equality and government, though the great document was framed by southern intellect and patriotism. The revolutionary party grew stronger; some new features of colonial government were adopted; the proprietors were shaken off, and the democratic tide ran more freely. Virginia gave in, then Pennsylvania, then New Jersey.

July 2, 1776, twelve colonies resolved, "These colonies are and ought to be free and independent states." The words of the declaration offered by Jefferson were reviewed by Franklin and John Adams, other members of the committee, and without alteration recommended. On the 4th of July it was passed, making that the auspicious birthday of a new nation, rising on the world a luminary of hope to all the peoples that on earth do dwell.

The bell on the Philadelphia state-house was strangely inscribed, "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land, to all the inhabitants thereof," and at two o'clock P. M. it gave the joyful signal to the waiting multitude that the immortal document was adopted.

It still remains to tell of one great act of congress, the selection of a commander-in-chief of the armies. Plenty of brave men were to be found in the different colonies, some of whom thought themselves fitted for the post; others were the favorites of various circles.

It cannot now be doubted that one man stood distinguishably as most highly fitted and God provided. Colonel George Washington was a member of congress, and in his regimentals must have moved as the most striking figure on the floor. He belonged to Virginia, a gentleman of independent fortunes, distinguished in the French and Indian wars, in the forty-fifth year of his age, the prime of health and manhood. He excelled not in brilliant powers, but for endowments that enabled him to discern, superintend, restrain, and direct. Lecky pronounces him "conspicuous for wisdom and unquestionably the greatest man in congress." Patrick Henry calls him the superior of all others for solid information and sound judgment, whilst in purely mental powers he was inferior only to one or two, say Franklin and John Adams. He was so retiring and quiet, that, though his advice in congress on military affairs was always followed, no one suspected such superior intellectual abilities and moral qualities as makes it doubtful, had any one else been appointed, whether the great enterprise of freedom would have succeeded. It took time for his superiority to be recognized and acknowledged. Because of rivalries and peculiar difficulties, he made his way like the sun fighting against the morning mists and clouds; but by his steadfast virtues and successful issues, he reached the zenith, there to abide, his memory acting as a polar

star, an incentive and guide to all the nations who may aim at real constitutional freedom and equality.

This man congress had the wisdom and patriotism, to their own honor and glory, and for the final success of the war and the lasting welfare of America, to choose; an appointment to which history attributes the success of the cause more than to any other single act.

And when appointed, how did he deport himself? He had not sought the post. He took no pay. He did not accept it for personal rank or authority. He has left it on record, that, had he known what the post would inflict on him, he could never have been persuaded to accept it. He was not an original, ardent "patriot" nor a "Son of Liberty," but becoming thoroughly convicted, he took sides with all his heart and understanding, and stood on this position with the firmness of the rock of principle that he believed was under him. Punctual to time and promise, he was able to manage details as well as the highest affairs of military administration. He not only had the courage of battle, but possessed moral courage to carry responsibility, bear suspense, and wait without resentment for deliverance from misrepresentation and unpopularity. On account of short enlistments his army was perpetually fluctuating in its personality. Many of his men were late emigrants, and native Americans were opposed to strict discipline and subordination. They were all half-clothed and half-fed, badly armed and ill-paid. Never wavering himself in his political faith and hope, he kept that army together. By unsurpassing skill and judgment, now a Fabius, now a Cæsar, he made that barefooted, bleeding host, uncomforted by their own countrymen before whose doors they marched, efficient to turn the battle in their favor, and, by the aid of one friendly power, invincible against every army Great Britain could bring against them. The last battle was fought when Cornwallis was taken October 19, 1781.

Of the Americans as a class it should be said that twenty-six years before the Revolution a high level of civilization had been attained. Burnaby, the English traveler, who passed through the northern and middle colonies for twelve hundred miles in 1759 and 1760, says he did not meet with a single beggar. Farmers and farm laborers were incomparably better off than the same class in England and Europe. America was accounted the best poor-man's country in the world. Parish libraries in New England furnished excellent reading matter and were well used. Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston, South Carolina, would have ranked high in intelligence and good manners among the provincial towns of Europe. Philadelphia excited the traveler's wonder and admira

tion for its beauty and regularity; its well-lighted, well-paved, and wellkept streets; its shipping, and the number of vessels in building at the yards; its stately buildings, libraries, churches, and schools, with a market that might rival London's to feed its nineteen thousand people. Before 1749, when not a single press could be found among the French in Canada, five printing houses in Boston were running, full of work, and the Boston Gazette was a semi-weekly paper. Most of the important colonies published a newspaper, and by 1765 forty-three were in existence. Besides these, four literary magazines, if not more, were flourishing, and nine colleges were educating and sending forth their graduates. Such were the people who had won the victory.

Preliminaries of peace were signed November 30, 1782, followed by the treaty of Paris, September 3, 1783.

Under the old articles of confederation, congress could take no national measures; a stronger government was demanded and amidst violent discussions for and against a federal union, a convention met at Philadelphia, of which Washington was chosen its president, and the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted.

For the first President of the United States all eyes turned to Washington, and he was elected to the great office. With reluctance, he left Mount Vernon for New York, though his way was strewn with flowers, where his inauguration took place April 30, 1789, with John Adams as Vice-President. The crowning work was now achieved. Like the great Corliss engine that set in operation the machinery of the centenary exhibition, Washington gave the sovereign stir that has never ceased its steady motion; and woe to the man, who, for self-lifting or party advancement, shall unhinge a cog-wheel or slacken the patriot fire of the constitutional government, "of the people, for the people, and by the people," on which a world's administration might solidly stand and perpetually and beneficially move.

William W. Taylor

WILMINGTON, DELAWARE.

THE FOUNDING OF POST VINCENNES

Some three hundred and sixty years ago there was a notable conference of reformers at Marburg, which was called chiefly to consider the question of transubstantiation. Luther was the leader of those who adhered to the doctrine of the real presence. Zwingli was the head of the opposition. Without reference to the merits of the question, it is safe to say that the weight of the argument there presented was overwhelmingly with Zwingli, but Luther refused to be convinced. As each knock-down blow was delivered to him, he set his broad jaws, shook his fat head, and doggedly returned to his original starting-point with the words, "Hoc est corpus meum." It was a striking example of the tendency of man to cling to a thing merely because he has clung to it in the past.

With feelings something akin to what those of Zwingli must have been on this occasion, I read in the May number of this magazine an article entitled, "Indiana's First Settlement." Particularly was this the case on arriving at this statement: "I would not pretend either to the ability or the research to answer all the arguments of Mr. Dunn, and yet I will venture to state my conviction that he is wrong as to the date of the establishment of the post, and my belief that the large number of historical writers placing the date very near the beginning of the eighteenth century are correct." And so did Luther hold up the velvet table-cover on which he had chalked his Hoc est corpus meum, and answer back, See! see! This is our text; you have not yet driven us from it, as you had boasted, and we care for no other proofs."

66

It required many weeks of patient labor for me to remove the mass of débris which local historians had piled over the history of Vincennes. An effort was made, however, to follow every root of error to its beginning, and destroy it thoroughly. How well I succeeded, I am content to leave to the opinions of others; but as the old error has been reproduced by Mr. Bryan, and as there are doubtless hundreds who read this magazine that will never examine the original exposition of the matter, I will re-state the case. I profess some familiarity with the facts, inasmuch as I collected and published such of them as have the flavor of novelty.

The oldest known records of traditions as to the establishment of Post Vincennes are the statements of General Harmar, August 7, 1787, and of Major Denny who accompanied Harmar in his expedition to Vincennes.

Harmar says: "Monsieur Vincennes, the French officer from whom it derives its name, I am informed, was here and commenced the settlement sixty years ago." Denny says: Denny says: "It was first settled by a Monsieur Vincennes, near seventy years ago [i. e., from 1787], from whom it takes its name." The next record is Volney's, and he, after expressly referring to the confused state of tradition at the time (1796), says: "I was only able to form a conjecture that it was planted about 1735.” David Thomas did not say "in 1816, after careful inquiry, that the post was established in 1702." He gives two accounts as furnished him by old residents-the first fixing the date of settlement" about the year 1690," and the second about the year 1702-and says: "I think the chronology of the first should be preferred." * This is the earliest known mention of the date 1702 in tradition, and from the confusion in traditional accounts already manifested, it is evident that later statements from traditional sources are not worth considering.

In the way of documentary evidence there is but one authority that by any courtesy can be considered as supporting the date 1702, and that is General Gage's letter to the inhabitants of Vincennes, of April 2, 1773. I omit Father Marest's letter of November 9, 1712, intentionally, as it is evident beyond peradventure, both from the letter itself and from the direct testimony of Father Charlevoix, that it refers to Jucheveau's post at the mouth of the Ohio (the lower part of which was called “Ouabache" by the early chroniclers) and not to Vincennes. I also omit intentionally the letter of the inhabitants of Vincennes to General Gage, of September 14, 1772; "in which they assert that their settlement is of seventy years' standing." No historian has seen that letter, or a copy of it, and none knows what it stated. Mr. Dillon summarized its contents from General Gage's reply, and later writers have easily quoted it as if the letter were before them. What General Gage said was, "As you claim your possession by sacred titles, insinuating that your settlement is of seventy years' standing, and that the lands have been granted by order and under the protection of his Most Christian Majesty, it is necessary that his Majesty should be informed very particularly upon these points; and it is important to you to give convincing proofs of all that you allege in this respect." No one knows what the insinuating words were, but any one familiar with old French manuscripts knows that the English general might easily have mistaken the words; and, what is of more importance, we know what proofs they furnished in support of their allegations. The only evidence offered as to the date was the certificate of

* Travels in the Western Country, p. 189.