The principal characteristics of that colonization by which the vast
republic of the West was formed, have been exhibited in the settlement
of Virginia and Massachusetts. The other states were stamped with the
impress of the two first, and in a great measure peopled from them.
Rhode Island and the rest of the New England states were founded by
those who had fled from the religious persecutions of Massachusetts,
with the exception of Connecticut, which owes its origin chiefly to the
spirit of adventure and the search for unoccupied lands. The first
settlers divided this last-named state among themselves without the
sanction of any authority, and then proceeded to form a constitution of
unexampled liberality. They had to bear the chief burden in the Indian
war, on account of their advanced and exposed position; but Connecticut
prospered in spite of every obstacle. Several Puritans of distinction
sought its shore from England. Charles II., on his restoration granted a
most liberal charter, and it continued to enjoy the benefits of complete
self-government till Massachusetts was deprived of her charter by James
II., when Connecticut shared the same fate. At the Revolution, the
younger state, more fortunate than her neighbor, was restored to all the
privileges formerly enjoyed.
The states of New Hampshire and Maine were originally founded on
Loyalist and Church of England principles. Sir Ferdinand Gorges and John
Mason, the most energetic member of the Council of Plymouth, undertook
the colonization of these districts, but their tyrannical and
injudicious conduct stunted the growth of the infant colonies, and
little progress was made till the religious dissensions of Boston
swelled their population. Violent and even fatal dissensions, however,
distracted this incongruous community, till the government of
Massachusetts assumed the sway over it, and re-established order and
prosperity. Gorges and Mason disputed for many years the rights of
authority with the new rulers; nor was the question finally settled till
Massachusetts was deprived of her charter, when a royal government was
established in New Hampshire.
The important state of New York was founded under very different
auspices from those of its neighbors. In 1609, Henry Hudson, while
sailing in the service of the Dutch East India Company, discovered the
magnificent stream which now bears his name. A small colony was soon
sent out from Holland[350] to settle the new country, and a trading
post established at the mouth of the river. Sir Samuel Argall, governor
of Virginia, conceived that this foreign settlement trenched upon the
rights granted by the English crown to its subjects, and by a display of
superior force constrained the Dutch colony to acknowledge British
sovereignty (1613);[351] but this submission became a dead letter some
years later, when large bodies of emigrants arrived from the Low
Countries (1620);[352] the little trading post soon rose into a town,
and a fort was erected for its defense. The site of this establishment
was on the island of Manhattan;[353] the founders called it New
Amsterdam. When it fell into the possession of England, the name was
changed to New York. Albany[354] was next built, at some distance up the
Hudson, as a post for the Indian trade, and thence a communication was
opened for the first time with the Northern Indian confederacy of the
Iroquois, or the Five Nations.
Charles II., from hatred to the Dutch, as well as from the desire of
aggrandizement, renewed the claims of England upon the Hudson
settlements, and in 1664 dispatched an armament of 300 men to enforce
this claim. Stuyvesant, the Dutch governor,[355] was totally unprepared
to resist the threatened attack, and after a short parley agreed to
surrender. The settlers were, however, secured in property and person,
and in the free exercise of their religion, and the greater part
remained under their new rulers. In the long naval war subsequently
carried on between England and Holland, the colony again passed for a
time under the sway of the Dutch, but at the peace was finally restored
to Great Britain. James, then Duke of York, had received from his
brother a grant of the district which now constitutes the State of New
York. On assuming authority, he appointed governors with arbitrary
power, but the colonists in assertion of their rights as Englishmen,
stoutly resisted, and even sent home Dyer, the collector of customs,
under a charge of high treason, for attempting to levy taxes without
legal authority. (1681.) The duke judged it expedient to conciliate his
sturdy transatlantic subjects, and yielded them a certain form of
representative government. In 1682, Mr. Dongan was sent out with a
commission to assemble a council of ten, and a house of assembly of
eighteen popular deputies. The new governor soon rendered himself
beloved and respected by all, although at first distrusted and disliked,
as professing the Romish faith. New York was not allowed to enjoy these
fortunate circumstances for any length of time; the capricious and
arbitrary duke, on his accession to the crown, abrogated the colonial
constitution; shortly afterward the state was annexed to Massachusetts,
the beloved governor recalled, and the despotic Andros established in
his stead. (1686.) At the first rumor of the Revolution of 1688, the
inhabitants, led by a merchant of the name of Leisler, rose in arms,
proclaimed William and Mary, and elected a house of representatives. The
new monarch sent out a Colonel Slaughter as governor, whose authority
was disputed by Leisler; however, the bold merchant was soon overcome,
and with quick severity tried and executed. (1691.) The English
Parliament, more considerate of his useful services, subsequently
reversed his attainder, and restored the forfeited estates to his
family. (1695.) With the view of aiding the resources and progress of
the colony, 3000 German Protestants, called Palatines, were subsequently
conveyed to the banks of the Hudson, and subsisted for three years, at a
great expense, by England. These sober and industrious men proved a most
valuable addition to the population.[356]
New Jersey was formed from a part of the original territory of New York.
Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret were the proprietors, by grant
from James (1664): they founded the new state with great judgment and
liberality, establishing the power of self-government and taxation. The
Duke of York, however, on the reconquest of the country from the Dutch,
took the opportunity of abrogating the Constitution: the colonists
boldly appealed against this tyranny, and with such force, that the duke
was led to refer the question to the judgment of the learned and upright
Sir William Jones, who gave it against him. (1681.) James was obliged to
acquiesce in this decision till he ascended the throne, when he swept
away all the rights of the colony, and annexed it, like its neighbors,
to the government of Massachusetts. After the accession of William, New
Jersey was entangled for ten years in a web of conflicting claims but
was finally established under its own independent Legislature.
The State of Maryland was so named in honor of Henrietta Maria, the
beautiful queen of Charles I., to whose influence the early settlers
were much indebted. Religious persecution in England drove forth the
founders of the colony; but in this case the Protestants were the
instigators, and the cruel laws of Queen Elizabeth's reign against the
Roman Catholics were the instruments. Lord Baltimore, an Irish peer, and
other men of distinction in the popish body, obtained from Charles I.,
as an asylum in the New World, a grant of that angle of Virginia lying
on both sides of the River Chesapeake, a district rich in soil, genial
in climate, and admirably situated for commerce. An expedition of 200
Roman Catholics, many among them men of good birth, was sent under Mr.
Calvert, Lord Baltimore's brother, to take possession of this favored
tract. (1634.) Their first care was to conciliate the Indians, in which
they eminently succeeded. The natives were even prevailed upon to
abandon their village and their cleared lands around to the strangers,
and to remove themselves contentedly to another situation.
Maryland was most honorably distinguished in the earliest times by
perfect freedom of religious opinion. Many members of the Church of
England, as well as Roman Catholics, fled thither from the persecutions
of the Puritans. The Baltimore family at first displayed great
liberality and judgment in their rule; but, as they gained confidence
from the secret support of the king to their cherished faith, their
wise moderation seems to have diminished. However, the principal
grievance brought against them was, that they had not provided by public
funds for Church of England clergymen as fully as for those of their own
faith, although by far the larger portion of the population belonged to
the flock of the former. The unsatisfactory state of morals, manners,
and religion in the colony was attributed to this neglect. At the
Revolution, the inhabitants of Maryland rose with tumultuous zeal
against their Roman Catholic lords, and published a manifesto in
justification of their proceedings, accusing Lord Baltimore's government
of intolerable tyranny. These statements, whether true or false,
afforded King William an opportunity to assume the colonial power in his
own hands, 1691, and to deprive the Calverts of all rights over the
country, except the receipt of some local taxes.[357]
For a long time but few settlers had established themselves in that part
of North America now called Carolina;[358] of these, some were men who
had fled from the persecutions of New England, and formed a little
colony round Cape Fear (1661); others were Virginians, attracted by the
rich unoccupied lands. After the restoration of Charles, however, the
energies of the British nation, no longer devoted to internal quarrels,
turned into the fields of foreign and colonial adventure. Charles
readily bestowed upon his followers vast tracts of an uncultivated
wilderness which he had never seen; and Monk, duke of Albemarle, the
Earl of Clarendon, Lords Berkeley and Ashley, Sir George Carteret, and a
few others, were created absolute lords of the new province of
Carolina. (1663.) Great exertions were then made to attract settlers;
immunity from prosecution for debt was secured to them for five years,
and, at the same time, a liberal Constitution was granted, with a
popular House of Assembly. The proprietors, anxious to perfect the work
of colonization, prevailed upon the celebrated Locke to draw up a system
of government for the new state, which, however excellent in theory,
proved practically a signal failure.[359] The principal characteristic
of the scheme was the establishment of an aristocracy with fantastic
titles of nobility,[360] who met with the deputies in a Parliament,
where, however, the council solely possessed the power of proposing new
laws. The whole colonial body was subject to the Court of Proprietors in
England, which was presided over by a chief called the Palatine,[361]
possessing nearly supreme power. The sturdy colonists neglected, or
deferred for future consideration, every portion of this new
Constitution that appeared unsuitable to their condition, alleging that
its provisions were in violation of the promises that had induced them
to adopt the country.
Carolina for a long time progressed but slowly. The colonists had no
fixed religion,[362] and their general morals and industry were very
indifferent. They drew largely upon the resources of the proprietors
without giving any return, and when at length that supply was stopped,
they resorted to every idle and iniquitous mode of raising funds. They
hunted the Indians, and sold them as slaves to the West Indies, and
their sea-ports became the resort of pirates. These atrocious and
ruinous pursuits soon reduced them to a state of miserable poverty, and
the baneful influence of a series of profligate governors completed the
mischief. One of these, named Sette Sothel,[363] was especially
conspicuous for rapacity and injustice. (1683.) His misrule at length
goaded the people into insurrection; they seized him, and were about to
send him as a prisoner to England, but released him on a promise of
renouncing the government, and leaving the colony for a time. After
these and some other commotions, they succeeded in re-establishing their
ancient charter in its original simplicity.
Carolina now began to improve rapidly, from the influx of a large and
valuable immigration. The religious freedom that had been secured under
the old charter was continued unrestricted even under Mr. Locke's
complicated Constitution. Many Puritans flocked in from Britain to seek
refuge from the persecutions of Charles II., and by their steadiness
and industry soon attained considerable wealth. New England had also
furnished her share to the new settlement of useful and energetic men
who had been expelled by her Calvinistic intolerance. But the
narrow-minded jealousy of the original emigrants soon interrupted the
prosperity of the colony. Under the hypocritical plea of zeal for the
Church of England, to which their conduct and morals were a scandal,
they obtained, by violent means, a majority of one in the Assembly, and
expelled all dissenters from the Legislature and government. They even
passed a law to depose all sectarian clergy, and devote their churches
to the services of the established religion. The oppressed Dissenters
appealed to the British Parliament for protection. In the year 1705, an
address was voted to the queen by the House of Commons, declaring the
injustice of these acts, but nothing was done to relieve the colony till
in 1721, when the people rose in insurrection, established a provisional
government, and prayed that the king, George I., would himself undertake
their rule. He granted their petition, and soon afterward purchased the
rights of the proprietors. (1727.)[364]
In the year 1732 a plan was formed for relieving the distress then
severely pressing upon England by colonizing the territory still
remaining unoccupied to the south of the Savannah. Twenty-three
trustees, men of rank and influence, were appointed for this purpose,
and the sum of L15,000 was placed at their disposal by Parliament and by
voluntary subscription. With the aid of these funds about 500 people
were forwarded to the new country, and some others went at their own
expense. In honor of the reigning king, the name of Georgia was given to
the new settlement. The lands were granted to the emigrants on
conditions of military service, and a large proportion, of them were
selected from among the hardy Scottish Highlanders and the veterans of
some German regiments. Besides being the advance guard of civilization
in the Indian country, the colony was threatened with the rival claims
of the Spaniards in Florida, the boundaries of whose territory were very
vague and uncertain. Happily for Georgia, Mr. Oglethorpe, the original
founder of the settlement, succeeded in establishing a lasting
friendship with the powerful Creek Indians, the natives of the country;
but the Spaniards never ceased to alarm and threaten the colony till
British arms had won the whole Atlantic coast. Owing to this
disadvantage, and still more to certain humane restrictions upon the
Indian trade,[365] no great influx of population took place until 1763,
when peace restored confidence, and men and money were freely introduced
from England.
One of the most important of the great American states that declared
their independence in 1783, was, with the exception of Georgia, the
latest in its origin. Under the wise and gentle influence of the
founders, however, it progressed more rapidly than any other. When time
and reflection had cooled the ardor and softened the fanaticism of the
early Quakers, the sect attracted general and just admiration by the
mild and persevering philanthropy of its most distinguished members. The
pure benevolence and patient courage of William Penn was a tower of
strength to this new creed; well born, and enjoying a competent
fortune, he possessed the means as well as the will powerfully to aid in
its advancement. He endured with patience, but with unflinching
constancy, a continual series of legal persecutions, and even the anger
of his father, until the unspotted integrity of his life and his
practical wisdom at length triumphed over prejudice and hostility, and
he was allowed the privilege of pleading before the British Parliament
in the cause of his oppressed brethren.
William Penn inherited from his father a claim against the government
for L16,000, which King Charles gladly paid by assigning to him the
territory in the New World now called Pennsylvania,[367] in honor of the
first proprietor.[368] This was a large and fertile expanse of inland
country partly taken from New York, New Jersey, and Maryland. It was
included between the 40th and 43d degrees of latitude, and bounded on
the east by the Delaware River. The enlightened and benevolent
proprietor bestowed upon the new state a Constitution that secured, as
far as human ordinance was capable, freedom of faith, thought, and
action. He formed some peculiar institutions for the promotion of peace
and good will among his brethren, and for the protection of the widow
and the orphan. By his wise and just dealings with the Indians,[369] he
gained their important confidence and friendship: he sent commissioners
to treat with them for the sale of their lands, and in the year 1682 met
the assembled chiefs near the spot where Philadelphia now stands. The
savages advanced to the place of meeting in great numbers and in warlike
guise, but as the approach of the English was announced, they laid aside
their weapons and seated themselves in quiet groups around their
chiefs.[370] Penn came forward fearlessly with a few attendants, all
unarmed, and in their usual grave and simple attire; in his hand he held
a parchment on which were written the terms of the treaty. He then spoke
in a few plain words of the friendship and justice that should rule the
actions of all men, and guide him, and them, and their children's
children. The Indians answered that they would live in peace with him
and his white brothers as long as the sun and moon shall endure. And in
the Quaker's parchment and the Indian's promise was accomplished the
peaceful conquest of that lovely wilderness, a conquest more complete,
more secure and lasting, than any that the ruthless rigor of Cortes or
the stern valor of the Puritans had ever won.
The prosperity of Pennsylvania advanced with unexampled rapidity.[371]
The founder took out with him two thousand well-chosen emigrants, and a
considerable number had preceded him to the new country. The orderly
freedom that prevailed,[372] and the perpetual peace with the
Indians,[373] gave a great advantage to this colony; emigration flowed
thither more abundantly than to any other settlement, and thus, although
of such recent origin, this state soon equaled the most successful of
its older neighbors.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 350: "On Hudson's return according to the English historians,
he sold his title to the Dutch."--_British Encyc._, vol. ii., p. 236.
Chalmers questions, apparently on good grounds, the validity of this odd
transaction. If, as Forster asserts, Hudson not only sailed from the
Texel, but was equipped at the expense of the Dutch East India Company,
there was no room for sale or purchase of any kind to constitute the
region Dutch.--Chalmers, vol. ii., p. 568; Charlevoix. tom. i., p. 221.]
[Footnote 351: "The English jurists, referring to the wide grants of
Elizabeth, according to which Virginia extended far to the north of this
region, insist that there had long ceased to be room for any claim to it
founded on discovery. But the Dutch, who are somewhat slow in
comprehension, could not see the right which Elizabeth could have to
bestow a vast region, of the very existence of which she was ignorant.
They therefore sent out the small colony, 1613, which was soon after
compelled by Argall to acknowledge the sovereignty of England."--Murray's
_America_, vol. i., p. 331; _Fastes Chronologiques_, 1613.]
[Footnote 352: The Dutch West Indian Company was established in 1620,
and sent out colonists on a large scale.]
[Footnote 353: "Juet, the traveling companion of Hudson, called the
island on which New York is situated Manna Hatta, which means the island
of manna; in other words, a country where milk and honey flow. The name
Manhattoes is said to be derived from the great Indian god Manetho, who
is stated to have made this island his favorite place of residence on
account of its peculiar attractions."--Knickerbocker's _New York_, vol.
v., p. 1.]
[Footnote 354: "Albany bore the name of Orange when it was originally
founded by the Dutch; and as a great number of this people remained in
the city after it passed into the possession of England, they continued
to call it Orange, and the French Canadians give it no other
name."--Charlevoix, tom. i., p. 222.
"Albany received that name from the Scottish title of the Duke of
York."--Bancroft.]
[Footnote 355: Nine years before (1655), Stuyvesant had attacked the
happy and contented little colony of Swedes who were settled on the
banks of the Delaware, and after a sanguinary contest, the Swedish
governor, John Rising, was obliged to submit to the Dutch authority.
Such was the end of New Sweden, which had only maintained an independent
existence for seventeen years. Thus the Swedish settlements passed into
the hands of the English at the same time as those of the Dutch. The
first Swedish colonization had been projected and encouraged by the
great Gustavus Adolphus in 1638. They gave their settlement on the banks
of the Delaware, the name of the Land of Canaan, and to the spot where
they first landed that of Canaan, so inviting and delightful did this
part of the New World first appear to them. The only thing now known of
this terrestrial paradise is, that its situation was near Cape Henlopen,
a short distance from the sea. The colonists purchased tracts of lands
of the Indians, and threw up a few fortifications; of the city they
founded, Christina, there is now no trace. It was situated near
Wilmington, twenty-seven miles south of Philadelphia. The Dutch, whose
principal city was then New Amsterdam, pretended that the country round
the Delaware belonged to them, having paid it a visit before the arrival
of the Swedes. This insinuation, moreover, did not prevent the latter
from settling, and, according to Charlevoix, the two nations lived in
amity with each other until Stuyvesant's aggression, the Dutch being
wholly devoted to commerce and the Swedes to agriculture. The Swedish
settlement was at first called New Sweden, afterward New Jersey.]
[Footnote 356: "The entire cost of this transportation amounted to
L78,533, which, amid the ferments of party, was declared by a subsequent
vote of Parliament to be not only an extravagant and unreasonable charge
to the kingdom, but of dangerous consequence to the Church."--_Brit.
Emp. Amer._, vol. i., p. 249, 250.
"Swabia, with the old Palatinate, has contributed very largely to the
present population of America. From the end of Queen Anne's reign to
1753, it is said that from 4 to 8000 went annually to Pennsylvania
alone."--Sadler, b. iv., cap. v.]
[Footnote 357: "King William, impatient of judicial forms, by his own
act constituted Maryland a royal government. The arbitrary act was
sanctioned by a legal opinion from Lord Holt. The Church of England was
established as the religion of the state.... In the land which Catholics
had opened to Protestants, the Catholic inhabitant was the sole victim
to Anglican intolerance. Mass might not be said publicly.... No Catholic
might teach the young.... The disfranchisement of the proprietary Lord
Baltimore related to his creed, not to his family. To recover the
inheritance of authority, Benedict, the son of the proprietary,
renounced the Catholic Church for that of England. The persecution never
crushed the faith of the humble colonists."--Bancroft, vol. iii., p.
33.]
[Footnote 358: This name was given in honor of Charles II.]
[Footnote 359: "The system framed by Locke was called 'the Fundamental
Constitutions of Carolina.' ... Locke was undoubtedly well acquainted
with human nature, and not ignorant of the world; but he had not taken a
sufficiently comprehensive view of the history of man, nor were
political speculators yet duly aware of the necessity of adapting
constitutions to those for whom they were destined. The grand
peculiarity consisted in forming a high and titled nobility, which might
rival the splendor of those of the Old World. But as the dukes and earls
of England would have considered their titles degraded by being shared
with a Carolina planter, other titles of foreign origin were adopted.
That of landgrave was drawn from Germany. (Locke himself was created a
landgrave.) But these princely denominations, applied to persons who
were to earn their bread by the labor of their hands, could confer no
real dignity. The reverence for nobility, which can only be the result
of long-continued wealth and influence, could never be inspired by mere
titles, especially of such an exotic and fantastic character.... The
sanction of negro slavery was a deep blot in this boasted system.... The
colonists, who felt perfectly at ease under their rude early
regulations, were struck with dismay at the arrival of this
philosophical fabric of polity."--Murray's _America_, vol. i., p. 343.]
[Footnote 360: "It was insisted that there should be some landgraves and
some caciques when many other parts of 'the Fundamental Constitutions'
were given up; but these great nobles never struck any root in the
Western soil, and have long since disappeared "--_Hist. Acc. of the
Colonization of South Carolina and Georgia_, London, 1779, vol. i., p.
44-46; Chalmers, p. 326. quoted by Murray.]
[Footnote 361: Monk, duke of Albemarle, was constituted palatine.]
[Footnote 362: "It is remarkable that the philosopher's colony seems to
have been the only one founded before the eighteenth century, except
Virginia, in which the Church of England was expressly established; but
this clause is said to have been introduced against his will."--Merivale
_on Colonization_, vol. i., p. 88-92.]
[Footnote 363: "Mr. Chalmers makes the very bold assertion that the
annals of delegated authority do not present a name so branded with
merited infamy, and that there never had taken place such an
accumulation of extortion, injustice, and rapacity as during the five
years that he misruled the colony. He had been made prisoner in his way
out, and kept in close captivity at Algiers, where he took, it appears,
not warning, but lessons. (Sette Sothel had purchased the rights of Lord
Clarendon, one of the eight original proprietaries.)"--Murray, vol. i.,
p. 345.]
[Footnote 364: "The rights of the proprietors were sold to the king for
about the sum of L20,000. Lord Carteret alone, joining in the surrender
of the government, received an eighth share in the soil."--_Hist.
Account_, &c., vol. i., p. 255-321.]
[Footnote 365: "The importation and use of negroes were prohibited; no
rum was allowed to be introduced, and no one was permitted to trade with
the Indians without special license. The colonists complained that
without negroes it was impossible to clear the grounds and cut down the
thick forests, though the honest Highlanders always reprobated the
practice, and denied that any necessity for it existed."[366]--Murray,
vol. i., p. 360.]
[Footnote 366: "Slavery," says Oglethorpe, "is against the Gospel, as
well as the fundamental law of England. We refused, as trustees, to make
a law permitting such a horrid crime."--_Memoirs of Sharpe_, vol. i., p.
234; _Stephen's Journal_, quoted by Bancroft. In 1751, however, after
Oglethorpe had finally left Georgia, his humane restrictions were
withdrawn. Whitefield, who believed that God's providence would
certainly make slavery terminate for the advantage of the Africans,
pleaded before the trustees in its favor. At last even the Moravians
(who in a body emigrated to Georgia in 1733) began to think that negro
slaves might be employed in a Christian spirit, and it was agreed that
if the negroes are treated in a Christian manner, their change of
country would prove to them a benefit. A message from Germany served to
crush their scruples: "If you take slaves in faith, and with the intent
of conducting them to Christ, the action will not be a sin, but may
prove a benediction."--Urlsperger, vol. iii., p. 479, quoted by
Bancroft, vol. iii., p. 448.]
[Footnote 367: "He accepted this grant, because it secured them against
any other claimant from Europe. It gave him a title in the eyes of the
Christian world, but he did not believe that it gave him any other
title."--_Colonization and Civilization_, p. 358.]
[Footnote 368: "Etablissement de la Pennsylvanie, dans le pays qui avoit
porte le nom de Nouvelle Suede: Cette colonie a recu son nom de son
fondateur, le Chevalier Guillaume Penn, Anglais a qui Charles II., Roi
de la Grande Bretagne, conceda ce pays en 1680 et qui cette annee 1681,
y mena les Quakers ou trembleurs d'Angleterre, dont il etoit le chef.
Lorsqu'il y arriva, il y trouva un grand nombre de Hollandois et de
Suedois. Les premiers, pour la plupart, occupoient les endroits situes
le long du golphe, et les seconds, les bords de la Riviere De la Warr,
ou du midi. Il paroit par une de ses lettres, qu'il n'etoit pas content
des Hollandois; mais il dit que les Suedois etoient une nation simple,
sans malice, industrieuse, robuste, se souciant peu de l'abondance et se
contentant du necessaire."--_Fastes Chronologiques_, 1681.]
[Footnote 369: "Even Penn, however, did not fully admit into his scheme
of colonization the notion of retaining for the Indians a property in a
part of the soil they once occupied. He gave the natives free leave to
settle in certain parts of his territory, but, unfortunately, he did not
treat any definite tract of the soil as their property, which would rise
in value along with other tracts, and thus afford a stimulus to their
gradual improvement. It was the want of systematic views in this and
other respects, which rendered the benevolent intentions of Penn toward
the natives of little ultimate avail; so that, after all, the chief good
which he effected was by setting an example of benevolence and justice
in the principle of his dealings with them."--Merivale _on
Colonization_, vol. ii., p. 173.]
[Footnote 370: "William Penn of course came unarmed, in his usual plain
dress, without banners, or mace, or guard, or carriages, and only
distinguished from his companions by wearing a blue sash of silk
net-work (which, it seems, is still preserved by Mr. Kett, of Seething
Hall, near Norwich), and by having in his hand a roll of parchment, on
which was engrossed the confirmation of the treaty of purchase and
amity."--_Edinburgh Review of Clarkson's Life of William Penn_, p. 358.
"The scene at Shachamaxon, quoted by Howitt, forms the subject of one of
the pictures of West. Thus ended this famous treaty, of which Voltaire
has remarked with so much truth and severity, 'That it was the only one
ever concluded which was not ratified by an oath, and the only one that
never was broken.'"--Howitt. p. 360.]
[Footnote 371: "In three years from its foundation, Philadelphia gained
more than New York had done in half a century."--Bancroft's _History of
the United States_, vol. ii., p. 394.]
[Footnote 372: "Virtue had never, perhaps, inspired a legislation better
calculated to promote the fidelity of mankind. The opinions, the
sentiments, and the morals corrected whatever might be deficient in
it."--Raynal, vol. vii., p. 292.
"Beautiful," said the philosophic Frederick of Prussia, when he read the
account of the government of Pennsylvania; "it is perfect, if it can
endure."--Herder, p. 13, 116. Quoted by Bancroft, vol. ii., p. 392.]
[Footnote 373: "Their conduct to the Indians never altered for the
worse. Pennsylvania, while under the administration of the Quakers,
never became, as New England, a slaughter-house of the Indians."--Howitt,
p. 366.]