JK 
 
 .h(o 
 
t^>^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 \^^^ 
 
 
 
 
 •r 'X^v: -^- 
 
 
 
 
 \ ^-y^' 
 
 // O 
 
 ^^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 ■- .R 
 
 
 
 •^ ' i 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 . iJ -,;-;■.< <' 
 
 -^ 
 
 "a^"^ 
 
 
 
 '' / 
 
 
 n o^ 
 
 ^o 
 
 
 \°°^ 
 
 .'f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ ..^'^ 
 
 
 - ^ » . •■ ■• A^ , . « '^/ ' " • 
 
 

 ; ^"^ 
 
 v^ A 
 
 .<-^' 
 
 > .. V 8 * -/ 
 
 "<^ <^^ 
 
 .0 o 
 
 
 , °^ * .0 K ^ ^# 
 
 ^' * ^, -> 
 
 
 v\ 
 
 V I fi 
 
 ., \ ^ ,(,^ ^ 
 
 v^^' '^/>. 
 
 x- -'z 
 
 
 
 
 ^>^ v^ 
 
 J 1 ^ 
 
 
 ■> « ^ -^ " O N 
 
 
 
 
 s V 
 
 ■'o_ 
 
 )yO^^ 
 
 ^0- 
 
 
 S I \ 
 
 <? 
 
 ^-^ .^'^ 
 
 <\ 
 
 V 1 8 
 
 ^. ■%. v-^^ 
 
 0^ 
 
 \^ 
 
 :mi-' 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 
 ^^- 
 
A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 OR THE POLITICAL IDEALS OF 
 THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES 
 
A 
 
 HERITAGE o/ FREEDOM 
 
 OR 
 
 THE POLITICAL IDEALS OF THE 
 ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES 
 
 BY 
 MATTHEW PAGE ANDREWS 
 
 AUTHOR OF "HISTORY OP THE UNITED STATES." 
 
 "BRIEF HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES." 
 
 ETC. 
 
 NEW YORK 
 GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 
 

 COPYRIGHT, 1918, 
 BY GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 
 
 ^PR (3 1918 
 
 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
to the distinguished political heir op 
 Sir Edwin Sandys and Thomas Jefferson 
 
 THE VISCOUNT BRYCE 
 
 in addition TO THE OBLIGATION OWED BY 
 ALL FOR HIS GREAT PUBLIC SERVICES, THE 
 AUTHOR GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGES HIS PER- 
 SONAL INDEBTEDNESS FOR MANY KINDNESSES 
 
PREFACE 
 
 FOR invaluable criticism, helpful suggestions, and 
 generous encouragement in the preparation of 
 these pages, the author is indebted not only to a num- 
 ber of noted historians and scholars engaged in the 
 two-fold work of research and interpretation, but 
 also to men of liberal sympathies, broad interests, and 
 extended contact with the affairs and peoples of 
 many lands. 
 
 —M. P. A. 
 
 vii 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 FOR more than a hundred years, the people of two 
 great English-speaking nations in North America 
 have faced each other on a border line of several 
 thousand miles without the expenditure of a dollar on 
 the construction of fortifications on land or warships 
 on the Lakes as a protection or a menace to either 
 country. 
 
 In Europe, on the other hand, along a border line 
 only one-thirtieth as long, two nations have spent, in 
 fifty years, more than fifty times the amount of 
 money that the United States invested in securing 
 the 895,000 square miles of territory known as the 
 Louisiana Purchase. 
 
 This contrast illustrates the difference between a 
 continuous peace and a constant menace or open 
 conflict. Such a state of peace as that which has 
 existed in America was not created by fiat; nor has 
 it been the conception of mere dreamers. It is due 
 to the fact that, in Canada and in the United States, 
 the ideals of the two English-speaking peoples have 
 been the same, and the governments have been re- 
 sponsive to the will of two free and intelligent peo- 
 ples who have come to think of each other only in 
 terms of friendship. 
 
 Despite these long-maintained amicable relations 
 
 ix 
 
X INTRODUCTION 
 
 with an important part of the British Commonwealth, 
 the older American histories have, by their treatment 
 of the Revolutionary conflict and the War of 1812, 
 helped to create an active anti-British sentiment. 
 They have elaborated upon the comparatively brief 
 clashes with the British Government in a manner that 
 is out of all proportion to the attention given to a 
 period ten times as long of reciprocal good offices 
 and of peaceful intercourse between the two nations. 
 Against the former teachings that, in 1776, the 
 Americans were a united people struggling against 
 unmitigated oppression and tyranny, the historian of 
 to-day shows how the separation of the two great 
 branches of the English-speaking peoples was the re- 
 sult of an armed conflict between the then autocratic 
 and unpopular government of Great Britain under 
 George III on the one side and an active patriot party 
 representing about a third of the people of the British 
 colonies in America on the other. 
 
 This new history would also make it clear that 
 the patriot party in America succeeded in establish- 
 ing an independent government, not solely by force 
 of arms but also by reason of the fact that the aggres- 
 sive acts of the personal government of George III 
 were opposed by the same sort of people in England 
 that had set up the standards of liberty in America. 
 The sympathies of the English people were not with 
 the war waged by a minority ministry in Britain, 
 but rather with the principles and ideals of their 
 fellow countrymen of the patriot party in America. 
 
 The blundering government of George III fell, 
 
INTRODUCTION XI 
 
 therefore, before the armed opposition in America 
 and the political opposition at home. The American 
 Eevolution had, in like manner, a double result — it 
 secured the self-government of the revolted colonies 
 in America, on the one hand, and the final overthrow 
 of royal rule in the mother country, on the other. In 
 America, George Washington soon became known as 
 the ''Father of his Country"; but he was later ac- 
 claimed in the British Parliament as the * ' Founder of 
 the British Commonwealth, ' ' which now comprises the 
 British Isles, Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New 
 Zealand, and South Africa. The present union be- 
 tween these five colonial offshoots and the mother 
 country represents, in actual practice, Thomas Jeffer- 
 son's expressed theory of what such a union should 
 be; for, in the original draft of the Declaration of 
 Independence, Jefferson wrote: *'We have reminded 
 them [the British] of the circumstances of our emi- 
 gration and settlement here . . . that these were ef- 
 fected at the expense of our own blood and treasure, 
 unassisted by the wealth or the strength of Great 
 Britain [the Crown and Government]. That in con- 
 stituting indeed our several forms of government, we 
 had adopted one common king, therelij laying a 
 foundation for perpetual league and amity with 
 them; hut that submission to their Parliament was no 
 part of our constitution." Had these facts been rec- 
 ognised by the British Government, Jefferson con- 
 tinued: ^^We might have heen a free amd a great 
 people together." * 
 
 *See quotation from statement of Edward Eider, made in 
 1623, page 20. 
 
Xll INTRODUCTION 
 
 It is well known that political misunderstandings 
 lead to war; but it is not generally realised that his- 
 torical misconceptions are equally dangerous to the | 
 peace of nations. Especially is this true if these mis- 
 conceptions keep alive an unreasonable distrust of a 
 friendly nation. The maintenance of such distrust is 
 illustrated by a review of our generally accepted treat- 
 ment of Anglo-American relations; yet it is easily 
 demonstrable that, for a period of one hundred years, 
 the increasingly liberal British government has been 
 the most powerful external support of Pan-American 
 democracy. Since the War of 1812, many serious 
 difficulties which have arisen between Great Britain 
 and the United States have been settled by arbitra- 
 tion, in sharp contrast with the methods in vogue be- 
 tween other great Powers. When these disputes were 
 decided to the disadvantage of Great Britain, the de- 
 cisions were accepted with good grace. In other 
 instances, Britain has, without arbitration, yielded to 
 America the points at issue. As far as the actual 
 results are concerned, it is quite beside the point 
 whether the motives of the British government have 
 been altruistic or wholly selfish; but it seems clear 
 that the far-flung British Commonwealth has been the 
 natural ally of America in the cause of freedom and 
 peace. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Founding of Democracy in America 17 
 
 Beginnings of Anglo-American Democracy ... 26 
 
 The Progress of Democracy in Britain and 
 
 Colonial America . 34 
 
 Autocracy Severs the Bonds of Political Union 47 
 
 Origin of Political Misunderstanding in His- 
 torical Misconceptions .53 
 
 The Dawn of Anglo-American Peace 58 
 
 Anglo-American Democracy Confronts the Forces 
 
 OF Pan-European Autocracy 62 
 
 A Century of Anglo-American Disagreements 
 
 Settled by Discussion and Arbitration ... 70 
 
 Bibliographical Suggestions 97 
 
 Appendix 101 
 
 Index • 105 
 
 xui 
 
A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
A HERITAGE OF 
 FREEDOM 
 
 Founding of Democracy in America 
 
 AFTER James, King of Scotland, had been pro- 
 claimed King of England in 1603, he entered 
 London by way of Aldersgate. A few years later, 
 this despotically inclined ruler declared his intention 
 to memorialise Aldersgate as the point where his 
 Royal Highness entered the English capital. Auto- 
 cratic rulers had preceded James on the English 
 throne, but none of them had held the office of king 
 in such high repute and the rights of the people in 
 such disdain. In short, James I insisted that since 
 he was a ruler by divine authority, he could not be 
 held accountable to or by the people. 
 
 He caused, therefore, to be put in high relief upon 
 the memorial arch the sculptured figure of himself 
 in royal robes. Desiring, also, to lay emphasis upon 
 the theory of the ** divine right of kings,'' he se- 
 lected appropriate passages from the Old Testament 
 for inscription on the historic arch under which he 
 had passed. On the east side he caused to be writ- 
 ten; ''Then shall enter into the gates of this city 
 
 17 
 
18 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 Kings and Princes. ' ' On the west side he inscribed : 
 "And Samuel said unto all Israel, Behold, I have 
 hearkened unto your voice in all that you have said 
 unto me, and have made a KING over you."* 
 
 It was a strange twist of fate that within a stone's 
 cast of the Aldersgate arch there should have then 
 been standing the house of Sir Edwin Sandys, who 
 was destined to establish, in defiance of the British 
 King and Spanish intrigue, the principles of repre- 
 sentative democracy in the New World. While the 
 royal arch was under construction, there gathered in 
 this house, from time to time, a number of the choicest 
 spirits of the Elizabethan Age. As James I sought to 
 strengthen the bonds of autocracy, Sir Edwin Sandys 
 and his group of English patriots met together to 
 devise a way of breaking those bonds and thereby 
 setting the people free. Sandys and his associates 
 were the forerunners of the English and American pa- 
 triots and statesmen, such as Hampden, Pym, Crom- 
 well, Pitt, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madi- 
 son. 
 
 Since it seemed that democracy could not then be 
 established in the Old World, Sir Edwin and his 
 associates determined to attempt it in the New. As 
 this great apostle of liberty looked out of his win- 
 
 * Cf. * ' Here my grandfather again, by his own right, set the 
 Prussian crown upon Ms head, once more distinctly emphasis- 
 ing the fact that it was accorded him by the will of God alone 
 . . . and that he looked upon himself as the chosen instrument 
 of heaven. . . . LooMng upon myself as the instrument of the 
 Lord, without regard to the opinions and intentions of the day, 
 I go my way.'' 
 
 ^—^rom speech of William II at Koenigsl>erg^ August 25, 1910, 
 
FOUNDING OF DEMOCEACY IN AMERICA 19 
 
 dows upon the Gate through which the self-willed 
 autocrat had entered, his imagination must have pic- 
 tured a free people going forth from it who should 
 carry with them principles of political progress, 
 popular enlightenment, and religious liberty. Brav- 
 ing, therefore, the dungeon cell and the executioner's 
 axe, he deliberately planned what now seems to have 
 been the ** Greatest Political Experiment op the 
 Ages.*' 
 
 The name and fame of Sandys have been obscured 
 through the ruthless attacks of a vindictive autocrat 
 and his licensed historians; for James I began to 
 realise, just too late, that Sandys had prepared a very 
 definite plan for the subversion of autocratic rule. 
 No wonder, then, that James afterwards referred to 
 Sir Edwin as *'our greatest enemy," and a ''crafty 
 man with ambitious designs." In spite, however, of 
 almost insuperable obstacles and opposition, Sandys 
 lived to see the success of his Great Experiment in 
 the establishment of that Anglo-American democracy 
 which was to overthrow the personal rule of the last 
 of the British autocrats and profoundly affect the 
 destinies of nations. 
 
 The remodeling of Aldersgate, dedicated to the 
 divine origin of autocracy, was soon completed. In 
 1607, however, a colony of Englishmen was perma- 
 nently settled at Jamestown; and, in 1609, and again 
 in 1612, the most important events in the beginnings 
 of America took place, when charters for the self- 
 government of the colony were secured from the King 
 by Sandys and his associates. These charters blazed 
 
20 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 the trail over which were to pass the political liber- 
 ties of thirteen self -governing colonies. 
 
 Contrary to Spanish, Portuguese, and French prec- 
 edents in colonisation, the British Crown was not 
 called upon to support the first Anglo-American set- 
 tlement with money or other means of subsistence. 
 Had the Crown borne this expense, James I would 
 have had better grounds for absolute control of the 
 settlement; but the providing of men, money, and 
 equipment was undertaken by a group of English- 
 men incorporated into what was known as the Lon- 
 don or Virginia Company. This group was not im- 
 mediately able to secure for the colonists anything 
 better than the King's form of government; but the 
 settlers themselves, under the leadership of Captains 
 Ratcliffe, Archer, Martin, and others, bestirred them- 
 selves to introduce popular reform in that government 
 from the beginning ; and it was Captain Archer who, 
 a few months after the first landing, proposed the 
 calling of a colonial parliament with a view to over- 
 turning the *'Soveraigne rule'' set up by Captain 
 John Smith as the appointee of King James. In 
 1609, Ratcliffe and Archer, taking with them **a 
 breath of the free air of Virginia," visited England 
 and aided the liberal spirits of the mother country 
 to secure the Great Charter which definitely estab- 
 lished the beginnings of popular government in 
 America.* 
 
 * Edward Eider, a member of the patriot party and of the 
 Virginia Company, wrote, as early as 1623: 
 
 ''There is a material difference between the Spanish and 
 English plantations. For the Spanish colonies were founded by 
 
FOUNDING OF DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA 21 
 
 Under James I a menacing absolutism was casting 
 its shadow upon Church and State. Liberty-loving 
 Englishmen began to fear the overthrow of such popu- 
 lar rights as had been wrung from their former rul- 
 ers. It was then that their thoughts turned to the 
 New World, and they ''laid hold on this expectation 
 of Virginia as a providence cast before them of two- 
 fold advantage, ' ' — of escaping the intolerable tyranny 
 of autocratic rule and of creating a "more free" 
 government in America. Besides religious controver- 
 sies, which were aggravated by James I, and the con- 
 stant political controversies between King and Par- 
 liament, which were to culminate in the temporary 
 overthrow of the monarchy thirty years later, there 
 were controversies with Spain. The Spanish had, 
 from the first, protested against English settlement 
 in the New World; they had already seized one ves- 
 sel on the way to Jamestown; and it is interesting 
 to note that the chairman of the ** Committee on 
 Spanish wrongs" in Parliament was Sir Edwin 
 Sandys. 
 
 At this time, also, there was gradually developing 
 a more or less secret "Court Party," working in sym- 
 pathy with the autocratic ideas of the King of Spain, 
 to which was opposed what may be called the "Pa- 
 triot Party," working for the advancement of liberal 
 principles of government. James I and Philip III 
 
 the Icings of Spain out of their own treasury and revenues, and 
 they maintain the garrisons there, together with a large Navy 
 for their use and defence; whereas, the English plantations 
 had been first settled and since supported at the charge of 
 private adventurers and planters.*^ 
 
22 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 were equally interested in suppressing the freedom 
 of their peoples. Liberty had made some progress in 
 England, but almost none in Spain; yet it is a 
 curious coincidence that Philip, the autocrat of Spain, 
 was, in effect, obliged to recognise the independence 
 of the Netherlands in the same year that the auto- 
 cratic James was forced to grant the Great Charter 
 to Anglo-American democracy in order to preserve 
 English settlement in the New World. The year 
 1609, therefore, witnessed: (1) the grant of the 
 First Charter of self-government in America; (2) 
 the liberation of the Netherlands from Spanish ty- 
 ranny; and, (3) the assured opening in that coun- 
 try of an asylum for the '^ Pilgrims," who were, in 
 1620, to found the second free English settlement in 
 North America. 
 
 The Charter of 1609 was drafted by Sir Edwin 
 Sandys and prepared for the signature of the King 
 by Sir Francis Bacon and Sir Henry Hobart. The 
 instrument provided for the Jamestown colonists pre- 
 rogatives and privileges of government which had not 
 been secured by Englishmen in the mother country. 
 However discreetly, in the immediate presence of the 
 autocratic King, they may have disguised their pur- 
 poses in their official papers and petitions, the Patriot 
 Party proposed nothing less than ^'to erect a free 
 popular State," — a republic whose inhabitants were 
 to have ^^no government putt upon them 'but hy 
 their own consente." * 
 
 * Cf. ' ' Governments are instituted among men, deriving their 
 just powers from the consent of the governed. ' ' — Declaration of 
 
FOUNDING OF DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA 23 
 
 The ''new history" that has recently become the 
 subject of much discussion represents a new in- 
 terpretation of an old subject. This new interpreta- 
 tion would subordinate the extravaganzas of kings 
 and princes, with their court favourites and personal 
 adventures. In short, it endeavours to tell more of 
 the history of the people, of social reforms, and of 
 the development of political principles. Such an in- 
 terpretation should henceforth be applied to the be- 
 ginnings of America. By far the greater part of 
 our accustomed narrative of the first Anglo-American 
 settlement has concerned itself with the figure of 
 King James I; the personal adventures of Captain 
 John Smith, as told by him ; and the story of Poca- 
 hontas. We have, consequently, been following a 
 shadow and have missed the substance. The romance 
 of a great reform movement in the midst of a re- 
 markable period of transition in British politics 
 should be unfolded as we learn to appreciate the 
 heroic figures of men who risked their lives and for- 
 tunes in the planting and the cultivation of represen- 
 tative democracy in the distant ''wilderness" of 
 North America. Sir Edwin Sandys led the forces of 
 English democracy to a triumph of far greater im- 
 port than the more spectacular achievement of Wil- 
 liam the Silent in the liberation of the Netherlands. 
 For three hundred years it has been a travesty on 
 the truth of history for Americans to bear laurels to 
 
 Independence. Thomas Jefferson wrote also, even though he 
 did not then have at hand the hidden records of the Patriot 
 Party: "The tall of the Bevolution received its first impulse, 
 not from the actors in that event, hut from the first colonists.'* 
 
24 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 the shrine of John Smith, who traduced or belittled 
 the Patriot Party of England and America, rather 
 than to the grave of Edwin Sandys, the leading spirit 
 among the Founders of liberty in America. 
 
 Among the associates of this inspired Englishman 
 were numbered nearly all the great independent 
 spirits of the Elizabethan Age. For example, there 
 may be mentioned as friends of Sandys, or in sym- 
 pathy with his ideals : Sir Francis Bacon, Sir Philip 
 Sidney, William Shakespeare, the Earls of Lincoln, 
 Pembroke, and Exeter, Lord De la Warr, Sir Oliver 
 Cromwell, Sir Dudley Digges, and Henry and 
 Thomas Wriothesly, Earls of Southampton, who, 
 with John and Nicholas Ferrar, secretly preserved 
 many of the records which James I sought to sup- 
 press, and in which we now are beginning to find the 
 faithful history of the truly revolutionary purposes 
 of the Founders of America.* 
 
 After the First Charter of American democracy 
 had been secured, the liberal spirits in the manage- 
 ment of the colony sought to make America a refuge 
 for the oppressed. Puritans and *' Pilgrims'' were 
 offered the freedom in Virginia which they had begun 
 to seek in the Netherlands. Many accepted, and 
 more would have availed themselves of the offer had 
 not the royally appointed officials of the English 
 Church interfered in the movement. The lamp of 
 liberty had been lighted in the New World to be 
 
 * Henry Wriothesly, Earl of Southampton, was also the noble 
 patron of Shakespeare to whom the latter dedicated much of 
 his work. Southampton was, perhaps^ second only to Sandys in 
 founding democracy in America. 
 
FOUNDING OF DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA 25 
 
 kept burning as long as human freedom is destined 
 
 to exist. 
 
 The fleet that bore the Sandys Charter set sail for 
 America on June 12, 1609. On the way, it encoun- 
 tered the storm which has been immortalised by 
 Shakespeare in The Tempest. The charter ship, 
 which was well-named The Sea Adventure, was 
 wrecked off the coast of "the still vex'd Bermoothes"; 
 but the document and its bearers were saved while the 
 other vessels of the fleet rode the storm in safety and 
 reached their destination. Governor Gates, Admiral 
 Somers, and their men supported themselves on wild 
 game and fruits until they had constructed two 
 small ships, which they named the Deliverance and 
 the Patience, in which they set sail for Virginia.* 
 
 *The Deliverance and tlie Patience were the first vessels built 
 in the New World by Eng^lish settlers. In The Tempest, 
 Shakespeare, the friend of Sandys and the Earl of Southamp- 
 ton, depicts Ariel as a soul seeking liberty. Prince Ferdinand 
 may be likened to the spirit of British democracy that finds its 
 mate in Miranda, the virgin bride, America. 
 
Beginnings op Anglo-American Democracy 
 
 When, on June 2, 1610, Gates arrived at James- 
 town and assumed the government of the colony un- 
 der the First Charter of our liberties, he did so on 
 the anniversary of the royal grant of that Charter. 
 Captain George Percy, of the original colonists of 
 1607, gave place to Gates and the new popular gov- 
 ernment was formally inaugurated in a solemn cere- 
 monial. James I had selected the scriptural quota- 
 tion for the royal arch at Aldersgate ; but the Rever- 
 end Richard Buck, the minister of the colony in the 
 New World, preached for the people from the truly 
 prophetic text : ''Now the Lord had said unto Abram, 
 Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, 
 and from thy father's house, unto a land that I 
 will shew thee. And I will make of thee a great 
 nation . . . and in thee shall all families of the 
 earth be blessed. ' ' * 
 
 There were present on this epochal occasion about 
 sixty of the earlier emigrants, including such sturdy 
 English seamen and settlers as Captains George 
 Percy, Daniel Tucker, Nathaniel Powell, and John 
 Martin, the last of whom long outlived his com- 
 patriots as the most prosperous colonist of the first 
 
 * The following lines are the first and tenth stanzas of a poem 
 on the first voyage written by Michael Drayton, England's 
 patriot-poet of the day and occasion. Drayton was born near 
 
 26 
 
ANGLO-AMERICAN DEMOCRACY 27 
 
 emigrants. Among the new arrivals were Captain 
 George Yeardley and his ''Company of old Soldiers 
 trained up in the Netherlands/' — a connecting link 
 between the newly established freedom of the Dutch 
 people and the beginnings of self-government on the 
 part of the English in America. John Rolfe and 
 Pocahontas were there, and it is of special interest 
 to know that among those who must have watched 
 proceedings with an interest fraught with moment 
 to the expansion of Anglo-American liberty, was 
 Stephen Hopkins, afterwards one of the Pilgrim emi- 
 grants and the father of Oceanus Hopkins, born on 
 board the Mayflower in 1620. 
 
 The accidental discovery of the Bermudas 
 ''through tempest and shipwrack" led the Virginia 
 Company to seize the occasion to apply for a new 
 charter for the Jamestown colony, ostensibly to pro- 
 vide for the inclusion of the "new islands," but 
 chiefly to extend the principles of self-government. 
 This charter also was drafted by that great Founder 
 
 the birthplace of Shakespeare, and his tomb is near those of 
 Chaucer and Spenser. 
 
 You brave heroique minds, 
 
 Worthy your countries name, 
 That honour still pursue, 
 Goe, and subdue, 
 Whilst loyt'ring hinds 
 
 Lurk here at home with shame. . . . 
 
 And in regions f arre. 
 
 Such heroes bring yee foorth 
 
 As those from whom we came; 
 And plant our name 
 Under that starre 
 
 Not knowne unto our north. 
 
28 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 of American democracy, Sir Edwin Sandys, and it 
 too was drawn up by Sir Francis Bacon and Sir 
 Henry Hobart. The preliminary petition to this 
 charter was presented shortly after the return of 
 Governor Gates to England in September, 1610 ; but 
 the opposition of the Court, or Autocratic, Party, as- 
 sisted by the machinations of the Spanish ambassa- 
 dors, had begun to develop. Disguise it as they 
 might, the entire plan of the patriot leaders was be- 
 coming more and more evident. Consequently, the 
 second charter of Anglo-American democracy was not 
 wrung from the reluctant James until March, 1612.* 
 The charter of 1612 not only extended the privi- 
 leges of the colonists in America, but it cleared the 
 way for the establishment in larger communities of 
 representative democracyy the practice of which has i 
 
 *In the same year appeared Captain John Smithes *'True 
 ^Relation" of Virginia and one year later a publication on the 
 colony by the Reverend Samuel Purchas. These accounts of the 
 Jamestown colonists were very unfavourable to the Patriot 
 'Party in both countries. They were approved, however, by the 
 king; and thereafter royal opposition to the Virginia Com- 
 pany became increasingly bitter until that corporation was 
 dissolved by royal mandate in 1624. No printed refutation of 
 these volumes could be offered; for such a publication would 
 not pass the royal censorship. Not only was the Patriot Party 
 compelled to labour under this disadvantage, but its records 
 were afterwards seized and destroyed, as far as possible, by the 
 officers of the Crown. 
 
 No one with intelligence and the ''rare gift of common 
 sense'* can place much confidence in the unsupported narrative 
 of Captain John Smith, in view of the fact that so large a 
 proportion of his narrative is patently false. Dr. J. Franklin 
 Jameson has correctly summarised the evidence as follows: 
 *' Smith's narrative is a remarlcable historical mosaic, of which 
 it may almost be said that what is historical is not his, and 
 what is his is not historical" — History of Historical Writing 
 m America, 
 
ANGLO-AMERICAN DEMOCRACY 29 
 
 since been exercised in safety and with success by 
 liberty-loving and highly developed peoples. Conse- 
 quently, in August, 1619, the first representative as- 
 sembly of free men met at Jamestown on American 
 soil and took a forward step in self-government which 
 was to prepare the way for the English colonies that 
 were to follow and for the nation that was yet to be. 
 In England, however, the forces working in behalf 
 of freedom were not strong enough to withstand the 
 now thoroughly aroused jealousy of an autocratic 
 king and his court. Furthermore, the fears of James 
 I were aggravated by the emissaries of Spanish au- 
 tocracy. Under the direction of Count Gondomar, 
 ambassador from Spain, spies were set to watch the 
 proceedings of the Virginia Company. These re- 
 ported to the English King, through the wily Gon- 
 domar, that ^Uhe Virginia Court in London would 
 prove a seminary for a seditious Parliament,^' and 
 James had already had much trouble with parlia- 
 ment. The king, therefore, became fully persuaded 
 that the matter of government for America, as well 
 as Britain, *'was too high and great for private men 
 to manage.'' For that reason he considered that it 
 was time to take the business into his own hands and 
 *' govern it'' both in England and America *' ac- 
 cording to his will and pleasure. ' ' * 
 
 * * * Ourself, ' ' the king announced in a letter to parliament, 
 "will make it our worh to settle the quiet and welfare of the 
 plantations.*' At about this time, James I felt compelled to 
 write A Premonition to All Most Mighty Monarchs. In 1616, 
 he wrote A Remonstrance of the Most Gratious King James I 
 for the Bight of Kings and the Independence of their Crownes. 
 He later ordered the suppression of A Game at Chess, Thomas 
 
30 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 In accordance with this determination, James I set 
 about devising plausible excuses for accomplishing 
 the dissolution of the Virginia or London Company. 
 First, he issued instructions for the preparation of 
 further discreditable publications concerning the 
 management and conduct of the colony.* He then 
 appointed a Commission to make inquiry into the 
 **true estate" of Virginia and gave that body to 
 understand the nature of the verdict he would be 
 pleased to receive. Accordingly, after visiting 
 Jamestown, the Commission returned a very unfavour- 
 able report as to the management of the Virginia 
 Company and Colony, which furnished the King with 
 what he considered sufficient cause ^^to reduce that 
 popular form [of government] so as to make it agree 
 with the monarchial form which was held in the rest 
 of his Boy all Monarchic/^ 
 
 Middleton's allegorical satire on the Spanish Court Party, 
 which was acted at the Globe Theatre in 1623 amid much popu- 
 lar applause. 
 
 Just as the proclamations of James I with regard to the 
 divine right of kings closely resemble the imperial promulga- 
 tions of William II of Germany (Cf. p. 18 footnote), the secret 
 work of Gondomar in England resembles that of Count Luxburg 
 in Argentina, three hundred years later. Gondomar, however, 
 while working secretly to injure the English people at the very 
 time he was openly professing cordial friendship for them, does 
 not seem to have suggested the sinking of English ships ' ^ with- 
 out a trace.'' **Spurlos versenM" was reserved for expres- 
 sion by a later representative of autocracy. 
 
 * Cf . Nathaniel Butler 's * ' The TJnmasTcing of Virginia. * ' 
 This pamphlet, full of unmerited abuse for the Patriot Party in 
 England and the Colonists in America, was an additional con- 
 tribution to the '' twisting of the evidence" in the writings of 
 Captain John Smith and Samuel Purchas, published in 1612 and 
 1613. 
 
ANGLO-AMEKICAN DEMOCRACY 31 
 
 Under pretence of '^princelye" liberality towards 
 his dutiful but erring subjects, James offered the 
 Virginia Company an autocratic * ' compromise. ' ' This 
 ''compromise" gave the appearance of popular con- 
 trol of the ''Virginia business© " through the ap- 
 pointment of Commissioners in England and America 
 to direct the affairs of the Colony. It also made pro- 
 vision to guarantee the investments of the contrihiH- 
 tors to the stock of the Coifnpcmy. In this latter 
 offer lay the supreme test of the patriotism of the 
 Founders of Anglo-American democracy. It would 
 have been comparatively easy to argue, to the satis- 
 faction of less noble spirits, that the acceptance of 
 this "compromise" was better than the otherwise 
 certain dissolution of the Company; for it seems al- 
 ways harder to live and give one's all to one's coun- 
 try than to die for it. But these English patriots 
 did not hesitate in their choice. It was a matter of 
 principle with them, and they chose to sacrifice their 
 fortunes in order to establish free government in 
 America, just as their political successors, the patriot 
 leaders of the American Revolution, were ready, one 
 hundred and fifty years later, to risk their all for the 
 preservation of self-government. 
 
 The members of the Virginia Company must have 
 fully understood that the rejection of the King's 
 "compromise" would mean the loss of their invest- 
 ments, while its acceptance would secure them. 
 Nevertheless, the vote on the royal "compromise" 
 showed "but nine hands" in favour of it, while the 
 remainder of the seventy members then voting op- 
 
32 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 posed it; so that, by the same token, they stood to- 
 gether in unshaken devotion to the maintenance of 
 liberal institutions in America and the rights of 
 English citizens at home. The vote of the Company 
 was taken on the 23rd of October, 1623, and this 
 popular opposition to the King's expressed purpose 
 was voiced in spite of the intimidation he had previ- 
 ously attempted in the arbitrary arrest and imprison- 
 ment of several of the highest officials of the Com- 
 pany. The Company appealed for protection and re- 
 dress to James's fourth Parliament in May, 1624; 
 but, despite "soft mutterings" of protest heard in 
 that body, the royal mandate that the petition be not 
 considered was obeyed and the Virginia Company 
 was left to its fate.* 
 
 The corporate existence of the Virginia or London 
 Company may be said to have ended with the ''quo 
 warranto'^ of Attorney- General Coventry, which 
 came up on the 26th of June, 1624. Nevertheless, 
 Sir Edwin Sandys and his fellow patriots had ac- 
 complished their great purpose, and the principles 
 
 * During much of the time that James I was attempting to 
 get control of the Virginia Company, Sandys and Southamp- 
 ton were illegally held in confinement by orders of the King. 
 In 1621, Sandys and Southampton had been placed under ar- 
 rest by royal authority. Southampton was a member of the 
 House of Lords and Sandys of the House of Commons. The 
 latter body, on the 30th of November, 1621, under motion of 
 Mr. Mallory, had it tersely recorded in the Commons Journal 
 that the House "misseth Sir Edwin Sandys. Moveth we may 
 Tcnow what is hecome of him." On the 11th of December, the 
 House appointed a Committee to go to the home of Sandys in 
 Kent where he was then confined by royal mandate, to ''see 
 what state Sir Edwin Sandys is in, and if he is sicTc, indeed, to 
 return his answer/' 
 
ANGLO-AMERICAN DEMOCRACY 33 
 
 of self-government were then established in America, 
 not only at Jamestown but also at Plymouth Rock. 
 In Britain, the ''soft mutterings'' of the English 
 Parliament over the interference of James I with the 
 liberties of Englishmen became, in 1642, the rumble 
 of open rebellion against Charles I. 
 
The Progress op Democracy in Britain ani> Colo- 
 nial America 
 
 In the development of Anglo-American democracy, 
 the freedom of one country has ever acted and re- 
 acted upon the growth of liberty in the other; and 
 this law has held good, without real interruption, in 
 colonial union, in open conflict, in mutual independ- 
 ence, and, finally, in the culmination of a practical 
 alliance in 1917 against an alien autocracy reaching 
 out for world dominion. Because of the falsifications 
 of such writers as John Smith, Samuel Purchas, and 
 Nathaniel Butler, the character, courage, and abili- 
 ties of the colonists at Jamestown and the purposes 
 of the Patriot Party in England have been much 
 misunderstood. On the other hand, only a portion of 
 the true history of the activities of this Party, as 
 given in their records, has been published, and that 
 recently. The deliberate planning, under every 
 imaginable difficulty and danger, of the ''Patriots, 
 .Lords, Knights, gentlemen, marchants, and others" 
 provided for the Virginia settlement a representative 
 form of government; and the fact that this first 
 colony was established by these Englishmen for po- 
 litical reasons rather than for religious ones should 
 materially enhance the importance of its narrative, 
 in view of the now generally accepted separation, in 
 
 34 
 
THE PROGRESS OF DEMOCRACY 35 
 
 liberal governments, of tlie functions of Church and 
 State. 
 
 That she blazed the way for the fullest develop- 
 ment of representative democracy throughout the 
 world may well be the proudest boast of America. 
 It must ever be remembered, however, that the spirit 
 of this democracy did not spring from American soil 
 but that its earliest growth was in England. Trans- 
 planted in America, it flourished on virgin soil, as it 
 could not then grow in the Old World. On the part 
 of the settlers themselves, the expansion of the prin- 
 ciples of freedom in America may find figurative 
 comparison with the ' ' parable of the talents, ' ' wherein 
 he who was entrusted with the ''five talents" went 
 "straightway" and traded with the same and doubled 
 his holdings. When the first permanent English 
 colonists landed at Jamestown in 1607 — a place and 
 time, with regard to the political progress of man- 
 kind, more momentous than the landing of the great 
 Columbus at San Salvador — they brought with them 
 the memory of each struggle for popular rights al- 
 ready won or, perhaps, temporarily lost in the mother 
 country. 
 
 So insistent was the longing for liberty in the Eng- 
 lish people that they persevered in the first work of 
 colonisation despite the discouragement of a far 
 worse-than-war death rate. This mortality was due 
 chiefly to malarial fever found in the unaccustomed 
 lowlands of the James river, to the importation of the 
 Great Plague then raging in England, and to the 
 
36 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 yellow fever which was frequently contracted in the 
 semi-tropical islands visited on the way over. This 
 death rate ran from twenty per cent among the set- 
 tlers who reached more healthful spots to upwards 
 of ninety per cent of the other colonists who faced a 
 combination of these ills and of Indian massacres as 
 well. Since gold and other valuable minerals were 
 not then found in Virginia, nothing less than a high 
 moral motive could have animated the settlers and 
 held their patriot supporters to the great task they 
 had set for themselves. Captain John Smith, the first 
 royally licensed historian of the colony, expanded 
 upon the sufferings of the colonists, but attributed 
 them almost wholly to the alleged mismanagement of 
 its founders and to its popular form of government.^ 
 
 * It was more or less natural that James I should attempt 
 absolute control of his subjects in America through his 
 duly appointed agents. For over a century, the rulers and 
 grandees of Spain and Portugal had been enriching themselves 
 through the exploitation of their own colonists as well as of 
 the native Indians. Almost at the spot where the Jamestown 
 colony landed, the Spanish had attempted a much larger 
 colony. It was abandoned probably more from the failure to 
 find gold and silver than for other reasons, such as the fierce 
 hostility of the Indians, together with a climate much more 
 rigorous than that of the Spanish colonies farther South. 
 Like the Spaniards, James wanted gold ; and his agent, John 
 Smith, sought diligently for it. The Virginia colonists and 
 their supporters also hoped for gold, but they realised that they 
 could secure something in the New World infinitely more 
 precious than gold — a larger measure of liberty than they had 
 ever had before. This became the expanding inheritance of 
 the "five talents" of the British colonists, 'Halents'^ which 
 were not entrusted to the less fortunate emigrants from Spain, 
 Portugal, and France. 
 
 Smith, as the servant of the king, represented that all went 
 well with Virginia when the king's plans were administered 
 by Smith himself, and that the settlers had always dismally 
 
THE PROGRESS OF DEMOCRACY 37 
 
 Fortunately for the cause of liberty in America, 
 James I died only a few months after he had an- 
 
 f ailed without him ; but it must also be remembered that he had 
 landed in irons and under a charge of inciting a mutiny on the 
 way to America. When, however, the king 's secret orders were 
 opened, it was found that James had made him a member of 
 the Virginia Council. After two stormy years in Virginia, in 
 which he unjustly called the ablest leaders among the settlers 
 * ' tiffity-taff ety ' ' incompetents, he was sent back to England by 
 Archer, Katcliffe, and Martin to "answere some misdemean- 
 ors," among which was an alleged plotting with the savages 
 to surprise and cut off his rival for the Presidency, Captain 
 Francis West, and a party of colonists which West had led up 
 the James river. 
 
 Failing to secure further employment from the Patriot Party 
 in control of the Virginia Company in London, this bold ex- 
 plorer and excellent map-maker volunteered to lead the Pil- 
 grim Fathers to their Promised Land. The Pilgrims, however, 
 incontinently rejected the doughty Captain's offer, which seems 
 to show clearly that this second group of would-be Americans 
 would also, as far as possible, be unhampered by an agent of 
 autocracy. Afterwards, Captain Smith asserted, with character- 
 istic modesty, that the Pilgrims would have been ^'spared a 
 wonderful deal of misery" if they had not held that "my 
 books and maps were much better cheap than myself to teach 
 them. ' ' 
 
 Before landing, the Pilgrim Fathers signed an immortal in- 
 strument for self-government; yet they, like the Virginians, 
 ^elt impelled, at first, to keep to some of the swaddling clothes 
 thought proper for them by the king and such as Captain 
 Smith. When, like the Virginians, after two years' trial, they 
 flung these things off, they began to prosper greatly. The 
 Pilgrims, indeed, attempted to carry out the same communistic 
 scheme which had failed in the very beginnings of Jamestown. 
 By this plan, all the settlers contributed to and drew from a 
 common store or supply. The Plymouth settlers, like those at 
 Jamestown, were forced to abandon this communistic pro- 
 cedure, and Governor Bradford wrote that after he had, in 
 1623, done away with the system of holding property in com- 
 mon and had ** assigned to every family a parcel of land," a 
 new spirit was shown by the settlers. They all became very 
 industrious and ''more com was planted than otherwise would 
 have been by any means the Governor or any other could use. ' ' 
 He added that experience with the communal plan "tried sun- 
 
38 A HERITAGE OF FEEEDOM 
 
 nulled the patent of the Virginia Company, under 
 whose auspices and encouragement two self-governing 
 colonies of Englishmen had been established in 
 America; for the Plymouth settlement, which followed 
 in 1620, provided an independent territorial exten- 
 sion for the exercise of self-government in America. 
 Moreover, this second colony profited by the example 
 and, in a large measure, avoided the early mistakes 
 of the first settlement. Both groups of settlers 
 showed, from the beginning, their independence of 
 spirit and the progressive character of their ideas. 
 The Virginians, with financial endowment from the 
 mother country, established a free school and a col- 
 lege for the education of the natives shortly after the 
 meeting of the first representative assembly in 1619 ; 
 and Harvard, in New England, was established in 
 1636, within a like period of time after the landing of 
 the settlers there.* 
 
 dry years, and that amongst godly and sober men, showed 
 clearly the vanity of a system which was found to breed much 
 confusion and discontent." 
 
 * The educational plans of the Virginia colonists were in- 
 definitely put off by the great Indian Massacre of 1622. The 
 noble-hearted George Thorpe, in charge of the education of the 
 natives, was warned of their proposed treachery, but he re- 
 fused to believe it. Shortly after this massacre, some of the 
 surviving Virginia colonists carried sorely-needed supplies of 
 food to their compatriots at Plymouth. The Captain of their 
 ship, John Huddleston, warned the Pilgrims of similar danger 
 from the Indians, Captain Huddleston may have been ac- 
 quainted with Shakespeare's dramas, and possibly with Shakes- 
 peare himself, for he began his warning thus: ^'Friends, 
 countrymen and neighbors . . . Bad news doth spread itself 
 too far." Continuing, he added: . . . *'Yet I will so far in- 
 form you that myself, with many good friends in the south 
 colony of Virginia, have received such a blow, that 400 per- 
 
THE PROGRESS OF DEMOCRACY 39 
 
 The evidence of the co-operation of the settlers with 
 the patriot group of founders in England is most 
 interesting. When Sandys and his associates were 
 struggling to preserve the Company in London, the 
 Governor, Council, and Burgesses in Virginia testified 
 to the beneficent results accruing to the Colony under 
 popular management. When Sir John Harvey and 
 the other members of the Royal Commission * of in- 
 vestigation reached Virginia, they asked the Bur- 
 gesses to subscribe to a statement expressing their 
 consent to the establishment of royal control. The 
 Assembly, however, returned the paper unsigned, 
 accompanied by the statement: *'When our consent 
 to the surrender of the Patents shall be required, will 
 be the most propitious [time] to make reply; in the 
 meantime, we conceive his Majesties intention of 
 changing the government hath proceeded from much 
 misinformation/' — ''misinformation'' which has long 
 persisted, owing to King James 's diligent suppression 
 of free speech and his autocratic control of all ^'pub- 
 lic prints. ' ' The Assembly then addressed a letter to 
 the King in which they prayed that their liberal in- 
 stitutions might not be destroyed and the old Smith 
 faction of the Company placed over them again, f 
 
 sons will not make good our losses. Therefore, I do intreat you 
 (although not knowing you) that the old rule which I learned 
 when I went to school, may be sufficient. That is, 'Happy is 
 he whom other men's harm doth make to beware.' " 
 
 * See p. 30. 
 
 f The royalist-inclined faction led^ by Sir Thomas Smith is 
 here meant. The Assembly even refused to let the King's 
 Commission see a copy of this letter and other similar docu- 
 ments. When it was discovered that acting Secretary Edward 
 
40 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 When Charles I ascended the English throne as the 
 second Stuart king imbued, like his predecessor, with 
 the dogma of divine right, he owed some debts for cer- 
 tain favours received from members of the patriot 
 party in England; and, for a time, Sir Edwin 
 Sandys had hopes of the development of a more lib- 
 eral spirit in him than had been shown by his father. 
 But selfish or designing counsellors were at court, 
 and it is not improbable that Spanish spies again 
 played their part in arousing royal jealousies of the 
 proceedings of the patriot group. By 1625, popular 
 discontent had greatly increased in Britain, and 
 Charles I was obliged, in addition, to deal with two 
 independently inclined colonies in North America, 
 whereas James had had to deal with but one. The 
 spirit of democracy had become triple-headed, and 
 threefold as threatening to autocracy as before; for 
 James I, in endeavouring to extricate himself from a 
 double difficulty with the Virginia Company and a 
 ''seditious Parliament, ' ' had, partly through patriot 
 design and partly by chance, created in the New Eng- 
 land settlements a further source of trouble. This 
 third source of controversy between the divine right 
 of kings and the rights of the people was not suffi- 
 ciently developed to merit the attention of James in 
 the last years of his reign, but it was destined to add 
 enormously to the difficulties of his successors. 
 
 Sir Edwin Sandys may properly be regarded as also 
 
 the author of this new menace to autocracy and as 
 
 Sharpless had secretly given copies to a member of the Com- 
 mission, he was punished by being * ' sent to the Pillorie, ' ' with 
 the loss of ' ^ a part of one of his eares. ' ^ 
 
THE PROGRESS OF DEMOCRACY 41 
 
 the Founder of the Second and Separate Extension 
 of Anglo-American Democracy in the New World. 
 It had so happened that Sir Edwin, who was a cham- 
 pion of religious toleration as well as of political free- 
 dom, well knew the courage and character of John 
 Robinson, the pastor of the Separatist Congregation 
 exiled in the Netherlands. Robinson had been one 
 of those English clergymen who had been driven from 
 their original pastorates by James I. He had, how- 
 ever, found a refuge in the house of Willian^ Brew- 
 ster, then living on the estate of Sir Edwin Sandys' 
 brother. "When the Pilgrims applied to the Virginia 
 Company for a grant of land in the Virginia Colony, 
 their proposition was cordially endorsed by the Patriot 
 Party under the leadership of Sandys. Not only did 
 these Separatists obtain their patent from the Com- 
 pany, but Sandys, in disfavour with the king, per- 
 suaded his friends to try to secure a promise from his 
 majesty that the proposed settlement would not be 
 molested. This James would not promise, but the 
 English exiles in the Netherlands represented them- 
 selves as being content with obtaining the patent only. 
 They were persuaded, by the logic of many prece- 
 dents, that '*a scale as hard as the house floor" would 
 not hold an autocrat to any agreement he might be 
 pleased to make.* 
 
 * * * He [Chancellor von Bethmann-Holweg] said that the step 
 taken by His Majesty's Government was terrible to a degree. 
 . . . just for a scrap of paper Great Britain was going to 
 make war on a kindred nation who desired nothing better than 
 to be friends with her. . . . Herr von Jagow wished me to un- 
 derstand that for strategical reasons it was a matter of life 
 and death to Germany to advance through Belgium and violate 
 
42 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOxM 
 
 If the original intentions of the Virginia Company 
 and of the Pilgrims had been carried out, the latter 
 would have added to the settlement and strength of 
 democracy within the bounds of the Virginia Colony ; 
 but, by an accident or incident of navigation, they 
 landed on the wintry coast of New England, whence 
 the commander of the vessel refused to take them to 
 their promised destination. Therefore, the patent se- 
 cured under the Virginia Company became invali- 
 dated as being out of the jurisdiction of the parent 
 corporation. Hence it was that the principles of self- 
 government were separately extended to the new Col- 
 ony through the famous * * Compact ' ' drawn up on the 
 Mayflower. 
 
 Sir Edwin Sandys, as the leading Founder of An- 
 glo-American democracy, had, geographically at least, 
 builded better than he knew. As the guiding spirit 
 of the Virginia Company and as counsellor, friend, 
 and patron of the Pilgrim emigrants, he led the way 
 in securing a great territorial extension for the prac- 
 
 the latter 's neutrality, so I would wish him to understand that 
 it was, so to speak, a matter of ^ife and death' for the 
 honour of Great Britain that she should keep her solemn en- 
 gagement to do her utmost to defend Belgium's neutrality if 
 attacked. That solemn compact simply had to be kept, or 
 what confidence could any one have in engagements given by 
 Great Britain in the future? The Chancellor said: 'But at 
 what price will that compact have been kept? Has the British 
 Government thought of that?' " 
 
 — Eeport of Sir Edward Goshen, British 
 Ambassador at Berlin, 1914. 
 Cf., also, the maxim of Frederick the Great, greatest of the 
 House of Hohenzollern : "Do not be ashamed of making in- 
 terested alliances from which you yourself can derive the whole 
 advantage. Do not make the foolish mistake of not breaking 
 them when you believe your interests require it." 
 
THE PROGRESS OF DEMOCRACY 43 
 
 tice of self-government in America; and from this 
 Massachusetts settlement were destined to spring the 
 ''first written constitution" of the Connecticut colony 
 and the religious freedom of the Khode Island off- 
 shoot. It may truthfully be said of Sandys that no 
 man in history had greater vision and none began a 
 labour fraught with more beneficent results for hu- 
 man liberty. One hundred and fifty years before Jef- 
 ferson pictured what free Anglo- America should be, 
 Sandys worked for it; and three hundred years be- 
 fore the present association of peoples in the British 
 Commonwealth, Sir Edwin was doubtless discussing 
 some of its basic principles with Bacon, Southampton, 
 Shakespeare, and the Ferrars, within sight of the 
 Royal Arch at Aldersgate, built and dedicated to an 
 autocrat who insisted upon the divine right of kings. 
 The Great Experiment more than proved its worth 
 to liberty-loving Englishmen; so that, for the next 
 century and a half, liberty-seeking settlers thronged 
 the coast of the North American Continent. There 
 followed, in rapid succession to the foundations at 
 Jamestown and Plymouth Rock, the establishment of 
 religious toleration by the Calverts in Marjdand, 
 which barely anticipated that established by Roger 
 AVilliams in Rhode Island. New York, at first under 
 Dutch control, became the ** melting pot'* of many 
 peoples. Pennsylvania set an example of fair dealings 
 with the natives ; and Oglethorpe opened Georgia as a 
 refuge for honest men oppressed by the harsh laws of 
 that day and generation, which William Penn him- 
 self, afterwards imprisoned for debt, would fain have 
 
44 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 enjoyed. Again, when the royal will attempted to 
 put into effect a feudal system of *4ords, landgraves, 
 and caciques," called by John Locke the "Grand 
 Model," Carolinians, on the free soil of America, 
 would have none of it. In 1642, Englishmen rose 
 against the intolerable tyranny of Charles I and over- 
 threw with him the dogma of divine right; but Eng- 
 lishmen in the Virginia colony had, seven years be- 
 fore, summarily deposed their royal governor in the 
 person of Sir John Harvey. In the New England 
 colonies, English settlers clung to their liberal char- 
 ters and determined to maintain their rights "by 
 peaceful means, if possible, but forcibly if they must. ' ' 
 And three Stuart autocrats failed to bring these "ob- 
 stinate people" into dutiful submission. Whether 
 Englishmen went abroad or stayed at home, they kept 
 up a never ceasing struggle for liberty, — for self- 
 government and popular privileges in the Colonies, 
 or for a more popular form of government at home. 
 
 When Parliaments in England procrastinated over 
 the king's demands and sought to obtain popular 
 privileges in return for taxes, they did what the co- 
 lonial assemblies in America at one time or another 
 had done or were doing with their royal or their pro- 
 prietary governors. In both countries, there were 
 periods of apparent retrogression. When, however, 
 there appeared the autocratic Governor Berkeley in 
 Virginia, oppressive orders in Massachusetts, or a 
 Governor Tryon in North Carolina, a Bacon arose in 
 the first colony, an Otis in the second, and a band of 
 "Regulators" in the third. Always the sum of the 
 
THE PROGRESS OF DEMOCRACY 45 
 
 forward movements exceeded those of the periods of 
 retrogression. 
 
 In Britain, the Great Rebellion of 1642 against 
 royal rule was succeeded by the restoration of a 
 Stuart King in 1660; but Charles II, whatever his 
 blunders, was careful, at least, not to insist upon a 
 divine right to govern. ' ' He who never said a foolish 
 thing nor ever did a wise one ' ' was shrewd enough to 
 know that this dogma had been discarded in England, 
 at least, though the throne itself had been restored. 
 The Restoration of 1660 was followed by the Revolu- 
 tion of 1688. The latter did not do away with the 
 king, but it substituted, in the place of an undesirable 
 monarch, one more acceptable to Anglo-Celtic free- 
 men.* 
 
 * The union of the Celt and the Anglo-Saxon was fortunate 
 for both races in that the best qualities of either were comple- 
 mentary to the other. As a recognition of the contribution of 
 the Celt to the union, the term Anglo-Celtic may well be used 
 in place of the less accurate though more common hyphenate 
 Anglo-Saxon. The rougher characteristics of the Teuton emi- 
 grant on Britain's soil became softened by the more emotional 
 and imaginative temperament of the Celt. English history 
 seems to show that when these races have harmoniously mingled, 
 government, literature, religion, and the whole social structure 
 have been benefited thereby. Sir Edwin Sandys and William 
 Shakespeare were Anglo-Celtic, and we cannot picture them as 
 being so gifted without this union of the races in their blood. 
 Their ideals were forced to find some way to burst the bonds 
 of mediaeval custom; and to them America became the Land 
 of Opportunity, or in their own words, a ''providence cast be- 
 fore them.'' Thomas Jefferson, also of Anglo-Celtic an- 
 cestry, was, in the New World, the political descendant of Sir 
 Edwin Sandys, as well as the blood relative of liberal English- 
 men who suffered death or imprisonment under the Stuart 
 kings. 
 
 Perhaps it is due to the influence of the Celt that the English- 
 speaking peoples have ever referred to the land of their origin 
 
46 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 In America, *' every school boy knows" something, 
 at least, of the later struggle for popular liberty in 
 the thirteen English colonies under the several gov- 
 ernors or other agents appointed by the British kings. 
 He knows, also, that ultimately a British king went 
 so far in his reactionary policies that the colonies de- 
 clared their complete independence of the mother 
 country. On the other hand, a volume has recently 
 been written * to show how little the school boy learns 
 of the dual nature of the struggle, of mutual misun- 
 derstanding, and of the widespread sympathy in Brit- 
 ain with American ideals, together with the suppressed 
 popular opposition to the temporary ascendancy of 
 autocratic methods in Great Britain. True, a wise 
 provision of an unofficial board of national examiners 
 causes the prospective college student to prepare a 
 digest of the speech by Edmund Burke on Concilia- 
 tion ; but the student learns to think of this speech, in 
 most cases, as the opinion of a single liberal-minded 
 member of the British Parliament and not as an ex- 
 pression of the popular opposition to the course of 
 the ''personally controlled" government of George 
 III and a Parliament which was then elected by the 
 merest fraction of the population. 
 
 as the Mother Country, whereas the Teutonic peoples have re- 
 ferred to theirs as the Fatherland. 
 
 *Altsehul: The American Bevolution in our School Text- 
 BooTcs. 
 
Autocracy Severs the Bonds of Political Union 
 
 The struggle of the English people for popular 
 rights against autocratic rule was carried on in Amer- 
 ica as in England. In the colonies, however, the peo- 
 ple, by virtue of the precedent secured by their Great 
 Charter of 1609, and because, also, of their very dis- 
 tance from the seat of royal authority, developed and 
 practised a greater measure of self-government than 
 was then possible in Britain. Eestrictive trade laws 
 were laid upon them, both by the Parliament under 
 the Commonwealth and by later Parliaments under 
 royal authority, but these laws were, in the main, un- 
 enforced. As a sidelight of history it is worth noting 
 that nearly all the Revolutionary leaders of the first 
 or Virginia colony, for example, were either descend- 
 ants of members of the Patriot Party in England or 
 of those who took an active part in the institution of 
 free government in America. In Great Britain, on 
 the other hand, it is an interesting fact that three 
 members of the minority of the House of Lords who 
 supported the patriot party in America in 1775 were 
 the Dukes of Devonshire, Portland, and Northumber- 
 land. These peers were descendants of the Earl of 
 Southampton, who, as the trusted friend of Sandys 
 and the other patriot founders of America, succeeded 
 Sandys after the mandate of the king to the Com- 
 pany : ^'Choose the Devil if you will, hut not Sir Ed- 
 
 47 
 
48 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 win Sa{ndys/' The saying that a man's education he- 
 gins a hundred years or more hefore he is born has 
 never been more aptly illustrated than in the case of 
 these American patriot descendants of liberal English 
 ancestors. The political forms of English and of 
 American representative democracy are likewise de- 
 scended from the same stock; and, in their separate 
 developments, they have maintained their relationship 
 and points of resemblance, although, in 1776, the fam- 
 ily ties were broken.* 
 
 The Dukes of Devonshire, Portland, and Northum- 
 berland, true to their inheritance from the patriot 
 Earl of Southampton and, consequently, to their po- 
 litical sympathies with Thomas Jefferson, John Ad- 
 ams, and the American patriot party, voted with the 
 opposition to the autocratic George III. The open 
 opposition of these men and that of Burke, Barre, Pitt, 
 and Fox voiced the otherwise inarticulate popular op- 
 position of a large body of Englishmen who, at that 
 time, had no part in the government and whose peti- 
 tions to Parliament on behalf of Anglo-American lib- 
 
 * " In spite of the controversies which have at times raged 
 between the two peoples, we speak the same language as the 
 English; our customs have been fashioned after theirs; our 
 legal procedure has been founded upon theirs; their ideas of 
 government and their conception of liberty are ours as well. 
 In spite of the wars we have fought against them, we have 
 never thought of turning to any other nation as a model for 
 what is most essential in our public and private life. Many 
 nationalities have been brought together in this melting pot; 
 but the influence of all other nations remains negligible com- 
 pared to that of England. She is, after all, the Mother Coun- 
 try, from whom we have acquired what really counts in the 
 long run : language, customs, political liberty, tradition 1 ' ' 
 — Altschul: The American devolution in our School Text-Bool:s, 
 
AUTOCRACY SEVERS THE BONDS OF UNION 49 
 
 erties went unheeded. The expressions of the leaders 
 of the English patriot party in the Parliaments of 
 George III were much louder than the '*soft mutter- 
 ings" heard on behalf of the American settlers in the 
 Parliaments of James I, but they were not strong 
 enough to restrain the course of the last king of Brit- 
 ain who dared assert a personal rule, even though he 
 did not claim for that rule a divine origin as in the 
 case of his Stuart predecessors.* 
 
 On going back over the Revolutionary struggle in 
 
 * It is one of the hopeful signs of the times that the business 
 men of America are beginning to take an active interest in 
 the investigations of history. Not only will the subject of 
 history be benefited by an ^'interchange of theory and prac- 
 tice ' ' ; but the future policies of the Nation may be shaped to 
 greater advantage if based upon a more general and better 
 understanding of the past. Much of the earlier American his- 
 tory from which we have drawn our impressions of the Revolu- 
 tionary conflict and of events of international import since 
 that period has not been consciously partisan, but it has been 
 based on evidence, in a double sense, partial. The result has 
 given the American people a somewhat provincial viewpoint, 
 which easily becomes, under the expanding influence of a cer- 
 tain kind of patriotic teaching or of ' ' Fourth of July oratory, ^ ' 
 very largely chauvinistic, or, in more popular phraseology, good 
 American "buncombe." The comparatively recent researches 
 of original investigators of the type of Sydney George Fisher 
 and others must very materially modify the interpretation of 
 Colonial history and the Revolutionary period. As in the case 
 'of all reformers, Mr. Fisher has been attacked as having gone 
 too far; but, whether he went too far or not, his work has 
 already had a very profound influence upon historical perspec- 
 tive and proportion. In like manner, the brief monographs of 
 Charles Francis Adams have helped in the overthrow of error. 
 These writers are especially mentioned because it may be said 
 of them that neither had followed the study of history as a 
 vocation. In yet another instance, an intensive experience in 
 the broadening sphere of international trade may have inspired 
 the recent investigations of George Louis Beer, through whose 
 findings a flood of new light has been shed upon intercolonial 
 relations and British colonial policies. 
 
50 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 the light of this evidence, it would seem that even the 
 autocratic government of George III had grievances, 
 and some degree of right on its side. If George III 
 was stupid, he and his ministers were probably sincere 
 in their efforts to govern wisely, according to their 
 interpretation. They were ignorant of actual condi- 
 tions. They did not, and possibly could not, under- 
 stand how far representative democracy in America 
 had gone in the matter of self-government. There 
 was nothing like it in Europe, so that they had near 
 them no standard of measurement for the practical 
 developments that followed the evolution of local 
 management of colonial affairs. Not without justice, 
 the British ministry had much in mind the defence 
 of her colonies against the otherwise overwhelming 
 hostility of Spain and the successive efforts for world 
 dominion by an autocratic France. The British Gov- 
 ernment had held and was holding the Colonies united 
 through the common bond of race and origin. Be- 
 cause of this aid towards union and therefore greater 
 strength, the British government felt that a very defi- 
 nite service had been rendered, for it was known that 
 the colonists entertained very strong jealousies among 
 themselves. On some occasions, only the tact and 
 earnest efforts of British officials restrained the Col- 
 onies from engaging in disastrous and possibly fatal 
 disputes with each other. Furthermore, the patience 
 of the British ministry was tried to the utmost by 
 reason of the fact that, in time of war, many Ameri- 
 can merchants, ship-owners, and seamen profited 
 greatly by furnishing the common enemy with food 
 
AUTOCRACY SEVERS THE BONDS OF UNION 51 
 
 and supplies; and that, when apprehended, it was 
 almost impossible to convict the offenders before any 
 judge or jury that sat in America. 
 
 On the other hand, if the thirteen Colonies had been 
 united and efficient in defending themselves, and if 
 they had offered to provide a minimum payment of 
 their share of the expense incurred by the mother 
 country in protecting them against the French and 
 Indians, there might have been no open breach. The 
 British ministry was doubtless aware, also, that two- 
 thirds of the American people were indifferent or 
 actually opposed to the attitude and acts of what was 
 regarded as the radical element in America. A large 
 proportion of the Americans believed with Fairfax, 
 the friend and patron of George Washington, that 
 matters of difference between the colonies and the 
 mother country could and would be adjusted in due 
 time ; that it was a mistake or even a wrong, to destroy 
 or confiscate private property, as in the matter of the 
 tea ; and that it was a serious error to extol as martyrs 
 men who, in the so-called *' Boston Massacre," had 
 fallen in making a mob attack upon the soldiers of 
 the Government. 
 
 Nevertheless, the protests of the patriot minority in 
 America must have seemed reasonable, or there would 
 not have been such a large proportion of the Britisk 
 people who were not in harmony with the policies of 
 the Government. Later, when war began, this oppo- 
 sition extended to the British Army and Navy. Many 
 officers resigned their commissions rather than fight 
 against their countrymen in America, and others 
 
52 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 prosecuted the war in such a half-hearted manner that 
 at times they helped rather than harassed the patriot 
 party. They hoped that time and circumstances 
 would bring about a compromise or some adjustment 
 of Anglo-American differences. Such a compromise 
 was finally offered by the British Government, but it 
 was refused by the Americans, who had then declared 
 for independence. 
 
 After the American Revolution had run its course 
 and had brought about a result much more radical 
 than the British Revolution of the preceding century, 
 peace came through the recognition by the British 
 Government of the independence of thirteen "Sov- 
 ereign States ' ' ; but, for many years, there were Brit- 
 ish statesmen and not a few Americans who believed 
 that the loosely knit Confederation of States could not 
 stand alone and that the two English-speaking peoples 
 would reunite under a single flag. Furthermore, the 
 people of both countries felt certain immediate disad- 
 vantages in separation. For example, the former col- 
 onists felt that it was a great grievance that they were 
 no longer the beneficiaries of special trade relations 
 with the West Indies, while British merchants experi- 
 enced losses in trade with America. 
 
Origin' of Political Misunderstanding in Historical 
 Misconceptions 
 
 It was perhaps natural that the American people 
 should soon cease to distinguish between the autocratic 
 government of George III, which prosecuted the war, 
 and the British people, who very generally opposed 
 it.* In Great Britain, it was more or less to be ex- 
 pected that an aristocratic or Tory element should 
 despise the upstart Republic with its ** dangerously 
 radical'' ideas about equality and fraternity — ideas 
 that led first to republican excesses in France, fol- 
 lowed by a military autocracy under Napoleon. It 
 was natural, also, for Americans, in terms quite out of 
 proportion to the whole truth, to contrast in the press, 
 the school, the text-book, and the pulpit the sufferings 
 and lofty idealism of the Revolutionary patriots with 
 the arrogance of the British Government and the mis- 
 deeds of British soldiers and the mercenary troops 
 supplied by a number of the petty autocrats of Cen- 
 tral Europe, t 
 
 * The Declaration of Independence, as drawn up by Jef- 
 ferson, is not an arraignment of the British people, but of their 
 Government as then constituted. Cf. Jefferson's attitude to- 
 ward the British Government when that Government suggested 
 an alliance with the United States for the protection of Ameri- 
 can democracy. See p. 67. 
 
 t It is sometimes forgotten that * ' Hessian ' ' has become, in 
 American history, a conveniently comprehensive term for all 
 the mercenary troops whose services were sold to the British 
 Government by their respective rulers. 
 
 53 
 
54 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 A small volume has lately been written on 
 ' * Breaches of Anglo-American Treaties. ' ^ The book is 
 based on fact ; and, if it were the whole truth, it would 
 indicate that there has been little good faith and much 
 sharp dealing between the English-speaking democ- 
 racies as representatives of the most highly developed 
 and powerful types of governments of the people, by 
 the people, and for the people. On the other hand, 
 there are great volumes of records and an immensity 
 of evidence to show that, of all governments, the Brit- 
 ish and the American constitute those that have been 
 most in direct contact and yet have most successfully 
 lived together, if not always in perfect amity, at least 
 in a beneficent state of international peace. 
 
 It is true that certain parts of the very first treaty 
 between Great Britain and the United States were 
 promptly broken by the former ; but it is equally true 
 that some of the provisions of the same treaty were, 
 from the start, disregarded by the United States, not 
 because of bad faith, but because of inability on the 
 part of the first Federal Government to compel the 
 individual States to fulfil the terms of an interna- 
 tional agreement. 
 
 Notwithstanding this double breach of the treaty of 
 1783, Anglo-American peace prevailed until some time 
 after Great Britain became involved in a war against 
 the world-dominion plans of Napoleon Bonaparte. It 
 was a remarkable chain of circumstances which led, 
 in 1812, the newly-established American Eepublic to 
 fight, not in actual alliance, but at least by the side of 
 the most dangerous military power of the day against 
 
ORIGIN OF POLITICAL MISUNDERSTANDING 55 
 
 a nation fighting in defence of the principles of po- 
 litical freedom. In America, historical prejudices 
 and misconceptions, aggravated by ultra-patriotic 
 teachings, had already played their part in obscuring 
 the greater issues; but tactless obstinacy on the part 
 of the British ministry and arrogant aggression on the 
 part of British naval officers contributed in forcing 
 the peacefully-inclined American government into an 
 unnatural and unnecessary war which, had the Ameri- 
 can Republic been stronger, might have enabled the 
 autocratic Napoleon to carry out his designs against 
 the freedom of nations.* 
 
 * In spite of the accustomed outcry against Great Britain, 
 there were Americans who saw in the military aggression of a 
 misguided France under Bonaparte a more far-reaching men- 
 ace, in principle, at least, than the arrogant disregard of Great 
 Britain towards the righfs claimed by the United States for 
 American seamen. Thomas Jefferson has been accused of 
 cowardice in advocating the Non-Importation Acts rather than 
 a declaration of war against Great Britain. In this matter, 
 Jefferson has been misunderstood. He had dared to declare 
 war against the '^Barbary Powers" of North Africa when the 
 most powerful European nations were paying yearly tribute to 
 these Mohammedan governments. Presidents Washington and 
 Adams also had thought it best to purchase immunity for 
 American commerce. Washington had written in old-style dip- 
 lomatic terms to the young Emperor of Morocco on his ac- 
 cession: "Beceive, great and good friend, my sincere sympathy 
 with you in that loss"; i.e., the loss of "the late Emperor, 
 your father, and our friend of glorious memory." The pro- 
 nouncedly original Jefferson wanted then to do away with 
 this ''fine language" and talk to the Barbary rulers in the 
 terms of big guns. Jefferson was not afraid of war with 
 Great Britain, but he was unwilling to fight on the side of an 
 autocratic France when he thought he could gain his ends with 
 the British Government by peaceful means. Evidence has now 
 come to light in the London archives to show that the com- 
 mercial pressure exerted by Jefferson was having its effect and 
 must have obtained results in the reform of British foreign 
 
56 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 In the struggle with Napoleon, the political exist- 
 ence of Great Britain depended upon her continued 
 control of the sea. She had need of all her man- 
 power; but, in American ports, she lost crew after 
 crew by desertion. American wages were higher, and 
 there were Americans at every wharf raady with in- 
 ducements to British sailors to desert battleship, mer- 
 chant-ship, and country. In this matter, Americans 
 felt that they were doing a good service in smiting 
 their traditional foe by crippling her trade and war- 
 strength. Napoleon Bonaparte, with an autocrat's 
 characteristic contempt for scraps of paper, had 
 treacherously seized American ships in European 
 ports; yet this was forgotten or ignored when Great 
 Britain began to insist on the alleged right of search 
 and impressment, in her efforts to regain her sailors. 
 British bungling and high-handed seizures of Ameri- 
 can seamen followed, together with the famous Orders 
 in Council, which led to the American declaration of 
 war. Even then, Anglo-American peace might have 
 remained unbroken, if, by an Atlantic cable, a later 
 combination of American genius and enterprise and 
 British capital, the news of Great Britain's with- 
 drawal of her Orders in Council could have reached 
 America beforle the first blows were struck. Na- 
 poleon's orders of like character were not withdrawn, 
 
 policy but for the opposition to the Non-Intercourse Acts in 
 America itself. This American opposition and the frequent 
 evasion of the Acts caused these measures to be withdrawn just 
 as the British importers and manufacturers were, apparently, 
 at least, about to force their Government to yield the point at 
 issue. 
 
ORIGIN OF POLITICAL MISUNDERSTANDING 57 
 
 and war might ultimately have been declared against 
 the French Empire instead, with Great Britain as an 
 ally in a world-wide struggle for freedom from the 
 domination of a military power. 
 
The Dawn of Anglo-American Peace 
 
 The treaty of Ghent in 1814 followed a war, which, 
 from the American standpoint, resulted in unexpected 
 naval successes; in both disasters and victories on 
 land; and in the revelation of considerable disunion 
 sentiment in some of the States, from which the Brit- 
 ish received secret aid and to which they looked for 
 actual co-operation if the war continued. This second 
 treaty between America and Great Britain was inde- 
 cisive in its terms and, in the main, unsatisfactory to 
 both countries. Had it been made between less popu- 
 lar governments, both sides would have begun at once 
 exhaustive and exhausting preparations for another 
 struggle. In America the exact opposite happened. 
 Two democracies, broadly termed Canada, on the one 
 side, and the United States, on the other, found them- 
 selves, in irritated mood, facing each other on a bound- 
 ary line, the extent of which would stagger even the 
 governments of Europe to find means to fortify. As 
 the war went on, and after it was finished, both sides 
 were frantically engaged in building battleships to 
 secure supremacy on the Great Lakes; and America 
 was dangerously near emulating for all time the mili- 
 tarism of Europe. 
 
 But some one stopped to consider. Perhaps there 
 were many who simultaneously stopped to consider 
 what all this military preparation would mean to the 
 
 58 
 
THE DAWN OF ANGLO- AMEMCAlSr PEACE 59 
 
 future of the two peoples. As the immediate result of 
 this forethought and liberal statesmanship, the dual 
 preparation for naval supremacy on the Great Lakes 
 was suspended, and an agreement was reached which 
 provided that both nations should dismantle what war 
 vessels they had already built, and that henceforth 
 no armed vessels should be maintained on the Lakes 
 above a certain specific armament necessary for police 
 purposes. It was also agreed that there should be no 
 fortifications constructed on the three thousand miles 
 of border line. 
 
 The men who conceived and executed this historic 
 agreement that removed, apparently forever, a mili- 
 tary menace and burden from two peoples, but lately 
 at war with each other, should be honoured with a 
 monument built upon the international boundary line. 
 Moreover, it should be remembered that this agree- 
 ment was drawn up and carried out in good faith, 
 despite the remains of some particular prejudices 
 among the Canadian people against the United States, 
 due largely to the immigration to that country of 
 large numbers of British Loyalists who were driven 
 out of the United States during, and subsequent to, 
 the Revolutionary War. 
 
 Near the close of the War of 1812, the United States 
 had won successes on land at Baltimore and Platts- 
 burg in September, 1814; but Jackson's amazing vic- 
 tory over Wellington's veterans in the battle of New 
 Orleans caused the British * ' Tory ' ' element to have an 
 increased respect for ''radical" American democracy. 
 At the same time, that victory gave a somewhat un- 
 
60 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 fortunate boost to American * ^ bumptiousness " and 
 feeling of self-sufficiency, from which the nation is 
 now beginning to recover as it becomes an active par- 
 ticipant in the arena of world politics and policies. 
 This ''bumptiousness" — its persistency, and its per- 
 meation from the popular imagination upwards into 
 official life, has shown interesting outcroppings on 
 several occasions during the century of Anglo-Ameri- 
 can peace. 
 
 If Great Britain, even one hundred years ago, had 
 been an aggressive military power, or if she had been 
 autocratically quick to take offence, she had ample 
 excuse for such a course in 1818, at a time when she 
 was not, as in 1812-1815, engaged in battle in Europe. 
 It is highly probable, indeed, that she would not have 
 permitted the incident that then took place to be 
 closed with any power but the United States without 
 recourse to arms to secure reparation for the execu- 
 tion of British subjects in neutral territory in time of 
 peace. On the part of America, it was not only 
 * * shirt-sleeve diplomacy, ' ' but drum-head disregard of 
 international law as well. In brief, the ' ' hero of New 
 Orleans" had at that time invaded Spanish territory 
 in Florida to avenge Indian invasions from that quar- 
 ter. Finding that Alexander Arbuthnot, a Scotch- 
 man of education and ability, and his British employe, 
 Robert Ambrister, had aided the Indians, Jackson 
 very promptly hanged the employer, and later or- 
 dered the employe shot — a difference in the form of 
 their execution appreciated by military men, while 
 the latter 's more honourable fate must have especially 
 
THE DAWN OF ANGLO-AMERICAN PEACE 61 
 
 aroused his sense of gratitude to the American com- 
 mander ! When the news of this American aggression 
 reached Britain, press and people demanded an im- 
 mediate vindication of the nation ^s outraged honour. 
 The British Government was almost swept off its feet 
 into action before full official information had ar- 
 rived. It was then learned on what grounds Jackson 
 had acted, and although Great Britain regarded Jack- 
 son 's act as unusual and high-handed, it could not ap- 
 prove of Arbuthnot's course, and the incident caused 
 no clash between the two governments. 
 
Anglo-American Democracy Confronts the Forces 
 OF Pan-European Autocracy 
 
 During the sixteenth century, it had been the ardent 
 hope of Philip II of Spain to force all the people of 
 the world under the control of a group of autocrats 
 who should rule by "divine right." In 1815, this 
 dream seemed about to be realised. The Republic of 
 Prance had, in twenty-five years, fallen under the 
 spell of Napoleon and then, through external pressure, 
 the nation had been "restored" to a member of the 
 Bourbon family, the former despoilers of both land 
 and people. At this time, the Russian Czar, the Prus- 
 sian King, the Austrian Emperor, and eventually the 
 French King, entered into an agreement called by 
 them the "Holy Alliance." This "Holy Alliance" 
 was, by the combined strength of its enslaved peo- 
 ples, to stamp out popular liberty everywhere. The 
 people of Russia were called upon to suppress the 
 liberty of the people of Poland ; the people of Austria 
 were commanded to beat back a rising tide of democ- 
 racy in Italy; and the people of once-republican 
 France were engaged in crushing the spirit of revolt 
 against "divine rule" in Spain. In Europe, autoc 
 racy was overwhelmingly triumphant. Even republi- 
 can Switzerland had, for a time, succumbed to the 
 apparently irresistible forces of reaction. There were, 
 
 62 
 
DEMOCRACY VERSUS AUTOCRACY 63 
 
 nevertheless, in the minds of the members of the 
 ' ' Holy Alliance, ' ' three sources of disquietude. 
 
 During the European upheaval which had resulted 
 in the downfall of Napoleon, the colonies of Spain in 
 South America had broken from the control of the 
 mother country, and had established their own forms 
 of government. It was, therefore, proposed by Czar 
 Alexander of Russia, King Frederick William of 
 Prussia, and Emperor Francis of Austria that by 
 divine right and ''in accordance with the Gospel of 
 Jesus Christ, ' ' they should unite in helping Ferdinand 
 VII to recover his lost possessions. With democracy 
 ruthlessly crushed in continental Europe by 1823, it 
 seemed a comparatively easy matter to send an ir- 
 resistible force across the seas and restore ''divine 
 rulership" over the weak and ill-prepared republics 
 of South America. 
 
 But the second, and by far the greatest, cause for 
 apprehension lay at their own doors. Alexander, 
 Frederick William, and Francis had not conferred 
 with the King of England for the awkward reason 
 that the British ruler had, like his predecessors for 
 nearly two hundred years, abandoned "divine right" 
 theories, together with many of his royal preroga- 
 tives. It had become necessary for King George IV 
 to consult the free representatives of at least some 
 proportion of his people before war was declared for 
 any purpose against any other people; and, even if 
 George IV had been willing, any frank public discus- 
 sion of the more personal ideas of the "Holy Alli- 
 ance" would prove distinctly embarrassing, if not 
 
64 A HERITAGE OF EHEEDOM 
 
 fatal, to the success of its plans.* Great Britain had 
 previously joined forces with the continental rulers 
 to preserve herself and to ovt^rthrow the all-threaten- 
 ing autocracy of Napoleon ; but the ' ' Holy Alliance ' ' 
 could not expect her free people to help overthrow the 
 freedom of others. Indeed, Alexander, Frederick 
 William, Francis, Louis, and Ferdinand held that 
 Great Britain was very little better than a much-de- 
 tested republic. These rulers felt that it was most 
 unfortunate to have so many of the principles of 
 democracy established so near at hand ; but the Brit- 
 ish were considered ' ' slow and stupid ' ' so that if 
 their government did not actively interfere, the South 
 American plans of the ' ' Holy Alliance ' ^ could be car- 
 ried out. 
 
 A third source of misgiving lay in the apparently 
 successful establishment of democracy in the United 
 States. That, however, was a very distant annoyance 
 which could be attended to in due time. Except for 
 the disturbing example the North American Eepublic 
 had set to the plain people of their own countries, 
 the influence and ''undisciplined'* power of the 
 
 *^'I think the sentence in American history that I myself 
 am proudest of is that in the introductory sentences of the 
 Declaration of Independence, where the writers say that a due 
 respect for the opinion of mankind demands that they state 
 their reasons for what they are about to do. I venture to say 
 that decent respect for the opinion of mankind demanded that 
 those who started the present European War should have stated 
 their reasons, but they did not pay any heed to the opinion if 
 mankind, and the reckoning will come when the settlement 
 comes. ' ' 
 
 — Woodrow Wilson, June, 30, 1916. 
 
 Cf. Statement of William II at Koenigsberg, Aug. 25, 1910, 
 p. 18, footnote. 
 
DEMOCHACY VERSUS AUTOCRACY 65 
 
 United States was negligible. Besides, argued these 
 autocrats of the ' ' Holy Alliance, ' ' America and Brit- 
 ain had just emerged from the second armed conflict 
 of the past half century. They further observed, with 
 especial satisfaction, that the American people, who 
 held the power and who swayed their government, ap- 
 peared to dislike the British people and government 
 above any other people and government on earth. 
 Therefore, the autocrats of the "Holy Alliance" and 
 their advisers did not even consider the possibility of 
 these two apparently hostile peoples making common 
 cause against their private designs. 
 
 There stood out, however, in irreconcilable opposi- 
 tion, against Philip II 's dream of world autocracy an 
 obstacle which may be personified as Thomas Jeffer- 
 son's dream of the world-progress of popular govern- 
 ment. Translated into action by the forces of autoc- 
 racy on the one side and the steadily expanding prin- 
 ciples and ideals of democracy on the other, the whole 
 world was to be shaken in irrepressible conflict. Jef- 
 ferson's ''world-dream" of human liberty and 
 America's actual achievement had been derived di- 
 rectly from the political heritage given to America 
 by Sir Edwin Sandys and the English Founders of 
 Anglo-American liberty. From the time he fell heir 
 to that endowment, the success of the Anglo-American 
 in developing the principles of representative self- 
 government had been watched with increasing in- 
 terest, so that his example inspired Englishmen in the 
 mother country, and became, also, the hope of the 
 liberals of other lands. 
 
6Q A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 On the other hand, in 1823, with European autoc- 
 racy united, powerful, and aggressive, Pan-American 
 democracy was seriously threatened. But the unex- 
 pected happened. The plans of the partners in the 
 "Holy Alliance'' were openly denounced by the free 
 representatives of the British people ; and Great Brit- 
 ain proposed to President Monroe, through George 
 Canning, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, an alliance 
 with the United States in order to preserve the inde- 
 pendence of the menaced republics of the New World. 
 To those on the European side of the Atlantic, there 
 then appeared what must have seemed to minds run- 
 ning in old or reactionary channels, the astounding 
 spectacle of the ' ' rebel ' ' founders of the new republic, 
 and presumably, therefore, the bitterest enemies of 
 the British Government, rejoice in the prospect of 
 such an alliance. Thomas Jefferson and James Madi- 
 son, without reserve or qiialification, united in endors- 
 ing this British suggestion. The latter promptly wrote 
 to President Monroe that such co-operation with 
 Great Britain ''must ensure success in the event of 
 an appeal to force" on the part of the "Holy Al- 
 liance," and that "it doubles the chance of success 
 without that appeal." With a vision looking far be- 
 yond historical disagreements or provincial preju- 
 dices, the author of the Declaration of Independence 
 forwarded to Monroe an opinion in which his insight 
 into conditions now reads like a prophecy. The na- 
 ture of this reply is becoming better known through 
 recent publications, yet it bears repetition here, in 
 part, at least : 
 
DEMOCRACY VERSUS AUTOCRACY 67 
 
 "The question presented by the letters you have 
 sent me," wrote Jefferson, ''is the most momentous 
 which has ever been offered to my contemplation since 
 that of independence that made us a nation. This 
 sets our compass, and points the course which we are 
 to steer thro' the ocean of time opening on our view, 
 and never could we embark on it under circumstances 
 more auspicious. Our first and fundamental maxim 
 should be, never to entangle ourselves in the broils 
 of Europe; our second, never to suffer Europe to in- 
 termeddle in trans- Atlantic affairs. America, North 
 and South, has a set of interests distinct from those 
 of Europe, and peculiarly her own. She should, 
 therefore, have a system of her own, separate and 
 apart from that of Europe. While the last is labour- 
 ing to become the domicile of despotism, our en- 
 deavour should surely be to make our hemisphere that 
 of freedom. One nation, most of all, could disturb 
 us in this pursuit. She now offers to lead, aid, and 
 accompany us in it. By acceding to her proposition, 
 we detach her from the band of despots, bring her 
 mighty weight into the scale of free government and 
 emancipate at one stroke a whole continent, which 
 might otherwise linger long in doubt and difficulty. 
 Great Britain is the nation which can do us the most 
 harm of any one, or all on earth ; and with her on our 
 side we need not fear the whole world. AVith her, 
 then, we should the most sedulously nourish a cordial 
 friendship ; and nothing would tend more to knit our 
 affections than to be fighting once more side by side 
 in the same cause. Not that I would purchase evea 
 
68 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 her amity at the price of taking part in her wars; 
 but the war in which the present proposition might 
 engage us, should that be its consequences, is not her 
 war, but ours. Its object is to introduce and to estab- 
 lish the American system of ousting from our land all 
 foreign nations, of never permitting the powers of 
 Europe to intermeddle with the affairs of our na- 
 tions. It is to maintain our own principle, not to 
 depart from it, and if, to facilitate this, we can effect 
 a division in the body of the European powers, and 
 draw over to our side its most powerful member, 
 surely we should do it. But I am clearly of Mr. Can- 
 ning's opinion, that it will prevent war, instead of 
 provoking it. With Great Britain withdrawn from 
 their side and shifted into that of our two continents, 
 all Europe combined would not dare to risk war. 
 Nor is the occasion to be slighted, which this proposi- 
 tion offers, of declaring our protest against the atro- 
 cious violations of the rights of nations by the inter- 
 ference of any one in the internal affairs of another, 
 so flagitiously begun by Bonaparte and now continued 
 by the equally lawless Alliance, calling itself Holy. ' ' 
 
 In spite, however, of the endorsement of Jefferson 
 and Madison, the proposed alliance was not eft'ected. 
 The designs of Alexander, Frederick William, Fran- 
 cis, and Ferdinand were instead dashed to pieces by 
 the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine with the 
 official approval and support of Great Britain, which 
 support alone gave the American Doctrine weight 
 with the autocratic courts of Europe. In the mean- 
 time, Louis of France had been dissuaded by Great 
 
DEMOCRACY VERSUS AUTOCRACY 69 
 
 Britain from taking an active part in the proposed 
 Latin- American scheme of the other sovereigns. How- 
 ever much the European autocrats might at that 
 time have scorned the power of the United States, 
 they dared not attempt an invasion of distant America 
 against the wishes of the mighty *^ mistress of the 
 seas." Therefore, although the suggested Anglo- 
 American plan of alliance, designed to protect the 
 Latin-American republics, and to assure a greater 
 measure of safety to the free governments of the 
 United States and Great Britain, became known as an 
 American policy, it owed its origin and its earliest 
 authority to the spirit of Anglo-Celtic liberty in the 
 people and government of Great Britain. 
 
A Century of Anglo-American Disagreements 
 Settled by Discussion and Arbitration 
 
 In the years that followed, as reactionary British 
 ministers returned at times to power, and as Ameri- 
 can assertiveness, oratory, and provincial history 
 drove the people of the two nations apart in sympathy, 
 there were periods of serious misunderstanding and 
 mutual jealousies. At one time, indeed, in certain 
 operations in Central America, Great Britain herself, 
 with a government then influenced by powerful busi- 
 ness interests, seemed to threaten the integrity of the 
 American Doctrine which she had, indirectly, at least 
 called into being. Again, representatives of a British 
 ministry showed themselves actively interested in 
 keeping the infant Republic of Texas from a proposed 
 union with the United States. In the latter case, 
 however. Great Britain could claim with justice that 
 there seemed to be more politicians in the United 
 States opposed to this union than there were in Great 
 Britain. If Britain had developed misgivings about 
 too great an American expansion in the New World, 
 the northeastern States feared, in even greater meas- 
 ure, that their political prestige and commercial in- 
 terests would suffer by the addition of such vast new 
 territories in the southwest.* 
 
 * In 1844, the legislature of Massachusetts resolved that 
 *Hhe project of the annexation of Texas, unless arrested at the 
 
 70 
 
ANGLO-AMEUICAN AGREEMENTS 71 
 
 American aggressiveness in Anglo- American rela- 
 tions was evident in connection with the Caroline in- 
 cident, in which case popular and local antipathies 
 were displayed against British authority in Canada; 
 and in the Maine and Oregon boundary line disputes, 
 in the discussion of which there were not only popu- 
 lar, but political demonstrations against Great 
 
 Britain. 
 
 The Caroline incident owes its terminology to the 
 fact that a vessel of that name was equipped on the 
 American side of the Niagara River to act in co-opera- 
 tion with insurrectionists in Canada. The insurrec- 
 tionists, aided by Americans, had seized an island and 
 were using this as a base of supplies for raids against 
 the British-Canadian Government. The Caroline was 
 finally seized and destroyed by a Canadian force at 
 an American dock. This was as irregular a proceed- 
 ing as the initial offence; but, under the circum- 
 stances, it was, like Andrew Jackson's treatment of 
 Arbuthnot and Ambrister, excused on the basis of 
 retaliation for a previous injury. The incident is un- 
 important; but the fact that, as in the Jackson-Ar- 
 buthnot episode, the two governments settled their 
 grievances without recourse to arms adds its testi- 
 mony to the admirable side of Anglo-American rela- 
 tions and to the essential similarity of their political 
 
 threslioM, may tend to drive these States into a dissolution of 
 the Unioi." And again: ''That, under no circumstances what- 
 ever, can the people of Massachusetts regard the proposition 
 to admit Texas into the Union in any other light than as dan- 
 gerous to its continuance in peace, in prosperity, and m the 
 enjoyment of those blessings which it is the object of a free 
 government to seeure." 
 
72 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 ideals in the maintenance of international peace and 
 amity. 
 
 Autocratic governments have furnished few exam- 
 ples of open discussion. Their diplomacy is secret; 
 and with them language becomes a camouflage to dis- 
 guise their thoughts and policies. To these forms of 
 diplomacy the governments of the United States and 
 Great Britain have, in their relations with each other, 
 furnished a marked contrast. For over a century, 
 issues or differences arising between the two countries 
 have been discussed openly. In some cases, indeed, 
 the exchange of opinion between high officials has been 
 so brusque as to stir up dangerous outbursts of popu- 
 lar antagonism. In spite of such outbursts, however, 
 the discussion continued and the difficulties were fin- 
 ally adjusted. The two governments, in definite con- 
 trast to those controlled by autocrats, have, at times, 
 proved to be a check on popular belligerency. This 
 is amply illustrated by several events prior to the 
 American War of Secession. 
 
 The boundary line between Maine and Canada 
 (New Brunswick) had been but vaguely defined in the 
 Anglo-American treaty of 1783. In 1814, the treaty 
 of Ghent awarded to Great Britain a strip of land 
 claimed by Maine and by Massachusetts as the 
 ** Mother State. '* "When the matter came up for set- 
 tlement under President Jackson, it was referred by 
 the Federal Government to the King of the Nether- 
 lands as arbitrator. This international referee decided 
 in favour of the claims of Great Britain. Thereupon, 
 the Legislatures of Maine and Massachusetts declared 
 
ANGLO-AMERICAN AGREEMENTS 73 
 
 that, as far as those States were concerned, if the 
 agreement were ratified by the United States Senate, 
 it would be regarded by them as ''null and void/' * 
 Fortunately, however, the President and the 
 United States were not forced to a decision against 
 Massachusetts and Maine, on the one hand, or Great 
 Britain, on the other, by reason of the unusual course 
 of the British Government, which, in this instance 
 also, showed the most evident sincerity in its effort 
 to remain on friendly terms with America. Accord- 
 ingly, Great Britain sent to the United States, as 
 special envoy, Lord Ashburton, who had opposed, in 
 1808, the British Orders in Council, the issuing of 
 which led to the war in 1812. The dispute was finally 
 settled in 1842 by the Webster- Ashburton treaty, in 
 
 * A remarkable situation had thus arisen, both in a national 
 sense and in an international one. It is not known whether 
 President Jackson held, in matters concerning nullification, that 
 ' ' circumstances alter cases, ' ' but at least he must have felt that 
 there was some weight in the saying. In the case of nullification 
 and threatened secession in South Carolina, where he had acted 
 with prompt decision, Jackson was swayed by personal emotions 
 as well as by general motives of policy; and it may have been 
 truly said of him that **He loved the Union and hated Cal- 
 houn, ' ' so that he took steps to credit the former and discredit 
 the latter. Again, in the case of Georgia versus the Federal 
 Government and the dispossessed Cherokees, he had no griev- 
 ance against Georgia, but a decided antipathy to the Indians. 
 Consequently, he allowed Georgia to defy the United States 
 Supreme Court without rebuke and with apparent personal 
 satisfaction. In the matter of the Maine boundary dispute, the 
 victor at New Orleans was swayed by no particular love for 
 New England, the home of John Adams and the source of much 
 bitter opposition to the War of 1812. On the other hand, he had 
 not forgotten the sabre-cut given him as a boy, in South Caro- 
 lina, by the British invader of Eevolutionary days. 
 
74 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 the conduct of which Webster showed great shrewd- 
 ness in overcoming the opposition of the determined 
 Governor of Maine, while Lord Ashburton displayed 
 so conciliatory a spirit that he was afterwards roundly 
 denounced in Canada for yielding too much to the 
 claims of the United States.* 
 
 Scarcely had the Maine boundary been settled, 
 when peace between the two countries was threatened 
 by the popular cry in the United States for a large 
 part of the "Oregon Territory/' then claimed by 
 Great Britain and now embraced in British Colum- 
 bia. ^'Fifty-four forty or fight !'^ became the cam- 
 paign cry of the party that elected Polk in 1844. 
 When Polk became President, however, he illustrated 
 again the principle that democratic governments may 
 provide a check on a popular demand for war. The 
 President did not translate the campaign slogan into 
 action against Great Britain ; but, in accordance with 
 the suggestion which had been previously made by 
 President Tyler, he informed the British ambassador, 
 Pakenham, that the forty-ninth parallel would make 
 a satisfactory basis for settlement. Pakenham, how- 
 ever, in a somewhat offensive reply, rejected this pro- 
 posal. Thereupon, President Polk indicated very 
 
 * Maine refused to discuss the very basis on which Webster 
 proposed an agreement, but the latter showed the Governor of 
 the State an old map which convinced the Governor that the 
 British claims were very nearly justified. Webster promised 
 not to show the map to Lord Ashburton. On the other hand, 
 the British archives held the long-sought map used in the orig- 
 inal negotiations of 1782, which confirmed the claims of the 
 United States! 
 
ANGLO-AMERICAN AGREEMENTS 75 
 
 clearly that the United States Government would not 
 discuss the matter further, and called upon Congress 
 to make preparations for sustaining these modified 
 American claims in the Oregon region. Pakenham's 
 refusal, however, was not upheld by the British Gov- 
 ernment, and, in 1846, the boundary proposed by 
 Presidents Polk and Tyler was, with some slight 
 changes, accepted. Again Great Britain and the 
 United States, in open, if not always amicable dis- 
 cussion, showed the way for a settlement of interna- 
 tional difficulties by peaceful methods rather than by 
 an appeal to force. 
 
 Opposition to illiberal or autocratic governments 
 has been a characteristic of the Anglo-Celtic peoples. 
 They have also sympathised with the people of other 
 countries when they were struggling for greater free- 
 dom and a larger measure of popular rights. This 
 sympathy was perhaps more openly shown in America 
 than in Britain, especially in the first half of the nine- 
 teenth century. Popular sentiment was frequently 
 reflected in Congress ; and the oft-declaimed speeches 
 of Clay and Webster on behalf of the struggling 
 Greeks are not the only official or semi-official evidence 
 of the fact that America has ever been the friend as 
 well as the hope of the oppressed. In equal measure, 
 it may be said that autocracy has always feared the 
 development and growing influence of democracy in 
 America; for America first proved the worth of the 
 principle that the State exists for the welfare of the 
 people, in contradistinction to the autocratic doctrine 
 
76 
 
 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 that the people exist for the welfare of the State.* 
 In the decades which marked the various European 
 struggles for popular liberty, America has welcomed, 
 from Poland, Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Rus- 
 sia, those who have sought to overthrow an alien yoke, 
 domestic autocracy, or the burden of militarism in 
 all its forms. America welcomed the Polish patriot, 
 Kosciusko; the Hungarian *' rebel," Louis Kossuth; 
 and the German patriot, Carl Schurz, together with 
 thousands of his fellow-countrymen who had struggled 
 
 *Cf. James R. EandalPa 
 eulogy of Henry Clay, 'Hlie 
 spokesman of tlie free" in 
 America and in Europe: — 
 
 His trumpet-tones re-echoed 
 like 
 Evangels to the free. 
 Where Chimborazo views a 
 world 
 Mosaic 'd in the sea; 
 And his proud form shall 
 stand erect 
 In that triumphal car 
 Which bears to the Valhalla 
 gates 
 Heroic Bolivar. 
 
 He 
 
 and 
 
 spoke for Greece, 
 freedom flew 
 Along her sacred rills, 
 Waking the mighty souls that 
 slept 
 On Marathonian hills; 
 While bold Bozzaris launched 
 his flag 
 Upon the gulf of night, 
 And hurled a living thunder- 
 bolt 
 Against the Ottomite! 
 
 Cf., also. Lord Byron's 
 "Translation of the War 
 Song of the Greeks" in their 
 fight against the Turk: — 
 
 Sparta, Sparta, why in slum- 
 bers 
 
 Lethargic dost thou lie? 
 Awake and join thy numbers 
 
 With Athens, old ally! 
 Leonidas recalling. 
 
 That chief of ancient song, 
 Who saved thee once from 
 falling, 
 
 The terrible! the strong! 
 Who made that bold diversion 
 
 In old Thermopylae 
 And warring with the Persian 
 
 To keep his country free; 
 With his three hundred wag- 
 ing 
 
 The battle long he stood, 
 And like a lion raging, 
 
 Expired in seas of blood. 
 
ANGLO-AMERICAN AGREEMENTS 77 
 
 in vain against the enveloping grasp of Prussian mili- 
 tary autocracy. It has almost been forgotten that in 
 1853, the year in which Perry opened the ports of 
 Japan, the whole world was startled by the bold action 
 of Captain D. N. Ingraham, another American naval 
 officer, who was stationed in Mediterranean waters at 
 Smyrna. Captain Ingraham learned from the Ameri- 
 can consul that the commander of an Austrian squad- 
 ron had seized, in Asia Minor, and was holding pris- 
 oner, Martin Koszta, a compatriot of Kossuth. 
 Koszta had taken out "first papers" in America pre- 
 paratory to becoming a citizen of the United States. 
 From on board the United States Sloop St. Louis, 
 Captain Ingraham first courteously asked for the re- 
 lease of Koszta. This was as curtly denied and the in- 
 formation volunteered that Koszta would hang by 
 morning. Ingraham did not waste further words with 
 the representatives of Austrian autocracy; he tersely 
 demanded that Koszta be turned over to him within a 
 definite time or he would open fire. When the hour 
 of the American commander's ultimatum had nearly 
 expired, and Ingraham, with his decks cleared for ac- 
 tion, was awaiting, watch in hand, the moment to 
 fire, the haughty representatives of autocracy at last 
 understood and Koszta was released.* 
 
 Such deeds as this and the frequent popular demon- 
 strations of American sympathy for "rebellious sub- 
 jects" were not regarded with enthusiasm in Eu- 
 
 * Arrangement was made for the transfer of Koszta to the 
 care of the French Consul pending an examination into his 
 claims of citizenship. 
 
78 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 ropean capitals; but Ingraham's bold challenge 
 aroused a thrill of response wherever the spirit of de- 
 mocracy found freedom for expression. The working- 
 men of Great Britain, each contributing a penny, 
 gave the American commander a silver chronometer; 
 and German- Americans of Chicago, who had fled from 
 the grinding military autocracy of the Fatherland, 
 presented him with silver plate and a resolution ex- 
 pressive of their appreciation of his act on behalf of 
 one whom they regarded as a fellow patriot.* 
 
 In regard to British policy, the principal misunder- 
 standing extant in the minds of Americans of the 
 present generation, irrespective of historical teaching, 
 has been the attitude of the British Government to- 
 wards the United States during the War of Secession. 
 Any sense of grievance held by Americans on this 
 score has comparatively little basis in actual fact, 
 while the concessions made later by Great Britain to 
 American opinion are among the most unusual ever 
 yielded by any great power that was in a position to 
 uphold its contentions. There are three matters of a 
 political character, and an extra-political one, which 
 have been widely referred to as instances of British 
 unfriendliness in connection with Anglo-American re- 
 
 * Prior to the Prussianisation of Germany under Hohen- 
 zollern domination, Kant, Schiller, Heine, and Goethe spoke 
 in behalf of liberty and political freedom. Goethe's expres- 
 sion: ''Only he earns liberty who daily has to struggle for it," 
 compares favorably with that of John Philpot Curran: ''The 
 condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eter- 
 nal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at 
 once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his 
 guilt.'' 
 
ANGLO-AMERICAN AGREEMENTS 79 
 
 lations during the conflict for the preservation of the 
 Union. 
 
 First, it has been asserted that Great Britain was 
 overhasty in recognising the Confederacy, as a de 
 facto government ; for, at the time of this recognition, 
 the Federal Government sought to represent the move- 
 ment in the Southern States as an insurrection with- 
 out established authority. Nevertheless, whatever the 
 wishes of the Federal Government may have been, and 
 however much based on shrewd political motives, it 
 was clear that the movement in the South had out- 
 grown the bounds of mere insurrection from the first. 
 Besides being by its very nature unlike any struggle 
 possible in Europe, there was no positive Constitu- 
 tional prohibition against any State reassuming its 
 complete sovereignty; on the contrary, it was widely 
 believed and frequently announced (and denied) in 
 every part of the Union that any State had the right 
 to "resume its complete sovereignty." Instead of 
 promptly moving to suppress the secession movement, 
 the Federal Government, under two Presidents, had 
 permitted, for a period of three months, the forma- 
 tion of an independent Confederation to proceed with- 
 out interference. The situation had no precedent, and 
 has had no parallel since, unless possibly, the seces- 
 sion of Panama from the union of the United States 
 of Colombia be regarded as bearing some basis for 
 comparison. In the case of the Confederacy, responsi- 
 ble authority never ceased ; and, in the various States, 
 the local government was not even changed. The se- 
 ceding States voluntarily entered a new Union, which 
 
80 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 began at once to take up the powers of government 
 delegated to it. When the Federal Government called 
 on the loyal States to enforce its authority in the se- 
 ceded States and to restore them to the Federal Union, 
 a de facto Government had been in operation for sev- 
 eral months, and was claiming de jure rights. Again, 
 when the Federal Government declared a blockade of 
 the South, it acknowledged the existence of an opposi- 
 tion beyond the stage of an insurrection and it was 
 so acknowledged by the Supreme Court of the United 
 States. The Government of Great Britain in accept- 
 ing and proclaiming the de facto status of the Con- 
 federacy, merely forecast the subsequent decision of 
 the highest legal tribunal of the United States. 
 
 The demand of Great Britain for the return of 
 the Confederate commissioners, Mason and Slidell, 
 and for an apology for their seizure on board a Brit- 
 ish vessel, occasioned the most violent anti-British 
 demonstration. This affair presents the second note- 
 worthy complaint against the British Government of 
 this period. In the matter previously discussed, the 
 United States Supreme Court upheld the correctness 
 of the action of Great Britain. In this case. President 
 Lincoln declared the act of Captain Wilkes indefensi- 
 ble and exactly contrary to the contentions of America 
 from the beginning concerning the alleged right of 
 search and impressment, a "right'' which Great 
 Britain had not exercised in practice for thirty-five 
 years, and which she had formally and officially 
 abandoned in theory a few years before the American 
 conflict began. In the meantime, however, such was 
 
ANGLO-AMERICAN AGREEMENTS 81 
 
 the hysterical state of public opinion that Congress 
 was persuaded to extend to Captain Wilkes a vote of 
 thanks and to present him with silver plate. If it he 
 pointed out, therefore, that Great Britain began 
 preparations for mobilising her military and naval 
 forces, her action could not, under the circumstances, 
 be considered hasty, or unnatural. When this inci- 
 dent is looked at in the full light of the facts ; and it 
 is, thanks chiefly to Lincoln, so regarded to-day, it 
 should be remembered, in addition, that Mason and 
 Slidell met with so cold a reception in London that the 
 former made it a basis of complaint for the entire time 
 he remained in England as the accredited represen- 
 tative of the Confederacy. Neither he nor the officials 
 of his Government received the recognition that both 
 had fully expected to receive. Mason, therefore, as- 
 sailed the attitude of the British Government as un- 
 just or even hostile to the cause of the Confederacy.* 
 
 The third charge against Great Britain for breaches 
 in the friendly character of Anglo-American relations 
 is embraced under the head of ''The Alabama 
 Claims." The fact that the United States Govern- 
 ment was awarded fifteen million, five hundred thou- 
 sand dollars damages has been advanced as positive 
 proof that Great Britain was guilty of grave offenses 
 against international law and of ill-disguised official 
 hostility to the Government of the United States. 
 
 A complete investigation, however, of this third and 
 
 * Slidell, on the other hand, met with secret encouragement 
 at the French Court. Mason had been a United States Sena- 
 tor from Virginia, while Slidell, although born in New York, 
 had represented Louisiana in a similar capacity. 
 
82 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 "most flagrant" act of alleged unfriendliness on the 
 part of Great Britain brings out the fact that so 
 great was the desire of the representatives of that 
 Government to preserve amicable relations with this 
 country that an arbitration agreement was signed, 
 under the terms of which an entirely new principle 
 for damages by a belligerent against a neutral could 
 be applied. Not only was one party (Great Britain) 
 in this action voluntarily subjecting herself to ex post 
 facto regulations — to rules established after the al- 
 leged offence had been committed — but Great Britain 
 ultimately submitted to the application of a ruling 
 which leading legal authorities of the other litigant 
 (the United States) declared, in the opinion of one of 
 them, "had no precedent, and could have no follow- 
 ing/' * 
 
 By all precedent in international law and usage, 
 Great Britain could not be held accountable for the 
 depredations of the Alabama upon United States 
 
 * These statements are based upon authorities on interna- 
 tional law who wrote their opinions within a quarter of a cen- 
 tury subsequent to the award of the Geneva Tribunal. It is 
 not in any way contended that the Washington Treaty and the 
 arbitration based upon its provisions have not affected political 
 opinion and tendencies in international custom. 
 
 ' ' They [the rules laid down by the Geneva Tribunal] are not 
 binding as permanent and absolute rules on England and the 
 United States: (a) because neither England nor the United 
 States have ever considered them to be so binding: and (b) 
 because, by the treaty that proposed them as temporary rules 
 of action for guidance of a special and exceptional court, their 
 permanent adoption is dependent upon their communication 
 to the great European powers, which communication has never 
 been made. This position is taken by Mr. Fish in his letters 
 to Sir Edward Thornton, of May 8 and September 18, 1876, 
 as communicated by President Hayes in his message to the 
 
ANGLO-AMERICAN AGREEMENTS 83 
 
 shipping. The Alabama set out from Liverpool as an 
 unarmed vessel, which later, through private British 
 sources, secured its equipment off the Azores. The ves- 
 sel was constructed by contract with a private corpo- 
 ration and might have been purchased with equal pro- 
 priety by the Government of the United States instead 
 of the Confederacy. The Government of the United 
 States, however, was able to construct its own ships, 
 while the Confederacy, as an acknowledged belliger- 
 ent, presumably with equal rights, was compelled to 
 purchase where it could in foreign markets.* 
 
 The Government of the Confederate States, in con- 
 tracting for the unarmed Alabama did not go so far 
 as the Government of the United States had gone in 
 
 Senate of January 13, 1879; and there is no dissent of the 
 British Government recorded. '' 
 
 — Wharton: A Digest of the International Law of the United 
 States. Washington: Goveriiment Printing Office. 1886. 
 
 "It will be at once seen that these rules, though leading 
 immediately to an award superficially favorable to the United 
 States in the large damages it gave, placed limitations on the 
 rights of neutrals greater even than those England had en- 
 deavoured to impose during the Napoleonic wars, and far 
 greater than those which the United States had ever previously 
 been willing to concede. 
 
 ' ' These rules, repudiated as tliey have been by the contracting 
 powers, and rejected by all other powers, are to be regarded 
 not only as not forming part of the law of nations, but as not 
 binding either Great Britain or the United States." 
 — Wharton: Com. Am. Law; 244. Cf., also, Creasy, Twiss, 
 Wheaton, American Law Beview, VII. 
 
 * Secretary Welles had tried to get armed and iron-plated 
 ships from the same firm which constructed the Alabama; but 
 the Federal Government, in the belief that the war would soon 
 be over, specified that the vessels should be built within too 
 brief a period for the Lairds — the designers of the Alabama — 
 to undertake any promise of delivery. 
 
84 A HERITAGE OF FUEEBOM 
 
 contracting for several vessels secured during the 
 Revolution from France when France was neutral. 
 On the other hand, thirty-odd years before the War 
 of Secession, when the Spanish Government claimed 
 damages for the depredations of the American-built 
 Santissima Trinidad, which had been operating on be- 
 half of the Argentina revolutionists, Mr. Justice 
 Story handed down the decision of the United States 
 Supreme Court to the effect that the United States 
 could not be held responsible for the acts of that ves- 
 sel after she had been properly commissioned by the 
 belligerent in whose service she was duly engaged. 
 Not only was the Santissima Trinidad built in the 
 United states, but the Supreme Court admitted also 
 that the vessel was equipped in the United States; 
 that, with the '* expressed approval of the United 
 States Government," she had visited, from time to 
 time, United States ports to procure supplies; that 
 her Argentine commission ''was not expressed in the 
 most unequivocal terms," so that, with regard to her 
 career, the vessel had to be judged partly by cir- 
 cumstances and testimony; and that there was even 
 a private suspicion of a ** lurking American interest" 
 in the vessel itself.* 
 
 * The Court affirmed in addition : * * A bill of sale is not 
 necessary to be produced nor will the courts of a foreign 
 country inquire into the means by which the title to the prop- 
 erty has been acquired." The Santissimn Trinidad was but 
 one of a number of ships which were built in the United 
 States for service under the belligerent governments of South 
 America. 
 
 As Secretary of State under John Quincy Adams, Henry 
 Clay wrote to Eivas y Salmon, June 9, 1827: '*If vessels have 
 been built in the United States and afterwards sold to one of 
 
ANGLO-AMERICAN AGREEMENTS 85 
 
 In spite of these facts, the Government of Great 
 Britain, on the complaint of the United States, agreed 
 to discuss the matter before an international tribunal 
 on points which the United States Supreme Court had 
 already declared most positively to be above question 
 on the ground of ' ' the settled practice between na- 
 tions. " By a special arrangement, therefore, the de- 
 fendant (Great Britain) agreed to stand trial on 
 charges, the validity of which the plaintiff (the 
 United States) had previously refused to admit and 
 afterwards refused to acknowledge as applicable to 
 any future proceedings in which she might be a party. 
 
 In the opinion of the Confederate Government, the 
 British rulings and policy had markedly favoured the 
 Federal belligerent. As an illustration, it may be 
 cited that, according to the regulations laid down by 
 the British Government, both belligerents were for- 
 bidden to bring naval captures to British ports for 
 adjudication by duly constituted prize courts. This 
 ruling was apparently equitable ; but, in actual prac- 
 tice, it was so distinctly favourable to the United 
 States that it might have been promulgated from 
 Washington rather than from London. From the be- 
 ginning, the United States controlled the seas, so that 
 
 the belligerents and converted into vessels-of-war, our citi- 
 zens engaged in that species of manufacture have been equally 
 ready to build and sell vessels to the other belligerent.^' On 
 October 31, 1827, Clay wrote: *'To require the citizens of a 
 neutral power to abstain from their incontestable right to 
 dispose of the property which they must have in an unarmed 
 ship to a belligerent, would, in effect, be to demand that they 
 should cease to have any commerce, or to employ any naviga- 
 tion in their intercourse with the belligerent." 
 
86 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 Federal prizes could be taken upon capture into any- 
 port of the United States at any time. On the other 
 hand, the ports of the Confederacy were blockaded. 
 Therefore, the only profitable recourse left to Con- 
 federate warships lay in taking their prizes into 
 neutral ports for adjudication, a privilege which was 
 denied them by Great Britain and by other neutrals 
 that followed her example. This privilege had so 
 long been extended to belligerents that it had become 
 regarded almost as a right. From first to last, the 
 Confederate authorities claimed that ''right," but in 
 vain.* 
 
 Again, it was decided that the war vessels of either 
 belligerent could obtain coal and provisions at British 
 ports. Such was the theory of the British ruling, but 
 this privilege in several instances was denied to Con- 
 federate warships. This was notably the ease at Gi- 
 braltar. The Confederate warship Sumter was laid 
 up there and sold, chiefly because Captain Semmes 
 was unable to secure coal until after he was blockaded 
 by a Federal squadron. Had he been able to get out 
 with the Sumter on that occasion, the skill of this Con- 
 federate naval officer might not have been available 
 for the destructive career of the Alabama, of which 
 he later became commander. One of the officers on 
 the Alabama was Acting Master Bulloch of Georgia, 
 
 * The facts here brought forward to show that Great Britain 
 was not legally culpable in the matter of the Alabama claims 
 must not be understood as impugning the testimony of the 
 American Minister, Charles Francis Adams, who held that the 
 British officials were lax in making inquiry as to the purposes 
 of the vessel under construction. 
 
ANGLO-AMERICAN AGREEMENTS 87 
 
 an uncle of Theodore Koosevelt. At one time or an- 
 other, Bulloch, like the other Confederate officers un- 
 der Semmes, complained of the official hostility of the 
 British to the cause of the Confederacy ; and, in pass- 
 ing judgment upon the actions of a neutral, the 
 official attitude is all-important. 
 
 With regard to private views or sentiment, it cannot 
 successfully he denied that the larger number of the 
 influential people of Great Britain were in sympathy 
 with the Confederacy. This sympathy was partly 
 sentimental, partly political. A large number of 
 Britons engaged in commerce and manufacturing were 
 not so much in favour of the independence of the 
 Confederacy as they were opposed to the political 
 policies of the United States. The South had long 
 contended for low tariffs, or free trade, while the 
 North had sought and obtained high tariffs. The 
 Confederacy, therefore, promised a market for British 
 manufactures ; the North would shut them out. The 
 fact, also, that the South was the largest producer of 
 cotton for the great British mills had considerable 
 effect on British sentiment.* 
 
 *In 1863, Henry Ward Beecher spoke at Liverpool in an 
 effort to turn popular sentiment toward the Federal Govern- 
 ment and the North. In the course of his address, he de- 
 clared: *' There must be liberty to distribute and exchange 
 ^products of industry in any market without burdensome tar- 
 iffs, without imposts, and without vexatious regulations. . . . 
 The comprehensive law of ideal industrial conditions of the 
 world is free manufacture and free trade." Mr. Beecher 
 doubtless believed in the faith he here expressed, but his 
 audience interrupted him with cries of "The Morrill Tariff! 
 This tariff had just been passed by the Federal Congress at 
 the behest of the Northern manufacturers and represented the 
 
 t 
 
88 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 There was, on tlie other hand, a strong minority 
 among the so-called "higher classes" in Britain who 
 favoured the North. When, also, it seemed likely that, 
 with the triumph of the North, all of the restored 
 Union would follow the example set by some of the 
 States and the British Empire in the abolition of 
 slavery, even the involuntarily idle and suffering 
 workingmen of the Lancashire mill districts declared 
 themselves in favour of the Federal Government and 
 cause.* 
 
 highest barrier yet raised against British and other importa- 
 tions. 
 
 * There exists to-day a wide-spread popular impression that 
 the principal issue at stake in the War of Secession was that 
 of slavery ; in short, that the North fought to abolish it and the 
 South to perpetuate it. The abolition of slavery, however, 
 was an incidental outcome of the struggle, and it is often for- 
 gotten how frequently President Lincoln stated that the war 
 aims of the Federal Government were altogether involved in 
 the preservation of the Union, whether **with or without 
 slavery.*' The Emancipation Proclamation did not, in fact, 
 free any slaves in the loyal States or in those parts of the 
 South then under Federal authority. In 1864, Jefferson Davis 
 prepared to send a commissioner to Europe offering to guar- 
 antee the emancipation of the negroes in return for recogni- 
 tion of the Confederacy. This proposition was placed before 
 the Government of Great Britain; but Premier Palmerston re- 
 plied that under no circumstances would her Majesty's Gov- 
 ernment offer recognition to the Confederate States. On the 
 other hand, there is little doubt that an autocracy or any gov- 
 ernment hostile to the United States would have attempted to 
 take advantage of any one of a number of opportunities to cut 
 in two the power and territory of a commercial and political 
 rival. The essential harmony of principles between the govern- 
 ments of the United States and Great Britain prevented such 
 an outcome. In somewhat similar fashion, the essential agree- 
 ment of the political ideals of the people of the Northern and 
 the Southern States led to a permanent and complete healing 
 of the wounds of war just as soon thereafter as military recon- 
 
ANGLO-AMERICAN AGREEMENTS 89 
 
 Throughout the past century of Anglo-American 
 peace, no one would pretend to say that in favouring 
 the United States, the Government of Great Britain 
 was acting in a purely altruistic and unselfish man- 
 ner. On the contrary, the liberal statesmen of Great 
 Britain perceived that it was to the best interests of 
 Great Britain to maintain friendly relations with the 
 United States ; and this in turn, promoted the welfare 
 of American democracy. Fewer statesmen in Amer- 
 ica than in Britain saw or at least openly professed 
 this view of mutual profit from mutual concessions. 
 In Britain, whenever ultra-conservative leaders gained 
 control, their natural coldness for the peculiar demo- 
 cracy of the United States was as often tempered by 
 the appearance of war clouds in Europe. For exam- 
 ple, political disturbances of this nature materially 
 aided in overcoming conservative opposition to dis- 
 cussion and arbitration of the Alabama claims. 
 
 Some twenty years later, or during President Cleve- 
 land 's second administration, the sharp controversy 
 which arose between the governments of the United 
 States and Great Britain, voiced by Secretary Olney 
 on the one side and Lord Salisbury on the other, not 
 only caused no breach between the two great branches 
 of Anglo- Celtic democracy, but the dispute had the 
 ultimate effect of cementing the bonds of friendship 
 and of laying a firmer basis for international peace. 
 The discussion of the points at issue was frank and 
 open, and the people of both nations became interested 
 
 struction ended and the prmciples of self-government were 
 
 restored. 
 
90 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 in working for a better understanding. They, at 
 least, would not permit their duly elected representa- 
 tives, or the jingo element, or the merely disaffected, 
 to lead them into a conflict if it could honourably be 
 avoided. At no time did the spirit of Anglo-Celtic 
 democracy show to better advantage. The declaration 
 of Secretary Olney, based, perhaps, on Senator Sum- 
 ner's chauvinistic oratory of 1869, that, in effect, 
 Great Britain had no established rights on the whole 
 American Continent which the United States was 
 bound to respect was, in American opinion, unten- 
 able; although the special interest of the United 
 States in Venezuela under the Monroe Doctrine was 
 upheld and maintained. On the other hand, the peo- 
 ple of Great Britain set themselves to smoothing over 
 the brusque reply of their Premier, and the propriety 
 of the inquiry of the United States Government into 
 the relations between European Powers and the South 
 American Eepublics was acknowledged. Both peo- 
 ples, aroused by the belligerent tone of their elected 
 representatives, felt a sudden sense of shock that such 
 official action might at any time lead to a breach of an 
 Anglo-American peace which had lasted through sev- 
 eral generations.* 
 
 * During the War of Secession and in the midst of a remark- 
 able display of provincialism on the part of Senator Sumner 
 and Secretary Seward, it is nowhere evident that Abraham 
 Lincoln exliibited a wish for anything other than the most 
 friendly relations with the British Government and people. 
 Sumner, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign 
 Relations, made perhaps the most preposterous demands ever 
 seriously proposed to a friendly nation. He estimated the 
 Alabama claims and the damages due the United States by 
 Great Britain on the basis of the Federal cost of maintenance 
 
ANGLO-AMERICAN AGREEMENTS 91 
 
 The immediate effect of this dispute led, after fur- 
 ther discussion, not only to its settlement by arbitra- 
 tion ; but the two governments proceeded to seize the 
 opportunity to adjust a number of other differences, 
 some of them of long standing. Furthermore, a gen- 
 eral treaty of arbitration was signed in Washington 
 in January, 1897. This treaty was intended to cover 
 any matters which should come up for controversy 
 between the two great English-speaking peoples. The 
 terms of the agreement met with the approval of 
 leading statesmen in either country, but certain politi- 
 cal influences were at work in the United States 
 against its final ratification. These influences, to- 
 gether with the traditional distrust of Great Britain, 
 induced the United States Senate to reject the treaty; 
 although, even in the face of violent opposition, rati- 
 fication failed by a small margin on the required two- 
 thirds majority.* 
 
 It was during the Spanish- American war that tradi- 
 
 of the War of Secession; and he expressed the belief that, 
 under the circumstances, the British flag had best be with- 
 drawn altogether from the North American continent. It is 
 an hiteresting fact that John Hay, President Lincoln's private 
 secretary and biographer, became Secretary of State^ under 
 President McKinley. Had Lincoln been a leader of the type 
 which has, from time to time, sought to create popular senti- 
 ment against Great Britain, Hay's political inheritance would 
 not have led him to further Jefferson's ideas of a cordial 
 friendship" between Britain and America, which Hay did as 
 far as lay in his power. 
 
 * In the meantime. United States revenue cutters were seiz- 
 inff British-owned sailing vessels in Bering Sea. This dispute 
 alone might have brought the two nations to blows. It also 
 was settled by arbitration, as in the case of a Canadian lish- 
 eries difference at about the same period. 
 
92 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 tional distrust of the British Government and people 
 received the severest blow of the nineteenth century. 
 In striking contrast to the strongly-expressed con- 
 demnation of the autocracies of Europe, together with 
 the disapproval of republican France, the people of 
 Great Britain, through their Press and government 
 officials, endorsed America's determination to set 
 Cuba free from misrule and despotism. The liberal 
 attitude of Great Britain in 1823 had aroused no 
 such popular response as this unexpected evidence of 
 British sympathy with the latest aspirations of Amer- 
 ican democracy. The position or viewpoint of the 
 British Government was specifically illustrated by the 
 now-famous ' incident at Manila Bay, wherein the 
 American commander, disturbed by the dubious and 
 high-handed actions of the commander of a powerful 
 German fleet, received prompt assurances of support 
 from the British naval forces.* 
 
 * It is more than likely that some of the American officers 
 at Manila remembered at that time the incident at Samoa ten 
 years before when the German consul there had set up his own 
 seleetion as king of the island. The German naval forces at 
 Samoa began to take an active part against the deposed ruler, 
 who had been friendly to American interests. Accordingly, 
 the Adler was despatched to shell a village, the people of which 
 had declared in favour of the former king. The plans of the 
 Adler were upset by the appearance of the American cruiser 
 Adams under Commander Leary. This American sailor of 
 Irish descent did not intend that the friends of the United 
 States should be fired upon without protest. He therefore put 
 the Adams in line of the Adler 's fire and made ready for 
 active participation in any proceedings that might follow. 
 The commander of the Adler was not prepared to shell a 
 United States cruiser, so that he abandoned his plans and re- 
 turned to Apia. This action of Commander Leary at Samoa 
 might well be compared with that of Captain Ingraham at 
 
ANGLO-AMERICAN AGREEMENTS 93 
 
 The decade following the war with Spain showed a 
 great increase of sympathy hetween well-informed 
 Americans on the one side and liberal Britons on the 
 other. Statesmen, diplomats, and writers, like Hay, 
 Root, Choate, Grey, Bryce, and Pauncefote, took ad- 
 vantage of the newly-aroused feeling of kinship in 
 political ideals to settle several points of difference. 
 By the purchase of Alaska in 1867, the already vast 
 ^xtent of boundary line between the United States 
 and Canada had been about doubled. The claims of 
 the two countries differed widely; but there was no 
 hasty call to arms, no rush by either people to possess 
 the territory in dispute, and there were no political 
 outcries as in the ** roaring forties." Moreover, the 
 
 Smyrna. Cf. p. 77. Commander Leary's course in this whole 
 diflSeult and dangerous proceeding at Samoa constitutes a brief 
 but highly creditable chapter in American naval records. Part 
 of his note to the commander of the Adler, as the latter was 
 arrogantly preparing to attack the natives and risk also the 
 destruction of American lives and property, should inspire a 
 thrill of pride in his fellow-countrymen for all time. In 
 reference to his countrymen's rights and interests, Commander 
 Leary declared, as he placed himself between the German and 
 his prospective victims: *'/ am here for the purpose of pro- 
 tecting the same.'* 
 
 The democracy of Great Britain was, for a long time, ac- 
 cused of the apparent inconsistency of holding the people of 
 India and other semi-developed countries in a kind of tutelage. 
 It is for this reason, perhaps, that the people of Great Britain 
 regarded the acquisition of the Philippines by the United 
 States with especial satisfaction. The British people did not 
 envy the American Republic any such acquisitions. On the 
 contrary, they wanted a fellow-democracy to share in some of 
 the grave responsibilities which had, in many cases, been 
 thrust upon them. A greater similarity in policy and destiny 
 brought about a mutual sympathy in common problems. Presi- 
 dent McKinley's expressions as to ''benevolent assimilation," 
 aroused far more unfavourable criticism in America than they 
 did in England. 
 
A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 English-speaking democracies had begun to feel that 
 they had formed a habit of settling all differences 
 through bi-national discussion or by arbitration. The 
 decisions of the tribunals of arbitration were accepted 
 in good temper by both sides in a manner not unlike 
 that in which parties to controversies in the United 
 States have come to accept the decisions of the United 
 States Supreme Court. 
 
 During Roosevelt's administration, Elihu Root, as 
 the American Secretary of State, and Ambassador 
 Bryce on the part of Great Britain, signed (April 8, 
 1908) an arbitration convention which ultimately suc- 
 ceeded in securing the approval of the United States 
 Senate. It was not so comprehensive an agreement as 
 that proposed by Olney and Pauncefote, but it served, 
 almost immediately, a beneficent purpose. The dis- 
 pute as to the Canadian fisheries was referred to the 
 Hague Tribunal, with the result that this century-old 
 difficulty was adjusted to the relief of the people of 
 both nations. 
 
 Last to be mentioned here, but by no means the 
 least important of the discussions with 'Great Britain, 
 is that relating to the construction of the Panama 
 Canal. In the Clayton-Bulwer treaty of 1850, the 
 United States and Great Britain had agreed to joint 
 control of any inter-oceanic waterway which might 
 be constructed in Central America. In the course of 
 the vast development of the interests of the United 
 States, the idea of the proposed joint control of an 
 American project had become intolerable to American 
 sentiment. It was thought that no canal was prefer- 
 
ANGLO-AMERICAN AGREEMENTS 95 
 
 able to a canal not exclusively under American con- 
 trol. It was so represented to Great Britain; and 
 British statesmen, in the interests of world trade, 
 agreed to give up British rights, as defined under the 
 original treaty. Consequently, the Hay-Pauncefote 
 agreement of 1901 superseded the Clayton-Bulwer 
 treaty of 1850. By the terms of this agreement, 
 Great Britain withdrew from participation in the con- 
 struction and control of the canal. The United States 
 proceeded to act with complete freedom and the Fed- 
 eral Government agreed to stand sponsor for the 
 neutralisation of the waterway when finished. This 
 bi-national discussion, the British concessions, and the 
 agreement flowing therefrom are not only highly 
 creditable to the open diplomacy of the two Powers, 
 but their joint action has already served and will con- 
 tinue to serve the trade and commerce of all the world. 
 The English-speaking democracies constitute the ex- 
 pansion of the liberty-loving Anglo-Celtic race. They 
 consist of two great divisions and seven separate peo- 
 ples : the United States, with its dependencies, on the 
 one side ; and Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New 
 Zealand, South Africa, and the British Isles, with 
 their dependencies, on the other. To-day, over-proud 
 Britons on the one hand and over-boastful Americans 
 on the other may not like the idea of learning from 
 each other how one has excelled the other in working 
 out different phases of their Anglo-Celtic political 
 ideals, yet each may profit by the achievements and 
 avoid the mistakes of the other ; and both have lessons 
 to learn from the separate democracies of five other 
 
96 A HERITAGE OF FEEEDOM 
 
 English-speaking peoples whose principles of political 
 liberty may be traced to the same source. Whatever 
 menaces the democracy of one of the seven English- 
 speaking peoples menaces democracy the world over; 
 and whatever tends to strengthen the peaceful demo- 
 cracy of one or more of these peoples tends to promote 
 the welfare of popular government everywhere. Be- 
 tween the two great branches of the English-speaking 
 peoples a beneficent peace has prevailed for over one 
 hundred years. In view of the world-conflict between 
 the forces of autocracy and democracy to-day, we be- 
 gin to realise for the first time, that had a mere tradi- 
 tional distrust, engendered by historical misconcep- 
 tions, fanned Anglo-American political differences 
 into a doubly disastrous conflict, government of the 
 people, by the people, and for the people might in- 
 deed have perished from the earth. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SUGGESTIONS 
 
 The foregoing pages liave treated an historical sub- 
 ject in a manner rather less **technicar' than *' popu- 
 lar." Nevertheless, in this work, also, particularly if 
 it offer a more or less unaccustomed viewpoint or in- 
 terpretation, the reader will desire either to know the 
 sources of the writer's information or to have sugges- 
 tions made showing where he may read further on the 
 subject. Perhaps he may wish to do both. But the 
 author who conscientiously wishes to help his readers 
 faces a difficult problem in the kind of bibliography 
 he shall present. It is comparatively easy to mention 
 from the library catalog approximately all the books 
 which bear upon the subject. The author is relieved 
 thereby of the responsibility of selection, but the 
 reader is perplexed — and perhaps both discouraged 
 and disgusted. 
 
 On the beginnings of America, works of a readily 
 accessible and popular nature are yet to appear, and 
 there are few even of the ''technical" volumes which 
 do not have to be revised in the light of new evidence 
 on this period of the parentage and birth of Anglo- 
 American democracy. Captain John Smith's works, 
 as histories of the founding of the Jamestown colony, 
 are thoroughly unreliable. On the other hand, a large 
 number of the records of the colonists and the parent 
 company have been gathered and published by Alex- 
 
 97 
 
98 A HERITAGE OF FREEDOM 
 
 ander Brown in two volumes, entitled : The Genesis of 
 the United States. The same author brought out also 
 The First Bepuhlic in America and English Politics 
 in Early Virginia History. See also Tyler's England 
 in America.* 
 
 After the period of the "parentage and birth" of 
 Anglo-American colonisation, we have Governor Brad- 
 ford 's veracious chronicle of the beginnings of the 
 Massachusetts settlement. From this point on, the 
 authorities multiply and the matter of selection be- 
 comes a difficult one. If the three volumes of Profes- 
 sor Osgood's American Colonies in the Seventeenth 
 Century seem too formidable, there are other presenta- 
 tions in single volumes or in portions of some of the 
 volumes edited or prepared by Johnson, Hart, Avery 
 (popular), Wiley and Rines (popular with frequent 
 documentary reprints for reference), etc., etc. 
 
 These general authorities could be multiplied al- 
 most ad infinitum. For the later periods, the reader 
 will be more interested in the works which he would 
 care to follow in the development of the broader, non- 
 provincial viewpoint of British-American and other 
 international relations touched upon in the foregoing 
 pages. Such are, for example, the valuable contribu- 
 tions of George Louis Beer: Origins of the British 
 Colonial System, British Colonial Policy, The Old 
 Colonial System, The English-speaking Peoples. Syd- 
 
 * As a late and admirable addition to the limited number of re- 
 liable volumes based on the "popular records of our first colony" 
 should be mentioned Professor Charles Mills Gayley's brief vol- 
 ume on Shakespeare and the Founders of Liberty in America — 
 which appeared after the foregoing pages had been written. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL SUGGESTIONS 99 
 
 ney George Fisher: The True History of the Amer- 
 ican Revolution, The Struggle for American Inde- 
 pendence. Dunning: The British Empire and the 
 United States. Charles Francis Adams : Transatlan- 
 tic Historical Solidarity. Kennedy: The Pan-An- 
 gles. Curtis: The Problem of the Commonwealth, 
 The CommOTiwealth of Nations. Powers: America 
 Among the Nations. Robinson and West: The For- 
 eign Policy of Woodrow Wilson. For brief and read- 
 able comparative study, see Bacon's The American 
 Plan of Government, and Wallace's The Government 
 of England. 
 
 Innumerable other volumes of general or particular 
 value might be mentioned. This partial selection has, 
 no doubt, wrought an injustice to other equally ad- 
 mirable works. In the very nature of the attempt, 
 however, such an injustice is inevitable. A few other 
 volumes have been mentioned in preceding footnote 
 references; and it should be added that any modern 
 single volume history of the United States will furnish 
 a more or less lengthy list of authorities and sources. 
 These lists are incomplete, however comprehensive; 
 for it is the latest volumes which have taken the most 
 advantage of the more recent investigations, and the 
 interpretation which may be put upon them. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 While the foregoing work was in press, several ad- 
 ditional communications were received from historians 
 to whom copies of the MS. had been sent. One of 
 these letters was from Dr. Charles M. Andrews, Profes- 
 sor of American History at Yale University. Professor 
 Andrews warns the author against a possible impres- 
 sion which may be created in regard to the relative 
 value of the terms *' liberty" and *' democracy'' as 
 used in the seventeenth century and that implied by 
 such terms to-day. 
 
 The author has assumed, however, that the reading 
 public is familiar with the gradual development of 
 representative democracy and that they would not in- 
 terpret the ideals of Sir Edwin Sandys in framing 
 the "Great American Charter of Liberty" of 1609 as 
 extending, for example, the principles of universal 
 suffrage to the settlements in America. It is not in- 
 tended, of course, that there should be presented an 
 ''antithesis of democracy versus despotism" between 
 the ideas of Sandys and the Smith faction in the Vir- 
 ginia Company. Nevertheless, James I referred to 
 Sandys as ^^our greatest enemy." The king arbitra- 
 rily imprisoned Sandys and (doubtless) would have 
 deemed it a duty to "divine right" principles to have 
 hanged Sir Edwin, thus making the difference between 
 their views of government one of life and death ! 
 
 101 
 
102 APPENDIX 
 
 The foregoing may, therefore, be profitably read in 
 connection with the following statements set forth by 
 Mr. A. F. Pollard, called by Professor Andrews in his 
 letter, ' ' one of the sanest of English historical men, ' ' 
 and in connection with similar comments made by 
 Professor Andrews himself. 
 
 Mr. Pollard writes in the Yale Beview for July, 
 1914: 
 
 * * This incessant change in man 's conceptions is the 
 greatest problem of history. If only we knew exactly 
 what men meant by the words they used, our difficulty 
 in comprehending their actions would largely disap- 
 pear; but it is surely obvious that the worst way of 
 seeking an approach to that understanding is to as- 
 sume that words meant in the past what they mean 
 to-day.'' 
 
 In the issue of the Yale Beview for October, 1914, 
 Professor Andrews writes : 
 
 ' ' In truth, we have arrived at this idea of what our 
 forefathers thought, by selecting certain documents 
 and incidents, from the Mayflower Compact to the 
 Declaration of Independence, and from Bacon's Re- 
 bellion to the various riotous acts of the pre-Revolu- 
 tionary period ; and, construing them more or less ac- 
 cording to our wishes and prepossessions, have 
 wrought therefrom an epic of patriotism satisfying to 
 our self-esteem. We love to praise those who strug- 
 gled, sometimes with high purposes, sometimes under 
 the influence of purely selfish motives, against the au- 
 thority of the British crown. But this, in an histori- 
 cal sense, is pure pragmatism. It is not history, be- 
 
APPENDIX 103 
 
 cause it treats only a part of the subject and treats it 
 wrongly and with a manifest bias. It does not deal 
 with what may be called the normal conditions of the 
 colonial period. It ignores the prevailing sentiment 
 of those who, however often they may have objected 
 to the way in which the royal authority was exercised 
 and to the men who exercised it, lived contented lives, 
 satisfied in the main with the conditions surrounding 
 them, and believing firmly in the system of govern- 
 ment under which they had been born and brought 
 up. It misunderstands and consequently exaggerates 
 expressions of radical sentiment, and interprets such 
 terms as * * freedom, " ' ' liberty, ' ' and ' ' independence ' ' 
 as if, in the mouths of those who used them, they had 
 but a single meaning and that meaning the one com- 
 monly prevalent at the present time. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Adams, Charles Francis, Min- 
 ister to England, 86 fn. 
 
 Adams, Charles Francis, II, 
 49 fn., 99 
 
 Adams, John, 18, 48, 55 fn. 
 
 Adams, John Quincy, 84 fn. 
 
 Adventure, The Sea, 25 
 
 Agreements, 'Anglo-American, 
 
 . 70 et seq. 
 
 Alabama claims, 81-85 
 
 Alaska, boundary dispute, 93 
 
 Aldersgate, 17, 18, 43 
 
 Alexander, Czar of Eussia, 63, 
 64 
 
 Alliance, The Holy, 62-68 
 
 Altschul, on The Americavi 
 devolution in our School 
 Text-hooJcs, 46 fn., 48 fn. 
 
 America, refuge against op- 
 pression, 76 et seq. 
 
 Anglo-American ideals, 47 ; 
 popular unity, 46 
 
 Anglo-Celtic, use of term, 
 45 fn. 
 
 Anglo-Saxon, use"^ of term, 
 45 fn. 
 
 Arbitration, Anglo-American, 
 70 et seq. 
 
 Arbuthnot-Ambrister contro- 
 versy, 60-61 
 
 Archer, Captain Gabriel, visits 
 England, 20; opposes Col- 
 onial Parliament, 20 
 
 Ashburton, Lord, 73-74 
 
 Assembly, first representative, 
 29 
 
 Austria, part in Holy Alli- 
 ance, 62-68 
 
 B 
 
 Bacon, Sir Francis, draws up 
 Charter of 1609, 22; of 
 1612, 28 
 
 Baltimore, in War of 1812, 59 
 
 Barre, 48 
 
 Beeeher, Henry Ward, at Liv- 
 erpool, 87 f n. 
 
 Beer, George Louis, 49 fn., 98 
 
 Bering Sea controversy, 91 fn. 
 
 Berkeley, Governor, 44 
 
 Bermudas, 25-27 
 
 Bethmann-Holweg, on viola- 
 tion of Belgian neutrality, 
 41 fn. 
 
 Bible, Olustration of * ' the five 
 talents," 35, 36 fn.; text 
 from, 17, 18, 26 
 
 Bonaparte, Napoleon, 54-57 
 
 Bradford, Governor, history 
 of Plymouth settlement, 98; 
 on communism, 37 fn. 
 
 Brewster, William, 41 
 
 Brown, Alexander, 98 
 
 Bryce, James, signs arbitra- 
 tion convention, 93-94 
 
 Buck, Kev. Eichard, 26 
 
 Burke, Edmund, on Concilia- 
 tion, 46, 48 
 
 Business, men of, interest in 
 history, 49 f n. 
 
 Butler, Nathaniel, 30 fn., 34 
 
 Byron, on Greek freedom, 
 76 fn. 
 
 
 
 Canada, relations with United 
 States, 58, 59, 71 
 
 105 
 
106 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Canning, George, 66 
 
 Carolinas, founding of, 44 
 
 Caroline, the, incident of, 71 
 
 Celt, the influence of the, 
 45 f n. 
 
 Charles I ascends throne, 40; 
 overthrown, 44 
 
 Charter of 1612, 27, 28 
 
 Charters, operation of, 26, 39; 
 secured, 19, 20, 22 
 
 Clay, Henry, opinion as to 
 Santissima Trinidad case, 
 84 fn.; upholds liberty, 75- 
 76 
 
 Cleveland, President, in Vene- 
 zuela controversy, 89-91 
 
 College, the first, 38 
 
 Colonies, difficulties of, 35 et 
 seq.; support of, 20 
 
 Commonwealth, British, com- 
 ponent parts, XI, 95 
 
 Communism at Jamestown and 
 Plymouth, 37 fn. 
 
 Company, Virginia (see Vir- 
 ginia Company) 
 
 Confederacy, the Southern, 
 Commissioners of, to Brit- 
 ain, seized, 80-81; recogni- 
 tion of as belligerent, 79 et 
 seq.; status of, 79-80 
 
 Cromwell, Oliver, 18 
 
 CromweU, Sir Oliver, 24 
 
 Cuba, War for liberation of, 
 91-93 
 
 Curran, John Philpot, on lib- 
 erty, 78 fn. 
 
 Curtis, Lionel, 99 
 
 D 
 
 Declaration of Independence, 
 53 fn.; original draft, XI; 
 quotation from, 22 fn. 
 
 Democracy, representative, de- 
 velopment of, 35 et seq. 
 
 Discussions, international, 721 
 et seq. 
 
 Divine Eule, dogma of, atti- 
 tude towards, Charles I, 45; 
 George III, 49; held by 
 James I, 17, 30 fn. ; by Wil- 
 liam II of Germany, 18 fn., 
 30 fn.; overthrown in Eng- 
 land, 44 
 
 Doctrine, Monroe, apparently 
 threatened, 70, 89-91; ori- 
 gin of, 66-69 
 
 Drayton, Michael, poem of, 
 26 fn. 
 
 Dunning^ William A., 99 
 
 E 
 
 Education, early, 38 
 
 Emancipation Proclamation, 
 effect of, 88 fn. 
 
 England, debt to, as mother 
 country, 48 
 
 Experiment, Greatest Politi- 
 cal, 19, 43 
 
 F 
 
 Fairfax, Lord, 51 
 
 Falsifications of history con- 
 cerning first colony, 28 fn., 
 30 fn., 36 fn., 34, 36, 39 
 
 Fatherland, term used, 45 fn. 
 
 Fever, malarial, 35 
 
 Fisheries, Canadian, 94 
 
 Fisher, Sydney George, 49 fn., 
 99 
 
 France, 53; restored to Bour- 
 bons, 62 
 
 Francis, Emperor of Austria, 
 63-64 
 
 Frederick the Great, views of 
 treaties, 42 f n. 
 
 Frederick William, King of 
 Prussia, 63-64 
 
 G 
 
 Gates, Governor, of Virginia, 
 
 wreck of, 25, 26 
 Gayley, Professor Charles 
 
 Mills, 98 fn. 
 
INDEX 
 
 107 
 
 George IV, King of England, 
 63 
 
 George III, personal govern- 
 ment of, X, 50 
 
 Germany, attitude at Manila, 
 92; at Samoa, 92 fn.; Prus- 
 sianised, 76, 78 fn. 
 
 Ghent, Treaty of, 58 
 
 Goethe, expression on liberty, 
 78 f n. 
 
 Gondomar, Count, compared 
 with Luxberg, 30 f n. ; op- 
 poses English colonisation, 
 29 
 
 Goshen, Sir Edwin, on viola- 
 tion of Belgian neutrality, 
 41 fn. 
 
 H 
 
 Hague, Tribunal, the, 94 
 
 Hampden, 18 
 
 Harvard College, establish- 
 ment of, 38 
 
 Harvey, Sir John, deposed as 
 Governor in Virginia, 44; 
 visits Virginia, 39 
 
 Hay, John, attitude towards 
 Great Britain, 90 fn., 93 
 
 Heine, 78 fn. 
 
 Historical misconceptions in 
 regard to American Eevolu- 
 tion, 48-53; British- Ameri- 
 can relations, 54 et seq. ; 
 John Smith and the Vir- 
 ginia Colony, 20, 23, 28 fn., 
 30, 36; Thomas Jefferson, 
 53 fn., 55 fn. 
 
 History, falsification of, 34, 
 36; falsified concerning 
 first American Colony, 
 28 fn., 30 fn., 36 f n. ; great- 
 er popular interest in, 
 49 f n. ; provincial interpre- 
 tation of, in America, 
 49 f n. ; the New, defined, 
 23 
 
 Hobart, Sir Henry, 22, 28 
 
 Hohenzollern, domination of 
 Prussia, 76, 78 f n. 
 
 Hopkins, Oceanus, born, 27; 
 Stephen, Pilgrim Father at 
 Jamestown, 27 
 
 Huddleston, Capt. John, car- 
 ries aid from Jamestown to 
 Pilgrims, 38 fn. 
 
 Independence, Declaration of, 
 53 f n. ; original draft, XI. 
 
 Ingraham, Capt., rescues Kos- 
 zta, 77; rewarded by Brit- 
 ish workingmen and Ger- 
 man-Americans, 78 
 
 Impressment of sailors, 56 
 
 Jackson, Andrew, at New Or- 
 leans, 59; in Florida, 60- 
 61; in regard to Maine 
 boundary, 73 f n. 
 
 James I, absolutism of, 21, 
 29, 30; at Aldersgate, 17; 
 death of, 38; denounces 
 Sandys, 19, 47-48; divine 
 rule, 17, 30, 32; falsifica- 
 tions of history, 30, 36, 39 
 
 Jameson, Dr. J. Franklin, on 
 Smith 's history, 28 fn. 
 
 Jamestown, first form of Gov- 
 ernment, 20; founded, 19; 
 sends aid to Plymouth set- 
 tlement, 38 fn. 
 
 Japan visited by Perry, 77 
 
 Jefferson, Thomas, Anglo-Cel- 
 tic origin, 45 f n. ; attitude 
 towards England and Holy 
 Alliance, 66-68; attitude to- 
 wards Non-importation Acts 
 and Barbary Powers, 55 f n. ; 
 in original draft of Decla- 
 ration, XI; on origin of 
 American Kevolution,22 fn.; 
 world dream of liberty, 65 
 
108 
 
 INDEX 
 
 K 
 
 Kant, 78 fn. 
 Kennedy, Sinclair, 99 
 Kosciusko, 76 
 Kossuth, 76 
 
 Koszta, Martin, seized by 
 Austria, 77 
 
 L 
 
 Leary, Commander, at Samoa, 
 92 fn. 
 
 Locke, John, 44 
 
 London Company (see Vir- 
 ginia Company) 
 
 Louisiana Purchase, IX 
 
 Loyalists, British, 59 
 
 Luxberg, Count, 30 fn. 
 
 M 
 
 Madison, James, attitude to- 
 wards England and Holy 
 Alliance, 66 
 
 Maine, boundary dispute, 72, 
 73 
 
 Martin, Capt. John, Colonist, 
 26, 27 
 
 Maryland, Founding of, 43 
 
 Mason and Slidell incident, 
 80-81 
 
 Mason, James M., Confederate 
 commissioner, seized, 80 ; 
 complains of British hostil- 
 ity, 81 
 
 Massachusetts and Maine 
 boundary dispute, 72, 73; 
 opposes annexation of 
 Texas, 70; settlement of, 
 38 et seq, 
 
 Middleton, Thomas, drama 
 suppressed, 29 fn. 
 
 Militarism, avoided in Amer- 
 ica, 58; European, 76 
 
 Misconceptions, historical, in 
 regard to American Eevolu- 
 tion, 49-53 ; British- Ameri- 
 can relations, 54 et seq.; 
 
 British attitude in War of 
 Secession, 78-88 ; John 
 Smith and Virginia Colony, 
 20, 23, 28 fn., 30, 36; 
 Thomas Jefferson, 53 fn., 
 55 f n. ; popular in regard to 
 slavery, 88 fn. 
 
 Misunderstandings, political, 
 XII 
 
 Monroe Doctrine, in Venezuela 
 controversy, 89-91; origin 
 of, 66-69 
 
 Monroe, James, attitude to- 
 wards Holy Alliance, 66; 
 promulgates the Monroe 
 Doctrine, 69 
 
 Mother Country, term used, 
 46 fn., 48 fn. 
 
 N 
 
 Netherlands, connection with 
 
 Jamestown, 27; liberation 
 
 of, 22, 23 
 New England, opposition to 
 
 Stuart autocracy, 44 
 New Orleans, Battle of, and 
 
 effects, 59-60 
 New York, founding of, 43 
 Non-Importation Acts, 55 fn. 
 Nullification, 73 
 
 O 
 
 Olney, Secretary, 89-91 
 Oregon, boundary dispute, 71- 
 
 75 
 Osgood, Professor, 98 
 
 Panama Canal, international 
 agreement concerning, 94- 
 95 
 
 Parliament, first Colonial, pro- 
 posed (see also Assembly), 
 20 
 
 Patriot Party, political de- 
 scendants of in America, 
 
INDEX 
 
 109 
 
 47-48; purposes of, 34 et 
 seq.; views of government, 
 21, 22 
 
 Peace, Anglo-American, 58 et 
 seq.; Canada-United States, 
 IX et seq., 58 
 
 Penn, William, 43 
 
 Pennsylvania, founding of, 43 
 
 Percy, Capt. George, 26 
 
 Philippines, British attitude 
 towards acquisition of, 
 92 fn. 
 
 Philip II, autocratic dream of, 
 62, 65 
 
 Philip III, recognises the 
 Netherlands, 22 
 
 Pilgrims establish colony in 
 America, 38-43; profit by 
 Virginia precedents, 36 f n. ; 
 refuse John Smith's offer, 
 37 fn. 
 
 Pitt, William, 48 
 
 Plague, the Great, 35 
 
 Plattsburg, in War of 1812, 
 59 
 
 Plymouth Colony, abandons 
 communism, 37 fn.; debt to 
 Sir Edwin Sandys, 40 et 
 seq.; established in Amer- 
 ica, 38-43; refuses Smith's 
 offer, 37 fn. 
 
 Pocahontas, 27 
 
 Poland, 62 
 
 Polk, President, 74-75 
 
 Prussia, part in Holy Alli- 
 ance, 62-68 
 
 Purchase, Louisiana, IX 
 
 Purchas, Eev. Samuel, 28 f n., 
 34 
 
 R 
 
 Eandall, James R., on Henry 
 
 Clay, 76 fn. 
 Eatcliffe, Captain John, visits 
 
 England, 20 
 Rebellion, the Great (1642), 
 
 44, 45 
 
 Relations, British-American, 
 54 et seq. ; British- American 
 as affected by European 
 situations, 89 
 
 Restoration, the (1660), 45 
 
 Revolution, American, British 
 attitude towards, 50-52 ; 
 nature of, 49, 50 ; origin of, 
 23 f n. ; popular attitude to- 
 wards, 51; results of, 52 
 
 Revolution, England (1688), 
 45 
 
 Rhode Island, founding of, 
 43 
 
 Rider, Edward, quotation 
 from, 20 fn. 
 
 Robinson, John, 41 
 
 Roosevelt, Theodore, 87; ad- 
 ministration of, 94 ; Panama 
 canal settlement, 94-95 
 
 Root, Elihu, signs arbitration 
 convention, 94 
 
 Rolfe, John, 27 
 
 Russia, part in Holy Alliance, 
 62-68 
 
 S 
 
 Salisbury, Lord, 89-91 
 
 Sandys, Sir Edwin, Anglo-Cel- 
 tic origin, 45 f n. ; arrest of, 
 32 fn.; as patron of Ply- 
 mouth colony, 39-43; asso- 
 ciates of, 18, 24; denounced 
 by James I, 19, 47-48; 
 drafts charter of 1609, 22; 
 * ^ Leading Liberal, " 24 ; 
 purposes charter of 1612, 
 28; views of political devel- 
 opment, 43 
 
 Santissima Trinidad, 84 
 
 Schiller, 78 fn. 
 
 School, first free, 38 
 
 Schurz, Carl, 76 
 
 Self-government, development 
 of, 47 
 
 Shakespeare, Anglo-Celtie ori- 
 
110 
 
 INDEX 
 
 gin, 45 f n, ; associate of 
 Sandys, 24 ; * * Shakespeare 
 and the Founders of Lib- 
 erty in America, ' ' 98 f n. 
 
 Slavery, abolition of, in rela- 
 tion to British attitude in 
 War of Secession, 88 ; popu- 
 lar misconception of, 88 fn. 
 
 Slidell, Confederate Commis- 
 sioner to France, 80-81 
 
 Smith, Capt. John, conspiracy 
 of, 37 f n. ; falsification of 
 history, 34, 36; offer to 
 Pilgrims, 37 fn.; opposed to 
 Patriot Party, 24; sketch 
 of, 36 fn.; ''True Eela- 
 tion" of Virginia, 28 fn. 
 
 Smith, Sir Thomas, 39 fn. 
 
 Spain, attempts colony in Vir- 
 ginia, 36 fn.; objects to 
 English colonisation, 21, 
 29 ; part in Holy Alliance, 
 63-68; War with, 91-93 
 
 Somers, Admiral, wreck of, 25 
 
 South America establishes 
 freedom, 63-68 
 
 Southampton, Earl of, arrest 
 of, 32 fn. ; friend of Shake- 
 speare, 24 
 
 Sumner, Secretary, demands 
 upon British Government, 
 90 fn. 
 
 Sumter, the, at Gibraltar, 86 
 
 Switzerland, 62 
 
 Talents, reference to parable 
 
 of, 35, 36 fn. 
 Tariff, high, in relation to 
 
 British attitude in War of 
 
 Secession, 87 
 Tempest, The, 25 
 Teuton United with Celt, 
 
 45 fn. 
 Texas, Republic of, seeks al- 
 
 liance with United States, 
 
 70 
 Thorpe, George, 38 fn. 
 Trade, American, Colonial, 50, 
 
 52 
 Trade Laws, 47 
 Treaties, Anglo-American, 54 
 Treaty, Clayton-Bulwer, 94 ; 
 
 Hay-Pauncef ote, 95 ; of 
 
 Ghent, 58; Webster- Ashbur- 
 
 ton, 73 
 Tribunal, Geneva, 82 fn. 
 Tryon, Governor, 44 
 Tyler, Lyon G., 98 
 Tyler, President, 74-75 
 
 Venezuela controversy, 89-91 
 Virginia Company denounced, 
 
 29; dissolution of, 28-32; 
 
 incorporation of, 20 
 
 W 
 
 War of 1812, 54, 57; of Se- 
 cession, British attitude to- 
 wards, 78-88 
 
 Washington, George, XI ; 
 Founder of British Com- 
 monwealth, XI 
 
 Webster, Daniel, conducts 
 treaty, 73-75 ; upholds 
 Greek liberty, 75 
 
 William II, at Koenigsberg, 
 18 f n. ; divine rule, 30 f r. 
 
 Williams, Roger, 43 
 
 Wilkes, Captain, 80 
 
 Wilson, Woodrow, on Declara- 
 tion of Independence, 64 fn. 
 
 Wriothesley, Henry and 
 Thomas, friends of Shake- 
 speare, 24 and f n. 
 
 Yeardley, Captain George, 27 
 
 § 
 
 y> 
 
 A n 
 
 7 
 

 % ,# 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -^s'' 
 
 .^'' "-^, 
 
 
 
 -<3 i. . . ^ 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 ^oo^ 
 
 
 ,^^ -C. 
 
 
 
■ .^ ^^'^ ° WWW ^ <'^' "^'^^ 
 
 tr-W -^ . <Xy -.■ '-' & -i C^ . -^ , 
 
 ^ -a 
 
 
 ■a . s- r (^ ^ 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 012 050 413 7 
 
 t ■ 
 
 
 .■:k 
 
 
 , u U I* wmT ' 
 
 
 lAi J 
 
 )\V 
 
 ^ff 
 
 
 . ) 
 
 
 iK 
 
 n.i