Chapter LXXXII: Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this (8)

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1609-1616.
The new Charter.
The colony taking root.
Introduction of Tobacco culture.

"The prospects of the colony were so discouraging at the
beginning of the year 1609, that, in the hope of improving
them, the Company applied for a new charter with enlarged
privileges. This was granted to them, on the 23d of May, under
the corporate name of 'The Treasurer and Company of Adventurers
and Planters of the City of London for the first Colony in
Virginia.'
{3629}
The new Association, which embraced representatives of every
rank, trade, and profession, included twenty-one peers, and
its list of names presents an imposing array of wealth and
influence. By this charter Virginia was greatly enlarged, and
made to comprise the coast-line and all islands within 100
miles of it,—200 miles north and 200 south of Point
Comfort,—with all the territory within parallel lines thus
distant and extending to the Pacific boundary; the Company was
empowered to choose the Supreme Council in England, and, under
the instructions and regulations of the last, the Governor was
invested with absolute civil and military authority. … Thomas
West (Lord Delaware), the descendant of a long line of noble
ancestry, received the appointment of Governor and
Captain-General of Virginia. The first expedition under the
second charter, which was on a grander scale than any
preceding it, and which consisted of nine vessels, sailed from
Plymouth on the 1st of June, 1609. Newport, the commander of
the fleet, Sir Thomas Gates, Lieutenant-General, and Sir
George Somers, Admiral of Virginia, were severally authorized,
whichever of them might first arrive at Jamestown, to
supersede the existing administration there until the arrival
of Lord Delaware, who was to embark some months later; but not
being able to settle the point of precedency among themselves,
they embarked together in the same vessel, which carried also
the wife and daughters of Gates. … On the 23d of July the
fleet was caught in a hurricane; a small vessel was lost,
others damaged, and the 'Sea Venture,' which carried Gates,
Somers, and Newport, with about 150 settlers, was cast ashore
on the Bermudas. … Early in August the 'Blessing,' Captain
Archer, and three other vessels of the delayed fleet sailed up
James River, and soon after the 'Diamond,' Captain Ratcliffe,
appeared, without her mainmast, and she was followed in a few
days by the 'Swallow,' in like condition. The Council being
all dead save Smith, he, obtaining the sympathy of the
sailors, refused to surrender the government of the colony;
and the newly arrived settlers elected Francis West, the
brother of Lord Delaware, as temporary president. The term of
Smith expiring soon after, George Percy—one of the original
settlers, a brother of the Earl of Northumberland, and a brave
and honorable man—was elected president. … Smith, about
Michaelmas (September 29), departed for England, or, as all
contemporary accounts other than his own state, was sent
thither 'to answer some misdemeanors.' These were doubtless of
a venial character; but the important services of Smith in the
sustenance of the colony appear not to have been as highly
esteemed by the Company as by Smith himself. He complains that
his several petitions for reward were disregarded, and he
never returned to Virginia. … At the time of his departure for
England he left at Jamestown three ships, seven boats, a good
stock of provisions, nearly 500 settlers, 20 pieces of cannon,
300 guns, with fishing-nets, working-tools, horses, cattle,
swine, etc. Jamestown was strongly fortified with palisades,
and contained between fifty and sixty houses. … No effort by
tillage being made to replenish their provisions, the stock
was soon consumed, and the horrors of famine were added to
other calamities. The intense sufferings of the colonists were
long remembered, and this period is referred to as 'the
starving time.' In six months their number was reduced to 60,
and such was the extremity of these that they must soon have
perished but for speedy succor. The passengers of the wrecked
'Sea Venture,' though mourned for as lost, had effected a safe
landing at the Bermudas, where, favored by the tropical
productions of the islands, they, under the direction of Gates
and Somers, constructed for their deliverance two vessels from
the materials of the wreck and cedar-wood, the largest of the
vessels being of 80 tons burden. … Six of the company,
including the wife of Sir Thomas Gates, died on the island.
The company of 140 men and women embarked on the completed
vessels—which were appropriately named the 'Patience' and the
'Deliverance'—on the 10th of May, 1610, and on the 23d they
landed at Jamestown. … So forlorn was the condition of the
settlement that Gates reluctantly resolved to abandon it." The
whole colony was accordingly embarked and was under sail down
the river, when it met a fleet of three vessels, bringing
supplies and new settlers from England, with Lord Delaware,
who had resolved to come out in person, as Governor and
Captain-General of Virginia. Gates and his disheartened
companions turned back with these new comers, and all were set
vigorously at work to restore the settlement. "The
administration of Delaware, though ludicrously ostentatious
for so insignificant a dominion, was yet highly wholesome, and
under his judicious discipline the settlement was restored to
order and contentment." His health failing, Lord Delaware
returned to England the following spring, whither Sir Thomas
Gates had gone. Sir Thomas Dale had already been sent out with
the appointment of high marshal, bearing a code of
extraordinary laws which practically placed the colony under
martial rule. Gates returned in June, 1611, with 300
additional settlers and a considerable stock of cows and other
cattle. During that year and the next several new settlements
were founded, at Dutch Gap, Henrico, and Bermuda Hundred,
individual grants of property began to be made, and many signs
of prosperity appeared. The year 1612 "was a marked one, in
the inauguration by John Rolfe [who married Pocahontas two
years later, having lost his first wife] of the systematic
culture of tobacco,—a staple destined to exert a controlling
influence in the future welfare and progress of the colony,
and soon, by the paramount profit yielded by its culture, to
subordinate all other interests, agricultural as well as
manufacturing." In the spring of 1613, Sir Thomas Gates left
the colony, finally, returning to England, and the government
fell to the hands of Dale, who remained at the head until
1616.

_R. A. Brock,
Virginia, 1606-1689
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 3, chapter 5)._

ALSO IN:
_W. Stith,
History of Virginia,
book. 3._

_J. H. Lefroy,
Memorials of the Discovery and Early Settlement
of the Bermudas,
volume 1, chapter 1._

_J. E. Cooke,
Virginia,
chapters 13-16._

_H. W. Preston,
Documents Illustrative of American History,
page 14._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1613.
The French settlements in Acadia destroyed by Argall
and the Dutch at New York forced to promise tribute.

See CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613;
and NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

{3630}

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1617-1619.
The evil days of Argall, and the better
administration that followed.
Meeting of the first provincial Assembly.

"A party of greedy and unprincipled adventurers headed by Lord
Rich, soon after the Earl of Warwick, acquired sufficient
influence in the Company to nominate a creature of their own
as Deputy-Governor. Their choice of Argall [Samuel Argall]
would in itself have tainted their policy with suspicion.
Whether dealing with the Indians, the French, or the Dutch, he
had shown himself able, resolute, and unscrupulous.

See CANADA: A. D. 1610-1613;
and NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

To do him justice, he seems at least to have understood the
principle of Tiberius, that a shepherd should shear his sheep,
not flay them. His first measure was to provide a sufficient
supply of corn for the maintenance of the colony. With that he
appeared to think that his duty to the settlers was at end. …
An event soon occurred which released Argall from the fear of
a superior, and probably emboldened him in his evil courses.
Lord Delaware, who had sailed in a large vessel with 200
emigrants," died on the voyage. "Argall now began to show that
his care for the well-being of the colony was no better than
the charity of the cannibal who feeds up his prisoner before
making a meal on him. Trade with the Indians was withheld from
individuals, but, instead of being turned to the benefit of
the Company, it was appropriated by Argall. The planters were
treated as a slave-gang working for the Deputy's own private
profit. The Company's cattle were sold, and the proceeds never
accounted for. During this time a great change had come over
the Company at home. An energetic and public-spirited party
had been formed, opposed alike to Sir Thomas Smith and to Lord
Rich. Their leader was Sir Edwin Sandys, a member of that
country party which was just beginning to take its stand
against the corruptions of the court policy. Side by side with
him stood one whose name has gained a wider though not a more
honourable repute, the follower of Essex, the idol of
Shakespeare, the brilliant, versatile Southampton. … The …
year 1619 was remarkable in the annals of the colony. It is
hardly an exaggeration to say that it witnessed the creation
of Virginia as an independent community. From the beginning of
that year we may date the definite ascendancy of Sandys and
his party, an ascendancy which was maintained till the
dissolution of the Company, and during which the affairs of
Virginia were administered with a degree of energy,
unselfishness, and statesmanlike wisdom, perhaps unparalleled
in the history of corporations. One of the first measures was
to send out Yeardley to supersede Argall. … When Yeardley
arrived he found that Argall had escaped. No further attempt
seems to have been made to bring him to justice. In the next
year he was commanding a ship against the Algerines." Soon
afterwards, Sir Edwin Sandys was placed officially at the head
of the Company, by his election to be Treasurer, in the place
of Sir Thomas Smith. "About the same time that these things
were doing in England, a step of the greatest importance was
being taken in Virginia. Yeardley, in obedience to
instructions from the Company, summoned an Assembly of
Burgesses from the various hundreds and plantations. At one
step Virginia, from being little better than a penal
settlement, ruled by martial law, became invested with
important, though not full, rights of self-government. Though
we have no direct evidence of the fact, there is every
probability that during the administrations of Yeardley and
Argall the number of independent planters possessing estates
of their own, with labourers employed in the service of their
masters, not of the Company, had increased. Unless such an
influence had been at work, it is scarcely possible that the
experiment of constitutional government should have succeeded,
or even have been tried. On the 30th of July, 1619, the first
Assembly met in the little church at Jamestown. … In England
the Company under its new government set to work with an
energy before unknown to it, to improve the condition of the
colony. … To check the over-production of tobacco a clause was
inserted in all fresh patents of land binding the holder to
cultivate a certain quantity of other commodities. Everything
was done to encourage permanent settlers rather than mere
traders. Apprentices, unmarried women, and neat cattle were
sent out. New forms of industry, too, were set on foot, such
as timber yards, silk manufactures, iron foundries, and
vineyards. … In the year 1619 alone over 1,200 persons were
sent out, half as private settlers or servants, half at the
expense of the Company."

_J. A. Doyle,
The English in America: Virginia, &c.,
chapter 6._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1619.
Introduction of Negro Slavery.

"In the month of August, 1619, five years after the commons of
France had petitioned for the emancipation of every serf in
every fief, a Dutch man-of-war entered James River and landed
20 negroes for sale. This is the sad epoch of the introduction
of negro slavery; but the traffic would have been checked in
its infancy had it remained with the Dutch. Thirty years after
this first importation of Africans, Virginia to one black
contained fifty whites; and, after seventy years of its
colonial existence, the number of its negro slaves was
proportionably much less than in several of the northern
states at the time of the war of independence."

_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States (Author's last revision),
part 1, chapter 8 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:
_G. W. Williams,
History of the Negro Race in America,
part 2, chapter 12 (volume 1)._

_G. P. Fisher,
The Colonial Era,
chapter 4._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1622-1624.
Plot and Massacre by the Indians.
Arbitrary dissolution of the Virginia Company by King James.

"On the 22nd of March, 1622, a memorable massacre occurred in
the Colony. … On the evening before, and on that morning, the
savages as usual came unarmed into the houses of the planters,
with fruits, fish, turkies and venison to sell. In some places
they actually sate down to breakfast with the English. At
about the hour of noon, the savages rising suddenly and
everywhere at the same time, butchered the colonists with
their own implements, sparing neither age, sex, nor condition.
Three hundred and forty-seven men, women and children fell in
a few hours. … The destruction might have been universal but
for the disclosure of a converted Indian, named Chanco, who,
during the night before the massacre, revealed the plot to one
Richard Pace, with whom he lived.
{3631}
Pace … repaired before day to Jamestown and gave the alarm to
Sir Francis Wyatt, the Governor. His vigilance saved a large
part of the Colony. … The court of James I., jealous of the
growing power of the Virginia Company and of its too
republican spirit, seized upon the occasion of the massacre to
attribute all the calamities of the Colony to its
mismanagement and neglect, and thus to frame a pretext for
dissolving the charter." The Company, supported by the
colonists, resisted the high-handed proceedings of the King
and his officers, but vainly. In November, 1624, "James I.
dissolved the Virginia Company by a writ of Quo Warranto,
which was determined only upon a technicality in the
pleadings. The company had been obnoxious to the ill will of
the King on several grounds. The corporation had become a
theatre for rearing leaders of the opposition, many of its
members being also members of parliament. … Charles I.
succeeding [1625] to the crown and principles of his father,
took the government of Virginia into his own hands. The
company thus extinguished had expended £150,000 in
establishing the Colony, and transported 9,000 settlers
without the aid of government. The number of stockholders, or
adventurers, as they were styled, was about 1,000, and the
annual value of exports from Virginia was, at the period of
the dissolution of the charter, only £20,000. The company
embraced much of the rank, wealth, and talent of the kingdom.
… As the act provided no compensation for the enormous
expenditure incurred, it can be looked upon as little better
than confiscation effected by chicane and tyranny.
Nevertheless the result was undoubtedly favorable to the
Colony."

_C. Campbell,
Introduction to the History of the Colony
and Ancient Dominion of Virginia,
chapters 15-16._

ALSO IN:
_W. Stith,
History of Virginia,
books 4-5._

_E. D. Neill,
History of the Virginia Company of London,
chapters 14-17._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1628.
Attempted settlement by Lord Baltimore.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1635-1638.
The Clayborne quarrel with Lord Baltimore
and the Maryland colony.

See MARYLAND: A. D. 1635-1638.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1639-1652.
Loyalty to King Charles.
The Refuge of the Cavaliers.

"Under Charles I. little worthy of notice occurred in the
political history of Virginia. … Attempts were made to raise a
revenue on tobacco, and subsequently to establish a royal
monopoly of the tobacco trade. The attempts were averted, and
the king contented himself with the preemption of the
Virginian tobacco, and with enacting that no foreign vessel
should be allowed to trade with Virginia, or to carry
Virginian goods. In 1639 an attempt was made to re-establish
the authority of the company, but was strenuously and
successfully opposed by the assembly. That the royal
government sat lightly on Virginia may be inferred from the
loyal tone which had thus early become a characteristic of the
colony. After the establishment of the commonwealth, 'Virginia
was whole for monarchy and the last country belonging to
England that submitted to obedience to the commonwealth of
England,' and under Berkeley's government the plantation was a
safe refuge for the defeated cavaliers. … But as soon as two
or three parliamentary ships appeared [1652] all thoughts of
resistance were laid aside. Yet, whether from lenity or
caution, the parliament was satisfied with moderate terms. The
submission of the colonists was accepted as free and
voluntary."

_J. A. Doyle,
The American Colonies,
chapter 2._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1644.
Fresh Indian outbreak and massacre of whites.

"After a peace of five or six years, the Indians, provoked by
continued encroachments on their lands, and instigated, it is
said, by the aged chief Opechancanough, formed a new scheme
for the extermination of the colonists. They were encouraged
by signs of discord among the English, having seen a fight in
James River between a London ship for the Parliament and a
Bristol ship for the king. Five hundred persons perished in
the first surprise, which took place, according to Winthrop,
the day before Good Friday, appointed by the governor, 'a
courtier, and very malignant toward the way of our churches,'
to be observed as a fast for the good success of the king. For
defense, the planters were concentrated in a few settlements;
… forts were built at the points most exposed; and a ship was
sent to Boston for powder, which, however, the General Court
declined to furnish. This occasion was taken by 'divers
godly-disposed persons' of Virginia to remove to New England.
… The Indians were presently driven from their fastnesses.
Opechancanough, decrepit and incapable of moving without
assistance, … was taken prisoner and carried to Jamestown,
where he was shot in the back by a vindictive soldier
appointed to guard him. The Indian towns were broken up, and
their 'clear lands possessed by the English to sow wheat in.'
Opechancanough's successor submitted; and a peace was made by
act of Assembly, the Indians ceding all the lands between
James and York Rivers. No Indian was to come south of York
River under pain of death. The Powhatan confederacy was
dissolved. The Indians of lower Virginia sunk into servile
dependence, and dwindled away, or, migrating to the south and
west, were mingled and confounded with other tribes."

_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 11 (volume 1)._

ALSO IN:
_J. E. Cooke,
Virginia,
part 2, chapter 5._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1650-1660.
Under the Commonwealth and Cromwell, and the Stuart Restoration.
Two sides of the story.
Origin of the name of "The Old Dominion."

"After this, Sir William Berkeley [governor] made a new peace
with the Indians, which continued for a long time unviolated.
… But he himself did not long enjoy the benefit of this
profound peace; for the unhappy troubles of king Charles the
first increasing in England, proved a great disturbance to him
and to all the people. They, to prevent the infection from
reaching that country, made severe laws against the Puritans,
though there were as yet none among them. But all
correspondence with England was interrupted, supplies
lessened, and trade obstructed. … At last the king was
traitorously beheaded in England, and Oliver installed
Protector. However, his authority was not acknowledged in
Virginia for several years after, till they were forced to it
by the last necessity. For in the year 1651, by Cromwell's
command, Captain Dennis, with a squadron of men of war,
arrived there from the Carribbee islands, where they had been
subduing Bardoes. The country at first held out vigorously
against him, and Sir William Berkeley, by the assistance of
such Dutch vessels as were then there, made a brave
resistance.
{3632}
But at last Dennis contrived a stratagem which betrayed the
country. He had got a considerable parcel of goods aboard,
which belonged to two of the Council, and found a method of
informing them of it. By this means they were reduced to the
dilemma, either of submitting or losing their goods. This
occasioned factions among them; so that at last, after the
surrender of all the other English plantations, Sir William
was forced to submit to the usurper on the terms of a general
pardon. However, it ought to be remembered, to his praise, and
to the immortal honor of that colony, that it was the last of
all the king's dominions that submitted to the usurpation; and
afterwards the first that cast it off, and he never took any
post or office under the usurper. Oliver had no sooner subdued
the plantations, but he began to contrive how to keep them
under, that so they might never be able for the time to come
to give him farther trouble. To this end, he thought it
necessary to break off their correspondence with all other
nations, thereby to prevent their being furnished with arms,
ammunition, and other warlike provisions. According to this
design, he contrived a severe act of Parliament [1651],
whereby he prohibited the plantations from receiving or
exporting any European commodities but what should be carried
to them by Englishmen, and in English built ships. …

See NAVIGATION ACT, ENGLISH.

Notwithstanding this act of navigation, the Protector never
thought the plantations enough secured, but frequently changed
their governors, to prevent their intriguing with the people.
So that, during the time of the usurpation, they had no less
than three governors there, namely, Diggs, Bennet and Mathews.
The strange arbitrary curbs he put upon the plantations
exceedingly afflicted the people … and inspired them with a
desire to use the last remedy, to relieve themselves from this
lawless usurpation. In a short time afterwards a fair
opportunity happened; for Governor Mathews died, and no person
was substituted to succeed him in the government. Whereupon
the people applied themselves to Sir William Berkeley (who had
continued all this time upon his own plantation in a private
capacity) and unanimously chose him their governor again
[March, 1660]. Sir William … told the people … that if he
accepted the government it should be upon their solemn
promise, after his example, to venture their lives and
fortunes for the king, who was then in France. This was no
great obstacle to them, and therefore with an unanimous voice
they told him they were ready to hazard all for the king. …
Sir William Berkeley embraced their choice, and forthwith
proclaimed Charles II. king of England, Scotland, France,
Ireland and Virginia, and caused all process to be issued in
his name. Thus his majesty was actually king in Virginia
before he was so in England. But it pleased God to restore him
soon after to the throne of his ancestors."

_R. Beverley,
History of Virginia,
book 1, chapter 4._

"The government of Virginia, under the Commonwealth of
England, was mild and just. While Cromwell's sceptre commanded
the respect of the world, he exhibited generous and politic
leniency towards the infant and loyal colony. She enjoyed
during this interval free trade, legislative independence and
internal peace. The governors were men who by their virtues
and moderation won the confidence and affections of the
people. No extravagance, rapacity, or extortion, could be
alleged against the administration. Intolerance and
persecution were unknown, with the single exception of a
rigorous act banishing the Quakers. But rapine, extravagance,
extortion, intolerance and persecution were all soon to be
revived under the auspices of the Stuarts. … Richard Cromwell
resigned the protectorate in March, 1660. Matthews,
governor-elect, had died in the January previous. England was
without a monarch; Virginia without a governor. Here was a two
fold interregnum. The assembly, convening on the 13th of
March, 1660, declared by their first act that, as there was
then in England 'noe resident absolute and generall confessed
power,' therefore the supreme government of the colony should
rest in the assembly. By the second act, Sir William Berkeley
was appointed governor, and it was ordered that all writs
should issue in the name of the assembly. … No fact in our
history has been more misunderstood and misrepresented than
this reappointment of Sir William Berkeley, before the
restoration of Charles II. … Sir William was elected, not by a
tumultuary assemblage of the people, but by the assembly; the
royal standard was not raised upon the occasion, nor was the
king proclaimed. Sir William, however, made no secret of his
loyalty. … Sir William was elected on the 21st of the same
month, about two months before the restoration of Charles II.
Yet the word king, or majesty, occurs no where in the
legislative records, from the commencement of the Commonwealth
in England until the 11th of October, 1660—more than four
months after the restoration. Virginia was indeed loyal, but
she was too feeble to express her loyalty."

_C. Campbell,
Introduction to the History of the Colony
and Ancient Dominion of Virginia,
chapters 21-22._

"There is no doubt whatever that if the Virginians could have
restored the King earlier they would have done so; and
Berkeley, who is known to have been in close communication and
consultation with the leading Cavaliers, had sent word to
Charles II. in Holland, toward the end of the Commonwealth,
that he would raise his flag in Virginia if there was a
prospect of success. This incident has been called in
question. It is testified to by William Lee, Sheriff of
London, and a cousin of Richard Lee, Berkeley's emissary, as a
fact within his knowledge. Charles declined the offer, but was
always grateful to the Virginians. The country is said to have
derived from the incident the name of the 'Old Dominion,'
where the King was King, or might have been, before he was
King in England."

_J. E. Cooke,
Virginia,
part 2, chapter 10._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1651-1672.
The English Navigation Acts and trade restrictions.

See NAVIGATION LAWS;
also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1651-1672.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1660-1677.
The Restoration and its rewards to Virginia loyalty.
Oppression, discontent, and Bacon's Rebellion.

At the time of the restoration of the English monarchy, in the
person of Charles II., the colony of Virginia "numbered not
far from 50,000 souls, a large proportion of whom, especially,
we may suppose, those of middle life and most active habits,
were natives of the soil, bound to it by the strongest ties of
interest and affection, and by their hopes of what it was
destined to become in the opening future.
{3633}
Here was a state of things, comprising, in the apprehensions
of the people, many of the elements of the highest happiness
and prosperity. … But all this was totally and suddenly
changed, and universal distress brought upon the land, by the
new restrictive clauses added to the original Navigation Act,
by the first Parliament of Charles. By the act of the Long
Parliament it had been simply provided that foreign vessels
should import into England no other products than such as were
grown or manufactured in their own country; a shaft aimed
principally at the Dutch. … By Charles's Commons this first
hint was … expanded into a voluminous code of monopolizing
enactments, by which the trade of the world was regulated on
the principle of grasping for England every possible
commercial advantage, and inflicting upon all other nations
the greatest possible commercial injury. … Upon the colonies,
one and all, this cruel policy bore with a weight which almost
crushed them. … From 1660, when this monopolizing policy took
its beginning, the discontent of the people increased day by
day, as each new prohibition was proclaimed. Commerce lay
dead. Tobacco would no longer pay for its cultivation, much
less enrich the laborious planter; manufactures, as that of
silk, after being attempted, failed to bring the hoped-for
relief, and there seemed no prospect but starvation and ruin.
What wonder that mischief lay brewing in the hearts of a
people who, for their almost slavish loyalty, met only these
thankless returns of injury and injustice; for the Virginians
of that day were monarchists in the full meaning of the term.
… Other causes conspired with these purely political ones to
bring the public mind of Virginia into such a state of deep
exasperation as to find its relief only in insurrection. Of
these, one was particularly a source of irritation; namely,
the grants of vast tracts of territory, made by the wasteful
and profligate King to his needy and profligate favorites,
made wholly irrespective of present owners and occupiers, who
were transferred, like serfs of the soil, to any great
patentee to whom the caprice of Charles chose to consign
them." The discontent culminated in 1676, under the influence
of an excitement growing out of trouble with the Indians.
After more than thirty years of quiet, the natives became
hostile and threatening. "Various outrages were first
committed by the Indians, on whom the whites, as usual,
retaliated; murder answered to murder, burning to burning,
till, throughout the whole border country, were kindled the
flames of an exterminating Indian war, accompanied by all its
peculiar horrors. In the excited state of the public mind,
these new calamities were laid at the door of the government."
Governor Berkeley was accused of having an interest in the
profits of trade with the Indians which restrained him from
making war on them. Whether the charge was true or false, he
gave color to it by his conduct. He took no steps to protect
the colony. Nor would he authorize any self-defensive measures
on the part of the people themselves. They "went so far as to
engage that, if the Governor would only commission a general,
whomsoever he would, they would 'follow him at their own
charge.' Still they were not heard. Under such circumstances
of neglect and excessive irritation, they took the case into
their own hands." They chose for their leader Nathaniel Bacon,
a young Englishman of education, energy and talent, who had
been in the colony about three years, and who had already
attained a seat in the Governor's Council. Bacon accepted the
responsibility, "commission or no commission," and, in the
spring of 1676, put himself at the head of 500 men, with whom
he marched against the Indians. The governor, after formally
proclaiming him a rebel, raised another army and marched, not
against the Indians, but against Bacon. He was hardly out of
Jamestown, however, before the people of that neighborhood
rose and took possession of the capital. On learning of this
fresh revolt, he turned back, and found himself helpless to do
anything but submit. The result was the summoning of a new
Assembly, to which Bacon was elected from his county, and the
making of some progress, apparently, towards a curing of
abuses and the removing of causes of discontent. But something
occurred—exactly what has never been made clear—which led to
a sudden flight on Bacon's part from Jamestown, and the
gathering of his forces once more around him. Re-entering the
capital at their head, he extorted from Governor Berkeley a
commission which legalized his military office, and armed with
this authority he proceeded once more against the Indians.
"But as soon as he was sufficiently distant to relieve the
Governor and his friends from their fears, all that had been
granted was revoked; a proclamation was issued, again
denouncing Bacon as a rebel, setting a price upon his head,
and commanding his followers to disperse." Again, Bacon and
his army retraced their steps and took possession of
Jamestown, the governor flying to Accomac. A convention of the
inhabitants of the colony was then called together, which
adopted a Declaration, or Oath, in which they fully Identified
themselves with Bacon in his course, and swore to uphold him.
The latter then moved once more against the Indians; Berkeley
once more got possession of the seat of government, and, once
more, Bacon (who had fought the Indians meantime at Bloody Run
and beaten them) came back and drove him out. "The whole
country … was with Bacon, and merely a crowd of cowardly
adventurers about the Governor. Nothing would seem, at this
moment, to have stood between Bacon and the undisputed,
absolute control of the colony, had no unforeseen event
interposed, as it did, to change the whole aspect of affairs."
This unforeseen event was the sudden death of Bacon, which
occurred in January, 1677, at the house of a friend. "Some
mystery attaches to the manner of it," and there were, of
course, sinister whispers of foul play. "But, however and
wherever Bacon died, it could never be discovered where he was
buried, nor what disposition had been made of his body. … The
death of Bacon was, in effect, the restoration of Sir William
Berkeley to his lost authority, and the termination of the
war; there being not an individual, among either his
counsellors or officers, of capacity sufficient to make good
his place. … Berkeley, gradually subduing all opposition, and
making prisoners of many of the prime movers of the revolt, in
a short time saw the authority of his government completely
reestablished. … The historians of the period inform us that
no less than 25 persons were executed during the closing
period of the rebellion and the few next succeeding months."

_W. Ware,
Memoir of Nathaniel Baron
(Library of American Biographies, series 2, volume 3)._

ALSO IN:
_J. A. Doyle,
The English in America: Virginia, &c.,
chapter 9._

_J. Burk,
History of Virginia,
volume 2, chapter 4._

_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States (Author's last revision),
part 2, chapters 10-11._

_E. Eggleston,
Nathaniel Baron
(Century Magazine, July, 1890)._

{3634}

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1689-1690.
King William's War.
The first Colonial Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;
and CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1691.
The founding of William and Mary College.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1619-1819.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1696-1749.
Suppression of colonial manufactures.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1696-1749.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710.
Colonization of Palatines.

See PALATINES.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1710-1716.
Crossing the Blue Ridge.
The Knights of the Golden Horseshoe.
Possession taken of the Shenandoah Valley.

"Lord Orkney is made Governor, but as usual sends his deputy,
and in the year 1710 appears the stalwart soldier and ruler,
Sir Alexander Spotswood. Alexander Spotswood, or Spottiswoode,
as his family were called in Scotland, rises like a landmark
above the first years of the century. When he came to Virginia
he was only 34 and in the bloom of his manhood. But he had
already fought hard, and his faculties as a soldier and ruler
were fully developed. … The Virginians received Spotswood with
open arms. He was a man after their own heart, and brought
with him when he came (June 1710) the great writ of Habeas
corpus. The Virginia people had long claimed that this right
was guaranteed to them by Magna Charta, since they were
equally free Englishmen with the people of England. Now it was
conceded, and the great writ came,—Spotswood's letter of
introduction. It was plain that he was not a new Berkeley
looking to the King's good pleasure as his law, or a new
Nicholson ready to imprison people or put halters around their
necks; but a respecter of human freedom and defender of the
right. … In … 1716, Governor Alexander Spotswood set out on an
expedition which much delighted the Virginians. There was a
very great longing to visit the country beyond the Blue Ridge.
That beautiful unknown land held out arms of welcome, and the
Governor, who had in his character much of the spirit of the
hunter and adventurer, resolved to go and explore it. Having
assembled a party of good companions, he set out in the month
of August, and the gay company began their march toward the
Blue Ridge Mountains. The chronicler of the expedition
describes the picturesque cavalcade followed by the
pack-horses and servants,—'rangers, pioneers, and Indians';
how they stopped to hunt game; bivouacked 'under the canopy';
laughed, jested, and regaled themselves with 'Virginia wine,
white and red, Irish usquebaugh, brandy, shrub, two kinds of
rum, champagne, canary, cherry-punch, and cider.' In due time
they reached the Blue Ridge, probably near the present Swift
Run Gap, and saw, beyond, the wild valley of the Shenandoah.
On the summit of the mountain they drank the health of the
King, and named two neighboring peaks 'Mt. George' and 'Mt.
Alexander,' after his Majesty and the Governor; after which
they descended into the valley and gave the Shenandoah the
name of the 'Euphrates.' Here a bottle was buried—there were,
no doubt, a number of empty ones—containing a paper to testify
that the valley of the Euphrates was taken possession of in
the name of his Majesty, George I. Then the adventurers
reascended the mountain, crossed to the lowland, and returned
to Williamsburg. This picturesque incident of the time gave
rise to the order of the 'Knights of the Golden Horseshoe.'
The horses had been shod with iron, which was unusual, as a
protection against the mountain roads; and Spotswood sent to
London and had made for his companions small golden horseshoes
set with garnets and other jewels, and inscribed 'Sic juvat
transcendere montes.'"

_J. E. Cooke,
Virginia,
part 2, chapters 21-22._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744.
Treaty with the Six Nations and
purchase of the Shenandoah Valley.

"The Six Nations still retained the right to traverse the
great valley west of the Blue Ridge. Just at this inopportune
moment [1743], some of their parties came into bloody
collision with the backwoodsmen of Virginia, who had
penetrated into that valley. Hostilities with the Six Nations,
now that war was threatened with France, might prove very
dangerous, and Clinton [governor of New York] hastened to
secure the friendship of these ancient allies by liberal
presents; for which purpose, in conjunction with commissioners
from New England, he held a treaty at Albany. … The
difficulties between Virginia and the Six Nations were soon
after [1744] settled in a treaty held at Lancaster, to which
Pennsylvania and Maryland were also parties, and in which, in
consideration of £400, the Six Nations relinquished all their
title to the valley between the Blue Ridge and the central
chain of the Allegany Mountains."

_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 25 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_B. A. Hinsdale,
The Old Northwest,
page 59._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1748-1754.
First movements beyond the mountains to
dispute possession with the French.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1754.
Opposing the French occupation of the Ohio Valley.
Washington's first service.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1754.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1755-1760.
The French and Indian War.
Braddock's defeat and after.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1756.
Number of Slaves.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1756.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1759-1761.
The Cherokee War.

See SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763.
The Parsons' Cause and Patrick Henry.

"In Virginia as well as in Pennsylvania, a vigorous opposition
to vested rights foreshadowed what was to come. A short crop
of tobacco having suddenly enhanced the price of that staple,
or, what is quite as like]y, the issue of paper money in
Virginia, first made that same year [1755], having depreciated
the currency, the Assembly had passed a temporary act,
authorizing the payment of all tobacco debts in money at
twopence per pound—the old rate, long established by usage.
Three years after, under pretence of an expected failure of
the crop, this tender act was renewed.
{3635}
Francis Fauquier, who had just succeeded Dinwiddie as
lieutenant governor, a man of more complying temper than his
predecessor, readily consented to it. The salaries of the
parish ministers, some sixty-five in number, were payable in
tobacco. They were likely to be considerable losers by this
tender law; and, not content with attacking it in pamphlets,
they sent an agent to England, and by the aid of Sherlock,
bishop of London, procured an order in council pronouncing the
law void. Suits were presently brought to recover the
difference between twopence per pound in the depreciated
currency and the tobacco to which by law the ministers were
entitled. In defending one of these suits [1763], the
remarkable popular eloquence of Patrick Henry displayed itself
for the first time. Henry was a young lawyer, unconnected with
the ruling aristocracy of the province, and as yet without
reputation or practice. The law was plainly against him, and
his case seemed to be hopeless. He had, however, a strong
support in the prevailing prejudice in favor of the tender
law, and in the dissatisfaction generally felt at the king's
veto upon it. Addressing the jury in a torrent of eloquence as
brilliant as it was unexpected, he prevailed upon them to give
him a verdict. The Assembly voted money to defend all suits
which the parsons might bring; and, notwithstanding their
clear legal right in the matter, they thought it best to
submit without further struggle."

_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 27 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_W. Wirt,
Life of Patrick Henry,
chapter 1._

_M. C. Tyler,
Patrick Henry,
chapter 4._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1763-1766.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Stamp Act and Patrick Henry's resolutions.
The First Continental Congress.
The repeal of the Stamp Act and the Declaratory Act.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1766-1773.
Opening events of the Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, to 1772-1773;
and BOSTON: A. D. 1770, to 1773.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1768.
The boundary treaty with the Six Nations at Fort Stanwix.
Pretended cession of lands south of the Ohio.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1769.
Attempted prohibition of Slave Trade nullified by George III.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1713-1776.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1769-1772.
The first settlement of Tennessee.
The Watauga Association.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1769-1772.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1774.
Western territorial claims of the Old Dominion.
Lord Dunmore's War with the Indians.

See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774;
and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Bill,
and the Quebec Act.
The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775.
The beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
The country in arms.
Ticonderoga.
The Siege of Boston.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775.
The end of Royal Government.
Lord Dunmore's flight.

Not long after the excited demonstrations which followed
Governor Dunmore's removal of powder from the public magazine
at Williamsburg, the governor received Lord North's
"conciliatory proposition," and "he convened the House of
Burgesses, on the 1st of June, to take it into consideration.
This withdrew Peyton Randolph from Congress, as had been
anticipated, and Mr. Jefferson succeeded to the vacancy. But
the latter was not permitted to leave the Burgesses before an
answer to the ministerial proposition was framed. … How much
the answer was 'enfeebled' by the doubts and scruples of the
moderate members, we cannot say, but it rings true
revolutionary metal, and it was a noble lead off for the
Assemblies of the other Colonies. … The House, after the
customary expression of a desire for reconciliation, declare
that they have examined it (the Ministerial proposition)
minutely, viewed it in every light in which they are able, and
that, 'with pain and disappointment, they must ultimately
declare that it only changed the form of oppression without
lightening its burden.' … In the meantime events had
transpired which soon afterwards terminated the official
career of the Earl of Dunmore, and with it the royal
government in Virginia. On the 5th of June, three men who
entered the public magazine were wounded by a spring gun
placed there by the orders of the Governor, and on the 7th, a
committee of the House, appointed to inspect the magazine,
found the locks removed from the serviceable muskets, and they
also discovered the powder which had been placed in mine.
These things highly exasperated the multitude, and on a rumor
getting abroad that the same officer who had before carried
off the powder was again advancing towards the city with an
armed force, they rose in arms. The Governor's assurance that
the rumor was unfounded restored tranquillity. He, however,
left the city in the night with his family and went on board
the Fowey, lying at York, twelve miles distant. He left a
message declaring that he had taken this step for his safety,
and that thenceforth he should reside and transact business on
board of the man of war! An interchange of messages, acrid and
criminatory on his part, firm and spirited on the part of the
House, was kept up until the 24th of June; when, on his final
refusal to receive bills for signature except under the guns
of an armed vessel, the House declared it a high breach of
privilege, and adjourned to the 12th of October. But a quorum
never afterwards attended. … We soon find the Earl of Dunmore
carrying on a petty but barbarous predatory warfare against
the people he had so lately governed."

_H. S. Randall,
Life of Jefferson,
volume 1, chapter 3._

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775-1776.
Lord Dunmore's warfare.
Norfolk destroyed.

"Having drawn together a considerable force, Dunmore ascended
Elizabeth River to the Great Bridge, the only pass by which
Norfolk can be approached from the land side; dispersed some
North Carolina militia collected there; made several
prisoners; and then, descending the river [November 1775],
took possession of Norfolk. The rise of that town had been
very rapid. Within a short time past it had become the
principal shipping port of Virginia.
{3636}
Its population amounted to several thousands, among whom were
many Scotch traders not well disposed to the American cause.
Fugitive slaves and others began now to flock to Dunmore's
standard. A movement was made in his favor on the east shore
of Maryland, which it required a thousand militia to suppress.
The Convention of Virginia, not a little alarmed, voted four
additional regiments, afterward increased to seven, all of
which were presently taken into continental pay. … Woodford,
with the second Virginia regiment, took possession of the
causeway leading to the Great Bridge, which was still held by
Dunmore's troops. An attempt to dislodge the Virginians having
failed, with loss, Dunmore abandoned the bridge and the town,
and again embarked. Norfolk was immediately occupied by
Woodford, who was promptly joined by Howe's regiment from
North Carolina. After a descent on the eastern shore of
Virginia [January, 1776], to whose aid marched two companies
of Maryland minute men, being re-enforced by the arrival of a
British frigate, Dunmore bombarded Norfolk. A party landed and
set it on fire. … The part which escaped was presently burned
by the provincials, to prevent it from becoming a shelter to
the enemy. Thus perished, a prey to civil war, the largest and
richest of the rising towns of Virginia. Dunmore continued,
during the whole summer, a predatory warfare along the rivers,
of which his naval superiority gave him the command, burning
houses and plundering plantations, from which he carried off
upward of 1,000 slaves. He was constantly changing his place
to elude attack; but watched, pursued, and harassed, he
finally found it necessary to retire to St. Augustine with his
adherents and his plunder."

_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 32 (volume 3)._

ALSO IN:
_C. Campbell,
Introduction to History of Virginia.,
chapter 33_.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1775-1784.
The exercise of sovereignty over Kentucky.

See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1775-1784.

VIRGINIA: A. D. 1776.
Independence declared and a Constitution adopted.
Declaration of Rights.

"There was a sudden change in public sentiment; and the idea
of independence, said to be alarming to Virginians in March
[1776] was welcome to them in April. One writes on the 2d:
'Independence is now the talk here. … It will be very soon, if
not already, a favorite child.' Another, on the 12th, writes:
'I think almost every man, except the treasurer, is willing to
declare for independence.'" On the 23d, the Charlotte County
Committee charged its delegates in convention to use their
best endeavors "that the delegates which are sent to the
General Congress be instructed immediately to cast off the
British yoke." On the next day, a majority of the freeholders
of James City took similar action. "In May, the avowals for
independence were numerous. In this spirit and with such aims,
a new convention was chosen, and on the 6th of May met in
Williamsburg. It contained illustrious men,—among them, James
Madison, in the twenty-fifth year of his age; George Mason, in
the maturity of his great powers; Richard Bland, Edmund
Pendleton, and Patrick Henry, rich in Revolutionary fame. … On
the 14th of May the convention went into a committee of the
whole on the state of the colony, with Archibald Carey in the
chair; when Colonel Nelson submitted a preamble and
resolutions on independence, prepared by Pendleton. These were
discussed in two sittings of the committee, and then reported
to the House. They were opposed chiefly by delegates from the
Eastern District, but were advocated by Patrick Henry, and
passed unanimously when 112 members were present,—about 20
absenting themselves. This paper enumerated the wrongs done to
the colonies … and instructed the delegates appointed to
represent the colony in the General Congress 'to propose to
that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and
independent States,' and to 'give the assent of the colony to
measures to form foreign alliances and a
confederation,—provided the power of forming government for
the internal regulations of each colony be left to the
colonial legislatures.' The same paper also provided for a
committee to form a plan of government for Virginia. This
action was transmitted by the President to the other
assemblies, accompanied by a brief circular. … It was hailed
by the patriots in other colonies with enthusiasm. … The
convention agreed (June 12) upon the famous Declaration of
Rights declaring all men equally free and independent, all
power vested in and derived from the people, and that
government ought to be for the common benefit; also that all
men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion
according to the dictates of conscience. It also complied with
the recommendation of Congress, by forming a constitution and
electing a governor and other officers."

_R. Frothingham,
The Rise of the Republic,
chapter 11._

ALSO IN:
_H. B. Grigsby,
The Virginia Convention of 1776._

_W. C. Rives,
Life and Times of Madison,
volume 1, chapter 5._

_K. M. Rowland,
Life of George Mason,
volume 1, chapter 7._

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1779.

The following is the text of the Declaration of Rights:

"A Declaration of Rights, made by the Representatives of the
good People of Virginia, assembled in full and free
Convention, which rights do pertain to them and their
posterity as the basis and foundation of government.

I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent,
and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter
into a state of society, they cannot by any compact, deprive
or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and
liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property,
and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

II. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived
from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and
servants, and at all times amenable to them.

III. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the
common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation
or community; of all the various modes and forms of
government, that is best which is capable of producing the
greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most
effectually secured against the danger of maladministration;
and that, when a government shall be found inadequate or
contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath
an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform,
alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most
conducive to the public weal.

{3637}

IV. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or
separate emoluments or privileges from the community but in
consideration of public services, which not being descendible,
neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator or judge
to be hereditary.
V. That the legislative, executive and judicial powers should
be separate and distinct; and that the members thereof may be
restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the
burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be
reduced to a private station, return into that body from which
they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by
frequent, certain and regular elections, in which all, or any
part of the former members to be again eligible or ineligible,
as the laws shall direct.