Historical collections of Virginia containing a collection of the most interesting facts, traditions, biographical sketches, anecdotes, &c., relating to its history and antiquities, together with geographical and statistical descriptions : to which is appended, an historical and descriptive sketch of the District of Columbia : illustrated by over 100 engravings, giving views of the principal towns, seats of eminent men, public buildings, relics of antiquity, historic localities, natural scenery, etc., etc. |
 |
|
| I. |
| II. |
| III. |
| IV. | CHAPTER IV. |
| V. |
| VI. |
| VII. |
| VIII. |
|
|
 | CHAPTER IV. Historical collections of Virginia |  |
CHAPTER IV.
PROGRESS OF THE COLONY FROM THE DISSOLUTION OF THE LONDON COMPANY,
TO THE BREAKING OUT OF BACON'S REBELLION IN 1675.
Accession of Charles I.—Tobacco trade.—Yeardley governor—his commission favorable—his
death and character.—Lord Baltimore's reception.—State of religion—legislation
upon the subject.—Invitation to the Puritans to settle on Delaware Bay.—
Harvey governor.—Grant of Carolina and Maryland.—Harvey deposed—restored.—
Wyatt governor.—Acts of the Legislature improperly censured.—Berkeley governor.
—Indian relations.—Opechancanough prisoner—his death.—Change of government
in England.—Fleet and army sent to reduce Virginia.—Preparation for defence by
Berkeley.—Agreement entered into between the colony and the commissioners of the
commonwealth.—Indian hostilities.—Matthews elected governor.—Difficulties between
the governor and the legislature—adjusted.—State of the colony and its trade.—Commissioners
sent to England.—The Restoration.—General legislation.
The dissolution of the London Company was soon followed by
the death of James, and the accession of his son,
the political rights and privileges of the colony, and suffered them
neglect; while he was employed in obtaining a monopoly of their
tobacco. This valuable article, the use of which extended with
such unaccountable rapidity, had early attracted the avidity of
King James. The 19th article of the charter of 1609 had exempted
the company, their agents, factors, and assignees, from the payment
of all subsidies and customs in Virginia for the space of one
and twenty years, and from all taxes and impositions forever, upon
any goods imported thither, or exported thence into any of the
realms or dominions of England; except the five per cent. usual
by the ancient trade of merchants. But notwithstanding the express
words of this charter, a tax was laid by the farmers of the
customs, in the year 1620, upon the tobacco of the colony; which
was not only high of itself, but the more oppressive because it laid
the same tax upon Virginia and Spanish tobacco, when the latter
sold in the market for three times the price of the former. In the
same year the same prince was guilty of another violation of the
charter, in forcing the company to bring all of their tobacco into
England; when he found that a portion of their trade had been
diverted into Holland, and establishments made at Middleburg
and Flushing. The charters all guarantied to the colony all of
the rights, privileges, franchises, and immunities of native born
Englishmen, and this act of usurpation was the first attempt on
the part of the mother country to monopolize the trade of the
colony. The next year the king, either his avidity being unsatisfied,
or not liking the usurped and precarious tenure by which his
gains were held, inveigled the Virginia and Somer Isles company
into an arrangement, by which they were to become the sole
importers of tobacco; being bound, however, to import not less
than forty nor more than sixty thousand pounds of Spanish varinas,
and paying to the king, in addition to the sixpence duty before
paid, one-third part of all the tobacco landed in the realms.
The king, on his part, was to prohibit all other importation and all
planting in England and Ireland; and that which was already
planted was to be confiscated.
When the company petitioned parliament to prolong its existence,
in opposition to the efforts of the king, they failed—but that portion
of their petition, which asked for the exclusive monopoly of
tobacco to Virginia and the Somer Isles, was grant-
Whether this exclusiveness was understood with the limitation in
the previous contract between the king and the two companies, it
is impossible to say, as the original documents are not accessible
to the writer.[80] But the probabilities are greatly against the
limitation.
Charles had not been long on the throne before he issued a
of the Virginia and Somer Isles tobacco; and prohibiting
a violation of their monopoly, under penalty of censure by
the dread star-chamber. This was soon followed by another, in
which he carefully set forth the forfeiture of their charter by the
company, and the immediate dependence of the colony upon the
crown; concluding by a plain intimation of his intention to become
their sole factor.
Soon after this, a rumor reached the colonies that an individual
was in treaty with the king for an exclusive contract for tobacco;
one of the conditions of which would have led to the importation
of so large an amount of Spanish tobacco, as would have driven
that of the colonists from the market. The earnest representations
of the colony on this subject caused an abandonment of the scheme;
but in return, the colony was obliged to excuse itself from a charge
of trade with the Low Countries, and promise to trade only with
England. But the king's eagerness for the possession of this
monopoly was not to be baffled thus. He made a formal proposition
to the colony for their exclusive trade, in much the same
language as one tradesman would use to another; and desired
that the General Assembly might be convened for the purpose of
considering his proposition. The answer by the
It sets forth in strong, but respectful language the injury which
had been done the planters, by the mere report of an intention to
subject their trade to a monopoly: they state the reasons for not
engaging in the production of the other staples mentioned by the
king; and dissent from his proposition as to the purchase of their
tobacco; demanding a higher price and better terms of admission,
in exchange for the exclusive monopoly which he wished.
In the mean time, the death of his father rendered it necessary
for Sir Francis Wyatt to return to Europe, to attend to his
his successor. This was itself a sufficient guarantee of the
political privileges of the colony; as he had had the honor of calling
the first colonial assembly. But in addition to this, his powers
were, like those of his predecessor, limited to the executive authority
exercised by the governor within five years last past. These
circumstances taken in connection with the express sanction
given by Charles to the power of a legislative assembly, with regard
to his proffered contract for tobacco, sufficiently prove that
he had no design of interfering with the highly prized privilege of
self-government enjoyed by the colonists: and fully justifies the
General Assembly in putting the most favorable construction upon
the king's ambiguous words, announcing his determination to preserve
inviolate all the "former interests" of Virginia, which occur
in his letter of 1627.
Thus were those free principles established in Virginia, for
which the mother country had to struggle for some time longer.
emigrants arrived in one year; which of course much enhanced
the price of provision.
Death now closed the career of Yeardley. The character of his
administration is exhibited in the history of the colony;
who were best acquainted with his conduct, and who were little
disposed to flatter undeservedly either the living or the dead, is to
be found in a eulogy written by the government of Virginia to the
privy council, announcing his death. In obedience to the king's
commission to the council, they elected Francis West governor,
the day after the burial of Yeardley. He held the commission
until the 5th of March, 1628, when, designing to sail for England,
John Pott was chosen to succeed him. Pott did not continue
long in office, for the king, when the death of Yeardley was known,
issued his commission to Sir John Harvey, who arrived some time
between October, 1628, and March, 1629.
In the interval between the death of Yeardley and the arrival of Harvey, occurred the
first act of religious intolerance which defiles the annals of Virginia.
Lord Baltimore, a Catholic nobleman, allured by the rising reputation of the colony,
abandoned his settlement in Newfoundland and came to Virginia; where, instead of being
received with the cheerful welcome of a friend and a brother, he was greeted with
the oath of allegiance and supremacy; the latter of which, it was well known, his
conscience would not allow him to take.
Much allowance is to be made for this trespass upon religious freedom before we attribute
it to a wilful violation of natural liberty. The times and circumstances ought to
be considered. The colony had grown into life while the violent struggles between the
Romish and Protestant churches were yet rife. The ancient tyranny and oppression
of the Holy See were yet fresh in the memory of all; its cruelties and harsh intolerance
in England were recent; and yet continuing in the countries in which its votaries had
the control of the civil government. The light of Protestantism itself was the first
dawn of religious freedom; and the thraldom in which mankind had been held by
Catholic fetters for so many ages, was too terrible to risk the possibility of their acquiring
any authority in government. Eye-witnesses of the severities of Mary were
yet alive in England, and doubtless many of the colonists had heard fearful relations of
the religious sufferings during her reign, probably some had suffered in their own families:
most of them had emigrated while the excitement against the Papists was still raging
in England with its greatest fury, and continually kept in action by the discovery, or
pretended discovery, of Popish plots to obtain possession of the government. Was it
wonderful, then, that a colony which, with a remarkable uniformity of sentiment, professed
a different religion, should be jealous of a faith which sought by every means in
its power to obtain supreme control, and used that control for the extermination, by the
harshest means, of all other creeds?
The colony in Virginia was planted when the incestuous and monstrous connection
of church and state had not been severed in any civilized country on the globe; at a
period when it would have been heresy to attempt such a divorce, because it required
all the aid of the civil power to give men sufficient freedom to "profess, and by argument
to maintain," any other creed than one—and that one the creed of Rome. The
anxiety of the British government upon this subject, so far from being unnatural, was
highly laudable, since all its efforts were necessary to sustain its new-born power of
professing its own creed. The awful effect of Catholic supremacy, displayed in a
neighboring kingdom, afforded a warning too terrible[85]
to be easily forgotten; and it
would have been as unwise to allow the Catholics equal civil privileges at that day, as
it would be impolitic and unjust now to exclude them. We find this regard for religious
carefully fostered in the colonies. Every charter requires the establishment of
the church of England, and authorizes the infliction of punishment for drawing off the
people from their religion, as a matter of equal importance with their allegiance. For
at that period, before any important differences between the Protestants had arisen,
when but two religions were struggling for existence, not to be of the church of England
was to be a Papist, and not to acknowledge the secular supremacy of the king, was to bow
to the authority of the pope. The Catholics, as the only subject of terror, were the only
subjects of intolerance; no sufficient number of dissenters had availed themselves of
the great example of Protestantism, in rejecting any creed which did not precisely satisfy
their consciences, to become formidable to mother church; nor had she grown so
strong and haughty in her new-fledged power, as to level her blows at any but her first
great antagonist.[86]
The colony in Virginia consisted of church of England men; and
many of the first acts of their legislature relate to provision for the
church. Glebe lands were early laid off, and livings provided. The
ministers were considered not as pious and charitable individuals, but
as officers of the state, bound to promote the true faith and sound
morality, by authority of the community by which they were paid,
and to which they were held responsible for the performance of their
duty. The very first act of Assembly which was passed, required
that in every settlement in which the people met to worship God,
a house should be appropriated exclusively to that purpose, and
a place paled in to be used solely as a burying-ground; the second
act imposed a penalty of a pound of tobacco for absence from
divine service on Sunday, without sufficient excuse, and fifty
pounds for a month's absence; the third, required uniformity, as
nearly as might be, with the canons in England; the fourth, enjoined
the observance of the holy days, (adding the 22d of March,
the day of the Massacre, to the number,) dispensing with some,
"by reason of our necessities;" the fifth, punished any minister
absenting himself from his church above two months in the year,
with forfeiture of half his estate—and four months, his whole estate
and curacy; the sixth, punished disparagement of a minister; the
seventh, prohibited any man from disposing of his tobacco or
corn, until the minister's portion was first paid. This sacred duty
discharged, the Assembly next enact salutary regulations for the
state. We find at the session of 1629, the act requiring attendance
at church on the Sabbath, specially enforced, and a clause
added, forbidding profanation of that day by travelling or work;
also an act, declaring that all those who work in the ground shall
pay tithes to the minister. We find requisition of uniformity with
the canons of the English church not only repeated, in every new
commission from England, but re-enacted by the legislature of
1629-30, and in 1631-32, as well as in the several revisals of the
idea advanced of ministers being considered public officers; and
churchwardens required to take an oath, to present offences
against decency or morality, which made them in effect censors
of the public morals. In these acts, it is made the duty of ministers
to teach children the Lord's prayer, commandments, and the
articles of faith; also to attend all persons dangerously sick, to
instruct and comfort them in their distress; to keep registers of
christening, marriages, and deaths; and to preserve in themselves
strict moral conduct, as an advancement to religion and an example
to others. We find, also, frequent acts passed providing for
the payment of ministers, until the session of 1657-58, when
church and state seem to have been effectually divorced; for,
though no act of religious freedom was passed, but all were still
expected, rather than compelled, to conform to the church of England,
yet the compulsory payment of ministers was abandoned,
and all matters relating to the church were left entirely to the
control of the people.
From the review which we have given of the religious condition
of England and the colony, it must be manifest that the tender
of the oath of supremacy to Lord Baltimore, was not only a
religious but a civil duty in the council, which they could by no
means have omitted, without a violation of their own oaths, laws,
and charters. But if any further proof were necessary, to show
that it flowed from this source, and not from a disposition to religious
intolerance—it is afforded by the liberal invitation given in
the instructions to Captain Bass to the Puritans, who had settled at
New Plymouth, to desert their cold and barren soil, and come and
settle upon Delaware Bay, which was in the limits of Virginia.
Harvey met his first General Assembly in March, and its acts,
as those of several succeeding sessions, only consist of the
a period in our history, upon which the few scattered
and glimmering lights which exist, have rather served to mislead
than to guide historians. It is a period replete with charges made
by historians, of the most heinous character, against the governor,
with no evidence upon record to support them. The truth is, that
Sir John Harvey was deposed and sent home by the colony for
some improper conduct: but what that was, does not fully appear,
and historians seem to have thought it their duty to supply the
defect in the record, by abusing his administration as arbitrary and
tyrannical from the first: the charge is without evidence, and
every probability is against its truth. During the whole of his
administration, the General Assembly met and transacted their
business as usual. The fundamental laws which they had passed,
to which we have before referred, restraining the powers of the
governor, and asserting the powers of the Assembly, were passed
again as of course. There could manifestly be no oppression from
this source. The General Assembly ordered the building of forts,
soldiers for the field when necessary, and disbanded them when
the occasion for their services had ceased. The Assembly and the
soldiers were planters, and they could be little disposed to oppress
themselves, their families and friends. The only evidence which
exists against Harvey, is the fact of his being deposed, and sent
home with commissioners to complain of his conduct to the king;
but this did not occur until 1635, after the extensive grants had
been made to Lord Baltimore and others, which dismembered the
colony, and were so displeasing to the planters; and we shall see
that aid or connivance in these grants were the probable causes
of Harvey's unpopularity.
The first act of tyranny towards the colony which we find recorded
against Charles, was his grant in 1630 to Sir Robert Heath
of a large portion of the lands of the colony—commencing at the
36th degree of latitude, and including the whole southern portion
of the United States, under the name of Carolina. But as this
country was not settled until long afterwards, and the charter became
void by non-compliance with its terms, it could not be regarded
as injurious by the colony, except as an evidence of the
facility with which their chartered rights could be divested. Another
instance of a more objectionable character soon oc-
of that portion of Virginia which is now included in the state of
Maryland, and immediately commenced a settlement upon it, notwithstanding
the value which the Virginians set upon it, and their
having actually made settlements within its limits. William
Claiborne, who had been a member of the council, and secretary
of state for Virginia, had obtained a license from the king to
"traffic in those parts of America where there was no license,"
which had been confirmed by Harvey. In pursuance of this authority
he had settled himself at Kent Island, near the city of Annapolis,
and seemed by no means inclined tamely to relinquish his
possessions. He resisted the encroachments of Maryland by force.
This was the first controversy between the whites which ever took
place on the waters of the Chesapeake. Claiborne was indicted,
and found of guilty of murder, piracy, and sedition; and to escape
punishment he fled to Virginia. When the Maryland commissioners
demanded him, Harvey refused to give him up, but sent him to
England to be tried. It is highly probable that the conduct of
Harvey in giving up instead of protecting Claiborne, incensed the
colony against him; for they clearly thought the Maryland charter
an infringement of their rights, and they were little inclined to
submit to imposition from any quarter.
The account which we have of the trial of Harvey is extremely
meager, detailing neither the accusations nor the evidence, but
only the fact. The manner of proceeding, however, as it appears
on the record, is as little like that of an enslaved people, as it is
like a "transport of popular rage and indignation." The whole
free people acting upon the conduct of an unworthy servant. The
first entry upon the subject runs thus: "An assembly to be called
to receive complaints against Sir John Harvey, on the petition of
many inhabitants, to meet 7th of May." Could as much coolness,
deliberation, and publicity be given to action against a tyrant who
had already trodden liberty under foot? or is a transport of popular
rage so slow in action? The next entry upon this subject is
the following: "On the 28th of April, 1635, Sir John Harvey
thrust out of his government, and Capt. John West acts as governor,
till the king's pleasure known." It appears that before the
Assembly met which was to have heard complaints against Harvey,
he agreed in council to go to England to answer them; and
upon that, West was elected governor.
How long West governed is uncertain; but it appears by a
paper among the records, that Harvey was governor again in January,
1636. It appears that Charles regarded the conduct of the
colony as an unwarrantable piece of insolence, little short of treason,
and would not even hear them, lest the spectacle of so noble
an example might inflame the growing discontents in his own
kingdom, which finally rose to such a pitch, as not only to take the
same unwarrantable liberty of deposing him, but even laid violent
hands upon his sacred person. He accordingly sent the commissioners
home with their grievances untold, and Harvey was reinstated
in his power without undergoing even a trial. The conduct
of the colony appears to have been a salutary lesson to him, and
he probably feared that for the next offence they would take
justice into their own hands; for we hear no complaints of him
during his administration, which expired in November, 1639. Sir
Francis Wyatt succeeded him.
In 1634 the colony was divided into eight shires,[89]
which were
to be governed as the shires in England: lieutenants were to be
appointed in the same manner as in England, and it was their
especial duty to pay attention to the war against the Indians.
Sheriffs, sergeants, and bailiffs, were also to be elected as in England.
In 1628-9 commissions were issued to hold monthly courts
in the different settlements, which was the origin of our county
court system.
At the first assembly which was held after the return of Wyatt,
several acts were passed, which, from the inattention of historians
to the circumstances of the times, have received universal reprobation,
but which, when properly considered, will be found to be
marked with great shrewdness, and dictated by the soundest
policy.
The act declares that, "tobacco by reason of excessive quantities being made, being
so low, that the planters could not subsist by it, or be enabled to raise more staple commodities,
viewed by sworn viewers, and the rotten and unmerchantable, and half the good, to be
burned. So the whole quantity made would come to 1,500,000 lbs., without stripping and
smoothing; and the next two years 170 lbs. tobacco per poll, stripped and smoothed, was
to be made, which would make, in the whole, about 1,300,000 lbs., and all creditors
were to take 40 lbs. for a hundred." By a second act, it was declared that "no man
should be obliged to perform above half his covenants about freighting tobacco in 1639."
Nothing could be more absurd than such acts at the present day, and hence they have
been pronounced absurd at that time. But let us look to the circumstances. Except
the little tobacco made in the Somer Isles, Virginia at that time had the monopoly of
the English market. The taste for tobacco was new, existed with few, and could not
be suddenly extended; consequently the consumption could not be increased in proportion
to the increase of supply, but those who used it would obtain it at a price proportionably
less. Thus a superabundant supply so glutted the market as to reduce the
article to a price ruinous to the planters. On the other hand, with those who had
acquired a taste for tobacco, it was nearly indispensable, and if less than a usual crop
was made, the demand enhanced the value of the remainder beyond that of the full
crop; hence the propriety of burning half of the good tobacco. This seems to have
been perceived, and we have seen no fault found with the first portion of the act; but
the latter part, forcing creditors to take less than their full dues, has been pronounced
flagrantly unjust. But if this had not been done, what would have been the condition
of the planter? If he had made a hundred pounds, and owed fifty, the burning and
his creditor would deprive him of his whole crop, while the creditor receiving the fifty
pounds at its enhanced value, would receive more than double what was due him. This
would have been highly oppressive to the debtor, and made the whole act redound entirely
to the benefit of the creditor. Whereas, making him take forty pounds in the
hundred, when that forty was enhanced to more than the value of the hundred, was no
hardship.
In the early stages of the colony, the planters wanted the comforts of life from England,
and not money, for money could purchase nothing in America. It would have been
wasteful extravagance to have brought it. The Virginians had but one article of export,
—all trading vessels came for tobacco,—hence that would purchase every thing, and
became, on that account, useful to every man, and an article of universal desire, as
money is in other countries, and hence the standard of value and circulating medium of
the colony. We find, when money first began to be introduced, as the keeping accounts
in tobacco was inconvenient to the foreign merchants who came to trade, an act was
passed with the following preamble:—"Whereas it hath been the usual custom of
merchants and others dealing intermutually in this colony, to make all bargains, contracts,
and to keep all accounts in tobacco, and not in money," &c. It then goes on to enact
that in future they should be kept in money, and that in all pleas and actions the value
should be represented in money. This was in 1633. But it was found so inconvenient
to represent value by an arbitrary standard, the representative of which did not exist in
the colony, that another act was passed in January, 1641, declaring that,—"Whereas
many and great inconveniences do daily arise by dealing for money, Be it enacted and
confirmed by the authority of this present Grand Assembly, that all money-debts made
since the 26th day of March, 1642, or which hereafter shall be made, shall not be
pleadable or recoverable in any court of justice under this government." An exception
was afterwards made in 1642-3, in favor of debts contracted for horses or sheep, but
money-debts generally were not even made recoverable again until 1656. We thus see
that tobacco was the currency, and an excess as injurious as an over-issue of bank-paper,
depreciating itself in the market, or, in common parlance, causing every thing to rise.
We see, moreover, the cause of the excessive care taken in burning bad tobacco, since
that was as important to the uniformity of their currency as the exclusion of counterfeits
in a money currency. All the viewings, censorships, inspections, regulations of the
amount to be cultivated by each planter, each hand,—the quantity to be gathered from
each plant,—the regulations prescribed as to curing it,—are to be regarded more as mint
regulations than as regulations of agricultural industry. Indeed, we find the attempt
to sell or pay bad tobacco, is made a crime precisely as it is now to sell or pay counterfeit
money. This act of Assembly then allowed debtors to discharge themselves by
paying half their debts in amount, did, in effect, make them pay all in value, and can
by no means be compared to the acts of states or princes in debasing the coin, and
allowing it to retain its old nominal value, or by introducing valueless paper money; in
these cases, the debt is paid nominally, or in words, but not in value, whereas in Virginia
tobacco, but it was paid in fewer pounds, rendered of greater actual value than the
debt would have amounted to if paid in pounds before the burning of half the quantity
made.
Wyatt remained governor only for one year and a few months,
when he was succeeded by Sir William Berkeley. Historians who
have not been aware of the intermediate administration of Wyatt,
and have heard no complaint of Berkeley, have delighted to deck
his character in the gayest colors, in contrast to the black character
which they have drawn of Harvey. There can be no doubt
that he was esteemed an accomplished and chivalric gentleman;
but his accession brought no increase of political freedom to Virginia,
and his commission did not differ from those of his predecessors.
On the contrary, the instructions which he brought, so
far from granting new franchises, imposed new, severe, and unwarrantable
restrictions on the liberty of trade; England claiming
that monopoly of colonial commerce, which was ultimately enforced
by the navigation act, and which was a perpetual source of
contention, until all differences were finally healed by the revolution.
Berkeley arrived in February, 1642; an assembly met in March,
and soon after passed a solemn protest against a petition which
Sir George Sandys had presented to Parliament for the restoration
of the company. This paper is drawn with great ability, and sets
forth the objections to the petition in very strong and striking
terms. They enlarge especially upon the wish and power of the
company to monopolize their trade; the advantages and happiness
secured to them by their present form of government, with its annual
assemblies and trial by jury; the fact, that a restitution of the
power of the company would be an admission of the illegality of
the king's authority, and a consequent nullification of the grants
and commissions issued by him; and the impossibility of men,
however wise, at such a distance, and unacquainted with the climate
or condition of the country, to govern the colony as well as
it could be governed by their own Grand Assembly. The king, in
reply to this, declared his purpose not to change a form of government
in which they received so much content and satisfaction.
Other important matters were settled at this legislature. A tax for the benefit of the
governor was abolished. The punishment by condemnation to temporary service was
abolished, which had existed ever since the foundation of the colony; and this protection
to liberty was considered as so important to the Assembly, that they declared it was
to be considered as a record by the inhabitants of their birthright as Englishmen, and
that the oppression of the late company was quite extinguished. The governor probably
received some benefit from these considerations, for he is praised for giving his assent
to an act in which he preferred the public freedom to his particular profit. A nearer
approach was made to the laws and customs of England in proceedings of courts and
trials of causes. Better regulations were prescribed for discussing and deciding land
titles. The bounds of parishes were more accurately marked. A treaty with Maryland,
opening the trade of the Chesapeake, was matured; and peace with the Indians
confirmed. Taxes were proportioned more to men's estates and abilities than to the
numbers, by which the poor were much relieved, "but which through the strangeness
thereof could not but require much time and debating." They published a list of their
acts in order to show to the colony that they had not swerved from "the true intent of
and rectify and relieve such disorders and grievances as are incident to all states and republics;
but that their late consultations would redound greatly to the benefit of the
colony and their posterity." In the conclusion of that list, they state, that the gracious
inclination of his majesty, ever ready to protect them, and now more particularly assured
to them, together with the concurrence of a happy Parliament in England, were the
motives which induced them to take this opportunity to "establish their liberties and
privileges, and settle their estates, often before assaulted and threatened, and lately invaded
by the corporation; and to prevent the future designs of monopolizers, contractors,
and pre-emptors, ever usurping the benefit of their labors; and they apprehended that no
time could be misspent, or labor misplaced, in gaining a firm peace to themselves and
posterity, and a future immunity and ease to themselves from taxes and impositions,
which they expected to be the fruits of their endeavors."
The Indians had been driven back, and weakened by a perpetual
succession of hostilities, from the time of the great massacre,
until the year 1644. During the latter years of this period, we
have little account of their proceedings, but the rapid increase of
the settlements had driven them from the rich borders of the
rivers in the lower country, higher into the interior, and the new
grants were every day driving them still farther from the homes
of their fathers. This incessant warfare, while it weakened them
as a nation, had increased their cunning and skill in par-
he had to be carried in a litter, and so feeble that he could not
raise his eyelids without assistance, still retained sufficient strength
of mind to embody a combination of the various tribes under his
control, and make a sudden and violent attack upon many of the
frontier settlements at once. Little is known of the circumstances
attending this second great massacre. An act of Assembly of
1645, making the eighteenth day of April a holiday and day of
thanksgiving, for escape from the Indians, marks the period of the
massacre. Other evidence makes the number of their victims
three hundred.[91]
The precautions which the whites had been
taught to take by the previous massacre, in trading with them only
at particular places, in always going armed, in never admitting
them to the same familiarity, effectually prevented them, with all
their caution in approach, and violence of attack, from committing
as great slaughter as they had upon the former occasion. The
whites do not seem to have been stricken with a panic now as formerly,
but quickly sallied upon their assailants, and drove them
back so rapidly that their venerable chieftain himself had to be
deserted by his attendants, and was taken by Sir William Berkeley,
at the head of a squadron of light cavalry. He was carried
to Jamestown, and manifested, in his imprisonment, the same
haughty dignity which had always distinguished him. He preserved
a proud and disdainful silence, and such indifference to the
passing scenes, that he rarely requested his eyelids to be raised.
In this melancholy condition, he was basely shot in the back by
his sentinel, with whom recollection of former injuries overcame
which called forth any show of regret from him was a flash of angry
indignation, at being exposed in his dying hours to the idle and
curious gaze of his enemies.
So little regard was now paid to the Indian hostilities, that, on
the following June, Sir William Berkeley sailed for England, and
the council elected Richard Kemp to occupy his post until his return.
In the mean time, the warfare with the Indians continued
without remission. It appears by an act of the latter part of the
year 1644, that many of the inhabitants, probably on the frontiers,
had been collected in large bodies; but leave was then given them
to dispose of themselves "for their best advantage and convenience,
provided that in places of danger there should not be less
than ten men allowed to settle."
Sir William Berkeley again took possession of his government
in June, 1645; and in the following year a treaty of
Necotowance, the successor of Opechancanough, acknowledged
that he held his kingdom of the crown of England, and agreed
that his successors should be appointed or confirmed by the king's
governor; on the other hand, the Assembly, on behalf of the colony,
undertook to protect him against rebels and all enemies whatsoever.
In this treaty, the Indians were permitted to dwell on the
north side of York River, but ceded to the whites all the country
from the falls of the James and York to the bay, forever; and any
Indian coming upon that territory was to suffer death, unless he
bore the badge of a messenger. The Indians were also to surrender
all prisoners, negroes, and arms taken. Other articles were
added, prescribing the form of intercourse. Thus were the aborigines
at length finally excluded from their father-land, leaving
no monument of their having existed, save the names of the waters
and mountains, and the barrows containing the ashes of their
ancestors.[93]
Thus the colony of Virginia acquired the management of all its
concerns; war was levied, and peace concluded, and territory acquired,
in conformity to the acts of the representatives of the people;
while the people of the mother country had just acquired
these privileges, after a long and bloody conflict with their former
sovereign. Possessed of security and quiet, abundance of land, a
free market for their staple, and, practically, all the rights of an
independent state—having England for its guardian against foreign
oppression, rather than its ruler—the colonists enjoyed all the
prosperity which a virgin soil, equal laws, and general uniformity
the cottages were filled with children, as the ports were with ships
and emigrants. At Christmas, 1648, there were trading in Virginia,
ten ships from London, two from Bristol, twelve Hollanders, and
seven from New England. The number of the colonists was already
twenty thousand, and they, who had sustained no griefs,
were not tempted to engage in the feuds by which the mother
country was divided. They were attached to the cause of Charles,
not because they loved monarchy, but because they cherished the
liberties of which he had left them in the undisturbed pos-
session; and after his execution, though there were not
wanting some who favored republicanism, the government recognised
his son without dispute.
The loyalty of the Virginians did not escape the attention of
the royal exile: from his retreat in Breda he trans-
Second, a fugitive from England, was still the sovereign of Virginia.
But the Parliament did not long permit its authority to be denied.
Having, by the vigorous energy and fearless enthusiasm of
republicanism, triumphed over all its enemies in Europe, it turned
its attention to the colonies; and a memorable ordinance at once
empowered the council of state to reduce the rebellious colonies to
obedience, and at the same time established it as a law that foreign
ships should not trade at any of the ports "in Barbadoes,
Antigua, Bermudas, and Virginia." Thus giving the first example
of that wholesale blockade, afterwards rendered so notorious by
the celebrated orders in council during the wars of the French
revolution. Maryland, which was not expressly included in the
ordinance, had taken care to acknowledge the new order of things;
and Massachusetts, alike unwilling to encounter the hostility of
Parliament, and jealous of the rights of independent legislation,
by its own enactment, prohibited all intercourse with Virginia till
the supremacy of the commonwealth should be established,—although
the order, when it was found to be injurious to commerce,
was promptly repealed, even while royalty still flourished at
Jamestown.
A powerful fleet, with a considerable body of land forces on
board, sent out to bring the colonies to submission, having subdued
Barbadoes and Antigua, cast anchor before Jamestown. Sir William
Berkeley and his hardy colonists had not been inactive: the
growing strength of the colony had recently been increased by the
acquisition of many veteran cavaliers from the king's army, and it
now presented no contemptible force. Several Dutch ships which
were lying in the river, and which, as trading contrary to the
prohibition of Parliament, were armed, to provide against surprise
by the commonwealth's fleets, were also pressed into service.
This show of resistance induced the commissioners of Parliament
to hesitate, before they attempted to reduce the colony to obedience
The terms offered being such as completely satisfied the Virginians
that their freedom was to be preserved inviolate, and their
present happy constitution guarantied, while they were to suffer
nothing for past conduct, they readily acquiesced, since they gained
all by such a surrender which they could effect by the most successful
warfare. It appears that they never anticipated any thing more
than the preservation of their own liberties from wanton violation
from the new and untried power which now held the reins of
government in England, and could scarcely have been mad
enough to hope to effect any thing favorable to the king by their
resistance.
The articles of surrender are concluded between the commissioners of the commonwealth,
and the council of state and Grand Assembly of Virginia, as equal treating with
equal. It secures—
1st. That this should be considered a voluntary act, not forced or constrained by a
conquest upon the country; and that the colonists should have and enjoy such freedoms
and privileges as belong to the freeborn people of England.
2dly. That the Grand Assembly, as formerly, should convene and transact the affairs
of Virginia, doing nothing contrary to the government of the commonwealth or laws of
England.
3dly. That there should be a full and total remission of all acts, words, or writings
against the Parliament.
4thly. That Virginia should have her ancient bounds and limits, granted by the charters
of the former kings, and that a new charter was to be sought from Parliament to
that effect, against such as had trespassed upon their ancient rights. [This clause
would seem to be aimed at some of the neighboring colonies.]
5thly. That all patents of land under the seal of the colony, granted by the governor,
should remain in full force.
6thly. That the privilege of fifty acres of land for every person emigrating to the
colony, should remain in full force.
7thly. That the people of Virginia have free trade, as the people of England enjoy,
with all places and nations, according to the laws of the commonwealth; and that
Virginia should enjoy equal privileges, in every respect, with any other colony in
America.
8thly. That Virginia should be free from all taxes, customs, and impositions whatsoever;
and that none should be imposed upon them without the consent of their Grand
Assembly; and no forts or castles be erected, or garrison maintained, without their consent.
9thly. That no charge should be required from the country on account of the expense
incurred in the present fleet.
10thly. That this agreement should be tendered to all persons, and that such as should
refuse to subscribe to it, should have a year's time to remove themselves and effects from
Virginia, and in the mean time enjoy equal justice.
The remaining articles were of less importance. This was followed by a supplemental
treaty, for the benefit of the governor and council, and such soldiers as had
served against the commonwealth in England,—allowing them the most favorable
terms.
If this was a conquest, happy would it be for most colonies to
be conquered. Every privilege was secured which could possibly
be asked, and the liberties of the colony were established more
thoroughly than they had ever been; and the conquest was only
less favorable to Virginia than her declaration of independence,
by having her rights depending upon the pledged faith of another
nation, instead of having them entirely under her own control.
The correspondence between the rights now secured, and the rights
British king, is remarkable.
All matters were thus happily and amicably arranged; and, as
Sir William Berkeley was too loyal a subject to be willing to take
office under Parliament, Richard Bennett, one of the commissioners,
was elected governor. A council was also elected, with powers
to act in conformity to the instructions they should receive from the
Parliament, the known law of England, and the Acts of Assembly,
and such other powers as the Assembly should think proper from
time to time to give them. It was declared, at the same session,
that it was best that officers should be elected by the Burgesses,
"the representatives of the people;" and after discussion upon the
propriety of allowing the governor and council to be members of
the Assembly, it was determined that they might, by taking the
same oath which was taken by the Burgesses. The Assembly
thus having no written constitution as their guide, took upon themselves
the office of a convention of the people, and granted or resumed
powers as it might seem best for the good of the country.
The whites and the remnants of the neighboring Indian tribes
continued to be upon good terms, and the latter were kindly and
humanely treated by the guardian care of the Assembly. A slight
irruption of the Rappahannocks seems to have been soon terminated.
But a new scene in the history of the colony now presented
itself. The Rechahecrians, a fierce and warlike tribe, came
down from the mountains, and took up a strong position on the
falls of James River, with six or seven hundred warriors. This
excited no little uneasiness, as it had been very difficult to extirpate
the Indians who had formerly possessed the spot. The first
expedition against them failed; a new one was prepared, and
the subject Indians being called upon for aid, furnished a hundred
warriors, most of whom, with their chief, Totopotomoi, fell fighting
gallantly.
When Bennett retired from office, and the Assembly elected Edward
Digges his successor, the commissioners of
the destinies of Virginia, but were engaged in settling the
affairs and adjusting the boundaries of Maryland.
The Assembly reciting the articles of agreement with the commissioners
of Parliament, which admitted that
to the Burgesses, the representatives of the people proceeded
to the election of a governor and council until the next
Assembly; and the choice fell upon "worthy Samuel Matthews,
an old planter, of nearly forty years standing,—a most deserving
commonwealth's man, who kept a good house, lived bravely, and
was a true lover of Virginia." But this worthy old gentleman
seems to have conceived higher ideas of his powers than the Assembly
was willing to allow. The Assembly had determined not
to dissolve itself, but only to adjourn until the first of November.
one important change in the constitution,—which was, to
require that all propositions and laws presented by a committee
should be first discussed by the House of Burgesses in private,
before the admission of the governor and council. The governor
and council, on the first of April, sent a message declaring that
they thought fit then to dissolve the Assembly, and requiring the
speaker to dismiss the Burgesses. To this the Assembly returned
for answer, that the act was illegal, and without precedent, and
requested a revocation of it, as they expected speedily to finish
their business. The house then declared, that any member who
should depart should be censured, as betraying the trust reposed
in him by his country; and that the remainder should act in all
things, and to all intents and purposes, as an entire house; that
the speaker should sign nothing without the consent of a majority
of the house, and that the members should take an oath not to
disclose the acts or debates of that body. The governor replied
to the communication from the house, that he was willing that the
house should conclude its business speedily, and refer the dispute
as to the legality of his power to dissolve, to the decision of the
Lord Protector. The house unanimously decided this answer to
be unsatisfactory, expressed an earnest desire that public business
might be soon dispatched, and requested the governor and council
to declare the house undissolved, in order that a speedy period
might be put to public affairs. In reply to this, the governor and
council revoked the order of dissolution, upon their promise of a
speedy conclusion, and again referred the matter of disputed right
to the Lord Protector. The house, still unsatisfied with this answer,
appointed a committee to draw up a report in vindication
of the conduct of the Assembly, and in support of its power. In
the report, the Burgesses declare that they have in themselves full
power of election and appointment of all officers in the country,
until they should have an order to the contrary from the supreme
power in England; that the house of Burgesses, the representatives
of the people, were not dissolvable by any power yet extant
in Virginia, except their own; that the former election of governor
and council was null, and that, in future, no one should be admitted
a counsellor unless he was nominated, appointed, and confirmed
by the house of Burgesses.
They then directed an order to the sheriff of James City county,
who was their sergeant-at-arms, that he should execute no warrant,
precept, or command, directed to him by any other power or
person than the Speaker of the House. They then ordered, that
"as the supreme power of the country of Virginia had been declared
resident in the Burgesses," the secretary of state should be
required to deliver up the public records to the speaker. An oath
was prescribed for the governor and council to take, and the same
governor was elected and most of the same council. Thus were
all difficulties adjusted, and popular sovereignty fully established.
Upon the death of Cromwell, the House of Burgesses unanimously
recognised his son Richard, and adopted an
in which address the governor was required to join, after
solemnly acknowledging, in the presence of the whole Assembly,
that the supreme power of electing officers was, by the present
laws, resident in the Grand Assembly; which was alleged to be
required for this reason, that what was their privilege now might
belong to their posterity hereafter.
Matthews died, leaving the colony of Virginia without a governor,
about the same time that the resignation of
this emergency the Assembly, reciting that the late frequent distractions
in England preventing any power from being generally
confessed; that the supreme power of the colony should be vested
in the Assembly, and that all writs should issue in its name, until
such a command and commission should come from England as
should by the Assembly be adjudged lawful. Sir William Berkeley
was then elected governor, with the express stipulation that
he should call an Assembly once in two years at least, and should
not dissolve the Assembly without its own consent. This old royalist,
probably thinking now that there was a prospect of the restoration,
accepted the office under the prescribed conditions, and
acknowledged himself to be but the servant of the Assembly.
During the suspension of the royal government in England, Virginia attained unlimited
liberty of commerce, which they regulated by independent laws. The ordinance
of 1650 was rendered void by the act of capitulation; the navigation act of Cromwell
was not designed for her oppression, and was not enforced within her borders. Only
one confiscation appears to have taken place, and that was entirely by the authority of
the Grand Assembly. The war between England and Holland necessarily interrupted
the intercourse of the Dutch with the English colonies; but, if after the treaty of peace
the trade was considered contraband, the English restrictions were entirely disregarded.
Commissioners were sent to England to undeceive Cromwell with regard to the
regard to which he had been misinformed; and to present a remonstrance demanding
unlimited freedom of trade; which, it appears, was not refused, for some months before
the Protector's death, the Virginians invited the "Dutch and all foreigners" to trade with
them on payment of no higher duty than that which was levied on such English vessels
as were bound for a foreign port. Proposals of peace and commerce between New-Netherland
and Virginia were discussed without scruple by the respective colonial governments;
and at last a special statute of Virginia extended to every Christian nation,
in amity with England, a promise of liberty of trade and equal justice.
At the restoration, Virginia enjoyed freedom of com-
Virginia was the first state in the world composed of separate
townships, diffused over an extensive surface, where the government
was organized on the principle of universal suffrage.
right of suffrage was once restricted, but it was soon after
determined to be "hard and unagreeable to reason, that
any person shall pay equal taxes and yet have no vote in the election;"
and the electoral franchise was restored to all freemen.
became electors; and might be chosen burgesses. Thus Virginia
established upon her soil the supremacy of the popular branch, the
freedom of trade, the independence of religious societies, the security
from foreign taxation, and the universal elective franchise. If
in the following years she departed from either of these principles,
and yielded a reluctant consent to change, it was from the influence
of foreign authority. Virginia had herself established a
nearly independent democracy. Prosperity advanced with freedom;
dreams of new staples and infinite wealth were indulged;
while the population of Virginia at the epoch of the restoration
may have been about thirty thousand. Many of the recent emigrants
had been royalists in England, good officers in the war,
men of education, of property, and of condition. But the waters
of the Atlantic divided them from the political strifes of Europe;
their industry was employed in making the best advantage of their
plantations; the interests and liberties of Virginia, the land which
they adopted as their country, were dearer to them than the monarchical
principles which they had espoused in England; and
therefore no bitterness could exist between the partisans of the
Stuarts and the friends of republican liberty. Virginia had long
been the home of its inhabitants—"Among many other blessings,"
said their statute-book, "God Almighty hath vouchsafed increase
of children to this colony; who are now multiplied to a considerable
number;" and the huts in the wilderness were as full as the
birds' nests of the woods.
The genial climate and transparent atmosphere delighted those
who had come from the denser air of England. Every object in
nature was new and wonderful.
The hospitality of the Virginians became proverbial. Labor
was valuable; land was cheap; competence promptly followed
industry. There was no need of a scramble; abundance gushed
from the earth for all. The morasses were alive with water-fowl;
the forests were nimble with game; the woods rustled with covies
of quails and wild turkeys, while they sung with the merry notes
of the singing birds; and hogs, swarming like vermin, ran at large
in troops. It was "the best poor man's country in the world."
"If a happy peace be settled in poor England," it had been said,
"then they in Virginia shall be as happy a people as any under
heaven." But plenty encouraged indolence. No domestic manufactures
were established; every thing was imported from England.
The chief branch of industry, for the purpose of exchanges, was
tobacco planting; and the spirit of invention was enfeebled by the
uniformity of pursuit.
The persecution of the Puritans was an exception to this. They were persecuted
with considerable rigor, but their numbers were small, consisting only of two churches,
and most of those who then existed went to Holland with their leaders, John Robinson
and William Brewster, in 1607 and 8, and settled in Amsterdam, whence they removed
to Leyden in 1609, whence they sailed to America in 1620, and landed in Cape Cod
Harbor on the 7th of November, and settled Plymouth on the 31st of December following.—Holmes'
Am. An. 156-203.
Viz., James City, Henrico, Charles City, Elizabeth City, Warwick River, Warros
quoyoke, Charles River, and Accomack.
I know of no such thing existing as an Indian monument—of labor on the large
scale. I think there is no remain as respectable as would be a common ditch for the
draining of lands; unless, indeed, it would be the barrows, of which many are to be
found all over the country. That they were repositories of the dead, has been obvious
to all; but on what particular occasion constructed, was a matter of doubt.—Jefferson's
Notes on Va., p. 132.
| CHAPTER IV. Historical collections of Virginia | |