opposition at all periods to the improvement of the military
organization, a large measure of blame must be placed upon that
wealthy clique of men represented by the Council. The commissioned
officers were invariably selected from the wealthiest and most
influential planters, and it was they alone that could keep alive the
military spirit, that could drill the companies, that could enforce
the discipline that was so essential to efficiency. It is true that
the Council usually favored the measures proposed by various governors
for bettering the militia and for giving aid to neighboring colonies,
but this was due more to a desire to keep in harmony with the
executive than to military ardour. And it is significant that when
troops were enlisted for distant expeditions, the wealthy planters
were conspicuous by their absence. We see not the slightest
inclination on their part to rush into the conflict for the love of
fighting and adventure that was so typical of the aristocrat of the
Middle Ages. They were more than content to stay at home to attend to
the business of the plantation and to leave to humbler hands the task
of defending helpless families of the frontiers. But the economic and
political conditions in the colony were destined to work a change in
this as in other things in the Virginia planter. The gradual loss of
the mercantile instinct, the habit of command acquired by the control
of servants and slaves, and the long use of political power, the
growth of patriotism, eventually instilled into him a chivalric love
of warfare not unlike that of the knights of old. It is impossible to
say when this instinct first began to show itself. Perhaps the
earliest evidence that the warlike spirit was stirring in the breasts
of the planters is given in 1756, when two hundred gentlemen, moved by
the pitiful condition of the defenseless families of the Shenandoah
Valley, formed a volunteer company, and marched against the Indians.
It is probable that the expedition did not succeed in encountering
the enemy, but it was of much value in animating the lower class of
people with greater courage.[79] In the Revolutionary War the change
had become quite apparent. It is to the Old Dominion that the colonies
turn for the commander-in-chief of their armies. The Lees, Morgan and
other Virginia aristocrats were among the most gallant leaders of the
American army. But the development was even then far from its climax.
Not until the Civil War do we note that dash, that gallantry, and
bravery that made the Virginia gentleman famous as a warrior. Then it
was that the chivalrous Stuart and the reckless Mosby rivaled the
deeds of Bayard and of Rupert. Then it was that each plantation gave
forth its willing sacrifice of men for the defense of the South, and
thousands of the flower of Virginia aristocracy shed their blood upon
the battle field. And Virginia produced for this great struggle a
galaxy of chieftains seldom equalled in the world's history. Robert E.
Lee, "Stonewall" Jackson, Johnston and many other great generals show
that warfare had become natural to the people of the Old Dominion.
Even more striking is the development of duelling in Virginia. The
history of chivalry in Europe is indissolubly connected with thousands
of tournaments and duels. It was the ambition of each knight to
increase his fame by triumphing over as many warriors as possible. He
looked upon these fights as the greatest pleasure of his existence,
and his training and education were intended largely to prepare him
for them. As years passed and the feudal baron gave place to the
aristocratic lord, the tournament was no longer indulged in, but as
its successor the custom of duelling continued unabated. It remained,
as it had been for centuries, the acknowledged way for gentlemen to
settle difficulties. At the very time that the best class of settlers
was coming to Virginia, duelling was in high favor with the English
aristocracy. It was a common event for two gentlemen who were suitors
for the hand of the same lady to settle the matter by mortal combat,
and this was considered not only proper, but the highest compliment
that could be paid the lady's charms. Angry joustings were frequent in
places of amusement or even upon the streets. In London the ring in
Hyde Park, the back of Montague House, and the Barns Elms were the
favorite places for these combats.[80]
That the custom was not continued in Virginia adds convincing
testimony to the evidence that the best class of immigrants to the
colony were not members of the English aristocracy. Had many country
gentlemen or noblemen settled in the Old Dominion, duelling would have
been as common on the banks of the James as it was in London. The most
careful investigation has been able to bring to light evidence of but
five or six duels in Virginia during the entire colonial period.[81]
In 1619 Capt. Edward Stallings was slain in a duel with Mr. William
Epes at Dancing Point. Five years later Mr. George Harrison fought a
duel with Mr. Richard Stephens. "There was some words of discontent
between him and Mr. Stephens, with some blows. Eight or ten days after
Mr. Harrison sent a challenge to Stephens to meet him in a place,
which was made mention of, they meeting together it so fell out that
Mr. Harrison received a cut in the leg which did somewhat grieve him,
and fourteen days after he departed this life."[82]
After this fatal affair the custom of duelling died out almost
entirely in the colony. Had there been many of these encounters
frequent mention beyond doubt would have been made of them. Any deaths
resulting from them could hardly have escaped mention in the records,
and the general interest that always attaches itself to such affairs
would have caused them to find a place in the writings of the day.
Beverley, Hugh Jones, John Clayton and other authors who described the
customs of colonial Virginia made no mention of duelling. Only a few
scattered instances of challenges and encounters have been collected,
gleaned largely from the county records, and these serve to show that
duelling met with but little favor. Most of the challenges were not
accepted and provoked usually summary and harsh punishment at the
hands of the law. In 1643 a commissioner was disabled from holding
office for having challenged a councillor.[83] Some years later Capt.
Thomas Hackett sent a challenge by his son-in-law, Richard Denham, to
Mr. Daniel Fox, while the latter was sitting in the Lancaster County
court. The message was most insulting in its wording and ended by
declaring that if Fox "had anything of a gentleman or manhood" in him
he would render satisfaction in a personal encounter with rapiers. One
of the justices, Major Carter, was horrified at these proceedings. He
addressed Denham in words of harsh reproval, "saying that he knew not
how his father would acquit himself of an action of that nature, which
he said he would not be ye owner of for a world." Denham answered in a
slighting way "that his father would answer it well enough ...
whereupon ye court conceivinge ye said Denham to be a partye with his
father-in-law ... adjudged ye said Denham to receive six stripes on
his bare shoulder with a whip." The course pursued by Fox in this
affair is of great interest. Had duelling been in vogue he would have
been compelled to accept the challenge or run the risk of receiving
popular contempt as a coward. He could not have ignored the message on
grounds of social superiority, for Hackett ranked as a gentleman. Yet
he requested the court to arrest Hackett, "him to detain in safe
custody without baile or mainprize," in order to save himself from the
risk of a personal attack.[84] A similar case occurred in 1730, when
Mr. Solomon White entered complaint in the Princess Anne County court
against Rodolphus Melborne for challenging him "with sword and
pistoll." The court ordered the sheriff to arrest Melborne and to keep
him in custody until he entered bond in the sum of 50 pounds as
security for good behavior for twelve months.[85]
But though the Virginia gentleman, in the days when he still retained
the prosaic nature of the merchant, frowned upon duelling, it was
inevitable that in time he must become one of its greatest advocates.
The same conditions that instilled into him a taste for war, could not
fail in the end to make him fond of duelling. We are not surprised
then to find that, at the period of the Revolutionary War, duelling
began to grow in popularity in Virginia and that from that time until
the Civil War appeals to the code were both frequent and deadly.
Writers have sought to find a reason for this change in the military
customs introduced by a long war, or in the influence of the French.
There can be no doubt, however, that the rapid increase of duelling at
this time was due to the fact that conditions were ripe for its
reception. A spirit had been fostered by the life upon the plantation
which made it distasteful to gentlemen to turn to law for redress for
personal insults. The sense of dignity, of self reliance there
engendered, made them feel that the only proper retaliation against an
equal was to be found in a personal encounter.
Perhaps the most beautiful, the most elevating feature of the chivalry
of the Middle Ages was the homage paid to women. The knight always
held before him the image of his lady as an ideal of what was pure and
good, and this ideal served to make him less a savage and more a good
and true man. Although he was rendered no less brave and warlike by
this influence, it inclined him to tenderness and mercy, acting as a
curb to the ferocity that in his fathers had been almost entirely
unrestrained. It made him recognize the sacredness of womanhood. The
true value of the wife and the mother had never before been known. In
none of the ancient communities did women attain the position of
importance that they occupied in the age of chivalry, for neither the
Roman matron nor the Greek mother could equal the feudal lady in
dignity and influence.
And this was the direct outcome of the feudal system. The ancient
baron led a life of singular isolation, for he was separated in his
fortress home from frequent intercourse with other men of equal rank,
and around him were only his serfs and retainers, none of whom he
could make his companions. The only equals with whom he came in
contact day after day were his wife and children. Naturally he turned
to them for comradeship, sharing with them his joys and confiding to
them his sorrows. If he spent much of his time in hunting, or in
fishing, or in fighting he always returned to the softening influence
of his home, and it was inevitable, under these conditions, that the
importance of the female sex should increase.[86]
As we have seen, the Virginia plantation bore a striking analogy to
the feudal estate. The planter, like the baron, lived a life of
isolation, coming into daily contact not even with his nearest
neighbors. His time was spent with his servants and slaves. He too
could turn only to his family for companionship, and inevitably, as
homage and respect for women had grown up among the feudal barons, so
it developed in Virginia.
There is no proof that the colonists of the 17th century regarded
womanhood in any other than a commonplace light. They assigned to
their wives and daughters the same domestic lives that the women of
the middle classes of England led at that time. Predominated by the
instinct of commerce and trade, they had little conception of the
chivalric view of the superiority of the gentle sex, for in this as in
other things they were prosaic and practical.
The early Virginians did not hesitate to subject gossiping women to
the harsh punishment of the ducking stool. In 1662 the Assembly passed
an Act requiring wives that brought judgments on their husbands for
slander to be punished by ducking.[87] In 1705 and again in 1748 the
county courts were authorized to construct ducking stools if they
thought fit.[88] That the practice was early in vogue is shown by the
records of the county courts. We read in the Northampton records for
1634 the following, "Upon due examination it is thought fitt by the
board that said Joane Butler shall be drawen over the Rings Creeke at
the starn of a boat or canoux."
How inconsistent with all the ideals of chivalry was that action of
Bacon in his war with Governor Berkeley which won for his men the
contemptuous appellation of "White Aprons!" Bacon had made a quick
march on Jamestown and had surprised his enemies there. His force,
however, was so small that he set to work immediately constructing
earthworks around his camp. While his men were digging, "by several
small partyes of horse (2 or 3 in a party, for more he could not
spare) he fetcheth into his little league, all the prime men's wives,
whose husbands were with the Governour, (as Coll. Bacons lady, Madm.
Bray, Madm. Page, Madm. Ballard, and others) which the next morning he
presents to the view of there husbands and ffriends in towne, upon
the top of the smalle worke hee had cast up in the night; where he
caused them to tarey till he had finished his defense against his
enemies shott, ... which when completed, and the Governour
understanding that the gentle women were withdrawne in to a place of
safety, he sends out some 6 or 700 of his soulders, to beate Bacon out
of his trench."[89]
The fact that Bacon's family was one of great prominence in the colony
makes this ungallant action all the more significant. His uncle,
Nathaniel Bacon, was a leader in political affairs, being one of
Berkeley's most trusted advisers. He himself had been a member of the
Council. It is true that his harsh treatment of the ladies brought
upon him some censure, yet it is highly indicative of the lack of
chivalry of the times, that a gentleman should have been willing to
commit such a deed. How utterly impossible this would have been to
George Washington or Thomas Jefferson, typical Virginians a hundred
years later!
It remained to Berkeley, however, the so-called "Cavalier Governor"
of Virginia, to strike the most brutal blow at womanhood. After the
failure of Bacon's Rebellion, when the insurgents were being hunted
down by the implacable anger of the Governor, Major Chiesman, one of
the most prominent of the rebels, was captured. "When the Major was
brought into the Governours presence, and by him demanded, what made
him to ingage in Bacon's designs? Before that the Major could frame an
answer to the Governours demand; his wife steps in and tould his
honour that it was her provocations that made her husband joyne in the
cause that Bacon contended for; ading, that if he had not bin
influenced by her instigations, he had never don that which he had
done. Therefore (upon her bended knees) she desired of his honour,
that since what her husband had done, was by her means, and so, by
consequence, she most guilty, that she might be hanged, and he
pardoned." Had Berkeley had one atom of gallantry or chivalry in his
nature, he would have treated this unfortunate woman with courtesy.
Even though he condemned her husband to the gallows, he would have
raised her from her knees and palliated her grief as best he could
with kind words. That he spurned her with a vile insult shows how
little this "Cavalier" understood of the sacredness of womanhood.[90]
Some years later an incident occurred which, as Bishop Meade well
remarks, speaks ill for the chivalry and decorum of the times.[91] A
dispute arose between Col. Daniel Parke and Commissary Blair, the
rector of the church at Williamsburg. Mr. Blair's wife, having no pew
of her own in the church, was invited by Mr. Ludlow, of Green Spring,
to sit with his family during the services. Col. Parke was the
son-in-law of Mr. Ludlow, and one Sunday, with the purpose of
insulting the rector, he seized Mrs. Blair rudely by the arm, and
dragged her out of the pew, saying she should no longer sit there.
This ungallant act is made all the more cowardly by the fact that Mr.
Blair was not present at the time. We learn with pleasure that Mr.
Ludlow, who was also probably absent, was greatly offended at his
son-in-law for his brutal conduct. The incident is the more
suggestive in that both Col. Parke and Mrs. Blair were members of
leading families in the colony.
In matters of courtship there was little of romance and chivalry.
Women did not care for the formalities and petty courtesies of the
gallant suitor. Alsop, in describing the maids of Maryland, whose
social life was quite similar to that of their sisters of Virginia,
says, "All complimental courtships drest up in critical rarities are
meer strangers to them. Plain wit comes nearest to their genius; so
that he that intends to court a Maryland girle, must have something
more than the tautologies of a long-winded speech to carry on his
design, or else he may fall under the contempt of her frown and his
own windy discourse."
We will not attempt to trace through successive years the chivalric
view of womanhood. The movement was too subtle, the evidences too few.
At the period of the Revolutionary War, however, it is apparent that a
great change was taking place. The Virginia gentleman, taught by the
experience of many years, was beginning to understand aright the
reverence due the nobleness, the purity, the gentleness of woman. He
was learning to accord to his wife the unstinted and sincere homage
that her character deserved.
It is unfortunate that we should be compelled to rely to so great an
extent upon the testimony of travelers for our data regarding the
domestic life of the Virginia aristocracy of the 18th century. These
writers were frequently superficial observers and almost without
exception failed to understand and sympathize with the society of the
colony. Some were prejudiced against the Virginians even before they
set foot upon the soil of the Old Dominion, and their dislike is
reflected in their writings, while few tarried long enough to grasp
fully the meaning of the institutions and customs of the people. They
dwelt long on those things that they found displeasing, and passed
over in silence those distinctive virtues with which they were not in
harmony. It is not surprising then that they failed to grasp the
dignity and importance of the place filled by the Virginia woman. When
they spoke of her their criticisms were usually favorable, but only
too often they ignored her entirely. The gifted John Bernard, however,
was more penetrating than the others. "Of the planters' ladies," he
said, "I must speak in terms of unqualified praise; they had an easy
kindness of manner, as far removed from rudeness as from reserve,
which being natural to them ... was the more admirable.... To the
influence of their society I chiefly attribute their husbands'
refinement."[92]
To understand fully the sentiment of respect for womanhood that
finally became so pronounced a trait of the Virginia gentleman, it is
necessary to turn to Southern writers. Thomas Nelson Page, in "The Old
South," draws a beautiful and tender picture of the ante-bellum matron
and her influence over her husband. "What she was," he says, "only her
husband knew, and even he stood before her in dumb, half-amazed
admiration, as he might before the inscrutable vision of a superior
being. What she really was, was known only to God. Her life was one
long act of devotion--devotion to God, devotion to her husband,
devotion to her children, ... devotion to all humanity. She was the
head and front of the church; ... she regulated her servants, fed the
poor, nursed the sick, consoled the bereaved. The training of her
children was her work. She watched over them, led them, governed
them.... She was at the beck and call of every one, especially her
husband, to whom she was guide, philosopher, and friend."
Dr. George Bagby pays to the Virginia woman a tribute not less
beautiful. "My rambles before the war made me the guest of Virginians
of all grades. Brightest by far of the memories of those days ... is
that of the Virginia mother. Her delicacy, tenderness, freshness,
gentleness; the absolute purity of her life and thought, typified in
the spotless neatness of her apparel and her every surrounding, it is
quite impossible to convey. Withal, there was about her a naiveté
mingled with sadness, that gave her a surpassing charm."[93]
Further evidence is unnecessary. Enough has been said to show clearly
that in the matter of gallantry a great change took place among the
wealthy Virginia planters during the colonial period; that in the 17th
century they were by no means chivalrous in their treatment of women;
that at the time of the Revolution and in succeeding years homage to
the gentler sex was an important part of the social code. It is but
one more link in the long chain of evidence that shows that society in
Virginia was not an imitation of society in England, but was a
development in the colony; that the Virginia aristocracy was not a
part of the English aristocracy transplanted to the shores of the New
World, but a growth produced by local conditions.
A study of the spirit of honor in the colony leads us to the same
conclusion. It is not difficult to demonstrate that during the greater
part of the colonial period the Virginia aristocracy was not
characterized by the chivalric conception of what was honorable. The
mercantile atmosphere that they brought with them from England was not
well suited to this spirit. None were quicker to seize an unfair
advantage in a bargain, and the English and Dutch merchants that
traded with the Virginians made repeated complaints of unfair
treatment. So great were their losses by the system of credit then in
vogue in the colony that it was the custom for traders to employ
factors, whose business it was to recover bad debts from the planters,
and prolonged lawsuits became very frequent. The use of tobacco as
money caused a great amount of trouble, and the Virginians were not
slow to take advantage of any fluctuation in the value of their medium
of exchange. This was the occasion of great injustice and suffering.
It was the standing complaint of the clergy that they were defrauded
of a part of their salaries at frequent intervals by the varying price
of tobacco.
Accusations of frauds in regard to weights were also made against the
planters, and this species of deception at one time was so general,
that it became necessary to pass a special law declaring the English
statute concerning weights to be in force in Virginia. The Act is as
follows, "To prevent the great abuse and deceit by false stillyards in
this colony, It is enacted by this Assembly, That whoever shall use
false stillyards willingly shall pay unto the party grieved three fold
damages and cost of suit, and shall forfeit one thousand pounds of
tobacco."[94]
It is not necessary to assume, however, that the Virginia planters
were noted for dishonesty in matters of business. They were neither
better nor worse than merchants in other parts of the world or in
other times. It was their daily life, their associations and habits of
thought that made it impossible for them to see in an ideal light the
highest conceptions of honor.
In their political capacity the leading men of the colony were
frequently guilty of inexcusable and open fraud. Again and again they
made use of their great influence and power to appropriate public
funds to their private use, to escape the payment of taxes, to obtain
under false pretenses vast tracts of land.
After Bacon's Rebellion, when the King's Commissioners were receiving
the complaints of the counties, from all parts of the colony came
accusations of misappropriated funds. The common people asserted, with
an earnestness and unanimity that carry conviction, that throughout
the second period of Governor Berkeley's administration large
quantities of tobacco had been collected from them which had served
only to enrich certain influential individuals. Other evidence tends
to corroborate these charges. In 1672, the Assembly passed a bill for
the repairing of forts in the colony, and entrusted the work to
associations of wealthy planters, who were empowered to levy as heavy
taxes in the various counties as they thought necessary. Although
large sums of money were collected under this Act, very little of it
was expended in repairing the forts and there is no reason to doubt
that much of it was stolen. Similar frauds were perpetrated in
connection with an Act for encouraging manufacture. The Assembly
decided to establish and run at public expense tanworks and other
industrial plants, and these too were entrusted to wealthy and
influential men. Most of these establishments were never completed and
none were put in successful operation and this was due largely to open
and shameless embezzlement.[95] The common people, emboldened by
promises of protection by Governor Jeffries, did not hesitate to bring
forward charges of fraud against some of the most influential men of
the colony. Col. Edward Hill, who had been one of Berkeley's chief
supporters, was the object of their bitterest attack. They even
accused him of stealing money that had been appropriated for the
repairing of roads. Hill defended himself vigorously, but there can be
little doubt that he was to some extent guilty.[96]
The Council members were the boldest of all in dishonesty, for they
did not scruple to defraud even the English government. There was a
tax on land in the colony called the quit rents, the proceeds of which
went to the king. Since there was very little coin in Virginia, this
tax was usually paid in tobacco. Except on rare occasions the quit
rents were allowed to remain in the colony to be drawn upon for
various governmental purposes, and for this reason it was convenient
to sell the tobacco before shipping it to England. These sales were
conducted by the Treasurer and through his connivance the councillors
were frequently able to purchase all the quit rents tobacco at very
low prices. In case the sale were by auction, intimidation was used to
prevent others than Council members from bidding. In 1697, Edward
Chilton testified before the Lords Commissioners of Trade and
Plantations that the quit rents had brought but four or six shillings
per hundred pounds, although the regular price of tobacco was twenty
shilling.[97]
The wealthy planters consistently avoided the payment of taxes. Their
enormous power in the colonial government made this an easy matter,
for the collectors and sheriffs in the various counties found it
convenient not to question their statements of the extent of their
property, while none would dare to prosecute them even when glaring
cases of fraud came to light. Estates of fifty or sixty thousand acres
often yielded less in quit rents than plantations of one-third their
size.[98] Sometimes the planters refused to pay taxes at all on their
land and no penalty was inflicted on them. Chilton declared that the
Virginians would be forced to resign their patents to huge tracts of
country if the government should demand the arrears of quit rents.[99]
Even greater frauds were perpetrated by prominent men in securing
patents for land. The law required that the public territory should be
patented only in small parcels, that a house should be built upon
each grant, and that a part should be put under cultivation. All these
provisions were continually neglected. It was no uncommon thing for
councillors to obtain patents for twenty or thirty thousand acres, and
sometimes they owned as much as sixty thousand acres. They neglected
frequently to erect houses on these estates, or, if they wished to
keep within the limits of the law, they built but slight shanties, so
small and ill constructed that no human being could inhabit them. On
one grant of 27,017 acres the house cost less than ten shillings. In
another case a sheriff found in one county 30,000 acres upon which
there was nothing which could be distrained for quit rents. At times
false names were made use of in securing patents in order to avoid the
restrictions of the law.[100]
Amid these acts of deception and fraud one deed is conspicuous. Col.
Philip Ludwell had brought into the colony forty immigrants and
according to a law which had been in force ever since the days of the
London Company, this entitled him to a grant of two thousand acres of
land. After securing the patent, he changed the record with his own
hand by adding one cipher each to the forty and the two thousand,
making them four hundred and twenty thousand respectively. In this way
he obtained ten times as much land as he was entitled to and despite
the fact that the fraud was notorious at the time, so great was his
influence that the matter was ignored and his rights were not
disputed.[101]
Alexander Spotswood was guilty of a theft even greater than that of
Ludwell. In 1722, just before retiring from the governorship, he made
out a patent for 40,000 acres in Spotsylvania County to Messrs. Jones,
Clayton and Hickman. As soon as he quitted the executive office these
men conveyed the land to him, receiving possibly some small reward for
their trouble. In a similar way he obtained possession of another
tract of 20,000 acres. Governor Drysdale exposed the matter before the
Board of Trade and Plantations, but Spotswood's influence at court was
great enough to protect him from punishment.[102]
The commonness of fraud of this kind among the Virginia planters of
the earlier period does not necessarily stamp them as being
conspicuously dishonest. They were subjected to great and unusual
temptations. Their vast power and their immunity from punishment, made
it easy for them to enrich themselves at the public expense, while
their sense of honor, deprived of the support of expediency, was not
great enough to restrain them. The very men that were the boldest in
stealing public land or in avoiding the tax collector might have
recoiled from an act of private dishonesty or injustice. However, it
would be absurd in the face of the facts here brought forth, to claim
that they were characterized by an ideal sense of honor.
But in this as in other things a change took place in the course of
time. As the self-respect of the Virginian became with him a stronger
instinct, his sense of honor was more pronounced, and he gradually
came to feel that deceit and falsehood were beneath him. Used to the
respect and admiration of all with whom he came in contact, he could
not descend to actions that would lower him in their estimation.
Certain it is that a high sense of honor became eventually one of the
most pronounced characteristics of the Virginians.
Nothing can demonstrate this more clearly than the "honor system" that
came into vogue in William and Mary College. The Old Oxford system of
espionage which was at first used, gradually fell into disuse. The
proud young Virginians deemed it an insult for prying professors to
watch over their every action, and the faculty eventually learned that
they could trust implicitly in the students' honor. In the Rules of
the College, published in 1819, there is an open recognition of the
honor system. The wording is as follows, "Any student may be required
to declare his guilt or innocence as to any particular offence of
which he may be suspected.... And should the perpetrator of any
mischief, in order to avoid detection, deny his guilt, then may the
Society require any student to give evidence on his honor touching
this foul enormity that the college may not be polluted by the
presence of those that have showed themselves equally regardless of
the laws of honour, the principles of morality and the precepts of
religion."[103]
How potent an influence for good was this sense of honor among the
students of the college is shown even more strikingly by an address of
Prof. Nathaniel Beverley Tucker to his law class in 1834. "If," he
says, "There be anything by which the University of William and Mary
has been advantageously distinguished, it is the liberal and
magnanimous character of its discipline. It has been the study of its
professors to cultivate at the same time the intellect, the
principles, and the deportment of the student, labouring with equal
diligence to infuse the spirit of the scholar and the spirit of the
gentleman. As such we receive and treat him and resolutely refuse to
know him in any other character. He is not harrassed with petty
regulations; he is not insulted and annoyed by impertinent
surveillance. Spies and informers have no countenance among us. We
receive no accusation but from the conscience of the accused. His
honor is the only witness to which we appeal; and should he be even
capable of prevarication or falsehood, we admit no proof of the fact.
But I beg you to observe, that in this cautious and forbearing spirit
of our legislation, you have not only proof that we have no
disposition to harrass you with unreasonable requirements, but a
pledge that such regulations as we have found it necessary to make
will be enforced.... The effect of this system in inspiring a high and
scrupulous sense of honor, and a scorn of all disingenuous artifice,
has been ascertained by long experience."[104]
A society in which grew up such a system as this could have no place
for the petty artifices of the trader nor the frauds of leading men in
public affairs. It is clear that at this period the old customs had
passed away; that there was a new atmosphere in Virginia; that the
planter was no longer a merchant but a Cavalier. The commercial spirit
had become distinctly distasteful to him, and he criticised bitterly
in his northern neighbors the habits and methods that had
characterized his own forefathers in the 17th century. Governor Tyler,
in 1810, said in addressing the Legislature, "Commerce is certainly
beneficial to society in a secondary degree, but it produces also what
is called citizens of the world--the worst citizens in the world." And
In public affairs honesty and patriotism took the place of deceit and
fraud. Even in the Revolutionary period the change is apparent, and
long before the advent of the Civil War the very memory of the old
order of affairs had passed away. The Virginia gentleman in the 19th
century was the soul of honor. Thomas Nelson Page says, "He was proud,
but never haughty except to dishonor. To that he was inexorable.... He
was chivalrous, he was generous, he was usually incapable of fear or
meanness. To be a Virginia gentleman was the first duty."[105] The
spirit of these men is typified in the character of Robert E. Lee. To
this hero of the Southern people dishonesty was utterly impossible.
After the close of the Civil War, when he was greatly in need of money
he was offered the presidency of an insurance company. Word was sent
him that his lack of experience in the insurance business would not
matter, as the use of his name was all the company desired of him. Lee
politely, but firmly, rejected this proposal, for he saw that to
accept would have been to capitalize the homage and reverence paid
him by the people of the South.
Along with the instinct of pride and the spirit of chivalry in the
Virginia planters developed the power of commanding men. Among the
immigrants of the 17th century leadership was distinctly lacking, and
during almost all the colonial period there was a decided want of
great men. Captain John Smith, Governor William Berkeley, Nathaniel
Bacon and Alexander Spotswood are the only names that stand out amid
the general mediocrity of the age. If we look for other men of
prominence we must turn to Robert Beverley, Philip Ludwell, William
Byrd II, James Blair. These men played an important part in the
development of the colony, but they are practically unknown except to
students of Virginia history.
What a contrast is presented by a glance at the great names of the
latter part of the 18th century. The commonplace Virginia planters had
then been transformed into leaders of men. When the Revolution came it
was to them that the colonies looked chiefly for guidance and command,
and Washington, Jefferson, Henry, Mason, the Lees and many other
Virginians took the most active part in the great struggle that ended
in the overthrow of the sway of England and the establishment of the
independence of the colonies. Washington was the great warrior,
Jefferson the apostle of freedom, Henry the orator of the Revolution.
And when the Union had been formed it was still Virginia that
furnished leaders to the country. Of the first five presidents four
were Virginia planters.
This transformation was due partly to the life upon the plantation.
The business of the Virginia gentleman from early youth was to
command. An entire community looked to him for direction and
maintenance, and scores or even hundreds of persons obeyed him
implicitly. He was manager of all the vast industries of his estate,
directing his servants and slaves in all the details of farming,
attending to the planting, the curing, the casing of tobacco, the
cultivation of wheat and corn, the growing of fruits, the raising of
horses, cattle, sheep and hogs. He became a master architect, having
under him a force of carpenters, masons and mechanics. Some of the
wealthiest Virginians directed in every detail the construction of
those stately old mansions that were the pride of the colony in the
18th century. Thus Thomas Jefferson was both the architect and builder
of his home at Monticello, and gave to it many months of his time in
the prime of his life.
The public life of the aristocrat also tended to develop in him the
power of command. If he were appointed to the Council he found himself
in possession of enormous power, and in a position to resist the
ablest of governors, or even the commands of the king. In all that he
did, in private and public affairs, he was leader. His constant task
was to command and in nothing did he occupy a subservient position. No
wonder that, in the course of time, he developed into a leader of men,
equal to the stupendous undertaking of shaking off the yoke of England
and laying the foundations of a new nation.
The magnificence with which the members of the aristocracy in the 18th
century surrounded themselves, and the culture and polish of their
social life are not so distinctly the result of local conditions. The
customs, the tastes, the prejudices that were brought over from
England were never entirely effaced. The earliest immigrants
established on the banks of the James a civilization as similar in
every respect to that of the mother country as their situation would
permit. Had it not been for economic and climatic conditions there
would have grown up amid the wilderness of America an exact
reproduction of England in miniature. As it was, the colonists infused
into their new life the habits, moral standards, ideas and customs of
the old so firmly that their influence is apparent even at the present
day.
And this imitation of English life was continued even after the period
of immigration was passed. The constant and intimate intercourse with
the mother country made necessary by commercial affairs had a most
important influence upon social life. Hugh Jones, writing of society
in Governor Spotswood's time, says: "The habits, life, customs,
computations &c of the Virginians are much the same as about London,
which they esteem their home; the planters generally talk good English
without idiom and tone and can discourse handsomely upon most common
subjects; and conversing with persons belonging to trade and
navigation in London, for the most part they are much civilized."
Again he says, "They live in the same neat manner, dress after the
same modes, and behave themselves exactly as the gentry in London."
Nor had this spirit of imitation become less apparent at the period of
the Revolution, or even after. Their furniture, their silver ware,
their musical instruments, their coaches and even their clothes were
still imported from England and were made after the latest English
fashions. John Bernard noted with astonishment that their favorite
topics of conversation were European. "I found," he says, "men leading
secluded lives in the woods of Virginia perfectly au fait as to the
literary, dramatic, and personal gossip of London and Paris." The lack
of good educational facilities in Virginia led many of the wealthy
planters to send their sons to England to enter the excellent schools
or universities there. Even after the establishment of William and
Mary College, the advantages to be derived from several years'
residence in the Old World, induced parents to send their sons to
Oxford or Cambridge. The culture, the ideas and habits there acquired
by the young Virginia aristocrats exerted a powerful influence upon
society in the Old Dominion.
But the peculiar conditions of the new country could not fail to
modify profoundly the life of the colonists. Despite the intimacy with
England and despite the tenacity with which the people clung to
British customs, Virginia society in both the 17th and 18th centuries
was different in many respects from that of the mother country. The
absence of towns eliminated from colonial life much that was
essentially English. There could be no counterpart of the coffee
house, the political club, the literary circle. And even rural
conditions were different. The lack of communication and the size of
the plantations could not fail to produce a social life unlike that of
the thickly settled country districts of England.
We note in Virginia a marked contrast between the 17th and 18th
centuries in the mode of living of the planters. In the first hundred
years of the colony's existence there was a conspicuous lack of that
elegance in the houses, the furniture, the vehicles, the table ware,
etc., that was so much in evidence at the time of the Revolution. This
was due in part to the newness of the country. It was impossible amid
the forests of America, where artisans were few and unskillful, to
imitate all the luxuries of England, and the planters were as yet too
busily employed in reducing the resources of the country to their
needs to think of more than the ordinary comforts of life. Moreover,
the wealth of the colony was by no means great. Before the end of the
century some of the planters had accumulated fortunes of some size,
but there were few that could afford to indulge in the costly and
elegant surroundings that became so common later. And the owners of
newly acquired fortunes were often fully satisfied with the plain and
unpretentious life to which they were accustomed and not inclined to
spend their money for large houses, fine furniture, or costly silver
ware. As time went on, however, the political and social supremacy of
the aristocracy, the broader education of its members, and the great
increase in wealth conspired to produce in the colony a love of
elegance that was second only to that of the French nobility.
During the 17th century the houses even of the wealthiest planters
were made of wood. Despite the fact that bricks were manufactured in
the colony and could be had at a reasonable price, the abundance of
timber on all sides made the use of that material almost universal
during the greater part of the colonial period. Shingles were used for
the roof, although slate was not unknown. The partitions in the
dwellings were first covered with a thick layer of tenacious mud and
then whitewashed. Sometimes there were no partitions at all as was the
case in a house mentioned by William Fitzhugh. This, however, was not
usual and we find that most of the houses of the wealthiest planters
contained from four to seven compartments of various sizes. The
residence of Governor William Berkeley at Green Spring contained six
rooms. Edmund Cobbs, a well-to-do farmer, lived in a house consisting
of a hall and kitchen on the lower floor and one room above stairs. In
the residence of Nathaniel Bacon, Sr., were five chambers, a hall, a
kitchen, a dairy and a storeroom. The apartments in the house of
Mathew Hubbard, a wealthy planter of York County, consisted of a
parlor and hall, a chamber, a kitchen and buttery. Robert Beverley,
who played so important a role in Bacon's Rebellion and in the
political struggles following that uprising, resided in a house which
contained three chambers, a dairy, a kitchen and the overseer's room.
The house of William Fauntleroy, a wealthy land owner, contained three
chambers, a hall, a closet and a kitchen.[106]
The surroundings, of the planters' residences were entirely lacking in
ornament. In the immediate vicinity of the house were usually grouped
stable, hen house, kitchen, milk house, servants' house and dove-cote.
Near at hand also was to be found the garden, which was devoted to
both vegetables and flowers. Around it were always placed strong
palings to keep out the hogs and cattle which were very numerous and
were allowed to wander unrestrained.[107]
The furniture of the planters was of fairly good quality, as most of
it was imported from England. The beds were similar to those used in
the mother country, ranging from the little trundle-bed to the
great-bed of the main chamber, which was usually surrounded by
curtains upheld by a rod. Rugs were quite common, but were of very
poor quality, being made frequently of worsted yarn or cotton. Various
materials were used in making couches. Some were of hides, some of
tanned leather, some of embroidered Russian leather. As a substitute
for wardrobes or closets in every bed room were chests, in which were
kept the most costly articles of clothing, the linen, trinkets of
value and occasionally plate. Chairs of various kinds were used, the
most costly being the Russian leather chair and the Turkey-worked
chair. In the houses of the wealthiest planters the walls were
sometimes hung with tapestry.[108]
When the families of the planters were large, which was frequently the
case, their little houses were exceedingly crowded. Beds are found in
every room except in the kitchen. In the parlor or reception room for
guests are not only beds, but chests of clothing and linen, while in
the hall which was used also as a dining room, are flock-beds, chests,
guns, pistols, swords, drums, saddles, and bridles. The chamber
contains every variety of article in use in the household. One of the
rooms in the house of Thomas Osborn contained a bedstead with
feather-bed, bolster, rug, blanket and sheets, two long table cloths,
twenty-eight napkins, four towels, one chest, two warming pans, four
brass candle-sticks, four guns, a carbine and belt, a silver beaker,
three tumblers, twelve spoons, one sock and one dram cup.[109]
The utensils in use in the dining room and kitchen were usually made
of pewter, this material being both cheap and durable. Even upon the
tables of the wealthiest planters were found sugar-pots, castors,
tumblers, spoons, dishes, ladles, knives and various other articles
all of pewter. Silver, however, was not unknown. In the closing years
of the 17th century the possession of silver plate and silver
table-ware was becoming more and more frequent.[110]
As the wealth of the leading planters increased they gradually
surrounded themselves with elegant homes and sumptuous furnishings. At
the period of the Revolution there were dozens of magnificent homes
scattered throughout Virginia. Shirley, Brandon, Rosewell, Monticello,
Blenheim, Mount Airy, and many more testified to the refined taste and
love of elegance of the aristocracy of this time. The most common
material used in the construction of these mansions was brick,
manufactured by the planter himself, upon his own estate. The usual
number of rooms was eight, although not infrequently there were as
many as fourteen or sixteen. These apartments were very large, often
being twenty-five feet square, and the pitch was invariably great. In
close proximity to the mansion were always other houses, some of which
contained bed rooms that could be used either by guests or by members
of the family. Thus the main house was really but the center of a
little group of buildings, that constituted altogether a residence of
great size. How spacious they were is shown by the number of guests
that were at times housed in them, for at balls and on other festive
occasions it was not at all infrequent for forty or fifty persons to
remain for several days in the home of their host. At a ball given by
Richard Lee, of Lee Hall, Westmoreland County, there were seventy
guests, most of whom remained three days.
Nomini Hall, the house of Robert Carter, is an excellent example of
the residences of the wealthier planters during the middle of the 18th
century. The main building was of brick, which was covered over with a
mortar of such perfect whiteness that at a little distance it appeared
to be marble. Although it was far larger than the houses of the
preceding century it was not of great size, being but seventy-six feet
long and forty-four wide. The pitch of the rooms, however, was very
great, that of the lower floor being seventeen feet and that of the
second floor being twelve. No less than twenty-six large windows gave
abundance of light to the various apartments, while at different
points in the roof projected five stacks of chimneys, two of these
serving only as ornaments. On one side a beautiful jett extended for
eighteen feet, supported by three tall pillars. On the first floor
were the dining room, the children's dining room, Col. Carter's study,
and a ball room thirty feet long, while the second story contained
four bed rooms, two of which were reserved for guests. At equal
distances from each corner of the mansion were four other buildings of
considerable size. One of these, a two story brick house of five
rooms, was called the school and here slept Col. Carter's three sons,
their tutor and the overseer. Corresponding to the school house at the
other corners of the mansion were the stable, the coach house and the
work house. The beauty of the lawn and the graceful sweep of a long
terrace which ran in front of the mansion testified to the abundant
care and taste expended in planning and laying out the grounds. East
of the house was an avenue of splendid poplars leading to the county
road, and the view of the buildings through these trees was most
attractive and beautiful. One side of the lawn was laid out in
rectangular walks paved with brick and covered over with burnt oyster
shells, and being perfectly level was used as a bowling green. In
addition to the buildings already mentioned there were close to the
mansion a wash house and a kitchen, both the same size as the school
house, a bake house, a dairy, a store house and several other small
buildings.[111]
Some of the mansions of the 18th century were much larger and more
beautiful than Nomini Hall. Rosewell, erected by the Page family, was
of immense size, containing a large number of halls and chambers, but
it was singularly devoid of architectural beauty and presented
somewhat the appearance of a hotel. The Westover mansion was very
large and could accommodate scores of guests. It was surrounded with
so many buildings and outhouses that to visitors it seemed a veritable
little city.[112] Chastellux, who was a guest of the Byrds in 1782,
says that Westover surpassed all other homes in Virginia in the
magnificence of the buildings and the beauty of the situation.[113]
It was the interior of these mansions, however, that gave them their
chief claim to elegance. The stairways, the floors, the mantles were
of the finest wood and were finished in the most costly manner. In the
beautiful halls of Rosewell richly carved mahogany wainscotings and
capitals abounded.[114] At Monticello the two main halls were given an
air of richness and beauty by the curiously designed mantles, the hard
wood floors and the stately windows and doors. John Bernard, who
thought the Virginia mansions lacking in architectural beauty, stated
that internally they were palaces.
The furniture was in keeping with its surroundings. It was frequently
of hard wood, beautifully decorated with hand work. All the furniture,
except that of the plainest design, was imported from England, and
could be bought by the planters at a price very little above that paid
in London. Costly chairs, tables, book-cases, bedsteads, etc., were
found in the homes of all well-to-do men.
The Virginians seem to have had at this period a passion for silver
ware, and in their homes were found a great variety of articles made
of this metal. There were silver candle-sticks, silver snuffers,
silver decanters, silver snuff-boxes, silver basins. The dining table
on festive occasions groaned with the weight of silver utensils, for
goblets, pitchers, plates, spoons of silver were then brought forth
to do honor to the guests. The punch might be served in silver bowls
and dished out with silver ladles into silver cups; for the fruit
might be silver plates, for the tea silver pots. The silver plate at
Westover was mortgaged by William Byrd III to the value of £662. Among
other articles we find that ten candle-sticks brought £70, one
snuffer-stand £5, two large punch bowls £30, a punch strainer £1.10,
and a punch ladle £1.[115] Robert Carter, of Nomini Hall, was very
fond of fine silver. In 1774 he invested about £30 in a pair of
fashionable goblets, a pair of sauce-cups and a pair of decanter
holders.[116]
In many homes were collections of pictures of great merit and value.
In the spacious halls of the mansions were hung the portraits of
ancestors that were regarded with reverential pride. The Westover
collection was perhaps the most valuable in the colony, containing
several dozen pictures, among them one by Titian, one by Rubens, and
portraits of several lords of England.[117] Mount Airy, the beautiful
home of the Tayloe family, contained many paintings, which were well
executed and set in elegant frames.[118] Although most of the pictures
in the homes of the aristocracy were imported from England, some were
painted in Virginia, for at times artists of talent came to the
colony. In 1735 a man named Bridges painted William Byrd's children.
It is thought also that it was he that painted the portrait of
Governor Spotswood and possibly several pictures of the Page
family.[119]
The use of coaches during the 17th century was not common. The
universal highways of that period were the rivers. Every planter owned
boats and used them in visiting, in attending church and in travelling
through the colony. As the plantations for many years did not extend
far back from the rivers' banks, there was no need of roads or
vehicles. And even when many settlements had been made beyond
tidewater, the condition of the roads was so bad that the use of
vehicles was often impracticable and riding was the common method of
travelling. As the colony became more thickly populated and the roads
were gradually improved, various kinds of carriages were introduced.
During Governor Spotswood's administration most families of any note
owned a coach, chariot, berlin or chaise.[120] By the middle of the
18th century their use was general throughout the entire colony.
The coaches in use at the time of the Revolution were elegant and very
costly. A bill for a post chaise which has come down from the year
1784 gives the following description of that vehicle. The chaise was
to be very handsome, the body to be carved and run with raised beads
and scrolls, the roof and upper panels to have plated mouldings and
head plates; on the door panels were to be painted Prince of Wales
ruffs with arms and crests in large handsome mantlings; the body was
to be highly varnished, the inside lined with superfine light colored
cloth and trimmed with raised Casoy laces; the sides stuffed and
quilted; the best polished plate glasses; mahogany shutters were to be
used, with plated frames and plated handles to the door; there were to
be double folding inside steps, a wainscoted trunk under the seat and
a carpet.[121]
Every gentleman of means at this time owned a chariot drawn by four
horses. Frequently six horses were used.[122] These animals were of
the finest breed and were selected for their size and beauty from the
crowded stables of the planters. The vehicles were attended by
liveried negroes, powdered and dignified. Mrs. Carter, of Nomini Hall,
had three waiting men for her coach; a driver, a coachman and a
postillion.[123]
In the matter of dress there seems, from the earliest days, to have
been a love of show and elegance. Inventories of the first half of the
17th century mention frequently wearing apparel that is surprisingly
rich. Thus Thomas Warnet, who died in 1629, possessed a pair of silk
stockings, a pair of red slippers, a sea-green scarf edged with gold
lace, a felt hat, a black beaver, a doublet of black camlet and a gold
belt and sword.[124] At times these early immigrants wore highly
colored waistcoats, plush or broad cloth trousers, camlet coats with
lace ruffles. This gaudy apparel must have seemed odd amid the rough
surroundings of the new colony. Not all the wealthy planters, however,
indulged in the weakness of costly dress. Many of the richest men of
the 17th century, obedient to the spirit of frugality which so often
marks the merchant, dressed plainly.
At the time of the Revolution the use of costly apparel had become
general. The usual costume of both men and women at festivals or balls
was handsome and stately. Joseph Lane, while visiting at Nomini Hall,
was dressed in black superfine broadcloth, laced ruffles, black silk
stockings and gold laced hat.[125] Probably few even of the wealthiest
aristocrats could approach in matters of dress Lord Fairfax. The
inventory of this gentleman's estate shows an astonishing variety of
gaudy clothes. He possessed a suit of brown colored silk, a suit of
velvet, a suit of blue cloth, a suit of drab cloth, a green damask
laced waistcoat, a scarlet laced waistcoat, a pink damask laced
waistcoat, a gold tissue waistcoat, a brown laced coat, a green silk
waistcoat, a pair of black velvet breeches, and a pair of scarlet
plush breeches.[126]
As might be expected, reading and study were not common among the
early settlers. The rough life in the woods of the New World, the
struggle to drive back the Indians and to build up civilization left
no time for mental culture. During the first half of the 17th century
books are mentioned very rarely in the records. As time passed,
however, the planters began to build up libraries of considerable size
in their homes. The lack of educational facilities and the isolation
of the plantations made it necessary for each gentleman to trust to
his own collection of books if he desired to broaden and cultivate his
mind. Moreover, the use of overseers which became general in the 18th
century left to him leisure for reading. Many of the libraries in the
mansions of the aristocracy were surprisingly large and well selected.
Some of Col. Richard Lee's books were, Wing's Art of Surveying,
Scholastical History, Greek Grammar, Caesaris Comentarii, Praxis
Medicinae, Hesoid, Tulley's Orations, Virgil, Ovid, Livius, Diogenes,
Sallust, History of the World, Warrs of Italy, etc.[127] In the
library of Ralph Wormeley were found Glaber's Kimistry, The State of
the United Provinces, The Colledges of Oxford, Kings of England, The
Laws of Virginia, The Present State of England, Ecclesiastical History
in Latin, Lattin Bible, Skill in Music, A Description of the Persian
Monarchy, Plutoch's Lives, etc.[128] Many of these volumes were great
folios bound in the most expensive way and extensively illustrated.
The planters even in the 17th century were not insensible to the
refining and elevating influence of music. Inventories and wills show
that many homes contained virginals, hand lyres, violins, flutes and
haut boys. The cornet also was in use.[129] In the 18th century the
study of music became general throughout the colony and even the
classical compositions were performed often with some degree of skill.
Despite the difficulty of securing teachers, music became a customary
part of the education of ladies. Many of the planters themselves in
their leisure moments indulged in this delightful amusement. Robert
Carter had in his home in Westmoreland County a harpsichord, a
piano-forte, an harmonica, a guitar and a flute, and at Williamsburg
an organ. He had a good ear, a very delicate touch, was indefatigable
in practicing and performed well on several instruments. Especially
was he fond of the harmonica, and spent much time in practicing upon
it. His skill is thus described by his tutor, "The music was charming!
The notes are clear and soft, they swell and are inexpressibly grand;
and either it is because the sounds are new, and therefore please me,
or it is the most captivating instrument I have ever heard. The sounds
very much resemble the human voice, and in my opinion they far exceed
even the swelling organ."[130] Thomas Jefferson, amid the cares of
statesmanship and the study of philosophy, found time for music. He
performed upon the violin and during the Revolutionary War, when the
prisoners captured at Saratoga were encamped near his home, he took
great delight in playing with a British officer, who could accompany
him upon the guitar.
Dancing was indulged in by the Virginians from the earliest period.
Even when the immigrants lived in daily dread of the tomahawk of the
Indians, and when their homes were but log huts in the midst of the
forest, this form of amusement was not unknown. The music for dances
was at times furnished by negroes, who had acquired skill upon the
fiddle. There is evidence of the presence of dancing masters in the
colony even during the 17th century. One of these was Charles Cheate.
This man wandered through the colony for some time giving lessons, but
he was forced to flee from the country after the suppression of
Bacon's Rebellion, because of his attachment to the cause of the
insurgents. However, the sparseness of the population, the isolation
of the plantations, the lack of roads made festive gatherings
infrequent during the first century of the colony's existence. The
lack of towns made it necessary for dances to be held in private
houses, and distances were so great that it was frequently impossible
for many guests to assemble. Moreover, at this period the residences
of the planter were too small either to allow room for dancing or to
accommodate the visitors, who must necessarily spend the night after
the close of the festivities. Not until the administration of Governor
Spotswood were these difficulties somewhat overcome. Then it was, that
the increasing wealth of the colony gave rise to a more brilliant
social life among the aristocracy. Hugh Jones declared in 1722 that at
the Governor's house at balls and assemblies were as good diversion,
as splendid entertainment, as fine an appearance as he had ever seen
in England.[131]
At the time of the Revolution dancing was so general that it had
become a necessary part of the education of both gentlemen and ladies,
and dancing schools were quite common. The masters travelled from
house to house and the pupils followed them, remaining as guests
wherever the school was being held. A Mr. Christian conducted such a
school in Westmoreland County in 1773. Fithian thus describes one of
his classes held at Nomini Hall, "There were present of young misses
about eleven, and seven young fellows, including myself. After
breakfast, we all retired into the dancing room, and after the
scholars had their lessons singly round Mr. Christian, very politely,
requested me to step a minuet.... There were several minuets danced
with great ease and propriety; after which the whole company joined in
country dances, and it was indeed beautiful to admiration to see such
a number of young persons, set off by dress to the best advantage,
moving easily, to the sound of well performed music, and with perfect
regularity.... The dance continued til two, we dined at half after
three ... soon after dinner we repaired to the dancing-room again; I
observed in the course of the lessons, that Mr. Christian is punctual,
and rigid in his discipline, so strict indeed that he struck two of
the young misses for a fault in the course of their performance, even
in the presence of the mother of one of them!"[132]
The balls of this period were surprisingly brilliant. The spacious
halls of the mansions afforded ample room for a large company and
frequently scores of guests would be present to take part in the
stately minuet or the gay Virginia reel. The visitors were expected to
remain often several days in the home of their host resuming the
dance at frequent intervals, and indulging in other forms of
amusement. Fithian thus describes a ball given by Richard Lee, of Lee
Hall, Westmoreland County. "We set away from Mr. Carter's at two; Mrs.
Carter and the young ladies in the chariot, ... myself on horseback.
As soon as I had handed the ladies out, I was saluted by Parson Smith;
I was introduced into a small room where a number of gentlemen were
playing cards ... to lay off my boots, riding-coat &c. Next I was
directed into the dining-room to see young Mr. Lee; he introduced me
to his father. With them I conversed til dinner, which came in at half
after four.... The dinner was as elegant as could be well expected
when so great an assembly were to be kept for so long a time. For
drink there was several sorts of wine, good lemon punch, toddy, cyder,
porter &c. About seven the ladies and gentlemen begun to dance in the
ball room, first minuets one round; second giggs; third reels; and
last of all country dances; tho' they struck several marches
occasionally. The music was a French horn and two violins. The ladies
were dressed gay, and splendid, and when dancing, their skirts and
brocades rustled and trailed behind them! But all did not join in the
dance for there were parties in rooms made up, some at cards; some
drinking for pleasure; ... some singing 'Liberty Songs' as they called
them in which six, eight, ten or more would put their heads near
together and roar.... At eleven Mrs. Carter call'd upon me to go."
There were seventy guests at this ball, most of whom remained three
days at Lee Hall.[133]
Side by side with growth in luxury, in refinement and culture may be
noted a marked change in the daily occupation of the wealthy planters.
In the 17th century they were chiefly interested in building up large
fortunes and had little time for other things. They were masters of
the art of trading, and their close bargaining and careful attention
to detail made them very successful. Practically all of the fortunes
that were so numerous among the aristocracy in the 18th century were
accumulated in the colony, and it was the business instinct and
industry of the merchant settlers that made their existence possible.
The leading men in the colony in the last half of the 17th century
toiled ceaselessly upon their plantations, attending to the minutest
details of the countless enterprises that it was necessary for them to
conduct. They were the nation builders of Virginia. It is true that
they spent much of their energy upon political matters, but this was
to them but another way of increasing their fortunes. Altogether
neither their inclinations, nor the conditions in which they lived,
inclined them to devote much of their time to acquiring culture and
refinement.
But the descendants of these early planters enjoyed to the full the
fruits of the energy and ability of their fathers. As time passed,
there grew up in the colony the overseer system, which relieved the
great property owners of the necessity of regulating in person all the
affairs of their estates. Even before the end of the 17th century many
men possessed plantations in various parts of the colony and it became
then absolutely necessary to appoint capable men to conduct those that
were remote from the home of the planter. At times the owner would
retain immediate control of the home plantation, which often served as
a center of industry for the remainder of the estate, but even this
in the 18th century was not infrequently intrusted to the care of an
overseer. These men were selected from the class of small farmers and
many proved to be so capable and trustworthy that they took from their
employers' shoulders all care and responsibility. They were well paid
when their management justified it and cases were frequent where
overseers remained for many years in the service of one man.
This system gave to the planters far greater leisure than they had
possessed in the earlier part of the colony's existence, and they made
use of this leisure to cultivate their minds and to diversify their
interests. It is only in this way that we can fully explain why the
aristocrat surrounded himself with a large library, indulged in the
delicate art of music, beautified his home with handsome paintings, and
revelled in the dance, in races or the fox hunt. This too explains why
there grew up amid the plantations that series of political
philosophers that proved so invaluable to the colonies in the hour of
need. Jefferson, Henry, Madison, Marshall, Randolph, would never have
been able to give birth to the thoughts that made them famous had they
been tied down to the old practical life of the planters of early days.
The old instinct had been distinctly lacking in the philosophical
spirit. As Hugh Jones says, the planters were not given to prying into
the depths of things, but were "ripe" for the management of their
affairs. With the greater leisure of the 18th century this spirit
changed entirely, and we find an inclination among the aristocrats to
go to the bottom of every matter that came to their attention. Thus
John Randolph was not only a practical statesman and a great orator, he
was a profound thinker; although Thomas Jefferson was twice president
of the United States, and was the author of the Declaration of
Independence, it is as the originator of a political creed that he has
the best claim to fame; John Marshall, amid the exacting duties of the
Supreme Court, found time for the study of philosophy. In men less
noted was the same spirit. Thus Robert Carter of Nomini Hall in his
love for music, did not content himself with acquiring the ability to
perform on various instruments, but pried into the depths of the art,
studying carefully the theory of thorough bass.[134] He himself
invented an appliance for tuning harpsichords.[135] This gentleman was
also fond of the study of law, while he and his wife often read
philosophy together.[136] Fithian speaks of him as a good scholar, even
in classical learning, and a remarkable one in English grammar.
Frequently the gentlemen of this period spent much time in the study of
such matters as astronomy, the ancient languages, rhetoric, history,
etc.
It is a matter of regret that this movement did not give birth to a
great literature. Doubtless it would have done so had the Virginia
planters been students only. Practical politics still held their
attention, however, and it is in the direction of governmental affairs
that the new tendency found its vent. The writings of this period that
are of most value are the letters and papers of the great political
leaders--Washington, Jefferson, Madison and others. Of poets there
were none, but in their place is a series of brilliant orators.
Pendleton, Henry, and Randolph gave vent to the heroic sentiments of
the age in sentences that burned with eloquence.
The change that was taking place in the daily thoughts and occupations
of the planters is strikingly illustrated by the lives of the three
men that bore the name of William Byrd. Father, son and grandson are
typical of the periods in which each lived. The first of the name was
representative of the last quarter of the 17th century. He possessed
to an extraordinary degree the instinct of the merchant, taking quick
advantage of any opportunity for trade that the colony afforded and
building up by his foresight, energy and ability a fortune of great
size. Not only did he carry on the cultivation of tobacco with
success, but he conducted with his neighbors a trade in a great
variety of articles. In his stores were to be found duffels and cotton
goods, window glass, lead and solder, pills, etc. At one time he
ordered from Barbadoes 1,200 gallons of rum, 3,000 pounds of
"muscovodo sugar," 200 pounds of white sugar, three tons of molasses,
one cask of lime-juice and two-hundredweight of ginger. A handsome
profit often came to him through the importing and sale of white
servants. In a letter to England he writes, "If you could send me
six, eight or ten servants by the first ship, and the procurement
might not be too dear, they would much assist in purchasing some of
the best crops they seldom being to be bought without servants." Byrd
was also interested in the Indian trade. His plantation at Henrico was
well located for this business and he often sent out traders for miles
into the wilderness to secure from the savages the furs and hides that
were so valued in England. He was provident even to stinginess and we
find him sending his wig to England to be made over and his old sword
to be exchanged for a new one. Although Byrd took a prominent part in
the political life of the day, it is evident that in this as in other
things he was predominated by the spirit of gain, for he took pains to
secure two of the most lucrative public offices in the colony. For
years he was auditor and receiver-general, receiving for both a large
yearly income.[137] At his death his estate was very large, the land
he owned being not less than 26,000 acres.
William Byrd II was also typical of the period in which he lived. He
was still the business man, but he lacked the talent for close
bargaining and the attention to details that characterized his father.
His business ventures were bold and well conceived, but they did not
meet with a great measure of success. His iron mines were never very
productive, while his Indian trade met with frequent and disastrous
interruptions from hostile tribes upon the frontier. Nor did he
confine his attention to business matters. He was intensely interested
in every thing pertaining to the welfare of the colony. He was one of
the commissioners that ran the dividing line between Virginia and
North Carolina. His writings show a brightness and wit that mark him
as the best author the colony possessed during the first half of the
18th century. In his every act we see that he is more the Cavalier
than his father, less the merchant.
The third William Byrd was entirely lacking in business ability. His
mismanagement and his vices kept him constantly in debt, and for a
while it seemed probable that he would have to sell his beautiful home
at Westover. At one time he owed as much as £5,561 to two English
merchants, whose importunities so embarrassed him that he was forced
to mortgage one hundred and fifty-nine slaves on two of his
plantations, and even his silver plate. These financial troubles were
brought on him partly because of his fondness for gambling. Anbury
says of him, "Being infatuated with play, his affairs, at his death,
were in a deranged state. The widow whom he left with eight children,
has, by prudent management, preserved out of the wreck of his princely
fortune, a beautiful home, at a place called Westover, upon James
River, some personal property, a few plantations, and a number of
slaves."[138] Another of Byrd's favorite amusements was racing and he
possessed many beautiful and swift horses. He died by his own hand in
1777. Despite his dissipation and his weakness, he was a man of many
admirable qualities. In the affairs of the colony he was prominent for
years, distinguishing himself both in political life and as a soldier.
He was a member of the Council and was one of the judges in the
parsons' case of 1763, in which he showed his love of justice by
voting on the side of the clergy. In the French and Indian War, he
commanded one of the two regiments raised to protect the frontier
from the savage inroads of the enemy, acquitting himself with much
credit. He was a kind father, a cultured gentleman, and a gallant
soldier; an excellent example of the Cavalier of the period preceding
the Revolution, whose noble tendencies were obscured by the excess to
which he carried the vices that were then so common in Virginia.
The story of the Byrd family is but the story of the Virginia
aristocracy. A similar development is noted in nearly all of the
distinguished families of the colony, for none could escape the
influences that were moulding them. The Carters, the Carys, the
Bollings, the Lees, the Bookers, the Blands at the time of the
Revolution were as unlike their ancestors of Nicholson's day as was
William Byrd III unlike his grandfather, the painstaking son of the
English goldsmith.
Such were the effects upon the Virginia aristocracy of the economic,
social and political conditions of the colony. There can be no doubt
that the Virginia gentleman of the time of Washington and Jefferson,
in his self-respect, his homage to womanhood, his sense of honor, his
power of command, in all that made him unique was but the product of
the conditions which surrounded him. And although the elegance and
refinement of his social life, the culture and depths of his mind can,
to some extent, be ascribed to the survival of English customs and the
constant intercourse with the mother country, these too were
profoundly influenced by conditions in the colony.