country, with all the foreign auxiliaries they could obtain, in prosecution of their unjust and tyrannical purposes.  They were precipitated, it was said, by Britain into a state of hostility, and there no longer remained for them a liberty of choice.  They must either throw down their arms, and expect the clemency of men who had acted as the enemies of their rights; or they must consider themselves as in a state of warfare, and abide by the consequences of that state.  Warfare involved independency.  Without this their efforts must be irregular, feeble, and without all prospect of success; they could possess no power to suppress mutinies, or to punish conspiracies; nor could they expect countenance and support from any of the states of Europe, however they might be inclined to favour them, while they acknowledged themselves to be subjects, and it was uncertain how soon they might sacrifice their friends and allies to the hopes of a reunion.  To look back, they were told, to the king of England, after all the insults they had experienced, and the hostilities that were begun, would be the height of pusillanimity and weakness.  They were bid to think a little for their posterity, who by the irreversible laws of nature and situation, could have no alternative left them but to be slaves or independent.  Finally, many subtle reasonings were alledged, to evince the advantages they must derive from intrinsic legislation, and general commerce.

“On the other hand, the middle and temperate party, represented this step as unnecessary, uncertain in its benefits, and irretrievable in its consequences.  They expatiated on the advantages that had long been experienced by the colonists from the fostering care of Great Britain, the generosity of the efforts she had made to protect them, and the happiness they had known under her auspicious patronage.  They represented their doubt of the ability of the colonies to defend themselves without her alliance.  They stated the necessity of a common superior to balance the separate and discordant interests of the different provinces.  They dwelt upon the miseries of an internal and doubtful struggle.  Determined never to depart from the assertion of what they considered as their indefeasible right, they would incessantly besiege the throne with their humble remonstrances.  They would seek the clemency of England, rather than the alliance of those powers, whom they conceived to be the real enemies of both; nor would they ever be accessory to the shutting up the door of reconciliation.

“But the voice of moderation is seldom heard amidst the turbulence of civil dissention.  Violent counsels prevailed.  The decisive and irrevocable step was made on the 4th of July 1776.  It remains with posterity to decide upon its merits.  Since that time it has indeed received the sanction of military success; but whatever consequences it may produce to America, the fatal day must ever be regretted by every sincere friend to the British empire.”

The other extract we shall select is from the story of Lord Cornwallis’s surrender in Virginia, and the consequent termination of the American war.