Reprint of 1925 edition by Little, Brown, and company, Boston, Maps on lining-papers, Bibliography: p. 275-286

ia/dayofconcordle00fren.pdf

by Allen French

Massachusetts Heritage series, no. 4, (Spartanburg, S.C, 1969, ©1925)

Massachusetts heritage series, Spartenburg, S.C, 1969

United States, United States of America

Reprint of 1925 edition by Little, Brown, and company, Boston.
Maps on lining-papers.
Bibliography: p. 275-286.

Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free.<br>
This is an OCR edition with typos.<br>
Excerpt from book:<br>
SINCE even a local history needs to have its background, however blurred, we must sketch, as briefly as possible, the situation that preceded and caused the fighting at Concord and Lexington. It is necessary to know why men who had so long lived peaceably together under the English king, had to separate. And yet, since the whole matter is freshly under discussion by modern historians, examining anew the legal grounds of the American contentions, the constitutional argument is no longer so clear as it seemed a few years ago. It is now claimed that the American position was groundless and dogmatic, and that the colonists finally took refuge in pure idealism. The reasoning is involved, and examination of it is long. In complete sympathy with the modern school of history which strives to do away with the old New England ancestor-worship, let us nevertheless look at the matter as compared with political readjustments since that day. What the American colonies wanted was the position of States within the British empire, managing their own local affairs and having a voice in imperial matters which concerned them. Though the idea was so new as to be practically unformulated, they had long had a large share of the desired freedom. If the British had only allowed the fact to continue, the colonists would not have insisted on the theory.1 But in the days of the Stamp Act, and afterward, there existed among the leaders of the British state a politicalwrong-headedness comparable to the perversity which long persisted in the treatment of Ireland. It mattered nothing that George the Third and his Friends were to become bywords, while the honors of history are given to Chatham, Burke, Fox, and the other leaders of the opposition. The liberals were not strong enough to change the British ...

2023-06-28