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 naivete 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 L662. Among other articles we find that ten candle-sticks brought L70, one snuffer-stand L5, two large punch bowls L30, a punch strainer L1.10, and a punch ladle L1.[115] Robert Carter, of Nomini Hall, was very fond of fine silver. In 1774 he invested about L30 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 L5,561 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.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Fiske, Old Va. and Her Neighbors, Vol. II, p. 12.

[2] Nar. of Early Va., p. 125.

[3] Ibid., pp. 140-141.

[4] Ibid., pp. 159-160.

[5] Ibid., p. 192.

[6] Fiske, Old Va. and Her Neighbors, Vol. I, p. 154. The facts here presented form a complete refutation of the assertion, so frequently repeated by Northern historians, that the Virginia aristocracy had its origin in this immigration of dissipated and worthless gentlemen. The settlers of 1607, 1608 and 1609 were almost entirely swept out of existence, and not one in fifty of these "gallants" survived to found families. Most of the leading planters of Virginia came from later immigrants, men of humbler rank, but of far more sterling qualities than the adventurers of Smith's day.

[7] Nar. of Early Va., p. 415.

[8] Neill, Va. Carolorum.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Va. Mag. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. XI, p. 317.

[14] Fiske, Old Va. and Her Neighbors, Vol. II, p. 182.

[15] Ibid., Vol. II, p. 179.

[16] Ibid., Vol. II, p. 170.

[17] As late as the year 1775 we find Dr. Samuel Johnson, with his usual dislike of America, repeating the old error. In speaking of the rebellious colonists, he says: "Sir, they are a race of convicts, and ought to be thankful for anything we allow them short of hanging." Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson, Temple Classics, Vol. III, p. 174.

[18] Bruce, Econ. Hist. of Va., Vol. II, pp. 380, 366.

[19] Ibid., Vol. II, p. 377.

[20] Neill, Va. Carolorum.

[21] Bruce, Econ. Hist. of Va., Vol. II, pp. 372, 377, 574.

[22] Bruce, Soc. Hist. of Va., p. 164; Econ. Hist. of Va., Vol. II, p. 531.

[23] Wm. and Mary Quar., Vol. IV, p. 39.

[24] Ibid., Vol. IV, p. 153.

[25] Va. Mag. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. XI, p. 366.

[26] Bruce, Soc. Hist. of Va., p. 91.

[27] Fiske, Old Va. and Her Neighbors, Vol. II, p. 16.

[28] Bruce, Soc. Hist. of Va., pp. 18 and 19.

[29] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. I, p. 215.

[30] Ibid., Vol. I, p. 217.

[31] Fiske, Old Va. and Her Neighbors, Vol. II, p. 187.

[32] Bruce, Soc. Hist. of Va., p. 83.

[33] Wm. & Mary Quar., Vol. IV, p. 29; Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 173; Bruce, Soc. Life of Va., p. 85; Jones' Virginia.

[34] Wm. & Mary Quar., Vol. VIII, p. 243.

[35] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. XI, pp. 359, 366, 453; Vol. XII, pp. 170, 173; Wm. & Mary Quar., Vol. IV, pp. 27, 39; Bruce, Soc. Life of Va.

[36] Jones' Virginia.

[37] Thinking Virginians of today cannot but be gratified that the old erroneous belief concerning the origin of the aristocracy is being swept away. Why it should ever have been a matter of pride with old families to point to the English nobility of the 17th century as the class from which they sprang is not easy to understand. The lords of that day were usually corrupt, unscrupulous and quite unfit to found vigorous families in the "wilderness of America." How much better it is to know that the aristocracy of the colony was a product of Virginia itself! The self-respect, the power of command, the hospitality, the chivalry of the Virginians were not borrowed from England, but sprang into life on the soil of the Old Dominion. Amid the universal admiration and respect for Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Marshall, with what pride can the Virginian point to them as the products of his native state!

[38] Bassett, Writings of Wm. Byrd, lxxxiii.

[39] Fithian, Journal and Letters, p. 128.

[40] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. I, p. 17.

[41] Fiske, Old Va. and Her Neighbors, Vol. II, p. 221.

[42] Force, Hist. Tracts, Vol. III.

[43] The proofs of this statement are here omitted, as they are given at much length on pages 96 to 98 of this volume.

[44] Virginia's Cure.

[45] Abst. Proceedings Va. Co. of London, Vol. I, p. 154.

[46] Abst. Proceedings Va. Co. of London, Vol. I, p. 160.

[47] The word seating is used here in the sense of occupying.

[48] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. V, p. 285.

[49] An account of Virginia in 1676 written by Mrs. Thomas Slover says, "The planters' houses are built all along the sides of the rivers for the conveniency of shipping."

[50] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. IV, p. 261.

[51] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. XI, p. 56.

[52] Hening's Statutes, Vol. II, p. 172.

[53] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. II, p. 387.

[54] McDonald Papers, Vol. VI, p. 213.

[55] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. XI, p. 398.

[56] Journal of Council, McDonald Papers, Vol. VII, pp. 457-566.

[57] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. IV, p. 255.

[58] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. XI, p. 56.

[59] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. IV, p. 267.

[60] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. IX, p. 277.

[61] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. VI, p. 367.

[62] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. VI, p. 3.

[63] Jones' Virginia, p. 36.

[64] Rowland, Life of Geo. Mason, Vol. I, pp. 101, 102; compare Fithian, Journal and Letters, pp. 67, 104, 130, 131, 138, 217, 259; Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. XI, p. 62; Fiske, Old Va. and Her Neighbors, Vol. II, pp. 208, 214, 217; Bruce, Econ. Hist. of Va. Vol. II, pp. 411, 418.

[65] Force Hist. Tracts, Vol. II, Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. VI, p. 267.

[66] Jones' Va., p. 49.

[67] Fiske, Old Va. and Her Neighbors, Vol. II, p. 215.

[68] Bruce, Soc. Life of Va., p. 133.

[69] Jour. of Burg. 1688, pp. 81, 82; Sainsbury, Calendar of State Pap., Vol. IV, p. 252; McDonald Papers, Vol. VII, pp. 437-441.

[70] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. VIII, p. 56.

[71] Compare Voyages dans l'Amerique Septentrionale, Vol. II, p. 136. "On n'en pourra pas douter, si l'on considere qu'une autre cause agit encore en concurrence avec la premiere (heredity): je veux parler de l'esclavage; ... parce que l'empire qu'on exerce fur eux, entretient la vanite & la paresse."

[72] Page, The Old South, p. 157.

[73] Compare Jour. of Coun. 1748, pp. 17, 18, and 19.

[74] Wm. & Mary Quar., Vol. VI, p. 13.

[75] Anbury, p. 329.

[76] Guizot, Civ. in Europe, p. 117.

[77] Jour. of Bour. Apl. 1696.

[78] Marshall, Life of George Washington.

[79] Dinwiddie Papers, Vol. II, p. 427.

[80] Pict. Hist. of Eng., Vol. IV, p. 789.

[81] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. I, p. 216.

[82] Brown, First Rep. in America, p. 582.

[83] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. VIII, p. 69.

[84] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. II, p. 96; Bruce, Soc. Life of Va., p. 246.

[85] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. III, p. 89. Compare McDonald Papers, Vol. V, p. 35.

[86] Guizot, Hist. of Civ. in Europe, p. 106.

[87] Hening, Statutes, Vol. II, p. 66.

[88] Hening, Statutes, Vol. III, p. 268, Vol. V, p. 528.

[89] Force, Hist. Tracts, Vol. I, Our Late Troubles, p. 8.

[90] Force, Hist. Tracts, Vol. I, Ingram's Proceedings, p. 34.

[91] Meade, Vol. II, pp. 180, 181.

[92] Bernard, Retrospections of America, p. 150.

[93] Bagby, The Old Va. Gentleman, p. 125.

[94] Hening's Statutes, Vol. I, p. 391.

[95] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. III, pp. 136, 141, 142.

[96] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. III, p. 143.

[97] Sainsbury, Cal. of State Pap., Vol. V, pp. 334, 336; 360-2.

[98] Sainsbury, Cal. of State Pap., Vol. V, pp. 341-5.

[99] Sainsbury, Cal. of State Pap., Vol. V, pp. 260-2.

[100] Sainsbury, Cal. of State Pap., Vol. V, pp. 360-2.

[101] Sainsbury, Cal. of State Pap., Vol. V, pp. 360-2.

[102] Sainsbury, Cal. of State Pap., Vol. IX, pp. 131-2.

[103] Wm. & Mary Quar., Vol. IX, p. 194.

[104] Wm. & Mary Quar., Vol. VI, p. 184.

[105] Page, The Old South, p. 158.

[106] Bruce, Econ. Hist. of Va. Vol. II, p. 145-158.

[107] Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 160-161.

[108] Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 163-166.

[109] Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 177-179.

[110] Bruce, Econ. Hist. of Va., Vol. II, pp. 165-175.

[111] Fithian, Journal and Letters, pp. 127-131.

[112] Voyages dans l'Amerique Septentrionale, Tome II, p. 128.

[113] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. VI, p. 347.

[114] Meade, Vol. II, p. 331.

[115] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. IX, p. 82.

[116] Fithian, Journal and Letters, p. 251.

[117] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog., Vol. VI, p. 350.

[118] Fithian, Journal and Letters, p. 148.

[119] Wm. & Mary Quar., Vol. I, p. 123; Vol. II, p. 121.

[120] Jones' Virginia.

[121] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog. Vol. VIII, p. 334.

[122] Fithian, Journals and Letters, p. 58.

[123] Ibid., p. 75.

[124] Bruce, Soc. Life in Va., p. 164.

[125] Fithian, Journal and Letters, p. 113.

[126] Va. Maga. of Hist. and Biog. Vol. VIII.

[127] Wm. & Mary Quar. Vol. II, p. 247, 248.

[128] Wm. & Mary Quar. Vol. II, p. 172.

[129] Bruce, Econ. Hist. of Va. Vol. II, p. 175; Soc. Life of Va. p. 164.

[130] Bruce, Soc. Life of Va., pp. 181-185.

[131] Jones' Va.

[132] Fithian, Journal and Letters, p. 63.

[133] Ibid., pp. 94-97.

[134] Fithian, Journal and Letters, pp. 59 and 83.

[135] Ibid., p. 77.

[136] Ibid., pp. 83 and 90.

[137] Bassett, Writings of Wm. Byrd., Intro. XXV.

[138] Anbury, Vol. II, p. 329.



PART TWO

THE MIDDLE CLASS

Like the aristocracy the middle class in Virginia developed within the colony. It originated from free families of immigrants of humble means and origin, and from servants that had served their term of indenture, and its character was the result of climatic, economic, social and political conditions. There is no more interesting chapter in the history of Virginia than the development of an intelligent and vigorous middle class out of the host of lowly immigrants that came to the colony in the 17th century. Splendid natural opportunities, the law of the survival of the fittest, and a government in which a representative legislature took an important part cooperated to elevate them. For many years after the founding of Jamestown the middle class was so small and was so lacking in intelligence that it could exercise but little influence in governmental affairs, and the governors and the large planters ruled the colony almost at will. During the last years of the 17th century it had grown in numbers, had acquired something of culture and had been drilled so effectively in political affairs that it could no longer be disregarded by governors and aristocracy.

In the development of the middle class four distinct periods may be noted. First, the period of formation, from 1607 to 1660, when, from the free immigrants of humble means and from those who had entered the colony as servants and whose term of indenture had expired, was gradually emerging a class of small, independent farmers. Second, a period of oppression, extending from 1660 to 1676. In these years, when William Berkeley was for the second time the chief executive of the colony, the poor people were so oppressed by the excessive burdens imposed upon them by the arbitrary old governor and his favorites that their progress was seriously retarded. Heavy taxes levied by the Assembly for encouraging manufactures, for building houses at Jamestown, for repairing forts, bore with great weight upon the small farmers and in many cases brought them to the verge of ruin. During this period the evil effects of the Navigation Acts were felt most acutely in the colony, robbing the planters of the profit of their tobacco and causing suffering and discontent. This period ends with Bacon's Rebellion, when the down-trodden commons of the colony rushed to arms, striking out blindly against their oppressors, and bringing fire and sword to all parts of Virginia. The third period, from 1676 to 1700, was one of growth. The poor people still felt the effects of the unjust Navigation Acts, but they were no longer oppressed at will by their governors and the aristocracy. Led by discontented members of the wealthy planter class, they made a gallant and effective fight in the House of Burgesses for their rights, and showed that thenceforth they had to be reckoned a powerful force in the government of the colony. The representatives of the people kept a vigilant watch upon the expenditures, and blocked all efforts to impose unjust and oppressive taxes. During this last quarter of the 17th century the middle class grew rapidly in numbers and in prosperity. The fourth period, from 1700 to the Revolution, is marked by a division in the middle class. At the beginning of the 18th century, there was no lower class corresponding with the vast peasantry of Europe. All whites, except the indentured servants and a mere handful of freemen whose indolence doomed them to poverty, lived in comparative comfort and ease. After the introduction of slaves, however, this state of affairs no longer existed and there grew up a class of poor whites, that eked out a wretched and degraded life. On the other hand planters of the middle class that had acquired some degree of prosperity benefited greatly by the introduction of slaves, for it lowered the cost of labor to such an extent that they were able to cultivate their fields more cheaply than before. At the time of the Revolutionary War the distinction had become marked, and the prosperous middle class farmers were in no way allied to the degraded poor whites.

During the first seventeen years of the colony's existence the character of immigration was different from that of succeeding periods. Virginia was at this time ruled by a private trading company. This corporation, which was composed largely of men of rank and ability, kept a strict watch upon the settlers, and excluded many whom they thought would make undesirable colonists.[139] As a consequence, the class of people that came over before 1624 were more enlightened than the mass of the settlers during the remainder of the century. The London Company looked upon the whole matter as a business affair, and they knew that they could never expect returns from their enterprise if they filled their plantations with vagabonds and criminals. Those that were intrusted with the selection of settlers were given explicit instructions to accept none but honest and industrious persons. When it was found that these precautions were not entirely effective, still stricter measures were adopted. It was ordered by the Company in 1622 that before sailing for Virginia each emigrant should give evidence of good character and should register his age, country, profession and kindred.[140] So solicitous were they in regard to this matter that when, in 1619, James I ordered them to transport to Virginia a number of malefactors whose care was burdensome to the state, they showed such a reluctance to obey that they incurred the king's displeasure.[141]

What tended strongly to attract a desirable class of men in the earliest years of the colony was the repeated attempt to establish manufactures. Until the charter of the London Company was revoked, that body never ceased to send over numbers of skilled artisans and mechanics. In 1619, one hundred and fifty workmen from Warwickshire and Stafford were employed to set up iron works on the James.[142] Repeated attempts were made to foster the silk industry, and on more than one occasion men practiced in the culture of the silk worm came to Virginia.[143] An effort was made to start the manufacture of glass,[144] while pipe staves and clapboards were produced in considerable quantities.[145] Moreover, numerous tradesmen of all kinds were sent to the colony. Among the settlers of this period were smiths, carpenters, bricklayers, turners, potters and husbandmen.[146] With the year 1624 there came a change for the worse in the immigration, for the lack of the Company's paternal care over the infant colony was keenly felt after the king undertook personally the direction of affairs. James I and, after his death, Charles I were desirous that Virginia should undertake various forms of manufacture, and frequently gave directions to the governors to foster industrial pursuits among the settlers, for they considered it a matter of reproach that the people should devote themselves almost exclusively to the cultivation of tobacco, but neither monarch was interested enough in the matter to send over mechanics and artisans as the Company had done, and we find after 1624 few men of that type among the newcomers.[147] The immigration that occurred under the London Company is, however, not of great importance, for the mortality among the colonists was so great that but a small percentage of those that came over in the early years survived the dangers that they were compelled to face. In 1622, after the memorable massacre of that year, there were but 1258 persons in the colony and during the next few years there was no increase in the population.[148]

The immigration to Virginia of free families of humble means began in the early years of the colony's existence, and continued throughout the 17th century. The lowness of wages and the unfavorable economic conditions that existed in England induced many poor men to seek their fortunes in the New World.[149] The law which allotted to every settler fifty acres of land for each member of his family insured all that could pay for their transportation a plantation far larger than they could hope to secure at home.[150] Thus it was that many men of the laboring class or of the small tenant class, whose limited means barely sufficed to pay for their passage across the ocean, came to Virginia to secure farms of their own. The number of small grants in the first half of the 17th century is quite large. Frequently patents were made out for tracts of land varying from fifty to five hundred acres in extent to immigrants that had entered the colony as freemen.[151] The law allowed them to include in the head-rights of their patents their wives, children, relatives, friends or servants that came with them, and some immigrants in this way secured plantations of considerable size. Thus in 1637 three hundred acres in Henrico County were granted to Joseph Royall, "due: 50 acres for his own personal adventure, 50 acres for the transportation of his first wife Thomasin, 50 acres for the transportation of Ann, his now wife, 50 for the transportation of his brother Henry, and 100 for the transportation of two persons, Robt. Warrell and Jon. Wells."[152] These peasant immigrants sometimes prospered in their new homes and increased the size of their plantations by the purchase of the head-rights of other men, and the cheapness of land in the colony made it possible for them to secure estates of considerable size. It is probable that the average holding of the small farmers of this period was between three and four hundred acres.[153]

Owing to the demand for servants and the cost of transporting them to the colony, it was seldom that any other than wealthy planters could afford to secure them. The wills of the first half of the 17th century show that few of the smaller planters even when they had attained a fair degree of prosperity made use of servant labor. Thus there was in Virginia at this period a class of men who owned their own land and tilled it entirely with their own hands. This condition of affairs continued until the influx of negroes, which began about the year 1680, so diminished the cost of labor that none but the smallest proprietors were dependent entirely upon their own exertions for the cultivation of their fields.[154]

These men, like the wealthy planters, raised tobacco for exportation, but they also planted enough corn for their own consumption. Their support was largely from cattle and hogs, which were usually allowed to wander at large, seeking sustenance in the woods or upon unpatented land. The owners branded them in order to make identification possible.[155] Some of the small farmers owned but one cow and a few hogs, but others acquired numbers of the animals. The testament of Edward Wilmoth, of Isle of Wight County, drawn in 1647, is typical of the wills of that period. "I give," he says, "unto my wife ... four milch cows, a steer, and a heifer that is on Lawns Creek side, and a young yearling bull. Also I give unto my daughter Frances a yearling heifer. Also I give unto my son John Wilmoth a cow calf, and to my son Robert Wilmoth a cow calf."[156]

The patent rolls, some of which have been preserved to the present day, show that the percentage of free immigrants to the colony was quite appreciable during the years immediately following the downfall of the London Company. There are on record 501 patents that were issued between the dates 1628 and 1637, and in connection with them are mentioned, either as recipients of land or as persons transported to the colony, 2,675 names. Of these 336 are positively known to have come over as freemen, and most of them as heads of families. There are 245 others who were probably freemen, although this has not yet been proved. The remainder are persons whose transportation charges were paid by others, including indentured servants, negroes, wives, children, etc. Thus it is quite certain that of the names on this list over one fourth were those of free persons, who came as freemen to Virginia and established themselves as citizens of the colony.[157] Although the patent rolls that have been preserved are far from complete, there is no reason to suspect that they are not fairly representative of the whole, and we may assume that the percentage of free families that came to the colony in this period was by no means small. As, however, the annual number of immigrants was as yet small and the mortality was very heavy, the total number of men living in Virginia in 1635 who had come over as freemen could not have been very large. The total population at that date was 5,000, and it is probable that at least 3,000 of these had come to the colony as servants.

After 1635 the percentage of free settlers became much smaller. This was due largely to the fact that at this time the immigration of indentured servants to Virginia increased very much. Secretary Kemp, who was in office during Governor Harvey's administration, stated that of hundreds of people that were arriving nearly all were brought in as merchandise.[158] So great was the influx of these servants, that the population tripled between 1635 and 1649. It is certain, however, that at no period during the 17th century did freemen cease coming to the colony.

With the exception of the merchants and other well-to-do men that formed the basis of the aristocracy, the free immigrants were ignorant and crude. But few of them could read and write, and many even of the most prosperous, being unable to sign their names to their wills, were compelled to make their mark to give legal force to their testaments.[159] Some of them acquired considerable property and became influential in their counties, but this was due rather to rough qualities of manhood that fitted them for the life in the forests of the New World, than to education or culture.

The use of the indentured servant by the Virginia planters was but the result of the economic conditions of the colony. Even in the days of the London Company the settlers had turned their attention to the raising of tobacco, for they found that the plant needed but little care, that it was admirably suited to the soil, and that it brought a handsome return. Naturally it soon became the staple product of the colony. The most active efforts of the Company and all the commands of King James and King Charles were not sufficient to turn men from its cultivation to less lucrative pursuits. Why should they devote themselves to manufacture when they could, with far greater profit, exchange their tobacco crop for the manufactured goods of England? It was found that but two things were essential to the growth of the plant—abundance of land and labor. The first of these could be had almost for the asking. Around the colony was a vast expanse of territory that needed only the woodman's axe to transform it into fertile fields, and the poorest man could own a plantation that in England would have been esteemed a rich estate. Labor, on the other hand, was exceedingly scarce. The colony itself could furnish but a limited supply, for few were willing to work for hire when they could easily own farms of their own. The native Americans of this region could not be made to toil in the fields for the white man, as the aborigines of Mexico and the West Indies were made to toil for the Spanish, for they were of too warlike and bold a spirit. Destruction would have been more grateful to them than slavery. Their haughtiness and pride were such that in their intercourse with the English they would not brook the idea of inferiority. No thought could be entertained of making them work in the fields. So the planters were forced to turn to the mother country. As early as 1620 they sent urgent requests for a supply of laborers, which they needed much more than artisans or tradesmen. The Company, although it did not relinquish its plan of establishing manufactures, was obliged to yield somewhat to this demand, and sent to the planters a number of indentured servants.[160] Thus early began that great stream of laborers, flowing from England to Virginia, that kept up without interruption for more than a century.

From the first the indenture system was in vogue. Circumstances made this necessary, for had no obligations been put upon the immigrants to work for a certain number of years in servitude, they would have secured tracts of ground for themselves and set themselves up as independent planters, as soon as they arrived in the country. It was found to be impossible to establish a class of free laborers. Also the system had its advantages for the immigrant. The voyage to the colony, so long and so expensive, was the chief drawback to immigration. Thousands of poor Englishmen, who could hardly earn enough money at home to keep life in their bodies, would eagerly have gone to the New World, had they been able to pay for their passage. Under the indenture system this difficulty was removed, for anyone could secure free transportation provided he were willing to sacrifice, for a few years, his personal freedom.

And, despite the English love of liberty, great numbers availed themselves of this opportunity. There came to Virginia, during the period from 1635 to 1680, annually from 1000 to 1600 servants. The immigration in the earlier years seems to have been nearly if not fully as great as later in the century. During the year ending March 1636 sixteen hundred people came over, most of whom were undoubtedly servants.[161] In 1670 Governor Berkeley estimated the annual immigration of servants at 1500.[162] But we need no better evidence that the stream at no time slackened during this period than the fact that the demand for them remained constant. So long as the planter could obtain no other labor for his tobacco fields, the great need of the colony was for more servants, and able-bodied laborers always brought a handsome price in the Virginia market. Col. William Byrd I testified that servants were the most profitable import to the colony.[163] The fact that the term of service was in most cases comparatively short made it necessary for the planter to repeople his estate at frequent intervals. The period of indenture was from four to seven years, except in the case of criminals who sometimes served for life, and without this constant immigration the plantations would have been deserted. Thus in 1671, when the population of the colony was 40,000, the number of servants was but 6,000.[164] Nor was there any sign of slackening in the stream until the last years of the century, when there came a great increase in the importation of negro slaves. As soon as it became practicable to secure enough Africans to do the work of the servants, the need for the latter became less pressing. For many reasons the slave was more desirable. He could withstand better the heat of the summer sun in the fields, he was more tractable, he served for life and could not desert his master after a few years of service as could the servant. We find, then, that after 1680, the importation of servants decreased more and more, until, in the middle of the 18th century, it died out entirely.

Thus it will be seen that the number of indentured servants that were brought to the colony of Virginia is very large. The most conservative estimate will place the figure at 80,000, and there is every reason to believe that this is much too low. Now, if we consider the growth of population in conjunction with these facts, it becomes evident that the indentured servant was the most important factor in the settlement of the colony. In 1671, according to the statement of Governor Berkeley, there were but 40,000 people in the colony.[165] The immigration of servants had then been in progress for fifty years, and the number brought over must have exceeded the total population at that date. Even after making deductions for the mortality among the laborers in the tobacco fields, which in the first half of this century was enormous, we are forced to the conclusion that the percentage of those that came as freemen was small.