again to be witnessed in America ninety years later, the process by which, as the necessity for action becomes gradually apparent, the spirit of conservatism, expressed through doubts and fears and efforts at compromise, is slowly overcome.

Dazzled by the glamour of history and victory, we are apt to invest a whole people with the qualities and virtues of their chosen leaders. Among the men who gave force to the movement that ended in the overthrow of English power in America were men morally and intellectually great, noble and unselfish men who cherished an ideal and from it never swerved; and there were men who were great neither in intellect nor moral stamina; who were governed by selfish motives, who were opportunists and not idealists. We are apt to think that the flame of patriotism never burned low; that it was a united people who became fanatics in the cause of liberty and gave all as they gave their lives to fight for an abstraction; and we forget or gloss over the thieving contractors to whom war was merely profitable trade,2 the petty politicians who carried on their intrigues in the face of the enemy, the "patriots" (the "chimney-corner heroes," was Washington's term of contempt,3) who hung back when there were gaps in the ranks to be

1 Adams: Three Episodes of Massachusetts History, vol. 1, p. 840.

2 That ardent loyalist Justice Jones, in his History of New York during the Revolutionary War, writes with fierce scorn of the "trading rebellion." British commissaries retired with fortunes; American army purveyors found war an easy road to wealth.

3 Washington: Writings, vol. 1, p. 415.

filled and every man with a musket was needed.1 The dreadful sufferings of Washington's army at Valley Forge, we are reminded by Fiske, have called forth the pity and the admiration of historians; but "the point of the story is lost unless we realize that this misery resulted from gross mismanagement rather than from the poverty of the country." We are dealing with men, not the heroes of mythology.

It is unnecessary to follow in detail the events of the next few years. British policy swung between the extremes of vacillating compromise and harshness, and "from this time the English government of America is little more than a series of deplorable blunders." Alarmed at the ever-growing spirit of resistance, obnoxious measures were relaxed or partially repealed, which was still further invitation to the colonists to agitate so as to secure the concessions they demanded; the agitation never ceased and the spirit of the people was inflamed by the appeals of their leaders. Then in March, 1770, came the first shedding of English blood by Englishmen on the soil of America, when English soldiers fired on a Boston mob and five persons were killed and six wounded; then, in the following year, the same thing in North Carolina; next year saw one of His Majesty's armed sloops, engaged in the enforcement of the Navigation Acts, burned by the men

1 Cf. Hart: American History Told by Contemporaries, vol. 11, p. 481 et seq. 2 Fiske: The American Revolution, vol. II, p. 29.

3 Lecky: A History of England in the Eighteenth Century, vol. III, p.

349.

of Rhode Island. Thus matters went on until the night of December 16, 1773. The English Ministers retain the duty on tea as proof that they possess the right to tax, even if they do not care to exercise it. Tea-laden ships come to New York and Philadelphia, but their captains are not permitted to land their cargoes and they sail away. In Charleston the tea is discharged, but no one will buy it. In Boston lie three ships with three hundred and forty chests of tea in their holds. On that December night fifty men of Boston, disguised as Mohawk Indians, board the vessels, break open the chests, and throw their contents into the sea. Not a shot fired. not a life lost, not a person injured, hardly a word spoken. The time of protest has passed; the time to resist has come. The loose strands of colonialism have been so securely twisted into the rope of nationality that it defies the sword. A Nation is born.

CHAPTER XI

WHAT IS A NATION?

WHAT constitutes a Nation? There is perhaps no more difficult and perplexing question for the student of historical development to answer. Politically and legally there is an accepted definition that meets the requirements of social and political intercourse. "A nation is an organized community within a certain territory; or, in other words, there must be a place where its sole sovereignty is exercised," Woolsey says, which is comprehensive enough to define the legal and political status of nationals; and the same principle is applied by Cooley, who says, "The word nation [in America] is applied to the whole body of the people embraced within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government." When we leave the precise sphere of law and attempt a sociological interpretation, precision is replaced by vagueness. "Among the French a nationality is regarded as the work of history, ratified by the will of man. The elements composing it may be very different in their origin. The point of departure is of little importance; the only essential thing

1 Woolsey: Introduction to International Law, p. 62.

2 Cooley: A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations, p. 3. Cf. Story: Commentaries on the Constitution, vol. 1, p. 192.

2

is the point reached," is a French definition.1 "A nation," says Ward, "may be defined as a body of population which its proper history has made one in itself, and as such distinct from all others"; which is a definition entirely too general. In fact, it is somewhat curious that a subject so important as this has received such scant treatment at the hands of writers; but perhaps usage has given the word a conventional meaning which connotes an economic and political state popularly requiring no analysis. Yet it is a point that must be definitely determined. Europeans frequently deny that the American People are a Nation. They are, many European writers assert, a congeries of peoples, a mixture of races, an ethnic collection, but as yet they have not been infused by a spirit of nationality. "A few years ago the American Protestant Episcopal Church was occupied at its Triennial Convention in revising its liturgy. It was thought desirable to introduce among the short-sentence prayers a prayer for the whole people; and an eminent New England divine proposed the words, ‘O Lord, bless our nation.’ Accepted one afternoon on the spur of the moment, the sentence was brought up next day for reconsideration, when so many objections were raised by the laity to the word 'nation,' as importing too definite a recognition of national unity, that it was

1 Lavisse: General View of the Political History of Europe, p. 147.

2 Ward: A History of English Dramatic Literature, vol. 1, introduction, p. xvi.