The aristocratic character of Virginia society was the result of
development within the colony. It proceeded from economic, political
and social causes. On its economic side it was built up by the system
of large plantations, by the necessity for indentured or slave labor,
by the direct trade with England; politically it was engendered by the
lack of a vigorous middle class in the first half of the 17th century,
and was sustained by the method of appointment to office; on its
social side it was fostered by the increasing wealth of the planters
and by the ideal of the English gentleman.
It will be necessary, in explaining this development, to determine the
origin of the men that composed this aristocracy; for it will be
impossible to understand the action of the forces which prevailed in
Virginia during the colonial period unless we have a knowledge of the
material upon which they worked. Much error has prevailed upon this
subject. It was for years the general belief, and is still the belief
of many, that the wealthy families, whose culture, elegance and power
added such luster to Virginia in the 18th century, were the
descendants of cavalier or aristocratic settlers. It was so easy to
account for the noble nature of a Randolph, a Lee or a Mason by
nobleness of descent, that careful investigation was considered
unnecessary, and heredity was accepted as a sufficient explanation of
the existence and characteristics of the Virginia aristocracy.
We shall attempt to show that this view is erroneous. Recent
investigation in Virginia history has made it possible to determine
with some degree of accuracy the origin of the aristocracy. Yet the
mixed character of the settlers, and the long period of time over
which immigration to the colony continued make the problem difficult
of accurate solution, and the chances of error innumerable. Out of the
mass of evidence, however, three facts may be established beyond
controversy, that but few men of high social rank in England
established families in Virginia; that the larger part of the
aristocracy of the colony came directly from merchant ancestors; that
the leading planters of the 17th century were mercantile in instinct
and unlike the English aristocrat of the same period.
Much confusion has resulted from the assumption, so common with
Southern writers, that the English Cavaliers were all of distinguished
lineage or of high social rank. The word "Cavalier," as used at the
time of Charles I, denoted not a cast, or a distinct class of people,
but a political party. It is true that the majority of the gentry
supported the king in the civil war, and that the main reliance of
Parliament lay in the small landowners and the merchants, but there
were many men of humble origin that fought with the royalist party and
many aristocrats that joined the party of the people. Amongst the
enemies of the king were the Earls of Bedford, Warwick, Manchester and
Essex, while many leaders of the Roundheads such as Pym, Cromwell and
Hampden were of gentle blood. Thus the fact that a man was Cavalier or
Roundhead proved nothing as to his social rank or his lineage.[1]
No less misleading has been the conception that in Great Britain
there existed during the 17th century distinct orders of society,
similar to those of France or Spain at the same period. Many have
imagined the English nobility a class sharply and definitely separated
from the commonalty, and forming a distinct upper stratum of society.
In point of fact no sharp line of social demarkation can be drawn
between the peerage and the common people. For in England, even in the
days of the Plantagenets, the younger sons of the nobles did not
succeed to their fathers' rank, but sank to the gentry class, or at
most became "knights." They usually married beneath the rank of their
fathers and thus formed a link binding the nobility to the commons of
the country. Often the sons and brothers of earls were sent to
Parliament as representatives of the shires, and as such sat side by
side with shopkeepers and artisans from the towns. It is this
circumstance that explains why so many middle-class Englishmen of the
present day can trace back their lineage to the greatest and noblest
houses of the kingdom. The healthy political development which has
been such a blessing to the English nation is due in no small measure
to the lack of anything like caste in British society.
These facts help to explain much in the origin of the Virginia
aristocracy that has only too often been misunderstood. They make
evident the error of presuming that many persons of gentle blood came
to Virginia because there was an immigration of so called Cavaliers,
or because certain families in the colony could trace back their
ancestry to noble English houses.
Immigration to Virginia during the seventeen years after the founding
of Jamestown was different in character from that of any succeeding
period. The London Company in its efforts to send to the colony
desirable settlers induced a number of men of good family and
education to venture across the ocean to seek their fortunes in the
New World. Since the Company numbered among its stockholders some of
the greatest noblemen of the time, it could easily arouse in the
influential social classes extraordinary interest in Virginia. It is
due largely to this fact that among the first settlers are to be found
so many that are entitled to be called gentlemen.
Moreover, the true nature of the task that confronted the immigrants
to the wilds of America was little understood in England at this time.
Those unhappy gentlemen that sailed upon the Discovery, the Godspeed
and the Susan Constant hoped to find in Virginia another Mexico or
Peru and to gain there wealth as great as had fallen to the lot of
Cortez or of Pizarro. Had they known that the riches of the land they
were approaching could be obtained only by long years of toil and
sweat, of danger and hardship, they would hardly have left their homes
in England. That the First Supply took with them a perfumer and six
tailors shows how utterly unsuited they were to the task of planting a
new colony. Many, doubtless, were men of ruined fortune, who sought to
find in the New World a rapid road to wealth. When it became known in
England that gold mines were not to be found in Virginia and that
wealth could be had only by the sweat of the brow, these spendthrift
gentlemen ceased coming to the colony.
It is true, however, that the proportion of those officially termed
"gentlemen" that sailed with the early expeditions to Jamestown is
surprisingly large. Of the settlers of 1607, out of one hundred and
five men, thirty-five were called gentlemen.[2] The First Supply,
which arrived in 1608, contained thirty-three gentlemen out of one
hundred and twenty persons.[3] Captain John Smith declared these men
were worthless in character, more fitted "to spoyle a commonwealth
than to begin or maintain one," and that those that came with them as
"laborers" were really footmen in attendance upon their masters. In
the Second Supply came twenty-eight gentlemen in a total company of
seventy.[4] The conduct of those of the Third Supply shows them to
have been similar in character to their predecessors. Smith calls them
a "lewd company," among them "many unruly gallants packed thither by
their friends to escape il destinies."[5] These men, however, made
practically no imprint upon the character of the population of the
colony; for by far the larger part of them perished miserably within a
few months after their arrival. Of the five hundred persons alive in
Virginia in October, 1609, all but sixty had died by May of the
following year.[6]
As years went by, this influx of dissipated gentlemen began to wane.
It could not be concealed in England that the early settlers had
perished of starvation, disease and the tomahawk, and those that had
been led to believe that Virginia was an Eldorado, turned with a
shudder from the true picture of suffering and death told them by
those that returned from the colony. Moreover, the London Company soon
learned that no profit was to be expected from a colony settled by
dissipated gentlemen, and began to send over persons more suited for
the rough tasks of clearing woods, building huts and planting corn.
Their immigrant vessels were now filled with laborers, artisans,
tradesmen, apprentices and indentured servants. It is doubtless true
that occasionally gentlemen continued to arrive in Virginia even
during the last years of the Company's rule, yet their number must
have been very small indeed. When, in 1624, James I took from the
London Company its charter, the colony contained few others than
indentured servants and freemen of humble origin and means. In 1623
several of the planters, in answering charges that had been brought
against the colony by a certain Captain Nathaniel Butler, said that
the inhabitants were chiefly laboring men.[7]
With the downfall of the London Company one influence which had tended
to send to Virginia persons of good social standing ceased to exist.
The personal interest of those noblemen that had owned stock in the
enterprise was no longer exerted to obtain a desirable class of
settlers, and economic forces alone now determined the character of
those that established themselves in Virginia. During the remainder of
the 17th century it was the profit that could be obtained from the
planting of tobacco that brought the most desirable class of settlers
to the colony. It is true, however, that dissipated and spendthrift
gentlemen still came over at times, seeking in Virginia a refuge from
creditors, or expecting amid the unsettled conditions of a new country
to obtain license for their excesses. It was this element of the
population, doubtless, that the Dutch, trader De Vries referred to
when he asserted that some of the planters were inveterate gamblers,
even staking their servants.[8] Such a character was Captain Stone,
whom De Vries met at the home of Governor Harvey. This man was related
to families of good standing in England, but strutted, was lewd, swore
horribly and was guilty of shameless carousals wherever he went. While
in New Amsterdam he entered upon a drinking bout with Governor Von
Twiller, and stole a vessel of Plymouth. In Massachusetts he called
Roger Ludlow a just ass, and later, having been detected in other
crimes, was forced to flee from the colony. Beyond doubt men similar
to Stone were to be found in Virginia during the first half of the
17th century, but they became rarer and rarer as time went on.[9]
How few men of good social standing there were in the colony in this
period is shown by the number of important positions filled by
uneducated persons of humble origin and rank. The evidence is
conclusive that on many occasions indentured servants that had served
their term of bondage and had acquired property were elected by the
people to represent them in the House of Burgesses. This is notably
true of the first half of the 17th century, when the government was
largely in the hands of a few leading planters, and when pressure from
above could influence elections very decidedly. Had there been many
men of ability or rank to select from, these Plebeians would never
have found a place in the Assembly of the colony. The author of
Virginia's Cure stated that the burgesses were "usually such as went
over as servants thither," and although this is doubtless an
exaggeration, it shows that there must have been in the Assemblies
many men of humble extraction. In the case of some of the burgesses,
it has been shown definitely that they came to Virginia as servants.
Thus William Popleton was formerly the servant of John Davies; Richard
Townsend was in 1620 the servant of Dr. Potts; William Bentley arrived
in the colony in 1624 as a hired man. All three of these men were
burgesses.[10] The preacher, William Gatford, testified that persons
of mean extraction had filled places of importance and trust.[11]
Governor Berkeley, stated in 1651 while addressing the Assembly, that
hundreds of examples testified to the fact that no man in the colony
was denied the opportunity to acquire both honor and wealth. At times
men of humble origin became so influential that they obtained seats in
the Council, the most exclusive and powerful body in the colony. Thus
William Pearce, who came over in the days of the Company as a poor
settler, was a Councilor in 1632, and was before his death one of the
wealthiest and most powerful men in the colony.[12] In 1635 we find in
the Council John Brewer, formerly a grocer of London.[13] Malachy
Postlethwayt, a writer of several treaties on commerce, states that
even criminals often became leading men in Virginia. Although this is
obviously an exaggeration, Postlethwayt's testimony tends to add force
to the contention that many of humble rank did at times rise to
positions of honor. "Even your transported felons," he says, "sent to
Virginia instead of to Tyburn, thousands of them, if we are not
misinformed, have, by turning their hands to industry and improvement,
and (which is best of all) to honesty, become rich, substantial
planters and merchants, settled large families, and been famous in the
country; nay, we have seen many of them made magistrates, officers of
militia, captains of good ships, and masters of good estates."[14] In
England stories of the rapid advance of people of humble origin in
Virginia gave rise to the absurd belief that the most influential
families in the colony were chiefly composed of former criminals.
Defoe in two of his popular novels, gives voice to this opinion. In
Moll Flanders we find the following: "Among the rest, she often told
me how the greatest part of the inhabitants of that colony came hither
in very indifferent circumstances from England; that generally
speaking, they were of two sorts: either, 1st, such as were brought
over ... to be sold as servants, or, 2nd, such as are transported
after having been found guilty of crimes punishable with death. When
they come here ... the planters buy them, and they work together in
the field till their time is out.... (Then) they have ... land
allotted them ... and (they) ... plant it with tobacco and corn for
their own use; and as the merchants will trust them with tools ...
upon the credit of their crop before it is grown, so they plant every
year a little more (etc). Hence, child, says she, many a Newgate-bird
becomes a great man, and we have ... several justices of the peace,
officers of the trained band, and magistrates of the towns they live
in, that have been burnt in the hand."[15] In Mrs. Behn's comedy The
Widow Ranter, the same belief finds expression, for Friendly is made
to say: "This country wants nothing but to be peopled with a well-born
race to make it one of the best colonies in the world; but for want
of a governor we are ruled by a council, some of whom have been
perhaps transported criminals, who having acquired great estates are
now become Your Honour and Right Worshipful, and possess all places of
authority."[16] It is absolutely certain that the Virginia aristocracy
was not descended from felons, but this belief that found voice in
works of fiction of the 17th century must have had some slight
foundation in truth. It tends to strengthen the evidence that many men
of humble origin did attain places of honor and profit in the colony,
and it shows that in England in this period people were far from
imagining that many aristocrats had come to Virginia to settle.[17]
Although it is impossible to determine with accuracy the lineage of
all the leading families of Virginia during the 17th century, it is
definitely known that many of the most wealthy and influential houses
were founded by men that could boast of no social prominence in
England. In the days immediately following the downfall of the London
Company there was no more influential man in the colony than Abraham
Piersey. In matters of political interest he took always a leading
part, and was respected and feared by his fellow colonists. He was
well-to-do when he came to Virginia, having acquired property as a
successful merchant, but he was in no way a man of social distinction
or rank. John Chew was another man of great distinction in the colony.
He too was a plain merchant attracted to the colony by the profits to
be made from the planting and sale of tobacco.[18] George Menifie, who
for years took so prominent a part in the political affairs of
Virginia, and who, as a member of the Council was complicated in the
expulsion of Governor Harvey, speaks of himself as a "merchant,"
although in later years he acquired the more distinguished title of
"esquire." Menifie possessed an ample fortune, most of which was
acquired by his own business ability and foresight. It is stated that
his "large garden contained the fruits of Holland, and the roses of
Provence, and his orchard was planted with apple, pear and cherry
trees."[19] Samuel Mathews, a man of plain extraction, although well
connected by marriage, was a leader in the colony. In political
affairs his influence was second to none, and in the Commonwealth
period he became governor. He is described as "an old planter of above
30 years standing, one of the Council and a most deserving
Commonwealth man.... He hath a fine house, and all things answerable
to it; he sows yearly store of hemp and flax and causes it to be spun;
he keeps weavers and hath a tan house ... hath 40 negro servants,
brings them up to trade, in his house; he yearly sows abundance of
wheat, barley, etc.... kills store of beeves, and sells them to
victual the ships when they come thither; hath abundance of kine, a
brave dairy, swine great store and poultry."[20] Adam Thoroughgood,
although he came to Virginia as a servant or apprentice, became
wealthy and powerful. His estates were of great extent and at one time
he owned forty-nine sheep and one-hundred and seventeen cattle.[21]
Captain Ralph Hamor, a leading planter in the days of the Company, was
the son of a merchant tailor. Thomas Burbage, was another merchant
that acquired large property in Virginia and became recognized as a
man of influence. Ralph Warnet, who is described as a "merchant," died
in 1630, leaving a large fortune.[22] That these men, none of whom
could boast of high rank or social prominence in England, should have
been accepted as leaders in the colony shows that the best class of
settlers were of comparatively humble extraction. Had many men of
gentle blood come to Virginia during the first half of the 17th
century there would have been no chance for the "merchant" class to
acquire such prominence.
Nor did men of plain extraction cease to occupy prominent positions
after the Restoration, when the much misunderstood "Cavalier"
immigration had taken place, and the society of the colony had been
fixed. Amongst the leading planters was Isaac Allerton, a man
distinguished for his activities both in the House of Burgesses and
the Council, and the founder of a prominent family, who was the son of
an English merchant tailor.[23] The first of the famous family of
Byrds, which for nearly a century was noted for its wealth, its
influence, its social prominence, was the son of a London
goldsmith.[24] Oswald Cary, who settled in Middlesex in 1659 was the
son of an English merchant.[25] There was no man in the colony during
the second half of the 17th century that exerted a more powerful
influence in political affairs than Philip Ludwell. He was for years
the mainstay of the commons and he proved to be a thorn in the flesh
of more than one governor. He was admired for his ability, respected
for his wealth and feared for his power, an admitted leader socially
and politically in the colony, yet he was of humble extraction, his
father and uncle both being mercers. The noted Bland family sprang
from Adam Bland, a member of the skinners gild of London.[26] Thomas
Fitzhugh, one of the wealthiest and most prominent men of the colony,
was thought to have been the grandson of a maltster.
It was during the second half of the 17th century that occurred the
"Cavalier" immigration that took place as a consequence of the
overthrow of Charles I. Upon this subject there has been much
misapprehension. Many persons have supposed that the followers of the
unhappy monarch came to Virginia by the thousand to escape the
Puritans, and that it was from them that the aristocracy of the colony
in large part originated. Even so eminent a historian as John Fiske
has been led into the erroneous belief that this immigration was
chiefly responsible for the great increase in population that occurred
at this time. "The great Cavalier exodus," he says, "began with the
king's execution in 1649, and probably slackened after 1660. It must
have been a chief cause of the remarkable increase of the white
population of Virginia from 15,000 in 1649 to 38,000 in 1670."[27]
This deduction is utterly unwarranted. The increase in population
noted here was due chiefly to the stream of indentured servants that
came to the colony at this period. At the time when the so-called
Cavalier immigration was at its height between one thousand and
fifteen hundred servants were sent to Virginia each year. In 1671
Governor Berkeley estimated the number that came over annually at
fifteen hundred, and it is safe to say that during the Commonwealth
period the influx had been as great as at this date. The constant wars
in Great Britain had made it easier to obtain servants for exportation
to America, for thousands of prisoners were disposed of in this way
and under Cromwell Virginia received numerous batches of unfortunate
wretches that paid for their hostility to Parliament with banishment
and servitude. Not only soldiers from King Charles' army, but many
captives taken in the Scotch and Irish wars were sent to the colony.
On the other hand after the Restoration, hundreds of Cromwell's
soldiers were sold as servants. If we estimate the annual importation
of servants at 1200, the entire increase of population which Fiske
notes is at once accounted for. Moreover, the mortality that in the
earlier years had been so fatal to the newcomers, was now greatly
reduced owing to the introduction of Peruvian bark and to the
precautions taken by planters to prevent disease on their estates.
Governor Berkeley said in 1671 that not many hands perished at that
time, whereas formerly not one in five escaped the first year.
Nor can the increased number of births in the colony be neglected in
accounting for the growth of population. The historian Bruce,
referring to the period from 1634 to 1649, in which the population
trebled, says: "The faster growth during this interval was due, not to
any increase in the number of new settlers seeking homes in Virginia,
but rather to the advance in the birth-rate among the inhabitants.
There was by the middle of the century a large native population
thoroughly seasoned to all the trying variations of the climate and
inured to every side of plantation life, however harsh and severe it
might be in the struggle to press the frontier further and further
outward."[28] It may then be asserted positively that the growth of
population between the dates 1649 and 1670 was not due to an influx of
Cavaliers.
Had many men of note fled to Virginia at this period their arrival
would scarcely have escaped being recorded. Their prominence and the
circumstances of their coming to the colony would have insured for
them a place in the writings of the day. A careful collection of the
names of those Cavaliers that were prominent enough to find a place in
the records, shows that their number was insignificant. The following
list includes nearly all of any note whatsoever: Sir Thomas Lunsford,
Col. Hammond, Sir Philip Honeywood, Col. Norwood, Stevens, Brodnax,
Welsford, Molesworth, Col. Moryson, John Woodward, Robert Jones,
Nicholas Dunn, Anthony Langston, Bishop, Culpeper, Peter Jenings, John
Washington, Lawrence Washington, Sir Dudley Wiat, Major Fox, Dr.
Jeremiah Harrison, Sir Gray Shipworth, Sir Henry Chiskeley and Col.
Joseph Bridger. Of this number a large part returned to England and
others failed to establish families in the colony. How few were their
numbers is shown by the assertions of colonial writers. Sir William
Berkeley reported in 1671 that Cromwell's "tyranny" had sent divers
worthy men to the colony. Hugh Jones, writing in 1722, speaks of the
civil wars in England as causing several families of good birth and
fortune to settle in Virginia. This language certainly gives no
indication of a wholesale immigration of Cavaliers.
Some writers have pointed to the number of families in Virginia that
were entitled to the use of coats-of-arms as convincing proof that the
aristocracy of the colony was founded by men of high social rank. It
is true that in numerous instances Virginians had the right to
coats-of-arms, but this does not prove that their blood was noble, for
in most cases these emblems of gentility came to them through
ancestors that were mercantile in occupation and in instinct. During
the 17th century the trades were in high repute in England, and to
them resorted many younger sons of the gentry. These youths, excluded
from a share in the paternal estate by the law of primogeniture, were
forced either into the professions or the trades. It was the custom
for the country gentleman to leave to his eldest son the whole of his
landed estates; the second son he sent to Oxford or to Cambridge to
prepare for one of the learned professions, such as divinity, medicine
or law; the third was apprenticed to some local surgeon or
apothecary; the fourth was sent to London to learn the art of weaving,
of watchmaking or the like. It was the educating of the youngest sons
in the trades that gave rise to the close connection between the
commercial classes in England and the gentry. Great numbers of
merchants in the trading cities were related to the country squire or
even to the nobleman. These merchant families, since they did not
possess landed estates, could not style themselves "gentlemen," but
they clung to the use of the coat-of-arms that had descended to them
from their ancestors. Thus it happened that some of the immigrants to
Virginia possessed coats-of-arms. Since they still looked upon the
life of the country squire as the ideal existence, as soon as they
were settled upon the plantations, they imitated it as far as
possible. With the possession of land they assumed the title of
"gentleman." Since the squire or nobleman from whom the right to the
coat-of-arms came to them might have lived many generations before the
migration to Virginia, the use of this emblem could give but little
ground for a claim to gentle blood.
Finally, the opinion that the leading planters of the colony sprang
from families of distinction and high social rank, in England is being
discarded by the best authorities on Virginia history. The Virginia
Magazine of History and Biography, which has done so much to shed
light on the early history of Virginia, throws its influence without
compromise against the old belief. It says: "If the talk of 'Virginia
Cavaliers' indicates an idea that most of the Virginia gentry were
descended from men of high rank, who had adhered to the King's side
and afterwards emigrated to Virginia, it is assuredly incorrect. Some
members of distinguished families, a considerable number of the minor
gentry, as well as persons of the lower ranks, after the success of a
party which they believe to be composed of rebels and traitors, came
to Virginia, finding here a warm welcome, and leaving many
descendants."[29] Again it says: "As we have before urged, and as we
believe all genealogists having any competent acquaintance with the
subject will agree, but few 'scions of great English houses' came to
any of the colonies. Gloucester ... has always been distinguished in
Virginia as the residence of a large number of families of wealth,
education and good birth; but in only a few instances are they
descended from 'great houses' even of the English gentry. The families
of Wyatt, Peyton and Throckmorton are perhaps the only ones derived
from English houses of historic note; but they were never, in
Virginia, as eminent for large estates and political influence as
others of the same county whose English ancestry is of much less
distinction. Next, as known descendants of minor gentry, were the
families of Page, Burwell, Lightfoot and Clayton. Other leading names
of the county, nothing certain in regard to whose English ancestry is
known, were Kemp, Lewis, Warner, etc. These families were, like those
of the ruling class in other countries, doubtless derived from
ancestors of various ranks and professions ... members of the country
gentry, merchants and tradesmen and their sons and relatives, and
occasionally a minister, a physician, a lawyer or a captain in the
merchant service."[30] The William and Mary Quarterly makes the
unequivocal statement that it was the "shipping people and merchants
who really settled Virginia." John Fiske, despite the exaggerated
importance which he gives to the Cavalier immigration, agrees that the
leading planters were not descended from English families of high
rank. "Although," he says, "family records were until of late less
carefully preserved (in Virginia) than in New England, yet the
registered facts abundantly prove that the leading families had
precisely the same sort of origin as the leading families of New
England. For the most part they were either country squires, or
prosperous yeomen, or craftsmen from the numerous urban guilds; and
alike in Virginia and in New England there was a similar proportion of
persons connected with English families ennobled or otherwise eminent
for public service."[31]
Beyond doubt the most numerous section of the Virginia aristocracy was
derived from the English merchant class.[32] It was the opportunity of
amassing wealth by the cultivation of tobacco that caused great
numbers of these men to settle in the Old Dominion. Many had been
dealers in the plant in England, receiving it in their warehouses and
disposing of it to retailers. They kept up a constant and intimate
correspondence with the planter, acting for him as purchasing agent,
supplying him with clothes, with household goods, with the thousand
and one articles essential to the conducting of the plantation, and
thus were in a position to judge of the advantages he enjoyed. They
kept him in touch with the political situation in England and in
return received from him the latest tidings of what was going on in
Virginia. In fact for one hundred and fifty years after the founding
of Jamestown the colony was in closer touch with London, Bristol,
Plymouth and other English seaports than with its nearest neighbors in
America.[33]
The life of the Virginia planters offered an inviting spectacle to the
English merchant. He could but look with envious eyes upon the large
profits which for so many years the cultivation of tobacco afforded.
He held, in common with all Englishmen, the passion for land, and in
Virginia land could be had almost for the asking. He understood fully
that could he resolve to leave his native country a position of
political power and social supremacy awaited him in the colony.
The civil wars in England greatly accelerated the emigration of
merchants to Virginia. Business men are usually averse to war, for
nothing can derange the delicate fibers of commerce more quickly than
battles and sieges. And this is especially true of civil wars, for
then it is the very heart of the country that suffers. Many prominent
merchants of the English cities, fearing that their interests would be
ruined by the ravages of the contending armies or the general business
depression, withdrew to the colony, which was pursuing its usual quiet
life but slightly affected by the convulsions of the mother country.
William Hallam, a salter, wrote, "I fear if these times hold amongst
us, we must all be faine to come to Virginia." William Mason wrote in
1648, "I will assure you that we have had several great losses that
have befallen us and our charge is greater by reason of ye
differences that are in our kingdom, trading is dead."[34]
The most convincing evidence that the leading settlers in Virginia
were of the mercantile class is to be found by a study of the
characteristics of the planters of the 17th century. Contemporaneous
writers are unanimous in describing them as mercantile in their
instincts. De Vries, a Dutch trader, complaining of the sharpness of
the planters in a bargain, says, "You must look out when you trade
with them, for if they can deceive any one they account it a Roman
action."[35] Hugh Jones says, "The climate makes them bright and of
excellent sense, and sharp in trade.... They are generally diverted by
business or inclination from profound study ... being ripe for
management of their affairs.... They are more inclined to read men by
business and conversation than to dive into books ... being not easily
brought to new projects and schemes; so that I question, if they would
have been imposed upon by the Mississippi or South-Sea, or any other
such monstrous Bubbles."[36]
And this evidence is corroborated fully by letters of Virginia
planters to English merchants. They show that the wealthy Virginian of
the 17th century was careful in his business dealings, sharp in a
bargain, a painstaking manager, and in his private life often
economical even to stinginess. Robert Carter, one of the wealthiest
men of the colony, in a letter complains of the money spent upon the
outfit of the Wormley boys who were at school in England, thinking it
"entirely in excess of any need." William Fitzhugh, Philip Ludwell,
William Byrd I, typical leaders of their time, by the mercantile
instinct that they inherited from their fathers were enabled to build
up those great estates which added such splendor to the Virginia
aristocracy of the 18th, century.[37]
Having, as we hope, sufficiently shown that the leading planters of
Virginia were not in any large measure the descendants of Englishmen
of high social rank, and that with them the predominant instinct was
mercantile, we shall now proceed to point out those conditions to
which the planters were subjected that changed them from practical
business men to idealistic and chivalrous aristocrats.
Undoubtedly the most powerful influence that acted upon the character
of the Virginian was the plantation system. In man's existence it is
the ceaseless grind of the commonplace events of every day life that
shapes the character. The most violent passions or the most stirring
events leave but a fleeting impression in comparison with the effect
of one's daily occupation. There is something distinctive about the
doctor, the teacher, the tailor, the goldsmith. There is in each
something different from the rest of mankind, and this something has
been developed within him by the ceaseless recurrence of certain
duties required of him by his profession. Similarly the English
immigrant, isolated upon his vast plantation, surrounded by slaves and
servants, his time occupied largely with the cultivation of tobacco,
could not fail in the course of time to lose his mercantile instincts
and to become distinctly aristocratic in his nature.
The estates of the planters were very large, comprising frequently
thousands of acres. William Byrd II inherited from his father 23,231
acres, but so great was his hunger for land and so successful was he
in obtaining it that at his death he owned no less than 179,440 acres
of the best land in Virginia.[38] Robert Carter, of Nomini Hall, owned
60,000 acres.[39] The lands of William Fitzhugh amounted to 54,000
acres, at his death in 1701.[40] Other prominent men were possessed of
estates not less extensive. These vast tracts of land comprised
usually several plantations that were scattered in various parts of
the colony and which differed widely in value and in extent. In the
region to the west beyond tidewater estates of 20,000, 30,000, or
40,000 acres were not infrequent, while in the sections that had been
first settled the average size was much less. Yet the plantations that
stretched along the banks of the James, the York, the Rappahannock and
the Potomac were so extensive that often the residences of the
planters were several miles apart. From 4,000 to 6,000 acres was the
average size of the farms of the wealthier men.[41]
The author of Virginia's Cure, a pamphlet printed in 1661, says: "The
families ... are dispersedly and scatteringly seated upon the sides of
rivers, some of which running very far into the country, bear the
English plantations above a hundred miles, and being very broad, cause
the inhabitants of either side to be listed in several parishes. Every
such parish is extended many miles in length upon the rivers' side,
and usually not above a mile in breadth backward from the river,
which is the common stated breadth of every plantation, some extend
themselves half a mile, some a mile, some two miles upon the sides of
the rivers."[42]
The system of large plantations was in vogue in Virginia from the
early years of the 17th century. Even before the days of Sir William
Berkeley, many of the colonists possessed extensive tracts of land,
only part of which they could put under cultivation. Doubtless the
dignity which the possession of land gave in England was the principal
inducement for the planter to secure as large an estate as his means
would permit. The wealthier Virginians showed throughout the entire
colonial period a passion for land that frequently led them into the
grossest and most unjustifiable fraud.[43]
The tendency was accelerated by the law, made by the Virginia Company
of London to encourage immigration, which allotted fifty acres of land
to proprietors for every person they brought to the colony, "by which
means some men transporting many servants thither, and others
purchasing the rights of those that did, took possession of great
tracts of land at their pleasure."[44] In 1621 a number of extensive
grants were made to persons thus engaging themselves to take settlers
to Virginia. To Arthur Swain and Nathaniel Basse were given 5,000
acres for undertaking to transport one hundred persons. Five thousand
acres was also given Rowland Truelove "and divers other patentees."
Similar tracts were given to John Crowe, Edward Ryder, Captain Simon
Leeke and others.[45] Sir George Yeardly received a grant of 15,000
acres for engaging to take over three hundred persons.[46]
Even more potent in building up large plantations was the wasteful
system of agriculture adopted by the settlers. It soon became apparent
to them that the cultivation of tobacco was very exhausting to the
soil, but the abundance of land led them to neglect the most ordinary
precautions to preserve the fertility of their fields. They planted
year after year upon the same spot until the soil would produce no
more, and then cleared a new field. They were less provident even than
the peasants of the Middle Ages, for they failed to adopt the old
system of rotation of crops that would have arrested to some extent
the exhausting of their fields. Of the use of artificial fertilizers
they were ignorant.
This system of cultivation made it necessary for them to secure very
large plantations, for they could not be content with a tract of
territory sufficiently large to keep busy their force of laborers.
They must look forward to the time when their fields would become
useless, and if they were wise they would secure ten times more than
they could put into cultivation at once. If they failed to do this
they would find at the end of a few years that their estates consisted
of nothing but exhausted and useless fields. Thomas Whitlock, in his
will dated 1659, says: "I give my son Thomas Whitlock the land I live
on, 600 acres, when he is of the age 21, and during his minority to my
wife. The land not to be further made use of or by planting or
seating[47] than the first deep branch that is commonly rid over, that
my son may have some fresh land when he attains to age."[48]
The plantations, thus vast in extent, soon became little communities
independent in a marked degree of each other, and in many respects of
the entire colony. The planter, his family, his servants and slaves
lived to themselves in isolation almost as great as that of the feudal
barons or of the inhabitants of the vill of the 13th century.
But this isolation was due even more to the direct trade between the
planters and the foreign merchants than to the extent of the
plantations. This was made possible by the nature of the waterways.
The entire country was intersected with rivers, inlets and creeks that
were deep enough to float the sea going vessels of the age, and salt
water penetrated the woods for miles, forming of the whole country, as
John Fiske has expressed it, a sylvan Venice. Thus it was possible for
each planter to have his own wharf and to ship his tobacco directly
from his own estate. Moreover, it allowed him to receive from the
foreign vessels what merchandise he desired to purchase. Hugh Jones
wrote, "No country is better watered, for the conveniency of which
most houses are built near some landing-place; so that anything may be
delivered to a gentleman there from London, Bristol, &c., with less
trouble and cost, than to one living five miles in the country in
England; for you pay no freight from London and but little from
Bristol; only the party to whom the goods belong, is in gratitude
engaged to ship tobacco upon the ship consigned to her owners in
England."[49]
This system, so remarkably convenient for the planters, was continued
throughout the entire colonial period despite the many efforts made to
change it. The Virginians could not be induced to bring their tobacco
to towns for the purposes of shipping when the merchant vessels could
so easily land at their private wharves. The merchants had less reason
to like the system, for it forced them to take their vessels into
remote and inconvenient places; to spend much valuable time in going
from plantation to plantation before their vessels were laden; to keep
accounts with many men in many different places.[50] The sailors too
complained of the custom, for they were frequently required to roll
the tobacco in casks many yards over the ground to the landings,
causing them much greater trouble than in loading in other countries.
For this reason they are said to have had a great dislike of the
country. Throughout the 17th century and even later the English
government made repeated efforts to break up this system but without
success, for the saving to the planters by local shipping was so great
that threats and even attempted coercion could not make them give it
up.
It is this that is chiefly responsible for the lack of towns in
Virginia during the entire 17th century. Not until the settlements had
spread out beyond the region of deep water did towns of any size
arise. Then it became necessary to bring goods overland to the nearest
deep water and from this circumstance shipping cities gradually
appeared at the falls line on the rivers. Then it was that Richmond
developed into the metropolis of Virginia.
How utterly insignificant the villages of the colony were during the
17th century is shown by a description of Jamestown given by Mrs. Ann
Cotton in her account of Bacon's Proceedings. "The town," she says,
"is built much about the middle of the south line close upon the
river, extending east and west about three-quarters of a mile; in
which is comprehended some sixteen or eighteen houses; most as is the
church built of brick faire and large; and in them about a dozen
famillies (for all their houses are not inhabited) getting their
liveings by keeping of ordinaries at extraordinary rates." This was in
1676, sixty-nine years after the first settlement, and when the
population of the colony was 45,000.
The lack of towns was a source of much uneasiness to the first
promoters of the colony, for they regarded it as a sign of unhealthful
and abnormal conditions and frequent directions were given to the
colonial governors to put an end to the scattered mode of life and to
encourage in every way possible the development of cities. Sir Francis
Wyatt was instructed "to draw tradesmen and handicraftmen into
towns."[51] Time and again throughout the 17th century the English
kings insisted that the Assembly should pass laws intended to
establish trading towns. In 1662, an act was passed at the command of
Charles II providing for the building of a city at Jamestown.[52]
There were to be thirty-two brick houses, forty feet long, twenty feet
wide, and eighteen feet high; the roof to be fifteen feet high and to
be covered with slate or tile. "And," says the Act, "because these
preparations of houses and stores will be altogether useless unless
the towne be made the marte of all the adjoyning places, bee it
therefore enacted that all the tobacco made in the three counties of
James Citty, Charles Citty, and Surrey shall the next yeare when the
stores be built be brought by the inhabitants to towne and putt in the
stores there built." This absurd attempt met with utter failure. One
of the complaints made to the King's Commissioners sent to investigate
the causes of Bacon's Rebellion was, "That great quantities of tobacco
was levied upon the poor people to the building of houses at
Jamestown, which was not made habitable but fell down again before
they were finished."[53]
In an effort to build up towns an act was passed in 1680 requiring all
merchants to bring their goods to certain specified spots and there
only to load their vessels with tobacco. "But several masters of ships
and traders ... not finding ... any reception or shelter for
themselves, goods or tobaccos, did absolutely refuse to comply with
the said act ... but traded and shipped tobaccos as they were
accustomed to doe in former years, for which some of them suffered
mouch trouble ... the prosecution being chiefly managed by such
persons ... as having particular regard to their privat ends and
designs, laid all the stumbling blocks they could in the way of
publick traffic (though to the great dissatisfaction of the most and
best part of the country)."[54]
In 1682 Lord Culpeper was instructed to do everything in his power to
develop Jamestown into a city. Charles II told him to announce to the
members of the Council that he would regard with special favor those
that built houses there and made it their permanent residence.
Culpeper seems to have recognized the uselessness of the attempt, for
he wrote, "I have given all encouragement possible for the rebuilding
of James Citty, ... as to the proposall of building houses by those of
the Counsell and the cheefe inhabitants, it hath once been attempted
in vaine, nothing but profitt and advantage can doe it, and then there
will be noe need of anything else."[55]
The Act of 1680 was never enforced. The planters complained that the
places selected for ports were too few in number and that they were
put to great expense in bringing their tobacco to them for shipment.
The English government then directed the Assembly so to change the Act
that it could be put into practical operation, but an attempt, in
1685, to follow these instructions proved futile. The Burgesses were
willing to pass a bill providing for ports in each county, but this
was not what the king wanted and so the whole matter came to
nothing.[56]
These failures were attributed by many to the obstinacy of the
Virginians. Men at that time understood but dimly the supremacy of
economic laws, and could not realize that so long as the planters
found it profitable to do their shipping from their private wharves so
long would there be no seaports in Virginia, no matter what laws were
enacted. In 1701 a pamphlet was published entitled, "A Plain and
Friendly Perswasive to the Inhabitants of Virginia and Maryland for
promoting Towns and Cohabitation." The author tried to prove that
towns would be an unmixed blessing to the colony, that they would
promote trade, stimulate immigration, build up manufacture and aid
education and religion.[57] A similar pamphlet, called Virginia's
Cure, had been written in 1661, complaining that the scattered mode of
life was the cause of the decline of religion in Virginia and
advocating the building of towns.
This lack of urban life reacted strongly upon the plantations. Since
there were no centers of activity in the colony where the planters
could gather on occasions of universal interest, it tended to isolate
them upon their estates. It forced them to become, except for their
trade with England, self-sustaining little communities. As there were
no towns to act as markets there was almost no trade between the
various parts of the colony. During the 17th century a stranger in
Virginia desiring to purchase any article whatever, could only obtain
it by applying at some plantation. Nowhere else in the colony could it
be had. The Friendly Perswasive dwelt especially on the evils of this
state of affairs. "And as to a home-trade," it says, "by towns, all
plantations far or near, would have some trade, less or more, to these
towns, and a frequent trade, and traffic, would soon grow and arise
between the several rivers and towns, by carrying and transporting
passengers and goods to and fro; and supplying all places with such
goods as they want most." Not until the end of the century was there
even the beginning of home trade. Then it was that Williamsburg,
Norfolk and Hampton, still mere villages, enjoyed a slight trade with
the surrounding plantations.
This state of affairs made necessary the system of plantation
manufacture. Those articles whose nature made importation from Europe
inconvenient were produced upon the plantations, and not in the towns
of the colony. It had been the purpose of the Virginia Company of
London to make the colony an industrial community and with this in
view they had so encouraged the immigration of tradesmen and artisans,
that between the years 1619 and 1624 hundreds of carpenters, smiths,
coopers, bricklayers, etc., settled in Virginia. These men soon found,
however, that they could not maintain themselves by their trades, and
many, giving up their calling, secured tracts of land and became
planters. Others took up their abode on some large plantation to serve
as overseers or head workmen. In 1639 Sir Francis Wyatt was instructed
to see to it "that tradesmen and handicraftsmen be compelled to follow
their several trades,"[58] but this order was entirely ineffectual and
soon but few artisans remained. Makensie says, "Our tradesmen are none
of the best, and seldom improve from the incouragement they have. If
some few stick to their trades, they demand extravigant rates, and few
employ them but out of pure necessity."[59] Not infrequently an
artisan would combine tobacco planting with his trade, since the
latter alone was but a slender and insufficient source of income. On
several occasions the Assembly tried to encourage the various trades
by exempting free artisans from taxation, but this too proved
ineffective.[60]
The planters found it necessary to secure skilled servants to fill the
place of the hired workmen, and soon every estate had its smith, its
carpenter, its cooper, etc. At the home plantation of "King" Carter
were two house carpenters, a ship carpenter, a glazier, two tailors, a
gardener, a blacksmith, two bricklayers and two sailors, all
indentured servants.[61] In his will Col. Carter divided these men
among his three sons.[62] The inventory of the property of Ralph
Wormeley, who died in 1791, shows that at the home house there were
eight English servants, among them a shoemaker, a tailor and a miller.
In the 18th century, when the negro slave had to a large extent taken
the place of the white servant, attempts were made to teach the
Africans to become artisans, but with partial success only. Hugh
Jones, in speaking of the negroes, says, "Several of them are taught
to be sawyers, carpenters, smiths, coopers, &c. though for the most
part they be none of the aptest or nicest."[63]
An interesting picture of the life on the plantation is given in the
manuscript recollections of George Mason, by his son General John
Mason. "It was much the practice," he says, "with gentlemen of landed
and slave estates ... so to organize them as to have considerable
resources within themselves; to employ and pay but few tradesmen, and
to buy little or none of the course stuffs and materials used by
them.... Thus my father had among his slaves, carpenters, coopers,
sawyers, blacksmiths, tanners, curriers, shoemakers, spinners,
weavers, and knitters, and even a distiller. His woods furnished
timber and plank for the carpenters and coopers, and charcoal for the
blacksmiths; his cattle ... supplied skins for the tanners, curriers
and shoemakers; and his sheep gave wool and his fields produced
cotton and flax for the weavers and spinners, and his orchards fruit
for the distiller. His carpenters and sawyers built and kept in repair
all the dwelling houses, barns, stables, ploughs, harrows, gates,
etc., on the plantations, and the outhouses at the house. His coopers
made the hogsheads the tobacco was prized in, and the tight casks to
hold the cider and other liquors. The tanners and curriers, with the
proper vats, etc., tanned and dressed the skins as well for upper as
for lower leather to the full amount of the consumption of the estate,
and the shoemakers made them into shoes for the negroes. A professed
shoemaker was hired for three or four months in the year to come and
make up the shoes for the white part of the family. The blacksmith did
all the ironwork required by the establishment, as making and
repairing ploughs, harrows, teeth, chains, bolts, etc. The spinners,
weavers, and knitters made all the course cloths and stockings used by
the negroes, and some of finer texture worn by the white family,
nearly all worn by the children of it. The distiller made every fall a
good deal of apple, peach, and percimmon brandy.... Moreover, all the
beeves and hogs for consumption or sale were driven up and slaughtered
... at the proper seasons and whatever was to be preserved was salted
and packed away for after distribution."[64]
And the isolation that was a consequence of this industrial
independence was made all the more pronounced by the condition of the
roads. The task of cutting highways through the great forests was more
than the first settlers could undertake. During the 17th century boats
were the most common means of conveyance.[65] Each plantation
possessed a number of vessels of various sizes and the settlers made
use of them both in visiting their immediate neighbors and in
travelling to more remote parts of the colony. Owing to the great
width of the rivers, however, the use of small boats was fraught with
danger.[66] For many miles from their mouths the James, the York, and
the Rappahannock are rather broad inlets of the Chesapeake Bay than
rivers, and at many points to row across is no light undertaking.
Early in the 18th century efforts were made to construct serviceable
roads. The settlements had by that time extended back from the rivers
and creeks, and means of communication by land was absolutely
necessary. The nature of the country, however, presented great
difficulty. Hugh Jones wrote, "The worst inconveniency in travelling
across the country, is the circuit that must be taken to head creeks,
&c., for the main roads wind along the rising ground between the
rivers, tho' now they much shorten their passage by mending the swamps
and building of bridges in several places; and there are established
ferries at convenient places, over the great rivers." But slight
attention was given to keeping the roads in good condition and after
each long rain they become almost impassable. The lack of bridges was
a great hindrance to traffic and even the poor substitute of ferries
was often lacking, forcing travellers to long detours or to the
dangerous task of swimming the stream.[67]
Thus cut off from his neighbors the planter spent his life in
isolation almost as great as that of the feudal barons of the Middle
Ages. The plantation was to him a little world whose activities it was
his business to direct and this world moulded his character far more
than any outward influence.
It is a matter of no surprise that one of the first distinctive
characteristics to develop among the Virginia planters was pride. This
trait was natural to them even in the early years of the 17th century.
The operation of economic conditions upon a society is usually very
slow, and frequently the changes that it brings about may be detected
only after the lapse of centuries. This fact is nowhere more apparent
than in the development of the Virginia aristocracy, and we find that
its distinctive character had not been fully formed until after the
Revolution. Pride, however, is a failing so natural to humanity that
its development may be a matter of a few years only. Conditions in the
colony could not fail to produce, even in the first generations of
Virginians, all the dignity and self esteem of an old established
aristocracy. William Byrd I, Daniel Parke, "King" Carter were every
whit as proud as were Randolph, Madison or Jefferson.
It is interesting to note how careful were the Virginians of the 17th
century not to omit in documents and legal papers any term of
distinction to which a man was entitled. If he possessed two titles he
was usually given both. Thus Thomas Willoughby is alluded to in the
records of Lower Norfolk County as "Lieutenant Thomas Willoughby,
gentleman." The term "esquire" was used only by members of the
Council, and was the most honorable and respectful which could be
obtained in Virginia, implying a rank which corresponded with the
nobility in England. It invested those that bore it with dignity and
authority such as has been enjoyed by the aristocrats of few
countries. The respect shown to the leading men of the colony is
evinced by an incident which befell Colonel William Byrd I, in 1685.
One Humphrey Chamberlaine, a man of good birth, became angry with
Byrd, and drew his sword in order to attack him. The man was
immediately seized and put in jail. At his hearing before the court he
declared in palliation of his act that he was a stranger in the
country and ignorant of its customs, but the justices thought this a
poor excuse, declaring that "no stranger, especially an English
gentleman, could be insensible of ye respect and reverence due to so
honorable a person" as Col. Byrd. Chamberlaine was fined heavily.[68]
The arrogance of these early aristocrats is shown even more strikingly
by the conduct of Col. John Custis in 1688. As collector of duties on
the Eastern Shore he had been guilty of great exactions, extorting
from the merchants unjust and unreasonable fees. This had proceeded so
far that it was reacting unfavorably upon commerce, and when foreign
traders began to avoid entirely that part of the colony, the people of
Accomack in alarm drew up a paper of grievances which they intended to
present to the House of Burgesses. Custis one day seeing this paper
posted in public, flew into a great rage and tore it down, at the same
time shaking his cane at the crowd that had assembled around him and
using many threatening words. In this Custis was not only infringing
on the rights of the people, but he was offering a distinct affront to
the House of Burgesses. Yet so great was the awe that his authority
and dignity inspired, that the people of Accomack not only allowed him
to keep the paper, but "being terrified and affrighted drew up no
other aggreivances att that time."[69]
Robert Carter was another planter whose "extraordinary pride and
ambition" made many enemies. Governor Nicholson accuses him of "using
several people haughtily, sometimes making the justices of the peace
of the county wait two or three hours before they can speak to
him."... "In contempt of him," he adds, "he is sometimes called 'King'
Carter."[70]
Beyond doubt this haughtiness was chiefly the result of the life upon
the plantation. The command that the planter possessed over the lives
of scores of servants and slaves could not fail to impress him with a
feeling of respect for his own importance. John Bernard, the
traveller, shows that he understood this matter clearly. "Woe," he
says, "to the man who lives constantly with inferiors! He is doomed
never to hear himself contradicted, never to be told unwelcome truth,
never to sharpen his wits and learn to control his temper by argument
with equals. The Colonial Cavaliers were little kings, and they proved
the truth of the saying of the royal sage of Rome that the most
difficult of tasks is to lead life well in a palace."[71]
Political conditions also tended to the same result, for the leading
men of the colony were possessed of extraordinary influence and power.
Many of the prominent families of the 17th century were related to
each other and they formed a compact little oligarchy that at times
controlled the affairs of the colony at will.
But as time went on a decided change took place in the nature of the
Virginian's pride. During the 18th century he gradually lost that
arrogance that had been so characteristic of him in the age of
Nicholson and Spotswood. At the time of the Revolution are found no
longer men that do not hesitate to trample under foot the rights of
others as Custis, Byrd, and Carter had done. Nothing could be more
foreign to the nature of Washington or Jefferson than the haughtiness
of the typical Virginia planter of an earlier period. But it was
arrogance only that had been lost, not self-respect or dignity. The
Virginian of the later period had a most exalted conception of what a
man should be, and they respected themselves as exemplifiers of their
ideals, but they were always ready to accord to others the same
reverence they paid themselves. The change that had taken place is
shown in the lack of pretence and self-assertion in judges,
councillors, in college presidents and other dignitaries. Thomas
Nelson Page, in speaking of the fully developed Virginia gentleman,
says, "There was the foundation of a certain pride, based on
self-respect and consciousness of power. There were nearly always the
firm mouth with its strong lines, the calm, placid, direct gaze, the
quiet speech of one who is accustomed to command and have his commands
obeyed."[72]
This change was beyond doubt the result of the increased political
resistance which the aristocracy encountered during the 18th century.
Within a few years after the founding of Jamestown the wealthy
planters may be noted as a body distinct from the other settlers.
Immediately after the downfall of the Virginia Company of London they
became a powerful force in the colony, and when, a few years later,
Governor Harvey tried to curb them, not only did they resist him
successfully, but they eventually brought upon him financial and
political ruin. This state of affairs was due largely to the vast
superiority of the merchant settlers to the lower class of immigrants,
both in intelligence and in wealth. Those English traders that made
their home in the colony, became at once leaders politically and
socially. Not infrequently they became burgesses, justices, or even
members of the Council after a few years' residence only, taking their
place quite naturally by the side of those that had come over
previously. This condition of affairs continued until late in the
century. Bacon the rebel was made a councillor, although he lived in
Virginia less than two years altogether, while the Lees, the
Washingtons and many others obtained places of influence and power as
soon as they reached the colony. On the other hand, the middle class
did not become a factor of very great importance in the government
until the surrender of the colony to the Parliamentary Commissioners
in 1652. The bulk of the immigrants during the first half of the 17th
century were indentured servants, brought over to cultivate the
tobacco fields. They came, most of them, from the ignorant laboring
class of England, and were incapable, even after the expiration of
their term of indenture, of taking an intelligent part in governmental
affairs. It is true that many free families of humble means came to
the colony in this period, but their numbers were not great enough to
counterbalance the power of the leading planters. These families
formed the nucleus of what later became an energetic middle class, but
not until their ranks were recruited by thousands of servants, did
they develop into a really formidable body.
It was the Commonwealth Period that gave to the middle class its first
taste of power. After the surrender of the colony to Parliament, the
House of Burgesses was made the ruling body in Virginia, in imitation
of conditions in England. Since the Burgesses were the representatives
of the common people, it might naturally be inferred that the rich
planters would be excluded from any share in the government. Such,
however, was not the case. By a conveniently rapid change of front the
most prominent men of the colony retained much of their old influence,
and the rabble, lacking leaders of ability, were forced to elect them
to places of trust and responsibility. But the Commonwealth Period
helped to organize the middle class, to give it a sense of unity and a
desire for a share in the government. At the time of Bacon's Rebellion
it had grown in numbers and strength, despite the oppression of the
Restoration Period, and showed, in a way never to be forgotten, that
it would no longer submit passively to tyranny or injustice.
Although England entered upon a policy of repression immediately after
the submission of the insurgents, which for some years threatened to
take from the common people every vestige of political liberty, it was
at this very time that the House of Burgesses began that splendid
struggle for its rights that was eventually to make it the supreme
power in the colony. Even in the waning years of the 17th century it
is evident that the middle class had become a power in political
affairs that must always be taken into account. The discontented
Berkeley party turned to it for support against the King's
Commissioners after Bacon's Rebellion; Culpeper, at the risk of
Charles' displeasure, compromised with it; Nicholson sought its
support in his memorable struggle with the Virginia aristocracy. In
the 18th century through the House of Burgesses its influence slowly
but steadily advanced. Governor Spotswood had once to beg the pardon
of the Burgesses for the insolence of the members of the Council in
wearing their hats in the presence of a committee of the House.[73]
Governor Dinwiddie expressed his surprise, when the mace bearer one
day entered the supreme court, and demanded that one of the judges
attend upon the House, whose servant he was.[74] Before the outbreak
of the Revolution the House of Burgesses had become the greatest power
in the colony. It is then a matter of no surprise that the rich
planters lost the arrogant spirit which had formerly characterized
them. Long years of vigorous opposition from a powerful middle class
had taught them to respect the privileges and feelings of others. They
were no longer at such a height above their humbler neighbors. The
spirit of democracy, which was fostered by the long resistance to the
English government, had so pervaded Virginia society, that even before
the open rupture with the mother country many of the aristocratic
privileges of the old families had been swept away. And when the war
broke out, the common cause of liberty in a sense placed every man
upon the same footing. An anecdote related by Major Anbury, one of the
British officers captured at Saratoga and brought to Virginia,
illustrates well the spirit of the times. "From my observations," he
says, "in my late journey, it appeared to me, that before the war, the
spirit of equality or levelling principle was not so prevalent in
Virginia, as in the other provinces; and that the different classes of
people in the former supported a greater distinction than those of the
latter; but since the war, that principle seems to have gained great
ground in Virginia; an instance of it I saw at Col. Randolph's at
Tuckahoe, where three country peasants, who came upon business,
entered the room where the Colonel and his company were sitting, took
themselves chairs, drew near the fire, began spitting, pulling off
their country boots all over mud, and then opened their business,
which was simply about some continental flour to be ground at the
Colonel's mill: When they were gone, some one observed what great
liberties they took; he replied it was unavoidable, the spirit of
independence was converted into equality, and every one who bore arms,
esteemed himself upon a footing with his neighbor, and concluded by
saying; 'No doubt, each of these men conceives himself, in every
respect, my equal.'"[75]
One of the most fertile sources of error in history is the tendency of
writers to confound the origin of institutions with the conditions
that brought them into life. In nothing is this more apparent than in
the various theories advanced in regard to the development of chivalry
during the Middle Ages. The fundamentals of chivalry can be traced to
the earliest period of German history. Many Teutonic writers, imbued
with a pride in their ancestors, have pointed out the respect for
women, the fondness for arms, the regard for the oppressed and
unfortunate, of the people of the Elbe and the Rhine. Chivalry, they
say, was but the expansion, the growth of characteristics natural and
individual with their forefathers.[76] This is erroneous. The early
Germanic customs may have contained the germ of chivalry, but that
germ was given life only by conditions that came into operation
centuries after the Teutons had deserted their old habits and mode of
life and had taken on some of the features of civilization.
Chivalry was the product of feudalism. It was that system that gave
birth to the noble sentiments, the thirst for great achievements, the
spirit of humanity that arose in the 10th and 11th centuries.
Feudalism, although it was the cause of much that was evil, also
produced in the hearts of men sentiments that were noble and generous.
If it delivered Europe into the hands of a host of ruthless and savage
barons, that trod under foot the rights of the common people, it
alone gave rise to the sentiment of honor which was so conspicuous
from the 10th to the 13th centuries.
Similarly it is erroneous to look to England for the explanation of
chivalry in Virginia. This spirit was almost entirely a development in
the colony. The settlers of the 17th century, even of the better class
were by no means characterized by gallantry and honor. The mortal
enemy of chivalry is commerce, for the practical common-sense merchant
looks with contempt upon the Quixotic fancies of a Bayard. His daily
life, his habits of thought, his associations tend to make him hostile
to all that glittering fabric of romance reared in the Middle Ages. He
abhors battles and wars, for they are destructive to his trade. He may
be honest, but he cares little for the idealistic honor of the days of
knighthood. He ascribes to woman no place of superiority in society.
We have already seen that the Virginia aristocracy had its origin
largely in the emigration of English merchants to the colony, and we
should naturally expect to find the planters of the 17th century
lacking in the spirit of chivalry. Such indeed was the case.
The Virginians were not a race of fighters. It was their misfortune to
be subjected to frequent and murderous attacks from a savage race
living in close proximity to them, and on this account were compelled
to keep alive the military spirit, but they never entered into war
with the feeling of joy that characterized the warriors of the Middle
Ages. Throughout the entire colonial period there was a numerous body
of militia, which was considered the bulwark of the people both
against the Indians and against attack from European armies. Its
commanders were selected from the leading planters of each community
and at times it numbered thousands of men. It never, however,
presented a really formidable fighting force, for it was at all times
lacking in discipline, owing to the fact that the people were so
scattered and the country so thinly settled that it was impossible for
them to meet often for military exercises. Repeated laws requiring the
militia to drill at stated periods created great discontent, and were
generally disobeyed. The Assembly, even in times of war, shirked the
responsibility of furnishing the companies with arms, while the people
were far too indifferent to purchase them for themselves. At times
the English government would send guns and powder and armor from the
royal arsenal, and then only would the colony be in a position to
repel foreign invasion. Governor Nicholson speaks of the utter
insufficiency of the militia, and spent a large part of his time in
reorganizing it, but conditions were so adverse that he met with
little success. Governor Spotswood, who had served under the Duke of
Marlborough and was an experienced soldier, also endeavored to
increase the efficiency of the militia and under his leadership better
discipline was obtained than before, but even he could effect no
permanent improvement. When the test of war came the militia was found
to be of no practical use. The companies could not be assembled
quickly enough to repel a sudden invasion, and when a considerable
body was gotten together desertion was so common that the force
immediately melted away. In the French and Indian War Governor
Dinwiddie soon learned that no dependence whatever could be placed in
the old organization and turned his attention to recruiting and arming
new companies. The Virginia troops that were driven from Fort
Duquesne, those that fought with Braddock, and those that held back
the attacks of the Indians along the frontier of the Shenandoah Valley
were in no way connected with the old militia.
This distaste of the colonists for war is shown clearly by the
consistent opposition of the Assembly to all measures either of
defense or of military aggression. On more than one occasion they were
commanded by the English kings to render aid to other colonies in
America. Thus in 1695, when there was grave danger that the French
would invade New York the Virginians were directed to send men and
money to aid the Northern colony, which was a bulwark to all the
English possessions in America. It was only after repeated and
peremptory demands and even threats that any assistance at all was
sent, and then it was miserably insufficient. In 1696 the burgesses
were shameless enough to assert that an attempt to impress men for
service in New York would probably be the means of frightening most of
the young freemen from the colony, even causing many to desert their
wives and children.[77] Governor Spotswood met with great opposition
in his attempt to aid South Carolina and North Carolina when those
colonies were threatened with extermination by the savage attacks of
the Indians. And in later years, when there was imminent danger of an
invasion of Virginia itself by the French with their savage allies,
Governor Dinwiddie was never able to persuade the Assembly to provide
adequate means of defence. Not until the news of massacres of
defenceless women and children upon the frontier struck terror to
every family in Virginia did the legislators vote money for a body of
men to drive back the enemy. And even then so niggardly were they in
their appropriations that with the insufficient means granted him even
the patient and frugal Washington was unable to prevent the
continuance of the murderous raids of the Indians. In the
Revolutionary War the same spirit prevailed. Virginia was not willing
to raise and equip a standing army to defend her soil from the English
invaders and as a consequence fell an easy victim to the first hostile
army that entered her borders. The resistance offered to Cornwallis
was shamefully weak, and the Virginians had the mortification of
seeing their plantations and their towns devastated by an army that
should have been driven back with ease. The militia to which the
safety of Virginia was entrusted, like similar troops from the other
states, proved ill disciplined, ill armed and cowardly.[78]