hide Matching Documents

The documents where this entity occurs most often are shown below. Click on a document to open it.

Document Max. Freq Min. Freq
George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, Vol. 4, 15th edition. 3 3 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Browsing named entities in George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent, Vol. 4, 15th edition.. You can also browse the collection for December, 1754 AD or search for December, 1754 AD in all documents.

Your search returned 3 results in 2 document sections:

eir compliments to Mr. Franklin. and he, who had first entered their city as a runaway apprentice, was revered as the mover of American union. Yet the system was not altogether acceptable either to Great Britain or to America. The fervid attachment of each colony to its own individual liberties repelled the overruling influence of a central power. Connecticut rejected it; even New York showed it little favor; Massachusetts charged her agent to oppose it. Massachusetts to Bollan, December, 1754. The Board of Trade, on receiving the chap. V.} 1754. minutes of the congress, were astonished at a plan of general government complete in itself. Representation of the Board of 31 Trade, 29 October, 1754, in Plantations Gen. B. 7. XLII.; and at Albany London Documents, XXXI. 64. Reflecting men in England dreaded American union as the keystone of independence. But in the mind of Franklin the love for union assumed still more majestic proportions, and comprehended the great country
itish parliament to oblige them, nothing would be done. Lieut. Gov. Delancey to the Lords of Trade, 15 Dec. 1754. In the same moment, Shirley, at Boston, was planning how the common fund could be made efficient; and to Franklin—who, in December, 1754, revisited the region in which he drew his first breath, and spent his earliest and most pleasant days,—he submitted a new scheme of union. A congress of governors and delegates from the councils was to be invested with power at their meetinrley was not particularly hostile to the Albany plan of union. His correspondence proves his bitter enmity to the scheme. See Shirley to Sir Thomas Robinson, 24 December, 1754; 24 January, 1755, and 4 Feb. 1755, but particularly the letter of Dec. 1754. The system, said he, is unfit for ruling a particular colony; it seems much more improper for establishing a general government over all the colonies to be comprised in the union. The prerogative is not sufficiently secured by the reservation