¹ Farrand, Max, “The Federal Constitution and the defects of the Confederation” in the American Political Science Review, ii, 532–544. (Nov. 1908.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Editorial paragraph in Channing and Hart, American History Leaflet, no. 20, “The Exact Text of the Articles of Confederation with the Franklin and Dickinson drafts.”

³ The documents of 1643, 1754, and 1775 which are used in this paper are the reprints in American History Leaflets, edited by Channing, and Hart, , nos. 7, 14 and 20.Google Scholar

⁴ See Frothingham, , Rise of the Republic (10th Edition), p. 90–95Google Scholar and footnote on those pages for a discussion of Leisler's scheme. For the other plans, see Channing, and Hart's, American History Leaflets, No. 14Google Scholar, “Plans of Union, 1696–1780.”

⁵ See Franklin, , Works (Bigelow edition) ii, 219–220Google Scholar, This is the letter which Bancroft, in his History of the United States, iv, 91–2Google Scholar (edition of 1857) says is anonymous, but he believes it to be one of Franklin's. It is also given in Franklin, , Writings (Smyth edition) iii, 42, 43.Google Scholar

⁶ See Frothingham, , Rise of the Republic (10 edition), 112–114Google Scholar; also American History Leaflets, no. 14, 3–6.

⁷ ProfessorSalmon, Lucy M. has in the American Historical Association Report for 1893, pp. 137–148Google Scholar, suggested the connection with the Union of Utrecht of 1579.

She very rightly remarks that when one remembers the term of residence in Leyden of a number of persons who became founders of the New Plymouth colony, one would expect to find Dutch influence reflected in a plan of union prepared soon after the emigration to America. See also SirTemple, William, Works (ed. 1814) i, 94–125Google Scholar, where the government of the United Provinces is discussed in full.

⁸ The letter of the Earl of Holdernesse is dated 28 August, 1753, and may be found in the New Hampshire Provincial Papers, vi, 234. The letter of the Lords of Trade, dated 18 September, 1753, may be found in various places, among them New York Colonial Documents, vi, 802, where it is more elaborate and precise than in the letter sent to some of the other governors. Governor Shirley of Massachusetts in a letter of March 5, 1754, to Gov. Wentworth of New Hampshire proposes that the subject of colonial union be discussed at Albany. See N. H. Prov. Papers, vi. 279.

⁹ See Pennsylvania Gazette, 9 May, 1754.

¹⁰ See Franklin, , Works (Bigelow, ed.) ii, 347–350Google Scholar, and footnote on 347. Also American History Leaflets, no. 14, pp. 8–9.

¹¹ Pennsylvania Colonial Records, vi, 66. Yet the instructions from their assemblies to the commissioners from New Hampshire, Maryland, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania made no mention of forming a confederation. The commissioners from Massachusetts carried plenary instructions worded exactly as was the letter of the lords of trade referred to on p. 8 of this paper. Rhode Island gave its commissioners instructions “in general, as far as the abilities of this government will permit, to act in conjunction with the paid commissioners in everything necessary for the good of his Majesty's Subjects in those parts, and to answer as far as we can the Designs of his Majesty's Instructions to this Colony comunicated [sic] to us by the Earl of Holdernesse”…. For these commissions see Pennsylvania Archives, 1st. Series, ii, 137–143. Georgia and the two Carolinas had not been invited to the Congress. Virginia refused to send delegates. See Dinwiddie Papers in Va. Hist. Coll., New Series, iii, 99; and ibid. 81, for a letter to James Hamilton of Pennsylvania, dates 23 Feb. 1754.

¹² Pennsylvania Col. Recs, vi, 67. Writing 34 years later in his autobiography, Franklin says: “In our way thither [to Albany], I projected and drew a plan for the union of all the colonies under one government, so far as might be necessary for defence, and other important general purposes” [He showed it to two men].… “and, being fortified by their approbation, I ventur'd to lay it before the Congress. It then appeared that several of the commissioners had form'd plans of the same kind.” … [After the question of establishment of a union had passed unanimously].… “A committee was then appointed, one member from each colony, to consider the several plans and report. Mine happen'd to be preferr'd, and, with a few amendments, was accordingly reported.” See Franklin, , Works, (Bigelow, ed.) i, 243.Google ScholarHutchinson, Thomas in his History of Massachusetts Bay (ed. 1828), iii, 21Google Scholar, speaks of Franklin's bringing forward a project “the heads wherof [sic] he brought with him.”

¹³ For Mr.Peters', plan see American History Leaflets, no. 14, pp. 6–8Google Scholar; or Pennsylvania Archives, 1st. series, ii, 197–199. See Pennsylvania Archives, 2nd. series. vi, 197–8, for Mr. Pownall's plan.

¹⁴ The best example of this is in the case of the so-called Meshech Weare plan, published in June 1897, in the Bulletin of the New York Public Library, vol. i, no. 6, pp. 149–150. It is headed “Short Hints Towards a Scheme for a General Union of Ye Brittish Colonies on the Continent.” What follows is a rough sketch following in general the Albany plan, but with short, unfinished sentences, and adding two queries at the end. There is little doubt in my mind that this was the rough draft which each member had on June 28. Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island noted in his diary under date of 29 June, “The Hint of a scheme for the Union of the Colonies was debated on.” See Rhode Island Historical Tracts, no. 9, p. 16.

¹⁵ Pennsylvania Col. Rec., vi, 100.

¹⁶ Ibid., 105, 109.

¹⁷ Governor Horatio Sharpe of Maryland in a letter to Cecil Calvert, dated September 15, 1754, gives a discussion of modes of compelling colonial coöperation in the matter of taxation. He there speaks of a duty on imported liquors as one feasible scheme, and an equal poll tax as another. See Sharpe, , Correspondence, i, 99.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Franklin, to Collinsem, Peter, Writings (Smyth, ed.) iii, 243.Google Scholar Governor Shirley in a letter to Secretary Robinson speaks of “a gentleman who had a principle hand in forming the Albany Plan,” and then quotes from Franklin. See Pennsylvania Archives, 2nd series, vi, 214. Shirley further says he formed a rough sketch of a plan, which Hutchinson thus describes: “Mr. Shirley seems to have been in favor of an assembly to consist of all the governors of the colonies, and a certain number of the council of each colony, with powers to agree upon measures for the defence of the colonies, and to draw upon the treasury in England for money necessary to carry such measures into execution; for the reimbursement whereof, a tax should be laid on each colony by an act of Parliament. This plan was communicated by Mr. Shirley to Mr. Franklin, one of the delegates from Pennsylvania, who a few months after the convention ended, went to Boston. …”

Franklin, in Works (Bigelow, ed.) ii, 352Google Scholar, says he proposed that the union be sanctioned by Act of Parliament in order to prevent the nullification by any single colony of an act of the Grand Council, and the possible secession of such nullifying colony.

¹⁹ See Hutchinson, , Hist. of Massachustts Bay (ed. 1828), iii, 23Google Scholar; also N. Y. Col. Doc. vi, 933.

²⁰ In the Hutchinson plan the method of taxation is like the one in Franklin's “Short Hints,” save that the taxes so levied were to bear relation to population. This plan apparently represents merely Hutchinson's amendments to the Albany plan, for it bears date of December 26, 1754. Franklin had been in Boston for some weeks during the fall of 1754, and he and Hutchinson may very well have had conferences on the subject. See Hutchinson, , Hist. of Mass. Bay (ed. of 1828), iii, 23.Google Scholar See also Mass. Hist. Coll., First Series, vii, 203, for a plan of union for New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, and New Jersey. In the appendix to Carson's, Hundredth Anniversary, ii, 474Google Scholar, the statement is made that in the Massachusetts Assembly which debated the Albany Plan a substitute plan was offered (probably the one given in the Massachusetts Hist. Coll., First Series, vii, 203–206); that both the substitute and the Albany plan were rejected, and a new committee reported the Hutchinson plan. This is probably correct. The Hutchinson plan is given in Carson's, Hundredth Anniversary, ii, 474–478.Google Scholar

²¹ N. Y. Col. Doc., vi, 903–906. Dated 9 Aug., 1754.

²² See Ibid., vii, 438. Also Isaac Hunt to Benjamin Franklin, a letter dated from Philadelphia, 21 May, 1766, in the Franklin papers which are in the possession of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, under the caption “I, 58.”

²³ Letter to Galloway, , Franklin, , Writings (Smyth, ed.) vi, 196.Google Scholar

From this point the two plans diverge; but enough has been given to show the genesis of the Galloway Plan. See Amer. Hist. Leaflets. No. 14, pp. 19–21.

²⁵ See Franklin, , Writings, (Smyth, ed.) vi, 311Google Scholar; also Franklin, , Works, (Bigelow, ed.) v, 435.Google Scholar The rest of the quotation is: “…… But should that Plan be again brought forward, I imagine that before establishing the Union, it would be necessary to agree on the following preliminary Articles:

1. The Declaratory Act of Parliament to be repeal'd.

2. All Acts of Parlt. or Parts of Acts, laying Duties on the Colonies, to be repeal'd.

3. All Acts of Parlt. altering the Charters or Constitutions or Laws, of any Colony to be repeal'd.

4. All Acts of Parlt. restraining Manufactures in the Colonies to be repeal'd.

5. Those parts of the Navigation Acts, which are for the Good of the whole Empire, such as require that Ships in the Trade should be British or Plantation built and navigated by ¾ British Subjects; with the Duties necessary for regulating Commerce to be re-enacted by both Parliaments.

6. Then to induce the Americans to See the regulating Acts faithfully executed, it would be well to give the Duties collected in each Colony to the Treasury of that Colony, and let the Govt. and Assembly appoint the Officers to collect them, and proportion their Salaries.—Thus the business will be cheaper and better done, and the misunderstandings between the two Countries now created and fomented by the unprincipled Wretches generally appointed from England to be entirely prevented.

“These are hasty thoughts, submitted to your Consideration.”

²⁶ Franklin had written to Governor Shirley, December 22, 1754: “Since the conversation your Excellency was pleased to honor me with, on the subject of uniting the colonies more intimately with Great Britain, by allowing them representatives in Parliament, I have something further considered that matter, and am of opinion that such a union would be very acceptable to the colones, provided they had a reasonable number of representatives allowed them; and that all the old acts of Parliament restraining the trade or cramping the manufactures of the colonies be at the same time repealed…‥” See Franklin, , Works, (Bigelow, ed.) ii, 384Google Scholar; or Writings, (Smyth, ed.) iii, 238.Google Scholar

“By 1769 he was an advocate of colonial independence from the British legislature.” See Lincoln, C. H., Revolutionary Movement in Pennsylvania, 147.

²⁷ In the American Historical Review, ix, no. 3, pp. 524–525, is given a letter of Franklin's, which is in the papers of the Continental Congress. It is written from London, March 13, 1775, to Charles Thomson. After speaking of the “Non-Consumption Agreement,” he adds: “I flatter myself that neither New York nor any other colony will be cajol'd into a Separation from the common Interest. Our only Safety is in the firmest Union, and keeping strict Faith with each other.” Later in the same month he sailed for America.

²⁸ Hutchinson speaks as if the Articles were readily accessible. Said he: “They [Articles of Confederation of 1643] have been published at large by Doctor Mather, Mr. Neale, &c. and are in substance as follows: ….” Then follows an excellent summary by paragraphs; but he does not mention the rotation in the place of meeting, which Franklin used.

²⁹ Frothingham, , Rise of the Republic, [10th ed.] p. 292Google Scholar, quotes from newspapers of 1772. He also [ibid, p. 481–2, footnote] gives an extract from the Boston Gazette of 22 Apr. 1776, quoting an article in the Pennsylvania Evening Post of 5 March, 1776; entitled “Proposals for a Confederation of the United Colonies,” consisting of seven articles. The proposals were accompanied by some comment, of which the following is given by Frothingham: “The New England Colonies, by many years' experience, found great advantage by a confederation, in carrying on their wars with the Indians, in treating with neighboring colonies settled under other States, and in adjusting and settling matters among themselves.” The New England confederation was evidently under discussion at the time the Articles of Confederation of 1778 were formed, and probably pretty continuously throughout the decade.

³⁰ See Albany Plan, Paragraphs 11,12,13 and 17.

³¹ See Paragraph 10.

³² See Thorpe, F. N.American Charters, Constitutions, and Organic Laws, v, pp. 3064–5–6Google Scholar; also pp. 3077–9; also Constitution of Pennsylvania of 1776, ibid., 3086–3087. Franklin was president of the convention which drew up this constitution. See also, the council of state for the United Provinces of the Netherlands, in Sir William Temple, Works, (ed. 1814) i, 94–125.