manner of using it was partly to inhale the smoke and blow it out
through the nostrils, and this was called "drinking tobacco," and this
practice continued until the latter part of the reign of James I. In
1614 the number of tobacco-houses in or near London was estimated at
seven thousand. In 1620 was chartered the Society of Tobacco-pipe Makers
of London; they bore on their shield a tobacco-plant in full blossom.
The _Counterblast to Tobacco_, by King James I, if in some parts absurd
and puerile, yet is not without a good deal of just reasoning and good
sense; some fair hits are made in it, and those who have ridiculed that
production might find it not easy to controvert some of its views. King
James, in his _Counterblast_, does not omit the opportunity of
expressing his hatred toward Sir Walter Raleigh. He continued his
opposition to tobacco as long as he lived, and in his ordinary
conversation oftentimes argued and inveighed against it.
The Virginia tobacco in early times was imported into England in the
leaf, in bundles; the Spanish or West Indian tobacco in balls. Molasses
or other liquid preparation was used in preparing those balls. Tobacco
was then, as now, adulterated in various ways. The nice retailer kept it
in what were called lily-pots; that is, white jars. It was cut on a
maple block; juniper-wood, which retains fire well, was used for
lighting pipes, and among the rich, silver tongs were employed for
taking up a coal of it. Tobacco was sometimes called "the American
Silver-Weed."
The Turkish vizier thrust pipes through the noses of smokers; and the
Shah of Persia cropped the ears and slit the noses of those who made use
of the fascinating leaf. The _Counterblast_ says of it: "And for the
vanity committed in this filthy custom, is it not both great vanity and
uncleanness, that at the table--a place of respect of cleanliness, of
modesty--men should not be ashamed to sit tossing of tobacco-pipes and
puffing of smoke, one at another, making the filthy smoke and stink
thereof to exhale athwart the dishes, and infect the air, when very
often men who abhor it are at their repast? Surely smoke becomes a
kitchen far better than a dining-chamber; and yet it makes the kitchen
oftentimes in the inward parts of man, soiling and infecting them with
an unctuous and oily kind of soot, as hath been found in some great
tobacco-takers that after their deaths were opened."
The _Counterblast to Tobacco_ was first printed in quarto, without name
or date, at London, 1616. In the frontpiece were engraved the
tobacco-pipes, cross-bones, death's-head, etc. It is not improbable that
it was directly intended to foment the popular prejudice against Sir
Walter Raleigh, who was put to death in the same year (1616). James
alludes to the introduction of the use of tobacco and to Raleigh as
follows: "It is not so long since the first entry of this abuse among us
here, as that this present age cannot very well remember both the first
author and the form of the first introduction of it among us. It was
neither brought in by king, great conqueror, nor learned doctor of
physic. With the report of a great discovery for a conquest, some two or
three savage men were brought in together with this savage custom; but
the pity is, the poor wild barbarous men died, but that vile barbarous
custom is still alive, yea, in fresh vigor, so as it seems a miracle to
me how a custom springing from so vile a ground, and brought in by a
father so generally hated, should be welcomed upon so slender a
warrant."
The King thus reasons against the Virginia staple: "Secondly, it is, as
you use or rather abuse it, a branch of the sin of drunkenness, which is
the root of all sins, for as the only delight that drunkards love any
weak or sweet drink, so are not those (I mean the strong heat and fume)
the only qualities that make tobacco so delectable to all the lovers of
it? And as no man loves strong heavy drinks the first day (because _nemo
repente fuit turpissimus_), but by custom is piece and piece allured,
while in the end a drunkard will have as great a thirst to be drunk as a
sober man to quench his thirst with a draught when he hath need of it;
so is not this the true case of all the great takers of tobacco, which
therefore they themselves do attribute to a bewitching quality in it?
Thirdly, is it not the greatest sin that all of you, the people of all
sorts of this kingdom, who are created and ordained by God to bestow
both your persons and goods for the maintenance both of the honor and
safety of your King and commonwealth, should disable yourself to this
shameful imbecility, that you are not able to ride or walk the journey
of a Jew's Sabbath, but you must have a reeky coal brought you from the
next poorhouse to kindle your tobacco with? whereas he cannot be thought
able for any service in the wars that cannot endure ofttimes the want of
meat, drink, and sleep; much more then must he endure the want of
tobacco."
A curious tractate on tobacco, by Dr. Tobias Venner, was published at
London in 1621. The author was a graduate of Oxford, and a physician at
Bath, and is mentioned in the _Oxoniæ Athenienses_.
The amount of tobacco imported in 1619 into England from Virginia, being
the entire crop of the preceding year, was, as before said, twenty
thousand pounds. At the end of seventy years there were annually
imported into England more than fifteen million of pounds of it, from
which a revenue of upward of one hundred thousand pounds was derived.
In April, 1621, the House of Commons debated whether it was expedient to
prohibit the importation of tobacco entirely; and they determined to
exclude all save from Virginia and the Somer Isles. It was estimated
that the consumption of England amounted to one thousand pounds _per
diem_. This seductive narcotic leaf, which soothes the mind and quiets
its perturbations, has found its way into all parts of the habitable
globe, from the sunny tropics to the snowy regions of the frozen pole.
Its fragrant smoke ascends alike to the blackened rafters of the lowly
hut and the gilded ceilings of luxurious wealth.
JOHN M. LUDLOW
The first negro slaves were brought by Dutchmen for sale into Virginia
in 1619. The New England public was at first opposed to the practice of
negro slavery, and there is even a record of a slave, who had been sold
by a member of the Boston Church, being ordered to be sent back to
Africa (1645). Yet negro slaves were to be found in New England as early
as 1638. Massachusetts and Connecticut recognized the lawfulness of
slavery; Massachusetts, however, only when voluntary or in the case of
captives taken in war. Rhode Island, more generous, made illegal the
perpetual service of "black mankind," requiring them to be set free
after two years, the period of white men's indentures--a condition
which, however, would only tend to the working slaves to death in the
allotted time. But although there was no importation of negroes on any
considerable scale into New England, the ships by which the slave trade
was mainly carried on were those from Massachusetts and Rhode Island,
which carried rum to Africa, and brought back slaves to the West Indies
and the southern colonies. In Maryland slavery had been established at
once; in South Carolina it came into birth with the colony itself. The
attempt to exclude it from Georgia failed.
The guilt of the institution cannot, however, be fairly charged on the
colonists. Queen Elizabeth had been a partner in the second voyage of
Sir John Hawkins, the first English slave-captain. James I chartered a
slave-trading company (1618); Charles I a second (1631); Charles II a
third (1663), of which the Duke of York was president, and again a
fourth, in which he himself, as well as the Duke, was a subscriber. Nor
did the expulsion of the Stuarts cause any change of feeling in this
respect. England's sharpest stroke of business at the Peace of Utrecht
(1713) was the obtaining for herself the shameful monopoly of the
"Asiento"--the slave trade with the Spanish West Indies--undertaking "to
bring into the West Indies of America belonging to his Catholic majesty,
in the space of thirty years, one hundred forty-four thousand negroes,"
at the rate of forty-eight hundred a year, at a fixed rate of duty, with
the right to import any further number at a lower rate. As nearly the
whole shores of the Gulf of Mexico were still Spanish, England thus
contributed to build up slavery in most of the future Southern States of
the Union. Whether for foreign or for English colonies, it is reckoned
that, from 1700 to 1750, English ships carried away from Africa probably
a million and a half of negroes, of whom one-eighth never lived to see
the opposite shore.
In the same spirit England dealt with her colonies. When Virginia
imposed a tax on the import of negroes, the law had to give way before
the interest of the African Company. The same course was followed many
years later toward South Carolina, when an act of the provincial
Assembly laying a heavy duty on imported slaves was vetoed by the crown
(1761). Indeed, the title to a political tract published in 1745, _The
African Slave Trade, the Great Pillar and Support of the British
Plantation Trade in America_, appears fairly to express the prevalent
feeling of the mother-country on the subject before the War of
Independence. The most remarkable relaxation of the navigation laws in
the eighteenth century was the throwing open the slave trade by the act
"for extending and improving the trade to Africa," which, after reciting
that "the trade to and from Africa is very advantageous to Great
Britain, and necessary for the supplying the plantations and colonies
thereunto belonging with a sufficient number of negroes at reasonable
rates," enacted that it should be lawful "for all his majesty's subjects
to trade and traffick to and from any port or place in Africa, between
the port of Sallee in South Barbary and the Cape of Good Hope." By 1763
there were about three hundred thousand negroes in the North American
colonies.
It seemed at first as if the black man would gain by the Revolution. The
mulatto Attucks was one of the victims of the Boston Massacre, and was
buried with honor among the "martyrs of liberty." At the first call to
arms the negroes freely enlisted; but a meeting of the general officers
decided against their enlistment in the new army of 1775. The free
negroes were greatly dissatisfied. Lest they should transfer their
services to the British, Washington gave leave to enlist them, and it is
certain that they served throughout the war, shoulder to shoulder with
white men. At the battle of Monmouth there were more than seven hundred
black men in the field. Rhode Island formed a battalion of negroes,
giving liberty to every slave enlisting, with compensation to his owner;
and the battalion did good service. But Washington always considered the
policy of arming slaves "a moot point," unless the enemy set the
example; and though Congress recommended Georgia and South Carolina to
raise three thousand negroes for the war, giving full "compensation to
the proprietors of such negroes," South Carolina refused to do so, and
Georgia had been already overrun by the British when the advice was
brought.
Notwithstanding the early adoption of a resolution against the
importation of slaves into any of the thirteen colonies (April 6, 1776),
Jefferson's fervid paragraph condemning the slave trade, and by
implication slavery, was struck out of the Declaration of Independence
in deference to South Carolina and Georgia, and a member from South
Carolina declared that "if property in slaves should be questioned there
must be an end to confederation." The resolution of Congress itself
against the slave trade bound no single State, although a law to this
effect was adopted by Virginia in 1778, and subsequently by all the
other States; but this was so entirely a matter of State concernment
that neither was any prohibition of the trade contained in the Articles
of Confederation, nor was any suffered to be inserted in the treaty of
peace.
The feeling against slavery itself was strong in the North. Vermont, in
forming a constitution for herself in 1777, allowed no slavery, and was
punished for doing so when she applied for admission as a State with the
consent of New York, from which she had seceded in 1781: the Southern
States refusing to admit her for the present, lest the balance of power
should be destroyed. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, directly or
indirectly, abolished slavery in 1780, New Hampshire in 1783. They were
followed the next year by Connecticut and Rhode Island, so that by 1784
slavery would be practically at an end in New England and Pennsylvania.
Other States--Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey--went no further than to
pass laws for allowing voluntary emancipation. In strange contrast to
these, Virginia is found in 1780 offering a negro by way of bounty to
any white man enlisting for the war. The great Virginians of the day,
however--Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George Mason--were opposed to
slavery, and large numbers of slaves were emancipated in the State.
So much and no more did the black man get from the Americans. It seemed
at first, when Lord Dunmore issued his proclamation offering freedom to
all slaves who should join the British standard, as if they were to get
much more from England. Accordingly, Governor Rutledge of South Carolina
declared in 1780 that the negroes offered up their prayers in favor of
England. But although Lord Dunmore persisted in recommending the arming
and emancipation of the blacks, neither the ministry at home nor the
British officers would enter into the plan. Lord George Germain
authorized the confiscation and sale of slaves, even of those who
voluntarily followed the troops. Indians were encouraged to catch them
and bring them in; they were distributed as prizes and shipped to the
West Indies, two thousand at one time, being valued at two hundred fifty
silver dollars each. The English name became a terror to the black man,
and when Greene took the command they flocked in numbers to his
standard. The terms of the peace forbade the British troops to carry
away "negroes or other property." Whichever side he might fight for, the
poor black man earned no gratitude.
Yet in little more than three-quarters of a century the political
complications arising out of the wrongs inflicted on him were to involve
the States that had just won their independence in a civil war in
comparison with which the struggle to throw off the yoke of the
mother-country would appear almost as child's play.
ENGLISH PILGRIMS SETTLE AT PLYMOUTH
A.D. 1620
JOHN S. BARRY
No event in American history is more famous throughout the
world, and none has been followed by results more potent in the
making of this country, than the settlement of the Pilgrims at
Plymouth. This pioneer company, which founded the second
English colony in the New World, was composed of Puritans who
had left the Church of England, and were known as Independents
or Separatists.
In the later years of the sixteenth century the tyranny of the
Ecclesiastical Commission drove multitudes of English churchmen
into the ranks of the dissenters. At last this tyranny, and the
threats of King James I, caused some of the Independents to
leave the country.
An Independent Church, mainly composed of simple country
people, was formed in 1606 at Scrooby, in Nottinghamshire. At
its head were John Robinson, the pastor, and William Brewster,
often called Elder Brewster, who was postmaster at Scrooby.
Robinson was distinguished alike for his learning and his
tolerant spirit. Another leader was William Bradford, then but
seventeen years old. He was afterward Governor of Plymouth
colony for thirty years, and was its historian.
For some time the members of this Church quietly endured
persecution at the hands of the King's officers. Then they
began to talk of fleeing to Holland, whither other dissenters
had already escaped. In 1607 some of the Scrooby congregation
unsuccessfully attempted the flight. A few months later they
succeeded in reaching Amsterdam, where they intended to remain.
But finding the English exiles there involved in theological
disputes, they acted on Robinson's advice and sought a more
peaceful home in Leyden.
Here, about three hundred in number, they arrived in 1609, soon
after Spain had granted Holland the Twelve Years' Peace, after
the long Netherland wars. For eleven years the Pilgrims, as
they were already called, remained in their new home, living by
various employments. During that time the colony increased to
more than a thousand souls.
For several years the exiled Pilgrims abode at Leyden in comparative
peace. So mutual was the esteem of both pastor and people that it might
be said of them, "as of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius and the people of
Rome: it was hard to judge whether he delighted more in having such a
people, or they in having such a pastor." With their spiritual, their
temporal interests were objects of his care, so that he was "every way
as a common father to them." And when removed from them by death, as he
was in a few years, they sustained "such a loss as they saw could not be
easily repaired, for it was as hard for them to find such another leader
and feeder as the Taborites to find another Ziska."
Eight years' residence, however, in a land of strangers, subjected to
its trials and burdened with its sorrows, satisfied this little band
that Holland could not be for them a permanent home. The "hardness of
the place" discouraged their friends from joining them. Premature age
was creeping upon the vigorous. Severe toil enfeebled their children.
The corruption of the Dutch youth was pernicious in its influence. They
were Englishmen, attached to the land of their nativity. The Sabbath, to
them a sacred institution, was openly neglected. A suitable education
was difficult to be obtained for their children. The truce with Spain
was drawing to a close, and the renewal of hostilities was seriously
apprehended. But the motive above all others which prompted their
removal was a "great hope and inward zeal of laying some good foundation
for the propagating and advancing of the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ
in these remote parts of the world; yea, though they should be but as
stepping-stones to others for performing of so great a work."
For these reasons--and were they frivolous?--a removal was resolved
upon. They could not in peace return to England. It was dangerous to
remain in the land of their exile. Whither, then, should they go? Where
should an asylum for their children be reared? This question, so vital,
was first discussed privately, by the gravest and wisest of the Church;
then publicly, by all. The "casualties of the seas," the "length of the
voyage," the "miseries of the land," the "cruelty of the savages," the
"expense of the outfit," the "ill-success of other colonies," and "their
own sad experience" in their removal to Holland were urged as obstacles
which must doubtless be encountered. But, as a dissuasive from
discouragement, it was remarked that "all great and honorable actions
are accompanied with great difficulties, and must both be enterprised
and overcome with answerable courages. It was granted the dangers very
great, but not invincible; for although there were many of them likely,
yet they were not certain. Some of the things they feared might never
befall them; others, by providence, care, and the use of good means
might in a great measure be prevented; and all of them, through the help
of God, by fortitude or patience might either be borne or overcome."
Whither should they turn their steps? Some, and "none of the meanest,"
were "earnest for Guiana." Others, of equal worth, were in favor of
Virginia, "where the English had already made entrance and beginning."
But a majority were for "living in a distinct body by themselves, though
under the general government of Virginia." For Guiana, it was said, "the
country was rich, fruitful, and blessed with a perpetual spring and a
flourishing greenness"; and the Spaniards "had not planted there nor
anywhere near the same." Guiana was the El Dorado of the age. Sir Walter
Raleigh, its discoverer, had described its tropical voluptuousness in
the most captivating terms; and Chapman, the poet, dazzled by its
charms, exclaims:
"Guiana, whose rich feet are mines of gold,
Whose forehead knocks against the roof of stars,
Stands on her tiptoe at fair England looking,
Kissing her hands, bowing her mighty breast,
And every sign of all submission making,
To be the sister and the daughter both
Of our most sacred maid."
Is it surprising that the thoughts of the exiles were enraptured in
contemplating this beautiful land? Was it criminal to seek a pleasant
abode? But as an offset to its advantages, its "grievous diseases" and
"noisome impediments" were vividly portrayed; and it was urged that,
should they settle there and prosper, the "jealous Spaniard" might
displace and expel them, as he had already the French from their
settlements in Florida; and this the sooner, as there would be none to
protect them, and their own strength was inadequate to cope with so
powerful an adversary.
Against settling in Virginia it was urged that, "if they lived among the
English there planted, or under their government, they would be in as
great danger to be persecuted for the cause of religion as if they
lived in England, and it might be worse, and, if they lived too far off,
they should have neither succor nor defence from them." Upon the whole,
therefore, it was decided to "live in a distinct body by themselves,
under the general government of Virginia, and by their agents to sue his
majesty to grant them free liberty and freedom of religion."
Accordingly John Carver, one of the deacons of the Church, and Robert
Cushman, a private member, were sent to England to treat with the
Virginia Company for a grant of land, and to solicit of the King liberty
of conscience. The friends from whom aid was expected, and to some of
whom letters were written, were Sir Edwin Sandys, the distinguished
author of the _Europæ Speculum_; Sir Robert Maunton, afterward secretary
of state; and Sir John Wolstenholme, an eminent merchant and a farmer of
the customs. Sir Ferdinando Georges seems also to have been interested
in their behalf, as he speaks of means used by himself, before his
rupture with the Virginia Company, to "draw into their enterprises some
of those families that had retired into Holland, for scruple of
conscience, giving them such freedom and liberty as might stand with
their likings."
The messengers--"God going along with them"--bore a missive signed by
the principal members of the Church, commending them to favor, and
conducted their mission with discretion and propriety; but as their
instructions were not plenary, they soon returned, bearing a letter from
Sir Edwin Sandys, approving their diligence and proffering aid. The next
month a second embassy was despatched, with an answer to Sir Edwin's
letter, in which, for his encouragement, the exiles say: "We believe and
trust the Lord is with us, and will graciously prosper our endeavors
accordingly to the simplicity of our hearts therein. We are well weaned
from the delicate milk of our mother-country and inured to the
difficulties of a strange and hard land. The people are, for the body of
them, industrious and frugal. We are knit together in a strict and
sacred bond and covenant of the Lord, of the violation whereof we make
great conscience, and by virtue whereof we hold ourselves strictly tied
to all care of others' goods. It is not with us, as with others, whom
small things can discourage, or small discontentments cause to wish
themselves at home again."
For the information of the council of the company, the "requests" of the
Church were sent, signed by nearly the whole congregation, and, in a
letter to Sir John Wolstenholme, explanation was given of their
"judgments" upon three points named by his majesty's privy council, in
which they affirmed that they differed nothing in doctrine and but
little in discipline from the French reformed churches, and expressed
their willingness to take the oath of supremacy if required, "if that
convenient satisfaction be not given by our taking the oath of
allegiance."