enjoined upon man for him to master, to control without abuse, and to advance in the great scale of perfection.

With these views, can we adopt the belief that the red man was the true inheritor of this continent? that such a magnificent country, with its vast capabilities, should be destined to the mere objects of animal life? that it was to be the destiny of the savage to grovel with the beasts; to study destruction instead of life and growth; to roam over the land without a knowledge of its beauties, or of its latent treasures? Was this earth clothed in matchless beauty, and endowed with rich treasures adapted to humanity, forever to revolve in its orbit without development? Was it created without design, without destiny? To argue such questions would be subjecting reason to the trial of reason, judgment to the rule of doubt, and it would imply a total want of that awe and reverence which should ever characterize the spirit of our inquiries when we study the works of Infinite Wisdom.

This course of thought leads us next to notice the fact that our

RESPONSIBILITY INVOLVES A KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITIONS OF GROWTH.

Just conceptions of individual or national responsibility involve a knowledge of the conditions of moral and physical growth. Having glanced at the motives and circumstances which led to the discovery and settlement of this continent, it remains for us briefly to consider the origin, changes, and present character of the government, and of those sources of power with which we have been so abundantly blessed. The motives which actuated the first emigrants were those of enterprise, personal ambition, religious zeal, and the true spirit of freedom, really embracing those primary elements necessary to the formation of a new and energetic national character.

Even a rapid view of these elements will enable us to judge how favorable they were to results of strength and prosperity. The gradual development of interests; of new wants; of new

sources of comfort, profit, and power; of difficulties and dangers, were incidental causes favorable to habits of industry, virtue, and independence.

Let us review, for a moment, the early formation of the

AMERICAN COLONIES AND THEIR DIFFERENT FORMS OF GOVERNMENT.

Although the colonies were subjected to the sovereignty of Great Britain, yet most of the early influences, privileges, restraints, and institutions established around them, were of their own choice and making. While they were willing to avail themselves of whatever advantages the mother country could extend to them, they did not hesitate to reject what their judgment could not approve when proposed for their adoption; and their distance from all civilized nations was a circumstance favoring exemption from home rule, and stimulating that free exercise of all the faculties of the mind in the discussion of their rights which soon began to give them new traits of character, and which have been continued to their descendants.

Diversity of privileges, of interests, and of experience, were secured to them in the different forms in which Great Britain extended her laws and protection to the different colonies. The form of each became the study of all the others, and the results of each were separate, exhibiting the true causes of success or of failure.

The governments originally formed in the different colonies were of three kinds, viz. the provincial, the proprietary, and the charter.*

1. The provincial governments had no fixed constitution,

* In noticing the different forms of the colonial governments, and the organization of the general government, we have made free use of the able work of Judge Story on the Constitution of the United States. As we have slightly modified his phraseology in some passages, to adapt the matter to our purpose, we have not given the usual marks of quotation. These brief passages, however, alluded to, are merely historical.

but derived all their authority from commissions, issued from time to time, by the crown. They were subject to the pleasure of the king. A governor and council were appointed, and these were invested with general executive powers, and were authorized to convene a general assembly of the representatives of the freeholders and planters of the province. The assembly was the lower, and the council was the upper house. The governor was invested with a veto power upon all their proceedings, and had the power to prorogue and dissolve them. The legislature had power to make all local laws and ordinances not repugnant to the laws of England. Under this form of government, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, were governed, as provinces, at the commencement of the American revolution ; and some of them had been so governed from an early period of their settlement.

2. The proprietary governments were grants by letters patent from the crown to one or more persons, as proprietary or proprietaries, conveying to them not only the rights of the soil, but also the general powers of government within the territory so granted, in the nature of feudatory principalities, or dependent royalties; possessing within their own domains. nearly the same authority which the crown possessed in the provincial governments, subject, however, to the control of the king. The governor was appointed by the proprietary, or proprietaries, and the legislature was organized and convened according to his or their pleasure. The executive functions and prerogatives were exercised by him or them, either personally or by the governor for the time being. At the time of the revolution, only three governments existed in this form, namely, Maryland, held by Lord Baltimore, as proprietary, and Pennsylvania and Delaware, held by William Penn, as proprietary.

3. Charter governments were political corporations, created by letters patent, which conferred on the grantees and their associates the soil within their territorial limits, and all the high

powers of legislative government. The charters contained a fundamental constitution for the colony, distributing the powers of government into three great departments, legislative, executive, and judicial; providing for the mode in which these powers should be vested and exercised. The charter governments existing at the time of the revolution, were Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.

It is a remark of the late Judge Story, that," notwithstanding these differences in their original and actual political organization, the colonies, at the time of the American revolution, in most respects, enjoyed the same general rights and privileges." Although we may not dissent from this general remark, still it must be admitted that these differences are sufficiently marked to be noticed as distinct and separate causes; and though their effects may have been somewhat blended in a common experience, we cannot but regard them as sources of different results, and, as such, leading in some degree to diversity of character.

The provincial government was the absolute sovereignty of the crown, transferred, at pleasure, from an island to the continent, without any guaranty as to favor or permanency.

The proprietary government gave an interest in the soil, but that interest was secured to individuals, and the relations between the people and the proprietaries were those of dependence.

The charter government was a division of powers between two great parties, according to fixed conditions, each party having certain defined and reserved rights, the subordinate government being independent only under a constitution.

It will be perceived that in these forms of government there are three distinct degrees of liberty; and yet the scale is graduated to a common head, the British crown, and to which all acknowledged their allegiance.

"In all of these," says Judge Story, "express provision was made, that all subjects and their children, inhabiting in the colonies, should be deemed natural born subjects, and should

enjoy all the privileges and immunities thereof. In all of them, the common law of England, as far as it was applicable to their situation, was made the basis of their jurisprudence." Not that the entire system was introduced into any one colony, but only such portions of it as each found adapted to its own wants, and were applicable to its own situation. Of this, each colony judged for itself.

It is further remarked by the same author, that "although the colonies had a common origin, and common right, and owed a common allegiance, and the inhabitants of all of them were British subjects, they had no direct political connection with each other. Each colony was independent of the others, and there was no confederacy or alliance between them. They were excluded from all political connection with foreign nations, and they followed the fate and fortunes of the parent country in peace and war. Still the colonists were not wholly On the contrary, they were fellow-subjects, and, for many purposes, one people. Every colonist had a right to inhabit, if he pleased, in any other colony, to trade therewith, and to inherit and hold lands there.”

alien to each other.

We now come to the first step towards the

ORGANIZATION OF A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.

When the British Parliament asserted the right to legislate over the colonies in all cases whatsoever, and made a systematic effort to execute this right by acts of internal legislation and taxation, it was boldly resisted by them, and a controversy was commenced which terminated in their independence. This new power was manifested in the Continental Congress of 1774, which adopted unanimously a declaration of the rights of the colonies.* These were disregarded by the British government, and the American revolution was the result. In the exigencies of the times, union of the colonies became a paramount measure,—indeed, it was an absolute

* See Appendix A.