[1] Wertenbaker, "Patrician and Plebeian in Virginia," 31.
[2] Exactly how many of each race settled in the Appalachian region we
cannot tell, but we know that they came in large numbers, after the year
1735. A few important facts and names may give some idea as to the extent
of this immigration. The Shenandoah Valley attracted many. Most prominent
among those who were instrumental in settling the Valley was the Scotchman,
John Lewis, the ancestor of so many families of the mountains. The
Dutchmen, John and Isaac Van Meter, were among the first to buy land from
Joist Hite, probably the first settler in the Valley. Among other
adventurers of this frontier were Benjamin Allen, Riley Moore, and William
White, of Maryland, who settled in the Shenandoah in 1734; Robert Harper
and others who, in the same year, settled Richard Morgan's grant near
Harper's Ferry; and Howard, Walker, and Rutledge, who took up land on what
became the Fairfax Manor on the South Branch. In 1738 some Quakers came
from Pennsylvania to occupy the Ross Survey of 40,000 acres near Winchester
Farm in what is now Frederick County, Virginia. In the following year John
and James Lindsay reached Long Marsh, and Isaac Larne of New Jersey the
same district about the same time; while Joseph Carter of Bucks County,
Pennsylvania, built his cabin on the Opequon near Winchester in 1743, and
Joseph Hampton with his two sons came from Maryland to Buck Marsh near
Berryville. But it is a more important fact that Burden, a Scotch-Irishman,
obtained a large grant of land and settled it with hundreds of his race
during the period from 1736 to 1743, and employed an agent to continue the
work. With Burden came the McDowells, Alexanders, Campbells, McClungs,
McCampbells, McCowans, and McKees, Prestons, Browns, Wallaces, Wilsons,
McCues, and Caruthers. They settled the upper waters of the Shenandoah
and the James, while the Germans had by this time well covered the
territory between what is known as Harrisonburg and the present site of
Harper's Ferry. See Maury, "Physical Survey," 42; _Virginia Magazine_, IX,
337-352; Washington's Journal, 47-48; Wayland, "German Element of the
Shenandoah," 110.
[3] Wayland, "German Element of the Shenandoah," 28-30; _Virginia
Historical Register_, III, 10.
[4] See Meade, "Old Families of Virginia," _The Transalleghany Historical
Magazine_, I and II; De Hass, "The Settlement of Western Virginia," 71, 75;
Kercheval, "History of the Valley," 61-71; Faust, "The German Element in
the United States."
[5] Dunning, "The History of Political Theory from Luther to Montesquieu,"
9,10.
[6] _Not in Text_
[7] Buchanan, the most literary of these reformers, insisted that society
originates in the effort of men to escape from the primordial state of
nature, that in a society thus formed the essential to well-being is
justice, that justice is maintained by laws rather than by kings, that the
maker of the laws is the people, and that the interpreter of the laws is
not the king, but the body of judges chosen by the people. He reduced the
power of the ruler to the minimum, the only power assigned to him being to
maintain the morals of the state by making his life a model of virtuous
living. The reformer claimed, too, that when the ruler exceeds his power he
becomes a tyrant, and that people are justified in rejecting the doctrine
of passive obedience and slaying him. See Buchanan, "De Jure Apud Scotos"
(Aberdeen, 1762); Dunning, "History of Political Theories from Luther to
Montesquieu"; and P. Hume Brown, "Biography of John Knox."
[8] Just how much the racial characteristics had to do with making this
wilderness a center of democracy, it is difficult to estimate. Some
would contend that although the Western people were of races different
from this aristocratic element of the East, their own history shows
that this had little to do with the estrangement of the West from the
East, and that the fact that many persons of these same stocks who
settled in the East became identified with the interests of that
section is sufficient evidence to prove what an insignificant factor
racial characteristics are. But although environment proves itself
here to be the important factor in the development of these people
and we are compelled to concede that the frontier made the Western
man an advocate of republican principles, heredity must not be
ignored altogether.
Exactly how much influence the Scotch-Irish had in shaping the destiny
of Appalachian America is another much mooted question with which we
are concerned here because historians give almost all the credit to
this race. Even an authority like Justin Winsor leaves the impression
that Virginia cared little for the frontier, and that all honor is due
to the Scotch-Irish. Their influence in shaping the destiny of other
States has been equally emphasized. The facts collected by Hanna
doubtless give much support to the claims of that people to the honor
for the development of Appalachian America. His conclusions, however,
are rather far-sweeping and often shade into imagination. On the other
hand, a good argument may be made to prove that other people, such as
the Germans and Dutch, deserve equal honor. Furthermore, few of the
eulogists of the Scotch-Irish take into account the number of
indentured servants and poor whites who moved westward with the
frontier. Besides, it must not be thought that the East neglected the
frontier intentionally simply because the Tidewater people could not
early subdue the wilderness. They did much to develop it. The records
of the time of the Indian troubles beginning in 1793 show that the
State governments answered the call for troops and ammunition as
promptly as they could, and their statute books show numerous laws
which were enacted in the interest of the West during these troubles.
The truth of the matter is that, whatever might have been the desire
of the East to conquer the wilderness, the sectionalizing institution
of slavery which the colony had accepted as the basis of its society
rendered the accomplishment of such an object impossible. There was
too great diversity of interest in that region.
[9] Jefferson's Works, VI, 484.
[10] Kercheval, "History of the Valley," 47 and 48.
[11] It soon became evident that it was better to invest in slaves who had
much more difficulty than the indentured servants in escaping and passing
as freemen.
[12] Jefferson's Works, VI, 484.
[13] This statement is based on the provisions of the first State
constitutions. See Thorpe's "Charters and Constitutions."
[14] Grigsby, "Convention of 1788," 15, 49.
[15] The people living near the coast desired reform under British rule.
The frontiersmen had to win them to the movement. A certain Scotch-Irish
element in the Carolinas was an exception to this rule in that they at
first supported the British.
[16] The letters and speeches of most of the Revolutionary leaders show
that they favored some kind of abolition. Among the most outspoken were
James Otis, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and John
Laurens. See also Schoepf, "Travels in the Confederation," 149; and Brissot
de Warville, "New Travels," I, 220.
[17] See the various State constitutions in Thorpe's "Charters and
Constitutions."
[18] Ibid.
[19] Foote, "Sketches of Virginia," 85.
[20] Hart, "Slavery and Abolition," 73; Olmsted, "The Back Country,"
230-232. _Berea Quarterly_, IX, No. 3.
[21] See the Speeches of the Western members of the Virginia Convention of
1829-30, Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1829-30.
[22] This is proved by the reports and records of the anti-slavery
societies and especially by those of the American Convention of Abolition
Societies. During the thirties and forties the southern societies ceased to
make reports. See Adams, "A Neglected Period of Anti-Slavery," 117.
[23] The vote on the aristocratic constitution framed in 1829-30 shows
this. See Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1829-30, p. 903.
[24] Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1829-30, p. 226.
[25] Thorpe, "Charters and Constitutions, South Carolina."
[26] Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1829-30, pp. 53, 76,
442, 858.
[27] See Calhoun's Works: "A Disquisition on Government," p. 1 et seq.
[28] Adams, "Neglected Period of Anti-Slavery," 138.
[29] Ibid., 34.
[30] Bassett, "Anti-Slavery Leaders of North Carolina," 72.
[31] Adams, "Anti-Slavery, etc.," 100-101.
[32] Speech of David Rice in the Constitutional Convention of Kentucky,
1792.
[33] Birney, "James G. Birney," 96-100.
[34] Reports of the American Convention of Abolition Societies, 1809
and 1823.
[35] Birney, "James G. Birney," 70.
[36] Adams, "The Neglected Period of Anti-Slavery in America," 129-130.
Annals of Congress, 17th Congress, 1st ses., 2d ses., 18th Cong., 1st ses.
[37] Ibid., 20.
[38] "The Genius of Universal Emancipation," 11. 35.
[39] Ibid., 10. 145.
[40] See Proceedings of the American Convention of Abolition Societies.
[41] Adams, "The Neglected Period of Anti-Slavery," 132.
[42] Ibid., 131.
[43] "The Genius of Universal Emancipation," 1. 142; 5. 409.
[44] "The Genius of Universal Emancipation," 4. 76, 142; Birney, "James G.
Birney," 77; Minutes of the American Convention of Abolition Societies,
1826, p. 48.
[45] "The Genius of Universal Emancipation," 11. 65, 66.
[46] See The Minutes and Proceedings of the American Convention of
Abolition Societies, covering this period.
[47] This statement is based on the accounts of a number of abolitionists.
[48] Adams, "A Neglected Period of Anti-Slavery," 60, 61.
[49] Siebert, "The Underground Railroad," 10. 346.
[50] Ambler, "Sectionalism in Virginia," 107-108.
[51] Woodson, "The Education of the Negro," 120-121.
[52] "The Genius of Universal Emancipation," 5. 117, 126, 164, 188, 275,
301, 324, 365; 6. 21, 140, 177.
[53] The Fourth Annual Report of the American Anti-Slavery Society, 1837,
p. 48; The New England Anti-Slavery Almanac for 1841, p. 31.
[54] Ibid.
[55] _The African Repository_, XXXII, 16.
[56] The Catalogue of Berea College, 1897.