force for any 
 possible emergency. A petition was presented by the Com- 
 mittee to the Assembly urging the organization of a Committee 
 of Safety and Defence, of which Dickinson was made Chair- 
 man; and of the five batallions of Volunteers — called Asso- 
 ciaters — he was elected Colonel of the first batallion. 
 
 But the Congress that met in May, 1775, proceeded 
 cautiously. The impulsive leaders of the New England 
 delegation were decided for independence. They were im- 
 
 (19) 
 
patient of any opposition. The more thouglitful statesmen 
 of the MidcUe Colonies and some of th(^ soutliern had not yet 
 reached that point. Dickinson still hoped that all rights 
 might be secured as British sul)jects. With him, as opposed 
 to a declaration of independence at that time, were James 
 Wilson and Robert Morris and Read of Delaware, and many 
 others and especially a great part of the population of Penn- 
 sylvania. Whilst engaged vigorously in militarj' preparations 
 Dickinson urged another last effort at conciliation in the form 
 of a second Petition to the King, thinking doubtless that, per- 
 haps, the lessons of Bunker Hill and Lexington might have 
 convinced him of the seriousness at least of the conflict. The 
 motion was violently opposed by John Adams. He spoke in 
 unrestrained language of all who advocated it. Dickinson, 
 too, it is said, lost his temper in the discussion. But the petition 
 was ordered, and as usual Dickinson was appointed to draft 
 it, with about the only result of causing him to be included 
 by the King in his proclamation as a dangerous and designing 
 man. But these efforts though sincere for a peaceable solution 
 ditl not check the preparations for the defence of their rights 
 by force. Congress ordered the preparation of a "Declara- 
 tion of the Causes and Necessit}' for taking up Arms, ' ' which was 
 entrusted as the others had been to Dickinson. It was an able, 
 statesmanlike paper. Although it sought to quiet the fears 
 of those who were unfavorable to independence l\y asserting 
 that, "Necessity had not driven them into that tlesperate 
 measure," it also declared "we can not endure the infamy 
 of quietly resigning succeeding genei*ations to that wretched- 
 ness which inevitably awaits them, if we basel}' entail hered- 
 itary bondage upon them. We most solemnly before God 
 declare that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers 
 which our beneficent creator has graciously bestowed upon 
 us the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assunae, 
 we will in defiance of every hazard, with una])ating firmm^ss 
 and perseverance employ for the preservation of our liberties, 
 being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than live 
 slaves." According to Bancroft this Declaration was rend 
 
 (20) 
 
on the 15 th of July, by the President of Harrvad College to 
 the army of Washington at Cambridge, and on the 18th 
 was read at Prospect Hill, amid such shouts that the British 
 on Bunker Hill put themselves in array for battle." But 
 the same eminent historian ascribes a portion, at least, of 
 the address to Jefferson, without even mentioning Dickin- 
 son's name in connection with it at all. Another historian 
 says of it, "That production was one of the most popular 
 ones ever issued by Congress. It was read amid thundering 
 huzzas in every market place, and amid fervent prayers in 
 nearly every pulpit in the Colonies. The commanders read 
 it at the head of our Armies. It was quoted again and again 
 admiringly in history." 
 
 Fortunately now it has been placed beyond a reasonable 
 doubt that Dickinson was the author of the whole of it. It 
 was published among his writings in full during his life time 
 in 1801. That would seem sufficient, from the well-known 
 character of Dickinson. But twenty years after his death 
 the nephew of Jefferson attributed the last four paragraphs 
 to Jefferson. His statement was based on a memorandum 
 of Jefferson, when 77 years old, in effect that the first Com- 
 mittee made a report on the Declaration that was not satis- 
 factory to Congress; that he and Dickinson were then added 
 to the Committee; that he drew an address too strong for 
 Dickinson; that it was given to Dickinson, of whom he speaks 
 in that connection as "so able and honest a man," to put in 
 a shape that he could approve; and that he reported it, re- 
 taining only the last four and a half paragraphs, which are 
 the paragraphs usually quoted. Apart from question of 
 style, and other considerations, the question has been decided 
 by the discovery of the original first draft of the whole. In 
 the report of an expert,* who made an exhaustive examination 
 of the whole question, he says: "There is no room whatever 
 for doubt. The suggestion of imitation or forgery is excluded. 
 No person but the author himself ever had any hand in the 
 
 *John Dickinson, the vVulhor of the Declaration on Taking up Arms, 
 in 1775, by George H. Moore, LL. D., Superintendent of Lenox Library, 
 New York, MDCCCXC. 
 
 (21) 
 
preparation of this document. It is in the handwriting of 
 John Dickinson, and these corrections, additions, interhnea- 
 tions, revisions in number, extent, position and character 
 forbid the supposition that he copied any portion of this paper 
 from a draft by Mr. Jefferson, or any other person. It is the 
 original first draft of the whole, and the proof of it is in no 
 portion of the whole more conspicuous and certain than in 
 the last four paragraphs and a half." A sight of the fac 
 simile tends to confirm this opinion by reason of the number 
 and character of the interlineations, etc. It shows too, in- 
 cidentally, the care with which these historic documents, 
 that may well be regarded as great American classics, were 
 prepared and finished, not simply thrown off rapidly and 
 carelessly. The comparison as to hand-writing was made 
 with the authentic drafts of one of the Petitions to the King 
 andthe Address to the Inhabitants of Quebec, before alluded to. 
 It might have been an easy matter for Jefferson, after lapse of 
 so many years, at the age of 77, to have erred in his recollec- 
 tion insofar as to confuse verbal with written suggestions. But 
 the style and diction of the address are that of Dickinson. 
 
 But as member of the Secret Committee of Foreign Af- 
 fairs in that Congress he performed most valuable service, 
 for which he was perhaps better fitted than any other; and 
 as member of the Committee ordered to prepare a plan for 
 treaties with foreign powers, he reported the draft. At same 
 time as member of the Committee on Confederation of the 
 Colonies, it fell to his lot to report the original draft of the 
 Confederation. 
 
 In all this time the (piestion of Independence was coming 
 to the front, and injected into all discussions. Although in 
 commenting u])<)n the Farmer's Letters, Bancroft, the great 
 historian, remarks, that he came forth before the Continent 
 as the ('hamj)i()n of Ameri(;an rights, he at the same time 
 stated none too strongly tiie other side of his character as 
 an enthusiast in his love for England, "who accepted the 
 und(^fine(l relations of the Parliament to the Colonies as a 
 perpetual coinpi'oinise." In this lie was sustained by the 
 
 (22) 
 
whole country. In the language of the Boston letter of thanks 
 to him it was by "leaning on the pillars of the British Consti- 
 tution that he had instructed America in the best means to 
 obtain redress." Although the second petition to the King 
 was regarded with impatience, especially by those from New 
 England, it was in accordance with the judgment and ardent 
 wishes of many eminent patriots. But upon its rejection by 
 the King the question of Independence at once assumed great 
 prominence, and Dickinson became the ablest, or perhaps 
 it would be more correct to say the most persistent opponent 
 of an immediate Declaration, as John Adams may be regarded 
 as the ablest advocate of that measure. The patriotism and 
 the abihty of neither could be called in question. They were 
 the products and representatives of essentially different 
 political, social and religious conditions. The impulse for 
 independence came from New England. Those Colonies 
 with royal governors were in frequent conflict with the Crown. 
 Their interests clashed with Royal prerogatives; they became 
 famiharized with the language of opposition and rebelHon, 
 and thej^ were the first to feel the oppression and realise the 
 designs of the British Ministry. Pennsylvania, on the other 
 hand, under its proprietary form of Government, with many 
 special privileges, in its disputes with the Proprietaries was 
 accustomed to look to the King for relief. Again Adams 
 was of a people that always I'egarded war as a means to accom- 
 plish the divine purposes; their acquisitions from the natives 
 were by war; whilst Dickinson was surrounded by influences 
 adverse to war as an agent of good ; and the peaceable con- 
 quests of his Province were regarded by many as the proudest 
 incidents of its history. Add to these influences the conser- 
 vatism natural to wealth, high social position and literary 
 tastes, and it seems natural that the Pennsylvania leader 
 should differ on many points from the New Englander. Both 
 were deeply thoughtful as well as earnest and sincere. Adams 
 no less than Dickinson .realized the momentous character 
 of the measure advocated. The petitions to the King were 
 not mere skirmishes for position on the part of Dickinson 
 
 (23) 
 
in a conflict regarded as inevitable. They were sincere in 
 every expression of loyalty, and were written with the earnest 
 hope that they might accomplish their purpose, and that 
 "England might be induced to return to her old good humor 
 her old good nature." At the same time he was jealous of 
 every right as a British subject, under the British Constitu- 
 tion, and willing to defend them by force if necessary. Neither 
 was his view of the destiny of America more contracted or 
 wanting in range than that of the other. He did not look 
 upon the Continent of America as an appendage to the British 
 State, but as an integral part of a grand British Empire. An 
 American was not simply to him a reproduced Briton. "Here," 
 he wrote with almost prophetic vision, "individauls of all 
 nations are melted into a new race of men, whose labors and 
 posterity will one day cause great changes in the world. 
 Americans are the Western pilgrims who are carrying along 
 with them that great mass of arts and sciences, of vigor and 
 industry which began long since in the East. They will 
 finish the great circle." Whilst it seems natural that Adams 
 coming from New England, suffering from the measures of 
 the Ministry, with his conclusions as clearly reached in regard 
 to the ultimate issue as the q. e. d. of a mathematical demon- 
 stration, should have been impatietit of any measure or any 
 man that delayed the inevitable, it was equally natural for 
 Dickinson, the Pennsylvania leader, to court delay as long 
 as any hope of reconciliation could be entertained. And 
 yet there was no reason why their common earnest and un- 
 selfish interest in the welfare of what they regarded as their 
 common country should not have made those leaders fast 
 friends, in spite of their decided differences on many points. 
 They met first during the Congress of 1774. Adams, to use 
 his own words, "had found Dickinson a very modest man, 
 and very ingenious as well as agreeable, with an excellent 
 heart, and the cause of his country near it; he had spent a 
 deliglitful time with him; had had "sweet communion in which 
 Dickinson gave liis thouglits and correspondence very freely." 
 In tlie foreign policy of the Colonies they were fully in accord. 
 
 (24) 
 
But it was the accidental capture of letters written bj'^ Adams 
 during the debate on the second petition to the King, and their 
 publication by the British which led to a life-long estrange- 
 ment, which no one regretted more than Adams. The fact 
 simply of the letter and its results as given by Bancroft, 
 without an intimation of the regret of Adams hardly does 
 justice to that statesman. He explains in his diary that he 
 wrote the letter hastily on account of the importunity of a 
 friend, and at a time when he was provoked at what he con- 
 sidered a magisterial lecture from Mr. Dickinson, and perhaps 
 smarting even more over his defeat by him in Congress. 
 In the correspondence of his latter years he admits the im- 
 portant part the petitions to the King played as overlooked 
 by him at the time, and speaks of the reputation of these 
 compositions as a splendid distinction. 
 
 Considering it in all its bearings the statement that 
 Dickinson was the leading opponent of the Declaration im- 
 peaches neither his courage, his patriotism nor his statesman- 
 ship. He regarded it as premature. He recognized a great 
 want of unanimity among the colonists, and an earnest, faith- 
 ful body of friends of America in England. In his view many 
 measures should have preceded so decisive a step. As he read 
 history he found causes for fear in the diverse interests and 
 characters and the jealousies of the several colonies, and 
 that without an umpire, such as they had in England, they 
 might become a prey to foreign domination. He desired that 
 the most threatening of inter-colonial questions should be 
 settled, and a firm form of Confederation established, so 
 that the weight of a united country could be thrown into the 
 contest. He also thought that more favorable terms could 
 be secured from foreign governments before than after a 
 declaration, and was opposed to any measure that looked like 
 sacrificing independence of foreign governments for inde- 
 pendence of England. In addition, as a Pennsylvania poli- 
 tican, the leading one on the patriot side, he understood the 
 great bitterness, as well as diversity of feeling existing in 
 that colony among the different factions. With some others 
 
 (25) 
 
he had taken pains to travel through the doubtful counties 
 of Pennsylvania to ascertain directly the temper of the people. 
 He felt that he had the confidence of all parties. He had 
 been elected after his advocacy of the second petition, prac- 
 tically, without opposition, in spite of the censures of New 
 England men. He kenw, as Doctor Rush has stated it, that 
 John Adams, after the intercepted letter reflecting on him 
 had been published, had "walked the streets of Philadelphia 
 alone, an object of nearly universal scorn and detestation." 
 The instructions of the Asssembly that appointed him a 
 delegate were explicit against a declaration of independence. 
 The majority of the Pennsylvania delegation were opposed 
 to it, including James Wilson, Robert Morris and George 
 Ross. The Convention called to supercede the regular gov- 
 ernment, with but a minority in control, he regarded not only 
 as usurpation, but as unnecessary. The whole proceedings 
 remind us of the manner in which many of the Southern 
 States were carried into the secession movement, which we 
 then termed bull-dozing. The constitution that that Conven- 
 tion adopted on Tom Paine's model, and not submitted to the 
 people, was impracticable, and kept the State in a condition 
 bordering on anarchy during the whole war, and for some 
 time afterward. However necessary revolutionary measures 
 may have been in other states, with Royal Governors, the 
 government of Pennsylvania was in the hands of the people 
 and its patriot leaders, with Dickinson at the head, felt that 
 they were bringing the people with them to the point, at which 
 the State, through its regularly constituted government 
 would throw its whole, and great weight into the contest. 
 It seemed worth a few months of delay to accomplish this. 
 On the other hand it is natural that the interference and 
 dictation of the New Englanders, and their revolutionary 
 interference with matters strictly belonging to Pennsylvania 
 should not have been kindly received on the part of the recog- 
 nized leaders of the Provin('(\ This view of Dickinson's 
 motives and policy is in accordance with the account of 
 Charles Thompson, Secretary of the Congress, and as we 
 
 (26) 
 
have said, styled for his radical patriotism the Sam. Adams 
 of Pennsylvania. He expressed the opinion, that "had the 
 Whigs of the Assembly of Pennsylvania been left to pursue 
 their own measures there is every reason to believe they would 
 have affected their purpose, prevented that disunion which 
 has unhappil}^ taken place, and brought the whole Province 
 as one man with all its force and weight of government, 
 into the common cause." In the final debate side by side 
 with Dickinson from Pennsylvania was the great lawyer and 
 statesman James Wilson, and Robert Morris, and George 
 Ross. Although they yielded at the last moment; as Bancroft 
 says, Dickinson would have held it guilt to suppress his opin- 
 ions, and the ruling motives of his whole public life were 
 condensed in his prefatory remark: "I value the love of my 
 country as I ought, but I value my country more; I desire 
 this illustrious assembly to witness the integrity if not the 
 policy of my conduct." His position of hesitation is expressed 
 in his closing remarks: "Upon the whole, when things shall 
 be thus deliberately rendered firm at home and favorable 
 abroad, then let America 'Attollens hiimeris famavi et fata 
 nepotum' advance with majestic steps and assume her station 
 among the sovereigns of the world." Hildreth regarded this 
 opposition of Dickinson to the Declaration "as an example 
 of moral courage of which there are few instances in our his- 
 tory." The vote of Pennsylvania was cast on the first day, 4 
 to 3 against independence. On the second day Morris and 
 Dickinson absented themselves and allowed the three others 
 to constitute a majority to cast the vote of Pennsylvania 
 for the Declaration. Morris, however, signed the Declara- 
 tion, but saying that "in his poor opinion it \vill neither pro- 
 mote the interest, or redound to the honor of America, for 
 it has caused division where we wanted union." As we have 
 already stated Dickinson did not sign the Declaration he could 
 not vote for, but instead wont to the front at once with his 
 regiment to repel a threatened attack — to support a Declara- 
 tion his countrymen had made contrary to his best and de- 
 liberate judgment. His bitter political opponents in Pennsyl- 
 
 , (27) 
 
vania, with the poHtical machinery in their hands, however, 
 deposed him from leadership. Another was elected who 
 would sign the Declaration. He withdrew to Delaware on 
 approach of the British to Philadelphia. The patriotic party 
 there soon offered him a seat in the Continental Congress 
 from that State, which, although urged by Rush and Thomp- 
 son to accept, he declined. But in 1779, when the affairs of 
 the Colonies were in a desperate condition he accepted, urged 
 to do so by Jay, President of Congress. He was welcomed 
 back, and at once given important duties. As Chairman of 
 Committee to prepare a report on the finances, which seemed 
 to be in a hopeless condition, he took advantage of the op- 
 portunity to impress upon the Colonies the weakness of their 
 Federal Union. The relations with France and Spain involved 
 questions of highest character in regard to the Mississippi 
 Valley, the fisheries, etc., in connection with negotiations 
 for treaties ; and the instructions to Adams, then Commissioner 
 to England, as prepared by Dickinson were substantially 
 those agreed upon in the treaty of 1783. He resigned his 
 seat in 1779, and on his return to Delaware, in spite of his 
 protestations, was made President of the State. In 1782 he 
 returned to Philadelphia, where the fight was bitter between 
 those who upheld the Constitution of 1776, and the Anti- 
 Constitutionalists, who regarded it as inadequate, as well as 
 revolutionary ; practically the old fight renewed. The bitterest 
 personalities were indulged in against him, but he was made 
 President of the new State. Year after year, for three years — 
 the limit, he was re-elected, and conducted an administration 
 successful in dealing with some questions of highest delicacy 
 and moment, of which we have not time to speak. 
 
 In 1786, on his return to Delaware, he was appointed 
 Commissioner from that State to meet Commissioners from 
 the other States, upon the invitation of Virginia, at Anna- 
 polis, to recommend measures to the States for making 
 their Union of States more effective. Only six States 
 had representatives there. He was made President of the 
 Convention, and was entrusted with making a report to 
 
 (28) 
 
Congress, the suggestions of which were adoppted February, 
 1787, out of which grew the Convention which formed the 
 Constitution of the United States. He was a member of that 
 Convention from Delaware, to this last Convention, then of 
 the States, as he had been, as you may recall, a member of 
 the first, or Stamp Act Congress, in 1765, and had controlled 
 that turbulent body, and had given efficacy to its proceedings. 
 In the Continental Congress he had originated the plan for 
 the federation of the Colonies which, with all its inevitable 
 weaknesses, which no one knew better than he, carried the 
 Colonies through the war, and now, in this last Convention, 
 of which he was to be a member, he played an important 
 part in perfecting the form of government we now enjoy. 
 He expressed there a doubt as to the policy of interweaving 
 with a Republican constituiton a veneration for wealth in de- 
 ciding the question of suffrage. But the question on which 
 the Convention almost broke up, with various propositions 
 for its solution, was the representation of the State in the 
 proposed legislature — whether by States as in the old Congress 
 or according to population. Dickinson was foremost in solving 
 this most delicate question; and on his motion, unanimously 
 agreed to, the Constitution of the U. S. Senate was fixed. 
 Many other provisions were ably discussed by him. 
 
 After the formation of the Constitution by the Conven- 
 tion, the question of its adoption by the States became the 
 overshadowing one, and was warmly contested. Dickinson 
 wrote a. series of letters, over the signature of Fabius, dis- 
 cussing its provisions and advocating its adoption. After 
 its adoption, however, the country was still divided into two 
 great parties, the one — the Federalists — construing its pro- 
 visions Hberally, with a tendency toward centralization; 
 the other, the Anti-Federalists, led by Jefferson, holding to a 
 strict construction, and limitation of the powers of the general 
 government. Dickinson, aHhough independent on many 
 points, adhered to the latter. He was an intimate personal 
 friend and admirer of Jefferson, as well as political correspon- 
 dent. Thus he "hailed the election of Jefferson with un- 
 
 (29) 
 
feigned satisfaction." He thought that "our influence ought 
 not to be confined to the hmits of our land." In a letter to 
 Jefferson, Jan. 22, 1804, he Avrites: ''The persevering hatred 
 of the Federalists afflicts me whenever I think of it. It is 
 ominous;" then complimenting his admisistration, he says: 
 "History has been a favorite study with me, and I can with 
 truth declare that in all its pages I have never met with such 
 an instance of embittered and unprovoked hostility, yet in 
 defiance of all this rage thy country loves thee." In this 
 letter is noticeable, too, his return to the plain speech of the 
 Quakers in his later hfe. 
 
 When urged to become a Senator from Delaware under 
 the Constitution of the United States, he declined on the 
 ground of health, and said no one could form any idea of the 
 distress from weakness of the body that he had undergone 
 by endeavoring to sustain a public position with some de- 
 cency whilst laboring under such infirmities. 
 
 His marriage to Mary Norris in 1770 was a very quiet 
 one, in presence of immediate relatives, and by a justice of 
 the peace — instead of in Friends Meeting — a fact deplored 
 by some of her friends. But some how they lived happy 
 ever afterward. In a journey by carriage to the Western 
 parts of the State they came as far as Carlisle, so that when 
 the question of establishing a College at this point in the far 
 west was considered, they were not entirely wanting in in- 
 formation in regard to it. He was liberal to all worthy causes. 
 His interest in higher education was manifested by gift of a 
 fund of S500 to Princeton College, the interest to be applied 
 as a prize for the best essay on several subjects. At the found- 
 ing of Dickinson College he gave a plantation of 200 acres 
 in what is now Adams Co., and one of 300 acres in Cumberland 
 County, and what may be even more, he gave' 1500 volumes, 
 saved from the library at Fair Hill, when it was destroyed 
 by the British. At the organization of the College, in 1784, 
 after a sermon in the Ei)iscopal church in Carlisle, he de- 
 livered an able address in the Court House. He had a great 
 admiration for Dr. Nisbet, the first President, and contributed 
 
 (30) 
 
liberally to his comfort. In his last years at Wilmington he 
 was loved and respected of all, and regarded by all as an im- 
 portant political character. At his death, in 1808, both houses 
 of Congress passed resolutions expressive of his high services 
 to his country. 
 
 Whether he signed the Declaration, or whether he advo- 
 cated or opposed it never seemed to have any influence on 
 those who lived in that period. 
 
 It may be more of a question today, with fuller know- 
 ledge of the facts, as to how far the able opposition of such 
 men as James Wilson, Robert Morris, John Dickinson and 
 others contributed to the ultimate success of the Revolution 
 by any delay occasioned, or how much unnecessary suffer- 
 ing and sacrifice was occasioned by haste, or to put it other- 
 wise, in how far the Revolution succeeded in spite of, rather 
 than by reason of such haste. But after all it was the spirit 
 of the American people, based on a knowledge of their rights 
 and the peril to them, that made the Declaration the historic 
 document it became; and no one disputed, not even those 
 who assailed him most bitterly, that he played a leading part, 
 from the very beginning, in the education of the American 
 people up to a just comprehension of their rights and the prop- 
 er way to secure them, and did more to inspire them with that 
 enduring patriotic devotion that carried them through the 
 long and often disheartening struggle. 
 
 Had he been more selfishly ambitious and less scrupu- 
 lous in the use of means, it may be safely said he might have 
 reached higher political position. 
 
 His military record has been touched upon lightly. He did it 
 is true almost inaugurate the military preparations of Penn- 
 sylvania. He did go to the front at first call after the Decla- 
 ration; he was, I suppose, a sort of emergency man at the 
 battle of Brandywine. But these can not be regarded as 
 more than mere incidents in the life of this great man. They 
 had it is true their moral effect; they did show not only that 
 he was not wanting in physical courage, but the extent ot 
 
 (31) 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 n III in 1 :' 
 
 011 769 106 8 
 
 the sacrifice he was wilUng to make, for he had no miUtary 
 ambition to incite him. 
 
 His part in that great struggle was not mihtary, but 
 to present the cause of his country as it appeared to him with 
 such clearness and eloquence and boldness as his great abili- 
 ties enabled him to do, backed by a character that his coun- 
 trymen regarded as unimpeachable. In these days there 
 were many good generals, many great statesmen, there were 
 enough signers to give character to the Declaration, but 
 there was but one, John Dickinson, and Pennsylvania may 
 well be proud of her share in him. 
 
 (32) 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 769 106 8