A history of Virginia from its discovery and settlement by Europeans to the present time |
 | III. | PART III. |
| I. |
| II. |
| III. |
| IV. |
| V. |
 | IV. |
 | A history of Virginia |  |
III. PART III.
HISTORY OF VIRGINIA.
CHAPTER I.
National Debt of Great Britain—Her authority in America—Sir Robert
Walpole—Injustice of taxing the Colonies—Lord Chatham—Doctor
Johnson—Patrick Henry—His early life—Clergy and Two Penny Act
—Clergy suit—Henry's eloquence—Indian War—George Grenville
proposes to raise revenue by taxing the Colonies—Virginia remonstrates
—Stamp Act—Indignation in America—Virginia Legislature of 1765—
Patrick Henry's Resolutions—Their effect—First Congress—Stamp Act
repealed—Treasurer Robinson—Death of Governor Fauquier—His character—Charles
Townsend—Duties on tea and other articles—Action in
Virginia—Norborne Berkley—Baron de Botetourt arrives—His character—First
Virginia Convention—English injustice—Death of Botetourt—Lord
Dunmore governor—Dabney Carr—Boston Port Bill—
Raleigh Tavern—Convention in Williamsburg—Indian Hostilities—
General Andrew Lewis—Battle of Point Pleasant—Severe Loss of the
Virginians—Savages defeated—Speech of Logan—Convention of 1775
in Richmond—Patrick Henry's great speech—Its effect—Dunmore secretly
removes powder from Williamsburg—War.
Since the reign of William and Mary, England
had felt continually increasing upon her, the weight
of that huge debt which seems destined at last to
involve the British state in total ruin.[1]
But, hitherto,
great as were her necessities, they had not so
blinded her eyes to the light of justice and of policy,
American Colonies.
Her hand had often pressed heavily upon them.
Her Sovereigns had infringed their charters, and
taken away their lands; and her Parliaments had
fettered their trade by Navigation Laws, continued
from reign to reign without repeal. It cannot be
said that the Colonists had borne her oppressive
rule without resistance. We have seen enough
already in the History of Virginia to show that the
power, and not the right, of the mother country had
been acknowledged in the reluctant submission
yielded to each law which subjected the Colony to
unequal restraints. The time was now approaching
when another struggle was to be made, and
America was to demand that right and power
should no longer be held in conflict with each
other.
Few things are more difficult than the task of
defining the precise extent of constitutional authority
claimed by Great Britain, and admitted by
her American Dependencies, during the whole
period of their connexion.[2]
He who will examine
what has been written on the subject by those who
have professed to understand it, will be, at least, as
much astonished at their discord of opinion, as he
will be edified by their arguments. Many in
America, and some in England, held that the
Crown alone was the supreme bond of union, and
that the English Parliament had no direct legislative
the Parliament was sovereign, and that its lawmaking
power, in every case calling for its exercise,
might be extended to the Colonies as fully as to
any other part of the British Realm.[4] In America,
the rule of the Parliament in its action on the commerce
of the Colonies, seems to have been reluctantly,
but certainly admitted; and, harsh as were
her Navigation Laws, had England never gone
beyond them, she would long have retained her
dominion over her distant children.
But there was one line beyond which the boldest
advocates of English authority had not yet ventured
to pass. To annex duties to imports for the purpose
of regulating commerce, and directing it into
profitable channels, had long been the policy of the
mother country, and habit had taught the Colonies
to submit; but the scheme of levying a tax in any
form, upon America, for the purpose of pouring
revenue into the British treasury, had never yet
been tried; and, even when spoken of, had always
been abandoned. It is true, that as early as 1696,
a pamphlet had appeared in England, recommending
a Parliamentary tax upon one of the Colonies;
but it was immediately answered by two counter-pamphlets,
in which the right contended for was
to have acknowledged the injustice of the attempt.[5]
During Sir Robert Walpole's administration, England
was beginning to totter beneath her financial
burden; but when that sagacious statesman was
asked to tax America, he repelled the temptation
with prophetic alarm.[6] He declared that "it was
a measure too hazardous for him to venture upon,"
and when afterwards, upon the failure of his celebrated
Excise Bill, Sir William Keith renewed the
proposition, the baffled minister replied with emphasis:
"I have Old England set against me, and
do you think that I will have New England likewise?"[7] England needed a mind as comprehensive
as that of Walpole to teach her that justice and true
policy must always ultimately coincide, and that it
is better to bear present ills than, by using an illegal
remedy, to insure final retribution.
It is not strange that the American Colonies should
have shrunk with horror from the first approaches
of the great taxing power to which Britain sought to
subject them. They were not represented in her
Parliament; and, in the very nature of things, they
could not there sustain and secure their interests.
Separated by three thousand miles of water, distinct
in the products of their soil, their habits and
feelings, and already maintaining legislative assemblies
of their own, there was every thing to prove
to countenance their rights by admitting their delegates
to the floor of the English House of Commons.
And accordingly, this plan never received any
general favour, either in America or in the mother
country, although political visionaries were not
wanting to introduce and by argument to support
it.[8] It would have been impossible that the Colonies
should have been duly represented in the English
Parliament. If neither Ireland nor Scotland has
had complete justice done to her in her legislative
union with England, it will be easy to see what
gross mockery would have been practised upon
America, by inviting her delegates to join the lawmakers
of Great Britain upon English soil. But
it has been fortunate that a plan which would have
been plausible enough to delay our independence,
was yet so ungrateful to the mother country, that
she never seriously contemplated its adoption.
England taxed her Colonies without even the semblance
of justice, that America might stand acquitted
in the eyes of all the world in her exercise
of the right of revolution.
Money, since its first introduction, has had an
importance in human affairs, to which no other
physical possession of man can lay claim. It is
because money represents every thing else in the
world, that men are prone to regard it as more
valuable than all other things united. If land and
water, houses and cattle, offices and titles, feelings
and principles, can be, in a thousand varied forms,
not singular that this universal solvent should be
regarded with peculiar interest. It is true that it
is only valuable when used, but in order to be used
it must be obtained, and hence the fierce opposition
shown by all men to every restraint upon their
right to obtain this key to the treasuries of earthly
good. Let it not then be supposed that the Colonists
were moved to resist British taxation by the
mere vulgar "love of money," so often attributed to
Anglo-Americans. They were governed by precisely
the same motives which control all other
men, and which had long been admitted in full
expansion by their British ancestors. Had they,
for a moment, recognised the right of Britain to
take their money by an act of Parliament, and
without their consent, they would, by a slow but certain
process, have been converted into slaves, felling
trees, clearing fields, and cultivating tobacco, corn,
and cotton, for the benefit of English masters. The
selfishness of the human heart would have asserted
its power, and Britain would not have heaped additional
burdens upon her own shoulders, when she
might so readily place them upon her young dependant.
Those who had been most truly imbued with the
spirit of the English Constitution, at once denied
the right of Britain to tax America, and placed
their protest not merely upon the broad ground of
natural justice, but upon the more contracted basis
of constitutional law. They held that the raising
of money was not strictly a part of legislative
might define treason, constitute new crimes and
new penalties for crime, regulate commerce, and
even attaint the blood of the subject, but it was for
the people themselves, by their representatives, to
grant money for the use of the Crown. Money
was a free gift, always asked by his Majesty of the
House of Commons, and never granted except by
a bill first introduced into that jealous body;[9] therefore
the attempt of England to draw revenue from
America, without her consent, was open robbery.
It was the act of the strong man, who wrests treasure
from the weak, and seeks to silence conscience
by pleading his own necessities. So apparent was
the force of this argument, that many sought to
evade it by pretending that the American Colonies,
though not actually, were yet in theory, represented
on the floors of the Houses of Parliament. They
compared their condition to that of Birmingham,
Manchester, and other large towns in England,
which, though without members in the House of
Commons, were, in interest, represented in that
body,—thus striving to forget that the difference
between the two cases was "as wide as the Atlantic
Ocean," and that no interests similar to those of the
Colonies had any constitutional supporters in the
general representation of Britain.[10] These sage
assent to taxation, her assent might be
fairly implied; but they were not long able to hug
this delusion to their bosoms. Her voice of dissent
was heard first in petitions, remonstrances, and
arguments, and then in the call to battle, and the
sound of human conflict.
But English Ministers had resolved that the fatal
line should be passed; and, while we may wonder
at their blindness, we have no reason to regret their
decision. The time had arrived when America
was to be free. Her independence indeed could
not have been long delayed. She had grown like
a young giant, and her dependence on her parent
had already subjected her to so many galling restraints,
that she was ever ready to disclaim it.
England herself furnished the spark which produced
the explosion. How much longer she might
have retained her dominion by prudence and justice,
we cannot say; but the moment her own hand
applied the torch, a train was fired, which had,
during many years, been increasing in inflammable
power. The Stamp Act, with the subsequent
measures, constituted nothing more than a breach,
through which a mighty torrent immediately poured,
and swept away for ever the barriers that had so
long confined it.
As we approach the time when the mother
country was preparing, by her unnatural conduct,
to array her children in arms against her, we turn
to Virginia, and find a man upon her soil destined
to act a brilliant part in the coming struggle. In
belief in a special providence, which now brought
him forward to the crisis. Patrick Henry was born
in the County of Hanover, in the year 1736. His
father was Col. John Henry, a native of Aberdeen,
in Scotland,[11] and though respectable in birth, he
pretended not to belong to the aristocracy of Virginia.
The son, who now claims our attention,
has since become one whom the world would be
ashamed not to know. He had no blood to give
him adventitious honour—no wealth to purchase
esteem—no courted connexions to reflect upon him
the smiles of society, but he had a soul which more
than compensated for all external defects. He was
one of nature's noblemen. If the name of Demosthenes
be destined to live for ever, the name of
Henry cannot die; for, as an orator, the Virginian
may not yield to the Greek, and as a man, he will
be preferred by all able to discriminate.[12]
He had not enjoyed the advantage of systematic
education, but his mind sought for knowledge with
a thirst so keen, that it could not be disappointed.
Few persons who marked the outward aspect of the
awkward and apparently indolent young man, who
for several years seemed fitted for no business that
he undertook, would have suspected the work that
was going on within. He read with avidity all
history to which he could gain access, and converted
its truths into food for the vast digestive
without ideas, and ideas without knowledge would
imply a contradiction. Patrick Henry was not
learned, but even when yet young he was wise.
When, after reading Coke upon Littleton, and the
Virginia Laws, he applied for a license to practise
as a barrister, he astonished the accomplished
Judge who examined him, by the vigorous operations
of a mind which knew law by intuition.[13] And
three years after he came to the bar, his wonderful
powers developed themselves upon an occasion
which in itself was important, and which in its remote
bearing, is inseparably connected with the
history of Virginia.
The Episcopal Church was established by law,
and its ministers, by a statute enacted in 1696, were
authorized to receive sixteen thousand pounds of
tobacco as a salary attached to their office. This
statute was substantially re-enacted in 1748, and
had been regularly sanctioned by the Crown.
The price of tobacco had long been stationary at
two pence per pound; but this commodity, like
every other article of trade, was liable to change
according to the law of supply and demand. A
short crop in 1755, caused the price to advance,[14]
and
the Assembly passed an act, declaring that all persons
bound to pay in tobacco, might discharge their
dues by paying in money, at the rate of two pence
per pound. This act was to operate during ten
its effect until it should receive the King's
assent.[15] The law was at this time quietly endured,
but in 1758, acting on the belief that the crop was
again to fall short, the Assembly re-enacted the
statute of 1755, and as before, they annexed no
suspending clause which would have rendered necessary
the sanction of the Crown. The clergy
now took fire. It is undoubtedly true that the
effect of this law was to deprive each of them of
about two hundred and sixty pounds sterling per
annum, for tobacco was now worth six pence per
pound instead of two pence as before. But they
suffered in common with all other creditors, and
their loss was occasioned by the double medium of
exchange, then existing in Virginia.
Immediately a hot controversy commenced. Rev.
John Camm, of William and Mary College, wrote
a strong pamphlet, in which the "two penny act"
was denounced with keen sarcasm, and assailed by
plausible argument. Richard Bland and Landon
Carter replied, and so important became the dispute,
that His Majesty in Council took up the question,
and at once cut the Gordian knot by declaring
the act of 1758 null and void.[16]
Whereupon, in
various counties throughout Virginia, suits were
brought by clergymen against their respective parish
collectors to enforce the law of 1748. In the
County of Hanover, the Rev. James Maury had
had been retained on either side. The action
was founded on the statute of 1748, which gives
the tobacco in specie. To this the defendants
pleaded specially the statute of 1758, and the plaintiff
demurred to the plea. He objected to the law
of 1758, first, because it had not received the royal
sanction when enacted; and secondly, because it
had been expressly declared void by the King in
Council. When this demurrer came up before the
County Court for November, 1763, it was argued
by Peter Lyons,[17] for the plaintiff, and by John
Lewis for the defendants, and the Court, notwithstanding
that popular feeling ran strongly against
the clergy, sustained the demurrer, and thus decided
that the law of 1748 must take full effect.
This decision reflects honour upon the firmness
and integrity of the Court. If the whole question
be regarded in an aspect merely legal, there can be
no doubt that the clergy were right, and as they
are said to have triumphed decidedly in the war of
pamphlets which had previously been waged,[18]
so
they seemed now about to prevail in the judicial
combat. The question of law having been disposed
of, nothing remained but to call a jury and submit
to them the question of damages to which the ministers
were entitled because of the obstruction of
their legal rights. At this stage, Mr. Lewis withdrew
done all that he could, and that they must be defeated.
But there was a deeper question than that of
mere law affecting the case of the clergy. Already
in Virginia, the evils of an establishment had been
felt and acknowledged by a large body of the people.
The Episcopal rectors had not been so remarkable
for their holy lives as to commend their
church to the more serious inhabitants, and the
vicious and disorderly openly denounced her. A
very large number of those who were then properly
called "Dissenters," had gathered in the
Colony, and embracing in their ranks men of pure
lives, of keen intellects, and of accurate knowledge,
they powerfully affected public opinion.[19]
Any tax,
whether in money or in tobacco, for the support of
one sect while others were restrained, was justly
odious. No law could remove this foul blot from
the record. Neither the patents of a King, nor the
statutes of a Colonial Assembly, could make it just
to compel men to contribute to the support of a religious
denomination from whose teachings they
dissented, and upon whose ministry they never attended.
This was the fatal point in the case of the
church, and so strongly did it address itself to the
common sense of mankind, that the clergy suits
were in universal odium, and were generally stigmatized
as the actions of "the parsons against the
people."[20]
Under these circumstances, the case came before
a jury of the County Court of Hanover, on the 1st
day of December, 1763. Unable to retain Mr.
Lewis, and almost in despair as to their cause, the
defendants employed Patrick Henry to represent
them in the question of damages. His own father
was the presiding Justice, and his uncle was one
of the very clergymen who were now urging their
claims at law. The court-house was crowded to
excess. Mr. Lyons, in behalf of the plaintiffs,
opened the case, and, certain of success, he contented
himself by a statement of the previous steps
before the court, and concluded his speech to the
jury by a brilliant eulogy upon the merits of the
clergy. When he had concluded, Mr. Henry rose
and commenced his address. He was awkward
and embarrassed; his words faltered; the clergy
smiled, nodded, and exchanged glances of compassionate
triumph; the people trembled for their
champion; his father hung his head in shame and
sorrow. But gradually a mighty change came
over the speaker; his form became erect and graceful;
his eye kindled into fire; his voice grew in
thrilling emphasis, and from his lips poured forth
words which bound every soul in the assembly as
with a magician's spell. A dead silence prevailed,
and bending forward from seats and windows and
each place where they stood, the people listened in
awe and astonishment to the voice of the great
spirit of eloquence who had descended among
them. His power was such that he made "their
blood to run cold in their veins, and their hair to
of indescribable feeling ran down his cheeks as he
marked the triumph of his son. With resistless
sway the orator pleaded before the jury the injustice
of the plaintiffs' claims. He denounced the
act of the King in declaring void the law of 1758,
and with prophetic force he urged that the compact
between people and sovereign might be dissolved
by royal oppression. He painted in glaring colours
the conduct of the clergy, and at length, at one
withering burst of invective, the ministers present,
unable longer to endure, rose and fled from the
house in total discomfiture![21] For one hour Mr.
Henry held his hearers in chains, and when the
case was submitted to the jury, they returned almost
immediately to the bar with a verdict of one
penny damages. A motion for a new trial was
made, but was promptly overruled by a unanimous
vote.[22] It seemed as though men were already looking
into the future. Justice asserted her right, although
law was openly disregarded.
After this decision the clergy abandoned all their
suits, and never again urged their claims. Patrick
He had already rendered them service in a
cause requiring a mind of peculiar boldness and
expansion; but this was only intended for the more
important purpose of bringing him forward as their
champion in a contest with a stronger enemy than
the Established Church.
Though civilized nations were at peace, the savages
of America were yet active in hostility.
While they were daily diminishing in numbers,
they lost nothing of their ferocity, and were increasing
in means of annoyance by obtaining a
knowledge of European arms. Around the frontiers
of the Colonies they continued their assaults,
and hoped for impunity by the withdrawal of most
of the military force which had been previously
supported. Three forts only were now regularly
garrisoned,—Detroit, between Lakes Huron and
Erie; Niagara, between Erie and Ontario; and
Pitt, on the confines of Virginia, at the junction of
the two rivers forming the Ohio. The savages
renewed their cruelties upon the settlers in the
west, and increasing in boldness, they surrounded
Fort Pitt with their warriors, and pressed the siege
so closely, that its brave defenders feared a fatal
result. But General Amherst had despatched Colonel
Bouquet with a large supply of provisions and
a powerful escort to relieve this important fortress.
At his approach the besiegers retired, and joining
their comrades in the wilderness, presented a formidable
body, ready to renew the attack when the
immediate danger should be passed. Colonel Bouquet
dangerous defile, known as Turtle Creek, on the
very verge of civilized settlements, and surrounded
on all sides by mountains covered with forest trees.
Here the Indians made an attack from their ambuscade:
pouring down the sides of the eminence,
they fell violently upon the English, and thought
to overwhelm them by numbers; but they were
received with steady discharges of musketry, and
with strokes of the bayonet, which drove them back
into their fastnesses above.[23]
The English remained more than a day in the
defile, encompassed by enemies, cut off from aid,
incessantly on the watch, and suffering from torturing
thirst, to relieve which no water was found
near their encampment. At this crisis, Bouquet's
genius suggested a stratagem. Dividing his command
into four companies, he placed two of these
in a concealed position behind a projection of the
mountain, and directed the remaining two to feign
a retreat. (August 6.) Deceived by this movement,
and eager to fall upon the disabled foe, the
savages came out from their concealment, and with
terrific cries fell upon the rear of the retiring troops.
Instantly the concealed companies attacked them
in flank; a fatal fire was poured on them, and the
bayonet commenced its work; the other companies
faced about and joined in the assault. The savages
were routed with immense slaughter—most of them
were left dead upon the field; and the few who
who returned in triumph to Fort Pitt. Successive
reverses after this time, broke the spirit of the
savages, and early in the succeeding year, they
sought and obtained peace from Sir William Johnstone,
who, by his address, had gained over them
a controlling influence.[24]
The wars in which England had been engaged had
added heavily to her debt, and rendered her financial
system the prominent subject for the consideration
of her ministers. America had borne a large
part of the burden—had given up her children to
the battles in which the encroachments of France
had been repelled, and had contributed large sums
of money for the general good. So important had
been her voluntary supplies, that England had felt
bound to make return, and at various times she
had voted sums, amounting in all to about one million
and seventy-two thousand pounds sterling, to
repay her Colonies for what they had freely advanced
to her.[25]
In addition to this, a debt of more
than two millions and a half had been contracted
by America during the war, for which she had received
no indemnity from the mother country.[26]
In
the face of these facts, it seems singular that statesmen
should have held that the Colonies had been
"protected by the arms and preserved by the care"
of Britain. The war had been for her benefit
rather than for their own. It was to sustain her
undertaken, and its principal loss, both in blood and
treasure, fell upon her colonial offspring.
But George Grenville found in this war and its
consequent burdens, a sufficient pretext for introducing
a new feature into the policy of his country.
He was a Minister to whom America owes more
gratitude than Britain. He is entitled to the honour
of having applied the torch which kindled the flame
of our Independence. Laborious in his habits and
skilled in the details of business, he had yet no expansion
of view—none of that higher sagacity
which had distinguished some of his predecessors.
He knew figures better than men. His arithmetic
would convince him that a certain tax laid by Parliament
on a certain subject, would probably produce
a certain amount of money; but how such a
measure would affect the complicated passions of
man, and the moral aspect of government, were
considerations upon which he bestowed but transient
thoughts. Yet he did not approach the subject
of a tax for revenue upon the Colonies without
appearances of perplexity and hesitation.
He commenced by drawing more closely the
reins of the Navigation Laws. During many years
a trade had existed between the English Colonies
and the French West India islands and Spaniards
in South America, which was so beneficial to all
parties that it was connived at by the ruling British
authorities. It circulated English manufactures
among the French and Spaniards, and returned
gold and silver in exchange. But when Mr. Grenville's
to all the naval commanders in the waters of America
to act as custom-house officers, and rigidly to
enforce the existing laws.[27] This gave rise to innumerable
cases of vexation and petty tyranny, and
the remonstrances of the Colonists were so loud as
to induce the English Parliament to pass an act
sanctioning, upon certain terms, the trade which
had been thus interrupted. (April 5.)
Early in the session of 1764, Mr. Grenville presented
to Parliament the subject of drawing revenue
from the Colonies. An act was passed, in which it
was declared to be just and necessary "that a revenue
be raised in his Majesty's dominions in
America for defraying the expenses of defending,
protecting, and securing the same." At the same
time intimation was given that the Stamp Act
was before the eyes of English law-makers; but,
with apparent moderation and real timidity, the
Minister announced that this measure would be
postponed one year, in order that in the mean time
the Colonies might offer an equivalent for its proceeds
in any form they thought proper to adopt.[28]
A sensitive shrinking from the decisive step was
manifested, and Mr. Grenville hoped that America
would joyfully accept the chain when it was only
to be imposed in the form of a voluntary contribution.
But he had not sounded the depth of feeling with
which this subject was regarded in the Colonies.
They were fast increasing in wealth, and
might have borne a single infliction without injury;
but their danger was found in the recognition of the
right. A principle, when once admitted, is steady in
its operation, and almost limitless in its influence.
It may work slowly and silently, but it is therefore
the more dangerous: it were better that a nation
should bestow as a gift more than half its wealth,
than acknowledge the principle of tax-paying to the
most insignificant amount. The Colonists were
not deceived by the specious proposal of the ministry.
They saw that, by voluntarily voting an equivalent,
as compensation for the proposed stamp
duties, they would recognise the right for which
England contended; and, while some provinces returned
equivocal answers, the refusal of the larger
number was firm and decided.[29]
Virginia was true to herself in this crisis, but the
observant reader will note with interest the respectful
and almost suppliant tone she assumed in addressing
her mother. In no colony was the spirit of
loyalty more prominent: her people were deeply
imbued with love to England, which was cherished
by the institutions and customs under which they
lived; her church was formed upon the model of that
in the mother country; her clergy threw their influence
into the scale adverse to innovation; her
wealthy planters had been generally educated on
British soil; and even her statesmen were strongly
infected with this prevalent feeling. But the love
It was strong enough gradually to change her love
into hostility, and to array her in battle against the
parent who seemed determined to repay her affection
by tyranny. It will be instructive to mark the
progress of this change.
(November 14.) The General Assembly appointed
a committee, consisting of nine of its ablest
members,[30]
to draw up memorials in answer to the
intimations of the English Ministry, which threatened
taxes. The address to the King was written
by Peyton Randolph. It is dutiful and conciliatory
in its tone, and uses entreaty that his Majesty
would protect them in "their ancient and inestimable
right" of paying no taxes except those imposed
by themselves. The memorial to the House
of Lords is supposed to be from the pen of Richard
Bland. It is even more peaceful and suppliant in
its manner than that to the King: it speaks of the
burdens the people already bore; of the debt of half
a million contracted during the war; the total want
of specie, and the late restrictions upon their trade;
it humbly deprecates taxation: no firm protest, no
vigorous assertion of right can be found through
its pages. The address to the Commons was by
George Wythe, and in this we mark a brave and
manly spirit, which rises at once to meet its subject,
and to grapple with its dangers.[31]
The King
of hereditary honours, but the Commons might be
approached without awe. Such is the genuine
spirit of British loyalty.
(1765.) Finding that he could hope for nothing
from the action of the Colonies, the Minister hesitated
no longer in his course. On the 7th day of
February, the celebrated Stamp Act was introduced
into the House of Commons. To detail its provisions
would now be an unnecessary task. It has become a
part of the proverbial knowledge of America. Children
hear and read of it as the cause of the Revolutionary
war. It declared void wills, deeds, conveyances,
leases and contracts, bonds, bills of exchange,
and notes, unless they should be duly
stamped, and upon each stamp a tax was imposed,
varying in amount according to the nature of the
instrument.[32]
Nothing to which a stamp could be
applied escaped the vigilance of Ministers. Parchment,
vellum, or paper; declarations, pleas, demurrers
and rejoinders, bills and answers in chancery;
newspapers, pamphlets, calendars and almanacs,
all were laden with the same requisition. The
ingenuity long known and applied in England,
was called in to aid this scheme; and it seemed as
though the whole mechanism of the social system
must cease to work in America, or else that she
must pay the taxes demanded.
This act did not pass into a law without strenuous
opposition. The arguments of its supporters were
any mind not blinded to truth. The declamation
of Charles Townsend was answered by the
eloquence of Colonel Barré, whose defence of
America has made his name dear to all of her
children. But the decree had gone forth: the dangerous
experiment was to be tried. The bill passed
the House of Commons by a vote of two hundred
and fifty in its favour, and fifty opposed to it; and,
after obtaining in the House of Lords yet more
decided favour, it received the royal sanction, and
on the 22d of March became a law, to take effect
in the Colonies on the 1st day of the succeeding
November.[33]
Men on both sides of the Atlantic may have expected
to hear complaints in America when this
law was announced; but few were prepared for
the burst of indignant feeling with which it was
received. The whole nation seemed to mourn, but
it was that mourning which rouses to strength
rather than subdues to submission. The act itself,
on being issued from the King's press in Boston,
was seized upon and torn to pieces.[34]
All classes
determined that the hateful impost should fail in
its effect. In Virginia, nearly every lawyer who
had been practising in her courts, resolved rather
to abandon his profession than to use the stamps,
the very sight of which would have been a memorial
be found willing to take the office of distributor of
stamps, although the strongest desire was felt by
the English Ministry that all their agents should
be Americans.[36] A Mr. Mercer, to whom this office
was assigned in Virginia, immediately rejected it;
nor would it have been easy to secure a successor,
had the law gone fully into operation.[37]
But though the feeling of indignation was general,
the ruling authorities had not yet dared to
speak openly on the subject. Habit had too long
bound them, to be at once violated, and some of the
very ablest men in Virginia would have shrunk
from a protest against the right claimed by the
mother country. It was reserved for one man to
break the charm, and to remove at once the cloud
which yet concealed the dangerous crisis that was
approaching.
With a special view to the debate on the Stamp
Act, William Johnson of Louisa, vacated his seat
in the House of Burgesses, and made way for
Patrick Henry, who, on the 20th of May, was
placed on the Committee for Courts of Justice.[38]
Already the fame of the orator had gone abroad
through the state, and the wish was felt to have
his aid in the coming discussion. In this Assembly
we note the names of many who have filled a broad
space in the history of America. John Robinson
was the Speaker, and he had, also, long discharged
the duties of Treasurer to the Colony. He was
had been held by his family during a course of
years, and had imparted to him the character and
the feelings of the aristocracy of Virginia. He
was courteous in manner, and liberal in heart: his
very generosity betrayed him into indiscretions
which made him false to his public trust, and finally
wrought his downfall.
Peyton Randolph was the Attorney-General, and
was also a member of the House of Burgesses. He
had already distinguished himself in a contest with
Dinwiddie, involving the rights of the Colony,[39]
and
he was at all times ready to promote what he regarded
as the true interests of Virginia. Though
deeply learned in the law, he had but little of the
power of oratory, yet his solid attainments, and his
weight of character, made him invaluable in his
sphere. Richard Bland was a member of this
House: a ripe scholar, a patient and laborious student,
a lover of the antique, and a man profoundly
versed in the early history of the Anglo-American
settlements.
Next may be mentioned the eloquent and accomplished
Pendleton. The early education of
this gentleman had been defective, but a native dignity
of mind rose superior to youthful habit. Fostered
by the care of John Robinson, the Speaker,[40]
he
addicted himself to polite studies and to the law
and impressive speaker. A fine person presented
him with advantage to his hearers,—a silvery
and melodious voice charmed the ear, and a
constant flow of sweet and perspicuous words won
the heart. He possessed not the overwhelming
power which sweeps away an audience as in a
whirlwind of passion, but he could convince the
reason and fascinate the soul.
Richard Henry Lee has been truly called the
Cicero of the House.[41]
Nature had formed his face
in the Roman mould, and the whole contour of his
head and his person increased the resemblance.
He had studied classic literature with exquisite appreciation.
The rich colours of Lucretius, the
graces of Virgil, and the wit of Horace, had all become
his own. He loved History, and opened her
stores with indefatigable hand. He was not by
profession a lawyer; he knew little of the niceties
of special pleading, or of the artificial rules of the
English real property system, but he had studied
the Constitution of Britain and her Colonies with
deep scrutiny, and he knew all that an American
statesman needed to know. His manner as an
orator was perfect: even the hand which had become
withered, and which was covered with a
silken bandage, added to his effect; and so graceful
was his gesture, that many thought he had gained
it before a mirror. His voice was deeper than Mr.
often poured out strains of eloquence which captivated
his hearers, and carried them with him in
welcome slavery. Yet he was too smooth—too
flowing: he never struck those chords which startle
the soul, and cause the blood to run like liquid fire
through the veins.
No man wielded greater influence in the House
than George Wythe. Law had been his favourite
study, but with this he united a close acquaintance
with the models of ancient literature, and a love of
the earlier English writers, which imparted a peculiar
tone to his style. He was a powerful reasoner;
prompt in seizing the strong points of his subject,
witty and sarcastic in reply, yet fair, open, and
honourable in every conflict. He spurned all art,
and went directly to the point he sought; and if at
times a wily adversary gained an advantage, it was
more than compensated by the confidence felt by
all in the man whose integrity of character had
passed into a proverb.
Among these great men, and many others who
represented the wealth and intelligence of the Colony,
Patrick Henry was now to appear. He came
in all the simplicity of nature, but nature soon asserted
her dignity, and made art her minister for
accomplishing her great ends. Many had heard
of his power, yet few had any prescience of the
mighty change to be wrought through his influence.
His first effort displayed his strength. Habits
of extravagance and vice had gained ground in
the Colony, encouraged, it is to be feared, by the
gaming-table was his ruling passion. Seduced by
his own good nature, the Treasurer, Robinson, had
loaned the public money to his friends in so immense
sums, that at length he found exposure inevitable,
unless some happy expedient could be
found for his relief. With the aid of his friends in
the Assembly, he devised the plan of a public loan-office,
from which money should be loaned to individuals
on good landed security. Had this scheme
been adopted, the debt due to Mr. Robinson would
have been transferred to the public, and thus his
breach of trust would never have been known.[42]
Immediately after Mr. Henry had taken his seat,
this plan was proposed. Few members had any
knowledge of the secret object for which it was intended.
Some knew it who were among the finest
speakers and the most influential members of the
House, and there was every prospect that it would
be carried without serious opposition. But Patrick
Henry attacked it, and with his matchless power
of words, overwhelmed it in a moment. His clear
mind enabled him to see its dangerous tendency,
and his honest spirit looked with horror upon the
corruption that it would breed. In answer to the
argument that it would be beneficial to many who
would be ruined if their debts were suddenly exacted,
he asked if they expected to "reclaim the
spendthrift by filling his pockets with money;"
and by the working of a bold common sense,
he so affected members that the plan was voted
down by a heavy majority.[43] It is with regret that
we are compelled to relate the sequel: Mr. Robinson
died in the succeeding year, and on examining
his accounts, the huge deficiency was discovered,
and the reason for this proposed scheme was made
apparent.[44]
Not until near the close of the session was the
subject approached, which was beyond all others
interesting to every mind. The aristocracy were
yet disposed to remonstrate, and to pray rather than
to protest, and the more humble members needed a
leader to give strength to their action. It was at
this juncture that Patrick Henry appeared in his
true greatness, and gave an impulse to America
which she feels to the present day.
Finding his compeers in the Assembly divided
in sentiment and indisposed to action, he instantly
resolved to assume the lead. On the blank leaf of
an old law book he wrote the rough draft of those
celebrated resolutions which were soon circulated
through every colony. They were originally five
in number:[45]
the first declared that the original
settlers were entitled to all the "privileges, franchises,
people of Great Britain; the second, that these privileges
had been expressly secured to them by the
charters granted by James I.; the third, that taxation
by the people themselves, or their representatives
duly chosen, was an essential characteristic of
British freedom; and the fourth, that the colonists
of Virginia had uniformly enjoyed this right of
taxation by their own assemblies, that it had been
recognised by the King and people of Great Britain,
and that in no way had it ever been forfeited
or given up. The fifth is so remarkable that it
must be given entire: "Resolved, therefore, that
the General Assembly of this Colony have the sole
right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon
the inhabitants of this Colony: and that every attempt
to vest such power in any person or persons
whatsoever, other than the General Assembly
aforesaid, has a manifest tendency to destroy British
as well as American freedom."
When these firm resolutions, with their preamble,
were read, conflicting emotions arose in every bosom.
Loyalty and freedom, fear and hope, love of the
country from whom they drew their birth, and
hatred of the injustice she was striving to perpetuate,
all mingled strangely together, and kept each
heart in agitation. The most powerful men in the
House shrunk back, and prepared to oppose their
passage. They saw at once the broad line between
their feeble memorials, and these nervous and
manly protests. They felt that the last resolution,
in particular, arraigned the English Legislature,
boldly charged them with despotism and tyranny[46]
But Henry was equal to the task he had assumed.
Now, at length, he had a theme worthy of himself.
Not confined by technical rules or provincial limits,
but broad as the British empire; affecting the
rights of mankind, and appealing at once to the
highest powers of the intellect, and the warmest
feelings of the heart. He rejoiced in his subject,
and grasping it like a giant, he expanded it before
his astonished hearers, until its sublimity began to
force itself upon them. His words were pregnant
with a nation's freedom. He reasoned upon the
chartered rights of the Colony; he unfolded the
written grants of English monarchs, even in an age
of servitude, and showed the clauses guarantying
the privileges of America. He explored the depths
of the British Constitution, and, by long-established
precedents, proved the connexion between taxes
and the free consent of the people; then, leaving
charters and human conventions, he entered upon
an inquiry into the natural rights of man, and announced
doctrines then almost unheard, but which
have since become the basis of our government.[47]
Not without conflict was his triumph achieved.
The accuracy of legal learning, the refinements of
oratory, and the suggestions of long-tested wisdom,
were marshalled against him.[48]
Pendleton, Bland,
Wythe, and Randolph, all opposed him. It was
in the heat of this debate that the memorable scene
and old. Urged on by the strength of his feelings,
and glowing with the truth which seemed almost
by inspiration to rise in his mind, Henry had
reached a climax of eloquence:—"Cæsar," he cried,
"had his Brutus; Charles the First, his Cromwell;
and George the Third"—"Treason!" burst instinctively
from the lips of the President; "Treason!
treason!" resounded through the house. The
orator paused, then raising himself to his full
height, with eyes of fire, and a voice which thrilled
through every bosom, he concluded his sentence,
"and George the Third may profit by their example;
if this be treason, make the most of it."[49]
While this debate was in progress, a young
student of William and Mary College, stood in the
lobby of the house, and listened with reverence and
delight to the sounds of Patrick Henry's voice. He
was destined, in future years, to fill a large space
in the eyes of his country, and he was already
learning lessons from a master, far beyond whose
teachings on human liberty, he was himself afterwards
to advance. On the 29th day of May the
debate closed; the vote was taken, and the resolutions
were adopted by a majority of a single voice.
Immediately after the result was announced, Peyton
Randolph came to the door of the house, and
the excited young listener heard him exclaim, with
every mark of passion, "I would have given five
hundred guineas for a single vote." He knew that
Robinson, would have given a casting vote in
the negative.[50] Thus freedom triumphed, notwithstanding
the opposition of those who were, afterwards,
her warmest friends.
George Johnston, of Alexandria, had ably seconded
the efforts by which the victory was gained.
On the evening of the day on which the resolutions
passed, Mr. Henry left Williamsburg for his
home, cheered by the proud consciousness of having
led Virginia to her duty. The next morning the
Governor and Council were busy in efforts to have
the bold protests erased from the journals of the
House, and they partially succeeded. The fifth
resolution was so strong that even those who had
voted for all were startled as they read it, and consented
that it should be stricken out, provided the
others might stand. Thus the journals of the
House for May 30th, 1765, bear the four of which
notice has already been taken. Finding the Burgesses
infected with a spirit which threatened ruin
to the influence of the King, on the 1st of June the
Governor dissolved the Assembly.[51]
No sooner were the resolutions of Virginia made
known than they kindled a flame throughout America.
They furnished precisely what was needed
in the crisis to unite men in opposition to the claims
every side: newspapers which had been forward
in endeavours to reconcile the Colonies to the Stamp
Act, now came out boldly against it.[52] Non-importation
agreements were made by merchants and
wealthy planters. Stamp agents were compelled
to resign, and so strenuous was the spirit of resistance,
that by the 1st of November, when the law
was to take effect; "not a sheet of stamped paper
was to be found throughout the Colonies."[53] Clubs
were formed in nearly all the Provinces, bearing
the expressive name of "Sons of Liberty," whose
duty it was to correspond with similar bodies in
other places, and foster the spirit of freedom; and,
finally, Massachusetts presented a scheme of all
others best fitted for uniting America against the
common foe. She proposed that the plan for a
General Congress should be revived, and that each
Colony should send delegates to New York in
October.
The Legislature of Virginia having been dissolved,
she was unable to comply with this request,
and therefore her delegates did not sit in the First
American Congress. Twenty-eight members, from
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
and South Carolina, met on the appointed
day, and Timothy Ruggles, of Massachusetts, was
elected President.[54]
They proceeded to adopt resolutions,
forth, and their freedom from taxation, except by
their own Assemblies, is declared. Memorials to
the King, and to Parliament, were drafted, which
were conceived in a mild, courteous, and conciliatory
tone, not entirely welcome to some of the more
enthusiastic patriots; but which clearly conveyed
the grievances of America, and her claims upon her
mother.[55]
On the fatal 1st of November, signs of sadness
were seen in every part of the Colonies. In Boston,
muffled drums beat dead marches; bells tolled as
if funerals were in progress; long processions of
mourners passed through the streets; and a coffin,
containing the emblematic corpse of "Liberty,"
was solemnly interred. These were not mere
mummeries to catch the vulgar eye. They were
expressions of deep feeling which sought for utterance
in acts stronger than words. The only appearance
of submission to the Stamp Act was in
the shutting up of the ports for customs, and the
suspending of judicial business, and even these
gradually ceased. In Virginia, about the close of
November, the Courts were reopened and business
proceeded without the slightest regard to the hated
stamp requirements.[56]
This was the passing of the
Rubicon; when a law loses its moral power over
the mind of the subject, it will soon be openly despised
and disobeyed.
Meantime a change had taken place in the
displaced, and the Marquis of Rockingham, a
Whig nobleman of wealth and influence, had succeeded.
When Parliament convened in December,
the exciting topic was the Stamp Act and the resistance
of the Colonies. England thought of her
fleets and armies, and many proposed force; but
numberless petitions from every part of the kingdom
poured in, praying for a repeal of this law.
(1766.) Early in the succeeding year the debate
in the House of Commons commenced. It was
powerful in interest, and drew forth from the friends
of liberty appeals which will long be remembered.
Mr. Grenville yet argued for the continuance of
the law: he urged that America was protected and
therefore might be taxed; he told of Durham
and Chester, which had been taxed before they
were represented, and asked when America had
been emancipated? In a glow of generous indignation,
William Pitt denounced the act, and pressed
for its unconditional and immediate repeal. "I
rejoice," he said, "that America has resisted: three
millions of people so dead to all the feelings of
liberty, as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would
have been fit instruments to make slaves of all the
rest."[57] In reply to Mr. Grenville's question, when
the Colonists had been emancipated, he asked when
had they been enslaved? He showed that the cases
of Durham and Chester proved nothing, except that
even in a despotic reign, a monarch, ashamed that
being represented, had admitted their members to
the House of Commons. He spoke of the power
of England, and of the force threatened against
America: "I know the valour of your troops,—the
force of this country,—but in such a case success
would be hazardous; America, if she fell, would
fall like a strong man, she would embrace the
pillars of the state, and pull down the Constitution
with her."[58]
Slowly and reluctantly the enemies of freedom
yielded to the storm. Doctor Franklin was examined
in the presence of the House of Commons,
and by his practical wisdom, his simple and courteous
manner, and his transparent words, won
many friends for his country. On the 22d day of
February, a day already hallowed by the birth of
George Washington, the vote was taken, and the
bill repealing the Stamp Act passed the Commons
by a vote of two hundred and seventy-five to one
hundred and sixty-seven. It was immediately
carried, attended by nearly two hundred members,
to the House of Lords, where, after stern opposition,
it was likewise passed, twenty-eight Lords
entering a solemn protest against it, on its third
reading.[59]
On the 19th day of March, the King
gave it his sanction, and it became a law. But
with express design to prove that the repeal of the
claimed by America, this measure was accompanied
by a Declaratory Act, asserting the right of the
King and Parliament of Great Britain, by law "to
bind the Colonies and people of America, in all
cases whatsoever."[60] Thus the authority to impose
taxes was affirmed. England was destined to drive
her Colonies into independence.
When the repeal was announced, joy pervaded
every bosom in the Provinces. The brightest
hopes of the friends of loyalty in Virginia were
more than realized. In the first emotions of their
gratitude, the Assembly voted thanks to the King
and both Houses of Parliament, and decreed that
a statue and an obelisk should be raised to preserve
the memory both of the Sovereign and of the distinguished
statesman to whom they believed their
deliverance to be due.[61]
But we have reason to
believe that no measures were taken to carry this
resolution into effect.[62]
Subsequent oppression
came too soon to leave undisturbed their dreams of
happiness.
In the session of 1766, the breach of trust of
which Mr. Robinson, the Treasurer, had been
guilty, was made apparent; and, as it was manifest
that his place as Speaker of the House had exposed
him to the temptation of loaning to members,
it was resolved that in future the two offices should
be divorced. Peyton Randolph was elected President,
His integrity and skill fitted him for its
duties, and during the time he discharged them, no
cause of dissatisfaction was given.[63]
(1767.) As the session of the succeeding year wore
away, the health of Governor Fauquier, which had
long been declining, rapidly failed, and he died on
the 3d of March, 1768, in the 66th year of his age.
He had endeared himself to many in the Colony
by his graceful manners and social disposition.
His taste was refined, and his education had been
liberal: he made learning attractive, and endeavoured
to infuse a love of letters into his colonial
charge. Yet he had vices, both of opinion and of
practice, which made him a dangerous companion
for the susceptible hearts of Virginia. He had imbibed
much of the infidel spirit then so prevalent
in Europe, and made fashionable by the most
elegant writers of the French nation.[64]
He had an
insatiate passion for gaming. It has been said, that
on the return of the great navigator, Anson, from
his voyage round the world, he played at cards
with Fauquier, and in a single night won the whole
of his property, and afterwards, by way of showing
his compassion, exerted his influence to obtain for
him the government of Virginia.[65]
Untaught by
experience, Fauquier continued his course: he
gamed furiously in the Colony. During each vacation
he made a social tour among the rich planters
of the country, and everywhere at his approach
sums was lost and won; and, to the present day,
the contagion of his example may be felt in the
ancient Dominion.
John Blair, as President of Council, succeeded to
the vacant office, and convened the Legislature at
an earlier day than was usual, to provide for danger
threatened on the frontiers by Indians. But
a more imposing peril than this soon absorbed their
thoughts.
In England the Duke of Grafton had succeeded
Rockingham as Prime Minister, and Charles Townsend
had been made Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Not for a moment had ministers abandoned the resolve
to draw money from America by taxation.
Provoked by the violent opposition which had been
made in New York to the Stamp Act, Parliament
passed a law suspending the powers of the government
of that Colony until proper satisfaction should
be made. This law has been approved even by
the more liberal among English writers,[66]
but it excited
deep emotion in America, and drew from
Virginia expressions of sympathy for her oppressed
sister.[67]
Charles Townsend was not content with
this triumph. Active and excitable in mind, brilliant
in debate, and formidable as a party leader,
he was intriguing and unscrupulous as a politician.
He openly boasted that he knew a method by which
he could draw revenue from the Americans without
always alive to this subject, urged him to open his
plan. Incautious writers and declaimers in the
Colonies and in Britain, had tried to draw a distinction
between external and internal taxes. They
contended that England had a right to impose the
first but not the latter, forgetting that an external
tax or duty on imports might be just as much for
the purpose of raising revenue as a duty on stamps.
Cunningly availing themselves of this unsound
distinction, Ministers introduced a bill imposing
duties in America upon lead, painters' colours,
glass, paper, and tea, imported, and in the month
of May this bill became a law, having encountered
little opposition in either House.[68]
When this action was made known, the Burgesses
of Virginia again addressed a grave memorial
to the King and Parliament. Their argument
was now more solid, their tone more decided, and
their assertion of right more emphatic, than they
had ever been before.[69]
They exposed the folly of
the attempted distinction between external and internal
taxes, and proved that a duty on articles
which had become necessary to civilized life would
operate as a tax for revenue.[70]
They spoke strongly
of the injustice done to New York, and declared
that none of the Colonies were safe while these restrictions
remained. We note with interest and
to independence.
(1768.) In October of this year a new Governor
arrived. Norborne Berkley, Baron De Botetourt,
came out from Portsmouth in the Rippon, sixty-gun
ship, and was received in Hampton Roads
with all due honour.[71]
It has been supposed that
he had been instructed to assume more than wonted
dignity, and to dazzle the disaffected colonists by a
display of splendour reflected from the Crown. In
a beautiful carriage, presented by the King, he was
slowly drawn by six milk-white horses in gorgeous
trappings through the streets of Williamsburg. He
met the Assembly with all the rites and ceremonies
observed when the English Sovereign received
his Parliaments.[72]
But this empty show was
worse than vain. It gained no hearts and bewildered
no heads: it was distasteful to the Governor
himself; and failing to produce the desired effect,
he laid aside the burden. This excellent nobleman
felt his position in Virginia to be painful. He
was the first governor-in-chief who had come to
reside in the Colony since Lord Culpeper, and under
any other circumstances he might have been a
blessing to the people he ruled. Moderate in temper,
and devoted to peace, he earnestly desired to
see Virginia cordial in her submission to her mother;
but so strong was his sense of justice, that he
could not shut his eyes to the truth of her grievances.
should check the first approaches of rebellion, yet
his duty to the people, who loved him, and whom
he learned to love in return, forbade him to urge
harsh measures against them. Thus was he involved
in perplexity which must soon be mentioned.
(1769.) The Governor having presented no special
subject for their consideration, the Burgesses
took up the late measures of England, and passed
four resolutions, couched in firm but respectful language,
in which their rights are declared (May 16).
After denying the power of taxation, except by
themselves, they declare that persons accused of
crime in the Colony ought to be tried at home, and
that to seize them and send them to Britain for
trial, was "highly derogatory of the rights of British
subjects." They point to union in these resolutions,
and recommend that they shall be sent to
all the other Colonies for their concurrence.[73]
Lord
Botetourt seems not to have been prepared for this
action. The bold assertions of the Burgesses astonished
him: he saw the influence of the King
fading away in the land. He summoned the
Speaker and Assembly to the council chamber,
and addressed them in laconic terms.
"Mr. Speaker, and Gentlemen of the House of
Burgesses: I have heard of your resolves, and
augur ill of their effects. You have made it my
duty to dissolve you, and you are dissolved accordingly."
But now the spirit of freedom had risen too high
to be at once allayed. The measure of the Governor
was the occasion of a decisive step, which
went far in the path to Independence. Instead of
returning quietly to their homes, as they had done
before, when dissolved, the Burgesses, almost as
with one accord, reassembled at a private house in
Williamsburg, and formed the first revolutionary
"Convention" that Virginia had known. Nothing
like it in any respect can be found in her past history,
except the meeting called by Nathaniel Bacon
in the time of his rebellion[74]
—and the parallel
both in place and in purpose between these two
events, will not escape the notice of the philosophic
reader. When the representatives of the
people begin to debate public measures on their
own authority, they are fast approaching to self-government.
The Convention made no attempt to make laws:
they simply adopted a preamble, in which they expressed
their sense of the wrong done them by the
late acts of Parliament, and they then entered into
a non-importation agreement, binding themselves
to be frugal, to import no taxed article, and none of
the manufactures or products of Britain, until she
should return to the practice of justice. The
agreement is signed by an array of names which
cannot be read without feelings of veneration. The
noblest of Virginia's sons will be found among
them.[75]
Long-cherished prepossessions were fast
The effect of their action was soon apparent.
Copies of the agreement were spread through the
country, and thousands of signatures attested the
sentiments of the people. Old and young, great
and humble, wealthy and poor, united in opposition
to the claims of the mother country. The other
Colonies caught the flame kindled in Virginia, and
fanned it into conflagration. Meanwhile, England
was not ignorant of the course of her Colonists,
and for a time, at least, she again paused. The
Earl of Hillsborough, the Secretary of Foreign
Affairs, wrote to Lord Botetourt, assuring him that
it was not the intention of Ministers to draw revenue
by duties from America, and that at the next
meeting of Parliament, the customs on glass, paper,
and colours, would be repealed, as being adverse to
the interests of commerce. The generous Governor
glowed with delight in receiving these assurances,
and his letter communicating them to the Council
and House of Burgesses, expresses in nervous language
how much he felt interested for his colonial
charge.[76]
Once more hope revived; the Council and
Assembly united in sentiments of gratitude to the
Governor, and of respect for the King; but their
hopes were destined to speedy betrayal.
Charles Townsend died in the month of September,
and was succeeded in his office by Frederic,
Lord North, the eldest son of the Earl of Guildford.
(1770.) In January, the Duke of Grafton resigned
the Treasury, and Premier of England.[77] The
administration of this nobleman was memorable;
fatal to the best interests of Britain, and only beneficial
to America, because it drove her into war.
In the month of March, urged on by numberless
petitions from British merchants, he introduced a
bill repealing the duties on glass, colours, lead and
paper, but retaining that on tea. This last was retained
with express design to affirm the right to
tax, and in urging it, his Lordship openly declared
his policy: "To temporise is to yield; and the
authority of the mother country, if it is now unsupported,
will in reality be relinquished for ever:
a total repeal cannot be thought of till America is
prostrate at our feet."[78]
The bill in the form proposed
became a law, and was transmitted to
America.
Lord Botetourt was deeply wounded by this result.
His hopes, based on the assertions of Hillsborough,
vanished into air, and so much was he
mortified by the position in which his own government
had placed him, that he asked leave to resign.
While his application was pending, the pain of a
generous mind aggravated a disease of his body,
and he died during the summer, deplored not
merely by personal friends, but by all classes in
the Colony, capable of appreciating his worth.[79]
In
death he has not been forgotten; one of the most
beautiful counties in the valley bears his name,
of the Assembly,[80] perpetuates the memory of the
man who preferred the love of Virginia to the
smiles of his King.
After the death of Botetourt, William Nelson,
President of Council, administered the affairs of
the Colony. The appointment of a governor at
this crisis, had become a matter of great delicacy
and importance, and had the English rulers sought
through their dominions, they could hardly have
made a worse selection than the man on whom
their choice fell. (1772.) From the Province of
New York, Lord Dunmore was transferred to Virginia.
He is said to have been coarse in his
person, rude in his manners, and unscrupulous in
his morals: he wanted the courtesy, the refinement,
the sensitive love of justice possessed by his predecessor
in so eminent a degree.[81]
He brought
with him Captain Foy, as his private secretary, an
officer of the British army who had distinguished
himself in the bloody battle of Minden. To provide
well for his favourite, Dunmore resorted to a
practice honoured by the renowned examples of
Culpeper and Effingham, and invented a new list
of fees, which promised to bring him some revenue;
but the first Assembly after his arrival, scrutinized
the matter so rigidly, that he was obliged to desist.[82]
With much reason it has been supposed that a
military companion was selected by Dunmore with
a special view to the disturbed state of the Colony,
to adopt.
Though harsh and unprepossessing in his manners,
his Lordship had decided talents, and an
ability for diplomacy, upon which the English
Court placed some reliance. He detected a scheme
of extensive forgery of the public securities, and
brought the offenders to justice by means so stern
and summary, that the Assembly could not approve.[83]
But events of greater importance were
soon to attract his attention. (1773.) The Assembly
of this year, contained members of great power of
mind, and of uncompromising patriotism. Among
the youngest and most brilliant were Dabney Carr
and Thomas Jefferson. Mr. Carr was already a
rival of Patrick Henry at the bar. His person was
fine, his voice full of melody, his feeling keen, his
reason unclouded; his heart overflowed with love
to his country, and his tongue was ever ready to
express it. On the 12th March, he introduced important
resolutions, appointing "a standing committee
of correspondence and inquiry," to consist
of eleven members, whose duty it should be, to
watch Britain and commune with the other Colonies.
This measure was powerful in its operation,
and we may judge of its weight by the men placed
on the committee. They were the leaders of
America in the approaching struggle.[84]
It is sad
who had introduced it, survived the triumph of his
scheme. Mr. Carr died in Charlottesville, on the
16th of May, in the thirtieth year of his age.[85]
Every day brought nearer to explosion the storm
which was gathering in the British Colonies. It
was delayed as long as forbearance was possible.
Had the war been a sudden outburst, it would have
had as sudden a termination. But it was the
legitimate consequence of years, and even centuries
of oppression; and therefore it was destined,
when commenced, to end only with the total removal
of its cause. It was a war of principle, and
not of mere expediency. Of this, the best proof is
found in the conduct of the adverse parties, as the
contest drew near to its acme. Hoping to reconcile
the Colonists to the payment of the tax of three
pence on tea, England by law permitted the East
India Company to withdraw from her ports millions
of pounds of this commodity which they had there
in store, and to ship them to America without paying
any duty in the custom-house, of the mother
country. The effect of this was to make the price
of tea actually lower in America than it had been
before the duty was imposed. But the eyes of the
Colonists were now open to the subject; they were
not to be deceived by the appearance of fairness.
So long as duty was demanded in the ports of
America, so long was she taxed without her own
consent, and until this principle was abandoned, she
commodity.[86] Hence the well-known scene in the
harbour of Boston, where, on the 16th of December,
persons dressed as Mohawk Indians boarded a tea
ship, and in two hours hoisted out and threw overboard
three hundred and forty-two chests of her
cargo, and then quietly dispersed to their homes.[87]
(1774.) When news of this event reached England,
Ministers thought the time had come for violent
restraint. A bill was introduced, and passed in
Parliament, providing that after the 1st of June, the
port of Boston should be closed; her trade should
be cut off, and thus her energetic population would
have been consigned to idleness, and, after a time,
to poverty. But the time of safety was passed;
violence did but inflame the spirits of the people.
When the Boston "Port Bill" was made known in
Virginia, her Assembly was in session; and, without
a moment's delay, they adopted resolutions expressing
the deepest sympathy for their oppressed
fellow-patriots; setting aside the fatal 1st of June
as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer, and
ordering that a suitable sermon should be preached
on the occasion.[88]
(May 25.) The day after these
resolutions passed, Lord Dunmore summoned the
lordly style: "I have in my hand a paper published
by order of your House, conceived in such terms
as reflect highly upon his Majesty and the Parliament
of Great Britain, which makes it necessary
for me to dissolve you, and you are dissolved accordingly."[89]
Forthwith the members repaired to the Raleigh
Tavern, in Williamsburg, and formed another association,
in which they spoke with indignant earnestness
of the measures against Boston; denounced
tea as the source of all their evils, and administered
a just rebuke to the East India Company for joining
hands with tyranny. They recommended that the
members to be elected for the next Assembly should
meet "in convention," at Williamsburg, on the
1st of August, and should then appoint deputies to
represent Virginia in the "General Congress" to be
held this year.[90]
Then going to their homes, the
members spread far and wide their influence. The
1st of June was a day of real mourning; the pulpit
began to speak on the temporal liberties of man;
each bosom caught the spirit, and it seemed as
though an electric shock had passed through every
part of the Colony.
The body assembled at Williamsburg on the 1st
of August, is generally spoken of as the "First
Virginia Convention." It was, indeed, the first
regularly constituted and authorized to act by the
of the same character had before existed. Its action
was entirely confined to the absorbing topic of
the day. The distress of Boston; the obstinacy of
the English Ministry; the duties on tea;[91] were the
grievances: non-importation of British commodities,
was the chief remedy; but they went farther,
and declared that unless their woes were healed
before the 10th of August, 1775, they would not
after that time export a pound of tobacco to Great
Britain. A member had been elected from Albemarle
to this Convention, who, though yet young
in years, had already assumed a prominence in the
councils of his country, which was afterwards ever
increasing. Thomas Jefferson was prevented, by
sickness from attending; but he sent his thoughts
in writing, which were afterwards published, under
the title of a "Summary View of the Rights of
British America." The doctrines sustained in this
composition were too bold to be adopted, even by
the patriots of 1774; but the tract was universally
admired. It was afterwards published in England,
and though eagerly read by opposition members,
it is said to have gained for its author the honour
of being included in a bill of attainder for treason,
The members appointed as deputies to Congress,
were Peyton Randolph, Richard Henry
Lee, George Washington, Patrick Henry, Richard
Bland, Benjamin Harrison, and Edmund Pendleton.
On the 4th of September, at Carpenter's
Hall, in Philadelphia, the venerable body assembled
which was to speak in behalf of the liberties of
three millions of men. To detail its action, would
not be consistent with the unity of this work.
Virginia's noblest sons took part in its counsels,
and led on to the conflict. Peyton Randolph was
in the chair; Patrick Henry and Richard H. Lee,
opened the argument in speeches of matchless
power. Its proceedings have become a part of
the history of America, and its very name is heard
with reverence and gratitude.
Meanwhile, Governor Dunmore was engaged
in schemes which have been enveloped in a cloud
of mystery, and which will, probably, never be
fully explained. He has been charged with having
desired to break the opposition of British America
to the mother country, by involving two of the
most powerful Colonies in war with each other
concerning their boundaries, and with producing
Indian hostilities, to divert the attention of Virginia
vague to bring conviction, yet the facts furnished
are suspicious. He employed a Pennsylvanian,
one Doctor Conolly, a man of popular arts, of intriguing
disposition, and of doubtful patriotism
He gave to him command of the fort at Pittsburg,
with the title of Major. A dispute between Pennsylvania
and Virginia as to their boundaries west
of Fort Pitt, was nursed into importance, and, but
for the forbearance and generosity shown by the
Assemblies of both provinces, they might have been
urged into civil war.[94]
But the Indian hostilities assumed a more serious
aspect. Single murders, on both sides, had been
committed by parties on the Ohio frontiers, and in
the month of April, several relatives of a distinguished
Indian chief had been slain, without adequate
provocation, by white men, under the direction
of one Captain Cresap.[95]
These events were
followed by bloody retaliation; the savage war-whoop
once more sounded among the bold pioneers
of the Ohio valley. Women and children were
put to death, or dragged into captivity. When
expresses arrived in Williamsburg, announcing the
danger, Lord Dunmore resolved to make a vigorous
attack upon the natives, and crush them at a blow.
officer of Botetourt County, should raise about one
thousand men, and march to the Ohio; while his
Lordship should put himself at the head of a similar
number, in the higher part of the valley, and
should proceed to Fort Pitt. It was intended that
the two forces should unite at Point Pleasant, now
in the county of Mason, and just in the fork of the
Ohio and Great Kanawha Rivers.
Immediately, these orders were carried into effect.
The counties of Berkeley, Hampshire, Frederick,
and Shenandoah, Augusta and Botetourt,
yielded more than two thousand riflemen, who
eagerly prepared for the field. They were men of
tried courage, and of astonishing skill in the use of
their weapon. General Lewis, at the head of a
detachment of more than a thousand, passed through
the trackless forest between Camp Union and Point
Pleasant. Captain Matthew Arbuckle was the
pioneer, and most skilfully was his duty performed.[96]
On reaching Point Pleasant, the 1st of October,
they found that Dunmore had not arrived, and,
doubtful of his plans, General Lewis sent scouts to
meet him and receive his orders. On the 10th,
while the army was in camp between the rivers,
two young men, who had ventured out to hunt,
were suddenly attacked by a large body of Indians.
One was slain, and the other fled wounded to the
camp, to rouse his comrades to battle. The whole
army was speedily in motion, and drawn out in
order four hundred yards from the camp. Fifteen
terrible was their fire, that many of the leading division
of whites were slain. Colonel Charles Lewis,
a brother of the General, was mortally wounded,
and with difficulty dragged himself into the camp,
where soon afterwards he expired.
But a reinforcement was at hand. Colonel Flemming
in a loud voice encouraged his men, and by
his example animated them to the conflict. He
received two balls through his left arm, and was
wounded in the lungs, yet he continued to cheer
on his command. In a short time every man in
each army was under cover: from behind trees they
sought their enemies with their weapons; the forest
rang with the sharp reports of the rifle,—and so
unerring was the fire, that few balls were thrown
away: nearly all who fell were shot in the head
or the breast. Colonel Field, while incautiously
pressing in pursuit, received a mortal wound, and
for a long time the victory was doubtful. The
savages were led on by Cornstalk, a gigantic
warrior, already well known in border warfare.
His huge frame was often seen gliding from tree
to tree, as he encouraged his men; and his stentorian
voice, crying "Be strong! Be strong!" sometimes
rose above the tumult of the battle.[97]
At length the skill and valour of the Virginians
prevailed. Holding out their hats from behind the
trees, the riflemen would often tempt the savages to
fire. The hat would then drop; and when the warrior
rushed forward to scalp his fancied prey, a rifle
morning until sunset, the combat raged without
intermission. The Indians began to give way, and
retire slowly from the field. Cornstalk urged them
to the fight, and with his own hand struck dead
one of his followers who showed signs of cowardice.
But the whites pressed upon them, and soon drove
them from the ground. Yet the victory, though
complete, had been dearly bought. One hundred
and forty men were either killed or wounded. Two
field officers were killed, and a third desperately
wounded. More than half the captains and subaltern
officers were among the slain or hurt. The
loss of the savages could not be precisely ascertained,
as they carried off the wounded, and are
said to have thrown the dead into the Ohio, in the
midst of the fight.[99]
The whole honour of this bloody battle must rest
with General Lewis and his gallant men. Dunmore
is entitled to no part of it, and little merited the
thanks which the Virginia Convention afterwards bestowed
on him.[100]
From Fort Pitt he had proceeded
down the Ohio to Hockhocking; and before the south
division under Lewis arrived, he concluded a treaty
of peace with the principal Indian tribes. The warrior
Cornstalk made a long harangue, and boldly set
forth their causes of complaint. Among the native
chiefs, it was observed that Logan, the pride of the
Cayugas, did not appear; but he assented to the
treaty, and despatched an interpreter to Dunmore
the occasion. This celebrated specimen of savage
eloquence has since become known through all enlightened
lands. It has been admired by Europe
and America; nor has it gained interest merely
because it was delivered under circumstances so
novel and romantic. Simple, grave, and full of the
purest pathos, it finds its way at once to the heart,
and brings immediately before us the desolated red
man, whose love to the whites had been repaid by
the murder of all who had his blood running in
their veins.[101] The only benefit Lord Dunmore ever
conferred upon Virginia was in bringing from the
west this noble oration.
This Indian war was the immediate precursor of
the memorable struggle between a civilized mother
and her own oppressed offspring. (1775.) In the
month of March, the Virginia Convention assembled
at Richmond, in the county of Henrico. It was
then a small town, consisting chiefly of wooden
houses rising over hills which ascended from the
banks of James River. The time-honoured church
on Richmond Hill was the place in which the Convention
met; and the picturesque beauties of this
spot are now heightened by the historic associations
which linger around it. The body contained the
patriots of the Colony. Already the sound of war
had been heard in the land; English fleets were
hovering on the coasts of America, and English
armies were quartered in her cities; yet the hearts
hoped for peace, purchased with less than liberty.
The first measures of the Convention were indecisive.
They expressed their satisfaction at the
course of the late Congress, and their thanks to
their own delegates who had acted in its councils.
They declared their pleasure in receiving a petition
and memorial to the King from the Assembly of
Jamaica, in which earnest offers of compromise
were proposed for the pending difficulties.
But they were not long to rest in this inglorious
calm. On the 23d of March, Patrick Henry presented
resolutions declaring that a "well-regulated
militia, consisting of gentlemen and yeomen," was
the natural defence of the country, alluding in
direct terms to the presence of British armies, and
the dangers threatening American freedom, and
finally proposing that the Virginia colony should
be put in a state of defence, and that measures
should be immediately taken "for embodying, arming,
and disciplining such a number of men as may
be sufficient for that purpose."[102]
This proposal
came like the shock of a thunderbolt upon the
"peace party" in the house; and when they were
in some measure recovered, they made a vigorous
stand against it. Richard Bland, Robert Carter
Nicholas, Edmund Pendleton, and Benjamin Harrison
all opposed it. Every argument that ingenuity
could suggest, and learning sustain, was brought
against it. They told of the weakness of America
and the strength of England: a country without
to the formidable power which had shaken Christendom
to its centre: they urged the duty of loyalty,
the advantages of connexion with Britain, the domestic
comforts they might enjoy, contrasted with
the horrors of civil war.
It was now that Patrick Henry appeared in
majesty. Rising slowly from his seat, he commenced
a speech which made every soul thrill with
ineffable emotion. Enough of this address has
been preserved to give to us some idea of the topics
he presented; but none can paint the living power,
the fire which animated his form and burned in his
words. With mighty strokes he hewed down the
defences which had been erected before the King
and the Parliament, and disclosed them in all their
deformity.
"Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves
longer. We have done every thing that could be
done to avert the storm which is now coming on.
We have petitioned—we have remonstrated—we
have supplicated—we have prostrated ourselves before
the throne, and have implored its interposition
to arrest the tyrannical hands of the Ministry and
Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our
remonstrances have produced additional violence
and insult; our supplications have been disregarded;
and we have been spurned with contempt from the
foot of the throne. In vain after these things may
we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.
There is no longer any room for hope.
If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate
have been so long contending—if we mean not
basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we
have been so long engaged, and which we have
pledged ourselves never to abandon until the object
of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight!
I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms
and to the God of hosts is all that is left us.
"There is a just God who presides over the destinies
of nations, and who will raise up friends to
fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to
the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active,
the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If
we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late
to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but
in submission and slavery. Our chains are forged;
their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston.
The war is inevitable, and let it come. I repeat it,
sir, let it come.
"Gentlemen may cry peace! peace! but there is
no peace. The war is already begun. The next gale
that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the
clash of resounding arms. Our brethren are already
in the field. Why stand we here idle? What is it
that gentlemen wish?—what would they have? Is
life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at
the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty
God! I know not what course others may take; but
as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"
Amid silence, dead and solemn, the orator resumed
his seat. Not a murmur was heard; not a
whisper of comment disturbed the Assembly; feelings
heart. The past, the present, and the future—the
wrongs endured—the remedy offered—the slavery
of peace—the terrors of war—the fear of defeat—
the hope of success—all mingled together, and for
a time stilled every tongue. But the moment of
hesitation had passed. Quickly the blood returned
with redoubled impetus to its channels. Every lip
seemed ready to call to arms.[103] Richard Henry Lee
rose, and with graceful oratory seconded the resolutions.
His voice was not needed to add to the
effect of that eloquence which had seemed almost
enough to call the dead to life. The proposal of
Mr. Henry was adopted, and in a short time Virginia
was alive with military preparation. In every
county men were to be enrolled, arms prepared,
powder and ball provided. The eastern counties
were particularly recommended to raise companies
of horse, and to train them with all diligence to the
sound of firearms and the movements of the field.
All things indicated that peace could not long endure.
The words of Patrick Henry were prophetic.
The next breeze which blew from the north might
have swept over the plains of Concord and Lexington
while the combat between the British troops
and Massachusetts yeomanry was in progress; and
one day after this battle, a body of marines from
the armed English schooner Magdalen, acting
under the orders of Lord Dunmore, came up to
from the public magazine twenty barrels of powder,
which they stored before daybreak in the hold of
their vessel.[104] (April 20.) Thus the war of the
Revolution commenced in Virginia.
"Irretrievable ultimate ruin has —Alison, Hist. Europe, ii. 407.
thus been brought upon the state."
This was William Pitt's opinion:
"At the same time, let the sovereign
authority of legislative and commercial
control, always possessed by this
country, be asserted in as strong
terms as can be devised; and if it
were denied, I would not suffer even
a nail for a horseshoe to be manufactured
in America."—Grahame,
iv. 241; Blackstone's Com. i. 76-78.
Lord Chatham, in Grahame, iv.
241. Even Sir William Blackstone
impliedly gives countenance to this
doctrine. "It is the ancient indisputable
privilege of the House of
Commons that all grants of subsidies
or parliamentary aids do begin in
their house, and are first bestowed by
them."—Commen. i. 124, and post,
229.
Whose thunders shook the Philip of the seas
Burk says the rise was caused
by an extravagant speculator named
Dickenson, iii. 302; but Mr. Wirt
gives no sanction to this statement.
P. Henry, 24.
See Hening, vii. 240, 241; Wirt's
P. Henry, 24; Grahame, iv. 95, 96;
Hawks' Eccles. Hist. Va., 118, 119.
Mr. Wirt, upon a review of the
pamphlets, ascribes victory to the
clergy, P. Henry, 25, and see Dr.
Hawks, 118.
"Abiit—excessit—evasit—erupit!"
Cicero in Catal. Delphin. Class.
iv. 1303. The effect of Henry's eloquence
was more striking because
more immediate than that produced
by the great Roman orator. In no
other point will it be pretended that
the clergy of Virginia were like the
seditious Cataline.
Wirt's P. Henry, 28, 29; Grahame,
iv. 99; Burk, 302, 303, vol.
iii. It is amusing to note in Dr.
Hawks, the struggle between his
admiration of Henry's genius and
his evident disgust at his success.
Prot. Epis. Church in Va., 123, 124.
The Doctor could hardly be expected
to approve the decision. He insists
much upon the demurrer, and expresses
the horror of a lawyer at the
wide field of discussion which Henry
assumed.
This was all granted between
the years 1756 and 1763. See note
in Burk, iii. 280; Belsham's Great
Britain, v. 165, 166.
They were, Peyton Randolph
(Attorney-General), Richard Henry
Lee, Landon Carter, George Wythe,
Edmund Pendleton, Benjamin Harrison,
Richard Bland, Mr. Cary, and
Mr. Fleming.—Appen. to Wirt's
Life of Henry, Note A, 297.
Bissett's George III., 190; Miller,
iii. 51; Belsham, v. 168, 169;
Otis's Botta, i. 54; Grahame, iv.
201; Gordon, i. 112-116.
So says Mr. Wirt, P. Henry,
41, 42; but see Alden's Collec. Am.
Epitaphs, v. 20, where Mr. Pendleton
is said to have passed his early
years with Benjamin Robinson,
Clerk of Caroline County Court.
Wirt's P. Henry, 43. The reader
will not demand from me any apology
for having sought aid from Mr.
Wirt's elegant sketches of these
great men. How could I have found
more beautiful models?
See Mr. Jefferson's Letter to
Mr. Wirt, in Life of P. Henry, 45,
46; Tucker's Life of Jefferson, i.
41-43.
Note by Mr. Jefferson, in Wirt's
P. Henry, 46, 47; see Burk, iii. 332,
who says the default was discovered
before Mr. Robinson's death, and
that the mortification he experienced
hastened his end.
They will be found in full, as
given by Mr. Henry himself, in
Wirt's P. Henry, 49. Marshall gives
six, and reports them inaccurately,
Life of Washington, ii. 130, edit.
1804. Mr. Burk has the same error
as to the number, and says two were
discarded by compromise, iii. 306310.
Burk, iii. 309; Belsham, v. 185,
not perfect, Grahame, iv. 209,
Wirt's Henry, 55; Howe's Hist.
Collect. 297, 298.
Jefferson's account, in Wirt, 52;
Tucker's Jefferson, i. 43; Burk says
the resolutions were adopted by a
large majority, forty only voting
against them.
Gordon, i. 119; Burk, iii. 310;
Grahame, iv. 209, 210. Mr. Wirt
thinks the Governor did not dissolve
the Assembly, note, 54; but the fact
seems to me sufficiently proved.
See an example in the Pennsylvania
Gazette, 20the June, 1765,
Wirt's Henry, note, 56; Grahame,
ii. 210.
Pitt's Speech, in Belsham, v.
193; in Grahame, iv. 239, Burk, iii.
327, 328; Otis's Botta, i. 94.
Miller gives their reasons in
full, George III., 58, and with evident
approbation; but see Belsham,
contra, v. 197. It is difficult to believe
that Miller and Belsham belonged
to the same nation.
See the celebrated "Letters of a
Pennsylvania Farmer," written by
John Dickenson, Virginia Gazette,
beginning January 7, 1768.
This was the great point argued
in the "Letters of a Pennsylvania
Farmer," Virginia Gazette, Feb.,
1768.
Note, in Burk, iii. 363. In his
text, Mr. Burk adds two more horses,
342; and Mr. Grahame follows him,
iv. 290.
They were Peyton Randolph, R.
C. Nicholas, Richard Bland, Richard
Henry Lee, Benjamin Harrison,
Edmund Pendleton, Patrick Henry,
Dudley Digges, Dabney Carr, Archibald
Cary, and Thomas Jefferson —
Wirt, 69, 70; Burk, iii. 392; Tucker's
Life of Jefferson, i. 52, 53.
The London Times for January
2d, 1847, speaking of the proposal
in the late U. S. Congress, to tax tea
and coffee, says, "It is little more
than seventy years since the Colony
rebelled, rather than pay a duty of
3d. per pound on the former article.
The whole population rose in defence
of an untaxed teapot." However
undesignedly, the writer pays
a high tribute to the steady adherence
to principle shown by America
in the revolution.
The third article deserves to be
recorded: "Considering the article
of tea as the detestable instrument
which laid the foundation of the
present sufferings of our distressed
friends in the town of Boston, we
view it with horror; and, therefore,
resolve that we will not, from this
day, either import tea of any kind
whatever, nor will we use or suffer
even such of it as is now on hand to
be used in any of our families."—
Burk, iii. 384.
This tract is not now in general
circulation. The author examined it,
together with Richard Bland's "Inquiry
into the Rights of the British
Colonies," published in 1766, in the
Library at Cambridge, Mass., in February,
1847. The "Summary View,"
was republished in the "American
Archives," vol. i.; and in Jefferson's
Works, i. 100-116. See Tucker's
Life of Jefferson, i. 58-61.
Doddridge's Account, in Kercheval,
148, 149, Appendix to Jefferson's
Notes, 238-274; Withers'
Border Warfare, 117-120. This
work is rare in Eastern Virginia; a
copy has been kindly presented to
me by Thomas Mathews, Esq., of
Richmond.
Jefferson's Notes, 66, and Appendix,
239; Burk, iii. 397, 398;
Doddridge, in Kercheval, 155, 156.
CHAPTER II.
Excitement in Williamsburg—Armed force from the Fowey man-of-war—
Captain Montague—Proceedings in Fredericksburg—Patrick Henry
marches at the head of a volunteer company to retake the powder—
Richard Corbin, King's Receiver-General—Last House of Burgesses in
Virginia—Conciliatory plan of English Ministry—Its duplicity—Virginia
not deceived—Explosion in the Williamsburg magazine—Dunmore
retires aboard the Fowey—Correspondence between the Governor and
the House of Burgesses—Vigorous preparations for war—Dunmore enters
Norfolk harbour—Seizure of Holt's printing press—Predatory warfare—
Attack on Hampton—Gallant defence—Enemy repulsed—Dunmore's
success in Princess Anne—His inhuman proclamation—Plot with Conolly—Great
Bridge—Colonel Woodford marches with the Virginia
force—Conflict at the Great Bridge—Death of Fordyce—Success of the
Virginians—Howe and Woodford enter Norfolk—Consternation of the
Tories—English fleet—Norfolk fired upon and burned—Dunmore's degradation—General
Charles Lee—Removal of people from Princess Anne
and Norfolk Counties—Gwynn's Island—Dunmore takes possession of
it—General Andrew Lewis attacks him—Drives him out with loss—
Miserable condition of the enemy—Dunmore sails to New York—Finally
leaves America—His character—Virginia and the Revolution—Civil and
religious freedom—Seldom enjoyed in the world—Virginia resolves, if
possible, to secure them—Her gradual approaches to independence—
Paine's Common Sense—Virginia Gazette—Convention of 1776—Declaration
of May 15—Bill of Rights—Constitution—Its character considered—Establishment
of civil liberty.
When the removal of the powder was made
known in Williamsburg, intense excitement prevailed.
The people crowded together in groups,
uneasy, irritated, and alarmed. Each man looked
to his arms, and many threatened violent retaliation
addressed a message to the Governor, expressing
their concern at the late occurrence. They reminded
him that the powder had been provided for
public use, and after intimating that danger was
apprehended from the slaves, who had been lately
instigated to rebellion by "wicked and designing
persons," they earnestly asked that the Governor
would explain his conduct, and direct that the
powder should be restored.[105] Lord Dunmore's answer
was evasive and insincere: he talked much of
the safety of the Colony, but his mind was evidently
absorbed in his own selfish interests. When he
heard that the citizens were in arms, his passions
were roused, and with mingled fear and rage he
swore that if any injury was offered to himself or
to those who had acted in the affair of the gunpowder,
he would proclaim freedom to the slaves,
and reduce Williamsburg to ashes. A threat so
inhuman was not fitted to allay the popular storm.
Some may have thought that it was the result of
momentary feeling; but others, who knew Dunmore
well, believed him capable of all excesses, and
events soon proved that his purpose had been deliberately
formed.
The people around the capital were in high excitement,
and their sentiments were fully shared by
others at a distance. By advice of the Council,
Dunmore issued a proclamation full of vague threats
and hollow promises, and giving no satisfactory account
little did this paper answer the purpose for which
his lordship intended it, that it became the signal
for renewed trouble. Hardly had it appeared, before
a number of persons entered the magazine at
night, and removed a great quantity of muskets,
cartouch boxes, swords, and other military munitions.
This act was unjustifiable, and was properly
condemned by the civil authorities of Williamsburg;
but it was made a pretext for measures which
hastened the coming conflict.
At this time England maintained a naval armament
on many parts of the American coast, and
several ships of war were in the waters of Virginia.
Among these was the Fowey, then lying near Yorktown,
and commanded by Captain George Montague.
Alarmed at each advance of the patriotic
power, Dunmore opened a correspondence with the
British officer, and when the magazine was rifled,
he requested that a guard of marines might be sent
from the Fowey to protect the palace at Williamsburg.
Montague complied with the request; and
at the same time that the detachment commenced
its march, he addressed to Thomas Nelson, President
of Council, a letter which, in its savage spirit,
might be ranked with the threats of the Governor.
He speaks of the party he is sending to guard Dunmore,
and hopes they will not be molested, declaring
that if they should be attacked, he would immediately
open upon Yorktown the batteries of his
for the town of York, it excited the warmest
indignation against its author. Mr. Nelson had
been active in soothing the discontented, and upholding
the royal authority; the notice was given
after the marching of the marines, so that no efforts
could be made to preserve them from attack; the
town of York was defenceless, and was full of
women and children. Taking these facts into view,
the committee voted that Captain Montague had
"testified a spirit of cruelty unprecedented in the
annals of civilized times," and they recommended
that no marks of civility should be shown to him,
except those required by "common decency and
absolute necessity."
While these events were in progress, the country
was kindling into flame. On every side, as the
news of the seizure of the powder and the threats
of the Governor were made known, the people ran
to arms. Hanover, Caroline, Spotsylvania, Frederick,
and Berkeley were alive with volunteers preparing
rifles and muskets, or mounting troops for
scouring the lower counties. The meeting in Fredericksburg
merits a special notice. Six hundred
men, well armed, and in uncommonly fine discipline,
assembled at the call of their officers, and
despatched some delegates to ascertain the posture
of things at Williamsburg. While together,
these patriots held a meeting, consisting of one
hundred and two persons, citizens, soldiers, and
bolder in spirit, and more nearly approaching to a
declaration of independence than any that had yet
appeared. They denounced Dunmore's measures
with freedom, and without evasion or fear they declared
that "the troops would preserve their liberty
at the hazard of their lives and fortunes." Though
they deprecated civil war, yet, considering the
liberties of America to be in danger, they pledged
themselves to reassemble at a moment's warning,
and by force of arms to defend the laws, and the
rights "of this or any sister Colony" from invasion;
and they concluded by the sentence: "God save
the liberties of America!"[108] When their messengers
arrived from Williamsburg, they reported
affairs as quiet for a time, and the volunteers returned
to their homes.
Patrick Henry had watched the progress of events
with deep interest. Believing that a sudden and
decisive stroke would do much to rouse the hearts
of his countrymen, and commit them for the war,
he accepted the command of a body of troops raised
in Hanover for the express purpose of marching to
retake the powder removed from the magazine.
His very name kindled enthusiasm. The neighbouring
counties raised companies of infantry and
horse, who hastened to array themselves under so
short time not less than five thousand men were in
arms, and ready to march at a moment's warning.
But while Henry and his men were advancing,
Dunmore sought means to divert the storm which
threatened destruction to his authority. He sent
Richard Corbin, the King's Receiver-General, to
meet the determined American, and offer him terms
of settlement. (May 4.) At Doncaster's ordinary,
in New Kent, Henry received from Mr. Corbin
three hundred and thirty pounds sterling, as compensation
for the powder, and passed to him a
written acknowledgment stating all the facts of the
case.[109] The object of their march being accomplished,
Mr. Henry offered their services to Treasurer
Nicholas, as a guard for Williamsburg, if
danger was apprehended; but an answer was received
declining the offer, and the soldiers returned
in triumph to their abodes in the country.
The Governor's perplexity was extreme. His
own imprudence and harshness had irritated the
people to measures which approached nearly to war.
At this juncture, by advice of his Council, and with
the hope of allaying the popular ferment, he summoned
an Assembly to meet the 1st day of June.
This House of Burgesses was the last that ever sat
upon the soil of Virginia, although many of its
members were afterwards prominent in her independent
legislatures. Nothing could more forcibly
have shown the state of the public mind than the
appearance of the burgesses as they arrived and
seriousness and resolve; many were clothed in
hunting shirts, and brought with them the faithful
rifles, which were afterwards to be companions in
the field.[110] Yet the proceedings were opened with
due ceremony, and the Governor's address was
more than usually courteous. He commended to
their consideration the late resolutions of the House
of Commons, in which Lord North professed to
hold forth the olive branch to America, and to declare
that all her real grievances should be removed.
This "conciliatory plan" had been introduced
by the Prime Minister on the 20th of February,
and had at first surprised both the friends and foes
of America. It provided that whenever the Legislature
or General Court of any Colony should make
due appropriation for bearing its part in the expenses
of the kingdom, and for the support of its
own rulers and officers, then it would be expedient
that Great Britain should cease to tax such Colony.[111]
Had such a proposition been made at an early stage
of the dispute, it might perhaps have calmed the
colonists for a season, but now their eyes were open.
None could fail to see that the plan offered no real
remedy. It simply said, if you will tax yourselves
for our benefit to the amount we require, we will
not tax you; but the implication was irresistible,
that, directly or indirectly, the tax was to be paid.
to distract the Colonies, and rend asunder that
union which was so formidable to the Ministry.
Lord North did not conceal that such was his object;
and his adherents in the House repeated his
views. The bill became a law by a considerable
majority.
Virginia was not duped by this scheme. The
House of Burgesses appointed a committee to examine
it, who in a few days brought in a report adverse
to the proposition. This able paper was from
the pen of Thomas Jefferson, and it bears stamped
upon its face the impress of his acute and powerful
mind. It declared that the plan was rejected, because
they had the right to give their money as
they pleased, without coercion; because other grievances
were left unredressed; because England had
already invaded their country by sea and land;
because free trade was not allowed to them; and,
finally, because they would not treat without the
concurrence of all the Colonies. The report concluded
in a strain of eloquent asseveration, and in
committing to the justice of Heaven the cause
which could hope for nothing from the rulers of
Britain.[112]
Dunmore's conduct betrayed a strange mixture
of presumption and wavering, of boasting and
cowardice, of pretended firmness and real alarm.
He had issued a proclamation speaking of Patrick
Henry in most contemptuous terms, and warning
all men to oppose him in his attempts to disturb
House when its members sought to investigate the
affair of the gunpowder, and declared his readiness
to render to them the key of the magazine. Deep,
indeed, must have been the malignity which, under
smiles and concessions, sought to cover a purpose
of treachery and revenge.
On the night of the 5th of June, several young
men entered the magazine to procure arms. As
they passed the door, a cord attached to it discharged
a spring gun, and three of the party were
severely wounded. One had his shoulder torn to
pieces with small bullets, and another lost three
fingers of his left hand. When this incident was
made known, none doubted that the contrivance
was by Dunmore's order, and popular feeling
against him increased in violence. A committee of
the House of Burgesses was appointed to search the
magazine, and several barrels of powder were found
buried under its floor, which were doubtless to be
used as a mine, when the Governor thought proper
to blow up the building and all who ventured into
it.[114]
The indignation of the people was no longer
concealed. The Assembly used every exertion to
preserve order in the town, but it seemed impossible
to prevent a rupture. Terrified by the consequences
of his own conduct, and being in mortal
fear for his life, at 2 o'clock on the morning of the
8th, Dunmore fled from the palace, and, in company
with his wife and some of his domestics, took
of course accompanied by Foy, who feared the
citizens hardly less than did the Governor himself.
From this time until the 24th of June, messages
were almost daily exchanged between the House of
Burgesses and his lordship. Dunmore alleged as
a reason for his flight, that he was no longer safe
in Williamsburg, and that he had constant reason
to fear personal violence. The House addressed to
him several dignified missives, professing their
readiness to unite with him in measures for quieting
the country; but no persuasions would induce him
to trust his precious person to their guardianship.
Several bills of high importance were passed, among
which was one making provision for the officers
and soldiers in the late Indian war; but the Governor
refused his assent, unless they would comply
with his unreasonable demands. At length the
dispute reached its height. On the 23d, Dunmore
commanded the Burgesses to come in person on
board the Fowey, and receive his assent to the bills
which were ready. When this insolent order was
made known, the Assembly threw off all reserve,
and passed resolutions declaring that his command
was "a high breach of their rights and privileges;"
that his delays and evasions warned the people to
prepare for defence; and that they bore true allegiance
to his majesty King George, and would
uphold his authority according to the "established
laws and principles of the constitution."[115]
The correspondence
between the Governor and the Assembly
in his absence the remaining bills were assented to
by the Council. It will be proper at once to relate
the final acts of the last House of Burgesses. They
adjourned, first to the 12th of October, then to the
first Thursday in March, 1776. At that time
thirty-two members only appearing, they again
adjourned to the 6th of May; and on that day, although
a few members attended, they did no business,
and soon dispersed. Such was the end of the
Colonial Assembly of Virginia. It had been constituted
in a reign of despotism—had served through
seasons of gloom and oppression—had led the way
in declaring principles of freedom, which sunk
deeply into the hearts of America, and had only
ceased to act when it was to be succeeded by a
child more independent, though not more enlightened
and courageous. With the death of the Assembly,
the authority of the King passed away for
ever in the Old Dominion.
Before their first separation, the Burgesses had
agreed to meet in convention at Richmond on the
17th of July; and accordingly they then assembled
and commenced deliberations. The question of
peace and war was no longer doubtful, and without
delay, means were adopted for arming Virginia.
Volunteers began to pour in on all sides; the dragoons
of the tide-water counties, the riflemen of the
west, and the young soldiers from the best families
between the Blue Ridge and the Bay, were all in
motion. The convention was too cumbrous a body
to act with promptness, and therefore a Committee
public defence.
Their preparations were not premature. Immediately
after the close of his correspondence with
the House of Burgesses, Lord Dunmore sailed down
the bay in the Fowey, and made diligent efforts to
collect an armed force to attack Virginia. He made
the harbour of Norfolk the place of rendezvous for
his fleet. This flourishing seaport then contained
about six thousand inhabitants, and was in many
respects the most important town in Virginia. Its
position gave to it so many commercial advantages
that trade from abroad flowed into it spontaneously,
and wealth began to accumulate. That there were
patriots within its bounds, no one can doubt; but
its leading inhabitants were English and Scotch
merchants, who loved money more than liberty,
who revered Britain too much to serve America,
and who would willingly have seen the Revolution
strangled in its birth. Dunmore's first measure in
Norfolk was the seizure of Holt's printing press,
which had been bold in uttering republican sentiments.
The insignificant band sent to effect this
purpose might easily have been crushed; but the
tories were numerous, and the rulers were overawed.[117]
Emboldened by this success, the Governor
resolved on further violence. He had now under
twenty-four guns, the Kingfisher, of sixteen, and
the Otter, of fourteen, with two companies of the
fourteenth regiment, from the West Indies, and a
rabble of negroes and tories, who had resorted to
his standard. He fitted out several tenders and
lighter vessels, and, hovering around the coasts,
plundered the people, stole live stock, and destroyed
improvements in a way highly congenial to his
taste.
The town of Hampton daily feared an attack.
Many at the seat of government thought that true
policy would require that the whole lower country
bordering on the bay should be wasted and abandoned,
so as to afford no support to the enemy.[118]
But
this scheme, though it rivals the terrible resolution
of the Russians at Moscow, was disapproved. The
Committee of Safety despatched Colonel Woodford,
at the head of one hundred mounted riflemen, to
repel the threatened attack.
Hampton was a small seaport in the end of the
isthmus between York and James Rivers. Its
people were accustomed to sea scenes, and two of
its sons had already distinguished themselves by
bold captures of vessels belonging to the English
fleet.[119]
On the 24th of October, the British Captain
Squires, with six tenders full of armed men, approached
the town. Believing they would meet
with feeble opposition, the boats' crews left the
they pulled towards the shore. But they were received
with a shower of rifle bullets. Marksmen,
concealed behind fences on the beach, or in the
town, poured upon them a fire so precise and
deadly, that the boats were hauled hastily around,
and with the loss of many of their men, returned
to the tenders.
Colonel Woodford and the Culpeper riflemen
marched all night through a heavy rain, and at 8
o'clock the next morning they were ready to aid
the gallant militia of Hampton and the neighbourhood
in repelling the second attack. Several vessels
had been sunk immediately before the town,
so that the tenders could not easily approach; but
during the night Squires succeeded in cutting
away the obstacles, and in the morning his fleet
was in the harbour and drawn up with broadsides
bearing on the town. (Oct. 25.) Instantly a cannonade
commenced. Double-headed bullets were
fired in rapid succession, and chain-shot were hurled
among the houses, and swept the streets exposed to
the water. The patriots had no heavy guns to oppose,
and the English thought their victory secure.
But the riflemen drew close to the river's edge,
and concealing themselves behind fences, trees,
and shrubs, marked every tender with their fire.
They sent their lead with fatal precision. Not a
man showed his face over a gunwale, who was not
pierced by a ball. Not a sail could be touched,
without exposing him who attempted it to certain
death. The British were struck with astonishment
and they endeavoured to draw off from the
town and escape into the bay. Some succeeded,
though with the loss of several men; but two tenders
drifted ashore, and the commander of one of
them, after in vain trying to rouse his men to exertion,
sprang into the water, and succeeded in swimming
safely to the opposite beach. His crew dared
not raise their heads from the deck, for fear of
meeting a rifle ball. Thus the Americans captured
two tenders, and, besides the prisoners, they took
six swivels, seven muskets, and a quantity of pistols,
small swords, and other weapons.[120]
Such was the first battle of the Revolution that
was fought in Virginia. In many respects it was
singular in its character. Vessels armed with
cannon fired upon an exposed town, and men with
no weapons heavier than rifles drove them from
their moorings. No one can doubt who were the
victors. The British vessels with difficulty escaped.
Men were sent to the narrow part of the channel to
oppose their egress, and nothing but a false rumour
saved them. It was reported that a large body of
the enemy were marching into the country. The
patriots halted, and the prey escaped.[121]
Hostilities were now fully opened. At Burwell's
Ferry a party of Virginia riflemen drove off the
Kingfisher, which had been sent up James River
to oppose their passage;[122]
and an attack made upon
by two sentinels placed upon guard by Captain
Green.[123] Dunmore was alarmed at the bold spirit
everywhere manifested by the people, and determined
in person to strike a blow from which he
hoped decisive results. With design to seize some
cannon belonging to the Colony, he left Norfolk
the 16th of November at the head of two companies
of regulars and a disorderly group of slaves and
tories, and penetrated into Princess Anne County.
Colonel Hutchings resolved, if possible, to defeat
him by ambuscade, and raising two hundred militia,
led them to the attack. At the first volley Dunmore's
heroes were in utter dismay, and crowding together
like frightened sheep, they might easily have been
routed; but the regulars with great firmness formed
a square with the Governor in the centre, and returned
the fire. A shameful panic seized the
militia; they broke and fled from the ground, leaving
one of their number dead, and nine wounded
and prisoners to the enemy. Colonel Hutchings
himself was among the latter number. He was
wounded by the fire, and made no attempt to escape.[124]
Emboldened by this success, Dunmore now declared
open war. He published a proclamation,
which had been prepared some days before.[125]
In
at Hampton and other places, and charges the
people of Virginia with commencing hostilities.
He commands all to repair to the royal standard,
and enrol themselves, under penalty of being
declared traitors, and exposed to death and confiscation
of lands and chattels. With inhuman zeal,
he pronounces all slaves and indentured servants
to be free, and urges them to take up arms against
their masters. By this course he hoped to strike
terror into the hearts of the patriots, and to awe the
Colony into submission; but his ungenerous soul
had little felt the power of those motives which
now impelled the people. Instead of subduing, the
proclamation roused them to new exertions. On
every side men left their daily pursuits and ran to
arms. Companies, mounted and on foot, were constantly
reported at Williamsburg, and the great
difficulty of the committee was not to obtain men,
but weapons and ammunition.[126]
It was at this time that another developement
was made, tending yet more to excite all good men
against the Governor. We have heretofore mentioned
his agent Conolly, as one employed by him
in responsible offices and secret schemes. The
movements of this man became mysterious. He
repaired to Boston, and held an interview with
General Gage, the British commander-in-chief,
and at the same time, many things proved that he
was in correspondence with Dunmore. Vigilant
eyes were upon him, and a few days after he parted
about five miles from Hagerstown, in Maryland.
On searching him, the captors found a large sum
of money, and several papers which developed a
gigantic scheme for the ruin of Virginia. It was
proposed that all the Indian tribes on the frontiers
should be assembled, and by presents, promises,
and exhortations, should be urged to take up the
hatchet against the whites. Among the papers
was a letter from Dunmore himself to a noted Indian
chief, whom he addresses as his "brother
White Eyes," telling him of the plot, and urging
him to communicate it to Cornstalk and other powerful
warriors.[127] Thus this infernal plot was discovered
and defeated. It is impossible to depict in
colours too dark, the infamy of the man, who, not
content with rousing slaves to shed the blood of
their masters, would have brought the knife and
the hatchet upon hundreds of defenceless families
in the great valley of the Alleghanies.
The Committee of Safety had now adopted vigorous
means for completing the military establishment
of Virginia. They had raised three
complete regiments, of which the first was commanded
by Patrick Henry, and the second by William
Woodford: William Christian was Lieutenant-Colonel.
Alexander Spotswood was appointed
Major, and the heroic Bullet, who had so distinguished
himself in the massacre near Fort Duquesne,
was made Adjutant-General.[128]
It will be
his command. Although he was possessed of
undoubted courage, and was not deficient in military
capacity, yet his talents called him to the
council chamber, and we cannot regret that he was
soon induced to resign his commission. He was,
however, moved to this, by some unpleasant differences
with Congress and Colonel Woodford, as to
rank, and his resignation, for a time, threatened to
produce embittered feeling among the volunteers,
but with true patriotism, he quelled the storm, and
urged all to united efforts for their country.[129] Woodford
was a brave and virtuous officer—cautious
without timidity—humane without weakness—decided
without obstinacy. Virginia could not have
entrusted her little army to a more competent
leader.
From his retreat in Norfolk, Dunmore was the
moving power of a disgraceful warfare waged upon
the property and lives of the people exposed on the
bay, or up the lower rivers. He made demonstrations
against Suffolk, in the county of Nansemond,
but a force of riflemen, commanded by Major Marshall,[130]
and Lieutenant Scott, drove him back to his
safeholds. A point known as the Great Bridge,
had become very important to both parties. It was
not more than twelve miles from Norfolk, it crossed
a branch of Elizabeth River, and was connected by
surrounded it, and the road through these led to
Norfolk, and when once gained, opened the way
for the American army. On the island, at the extremity
of the causeway nearest Norfolk, the English
had thrown up a small fort, and on the other
side stood several houses, principally used in the
extensive trade in turpentine and shingles, carried
on through the seaport.
Colonel Woodford, with the second regiment,
and a number of minute men, was sent down to
attack the enemy, and if possible open the way to
Norfolk. He arrived on the 2d December, accompanied
by Adjutant Bullet, whose courage and experience
were thought all-important at this crisis.
From this time until the 9th, nothing decisive took
place—the patriots were employed in throwing up
a breastwork in front of the causeway leading from
the bridge. Frequent skirmishes took place, and
in one of these some negroes were taken prisoners,
on whom were found a quantity of gashed balls.
They declared that this was done under the direction
of Dunmore, who spared no means that ferocity
could suggest, to injure the people so lately
under his charge.[131]
The English force consisted of about one hundred
regulars, and more than three hundred tories,
convicts, and negro slaves. A stratagem is said
to have brought on their attack. Major Marshall's
servant deserted and informed the British commander
shirt men with him, and that these were in a
wretched state of discipline and preparation. It
is not easy to decide whether this scheme was or
was not with the sanction of the American officers.
The number reported was not far from the truth,
and the term "shirt men" was applied by the
English to the rifle troops of Virginia, who wore
the graceful hunting-shirt, afterwards so well
known in the battles of the Revolution. But an
attack was resolved on. (December 9.) At the head
of a select body, embracing the flower of the
regulars, and the best of all the other troops, Captain
Fordyce charged across the bridge, and advanced
upon the breastwork. He was received
with a shower of bullets from rifles, but the outer
guard was broken and dispersed in confusion. The
breastwork was now immediately in front. Waving
his hat gallantly over his head, and cheering on
his men, Fordyce rushed forward in the face of a
terrible fire, which flashed along the whole American
line. A ball pierced his knee; he staggered
forward and fell, but instantly springing upon his
feet, he brushed his knee slightly with his hand,
as though he had fallen by accident, and continued
his advance. Bullet pointed him out to his riflemen,
and the words of caution had hardly passed
his lips, before Fordyce fell dead to the ground,
fourteen balls having entered his body.[132] This was
the signal for the total rout of the English. Colonel
Stevens, with a body of riflemen on the left,
across the bridge, leaving the second in command
mortally wounded, and Lieutenant Battut
severely hurt, and a prisoner in the hands of the
patriots.
The courage displayed by the Virginians in these
scenes, was only equalled by their humanity. Good
authority has proved that Dunmore had told his
inexperienced troops that they would be scalped if
they fell into the power of the enemy, and when
one of the patriots ran forward to help a wounded
soldier who fell on the causeway, the prisoner in
great alarm cried out, "For God's sake, do not
murder me!" The man replied by raising him
tenderly from the ground, and carrying him out
from the dangerous passage. So striking was the
incident, that the British commander, Leslie, acknowledged
it with deep feeling from the platform
of the fort.[133]
The brave Fordyce was interred with
the honours of war. The cruelty of their own
Governor could not make the soldiers of Virginia
forget the duty they owed to a generous and fallen
enemy.
Although Colonel Woodford was too cautious to
attack the British fort, he determined, if possible,
to drive the enemy from the island. Colonel
Stevens volunteered for the duty, and succeeded in
crossing the bridge with one hundred of his finest
marksmen. Here he placed his men under cover,
and kept up an incessant fire, which soon wrought
the desired end. The negroes fled in dismay, and
Finding the fort no longer tenable, Major Leslie
abandoned it, and with his regulars, made good his
retreat to Norfolk. His whole loss, in killed,
wounded, and prisoners, amounted to one hundred
and two men, and he left behind him two spiked
cannon. Not one Virginian was killed, and only
one received a wound.[134]
When Lord Dunmore heard of the result at
the Great Bridge, he was frantic with rage. He
raved like a madman, and swore that he would
hang the messenger who brought the news. But
his passion soon gave way to fear. The road
to Norfolk was now open to the patriots, and
Woodford made preparations to approach the town.
The triumph of the tories was over. Trembling
with alarm, and conscious that they merited nothing
but infamy, they dreaded to meet the victors.
Boastings and insolence were exchanged for impotent
murmurs. Colonel Woodford sent a message
to the mayor and town authorities, informing them
that he was marching with no intent to make war
on the inhabitants, and that he would use no violence
unless he was opposed: he therefore desired
to know what reception he might expect. To this
missive no answer was returned: the chief men
had become too much involved in British interests
to escape, and it is to be feared that too many of
the inhabitants were unfavourable to the cause of
freedom. Nothing now could be seen on all sides
but men and women flying into the country with
such valuables as they could carry. Among these
his preparations for flight. While the danger was
distant he was brave, but the moment it approached,
his cowardly heart gave way. He went hastily
aboard a man-of-war in the harbour, and the English
fleet at the same time received a wretched
train of traitors from Norfolk, who feared to face
their patriot countrymen.
Woodford had been joined by Colonel Robert
Howe of North Carolina, who brought with him
about four hundred and thirty fresh troops. Howe's
commission was from Congress, and under the
rules of the service he took precedence of the Virginia
officer, but the utmost harmony prevailed between
them. At 10 o'clock, on the night of the
14th December, the Americans entered Norfolk;
a few scattering shots were fired by disaffected
inhabitants, but in a short time all was quiet, and
the town was fully under patriot control.[135]
Warm
congratulations were exchanged between the soldiers
and those brave citizens who had remained
faithful in the hour of trial; and addresses full of
gratitude poured in upon the commanders. It
might now have been hoped that Dunmore would
have retired, and that, as he was unable to hold the
place, he would not seek an unmanly revenge, by
endeavouring to injure the town. But there was
nothing generous in his nature: his disappointment
galled him to frenzy, and he sought victims
in all Virginians, whether they were friends or
foes.
The whole force of the Americans under Howe
and Woodford, amounted to twelve hundred and
seventy-five men. Many were raw recruits, but
some were experienced riflemen, and all were animated
by a common spirit of courage and freedom.
To attack the town under these circumstances, was
beyond Dunmore's views: he contented himself
with idle threats, and clamours for provisions. The
utmost vigilance was exerted to prevent supplies
from being obtained by the enemy, and not a
bushel of salt or of grain entered the British ships,
that was not bought with peril, and often with
blood. But on the 19th, the frigate Liverpool, of
twenty-eight guns, commanded by Captain Henry
Bellew, appeared in the harbour, together with an
armed brig, laden with ammunition and military
stores. Encouraged by this reinforcement, Dunmore
renewed his marauding attacks upon the
towns and plantations on the rivers: food was what
he principally sought: he had so long been accustomed
to luxury, that he could ill bear the miserable
pittance of sea-stores, with which the English
were forced to satisfy their hunger. Captain
Bellew joined heartily in his efforts, and finding
that nothing could be obtained by persuasion, he resolved
to try force. He exchanged messages with
Colonel Howe, in which he declared that he was
unwilling to fire upon the town, but that he would
do so unless a supply of fresh provisions should be
furnished for his men. To this menace the American
replied by firmly refusing all aid for the
English in general, although he permitted supplies
course did not allay his irritation, and probably
hastened the catastrophe which followed.
(1776.) The first day of the new year, was one
of signal misfortune for the most flourishing seaport
of Virginia. The frigate Liverpool, the ship
Dunmore, and two sloops of war were moored with
their batteries bearing upon the town, and at half
past three in the afternoon, they opened a tremendous
fire. Heavy balls were hailed upon the
houses, and the streets exposed to the ships were
swept with incessant broadsides. Under cover of
this iron storm, a party of sailors and marines, well
armed, were landed in boats, and immediately set
fire to the warehouses and other buildings upon
the wharves. The great quantity of turpentine
and pitch stored in these houses caused them to
burn with frightful rapidity. The flames devoured
all before them, and the heat was soon so
intense that neighbouring buildings on other streets
caught fire, and in their turn spread the conflagration.
But in the midst of this scene of ruin, the
patriots were at their post; a battalion of riflemen
drew near the shore, and singling out their men in
the party on the wharves, they poured upon them
a fire which drove them back to their boats. Again
and again the attempt to land was renewed. Marines
and sailors gained the shore, but hardly had
they touched the wharves, before the fatal rifles
were at work, and with severe loss they retreated
to the ships. Colonel Stevens, at the head of a
and repulsed every attack made during the
night, and the three days that followed.[137]
Had the Americans contended only with human
foes, they would have triumphed. But the fire
raging in the town was a more fearful enemy. The
wind blew strongly from the shore, and carried
burning shingles to an immense distance into the
heart of the city. Heavy volumes of smoke settled
in the streets, and clouds of heated ashes were
driven in the faces of those who sought to extinguish
the flames. The fire of the English ships
was not suspended for a moment. The incessant
roar of their cannon was heard, and every part of
the town became a mark for their balls. No respect
was paid either to private property or to edifices
intended for religious worship. The time-honoured
church of brick, which stands in the
midst of the city, yet carries the mark of a heavy
bullet, which shattered one of its corners.[138]
For
three days and nights the fire burned without intermission.
Warehouses and stores, private mansions,
and public buildings were alike its victims.
Nine tenths of the town were reduced to ashes, and
property amounting to three hundred thousand
pounds sterling was destroyed. The distress attending
this calamity can be more readily imagined
than described. Out of a population of six
at once deprived of their homes, and driven forth to
seek shelter in the counties above.[139]
Amid these scenes of destruction, it is singular
that, on the part of the patriots, so few lives should
have been lost. One aged woman was killed by a
cannon ball in the upper part of the town. Several
children and females perished in the streets, either
from the shot from the ships, or from the fall of
burning houses; but of the troops, not one man
was killed, and only seven were wounded.[140]
The
loss of the enemy is supposed to have been much
more severe. With what feelings Lord Dunmore
could have contemplated the wanton destruction of
the town, to whose people he owed so much gratitude,
it would be difficult to divine. Brutal revenge
may have been sated, but no really valuable
end was obtained. No food was procured; no foes
were subdued; no spirit of disaffection was overcome.
The Americans had rather gained confidence
by their successful resistance; their souls
were fired with indignation against an enemy capable
of such measures, and their very misfortunes
were converted into nutriment for courage and patriotism.[141]
We must now follow Dunmore to the close of
his inglorious career in Virginia, although, before
he left her shores, events not connected with him
After the burning of Norfolk, he could have
had little hope of an amicable settlement of his
hostilities against the Colony; yet, in the month of
February, we find him entering into correspondence
with Richard Corbin (formerly the King's
receiver-general), and insidiously urging a return
to allegiance to Britain. His letter was laid before
the Committee of Safety, and an interview took
place between Mr. Corbin and the discarded Governor;
but nothing like an approach to submission
can be detected in the conduct of the guardians of
Virginia.[142]
Dunmore was again reduced to a wretched condition.
His fleet consisted not only of the men-of-war,
but of more than fifty transports, carrying a
crowd of unhappy tories, men and women; a great
many negroes, who had been enticed from their
masters; and a rabble of convicts and other degraded
characters, who had joined his standard in
more prosperous times. With them he cruised up
and down the bay, landing at one point, burning
a house at another; stealing private property from
a third. His fleet was scantily supplied with food,
and the increasing heats of the season threatened
sickness of the most fatal character.
Meanwhile the great drama of the Revolution
had fully opened, and to provide for the safety of
the South, Congress had appointed Major-General
Charles Lee to the command of the southern division
of the United Colonies. This well-known
by adoption. He was brave to enthusiasm,
and excitable to a fault; his temper was generous,
but impatient; he knew better how to control others
than himself. His brilliant talents and chivalrous
bearing had already endeared him to all who knew
him, and his eccentricities had not yet become so
glaring as to forfeit public confidence. He arrived
at Williamsburg on the 29th of March, and took in
at a glance the military condition of Virginia. He
saw that so long as the fleet of Dunmore continued
to hover on the eastern waters, the disaffected of
the counties on the bay would meet with aid and
countenance, and though their number was not
large their example was pernicious. In the counties
of Norfolk and Princess Anne, particularly, the
tories still assembled in strength, and finding all
more gentle measures useless, General Lee warmly
supported a stern system, which the Committee of
Safety at length adopted in full.
Orders were sent to Colonel Woodford to remove
all the inhabitants of these two counties living between
the Great Bridge and Kemp's Landing on
the one side, and the ocean on the other. They
were to be carried into the interior, and, at the
same time, all their live stock and other movable
property was to be conveyed to a place of safety,
and kept for the benefit of the owners.[143]
At the
same time General Lee ordered that if any persons
should be discovered in correspondence with the
enemy, they should be seized as traitors, their houses
and handcuffed to Williamsburg, with a written
statement of their crimes.[144]
These harsh but necessary commands, were carried
into effect by Woodford, with a humanity and
skill which reflect on him the highest credit. It
was found impossible to execute the purpose in its
literal sense, but so many of the people were removed,
that few were left to be tampered with by
the enemy, and Dunmore found himself in imminent
danger of famine, from the cautious measures
which had cut off all his streams of supply.
Just in the mouth of the River Piankatank, and
within the limits of the county now known as
Mathews,[145]
lies an island not more than four miles
in length and two in breadth, remarkable for its
fertility and beauty. Gwynn's Island contains
about two thousand acres of land, and at the time
of the Revolution it abounded in natural wealth—
in cattle, fruits, and vegetables, in good water, and
luxuriant verdure.
Dunmore came out from Hampton Roads with
his whole fleet, and after manœuvring for a time
to divert the attention of his vigilant enemies, he
sailed immediately for the island, and on the 24th
of May landed his force, and formed an entrenched
camp for their defence. He had with him at least
five hundred men, including the negroes who had
been seduced from their masters. Here he remained
more than a month, varying the monotony
neighbouring plantations. He considered himself
secure from attack; his fleet was anchored around
the island, and protected by indentations of the
coast from the heavy gales which sometimes sweep
from the ocean up Chesapeake Bay. But as the
heats of summer gained strength, fevers began to
prey upon his men, increased, doubtless, in virulence
by their own profligate habits: many died,
and were hastily interred in hillocks of sand by the
water's side. Dunmore's courage was again ebbing
away, and a vigorous attack only was necessary
to drive him from his post.
This was soon accomplished. Annoyed by the
reflection that this degraded band should be suffered
so long to disturb the welfare of Virginia, the
Committee of Safety sent General Andrew Lewis
to endeavour to dislodge them. This brave officer
had already distinguished himself in his bloody
fight with the Indians at Point Pleasant, and he
eagerly accepted duty, which would array him in
battle against a commander whom he knew too
well to respect. On the 8th of July, at the head
of an efficient force, he reached a point opposite to
Gwynn's Island, and immediately threw up two
batteries—one mounting two eighteen-pounders,
and the other having several lighter guns. The
enemy's land forces were on a point of the island
nearly opposite to the American batteries, and protected
by a breastwork and stockade fort. Their
ships lay in the deep waters around. General
Lewis himself opened the engagement. He pointed
lay in the stream five hundred yards off, and applied
the match: the ball passed directly through
her hull, doing much damage in its way; another
shot cut her boatswain in twain, and wounded three
other men; and the third, from a nine-pounder in
the second battery, beat in a heavy timber in her
quarter, and narrowly missed Lord Dunmore, who
was aboard. His body was wounded in several
places by the splinters, and some of his china was
dashed to pieces around him. In terrible fright,
his lordship was heard to cry out, "Good God, that
ever I should come to this?"[146] He seemed to think
his latter end was drawing nigh.
The fire was too hot to be endured. The Dunmore
cut her cables and hauled off amid a raking
storm of balls; the Otter, which was next to her,
received a shot between wind and water, and slipping
her cable, with difficulty made her escape.
The fleet was now in the greatest confusion, and
had the wind blown on shore, many of them would
have been captured; they escaped only by leaving
their anchors and making off in haste, followed by
discharges from the batteries, which did them heavy
damage. Meanwhile the land forces on the island
received due attention: their fire was soon silenced.
Several of their tents were stricken down by balls
from the lower battery under Captain Denny, and
nothing but want of boats prevented the patriots
from crossing over at once and attacking the encampment.
The next morning General Lewis prepared for
the assault. Having collected all the boats and
small craft in the neighbourhood, he planted two
brass cannon near a place known as Lower Windmill
Point, and trained them upon two English
tenders stationed there to oppose the crossing. The
fire was so severe that one of the vessels ran up a
small creek, and her crew left her and took to the
woods; the other got aground, and being boarded
by the Americans, many of her men were taken
prisoners. The patriots crossed to the island, and
found the enemy's camp deserted; not one was left
to resist; the land forces had taken refuge aboard
the ships, which were already standing up the bay.
A melancholy scene met the eyes of the victors.
The small-pox, and other malignant diseases, had
committed fierce ravages among the English while
at the island. Five hundred are supposed to have
died. One hundred and thirty graves were counted
from the encampment to Cherry Point, the northern
end of the isle. Corpses in a state of putrefaction
were strewed along the shore in half-dug trenches,
and with a few shovels-full of earth thrown over
them. Among the graves was one, carefully prepared
and covered with turf, in which the remains
of an English nobleman, Lord Gosport, were supposed
to rest. Some unhappy wretches had been
burned to death in brush huts in which they had
taken refuge; others were found on the shore gasping
for life, and bearing the hideous signs of the
disease which was destroying them. The hearts
of the patriots were moved to pity by these objects
have found enough to sate it in the misery of their
enemies. On their own part the loss was slight:
one man only was killed. This was Captain
Arundel, who was blown to pieces by the bursting
of a mortar of his own invention, from firing which
he had been in vain dissuaded by more experienced
officers.[147]
Driven from his late place of refuge, Dunmore
sailed up the Potomac River. The spirits of his
people were depressed by defeat and sickness, and
it may well be supposed that he was not himself in
buoyant hope. Yet his predatory excursions were
continued. Above Acquia Creek, in the county of
Stafford, he burned a beautiful edifice belonging to
Mr. William Brent, and the Stafford militia, although
sufficiently numerous to have opposed him,
retreated without striking a blow. But in a short
time, thirty brave men from Prince William arrived,
and by a vigorous charge drove the English
aboard their ships.[148]
A momentary panic only
had seized on the men of Stafford, for no county in
Virginia furnished braver hearts for the subsequent
years of the Revolution. Harassed on every side,
distracted by the mutinies of his own followers,
seeing around him hundreds of men sick and dying
with the fevers of the season, the wretched Dunmore
was a victim of despair and mortification.
His hopes of conquering Virginia were gone, and
he was himself in imminent danger of being made
captive. He sailed with his fleet to Lynhaven
some to the Bermudas, and some to the West Indies.
He himself joined the naval force at New
York, and towards the close of the year, sailed in
the Fowey for England. He never returned to
Virginia. Of all her royal governors, the last may
be truly said to have been the worst. He had the
rapacity of Culpeper, without his polished bearing
—the cruel temper of Argal, without his courage—
and the revengeful spirit of Berkeley, with none of
his high sense of honour. It was meet that in the
person of such a man, kingly authority should expire
in the "Old Dominion."
The measures of Dunmore, and other English
agents, used to rouse the Indian tribes to hostility
against the Colonists, were not without effect. On
the borders of the two Carolinas, and of Virginia,
the Creeks and Cherokees commenced incursions,
and left traces of their course in havoc and bloodshed.
A general combination was formed against
them, and Colonel Christian, of Virginia, marched
at the head of a select body of rangers, and attacked
the Cherokees in their fastnesses. They were protected
by mountain passes, rugged paths through
their forests, by swamps and rivers, and they had
carried their cruelty so far as to burn at the stake
a white prisoner who had fallen into their hands.
But Christian overcame all obstacles, and fell suddenly
upon their towns, four of which were reduced
to ashes. The Cherokee chief, Oucanastota,
sued for peace, which was granted, on condition
that the savages should deliver up the prisoners,
also surrender fifteen hostages, who were to be annually
exchanged for such others as the State of
Virginia might require.[149] Having concluded this
important treaty, Colonel Christian and his brave
army returned to the east (October).
And now we may consider Virginia as fully involved
in the war of the Revolution. Her course
was no longer vacillating. She had sought to
avoid a position of direct hostility to the King of
Great Britain, and had asserted her loyalty even
when the sound of arms had been heard, and her
sons were preparing for the conflict. But now she
took the very front rank in the struggle, which was
to establish the independence of America. Blood
had already been shed upon her soil. Her armies
had marched to give battle to the enemy, and had
achieved victory upon several well-fought fields.
Her principal town had been desolated, and her exposed
places pillaged by the King's forces, under
the King's Governor, and she no longer held out
even the semblance of submission. But while she
was resisting with her soldiers the assaults made
from without, her statesmen were working a mighty
change within, which was destined to affect her
fate through all succeeding generations. Battles
may be fought, and victories won, without real
benefit to the nation for whom they are gained.
Macedonia was cursed by the triumph of her conquering
kings, and Rome was never in so much
danger of slavery, as when the leaders of her legions
in arms is accompanied by wisdom and virtue in
the conduct of her civil interests, that a nation may
esteem her prosperity as founded on a rock.
There are two possessions without which no
people can have that amount of happiness to which
they are entitled by their natural rights: these are
a free civil constitution, and perfect religious liberty.
The mind that will review, without prejudice or
passion, the past history of the world, will be pained
to find how rarely either of these blessings has been
enjoyed by any nation, and how much more rarely
they have been found united. It may be asserted,
without hazard, that until the changes wrought by
the American Revolution, no country ever did possess
them in union, and hence the powerful effect
which this event produced, and is still working
among the older governments of earth. Even
among the boasted republics of antiquity, freedom
was rather nominal than real. The citizen of Rome
might to-day riot in the full enjoyment of his supposed
franchises, and might to-morrow be of the
number shut up to a bloody death under the decree
of a Marius or Sylla. The strongest arm
made right for the time, and the constitution of the
country was the sport of the favourites of fortune.
And though in those days religion was but a show,
it was not always an idle or bloodless one. Idolatry
may be as tyrannous as false Christianity: if
Athens willingly received the gods of other nations,
and added them to her own thirty thousand, she
yet resented every attempt to break the shackles of
known in Greece, Socrates would never have been
condemned to drink the juice of hemlock. To find
liberty, in any just sense, among the people of the
fifteen centuries succeeding the Christian era,
would be a hopeless task. Asia never knew it,
and Europe did not learn it until reflected light
came to her from America. Villeins cultivated
the soil, and even to this day, in some parts of
Austria and Russia, they are transferred from
father to son like beasts of the field; knights and
barons contended for the mastery, and sovereigns
often tottered on their thrones, but the freedom
then enjoyed was only that gained by the heaviest
gauntlet, or the deepest castle-moat. And the
purest of religions had been perverted into the most
revolting of tyrants, who pronounced decrees as by
divine authority, and enforced them with the sword
and the fagot. At the time of the American Revolution,
the harsher traits of European governments
were beginning to disappear, but enough
was left to remind men that they were not free.
Even in England, although her civil constitution
had become the subject of eulogy both at home
and abroad, reforms were needed which have not
yet been ended, and the unhallowed connexion between
Church and State deprived, and does still
deprive, man of his highest right—the free exercise
of his preferences in religion.
When Virginia was startled into action by the
tyranny of the mother country, her eye immediately
fell upon these two blessings, which she had never
seized the time and the means for securing them.
Upon these two points her whole subsequent history
will turn, and it will not be an immoderate
boast to declare that her conduct in gaining them
has entitled her to the gratitude of the civilized
world. Beyond doubt, her example has affected,
not merely each individual state of the American
Union, but the Union itself, in its federal character;
and once more it shall be written that she
was the cradle in which was rocked the infant of
human freedom. She contains but sixty-six thousand
square miles of land, a small territory, hardly
to be discerned on the face of the terrestrial globe;
but her principles are wide as the world, and powerful
as destiny. In order that we may clearly
mark each influence which was employed in conducting
her to these two great ends, we must retrace,
for a time, the course of her fortunes.
Under the rule of a despotic monarch, Virginia
had obtained her General Assembly; but she owed
this to the democracy of the London Company, and
not to the favour of the sovereign.[150]
And though
the Burgesses were elected by the people, their
action was completely controlled by the Governor,
who held an unlimited veto power. This officer
was the creature of the King, was appointed by
him, and removed at his pleasure, and few were
the cases in which the Governor preferred the interest
of his people to the arbitrary will of his sovereign.
During the few years of the English Commonwealth,
at any other part of the colonial period. She
elected her own governors; removed them when
they were refractory; made her own laws, and
levied her own taxes. This was a halcyon time,
which was not long to endure.
Not long after Charles the Second gained the
throne, the real effect of her dependence on the
mother country was made manifest in the Colony,
in a form of stern oppression. The Navigation
Laws have been already explained, and the course
of the Governor drove the people of Virginia into
premature rebellion. No relaxation of the policy
of England succeeded this unhappy outburst; the
grievances of the people continued unredressed
until the fatal line was passed, beyond which submission
was impossible. Yet, even after the Stamp
Act, few of the leading men of the Colony contemplated
independence; the prevalent feeling was
a desire for redress and reconciliation. It was hard
to drive Virginia from her loyalty; but, hard as it
was, her mother effected it, and the very moment
the thought of independence entered her mind, it
expanded into a vigour which swept every obstacle
before it.
The resolutions of Patrick Henry, adopted by
Virginia in 1765, were the earliest authorized expression
of American Independence. They did
not, indeed, declare a design to throw off the yoke
of England; but they stated principles which inevitably
tended to this result. To say that the
Colony would not submit to a claim advanced by
was virtually to declare her freedom. Hence the
wondrous effect wrought by these resolutions; the
enthusiasm with which they were received by the
friends of liberty throughout all the Colonies, and
the strenuous opposition of Virginia statesmen, who
still loved the rule of the mother country. From
the time when these resolutions passed, there never
was the same feeling towards England which had
before prevailed. The charm was dissolved; the
mask had been torn away, and men who, one year
before, had shuddered with horror at the thought
of severing the ties which had so long united the
two countries, now contemplated such a result with
much greater complacency. Yet the approach to
open independence was gradual, and it is not easy
to trace the line beyond which both parties passed
before reconciliation was impossible. It is certain,
that early in the year 1775, no voice in Virginia
had openly proclaimed a wish to cast off all control
of the mother country. During that year we note,
from time to time, in the public prints, expressions
of correspondents which betray a growing feeling
of desire for a free government.[151] We have already
mentioned the remarkable sentiments of the military
convention at Fredericksburg, on the 29th
April, which breathe a spirit of freedom that could
not have been long suppressed.
Virginia will not suffer an unworthy emotion of
pride to urge her to deny the merits of a beloved
sister state. She will rather rejoice in the event
eminence, as the leader in the band of Colonies
which proclaimed for themselves a free government
in America. It is fit that "The Old North State,"
should be thus honoured, for in the Revolutionary
War, few members of the Union contributed more
to the common cause, in proportion to their means,
or bore with more heroic courage the ravages of
an insolent enemy. Beyond rational doubt, the
first written Declaration of Independence was made
in the County of Mecklenburgh, in North Carolina,
on the 20th day of May, 1775. Colonel Thomas
Polk called together the people, who, with simple
manners and Puritan principles, had brave hearts,
and a love of freedom, which rose superior to the
shackles of habit. They adopted a declaration pronouncing
their country independent of Great Britain,
and using terms so nearly similar to those afterwards
introduced into the celebrated instrument of
July 4, 1776, that some have suspected Mr. Jefferson
of having borrowed from the thoughts of the
Carolina patriots.[152] But surely it is not necessary
to detract from the glory of either author of either
instrument. The language of liberty has often
been the same, though coming from men who had
expressions in the Mecklenburgh paper may be
found, not merely in Mr. Jefferson's declaration,
but in other state papers, prepared during the years
1775 and '76.[153] The idea of independence had
gained strength in all minds, and words were not
wanting to express it.
In December of 1775, the Virginia Gazette contained
a letter from "a soldier," in which may be
found clear intimations of a design to assert independence.
"Our cruel enemies have forced us to
pass the Rubicon; we have begun the noble work,
and there is no retreating. The King of England
has proclaimed us rebels. The sword is drawn:
the scabbard must be thrown away: there is no
medium between a glorious defence and the most
abject slavery."[154]
While such sentiments were
openly avowed, it will be apparent that the minds
of many were intent upon a complete rupture of
the ties which had bound them to Britain. While
the whole country was in a ferment of agitation
and united in few things, save in the design to
oppose even unto death the measures of England,
a pamphlet was published which produced a
powerful effect. This was the celebrated "Common
Sense," of Thomas Paine, in which, with
great strength of reasoning and pungency of appeal,
the Americans are exhorted to assert their
natural rights, and declare themselves a free and
independent people. Had Paine never written
name would not now be connected with all that is
odious in vice and irreligion. His pamphlet appeared
in Virginia, in February, 1776, and gave
an additional impetus to the cause of freedom.
Few could resist it longer: cherished prejudices
gave way: the dominion of Britain became hateful,
and the very thought of liberty was so delicious
that all were prone to encourage it. On the
19th of April, the Gazette contained a communication
which was rather the embodiment of popular
sentiment than the appeal of a single writer.[155] It
reviewed the late acts of Virginia; her assumption
of the law-making power; her war against the
Governor, and her military preparations, and then
in a tone of warm exhortation urged her to delay
no longer the call for independence. This appeal
was soon followed by decisive action.
Under these circumstances, the people of Virginia
were called upon to elect members to a Convention,
which, as they foresaw, was to be the most
important in its influence of any that had ever
assembled. The election was held during the
month of April, and at a time when the public
prints, and the speeches of public men, were alike
laden with the great theme of independence. The
very paper which contained the appeal just mentioned,
presented also the names of delegates from
and others had not yet been reported. It would
be unreasonable to suppose that the people were
not fully apprised of the state of their public
affairs, or that they did not elect their delegates to
take such steps as the crisis demanded.[157] The old
government had fallen in ruins; the Governor was
driven in disgrace from his palace; the Burgesses
had no longer any power, real or nominal; and
every convention that had assembled, had acted
not under the colonial constitution, but by the
paramount authority of the people. In fact, each
one of these bodies was revolutionary in its character;
the people finding their former government
intolerable, threw off its shackles, and chose members
of conventions, who made laws and adopted
other measures for the safety of the public.[158] And
if all prior conventions had been distinct from
and paramount to the ordinary legislature, much
more must we so regard this body now constituted
by the people when they were upon the
eve of erecting a new government on the ruins of
the old system. Let these facts be borne in mind,
as they apply with power to a question soon to be
considered.
On Monday the 6th of May, the Convention
brave hearts and bright minds. Some of the
counties in the west were represented by members
whose strong common sense was an ample substitute
for deep culture, but the eastern counties had
selected their greatest ornaments of wisdom and
patriotism, to meet the demands of the time.[159] Edmund
Pendleton was elected President, and in his
opening speech reminded them of the critical state
of their affairs: of the suspension of all the powers
of government, and of their duty to provide for
this emergency. Then the members turned with
serious eagerness to the questions before them, and
in nine days they prepared, approved, and sent
forth to the country a paper, which showed with
what subject their thoughts were chiefly occupied.
(May 15.) Their declaration recites that they
had used all proper efforts to obtain a peaceful redress
of their grievances, and to effect reunion and
reconciliation with England, on just and liberal
terms; that their efforts had produced nothing but
increased insult; that by a late Act of Parliament
the Colonies had been declared to be in rebellion,
and out of the protection of the British Crown;[160]
that their property had been confiscated; their
people forced to join in the murder of their own
friends and relatives; and that the King's Governor
was even then waging an inhuman warfare on their
coasts. Therefore, making a solemn appeal to the
that their representatives in Congress be instructed
to propose to that body to declare the United
Colonies free and independent States, and to give
their assent to any measures for forming a Confederation
of the Colonies for the defence and welfare
of the whole.[161]
Their next resolution was even more important.
By a unanimous vote they provided that a committee
should be appointed to prepare a declaration
of rights, and "Such a plan of government as will
be most likely to maintain peace and order in this
Colony, and secure substantial and equal liberty to
the people." Thus the Convention entered upon
the work, chiefly for which they believed themselves
to have been appointed, and if any proof had
been needed that the people sanctioned their course,
it might have been found in the enthusiasm with
which the resolutions were received. Every where
through the state joy manifested itself in open festivities.
In Williamsburg, military parades, the
firing of artillery, and illuminated houses, betokened
a national triumph. The "Flag of America,"
floated over the Capitol, and when it was first unfolded,
it was received with shouts by a crowd of
citizens drawn together by the interest of the occasion.[162]
From the sea-coast to the extreme west,
Virginia seemed moved by a feeling of gratitude
for the present, and hope for the future.
Twenty-eight members formed the important
May. We find in this body the ablest men in the
Colony selected, and charged with a delicate duty,
upon which depended the happiness of Virginia
for generations to come.[163] On the 12th of June the
"Bill of Rights" was reported to the Convention,
and after a brief debate, was unanimously adopted.
This well-known declaration still adorns the statute-book
of our state, and has the force of the highest
law.[164] In simple and perspicuous language, it announces
principles which, if steadily acted upon,
will secure rational liberty to any country. The
natural rights of man are first declared: all power
is said to be vested in the people, and magistrates
and rulers are merely their responsible trustees.
Hereditary emoluments and privileges are condemned;
the several branches of government are
distinguished; and it is said that law-makers and
law-enforcers should descend, from time to time,
among the common mass of society, that they may
feel their burdens, and sympathize in their calamities.
Trial by jury, in criminal cases, is guarantied;
excessive bail cannot be required, nor excessive
fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments
inflicted; the freedom of the press is guarded
from restraint; standing armies in time of peace
are declared dangerous, and the militia system is
commended for public defence; uniform government
separate from and independent of that of Virginia,
ought to be established within her limits.[165] The
final clause declares that religion can be directed
only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence,
and, therefore, all men are entitled to its free
exercise, according to the dictates of conscience.
After viewing this bold expression of free principles,
we are prepared for the system of government
that followed. Men, whose minds had opened to
take in the teachings of the "Bill of Rights," would
not hesitate to sever the last tie which bound them
to England, and to establish independent rule.
The Constitution intended for Virginia had
been drawn by George Mason, a member of the committee,
famed for his sound learning, his expanded
mental powers, his great strength in argument.
He was not a graceful orator, but he impressed his
hearers by his earnestness, and often entertained
them by his keen sarcasm.[166]
Mr. Jefferson was in
Congress, but, looking with interest upon the progress
of his native state, he sent a draught of a form
of government, prepared by himself, which he
thought suited to the wants of Virginia. Mr.
Wythe received this draught after most of the features
of George Mason's plan had been approved;
but Mr. Jefferson's preamble did so forcibly commend
itself by its review of the grievances of America,
finally received.[167] This preamble is nearly similar
in its enumeration of wrongs to that found in the
Declaration of Independence, and it would be difficult
to read the two without being convinced that
they were from the same pen.
On the 29th day of June, the New Constitution
was submitted to a final vote, and was unanimously
adopted by the Convention. Under this instrument
Virginia was governed for more than half a
century, and to detail with minuteness all its provisions,
would be an unnecessary task.[168]
The several
branches of government are first declared to be
separate and distinct, and then each is constituted.
The Legislature was composed of two parts: the
House of Delegates, consisting of two members
from each county, and one representative for
each city or borough; and the Senate, containing
twenty-four members, sent from the same number
of districts over the state. Rotation was provided
for the senators, by dividing them into four classes,
so that six members must be displaced at the end
of each year. The members of both Houses were
required to be freeholders, and they were to be
elected by voters qualified according to the laws
then in existence on this subject. This law of
suffrage, as we have heretofore seen, had been often
changed, according to the spirit of the age;[169]
but it
was now regarded as fixed, and the right was confined
acres of unimproved, or twenty-five acres of
improved land, or in a house and lot in some town.[170]
The concurrence of both Houses was necessary to
the passage of a law; all bills originated in the
House of Delegates, but might be altered by the
Senate with the assent of the House. But money
bills must in no case be altered by the Senate, but
always either rejected or approved.
A Governor was to be chosen annually, and was
not to be eligible more than three years successively,
nor, after going out of office, was he to be chosen
again until four years should have expired. He
had no voice in making laws, nor was he to exercise
any power or prerogative by virtue of any
statute or ordinance of England. He was to be
aided in his duties by a Privy Council of eight
members, to be chosen by the Assembly, and who
were, from their own number, to choose a President,
who, in the absence of the Governor, was to
act as Lieutenant-Governor. The Governor and
Councillors were liable to impeachment by the
House of Delegates, for offences against the state,
and in such case they were to be prosecuted by the
Attorney-General, and tried by the General Court.
Judges of the Supreme Court of Appeals, and of
of both Houses of the Assembly. They were to
continue in office during good behaviour, and were
to have fixed and adequate salaries, and they, together
with other men holding lucrative offices, and
all ministers of the Gospel, were to be incapable of
being elected members of the Legislature. Justices
of the Peace for the County Courts, were to
be appointed by the Governor, with the advice of
the Privy Council.[171]
With design to close for ever a source of dangerous
dispute, this constitution generously confirmed
to the Colonies of Maryland, Pennsylvania,
North and South Carolina, the territories claimed
by them under their respective charters, but with
these exceptions, the claim of Virginia was fully
asserted to all the lands held and defined under the
Charter of King James, in 1609,[172]
and the Peace of
Paris, in 1763. And it was declared that no purchases
of land from Indians should be valid, unless
made for the public, and by authority of the General
Assembly.
And finally, in order to set the machinery of the
new government in motion, it was provided, that
the Convention should immediately choose a Governor
and Privy Council, and such other officers
as might be necessary. Without delay the votes
were taken, and we are not surprised to find Patrick
Henry made the first free Governor of Virginia.
Edmund Randolph was elected Attorney-General;
of Admiralty, and two Commissioners for
Accounts, were duly chosen.[173]
Thus was the Old Dominion snatched by her
own sons from the grasp of Britain, and erected
into a free and independent state. She has the
honour of being the first of the American Colonies
that totally discarded the rule of the mother country;
for though South Carolina and New Hampshire
had adopted constitutions, they were expressly
declared to be temporary, and intended
only to endure until the difficulties with Britain
were settled.[174]
How different from this temporizing
policy was the blow which at once severed the
chains of English dominion, and threw them from
the arms of her dependant to be felt no more!
This Constitution had been prepared with some
haste, and it is not singular that it should have had
defects and vices. Our surprise should be that it
should have accomplished its purposes so well,
rather than that it should have exhibited imperfection.
And though during its continuance, many
voices were raised against it, and many fingers
pointed to its deformities, yet it is believed that its
greatest evils existed in theory rather than in practice.
These evils may be briefly declared: although
the Constitution pronounced the several
branches of government distinct, yet under its provisions
it seems evident, that both the Executive
and the Judiciary were dependent on the Legislature.
not merely of electing Governor, Council, and
Judges, but of providing for their subsistence while
in office, and under such circumstances it was not
probable, that any act of legislation, however unconstitutional,
would be resisted by the Executive,
or declared void by the Courts.[175] Next, it will be
perceived, that each House was left to fix its own
quorum, or in other words, to decide how few of its
members might bind the whole State, by making
law. The danger of this must be obvious, for if
the law-making power might rest with a small
number, to be decided on by themselves, the temptation
to diminish the number would be strong.
From forty, the number might be reduced to four;
from four to one, and thus despotism would have
been established.[176] But the feature of the Constitution
to which most censure has been applied, was
the narrow right of suffrage. To require that all
voters should be freeholders, excluded a number of
men full of intelligence and patriotism, and liable
to be called on to fight the battles of their country
in time of war.[177] This restriction was a source of
constant uneasiness until the new Constitution was
adopted in 1830; but whether the right of suffrage
in Virginia, as it now exists, be preferable to the
former system, is matter of extreme doubt to reflecting
minds.
Another objection, afterwards strongly urged,
arose rather from the circumstances under which
the Constitution was formed, than from its intrinsic
character. It was contended that this instrument
was not paramount to the authority of the Legislature,
and that it might at any time be changed by
an act of Assembly.[178]
Those who held this opinion,
supported it by arguing that the Convention which
formed the plan of government, had not been regularly
empowered so to do by the people—that
this body could not bind subsequent Legislatures
—that all it had done, was to provide a suitable
scheme for the emergency under which the State
was then placed, and that the people had never in
solemn form ratified and adopted the Constitution.
But on the other hand it was urged, that the attention
of the people had been particularly and earnestly
called to the circumstances under which
members of the Convention were chosen—that the
old government had fallen in ruins—that a new
government was indispensable—that the Convention
was in its very nature, different from, and paramount
to, an ordinary legislative Assembly—
that its action in recommending independence, and
in providing a committee to frame a constitution,
had been received with enthusiasm by the people
—that six weeks passed between the appointment
of this committee and its final report, and yet not
and that the Legislature being itself the creature
of the Constitution, was subordinate to it, and was
bound by its requirements.
The power of these last-noted arguments was recognised
by Virginia. Her Constitution remained
in force until it was regularly remodelled by a
convention chosen for the purpose by the people,
and her General Court, by a sound judicial decision,
declared that this instrument was supreme, and
that an act of Assembly running counter to its
demands, was void and of no effect.[179]
And whatever may have been the defects of her
form of government, one of the grand objects for
which it was intended was accomplished. Virginia
was free from all foreign control. The
dominion of Great Britain was totally destroyed.
No royal governors were hereafter to be sent to
obey a selfish monarch, or to reflect the views of
an unscrupulous ministry, or to pillage on their
own account, the people of their charge. No veto
power was to be exercised by a distant king. No
laws of navigation were to fetter her commerce and
force it by unnatural means into the lap of her
mother. No taxes were to be imposed to swell the
revenues of an establishment three thousand miles
from her shores. And the personal rights of her
people were secured. England had often claimed
the power to seize her Colonists and transport them
for trial to her own soil, but the "Bill of Rights"
upon a firm basis, and threw around him the safeguards
of law.
Civil freedom was rendered absolutely secure in
the "Old Dominion." But there remained another
possession necessary to her happiness which
she had not yet obtained; this was Religious Liberty.
Her declaration of rights did indeed announce
principles on this subject, which, if expanded,
would have produced all she could desire, but the
force of positive law was necessary to cut up by
the roots the system which had grown in such
strength on her soil. The church establishment,
with its legal incidents, had so woven itself into
society, that it was difficult at once to destroy it.
The rights of conscience were yet invaded, and
men were still liable to injury, who did not conform
to the teachings of one favoured sect. We shall
see with pleasure these evils removed, and all men
placed upon equal ground in their religious relations.
But in entering on this subject, it will be
necessary to review the progress of religion in Virginia,
and to trace the steps along which she passed
in effecting this great object. If well ascertained
facts, and legitimate inferences may be trusted, it
will be made apparent, that for perfect freedom in
the exercise of the rights of conscience, the people
of Virginia, and of America, are indebted neither
to Thomas Jefferson, nor to any other secular reformer,
but to men in whose hearts burned the fire
of love to the Redeemer of mankind.
The author hopes he may be pardoned
for recording with pride this
declaration, made in his native town,
fourteen months before the celebrated
instrument of the Continental Congress.
The resolutions in Fredericksburg
bear date April 29, 1775; and
they were, therefore, twenty-one days
prior to the Mecklenburg Declaration
in North Carolina. See Skelton
Jones, 11, 12; Purdie's Virginia
Gazette.
This measure was one of the
weakest of Lord North's administration.
The reader would do well to
examine it. See Bissett, 346-348;
Belsham, vi. 118-124; Graham, iv.
389, 390; Gordon, i. 301, 302.
They were Edmund Pendleton,
George Mason, John Page, Richard
Bland, Thomas Ludwell Lee, Paul
Carrington, Dudley Digges, James
Mercer, Carter Braxton, William Cabell,
and John Tabb. Burk, iii. 429,
430; Jones, 59.
These were two brothers, named
Barron, one of whom was the father
of Captain James Barron, U. S. N
Burk, iii. 431, Howe, 251.
Girardin, 66. L. H. Girardin's
narrative begins on the 65th page of
the History of Virginia, vol. iv.
Burk, iii. 437, 438. Girardin's
account is more favourable to the
militia, 66, 67; but see his note, 67.
This was the great John Marshall,
who now in his 21st year
commenced, as a soldier, a career
which he afterwards continued with
so much distinction, as a statesman
and a jurist.
Burk, 450; Girardin, 101; and
see Letter from Howe and Woodford
to the Convention, Virginia Gazette,
Sup., Jan. 5, 1776.
See a noble letter, signed an
"American," in the Virginia Gazette,
Jan. 5, 1776; Belsham, vi. 162.
For a very interesting review of
the Mecklenburgh Declaration, in
all its phases, see Southern L. Mess.
iv. 209, 210, and post, 481-486, see,
also, Foote's Sketches of North Carolina,
chapter i; and J. Seawell
Jones' Memorials of North Carolina,
26-33. Mr. Jones loves his state
almost to madness. His zeal drowns
both his prudence and his good temper.
He entertains himself with
divers assaults upon Virginia, and
winds up one of his chapters with
"the fiendish falsehoods of the infidel
of Monticello," page 66.
This paper will be found in the
Virginia Gazette for April 19, 1776,
under the head of "Queries for the
Freeholders and People of Virginia."
For "Common Sense," see Paine's
Polit. Works, i. 19-64, particularly
on pages 41, 47, 59.
Mr. Jefferson, in support of his
well-known opinion as to the Constitution
of 1776, says "Independence
and the establishment of a new
form of government, were not even
yet the objects of the people at
large."—Notes on Virginia, 125.
But the contrary has been proved
by many circumstances; and see
Tucker's Blackstone, i. Part 1, Appendix,
page 85, in note.
Revised Code, i. 31, 32. In the
State Library at Richmond, may be
seen the original draft of the Bill of
Rights, as it came from the pen of
George Mason. The last clause was
slightly altered before it was adopted.
This judicious clause was doubtless
intended to exclude, for ever, the
"imperium in imperio," the insinuating
dominion of the Popish church.
Cl. 14, R. C. i. 32.
Jefferson's Notes, 121; Girardin,
151. See the various changes
in the law of suffrage, detailed in
note to 1 R. C. 38, 39. By an act of
Assembly, passed in 1769, the quantity
of unimproved land required,
was reduced from 100 to 50 acres,
but it seems this act never received
the royal sanction. In 1785, by Act
of the Legislature, this reduction
was fully confirmed. Unless we regard
the law of '69 as valid, the
Legislature invaded the Constitution.
On this point Mr. Jefferson and
Judge Tucker do not perfectly agree.
See Notes, 122, 123, and Tucker's
Blackstone, i., Part i., Appendix.
Mr. Jefferson was foremost
among those who held this ground.
See his Notes, 125-129. The other
side of the question is argued, and, I
think, fully proved, by Judge Tucker,
Com. on Blackstone, i., Part i., Appendix,
83-95.
CHAPTER III.
Religion—Man naturally religious—Christianity the only true religion—
Its intrinsic evidences—Union of church and state—Its evils—Reformation—Church
of England established—Bishops—Church established in
Virginia—First ministers—Church under martial law—Establishment
of parishes and glebes—Bigotry of Sir William Berkeley—Archbishop
Laud—Stephen Reek—Intolerance—Its effects—Church in time of
Governor Spotswood—Parishes—Progress of the Established Church—
Her apparent prosperity—Real condition—Evils of the Establishment in
Virginia—Rights of conscience infringed—Injustice to Dissenters—Intolerance—Cruelty—Wicked
clergy—Irreligious people—Conduct of the
Parsons—Rise and progress of Dissenters—Huguenots from France—
Congregationalists from New England—Regular Baptists—George Whitefield
visits Virginia—Effect of his preaching in America—Separate Baptists
—Their rapid progress in Virginia—Their zeal—They are opposed by
the Episcopal clergy—Persecution—Patriotism of the Baptists—Presbyterians
in the Valley—Stone Church of Augusta—John Craig—Origin
of Presbyterianism in Eastern Virginia—John Organ—Samuel Morris
—Luther and Bunyan—Fines—William Robinson arrives—Effect of
his preaching—Samuel Davies—His character and eloquence—His
great success—Hampden Sydney and Liberty Hall—Methodists in Virginia—They
co-operate with the Establishment—Legislature of 1776—
Struggle for religious freedom—Memorials—Mr. Jefferson—Severe conflict—Bill
in favour of Dissenters—Partial establishment of Religious
Liberty.
Religion is natural to man. Were he now perfectly
pure and upright, it would be his most
eagerly sought privilege to look to the Great First
Cause, and with warm love to acknowledge dependence.
Even his present depravity has not
shut his mind entirely to the claims of Deity.
and the heart, the first admitting the existence of
a God and ascribing to him all conceivable perfections,
the last abhorring his holiness, and turning
away from the light so unwelcome to its own
darkened impulses. Atheism is the fault not of
the head, but of the heart;[180] and it has seldom been
avowed, and never fully believed. Man has not
been able to resist the convictions of his own judgment,
strengthened by the voice of conscience, the
mystic witness for the truth, who lives in his
bosom. And therefore throughout all ages, however
dark, and among all nations however savage,
the belief in the existence of a God has been found
to prevail, and to keep alive the prominent motives
of religion. But on this subject the sophistries of
depraved affections have never been silent. They
have been constantly pleading against the truth,
and though they have not availed entirely to cover
it, yet they have obscured its lustre, and degraded
its majesty. Hence it is that no nation, however
enlightened, has been able by its own wisdom to
provide a religion which would either restrain from
vice or guide to virtue.
Had Christianity been of human invention, it
would have borne the marks distinguishing all religious
systems of man. The same lowering of
the Divine character; the same arguments from
human frailty; the same compromise of the claims
of reason and appetite would have been found,
which attend the most refined theories of heathen
in its holiness, and as it is the only true religion,
so does it carry in its own teachings the infallible
evidences of its truth. It has indeed its external
demonstrations; miracles proved by testimony
above the possibility of falsehood, or of undesigned
error, and prophecy which gathers power with the
unfolding of each successive page in history; but
these are evidences which can only be appreciated
by the learned, and which may convince the intellect
without moving the heart. The Author of
Christianity designed that it should carry with it
power to convince by its intrinsic authority. The
man who will apply his mind to its teachings, will
believe as certainly as the man who will open his
eyes in the sun's rays will see the light around
him. It is because it provides an adequate remedy
for every ill, that the recipient of its benefits knows
it is from the Author of good. Pardon for sin;
purity for corruption; comfort for sorrow; unerring
precepts for doubt in duty; a life of usefulness; a
death of peace, and an eternity of happiness: these
are gifts offered by the religion of Christ, in a form
which no man resists who desires to know the
truth. But to accomplish its object, it must be
pure as when it was first taught by its inspired
originators. Mixed with human devices, it loses
its force for good, and becomes the more dangerous
because of its exalted claims.
Among the unhallowed inventions which have
been applied to this system, none has produced so
unhappy results as its union with civil government.
good citizen, but the law of the land can never
make a man become a Christian. It was a sad
day for religion when the Emperor Constantine
adopted the church as his ward, and began to
enforce her lessons by the arm of civil authority.
The fires of persecution were better than the
splendours of a seeming prosperity, which deadened
her soul, and threatened to destroy it. From
this time we trace the decline of virtue and the
growth of corruption; but power was too sweet to
be rejected; and in the old world Christianity has
not yet thrown off the shackles which have so
long confined her. The church is linked to the
state, and, like the dead body chained to the living
victim, it gains no vitality for itself, and gradually
destroys its hapless companion.
At the time when the settlement of Virginia
commenced, England had laid, broad and deep,
the foundations of her Episcopal Church establishment.
The dominion of Rome had been rejected,
Popery was discarded, and English reformers had
striven to give to their country a system of religious
rule which would secure her welfare. But their
reformation fell below the demands of liberty.
We may not be surprised at this when we remember
how long the human mind had been
moulded by habit, and how far the boldest reformers
of Europe then sank beneath the principles
of true religious freedom. Two remnants
of a corrupt age were unhappily retained in remodelling
the ecclesiastical system of England.
the King himself became the head of
Christ's kingdom on earth; clergymen, as such,
sat among the peers of the land, and voted for
her laws; and men, whatever might be their
opinions, were compelled to pay tithes to support
their spiritual teachers. Secondly, an order of
clergy superior to the rectors or pastors, who
overlook particular congregations. This superior
order has long been distinguished by the title of
bishops, but they are not the bishops designated
and appointed by the New Testament;[181] they are
the successors of the Apostles of the primitive
church. It is true the Apostles were all inspired
men; were all distinguished by having seen Christ
in bodily form, and were so exalted in their duties
and character, that, to a common understanding, it
would seem impossible that they should have successors;
but this difficulty has been removed in
England and in Rome. The bishops of the Episcopal
Church bear the same relation to the Apostles
that the Pope does to Peter, and few who acknowledge
the exclusive claims of the first will be long
disposed to deny those of the other. History,
whose province it is to search for the truth, discovers
with surprise that there was a time when
the claims of each were equally unknown; that in
Prelate had no existence; that bishops were then
what the New Testament requires them to be,—
overseers of a single flock,—humbly ministering
the bread of life to a single congregation, and
uniting together when the interests of the Church
required it; and that centuries of darkness and vice
were necessary to make men believe that the
Apostles needed successors, and that the Pope held
the keys of St. Peter.[182]
But definite form, though important for the perfection,
is not essential to the being of a church.
Her diocesan bishops might not have injured the
Church of England on her own soil and ruined her
in Virginia had no other causes operated to her detriment.
The unholy link which bound her to the
state was the iron that entered her soul and continued
to corrode until life was destroyed.
The first ship which conveyed settlers to the
banks of the Powhatan, brought a minister of the
Gospel to promulgate Christianity among the heathen.
This was the Rev. Robert Hunt, who, in
many things, proved himself to be possessed of the
spirit of his divine Master.[183]
King James, in his
articles of instruction, required that the Church of
the mother country should be established for her
Colony, and nominally, at least, the settlers claimed
to the precepts of their creed, may be inferred
from the review of their course already presented,
their folly and riot, sedition and debauchery.
Yet, for the crimes and wretchedness of the early
Colonists, we may not blame their preachers. We
have reason to believe that the ministers did their
duty, and that, as they had braved a life of self-denial
for the sacred cause of their adoption, so did
they afterwards persevere in efforts for its progress.
Such men as Hunt and Thorpe would now be
welcome accessions to the ecclesiastical bodies of
the United States.
Among the first buildings commenced at Jamestown
was a church, and though its structure was
rude, a sanctity seems to have surrounded it, perhaps
more imposing, because of the wild turbulence
which it sought to check in its worshippers. It
was destroyed by a fire, which, at the same time,
burned up the books and clothing of Mr. Hunt,
and left him even more destitute than his companions
in trial. The church, however, soon rose
from its ashes; it survived the miserable scenes of
the "starving time," and, when Lord Delaware
arrived in 1610, he assembled the people in the
sacred edifice, and Mr. Bucke, the chaplain of the
Somer Islands, "made a zealous and sorrowful
prayer, finding all things so contrary to their expectations,
so full of misery and misgovernment."[184]
Except the instructions of the King, the first
Colonists had been left without positive written law,
and in the times of trouble they encountered, it
would have been impossible to do more than leave
them to their own wishes as to religious worship.
But when Sir Thomas Dale assumed the Government,
in 1611, he introduced the stringent laws provided
by the Treasurer, and on no subject was this
system more arbitrary than in its government of
the Church. It commanded that military and civil
officers should take care that "Almightie God be
duly and daily served;" it required that blasphemy
against the Trinity should be punished with death;
that cursing and swearing, or the irreverent use of
God's name, should be punished by a bodkin thrust
through the tongue, for the second offence, and by
death for the third: that any one who behaved improperly
to a preacher, should be openly whipped
three times, and publicly ask forgiveness. The
tolling of the bell was to be the signal for all men
and women to repair to church; and stripes, the
galleys, and finally death itself, visited its neglect.
Men were required to give account of their faith
and religion, and to submit to catechising by their
minister, and if they refused, daily whipping was
to be inflicted until they gave signs of repentance.[185]
These were times when religion was to be taught
with the whip, when the heart was to be affected
by the punishment of the body, and when prayer
code was too cruel to be rigidly enforced, yet we
have reason to believe it was not entirely a dead
letter. When Argal became Governor, he took
special delight in reviving it, and many Colonists
learned in sadness that the Church was the occasion
of stripes and slavery, rather than of freedom
and happiness.[186]
Though the martial code soon fell into disuse
and was repealed, yet the laws of the Colony never
recognised the rights of conscience. The first acts
of the General Assembly which are now recorded
in our statute book, gave permanent establishment
to the Episcopal Church, by erecting bounds corresponding
with parishes, and laying a tax on the
people for the support of their ministers. Each
male over sixteen years of age wero to be liable for
ten pounds of tobacco and one bushel of corn, and
each minister was to receive fifteen hundred pounds
of tobacco and sixteen bushels of corn.[187]
It is
thought that at this time there were but five clergymen
in Virginia, Messrs. Whittaker, Bargrave,
Wickham, Mease, and Stockham, yet the people
found it difficult to yield to them the required support,
and it was ordered that six tenants should be
placed on every glebe in order to its cultivation.
The Bishop of London undertook to provide for the
spiritual wants of the settlement, and without any
express authority, his jurisdiction as their diocesan
seems to have been thenceforth admitted by the
churches of Virginia.[188]
As the settlements advanced up the rivers and
embraced belts of fertile land running back from
the Bay, the number of parishes gradually increased.
We may suppose that outward regularity appeared
in the progress of the Church; that on the Sabbath
the preacher was at his stand, clothed with a surplice,
and armed with an English prayer-book, and
that the people complied with the letter of the law,
and attended worship rather than pay fines.[189]
We
find no mitigation in the system which required
conformity to the teachings of the establishment.
Papists and Puritans were alike proscribed, and
Quakers were visited with open persecution. During
the reign of Charles the First, the principles of
Archbishop Laud were openly approved by the
rulers of Virginia, and his example was proposed
as worthy of all acceptation. From an individual
case we may form some idea of the intense bigotry
of soul which distinguished Sir William Berkeley
In 1642, Stephen Reek was brought before the
General Court on grave charges. Indignant at the
insolence of the Archbishop, and the favour with
which Charles regarded him, Reek had been heard
to say that "his Majesty was at confession with my
Lord of Canterbury." For this, he was tried, condemned,
and punished. He was set in a pillory
for two hours, with a label on his back on which
his offence was described; he was fined fifty pounds
and imprisoned during the pleasure of the Governor.[190]
It may be unjust to blame the Episcopal Church
for all the tyranny which the law-makers of Virginia
inflicted in her name, but it is natural that
men should have revolted at a rule which was
manifested in so many odious forms. We have no
reason to believe that any one was put to death
either for religious opinions or for witchcraft,[191]
but
cases of individual wrong were so numerous as to
excite indignation even among those who had been
friendly to the Church. Immediately after the
punishment of Reek, we find a solemn application
sent from Virginia to Massachusetts, to implore
that ministers of the Gospel might be sent, that the
people "might be privileged with the preaching
and ordinances of Jesus Christ." This message
was sent, not from Puritans, or Quakers, or Dissenters
of any kind, but from men who had grown
up under the eyes of the Establishment, and who
yet saw enough to make them hate her oppression.[192]
Under this invitation three Congregational
preachers came to Virginia, but the Governor was
prepared to salute them with a law forbidding any
man to preach in the Colony, who did not bring a
certificate of conformity from some Bishop in England,
and authorizing his Excellency to silence all
others, and if necessary to compel them to decamp.[193]
The private people kindly entertained the strangers,
soon be upon them, they returned to the north.[194]
During the administration of Governor Spotswood,
the Church attained a permanency of outward
position which it had not before enjoyed.
The settlements in the Colony had then covered
the eastern lands running nearly to the first range
of mountains; each neck of country between the
great rivers was well peopled, and it is believed
that nearly one hundred thousand souls were to be
found in Virginia. Twenty-nine counties composed
the state, and these were subdivided into
fifty-five parishes. The bounds of the parishes
did not, however, correspond with those of the
counties, and were not often laid out with reference
to them. In the northern neck, between the Potomac
and Rappahannoc Rivers, were eleven parishes;
between the Rappahannoc and York there
were thirteen; between the York and James, fifteen
parishes complete, and the part of Bristol
lying in Henrico County, north of the river; and
between the James and the Carolina boundary,
thirteen, together with the remainder of Bristol.
On the eastern shore there were two parishes,
which bore the names of Hungers and Accomac.[195]
These church divisions were unequal in size,
some being more than sixty miles long, while
others were not one-fourth so large, but their capacity
they embraced, than by the acres of land over
which they were spread.
From this time until the opening of the Revolution,
the exterior advance of the Church was nearly
in proportion to the progress of the Colony. As
the number of inhabitants increased, so did the
number of churches and parishes. In 1771, there
were in Virginia more than one hundred churches,
and nearly that number of ministers.[196]
It was at
this time that a serious attempt was made to procure
from the British monarch an American Episcopate.
The Churchmen of New York, New Jersey,
and Connecticut, had long desired it, and
Professor Camm, of William and Mary College,
was known to be its ardent advocate. But it is
believed that a majority of the clergy of Virginia
were opposed to it, and it is certain that the Convention
assembled to consider the question, consisted
of but twelve ministers, that a favourable
vote was obtained with much difficulty, and that a
solemn protest was entered against the scheme by
Rev. Messrs Henly and Gwatkin, whose action
drew a vote of thanks from the General Assembly.[197]
It is strange that such a proposition should
have been made just at the time when the influence
of the mother country became most oppressive,
and when acknowledgment of dependence
upon her was growing odious to every patriot; but
seemed to draw its life only from her favour.
There had long been, and was still, an appearance
of prosperity thrown like a veil over the
Church in Virginia, which might have deceived a
casual observer. Nearly every parish contained a
glebe, generally consisting of two hundred acres of
land, for the support of the rector; each glebe had
a church or chapel, and commonly a parsonage,
where the incumbent should dwell. The stranger
who would pass through the Colony without pausing
to remark closely upon her features, would be
charmed with the prospect of her religious character.
After a ride through thick forests or uninviting
plains of tobacco, he would see before him a
modest church, contrasting in snowy whiteness
with the green foliage around, or overrun with
moss and creeping vines. His eye would be refreshed
by the cultivated fields of the glebe, and
the humble dwelling of the pastor would bring
warmly upon his heart, hopes of piety and domestic
bliss.[198]
And it is not to be denied, that the liturgy
of the Church of England contains many wholesome
exhortations, many pertinent prayers, many
scriptural remonstrances, which ought to improve
her worshippers, and that the practice of regularly
reading this liturgy, which was required by law,
may have spread among the people knowledge
which ought to have guided them to virtue. But
with this seeming life there was actual death, and
not death merely, but all the ghastly consequences
corruption beneath the gilded tomb—the worms
which prey upon the corpse when the soul is gone.
Let the evils attendant upon the Church establishment
of Virginia be fairly stated. First, it deprived
men of the free exercise of the rights of conscience.
It is vain to say that men may think as
they please, when they are compelled by law to
attend on the ministrations of one religious sect, or
to endure fines for non-compliance. The privileges
of citizenship itself were denied to Dissenters,[199]
and
the person who chose to depart from the requirements
of the established religion, was met by innumerable
vexations which would goad almost to
madness a soul sensitive to freedom. It was with
delay and reluctance that the Courts of Virginia
construed the "toleration laws" of England to
have any operation in the Colony, and when they
were admitted, their efficacy was confined within
the narrowest limits possible.[200]
Secondly, it compelled every man, whatever
might be his opinions or his scruples, to contribute
to support the Episcopal ministers. He might be
a Quaker, or a Baptist, or an Independent, but his
fate was the same. After induction by the Governor,
the rector had a freehold claim upon his
glebe, and a right to demand at law the stipend
granted to him by enactments of the Assembly. It
is true, that the regular process of induction was
only received by the vestry of the parish, and was
considered as only having title to his rents and profits
from year to year; but even in such cases the
tithes were to be paid by all liable to them, and he
might sue trespasses on the glebe lands. And by
a law passed in 1748, it was enacted, that even
where a minister was only received without induction,
he should have a right to all the spiritual and
temporal benefits of his place, and might maintain
an action against any who attempted to disturb
him.[201] This act, in great measure, removed the
distinction between the two modes of possessing a
benefice, and armed the rectors with legal authority
to collect their dues. The effect was obvious:
on no subject are men less willing to be forced
than in religion, and many who would voluntarily
contribute to its support, feel it to be tyrannous,
that they shall be compelled to pay teachers with
whose ministry they would willingly dispense.
Thirdly, it produced many overt and shameful
acts of intolerance. We have already noted some
of the laws requiring conformity, and have seen
that they were not inoperative. If Virginia never
was stained with the blood of Dissenters, it was due
to peculiar circumstances, rather than to the mildness
of her code, or the tolerant spirit of her churchmen.
Stripes, fines, and imprisonment, were often
inflicted; individual examples have been heretofore
mentioned, and more oppression will be seen
as we pass through the history of other denominations.
responsible for these cruelties. The establishment
unquestionably was, for without it there could have
been no such thing as dissent, and therefore no
laws against it. These oppressive acts affected
strongly, though silently, the whole body of the
people, and contributed, with other causes, to reconcile
nearly all men to the heavy strokes which
finally levelled the Established Church with the
ground.
Fourthly, it introduced into Virginia a body of
ministers without piety, and by necessary reaction,
the people were as graceless as their pastors. We
will do full justice to the good men who from time
to time adorned the Episcopal Church in the
Colony. Such men as Hunt and Thorpe, Whittaker,
Jarratt, and Morgan, need no apologists, for
their conduct was above suspicion. Even Mr.
Blair, the commissary, has left behind him evidences
of personal religion which may lead us to
deal gently with his clerical aspirings, and his exclusive
admiration of his Church. Had he not
loved purity, he would not have chosen Christ's
Sermon on the Mount as a subject for a series of
discourses, and had not his thoughts been worthy
of their subject, they would not have drawn praise
from the conscientious Doddridge.[202]
But it is a
Episcopal preachers in Virginia were men whose
lives were any thing but illustrations of the Gospel.
It could not have been otherwise under the system
which brought them from the mother country.
Men of high character and consecrated learning
had little inducement to leave England and come to
the Province; and accordingly, those who offered
themselves to the Bishop of London, were generally
unfit for preferment at home. Cases are not
wanting, in which candidates who had been
solemnly rejected in Britain, were afterwards sent
with full certificates to the Colony.[203] The result of
this system was soon apparent.
The clergymen contented themselves with a
sleepy performance of their duties on the Sabbath,
and on other days pleased the flesh with much
worldly entertainment. To read the service became
mechanical, and the hearers grew weekly
in apathetic indifference. Virginia has always
abounded in temptations to doubtful pleasure, and
her churchmen of the colonial period did much to
cultivate this taste. Her Episcopal divines frequented
the race-field and the ball-room. They
baptized children amid scenes of hilarity, where
wine flowed in streams, and the dance enabled
them to display their clerical grace.[204]
Many of
them betted freely at cards, and rattled dice in a
shame. One clergyman was known for a long time
to be president of a jockey-club,[205] and doubtless his
services in this capacity were adjudged more important
than in the pulpit. One reverend gentleman
laid aside his spiritual armour, and having
taken carnal weapons, fought a duel within sight
of the very church where his own voice had often
been heard praying to be delivered "from battle,
murder, and sudden death."
The effect of such a ministry upon the people
may be readily conceived. An utter want of the
spirit of piety, and a hatred of the truth, can be
detected in many of the manifestations of this
period. If a minister ever rose above the dead level
of his peers, and preached against popular vices,
vestry and people both fell upon him, and ceased
not to annoy him, until he was driven from his
place.[206]
So glaring was the wickedness of the
clergy, that the General Assembly, at an early
period found it necessary to enact that "ministers
shall not give themselves to excess in drinking or
riot, spending their time idly by day or night."[207]
Even Sir William Berkeley complained that, as of
all other commodities, so of ministers, the worst
only were sent to the Province;[208]
and as late as
1751, the Bishop of London, in a letter to Dr.
Doddridge, speaks of the clergymen of Virginia
as "willing to go abroad to retrieve either lost fortunes
power to depose; distance from the diocesan in
England prevented discipline, and cases of enormous
delinquency occurred among the clergy of
the Province which were never visited with punishment.[210] Thirty years ago, eye-witnesses were alive
who had seen ministers of the Church enter the
pulpit in a state of intoxication, so disabling, that
their tongues refused to pronounce the oft-repeated
words of the liturgy.
Thus the religious establishment of Virginia was
weakened by its own inherent vices. It had the
sanction of law, the support of learning, and the
countenance of men in high places. Nevertheless
it tottered to its fall, and even had it not been
attacked by other sects, it would at last have been
crushed in the general struggle between tyranny
and freedom, of which America was the scene.
The earliest traces of Dissenters in Virginia are
found in the year 1619. A small band of Puritans
then inhibited her soil,[211]
but they soon disappeared
under the sinister influences bearing upon them.
After the Quakers were introduced, they were for
a time active and numerous, but their efforts
were gradually relaxed, and their numbers rather
dwindled than increased. In 1690, King William
sent a large body of French Protestants to Virginia.
During the presecutions which were at last consummated
by the revocation of the Edict of Nantz,
that two hundred thousand Huguenots suffered
martyrdom, and seven hundred thousand were
driven from the kingdom. But the cruelty of
France furnished citizens for America. Besides
those who came in 1690, nine years afterwards
another body of six hundred, under Philippe Da
Richebourg, came to Virginia, and were assigned
lands on the south side of James River, about
twenty miles above the present site of Richmond.
They were rigid Calvinists in doctrine, but their
misfortunes and industry alike commended them
to the favour of the government. They spoke no
language except their own, and could have appreciated
no religious services except from their own
pastors. The Assembly passed laws for their encouragement;
gradually they became assimilated
to the people around, and lost their national peculiarities:[212] yet their influence is still felt. While
the names of Lacy, and Fontaine, and Maury, shall
be found in her borders, Virginia will be reminded
of the Huguenots of France.
When the Congregational preachers from New
England visited the southern Colony in 1642, it
was thought by them that many people could be
found favourable to the independent mode of religious
worship; and six years after, the number of
such was stated at one thousand, by a Congregational
divine who had been driven from Virginia
by her intolerant laws.[213]
This was a mere conjecture,
exaggerated. It is certain that early in the administration
of Spotswood, dissent was almost unknown.
Four churches not connected with the
establishment were all that could be found in the
whole Colony, east of the Blue Ridge, and the
strong denomination soon to be spoken of had not
yet commenced its career in the beautiful valley of
Virginia.
About the year 1714, a small number of Baptists
from England settled in the southeastern part of
the Colony, and nearly thirty years afterwards,
another body came from Maryland, and occupied
one of the northern counties, then thinly inhabited.[214]
These were the regular Baptists, and though they
were not without zeal, they were speedily eclipsed
by more enthusiastic brethren.
In 1739, a prodigy of religious energy and eloquence
appeared in America. George Whitefield
crossed the Atlantic, and lighted in the New World
the flame which had been kindled by the fire of
his heart among his countrymen in Britain. To
use the thought of one who had appreciated his
labours, he was the angel of the Apocalypse flying
through the land, having with him the everlasting
gospel to preach to all people.[215]
Wherever he came,
he roused men who had long slumbered in apathy.
His influence was not confined by colony, or state,
or sect, or party. He sought for souls with a
singleness of purpose, which excluded minor distinctions.
and Churchmen, alike glowed beneath his
words. When he came to Virginia in 1740, no
opposition was made to his preaching, as he was
an ordained minister of the Church of England,[216]
but though some who loved the Establishment
heard him gladly, there were others who regarded
him as an enthusiast, and would afterwards willingly
have closed his mouth.[217]
Whitefield's appearance was a new era in the
religious history of America. Even before he came,
deeper interest had been felt by some northern congregations
as to the personal effects which Christianity
ought to produce, but his breath kindled this
feeble spark into a brilliant flame. The doctrine of
the "new birth," preached with power and earnestness
by the reformers of the eighteenth century,
was so novel to those who had been slumbering
beneath the establishments of Congregationalism
and Episcopacy, that its advocates were called
"New Lights."[218]
This title was not applied to any
particular sect, but to all, of every denomination,
who followed the disciples of Whitefield. Extensive
divisions occurred among the prevailing denominations,
and a large number of Baptists at the
north, inspired by the zeal of the times, left their
brethren, and were afterwards known as Separate
Baptists.[219]
Between the years 1744 and '55 many
places on her borders, in North Carolina, commenced
preaching to such congregations as they
could gather. In a short time their success was
great. From twelve or fourteen, their communicants
swelled to more than six hundred. They began to
extend their labours into Virginia. In August,
1760, the first Baptist Church of this order was
planted on the soil of the Old Dominion;[220] but soon
the number was greatly increased.
Samuel Harriss was one of the strongest supports
of the early Baptists in the Colony. He was born
in Hanover, but was a resident of Pittsylvania, and
had filled many dignified stations. He had been
Sheriff and Colonel of militia, Justice of the Peace,
and Burgess for his county; but, laying aside temporal
honours, he was baptized by immersion, and
became a preacher.[221]
Meanwhile, zealous exertions
in the same cause were made by others, and their
progress grew with their efforts. The counties of
the North Carolina border were visited, and Goochland,
Louisa, Fluvanna, Orange, and Spotsylvania,
witnessed the rise of large Baptist churches. If
we may trust to tradition, an influence approaching
the supernatural urged on the work, and directed
certain preachers to particular parts of Virginia, in
which they were specially called to labour. James
Read lived in North Carolina, sixty miles from the
border. His own account states that powerful impulses
moved his heart to preach in the neighbouring
congregations there hanging upon his words, and
in his sleep he was sometimes heard by his family
to cry out "O Virginia, Virginia, Virginia!" At
this juncture he was visited by Samuel Harriss and
three others, urging him to come to Orange County,
and preach the Gospel. Faith, whether misguided
or otherwise, found in this message a resemblance
to the call of Peter from Joppa to Cesarea;[222] he
obeyed the summons, and although uneducated,
his zeal seems to have supplied the want both of
learning and prudence.
Whatever view we may take of the above case,
and of similar accounts from others, it is certain
that the Baptists increased rapidly in numbers
and power in the Province. Fervent declamation
distinguished them; the prominent motives
of the Gospel were presented in language
made strong by its earnestness; the joys of heaven
and the torments of hell were opened to the eyes of
the hearers, and men were urged to immediate repentance,
faith, and baptism. The practice of immersion
forcibly addressed the senses, and gave
something more substantial upon which to dwell
than the simple rite of other churches. The people
heard the Baptists gladly; day after day added
fresh accessions, and it was apparent that they could
no longer be without weight in the counsels of the
Colony.
Their beginnings may have been seen with indifference
by Churchmen, but, as they grew, this
apathy was disturbed, and at length was converted
into stern opposition. At first it was hoped they
might be conquered by the weapons of argument;
the rectors of parishes began to preach against them,
and Episcopal disputants sometimes attended their
meetings and opened controversy. They argued
that the new sect were followers of the Anabaptists
of Germany, whose horrible excesses in Munster,
and other places, had made their name odious
throughout Christendom.[223]
They urged that the
Baptists were novel, both in their doctrines and their
origin; they were rude and unlearned, and so incapable
of understanding church order; that they
operated only on the lower classes of society; that
they disturbed the peace of the Establishment which
had so long existed; and that they were wolves in
sheep's clothing, coming in humble garb for purposes
of violence. But the Baptists were ready to
render a reason for their course. They utterly disclaimed
connexion with the Anabaptists, whom
they resembled in nothing save in the mode of administering
baptism; they declared that their doctrines
were not novel, but were found in the Word
of God; they admitted that they were unlearned,
but urged that so were the early disciples of Christ,
who received from him authority to preach; they
gloried in proclaiming the Gospel to the ignorant
and the poor; and declared that if they disturbed
the calm of the Establishment, it was a deathlike
they asked, why, if they were really wolves in disguise,
were they so grievously hunted and trodden
down by the true sheep of the fold?[224]
Finding that argument availed them little, the
friends of Episcopacy drew the sword of persecution.
It is believed that at this period no express
statute of Virginia authorized the imprisonment of
any man for preaching without being ordained, or
being licensed according to the Act of Toleration;
but pretexts have never been wanting for religious
cruetly. In June, 1768, John Waller, Lewis Craig,
and James Childs, all zealous Baptists, were seized
by the sheriff in the county of Spottsylvania, and
carried before three magistrates, who stood ready
in the yard of the meeting-house. The victims
were bound over to appear at court two days afterwards,
and when they appeared accordingly, they
were told they should be released if they would
promise to preach no more in the county for a year
and a day. This they positively refused to do, and
they were immediately ordered to jail. As they
passed through the streets of Fredericksburg, they
sang in solemn concert the hymn beginning "Broad
is the road that leads to death." The people listened
in awe, and sympathy began to move many
hearts, in view of persecution.[225]
While they were in jail, they preached to the
people through the gratings of the windows and
doors. The effect of such scenes may be imagined.
The mob might deride, but there were sensitive
spirits upon whom the very semblance of oppression
would have its effect, and the new denomination
gained daily in numbers. Craig was kept in jail
four weeks, and his companions for forty-three days,
and when they were discharged, no concessions
were made on either side.
A well-supported tradition has told us that when
these three Baptists were brought to trial in Fredericksburg,
the Prosecuting Attorney had drawn
up an indictment against them "for preaching the
Gospel contrary to law." Patrick Henry had
heard of the case, and rode fifty miles to hear more.
He kept his seat while the indictment was read,
and while the prosecutor opened the cause, then
rising, he solemnly addressed the court: "May it
please your worships, what did I hear read? Did
I hear it distinctly, or was it a mistake of my own?
Did I hear an expression that these men, whom
your worships are about to try for misdemeanour,
are charged with—preaching the Gospel of the Son
of God?" The tone, the manner, the subject, sent
an indescribable thrill to every heart. Then continuing,
the orator carried home his appeal with
such power that the Prosecuting Attorney turned
pale with agitation, and the court was hardly restrained
from directing the sheriff at once to discharge
the prisoners.[226]
Yet even Patrick Henry
by an Established Church.
Similar persecutions were again and again exhibited.
In 1770, William Webber and Joseph
Anthony were seized and imprisoned in Chesterfield
County. They invited hearers to the outer
walls of the jail, and in the language of the reverend
gentleman who has described them, "they
did much execution by preaching through the
grates."[227]
In Middlesex and Caroline Counties,
many Baptist ministers were arrested and confined.
They were lodged in jails swarming with vermin,
and were treated like criminals; yet their spirits
were buoyant, and persecution did nothing but increase
the zeal and number of the sect. Insult was
often offered to their ministers during service, and
frequently mounted men would ride into the water
while they were administering immersion, and attempt
to turn the ceremony into a farce.[228]
There
were few in the Established Church who did not
oppose them. In 1772, a letter appeared in the
Virginia Gazette, addressed to the Anabaptists imprisoned
in Caroline.[229]
The writer justifies their
imprisonment, on the basis, not of any statute, but
of the English common-law. He charges them
with teaching heresy and hateful doctrines, and
with disturbing the peace of religion. He admits
that the English Act of Toleration applies to the
Colony, but denies that the Baptists are entitled to
its benefit.
Religious tyranny produced its accustomed effect:
the Baptists increased on every side. If one
preacher was imprisoned, ten arose to take his
place; if one congregation was dispersed, a larger
assembled on the next opportunity. Twenty years
before the Revolution, few of this sect could have
been found in the Colony, and yet, in 1774, the
Separates alone, had thirty churches south of
James River, and twenty-four on its north;[230]
and the
Regulars, though not so numerous, had grown with
rapidity. The influence of the denomination was
strong among the common people, and was beginning
to be felt in high places. In two points they
were distinguished. First, in their love of freedom.
No class of the people of America were more devoted
advocates of the principles of the Revolution;
none were more willing to give their money and
goods to their country; none more prompt to march
to the field of battle, and none more heroic in actual
combat, than the Baptists of Virginia. Secondly,
in their hatred of the Church establishment. They
hated not its ministers, but its principles. They
had seen its operation and had felt its practical influence.
Common sense pointed out its deformities,
and clamoured against its injustice. To a man
they were united in the resolve never to relax their
efforts until it was utterly destroyed.[231]
While one body of Dissenters thus advanced to
undermine the temple of the Established Church,
another arose, and laying a hand guided by learning,
and nerved by devotion, upon the pillars of the
in the eighteenth century, a single Presbyterian
congregation was all that could be found in Virginia.
It had been planted by Francis Makennie,
on the eastern shore, and maintained a feeble existence,
notwithstanding the ungenial air surrounding
it.[232] But, west of the Blue Ridge, the influence of
the followers of Calvin and Knox became greater
every year. Pennsylvania had received a large
number of settlers from the north of Ireland. These
were not the Irish, but were, in general, purely
Scotch, who had filled up the inviting province of
Ulster, after it had been emptied of its half-barbarous
native inhabitants.[233] The Scotch-Irish were a
strong and active race, hardy in body, vigorous in
mind. They were deeply imbued with religious
feeling, and were almost without exception attached
to the doctrines which are taught in the Westminster
Confession of Faith. From Pennsylvania they
passed into the beautiful valley of Virginia, and
settled in many places running nearly from the
head waters of the Potomac to the southern branch
of the James, as it cuts the mountains near the
Natural Bridge. The northern part of this region,
now composing the counties of Frederick, Shenandoah,
and Rockingham, was indeed chiefly occupied
by German settlers, but the Scotch were spread
through the fertile lands of Rockbridge and West
Augusta.
As early as 1719, a Presbyterian congregation
of Martinsburg. It is said that here the Gospel
was first publicly preached west of the Blue Ridge.[234]
The people earnestly asked for a preacher, and the
Synod of Philadelphia having sent to them the
Rev. Daniel Magill, he organized the congregations
of Falling Water and Tuscarora, and the next year
reported them to the Synod.[235] After this, other
churches were opened, and ministers were tempted
from the northern settlement to preach in the Valley.
The Stone Church of Augusta is among the oldest
in Virginia. It is built of materials so firm that it
has resisted the hand of time, and promises to endure
for centuries to come. After the defeat of
Braddock it became a fortress of defence against
the Indians; a deep trench surrounded it, and
redoubts guarded its approaches; its pastor exhorted
to courage, and its people came to worship armed
with rifles, and posting sentinels to give the alarm.[236]
The church at Tinkling Spring is not far from
that of Augusta, and is little inferior to it in antiquity.[237] These churches were united, and were
under the pastoral care of Rev. John Craig, from
1739 to 1764. He was from the north of Ireland,
and was a just specimen of his class. Diligent in
study, persevering in labour, firm even to obstinacy,
a rigid Calvinist in doctrine, and withal a pious
and devoted minister, he received his churches
strong, united, and possessed of much temporal
wealth. Thus the Presbyterians of the Valley
grew. In 1738 Governor Gooch gave them his
express written permit to preach and worship, provided
they complied with the terms of the English
Act of Toleration.[238] They were not pressed down
by immediate contact with the Establishment. A
season of unwonted interest for religion was enjoyed
by them,[239] and, before the Revolution, it is believed
they had at least twelve ministers, and a much
larger number of churches scattered through the
region between the Alleghanies and the Blue Ridge.[240]
Meanwhile, in eastern Virginia, a series of singular
events had conducted Presbyterianism from
obscurity to power. There was little intercourse
between the Valley and the east; they were under
the same political rule, but the manners and habits
of the people were as different as their origin. In
the year 1730, in the northern neck between the
Potomac and Rappahannoc Rivers there lived one
John Organ, a pious schoolmaster from Scotland.
He found nothing congenial to his taste in the
stagnant services of the Establishment, and gradually
withdrawing from the church, he collected
around him a few neighbours, to whom he read
books of devotion. Their numbers gradually increased
so much, that they sought a regular preacher.
The Synod of Philadelphia, to whom they applied,
a church that was alive early in the present
century.[241] In the county of Hanover, about
the same time, lived Samuel Morris, a planter
possessed of wealth and influence. It is remarkable
that his mind was directed to religion not by
the accustomed agency of preaching, but by reading
the works of men who had made the Scriptures
their particular study. An old copy of "Luther
on the Epistle to the Galatians" fell into his hands.
He read, pondered, felt. This short epistle furnished
to the great Reformer all the weapons he
needed, to cut Popery to the heart. Justification
by faith alone, and a holy life to prove that faith,
are its prominent doctrines. Morris believed, and
hastened to impart to others the means of his own
happiness.[242]
His friends were assembled, and he began to
read to them the much-prized volume; they heard
again and again with interest and pleasure. Gradually
their numbers swelled; other books were
introduced; the thoughts of old John Bunyan
became familiar, and in 1743, a copy of Whitefield's
sermons fell into their possession. Mr. Morris
caused to be erected a "reading-house" for the
accommodation of the hearers, and this was filled
to overflowing on every Sabbath. He never attempted
to preach, or to exhort, or to introduce
prayer, or any regular worship; he did nothing
minds, kindled in the hearers a flame of
which they had known nothing theretofore. The
interest thus excited became so general that the
friends of the church felt alarm. Morris and his
principal adherents were summoned before the
Court of Magistrates to answer for the crime of
absenting themselves from the regular services.
They were asked to what denomination they belonged.
Here was a difficulty: they were any
thing but Churchmen; they were not Quakers;
they were not Baptists; they knew nothing of
Presbyterians. Suddenly a bright thought flashed
upon them. Knowing that Luther was a great
reformer, and remembering their obligations to
him, they declared that they were Lutherans. The
magistrates were puzzled; they could find no laws
against such a sect, and the men were accordingly
dismissed without punishment. But persecution
was not thus easily satisfied; finding that their
meetings were continued, informers again brought
them before the court; fines were inflicted and
greater rigour threatened. Mr. Morris himself
paid more than twenty fines under the systematic
opposition to which he was exposed.[244]
Still their march was onward. In 1743, a
member of one of the Augusta congregations
crossed the Blue Ridge to barter his grain for iron
and salt. Meeting with some of Morris's hearers,
find that their views of religion coincided with his
own. He advised them to send to the Valley, and
invite a minister whom he had left there, to come
and preach to them.[245] This was the Rev. William
Robinson, an evangelist ordained by the Presbytery
of New Brunswick, and a man to whom the Presbyterians
of Virginia owe a heavy debt of love.
Embarrassments caused by youthful indiscretion
had driven him from England, but soon after
coming to America, he professed himself a Christian,
and devoting his life to the ministry, he carried
into his sacred duties the ardour which had
distinguished him in the pursuit of vicious pleasure.[246] He obeyed the call of Mr. Morris, and
coming to Hanover, preached his first sermon on
the 6th of July. The people attended in crowds,
and recognising from his lips the same doctrines
which they had long heard from the books read by
Morris, they received him with open arms. Deep
seriousness prevailed at their meetings, and gradually
an interest was awakened such as men feel
when they begin to compare sin with holiness, and
time with eternity.[247] The lives of many were changed,
regular congregations were formed, proper modes
of worship were introduced; the people took the
name of Presbyterians, and formed a connexion
with the Presbytery of New Brunswick, whose
York.[248]
Mr. Robinson was soon followed by other clergymen
of the same creed. John Blair was his immediate
successor, and under his labours the churches
were increased. In 1744, Rev. Mr. Roan was
sent by the Presbytery of Newcastle. He was a
zealous man, but somewhat indiscreet. He spake
openly against the vices of the Episcopal clergy,
and by his boldness so provoked his enemies, that
an indictment was made out against him by a
grand jury, on a false charge of blasphemy made
by some man after the accused left the Colony.[249]
(1745.) It was at this time that the attention of the
Governor was called to the progress of dissent in
Virginia, and Gooch delivered to the Grand Jurors
of the General Court the memorable charge, which
has gone farther to convict him of intolerance than
any other act of his life. The deep interest exhibited
by the people; the distress occasioned by
conviction for sin, and the exciting appeals founded
by the preachers on the doctrines they proclaimed,
altogether constituted a "New Light" which the
Governor could in no sense understand, and hence
his desire to quench it by applying the law.[250]
a persecutor; when, during this year, the Synod of
New York sent to him Rev. Messrs. William
Tennent and Samuel Finley, to represent the interests
of their church in Virginia, he received
them kindly, and permitted them to preach. He
could not refuse his homage to genius, learning,
and piety united. Had his council been as liberal
as himself, it is not probable that Dissenters would
have felt oppression in "the Ancient Colony."[251]
Just at the time when the infant churches which
Morris and Robinson had planted, most needed a
minister at once zealous and learned, their wants
were supplied. It is not extravagant to say that
Samuel Davies was in many respects the greatest
preacher that America has ever known. He was
born in Newcastle, Delaware, Nov. 3, 1724. His
mother devoted him in infancy to the sacred cause
in which he was to be so distinguished, and gave
him a name that indicated her design.[252]
From the
age of fifteen he was a professed Christian, and
sought the duties of the ministry with hallowed
Newcastle in 1745, and ordained two years after.
He came to Virginia in 1747, and finding that the
laws then in force, rendered certain steps necessary
before a Dissenter could preach with safety, he
complied with all the terms of the Act of Toleration.
He took the usual oath of fidelity to the
government, and subscribed to the thirty-nine
articles of the Church of England, with four exceptions,
expressly made. These were the articles
concerning the "traditions of the church," "the
authority of the homilies," "the consecration of
bishops and ministers," and "the power of the
church to decree rights and ceremonies, and to
decide controversies of faith."[253] He then obtained
licenses for four churches,—three in Hanover, and
one in Henrico, and early in the spring of 1748,
he entered with his whole heart upon his career as
an evangelist.
His bodily health was delicate, but the strength
of his soul carried him over every obstacle. Though
yet young, he had acquired a store of systematized
knowledge, which fitted him to combat error in
whatever shape it might come. His personal appearance
was mild and benevolent, yet august and
imposing.[254]
But it was in the pulpit that his true
power was seen and felt. His heart glowed under
the fervent majesty of truth, and his lips seemed to
be touched as with a live coal from the altar of
God. Having studied the volume of revealed religion
in all its length and breadth, his zeal never
of the spirit" with an effect that has seldom been
equalled. Under his words the objects of faith
drew near to the listener; heaven opened, and
celestial melody was wafted from its portals; the
world of despair was unlocked, and shown to the
impenitent. He applied the divine law with such
pungency that he pierced the conscience as with a
thousand barbed arrows, yet no spiritual physician
was ever more ready than he to soothe the wounded
soul with atoning blood, and to lead the stricken
penitent to the bleeding victim of Calvary. Few
who ever heard him preach could entirely resist
his influence; it is well known that he was the
means of kindling the hidden fire of eloquence in
other bosoms. Patrick Henry has declared that by
hearing him he was himself first taught what an
orator should be,[255] and James Waddel, the "blind
preacher," is said to have caught from Davies the
inspiration which afterwards made him almost his
equal in sacred pathos.[256]
When Mr. Davies returned to Virginia in 1748,
he was accompanied by John Rodgers, a young
minister whose aid he wished for in his new field.
As they rode in the night-time through one of the
thick forests of the river counties, a terrible storm
overtook them. Incessant lightnings flashed around
them, and bursts of thunder seemed to rend the
heavens; rain poured down in such floods that
they were unable to ride in safety, and alighting
by the roadside, they waited until the fury of the
resolute to feel any thing but reverence in such a
scene, and his young companion, who had, before,
been remarkably timid under displays of lightning,
is said from this time forth to have lost all his fear,
and to have emulated the boldness of his friend.
The storms of the natural world were not the only
difficulties which Rodgers encountered in Virginia.
When Davies and his comrade presented themselves
before Governor Gooch, he received them
politely and introduced them to the General Court,
which now claimed the exclusive right of granting
licenses to Dissenters. Jealousy had crept into
this tribunal, in view of the rapid progress of the
new denomination. In vain did the Governor
exert himself to procure a liberal judgment. They
positively refused to permit Mr. Rodgers to preach,
and even expressed regret that they had licensed
Mr. Davies. A minister of the Established Church
complained to Gooch that Rodgers had preached
in Virginia since his arrival, and advised severe
measures, but the good Governor rebuked him in
most cutting terms, and declared that he deserved
to be stripped of his office for his intolerance.[258]
Yet
the court was inexorable. With saddened feelings
Mr. Rodgers was compelled to return to the north,
and Davies was left alone to speak for his church
in Eastern Virginia.
If the rulers of the land looked on him with little
favour, the people more than compensated by their
were added to his number, and the counties of Caroline,
Louisa, and Goochland, witnessed his labours.[259] Three hundred communicants were under
his care; his places for preaching were sometimes
forty miles apart, and, in traversing this wild tract
of country, he was brought in contact with all
classes, and nearly all learned to respect and love
him. As his work advanced, the opposition of
Churchmen increased; the question was raised
whether the English Act of Toleration had any
force in the Colony, and Mr. Davies was permitted
to argue the point before the General Court, in answer
to Peyton Randolph, the Attorney-General.
The divine, for a season assumed the lawyer, and
is said to have sustained himself with remarkable
power.[260] The Attorney-General delivered a speech
distinguished in legal learning, and when the young
preacher rose to reply, many in the assembly exchanged
smiles of derision. But, as he opened his
subject, the hearers were astonished at his skill,
and before he concluded, lawyers present were
heard to whisper, "The Attorney-General has met
his match to-day."[261] There can be no doubt that
Mr. Davies was right, for an Act of Assembly
passed in 1705, had expressly taken notice of, and,
by necessary implication, had given effect to the
Act 1 William and Mary, ch. 18, which was the
existing law of toleration in Great Britain.[262] When
to Princeton College, he obtained from the Attorney-General,
Sir Dudley Rider, an opinion confirming
his argument, and thus the question was
settled for ever in favour of the Dissenters.
This great man was as patriotic as he was pious
and eloquent. After the defeat of Braddock, volunteers
were needed to drive back the Indians on
the frontier. Mr. Davies delivered two soul-stirring
addresses to the people in Hanover. In the
first he spake of George Washington, and uttered
a memorable prophecy of his future greatness,
which was fulfilled to the letter. The effect of the
last was such, that immediately on its conclusion,
more volunteers were enrolled than were needed,
and the people followed him in crowds from the
muster-ground to the tavern, still eager to hear his
thrilling appeals.[263]
The influence of such a minister
upon those among whom he laboured, may
be estimated by his success. Every where, at his
approach, serious attention was awakened, lives
were reformed, churches were organized, and the
principles he cherished took vigorous root.
In 1755 the Presbytery of Hanover was formed,
embracing all the Presbyterian churches in Virginia,
and some in North Carolina. Four years
afterwards, Mr. Davies was called to preside over
Princeton College; but, though no one in all respects
his equal has arisen in his Church, he left
behind him in the Old Dominion, men eminent in
piety, learning, and zeal. The foundations of his
the lower counties of the Colony, his denomination
gained many accessions. With their increase, they
felt the necessity for securing to their youth education
in which science and religion should be
united, and, in 1774, under their auspices, two
colleges arose, which yet exist. One was located
in Prince Edward County, and bore the name of
Hampden Sydney; the other was in Rockbridge,
in the Valley, and was named Liberty Hall.[264] Each
of these titles will recall to our minds thoughts of
freedom and patriotism, and may assure us that the
founders of these schools of learning were the
lovers of their country. With what disapprobation
they regarded the restraints of conscience, yet
sanctioned by law in Virginia, may be readily
conceived.
Previous to, and during the Revolutionary War,
the Methodists, as composing a distinct Church,
had no existence in America. It is true, the followers
of Mr. Wesley were numerous and active.
Traces of their labours in Virginia may be found
as early as 1745,[265]
and in 1773, their exertions became
uniform and efficient. In this year Robert
Williams entered the town of Norfolk, and, standing
on the steps of the court-house, sang aloud. A
crowd assembled, and he preached to them zealously,
urging a salutary fear of hell and the devil.
subjects from the pulpits of the Establishment,
that they at first thought Mr. Williams either mad
or impious;[266] but, after a time, his earnestness had
its reward, and a considerable number of converts
were collected in Norfolk. Their preachers then
spread themselves abroad through the counties of
Sussex, Brunswick, Prince George, Lunenburg,
Amelia, and Mecklenburg, and through a series of
years they gathered increasing congregations. Great
excitement prevailed. "Many sinners were powerfully
convinced, and Mercy! Mercy! was their
cry."[267] The vehement exhortations of which Mr.
Wesley approved wrought their accustomed effect,
and while we have reason to fear that the religion
of some vanished with their tears, others gave proof
of permanent reform.
But though their numbers thus swelled, the Methodists
did not withdraw from the Established
Church. When the Revolution opened, their condition
was one of perplexity and hazard. Their
great leader, instead of being friendly to freedom,
had published a pamphlet in which he condemned
the Americans, and justified the course of the
British Ministry.[268]
Four of their most distinguished
preachers in America were from England, and were,
with good reason, suspected to be attached to the
cause of their native land, and, in many cases, both
leaders and people did so imprudently declaim
down upon themselves the merited contempt of all
patriots.[269] They considered themselves as only "a
society within the Church;" their preachers were
expressly forbidden to administer the sacraments,
and in Virginia their followers were to be earnestly
exhorted to attend the Episcopal churches, and
there receive the ordinances.[270] Although Mr.
Wesley professed to have been long convinced by
Lord King's Account of the Primitive Church that
bishops and presbyters were equal in authority,
yet not until 1784 did he ordain Dr. Coke and his
assistants, and send them to America to establish a
separate Church.[271] Under these circumstances, we
are not surprised to find the Methodists of Virginia
co-operating with the Establishment, and using
all their influence for its support, instead of endeavouring
to destroy it.[272]
Thus were forces arrayed when the first free
Legislature of Virginia commenced its session in
Williamsburg, on the 7th day of October, 1776.
Nearly two-thirds of the people had become, either
openly or in feeling, dissenters from the Church
of England;[273]
yet a majority of the Legislators
were Churchmen, and the triumph of religious
liberty was due to its own commanding claims
rather than to the prepossessions of the members.
memorials began to appear urging action on the
laws affecting conscience. The Bill of Rights had
proclaimed abstract principles, but now something
practical was sought. Baptists, Quakers, Presbyterians,
and men holding no special creed, united
in asking for a repeal of the oppressive laws which
had grown up under the old régime. Few opposed
this reform except Churchmen and Methodists,
but, it is worthy of remark, that an earnest plea for
the Establishment was published by a writer who
seems to have been an open infidel. His address
appeared in print during the session of the Assembly.
He declares that, when tested by truth,
every system of religion, except simple Deism, will
be found equally "false and foolish." Yet he is in
favour of a strict establishment, to depress sectaries,
and to make the evils of religion as small as possible!
Following out his principles, he says, that
"Toleration carries satire in every letter of it; literally,
it means the suffering an abuse," and, therefore,
he intimates that Trajan and Pliny merited
praise for endeavouring to destroy the Christian
sect in its infancy![274] From such an ally, it is to be
hoped the friends of the Established Church derived
little advantage.
The Dissenters urged the glaring injustice which
had long been done to them. In the frontier counties
of the state they had been compelled to contribute
money to purchase glebes and to build
churches, when in fact very few Episcopalians lived
contributions were yet levied upon them where
they were more numerous than Episcopalians,
never attended their churches, and had their own
ministers, from whom they heard the Gospel.
Among these memorials one appeared from the
Presbytery of Hanover, which strongly commended
itself by the power of its argument, the elegance of
its composition, and the dignity of its tone.[276] It
asked that all sects might be placed on the same
ground with regard to the state; that the Established
Church should be abolished, and that the
support of religion should be left to the voluntary
offerings of the people. Its doctrines were bold
and original; if adopted, they would at once level
with the dust the huge fabric which centuries have
built in Christendom; "there is no argument in
favour of establishing the Christian religion, but
what may be pleaded for establishing the tenets of
Mohammed by those who believe the Koran, or, if
this be not true, it is at least impossible for the
magistrate to adjudge the right of preference among
the various sects which profess the Christian faith,
without erecting a chair of infallibility which would
lead us back to the Church of Rome."[277]
In opposition to these protests, memorials were
presented from the Methodists and the Episcopalians,
system.[278] They argued that the clergy of the
Church had accepted cures in Virginia, trusting to
the laws which provided for their support, and to
the good faith of the public for their countenance.
They considered that they had thus acquired a
vested right to a legal provision. It might have been
answered that these very laws constituted the unjust
system of which Dissenters complained. They
argued farther that true wisdom required that the
state should provide religious instruction for their
people, and that the best mode of doing this was by
an Established Church. While, therefore, they
approve of the system generally, "they are more
particularly convinced of the excellency of the religious
establishment which has hitherto subsisted
in this state;" "the experience of one hundred and
fifty years," they said, "had tested it;" and it had
been productive of "order and internal tranquillity,
true piety, and virtue." That these opinions were
sincere we may not doubt, but that they were correct,
neither the past history of their state, nor their
own experience would authorize the Legislature to
believe. Finally, these memorialists asked that the
question should not be immediately decided, but
should be referred to the people, that they might
speak from the polls. Had this been done, we have
reason to believe the cause of dissent would have
triumphed, but the Legislature did not think proper
farther to delay.
The memorials and petitions, after passing under
referred to the whole House, forming a committee
on the state of the country. A severe contest immediately
commenced. Edmund Pendleton was
the speaker, and was justly revered for his age, his
integrity, his power in argument. He was the
strenuous advocate of the Established Church, and
he was ably seconded by Robert Carter Nicholas.
Mr. Jefferson was the great champion of religious
freedom. He found something so congenial to his
own taste in the views of the Dissenters, and particularly
in the doctrines of the memorial from
Hanover Presbytery, that he willingly adopted
and sustained them. Scepticism and Christianity
may alike condemn the ruinous union of church and
state. The struggle in committee was desperately
maintained from the 11th of October to the 5th
day of December. Mr. Jefferson has himself declared
that the contests were the most severe he
had ever engaged in.[279] At length, however, the
triumph of the friends of liberty, if not complete,
was decisive. A bill passed, repealing every law
which denounced punishment for maintaining
opinions in religion, or for not attending the Episcopal
Church; exempting Dissenters from contributions
for the support of the Episcopal clergy, and
suspending the legal assessments of members of
the Church until the next session. The salaries
of the clergy were, however, continued to them
until the 1st of January succeeding, and the glebe
lands, churches, books, and plate which had been
secured to it.[280] The question whether there should
be a general assessment on the people for the support
of pastors of their own choice, was expressly
reserved to be decided thereafter.
When we remember how long the church establishment
of Virginia had existed, how deeply it
had planted its roots in the social system, and how
strong were the habits which taught men to revere
it, we should be surprised rather that so much was
done for its destruction, than that so much remained
to be accomplished. The very first Legislature
under the new constitution, struck a fatal blow,
from which the victim did not recover. Death was
not instantaneous; the wound was mortal, but
though the principle of life was driven from the
heart, it continued to linger in the extremities, until
exhaustion and renewed attacks finally extinguished
it. The Act of 1776 went far to establish
religious freedom. Men were no longer compelled
to attend the worship of a particular sect, or to pay
fines for disobedience; the rights of citizenship
were no longer confined to Churchmen; the authority
to exercise private judgment in religion
was recognised; the state pretended not to decide
which church taught the truth, and which was
guilty of schism or heresy; Dissenters were released
from the unjust burdens they had so long
borne, and were allowed to build churches when
and where they pleased, and to support their pastors
as they thought best; even members of the Episcopal
to support their rectors, and were left to the
guidance of conscience. These were important
results; they proved that the eyes of men had at
length been opened to the truth, and gave an
earnest that all that liberty demanded should finally
be done.
But it is not to be denied that Virginia had not
yet been completely disenthralled. Even after the
late acts, the Legislature, by many expressions in
its laws, continued to show special favour to the
Episcopal Church. As late as to the year 1778, it
was called the "Established Church," the word
"toleration" had not ceased to be used, and the
name of "Dissenters" was still applied to all who
rejected the surplice and the prayer-book. Such
expressions should be banished from the language
of a free people, except to explain antiquated evils.
Where man is at liberty to worship God as he
pleases, he asks no toleration from human government,
and he cannot be called a dissenter, whatever
may be his creed. At this time, those who
belonged to denominations other than the Episcopal,
composed two-thirds of the people; the faith
of the Church of England was no longer the religion
of the country, and with some propriety
those who adhered to that church, might have been
called "Dissenters" in Virginia. Yet it continued
to enjoy certain immunities which were not limited
to an empty name.
The ministers of the Episcopal sect were considered
as authorized to perform the marriage ceremony
clergymen, and might tie the matrimonial knot
whenever and wherever called upon through the
state. But ministers of other sects had not this
privilege; they were compelled by law to seek a
license in the county in which they lived, and for
this and the oath attending it, the clerks were empowered
to demand certain fees, which often bore
heavily on the poor pastors of country flocks.
Again, the old parish system was yet alive in law;
their vestries, as such, were considered as still
having power to collect a class of fees allowed by
various statutes, and in the absence of express
legislation, the courts looked upon these church
officers as clothed with their former authority; and
farther, the glebe lands remained in exclusive possession
of the Episcopal clergy. Property amounting
to several hundred thousand pounds in value, a
large proportion of which had been taken from men
who never entered a church of the establishment,
and all of which had accumulated under a system
of injustice, was continued in the hands of a small
number of ministers, whose teachings were attended
by the most insignificant of minorities among the
people.
As we advance in the history of our state, we
shall see each one of these evils successively removed.
The patriots of Virginia were not content
with victory half-won. They knew that their
principles were sound, and they followed them out
even to their extreme results. While life lingered
in any severed limb of the Establishment they did
they had not merely hewn down the tree, but had
torn it up by the roots, and had destroyed the last
germ from which it might be reproduced. It will
not be necessary any longer to separate the history
of religion from the general narrative of Virginia's
fortunes. The time was soon to come when absolute
religious liberty was to be enjoyed by her
people. We may be startled in view of a state in
which civil government grants the same rights and
the same protection to the Christian, the Mohammedan,
the Jew, the disciple of Brahma, and the
Bhoodist from Siam; yet such is the case in Virginia,
and such should be the case in every nation
pretending to be free. On the soil of the "Ancient
Dominion," the believer in the Koran has the same
right to build his mosque, to preach his creed, and
to exercise civil functions, that the believer in the
Scriptures claims for his own privileges. All are
at liberty; all are protected. But while this is so,
let it not be supposed that Christianity has ceased
to be the religion of our people, or that any of her
divine claims have been forgotten. Never has she
been cherished with zeal so ardent, and with love
so devoted as since the divorce was declared between
church and state. She is now sustained, not
by legal establishment, but by the voluntary offerings
of people who feel that they depend upon her
for happiness in time and eternity. She has been
restored to that position intended for her by her
Author, who declares that his "kingdom is not of
this world." Her weapons are no longer the penal
more noble, more powerful, more holy. Her defence
is The Truth. With this, her advocates
may meet error in its worst forms, and with the
certainty of ultimate success. The victory thus
gained will be permanent and glorious; it will not
have been achieved by bloodshed and oppression,
but by the silent march of that power which is
destined at last to conquer evil, and to establish the
reign of the Prince of Peace.
This is distinctly admitted by
high Episcopal authority. See Dr.
Stillingfleet's Irenicum, edit. London,
1662, passim, but particularly
on pages 236, 237.—Bishop Onderdonk's
Episcopacy Tested by Scripture.
Bishop Ravenscroft in Evan.
and Lit. Mag., ix. 563, 590, 591.—
Bishop Croft in Miller's Ch. Ministry,
edit 1830, 168, 169. See Dr.
Miller, from page 157 to 182.
Acts xx., compare verses 17, 28,
in orig.; Clemens Alexandrin., edit.
Paris, 1641; Pædagog. lib. i. 99,
lib. iii. 248; Papias in Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist. edit. Amsterd. 1695, tom
i. lib. iii. cap. 39, page 89; Hieronym.
Comment. edit. Paris, 1706, vol. iv.
414; and see John Anderson on Ch.
Govern., edit. Glasgow, 1714, pages
159-185.
Purchas, iv. book ix. in Hawks,
22, 23. Dr. Hawks' account would
give the impression that Mr. Bucke
was brought out as chaplain by Lord
Delaware, but this was not the case.
See vol. i. 167.
These are the "laws divine, martial,
and moral," once in force in Virginia.
They have been collected and
published by William Strachey, London,
1612; Hawks, 25, 27.
In 1705-06, Grace Sherwood
was tried for witchcraft in the county
of Princess Anne, and convicted, but
the punishment was ducking, not
death. See the Record in Howe's
Hist Collec. 436-438.
Beverley, Present State of Virginia.
Dr. Hawks, I think, commits
a slight error in reckoning the
number of parishes. He states it at
fifty-four, 84, 85.
See Thoughts on an American
Episcopate, Virginia Gazette, Oct.
10, 1771; Burk, iii. 364-367, with
documents; Hawks, 126-131.
See Virginia Gazette, Feb. 20,
1772. Address to Anabaptists. This
address must, I think, have been
written by a lawyer of the Established
Church.
See Dr. Hawks, 75. While Mr.
Blair was soliciting the charter of
William and Mary College, in London,
a characteristic incident occurred.
Seymour, the Attorney-General,
opposed the grant of two
thousand pounds because the nation
was at war, and needed all its resources.
Mr. Blair urged the necessity
for the grant, and ventured to
remind the attorney that the college
was to train young men for the
ministry, and that the people of Virginia
had souls. Souls' said Seymour,
damn your souls' make tobacco.—Grahame,
i. 136, in note.
Gillies' Whitefield, 106, refeired
to in letter to the author from the
Rev. G. W. McPhail of Fredericksburg,
Va., dated Nov. 17, 1846.
Encyc. Rel. Knowledge, art.
Presbyterianism, written by Dr.
Miller, of Princeton; Semple's Va.
Baptists, chap. 1.
Acts, chap. x. See the account
in Semple, page 9. Mr. Read's
course was afterwards somewhat
irregular. Taylor's Lives of Va.
Bap. Preachers, 24, 25.
For an account of these fanatics,
see Robertson's Charles V., ii. 295303;
Mosheim's Eccl. Hist; iii. 58,
140, McLaine's Trans.
Ibid. page 15. The true offence
of these men was disclosed by a certain
lawyer of the court, who "vehemently
accused them." He said,
"May it please your worships, these
men are great disturbers of the peace;
they cannot meet a man upon the
road, but they must ram a text of
Scripture down his throat."
These time-honoured churches
have both been visited by the author,
under circumstances of peculiar
interest.
Miller's Rodgers, 32; Hodge's
Pres. Church, part ii. 43: Hawks,
102; Evan. and Lit. Magazine, ii.
115.
Davidson's Pres. Ch. in Kentucky,
31, 32.—Dr. Davidson's account
here conflicts slightly with
that in Evan. and Lit. Mag. ii. 115.
Miller, 41-45; Hodge, ii. 279,
284, 285—Compare with account
in Evan. and Lit. Mag., ii. 349-351.
Samuel Davies' Letters to Dr.
Bellamy, Campbell, Appendix; Davidson's
Ch. in Ky., 33, and in note;
Hodge, ii. 45.
It is proper that the author shall
here acknowledge the error into
which he was betrayed in the first
volume of this work, pages 429, 430,
by relying upon the authorities there
cited, without giving due weight to
other evidence. He is convinced
that the "New Light Presbyterians"
spoken of in those pages, were the
hearers of Morris, and the followers
of Robinson, Blair, and Roan; and
that, if some of them were imprudent
and enthusiastic, they were yet
as a body sound in doctrine, and
consistent in practice. This correction
will apply, with proper modifications,
to the other sects named, as
well as to the Presbyterians. That
the reader may examine the several
parts of the discussion by which
this error was made to appear, he
will refer to the Watchman and Observer,
Richmond, Nov. 19, 1846,
letter of the author to Ed. W. and O.,
Dec. 10, 1846, and Ed.'s reply in
same; letter of Rev. Dr. A Alexander
to Ed. W. and O., March 18, 1847,
and Bib. Rep rtory and Pr. Review,
for April, 1847, pp. 233, 234.
Davidson's Pres Ch. in Ky., 3947.
In 1812, Liberty Hall received
the name of Washington College. It
enjoys a liberal bequest which the
Father of his Country declined to receive
from the state for himself, and
transferred to the Academy.
It may be found in the Journal
of H. of D, 1776, 24, 25, and in Dr.
Rice's Evang. and Lit. Magazine,
ix. 30-33.
Dr. Hawks should have quoted
all or none of this passage. See his
Episc. Ch. in Va., 139. He misquotes
even the part which he professes
to give.
CHAPTER IV.
Changes required by the principles of the Revolution—Law—State of the
Law in Virginia—Entails—Their progress in England—Docked by fine
and recovery—Rigour of entails in Virginia—Aristocracy—Evils of the
system—Mr. Jefferson's bill—Entails abolished—Proposed revisal of the
whole legal system of the state—Revisors appointed—Their labours—
Their report partially adopted—Review of their suggested reforms—
Events of 1776—A dictator proposed—Patrick Henry and Archibald
Cary—Progress of the Revolutionary War—Scientific association—Aid
to Hampden Sydney College—Lafayette and De Kalb—General Thomas
Nelson—Legislation as to British debts—Consequences thereof—Virginia
accedes to confederation—Josiah Phillips—Dismal Swamp—Bill
of attainder—Phillips captured, regularly tried, condemned, and executed—Further
importation of slaves forbidden—English Commissioners
—Their disgraceful conduct—Virginia refuses to hear them—Settlement
of the west—Magnificence of the country—Daniel Boone in Kentucky—
Manners of the western pioneers—English Governor Hamilton—George
Rogers Clarke—Capture of Kaskaskia—Of Fort Vincennes—Hamilton
sent a prisoner to Williamsburg—His rigorous treatment—General Matthew's
incursion—Suffolk burned—Thomas Jefferson, governor—Defeat
of Gates at Camden—Leslie's incursion—Saratoga prisoners—Arnold's
incursion—Proceedings in Richmond—Arnold enters—Simcoe destroys
stores at Westham—Baron Steuben—Skirmishes with the enemy—General
Phillips takes command of the English—Marches to Petersburg—
Lafayette appointed to defend Virginia—Phillips, after descending the
river some distance, returns to Petersburg—His death—Cornwallis advances
from North Carolina—Pursues Lafayette—Caution and skill of
the Marquis—Simcoe drives Steuben from the Point of Fork—Tarleton
seeks to capture the Legislature and Mr. Jefferson—Narrow escape—
Masterly movement of Lafayette—Cornwallis retires to the seaboard—
Takes post on York and Gloucester Points—Washington advances from
the north with the combined French and American armies—French fleet
enters the Chesapeake—Siege of Yorktown—Surrender of Cornwallis—
End of the Revolutionary War.
Virginia had boldly opened the work of the
not have been sensibly felt by her citizens for years,
but they went to the very foundations of national
happiness. Her conduct had been directed by
reason. That enthusiasm had been felt in her
bosom, is true; but it was enthusiasm which neither
blinded her eyes, nor misguided her arm.
Her statesmen were already looking to the future;
they saw before them a singular crisis; such a
concurrence of events favourable to human freedom,
as had never before existed; and they hastened
to seize its advantages. They prepared to carry
their reforms into every department of life in which
they were required, and to establish them upon a
basis broad as the welfare of the people.
It was natural that the system of Law proper for
the new Commonwealth should have been one of
the first objects of their attention. Virginia had
brought from her mother country the English
Common Law, and early Statutes, and these were
held to be binding wherever they were applicable
to the circumstances of the Colony. In addition,
her own Assemblies had enacted several volumes
of statutes, and, frequently, the English Parliament
had expressly extended to her the effect of their legislation
These sources furnished to her the law which
bound her people when the Revolution commenced.
It ought not to surprise us that many of her most
accomplished citizens had learned to revere this
time-honoured system, under which they had so
long lived. The Common Law and the general
current of early English enactments, had much to
of the past, which encircled them. They
breathed a sturdy and honest spirit; they loved
the trial by jury; they fostered a temper of independence
and moral purity. Yet with their acknowledged
merits, they combined vices, rendered
only the more dangerous by their inveteracy, and
wholly incompatible with the principles which had
been already announced in Virginia. To these
vices her law-makers turned their thoughts, and,
while they retained the general system as the basis
of their jurisprudence, they laboured to take from
it every rule inconsistent with freedom.
It would not be proper, in this work, to review
the laws of the state in detail, and to trace with
minuteness the various changes through which they
have passed in assuming their present form. This
would be the province of the professed jurist, rather
than of the historian. Yet the laws of every people
constitute a most important part of its history; they
mould its character, and, in turn, are shaped by its
dispositions. They act and react upon it, and often
furnish the soundest test of its welfare. And there
are some laws which, in their very nature, are inseparable
from the destinies of their subjects; they
do so entwine themselves around the social interests
of man, and so constantly affect his practice, that
he cannot be impartially considered without them.
Upon such laws it is the duty of history to bestow
due attention. And of this character were some
which engaged the thoughts of Virginia's sages, in
state.
The first of these upon which notice shall be
bestowed, was the law of entail. A very early
period of English history had witnessed its rise,
and succeeding years had moulded it into form.[281]
Under this law, landed property was fixed for perpetuity
in the same family; the father held it for
his life without power to sell or encumber, and at
his death his oldest son succeeded to the same
rights and the same restrictions. If the first son
died without issue, the second and other sons took
the property in the same way, and thus a succession
almost unlimited was provided. This scheme
has planted itself deeply in the heart of England;
it is congenial to her constitution, and keeps alive
the aristocratic spirit which many of her sages
have held to be necessary to her welfare. Yet her
enlightened sons have not been blind to the enormous
evils flowing from entails, and long ago these
evils were great enough to make the courts look
with jealous eyes upon the system. Children were
prone to disobedience when they knew their parents
could not disinherit them. Creditors were defrauded,
for the heir could not be compelled to pay
debts contracted by an extravagant father; treasons
were encouraged, for the lands could not be forfeited
by crime.[282]
Hence, in England, gradually
by a judicial process known as a fine and common
recovery. In this, the ancestor, the heir, and all
other parties interested, usually joined, and the
effect was to give to the possessor a title in fee
simple, so that the property might be sold, or
divided, or charged with debts, or otherwise appropriated,
according to the general law of the land.
This mode of breaking entails has been constantly
used in England, but so strong is the tendency to
privileged order there, that many thousand broad
acres are yet locked in the embrace of the statute
of King Edward the First.
Hardly had the settlement of Virginia been commenced,
before the working of this system was
seen. Her cavaliers and gentlemen were the very
people who would be most partial to its use. They
had grown up in contact with classes in the mother
country, who loved it as a national privilege, and
in their eyes a genuine entail was connected with
all that was gentlemanly and dignified. Gradually
plantations were established, and were bound in
rigorous family settlements. The preference of
sons to daughters was of course admitted in full
strength, and the oldest son was still the favourite
tenant in tail. Down from ancestor to heir, the
lands skirting the Rappahannoc and the Powhatan
descended in endless line. For a long time before
the Revolution, the law operated in power; large
possessions in land were held without encumbrance
by the same family. The father was lord in his
lifetime, and the son was lord in expectancy and
idea of the strong aristocratic feeling pervading
Virginia, than her course as to this scheme. We
have seen that in England the courts set their faces
against entails, and permitted them to be docked by
a fine and recovery; but the law-makers of the
"Old Dominion" held all such innovations in high
contempt, and by a statute enacted in 1705, forbade
their use, and declared that no estate-tail
should be destroyed, except by act of Assembly.[283]
And to complete their work, in 1727 they enacted
that slaves might be attached to lands, and might
be entailed with them, subject to all the incidents
proper to the system.[284]
Under these circumstances, the policy was
allowed its full influence in Virginia. A special
act of the legislature was sometimes asked and
granted to break a settlement, but such cases were
comparatively few, and were not favoured. All
the evils attending the system in England existed
in the Colony, with divers aggravations. Over
the whole eastern region, fine lands were held by
families who guarded their privileges with more
than English jealousy. An aristocracy neither of
talent, nor learning, nor moral worth, but of landed
and slave interest, was fostered. The members of
the Council of State were always chosen from this
class,[285]
and in many respects they were regarded
special marks of kingly favour kept the whole body
in watchful dependence on the Crown. And dangerous
distinctions of another kind flowed from the
policy. Where lands could neither be sold nor
mortgaged, debts must often have been contracted
which were never paid, yet the tenants in tail lived
in luxurious ease, to which others were strangers.
The rich people of Virginia were then richer than
at present, and the poor were poorer. There was
no prospect for that equal distribution of property
which is the legitimate reward of industry. Coaches
drawn by four horses rolled from the doors of the
aristocracy, and plate of gold and silver in the
utmost profusion glittered on their boards, while
the poor artisan and labourer worked for the necessaries
of life without hope of ever gaining any portion
of the property guarded by entail. Thus an
artificial state of society was produced, unfavourable
to freedom, and fruitful in discontent.
On the 12th day of October, Mr. Jefferson opened
his batteries upon this fortress of Virginian pride.
He obtained leave to bring in a bill which provided
that thereafter all estates tail should be converted
into fee simple, so that the owner might sell, devise,
mortgage, or otherwise dispose of them as he
pleased.[286]
He encountered warm opposition. Edmund
Pendleton was the great champion of antiquity,
the enemy of innovation. We are not to
suppose that this distinguished man was wanting in
patriotism, but he was cautious and cool. He had
that he did not relish the new spring of waters
opened in America. He feared they would intoxicate
and destroy. He was virtuous and benevolent,
kind as a friend, philanthropic as a man, and therefore
the more formidable as an opponent. He was
an elegant and impressive speaker, quick as lightning
to seize a point, and persevering to maintain
it. He brought all his powers to bear against Mr.
Jefferson's bill, and nearly defeated it. Finding
that popular opinion was running too strongly
against entails to permit him to save the entire
policy, he introduced an amendment to the effect
that the tenant in tail might convey in fee simple
if he thought proper so to do.[287] This amendment
came within a few votes of success, and it would
have left the evil nearly as great as before, for the
aristocratic feeling was yet strong enough to have
preserved many family settlements from destruction.
But, finally, the friends of the bill prevailed;
it passed without material amendment. The axe
was applied, and the tree of entails, which had
been growing for centuries, was levelled with the
ground.[288]
The wise men of the state were convinced that
The law we have just noticed was so important,
that immediate action had been applied to it,
but Mr. Jefferson was resolved that, if possible, the
whole legal fabric should be remodelled, that it
might be fitted to the wants of a free people. Early
in the session he brought in a bill for the purpose,
which was passed on the 24th of October, and, on
the 5th of November, revisors were appointed, to
whom was committed the whole subject, with instructions
to take the Common Law, the English
and Virginia Statutes, to examine them, to suggest
reforms, to arrange their suggestions in the shape of
bills, and to report their labours to the Legislature,
in order that the bills might be considered, and, if
approved, passed into laws. The revisors were
Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Pendleton, George
Wythe, George Mason, and Thomas Ludwell Lee;
but, after the work was commenced, Mr. Mason
and Mr. Lee withdrew.[289] They were not lawyers
by profession, and though their views might sometimes
have been useful, they felt themselves incompetent
to a task requiring the highest legal learning.
The three remaining gentlemen proceeded to their
work with zeal, and in three years they were prepared
to make a report.
As this subject is perfectly distinct in its character,
it will be best at once to follow the revisors
in their learned labours, instead of recurring to them
in the history of the years that succeeded. Early
their task. With great propriety they determined
to retain the Common Law as the basis of their
reforms, and to embrace in their bills only such
alterations as they thought should be applied to it,
together with such enactments as would supply
the place of all prior British and Virginia Statutes.[290]
To have swept away at once the whole existing
system, with the thousands of judicial decisions
made upon it, and to have substituted for it a compact
code, would have been a work of great labour
and delicacy, and would have diminished the certainty
of the law. Errors of opinion on this subject
are common to the inexperienced. A simple
code may suffice for an infant people. But as society
widens, as orders are established, as property
increases, as intricate relations arise, so must rules
vary and distinctions be drawn. Therefore, the
most accurate written laws that human wisdom
could devise, would become subjects of litigation;
every phrase would involve a context, every word
would be weighed and found wanting, and until
centuries of judicial proceedings had passed, uncertainty
would prevail.[291] Considerations like these
determined the revisors of Virginia, although, for a
time, Mr. Pendleton was strongly in favour of an
original code.
They divided the work by assigning to Mr.
Jefferson the whole Common Law and the English
First, when the Articles of Instruction for the Colony
took effect.[292] To Mr. Wythe, the British Statutes
from that date to the Revolution; and to Mr.
Pendleton, all the Virginia enactments.[293] They
went to their homes, and in time not devoted to
other duties, they laboured assiduously upon the
new code. By the 18th of June, 1779, they were
ready to report, and presented to the Legislature
the result of their work, in a volume of ninety
pages, containing one hundred and twenty-six bills.
Some of these reforms were adopted in a short
time, but the greater part of the work was not
taken up until 1785. James Madison had entered
the Legislature in the session of 1776. He was
then a young man, and had hardly tried his noble
powers; but in subsequent years he became more
and more eminent. To his exertions in 1785, the
new code was principally indebted. Many objections
were made, some sound, some senseless;
"endless quibbles, chicaneries, perversions, vexations,
and delays of lawyers and demi-lawyers,"[294]
but at length most of the bills were passed with
little alteration.
To a few only of these reforms will it be proper
in this work to refer. The law of descents had
engaged the special thought of Mr. Jefferson. The
English system had been loved in Virginia. The
oldest son was the heir and inherited all the lands
of the father, while other sons and all the daughters
injustice of this scheme had availed nothing in argument
with the aristocracy. Mr. Pendleton was
anxious to preserve it, and finding that his companions
were inexorable, he begged at least that
the Jewish rule might prevail, and that the first
born son might receive a double portion;[295] but Mr.
Jefferson replied that unless the eldest son required
a double portion of food, or could do a double
amount of work, he did not see the justice of
giving him a double share of property. Thus the
dispute was ended—nature prevailed—the law of
primogeniture was abolished; and the statute of
descents substituted for it in our state, is a beautiful
illustration of natural principles. It gives to all
children equal portions, and when there are no
children, it directs property into channels which
the heart and the head of every sane man would
be prone to choose. In proof of this, it is certain
that, except under very peculiar circumstances,
wills in Virginia have been found to make almost
the same disposition of property that the law would
have made had the owner died intestate.[296] Mr. Jefferson's
statute of descents has been very slightly
altered in subsequent years, and a learned mind
has said that the only important change has deformed
rather than improved the graceful symmetry
of the original.[297]
It had been Mr. Jefferson's ardent desire to introduce
the support of education among the people. He
proposed to have William and Mary elevated into
a university, to establish colleges as an intermediate
grade of schools, and to divide the state into districts,
in each of which a public school should be
supported. But this plan, though sometimes feebly
urged, was never carried out. The strong Episcopal
odour of William and Mary, made it ungrateful
to those who had been called Dissenters,[298]
and it may be that Virginia already exhibited some
of that apathy on the subject of education which
has since covered her with shame in the eyes of
her sister states!
The proposed law of crimes and punishments
seems to be the most exceptionable part of the work
done by the revisors. It is true, they sought to
cleanse the blood-stained code of England; the
one hundred and sixty capital crimes made by the
British Parliament,[299]
were not to exist. Only treason
and murder were to be punished with death,
but for other deep felonies they provided the penalty
of hard labour on the public works. This policy
is more than doubtful; shaved heads, mean clothing,
and limbs fettered with iron shackles, when openly
shown, have seldom done any thing either for the
reformation of offenders, or for general morals. By
some unaccountable perversion of judgment and
feeling, the revisors had established the barbarous
"lex talionis," the law of retaliation for some
wound for wound; this was literally their system,[301]
and for certain infamous crimes the punishment
denounced was so revolting, that it is hard to believe
it ever could have obtained the sanction of
statesmen and sages! The bill was defeated in
the Legislature by a single vote. We have every
reason to rejoice that it was lost; it might have
darkened the reputation of its distinguished authors;
it would not have met the demands of the age, and
it would probably have retarded Virginia in her
subsequent efforts to ameliorate her criminal code.
Thus a gradual but decisive change was wrought
in the law of the state, and was reflected upon
the social system. Lord Bacon has said that
Time is the greatest innovator, but that he works
slowly and imperceptibly, and it were well that
man should imitate him. Nothing ought more to
raise our esteem for the wise men of the Revolution,
than a view of the caution—the apparent delay—with
which they worked reform. There was
change, but there was no shock; no sudden rending.
They applied the principles of freedom from
time to time, and slowly and gracefully wove them
into their system.[302]
The innovations we have
already noticed were, of all others, best adapted to
secure human liberty. The conscience was released
from bondage by the laws as to religion;
the forbidding of entails prevented the rise of
than that of worth and talent; the law of descents
divided property according to nature, and promoted
equality among men. Under such a system, the
highest guarantees would be afforded for contentment
and happiness.
Turning immediately back from this review, we
find the Legislature of Virginia contemplating a
most singular and dangerous measure. It is humiliating
to fall from wisdom to folly, from liberty to
slavery. Yet, before we pass sentence of condemnation
upon the conduct of such men as lived in
1776, it will be proper to give them the benefit of
every circumstance explaining their action, and
covering, in some degree, its deformity. While
they were in session, war was raging in the Northern
States. Washington had struggled in vain
against the disciplined troops under the British
generals. He had been defeated on Long Island,
and after the enemy took possession of New York,
he had been driven through the Jerseys before a
powerful force. Patriot hearts sank; the cause of
the Revolution seemed lost; resistance was hardly
opposed to the progress of the enemy, and their
course was marked with rapine and violence. As
the British and Hessian troops passed through the
Jerseys, they committed horrible excesses. A
Hessian soldier ravished a young girl, and while
her unhappy father was endeavouring to release
her, he was mortally wounded by the comrades of
the ravisher.[303]
Another girl, young and modest,
afterwards found by a small party of Americans in
company with some of her female companions, who
had with difficulty made their escape.[304] Fields
were wasted, cattle destroyed, fruit trees cut down,
houses burned; it seemed as though the conquerors
were resolved to teach America her duty to England
by reducing her to original desolation.
At this time the legislators of Virginia seemed
to lose all hope. In perfect despair they listened
to a proposal, startling even to themselves. This
was neither more nor less than the appointment of
a dictator, with absolute powers, military and civil,
united in himself! Those friendly to this project
sought a precedent in Roman history, which tells
that in times of extreme danger, a dictator was appointed
to take care of the commonwealth. They
might have remembered that if such a step had
ever produced transient good, it had at last been
fatal; that example is dangerous, and power seducing;
and that Rome was lost when her Cæsars
had gained a permanent dictatorship. But it is
needless to argue against a scheme, the very statement
of which is enough to expose its madness.
There is little doubt that Patrick Henry was the
man intended by the advocates of the dictatorship
for this office, but we have no reason to believe that
he favoured or even knew of the scheme.[305]
As the
matter went forward, fierce passions arose; the
friends and opponents of the measure often exchanged
angry remonstrances, and, at last, so high
different sides of the streets of Williamsburg.[306] No
member was more distinguished for stern opposition
to the plan than Archibald Cary, the venerable
speaker of the Senate. He had introduced the resolutions
of May 15, declaring Virginia to be free
and independent, and his unbending patriotism
made him formidable to the enemies of freedom.
Meeting Colonel Syme, the brother-in-law of
Patrick Henry, in the lobby of the House, Mr.
Cary is said to have addressed him in a voice of
fierce feeling: "Sir, I am told that your brother
wishes to be dictator; tell him from me that the
day of his appointment shall be the day of his
death; for he shall feel my dagger in his heart before
the sunset of that day."[307] The spirit of antiquity
was not lost: another Brutus was ready to stab
another Cæsar in the person of his friend. But
the sacrifice was not demanded. Colonel Syme
replied, in amazement, that his brother had never
given countenance to the scheme, or to any other
that would endanger liberty. Only a short time
before, Mr. Henry had been so much indisposed
that he was obliged to go into the country, and he
had not resumed his duties when the dictatorship
was proposed. It is probable that he would have
used all his influence against it. The project was
soon abandoned, and, though it was renewed in
1781, and wanted only a few votes of success,[308] yet,
since the Revolution, the people of Virginia have
dream.
Since the appointment of Robert Carter Nicholas
as Treasurer, the finances of the state had
been managed with skill and fidelity. Difficulties
had arisen and were increasing; paper issues
seemed necessary, and the evils to which they gave
birth have become a mournful part of American
history. But these were ills for which the best of
human efforts at that time could provide no cure.
Mr. Nicholas had given perfect satisfaction. His
labours had been incessant, and finding that they
preyed upon his health, and would moreover prevent
his serving as a delegate in the Legislature,
he signified his wish to resign. The Assembly
passed a resolution expressing gratitude for his past
services, and requesting him to continue his duties
at least until the close of the session; this he consented
to do. George Webb was elected to be his
successor.[309]
(1777.) Those who are familiar with the events
of the Revolutionary War, will remember that comparatively
few of its battles and military operations
occurred in Virginia. While the states north and
south of her were the scenes of bloody struggles,
she was long free from dangerous invasion. But
let it not be supposed that she was idle, or that her
children were indifferent spectators of the toils of
their brethren. Her quotas of Continental troops
were regularly furnished, and volunteers under
such men as Morgan and Stevens, went from her
and as depressing causes gained strength, it was
found more difficult to keep full the regiments with
the regular army, under the commander-in-chief.
Governor Henry at one time determined to fill the
vacancies by volunteers for six months. (Feb. 21.)
But Washington protested against this measure; a
short term of enlistment would have been ruinous;
it would have swelled the army for a season, only
to leave it feeble at a time when numbers would
be most important.[310] The Governor yielded, and
issued a proclamation urging enlistments on such
terms as would make the recruits of real service,
and so much energy was shown in this work, that
early in May the required battalions were almost
complete.
The exertions of Virginia for the general cause,
often left her deficient in military strength for her
own defence. Throughout the reports and correspondence
of her high officers, we read bitter complaints
of the want of ammunition and arms in
times of danger. Early in the war, a scarcity of
gunpowder had been felt, and to supply it, General
Lee had sent Colonel Gibson and Captain Lynn
to New Orleans, as special agents to purchase this
commodity. After an expedition full of danger,
they returned with twelve thousand pounds of
powder, which they had bought for eighteen hundred
dollars.[311]
Yet this stock was soon exhausted,
either by use at home, or by drafts for the Continental
service; and when afterwards the state was
of warlike stores. These incidents will be noticed
in their proper order.
On the 30th of May, Patrick Henry was unanimously
re-elected Governor of the state, to serve
for another year. Though the duties assigned by
the Constitution to his office had not brought him
into brilliant action, yet he had so discharged them
as to gain increased love from the people. He had
kept alive the spirit of the Revolution; had breathed
the fire of his own patriotism into the councils of the
state, had urged on enlistments by his eloquence
and personal efforts, and had crushed treason
wherever it appeared in the eastern counties.[312]
If
the imprudent had dreamed of making him dictator,
he had not encouraged their dreams; if the
envious had accused him of undue ambition, he
had disarmed their envy by his candour. The
votes of all parties were given to the man in whom
all felt equal confidence.
While war was in the land and Virginia was bearing
her part, we are refreshed by finding some of her
sons intent upon promoting the progress of science
within her borders. Dr. Small, of William and
Mary College, had always been eager to diffuse a love
of letters, and Governor Fauquier had applied his refined
taste to the same purpose. Mr. Jefferson had
been the pupil of the first, and the protegé of the
latter; he had learned lessons from both, and probably
excelled both in the distinct systems of
philosophy they had sought to inculcate. George
these, but he was the soundest of scholars, and the
most practical of instructers. Rev. James Madison,
Professor of Mathematics in William and Mary,
lent his aid, and John Page rejoiced to give his
classical knowledge to a cause in which his bosom
friend was so much interested.[313] These, with other
kindred spirits, formed a society to diffuse light; to
collect and publish matter which would aid the
inquirer into science; to study chemistry, and to
apply it to the agriculture of Virginia. Even
during the war their labours did not cease; though
the society could not meet frequently, an active
committee was at work, and from numerous articles
contributed for its inspection, it chose several
of uncommon excellence, which were intended for
the press. It is much to be regretted that their
purpose was not carried out.[314] Subsequent events
caused the decline of the society; but if in after
years the torpor pervading our state has ever been
disturbed by the friends of science, we may find
the germ of the movement in the body of which
John Page was the president, and Thomas Jefferson
the leading member.
Connected with their efforts was the action of
the Legislature in aiding manufactures and general
education. They passed laws for the building of
iron and salt works, and for encouraging by bounties
those who would engage in them. At the last
session, the trustees of Hampden Sydney Academy,
appeal for aid. They represented that it was not
their desire to interfere with the established college;
but that it was fair that all should be encouraged.
A monopoly in the province of training
youth, was perhaps more dangerous than any other
monopoly, and if Oxford and Cambridge, by their
watchful rivalry, had sometimes saved the freedom
of the English nation, it might not be amiss that
William and Mary should have a rival. Their
position was remote from the scenes of war, and
favourable to study; their system of instruction
was catholic and liberal; they asked not the full
establishment given to the older College, but they
prayed that they might be incorporated, and might
have such aid as would enable them to erect suitable
buildings for the students, who were daily
applying for admission.[315] The Legislature heard
their prayer with favour. An act of incorporation
was not granted to them until 1783,[316] but at the
session of 1777, a bill passed authorizing the
trustees to raise, by lottery, a sum of money sufficient
for the purpose designated.[317] A sensitive
mind cannot but deplore the use of this unhappy
scheme of gaming, by the trustees of an institution
so sacred in its origin as was Hampden Sydney
College. It is not easy to ascertain whether real
benefit was derived from the scheme. It is certain
that in 1784 the funds of the institution were so
several hundred acres of land, which formerly belonged
to British merchants, and were forfeited
during the Revolution.[318] Since that time, varied
fortunes have befallen the College; often it has
been filled with students and adorned by accomplished
professors, and though for several years
past it has been languid in its movements, there
are symptoms of good attending it which promise a
bright renewal of its usefulness.
Not long after the commencement of this session,
the Governor had been advised to remove arms and
military munitions, together with the public records,
to a place less exposed than the seat of government.
Williamsburg was not far from the bay, and might
be reached from British cruisers, who entered the
James. Richmond was selected as a safe place of
deposit, and the removal was made as soon as convenient.
On the 28th June, the Legislature adjourned.[319]
While the people of the "Old Dominion" were
watching the progress of war in the other states,
two strangers appeared among them whose characters
at once attracted to them the love of the generous
and good. A young nobleman of France had
left the luxuries of his native land, and the endearments
of his family, to come to America. Gilbert
Motier de La Fayette, had watched the opening
struggle for freedom with intense interest. When
the arms of the patriots had gained some advantages,
he wished to embark for the New World,
him, but when Washington was driven from
New York, and reverse after reverse depressed
America, he was positively forbidden to engage
personally in a cause that seemed so desperate.[320]
The true nobility of his spirit now appeared:
"Hitherto," he said to the American Commissioners,
"I have done no more than wish success to
your cause; I now go to serve it. The more it has
fallen in public opinion, the greater will be the
effect of my departure."[321]
The ship in which he embarked is said to have
been chased by French cruisers, sent out to arrest
him; but, happily escaping, he entered the port
of Charleston, in South Carolina, early in the year
1777.
La Fayette was accompanied by the Baron De
Kalb, a German by birth, but a Brigadier-General
in the French army. Like his young companion,
he came to battle for liberty in America. As these
two distinguished men passed through Virginia,
they were hailed with enthusiasm by her citizens.
Her learning and talent rejoiced to do them honour.
Their stay was brief, as they were anxious to meet
Congress, and join the Continental army, but they
were both destined to revisit Virginia. De Kalb
passed through in 1780, to fight like a lion and die
like a hero on the field of Camden, and to draw
from Washington that pathetic lament uttered over
his grave, "Here lies the brave De Kalb, the generous
water with his blood the tree of our liberty.
Would to God he had lived to share with us its
fruits."[322] And the greenest laurels won by La
Fayette were those gained in Virginia, in the closing
scenes of the Revolution.
An English fleet was hovering on the American
coast, and keeping each exposed state in fear of a
descent. (August 16.) At length it appeared at
the mouth of the Chesapeake, and immediately the
Virginia militia were put in motion to meet the
attack. They repaired with alacrity to Williamsburg,
York, Portsmouth, and other points where an
assault seemed probable. Thomas Nelson was
County Lieutenant of York, and in time of danger
was looked to as a leader for the troops. He was
a man of excellent education and decided civic
talents; he was affable and modest, beloved by his
friends, respected by opponents. With these qualities
he united tried courage, and a skill in military
combination which would have made him distinguished
had his field been wider. The Governor
and Council appointed him Brigadier-General, and
gave him command of all the forces of the state.
Had the British landed, they would have met steady
opposition, but the fleet sailed to the head of Chesapeake
Bay, and Sir William Howe, landing eighteen
thousand men, advanced towards Philadelphia.[323]
Washington offered him battle, and the well-known
struggle at Brandywine immediately followed.
On the 20th October, the Legislature again assembled.
Their most important action was that
produced by the state of war. They exerted themselves
to complete the Continental line. Finding
that enlistments were slow, a draft from the unmarried
militia was resorted to; one able-bodied
man was drawn by lot from every twenty-five, and
a bounty of fifteen dollars was paid to the soldier
thus drafted. Desertions had become so common
and so ruinous that it was enacted that if a man
concealed a deserter, he should take his place; and
if a woman, she should pay a heavy fine; but with
tender regard for human sympathies, it was provided,
that from this law should be excepted the
wife concealing her husband, the widow her son,
and the child his or her parent.[324]
Advantage was
taken of all circumstances favourable to the great
end of enrolling soldiers; Baptists and Methodists,
and other religious societies, were invited to organize
separate companies, and to appoint officers
of their own persuasion. Sometimes energy exhibited
itself in doubtful means; materials for clothing
were seized wherever found, and being immediately
appraised, were paid for on the spot, and converted
into clothes for the soldiers.[325]
The exportation of
beef, pork, and bacon, except for the use of the
army, was forbidden; monopolies were crushed,
and every movement of domestic commerce was
watched with jealous eyes.
Another series of acts were passed, which have
afterwards gave rise to extended litigation. Early
in the war, many inhabitants of Virginia left her
soil and fled to England; they abhorred the principles
of the Revolution, and would willingly have
seen its overthrow. These were known by the title
of "English Refugees." They were, in the worst
sense of the word, "alien enemies," and not merely
enemies, but traitors to their country. According
to the received rules of the common law, such could
hold no property, and enjoy no civil rights.[327] Yet
the law-makers of Virginia were not disposed to
proceed to extremity; they had not learned that
England had yet gone so far as to confiscate all
property within her bounds belonging to Americans,
and they wished to govern their action by
her own. To permit the rents and profits of estates,
and debts accruing to alien enemies, to be transmitted
to them abroad, would have strengthened
the common foe, and weakened Virginia.[328] Therefore
they enacted that commissioners should be
appointed to take charge of the lands and personalty
of the "refugees," and to pay the profits arising
from them into the Public Loan Office; all debtors
of such refugees were also authorized to pay their
debts into the Loan Office, receiving from the proper
officer a certificate of the amount and date of
the payment; from the proceeds thus accumulated
in the treasury, the Governor and Council were
support of the wives and children of the fugitives,
if they had left any such behind them, and for payment
of their creditors, if any such were in America.[329] The balance was to be held subject to the
future order of the Legislature, whose action was
to be guided by the conduct of Great Britain. It
will not be premature at once to state, that two
years afterwards, another act was passed, declaring
that all the property of British subjects, real and
personal, should be vested by escheat and forfeiture
in the Commonwealth, still subject, however, to the
disposition and control of the Legislature.[330] From
the operation of this act, British debts authorized
to be paid into the Loan Office by the law of 1777,
were expressly excepted; but, in a short time
thereafter, this clause of the law of '77 was repealed,[331] and thus the rights of British creditors in Virginia
were chiefly dependent on the construction of
the law of 1779.
Many years after the close of the Revolution, a
celebrated cause was tried in the United States
Courts, in which these laws of Virginia all came
under review. It would not be proper here to give
an extended account of this struggle. It was long-continued
and gave exercise to the highest legal
learning, and the most brilliant popular eloquence.
Patrick Henry was engaged in it, and his course in
its management has been traced by the hand of a
involving all the questions of the original contest
came before the Supreme Court of the United
States in 1796, and was elaborately argued by distinguished
counsel.[333] The court thought that the
laws of Virginia were not intended absolutely to
confiscate British debts;[334] but they decided that,
admitting these laws were so intended, and were
originally valid, yet they were repealed by the
Treaty of Peace in 1783; one article of which
provided that creditors on either side should meet
with no lawful impediment in the recovery of their
debts.
At this session the Legislature turned its thoughts
to the plan of union which had been proposed by
Congress for the approval of the several states.
The "Articles of Confederation" had been originally
prepared in November, 1776; they were not
the result of painful thought and profound research,
but were offered in haste, and adopted for want of
something better. The emergency was pressing,
disunion would have been fatal, and the world
needed some tangible evidence that the states were
confederate. (December 15.) Virginia, by her
Assembly, passed a unanimous resolution, that under
the circumstances of the country, these articles
ought to be approved, and instructed her delegates
in Congress to ratify the plan in the name of the
scheme will not now be dwelt upon;[336] while the
war lasted the "Articles" might suffice; for outward
danger pressed the states together, and invasion
forced them to raise men and money. The
plan was not affirmatively vicious, but it was weak,
contemptible, a mere rope of sand. Instead of
bearing down immediately upon persons, and forcing
them to their duty, it made requirements of
states, only to be disobeyed or neglected.[337]
(1778.) Early in the next year the eyes of the
vigilant were drawn to disorders in the southeastern
part of the state, which called for redress.
Many of the people there living were still disaffected,
yet they could not be removed without
measures approaching to cruelty. A brutal wretch
in Princess Anne County, named Josiah Phillips,
became distinguished in marauding. Through his
own county, and Nansemond and Norfolk, he
prowled like a wild beast in search of prey. His
followers were outlaws like himself. When hard
pressed by pursuers, they would lie concealed for
days in the swamps of the country. The matted
undergrowth and deep gloom of these fastnesses
were their protection; but when the danger passed,
they would suddenly sally forth, fall upon a defenceless
homestead, murder all the inhabitants,
burn the house to the ground, and return to their
Phillips spread terror through the country; children
trembled when they heard it, and even bold
men feared his stealthy attacks. The militia were
often called out to form bands for his destruction,
but so great was their apathy, that not more than
five or six men would attend at a muster; or if a
sufficient number were enrolled, most of them deserted
with the first opportunity.[338] Upon receiving
a full report of the facts, Governor Henry addressed
a message to the Assembly, (May 27,) in which
he spoke of the difficulty of reaching the murderers
by the ordinary process of law, alluded to their
enormities, and urged decided action. This gave
rise to a proceeding which has been thought little
in accordance with the spirit of American institutions,
and which under any other circumstances
could hardly be justified. The House of Delegates
resolved itself into a committee of the whole on
the state of the country, and on the 28th of May,
a report was made by Mr. Carter, reciting the
crimes of Phillips and his band, and recommending
that unless they should surrender themselves
within a limited time, they should be attained of
high treason. Messrs Jefferson, Smith, and Tyler,
were appointed to prepare a bill, which was duly
reported, and after passing through the regular
forms in both houses, became a law on the 1st day
of June. It declared that unless Josiah Phillips
and his associates should voluntarily surrender
themselves to some duly authorized officer of
they should stand and be attainted and convicted
of high treason, and should suffer all its penalties,
whenever they could be applied. After the 1st of
July, all persons were empowered to pursue and
slay the outlaws wherever they could be found,
provided they should be in arms at the time, or
else they were authorized to capture and bring
them to justice.[339]
This was the first act of attainder passed in Virginia
since the opening of the Revolution, and it
is also believed to have been the last. Such acts
constitute the most dangerous exercise of power
that law-makers can use. In England they have
been the means of perpetrating cruelty and injustice
beyond expression, and so frightful are they
in every aspect, that modern improvements in
government reject them altogether. If ever there
was a case in which a bill of attainder was just and
salutary, it was that of Josiah Phillips and his
band of robbers. Yet so shocking to our moral
sense is the principle of condemning to death a
man unheard, that we cannot but rejoice to find
that in fact it was not used. After long evading
his pursuers, Phillips was captured and brought to
trial. Instead of seeking to enforce against him
the penalties of the attainder, Edmund Randolph,
the Attorney-General, rejected it entirely, and indicted
the prisoner in regular form for murder and
robbery.[340]
Upon this indictment he was tried; he
war upon the people of Virginia; but could a
license from a renegade Governor justify murder
and robbery? His plea was overruled; he was
convicted, and suffered death according to the
solemn sentence of the court. It is a fact too singular
to be overlooked, that Edmund Randolph,
who at that time filled both the office of Attorney-General
and that of Clerk to the House of Delegates,
seems to have forgotten entirely the true
character of the prosecution against Phillips. For,
ten years afterwards, in the great debate on the
Federal Constitution, he replied to Patrick Henry's
eulogy upon the government of Virginia, and in
terms of eloquent invective denounced the course
pursued as to Phillips, whose condemnation and
death he ascribed solely to the bill of attainder![341]
And in continuing the debate, Mr. Henry appears
to have fallen into the same error.
Feeling in all their force the evils of slavery
which their English ancestors had introduced
among them, the people of Virginia would willingly
have abrogated the institution. But it was
now fixed beyond remedy; even after the great
drain caused by death during Lord Dunmore's
attacks, and the number he carried away, the slaves
in eastern Virginia were still nearly one half her
population. To banish them was impossible; to
make them all free would have been ruinous to
private resources at a time when they were most
needed, and would have introduced domestic enemies,
but their ignorance; to establish a plan for their
gradual emancipation was a matter of extreme
delicacy, and one for which the public mind
was not prepared. But there was one barrier
to the increase of the evil which the Legislature
could erect; they could turn back the poisonous
stream of importation which the British
government had long forced into their land.[342] On
the 5th of October, the Assembly enacted that from
that time forth, no slaves should be imported into
the Commonwealth by sea or land; any person so
importing should be subject to a fine of one thousand
dollars for each one brought in, and the slave
himself should be absolutely free.[343] From this law
were excepted slaves brought by transient visiters
to the state, those which might vest in the owners
by descent, devise, or marriage, and those that
might be brought by citizens of other states intending
to reside in Virginia, and who should make
oath that they did not intend to evade the law, and
that their slaves had not been imported from
Africa or the West India Isles after the 1st day
of November, 1778.[344] Under these laws the slave
of increase was destroyed; and if the curse was not
removed, it was at least confined to narrower limits.
Yet since this time, the process of natural propagation
has kept slavery nearly even with freedom,
and until within a few years past, the philanthropist
looked in vain for symptoms of its decline
in the "Old Dominion."
Another act of this Assembly proved its jealous
watchfulness for the common good. After France
recognised the independence of the United States,
and became their ally, the English Parliament
were driven to a final "Conciliatory Bill" to recover
their dominion. This act made many concessions,
but it did not concede the great point of
independence, and, without this, all others were of
no avail. The Bill was carried to America by
three special Commissioners, Lord Carlisle, William
Eden, and Governor Johnstone. Johnstone
had before professed to be a friend of America and
attached to the opposition, but after having "touched
ministerial gold" his eyes were opened to his
errors, and he became a fit agent for the Ministry.[345]
The Commissioners sent the plan of conciliation to
Congress, together with a letter from themselves.
In this edifying composition abuse is poured out
and Adams are stigmatized as "audacious and
wicked leaders;" Dr. Franklin is called "a dark
agent;" Congress is accused of "impudence;"
Louis XVI is declared to have "exhausted every
infamous resource of perfidy and dissimulation" in
negotiating with the Colonies, and to have acted
treacherously towards Great Britain. So gross was
the insult offered to France, that the fiery young
La Fayette challenged the Earl of Carlisle to single
combat for words which as head of the Commission
he had made his own! The Earl, whose discretion
exceeded his valour, declined the meeting, on the
ground that his conduct had been official, and that
he was accountable for it to none except his sovereign.[346]
Congress treated the Commissioners and their
offer with calm contempt, and rejected the plan of
conciliation proposed by the Ministry. Foiled in
each effort to obtain a more favourable decision, the
agents now resorted to measures distinguished in
infamy and violence. George Johnstone sought to
open a secret correspondence with members of
Congress, and, by a female agent, he offered to Mr.
Reed, a delegate from Pennsylvania, ten thousand
pounds sterling, and the best office in the Colonies
that his Majesty could bestow, if he would use his
influence in favour of the Conciliatory Bill. Mr.
Reed's reply has immortalized him: "I am not
worth purchasing, but such as I am, the King of
were stopped in their course by no considerations
either of honour or prudence. With the
hope of scattering disaffection, and of rending the
Union asunder, they addressed manifestoes to the
Assemblies of the separate states, and to the people
generally, in which they sought to rouse individual
prejudices, to awe the timid, to distract the brave,
to seduce the wavering by hopes of pardon. They
concluded their addresses by plain intimations that
though leniency had thus far been practised, yet if
the Colonies threw themselves into the arms of
France, England would seek to make them useless
to her enemy, by wasting their country with fire
and sword![348]
The manifestoes named the 11th November as
the time within which the states must make submission;
but, much to the chagrin of the agents,
every where their offers were spurned with contempt.
In the month of October, the Legislature
of Virginia learned, through the executive, that a
British officer had arrived at Fort Henry, from
New York, bearing these addresses to the Speaker
of the Assembly, the several members of government,
and to all ministers of the Gospel. Major
Thomas Matthews, who commanded the Fort, refused
to receive these papers until he heard from
the Governor. (Oct. 17.) The Legislature passed
a resolution approving in warm terms of the conduct
of Major Matthews, directing him to express
and that of his principals, and to order him
instantly to depart from the state, with the assurance
that any one making a similar attempt should
be seized "as an enemy to America."[349] Thus, the
infamous designs of the Commissioners failed of
success, and, in despair of effecting any thing, they
left the country and returned to Great Britain.
Of the whole wretched system pursued by the
English Ministry towards America, no part was
more dishonouring to themselves, and more efficient
in uniting the Colonies, than the Bill and Commission
of 1778.[350]
While vigilant guardians were shielding the
eastern counties from danger, events were passing
in the "far West" which had a material bearing on
the welfare of Virginia. We have, heretofore, in
the progress of this work, glanced at the tide of
migration which was filling up the country beyond
the Blue Ridge, and we have seen that many things
contributed to make this territory alike important
in peace or war. Beautiful as were the vales, fertile
as was the land, verdant as were the savannas
of the West, it required more than ordinary men to
people and reclaim them. But nothing could repress
the eagerness with which this task was prosecuted,
after some of its hardy charms had been
tasted by adventurers from the north and east.
The stream of settlement flowed yearly onward;
at first, a few dauntless woodsmen shouldered their
wagon, carrying a brave family, and accompanied
by the father and his sturdy sons, broke its rough
way into the new country; soon other families
came, and neighbours began to salute each other.
As early as 1772 permanent settlements were made
west of the Alleghanies, and between them and the
Laurel Ridge, and the next year they reached the
Ohio.[351]
Six years before, Daniel Boone had entered
the Kentucky of the Indians, "the dark and
bloody land," often the scene of savage conflicts,
and afterwards the battle-ground of natives and
whites. Yet it was beautiful enough to have
stilled human passions. Resting upon a bed of
limestone, and abounding in mysterious caves and
fountains, the land was yet generous and grateful
for the slightest care. After retreating from the
Ohio, it was elevated, even mountainous, and
topped with heavy forests; in the south, underneath
a lofty growth of trees, was found a barrier
of giant reeds, so thick and tough, that the adventurer
would shrink back discouraged; but in the
vales through which the three great rivers ran,
the ground was literally "the garden of the West."
Grass grew, so green and tall that thousands of
cattle might have feasted upon it; the ash, the
walnut, the buckeye, the elm, the mulberry, the
poplar, all towered in majesty, as though to assert
their dominion over the land. The soil was so
rich, that in after years it was found that many
it was sufficiently reduced for making wheat.[352]
Such a country could not remain long neglected;
it was settled from Virginia and North Carolina,
and every year became more vigorous, until it was
erected into a state in 1785.
To meet the dangers of a new country, the luxurious,
the feeble, the timid, would seldom offer. The
pioneers and their families were among the wildest
and most fearless of men pretending to be civilized.
A rich planter coming from the East would hardly
have recognised a feature among his brethren of the
Alleghany and Ohio regions. Incessant watchfulness
and war gradually assimilated them to the
Indians, until they even went beyond them in
physical accomplishments. With as many wiles
and stratagems, as much fierceness and patient
endurance, they had more strength, more fleetness,
more skill in using weapons. The western settler
was clothed in a hunting-shirt which left his limbs
free in motion, a tomahawk was in his girdle, a
long rifle was grasped in his hand, his feet were
protected by mocassins instead of shoes.[353]
In this
last point he fared better than his wife, who generally
went bare-footed in summer.[354]
Hunting,
among the men, became a serious avocation, and
was brought to a system. In autumn the deer
were pursued and taken in great numbers; in winter
the bear and wolf became the hunter's prey.
Nothing could exceed their skill in using the rifle
to them at least, were as important as the Olympic
games to the Greeks. It was common for the
marksman at ninety yards to cut his bullet in
twain on the edge of a knife, and to snuff the wick
of a candle without extinguishing it. From early
years the boys were trained to forest life; their
very sports partook of this character. They imitated
the cries of young animals so accurately that
often the parents themselves were deceived and
fell into the snare.[355] In the long winter evenings,
families assembled in their warm huts, and the
younger members heard with delight from the old,
tales of daring adventure, and "accidents by field
and flood."[356]
As the West thus filled, it became more and more
interesting to the belligerents of the Revolution.
Hamilton, the English Governor at Detroit, was a
man of firm character, but cold and cruel. He
sought to bring all the Indian tribes under his
control, and to rouse them against the Americans.
He paid a tempting price for every white scalp
brought by his savage allies; and with infernal
ingenuity, he urged them to the work of death.[357]
But his course was soon to be arrested. Among
the people of Western Virginia, was Colonel George
Rogers Clarke, a man so cool in danger, so heroic
in combat, so prompt in difficulty, so untiring in
upon him the expressive title of "the Hannibal of
the West."[358] The whole territory west of her own
and the Pennsylvania frontier, belonged to Virginia,
but as it was yet thinly inhabited by whites,
she had not exercised over it direct jurisdiction.
It now became important to secure this country, to
drive back the savages, and to check the English
by a well-directed stroke. Early in the fall, two
expeditions were planned; one, consisting of nearly
a thousand men, was placed under the command of
General McIntosh, and sent against the Sandusky
towns, but this attempt accomplished little, and at
last failed entirely.[359] Far different was the conduct
of the other. By his own request, about two hundred
and eighty men were assigned to Colonel
Clarke; they were selected from the bone and
sinew of the land, and with them he prepared for
a daring attempt. Descending the Monongahela,
he re-embarked at Fort Pitt, and went down the
Ohio in boats until he reached the "Great Falls,"
about two hundred and forty miles from its mouth.
Here the adventurers hid their boats, and taking on
their backs as much food as they could carry, plunged
into the forests north of the river. In three days
their provision was exhausted; they fed upon roots
and mast found in the woods; yet with undiminished
courage they pressed on. At midnight they
arrived near the town of Kaskaskia on the Mississippi,
about one hundred miles above the mouth of
Virginians yet resolved on an assault; to conquer
or perish was the only alternative. The town consisted
of nearly two hundred and fifty houses, and
was so fortified that it might have made formidable
resistance, but the people had not dreamed of attack.
Surrounded by forests, and nearly twelve hundred
miles from the frontiers of the East, they had
thought themselves secure. In the darkness they
were roused by the summons to surrender; and so
skilful were the measures of Clarke, that not one
man escaped captivity. The town was taken, and
after receiving hasty refreshment, a body of the
Virginians, mounted on fleet horses, proceeded up
the river, and surprised three other French towns,
equally unprepared for assault. Thus the whole
region was reduced; Philip Rocheblane, the Governor
of Kaskaskia, was captured, and was sent
to Virginia, together with the written instructions
he had received from the English authorities of
Quebec and Detroit, urging him to rouse the Indians
to war, and to reward them for every deed of
blood.[360]
The Legislature received with joy intelligence
of these events. (November 23.) They voted
warm thanks to Colonel Clarke, his officers and
men, for their "extraordinary resolution and perseverance."[361]
Learning that the people of this region
had willingly transferred their allegiance from
England to the United States, the Assembly passed
Illinois, and establishing there a provisional government.[362] But the triumph was not to be confirmed
without a further struggle. When Governor Hamilton
heard of the successes of Clarke, he was
excited to renewed effort by rage and disappointment.
He collected a body of more than six hundred
men, chiefly Indians; with these he designed
to overwhelm the feeble force in Illinois, to sweep
the Virginia settlements in Kentucky, to advance to
Fort Pitt, and perhaps to carry ruin into the heart of
West Augusta.[363] About the middle of December, he
arrived at Vincennes on the Wabash, and having
repaired the fort, he sent most of his Indians to
attack the white settlements on the Ohio, reserving
to himself only one company of men.
(1779.) Colonel Clarke perceived the danger.
Happily at this time a Spanish trader arrived from
Fort Vincennes, and told him how much Hamilton's
force had been reduced. Quick as lightning,
he seized the opportunity. Sending a galley filled
with men, and armed with two four-pounders, and
four swivels, to ascend the Wabash, he himself
selected one hundred and thirty of his best men,
and marched directly towards the fort. Great
hardships attended them; five days were employed
in crossing the sunken lands of the Wabash, which
were frequently overflowed, and at one time the
men marched six miles up to their waists in ice
and water. They would have been frozen had not
the weather been remarkably mild. They arrived
galley made her appearance on the river. Nothing
could exceed the astonishment of the besieged.
The people of the town surrendered at once, and
joyfully transferred allegiance to Virginia; they
even assisted in attacking the fort. But Hamilton
was desperate, and for eighteen hours the fort was
defended amid an incessant fire on both sides.
(February 23.) During the night, after the moon
went down, Colonel Clarke caused an entrenchment
to be thrown up, overlooking the strongest
battery of the foe, and the next morning his marksmen
commenced pouring rifle bullets upon the
artillerists. The fire was not to be endured; no
man could show himself without being cut down;
in fifteen minutes two cannon were silenced. Governor
Hamilton demanded a parley, and on the
next evening the fort and all its stores were surrendered,
and the Governor and his men became
prisoners of war.[364]
Whether we consider the hardships endured, the
courage displayed, or the results obtained in these
achievements, we must alike assign to Colonel
Clarke a high place in the temple of renown. It
has been said that his conquest was afterwards regarded
as the true basis of the claim of the United
States to a northern boundary on the Lakes. In
the treaty of peace, England insisted on the Ohio
as the boundary, and the Count de Vergennes, in
behalf of France, was disposed to assent, but the
Clarke with so much force, that their claims were
at last admitted.[365] We must ever deplore the seeming
ingratitude of which this great man afterwards
had cause to complain. The state had not made
adequate provision for his soldiers, and in fitting
them out he had himself contracted debts which
were afterwards sued to judgment, and his property
was wrested from him. Virginia sought to repay
him and his men, by granting to them a large tract
of land within the bounds of the present state of
Indiana; but its value was then nominal, and it
yielded little to General Clarke. Disappointment
drove him to intemperance; he sought to drown
care in the bowl.[366] A sun which had risen undimmed,
and had shone at meridian with splendour,
went down at last amid clouds and gloom.
Hamilton and several of his chief officers were
sent to Virginia. Meanwhile a change had taken
place in her government. Patrick Henry had declined
a re-election as Governor, believing that the
spirit of the constitution forbade it. Thomas Jefferson
was duly chosen on the 1st day of June to be
chief magistrate of the Commonwealth. John Page
was voted for in opposition, but this circumstance
did not at all impair the good feeling existing between
these two friends.[367]
A short time after Mr.
Jefferson commenced his duties, the prisoners from
Illinois arrived in Williamsburg. Written evidence
had offered rewards for scalps and none for prisoners;
that he had incited the Indians to many
acts of cruelty, and that his companions had approved
and aided. Therefore the Council advised
retaliation, and the Governor, acting under their
advice, caused Hamilton, together with Dejean, a
magistrate, and Lamothe, a captain of volunteers,
to be confined in the dungeon of the jail, fettered
with iron shackles, deprived of pen, ink, and paper,
and forbidden all converse, except with their keeper.[368]
Such rigour could do nothing but harm; it was
unworthy of a generous people, even if Hamilton
had been guilty of all the enormities ascribed to
him; but one who had personal acquaintance with
him has expressed the opinion that his nature was
manly and upright, and that if he sanctioned Indian
hostilities, it was under the express orders of his
Government.[369]
General Phillips, the commander of the "Convention
troops," who were then prisoners of war in
Albemarle County, made a solemn protest against
the treatment of Governor Hamilton and his subordinates,
as being alike unwarranted by the laws
of war and the facts of the case. Much indignation
prevailed among the British officers in New York
and elsewhere, and threats were made that not one
officer of the Virginia line should be released until
the prisoners at Williamsburg were enlarged. On
the 17th July, Mr. Jefferson wrote to the Commander-in-chief
accustomed nobleness of soul, recommended a lenient
course. Accordingly, the captives were brought
out, and offered liberty on parole, if they would engage
neither to say nor do any thing to the prejudice
of the United States, until exchanged.[370] After
some demur, all assented, and in the following
year, Governor Hamilton was allowed to go to
New York.
Thus commenced Mr. Jefferson's career as Governor.
He was called to the office at the opening
of a period of peculiar difficulty, and for the demands
of which he was little suited. He was profound
as a statesman, sagacious as a law-maker,
and ingenious as a philosopher; but as a soldier
and a general his skill existed in theory, and not
elsewhere. The time was again coming when Virginia
was to be visited by actual war. The British
commanders turned their eyes to the South, and resolved
to possess it by vigorous campaigns. Already
Georgia had been reduced to submission
While Patrick Henry was yet Governor, a serious
invasion of Virginia was projected. Admiral Sir
George Collier, with a fleet of armed ships and
transports, carrying two thousand troops, under
General Matthew, entered Hampton Roads on the
9th of May. The Virginians had built Fort Nelson,
on the west side of Elizabeth River, and not
far below Portsmouth, to protect the Gosport shipyard,
and the town of Norfolk. The fort was
them; it was strong on the water side, but almost
uncovered in the rear. The British brought up
the Rainbow sloop to batter it in front, while land
forces prepared for an assault. Finding that he
could not hold it, Major Thomas Matthews, the
commandant, sent off his ammunition, spiked his
guns, hoisted his colours, and then retreating before
the enemy, found a safe refuge in the fastnesses of
the Dismal Swamp.[371] General Matthew took possession
of the fort, and thence despatched strong
bodies of men to Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Suffolk.
Every where the progress of the English was
marked with devastation; they burned houses, destroyed
live stock, ruined private furniture, and
carried off booty. Defenceless women were violated,
and seven Frenchmen found at the Great
Bridge were inhumanly put to death.[372]
The militia
of the country offered but feeble resistance. The
town of Suffolk, in Nansemond County, was very
important to Virginia. Besides other stores, several
thousand barrels of pork had been accumulated
there for the use of the army. As the enemy advanced,
Colonel Willis Riddick made several efforts
to stop them, but not more than one hundred
and fifty militia could be collected, and these, of
course, could make no stand against six hundred regulars.
(May 13.) The British set fire to the town.
Several hundred barrels of tar, pitch, turpentine,
and rum had been stored in lots near the wharves;
taking fire, ran down into the river, in a broad
sheet of flame. The burning mass floated over to
the opposite shore, and set fire to the dry herbage
of a marsh, which was instantly in conflagration;
the town was burning at the same time; public and
private stores were alike destroyed; and before the
enemy left it, the country for miles around was a
scene of ruin. After committing ravages in other
places, the troops re-embarked, and the fleet sailed
back to New York about the last of May.[373]
How could a body of troops, certainly not overwhelming
in numbers, thus desolate whole counties,
without effectual resistance? This is a question
often asked. To answer it we may say that
there was much in the condition of Virginia to account
for her feebleness and to excuse her rulers
Regular soldiers withdrawn for the Continental
service; no ships to guard the entrance of her bay;
no heavy forts to protect Hampton Roads; a wide
country thinly peopled; scanty supplies of ammunition;
indifferent arms; undisciplined militia: these
facts explain the result. Yet we cannot entirely
acquit the authorities of the land; there ought to
have been preparation. We shall soon see the
same scenes repeated and enlarged, and the same
fatal inefficiency attending the movements of the
invaded.
(1780.) Early in the session of the next year,
the Legislature made every preparation that law
could do for the defence of the commonwealth.
enemy was generally successful in the South, and
after overrunning the Carolinas, Virginia would be
the next point of attack. The Assembly authorised
the Governor to call twenty thousand militia
into the field, if necessary; to impress provisions
and clothing; to lay an embargo on the ports of the
state, when expedient; to hasten the manufacture
of arms, and to raise money by new taxes.[374] At the
same time they filled the Continental regiments by
drafts of one man from every fifteen, and provided
for a new issue of paper money. This last was
ruinous, but necessary. It is true, the state bills
had fallen so low in value that hundreds of nominal
dollars would hardly buy food for a day for a single
man; but they had no other money, and no hope
except to wait for better times, when the public
faith should be redeemed. The Assembly farther
empowered the Governor to punish desertion severely,
and to confine or remove all persons thought
to be disaffected to the common cause.
On the 20th June, General Horatio Gates received
notice of his appointment to command the
southern army. He immediately left his farm in
Berkeley County, and passed through Fredericksburg
and Richmond, on his way to join the Baron
De Kalb, in North Carolina. While in Fredericksburg,
the hero of Saratoga met with the eccentric General
Charles Lee, and in conversation with him expressed
high hopes for the coming campaign, "Take
care," said Lee, "or your northern laurels will soon
was but too speedily verified. It will not be necessary
to accompany the unhappy Gates through the
bloody field of Camden, where his own hopes, and
those of his country, came near to annihilation.
(August 16.) He met the British army under
Cornwallis, and was totally defeated; the militia
fled, and Gates was borne away in vain efforts to
rally them; the Continentals fought and died, and
the heroic De Kalb fell in their midst, after receiving
eleven wounds. The brave Colonel Porterfield,
who commanded the Virginia regulars, was one of
the victims of this day. The Virginia militia were
among those who ingloriously fled from the field.
Colonel Stevens who commanded them was almost
maddened by their conduct; he urged, he implored,
he threw himself upon their bayonets, and turned
them towards the enemy, but all in vain. A false
move directed by Gates had exposed them to a disadvantageous
attack, and they never recovered from
their panic.[376]
The unfortunate General was soon superseded,
and returned to Virginia depressed with grief and
mortification. (December 28th.) As he passed
through Richmond, the Legislature was in session,
and generously sought to soothe his pain by a vote
of sympathy. They assured him of their high regard
and esteem; that the memory of former services
could not be obliterated by the late reverse,
and that Virginia, as a member of the Union, would
He retired to his farm in the country, which he did
not leave again during the war. If he had erred
by the indulgence of vanity, and had grossly sinned
in striving to supplant Washington, his punishment
was ample, and we have reason to believe his repentance
was sincere.[378] As a gentleman of courteous
and liberal character, he was respected by all who
knew him.
After the defeat of Gates, Cornwallis had hoped
to be able to penetrate Virginia, and for this purpose,
had urged Sir Henry Clinton to send a sufficient
force from New York to co-operate with him.
Accordingly, about the close of October, a British
fleet entered Chesapeake Bay, giving convoy to
three thousand troops, under General Leslie. Some
of these were disembarked at Portsmouth, some at
Hampton, and others at points in the Bay in Princess
Anne County; but, after a time, all were concentrated
at Portsmouth, and entrenchments were commenced.
The movements of the foe were mysterious
and seemed undecided, but the mystery was
soon explained. Instead of being able to advance
into Virginia, Cornwallis had made a precipitate retreat;
the total overthrow of his subordinate, Ferguson,
at King's Mountain, had deranged all his
plans. General Leslie was thus left without support.
These facts were discovered by a singular incident.
A man whose appearance excited suspicion, was
apprehended between Portsmouth and North Carolina.
observed to carry something rapidly from his pocket
to his mouth; this was taken out, and found to be
a letter written on silk paper, rolled in goldbeater's
skin, and tightly tied, so as not to be larger than a
goose-quill. The letter was signed A. L., was dated
Portsmouth, Virginia, November 4, 1780, and directed
to Lord Cornwallis. It informed his lordship
that the writer had already written to him;
knew not certainly where he was; waited his orders,
and would reward the bearer if he brought
him a note or mark from his lordship.[379] This missive
explained all, and relieved Governor Jefferson
from some of his anxiety. Militia were ordered to
guard the passages from Portsmouth, but no collision
took place. Could the French fleet, then hovering
on the American coast, have been informed
of the true state of things, they might have caught
the enemy as "in a net;"[380] but, on the 22d November,
the British re-embarked, and clearing from
Hampton Roads, sailed for Charleston. They had
committed devastations, but these were never sanctioned
by their officers, whose conduct had been
worthy of generous soldiers.[381]
This invasion led to a change, which will not be
understood without a preliminary statement. When
Burgoyne surrendered at Saratoga, the "Convention"
between himself and Gates provided that the
prisoners, rank and file, should be kept together,
serve again against America, until exchanged.
This would have enabled Great Britain to employ
them elsewhere, and to send against America the
troops whose places they took. Certainly, therefore,
it was an arrangement most unfavourable to
the United States. Some delay occurred in getting
quarters for these troops in Boston, and British
authorities having on several occasions uttered and
acted the principle that "faith was not to be kept
with rebels," Congress resolved not to suffer the
prisoners to embark until England should expressly
ratify the Saratoga Convention. Meanwhile, some
place, at once secure and comfortable, was to be
selected, in which they might be quartered. The
neighbourhood of Charlottesville, in Virginia, was
chosen, and early in 1779, the troops, numbering
more than four thousand souls, were transferred to
this spot. On the top and brow of a ridge, five
miles from the town, barracks were built for them
which cost twenty-five thousand dollars. The
officers rented houses and settled their families,
bought cows and sheep, and turned farmers; their
society was sought by the gentlemen of the country,
and music and literature enabled them to beguile
the hours of captivity. The ground near the barracks
was laid off in several hundred gardens;
the men enclosed them with separate paling, and
cultivated them with care. The German General,
Reidésel, is said to have expended two hundred
pounds in garden-seeds for the use of his own troops.
As far as possible the prisoners were made quiet
of gain than of injury to Virginia. Forty-five
thousand bushels of grain for their use, were to be
supplied by her harvests every year, and it has
been estimated that in each week thirty thousand
dollars were circulated by reason of the presence of
these troops.[382] Their health was remarkable; in
three months only four deaths occurred at the barracks;
two were infants, and two soldiers fell victims
to apoplexy.
Yet captivity is never grateful; man may have
every physical want supplied, but without liberty
he is not happy. Desertions from the station often
occurred, and at one time in so great numbers that
Mr. Jefferson found it necessary to write to the
Commander-in-chief, with the hope that he might
arrest some of a party of nearly four hundred, who
were making their way to the North.[383]
When
General Leslie penetrated Virginia, and fortified
himself at Portsmouth, the prisoners became more
and more restive. Many deserted and joined their
countrymen; several were apprehended in attempting
the same course, and there were serious fears
that the whole body of British captives would rise
and endeavour to overcome their guard. The Germans
were less impatient, but the danger was
pressing. Under these circumstances it was thought
expedient that the whole of these troops should be
transferred from Virginia to some place of greater
one hundred in number; desertions, death,
and partial exchanges having greatly reduced them.
Fort Frederick, in Maryland, was prepared for
their reception; two divisions were formed; on the
20th November, the British were marched from
their barracks, and crossing the Blue Ridge, proceeded
through the Valley to Maryland; the Germans
followed to Winchester in a few weeks, and
about the end of the year all were safely quartered
in their new stations.[384]
(1781.) The next year was pregnant with the
fate of America; but before we proceed to its
military history, the order of events will require
reference to a subject of high importance, and of
influence not yet exhausted. On the 2d day of
January, the Legislature passed a resolution offering
to cede to Congress all the lands of the Commonwealth
in the huge territory northwest of the
Ohio River, for the benefit of the states composing
the Union. This liberal grant was made with the
immediate design of inducing all the states to become
parties to the Articles of Confederation. It
was proposed on certain conditions, and as nearly
three years passed before it was finally ratified, its
farther consideration will be deferred until it can be
regularly presented.
The previous dangers of Virginia might have
warned her rulers to be prepared for a renewal of
invasion. The invasion of Leslie was so recent that
its marks were yet visible, and in addition to
Governor of movements in New York which
threatened a descent.[385] Yet no adequate means of
defence were used, and when the storm actually
commenced, it met feeble resistance. On the last
day of the old year, Mr. Jefferson received intelligence
that twenty-seven ships had entered Chesapeake
Bay, and were standing up towards the
mouth of James River. This should have been
the signal for vigorous movements; not for flying,
but for fighting. Had General Nelson been called
to the capital, and suffered to direct the military
operations, it is probable that the enemy would
have been checked, and Richmond saved from impending
insult. But this efficient officer was in
the counties near the coast, striving to organize the
militia, and to make the stand which afterwards so
distinguished him.[386] The hostile fleet sailed slowly
up James River, on the 2d and 3d of January, and
on the 4th, at 2 o'clock, P.M., the invading force
landed at Westover, on the north side of the river,
and twenty-five miles below Richmond, thus making
it certain that the capital was their object. The
enemy were about nine hundred in number, and
many of them were deserters from the American
army.[387] They were commanded by Benedict Arnold,
the traitor, the man of infamy, whom the
conscience of a world would have condemned to
his fear of falling into the hands of his
countrymen.
It is deeply to be regretted, that no leader was
present to use the resources at hand for defending
Richmond. Pressing as was the emergency, ample
means existed for resistance, and had they been
turned against the enemy at the critical moment, it
is not improbable that they would have been successful.
On the 4th of January, two hundred militia
were assembled, and by placing in the ranks
the men of the town, and the teamsters of ammunition
wagons, together with new arrivals from the
country, the number by the 5th would have been
considerably increased. At the foundry, near
Westham, and hardly six miles above Richmond,
were more than five tons of gunpowder and other
warlike stores, and in the city there were five brass
four-pounders, and a full supply of muskets, with
all necessary accompaniments.[388]
The natural position
of Richmond is strong; hills descend to the
river on all sides, and cannon properly planted, and
backed by resolute men, would have opposed formidable
resistance to the invaders, who were entirely
without artillery.
But Governor Jefferson was not a warrior. His
call for militia on the 4th was the only step that
bore even the appearance of defence; all his other
measures were for flight, and for flight conducted
with singular disregard to every thing except the
safety of persons. In reviewing the course adopted
that a strange bewilderment pervaded his proceedings,
betokening the absence not merely of military
skill, but of firm nerves, and of apprehension quick
in times of danger. The five brass cannon were
planted, not against the enemy, but at the bottom of
the James; the teamsters and militia, instead of
loading muskets with powder and ball, loaded wagons
with arms and ammunition, and drove them
off in haste to Westham. When news was received
that the British had landed at Westover, orders
were given to throw the remaining stores directly
across the river from Richmond, with the hope of
preserving them.[389] Why it should have been supposed
that these military munitions would be safe
at Westham, if they were not so in Richmond, it is
not easy to divine. If the city was taken, there
was nothing to prevent the enemy from marching
up or crossing the river, as was afterwards fully
proved. But Mr. Jefferson urged on the fugitive
operations with vigour; at about half-past seven in
the evening of the 4th, he mounted his horse, and
leaving the capital, rode speedily to Westham to
see to the arms, and thence went on to Tuckahoe,
eight miles above, arriving at one o'clock in the
night. Hither his family had preceded him. Following
the Governor's example, most of the white
inhabitants of Richmond at the same time took to
flight.
The town at this time did not contain three hundred
houses, but was rapidly expanding up and
on this day, Arnold, at the head of his troops, entered
the principal street without encountering the
slightest opposition. Meanwhile Mr. Jefferson
crossed the river, and came down to Britton's opposite
to Westham. He was still anxious as to the
arms; they were never pointed at the enemy, but
fearing they might be shot at from the other shore,
or be wet by rain, he had them removed to a place
of greater safety.[391] During the evening, while he
was at Colonel Flemming's, five miles above Britton's,
some citizens from Richmond waited on him,
conveying an offer from Arnold not to burn the
town, if British ships might be allowed quietly to
come up and take away the tobacco there stored.
This offer was rejected; if acceded to, it would
probably have saved none of the public stores.
Hardly had the British entered the town, before
Colonel Simcoe, at the head of a body of infantry
and fifty horse, dashed forward upon Westham,
burned the foundry, the boring-mill, the magazine,
and several other houses, threw the five tons of
gunpowder into the canal, and destroyed all the
papers belonging to the Auditor's office and the
Council of State. They then returned unmolested
to Richmond.
(January 6.) Arnold commenced his work by
destroying a great quantity of private stores in the
town. Many warehouses were broken open, and
casks containing ardent spirits were rolled out and
and cows and hogs partaking freely, were seen
staggering about the streets. Thus the foe might
have learned a lesson of temperance. They burned
several private, and all that could by any possibility
be considered as public, buildings. Three
hundred muskets, three wagons, and a set of artificer's
tools, were included in the destruction. The
five brass pieces buried in the river under the Governor's
order, were found by the British, raised
and borne off in triumph.[392] Having thus wrought
his pleasure in the capital, the enemy commenced
his march in the evening, and retired leisurely to
his shipping, striking a body of one hundred and
fifty militia at Charles City Courthouse, of whom
one was killed and eleven were captured. In forty-eight
hours the invaders had penetrated thirty-three
miles into the country, committed the desired waste,
and returned. On the 10th, they re-embarked, and
with a fair wind sailed down the river.
(Jan. 8.) Finding the coast clear, Mr. Jefferson
once more took possession of his capital. So animated
had been his movements during the past three days,
that he had borne down his horse with fatigue, and
had then been driven to mount "an unbroken colt."[393]
Such exertions may well be pleaded as his excuse
for declining to take the field in person in the subsequent
skirmishes. Virginia was not without her
brave spirits, and had they but gained a chance for
fair combat, the enemy would have had little to
boast of for the future. Baron Steuben, a Prussian
service. He had accompanied General Greene to
Virginia, and had happily been detained. He was
a fine tactician, and indefatigable at the drill. Now
he came forward, and assumed the difficult task of
disciplining the militia. In a short time, thirty-seven
hundred were ready, in three divisions: one
under General Weeden, at Fredericksburg; another
under General Nelson, at Williamsburg, and
in the low counties; and the third under Steuben,
who followed closely on the enemy.
Some of the British vessels had ventured up the
Appamatox, to a place known as Broadway's, when
they were fiercely attacked by General Smallwood,
with three hundred militia, armed with muskets,
and they returned precipitately to City Point. Not
content with this success, Smallwood brought up
two four-pounders, and opened upon the ships at the
Point a fire which drove them down the river to
join the main fleet. Baron Steuben now marched
with his division towards a landing called Hood's,
hoping there to intercept part of the adverse force;
but the ships arrived there three hours before him,
and Arnold, with all of his troops, disembarked.
Now a blow was to be struck by a hero; Colonel
Clarke, the conqueror of Illinois, was with Steuben,
and earnestly asked permission to go forward with
two hundred and forty men. His request was
granted. Placing his force in ambush near the spot
where Arnold and his men were landing in the
night, he gave them a close volley, which killed
seventeen on the spot, and wounded thirteen.
recovering, they returned the fire, and charged with
the bayonet.[394] The Virginians, being few in number,
and without bayonets, were compelled to retire,
yet the partial success of their attack will
convince us that resolute resistance would have
stopped the progress of the enemy.
Arnold marched slowly down towards the Bay,
destroying stores, and carrying off tobacco wherever
he could find them. Finally, he established his
force at Portsmouth, and threw up entrenchments.
Mr. Jefferson was eager to capture him, and offered
five thousand guineas to any of the men of General
Muhlenburg's western corps who would accomplish
the work.[395]
But the traitor knew his danger,
and kept close quarters, never stirring beyond them,
unless with a guard. Meanwhile the attention of
General Washington was more and more directed
to Virginia; his quick eye saw that with a sufficient
naval force at the mouth of the Bay, and firm
operations on land, the British might be overcome;
his representations induced the French Admiral
Destouches to sail with his fleet from Rhode Island,
for the Chesapeake; but, meeting the English
squadron under Arbuthnot, a battle ensued, which,
though indecisive, induced the French to return to
Newport.
On the 26th of March, the British General Phillips
arrived at Portsmouth with two thousand men.
He immediately assumed the command, much to
Arnold. Treason may be encouraged, but traitors
will always be hated. Phillips was not long content
with inactivity. On the 18th April, he commenced
ascending the James, sending parties to
York, where they spiked guns, and to the Chickahoming,
where they burned a twenty-gun ship, then
on the stocks. On the 24th, the whole body of
troops, numbering twenty-three hundred men,
landed at City Point, and marched directly upon
Petersburg. Here Baron Steuben, with one thousand
militia, prepared to receive them; although so
much their inferior, he most gallantly contested the
ground, pouring in several fires, which threw the
British van into confusion, and made them retreat
precipitately upon their comrades. The enemy
gained inch by inch; in two hours they had advanced
but a single mile; yet, at length, the Virginians
retreated, and in perfect order passed a
bridge which spanned the Appamatox. General
Phillips took possession of Petersburg, burned
many hogsheads of tobacco, and some small vessels
lying at the wharves, and then despatched Arnold
to Chesterfield Court-house, where he destroyed the
barracks, and burned a quantity of flour. On the
30th, Phillips and Arnold again united, and marched
to Manchester. They desired to pay Richmond
another visit, as courteous as the last; but
this time, they were disappointed.[396]
The Marquis de la Fayette had earnestly sought
for service in the South, and Washington, who had
the responsible duty of defending Virginia. Full
of hope, the chivalrous young Frenchman sought
his charge; he brought with him a small body of
Continental troops from Annapolis, and, on the
29th of April, entered Richmond. His very name
excited enthusiasm; militia came in on all sides,
and, under the stimulus of his addresses, desertions
ceased, and courage kindled into flame. When the
British learned of his arrival and preparations, they
abandoned all thought of attacking Richmond, and
marched down to Bermuda Hundreds, burning and
destroying tobacco, flour, mills, and shipping on the
way. They re-embarked their land forces and
sailed down the river; but, on the 6th of May, a
boat with despatches from Portsmouth, met Phillips,
and the moment he read them, he gave a signal,
and the whole fleet turned once more up the James,
and with a fair wind sailed to Brandon. Here
provisions for six days were dealt out to every man,
and on the 9th of May the army once more entered
Petersburg.[397] We shall soon see the cause of this
sudden return.
General Phillips was already labouring under a
mortal disease, but his ruling passion appeared
strong in death. He was a proud man, thoroughly
English in feeling, and he would fain have held
Americans in contempt. In reply to a message
from the Governor, he wrote to him and directed
his letter to "Thomas Jefferson, Esq., American
Governor of Virginia." Mr. Jefferson felt the
arrival of a British vessel at Alexandria, with refreshments
for the "Convention troops," before he
granted a passport he wrote to Phillips, directing
to "William Phillips, Esq., commanding the
British forces in the Commonwealth of Virginia."
This was a bitter pill for the proud Englishman to
swallow, but Mr. Jefferson resolved that no supplies
should go to the Convention troops until his
lesson had been learned.[398] Providence dissolved
this vapour of punctilio which threatened to suffocate
humanity. General Phillips died at Petersburg,
on the 13th of May, and the command of the
British again devolved upon Arnold.
Meanwhile a new and most important actor was
preparing to come forward. Lord Cornwallis was
advancing from the south; he had sent an express
to apprise Phillips of his motions, in order that
they might effect a junction at Petersburg. This
had caused the rapid return of which we have
spoken. On the 25th of April, his lordship
marched towards Halifax, sending before him the
dashing Colonel Tarleton, with one hundred and
eighty dragoons and light troops, who scoured the
country in every direction. Near Roanoke, an incident
occurred highly honourable to Cornwallis.
A sergeant and private of Tarleton's troop, during
the night had forcibly violated an unhappy girl in
the country, and robbed the house in which she
lived. The next morning, Lord Cornwallis, attended
by six dragoons of his guard, overtook
a line. Some country people were present, and
pointed out the delinquents. They were seized,
tried by martial law, condemned and instantly
executed.[399] This well-timed rigour did much to
preserve order in the subsequent march. On the
20th of May, Cornwallis entered Petersburg, and
formed a junction with Arnold.[400]
It would be hard to find terms of praise too high
for the conduct of Lafayette at this crisis. Young,
brave, impetuous, with fiery blood running through
his veins, there was much to tempt him to a rash
encounter. But to the courage of a Cæsar, he
added the prudence of a Fabius. He now commanded
three thousand troops, Continental and
militia; but an expected supply of eleven hundred
muskets had not arrived, and they were imperfectly
armed. Cornwallis moved from Petersburg, and
crossed the James at Westover, fully convinced
that "the boy" could not escape him. As he advanced,
Lafayette retreated, watching his every
motion, and detecting every stratagem to ensnare
him. His lordship was very anxious to prevent
the junction of Lafayette and General Wayne,
who, with eight hundred men of the Pennsylvania
line, was rapidly approaching from the north.
But finding his young adversary too wary to be
entrapped, he suddenly changed his plan, and encamped
on the North Anna River, in the county
County to the Raccoon Ford, in Culpeper,
where, on the 10th of June, he was joined by
General Wayne.
In the meantime, Governor Jefferson had been
in great trouble. War was approaching on all
sides, and feeling a painful sense of his incompetency,
he wished to withdraw from public service,
that a more efficient successor might take his
place.[401]
The Legislature met in Richmond on the
7th of May, but finding Phillips and Arnold uncomfortably
near to them, they adjourned on the
10th, to meet in Charlottesville on the 24th. Mr.
Jefferson's term of office expired on the 1st June;
a re-election was a matter of course, if the incumbent
desired it, and if he appeared to be equal to
all the duties; but neither of these conditions
existing in the Governor's case, he signified his
wish to retire, and that General Nelson should be
elected in his stead.[402]
The Legislature readily acquiesced
in his views; and in thus relieving him
from harassing cares, they were doubtless well
pleased to promote the welfare of the state. The
same regard for the interests and honour of the
Commonwealth, required that the Assembly should
investigate Mr. Jefferson's conduct during the
months of invasion. In the course of the session,
George Nicholas, a member of the body, young, but
talented and honest, introduced articles of impeachment,
against the Governor, but ere they were acted
upon, the Legislature fled before Tarleton; and
after the triumph at Yorktown, they were finally
dropped.[403] In their place the Assembly passed a
vote of thanks to Mr. Jefferson, confining their
plaudits to his civic attainments, which were
worthy of all praise.[404]
Cornwallis had halted, but he was not inactive;
two objects engaged his thoughts. Just between
the Rivanna and the southern branch of the James,
is a spot known as the Point of Fork, where the
Virginians had gathered a quantity of military
stores. Baron Steuben, with about six hundred
raw militia, defended it. At the same time, the
Legislature were assembled in Charlottesville, and
Mr. Jefferson had sought repose at Monticello. To
strike Steuben, Cornwallis detached Lieutenant-Colonel
Simcoe, with five hundred picked men,
Queen's Rangers, infantry and cavalry, trained to
partisan warfare, and full of confidence in their
leader. To catch the law-makers and Governor,
together, Tarleton was started with his hundred
and eighty dragoons, and a number of mounted
infantry. These two detachments moved nearly
at the same time.
As Simcoe approached, Steuben caught intimations
of an intended attack, and, with proper caution,
he retreated across the south branch of the
Hardly had he passed, before the British partisan
appeared on the heights skirting the Rivanna, and
so sudden was the rush of his cavalry, that thirty
Virginians fell into his hands. The prey had
escaped; but, determining, if possible, to get at the
stores, Simcoe resorted to a most ingenious stratagem,
and the plain-sailing old Prussian fell into the
snare. The British spread their camp far and wide
over the hills, lighted a large number of fires, and
used every sign that would indicate the presence
of the whole British army. Hearing of Tarleton's
approach on his left, and fearing that he would be
crushed, Steuben retreated as fast as possible,
marching during the night nearly thirty miles, and
leaving behind him all the more heavy stores.
Simcoe followed up his advantage, by sending on
a small body, as if in hot pursuit, and having driven
the Baron out of reach, and destroyed the stores, he
prepared to rejoin Cornwallis.[405]
Meanwhile Tarleton moved forward with his
accustomed speed towards Charlottesville, passing
through the county of Louisa. (June 4.) On his
way he fell in with twelve wagons loaded with
clothing for the southern army; these he immediately
captured and burned. Learning that a
number of distinguished gentlemen were at the
houses of Mr. John Walker, and Dr. Walker, in
Albemarle, and nearly on his route, he resolved to
pay his respects to them. He detached a party to
Mr. John Walker's, while he himself, with his
Doctor. At the two places, were captured Colonel
John Simms, a member of the Virginia Senate,
and William and Robert Nelson, brothers of General
Nelson, who was soon to be Governor of the
state.[406] Tarleton was not discourteous to his host;
but he wanted a morning meal, and as two breakfasts
had been already secretly devoured by his
subordinates, he placed a guard in the kitchen to
secure the third.[407] Slight as were these delays they
saved the Legislature; while the Englishman was
pursuing single birds, the flock escaped him.
As the British dragoons passed through Louisa,
a Mr. Jouitte had observed them, and divining
their object, he mounted a fleet horse, and galloped
off like lightning, through paths and by-roads, to
Charlottesville, while the enemy followed the beaten
track. The moment he arrived, the Assembly
passed a vote to convene in Staunton on the 7th,
and then dissolving, the members fled away, like a
covey of partridges before a keen sportsman. The
very name of Tarleton had a melting effect upon
the body. Knowing nothing of their flight, he
came on at a sweeping pace, and when near the
Fords of the Rivanna, he detached a party under
Captain McLeod to seize Mr. Jefferson, at his well-known
mountain residence. The sage of Monticello
was then entertaining some friends from the
Legislature, but hearing that the dragoons were
winding round the road which led to his house, he
sent off Mrs. Jefferson and her three children in a
and directing his horse to be brought to a back
gate, opening on the road, he mounted, and leaving
the road, plunged into the dark recesses of Carter's
Mountain.[408] Thus he easily made his escape; his
prudence and self-possession saved him from captivity.
Demosthenes fled from Cheronæa, and Horace
was frightened at Philippi: these illustrious examples
shall for ever excuse the orator, the statesman,
the wit, who shall withdraw his precious life
from the field of battle; but Mr. Jefferson needs no
such excuse; he did not fly the well-contested field;
he only retreated before overwhelming odds; he
could not be expected to cope singly with a squadron
of armed dragoons.
It is due to Captain McLeod to say, that he permitted
no violence to be offered to private property
at Monticello. All of Mr. Jefferson's books and
papers were treated with sacred respect, and if any
pillage was done, it was unknown to the commander.
In Charlottesville, finding his chief game
had escaped him, Tarleton sought for military
stores: he destroyed one thousand new firelocks
made at the foundry near Fredericksburg, four
hundred barrels of powder; and a stock of clothing
for soldiers.[409]
Seven members of the Legislature
had fallen into his hands, and with these he turned
again to join Cornwallis and Simcoe, near the Point
of Fork. Tarleton's career in Virginia illustrated
the prominent traits of his character: always active
unscrupulous in measures to gain his ends. He
slept on the floor, while his subordinates rolled in
comfortable beds; and once on a sudden alarm, he
threw aside his razor, sprang half shaved into his
saddle, and with sabre in hand, prepared to rush
into the thickest of the fight.[410] It is not strange
that such a partisan should have had reputation.
Even in Staunton, the Legislature did not feel
safe. On the morning of the 7th, Lieutenant
Brooke, at the head of a small body of Virginia infantry,
crossed the Blue Ridge, to convey a message
from the Baron Steuben. As this squadron approached
at a rapid gait, the Assembly received
notice of their coming, and instantly betook themselves
to flight, believing that they were still pursued
by Tarleton.[411]
Some time elapsed before they
could be reassured and brought back to their duties.
On the 12th of June, they elected General
Nelson Governor of the Commonwealth.
Cornwallis had advanced from the North Anna,
and established himself near the Point of Fork.
He took possession of Elk Hill, one of Mr. Jefferson's
farms, and on this and other plantations in
Virginia, a system of frightful devastation was carried
on. The cattle were slaughtered or driven
off, all the horses fit for use were seized, and the
throats of the young horses were wantonly cut; the
growing crops of grain and tobacco were destroyed,
Indeed, from the opening of the game by Arnold, to
its close at Yorktown, the British appeared intent
upon breaking the sinews of the Commonwealth.
In their invasions thirty thousand slaves were carried
off, of whom twenty-seven thousand are supposed
to have died of small-pox or camp fever, in
the course of six months. In the same time it is
estimated that property amounting to three million
pounds sterling, was destroyed or carried away by
the invaders.[412] It was just that the authors of this
ruin should suffer the full retribution which finally
overtook them.
At Albemarle Old Courthouse, the Virginians
had collected a large quantity of valuable military
stores. To destroy these now became an important
object to Cornwallis; to protect them an equally
important one to Lafayette. After his junction with
Wayne, the Marquis moved cautiously from Culpeper
through Orange and the upper part of
Louisa, to Boswell's Tavern, near the Albemarle
line. Cornwallis marked his movement, and threw
forward Colonel Tarleton, with a strong advanced
guard, to such a position, that it seemed inevitable
that Lafayette should either hazard a fight with the
whole British army, or abandon the stores. But
"the boy" was equal to the crisis. There was a
rough road, long disused, leading from a few miles
below Boswell's, to a point on Mechunk Creek;
forthwith Lafayette set to work his pioneers and
axemen; the road was opened, the army passed
of Cornwallis, his adversary was encamped
in an impregnable position on the Creek,
and just between the British army and the stores
at Albemarle Courthouse![413] His English lordship
was once more baffled, and having in the meantime
received instructions from Sir Henry Clinton,
in New York, he changed his front, and marched
slowly towards the eastern coast.
An incident occurred during the opening of the
"Marquis's Road," which happily illustrated the
commingled soldier and gentleman of Lafayette's
character. Full of zeal, he was dashing at a swift
gallop along the line, when his horse struck a private
at work on the road, and felled him to the
earth. The Marquis instantly dismounted. "Soldier,
are you hurt?" he said. The man, who had
risen uninjured, replied, that he was not. "I ask
your pardon," said Lafayette, and waving his hand
with a smile, he remounted and resumed his course.[414]
It was by such conduct, that the chivalric Frenchman
riveted the chains which already bound to
him all American hearts.
(June 16.) Now at last Cornwallis was on the
retreat, and Lafayette was the pursuer; but the
English retired slowly, and as if in perfect security,
while the Marquis used the same eagle-eyed vigilance
which had distinguished his own retreat.
a partial engagement occurred between Simcoe
with his rangers, and Lieutenant-Colonel Butler
of the Pennsylvania line. It was sharply contested,
and was attended with loss to both; Simcoe pursued
his retreat, and Butler did not follow him,
fearing the presence of Cornwallis. After halting
nine days in Williamsburg, on the 4th of July his
lordship prepared to cross the James, having
selected Jamestown Island as the proper point.
During the 5th and 6th he sent over wheel-carriages
of every sort, baggage, bat-horses, every
thing in short except troops; his army in full force
remained on the north side of the river. Now Lafayette
narrowly escaped ruin; inexperienced spies
had informed him of the movements at the Island,
and assured him that the army itself was crossing.
Believing that a feeble rear-guard only was left on the
northern side, he determined to attack it. General
Wayne, with his wonted eagerness for battle, seconded
his views. At about three o'clock on the afternoon
of the 6th, the riflemen, under Call and Willis, advanced
across a causeway leading from Greenspring
towards Williamsburg, and commenced the assault;
the cavalry, under Armand and Mercer, came next;
then followed the Continentals, under Wayne, and
Baron Steuben with the militia formed a corps de
reserve. With consummate art, Cornwallis took
advantage of Lafayette's error, drew his troops
into a compact mass, and ordered his pickets to
suffer themselves to be driven in, as if in confusion.
Suddenly the British displayed in strength; Yorke
attacked on the right, and Dundas on the left; the
cavalry were broken; two field-pieces were captured,
and the Continentals under Wayne were left
to sustain the conflict. By this time Lafayette
had discovered his mistake, and finding Wayne
outflanked, directed a retreat. The darkness of
the night favoured them; the causeway was gained
and secured, and Cornwallis, content with his advantage,
withdrew his troops.[415] In a few hours he
crossed over to Jamestown Island, and soon afterwards
proceeded to Portsmouth.
Various movements and intercepted orders of
Washington, had led Sir Henry Clinton to suppose
that New York was soon to be the object of a combined
attack by land and sea, to be made by the
French and American forces. Alarmed for his
safety, he had instructed Lord Cornwallis to send
him such troops as he could spare, and then to take
a convenient position on Chesapeake Bay, from
which he might either communicate with the sea,
or send war into the heart of Virginia, as might be
expedient. Subsequently the order for a detachment
to New York was recalled; but Cornwallis,
in obedience to remaining instructions, selected
York and Gloucester Points, and by the 22d of
August had occupied them with his army, and
thrown up strong intrenchments. Here was to be
enacted the last scene of the Revolutionary drama.
It has been supposed by some that all of Washington's
demonstrations against New York, were
parts of an ingenious stratagem, intended to concentrate
Cornwallis into security. But this was not so;
New York was verily his object; yet with that expansion
of purpose which made him formidable
even with inadequate means, he watched the
southern army, ready, if expedient, to shift his line
of attack.[416] Learning that the Count De Grasse
with his heavy fleet was in condition to co-operate
with him on the Chesapeake, he now resolved to
invest Cornwallis in his posts; and turning south
with the French and American armies, from the
Jerseys he conducted that celebrated march which
was the forerunner of his country's triumph. Before
he joined Lafayette, he learned with joy
that De Grasse had entered the Chesapeake with
twenty-five sail of the line, and with nearly three
thousand soldiers aboard his ships. Not a moment
was lost in drawing the combined forces around
the enemy, in landing mortars and munitions, and
in making preparation for a regular siege. Cornwallis
could not conceal from himself the danger
that threatened him; but trusting to Sir Henry
Clinton's promises, he resolved on an obstinate resistance.
His army consisted of seven thousand
fine troops; a sufficient guard protected Gloucester
Point, but the larger part were assembled within
the intrenchments of Yorktown.
In the memorable siege that followed, every
event of which has become familiar to Englishmen
and Americans, nothing strikes us more forcibly
than the incessant vigour with which the besiegers
October, when the first line of trenches was completed,
the besieged knew not a moment's repose.
Mortars poured a storm of shells upon the outworks
and the town, tearing down the defences,
and often throwing the bodies of artillerists into
the air;[417] heavy cannon pierced the houses with
balls, and dismounted the guns in the British batteries.
The fire of the engineers was astonishingly
accurate and effective. Often their shells struck
within three feet of the point at which they were
aimed, and exploded within a few seconds of the
intended time; at one discharge during the night,
a red-hot shell from the French battery passed entirely
over the town, and fell amid the rigging of
the Charon, a British forty-four gun ship lying in
the harbour; instantly masts, shrouds, and running-gear
were a sheet of flame, and threw a brilliant
light over the whole port; two other ships near the
Charon caught fire, and like her were burned to
the water's edge. Even from the first parallel the
fire was so destructive that the enemy's batteries
were nearly silenced, and much of the town was
reduced to ruin.[418]
General Nelson, the Governor of Virginia, had
joined the army with his militia, eager to lend his
aid to the patriot cause. Seeing that the gunners
did not aim at his own house in Yorktown, and
knowing that it was occupied by British officers,
he earnestly remonstrated; at his request two cannon
pierced its side and killed two officers then at table,
and in a short time the house was cut to pieces by
the fire.[419] The tenable part of the town was rapidly
narrowed; the besiegers were soon ready to open
their second parallel, within three hundred yards
of the outworks; in approaching it, they had been
severely annoyed by two redoubts thrown in advance
of the intrenchments, and Washington resolved
to carry them by storm.
To capture the redoubt on the right was the
task of the Americans; they were under Lafayette,
and were led to the assault by Colonel Hamilton,
the gallant aid of the Commander-in-chief. The
French advanced upon the other, under the Baron
De Viomesnil. Nothing could exceed the emulation
of these two parties, and the heroism of their
attack; they rushed forward with unloaded muskets,
trusting to the bayonet. Hamilton and his
men drove the garrison before them, and took possession
of their prize with small loss; but on the
left, a bloody conflict took place; the English were
dislodged, but not until the French had lost one
hundred and twenty of their number. Hardly had
these works been carried, before they were included
in the second line of trenches, and mortars
and battering-pieces were pouring destruction upon
the town.[420]
It was evident that this fire must soon decide the
contest; Cornwallis had directed a bold sortie, but
its effect was temporary. Finding that the place
despairing of relief from Clinton, he began with reluctance
to contemplate a surrender. Yet it was
hard for that proud spirit to bend; the scourge of
the South, the conqueror of Gates, the pursuer of
Greene and Lafayette, could not, without the
keenest anguish, think of laying down his arms.
He looked around him on every side for an avenue
of escape. A desperate expedient suggested itself;
he might leave his sick, wounded, and weak; his
baggage and heavy artillery, and, crossing with the
rest of his army to the Gloucester shore, might annihilate
the besiegers there, seize horses, mount
his men, and burst away towards the North, like
a lion escaped from the toils of the hunter. On
the night of the 16th, boats were made ready,
troops were embarked, the first division had crossed;
hope once more dawned upon the British
chieftain. But Heaven fought against him. A
furious storm of wind and rain arose, and beat him
back to the southern shore; with difficulty the
men in the boats saved their lives. When daylight
appeared, the attempt was discovered, and the
fire from the batteries became more violent than
ever.[421] The last resource of Cornwallis had been
tried and had failed.
It would have been unworthy of a brave man
longer to have resisted. On the 18th of October,
the articles of capitulation, the heads of which had
previously been agreed upon, were signed by
Cornwallis, and on the memorable 19th, one of the
finest British armies ever employed in America,
arms. His lordship could not face the event; he
remained in the town, overwhelmed with grief and
vexation. General O'Hara led out the troops, and
surrendered his sword to Lincoln. It is said that
many of the soldiers were seen to throw their arms
violently on the pile, as though they were unable
to conceal their rage; and when Colonel Abercrombie's
corps laid down their muskets, he covered
his face and turned aside, biting the hilt of his
sword![422] We cannot be surprised at these evidences
of intense mortification. Americans had been so
long despised by this proud army, that each soldier
felt his surrender as an individual disgrace.
By express agreement, Cornwallis was permitted
to send the Bonetta sloop of war, unsearched, to
New York; he was thus enabled to provide for the
safety of many loyalists, who deserved the fate of
traitors from their countrymen. On her return, the
Bonetta was to be surrendered to the French, who
were to have the whole naval force and munitions
captured in the harbour of York. The Americans
had the field artillery for their portion. They
gained eight mortars, and one hundred and sixty
pieces of cannon, most of which were of brass. The
seamen were prisoners to France, and the soldiers
to America. More than seven thousand officers
and men composed the military force surrendered
to Washington.
But physical gains, brass cannon and British
muskets, ammunition and stores, ships and prisoners,
with the moral effect produced by the surrender
of Cornwallis. The news spread through
America as though carried by electric sympathy;
every heart bounded with joy; the desponding
hoped, and the hopeful triumphed. It became
evident to all, that Great Britain could not conquer,
and that her efforts would only weaken herself,
without reducing America. It will not be necessary
further to trace the events of a war which
might now be considered as virtually decided. On
the 20th January, 1783, the preliminaries of peace
between England and France were signed at Versailles,
and on the 3d of September following, a
definitive treaty, in which America was formally
included, was entered into between the belligerents.
The independence of the United States was acknowledged.
Their boundaries, though not perfectly
defined, were not narrowed, and clauses were
introduced favourable to trade between two countries,
who were now to deal with each other as free
and sovereign nations.[423]
Thus ended the War of the Revolution. No state
of the Union had more cherished its principles and
improved its advantages than Virginia. If she had
not witnessed so many of its battles as had others,
she had at least not shrunk from the contest. Her
sons had ever been active in the council chamber
and the field. Patrick Henry had "set the ball in
motion," and afterwards had driven it forward by
the breath of his eloquence. Thomas Jefferson
had written the Charter around which every state
was to rally in the hour of danger. Richard Henry
Lee had supported Independence at the critical
moment. Randolph, Pendleton, Mason, Wythe,
Carr, Harrison, all had borne their part in encouraging
the soul of freedom. And in arms, Virginia
had not been less distinguished: George Washington
had gone from her bosom to lead the armies of
America to triumph; Morgan had left his home in
the Valley, to penetrate the forests of Maine, to head
the forlorn hope at Quebec, to drive the enemy before
him at Saratoga, and to overwhelm Tarleton
at the Cowpens; Mercer had fought and bled at
Princeton; Stevens had battled even in defeat at
Camden, and gathered fresh laurels at Guilford;
George Rogers Clarke had entered the wilderness,
and conquered a new empire for his country. The
first voice of warning had been raised in Virginia,
and the last great scene of battle had been viewed
on her soil. Her sister states have not denied her
claims; when peace returned, she was still looked
to as the leader in the unknown course that opened
before America.
The statute "De donis conditionalibus,"
which was the origin of
estates tail, was enacted in the 13th
year of King Edward I.—Blackstone,
i. book ii 88.
Hening, iii. 320.—This was in
the revisal of 1705; the law was
virtually repeated in Oct. 1710, iii.
518; see Tucker's Com. book ii. 49.
Henry Lee's remarks on Jefferson,
123; Jefferson's Works, i. 30;
Tucker's Jefferson, i. 93. Though the
tree was felled, its roots remained,
and they have produced a full growth
of litigation, notwithstanding statute
after statute intended to destroy
them. This subject is more interesting
to the lawyer than to the general
reader, but he who wishes to
examine it, may consult Judge Tucker's
Commentaries, vol. i., book ii.
page 155, &c.
See Remarks of Sir Walter Scott
on the "Code Napoleon," as compared
with English Jurisprudence.
Life of Napoleon, vol. ii. 154-157.
Letter from Bucks County, Pa.,
in Virginia Gazette, Dec. 27, 1776,
and see Gordon's America, ii. 165,
166.
Ware v. Hylton et al., 3 Dallas,
199, 285, and 1 Cond. Rep. Sup.
Court. 99, 131. See, also, Dunlop et
al. v. Ball, 2 Cranch, 180-185; Hopkirk
v. Bell, 3 Cranch, 454-457.
The "Articles of Confederation"
will be found in the Amer. Constitutions,
published in Philada, in 1828,
pp. 7-16.
Hening, ix. 472, and read Girardin,
312.—Negroes from Africa were
not the only servants whom England
sent to Virginia; convicts from
Great Britain were constantly sent,
up to the time of the Revolution, and
were sold to servitude in the Colony.
From the Virginia Gazette, March
3d, 1768, I have copied the following
advertisement, which will shed light
on the subject.
"Just arrived—the Neptune, Captain
Arbuckle, with one hundred and
ten healthy servants, men, women,
and boys, among whom are many
valuable tradesmen, viz: tailors,
weavers, barbers, blacksmiths, carpenters
and joiners, shoemakers, a
stay-maker, cooper, cabinet-maker,
bakers, silversmiths, a gold and
silver refiner, and many others. The
sale will commence at Leedstown,
on the Rappahannoc, on Wednesday
the 9th of this instant (March). A
reasonable credit will be allowed on
giving approved security to
Thomas Hodge."
Then follows the regular permit
for landing.
Jefferson to General Washington,
i. 165.—Colonel Theodoric
Bland, of Virginia, commanded the
barracks in Albemarle for a long
time.—See Bland Papers, passim.
Compare his letter to Washington,
i. 222, 223, with Henry Lee,
136, 137; see also Jefferson's
Works, iv. 41.
This incident was related to me
by Lieutenant Brooke himself, now
a venerable Judge of the Virginia
Court of Appeals.
This incident was related to me
by a friend now no more, but whose
integrity was only one of the qualities
which drew to him the love of
all who knew him.
Gordon, iii. 382, 383; Otis's
Botta, ii. 451. With the siege of
York closes the History of Louis
Hue Girardin. He was a Frenchman
by birth, but taught school a
long time in Virginia. His disposition
was amiable, and his habits
were studious. He undertook to
continue Burk, and having taken up
his abode near Monticello, Mr. Jefferson
supplied him with a large
amount of MS. matter, which greatly
enriched his volume. Yet the
work is prolix and uninviting. It
has been read by few, and will be
sought by none who look merely for
entertainment. He has fallen into
the error of introducing a complete
history of the Revolutionary War,
into a work intended to be confined
to Virginia. His admiration for Mr.
Jefferson sometimes approaches the
ludicrous. See Jefferson's Works, i.
41, Henry Lee, 146.
CHAPTER V.
Peace has its dangers—Virginia's generosity—Charters of King James I.
—Domain of Virginia narrowed by charters to other states, and by
Treaty of Paris in 1763—Validity of her claim—Land Companies—
Virginia's claim disputed in Congress—Objections to it considered—
Maryland and the Confederation—Virginia's dignified protest—She
finally cedes her lands northwest of the Ohio—Extent of this gift—Patrick
Henry—British Refugees—Proposed law to encourage intermarriage
between Whites and Indians—Resolution to incorporate all religious
societies who should apply—Act to incorporate the Protestant
Episcopal Church—General assessment to support Religion proposed—
Mr. Madison's memorial against it—It is rejected—Bill of Religious
Liberty—Mr. Jefferson—Memorials of Hanover Presbytery—Bill adopted
by the Legislature—Act incorporating the Episcopal Church repealed
—Capitol—Statue of Washington—Houdon the statuary—Edmund Randolph
Governor—Vices of the Confederacy—Necessity for a new government—Forms
of Civil Government considered—Ancient debate on
the subject—Mixed character of British Constitution—The conduct of
America in 1787-'88 peculiar—Incipient measures to secure a change
in plan of Confederation—Federal Convention in 1787—Constitution
proposed—Debate in Virginia Convention—Edmund Pendleton—Governor
Randolph—George Nicholas—Henry Lee—Francis Corbin—
John Marshall—James Innes—James Madison—Opposition to proposed
Government—Patrick Henry—George Mason—James Monroe—William
Giayson—Constitution adopted by Virginia—Amendments finally
secured.
It has been said, that the history of Virginia
after the opening of the Revolution, will be found
to turn principally upon two points—civil and religious
freedom; and we have seen the skilful measures
adopted to secure them. It might be supposed,
that now when the struggle of war was over,
claim jurisdiction, these great blessings were safe,
and that the people of the Commonwealth would
enjoy them in full. But peace had its dangers as
well as war. The pressure of peril had kept together
a system which had little innate tendency
to cohesion. At no time during the actual struggle
for Independence, was America in so much danger
of anarchy, as she was after its close. And as true
liberty is as far removed from licentiousness as
from despotism, so the nation without government
is as miserable as that governed by a tyrant. We
shall see that the patriots of Virginia had yet much
to accomplish, before she could consider her freedom
as secure.
Her people may be pardoned for indulging in
feelings of pride, in reviewing the liberal spirit
which impelled her to sacrifice self to the common
good. From the time when she first became a
member of the American league, it is evident that
she considered her own interests as bound up in
those of the Union. Her conduct was directed not
merely by fraternal love to the other states, but by
a calm exercise of judgment, which taught her
that a wound in the hand affects the nerves of the
whole body, and that the comfort of each member
depends on the general health. The action of
Congress made the cession of her public lands the
first subject for her thoughts after the Revolution.
The charters of King James the First had granted
to Virginia a vast territory on the American continent.
The Charter of 1609, in particular, had
the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.[424] It had long
been conceded, that the dissolution of the London
Company in 1624, had not deprived the Colony of
a right to her lands. These were still retained
under her control, subject to the final decision of
the King; and the regular mode of obtaining title
to them was by a grant under the seal of the Provincial
authorities[425] By successive charters to the
states of Carolina. Maryland, and Pennsylvania,
the domain of Virginia had been much reduced,
and by operation of the Treaty of Paris, in 1763,
between Great Britain, France and Spain, the territory
west of the Mississippi was taken from the
British Colonies.[426] Yet after these reductions, Virginia
retained title to the country on her west and
northwest, running from latitude thirty-six and a
half to a line touching the southern margins of the
Lakes Erie and Michigan. To this she had
solemnly asserted her right in the Constitution
adopted in 1776, and to prevent all improper interference,
she had declared void every purchase
made from the Indians, unless by authority of her
General Assembly.[427]
Had any thing been necessary to complete the
equity of her claim, it might have been found in
the conquest achieved by Colonel Clarke, in '78
and '79. A native born Virginian commanding
volunteer troops from the soil of the State, raised by
authority of her Assembly, paid by her grants,
acting in her name, and receiving the allegiance of
the conquered to her sovereignty, had penetrated
this western region, and reduced it to submission.
We have seen the importance attached to this conquest
in the treaty of peace, and in a recent judicial
decision, it has been vouched as the crown of the
Virginia title.[428] Under these guarantees, none of her
statesmen doubted her right, and it was regarded
by her as resting on the firmest ground of law and
conscience.
But it was to be disputed. During the Revolution,
certain speculators in land had formed themselves
into compact bodies in order to increase
their strength, and had obtained from divers states
acts of incorporation. The principal of these were
known as the Indiana and Vandalia Companies.
Their policy consisted in sending keen agents to
treat with the native chiefs, and the wild white
men who might occupy western lands; to dazzle
simple minds with glittering ornaments, or to
entrap the more wary with hatchets, rifles, and
powder, offered in trade; to obtain grants of unoccupied
tracts, and then to insist, before Congress,
upon the validity of these purchases. It is strange
that such claims ever should have found favour.
Even before the Constitution of '76, the State had
exclusive control over her waste lands, and no
her concurrence. But many circumstances induced
Congress to look with unfriendly eye upon
the title of Virginia, and to hear patiently all that
could be said against it.[429]
In addition to individual corporations, the other
states of the Confederacy interposed a claim. It
was contended that when the yoke of the British
Government was thrown off, the waste lands within
the limits of each colony, and over which the
British sovereign claimed full control, became the
common property of the American Union,—that
the states in their federate capacity succeeded to
the rights of the Crown,—that this territory had
been defended by the blood and treasure of all, and
should therefore be applied to the benefit of all.
The weakness of these arguments may be seen at
a glance; for with as much propriety might it have
been insisted that the Confederacy succeeded to all
other rights claimed by the King of England, as
to the control of the colonial lands. On such a
principle, the Union would have had the right to
appoint governors, deputies, and even petty officers
for the states; to veto their laws, and to interfere
in many respects with their internal police.
It is true that when the government of the mother
country was discarded, a sovereignty succeeded to
the rights of the Crown, but it was the sovereignty
of Virginia alone, and not that of the states in
union. Nevertheless this claim was sufficiently
plausible to meet with many advocates in Congress.
which could be construed to impair, or in any
manner to affect the title of Virginia. The question
of western lands formed a great obstacle to
the full adoption of these articles, even to the year
1781. Maryland was inflexible, and refused to become
a party until the claims of the states should
be on a satisfactory basis.
Finding that Congress was disposed to favour
adverse pretensions, the Assembly of Virginia prepared
a remonstrance during its session of 1779.
This paper is clear, calm, dignified,—strong in
reasoning, generous in spirit, but firm in assertion
of right.[430]
It declares the attachment of the state
to the common interest; expresses her "surprise
and concern" that Congress should have listened
to the claims of the Land Companies, and should
have attempted to assume jurisdiction, which
threatened to subvert the sovereignty of the individual
states, and to degenerate "into an intolerable
despotism;" clearly defines the rights of Virginia
under charters, treaties, constitutional terms; declares
her willingness to appropriate part of her
lands for the benefit of the Continental troops,
and to make other sacrifices for the general good;
but concludes with a most solemn protest against
any action of Congress "subversive of the internal
policy, civil government, or sovereignty, of this, or
any of the United American States, or unwarranted
by the Articles of Confederation." After
this remonstrance, it must have been evident, that
her domain, would have led to a rupture with Virginia;
and that an appeal to her liberality was the
only mode in which the wishes of the other states
could be attained.
This appeal was made, and was effectual. Congress
urged all the states claiming unsettled lands to
cede them for the general benefit, in order that the
Articles of Union might be carried out, and that
America might present an undivided front against
the enemy. We have seen, that in January, 1781,
Virginia responded to the application, by an act
declaring her readiness to cede to Congress her
northwestern domain, provided they could agree
upon the terms of cession. The effect of this act
was in accordance with the hopes of its advocates.
Maryland became a party to the Confederation,
and the government was complete as far as its own
powers could avail for any purpose.
But in Congress much difficulty was experienced
before the terms of final cession could be agreed
upon. The delegates from Virginia looked watchfully
upon the progress of the debate, and always
sought to interpose when it assumed a countenance
unfavourable to her rights. It is, however, to be
deplored that sometimes these delegates disagreed
among themselves, and nothing but a spirit of mutual
compromise, could have prevented their conflicts
of opinion from injuring their state. James
Madison had now risen to eminence, and his spotless
character, his undoubted patriotism, his clear
intellect, and expanded knowledge, made him, of
of Virginia upon this delicate question. Yet his
differences with his colleagues were sometimes so
serious that he feared the worst results; and writing
to a friend at home in October, 1781, he asks with
anxious irony, "Is not my situation an enviable
one?"[431] Finally, on the 13th September, 1783,
Congress declared the terms on which the cession
would be accepted, and though they were not precisely
those which Virginia thought most reasonable,
yet, with true liberality, she waived all farther
objection, and prepared to authorize the ultimate
grant. On the 20th December following,
her Assembly passed an act empowering any three
of her delegates in Congress to execute a deed of
cession, conveying the whole territory within the
Virginia Charter, "situate, lying, and being to the
northwest of the River Ohio."[432] This grant was
on condition that the territory so conveyed should
be laid out and formed into states of a certain size,
which should have republican governments, and
all state privileges; that the Union should reimburse
to Virginia her expenses incurred in subduing
British posts, conquering and defending the
country; that the French and Canadian inhabitants
who had acknowledged their allegiance to
Virginia, should be protected in their rights of
citizenship; that a quantity of land not exceeding
one hundred and fifty thousand acres, should be reserved
for General George Rogers Clarke, and the
officers and soldiers of his regiment, wherever a
that, if necessary, other lands between the Scioto
and Little Miami should be reserved for the Virginia
troops of the Continental line; and, at last,
that all the territory ceded and not reserved, or, by
the cession, otherwise appropriated, should be considered
as a common fund, for the use and benefit
of the states existing or to exist, as members of the
American Union, (Virginia inclusive,) "according
to their usual respective proportions in the general
charge and expenditure," and should be disposed
of for that purpose, and "for no other use or
purpose whatsoever."[433] In accordance with these
terms, during the following year, a deed of cession
was duly executed by delegates from Virginia to
the American Congress.[434]
Such was the magnificent gift bestowed by the
"Old Dominion" upon her sisters and daughters of
the Union. We may form some idea of its value,
if we will consider not merely what it then was,
but what it has since become. Without speaking
of Indiana and Illinois, we will take a single state
nearer to the mother's side. Ohio, with her fertile
soil, her well-cultured fields, her grain poured out
each year in millions of bushels, her thousand
miles of railroad and canal, her cities springing
into existence like the palace of Aladdin,—Ohio
has already gone beyond her parent in wealth and
population.[435]
And every part of the Union derives
results so astonishing. If the new states of
America shall ever be disposed to unite with any
of the old, in seeking to undermine the institutions,
and to endanger the peace of Virginia, they may
be reminded that such a course will involve ingratitude
even more than impolicy. For conduct so
unworthy of the just and the generous, Shakspeare
has furnished an appropriate illustration, and one
able to appreciate his genius has pointed to King
Lear, who, after stripping himself of his broad
lands, and bestowing them on his daughters, was
driven out in old age to feel the pangs that can be
inflicted by "a thankless child."[436]
Since the time of this cession, the public lands
have always been a subject of high interest and
importance to the United States. Nice questions
have from time to time arisen concerning them,
and in late years, the proper mode of disposing of
their proceeds, has drawn much anxious thought
from Congress. Great minds have differed in opinion
on this question; some have contended, that
as the lands were originally granted for purposes
common and federal, their proceeds could not be
distributed among the individual states; others
have argued, that this would be the most appropriate
disposition, and that such was the fair inference
from the clause "according to their usual
respective proportions in the general charge and
expenditure," which occurs in the Act of Cession.[437]
would not be consistent with the purpose of this
work, to dwell farther upon these questions, but it
is believed that in the detail which has been given,
will be found the basis of every argument that can
be applied to the subject.
(1784) Early in the sessions of this year, the
Assembly was called to decide whether foreigners
should be invited to Virginia, and particularly
whether British refugees should be permitted to
return to her soil. Popular prejudice ran strongly
against the latter, and many enlightened men in
the Legislature thought it hazardous policy to admit
them. But Patrick Henry came forward to
plead for them, not because he approved their conduct,
or found any excuse for their infidelity to
their country, but because he believed they had
been sufficiently punished, and that now they
would make useful citizens. Their condition
abroad had indeed been pitiable; without property,
and generally with luxurious habits, they had found
all things adverse to them in the cold, selfish society
of a crowded kingdom. They had petitioned
in vain for help; worn down by disappointment
and hope deferred, many of them had sunk in utter
degradation, some had become insane, and more
than one had put an end to their lives by suicide,
rather than endure their misery![438]
Patrick Henry
for these unhappy men. He pointed to the
fertile lands, the rich wastes, the undeveloped resources
of Virginia, and begged that her ports
might be thrown open and all might be admitted.
He ridiculed the idea of danger from British influence.
What! he asked, shall we who have laid
the proud British lion at our feet, now be afraid of
his whelps?[439] His appeals wrought the desired
effect: all obstacles to the return of the refugees
were gradually removed.
Nearly at the same time, Mr. Henry presented
another proposal, which is so novel, and opens so
inviting a field of speculation, that, though finally
abortive, it deserves to be recorded. We have seen
that white settlements were gradually encroaching
on the red men of the wilderness, and that though
the parties became constantly more like to each
other in habits both of war and peace, yet they
never formed relations of amity. Patrick Henry
wished if possible to destroy this hereditary enmity
of the races, and he believed that for this end
no plan would be more effectual than intermarriages
between them. Therefore he introduced a
bill into the Legislature, providing, that if any
free white male citizen of Virginia would be joined
in bonds matrimonial to an Indian lady of competent
age, he should receive a bounty of ten pounds,
and on the birth of each child from such marriage,
he should receive five pounds, and that he should
be exempt from all taxes on person or property.
take an Indian husband, they should have ten
pounds bounty, and every year thereafter the husband
should have three pounds, to be expended for
the benefit of his family; that every male child
proceeding from such marriage, should at the age
of ten years be sent to some public seminary of
learning, and educated at the expense of the state,
until he should be twenty-one years old. Families
so formed were to be free from taxes, and entitled to
all the privileges of citizenship.[440]
This bill passed its first and second readings, and
there was every prospect that it would become a
law. But just at the critical time Patrick Henry
was elected Governor of the state for a second series
of years. His bill, thus left without his aid, was
read a third time, and rejected. We can only indulge
in conjecture as to its effect. Although
whites have not shown the same repugnance to the
Indian as to the African race, yet regular marriages
between native and European Americans have been
very rare. White men have seldom been willing
to admit Indian women to full privileges as
wives, and any other connexion would have been
abhorrent to the sound moralist. And few, indeed,
have been the cases in which women of European
descent, have accepted husbands from the red men
of America. The experiment, therefore, would
probably not have produced even the primary effect
for which it was intended. But, had such marriages
taken place, it is by no means certain they
the races. There would have been much in the
circumstances attending such ties to feed jealousy,
and make keen a sense of mutual wrong. Yet we
may feel regret that the project was not tried, for
had it done nothing else, it might at least have
shown whether any scheme that the wit of man
could devise, would mould Indians as a people to
the refinements of civilized life.
At this time the Established Church, which had
been stunned by the blows previously inflicted, began
again to exhibit signs of life, and peculiar influences
aided its struggles. During the session of
the Assembly, petitions from several counties prayed
that a "general assessment" should be laid on
the people of the state for the support of religion.
This question had never been decided, and now
the plan found favour. Patrick Henry was an
Episcopalian by preference;[441]
we have reason to
believe that he was truly a pious man, and that in
religion, as in all other things, his professions were
sincere. He had, indeed, dealt a terrible blow upon
the clergy in the great tobacco case, and he had
eloquently defended Baptist ministers when they
were persecuted in Spotsylvania; but, unless the
Church came in violent contact with his ideas of
liberty, he was ready to uphold her in all her
wishes. He gave his cordial support to the plan
for an assessment. At the same time he urged
with vigour a resolution which declared that "acts
ought to pass for the incorporation of all societies of
same." This resolution was adopted on the 17th
November, by a vote of sixty-two to twenty-three.[442]
Instantly the Protestant Episcopal Church applied
for incorporation, and an act was passed accordingly.
It provided that the minister and
vestry of each parish in being, or thereafter to
exist, should be a body corporate, with power to
purchase, have, and hold property, and to sue and
be sued in relation thereto. To these corporations
were transferred all the glebes, lands, parsonages,
churches, chapels, books, plate, ornaments, every
thing, in fact, that had been considered as the property
of the late Establishment. They were farther
empowered to purchase, use, and enjoy other
property, provided its income did not exceed eight
hundred pounds a year. Vestries were to be elected
once in three years by the people; but no person
was to vote unless he was a member of the Episcopal
Church, and contributed to its support. The
vestries were required, once in three years, to render
a statement of the amount of their property to
the County Court.
A Convention was to be established, consisting of
forty members at least, which was to have authority
to make rules for the regulation of the Church.[443]
Other provisions were introduced, fitted to complete
the corporate system; but it will not be necessary
to detail them. Enough has been presented to
show that Government had once more formed close
connexion with a Church, and that an approach
For the Episcopal Church would now be confirmed
by law in the possession of property, the great body
of which had been taken from the people under the
requirements of the old system. And farther, its
ministers and vestries were furnished with a legal
energy which would incessantly prompt them to
measures for acquiring property and gaining temporal
power. The experience of centuries had
proved how dangerous were such motives, and how
impotent were legislative restrictions to control the
amount obtained by men whose ingenuity had been
sharpened and directed by the pretext of religious
zeal.
The friends of freedom took the alarm. No
other church except the Episcopal, made application
for the benefit of the law; and one ecclesiastical
body had sent a solemn protest against its
passage, because it was believed to be adverse to
religious liberty.[444]
This body expressly declined
to take advantage of its provisions. The question
of assessment had now become prominent, and its
friends and opponents were equally active. The
Legislature determined not to decide it immediately;
but having prepared a bill for the purpose,
they caused it to be engrossed, and then sent it out
among the people of Virginia, in order that by the
next session, the popular feeling respecting it
might be known. This bill required that all
taxable persons should, at the time of giving in a
they wished their assessments appropriated; and
if they failed so to declare, the sums assessed on
them were to be appropriated to seminaries of learning
in their counties.[445] Such was the plan submitted
to the judgment of the people.
(1785.) Exciting debates occurred in many counties,
but the result was not long uncertain. A
memorial against the bill was prepared by James
Madison, which is one of the best compositions
ever produced, even by his great mind. Transparent
in style, moderate yet firm in temper, graceful
in proportion, strong in argument, it treats its
subject with a power not to be resisted.[446]
It urged
that the system of assessment was vicious, because
it gave civil government control in religion; because
it verged to a union of church and state; because
it violated equality, in requiring men to support
that to which they might not have assented;
because it made the civil magistrate a judge in
matters of faith; because it was unnecessary for
the support of Christianity, who lives best upon
the free love of her children; because it tended to
produce indolence and vice, rather than purity and
zeal. The memorial was carried among the people,
and before the session of Assembly, many signatures
were appended to its various copies.
Early in November, the Legislature took up the
subject. Besides the memorial of Mr. Madison,
one was presented from Hanover Presbytery, which
the Assembly have a right to determine the preference
between Christianity and the other systems
of religion that prevail in the world, they may also
at a convenient time give a preference to some
favoured sect among Christians." In order to obtain
light from all proper sources to aid in their
counsels, the Assembly permitted the Rev. John
B. Smith, a Presbyterian minister, to argue the
question at the bar of the House of Delegates, and
he was heard for three successive days.[448] Finally
the vote was taken, and the bill was rejected[449] by a
small majority. We have reason to rejoice at this
result. Christianity needs no legal taxes to sustain
her life, and liberty is weakened by any contact
between church and state.
While their minds were heated with the subject,
the patriots of Virginia resolved to place religious
freedom upon a firm foundation. (Dec. 26.) It was
at this time that the celebrated bill was adopted
which has drawn attention throughout the Christian
world, and which, in its composition and progress,
offers some phases of thought too singular
to be passed in silence. During the revisal of the
legal code heretofore noticed, Mr. Jefferson had
drawn this bill,[450]
and it was printed in the report of
the revisors, but like many other clauses, had not
yet been acted upon. Thomas Jefferson was not a
believer in Christianity as divine, or in Christ as
Deist, or a Unitarian. If he admitted the existence
of Jesus, it was to ascribe to him weakness, imprudence,
fanaticism,—to degrade him into a self-deceiver;
to reject his atonement, and only to admit
the excellence of his morality, because it was
too plain to be denied.[451] But though infidel in his
opinions, Mr. Jefferson followed the highest reason
in his views of religious liberty. Reason liberty. Reason and Religion
are never contradictory, the one to the other;
the first is inferior to the last, and needs to be instructed;
but the deductions of the first, when
legitimately made, are always consistent with the
teachings of the last. Reason declares that it is
wrong in civil government to seek to control the
conscience, and Revelation approves the judgment.
Thus may it happen that the most learned of infidels,
and the most enlightened of Christians, may
attain to the same conclusions as to religious liberty.
At the very time when Jefferson was embodying
his views in definite form, a number of consecrated
minds were at work on the same subject; and it is
instructive to mark the result. Between the years
1775 and '86, the Presbytery of Hanover sent to
the General Assembly five memorials, in which
the relations of church and state are fully discussed;[452] and a careful analysis of these documents
will draw from them every material argument and
for establishing Religious Freedom," written by
Mr. Jefferson, and adopted by the Legislature for
the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The preamble to this act[453]
is long and argumentative,
and penned in a style peculiar to its author.
Without giving all its recitals, it will be sufficient
to say that it declares that "to compel a man to
furnish contributions of money for the propagation
of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;"
that "to suffer the civil magistrate to
intrude his powers into the field of opinion, is a
dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious
liberty;" and that "truth is great and will
prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and
sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to
fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition
disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument
and debate: errors ceasing to be dangerous
when it is permitted freely to contradict them."
Then, it is enacted, "That no man shall be compelled
to frequent or support any religious worship,
place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced,
restrained, molested, or burdened, in his body or
goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his
religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall
be free to profess, and by argument to maintain,
their opinions in matters of religion, and that the
same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect
their civil capacities." The remaining clause in
substance declares, that these are the natural rights
could impair them.
This law, with its preamble, has not escaped censure,[454]
but all who love liberty have admired it, and
will support it unto the end. Had such a law always
prevailed throughout Christendom, what an
amount of human suffering would have been prevented!
Rome would never have seen Christians
torn by wild beasts in her amphitheatres; the iron
chair would not have consumed the tortured body;
the fagot, the stake, the halter, would have lost
numberless victims. And Papal Rome would not
have incurred deeper guilt than her parent by her
cruelties; the valleys of France would not have
streamed with the blood of murdered men, and
rung with the shrieks of violated women; the fires
of the Inquisition would never have been kindled;
Saint Bartholomew would never have become a
name of horror; Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, might
all have lived. And England would have been
spared the disgrace of her Protestant persecutors;
John Bunyan might have written his Pilgrim in a
cottage rather than in a jail; Richard Baxter would
have been saved from the insults of Jeffries. But
above all, the soul would have been free; the heart
would have escaped the nameless tortures of devotion
suppressed, of irreligion feigned, of injustice
unreproved. It may be true, that the God of providence
can bring good out of evil, and make "the
blood of martyrs the seed of the church;" but this
can never justify man in sanctioning religious
would wish to see the "Act of Religious Freedom"
narrowed in its operation, or who would favour any
measure tending to such result.
After having gone so far, the Assembly would
not stop in its reform. Convinced that the act authorizing
incorporations was inconsistent with true
policy, they prepared to repeal it. A bill for the
purpose was introduced at the October Session of
the next year, and on the 9th of January, 1787, the
late law incorporating the Protestant Episcopal
Church was repealed, and the property it claimed
was confided simply to trustees.[455]
Thus a false
step hastily taken was withdrawn. As we advance
in her history, we shall see that the statesmen of
Virginia again turned to this subject, and gradually
removed every vestige of a privileged church.
While seeking to secure the advantages of the
Revolution, the state did not forget the great leader
who had been chief in effecting it. She determined
to adorn her capital city with a State House,
and to place in it a statue of George Washington.
Mr. Jefferson was now in Paris, as Minister to
France from the United States, and his taste in the
fine arts was so exquisite, that he was well fitted to
aid his state in accomplishing her object. For the
Capitol, he selected the "Maison quarrée" of
Nismes as a model; it was simple, elegant, majestic,
"yielding to no one of the beautiful monuments
of Greece, Rome, Palmyra, and Balbec."[456]
Capitol were soon to be laid, and that the directors
were proceeding on a plan of their own, he hastened
to arrest a work which must inevitably have
entailed a mass of architectural infamy upon the
state. His views prevailed, and in due time the
building arose. Its position is elevated, and the
grounds encircling it are full of the picturesque;
the Capitol itself charms by its massive grace, and
gains more and more upon the beholder as he looks
upon it; but it has been strangely deformed by a
departure from the model. A noble flight of steps,
that ought to have descended from the portico to
the ground, has been omitted; hence, one approaching
on that side, feels as though he were
sternly repulsed; and if he walks in the portico, he
has fear of a fall, which Lucius Cæsar and Louis
XIV. would fain have prevented.
To make the statue, Mr. Jefferson employed
Houdon, a French statuary, distinguished in his
art, perhaps, beyond any then in the world.[457]
He
was "disinterested, generous, candid, and panting
after glory;"[458]
nevertheless, he could not live upon
glory, and, therefore, he was to receive a thousand
English guineas for the figure and pedestal, to have
his expenses to, in, and from America paid, and in
case of his death during his absence from France,
his family were to receive ten thousand livres.[459]
To
make this last sum secure, the great sculptor's life
was insured when he sailed for America. In three
the central hall of the Capitol. The Father of his
country is represented standing in an easy and
graceful position; the majestic form is clothed in
the military costume of his age; the right hand
rests upon a cane; the head is bare and the expanded
brow is seen in full; a sword hangs near
his side; and the only departure from the modern
is found in the Roman "fasces," emblematic of
authority. To the uninitiated, at least, this statue
is more pleasing than the taste which has enveloped
George Washington in a flowing toga, covered
his feet with sandals, and placed a short
Roman sword in his hand.
In the same hall, and near the figure of Washington,
is a bust of Lafayette, voted by the Legislature
in 1781. While in life they were often united,
and now that each has ceased to live, it is meet that
the "silent marble" should recall both together, to
the eye and heart of the beholder.
(December, 1786.) Edmund Randolph was
elected to succeed Patrick Henry as Governor
of the Commonwealth. He was nephew to Peyton
Randolph, so favourably known as the friend
of the people, even when he was the King's
Attorney-General, and as the conservative advocate
for freedom in the early stages of the Revolution.
The new chief magistrate was an eminent
lawyer; he had long filled the office of Attorney
for the state, and his great skill had attracted
to him an amount of practice which would have
interfered materially with the discharge of executive
from the active part of his profession, and therefore,
through the papers, informed his clients of his
design, and requested them to transfer their business
to John Marshall, to whom he had consigned
his dockets.[460] However great in the law Mr. Randolph
may have been, it is presumed that few
suitors could have suffered by confiding their interests
to the man whose fame as a jurist, is now wide
as the bounds of civilization.
With the progress of the new Executive, we
open a subject which must receive careful thought;
for of all others it most deeply affected the interests
of Virginia, and will continue to affect them,
while the Federal Constitution endures. It is
always interesting to watch the phenomena attending
the changes in human governments; the bringing
in of a single new principle, or the loss of any
one feature, will often mould the fortunes of a people
for centuries. But in the peaceful revolution
which the statesmen of America accomplished,
when they discarded one system of rule, and deliberately
assumed another, there are some things
which cause it to differ from every prior change in
government the world had ever known. That
we may appreciate this singular action, it will be
necessary to unfold the motives which induced it.
The "Articles of Confederacy" had been prepared
by men patriotic and wise, yet inexperienced
in the practical workings of the American system.
only be developed by events unlike any that had
occurred in past ages. Hence this union never
gave satisfaction; it was watched with jealousy,
and adopted with reluctance. While the war
lasted, its defects were little felt, because necessity
compelled the states to exert themselves, and to
sacrifice selfish views for the common defence.
But in each year, from the close of the Revolution
to 1787, the vices of the system became more
glaring, and its results more disastrous.
We have already seen that the public lands had
been a subject on which several states had based
their unwillingness to adopt the Articles. This
difficulty had been happily removed; but permanent
evils of far greater importance yet remained.
The control of Congress in matters of trade and commerce
was inefficient, and as each state sought to
guard her own interests, ceaseless murmurings were
heard. Some states had seaports and others had
not; those having ports of course demanded duties
on goods imported, which were always paid by consumers
at last, and thus the interior states thought
themselves unjustly taxed. New Jersey, between
New York and Philadelphia, was compared to "a
cask tapped at both ends;" and North Carolina,
between Virginia and South Carolina, was likened
to "a patient bleeding at both arms."[461]
The want
of a general power of supervision, led to many irregularities:
some states claimed standing armies;
some violated contracts by making depreciated
under certain circumstances should be taken
for money.[462]
But the fatal defect in the Government was the
want of power in Congress to force a payment of
the public dues. The federal body had no right
even to lay duties on imports; it must humbly ask
permission of the states before this could be done,
and though in two instances most of them granted
such permission, yet their compliance was reluctant,
and fettered by so many terms that it produced
very little revenue.[463]
Whenever money
was to be raised, the regular mode was that Congress
should send a polite request or "requisition"
to the states, setting forth the urgency of the case,
and praying that it might be promptly met. These
appeals, though loud and earnest, were heard by
the states generally with indifference, sometimes
with impatience; seldom with a disposition to comply.
The demands of Congress were evaded as
eagerly as a proud debtor escapes from a dun, or
rather as a penurious citizen turns from the importunity
of a beggar in the streets. The result was
soon apparent. At the close of the war, the Federal
Government owed forty-three millions of dollars,
and the states nearly one half that sum. The
public debt was due to three classes of creditors:
first, to individuals at home, old soldiers who had
fought, and capitalists who had advanced funds for
their country; secondly, to individuals abroad, men
who were willing to help freedom by lending their
money to its supporters; thirdly, to foreign powers,
paid, if not the principal, at least the interest of
their debts; but Congress had no power to raise
money; the states had the power but not the will;
and the effect was national disgrace and humiliation.
The republic, from which so much had been
hoped, became contemptible in the eyes of the old
world, and of her own most virtuous citizens. If
there was no positive repudiation of debts at this
time, there occurred what was equivalent,—a refusal
to take any steps to meet payments which were
justly due. None of the states complied with the
entreaties of Congress; Rhode Island was specially
intractable, and New Jersey at one time passed an
act expressly refusing the aid demanded.[464]
The Federal Government sought by every means
within its reach to sustain the national character;
but it was impotent; its arms were pinioned.
France looked on in sorrow and doubt. Holland
began to fear she would lose her money. English
monopolists secretly rejoiced in the failure of the
great republican experiment, and were already
busy in seeking gain from its downfall. Under
these circumstances, the wise men of America
could no longer doubt that a change was necessary
if they would avert ruin. All believed that the
"Articles of Confederacy" needed revising, and
many thought that the proper remedy could be
found in the adoption of a new and well-digested
Constitution. A happy concurrence of events led
our thoughts.
It is unfortunate that man should have found it
necessary to yield himself at all to the dominion of
his fellow-mortals. There is but one perfect government
in existence, and that is the government
of God. This is a pure monarchy. The Sovereign
unites in himself all powers, and infinite perfections.
He is all-wise to conceive proper laws,
all-benevolent to enact them, and almighty to enforce
them. And had his moral creatures on earth
retained the purity originally bestowed upon them,
his dominion would have been the only rule they
would have needed. There would have been no
necessity for subordinate jurisdictions, for all men
would have pursued the path of virtue. No unholy
passion, no selfish motive, no craving appetite,
would have seduced them from their duty. In
every thought and feeling, and therefore in every
word and act, they would have been perfectly conformed
to Divine law. Not the slightest inequality
would have disturbed the moral mechanism. But
man has become depraved, and his very depravity
compels him to submit to human government. The
Deity is no longer obeyed; he does not directly interpose;
he reserves the enforcement of his law for
the retributions of the future. And as men have
forgotten God, they need a government which shall
come in immediate contact with them, and restrain,
in some measure, their wickedness; otherwise society
could not long subsist. The existence of
kings, rulers, magistrates, law-makers, and statute-books,
all so many illustrations of the great revealed doctrine
of human depravity. The infidel sees this as
well as the believer, and in admitting it, unconsciously
bears testimony to the truth.[465]
But though man is now compelled to establish
government on earth, it does not follow that it should
be a system of pure monarchy, like the government
of God. The same innate wickedness which requires
the establishment of human sovereignty,
will make dangerous its exercise by any single
man. In order to secure the happiness of its subjects,
government must have the three qualities of
wisdom, goodness, power. Wisdom to suggest the
best means of promoting the public welfare, goodness
to impel to their adoption, and power to make
them efficacious. It must have a head to direct,
a heart to feel, and a hand to execute. And the
only reason why the Divine Government is perfect,
is because it at once unites, in their fulness, all
these qualities. But it will be impossible to find
them in any one of the three principal forms of
sovereignty that have been known on earth. An
absolute king may be powerful, but he may be a
Sardanapalus in folly, or a Nero in depravity; an
oligarchy may have wisdom, but it may be corrupt
and impotent like that of Venice; a simple democracy
may put forth some signs of virtue, but it
a mixed government, combining in proper proportions
the incidents of the three great forms, has
been found to be the best, perhaps the only system
that promises to secure the welfare of the human
race.
Two thousand three hundred and sixty-eight
years ago, a debate on government took place,
which proved that the distinctions between the
three prevalent forms were then well known, and
yet neither at that time, nor for twenty-one centuries
thereafter, did speculations on the subject
lead to results of practical value. The "father of
history" tells us, that after the death of Cambyses,
King of Persia, and of Smerdis, the Magus, who
by fraud had obtained the throne, a meeting of
seven of the highest chiefs of the kingdom was
held to discuss public affairs. They were first to
decide the question of government. Otanes opened
the debate, and in a set speech urged the claims of
democracy; he reminded them of the insolence,
the injustice, the debauchery and cruelty of kings,
how often they had violated the chastity of women,
and put to death innocent men; he told them that
if the magistrates were elected by the people, they
would serve them faithfully, and always be moderate
in their conduct.[466]
Then followed Megabyzus, who was in favour of
aristocracy. Like Otanes, he disapproved of monarchy,
but he equally distrusted the people; he
thought the multitude would always be stupid and
its appetites and passions. He urged them to
adopt a government conducted by a few virtuous
men, who would by their wisdom provide for the
public happiness.[467]
Next came Darius, an open advocate for monarchy.
He agreed with Megabyzus, that the
people at large could not be trusted; but he feared
also the factions of an oligarchy. He contended
that a king could keep his own counsel, but that
among several, emulation would prevail, jealousies
would arise, sedition would creep in; hence murder,
and at last a necessity for a monarch.[468]
This last counsel prevailed. By a vote of four
to three, monarchy was selected as the form of
their government; and after this wise decision,
they adopted even a wiser mode of choosing the
king to whom their liberties were to be entrusted!
They resolved that all should assemble the next
morning at a certain spot, and that he whose horse
neighed first should be their monarch! As a
closing commentary, we may add that Darius,
triumphant in debate, was victor also in the equine
contest. Taking learned counsel of his groom, he
brought the charms of a young mare to act upon
his steed, who on reaching the spot in the morning,
forthwith neighed aloud![469]
Thus was made
the King of Persia.
Until the American Revolution had wrought out
the elements of "the three forms," as to obtain at
once strength for the government and liberty for
the people. The British Constitution had unquestionably
approached more nearly to this than any
other, and there were many on each side of the
Atlantic, who believed it to embody all that the
wisdom of man could accomplish for human sovereignty.
This Constitution was not written—that
is, it was not drawn out on paper in articles, and
sections, and clauses,—but it was written in the
history of five centuries,—in the charter wrested
from John, in the blood which ran from the scaffold
of Charles the First, in the compact between William
of Orange and the people who received him.
Yet this government was a monarchy, and it could
never have been fitted to the wants of the American
nation.
When the defects of the Confederacy became
apparent, the change required was one which
would, of necessity, give greater strength to government;
and it was this fact that placed the conduct
of America in bold relief, and caused it to differ
from all the experience of the past. The sovereignties
of the Old World had been apparently built up
by accident, but whenever a change did occur, it
always involved a struggle of the government
against the people. The government sought to
increase or to retain its powers; the people sought
to weaken them. It is believed that the measures
of 1787 and '88, in the United States, present the
first instance in which a nation of four millions of
strong government. To do this immediately after
emerging from a bloody war, waged for liberty,
and to accomplish it not in enthusiasm or passion,
but by a written constitution, definite in all points,
and bearing perpetual testimony that their conduct
was deliberate! such a scene exhibits the highest
triumph of reason; it is a standing proof that the
people, in a proper sense, are capable of self-government.
It merited the reward it has actually
gained, in producing a system of sovereignty,
beautiful in its very complication, and happily
combining the essentials of wisdom, virtue, and
power.
In this work, we have so long been viewing Virginia
alone, first as a Colony and then as a State,
that we shall be the better able to understand the
relation she bears to the Federal Government,
which was soon to be adopted. During the colonial
period, she had been governed by her Assemblies,
subject to the negative of the King, and to
the general control of the British Parliament. But
the moment the dominion of England was thrown
off, she became sovereign, possessing within herself
every power that can belong to an independent
nation. She had a right to erect such a government
as she pleased, and exercised it by adopting
a Bill of Rights and Constitution, in which her
people first reserved certain privileges and immunities
to themselves, and then vested the residue of
sovereignty in their rulers. And her people and
her government together form the complex idea
"State." If after this, she deemed it expedient to
unite with other states, and to form a Federal
Government, it is evident that, as to herself, such
government would have only the powers she delegated
to it, and that she would lose only the
powers she consented to resign. For the federal
system would have no natural existence; it would
derive its being and its power entirely from the
people and the state governments; from the
people, who had reserved to themselves some of
the incidents of sovereignty, and from the state
governments, which held the remainder. Therefore,
prior to the adoption of a Federal Constitution,
her people and her government together, held all
the powers of sovereignty that could be exercised
within the limits of Virginia. The paper containing
this Constitution, if it gained her assent, would
define the extent to which these powers were to be
affected for the future. If she granted a power to
the general government, and denied it to herself,
then that government could exercise the power,
and she could not; if she granted a power, and
yet did not deny it to herself, then the general
government might exercise the power, and she
might also; their powers would be concurrent. If
on any subject of legislation she granted no power
to the Federal Government, then from no other
source could that government possibly obtain it,
and an attempt to exercise it would be vain. A
most delicate task, therefore, was the making of
this Constitution. Virginia saw not the full results
which led to the new government.
In March, 1785, the Legislature had appointed
Commissioners to meet similar delegates from Maryland,
at Alexandria, and to form, if possible, a
compact between the two states, as to the navigation
of the Potomac and Pocomoke rivers, and as to
trade in the upper part of Chesapeake Bay. While
at Mount Vernon, the Commissioners resolved to
recommend the appointment of deputies from all
the states, to meet at some convenient time and
place, and suggest measures as to trade and commerce
for the benefit of the Union.[470]
On the 21st
January, 1786, Virginia met this suggestion by
appointing deputies, and in September, Edmund
Randolph, St. George Tucker, and James Madison,
joined Commissioners from four other states at Annapolis.
They had not long debated, ere they
found that improvement in trade was beyond their
reach, while the federate government remained as
it was; accordingly, they recommended that the
states should appoint Commissioners to form a
Convention in Philadelphia, in May, 1787, and
there to devise and suggest such changes and improvements
as might be necessary for the Articles
of Union.[471]
Acting in accordance with this advice,
on the 4th of December, Virginia elected seven deputies,
to meet those appointed by the other states,
for the purpose of "devising and discussing all such
alterations and farther provisions as may be necessary
the exigencies of the Union."[472]
(1787, May 25.) At the appointed time the Convention
assembled in Philadelphia. Deputies were
present from all the states except Rhode Island;
with her wonted intractability, she had refused to
concur. From Virginia, the Commissioners were
George Washington, Edmund Randolph, John
Blair, James Madison, George Mason, George
Wythe, and James McClurg. General Washington
was elected President of the body. Mr. Madison
had determined to preserve notes of a debate,
which he foresaw would be one of the most important
that men had ever conducted. He took his
seat in a suitable place in front of the President's
chair, and losing no time either in or out of the
meetings, he wrote a clear record of the discussion,
which, since his death, has been given to the
public.
It would be foreign to our purpose, to give even
a rapid sketch of these celebrated debates, but a
single allusion may show, that the wisest of statesmen
cannot look into futurity. From the whole
course of reasoning adopted by the speakers on
state interests, it is evident that they believed that
the small states were in danger of being devoured
by the large. Hence the struggles to obtain for all
the states an equal representation, which finally resulted
in the judicious clause which made the
Senate the peculiar guardian of state rights. What
states to prey upon their small neighbours, it is not
easy to discover, but this fear filled the minds of
many delegates from Connecticut and New Jersey,
Maryland and Delaware. Luther Martin, of Maryland,
spoke two days on the subject, and exhausted
all appeals from law and conscience in
maintaining the rights of the little members.[473] Subsequent
experience has shown, that the conflict
has been not between the large and the small states,
but between the northern and the southern, the
free and the slave, the manufacturing and the producing.
Mr. Madison alone seems to have apprehended
this tendency.[474]
On the 17th September, the labours of the Convention
closed; they had prepared a Form of Government
which was now to be submitted to the
people. Of the Virginia delegates, only George
Washington, James Madison, and John Blair,
signed the Constitution. The others all disapproved
of it on points concerning which they could
admit no compromise, though afterwards two of
them at least became advocates for its adoption.[475]
The Form of Government having been engrossed
and duly authenticated, was to be debated in Conventions
elected by the people of the individual
states, and by them ratified or rejected. In Virginia,
the highest excitement and anxiety prevailed;
we may judge from the division among the delegates,
of opinion in the masses of society from which they
came. Preparations were immediately made to
elect delegates from the several counties to serve
in the State Convention, which was to decide upon
the new government. Deep feelings were roused;
the people were stirred to the soul; meetings were
held in all parts of the state, and every where the
one great theme was the Plan of Union. It is said
that even in the churchyard, and on the Sabbath,
the absorbing subject could not be suppressed; at
home and abroad, in public and private, men
thought, spoke, contended concerning little save
the States and the Confederacy; the checks and
the balances; the executive; the legislative; the
judiciary.[476] In America the people have long gloried
in the privilege of meeting in popular assemblies,
and hearing debated before them all matters affecting
their interests; but we have reason to believe
that the discussions of 1787 and '88 were the first
general displays of the kind that Virginia had
known, and thus, in addition to their other charms,
they had the zest of novelty. Orators travelled
abroad, sending messages before them to call the
people together, and to invite a contest with some
opponent. Thousands assembled at the day and
place appointed, and when we remember what
minds were then in the state, we readily believe
that these mental tournaments were equal in brilliancy
to the shock of steel-clad man and horse, in
the days of knight-errantry.
(1788.) On the 2d day of June, the Convention
assembled at the public buildings in Richmond,
and prepared to enter upon its high duties. When
fully organized, this body contained one hundred
and sixty-eight members, and its character for
talents and patriotism has become a part of our
proverbial knowledge. It will not be necessary to
give a preliminary sketch even of the more prominent
individuals who composed it, inasmuch as
they have often been under our notice in years
through which we have passed, and as they will
successively present themselves upon the stage in
the debate that is to follow. Edmund Pendleton,
venerable in years, yet still unclouded in mind,
was unanimously elected President, John Beckley
was made Secretary, and Rev. Abner Waugh was
appointed Chaplain, to read morning prayers.[477]
Then, after some preliminaries, commenced the
struggle. In its very threshold, Patrick Henry insisted
that the Federal Convention had exceeded its
powers: appointed merely to revise the old system,
it had concocted one perfectly new; but Mr. Pendleton
answered, that from whatever source the
proposed form had come, the people had sent them
to decide upon it, and that if it had "dropt from
one of the planets," it was yet competent for them
to accept it.[478]
With great propriety it was resolved,
in the beginning of the debate, that the Constitution
should be discussed regularly, article by article,
and clause by clause, but this rule was wholly disregarded
in practice, and more than half the session
order. The minds of members were too full of the
whole subject to be confined for debate to an isolated
clause. They sought to grapple with each
other throughout the length and breadth of the
field; those who defended the Constitution, presented
it as a system beautifully adapted to their
wants, and well fitted to cover the chasm left by
the Confederation; those who opposed it, declaimed
against it as a monster, dangerous in his single
traits, and in his full developement.
This free mode of discussion made their conflicts
animated and keen. The combatants darted from
point to point with the quickness of thought; they
used every weapon that the laws of honourable
warfare would admit,—the pointed sarcasm, the
witty jest, the vivid flash of repartee, the trenchant
blade of argument, the thunder of declamation.
From time to time the battle grew hot, and passion
rose high. Mr. Henry bore down with vigour upon
Edmund Randolph, criticised his expressions with
severity, and attributed to him inconsistency in
opposing the government in Philadelphia, and yet
supporting it at home. To this the Governor replied
with deep feeling, and retorting the charge,
used the words, "If our friendship must fall, let it
fall like Lucifer, never to rise again."[479]
Yet mutual
concessions soon restored peace between them;
great minds cannot long cherish malice against
those they are compelled to respect.
The large liberty allowed in the first part of the
in detached members, to the view of the
House. They debated in a committee of all, and
George Wythe was generally in the chair. The
disputants passed, quick as lightning, from standing
armies to militia trainings, from taxes to treaties,
from disunion to consolidation, from the "ten miles
square" to the mouth of the Mississippi. But
gradually, as the first overflow of feeling and argument
exhausted itself, the debate assumed a more
regular form; thought was condensed, logic was
triumphant, and truth was unfolded.
George Nicholas had opened the argument of
the general subject, in a speech of high order for
clearness of detail, and strength of reasoning. He
maintained that the democratic feature of the Constitution
was all that could be desired; that the
basis of the people was broad and permanent. He
showed an intimate acquaintance with the British
representative system, and drew a happy contrast
between the delusive democracy which apparently
elects the House of Commons, and the real republicanism
of Congress.[480]
Through the whole contest
he was the calm advocate for the government,
and did much for its adoption.
Governor Randolph held a position peculiar, and
not a little embarrassing. He had been so much
displeased with some parts of the Constitution, that
he had refused to sign it; nevertheless, when he
found that eight states had adopted it, and that party
spirit threatened to rend asunder the Union, he threw
support of the plan. In his speeches he exposed
the defects of the "Confederacy" with searching
skill, and after becoming warmed in the cause, he
seemed to lose sight even of the difficulties which
had before pressed upon him. It is certain that
his arguments were among the best for the entire
system that were delivered during the debate,
and at its close he had a right to claim from posterity
a verdict affirming the soundness of his
motives.[481]
General Henry Lee, of Westmoreland, was prominent
in supporting the plan. He was the well-known
"Legion Harry," of Revolutionary times;
he had often led his dragoons to the charge, and
crossed sabres with tories and Englishmen; yet he
was withal a fine scholar, and a competent statesman.
His speeches sometimes exhibited the spirit
of the camp and the battle-ground; he was fond of
personal encounter, and took special delight in
throwing himself before the breach made by the
great guns of Patrick Henry.[482]
His firm sense, and
military knowledge, made him a valuable ally to
those who possessed only civic talents.
Francis Corbin sustained the plan. Without
the genius and the eloquence of others, he had a
well-balanced mind, and habits of industry which
brought masses of historic facts to his aid. He
spoke strongly of the derangement of finance, and
reminded the House of a motion introduced into
the Legislature in 1784, to compel the states by
course would be more adverse to freedom than the
adoption of a strong government, which would
raise money by regular process! He prophesied
that increase of trade would make imports alone
sufficient to pay the expenses of the system, if it
were allowed to act, and his prophecy has been
fulfilled. Mr. Corbin's name deserves honourable
notice for his labours, though he has not been
reckoned among the brilliant and the great.
John Marshall spoke but little, yet always with
signal success, for the new government. His was
a rare mind. He has been thought to have been
without imagination, and deficient in the higher
sensibilities, which give power to words. But he
reasoned with resistless force; he seized upon the
attention, and carrying it captive with him, pressed
into the centre of opposing arguments, until they
were undermined and destroyed. He kept before
him the point to be proved, and having laid his
premises, he built upon them until the truth was
forced into the mind of the hearer, with a certainty
approaching the theorems of exact science. In the
balances of the Constitution he found appropriate
matter for an exercise of his analysis, and he unfolded
them with a clearness and skill which made
doubt irrational, and faith secure.[484]
James Innes was eloquent in behalf of the government
proposed. He was Attorney-General of the
State, and had been so closely employed in the
Court of "Oyer and Terminer," that he could not
utter a word until the very last day of the argument,
but he then made a speech of great strength
and beauty. Deprecating local prejudices, he
asked, "Had we this political jealousy in 1775? If
we had, it would have damped our ardour and intrepidity,
and prevented that unanimous resistance
which enabled us to triumph over our enemies. It
is not a Virginian, Carolinian, or Pennsylvanian,
but the glorious name of an American, that extended
from one end of the continent to the other,
that was then beloved and confided in."[485] Colonel
Innes was an orator in every sense of the word; if
he erred in any respect, it was in continuing too
long the march of mind; he never descended from
the "car of triumph" when once it was gained;
Patrick Henry bore high testimony to his powers,
when he declared him "to be endowed with great
eloquence; eloquence splendid, magnificent, and
sufficient to shake the human mind!"[486]
But beyond all others, James Madison was the
successful champion of the Constitution. He knew
it in all its parts, from the most expanded to the
most minute; he had been the author of many of
its provisions, and had studied its character with
the eye of a philosophic patriot. He was ready to
meet every objection brought against it, and did in
fact, during the debate, defend it first as a whole,
and then clause by clause, to the end. He showed
the mixed nature of the scheme. Some objected
because it was a government of the people: it con-
states into one popular mass; yet were there others
who thought the states would have too much contact
with Congress, and the people too little. Mr.
Madison proved that the Government was in some
respects popular, in some respects federal. It was
to be ratified by the people in conventions: in this
it was popular; but by the people divided into
thirteen sovereignties: in this it was federal. The
House of Representatives were to be elected by the
people: in this it was popular; but the Senate was
to be equally filled from the states: in this it was
federal. Congress was to have power to lay taxes
on individuals: in this the Government was consolidated;
but the states might effect amendments:
in this it was confederate. The President was to
be commander-in-chief of army and navy: this was
a feature of consolidation; but the states might arm
and train the militia: this preserved the confederacy.[487] So ingenious a system was worthy of so
able an advocate.
The ranks of the opposers were marshalled and
led on by Patrick Henry. We have seen enough
of his past displays to know, that now when a subject
was before him which enlisted his strongest
feelings, he would not sink beneath it. Some of
the most powerful speeches he ever delivered, were
made during this debate. He felt alarm, apprehension
for his country; the new government seemed
to him to threaten her liberties; he feared its consolidating
tendencies. He asked why the Constitution
of "We, the states." The powers of the President
seemed to him enormous, ruinous. "This Constitution
is said to have beautiful features, but when I
come to examine these features, sir, they appear to
me horribly frightful. Among other deformities,
it has an awful squinting: it squints towards mo-
narchy!"[488] The federal judiciary encountered his
warm opposition. He could not separate from it
the ideas of injustice, of expense, of hazard, to the
people. As the time for a final vote approached,
Mr. Henry's anxiety increased, and his eloquence
grew more impressive. While he was once speaking,
and when he had wrought his hearers to a
paroxysm of feeling, a furious storm arose; lightnings
flashed, thunder pealed, and rain poured
down in torrents. At the same time the spirit of
the orator had soared to "etherial mansions," and
invoked celestial witnesses to view the crisis of his
country. The effect could not be borne; the members
rose in confusion, and the meeting was dissolved.[489]
Yet the attentive reader of the "Debates," will
find in Mr. Henry's speeches, more of declamation
than of argument; more appeals to passion, than
addresses to reason. It was indeed found by the
reporter, impossible to follow him in his loftiest
flights, yet it is believed that all of sound logic that
he presented, has been preserved, and it bears but
a small proportion to his glowing remonstrances
and passionate harangues. He entered the body
last, and this spirit made him undiscriminating.
He found nothing to approve in the Constitution.
Assuredly it could not have been expected that the
wisest men in America should have debated four
months, and yet produced nothing good; but it
would be hard to find a single clause in the Constitution,
which was received with favour by Patrick
Henry.
George Mason waged war upon the system. He
had opposed it in Philadelphia, and now carried
his struggle to the final vote in Virginia. He urged
that it was not a federal but a national government;
that the power to collect taxes directly from the
people proved its character, and that no republic
could long endure in a country as extensive as
America.[490]
He thought the power of the President
overwhelming, and strongly inveighed against the
extensive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which
was to cover "law and fact." Once he crossed
swords violently with Mr. Madison, but before their
colloquy was closed, all bitter feeling was removed.[491]
James Monroe opposed the government, at the
head of which his country was afterwards to place
him. He loved the Union, and believed that the
states loved the Union; but he thought their government
ought to be strictly a union of the states,
and not a melting together of the people. He believed
democratic independencies might safely confederate.
The great leagues of the world passed
in review before him: the Amphyctionic, the
furnished him with passages to prove the
happy structure of the Achaean League, but the
German princedoms were only kept together by
danger and the Emperor. He compared the Confederation
and the Constitution: add to the first
absolute power over commerce, and he would approve
it; take away from the last the power of
direct taxes, and he would approve it.[492] This right
to tax the people was the point he dreaded: how
could a few representatives from a country covering
nearly a million of square miles, tell what would
be most suitable subjects of taxation; what would
least oppress, what would best be endured?[493]
Among the ablest opponents of the system, was
William Grayson, from the county of Prince William.
He was always heard with attention, and
he poured out streams of legal and historical light
upon his subject. Yet one of his objections would
now fall harshly upon the ear of America. "It
would be dangerous to have a fleet in our present
weak, dispersed, and defenceless situation. The
powers of Europe, who have West India possessions,
would be alarmed at any extraordinary maritime
exertions; and knowing the danger of our
arrival at manhood, would crush us in our infancy."[494]
Views like these would not long have suited the
people that could send forth such frigates as the
Constitution and the United States, and such naval
chiefs as Hull and Bainbridge, Decatur, Lawrence,
Perry and MacDonough.
Of the powers given to the Legislature of the
General Government, none was regarded with more
jealousy than that providing that Congress should be
authorized to make all laws "necessary and proper"
for carrying out its own powers or any powers
given by the Constitution to the Government, or to
any of its departments.[495]
This was familiarly called
the "sweeping clause," and was viewed in very
different lights by the contending parties. The
friends of the plan insisted that this clause conveyed
no new power to Congress; that it was provided
simply to make efficacious the powers already
given; that it was only the means to enable the government
to meet its prescribed ends. But on the
other hand, it was insisted that the clause was
broad enough to include any and every power that
Congress might choose to claim; that, by construction
and implication, it would authorize an infringement
of the liberty of the press, and of the right of
jury trial; that, in truth, it was the germ from
which might grow powers of undefined magnitude,
and destructive of freedom.
Another objection to the plan strongly urged by
its opponents was the want of a "Bill of Rights."[496]
The advocates of the system urged that this was
not necessary; that the proper office of a Bill of
Rights was to limit the general sovereignty of government,
and reserve certain immunities to the
in English history; that such precaution was not
required in the government proposed, because its
sovereignty was not general but special, because its
powers were few and clearly defined, and because
beyond them it could not act. But many were not
satisfied with this reasoning; they looked to the
"sweeping clause" with apprehension, and wished
to see farther barriers erected around their liberties.
We will not dwell farther upon the objections to
the plan, urged in this celebrated debate. Those
most prominent have been set forth in the views
already given, and it will be the less necessary to
display them in full, because they are reflected in
the Amendments to the Constitution, which Virginia
advised, and to which we must now attend.
As the struggle approached its close, it became
evident that the plan would be adopted; but it was
equally evident that a large majority of members
wished for additions and changes in order to make
the Government acceptable to them. The question
then arose whether these amendments should be
previous or subsequent, that is, whether they should
be insisted on before the Constitution was ratified
at all, or whether it should first be ratified and then
efforts be made to amend it. Patrick Henry fought
bravely for previous amendments, and introduced
a scheme of his own for the purpose;[497]
but he was
opposed with equal vigour, and was at length defeated.
On the 25th day of June the final vote was taken
voted in the affirmative, and seventy-nine in
the negative. Thus ten voices made Virginia a
party to the Federal Union under the New Constitution.
Immediately after this vote, two committees
were appointed, one[498] to prepare and report
a proper form for ratifying the system adopted; the
other[499] to prepare and report such amendments as,
in their opinion, ought to be recommended for the
new Government. The first committee soon reported
a form, which was adopted without delay.
It is cautiously worded, and though, in a spirit of
high patriotism, it ratifies the Constitution in full,
yet, in behalf of the people of Virginia, it declares
the limits of Federal power, and the inviolability of
the rights of conscience and of the press.[500]
The other committee reported on the 27th of June.
They had prepared a Bill of Rights and a list of
amendments, which they wished added to the
Constitution. These were nearly identical with
those previously offered by Patrick Henry, in his
effort to obtain a conditional ratification.[501]
It will
not be necessary to detail them in full;[502]
but it will
be highly proper to show how far they finally prevailed,
in order that we may see to what extent
for America. Immediately after the new Government
went into effect, amendments were proposed,
and having been duly ratified by the Legislatures
of nine states, were made parts of the Constitution.
Nearly every material change suggested by Virginia
was adopted. For, one article of amendment
provided for freedom in religion, and of speech,
and of the press, and for the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition for redress of
grievances.[503] Others declared that the people should
have a right to have and bear arms, that soldiers
should not be improperly quartered in private
houses; that no unreasonable searches and seizures
should take place; that excessive bail, and excessive
fines, and cruel and unusual punishments
should not be.[504] Others secured a fair trial by jury
in criminal and civil cases, and took away the
jurisdiction of the Federal courts in all cases where
individuals sought to sue a state.[505] And another
said that, "the powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
to the people."[506]
Thus we have conducted the "Old Dominion"
from feeble beginnings, to her appropriate place in
the most powerful and enlightened confederacy of
seen that when she first became independent of the
mother country, she adopted, with singular directness
of purpose, measures necessary to secure civil
and religious freedom within her own borders.
We have seen that when the proposed Union was
presented, she examined it with jealous eyes, and
subjected it to the ordeal of minds keen, brilliant,
learned, and ardently in love with liberty. We
have marked her care in debating, and her caution
in adopting it. We have seen that even in the act
of receiving it, she sought, and sought with success,
to infuse into its soul some of her own healthful
qualities; that she procured amendments guarantying
the natural rights and the first interests of
man. And now it might be supposed that, as she
had become incorporated in a Union which will,
we hope, endure to the end of time, at this point
her individual history would properly close. Most
true it is, that henceforth in the American heavens,
the great system absorbs the thoughts, and Virginia
is but a single planet, revolving in this system.
Yet her very change of position had presented
phases interesting to behold; and if she was
no longer paramount in dignity, she had at least
not lost her power to maintain the equilibrium of
other planets, or to develope the rich resources hid
in her own bosom.
This is the celebrated case of
Commonwealth vs. Garnett et al.,
in the General Court of Virginia,
decided December Term, 1846.—It
has not yet been reported, but I have
read the printed sheets; see also,
argument of the Hon. John M. Patton,
in the same case.
Virginia has a population of
about 1,200,000, Ohio of 1,500,000.
Virginia has 19 persons to a square
mile, Ohio has about 38. Moise's
Geography, 27, 33.
In favour of distribution to the
states, see Henry Clay's Speeches,
ii. 56-85, 437-481. Against it, see
J. C. Calhoun's Speech, January 23,
1841, 417-429, Harper's Edit, 1843.
Virginia Independent Chronicle,
May 5, 1786; Petition to Parliament,
from agents of American
Loyalists.
Memorial of Hanover Presbytery,
ix., Lit. and Evan. Mag. 3538;
and see Semple's Va. Baptists,
70, 72, 73.
See his letter to Peter Carr,
Works, ii. 216-219, letter to Dr.
Rush, iii. 506-509; to Dr. Waterhouse,
iv. 349.
"Society is produced by our
wants, and government by our
wickedness. Society in every state
is a blessing; but government, even
in its best state, is but a necessary
evil, in its worst state, an intolerable
one." Paine's Common Sense,
Polit. Works, i. 19.
Herodotus, lib. iii. cap. 82, pages
279-283; see also Burlamaqui's
Nat. and Polit. Law, ii. 64-66, edit.
1823; Nugent's Trans.
This was Mr. Jefferson's leading
objection. He was in Paris at the
time, but he wrote a letter about the
New Government to James Madison,
which will be found in the "Works,"
ii. 272, 274, 277.
| A history of Virginia | |