Ireland has shown a singular power of absorbing its conquerors.

The descendants of Danish, Norman, and English settlers consider

themselves pure Irish "Celts." It is a strange fact that the English,

Scotch, Norman, Danish, and even the French Huguenots who have

settled in Ireland have acquired and have handed down an extraordinary

temperamental unity. As to language, by the time of Elizabeth the

English Pale constituted a part of eastern Leinster, and there English

was uniformly spoken. The English language ultimately spread over the

whole of Ireland, leaving only a few remnants of Celtic speech in the

extreme west.

From the times of James I to those of William III, large numbers of

English and Scotch borderers passed over to the northeast corner of the

island into the province of Ulster. They were fervent Presbyterians

and hated the native Catholic Irish. It was the sons and grandsons of

these immigrants who came to America in the eighteenth century and are

sometimes miscalled the "Scotch Irish." They had special grievances of

their own against England on account of economic restrictions imposed

upon their industries.

Before this time a large number of Cromwellian soldiers had settled in

Leinster, but not having their own women with them they intermarried

with the Catholic Irish and their descendants today are most intensely

Irish in national feeling. The Reformation never had much hold

on Ireland, so that the Catholic Irish today represent the mixed

population of Ireland before the sixteenth century, together with

numerous converts from the Scotch and English immigrants.

With this brief survey of the distribution of the Nordic race in Europe

down to the time of the discovery of America and the beginning of

emigration to the colonies of the New World, we can pass on to one of

the most dramatic mass-migrations of man.

From West Central Asia where it was in contact with the Mongoloids on

the _east_, the Nordic race pushed across Europe to the extreme western

coasts. We shall show how it traversed the Atlantic Ocean and then in

three centuries subdued a continent. Generation after generation it

fought its way westward, until it reached the Pacific Ocean, where

today it stands confronting Asia and its immemorial rivals, the

Mongols, this time on the _west_.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 2: In _Geographical Lore of the Time of the Crusades_, by

J.K. Wright of the American Geographic Society, p. 320, the author

says: "In these authorities we find that the differences between the

inhabitants of the northern and southern parts of Italy were fully

appreciated in the twelfth century. 'The Lombards,' Gunther says, 'are

a keen, skillful, and active people; foresighted in counsel; expert

in justice; strong in body and spirit, full of life and handsome to

look upon, with slight, supple bodies that give them great power of

endurance; economical and always moderate in eating and drinking;

masters of their hands and mouths; honorable in every business

transaction; mighty in the arts and always striving for the new; lovers

of freedom and ready to face death for freedom's sake. These people

have never been willing to submit to kings.... But what a contrast the

people of Apulia in the south present to the Lombards. Dirty, lazy,

weak, good-for-nothing idlers that they are.'"]

[Footnote 3: The Spanish popular heroes, Don Rodrigo and the Cid

Campeador, were Gothic, to judge by their names, as was the brave

crusader, Count Raymund of Toulouse. L. Wilser has called attention

to the number of Gothic names still in use in the Iberian peninsula:

Alfonso or Affonso, Alonzo (Gothic Athalafuns); Alvaro and Alvarez

(Gothic Alavair); Bermuy (Gothic Berimud); Bertran (Gothic Bairhtram);

Diego and Diaz (Gothic Thiudareiks, Dietrich); Esmeralda; Fernando and

its genitive Fernandez (Gothic Ferdinanths); Froilaz and Fruela (Gothic

Fravila); Gelmirez (Gelimer); Gomez (Gothic Guma); Gonzalo and Gonzalez

(Gothic Gunthimir, Gundemar); Guilfonso (Gothic Viljafuns); Guzman

(Gothic Godaman, Gutmann); Ildefonso (Gothic Hildifuns); Isabella;

Marques (Gothic Markja); Menendez (Gothic Herminanths); Mundiz and

Munnez (Gothic Mundila); Pizarro (Gothic Pitzas); Ramiro (Gothic

Radomir or Ragnimir); Ramon and Renmondez (Gothic Ragnimund); Rodrigo

and Rodriguez; Ruiz (Gothic Rudoreiks); Sesnandes (Gothic Sisenand);

Vasco and Vasquez (Nordic Wasce); Velasquez (Gothic Vilaskja?). See p.

107, vol. II, of book _Die Germanen_, by Doctor Ludwig Wilser.]

[Footnote 4: Describing Camoens, George Edward Woodberry (_The Torch_,

pp. 203-4; New York, 1920) says: "He was of the old blue blood of the

Peninsula, the Gothic blood, the same that gave birth to Cervantes. He

was blond, and bright-haired, with blue eyes, large and lively, the

face oval and ruddy--and in manhood the beard short and rounded, with

long untrimmed mustachios--the forehead high, the nose aquiline; in

figure agile and robust; in action 'quick to draw and slow to sheathe,'

and when he was young, he writes that he had seen the heels of many,

but none had seen his heels. Born about the year 1524, of a noble and

well-connected family, educated at Coimbra, a university famous for the

classics, and launched in life about the court at Lisbon, he was no

sooner his own master than he fell into troubles."]

[Footnote 5: Wilser cites Woltmann's essay, "Have the Goths disappeared

in Italy?," which shows that even in the latter part of the Middle Ages

many people lived according to Gothic law; that in some cities there

even existed Gothic sections; and that many Gothic names can be traced,

as Stavila, Nefila, Leuuia, Hermia, Hilpja, Ansefrida, Gilliefredus,

Totila, Vila.]

[Footnote 6: In fact, almost all the names of the Troubadours are

Teutonic, says Wilser, giving the following examples of French names,

with the Teutonic original in parentheses: Arnaut (Arnold); Aimeric

(Emerich); Bernart (Bernhard); Bertrand (Bertram); Gaucelm (Walchelm);

Gautier (Walther); Guillem (Wilhelm); Guiraut (Gerold); Gunot (Wido);

Jaufre or Joffre (Gotfrid); Raimon (Raginmund); Rambaut (Raginbald);

Rudel (Rudolf); Savaric (Sabarich). See p. 107, vol. II, of _Die

Germanen_, by Doctor Ludwig Wilser.]

IV

THE NORDIC SETTLEMENT OF AMERICA

Before considering the question of the origin of the English settlers

of the Atlantic seaboard, it is important to understand the motives

that actuated the newcomers.

The impelling motive of the settlers who crossed the ocean to America

from the earliest Colonial times down to 1880 was land hunger, and just

as we speculate in stocks today, so down to one hundred years ago our

ancestors speculated in lands on the frontier.

It is difficult to realize the extent to which the ownership of the

land in Europe was monopolized, largely through the exercise of

Royal favor, by the upper classes in the seventeenth and eighteenth

centuries. This established English tradition and practice, brought

to America by the early settlers, coupled with the favoritism of the

royal governors in land grants, was one of the causes which led to the

Revolution. After the American victory much land was confiscated on the

plea that the owners were Loyalists.

The distribution of free land in the United States came substantially

to an end about 1880, when the public domain became exhausted. Up

to that date, the immigration into America had been assimilated

readily. Certain exceptions will be dealt with later. Practically all

of it was from northwestern Europe, and the immigrants came mostly

of their own volition. It took some degree of enterprise to leave

home, cross the Atlantic, and establish oneself in a new country amid

strange surroundings. Settling new land meant clearing the forests and

destroying the game, as well as buying off or fighting the Indians,

whose ideas about land ownership were vague. To the frontiersman in

early days, the term "a clearing" was synonymous with "a settlement."

Religious motives and the desire for political and economic

independence, of course, were also great factors in the Pilgrim and

Puritan migration to New England from 1620 to 1640.

The New England Puritans represented only a part and relatively a

small part of the exodus from England. They were pure English from the

most Anglo-Saxon part of England and consisted largely of yeomen and

the lesser gentry, who found the religious and political conditions

in England under the Stuarts intolerable for freemen. They were

essentially dissenters, who refused to bend the knee to prelate or to

king.

In 1640, under the Commonwealth the Puritans seized the reins of

government in England and only permitted the return of royalty in

1660 under conditions which established for all time the supremacy of

Parliament. In fact, during the Commonwealth the power of Parliament

had become so great that many of the best minds of England felt that a

restoration of the monarchy was needed as a check.

The settlers of New England may be regarded as essentially rebels

against established religion and established authority when the

religion and authority were not of their own choosing. This

non-conformist spirit persisted in the successive new frontiers as

they were settled by New Englanders. The early New England settlers

of western New York and the old Northwest Territory gave birth to an

astonishing number of new sects, religions, "isms," and communities,

ranging all the way from Mormonism to Shakers and the Oneida Community.

They were, however, law-abiding in their own way and murders and crimes

of violence were relatively infrequent.

This is in sharp contrast to the southern frontiersmen, who were and

are addicted to killings and physical violence. That, however, is

chiefly true of the inhabitants of the Appalachian valleys, who always

have been lawless. The dissent and predisposition to rebellion among

the New Englanders dates back to the Puritans in England and the

lawlessness and violence of the Ulster Scots to the endless border

warfare on the Scottish frontier. The southern frontiersman was

originally a Presbyterian, but he found his religion too intellectual

for isolated communities and turned in many cases to the more emotional

creeds of the Methodist and Baptist. The hatred of England by the

Ulster Scotch frontiersmen dated back to the unjust and oppressive

interference with their industries in the north of Ireland, as well as

to a deep-seated impatience of all authority.

After the Revolution this hatred of authority was transferred to the

tidewater aristocrats and was accentuated by the debtor complex, which

has characterized all our frontiers.

The character of the frontier from the very beginning remained the

same. Each generation of the restless, the discontented and the

failures pushed West, carrying with them some of the fine qualities

of the original settlers of the seaboard, but more often developing a

new complex of intolerance for the restraints and usages of the older

communities.

There is an amusing and significant evolution of these traits in

families who settled around Massachusetts Bay and then moved to

the Connecticut Valley; thence to Vermont, western New York, Ohio,

Illinois, Iowa, and Los Angeles, where they now flourish.

At the time of the Revolution the intense hatred in New England of

the mother country was due partly to a desire to confiscate the lands

of the Loyalists and partly to that which they considered unfair

restrictions on their overseas trade, as well as to an unwillingness to

being taxed to pay a part of the great cost of conquering Canada.

The net result of these forces was a widespread anti-British and,

later, anti-governmental complex, which has characterized our country

ever since. In contrast to England and to Canada, we are an essentially

lawless people.

[Illustration: Ireland.]

In the North the Revolution was largely a movement of various Calvinist

communities. The few Episcopalians in New England and the more numerous

adherents of that church in New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were

almost all Loyalists. In Virginia, however, and further to the south

the numerous Church of England planter class took the American side

and as a result retained their leadership as an aristocracy down to

the time of the Civil War. Even at the time of the Revolution this

church contributed more than its quota of leaders. Of fifty-six signers

of the Declaration of Independence, thirty-four are classified as

Episcopalians, twelve as Congregationalists, five as Presbyterians,

two Quakers, one Baptist and one Roman Catholic. Of the Continental

Congress which ratified this Declaration, nearly two-thirds are said to

have been Episcopalians.

In the North following the expulsion of the Loyalists, the Church of

England was left prostrate, and it was some time after the Revolution

before it was successfully reorganized and was definitely designated

as the _Protestant_ Episcopal Church to become, after a century, the

fashionable church of the Atlantic seaboard. The Protestant Episcopal

Church has never had any substantial hold in the Middle or Far West

and even today it is there largely a missionary church with a tendency

towards ritualism, which has checked its normal development.

The Roman Catholic population of the colonies was negligible. In 1790

out of a white population of a little over 3,000,000, there were not

more than 35,000 Catholics in the United States. This number included

5000 Negroes and some Germans. They were located for the most part in

Maryland and Pennsylvania, showing that the South Irish Catholics had

not come over in appreciable numbers during Colonial times. Many of the

colonies legislated against Roman Catholics.

The Revolution itself was political and social, carrying to an extreme

development the political theories of the English Whigs. The distrust

of officialdom in power, engendered by the Revolution, led to all

manner of constitutional and legal restrictions, in place of a reliance

on the personal character of office holders as in England.

During Colonial times two distinct types of population developed.

First, the older communities along the tidewater districts, closely in

touch with Europe and having a long tradition of culture and wealth.

Second, a type grew up on the frontier which from the very beginning

showed itself intolerant of the control of the older and richer

settlements. This found its expression in Shays's Rebellion in West

Massachusetts in 1786-87, in the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania

in 1794, and, still earlier, in 1770, when the "Regulators" in North

Carolina were in open rebellion. After the Revolution this tendency

became more and more marked until the then West under Andrew Jackson

took over the control of the country and, with many unfortunate

results, carried Jefferson's ideals to an extreme.

The Revolution emphasized this second attitude of mind and resulted

in the loss, by expulsion, of some of the best Nordic blood in the

country. The Loyalists from Boston, for instance, comprised many of the

oldest and most distinguished families. The representative families

of that city today are not descended wholly from the aristocratic

Colonial families, but largely from the population of the small towns

and villages in its neighborhood. It is said that a total of eighty to

a hundred thousand Loyalists left the colonies and went to Canada and

England and to the English West Indies.

New England to a greater extent than any other colony had been at

war with France and her Canadian Indians for the best part of one

hundred and fifty years, but the memory of this prolonged and bloody

struggle was obliterated by the Revolution. In its place there arose

in America a sentiment for France, caused largely by the romantic

personality of Lafayette, which survives to this day. The Jeffersonian

emotional sympathy with the French Revolution also played a large part.

The fact nevertheless is that we had a naval war in 1798 with the

French, although no formal war was declared. It was caused by French

depredations on American commerce, resulting in several duels between

American and French frigates. All this is conveniently forgotten or

ignored in some of our school text-books.

* * * * *

The earliest permanent settlements of importance in New England were

around Massachusetts Bay, and in Virginia along navigable streams.

From such centers settlements spread up and down the coast until

all the desirable lands accessible to salt water became occupied.

In New England the coasts of southern Maine, of Rhode Island, and

of Connecticut were quickly occupied. Migration then went overland

from Massachusetts Bay, westward to the Connecticut River. This was

our first real northern frontier, and it took more than a century to

populate southern and western New England.

The settlement of Connecticut westward was blocked by the colony of New

York, while the Indians delayed the advance of Massachusetts to the

north. Connecticut in turn threw out colonies at an early date, such as

Newark in New Jersey in 1666.

Vermont was not settled until just before the Revolution, owing to the

danger from the Indians and a serious dispute between New Hampshire

and New York as to its ownership. At the time of the Revolution it was

a typical frontier with all of its bad features. At that time it was

about as rough and tough as Kentucky or Tennessee. After the Revolution

some of the best of its population migrated to western New York, along

with settlers from all over New England who went for the most part

through Vermont.

Early in the eighteenth century nearly all the desirable lands within

reach of salt water had been occupied from New Jersey southward, and

later coming immigrants were forced back into the uplands of the West

beyond the so-called Fall Line at which the Atlantic rivers cease to be

navigable.

New York interposed an absolute bar to westward migration because the

Iroquois Indians held almost all the fertile lands to the west of the

Hudson River. The east bank of the Hudson was more or less filled up

with New Englanders and the west bank with its undesirable lands was

turned over to late coming immigrants, chiefly Germans. The Dutch

population of New York was but small. The total population of the

colony at the time of its seizure by England in 1664 was little more

than 10,000 and there were already many English among them.

The English settlers occupied both banks of the Delaware around

Philadelphia, forcing the later-coming Germans and Ulster Scots to the

west. The Swedish settlement along the river was trifling and was soon

absorbed. There is very little trace of it left in place or personal

names. On the upper reaches of the Delaware River, in Pennsylvania, and

in New York, there were some small settlements of French Huguenots, who

suffered severely from Indian depredations during the Revolution.

Delaware and the country east of Chesapeake Bay are purely English, as

was Maryland, except that western Maryland was really part of western

Pennsylvania and western Virginia.

Virginia itself was the mother of States and in Colonial times extended

in fact, as other colonies did in theory, to the Mississippi, without

mentioning claims to the South Sea. The tidewater population of

Virginia differed profoundly from that of the western part of the

State, including the Shenandoah Valley, which was settled largely from

western Pennsylvania.

There was a marked difference between the settlement of New England and

that of Virginia. To New England the earliest settlers brought their

women and families, while in Virginia the early arrivals were nearly

all males. Women were afterwards sent over by the shipload, but this

was only during the early days of the colony.

Like Virginia, North Carolina in Colonial times extended nominally to

the Mississippi. Its population lacked the tidewater aristocrats of the

Old Dominion and contained many Scots, straight from the Highlands,

who, strangely, took the British side during the Revolution, as well as

a very large number of Ulster Scots in the western mountains, and in

the counties which were afterwards Tennessee.

Kentucky and Tennessee were both settled from the colonies immediately

to the east, but largely by the Ulster Scots, coming from western

Pennsylvania through the mountainous districts of Virginia and North

Carolina. These Ulster Scots came south along the Appalachian valleys,

which trend in a southwesterly direction. They were reinforced by the

numerous groups of the same people, who came up from South Carolina.

Kentucky was much more purely English than Tennessee.

It is a fact but little understood, that the frontier was not much

reinforced from the coast but extended itself. In other words, the

frontier from the beginning was pushed onward by the backwoodsmen, each

generation advancing a little farther westward and making new clearings.

The people along the coast, after a couple of generations of severe

privation, became relatively rich as compared with the frontiersmen.

The inhabitants of the coast cities for the most part preferred a

sea-faring life rather than the hewing out of a homestead in the

wilderness. There have been many cases in our Colonial history where

men went from the coast towns to the wilderness, but for the most part

they were content to stay at home.

As to the original racial complexion of the colonies, New England was

purely Nordic and English. The handful of Ulster Scots in New Hampshire

was not to be distinguished from the English, and the individual

Huguenot families around Boston were only trifling in number. This

remained true of all New England during the Colonial period.

In New York, however, conditions were different. Dutch New Amsterdam,

afterwards English New York City, was always an important port and

attracted to itself from the earliest times a substantial number of

foreigners. In addition to the Dutch founders a considerable number of

French Huguenots were among the earlier settlers. There were also a few

Germans and Portuguese.

The west bank of the Hudson was less accessible and desirable than the

east bank, but there were some substantial colonies of Palatine Germans

settled there and up the valleys of the Mohawk and its connecting

streams. These last played a creditable part in the heavy fighting

which raged in this district with the British settlers, who were for

the most part Loyalists. There were also some small colonies of pure

Scotch along the Mohawk.

One of the results of the Revolution was the expulsion of the Iroquois

Indians, who had occupied New York westward from near Albany to

Buffalo. They had sided with the British and had committed many

atrocities. Their lands were immediately occupied by New Englanders,

coming chiefly from or through Vermont, so that New York State west of

Albany became little more than an extension of New England, except that

the settlers had become Presbyterians.

Many of the colonists who came to New York from Holland were refugees

from the provinces now included in Belgium--in other words, they were

either Flemings or French Huguenots. The real Dutch in the province

came from the north of Holland and were mostly Nordic Frisians.

In addition to the large migration from Ulster very many English

Protestants from Leinster came to America by way of New York

immediately after the Revolution. The Catholic Irish did not come in

any numbers until after 1845.

The Huguenots were pre-dominantly Nordic. For example, New Rochelle in

New York was settled directly from Old Rochelle which is, even today,

one of the purest Nordic districts remaining in France. It is entirely

safe to say that the Huguenots from Brittany, Normandy, and Picardy,

who came to the American colonies by way of England and Holland were

overwhelmingly Nordic. Some of those from southern France were probably

Mediterranean.

Outside of the Port of New York the Dutch population was confined to

the Hudson River towns, chiefly on the east bank, up to and including

Albany and Schenectady. The Dutch element of New Jersey was very small.

The Conquest of a Continent; or, The Expansion of Races in America · 第 4 / 25 段