Chapter VI: Preface (2)

We of the East stretch forth loving hands to our brothers of the West, and, feeling true and loyal hearts beating through the dim spaces dividing us, bid them God speed, as bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh, whose prosperity is our life, whose ruin would be our own desolation.

'As from the East the lovely exile goes,
Fair on the West a young Aurora glows;
And all the flowers Ionian shores could yield
Blush forth, reblooming in the Hesperian field.'

EDS. CONTINENTAL.]

From our quiet homes, on the western bank of the Mississippi, very nearly in Boston latitude, we send daily thoughts of business, friendly interest, and political sympathy unto you who dwell upon our Atlantic shore. Some of us look back unto you as the prodigal son is said to have regarded his father's house. All of us have intimate ties binding us unto you. From you, as the fountain head of literature and intelligence, through your magazines and journals, we are constantly supplied with the living current of thought and mental activity. Is it anything but fair that we should occasionally seek to respond and acknowledge the debt and the fellowship? For what shall more tend to strengthen the bonds of our broad Union than these common sympathies of a widespread and national fraternity of literary tastes and gratifications? Assimilation of mind, community of thought produced by free interchange of opinion, in the way of social intercourse, these will open our hearts to each other and strengthen the links of our national brotherhood. That we may love each other, let us know each other; that we may know each other, let us not fail to look each other fairly in the face.

West of the deep and gently flowing northern Mississippi, I know, is a long way off from the surging waters of your eastern coasts. When you have come this distance, you are, in so far as distance only is concerned, pretty well on your way toward the Rocky Mountains, and the new land of El Dorado, the young and golden Nevada. But yet we are in fact much nearer to your golden markets than to the hidden ore of our new Territories. Time and space, whose natural demands have been so rudely disregarded by the iron progress of science and skill between you and us, still to a great degree maintain their ancient rule over the lands west of us. That vast, thrifty vine of speedy transportation, which has wound itself about the trunk of our national tree, strikes here and there one of its tendrils out upon the branches beyond us, over the region of a few counties. In one instance, in the State immediately south of us, a single energetic scion has crept even to the banks of the rapid Missouri, and others are pushing steadily on in determined emulation. But in most cases, we must be content to ride to the westward, only on the back of the laggard and unambitious coach, that tortoise of travel, crawling on through prairie and swamp. And it is still within the recollection of almost the youngest inhabitant, how the daily trains, drawn by horse, mule, or ox, dragged themselves through our streets, proclaiming from their cotton coverings their distant destination, illustrating on their march the Western 'Excelsior'--

'The wheels in mud were sticking fast,
As through a boundless prairie passed
A youth, who drove a two-mule team,
While on his wagon top was seen.

PIKE'S PEAK.'

Thus eastward we are within forty-eight hours of your press, while westward we are nearly as many days distant by private conveyance from the land of fabled wealth. But time and space must eventually give in. They are not equal to the task; and already the shadow of the great Pacific road makes them tremble for their natural tenure of the free West. It might have done for Æsop to talk about the tortoise and the hare, when they had not steam in those days to course their streams and stalk across their plains with giant tread, eclipsing the old seven-league boots of their fancy; but the tortoise is a used-up individual, is short of breath, and it is the passenger that sleeps, while the hare leaps onward to his covert.

Being thus brought near to you by the swift convoys of science, it will be evident that we are not so far away as we seem. We do not perpetrate an Irish bull when we say that the distance _to_ a place is often greater than the distance in returning. It is, on the contrary, a well authenticated natural fact--a phenomenon, if you please. And by way of illustration we may aver that it is a great deal farther from your metropolis to west of the Mississippi, than from west of the Mississippi to the metropolis.

You sit in your cosy parlors and offices and think of some friend or relative, perhaps a son or daughter, in the 'far West.' It seems as if a sea spread out between you, or at least the better part of a continent. You think of India and China, perchance, or of England or France, and you feel as if they were all nearly equidistant with the home of your beloved ones. It is so far away out to the Father of Waters, and you can never make up your mind, without great and frequent resolution, to undertake such a journey as this.

But, my friends, it is not half so far as that, from us to the Atlantic coast. It is not so far from us to you, as it is to some tardy customer, whose bills are yet to collect, a hundred miles down the country by a two-days' stage adventure. Not nearly so far. Why, when we want to go to New York or Boston, we don't pack our trunks and take a cargo of luggage on board for a two-months' voyage. We just tumble hurriedly a few things into a valise or carpet sack before we go to bed, and the next morning off we start, and after two days of sight-seeing and newspaper reading along the way, and two nights' comfortable sleeping-car rest, we wake up at the dawn of the third day to bid you good morning and inquire after the markets; and that is the end of it.

It isn't so very far, after all. We put off in the morning, bid good evening to Chicago, good morning to Toledo, a ten-o'clock good night to Buffalo, and we sit down to a late breakfast with you the following day.

But then if you have never been out here, it's a long, long distance, and we advise you not to try it all of a sudden, nor to come without a trunk. _Quod erat demonstrandum._

Then, in the next place, being out here, what sort of a people are we? This is a very important query. In the eyes of many we are Western semi-barbarians, without an overplus of manners, means, comforts, knowledge, or many, if any, of the means of Eastern and refined enjoyment. We have come hither to make our fortunes, or to care for those who have, and we are the fit objects of spiritual and temporal commiseration and missionary operations. That is the idea somewhat candidly expressed, isn't it? Oh, no! you don't think so poorly of us as that; but then we are a great ways off, in fact, in a new country, among strangers for the most part, and of course we cannot expect to find everything at hand which we enjoyed in our former comfortable homes.

Well, we are, many of us, from the 'far' East, and most of us from eastward. But we have tried to bring whatever of refinement, manners, knowledge, proprieties, and comforts we before possessed, such as they were, with us, and we haven't lost many of them. We do not believe that contact with the Indians has very much barbarized us. We still read and write and live in houses which we have built, and conduct mercantile and other transactions on former equitable principles; and our communications and intercourse with each other may still be said to be civilized, at least in great measure. We eat and drink what we formerly did, not excepting occasional shad and frequent oysters; and you do not seem to be averse to trying our deer and grouse once in a while--while we even share with you our wheat, cattle, and pork. We don't wear moccasons as yet, nor buckskin with Indian trimmings, instead of doeskin with the latest cut. We try, for the sake of appearances, to wear cotton and woollen and silk; and beads and trinkets are in no extraordinary demand. Beavers and furs are seen upon our streets; and the sound of the piano heard in the land, is not a very unusual disturbance. Our boys, as of old, smoke cigars in secret, fearful of ancient birch, and gum drops still adhere to the pockets of our girls in school. We don't see a very remarkable difference between the children about us and those we knew at a somewhat early age. Brick and stone rise with us into comfortable and even aspiring buildings, and the price of board is not less than we have paid before, nor so very much more. We neither travel nor live on half fare. And men still drive the horse before the cart, and carry the wheat in both ends of the bag as they go to mill.

In fact, we don't see that civilization has lost much flesh in its arduous journey to the far West; nor that, being human before, we have become less human now, or discarded our manners when we shut the doors of our birthplace behind us. We know indeed that Colenso went to convert the heathen, and that the heathen succeeded in converting him, thus putting the boot on the other leg; but the Indians have not yet won us to their dusky faith, although we must confess that assimilation to their copper-colored principles seems to have made some Copperheads among us.

As to works of art, they are not very plentiful hereabouts, excepting in the way of monuments perhaps. We have a generous number of those, erected to the large-heartedness and wisdom of persons who engaged in great improvement schemes, in the line of speculation, when there was but a fictitious basis of wealth in this land, before the bubble burst. These monuments, however, are not generally esteemed ornamental, and the wealth so lavishly expended upon them came not from the bosom of our communities, neither was it imported from north of us, nor west of us, but from whence I will not say. Perhaps some one who reads can help to account for part of it. These monuments, however, such as they are, have, by the liberal contributions made for their erection, exceeded in cost that of Bunker Hill, or the half-finished shot tower in Washington. Our only statues do not represent either the Father of his Country, nor the late old public defunctionary who sat in his chair--but they are principally devoted to 'the poor Indian,' in native costume. These statues, frequently wooden, exhibit the wonted hospitality of this race, and maintain the attitude of proffering a cigar to the friendly passer by.

Of paintings there is not a superfluity; still we have a small collection, comprising several which have for some years been on public exhibition, illustrating 'The Good Samaritan;' 'Prodigious;' 'Washington's Blacksmith shoeing Washington's Horse,' and others of less note, while ----'s panorama of the war has lately departed from us.

Still we have our public and private schools, seminaries, and churches, as others have in fully civilized countries; our newspapers, white and bronze; our leading men, and officeholders; natives of all climes and kindreds, Jew and Gentile, German and French, Bohemian and Scotch, English and Irish; our generals and our corporals; our learned and our unlearned; debtors and creditors--comprising mostly all of us; but believe me, friend, not a solitary living Indian.

I think we are a generous, hospitable, liberal people, up to the full limit of our means and capabilities. Being all away from home, as it were, and all strangers together, we have learned the blessedness of sympathy, and how a little lift is often a great boost, and a friend in need a friend indeed. It was formerly said that when a stranger appeared, the inhabitants emulously set to work to take him in, not however in the flattering and hospitable sense of the words. But as almost without exception any man in a new place or position is a verdant man, so we honestly maintain that they took themselves in, and found it rather difficult to take themselves out again. I believe that we are as quiet, honest, genteel, and mind-your-own-business a set of folks as you may find in most other and more favored communities. With the constant and increasing accessions to our society from more enlightened regions, it would be a wonder did we not attain in time to a level with many other and older-settled countries, who are apt to look abroad with serene complacency gathering motes in open eyes, We have had our castles in the air, and some of them are now underground; but we have read of South Sea bubbles, rise and fall in stocks, 'On to Richmonds,' McClellans, and Congress; and we don't think the beams are all in our own eyes and the motes too.

In fact we are not heathen nor barbarian, Goth nor Vandal, Hottentot nor Fire Eater--but bone of your bone, flesh of your flesh--one with you in all the customs, proprieties, civilization, and hopes of the great American people; bound to save the republic of our fathers, if we go to the death in defence of our mutual rights, principles, and homes.

Do you ask then, 'What is the need of saying all this, since we know it all?' I reply, there is need of saying it, and of repeating it again. There may not be need of it for you, my friend; there is need of it for many others. Talk not of making us of one flesh twain. It cannot be. It is not a question of mere _interest_ that shall bind us as a people inseparably in one. God will not solder a chain. It is a higher bond, a holier bond. We are essentially and intrinsically one; one by nature; one by mutual sympathies, by blood relations, by dearest ties; one in all that constitutes the unity of a family relation; one in heart, one in aim, one in mind, purpose, education, and will. None can make us two. Lines may be drawn by ambitious schemers, divisions discussed, but these do not constitute separation or alienation. The heart of the people beats in profound and resolute unison. What God hath joined together let not man put asunder.

Rise, then, as thou art already rising, great heart of the troubled nation, throb from one confine to the other, bid faction's agitation hush, crush down opposition, scorn the unholy threat, dash the traitorous scheme, and declare the resolute and solemn purpose of all the members to live and govern together, as parts of the same living unity, till the whole body politic becomes a prostrate, lifeless corpse. And from the western border of the States, even from among the youngest and least of the children of the Union of Seventy-six, the union of oaths and the union of hearts, the union of instincts and the union of hopes, do we, in the name of her daughters and sons, bid you, upon the eastern confines, and the States between, you the mothers, and you the elder daughters, all hail, and God speed you in the work of forging anew, even in the fierce fires, the links that bind us into one; 'so making peace.'

For we are of you and with you, and will be ever, while our setting sun is your rising sun--ever, until we become two distinct and divergent races--till you cease to be Joseph and we cease to be Benjamin--till you become Edom and we become Moab--till long centuries shall have erased all kindred ties and bonds of consanguinity, and all men, forgetful of history, shall sink together into vassalage and ancient barbarism. But until then we are one in heart, one in life, and must abide one in fact, or sink together to common shameful desolation.

THE CAVALIER THEORY REFUTED.

A remarkable feature of all discussions of questions connected with the present civil war, is the lack of any attempt to question the foundation of important assertions. Our orators and writers have been ready to explain or soften adverse statements, but they have rarely questioned the existence of any asserted facts. One of the most persistent assumptions of the secessionists has been that the inhabitants of their States are the descendants of the gentry of England, and that the Unionists of the loyal States have neither any identity of origin nor a historical pedigree. On this assumed fact they build two arguments: first, that being homogeneous, they are united to a degree to which the Northerners can never attain; secondly, that the English people, and especially the English gentry, are closely allied to them in blood, and should naturally sympathize with them in their voluntary opposition to the constituted Government.

I propose to show that not only are these assertions unfounded, but that the reverse is the truth; and this I feel authorized in doing for several reasons.

In the first place, if there be no advantage in placing ourselves right in our own eyes, our cause can be advanced in the eyes of foreign observers, by the publication of the truth. Were the facts as represented, an Englishman would be justified, to a certain degree, in sympathizing with a large number of the descendants of Englishmen, engaged in a revolt against a superior number of foreigners. His intense nationality, which has so long given his nation an undue influence, leads him to take this view, and his belief in English invincibility causes him to prejudge the case, and to deem the subjugation of his Southern relatives an impossibility.

Secondly, class prejudices are aroused everywhere in Europe by the idea that a nation of gentlemen is contending for every right against a vulgar crowd; the idea of what in reality constitutes an American democracy being still exceedingly nebulous to the European mind.

Thirdly, we have borne too long the imputation thus cast on us, for our own good in the management of our own affairs. Already expression has been given to threats of ultimate division of the North into separate nationalities, on the ground that we have no common interests and no common origin. It seems well, therefore, to investigate the data at hand, and to see if the South be so united or the North so divided as alleged.

A few tables, prepared from the official Census returns, will serve to place the question in a clear light, and they will be easily confirmed or rejected.

I assume in the following table that the inhabitants of the United States were citizens by birth, and by deducting at the end of each decade the number of immigrants, we have what may fairly be claimed as the percentage of natural increase. I have added the slight excess over the percentage to the column of native born, believing this advantage at least belongs to them:

WHITE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES.

TABLE NO. I.--INCREASE AND IMMIGRATION.

-----+--------+----------+----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
|Percent | Total | Natives. |Aliens.|Aliens.|Aliens.|Aliens.|
Date.| of | per | | | | | |
|Natural | Census. | 1790. | 1800. | 1810. | 1820. | 1830. |
|Increase| | | | | | |
-----+--------+----------+----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1790 | | 3,172,464| 3,172,464| | | | |
| 33.7 | | 1,071,971| 50,000| | | |
| | |----------+-------| | | |
1800 | | 4,294,435| 4,244,435| 50,000| | | |
| 34.4 | | 1,465,290| 16,200| 70,000| | |
| | |----------+-------+-------| | |
1810 | | 5,845,925| 5,709,725| 66,200| 70,000| | |
| 32.1 | | 1,835,672| 21,250| 22,470|114,000| |
| | |----------+-------+-------+-------+ |
1820 | | 7,839,317| 7,545,397| 87,450| 92,470|114,000| |
| 32.1 | | 2,424,228| 28,071| 29,781| 36,594|151,824|
| | |----------+-------+-------+-------+-------|
1830 | |10,509,815| 9,969,625|115,521|122,251|150,594|151,824|
| 29 | | 2,899,444| 33,501| 35,452| 43,673| 44,028|
| | |----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1840 | |14,165,038|12,869,069|149,022|157,703|194,267|195,852|
| 25.1 | | 3,238,699| 37,403| 39,583| 48,761| 49,157|
| | |----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1850 | |19,442,272|16,107,768|186,425|197,286|243,028|245,009|
| 23.9 | | 3,868,994| 44,456| 47,151| 58,083| 58,557|
| | |----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+
1860 | |26,706,425|19,976,762|230,881|244,437|301,111|303,566|
-----+--------+----------+----------+-------+-------+-------+-------+

-----+--------+----------+-------+---------+---------
|Percent | Total |Aliens.| Aliens. | Aliens.
Date.| of | per | | |
|Natural | Census. | 1840. | 1850. | 1860.
|Increase| | | |
-----+--------+----------+-------+---------+---------
1790 | | 3,172,464| | |
| 33.7 | | | |
| | | | |
1800 | | 4,294,435| | |
| 34.4 | | | |
| | | | |
1810 | | 5,845,925| | |
| 32.1 | | | |
| | | | |
1820 | | 7,839,317| | |
| 32.1 | | | |
| | | | |
1830 | |10,509,815| | |
| 29 | |599,125| |
| | |-------| |
1840 | |14,165,038|599,125| |
| 25.1 | |150,380|1,713,251|
| | |-------+---------|
1850 | |19,442,272|749,505|1,713,251|
| 23.9 | |179,131| 409,467|2,598,214
| | |-------+---------+---------
1860 | |26,706,425|928,636|2,122,718|2,598,214
-----+--------+----------+-------+---------+---------

This table shows us that in the States in 1860, out of 26,706,425 white inhabitants, 19,976,762 were the descendants of the original citizens of 1790. I omit the Territories, as the number of inhabitants cannot affect the result, and it is difficult to decide upon their nationality.

In Table II, I propose to divide the inhabitants of 1790 into four classes, the first comprising New England; the second, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania; the third, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia; and the fourth, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

Allowing to each class the same percentage of increase as in the former table, we shall see how our nineteen millions of native-born citizens originated:

INCREASE OF NATIVE WHITE POPULATION.

TABLE NO. II.

-----+---------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------- | | TOTAL | | | | | | as per | | | | | Percent | 'Native' | | | | | of | column, | New | New York, | Virginia, | Delaware, Date.|Increase.|Table No. I.| England. | &c. | &c. | &c. -----+---------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------- 1790 | | 3,172,464 | 992,781 | 908,195 | 923,383 | 348,105 | 33.7 | | 335,417 | 306,911 | 312,030 | 117,618 -----+---------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------- 1800 | | 4,244,435 | 1,328,198 | 1,215,106 | 1,235,413 | 465,718 | 34.4 | | 458,465 | 419,596 | 426,582 | 160,647 -----+---------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------- 1810 | | 5,709,725 | 1,786,663 | 1,634,702 | 1,661,995 | 626,365 | 32.1 | | 574,369 | 525,589 | 534,350 | 201,364 -----+---------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------- 1820 | | 7,545,397 | 2,361,032 | 2,160,291 | 2,196,345 | 827,729 | 32.1 | | 758,541 | 694,103 | 705,676 | 265,908 -----+---------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------- 1830 | | 9,969,625 | 3,119,573 | 2,854,394 | 2,902,021 | 1,093,637 | 29 | | 907,176 | 830,274 | 844,086 | 317,908 -----+---------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------- 1840 | | 12,869,069 | 4,026,749 | 3,684,668 | 3,746,107 | 1,411,545 | 25.1 | | 1,012,464 | 927,852 | 943,272 | 355,111 -----+---------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------- 1850 | | 16,107,768 | 5,039,213 | 4,612,520 | 4,689,379 | 1,766,656 | 23.9 | | 1,210,270 | 1,108,292 | 1,126,661 | 423,771 -----+---------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+----------- 1860 | | 19,976,762 | 6,249,483 | 5,720,812 | 5,816,040 | 2,190,427 -----+---------+------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------

Here then we see that New England has contributed nearly one third of the number, and nearly one quarter of the entire population.

But I will endeavor further to analyze the constitution of the different States which were added to the Union previous to 1860. The following table will show the numbers at each decade:

TABLE NO. III.

NORTHERN FOREIGN IMMIGRATION AND SOUTHERN EMIGRATION.

-----+----------------------------------++----------------------------------- | FREE STATES. || SLAVE STATES. |-----------+----------+-----------++-----------+----------+------------ |Inhabitants| | ||Inhabitants| | Date.|per Census.| Natives. |Immigrants.||all Native.|Emigrants.|Immigrants. -----+-----------+----------+-----------++-----------+----------+------------- 1810 | 3,653,219| 3,421,365| 231,854 || 2,192,706 | 95,654 | | | | || | | 1820 | 5,030,371| 4,521,323| 509,048 || 2,808,946 | 215,048 | | | | || | | 1830 | 6,874,302| 5,973,967| 900,335 || 3,635,513 | 360,145 | | | | || | | 1840 | 9,560,165| 7,711,417| 1,848,748 || 4,604,873 | 552,779 | | | | || | | 1850 | 13,257,795| 9,651,733| 3,606,062 || 6,184,477 | 271,558 | | | | || | | 1860 | 17,993,585|11,970,295| 6,023,290 || 8,712,840 | -- | 706,373 -----+------------------------------------------------------------------------

We have now certain data from which to argue, and I will first investigate the alleged homogeneity of the South. Conceding that every citizen of the two classes of Virginia, etc., and Delaware, etc., in 1790, was indisputably the descendant of an English cavalier, and that the increase of population found an outlet into the new Slave States, how would the case stand?

In 1860 these States contained 8,712,840; by Table II we calculated they should contain 8,006,467; so that even in this case there are some 700,000 foreigners. But a little more research shows that the case is much more unfavorable.

Up to 1840, the Southern States not only could have furnished all the settlers in the Slave States, but must have sent out colonists. In 1840, they had 4,604,873 inhabitants; add to this the natural increase, 25.1 per cent. (1,155,823), and we have 5,760,696 native born, and 423,781 foreigners required make their total of 6,184,477 inhabitants.

But in the next decade, add to the 5,760,696 native born, their percentage of increase 23.9 (1,376,806), and we have 7,137,502, requiring 1,575,338 foreigners, _more than one sixth_, for their total of 8,712,840 white inhabitants.

By no conceivable chance can more than five sixths of the population of the South be descended from the English cavaliers.

But if we concede to every Virginian, not only his inherent gentility, but his unswerving purpose never to emigrate out of slave territory, and an intuitive presentiment which pointed out which were to be the slave portions of adjacent Territories, by these same percentages of increase the 442,215 Virginian cavaliers of 1790 could be the progenitors of only 2,785,927 patricians to rally around the model cavalier of 1860--Jefferson Davis.

Lastly, in an estimate published in 1848 by Mr. Jesse Pickering, devoted entirely to the consideration of immigration as a national question, it is argued, with every appearance of truth, that in 1840 the foreign population of the Slave States was 1,177,965. But these must have displaced an equal number of the native born, and we should have only 3,426,908 of that class in 1840, 4,287,061 in 1850, and 5,311,668 in 1860, or in that case only five eighths of the population could be of native descent, provided that not one emigrated. When we consider that the great immigration of all was between 1840 and 1860, we are forced to conclude that certainly not more than one half of the inhabitants of the present confederate States can present the faintest claim to a descent from the citizens of 1790.

When we seriously endeavor to investigate the claims of Virginians to a descent from the English gentry, we are stopped by their practical denial of the first principles of genealogy.

The public records of their State, as shown by the highest authority, the bishop of the diocese, are most imperfect. The records of the parishes have been lost, the churchyards destroyed, and few authorities, save tradition, can be given for these ambitious claims. Bishop Meade's work, especially devoted to the history of the 'Old Churches and Old Families of Virginia,' gives less than thirty families, clearly traced, to the English gentry. These are those of Ambler, Barradall, Baylor, Bushrod, Burwell, Carter, Digges, Fairfax, Fitzhugh, Fowke, Harrison, Jacqueline, Lee, Lewis, Ludwell, Mason, Robinson, Spottswood, Sandys, and Washington. I believe I have omitted none, and have rather strained a point in admitting some.

I do not, of course, mean to deny that others may exist, but until the proofs are submitted to examination, there is no justice in presuming them to exist. Let us see how far the historians of Virginia support the 'cavalier' theory. Robert Beverley (I quote from the edition published at Richmond in 1855) says:

'Those that went over to that country first, were chiefly single
men who had not the incumbrance of wives and children in England;
and if they had, they did not expose them to the fatigue and hazard
of so long a voyage, until they saw how it should fare with
themselves. From hence it came to pass, that when they were settled
there in a comfortable way of subsisting a family, they grew
sensible of the misfortune of wanting wives, and such as had left
wives in England sent for them, but the single men were put to
their shifts. They excepted against the Indian women on account of
their being pagans, as well as their complexions, and for fear
they should conspire with those of their own nation to destroy
their husbands. Under this difficulty they had no hopes but that
the plenty in which they lived might invite modest women, of small
fortunes, to go over thither from England. However, they would not
receive any but such as could carry sufficient certificate of their
modesty and good behavior. Those, if they were but moderately
qualified in all other respects, might depend upon marrying very
well in those days, without any fortune. Nay, the first planters
were so far from expecting money with a woman, that 'twas a common
thing for them to buy a deserving wife that carried good
testimonials of her character, at the price of one hundred pounds,
and make themselves believe they had a bargain.

'§67. But this way of peopling the colony was only at first. For
after the advantages of the climate and the fruitfulness of the
soil were well known, and all the dangers incident to infant
settlements were over, people of better condition retired thither
with their families, either to increase the estates they had
before, or to avoid being persecuted for their principles of
religion or government.

'Thus in the time of the rebellion in England _several_ good
cavalier families went thither with their effects to escape the
tyranny of the usurper, or acknowledgment of his title. And so
again, upon the Restoration, many people of the opposite party took
refuge there, to shelter themselves from the king's resentment. But
Virginia had not many of these last, because that country was
famous for holding out the longest for the royal family of any of
the English dominions.[13] For which reason the Roundheads went,
for the most part, to New England, as did most of those that in the
reign of King Charles II were molested on account of their
religion, though some of these fell likewise to the share of
Virginia.

As for malefactors condemned to transportation, though the greedy
planter will always buy them, yet it is to be feared they will be
very injurious to the country, which has already suffered many
murders and robberies, the effect of that new law of England.'

Beverley notes also about these servants that 'a white woman is rarely or never put to work in the ground, if she be good for anything else.'

Bishop Meade (vol. i, p. 89) speaks also of these female servants:

'While the company and the Governor were endeavoring to improve the
condition of the colony, by selecting a hundred young females of
good character, to be wives to the laborers on the farms of
Virginia, King James had determined to make of the colony a Botany
Bay for the wretched convicts in England, and ordered one hundred
to be sent over. The company remonstrated, but in vain. A large
portion, if not all of them, were actually sent. The influence of
this must have been pernicious. Whether it was continued by his
successors, and how long, and to what extent, I know not.'

And again (pp. 365-'6), he says:

'The greatest difficulty they (the vestrymen) appear to have had
was with the hired servants, of whom, at an early period, great
numbers came over to this country, binding themselves to the richer
families. The number of illegitimate children born of them and
thrown upon the parish, led to much action on the part of the
vestries and the legislature. _The lower order of persons in
Virginia, in a great measure, sprang from these apprenticed
servants and from poor exiled culprits.'_

Stith says (ed. 1747, p. 103), under date of 1609:

'But a great part of this new company consisted of unruly sparks,
packed off by their friends to escape worse destinies at home. And
the rest were chiefly made up of poor gentlemen, broken tradesmen,
rakes, and libertines, footmen, and such others as were much fitter
to spoil or ruin a commonwealth, than to help to raise or maintain
one.'

Again (p. 306), in describing one of the domestic quarrels of the colony, he copies a statement:

'And whereas it was affirmed that very few of his majesty's
servants were lost in those days, and those persons of the meanest
rank, they replied that for one that then died, five had perished
in Sir Thomas Smith's time, many being of ancient houses, and born
to estates of a thousand pounds a year, some more, some less, who
likewise perished by famine.'

These extracts are all that I can urge in support of the claim of Virginians to be descended from the English gentry. There may be many other authorities; it is for the asserters of this theory to produce them, and I certainly would republish them if I could obtain them.

Let us, however, leave Virginia for a time, to consider the origin of the inhabitants of Delaware, Maryland, the Carolinas, Georgia, and those other confederate States which also claim the honor of an English paternity. Here our means of information become more plain and accessible. From about 1730 up to the time of the Revolution, these colonies were the object of the constant attention of England. The wars with France and Spain and the projects of the proprietors of these grants of land combined to make the public of England anxious for information concerning them. I will merely cite from the _London Magazine_ of that date, though a more extended search, I doubt not, would add to the strength of my position. I find in the first place that the new population was not only not cavalier, but not even English. I find that 'the design of this settlement (Georgia) was to provide an asylum or place of refuge for the honest industrious poor, and the unfortunate, with some view to the relief of the persecuted Protestants in Germany. Among these unfortunate persons it could not be guarded against that numbers, unfortunate only by their own vices or follies, intruded themselves among the real 'objects of charity.' In 1737, these Saltzburghers had built a town, Ebenezer, in Georgia. Mr. Oglethorpe also 'planted upon the fourth frontier, at a place called by him Darien, a colony of Scottish Highlanders.' 'The southernmost settlement in South Carolina is now the town of Purrysburg, which was built by Captain Purry, a gentleman of Swisserland, at the head of a number of his own countrymen, who went over with him soon after that country became a royal government.' In 1765 a new fort was built 'on the Savannah river, about fifteen miles above Hillsborough township, which will be of great use to the three new settlements of Irish, French, and German Protestants.' In 1762, 'the Governor of South Carolina has granted forty thousand acres of land to be laid out into two townships for a number of people from Ireland, who are expected here.'

In 1762, 'upward of six hundred German emigrants, men, women, and children, consisting of Wurtzburghers and Palatines, all Protestants, who were brought here by one Colonel Stumpel, with a promise to be immediately settled in America,' were landed in England, and charitably aided to go to South Carolina. In 1766, I read of Florida, 'the principal town is Pensacola, and as many of the French, who inhabited here before the treaty, have chose to become British subjects for the sake of keeping their estates,' that more foreigners were added to the Southern colonies.

Mr. Pickett, whose history of Alabama was published at Charleston, S. C., in 1851, adds, 'a company of forty Jews, acting under the broad principle of the charter, which gave freedom to all religions, save that of the Romish Church, landed at Savannah. Much dissatisfaction, both in England and America, arose in consequence of these Israelites, and Oglethorpe was solicited to send them immediately from the colony. He, however, generously permitted them to remain, which was one of the wisest acts of his life, for they and their descendants were highly instrumental in developing the commercial resources of this wild land.' 'The colony of Georgia had prospered under the wise guidance of Oglethorpe. The colonists, being from different nations, were various in their characters and religious creeds. Vaudois, Swiss, Piedmontese, Germans, Moravians, Jews from Portugal, Highlanders, English, and Italians were thrown together in this fine climate, new world, and new home.'

Even Virginia was not entirely English. Barber's account of the State (p. 451) says of the valley of the Shenandoah:

'The eastern part of the valley being conveniently situated for
emigrants from Pennsylvania, as well as from lower Virginia, the
population there came to be a mixture of English Virginians and
German and Scotch-Irish Presbyterians. The German Pennsylvanians,
being passionate lovers of fat lands, no sooner heard of the rich
valleys of the Shenando and its branches, than they began to join
their countrymen from Europe in pouring themselves forth over the
country above Winchester. Finding the main Shenando mostly
preoccupied, they followed up the north and south branches on both
sides of the Massanutten, or Peaked Mountain, until they filled up
all the beautiful vales of the country for the space of sixty
miles. So completely did they occupy the country, that the few
stray English or Irish settlers among them did not sensibly affect
the homogeneousness of the population.'

And again:

'The first settlements of this portion of the valley were made by
the Scotch Irish, with a few original Scotch among them. They
settled in the neighorhoods around Martinsburg, in Berkely county,
Winchester, and almost the entire counties of Orange and Guilford.
The same race went on into North Carolina, and settled in the
counties of Orange and Guilford, especially in the northern and
middle parts of the latter county.'

Beverley writes (p. 228):

'The French refugees sent in thither by the charitable exhibition
of his late majesty King William, are naturalized by a particular
law for that purpose. In the year 1699 there went over about three
hundred of these, and in the year following about two hundred more,
and so on, till there arrived in all between seven and eight
hundred men, women, and children, who had fled from France on
account of their religion.'

Bishop Meade (ii. 75) writes:

'That twelve Protestant German families, consisting of about fifty
persons, arrived, April 17th, in Virginia, and were therein settled
near the Rappahannock river. That in 1717, seventeen Protestant
German families, consisting of about fourscore persons, came and
set down near their countrymen. And many more, both German and
Swiss families, are likely to come there and settle likewise.'

This report was made in 1720.

These facts show in the clearest manner that a great percentage of the inhabitants of the seceding States are not of English origin. Even the English were not all Cavalier and Episcopalian. The _London Magazine_, in an 'Account of the British Plantations,' says:

'What contributed much more toward the establishment of the colony,
was their granting a plenary indulgence to people of all religions,
as by their charter they were empowered to do; for by this great
numbers of dissenters were induced to sell their estates in England
and transport themselves and families to Carolina; so that by the
year 1670 a numerous colony was at once sent out.'

One last consideration, of possible impurity of blood, and I will proceed to examine the antecedents of those colonists who were of English blood.

In 1853, a memoir of James Fontaine was published, accompanied by letters from members of his family. He was a Huguenot, who had settled in Virginia, and his descendants have been among the most distinguished of her citizens.

The letters of his sons to relatives in England are very instructive. I quote from one from Peter Fontaine, dated March 2, 1756, in which he regrets that the English had not intermarried with the Indians:

'But here methinks I can hear you observe, 'What! Englishmen
intermarry with Indians?' But I can convince you that they are
guilty of much more heinous practices, more unjustifiable in the
sight of God and man (if that indeed may be called a bad practice);
for many base wretches among us take up with negro women, by which
means the country swarms with mulatto bastards, and these
mulattoes, if but three generations removed from the black father
or mother, may, by the indulgence of the laws of the country,
intermarry with the white people, _and actually do every day so
marry_.'

This is the testimony of a Virginian gentleman, made a century ago; I do not care to more than point to the possible infusion of other than English blood into the veins of the gentlemen who desire to adopt the Cavalier as their national device.

We now proceed to examine the social position, prior to the emigration, of those Englishmen who did in a certain degree colonize the present Slave States, and in a much greater degree colonize New England. I must confess having long wondered at the persistent statement of Englishmen that the citizens of the United States were the offspring of the vagabonds and felons of Europe. Having examined the history of the families of New England with much interest, and finding therein no confirmation of this idea, I had held it but the outbreak of prejudice and ignorance. Yet since the present rebellion has caused so much inquiry into the antecedents of the Southerners, I find that the assertion is well founded, but that it concerns those who have hitherto been loudest in their claims to a distinguished ancestry.

I find among the items of monthly intelligence in the _London Magazine_, the records of felons sentenced to transportation to his majesty's plantations in America, and often the different colonies named. I find a calculation incidentally made, about 1750, that 500 culprits were hung annually in Great Britain--and bloody as the circuits then were, I cannot believe that less than ten times that number annually received the questionable charity of expatriation. I will give a few extracts to show the foundation upon which Southern society has been erected.

In October, 1732, '68 men and 50 women, felons convict, were carried from Newgate to Black Fryars, and put on board a lighter to be carried down the river to be shipped on board the Cæsar, off of Deptford, for transportation to Virginia.' January, 1736: 'This morning 140 felons convict for transportation, were carried from Newgate, and shipped for the plantations, and 18 likewise from the new gaol at Southwark.' In May, 106 were also so shipped. In 1738, 126 were shipped at one time 'for the plantations.' In 1739, 127 were shipped 'to America.' In 1741, 9 of the felons on board a ship lying at Blackwall, 'to be transported to Virginia,' made a bold dash to escape. In May, 1747, 'We are informed that several large ships sailed lately from Liverpool with the rebel prisoners, under a strong convoy to Virginia and Maryland, and other of his majesty's plantations, which makes the whole of what have been transported upward of 1,000.' In January, 1749, 'the 'Laura,' with 135 convicts, bound to Maryland, was cast away.' In 1754, Mr. Stewart was the contractor to transport convicts 'to America.' In 1758, '63 men and women transports were sent from Newgate on board the ship 'Trial,' bound to Maryland, and 45 from the new gaol, Southwark.' Later in the same year, 53 'for America'--36 men and 20 women 'for the plantations.' In 1761, a ship sails with 8 men and 27 women 'convicts to America.' In October, '27 women and 18 men from Newgate, 14 from the new gaol, and 62 from the country gaols, were transported to America this month.' In 1762, 36 women and 5 men convicts were shipped 'to America;' '62 convicts were embarked for Maryland.'

In 1766, I find: 'The above observation occurred to my mind a few days ago, on seeing the convicts pass along to the water side, in order to be shipped for America, with fifes playing before them, 'Through the wood, laddie,' '--as an evidence that the practice was then in force and a matter of course.

In a 'Tour through the British Plantations,' published in this magazine, in 1755, which contains a good account of each colony, I read of Virginia that under Sir Edwyn Sandys, 'there were 12,000 acres laid off for the use of the company, and 100 tenants or planters sent to be placed thereon; and 3,000 acres for the support of the Governor, for the planting of which 100 more men were sent; and what was now become absolutely necessary, there were no less than 90 young women, of a healthful constitution, and unspotted reputation, sent out to be married to the planters, instead of diseased and profligate strumpets, _as is now_ the ridiculous practice.... Thus the company and colony began to be in a thriving way: but now they began to be oppressed by the Government here, for in November they were ordered to send over to Virginia, at their own charge, 100 felons or vagabonds, then it may be supposed in prison, which they were obliged to comply with.'

The same writer says of Maryland:

'The convicts that are transported here sometimes prove very worthy
creatures and entirely forsake their former follies; but the trade
has for some time run in another channel; and so many volunteer
servants come over, especially Irish, that the other is a commodity
much blown over. Several of the best planters, or their ancestors,
have, in the two colonies,[14] been originally of the convict
class, and therefore are much to be praised and esteemed for
forsaking their old courses.'

In 1751 (p. 293) is printed the following:

'A LETTER LATELY PUBLISHED IN VIRGINIA.

'SIR: When we see our papers filled continually with accounts of
the most audacious robberies, the most cruel murders, and infinite
other atrocities perpetrated by convicts transported from Europe,
what melancholy, what terrible reflections must it occasion! What
will become of our posterity? These are some of thy favors,
Britain! Thou art called our mother country; but what good mother
ever sent thieves and villains to accompany her children; to
corrupt some with their infectious vices, and murder the rest? What
father ever endeavored to spread the plague in his family! We do
not ask fish, but thou givest us serpents, and worse than serpents!
In what can Britain show a more sovereign contempt for us, than by
emptying their gaols into our settlements, unless they would
likewise empty their offal upon our tables? What must we think of
that board, which has advised the repeal of every law we have
hitherto made to prevent this deluge of wickedness overwhelming us;
and with this cruel sarcasm, that these laws were against the
public utility, for they tended to prevent the improvement and well
peopling of the colonies! And what must we think of those
merchants, who, for the sake of a little paltry gain, will be
concerned in importing and disposing of these abominable cargoes?'

With these quotations I would leave the subject to the consideration of every unprejudiced judgment. Is it not for the Southerner, even for the Virginian, to produce further evidence of his Cavalier descent before it can be allowed? We see abundant proofs, taken from authorities in no way connected with the present inimical feelings of the North and South, that a very large portion of the English colonists consisted of transported felons. To this direct evidence--which can only be rebutted by evidence of the extinction of the descendants of this class and the infusion of an equal amount of gentle blood--we have thus far only the fact of the presence of a very few good families, and the boasts of prejudiced partisans.

And now, after having indicated the grounds for a careful criticism of Southern claims, let me assert the claims of New England, not to gentle blood, but to a purely English ancestry. Here we come at once upon solid ground, and the authorities are numerous and trustworthy. Genealogy has, for the past ten or twelve years, been a favorite study in New England; and, as Sir Bernard Burke writes, 'for ten or twelve years before the civil conflict broke out ... Massachusetts was more genealogical than Yorkshire, and Boston sustained what London never did, a magazine devoted exclusively to genealogy.' The history of different families, the records of nearly all the older towns, the colonial records, have all been placed in print. Many of these books are larger than any English works on the subject, and are monuments of patient industry. After such researches we may claim to speak intelligently of our ancestry, and to point to the proofs of our assertions. In one work, contained in four volumes, covering two thousand five hundred pages, Mr. Savage has attempted to record the names of the settlers of New England and of two generations of their descendants. Imperfect as such an attempt may be, what other section of our country or any nation can pretend to such a knowledge of its antecedents? I give the result of his twenty years' study in his own words:

'From long and careful research I have judged the proportion of the
whole number living here in 1775, that deduce their origin from the
kingdom of England, i.e., the southern part of Great Britain,
excluding also the principality of Wales, to exceed ninety-eight
in a hundred.'

'A more homogeneous stock cannot be seen, I think, in any so
extensive a region at any time, since that when the ark of Noah
discharged its passengers on Mount Ararat, except in the few
centuries elapsing before the confusion of Babel.'

So much for the idle slander that New England has no records nor homogeneity.

As to the other alleged stigma of Puritanism. Could Virginia maintain her claim to a Cavalier ancestry instead of failing on even a superficial scrutiny, the contrast attempted to be drawn between Puritan and Cavalier is based on a fallacy. When these colonies were established, the distinction was a political one as clearly as the succeeding divisions of Whig and Tory. In those days the gentry were the leaders--the Puritan was as much a gentleman in the technical English sense as the Cavalier. To take an instance which will strike our Virginia friends, who quote the Fairfaxes and Washingtons: Lord Fairfax, the Puritan, married the daughter of Lord Vere, 'a zealous Presbyterian and disaffected to the king.' Their daughter married the gay Cavalier, duke of Buckingham.

The Washingtons were connections, and rather humble ones, of the Spencers. Yet the latest account of the families show Henry Lord Spencer 'standing by the side of the Lords Northumberland and Essex, and the other noblemen who were afterward the leaders of the Parliament during the civil war.'

Puritan and Cavalier! The phrase only means that those, both of gentry and yeomanry, who had sufficient brains to understand liberty, and the courage to fight for it, combined and forever broke the chains of royal or oligarchical oppression. If the gentry were a minority in the party, so much the less reason to boast of such an ancestry.

Still, as no point in a contest should be thrown away, let it be avowed that Puritanic New England could always display a greater array of 'gentlemen by birth' than Virginia, or even the entire South. This is said deliberately, because we know whereof we speak. If the fact be of service in any way, it can easily be substantiated. A list of such names as I can at present remember is longer than any list I have been able to collect from Southern publications. These are, Adams, Amory, Anderson, Appleton, Belcher, Bond, Bowdoin, Bromfield, Browne, Burrill, Chauncy, Chester, Chute, Checkley, Clark, Clarke, Cotton, Coolidge, Corwin, Cradock, Davenport, Downing, Dudley, Dummer, Eyre, Fairfax, Foxcroft, Giffard, Jaffrey, Jeffries, Johnson, Hawthorne, Herrick, Holyoke, Hutchinson, Lawrence, Lake, Lechmere, Legge, Leverett, Lloyd, Lowell, Mascarene, Mather, Miner, Norton, Oliver, Pepperell, Phips, Phippen, Prince, Pynchon, Saltonstall, Sears, Sewall, Thornton, Usher, Vassall, Ward, Wendell, Wetmore, Wilson, Winslow, Winthrop, Wyllys.

I insert this list only for the benefit of those who have yielded to the claims of Virginia through ignorance on points which are peculiarly the care of genealogists. It can easily be extended, and every year, as our records are more fully examined, it will increase.