Part 86

The first act of the British Parliament aiming at the drawing of a revenue from the colonies was passed September 29, 1764. This act imposed a duty on “clayed sugar, indigo, coffee, etc., being a produce of a colony not under the dominion of his Majesty.”

In the colonies it was contended that “taxation and representation were inseparable, and that they could not be safe if their property might be taken from them without their consent.”

This claim of right of taxation on the one side and the denial of it on the other was the very pivot on which the Revolution turned.

England maintained her position in this matter, and in 1765 the famous Stamp Act passed both Houses of Parliament. This ordained that instruments of writing, such as deeds, bonds, notes, etc., among the colonies should be null and void unless executed on stamped paper, for which duty should be paid to the Crown.

The efforts of the American colonists to stay the mad career of the English Ministry proved unavailing. Dr. Benjamin Franklin, then in London as the agent of the Province of Pennsylvania, labored earnestly to avert a measure which his sagacity and extensive acquaintance with the American people taught him was pregnant with danger to the British Empire; but he did not entertain the thought that it would be forcibly resisted.

The opposition to the Stamp Act was so decided and universal that Lord Grenville, to conciliate the Americans, asked their agents to suggest the person to have the sale of the stamps in their respective colonies. Franklin named his friend John Hughes, who in the Assembly had been voting with the opponents of the Proprietaries.

Franklin’s enemies tried to make much capital out of this participation in the introduction of the stamps, while Hughes and Galloway tried to lay the blame for the popular outburst upon the Proprietary Party in both contrivance and connivance.

Massachusetts Assembly suggested that the various Houses of Representatives or Burgesses in America send committees to a meeting in New York City on the first Tuesday of October, 1765, to consider a united representation to the King and Parliament.

The Assembly of Pennsylvania decided unanimously that it ought to remonstrate against the Stamp Act, and appointed as its committee Speaker Fox and Messrs. John Dickinson, George Bryan and John Morton. Nine resolutions on the subject of the “unconstitutional impositions” were adopted unanimously.

Mr. Hughes feared being mobbed during the joy of celebration incident to the change of ministry in England. He sat at his home, armed, watching for an attack on his house, but at midnight those whom he feared dispersed, after burning a “stamp man” in effigy.

Hughes wrote to Governor John Penn and to Mr. Dickinson, the master of the ship which brought the stamps, that he had received no commission to take charge of them. The ship then lay at New Castle, afraid to proceed farther, but on October 5 she sailed up the river to Philadelphia, escorted by a man-of-war.

All the vessels in the harbor put their flags at half-mast, the bells of the State House and Christ Church were muffled and tolled until evening, and two Negroes with drums summoned the people to a meeting at the State House. This sent Robert Morris, Charles Thomson, and others to Hughes, who was very ill at his home, asking him to resign, or at least to promise not to execute his office.

The crowd, Hughes said, was stirred up by the son of Franklin’s great enemy, Chief Justice Allen.

On the following Monday, Hughes gave assurance that neither he nor his deputies would act until King George’s pleasure be known, or the law be put into execution in other colonies, or the Governor commanded him.

Hughes wrote to the Commissioners of the Stamp Office that he would perform his duties if his hands were sufficiently strengthened, but in due time he resigned.

On November 7, 1765, the merchants of Philadelphia assembled at the Court House, where they adopted nonimportation resolutions which were embodied in an agreement soon signed by almost everybody who could be described as a merchant or trader, setting forth that the difficulties they labored under were owing to the restrictions, prohibitions and ill-advised resolutions in recent acts of Parliament.

These measures had limited the exportation of some of the produce, increased the expense of many imported articles and cut off the means of supplying themselves with sufficient specie even to pay the duties imposed.

The Province was heavily in debt to Great Britain for importations, and the Stamp Act would tend to prevent remittances, and so it was hoped the people of the Province would be frugal in the consumption of all manufactures except those of America or of Ireland, coming directly thence, and that the merchants and manufacturers of Great Britain would find it to their interest to befriend them.

The subscribers agreed and pledged their honor to direct all goods ordered from Great Britain not to be shipped and to cancel all former orders until the Stamp Act be repealed. The ships already cleared for Great Britain owned by the merchants were allowed to bring back the usual bulky articles but no dry goods, except dye stuffs, and utensils necessary for carrying on the manufactures, and to sell no articles sent on commission after January 1, 1766.

The committee which circulated this agreement for signatures, and was appointed to see to its being carried out, was composed of Thomas Willing, Samuel Mifflin, Thomas Montgomery, Samuel Howell, Samuel Wharton, John Rhea, William Fisher, Joshua Fisher, Peter Chevalier, Benjamin Fuller and Abel Jones.

In February Franklin was examined before the House of Commons, when he told them there was not enough gold and silver in the colonies to pay the stamp duty for one year. He gave it as his opinion that the people of America would never submit to paying the stamp duty unless compelled by force.

Parliament had only the alternative to compel submission or to repeal the act. It was repealed March 18, 1766, but accompanying it was the one known as the Declaratory Act, more hostile to the American rights than any of its predecessors. This act affirmed “that Parliament have, and of right ought to have power to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever.”

The news of the repeal reached America in May and caused unbounded demonstrations of joy. Though the Quakers generally would not have violently resisted the execution of the law, they shared with others the joy produced by the tidings of the repeal.

----------

Expeditions Against Indians—Franklin Sails for England, November 8, 1764

Soon after John Penn assumed the office of Lieutenant Governor, November, 1763, he convened the Assembly and presented General Gage’s request for 1000 men, to be used in the proposed Indian campaign, which was granted, together with a vote of credit for the additional force necessary “to frustrate the further wicked designs of those lawless rioters.” This had reference to the “Paxtang Boys” and their bold attack upon the Conestoga Indians, December 14, 1763.

Sir William Johnson, of New York, who had charge of Indian affairs for the Royal Government, having learned of both the above massacre and those in the Nain and Wichetunk settlements, a short time previous, and being possessed of the actual facts, was particularly anxious to acquaint the Six Nations with the details, and thus remove any bad impressions as to the faith of Pennsylvania in dealing with friendly Indians. It was most vital that there should be no alienation of the Six Nations from the English interest.

The affair of the Paxtang Boys was happily settled without any unfair or unwise hardships and the attention of the authorities again turned to bigger problems and those more difficult of solution.

Early in 1764 extensive measures were resolved upon for the reduction of the Indians. General Gage determined to attack them on two sides, and to force them from the frontiers by carrying the war into the heart of their own country. One corps was sent under command of Colonel Bradstreet to act against the Wyandot, Ottawa, Chippewa and other nations living upon or near the lakes. Another, under command of Colonel Henry Bouquet, was sent to attack the Delaware, Shawnee, Mingo, Mohican and other nations between the Ohio River and the lakes.

The two commands were to act in concert. Colonel Bradstreet was directed to proceed to Detroit, Michilimackinack and other places, and on his return to encamp and remain at Sandusky, and prevent the Western Indians from rendering aid to those on the Ohio, while Colonel Bouquet was to attack the latter in the midst of their settlements.

Part of the Forty-second and Sixtieth Regiments were assigned to Colonel Bouquet, to be joined with 200 friendly Indians, and provincial troops from Pennsylvania and Virginia. The Indians never came and Virginia could not spare any men, but Pennsylvania furnished the one thousand men, which was its quota. The Provincial Assembly also voted 50,000 pounds to maintain it.

This force was reduced by the desertion of 200 before leaving Carlisle, and of others at Fort Bedford. Those remaining, with a very few regulars, and less than 200 Virginians, made up the army of Colonel Bouquet, which advanced from Fort Pitt in October, 1764, and marched ninety-six miles to Muskingum, mostly through a wilderness which the savages had deemed their sure defense.

This expedition appearing in such force in the heart of the enemy’s country overawed the Indians, who sued for peace. The Delaware, Shawnee and Seneca agreed to cease hostilities. Many white people held as prisoners were liberated.

So thoroughly is Pennsylvania entitled to the credit of this successful expedition, which not only restored so many of her men, women and children to their families, but it had the chief part in securing peace to the adjoining colonies.

The Legislatures of Maryland and Virginia did not contribute a penny to the expense, but left Colonel Bouquet personally liable for the pay of the volunteers from those provinces. The Pennsylvania Assembly in due time came to his relief, and also paid for this.

By the agreement of 1760 the Assembly was allowed to tax the Proprietaries’ lands upon certain conditions. The Assembly tried to have the language of the bill changed so that the Proprietaries’ land would not be taxed “only as high as the worst lands owned by the settlers” was taxed, but no such change was allowed.

Indeed, harmony was scarcely to be expected between one of the Proprietary family, as Governor on the one side, and the Assembly on the other.

The Assembly was compelled to yield to the necessities of the province, but the conduct of Governor John Penn so incensed the Assembly, that it was determined by a large majority to petition the King to purchase the jurisdiction of the province from the Proprietaries, and vest the Government directly in the Crown.

Joseph Galloway sponsored the resolutions which resulted in the petition being signed by three thousand five hundred persons and addressed to King George III.

There was much opposition from leading men in the province against throwing off the proprietary dominion, and these were not alone of the Quaker belief.

Isaac Norris, the venerable Speaker; John Dickinson, afterwards distinguished in the Revolution; the Reverend Gilbert Tennant, and the Reverend Francis Allison, representing the Presbyterian interest, with William Allen, Chief Justice, and afterward father-in-law of Governor John Penn, were strong leaders in opposition to the measure.

The Quakers, on the other hand, supported it, and were sustained by several successive Assemblies. The argument which lined up the Presbyterians with those who opposed the change in Government was the important question of defending the province, and particularly their brethren on the frontiers. It mattered comparatively little whether the Proprietaries or the richer inhabitants paid for this protection.

They also feared that under the Crown the Church of England might become the Established Church. The majority, which wished to divest the Founder’s descendants of their authority, were the strict followers of the Founder’s religion.

Dickinson was re-elected to the Assembly, as was Norris, even though he did not desire to return to that body. Galloway and Franklin were defeated, the latter by twenty-five majority out of 4000 votes. Only two of the ten members from Philadelphia were in favor of the change of Government.

Norris was again elected Speaker, but dissensions arose which caused him to resign the speakership, when Joseph Fox was elected to succeed him. He appointed Dr. Franklin as an additional provincial agent in London, and directed him to go with all dispatch, and urge the adoption of the measure before the British Ministry.

Franklin sailed for England on November 8, 1764, being escorted by 300 admirers, to Chester, where he embarked.

He took with him a copy of the resolution which the Assembly, upon hearing of the proposal in England of a stamp act or some other means of revenue had passed, acknowledged it a duty to grant aid to the Crown, according to ability, whenever required in the usual constitutional manner.

Franklin found, on his arrival at London, that he had to contend with a power far stronger and more obstinate than the Proprietaries themselves, even with the very power whose protection he had come to seek.

----------

Governor Simon Snyder, Prey of Kidnappers, Died November 9, 1819

Simon Snyder, three times Governor of Pennsylvania, was born in Lancaster County, November 5, 1749, and died in his beautiful stone mansion in Selinsgrove November 9, 1819.

Snyder had been defeated in the gubernatorial contest of 1805, but his election was not long delayed.

Alderman John Binns, editor of the Democratic Press, then the most powerful political leader in the State, was Snyder’s closest friend and adviser and soon influenced such a current of popular sentiment toward his friend’s candidacy that William J. Duane and Dr. Michael Leib were compelled to support Snyder even though they realized Binns would be more potent in guiding his Administration.

Snyder carried every county except six and defeated James Ross by 28,400 votes.

No sooner had the election occurred than the Governor was importuned to appoint Dr. Lieb to the office of Secretary of the Commonwealth, but the astute Executive named N. B. Boileau, of Montgomery County, to that important place.

Governor Snyder was re-elected in 1811 and again in 1814, being the last Governor of Pennsylvania to serve three terms.

There were many thrilling events during the nine years of his Administration, the most important of which was the War of 1812–14.

The Chief Executive of no State in the Union performed his part more patriotically or with a firmer determination than did Governor Snyder.

A month before the formal declaration of our second war with England he had issued an order drafting 14,000 men as the quota of Pennsylvania for the general defense. His several addresses to the Legislature were of the most patriotic fervor and he deserved the hearty support which was generously given him.

During the trying period of the war, Governor Snyder exhibited many splendid traits of character, and met every emergency with determined courage and the consciousness of having performed his full duty.

Pennsylvania has been remarkably free from crimes against officials holding high office, and yet the nearest attempt was a plot to kidnap Governor Snyder.

Early in the year of 1816 Richard Smith, as principal in the first degree, and Ann Carson, in the second degree, were tried in Philadelphia before the Hon. Jacob Rush and his associates for the murder of John Carson, her husband. The trial resulted in the conviction of Smith and the acquittal of Ann Carson.

Richard Smith was a lieutenant in the Twenty-third Infantry Regiment U. S. A. He was of Irish descent, a nephew of Daniel Clark, of New Orleans, and heir to his estate, worth in excess of $1,000,000.

Ann Carson was the most captivating beauty of the underworld and the most notorious character in the State, according to the newspapers of a century ago. She married a Scotchman, Captain John Carson, a dissipated ex-captain of the United States Navy, who was nearly twice her age.

Several years after this marriage Captain Carson sailed for China, in command of the ship Ganges, and nothing more was heard of him for four or five years, and his wife believed he had perished at sea.

During his absence Ann Carson became infatuated with the dashing young Lieutenant Smith, who occupied an apartment in her home.

In the fall of 1815 Captain Carson appeared at the home and his estranged wife had no welcome for him.

For the following several months the trio lived a life of continual strife. One evening in January, 1816, the two men met in the parlor of the Carson home on Second and Dock Streets, when Smith shot and killed Carson.

The murderer was taken before Alderman Binns, who committed him to prison on a charge of murder. As already stated, Smith was convicted and Mrs. Carson acquitted.

Mrs. Carson immediately planned to save Smith from the scaffold. She was able to command the services of the most desperate criminals.

Both Smith and Mrs. Carson knew that the Alderman and editor had great influence with Governor Snyder, and their first effort was to bring pressure upon him to obtain a pardon for the condemned man.

Binns refused to interfere, and in addition published a caustic warning against any attempt to stay the course of justice. Never had there been so much feeling manifested in the desire to obtain a pardon for murder as on this occasion.

Ann Carson conceived the scheme to kidnap Binns and hold him as a hostage for Smith. This plan failed. Then the desperate criminals endeavored to coerce Binns into their measures by planning to kidnap his son, who had been christened Snyder, after the then Governor. The boy was not quite six years old, but daily went to his school.

This plot was communicated to Binns and the child was kept in his home, and that plot also failed.

Then the notorious and desperate Ann Carson determined to kidnap the Governor himself, and keep him in custody, under a threat of being put to death, if he did not grant a pardon for Smith.

The very night this scheme was determined on, it was, through a lay-cousin of Lieutenant Smith’s, communicated to John Binns, who immediately dispatched the details of the plot to the Governor, who was then at his home in Selinsgrove.

Ann Carson, accompanied by two ruffians named “Lige” Brown and Henry Way, set out from Philadelphia on horseback to Selinsgrove. At Lancaster, Way robbed a drover, but was badly beaten over the head and easily captured. The others, however, made their escape and proceeded on their nefarious errand.

Governor Snyder hastened to Harrisburg, where he swore out a warrant against the woman, and she was apprehended and held in $5000 bail, which was furnished by her friends. She returned to Philadelphia.

Way escaped from jail after nearly killing his jailer and was never captured. Lieutenant Smith was executed.

Mrs. Carson’s subsequent career was merely a succession of crimes, in which she affected the disguise of a demure Quakeress. It was in this disguise she was detected passing a counterfeit note on the Girard Bank. She was sentenced to seven years in the Walnut Street prison.

A writer says she was appointed matron in the women’s ward, where her cruel treatment drove the female convicts to revolt and that Mrs. Carson was killed during one of these uprisings.

John Binns in his “Recollections” says that while in prison she was a kind and most attentive nurse.

The latter is true. Ann Carson died in prison April 27, 1824, of typhus fever, which she contracted while nursing other victims of the plague.

----------

John Dickinson Writes First “Farmer” Letter, November 10, 1767

In 1767 a bill was passed by Parliament which affirmed its right “to bind the Colonies in all cases whatsoever” and levied duties on tea, paper, glass and painters’ colors imported into the Colonies from Great Britain, payable in America. This act, with several others, rekindled the opposition of the Colonies. Again associations were formed to prevent the importation of British goods and meetings called to resolve, petition and remonstrate.

The first of the “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies,” appeared November 10, 1767, the authorship of which gave John Dickinson, of Philadelphia, so much of his celebrity.

They were published in every colony, also in London, and afterwards translated into French in Paris.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin, who had formerly been an enemy of Dickinson wrote the preface to the London edition; while the people of Boston, assembled in a town meeting, voted Dickinson their thanks.

Letter No. 1 began: “My Dear Countrymen: I am a farmer, settled, after a variety of fortunes, near the banks of the Delaware, in the Province of Pennsylvania. I received a liberal education, and have been engaged in busy scenes of life; but am now convinced that a man may be as happy without bustle as with it.

“My farm is small; my servants few and good; I have a little money at interest; I wish for no more; my employment in my own affairs is easy; and with a contented, grateful mind, undisturbed by worldly hopes or fears, relating to myself, I am completing the number of days allotted to me by Divine goodness.”

Every man ought to espouse the sacred cause of liberty to the extent of his powers and “The Farmer” offered some thoughts on late transactions, praying that his lines might be read with the same zeal for the happiness of British America with which they had been written.

He had observed that little notice had been taken of the Act of Parliament for suspending the legislation of New York. This was punishment for noncompliance by the Assembly of that Province with a former act requiring certain provisions to be made for the troops. To compel the colonies to furnish certain articles for the troops was, he proceeded to show, taxation in another form and New York was being punished for resisting such taxation.

In Letter No. 2, the “Farmer” took up the Act imposing duties on paper, glass, etc., which he deemed a most dangerous innovation upon the old practice of imposing duties merely for the regulation of trade.

Parliament had a right to regulate the trade of the colonies; but here it was vowing the design of raising revenues from America; a right, which, America felt, was inherent in her own representatives. This taxation was attempted by the device of levying duties on certain articles imported to the colonies. The effect of this was clearly pointed out.

Great Britain had prohibited certain manufactures in the colonies, and had prohibited the purchase of such manufactured goods except from the mother country.

“If you once admit that Great Britain may lay duties upon her exportations to us, for the purpose of levying money on us only,” he wrote, “she will then have nothing to do but to lay those duties on the articles, which she prohibits us to manufacture—and the tragedy of American liberty is finished.”

In Letter No. 3 the “Farmer” explained there were other modes of resistance to oppression than any breach of peace and deprecated, as Dickinson did ever afterward, any attempt to make the colonies independent.

“If once we are separated from our mother country,” he said, “what new form of government shall we adopt, or where shall we find another Britain to supply our loss? Torn from the body to which we are united by religion, liberty, laws, affections, relation, language and commerce, we must bleed at every vein.”