HAWKINS AND

BURLINGAME.

271

neck. In this retreat I was less fortunate than many of my comrades; I received two musket-ball wounds; one in my hip and the other near the ankle of my left leg. I succeeded, however, without any assistance, in reaching Prospect Hill, where the main body of the Americans had made a stand, and commenced fortifying. From thence, I was soon after conveyed to the Hospital at Cambridge, where my wounds were dressed and the bullet extracted from my hip by one of the surgeons. The house was nearly filled with the poor fellows who like myself, had received wounds in the late engagement, and presented a melancholy spectacle."

One might suppose the preceding picture was rather too highly colored, but it was in perfect keeping with the sanguine temperament and impulsive energy of the man. Had not his plan of capturing the frigate Tartar been betrayed, there can be but little doubt he would have succeeded, or lost his life in the attempt.

The characters of John Hawkins and William Burlingame were stamped with the same traits as that of Israel R. Potter. Hawkins enlisted into Capt. Silas Talbot's company, and Burlingame into Christopher C. Olney's, in the eight months' service, and both entered on board the Washington at the same time, as seamen. They were not so fortunate as Potter on their arrival in England as prisoners, to make their escape. They were kept in prison until the end of the war; such was the humanity of the British government towards American "rebels."

Burlingame was a married man and had a family when he enlisted, and yet he never heard one word from them during all the time of his imprisonment. At the termination of the war, he was released and came home. He arrived in Boston, in the Fall of 1783, after an absence of eight years, and came to Rhode Island on foot. When he arrived at home, he opened the door, and saw his wife busily engaged in household affairs, not unlike the fabled Ulysses, who, after an absence of more than ten years in the Trojan war, found his Penelope in like employment. Without making himself

known, he asked her if she could inform him what had become of one Burlingame, who formerly resided there. She started and recognizing his voice, fainted. The reader may imagine what effect the sight of one supposed for a long time to have been dead, would have upon her, connected as she was, by the strongest of human ties.

John Hawkins was released about the same time Burlingame was and came home in 1783, was married in 1785, and died, Dec. 10th, 1785; but a few months after he was married.

The widows of Burlingame and Hawkins both availed themselves of the provisions made by Congress for widows, whose husbands served in the war of the Revolution. At the time the latter made application for professional assistance, the only evidence she had of the actual imprisonment of her husband in England, was an old Bible presented to him when a prisoner, by the "London Bible Society," and some entries therein, made by him at the time. This relic he brought home with him and it was sent by the writer to the War Department as evidence in her claim. The witnesses by whom the fact of imprisonment might have been proved were all dead.

We have already noticed the characteristic efforts of Gen. Barton and Capt. Stephen Olney, and in the appendix will be found some reminiscences of Major Simeon Thayer, of Col. John Topham, Col. Lippitt, and others. Through the whole of our Revolutionary struggle, the troops of Rhode Island were well-disciplined and could be relied on in the day of battle. In fact, the bravery of the "old Rhode Island Line" was proverbial. In the battles of Red Bank and Springfield, of Rhode Island and Yorktown, their courage was tested and found of the purest kind.

The army, generally, of the Revolution, was composed of far better materials than armies usually are. They were not of that class in society who enlisted to be supported at the public expense, nor did they fight to acquire military glory only, but they fought to secure to themselves a country where they

could enjoy their rights and privileges free from the abuse of power: a country where they could enjoy the fruits of their labor without molestation, and where the rod of oppression was unknown. In fine, they fought to acquire a country where man should no longer be a machine, but man in the most exalted sense of the term, and be allowed to live up to the purpose for which he was created and to the glory of his God.

CONCLUSION.

In the preceding pages, we have given a sketch of the efforts of the government and people of Rhode Island in the glorious struggle for independence. We have noticed the principal Acts of the Legislature passed to sustain it: and in some instances where it was thought necessary, recited them at length; and we have placed upon record the names of all those belonging to this state, who enlisted in the Continental army and state troops, so far as they have come to our knowledge. We thought this a tribute due to the memory of those brave men who fought and bled in their country's cause, at a time that "tried men's souls:" and whose motto was, "Liberty or death."

For the last twenty years, our professional intercourse with the survivors of the Revolution, has been very extensive, in the prosecution of their claims for pensions, bounty lands, commutation pay, &c., and we know that their predominant motives for engaging in the struggle were, to sustain the great principles of human government shadowed forth in the Declaration of Independence. Pay and rations" were nothing, comparatively speaking, to the success of the great cause. could have filled a volume with anecdotes and stories told us of sacrifices made to sustain this cause, but we must forbear.

We

It will be observed, that in the Declaration of Independence, no particular form of government is recommended to the people of the United States to be adopted; but their "right" only asserted to change any form, when their safety and happiness required it. The people, therefore, of the several states were left free to make choice of any form they thought proper. Nor did the "articles of confederation" limit this right. The people in each of the several states could have adopted any form they chose, without any encroachment or violation of those articles. They, however, generally speaking, adopted the republican form, when they instituted a new state government. It was not until the adoption of the federal constitution in 1787, that the people of the United States guaranteed to each state in the union "a Republican form of government." The federal government went into operation in 1789, and since that period it has been, and is, binding upon the people of the United States, and upon the people of each individual state. Nor can any other form than that presented by the federal constitution be adopted, so long as that instrument continues to be the supreme law of the land.

The government of the United States is essentially republican. The people have so willed it, and no other power can rightfully alter or change it. If the people find it inadequate to the purpose for which it was instituted, they and they ALONE can change it. No other power on earth can do it peacefully. If, therefore, it is changed in any other way, it must be done by the sword, or the right of revolution; and if the government be thus changed against the consent of the people, it will be but usurpation and tyranny, until the people shall again restore it.

The theory of our government is the wonder of the philanthropic world. It is what philosophers and philanthropists have desired for centuries, but never could see carried into effect. Hampden, Sydney, John Locke, and Lord Somers, whose writings contributed so much to prepare the way for the great revolution of 1688 in England, at least such was the opinion of Lord Mansfield, would have rejoiced to see the days

we now see in America. But even those patriots and others who survived the butcheries of Charles II. and James II. saw only the first step in the march of freedom. They saw absolutism put down in England, and English subjects better protected in their rights, but they never had a glimpse of American freedom, this sight was reserved for after ages and after generations and on another continent. Well has it been said, recently, by a celebrated French patriot, Lamartine, we believe, that ours is a "Model Republic," and so indeed it is. It is a model worthy of being copied by every nation in Europe, where there is intelligence and virtue enough to sustain it; and at present is the only government on earth resting securely on the will of "Man,"-not man individually, as those political doctors who preach up the divine right of kings, would make us believe, but man collectively, that is the "people." The will of the people is the foundation upon which our Republic is built. The will of the people directs its practical operation, and the will of the people can change its form. Let those, therefore, who are engaged in its administration be careful in the discharge of their trusts, and all will be well.

Notwithstanding our union, under the federal constitution, has stood half a century, still its enemies, both in this country and in Europe, are predicting its dissolution. We are periodically told this, in this country, just before or during the session of a Congress; but at all times by its enemies in Europe, the friends of absolute power. But we predict no such thing. Our federal union is not a "rope of sand," as the articles of confederation were said to have been, but it is as it were a chain of iron, chaining every state to the constitution, and of such strength that it cannot be broken. One great object of the federal constitution was to invest the government with power sufficient to maintain itself, not only against foreign but internal enemies-(the want of this was a grand defect in the articles of confederation)—and it has done so. It has put into the hands of the Executive, the whole military and naval power of the nation, if necessary to preserve the union. a state, therefore, although a Palmetto lion in strength,

If