Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/1893annualreport00ameruoft
ANNUAL REPORT
OF THE
I- Americm Histoeical Association
FOB
THE YE^R 1893.
^K
WASHINGTON :
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.
1894.
5
FIFTY-THIRD CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION.
March o, 1894.— In the Senate of the United States. The Vice-Presi-
dent presented the following Annual Report of the American Historical
Association. Referred to the Committee on Printing and ordered to be
printed.
n
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL.
Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D. €., March 5, 1894.
To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with the act of incorporation of the American
Historical Association, approved January 4, 1889, 1 have the
honor to submit to Congress the annual report of said associa-
tion for the year 1893.
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient
servant,
S. P. Langley,
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution,
Hon. Adlai E. Stevenson,
President of the Senate,
Hon. Charles F. Crisp,
Spealcer of the Souse,
ACT OF INCORPORATION.
Be it enacted hy the Senate and Souse of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled. That
Andrew D. White, of Ithaca, in the State of New York j George
Bancroft, of Washington, in the District of Columbia 5 Justin
Winsor, of Cambridge, in the State of Massachusetts; William
F. Poole, of Chicago, in the State of Illinois 5 Herbert B. Adams,
of Baltimore, in the State of Maryland; Clarence W. Bowen,
of Brooklyn, in the State of I^ew York; their associates and
successors, are hereby created in the District of Columbia a
body corporate and politic, by the name of the American His-
torical Association, for the promotion of historical studies, the
collection and preservation of historical manuscripts, and for
kindred purposes in the interest of American history and of
history in America. Said association is authorized to hold real
and personal estate in the District of Columbia, so far only as
may be necessary to its lawful ends, to an amount not exceed-
ing five hundred thousand dollars, to adopt a constitution, and
to make by-laws not inconsistent with law. Said association
shall have its principal office at Washington, in the District of
Columbia, and may hold its annual meetings in such places as
the said incorporators shall determine. Said association shall
report annually to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institu-
tion concerning its proceedings and the condition of historical
study in America. Said Secretary shall communicate to Con-
gress the whole of such reports, or such portions thereof as he
shall see fit. The regents of the Smithsonian Institution are
authorized to permit said association to deposit its collections,
manuscripts, books, pamphlets, and other material for history
in the Smithsonian Institution or in the I^ational Museum, at
their discretion, upon such conditions and under such rules as
they shall prescribe.
[Approved, January 4, 1889.]
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.
American Histoeical Association,
Baltimore, Md., February 24, 1894.
Sir: In compliance with tlie act of incorporation of the
American Historical Association, approved January 4, 1889,
which requires that "said association shall report annually to
the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution concerning its
proceedings and the condition of historical study in America,"
I have the honor to transmit herewith my general report of the
proceedings of the American Historical Association at their
ninth annual meeting, held in Chicago, July 11-13, 1893. In
addition to the general summary of proceedings, I send also
the inaugural address of Dr. James B. Angell, president of the
t^iQ association, and some of the papers read at the Chicago
meeting. In order to show the condition and progress of
historical study in America, I append to the report of the
association certain contributions toward a bibliography of
American history, from 1888 to 1892, adapted from reports to
the Jahresbericht der Geschichtswissenschaft of Berlin, by Dr.
John Martin Yincent.
Very respeotfiiUy,
Herbert B. Adams,
Secretary,
Prof. S. P. Lan^ley,
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution,
AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Organized at Saratoga, N. Y., September 10, 1884.
OBT-ICERS FOR 1894r.
President :
HEXRY ADAMS,
Washington f D. C.
Vice-Presidents :
EDWAED G. MASON,
Chicago, III.
Hon. GEOEGE F. HOAB,
Worcester, Mass.
Treasurer :
CLAEENCE WIXTHEOP BOWEX, Ph. D.,
Fulton and Xassau Streets, Xew YorJc City.
Secretary :
HEEBEET B. ADAMS, Ph. D., LL. D.,
Professor of History in the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Assistant Secretary and Curator :
A. HOWARD CLARK,
Curator of Historical Collections, Xational Museum, Washin0on, D, C.
Executive Council :
(In addition to the above-named officers.)
Hon. AXDEEW D. WHITE, LL. D., L. H. D.,
Ithaca, X. Y.
JUSTIX WIXSOE, LL. D.,
Cambridge, Mass.
CHARLES KENDALL ADAMS, LL. D.,
President of University of Wisconsin, Madison,
Hon. WILLIAM WIET HENEY,
Bichmond, Va.
WILLIAM F. POOLE, LL. D.,
Librarian of Xeicberry Library, Chicago.
Hon. JOHX JAY, LL. D.,
Xew York City.
JAMES B. AXGELL, LL. D.,
President of University of Mickigan, Ann Arbor.
G. BEOWX GOODE, Ph. D., LL. D.,
Assistant Secretary Smithsonian Institution, in Charge of (A« Xational Museuwi.
JOHN GEOEGE BOUEIXOT, C. M. G., LL. D., D. C. L.,
Clerk of the Canadian House of Commons.
J. B. McMASTEE,
Professor of History in the University of Pennsylvania, Phil4idelphia.
GEORGE B. ADAMS,
Professor of History in Yale University, Xew Haven.
vn
CONTENTS.
Page.
I. Report of Proceedings of Ninth Annual Meeting in Chicago,
July 11-13, 1893, by Herbert B. Adams, Secretary 1
II. Inaugural Address by Dr. James B. Angell, President of
the Association, on the Inadequate Recognition of Diplo-
matists by Historians 13
III. The Value of National Archives, by Mrs. Ellen Hardin
Walworth 25
IV. American Historical Nomenclature, by Hon. Ainsworth R.
Spofford 33
V. The Definition of History, by Col. William Preston John-
ston 43
VI. Historical Industries, by Dr. James Schouler 55
VII. The Historical Method of Writing the History of Christian
Doctrine, by Prof. Charles J. Little 67
VIII. The Requirements for the Historical Doctorate in America,
by Prof. Ephraim Emerton 77
IX. The First Fugitive Slave Case of Record in Ohio, by Hon.
William Henry Smith 91
X. The Present Status of Pre-Columbian Discovery of America
by Norsemen, by Hon. James Phinney Baxter 101
XI. Prince Henry, the Navigator, by Prof. Edward G. Bourne. Ill
XII. The Economic Conditions of Spain in the Sixteenth Cen-
tury, by Prof. Bernard Moses 123
XIII. The Union of Utrecht, by Prof. Lucy M. Salmon 135
XIV. English Popular Uprisings of the Middle Ages, by Dr.
George Kriehn 149
XV. Jefferson and the Social Compact Theory, by Prof. George
P. Fisher 163
i^<XVI. The Relation of History to Politics, by Prof. Jesse Macy.. 179
XVII. Early Lead Mining in Illinois and Wisconsin, by Reuben
G. Thwaites, esq 189
XVIII. The Significance of the Frontier in American History, by
Prof. Frederick J. Turner 197
XIX. Roger Sherman in the Federal Convention, by Dr. Lewis H.
Boutell 229
XX. The Historical Significance of the Missouri Compromise,
by Prof. James A. Woodburn 249
XXI. The First Legislative Assembly in America, by Hon.
William Wirt Henry 299
IX
>
X CONTENTS.
Page.
XXII. Naturalization in the English Colonies of America, by Miss
Cora Start 317
XXIII. The Establishment of the First Southern Boundary of the
United States, by Prof. B . A. Hinsdale 339
XXIV. The Historic Policy of the United States as to Annexation,
by Prof. Simeon E.Baldwin 367
XXV. The Origin of the Standing Committe. System in Ameri-
can Legislative Bodies, by Proi. J. Franklin Jameson.. . 391
XXVI. Gen. Joseph Martin and the Wax of the Revolution in the
West, by Prof. Stephen B. Weeks I 401
XXVII. The Annals of an Historic Town, by Prof. F. W. Blackmar. 479
XXVIII. Contributions toward a Bibliography of American History,
1888-1892, adapted from Reports to the Jahresbericht
der Geschichtswissenschaft of Berlin, by Dr. John Martin
Vincent . - 501
Index 573
L-REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF NINTH ANNUAL MEETING OF
THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Chicago, III., July 11-13, 1893.
S. Mis. 104 1
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF NINTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
By Herbert B. Adams, Secretary.
The American Historical Associatian held its ninth annual
meeting July 11-13, 1893, in the city of Chicago, with morning
and evening sessions at the Art Institute. This meeting was
held in conjunction with the World's Historical Congress.
The Chicago committee representing this congress, or the his-
torical section of the department of literature, are members of
the American Historical Association and cooperated efficiently
with its officers and its committee on programme. Dr. Wil-
liam F. Poole, of the Kewberry Library, was the chairman of
the Chicago committee, and to his personal efforts is largely
due the success of the Chicago meeting. A brief report of the
exercises was prepared by him and was published in The
Independent July 20, 1893.
On Monday evening, July 10, members of the Historical
Association and others visiting Chicago for the purpose of
attending the various congresses, were given a social recep-
tion at the Art Institute. On the following morning the his-
torical congress was called to order by Dr. Poole, who nom-
inated Dr. James B. Angell as temporary president and Dr.
Herbert B. Adams as temporary secretary. Hon. William
Wirt Henry afterwards moved that the two be made the officers
of the congress during its session in Chicago.
The programme for the ninth annual meeting of the Ameri-
can Historical Association was practically identical with that
of the World's Historical Congress, and comprised 33 papers,
23 of which were read. Others were contributed to the pro-
ceedings and were read by title.
President Angell in his inaugural address spoke of ''' The
inadequate recognition of diplomatists by historians." Mrs.
4 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Ellen Hardin Walworth, of Saratoga, read a paper at the first
morning session on "The valne of national archives to a
nation's life and progress." This paper gave rise to a dis-
cussion upon the desirability of a department of national
archives in Washington, and remarks were made by Dr. W. F.
Poole, President Charles Kendall Adams, and others. Dr.
Poole, in his report of the Chicago meeting published in The
Independent, says:
The historical papers in the State Department are not accessible to the
historical student except as a special favor, and they are not arranged,
classified, and calendared. The State Department has no space for his-
torical archives and no archivist who understands their management or
has time to give to the needs of historical investigators. Indeed, these
are not the functions of the State Department. At Ottawa, however,
Canada has a department of archives ; it is an excellent one, and under
the charge of a most competent archivist. American historians, when
they need to consult the original documents relating to our own history,
often go to Ottawa to see papers which should be in Washington.
A resolution was offered to the effect that a committee be
appointed to memorialize Congress to establish a department
of archives. It was moved by President Charles Kendall
Adams that this committee should consist of nine persons,
with President Angell as chairman, and that his associates be
named by him. This motion was carried, and the committee
subsequently appointed was as follows :
President James B. Angell, Hon. William Wirt Henry, Dr.
J. L. M. Curry, Hon. Geo. F. Hoar, Dr. Justin Winsor, Presi-
dent C. K. Adams, Dr. James Schouler, Dr. W. F. Poole, Mrs.
Walworth.
A paper on ''American historical nomenclature,^' by Hon.
Ainsworth R. Spofford, Librarian of Congress, was read at
the Tuesday morning session by the secretary. This paper
was an earnest plea for the retention of native American
names for American places. Mr. Spofford gave an interesting
statistical summary of the influence of Hebrew, Greek, Roman,
and other foreign names upon American local nomenclature.
At the Tuesday evening session Dr. James Schouler, of
Boston, read a paper upon the " Methods of historical investi-
gation." After alluding to the liberal fortune expended by
Mr. Hubert H. Bancroft in his recent history of the Pacific
States, and to the corps of literary assistants employed by him
in exhuming the contents of his large library of 20,000 vol-
umes, Dr. Schouler considered the value of such organized
PROCEEDINGS AT ANNUAL MEETING. 5
methods of historical research as compared with the efforts
of an individual scholar, who conducts systematically his
own studies into the period which he means to describe, and
who vses an amanuensis only for strictly clerical work. His
own personal experience favored the latter method, as capa-
ble, under suitable self-training, of very extensive and satis-
factory results. The trained assistance which one employs
with only a mercenary interest in the study can accomplish
little after all as compared with one mind inspired for its task
and concentrating its powers upon what it seeks.
Prof. Charles J. Little, of Northwestern University, dis-
cussed the ^^ Historical method of writing the history of Christ-
ian doctrine." Prof. Ephraim Emerton, of Harvard University,
contributed a paper on the "Historical doctorate in America,"
advocating higher standards of graduate work and academic
requirement. William Henry Smith, of the Associated Press,
spoke of the "First fugitive slave case in Ohio," and Dr. Fred-
eric Bancroft, of Washington, presented an essay on "Mr.
Seward's position toward the South at the outbreak of the
civil war."
Wednesday morning James Phinney Baxter, of Portland,
Me., reviewed the "Present status of pre-Columbian dis-
covery," and Prof. Edward G. Bourne, of Adelbert College,
emphasized the work of Prince Henry, the navigator, in per-
sistently and systematically promoting the exploration of the
west coast of Africa for over forty years (1416-60.) This work
was of immense importance in preparing the way for Colum-
bus, Diaz, Da Gama, and Magellan. The sailors of Prince
Henry showed that the region about the equator was inhabit-
able and inhabited, and that the traditional terrors of the
ocean had little reality. An examination of the contemporary
accounts of Prince Henry's work, especially a series of docu-
ments recently published by the Portuguese Government, and
the papal bull of Nicholas Y, (1454) shows that it was carried
on for four purposes — to explore unknown parts of the world,
to spread Christianity, to reach the Indies by sailing around
Africa, and to promote commerce. Much of his success was
owing to his unfaltering persistency in spite of temporary
failure, and to the enthusiastic devotion which he inspired in
his followers. If Columbus had never lived, it seems inevi-
table that America would have been discovered by Portuguese
seamen following out the work begun by Prince Henry.
6 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Prof. Bernard Moses^ of the University of California, dis-
cussed '* The economic conditions of Spain in the sixteenth
century," and Prof. Lucy M. Salmon, of Yassar College,
showed the historic importance of the Union of Utrecht. At
the Tuesday evening session Dr. George Kriehn read a short
paper on " English popular uprisings of the Middle Ages."
Prof. George P. Fisher, of Yale University, contributed a sug-
gestive essay on "The social compact and Mr. Jefferson's
adoption of it." Prof. Jesse Macy, of Iowa College, presented a
careful study of "The relation of history to politics." Reuben
G. Thwaites, secretary of the Wisconsin Historical Society,
read a paper on " Early lead mining in Illinois and Wiscon-
sin," and Prof. F. J. Turner, of the University of Wisconsin,
explained the "Significance of the frontier in American
history." Up to our own day, he said, American history has
been in a large degree the history of the colonization of the
great west. This ever-retreating frontier of unoccupied land
is the key to our development. The settlement of the prob-
lems that arose at one frontier served as guides for the next
frontier — for example, in matters relating to land policy and the
Indians. There are various kinds of frontiers which passed
westward in successive waves — for example, the Indian's fron-
tier, the trader's frontier, the miner's or rancher's frontier, and
the farmer's frontier. The methods of advance and the char-
acteristics of each were traced, showing how the Indian was
pushed back and how each frontier affected its successor. It
was found that the successive frontiers revealed the progress
of society. At the same time the United States could show
the hunting stage, the pastoral stage, the agricultural stage,
and the manufacturing stage, as the traveler crossed the con-
tinent from west to east.
At the Thursday morning session Dr. Lewis H. Boutell, of
Chicago, read a paper on "Eoger Sherman in the :N'ational
Constitutional Convention." Prof. Charles H. Haskins, of the
University of Wisconsin, discussed the "Eleventh amendment
of the Constitution." This amendment was introduced into
Congress in 1794 and declared in force in 1798. It provides
that the judicial power of the United States shall not be con-
strued to extend to any suit in law or equity begun or prose-
cuted against one of the United States by citizens of another
State or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state. Its judi-
cial construction involves important and intricate questions of
PROCEEDINGS AT ANNUAL MEETING. i
constitutional law, and earlier opinions have been somewhat
modified in the recent cases, many of them arising from the
repudiation of debts in the Southern States, which have been
persistently forced on the courts. Thus, in 1890, in the case
of Hans v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court decided that a sov-
ereign State could not be sued, even by her own citizens, and
that the decision in Ohisholm v. Georgia was incorrect. The
term " sovereign State," however, as here used denotes finan-
cial rather than political independence and differs widely in
meaning from the use of one hundred or even fifty years ago.
The free repudiation of public contracts in many States, and
the impossibility of enforcing many of the constitutional re-
strictions upon States, have led some to propose a repeal of
the eleventh amendment, though there has been as yet no
general movement in that direction.
Prof. James A. Woodburn, of the Indiana State University,
described the "Historical significance of the Missouri compro-
mise." Hon. William Wirt Henry, of Eichmond, Ya., presented
a paper on the "First legislative assembly in America."
Although Virginia, the oldest English colony in America, was
at first under military government, it was allowed the privi-
lege of a legislative assembly in 1619 under the commission of
Governor Yeardley. This, the first legislative assembly in
America, met at Jamestown July 30, 1619, more than a year
before the sailing of the Pilgrims. It was composed of the
governor and his council and two representatives, chosen from
each plantation, making twenty-two burgesses. The place of
meeting was the Episcopal church at Jamestown. This build-
ing, the manner in which the assembly was constituted, and
its personnel, were sketched by Mr. Henry, and the proceed-
ings of the legislative body were fully given. The Virginia
assembly as early as 1623, and continuously afterwards, claimed
the sole and exclusive right to tax the colony and boldly took
issue with parliament in 1765, on the passage of the stamp act,
declaring that, as it imposed the tax upon the colonies without
their consent, it tended to destroy British as well as American
freedom. This brought on the Eevolution, which established
the independence of the United States, with the grand results
which have followed.
Miss Cora Start, of Worcester, Mass., read a valuable mono-
graph on '- [N'aturalization in the English colonies of America."
Prof. B. A. Hinsdale, of the University of Michigan, showed
8 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
the importance of the "Thirty-first paraUel in American his-
tory." At the Thursday evening and closing session Prof.
Simeon E. Baldwin, of Yale University, described " The his-
toric policy of the United States as to annexation." This paper
is printed in full in the Yale Eeview, August, 1893. Prof. J.
Franklin Jameson's paper on the "Origin of the standing-
committee system in American legislative bodies" was read in
part by the secretary.
Prof. F. W. Blackmar, of the University of Kansas, read
an interesting sketch of the "Annals of an historic town." He
showed that, by the passage of the Douglass bill. Congress
removed the battlefield of slavery from Congressional halls
to the plains of Kansas. National issues were referred to a
local community for final settlement. Lawrence was the first
Free-State town of any importance and it became the center
of the Free- State movement in the Territory of Kansas. The
municipal life of Lawrence is instructive as illustrating the
development of free Institutions. The town was settled by
Kew Englanders, sent out by the Massachusetts Emigrant
Aid Society, and they brought with them New England insti-
tutions. They came to establish religious and political liberty
in Kansas, and in this respect they partook of the spirit of the
Puritans and Pilgrims of New England. But they sought
the freedom of others as well as their own improvement, and
were not obliged to leave their own country on account of
oppression. The people who settled Lawrence were not abo-
litionists, but they intended to make Kansas a free State
according to the legal act of Congress. They respected and
obeyed Federal authority and desired to avoid open conflict.
Their steady, persistent determination to abide by Federal law,
and at the same time to oppose false local legislation, made
Kansas a free commonwealth.
The auditing committee appointed by President Angell on
behalf of the American Historical Association congratulated
that body upon the favorable condition of its finances. The
Association now owns a bond and mortgage for $5,000, repre-
senting accumulations made during the early years of its
history.
PROCEEDINGS AT ANNUAL MEETING. 9
Mrs. Walworth called the attention of the Association to the
fact that the year 1894 would be the decennial of our organi-
zation at Saratoga Springs, September 10, 1884. On behalf of
the citizens of Saratoga she cordially invited the Association
to hold its next meeting there. The committee on the time
and place of the next meeting of the Association reported in
favor of accepting this invitation.
The Association passed a vote of thanks to Charles C. Bonney
and Dr. W. F. Poole for courtesies extended to the historical
congress. Thanks were also voted to Mr. William E. Curtis for
his invitation to visit the historical collections in La Eabida.
10
AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION
O O O (
■<* lO in o in
•99-OtHiHT-< (NiHrieOOO
(Mommino
I O W O (M i-H
tx
W 00 08 '^ =« -^
g a « 6 ® 6
P3W
'e8 eS
J-^-O
•^ s
O 0) « " fl
-<.s.sss
t-(^ooast-o ■"i'Oiftioin
Ip
o in «o o o o o o o to la s o Q M o o w in in osoooo omoo om
o o cts o o o o M © «o cj o ooo •* OS oo>o ■^ in o o o ooos in o o o 03
ot>(^^lnlrioo■os-*OrHOc<5ct5eo!»oQOOOln coooooJeo^ciQirio
i^^^eoiOin^t-ocot-0(Mi«osr-( in in in in r-i th r-i t-i in eo
I r1 »^ 1-1 rl 1-H CO r-( '"'''' m CO Cfl 1—1
<5^
-- 9
ai
2-5 .
la
^as
REPORT OF TREASURER. 11
Chicago, July 12, 189$.
Messrs. E. W. Blatchford and James P. Baxter were appointed to audit
the accounts of Mr. Clarence W. Bowen, treasurer of the American Histor-
ical Association from January 1, 1892, to July 6, 1893.
They beg to report :
They find statements of the following receipts :
January 1, 1892, balance from last statement $42. 90
Loan made by secretary 1, 000. 00
Interest on bond and mortgage for $5,0C0 600. 00
From sale of publications, $105. 87 -\- $10.78 + $224.50 = 341. 15
From 6 life memberships, at $50 each ^ 300. 00
From 625 annual dues, at $3 each 1, 875. 00
Total receipts 4,059.05
They find 30 vouchers for expenditures as stated (inclusive of
1,075, being the loan and interest paid) of 4, 038. 10
July 6, 1893, cash on hand 20.95
4, 059. 05
The statement is accompanied by a certificate of John A. King,
of date February 2, 1892, of the possession of the bond and
mortgage for $5,000, at 5 per cent 5, 000. 00
Which, with above statement of cash on hand of 20. 95
Makes the assets of the American Historical Association at date,
July 6, 1893 5,020.95
Your committee would express to the Association their congratulation
upon the favorable condition of the finances of your society at this date.
The bond and mortgage for $5,000 represents accumulations during the
very early years of its history. The present economical arrangements for
publication of the Association's papers will increase the fund. Special
thanks are due to the officers of the Association, whose constant and effi-
cient services make this report possible.
Respectfully submitted.
E. W. Blatchford,
Chairman.
12 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
LIST OF COMMITTEES, 1893-'94.
1. Auditing committee: E. W. Blatchford, esq., James Phmney Baxter, esq.
2. Finance: Hon. John A. King, Robert Schell, esq., Dr. C. W. Bowen.
3. Nominations: Hon. William Wirt Henry, Dr. WiUiam F. Poole.
4. Time and place of meeting : Dr. William F. Poole, Mrs. Ellen H. Wal-
worth.
5. Programme: Prof. Justin Winsor, Prof. A. B. Hart, Prof. F. J. Turner,
Dr. J. L. M. Curry, Prof. H. B. Adams.
6. Besolutions : Prof. H. B. Adams, Reuben G. Thwaites, Dr. C. H. Haskins.
OFFICERS FOR 1893-94.
President: Henry Adams, Washington, D. C.
Vice-presidents: Edward G. Mason, president of the Chicago Historical
Society; Hon. George F. Hoar, Worcester, Mass.
Treasurer: Clarence Winthrop Bowen, ph. d., 130 Fulton street, New York
City.
Secretary: Herbert B. Adams, ph. d., ll. d., professor in the Johns Hop-
kins University, Baltimore, Md.
Assistant secretary and curator: A. Howard Clark, curator of the histori-
cal collections, U. S. National Museum, Washington, D. C.
Executive council (in addition to the above-named ofiScers) : Hon. Andrew
D. White, LL. D., Ithaca, N. Y. ; Justin Winsor, ll. d., Cambridge,
Mass. ; Charles Kendall Adams, ll. d., president of University of
Wisconsin; Hon. William Wirt Henry, Richmond, Va., William F.
Poole, LL. D., librarian of the Newberry Library, Chicago; Hon.
John Jay, ll. d., New York City; James B. AngeU, ll. d., president
of University of Michigan; G. Brown Goode, ph. d., ll. d., assistant
secretary Smithsonian Institution, in charge of the National Museum ;
John George Bourinot, c. m. g., ll. d,, d. c. l., clerk of the Cana-
dian House of Commons; J. B. McMaster, professor of history in the
University of Pennsylvania ; George B. Adams, professor of history
in Yale University.
II.-INADEQUATE RECOGNITION OF DIPLOMATISTS BY HIS-
TORIANS.
INAUGURAL ADDRESS BY DR. JAMES B. ANGELL,
PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Read at the Annual Meeting, July 11, 1893.
13
INAUGURAL ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT JAMES B. ANGELL, LL. D.,
JULY 11, 1893.
THE INADEQUATE RECOGNITION OP DIPLOMATISTS BY HISTORIANS.
The scholars of our time have often congratulated themselves
that historical writers have in these later years been giving a
wider scope to their work than the older historians gave to
theirs. These later writers, in describing the history of a nation,
have not confined themselves to the records of battles and of
court intrigues and of royal genealogies. They have deemed it
proper to give us some idea of the progress of the nation in
letters, in art, in science, in economic development, in religion,
in all that makes up what we call civilization. They have
attempted to give us a vivid and accurate conception of the
forces and the j)rocesses which have made nations what they
are. And they have had in mind the true ideal of the histo-
rian's task.
But in the course of my studies I have been led to the con-
viction that most of the general historical narratives have failed
to set forth with sufficient fullness the important features of
great diplomatic transactions, and have failed even more sig-
nally in specific recognition of the signal merits of many of the
gifted negotiators of epoch-making treaties.
The work of international congresses, which have remade
the map of Europe or the maps of other continents, which have
extinguished the life of proud and ancient states or have
created new states, which have given larger freedom to com-
merce and wider liberty in the use of the high seas, which
have mitigated the cruelties of war and have swept the slave
trade from the ocean j this work, so wide and far-reaching in
its influence, of the diplomatic representatives of powerful
states has been often passed over altogether by historians of
renown or dismissed with the most succinct summary which
was possible. Even where the results of negotiations are
given it is rare that one finds any fairly complete account of
15
16 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
the processes by which these results were reached. May
we not fairly ask whether to the reader of ordinary intelli-
gence the important details of the discussions and delibera-
tions in the congress at MUnster are not of as much conse-
quence as the details of any battle of the Thirty Years' War?
Are not the particulars of the debates between Franklin
and Jay and John Adams on the one side, and Oswald and
Strachey and Fitzherbert on the other, in framing our treaty
of independence, of as much interest and consequence as the
details of battle the of Trenton?
But even when the results of negotiations are given with some
fullness and estimated with justice, for the most part little or
none of the credit which is due is given to the men who have
brought the negotiations to a successful issue. Generally not
even their names are mentioned. The consequence is that no
class of public servants of equal merit is so inadequately appre-
ciated even by those who are pretty well read in history. Our
very school children are so taught that the names of great
generals, Wallenstein and Tilley, Marlborough and Prince
Eugene, Turenne and Conde, Washington and Greene, are
familiar to them. But if you will try a simple experiment, as
I have done several times, upon persons of cultivation, I ven-
ture the guess that you will find that scholars of considerable
familiarity with European history can not tell and can not say
that they have ever known who were the principal negotiators
of the Peace of Westjjhalia, or of treaties of such historical
importance as those of Kimeguen, Eyswick, Utrecht, or Paris
of 1763, or Paris of 1856. And the reason is not far to seek.
It is because most of the general histories of the periods, to
which those treaties belong, have little or nothing to say of
the envoys, who, with much toil and discussion, wrought them
out. To learn the names of those neglected men, and especially
to learn anything of their personality, one must have recourse
to special diplomatic histories or personal memoirs, when such
can be found.
If my impression of the treatment which important diplo-
matic work has received in most of our general histories is
correct, I think we shall all agree that they are seriously defi-
cient in this regard. If any events in European history for
the last two centuries and a half have been of vital impor-
tance, the negotiation of some of the treaties I have named
must be ranked as such. When we recall how the Peace of
INADEQUATE RECOGNITION OF DIPLOMATISTS — ANGELL. 17
Westphalia weakened the German Empire, strengthened
France, adjusted the relations of the three great branches of
the church in Germany, and practically established the mod-
ern state system of Europe 5 or how the Treaty of Utrecht
permanently separated the crowns of France and Spain, added
to England's possessions Newfoundland, Hudson Bay, Aca-
dia, St. Kitts, Gibraltar and Minorca, and fixed the Hanove-
rian succession, enlarged the power of Savoy and recognized
the King of Prussia; how the Treaty of Paris of 1763 gave
Canada and the Floridas and the navigation of the Mississippi
to England, and how the Treaty of Paris of 1856 abolished
privateering and established new guarantees to neutral trade
upon all the seas ; who shall say that the framing of these
treaties and of others, hardly less important, does not deserve
ample treatment, and that the talent and skill of the men who
negotiated them does not deserve generous recognition in our
more important general histories as well as in the special
diplomatic histories?
The distinguished publicist, Pradier-Fod^r^, has well said
that a good minister is sometimes equal to an army of a hundred
thousand men. Pyrrhus is credited with the remark that his
envoy, Oyneas, had given him more cities than any of his gen-
erals. John Adams, who filled so many high offices with honor,
was apparently, and justly, prouder of his treaty with the l!^ether-
lands, which he procured in the face of well-nigh insuperable
obstacles, than of almost any other achievement of his life.
His no less distinguished son, John Quincy Adams, declared
that he considered his signature of the so-called Florida treaty
with Spain in 1819 the most important event of his life
It may be said in answer to my plea for the ampler recogni-
tion of the services of great diplomatists that they only register
the results which the great soldiers have really secured, and
therefore deserve less fame than the generals. To this two
rejoinders can fairly be offered : First, while war may decide
that one nation is to gather the larger part of the fruits of a
negotiation with another, it does not decide the details of the
settlement to be made. And in fixing these, in determining
with large foresight the consequences of particular adjust-
ments, in felicity of statement, in cogency of discussion, in
knowledge of international law, in weight of personality, the
representatives of the conquered nation may, and often do,
win back much of what seemed to have been wrested away
S. Mis. 104 2
18 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
by the victorious sword of the antagonist. The skillful diplo-
matists of Louis XIY repeatedly enhanced the value of his
victories and diminished the losses incurred by his defeats.
The American victory at Yorktown determined the fact that
we should somehow have our independence, but we owe it to
our commissioners at Paris, especially to Jay, rather than to
the generals in command of our armies, that Great Britain
was constrained to treat with us as an equal and independent
nation, that we did not accept independence as a grant from
the mother country, that our treaty was a treaty of partition,
and not of concession. The important results of that fact are
familiar to us all. By no means is the work of the negotiator
done by the military commander.
And, secondly, some of the most important negotiations are
not the consequence of war, are not preceded by war. Bather
they serve to prevent war. Take as an example the treaty of
Washington of 1871, popularly known as the Alabama treaty.
It was drawn to remove the dangerous causes of dissension
between us and Great Britain. Few events in our national
life have been of more consequence than the negotiation and
execution of that treaty. It belongs to so recent a date that
most of us remember distinctly the meeting of the high joint
commissioners who framed it. Does any one now question the
supreme importance of their work? And yet how few even of
the well-informed citizens of Great Britain or of the United
States can repeat the names, I will not say of all, but of the
most prominent members of that commission. Do our school
children find them given in any of the manuals of United
States history which are placed in their hands 1
It is then far from true that the value of the services of
diplomatists is wholly dependent on the deeds of the soldier.
In some cases it is not true that they are at all determined by
military achievements. There is no good reason why the his-
torian should with emphasis dwell on the skill of generals, and
be silent concerning the genius and the work of great masters
of the diplomatic art.
Let us now notice briefly what we do find in some of our
histories concerning a few important treaties and the men who
drew them. Take the great treaties negotiated at Munster
and Osnabriick, to which as a whole the name of The Peace of
Westphalia is generally given. All will agree that it is one of
the most important events in the history of modern Europe. Of
INADEQUATE RECOGNITION OF DIPLOMATISTS — ANGELL. 19
course no liistory of the great continental states in the seven-
teenth century can altogether omit reference to it. But if we
turn to Dyer's Modern Europe, or EusselPs Modern Europe, or
Crowe's France, or among German works to Kohlrausch's
History of Germany or to MenzePs, the subject is touched very
lightly or not at all, and nothing can be learned from them
about the negotiations. Coxe's House of Austria, which gives
a good succinct summary of the treaties, is silent about the men
who made them. One might suppose that Gindely's Thirty
Years' War would at least have had a closing chapter on the
treaties. But it has not a word, though the American trans-
lator has added a chapter in which some attention is given to
the subject. And apparently the call upon the author by
readers, who were surprised at his omission, led him to publish
a little supplemental brochure to supply it. Martin, the French
historian, treats the subject, as he does other negotiations,
with considerable fullness, and gives his readers an idea of
who the negotiators were.
But if one would learn much of the details of the transac-
tions or of the traits even of the leading negotiators, one must
turn to such special histories as Bougeaut's Histoire des
Guerres et des ^^gociations qui precederent le Traite de West-
phalie, and Le Clerc's N^gociations Secretes, or Garden's His-
toire des Traites de Paix. He could there find that France
was represented by the Count d'Avaux, who had, on an
embassy to Venice, settled a difficult question about Mantua,
that he had secured a truce between Poland and Sweden, that
he had negotiated a treaty at Hamburg, which prepared the
way for the Peace of Westphal a, and that he was a man of large
skill and experience j also by Servien, the Count de la Eoche
des Aubiers, who had been secretary of state under Eichelieu,
had seen diplomatic service, and had by his brilliancy be-
came a favorite of Mazarinj and finally by the renowned Due
de Longueville. He could see that Sweden had sent to the
congress the son of the great chancellor Oxenstiern, a man of
large learning and capacity, and Salvius, who had won the
favor of his Queen Christina. He would learn that the empire
had in Dr. Yolmar and Count Trautsmandorf envoys who
were in ability and good sense peers of any in that great
assembly, and that Yenice was represented by Contarini, who
had rendered conspicuous public services at the principal
courts of Europe, and that tlie mediator sent by the Pope was
20 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Eabio Chigi, afterwards raised to the Holy See by the title of
Alexander YII, and that he was one of the shrewdest and
most experienced diplomatists present. Not to mention any
of the one hundred and forty others whose names are given by
Garden, surely these dominant men, who shaped the great
settlement from which in an emphatic sense what we call
modern Europe may be said to date its life, might well have
their names recalled and their work recognized as theirs by
any historian of the seventeenth century.
If we pause to notice the three principal treaties of the reign
of Louis XIY, those of "N^imeguen, Eyswick, and Utrecht, we
shall find a very slight treatment of them in several histories
of repute. From Dyer and Eussell and Crowe the reader will
learn little or nothing. Green's larger work on England has
the briefest possible notice of these treaties. Even Philipson
in his volume on the Age of Louis XIY, forming a part of
Oncken's great Historical Series, while giving the results of
the treaties, says hardly anything of the men who negotiated
them. Martin gives some of the names, but not all j and does
not dwell on the merits of the men he does name. Lecky says
he omits any detailed account of the treaty of Utrecht because
it is fully described elsewhere, as, in fact, it is in Stanhope's
Queen Anne. Hume is reasonably full on the negotiations at
Mmeguen, Macaulay on Eyswick, and Capefigue on both. In
general the French historians as a class have given more
attention to diplomatic history than either the Germans or the
English.
When we remember that in the making of th e treaties re-
ferred to such men as Colbert-Croiss6, Cailleres, De Harlay and
Polignac of France, and Sir William Temple and Hyde and
Sir Leoline Jenkins of England, and Yan Bevening of the
Netherlands were engaged, may we not fairly ask whether
some special attention might not have been given to them by
the historians of their period ?
With the single exception of the great treaty of Yienna of
1815, we shall find the case much the same in more recent
European history. The names of any of the negotiators of
the treaty of Paris of 1856, which summed up the results of the
Crimean war and introduced perhaps the most important
changes in maritime affairs ever made by a single treaty, are
not so much as mentioned in Justin McCarthy's interesting
History of our Time.
INADEQUATE RECOGNITION OF DIPLOMATISTS — ANGELL. 21
It is but just to say that the American historians, especially
Hildreth and Bancroft, have set a better example in writing
of the treaties made by the United States in the period cov-
ered by their works. But the authors of our school manuals
of American history give the children little or no information
concerning the diplomatic labors of the men who, by their
skill, helped win in Europe those victories in the council
chamber which were as influential in securing our independ-
ence as the battles of Saratoga and Yorktown.
If we can not justify the neglect of many historians to treat
with sufficient fullness the work of diplomatists, we can per-
ceive some of the causes of that neglect. That work does not
appeal to the imagination and excite the passions of men like
the battles of the warrior. The processes by which it is accom-
plished are often, perhaps generally, guarded by governments
with more or less secrecy. Even when the French and Spanish
ambassadors used to make their entry into a capital with great
display, their discussions in a congress and their dispatches
were not given to the public. Flassan (I, 37) well says "the
lot of negotiators is less favorable for celebrity than that of
generals. Their works are often buried; if recent, they can
not be made public; if they have become a little old, they lack
interest, unless the pen which has traced them has such a
superior style that we can regard them as models of logic and
of human wisdom."
But if the reader is more dazzled by the description of bat-
tles than of even the most imi)ortant negotiations, is it not the
duty of the historian to correct his bad taste or to disregard
it by setting forth in due proportions what is really important,
and by giving to great negotiators the credit which is really
their due for promoting the interests of their country and of
humanity?
While general histories should give more attention to the
important features in diplomatic work, it seems desirable that
the diplomatic history of each nation should be written by
some one of its own citizens. It is due to each nation that its
diplomatic relations be set forth in such a special work in more
detail than the general historian can properly resort to in his^
narrative. The custodians of the archives can give more lib-
erty to one of their fellow-citizens in examining papers than
they sometimes are free to grant to foreigners. But more lib-
22 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
erality in the use of documents, and at the same time more care
in preserving them, may well be exercised by governments.
So impartial an editor as De Martens complains in the pref-
ace to his Nouveau Eecueil de Traites that he has been unable
to procure many important documents which he needed,
because they had not been published or because govern-
ments were unwilling to communicate them to him.
In some countries, notably in England, a large part of the
most valuable material for diplomatic history is carried off by
the foreign secretaries as they leave ofl&ce. This material con-
sists of the confidential letters from the ministers who are
representing the country abroad. These letters are regarded
in Great Britain as the private property of the foreign secre-
tary. They contain often more valuable information than the
formal dispatches. Being carried away, they are sometimes
lost. Sometimes they appear in the publication of family
papers of the secretaries, divorced from the documents which
should explain or modify them. It may be a question whether
in that country and in ours some provision should not be made
for preserving in the archives even these personal letters to the
secretaries, or such parts of them as concern public business,
so that the Government may have all the facts within reach
and may permit them to be used by the historian when the
proper time comes for a full diplomatic history.
Several nations have published or have permitted the pub-
lication of their treaties. In addition to Barbeyrac's Collec-
tion of Ancient Treaties, and the vast Corps Diplomatique
Universel of Dumont, we have the Acta Foedera Publica of
Eymer, the Eegesta Diplomatica of Georgisch, the Codex
ItalisB Diplomaticus of Lunig, the collections of Abreu for
Spain, the Codex Diplomaticus of Leibnitz, the great Eecueils
of Modern Treaties by Dr. Martens and his successors, the
British Treaties of Hertslet, the Collection of the United
States, the South American Treaties, edited by Calvo, and
other collections. We have also Koch and Schoell's History
of Treaties. But of diplomatic histories, which give us full
accounts of the origin and details and results of negotiations,
and make known to us the personality and the influence and
merits of the men who conducted them, and enable us to
understand the living forces which accomplished the results
attained, of these we have but few. The French, with the
INADEQUATE RECOGNITION OF DIPLOMATISTS — ANGELL. 23
renowned works of Flassan and Garden and Lefebvre, have
outstripped all otlier nations.
Flassan, in speaking of sucli works as the Histoire des Trait^s
by St. Preuxj Mably's Du Public de PEurope, and Koch's Abreg^
des Traites, well says: ^^In speaking of events they have said
nothing of persons, although these lend great interest to a dip-
lomatic work. It is not sufficient to give the principal articles of
a treaty of peace and to add a sketch of the events which have
preceded it. One should as far as possible make us acquainted
with the negotiator, indicate the forces brought into play on
either side, the principal debates in the conferences, the ob-
stacles overcome, and sum up in impartial conclusions the
results of the treaty or of the action of the cabinet which they
are discussing."
Mr. Trescot in his two little volumes on the earlier chapters
in our diplomatic history j Mr. Lyman in his more extensive
work; Mr. Schuyler in his monograph on certain chapters in
our history; the former president of the American Historical
Association, Mr. John Jay, in his chapter in Winsor^s His-
tory on the Negotiation qf the Treaty of Independence, and
Mr. Henry Adams in his Administrations of Jefferson and
Madison, have well supplemented Hildreth and Bancroft, and
Mr. Ehodes in his recent work has given long-neglected recog-
nition to the services of Secretary Marcy. But a full and con-
nected history of American diplomacy, in the light of present
knowledge, is still a desideratum.
It has seemed to me eminently appropriate to discuss this
theme now in this age of arbitration, and here where the
world is holding its great industrial congress of peace. It is
meet that we should emphasize the importance of pacific nego-
tiations as the desirable method of settling international dif-
ficulties by giving the deserved place to the histories of diplo-
matic labors and by asking that historians should place on the
heads of great diplomatists the laurels which they merit, and
of which they have too long been robbed, and should give
them as honorable a position upon their pages as they assign
to great admirals and great captains. Let history do what she
can to perpetuate the fraternal relations of nations by glorify-
ing the council chamber and the arbitrator at least as much as
the field of battle and the warrior.
$
24 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
OPENINa OF THE HISTORICAL CONGRESS.
It is with peculiar pleasure that we assemble here to-day to
take part in this historical congress. Some of us make no
higher claim than to be regarded as earnest and sincere stu-
dents of history. We are fortunate in being honored with the
presence of others, whose contributions to historical research
and literature are honored throughout the world. We Ameri-
cans are very grateful for the opportunity of meeting and
hearing some distinguished visitors from other lands whose
writings we have long held in the highest esteem. We should
have been glad to see more of them. If there is any study
which makes men catholic and cosmopolitan, it is the study
of history. If there is any pursuit which lifts us above the
narrow prejudices and conceits of provincialism and helps us
to understand man in his essential characteristics, it is that of
the historical scholar whose vision sweeps over the whole
career of the race and whose inductions are made from facts
as broad as the life of the race. In this large and hospitable
spirit, worthy of this great concourse of nations, we assemble
here to- day and take up our work.
III.~THE VALUE OF NATIONAL ARCHIVES.
By MRS. ELLEN HARDIN WALWORTH
OF SAEATOGA, N. Y.
25
THE VALUE OF NATIONAL ARCHIVES.
By Ellen Hardin Walworth.
"To know the old era you must searcli with a lantern; to know the new
era you must winnow."
Archives hold the evidence of facts; what the Bible is to the
theologian and what the statute law is to the lawyer the state
archive is to the historian. We have a history like the com-
mon law, which consists of facts known by tradition and long
established usage, if we may apply such a term to historical
data. These long-standing traditions can not be ignored, nor
even be treated lightly. Many of them stand on the same basis
as the common law, which began in tradition and finally found
its way to the statute books.
There are unwritten archives which may be consulted by the
historian. These are found i n the rude and imperfect monu-
ments with which the people of a nation have from time to time
endeavored to perpetuate the memory of events and of persons ;
and there are unwritten archives to be found in the customs
and habits of the people who are the subjects of study. These
sources of investigation with the well-known historical bibli-
ography of each nation and age are the open fields in which
the historian wanders at will, gathering such facts and nar-
rative as suits his need or his taste. Here the superficial student
may spend a life- time gathering material and drawing conclu-
sions. In biography and local history val uable work may be done
in these open fields ; but when the earnest student or writer gives
his attention to public affairs and individuals as connected
with governments and nations he must authenticate his facts
with greater care, and seek the official evidence that will prove
his statements. To accomplish this he turns with confidence
and hope to the archives of the nation whose history he would
investigate or bring forth. If it is in the old era that he would
27
28 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
seek knowledge he takes his lantern and explores the musty
volumes and difficult manuscripts before him, and he turns
over the unclassified mass of documents in search of the para-
graph or sentence that may throw light on his fact or supposi-
tion. These failing him, he gropes his way in other directions,
still searching for a clue to the few words that will verify his
statement or lead to other discoveries. These documents, still
inspiring confidence because they have the sanction of the
Government, the instinct of the hunter or the miner is aroused
in the historian, and he pursues his game as eagerly as if the
wily pheasant or the golden nugget would be the reward of
his pursuit.
If it is of the new era that he would gain information he
will find thousands of documents printed by the Government,
from which he must winnow and select the precious sentence
that may authenticate his gleanings in the open field. In
either case his reference from the national archive is a guar-
anty, at least, of the faithfulness of his work, and, while these
archives are by no means infallible, they are made up of that
cumulative testimony that counts for evidence in human affairs.
Thus it is that the archives of each government are a great
storehouse from which the facts of history are authenticated
even when not drawn directly from them. If, as Mr. Schouler
has recently said, "The grand results and the grand lessons
of human life are ours in retrospect, and in retrospect alone,"
then must we look with reverential and anxious eyes toward
these repositories of the records which make retrospection
possible.
We, in this country, are fortunate in inheriting the English
characteristic that sets a value on all official and family rec-
ords. Perhaps no nation has been more careful than England
in the preservation of her archives, and perhaps no nation has
been more careless in this direction than the United States 5
yet I reaffirm my statement that we do inherit the English
pride of country and ancestry which is possibly the impelling
motive in an unusual care for Government and family statis-
tics. We have been careless because life with us in the past
was too experimental and too intense to admit of very definite
record and painstaking protection of such rapid records as
were made. Like, children, too, we had not learned the rela-
tive value of the things not purchasable, as compared with
money and the things that money will buy 5 a natural mistake
THE VALUE OF NATIONAL ARCHIVES — WALWORTH. 29
for a people suddenly emerging from the stress of poverty and
war, as in the Eevolution, into the possession of great and
unexpected fortunes as followed in the succeeding years.
Questions vital to the life of the nation involved in the war of
1812, and in the late war, have agitated even the most quiet
students of the land. Questions of policy and finance involv-
ing the Louisiana x^nrchase, with control of the mouth of the
Mississippi Eiver, and the war with Mexico, bringing its grand
acquisition of territory, have stirred the whole people to a
degree that allowed little time to consider the history they
were making from month to month and year to year.
The form of our Government, too, has been detrimental to an
early collection of historical records j the separate States have
had a desire to retain all records relating to each one within
its own borders, even while they were all more or less careless
of the safety of the most important documents. The beginnings
of the Government being located in the various colonies, the his-
tory of that early period is to be sought in many places. The
result is that partial and incomplete histories of the establish-
ment of the country have prevailed, and some colonies, as
Kew York, have had scant justice in the histories of the
nation. It may be said with some fairness that these colonies
and states are in a measure at fault, as they have not furnished
the material nor the encouragement to historians that would
stimulate them to overcome the difficulties to be encountered.
A thought of these difficulties leads us back to the general
subject of archives.
The earliest literary effusions of the Anglo-Saxons, even
while metrical in form, were historical in matter, and among
their first efforts in prose was the Saxon Chronicle. This, like
our own early history, was made piecemeal in the various
counties and convents. In the reign of King Alfred,the Primate
Plegmund appears to have conducted an official collection of
the different parts. The frequency with which the Saxon
Chronicle is quoted by historians proves its value. In the old
era the professions of law and theology established official
records of inestimable value. The ecclesiastical claim to make
a record for every Christian of his baptism, marriage and death;
to try him for crimes and misdemeanors, and to protect
him from both private and judicial vengeance was a means of
preserving the history of individuals and communities, for the
noted events of the Government were also celebrated and
30 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
recorded in the cliurches. As the courts of law gradually
developed, they took the people and the government, of which
they formed a part, under their supervision j thus the records
passed slowly from the churches and convents into a final
independence of them. The decrees of the kings, like that
creating the Domesday Book, from time to time established a
special collection and preservation of archives. By the con-
servation of family records they have in many cases become
official archives. In England they grew into great importance
through the "Visitation" as it was called of the King-at-arms,
begun possibly in the reign of Henry Till and intended at first
only to decide the disputed question as to which families were
entitled to bear a coat Of arms.
In the preservation of her archives and an appreciation of
their value England has a rival in Spain. There the details of
every transaction, of the past seems to be cherished with a
reverential spirit. Our own historians have availed themselves
of the almost unhmited treasures preserved by the Spanish Gov-
ernment. There is little need to speak of the debt we owe to
Spain in the department of history at this time and in this
place, where on every side there are evidences of her care for
her archives, and her generosity in lending them. Yet I can
not refrain from mentioning a striking illustration of the full-
ness and accuracy of these records, and the facility with which
they can become available. The old Spanish fort at St. Augus-
tine, Fla., is, I believe, the only work of its peculiar kind on
this continent. One of a similar interest, and closely resem-
bling it was a few years ago among the historical relics of New
Orleans; our Government allowed it to be sold and converted
into a beer garden, losing every trace of its ancient dignity. A
retired army officer, visiting St. Augustine, heard that the
picturesque Fort Marion there was in imminent danger of like
degradation. He appealed successfully to the engineer on
inspection duty, and induced him to recommend the renovation
of the old fort instead of its destruction. The proposition was
accepted by our Government, and the officer who was to super-
vise the work was authorized to write to the Spanish Govern-
ment and ask for any information they could furnish in regard
to the original plans of the fort, now so dilapidated as to be
difficult of restoration. To the astonished gratification of the
officer he received, in a very short time, a full case of the origi-
nal plans and drr^wings of the fort and the surrounding country,
THE VALUE OF NATIONAL ARCHIVES — WALWORTH. 31
with a complete account of the expense of building, the num-
ber of men employed for the work, the provision for them, etc.,
and all this after an interval of about three hundred years.
In contrast to this may be mentioned the loss, so far as I
know, of all record of the plans and drawings of Kosciusko
for the fortified camp at Saratoga in the Burgoyne campaign
in 1777, little more than one hundred years ago. There are
many maps and drawings of the British engineers of the
opposing camp. From these British records and remains of
the American defenses and reports of officers, the American
works have been located and tablets erected to mark them.
Had the patriotic work been deferred, even to the present time,
all indication of military occupation would have been obliter-
ated. Thus are we indebted to other nations for the preserva-
tion of our own historical relics and records.
France has been generous and painstaking in the preserva-
tion of her archives, but they have suffered many vicissitudes
in the fluctuations of her government, and it has been said
that her historians copy and quote from them with a free
hand 5 that they have not the same regard for accuracy and
the disregard for a revelation of disagreeable facts that dis-
tinguishes the Englishman.
The Italians have, in the Vatican, still an unexplored wealth
of historical treasure that will continue to unfold for ages its
hidden narratives, some of them, perhaps, as remarkable as
the discovery of the Cicero de Eepublica. You remember how
Cardinal Mali picked up an old manuscript in the Vatican
written in a clear bold handj reading it he was impressed only
with the indifferent style and foily of the writer, but as he read
he observed some strange characters of a different kind from
this bold writing J he traced this hidden lettering into words
that made a quotation from Cicero used by an old writer 5 his
curiosity still further excited, he pursued his investigation
which resulted in the discovery of the long lost literary treasure,
the Cicero de Eepublica 5 by the application of chemicals the
later writing was obliterated and the ancient one restored.
The Government of the United States, with all the excuses
which have been presented, still appears to have been culpa
bly negligent in the collection and preservation of the national
archives.
That the Saxon instinct to hold on to all that is of value in
the past, for utility if not for veneration, is strong within us
32 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
is proved by the quick awakening of the country to the mem-
ories of this historic year, and to the appeals of various asso-
ciations having in view the restoration of historical records,
and the veneration of ancestors. The people are always in
advance of their legislators; these last are held back by mo-
tives of policy, but the people strike out for what they want,
and in time they bring their legislators to their way of thinking.
Would not the vote of the people on any day decide that
the few thousand dollars necessary to print the Eevolutionary
papers now lying, in their single original copies, in the State
Department, should be expended promptly and generously for
that purpose?
On the tables of the State Department in Washington I
have had piled up before me, for reference, dozens of these
precious volumes of manuscript, many of them torn and worn;
and as I handled them gently, thankful indeed for the privi-
lege accorded me by the officials in charge, I was almost moved
to tears in the thought that by a single accident the nation
might be stripped of these treasures of the past.
Such valuable papers are not only on the shelves of the
public Departments; they are scattered all over the country.
Would not a vote of the people, if taken to-day, be in favor of
the appointment of officers of the Government whose duty it
should be to collect and preserve these documents?
Would it not be well that we, who are gathered here in the
interest of historical research, should make our opinion and
desire heard concerning the Eevolutionary records, by means
of a strong resolution addressed to the Congress soon to con-
vene; this resolution to embody a petition for the collection
and preservation of the Eevolutionary and other national
archives?
IV -AMERICAN HISTORICAL NOMENCLATURE.
By AINSWORTH R. SPOFFORD,
LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS.
S. Mis. 104 3 33
AMERICAN HISTORICAL NOMENCLATURE.
By AiNSWORTH R. Spofford.
The names of places may be said to present a subject of
historical and world-wide interest. Local nomenclature, while
more immediately related to geography, is also intimately and
indissolubly connected with history.
Although it is not true, as sometimes asserted, that the
whole history of a country^s settlement and growth can be con-
structed from its map, still the progress of different immigra-
tions, as traced in the peculiarities or the language of the ap-
pellations bestowed upon new places, forms a constant subject
for the historian. The States of our Union are written all over
with names which reveal the composite character of our pop-
ulation. At the same time, the most notable and most deplor-
able feature in the naming of places is the endless reduplica-
tion of the most common-place names without regard to
euphony or appropriateness.
In this commemorative year of America's greatest discov-
erer, I have thought it not inopportune to ask the attention of
this association first, to the errors already widely committed in
our local nomenclature; and, secondly, to the possibility of
avoiding, by organized and intelligent effort, the indefinite
continuance of such monstrosities as now disfigure the map,
distress the judicious mind, and become the despair of post-
masters. One shudders at the possibility of the fiftieth repe-
tition of "Elk Eidge" or "Enterprise," while there are thou-
sands of fit and euphonious names, all unused, or but little
used, waiting to be adopted. The neglect of the names of
American discoverers and explorers, and the failure to preserve
and to extend the use of the great vocabulary of beautiful and
euphonious aboriginal names, are among the primal wrongs
which call for redress. While the mischiefs already done can
not be undone, it becomes us as historical inquirers jealous
of the fame of the early voyagers and explorers of our con-
35
36 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
tinent, and sedulous to preserve tlie only traces likely to re-
main of tlie aborigines whom we have dispossessed, to interest
ourselves in arresting the tide of boundless monotony of nomen-
clature, which is sweeping over the land- We shoul d take pride
enough in our country to save what we can of it from further
desecration, remembering what a heritage is ours of a continent
stretching from ocean to ocean, whose flag floats thousands of
miles further than the Eoman eagles ever flew.
Names of places are very rarely created. They are prepon-
derantly borrowed from foreign countries, or else transplanted
from the older settlements to new regions. Some (but unhap-
pily they are comparatively few) are expressions of some inher-
ent quality, association, or historical event. What names, for
example, can be at once more appropriate and more euphoni-
ous than Sierra i^Tevada, or Blue Eidge, or Kocky Mountains?
Ko doubt all proper names had originally a peculiar and appro-
priate meaning. Multitudes of towns and villages, as well as
estates, have been named from early owners or residents.
This is evinced in the everywhere-found affixes to family names
like town, torij ville, hurg^ and horough, which form such count-
less combinations in the local nomenclature of every State in
the Union.
The new world, so far as its nomenclature is concerned, may
fairly be termed for the most part but a renaissance of the old.
Take out of the map of most of our States all names of foreign
derivation (including, of course, the British) and surprisingly
few native names will remain. Names which were fossilized
on the banks of the Euphrates and the Jordan three thousand
years ago are found on the banks of the Susquehanna and the
Mississippi to-day.
Some of our early nomenclators appear to have thought that
the farther they could fetch a name from remote antiquity, the
better it would sound. New York State, especially, suffered
from the classic craze in the person of a surveyor- general
named De Witt, who was enamored of "the glory that was
Greece and the grandeur that was Eome.^^ So he baptized a
multitude of towns with the names of ancient cities, and not
content with that, hitched to others the names of Greek and
Eoman poets, philosophers, and statesmen, about as appropri-
ate to New York villages as would be a sculpture of Eomulus
and Eemus in the Capitol at Washington. The banks of the
Genesee and the Mohawk, instead of being permanently
AMERICAN HISTORICAL NOMENCLATURE — SPOFFORD. 37
adorned with the beautiful indigenous names abounding in
that region, were made to echo ancient history as old and as
dead as Julius Caesar. The misfortune followed (as all bad
models always have hosts of imitators) that the classic epi-
demic spread, until we have among American towns 5 Ciceros,
3 Tullys, 6 Catos, 7 Ovids, 6 Virgils, 9 Horaces, 10 Milos, 7
Hectors, 7 Solons, 10 Platos, 15 Homers, and 4 Scipios.
From classical geography we have borrowed without rhyme
or reason 16 Uticas, 20 Eomes, 5 Marathons, 19 Spartas, 9
Atticas, 5 Ithacas, 8 Delphis, 18 Athenses, 13 Corinths, and 25
Troys. Fabulous mythology contributes to our local nomencla-
ture 7 Keptunes, 8 Minervas, 3 Jupiters, 5 Junos, 5 Ulysseses,
4 Dianas, 22 Auroras, and only 1 Apollo.
But the Greek and Eoman hobby, though well ridden, yields
to scriptural geography in the number, if not in the variety of
borrowed appellations for places. The leaven of Biblical lore
lay profoundly working in the souls of many early settlers all
through the North and South. So we have (among many
more) 22 Bethels, 10 Jordans, 9 Jerichos, 14 Bethlehems, 22
Goshens, 21 Shilohs, 11 Oarmels, 18 Tabors and Mount Tabors,
23 Zions and Mount Zions, 26 Edens, 30 Lebanons, 26 Hebrons,
and 36 Sharons, and compounds.
From the local nomenclatures of other countries of the East
we have not borrowed largely. Still, we have 11 Egypts, 14
Cairos, 15 Alexandrias, 5 Bagdads, 11 Damascuses, 19 Palmy-
ras, 14 Garthages, 9 Memphises, 11 Delhis, 4 Ceylons, 5 Chinas,
and 25 Cantons.
The most copious vocabulary of our local names is of British
origin. This is readily accounted for by the extensive immi-
gration from that country in the seventeenth century, when
the first settlers instinctively took the readiest means of find-
ing names for each new settlement in the wilderness. New
England and the southern colonies were thickly sown with
appellatives transplanted from England, and at a later period
from Scotland and Ireland. Of American towns duplicating
from ten to thirty times over the names of British cities and
boroughs, the number is surprisingly large. Taking eighty
of the more familiar English cities and towns, we find that
these eighty have sufficed to name more than a thousand
American places.
As to foreign names other than British, while reduplication
is more rare, certain European names have been prime favorites.
38 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
While London has but 13 American namesakes, Paris has 22,
and Geneva, owing partly to the euphony of the name and
partly to its historic associations, has 18. Some European
countries are widely duplicated— witness, 17 Denmarks, 12
]!>rorways, and 19 Hollands. Of foreign languages the. French
is the most widespread in our geogi^aphy, the French explora-
tions and occupation from 1525 to 1763 having bestowed hosts
of names still retained in our states adjacent to Canada, from
Maine to Wisconsin, and along the Mississippi from its sources
to its mouth, besides the fragmentary survival of Southern
Huguenot emigration in such names as Beaufort, Port Eoyal,
etc. Spanish nomenclature is very widely prevalent in i^ew
Mexico, California, and other regions adjacent to the Pacific
coast, while there is a survival of the former dominion of
Spain in the local nomenclature of Florida. The early occu-
pation of New York by natives of Holland has left permanent
records in the many Dutch names of streams, localities, and
villages in eastern New York and a part of New Jersey.
In more recent years the heavy immigration from Germany
has helped to spread German names, though to a very moder-
ate degree, in the Western States, while a very few Scandi-
navian names of places are to be found in the Northwest.
Switzerland has its little commemoration in Vevay and other
names on the banks of the Ohio.
Tracing the origin of the names of our 44 States, we find
that 6 are Spanish — California, Colorado, Florida, Montana,
Nevada, and Texas j 3 French — Louisiana, Maine, and Ver-
mont; 11 British — Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, New Hamp-
shire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia; 3 of English
manufacture or individual — Indiana, Ehode Island, and Wash-
ington; and 21 aboriginal or Indian, viz: Alabama, Arkan-
sas, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Ten-
nessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
It is highly creditable to our national taste, as well as to the
average good sense of Congress, that so large a number of
names native to the soil and appropriate, as well as euphoni-
ous, have been preserved in the designations of our States.
But it is deplorable that one newly created State should have
been admitted as Washington, instead of Takoma, or some
AMERICAN HISTORICAL NOMENCLATURE — SPOFFORD. 39
other aboriginal name. It has already created endless annoy-
ance and loss in correspondence by its confusion with the
capital of the country. What is still more to be regretted is
that so few, comparatively, of the great and attractive vocab-
ulary of Indian names have been applied to the naming of new
towns throughout the Union. While many rivers and lakes
(including happily a large share of the most important) bear
aboriginal names, bestowed long before the United States
became a nation, and several States (notably Kew York, Penn-
sylvania, Yirginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Florida,
Ohio, Oregon, and Washington) have done themselves honor
by calling some of their counties by these handsome names,
instead of after so-called statesmen whom nobody remembers,
very few towns and villages, even in these States, bear Indian
names. Yet witness what a prodigality of fine melodious
names remain, the best legacy which the unlettered red man
could leave us before he vanished forever before the march of
civilization. I can cite but a few — a very few — only, out of
hundreds equally eligible.
Wallula, Wyandotte, Winona, Wyoming, Yenango, Tioga,
Towanda, Tallula, Tuscarora, Toronto, Tallapoosa, Shawnee,
Shenandoah, Suwanee, Scioto, Saranac, Sandusky, Seneca,
Saginaw, Saratoga, Eappahannock, Eoanoke, Pemaquid, Poto-
mac, Ponca, Patapsco, Powhatan, Penobscot, Oswego, Onoko,
Ottawa, Osceola, Ontario, Nanticoke, Ii»5'ottoway, Niagara,
Nantucket, Mohegan, Merrimac, Minnehaha, Mackinaw, Mus-
kingum, Meenahga, Minnewaska, Miami, Mohawk, Maumee,
Mingo, Lackawanna, Kennebec, Kanawha, Juniata, Hoboken,
Hiawatha, Huron, Horicon, Genesee, Erie, Accomac, Allegheny,
Alachua, Aroostook, Ampersand, Chesapeake, Catawba, Chip-
pewa, Cayuga, Chenango, and Chicago.
Such names as these roll trippingly off the tongue with liquid
harmony. They unite the three leading requisites for good
local names — euphony, simplicity, and appropriateness. If it
be objected that the etymology of the Indian languages shows
all their names to have had merely local application, thus un-
fitting them for transplanting to other regions, the answer is
twofold: First, there is no such advanced stage of knowledge
or of agreement among ethnologists versed in the signification
of Indian names as can give adequate basis for the assertion j
and, second, the transfer to any part of this continent of any
aboriginal names whatever is infinitely more logical and appro-
40 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
priate than the wholesale importation ever going on of foreign
appellations representing remote nations, and ages still more
remote. Why boggle over a few uncertain Indian etymologies
when we have been swallowing for generations the most as-
tounding, incongruous, and inappropriate combinations which
the ignorance or the misapplied ingenuity of man could apply
to designate our towns?
If it is said that Indian names mean nothing to us, we may
reply that neither do the old English names, in nine cases out
of ten, mean anything in America. Norfolk and Suffolk, wide-
spread names as they are among us, are not apprehended by
Americans, who pronounce them, as meaning Forth folk and
South folk — their primary signification. iTor, even if they
were, would they have the slightest applicability to any of the
towns and counties they here represent. Is it any more
inapposite or misleading to diffdse these aboriginal names
over our new States and Territories, than to keep on forever
creating the fiftieth Brownsville or the hundredth Johnstown,
or the thousandth Jonesboro? How much better would it
have been to name ISiew York City, ^'Manhattan," than to
perpetuate in that great metropolis the ignoble name of a
graceless royal English duke !
As between names native to the soil, and euphonious in
speech, but with only partial fitness, and foreign names with
no fitness at all, we may well prefer the former.
One of the most prolific sources from which our names of
places have been drawn is the Biographical Dictionary. Be-
ginning with the line of Presidents of the United States, each
of whom has from three to thirty-two towns called after his
name, we have a long catalogue of statesmen, politicians, mili-
tary and naval officers, authors, inventors, and men of science
who have given names more or less widely distributed. Alex-
ander Hamilton is commemorated by no less than 30 cities or
towns, Clinton by 30, Webster by 24, Benton by 20, Calhoun
by 13, Clay by 7 (besides many compounds), Quincy by 19,
Douglas by 21, and Blaine by 20.
In many cases of places named after minor politicians, we
are left to wonder whether the chief object might have been to
give to some local celebrity of the hour his sole chance of
being remembered at all.
Of all Americans, the illustrious Dr. Franklin has the honor
of leading in the choice of his name for places all over the land.
AMERICAN HISTORICAL NOMENCLATURE SPOFFORD. 41
His list (including compounds of the name) numbers 63.
Andrew Jackson comes next with 61 towns, then Washington
with 49, Jefferson with 47, Madison with 44, Monroe with 43,
and Garfield with 24.
Among generals of the Army, Marion heads the list with 30
towns, Warren 25, La Fayette (in various forms) 55, Mont-
gomery 17, Stark 14, St. Clair 11, De Kalb 10, Knox 10,
Pulaski 11, Sheridan 22, and the various Lees 24. Of naval
officers, 20 towns are named for Commodore Perry, 17 for
Decatur, 16 for Elliott, and 8 for Bainbridge.
In the list of authors, it is interesting to note that the British
take the lead in the adoption of their names, there being 31
towns named Milton, 18 Byron, 14 Addison, and 10 Burns,
while Irving names 21 towns. Cooper 13, Bryant 11, Emerson
9, Bancroft 9, and Hawthorne 6. The great scientist Hum-
boldt has 12 towns called after his name, Kewton 19, and Dar-
win 5.
The early American discoverers and explorers have been,
with the sole exceptions of Columbus and Americus Yespucius,
almost wholly neglected. The former is commemorated in 20
towns named Columbus, and 27 Columbias. Five places are
named Americus and 3 America. While Ealeigh and De Soto,
La Salle and Marquette, Hennepin and Hudson, are remem-
bered, Champlain has but a single place called after his name,
while Roberval, De Monts, Argall, Iberville, Frobisher, Gorges,
Cartier, Balboa, Dablon, Bressani, Baffin, Bering, and Gosnold
have none. What could be more appropriate than to render
some measure of historical justice, however tardy, to these
and many other explorers and voyagers, by bestowing their
names upon some part of the country which they helped to
throw open to civilization ? The early history of the continent,
concerning which new and profound interest has lately devel-
oped, would thus be suggestively connected with names worthy
of remembrance, and the young would learn geography and
history, biography and the annals of discovery, by being put
upon inquiry into the origin of such names of places.
There is one excuse for the universal duplication of the most
common-place names throughout the United States, and that
is, the unexampled rapidity of its settlement. Emigrants into
a new and undeveloped region experience as one of their first
wants that of a name for each new place or settlement. Thus
it is that the westward-moving wave of population bears with
42 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
it a whole vocabulary derived from the region it left behind.
The emigrants naturally bestow names long familiar, whether
commemorative of families, natural features, or abstract quali-
ties, upon the settlements which they found in the wilderness.
These names, once fixed, generally remain unchanged. Hence
the importance of giving a broader and better scope to our local
nomenclature, and by the diffusion of wide intelligence as to
the rich field of neglected names, aboriginal and other, open-
ing a way for radical improvement.
In the good work of reform in this direction, what more
appropriate agency could be invoked than our historical socie-
ties, national and local? It is theirs to watch with sedulous
care every phase of the country's development, and to con-
serve whatever is best and most important in the past for the
benefit of the i)resent and the future.
Our institutions of learning also, as well as the local socie-
ties, now so numerous, devoted to history, should foster the
study of local antiquities and early explorations in their neigh-
borhood, and thus, each from its own center of influence, con-
tribute to enlighten public opinion on the subject of a better
local nomenclature. This association might do much to diffuse
information by digesting tables of suitable names of historic or
native significance, or, in due time, recommending to the postal
authorities lists of proper designations for new post-offices.
Already much has been done by the exercise of wise discretion
by successive Postmasters-General. We have got rid of such
names as Hardscrabble, Buzzard Roost, and Yuba Dam, in
favor of better and more decent appellations. Let the good
work go on, and many more ridiculous and inappropriate
names be reformed out of existence. Good names, once
bestowed, are among the most lasting of things earthly. They
may change in form, but they rarely perish. They outlast
dynasties, they outlive generations and ages of men — they are
in a word, perennial. So much the more important is it that
their survival should be, so far as it can be made to be, a sur-
vival of the fittest.
V -THE DEFINITION OF HISTORY.
By COL. W^ILLIAM PRESTON JOHNSTON,
PEESIDENT OF TULANE UNIVERSITY.
43
THE DEFINITION OF HISTORY.
By William Preston Johnston.
It is with diffidence that I make my answer to the invitation
to address this Congress of Historians. What I shall attempt
is a more accurate and scientific definition of history. If it
effects no more than to elicit judicious criticism even that will
be a gain. My task will be fulfilled if I can add some small
increment in the way of exact thinking to the body of histori-
cal knowledge.
That there is a necessity for such a definition seems evident.
There can be but small addition to knowledge without exact
thinking, and the first step in that direction is definition. I
believe that in a very casual examination of dictionaries, ency-
clopedias, and formal treatises it will be discovered that the
definitions given of history are inaccurate and inadequate.
So, when we turn to the writings of the historians, philos-
ophers, and essayists to learn what history is, its scope and
limits, what do we find? Eloquent outbursts, pregnant pas-
sages, and sparkling epigrams that arouse the imagination
and quicken the intellect, that stir and illuminate, but do not
define. They tell us much about history, but not what it is.
The epigram, with its electric flash, lights up a point in the
intellectual horizon or photographs a picture in the memory;
but it does not enable us to measure boundaries and set land-
marks. This humbler and more prosaic task is left to the
definition. In 1872, in a public address, I ventured the fol-
lowing definition: ^< History is man's true record of whatever
is general, important, and ascertained in the living past of
humanity." Without withdrawing this definition, I shall en-
deavor to restate my idea more exactly, and now propose the
following definition, which I think iacludes the former : " His-
tory is man's formal record of actual human phenomena, as
consecutively manifested in the past, both in the individual
45
46 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
and in society, in so far as they have been ascertained to be
general, important, enduring, and true, with the legitimate
deductions drawn for the pleasure and education of mankind."
Before examining this definition in detail let us consider
what history is as conceived by our great thinkers. Carlyle
calls it "a looking before and after;" ^'the message, verbal or
written, which all mankind delivers to every man; it is the
only articulate communication which the past can have with
the present, the distant with what is here." Emerson, con-
densing this thought, says that history is the record of the
works of the universal mind. Kingsley says that "history is
the history of men and women, and nothing else." Dionysius
Halicarnassus originated the phrase, "a philosophy from ex-
amples." Sismondi regards it as " an essential part of the great
system of moral and political science." Gervinus says, '^His-
tory was always understood to be political history;" and See-
ley says, "History is past politics." Dr. Thomas Arnold calls
history, "the biography of a society;" and Herbert Spencer
says, "the only history of practical value is what may be
called descriptive sociology." Grote and Macaulay, with a
host of followers, aim to represent the picture of national life.
Sir James Stephens views history as a divine drama; and Bun-
sen, as "that most sacred epic, or dramatic poem, of which God
is the poet, humanity the hero, and the historian the philosoph-
ical interpreter." To these might be added any number of
sparkling and suggestive sentences from the same and other
eminent writers. They each illustrate some phase or aspect of
the purpose or province of history, but they are not defini-
tions because they do not define, l^one of them include all
that is essential to the idea and exclude all that is accidental.
Yet it is by a comparison of such dissimilar views, from such
varying standpoints, that we may attain a more adequate con-
ception of this question, since it is in the correlation of many
partial truths that we arrive at a larger truth.
A great philosopher. Sir William Hamilton, went near the
core of the matter when he said, " History is properly the
narrative of a consecutive series of phenomena in time."
This touches very near the core indeed, but surely it does not
give to history its full scope, or limit it by its well recognized
restrictions. When Sir William Hamilton defines history as
the record of phenomena in time merely, he leaves it open to
the abuse of the term which Carlyle presently employed.
THE DEFINITION OF HISTORY JOHNSTON. 47
Does lie mean time present, past or future, or all of these?
Do these phenomena include prophecy as well as accomplished
fact, the foretold as well as the aftertold, as Carlyle not
vaguely adumbrates? Does it embrace the potential alike
with the real, as his fellow seer, Emerson, tells us? Possibly
in some transcendental sense, but not in the terms in which
language ordinarily measures meaning. A thousand years
are as one day in the eye of the Eternal, looking down from
the immensity of Omniscience around and beyond the mile-
stones that mark the process of human thought; but inside
the limits of time humanity is held fast to the sequences of
past, present, and future, and history belongs to the past.
We must dismiss from it that coming time which, Carlyle tells
us, *^ already waits unseen, yet definitively shaped, predeter-
mined and inevitable in the time come," except in so far as
its antecedent phenomena may be causative and provide
deductions, teaching and a philosophy which it offers the
future as legacies of the past. History is the record of what
has been, though it seeks with its half worked problems to
solve the equation of the future.
Again, Hamilton has omitted from the definition of history
that its phenomena occur in space as well as in time. And yet
all our thinking is conditioned by space; or to say the least,
the reality of history depends on its transactions occurring in
space. History is a man's record of the self-consciousness of
the race in concrete process, producing what we call events,
and viewed with reference to his environment and actual rela-
tions. It is in emphasis of this fact that the Encyclopedia
Metropolitana defines it as " a narrative of real eventsP Its
phenomena are conditioned by space as well as time. A phe-
nomenon outside of human consciousness has no place in his-
tory. Inside human consciousness it belongs to organic man
and the material world, as well as to the realm of spirit. Ham-
ilton only implies man as the teller of the narrative and yet
man must also be considered as the cause, or the vehicle, or
the actor of these phenomena, their subject or object, or both.
Man is the first postulate of history. He is the beginning and
the end of it. He enacts it; he tells it; he accepts it as a
message or gospel for guidance and self-realization. Man,
mind, phenomena, memory, narrative— and history is born.
But while we should recognize that the phenomena belong-
ing to history are conditioned by space as well as time and are
48 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
organic in man, we must keep constantly in view that the mate-
rial universe, which we call nature, except in its relation to
the sentient spirit of man, does not belong to the province of
history. Science is the register of nature j history, the record
of man. The fundamental difference we find in our thinking
is between man and nature j man, the image of the Ego, and
nature, the image of what is external and alien to the Ego.
When man records what he knows about the stars we give the
science a distinctive name, we call it astronomy; about the
earth, we call it geology, geography, etc. Why confuse mean-
ings by introducing the word history into these ideas? The
term Natural History is outworn and effete, and should be
dispensed with in scientific language. The realm of nature
belongs to science, not to history.
The world, which constitutes man^s environment and is the
house, or dwelling place, of the human race is the theater of
man's action, the stage on which are presented all those phe-
nomena we name historical. Hence history must represent it
as the frame of the picture, the setting of the jewel, possibly
as the shirt of Kessus that clings to his corporeal existence
with fatal embrace. History draws upon all the sciences that
record or explain nature for its infinite material, but it is the
record of phenomena, which, while modified and influenced by
the environment, have their own independent sphere of action
in the self-consciousness of organic man. So that what relates
to physical man merely ought properly to be called anthro-
pology, instead of trying to group universal knowledge under
this vague term.
That this caution is not unnecessary is exemplified by
Diesterweg and a school of thinkers who include the universe
in whatever point they have under discussion. Diesterweg
says, "The domain of history may extend to everything that
has ever transpired on earth. Just as the life of an individual,
of a nation, of the human race, belongs to history, so do the
processes of inanimate nature." It is against such unphilo-
sophical uses of the word that this paper is offered as a protest.
Such an expansion of meaning must result in equivocal and
worthless terminology. All is not history that is in aid of it,
that tends to it, that is valuable or even precious to it. It is a
misnomer to designate as history treatises on bugs and cats
and clothes and wine, on diseases, trades and arts, on literature,
or even on philosophy. A chronological narrative of events
THE DEFINITION OF HISTORY JOHNSTON.
49
about the lives and writings and tendencies of authors and
philosophers is entitled history only by courtesy, or, as we
might say, by brevet. It is but amplified biography.
But I have cited the passage from Diesterweg to point out
another error. He says, " The domain of nature may extend to
everything that has ever transpired on earth." And yet this
does not go as far as Emerson, who tells us that history is the
record of the works of the universal mind. Is this not, after
all, only playing with words? There is, indeed, an unblotted
record of all the acts, thoughts and aspirations of every human
soul, unimpeachable, ineffaceable. It is self-registered in the
Book of Life by the processes of the omniscient, self-conscious
verity, that is and was and is to come. This is absolute his-
tory. But this World Book shall not be read by finite eyes,
and we must narrow our views of history to man^s record of
man. What a difference is here ! What a torn and blotted
leaf is this from the great volume of the past — of the all ! With
what feeble fingers have the race scrawled in this brief and
abstract chronicle the things done and said by its foremost men,
its crude guesses and beliefs, its experiences and visions. But
after all it is humanity^s little horn book from which it hopes
to puzzle out the Great Book, or Bible, of the Totality, and to
this pursuit we are urged by all that is noblest in us. Yet frag-
mentary as is the record, small and mean as it is compared to
the full and unblotted register of human action, think what a
mass of information has been heaped up in those cemeteries of
thought, the great libraries of the world! I^o mind can mas-
ter it. And how little of this great body of fact, of this record
of human action, belongs properly to history j how much of it
must be relegated to other spheres of knowledge, or to the
limbo of inutilities !
The first and most essential criterion of history is its truth.
It is the representation of the real. In the nature of things,
aU forms of the unreal, whether of fiction, of falsification, or
of fable must be rejected from the limits of history. The prin-
cipal business of the historian is to discover and eliminate
from the record whatever is not true: and this, although abso-
lute truth is impossible and language merely approximate fact,
and fact itself is true only in its relations. History, therefore,
must partake of the error and fallibility of man^s nature ,• and its
problems do in fact present a multitude of unknown, unascer-
tainable, variable, and complex data. The Encyclopedia Bri-
S. Mis. 104 4
50 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
tannica defines it as, ^Hhe prose narrative of past events as
probably true as tbe fallibility of human testimony will allow."
And yet in its ultimate decisions it is as credible and trust-
wortby as tlie human testimony on which we build our faiths
and guide our lives. There are many facts, which, under every
test and mode of proof, may be pronounced certain. So cer-
tainty— a moral certainty — is one of the canons of genuine
history. The fact, or transaction, must be an actual or real
fact, and it must not only be true, but ascertained, verified,
and firmly substantiated, before it can properly be called his-
torical.
Again history is only concerned with the important, with
what Herbert Spencer has denominated "organizable facts."
The trivial must be eliminated. It is only the important, vital,
enduring facts and ideas that go to make up history. To know,
to remember, to understand much, we must be content to ignore,
to omit, to forget much. We must reject whatever can not be
used as an element, or factor, in the development of the indi-
vidual or of society, or as the symbol of some great moral fact,
or as an element in the evolution of final truth. Fossilized
fact, mummied truth, petrified thought belong to archaeology.
Palseology, or the science of antiquities, hoards in its junk shop
whatever is old, odd, or curious, the perishable, unorganized
facts that it imagines are, or may become, organizable. From
these cabinets the historic muse selects here and there a fact
to illustrate or elucidate an event, or to verify a statement or
hypothesis. But mere fact without moral significance, with
no spiritual life, no continuity of existence, binding present,
past, and future in rational process, is not history. History
tells what men have thought and done. I say thought and
done, because the deed without the underlying thought would
change history from a festival of the reason to a funeral, and
men would turn from it and leave the dead past to bury its own
dead.
We must accept with Hegel that reason is at once the infinite
material and infinite formative power of history, and history
the objective development of the divine idea of reason, which
is free and self-conscious. History defines itself by the stand-
ard of the vital, the important, the true. This alone is imper-
ishable. Eliminating, symbolizing, and formulating the body
of universal fact, and interpreting it in conceivable forms and
methods, history may be termed the algebra of spiritual man.
THE DEFINITION OF HISTORY JOHNSTON. 51
If these thoughts in regara to history, which I have found
most easily presented in the way of criticism of other writers
far abler than myself, be correct, we have the following data
for a definition established : That history belongs to the past,
and that it is man's record or narrative of human phenomena,
which have been ascertained or verified, as general, important,
enduring or vital, and true. In the definition I have proposed
to you I have qualified this general statement by certain limita-
tions that seem to me necessary, or at least proper. The reason
for adopting Hamilton's limitation of the record of history to
" a consecutive series of phenomena '' seems evident enough.
An unconnected series of phenomena or events would be as idle
as the babble of the waves on the beach. It would serve as a
mere mental kaleidoscope to amuse the eye of grown up children
with its glitter and deceptive symmetry, but with no function
to enlist reason, which sustains itself on causation as its con-
stant pabulum and requirement.
The limitation of history to the ^' formal record " of human
phenomena may not be so imperative, but it seems to me cor-
rect. The infinite material of which history is composed is
found everywhere. As I have said before, it is found in sci-
ence— the record of nature. It is found in the stores of arch-
aeology, those legacies that humanity and nature, joining hands,
have treasured as keys and clues to the unrecorded past. It
is found in antiquities, those buzzing flies, which, when they
swarm, reveal the presence of organic remains. All human
documents, false, fabulous, or frivolous, may serve a purpose
in history, though they are not historical. A series of truths,
mathematical truths for instance, is not historical, for truth,
though essential to the idea of history, is not its only limita-
tion. Call things by their right names. The place where his-
tory is to be found is in histories. The unconscious effort to
tell the narrator's thoughts may furnish abundance of material
for history J but conscious effort to perpetuate a record of real,
actual events, of consecutive human phenomena, is a necessary
condition to the production of that which can alone be cor-
rectly designated as history. The purpose must be in the
writer, and that purpose must be plainly evinced in the form
of the document. Hence the use of the word " formal " in the
definition.
Another point that the definition brings out is that the phe-
nomena of history are " manifested both in the individual and
52 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
in society." This is not said, however, of individual phe-
nomena unless as qualified by the words that follow, ^' general,
important, enduring, and true." We must not take Kingsley's
saying, that " history is the history of men and women and
nothing else," as excluding from its scope those generaliza-
tions that give it its chief value. It is, in addition, as has
been so often said, "philosophy teaching by examples." His-
tory must be clearly differentiated from biography. The moral
purpose of a biography may be as lofty and its methods as
accurate as those of history, but this does not make it history.
It is particular, not general. Biography narrates the events
of one life in its manifold and interesting relations ; it is the
record of individual life and character 5 history is the biogra-
phy of a race, or of a nation, or of mankind. Biography may
not inaptly be called the Mother of History. Yet no number
of individual lives, not even a universal encyclopedia of biog-
raphy, would constitute history. A polygon becomes a circle
only when the number of its sides is infinite. No one man's
life can mirror the race, nor, indeed, can any number of per-
sons, viewed as individuals, afford a true picture of humanity.
History is not made up of a multitude of biographies, by
aggregation or multiplication. The individual is, indeed, the
unit of all human phenomena, but he can not exist outside of
his relations to other individuals and to society, and hence it
is that history, which regards the actual, does not concern
itself with him except as part of the social organism. It is
said that " history is the essence of innumerable biographies;"
and properly conceived, this is true, but the essence is very
different from any of its various manifestations.
An individual life is a single ray, but in the white light that
constitutes the totality of a historical phenomenon, every sig-
nificant figure, every intellectual activity, every modifying
relation and condition must blend. Individual man is a sim-
ple cell, but the social organism composed of such units is a
very complex body. If this be true of the state, or autono-
mous community, how much more so is it of that aggregation
of social units we call mankind. Dr. Arnold called history
"the biography of a society." This is, in effect, the point of
of view of Sismondi, who treats it as a branch of moral and
political science, and of Gervinus, who limits it to political his-
tory, and of Seeley, who calls it " past politics," and of a whole
school, indeed the great multitude, of systematic historians,
THE DEFINITION OF HISTORY — JOHNSTON.
53
who confine their attention to the ethical and political prob-
lems of their narrative.
History is the biography of a society, and, more, it is the
biography of mankind. It is not a compound, but a resultant
of manifold physical, intellectual, and moral forces. History
finds its materials in the individual data of biography; and
the methods and aims of philosophy are the tools with which
it provides a chart for human conduct. History considers
the individual, not from an interest in himself, but for that in
him which has relation to all outside of him. It is because he
stands as a type, mirrors a fragment of the universal, and, by
the exercise of his will, influences the totality that he comes
within the scope of history. And yet, to accept Herbert
Spencer's view, that "the only history of practical value is
what may be called descriptive sociology," is to rob it of its
highest functions. If it is only valuable in its scientific deduc-
tions, and we are to learn nothing from the warnings and
examples of its simple narrative, nothing from the oracles that
speak in human voice from its pages, then it must be relegated
to the closet of the statistician and cease to be the message of
all mankind to every man. History treats of the phenomena
of the individual man, because it is written for the edification
and entertainment of individual men and women. It is only
thus that it can speak to mankind. It propounds its legiti-
mate deductions from its phenomena for 'Hhe education and
pleasure of mankind." I have used these words instead of
those employed by the Encyclopedia Metropolitana, "for the
instruction and amusement of mankind," because they are fit-
ter and more comprehensive to describe the pith and moment,
the power and effect, of the great message of the past to the
present. It is needless to dwell upon them, however. Let
them go for what they are worth.
I shall not in this paper attempt further to define the mean-
ing of history, an idea so central, so vast, so comprehensive
that we may well be satisfied if in any degree we approximate
it. If this paper shall not prove to contain all that this dis-
tinguished body has a right to expect, it yet will have accom-
plished its purpose if it directs the thought of the members of
this Congress to the subject under consideration.
VI -HISTORICAL INDUSTRIES.
By JAMES SCHOULER, LL. D.
OF BOSTON.
55
HISTORICAL INDUSTRIES.
By James Schouler.
Historians are sometimes said to be a long-lived race. To
historical students, at all events, this is a comfortable theory.
Eecent examples of a productive old age, such as Eanke so
long supplied, and our own illustrious George Bancroft, may
have lent strong force to the supposition. History herself, no
doubt, is a long-winded muse, and demands of each votary
the power of continuance. But I doubt whether statistics
would bear out strongly this theory of a long-lived race.
Among modern historians, well known, who have died a nat-
ural death, neither Mebuhr, Gibbon, Macaulay, nor Hildreth
reached his sixtieth yearj both Prescott and Motley died at
about 63.* On the other hand, to take poets alone whom
many of us may have seen in the flesh, both Longfellow and
Lowell passed well preserved the bounds of three score years
and ten 5 while Bryant, Whittier, and Holmes, the last of
whom still vigorously survives, enjoyed life much beyond four-
score; and of English composers the most famous, both Ten-
nyson and Browning mellowed long before they dropped.
Undoubtedly, however, steady and systematic brain-work
without brain worry conduces to health and long life, whatever
be the special occupation ; and who may better claim that pre-
cious condition of mind than the average historian ? For of all
literary pursuits none on the whole appears so naturally allied
to competent means and good family. Public office and influ-
ence, the making of history, have belonged in most epochs before
our own to the aristocracy — superior station being usually
linked in the world's experiences to wealth; and it is the scions
and kindred of those who have been actors and associates in
events, if not the actors and associates themselves, whose pens
* Francis Parkman has recently died at the age of 70, longer spared for
his work than any of those above mentioned-
57
58 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
describe past exploits most readily. These have gained the
readiest access for their studies to the public archives — ran-
sacking, moreover, that private correspondence of illustrious
leaders defunct, which family pride guards so jealously j and
with mingled urbanity and scholarship they maintain the polish
of easy intercourse in the courtly circles of their own times.
One ought to be a man of letters and liberal training for such
a life; a close student, and yet, in some sense, a person of affairs.
It costs long leisure, and money too, to collect materials prop-
erly, while the actual composition proceeds in comparison but
slowly. Nor are the royalties from historical writings, however
successful and popular, likely to remunerate one greatly, con-
sidering his aggregate outlay ; but rather than in any enhanced
pecuniary ease, his reward must be looked for in the distin-
guished comradeship of the dead and of the living — in the
satisfaction that he has performed exalted labors faithfully for
the good of his fellowmen, and found them in his own day
fairly appreciated. Happy the historian, withal, whom fame
or early promise has helped into some collateral or congenial
employment of indirect advantage to his task.
Calmness and constancy of purpose carry us on steadily in
work of this character, with powers of mind that strengthen
by habitual exercise. It is not brilliancy of assault; it is not
the pompous announcement of a narrative purpose, that deter-
mines the historian, but rather silent concentration and perse-
verance. The story one begins will never be thoroughly fin-
ished while the world stands; and on the one hand is the
temptation of preparing with too much elaboration or fastid-
iousness to narrate rapidly enough, and on the other of trying
to tell more than the circumscribed limits of preparation and
of personal capacity will permit. Men who are free from
financial anxieties will be tempted aside from the incessant
laborious work by the seductions of pleasure. Thus Prescott,
the blind historian, with excuses much stronger than Milton
ever had for social ease and inaction, found himself compelled
to overcome his temptations to sloth by placing himself habit-
ually under penal bonds to his secretary to prepare so many
pages by a given time.
More, however, than the gift of time and income the world
will scarcely look for in a literary man. It is the publisher,
rather, who projects encyclopedias and huge reservoirs of use-
ful information and who embarks large money capital in the
HISTORICAL INDUSTRIES — SCHOULER. 59
enterprise. A few celebrated authors, to be sure, have figured,
some in a dormant sense, as publishers of their own works,
like Eichardson, the English novelist, for instance, the Cham-
bers brothers, and most disastrously for himself. Sir Walter
Scott. Many literary men of means own their plates, while
putting firms forward to print and publish for them notwith-
standing.
But it is reserved, I believe, to America and to the present age
to furnish to the world the first unique example of bookseller,
book collector, historian, and publisher, all combined in one,
whose fortune is devoted to the fulfillment of a colossal pioneer
research. We must count, I apprehend, the living historian
of "the Pacific States'^ among the wealthy benefactors of our
higher learning, for that prolific brood of brown volumes such
as no other historian from Herodotus down ever fathered for
his own can hardly have repaid their immense cost and labor
of preparation, even with the ultimate sale added of the famous
library whose precious contents gave them substance.
Mr. Bancroft's "Literary Industries," a stimulating and
well-written book, recounts fully the methods he employed,
with a corps of literary writers under his personal direction,
in ransacking the contents of that huge library which he after-
ward sold, to furnish forth his own compendious treatises upon
the archaeology, history, and ethnology of our Pacific coast,
hitherto but little illustrated by its latest race of conquerors.
And he felicitates himself that an enterprise otherwise beyond
any one man's power of execution was brought by his own organ-
ized efforts within the compass of some thirty years.
I will not undertake any direct criticism of such compre-
hensive methods as his, nor seek to disparage labors so gen-
erously and so successfully rounded out to a close. But this
present age runs very strongly, as it seems to me, and per-
haps too strongly, to vast executive projects in every depart-
ment of human activity. We are apt in consequence to sacri-
fice high individual thought and mental creativeness to feats
of technique and organized mastery; while our trusts, our syn-
dicates, and combiners of capital seek so constantly to monopo-
lize profits both moral and material for themselves, by welding
and concentrating the lesser resources of individuals, that
single endeavor faints in the unequal rivalry. Such a develop-
ment artfully conducts the human race back, sooner or later, to
a species of slavery j it hands over the many to the patronage
60 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
of the powerful few ; and, unless checked, it must prove eventu-
ally fatal to the spirit of manly emulation. Just as the surf
of property accumulation breaks fitly at each owner's death
upon the broad bulwark of equal distribution among kindred,
so would it be wise, I think, could public policy contrive by
some indirection to limit in effect the achievements of a life-
time in every direction to what fairly and naturally belongs to
the scope of that single life in competition with others; and at
the same time that it lets the greatest prizes go to the fittest,
could it but encourage each member of society to achieve still
his best.
At all events, if you will, let huge engineering, let the prod-
ucts of organized exploit go to increase the material comfort
of the race; but for art, for scholarship, for literature and
religion, for whatever appeals most to imagination and the
moral life, I would keep the freest play possible to the indi-
vidual and to individual effort. One forcible preacher reaches
more hearts than the composite of a hundred preachers. And,
furthermore, in gathering historical facts we should remember
that what may be convenient for simple reference is not equally
so for consecutive reading. There is a natural progression,
coincident with the stream of time, in all history, all biography,
all fiction; and to attempt to read backward, or on parallel
lines, or by other arbitrary arrangement, produces nausea,
drowsiness, and confusion of ideas. In Washington Irving's
grotesque dream in the British Museum, the bookmakers at
their toilsome tasks about him seemed suddenly transformed
into masqueraders, decking themselves out fantastically from
the literary clothespr esses of the past about them.
Cooperative history, or the alliance of various writers in one
description of past events, is a favorite device of publishers in
our later day for producing volumes which may give each
talented contributor as little personal exertion as possible. Of
such enterprises, that which assigns to each author his own
limited period or range of events is the best, because the most
natural, and here it is only needful that each should confine
his labor to his own portion, avoiding the dangers of compari-
son. Less satisfactory, because far more liable to contradic-
tion and confusion, is that cooperative history which distributes
topics, such as the progress of science, education, religion, or
politics, for a general and detached review, and instead of any
proper narrative at all, supplies a mass of heterogeneous
HISTORICAL INDUSTRIES — SCHOULER. 61
essays. The latest plan of the kind which publishers have
brought to my notice is history upon an alphabetical arrange-
ment, resembling a gazetteer, which proposes, of course, the
use of scissors more than pen or brain. Mr. Hubert Bancroft's
plan is finally that of a literary bureau, with salaried workers
more or less trained over whom presides the one nominal his-
torian.
In this nineteenth century you may thus see historical
chasms bridged and jungles once impenetrable laid open to
the sunlight. But where can one safely define here the limits
of original authorship ? At what point does the elucidation
of facts rise above the dignity of manual labor? And how far,
in fine, may you trust the chief executive of such an enter-
prise, for his responsible scholarship, rather than merely as
the editor of a vast compilation, or as one who rubs into shape
and gives a literary gloss to materials of doubtful authen-
ticity?
Let me address myself rather to the encouragement of
that great majority of historical students and writers whose
purpose it is to accomplish, and to accomplish conscientiously,
results which may fairly be comprehended within the space
of a single and unaided human life. Even they who plead
most forcibly for cooperative investigation in history distinctly
recognize the advantage of unity in research and expression;
and they concede that, where one may master his own subject
seasonably enough, the single skilled workman is preferable to
the many. For my own part, not meaning to boast, but to
encourage others, I may say, that legal and historical works,
the one kind by way of relief to the other, have fairly occupied
me for twenty-five years, with no inconsiderable ground cov-
ered in their publication. Another writer may produce better
solid books than I have done, but he will hardly be moved to
produce a greater number within the same space of time, or to
preempt a wider range of research. Whether it be from an
innate distrust of hired subworkers, or for economy's sake, or
from the pride of responsible authorship, or because of habits
which I early formed in life of concentrating and warming
into interest wherever I personally investigated, or whether,
indeed, from all these considerations combined, I never em-
ployed literary assistance of any sort, except for sharing
in the drudgery of index making, for copying out my rough
drafts in a neat hand for my own convenient revision, and for
62 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
transcribing passages from other books which I had first
selected. And once only, when engaging my amanuensis (a
very intelligent man) where historical controversy had arisen
upon a minor point, to examine and collate the accounts of
various old newspapers, I found, upon reviewing his work,
that he had overlooked a single circumstance among these
numerous descriptions which was almost decisive of the issue.
In fine, every real research, where I have published, and
every page of composition, has been my own ; and having reg-
ularly contracted with my publishers to create a book, instead
of hawking about its manuscript when completed, and having
always been permitted, when ready, to hand my copy to
the printers without submitting it to any mortal's inspection,
I have pursued my own bent, in shaping out the task as
I had first projected it. I have shown my manuscript to no
one at all for criticism or approval, nor have I received sug-
gestions, in any volume, even as to literary style or expression,
except upon printed sheets from the casual proof reader, as
the book went finally through the press.
The counsel of genuine and disinterested literary friends, if
you are fortunate enough to have them, is doubtless sweet and
stimulating J and for the want of it a book will often suffer in
matters of expression, as well as of fact. But the recompense,
on the other side, comes after a time, in one's own confirmed
skill, self-confidence, individuality, and the power to dispatch;
and often as I have reproached myself for little slips of lan-
guage (revising and even altering my plates, upon opportu-
nity), I have seldom seen reason to change the record or color-
ing of historical events, and never an important deduction.
Instead, then,of employing other per sons, trained or untrained,
to elaborate or help me out with the responsible task of author-
ship, I have sought, as the most trustworthy of expert assist-
ance, where such aids were needful, the labors of accomplished
scholars who had gone through the ordeal of authorship before
me. Books and authors, in fact, I have employed for special
investigators, and an amanuensis for amanuensis work alone.
Original records and information are preferable to all others;
but secondary sources of knowledge I have largely accepted
as a labor-saving means, where I could bring my own accumu-
lated knowledge and habits of verification to bear upon them,
so as to judge fairly of their comparative worth. I have not
disemboweled nor redistributed their contents; but I have
HISTORICAL INDUSTEIES — SCHOULER.
63
learned to dip into them for the quintessence of information
they could best impart. To all authors, to all earlier investi-
gators, I have applied diligently whatever materials of conse-
quence were inaccessible to them, or derived from my own later
more advantageous study.
Special assistance, I admit, may be very valuable when of
an expert character. Eminent historians who have university
pupils — eminent barristers as patrons of the shy and briefless —
often employ junior minds, well-trained young men of poverty
and ambition, upon the drudgery of their own more affluent
investigation. In lawsuits the judge will often put out the
analysis of complicated facts at issue to some member of the
bar, to investigate as auditor and make a report which shall
stand as prima facie evidence of the truth. Much the same
confidence may you repose in the pubhshed monograph of
some reputable historical scholar, if you desire economy of
labor. Such assistance is trained already for your purpose,
and one obvious advantage of employing it is that you may
cite the author and throw the responsibility of your assertion
upon his shoulders.
Yet, after all, one should be prepared to do most of his own
drudgery, for nine-tenths of all the successful achievements in
life, as it has been well observed, consist in drudgery. What-
ever subordinate or expert assistance, then, may be called in
by the responsible historian, let him always reserve the main
investigation to himself. In no other way can he rightfully
blazon his name upon the title-page of his book, or approach
the true ideals of excellence and thoroughness. The trained
assistance one employs with only a mercenary interest in the
study accomplishes but little, after all, as compared with the
one mind inspired for its task, which concentrates the best of
its God-given powers upon precisely what it seeks, and gains
in skill, quickness, and accuracy by constant exercise.
Judgment and intuition may thus move rapidly forward and
seize upon results. The student absorbed in his subject brings
to bear at every step of preliminary study his own discrimin-
ation, analysis, and comparison, qualities which he can never
safely delegate; even in crude facts he is saved the alternative
of accepting promiscuous heaps from journeymen at second
hand, or of verifying personally their labor, which is the worst
toilsomeness of all. And it is by thus throwing himself into
the very times of which he treats and becoming enveloped in
f
64 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
its atmosphere that the narrator may hope to kindle his
own imagination and grow deeply sympathetic with his sub-
ject. Fiery phrases, pictorial hints, startling details, sugges-
tions of eifect meet here and there his quick, artistic eye,
which a subordinate would never have discovered among the
dull rubbish of surrounding circumstances. Pen and memory
learn to aid one another in the exploration; one needs to
abstract nothing from the books which serve him as a basis,
nothing, indeed, anywhere, but what may best aid his imme-
diate purpose. The drift of long correspondence, speeches,
and documents of merely subsidiary value, he gathers at a
glance and a few trenchant passages will serve for his quota-
tion.
What self-directing scholar has not felt his pulse quicken
and his heart beat high when in such close communion with
the great actors and thinkers of the past, or as he reads con-
temporary reports of the event, and lives transactions over
again amid their original surroundings ? And, if in such per-
sonal exploits among the buried cities, new pregnant facts,
new points of view are revealed corrective of prevailing mis-
conceptions, if some sudden insight into motives, public or
personal, lights up his lonely induction, how does the soul
dilate with that greatest of all the triumphs of research — the
triumph of discovery.
Nor let it be said, as an objection to such expenditures of
time, that an economizing historian ought to reserve his best
strength for the loftier task of arrangement and final compo-
sition. Let us not turn literary skill to meretricious uses ; let
us beware how we steer blindly among conflicting statements,
or accept for facts what only our paid pupils have collected.
Due preparation is no less essential to the historian than the
art of telling his story; for he has never of right the free
range of his imagination. There should be a time to study
and a time to compose; the one task should aid and alternate
with the other. Nothing, I am sure, so relieves a laborious
literary life as to diversify its pursuits— to change the sub-
ject or the mode of occupation. And in historical literature,
if we would save ourselves the excessive strain which soon
exhausts, let us turn the pen which has been vigorously
•employed for a sufficient time upon the narrative to prosaic
annotation and abstracts. Let us leave the recital of results
for one chapter or volume to gather material and study for the
HISTORICAL INDUSTRIES — SCHOULER.
65
next. We need not fear to roam the broad fields of investiga-
tion over, if we hold fixedly to our purpose. The bee culls
sweetness from the flower-cups before treading out the honey j
and the indolence which every investigator should chiefly
guard against is that of subsiding into the intellectual pleas-
ure of filling and refilling his mental pouch for his own delec-
tation, while never setting himself to manufacture that others
may derive a profit.
As a most important means of economizing time and personal
labor, we should fix clearly in advance the general scope and
direction we mean to pursue, and then adhere to it, limiting the
range of investigation accordingly. Authorship in history
requires resolution and an intelligent purpose besides, in the
development of the original plan throughout its entire length
and breadth. For as the area of mental research is of itself
boundless, the individual should fence off for himself only a
certain portion. Chance and opportunity may unquestionably
lead us on from one task of exploration to another. We may,
like Gibbon, carry our work purposely to a given point, and
then leave a still further advance to depend upon health and
favoring circumstances. Or, as Prescott, Motley, and Parkman
have done, we may let one dramatic episode when fairly com-
passed and set forth conduct to another and kindred one so
as eventually to group out the lifers occupation, whether longer
or shorter, into one symmetrical whole. But to attack moun-
tains of huge material blindly without a just estimate of life
and physical capabilities, can bring only despair and prema-
ture exhaustion.
It is not strange at all if, after announcing and planning a
work of so many pages or volumes, you find the burden of
materials increasing on your hands j but you are a novice in
book architecture, if, nevertheless, you can not build according
to the plan ; and you are certainly the worst of blunderers if you
throw the superabundant materials blindly into form as they
come and still strive to erect by contract as a cottage what
should have been only undertaken for a castle. In all literary
workmanship, or at least in historical, there should be specifi-
cations, and the specifications should correspond with the
plan; the rule and compasses should be applied so as to give
due proportion to every part of the work. In the lesser details
one must be prepared to compress, to sacrifice, to omit, and no
reader will miss what is judiciously left out as does the author
himself.
S. Mis. 104 5
$
66 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
By thus keeping within one's intended space, as carefully
mapped out in advance — and I would advise every projector of
a book to get practical suggestions from his publisher, and
then clearly settle as to size and subject before he tackles to
the task — by thus doing we circumscribe at once the field of
investigation; and by apprehending well that in which we
mean to be impressive or original, by conceiving fitly our main
purpose in authorship, we are prepared to apply ourselves to
the real service of our age. Some writers set their minds to
work upon manuals, upon abridgment of what they find at
hand for a certain period and country, some upon amplifying;
but no one should undertake to narrate history with the same
fullness as one who has told the tale before, unless he is confi-
dent that he can truthfully put the facts in a new light or add
something really valuable, which has not been already set
forth elsewhere.
Let it be admitted, in fine, in all historical writing, that much
patient and minute study must be bestowed for one's own per-
sonal gratification alone; that one may spread the results
before his readers, but not the processes. Whatever the histo-
rian may print and publish for the edification of the public, let
him endeavor to make the result apparent for which he pros-
pected; let him tell the tale, unfold the particulars, and incul-
cate the lesson, with the pertinence and force which best befit
the character of his undertaking; and let him show his essen-
tial excellence precisely where the public has the most right
to expect and desire it.
VII.-THE HISTORICAL METHOD OF WRITING THE HISTORY OF
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
By PROF. CHARLES J. LITTLE,
OF GARRETT BIBLICAL I:NSTITUTE.
67
THE HISTORICAL METHOD OF WRITING THE HISTORY OF
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
By Charles J. Little.
" Gibbon^s Decline and Fall of the Eoman Empire," wrote
Dean Stanley, "is in great part, however reluctantly, the his-
tory of the rise and progress of the Christian Church. His
true conception of the grandeur of his subject extorted from
him that just concession which his own natural prejudice would
have refused 5 and it was remarked not many years ago by Dr.
Newman that up to that time England had produced no other
ecclesiastical history worthy of the name."
I place these words at the head of this brief paper because,
in the first place, the notions of intelligent men (excepting, of
course, clergymen and historical students) concerning the de-
velopment of Christianity are derived, so far as they are drawn
from books at all, almost exclusively from secular history j and
because, secondly, the striking historical productions of the
nineteenth century have either reluctantly or willingly tended
more and more to include religious phenomena in their descrip-
tions and discussions. l!^ow "it is not," as Bacon says, "the lie
that passeth through the mind, but the lie that sinketh in and
settleth in it that doth the hurt." And the lie that sinketh
in and settleth in the mind is the lie that is insinuated rather
than uttered, the lie that is suggested sometimes in the candor
of innocent but unwarranted belief, and sometimes with the
rhetorical subtlety of consummate partisanship rather than
the lie of brute ignorance or sectarian spleen. When, for
instance, Mr. Buckle published his famous examination of the
Scottish intellect of the seventeenth century, most readers
accepted his conclusions touching the character of the Scotch
clergy because of the multitude of his citations, hardly think-
ing of the existence even of the facts that he did not state. In
like manner, when one reads that skillful and adroitly insinu-
ating book, Jansen's "Geschichte des Deutschen Yolkes,"one
I
70 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
is aware, at the last, of a bad taste in the mouth which is not
easily traceable to particular pages or even to particular
statements.
This effect is most to be deprecated in the minds of the young,
for impressions thus almost insensibly acquired lie in their
memories latent but indestructible, yet coloring stealthily all
their future thought. Histories of the church , whether histories
of structure or histories of doctrine, when written from secta-
rian points of view and avowedly to accomplish sectarian ends,
are easily dealt with by intelligent men. They can be read
with suspicion J, their citations can be verified with scrupulous
care 5 the facts forgotten and omitted by their authors can with
industry be supplied. But the ecclesiastical portions of a
secular history are more difficult to deal with, for these seem
to be merely incidental or at most collateral to the main trunk
of the narrative. Only slowly does the reader become aware
that what seems incidental is really the lifeblood of the book,
for when he takes a secular history in his hand he is expect-
ing nothing of the kind. Indeed, the impossibility of writing
European history, in the true sense of the term, without dealing
with the development of Christian ideas, without dealing, on
the one hand, with their progressive conquest of a succession
of alien environments, and, on the other hand, with their occa-
sional submergence, with their frequent transformations, and
their surprising modifications under the influence of these alien
surroundings, seems curiously enough never to have dawned
fally upon anyone until it forced itself upon Gibbon's powerful
mind. Gibbon's influence worked, however, both directly and
indirectly in a variety of ways. It inspired scholars like
Guizot to a closer study of Christian ideas and Christian insti-
tutions upon the development of European society; it inspired
broad-minded churchmen like Arnold, Milman, and Stanley
to a closer study of secular society, to a more careful exam-
ination of the external conditions amid which the Gospel of
the Galilean was compelled to live and to develop its colossal
and divergent forms. It led men like Buckle and Lecky and
Draper to their elaborate and splendid defenses of a rational
skepticism, while it stimulated in its ultimate effect men like
John Eichard Green to the writing of histories in which "more
space should be given to a Methodist revival than to the escape
of a young pretender."
This influence of Gibbon, combined with that of the great
I
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE LITTLE. 71
movement in Germany begun by Lessing and by Herder, has
so changed the character of historical writing that now, when-
ever any large portion of Christian society is treated of, there
is involved implicitly some theory of the development of Chris-
tian doctrine and Christian life. And it happens often that
these theories are more effective (sometimes unintentionally so)
than they would be if stated openly and urged aggressively.
But since this broadening of the lines of secular history, like
the corresponding broadening of the scope of ecclesiastical
history, is not only proper but highly valuable and even neces-
sary, the only right conclusion to draw in the premises is this :
The scientific study of the development of Christian doctrine
is now essential to the training of a historical scholar. It is
no less absurd for him to depend upon a fortuitous concourse
of impressions for the phases through which Christian teach-
ings have passed than it is for him to accept, without conscious
and protracted investigation, the sediments of his reading
touching the political transformations or the political institu-
tions of a people whose history he affects to study. Walter
Bagehot pointed out, with the touch of genius, the striking con-
trast betweeif the accepted literary theory and the actual work-
ing of the English constitution. But such contrasts of literary
theory with existing reality are not confined to the political
aspect of historical literature; its religious aspect is marked
quite as conspicuously with them. And there is but one way
to avoid them — the way of all science — a continual returning
to the reality. And the realities of history are the documents
and remnants of the past, together with the abiding physical
environment within the limits of which these antiquities and
monuments and records were at first produced. In spite of
Mr. Froude I venture to believe that there is a science of
history; and a correct definition of scientific history, it seems
to me, is not so hopelessly difiBcult. The science of history
has for its object the discovery and verbal representation of
the necessary antecedent phases of existing social phenomena.
The laws of social phenomena are operative always; to find
these is the work of the sociologist. But to make out from the
data that exist in the present so much of the past as is neces-
sary to the explanation of the society of the present is the work
of the scientific historian. If, now, this be true, then surely
his first business is to know thoroughly the phenomena that
he seeks to explain, for his reconstruction must be regressive,
72 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
not progressive J it must be a movement backward from the
the known data at hand to the discoverable fact no longer
visible and tangible; albeit for purposes of intelligible and
vivid exposition he may be permitted to invert this order of
investigation when he comes to set forth his conclusions.
Now, I venture to ask, have religious phenomena in our
modern historical writing been always treated in this scientific
spirit? Would it be altogether impossible to name books of
even great reputation in which religious phenomena are
explained that never had an existence, or books in which
the part is given for the whole, or books in which fact and
conjecture are interwoven so inextricably that the total
impression is quite misleading, or books in which the chron-
ological sequence of events is so neglected or so disordered
as to disturb hopelessly their causal relations'? Moreover,
have we not been and are we not continually exposed to the
perils of a very arrogant subjectivity? Gibbon and Car-
lyle are surely not the only sinners of their kind. If none
appear able to bend the bow of Ulysses, many indeed appear
to try it. Then, again, is there not a tendency in a multi-
tude of writers to assume without special study the posses-
sion of an acquaintance with the great phases of the devel-
opment of Christian life and Christian ideas? With what
easy presumption do they not express opinions upon the early
church and the development of its beliefs, upon the struggles,
intellectual and political, which led up to the creed formations
of the oecumenical councils, with the speculations of mediae-
val philosophy, and with the varied mental and spiritual life
that issued in the creeds of the reformation periods? And
yet how inadequate a knowledge have they too often of the com-
plex environment within which these creeds and this philosophy
were produced ! How slight an acquaintance even with the
chronology of their antecedents ! Nevertheless, we hear them
passing judgment upon the character and motives of those
who contributed to these marvelous constructions and repeat-
ing judgments upon the society, in the midst of which they
were produced, such as make the conscientious historical
scholar reflect with reluctant approval upon Napoleon's defi-
nition of history as ^'une fable convenueJ^ I know how much
I am demanding. Scratch any man of intelligence and you
soon discover a religious animal. Men betray their interest in
religion even by their opposition to it. To ask the student to
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE — LITTLE.
73
strip himself of inherited religious tendencies or of acquired
religious convictions, positive or negative, as a preparation
for the candid study of historical phenomena is like asking him
to take off his flesh and to sit in his bones. It is asking him to
take off his emotions and to sit in his intellect. Few, indeed,
are those who can lay aside even the training of the school and
the influence of the social medium. In fact, for men to act as
pure intellect has proved almost impossible in those depart-
ments of investigation where the emotions are least involved ;
yet, difficult as it is, science, who is a jealous divinity, requires
of her servants precisely this achievement j nor is the altar of
history less worthy of the sacriflce than any other altar in her
mighty temple. To this end the scientific historian must return
again and again to the realities of history, to the documents
and monuments by which alone he can rectify his impressions
and nowhere are these impressions of greater importance that
when they relate to the religious life and the spiritual beliefs
of civilized mankind.
And I repeat it is impossible in our day to treat historically
of any large section of Christian society without involving
oneself in the discussion of some phase of Christian doctrine
and Christian belief. Nor is it enough for the writer to desig-
nate his point of view and thus absolve himself calmly from
the duty and necessity of personal investigation. Hypotheses,
frankly stated and severely tested, are as admissible in his-
torical as they are in physical science. But the aim of science
is truth, not the preservation of tradition; the discovery of
what is and what has been, not the perpetuation of points of
view; it is the ultimate concord of opinion upon all great sub-
jects, not the consecration of discord by high-sounding names.
IN'ow I know that the secular historian upon whom the inci-
dence of this paper seems to bear has an easy retort for his
ecclesiastical brother — " Tw quoque,^^ "Thou art even worse
than I," rises easily to his lips. I shall not attempt any defense.
In many instances it would, I fear, be impossible to defend the
ecclesiastical historian with success. For, in many instances,
he is not only sadly ignorant of the secular environment, with-
out which it is impossible for him to interpret properly the
documents that he studies, but, such have been the defects of
his training, that he is ignorant often of the details of their
genesis, and, consequently, of their real significance. It is per-
haps too much to say, with the late Edwin Hatch, "That the
74 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Study of Christian history is almost wholly virgin soil," and
yet the paradox contains, I fear, a grain too much of truth.
<* There are," he continued, "thousands upon thousands of his-
tories; there have been hundreds upon hundreds of historians ;
but for all that, the fields of Christian history are new, as until
recently all fields of history were new, because they need new
research and the application of new methods. The past of
Christianity has been studied for the most part so far as a col-
lection of antiquities or a collection of biographies. Ecclesias-
tical histories are for the most part either museums or biographi-
cal dictionaries. But that which lies before the earnest and
candid student, as an object of supreme and absorbing impor-
tance, is the discovery of the nature of Christianity; its rela-
tion to the whole mass of contemporary facts; the attitude of
mind in which successive generations have stood to this origi-
nal Christianity; and the causes of those attitudes. This is a
study as vast as it is interesting; the final results are not for us
or for our time. But there are general results which may come
to us in our time apart from the final results which are yet on
an unseen horizon." If, in quoting these words of Dr. Hatch, I
seem to concede that those whose special province it is to dis-
cover and to disclose the successive phases through which origi-
nal Christianity has passed, are only at the beginning of their
tremendous task, I feel compelled to add that this is all the more
reason why those who deal from the secular side with phases of
Christian belief should be both humble and wary, and to add
further that the reproach of the ecclesiastical historian is rap-
idly passing away. This is the age of scholars, like Lightfoot
and Hatch and Harnack. The latter have taught us — the Eng-
lishman by the minuteness of his observation ; by his scrupulous
anxiety to overlook nothing of importance; by the more than
human industry with which he sought out fact; and by the
almost divine calmness with which he accepted truth; by the
swift and steady movement of his reason and by the fullness of
his charity; and the German by the vastness of his knowledge;
by the swiftness of his insight; by the grandeur and accuracy
of his combinations; by his sympathy with every age and every
form of earnest thought— that the historical writer of the future
need not be, unless he is willfully so, ignorant any longer of
the crises through which Christian belief has passed in its
progress to our time. For these and many others with them
have worked, not as iconoclasts, but as discoverers ; not as apol-
HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE — LITTLE.
75
ogists, but as investigators ; not to preserve or to destroy tradi-
tions or institutions, but to discern the ways of God in human
history, leaving these ways to justify themselves to mortal
men. They, in the beautiful language of one who carried glo-
riously the spirit and "substance of a passing system into the
forms of future power — they have obtained a good report, but
have not obtained the promise, for without us they can not be
made perfect." Only as we who believe in a science of history
avail ourselves of their results to complete our training and
our studies, only as we enlarge our minds by breathing their
spirit, only as we increase our skill by applying their methods
and our power by making use of their discoveries, shall we
see wisdom justified of her children and make it appear that
the masters have not wrought in vain.
1^
VIII -THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE HISTORICAL DOCTORATE
IN AMERICA.
By PROF. EPHRAIM EMERTON,
OF HARVARD UNIYERSITT.
77
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE HISTORICAL DOCTORATE IN
AMERICA.
By Ephraim Emerton.
The degree of doctor of philosophy is to the scholar by far
the most important of our academic distinctions. The bach-
elor's degree has long ceased to have any distinctive meaning.
The master in arts was until recently the object of deserved
ridicule and, in spite of all efforts to restore him to respect, he
still remains an ill-defined being, of whom nothing in particu-
lar can be predicated. The term "doctor of philosophy"
alon represents, at least to the mind of scholars, something
tolerably definite and worthy of preservation. It owes this
distinction partly to its newness. It is in the stage when an
institution must justify itself or be lost. Unhappily the tend-
ency to take the shadow for the substance, which has been so
great an injury to all American education, is beginning to
make itself felt here, and we are already forced into an attitude
of defense if we would maintain for our only useful higher
degree the meaning it ought to have.
This specific meaning of the philosophical doctorate should
be that it represent at least two years of continuous study
after the attainment of the highest baccalaureate that can he
got, that this study be directed into some special field of
scholarship, be conducted under the leadership of men who
are themselves specialists in that field and be not interrupted
by other occupations of any sort. Its method must be mainly
that of research, in distinction from that of acquisition, and its
aim must be the gain of power as well as the gain of knowl-
The evils from which the degree has at present suffered are,
the granting ^^ causa honoris,''^ the granting "tw absentia^''''
insufficient time for the study and insufficient equipment for
its proper pursuit. In some quarters the granting of the
degree for "independent" work done at a distance from
79
#
so AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
academic resources and by men engaged in the practice of
other professions is openly advocated as the best means of
extending the usefulness of the doctorate. In other cases it is
given for a book written, or for other service rendered to the
cause of learning, or, as in a case I heard of recently, to a
man who might well have done some such service, if circum-
stances had not prevented. The source of all these evils may
be summed up in the one vicious tendency to make as many
doctors as possible, whereas our aim ought to be to keep our
degree as high a distinction as possible, and to extend it only
in proportion as the resources of our educational system sup-
ply a solid basis for it.
The danger from the evils I have mentioned, to the doctor-
ate in general, is especially to be guarded against in the case
of history. In the several departments of natura! science,
for instance, the importance of adequate laboratory facilities
is so well recognized that a student is not easijy deceived into
accepting any but the best equipped teaching he can com-
mand. He goes naturally to the few great centers where
large and expensive plants have been established and where
men of distinction in their branch are gathered. In regard
to history the same conditions do not exist. It is compara-
tively easy to impress young men early with the idea that
history is to be got out of a few books, and that no espacial
equipment whatever is needed for its study. If one decides,
at the close of a college course, that he would like to go into
teaching, and that history is the subject which attracts him,
he is all too easily caught by the offer of a degree on ^Tetty
easy terms, and may well fail to grasp the immense range and
bearing of his chosen topic. Those who have the real interests
of our higher education at heart can not apply themselves too
earnestly to maintaining the standards here as elsewhere.
In determining the positive requirements for the historical
doctorate in America attention ought first to be given to the
preliminary training of the college. The great diversity in the
bachelor's degree makes it quite impossible to accept this
alone as the foundation for future study along any specific
line. We are constantly forgetting this and acting on the
assumption that one A. B. is not only as good but the same as
another. We are involved in the use of the unfortunate terms
"undergraduate" and ^'graduate,'' though a moment's thought
shows us that these words have no real meaning whatever and
HISTORICAL DOCTORATE IN AMERICA EMERTON. 81
represent acquirements ranging, between minimum and maxi-
mum, over a variation of from one to three years. This varia-
tion in quantity is even less than the variation in quality and
in variety of subjects. There are A. B.'s without Latin or
Greek, without any modern language, without history, with-
out philosophy, even without political economy. In setting
our requirements for higher degrees we have been too much
in the habit of overlooking these distinctions and assuming
that our conditions were like those of Germany, for instance,
where it is possible to assume that the graduate of the gym-
nasium, no matter where he come from, will have a certain
well-defined equipment upon which later work may be based.
It will not do to say that our future doctor in history must
be an A. B. We must prescribe certain studies which he ought
to have followed before entering upon his specifically advanced
historical course. In the first place he ought to have a good
linguistic training. I have little sympathy with the notion
that philology and history are the same thing, and might even
hesitate to group them together as they have been grouped by
the chief historical schools of Europe as the most natural yoke-
fellows in the fields of scholarship. But, however one may
think on this subject, it can not be denied that without a
knowledge of languages no historical study can be anything
more than elementary. It is idle to blind ourselves to the fact
that the record of the life of almost all humanity, especially
that record which is best worth the study of the historian, is
written in languages other than English. If our doctor is to
be a trained specialist in the use of this record in the sense in
which the chemist is a specialist in the use of his material, and
the economist in the use of his, and the theologian of his, he
must be able to read the record as it was written, and the time
for him to acquire this reading knowledge of the necessary
languages is before he begins to specialize. Taking the lan-
guages in order of importance he ought to make himself able
to read easily Latin, German, and French, and should have
some knowledge of Greek. By far the best method is, after
he has made a start under the direction of his college teach-
ers, to spend his long vacations in the rapid reading of the
modern languages, using such literature as will make him
familiar with the best prose and at the same time be sufficiently
amusing to keep up his interest. His teachers in college can
not help him here beyond the start, and if he depends upon
S. Mis. 104 6
82 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
their aid he is wasting valuable time which might be given to
other things. By this plan a capable and vigorous youth (and
for our doctorate we can use none other) ought, by the time he
leaves college, to get enough linguistic training, so that he
can handle without great difficulty materials, original and
second hand, in a half-dozen languages. His advantage here
is great beyond all question. He has taken the first steps
toward becoming not merely a specialist in one corner of his
field but toward achievement in any part of the vast domain
into which his taste may lead him. He has gained an instru-
ment which will serve him wherever his work may lie and
which he can never again acquire so easily.
Kext, our candidate should have some training in philoso-
phy. The study of history is largely the study of evidence
based upon human testimony. The chief defect of historians,
the chief source of differences among them, and of uncertainty
in our knowledge of the subjects they treat, has been their
incapacity to understand evidence and to interpret it aright.
Perhaps no people has illustrated this defect more thoroughly
than the one which has done most in the cause of modern his-
torical research. The student who should trust the inductive
capacity of the most diligent and most highly trained German,
without careful examination, would be putting himself in dan-
ger of endless error. The only safeguard against this danger
is the cultivation of a habit of close and methodical thinking,
and the best academic aid to this is the study of philosophy,
especially of formal logic. On the other hand it should be
remembered that the science of historical evidence is not an
exact science. It does not proceed by the rules of mathemat-
ics 5 it deals only with high degrees of probability, not with
certainties, and, therefore, the candidate for historical honors
ought to practice himself in that kind of argument which
brings in the element of human judgment and even of human
error. It would be well for him if he could read and ponder
carefully some treatise on the law of evidence, such as a special
student of law might use. If it could be made clear to him
early in his course that he is dealing with matters which will
not let themselves be regulated by the laws of mathematics,
nor even by the principles of formal logic, but have, neverthe-
less, a law of their own, which it is his business to interpret, he
will be in a state of mind the most useful for the historian of
the future.
HISTORICAL DOCTORATE IN AMERICA EMERTON. 83
Again an early study should be the elements of economic
science. After all, the primary need of man is daily bread and
underneath all the great combinations of political and national
life which the historian is called upon to study, there lies the
impulse of self-preservation and of advancement in material
things, which form the subject of economic study. The prin-
ciples of this study are not difficult. They can be compre-
hended in their outline by a bright schoolboy and the college
student is capable of taking in a considerable deposit of this
kind of information, which can not fail to be of use in historical
work. If, for example, he would rightly comprehend the great
movements of nations from one country to another, the decline
of races remaining upon one spot of earth, the rise and fall of
populations, by which the course of political history has so
I often been determined, he must be able to give its due weight
to the economic element.
The last subject which I should urge as a fitting accompani-
ment to the early stages of historical work is that of the fine
arts. It would be a lame historian indeed who should wholly
have left out of his vision the most wonderful product, next to
the great literatures, of the human mind. I do not forget that
the American student is here hopelessly behind the European,
not only in the absence of great works of art for his study,
but also in that general depression of the aesthetic sense from
which our community suffers. But, on the other hand, I know
with what eagerness our youth catch the suggestions of the
aesthetic progress of mankind, when they are offered to them,
and how valuable the knowledge, even if it be mainly book-
knowledge, of what man has done in this direction may be to
the historical student. It offers him a key which unlocks the
secret of many a period of history otherwise obscure, and these
periods are among the most instructive, in every sense, with
which he will have to deal. The resources of modern pho-
tography have put within the reach of every one reproductions,
which, for purposes of instruction, are almost as valuable as
the originals. The reaction of such study upon the more tech-
nically historical work of any student must be healthful in the
extreme.
As to how much of this more distinctively historical study
we may properly demand of the college student who is looking
forward to the doctorate, I have thus far said nothing. I
place it last, because it seems to me on the whole, the least
f
84 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
important. If I were required to take my choice between a
candidate well equipped in language, in philosophy, in eco-
nomic science, and in the history of the fine arts, and one who
had spent the same time in reading history without any of
these aids, I would take my chances with the former. But we
are not driven to this alternative. The college course, resting
upon a solid preparation in school and beginning at about the
eighteenth year of a man's life, has room, besides the studies I
have mentioned, for a good deal of actual acquisition in his-
tory. It may fairly be assumed that the youth who has gone
through the normal i)rocess of an American student, will have a
smattering of Greek and Koman history, and some knowledge
of the history of his own country in school. If now he can
add to this the work of one year in college, not an extravagant
demand for a man who is going to be a specialist in this field,
he can get a fair amount of purely historical knowledge with
which to start on his course for the doctorate. This work
would not, in the natural course of things, be taken all in the
same year. It would include a considerable elementary
knowledge of mediaeval and modern history as a basis for
further study. To this might be added one course in mediaeval
work, one in modern European, and one in American constitu-
tional history, with one year's membership in some practice
course, where the work should be directed mainly to the acqui-
sition of method in the handling of historical documents, rather
than to getting information about facts. It would be unde-
sirable, as it would in fact be impossible, to prescribe at this
stage of progress a precise course of study which every
student ought to follow. The most that can be said is that he
ought, during this preparatory period, to acquire a tolerably
rounded knowledge of the critical periods of the history of
civilized man. If it were possible at this time to learn some-
thing of archaeology, as distinct from the fine arts and with
especial reference to the development of man as a working and
creating animal, the scope of the student's understanding of
history would be eifectively widened.
We come then to the period of special study looking directly
toward the winning of the doctorate. Of the three pedagogical
processes of acquisition, comprehension, and research, the
student should now be led mainly into the last, but with a con-
stant accompaniment of the two former. He should never
cease to acquire; never for a moment can he venture to think
HISTORICAL DOCTORATE IN AMERICA — EMERTON. 85
of himself as having enough knowledge of historical "facts."
Especially in those fields of history which lie outside his main
interest, he ought to do wide and thoughtful reading, searching
there for the analogies and illustrations which will serve to
connect his narrower study with the great course of human
experience. The specialist in American history, for instance,
can never afford to give up careful reading in the history of
the great republican experiments of Greece and Eome and
mediaeval Italy and modern Switzerland, by which alone he
can comprehend what the wonderful story of our American
political experiment means. So also with the effort to com-
prehend the more obscure relations of constitutional and insti-
tutional life in which he may be helped by the work of experi-
enced teachers. He should not cease to attend the lectures
of skillful expounders of these things, since this time of his
professional study is the precious opportunity, the last he
will ever enjoy, of profiting by personal contact with men who
have traveled before him the long road he is to follow. Only as
he continues these two processes of acquisition and of an ever-
widening comprehension is he in a condition to profit by the
narrower work of research.
In mentioning two years as the period of special study for
the doctorate, I should wish to be understood as indicating a
minimum time. Experience shows that almost every candidate
finds himself at the end of two years still hesitating to put into
definHe shape the results of his study and glad of another year
before him which he may devote wholly to this purpose. As to
how the two years of study should be filled no precise course
can be laid down, which every candidate ought to follow. A
few suggestions of experience may however be made. The
future doctor is to be a specialist, but let him be guarded
against being a too narrow specialist. If the phrase be intel-
ligible, I should say, let us try to make him narrow in order'
that he may be broad. Let him be directed into a line of
inquiry which shall be, in the stating of it, as limited as you
please, but which shall, by the nature of the study into which
it leads, tend to draw him on and out beyond the limits of the
mere statement into ever wider and wider circles of interest
and of possible future research.
If the too great narrowing of the scholar's vision is a danger
in Europe, — and we are now beginning to be told that it is so —
this danger is especially great in America. The work of the
86 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
European teacher of history is very closely specialized^ that
of the American teacher must long remain, greatly to his per-
sonal advantage, wide as the field of history itself. Even in
Germany, the great teachers of the last generation, the men
who led in the work of scientific development of historical
instruction, were men of the widest interests. It was not at
all uncommon to find among them one who lectured at the
same time on the history of the ancient world and of the most
modern times and there can be little doubt that this work was
thereby made the more effective in both directions. We have
been learning from Germany the lesson of specialization j let
us beware lest it prove that we have learned it too well.
The remedy against this threatening evil is that the idea be
constantly held before the mind of the youthful scholar that
history is but one subject, within which there are indeed many
branches, but that these have their value for him only as they
are seen to depend upon the main stock. To do this most
effectively, he should be helped into a knowledge of many
things which apply to history as a science, without regard to
its periodisation. Such for instance, is the instruction known
in Germany as methodology and encyclopedia, a clumsy
enough designation, but of great use to the historical special-
ist by bringing together under one point of view all that is
best worth knowing theoretically about the history and method
of his science. If it be objected that the best way to learn
method is to use it, I reply that whatever tends to give the
professional historian a sense of the unity of his subject, of its
quality and its value as distinguished from other subjects, of
his association as a member in a great community of scholars
all over the world who are pursuing the same interests with
himself all this helps him on toward higher conceptions of his
life-work and makes him more effective in it. The time to get
hold of these impressions is when he is taking his apprentice-
ship.
In the same line of usefulness I place all that group of
studies which have as yet no fixed name in America, but
which are known in Europe as the auxiliary sciences of history.
These have reference to history as a whole, and are of use to
any one who means to be a thorough student in it. They
include chronology, geography, anthropology, numismatics,
diplomatics, sphragistics, heraldry, and palaeography. Others
might be added, but these are subjects upon which every his-
HISTORICAL DOCTORATE IN AMERICA — EMERTON. 87
torian of the future ought to know something. Indeed, it
seems hardly to need argument that the specialist in a science
which involves constant reference to the succession of time
ought to know something of the ways in which that succes-
sion has been determined j that one who is continually deal-
ing with the movement of events in place ought to know
something of the science which tells how the theater of history
was prepared for it, and that no one can be a passed master in
a science resting almost wholly upon the evidence of docu-
ments who has not some information as to the process by which
these documents were prepared, and of the language in which
they were written. And yet, simple as this argument appears,
I know of but one place in America where any systematic
attempt has been made to instruct pupils looking towards his-
torical honors in this group of auxiliary sciences, and that
attempt has been allowed to fail by the indifference of trus-
tees. As our discipline grows in favor we may hope ultimately
to demand this kind of knowledge from every candidate for
the doctorate in history.
In regard to one other topic of general value to the historian,
I speak with more hesitation. The true place for any profound
study of the philosophy of history is, in my judgment, not the
early, but rather the later years of a man's professional life.
It is so largely a speculative subject, its fascination is so dan-
gerous to the untrained mind, that I should warn any one
without a knowledge of history that might really be called
profound from going very far into it. Yet with such warning,
with the clear understanding that he is dealing with specu-
lative matters and must not look for certainty, the candidate
in history may very profitably venture upon a brief excursion
into this field. It may do him the service of making it clear
to him that there have been many very different theories as to
the motive power of human society and save him from a one-
sided conception of its underlying principles. At all events
it is worth his while to know that all historical knowledge is
but ill-assorted cram unless it be interpreted by a sound phil-
osophy, however elastic this may be.
I come finally to the method of awarding the great honor we
are called upon to administer and to guard. In the first place,
we ought to insist that the preparatory study should be con-
ducted under the close personal guidance of qualified instruct-
ors. The candidate for the doctorate should be a marked
88 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
man at the university. He ought not, however, to be called
upon to do any considerable part in its work of instruction.
How much of such work he may properly do should depend
wholly upon the question whether it is likely to advance his
professional interest. The utmost care should be taken on the
one hand that his work be systematic, regular, and methodi-
cal; on the other, that he be not hampered by any of the petty
restrictions as to times and places supposed to be necessary to
the undergraduate period. His relation to the teachers of the
department should be that of a personal friend, working with
them toward a common goal. The knowledge of his work
gained by this close personal intercourse makes the ordinary
methods of academic test, by frequent examination or other-
wise, sui)erfluous in his case. If he be not capable of utilizing
the freedom of his position to his advantage it would be better
to exclude him at once from candidacy.
So much the more important, however, does it become that
his attainment in power — the thing we are, after all, trying
chiefly to give him — should be tested by more or less frequent
pieces of work. I value such intermediate tests partly as a
preparation for the final thesis and partly as diminishing the
undue importance sometimes attached to that production. In
many cases if the candidate were required to j)resent several
times in his course the results of less prolonged investigation,
he would come to know his weak points and be spared the
mortification of finding at the close that his one great effort
is, after all his pains, only an attempt and a failure at that.
Furthermore, in considering the question of the award such
weight might be given to these preliminary tests that any
undue prominence of the final thesis might be avoided.
As to the nature of the doctor's thesis, a very high stand-
ard ought to be set, but we are in danger of exaggerating one
of the most useful demands usually made. It may safely be
required that the thesis should be a contribution to the learning
of the subject, and in that sense original. It is only in the
interpretation of the word "originality" that I find a serious
difficulty. Hardly anything has done more harm to the modern
German scholar than a morbid craving for the kind of distinc-
tion which comes from finding some new thing. :N"ow and
again it has had great results, but it has begotten a feverish
dread of the commonplace which our American scholars can not
afford to imitate. The field of history is full of unsolved prob-
HISTORICAL DOCTORATE IN AMERICA — EMERTON. 89
lems, and the honest attempt to enlighten any one of these, if it
be accompanied with a wide study of the surrounding material,
is all we can ask. The actual discovery of new matter can not
be made a test of success, unless we desire to limit our students
to the narrowest of all fields, the history of our own country.
As to the need of a final examination, oral or otherwise, upon
the candidate's general command of historical knowledge,
opinions differ. One yiew is that if the candidate has been
frequently examined during his preparation, this is evidence
sufiScient as regards this part of his fitness for the degree.
1^0 man, it is said, can be expected to know everything, and
an examination ranging over a very wide field must of neces-
sity be superficial in its testing power. There is in this com-
ment too much of that tendency to speak of academic work as
"gotten off" and laid aside, which can not be too greatly
deplored. Even though a man had been examined in the earlier
stages of his course, the knowledge he had then ought not to
have slipped away from him without result 5 it ought to have
been enlightened and enlarged by all his later study, and it is
precisely this final condition of his intellectual stock that the
special examination for the doctorate is well calculated to
reach. If such examination be oral, it may, without injustice,
take the widest range and give to the candidate the best of
opportunities for telling what he knows, not, be it well under-
stood, of showing the results of a cram, but. of giving the
orderly product of his thought on his chosen subject. If it
be written, the candidate may be allowed such a wide option
of questions that the result may to some persons seem even
more satisfactory. In no case should such a searching final
examination be dispensed with.
An experience of some years in the administration of the doc-
tor's degree leads me to the conclusion that it has a very large
part to play in the development of our American scholarship.
There are those who despise all academic degrees as fictitious
and valueless. Their value must depend wholly upon the
strictness with which they are administered. There is no more
impressive lesson in our educational experience than that
making distinction difficult not only increases its value but
actually incites a greater eagerness to get it. The American
youth, easily deceived for a time by educational charlatanry,
is yet able to take in this idea with considerable readiness,
that whatever costs much is probably worth working for, and,
$
90 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
within reasonable limits, we need not fear to alarm him. He
will only make another effort, and eventually, if he has the
stuff" in him of which scholars are made, he will reach his aim.
Let us, in whose hands lies the future of the historical doctor-
ate in America, see to it that our part in this endeavor be not
wanting.
IX.-THE FIRST FUGITIVE SLAVE CASE OF RECORD IN OHIO.
By HON. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH
OF LAKE FOREST, ILL.
91
THE FIRST FUGITIVE SLAVE CASE OF RECORD IN OHIO.
By William Henry Smith.
I
The immortal sixth article of compact of the ordinance of
1787, chiefly adopted by the votes of the Southern States under
the lead of Yirginia, undoubtedly reflected the sentiment of
the majority of the people. The clause recognizing property
in slaves is as mild as language could make it. There is noth-
ing mandatory about it. The escaping fugitive "may be law-
fully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her
labor or service." In the corresponding clause in the Consti-
tution, then being framed, "shall be delivered up on claim of
the party to whom service or labor may be due," was substi-
tuted, and this language is followed in the act of 1793. But
this was construed in the spirit of the milder phrase in its
execution for many years; and, indeed, the legislative act
admitted of no aggravating process. If these early documents,
the acts for the suppression of the slave trade and the com-
promise measures of 1850, were printed in parallel columns a
striking contrast would be presented. The history of the evo-
lution of the power that dominated the destinies of the Eepub-
lic for over half a century would be displayed on a single
page. Prior to 1808 slavery received only a shamefaced recog-
nition on either side of the sectional line. Indeed, I might say
1819, for activity in its propagation was noticeable only after
that date. The reason, which is well understood, need not
engage our attention. Whatever of antagonism occurred on
the border west of the Allegheny Mountains was due to the
cupidity of a few, and did not involve the good people of Vir-
ginia, Kentucky, and the Northwest.
Among the papers of Governor Samuel Huntington, of Ohio,
was found an incomplete account of the first fugitive slave case
of record under the act of 1793 that occurred in the territory
embraced in the ordinance of 1787. Eesearch in Virginia has
93
94 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
enabled me to complete the story, which presents some striking
features 5 and as the. facts illustrate the operations of the laws
regulating slavery, and show the sentiments of the people of
Ohio and Virginia as regards that institution in the begin-
ning of the century, I purpose briefly to recount them.
On the 22d day of October, 1808, in the pioneer town of
Oharlestown (now Wellsburg), Brooke County, Ya., a called
court was held for the trial of Jane, a slave of Joseph Tom-
linson, jr., charged with entering the premises of a merchant
in nighttime, and stealing goods exceeding in value $4. James
Grifath, an upright judge, presided, assisted by four citizens,
gentlemen. Philip Doddridge represented the commonwealth
and Alexander Caldwell the accused. The testimony was vol-
uminous, but this brief transcript from the records of the court
shall suffice :
The court, after hearing the prisoner's defence, are unanimously of the
opinion that she is guilty of the offence wherewith she stands charged,
and thereupon it is considered by the court that she be taken from here
to the place whence she came, and be there confined until the tenth day of
December next, and that on that day she be taken by the sheriff from the
jail to the place of execution, and there, at twelve o'clock on that day, be
hanged by the neck until she be dead. And it is ordered that a transcript
of the warrant and proceedings be made out and certified in two different
mails to the clerk of the executive council by the clerk of this court.
Ordered, that it be certified that the value of the said slave, in the opin-
ion of this court, is
The papers in the case were received at Eichmond by due
course of mail, as the executive records show :
Friday, November 4, 1808. The governor laid before the board the pro-
ceedings of the county court of Brooke for the trial of Jane, a negro woman
slave, the property of Joseph Tomlinson, jr., condemned to death by the said
court for felony; whereupon it is advised that the said Jane be reprieved
until the Ist day of November, 1809, for sale and transportation. And it is
further advised that John Connell, clerk of the said court, be appointed
agent to dispose of the said slave for the best price he can obtain, and take
bonds from the purchaser for the amount of sale, and for carrying her out
of the United States agreeable to law.
The full force of these records will be better understood when
read in the light of the changes in the laws regulating slavery :
The act of 1692 for the trial of slaves charged with a "cappi-
tall" offense, which the law of England required to be satisfied
with the death of the offender, or loss of member, required the
accused to be committed to jail laden with irons. The gov-
ernor upon receiving notice from the sheriff of the arrest, issued
FIRST FUGITIVE SLAVE CASE IN OHIO — SMITH. 95
out a commission of oyer and terminer directed to fit persons
of the county, who forthwith held a court for the trial, and
took for evidence the confession of the party, or the oaths of
two witnesses, or of one with pregnant circumstances, with the
^^sollemnitie" of jury, and the accused being found guilty, to
pass judgment as the law of England provided in the like case,
and on such judgment to award execution.
This law was amended in 1748 by the lieutenant-governor,
council, and house of burgesses, so as to provide that in case
the court should be divided in opinion, the accused should be
acquitted ; that in case of conviction there should be ten days
at least between the time of passing judgment and the day
of execution, except in cases of conspiracy, insurrection, or
rebellion J and that punishment should be without benefit of
clergy. The minimum of loss justifying death was fixed at
20 shillings current money, but care was exercised as to the
sufdciency of testimony.
In 1772 the act of 1748 was so amended as to provide that
a slave convicted of housebreaking in the nighttime without
stealing goods should not be excluded from benefit of clergy,
unless a free man in like case should be so excluded. And it
was further enacted '^ that sentence of death should in no case
be passed upon any slave, unless four of the court, before whom
such slave is arraigned and tried, being a majority, shall con-
cur in their opinion of his guilt.'^
In 1786 a law was enacted constituting the justices of every
county justices of oyer and terminer for trying slaves charged
with treason or felony, which trial was required to take place
within ten days after arrest, ^o slave could be condemned
unless all of the justices sitting upon his trial should agree in
opinion that the prisoner was guilty. It also provided that
where judgment of death was pronounced thirty days should
be allowed between the time of passing judgment and execu-
tion, except in case of conspiracy, insurrection, or rebellion.
The justices were also required to fix the value of the con-
demned slave, which sum was paid to the owner out of the
public funds before the day of execution. No person having
interest in a slave was permitted to sit upon the trial of such
slave.
Finally, in 1801, an act was passed authorizing the governor,
with the advice of his council, to contract with any person for
the sale or purchase of slaves under sentence of death for con-
96 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
spiracy, insurrection, or other crimes, the purchaser being
required to enter into bond, with sufficient security, in the
penalty of $500, with the condition to carry out of the United
States the condemned; such sale amounting to a reprieve from
sentence of death. Provided, that in the case of the return to
Virginia of such person, the original sentence should be car-
ried into effect as if no reprieve had taken place. The owners
of slaves transported were paid in the same manner as for
slaves executed. The court in all such cases was required to
certify the proceedings and findings to the governor.
Let us now resume our story. Before the action of the gov-
ernor could be known at Charlestown, the door of the jail was
left open and Jane walked forth unmolested by any. After
spending two days in the village, which was known to the offi-
cers of the court, she crossed the Ohio river to Marietta where
she found employment as a domestic in the family of Abner
Lord. There is a charge in the bill of the jailer for ^' eighteen
days' boarding of the negro slave Jane," which would make
the date of her escape the 9th of November. There is no doubt
but that public opinion was against the severity of the law,
and even against the alternative of sale and transportation,
which was pretty sure to result from the action of the execu-
tive in all such cases, and this feeling of humanity is what
moved the officer of the law to connive at the escape of Jane
before notice of the act of the governor and council could be
received. It is certain that the woman was not regarded as
vicious — the testimony of witnesses on her trial was favorable
as to conduct — or the community would have regarded sale
and transportation as a relief. After her escape no one inter-
ested himself in her further punishment, although her place of
refuge was known to the sheriff and the citizens of Charles-
town.
This friendly indifference was interrupted in time, when it
became known that the escaped slave had given birth to a child
at her new home, and slavery had a claim now on two souls
instead of one. The year stipulated in the reprieve had expired
without notice; Jane, who had married a free colored man soon
after finding a new home, seemed to have no apprehensions of
being disturbed, when cupidity in the form of Jacob Beeson
appeared in Marietta and attempted under the act of 1793 to
carry off by force the mother and child. There is no evidence
that Beeson at any time represented the agent appointed by
FIRST FUGITIVE SLAVE CASE IN OHIO SMITH. 97
the governor to sell and transport tlie woman, or, in fact, any-
body in that section of the State but himself. He applied to
the governor of Virginia for a letter to the governor of Ohio,
^^ confessedly,^^ so citizens of Marietta said, "for the purpose
of procuring the woman and her child for himself." We shall
see how he accomplished his purpose. This application
revived the case and called for executive action, of which we
[find due notice :
Thursday, February 1, 1810. It is advised that the governor demand of
the executive of the State of Ohio a negro woman slave named Jane, who
was heretofore reprieved for transportation by the executive of this Com-
monwealth, but escaped from custody, and is now said to be in the State
of Ohio ; and that Jacob Beeson, esquire, of Wood County, be employed as
agent for this Commonwealth to apply for the said negro, bring her to the
county of Wood, and retain her until the further order of the executive.
This demand was in the form of a letter, which reads as
follows :
Richmond, Virginia, February 5, 1810.
Sir : I have the honor to enclose you a copy of an advice of the council
of this State duly authenticated, authorizing a demand for a slave, who,
having been convicted of felony in one of the county courts of this State,
has, under an act of the general assembly thereof, been reprieved for sale
and transportation, but who has escaped from custody, and is said to be
in the State of Ohio. And in pursuance of the said advice I have to
request your excellency will be pleased to cause the said slave to be
arrested and delivered up to Jacob Beeson, esquire (of the county of
Wood in this Commonwealth), the agent appointed on behalf of this State
to receive her.
I am, with great respect, your excellency's obedient servant,
Jno. Tyler.
His excellency, the Governor of the State of Ohio.
What befell Mr. Beeson is best related in his own words :
Wood County, Virginia, FeVy 24, 1810.
Sir : I have the honor to enclose to you a demand made by the governor
of Virginia of a slave who is now in your State, in the town of Marietta,
in the service of Abner Lord. Governor Tyler did suppose that the citi-
zens of Marietta would have had a sufficient respect for the rights of this
Old Dominion, and that they would have delivered up its slave without
your interposition. But I lament that we have been disappointed, for
immediately upon my application to a justice of the peace for the delivery
of the slave, she was secreted and put out of reach of the officer.
It is with great concern that the people of Virginia (who reside on its
western extremity) look forward to the evils that will grow out of this
course of conduct pursued by the people of your State residing on and near
the Ohio. The idea of emancipation is propagated, and that such will
fire the breast of every slave no one will doubt. The executive thought
S. Mis. 104 7
98 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
it not necessary to forward the records of condemnation, as tliat circum-
stance was notorious in the town of Marietta.
Please inform me by the next mail of the course which I am to pursue,
and direct to Wood Ct. House, Virginia.
I am, with great respect, your obedient servant,
Jacob Beeson.
His Excellency the Governor of the State op Ohio.
On the same day that Mr. Beeson addressed the governor of
Ohio, a number of the prominent citizens of Marietta signed a
petition requesting him not to surrender the woman. ^ ' They feel
no other interest," they say, "than that of insuring to an object
of commiseration that justice which is her due." Thereupon
they recite the facts which I have already related, adding that
they had reason to believe that the conviction was improperly
procured, that the woman was persuaded to leave the jail, and
that word was sent to the sheriff early that she was ready to
return if required. They say farther that she had not sought
to elude all search, "but would only desire to be kept from one
whose avarice alone, it is believed, has prompted him to attempt
to regain her." They believed that she was entitled to enjoy
the liberty that had been thrust upon her.
The signatures to this petition are of men who have a place
in the history of this country, men who carried forward what
Manasseh Cutler had planned — Samuel P. Hildreth, the Put-
nams, Dudley and William Woodbridge, Caleb Emerson, Grif-
fith Green, the Devols, Joseph Israel, Benjamin Buggies, Gen.
Buell, Obadiah Lincoln, Thomas L. and Charles Prentiss, J. B.
Gardiner, Timothy E. Danielson, and Abner Lord. To these
New England names should be added that of the English Qua-
ker, John Brough, father of the John Brough who became a
famous governor during the storm and stress period. These
represented the principles embodied in the ordinance of 1787,
which made Ohio the most interesting battle ground in the
moral and political contest that quickly followed. This peti-
tion was the first of a long list of petitions having a common
object, that were addressed to the executive of the State dur-
ing a half century.
Governor Huntington ignored Beeson's impudent letter, but
on the 22d of March he replied to Governor Tyler. That let-
ter was destroyed by fire, but from his executive memoranda
I find that he refused to comply with the demand, for the
chief reason that the law of Congress concerning fugiti\^es from
FIRST FUGITIVE SLAVE CASE IN OHIO — SMITH. 99
labor did not authorize the executive of a State to interfere
with the apprehension of slaves.
The case did not end here. The original claim of Beeson for
the rendition of a fugitive from service was abandoned, and a
formal application made for the delivery of Jane as a fugitive
from justice. The letter of Governor Tyler accompanying the
papers is suflSciently formal and explicit:
EiCHMOND, April 26th, 1810,
Sir : I have the honor to enclose to your excellency copies, duly authen-
ticated, of the proceedings of the court of Brooke County, in this Com-
monwealth, on the trial of Jane, a negro woman slave, late the property
of Joseph Tomlinson, jr., a citizen of the said Commonwealth, now said
to be in the State of Ohio ; and of an advice of the council of State,
authorizing a demand of the delivery up of the said slave as a fugitive
from justice; and an appointment of Jacob Beeson, esquire, as an agent
on the part of this State to make of your excellency the said demand. I
have therefore to request that you will be pleased to cause the said slave
to be arrested and delivered up to the said Jacob Beeson, according to the
Constitution and laws of the United States in such cases provided.
I am, with great respect, your excellency's obedient servant,
Jno. Tyler.
The Governor of the State of Ohio.
The law under which this demand for the arrest and return
of a fugitive from justice was made, Governor Huntington held,
as did two other governors of the State of Ohio in subsequent
years, left little discretion to the executive upon whom the
requisition was made. He therefore directed a warrant to
issue to John Clarke, of Marietta, on the 21st of May, who
arrested and delivered the negro woman to the agent of Vir-
ginia.
The last Virginia executive record bearing on this case reads
as follows:
Saturday, June 23rd, 1810. The governor laid before the board a letter
from Jacob Beeson, esq., stating that he had reclaimed the negro woman
Jane, late the property of Joseph Tomlinson, which negro had been con-
victed of felony, and by the court of Brooke County condemned to be
hanged, but was reprieved for transportation by the executive, and after-
wards escaped to the State of Ohio ; and the said Joseph Tomlinson, having
received payment from the Conmionwealth, and released all his right to
the said slave, and the executive taking the case of the said slave again
into consideration, do advise an absolute pardon of her. And it is further
advised that the said Jacob Beeson be authorized and requested to sell
the said slave for the best price he can obtain, either by private or public
sale on a credit not exceeding twelve months, and pay the proceeds
thereof, when collected, into the public treasury.
f
100 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Thus the law requiring the transportation of a condemned
slave beyond the limits of the United States was negatived
by an executive pardon, and a way was opened for Jacob Bee-
son to acquire what he coveted. And in June, 1810, Jane and
her child disappeared in the Cimmerian darkness of slavery.
L-THE PRESENT STATUS OF PRE-COLUMBIAN DISCOVERY OF
AMERICA BY NORSEMEN.
By HON. JAMES PHINNEY BAXTER,
OF PORTLAND, MAnTE.
101
THE PRESENT STATUS OF PRE-COLUMBIAN DISCOVERY OF
AMERICA BY THE NORSEMEN.
By James Phinney Baxter.
A great deal has been written during the past few years
respecting the pre-Columbian discovery of America by the
Norsemen near the close of the tenth century ; indeed, there
has been a renaissance of mythical lore respecting this much
bewritten subject, so that one may well shrink from ventur-
ing to rehabilitate these shadowy figures, which hover on the
uncertain line which separates triadition from history.
When the sagas of Biarni, of Leif, of Thorvald, and others
came to light, they were, indeed, a godsend to historical enthu-
siasts, who not only accepted them as veritable history, but,
with remarkable facility, ascribed to Norse creation all arch-
aeological remains of doubtful origin, which they encountered.
Eude characters wrought upon rocks along the New Eng-
land coast by aboriginal artists, altered not only by time,
whose keen chisel is never inactive; but possibly, nay cer-
tainly, by mischievous hands, were easily seen to be Eunic
characters, and the lines of rocks piled along the beach by
the fierce rush of stormy seas, were described as the handi-
work of men, presumable Norse.
When one considers the failures of these enthusiasts, among
whom were several able men, in their attempts to convince the
world of the existence of Norse remains in New England, one
can hardly wonder at Bancroft's contemptuous treatment of
the subject. At the time when he wrote, these men were pos-
ing as the expositors of the sagas, and the proofs, which they
adduced, were not of a nature to merit the serious regard of a
man like our historian.
The objects to which they pointed with the greatest assur-
ance were the stone mill at Newport, and the Dighton rock.
Learned treatises were written by architectural amateurs to
103
104 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
prove the Norse origin of tlie Newport wonder, and its struc-
tural analogies to similar European buildings, accompanied by
elaborate drawings to show how it looked to Norse eyes. To
these, theoretical additions were added by others, and had not
some bookish man shown by indubitable proof that it was built
by the emigrant Arnold, after the model of a like stone struc-
ture in his native English town, we should have had in time
on the soil of New England another tower of Babel.
But the Dighton rock was left, and it bore an inscription,
a Eunic inscription, and a learned professor had translated it.
How simply it read. Its very simplicity, so much in harmony
with the rugged Norse character, was sufficient in itself to
prove its genuineness. It told of the landing of Thorfinn,
the number of his men, and bore a representation of his wife,
and of their child born after landing. Who would have the
temerity to question this record? Yet, to-day, what student
of American aboriginal rock writing but smiles at the strange
delusion of the disciples of Eafn, when brought face to face
with this interesting relic of our red- skinned predecessors?
Such delusions, however, are not singular. The history of the
world abounds with them.
One would have supposed that such signal instances of fail-
ure would have discouraged similar attempts 5 but such is not
the case, and a new crop of Norsemaniacs, more zealous than
their predecessors, has taken their place. Like them, these
sciolists seize upon every archaic relic of doubtful origin to
support their favorite postulate, and, like them, they press
etymology, that facile science for theoretic display, into their
service with a boldness that commands admiration.
Of relics, stone mortars, such as our Indians used, old horn
spoons and debris of indescribable kinds, with nothing to indi-
cate their age or origin, are brought forward as of Norse fab-
rication; and, most astounding of all, the remains of a great
city have been discovered near Boston; a Norse city, and its
name was Norumbega; that name which the bibulous French-
man, stranded at a temperance hotel in Maine, was told, as he
admired it upon the swinging sign over the door, was the orig-
inal name of the Pine-Tree State, and who, reading it with the
stress upon the second and fourth syllables, was moved to ex-
claim: ^' Well named from the first."
Of course we are all glad to learn that the location of No-
rumbega is at last settled, and that Massachusetts has it. It
DISCOVERY OF AMERICA BY NORSEMEN BAXTER. 105
has been an insufferable nuisance to Maineacs with historical
tendencies. We are glad to hear of its unexampled extent
and the nature of its ancient traffic, themes which furnish the
enterprising journals of the day with picturesque oppor-
tunities for description. We are glad to know that the pulpit
has a new subject with which to attack sin; a great city right
in Massachusetts, with its immense canals floating lumber
from the interior to its splendid docks and wharves, whence it
went on ships full laden to far outland havens; a city, in spite
of its prosperity, which came to nought through ungodliness.
The fate of these ungodly Korumbegans, who married and
were given in marriage with the Canaanites about them, may
prove a timely warning to bad Bostonians, while the good, it is
to be hoped, may not vaunt themselves overmuch because they
were especially raised up by Providence to succeed the wicked
Korumbegans. Such is the story recently told to an approv-
ing audience, of "The Norseman and the Puritan."
But perhaps etymology may be made to yield still better
results. It is still remembered with what calm confidence the
learned Mather derived the Algonquin word Naumkeag, the
aboriginal name for the home of Endicot, from the Hebrew
Nahum-keik, the bosom of consolation, which he believed,
with his usual inflexibility of faith, was proof conclusive of
Algonkin descent from Heber; and why should we be sur-
prised to learn that Americus Yespucius did not give his name
to the continent, but Eric, the ruddy sire of Leif, whose name
America preserves in its two middle sylables, like a fly in
amber or one of Mr. Donnelly's cryptographs? We are not
surprised to find that we have been misinformed as to the first
name of Yespucius, and that he is no longer A-meri-cus, but a
sad one rapidly passing to a merited oblivion.
But while on the name of Eric may we not, in behalf of
Maine, which ought to have a share in the Norseman since it
was once a part of Massachusetts, remark that it appears on
the Maine coast in the region of the Sagadahoc, one instance
of which may be cited, namely, Mericoneag, the Abnaki name
of the peninsular whereon Harpswell now flourishes? May
not this have been named in honor of another Eric, the first
bishop of Yinland? This theory is supported by names in the
vicinity, especially by the names of the rivers near by, known
as the Sagadahoc and Pjepscot, or Bishop's Cot, as the English
recorded it. Why may not the humble home or cot of the
106 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
good Korse Bishop, Eric, have been at the latter place? What
reflections this may furnish to our Eoman Catholic friends.
How wonderfully Father Biard's steps were guided to this
region so near the spot where the seeds of faith had been
sowed by Bishop Eric. The soil had already been prepared
for him in the hearts of these Norse Abnakians in this obscure
region, and the little river Pjepscot all at once assumes an
important place in the new history of '^Em-Eric-a," as it is to
be henceforth pronounced by all good Norsemaniacs.
Allusion has been made to the Sagadahoc. In this new
method of writing history we are told that Sagamore, the title
of an Abnaki chief, is a corruption of Sagaman, a person
among Korsefolk also occupying a chief place. Truly sug-
gestive was this to one person at least when, awhile ago, the
Maine Historical Society met on the heights at the mouth of
the beautiful Sagadahoc— Saga-da-hoc, the Saga-height or
high place — and he reflected, may not this be the very spot
where the Norse Abnaki Sagamores were wont to meet and
enjoy their sagas, a much nobler occupation than that of the
historians who had usurped their place to rest and enjoy their
segars?
Time will not permit a further pursuit of this branch of the
subject, but it is proper to remark that, if we adopt this method
in our study of etymology, we shall find in the Abnaki branch
of the Algonkin tongue, words having great similarity of sound
to certain Chinese words, as well as to words of other tongues,
and may expect to see come to the front Li Yen's story of the
Chinese discovery in the seventh century of Fusang, or Amer-
ica, which was said to be numerous "lis" from the Celestial
Empire, and lest some one may not know what a "li" is, it may
be well to observe that it is a Chinese term for a measure of
distance.
But leaving this perhaps too fruitful branch of the subject,
may we not more profitably occupy ourselves with what a recent
writer, who is evidently an admirer of the etymological method,
terms the "bookish" method of research, by which is meant
the method of seeking historical evidence in written or printed
documents ? As a matter of fact, neither archaeology, ethnology,
nor etymology at present yields satisfactory support to the
Sagas relating to the discovery of America, if we except the
remnants of former habitations found on the coast of Green-
land, where the Sagas located Ericsfiord, that erewhile mythical
DISCOVERY OF AMERICA BY NORSEMEN — BAXTER. 107
haven from wbich the Norse heroes sailed for Yinland. The
importance of this discovery is acknowledged. We may also
acknowledge ourselves to be believers in the Sagas, founding
our belief largely upon the internal evidence of truth which
they possess. The Sagas are all that we have to bridge the
wide gap between the ISTorse occupation of Greenland and the
discovery of America by Columbus. For more than a century
and a half they were not reduced to writing, but were repeated
orally by men trained for the purpose of perpetuating and dif-
fusing the knowledge of historical events. They can not, there-
fore, be properly regarded as history, and anything which may
yield them external support will always be welcomed by his-
torical students.
Believing that in Eoman Catholic archives something relat-
ing to the Norse adventurers to the New World might be
discovered, the author went to Kome sometime since, bearing
suitable credentials, for the purpose of pursuing investigations
in the Vatican, and, though his efforts were unsatisfactory, he
still entertains hope, that facts having an important bearing
upon this subject, may be found in Eoman Catholic archives.
One fact may be here presented as furnishing a proof of the
verity of the sagas.
The policy of the Eoman Pontiffs has ever been to extend
the dominion of the church over the whole earth -, hence the
discovery of a new land, in which they could plant the seeds
of the Eoman faith, has never failed to be regarded as an event
of much importance. Such newly discovered lands were
regarded as the spiritual property of the church, and as soon
as practicable, they were brought under her fostering care;
hence we should expect to find in the church archives refer-
ences to such discoveries.
Let us go back to a date previous to the Norse colonization
of Iceland, which is set down in the Crymogaea of Arngrim
Jonas as A. D. 874; say to the year A. D. 830, at which period
Gregory Fourth occupied the papal throne. The world knew
nothing at this time of Iceland, nor of any larger land west of
Norway above the sixth circle. In this year we find Gregory
confirming Auscarius as the first archbishop of Hamburg,
Christianity having been introduced into Denmark but three
years previous. To the north lay Sweden and Norway in the
darkness of paganism. Thirty years later, the Eoman congre-
gation having, without doubt, planted the banner of the church
108 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
in Sweden 5 Pope I^icholas First, who had succeeded Gregory,
invested Auscarius as his legate, and in doing so defined his
jurisdiction. It is no longer confined to Hamburg and indefinite
territory beyond, but is extended over the Swedes as well as
" over any other nations in those parts to whom the mercy of
God shall open a way."
In the year 874 A. D., Iceland was colonized j but the church
had not reached Norway, and it is not until the year 948 A. D.
that we find this country mentioned in pontifical annals. At
this time Agapetus occupied the pontifical chair, and Arch-
bishop Adalgarus was granted jurisdiction, not only over
Swedes and Danes, but also over I^Torwegians and all other
countries to the north, and we may expect, that ere long, the
star of church empire, holding its way westward, may reach
Iceland. Nor are we disappointed in this, for following along
to the reign of Pope Benedict Eighth in the year 1022 A. D.
we find him enlarging the jurisdiction of the see of Hamburg.
Heretofore it had comprised the Swedes, Danes, and Nor-
wegians, and now the Icelanders are taken in as well "as all
islands adjacent unto the countries aforesaid."
We become interested in this progress of the church west-
ward and are fain to follow it.
Greenland had been discovered in 982 A. D. by Eric, but at
this date, 1022 A. D., had not been mentioned in pontifical
documents. The author is aware that, according to certain
German codices, Auscarius and his successor Eembert, who
flourished in the ninth century, were given by popes Gregory
Fourth and Nicholas First legatine powers over both Iceland
and Greenland, but they are not supported by pontifical docu-
ments, nor by the best codices of Paris and Corbie j and as
neither Iceland nor Greenland had been colonized at the date
mentioned, they may properly be regarded as erroneous.
The church has now reached Iceland, and is following a lit-
tle behind geographical discovery.
The year 1053 A. D. opens, and Leo the Ninth reigns at
Eome. Christianity in its Eoman garb has reached Greenland,
and the people there have become amenable to its influence.
The jurisdiction of Archbishop Adalbert has heretofore been
nominally limited on the west to Iceland, but now the pope
enlarges it so as not only to embrace Denmark, Sweden, and
Norway, Iceland, and Lapland but also Greenland, as well as
" all northern nations and certain portions of adjacent Slavia."
DISCOVERY OF AMERICA BY NORSEMEN— ^BAXTER. 109
ThiSy according to Migne^sPatrology of the Latin Fathers, is the
first mention of Greenland in pontifical documents. Having
reached Greenland, we have come to the end of the history of
geographical discovery toward the west until we resume it in
Columbian chronicles. If, however, America was discovered
by the Norsefolk at the close of the tenth century, as we are
told it was by the sagas, should we not find the same kind of
evidence of the fact in the annals of the Eoman Catholic Church,
which we have already found respecting the discovery of Ice-
land and Greenland'? We have seen that in 1053 A. D. the
jurisdiction of Archbishop Adalbert, of Hamburg, was extended
by Pope Leo IX to include Greenland. In 1055, by a bull of
Pope Victor XI, the same jurisdiction was continued to Arch-
bishop Adalbert, who died in 1072.
The legatine powers of the see of Hamburg had become so
extensive as to make it convenient to erect an archbishopric
at Lund, in Sweden, in 1104, and Greenland was placed under
its jurisdiction; and as the bishops of Iceland could not exer-
cise inspection over its ecclesiastical affairs, it became desira-
ble to have bishops of its own; hence in 1106, a bishopric was
erected at Holum, and its charge committeed to Eric Gnup-
son. After this date we lose sight of this man until 1112,
when he appears in Greenland, superintending for several
years after this date the ecclesiastical affairs of the country.
During this period there appears no evidence that he had
received his appointment from Rome, or been duly consecrated
to his office. In 1121, however, Calixtus Second, then occupy-
ing the papal throne, he received consecration from Archbishop
Adzer, of Lund, and had committed to his care not only Green-
land but Yinland. To this latter country, where a colony is
said to have emigrated from Greenland, Bishoi) Eric is said
to have gone to take under his protection the ecclesiastical
affairs of the new colony. If this is not true, we may expect
to be able to follow Bishop Eric's subsequent career, but this
we find ourselves unable to do, for he vanishes utterly from
view. lN"o record of his death appears, while an examination
of the church history of the time, reveals the important
fact, that Greenland was without a bishop, and in 1123
made an application for one, which was granted, and the
next year Arnald was consecrated at Lund by Archbishop
Adzer to fill the bishopric left vacant by Eric. Although
some obscurity exists with relation to these transactions, they
110 AMEKICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
certainly afford very important support to the truth of the
sagas, and it is hoped that further evidence of their truth
may yet be discovered in Eoman Catholic archives. Of course
I should not forget Adam of Bremen, whose reference to Yin-
land is always quoted. Archbishop Adalbert, who occupied
the see of Hamburg from the year 1045 to 1072, was the patron
and personal friend of the historian, whose work, Gesta Pon-
tificium Ecclesiae Hamburgensis was completed in 1075. Of
the good Bishop, Adam always speaks with affection and
reverence. He says that "he was so grand, so generous, so
hospitable, so desirous of divine and human glory, that little
Bremen, having become known by his virtue like another
Eome, was devoutly resorted to from all quarters of the earth,
especially from the north." Among the comers were Iceland-
ers, Greenlanders, and Orcadeans, inhabitants of the Orkneys,
who came to ask for preachers. It is probable that the arch-
bishop himself journeyed as far west as Greenland, as on one
occasion, when dispatching Islef, the first bishop of Scaltholtd
to his charge, he sent by him letters, like those of the earlier
apostles, to the people of Iceland and Greenland, saluting their
churches with veneration, and promising to visit them soon,
glorying that these countries had received the faith by his
efforts. When we realize the close intimacy existing between
these men, and their high character, these familiar words,
which Adam uses to convey to us what Archbishop Adalbert
said to him respecting Yinlaud, receive additional force.
"He spoke," says he, "also of another island found in that
ocean called Winland, because vines grew there spontaneously,
yielding excellent wine. For that fruits grow there spon-
taneously we know, not from fabulous report, but for certain,
from the reports of the Danes." This was written many years
before the time of Eric Gnupson, that important figure in any
story of North American discovery by Norsemen which may
be constructed. It is to be hoped that the researches of
students may yet bring to light much more respecting him.
XL-PRINCE HENRY, THE NAVIGATOR.
By PROFESSOR EDWARD GAYLORD BOURNE,
OP ADELBERT COLLEGE.
Ill
PRINCE HENRY, THE NAVIGATOR.
By Edwakd Gaylord Bourne.
The various commemorations of the discovery of the New
World during the past year have quickened the historical
instincts of every student, and as the momentous nature of the
event in the history of the world becomes more vividly appa-
rent the essentially historical problem to learn how it all came
about becomes more and more fascinating.
Two lines of influence combined to convince Columbus that
his project was practicable — the speculative views of Aristotle,
Strabo, and Toscanelli, and the results of the Portuguese
explorations off the coast of Africa, which at every step win-
nowed the geographical tradition of its terrifying chaff. With-
out the labors of Prince Henry, Columbus might not have
ventured, but without Columbus America would have been
discovered only eight years later by Cabral as the inevitable
result of Prince Henry's work. Few careers have been more
extraordinary in the range of their influence on history, and
yet comparatively little attention has been given to his efforts
and their consequences in the abundant literature of the past
few months on the discoveries. In this brief paper I shall try
to determine as exactly as possible what Prince Henry's aims
were, and what prompted his course of action, presenting in
conclusion some consideration of his character and personal
influence.
*Thi8 paper is based on the following contemporary sources:
Dioguo Gomez. De Prima Inventione Guineae, in Dr. Schmeller's Ueber
Valenti Fernandez Alema.
Chronica do Descobrimento e Conquista de Guin6,pelo Chronista Gomez
Eannes de Azurara. Paris, 1841.
Alguns Documentos da Torre do Tombo. Lisbon, 1892.
Bullarum CoUectio. Lisbon, 1707.
The citations from contemporary documents in the valuable notes in:
A Escola de Sagres e as Tradigoes do Infante D. Henrique, pelo Marquez
de Souza Holstein. Lisbon, 1877.
These two modern lives of Prince Henry have also been of great service :
R. H. Major, Prince Henry the Navigator, London, 1868; and G. de Veer,
Prinz Heinrich der Seefahrer. Leipzig, 1864
113
S. Mis. 104 8
114 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
The earliest authentic statement of Prince Henry^s aims
that I have found, and one which may be taken as his own, is
in a charter of King Alphonso V, dated October 22, 1443, and
published recently, I think for the first time, which prohibits
any one from making a voyage beyond Cape Bojador without
permission from the prince. The passage reads: "We make
known to all who see this charter that the Infant Dom Anrrique
my much esteemed and beloved Uncle believing that he would
do service to our Lord and to Us set about sending his ships
to learn of the world beyond Cape Bojador, since till that time
there was no one in Christendom who knew about it, nor did
they know whether there were people there or not, nor in the
sea-charts and maps was anything beyond Cape Bojador
depicted except what seemed good to the makers. And since
it was a doubtful matter, and since men did not venture to go,
he sent thither fourteen times till he knew about part of that
region, and they brought him thence on two occasions some
thirty-eight Moors and he ordered a chart made, and he told
us that his plan was to send his ships further to learn of that
region."*
One reason for saying that this may be taken as Prince
Henry^s own statement is that Alphonso was only twelve
years of age, and Henry was one of his guardians. The same
aim is asserted in another charter of Alphonso, dated Febru-
ary 3, 1846,t and directly by Prince Henry himself in Decem-
ber, 1458, except that in the latter one the field of discovery
begins from Cape Ii^on.f
Gomez Eannes de Azurara, in his invaluable contemporary
chronicle of the Discovery and Conquest of Guinea, which
was written in 1453, reports a conversation between Prince
Henry and Antonio Goncalvez, which took place just prior to
Goncalvez's voyage of 1443. This, whether it is considered as
representing Henry's views in 1442, or several years later,
comes next in order. Goncalvez was desirous of exchanging
the Moors he had just captured for negroes. He urged that
from the negroes they could gain information of a more distant
region, and that he would make every effort to secure such
information. Prince Henry replies that not only of that land
did he desire information, but also of the Indies, and of the
land of Prester John, if it were possible. §
* Alguns Docs., 8. t Souza Holstein, p. 47.
t Ibid., 9. ^Alzurara, 94.
PRINCE HENRY, THE NAVIGATOR — BOURNE. 115
In the bull ot Nicholas Y, January 8, 1454, we have in the
preamble historical statements unquestionably supplied by
Prince Henry in his petition to the Pope. The language is
very similar to the passages just cited, yet additional facts of
importance appear. " When it came to the Infant's knowledge
that never, or at least within the memory of man had it been
customary to make voyages through the ocean Sea of the
Southern and Eastern Shores, and that it was to the degree
unknown to us of the West that we had no certain knowledge
of the people of these parts, believing that he would do very
great service to God, if by his efforts and activity the Sea
should be opened to his ships even to the Indians who are said
to worship Christ and to be able to come into relations with
them and to stir them to help the Christians against the Sara-
cens and other enemies of the faith and to conquer some of the
Gentiles or heathen living between, deeply corrupted with the
teaching of the accursed Mahomet and to preach to them the
most holy name of Christ as yet unknown, he has since twenty
years of age armed with royal authority not ceased to send
almost yearly a force from the people of these kingdoms with the
greatest toils, dangers and expense in very swift ships called
caravels, to explore the Sea and the maratime provinces toward
the Southern regions and the Antarctic Pole. And so it came
to pass that, when ships of this sort had explored many
islands, harbors and the Sea adjacent to the province of Guinea
had been occupied, they sailed further and reached the mouth
of a certain great river commonly considered the Nile, where
against the people of those regions a war in the name of the
King Alphonso and the Infant existed for years, and in it many
neighboring islands were conquered and peacefully possessed,
as they remain to this day with the Sea adjacent. Thence
also many people of Guinea and other negroes being captured
by force or by exchange of unprohibited articles or some other
legitimate contract of sale have been transported to the said
kingdoms ; of whom many have been converted to the Catholic
faith and it is hoped that in the divine mercy, if progress of
this kind continues that either the whole people will be con-
verted to the Faith, or at least the souls of many be gained
for Christ."*
In this passage we see clear evidences of the crusading spirit
in Prince Henry alongside of that of scientific curiosity. The
* Bnllamm collectio,pp. 18-20.
116 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
same spirit at times dominated Columbus, but manifested itself
in the impracticable project of recovering the Holy Sepulcher ;
with Prince Henry it was practical and aimed at the conquest
of Africa. Other indications of the strength of this spirit in
Henry will be noted later. This passage and the citation from
Azurara clearly reveal that Henry planned the circumnaviga-
tion of Africa. The Indians who worshiped Christ are obvi-
ously the subjects of Prester John, whose kingdom after the
thirteenth century was commonly supposed to be in East Africa.
From this time on to reach the kingdom of Prester John was
a powerful incentive with the Portuguese. Diaz and da Gama
were on the lookout for him, and John II of Portugal sent
ambassadors to him overland. This legend of the Middle Ages
far more powerfully iDromoted geographical discovery than the
speculations of alchemy advanced the science of chemistry.
That Henry was confident of reaching a region that he thought
of as India, whether it may have been Eastern Africa or India
proper again appears with equal clearness from the narrative
of Diego Gomez of his voyage of 1456. When he was in the
territory of a certain chief, Batimansa, south of the Gambia,
he says, ^' I wanted to make an experiment by sending James,
a certain Indian, whom the Lord Infant sent with us, so that
if we should enter India we might have an interpreter.^' *
Azurara in his invaluable contem^Dorary chronicle gives, in
addition to the reasons above mentioned, the following motives
of Prince Henry's explorations : The desire of finding Christians
to trade with, the desire of learning the dimensions of the
Moorish power, and the desire of extending Christianity.t
Diego Gomez, who took part in several exi)editions from
1444-1463, and wrote a history of the discovery of Guinea,
sometime before 1483, entitled ^'De prima Inventione Guinese,''
throws an independent Mght on Henry's aims and methods. A
voyage in 1415 ^'ad inquirendum partes extraneas" is mentioned,
and Henry is said to have sent out another in 1416, "desid-
erans scire causam tam magni maris currentis."t
When Tristan and Goncalvez brought their first captives, in
1442, Prince Henry carefully examined them as to their country
* Schmeller, 29.
t Chronica de Guiii€, pp. 44-49.
tEven if the evidence for these voyages is rejected, the statements are
of value in showing the view prevalent when Gomez wrote of Prince
Henry's purposes.
PRINCE HENRY, THE NAVIGATOR — BOURNE. 117
and learned the route to Timbuctoo. In 1444 Gongalo de Sintra
and Dinis Dias were sent out and were enjoined to go beyond
Petra Galeae, to see if they could find other languages spoken.
The result of this expedition was the establishment in 1445 of
a post in the Island of Arguim. Soon after this the Prince
directed his commanders to avoid strife with the natives and
to enter into peaceful commercial relations, as he desired to
convert them to Christianity.
Another citation, interesting from the excessive emphasis
upon his crusading spirit, maybe made before I close this part
of the discussion. Gomez says of his death, "King Alphonso
was then in the City of Evora and he was very sad, together
with his people, at the death of so great a lord, because all the
resources that he had and that he derived from Guinea he
expended in war and in continually fitting out fleets against the
Saracens in behalf of the Christian faith,*
After examining thus carefully the nature of Prince Henry's
aims, I propose briefly to consider what influences imjpelled him
to a course of action so exceptional in his time, yet so rich in
consequences. What was it that first turned his attention to
that continent which has preserved its mystery longer than
any other part of the world except the Poles?
Prince Henry's original interest in Africa is generally attri-
buted to his experiences in the campaign of Ceuta. At the cap-
ture of this fortress — the African counterpart of Gibraltar — he
won his spurs. We are informed by sources emanating, as we
have seen, from Henry himself (the *^ Bull of Nicholas Y" and
his own statement in 1458) that his impulse dated from the
time when he learned that the Coast of Africa south of Bojador
had never been explored. When this fact was clear to him it
is not easy to say, but it was probably not earlier than the
Ceuta campaign.
Barros tells us that at the capture of Ceuta, as at other
times when Henry was there, he always made inquiry of the
Moors in regard to the interior, especially the parts more remote
from Fez andMorroco.t Gomez says that when Henry, in 1415
or 1416, heard of the flourishing overland trade between Tunis
and Timbuctoo and Cantor, engaged in which were caravans
numbering sometimes seven hundred camels, he sent Gonzal
* Gomez, 32.
t Cited from Kunstmann's Africa vor die Entdecknngan der Portugiesen.
118 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Yelho to investigate those regions by sea, for the purpose of
having commerce with them and for the support of his nobles.*
Once started on his work Prince Henry availed himself of
every possible source of information. One of the most striking
examples is the instance when he gathered from captive Azen-
egues a sufficiently accurate description of the mouth of the
Senegal to enable his sailors to recognize the stream when
they saw it for the first time.t At another time the close
agreement between information brought home by Gomez and
some that he had received from a merchant in Oran confirms
his belief in the truth of both reports.| Prince Henry did not
neglect literary sources. His brother, Dom Pedro, brought
from Venice a copy of Marco Polo and a map. The descrip-
tion of the map which has been handed down by Antonio Gal-
van, who wrote a history of the discovery about 1555, is palpa-
bly greatly exaggerated.§ But it probably did contain a fairly
correct outline of Africa, such as we find in the so-called Lau-
rentian Portulano of 1351, based on information derived
through the channels of land trade, just as Prince Henry
received his knowledge of the Senegal. The familiar map of
Fra Mauro of 1457-^59, of which a copy was made for Alphonso
Y, is another example of such a happy combination of guess-
work and vague reports. If we can trust Damiao Goes, who
wrote about the middle of the next century, Prince Henry was a
careful student of the ancient geographers, and knew of the sup-
posed voyage of Hanno around Africa, the expedition ordered
by Pharaoh Necho, and the report given by Strabo about frag-
ments of Spanish vessels having been discovered in the Eed
Sea. 1 1 To avail himself of the highest maratime skill, he invited
* Gomez, p. 19. The following from the narrative of Hieronymus
Muenzer, who was in Portugal in 1495, is evidently based on this passage
from Gomez in reference with the trade with Timbuctoo :
"Likewise Henry considering his father's resources not sufficient for so
great expenses gave his attention to the exploration of unknown lands.
Knowing indeed, that the King of Tunis, i.e. Carthage, derived much
gold annually, he sent his explorers to Tunis, and was informed how the
King of Tunis sent merchandise through the Atlas Mountains into South-
ern Ethipoia, and brought back gold and slaves. This which the King of
Tunis for many years had been able to do by land he tried to do by sea."
See Kunstmann Hieronymus Muenzers Bericht ueber die Entdeckung
d»r Guinea, p. 60.
t Azurara, p. 279. § Tradado. Hakluyt Soc, ed. 66.
t Gomez, p. 28. || Souza Holstein, p. 23.
PRINCE HENRY, THE NAVIGATOR — BOURNE.
119
a skillful map-maker and instrument-maker as well as expert
navigator, Jayme of Majorca, to come to Portugal to instruct
his followers.* This seems to be the sole evidence of the exist-
ence of a nautical school at Sagres, which apparently must be
given up if any systematic institution is thought of. Similar
is the case with the alleged foundation of a chair of mathe-
matics attributed to him by Major and others. Prince Henry's
will, first published after Major wrote, gives a detailed state-
ment of his foundations, and mentions many churches and
bequest to a chair of theology, but is silent about any nautical
school or chair of mathematics. t
The main line of results of Prince Henry's work is prob-
ably familiar to most of my readers. As I indicated in the
beginning, his work removed some of the greatest obstacles to
geographical progress — the fantastic and imaginary terrors
of the deep. This appeared clearly in the passage of Dioguo
Gomez, which, with its reflection of contemporary thought, is
more forcible than any modern statement: ^' And these things
which are written here are put down with all respect to the
most illustrious Ptolomy, who wrote much which is good on
the parts of the world, but in regard to this region he was
wrong, for he divides the world into three parts — the middle
part inhabited J the northern part is without inhabitants, he
wrote, on account of the excessive cold j and the southern part
on the equator, he wrote, is uninhabited on account of the
heat. Kow, of all these things we found just the contrary,
because the Arctic pole is inhabited even beyond where the
pole star is directly overhead j and the equator is inhabited by
blacks, where there is such a multitude of tribes that it is
almost not to be believed; and that the southern part is full of
trees and fruits, but the fruits are different and the trees are
incredibly tall and large j and I say this, to be sure, because I
have seen a large part of the world, but never the like of
this."{
The opening of the Atlantic to continuous exploration
changed the center of gravity of the civilized world. Western
Europe, so many centuries the frontier, has become the center;
and to London, the Melbourne of Prince Henry's time, has
* Barros, Dec. 1, hib. 1, c. 16. Codine, 2, 645.
tThe text of the will is in Souza Holstein, p. 77, ff.
t Gomez, 23.
120 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
been given the destiny, for a period at least, to be the world's
commercial capital; and to England the inheritance of the
Indies, which he sought to reach. The priority of Henry's
effort to explore the coast of Africa has been disputed, but the
case with him is much as it is with Columbus and his alleged
precursors, their voyages can not be proved or disproved, in
any case they have no determinable relation to later progress,
while as in Columbus's case, so in Prince Henry's, continuous
knowledge and exploration date from his work. Further, the
evidence is incontestable that Henry and at least most of his
contemporaries believed him to be a pioneer and his sailors to
be the first to go beyond Cape Bojador. Further still, it is
difficult to reconcile their positive assertions and the absence
of contemporary evidence to the contrary with the modern
history of French voyages resting on conjectures as to the
contents of documents no longer extant.
In saying a few words in closing on the character and per-
sonality of Prince Henry, 1 shall mention only some of the
more striking features. No reader of Azurara's quaint and
charming narrative can fail to see that Prince Henry was a
man whose force of character, untiring resolution, and gener-
osity, exercised an immense influence over his followers, inspir-
ing them with zeal and boldness. They strained every effort
to win his approval, and he possessed their unfaltering alle-
giance. He interests us chiefly as the organizer of discoveries.
He seems so devoted to that as sometimes to be described
as a patron of exploration. But to his contemporaries he is
that as well as a crusading prince, following up the capture
of Ceuta with continual onslaughts upon the infidels; a milita-
ry missionary, the commander of the Order of Christ, working
to plant Christianity in Africa and the islands of the ocean; as
the promoter of great commercial and industrial enterprises,
controlling the Tunney fisheries of Algarve, the coral fisheries of
Portugal, the manufacture and sale of soap, dye factories, and
several large fairs. He also controlled the whole commerce of
the west coast of Africa, letting it out on shares, and appar-
ently establishing the first commercial company of modern
times.* As a soldier, he belongs at once to the Middle Ages
and to Modern Times. He fights at Ceuta and Tangiers like a
medieval knight while he plans a mihtary exploring expedition
like a modern master of strategy. His plan to circumnavigate
Africa and strike the Moors from behind, in conjunction with
* Souza Holstein, 53.
PRINCE HENRY, THE NAVIGATOR BOURNE. 121
the shadowy Christina, monarch of the East, is Napoleonic.
[One may ask if a bolder conception was given air between
Alexander the Great and Napoleon.
I have spoken of him as a crusader 5 the essence of the Cru-
sades was the aim to secure the predominance of Christianity.
Prince Henry's work indirectly led to a greater predominance of
Christianity than he could have imagined. The enrichment
of the Old World and the occupation of the New by the dis-
coverers has vastly increased the relative predominance of
Christianity in the world.
But, while emphasizing these other sides, we must not over-
look Prince Henry as a true lover of science, with an unquench-
able desire to find out the secrets of the earth, which actuated
him from the time when, at twenty years of age, he is said
to have sent Gonzalo Yelho beyond the Canares to learn the
cause of the swift currents of the sea.
^^ Talent de bien faire," the desire to do well, was his motto.
Ko man ever chose a motto of more singular propriety, and no
man ever lived up to it more faithfully than did Henry.
XIL-THE ECONOMIC CONDITION OF SPAIN IN THE SIXTEENTH
CENTURY.
By PROFESSOR BERNARD MOSES,
OF THE UlTIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
123
THE ECONOMIC CONDITION OF SPAIN IN THE SIXTEENTH
CENTURY.
By Bernard Moses.
At this time I shall not attempt to read what I have writ-
ten on the topic here announced, but shall confine myself to a
brief statement concerning some phases of the subject in hand.
At the beginning of the sixteenth century, Spain stood, in
relation to the other nations of Europe, economically higher
than she had ever stood before or has ever stood since.
Between 1482 and 1700 her population declined from 10,000,000
to 6,000,000, and there was a corresponding decline in her eco-
nomical affairs. A conspicuous cause in both cases was the
indolence of the Spaniards in all matters except war on com-
merce. A sign of Spain's decay was the decline of her agri-
culture. Foreseeing the evil here impending, the Government
had, in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, undertaken to
exempt from seizure animals and implements emi^loyed in cul-
tivation, except under certain prescribed conditions. The
council of Castile, giving an account of the state of the realm
in the beginning of the seventeenth century, said ^^the agri-
cultural districts were becoming deserted, and the inhabitants
were disappearing and leaving the fields abandoned."
The depression of agriculture was further intensified by the
overthrow of the Moriscos in the Alpujarras, and their final
expulsion from the Peninsula.
In 1618, a few years after the expulsion of the Moriscos, a
commission called to propose a remedy for the ruinous condi-
tion of the Kingdom, began its memorial to the King with the
following lamentation : ^' The depopulation and want of people
in Spain are at present much greater than ever before in the
reigns of any of your Majesty's progenitors; it being in truth
so great at this time that if God do not provide such a remedy
125
126 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
for us as we may expect from your Majesty^s piety and wisdom,
the Crown of Spain is hastening to its total ruin ; nothing being
more visible than that Spain is on the verge of destruction, its
houses being in ruins everywhere, and without anybody to
rebuild them, and its towns and villages lying like so many
deserts.'^ *
It was of great importance for agriculture that the means of
irrigation which the Spaniards found established in the districts
taken from the Moors should be maintained and even extended.
But the conquerors in this matter appear as inefiBcient succes-
sors of the conquered. Their attempts in this direction were
few and ineffectual.
The privileges enjoyed by the sheep-owners who were repre-
sented by the Council of Mesta were not without importance
for the agriculture of Spain, particularly for the agriculture
of Estramadura. When the Moors had been expelled from
this province, the cities were razed and the inhabitants were
destroyed or driven into exile. Peace followed the war, but it
was the peace of desolation. " Vast tracts previously in cul-
tivation were then abandoned, and nature, here prolific, soon
obliterated the furrows of man, resumed her rights, covered the
soil with aromatic weeds, and gave it up to the wild birds and
beasts. * * * Only a small portion of the country was
recultivated by the lazy, ignorant, soldier conquerors 5 and the
new population, scanty as it was, was almost swept away by
the plague of 1348, after which fifty whole districts were left
unclaimed. * * * These unclaimed, uninhabited pastur-
ages at last attracted the attention of the highland shepherds
of Leon, Segovia, and Molina de Aragon, who drove down their
flocks to them as to a milder winter quarter; hence by degrees
a prescriptive right of agistment was claimed over these com-
mons, and the districts at last were set apart and apportioned.
This feeding their flocks at the expense of others exactly suited
the national predilection for self, and as the profit of the wool
was great, and long one of the most productive staples of
Spain, the flocks naturally multiplied, and with them their
encroachments. As the owners were powerful nobles and con-
vents, the poor peasants in vain opposed such overwhelm-
ing influence." t Gradually the population of Estramadura
* Geddes, Miscellaneous Tracts, p. 163.
t Ford, Hand-Book for Travelers in Spain, London, 1845, II, p. 517.
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF SPAIN — MOSES. 127
increased, resulting in contests between the wandering shep-
herds and the resident cultivators. In 1556, a compromise was
effected, and the privileges of the Mesta were defined and
legally established. Conspicuous among these privileges two
may be cited : One is that the permanent residents were pro-
hibited from plowing land that had not been cultivated hith-
erto; the other is that they were prohibited from extending
their inclosures. The privileges of the Mesta suggest the
hunting privileges of a mediaeval aristocracy. They discour-
aged agriculture, and those who opposed them found it easy to
argue that they "doomed to barrenness some of the finest dis-
tricts of Spain."
An effective obstacle to agricultural progress existed also in
the practice of entailing estates in behalf of the eldest son
and of bestowing lands in mortmain on churches and monas-
teries.
Although excuses may have been found for the existence of
entailed estates while the aristocracy was powerful and ren-
dering the Crown great service in war, it is difficult to justify
that extension of the practice which we observe in the sixteenth
century, when the comparatively poor were enobled, and thus
confirmed in their idleness, and made ridiculous in their
unsupported pretensions. This practice is noteworthy for its
evil effects on the agriculture of the country. In bringing
honest work into contempt, and in setting up numerous models
of indolent and worthless lives, its influence was so great that
in 1552 the cortes of Madrid was moved to repudiate the privi-
leges which the King was accustomed to grant to persons of
httle distinction and small wealth, to entail property to the
prejudice of the younger children and to the injury of the
nation.
Toward the end of the fifteenth century the lands of
Spain, whether in public or private hands, were being rapidly
denuded of trees, and the Government had already at that
time perceived the need of special action to preserve the
forests ; but the present treeless condition of a large part of
the country is in evidence that no permanently effective pro-
vision was made. Besides a number of general ordinances
relating to the preservation of the forests, Ferdinand and
Isabella caused to be issued also special ordinances touching
the conservation of the forests of Madrid and those of Medina
del Campo.
128 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
It may be seen from the instructions given to Diego de
Covarrubias, when lie was appointed president of the Council
of Castile, that Philip the Second appreciated the seriousness
of the situation : '^ One thing," he said, ^^ I desire to see given
thorough treatment, and that is the matter of the preservation
of the forests, and their increase which is very necessary j for
I believe they are going to destruction. I fear those who
come after us may have many complaints that we have allowed
them to be used up, and God grant that we may not see this
in our day."
Prominent among the causes of the disappearance of the
forests was the disposition, which has also prevailed in the
United States, to plunder rather than to husband the resources
of the country. In order to prepare the soil to receive the
seed and to provide abundant pasture, it was the practice in
some pa rts of Spain to burn the forests and the thickets which
occupied the ground. The fires kindled for this purpose,
which sometimes extended over several leagues and often
caused serious losses, were recognized as an evil to be abated.
Ordinances were, therefore, issued to prohibit them, but the
abuses proved to be difficult to correct. In this barbarous
manner disappeared the forests of Estramadura, Andalusia,
Toledo, and other parts of the Kingdom, leaving no possibility
of being replaced, inasmuch as the new growths, the fresh and
tender shoots, were destroyed by the cattle which occupied
these fields as pastures.
That some part of the damage might be avoided, Philip the
Second ordered that the justices of the districts in which the
forests had been burned should not allow cattle to graze where
the ground had been burnt over, except as permitted by the
license of his council. The ancient right to take wood for the
use of the court had also much to do with the destruction of
the forests j not that the strict observance of the right itself
would have caused any serious damage, but that under the
pretense of observing it, a way was found for extensive frauds,
in that persons about the court not entitled to the advan^
tages of this privilege ravaged the forests and contributed in
a large measure to their ruin.
Concerning the industries of Spain in the sixteenth century,
there appear two widely divergent views. According to one
opinion, the beginning of the century witnessed an extraor-
dinary development in the silk and woolen industries, which
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF SPAIN — MOSES.
129
lost their importance in the seventeenth century j while in the
other view there never existed in the country any remarkable
industrial development. The historical fact, however, lies
nearer the first view than the second, but at the same time
there is no doubt that tradition has somewhat exaggerated
the degree of industrial prosperity which had been attained at
the beginning of the sixteenth century. There is no doubt,
moreover, that the course of the century was marked by a con-
spicuous decline in Spanish industry, but it is not now possi-
ble to date the several steps of that decline. Among the first
symptoms were the complaints made in 1537 that the cloth of
Segovia had risen in price in the four preceding years. With
these complaints of high prices appeared also denunciations
of fraud employed in the processes of manufacturing. On
account of these high prices, the common people were unable
to use the cloth made in their own country and were granted
the privilege of purchasing foreign goods. This was the begin-
ning of the fall of the textile industries in Spain, which was
hastened by the operation of several causes. Prominent among
these was the importation of gold and silver from America,
which caused a continued rise of price, and developed an irre-
sistible desire to buy in a foreign market. Another cause
was the marked decline in the quality of Spanish products,
which placed them in unfavorable contrast with the wares of
other countries, and destroyed the demand for them. Among
these causes may be mentioned, also, the rigidity of the
surviving mediaeval trade organizations, which, by their nar-
row views and their illiberal conduct in the management of
their monopolies, prevented industrial and commercial growth,
and made impossible, even in Spanish markets, successful
competition with the more liberal industrial systems of other
nations. A survey of the industries of Spain throughout the
century, however, leads to the conclusion that the manufac-
ture of cloth flourished in the beginning of the sixteenth cen-
tury, while in the second quarter there were conspicuous symp-
toms of its approaching decline. *'By the middle of the cen-
tury the evil had become so far aggravated that Spain not
only did not export textile fabrics, but was even under the
necessity of importing them in order to meet the demands of
her own consumption.^'* In the last half of the century the
S. Mis. 104-
* ColmeirO; ii, 188.
130 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
fall was rapid, and all subsequent efforts for revival were
fruitless.
Conspicuous among tlie hindrances to the economic devel-
opment of Spain in the sixteenth century was the lack of facil-
ities for transportation. This phase of civilization received
little attention from the Moors. The habits of their ancestors,
accustomed to free life on the desert or in Northern Africa,
made them indifferent to the establishment of roads suited to
vehicles with wheels; and the fact that the Spaniards remained
in a very large measure satisfied with the beasts of burden as
a means of transportation may be in part accounted for by the
influence of their Mohammedan neighbors. From the point of
view of economics, it is a mistake for a people to consent to
make settlements at points to which they can not take their
household goods and industrial elements on carts. An impor-
tant difference between the Spanish and the English settling
in America is that in the one case the settlers have insisted
on finding or making roads over which they could drag with
them their belongings on carts or wagons, while in the other
case they have been content to carry their outfit on the back
of mules, and have not insisted that their settlements should
be connected with the rest of the world by carriage roads.
The lack of convenient and inexpensive means of communi-
cation between buyers and sellers suggested the fixing of cer-
tain times and places for general meetings. These meetings
became the great fairs of the later Middle Ages, survivals of
which may still be seen at Leipsic and at other points in East-
ern Europe. In Spain they were held at Segovia, Yalladolid,
AlcaU, Salamanca, Seville, Yillalon, Medina de Eioseco, and
Medina del Oampo. On account of the great wealth gathered
at Rioseco, the place acquired the title of India clii ca; but the
most important of all the fairs was that of Medina del Oampo,
whose origin, like the origin of most European fairs, is not a
matter of definite historical knowledge.
The apologist of Spain's economic policy with respect to for-
eign trade in the sixteenth century is disposed to find in the
restrictive and artificial system of the Hanseatic League and
the Italian republics an earlier emi)loyment of the methods
whose origin is ascribed to the Spaniards, claiming that the
influence of these powers was felt throughout Europe, and
that the mercantile system was introduced into Spain not
earlier than into France and England. If it struck deeper
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF SPAIN — MOSES. 131
roots in Spain than elsewhere it was because Spain controlled
the best mines of the world, and could not without difficulty
give up the thought of monopolizing the precious metals.
In examining the trade with foreign nations and the shifting
attitude of the Government towards it, it is not possible to
discover any principle which was consistently observed. Many
decrees of prohibition issued with respect to exportation were
prompted by the desire not to have diminished the store of
articles necessary for the support of the people j and if in cer-
tain cases the importation of wares was prohibited it was to
avoid too sharp competition with Spain's domestic products.
In other cases the principle of the mercantile system, or the
desire to increase the amount of specie in the Kingdom, was
unquestionably the determining factor in the policy. The state
of things has been characterized by Colmeiro in the remark
that "the mercantile doctrines grew up slowly and without
order, indicating the triumph of other ideas, without succeed-
ing in forming a new system j so that the commercial policy of
the sixteenth century appears as a web of contradictions."
Passing over the details of the effects of the colonial system
and the transatlantic trade, attention may be directed to the
influence of the Government on the economic affairs of Spain.
It may be noticed, in the first place, that the extensive domin-
ions involving the Government in large expenses in carrying
on wars into which it was drawn by an aggressive ambition,
made a demand on the nation which the public revenue, even
when supplemented by the treasures of America, could not
satisfy. Through the great undertakings of Charles the Fifth
and Philip the Second the expenditures went on from year to
year carrying over an increasing burden upon the income of
the future, so that at the death of Philip the Second Spain
had a debt of 140,000,000 ducats. *
Philip's extraordinary need of money to meet his numerous
obligations led him to extraordinary means to obtain it. He
appropriated for his own uses the silver and gold which came
from the Indies for merchants and other private persons. This
* ''La nacion siifria los may ores ahogos, y arrastraba una vida trabajosa,
miserable y pobre, gastando toda su savia en alimentar aquellas y las
anteriores guerras, que continuamente habia sostenido el emperador, y no
bastando todos los esfoerzos y sacrificios del reino a subvenir a las necesi-
dades de fuera, ni a sacar al monarca y sus ejercitos de las escaseces y
apuros que tan frecuentamente paralizaban sus operaciones.'' Lafuente,
"Historia General de Espaua," iii, p 13.
132 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
helped to destroy the fundamental condition of material pros-
perity, namely, the citizen's sense of security in the possession
of his property. He sold offices and titles of nobility, and the
lands which belonged to the crown. He imposed forced loans
on prelates and the owners of large estates, which were taken
with violence and without consideration. He suspended pay-
ments to creditors j and in return for payments in money he
rendered legitimate the sons of the clergy. Against these
abuses the cortes from time to time protested; and they, more-
over, petitioned that luxury in dress might be abated, and that
the king himself might set the example. In reply to the peti-
tions for restrictions on expenditure in matters of dress, Philip
the Second issued the remarkable edict of October 25, 1563,
which Lafuente quotes at some length, and which Prescott
describes as " going at great length into such minute specifica-
tions ot wearing apparel, both male and female, that it would
seem to have been devised by a committee of tailors and mil-
liners, rather than of grave legislators."
The scale on which the royal household was ordered also
made a draft on the resources of the kingdom. To reduce
these expenditures was the object of frequently repeated peti-
tions by the cortes to the king. The members of the cortes
wished for the court and the nation a simpler form of life, and
in this they were supported by the bulk of those who had
intelligent opinions on public affairs. They called the atten-
tion of the king to "the pernicious effects which this manner
of living necessarily had on the great nobles and others of his
subjects, prone to follow the example of their master."
Philip's financial outlook and the condition of the country
m the nineteenth year of his reign are characterized in a note
written by him to his treasurer: "Having already reached,"
he said, "my forty-eighth year, and the hereditary prince, my
son, being only three years old, I can not but see with the
keenest anxiety the disorderly condition of the treasury.
What a prospect for my old age, if I am permitted to have a
longer career, when I am now living from day to day without
knowing how I shall live on the next, and how I shall procure
that of which I am so much in need."*
And yet, with a deficit increasing from year to year, he
entered upon the building of the Escorial. The cost of construc-
*Gayarre, Philip the Second, p. 268.
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF SPAIN — MOSES. 133
tion and interior decoration amounted to about 6,000,000
ducats, a sum equal to $30,000,000 at present, or more than
the total annual revenue of the kingdom of Castile at that
time. Although it may have laid a burden on the nation, yet,
according to Fray Alonzo de San Geronimo, it at the same
time placed the Almighty under obligations of gratitude to
the king. It illustrates how far Philip^s administration was
removed from an economic basis. This, his chief work, stands
as a monument of economic folly, and in the design of the king
it was intended to stay the current of social progress. Ac-
cording to his own declaration, he intended to make a bulwark
unconquerable by the new doctrines, and in which the throne
and religion should be sheltered so securely that they might
not be reached by the ideas then agitating and moving the
world. It was important for the economic condition of Spain
that the building of the Escorial set a fashion for the mag-
nates of the realm. They felt called upon to manifest their
pious zeal, in founding churches and monasteries and in pur-
chasing relics, so that at the close of the sixteenth century
there were in Spain about 9,000 cloisters for monks and 988
for nuns, containing about 46,000 monks and 13,500 nuns. And
whatever influence these institutions exerted on the spiritual
welfare of the nation, it is clear that they were not powerful
factors in economic progress. We may count, also, as a hin-
drance to economic progress the great number of holidays, set
apart primarily for exercises of devotion, but which came to
be days of pleasure, developing in the people a spirit opposed
to that persistent effort necessary to growth in material well-
being.
XIIL-THE UNION OF UTRECHT.
By PROFESSOR LUCY M. SALMON,
or YASSAR COLLEGE.
135
THE UNION OF UTRECHT.
By Lucy M. Salmon.
It is fifteen years since Mr. Gladstone in his "Kin Beyond
Sea'' expressed the opinion that "As the British constitution
is the most subtle organism which has proceded from progres-
sive history, so the American constitution is the most wonder-
ful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and pur-
pose of man." *
The verdict was accepted by the American people, partly
because they had always been taught the inspirational theory
of their political origin, partly because they were proud of
believing themselves self-made, partly because the well-rounded
period of the great premier carried conviction with it.
But questionings had already come in the minds of Amer-
ican scholars, and at Harvard, at Johns Hopkins, at the CTni-
versity of Nebraska, the English, and subsequently the Ger-
manic, origin of our institutions had been shown. The two
new schools were not rivals, for the English themselves, under
the leadership of Mr. Edward Freemau, were studying the
Germanic origin of their own local institutions. These theories
seemed reasonable, Ihe proof conclusive, and we had come to
accept without question this explanation of the source of our
political ideas.
But a new school has lately risen, led by Mr. Douglas Camp-
bell, urging the claims of the debt America owes Holland.
We are persuaded that all of our political virtues are inherited
from the Dutch, while our political vices come from England.
The claims of the new school are yet to be proven, but its rise
is of interest as showing that our political origin may yet be
shown to be cosmopolitan in character, as were the settlements
of the thirteen original colonies.
These different, perhaps not altogether conflicting views,
* North American Review, 127, 185.
137
138 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
have concerned chiefly the source of our local institutions.
But the fundamental principle in our National Government is
federation; and the query naturally arises as to how this idea
could have been developed. That some form of union was
inevitable is seen at once from the position and character of
the American colonies. But necessary as the union was, it is
impossible that one so perfect as was the confessedly imper-
fect one of the Kew England Confederation should have been
evolved from the inner consciousness of its framers.
Four confederations had existed before the first formed on
American soil. Those of Greece were as remote from the
thoughts and experiences of the ]S"ew England colonists as
they were distant in time. The holy Koman Empire had little
to commend itself to their respect even had they been familiar
with its workings. "If a foreign example must be found for
so natural an arrangement/' says a recent writer,* "why not
refer to the Confederacy of Switzerland, known by residence
under its protection by English Puritans for generations?"
But Switzerland had little standing among European nations.
It had never harbored for any length of time any united com-
pany of English citizens, and in some of its fundamental
principles it was totally unlike the union formed in America.
The fourth confederation that Europe had known was that of
the Dutch Bepublic. This had grown out of the Union of
Utrecht, formed forty years before New England was colo-
nized, and under which a considerable body of the New
England colonists had lived during their eleven years' sojourn
in Holland.
That the Union of Utrecht had a direct and immediate bear-
ing on the forming of the New England Confederation can not
be stated, for the records of the Pilgrims of their residence in
HoUand are utterly barren of political impressions. It is impos-
sible to believe that they walked as men not seeing, yet what
was seen has not been recorded. What was the germ out of
which the New England Confederacy was developed will prob-
ably never be positively known — the case can be decided only
by circumstantial evidence, but all of this evidence points to
the Union of Utrecht as a forerunner and prototype of the
New England Confederacy formed in 1643.
The Union of Utrecht signed in January, 1579, was intended
* George Leon Walker, Life of Thomas Hooker, p. 116, note.
THE UNION OF UTRECHT — SALMON. 139
as a protest against the ineffectual manner in which Spain had
kept the Pacification of Ghent drawn up more than two years
previous. It did not in any way contemplate the establish-
ment of an independent commonwealth — the preamble expressly
states that the bond between them is formed without thought
of ^^ in any case separating themselves from the Holy Roman
Empire." The Dutch Republic was certainly a result, but just
as certainly it was not a premeditated result of the Union. It
was two and a half years before the allegiance to Spain was
formally renounced, and although the relations between the
two countries had been greatly strained in 1579, it was not
reaUzed that a rupture was inevitable. The Union was intended
solely to protect themselves against the attempts of Spain to
dismember the Provinces, and to this fact must be attributed
its incomplete nature as a permanent constitution.
The Union consists of twenty-six articles, it is fall of repe-
titions, and shows little or no skill in the arrangement of the
material. It is provisional in character* and contemplates the
securing of but two main objects — mutual defense against a
foreign oppressor and religious toleration. It presents no well-
ordered, carefully devised scheme of government, and aside
from these provisions securing protection and toleration, it is
almost wholly negative in character.
It provides for no general executive department, the nomi-
nal governor-generalship established in 1577 under the Arch-
duke Matthias being accepted in its stead t. Its legislative
department is an assembly of independent envoys, represent-
ing sovereign States, who vote by provinces and not as indi-
viduals. It lacks a supreme judicial authority, providing for
the settlement of the different classes of disagreements in sev-
eral different ways. It makes no provision for a mutual con-
cession of rights and privileges by the Provinces on the one
hand and by the general government established on the other
hand, except in the two matters of defense and religion. It
violates in every particular all those x^rinciples which Ameri-
cans to-day consider fundamental in a federal government —
the formation of a supreme legislative, executive, and judicial
authority, the equitable adjustment of the mutual relation of
the national and state authorities, and a power inherent in the
national government of operating directly on every individual
citizen.
* Articles 5, 9. t Article 2.
140 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
It has been said that the Union in its fundamental charac-
ter with the exception of two main features, is negative rather
than positive in character, that it emphasizes at every point
its confederate rather than its national principles, and that
its forces are centrifugal rather than centripetal.
This is seen in the fact that the first article of the Union
guarantees to every province, city, and corporation of the
league its own peculiar privileges, liberties, exemptions, rights,
statutes, customs, usages and all other laws. The Provinces
must moreover assist each other with life and goods not only to
maintain these but also to strengthen them and to protect them
against every outside force seeking to diminish them. Again,
a unanimous vote of all the Provinces was necessary in con-
cluding peace, declaring war, and instituting taxes, in receiv-
ing new members into the confederation, and making addi-
tions or amendments to the Articles of Union.* The revenues
raised were not to be employed for any purpose except that of
defense and were to be only as great as the necessities of the
Provinces demanded.! The captains and soldiers of all garri-
sons were to take the oath peculiar to the city and the prov-
ince in which they were stationed and were not to be ex-
empted from any duty or impost laid upon the citizens of the
town.f
On its positive side, the Provinces bound themselves to con-
federate together forever and to remain united as if one prov-
ince. 1^0 change in any one of the Provinces by virtue of
donation, cession, sale, treaty of peace, marriage, or any other
cause, was to affect a separation of the Province from the
Union. The articles provided that the Provinces should
defend each other with life, goods, and blood against all force
brought against them by any one in the king's name, or plead-
ing the Pacification of Ghent, or because the Provinces had
renounced Don John, or received the Archduke Matthias as
governor-general, or because of any other act done since the
accession of Philip II (1558), or because they had formed the
present Unicni, or through any attempt to restore the Eoman
Catholic religion.§ The Provinces were also to assist each
other against all foreign princes, powers, provinces, and cities
who should unitedly or separately attack them, provided such
defense were controlled by the '^ generality" of the Union after
*Article8 9, 11, 22. t Article 6. x Article 7. ^Article 2.
THE UNION OF UTRECHT SALMON.
141
fall knowledge of the circumstances.* All frontier cities were
to be strengthened, one-half of the expense being met by the
province in which the cities were situated, and one-half by the
confederation. The expense of building new fortifications was
to be borne by the United Provinces. t In order to ascertain
the military resources of the country, all inhabitants between
the ages of eighteen and sixty were to be enrolled at a month's
notice after the formation of the IJnion.f It was, furthermore,
ordained, in providing for the common defense, that all cities
should be bound to accept all such garrisons as the United
Provinces should station in them, acting with the advice of the
governor of the province, the expense of the garrison being
borne by the United Provinces, and the citizens receiving com-
pensation for all troops quartered on them, and being guaran-
teed against lawlessness on the part of the troops.§ To meet
the expenses incurred in providing for this defense, it was
decided that the Provinces should every three months, or at any
reasonable period, farm out the taxes, raising the revenues
necessary by duties and imposts on wine, beer, corn, grain,
salt, gold, silver, silk, woolen, cattle, sowed lands, horses, oxen
when sold, all goods coming to the scales, and other articles to
be subsequently determined. If these revenues did not suffice,
recourse was to be had to the royal demesne. || In order to
strengthen still further the finances of the Provinces, provision
was made for a uniform currency, which was not to be changed
without common consent.^ Provision was also made for secur-
ing to the clergy their revenues.**
A second class of provisions positive in character concerned
religious freedom. This was granted specially to Holland and
Zealand, while permission was given the other Provinces to
regulate the matter in accordance with the religious peace
already framed by the States-General and the Archduke
Matthias. Thus to all unmolested exercise of their religion
was granted. No man was to be questioned concerning his
religion, nor was any province or city to interfere with another
in worship or religion. tt It was not intended by these pro-
visions, a subsequent article explained J| , to exclude any
Catholic city or province from the Union, if it bound itself by
*Article 3.
t Article 4.
^Article 8.
•^Article 7.
II Article 5.
^Article 12.
** Articles 14, 15.
ttArticle 13.
UVerklariiige van bet 13. Articul.
142 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Other articles and its citizens conducted themselves as good
patriots.
These two classes of provisions providing for the common
defense and the necessary expenses entailed, and also for
religious toleration, are the only ones conferring positive powers
on the States-General. The two remaining classes of pro-
visions, however, must be considered, the first concerning the
modes of legislation and the second judicial procedure.
Deputies from all the Provinces were to meet at Utrecht, in
order to attend to the public business, the purpose of the meet-
ing being set forth in the call. This object was not to be kept
secret, business was to be transacted by common consent.and
by as large a number of votes as could be brought together.
Those deputies not coming were to be bound by the acts of those
present, unless the subjects under discussion admitted of delay
or were of great importance. In either of these cases the
deputies not present could be summoned a second time, but if
they failed to appear after a second summons the business was
to be decided by those present, and the decisions were to stand.
The deputies could, however, send written proxies. Moreover,
any person was at liberty to make those in authority acquainted
with any matter which he considered it advisable for the other
Provinces to know*. In all cases, except those mentioned, a
majority vote was to decide, the votes being taken by Prov-
inces rather than by individuals t.
In regard to judicial affairs, it was provided that all ques-
tions concerning the laws, privileges, rights, and customs of
the Provinces should be settled, first, by ordinary tribunals ;
second, by arbitration, and, third, by amicable agreement; and
this without the assistance of foreign countries or cities, except
as these should be inclined to intercede in favor of arbitration.}:
Differences of opinion concerning the declaration of war, the
coQclusion of peace or the levying of taxes were to be referred
to the stadholders of the Provinces, and these failing to agree
they were to be assisted by arbitrators appointed by them,
and by these decisions all parties were to be bound. § Differ-
ences between the Provinces, if they concerned a particular
Province, were to be settled by the other Provinces or by arbi-
trators appointed by them. If the matter in dispute concerned
all the Provinces, it was to be settled by stadholders of the
* Articles 19, 20. t Article 3. t Article 1. $ Article 9.
THE UNION OF UTRECHT — SALMON. 143
Provinces, or by them and assistants appointed by them, and
no appeal could be taken from this decision.* All questions
concerning the articles of Union were to be decided by the
confederates. If they could not agree, the matter was to be
referred to the stadholders.t
Other articles provided for the signing and carrying into
effect of the articles.^
Certain principles of government are clearly seen in these
provisions. The first is that the Union was a confederation
pure and simple, a fact indicated alike by the name States-
General given to the legislative body and by the fact that the
deputies represented sovereign states, not the entire people;
that the General Government had no power over individuals;
and that the ultimate sovereignty was inherent in the numer-
ous board of magistracy, which were close corporations, by
which each city was governed. The Union was to form one
state against foes, but to be many internally. It was indeed
to be* a divided union. The second general principle is that
the Union possessed the sovereign rights of declaring war and
concluding peace, levying taxes, and coining money. The
third is the fact the instrument of union was a compact, not a
constitution under which an organic union could grow up.
That the Union prospered was largely due to the fact that
very soon after its formation the States- General usurped the
authority, and, after the failure of the administration of the
Earl of Leicester, governed the country in conjunction with
the^Council of State.
It was this Union, incomplete and temporary, yet active and
vigorous, under which the Pilgrims lived for eleven years.
What was the influence that it had on the formation of the
first American Union ? Of direct evidence there is none. The
records of the religious and ecclesiastical experiences of the
colonies are given with an almost painful attention to minute
detail, but scarcely an indirect allusion has come down of the
political impressions gained in the Netherlands. That intel-
ligent men who planned and executed the emigration to Hol-
land and subsequently to America were unobserving of their
political surroundings can not be believed, but direct proof is
wholly lacking. Some inferences, however, can be drawn with
a reasonable degree of probability both from external condi-
tions and from the nature of the two Unions.
* Article 16. t Article 21. t Articles 23-26.
144 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
There are two main lines of circumstantial proof tliat not a
union of the colonies, but the particular form such a union
was to take was suggested to the colonists by the experience
of Holland.
The first is the fact that of the four colonies that formed the
Kew England Confederation Plymouth was one, and the Ply-
mouth colonists, after a residence in Holland of eleven years,
had come to America only seventeen years before the union
was suggested and but twenty -three years before it became a
reality. The early impressions of this long residence could
scarcely have been effaced. It is not altogether probable that
the first suggestion of a union came from Plymouth — the
needs of the other colonies were greater — ^but it is more than
probable that the experiences of the Pilgrims was of assist-
ance in determining the special character of the league.
Again, it is a matter of uncertainty who first suggested the
union. If the initiative came from Plymouth the influence of
Holland is sufficiently clear. If it came from Connecticut the
Dutch influence is equally clear. The first settlement of
Connecticut was made by Lieut. Holmes and a company from
Plymouth, and the station established was soon left in charge
of Jonathan Brewster, a son of Elder Brewster, who did not
leave Holland until the autumn of 1621 . This early settlement
by Plymouth was subsequently yielded to a colony from Massa-
chusetts, and one of the pioneers of the Massachusetts settle-
ment was Thomas Hooker, who had lived in Holland from 1630
to 1633 and removed to Connecticut less than three years later.
If the initiative came from New Haven we know that one of
its leaders, John Davenport, lived in Holland from 1633 to
1636, and that one of the signers of the confederation on the
part of Kew Haven, Theophilus Eaton, had in London been
a parishioner of John Davenport's and had come to America
at Davenport's instance and in his company.* Eaton had,
moreover, previously gone on a diplomatic mission to Denmark,
where he must have come into more or less personal contact
with Dutch ideas. If the honor belongs to Massachusetts, then
we find that Thomas Dudley, one of the commissioners from
Massachusetts who signed the articles of confederation, had
been a resident of Holland.
It is thus seen that of the twelve names affixed to the ]S"ew
England Confederation three were men who had formerly
* Palfrey, New England, Vol. i, p. 528.
THE UNION OF UTRECHT — SALMON. 145
resided in Hollaud, as had also two others the most influential
in bringing it about, while a sixth was an intimate Mend and
companion of one of these.
That a union of the colonies should have suggested itself to
one and all of them is not strange, surrounded as they were
by enemies on all sides and far removed from the protection
of the mother country, or that its practicability should have
seemed assured, familiar as were so many of their leaders,
through personal experience, with the confederation of Hol-
land.
As far as the details of the development of the plan are
known they include seven steps, beginning in 1637 with a con-
ference between Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Connecticut in
regard to the Pequot war * and terminating six years later
with the signing of the Few England Confederation in 1643.
The most important of all these steps was a month's discussion
of the subject in Boston in 1639 on the part of Thomas Hooker
and Governor Haynes.t
The indebtedness of the New England Confederation to the
Union of Utrecht is seen most clearly through the internal
evidence. The preamble states the conditions under which
the confederation was formed — all those uniting in it had
come to America to advance the kingdom of Christ and to
enjoy religious liberty; they were living in scattered settle-
ments, surrounded by jealous and hostile neighbors, threatened
by the Indians, and cut off by reason of the civil war in Eng-
land from seeking the advice and protection of the mother
country. Thus they were led to form a firm and perpetual
league for defense and offense, for mutual advice and succor,
safety, and welfare, and also for propagating the truth and
liberty of the gospel. Thus the objects of the two unions —
defense and religious unity — are identical. The religious
unity, however, secured by the New England Confederation was
on a much narrower basis than that of the Union of Utrecht in
that it attempted to secure the absolute identity of religious
interests, while the Union of Utrecht deemed it sufficient to
prevent active interference in religious affairs. Again, the
New England Confederation was not formed with the thought
of securing independence from England. Twenty years after-
* Winthrop, Hist, of New England, i, 260; Bradford, Hist, of Plymouth
Plantation, p. 351-355; Massachusetts Records, i, 192.
t Winthrop, Hist, of New England, i, 360; Hubbard, p. 466.
S. Mis. 104 10
146 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
wards the general court of Plymouth protested to the Bug-
lish commissioners, ^'the league between the four colonies
was not with any intent (that we ever heard of) to cast off our
dependence upon England, a thing which we abhor, entreat-
ing your honors to believe us, for we speak as in the presence
of God."*
In one respect the IJnion of Utrecht was more liberal than
the Kew England Confederation, in that it provided for acces-
sion to its numbers, while the American union distinctly pro-
vided that no other jurisdiction should be taken into the con-
federation.
The Kew England Confederation is, like the Union of
Utrecht, crude in form and suggesting little the careful delib-
eration of six years. It is essentially aristocratic in char-
acter, carefully excluding those provinces that "ran a different
course," especially that of Maine, "for they had lately made
Acomenticus (a poor village) a corporation, and had made a
tailor their mayor, and had entertained one Hull, an excom-
municated person and very contentious, for their minister." t
The New England Confederation is scarcely less negative in
character than the Union of Utrecht. It provides like its fore-
runner for but one department, a legislative, with advisory
powers. The local independence of each colony is forever guar-
anteed.! It gives to the commissioners no authority over the
individual members of the confederation, and it provides for
the equality of the distinct jurisdictions. In every way the
power of each province and of commissioners is hedged about
that no one may have an advantage over any other.
On its positive side it provides for the payment of all charges
of war as regards men and supplies, according to the popula-
tion of each jurisdiction, between sixteen and sixty years of
age, and the distribution of booty on the same basis. For the
determining of all these questions of war and peace the com-
missioners were to have fall power, and a majority of six were
to have power of decision. The commissioners were also, as
they might have commission or opportunity, to endeavor to
frame civil laws and agreements for preserving peace among
themselves, preventing differences, securing the free and
speedy passage of justice in every jurisdiction, mutual citizen-
* Hutcliu\8on, History of Massachusetts, i, 235.
t Winthrop, History of New England, ii, 121.
iArticlesS, 6.
THE UNION OF UTRECHT — SALMON. 147
ship, and a satisfactory Indian policy. Moreover, fugitives
from service and from justice were to be delivered up.
It was undoubtedly the influence of Holland that led to the
refusal of the commissioners from Plymouth to approve the
articles until they had been confirmed by the majority of the
people of the colony. In both Plymouth and Connecticut,
where there was Dutch influence, there was the greatest insist-
ence on the responsibility of the deputies of the colonies. In
1638, when the articles were under consideration in Connecticut,
that colony had insisted that if the commissioners were not
unanimous in their opinions, the matter under discussion should
be referred to the several colonies — a proceeding which, as
Winthrop remarks, ^^ beside that it would have been infinitely
tedious and extreme chargeable, it would never have attained
the end.'^ *
It is thus seen that the New England Confederation, like its
prototype, was a confederation, not an organic union of colo-
nies. Its commissioners also represented independent com-
munities and the confederation had no power over individuals.
It had the sovereign rights of declaring war, concluding peace,
and levying taxes, while that of coinage still remained natu-
rally with the mother country. Every colony had an equal
voice with every other in the management of affairs, while the
burdens of war were proportional to the population. In a
similar manner to the Union of Utrecht, if the commissioners
were unable to agree, the matter under discussion was to be
referred back to the general courts of the four colonies. If
these four general courts agreed upon the business, it was then
to be prosecuted.
Thus, at every point the unions in both countries could
decree while it rested with the individual members of the
union to carry out the decrees.
It was inevitable in both countries that friction should result
from this attempt to square the circle of nationality, and we
find in the Netherlands JohnDe Witt protesting that Holland
gave far more to the Union than she received from it, while in
New England the advantage derived from the confederation
was disproportionate to what was contributed to it, a fact that
led Massachusetts in the New England Confederation to play
the part of Holland in the Union of Utrecht.
* Winthrop, History of New England, i ; 342.
148
AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
It was inevitable that in details the unions should differ,
but we think it must be seen that the underlying principles of
the two are identical. If so^ it must prove one more illustra-
tion of the fact that, in the words of Mr. George William
Curtis, " Our political constitution was not an inspiration, it
was an application." *
*Addre8S at the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of Vassar College, p. 28.
XIV.-ENGLISH POPULAR UPRISINGS IN THE MIDDLE AGES.
By DR. GEORGE KRIEHN,
OF JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY.
149
ENGLISH POPULAR UPRISINGS IN THE MIDDLE AGES.
By George Kriehn.
A series of popular upheavals marked the close of the
middle ages iu central and western Europe. These move-
ments were popular even to a more marked extent than
modern revolutions j the lower classes arose almost to a man.
They swept away their masters, and it seemed as if unheard-
of reforms were about to be inaugurated. But only for a
moment! Oecturies have elapsed since then, yet even now
the demands of the patriot leaders have not been fully realized.
Partly by treachery, partly by force of arms, the mediaeval
revolutions were suppressed. Their events were forgotten, or,
worse still, only recorded to be condemned, to become a favorite
theme of eighteenth-century historians against the deadly sin
of rebellion. ]S"ot until our own times have they begun to
receive a part of the attention they merit. And yet they were
of no small influence on the society they strove to reform;
the rising in 1381 gave the death-blow to English serfdom;
the Jacquerie destroyed many a stronghold of oppression in
France; a thousand flaming castles and monasteries lighted
the march of the German peasants in their great struggle for
liberty in 1524-'25.
Such important factors in history deserve special investiga-
tion for their own sake. To Americans they should be of par-
ticular interest. Our national existence began with a revolu-
tion; what subject could be more noteworthy to us than former
rebellions of our ancestors, unsuccessful though they were?
What analogies do they present to modern revolutions ? The
study of mediaeval agrarian and labor troubles may perhaps
aid us to solve our own.
Of all such disturbances the English are probably the most
instructive, because they were of common occurrence, more
successful, and of more lasting influence on social conditions.
151
152 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
It is somewliat remarkable that comparatively little has been
done in this field, especially when we consider the importance
generally conceded it by the foremost English historians.*
Whilst studying abroad the author first directed his atten-
tion to the study of mediaeval revolts, having written his
graduating thesis on one of them, the English rising in 1450.t
Upon his return to America these studies were further prose-
cuted under the kind encouragement of Prof. Herbert B.
Adams, and partly embodied in a course of lectures to the
graduate students of the Johns Hopkins University on Popular
Uprisings in the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Centu-
ries.f A further work on the English Popular Eevolt in 1381
will soon appear. The reader is referred to these investigations
for such new or dissenting views as will be expressed in this
paper.
It is a commonplace that our ancestors were comparatively
free in the days of Caesar and Tacitus, but that they lost this
primitive freedom in course of time. At first the freemen
were the greater part, the ruling body of the German tribes;
by the year 1000 the masses of the English people were serfs
without any legal rights against their masters. Once the land
had belonged to the village communities and to the nation ;
now lords, prelates, and kings owned almost every acre. The
once free Saxon was bound to the soil of the manor. If he
belonged to the class termed villains, and held the normal
holding of about 30 acres, he must work two or three days
weekly for his lord throughout the year, to say nothing of other
obligations and taxes scarcely less onerous. If a cottier,
holding a smaller plot, his duties were somewhat lighter. He
had only one protection against oppression and misrule, the
custom of the manor, as had been the use from time immemorial.
In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries a change took
place in the condition of the peasantry. England passed from
the natural husbandry to the money basis ; the labor service
of the serf was commuted into rent. The villain became a
yeoman, or rent-paying freeholder; the cottier a free agricul-
tural laborer. During the fourteenth century a number of
chanced events aided this transformation. I refer especially
*Stubb8' Constitutional History, ii, 449-50; Thorold Rogers' History of
Agriculture and Prices, Oxford, 1866, i, 79-95.
t English Rising in 1450, Strasburg, 1892.
t Johns Hopkins University Circulars, May, 1893, p. 80 sq.
ENGLISH POPULAR UPRISINGS — KRIEHN. 153
to the great plague in 1349, the famous black death, which
made Europe and the Orient like to a vast charnel-house. One-
third of the population of England perished. Whole grillages
were swept away.
Of course labor became scarce. Sheep wandered about
without shepherds to heed them; vast tracts of land lay
untilled for want of men to plow. Wages rose and rents fell.
The prices of all the necessaries of life increased in proportion
and no man could subsist on small pay. Yet little were the wants
of the masses considered by the landholding parliament, the very
first proceeding of which was to enact the well-known statute
of laborers, a measure that, under brutal penalties, compelled
the workman to demand no higher wages than before the
plague. The people's answer was defiance j in country and
town peasants and artisans formed regular trades -unions
against it. Forbidden by the government, they maintained
their organizations in secret. Yeoman or villain, cottier or
laborer, craftsman or apprentice : all gladly gave to the common
cause.
But parliament was blind and deaf to public discontent.
It reenacted the statute, enforcing all its clauses with increased
severity. It continued to raise heavy taxes for the needs of
the French war, resorting to unheard of poll taxes, which
exasperated the people beyond measure. At last a brutal
levy occasioned the first dangerous outbreaks in 1381.
The contemporary accounts of the events of 1381 were writ-
ten by monks and other churchmen who had lost and suffered
through the rebellion. Hence their narratives are very one
sided. Thomas of Walsingham, historian of the royal abbey
St. Albans, gave us the longest account in his Chronica
Major a.* The works of Henry of Knighton t and of the monk
of EvershamI are of importance, as is that of the fanciful,
unreliable Sir Jean Froissart. John Stowe's Annales are
invaluable on account of their detailed narratives and the
author's faithfulness in copying contemporary sources. The
" This work is now lost, but has been preserved in two works tbat repro-
duced it almost verbally : Thomas of Walsingbam's Historia Anglicana, ed.
Riley, London, 1863, and the Chronica Anglica, ed. Thompson, London,
1874, both in the Rolls Series.
t Published by Roger Twysden, Historiaa Anglican£B scriptores decern,
London, 1652.
X Historia vitse et regni Ricardi II, Angliae regis, a monacho quodam de
Eversbam consignata, ed. Th. Hearnius Oxonie, 1729.
154 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
continuation of tlie so-called Eulogium* teems with important
information not heretofore utilized. Among the state papers
the EoUs of the Parliament and the court rolls recording the
legal proceedings against the insurgents are especially valu-
able. Modern historians have contented themselves with
noting particular phases of the insurrection j no detailed
account has as yet appeared.
The first important outbreak in 1381 was a bitter conflict
between the townsmen and the University of Cambridge.
About May 1 the former arose in open rebellion and compelled
the university of&cials to renounce all their oppressive privi-
leges over the town. The first uprising of the rural tenantry
occurred in Essex somewhat later, on occasion of an enforced
collection of an oppressive poll tax. All the villages arose;
such as were reluctant were forced to march along with the
rest. A compact body of men under Wat Tyler and Jack
Straw crossed over the Thames at Erith, into Kent, in order to
arouse the inhabitants of that county as well, t
On 7th of June a levy of the inhabitants of northwestern
Kent was held atDartfordj a military and political programme
of a general revolt and advance upon London were there
agreed upon. The main body of the rebels thereupon marched
on Canterbury, the chief city of the county. On the road they
stormed and took the castle of Eochester, releasing a towns-
man of Gravesend whose imprisonment had caused a general
uprising of the surrounding country.
Canterbury received them with open arms ; mayor and bail-
iffs solemnly swore allegiance to the rebellion. The citadel
of the city was soon taken, Sir William Sepbrantz, the sheriff
of Kent, along with it. The latter was forced to deliver up
all rolls and muniments in his possession, which Tyler, the
rebel leader, caused to be publicly burnt. A second division
broke into the priory adjoining the cathedral and rifled the
chamber of the archbishop of Canterbury, who was at the
same time chancellor of England, and therefore most cordially
hated as a chief author of the misgovernment then prevail-
ing. The rebels are also accused of having damaged the
abbey of St. Yin cent and of having committed various other
offenses.
* Eulogium liistoriarum sive temporis, a monacho quodam Malmesburi-,
ensi exeratum, ed. Haydon, London (Rolls Series), 1858.
t Contin, Eulog. in, 352.
ENGLISH POPULAR UPRISINGS — KRIEHN. 155
On the morning of June 11 they set out for London, plun-
dering the houses of all whom they esteemed public enemies on
the way, and forcing all men of note to join them. In the
evening of June 12 they arrived at Blackheath, their fixed
camp, where a number of men awaited them, so that their
number perhaps amounted to 20,000, all told. The chief
prophet of the rebellion, an heretical priest named John Ball,
whose fiery, socialistic sermons had long been the delight of
the peasantry, and the terror of clergy and nobility, was among
them. The text of his sermon held at Blackheath well illus-
trates his doctrine, as well as the spirit that animated his
hearers :
'' When Adam dalf and Eve span
Who was then the gentleman."
The feast of Corpus Ohristi, June 13, was the day generally
assigned for the advance on London. From the northeast
came the men of Essex under Jack Straw, their captain, and
encamped at Mile End, a northeastern suburb. The men of
all the counties about the capital simultaneously advanced;
more distant shires also sent in insurgents. Most of the
rebels were ill equipped, but great desire for freedom moved
all alike and made them strong.
In the morning of June 14 the southeastern rebels were
admitted into London by favor of the popular party. The men
of Hertfordshire entered from the north ; the way stood open
to the levies of Essex in the northeast. Some of the principal
citizens of London did not hesitate to make common cause
with the rebels, notwithstanding the efforts of William Wal-
worth, the mayor ; the populace was heart and soul in their
favor. Soon after the arrival of the rebels, perhaps even
before then, the latter had demolished a great part of Savoy,
a palace belonging to John, duke of Lancaster, an uncle of
the king, but very unpopular with the people.
One division of the southeastern rebels marched through
London, destroying a number of houses of supposed public
enemies. Thus the Temple, where the hated lawyers dwelt,
went up in flames. The lodge of the Hospitalers at Olerken-
well was totally destroyed on account of the hatred they bore
the head of the order. Sir Robert Hales, lord treasurer of
England. The main body began a regular siege of the tower
of London, where king and court were shut in like mice in a
trap. The knights and men at arms assembled within, though
156 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
powerful in numbers, were too panic-stricken to offer effectual
resistance J nothing remained but to yield to tbe rebels.
Accordingly the boy-king, Eichard II, was escorted to Mile
End to hold a conference with the rebels, whilst the unfortu-
nate ministers were left to the mercies of the Kentish besiegers.
The latter rushed wildly into the tower and siezed the chan-
cellor, treasurer, and other alleged traitors, among whom were
four of the chief collectors of the poll tax. They dragged their
victims to the neighboring Tower hill, and executed them with-
out mercy.
At Mile End were assembled all the rebels who had come
from the north and east, and many from the south as well.
In the conference held there during the evening of June 14
the King and his advisers granted all the rebels demanded :
that serfdom be abolished ; that every man be able to buy and
sell free of toll throughout England; that 4 pence an acre be
the limit of rent for land held in any kind of tenure; that all
rebels receive the king's pardon. Upon this the rebels of the
eastern and midland counties returned home.
The southeastern rebels, however, were unwilling to accept
the same terms. Being mostly yeomen or free tenantry they
had attained that stage of development coveted by their north-
ern compatriots, and sought rights still more extended. A
conference was arranged for Smithfield, then a northern suburb
of the capital. Wat Tyler, the rebel leader, was lured out of
sight of his men on plea of an interview with the king and
secretly dispatched by the royal retinue.* Under pretended
commands from their captain his men were enticed without the
city walls. Troops collected by the royal partisans in the
city then appeared on the scene, and the result was that the
rebels, upon the king promising all their demands, agreed to
go home.
Bloody vengeance was executed on the rebels after their
final dispersal, notwithstanding the royal word. Manumis-
sions and pardons were formally revoked, while a great army
was summoned to crush out the remains of the revolt. The
rebel leaders were punished with unheard of severity.
The popular uprising in 1381 was most variegated in char-
acter. It seemed as if all discontented elements (social, politi-
*Eulog. Ill, 353-4; Stowe,p.288. This new version of the meeting at
Smithfield and Tyler's death is to be preferred to the romantic but highly-
improbable account heretofore accepted
ENGLISH POPULAR UPRISINGS— KRIEHN. 157
[cal, and religious) had united in a grand effort to overthrow
fthe social fabric of the day.* The central factor was of course
a general rising of the tenantry against the landed system.
This was brought about by the repeated attempts of parliament
to enforce the statute of laborers, and to introduce poll taxes,
and also by the reactionary policy of the landlords in demand-
jiDg labor services, even where they had since accepted money
[payments for rent. The latter were aided in their desire by
Hhe machinations of the lawyers -, hence the extreme hatred of
[the rebels for that class.
In close alliance with the peasantry were a number of mesne
Itowns under the jurisdiction of spiritual lords; indeed, it
falmost seems as if a general rising of such boroughs had been
[attempted. In St. Albans the townsmen, under direct counte-
lance of Wat Tyler and promised aid in case of need, arose
[and extorted a charter of liberties from the abbot. William
Gryndecobbe, a heroic townsman, was the real head of the
rmovement. Most villains of the abbot's domains brought them
aid, and shared the success of the rebelUon by obtaining char-
ters of liberty for themselves. A similar but far bloodier scene
took place at St. Edmundsbury in Sussex, where the rebels,
under John Wrawe, a priest, beheaded the prior and a royal
justice. At Cambridge another revolt against the university
occurred, in which Corpus Christi college was well-nigh de-
stroyed and much damage done. The inhabitants of Peter-
borough are said to have attempted the destruction of the
abbey there.
Not only the dependent religious towns but several great
cities and boroughs such as York, Scarborough, and Beverly in
the north, Canterbury and Bridgewater in the south, took open
part with the rebels. Indeed, it seems very reasonable to
suppose that the popular party in all English towns favored
the rebellion. For it was about this time that the popular
municipal government was being absorbed by the great mer-
chant companies, for which reason the lower classes were very
restive. The rising in 1381 was not only the battle of serf
against landlord, but that of the poorer craftsman and artisan
against the rich civic aristocrat. It was the first great gen-
eral conflict between capital and labor.
* The reformer John Wychffe was in no way connected with the insur-
rection, though some of his converts probably were. See Gotthard Lechler,
JohannvonWiclif, Leipsic, 1873, i, 636-65.
158 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
The movement raged far and wide throughout the country.
A certain sort of organization seems to have prevailed; the
people arose by counties, each one under a separate captain.
Thus Wat Tyler, also chief captain of all the rebels, was cap-
tain in Kent, Jack Straw in Essex, John Wrawe in Suffolk,
John Littestere in IN'orfolk, John Hanchach in Cambridge, Eob-
ert Phippe in Huntingdon. The purposes of the insurgents
have already been noticed in the demands of these leaders.
The effects of the revolt in 1381 were far-reaching and of
great importance. Never was another poll tax attempted in
England; this is of importance, as this method of taxation was
fast becoming a precedent. A second effect was the scare pro-
duced on John of Gaunt, who retired from the field of active
politics, where he had been having a prevailing though not a
salutary influence. But its greatest result was the terror
struck in the hearts of the landlords; they became timid about
enforcing labor services. Serfdom received a deathblow.
During the fifteenth century the natural development quietly
took its course; a race of sturdy freeholders took the place of
the serfs, an age of unprecedented prosperity dawned for the
English workingman. Necessaries of life were cheap, rents
very low, and wages universally high. It was the golden age
of English labor.
Just this prosperity made the workman impatient of oppres-
sion and misrule, and caused the frequent disturbances of the
fifteenth century. I shall give no details on the numerous
Lollard revolts, as these socialistic Wicliffites were at best a
small though a very pertinacious minority. No great national
movement occurred till 1450, the year of the so-called Cade's
rebellion. For a description and interpretation of the histor-
ical sources I beg to refer to the thesis mentioned above.
One of its main causes was the overtaxation resulting on
Henry YI's glory in France. The income from the royal
domains, which contributed the nucleus of the revenue, had
been squandered, wherefore the want was more keenly felt.
Another cause was the prevailing misgovernment in England,
the common bribery and corruption in all circles of the Gov-
ernment; a third, the loss of France, which wounded national
pride, and had well-nigh ruined the wool trade. But none of
the important complaints of the rebels are social or religious.
The movement was purely political. It was a tide of popular
opinion in favor of the Yorkist or reform party, perhaps under
ENGLISH POPULAR UPRISINGS — KRIEHN. 159
the countenance of the duke of York himself. Kot only the
lower classes, but also the gentry, and even some of the nobil-
ity, were implicated.
The rebellion began in Kent during the latter part of May.
The people of the different hundreds, well ordered and organ-
ized, appeared under their constables like the militia in a reg-
ular levy. As in 1381 they fixed a camp at Blackheath, but
retreated on the approach of the royal forces under king Henry
yi in person. A detachment following them in hot pursuit
was defeated and cut to pieces at Sevenoaks on June 18. The
remainder of the king's troops disbanded, and on July 3 the
rebels, after having recruited in Sussex, forced their way into
London by favor of the populace. On the day following the
heads of Say, the lord treasurer, and Orowmer, sheriff of Kent,
fell on the block. At length the hostile city council, aided
by the garrison of the Tower, strove to exclude the rebels by
occupying London bridge in the night of July 5. A bloody
though undecided fight took place, and lasting quiet was only
established when members of the royal council accepted the
complaints and demands of the rebels, and granted a general
pardon to all. Their captain was killed soon afterwards. He
must have been a man of considerable ability to keep such
excellent order and lead them so successfully, though we know
as little of his name as of his life or character.
The rising In 1450 was by no means a local Kentish outbreak.
The commons of Essex came to London by appointment to
meet Cade; the people of Dorset and Wiltshire, rose against
their hated bishop of Salisbury, put him to death, and confis-
cated all his possessions. In south, east, west, and middle
England the rebellion raged; only the north was free. It was
a great national movement.
The causes of the popular revolt in 1469 were precisely sim-
ilar to those of 1450. Prevailing evils had not been diminished
by the accession of the house of York, only that Edward IV's
favorites were now universally detested instead of Henry YI's.
This time the scene shifts to the north. Eising against the
tax collectors, the peasants, 15,000 strong, under a certain
Eobin of Eedesdale, marched on York, but were defeated by
a brother of Warwick, the king-maker. They soon rallied,
however, and, countenanced by Clarence, the king's brother,
and Warwick himself, marched southward, and utterly defeated
the royal forces at Edgecote.
160 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Several unpopular ministers were taken and beheaded, the
queen's father and brother among them. The king himself
was obliged to surrender, whereupon Warwick dismissed the
people, who returned home. The fruits of the victory remained
in the hands of Warwick and Clarence, just where the people
wished to put them.
Just as the rising in 1450 ushered in the wars of the roses,
announcing the general favor of the nation for the house of
York, that of 1469 announced a great revulsion against a king
of that house, guided by Warwick, the people's friend.
A change now comes over the scene. In the latter part of
the fifteenth century and the beginning of the sixteenth the
face of England was transformed from plow to pasture land.
Sheep farming was introduced, because wool brought higher
prices than wheat and required little labor to raise. Contrary
to all law and right, landlords evicted their tenants and
inclosed the common pastures. The land was filled with vag-
abonds and beggars; at the same time prices were enhanced
by the debasement of the currency under Henry YIII and his
successors, whereas wages were slower to rise. A little before,
the dissolution of the monasteries had put a band of merciless
land-grabbers in the place of the monks, who were often easy
landlords.
Parliament has done its utmost against illegal inclosures
and evictions, but in vain. Another rising of the peasants in
1549, but which does not come under the scope of this paper,
failed to effect the same purpose. Since then the fortunes of
the English workman steadily declined, until only the nine-
teenth century brought about a change for the better. None
of the great reformers or statesmen favored him; not a single
law was made for his benefit. The much-lauded poor laws of
queen Elizabeth only forced the landlord to maintain as a
pauper him whom he had deprived of his land. The law of
parochial settlement, passed under Charles II, made him a serf
without land. Hostile legislation thwarted the relief that
would otherwise have been afforded by the invention of steam,
so that at the end of the seventeenth century the workman could
buy just one-eighth as much wheat for his wages as in the
fifteenth.
The middle ages, then, were not so disastrous for the people.
England has progressed, it is true, but the laborer has not
received a corresponding share of the advancement. Merchant
ENGLISH POPULAR UPRISINGS — KRIEHN.
161
and landholder have fared far better than he. His condition is
in many respects superior to that of the mediaeval serf, but
not absolutely so; for the latter, at least, had plenty to eat
and a hut to protect him from the weather, whereas our out-
casts often starve and have not where to lay their heads.
There are more starving, homeless wretches in the great cities
of England to-day than there ever were serfs in the whole
island. They live in far more squalid and abject poverty than
the meanest mediaeval bondman. Not until the masses enjoy
more economic in additional to personal freedom may we vaunt
our absolute social superiority over the middle ages. Oh,
that we might add some of the prosperity of the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries to the culture and progress of the nine-
teenth ! *
* For the economical development of England throughout tlie period
Thorold Rogers' Six Centuries of Work and Wages.
S. Mis. 104 11
I
XV -JEFFERSON AND THE SOCIAL COMPACT THEORY.
By PROFESSOR GEORGE P. FISHER,
OF TALE UXIVERSITT.
163
JEFFERSON AND THE SOCIAL COMPACT THEORY/
By George P. Fisher.
The theory of Social Compact founds the authority of gov-
ernment on the express or implied consent of the subjects to its
creation or continuance. There are various types of the theory,
but they agree in postulating, in some form, as the condition
of rightful authority in the state, a pact between the governors
and the governed. In the conservative form of the theory, this
pact is merely a theoretic implication which serves to define
the mutual obligations of ruler and subject. In the more radi-
cal form, the actual consent of the people, or of a major portion
of them , is assumed to be requisite to the validity of a civil
polity.
The genesis of the Social Compact theory is a point of much
historical interest. To investigate the rise and progress of
this doctrine does not fall, however, within our present pur-
pose. Many t find the germ of the theory, which was developed
by subsequent writers, in the sentence of Grotius : ^^Civilis
juris mater est ipso ex consensu obligatio. " Grotius in effect
teaches that there is a tacit agreement on the part of the peo-
ple of a monarchy or republic to obey the will of the sovereign
or the majority. Before him, however, Hooker had presented
the same doctrine; his view being that an original consent of
a people to be subject to a sovereign binds posterity as parts
of one corporation. We lived, he says, in our remote ancestors.f
The idea was transformed, in the hands of Hobbes, into the
distinct conception of an original contract — of a state of nature
as preceding civil society — which, though acknowledged by
him to be a fiction, as far as actual history is concerned, is,
nevertheless, the basis of his reasoning in behalf of absolutism
in government. Locke differs from Hobbes in placing the
sovereignty, conceded by man on passing from the state of
nature into society, in the community, instead of an absolute
* Printed in The Yale Review, February, 1894.
tE. g., Leo, in his Universalgeschichte, B. in, S. 717.
t Ecclesiastical Polity, i, x, 8.
165
166 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
prince. Locke was mucli affected by the writings of Hobbes,
more often, to be sure, in the way of repulsion than attraction.
A leading doctrine in Locke's Eeasonableness of Christianity
is the same that Hobbes endeavors to establish in the Levi-
athan, the doctrine that the substance of Christianity, as
preached by the Apostles, is the proposition that "Jesus of
Kazareth is the Messiah. " Before Locke, however, Algernon
Sidney, in his Discourses concerning Government first pub-
lished in 1698, had broached the theory of a contract. Monte-
squieu, though a frien d of limited monarchy after the English
model, is considered by Leo (who is abater of republican gov-
ernment) to have paved the way for the revolutionary philoso-
phy of Eousseau, by making virtue a defining characteristic
and only support of popular as distinguished from aristocratic
or monarchical government. The word contract, in a special
application to the relation of king and people in the English
Constitution, is found in the great vote of the Houses of Parlia-
ment, which declared vacant the throne of James I, and made
room for the accession of William. In the medley of reasons
(for all writers acknowledge it to be a medley) given for their
act, James is charged with " having endeavored to subvert the
constitution of this kingdom by breaking the original contract
between king and people." Such a contract is thus declared
to be involved iu the English Constitution. Here a nice and
interesting question arises, whether the reference was to a
primary, unwritten contract, implied in the existence of a gov-
ernment of law — a social compact — or to some positive feature
and express provision of the English system. Hall am would
seem to incline to the former interpretation. He says that this
position was "rather too theoretical, yet necessary at that time,
as denying the divine origin of monarchy, from which its ab-
solute and indefeasible authority had been plausibly derived.*
They proceeded not by tlie stated rules of the English Government, but
the general rights of mankind. They looked not so much to Magna
Charta as the original compact of society, and rejected Coke and Hale for
Hooker and Harrington. t
Macaulay, speaking of the inconsistent statements of the
great vote, there being one reason put in for each section of
the majority who were relied to pass on it, says that "the men-
tion of the original contract gratified the disciples of Sidney." |
*Hallam's Constitutional History (Harper's ed.), p. 544.
t/6., p. 546.
t Macaulay's History of England (Harper's ed.), Vol. ii, p. 580.
JEFFERSON AND SOCIAL COMPACT THEORY — FISHER. 167
Macaulay defends the inexact and confused character of the
vote, on grounds of expediency, as the proper way to secure
unanimity 5 remarking that the "essence of politics is com-
promise." But Mackintosh, with more reason, declares that it
would have been manlier to fall back openly upon the right of
revolution, instead of mixing up the pretense of an abdica-
tion.* In the trial of Sacheverell, the sense of this vote and
the character of the revolution, of which it was a part, were
deliberately expounded by the managers of the impeachment.
Sacheverell had coupled with his doctrine of absolute submis-
sion the assertion that the revolution was not a case of resist-
ance. But the managers of the prosecution did not allow him
to shield himself by this mode of approving of the revolution.
They affirmed that it was a case of forcible resistance, and
that his principle of nonresistance, being a virtual condem-
nation of it, would overthrow the title of the reigning sover-
eign. Yet, the ambiguity of the clause about the contract
between the king and people is not cleared away. A leading
manager, Sir Joseph Jekyl, said :
To make out the justice of the revolution, it may be laid down, that as
the law is the only measure of the Prince's authority and the people's
subjection, so the law derives its being and efficacy from the common
consent ; and to place it on any other foundation than common consent is
to take away the obligation this notion of common consent puts prince
and people under to observe the laws.t
This sounds like the Lockeian Social compact. The revolu-
tion, the same manager said, occurred in ^^a case that the law
of England could never suppose, provide for, or have in
view." f Said another manager. Sir John Hawles :
When a government is brought out of frame by the extraordinary steps
of a prince, it is a vain thing to hope that it can ever be set right by
regular steps.
. " The revolution," it is said, " can not be urged as an instance
of the lawfulness of anything, but of resisting the supreme
executive power acting in opposition to the laws." § But when
challenged to produce the contract between king and people
Sir Joseph Jekyl refers to the history of the coronation oath,
of the oath of allegiance, to ancient customs and forms, which
involve such a contract. That is to say, he makes his appeal
to usages and peculiarities interwoven with the constitution,
* Mackintosh's History of the English Revolution.
t State Trials, Vol. xv, p. 98.
tl&., p. 110. $76., p. 383.
168 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
as if the contract were a positive thing, a feature of the Eng-
lish system of government, rather than the underlying basis of
all civil society 5 at least where there is monarchy. This is
insisted upon — that there was no law providing for the revolu-
tionary action . It was an exercise of power not provided for by
any existing statute. But it was an act of the community, hav-
ing for its end the recovery of the constitution and laws. The
right to perform such an act is not extended beyond the case in
question, where there was an actual necessity of restoring the
government and of saving the Constitution from being over-
thrown. It is only the right of conservative revolution that is
claimed. There is nothing, therefore, in their mode of stating
the English right of resistance to determine with certainty
whether the managers held that the contract between king and
people is a positive and special characteristic of English insti-
tutions or a fundamental part of all monarchial society. At the
time of the Eevolution, when the question of the condition in
which things were left by the departure of James was under
debate in Parliament, some one suggested that they were left
in a state of nature. But it was immediately replied that such
a view would dissolve all laws and abolish all franchises. The
truth appears to be, as far as the act of dethroning James and
enthroning William is concerned, they could properly plead
only the right of revolution. The precise meaning, when they
spoke of breach of compact between king and people, was
probably apprehended by few, if any, of the actors themselves.
Burke, in his famous " Keflections on the French Eevolu-
tion," does not absolutety exclude the notion of a "consent" on
the part of subjects as implied in the existence of lawful gov-
ernment. He teaches that men have an equal right to the
advantages for which society was created. The management
of the State, however, not being among the original rights of
man, does not belong equally to all. The obligations of the
subject do not depend on any voluntary, formal act of consent
on his part. It is no violation of natural rights when political
power is lodged with a few, or with one man, provided the
ends of government are attained. In saying that the man-
agement of the State is ''a thing to be settled by convention,"
and in using the terms, " compact of the State," the social
"partnership," Burke has no intention, it hardly needs to be
said, to sanction the doctrine that an explicit consent of the
people, or of the major part of them, to the creation ot a par-
ticular government and to the selection of those who adminis-
JEFFERSON AND SOCIAL COMPACT THEORY FISHER. 169
ter it, is necessary, if the subject is to be bound to obedience.
On this topic Burke writes thus :
Though civil society might be at first a voluntary act (which, in many
cases, it undoubtedly was) its continuance is under a permanent standing
covenant, coexisting with the society; and it attaches upon every indi-
vidual of that society, without any formal act of his own. This is war-
ranted by the general practice, arising out of the general sense of mankind.
Men, without their choice, derive benefits from that association ; without
their choice they are subjected to duties in consequence of these benefits;
and without their choice they enter into a virtual obligation as binding
as any that is actual. Much the strongest moral obligations are such as
were never the results of our option. * * * w"e have obligations to
mankind at large which are not in consequence of any special voluntary
pact. They arise from the relation of man to man, and the relation of
man to God, which relations are not matters of choice. * * * Dark
and inscrutable are the ways by which we come into the world. The in-
stincts which give rise to this mysterious process of nature are not of our
making. But out of physical causes, unknown to us, perhaps unknowable,
arise moral duties which, as we are able perfectly to comprehend, we are
bound indispensable to perform. Parents may not be consenting to their
moral relation ; but, consenting or not, they are bound to a long train of
burdensome duties towards those with whom they have never made a con-
vention of any sort. Children are not consenting to their relation, but
their relation, without their actual consent, binds them to its duties ; or
rather it implies their consent, because the presumed consent of every
rational creature is in unison with the predisposed order of things. Men
come in that manner into a community with the social state of their
parents, endowed with all the benefits, loaded with all the duties of their
situation. If the social ties and ligaments spun out of those physical
relations which are the elements of the commonwealth, inmost cases begin,
and always continue, independently of our will (so without any stipulation
on our own part we are bound by that relation called our country, which
comprehends (as it has been well said) " all the charities of all." * Nor are
we left without powerful instincts to make this duty as dear and grateful
to us as it is awful and coercive. Our country is not a thing of mere physi-
cal locality. It consists, in a great measure, in the ancient order into
which we are born. We may have the same geographical situation, but
another country ; as we may have the same country in another soil. The
place that determines our duty to our country is a social, civil relation. t
* Omnes omnium charitates patria una complectitur. Cicero.
t Vol. Ill, p. 460. In agreement with Burke's definition of terms are the
observations of Blackstone on the same topic, in his Commentaries, (Intro-
duction, section 2). "But though society," says Blackstone, ''had not
its formal beginning from any convention of individuals, actuated by their
wants and their fears ; yet it is a sense of their weakness and imperfection
that keeps mankind together; and that, therefore, is the solid and natural
foundation, as well as the cement of civil society. And this is what we
mean by the original contract of society." The author proceeds to say
that protection of the rights of the individual by society, and submission
to the laws by him in return, are the parts of the compact.
170 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Utterly antagonistic to the principles and the spirit of Burke
is the famous treatise of Eousseau, the Social Contract, which
more than any other work was the text-book of the French
Eevolution. It is significant that the whole discussion is
reared upon speculations relative to the origin of civil society.
Rights and obligations must all be inferred with mathematical
exactitude from the fundamental theory adopted at the start.
This theory assumes that the existence of society is optional
with men and is due to their voluntary consent. Individuals
are bound by the actual social bond only because, and as far as,
they have agreed to be bound. This false dogma of mutual
contract is laid at the foundation of the edifice. It is further
held that the individual in entering society surrenders all his
rights to the community, and through this common act of all
there instantly arises the body politic. To the community,
thus formed, belongs sovereignty. The general will is now the
supreme law. To this general will the entire framework of
government is subject. The idea of "institutional" freedom,
of freedom secured and assured to the individual by constitu-
tional safeguards, against the haste or deliberate tyranny of
majorities, is discarded. Representative government itself is
derided as a product and sign of the decay of public spirit.*
Of course the state must be restricted to narrow territorial
limits. But what is this general will which is so omnipotent in
the state? It turns out to be merely the majority of suffrages.
When the vote of a citizen upon any measure is called for, the
question really answered by him is what, in his opinion, is the
general will in reference to this measure. The result of the
ballot decides the point, and thus if he finds himself in the
minority he is not really overruled, but simply mistaken in his
judgment as to what the general will is.t It is impossible to
* Rousseau explicitly says that every law which is not expressly ratified
by popular vote is no law ; and that the English, through their adherence
to representative government, are slaves. ''Toute loi que le peuple en
personne n'a pas ratifi^e est nulle; ce n'est point une loi. Le peuple Ang-
lois pense etre libre, il se trompe fort : il ne Test que durant Telection des
membres du parlement: sit6t qu'ils sont elus, il est esclave, il n'est rien."
(Livre iii, Ch. xv.)
1 This curious, though puerile subterfuge for saving (theoretically) the
freedom of the individual, when overborne by the vote of the majority, is
found in Liv. iv, ch. ii (Des Suffrages.) "Quand done I'avis contraire au
mien I'importe, cela ne prouve autre chose sinon que je m'etois trompd, et
que j'estimois §tre la volont6 generale ne F^toit pas."
JEFFERSON AND SOCIAL COMPACT THEORY — FISHER. 171
imagine a more frightful despotism than Eousseau's sover-
eignty of the people, under which the individual has literally-
given up everything to the unchecked will of the majority.
Equality, which more than liberty is the idol of the French-
man, is the keynote of Eousseau's entire work. Yiews akin to
those expressed in this ingenious but superficial essay have
fascinated the French mind, and led to the sacrifice of both
stable government and substantial freedom. On the warrant
afforded by a popular vote (called for, according to the more
approved practice, after the deed has been done), one govern-
ment is overthrown and a new one set up, and the entire com-
munity, perhaps, brought under the uncontrolled sway of an
imperial despot. This terrible price is paid for the sake of
having a government which is (in theory) of their own making.
The protection of narural rights — a prime object of society — is,
in iiact, given up, in consequence of the hot chase after politi-
cal rights; and even these are not attained.*
We are more apt to connect the theory of the Social Com-
pact with the name of a true lover of liberty, John Locke, a
man, in all that constitutes human excellence, at a high eleva-
* Burke has left on record liis opinion of the Social Contract and its
author. In a letter to a French correspondent (in 1789), quoted in Prior's
Life of Burke (Am. Ed., 1825, p., 313), he says : '' I have read long since the
Contrat Social. It has left very few traces upon my mind. I thought it
a performance of little or no merit, and little did I conceive that it could
ever make revolutions and give law to nations ; but so it is." In Burke's
"Letter to a member of the National Assembly" (1791), we. find a dissec-
tion of Rousseau, whom he calls ''the great founder and professor of the
philosophy of vanity." Burke's satire upon the sentimental philanthropy
which tramples under foot particular duties is excellent. Rousseau is
the father of the sentimental school of poets (not excepting Byron and
Goethe) and novelists, who seek to make a criminal interesting by weav-
ing around him a veil of sentiment, aiming to excite sympathy where rep-
robation is the proper feeling. There is a very curious fact concerning
Rousseau, which Burke brings forward in the ''Reflections." " Mr. Hume
told me that he had from Rousseau himself the secret of his principles of
composition. That acute, though eccentric, observer, had perceived that
to strike and interest the public the marvelous must be produced ; that
the marvelous of the heathen mythology had long since lost its effect ;
that giants, magicians, fairies, and heroes of romance which succeeded
had exhausted the portion of credulity which belonged to their age; that
now nothing was left to a writer but that species of the marvelous which
might still be produced, and with as great an effect as ever, though in
another way; that this- the marvelous in life, manners, in characters, and
in extraordinary situations, giving rise to new and unlooked for strokes
in politics and morals."
172 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
tiou above Eousseau. The negative part of Locke's treatise on
government, wherein he demolishes the arguments of Filmer
in favor of absolute monarchy as a legitimate inheritance from
Adam and from the dominion of the patriarchs, is fully suc-
cessful. His task was here comparatively easy. So the sec-
ond book of Locke's treatise is marked by signal merits. The
sentiment of hostility to tyranny that inspires the work is
characteristic of the author. The natural rights of men, such
as the rights of property, are declared to be not the creatures
of civil society, but the end of society is properly defined to
be the protection of them, though the error is committed of
making the prime object of the commonwealth to be the secu-
rity of property. The function of government, also, is limited
to the end for which government is established. The state,
however it may be constituted, must keep to its design. But
Locke falls into the great error of supposing that the consent
of the individual is necessary in order to his transference from
an imaginary state of nature within the fold and under the
obligations of civil society. Every man, says Locke, is natu-
rally free and nothing is "able to put him into subjection to
any earthly power but only his own consent."* Men being, as
has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no
one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political
power of another without his own consent." t Compelled by
his theory, Locke affirms that every one actually, though tac-
itly, gives his consent to the social compact when he comes of
age by the very act of inheriting property in a country. Every
generation by these separate acts of individuals renews the
compact J otherwise society would be dissolved. Moreover,
Locke assumes (for he fails to prove) that the assent to the
social compact implies a promise to be governed by a majority.
"When any number of men, by the consent of every individual,
made a community, they have thereby made that community
one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only by
the will and determination of the majority." f Instead of
founding society, with Burke, upon a divinely ordained "pre-
disposed order of things," with which the will of every rational
being is assumed to agree, Locke makes the mistake of
requiring, as a condition of the validity of government, an
explicit act and the voluntary consent of every one who is
* Locke's Works (London, 1794), Vol. iv, p. 409.
t Ih., p. 394. X Works, Vol. iv, p. 395.
JEFFERSON AND SOCIAL COMPACT THEORY — FISHER. 173
born in a country. In taking this ground he advanced be-
yond any statements of Hooker, whose authority he is able to
bring in support of the principle that society owes its origin
to an express or secret agreement, and that no human govern-
ment is binding without the consent of the governed. Hooker,
as we have said, avoids the necessity of getting the consent
of every new generation to the existing form of society by
falling back upon the notion of the continued life of a corpo-
ration. The motive of Locke, we may add, was the honorable
one of defending the rightfulness of the change of dynasty by
which the Stuarts were expelled and the Prince of Orange
raised to the throne. He desired to present a theory of society
that would justify the change. It were better, however, to
rest it upon the simple right of revolution.
The doctrine of the Social Compact is embodied in a general
form in the preamble of the American Declaration of Inde-
pendence. Men are asserted to be by nature equal. Govern-
ments are instituted to protect them in the exercise of their
natural rights, and owe their powers to the consent of the
governed. Jefferson states that he "turned to neither book
nor pamphlet in writing it."* It is clear, however, that phrases
from the Virginia Declaration of Eights were in his thoughts.t
That document, as drawn up by George Mason, contains the
following statements :
1. That all men are created equally free and independent and liave cer-
tain inherent natural rights, * * * among which are the enjoyment of
life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property and
pursuing and ohtaining happiness. * * *
3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common bene-
fit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community. t * * *
In Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence
he wrote: *^That all men are created equal and independent;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inherent
and unalienable rights," etc. The terms "independent" and
" inherent," which occur also in Mason's paper, were ^rased
from the draft by Jefferson's own hand. But the ultimate
source of a number of thoughts and phrases in the theoretical
part of the Declaration of Independence was, as Eichard
Henry Lee once alleged, Locke's treatise. Compare the fol-
lowing passages, the first being from the Declaration :
* Jefferson's Works (1853), Vol. vii, p. 305.
t So Mr. Ford judges: Jefferson's Works, Vol. i, p. 26.
t Life and Correspondence of George Mason, Vol. i, p. 339.
174 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should
not be changed for light and transient causes ; and, accordingly, all expe-
rience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils
are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which
they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them
under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off
such government and to provide new guards for their future security.
Locke writes (p. 472) :
Revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in public
affairs. Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and inconvenient
laws, and all the slips of human frailty will be borne by the people without
mutiny or murmur. But if a long train of abuses, prevarications, and
artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people,
and they can not but feel what they lie under and see whither they are
going, it is not to be wondered that they should then rouse themselves
and endeavor to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them
the ends for which government was first erected.
Elsewhere in the writings of Jefferson we find him advocat-
ing the theory of a social contract in its most radical form and
pushing it to conclusions almost anarchical in their tendency.
In the midst of the earlier stages of the French revolution he
wrote a letter from Paris, on September 6, 1789, addressed to
Madison. In this letter he propounds an extreme opinion on
the necessity of popular consent to the existence of the organic
law of the State. The following are extracts from this remark-
able epistle:
The question whether one generation of men has a right to bind another
seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water.
Yet it is a question of such consequence as not only to merit decision but
.place among the fundamental principles of every government. The course
of reflection in which we are immersed here, on the elementary principles
of society, has presented this question to my mind ; and that no such obli-
gation can be transmitted I think very capable of proof. I set out on this
ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, that the earth belongs in usu-
fruct to the living.
He proceeds to show to his own satisfaction that the sole
basis of a right of inheritance is " the law of the society.^^ Then
he infers that ''what is true of every member of the society,
individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights
of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the
individuals." He argues that the earth belongs to each gener-
ation "during its course, fully and in its own right. The sec-
ond receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first,
the third of the second, and so on." "When a whole genera-
JEFFERSON AND SOCIAL COMPACT THEORY — FISHER. 175
tion — that is, the whole society — dies * * * and another
generation or society succeeds, this forms a whole, and there is
no superior who can give their territory to a third society, who
may have lent money to their predecessors beyond their fac-
ulty of paying." In this way the attempt is made to demon-
strate that a debt contracted by one generation, or by a gov-
ernment at a particular time, is not binding on any generation
after. He limits the duration of the contracting party to thirty-
four years. "Every constitution, then, and every law natu-
rally expires at the end of thirty-four years." This is not a
merely tentative speculation. " Examination," we are told,
"will prove it to be solid and salutary."* In a subsequent
letter Jefferson revises his numerical calculation. He has
come to see that the half of a contracting society disappears in
nineteen years. "Then the contracts, constitutions, and laws
of every such society become void in nineteen years from their
date."t The period here allowed for the rightful existence of
the constitution and laws of a political community is, as one has
said, shorter than the lifetime of a horse. That these were not
temporary fleeting opinions is proved by the fact that twenty-
four years later, in 1813, and again, only two years before his
death, under date of June 5, 1824, Jefferson advances these
same propositions in almost identical language. This shows
that he had not been convinced by Madison's pretty obvious
objections to this superficial theorizing. If the earth belongs
to the living, what shall be said of the improvements made by
those before us, and the services rendered, and the debts
incurred, for our sake?
Unless temporary laws were kept in force by additional acts
prior to their expiration, " all the rights depending on positive
laws, that is, most of the rights of property, would become
defunct." Madison falls back on the idea of a tacit consent
given to existing laws through the very fact of their nonrevo-
cation. He goes further and raises the question on what prin-
ciple it is that the voice of the majority binds the minority.
This, he answers, is not a law of nature, but is the result of
a compact, and a compact in the making of which there was
unanimity. "Eigid theory" must presuppose such a una-
nimity. Unless there be this tacit agreement, no person on
attaining to mature age is bound by the acts of the majority.
* Jefferson's Writings (1853), Vol. iii, p. 102, et seq.
t Ibid, p. 109.
176 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
The good sense of Madison enables him to riddle the doctrine
of his correspondent, but Madison struggles in the meshes of
the social compact theory, and can think of no escape from its
practical absurdities except through assumptions not less arbi-
trary and artificial than the hypotheses which they are
invented to bolster up.
The social compact theory, considered as an historical expla-
nation of the origin of states, is, of course, true only to a
very limited extent. Political communities, as a rule, have had
other origins. It is at best a legal fiction, convenient as other
legal fictions may be, as a mode of stating the reciprocal char-
acter of the rights and obligations which pertain to rulers and
the ruled. When taken for a political dogma, as a test of
the validity of existing systems of polity, it is a mischievous
error. When we interpret it, with Burke, as a mode of saying
that every rational will is presupposed to coincide with the
right order of things j or, with Blackstone, as a way of assert-
ing that reciprocal duties are laid upon rulers and the gov-
erned, it conveys a truth. A\^hen we take another step, and
affirm that no government which was not established by gen-
eral or unanimous consent can claim allegiance, and further
maintain that the assent of every generation, nay, of every
individual, is the condition of his obligation to obedience, we
introduce a political heresy, the influence of which is very
likely to be disastrous. The true view to take is, that the
existing form of the state, regarded as a fact, may or may not be
due to an express agreement at some former epoch. But the
obligation of the individual to obedience does not depend on
his having had a share in forming the state, or on his having a
share at present in the management of it. This, be it observed,
is not to approve of the denial of political power to those who are
capable of exercising it. It is easy to suppose cases where the
withholding of all share in the government from those who can
be safely trusted with political power is both arbitrary and inex-
pedient. What form of government is best can only be decided
by reference to the character and history of the particular nation.
We are speaking now only of what the individual may demand,
as a condition of his obeying the " the powers that be." For one
born under a particular system, it is only necessary to know
that the established system secures the great ends of govern-
ment, and lays upon him no command inconsistent with his
duty to God. Yet in supposable cases, even the withholding
JEFFERSON AND SOCIAL COMPACT THEORY — FISHER. 177
of political power may be so flagrant an evil as to warrant
resistance. We require some guaranty that natural rights
shall not be violated. Such a guaranty may be aflbrded by the
actual possession of a share of political power, especially when
the individual is one of a class — the wealthy class for exam-
ple— who are thus enabled, by uniting their political strength,
peacefully to counteract threatened inj ustice. But when polit -
ical rights are demanded as a guaranty for the secure posses-
sion of natural rights, the claim is equivalent simply to a
demand for a government that shall defend the latter. Polit-
ical rights are thus claimed only as a means to an end. The
two categories of rights are properly distinguished.
S. Mis. 104 12
XVI -THE RELATION OF HISTORY TO POLITICS.
By PROFESSOR JESSE MACY,
OF IOWA COLLEGE ,
179
THE RELATION OF HISTORY TO POLITICS.
By Jesse Macy.
Dr. Freeman^s oft-quoted declaration that history is past
politics and politics is present history calls our attention to an
assumed identity of history and politics. Takesi in a certain
sense all will agree that a large part of the history of the past
is a description of what we call the politics of the past; and a
large part of to-day's history is included in to-day's politics.
Over against these accepted truisms we observe that there
is a widespread impression of a conflict between history and
politics; that politics is a perverter of history; that he who
would know true history must rid himself of the trammels of
politics; that it is impossible to have a true history of the
present on account of the prejudices engendered by politics.
It is commonly assumed that in order to attain the true his-
toric spirit the writer must be removed in time and space from
the field of active politics.
Politics has to do chiefly with conflicting rights and inter-
ests. It is customary for the parties to a political contention
to appeal to the experiences of the past in support of their con-
tention. Each party appeals to history, but he does it not in
what would usually be accepted as the true historic spirit. He
garbles the facts of the past in the interest of his special con-
tention. That contention about the nature of the United
States Constitution which involved the question of the right of
a State to peacefully withdraw from the Union was debated
chiefly as an historical question. Many facts, incidents, and
statements were adduced to make good the claim that the
makers of the Constitution intended to leave the States in the
fall possession of this right. Other facts, incidents and say-
ings were adduced to prove that the makers of the Constitu-
tion intended to create a National Government having fall
powers to maintain its integrity. As a mere debate, the bal-
ance of the argaments from history was remarkably even. A
careful garbling of all the history bearing upon the question
181
182 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
left the dispute unsettled j as much proof could be found for
one side as for the other. Alongside of the historical argu
ment for and against the right of a State to peaceably with,
draw from the Union there were always in the minds of the
disputants arguments drawn from the sense of what ought to
be. It was not simply a question of what sort of constitution
the statesmen of the Eevolution did make. This question came
to be merged into the more pressing question, What sort of
constitution, in this regard, ought we to have? This last ques-
tion came to be the dominant one. And it may now be con-
sidered as settled that the American Constitution does not
permit a State to withdraw from the Union except by an act
of successful revolution. Now the mere fact that this question
is settled in this way will give added force to the one sided
historical arguments which were always adduced in support of
this particular theory. That which was for the time being
merely garbled history in support of a partisan view is likely
now to be accepted as the true history.
This principle is illustrated in all history. Statesmen and
citizens are divided into parties. They have, or think they
have, conflicting interests. They have conflicting ideas as to
what is right or just. Each party appeals to the experiences
of the past in support of its partisan view. In this appeal to
the past the facts of the past are always distorted. It is not
a calm and scientific survey of the experiences of the past, but
certain facts only from the past are selected and taken out of
their true setting and marshaled in such a manner as to give
support to a particular partisan view. Finally, in the course
of political development one of the partisan views is adopted
by the state. Immediately there ensues a strong tendency on
the part of all classes to accept the partisan view of history
which had been presented in argument as correct history.
Those who are beaten in the historical argument, when once
the question at issue is settled, are disposed to accept as true
the partisan view of history which is most in harmony with
the action of the state.
There is now in England a controversy between the Estab-
lished Church and the Nonconformists on the question of the
disestablishment and the disendowment of the church. Each
party rests its case largely upon certain facts in past history.
Yet no historian would claim that in the arguments for and
against disestablishment a fair statement of these facts is pre-
THE RELATION OF HISTORY TO POLITICS — MACY. 183
sented. In the present state of morality it is too mucli to
expect tliat men will maintain a scientific or a Christian atti-
tude of mind in dealing with rather obscure facts of history
when a possible conclusion of the investigation is likely to
deprive them of a living. Under such circumstances history
is much distorted. But the time will come when this question
will be settled. It is likely also to be settled in a thoroughly
partisan way. The bodies of some of the partisans who at the
time were most blamed for the measure will be entombed in
Westminster Abbey. Those who have been beaten in the
contest will then join with those who have triumphed in doing
honor to the successful statesmen. After having incurred the
injury which ensues upon a political action, and having for-
given the perpetrators, it is a slight thing to accept as true
historical arguments which seem most in harmony with the
policy adopted.
There would thus seem to be a natural and a perpetual con-
flict between politics and history. That is, politics seems to
tend constantly to pervert the truth of history. But whether
this conflict is real or apparent depends in part upon the
definition of history and the definition of the historic spirit.
History is usually conceived as a true presentation of the
past experiences of mankind. The true historic spirit is that
disposition of mind which keeps the faculties at their best in
seeing all that is true in the past and in fully and accurately
reporting all that is seen.
When the expert naturalist describes a species of animals his
testimony is accepted by the scientific world. The modern
scientific spirit has freed the scientist from prejudice. In the
observing and reporting of material phenomena almost no
motive exists for deception or lying. The animal does not tes-
tify of himself. Biology is wholly a science of observation.
But when we come to deal with a human being the case is alto-
gether different. The thing of chief interest about man is what
he thinks and says of himself. If man is studied after the
analogy of natural history his distinctive characteristics are
omitted.
Some of our historians who have tried to present to our view
the early Germanic institutions find, or think they find, groups
of families and kinsfolk united into a sort of free township. It
is believed that these freemen in the township were accustomed
to meet and attend to matters of common interest. The first
184 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
that we know about a society of human beings is that the
members of the society are in trouble of some sort and are try-
ing to devise ways and means of extricating themselves from
their diflaculties. We are told that in settling specific disputes
in the primordial society the old men were called upon to
declare what was the ancient custom, in order that the custom
might be followed in settling the dispute. In such a case sev-
eral interesting questions arise which the historian can not
afford to neglect : (1) Would an old man at such a time follow
the example of some modern Christian statesman and deliber-
ately lie about the ancient custom in order to serve the party
of his choice? (2) Would he allow partisan bias growing out
of the dispute to cause him to receive into his consciousness
only a partial view of the ancient custom? (3) Would he ful-
fill the yet unattained ideal of the Christian and the scientist
and place his mind at its best in its contact with all past
experiences, and would he report fully and impartially all that
he remembered ? If history is past politics we may reasonably
conclude that some of the old men in reporting past customs
would consciously make false reports j others would allow par-
tisan prejudice to increase the defects of memory. liTone of
them would be wholly scientific or wholly Christian. It is
probable that no people ever made record of a custom except
the custom had to do with the settlement of their diflficulties.
In partisan contests and in the adapting of old customs to new
conditions there have always existed motives for misrepresent-
ing the past. There have thus come to be two parts to his-
tory: (1) That which is objectively true j (2) That which is
not true yet is believed and followed. Erroneous beliefs have
had a large share in the making of history. If the old man in
the ancient township persuaded the citizens that the former
custom was other than it was in fact, so that they acted in
accordance with his erroneous view, it was their error which
was wrought into the institutions. The important thing about
the Constitution of the United States is not so much what the
fathers did a century ago as what is believed and acted upon
today. Magna Charta would be simply a bit of curious antiq-
uity were it not for erroneous beliefs which have been associ-
ated with it. In the days of King John it had not entered into
the heart of living man to conceive of the things that were to
be believed of Magna Charta. To the citizen of the nineteenth
century the charter stands for liberty. In the days of John
THE RELATION OF HISTORY TO POLITICS — MACY. 185
and for centuries later the word liberty usually meant the
privilege of a class. Gardiner quotes a passage in which a
town is shown to be greatly attached to its ancient liberty of
putting people into stocks. The privileges of a class become
the liberty of all only when class interests are seen to be
merged into the common interest j and in this change the word
liberty gains a new meaning.
What, then, must the historian do? He must not surrender
his ideal j he must still strive to represent all past experiences
of mankind. But to do this he must take large account of the
part played by erroneous beliefs. Some erroneous beliefs are
not far removed from that which is highest and most charac-
teristic of man. When an old man talks of his childhood it is
not of the actual childhood which he experienced j it is an
idealized, glorified childhood, enriched by long years of reflec-
tion and observation. There is in man the consciousness of an
unattained destiny. He feels himself to be a victim, but he is
never an altogether hopeless victim. There is always present
some ideal of the yet unattained. Patrick Henry was mistaken
when he said, " I have but one lamp by which my feet are
guided, and that is the lamp of experience." That which is
hoped for and has not been experienced has ever served as a
lamp to guide the feet of men. The unattained has always
formed a part of partisan politics. The perverting of history
for the sake of a partisan advantage is in part due to an eftbrt
to actualize an ideal by reading it into past history.
It is this fact which has given rise to the saying that poets
and novelists are our best historians. I have not a particle of
sympathy with this saying. Poetry and fiction are great aids
to the historian, provided he knows how to use them. But if
they are viewed as substitutes for history then they become
his most subtle enemies. The historian must ever strive for
the actual. However hopeless may seem to be the task, the
historian must strive to distinguish between what has been
believed about the past and what is true of the past. To ena-
ble him to do this he should acquaint himself with actual poli-
tics, present and past. He should know how current political
life is related to past events. He should know how current
political life is affected by a striving after an unattained ideal.
No other original source of history can be compared in impor-
tance with present politics.
The first territorial legislature in Iowa passed an elaborate
186 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
statute providing for a system of free schools. Yet a free
school system did not exist in the State till twenty years later.
The men who made the first law have informed me that they
knew at the time that there were to be no free schools, but that
they intended th e law to serve as an advertising agency in the
East. By this means they intended to induce people who
believed in free schools to come to the Territory. They hoped
that the time might come when free schools would exist. What
student of original sources of history would interpret aright
this statute if he had no source of information but the statute
itself ? We learn from actual politics that a positive statute
sometimes expresses an ideal, a hope, or an aspiration; some-
times it is an advertising agency. Some laws do not express
anything intelligible even to the wisest of those who make them.
Some laws may be accounted for only by the fact that restless
men are confined to a room several hours in a day for certain
months in a year with nothing to do but to make laws. Suppose
now a student who, ignorant of actual politics, should under-
take to construct a history out of the bare statutes of a nation.
A knowledge of politics is essential to the correct reading and
the correct writing of history. The per feet historian will be in
politics, but he will not be of that part of politics which toler-
ates the perverting of the facts of history.
There has been in the world for thousands of years an ideal
of a society all of whose members are lovers of the truth. From
this society all who love or make a lie are excluded. Accord-
ing to this ancient Christian ideal it is the duty of man to have
his mind ever ready to believe all truth. The actual Christian
of history has not fulfilled this ideal. He has been subject to
prejudices as have other men. The Christian has found it to
be comparatively easy to preserve a truth-loving and a truth-
telling spirit while dealing with some of his own states of mind;
but to preserve the same spirit while dealing with the present
evil world has been too much for him. To preserve his integrity
he has been inclined to withdraw from the evil world and to
occupy himself in the contemplation of an unseen world. The
stress of politics has induced the Christian to obscure and
practically to obliterate his ideal by dividing truth into depart-
ments which he calls higher and lower, essential and non-
essential. When a lower truth seems to be in conflict with a
so-called higher truth, the lower truth does not receive fair
treatment. As an incident to the rapid advancement of physical
THE RELATION OF HISTORY TO POLITICS — MACY. 187
science this ancient Christian ideal has been restated and has
received a new name. The men who are devoting their lives
to the advancement of science are dependent at every stage
upon the testimony of others. One observer can see only a
small part of the phenomena which he is obliged to treat. The
select world of scientists has ruthlessly cast from their midst all
scientific blunderers, deceivers, and liars. They will have only
those who have the scientific spirit. By this they mean those
who at all times maintain a truth-loving and truth- telling habit
in the observing and the reporting of phenomena. The scientist
would usually assent to the theory that what he calls the scien-
tific spirit is applicable to every sort of knowledge. Stated in
this form it is identical with the ancient Christian ideal. But
the scientist^ like the Christian, has not been able to realize
his ideal outside of a limited field where the motive for lying
is almost wholly lacking. The scientist wrecks his high ideal
the instant he enters politics and history, where beliefs and not
external phenomena are the dominant factors. Here fialsehood
and deception seem to be great social forces, and they appear
to be susceptible to a beneficent use. If the scientist follows
appearances in politics as he does in physics, he becomes
naturally a Machiavellian, and recognizes lying as a great
political force. The stress of politics causes the scientist, like the
Christian, to divide knowledge into departments. In the study
of matter he maintains a truth-loving and a truth-telling spirit.
But in the study of the relations of man to man in society,
deception and lying are admitted as a working hypothesis
though the scientist is careful to say that this sort of knowl-
edge is not scientific, and that the pursuit of it lacks something
of the scientific spirit.
It will be observed that the scientist is strong where the
Christian is weak, and that the Christian is strong where
the scientist is weak. The one in dealing with external phe-
nomena j the other in dealing with beliefs, with self-knowledge,
with unattained ideals.
The historian, for his own ends, must do what neither scien-
tist nor Christian has yet been able to do j that is, he must
maintain a truth-loving and a truth-telling spirit in the field of
active politics. It is the high mission of the historian to mark
out a way in which all lovers of truth may unite in removing
the lie from politics. With this achievement the apparent
conflict between history and politics would cease. Without
188 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
this achievement history can not be wholly trustworthy, or
wholly trustworthy history will not be believed. Without this
achievement there can be no political science worthy of the
name. Without this achievement man will continue to be a
victim of force, and will gain political wisdom chiefly through
suffering.
XVIL-EARLY LEAD-MINING IN ILLINOIS AND WISCONSIN.
By REUBEN GOLD THWAITES,
OF MADISON, WISCONSIN.
EARLY LEAD-MINING IN ILLINOIS AND WISCONSIN.
By Reuben Gold Thwaitbs.
No evidence exists, nor is it probable, that the aboriginal
inhabitants of the Upper Mississippi Yalley made any consider-
able use of lead previous to the appearance among them of
French explorers, missionaries, and fur-traders. The French
were continually on the search for beds of mineral, and closely
questioned the Indians regarding their probable whereabouts.
The savages appear to have soon made known to the whites
the deposits of lead in the "Fever Eiver tract," which now
embraces the counties of Grant, Iowa, and Lafayette, in Wis-
consin; Jo Daviess and Carroll counties, in Illinois; Dubuque
County, in Iowa ; and portions of eastern Missouri. This is one
of the richest lead-bearing regions in the world, and when
once brought to the notice of the pioneers of Kew France its
fame became widespread. The French introduced firearms
among the ^N'orthwestern Indians, inducing them to hunt fur-
bearing animals on a large scale, and lead immediately assumed
a value in the eyes of the latter, both for use as bullets in their
own weapons and as an article of traffic with the traders.
It is probable that the Wisconsin and Illinois Indians were
first visited by Nicolet, in 1634. We know the story of the
fright he occasioned among the savages at Green Bay by his
discharge of pistols, and how they were disposed to worship
him as a manitou, carrying thunder and lightning in his hands.
No doubt he made the Wisconsin aborigines quite familiar with
the use of gunpowder before his return homeward. Those
adventurous traders, Eadisson and Groseilliers, were in the
Northwest in 1658-59, and appear to have heard of the lead
mines in the neighborhood of Dubuque.
The journals of Marquette (1673) and La Hontan (1689) speak
of the mineral wealth of the Upper Mississippi country; but
they appear never to have seen the mines themselves, and
*Aii abstract of a more detailed study of the topic, as yet unpublished.
191
192 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
misunderstanding their informants, concluded that the deposits
were of gold, silver, and copper. Hennepin's map of 1687 has
a lead mine located in the neighborhood of where Galena now
is, showing that he had very close information regarding it 5
and Joutel, who was in the country the same year, speaks spe-
cifically of the good lead mines *^at the upper part of the Mis-
sissippi."
Indeed, by this time the Wisconsin and Illinois Indians must
have had a considerable traffic in the ore with wandering
traders and couriers des bois, of whose presence in the region
we catch faint glimpses in the earliest records of exploration.
Ko doubt many roving Frenchmen were in the country soon
after Eadisson and Groseilliers, although few of them have
left any traces of their presence in the literature of the period.
Nicholas Perrot, the commandant of the French in the North-
west, visited the mines in 1690, building a log trading post on
the east side of the river, opposite Dubuque, and spent some
time in smelting ore.
Nine years later Le Seuer, a merchant adventurer, who had
had much previous experience in the Wisconsin forests, came
over with D'Iberville's second expedition to Louisiana, and
with twenty miners ascended the Mississippi intent on explor-
ing the mines on behalf of the French king. He worked some
ore in the now deserted Perrot mine, and also at the lead after-
wards known as " Snake diggings," near Potosi, Wis., but
returned to France without developing the industry.
In 1712, Louis XIY. granted to Sieur Anthony Orozat a
monopoly of trading and mining privileges in Louisiana — which
then included the entire Mississippi valley — for a term of fifteen
years. But Crozat does not appear to have touched the lead
mines, though doubtless the English traders who freely poached
on the French domain, and the wandering couriers des hois, had
more or less traffic with Indians for ore, both to meet present
necessities and home demand. In 1715 La Mothe Cadillac,
governor of Louisiana and founder of Detroit, went up to the
Illinois country in search of reputed sUver mines, but carried
back only lead ore.
Crozat's monopoly was resigned to John Law's Company of
the West in 1719, but the lead region appears to have been
uninfluenced by the brief " boom" which was inaugurated by
that ill-timed enterprise. We find references in the records of
New France to spasmodic lead mining in 1719 and 1722, and
XVIII.-THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FRONTIER IN AMERICAN
HISTORY.
By PROFESSOR FREDERICK J. TURNER,
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
197
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FRONTIER IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
By Frederick J. Turner.
In a recent bulletin of the Superintendent of the Census for
1890 appear these significant words : " Up to and including
1880 the country had a frontier of settlement, but at present
the unsettled area has been so broken into by isolated bodies
of settlement that there can hardly be said to be a frontier
line. In the discussion of its extent, its westward movement,
etc., it can not, therefore, any longer have a place in the cen-
sus reports." This brief official statement marks the closing
of a great historic movement. Up to our own day American
history has been in a large degree the history of the coloniza-
tion of the Great West. The existence of an area of free land,
its continuous recession, and the advance of American settle-
ment westward, explain American development.
Behind institutions, behind constitutional forms and modi-
fications, lie the .vital, forces that call these organs into life
and shape them to meet changing conditions. The peculi-
arity of American institutions is, the fact that they have been
compelled to adapt themselves to the changes of an expand-
ing people — to the changes involved in crossing a continent,
in winning a wilderness, and in developing at each area of
this progress out of the primitive economic and political con-
ditions of the frontier into the complexity of city life. Said
Calhoun in 1817, "We are great, and rapidly — I was about to
say fearfully — growing !" t So saying, he touched the distin-
guishing feature of American life. All peoples show develop-
ment; the germ theory of politics has been sufficiently empha-
sized. In the case of most nations, however, the development
* Since the meeting of the American Historical Association, this paper
has also been given as an address to the State Historical Society of Wis-
consin, December 14, 1893. I have to thank the Secretary of the Society,
Mr. Reuben G. Thwaites, for securing valuable material for my use in the
preparation of the paper.
tAbridgment of Debates of Congress, v., p. 706.
199
200 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
has occurred in a limited area 5 and if the nation has expanded,
it has met other growing peoples whom it has conquered. But
in the (?ase of the United States we have a different phenom-
enon. Limiting our attention to the Atlantic coast, we have
the famihar phenomenon of the evolution of institutions in a
limited area, such as the rise of representative government;
the differentiation of simple colonial governments into com-
plex organs; the progress from primitive industrial society,
without division of labor, up to manufacturing civilization.
But we have in addition to this a recurrence of the process
of evolution in each western area reached in the process of
expansion. Thus American development has exhibited not
merely advance along a single line, but a return to primitive
conditions on a continually advancing frontier line, and a new
development for that area. American social development has
been continually beginning over again on the frontier. This
perennial rebirth, this fluidity of American life, this expansion
westward with its new opportunities, its continuous touch with
the simplicity of primitive society, furnish the forces dominat-
ing American character. The true point of view in the history
of this nation is not the Atlantic coast, it is the great West.
Even the slavery struggle, which is made so exclusive an
object of attention by writers like Prof, von Hoist, occupies its
important place in American history because of its relation to
westward expansion.
In this advance, the frontier is the outer edge of the wave —
the meeting point between savagery and civilization. Much has
been written about the frontier from the point of view of bor-
der warfare and the chase, but as a field for the serious study
of the economist and the historian it has been neglected.
The American frontier is sharply distinguished from the
European frontier— a fortified boundary line running through
dense populations. The most significant thing about the
American frontier is, that it lies at the hither edge of free land.
In the census reports it is treated as the margin of that settle-
ment which has a density of two or more to the square mile.
The term is an elastic one, and for our purposes does not need
sharp definition. We shall consider the whole frontier belt,
including the Indian country and the outer margin of the
" settled area" of the census reports. This paper will make
no attempt to treat the subject exhaustively; its aim is simply
to call attention to the frontier as a fertile field for investiga-
FRONTIER IN AMERICAN HISTORY — TURNER. 201
tion, and to suggest some of the problems which arise in con-
nection with it.
In the settlement of America we have to observe how Euro- 1
l)ean life entered the continent, and how America modified
and developed that life and reacted on Europe. Our early-
history is the study of European germs developing in an
American environment. Too exclusive attention has been
paid by institutional students to the Germanic origins, too
little to the American factors. The frontier is the line of |
most rapid and effective Americanization. The wilderness '
masters the colonist. It finds him a European in dress, indus-
tries, tools, modes of travel, and thought. It takes him from
the railroad car and puts him in the birch canoe. It strips off
the garments of civilization and arrays him in the hunting
shirt and the moccasin. It puts him in the log cabin of the
Cherokee and Iroquois and runs an Indian palisade around
him. Before long he has gone to planting Indian corn and
plowing with a sharp stick; he shouts the war cry and takes
the scalp in orthodox Indian fashion. In short, at the fron- \
tier the environment is at first too strong for the man. He
must accept the conditions which it furnishes, or perish, and
so he fits himself into the Indian clearings and follows the
Indian trails. Little by little he transforms the wilderness,
but the outcome is not the old Europe, not simply the devel-
opment of Germanic germs, any more than the first phenom-
enon was a case of reversion to the Germanic mark. The fact
is, that here is a new product that is American. At first, the
frontier was the Atlantic coast. It was the frontier of Europe
in a very real sense. Moving westward, the frontier became }
more and more American. As successive terminal moraines
result from successive glaciations, so each frontier leaves its
traces behind it, and when it becomes a settled area the region
still partakes of the frontier characteristics. Thus the advance >
of the frontier has meant a steady movement away from the
influence of Europe, a steady growth of independence on \
American lines. And to study this advance, the men who
grew up under these conditions, and the political, economic,
and social results of it, is to study the really American part
of our history.
202 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
STAGES OF FRONTIER ADVANCE.
In the course of the seventeenth century the frontier was
advanced up the Atlantic river courses, just beyond the "fall
line, " and the tidewater region became the settled area. In
the first half of the eighteenth century another advance
occurred. Traders followed the Delaware and Shawnese
Indians to the Ohio as early as the end of the first quarter of
the century.* Gov. Spots wood, of Virginia, made an expedi-
tion in 1714 across the Blue Eidge. The end of the first quarter
of the century saw the advance of the Scotch-Irish and the
Palatine Germans up the Shenandoah Yalley into the west-
ern part of Yirginia, and along the Piedmont region of the
Carolinas.t The Germans in New Tork pushed the fron-
tier of settlement up the Mohawk to German Flats.f In Penn-
sylvania the town of Bedford indicates the line of settlement.
Settlements had begun on New Biver, a branch of the Kana-
wha, and on the sources of the Yadkin and French Broad.§
The King attempted to arrest the advance by his proclamation
of 1763,11 forbidding settlements beyond the sources of the
rivers flowing into the Atlantic J but in vain. In the period
of the Ee volution the frontier crossed the Alleghanies into
Kentucky and Tenneseee, and the upper waters of the Ohio
were settled.^ When the first census was taken in 1790, the
continuous settled area was bounded by a line which ran near
the coast of Maine, and included New England except a portion
of Yermont and New Hampshire, New York along the Hudson
and up the Mohawk about Schenectady, eastern and southern
Pennsylvania, Yirginia well across the Shenandoah Yalley,
* Bancroft (I860 ed.), Ill, pp. 344, 345, citing Logan MSS. ; [Mitchell]
Contest in America, etc. (1752), p. 237.
t Kercheval, History of the Valley; Bernheim, German Settlements in
the Carolinas; Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, v, p.
304; Colonial Records of North Carolina, Iv, p. xx; Weston, Documents
Connected with the History of South Carolina, p. 82; Ellis and Evans,
History of Lancaster County, Pa., chs. iii, xxvi.
tParkman, Pontiac, ii; Griffis, Sir William Johnson, p. 6; Simms's
Frontiersmen of New York.
§ Monette, Mississippi Valley, i, p. 311.
II Wis. Hist. Cols., XI, p. 50; Hinsdale, Old Northwest, p. 121; Burke,
*' Oration on Conciliation," Works (1872 ed.), i, p. 473.
H Roosevelt, Winning of the West, and citations there given; Cutler's
Life of Cutler.
FRONTIER IN AMERICAN HISTORY — TURNER. 203
and tlie Garolinas and eastern Georgia.* Beyond this region
of continuous settlement were the small settled areas of Ken-
tucky and Tennessee, and the Ohio, with the mountains inter-
vening between them and the Atlantic area, thus giving a new
and important character to the frontier. The isolation of the
region increased its peculiarly American tendencies, and the
need of transportation facilities to connect it with the East
called out important schemes of internal improvement, which
will be noted farther on. The "West,'' as a self-conscious
section, began to evolve.
From decade to decade distinct advances of the frontier
occurred. By the census of 1820 1 the settled area included
Ohio, southern Indiana and Illinois, southeastern Missouri, and
about one-half of Louisiana. This settled area had surrounded
Indian areas, and the management of these tribes became an
object of political concern. The frontier region of the time lay
along the Great Lakes, where Astor's American Fur Company
operated in the Indian trade,f and beyond the Mississippi,
where Indian traders extended their activity even to the
Eocky Mountains; Florida also furnished frontier conditions.
The Mississippi Eiver region was the scene of typical frontier
settlements. §
* Scribner's Statistical Atlas, xxxviii, pi. 13 ; MacMaster, Hist, of Peo-
ple of U. S., I, pp. 4, 60, 61; Imlay and Filson, Western Territory of
America (London, 1793) ; Rochefoucault-Liancourt, Travels Through the
United States of North America (London, 1799) ; Michaux's ^' Journal," in
Proceedings American Philosophical Society, xxvi, No. 129; Forman,
Narrative of a Journey Down the Ohio and Mississippi m 1780-'90 (Cincin-
nati, 1888); Bartram, Travels Through North Carolina, etc. (London,
1792); Pope, Tour Through the Southern and Western Territories, etc.
(Richmond, 1792) ; Weld, Travels Through the States of North America
(London, 1799) ; Baily, Journal of a Tour in the Unsettled States of North
America, 1796 -'97 (London, 1856) ; Pennsylvania Magazine of History, July,
1886 ; Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, vii, pp. 491,
492, citations.
t Scribner's Statistical Atlas, xxxix.
t Turner, Character and Influence of the Indian Trade in Wisconsin
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, Series ix), pp. 61 ff.
§Monette, History of the Mississippi Valley, ii; Flint, Travels and
Residence in Mississippi ; Flint, Geography and History of the Western
States; Abridgment of Debates of Congress, vii, pp. 397, 398,404; Holmes,
Account of the U. S. ; Kingdom, America and the British Colonies (Lon-
don, 1820); Grund, Americans, ii, chs. i, iii, vi (although writing in
1836, he treats of conditions that grew out of western advance from the
204 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
The rising steam navigation* on western waters, the opening
of the Erie Canal, and the westward extension of cotton t culture
added five frontier states to the Union in this period. Grund,
writing in 1836, declares : " It appears then that the universal
disposition of Americans to emigrate to the western wilderness,
in order to enlarge their dominion over inanimate nature, is the
actual result of an expansive power which is inherent in them,
and which by continually agitating all classes of society is
constantly throwing a large portion of the whole population
on the extreme confines of the State, in order to gain space for
its development. Hardly is a new State or Territory formed
before the same principle manifests itself again and gives rise
to a further emigration; and so is it destined to go on until a
physical barrier must finally obstruct its progress." J
In the middle of this century the line indicated by the present
eastern boundary of Indian Territory, Nebraska, and Kansas
marked the frontier of the Indian country. § Minnesota and
era of 1820 to that time); Peck, Guide for Emigrants (Boston, 1831);
Darby, Emigrants' Guide to Western and Southwestern States and Terri-
tories; Dana, Geographical Sketches in the Western Country; Kinzie,
Waubun ; Keating, Narrative of Long's Expedition ; Schoolcraft, Discovery
of the Sources of the Mississippi River, Travels in the Central Portions of
the Mississippi Valley, and Lead Mines of the Missouri; Andreas, History
of Illinois, I, 86-99 ; Hurlbut, Chicago Antiquities ; McKenney, Tour to
the Lakes; Thomas, Travels through the Western Country, etc. (Auburn,
N. Y., 1819),
* Darby, Emigrants' Guide, pp. 272 ff. ; Benton, Abridgment of Debates,
VII, p, 397.
tDe Bow's Review, iv, p. 254; xvii,"p. 428.
t Grund, Americans, ii, p. 8.
$ Peck, New Guide to the West (Cincinnati, 1848), ch. iv; Parkman,
Oregon Trail; Hall, The West (Cincinnati, 1848); Pierce, Incidents of
Western Travel ; Murray, Travels in North America ; Lloyd, Steamboat
Directory (Cincinnati, 1856); ''Forty Days in a Western Hotel" (Chi-
cago), in Putnam's Magazine, December, 1894; Mackay, The Western
World, II, ch. II, III ; Meeker, Life in the West ; Bogen, German in Amer-
ica (Boston, 1851); Olmstead, Texas Journey; Greeley, Recollections of a
Busy Life; Schouler, History of the United States, v, 261-267; Peyton,
Over the Alleghanies and Across the Prairies (London, 1870) ; Loughbor-
ough, The Pacific Telegraph and Railway (St. Louis, 1849); Whitney,
Project for a Railroad to the Pacific (New York, 1849); Peyton, Sugges-
tions on Railroad Communication with the Pacific, and the Trade of
China and the Indian Islands; Benton, Highway to the Pacific (a speech
delivered in the U. S, Senate, December 16, 1850).
EARLY LEAD-MINING IN ILL. AND WIS. — THWAITES. 195
many Sacs and Foxes who had married with the Winnebago
tribes. Some of these Foxes, irritated by representatives of
the American Fur Company who purchased Indian lead along
the Fever Eiver, made no small amount of trouble for Dubuque,
The United States assumed possession of Louisiana in 1804,
and from that time forward Americans appeared in the lead
mines, although, as representatives of a land- grabbing race,
they found little favor with the Indians; the latter preferred
the volatile French, who were in greater sympathy with them,
and who did not care to make the wilderness blossom as the
rose.
In 1811 we find George E. Jackson, a Missouri miner, build-
ing a rude low furnace on an island in the Mississippi, near
East Dubuque, and floating his lead to St. Louis by flatboats,
although meeting with much opposition from the savages, who
bitterly hated all Americans.
In 1810 Nicholas Boilvin, United States Indian agent at
Prairie du Chien, went on foot from Eock Island to the mouth
of the Wisconsin, and reported that the Indians of the region
had "mostly abandoned the chase, except to furnish themselves
with meat, and turned their attention to the manufacture of
lead." He states that that year they had made 200 tons of
the metal, which they had exchanged for goods, mainly with
Canadian traders, who were continually inciting them to oppo-
sition against Americans.
Nine years later (1819) some American traders, who at-
tempted to go among the Sac and Fox miners and run oppo-
sition to the Canadians, were killed. This same year there
appears to have been a more general movement on the lead
region on the part of the Americans. The hostile Indians
were browbeaten at a treaty held at Prairie du Chien, and
Jesse W. Shull, the founder of ShuUsburg, Wis., erected a
trading post in the vicinity of where is now Galena. The
same or the following year Col. James Johnson, of Kentucky,
came into the district and worked mines, carrying his product
to St. Louis by flatboat. In 1822 he took out a lease from the
national government, and under strong military protection
encamped with a party of negro slaves where Galena now
stands, and commenced operations on the most extensive scale
yet known in the lead country. There were at the time several
French miners on Fever Eiver, and one or more American trad-
ing posts.
196 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
On the heels of Johnson there at once flocked to the Galena
region a crowd of squatters and prospectors from Missouri,
Kentucky, and Tennessee, while many came from southern
Illinois. In 1825 there were in the Fever Eiver diggings about
100 persons engaged in mining; in 1826 the number rose to
453, while across the river in Missouri there were fully 2,000
men thus employed — "miners, teamsters, and laborers of every
kind (including slaves)" — but some of these were farmers,
who, with their slaves, spent only their spare time in the mines.
West of the great river the heirs of Spanish claimants held
that the mines were private property, and American pros-
pectors were warned off. This fact helped the development
of the Fever Eiver district to the east of the Mississippi.
In 1827 the name Galena was applied to the largest settlement
on the Fever. In 1829 the heaviest American immigration
set in, and from that time the history of lead mining in the
Fever Eiver district is familiar. Four years later (1833) the
Spanish and Indian titles in Missouri having been cleared,
mining operations recommenced there upon an extended scale.
FRONTIER IN AMERICAN HISTORY — TURNER.
205
Wisconsin still exhibited frontier conditions,* but the dis-
tinctive frontier of the period is found in California, where
the gold discoveries had sent a sudden tide of adventurous
miners, and in Oregon, and the settlements in Utah.t As the
frontier has leaped over the AUeghanies, so now it skipped
the Great Plains and the Eocky Mountains j and in the same
way that the advance of the frontiersmen beyond the Alle-
ghanies had caused the rise of important questions of trans-
portation and internal improvement, so now the settlers beyond
the Eocky Mountains needed means of communication with
the East, and in the furnishing of these arose the settlement
of the Great Plains and the development of still another kind
of frontier life. Eailroads, fostered by land grants, sent an
increasing tide of immigrants into the far West. The United
States Army fought a series of Indian wars in Minnesota,
Dakota, and the Indian Territory.
By 1880 the settled area had been pushed into northern
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, along Dakota rivers, and
in the Black Hills region, and was ascending the rivers of Kan-
sas and i^ebraska. The development of mines in Colorado had
drawn isolated frontier settlements into that region, and Mon-
tana and Idaho were receiving settlers. The frontier was found
in these mining camps and the ranches of the Great Plains.
The superintendent of the census for 1890 reports, as i)reviously
stated, that the settlements of the West lie so scattered over
the region that there can no longer be said to be a frontier line.
In these successive frontiers we find natural boundary lines
which have served to mark and to affect the characteristics of
the frontiers, namely: The "fall line j " the Alleghany Moun-
tains j the Mississippi J the Missouri, where its direction ap-
proximates north and south 5 the line of the arid lands, approx-
imately the ninety-ninth meridian; and the Eocky Mountains.
The fall line marked the frontier of the seventeenth century j
the AUeghanies that of the eighteenth; the Mississippi that of
* A writer in The Home Missionary (1850), p. 239, reporting Wisconsin
conditions, exclaims: "Think of this, people of the enlightened East.
What an example, to come from the very frontiers of civilization !" But
one of the missionaries writes : ''In a few years Wisconsin will no longer
be considered as the West, or as an outpost of civilization, any more than
western New York, or the Western Reserve/'
tBancroft (H. H.), History of California, History of Oregon, and Pop-
ular Tribunals ; Shinn, Mining Camps.
206 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
the first quarter of the nineteenth j the Missouri that of the
middle of this century (omitting the California movement) ; and
the belt of the Rocky Mountains and the arid tract, the pres-
ent frontier. Each was won by a series of Indian wars.
THE FRONTIER FURNISHES A FIELD FOR COMPARATIVE
STUDY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
At the Atlantic frontier one can study the germs of proces-
ses repeated at each successive frontier. We have the complex
European life sharply precipitated by the wilderness into the
simplicity of primitive conditions. The first frontier had to
meet its Indian question, its question of the disposition of the
public domain, of the means of intercourse with older settle-
ments, of the extension of political organization, of religious
and educational activity. And the settlement of these and
similar questions for one frontier served as a guide for the next.
The American student needs not to go to the '^ prim little town-
ships of Sleswick" for illustrations of the law of continuity and
development. For example^ he may study the origin of our
land policies in the colonial land policy; he may see how the
system grew by adapting the statutes to the customs of the
successive frontiers.* He may see how the mining experience
in the lead regions of Wisconsin, Illinois, and Iowa was applied
to the mining laws of the Eockies,t and how our Indian policy
has been a series of experimentations on successive frontiers.
Each tier of new States has found in the older ones material
for its constitutions.^: Each frontier has made similar contri-
butions to American character, as will be discussed farther on.
But with all these similarities there are essential differences,
due to the place element and the time element. It is evident
that the farming frontier of the Mississippi Valley presents
different conditions from the mining frontier of the liocky
Mountains. The frontier reached by the Pacific Eailroad, sur-
veyed into rectangles, guarded by the United States Army, and
recruited by the daily immigrant ship, moves forward at a
swifter pace and in a different way than the frontier reached
by the birch canoe or the pack horse. The geologist traces
* See the suggestive paper by Prof. Jesse Macy, The Institutional Begin-
nings of a Western State.
+ Shiun, Mining Camps.
t Compare Thorpe, in Annals American Academy of Political and Social
Science, September, 1891 ; Bryce, American Commonwealth(1888), ii, p. 689.
EARLY LEAD-MINING IN ILL. AND WIS. THWAITES. 193
DothiDg further about the enterprise until 1743, when one Le
Guis gave an account of the methods of eighteen or twenty
miners then operating in the Fever river region : ^< a fast lot,"
he says 5 ^^ every man working for himself, and only getting
enough to earn him a bare existence for the rest of the year."
Hollow cob-houses of logs were reared, the center being filled
with mineral, and then as much wood as possible was piled on
top and around, the mass being fired — with the result that a
portion of the ore was smelted, running into trenches dug in
the ground. This operation had sometimes to be repeated
three times. Le Guis deemed this wasteful, yet similar meth-
ods had long been in vogue among the Indians, and indeed
were practiced by American miners of later days until the
introduction of the Drummond blast furnace, about 1836. In
spite of the bad system of the French, it is recorded that in 1741
some 90 tons of pig metal were taken out, the men working
but four or five months in the year.
In 1762 France ceded the eastern half of the Mississippi val-
ley to England, and secretly yielded up the western half to
Spain. Frenchmen continued, however, for many years to be
the only operators of the mines. By the year 1770 St. Gene-
vieve had become a notable market for lead, which was, next
to peltries, the most imi)ortant and valuable export of the
upper Mississippi country, and served as currency, the rate of
exchange being for many years a peck of corn for a peck of ore.
This lead trade was afterward removed to St. Louis when that
town began to control the commerce of the region. It was
stated by a careful annalist that the profits of the miners were
in those days quite considerable — men working on their own
account often taking out $30 per day for weeks together, while
the traders who handled the product made cent per cent for
the capital invested.
During the Eevolutionary war, as seen from the Haldimand
Papers, the western armies of both contending forces had fre-
quent skirmishes over the lead supply from the Fever Eiver
and Dubuque sections, and Spanish traders reaped gain from
the rivalry over this important munition of war.
Julien Dubuque was the most notable character among the
miners of the last dozen years of the eighteenth century and
the first ten of the nineteenth. He had made rich discoveries
of lead in the bluffs and ravines adjoining the present site of
the Iowa town which bears his name. To curry favor with
S. Mis. 104 13
194 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
tlie Spanish, then in possession of the soil, lie called his dig-
gings "The Spanish mines "j and indeed there is no doubt
that some years previous, Spaniards had carried on extensive
works there, for he found substantial roads through the dis-
trict for the transport of ore 5 and very likely Indians had
mined there full a century before, to obtain bullets for the
guns they had procured from the early French fur traders.
By Dubuque's time, the Indians had become quite expert in
lead mining, their operations being then chiefly confined to
their lodes on Fever Eiver. As a rule they only skimmed the
surface, although occasionally they drifted into sidehiUs for
some distance, and when they reached " cap rock " would build
a fire under it and crack it by dashing cold water on the heated
surface. Their tools, in the earliest times, were buck horns,
many of which were found in abandoned drifts by the early
white settlers 5 but in Dubuque's time they obtained iron imple-
ments from the traders to whom they sold their lead. The
Indians loaded their ore in the shafts, into tough deer skins,
the bundle being hoisted to the surface or dragged up inclined
planes by long thongs of hide. Many of these Indian leads,
abandoned by the savages when the work of developing them
became too great for their simple tools, were afterwards taken
possession of by the whites and found to be among the best
in the region. On the other hand, a mine about a mile above
the site of Galena had been worked by Dubuque's men for
many years, and after his death in 1810 was continued by
Indians, who in 1819 made there the largest discovery of lead
ore up to that date, the entire force of the band being neces-
sary to raise the nugget to the surface. It was estimated the
following year that up to that time millions of pounds had
been extracted from this mine, known as the " Buck lead," by
the Indians and Dubuque's men — more than afterwards taken
by the American miners, despite the fact that it was one of
the richest mines in the region and came to be worked in a
scientific manner.
Dubuque was a rare favorite with the bulk of the Indians,
and was allowed fairly free range over their lands on both
sides of the river, his operations extending well up to the
Wisconsin line. The Sacs and Foxes were the owners of the
lead-mining district during the eighteenth century, but in 1804
relinquished their lands east of the river, and the gypsy Win-
nebagoes squatted in the region, although with them were
FRONTIER IN AMERICAN HISTORY — TURNER. 207
patiently the shores of ancient seas, maps their areas, and com-
pares the older and the newer. It would be a work worth the '
historian's labors to mark these various frontiers and in detail i
compare one with another. Not only would there result a more i
adequate conception of American development and character-
istics, but invaluable additions would be made to the history
of society.
Loria,* the Italian economist, has urged the study of colo-
nial life as an aid in understanding the stages of European
development, affirming that colonial settlement is for economic
science what the mountain is for geology, bringing to light
primitive stratifications. " America," he says, ^' has the key to
the historical enigma which Europe has sought for centuries in
vain, and the land which has no history reveals luminously the
course of universal history." There is much truth in this. The
Uijited States lies like a huge page in the history of society.
Line by line as we read this continental page from west to east
we find the record of social evolution. It begins with the
Indian and the hunter; it goes on to tell of the disintegration
of savagery by the entrance of the trader, the pathfinder of
civilization; we read the annals of the pastoral stage in ranch
life; the exploitation of the soil by the raising of unrotated
crops of corn and wheat in sparsely settled farming communi-
ties; the intensive culture of the denser farm settlement; and
finally the manufacturing organization with city and factory
system, t This page is familiar to the student of census sta-
tistics, but how little of it has been used by our historians.
Particularly in eastern States this page is a palimpsest.
What is now a manufacturing State was in an earlier decade
an area of intensive farming. Earlier yet it had been a wheat
area, and still earlier the ^' range" had attracted the cattle-
herder. Thus Wisconsin, now developing manufacture, is a
State with varied agricultural interests. But earlier it was
given over to almost exclusive grain-raising, like North Dakota
at the present time.
Each of these areas has had an influence in our economic
* Loria, Analisi della Proprieta Capitalista, ii., p. 15.
+ Compare Observations on the North American Land Company, London,
1796, pp. XV, 144; Logan, History of Upper South Carolina, i, pp. 149-151;
Turner, Character and Influence of Indian Trade in Wisconsin, p. 18 ; Peck,
New Guide for Emigrants (Boston, 1837), ch. iv; Compendium Eleventh
Census, i, p. xl.
208 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
and political history j the evolution of each into a higher
stage has worked political transformations. But what consti-
tutional historian has made any adequate attempt to interpret
pohtical facts by the light of these social areas and changes!*
The Atlantic frontier was compounded of fisherman, fur-
trader, miner, cattle-raiser, and farmer. Excepting the fisher-
man, each type of industry was on the march toward the West,
impelled by an irresistible attraction. Each i^assed in succes-
sive waves across the continent. Stand at Cumberland Gap
and watch the procession of civilization, marching single file —
the buffalo following the trail to the salt springs, the Indian,
the fur-trader and hunter, the cattle-raiser, the pioneer farmer —
and the frontier has passed by. Stand at South Pass in the
Eockies a century later and see the same procession with
wider intervals between. The unequal rate of advance com-
pels us to distinguish the frontier into the trader's frontier, the
rancher's frontier, or the miner's frontier, and the farmer's
frontier. When the mines and the cow pens were still near
the fall line the traders' pack trains were tinkling across the
Alleghanies, and the French on the Great Lakes were fortify-
ing their posts, alarmed by the British trader's birch canoe.
When the trappers scaled the Eockies, the farmer was still
near the mouth of the Missouri.
THE INDIAN TRADER'S FRONTIER.
Why was it that the Indian trader passed so rapidly across
the continent? What effects followed from the trader's
frontier? The trade was coeval with American discovery.
The Norsemen, Yespuccius, Yerrazani, Hudson, John Smith,
all trafficked for furs. The Plymouth pilgrims settled in Indian
cornfields, and their first return cargo was of beaver and lum-
ber. The records of the various New England colonies show
how steadily exploration was carried into the wilderness by
this trade. What is true for I^ew England is, as would be
expected, even plainer for the rest of the colonies. All along
the coast from Maine to Georgia the Indian trade opened up
the river courses. Steadily the trader passed westward,
utihzing the older lines of French trade. The Ohio, the Great
Lakes, the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Platte, the lines
of western advance, were ascended by traders. They found
* See pages 220, 221, 223, post, for illustrations of the political accompani-
ments of changed industrial conditions.
FRONTIER IN AMERICAN HISTORY — TURNER. 209
the passes in the Eocky Mountains and guided Lewis and
Clarke,* Fremont, and Bidwell. The explanation of the
rapidity of this advance is connected with the effects of the
trader on the Indian. The trading post left the unarmed
tribes at the mercy of those that had purchased fire-arms — a
truth which the Iroquois Indians wrote in blood, and so the
remote and unvisited tribes gave eager welcome to the trader.
"The savages," wrote La Salle, 'Hake better care of us French
than of their own children; from us only can they get guns
and goods." This accounts for the trader's power and the
rapidity of his advance. Thus the disintegrating forces of
civilization entered the wilderness. Every river valley and
Indian trail became a fissure in Indian society, and so that
society became honeycombed. Long before the pioneer farmer
appeared on the scene, primitive Indian life had passed away.
The farmers met Indians armed with guns. The trading
frontier, while steadily undermining Indian power by making
the tribes ultimately dependent on the whites, yet, through its
sale of guns, gave to the Indians increased power of resistance
to the farming frontier. French colonization was dominated'
by its trading frontier; English colonization by its farming i
frontier. There was an antagonism between the two frontiers '
as between the two nations. Said Duquesne to the Iroquois,
''Are you ignorant of the difference between the king of Eng-
land and the king of France? Go see the forts that our king
has established and you will see that you can still hunt under
their very walls. They have been i^laced for your advantage
in places which you frequent. The English, on the contrary,
are no sooner in possession of a place than the game is driven
away. The forest falls before them as they advance, and the
soil is laid bare so that you can scarce find the wherewithal to
erect a shelter for the night."
And yet, in spite of this opposition of the interests of the
trader and the farmer, the Indian trade pioneered the way
for civilization. The buffalo trail became the Indian trail,
and this because the trader's "trace;" the trails widened into
roads, and the roads into turnpikes, and these in turn were
transformed into railroads. The same origin can be shown
for the railroads of the South, the far West, and the Dominion
*But Lewis and Clarke were the first to explore the route from the
Missouri to the Columhia.
S. Mis. 104 14
210 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
of Canada.* The trading posts reached by these trails were
on the sites of Indian villages which had been placed in
positions suggested by nature 5 and these trading posts,
situated so as to command the water systems of the country,
have grown into such cities as Albany, Pittsburg, Detroit,
Chicago, St. Louis, Council Bluffs, and Kansas City. Thus
civilization in America has followed the arteries made by
geology, pouring an ever richer tide through them, until at
last the slender paths of aboriginal intercourse have been
broadened and interwoven into the complex mazes of modern
commercial lines; the wilderness has been interpenetrated by
lines of civilization growing ever more numerous. It is like
the steady growth of a complex nervous system for the
originally simple, inert continent. If one would understand
why we are to-day one nation, rather than a collection of
isolated states, he must study this economic and social con-
solidation of the country. In this progress from savage con-
ditions lie topics for the evolutionist, f
The effect of the Indian frontier as a consolidating agent in
our history is important. From the close of the seventeenth
century various intercolonial congresses have been called to
treat with Indians and establish common measures of defense.
Particularism was strongest in colonies with no Indian frontier.
This frontier stretched along the western border like a cord of
union. The Indian was a common danger, demanding united
action. Most celebrated of these conferences was the Albany
congress of 1754, called to treat with the Six Nations, and to
consider plans of union. Even a cursory reading of the plan
proposed by the congress reveals the importance of the frontier.
The powers of the general council and the officers were, chiefly,
the determination of peace and war with the Indians, the regu-
lation of Indian trade, the purchase of Indian lands, and the
creation and government of new settlements as a security
against the Indians. It is evident that the unifying tenden-
cies of the Eevolutionary period were facilitated by the previous
cooperation in the regulation of the frontier. In this connec-
tion may be mentioned the importance of the frontier, from
* Narrative and Critical History of America, viii, p. 10 ; Sparks' Wash-
ington Works, IX, pp. 303, 327; Logan, History of Upper South Carolina,
i; McDonald, Life of Kenton, p. 72; Cong. Record, xxiii, p. 57.
t On the effect of the fur trade in opening the routes of migration, see
the author's Character and Influence of the Indian Trade in Wisconsin.
FRONTIER IN AMERICAN HISTORY — TURNER. 211
that day to this, as a military training school, keeping alive
the power of resistance to aggression, and developing the stal-
wart and rugged qualities of the frontiersman.
THE rancher's FRONTIER.
It would not be possible in the limits of this paper to trace
the other frontiers across the continent. Travelers of the
eighteenth century found the "cowpens" among the cane-
brakes and pea vine pastures of the South, and the "cow
drivers" took their droves to Charleston, Philadelphia, and New
York.* Travelers at the close of the War of 1812 met droves
of more than a thousand cattle and swine from the interior of
Ohio going to Pennsylvania to fatten for the Philadelphia mar-
ket.! The ranges of the Great Plains, with ranch and cowboy
and nomadic life, are things of yesterday and of to-day. The
experience of the Carolina cowpens guided the ranchers of
Texas. One element favoring the rapid extension of the
rancher's frontier is the fact that in a remote country lacking
transportation facilities the product must be in small bulk, or
must be able to transport itself, and the cattle raiser could
easily drive his product to market. The effect of these great
ranches on the subsequent agrarian history of the localities in
which they existed should be studied.
THE FARMER'S FRONTIER.
The maps of the census reports show an uneven advance of
the farmer's frontier, with tongues of settlement pushed for-
ward and with indentations of wilderness. In part this is due
to Indian resistance, in part to the location of river valleys
and passes, in part to the unequal force of the centers of fron-
tier attraction. Among the important centers of attraction
may be mentioned the following : fertile and favorably situated
soils, salt springs, mines, and army posts.
ARMY POSTS.
The frontier army post, serving to protect the settlers from
the Indians, has also acted as a wedge to open the Indian
country, and has been a nucleus for settlement. | In this con-
* Lodge, English Colonies, p. 152 and citations; Logan, Hist, of Upper
South Carolina, i, p. 151.
t Flint, Recollections, p. 9.
tSee Monette, Mississippi Valley, i, p. 344.
212 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
nection mention should also be made of the Government mili-
tary and exploring expeditions in determining the lines of set-
tlement. But all the more important expeditions were greatly
indebted to the earliest pathmakers, the Indian guides, the
traders and trappers, and the French voyageurs, who were
inevitable parts of governmental exijeditions from the days of
Lewis and Clarke.* Each expedition was an epitome of the
previous factors in western advance.
SALT SPRINGS.
In an interesting monograph, Victor Hehn t has traced the
effect of salt upon early European development, and has
pointed out how it affected the lines of settlement and the form
of administration. A similar study might be made for the
salt springs of the United States. The early settlers were tied
to the coast by the need of salt, without which they could not
preserve their meats or live in comfort. Writing in 1752,
Bishop Spangenburg says of a colony for which he was seek-
ing lands in North Carolina, " They will require salt & other
necessaries which they can neither manufacture nor raise.
Either they must go to Charleston, which is 300 miles distant
* * * Or else they must go to Boling's Point in Y^ on a
branch of the James & is also 300 miles from here * * *
Or else tbey must go down the Roanoke— I know not how many
miles — where salt is brought up from the Cape Fear." | This
may serve as a typical illustration. An annual pilgrimage to
the coast for salt thus became essential.' Taking flocks or
furs and ginseng root, the early settlers sent their pack trains
after seeding time each year to the coast.§ This proved to be
an important educational influence, since it was almost the
only way in which the pioneer learned what was going on in
the East. But when discovery was made of the salt springs
of the Kanawha, and the Holston, and Kentucky, and central
New York, the West began to be freed from dependence on
the coast. It was in part the effect of finding these salt springs
that enabled settlement to cross the mountains.
*Coues', Lewis and Clarke's Expedition, i, pp. 2, 253-259; Benton, in
Cong. Record, xxiii, p. 57.
tHehn, Das Salz (Berlin, 1873).
tCol. Eecords of N. C, v, p. 3.
$ Findley, History of tlie Insurrection in the Four Western Counties
of Pennsylvania in the Year 1794 (Philadelphia, 1796), p. 35.
u
FRONTIER IN AMERICAN HISTORY — TURNER. 213
From the time the mountains rose between the pioneer and \\
the seaboard, a new order of Americanism arose. The West |
and the East began to get out of touch of each other. The
settlements from the sea to the mountains kept connection
with the rear and had a certain solidarity. But the over-
mountain men grew more and more independent. The East
took a narrow view of American advance, and nearly lost these
men. Kentucky and Tennessee history bears abundant wit-
ness to the truth of this statement. The East began to try to
hedge and limit westward expansion. Though Webster could
declare that there were no Alleghanies in his politics, yet in
pohtics in general they were a very solid factor.
LAND.
The exploitation of the beasts took hunter and trader to the
west, the exploitation of the grasses took the rancher west,
and the exploitation of the virgin soil of the river valleys and
prairies attracted the farmer. Good soils have been the most
continuous attraction to the farmer's frontier. The land hun-
ger of the Virginians drew them down the rivers into Carolina,
in early colonial daysj the search for soils took the Massa-
chusetts men to Pennsylvania and to Kew York. As the
eastern lands were taken up migration flowed across them to
the west. Daniel Boone, the great backwoodsman, who com-
bined the occupations of hunter, trader, cattle-raiser, farmer,
and surveyor — learning, probably from the traders, of the
fertihty of the lands on the upper Yadkin, where the traders
were wont to rest as they took their way to the Indians, left
his Pennsylvania* home with his father, and passed down the
Great Valley road to that stream. Learning from a trader
whose posts were on the Eed Eiver in Kentucky of its game
and rich pastures, he pioneered the way for the farmers to that
region. Thence he passed to the frontier of Missouri, where
his settlement was long a landmark on the frontier. Here
again he helped to open the way for civilization, finding salt
licks, and trails, and land. His son was among the earliest
trappers in the passes of the Rocky Mountains, and his party
are said to have been the first to camp on the present site of
Denver. His grandson. Col. A. J. Boone, of Colorado, was a
power among the Indians of the Rocky Mountains, and was
appointed an agent by the Government. Kit Carson's mother
214 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
was a Boone.* Thus this family epitomizes the backwoods-
man's advance across the continent.
The farmer's advance came in a distinct series of waves. In
Peck's Kew Guide to the West, published in Boston in 1837,
occurs this suggestive passage :
Generally, in all the western settlements, three classes, like the waves
of the ocean, have rolled one after the other. First comes the pioneer,
who depends for the subsistence of his family chiefly upon the natural
growth of vegetation, called the ^' range," and the proceeds of hunting.
His implements of agriculture are rude, chiefly of his own make, and his
efforts directed mainly to a crop of com and a "truck patch." The last
is a rude garden for growing cabbage, beans, corn for roasting ears, cucum-
bers, and potatoes. A log cabin, and, occasionally, a stable and corn-crib,
and a field of a dozen acres, the timber girdled or " deadened," and fenced,
are enough for his occupancy. It is quite immaterial whether he ever be-
comes the owner of the soil. He is the occupant for the time being, pays
no rent, and feels as independent as the "lord of the manor." With a
horse, cow, and one or two breeders of swine, he strikes into the woods
with his family, and becomes the founder of a new county, or perhaps
state. He builds his cabin, gathers around him a few other families of
similar tastes and habits, and occupies till the range is somewhat subdued,
and hunting a little precarious, or, which is more frequently the case, till
the neighbors crowd around, roads, bridges, and fields annoy him, and he
lacks elbow room. The preemption law enables him to dispose of his
cabin and cornfield to the next class of emigrants; and, to employ his
own figures, he "breaks for the high timber," "clears out for the New
Purchase," or migrates to Arkansas or Texas, to work the same process
over.
The next class of emigrants purchase the lands, add field to field, clear
out the roads, throw rough bridges over the streams, put up hewn log
houses with glass windows and brick or stone chimneys, occasionally plant
orchards, build mills, schoolhouses, court-houses, etc., and exhibit the
picture and forms of plain, frugal, civilized life.
Another wave rolls on. The men of capital and enterprise come. The
settler is ready to sell out and take the advantage of the rise in property,
push farther into the interior and become, himself, a man of capital and
enterprise in turn. The small village rises to a spacious town or city ;
substantial edifices of brick, extensive fields, orchards, gardens, colleges,
and churches are seen. Broadcloths, silks, leghorns, crapes, and all the
refinements, luxuries, elegancies, frivolities, and fashions are in vogue.
Thus wave after wave is rolling westward; the real Eldorado is still
farther on.
A portion of the two first classes remain stationary amidst the general
movement, improve their habits and condition, and rise in the scale of
society.
The writer has traveled much amongst the first class, the real pioneers.
He has lived many years in connection with the second grade; and now
*Hale, Daniel Boone (pamphlet).
FRONTIER IN AMERICAN HISTORY TURNER.
215
the third wave is sweeping over large districts of Indiana, Illinois, and
Missouri. Migration has become almost a habit in the "West. Hundreds
of men can he found, not over 50 years of age, who have settled for the
fourth, fifth, or sixth time on a new spot. To sell out and remove only a
fevi hundred miles makes up a portion of the variety of backwoods life
and manners.*
Omitting those of the pioneer farmers who move from the
love of adventure, the advance of the more steady farmer is
easy to understand. Obviously the immigrant was attracted
by the cheap lands of the frontier, and even the native farmer
felt their influence strongly. Year by year the farmers who
lived on soil whose returns were diminished by unrotated
crops were offered the virgin soil of the frontier at nominal
prices. Their growing families demanded more lands, and
these were dear. The competition of the unexhausted, cheap,
and easily tilled prairie lands compelled the farmer either to
go west and continue the exhaustion of the soil on a new
frontier, or to adopt intensive culture. Thus the census of
1890 shows, in the I*5"orthwest, many counties in which there
is an absolute or a relative decrease of population. These
States have been sending farmers to advance the frontier on
the plains, and have themselves begun to turn to intensive
farming and to manufacture. A decade before this, Ohio had
shown the same transition stage. Thus the demand for land
and the love of wilderness freedom drew the frontier ever
onward.
Having now roughly outlined the various kinds of frontiers,
and their modes of advance, chiefly from the point of view of
the frontier itself, we may next inquire what were the influences
on the East and on the Old World. A rapid enumeration of
some of the more noteworthy effects is all that I have time for.
COMPOSITE NATIONALITY.
First, we note that the frontier promoted the formation of a
composite nationality for the American people. The coast was
preponderantly English, but the later tides of continental im-
migration flowed across to the free lands. This was the case
from the early colonial days. The Scotch Irish and the Pala-
* Compare Baily, Tour in the Unsettled Parts of North America (London,
1856), pp. 217-219, where a similar analysis is made for 1796. See also
Collot, Journey in North America (Paris, 1826), p. 109; Observations on
the North American Land Company (London, 1796), pp. xv, 144; Logan,
History of Upper South Carolina.
216 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
tine Germans, or "Pennsylvania Dutch," furnished the dom-
inant element in the stock of the colonial frontier. With these
peoples were also the freed indented servants, or redemptioners,
who at the expiration of their time of service passed to the
frontier. Governor Spottswood of Virginia writes in 1717,
" The inhabitants of our frontiers are composed generally of
such as have been transported hither as servants, and, being
out of their time, settle themselves where land is to be taken
up and that will produce the necessarys of life with little
labour."* Very generally these redemptioners were of non-
English stock. In the crucible of the frontier the immigrants
were Americanized, liberated, and fused into a mixed race,
English in neither nationality or characteristics. The process
has gone on from the early days to our own. Burke and other
writers in the middle of the eighteenth century believed that
Pennsylvania t was "threatened with the danger of being
wholly foreign in language, manners, and perhaps even inclina-
tions." The German and Scotch-Irish elements in the frontier
of the South were only less great. In the middle of the present
century the German element in Wisconsin was already so
considerable that leading publicists looked to the creation of a
German state out of the commonwealth by concentrating their
colonization .f Such examples teach us to beware of misinter-
preting the fact that there is a common English speech in
America into a belief that the stock is also English.
INDUSTRIAL INDEPENDENCE.
In another way the advance of the frontier decreased our
dependence on England. The coast, particularly of the South,
lacked diversified industries, and was dependent on England
for the bulk of its supplies. In the South there was even a
dependence on the Northern colonies for articles of food. Gov-
ernor Glenn, of South Carolina, writes in the middle of the
eighteenth century : " Our trade with New York and Philadel-
phia was of this sort, draining us of all the little money and
bills we could gather from other places for their bread, flour,
beer, hams, bacon, and other things of their produce, all which,
except beer, our new townships begin to supply us with, which
* '' Spottswood Papers/' in Collections of Virginia Historical Society,
1,11.
t [Burke], European Settlements, etc. (1765 ed.), ii, p. 200.
J Everest, in Wisconsin Historical Collections, xii, pp. 7 fF
FRONTIER IN AMERICAN HISTORY TURNER. 217
are settled with very industrious and thriving Germans. This
no doubt diminishes the number of shipping and the appear-
ance of our trade, but it is far from being a detriment to us."*
Before long the frontier created a demand for merchants. As
it retreated from the coast it became less and less possible for
England to bring her supplies directly to the consumer's
wharfs, and carry away staple crops, and staple crops began
to give way to diversified agriculture for a time. The effect
of this phase of the frontier action upon the northern section
is perceived when we realize how the advance of the frontier
aroused seaboard cities like Boston, IS'ew York, and Baltimore,
to engage in rivalry for what Washington called " the exten-
sive and valuable trade of a rising empire."
EFFECTS ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION.
The legislation which most developed the powers of the
National Government, and played the largest part in its activ-
ity, was conditioned on the frontier. Writers have discussed
the subjects of tariff, land, and internal improvement, as sub-
sidiary to the slavery question. But when American history
comes to be rightly viewed it will be seen that the slavery
question is an incident. In the period from the end of the first
half of the present century to the close of the civil war slav-
ery rose to primary, but far from exclusive, importance. But
this does not justify Dr. von Hoist (to take an example) in
treating our constitutional history in its formative period down \
to 1828 in a single volume, giving six volumes chiefly to the (
history of slavery from 1828 to 1861, under the title "Constitu- I
tional History of the United States." The growth of national- ^
ism and the evolution of American political institutions were
dependent on the advance of the frontier. Even so recent a
writer as Ehodes, in his History of the United States since the
compromise of 1850, has treated the legislation called out by
the western advance as incidental to the slavery struggle.
This is a wrong perspective. The pioneer needed the goods of
the coast, and so the grand series of internal improvement and
railroad legislation began, with potent nationalizing effects.
Over internal improvements occurred great debates, in which
grave constitutional questions were discussed. Sectional
groupings appear in the votes, profoundly significant for the
* Weston, Documents connected with History of South Carolina, p. 61.
218 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
historian. Loose construction increased as the nation marched
westward.* But the West was not content with bringing the
farm to the factory. Under the lead of Clay — "Harry of the
^est " — ^protective tariffs were passed, with the cry of bring-
ing the factory to the farm. The disposition of the public
lands was a third important subject of national legislation
influenced by the frontier.
THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.
The public domain has been a force of profound importance
in the nationalization and development of the Government.
The effects of the struggle of the landed and the landless States,
and of the ordinance of 1787, need no discussion, t Adminis-
tratively the frontier called out some of the highest and most
vitalizing activities of the General Government. The purchase
of Louisiana was perhaps the constitutional turning point in
the history of the Eepublic, inasmuch as it afforded both a new
area for national legislation and the occasion of the downfall
of the policy of strict construction. But the purchase of Louis-
iana was called out by frontier needs and demands. As fron-
tier States accrued to the Union the national power grew. In
a speech on the dedication of the Calhoun monument Mr.
Lamar explained : '' In 1789 the States were the creators of the
Federal Government; in 1861 the Federal Government was |
the creator of a large majority of the States." v
When we consider the public domain from the point of view ^"
of the sale and disposal of the public lands we are again brought ■
face to face with the frontier. The policy of the United States ;_
in dealing with i ts lands is in sharp contrast with the European |
system of scientific administration. Efforts to make this domain
a source of revenue, and to withhold it from emigrants in order
that settlement might be compact, were in vain. The jealousy
and the fears of the East were powerless in the face of the
demands of the frontiersmen. John Quincy Adams was obliged
to confess: ^'My own system of administration, which was to
make the national domain the inexhaustible fund for progress-
ive and unceasing internal improvement, has failed." The '
*See, for example, the speech of Clay, in the House of Representatives,
January 30, 1824.
t See the admirable monograph by Prof. H. B. Adams, Maryland's Influ-
ence on the Land Cessions; and also President Welling, in Papers Ameri-
can Historical Association, iii, p. 411.
FRONTIER IN AMERICAN HISTORY TURNER. 21^
reason is obvious j a system of administration was not what
the West demanded j it wanted land. Adams states the situa-
tion as follows: "The slaveholders of the South have bought
the cooperation of the western country by the bribe of the
western lands, abandoning to the new Western States their
own proportion of the public property and aiding them in the
design of grasping all the lands into tlieir own hands. Thomas
H. Benton was the author of this system, which he brought
forward as a substitute for the American system of Mr. Clay,
and to supplant him as the leading statesman of the West.
Mr. Clay, by his tariff compromise with Mr. Calhoun, aban-
doned his own American system. At the same time he brought
forward a plan for distributing among all the States of the
Union the proceeds of the sales of the public lands. His bill
for that purpose passed both Houses of Congress, but was
vetoed by President Jackson, who, in his annual message of
December, 1832, formally recommended that all public lands
should be gratuitously given away to individual adventurers
and to the States in which the lands are situated.*
"Ko subject," said Henry Clay, "which has presented itself
to the present, or perhaps any preceding. Congress, is of greater
magnitude than that of the public lands." When we consider
the far-reaching effects of the Government's land policy upon
political, economic, and social aspects of American life, we are
disposed to agree with him. But this legislation was framed
under frontier influences, and under the lead of Western states-
men like Benton and Jackson. Said Senator Scott of Indiana
in 1841: "I consider the preemption law merely declaratory
of the custom or common law of the settlers."
^— NATIONAL TENDENCIES OF THE FRONTIER.
It is safe to say that the legislation with regard to land,
tariff, and internal improvements — the American system of the
nationalizing Whig party — was conditioned on frontier ideas
and needs. But it was not merely in legislative action that
the frontier worked against the sectionalism of the coast.
The economic and social characteristics of the frontier worked
against sectionalism. The men of the frontier had closer
resemblances to the Middle region than to either of the other
sections. Pennsylvania had been the seed-plot of frontier
emigration, and, although she passed on her settlers along the
* Adams Memoirs, ix, pp. 247, 248.
220
AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Great Yalley into the west of Yirginia and tlie Carolinas, yet
the industrial society of these Southern frontiersmen was
always more like that of the Middle region than like that of
the tide- water portion of the South, which later came to spread
its industrial type throughout the South.
The Middle region, entered by Few York harbor, was an
open door to all Europe. The tide-water part of the South
represented tji)ical Englishmen, modified by a warm climate
and servile labor, and living in baronial fashion on great plan-
tations; Kew England stood for a special English movement-
Puritanism. The Middle region was less English than the
other sections. It had a wide mixture of nationalities, a varied
society, the mixed town and county system of local govern-
ment, a varied economic life, many religious sects. In short, it
was a region mediating between New England and the South,
and the East and the West. It represented that composite
nationality which the contemporary United States exhibits,
that juxtaposition of non-English groups, occupying a valley
or a little settlement, and presenting reflections of the map of
Europe in their variety. It was democratic and nonsectional,
if not national ; " easy, tolerant, and contented ; " rooted strongly
in material prosperity. It was typical of the modern United
States. It was least sectional, not only because it lay between
North and South, but also because with no barriers to shut
out its frontiers from its settled region, and with a system of
connecting waterways, the Middle region mediated between
East and West as well as between North and South. Thus it
became the typically American region. Even the New Eng-
lander, who was shut out from the frontier by the Middle
region, tarrying in New York or Pennsylvania on his west-
ward march, lost the acuteness of his sectionalism on the way.*
The spread of cotton culture into the interior of the South
finally broke down the contrast between the "tide- water"
J region and the rest of the State, and based Southern interests
on slavery. Before this process revealed its results the west-
ern portion of the South, which was akin to Pennsylvania in
stock, society, and industry, showed tendencies to fall away
from the faith of the fathers into internal improvement legisla-
tion and nationalism. In the Yirginia convention of 1829-'30,
called to revise the constitution, Mr. Leigh, of Chesterfield,
one of the tide-water counties, declared :
"Author's article in The ^Egis (Madison, Wis.), November 4, 1892.
FRONTIER IN AMERICAN HISTORY TURNER.
221
v/
' One of the main causes of discontent wliich led to this convention, that
' which had the strongest influence in overcoming our veneration for the
work of our fathers, which taught us to contemn the sentiments of Henry
and Mason and Pendleton, which weaned us from our reverence for the
constituted authorities of the State, was an overweening passion for
internal improvement. I say this with perfect knowledge, for it has been
avowed to me by gentlemen from the West over and over again. And let
me tell the gentleman from Albemarle (Mr. Gordon) that it has been
another principal object of those Avho set this ball of revolution in motion,
to overturn the doctrine of State rights, of which Virginia has been the
very pillar, and to remove the barrier she has interposed to the interfer-
ence of the Federal Government in that same work of internal improve-
ment, by so reorganizing the legislature that Virginia, too, may be hitched
to the Federal car.
f It was this nationalizing tendency of the West that trans-
formed the democracy of Jefferson into the national republic-
anism of Monroe and the democracy of Andrew Jackson. The
West of the war of 1812, the West of Clay, and Benton, and
Harrison, and Andrew Jackson, shut off by the Middle States
and the mountains from the coast sections, had a solidarity of
its own with national tendencies.* On ti^e tide of the Father
of Waters, !North and South met and mingled into a nation.
Interstate migrationjwent steadily on — a_process of cross-fer-
tiiizationjofideas and institiitlons The fierce struggle of the
sections over slavery on the western frontier does not dimin-
ish the truth of this statement; it x)roves the truth of it. Slav-
ery was a sectional trait that would not down, but in the West
it could not remain sectional. It was the greatest of fron-
tiersmen who declared: ''I believe this Government can not
endure permanently half slave and half free. It will become
all of one thing or all of the other." Notlnjo^works for nation-
alism like intercourse within the nation. IVIobility of popula-
tion js^eatE^^To^l^m, and the western frontier worked irre-
^istibly^ in unsettling _gopuiation. The effects reached back
from the frontier~and a]^cted profoundly the Atlantic coast
and even the Old World.
GROWTH OF DEMOCRACY.
But the most important effect of the frontier has been in the
promotion of democracy here and in Europe. As has been
indicated, the frontier is productive of individualism. Com-
plex society is precipitated by the wilderness into a kiud of
* Compare Roosevelt, Thomas Benton, ch. i.
222 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
primitive organization based on tlie family. The tendency is
anti- social. It produces antipathy to control, and particularly
to any direct control. The tax-gatherer is viewed as a repre-
sentative of oppression. Prof. Osgood, in an able article,* has
pointed out that the frontier conditions prevalent in the colo-
nies are important factors in the explanation of the American
Eevolution, where individual liberty was sometimes confused
with absence of all effective government. The same conditions
aid in explaining the difficulty of instituting a strong govern-
ment in the period of the confederacy. The frontier individu-
alism has from the beginning promoted democracy.
The frontier States that came into the Union in the first quar-
ter of a century of its existence came in with democratic suffrage
provisions, and had reactive effects of the highest importance
, upon the older States whose peoples were being attracted there.
An extension of the franchise became essential. It was western
New York that forced an extension of suffrage in the constitu-
tional convention of that State in 1821 5 and it was western
Virginia that compelled the tide- water region to put a more
liberal suffrage provision in the constitution framed in 1830,
and to give to the frontier region a more nearly proportionate
representation with the tide-water aristocracy. The rise of
democracy as an effective force in the nation came in with
western preponderance under Jackson and William Henry
Harrison, and it meant the triumph of the frontier — with all
of its good and with all of its evil elements.! An interesting
illustration of the tone of frontier democracy in 1830 comes
from the same debates in the Virginia convention already
referred to. A representative from western Virginia declared :
But, sir, it is not tlie increase of population in the West -which this
gentleman ought to fear. It is the energy which the mountain breeze and
western habits impart to those emigrants. They are regenerated, politi-
cally I mean, sir. They soon become worMng politicians; and the difference,
sir, between a talking and a working politican is immense. The Old Do-
minion has long been celebrated for producing great orators ; the ablest
metaphysicians in policy; men that can split hairs in all abstruse ques-
tions of political economy. But at home, or when they return from Con-
gress, they have negroes to fan them asleep. But a Pennsylvania, a New
York, an Ohio, or a western Virginia statesman, though far inferior in
logic, metaphysics, and rhetoric to an old Virginia statesman, has this
advantage, that when he returns home he takes off his coat and takes hold
* Political Science Quarterly, ii, p. 457. Compare Sumner, Alexander
Hamilton, Chs. ii-vii.
t Compare Wilson, Division and Reunion, pp. 15, 24.
FRONTIER IN AMERICAN HISTORY — TURNER. 223
of tlie plow. This gives him bone and muscle, sir, and preserves his
republican principles pure and uncontaminated.
So long as free land exists, the opportunity for a competency-
exists, and economic power secures political power. But the
democracy born of free land, strong in selfishness and individu-
alism, intolerant of administrative experience and education,
and pressing individual liberty beyond its proper bounds, has
its dangers as well as it benefits. Individualism in America
has allowed a laxity in regard to governmental affairs which
has rendered possible the spoils system and all the manifest
evils that follow from the lack of a highly developed civic
spirit. In this connection may be noted also the influence of
frontier conditions in permitting lax business honor, inflated
paper currency and wild-cat banking. The colonial and rev-
olutionary frontier was the region whence emanated many of
the worst forms of an evil currency.* The West in the war of
1812 repeated the phenomenon on the frontier of that day, while
the speculation and wild-cat banking of the period of the crisis
of 1837 occurred on the new frontier belt of the next tier of
States. Thus each one of the periods of lax financial integrity
coincides with periods when a new set of frontier communities
had arisen, and coincides in area with these successive frontiers,
for the most part. The recent Populist agitation is a case in
point. Many a State that now declines any connection with
the tenets of the Populists, itself adhered to such ideas in an
earlier stage of the development of the State. A primitive
society can hardly be expected to show the intelligent apprecia-
tion of the complexity of business interests in a developed
society. The continual recurrence of these areas of paper-
money agitation is another evidence that the frontier can be
isolated and studied as a factor in American history of the
highest importance, t
* On the relation of frontier conditions to Revolutionary taxation, see
Sumner, Alexander Hamilton, Ch. iii.
1 1 have refrained from dwelling on the lawless characteristics of the ^^
frontier, because they are sufiSciently well known. The gambler and des-
perado, the regulators of the Carolinas and the vigilantes of California,
are types of that line of scum that the waves of advancing civilization
bore before them, and of the growth of spontaneous organs of authority
where legal authority was absent. Compare Barrows, United States of
Yesterday and To-morrow ; Shinn, Mining Camps ; and Bancroft, Popular
Tribunals. The humor, bravery, and rude strength, as well as the vices
of the frontier in its worst aspect, have left traces on American character,
language, and literature, not soon to be effaced.
224 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
ATTEMPTS TO CHECK AND REGULATE THE FRONTIER.
The East has always feared the result of an unregulated
advance of the frontier, and has tried to check and guide it.
The English authorities would have checked settlement at
the headwaters of the Atlantic tributaries and allowed the
" savages to enjoy their deserts in quiet lest the peltry trade
should decrease." This called out Burke's splendid protest:
If you stopped your grants, what would be the consequence? The
people would occupy without grants. They have already so occupied in
many places. You can not station garrisons in every part of these deserts.
If you drive the people from one place, they will carry on their annual
tillage and remove with their flocks and herds to another. Many of the
people in the back settlements are already little attached to particular
situations. Already they have topped the Appalachian mountains. From
thence they behold before them an immense plain, one vast, rich, level
meadow ; a square of five hundred miles. Over this they would wander
without a possibility of restraint ; they would change their manners with
their habits of life ; would soon forget a government by which they were
disowned ; would become hordes of English Tartars ; and, pouring down
upon your unfortified frontiers a fierce and irresistible cavalry, become
masters of your governors and your counselors, your collectors and comp-
trollers, and of all the slaves that adhered to them. Such would, and in
no long time must, be the effect of attempting to forbid as a crime and to
suppress as an evil the command and blessing of Providence, " Increase
and multiply." Such would be the happy result of an endeavor to keep
as a lair of wild beasts that earth which God, by an express charter, has
given to the children of men.
But the English Government was not alone in its desire to
limit the advance of the frontier and guide its destinies. Tide-
water Virginia * and South Carolina t gerrymandered those
colonies to insure th© dominance of the coast in their legis-
latures. Washington desired to settle a State at a time in the
Northwest; Jefferson would reserve from settlement the terri-
tory of his Louisiana purchase north of the thirty-second par-
allel, in order to offer it to the Indians in exchange for their
settlements east of the Mississippi. " When we shall be full
on this side," he writes, '' we may lay off a range of States on
the western bank from the head to the mouth, and so range
after range, advancing compactly as we multiply." Madison
went so far as to argue to the French minister that the United
States had no interest in seeing population extend itself on
* Debates in the Constitutional Convention, 1829-1830.
t [McCrady] Eminent and Representative Men of the Carolinas, i, p.43j
Calhoun's Works, i, pp. 401-406.
FRONTIER IN AMERICAN HISTORY TURNER. 225
the right bank of the Mississippi, but should rather fear it.
When the Oregon question was under debate, in 1824, Smyth,
of Virginia, would draw an unchangeable line for the limits of
the CTnited States at the outer limit of two tiers of States
beyond the Mississippi, complaining that the seaboard States
were being drained of the flower of their population by the
bringing, of too much land into market. Even Thomas Benton,
the man of widest views of the destiny of the West, at this
stage of his career declared that along the ridge of the Kocky
mountains "the western limits of the Eepublic should be
drawn, and the statue of the fabled god Terminus should be
raised upon its highest peak, never to be thrown down."*
But the*attempts to limit the boundaries, to restrict land sales
and settlement, and to deprive the West of its share of political
power were all in vain. Steadily the frontier of settlement
advanced and carried with it individualism, democracy, and
nationalism, and powerfully affected the East and the Old
World.
MISSIONARY ACTIVITY.
The most effective efforts of the East to regulate the frontier
came through its educational and religious activity, exerted by
interstate migration and by organized societies. Speaking in
1835, Dr. Lyman Beecher declared: ''It is equally plain that
the religious and political destiny of our nation is to be decided
in the West," and he pointed out that the population of the
West "is assembled from all the States of the Union and
from all the nations of Europe, and is rushing in like the waters
of the flood, demanding for its moral preservation the imme-
diate and universal action of those institutions which disci-
pline the mind and arm the conscience and the heart. And so
various are the opinions and habits, and so recent and im-
perfect is the acquaintance, and so sparse are the settlements
of the West, that no homogeneous public sentiment can be
formed to legislate immediately into being the requisite insti-
tutions. And yet they are all needed immediately in their
utmost perfection and power. A nation is being 'born in a
day.' * * * But what will become of the West if her pros-
perity rushes up to such a majesty of power, while those great
institutions linger which are necessary to form the mind and
the conscience and the heart of that vast world. It must not
Speech in the Senate, March 1, 1825 j Register of Debates, i, 721.
S. Mis. 101 15
226 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
be permitted. * =* * Let no man at tlie East quiet himself
and dream of liberty, whatever may become of the West.
* * * Her destiny is our destiny." *
With the appeal to the conscience of Kew England, he adds
appeals to her fears lest other religious sects anticipate her
own. The l^ew England preacher and school-teacher left their
mark on the West. The dread of Western emancipation from
l!^ew England's political and economic control was paralled by
her fears lest the West cut loose from her religion. Com-
menting in 1850 on reports that settlement was rapidly
extending northward in Wisconsin, the editor of the Home
Missionary writes: "We scarcely know whether to rejoice or
mourn over this extension of our settlements. While we sym-
pathize in whatever tends to increase the physical resources
and prosperity of our country, we can not forget that with all
these dispersions into remote and still remoter corners of the
land the supply of the means of grace is becoming relatively
less and less." Acting in accordance with such ideas, home
missions were established and Western colleges were erected.
As seaboard cities like Philadelphia, IS^ew York, and Baltimore
strove for the mastery of Western trade, so the various denomi-
nations strove for the possession of the West. Thus an
intellectual stream from New England sources fertilized the
West. Other sections sent their missionaries j but the real
struggle was between sects. The contest for power and the
expansive tendency furnished to the various sects by the ex-
istence of a moving frontier must have had important results
on the character of religious organization in the United States.
The multiplication of rival churches in the little frontier
towns had deep and lasting social effects. The religious
aspects of the frontier make a chapter in our history which ^'
needs study.
INTELLECTUAL TRAITS.
From the conditions of frontier life came intellectual traits
of profound importance. The works of travelers along each
frontier from colonial days onward describe certain common
traits, and these traits have, while softening down, still per-
sisted as survivals in the place of their origin, even when a
higher social organization succeeded. The result is that to the
frontier the American intellect owes its striking characteristics.
That coarseness and strength combined with acuteness and
*Plea for the West (Cincinnati, 1835), pp. 11 jff.
t
FRONTIER IN AMERICAN HISTORY — TURNER. 227
inquisitiveness; that practical, inventive turn of mind, quick
to find expedients 5 that masterful grasp of material things,
lacking in the artistic but powerful to effect great ends 5 that
restless, nervous energy;* that dominant individualism, work-
ing for good and for evil, and withal that buoyancy and exuber-
ance which comes with freedom — these are traits of the frontier,
or timts-called out elsewhere because of the existence, of the
froutieEi, Since the days when the fleet of Columbus sailed
into the waters of the IN'ew World, America has been another
name for opportunity, and the people of the United States
have taken their tone from the incessant expansion which has
not only been open but has even been forced upon them. He
would be a rash prophet who should assert that the expansive
character of American life has now entirely ceased. Move-
ment has been its dominant fact, and, unless this training has
no effect upon a people, the American energy will continually
demand a wider field for its exercise. But never again will
such gifts of free land offer themselves. For a moment, at the
frontier, the bonds of custom are broken and unrestraint is
triumphant. There is not tabula rasa. The stubborn Ameri-
can environment is there with its imperious summons to accept
its conditions ; the inherited ways of doing things are also there;
and yet, in spite of environment, and in spite of custom, each
frontier did indeed furnish a new field of opportunity, a gate
of escape from the bondage of the past; and freshness, and
confidence, and scorn of older society, impatience of its restraints
and its ideas, and indifference to its lessons, have accompanied
the frontier. What the Mediterranean Sea was to the Greeks,
breaking the bond of custom, offering new experiences, calling
out new institutions and activities, that, and more, the ever
retreating frontier has been to the United States directly, and
to the nations of Europe more remotely. And now, four cen-
turies from the discovery of America, at the end of a hundred
years of life under the Constitution, the frontier has gone, and
with its going has closed the first period of American history.
* Colonial travelers agree in remarking on tlie phlegmatic character-
istics of the colonists. It has frequently been asked how such a people
could have developed that strained nervous energy now characteristic of
them. Compare Sumner, Alexander Hamilton, p. 98, and Adams's History
of the United States, i, p. 60; ix, pp.240, 241. The transition appears to
become marked at the close of the war of 1812, a period when interest
centered upon the development of the West, and the West was noted for
restless energy. Grund, Americans, 11., ch. i.
X1X.-R0GER SHERMAN IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION.
By LE^A^^IS HENRY BOUTELL, LL. D.,
OF CHICAGO.
229
4
ROGER SHERMAN IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION.
By Lewis Henry Boutell
The convention which framed our national constitution was
about equally divided between the advocates of a national and
the advocates of a confederate government. The great bat-
tle between these parties was fought over the question of
representation in the national legislature. The details of that
struggle and the compromise in which it ended have an un-
failing interest for the student of political history. They have
a fresh interest, at the present time, from the attempt recently
made in Congress to change the method of electing Senators,
and from certain misstatements made in a recent biographical
work as to the authorship of that compromise.
The misstatements to which I refer are found in Dr. Still^'s
very interesting life of John Dickinson. Dr. Stille claims for
Mr. Dickinson the honor of introducing and securing the
adoption in the Federal Convention of 1787 of the provision
giving the States an equal representation in the Senate. In
proof of this claim. Dr. Stills states that the convention
"decided unanimously, on the 7th of June, on the motion of
Mr. Dickinson, that the m embers of that body [the Senate]
should be chosen, two for each State, by its legislature."
An examination of Madison^s report of the Debates in the
Federal Convention shows that every part of this statement
is incorrect. Mr. Dickinson did not make the motion at-
tributed to him, on the 7th of June, or at any other time. The
motion made by Mr. Dickinson, on the 7th of June, related
simply to the manner in which Senators should be chosen, and
had no reference whatever to the number of Senators from
each State.
Mr. Dickinson's motion was 'Hhat the members of the second
branch [the Senate] ought to be chosen by the individual
legislatures." He said he " had two reasons for this motion,"
first, because the sense of the States would be better col-
231
232 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
lected througli their governments tlian immediately from the
people at large; secondly, because he wished the Senate to
consist of the most distinguished characters, distinguished
for their rank in life and their weight of property, and bearing
as strong a likeness to the British House of Lords as possible;
and he thought such characters more likely to be selected by
the State legislatures than in any other mode. In reply to
Mr. Pinckney's objection that "if the small States should be
allowed one Senator only the number will be too great, there
will be eighty at least," Mr. Dickinson said the greatness of
the number was no objection with him. He hoped there
would be eighty and twice eighty of them. If their number
should be small, the popular branch could not be balanced by
them. The legislature of a numerous people ought to be a
numerous body.
The proposition to give the States an equal vote in the Senate
was not made till June 11, and then it was made, not by Mr.
Dickinson, but by Eoger Sherman. It was at first voted down,
and not until after a long and severe controversy was the propo-
sition adopted. It was adopted at last, by a vote of 5 to 4, on
the 16th of July. The number of Senators from each State was
fixed at two on the 23d of July, and at the same time it was
decided that the Senators should vote per capita.
In the debate on this subject Mr. Dickinson took no part.
On every occasion, from first to last, Mr. Sherman was the
champion of the equal representation of the States in the Senate.
The only occasion on which Mr. Dickinson spoke on this sub-
ject in the convention was on June 2, when, the executive be-
ing under discussion, he incidentally remarked, as to the point
of representation in the National Legislature, as it might affect
States of different sizes, that it must probably end in mutual
concession. He hoped that each State would retain an equal
voice, at least in one branch of the National Legislature. But
two days before this, on the 31st of May, when the method of
choosing Senators was under discussion, Mr. Sherman favored
an election of one member by each of the State legislatures.
The position taken by Mr. Sherman on this subject was not a
new one with him. Eleven years before, as a member of the
Continental Congress, he advocated a representation in Con-
gress of both population and States. On the 12th of July,
1776, Mr. Dickinson, on behalf of the Committee on Articles
of Confederation, reported a plan in which it was provided
THE FEDERAL CONVENTION — BOUTELL.
233
that "in determining questions each colony shall have one
vote." This clause being under debate, on August 1, 1776, it
was strongly opposed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and
others, as unjust to the larger States. Eepresentation, they
insisted, should be in j)roportion to taxation. As a compromise
of the conflicting claims of the large and small States, Eoger
Sherman proposed that there should be a representation both
of States and of population. His position is thus stated in the
account of the debates in John Adams's diary (2 Adams's
Works, 499) :
Sliermaa thinks we ought not to vote according to numbers. We are
representatives of States, not individuals. States of Holland. The con-
sent of every one is necessary. Three colonies would govern the whole,
but would not have a majority of strength to carry their votes into execu-
tion. The vote should be taken two ways; call the colonies and call the
individuals, and have a majority of both.
Here we have, in substance, the great compromise of the
Constitution between the large and the small States. This
was the first expression of this plan, and the merit of originat-
ing it belongs to Eoger Sherman. As Mr. Sherman in the
Federal Convention represented a State intermediate in popu-
lation between the largest and the smallest States, he stood in
a position to be influential with both. Although he and his
associates from Connecticut were disposed to preserve to the
States as much of their sovereignty as possible, he was always
amenable to reason, and was fruitful in resources to harmonize
conflicting views. This can not be better illustrated than by
a review of the debates in the Federal Convention on repre-
sentation in the IS'ational Legislature.
The debates in the Federal Convention divide themselves
into three distinct periods :
First. The debates in the Committee of the Whole on the
state of the Union, which extended from May 30 to June 19.
From May 30 to June 13 the committee had under consider-
ation the fifteen resolutions of Eandolph, containing the lead-
ing principles which he thought should prevail in a National
Constitution.
On June 13 the committee reported in favor of the Eandolph
resolutions as they had been amended in debate. This may be
called the national plan.
On June 15 Mr. Patterson presented the resolutions known
as the New Jersey or confederate plan. This plan was referred
234 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
to the Committee of tlie Whole and the national plan recom-
mitted. These plans were debated till June 19, when the com-
mittee voted to rise and report in favor of the national plan.
Second. The second period consisted of the debates in the
convention on the national plan, which extended from June 19
to July 26, when a committee of detail of five members was
appointed to prepare and report a Constitution conformable
to the twenty three resolutions adopted by the convention.
Third. The debates in the convention on the detailed plan,
which extended from August 6 to September 16, when the Con-
stitution was adopted. On September 17 a few changes were
made, the Constitution signed, and the convention adjourned.
In the first period, which lasted only twenty days, the debates
were brief and comparatively calm.
In the second period, which lasted thirty-seven days, the
great struggle between the national and confederate parties
took place, which ended in the adoption of the compromise
plan.
In the third period, which lasted forty-two days, the debate
on details, which exhibited great diversity of opinion, was con-
ducted without asperity. The slavery question excited a
momentary feeling, but was soon disposed of.
I have spoken of the members of the convention as divided
into two opposite parties — those who favored a strong and
those who favored a weak general government, or, as we may
for convenience call them, nationalists and confederates. But
these parties were not organized like modern political parties.
They did not vote solidly according to a scheme prearranged
by a caucus. Indeed, they had no organization at all. More
independent men never met together. Each man spoke and
voted according to his individual convictions. Those who
agreed on one point were often at variance on others equally
important. There were all shades of nationalists and all
shades of confederates, and some were partly the one and
partly the other.
The leaders of the nationalists were Hamilton, Madison,
Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris. The leaders of the confed-
erates were Patterson, Lansing, and Luther Martin. Those
most active in effecting compromises between the contending
parties were Sherman, Franklin, Dickinson, and Gerry.
The point on which there was the bitterest and most pro-
longed controversy was, as I have stated, the rule of suffrage
THE FEDERAL CONVENTION — BOUTELL. 235
in tlie legislature. The resolution on this subject was the sec-
ond on Mr. Eandolph's list. But when it was reached, at the
request of Mr. Eead, of Delaware, the consideration of it was
postponed, " as the deputies from Delaware were restrained by
their commission from assenting to any change in the rule of
suffrage, and in case such a change should be fixed on it might
become their duty to retire from the convention."
Accordingly the second resolution was not taken up till the
other resolutions had been acted upon. This second resolution
provided ^^that the rights of suffrage in the national legislature
ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to
the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other rule may
seem best in different cases." On the 9th of June the debate
on the second resolution began. Mr. Briarly and Mr. Patterson,
of I^ew Jersey, spoke in opposition and Mr. Wilson in favor of
it. On June 11 the debate was resumed.
Mr. Sherman proposed that the proportion of suffrage in the
first branch (the House of Representatives) should be according
to the respective numbers of free inhabitants j and that in the
second branch, or Senate, each State should have one vote and
no more. He said, as the States would remain possessed of cer-
tain individual rights, each State ought to be able to protect
itself; otherwise a few large States will rule the rest. The
House of Lords in England, he observed, had certain particular
rights under the Constitution and hence they have an equal
vote with the House of Commons, that they may be able to
defend their rights.
This was the first presentation of that plan of compromise
by which the conflicting claims of the large and the small
States were finally adjusted. It was modified in some of its
details, as we shall hereafter see, but the compromise, as finally
adopted, was, in substance, representation according to popu-
lation in the House of Representatives, and equal representa-
tion of the States in the Senate. Roger Sherman was thus
the first to propose this important compromise, and his merit
consists in this, that while the advocates of a strong general
government were in favor of a representation in both houses
of the legislature based on population, and the advocates of a
weak general government were in favor of an equal represent-
ation of the States in both houses, Sherman, though sympa-
thizing with the latter class, saw, at this early day, that it
would be impossible to form a general government unless each
236 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
side yielded a portion of its claims. The national principle
must prevail in one house and the confederate principle in the
other. To Koger Sherman belongs the credit, not only of
introducing this compromise in the convention, but also of
bearing the brunt of the contest in its favor, through a long
and severe struggle, till it was finally adopted.
After a brief discussion, it was decided by a vote of 9 to 2
that representation in the House should be in proportion to
the whole number of free inhabitants and three-fifths of the
slaves. Ne\7 Jersey and Delaware were the only States voting
in the negative.
Mr. Sherman then moved that a question be taken whether
each State shall have one vote in the second branch. Every-
thing, he said, depended on this. The smaller States would
never agree to the plan on any other principle than an equality
of suffrage in this branch. Mr. Ellsworth seconded the motion,
and the vote was 5 yeas to 6 nays.
Mr. Wilson then moved that the right of suffrage in the
Senate ought to be according to the same rule as in the first
branch. On this motion the vote was 6 yeas to 5 nays.
In the resolutions reported to the convention by the com-
mittee of the whole, the national principle prevailed, except
in the provision for electing the Senators by the State legisla-
tures. The debate on those resolutions began June 20, and
then the advocates of the confederate plan returned to the
contest with renewed vigor. In the committee of the whole
the resolution in favor of two houses of the legislature was
adopted without debate. But when that resolution came up in
the convention, Lansing, Luther Martin, Sherman, and W. S.
Johnson made elaborate si^eeches against it. The keynote of
the opposition to a legislature of two houses was struck in the
opening remark of Mr. Lansing, ^Hhat the true question here
was whether the convention would adhere to or depart from
the foundation of the present confederacy."
Mr. Sherman, in his speech, said that "he admitted two
branches to be necessary in the State legislatures, but saw no
necessity in a confederacy of States." He closed his speech
with the following remarks :
If the difficulty on the subject of representation can not be otherwise got
over, I would agree to have two branches, and a proportional representa-
tion in one of them, provided each State had an equal voice in the other.
This was necessary to secure the rights of the lesser States, otherwise three
THE FEDERAL CONVENTION — BOUTELL. 237
or four of the large States would rule the others as they pleased. Each
State, like each individual, had its peculiar habits, usages, and manners,
which constituted its happiness. It would not, therefore, give to others a
power over this happiness, any more than an individual would do, when he
could avoid it.
Mr. Mason, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Madison very ably sup-
ported the resolution; and tlie vote stood, yeas 7, nays 3.
Maryland divided. The vote of Connecticut was in the affirm-
ative.
The debate on the rules of suffrage in the two tranches
began on June 27 and was continued till July 16, when the
compromise plan was adopted by a vote of 5 to 4. When the
debate had lasted two days, and the prospect of harmonious
action seemed to be diminishing rather than increasing, Dr.
Franklin moved that the convention be opened each day with
prayer. This motion was seconded by Mr. Sherman. It did
not come to a vote, apparently from fear that it might excite
alarm among the people.
On the 29th of June it was decided by a vote of 6 to 4 that
the rule of suffrage in the first branch (the House of Eepresen-
tatives) ought not to be according to that established by the
Articles of Confederation. Connecticut, New York, Kew Jersey,
Delaware voted in the negative, and Maryland was divided.
After this vote was taken, Mr. Ellsworth moved that the
rule of suffrage in the second branch (the Senate) be the same
with that established by the Articles of Confederation. Mr.
Baldwin, of Georgia, ^'thought the second branch ought to be
the representation of property, and that in forming it, there-
fore, some reference ought to be had to the relative wealth of
their constituents, and to the principles on which the senate
of Massachusetts was constituted."
The debate on Mr. Ellsworth's motion was resumed on the
30th of June, In the course of this debate, Mr. Madison said
that the difference in interest between the States depended
not upon their size, but upon their being slave-holding or non-
slave-holding States. The remedy for this difference which
had occurred to him was that instead of proportioning the
votes of the States, in both branches, to their respective num-
bers of inhabitants, computing the slaves in the ratio of 5 to 3,
they should be represented in one branch according to the
number of free inhabitants only ; and in the other, according
to the whole number, counting the slaves as free. By this
238 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
arrangement the Southern scale (States) would have the
advantage in one house and the Northern in the other.
Mr. Wilson proposed one Senator for every 100,000 souls;
the States not having that number to be allowed one.
Dr. Franklin proposed an equal number of Senators from
each State; that in all questions touching the sovereignty of
the States, or whereby the authority of the States over their
own citizens may be diminished, or the authority of the Gen-
eral Government within the States increased, and in the
appointment of civil officers, each State should have equal
suffrage; that in money bills the delegates of the several
States shall have suffrage in proportion to the contribution of
their States to the Treasury. The debate on this day was very
heated, Mr. Bedford, of Delaware, stating that the small
States, rather than agree to the national plan, would prefer a
foreign alliance.
On July 2 the vote on Mr. EUsworth^s motion was taken,
and it was lost by an equal division, 5 to 5. Connecticut, New
York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, aye; Massachusetts,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, nayj
Georgia, divided.
Mr. C. Pinckney proposed that the representation of the
States in the Senate should vary according to population, but
that the larger States should not have their fall proportion.
Gen. 0. C. Pinckney proposed a committee of one from each
State to report a plan of compromise. This seemed to be felt
by most to be a necessity.
Mr. Eandolph said he would agree that, in the choice of an
Executive, each State should have an equal vote. Vote for
the committee : yeas, 9 ; nays, 2.
On July 5 the committee of 11 reported two propositions:
1. That in the House of Representatives there be one repre-
sentative for every 40,000 inhabitants ; each State to have at
least one; all money bills to originate in the House, and not
be amended in Senate; no money to be drawn from the Treas-
ury but in pursuance of appropriations originated in the
House.
2. In the Senate each State to have an equal vote.
Mr. Madison, in a note (5 Elliot, 274) says that this com-
promise was proposed by Dr. Franklin; that Mr. Sherman, who
took the place of Mr. Ellsworth, proposed that each State
should have an equal vote in the Senate, provided that no
THE FEDERAL CONVENTION — BOUTELL. 239
decision thereon sliould prevail unless the majority of States
concurring should also comprise a majority of the inhabitants
of the United States, but it was not much deliberated on or
approved in the committee. Mr. Madison says a similar pro-
vision was proposed in the debates on the Articles of Confed-
eration. I can find no confirmation of this last statement.
Probably Mr. Madison had in mind the proposition reported
by Mr. Adams, to which reference has been made.
The debate which followed on this day and the next related
principally to the question whether the giving to the House
the sole right to originate money bills was really any conces-
sion to the large States. It was finally voted, 5 to 3, that the
clause relating to money bills should stand as a part of the
report.
On July 7 the question was taken up, Shall the clause allow-
ing each State one vote in the second branch (the Senate)
stand as a part of the report?
Mr. Sherman supposed it was the wish of every one that
some general government should be established. An equal
vote in the second branch would, he thought, be most likely to
give it the necessary vigor. "The small States have more
vigor in their government than the large onesj the more influ-
ence, therefore, the large ones have the weaker will be the
government. In the large States it will be most difficult to
collect the real and fair sense of the people j fallacy and undue
influence will be practiced with the most success, and improper
men will most easily get into office. If they vote by States in
the second branch, and each State has an equal vote, there
must be always a majority of States as well as a majority of
the people on the side of public measures, and the Government
will have decision and efficacy. If this be not the case in the
second branch there may be a majority of States against pub-
lic measures, and the difficulty of compelling them to abide
by the public determination will render the Government fee-
bler than it has ever yet been.'' The vote on this question
stood, yeas 6, nays 3. Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Caro-
lina, nay; Massachusetts and Georgia, divided.
From the 9th to the 14th of July the debate was on a vari-
ety of questions growing out of the provision relating to the
number of members in the House of Representatives, such as
slave representation, census, and representation of new States.
On the 14th of July, Mr. Rutledge proposed to reconsider
240 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
tbe two propositions touching the originating of money bills in
the first, and the equality of votes in the second branch.
Mr. Gerry favored the reconsideration, with a view, not of
destroying the equality of votes, but of providing that the
States should vote per capita, which, he said, would prevent
the delays and inconveniences that had been experienced in
Congress, and would give a national aspect and spirit to the
management of business.
This proposition of Mr. Gerry's that the Senators vote per
capita, though not acted upon at this time, was renewed by
Gouverneur Morris and Mr. King on July 23, and was then
adopted. This was the last step in this controversy, and one
of the most important. It must have seemed to the National-
ists a much greater concession than the giving to the House
of Representatives the exclusive right to originate money bills.
It removed from the proceedings of the Senate all appear-
ances of State action, and, as Mr. Gerry said, it gave a national
aspect and spirit to the management of business. Only the
extreme State rights men, like Luther Martin, opposed it,
and on the final vote Maryland was the only State voting in
the negative. For this suggestion, Mr. Gerry is entitled to no
small share of credit.
The reconsideration proposed by Mr. Eutledge having been
agreed to, Mr. Pinckney moved that, instead of an equality of
votes, the States should be represented in the Senate as fol-
lows: New Hampshire, 2; Massachusetts, 4; Rhode Island, Ij
Connecticut, 3 ; New York, S; New Jersey, 2; Pennsylvania, 4^
Delaware, 1 ; Maryland, 3 ; Virginia, 5 5 North Carolina, 3 ; South
Carolina, 3 5 Georgia, 2. Total, 36. This motion was seconded
by Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Sherman urged the equality of votes, not so much as a
security for the small States, as for the State governments,
which could not be preserved unless they were represented
and had a negative in the General Government. He had no
objection to the members in the second branch voting per capita,
as had been suggested by Mr. Gerry.
Strong speeches were made by Bang, Madison, and Wilson,
against giving to the States an equality of votes in the Senate.
Vote on Mr. Pinckney's motion: Yeas, 4j nays, 6.
On the 16th of July the vote was taken on the whole report
as amended, including equality of votes in the Senate, and
resulted in 5 yeas and 4 nays. Massachusetts divided.
THE FEDERAL CONVENTION BOUTELL. 241
On July 23^ Gouverneur Morris and Mr. King moved that
the Senators vote per capita. Mr. Ellsworth said he had always
apjjf oved of voting in that mode. It was agreed to that the
number of Senators be two from each State.
Mr. L. Martin was opposed to voting per capita, as depart-
ing from the idea of the States being represented in the second
branch. Mr. Carroll was not struck with any particular objec-
tion against the modej but he did not wish so hastily to make
so material an innovation.
The vote on the whole motion, viz, " The second branch to
consist of two members from each State, and to vote per cap-
ita," was, yeas, 9; nay, 1 (Maryland).
From this review of the proceedings in the Federal conven-
tion on the rule of suffrage in the two Houses of the National
Legislature, we perceive:
(1) That the first motion that the States have an equal vote
in the Senate was made in the Committee of the Whole, on
June 9, by Eoger Sherman, and was seconded by Oliver Ells-
worth, and that this motion was negatived by a vote of 5 yeas
to 6 nays.
(2) That immediately after this vote was taken, James Wil-
son moved that the right of suffrage in the Senate be the same
as in the House of Eepresentatives (that is, according to pop-
ulation), and that this motion prevailed by a vote of 6 yeas to
5 nays.
(3) That on June 13 the national plan was reported by the
Committee of the Whole, which provided that the rule of suf-
frage, in both Houses, should be according to population.
(4) That in the debate in the convention, on this national
plan, on June 29, Oliver Ellsworth moved that the rule of suf-
frage in the Senate be the same with that established by the
Articles of Confederation. After a long debate, the vote was
taken on this motion on July 2, and resulted in an equal divi-
sion of the convention, 5 yeas and 5 nays, and Georgia divided.
(5) That to break this deadlock, a committee of eleven, one
from each State, was appointed to see if they could not agree
on a compromise plan.
On July 5 the committee of eleven reported a plan, which was,
in substance, that in the House of Eepresentatives representa-
tion be according to population j that money bills originate in
the House, which shall not be altered or amended in the Sen-
ate; and that in the Senate each State shall have an equal
S. Mis. 104 16
242 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
vote. After a long debate and various amendments, whicli
only affected tlie representation in the House of Representa-
tives, the compromise plan, giving the States an equal vote in
the Senate, was, on July 16, adopted by a vote of 5 yeas to 4
nays, Massachusetts being divided.
(6) That the final action on this subject was taken on the
23d of July, when it was decided, by a vote of 9 yeas to 1 nay,
that there be two Senators from each State, and that they vote
per capita.
Beside the three main plans for representation in the two
Houses, which I have called the national, the confederate, and
the compromise plans j by the first of which, representation in
both Houses was to be according to population j by the second,
the States were to have an equal vote in both Houses ; by the
third, the States were to be represented according to popula-
tion in the House, and to be equally represented in the Senate;
besides these three main plans, a variety of other plans were
suggested in the course of the debate. They were, as we have
seen, the plans of Mr. Baldwin, of Mr. Madison, of Mr. Wilson,
of Dr. Franklin, of Mr. 0. Pinckney, and of Mr. Sherman, in
the committee of eleven.
This plan of a double representation in our National Legis-
lature, of population in one House and of States in the other,
has generally been spoken of as a master stroke of statesman-
ship. We have seen that it was simply the result of a compro-
mise. It originated in a groundless fear that the larger States
would combine to oppress the smaller ones. It was in vain
that Madison, and Wilson, and Hamilton pointed out that
States would be led to act together, not from similarity in size,
but from unity in interest, and that there was no such unity of
interest in what were then the large States (Massachusetts,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia) as to lead them to oppress the
smaller States. As we read the debates we can not help feel-
ing that a man of such strong sense as Roger Sherman must
have felt the force of these arguments. That he did so seems
apparent from the fact that toward the close of the debate he
defended the equal representation of the States in the Senate
on the ground that it was necessary to preserve the rights, not
of the small States against the large States, but of all the
States against the General Government.
Experience has shown that there never was the slightest
danger that the large States would combine to oppress the
THE FEDERAL CONVENTION — BOUTELL. 248
small ones; and that there was more danger to the National
Government from the State governments than to the State
governments from the National Government. But while these
fears of the early advocates of State rights were groundless,
Sherman and his associates were doubtless right in their belief
that the majority of the people were in favor of an amendment
of the Articles of Confederation rather than of a purely Na-
tional Government, and that there was danger that they would
reject a constitution which did not give to the States an equal
representation in at least one House of the National Legisla-
ture. And so they insisted on a compromise which gave us
not an ideally perfect National Government, but the best per-
haps which the people were willing to bear.
Madison and his associates were right in pointing out that
the danger to the nation was from the State-rights sentiment
rather than from the national sentiment. Accordingly we find
that the first mutterings of discontent were in the Kentucky
nullification resolutions and in the Hartford Convention.
Disloyalty took a more serious form, in Jackson's time, in the
nullification proceedings in South Carolina. It culminated, in
our own day, in secession and civil war.
The constitution of the Senate as the representative of the
States did not produce the good anticipated, as the large
States were never hostile to the small States, and the negative
of the Senate was never invoked to guard the States against
injurious legislation by the House of Eepresentatives. Neither
did it produce the evil feared, as the action of the Senate was
never antinational. It did, however, produce what the advo-
cates of a strong national government most desired, a small
body of picked men, whose intelligence, character, and length
of service have made them a fit check on the popular branch
of the legislature, and a safe depository of the treaty -making
power. We never think of the Senate as the guardian of
State rights, but as the noblest embodiment of the legislative
wisdom of the nation.
Throughout the debates in the convention, Eoger Sherman
showed himself in favor of amending the Articles of Confed-
eration rather than of forming a strong national government.
He expressed himself to this effect on the first day he took his
seat in the convention. Luther Martin said in his report to
the Maryland legislature that the members of the convention
who prepared the resolutions for amending the Articles of
244 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Confederation, presented by Patterson, were principally of the
Connecticut, Kew York, Kew Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland
delegations.
Sherman favored the election of both Eepresentatives and
Senators by the State legislatures rather than by the people,
though he finally acquiesced in the election of Representatives
by the people. He thought the President should be elected by
the Irrational Legislature, and should be absolutely dependent
on it and removable by it at pleasure. He thought Eepresent-
atives and Senators should be paid by the State and not by
the National Legislature, but finally proposed that they be paid
$5 a day out of the National Treasury, and that any further
emoluments be added by the States.
He thought the judges should be removed by the President,
on the application of the Senate and House. He opposed in-
ferior courts as a needless expense, as the Stq^te courts would
answer the same purpose. Finally, he was willing the legisla-
ture should create them, but wished the State courts to be used
when it could be done with safety to the general interest. He,
however, expressed more confidence in the national judiciary
than some did, and believed it a better tribunal for determin-
ing controversies between the States than the old method under
the Confederation.
He favored the ratification of the Constitution by the State
legislatures rather than by conventions of the people. To the
clause relating to amendments, he moved to add that "no
amendments shall be binding unless consented to by the sev-
eral States." On the last day of debate he moved a proviso to
the article on amendments, "that no State shall, without its
consent, be affected in its internal police, or deprived of its
equal suffrage in the Senate." The part relating to equal suf
frage in the Senate was adopted.
In the plan for choosing a President by electors, it was pro-
vided that in case of a failure to choose, the Senate should choose
a President out of the five highest candidates. It was thought
this would strengthen the aristocratic influence of the Senate
too much; so it was proposed that the choice should be by the
legislature. Mr. Sherman then suggested that in that case
the vote should be by States— "in favor of the small States, as
the large States would have so great an advantage in nomi-
nating the candidates." Finally he suggested the plan which
THE FEDERAL CONVENTION — BOUTELL. 245
was adopted, of a vote by the House of Eepresentatives, the
members from each State having one vote.
When the proi^osition for the election of Eepresentatives by
the people was first under discussion (May 31) Mr. Sherman
opposed election by the people, insisting that it ought to be by
the State legislatures. ''The people," he said, "immediately
should have as little to do as may be about the government.
They want information, and are constantly liable to be misled."
When this matter was brought up the second time (June 6)
Mr. Sherman said:
If it were in view to abolish the State governments the elections ought
to be by the people. If the State governments are to be continued it is
necessary, in order to preserve harmony between the National and State
governments, that the elections to the former should be made by the latter.
The right of participating in the National Government would be suffi-
ciently secured to the people by their election of the State legislatures.
When the clause that the President should be chosen by the
National Legislature was under discussion (July 17) Mr. Sher-
man thought that the sense of the nation would be better ex-
pressed by the legislature than by the people at large. ''The
latter will never be sufficiently informed of characters, and be-
sides will never give a majority of votes to any one man. They
will generally vote for some man in their own State, and the
largest State will have the best chance for the appointment.
If the choice be made by the legislature, a majority of voices
may be made necessary to constitute an election."
In the speech above referred to, made on June 6, Mr. Sher-
man took a very limited view of the powers of the General
Government. ''The objects of the Union," he thought, "were
few — first, defense against foreign danger; secondly, against
internal disputes and a resort to force; thirdly, treaties with
foreign nations; fourthly, regulating foreign commerce and
deriving revenue from it. These, and perhaps a few lesser
objects, alone rendered a confederation of the States necessary.
All other matters, civil and criminal, would be much better in
the hands of the States. The people are more happy in small
than in large States. States may, indeed, be too small, as
Ehode Island, and thereby be too subject to faction. Some
others were, perhaps, too large, the powers of government not
being able to pervade them." He was for giving the General
Government power to legislate and execute within a definite
province.
He was opposed to the appointment by the General Govern-
246 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
ment of the general officers of the militia. He was opposed
to a tax on exports.
In view of the part which slavery has played in our national
history, it strikes one as strange, at first, that it should have
played so small a part in the Federal Convention. But at that
time slavery was not confined to the Southern States and anti-
slavery sentiments were not confined to the !N"orthern States.
Gouverneur Morris made a sjieech denouncing slavery which
would bave done credit to Wendell Phillips. But he was ably
supported by Mason and Madison. Georgia and South Caro-
lina were the only States that upheld it. Some years before
Yirginia had abolished the slave trade. It was natural, there-
fore, that the members of the convention should suppose that
in a few years slavery would come to an end in most, if not
all, the States. Mr. Ellsworth undoubtedly expressed the gen-
eral belief when he said, " Slavery, in time, will not be a speck
in our country."
The view which Mr. Sherman took of the matter was thus
expressed by him: He disapproved of the slave trade; yet, as
the States were now possessed of the right to import slaves,
as the public good did not require it to be taken from them,
and as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible
to the proposed scheme of government, he thought it best to
leave the matter as we find it. He observed that the aboli-
tion of slavery seemed to be going on in the United States,
and that the good sense of the several States would probably
by degrees complete it. He urged on the convention the
necessity of dispatching its business.
One of the most surprising things in these debates is the
hostility shown by some of the members to new States, and
the absurd attempt to restrict their representation in the
National Legislature. That so clear-headed and farsighted a
man as Gouverneur Morris should have committed such a
blunder is a most striking illustration of the proverb that
"great men are not always wise."
This hostility found its formal expression in the motion made
by Mr. Gerry, on the 14th of July, "that in order to secure the
liberties of the States already confederated, the number of
representatives in the first branch of the States which shall
hereafter be established shall never exceed in number the
representatives from such of the States as shall accede to this
confederation."
THE FEDERAL CONVENTION BOUTELL. 247
Mr. Sherman made the only speech in opposition to this
motion. He thought there was no probability that the number
of future States would exceed that of the existing States.
"If the event should ever happen, it is too remote to be
taken into consideration at this time. Besides, we are provid-
ing for our posterity, for our children and our grandchildren,
who would be as likely to be citizens of new Western States
as of the old States. On this consideration alone we ought to
make no such discrimination as is proposed by the motion."
And yet four States — Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware,
and Maryland — voted in favor of Mr. Gerry's motion j Penn-
sylvania was divided, and only five States voted against the
motion.
If we were to judge of the members of the Federal Conven-
tion by their mistakes and erroneous opinions, we should not
form the highest estimate of their ability. But, judging them
as men should always be judged — by their best work — they are
deserving of the rare honor which, belongs to the founders of
empires. It is no detraction from that honor that they builded
better than they knew. Judged by this test, Koger Sherman
will ever be conspicuous as the statesman to whose wise and
conciliatory spirit it was largely due that the Federal Conven-
tion was not held in vain.
1
I
XX.-THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MISSOURI
COMPROMISE.
By JAMES A. WOODBURN,
PROFESSOR OF AMERICAN HISTORY, INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY.
249
THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.
By James Albert Woodburn.
The struggle for the restriction of African slavery in the
United States is the central theme in American political history
during the nineteenth century. That struggle suggests to
the student of American politics a long series of contests cul-
minating at last in one of the greatest civil wars in human
history.
For more than a generation all other subjects in our Con-
gressional history had sunk into a place of secondary or tem-
porary importance 5 this, amid events of varying moment, held
tirst rank until it passed for settlement from the forum to the
field.
The struggle over the admission of Missouri into the Union
(1818-1821), involves the merits of the whole controversy. The
immediate result of that struggle was the admission of Missouri
without restriction, accompanied with the provision that slav-
ery should be forever excluded from all the Louisiana purchase
north of 36^ 30', the southern boundary of Missouri. In these
few words is stated the substance of the Missouri compromise —
the basis of adjustment of one of our most violent political
struggles, the outcome of one of the ablest, the most prolonged
and startling debates in the annals of the American Congress.
In attempting to interpret the significance of that struggle
and to estimate the principles which it involved, it is first
essential to have, if possible, a candid recital of the facts.
Preliminary to this recital, the true story of the struggle
requires a brief mention of the principal ways in which the
slavery question touched our history from 1789 to 1820.
Congress very early found it necessary to define its Consti-
tutional powers affecting slavery. This was done March 23,
1790. An address in the shape of a memorial or petition had
been presented to Congress on February 11, 1790, from the
251
262 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Quaker Yearly Meeting in Pennsylvania, against the continu-
ance of the African slave trade and praying Congress "to
remove that reproach from the land." The motion to send this
memorial to a committee for a report gave rise to an animated
debate of considerable length on the merits of slavery and on
the competency of Congress to consider such a subject. Con-
gress resolved upon the report of the committee to which the
memorial was referred, in substance, as follows :
1. That the General Government was prohibited from inter-
fering with the slave trade for the domestic supply until 1808.
Congress might lay a tax of $10 on the importation.
2. That Congress had no power to interfere with slavery in
the States, either to emancipate or to regulate the treatment
of slaves. It remains alone with the several States to regulate
their internal and domestic institutions.
3. That Congress could prevent the slave trade for foreign
supply.
This assertion of the extent of the Constitutional power of
I Congress over slavery was universally accepted. There is no
evidence that any considerable body of public opinion ever
denied the correctness of this interpretation. Dr. Franklin,
the president of the Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of
Slavery, who was said to be the author of this memorial, acqui-
esced in the decision and did not repeat the application.* The
Liberty Party men of 1844, and the Free Soilers of 1848 and
1852, never materially denied these propositions.
By the enactment of the fugitive slave law of 1793 Con-
gress proceeded to carry into effect the fugitive slave clause
of the Constitution. No considerable voice of opposition was
raised to this enactment. This law passed the Senate by a
unanimous vote and the House by a vote of 48 to 7. Two of
its clauses related to fugitives from justice and two to fugi-
tives from labor, and it seemed to be taken for granted that
one set of refugees should be returned as well as the other.
In the cession of their western territory to the General Gov-
ernment, Korth Carohna, in 1789, and Georgia, in 1802, stipu-
lated that slavery should not be prohibited therein. It seems
to have been agreed, after the restriction in the IJforthwest by
the Ordinance of 1787, that the lands south of the Ohio should
follow the condition of the States which ceded it. The Gen-
* Benton's Abridgments, Vol. i, p. 239.
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE — WOODBURN.
253
eral Government accepted the Southwestern Territory without
objection to this condition of its cession.
In 1790 the treaty- making power was used with the Creek
Indians to bind them to deliver up the slaves fled from Geor-
gia. This brought the national power to the support of slav-
ery. The right to do this existed, but it is not evident that
it was the duty of the central Government to do so.
In 1802 a convention at Vincennes, Ind., over which Wil-
liam Henry Harrison presided, attempted to secure the repeal
of the antislavery restriction in the Ordinance of 1787. The
memorial which this convention sent to Congress was consid-
ered and its prayer rejected. Subsequent attempts in thife
direction were defeated, and Indiana, in 1816, came into the
Union as a free State.
By the Louisiana treaty with France, in 1803, the people
living in that Territory under French law were guaranteed all
the rights of person and property which they were enjoying
at the transfer. The third article of the Louisiana treaty pro-
vided,—
That the inhabitants of the Territory shall be incorporated in the
United States and admitted as soon as possible, according to the principles
of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages,
and immunities of citizens of the United States ; and in the meantime they
shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty,
property, and the religion which they profess.
The right to their "property" included the right to their
slaves, and it may be said that Louisiana came to us as slave
territory. Louisiana was admitted to the Union in 1812, in
harmony with this treaty. In the admission no discussion
appears on the subject of slavery. The later proposed restric-
tion on Missouri and Arkansas, parts of the original Louisiana
purchase, appeared to the inhabitants of those Territories as
an abolition of slavery, not as a restriction. Slavery had been
legal in those Territories by the French law of Louisiana.
As to the slave trade, we prohibited it to carriers of other
countries in 1794; we outlawed it entirely in 1807, the earliest
possible constitutional datej in 1815 we united with England
in the treaty of Ghent in agreement to suppress it; and in
1820 we declared the trade to be piracy.
Slavery existed in the District of Columbia, as it did in Mis-
souri and Arkansas, because of the inertia of the Federal Gov-
ernment. Slavery existed in Maryland and Virginia, the
States which ceded this territory; the District was contiguous
254 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
to these States, and the inference was that it should be let
alone. On February 27, 1801, Congress declared the laws of
Virginia and Maryland in force in the District, and henceforth
slavery existed there by virtue of this law.
During the first two decades of this century there seems to
have been but little probability that slavery would be abolished
in the States which had not already made arrangement for
emancipation. The tendency seems to have set in the other
way. Washington had noticed, a few years before his death,
the subsidence of the abolition spirit, and he had " despaired
of seeing the spirit of freedom gain the upper hand." From
the formation of the Union until the application of Maine, in
the midst of the Missouri struggle, no free State had offered
herself for statehood except from territory in which slavery
had been prohibited by Federal authority. The preservation
of the political equilibrium between the slave States and the
free had already become a matter of the first importance.
The steadiness with which this balance was preserved has, by
students of to-day, been very generally observed. In 1789 the
States were as follows :
Slave. — Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia — 6.
Free. — New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Ehode
Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania — 7.
There were seven free States — or States soon sure to be
free — and six slave States. Between 1789 and 1820 States
were admitted as follows :
Slave,— 1792, Kentucky; 1796, Tennessee; 1812, Louisiana;
1817, Mississippi ; 1819, Alabama.
^ree.— 1791, Vermont; 1803, Ohio; 1816, Indiana; 1818, Dli-
nois.
The slave States had gained one from the start; with the
assurance of Alabama's admission, the balance would be struck,
in numbers 11 to 11. It was in this distribution of political
power between the sections as represented in the United States
Senate that the struggle over Missouri arose.
We come now to the progress of the events in that struggle.
THE FIRST MISSOURI STRUGGLE.
The Fifteenth Congress assembled at Washington, Decem-
ber 1, 1817. Henry Clay was chosen as Speaker of the House.
John Scott appeared as the delegate from the Missouri Terri-
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE — WOODBURN. 255
tory. On March 16, 1818, Mr. Scott, the delegate from Mis-
souri, presented a petition from Missouri praying for state-
hood, which together with former similar petitions was referred
to a select committee.* On April 18, 1818, Mr. Scott, chairman
of this committee, reported to the House a bill, an enabling
act, to authorize Missouri Territory to form a constitution and
State government and for the admission of the State into the
Union on an equal footing with the other States. The bill was
read twice and referred to the Committee of the Whole, where
it slept for the remainder of the session.
The same Congress met again in second session, N"ovember
16, 1818. On December 18, 1818, the Speaker presented a
memorial from the territorial legislature of Missouri again
praying to be permitted to form a constitution and State gov-
ernment preparatory for admission. The memorial was referred.
On Saturday, February 13, 1819, the House, on motion of
Mr. Scott of Missouri, went into Committee of the Whole on
the enabling acts for Missouri and Alabama. The Missouri
bill was taken up first and Mr. James Tallmadge, jr., a repre-
sentative from New York, offered the following amendment,
which will be hereafter known in this discussion as the TaU-
madge amendment:
Provided, That the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servi-
tude be prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted ; and that all children born within the said
State after the admission thereof into the Union shall be iree, but may be
held to service until the age of twenty-five years.t
It is to be noticed that there were two distinct parts to this
amendment :
(1) Provision against the further introduction of slaves.
(2) Provision for gradual emancipation of the slaves already
there.
* At the same time Scott presented a petition from the inhabitants of the
southern part of Missouri praying for a division of the Territory.
tin Seaton's Annals of Congress the last clause of this amendment
reads : " That all children bom within the said State, after the admission
thereof into the Union, shall be free at the age of twenty-five years." This
statement is not so carefully guarded and does not protect from slavery
the children of prospective freedmen who might be born to these before
the age of twenty-five. The amendment as given in the text is taken from
Greeley's Text-Book of 1860, p. 55, and is, no doubt, the correct legal
expression of the amendment.
256 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Neither of these was a radical proposition. l!? either pro-
posed to interfere with the rights of property in that Territory.
"The motion of Tallmadge," says the Annals, "gave rise to
an interesting and pretty wide debate." The discussion con-
tinued during February 13 and 15 in Committee of the Whole,
and on the 16th in the House ^ and on the 17th the House
passed the bill with the Tallmadge amendment. The vote
stood 87 to 76, one from the slave States favoring restriction
and ten from the free States opposing restriction. It was
clearly a sectional vote.
The House bill for Missouri reached the Senate February 17,
1819. It was read twice and referred to the Committee on the
Memorial from Alabama. On February 21, Senator Tait, of
Georgia, chairman of this committee, reported the bill back to
the Senate with an amendment striking out restriction. On
February 27 the bill "was again resumed," and various
motions gave rise to a long and animated debate.* This
debate the record does not report. The Senate, however,
struck out the Tallmadge amendment, the latter clause which
provided for gradual emancipation, by a vote of 31 to 7 j the
first clause which prohibited further introduction of slavery by
a vote of 22 to 16, and on March 2, 1819, the amended biU
passed the Senate.
On the return of the bill to the House, March 2, Tallmadge
moved the indefinite postponement of the bill, a motion which
was barely lost, and which would probably have been carried
but for absentees. The House then refused to concur in the
Senate amendments, and the bill was returned to the Senate
with a message of nonconcurrence. A message came back
immediately that the Senate still adhered to its amendment,
and thereupon, by motion of Mr. Taylor, of "New York, the
House voted to adhere to its disagreement, and the bill was
lost with the Fifteenth Congress in deadlock. This was the
end of the first struggle.
Incidental to this stage of the discussion it is, however,
important to notice that the struggle for restriction in the Fif-
teenth Congress was not confined, in the minds of the restric-
tionists, to the question of the admission of the new State of
Missouri. The southern portion of that Territory was cut off
from the proposed new State and organized as the Territory
of Arkansas. During the consideration of the bill to provide
* Seaton's Annals of Congress.
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE — WOODBURN. 257
a Territorial government for the Arkansas country, Mr. Tay-
lor, of New York, moved an amendment containing the sub-
stance of the Tallmadge amendment to the Missouri bill — to
prohibit the existence of slavery in the new Territory. "This
motion," says the Annals, "gave rise to a wide and long-
continued debate, covering part of the ground previously occu-
pied on this subject, but differing in part, as the proposition
for Arkansas was to impose a condition on a Territorial gov-
ernment instead of, as in the former case, to enjoin the adop-
tion of the (prohibitive) principle in the constitution of a
State." This distinction is important, in view of the fact that
t^J^y^ argument agajnst_restriction on Missoim_wasJ)aSfid
9P the sovereignty andequality of the States. The fact of the
discussion over Arkansas is important as indicating the tem-
per of the lower House, and that the prime motive, the upper-
most desire, of those who wished to impose conditions ui)on
Missouri, was to limit the area of human slavery. The House
first adopted one clause of the Taylor amendment, that pro-
viding for gradual emancipation in Arkansas, but by the cast-
ing vote of the Speaker, Mr. Clay, the bill was recommitted,
and in the final decision the House determined by a majority
of two votes to strike out all the antislavery restriction on
the Territory of Arkansas. Territorial restriction failed only
because of complication with the Missouri question. Thus,
we see, the Fifteenth Congress expired with the House refus-
ing to admit Missouri without restriction, the Senate refusing
to admit her with restriction.
The fact that the Fifteenth Congress left Missouri witho'cit
authority to organize as a State was the occasion of great
excitement among the people of that Territory, and from the
adjournment of the Fifteenth Congress to the assembling of
the Sixteenth the whole Union was agitated. The legislatures
of the States passed resolutions in favor of and against restric-
tion, according to their respective sections, sending copies of
these to one another and to the General Government;* popu-
lar assemblies in all parts of the country debated the question,
adopted resolutions, petitioned Congress, and appealed to the
public sentiment of the country in whatever demonstration
they could use for their cause; the press kept up a continual
agitation and a multitude of pamphleteers entered the field,
* See Niles Register, Vol. 17, p. 342.
S. Mis. 104 17
9
2f)8 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
adding to tlie momentum and excitement of the great national
argument.*
SECOND MISSOURI STRUGGLE.
Such was the state of the public mind when the Sixteenth
Congress assembled, December 6, 1819. Mr. Clay was again
elected Speaker. On December 8jJL819^J3y motioii_of Scott,
of Missouri, the memorial from^tha^State j5mying_fc)r admis-
sion was referred to a select committee. On the same day Mr.
Strong, of SfewYork7~gave^ notice of his intention to intro-
duced a bill to prohibit the further extension of slavery in the
Territories of the United States. On the following day, Decem-
ber 9, Scott, chairman of the special committee, all but one of
whom were from the slave States, reported an enaWing act for
Missouri which was read twice and referred to the Committee of
the Whole. At the same time Strong waived his notice of the
previous day in view of the fact that the same issue would be
presented in the proposed Missouri bill.
The Missouri bill did not again come up in the House till
Janu^rJ^7Tn52(rn[Jn the m of New York,
offered an amendment requiring that Missouri should "ordain
and establish that there shall be neither slavery nor involun-
tary servitude, otherwise than in punishment of crimes whereof
the party shall have been duly convicted," followed by the
usual provision for the rendition of fugitive slaves.
This restrictive amendment was debated almost daily for
nearly a month, until February 19, when a bill came down from
the Senate "to admit the State of Maine into the Union,''
carrying the whole Missouri bill, without restriction, as a
"rider."
A word of retrospect as to Maine : By an act of the State
of Massachusetts of June 19, 1819, the people of that part of
Massachusetts known as Maine were permitted to form them-
selves into an independent State. In this instance Massa-
chusetts freely consented to her own division, but these pro-
ceedings were to be void unless Maine were admitted to the
Union by March 4, 1820. Accordingly, the people of Maine
formed a constitution, organized a State government, and peti-
tioned Congress for admission to the Union. Her case was
(i * One of the ablest and most notable of the pamphlets was by Robert
Walsh, jr., of Philadelphia, in favor of restriction. (See Niles Register,
vol. 17, p. 307, and Madison's letter to Walsh, Vol. iii, of Madison's
Works.)
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE WOODBURN. 259
exactly parallel with that of Kentucky, and, as in Kentucky's
case, it was only necessary that the bill admitting Maine should
be a brief enactment, ''^that from and after March 3, 1820, the
State of Maine is hereby declared to be one of the United
States of America," and shall extend the United States laws
over her territory and assign her a fair proportion of repre-
sentatives. Ordinarily this simple process of admission would
be an easy matter, and but for the issue over Missouri, Maine's
admission would have passed unquestioned. The House had
passed an ordinary Maine bill, January 3, 1820. The Senate
had already passed a similar bill to a second reading, merely
declaring the consent of Congress to Maine's admission as
early as December 22, 1819, the first month of the session. It
was not until January 6, 1820, three days after the House
Maine bill had come to the Senate, that the scheme of carry-
ing Missouri through on the back of Maine was put into formal
shape. On that day the Senate Committee having the Maine
bill in charge reported it with the Missouri "rider," but on the
13th the House Maine bill was substituted with the Missouri
attachment.
It is not known what politician first suggested the party
stroke of forcing this combination of the two bills in one — that
the admission of Maine should be made dependent upon uncon-
ditional admission of Missouri. It is known, however, that
Henry Clay gave public approval to the idea two weeks before
in the House discussion on the Maine bill.
Holmes expressed the hope, in discussing the bill for Maine,
that the question had not gone to the extent of making one
distinct measure depend upon another, and that the admis-
sion of Maine did not depend upon giving up restriction on
Missouri. Clay, in an undertone, said that it did, and then
answering Holmes he asserted publicly that he did not intend
to give his consent to the admission of Maine until the doctrine
of imposing conditions were given up. This was in Decem-
ber, 1819. Clay gave, perhaps, the most plausible statement
in defense of a position which is usually regarded only as a
politician's resort of forcing a compensation for doing his duty.
"A State in the quarter of the country from which I come,"
says Clay, " asks to be admitted to the Union. What say the
gentlemen who ask the admission of Maine? Why, they will
not admit Missouri without a condition which strips her of an
essential attribute of sovereignty? What, then, do I say to
/
260 AMERICAN HISTORICAL AiSSOCIATIOK
them? That justice is due to all parts of the Union j your
State shall be admitted free of condition, but if you recuse to
admit Missouri also free of condition we see no reason why you
shaU take to yourselves privileges which you deny to her, and
until you grant them also to her we will not admit you. This
notion of an equivalent is not a new one ; it is one upon which
commonwealths and States have acted from time immemorial."
Holmes then pertinently remarked that in this Clay had taken
the position that " unless others do what they think is wrong
you will not do what you acknowledge to be right." And
Livermore, of New Hampshire, pointedly inquired of Clay why
he had not *^ called a pause" on the usual admission of States
before the admission of Alabama in that very year. The situ-
ation clearly shows us that the real issue, that which divided
men into party contestants and was decisive of their votes and
conduct, was the question of slavery and its interests. The
doctrine of the sovereignty and equality of States was put for-
ward to defend the interests of slavery.
When the Maine bill was reported to the Senate by the com-
mittee, with the Missouri "rider,", January 13, 1820, Senator
Eoberts, of Pennsylvania, endeavored to secure a recommitment
of the bill with a view to their separation. Failing in this he
moved, on January 17, an absolute antislavery restriction.
After this was voted down the restrictionists in the Senate
came again to the conflict by a motion from Senator Burrill, of
Ehode Island, to apply to Missouri "the first three articles of
compact in the ordinance of 1787." The great debate then
continued in the Senate for a month, and on February 16, 1820,
the Senate agreed to the amendment of its committee combin-
ing the Maine and Missouri bill in one. Then Mr. Thomas, of
niinois, amid the highest excitement of the debate, offered the
following important amendment to the Missouri section of the
bill:
And le it further enacted, That in all that territory ceded by France to
the United States under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36'
and 30' north latitude, excepting only such part thereof as is included
within the limits of the State contemplated by this act, slavery and in-
voluntary servitude, otherwise than in punishment of crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted, shall be and is hereby forever pro-
hibited."
This amendment contains the substance of the final settle-
ment. Barbour, of Virginia, attempted to have the line fixed
at 40O and 30^ ; only three Senators voted for his proposition.
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE WOODBURN. 261
Eaton, of Tennessee, offered as a substitute for the Thomas
amendment a section prescribing the same limits as the Thomas
amendment, but providing that the restriction apply only
while said portion of country remains a Territory. Eaton
found it useless to press the substitute, which was merely an
abstract declaration against the right of Congress to impose
conditions upon a State, and. he withdrew it. Trimble, of
Ohio, proposed to make the restriction apply to all territory
west of the Mississippi except Missouri. After these three sug-
gestions had been made in vain the Thomas amendment was
adopted the next day in the Senate by a vote of 34 to 10,
without change and without debate, and on the 18th the Maine
and Missouri bill in one, with the compromise amendment,
was formally passed.
On February 19, 1820, the House took up these Senate
amendments to the Maine bill. Taylor moved that the House
disagree, whereupon Scott moved that the amendments be sent
to the Committee of the Whole, which was then, and had been
for days, considering the House Missouri bill. This motion
took precedence and a spirited debate followed, but commit-
ment was defeated by a vote of 107 to 70. The question then
came up on the motion to disagree, which was debated for
three days, when, on February 23, the House disagreed to the
Missouri attachment by a vote of 93 to 73, and then to the
restrictive amendment by 159 to 18. So the Senate Maine-
Missouri bill with the Thomas amendment was defeated in the
House. The House then went into the Committee of the
Whole on its own bill with the Taylor restriction, which was
still pending. The House continued the debate on this re-
strictive clause February 24 and 25. On the 26th Mr. Storrs,
of ^ew York, moved the substance of the Thomas amend-
ment, and supported it in a speech ^^embracing incidentally
an examination of the right of imposing the slavery restric-
tion on Missouri."* On the 28th of February the Senate sent
a message to the House saying that it insisted on its amend-
ments. Taylor moved that the House insist upon its disagree-
ment. By a vote of 97 to 76 the House again refused to agree
to the log-rolling of Maine and Missouri into one bill. Then
*The italics are mine. This indicates what is clear throughout the
debate, the distinction made hy Congress between barring slavery from
the Territories and imposing conditions on a State. Very few denied to
Congress the former power.
262 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
disagreement to the restrictive compromise amendment was
voted by 160 to 14, Lowndes, of South Carolina, explaining
for the friends of Missouri that though he favored such a
proposition yet, since the free admission of Missouri had been
defeated, the restrictive amendment was useless, and there
was no motive to vote for it with the Maine bill alone. The
chief desire of the men for whom Lowndes spoke was to
secure the immediate admission of Missouri without restric-
tion j to that end they were ready to consent to restriction
on the Territories. The House had again disagreed to both
amendments of the Senate.
The Senate was then about to adjourn when the Clerk of the
House presented himself at the door with a message that the
House had insisted upon its disagTeement. Mr. Thomas, of
Illinois, then moved that a committee of conferrence be ap-
pointed, which was the occasion of a debate of " vehemence
and warm feeling."* The Senate voted to request a confer-
ence, and Senators Thomas of Hlinois, Pinkney of Maryland,
and Barbour of Yirginia, were appointed the Senate con-
ferees. On the following day, February 29, the House agreed
to confer, and Messrs. Holmes of Massachusetts, Taylor of
ISTew York, Lowndes of South Carolina, Parker of Massa-
chusetts, and Kinsey of Kew Jersey, were appointed to man-
age the conference on the part of the House.
On March 1 the House passed its Missouri bill with restric-
tion. It was immediately taken up in the Senate and on March
2 it was passed, after striking out restriction and substituting
the Thomas compromise amendment. This agreed with what,
it seemed to be understood, would be the report of the confer-
ence committee. This report was made in the House by Mr.
Holmes on March 2. It contained three distinct recommenda-
tions :
(1) The Senate should give up a combination of Missouri in
the same bill with Maine, and Maine should be admitted.
(2) The House should abandon the attempt to restrict slavery
in Missouri.
(3) Both Houses should agree to pass the Senate's Missouri
bill with the Thomas restriction excluding slavery north and
west of that State.
After the reading of the report the first and vital question
was then put to the House : Will the House concur with the
* Seaton's Annals.
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE WOODBURN. 263
Senate in admitting Missouri without restriction as to slavery?
On this vital question a last, short, fervent debate occurred.
Lowndes of South Carolina, Holmes of Massachusetts,* and
Mercer of Virginia, spoke vigorously. Kinsey, of New Jer-
sey, as one of those holding the balance of power between the
contending forces, voiced the opinion of the moderate restric-
tionists who were now ready to compromise. The cause upon
which he relied was the cause of the Union, and to the desire
and love of Union he appealed. This had been the cause of.
compromise before, as it was destined to be many a time since.
Kinsey in the closing debate said :
Now, sir, is to be tested whetlier this grand and hitherto successful ex-
periment of free government is to continue, or after more than forty years
enjoyment of the choicest blessings of heaven under its administration,
we are to break asunder on a dispute concerning a division of territory.
Gentlemen of the majority have treated the idea of a disunion with ridi-
cule ; but to my mind it presents itself in all the horrid gloomy features
of reality. * * * On this question, which for near six weeks has agi-
tated and convulsed this House, I have voted with the majority. But I
am convinced should we persist to reject the olive branch now offered, the
most disastrous consequences will follow. Those convictions are confirmed
by that acerbity of expression arising from the most irritated feelings,
wrought upon by what our Southern brethren conceive unkind, unjust,
determined perseverance of the majority, and to those I now beg leave to
address myself. Do our Southern brethren demand an equal division of
this widespread fertile region, this common property purchased with the
common funds of the nation ? No ; thej haveagreed to fix an irrevocable
boundary beyond which slavery shall never pass; thereby surrendering
to the claims of humanity and the nonslaveholding States, to the enter-
prising capitalist of the North, the Middle, and Eastern States, nine-tenths
of jthe country in question. In rejecting so reasonable a proposition we
must have strong and powerful reasons to justify our refusal. * * *
Should we now numerically carry the question it will be a victory snatched
from our brothers. It will be an inglorious triumph, gained at the haz-
ard of the Union. Humanity shudders at the thought. National policy
forbids it. It is an act at which no good man will rejoice, no friend of
his country can approve, t
The House decided to give up restriction by a vote of 90 to
87. Fourteen of those who voted to forego restriction on Mis-
souri were from the free States. Taylor, the persistent and
valiant leader of the early free-soilers, who, as a member of the
conference committee from the House, was the only one of all
the committee who refused to concur in the report, made a last
* Holmes represented the district of Maine and was anxious for its
admission as a State. He became one of Maine's first Senators.
t Annals of Congress, Sixteenth Congress, first session, vol. 2, p. 1579.
264 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
effort for his cause by endeavoring to secure the insertion of a
line excluding slavery from all the territory west of the Missis-
sippi except Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana, but the pha-
lanx of restriction had been broken and his worthy effort failed.
The Missouri bill, enabling Missouri to form her constitution,
passed both Houses March 2, 1820. The following day the
Maine bill passed the Senate. Maine was admitted, and the
people of Missouri were authorized to form a State govern-
ment and constitution. And this was the end of the second
struggle.
In reviewing the struggle in his mind the careful student
will distinguish here between the two totally distinct proposi-
tions in reference to restriction: (1) The original restriction
of Tallmadge, which Clay vehemently opposed, proposed the
exclusion of slavery from Missouri. This was restriction on a
State, and was opposed on that ground. (2) The final restric-
tion of Thomas proposed the exclusion of slavery from the
Territories of the United States north and west of Missouri.
This proposition was adopted j but it did not emanate from the
original Missouri restrictionists, nor did it by any means
satisfy them. The final compromise measure was proposed by
a steadfast opponent of the original Tallmadge amendment.
" The current assumption, " says Greeley, "that this restriction
was proposed by Rufas King, of if ew York, and mainly sus-
tained by the antagonists of slavery^ is wholly mistaken. The
truth, doubtless, is that it was suggested by the more mod-
erate opponents of restriction on Missouri as a means of over-
coming the resistance of the House to slavery in Missouri. It
was, in effect, an offer from the milder opponents of slavery
restriction to the more moderate and flexible advocates of that
restriction. ^Let us have slavery in Missouri and we will
unite with you in excluding it from all the uninhabited terri-
tories north and west of that State. ' It was in substance an
agreement between the North and the South to that effect,
though the more determined champions, whether of slavery
extension or slavery restriction, did not unite in it. "* This
statement of Greeley is borne out by the record and the final
vote. After the prolonged and bitter contest j after a debate,
then without a parallel in the history of Congress, a debate
equaled only in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which
itself had settled the slavery question by compromises j facing
* Political Text Book, 1860, p. 63.
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE — WOODBURN. 265
bitter prophecies of disunion as an alternative 5 with earnest and
impassioned appeals for peace and compromise still resounding
in their ears, 87 original restrictionists still held out for
restriction on Missouri. They would not consent to a single
other slave State in the American Union, and restriction was
finally abandoned only by a majority of three votes. Slavery
was allowed in Missouri, and restriction was beaten only by
the plan of proffering instead an exclusion of slavery from all
the then Federal territory west and north of that State. With-
out this compromise, or its equivalent, the Northern votes
needed to pass the bill could not have been obtained. *
THE THIRD MISSOURI STRUaGLE.
It seemed that, at last, this protracted struggle had been
brought to a close. Maine was now admitted, coming in within
the time assigned by Massachusetts. N"othing now remained
but that Missouri should form her constitution, that it be for-
mally accepted by Congress, and that the new State take her
place with the rest.
A Missouri convention assembled at St. Louis and adopted
a constitution for the new State July 19, 1820. The people of
Missouri were displeased with the long delay which had been
imposed upon them by the introduction of a subject which they
felt was a concern of themselves alone. It was their right, in
their opinion^ to settle the slavery question for themselves.
In this feeling of resentment, and led by extremists in the
convention, they inserted a provision in their constitution
declaring that "it shall be the duty of the general assembly,
as soon as may be, to pass such laws as may be necessary to
prevent free negroes or mulattoes from coming to or settling in
this State under any pretext whatever." t This constitution
was laid before Congress by Mr. Scott, the delegate from Mis-
souri, on !N"ovember 20, 1820. The objectionable clause in her
constitution gave rise to a stouter and more serious contest
than any which had preceded. There arose once more a bitter
parliamentary struggle, which provoked dire threats of the dis-
* Greeley, Political Text Book, 1860.
tThe constitution also forbade the legislative emancipation of slaves
without the consent of the masters. These two new subjects were to be
presented for the consideration of Congress, and it was evident that the
whole subject would again be reopened. It seemed as if Missouri wished
to meet Congress in a spirit of defiance.
266 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION,
solution of tlie Union. The lines of the old contest formed
again. The antislavery men and restrictionists who had so
hotly contested Missouri's admission as a slave State deter-
mined to continue that opposition. They were joined by some
who had formerly voted against restriction, but who were now
ready to vote against admission. They based their opposition
upon the ground that the obnoxious clause in Missouri's con-
stitution was an insulting reflection upon every State in which,
colored men were citizens, and that it was in direct contraven-
tion of that clause in the U. S. (Constitution which declares
that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the
privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States."*
Missouri's constitution, upon its presentation, was referred
to a committee of which Mr. Lowndes, of South Carolina, was
chairman. Within a week the committee reported in favor of
admission, proposing to effect this by a simple resolution,
" that the State of Missouri shall be, and is hereby declared to
be, one of the United States of America, and is admitted to
the Union on an equal footing with the original States." The
report considered the objection which had been urged to Mis-
souri's ready admission, although this objection had not yet
come under the cognizance of Congress.
Mr. Lowndes, in a notable speech advocating the immediate
recognition of Missouri as a State, held that the enabling act
of the former session was a complete act of admission, that the
time and circumstances which made a people a State were the
time at which its people formed a constitution, and the act of
forming it. This view, Mr. Lowndes contended, was according
to precedent. In the case of Indiana, December 11, 1816, the
practice of a subsequent declaration of admission first occurred,
* Benton virtually acknowledges the presence of a defiant spirit in the
Missouri convention. He says : " The State of Missouri made her consti-
tution sanctioning slavery and forbidding her legislature to interfere with
it. This prohibition, not usual in State constitutions, was the effect of
the Missouri controversy and of foreign interference, and was adopted for
the sake of peace to prevent the agitation of the slave question. I was
myself the instigator of that prohibition and the cause of its being put
into the constitution — though not a member of the convention — being
equally opposed to slavery agitation and to slavery extension. There was
also a clause prohibiting the emigration of free people of color into the
State. This clause was laid hold of in Congress to resist the admission of
the State; but the real point of objection was the slavery clause and the
existence of slavery in the State." (Thirty Years' View, Vol. i, pp. 8, 9.)
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE— WOODBURN. 267
and this declaration was but a formal notification to the other
States that a new member had been admitted. The act of the
last session which had been agreed to by the compromise after
so long a struggle did not merely give to the people of Missouri
the right to propose a constitution, but it conferred on that
people all the rights of the proudest and oldest States. This
is clearly seen, urged Mr. Lowndes, from the fact that while
the act was under discussion Mr. Taylor, of New York, the
leader of the restrictionists, had moved to insert an amend-
ment providing that if the constitution of the new State ^' shall
be approved by Congress, the said Territory shall be admitted
as a State upon the same footing as the original States." This
amendment was voted down, implying that Missouri would be
admitted without such condition. We had given Missouri the
right of self-government, and we cannot now take it from her,
Mr. Lowndes would not undertake to decide whether or not
the objectionable clause was constitutional. He would leave
that for the Supreme Court to determine. He was aware that
a very large majority of the free blacks of the United States
were not considered citizens in their respective States, and
this provision of Missouri might be construed as intending to
exempt from its provision such of the blacks as were citizens
in other States. A similar provision discriminating against
free colored persons was in the constitution of Delaware. No
one contended that Congress could sit in judgment on the
various constitutional provisions of the old States. The States,
old and new, must be equal, and why should Missouri be singled
out for invidious distinction ? The question should be left to the
Judiciary as the proper tribunal to interpret the law. When
Tennessee presented herself for admission, having formed a
constitution without an enabling act of Congress, Mr. Smith, of
South Carolina, objected, on the ground that the constitution
of Tennessee was incompatible with that of the IJnited States j
Mr. Baldwin replied that "if there should be things in the
constitution of Tennessee not compatible with the Constitution
of the United States it was well known that the Constitution
of the United States would be paramount; they can therefore
be of no effect." In that case the question of constitutional
law was left to the supreme judicial tribunal.
Mr. Sergeant, of Pennsylvania, replied to Mr. Lowndes. He
did not consider that a Territory became an independent and
sovereign State at the time it formed a constitution. Congress
268 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
could not admit a State by anticipation. Congress could not
bind itself to the admission of a State so as to have no choice
but to accept such a constitution as that State chose to offer.
Giving authority to the people of a Territory to form a State
constitution did not admit them into the Union, unless their con-
stitution should be such as the people of the United States,
through their representatives, thought fit to accept as a fun-
damental rule of government. If it be true that Missouri has
already the "rights of the oldest and proudest States" why are
we deliberating? Why is this resolution now under considera-
tion? Why are the Senators and the Representative from
Missouri kept waiting at our doors until they learn the fate of
this resolution ? Why was Missouri's constitution submitted
to a committee! Why has that committee made a report
which we are now discussing! And why did the committee
consider it necessary to go into an examination of a particular
clause of that constitution, pointing out a mode by which
Congress might relieve itself from the task of deciding on its
constitutionality by leaving it to the judiciary! The reason
assigned by the committee in the "whereas" of the resolution
is that Missouri has formed a constitution in conformity with
our act of the last session. How could the committee know
this! In the act authorizing the formation of this constitu-
tion were found two limitations — that the constitution should
be republican and that it should not be repugnant to the Con-
stitution of the United States. Is it not indispensable before
passing a resolution like this that the members of this House
should be satisfied that these requisitions have been complied
with ! Can it be said that Congress has parted with the power
of looking into the constitution of Missouri when it had
expressly prescribed conditions which should be indispensable
to its acceptance ! If Missouri is now involved in difficulty it
is the fault of the people of Missouri, This is a difficulty which
they themselves have created 5 the failure to fulfill the com-
pact is on tbe part of the people of that Territory. Would
the people of Missouri think more highly of Congress were we
to yield to them on this occasion! How much better it would
be for Congress at once to take its ground and refuse to sanc-
tion the constitution of any State which is in any respect
repugnant to that of the United States. Would any one pre-
tend, if this constitution instead of being faulty in one partic-
ular were faulty from beginning to end, that Missouri would
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE WOODBURN. 269
be entitled to admission ? Yet the surrender of our right to
decide in one particular involved the whole. With respect to
the iDroposition to turn the question over for decision to the
Judiciary, Mr. Sergeant said that he must declare, with the
greatest respect for that judicial body, that he could not con-
sent, on a question which was properly presented for his own
decision, to say, "Let the question sleep till some humble
individual, some poor citizen, shall come forward and claim a
decision of it." He would not leave to some individual to do
what it was the duty of Congress to do. Such is a resume of
the initial speech in the renewed opposition to Missouri.
These speeches opened a long and animated debate. The
principal theme of discussion was the citizenship of free per-
sons of color, and tlie subject was examined from every point
oFviewI ^r. Barbour, of Virginia, attempted a definition of
the term citizen. There was not a State in the Union, in his
opinion, in which colored men were citizens in the sense in
which the Constitution uses the term — no State in which they
have all the civil rights of other citizens, and therefore the
constitution of Missouri did not infringe the Constitution of
the United States.
Mr. Archer, of Virginia, remarked that if there were colored
persons who were citizens in some of the States, there was
notoriously a much larger class who did not belong to this
description, and the clause in Missouri's constitution might be
considered as operating only on this latter class. To reject her
constitution in the present state of the public mind would lead
to suspicion that the policy of restriction was to be reopened j
in that case the wound inflicted on the harmony of the country
would be incurable J every man must perceive that the Union
would be gone.
Mr. McLane, of Delaware, asserted that free negroes and
mulattoes are not that description of citizens contemplated by
the Constitution of the United States as entitled to Federal
rights. What rights they have are of a local nature, dependent
upon the gratuitous favor of the municipal authorities of the
States 5 these rights are limited to the States granting them
and confer no Federal privileges and immunities. The free
negro must be shown to be of "that description of citizen" to
whom the Constitution meant to guarantee equal rights in
every State.
Mr. McLane was answered by Mr. Eustis, of Massachusetts,
270 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
who showed that the rights of citizenship in the States were left
to the States themselves and that in Massachusetts the free
negro was in the enjoyment of equal citizenship under the laws j
there the free negro was in the enjoyment of civil rights, which
were guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the United
States, and of which he should not be deprived.
On December 13, 1820, the House rejected the resolution for
the admission of Missouri by a vote of 93 to 79. Mr. Lowndes
then said that while he did not wish to be disrespectful to the
majority of the House, he now called upon that majority "• to
devise and propose means necessary to protect the Territory,
property, and rights of the United States in the Missouri
country." The Missouri question now disappears from the
Congressional debates for two weeks. On January 5, 1821,
Mr. Archer of Virginia, offered in the House a resolution
instructing the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire into the
legal relation of Missouri to the United States — to ascertain
whether there were United States tribunals there '^competent
to exercise jurisdiction and to determine controversies, and if
there be no such tribunals, to report such measures as will
cause the laws of the United States to be respected there."
Mr. Archer asserted that in his opinion Missouri stood entirely
disconnected from any legal or political relation with the United
States Government. "With our own hands we have cut all
the moorings, and she floats entirely liberated and at large.
She stood formerly in the relation of a Territory j she had pro-
posed to assume the relation of a State. This House had
refused her permission to do so, and Missouri stands dis-
charged from all relation to the Union." This resolution was
the next phase of the Missouri question, which gave rise to a
spirited debate. The friends of Missouri held that their posi- '
tion was anomalous. She was not a Territory, she was not a
State J the authority of the Union hung over her, but there
was no legal mode by which it could be exercised — the channels
by which the authority of the United States Government could
be exercised had been cut off. On the other hand, the oppo-
nents of Missouri's admission held that her relation to the
Union were as they had been, and they succeeded in laying the
Archer resolution of inquiry on the table. This prevented the
House Judiciary Committee from giving a public legal declara-
tion of Missouri's relations and rights, and by this action the
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE WOODBURN. 271
House assumed the existence of the Territorial relation, with-
out, however, any express settlement of the question.
Missouri next came up in the House debates on a question
of amending the Journal. On January 11 Mr. Lowndes pre-
sented three memorials from the senate and house of repre-
sentatives of Missouri. On the 12th Mr. Cobb, of Georgia,
moved to amend the Journal by inserting the words *Hhe
State of" before the word ^'Missouri." After some rapid spar-
ring in debate the parties ranged themselves for another vote,
and the motion of Mr. Cobb was lost by the casting vote of the
Speaker, and the House thus again refused to recognize Mis-
souri as a State. Mr. Parker, of Virginia, then moved to
amend the Journal by inserting before "Missouri" the words
"the Territory of." The House had denied what Missouri is
not, they must now say what she is. The Speaker then ex-
plained from the chair that the Journal should be prepared by
the Clerk. The rules of the House made it the duty of the
Speaker "to examine and correct the Journal before it is read."
In this case the memorials had been purposely made to read
so as neither to affirm nor deny that Missouri was a State,
since the House was divided upon that question. In the course
of the debate which continued, Mr. Parker, who had made his
motion for the purpose of bringing the House to a decision,
said: "I say Missouri is a State j and were I a citizen of that
State, I would never, at your suggestion, strike out that clause
in her constitution to which objection has been made. If I
found it convenient to myself to do so I would j but I would
not do it on your recommendation, even for the important boon
of being admitted in the Union. I would rather be trodden
down by the armies from the North and East than yield this
point. If ever a people on earth has been maltreated it is this
people." The motion of Mr. Parker was voted down, and the
House proceeded to discuss the right of the Speaker to make
the alterations in the Journal which he had made in these
memorials. Thus, while refusing to acknowledge Missouri as
a State, the House refused to declare that she was a Territory.
It left the question in statu quo.
On January 24, 1820, Mr. Eustis, of Massachusetts, offered
a resolution declaring the admission of Missouri on condition
that the objectionable clause in her constitution be expunged.
His object was to remove the only objection to the admission
of Missouri, This resolution was negatived by a large majority.
272 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
On January 29, 1820, a resolution from the Senate came to
the House and was taken up there in Committee of the Whole.
This Senate resolution admitted Missouri, provided —
That nothing herein contained shall be so construed so as to give the assent
of Congress to any provision in the constitution of Missouri (if any such
there he) which contravenes that clause of the Constitution of the United
States which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all
the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.
One objection which had been urged to admitting Missouri
with her objectionable constitution was that to do so would
be to consent to the unconstitutional provision of her funda-
mental law. The Senate resolution was intended to meet this
objection. It admitted the probability that Missouri's objec-
tionable clause contravened the Constitution of the United
States and merely asserted the Senate's unwillingness to have
its admission of Missouri interpreted as making Congress a
party to such violation. This was not satisfactory to the
opponents of Missouri, who held that the responsibility was on
Congress J it was the duty of Congress to prevent a violation
of the Constitution, and this resolution merely shirked the
responsibility. It was seen that the resolution would be re-
jected by the House.
Between January 29 and February 2 no less than six amend-
ments were proposed in the nature of binding Missouri either
to expunge the offensive clause of her constitution or never to
enact a law in obedience to that clause. The debates of these
days covered the evils of slavery, the rights of the South, the
balance of power, the nature, obligations, and benefits of the
Union. On February 2 Mr. Clay, seeing that all efforts at
amendment had failed, and anxious to make a last effort to
settle this distracting question, moved to refer the Senate's
resolution to a special committee of thirteen members.*
KEPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THIRTEEN.
On February 10 Mr. Clay, on behalf of the Committee of Thir-
teen, reported. The committee had desired to arrive at a conclu-
*The Committee of Thirteen consisted of the following: Clay of Ken-
tucky, Eustis of Massachusetts, Smith of Maryland, Sergeant of Penn-
sylvania, Lowndes of South Carolina, Ford of New York, Archer of Vir-
ginia, Hackley of New York, S. Moore of Pennsylvania, Cobb of Georgia,
Tomlinson, of Connecticut, Butler of New Hampshire, Campbell of Ohio.
V
I
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE — WOODBURN. 273
sion which would give general satisfaction 5 they had sought a full
and frank comparison of opinion among themselves 5 the com-
mittee was of the unanimous opinion that no condition ought to
be imposed on Missouri except those suggested at the last session
of Congress, i. e., that her constitution should be republican and
in conformity with the Constitution of the United States 5 that
the question of restriction should not be raised. This limited the
consideration of the committee to the question whether Mis-
souri's constitution was in conformity with these conditions, and
it was found that the only objection to her constitution was the
clause to which exception had been taken. On that clause the
same diversity of opinion appeared in the committee which
had been made manifest in the House. " With these conflict-
ing opinions the committee thought it best that, without either
side abandoning its opinion, an endeavor should be made to
form an amendment to the Senate resolution which should
contain an adequate security against the violation of the priv-
ileges and immunities of citizens of other states in Missouri."
Accordingly, Missouri is to be admitted into the Union "uponi
the fundamental condition that she shall never pass any laws
preventing any description of persons from going to or settling j
in the said State who now are, or hereafter may become, cit- /
izens of any of the States of this Union; and upon the legis-^
lature of the said State signifying its assent to that condition,
by a solemn public act, which is to be communicated to the
President of the United States, he is to proclaim the fact, and
thereupon the admission of the said State is to be complete.
To prevent, however, this amendment from being considered
as impairing any right which may appertain to Missouri, in
common with other States, to exclude from her jurisdiction
persons under peculiar circumstances (as paupers and vaga-
bonds), a further proviso is added declaring Missouri's right
to exercise any power which the original States may constitu-
tionally exercise."
This report from the special Committe of Thirteen, made on
the 10th of February, was laid on the table until February 12.
The debate was then again renewed, involving charges and-j
countercharges on the balance of power between the sections I ^
and on the matter of slave representation. The majority in
opposition to Missouri was still obdurate, and the Senate reso-
lution, amendment and all, was rejected by the close vote of
83 to 80. Members in ill health, who had not been in the hall
S. Mis. 104 18
■i
if^i')
274 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
when their names were called, appeared and asked to have
their votes recorded. This could not be done except by unani-
mous consent. This was not given and the work of the Com-
mittee of Thirteen seemed to have come to nothing. Mr.
Livermore, however, an opponent of Missouri, who had objected
to the contested votes, gave notice of a motion to reconsider
in order that the question might be fairly tested in a full
vote of the House. On the next day, February 13, 1821, Mr.
Livermore made his motion for reconsideration. Some of the
friends of Missouri opposed the motion for reconsideration,
partly because they would not have Missouri burdened with
any conditions whatever, holding that she was only kept out
of the Union by violence and injustice; partly because, as in
the case of Mr. Eandolph, of Virginia, they held that the bat-
tle had been fairly fought and won by the other side, and
that another way must be found to settle this question. Mr.
Clay made a successful plea for reconsideration, and again the
House plunged into a heated debate. At this stage of the
controversy Mr^^Piaskney, of jouth Carolina, made a notable
speech. He considered that the^ountry ^^ had now arrived at
the most awful period which had hitherto occured on this deli-
cate and distressing subject.'^ He quoted from a letter cf Jef-
ferson, lately published, indicating the^orten tons character of
tfielNIissouri^^Stipn.* ' I agree perfectly with him, ' said Mr.
tinckney, " and J_ consider this, beyond all comparison, the
second (guestion in importance which has been agitated among
us since ourTevollSm the parent State. The first was the
[ memorable declaration which confirmed the Union and gave
, birth to the independence of our country. This is the only
one which may, in its consequences, lead to the dissolution
of that very_JCrnion^ and prove the deathblow to all our
political happiness" and national importance. I express this
fear from tKelact that gentlemen of the opposition have
seen fit to throw off the veil and expressly declare their inten-
tion to leave this question to the next Congress ; to leave to
them unfettered by any act of ours the power to decide how
far the true interests of the Union may make it necessary to
renew th^_stru^glefor^estrictiqn of slavery in Missouri — a
* "The Missouri question is the most portentous one that ever threatened
our Union. In the gloomiest moments of the Revolutionary war 1 never
had any apprehension equal to that I feel now from this source." — (Jeffer-
son.)
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE — WOODBURN. 275
/struggle_which has during the last three sessions shaken the
Union_to^Jts_ver2^_foTm^ avow that they
do not consider themselves bound by the compact of last year,
but aver, if they have the strength to do so, to leave the next
Congress free to decide this question as they please." Mr.
Pinckney then went into an examination of the constitution
of Missouri, claiming for it an excellence and superiority over
the constitutions of other States. ^' Can it be possible," he
asked, " that so excellent a systen can be rejected for the tri-
fling reason that it inadvertently contains a provision prohibit-
ing the settlement of free negroes and mulattoes among them
Or is it not infinitely more probable that other reasons of a
much more serious nature, and pregnant with the most disas-
trous events to the future union and peace of these States, are
at the bottom of this unexpected and inexcusable opposition?
The article of the Constitution on which now so much stress
is laid — ^the citizens in each State shall be entitled to all the
privileges and immunities in every State,' — having been made
by me, it is supposed that I must know, or perfectly recollect,
what I meant by it. In answer, I say that, at the time I drew
that article, I perfectly knew that there did not then exist
such a thing in the Union as a black or colored citizen, nor
could I have conceived it possible such a thing could ever have
existed in it.* Missouri having no idea of the existence of
such a thing as a black or colored citizen of the United States,
and knowing that all the Southern and Western States had for
many years passed laws to the same effect, which laws are well
known to Congress, being at this moment in their library and
within the walls of the Capitol, and which were never before
objected to by them or their courts, they (the people of Mis-
souri) were no doubt warranted in supposing they had the
same right. The silence of Congress on the antecedent laws
of Southern and Western States might fairly be considered a
sanction to Missouri's proceeding."
This speech of Mr. Pinckney gave indirect public expression
to the charge, which had been frequently bandied in political
circles, that the anti slavery restrictionists, having secured
the admission of Maine, were now not willing to fulfill the terras
of the compromise ; that they were guilty of a breach of faith.
The injustice of this view is indicated by the fact that some
members who had voted against restriction on Missouri in the
*Gen. Pinckney was a member of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
276 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
previous session, were now opposing her admission under her
objectionable constitution. Mr. Foot, of Connecticut, was of
tbis number, and be asserted at tbis stage of tbe controversy
tbat be would never vote for Missouri's admission unless tbe
offensive clause were expunged. It was evident tbat Missouri's
objectionable clause bad aroused tbe temper of tbe House and
excited its antagonism. But, no doubt, the_ original restric-
tiouists were ready to seize tbis opportunitvto put an obstacle
V inl^be way of tbe admission of anotber slave StaFer Mr. Clay,
sFriiggling for conciliation, closed tbe debate. He alternately
reasoned, remonstrated, and entreated tbe House, but bis effort
was in vain, and bis compromise resolution was rejected by a
vote of 88 to 82.
It was tbe day after tbis seemingly final rejection of Missouri
tbat tbe t\70 Houses were appointed to meet to count tbe elec-
toral vote for President and Vice-President. It bad been seen,
of course, tbat tbe question would arise wbetber tbe vote of
Missouri sbould be counted, or wbetber it was entitled to be
cast. It bad not yet been decided wbetber Missouri was a
State. In order to come to some arrangement by wbicb tbe
Houses could avoid tbis question wben tbey sbould come into
joint session, Mr. Clay bad, ten days before, on February 4,
offered in tbe House a resolution providing tbat if any objec-
tion be made to tbe vote of Missouri tbe President of tbe
Senate, wbo was to preside on tbis occasion, sbould be directed
to announce wbat tbe result would be if tbe votes of Missouri
were counted and wbat it would be if tbe votes of Missouri
were not counted j ^'but in eitber case A. B. is elected Presi-
dent of tbe United States."
Tbis resolution was adopted only after considerable debate
as to tbe status of Missouri. Tbe Senate also agreed to tbis
plan. Tbere was still mucb fear, bowever, tbat it would not
be successful in keeping tbe peace. Tbe fear was realized.
Tbe joint meeting of tbe two Houses on tbe 14tb of February
was one of turbulent excitement. It was frequently inter-
rupted by simultaneous cballenges of Missouri's vote. Wben
tbe vote of Missouri was announced Mr. Livermore, of Few
Hampsbire, arose and said: " Mr. President and Mr. Speaker,
I object to receiving any votes for President and Yice-Presi-
dent from Missouri, as Missouri is not a State of tbis Union."
Tbis objection was numerously and clamorously seconded.
Confusion and tumult followed, till ^' at last a Senator, witb a
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE — WOODBURN. 277
voice above the wildness of the scene, moved that the Senate
withdraw, which was immediately obeyed, and the House was
left in sole possession of the field."* Disorder continued in
the House after the Senate's withdrawal, one member crying
"Missouri is not a State," another shouting, "Missouri is a
State." An hour of wrangling followed. When order was
restored, Mr. Floyd, of Virginia, rose and offered the following
resolution : t
Resolved, That Missouri is one of the States of this Union, and her rotes
for President and Vice-President of the United States ought to be received
and counted.
Mr. Floyd said that he now considered the House brought
to the brink of the precipice. "The votes of other States had
been received and counted before their admission had been
formally declared. The question of Missouri was now brought
fairly to issue. Let us know whether Missouri be a State in
the Union or not. If not, let us send her an ambassador, and
treat for her admission. Sir, we can not take another step
without hurling this Government into the gulf of destruction.
For one, I say I have gone as far as I can go in the way of
compromise, and if there is to be a compromise beyond that
point, it must be at the edge of the sword."
Mr. Archer, of Maryland, moved the indefinite postpone-
ment of Mr. Floyd's resolution. He was a friend of Missouri,
but he could not assert by his vote that she was a member of
the Union without the acceptance of her constitution by Con-
gress, as much as he " reprobated the foul combination for her
rejection."
John Eandolph, of Virginia, considered that in this resolu-
tion Missouri had for the first time presented herself in visible
and tangible shape. ' ' Now comes the question whether we will
not merely repel her, but repel her with scorn and contumely."
He would have had this question of Missouri at an earlier stage
of the proceedings in this concrete shape, as, for instance, the
right of her representatives to a seat on the floor. Missouri's
vote was now presented in her own person and Congress had
no power to reject. Eandolph here laid down the strange
doctrine that the electoral college was as independent of
Congress as Congress was of the college. The duty of the
Houses in counting the vote was purely ministerial j it is to
* Cotton's Works of Clay, Vol. i, p. 283.
t Seaton's Annals.
278 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
count the votes, not to reject; there was power to receive
the return, but no power to pass judgment on the validity of
the return. It must count the vote ; but it had no power to
determine what were votes. ^^ This was the first instance in
which Missouri had knocked at the door and demanded her
rights. It is now for us to determine whether she shall now
be one of our commonwealths. No doubt Congress may drive
Missouri into the wilderness, like another son of Hagar, but
if we do we drive her at our own peril."
After this spirited and heated debate, in which Mr. Clay
took a prominent part, the resolution of Mr. Floyd was laid on
the table, and a message was sent to the Senate that the House
was again ready to receive it for the purpose of counting the
electoral vote. I quote from the Annals of Congress: "The
Senate again appeared and took seats in the House as before.
The President of the Senate, in the presence of both Houses,
proceeded to open the certificates of the electors of the State
of Missouri, which he delivered to the tellers, by whom it was
read and who registered the same.
"And the votes of all the States having been thus counted,
registered, and the list thereof compared, they were delivered
to the President of the Senate, by whom they were read as
already printed.
"The President of the Senate then, in pursuance of the reso-
lution adopted by the two Houses, proceeded to announce the
vote as follows :
"Were the vote of Missouri to be counted, the result would
be for James Monroe, of Virginia, for President of the United
States, 231 votes; if not counted, for James Monroe, of Vir-
ginia, 228 votes. For Daniel D. Tompkins, of New York, for
Vice-President of the United States, 218 votes; if not counted,
for Daniel D. Tompkins, of New York, for Vice-President, 215.
But in either event, James Monroe, of Virginia, has a majority
of the votes of the whole number of electors for President, and
Daniel D. Tompkins, of New York, a majority of the whole
number of electors for Vice-President of the United States.
"The President of the Senate had proceeded thus far, or
nearly thus far, in the proclamation when Mr. Floyd, of Vir-
ginia, addressed the Chair and inquired whether the votes of
Missouri were or were not counted.
"Cries of < Order! Order!' were so loud as to drown Mr.
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE — WOODBURN. 279
Floyd's voice. The President of the Senate had hesitated in
the proclamation on Mr. Floyd's addressing the Chair.
'^Mr. Eandolph rose and was addressing the Chair, when
loud cries of ^ Order ! Order ! ' resounded from many voices.
'^The Speaker pronounced Mr. Eandolph to be out of order
and invited him to take his seat.
^'Mr. Brush demanded that Mr. Randolph should be allowed
to proceed, and declared his determination to sustain his right
to do so.
"Mr. Floyd was also declared out of order, and though there
was considerable murmuring at the decision, order was restored
and the President of the Senate completed the announcement
of the election of Monroe and Tompkins.
" Mr. Randolph addressed the Chair, but was required to take
his seat. On motion, the Senate retired from the Hall. After
they retired, the House being called to order, Mr. Randolph,
who had still retained the floor, was heard addressing the Chair.
He spoke for some time without being distinctly heard, owing
to the confusion in the Hall. ^ He had,' he said, ^ seen every
election of President of the United States except that of the
present chief magistrate, and he had never before heard any
other form of proclamation than that such was the whole num-
ber of votes given in. Sir, your election is vitiated j you have
flinched from the question j you have attempted to evade the
decision of that which was essential to the determination of who
is or who is not elected chief magistrate of the United States.'
And Mr. Randolph concluded his remarks with resolutions de-
claring the election illegal. When he suspended his remarks
to reduce his resolutions to writing, a motion was made and
carried to adjourn the House."
This scene well illustrates the hot and bitter strife which the
contest had engendered. There were now but three more
weeks of the session, and it seems that the combatants for
Missouri had despaired of reaching a settlement. The next
day, February 15, the formal resolution was again repeated by
Mr. Clark, of New York, to admit Missouri on condition that
she expunge the objectionable clause, but the resolution was
laid over without discussion. The House was tired of all the^
old aspects of the question. The next aspect of the question
which excited discussion arose on the proposition of Mr . Brown,
of Kentucky, made February 21, to repeal the enabling act for
280 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Missouri. Missouri had not been admitted according to the
terms of the compact, and Mr. Brown now demanded, " on the
principles of justice which governs contracts, that the anti-
slavery restriction should be raised from the rest of the terri-
tory. The consideration promised for this restriction has not
been paid j the plighted faith of Congress for the admission of
Missouri has been violated j then take off the restriction. Sir,
the course of the majority can be justified by no principle
of reason or sound policy, but must rest for its support on
pious fraud." On the day following this speech of Brown Mr.
Clay moved the appointment of a joint committee, to consist
of 23 members on the part of the House, to take into con-
sideration the admission of Missouri. The committee ap-
pointed by ballot reported, on February 24, the report embody-
ing substantially the conclusions of the former committee of
thirteen. It was agreed that " Missouri shall be admitted into
this Union on an equal footing with the original States, upon
the fundamental condition," that the objectionable clause of
her constitution should " never be construed to authorize the
passage of any laws, and that no law should ever be passed, by
which any citizen of either of the States of the Union shall be
excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and im-
munities to which such citizen is entitled under the Constitu-
tion of the United States; that the legislature of said State, by
a solemn public act, shall declare the assent of said State to
the said fundamental condition." Upon the transmission of
this act to the chief executive, the President was to proclaim
the admission of Missouri.
This report came back to the two Houses with the unani-
mous approval of the committee from the Senate and with
almost the unanimous vote of the committee of the House.
But it did not pass the House without another animated de-
bate; and it then passed only by the close vote of S6 to 82.
And the Missouri struggle was ended.*
It was in this last phase of the struggle — which seems only
like an appendix to the real issue itself— in which Mr. Clay
took such an active and prominent part, a part which helped
to gain for him the title of "Pacificator." It was in this final
compromise, not in the former and more important one, that
^Missouri agreed to the "fundamental condition of her admission"
June 26, 1821, and the President's proclamation announcing her admission
was dated August 10, 1821.
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE WOODBURN.
281
Mr. Clay was the leading spirit. The final phase of the Mis-
soiiri struggle has almost disappeared from generarkuowledge.
The firsf struggle and compromise involved the chief merits
of the controversy and dealt with the subjects of permanent
interest. But it was in the last phase that the greatest ex-
citement, antagonism, and bitterness were aroused, and it was
in this stage that the struggle appeared the most dangerous.
But the excitement and danger which this involved were
merely temporary. GHie^enduT^^nature^ the^issouri ques-
tion was involved, not in the final heated str'uggleTbutlirthe
original conlEest overTestfjction and the^compromise by which
this^^w^s Settled] The subsequent and permanent interest
attaching to the subject of this compromise calls for a brief
review of the argument brought out by the opposing forces
in the original contest for restriction.
THE DE:8ATE on slavery RESTRICTIONS.
The argument for the admission of Missouri without restric-
tion rested chiefly on a strict constructign of the Constitution. '
The argument denied th^ constitutional power of Congress to ♦
impose any restriction upon a sovereign State. If a single
restriction could be imposed, there was no limit to restriction. *
A new State might as well be required to abolish any other
municipal regulation, or to annihilate any other attribute of •
sovereignty. Then the discretion of Congress and not the
Constitution would be the law for the admission of States. '
Mr. Pinckney. of Maryland, made the strongest argument, in
a notable speech, fi?om this standpoint. He based his opposi- ;
tion to restriction on the constitutional nature of the Union.
The Union was a kind of ^Jmternational compact" between
coequal memliers. No terms can be imposed upon one mem-
ber of the partnership which are not imposed upon all. <' Con-
gress may admit new States into this Union" — this implies
that Congress may have power to refuse, but it does not involve V
power to exact terms. ^^ You must look to the result which is
the object of the power. Whether you will arrive at the result
may depend upon your will, but you can not compromise with
the result intended and professed. What is the proposed result ?
To admit a State into this Union. What is this Union? A
confederacy of coequal sovereigns." Pinckney then affirmed
that the Union into which Missouri was to come was to be the
Union as originally established. Ko doubt the rights of the
r^
l^:
282 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
original thirteen States liad been absolutely equal. A dis-
crimination in favor of any one, or against another, would have
prevented the formation of the Union. If this discrimination
is to meet Missouri, then she is admitted not to this Union but
to an entirely different Union. The original thirteen States
had, and have to-day, the undoubted right to forbid or to
allow slavery. If this right be not allowed to a new State, the
Union no longer consists of equal members. "Admit or not,
as you choose; but if you admit you must take the new mem-
ber into this Union, into a union where the new State will
be an equal companion with its fellows. Maine is to be seated
by the side of her respectable i^arent, coordinate in authority
and honor, but Missouri is to be repelled with harshness and
forbidden to come at all unless with the iron collar of servi-
tude about her neck instead of the civic crown of republican
freedom upon her brow."* This view considered Missouri
already a State, a State applying for admission, with all the
rights of a State already appertaining to her. On the basis of
the States-rights view that the Union was a compact between
the States and that the new State was already as one of
these, the argument of Pinckney seems unanswerable. But
the argument was strong only on this basis, and by consenting
that the rights of a State pertained to the Territory of Mis-
souri. The same argument made by Pindall, of Virginia, is
summarized by Yon Hoist as follows: '*The Federal Govern-
ment has only the powers granted it by the sovereign States;
newly admitted States become members of the Union with
equal rights; no other grants of power can therefore be
demanded from them than those voluntarily made by the orig-
inal thirteen States; no one affirms that the thirteen original
States gave up the right to decide whether slavery should be
permitted or prohibited within their borders."t
The^ .principle of nationality was not boldly asserted in
A^ answer to this view, which indicates the prevalence and domi- •/
^^ i^iice of the States-rights view of thenature of the Uni^^^
. ^ ., k} It was urged, also, that there had never been a precedent •<
l^<J j/> for the imposition of a condition upon a State. The limita-
.\Ji ^ ^ions placed on Louisiana in 1812 could riot be compared to
those proposed for Missouri. In the case of Louisiana it was
only required that her laws and constitution should conform
* Pinckney'8 Speech, Seaton's Annals.
t See von Hoist, Const. Hist. U. S., Vol. i, p. 364.
t
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE — WOODBURN. 283
to tlie Constitution of the United States. These conditions,
and any others that had ever been imposed on any preceding
State, were minor and self-evident j this was fundamental,
touching a subject of abiding interest, on which the original
States had full freedom of action. The Constitution rested on
the equality of members of the Union j it was evident Maine
and Missouri would not come in as equal States if Maine could A*'^
come in as she pleased and Missouri could not. The argu-
ment that the States of the Northwest were so conditioned by
the Ordinance of 1787 was not analogous; that restriction was
imposed in pursuance of a compact; Congress was thus only
carrying into effect the disposition of Virginia with reference
to this Territory; and it was, moreover, proclaimed at a time
when few, if any, settlements were formed within that tract
of country. Scott, of Missouri, asserted that in his opinion it
was " competent for any of those States admitted in pur-
suance of the Ordinance of 1787 to call a convention and so
alter their constitutions as to allow the introduction of slaves,
if they thought proper to do so."
The friends of Missouri also urged that Louisiana, of which
Missouri was a part, had been obtained at the cost of the whole a
Uiiion, and it would be unjust to deprive the people of half ^
the Union of the right to colonize it. The rights of the
Southern people to migrate to this Territory involved with*
them the right to carry their slaves. Besides, slavery already,^
existed in Missouri, and the proposed restriction would be in the
nature of an abolition. Slavery existed in this Territory whem
it was purchased from France. Louisiana had been admitted!
without disturbing this relation; why should abolition bej
attempted now? The inhabitants of the Territory had been
guaranteed by the treaty of cession in 1803 to all their rights ^v/^
of property, and they had been promised admission. The
advocates of Missouri rested heavily on this phase of the argu-
ment. This treaty had applied to retain slavery in Louisiana;
why not in Missouri ?
Nor did the contention for Missouri omit the plea of X
humanity. Mr. Clay, in speaking against restriction, jiarticu-
larly emphasized the plea that to enlarge the area of slavery
would only ^^ dilute'^ the evil, that it would serve to relieve
congestion and suffering in thickly populated slave areas.
Slavery in Missouri would " not add to the slave population
* See Art. Ill, Louisiana treaty.
\A
K
284 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
a single soul, but, on the other hand, would alleviate the
unhappy lot of those hemmed in within too narrow lines."
It does not appear that any of those who argued for the free
^ admission of Missouri ventured to defend the institution of
' slavery. It was generally recognized, on that side of the argu- ^
ment, as a public evil. The defense for Missouri rested almost
i~^^^ ^together on the strictly constitutional phases of the question.
-'•^' They touched the evils of slavery only in minor and incidental
ways, and only as they were urged to by the attacks of their
opponents.
On the other hand, thejir^ument for restriction on Missouri
rested mainly on the evils of slavery, and on the political jus-
tice and wisdom of restricting the slave area. The greater
part of their speeches were occupied in portraying the evils of
slavery, and urging the expediency of restriction. They urged
that restriction had been the policy of the fathers as seen in
the ordinance of 1787, a policy which ought never to have been
departed from and which ought now to be resumed and recog-
nized once for all. Their chief concern was to save the terri-
tory beyond the Mississippi for free soil, for the benefit of the
free laborer. ^^Give such a man the fee simple of a barren
rock, arid he will cover it with verdure -, plr.nt him in a desert,
and fertility will spring around him. Convenience and con-
tent are the companions of his toil, and wealth follows in the
train of industrious freedom. On the contrary, the slave and
his taskmaster, placed in a land flowing with milk and honey,
would convert even the Garden of Eden into a desert and a
waste. * This from the speech of Plumer represents the gen-
eral antislavery plea.
The antislavery advocates, however, did not avoid the con-
stitutional argument. Su^§iiagj._of^ Kew_York, gave the ^
? ^st summary of this argument He rested his case upon two
clauses^ iri^tlieCbristitutioii:
(1) "Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all
needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other y^
property of the United States." To make all needful rules
implies the right to determine what rules are needful. The
power is so manifest and unambiguous that commentary could
not make it plainer. It was absurd to say that an act enabling
a Territory to become a State could not bind the Territory
because it had already become a State. The rights of the /
* Plumer's speech, Seaton's Annals.
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE — WOODBURN. 285
original States did not pertain to the territories recently
acquired until tlie exercise of those rights was agreed to by
TSngress.
(2) " Congress may admit new States into this Union." This
clearly implies the right to refuse, and also to indicate upon ^
what terms it will consent. The question respecting slavery
in the old thirteen States had been decided and settled before
the adoption of the Constitution. This document grants no
power to Congress to interfere with or change what had been
settled 5 the slave States are therefore free to do as they will.
But this agreement did not guarantee forever the admission of
whatever other States might wish to come in. On the other
hand, the Constitution gives powers of restriction to Congress.
Since 1808 Congress had had power to prohibit the migration nt
or importation of slaves into any of the thirteen States ; at all
times under the Constitution Congress had power to prohibit
the migration of slaves to the Territories. The restrictive ordi-
nance of 1787 occurred under a constitution which conferred ^
no such power. The Constitution of 1787 supplied the defect \
of the Articles of Confederation, and the United States ratified
the ordinance. Although Congress possess the power of mak-
ing the exclusion of slavery a condition of admission it may, in
special cases and for sufScient reasons, forbear to exercise this
power. This forbearance had been exercised in reference to
slavery in the cases of Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, and
Mississippi 5 but in these cases the principle of imposing condi-
tions had been recognized. As Plumer jDointed out, Kentucky
had been allowed by Virginia to become an independent State
only on the express condition that the ordinance of 1787 be
applied to her (except the clause on slavery) and that she
would never tax the land of nonresidents higher than resi-
dents, and would leave the navigation of the Ohio free to all
citizens of the United States. Ko matter by whom the condi-
tion was imposed Kentucky had become a State under condi-
tions. The other side had based their argument on the idea
and definition of a State. The word implied, according to
Clay, a political community possessing the same rights and
powers and in all respects resembling the original parties to
the compact. But ^ew Hampshire retained the sovereign
right to tax the lands of nonresidents higher than the lands
of residents; in Kentucky they can not. She does not possess
all the attributes of sovereign self-government. The same
286 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
conditions were imposed on Tennessee. In the case of Loui-
siana there were still more notable conditions. In 1804, when
the United States took possession of Louisiana, it was esti-
mated to contain about 50,000 whites, 40,000 slaves, and 2,000
free colored people. Four-fifths of the whites, and nearly aU
the slaves, were in New Orleans and the adjacent territory.
About 1,300 slaves were dispersed throughout the country
now included in the Arkansas and Missouri territories. Most
of these were in Missouri, removing from the old French set-
tlements east of the Mississippi after the ordinance of 1787.
In 1812 Louisiana was admitted after Congress had stipulated
that her constitution should provide for civil and religious
liberty; her laws, records, legislative, and judicial proceedings
should be kept in the English language, and the lands of non-
residents be subject only to equal taxation. The habits of the
people and the number of slaves by whom the labor of I^ew
Orleans territory was performed account for the omission of
the antislavery restriction. Certainly it could not be the right
to impose conditions which the friends of Missouri were object-
ing to, but rather the nature of the condition suggested. But
this very condition itself had been imposed in the cases of Ohio,
Indiana, and Illinois, and expediency now demanded that this
condition be imposed on Missouri. The " equal rights " to
which new States are to be admitted mean equal federal rights,
not equal State rights. States are dissimilar, and do not all
exercise the same rights.
Nor was Congress barred from exercising this power by the
terms of the Louisiana treaty. True, " the inhabitants of the
territory shall be incorporated in the United States and admit-
ted as soon as possible according to the principles of the Fed-
eral Constitution * * * and they shall be maintained and
protected in the free enjoyment of their property." But the
treaty power was not the admitting power, and it could not
bind Congress to admit a new State from this region under
whatever unexpected, unrepublican, and monarchial conditions
it might choose to present itself. Moreover, the term " prop-
erty" does not include slaves in international law, for all
nations do not permit slavery, and in treaties the term "prop-
erty" does not include them; when stipulations respecting
slaves are desired, "slaves" or "negroes" is used. And even
if it had been the intention in this stipulation to include slave
property, it was only a temporary guarantee applying to the
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE — WOODBURN. 287
property then possessed, not to property acquired under the
laws of the United States, but to that acquired under the
laws of Louisiana. It is absurd to assert that this stipulation
secured to the slave owner and his descendants an unlimited
right of property in his slaves and their posterity to all eter-
nity.
It had been asserted, also, that the restriction would be
nugatory, for the new State in its sovereignty would annul its ^ j
consent and thus annul the article by which slavery is excluded.
This would violate good faith j a State might thus violate anyi
article of the compact by which it was admitted. The judicial
power of the United States would be the means by which this
wrong could be prevented.
Turning from the constitutional aspects of the question, Mr.
^in^considers the question in its political relations. We may
readily suppose that the argument which he makes on this
phase of the subject was the most weiglity of all considerations
with his northern constituency. In American political history
two motives have united to lead men into political cooperation >
to resist the extension of slavery. In 1854-'55 Sumner went
into the Eepublican party chiefly because of his moral hatred
of slavery; Seward did so chiefly from political considerations,
from the sense of injustice which he felt at the disproportion
of j)olitical power which the slave system gave to the slave
States of the Union. In 1820 King occupied the position ofx
Seward. H^ did not disregard the evils of slavery, but he
looked at the question more as a statesman than as a moralist j ^
lie' particularly emphasized the political significance and [// ^ tA^^iT^
injustice which the admission of slave States involved. Kingv '
was the antislavery statesman of the Missouri conflict. His
argument on this occasion and on this theme best sets forth
the merits of the situation and it deserves to be reproduced.
He said :
The rule of representation had been conceded by the free States in 1787
with reluctance, largely in deference to the maxim that representation
and taxation should go together. It had been agreed by the Congress of
the Confederation and by a majority of the States that direct taxes should i
be apportioned on the basis of all free and three-fifths of all other per- (
sons. But if this is as fair a rule as is practicable for apportioning taxes,
it does not follow that a like rule for apportioning representation would
be equally fair. The principle of the English constitution on which we
had opposed England was that a colony or district is not to be taxed I
which is not represented, not that its number of representatives should /|
be ascertained by its quota of taxes. This would be to establish the prin-
A?-
288 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
ciple of property qualification and representation. A man possessing
twice as much property as another should pay twice as much taxes, but
no man, by the American principle, should have two votes to another's
y one; each has but one vote in the choice of representatives. If three-
fifths of the slaves are virtually represented, their owners obtain a dis-
proportionate power in legislation and in the appointment of President of
the United States. The present House, in 1819, consists of 181 members,
giving one representative to every 35,000 of population. According to the
last census the whole number of slaves in the United States was 1,191,000,
which entitled the slave States to twenty representatives and twenty
• presidential electors more than they would be entitled to if the slaves
were excluded. By the last census Virginia contained 582,000 free per-
sons and 392,000 slaves. In any free State 582,000 free persons would be
entitled to elect only sixteen representatives, while in Virginia 582,000
free persons, by the addition of three-fifths of the slaves, become entitled
to elect, and they do elect, twenty-three representatives, being seven
• additional ones on account of the slaves. Thus, while 35,000 free persons
are requisite to elect one representative in a free State, 25,000 may do so
tin Virginia ; five free persons in Virginia have as much power in the choice
ojf representatives and in the election of a president as seven free persons
in any of the free States.
This inequality of power, it is true, was understood at the time of the
adoption of the Constitution, but at that time no one wholly anticipated
the fact that the whole of the United States revenue would be derived
from indirect taxes. The free States reluctantly acquiesced in the dispro-
portionate number of representatives thus given to the slave-holding
States, the greatest concession which was made to secure the adoption of
the Constitution, and which is seen to be greater now than it was thought
to be then.
Great as it was, the concession was definite and it was fully compre-
hended. It was a settlement between the thirteen States, secured from
considerations of their actual conditions and from the necessity which all
felt of reforming the then Federal Government. The equality of rights,
which includes an equality of burdens, is a vital principle in our theory of
government and it should be jealously preserved. The departure from
this principle in the disproportionate power and influence allowed to the
slave-holding States was a necessary sacrifice to the establishment of the
Constitution. The effect of this Constitution has been obvious in the pre-
ponderance it has given to the slave-holding States over the other States
of the Union. Nevertheless, it is an ancient settlement, and faith and
t honor stand pledged not to disturb it. But the extension of this dispro-
portionate power to the new States would be unjust and odious. The
W-^rk'¥-i!ka TirT^i-vork ■*%i-k"rrr^%T» T«Trf-»i-il/1 T* y% *^ Tvw«I ^ i-»^y^ n t^ /I TxrTirf-ka/^ VkiTW*/! ziT^ a T^rr/MTl/^ r\A
States whose power would be abridged, and whose burdens would be
increased by the measure, can not be expected to consent to it ; and we
may hope that the other States are too magnanimous to insist on it.
It is clear that the importance of this aspect of the ques-
tion was appreciated by southern advocates. The balance of
power in the Senate seemed to them to involve their political
existence.*
* Benton's Debates, Vol. vi, p. 559. (See Tucker's speech.)
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE — WOODBURN.
289
We have said that King did not disregard the moral aspects
of the question. It had been asserted that only domestic
slaves would be taken to Missouri, and thus slavery would be
"diluted." With the slaves thus dispersed their condition
would be bettered, their numbers would be the same, and
their health and comfort would be increased. Jefferson and
Clay had both made this plea.* King, and Eoberts, of Penn-
sylvania, both pointed out that the extension could only result
in an extension of the market, an increase in the price, and
an impulse to the foreign supply. The theory of "dilution"
was disproved by thousands of fresh slaves who, in violation
of our laws, are annually imported into Alabama, Louisiana,
and Mississippi. " Eenewed efforts, new laws, new penalties,"
said King, "will not put an end to the slave trade; so long as
markets are open to the purchase of slaves, so long they will
be supplied; and so long as we permit the existence of slavery
in our jfrontier States so long slave markets will exist. The
plea of humanity is not admissible. No one who has seen will
ever believe that the slave is made happier by separating him
from family and home and taking him to a distant State."
"Slavery," King concludes, " can not exist in Missouri with-
out the consent of Congress. The question may therefore be
considered, in certain lights, as a new one. The Territory of
Missoa^ * is beyond our ancient limits, and the inquiry whether
slavery shall exist there is open to many of the arguments
that might be employed had slavery never existed within the
United States. It is a question of no ordinary importance.
Freedom and slavery are the parties which stand this day
before the Senate; and upon its decision the empire of the one
or the other will be established in the new State which we are
about to admit into the Union." t
PERMANENT SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STRUGGLE.
Let us now look to the significance of this struggle :
1. In the first place it should be noticed that the immediate
contest was not over the question of the prohibition of slavery in
the Territories. The great struggle lasted for nearly three
years, but the final proposition which closed the controversy
*Jeffer8on's Works, Vol. vii, p. 194.
tThis speech of King's is not reported in the Annals. The author fur-
nished it from notes and memory to Niles's Kegister, '* substantially as he
made it." (See Niles, Vol. xvii, p. 215, 1819.)
S. Mis. 104 19
290 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
and which prohibited slavery in almost all the then Federal
territory was probably not debated more than three hours. It
was accepted without discussion by the great bulk of the
advocates of Missouri's free admission. Very few slavery
extensionists questioned the right and power of Congress to
prevent the spread of slavery to the Territories. That question,
in the minds of those who opposed restriction in Missouri, was
incidental to the question of the right of Congress to impose
conditions upon a State. Incidentally the question of slavery
in the Territories came up in the case of Arkansas, a country
<{\ south of Missouri, in which slavery was already a fact. The
4j>^ i restrictionists themselves recognized the fact that the plain,
^ >' ^ simple issue of limiting the area of human slavery would be
''\^^ ^y^^' strengthened by bringing it before the country unincumbered
^ %V^ " J^ * with the question of imposing conditions on a State, though
\^^ ^ I most of them never wavered in their belief that conditions
u> ^ ^ might be imposed. On the one hand it was only Southern
•>^ A^ zealots who denied to Congress the power to prohibit slavery
»^ V i^ T. in the Territories; on the other hand many in the North who
j^ 15\ t* ^ opposed slavery believed that Congress might not impose
J" \ conditions upon a State. In the cabinet of Monroe, in which
y^ t'^ sat Wirt, Crawford, and Calhoun, it was unanimously agreed
"* 'il^i^ y *^^* Congress had power to prohibit slavery in the Territories.
, But John Quincy Adams, also a member of that cabinet, who
^^ V hated slavery with all the strength of his soul, thought it was
V '] unconstitutional to bind a State by conditions. "This is a
^ I question," he says, "between the rights of human nature and
/ the Constitution of the United States."
Feeling the loss of support for their purpose from such views,
the friends of restriction in the interest of human freedom and
the "rights of human nature" made repeated attempts to pre-
sent their cause unincumbered by the rights of a State. After
the failure of their effort to bar slavery from Arkansas, in
which the conditions were all against them, the restrictionists
attempted to force to the front the pure, unincumbered issue
of restriction. On D ecember 14, 1819, very early in the session of
of the Sixteenth Congress, before the Missouri bill could have
come before the House for discussion, Mr. Taylor, of Kew York,
the champion of the Restrictionists, secured the appointment of
a committee to consider the expediency of restricting slavery in
all Territories west of the Mississippi, and he then moved the
postponement of the Missouri bill until this committee might
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE — WOODBURN. 2^1
have an opportunity to report. It was then that Scott, the
Delegate from Missouri, said that if the Missouri bill ultimately
failed, the people of that Territory would form a government
of their own without waiting to apply again to Congress.
Taylor was disappointed in the conduct of the committee on
general restriction; a majority of its members were not ready
to cooperate with him for fear, it is reasonable to say, that
their action would prejudice the case of Missouri. The com-
mittee was discharged at Taylor^s request, who then moved,
December 28, still before the Missouri bill came up in the Six-
teenth Congress, that a committee be appointed with instruc-
tions to report a bill prohibiting the further admission of slaves
into the Territories west of the Mississippi. This was done in
order to present alone the single issue of slavery restriction
and to get the question before the House in a distinct shape.
Mr. Lowndes, of South Carolina, Mr. Ehea, of Tennessee, and
Mr. Holmes, of Massachusetts, all of whom afterwards voted
for Territorial restriction under other conditions, objected to
this resolution on the ground that it was unbecoming in the
House to express an opinion on a subject where views so con-
flicted until the question was fairly before the House; the
resolution, in the view of these gentlemen, took the merits of
the question for granted and would commit the House to the
restrictive policy; this they were not willing to have done
while the Missouri bill was pending. Their course on the
policy of general restriction was determined by its bearing on
Missouri's admission. Mr. Taylor then explained that he sup-
posed a bill would be the way for the House to come at the
question. In directing the committee to prepare a bill he did
not intend the House to express an opiuion on tlie principle of
the bill. He presumed no member — he knew of none^doubted
the constitutional power of Congress to impose such a restric-
tion on the Territories ; the only question here was one of expe-
dfency. On that question of expediency, if it had been fairly
presented as Taylor desired, there would have been a differ-
ence of opinion, for the slavery question affected the interests "'^
of men; but no considerable body of opinion appeared to
combat, with any approach to success, the sovereign power of f^
the nation to control the Territories. Although it was asserted
by extreme slavery advocates that the rights of property per-
tained to the ownership of the slave, guaranteeing its protec-
tion in the Territories equally with all other property, yet aU
292 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
the burden of precedent in the Missouri struggle and its settle-
ment favored the constitutional power of Congress to exclude
slavery from the Territories. The conflict of debate was upon
another question, and its settlement seemed to take this view
for granted. The power of Congress over the Territories
included this prohibition.
2. In the second place, the contest was entirely unexpected,
without any premonition of its coming. This Mr. Blaine calls
tlie **most remarkable fact" in all^the excitement attending
tEe question. The last real political contest in the country had
been in 1812, when Madison had beaten DeWitt Clinton.
Monroe had been elected both in 1816 and 1820 practically
without opposition, and the Federalists in the latter year
disappeared from the political arena. "• The discussion of the
Missouri question," says John Quincy Adams, '^disclosed a
I secret; it revealed the basis for a new organization of parties.
\ Here was a new party ready formed — terrible to the whole
Q \ Union, but portentiously terrible to the South — threatening in
W y I its^ progress the emancipation of all their slaves, threatening
>^ \ in its immediate effect that southern domination which has
\ V V * swayed the Union for the last twenty years."* The unset-
^Y tiement of the compromise as arranged in 1820 brought back
exactly these conditions, and fulfilled the prophecy a genera-
tion later.
3. In the third place, the struggle indicated a notable change
\ in the southern mind on the slavery question, and that a slave
\ power was forming which would attempt to control all legisla-
tion of the federal Union affecting slavery.
<^The philosophic antislavery sentiments of the Eevolutionary
period," says Mr. Schurz, "had disappeared, or were fast disap-
pearing; they had ceased to have any influence upon current
thought in the South." t
Vi^^^", \ This change in the southern mind, both as to the moral and
*^ ^ the economic aspect of slavery, had been brought about chiefly
^'v ^ I by the growth in the cotton plant. Eli Whitney invented the
cotton gin in 1793.| Cotton had been exported from the United
States for the first time in 1791. When Jay negotiated his
treaty with England in 1795, he evidently did not know that
cotton was an obj ect of export in America. In 1800 the expor ta-
* Memoirs, Vol. iv., p. 529.
tSchurz's Life of Clay, Vol. i, p. 172.
tl&id., p. 173.
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE — WOODBURN. 293
tion of cotton from tlie United States was valued at $5,700,000;
in 1820 the value of the cotton export was nearly $20,000,000,
almost all of it the product of slave labor.* This Involved
an increase in the price of slaves. Br. Yon Hoist pointedly
reminds us that the vague dreams of emancipation in which
the people of the northern slave States indulged during the
early years of the Eepublic had a realistic basis. Slave labor
was very unsatisfactory. This was certainly not so in the
South after the cotton ginl'^The value of slaves was thus
trebled in twenty years. We are reminded again of John Adams'
assertion in the Revolutionary Congress, that " reason, justice,
equity never had weight enough on the face of the earth to ^ "H^
govern the councils of men; it is interest alone which does it,
and it is interest alone which can be trusted." The South had
begun to draw a threefold greater moneyed interest from (
slavery, and <^ under such circumstances" it is easy for men to ( ^ ^
convince themselves that an institution so conducive to their { i^ K>
material interests is not so wicked and hurtful after all. This / -,0^
was what the South thought as they were reminded of the \
anti slavery sentiments of their revolutionary father.
There was no such change of opinion, because no such rela-
tive'cHaiige of conditions, in the Korth. There slavery had
not yet become, or rather was ceasing to become, a subject of
controversy. It had disappeared in their States, and they had
taken it for granted that it would soon disappear everywhere.
It was, therefore, " a great surprise" again to quote Mr. Schurz
in his life of Clay, «^ to most Northern people that so natural a
proposition (as the restriction of slavery in Missouri) should
be resisted so fiercely on the part of the South." They were
surprised at the spirit with which slavery was defended,
l^or, in the Missouri debates, referred to the authority of an
honorable representative from Virginia for saying that the
sixth article in the ordinance of 1787 prohibiting slavery in
the Northwest was proposed by a delegate from that State.
That ordinance was passed by a unanimous vote. Its enact-
ment was then considered by all the States, slaveholding as
well as nonslaveholding, not only as within the legitimate
powers of Congress, but especially recommended by considera-
tions of public policy. Was that the sentiment of 1820 ? Pub-
lic journals had denounced the restrictive feature of the ordi-
nance; public men in both Houses of Congress proclaimed it a
* Schurz's Clay, Vol. i, p. 173.
^fe
<-lfi
294 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
rank usurpation ; and one legislative Assembly liad threatened
resistance if Congress should apply the same principle to Mis-
souri. No new State had been admitted to the Union since
1791 which had not established slavery by law, except those in
which it was prohibited by Congress. The Missouri debate
revealed thie fact that the slaveholding spirit was gaining
ground in the Union.
4. In the fourth i)lace, the struggle and the compromise
afford the first clear demarcation between the sections. From
this time the equilibrium of political power was a matter of
first concern to a section of States and to a powerful political
interest. Mason and Dixon's line is extended toward the
west, and now marks a political division. The slave States
were now, and for the first time, clearly separated from the
free. A geographical line dividing the sections was estab-
ifshed. The slaveholders had ceased to look to the ultimate
extinction and were now looking to the perpetuation of slavery.
I To them the question of sectional power had become one of
first importance, and to that end came the necessity for more
I slave States. Here they first came to believe that the issue
5 of this struggle for moreslave States involved their political
J destiny and identity. This is the true significance of the Mis-
) souri question. It was this aspect of the question which gave
Hr. Jefferson alarm, and which caused him to say that the
trouble sounded "like an alarm bell rung at midnight." He
wrote to a member of Congress at the time: "The Missouri
question is the most portentous one which has ever threatened
the Union. In the gloomiest hour of the Eevolutionary war
I never had any apprehensions equal to those which I feel from
this source."
5. In the fifth place, and as a corollary of this, it became
I evident in this discussion that whenever slavery came to be
the dominant issue in American politics, or when its interests
should be seriously threatened by national action, the slave
SStes would solidify in its defense. Even then Southerners
had arrived at the blind and fatal conclusion that a struggle
for slavery meant a struggle "for their political existence."*
For the first time the "South" comes to be identified with
slavery. Their public men had not yet come to defend the
institution as a "positive goodj" public opinion seemed yet to
* Tucker, of Virginia; Debates of Congress.
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE — WOODBURN. 295
allow the concession from their advocates in Congress that
slavery was a great evil to be deplored. As we have seen,
Clay apologized for consenting to its continuance in Missouri
by calling extension ^'diffusion," and upon the weak plea that
thus the evil would be diluted and the oppression and wrong
to other slaves alleviated. But at this time was first deafly |
marked the habit which prevailed subsequently for forty years, ^
that whenever an attack was made in Congressional halls
against slavery, or any part of the slave system, or an assertion
of the right of the black man to life and liberty, every such
utterance was resented by Southern men as an attack upon the
"South." It here appeared that slavery was to be defended
by the rights of States and the rights of property. The equi-
librium of political power for the South meant equilibrium for
slavery 5 equal rights in the Territories for the South meant
equal rights for slavery. Unfortunately for that great people
and the interests of mankind the interests of human slavery
now first confronted the nation with a solid South. ' '1.t^iiil
6. In the sixth place, besides the fact that a precedent was
set in favor of the right oF Congress to restrict slavery in the
Territories, the burden of argumenj^roveff the right of Con- . ^z-
gress, if proof were needed, to impose conditions upon a State. | "^
Ko one now, so far as we know, questions that right. The
extent to which it is now exercised by the General Government
is very much greater than was dreamed of by the Federal leg-
islators in the early days of the Eepublic. The earliest ena-
bling acts, those admitting Kentucky and Vermont, simply /
consented to the admission of the new States. These lands ^
never belonged to the Union as Territories. Kow, in the admis-
sion of a State we have an elaborate law undertaking to limit
the power of the people over their State constitution. These
restraining acts were originally confined to i)rovisions setting
aside lands and townships for schools, universities, and roads j
but recently an enabling act went so far as to deny the fran-
chise to all people who profess the Mormon faith. While these
laws can not be binding upon the people of the States, and can
not prevent their amendment of their constitution in direct
contravention of the enabling acts, they indicate a general
acceptance of the idea, an understanding that the General Gov-
ernment, or the nation, has the right to insist that a Territory
seeking statehood shall possess certain qualifications and make
certain pledges before it can be admitted to become a member
296 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
of the Union. And there is no doubt that a very large number
of the people would consider the subsequent adoption of a con-
stitutional amendment opposed to the provisions of the enabling
act as a breach of faith. Such an act might be set aside by
the national judiciary. Subsequent history has vindicated
those in 1820 who insisted on the right to impose conditions on
an incoming State.
" 7. Lastly, in this controversy we stand at the threshold of
the struggle that produced the civil war. Here the issues were
defined. It was here the nation first definitely met the crisis.
John Quincy Adams recognized with prophetic wisdom the
importance of that crisis. "Never since human sentiments and
human conduct were influenced by human speech," says he,
"was there a theme for eloquence like the free side of this
question now before the Congress of the United States. Time
can only show whether the contest may ever be with equal
advantage renewed." Time, alas, showed that an equal advan-
tage for the cause of free soil never came again. In the begin-
ning of the spread of an evil is the time to resist it. States-
manship and foresight were not then wanting, but their warn-
ings were unheeded, their counsels were not dominant. T^
if only the policy of the restrictionists had then been adopted,
if this policy had been established never again to be brought
into question, an historic imagination may lead us to assert
that the long years of painful controversy might have been
escaped, the four years of disunion and civil strife might have
T5een avoided. In that case, as far as human insight can dis-
cover, freedom would have become national and slavery would
have been easily confined to local limits. The contest did not
^ concern Missouri alone. Two principles were at stake, the
- -iprinciple of free labor and nationality. " At the last jmi>ment;"
says Von Hoist, in the night between March 2 and 3^ 1820,
I "free labor and nationality yielded to slavery and State
I soveignty." How important, then, it was to have done what
tiincoln said thirty-eight years later must be done for the sal-
vation of the Eepublic, " to arrest the further spread of slavery
and to place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief
that it is in the course of ultimate extinction." "A house
,' divided against itself can not stand." Our National House was
I now for the first time clearly divided against itself. In the
Missouri struggle the issue was definitely made up which after-
ward passed beyond the era of compromise, and the South
^^
y
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE — WOODBURN. 297
came to the defense of slavery as an institution on whicli she
staked her hopes of prosperity and power. Tallmadge, who
offered the restrictive amendment, recognized the nature of the
conflict. He believed that the nation was standing in the nick
of time 5 that if the evil of slavery was ever to be arrested
Iffien was the time to arrest it. He said :
Has it already come to this: That in the Congress of the United
States — that in the legislative councils of the American Republic the sub-
ject of slavery has become the subject of so much feeling, of such deli-
cacy, of such danger, that it can not safely be discussed ? Are members
•who express their sentiments upon this subject to be accused of talking
to the gallaries with intent to excite a servile war, and of meriting the
fate of Arbuthnot and Ambrister? Are we to be told of the dissolution
of the Union, of civil war, and of seas of blood ? And yet, with such
awful threatenings before us do gentlemen in the same breath insist upon
the encouragement of this evil, upon the extension of this monstrous
scourge of the human race ? An evil so fraught with such dire calamities
to us as individuals and to our nation, and threatening in its progress to
overwhelm the civil and religious institutions of the country, with the
liberties of the nation, ought at once to be met and to be controlled. If
its power, its influence, and its impending dangers have already arrived
at such a point that it is not safe to discuss it upon this floor, and it can-
not be considered as a proper subject for general legislation, what will be
the result when it is spread through your widely extended domain ? Its
present threatening agpect, and the violence of its supporters, so far from
inducing^e to yield to its^grogress, prompt me to resist its march. Now
18 the time, TtmusFwoiy be met^ and thejextensioiT
be prevented, or the micasion is irrevocably lost and the evil can never be
controlled.
When we come to view the repeal of the Missouri compro-
mise in 1854, to find new lands for slavery, we appreciate the
force of these words of the early restrictionist.
XXL— THE FIRST LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY IN AMERICA.
By HON. WILLIAM WIRT HENRY,
OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.
299
THE FIRST LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY IN AMERICA.
By William Wirt Henry.
A stranger visiting for the first time our Eepublic during
this year of grateful celebration of the discovery of America,
can not fail to be struck with its millions of people who are
educated, intelligent, and prosperous, and who are not only
contented with their form of government, but devoted to it.
If the visitor be unfamiliar with our history, he will naturally
inquire for the vital principle which has sustained and devel-
oped our civil institutions, and brought them and our people
into such happy and prosperous relations. To such an inquiry
he will soon find an answer. He will be informed that the
principle which pervades our institutions, and to which we owe
our happiness as a people, is the right of the people to govern
themselves, a right exercised through their chosen representa-
tives. The exercise of this right is based upon, and stimulates
the growth of, the intelligence and virtue of the people, and as
it involves the right of the majority to rule, it exemplifies the
Christian doctrine of the brotherhood of mankind, and of their
equality in the sight of God, who is no respector of persons.
It involves also another great principle, namely, that rulers
are but servants of the people; and this was also taught by
the founder of Christianity, when he said to his disciples
"whosoever of you will be the chiefest shall be servant of all.''
The Spaniards and French, who settled in America, brought
with them the impress of imperialism, which had cursed the
countries from whence they came. The English, on the contrary,
who settled these United States, brought with them the free
institutions of England, which had grown up under the rights
and privileges of the House of Commons, first firmly established
in the reign of Edward I. This great monarch not only con-
firmed the great charter, which had been wrung from the
treacherous John at Eunymede, but he converted into an estab-
lished law a privilege of which the people had previously only
301
302 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
a precarious enjoyment, namely, the sole and exclusive right
of Parliament to levy taxes.
The memorable words of this statute, which purports to be
the language of the King, were "Nullum tallagium vel auxilium
per nos, vel haeredes nostros in regnonostro, ponatur sue leve-
tur, sine voluntate et assensu archie-piscoporum, episcoporum,
comtum, baronum, militum, burgensium, et aliorum liberorum
hominum de regno nostro." " A most important statute this "
says DeLolme, "which, in conjunction with Magna Oharta,
forms the basis of the English constitution. If from the
latter the English are to date the origin of their liberty, from
the former they are to date the establishment of itj and as the
Great Charter was the bulwark that protected the freedom of
individuals, so was the statute in question the engine which
protected the charter itself, and by the help of which the peo-
ple were thenceforth to make legal conquests over the authority
of the crown." This powerful weapon of defense and offense
was like the sword of the Archangel, of which we are told:
* * * The sword
Of Michael from the armory of God
Was given him tempered so, that neither keen
Nor solid might resist that edge.
With it the English people, after many a stubborn conflict
with the royal prerogative, had, in the beginning of the seven-
teenth century, so firmly established their political rights, that
they were recognized as the freest people upon the earth. Not
that their struggle was entirely ended, but so powerful had
become the Commons, that usurping kings found themselves
engaged in an unequal conflict, in which a Charles lost his
head, and a James his kingdom, and thenceforth the kings of
England were forced to govern according to the provisions
of the bill of rights of 1688-'89, under which the supremacy
of Parliament was established.
The English colonists who first settled in America at James-
town brought with them, by their charter, all the rights of
Englishmen. But local self-government was not accorded to
the Virginians at first. They suffered great hardships for
twelve years under what resembled a military government,
until the year 1619, when the colony was deemed sufficiently
grown to warrant an assembly. In that year Sir George
Yeardley arrived with the commission of governor-general
from the London company, which had planted and governed
FIRST LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY IN AMERICA — HENRY. 303
the colony. Among his instructions was one, also called a
commission, that brought joy to the hearts of the colonists.
It was, as they described it, '^ that they might have a hande
in the governinge of themselves, it was granted that a general
assemblie should be helde yearly once, whereat were to be
present the Gov'^ and Counsell, with two Burgesses from each
plantation freely to be elected by the inhabitants thereof; this
Assembly have power to make and ordaine whatsoever laws
and orders should by them be thought good and profifittable
for our subsistance."
This commission, the real Magna Charta of Virginia, was
issued in London the 28th of November, 1618. That night a
flaming comet appeared in the heavens, which was considered
then an ill omen, but which might more properly have been
taken as a heavenly recognition of the great boon which had
been bestowed on America. The comet was visible till the 26th
of December, and the prevailing superstition prevented the
sailing of Governor Yeardley till it was safely departed. He,
therefore, sailed with his commission and instructions the 29th
of January, 1619, more than a year before the sailing of the
Pilgrims.
In accordance with this commission, in June, Governor Yeard-
ley sent his summons all over the country, as well to invite
those of the council of State that were absent, as for the elec-
tion of two burgesses from each of the plantations, to meet at
Jamestown on the 30th of July, 1619 (O. S.). As this was the
first legislative assembly which met in America, antedating
by fifteen years the assembly of any other colony, and was the
beginning of the free institutions which we now enjoy, I have
thought it would be of interest to give some account of it and
of its proceedings.
The place of meeting was the Episcopal Church, a wooden
building 60 feet long and 24 wide. Its communion table was
of black walnut; its pulpit, chancel, and pews of cedar. It
had handsome wide windows, also made of cedar, which could
be shut and opened according to the weather. A green velvet
chair was placed in the choir, in which the governor sat. The
building was so constructed as to be very light within, and we
are told that the governor caused it to be kept "passing sweet
and trimmed up with divers flowers." The native Virginia
flowers in season were doubtless used. There might be seen
festoons of the trumpet creeper, with its splendid scarlet flower,
304 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
mingled with the sweet-smelling white honeysuckle and clem-
atis, some of the latter with beautiful white clusters, and
others with lovely bell- shaped leathery flowers, cream- colored
and touched with purple, while the pulpit and communion
table were decked with pink sweetbrier and swamp roses, and
red swamp lilies.
On the memorable morning of the 30th of July, 1619, the
governor went in state to the church. He was accompanied
by the councillors and officers of the colony, with a guard of
halberdiers dressed in the governor's livery. Behind them
walked, with becoming dignity, the 22 newly elected burgesses.
In the contemporaneous account sent to England by the
speaker, we are told: "The most convenient place we could
finde to sitt in was the Quire of the Church, where Sir George
Yeardley, the Governour, being sett down in his accustomed
place, those of the Counsel of Estate sate nexte him on both
handes, excepte only the Secretary, then appointed Speaker,
who sate right before him, John Twine, Clerke of the General
Assembly, being placed nexte the Speaker, and Thomas Pierse,
the Sergeant, standing at the barre, to be ready for any service
the Assembly shoulde command him. But forasmuche as
men's affaires doe little prosper where God's service is neglected,
all the Burgesses tooke their places in the Quire till a prayer
was said by Mr. Bucke, the minister, that it would please God
to guide and sanctifle all our proceedings to his owne glory,
and the good of this plantation. Prayer being ended, to the
intente that as we had begun at God Almighty, so we might
proceed with awful and due respecte towards the Lieutenant,
our most gratious and dread Soveraigne, all the Burgesses
were in treated to retyre themselves into thebody of theChurche,
which being done, before they were freely admitted, they were
called to order and by name, and so every man (none stagger-
ing at it) tooke the oathe of Supremacy, and then entered the
Assembly."
And now that the Assembly has been duly constituted let us
look upon the men who composed it. They were all English-
men of a high type, and, following ancient custom, they sat with
their hats on. Sir George Yeardley was the first cousin of the
stepfather of John Harvard, founder of Harvard College. He
had been educated to arms in Holland, where he had fought
for Protestantism in the cruel war waged for its extermination
by Spain. He had been a subscriber to the London Company
I
FIRST LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY IN AMERICA HENRY. 305
under its second charter, and had come to Virginia with Sir
Thomas Gates in 1609, escaping the dangers of the famous
wreck on the Bermudas, which, it is said, suggested to Shakes-
peare "The Tempest." He had acted as governor for a year
after the departure of Sir Thomas Dale in 1616, and then,
having married, he had visited England, where he was com-
missioned as governor on the 18th of November, 1618, to suc-
ceed the treacherous Argall. Upon his appointment he had
been knighted by the King at Kew Market, and was proud of
his newly acquired honor. This he showed in his bearing.
He was a man of wealth and of well deserved influence. The
councilors who sat on his right and his left were men of mark.
Let us note them. Capt. Francis West, the son of Sir Thomas
West, the second Lord De la Warr, had come to Virginia with
Newport in July, 1608, and had been made a member of the
council the next year. He had also subscribed under the
second charter. He had been put in command of the fort at
the Falls of James river (Richmond), and had been president
of the council in 1612. He had settled at West Hundred,
since known as Westover, around which was gathered so much
of historic interest before and during the Revolution and in
the late war. He was subsequently to become the governor of
Virginia. He was a direct descendant of William the Con-
queror, and proved himself to. be a man of nerve in his resist-
ance to the planting of Maryland by Lord Baltimore within
the limits of Virginia.
Capt. Nathaniel Powell had come with the first colonists;
had been with Newport when he explored the York River, and
with Smith when he explored the Chesapeake Bay. He was a
man of culture, and kept an account of occurrences in the
colony, which was freely used by Capt. Smith in his history of
Virginia. Both he and his wife were afterwards among the
victims of the Indian massacre, which occurred March 22, 1622.
John RoLfe had come to Virginia with Sir Thomas Gates,
and had been in the wreck upon the Bermudas. In 1612 he
had introduced the systematic culture of tobacco in Virginia.
In 1614 he had married the Princess Pochahontas, whom he
carried to England in 1616. On their way homeward the
princess had died at Gravesend in March, 1617. He was also
a man of cultivation, and had written one or more tracts upon
Virginia.
S. Mis. 104 20
9
306 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
The Eev. William Wickham was of a prominent family,
engaged in the East India service, a member of which is said
to have first introduced tea into England. He added the
dignity of the clergy to the assembly in which he sat.
Oapt. Samuel Maycock was a Cambridge scholar, a gentle-
man of birth, virtue, and industry, who was also doomed to
fall in the Indian massacre.
John Pory, secretary of the colony, sat as the speaker of the
burgesses. He had been educated at Cambridge, and was an
accomplished scholar. He was a disciple of the celebrated
Hackluyt, who left the highest testimonial to his learning.
He had been a great traveler, and had published, in 1600, a
geographical history of Africa, which contained a good account
of Abyssinia, a map of Africa, and a tracing of the Nile from
an inland lake. Having served in Parliament, he was able to
give order to their proceedings and proper form to their acts.
The names of 'John Twine, clerk, and Thomas Pierse, ser-
geant, suggest at once the actors in a famous litigation, one
of the leading cases in English jurisprudence. It is known as
Twine's case, and is reported by Lord Coke. Pierse was
indebted to Twine £400, and conveyed his property, valued at
£300, to secure the debt. But the conveyance was declared
to be void, as in conflict with the statute of 13 Elizabeth
against fraudulent conveyances. If not the parties to the
litigation, these men were doubtless their kinsmen.
Turning now to the burgesses, we find Capt. William Powell
and Ensign William Spence sitting for James City. Capt.
Powell, a subscriber under the second charter, came to Vir-
ginia with Gates in 1611, and was the gunner at Jamestown.
He was one of the first to whom the plot of the Indians for
murdering the colonists was revealed, and was instrumental
in giving warning to the plantations nearest Jamestown. He
became very active afterwards in taking revenge upon the
Indians for the massacre, and it is believed that he was killed
by them on the Chickahominy in January, 1623.
The representatives for Charles City were Samuel Sharp and
Samuel Jordon, names that have been honored in the subse-
quent history of Virginia. Samuel Sharp had been in the
colony since 1610, and received more than once the suffrages
of his neighbors as a burgess. Samuel Jordon came to Virginia
at an early date. His plantation was perhaps the first in Vir-
ginia to which an alliterative name was given. It was called
FIRST LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY IN AMERICA — HENRY. 3C7
^^ Jordon's Journey," and was afterwards tlie home of the cele-
brated Eichard Bland of the Eevolution. He survived the
Indian massacre, and gathered some of the stragglers about
him at a place called "Beggars Bush," where we are told, "he
fortified and lived in despight of the enemy." Within a few
weeks after his death, in 1623, his widow. Cicely, distinguished
herself greatly by introducing into the colony the art of flirt-
ing, an art which has been practiced somewhat in Virginia
ever since. It was alleged that she had accepted two suitors,
the Kev. Greville Pooley, and Mr. William Ferrar. Each claimed
her hand. Their hot dispute was carried before the council.
That body, after solemn consideration, declared that the case
was too knotty for them, and referred it to the council in
London. We are not informed as to their decision, but the
widow is said to have married Ferrar.
Thomas Dowse and John Polentine represented the city of
Henricus, located at what is now known as Dutch Gap. The
first came to Virginia as early as 1608, and was one of the few
of the early settlers that survived. The second survived the
massacre, and visited England in 1626.
For Kiccowtan, Capt. William Tucker and William Capp
sat. The first, a subscriber under the third charter, after
sending over two men with Ealph Hamor in January, 1617,
came soon after to Virginia himself. He was a merchant and
trader, and made frequent voyages to England. He was the
first of our merchant princes. After 1619 he served for many
years as a councillor. He was one of the most active and
efficient in avenging upon the Indians their cruel massacre of
1622.
William Capp was an ancient planter, and one of the first
settlers. We find him surviving all the dangers of the colony,
and living as late as 1630. In 1626 the King granted him the
privilege of erecting salt works, the first erected in the colony.
Capt. Thomas Graves and Mr. Walter Shelley sat for
Smythe's Hundred. The first, a subscriber under the second
charter, had come to Virginia in 1608. We find him soon
after this assembly living on the eastern shore, and represent-
ing Accomac as a burgess. He was a member of the first
regular vestry of the parish of that county in 1635.
Walter Shelley, to whom, doubtless, the poet was related,
was one of the original subscribers to the London Company
who afterwards came to the colony. On the third day of the
308 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
assembly, we find the following brief but toucliing entry in
the Journal; "Sunday, August the first, Mr. Shelley, one of
the burgesses, deceased."
The representatives for Martin's Hundred were John Boys
and John Jackson. The first was a victim of the Indian mas-
sacre of 1622. The second, whose name seems sometimes to
have been spelled Juxon, was a kinsman of Bishop William
Juxon, who attended Charles the First on the scaffold, and to
whom the King is said to have addressed his last mysterious
word, *^Eemember."
Capt. Thomas Pawlett and Mr. Gourgainy represented
Argall's Guifte. Capt. Pawlett was a brother of John Paw-
lett, who was elevated to the peerage in 1627, as Baron Paw-
lett of Hinton, St. George. In 1637 Capt. Pawlett owned
Westover, which he left at his death to his brother, Lord
Pawlett, whose son sold the property to Theodoric Bland in
April, 1665. The tract then contained 1,200 acres, and was
sold for 170 pounds.
Flouer dieu Hundred was represented by Ensign Eosiug-
ham (a nephew of the governor) and Mr. Jefferson, with whom
the celebrated Thomas Jefferson claimed relationship. Eosing-
ham afterwards lived in London, and employed his time in
writing for newspapers.
Capt. Christopher Lawne and Ensign Washer represented
Capt. Lawne's Plantation, afterward's known as "Isle of
Wight Plantation." Capt. Lawne had lately come to Yirginia,
and he lived but a year after the meeting of the assembly.
Capt. Wardens plantation was only commenced in 1618, and
was represented by Capt. Warde himself and Lieut. Gibbes.
The latter was doubtless a son of Thomas Gibbes, who was a
member of His Majesty's council for the Virginia Company in
London.
Thomas Davis and Eobert Stacy, who had been sent from
Capt. John Martin's plantation, had been excluded from the
assembly. Davis, however, took his seat some years after-
wards as a burgess from Warwick County.
The Eev. Eichard Bucke, the officiating minister, was edu-
cated at Oxford, and was an able and learned divine. He came
to Yirginia in 1609, and was wrecked on the Bermudas, where
he christened a child of John Eolfe's, born on that island. He
married in Virginia, and was the minister at Jamestown, where,
in 1614, he performed the marriage ceremony between Eolfe and
FIEST LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY IN AMERICA — HENRY. 309
the Indian princess Pocahontas. Eolfe described him as "a
verie good preacher." The church in which the assembly met
had been built for him, "wholly at the charge of the inhab-
itants of James City." He was on intimate terms with Rolfe,
and was one of the witnesses to his will in March, 1621.
After a session of five days the body adjourned, "being con-
strained," as they expressed it, "by the intemperature of the
weather and the falling sick of diverse of the burgesses, to
break up so abruptly— before they had so much as putt their
lawes to engrossing; this they wholly comited to the fidelity of
their speaker." During these five days much was accom-
plished.
When we look at the acts of this body we are struck with
their just conception of their rights as an assembly. They
asserted the right to judge of the election and return of their
members, and, in its exercise, excluded the delegates sent from
the plantation of Oapt. John Martin, because, by the terms of his
patent, he appeared to be exempt from the general form of gov-
ernment which had been given the colony; and, in addition,
they petitioned the London Company that they would examine
the patent of Capt. Martin, and "in case they shall finde any-
thing in this, or in any other parte of his graunte whereby that
clause towardes the conclusion of the great charter (viz, that
all grauntes, as well of the one sorte as of the other, respec-
tively, be made with equal favour, and graunts of like liberties
and imunities as neer as may be, to the ende that all complain te
of partiality and indifferency may be avoided) might in any
sorte be contradicted, or the uniformity and equality of lawes
and orders extending over the whole Colony might be im-
peached ; that they would be pleased to remove any such hin-
drance as may diverte out of the true course the free and public
current of Justice." Thus early did Virginia insist upon the
equality of her citizens before the law, a principle inserted in
her declaration of rights in 1776, when she became a State,
in the provisions, "that no man, or set of men, are entitled to
exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the com-
munity, but in consideration of public services;" and, " that
the people have a right to uniform government, and therefore
that no government separate from or independent of the gov-
ernment of Virginia ought to be erected or established within
the limits thereof. "
Having thus purged their roll, the assembly proceeded,
310 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
according to their speaker's report, as follows: ^^The Speaker,
who a long time had been extreame sickly, and therefore not
able to passe through long harangues, delivered in briefe to
the whole assembly the occassions of their meetings. Which
done, he read unto them the commission for establishing the
counsell of estate, and the general assembly, wherein their
duties were described to the life. Having thus prepared them,
he read over unto them the greate Charter, or commission of
priviledges, orders, and lawes, sent by Sir George Yeardley
out of Englandej which, for the more ease of the committees,
having divided into fower books, he read the former two the
same forenoon, for expeditions sake, a second time over, and
so they were referred to the perusall of two committees, which
did reciprocally consider of either, and accordingly brought in
their opinions * * * in case we should finde ought not
perfectly squaring with the state of this Colony, or any lawe
which did presse or binde too harde, that we might, by waye
of humble petition, seeketohave it redressed, especially because
this great Charter is to binde us and our heyers forever."
Nothing can throw a clearer light on the state of the colony
than the acts of this assembly ; and in them we can discern
the germs of the free institutions of the United States of to-day,
germs which reappeared in the colonies subsequently planted.
The committees, when they reported on the first two books,
submitted six petitions to be sent to the Virginia Company of
London. They were wisely framed in view of the needs of the
colony, and were agreed to by the assembly.
The first was that the lands theretofore granted by patent
to the planters be not taken from them in the allotments of
lands to the governor and his council, the officers of incorpora-
tions, and the members of the London Company. The second,
that the London Company send, with convenient speed, men
to occupy their lands belonging to the four corporations, and
also tenants for the glebe land of the ministers of these corpo-
rations. The third, that the planters who came before Sir
Thomas Dale's departure in 1616 be put upon the same footing
with those to whom land was granted afterwards, and that a
single share apiece be granted to the male children born in
Virginia, and to their wives, " because," they say, " that in a
a newe plantation io is not known whether man or woman be
the more necessary." The importance of this petition will
appear, when we remember that on the return of Dale in July,
FIRST LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY IN AMERICA — HENRY. 311
1616, the London Company determined to give the planters a
fixed property in the soil, and to confirm every man^s portion
" as a state of inheritance to him and his heyers forever, with
bounds and limits under the Companies seale, to be holden of
his Majestie as of his Manour of East Greenwich, in socage
tenure, and not in capite." The fourth petition was that a sub-
treasurer be appointed here to collect the rents of the London
Company, instead of requiring the impossibility of paying them
in England, "and that they would eujoine the said subtreas-
urer not precisely according to the letter of the charter to
exacte money of us (whereof we have none at all, as we have
no minte), but the true value of the rente in comodity." The
fifth, that " towards the erecting of the university and col-
ledge, they will sende, when they shall thinke it most con-
venient, workmen of all sortes, fitt for that purpose." The
sixth, that the savage name of Kiccowtan be changed, and a
new name be given to that incorporation. When this was
done the place was named Hampton.
The purpose of establishing a university and college, thus
early manifested by the Virginians, was to be advanced by
working a large tract of land granted for that purpose at
Henrico, or Henricus, some 12 miles below Eichmond. The
plantation unfortunately was broken up by the Indian massa-
cre in 1622, and the establishment of the college was thus post-
poned till the reign of William and Mary, and then it was
located at Williamsburg, and named after the two sovereigns.
The Speaker's report continued as follows: "These peti-
tions thus concluded on, those two committees brought a
reporte what they had obs erved in the two latter bookes, which
was nothing else but that the perfection of them was such as
that they could find nothing in them subject to exception,
* * * at the same time there remaining no farther scruple
in the mindes of the Assembly touching the said great Charter
of Lawes, orders and privileges, the Speaker putt the same to
the question, and so it hath both a general assent and the
ajjplause of the whole Assembly. * * * This being
dispatched, we fell once more debating of such instructions
given by the Counsell in England to several Governors as
might be converted into lawes."
Of these which were enacted into laws, the first fixed the
value of tobacco to be taken either for commodities, or for
bills, at 3 shillings a pound for the best, and 18 pence a pound
312 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
for the second quality. Then followed laws against idleness,
gaming, drunkenness, and excess in apparel. The provision
concerning apparel is interesting. It was "That every man
be cessed (assessed) in the Churche for all publique contribu-
tions; if he be unmarried according to his owne apparell; if
he be married, according to his owne and his wives, or either
of their apparell." It may be safely surmised that had female
suffrage existed in the colony, this church tax would have
been placed entirely on the unmarried men.
Others of this class of laws related to intercourse with the
Indians, and to educating and Christianizing them, to the
planting of corn, mulberry trees, silk flax, hemp, and grape
vines, to the regulation of contracts with trades people, ten-
ants, and servants, and to the management of the magazine
or storehouse of the colony.
On the 3d of August the assembly entered upon the consid-
eration of the third sort of laws. " Suche as might proceed
out of every man's private conceipt. " They were referred to
the two committees, and were reported and adopted the next
day. These allowed freemen to trade with the Indians, but
contained stringent enactments against selling or giving them
hoes, dogs, shot, powder, or firearms. As to these three last
named the penalty was death. Fines were imposed on per-
sons going 20 miles from home, or absenting themselves seven
days, or visiting the Indians, without leave of the governor or
of the commander of the place of their habitation. Provision
was made for taking a census of the inhabitants, and for rec-
ord and report by the ministers of all christenings, burials, and
marriages. The killing of neat cattle and oxen without leave
of the governor was forbidden. The taking of the boats, oars,
and canoes of neighbors, and thefts from the Indians, were
made punishable. Ministers were required to conduct worship
according to the laws and orders of the Church of England,
and to catechise every Sunday afternoon those " not yet ripe
to come to the communion." The ministers and church war-
dens were required to present all ungodly disorders, and a fine
of 5 shillings for the use of the church was imposed upon those
who were guilty of swearing, after thrice admonition. All
persons were required to attend divine service on the Sabbath
day; the men to come with their firearms. Persons trading
in the bay were required to give security that they would not
FIRST LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY IN AMERICA — HENRY. 313
wrong the Indians ; and the marriages and contracts of serv-
ants were regulated.
The assembly sat as a court in two matters brought before
it. The first was on the complaint of Capt. William Powell
against one Thomas Garnett, his indented servant. The
behavior of the servant had been so wicked and obscene that
he was condemned to have his ears nailed to the pillory for four
days and to be publicly whipped each day. This seemingly
harsh punishment should be viewed in the light of the age,
which had little of the humanitarian feeling of the present
day; and, beside, the colony was limited in the punishments it
could employ.
The other case was that of Capt. Henry Spelman. Eobert
Poole, the interpreter of the Indian language, charged him
with speaking irreverently and maliciously of the governor to
Opechancano, the great Indian chief. Part of the words
charged to have been spoken Spelman confessed, but the
greater part he denied. The assembly was unwilling to inflict
the severest punishment on him upon the testimony of one
witness. It was determined, however, in view of what he con-
fessed, to degrade him from his title and position as a captain
and to require him to serve the colony for seven years as an
interpreter to the governor.
This Henry Spelman had a notable career. He was the
third son of the distinguished antiquarian. Sir Henry Spel-
man, of Oonghan, Norfolk, England. He was a wild boy. He
came to Virginia in 1609, when about 21 years of age, ^'beiuge
in displeasuer of my friendes and desirous to see other coun-
tryes," as he tells us. He relates that soon after his arrival
Capt. John Smith, then president of the colony, carried him
to the falls of James Eiver and sold him to the Indian chief-
tain, Little Powhatan, for a town called Powhatan. It is
stated, however, in Smith's General History, that when Capt.
Sickelmore, with -some thirty others, were slain by Powhatan in
1609, Pocahontas saved the life of Henry Spelman and he lived
many years afterwards with the Indians. He afterward visited
England, and on his return to Virginia was made a captain. He
was sent with 26 men, in 1623, to trade in the river Potomac, and
was surprised and slain, with five of his men, by the Indians.
He left an account of his observations while living with the
Indians, which was discovered at the sale of a library by
James F. Hunniwell, esq., who published it in 1872.
314 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Before adjourning the assembly provided for its officers.
Every male above 16 was required to contribute one pound of
best tobacco for compensation to the speaker, clerk, sergeant,
and provost-marshal of James City.
The session concluded with four petitions to the London
company. The first two were that the body be excused for
incompleteness in their work and record, because of the heat
and their sickness. The last two were in these words :
"Thirdly, the General Assembly doth humbly beseeche the
said Treasurer, counsell, and Company, that albeit it belongeth
to them onely to allowe or to abrogate any lawes which we
shall here make, and that it is their right so to doe, yet that it
would please them not to take it in ill parte if these lawes
which we have nowe brought to light, do passe currant and be
of force till suche time as we may knowe their farther pleasure
out of Englande, for otherwise, this people (who now at length
have gotten the raines of former servitude into their owne
swinge) would in shorte time grow so insolent, as they would
shake off all government, and there would be no living among
them. Their last humble suite is, that the said Counsell and
Company would be pleased, so soon as they shall finde it con-
venient, to make good their promise sett down at the conclu-
sion of their commission, for establishing the counsel of estate
and the General Assembly, namely, that they will give us
power to allowe or disallowe of their orders of courte, as his
Majesty hath given them power to allowe or to reject our
lawes."
The question of the validity of the acts of the assembly, till
they were disallowed by the authorities in England was one
which was unsettled in the year 1758, when the act passed
which permitted debts contracted to be paid in tobacco to be
solved in currency at a fixed rate, the resistance to which, by
the clergy gave rise to the famous "Parson's cause." The
power to disallow the orders of the London Company was a
great stride in the direction of independent local government,
and the promise of it by the London Company shows to what
extent the spirit of liberty was nourished in that celebrated
body during the arbitrary reign of James the First, a fact
that excited his hatred of the corporation and caused him to
take from it its charter.
Hutchinson, the Tory historian, wrote: " In 1619 a house of
burgesses broke out at Jamestown." He evidently regarded
FIRST LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY IN AMERICA — HENRY. 315
it as if it had been the plague, and a plague it was to all those
who endeavored to tyrannize the colony. As early as 1623 the
assembly enacted That " the governor shall not lay any taxes
or ympositions upon the Colony, their lands, or comodities,
other way than by the authority of the General Assembly, to be
levyed and ymployed as the said Assembly shall appoynt." In
1631 they enacted that " the Governor and Council shall not
lay any taxes and ympositions, etc.," including in the prohibi-
tion the council with the governor. In 1632 this latter act was
reenacted verbatim. The same thing occurred in 1642. In
1645 they enacted that " no lea vies be raised within the Colony
but by a general Grand Assembly .'' In 1651, when they agreed
with the commissioners sent out by Cromwell, one article was,
**that Virginia shall be free from all taxes, customes, and
impositions whatsoever, and none to be imposed on them
without consent of the Grand Assembly." In 1666, upon the
request of Governor Berkley, " that two or more of the Council
might join with the house in granting and confirming the levy,"
the house answered, " that they conceive it their privilege to
lay the levy in the House, and that the House will admit nothing
without reference from the honorable Governour, unless it be
before adjudged and confirmed by act or order, and after
passing in the house shall be humbly presented to their honours
for approbation or dissent." These were not vain repetitions,
but were earnest reiterations of the sole right of the people to
tax themselves through their representatives, made during
contests with the executive power, and they indicate a stub-
born determination to defend the great bulwark of English
liberty. So exasperated had the burgesses become in these
contests that we find them at length challenging the right of
the governor to veto their acts. In 1686 James the Second wrote
a sharp letter ordering the assembly to be dissolved, because the
house of burgesses "have presumed so far as to raise contests
touching the power of the negative voice, wherewith our Gov-
ernor is intrusted by us." As a result of their struggles, the
assembly exclusively enjoyed this great right of taxation until
1765, when Parliament undertook to tax Yirginia without the
consent of her assembly. We can well understand the alarm
which this attempt produced, and can appreciate the inherited
fortitude of the burgesses of that year in adopting their famous
resolutions against the stamp act, in which they boldly took
issue with Parliament and declared " that the General Assem-
316
AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
bly of this Colony have the sole right and power to lay taxes,
and impositions upon the inhabitants of this Colony ; and that
every attempt to vest such power in any person or persons
whatsoever, other than the General Assembly aforesaid, has a
manifest tendency to destroy British, as well as American
freedom."
The publication of these resolves, as is well known, fired the
colonies, they all having continuously claimed the same right
for their assemblies, and " set in motion the ball of the Revo-
lution," the glorious results of which we this day enjoy j and
not we alone, for it was truly declared by one of England's
gi'eatest statesmen that the American Bevolution saved the
liberties of mankind.
XXIL— NATURALIZATION IN THE ENGLISH COLONIES OF
AMERICA.
By MISS CORA START,
OF WORCESTER, MASS.
317
NATURALIZATION IN THE ENGLISH COLONIES IN AMERICA.
By Cora Start.
Almost none of the phases of naturalization and immigra-
tion, which are the problems of the day, existed as such before
the Eevolution. The excellent character of the foreigners who
first came to America and the conditions of colonial life which
made a welcome to them imperative, rendered any policy which
would exclude them or reduce their numbers, inexpedient.
The chief object of the alien in seeking naturalization, too,
was quite different from that of the alien of to-day, which seems
to be the acquisition of the ability to vote. The growing
tendency to regard this rather as a civil right than a political
privilege is the cause of the generally current but incorrect
view that the suffrage is coextensive with citizenship. Citi-
zenship signified before the Eevolution, as it does now> the
incorporation of the individual with the body politic, nothing
more. It carried with it civil rights, but no political privileges.
The present importance of the suffrage did not exist in the
colonies. Manhood suffrage depended, not on citizenship alone,
as to-day, but on the property qualification of the individual.
Back of this was the English law that an alien could neither
hold nor bequeath any real property whatsoever in the realm,
and that if he acquired such it escheated to the Crown on his
decease. Besides this, when one remembers that he came to a
new country, where the suffrage had but small local and no
national significance, that coming to stay, his first thought was
the taking up of land, and his own and his children's legal title
to the same, it is sufficiently apparent that the suffrage was of
but secondary consideration with him. The universal lack of
mention of the elective franchise among the privileges granted
to the naturalized subject in the colonies is the most striking
" 319
l\
N^
320 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
thing noted in the examination of early naturalization docu-
ments. All of these, however, bear the marks of this close
connection with the possession and inheritance of property.
All the questions involved in naturalization were those of buy-
ing, possessing, trading, bequeathing, and inheriting, never of
enfranchising.
The colonies were always subject to a twofold jurisdiction,
to that of the home authorities and their representatives in
the colonies, and to that of the colonial legislatures. The
apportionment of power between the two was often but imper-
fectly defined, and this is particularly true of naturahzation.
As a result there were two species in the colonies — naturali-
zation as prescribed by English law and naturalization by the
colonists, by methods of their own adoption.
Besides the initiative in legislation, England had control of
the naturalization in the colonies through the strong influence
exercised by the Government officials on the colonial govern-
ors, and in the royal veto — the disallowance of the naturaliza-
tion bills of the colonial legislatures.
That any naturalization other than the usual one in England
would become necessary was not foreseen. In the charters, in
nearly every instance, permission is given to transport sub-
jects and such strangers as will become subjects. This was
manifestly intended to mean naturalization before transpor-
tation, and the first foreigners coming to America were thus
naturalized. With the middle of the seventeenth century,
when the European exodus began, it was impossible that all
should go to England for this purpose, and probably the bulk
of emigration was directly to America. This would have
resulted in a rapidly increasing resident alien population, for
Parliament passed no law providing for naturalization after
arrival until a century later, and the colonists, therefore, were
forced into taking measures for naturalization themselves.
Two methods were open to the foreigner who sought natu-
ralization in England before setting out for the colonies — by
letters patent of denization, issued by the King, and by spe-
cial act of Parliament. These two are found side by side in
England, growing in inverse ratio with the increase of the
power of Parliament and the decadence of the power of the
Crown.
NATURALIZATION IN THE ENGLISH COLONIES — START. 321
NATURALIZATION BEFORE TRANSPORTATION — DENIZATION.
Denization is the earlier process and represents royal per-
mission to inhabit royal territory and to enjoy some of the
privileges of natural born subjects. It is the freedom of Eng-
land extended ex donatione regis.
The resident alien in England could lay claim to little but
protection of life and the possession of personal property, and his
burdens, mercantile and otherwise, were very heavy. Deniza-
tion removed the most salient only of these disabilities. The
person denizated could buy, sell, possess real property and
bequeath such to any issue he might have after his denization.
Children born before, being children of an alien, had no inher-
itable blood transmitted to them, and two sons of an alien
father, even if natural born English subjects by being born on
English soil, could not inherit from him or each other. The
denizen had to pay an alien's duties. He could not be of the
Privy Council, occupy a seat in Parliament, hold any of&ce of
trust, civil or military, or receive any grants from the Crown.
Even his tenure was uncertain, as his letters patent might be
revoked. It seems to have been a very incomplete naturaliza-
tion, but it was evidently regarded as an adequate one and
was particularly popular with foreigners who were in England
simply for their naturalization, as it took less time than a
special act of Parliament.
NATURALIZATION BEFORE TRANSPORTATION—NATURALIZA-
TION BY SPECIAL ACT.
Special legislation by Parliament is a later development, as
it implies a national consent to admission to membership in
the body politic. This was naturalization in the general accept-
ance of the term, and the only disability which the alien thus
naturalized was subject to was that in regard to officeholding
and receiving grants from the Crown, a disability which he
shared with the denizen subject and with Catholics, but one
which did not operate to its full extent in the colonies, as natur-
alized subjects are found in colonial offices.
Almost the first concern of the foreigner on his arrival in
America was the registration of his name as a naturalized
subject at the clerk's office, and his concern seems to have been
in proportion to the amount of his property.
It is impossible now to determine the number thus natural-
ized before transportation, but it is probable that was it less
S. Mis. 104 21
322 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
used as naturalization in tlie colonies became a settled prac-
tice.
NATURALIZATION APTER TRANSPORTATION.
It is difficult to understand why Parliament did not provide
a means for the naturalization of the alien after his arrival in
the Kew World. Penn, in his ^^ Suggestions Eespecting the
Plantations," in 1701, mentions the need of a general law of
this nature, but no such bill was passed until 1740. This bill
was made to include the Moravians in 1747, and in 1763 a bill
was passed for the naturalization of Protestant foreigners who
had served as soldiers in the royal army in America and who
had bought land and settled. These three constitute the en-
tire legislation on the subject.
This law of 1740 was an admirable one in many ways. Un-
der it naturalization was more easily accomplished, and at
smaller expense than by any of the colonial methods. It made
the alien an English subject, anywhere in the realm, as natu-
ralization by the colonists did not, and the reason why it was
not used in preference, or even to the exclusion of the colonial
methods is not apparent. It did not, however, supersede them,
and in some of the colonies it was practically inoperative. It
is possible that a reason may be found in the term of residence
required, seven years. A fixed term never found favor with
the colonists as but two instances are found, one, of one year,
in an unexecuted law of Massachusetts Bay, in 1731, and
another of four, in a Virginia bill of 1658. Occasionally for-
eigners are found applying to the colonial legislatures for a
naturalization, on the ground that they have not been in the
colony long enough to take advantage of the law of 1740, and
fearing their decease during the time required by it, pray a
naturalization that their children may inherit such property as
they may have acquired.
By this law any alien not a Catholic could be naturalized by
taking the oaths at the nearest court of record, his term of resi-
dence being completed. The fee was small, but 2 shillings,
and could not be increased. It was practically the only legis-
lation in naturalization. This lack of timely and necessary
legislation has its counterpart in the official instructions to
governors and in the infrequent disallowance of naturalization
bills previous to the reign of George III. During this period
of neglect, the most significant instruction was that in 1699
forbidding denization by the colonial governors. With the
NATURALIZATION IN THE ENGLISH COLONIES — START. 323
beginning of the struggle for the supremacy of Parliament,
however, they increase in number. The most important are
those regarding grants of lands to the alien coming from a
country where the possession of land was a patent of nobility
and where he could never hope to hold any, the ease with which
he might become, here, a large landed proprietor was one of
the chief attractions of the New World. Prohibition of land
granting was a serious blow to immigration and of course
decreased naturalization.
Such prohibitions are found in nearly all the colonies after
1760, and an order in council in 1773 forbids all governors
making any further grants. In the same year they are for-
bidden to give their assent to any naturalization bill. This
put an end to naturalization in all the colonies except Ehode
Island and Connecticut, where, by virture of the liberality of
their charters, they could legislate as it pleased them.
The royal veto might have been of great benefit in disallow-
ing irregular naturalization legislation, thus forming a settled
practice, had it been used wisely in the earlier days. But colo-
nial bills of doubtful legality were allowed to become laws, and
it was not until the fifteen years before the Eevolution that it
was used to any extent, and then not in the interest of good
legislation but as a disciplinary measure.
NATURALIZATION IN THE COLONIES.
The action of England then, was for the most part negative.
The colonists were forced to naturalize tbe large numbers of
foreigners pouring into the country, and they seem to have
done so without much investigation of their authority in the
matter. All authority came through the charters from the
King, who could transfer no power which he had not himself.
In naturalization proper, as a function of Parliament, he had no
jurisdiction, and the power to issue letters patent of denization
was, as Blackstone called it, "a high and incommunicable
branch of the royal prerogative.'^ It was incommunicable from
its nature of a favor extended by the Sovereign himself. A far
more potent reason rfor their not exercising such a power lay in
the fact that naturalization was a matter affecting the whole
nation, and that no inferior part could legislate for the whole
realm, as would have been the case could the colonial legis-
latures have made aliens subjects of the King.
Not going back of the charters, however, three clauses are
of und which might convey a vestige of authority. These
give permission to transport subjects and such strangers as
324 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
will become liege subjects; to admit freemen to tlie compa-
nies, and to make laws not repugnant to those of England..
The first has been seen to mean naturalization before trans-
portation. The second, the admission of freemen, could not
justly inure as naturalization, although it conveyed all the privi-
leges of residence, since it did not make the alien an English
subject. Naturalization was not generally demanded as a pre-
requisite to admission, there being but two cases on record.
The third, the power to legislate, is almost as elastic as the
general welfare clause of the Constitution. It was doubtless
the ground on which they naturalized, but in a last reduction
is not adequate, considering the national import of naturali-
zation, and also that in many cases the naturalization legisla-
tion was distinctly repugnant to that of England. In the Vir-
ginia charter of 1611 alone, a distinct power to naturalize is
given. In the proprietary governments of East Jersey and the
Carolinas, the Lords Proprietors authorize their assemblies in
the Articles of Agreement to grant "unto all strangers as to
them shall seem meet a naturalization."* This at best was
but a twice delegated power of a twice doubtful character.
The colonists however, were not deterred, as no investiga-
tion seems to have been made. It was not until they had
exercised such a power for some time that the question of the
nature of this naturalization of theirs arose in England, and
it was then called up by the necessity of determining the trad-
ing privileges of naturalized subjects under the Navigation
Acts. It was decided that the colonial legislatures, being sov-
ereign only within the bounds of the colony, could make no laws
which would operate without the colony. This made colonial
naturalization local only. Foreigners naturalized in a colony
were subjects of the King when in the colony, aliens when out.
This seemed clear; but later still the question arose whether
naturalization of an alien in one colony did not hold good in
another. This, too, received a negative construction, and is
of particular interest, as it would have established an inter-
colonial citizenship quite apart from the English citizenship.
Nothing so strongly unifying could ever have found recognition
in England.
A somewhat imperfect analogy to English and colonial nat-
uralization is found in the naturalization under the Constitu-
tion. Congress is given power to pass uniform laws of natu-
* Art. of Agr., N. C, 1666; item 8, N. C. Rec, i, 83. E. J., 1665; item 8,
N. J., Archives i, 30.
NATURALIZATION IN THE ENGLISH COLONIES — START. 325
ralization. Persons thus naturalized are citizens of the United
States as aliens naturalized in England or by the law of 1740
were subjects of the King anywhere in the realm or when
abroad. But the States may and do confer privileges, such as
the suffrage on aliens for local purposes. This corresponds in
a way to the local colonial naturalization.
This local construction materially affected the privileges of
the alien naturalized in the colony, as by the 12 & 13 Car. ii,
ch. 2, the term English subject was explained to mean persons
born in Great Britain, Ireland, or the Plantations, and those
naturalized in England. This excluded aliens naturalized in
the colonies from the usual trading privileges, which were con-
fined to English subjects by the Acts, or rather would have
had the Acts been enforced or had the colonists recognized the
distinction. Aliens thus naturalized, who were tried in the
courts-of admiralty for illegal trading plead the acts of colo-
nial legislatures for their naturalization in extenuation and
"the American courts of justice," Chalmers, in his Political
Annals, complains " with a still grosser spirit supported their
pretensions in opposition to the Acts of Navigation"* It is on
this ground of power to trade illegally that most of the bills
which met with disallowance at all, were vetoed.
The colonists in attempting naturalization drew from their
English models. Denization was the first form adopted in the
colonies, the letters patent being issued by the governor,
under the mistaken opinion that such power was his as the
King's deputy. It is found in New York, Pennsylvania, Vir-
ginia, and continued until its prohibition at the end of the
seventeenth century. The cost of denization was greater than
other forms of naturalization. Lord Bellemont complained in
1699 that he could obtain but 12 shillings for his denizations,
while his predecessor in New York, Governor Pletcher, received
£10 for himself and £5 for the attorney-general.t Fees for
naturalization in general ranged from 2 to 50 shillings.
Cut off from denization, a hybrid species, neither denization
nor naturalization was tried. This took the form of naturaliza-
tion by letters patent issued by the governor, and for which
there exists not the slightest warrant, as the governor could
have no authority, communicated or otherwise, for naturaliza-
tion.
^Political Annals, pp. 315-317.
tDocnments relating to Colonial History of New York, iv, 520.
326 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Special legislation is found as early as 1666 in Maryland,
but the colonies in general did not begin to use it until the
beginning of the next century. It continued to be used more
and more, supplanting other processes, until at the time of the
Eevolution it is the only recognized method. Special bills are
found in all the colonies but Massachusetts-Bay and South
Carolina.
In Maryland, foreigners who have been denizated are found
applying to the assembly for a naturalization, evidently to
preclude the possibility of the disinheritance of their children.
It was impossible that all the aliens who took up lands
should be sufficiently informed regarding the land laws to seek
a naturalization first. There resulted from this practice such
a number of defective titles that it was found necessary to
remedy the matter by general bills settling their titles en masse.
The first remedy was of a rather peculiar nature, being none
other than the naturalization of the alien after his decease.
The ex post facto nsitxiTe of this soon brought it into disuse and
simple confirmation of title was substituted.
No persons were excluded from naturalization in the colonies
but Catholics, and even these were naturalized in Eh ode
Island. Jews had provision made for them in the bills by the
usual omission from the oaths of the words "on the true faith
of a Christian,'' and Quakers were allowed to affirm. One
illustration of another kind of naturalization is found in
America — naturalization after conquest. This takes place
either by provisions in the treaty or "by act and operation of
law." The Dutch and Swedes included in the grant to the
Duke of York became English subjects in this manner in 1665.
Action in naturalization differs in each colony, yet a simi-
larity exists in each of the three groups, the Kew England, the
Middle, and the Southern.
The causes of the homogeneity of the population in Kew
England, climatic, religious, and political, need little mention.
Perhaps more effective than all in excluding foreigners was the
fact that large grants of land were impossible under the
township system.
The foreigner was not attracted thither, and had he been,
would not have been welcomed. In Massachusetts there is
practically no naturalization. Eleven were naturalized by the
only law found in the province, that of 1731, and but four can
NATURALIZATION IN THE ENGLISH COLONIES START. 327
be found who were naturalized under the English law of 1740.
Ehode Island, with characteristic independence, seems to
have made the admission as freemen a substitute until she
adopted special legislation. Connecticut naturalized almost
none at all until the other colonies were prohibited in 1773,
after which special bills are found.
The only naturalization of an Indian is found in Connecti-
cut, in 1695. It was enacted in favor of Abimelech, the grand-
son of Uncas, the Mohegan chief who had been such a staunch
friend of the first Connecticut settlers. It was passed that he
might have the protection and use of the courts in a contro-
versy concerning some lands.
The bulk of naturalization fell to the Middle colonies, for
both there and in the South were found the exact opposites
of the features which rendered New England unattractive.
New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania naturalized large
numbers, and all the methods are illustrated.
Maryland was the first colony to extend a welcome to for-
eigners, in the proclamation of Lord Baltimore in 1648. Nat-
uralization was begun almost immediately and continued with-
out interruption in one form or another, until 1773. In Mary-
land is found the curious naturalization of children born of
foreign parents in the province. Curious, because by the
standard by which allegiance was adjudged, i. e., by birth on
the royal domain, and also by the terms of the charter, children
born in the province were English subjects. It is yet another
illustration of the precautionary measures taken to avoid dis-
inheritance of children of an alien.
White people of any description were at a premium in the
South and foreigners were eagerly welcomed and naturalized
except in North Carolina, where little or no naturalization is
found. This is peculiar because she had every inducement to
do so. The foreigners in the colony were of unexceptionable
character 5 power had been given to the assembly to natural-
ize in the Articles of Agreement, and at least on one occasion
instruction is given by the home authorities to naturalize some
foreigners sent there. Furthermore, it was in constant use in
the colonies on either side. None, however, is found except
an isolated special act and a few in Orange and Eowan coun-
ties under the law of 1740.
Naturalization in the colonies kept pace with the trend of
the state toward republican institutions. It was gradually
328 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
transferred from the executive to the legislative branch until
the only change to be made under the Constitution was from
the several legislatures to the national legislature. As in
many other instances of colonial legal practice, the feudal
features did not take root in American soil. Denization has
no place in a republic, but is still one of the prerogatives of
the Queen.
Naturalization under the Constitution makes the foreigner
before the lav^ exactly as if naturally born. Technically, such
complete unrestricted naturalization did not exist before the
Eevolution, though in the colonies the liberality of the colo-
nists or the evasion of English law gave him all the privileges of
the native colonist. The disapproval of the latter of the meas-
ures taken in England to exclude foreigners from the New
World after 1760 was strong enough to find statement among
the grievances set forth in the Declaration. Public sentiment
was ripe for the foundation of the cosmopolitan state. To one
fresh from the study of the development of Teutonic institu.
tions through the Anglo-Saxon race, the fact comes as a sur-
prise that a cosmopolitan state was founded and not an Eng-
land in petto, A more intimate knowledge, however, of the
foreign strata of colonial society partially removes this, and
leaves a doubt whether a due prominence has hitherto been
given in elementary American history, at least, to the fact that
such a foundation was possible only by reason of the presence,
and strong influence on American institutions of other peoples
than the English. One cannot but feel, after studying the
naturalization in the colonies, that the present policy of dis-
crimination in nationality, or that any policy of exclusion other
than that demanded by the preservation of autonomy, is a
departure from the original intention of the founders. They
were not exclusively English in origin, and it was not as " We
the English in America," but as *^ We, the people of the United
States," that they set about their work and put into verbal
form the first cosmopolitan state.
i
XXIIL— THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FIRST SOUTHERN
BOUNDARY OF THE UNITED STATES.
By PROF. B. A. HINSDALE,
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN.
329
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FIRST SOUTHERN BOUNDARY
OF THE UNITED STATES.
By B. A. Hinsdale.
The purpose of this paper is to direct attention to a com-
paratively small but very important division of a large subject.
This subject is the relations of the United States to the Mis-
sissippi Eiver and the Gulf of Mexico from 1779 to 1819, or
what may be called "The Southwestern Question." The
branch of this subject to be treated is the establishment of
our first southern boundary. To make the theme in hand
fully intelligible it will be necessary briefly to state some pre-
liminary facts.
The Carolina charter of 1663 gave to the lords proprietors
a territory that extended " southerly as far as the river St.
Matthias, which border eth upon the coast of Florida, and
within one and thirty degrees of northern latitude." * This is
the first mention of the thirty- first parallel that is made in
American history. From this time England regarded the line
as the proper southern limit of her possessions in America.
This line Spain never recognized. By the treaty of 1670,
sometimes called "The American Treaty," t His Catholic
Majesty acknowledged that His Britannic Majesty had domin-
ions in America, the title and sovereignty of which ought not to
be called in question, but the two powers never reached an
agreement as to their common boundary. In 1763 Spain ceded
Florida to England, without assigning any limits to the
province whatever. At the same time France ceded to the
same power not only Canada but all her possessions in
Korth America lying east of a line drawn through the middle
* Poorer Charters and Constitutions, Vol. i, p. 1382.
t Chalmers : A collection of Treaties, Vol. ii, p. 34.
331
332 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
of the Mississippi from its source to the Iberville, and thence
through the middle of that stream and Lakes Maurepas and
Pontchartrain to the sea, including the river and port of
Mobile. The navigation of the Mississippi was made as free
to the subjects of Great Britain as to those of France, from its
source to the sea.* At a somewhat earlier date France, by a
secret treaty, had ceded to Spain all her possessions west of
the Mississippi, and also the island and town of IsTew Orleans
on the east side of that river.
On October 7, 1763, George III, by proclamation, divided
his new possessions on the Gulf into the provinces of East and
West Florida, bounding them on the north by the thirty-first
parallel of north latitude from the Mississippi to the Chatta-
hoochee, by a line drawn straight from the junction of the
Chattahoochee and the Flint to the source of the St. Marys,
and by the St. Marys from its source to the sea, and separating
them by the Appalachicola.t This is the second mention of
parallel thirty-one.
In 1764 the lords of trade represented to the King that the
boundary fixed for West Florida would leave not only very
considerable settlements upon the east bank of the Mississippi,
but also the town and settlement of Mobile, to the north, and
so beyond the limits of that government. This, they said,
surveys made within the year established. Accordingly a new
boundary was fixed, viz., the parallel running through the
junction of the Yazoo and the Mississippi j in consequence of
which a parallelogram of territory as long as the whole width
of the States of Mississippi and Alabama, and more than a
degree in breadth, was added to that province.| The fact is
that Mobile lies south of parallel thirty-one, while it is at least
doubtful whether there were at the time any living settlements
at all on the east side of the Mississippi north of that line.
Nevertheless the action taken was a hinge upon which impor-
tant events afterwards turned.
British officers took possession of West Florida in 1764.
Fort Eosalie, which had been destroyed in the Indian wars,
* Chalmers: A Collection of Treaties, Vol. i, p. 467.
t The Annual Register for 1763, p. 208.
t A Valuable Collection of Documents in Regard to the Boundary of
Georgia and Florida, furnished by George Chalmers, of the Office for Trade,
Whitehall, will be found in American State Papers : Public Lands, Vol. i,
p. 36, et seqq.
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF UNITED STATES — HINSDALE. 333
was reoccupied and rebuilt and named Fort Panmure. Fort
Bute was afterwards built at Bayou Manshac, tlie southern
point, belonging to England, lying on the river. At once
emigration began to flow into the province from England and
Ireland, and especially from the old English colonies. A I^orth
Carolina emigration, about 1765, began the settlement of
Feliciana, on the Spanish side of the line. In the Natchez
district large grants of land were patented, some to famous
Englishmen and Americans. On a tract of 25,000 acres, what
is known in Mississippi history as "the Jersey settlement''
was founded in 1772, and soon became very flourishing.* On
20,000 acres, patented to Thaddeus Lyman for himself and
others, a Connecticut colony was established in 1775.t A Mis-
sissippi historian, marking the superiority of the English over
the earlier French emigration to the banks of the lower Missis-
sippi, uses this language : f
* *' The Jersey settlement, begun in 1772, by men of intelligence, energy
and high moral character, became prosperous and rich, densely popu-
lated, highly cultivated, distinguished for its churches and schools, its
hospitality, and refinement. And in the course of years it sent its thrifty
colonists into many counties, carrying with them the characteristics of
the parent hive." — Claiborne: Mississippi as a Province, Territory, and
State, p. 107.
tThe history of this Connecticut colony is of tragic interest. Gen.
Phineas Lyman, of Connecticut, distinguished himself in the French and
Indian War, as well at the siege of Havana, where he commanded the provin-
cial troops, as in the wilderness of New York and Canada. The war over,
he went to England to procure for the military adventurers, consist-
ing of himself and other colonial ofificers and soldiers, a grant of lands
on the Mississippi. Here he remained for years, neglected, anxious, mis-
erable, and disappointed, before he obtained the object of his wishes. On
his return to New England he found that some of his associates were
dead, while others had lost interest in the enterprise. But Gen. Lyman,
his son, and a few others, including Gen. Israel Putnam, visited the
Natchez district, with a view to making a settlement. Lyman's health
was thoroughly broken by his painful experience in England, and he died
soon after reaching the banks of the Mississippi. His son and widow did
not long survive him. Gen. Putnam returned to Connecticut. Such was
the beginning of the Connecticut colony. Gen. Lyman was a devoted
loyali st, and it is curious to speculate what he might have been had he spent
the years following the French-Indian War in New England instead of
Old England. — Parkman: Montcalm, and Wolfe; Bancroft: History of the
United States ; Sabine : American Loyalists {see indexes of these books) ;
Claiborne: Mississippi, pp. 107-108; Martin: History of Louisiana, p.
221 ; Peabody : Life of Israel Putnam, in Sparks's Library of American,
Biography, Vol. vii.
t Claiborne: Mississippi, p. 115.
334 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
The only inducement the British authority held out for immigration
was a liberal disj>ensation of land to those that rendered service to the
Crown. No transportation was furnished ; few military posts established ;
no vain search after metals. Those that came came at their own expense.
They crossed the mountains to Pittsburg or to the head waters of Ten-
nessee, where they often made a crop of corn and wheat the first season,
and then built their boats and brought down with them to their point of
destination their families, their slaves and stock, and a year's supply of
provisions. Or they came from Georgia and Carolina, the overland journey
on pack horses, through the Creek and Choctaw territories; or by sea
from more northern posts to Pensacola and New Orleans, and then by
boats to their respective stations. Nine-tenths of them came to cultivate
the soil; they brought intelligence and capital, and they embarked at
once into the production of supplies for home consumption, and selected
indigo as their crop for exportation. Tobacco was next introduced, and
subsequently cotton. All the necessaries of life were in abundance and
cheap.
From tlie time tliat they were admitted to the river, the
British vessels and traders made the most of their opportuni-
ties, and progressively they got nearly all the trade of the
Louisiana planters into their hands, the Spanish authorities at
New Orleans winking at the illicit commerce.
The Revolution stimulated rather than retarded the Missis-
sippi settlement. West Florida served a purpose not unlike
that of Halifax and Texas in after days. Ad ven turers, outlaws,
and fugitives from justice flocked to Natchez; but these were
balanced by emigrants of cultivation and wealth who sought
on the Mississippi or on the Gulf of Mexico an asylum from
the storms of war that were then sweeping over the Atlantic
slope. These emigrants, it is almost unnecessary to say, in-
clined to the royal side. Some fled from proscription, some
from the alternative of taking up arms at home against their
kindred and friends. The landholders were for the most part
educated men. Many of them had held commissions in the
British or the provincial army; others had held civil ofiBces
under the Crown or the colonies, and had been accustomed to
the administration of the laws of England. '^Plantations
rapidly multiplied, the planters established credits in London,
Pensacola, and Jamacia, and received their merchandise and
negroes direct from those ports." " Profound peace and good
order prevailed in West Florida, and no colony in the British
Empire or elsewhere was in a condition more happy and pros-
perous." But the issues of the war were too far-reaching for
the lower Mississippi to escape them. At its beginning a
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF UNITED STATES — HINSDALE. 335
number of merchants from Boston, New York, and Phila-
delphia, who were well disposed toward the American cause,
established themselves in New Orleans. The most prominent
of these was Oliver Pollock, who became the accredited agent
of Congress. With the full knowledge of the Spanish gov-
ernor, arms and ammunition were collected and conveyed up
the river to Pittsburg. Natchez was the rendezvous of British
agents, who incited the Indians to fall upon the frontiers of the
States 5 but the Mississippi settlement as a whole appears to
have preserved neutrality. The colonists were the less dis-
posed to side with the United States, because, in the event of
war coming to their doors, the Government could render them
no real assistance. Moreover, the powerful tribes of Indians
lying between them and the Atlantic States were attached to
the royal cause. One attempt was made to bring West Florida
under the patriot flag. In 1778 Capt. Willing, of Philadel-
phia, commanding a small force, and armed with a commis-
sion from Congress, descended from Pittsburg to the lower
Mississippi, his ostensible mission being to induce the inhabi-
tants to maintain a strict neutrality throughout the war. In
the Natchez district a large number of the inhabitants took
such an oath, and Willing promised them protection in return.
His operations were without influence upon the general course
of events.*
By Article xi of the treaty of alliance that he entered into
with Congress February 6, 1778, the Most Christain King of
France guarantied to the United States their liberty, sover-
eignty, and independence, absolute and unlimited, as well in
* " From Pittsburg and Kaskaskia to the Spanish boundary of Florida
the United States in 1779 were alone in possession of the Ohio and the left
bank of the Mississippi." — Bancroft: History of the United States, vol. v.,
pp. 315-316. The Southwestern historians make Willing little better than
a marauder, and facts soon to be stated will show that Mr. Bancroft
attributes an exaggerated importance to his operations. Martin, writing
from the standpoint of New Orleans, says Willing laid waste plantations,
destroying stock, burning houses, and carrying off slaves, adding:
'* Although the government and people of Louisiana were well disposed
towards the United States, this cruel, wanton, and unprovoked conduct
towards a helpless community was viewed with great indignation and
horror, much increased by the circumstance of Willing having been hos-
pitably received and entertained the preceding year in several houses
which he now committed to the flames." — History of Louisiana, p. 224.
See also Claiborne : Mississippi, pp. 117-221.
I
336 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
matters of governmeut as commerce, and also their posses-
sions.* As the war^ to which France now became a party, wore
on and its burdens became heavier and heavier, that power
became somewhat less regardful of American interests and
rights, and finally assumed a tone that was little less than
dictatorial. Early in 1779, in consequence of the compact
between the two branches of the Bourbon family, she suc-
ceeded in making Spain a party to the war against England.
This was a happy circumstance for the Americans, in so far as
it arrayed another power against her enemy; at the same time
it brought into the field the most dangerous of foes to their
territorial integrity. Moreover, the danger from this quar-
ter was all the greater because the treaty of alliance with
France contained no enumeration or description of the posses-
sions of the United States, leaving that question wholly open
to the hazards of war and of diplomacy.
In May, 1779, the King of Spain declared war against Eng-
land, and in July he authorized his subjects in the Indies to
take part in it. Don Bernardo de Galvez, the ablest of all
the Spanish governors of Louisiana, immediately took the
offensive, and by the end of September had reduced all the
British posts on the Mississippi. In March, 1780, he captured
Fort Carolini and the whole Mobile district. In May, 1781,
the British authorities surrendered to his arms the town and
fortifications of Pensacola and the whole province of West
Florida, t These Spanish successes were immediately favor-
* Treaties and conventions concluded between United States of America
and other powers since July 4, 1776, p. 307.
t While Galvez was absent at Pensacola, events occurred at Natchez
that led to one of the tragic episodes of the Revolution. Hearing that a
British fleet had been sighted off the coast, and knowing that the governor
was absent from New Orleans, many of the inhabitants of the district,
including nearly the whole of the Connecticut colony, rose in opposition
to the Spanish authority, raised the British flag, and compelled the sur-
render of Fort Panmure. Learning their error and fearing the governor's
wrath on his return, a large company of the insurgents resolved on aban-
doning their homes and marching through the wilderness to Savannah,
the nearest post then in possession of the English forces. "The war and
their political sympathies rendered a direct journey dangerous, and they
accordingly selected a route which caused them to travel upwards of 1,300
miles and occupied one hundred and forty-nine days. They were all
mounted on horseback, but the ruggedness of the ground often required
them to travel long distances on foot. Women and children and infants
at the breast formed a part of the returning and suffering band. Some
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OP UNITED STATES — HINSDALE. 337
able to the American cause, but in the end they jeopardized
important interests, since they put the whole Southwest into
Spanish hands, including a large territory that the United
States claimed for their own.
To keep the faith that in the family compact he had plighted
to his royal cousin, the King of France, was only one of
the motives that led His Spanish Majesty to declare war
against England. He was ambitious to recover dominions
once his, now lost. Nor was it merely the Floridas, which he
had surrendered in exchange for Havana in 1763, that he
sought to recover. He remembered that once Florida was the
name of a region spreading from the Gulf of Mexico to the
springs of the Mississippi, and from the Atlantic to New
Spain. He remembered, also, that once his predecessors had
claimed a shore line that was unbroken from the bays of New
England to the waters of the Oronoco. In the seventeenth
century England had seized upon the Atlantic slope and
France upon the Mississippi Valley. His Majesty could not
be blind to the fact that the Atlantic front of the continent
was lost to him forever, but he thought its interior might yet
be saved. He now held New Orleans, the western half of the
Mississippi Valley, and the Spanish islands, which afforded
him the best possible base of operations for carrying out his
purpose. The Mississippi led straight from the western
American settlements to his dearest possessions, Cuba and
the mines of Mexico and Peru. Louisiana for the time served
as a screen for these possessions, still it seemed to him highly
desirable to seize not only Florida bat also the eastern bank
of the Mississippi and the streams cutting it, thus shutting
the Americans up within the Alleghenies and the Atlantic
Such was his vision. It was as unsubstantial as alluring.
Taking advantage of the Spanish declaration of war against
were sick; all endured the most exhausting fatigue, were in constant
dread of meeting with savages, and were sometimes without sufficient
food and water. After reaching Georgia the party formed themselves into
two companies. One division became the prisoners of the Whigs; the
other, after surmounting many difficulties, reached Savannah in safety.
The captives were soon released. Among those who arrived at Savannah
were two daughters of General Lyman, both of whom died at that place.
Such was the calamitous issue of the life of a gentleman who enjoyed,
before the Revolution, a reputation possessed by few of our countrymen;
such, too, the sad end of several members of hia family." Sabine : The
lioyaliets of the American Revolution. Vol. ii, pp. 37, 38.
S, Mis. 104 22
338 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
England, Congress sent Jolin Jay to Madrid towards the close
of 1779 to negotiate, if possible, treaties similar to those that
had been already entered into with France. He was author-
ized to guarantee the Floridas to Spain, provided the fortunes
of war should place them in her hands, and also instructed to
insist upon the free navigation of the Mississippi into and from
the sea, and to procure a concession of commercial privileges
south of the parallel of thirty-one degrees.* This line Congress
had already declared the southern boundary of the United
States from the Mississippi to the Chattahoochee.t The Spanish
court refused to receive Mr. Jay, but discussed with him the
objects of his mission informally and unofficially.^ The trouble
was that Congress had instructed its representative to insist
upon concessions of navigation and commerce. When all is
said, Spain had entered upon the war with only half a heart;
and France, becoming weary of the struggle herself and anx-
ious to induce Spain to recognize the independence of the United
States and thus to close the triple alliance, prevailed upon
Congress to withdraw the offensive ultimatum.§ This action,
however, made no difference; the Spanish court still refused
to treat with the American commissioner. So matters stood
when Mr. Jay left Madrid for Paris in the summer of 1782. In
the meantime events had not stood still in America.
Galvez's brilliant successes seemed to demonstrate the feas-
ibility of the Spanish plan to recover the Floridas and the
eastern half of the Mississippi Valley, thus restoring an
unbroken Spanish coast line from the capes of Florida to the
confines of Brazil. The Spanish court became less and less
disposed to treat with Congress as time went on. Besides the
Spanish victories in the Southwest, the commandant at St.
Louis sent a force across the frozen prairies of Illinois, Indiana,
and Michigan, in the winter of 1780-'81, that seized St. Joseph,
on the river of that name, capturing the garrison, taking
formal possession of the country, and carrying off the British
colors as a trophy of victory and an evidence of conquest.] | The
* Secret Journals of the Congress of the Confederation, Vol. ii, p. 261.
ilMd., Vol. II, p. 225.
tThe Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution, edited by
Jared Sparks, Vol. viii.
$ Secret Journals, Vol. ii, p. 393.
II See ''The March of the Spaniards across Illinois," a paper read before
the American Historical Association by Edward G. Mason, esq., of Chi-
cago, and printed in full in the Magazine of American History, May, 1886 j
also "Narrative and Critical History," Vol. vi. Chap. ix.
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF UNITED STATES — HINSDALE. 339
avowed object of this expedition was to give Spain a ground of
claim to the Korthwest like that which she had already-
acquired to the Southwest. The i^roceeding was the more
audacious, as at this very time Illinois was in possession of
American troops.
Even to summarize the history of the long negotiation for
peace that opened in Paris early in 1782, and much more to
deal with the controversies to which these negotiations have
given rise, is quite beyond the present purpose. However, it
is important to state three or four leading facts attending the
negotiations before passing to the results reached that are
most pertinent to the present inquiry.
England strove to limit the western extension of the United
States. First, she proposed the Allegheny Mountains as a
boundary, and afterwards the Ohio Eiver. Spain opposed a still
more determined resistance to such extension. Her first propo-
sition was the AUeghenies; afterwards she proposed a line
that was more favorable to the United States, but still one that
excluded her from the Mississippi throughout its entire length.
As we have already seen, the treaty of alliance did not commit
France to any particular American boundaries j and Count de
Yergennes, as one of the last writers upon the subject states
the case, avowedly directed his representatives in Philadelphia
" to represent to Congress (1) that France herself would look for-
ward, if the war continued, to regain her own control of Canada
and the fisheries, and that she was unwilling to see Spain dis-
turbed on the Mississippi; and (2) that the United States, by
asking so much, might drive Great Britain to desperation, and,
by awakening again the war fever in England, wantonly pro-
tract the war.''* All objections and resistance from whatever
*For the Negotiations at Paris, 1782-'83, see Diplomatic Correspondence
of the Revolution, Vol. x, p. 7 (report made by the American commis-
sioners) ; id., Vol. VIII, pp. 21, 129 (Jay's Letters) j Bancroft : History,
Vol. V, Chaps., v-vii ; John Jay : The Peace Negotiations of 1782-'83, an
address delivered before the New York Historical Society, November 27,
1883, Narrative and Critical History, Vol. vii. Chap, ii (the Peace Nego-
tiations of 1782-'83) ; Winsor : Narrative and Critical History (editorial
notes to Vol. VII, Chap, vii); Wharton: International Law of the United
States, Vol. iii. Appendix (Peace Negotiations of 1782-'83 with Great
Britain); Angell: Narrative and Critical History, Vol. vii. Chap, vil
(the diplomacy of the United States); Lyman: The Diplomacy of the
United States, Vol.i ; Lecky : History of England in the Eighteenth Century,
Vol. IV, Chap. XV ; Lord Fitzmaurice: Life of William Earl Shelbume,
Vol. Ill, Chaps. IV, VI ; John Adams: Works, Vol. i (Appendix 6).
340 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
source proved unavailing. The American commissioners, disre-
garding their instructions to consult the King of France in the
negotiations for peace or truce at every step, entered into a sepa-
rate and secret preliminary treaty with Great Britain, to which,
however, the King afterward consented. On the west and
south the lines laid down in 1763 became the national boun-
daries; the middle of the Mississippi to the thirty-first parallel,
and the thirty-first parallel, a straight line drawn from the junc-
tion of the Chattahoochee and the Flint to the head of the St.
Marys, and the St. Marys to the sea. On November 30, 1782,
when this treaty was executed, England, France, and Spain
were still engaged in active war j and the English diplomatists
at Paris prevailed upon the Americans to a^ree to this separate
article, which, for a time, was kept a profound secret. ^^ It is
hereby understood and agreed that in case Great Britian, at the
conclusion of the present war, shall recover or be put in posses-
sion of West Florida, the line of north boundary between the
said province and the United States shall be a line drawn
from the mouth of the river Yassous, where it unites with the
Mississippi, due east to the river Appalachicola." * On Septem-
ber 3, 1783, the preliminary treaty agreed upon the i^revious
November, with the omission of the separate article, became
the definitive treaty between the two nations. Great Britain
had not recovered or been put in i)ossession of West Florida.
On the contrary, in the treaty of i)eace entered into by Eng-
land, France, and Spain at the same date. His Britannic Majesty
ceded and guarantied to His Catholic Majesty, in full right,
both East and West Florida.! At the conclusion of these
negotiations two facts boded ill to the future peace of the
United States. First, England had ceded to Spain West
Florida without any description of boundaries whatever, thus
leaving its extent to be determined from the facts of history.
The United States could urge that the original northern bound-
ary of West Florida and the treaty boundary of 1782-'83
exactly coincided; but Spain could reply that the line of 1764
had superseded that of the previous year, and that her troops
were actually in possession of the left bank of the Mississippi
for a considerable distance north of parallel thirty-one at the
* Treaties and Conventions concluded between the United States of
America and other Powers, p. 373.
t Chalmers: A Collection of Treaties, Vol. i, p. 495.
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OP UNITED STATES — HINSDALE. 341
time when England had ceded it to the United States. At
one time Spain seemed to acquiesce in the southern bound-
ary that England made. At least Lafayette, in February
1783, received assurances in Madrid that the Spanish court
had fully accepted the preliminary treaty between the United
States and the Court of London, Count de Florida Blanca
giving his word of honor to that effect. The Marquis was also
assured that fear of raising an object of dissension was the only
objection that the King had to the free navigation of the Mis-
sissippi.* But His Catholic Majesty did not long remain of
this way of thinking. He soon began to plead that he held not
merely West Florida up to the line of 1764 by right of conquest,
but also a region extending far to the north of that line.
When the secret article of the treaty of 1782 became known.
His Catholic Majesty fairly blazed with indignation. He
declared that the two contracting powers had no right to dis-
pose of territory that was at the time in the possession of his
own troops. Furthermore, the subject was complicated with
the navigation of the Mississippi. His Majesty denied that the
concession of the free navigation of the river which France
had made to England in 1763, and which was the basis of the
article in the treaty of 1783 whereby the United States and
England had guarantied to each other the free navigation of
the river, was in any way binding upon him j and he protested
that he would not permit any nation to navigate between the
banks of the Mississippi as far northward as his royal arms
held possession of the country. Secondly, at the close of the
war England was in possession of the Northwestern posts
extending from Oswego to Mackinaw, and stoutly refused to
surrender them. Thus both the Southwestern and Northwest-
ern limbs of the Eepublic remained in possession of foreign
powers. The positions that Spain and England held within
the national terrritory on the Mississippi and on the Great
Lakes, in addition to being irritating and confining to the
United States, enabled those powers to make the most of
any mishap that might befall the new member of the family of
nations.
So the treaties required to close the cycle of the American
Revolution were concluded without an adjustment of the South-
western question, in either of its phases, being reached. Con-
ibfe
American State Papers: Foreign Relations, Vol. I, pp. 250, 251.
342 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
gress recovered from the panic in which, obediently to the
dictation of France, it had modified its instructions to Mr. Jay,
and on June 3, 1784, instructed its diplomatic representatives
in Europe, in any negotiation that they might enter upon with
that power, not to relinquish or cede to Spain, in any event
whatsoever, the right of the citizens of the United States to
the free navigation of the river Mississippi from its source to
its mouth.*
His Catholic Majesty took immediate steps to secure his
position. In May, 1784, acting-Governor Miro, of New Orleans,
held the first of a series of Congresses with the Indians of the
Southwest, with the object of attaching them firmly to the Span-
ish interest. Spanish agents also incited the Indians to hos-
tilities against the United States, and furnished them with
arms and ammunition. Treaties between the Indians and the
United States were prevented or broken up. In 1794 Gov-
ernor-General Carondelet boasted that he could at any time
bring twenty thousand warriors into the field against the Ameri-
cans. In July, 1788, a detachment of the Louisiana regiment
was sent to fortify New Madrid. Natchez, Walnut Hills, and
Chickasaw Bluffs, all on the east side of the river, were more
strongly fortified. Armed galleys patrolled the river. Land
grants were freely made in the disputed district, and surveyors
were actually engaged in running out such grants when the
American commissioner arrived in 1797 to run the international
boundary. More than all, repeated attempts were made to
seduce the Western people from their allegiance, and to bring
about their union with Louisiana.
In the mean time attempts were made to adjust the pending
difficulties. To enter upon a i)articular account of the negotia-
tions with Spain between 1783 and 1795, or to investigate those
causes, as the growth of population west of the Alleghenies,
its character and geographical and commerical relations, which
made a settlement increasingly important and also difficult, is
foreign to the present purpose. A general characterization of
the negotiations will suffice.
In 1784 His Catholic Majesty sent Don Diego de Gardoqui
to reside near Congress in the quality of Encargado de Nego-
cios, commissioning him to treat concerning the limits of the
two countries and other matters about which it was desirable
*The Secret Journals, Vol. in, p. 510.
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF UNITED STATES HINSDALE. 343
that there should be a good understanding between the two
powers. In July of the following year Congress invested Mr.
Jay, then Secretary to the United States for Foreign Affairs,
with power to treat with the Encargado, subject to its own in-
structions.* For three years the negotiation dragged its slow
length along. The Encargado was perfectly willing to make
liberal commercial concessions, which Mr. Jay was very anx-
ious to secure, but he would not yield either the boundaries
or the right of navigation. Jay was willing, for the time, to
waive the right of navigation, and even to yield something as
to limits. The Kew England members of Congress, eager for
commerical privileges and indifferent to the West, agreed with
Mm. The Southern members, indifferent to commerce and
keenly interested in the West, strongly dissented.t The Mid-
dle State members were divided, but the majorities of the
delegations voted with the Secretary. In August, 1786,
Congress went so far as to withdraw its previous insistence
upon the navigation and the treaty line of 1782-'83, but the
*Tlie Secret Journals, Vol. iii, p. 570.
tHow fully Informed of western matters Washington was, and liow
deeply interested in them, is a common place. His celebrated letter to
Governor Harrison, of Virginia, written in 1784, is well known. But I do
not remember to have seen attention directed to an equally interesting
letter written to Richard Henry Lee, President of Congress, August 22,
1785, at the very time when Jay was entering into the discussion with
Gardoqui. '^ However singular the opinion may be," he wrote, ^'I can
not divest myself of it, that the navigation of the Mississippi, at this
time, ought to be no object with us. On the contrary, until we have a
little time allowed to open and make easy the ways between the Atlantic
States and the western territory, the obstructions had better remain.
There is nothing which binds one country or one state to another but
interest. Without this cement the western inhabitants, who more than
probably will be composed in a great degree of foreigners, can have no
predilection for us, and a commerical connection is the only tie we can
have upon them. It is clear to me that the trade of the lakes, and of
the river Ohio, as low as the Great Kenhawa if not to the Falls, may be
brought to the Atlantic ports easier and cheaper, taking the whole voyage
together, than it can be carried to New Orleans; but, once open the door
to the latter before the obstructions are removed from the former, let com-
mercial connections, which lead to others, be formed, and the habit of
that trade be well established, and it will be found to be no easy matter
to divert it ; and vice vei'sa. When the settlements are stronger and more
extended to the westward, the navigation of the Mississippi will be an
object of importance, and we shall then be able, reserving our claims, to
speak a more efficacious language than policy, I think, dictates at pres-
ent. "—Sparks : Writings of Washington, Vol. ix, p. 119.
344 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
vote, which stood 7 to 5,* was insufficient to ratify a treaty had
onebeen concluded, to say nothing of the storm of opposition that
it stirred up throughout the South and West. So no conclu-
sion was reached. The last action that the old Congress took
in relation to foreign affairs, so far as the Secret Journals show,
was the adoption of a resolution, September 16, 1788,t which
referred the negotiations with Spain to the new government
about to be organized under the Constitution. In one of his
communications to Congress, Mr. Jay expressed the opinion
that the Encargado, notwithstanding the much greater extent
of the Spanish territorial claims, would yield all territory north
of the Yazoo line, provided other matters could be satisfactorily
adjusted. In 1789 Gardoqui returned to Spain. He had been
in the country more than four years; he had observed its
internal dissentions and weakness, and formed the opinion that
any foreign power which pleased could safely take a high hand
with the Government; he had failed in a negotiation that he
had much at heart, and his observation and experience vexed
not a little the course of the negotiation undertaken in Madrid
four years later, f
Towards the close of 1791, Mr. Jefferson conveyed to the
President intelligence which he had received from Madrid, to
the effect that the Court of Spain was ready to enter into a
negotiation at Madrid respecting the navigation of the Missis-
sippi. Washington accordingly appointed two commissioners,
William Carmichael and William Short, then charges des
affaires of the United States at Madrid and Paris, respectively,
to conduct such negotiation. Subsequently its scope was
enlarged so as to include commerce. For the guidance of the
commissioners, the Secretary of State drew up an elaborate
letter of instruction regarding the Mississippi, the boundary,
and commercial relations. Unfortunately, the Spanish Court
intrusted the negotiation to Gardoqui, the same who had con-
ducted the earlier discussion with Mr. Jay. There were fre-
quent delays. The American commissioners reported from
time to time that the phases of the discussion changed fre-
quently, responding to the changes of European politics. On
* Secret Journals, Vol. iv, p. 109, 110.
t IMd., Vol. IV, p. 454.
IThe Jay-Gardoqui correspondence is found in the Diplomatic Cor-
respondence of the United States from 1783 to 1789, Vol. iii, pp. 135-281,
and in the State Papers: Foreign Relations, Vol. i, pp. 248, 252.
I
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF UNITED STATES — HINSDALE. 345
June 6, 1793, they wrote that Spain would consider herself
better secured against the United States whilst united with
England against France, which was already attacked by the
most formidable powers of Europe, then whilst united with
France, whose partiality for us she distrusted, and opposed to
England, whose concert with us she would have apprehended.
The English ambassador, they had reason to think, influenced
the negotiation unfavorably. France was an uncertain factor in
the problem. Nothing but fear of England would constrain
Spain to yield the American claims. The sentiment of the
Spanish Court, owing to its present partiality for London, had
changed since their commission was given them. Gardoqui
remembered with bitterness his failure at New York, and
charged a policy of delay upon Congress. He seemed to think
that the people of the West could be driven to separate from
the Union and to ally themselves with Spain, if the naviga-
tion of the Mississippi were denied. The breakup of the Union
he thought certain. So the commissioners ceased to press
their case. They did not believe that anything could be gained
by forcing Spain into the arms of the Court of London and into
refusing the American claims as a finality. Time confirmed
the insight of the commissioners. Spain never yielded the
points in controversy until driven to do so by her fears grow-
ing out of European complications.*
The Spanish commissioners at Philadelphia having repre-
sented that the way was again open to renew negotiations at
Madrid, President Washington appointed, November 24, 1794,
Thomas Pinckney, then minister at the Court of St. James,
envoy extraordinary and sole commissioner i)lenipotentiary to
proceed to Spain upon such a mission. The subjects of nego-
tiation were to be the navigation of the Mississippi, the bound-
aries, and commerce. Mr. Pinckney accordingly proceeded to
Spain, where he entered into a discussion of these subjects
with the Duke de la Alcudia, otherwise known as the Prince
of Peace. Mr. Pinckney encountered the delays incident to
Spanish negotiations.
Writing to the Secretary of State July 21 of the next year,
Mr. Pinckney said he had found the Spanish court still anxious
for further delay, which to them was an equivalent to a cession
* The documentary history of this negotiation is found in the American
State Papers: Foreign Eelations, Vol. i, pp. 252-286, including Mr. Jeflfer-
son's elaborate letter of instructions to the Commissioners.
346 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
of our rights so long as they were in possession of the objects of
controversy. He said it was important to close the business
before the war with England should come to an end. He re-
ported that the court had submitted various propositions, as
that the negotiations depended upon the relations of Sixain and
France, and that those two powers and the United States
should form a triple alliance. On August 11 he wrote that the
court was still pursuing its system of delay 5 also that he had
been asked to agree to the insertion in the treaty of a guaranty
by the United States of Spain's American possessions, which
he had refused, very much to the mortification of the Prince of
Peace. He expressed, however, the opinion that the new posi-
tion of Spain would induce the court to come to a decision.
The main points of difficulty, as before, were the boundaries
and the navigation of the Mississippi.
On August 10, 1795, Mr. Pinckney submitted to the Prince
a brief memoir on the two main subjects of controversy, which
is one of the ablest state papers relating to the subject. The
preliminary treaty of peace between Spain and Great Britain
at the close of the war, he said, had followed the preliminary
treaty between the United States and the same i)ower ; the two
dates were November 30, 1782, and January 20, 1783. Great
Britain, humiliated as she had been in the war, could not be
supposed to have ceded to Spain at the second of these dates
what she had already ceded to the United States at the earlier
one. Spain had known all about the proclamation line of 1763
for nine years j and if she was not satisfied with it she should
have expressed her dissatisfaction in a manner to afi*ect her
treaty with Great Britain. Further, the treaty of November
30, 1782, had at once been communicated to France by the
American commissioners, and no doubt to Spain by the French
minister. Accordingly, on January 20, 1783, Spain must have
known what had been done on November 30 of the previous
year; and if dissatisfied therewith she should have directed
negotiations to the boundary with a view of having it changed
in the definitive treaty between United States and Great Brit-
ain. Still further, Spain did not conclude her definitive treaty
with Great Britain until September 3, 1783, so that she had
ample opportunity to seek a rectification of the boundary.
Either Spain made no attempt to have the question reopened or
or was refused; accordingly she was estopped in either case.
Taking up the argument based on conquest, Mr. Pinckney
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF UNITED STATES — HINSDALE. 347
observed that before the war the territory in dispute belonged
either to the United States or to Great Britain ^ if to the United
States, Spain could not make conquests there because she had
not been at war with the United States j if to Great Britain,
Spain had bound herself by the sixth article of her treaty with
that power to surrender all territory that she had conquered
not included in the cessions that were then made.
As to the use of the Mississippi, the minister passed by the
argument based on natural rights with the remark that he re-
garded it perfectly conclusive. The right of the United States
to navigation originated in contracts and stipulations entered
into between France and England when Spain had no interest
in the subject. Louisiana and the Floridas had been ceded to
her subject to these contracts and stipulations^ and she was
bound by them. Those two powers, at a time when Spain
owned no territory touching the Mississippi, had declared that
all the subjects of the British Empire should have the right of
navigating the river in its full extent from its source to the
ocean. This stipulation had been made particularly in the
interest of the United States, then a constituent part of the
British Empire. Mr. Pinckney demanded which of those two
contracting j)owers could now lawfully deprive us of that right.
Kot France, for she had ceded her power to England in 1763,
and had afterwards, by the treaty of alliance in 1778, guaran-
teed the territory of the United States. Not Great Britain,
for such a step would be in contravention of the treaty of 1782.
Finally, the arguments based on Spain's knowledge of the facts
in relation to the boundary applied with still greater force to
her pretended right to the exclusive navigation of the river.*
Upon the two subjects the Spanish minister does not appear
to have entered into any argument whatever. In his final
letter to Philadelphia, written October 28, the American envoy
said that the peace just concluded between Spain and France,
the pacific disposition of Great Britain towards Spain, and the
critical relations of Great Britain and the United States had
tended to hinder the negotiation. He reported that he had
been compelled to abandon his original idea of securing a close
commercial connection with Spain, declaring his belief to be
that Spain wished to reserve the commercial advantages that
* The documentary history of this negotiation is found in the American
State Papers: Foreign Relations, Vol. i, pp. 533-549.
348 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
she could offer to the United States as the equivalent for a
guaranty of her American possessions.
On October 27, 1795, Thomas Pinckney and the Prince of
Peace, at San Lorenzo el Eeal, set their signatures to the first
treaty between the two powers. This treaty contained the
following among other stipulations:
1. That the line conceded to Great Britain in 1783 should be the bound-
ary between the United States and East and West Florida from the Mis-
sissippi to the Atlantic.
2. That either party should withdraw any troops, garrisons, or settle-
ments that it might have within the territory of the other as thus defined
within six months after the ratification of the treaty, and sooner if possible.
3. That each of the contracting parties should appoint one commissioner
and one surveyor to run and mark the boundary, and that they should
meet for that purpose before the expiration of six months from the ratifi-
cation of the treaty.
4. That the middle of the channel of the Mississippi should be the west-
ern boundary of the United States, from the sources of the river to the par-
allel of thirty-one degrees.
5. That the navigation of the Mississippi throughout its whole length
should be free to the citizens of the United States.
6. That neither party should permit the Indians living within its terri-
tory to attack the other party or the Indians living within its boundaries.
7. That His Catholic Majesty would permit the citizens of the United
States, for the space of three years from the ratification of the treaty, to
deposit their merchandise and effects in the port of New Orleans, and to
reship the same without paying other duties than a fair price for storage,
and that on the expiration of this time His Majesty would either renew
this permission or assign for the same purpose an equivalent establishment.
It was also agreed that if, for any reason, the surveying
I^arty needed the protection of troops, they should be furnished
by the two nations in equal numbers.*
The ratifications of the treaty were exchanged April 25, 1796,
and it was proclaimed August 2. As respects the Southwestern
Question, it was a complete reversal of the policy which Spain
had constantly pursued since 1779. It is not certain that she
ever expected, even for a moment, to execute its provisions in
good faith. Since 1793 she had parted company with England,
and was now completely under the influence of the French
Directory. Mr. Pinckney's opinion was that fear lest the
United States and England should be drawn into an alliance
inimical to France and Spain had much to do with effecting the
change of policy, and subsequent events tended to support that
* Treaties and Conventions concluded between the United States of
America and Other Powers since 1776, p. 1006.
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF UNITED STATES — HINSDALE. 349
opinion.* Such also was the view of Mr. Martin, the historian
of Louisiana, who surveyed the field from the standpoint of
New Orleans.! Certainly if His Majesty ever had any thought
of carrying out the treaty in good faith, he soon dismissed it
from his mind.
President Washington appointed Andrew Ellicott,t Sur-
veyor-General, to run the line on the part of the United States.
The commissioner left Philadelphia September 16, 1796, and
reached Pittsburg twelve days later. Here there was delay,
and it was not until the end of October that he, his assistants
* American State Papers: Foreign Relations, Vol. i, p. 535.
t^'Tlie King's officers in New Orleans appeared impressed with the idea
that the late treaty between Spain and the United States would never be
carried into effect. They thought that, at the time it was entered into,
the affairs of Europe rendered the neutrality of the United States of great
importance to Spain; and, according to them, the object of Great Britain
in her late [Jay's] treaty with those States was to draw them over to her
interests and render them in some measure dependent upon her. They
believed that their sovereign had ratified the treaty for the purpose of
counteracting the views of Great Britain, and concluded that, as that
power had failed in her object, Spain on her part would be no longer inter-
ested in fulfilling the stipulations of the treaty." — History of Louisiana,
p. 269.
t EUicott was one of the foremost scientific men of his time in the
country, the friend of Washington and Rittenhouse. He was connected
with several important public surveys, and laid out the city of Washing-
ton. His official dispatches while engaged in the Southwest are found in
the State papers: Foreign Relations, Vol. ii. The dispatches of the mili-
tary officers connected with the survey are in the same volume. The
present account is drawn mainly from Ellicott's Journal, which, while
without literary merit, is still a book of great interest. It bears the fol-
lowing title :
The journal of Andrew Ellicott, late commissioner on behalf of the
United States during part of the year 1796, the years 1797, 1798, 1799, and
part of the year 1800, for determining the boundary between the United
States and the possessions of His Catholic Majesty in America, containing
occasional remarks on the situation, soil, rivers, natural productions, and
diseases of the different countries on the Ohio, Mississippi, and Gulf of
Mexico, with six maps comprehending the Ohio, the Mississippi from the
mouth of the Ohio to the Gulf of Mexico, the whole of West Florida, and
part of East Florida, To which is added an appendix, containing all the
astronomical observations made use of for determining the boundary, with
many others, made in different parts of the country for settling the geo-
graphical positions of some important points, with maps of the boundary
on a large scale ; likewise a great number of thermometrical observations
made at different times and places. Philadelphia : Printed by Budd &
Bartram, for Thomas Dobson, at the Stone House, No. 41, South Second
street. 1803.
$
350 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
and escort, with tlieir wagons, stores, baggage, and instru-
ments, embarked on sucli craft as then navigated the western
waters, began the descent of the Ohio. Sucli were the diffi-
culties of navigation, owing in great part to the low stage of
water, that he did not reach the mouth of the river until Decem-
ber 18, where he was detained by ice until January 21. l^o
sooner had he entered upon the descent of the Mississippi than
he began to encounter obstacles, the full significance of which
it took him some time to learn.
The second day after getting off for the Natchez, Ellicott
fell in with a Spanish galley, the master of which treated him
politely, but^till detained him at his station until the next
morning. The day following he was received by the comman-
dant at New Madrid with a salvo of artillery, and was other-
wise treated with respect and attention. The Spaniard, how-
ever, strove to prevent his going on his way. He first declared
that he had a message to deliver, and requested Ellicott to
remain two or three days with him; but on receiving a decli-
nation of the invitation he produced a letter from the Governor-
General of New Orleans, Baron de Oarondelet, which contained
an order not to allow the Americans to proceed until the posts
were evacuated, which could not be effected, he said, while the
water should continue low. After much argument the officer
agreed that the rising of the river had removed at least one-half
of the objection, and said he would not interpose further impedi-
ments to the voyage. The American commissioner was much
impressed by the frivolous reason for not immediately evacuat-
ing the posts that the governor-generalhad assigned, as the Mis-
sissippi below the Ohio was always deep enough for such a pur-
pose; and he naturally fell to reflecting that serious consequences
might arise if the other commandants farther down the river, who
might be less friendly toward the United States, had received
similar orders. At the Chickasaw Bluffs the commandant
received Ellicott courteously, but appeared embarrassed and
surprised at his arrival. Several circumstances conspired to
strengthen suspicions that had already arisen in EUicott's mind.
The Spanish officers professed almost total ignorance of the
treaty of San Lorenzo. No preparations were being made for
vacating the post, while two armed galleys were brought into
position between the American escort and the Spanish fort.
Proceeding on his way once more, the commissioner was a few
days later detained by an officer commanding two galleys.
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF UNITED STATES — HINSDALE. 351
As the Americans were pulling up to the shore at Walnut
Hills, they were brought to by the discharge of a cannon
across the bows of their boats. The officer in command treated
Ellicott and his company with consideration, but affected not
to be acquainted with the nature of his business, and refused
to be satisfied until a certified Spanish copy of the treaty was
put into his hands. The American commissioner observed that
the Spaniards had constructed considerable works of defense.
On the 226. of February Ellicott received a communication in
writing from Manual Gayoso de Laemos, Governor of Natchez,
who expressed much pleasure at his arrival in those waters,
and stated that he did not anticipate the least difficulty
respecting the execution of that part of the treaty which related
to the boundary line, but declared that the king's officers were
not prepared immediately to evacuate the forts for want of
vessels, which were soon expected to arrive. He stated that
it would be indispensable for Ellicott to leave his escort at
Bayou Pierre, in order that suitable provision could be made
for it, and that misunderstandings and collisions of authority
might be avoided. While the commissioner regarded the
request an improper one, he nevertheless thought best to com-
ply with it. On February 24 Ellicott reached Natchez and
announced his arrival to Governor Gayoso, and received from
him a formal reply. The governor sent a verbal message also
comj)laining that due ceremony had not been observed by the
Americans in approaching the town. On the 25th the two
officers met, and on being pressed to name a day for the survey
to begin the Spaniard finally fixed upon the 19th of March.
Ellicott also duly announced his arrival and business to the
governor-general of New Orleans.
The reception that Commissioner Ellicott received at the
hands of the Spaniards as he passed down the river suggests
a passing reflection. Although he bore a commission from the
Government of the United States, was accompanied by an
escort of American troops, and was charged with the perfor-
mance of a duty created by a solemn international agreement,
he was halted and questioned as though he were a suspect in
a strange country. Moreover, the one bank of the river, through-
out the whole distance, Spain had acknowledged to belong
exclusively to the United States, to say nothing of her having
guaranteed its navigation by American citizens from its source
to the sea. We may therefore draw upon our imagination for
352 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
tlie treatment that the boatmen of the Ohio and the Cumber-
land who ventured upon the Missisippi had commonly received,
unless they chanced to be in the employment of persons who
were in collusion with the Spanish authorities, or chanced to
make their trips in those occasional intervals when the port of
New Orleans was practically open although legally closed.
We can see also how impossible it was that the west bank of
the river and the island and city of Isew Orleans should
remain a permanent possession of Spam.
There was now repeated on the shore of tne Mississippi, in
pettOj the whole story of Spanish intercourse with the United
States from the day that Mr. Jay reached Madrid in 1779 — its
delays and subterfuges, its studied politeness and punctillio.
We shall find it instructive to run over the princii^al phases
of the controversy. The historical student not unfrequently
finds it an advantage to imitate the naturalist who puts a
minute section of a large organism on the slide of his micro-
scope.
And first Ellicott was asked by Governor Gayoso to take
down the American flag that he had raised over his camp.
This request met with a flat refusal, and the flag wore out flut-
tering upon its staff. The commissioner soon learned from
private sources that Garondelet had declared that the treaty
of San Lorenzo was never intended to be carried into effect,
that he, as i^riucipal commissioner under the Spanish crown,
should evade or delay from one pretense or another the begin-
ning of the survey, and that Louisiana either had been or
would soon be ceded to France. Still the governor of Natchez
did not hesitate to inform him that had he arrived sooner he
would have found the governor-general ready to proceed, but
that duties growing out of the war detained him at the capital
of the province.
The Indians becoming troublesome, Ellicott deemed it best
to send to Bayou Pierre for his escort. Gayoso explained the
conduct of the Indians by saying that the flag had disturbed
them, and declared that he would construe the descent of the
troops as an insult to his royal master. Nevertheless, he
finally consented that the escort might go into camp at Bacon^s
Landing, a few miles below the town. The governor also
informed the commissioner that the business of the survey in
the absence of the baron would devolve upon him. He gave
notice that it would be impossible to proceed at the time pre-
viously named, but promised readiness at an early day.
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF UNITED STATES HINSDALE. 353
About the time that the escort arrived from the north the
artillery was conveyed from tLe fort to the landing, as if for
shipment, but was soon c^ried back and remounted. This
gave great alarm to the inhabitants of the district, says EUi-
cott, who generally manifested a desire of being declared citi-
zens of the United States, and at once to renounce the juris-
diction of Spain. As the inhabitants play an increasing part
in the story from this on, it will be well to say a few words
about them.
The circumstances attending the planting of the English
settlements in West Florida have been narrated already. As
we have seen, throughout the Eevolution the people sympa-
thized with the royal cause while maintaining a general neu-
trality. The war over, the lower Mississippi became a favorite
resort for adventurers and refugees. The result was that the
Natchez population was of a very miscellaneous character.
Cultivation, wealth, and civil obedience were crowded by
ignorance, poverty, and lawlessness. While a majority of
the people were anxious to become citizens of the United
States, there was still a Spanish party and a British party, as
well as a class prepared to make the most out of disorder and
confusion. The total population numbered about 4,000. To
make matters worse, there were many controversies about
land titles, and no little uneasiness lest slavery should be pro-
hibited in the Southwest, as it already had been in the North-
west. For the time the Spanish authority was established.
Plainly there were plenty of causes to engender excitement
pending the settlement of the jurisdictional question.
About the time that the cannon were remounted in the fort
at Natchez the works at Walnut Hills were strengthened and
the garrison furnished with fresh ammunition. When the
American commissioner asked for an explanation of these
things, he received a profusion of explanations and denials.
While protesting that nothing could prevent the religious
fulfillment of the treaty, Gayoso complained of the conduct of
some persons who affected an interest in the United States,
and said the munitions of war were stored in the fort to pre-
vent their falling into the hands of the Indians.
The governor now took a further step in the line of obstruc-
tion, undertaking to stop Lieut. Pope who, with a small body
of troops, was descending the river to take possession of the
forts on their evacuation. He declared that as soon as CoL
S. Mis. 104 23
f
354 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Guillemard, the surveyor in the Spanish interest, should arrive
from New Orleans he would be ready to begin the survey ; but
that it would conduce to the harmony of the two nations for
Pope to remain at a distance until the fort was evacuated,
which, he said, would be completed in a few days. Instead of
seconding Gayoso's efforts for harmony, EUicott wrote to
Pope that, in his opinion, the sooner he reached Natchez the
better. It was now March 25.
On the 29th of the same month the governor issued a vaguely
worded proclamation, ostensibly with the view of quieting the
minds of the inhabitants. He promised protection to real
property and indulgence to debtors so long as His Catholic
Majesty's rule should continue. The rights of conscience
would be respected, but only Catholic worship could be per-
mitted in public, as was the law throughout the Spanish
dominions. Ellicott saw that the proclamation was a covert
attempt to attach to the Spanish authority two powerful
classes, the holders of real estate and debtors. The proclama-
tion tending still further to irritate the people rather than to
conciliate them, the governor caused a report to be circulated
that the district would soon be given up ; while the commis-
sioner thought the time a fitting one to tell his excellency that
immediate compliance with the treaty would at once allay the
existing excitement.
On March 31 Governor Gayoso informed Ellicott that Baron
de Carondelet had found it necessary to consult the King on
a question that had arisen. This was whether the posts should
be delivered to the United States with the fortifications
and buildings intact, as Gen. Wayne understood, or whether
they should first be dismantled. He reported further that the
baron had given positive orders to suspend the evacuation of
the forts until this question was settled. Pending its settle-
ment, Lieut. Pope and his command would be provided for at
Walnut HiUs. Thus, after a month or more of delays, the
governor-general finally announced that, for the present, noth-
ing would be done in respect either to the forts or the delimit-
ation. Before this time, however, the American commissioner
had refused the services of one hundred volunteers who asked
permission to seize the fort at Natchez, and also declined a
proposition to spirit the governor away into the Chickasaw
Nation.
In consequence of the new turn of affairs, the officer com-
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF UNITED STATES — HINSDALE 355
mandiiig thought best to strengthen the escort by enlisting a
number of recruits, taking pains to exclude Spanish subjects,
which called forth a warm remonstrance from Gayoso. EUi
cott sent word to Lieut. Pope that nine- tenths of the people
were firmly attached to the American interest, but that until
his arrival they had no rallying point in case of a rupture
between the two powers, which he thought could not be dis-
tant. He therefore expressed the opinion that the lieutenant
could be of more service to the United States at Natchez than
at any other point on the river, and in consequence of this
message Pope resumed his voyage, Gayoso consenting, and
reached his destination April 24.*
On May 1 Governor Gayoso made known to Commissioner
Ellicott a new reason for delay. His Catholic Majesty had
been informed by his minister at Philadelphia that a British
force from Canada was about to attack Upper Louisiana, as
the Missouri region was called ; that such an attack could be
made only by violating the territory of the United States,
which he did not doubt they would cause to be respected ; and
that the governor-general found it necessary to put in a state
of defense several forts on the river, and particularly Walnut
Hills, as a cover for Lower Louisiana, which, however, would
inure to the benefit of the United States, since the forts would
in the end fall to them.
Col. Guillemard arrived on May 2, and Ellicott was informed
that the governor would be ready to begin the survey in a few
days. Soon repairs upon the fort began and the garrison was
strengthened. Guillemard went on to Walnut Hills, to which
post troops from time to time ascended. Information was now
received from the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations that for
eight months Spanish agents had been seeking to turn them
* '* Lieut. Pope's descending the river was certainly a fortunate circum-
stance for the United States, though in doing it he did not strictly com-
ply with his orders from Gen. Wayne, by whom he was instructed to
remain at Fort Massac till he obtained some information respecting the
evacuation of the posts. And if a judgment was to be formed from the
provision made for the detachment, it could not be supposed that it was
really intended to descend the river. It was in want of artillery, tents,
money, medicines, and a physician. In consequence of this omission, or
bad management, I had to furnish the men with such articles as they were
in need of out of the stores appropriated for carrying the treaty into effect ;
and after all that I was able to do we had (to our great mortification) to
borrow some tents from the governor." — Ellicott's Journal, p. 80.
356 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
against the United States, telling them that immediately on
the completion of the survey they would be driven from their
lands on the north side of the line. On May 11 Governor
Gayoso informed the commissioner that for the present the
business upon which he had come was at an end, and the com-
missioner retorted by summing up the history of his intercourse
with the Spaniards to date.
Popular unrest continued all the time to increase, and Car-
ondelet in private threatened to suppress it by giving the
Americans lead and the inhabitants hemp. Plans for dispos-
sessing the Spaniards were laid before Ellicott, but only to be
rejected. On May 24 the governor- general issued a proclama-
tion reciting that the suspension of the survey and the evacu-
ation of the forts was occasioned by the imperious necessity of
protecting Lower Louisiana against the British invasion from
Canada^ on account of which he had thought it proper to put
the post at Walnut Hills in a respectable but provisional state
of defense. Pending the delay, he hoped that the- inhabitants
of Katchez would conduct themselves with tranquility and
show due affection to the Spanish Government. The effect
produced was quite the opposite from what he had expected j
the proclamation served to convince the inhabitants that His
Catholic Majesty intended, if possible, to retain the country
under one pretense or another till the treaty should become a
dead letter. His references to England were i^eculiarly dis-
pleasing to those who still entertained an affection for that
country. The state of opinion had now become very inflam-
mable.
The commissioner had already entered into correspondence
with the Indians, with a view to securing their neutrality in
the case of a rupture. " The success of these negotiations was
so complete," says he, «^ that in less than three months they
were almost wholly detached from the Spanish interest, and
although the United States had no treaty with the Ohoctaws,
throughout a large extent of country we had to pass they gave
us no molestation in the execution of our business." Finally
the explosion that for some months had been slowly preparing
came in a way strange enough. About the beginning of June
an itinerant Baptist minister named Hanna, with the permis-
sion of the government, preached a sermon in EUicott's camp
to a large congregation called together by the novelty of the
event. While the preacher abstained from imprudent remarks
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF UNITED STATES — HINSDALE. 357
in his sermon, he was much elated by the size of his audience,
and soon after, while in liquor, became involved in a noisy-
controversy with some Irish Catholics. The governor promptly
ordered him to be committed to prison and his feet to be put in
the stocks, which greatly excited the people, who saw in it a
disposition to attack the privileges of American citizens. An
address issued by Carondelet appearing about the same time
added fuel to the flames. The governor-general declared
he had information that a detachment of the Army of the
United States, cantoned on the Ohio, was on its way to Natchez
by way of the Holston Eiver, while the militia of Cumberland
had been directed to hold themselves in readiness to march at
the first notice. He said the anterior menaces of EUicott and
Pope at Katchez, and the pending rupture of the United States
and France, the intimate ally of Spain, also made it necessary
for the King's subjects on the Mississippi to be upon their
guai'd. This remarkable paper concluded : " If the Congress
of the United States have no hostile intentions against these
provinces, they will either leave the post of Natchez or the
Walnut Hills, the only bulwarks of Lower Louisiana, to stop
the course of the British, or give us security against the article
of the treaty with Great Britain which exposes Lower Lou-
isiana to be pillaged and destroyed down to the capital j we
will then deliver up the said posts and lay down our arms,
which they have forced us to take up, by arming their militia
in time of peace and sending a considerable body of troops by
roundabout ways to surprise us." *
On June 10 Governor Gayoso wrote to Ellicott that the
inhabitants of the district, subjects of His Majesty, were in a
state of rebellion with the design of attacking the fort, and he
denounced the efforts then in course of execution to revolution-
ize the government. On the same day Elhcott reviewed the
situation, declaring that he was no party to any attemj^t upon
the fort, and solemnly protesting in his official capacity against
the Spanish officers landing any troops or repairing any forti-
fications in territory belonging to the United States.
Meanwhile the people were enrolling militia companies, and
the governor was striving to his utmost to strengthen his
position. For a number of weeks a Spanish cannon mounted
on the parapet was trained upon EUicott's tent. On June 22,
*'EUicott'8 Journal, p. 103.
358 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
at a public meetiug held for tlie purpose, a committee of seven
citizens was elected to direct affairs pending tlie adjustment
of the jurisdictional question. Four articles, duly subscribed
by the American and Spanish officers, were to guide in a
general way the operations of this provisional government.
These articles may be quoted in full :
First. The inhabitants of the district of Natchez, who under the belief
and jiersuasion that they were citizens of the United States, agreeably
to the late treaty, have assembled and embodied themselves, are not to be
prosecuted or injured for their conduct on that account but to stand
exonerated and acquitted.
Second. The inhabitants of the government aforesaid, above the thirty-
first degree of north latitude, are not to be embodied as militia or called
upon to aid in any military operation, except in case of an Indian inva-
sion or for the suppression of riots during the present state of uncertainty,
owing to the late treaty between His Catholic Majesty and the United
States not being fully carried into effect.
Third. The laws of Spain in the above district shall be continued, and
on all occasions be executed vrith mildness and moderation ; nor shall any
inhabitant be transported as a prisoner oat of this Government on any
pretext whatever, and notwithstanding the operation of the law aforesaid
is hereby admitted, yet the inhabitants shall be considered to be in an
actual state of neutrality during the continuance of their uncertainty,
as mentioned in the second proposition.
Fourth. We, the committee aforesaid, do engage to recommend it to our
constituents, and to the utmost of our power endeavor to preserve the
peace and promote the due execution of justice.*
A few days later a second committee was elected in the room
of the first one. "The election of this committee," says the
commissioner, "as was really intended on my part, put the
finishing stroke to the Spanish authority and jurisdiction in
the district."
We must now shift our point of observation from Katchez to
Philadelphia, where statesmen are dealing with the broader
features of the Southwestern Question.
At the beginning of March, 1797, Carlos Martinez de Yrujo,
Spanish minister, informed Secretary of State Pickering that
he had become confirmed in an opinion expressed to him at an
earlier date, that the English in Canada were prei^aring a
coup de main against St. Louis and Kew Madrid, by the way
of the northwestern lakes and rivers, and he demanded that
immediate means should be taken to prevent the violation of
American neutrality. A few weeks later he reiterated his
"Ellicott's Journal, pp. 115, 116.
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF UNITED STATES — HINbDALE. 359
apprehensions as to tlie Korthwest, adding tliat lie also had
reason to know that an invasion of Florida was meditated in
Georgia. The Secretary replied that the President had no
information in his possession showing that such movements
were intended, and promising that due diligence should be
taken to guard against them. Mr. Liston, the British minister,
when Pickering drew his attention to the subject, denied
pointedly that an invasion from Canada was intended or
had been intended. In a later communication, however, he
admitted that a scheme for an attack upon the Spanish pos-
sessions adjacent to the United States had been laid before
him by persons whom he declined to name, but said he had
fully discountenanced the scheme both because it involved the
violation of neutrality and because it was proposed to enlist
the Indians in its execution. The general plan was an attack
by a sea force, seconded by volunteers from the United States
who would rally to the King's standard if it were raised on
Spanish soil. He expressed a suspicion that the scheme was
a mere ruse concerted by persons unfriendly to England.*
These rumors related no doubt to the scheme with which the
name of Senator Blount, of Tennessee, is connected, or at
least a similar one. It may be added that exhaustive treat-
ment of the present subject would require an examination of
Blount's purposes, as well as of the Spanish intrigues in the
West and Southwest, and of the plans and efibrts of Citizen
Genet.
On March 16 Mr. Pickering demanded of Don Yrujo when
the Spanish troops would be withdrawn from the territory of
the United States, and received from him the reply that he had
no information on that subject. Nor did the minister return
to it until he had first brought forward a closely related ques-
tion.
On November 19, 1794, Mr. Jay had concluded with Lord
Grenville the celebrated treaty known in our history by Jay's
name. The ratifications were exchanged October 28, 1795, and
the treaty was proclaimed February 29 of the following year.
This treaty gave His Catholic Majesty deep offense, partly
because he regretted that the two powers should be able to
compose their differences, and partly because he deemed some
features of the treaty prejudicial to his rights and to the inter-
*The state Papers : Foreign Relations, Vol. ii, pp. 68, 69.
360 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
ests of his subjects. On tlie 6th of May the King's representa-
tives at Philadelphia preferred the royal complaints in a letter
to Mr. Pickering more vigorous than courteous. Passing by
the other topics discussed, we may limit attention to the Mis-
sissippi navigation, first observing that not a word was said
about the boundary or the forts. The third article of Jay's
treaty declared that the Mississippi should be entirely open to
both the United States and Great Britain, as stipulated in
1783; and an explanatory article subsequently negotiated de-
clared that no stipulations in any treaty subsequently con-
cluded by either of the contracting parties with any other state
or nation should be understood to derogate in any way from
the rights of free intercourse and commerce secured to such
parties by the said third article.* The Spanish minister denied
in toto the right of the United States to give any such guar-
antees to England or any other power. He argued that Eng-
land received from France in 1763 her sole original right to
navigate the lower parts of the river; that she ceded the Flor-
idas to Spain in 1783 without making any reservation of this
right in her own interest or in the interest of the United States;
that the United States, having become an independent power,
had forfeited any right that might have belonged to them in
consequence of the French cession ; that the cession of navi-
gation made by England to the United States in 1783 was
illegal and worthless ; that the right which the United States
now enjoyed was derived wholly and absolutely from Spain by
the treaty of San Lorenzo, and consequently that the guarantee
given by Jay's treaty was wholly without warrant, null, and
void.t He said the fact that the United States had resorted
to Spain for a special treaty conceding the navigation, and the
tenor of the cession which limited such navigation exclusively
to the subjects of Spain and the citizens of the United States,
was a virtual annulment by the latter of the earlier English
cession, even if that had any original force. ^' How can the
United States, without the consent of Spain," he demanded,
"cede to England the right of navigating the Mississippi,
which is ceded only to themselves?"
* Treaties and Conventions, pp. 379, 395.
t It must be remembered that Spain had concluded a treaty of peace with
France and had declared war against Great Britain. Martin says : "The
Catholic King, in the declaration of war, mentions the late treaty between
Great Britain and the United States as one of the motives that had influ-
enced his conduct in this respect." History of Louisiana, j). 270.
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF UNITED STATES — HINSDALE. 361
In his reply the Secretary of State said the United States
could give no such guarantee, provided the case were as the
minister had stated it. But this he did not admit. England
had received the right of navigation in 1763, and had never
relinquished it; the people of the IJnited States participated
in that right as subjects of Great Britain ; and on the acknowl-
edgment of their independence that power had confirmed it to
them by the provisional and definitive treaties. The cession
of West Florida by England was of even date with the defin.
itive treaty. It had been supposed that the upper Mississippi
penetrated the territory of Great Britain, and no one could
certainly say that this was not the case. Jay's treaty had
[merely confirmed the status that had existed since 1783; had
that treaty been wholly silent upon the subject that status
would have been in no way changed; but since the fourth
article of the treaty of San Lorenzo, entered into subsequently,
had excited some apprehensions in England the explanatory
article had been added in order to quiet them. Mr. Pickering
proceeded to show that the fourth article of the Spanish treaty
was purposely so drawn as not to derogate from the prior
obligations of the United States to Great Britain, with the full
knowledge and approval of the Prince of Peace. The lan-
guage is: " His Catholic Majesty has likewise agreed that the
navigation of the said river, in its whole breadth from its
source to the ocean, shall be free only to his subjects and the
citizens of the United States, unless he should extend this
privilege to the subjects of other powers by special conven^
tion." This could in no way effect an engagement previously
entered into between the United States and England. The
United States were contending with Spain for free navigation
of the Mississippi for themselves ; and by this clause in the
fourth article of the treaty their claim was admitted. Any
declaration of His Catholic Majesty alone to exclude other na-
tions was to them quite immaterial.*
Such are the main points in this spirited discussion. It was
well understood to be inspired on the side of Spain by the
French Directory. It is a good illustration of the makeshifts
to which diplomacy has been sometimes compelled to resort.
On June 24 Don Trujo took up the boundary and forts. He
* The two letters are found in the American State Papers : Foreign
Relations, ii, 14-17.
362 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
said the proper mode of procedure would have been, first to
survey the line in order to determine what territory fell to
Spain and what to the United States ; but that Commissioner
EUicott, disregarding this obvious principle, had raised the
American flag at Natchez, recruited the strength of his escort,
and exercised an unlawful authority. Next the question
whether the fortifications should be dismantled had arisen and
had been referred to Madrid. Ellicott had gone on adding
imprudence to imprudence, until the relations between him and
Governor Gayoso were severely strained, on which account he
asked that Ellicott might be confined to the scientific work of
the survey and some one else sent to Natchez to act as the
principal agent of the Government.
And so the controversy, which all the time tended to greater
acrimony, dragged its slow length along. It is quite unneces-
sary for us to follow the correspondence which, in its later
parts, presents few new points of interest. Assurances that the
Spanish officers were at liberty to follow their own discretion
in regard to dismantling the forts j that the legal landowners
of the Natchez would not be molested ; and that the neutrality
of the national territory would be defended, were renewed. In
the course of a long final report to the President, the Secretary
of State summed up the various reasons that the Spanish officers
had from time to time assigned for their delay in carrying out
the treaty. In March they were not instructed in regard to
the forts; neither could they withdraw from the district until
real property was made secure and the temper of the Indians
was ascertained to be pacific. On May 24 they were awaiting
developments in relation to the threatened invasion from
Canada. On May 31, along with other reasons, attention was
drawn to the hostile intentions of the United States, as shown
by the reports in relation to the Holston and the Cumberland.
Mr. Pickering observed that the true reason was stated by
Governor Carondelet in his proclamation of the last date, the
expectation of an immediate rupture between France, the inti-
mate ally of Spain, and the United States. And this opinion
was no doubt correct.*
*Tlie original documents from which the above account is drawn are
found in the State Papers : Foreign Relations, Vol. ii. The various phases
of the controversy with Spain furnished rich material for party warfare.
See MacMaster : History of the People of the United States, Vol. i, pp.
371-375; Vol. ii, pp. 287, 350-352.
JSOUTHEEN BOUNDARY OF UNITED STATES — HINSDALE. 363
We must now return to the lower Mississippi. The perma-
nent committee appointed in July conducted affairs with two
ends in view, viz, to secure the jurisdiction of the United
States and to preserve the peace and order of society. The
committee was much disturbed by the intrigues of persons
in the Spanish interest and in the British interest,* but suc-
ceeded in keeping the upper hand until a new order of things
could be set up. The difficulties of the situation may be in-
ferred in part from EUicott's description of the population:
"People of ambition and enterprise who have calculated upon
,the increase of fame and fortune, others who have fled from
[their creditors, and some (not a few) from justice, to which
Imay with propriety be added those who fled from the United
States during the Eevolutionary War, for their monarchial prin-
■ciples or treasonable practices." In September the commis-
(sioner laid before the committee the information that he had
received from Philadelphia concerning Blount's schemes, to
arrest which the committee immediately bestirred itself.
In July Gayoso became governor-general in the room of
f Baron Carondelet, who was transferred to the Government of
Quito. In October, Ellicott issued a i)ublic address denying
that, as charged, he had in his communications to his Gov-
ernment recommended that the vacant lands in the district be
sold in tracts 6 miles square; that he favored the prohibition
of slavery, as in the Northwest; and that he was, or had been,
engaged in large land speculations, such as buying up old
British grants. In December a considerable detachment of
United States troops under the command of Capt. Guyon
arrived at Natchez.
On January 10, 1798, the governor-general announced to the
commissioner that he had received final orders to evacuate
Natchez and Walnut Hills, and that he should immediately
carry the order into effect ; he also informed him that he would
soon be ready to make arrangements for running the boundary.
* It is not difficult to find a cause sufficient to account for the British
interest. The old attachment to England had by no means died out,
while such a scheme as Blount's seemed to promise a restoration of the
British authority. One of the most active and influential men in the dis-
trict was Col. Anthony Hutchins, an officer under British pay, who seems
to have had secret information relative to Blount's plans. Hutchins,
according to Ellicott, was as unscrupulous and dangerous as he was influ-
ential.
364 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Again there was delay. Although the Spaniard kept the
time of the coming evacuation as close a secret as possible,
he did not elude EUicott's vigilance. ''• On the 29th of March,
late in the evening," he writes, " I was informed through a
confidential channel, that the evacuation would take place next
morning before day; in consequence of which, I rose the next
morning at 4 o'clock and walked to the fort, and found the last
party or rear guard just leaving it, and as the gate was left
open I went in and enjoyed from the parapet the pleasant
prospect of the galleys and boats leaving the shore and getting
under way. They were out of sight of the town before daylight.
The same day our troops took possession of the works.* Thus,
when the time came, the Spanish officers thought the demolition
of the fortifications of no consequence whatever.
It was now two and a half years since the seals were set to
the treaty of San Lorenzo, and fifteen years since the inde-
pendence of the United States had been definitively acknowl-
edged. The old excuses had ceased to be plausible; the Gov-
ernment at Philadelphia was in no temper to brook further
delay; while the people of J^atchez, by renouncing the King
of Spain's authority, had hastened the final issue.
Another train of circumstances had no doubt produced some
effect. Georgia, resting upon her early charters and a com-
pact with South Carolina entered into in 1787, claimed the 1
country west of her to the Mississippi. In 1785 her legisla-
ture established the county of Bourbon, bounding it south by
the thirty-first parallel and north by the Yazoo, west by
the Mississippi, and east by the lands that the Indians had
not yet relinquished. Steps were taken to organize a county
government, despite the fact that the Spaniards were in full
possession. In 1788 the State made a cession of the Yazoo
district to the nation, but upon such conditions that Congress
refused the offer. The exploitation of the lands led to the
scandalous transactions known as the Yazoo Frauds.+ Georgia
sold the very ground under the Spanish garrisons, somewhat
as Hannibal put up the city lots of Rome at auction. An
accredited agent arrived at Katchez to assert the Georgia
claim just before the conclusion of the treaty of San Lorenzo.
* Journal, p. 167.
tSee C. H. Haskins : '• The Yazoo Land Companies," Papers of the Amer-
ican Historical Association, Vol. v, p. 395.
SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF UNITED STATES — HINSDALE. 365
The steady pressure of the Georgians westward had perhaps
served to convince the Spaniards that they could not hold the
ground.
Mr. Martin states still another series of facts that con-
tributed to the grand result.* Baron Oarondelet early deter-
mined to rest his final decision in regard to the delivery of the
forts upon the success or failure of a farther effort to detach
the Western country from the Union. He sent an emissary,
Thomas Powers, to Tennessee and Kentucky to confer with
the former correspondents of the governors of Louisiana.
After an eventful experience Powers returned to ]S"ew Orleans
in January, 1798, with a disheartening rei^ortj the day had
passed when the Spanish coterie in the Ohio Yalley cared
longer to toy with the Spaniard, and Gayoso, to whom the
report was made, dismissed the subject.
On April 9 Commissioner Ellicott left Natchez for the field
of active operations, and we may date the beginning of the
survey from that time. What with dense canebrakes to be cut
through, swamps, bayous, and rivers to be crossed, wilder-
nesses to be tracked, supplies to be brought from long dis-
tances, Indian hostilities caused by Spanish '^crooked talks"
to be overcome, instruments and baggage to be transported,
and occasional lapses into Spanish procrastination, the survey
proved very slow and laborious. Two full years were spent in
establishing the line. On his return to Philadelphia Ellicott
had been absent almost four years. His history of the survey
has slight interest save for historical and scientific specialists.
He tells us that in 1797-'98 a plan was formed " to add to
the Union the two Floridas, with the island of New Orleans,
provided the Spaniards either committed hostilities against
the citizens of the United States at Natchez or joined France
in a contest against us. From the secrecy, talents, and
enterprise of those concerned, added to a temporary system of
finance and a deposit of arms, there could not possibly be any
doubt of the complete and almost instantaneous success of the
plan had it been attempted." t
Reference has been made to the issue between Congress and
Georgia over the Yazoo lands. Disregarding the State's pro-
test, but at the same time creating a commission to adjust and
* History of Louisiana, pp. 271-273; 274, 275,
t Journal, p. 175.
M
366 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCUTION.
settle pending questions, Congress passed an act in April, 1798,
creating tlie Territory of Mississippi, which exactly coincided
in extent with the territory over which the two powers had
waged a long contest, and giving it a government like that of
the Northwest Territory. Winthrop Sargent, who had been
the Secretary of that Territory, was appointed governor, and he
duly organized the government in September of that year.
EUicott testifies that, although the shadow of the Spanish
jurisdiction that remained was finally withdrawn in January,
1798, and the inhabitants were left without law or government
until September following, he never heard of a single outrage
committed in the Territory, save by a small number of Span-
iards.* It must be said to the commissioner's credit that, while
he may sometimes have erred in discretion in discharging his
delicate duties, he showed a courage, firmness, and devotion
to his country that are worthy of all praise.t
* Journal, p. 167.
tTlie Mississippi historians treat Ellicott with much severity. It
appears that he had been sent by the President in 1791 to run the line
between the State of Georgia and the Creek Indians, but that the Creeks
would not allow the line to be run. Claiborne writes the history of the
survey with partisan animus. See " Mississippi as a Province, Territory,
and State," Chaps, xix, xx.
XXIV -THE HISTORIC POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES AS TO
ANNEXATION.
By PROFESSOR SIMEON E. BALDWIN, LL.D.
OF YALE UNIVERSITY.
367
THE HISTORIC POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES AS TO ANNEX-
ATION.
By Simeon E. Baldwin.
The United States, according to President Lincoln, was
|<<formed in fact by the Articles of Association in 1774." But
the self-styled ^'Continental Congress," which framed those
articles, represented and claimed to represent but a small por-
tion of the American continent. The eleven colonies, whose
[delegates met at Carpenter's Hall, October 20, 1774, and those
! of the three counties of Delaware who sat with them on equal
terms, though really a part of the proprietary government of
Pennsylvania, were in actual possession of but a narrow strip
of territory on the Atlantic seaboard, running back no farther
than the line of the AUeghanies. To the southward lay Georgia,
East Florida, West Florida, and Louisiana; to the northward
Nova Scotia and Canada; and on their western frontiers Par-
hament had recently put the boundary of the new Province of
Quebec.
It was the hope of Congress that their ranks might be swelled
by the accession of all the British colonies or provinces on our
continent. On October 26 a stirring appeal to unite in the
Articles of Association, adopted two days before, was addressed
to the inhabitants of Quebec. ' ' We defy you," wrote Congress,
"castingyour view upon every side, to discover a single cir-
cumstance, promising from any quarter the faintest hope of
liberty to you or your posterity, but from an entire adoption
into the Union of these colonies." * * * What, it was
urged, would your great countryman, Montesquieu, say to you
were he living to-day? "Would not this be the purport of his
address? Seize the opportunity presented to you by Provi-
dence itself. You have been conquered into liberty, if you act
as you ought. This work is not of man. You are a small
369
S. Mis. 104 ^24
#
370 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
people, compared to those who with open arms invite you into
a fellowship. A moment's reflection should convince you which
will be most for your interest and happiness, to have all the
rest of !N"orth America your unalterable friends, or your invet-
erate enemies. The injuries of Boston have roused and asso-
ciated every colony from ^ova Scotia to Georgia. Your prov-
ince is the only link wanting to complete the bright and strong
chain of union. ^ ature has joined your country to theirs. Do
you join your political interests." * * * u ^^ ^j.^ ^qq ^^h
acquainted with the liberality of sentiment distinguishing your
nation to imagine that difference of religion will prejudice you
against a hearty amity with us. You know that the trans-
cendent nature of freedom elevates those who unite in her cause
above all such low-minded infirmities."*
The address concluded with the recommendation that they
should choose a Provincial Congress, which might send dele-
gates to the next Continental Congress to be held at Philadel-
phia in May, 1775, and formerly accede to the existing confed-
eration, so that, in resisting future aggressions, they might rely
no longer on the small influence of a single province, " but on
the consolidated powers of North America."
The Annual Eegister for 1775, truly says that *''of all the
papers published by the American Congress their address to
the French inhabitants of Canada discovered the most dex-
trous management and the most able method of application to
the temper and passions of the parties whom they endeavored
to gain."t
A correspondence with Canadian patriots was also begun by
the Massachusetts committee of safety, and Samuel Adams was
particularly earnest in his efforts to gain their support.
In May, 1775, another address to the inhabitants of Canada
was adopted by Congress, from the pen of Jay. It declared
that "the fate of the Protestant and Catholic colonies was
strongly linked together," and that Congress yet entertained
hopes of a union with them in the defense of their common
liberty.l
During the session of this Congress an address from the
inhabitants of several parishes in Bermuda was received, and
* 1, Journals of Congress, 64. } 1, Journals of Congress, 109.
t History of Europe, 32.
ANNEXATION POLICY OP UNITED STATES BALDWIN. 371
a Canadian once appeared upon the floor. In November the
inhabitants of a district in ^N^ova Scotia, which had elected a
committee of safety, applied for admission into ^^the Associa-
tion of the United Colonies." *
The proceedings of this Congress have come down to iis in
a very unsatisfactory state, owing to the fact that it was not
deemed safe to print in the official journals all that was done.
After forty years a large part of what was originally sup-
pressed was published by the Government under the style of
the Secret Journals of Congress, but no attempt was made to
combine the two records or to supply an index to the whole.
In July, 1775, Dr. Franklin brought forward a plan which
had apparently been drawn up for submission in May, for
"Articles of confederation and perpetual union " between " the
United Colonies of North America." They provided for the
accession of all the other British colonies on the continent;
that is, Quebec, St. John's, Is ova Scotia, East and West Florida,
and the Bermuda Islands, t Notwithstanding the care taken
to suppress this proceeding, a copy of the paper got across the
ocean and was printed in full in the Annual Eegister for 1775.|
In the latter part of this year Congress dispatched agents to
Canada and others to Nova Scotia to inquire particularly into
the disposition of their inhabitants respecting a union of inter-
ests with the more southern colonies. The assembly of Jamaica
had sent in a memorial to the King in council which, while
disclaiming any thought of forcible resistance, set up the
claims of their inhabitants to self-government in language
nearly as strong as that used by the Continental Congress.§
The latter body responded in an address to the assembly of
Jamaica thanking them for their sympathy, and saying that
while "the peculiar situation of your island forbids your assist-
ance," they were glad, at least, to have their good wishes.
Soon afterward three commissioners were appointed to repair
to the northern frontier and endeavor " to induce the Cana-
dians to accede to a union with these Colonies," and to send
delegates to Congress. |1 The commissioners were authorized
* 1, Journals of Congress, 230, 244.
+ 1, Secret journals of Congress, 283.
t State papers, 252.
§ Annual Register for 1775 ; Hist, of Europe, 101.
II Washington strongly urged this course in his letters from camp . Writ-
ings, Sparks' ed., ill, 173.
372 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. '
to pledge tliein "the free enjoyment of their religion,"* and to
raise, if possible, a Canadian regiment for the Continental
Army.
A few men did enlist and sucli accessions were received from
time to time that at last a Canadian regiment was organized
and officered and a second one projected.!
Early in 1776 another set of commissioners, headed by
Franklin, were dispatched directly to Canada on a similar
errand, bearing addresses from Congress which were printed
in French and English and circulated extensively among the
people.J The instructions of the commissioners were to assure
the Canadians that their interests and ours were inseparably
united and to urge them to join us as a " sister colony."
No impression seemed to be made by the addresses, and it
was soon discovered that quite an adequate reason existed in
the fact that not one out of five hundred of the population
could read. Dr. Franklin, on his return, said that if it were
ever thought best to send another mission, it should be one
composed of schoolmasters. With a few of the leaders there
Franklin had better success, and during a fortnight something
like a provisional government was set up under his auspices,
which, however, melted into thin air on the approach of British
troops. §
In June, 1776, Congress sent two ships to the Bermudas,
with provisions to relieve the distress caused by our non-
importation association, and with directions to inquire into
the disposition of the inhabitants respecting a union of interests
with ours. II
It is probable that the report was not encouraging, for when
in July, 1776, Franklin's scheme for confederation was reported
on by the committee which had had it under consideration for
a year, the provision for bringing in the other English colonies
was struck out, except so far as related to Canada. She was
to have the right to admission on request, but no other colony
was to be admitted without the consent of nine States. ^
• 1, Journals of Congress, 242.
t Writmgs of Washington, Sparks' ed., iv, 267.
I I, Secret Journals of Congress, 42.
$ 1, Journals of Congress, 305.
II I, Secret Journals of Congress, 46.
HI, Secret Journals of Congress, 290; Annual Register for 1776; State
Papers, p. 269.
ANNEXATION POLICY OF UNITED STATES — BALDWIN. 373
Provision was made by Congress as soon as these articles
were agreed on and sent out to the States for ratification
(i^ovember 29, 1777), for having them translated into French
and circulated among the Canadians, with an invitation " to
afecede to the union of these States." *
Our invasions of their territory, however, and their ill success,
had left little of the spirit of united resistance to British
authority. Had the Declaration of Independence been made
as early as the more fiery patriots would have had it, it is not
impossible that Canada and Kova Scotia would have been
swept into the current. Samuel Adams wrote in July, 1776,
to a friend, that had it come in 1775, Canada, in his opinion,
"would at this time have been one of the United Colonies."t
In the fall of 1776, Franklin, then about to sail on his European
mission, submitted to the secret committee of Congress his
scheme for proposals of peace. These were that Great Britain
should acknowledge our independence and sell us Quebec, St.
Johns, Nova Scotia, Bermuda, East and West Florida, and the
Bahamas. In addition to payment of the purchase money, we
were to grant free trade to all British subjects and guarantee
to Great Britain her West India islands. In the paper explain-
ing this scheme Franklin states that as to the colonies to be
purchased " it is absolutely necessary for us to have them for
our own security."!
In letters to English friends while in France he expressed
similar views, saying that discord would continually arise on
the frontiers unless peace were cemented by the cession of Can-
ada, Kova Scotia, and the Floridas.§
John Adams entertained opinions of the same kind. In
April, 1782, while in Holland, he was advised by Henry Lau-
rens, one of our foreign commissioners who had been captured
by a British man-of-war and put in the Tower on a charge of
treason, but was now at large on parole, that many of the
opposition in England favored the surrender of Canada and
Nova Scotia. Mr. Adams replied that he feared that we could
never have a real i^eace with Canada or Nova Scotia in the
hands of the English, and that at least we should stipulate, in
* 2, Secret Journals of Congress, 54.
t Life of Samuel Adams, ii, 434.
t Franklin's Works, i, 143.
$ lUd., I, 311.
374 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
any treaty of peace, that they should keep no troops or fortified
places on the fi-ontiers of either.*
A few days later, Dr. Franklin submitted to Mr. Oswald,
with whom, as the commissioner of Great Britain, the treaty of
peace was afterward negotiated, a paper suggesting the dangers
of maintaining a long frontier between countries, the roughest
of whose people would always inhabit their borders and out-
posts, and that Great Britain might well cede Canada to us
on condition of a perpetual guaranty of free trade with that
province and a provision for indemnity for the losses both of
Canadian loyalists and of Americans whose property had been
burned in British invasions, out of the proceeds of sales of
the public lands remaining ungranted.t
The influence of France was from the first thrown against the
enlargement of the United States by the accession of any more
of the British colonies. As most of these had once been hers,
she doubtless hoped that they might some day become again
part of their mother country. Our treaty with her, of 1778,
stipulated that should she capture any of the British West
India islands, it should be for her own benefit, while if we
should occupy the northern colonies or the Bermudas, they
should "be confederate with or dependent upon the said
United States.'^
The adoption of the present Constitution of the United
States, in abrogating by the voice of the majority the Articles
of Confederation, was a revolutionary proceeding which threw
two States out of the Union. North Carolina and Ehode
Island, by refusing to ratify the work of the convention of
1787, put themselves for a time certainly very near the position
of foreign States. This consequence of their action was strongly
urged in the North Carolina convention. "In my opinion,"
said Governor Johnston, one of its members, " if we refuse to
ratify the Constitution, we shall be entirely out of the Union,
and can be considered only as a foreign power. It is true the
United States may admit us hereafter, but they may admit us
on terms unequal and disadvantageous to us." " It is objected,"
replied the next speaker, "we shall be out of the Union. So
1 wish to be. We are left at liberty to come in at any time."|
* See Washington's letter to Landon Carter, of May 30, 1778, to the same
effect. Writings, Sparks' ed., v, 389.
t Franklin's Works, i, 480.
t 4, Elliot's Debates, 223, 4.
ANNEXATION POLICY OF UNITED STATES — BALDWIN. 375
"111 my opinion," said James Iredell, afterwards a justice of
the Supreme Court of the United States, " when any State has
once rejected the Constitution it can not claim to come in
afterwards as a matter of right. If it does not in plain terms
reject, but refuses to accede for the present, I think tne other
States may regard this as an absolute rejection and refuse to
admit us afterwards, but at their pleasure and on what terms
they please.'^*
When, however, in 1789 and 1790, these States reluctantly
sent in their ratifications, no question was made about receiving
them on equal terms with those by which the new Government
had been originally organized j and they came in on a footing
of right.
The United States of 1789 were, in many respects, a political
combination of foreign communities. The Atlantic was almost
the sole means of communication between the Northern and
Southern States. The Hudson helped to bind eastern New
England to New York. The Ohio and the Mississippi might
lead from one scattered settlement to another, but, of those
who lived 20 miles from navigable water, it was only the favored
or the adventurous few who had ever visited any State except
their own.
To such a people there could be nothing startling in the acqui-
sition of foreign territory. It could hardly be more foreign
than much that was already within the Union. It could hardly
be more distant, for a voyage from Philadelphia to London or
Marseilles took less time and money and involved less risk
and hardship than a trip to Cincinnati or Natchez.
Gouverneur Morris said at the time of the Louisiana pur-
chase that he had known since the day when the Constitu-
tion was adopted that all North America must at length be
annexed, t
At the close of the Eevolutionary war both England and
America regarded the long frontier on the north of the United
States as not unUkely to be soon the scene of renewed hos-
tilities. John Adams, in October, 1785, writes from abroad to
the Secretary of State that some of the opposition in Great
Britain were saying ^'that Canada and Nova Scotia must soon
be ours; there must be a war for it; they know how it will
end, but the sooner the better; this done, we shall be forever
at peace; till then, never." |
*J6i(Z, 231. t Writmjrs, III, 185. t Works, viii, 333.
376 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
But we had a boundary still more difficult to the southward.
The end of the Seven Years' War in Europe had seen France
cede to Spain New Orleans, with so much of her Louisiana
territory as lay west of the Mississippi, and the rest to Great
Britain. A cession from Spain of her claims on the Floridas
had confirmed these as English possessions and made the
Mississippi their western boundary; but during our Eevolu-
tionary war Spain had recaptured them and her title was con-
firmed by the peace of 1783.
In 1800 Spain ceded back her Louisiana territories to France,
and the century opened with Spain bounding us below Geor-
gia, and France hemming ns in at the mouth of the Missis-
sippi, and by an undefined, and perhaps indefinable, stretch of
territory running from the gulf up toward the Canadian line.
The leaders of the Revolutionary period, who survived, were
united in the belief that it was vital to our interests to acquire
the French title. Hamilton,* John Adams,t and Gouverneur
Morris t were of this mind, not less than Jefferson, Madison,
and Livingston.
There was a serious question as to our right to make the
purchase, and the administration represented the party which
regarded the Government as one of delegated powers to be
strictly construed. The great leader of the other school,
Daniel Webster, declared, in 1837, during the heat of the con-
troversy over the admission of Texas, that he did not believe
the framers of the Constitution contemplated the annexation
of foreign territory, and that, for his part, he believed it to
be for the interest of the Union "to remain as it is, without
diminution and without addition." §
We now have, however, more light as to the real intention
of the founders, from the published letters of Gouverneur
Morris, whose pen put the Constitution in form. No " decree
de crescendo imperio was inserted in it," he wrote, at the time
of the Louisiana purchase, because no boundaries could be
wisely or safely assigned to our future expansion. " I knew
as well then as I do now, that all North America must at
length be annexed to us — happy, indeed, if the lust of pos-
session stop there." II
If, on the other hand, it had been intended to keep the
* Works, III, 402. t Writings, iii, 185. $ Works, i, 357.
t Life and Works, ix, 631. 1| Diary and Works, ii, 442.
ANNEXATION POLICY OF UNITED STATES — BALDWIN. 377
Union forever within the limits then existing, we may be sure
that an express prohibition would have been inserted. This
was Gallatin's view when Jefferson consulted his Cabinet as to
the Louisiana negotiation. The adverse position, he wrote to
the President, must be that " the United States are precluded
from and renounce altogether the enlargement of territory — a
provision sufficiently important and singular to have deserved
to be expressly inserted." Jefferson's reply to this letter
shows his own opinion more fully than it is elsewhere given in
his correspondence. ^^ There is," he wrote, '^ no constitutional
difficulty as to the acquisition of territory, and whether, when
acquired, it may be taken into the Union by the Constitution
as it now stands will become a question of expediency."*
It was a time, moreover, for action rather than for deliberation.
Between a question of constitutional construction on the one
hand, and on the other a possible French army under a Napo-
leon ascending the Mississippi to reconquer a New World, the
administration was not disposed to hesitate as to the choice.
Jefferson made the purchase, and the people approved the act.
Never was fifteen millions of American money better spent. •
The next opportunity to add to our possessions came in 1819,
when we bought the Floridas of Spain, or at least a release of
her title and pretentions to themj and the Sui^reme Court of
the United States, being soon afterwards called upon to say
what relation we bore to the new acquisition, held, to the sur-
prise of some of the strict constructionists among our public
men, that the right of the United States to wage war and to
make treaties necessarily implied the right to acquire new
territory, whether by conquest or purchase. This decision
came from the lips of our greatest chief justice, John Mar-
shall, and has been repeatedly reaffirmed by his successors on
the bench.t
Neither the Louisiana nor the Florida purchase had pre-
sented the question of the absorption of a foreign sovereignty.
North Carolina and Ehode Island had finally acceded to the
Union, not in such a character, but as having been members
with the other States of a perpetual confederation, for which
there had been substituted a new form of government.
In 1836, however, came an application by the Eepublic of
Texas for admission into the Union as a new and equal State.
* Gallatin's 'Writings, i, 114.
t Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U. S. Rep., 1, 42.
378 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
The dominant population tliere liad always been composed
of immigrants from the United States. John Quincy Adams,
when President, had endeavored to buy it from Mexico,* and
similar propositions from President Jackson had also been
made without success.t In 1836 Texas claimed to have
achieved her independence, and sent commissioners to Wash-
ington to negotiate a treaty of annexation. Mexico regarded
her still as one of her provinces, and the United States delayed
recognition of the new government until it should have i)roved
its ability to defend its own existence. This was deemed suffi-
ciently established after a year or two, and we, as well as the
leading European powers, maintained diplomatic relations
with Texas for several years while the question of annexation
was pending.
The opposition to annexation was now led by John Quincy
Adams, who introduced into the House of Eepresentatives, in
1838, this resolution :
Mesolved, That the power of annexing the people of any independent
foreign State to this Union is a power not delegated by the Constitution
of the United States to their Congress, or to any Department of their
Government, but reserved by the people. That any attempt by act of
Congress or by treaty would be a usurpation of power, unlawful, and void,
and which it would be the right and the duty of the free people of the
Union to resist and annul.
If, he said, Texas is annexed, it would be such a violation
of our national compact as "not only inevitably to result in a
dissolution of the Union, but fully to justify itj and we not
only assert that the people of the free States ought not to sub-
mit to it, but we say with confidence that they would not sub-
mit to it."
On the other hand, many of the Southern leaders announced
that if Texas were not annexed, and thus an opportunity offered
for the extension of slavery, there would be a dissolution of
the Union by the act of the South.
Early in 1844, a treaty of annexation was concluded, but the
Senate rejected it by a vote of more than two to one. The
admission of Texas was made the main issue in the Presiden-
tial election of the year. The Democratic party favored it in
their platform, and won a decisive victory. President Tyler,
thereupon, in his message to Congress at its December session,
* In 1827. Diary vii, 239. t Jackson offered $5,000,000 for it in 1835.
ANNEXATION POLICY OF UNITED STATES — BALDWIN. 379
recommended that the verdict of the people be ratified by an
act of annexation, which should adopt and make into law the
terms of agreement already agreed on by the two governments.
A compromise bill was passed by which the consent of Con-
gress was given to the erection of Texas into a new State of
the United States, but the President was authorized, should
he deem it better to accomplish the same purpose by a treaty,
to proceed in that manner. President Tyler promptly approved
the act, and believing that any treaty he might negotiate
would fail in the Senate, proceeded under the legislative clause,
and on the last day of his term of office hurried off' an envoy
to Texas to obtain the consent of that Eepublic, which was
soon given, and Texas, therefore, came into the Union in 1845,
not by treaty, but by virtue of a statute of the United States
supported by similar legislation of her own.
It is obvious that this mode of admitting a new State trenched
directly on the importance of the States, in so far as they can be
regarded as constituents of the Federal Government. Treaty-
making was confided by the Constitution exclusively to the
President and Senate, while the composition of the Senate was
made such as not only to secure, upon every question of that
nature, an equal voice to each State, but to guaranty a minority
of the States against being overborne by anything less than
two-thirds of all. The Texas precedent gave the popular
branch equal powers as to the admission of a foreign State,
and made the votes of a bare majority of the upper house suffi-
cient.
From a very early period Cuba has been regarded by lead-
ing Southern statesmen as a desirable acquisition for us. In
1809, Jefferson wrote in regard to this to President Madison,
that "it will be objected to our receiving Cuba that no limit
can then be drawn to our future acquisitions. Cuba can be
defended by us without a navy; and this develops the princi-
ple which ought to limit our views. I^othiug should ever be
accepted which would require a navy to defend it." *
A few years later, John Quincy Adams, as Secretary of
State, in his instructions to our minister to Spain, wrote that
Cuba and Porto Eico were natural appendages to our conti-
nent, and Cuba had become *'an object of transcendent
importance to the commercial and political interests of our
Union. Its commanding position, with reference to the Gulf
* See also John Quincy Adams' Diary, v, 38.
380 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
of Mexico and the West India seas j the character of its popu-
lation j its situation midway between our Southern coast and
the island of San Domingo ; its safe and capacious harbor of
the Havana, fronting a long line of our shores destitute of the
same advantage j the nature of its productions and of its
wants, furnishing the supplies and needing the returns of a
commerce immensely profitable and mutually beneficial, give
it an importance in the sum of our national interests with
which that of no other foreign territory can be compared, and
little inferior to that which binds the different members of
this Union together. Such, indeed, are, between the interests
of that island and of this country, the geographical, commer-
cial, moral, and political relations formed by nature, gathering
in the process of time, and even now verging to maturity, that,
in looking forward to the probable course of events for the
short period of half a century, it is scarcely possible to resist
the conviction that the annexation of Cuba to our Federal
Republic will be indispensable to the continuance and integrity
of the Union itself. It is obvious, however, that for this event
we are not yet prepared. Numerous and formidable objections
to the extension of our territorial dominions beyond sea present
themselves to the first contemplation of the subject j obstacles
to the system of policy by which alone that result can be com-
passed and maintained, are to be foreseen and surmounted,
both at home and abroad; but there are laws of political as
well as of physical gravitation j and if an apple, severed by the
tempest from its native tree, can not choose but fall to the
ground, Cuba, forcibly disjoined from its own unnatural con-
nection with Spain, and incapable of self-support, can gravi-
tate only towards the Ii^Torth American Union, which, by the
same law of nature, can not cast her off from its bosom."*
The immediate object in view was to prevent Great Britain
from acquiring Cuba. Jefferson wrote to President Monroe, at
about the same time (1823) that should Great Britain take it,
he would not be for going to war for it, "because the first war
on other accounts will give it to us, or the island will give itself
to us, when able to do so." " If we could get it peaceably," he
said, "it would fill up the measure of our well being."
President Polk tried to buy it from Spain, and a hundred
milhons is said to have been the sum offered.
In 1852, Great Britain and France proposed to us the forma-
*1, Wharton's Dig. of Int. Law, 361.
ANNEXATION POLICY OF UNITED STATES — BALDWIN. 381
tion of a tripartite agreement, by wliicli each power disclaimed
forever any intention to obtain possession of the island, and all
undertook to discountenance any attempts to acquire it on the
part of any other government. President Fillmore declined
the overture, but in referring to it in his annual message, said
that were Cuba "comparatively destitute of inhabitants or
occupied by a kindred race, I should regard it, if voluntarily
ceded by Spain, as a most desirable acquisition. But under
existing circumstances, I should look upon its incorporation
into our Union as a very hazardous measure. It would bring
into the Confederacy a population of a different national stock,
speaking a different language, and not likely to harmonize
with the other members."
President Fillmore had, however, proposed and entered into
a somewhat similar convention two years before with Great
Britain, with reference to Central America.
By this it was covenanted that neither would ever occupy,
colonize, or assume any dominion over any i^art of Central
America. Mr. Buchanan, while our minister to England in
1854, in alluding to this Clayton-Bulwer convention of April
19, 1850, in a communication to the British foreign department,
used this language :
Both parties adopted this self-denying ordinance for the purpose of ter-
minating serious misunderstandings then existing between them, which
might have endangered their friendly relations. Whether the United
States acted wisely or not in relinquishing their right as an independent
nation, to acquire territory in a region on their own continent, which may
become necessary for the security of their communication with their
important and valuable possessions on the Pacific, is another and a different
question. But they have concluded the convention ; their faith is pledged,
and under such circumstances they never look behind the record.
The treaty of 1848, which closed the Mexican war, had given
us on payment of $15,000,000, Kew Mexico and California,
and in 1853 another cession from Mexico— the "Gadsden pur-
chase"— added southern Arizona at a cost of 110,000,000 more.
These new possessions turned public attention to the necessity
of a canal across the Isthmus of Panama, and it was in the
negotiations with reference to the status of such a canal that
the covenant just mentioned in the Clayton-Bulwer conven-
tion was proposed by our Government and accepted by Great
Britain. But the prospect of such a canal made the command
of the entrance to the Gulf of Mexico doubly important to us,
and gave a new color to our diplomacy regarding Cuba.
382 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Edward Everett, in one of his communications to the British
minister, when Secretary of State, in 1852, said that ''territo-
rially and commercially it would in our hands be an extremely
valuable possession. Under certain contingencies it might be
almost essential to our safety."
The Ostend manifesto of 1854 emphasized these consider-
ations, and intimated quite strongly that if a peaceful cession
could not be accomplished, a conquest might be dictated by
the law of self-preservation.
President Buchanan devoted three pages of his second
annual message, in 1858, to the Cuban question, referring to
the fact that former administrations had repeatedly endeavored
to purchase the island. The increasing trade of the Mississippi
Valley, he said, and the position of Cuba as commanding the
mouth of the river rendered its possession "of vast importance
to the United States," and, trusting in the efficacy of ready
money, he recommended an appropriation by Congress to
enable him to make an advance to Spain, should he be able to
negotiate a cession immediately on the signature of the treaty,
and before its ratification by the Senate. A bill appropriating
$30,000,000 was thereupon introduced in the House and favor-
ably reported, but no further progress was made. In his
messages of 1859 and 1860, the President repeated his recom-
mendations of a purchase, urging that it would secure the
immediate abolition of the slave trade j but the forces that
were working toward something greater, the abolition of
slavery, were such as to render any serious consideration of
the Cuban question now impossible.
An act passed under the Buchanan administration, which
is still on the statute books. Revised Statutes, Title lxxii,
explicitly af&rms the power of the United States to acquire
foreign territory by right of discovery, and is also of impor-
tance as one of the few laws by which large powers not belong-
ing strictly to the executive function, have been placed by
Congress in the hands of the President.
This statute provides that whenever any of our citizens
discovers and takes possession of any guano deposits on any
island, rock, or key, which does not belong to any other gov-
ernment, " such island, rock, or key may, at the discretion of
the President, be considered as appertaining to the United
States." All laws as to crimes and offences committed on the
high seas are extended over such places. Trade in the guano
ANNEXATION POLICY OF UNITED STATES — BALDWIN. 383
is to be regulated as is our ordinary coasting trade. The
United States shall not be obliged to retain possession of such
places after the guano has been removed. The island of
Kavassa, some 2 miles long, lying between San Domingo and
Jamaica, discovered in 1857, is now a part of the United States
under this act of 1856. J^ot long ago there were 150 persons
Uving on it, all engaged in the removal of the guano. One of
them killed another, and was promptly punished by the courts
of the United States.*
Under President Lincoln's administration, the country had
enough to think of in trying to preserve its territory, without
endeavoring to enlarge it. He did, however, recommend to
Congress in 1861, the consideration of a colonization scheme,
by Avhich the freedmen of the South, and such of our free
colored population as should desire it, might be transported
to some foreign land, where, in a climate congenial to them,
they might build up a new community. To carry out this
plan ^^may," he said, "involve the acquiring of territory and
also the appropriation of money beyond that to be expended
in the territorial acquisition. Having practiced the acquisi-
tion of territory for nearly sixty years^ the question of con-
stitutional power to do so is no longer an open one with us.
* * * On this whole proposition, including the appropria-
tion of money with the acquisition of territory, does not the
expediency amount to absolute necessity — that without which
the Government itself can not be perpetuated?"
When, a year later, slavery was abolished in the District of
Columbia, $500,000 was appropriated to aid in colonizing such
of the freedmen as might wish to emigrate, in Hayti or Liberia.
A few were aided to leave the country in this way, most of
whom were taken by the Government to He a Yache, off the
coast of ^ew Granada, and the rest to Liberia.
Alaska was bought of Eussia, by treaty, in 1867, for
$7,200,000. The House of Eepresentatives insisted for a time
on the necessity of an act of Congress to legalize the purchase,
but the Senate refused to concur in this view, and the point
was finally yielded. By this acquisition we came into posses-
sion not only of a part of the continent remote from our own,
but of distant islands, some of them over 2,000 miles from
the nearest point of seacoast previously within our jurisdic-
* JoneB V8. United States, 137 U. S. Rep.
i
384 AMERICAN HISTOKICAL ASSOCIATION.
tion. The test of contiguity, as determining tlie right of
annexation, was now, therefore, finally and deliberately aban-
doned. It was abandoned also with almost unanimous acqui-
escence, since there were but two votes in the Senate against
the ratification of the treaty.
Had President Jackson had his way, a similar position
would probably have been taken by our Government thirty
years before, for, in 1835, he authorized our minister to Mexico
to ofi'er her half a million dollars for a cession of the bay of
San Francisco and the adjacent shore.*
In the same year which witnessed the purchase of Alaska,
Mr. Seward, as Secretary of State, also negotiated a treaty
with Denmark for the cession of the West India Islands of
St. Thomas and St. John, on our paying her $7,500,000 for
them. President Johnson, in his annual message for 1867,
thus alludes to their proposed annexation :
In our Kevolutionary war, ports and harbors in the West India islands
were used by our enemy, to the great injury and embarrassment of the
United States. We had the same experience in our second war with Great
Britain. The same European pohcy for a long time excluded us even from
trade with the West Indies, while we were at peace with all nations. In
our recent civil war the rebels, and their piratical and blockade-breaking
allies, found facilities in the same ports for the work, which they too
successfully accomplished, of injuring and devastating the commerce which
we are now engaged in rebuilding. We labored especially under this
disadvantage that European steam vessels, employed by our enemies,
found friendly shelter, protection, and supplies in West Indian ports,
while our naval operations were necessarily carried on from our own
distant shores. There was then a universal feeling of the want of an
advanced naval outpost between the Atlantic coast and Europe. The
duty of obtaining such an outpost peacefully and lawfully, while neither
doing nor menacing injury to other States, earnestly engaged the attention
of the Executive Department before the close of the war, and it has not
been lost sight of since that time. A not entirely dissimilar naval want
revealed itself during the same period on the Pacific coast. The required
foothold there was fortunately secured by our late treaty with the Emperor
of Russia, and it now seems imperative that the more obvious necessities
of the Atlantic coast should not be less carefully provided for. A good
and convenient port and harbor, capable of easy defence, will supply that
want. With the possession of such a station by the United States,
neither we nor any other American nation need longer apprehend injury
or offense from any transatlantic enemy. I agree with our early states-
men that the West Indies naturally gravitate to, and may be expected
ultimately to be absorbed by the Continental States, including our own.
I agree with them also that it is wise to leave the question of such absorp-
tion to this process of natural political gravitation. The islands of St.
* 1, Wharton : International Law Digest, 557.
ANNEXATION POLICY OF UNITED STATES — BALDWIN. 385
Thomas and St. Johns, which constitute a part of the group called the
Virgin Islands, seemed to oflfer us advantages immediately desirable, while
their acquisition could be secured in harmony with the principles to
which I have alluded.
At this time the relations of President Johnson to the
Senate were anything but harmonious, and mainly from this
cause, I think, the treaty was rejected in 1868, although the
inhabitants of both islands had already voted in favor of
annexation.
Shortly after Gen. Grant's accession to the Presidency, he
concluded the negotiation with the Dominican Eepublic, begun
by Secretary Seward at the close of the preceding adminis-
tration,* of a treaty of annexation of so much of the island of
San Domingo as was not included within the limits of Hayti.
As in the case of Texas, two independent sovereignties thus
contracted for the absorption of one into the other, but unlike
Texas, San Domingo was not to enter the Union as one of the
States that compose it. The treaty was rejected by a tie vote
in the Senate. In his next message to Congress, the Presi-
dent earnestly recommended legislative action in the same
direction.
"The acquisition of San Domingo," he said, "is desirable
because of its geographical position." * * * a^t present
our coast trade between the States bordering on the Atlantic
and those bordering on the Gulf of Mexico is cut into by the
Bahamas and the Antilles. Twice we must, as it were, pass
through foreign countries to get by sea from Georgia to the
west coast of Florida." * * * u The acquisition of San
Domingo is an adherence to the ^Monroe doctrine;' it is a
measure of natural protection; it is asserting our just claim
to a controlling influence over the great commercial traffic
soon to flow from west to east by way of the Isthmus of
Darien."
Congress responded to these appeals by sending an able
commission, Senator Wade, President Andrew D. White, and
Dr. Samuel G. Howe, of Boston, to visit San Domingo. They
reported in favor of its annexation, but the project went no
farther.
The opposition to Grant in this matter was started by Charles
Sumner, then at the head of the Senate Committee on Foreign
Eelations, who seems to have been governed largely by his
* Seward's Works, V, 29-
S. Mis. 104 25
386 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
interest in the colored race.* To them, he believed, belonged
"the equatorial belt." They had established a republic in
Hayti. If San Domingo were annexed to the United States
Hayti must inevitably decline, and there would be a new argu-
ment for those who denied the capacity of the negro for self-
government.
Down to the close of the reconstruction period, which fol-
lowed the civil war, there was, indeed, no time after the Louis-
iana purchase when the question of the right and policy of
annexation, with respect to any foreign territory, was not
determined by every public man largely in accordance with
his views of its bearing on the future of the southern blacks.
Grant; himself, was looking to San Domingo as the site of
future States of our Union, peopled and governed by colonies
of our new class of freedmen.
The American people, in the words of Henry Adams, began
the century with the "ambition to use the entire continent for
their experiments." t
Jefferson was their leader, and of all American statesmen he
best understood and represented the popular sentiment of his
day. What Lincoln was to the North, Jefferson was to the
country. But Jefferson had the larger, though less balanced
mind. He was an idealist and an optimist. With equal rights
and opportunities to every citizen, and to every State, he feared
no extension of territory for a Union resting on community of
interest and individual liberty. Jefferson never believed that
the prosperity of the South was dependent on the institution
of slavery, but, for half a century, among his successors in the
conduct of the Goverment, were many who did. Our policy
as to annexation, therefore, soon became a sectional question,
and so continued until the Southern negro was given not only
freedom but the right of suffrage.
President Grant's administration in 1872, by an agreement
between one of our naval officers and the chief of Tatuila, one
of the Samoan Islands, obtained the exclusive privilege of
establishing a coaling station at the port of Pango Pango, and
President Hayes took possession of the privilege ceded, in
1879.
* Memoir and Letters, iv, 448.
t History of the United States, ii, 301.
ANNEXATION POLICY OF UNITED STATES — BALDWIN. 387
The arts of civilization were introduced into the Sandwich
Islands by American missionaries in the first quarter of this cen-
tury, and their trade has always been largely with this country.
They lie 300 miles nearer San Francisco than the outermost
of the Aleutian Islands, which came to us as a part of the
Alaska purchase. In 1843, an English officer, without author-
ity, took possession of Hawaii, in behalf of the Queen, but this
action was promptly disavowed by his Government. Our Secre-
tary of State, Mr. Legare, wrote, upon this event, to our min-
ister to England, that these islands bore such peculiar rela-
tions to us that we might feel justified in interfering by force
to prevent their conquest by any of the great powers of Europe.*
Great Britain and France, however, allayed any ill feeling on
the part of our Government by a convention made during this
year, by which each covenanted never to take a cession of the
islands or assume a protectorate over them.
In 1853, Mr. Marcy, as Secretary of State, in instructions to
our minister to France, wrote of them thus: "It seems to be
inevitable that they must come under the control of this Gov-
ernment." Two years later he informed our minister to Hawaii
that we would receive the transfer of the territorial sovereignty
of the islands. In 1868 the subject was again brought up, but
Secretary Seward, fresh from his disappointments with refer-
ence to the Danish West Indies, wrote our minister that the
time was unfavorable for the consideration of annexation prop-
ositions by the United States.
By the treaty of reciprocity, in 1875, the two countries were
drawn closer together, and the commerce between them was
soon doubled.
Early in the present year a treaty of annexation was laid
before the Senate, but withdrawn on the accession of the new
administration. In his message accompanying the treaty
President Harrison said that the deposition of the Queen had
left but two courses open to the United States, the assumption
of a protectorate, or annexation.
The views of the present administration may be inferred
from President Cleveland's first message, in 1884, in which he
said, "I do not favor a policy of acquisition of new and dis-
tant territory, or the incorporation of remote interests with
our own."
The annexation of Canada, so ardently desired by Franklin
and all the statesmen of the Eevolution, has never since that
* 1, Wharton : International Law Digest, 418.
388 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
period been made a subject of formal diplomatic discussion.
Its growth in wealth and population and its federation into a
great dominion of many provinces are evidently paving the
way to independence. When that time comes^ annexation will
I follow.
Her institutions are every year becoming better fitted to
coalesce with ours^ as her iDrovinces, each with a life and his-
tory of its own, participate by their representatives in general
legislation at a common capital under an executive who, during
his term of office, is more secure in his position than the prime
minister of Great Britain and little less subject to the pleasure
of the sovereign.
T The French Canadians are of a different race and tongue
and religion from that of most of the Americans of the Eevolu-
I tionary era. But if they were not afraid to admit them to citi-
zenship of the United States in the eighteenth century, surely
we need not be when the time comes, in the twentieth. The
Americans of to-day are a composite race, and universal
religious toleration has made us sensible that men's religious
beliefs are dangerous to the community only when they are
forced to conceal or suppress them. The Roman Church has
frankly accepted the right of every people to such form of gov-
ernment as they may choose for themselves, and the million of
Catholics ii? Canada would be no more, as such, a factor in
American politics than the million of Catholics who are to-day
inhabitants of New York, or the more than a million who are
citizens of New England.
The different jDrovinces of Canada are so situated with
resi3ect to each other and the natural boundaries of separation
between most of them are such that their trade gravitates
southward to the United States in seeking its center of dis-
tribution. What it has to sell, it can sell best to us. What
it needs to buy it finds best here.
The immense area which the Dominion of Canada now
includes, is beyond the powers of any mere colony or group
of colonies to bring under the full influences of civilization. As
fast as it approaches that end, so fast it also approaches the
necessity of independence of Great Britain.
It is probable that Great Britain would make little objection
to the severance from her possessions of so costly and unre-
munerative a dependence. Before the negotiation of the
treaty of Washington our Secretary of State, Mr. Fish, in con-
versation with Sir Edward Thornton, the British minister, said
ANNEXATION POLICY OF UNITED STATES — BALDWIN. 389
that our Alabama claims were too large to be settled in money
and intimated tliat a cession of Canada might be accepted as
a satisfactory adjustment. The reply was that England did
not wish to keep Canada, but could not part with it without
the consent of its population.*
The original area of the United States, before the Louisiana
purchase, was, perhaps, a million of square miles, t That
acquisition and the subsequent cession of the Floridas much
more than doubled our territory. Texas then came to us
with 300,000 square miles, and Mexico, in 1S48 and 1853,
ceded a somewhat greater number. In Alaska, we received,
in 1867, an addition of over half a million, and thus our total
area now is a little more than 3,500,000 square miles.
Canada and Newfoundland cover about the same extent of
territory, or over 3,524,000 square miles, estimating for part of
British Columbia not yet accurately surveyed.
At the time of the Revolution the latest authority on Amer-
ican geography was the American Gazetteer, published in
London, in 1776. It gave the total area of the North Ameri-
can Continent, with a precision not aimed at by modern statis-
ticians, at 3,699,087 square miles. The founders of the United
States did not dream that the narrow line of States they had
drawn together could in a century come to include a territory
of 3,500,000 square miles, and still have beyond them another
area of equal magnitude, and much of it of equal fertility and
natural resources, into which to expand in the next century.
But that expansion, I believe, it is our destiny to accomplish,
and by no other means than those of peace and mutual good
will. The good faith of the nation was pledged by the Clayton-
Bulwer treaty against further extension to the southward,
though it is doubtful whether this is still binding upon us; %
but the North American Continent with every island on the
east, and the Hawaiian group upon the west, all bound to it as
satellites to their planet, will, if we continue in our historic
policy as to annexation, eventually come under the flag of the
United States.
It has been argued with great force by an eminent authority
* Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, iv, 409.
t This is the estimate given in Morse's American Geography, published
in 1792.
X See Report of Senate Committee on Foreign Relations of December
22, 1892, on Senate bill No. 1218.
390 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
on American constitutionallaw,* tliat our plan of government
makes no provision for a colonial system. But the relations
of an extra-territorial possession to the United States can
never be those ol a colony to a European power. Such a col-
ony has generally been treated as an appanage held for the
benefit of the commercial interests of the mother country. Its
trade, conducted by others and for others, has brought little
benefit to its own inhabitants, to whom the navigation laws
imposed upon them by a distant power have often seemed a
kind of spoliation under the name of protection.
But any possessions, separated from the continent, which
the United States may acquire, can rely on being governed
under some system de^4sed for the interest of all concerned,
and administered by their own inhabitants, so far as they may
show a capacity for self-government.
Nor yet need we fear that the United States would not, if
the occasion demanded, rule with a strong hand, when we
recal> the almost despotic system of administration which,
under the administration of Jefferson, was forced upon the
unwilling inhabitants of the Louisiana and Orleans territories,
and maintained until they had learned the real qualities and
conditions of American citizenship.
Up to the present time the cost of such of our territory as
has come to us by purchase has been, in all, as follows :
1803, Louisiana $15,000,000
1819, Florida 5,000,000
1848, California and New Mexico 15, 000, 000
1853, Arizona 10,000,000
1867, Alaska 7,200,000
Total 52,200,000
It has been cheaply bought, even if we add to these sums
the expenditures in the Seminole war, which followed the
Florida purchase, and of the Mexican war, which had so close
a connection with those which came next.
The greatest lawsuit in the world is now on trial at Paris,
brought to define our rights as owner of the remotest of
these acquisitions, a little island in the Pacific, farther than is
Hawaii from San Francisco. It is a pleasant sign of the times
that this controversy arises mainly from a humane sentiment
towards the brute creation, and is to be decided precisely as
any question between good neighbors might be, by a friendly
arbitrament.
* Judge Cooley in the Forum for June, 1893, Vol. XV, p. 393.
XXV.— THE ORIGIN OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE SYSTEM
IN AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE BODIES.
By PROFESSOR J. FRANKLIN JAMESON,
OF BROWN UNIVERSITY.
391
[E ORIGIN OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE SYSTEM IN AMER-
ICAN LEGISLATIVE BODIES.
By J. Franklin Jameson.
Mr. Bryce and Mr. Woodrow Wilson have familiarized us all
iththe notion that tlie transaction of business tlirougli stand-
ig committees is one of the leading peculiarities of American
igislative bodies, as compared with the English legislature,
and indeed perhaps the most important of such peculiarities.
Congressional government is mainly government by standing
committees and their role in State legislatures is equally
important. It is therefore somewhat remarkable that, so far
as the writer knows, no thorough historical examination has
ever been made into the origin of the system. This is, to
be sure, of a piece with our usual neglect of the history of
all portions of our constitution except such as have found place
and mention in the document called the Constitution of the
United States. Our system of standing committees is one of
the most important elements in our form of government j yet
we have been content to examine its development in the Federal
Senate and House of Kepresentatives alone, and to assume that
its history begins with the year 1789, and with the United
States. That the first Congresses had very few standing com-
mittees, and that the transaction of nearly all legislative busi-
ness through them can hardly be said to have become the
regular practice of the House until the time of Speaker Clay
is familiar. It is the object of the present paper to show that
the institution existed long before this, in England and the
American colonies, and to trace its development from the six-
teenth century to the time of the American Eevolution. No
doubt two reasons why this has not been done before are, first,
that the system has no place in the procedure of the House
of Commons, and has virtually had none for nearly two centu-
ries ; and second, that it is not found in the colonial legisla-
tures of New England, the region in which historical writers
upon the colonial period have been most numerous.
393
394 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
The standing-committee system, in its modern form, involves
the following particulars : The institution by a legislative body,
as a regular practice, of several committees, composed of its
own members, and continuing in existence throughout the ses-
sion, each of which has charge of a specific division of the
business of the house in such manner that all matters falling
within that division are regularly and usually referred to that
committee for preparative consideration previously to their dis-
posal by the house. Leaving out of account the ancient " triers
of petitions," we may say that in the procedure of the English
Parliament the germ of the system is the committee especially
appointed to frame a iiarticular statute from a petition or bill.
Of such, an instance is found in the records of the House of
Commons as far back as 1340. From the beginning of the
printed journals of the House of Commons (1547), we find bills
committed to one or two members, and other special committees.
When Sir Thomas Smith, who died in 1577, wrote his famous
treatise of the " Commonwealth of England," committees for
framing laws were already an essential part of the procedure
of Parliament. In describing its organization, he says :
The Committies are such as either the Lords in the higher House, or
Burgesses in the Lower House, doe choose to frame the Lawes upon such
Bils as are agreed upon, and afterward to bee ratified by the same Houses.
It marks a distinct forward step in the development of the
institution when, at the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's third
Parliament, on April 6, 1571, we find a group of election cases
or a group of bills, all relating to the same general subject,
referred to a single committee. In the committees of this
session, thus charged with an entire division of the business
of the House, we find the germs of three of the great commit-
tees of subsequent times, the committee of privileges and
elections, the committee of religion, and the committee of
grievances. But apparently they did not continue in the exer-
cise of their functions throughout the session, nor do we find
an equally developed arrangement in operation during the first
two sessions of the Queen's fourth Parliament. In that of
1584-'85 and the next three the standing committee of privi-
leges and elections was developed. It was natural that this
should be the first of the standing committees to attain full
development, partly because of the nature of its business,
involving many questions too detailed and complicated for
discussion in the whole house, partly because of the increas-
THE STANDING COMMITTEE SYSTEM — JAMESON. 395
ig vigor with which the Commons were in this reign beginning
assert their privileges, among others that of determining
ill matters relating to their own elections. The Parliaments
)f 1584-'85 and 1586-'87 had committees of privileges but
lone of elections. That of 1589 had both. At the beginning
)f the Queen's eighth Parliament the final step is taken ; these
bwo functions are fused and confided to the charge of one and
bhe same committee. February 26, 1592-'93, " Upon a Motion
lade by Sir George Moore touching some questions for the
lanner of Election of one Eichard Hutton returned into this
[ouse one of the Burgesses of the Borough of South wark in
|;he County of Surry, * * * And upon another Motion
lereupon also made by Mr. Wroth for a Committee for the Lib-
[•ties and Priviledges of the Members of this House and their
irvants, it is upon the question Ordered, that all the Members
^f this House being of her Majesties Privy-Council, Sir William
[oore, Mr. Serjeant Yelverton, Mr. Eobert Wroth, * * *
lir George Moore, Sir Walter Kaleigh, Sir Francis Drake, Mr.
?anfield, Mr. Francis Bacon," and others ^' shall, during all
this present Sessions of Parliament, examine and make report
)f all such Cases touching the Elections and Eeturns of any
the Knights, Burgesses, and Barons of this House, and also
11 such Cases for priviledge as in any wise may fall out during
ill the same Sessions of Parliament." In this committee, with
its roll of distinguished names, we have the first fully devel-
oped standing committee of the modern American type.
In the Parliament of 1598-'99 the practice begun in the last
Parliament seems to have been regarded as a matter of course,
and so also with those of 1601 and 1603-'4; in the latter case a
comment in the Commons Journal declares that "this is a
usual Motion in the Beginning of every Parliament." Of the
procedure of these early committees there is not time to speak,
further than to say that their members were appointed by the
House, not by the Speaker. From the accession of the Stuarts
to the outbreak of the Civil War, the standing committee of
privileges and elections maintained its place. Matters of reli-
gion and grievances were confided, now to select committees,
now to "grand committees," or, in modern parlance, committees
of the whole. The Parliament of 1621 added two new commit-
tees of the whole, one for matters of trade, the other for courts
of justice. With these additions the House of Commons com-
pleted its system, — a select committee of privileges and returns,
396 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
#
grand committees of religion, grievances, trade, and courts of
justice. For a time there are some variations, but in the third
Parliament of Charles I (1628), we find this system in full oper-
ation, and again in the Short Parliament and at the begining
of the Long ParJiament. At the Kestoration it was resumed,
as we shall see, and continued for more than a century and a
half to be the typical form of organization of a House of Com-
mons. Of the five committees mentioned four were indeed
committees of the whole. Yet the history of their develop-
ment has formed a proper part of our investigation because,
as will be seen later, all five were alike ancestors of the first
standing committees in American legislative bodies.
With the opening of the Long Parliament the importance
of the committees of the House of Commons, or of Lords and
Commons jointly, increased greatly, especially from the time
when the rupture with the King and the outbreak of civil war
threw executive business of great importance upon the Houses.
From this time on, and in the period of the Commonwealth, the
government of England was government by committees. But
the system was different from that hitherto existing. The
most important committees of the years from 1642 to 1656 were
the committee for the advance of money, the army committee,
the committee for taking the accounts of the Kingdom, the
sequestration committee, the committee of safety, the committee
of both Kingdoms or committee of Derby House, and the com-
mittee for plundered ministers, for removing obstructions
in the sale of delinquents' lands, for the relief of those who
surrendered on articles of war, for compounding with delin-
quents, for indemity, and for the sale of fee-farm rents or
crown lands.
The Barebones Parliament of 1653, characteristically, chose
not to revive the old scheme of committees, but made a system-
atic effort to arrange the business in classes and to confide
each to a select body. The result was a system of select
standing committees much resembling the modern American
plan. But Cromwell's Parliament of 1654 was of a more con-
servative disposition, and partially reverted to the " ancient
orders." With the second Parliament of the Protectorate
(1656-'58) we find the House of Commons, in the same conser-
vative spirit which inclined it to restore monarchical insti-
tutions, completely reviving the old system of committees.
Though it retains standing committees for Ireland and for
THE STANDING COMMITTEE SYSTEM JAMESON. 397
Scotland^ and for one or two financial matters, it institutes, as
Parliaments had done before the Civil War, a select committee
of privileges and returns, and grand committees of religion,
grievances, trade, and courts of justice. The same course is
pursued by Eichard Cromwell's Parliament and, in part, by
the Convention Parliament of Charles II. From the meet-
ing of his second Parliament in 1661 down to the year 1832,
with scarcely any exception, the House of Commons at the
beginning of each session appointed a number, generally from
one to three hundred, of its members to be a committee of
privileges and returns, and appointed committees of the whole
house for religion, grievances, trade, and courts of justice.
It was in the days of the later Stuarjbs that the parliamen-
tary system of committees made its transit from England to
the American shores. The subsequent history of the system
followed in the House of Commons has no bearing on Ameri-
can institutions, and there is no time on the present occasion
to relate it. Its story is a story of decline and neglect. If it
seems remarkable that this should be so, in view of the obvious
convenience of the standing committee as an instrument for
the speedy transaction of legislative business, the explanation
is not far to seek. England, during the century which fol-
lowed the Restoration, was gradually developing her system
of cabinet government. Now the English cabinet is essen-
tially an executive committee of the legislature, so organized
that, in each department of governmental activity, the work
preparatory to legislation is performed by a particular member
of this committee and his official subordinates. Such a system
makes less necessary the maintenance of standing committees
of the legislature, charged each with a particular branch of
the public business. In the House of Commons they did not
develop, after the reign of Charles II, beyond the stage which
they had reached in that reign. In fact, they receded from
that point. The ancient committee of privileges and elec-
tions continued to be appointed, and indeed is still appointed,
at the beginning of each session ; but it never meets. The
four grand committees have been, even as a matter of form,
discontinued since 1832.
It is time to turn to the history of the system in the Ameri-
can colonies. In New England, though committees were by
no means unknown, we do not find the system existing at any
time before the Revolution. The American system, borrowed
398 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIOl!?.
from Englaild, was developed in tlie colonial assemblies of
the middle and southern colonies, but earliest in Virginia and
Maryland. That it was borrowed from England is proved by
the fact that, in those colonies where it obtained its earliest
and fullest development, the names and functions of the com-
mittees resemble closely those of the five English committees
whose history we have been following. Particularly is this
the case in the Virginia House of Burgesses. In 1663 we
find existing there a committee of elections j in 1677 a com-
mittee of propositions and grievances, with a clerk having
a salary of £50 sterling. In that same year, and again in
1679, 1691, and 1697, there is mention of a committee for public
claims. The same committee appears, along with a committee
of elections and privileges and one of propositions and griev-
ances, in the single early manuscript journal which chance
has preserved at Eichmond, that of the session of 1693. All
through the sixty years preceding the commencement of the
printed journals of the Burgesses we catch glimpses which
assure us of a well developed system of standing committees,
plainly founded on the committee system of the House of
Commons. When the printed journals begin, in 1732, we fiud
already established a regular system of four standing commit-
tees, one for privileges and elections, one for propositions and
grievances, one for courts of justice, and one for public claims.
These continue to be found till the Eevolution. In 1742 a
committee for trade was added; in 1765 a committee for relig-
ion, completing the system upon strictly English lines.
The history of the institution in Maryland extends nearly
as far back as in Virginia. In 1678 we find the assembly
possessing a committee of privileges and elections and a com-
mittee of laws, in 1682 a committee of trade. In the autumn
session of 1683 it is '^ Voted that a Committee of priviledges and
Eleccons be Appoynted to enquire of such matters as are usually
enquired of by Committees of that kind," a form of phrase
which supports the theory of conscious borrowing. These
are from the early journals. Later the system came to consist,
with some differences from that of Virginia, of a committee of
elections and privileges, a committee of " aggrievances," and a
committee of accounts, with others less constantly.
Penn's frame of government (1682) provided for a division
of the council of Pennsylvania into four committees ; but this
seems not to have been carried out. The lower house also set
out with an intention of transactiug its business through stand-
I
THE STANDING COMMITTEE SYSTEM — JAMESON. 399
ing committees, after tlie manner of the House of Commons.
The first entry in its minutes is of the appointment of live
members to be a committee of elections and privileges. Six
others were named a committee for justice and grievances, and
it is declared that the rules of the body shall be modeled after
those' of the House of Commons (December, 1682). At the
beginning of the next assembly " the Speaker reads to the
House the orderly Method of Parliaments, and the Demeanour
of the Members thereof observed in England, which he recom-
mended to them as civil and good ; As also the Method observed
by the English in Committees." But in fact no system of stand-
ing committees appears in Pennsylvania until considerably
later (1722), after which we find in every session a committee
of public accounts and a committee of grievances, and after
1774 a committee of correspondence.
In Korth Carolina the imperfection of early record makes
positive statement difficult, but it appears that the legislature
in the early days of the eighteenth century had committees of
the whole upon elections, and upon propositions and grievances ;
that in 1733 it established select committees for the latter
matter and for public claims j and that by the time of the Eev-
olution its system included standing committees of privileges
and elections, propositions and grievances, public accounts, and
public claims. In the legislature of Kew York, always a small
body, though the committee of elections and the (select) com-
mittee of grievances occur so early as 1699, one finds few com-
mittees and no extensive system until 1737, when there appears
a system quite after the English model, with a select committee
of privileges and elections, and grand committees for griev-
ances, trade, and courts of justice. The assembly of Kew Jer-
sey, a still smaller body, was virtually without standing com-
mittees till the Eevolution. Respecting Delaware, South Caro-
lina, and Georgia the writer can at present make no state-
ments. But enough has been said to show that at the time of
the Revolution, and many years before the first session of the
First Congress, in 1789, the system of standing committees was
the regular and established system for the transaction of legis-
lative business in at least five, and those among the mos^
important of the American legislatures. Of the rest, those
which did not already have the system adopted it at a later
time under the influence of the example of the Federal legis-
lature until it became the universal plan of organization in
American legislative bodies.
XXVI.-GENEML JOSEPH MARTIN AND THE WAR OF THE
REVOLUTION IN THE WEST.
By PROF. STEPHEN B. WEEKS,
OF JOHNS HOPKINS UNIYEESITY.
S. Mis. 104 26
401
CONTENTS.
Page.
I. Introduction : Character and influence of struggles with
the Indians on national character; the Martin family a
type 407
II. Family, Birth, Early years : Friendship to Siimter and
Cleaveland 409
III. Thk First Settlement op Powell's Valley: Explora-
tions of Dr. Thomas Walker ; an old-time race for the Cher-
okee strip ; failure of the undertaking 412
IV. Martin a Farmer, and Removal to Hexry County,
Virginia 415
V. Martin and the Shawnee War of 1774 415
VI. Transylvania and the Second Powell's Valley Set-
tlement: Organization of the Transylvania Company;
slow movement westward of population; Martin under-
takes a settlement in 1775 ; made entry taker of Powell's
Valley ; settlement broken up by Indians 416
'"11. The Cherokees and the Revolution: Instigated by the
English; projected attacks revealed by Nancy Ward and
. defeated 420
VIII. Christian's Campaign Against the Cherokees in 1776:
Martin commands a company in the expedition 423
IX. The Treaty of the Long Island of Holston and Mar-
tin's Appointment as Indian Agent: Martin stationed
U at the Rye Cove fort and at Fort Lee; the treaty; made
Indian agent and major of volunteers 425
X. The King's Mountain Campaign: Martin's skill in keep-
ing the Indians quiet makes the expedition possible 427
XL Campbell's Campaign Against the Cherokees in 1780-'81 :
Martin holds independent command ; Campbell urges the
building of a fort on Tennessee and the placing of Martin
in command; Martin's expedition in April, 1781; a com-
missioner to treat with the Cherokees ; tories ; takes In-
dian chiefs to Richmond ; Martin a commissioner to treat
with Cherokees, Creeks, and Chickasaws 429
XII. The third Powell's Valley Settlement : The movement
urged by Col. Christian 436
XIII. Martin and the Expansion of Georgia : Martin's defense
of his course 439
XIV. The Treaty of Hopewell: Results of white encroach-
ments on Indian lands; Hopewell the beginning of a new
era ; Martin a commissioner ; terms of the treaty ; treats
with the Choctaws and Chickasaws ; dissatisfaction caused
by the treaty '^^^
404 ' CONTENTS.
Page.
XV. The State of Franklin: Causes of the secession from
North Carolina; also directed against Virginia; Martin
favors North Carolina ; is made brigadier-general of her
militia for the western district ; difficulty of his position ;
letters to Gov. Johnston and Col. Kennedy ; fall of the
State of Franklin 451
XVI. Martin as Agent of North Carolina and of the United
States : Difficulty of his position ; hostility of Sevier and
the party of encroachment to Martin; White made Super-
intendent of Indian Affairs ; Williamson's letter to Martin 456
on his failure
XVII. Martin's Cherokee Campaign of 1788: The Cherokees
become restless ; Martin made agent of the Cherokees and
Chickasaws for six months ; his summary of Indian Affairs;
the Chickamauga branch of the Cherokees, their history
and character; Martin leads an expedition against them;
results 460
XVIII. Martin and the Spaniards: Correspondence with Patrick
Henry on his letter to McGillivray; Henry's defense of
Martin's conduct; his conduct vindicated before the North
Carolina legislature ; unfortunate result of these charges. 465
XIX. Martin a Trader Among the Cherokees 469
XX. Martin in the Military Service of Virginia 470
XXI. Martin a Boundary Commissioner: The Virginia and
Kentucky boundary ; the Virginia and Tennessee bound-
ary 471
XXII. Estimate of Martin: Martin's services to Virginia and
North Carolina other than military ; his personal appear-
ance and character 472
XXIII. The Martin Family 474
PREFACE.
le following paper owes its existence, primarily, to the
enthusiasm of the late Lyman 0. Draper and to the courtesy of
the officials of the Wisconsin State Historical Society. While
collecting materials for his history of the border warfare and
border heroes of the United States Dr. Draper made several
visits to Col. William Martin, who was then still living in Smith
County, Tenn. He made Col. Martin's house his home, and at
his request Col. Martin began in 1842 an account of the career
of his father, Gen. Joseph Martin, and of many of the events
with which he was personally acquainted or knew at first hand.
His accounts were submitted to Dr. Draper from time to time,
who criticised them, pointed out what he thought were errors,
and asked more questions. The original of Col. Martin's account
has come to me from Mrs. Fanny M. Tate, of Montvale, Bed-
ford County, Ya. Its omissions have been filled in from the
original letters of Martin, Sevier, Blount, Henry, Christian,
Campbell, and others, and from the MS. narrative of Maj.
John Kedd, who served under Martin in Christian's camjDaign
in 1776, which are now in possession of the Wisconsin State
Historical Society.
Few of the charges to which *' reminiscences" are so fre-
quently liable can be brought against Col. Martin's narrative.
It is remarkably accurate. I have frequently doubted some
of his statements, but on tracing them back to an undoubted
authority have found that he was correct.
Some letters of Gen. Martin and others relating to his
career have been recently printed in the Calendar of Virginia
State Papers, and in the Life, Correspondence, and Speeches
of Patrick Henry. Others were printed in the American State
Papers, Indian Affairs. Quotations have been made from the
originals in all cases where they were accessible to me, but I
have added references to the places where such may be found,
if printed.
The local histories dealing with the subject have been used
only so far as was necessary to supplement the MS. accounts,
and their use has been indicated in the footnotes. When no
405
406 f PREFACE.
authority is given it will be understood that the statement is
based on the MSS., and when accounts differing from the MSS.
have been printed already I have followed the MSS. The map
of the territorial limits of the Oherokees accompanying Mr.
Charles C. Eoyce's history of the Cherokee Nation of Indians
has been of much service in the work.
I beg to express my thanks to Mrs. Fanny M. Tate for the
use of the MS. j to Messrs. R. G. Thwaites, secretary, and I. S.
Bradley, librarian of the Wisconsin State Historical Society,
for many courtesies shown mej to Mr. William Wirt Henry
for original letters of Gen. Martin; to Mr. U. A. Brock, of
Richmond, and the Hon. Walter Clark, editor of the Colonial
and State Records of North Carolina, for information concern-
ing his civil career.
;ENERAL JOSEPH MARTIN AND THE WAR OF THE REVOLUTION
IN THE WEST.
By Stephen B. Weeks.
I.— INTRODUCTION.
In writing tlie history of the struggle for independence we
are apt to keep our eyes to the foe on our Atlantic border and
to disregard the savage in our rear. They were an enemy more
dangerous to the development and growth of the American
people than any other ; one jealous of the encroachment of white
men on their hunting grounds, easily inflamed by emissaries
from the foe, first under the influence of the French and then
under that of the English, and who at all times wanted little
extra incentive to begin the work of death.
While one army was pressing to the front to meet the
English another was needed on the frontiers to meet the
savages. In the North and central West the struggle was
against the Iroquois and the Algonquins. It was conducted
by the nation and the success achieved was not individual
but national. In the Southwest the struggle was principally
against the Gherokees, kinsmen of the Iroquois. It was not
national but individual. This tribe offered sterner resistance
to the whites than any other. The war with them was longer
and more destructive, and defeat in the critical iDeriod of
1780-'81 would have been attended with the most lasting con-
sequences. This territory was won by the Americans, as their
Saxon ancestors had won the soil of England, by fighting inch
by inch.
The men who served in this advance guard of civilization,
fighters and pioneers, subduers of wild men and wild nature,
"suffered more and were rewarded less, perhaps, than any others
in any age or country." Their station was a peculiarly trying
one. They were subject literally to a constant call; constant
watchfulness is inexorably demanded against a savage foe.
Walter Bagehot, in discussing the formation of national char-
acter, shows how chance preponderance sometimes furnishes a
model, and how invincible attraction has then drawn men to
407
408 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
this model.* We have an excellent illustration of this thesis in
the career of Henry the Fowler and his companions, who, find-
ing a Slavic or Wendic people inhabiting what is now Germany,
maintained themselves against these heathen Wends in forti-
fied burgs like Branibor (Brandenburg), and finaUy conquered
what is now Germany for the Teutonic race. So, in the evolu-
tion and development of American character, the difficulties
incident to colonial life, the struggle with the wilderness and
with the savage, produced a type of men whose best examples
are to be found in the Indian fighter and backwoodsman of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. He is no longer with
us, for economic changes and industrial advance have given
the pioneer of to-day many and vast advantages over his pre-
decessor of the last century; but to him and to the difficulties
which he mastered is due no small part of the pluck and energy
of the American people.
The treatment which these pioneers have received at the
hands of posterity has varied as much as their individual
careers. One class, like Boone, Eobertson, Sevier, have had
their daring deeds told again and again to an admiring people.
Another class, like Bledsoe, Campbell, Christian, Martin, have
almost disappeared from view, although their work is hardly
less heroic than that of their more fortunate fellows. The most
obvious reason for this is that the materials for their personal
history were less accessible and more fragmentary in character.
Then, too, they occupied, if not less responsible, Jess exalted
stations in life. They were foundation stones. On the work of
these two classes the subsequent century of development has
been based, and the former should not be unduly exalted at
the expense of the latter.
Of this latter class of State builders no better type can be
found than the Martin family of Albemarle and later of Henry
County, Ya. The men were tall and well proportioned, ath-
letic and powerful, healthy and persevering, their powers una-
bated to old age; the women, not beautiful, but magnificently
handsome; the men intelligent, roving in disposition, born
fighters and utterly ignorant^of fear. To Gen. Joseph Martin,
their leader and representative, is due in no small measure the
check given the Oherokees in the Eevolution. It was largely
his diplomatic work that kept them quiet during the British
invasion of 1780-'81, in spite of the incitement of British agents
*' Physics and Politics, i, Sec. iv, p. 56.
Ip^
AR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST WEEKS. 409
and the encroachment of whites; this enabled the men of the
Watauga Settlement to strike a heavy blow for liberty at King's
Mountain which proved to be the beginning of the end. Gen-
eral Martin and his sous were also useful in the further reduc-
tion of the Cherokees and in the final planting of Tennessee.
II. — FAMILY, BIRTH, EARLY YEARS.
The Martin family, so far as we know, was from the middle
ranks of society, and of pure English ancestry.* The earliest
representative of whom we have record was William Martin, a
large merchant of Bristol, England. He was engaged in the
American trade, was a man of large estate and had three
children, George, Nancy, and Joseph Martin. Joseph was
the youngest child. While still a youag man, sometime during
the first quarter of the eighteenth century, he was furnished
by his father with a ship and cargo and sent by him as super-
cargo to Virginia in a vessel called the Brice to prevent him
from contracting an unsatisfactory English marriage. Here
young Martin met Susannah Childs, the daughter of a respect-
able and worthy planter, and descended from one of the oldest
families in the province, t He married her. This outraged the
father, who thought the son had married beneath himself, and
the son was disinherited. Somewhere about 1762, when Wil-
liam Martin was dead and his grandchildren in America were
coming to maturity, their uncle and aunt in England offered
to divide the paternal estate with them. Joseph Martin, the
son of Miss Childs, was selected to go to England to settle
the business. He secured passage en a certain vessel but
failed to arrive in time for sailing and was left behind. The
vessel was lost at sea and no further effort was made to get
the fortune.
Joseph Martin, the elder, did not return to England after
his marriage, but settled in Albemarle County, Va. Joseph
Martin the second, the third son, was born near Charlottesville,
in this county, in 1740. He was one of a family of five sons
"There is a family tradition that the name was originally LaMartine and
that the founder came over with the Conqueror. This legend is probably
worthless. It is possible that they were Huguenots. Certain it is that
the older members of the family called the name Mar-tine.
tShe was one of a large family, mostly of girls . From them have descended
a numerous offspring, including some of the Wallers, Caves, Lewises,
Macks, Overtons, Minors, Terrys, Childs, etc.
410 4MERICA.N HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
and six daughters, and, with two of the daughters, was of
superior mental ability. The elder Joseph married a second
time, lived unhappily, took to drink and died in Albemarle
County, Ya., about 1760, leaving a good estate. His first wife
is described as "a most amiable woman," while it is said that
her husband was "a perfect Englishman, possessing all the
arrogance and self-importance" characteristic of them as a race.
He was bold, self-willed, supercilious, with the highest sense
of honor.
When a boy Gen. Martin developed a character suggested
by the frontier life he led. He was overgrown, rude and
ungovernable. He ran away from school so much to spend
his time with idle boys that his education was very defective.
He was so reckless in disposition that his father, despairing of
governing him, bound him out as an apprentice at the carpen-
ter's trade 5 but this was too confining, so he ran away from
his master and in company with Thomas Sumter, afterwards
of South Carolina, joined the army at Fort Pitt. How long
they remained here or what part they played we do not know.
Sumter started home first and Martin on his return found his
friend in jail at Staunton for debt. Martin obtained permis-
sion to lodge with him all night and in the morning left him
his tomahawk and 10 guineas. With the aid of one or both
of these Sumter escaped. They were afterwards separated for
many years. They met when Martin was in the Virginia leg-
islature and Sumter in the Congress of the United States. The
latter handed the former 20 guineas in discharge of the debt
incurred so many years before.
Martin's father died about 1760, and he was left master of
himself with a small inheritance. In 1762 he married Sarah
Lucas, a woman who was poor but of superior qualities, with
remarkable administrative ability. He settled in Orange
County, but marriage did not bring with it reformation. He
continued his wild life. He was nominally engaged in farming
but was too restless for the plough. Imbued as he was with
the reckless spirit of the day, still, strange as it may seem, he
never took more than a social glass, was never drunk in his
life, and was not a profane man. But in the science of gam-
bling he was a proficient. He wasted his patrimony and became
involved in debt. But this career of debauchery was amended
to a certain extent. At the close of the French war he engaged
in trading for peltry. Six or eight months were spent among
rWAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS» 411
the Indians at a distance of 100 miles or more from the
frontier. They returned loaded with skins and furs, and their
profits in the traffic were very large. Martin followed this for
several years. These men were not traders only, but hunters
as well, and were frequently known as long hunters. In 1761,
II 1762, and 1763, a party of hunters went out under one Wallen,
I who gave name to a ridge east of PowelPs valley.* It is more
I than likely that Martin was in this company.
|: Martin's gambling seems to have become more profitable
' also, for he was a good deal of a bully, and made use of his
physical power to terrify opponents, and always kept sober
while feigning intoxication. With the profits from these
sources he made money enough to redeem himself from the
gambling debts that had been weighing him down.
Martin was not alone in this career of debauchery. He had
two companions who were as bad as himself, and who were
likewise destined to become men of mark in the Patriot army.
One of these was Thomas Sumter, later of South Carolina;
the other, Benjamin Cleaveland, one of the heroes of King's
Mountain, was reared in the county of Orange. He was of
the same temperament as Martin, the attraction between them
was strong, and they became boon companions. He also was
married, but they worked little, depending on hunting, gam-
bling, and trading. Their wives, better than they, admin-
istered home affairs while they thus spent their time in
riotous living. About 1767, Martin and Cleaveland put in a
field of wheat on Pig Kiver, in what is now Franklin County,
Va., but they were too indolent to fence it; there was some-
thing of a crop, friends and neighbors were invited to the reap-
ing, a fiddler and whisky were also provided, most of the
reapers got drunk, and the crop was never harvested.!
But after a while these prodigals came to themselves; they
saw it was necessary for them to separate if they desired
reform. Sumter went to South Carolina, Cleaveland removed
about 1769 to what is now Wilkes County, N. C.,| and Martin
settled down to a life more honest and more picturesque.
Martin and his companions were perhaps only a little more
reckless than the better classes of colonial society. Gambling
* Roosevelt : Winiimg of the West, i, 136.
t Draper : King's Mountain and its Heroes, 428.
tlhid., 428.
412 ^lERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
was indulged in recklessly by most of tlie upper class, who
usually added to it tlie horse race, the cock fight, and intoxi-
cation.
III. — THE FIRST SETTLEMENT OF POWELL'S VALLEY.
But the object of this paper is not to defend Martin or to
make apologies for his character, but to tell what he contributed
to the onward movement of English civilization. His contribu-
tion began with his attempts at the settlement of PowelPs Val-
ley.*
This valley consists of a long reach of unusually fertile land
on the eastern side of the Cumberland Mountains and embraces
Cumberland Gap. It lies mostly in what is now Lee County,
Va., but extends down into Olairborne and Hancock counties,
Tenn. The hunter and the trader have always preceded the
settler, and Martin had become acquainted with the section
during his expeditions among the Indians for peltry. It was
then about 100 miles beyond civilization, but he saw with the
unerring instinct of a backwoodsman that the time was not far
distant when the onward moving wave of emigration would
reach this region.
The first white man to visit this country seems to have been
Dr. Thomas Walker (1715-1794), of Virginia. In the year 1748
he made a journey of exploration through the region and gave
name to Cumberland Mountains and to Cumberland Gap in
honor of the Duke of Cumberland.! He visited the region
again in the spring of 1750 and has given us an interesting
account in a journal recently printed. He visited the same
section in 1768 and came into possession of a large tract of land
and determined on settling it. He made propositions to the
Kirtleys and to a party of which Martin was leader. The land
was exceedingly fertile and was considered a prize.
Then began a rush for this Cherokee strip which in pictur-
esque vividness and intensity of the efforts for success reminds
us forcibly of the struggle of "sooners" and others for the
Cherokee Strip that we have seen recently thrown open to civil-
ization. Fortunately we can give an account of the rush in
*Draper, following Haywood, thinks the valley was named for Ambrose
Powell, who was with Walker in 1750, possibly in 1748.
t Ramsey : Tennessee, 65.
''AR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 413
Martin's own words. He writes to a friend in Virginia, May
9,1769:*
I^H Having a few leisure hours, I embrace the opportunity of writing to you.
P^" Perhaps it may not be disagreeable to you to hear of our former travels,
as well as our present Station. The day I parted with you and my other
friends, with sorrowful hearts, and weeping eyes, I set forward on my
tedious journey. The weather proving tolerably good. I got to Stanton
in four days — completed my business there— got to Capt. Englishes on
New River, 14th of the month, being March, where I laid in a sufiQcient
stock of provisions, for our journey, (viz :) seed corn and ammunition etc.
I then sent the boys on under the care of my brother, and waited for Doct.
Walker, and my companion Capt. Hood, who came up 16th at night.
Next morning we started. Nothing material happened till we got to
Holston River, where we were informed, the day we left New River the
Kirtleys, with Capt. Rucker and Several others, came there and gave a
man five pounds to pilot them a road days journey nearer than the
road we were then going, which confused us very much. For the case
stood thus. If they got there first, they were all to have 1,000 acres of
land each, where they thought proper to take it. If we got there first,
we were to have 21,000 acres, where we chose, and they were not to inter-
fere with us. We immediately hired a pilot — took two of our best horses,
about one quart of flour, and pushed on as hard as interest and desire
could lead us, leaving the boys, to follow after. The third day to our great
mortification, we found we were lost — and after three days travel more,
over mountains — creeks — laurel — canebrakes etc. our days being spent
with hunger, gave out — ourselves and horses, very little better. We were
under the disagreeable necessity of resting part of two days. The 2nd day
I found the Hunters track about 5 miles from our camp. I hastened back
as fast as possible to tell the welcome news, to my companions. The next
day being the 24th, we set out, full of hopes once more. With much
difficulty I prevented my companions from discharging our pilot with
heavy blows. 26th, we got to our long desired place. April 1st the boys
got to our camp, which was on Saturday. Monday being the 3d. we then
began to work, and from then till now, there has been little else but eating
& confusion. As to our health, I need not mention it, you may be
assured of that yourself, after I tell you, we have eat and destroyed 23
deer — 15 bears — 2 bufl'aloes and a great number of turkeys. The 15th
April the Kirtleys got to the Valley, very well pleased with the land, till
we gave them a letter from Doct. Walker, that informed them if we got to
the valley first, we were to have 21,000 acres of land, and they were not
to interfere with us. They endeavored to prevail on us for a part of our
land, which we would not consent to. They then pushed home without
making any further search for land. The place we are now Settled on, is
the waters of Beargrass, called by the Hunters Powels River, about a mile
from the foot of a long ledge of mountain, called Cumberland, much resem-
*This letter, evidently the work of Martin, is unaddressed and was never
sent. Col. Martin thinks it was intended for Capt. William Simms, of
Albemarle County, Va. ; that some unknown cause prevented it from being
sent and that it was then preserved as a sort of diary.
414 ^ERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION,
bling our Blue Ridge, only cousiderably louger, and much, steeper, ruuning
tlie same course, by the account, three hundred miles ; and from Powels
Mountain about 7 miles. Powela Mountain is near the course of the South-
West mountain, ruuning the same course. From where we crossed it, for
nearly 6 miles is broken land. Then commences our rich Valley, which is
in length (by the hunters account) equal to the Mountains above men-
tioned. We have marked off in length about 10 miles — in width, some
places, a mile — some places more, some less, all very rich, and lies very
well, with Vast quantities of black Walnut nnd wild cherries. Great
signs of old Indian Lands. It lies out of all danger from water being
near 5 miles from Powels River. Very good Springs— Bold creeks, big
enough for Mills. — great quantities of corn, sufficient to support great
stocks for many years. I think considerably warmer here than with you,
(vast numbers of ticks and gnats). We had abundance of snow fell the
20th. of April, tho. very little lay. We had frost 4th. May, April 24th.
came several gentlemen from Culpeper, with negroes to Settle. Likewise
several gentlemen from Bedford, 3 gentlemen from Maryland, to get land
to settle 100 families.
It was the purpose of Martin to make a permanent settle-
ment here. But it does not appear that he had more than five
or six adventurers * with him. The stand which they made has
since been known as Martin's Station. It was on the Ken-
tucky road and about 20 miles north of Cumberland Gap.t
They put in corn and other field products, but in the latter part
of the summer the Indians broke up the settlement j the post
was abandoned and the party returned home.
There was little war between the whites and Oherokees from
the conclusion of the French war to the Eevolution. But
white hunters were intruding on their grounds and when they
complained to the Indian agent, he told them not to kill but to
rob the settlers. The PowelPs Valley settlement was one of
the first to suffer. It happened that Martin and his party,
after they had finished working their corn, set out to explore
Kentucky, of which they had heard. The Indians fell in with
them while they were on their way, made friendly overtures to
them, got into their good graces, and at a premeditated signal
seized most of their guns. The party thereupon returned from
Kentucky, and when they got back to PowelPs Valley found that
their establishment there had been robbed also and broken up.
So far as we know Martin made no further attempts at settle-
ment in connection with Dr. Walker, although the latter does
* This is Redd's statement which he derived from Martin. Col. Martin
thinks there were twenty or thirty.
tThis station is shown in old Tassel's map of his claims as presented to
the commissioners at Hopewell in 1785.
p
H WAI
V
I
WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 415
not seem to have despaired of regaining control. He writes
Martin in September, 1771, '^I have hopes that from the hon-
esty of the Cherokees your improvement will be taken within
the line." Martin let his project of settlement lie dormant
until the time of Henderson and company.
IV. — MARTIN A FARMER AND REMOVAL TO HENRY COUNTY, VA.
Martin now abandoned his western wanderings. He applied
himself to the soil and engaged as overseer to one of his
relatives by the name of Minor. Here he remained three years.
They seem to have been years of active industry and so far
improved his circumstances that he purchased a good tract of
land in that part of Pittsylvania County, which became Henry
in 1776. He removed to this in the fall of 1773. He established
himself on Smith Eiver in the northern part of the county.
Toward the close of his career he sold ail x)roperty here, removed
to the southern part of the county, and built a large residence
on Leatherwood Creek. He collected slaves around him and
from these homes as centers the Martin family of the next
generation went out,
v.— MARTIN AND THE SHAWNEE WAR OF 1774.
Up to this time we have seen Martin dealing with the Indians
in the capacity of explorer, trader, and adventurer. In 1774
the Shawnee war broke out. August 25, 1774, Lord Dun-
more commissioned Martin a captain of the Pittsylvania militia,
but it would seem that he served not as a captain, but as a lieu-
tenant under Abraham Penn. Penn's company was stationed in
Culbertson's Bottom, on Kew Eiver, one of the branches of
Kenhawa. The scouts were put by Col. Preston under Penn's
direction, but he does not seem to have been in the Bottom
at all, and in his absence Martin commanded ; as these, both
officers and privates, were select men, the giving the command
to Martin indicates the reputation he had already won as an
Indian fighter. Col. Preston writes Martin on October 12,
1774: '^I know you have made several long fatiguing scouts
with your men, for which I am much obliged to you. The pass
is important and I am fully satisfied you wiU do all you can to
guard it." Martin being thus engaged in scouting was not in
the great battle at Point Pleasant, at the mouth of the Great
Kenhawa, 10th October, 1774.*
* Col. Martin gives an account of this battle as derived in conversation
from Gen. Robertson, a participant. It differs in many respects from the
printed account.
416 4^ERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
VI.— TRANSYLVANIA AND THE SECOND POWELL'S VALLEY
SETTLEMENT.
After the battle of Point Pleasant and a further invasion of
their country the Shawnees relinquished all claim to the lands
south of the Ohio. The larger part of this territory had been
held by the Oherokees since the beginning of the century.
They were now anxious to sell. Daniel Boone had first set
out to Kentucky about May 1, 1769, and had been defeated in
Powell's Yalley in 1773, but still held to his pur^Dose of making
a settlement on Kentucky Eiver, and, being desirous of getting
the consent of the Oherokees, induced Ool. Eichard Henderson
and others of North Oarolina to make a treaty and a purchase
of the Oherokees to that effect. A company was organized for
this purpose in 1774. It consisted of Richard Henderson
and John Williams of Granville, William Johnston, James
Hogg, Thomas Hart, John Luttrell, and IJ^'athaniel Hart, of
Orange, while Leonidas Henly Bullock, of Granville, and David
Hart, of Orange, held half shares, making eight shares in all.
The company signed a treaty with the Oherokees March 17,
1775, at Sycamore Shoals on Watauga Eiver. By this treaty
for the sum of £10,000, paid in merchandise as was alleged,
the Indians gave up all the territory between the Kentucky
and Oumberland rivers. * The company took possession April
20, 1775. The settlement was named Transylvania; sur-
veyors and agents were appointed ; the machinery of govern-
ment was gotten into shape, and a delegate was sent to the
Oontinental Oongress. The authorities expressed their adher-
ence to the American cause, and asked to be received on the
same footing as the other American colonies, f
By this purchase the larger part of Kentucky passed into
the hands of the company. In Tennessee they secured in the
bend of the Oumberland Eiver a section of territory some 90
miles long and 12 wide which fell within Earl Granville's
domain. J Their line crossed again into Tennessee at Oumber-
land Gap and ran down to the Holston, thence 6 miles east of
the Long Island of Holston, to the line established October 18,
1770, thence north. The purchase included the southwest of
Virginia, and the whole of Powell's Valley.
* Ramsey : Tennessee, 116, 117.
t Colonial Records of North Carolina, x., 256, 273, 300, 323, 373, 382.
t Ibid., X., 323.
TAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 417
Population had flowed slowly in this direction because of
the hostility of the Indians. Fort Ohiswell, in Wythe County,
Ya., one of a cordon of forts established by Washington, was
the furthest south, was 30 miles west of the Blue Eidge, and
at the southern extremity of the great valley lying between
the ridge and the Alleghany Mountains. The interval between
it and the ridge was poor, mountainous, and thinly inhabited.
The country south of the garrison and west of the ridge is
mountainous, and was then uninhabited. The i)overty of the
section is illustrated by the name "Flour Gap," given to the
break in the ridge where the boundary between North Carolina
and Virginia crosses it, and through which they packed flour
on horses from the other side to Fort Chiswell. *
At the end of the French war the pent-up settlements began
to expand. From Fort Chiswell toward the westward there
was a pretty open country, bordered on the northeast and
southwest by mountains some 50 to 80 miles in width, and
comprised largely in the present counties of Wythe, Smyth,
and Washington, Ya., and in Sullivan, Carter and Washing-
ton, Tenn. By the Eevolution population had reached the
Long Island of Holston Eiver t. It was already in the Watauga
country, and was extending upon the tributaries of French
Broad. These settlers had, in general terms, the Cherokees
to the southward, the Shawnese to the northward.
It followed then that when Martin and a company of adven-
turers made a stand at Martin's Station, in 1775, they were
still some 50 miles in advance of the most extreme frontier set-
tlement on Clinch Eiver, and lay on the road to Kentucky, 120
miles distant. From the account given of this enterprise by
John Eedd, who was one of the participants, I am
* Howe : Historical Collections of Virginia, 514.
tTliere had been no fort built here in 1758, as Haywood states (Ed.
1891, 41), and as Ramsey (53) and Royce (map) state after him. At that
time Fort Chiswell was the extreme frontier. Col. William Martin spent
the greater part of his life in this section ; he was at the Long Island of
Holston Fort for two or three years, and never heard of the older one. He
warns Draper that Hay wood must be used with care. On the first appear-
ance of his book "it was read only to be laughed at." Martin was either
directly or indirectly acquainted with a good many of the events that
Haywood describes and knew all of the traditions at first hand. Hay-
wood did not leave North Carolina for Tennessee until 1806, and published
his books in 1823. We see then that the weight of testimony must be
given to Martin.
S. Mis. 104 27
418 J^ERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
inclined to think that it was first undertaken by Martin inde-
pendently of Henderson and company, or, at any rate, in
anticipation of them. Redd says the company was raised in
Martin's neighborhood, in Henry County, Ya., immediately
after Martin's return from the Shawnee war ; that they set
out on Christmas day, 1774, and arrived in the valley early
in January. They were sixteen or eighteen in number, and
were provided with all necessary utensils for settling. They
fixed on the spot he had occupied in 1769, built several strong
cabins, and made them part of a stockaded fort. They fenced
in with brush and rails a large part of an old field and made
a crop of corn. In the fall William Priest, with eight or ten
men, built a fort a few miles above Martinis, and William
Mumps built one 20 miles off, where Lee Court House now is
(1850), and prepared ground for cultivation.*
The Transylvania Company was anxious to secure Martin's
services because of his knowledge of the country, and, as a
special favor, granted him (January 20, 1775,) all the lands he
had already marked off or should give a memorandum of on
that day. The preference was to be given also to his party,
and we may conclude that the two efforts were soon consoli-
dated. The company made him its attorney for the transaction
of its business and entry taker for the Powell's Valley division
of the purchase.
His instructions in regard to the sale of lands were very
exact: (1) Land was to be sold to such only as should make
corn during the year 1775, and who seemed " industriously
inclined to become an inhabitant and promote the felicity of
the whole community." To such as made corn in 1775 they
promised 500 acres each and 250 acres more for each tithable
person they should bring with them. (2) Martin was to sell
land to no one who came after the spring was over without
further orders j (3) and he had power to determine and settle
all matters of dispute respecting the lands.
Haywood (Ed. 1891, 515) notes that John Williams, another
member of the Transylvania Comi)any, gave Martin instructions
in regard to the terms on which lands were to be sold up to
June 1, 1776. We may assume that this also referred to the
Powell's Yalley division. Purchasers were allowed to take up
640 acres for themselves and 320 for every taxable member of
their family. They were required to pay for entry and survey,
* Redd's narrative.
WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 419
$2 J for surveying and a plat, $4; for a deed with the plat
annexed, $2; and to the proprietors, when the title was
completed, at £2 10s. per hundred acres, with annual quit rent
of 2s. per hundred acres, commencing in 1780. Surveys were
to be run to the cardinal points, unless rivers or mountains
rendered it inconvenient, and on a navigable river were to be
not more than one- third longer than wide ; on such water courses
they must extend 2 poles back for 1 in front, and surveys
approaching within 80 poles of each other were to join.
Great efforts were made to prevent a conflict with the Indians,
and it was the desire of the company that no settlements be
made lower down than Cumberland Gap. Henderson writes
Martin from Kentucky, July 20, 1775 : "Am extremely sorry
for the affair with the Indians on the 23rd of last month. I
wish it may not have a bad effect, but will use my endeavors
to find out who they were and have the matter settled. Your
spirited conduct gives me great pleasure — Keep your men in
heart if possable, now is our time, the Indians must not drive
us — depend upon it that the Chief men and Warriors of the
Cherokees will not countenance what their men attempted and
will punish them — pray my Dear Sir dont let any person settle
lower down the valey I am affraid they are now too low & must
come away I did not want any person to settle yet below
Cumberland Gap — * * * "
The Yalley settlement seems to have been treated with
peculiar consideration. In the same letter Henderson says :
"We did not forget you at the time of making laws, your part of
the country is too remote from ours to attend our Convention
you must have Laws made by an Assembly of your own, I have
prepared a plan which I hope you'l approve but more of that
when we meet which I hope will be soon f but whether Martin
succeeded in putting into operation the form of local govern-
ment suggested by Henderson, we have, unfortunately, no
information. The post was held with much difficulty. In the
spring of 1776 the men were in need of provisions and became
discouraged. The settlers at Priest's and Mumps' forts had
already returned, and so had a part of their own men. Martin
had returned to Virginia in May to get reenforcements. In
June he sent them an express announcing the beginning of the
Indian war and called them in . Thus en ded the second attempt
to settle Powells Yalley. The third was made in 1783.
420 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
VII.— THE OHEROKEES AND THE REVOLUTION.
On the 9tli of October, 1775, the Virginia Committee of
Safety made Joseph Martin, gentleman, a captain of the
Pittsylvania militia; with the outbreak of the Eevolution and
the increasingly threatening attitude assumed by the Ohero-
kees, the real life work of Gen. Martin begins. Before this
time we have seen him in the triple capacity of explorer,
pioneer, and soldier; but his great work, his lasting, but
hitherto unrecognized, service to American independence, was
to be rendered as Indian agent among the Oherokees.
As we have already seen, the Oherokees were the most
important of the Southern Indians. They belonged to what
has been called the Appalachian family. The other members
of this family were the Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws, and
Seminoles, who were themselves an offshoot of the Creeks.
During the Eevolutionary period none of these savages came
into such direct contact with the whites as did the Oherokees,
aud it is on the dealings with them that the fate of the
Eepublic, in a large measure, depended. They were for that
reason more important than the Iroquois. The latter served
only as the allies of the British; when the British were con-
quered so were they; with the Oherokees it was the reverse,
the British were allies, and not until the conquest of the
Indians were the colonists safe.
The relations between the whites and Oherokees had been
various. In 1721 Governor Nicholson, of South Carolina, made
a treaty with them. In 1730 Sir Alexander Cummings was
sent to treat with them, and seven of their headmen visited
England. Adair* says that about 1735 they had 64 towns
aDd 6,000 fighting men; but many of them were carried off in
the next few years by smallpox. Their relations with the
English were not always the same. They were constantly
exposed to the emissaries of the French. The French Broad
River recalls in its name the time when this territory was still
in debate, but Governor Glen, of South Carolina, managed to
keep them generally quiet. In 1753 he had a conference with
them in Charleston. In 1756 Fort Loudon was built as a
defence to both English and Indians against the French; t
''Adair : History North American Indians, 227.
t Fort Loudon was built in their country " in a town called Tellico, on
tlie south bank of the main Tennessee River and 120 miles from the Sen-
neca Garrison, the whole interval Indian settlements. This is the Fort
''AR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 421
'but in 1760-^61 tliese began a destructive war against the
southern colonies; after their war with the English they were
at war with the Creeks and Chickasaws and were defeated by
both.
In the matter of language there were two divisions of the
Jherokees, Otari andErati; as Adair calls them (226), Otarre
and Ayrate. But political divisions did not follow linguistic
lines. There were three groups of Cherokee towns, upper,
lower, and middle. The upper towns were on the branches
of the "easternmost river of the great Mississippi," the Ten-
nessee or Cherokee Eiver, and its branches. These were the
Overhill Cherokees and were chiefly Otaris. The lower towns
were the least important; they were inhabited by Eratis and
lay in the flat lands of upper South Carolina and Georgia, on
the headwaters of the Savannah, Tugaloo, and Keowee. The
middle towns, larger than either of the others, lay among the
hills and waters and were shifting in boundaries.* The bonds
between these divisions were loose, as they were between the
towns ; the nation could not stop a town from going to war, if
it desired, nor could the town stop its young men from com-
mitting ravages. They had made some progress in civiliza-
tion, lived by agriculture to a certain extent, and had stock.
It is a curious fact, which has often been commented on, that
from the Blue Eidge westward to the Tennessee and Ohio, the
country, although surrounded by powerful tribes, contained
no extensive settlements. In Indian times the Cumberland
was known as the Shawnee Eiver and the Tennessee as the
Cherokee Eiver. The country between was occupied by none,
because none could defend it. It was used as a hunting ground
by white and red men alike. And in this no man^s land was
Loudon spoken of by Haywood, but not on the north bank of Little
Tennessee as he says [new edition, 44]. For Little Tennessee empties
in a long way above. The remains of this Garrison I have seen more than
fifty years ago. The walls were of Brick, much fallen and mouldered,
when I saw it. It was Garrisoned, with 200 men, commanded by Capt.
Watts, the father of the notorious John Watts, who afterwards so dis-
tinguished himself in the frontier wars." When the fortunes of victory
again turned in favor of the French, Fort Loudon was besieged and its
garrison forced to surrender. They were allowed to return to Fort
Senneca. They started and were massacred the same night (Martin MSS.),
Phelan, p. 11, and other historians differ radically from this.
* See Adair : History North American Indians, 226 ; J. H. Logan : History
Upper South Carolina, 206, and Roosevelt, Winning of the West, i, 55.
422 AlViERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
the great struggle between English civilization and Indian
savagery to be fought out.
In 1769 the expansion of Virginia had carried settlers to the
Watauga 5 the battle of the Alamance sent others there from
^N'orth Carolina two years later j in 1776 there were white set-
tlers at the Long Island of Holston. The Eevolution also sent
into the wilderness many refugees who fled from the East to
escape service in the American armies. Many were Tories,
others thieves and murderers. Their presence, together with
that of many settlers who had come from better motives, made
the savages suspicious and jealous. They were incited to open
hostility by the action of the British authorities.
At the beginning of the Eevolution, John Stuart, the British
superintendent for the Southern Indians, was instructed by
the War Office to secure the alliance of the savages in the
coming struggle. He sent his deputies, Alexander Cameron
and Henry Stuart, to incite them. ISTaturally suspicious of the
whites who were encroaching on their territory, little fuel was
needed to light the torch of war. A talk with the Indians was
intercepted which assured Cameron that they Avere ready to
attend him and massacre all the back settlers of the Carolinas
and Georgia, without distincion of age or sex.* The further
programme of the English was to land an army in West Florida,
march it through the Creeks to the Chickasaw Nation ; five hun-
dred warriors from each were to join them j they were to pass
up and take North Carolina and Yirginia in the rear; another
army was to appear on the coast, and between these two mill-
stones were the States to be crushed.t
Had it been i3ossible to carry out this programme the South
would have been conquered. The British succeeded in arous-
ing the Cherokees. Early in 1776 they began a devastating
war on the whole frontier. One party attacked and broke up
the second PowelFs Yalley settlement in June, 1776, and
another under the Little Carpenter { made an onslaught against
South Carolina and the southern part of North Carolina.
Their projected attack on what is now northern Tennessee
was revealed to the whites through Nancy Ward, who, on
this occasion, nobly did more than the work of a Pocahon-
* Ramsey: Tennessee, 143; see also Roosevelt,
t Ramsey, 160-163, quoting Stedman's American War.
t Colonel Martin thinks the Little Carpenter was one of the chiefs who
had accompanied Dr. Walker to England.
[WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 423
tas. There were liviug at this time among the Indians two
white men, William Faulin (Ramsey calls him Fallin), a horse-
thief who had fled to the Indians and had married a wife
there, and Isaac Thomas, a trader. These men, inspired by
Nancy Ward, stole away from the Indians, traveled 120 miles,
and gave warning to the whites. Kow why did Nancy Ward
betray the plans of the Indians? She was a half-breed and
being nearly allied to some of the chiefs, had in this way
gotten their secrets. She was the mother of Betsy Ward,
whom we find living with Gen. Martin the next year as his
wife. We do not know when this relation began. It is very
reasonable to suppose that she already knew Gen. Martin well
as he had traveled much among the Indians and already felt
great interest in him, if he was not yet connected with her
family. I think we may safely conclude that the revelation
was directly or indirectly due to his influence.
KThe Indians were under Dragon Oanoe and had 700 (Martin
MSS.) or 800 men (Shelby). Their plan was to divide, one
party was to attack the Watauga settlement, the other the
settlers in the fork of the Holston and thence proceed to Vir-
ginia.* But the message of Nancy Ward had done its work;
five companies containing 176 men of North Carolina and Vir-
ginia troops, but mostly Virginians, rendezvoused at Eaton's
Station, 6 miles north from the Long Island of Holston on the
Fort Chiswell road. The Indians trusted to their superior
numbers and came rushing on but were defeated. This was
on July 20, 1776. The other division of Indians was repulsed
by Robertson and Sevier and the first move in the British
policy was checkmated, t
VIII. — christian's campaign against THE CHEROKEES IN
1776.
Martin was not present in the battle of the Long Island Flats
of Holston. This occurred soon after the break up of the sec-
ond Powell's Valley settlement and he had returned to his home
* Ramsey: Tennessee, 151 et seq.; Draper: King's Mountain, 420.
t See Ramsey's Tennessee, 151. Dragon Canoe was not killed as stated
by Phelan, 43. Roosevelt says that the whites were superior in numbers
on this occasion and animadverts severely on those historians who are
consciously or unconsciously exaggerating the number of Indians. Royce,
puts the battle on the south side of the river on his map.
424 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
in Virginia to raise volunteers for the Indian war. There was
now to be a general movement against the savages by Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Col. William
Christian commanded the Virginia troops, Gen. Griffith Ruth-
erford those of North Carolina, and led them against the
Overhill Cherokees. Those of South Carolina were under Gen .
Andrew Williamson and marched up into southwest North
Carolina. Here they fell into an ambuscade below Franklin,
lost a few men, but recovered and inflicted some chastisement
on the Indians. There was not perfect cooperation between
the commanders. Rutherford marched in July and cooperated
with Williamson. The troops of Christian rendezvoused at the
Long Island of Holston in August and were here joined by a
company of some 50 men raised in Pittsylvania for six months
by Martin, who had been chosen captain. They were stationed
here some six weeks, and a part were engaged in erecting a
fort. Others came in until they amounted to 1,800 or 2,000 in
number. (Martin MSS.)
Col. Christian writes Governor Henry from Six-Mile Camp,
6 miles from Fort Patrick Henry, October 6, 1776: "I shall
march in less than an hour, and take with me thirty days'
flour and seventy days' beef; I hope to cross Broad River the
15th instant, where it is most likely I shall be attacked, or
meet with proposals of peace. The men who have fled from
the towns say that the Indians will surely fight desperately,
which they promised Stuart, the King's superintendent to do;
and Cameron, his deputy, who remains amongst them is daily
encouraging them to defend their country against a parcel of
rebels. * * *"
Col. Christian followed the great Indian war path, crossing
the Holston, the French Broad and the Little Tennessee, to
the Indian towns to the southwest. The Indians had 1,000
warriors, and it was thought resistance would be offered at the
French Broad. Every precaution was had to prevent a sur-
prise. A party was sent below to cross at another ford, and,
on the next day, another division of 600, with Martin's com-
pany in front, crossed at the usual fording place where the
attack was expected. On this occasion two of the men were
sick, but insisted on going with their company. Martin
stripped himself to his shirt, took one of the men on his back
and forded the river to an island in the middle at the head of
I^AR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 425
he division. Then he went back for the other.* When the
livision got across the river it was found that the enemy had
fled.
They remained several days at the towns and a considerable
number of Indians came in to sue for peace. Those that sur-
rendered were protected, but the towns of those who refused
were destroyed, together with all their stock and other prop-
erty. The troops then returned to the Long Island of Holston
after making provision for a treaty at the island during the
next summer.
IX. — THE TREATY OF THE LONa ISLAND OF HOLSTON AND
martin's APPOINTMENT AS INDIAN AGENT.
On the return of the army it was disbanded, except a few
companies stationed on the frontiers. Captain Martin com-
manded one of these, and we find him stationed during the
winter and spring of 1777, under Major Bledsoe, at Eye Cove
B. Clinch, about 8 miles from the mouth of the north fork
and I mile from the stream on the west side. A fort had been
built here some time before by Isaac Crisman. While they
were gone to the Indian wars, Crisman and two of his family
were killed by the Indians. The ijresence of Martin tended
to restore confidence in the settlers. In April, 1777, he was
transferred to Fort Lee, situated just above the mouth of Big
Limestone on the frontiers of Washington County, Tenn.,f and
while here seems to have lost a part of his men.
The three campaigns against the savages in 1776 had suc-
ceeded, to a large extent, in breaking their power. They sued
for peace. A separate treaty was held with them at DeWitt's
Corner by the authorities of South Carolina and Georgia, and,
on July 20, 1777, a similar treaty was held by the representa-
tives of ^orth Carolina and Virginia at the Long Island of
Holston. As we have seen this was itself on the frontiers and
150 miles from the Indian settlements. It seems to have been
the program of the whites to terrify the savages with a show
offeree. Eedd, one of the participants, says there were about
two thousand white people present, most of whom we may
presume were soldiers. Captain Martin was there with his
company. Thereweresome four hundred savages. They relin-
quished their title to a considerable tract of territory, includ-
* Redd's Narrative.
Putnam, 51, says that Fort Lee was at Watauga.
5
426 fAMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
ing the Long Island. This island was to remain a neutral
ground, and no blood was under any circumstances to be shed
here. They agreed to expel the British agent and to receive
agents from the States instead.*
James Kobertson was thereupon made agent for ^N'orth
Carolina. He resided r.t Ohota and continued to serve in this
capacity until his removal to Cumberland in 1779. The reputa-
tion which Captain Martin had made as an Indian lighter and
his knowledge of Indian character now stood him in good stead,
and on November 3, 1777, he was commissioned by Governor
Henry agent and superintendent of Cherokee Indian affairs
for the State of Virginia. He was to reside within the nation,
attend to and direct the affairs of the State with the savages,
endeavor to maintain peace, to counteract the wiles of the
British, and make reports to the governor. Captain Martin took
up his residence on the Long Island of Holston,t and built a
stone house to receive the government supplies. He continued
to occupy this difficult and dangerous post in various capacities
until 1789. These twelve years were the most important in
his career.J
There seems to be little worthy of note in 1778. Martin was
at his post and was discharging his regular duties; population
was extending westwards and was nearing the present Knox-
ville, as we learn from land entries which were being made, at
the rate of one hundred a month; the Indians were chaffing,
from time to time killed a number of people, and in 1778 a
committee of the North Carolina legislature thought it neces-
sary to raise a body of four hundred militia to protect the
western frontiers of that State.
February 17, 1779, Martin was appointed major of a battal-
ion of volunteer militia about to be raised " with a design to
attack that part of the Cherokee Indians' towns that is attached
to the interest of Britain." Shelby made a campaign against
*Tlie articles of the treaty and some account of it may be found in Hay-
wood's Tennessee, new ed., 501-514.
t The fact that Martin, although agent for Virginia, took up his residence
on the Long Island of Holston, which was within the bounds of North
Carolina, may cause surprise. Governor Shelby, of Kentucky, is authority
for the statement that by common consent the settlers north of Holston
adhered to Virginia and were governed by its laws ; those south of it to
North Carolina, but were governed by laws of their own making.
tHis pay was 20 shillings a day while among the Indians, and 10 shil-
lings when at Williamsburg.
Ie Chickainaugas this year, and it is probable that Martin
IS with him, but we have no direct testimony to that effect.
OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST WEEKS. 427
X. — THE KING'S MOUNTAIN CAMPAIGN.
During a part of this period the figure of Major Martin
rises into national importance and his work gives him an
enduring place among the ^' heroes of '76." As Indian agent
it was his duty to act as mediator between the whites and the
Indians. He was to see that each kept the terms of the treaty
of the Long Island of Holston. This was a delicate duty, for
the onward moving wave of civilization cared to recognize the
rights of the Indian only so long as it suited its purpose. He
had also to counteract the influence of British agents, who
still hung threateningly on the borders of the settlements.
Expelled by the treaty, they took refuge with the southern
division of Oherokees under Dragon Oanoe, at Ohickamauga.*
From this point they continued to penetrate the northern
division. Martin once met the British agent in the nation
and succeeded in having him expelled from the country. We
can not estimate the amount of terror and suffering which the
agent, by his tact and energy, kept from the doors of the pio-
neers. It is hard to put a proper estimate on the services
thus rendered the American cause in the darkest hours of the
Eevolution. But the British agent knew how to appreciate
them. Once he heard that Martin was in the upper towns and
sent a white fellow named Gray, with ninety Indians, to take
him, dead or alive. One of the Indians was sent forward to
shoot him, but Martin appeared heavily armed, and the terri-
fied savage returned with the Marius-like reply, " If you want
him killed you may do it yourself, for he looks dreadful."
Thus did Martin run a constant risk of assassination ; but
without this risk he would have failed in his mission. It was
often necessary for him to go to the nation, and he took his
life in his hand to do it. But his relations with the half-breed
Betsy Ward induced the Indians to adopt him as a member of
their tribe and won him friends there. I^ancy Ward, her
mother, was a woman of the highest rank, of marked ability
and great influence. Her son and her brother were both dis-
tinguished warriors. When on his missions for the settlers
or when trying to meet the machinations of the British, Mar-
* Ramsey : Tennessee, 183.
428
f AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
tin always felt safe if he could reach this family, for they were
sure to protect him, and the service thus rendered alone offers
itself in paliation of the obliquity of his conduct.*
Martin being thus engaged in diplomacy with the Cherokees
was not present at the battle of King's Mountain. We have
seen that it was a well-established part of the British policy to
keep the Indians excited. It was also on this western country
that Washington relied should matters come to the worst.t
But it was difficult to draw troops from these quarters for the
regular armies, for with their departure the frontiers were ex-
posed to the savages. Col. Shelby had been unwilling to take
the whole force of Sullivan and Washington counties across
the mountains for the Indians were threatening an uprising,|
and Col. Campbell writes Gates under date of September 3,
1780, that the Indians were harassing their frontiers and pleads
this a reason for not joining him. The hopes of the patriots
were already drooping from the defeat of Gates at Camden j
Savannah and Charleston were in the hands of the British;
Georgia and South Carolina were conquered; the enemy, with
exultation in his heart, was moving northward to the conquest
of North Carolina and Virginia. This was the critical moment
of the Eevolution. The fortunes of the young republic were
in the balance; had Martin failed at this juncture to quiet the
savages, a second and more terrible Indian war would have
been the result; then the overmountain men who gathered
their clans for a blow at the British and Tories at King's Moun-
tain could not have led them there. They must needs have
kept themselves at home to defend their own firesides. This
might have made, and probably would have made, a change in
the course of the war. When Ferguson fell and the Tories
were routed at King's Mountain, and when Cornwallis was sent
reeling back from Guilford Court-House to Wilmington, the
South had already been won and Yorktown was simply a
matter of time.
And the correctness of this claim is further shown by the
fact, that when ^orth Carolina, after rewarding Shelby and
* In a battle at Rye Cove, on Clinch River, between Christian's cam-
paign of 1776 and the treaty of 1777, Martin's company had been attacked
by Indians under this son, who was known as the Little Fellow, and
these two men had by accident been brought into personal conflict. They
had thus learned to respect each other.
tC. Campbell: History of Virginia (1860), 589.
t Ramsey: Tennessee, 227.
w
OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 429
I
Sevier by presenting each a sword and a pair of pistols for
their gallantry, called on them by name in February, 1781, to
again take the overmountain men into the field for the support
of the Union; they were no longer able to do so. They had an
Indian war on their hands and could not leave their homes.*
XI. — CAMPBELL'S CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE CHEEOKEES.
1780-'81.
King's Mountain was a double victory. It broke the power
of the Tories and thus undermined the power of the savages.
Martin succeeded in keeping the Oherokees quiet up to and
through the King's Mountain campaign, but he could then
restrain them no longer. All efforts were made to win their
favor. A proposition was made for the chiefs to visit Con-
gress, and Martin presented them medals from Congress, but
these came too late. The savages had come to a treaty with
the Bi^itishjt they were to make war on all Carolina and Vir-
ginia; a part of the traders were to be murdered, the others
made prisoners; the prisoners and stolen horses were to be
carried to Georgia. They began annoying the whites by for-
aging parties that stole horses and did other damage; it was
winter and the difficulties of the settlers were great, but the
miseries of the Indian war of 1776 came back to them and
urged them on. A campaign was organized and carried on
from Washington County, Va. It was commanded by Col.
Arthur Campbell and not by Maj. Martin, as Haywood states. f
Martin joined the expedition with an independent command,
from Sullivan County. This consisted of some 300 mounted
men, the Watauga men under Sevier were about 300, and
there were 100 from Washington County, Va. They set out
about the middle of December and rendezvoused on the north
side of the French Broad.
Sevier and the Watauga men went on before, crossed the
French Broad, fell in with a party of Indians, killed a num-
ber and then retreated to an island in the river where they
awaited the arrival of the main army. Campbell found them
in want. Their precipitate action was condemned as it gave
* See Phelan's Tennessee, 62.
t Calendar of Virginia State Papers, i, 446.
tPhelan, Tennessee, 63, attributes this whole campaign to the leadership
of Sevier, and Roosevelt gives much more to him than the official report
will justify.
430 • AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
warning to the enemy before tlie army was in a position to act
effectively.
After crossing the French Broad the army made a forced
march toward the Tennessee as the success of the expedition
seemed to depend on their reaching the opposite bank in
safety. They had word that the Indians had obstructed the
common fording place and would oppose their passage. The
river was successfully passed at Timotlee. Martin came near
being drowned in attempting to swim his horse over, and the
Indians fled. They captured Chota and found a supply of
provisions there. On Christmas day Maj. Martin went out
with a detachment to find the route the enemy were fol-
lowing. He surprised a party of Indians, took 1 scalp, and
17 horses loaded with goods. Other parties were sent out
in various directions to destroy the towns and provisions of
the Indians or to scatter their war parties. On the 28th, Col.
Campbell moved the whole force to Raiatee on Tellico River,
and the next day set out for Hiawassee, 40 miles distant, hav-
ing left a garrison at Raiatee under Maj. Gilbert Christian.
Here they found that the Indians, with McDonald, the British
agent, and some Tories, were awaiting them at Chistowee, 12
miles further on. The Watauga men refused to go further,
but the others pushed on, and on reaching Chistowee found it
deserted also. The Indians had left almost all their corn and
other provisions, many of their agricultural implements, and
all their heavy household furniture, with a part of their stock
of cattle, horses, and hogs. It had been expected that they
would have defended these towns obstinately, for the Chicka-
maugas had removed here in 1779, but such was not the case.
The army then returned. They had killed 29 men and taken
17 prisoners, mostly women and children. They destroyed
the towns of Chota, Seitego, Tuskeego, Chilhowee, Toque,
Micliqua, Raiatee, Sattogo, Tellico, Hiawassee, and Chistowee.
These were all principal towns. They destroyed also some
small towns and several scattering settlements which con-
tained not less than 1,000 houses, 50,000 bushels of corn, and
large quantities of other kinds of provisions. No place in the
Overhill country remained unvisited except Telassee, a scat-
tering settlement in the neighborhood of Chickamauga, and
Calogee, on the sources of the Mobile. During the whole
expedition but a single man lost his life. Two others were
wounded.*
* Report.
I
TAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST ^WEEKS. 431
The expedition was a valuable one. It took the whites into
le center of the Indian country and showed them that their
icied security from the whites was false. The smoke of their
[urning towns was of much more value as an argument than
)nferences and threats.
During this expedition Maj. Martin rendered valuable ser-
ice. His men were mounted, were acquainted with the coun-
ty, and were employed on special expeditions in scouting and
btrolling. We have seen that he held an independent com-
land, although in theory under Ool. Campbell. This was the
lore allowable because of the Indian tactics and the way of
leeting these. In this warfare those officers were the best
rho fought the best. They were leaders rather than com-
manders j if they failed to lead they were cashiered, not by
)urtmartial, but by the public voice. A little incident will
lustrate the results of this military etiquette. On one part
the trip the army was straightened for provisions. Kancy
'ard agreed to furnish beef and had some cattle driven in.
^ol. Clark, of Sevier's party, came along met the escort with
le cattle, pretended they had captured them and slaughtered
lem for their own use. When Martin heard of it he drew his
sword, called to his men to follow, and took the whole of the
beef. The matter ended with a personal fight between Martin
and Clark.
Campbell recognized clearly the necessity of saving the ter-
ritory just conquered to the whites by erecting a fort within
it and putting a man of strength and character in charge. He
writes to Col. George Muter from Washington County, Ya.,
January 16, 1781:
* * * Havingmentionedit to Ms Excellency, the Governor, as a neces-
sary measure for to establish, a post on the Tennessee in order to secure
our late advantages in the Cherokee country, I beg leave to say something
to you, Sir, further on that subject, as I am certain the advantage of the
measure to America is such, that no time ought to be lost in having it
accomplished.
The spot I would fix on is the point of the confluence of the Tennessee
and Holstein, There a good stockade with some outworks can be con-
veniently built, and effectually supplied and supported from the country
above on the Holstein. Part of the garrison ought to be regular souldiers,
and the officer that commands the whole ought to be an active and intrepid
man who would keep up an exact discipline.
My experience of Maj. Joseph Martin and his acquaintance in that
country, makes him the most proper man I know of. The utility of the
post would be such that it would be giving us certain possession of the
432 i/kMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Cherokee country now conquered, or may [be] ceded to usj will keepthat
nation always at our mercy and prevent our enemies from sending emis-
saries among them ; be a terror to the British * * * whilst in the
Southern States ; open a commnnication with the Chickasaws (a friendly
disposed people), and our posts on the Mississippi; be a security to the
Southwestern frontier, and render the travelling to Kentucky safe ; but
above all, it would be saving to our present funds for carrying on the
war in other parts. * * *
Maj. Martin whom I expect will be with the Executive shortly after
you receive this, can explain every particular, and his good intentions for
his country's interest with me is not doubted.*
We do not know what was the result of the proposition. In
March, 1781, Martin was made a lieutenant-colonel of the Wash-
ington militia, and in April we find him returning with a com-
pany of 65 men from a tour on the Clinch. He found traces of
Indians, had a skirmish with them, and pursued them towards
Chickamauga until the men refused to go further. Martin was
anxious to organize a company and pursue them to the end of
their path.t (Haywood f says Martin led an expedition against
the Indians in February, 1781. This is denied by Draper and
Eamsey, and by Col. William Martin.)
Col. Sevier made an expedition against the middle towns in
March. These several expeditions, particularly that of Camp-
bell, had broken the Indians and roused them to a sense of
their danger. Besides they had not all been united in the
war on the whites, for Martin writes February 7, 1781, that
the Hanging Maw had opposed it and had threatened to leave
the Indians and take up his residence among the whites, and
he still thought it possible to induce the Maw to come over with
all his towns which consisted of about four hundred souls.
Campbell, Sevier, and Martin had warned them in January
to repair to the Long Island if they wanted peace, § and on Feb-
ruary 26, 1781, Gen. Greene had appointed William Christian,
William Preston, Arthur Campbell, and Joseph Martin, of
Virginia, and Robert Sevier, Evan Shelby, Joseph Williams,
and John Sevier, of North Carolina, commissioners to meet
commissioners from the Cherokees to treat on the question of
boundaries, to arrange for an exchange of prisoners and terms
* Calendar Virginia State Papers, i, 438, 569.
t Ramsey: Tennessee, 269; see his account in Cal. Va. State Papers, i,
613; II, 64, 72. Haywood, ed. 1891, 111.
t Ed. 1891, E. p. 111.
§ Ramsey: Tennessee, 267; Calendar Virginia State Papers, i, 414.
^AR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST ^WEEKS.' r433
HWAK
^■of peace, and to invite the Indians to appoint a commissioner
H!to visit Congress.
H The commissioners were also instructed to call on the military-
force of the frontier countries to prevent further encroachments
on Indian lands. A treaty was apj)ointed for July 20, 1781, on
the Long Island.* We have no particular accounts of this
treaty, but the British agents were always seeking to prevent
peace. Martin writes Col. Arthur Campbell from the Long
Island of Holston, September 20, 1781: ^< Scott, the present
Enghsh agent, is very industrious in stirring up the Indians to
war. Ochanastote insisted hard on my going to attack him j he
promised all the assistance I would ask; he told me I could
march on horseback from Chota to where he resides in two days
without being discovered. Scott keeps a few armed white
men around him and the Indians who live with him are chiefly
■^employed in stealing horses on the frontier." Martin thinks
IB he could capture Scott and his party with fifty men well
Blp equipped, '^ which would effectually put an end to the British
interest in the nation, release the frontiers and the Kentucky
path from the visitations of a troublesome banditti." Scott
was a Tory who had fled to the Cherokees when the Southern
States were conquered by the Americans. He had gained great
ascendency over the Indians by the supplies he controlled.
Again Martin writes about him to Isaac Shelby on December
29,1781:
* * * Could it be done with convenience, I think it would be well
done for you to march immediately against Scott ; I think one hundred
men, well mounted, would do the business. I should think myself happy
to be one of the number. * * »
But Col. Campbell thought Martin's plan was not feasible.
There was a large element of uncertainty, the distance was
great, Indian towns might prove hostile if they met with dis-
aster, etc. He suggests a larger expedition j ointly under North
Carolina and Virginia, and in the meantime tries to escai^e
from the evils of the Indian raids in another way, and writes
Gen. Washington from Holstein River, October 26, 1781, that
the treaty with the Indians " was but shortly over until the
intrigues of the enemy by Tory emissaries created a defection,"
and by a late account Gen. Pickens was carrying on war against
them in South Carolina. The greater part of the nation was
" Calendar Virginia State Papers, ii, 199.
S. Mis. 104 28
434 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
disposed toward peace, and to strengthen this feeling "I have
taken the liberty, in conjunction with other gentlemen who are
commissioners under Gen. Greene's appointment, to recommend
it to Col. Martin, the Virginia agent for Indian affairs, to con-
duct two principal chiefs of the Cherokee Kation to your ex-
cellency's headquarters, that they might see with their own
eyes the power of America and hear from your mouth the fate
of their nation."
It seems that this programme was carried out in part, for we
find Martin in Richmond in November with two chiefs j but
Governor Nelson had resigned the government a few days
before and the chiefs were not received, as they had expected,
although they were promised by the executive some assistance
in clothing, ammunition, etc. Martin urged that this be done,
adding that some of the towns were friendly and would not
draw off to the enemy if they could be supplied with necessa-
ries.
Gen. Greene in the meantime had appointed agents for Indian
affairs, and Governor Harrison instructed Martin, June 6, 1782,
that he was to consult with them on important matters j but
Martin was to advise him of any change in the temper of the
Cherokees. " Much, therefore, must be left to your prudence
and discretion, in both which I have confidence."
The relations of the States to the southward of Virginia with
the Cherokees were equally unsatisfactory. Governor Harrison
writes Martin in July, 1782, that the Indians were making con-
tinual inroads into South Carolina, and that Governor Mathews
was making an expedition into their country j that Georgia
was also at war with them, and forbids him to furnish them
any necessities until further orders.
The State of North Carolina also took very decided steps in
its dealings with the Cherokees. During the year 1782 Gen.
McDowell, Col. Sevier, and Waightstill Avery were appointed
commissioners to treat with the Cherokees and Chickamaugas.
They were reinforced by an army, and their first duty was to
destroy the hostile towns of the Indians. They were to be
required to cede to North Carolina all the lands within the
chartered bounds of North Carolina to the Ohio and the Mis-
sissippi; eastern and western boundary lines were to be estab-
lished for the nation. French Broad and its tributaries were
to be given up in satisfaction for injuries done by the inhabi-
[WAR OF THE EE VOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 435
nts of the nearer towns, and the Chickamaugas were to return
to the Cherokees.
The knowledge of these demands and that of the army which
was hacking them, together with the action of South Carolina
and Georgia, had a wholesome influence on the savages. Col.
Martin was among them in August, 1782, arranging the pre-
liminaries of a treaty,* and writes Col. Campbell, September 18:
" I believe that never were people more desirous of peace than
the Cherokees."
Martin's next important public service was as one of the
commissioners appointed on behalf of the State of Virginia to
treat with the Cherokees, Creeks, and Chickasaws for peace.
The appointment was made January 13, 1783. The other com-
missioners were John Donelson and Isaac Shelby. They were
also to assist Gen. Clark in making a purchase of land from
them, and " Your commission also extends to the Cherokees,
with whom I desire a firm treaty may be concluded, particu-
larly with the tribe called the Chickamaugas, as they are the
most troublesome and the hardest to come at. * * * "
May 17, 1783, Martin was commissioned Indian agent of
North Carolina among the Cherokees and Chickamaugas. He
was to visit them once in six months in their own country,
dehver them messages from the governor, and record their
talks.f
Martin, representing North Carolina and Virginia, and Don-
elson, representing Virginia, held a treaty with the Chicka-
maugas at the Long Island of Holston July 9, 1783, under
these instructions, and gave them presents of ruffled and plain
shirts, of red and blue cloth for match coats, also powder and
lead and '^ Dowlas," but Martin regrets that he had no authority
to treat with them for the north side of Tennessee mouth.f
It was the opinion of Martin that the Chickasaw treaty
should also be held on the Holston, some 30 or 40 miles below
the island, or on French Broad, '^36 miles this side of Chote,"
because there would be much less expense connected with
these. He was overruled in his opinions by Cols. Donelson
and Shelby and Governor Harrison. § Martin and Donelson
were ready by the middle of May, but were delayed. They
* Calender Virginia State Papers, iii, 272.
t Iredell's Revisal, 469. •
X Calender Virginia State Papers, iii, 511.
^J&id!., 469,511.
436 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
met the Red King of the Ohickasaws and his chief warriors
at the French Lick, on Cumberland Eiver, 4 miles north-
west of Nashville, l!^ovember 5 and 6, 1783. They found them
well inclined to peace.* The Ohickasaws confessed they had
been instigated by the English. They were now ready to
drive the Cherokees from their lands, and relinquished to the
whites a section of country extending nearly 40 miles south of
Cumberland Eiver to the ridge dividing its tributaries from
those of Duck and Elk Elvers. This was further ratified and
confirmed by the treaty of Hopewell in 1785. From this time
the Chickasaws were friendy to the whites. f This treaty
caused an increased flow of poijulation to Cumberland.
The Creeks did not send representatives to this treaty, and
Martin writes that they "are continually committing hostilities
on the frontiers of Kentucky and Cumberland. They have
sent a few of their warriors to Augusta, Ga., with peace talks
to amuse that State, while they bend all their forces against
our frontiers." An effort was also made to gather representa-
tives of the Shawnees at the Falls of the Ohio, but as their
warriors were then making a treaty at Niagara this was found
impossible.
XII. — THE THIRD POWELL'S VALLEY SETTLEMENT.
Martin had not more than gotten the negotiations with the
Chickasaws under way before he made an adventure in another
direction. This was nothing less than a third attempt at the
settlement of Powell's Valley. The impelling motive this time
seems to have been commercial and strategic as well as agri-
cultural. The purpose can best be expressed in the words of
Col. William Christian, than whom no braver pioneer graces
the annals of our early history. The letter is also of value as
giving us an opinion of the ability of Col. Martin. He writes
Col. Sampson Mathews on December 80, 1782 :
* * * After writing the letters by Col, Taylor, Col. Martin and
myself had a good deal of conversation about his situation, where he is,
as an agent for Virginia. As soon as we talked a little about it, I saw the
impropriety of it, and we agreed that I should write to you upon the
subject. * "*
* Putnam, 196, is wrong in saying this was begun and concluded in the
month of January, 1783.
t Ramsey: Tennessee, 459, 463; American State Papers, Indian Affairs,
1, 432, 326 ; see report to Governor Harrison in Calendar, Virginia State
Papers, iii, 548, December 16, 1783.
WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 437
The Island is in North Carolina aboat 10 miles; and in my opinion it is
not very agreeable to the North Carolinians for us to have a trade and
agency in their State. * * * The settlements down the river, extend
about 30 miles, and to the southwest and the south much more. The only
way the Indians can come to the Island in safety is up the river, and even
on that route they have suffered. * * * These inconveniences oblige
Col. Martin to go all the way to the Nation with the goods the Executive
furnishes him with which adds considerable to the expenses attending
the trade. And if business is to be done it is a great risk to bring them
to the Island.
What I mean, then, to submit to your consideration is the removing
of the store and agency to Cumberland Gap. The Gap lies directly betwixt
the lines of Henderson and Walker; but a post might be fixed within
both, to be certainly in Virginia as the lines are but 2^ miles asunder.
The Gap is near halfway betwixt our settlements on Holston and Ken-
tucky, and a post there would be a resting place for our poor citizens
going back and forward; and would be a great means of saving the lives
of hundreds of them. For it very seldom happens that Indians will kill
people near where they trade ; and it is thereabouts the most of the mis-
chief on the road has been done. The best hunting-grounds the Chero-
kees now have is down Tennessee and up Powell's Valley to Cumberland
Gap; there being certain fixed bounds betwixt them and the Chickasaws
and Creeks, over which neither must trespass. And at any rate, the Gap
is nearer to the Towns than the Island ; more convenient for their trade,
and more safe on account of our own people. Besides wherever an agent
is, Indians will be every now and then coming to him. In Powell's Valley
they could for some time to come furnish themselves with provisions ; at
the Island they have no chance but to live upon Col. Martin — it has,
however, been the case for a long time past, for I am convinced all the
pay he gets from the State would not buy the provisions he has to give
away to them. If our trade should be increased, I dare say Powell's River
is navigable for canoes, and would answer that end as well as Holston.
Col. Martin could easily procure a number of families to join him and
erect a Station next spring in Powell's Valley, and would willingly do it,
if directed so to do by Government. Nothwithstanding I think the pay of
half a dozen, or a dozen men for a few months at the beginning would be
well laid out. Indeed I always thought our State ought to have kept a
post at the Gap. There is a noted place called Martin's 20 miles above the
Gap, where there was a station some years ago, that might answer. But
the Gap is much to be preferred to any other. Col. Martin is a field officer
in our Washington, and I should suppose there need be no officer in pay at
his Station, and no other expense attending the men, if any are ordered
but their pay & provisions.
I view the change I propose as of great importance to the frontiers of
Washington, to our people journeying to & from Kentucky; particularly
the poor families moving out, to the Indian trade to the Indian agency
in general. * * *
I know of no views but the public good that Martin or myself could
have in this change. I have therefore, to stipulate with you. Sir, that if
the proposition is disliked that the blame may fall on me alone.
}
438 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
I wish to mention to you that I hare been well acquainted with Col.
Martin's public transactions and management for more than six years
past, and have always observed him to be a faithful, trusty servant to the
public, acting at all times fairly and openly without respect to the censure
or applause of the lawless or licentious. I have always found him a man
of the greatest candor and integrity in all his dealings, public and private,
and I verily believe the back country does not afford a man so fit in all
respects, as he is for your Agent. I am sure he has been within an inch of
losing his life in the service, when a man of less zeal for his country's
welfare would have shuned the danger : In short. Sir, he is an undesign-
ing, plain, honest, brave man, and understands the manners and dispo-
sitions of the Indians better than [any] body I know ; besides, he is held
in great esteem by all ranks of them. It is for fear Col. Martin has been,
or may be traduced by men unacquainted with his merit, that I trouble you
upon this head, and I am satisfied it will give you pleasure to know that
those in trust under the direction of your Board are honest men. * * * *
The matter was presented to Governor Harrison at once.
He recognized the importance and necessity of the movement
and urged Martin to undertake it. This he agreed to do, and
pushed his preparations vigorously. On April 14, 1783, he
writes the governor: ''I had nearly got ready to move to
Powell's Valley when the Indians attacked the settlement on
Clinch. This discouraged the men and families for the present,
but I hope to be able to move them towards fall if the busi-
ness of the treaty don't prevent it."f Governor Harrison
writes him from the Council, May 20: "Your removal to
Powell's Valley is so absolutely necessary that I desire no
considerations may stop you from the execution of your orders
as early in the fall as possible."
This put the matters into shape, and Martin writes the gov-
ernor, August 30, that he had just sent off the people to
Powell's Valley "to begin a station there," t and in December
it was settling fast. In May, 1784, there were about "100
souls," mostly women and children, and were in danger from
the Indians.§ This fear was renewed from time to time.
Martin writes to Governor Henry on June 25, 1786: "I am
truly disturbed on account of the poor settlers in Powell's
Valley. I had positive orders from Governor Harrison to
* Calendar Virginia State Papers, in, 406 — 408. As early as November,
11, 1779, Gov. Jefferson was thinking of fixing a post in Powell's Valley.
\ Ibid., 4:68.
t Ibid., Ill, 527, 547. Martin's Old Station was 20 miles from Martin's
New Station, and this was 2 miles from Cumberland Gap. Ibid., v, 391.
$ Ibid., Ill, 581.
^AR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 439
jttle that station, who i3romised them protection; and with-
>ut immediate aid I fear they will all be cut off."
Powell's Valley, some 170 miles in length, because of the
)stility of the Indians and the poverty of much of the land,
lad remained unsettled until this time. As Martin was
Indian agent he did not go to the valley himself, but engaged
men, employed an overseer to take charge of hands and stock,
built a blacksmith shop and a mill, etc. This was the only
station between Clinch and Kentucky, and was of great relief
to travelers. Ool. William Martin, his son, was a member of
the settlement for two years from the spring of 1785 and
shared all its privations and hardships. By degrees pioneers
began to settle on the road between Clinch and Martin's
Station in companies of two or three families for mutual pro-
tection, and devoted themselves to supplying the needs of
travelers to Kentucky. It was the beginning of permanent
settlements in this section of country.
In 1788 Gen. Martin sold his interest in the Powell's Yalley
settlement. Through his fostering care the little settlement
had become permanent, and his address alone perhaps saved
Clinch and Powell's Yalley, ^*not a man, woman, or child
being killed by the Cherokees within the Virginia line for
several years past.*
XIII. — MARTIN AND THE EXPANSION OF GEORGIA.
The year 1783 seems to have been one of great activity for
Martin. We have already seen him engagiug himself as Indian
agent for Korth Carolina, serving Virginia as commissioner to
the Chickasaws, and undertaking a new Powell's Valley settle-
ment. We find him also engaging in an extensive land specu-
lation along with William Blount, John Sevier, Gen. Griffith
Eutherford, John Donelson, Governor Caswell, and others.
The company was organized in 1783, William Blount was the
leading spirit and Martin made the purchase while on one of
his visits to the nation. The purchase lay on the north side of
the bend of Tennessee in what is now Alabama, then Georgia,
and was also claimed by South Carolina.! The company got
a charter from Georgia, but with difficulty, in February, 1 784.
* Calendar Virginia State Papers, iv, 428.
tSee Blount's letter, October 26, 1783. Putnam, 62, says Donelson was
after the Bend as early as 1779.
440 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Fnder this fliarter a new county was established including
all that part of the present State of Alabama that lies north of
Tennessee Eiver and south of the Tennessee line. Seven
commissioners were appointed. They were Lachlin Mcin-
tosh, jr., William Downs, Stephen Heard, John Morse, John
Donelson, Joseph Martin, and John Sevier. They were also
made justices of the peace and had power to nominate militia
officers. They were vested with power to ascertain the quan-
tity, quality, and circumstance of the land and report the same
to the legislature. They also had power to grant warrants of
survey. These, when executed, were to go "to the surveyor-
generaPs office in order that the same may pass to a grant as
the law directs." No person could hold more than 1,000 acres,
and they were to pay for it at the rate of 12J cents per acre.
An office for the entry of these lands was to be opened at Hol-
ston in March, 1785. Commissioners were also appointed in
"regard to the matter by the State of North Carolina.
After much preparation, purchasing goods, etc., the com-
missioners set out to the section by water. They met for
organization on July 30, 1784. The county was named Houston,
and Col. Martin was made agent and superintendent of Indian
affairs. But the settlement did not prosper. It was impossi-
ble to sustain themselves against the growing hostility of the
Indians by whom they were surrounded. They therefore broke
up and reported home.* A second attempt at settlement was
under consideration in 1786, but was postponed.t But it seems
not indefinitely, as Martin writes January 20, 1787, that the
legislature of Georgia had confirmed their title to the bend of
Tennessee and that James Glasgow, secretary of state for
North Carolina, had gone to Georgia to have the conveyances
made, and adds "if Georgia has Confirmed our Title to the
Bend I shall proceed on another speculation in lands which I
think will be the greatest that ever will be in america, on the
waters of Tombigby & Mobeal. I shall endeavour to Locate
the Lands from the Spanish Line north." He then adds a
glowing account of this new and fertile country.
Martin soon found charges brought against him for his par-
ticipation in this affair. He writes that he has done this on
his own responsibility and was willing to abide an investiga-
tion.
* MSS. ; Ramsey : Tennessee, 377.
ilbid., 379-380. .
WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 441
* * * The country is filling up with Inhabitants around it so fast,
that the Indians plainly perceived the Coudition of the Ground we pur-
chased would be of no Service to them. And it is 'a Fact also, that the
number of People who have actually gone & declared a resolution to go,
and settle this very Ground in Question, was very considerable : & this
Settlement was to be made, without any Agreement with the Indians.
What was then to have been Apprehended, I leave to y'r Excellency's
Judgment : more particularly when the Character & Disposition of this
Kind of our back Settlers, is considered : and that the minds of the Indians
are much irritated by late repeated Encroachments. It has been no easy
task to prevent them from speedy and signal vengeance for recent Injuries
of this sort, nor to remove their apprehensions of more in Future. In this
state of Facts, it is easy to guess what would have been the Issue of our
Treaty with them, if at the Time, the Settlements near the Shoals or Bent
was going on without their leave.
What then could be done, more likely to conciliate the returning Affec-
tions of the Indians (especially the Chickamoggas who are nearest the
place) than agreeing to pay them a reasonable price for the Land, which
tho' not absolutely necessary for their subsistence, was their property.
* * * It is not easy for those who are unacquainted with our Frontiers,
to judge of the evils and calamities which threaten to arise from the
licentious and ungovernable conduct of the People there. To reconcile
this with the vindictive Spirit of the Indians is really difiScult and often
Times impossible — I Know of no way so proper to conciliate these people
to our nation permanently, as to procure in the settlement about to be
made, a number of respectable Gentlemen, who will serve as checks to the
licentious and wicked — And I should not have made tliis Purchase, but
with the concurrence and at the Request of a Number of the first Gentle-
men ijQ North Carolina, with whose sentiments I was made acquainted:
and if final Success attend our Enterprize, I am certain that a settlement
will be formed directly, as respectable for the character as number of
People: and while it helps to form a Barrier to the Eastern Inhabitants,
seems to be most likely to discourage that anarchy, which is but too com-
mon, and to discover, if not prevent, certain Parties of the Spaniards, of
which you will probably hear before long.
Martin then continues Ms defense by referring in a modest
way to what lie had himself done for the State and for the
section :
I wish I could avoid speaking of my own particular advantages, and
thereby avoid adding to your Excellency's trouble; but the severity
of your Excellency's Reprehensions has made it necessary. No doubt I
have many Enemys, who wish to supplant me, & to this End are never
ceasing to propagate their Falsehoods. The particular Time, and dis-
tressing circumstances, in which I first undertook this Agency, I suppose
are well Known— Some who now want it, rather wonder at the Folly of
one who ventured among the Indians during the War, than desired to
take this Place, But now, the Tone is altered and they are brave enough
to face the Danger. I wish they were honest enough to tell the truth.
If I now seek my own advantage, it is consistent with the public Good —
my Partners would disdain anything otherwise. I have never as yet
k
442 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
added to the Embarrassments of my Country by claiming Donations to
myself & by engaging in this Purchase in a distant State, I must have
promoted the public Good. *
XIV. — THE TREATY OF HOPEWELL.
In writing the history of the Indians two things are always
present, the encroachment of white men on their lands, the
reproaches, complaints, and revenge of the savages. The gov-
ernment of the whites has made faint efforts at preserving ter-
ritory to them, but it is slipping away, Oklahoma is followed
by the Cherokee Strip. The result was always the same. The
savage yielded to the civilized man and he recognized the
rights of the former only so long as it suited his purpose.
During the Revolution the Oherokees had the English to
urge them on; after it was over the Spaniards took the place
of the English. The settlers were already in their midst. He
met him with all the weapons he had, theft and the tomahawk.
Governor Harrison gets to the heart of the continued depre-
dations of the Indians when he writes Governor Martin, of
North Carolina, October 22, 1782 : " I am apprehensive much
of the ill temper of those poor wretches arises from the con-
tinual encroachments made by our people on their lands.
Some bounds should certainly be fixed, beyond which they
should not be allowed to go. Our honor and justice call loudly
on us for such a regulation, and I hope you will use your en-
deavors to accomplish it in your State."
Many of these intruders on the Indian lands had come in as
settlers in the rear of the over mountain men on their return
from the campaign of 1780 in the Carolinas. The Indians sent
in their complaints through Martin, their agent.
November 12, 1782, Governor Harrison writes Governor
Martin that he had just received a communication from Col.
Martin consisting of a talk from the Cherokees, in which they
are in distress because they " are apprehensive that the people
of your State mean to deprive them of their hunting grounds,
which have been long since saved to them by solemn treaty."
He thinks this encroachment was contrary to and without the
sanction of North Carolina, urges the governor to force them
to vacate, warns him of the revengeful disposition of the
Indian and suggests that the matter might be settled once
* Calendar Virginia State Papers, iii, 560. Similar charges were made
against Donelson, Ibid., 547.
^AR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 443
for all by having commissioners from North Carolina, South
Jarolina, and Virginia meet others from the Indians and fix
>oundaries.
As early as the 3d of the previous May Col. Martin, while
at Hillsboro, K C, had pointed out the danger from the con-
tinual encroachments of the whites: "I am now attending the
.Assembly of North Carolina at this place, to remonstrate to
[that Legislature the impropriety of Extending their western
^settlements too near the Cherokee towns on Tennessee, as
petition from the back country is laid before them for that
mrpose, which will unavoidably bring on a war with that
I nation should the people proceed to form settlements adjoining
their towns."*
In February, 1782, Governor Martin had directed Sevier to
order the settlers off the Indian reservation. If they did not
obey he was to pull down their cabins and drive them off,t and
February 11, 1784, he writes Col. Martin from Danbury : " You
will call upon Gen. McDowell and Col. Sevier, and the com-
manding officers of Sullivan County, to order and drive off
those evil-minded persons who have intruded and still con-
tinue on the Indian lands beyond the French Broad Eiver. I
have repeated my orders to them. I wish the Indians to have
no complaints from our people." And the same was renewed
in 1787. Of course Sevier and the others did not drive the
intruders off. It is doubtful if either Governor Martin or Col.
Martin thought this could be done, for the settlers had might,
and might meant right, as it has always done in our dealings
with the Indian. Still, we can but admire the determination
of the agent who insisted on having the rights of the red man
respected although it brought down on his head the wrath of
the men whose interests were thus thrown into jeopardy.
North Carolina reopened her land office, which had been
closed since June, 1781, in May, 1783, to pay in lands the claims
* Calendar Virginia State Papers, iii, 151.
t Ramsey's Tennessee, 270,271. Governor Jefferson wrote to Governor
Caswell, November 11, 1779, by the hand of Martin, who, he had reason to
believe, was a " good kind of a man and worthy of credit," that the Indians
were then complaining of the attempt to take their lands, particularly the
great Island, and that the Virginia Assembly, then in session, was consider-
ing the advisability of authorizing the executive '^ to send patrols of the
military through there from time to time to destroy the habitations which
shall be erected in them by intruders." Writings, Ford's edition, ii,
274-276.
444 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
«
of lier soldiers and officers in the Revolution. By this law,
without previous consultation with the Indians and against the
advice of Martin, the boundary of the State was extended to
the Mississippi on the line of 36° 30' and with a south line on
35°, certain lands within this territory being reserved for the
Indians,* but the reservation did not extend to the French
Broad tract. The Cherokees had held no treaty with North
Carolina and had ceded no lands to her since the treaty of
1777. This was then an arbitrary and unwarranted aggression
on the part of North Carolina and is responsible for most of the
trouble that followed.t
The State of Franklin was another element that tended to
complicate matters and irritate the Cherokees. Its leaders
stood distinctly for the idea of encroachment. This brought
them at once into conflict with the Indians and with their rep-
resentative, the Indian agent, who, from his position, had, of
necessity, to associate with them and to represent their views
to the executives of Virginia and North Carolina and to ex-
press his own opinion thereon. Martin writes Gen. Russell
from Chota, August 1, 1784 :
I am also watching the motion of the Indians who are in great Confu-
sion. The people from franklyn have actually Settled or at least built
houses within Two miles of their Beloved Town of Chota one of their
principal Towns, * * * Their greatest uneasiness proceeds from a Talk
Held with Governor Savier in May last not one of their principal men at-
tended tho the Governor Enterd into treaty with those that attended on
fi-ench broad he asked them for The lands on little river. They absalutely
Refused by Saying all their head men was at home that they had no powers
to grant land on any terms he then requested them to Suffer what familees
was actually Settled there to remain Till they had another talk which the
Indians agreed too since, then there has a number of families moved there
and Talk of Building forts and Say they will Hold it in defiance of Every
power this information is fact and I hope will reach congress and the Ex-
ecutive of Virginia mostly thro you.
He writes to Governor Henry from Henry County, Ya.,
March 26,1785:
I returned last evening from the Indian Country after taking a tour
through the Valley and Middle Settlements, also the different Cherokee
towns bordering on South Carolina and Georgia. I found the Indians
there very friendly, being well satisfied with the said States, as they have
run a Line agreeable to treaty, and have effectually prevented the citizens
from encroaching on their lands. * * *
The People over the mountains in North Carolina have declared them-
* Iredell's Revisal, 1791, 446.
ilbid., 469-471.
p
■■ WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 445
I^H selves Independent of that State, have chosen a Governor and Council of
I^B their own, elected delegates, and are now sitting in General Assembly.
I^l They call their State Franklin. They intend to lay off a new county
■H South of French Broad river, in lands reserved by the State of North
m^ Carolina for the Indians, which county so laid off will include some of the
^ towns the Indians are now living in.* Capt. Cocke is chosen a member
of CongTCSS, who sets out about the tenth of April — which, if they pro-
ceed, undoubtedly involve the States in a war with the Indians. Hub-
bard, who murdered Butler, is one of their delegates ; that has provoked
the Indians much, as they now despair of his being brought to justice, &
I suppose, have attempted to take satisfaction at the house of one Cox,
near the end of Clinch Mountain, where an attack was made the 10th inst.,
the damage done there was one horse killed, t * * *
Martin writes Governor Henry from Smith's River, April 17,
1785:
* * * Governor Martin tells me he is well informed that the greatest
part of the Cherokee and Creek Indians are for war, occasioned by the
State of Franklin passing an act to extend their boundary within 20 miles
of Chota, without holding any treaty with them. He also informs me,
that he has declined holding any treaty with the Indians, as the people
over the mountains have separated themselves from North Carolina.!
These letters show that there was a necessity for a better
understanding with the Indians, and with the treaty of Hope-
well a new era in the relations with the Cherokee Nation
began. Before this time the colonies had dealt with them
separately, but the contentions between the border settlers of
Virginia, liforth Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, as well
as the authorities of these States, with the Cherokees and
Creeks had now induced the Congress of the Confederation
to take the matter into their own hands. Its object was to
diBflne the claims of the Indians and of the whites, respect-
ively, and in this way to prevent the encroachment of the
latter on the Indian reservation. Benjamin Hawkins and
Lachlan Mcintosh of Georgia, Andrew Pickins of South Caro-
lina, and Joseph Martin were appointed commissioners.
Before meeting the Cherokees the commissioners made
arrangements to meet the Creeks and proceeded to Galphin-
ton, in Jefferson County, Ga. They arrived here on the 24th
and 28th of October, 1785, having procured all things neces-
sary for their purpose. But, owing to false reports which had
been spread among the Indians, few of them attended, although
*This was open in 1787. Calendar Virginia State Papers, iv, 256.
Uhid,iY,lS.
Xlbid., 25.
446 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
they were anxious to make peace with the States ; the number
in attendance was too small to justify the commissioners in
making a treaty. They explained the object of their commis-
sion, gave them presents and left, but the agents of Georgia
held a treaty with the few who were there. The Continental
Commissioners then returned to South Carolina, and on Novem-
ber 18, 1785, met the Cherokees at Hopewell on Keowee, 15
miles above its juncture with the Tugaloo. Martin was thor-
oughly acquainted with the situation and the negotiations
were left largely with him. The Cherokees were estimated at
this time at 2,000 warriors,* of whom 918 attended the confer-
ence. William Blount was present as agent for North Caro-
lina, John King and Thomas Glasscock for Georgia.
The commissioners announced the change in sovereignty
due to the successful termination of the revolution ; promised
the Indians justice and a redress of grievances if they had
any. The main question to be settled was the respective
boundaries of the two. The Indians drafted a map t showing
the territory claimed by them and including the greater part
of Kentucky and Tennessee and parts of North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Georgia. The treaty was signed Novem-
ber 28, 1785.
Prisoners were to be restored to liberty on both sides;
negroes and other property to be given up; the Cherokees
acknowledged themselves under the United States alone. Their
boundaries were then defined: Beginning at the mouth of
Duck Eiver on the Tennessee, thence northeast to the ridge
dividing the waters of the Cumberland from those of the Ten-
nessee; thence eastwardly along the said ridge to a northeast
line to be run, which shall strike the river Cumberland 40
miles above Nashville; thence along the said line to the river;
thence up the said river to the ford where the Kentucky road
crosses the river; thence to Campbell's line near Cumberland
Gap; thence to the mouth of Cloud's Creek on Holston; thence
to the Chimney Top Mountain ; thence to Camp Creek, near
the mouth of Big Limestone on Nolichuckey ; thence a south-
erly course 6 miles to a mountain; thence 5 to the North
Carolina line; thence to the South Carolina Indian boundary,
and along the same southwest over the top of the Oconee
*In 1787 Gen. Martin estimated them at 2,650.
tThis map is reproduced in American State Papers, Indian Affairs, i,
40, and in Putman's Middle Tennessee.
WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 447
Mountain till it struck Tugaloo Eiver, thence a direct line to
the top of Currahee Mountain j thence to the head of the south
fork of Oconee Eiver.
If any white person should settle on the Indian lands or any
who were there did not remove in six months they were to be
punished or not, as the Indians wished. But this did not
extend to the people between French Broad and Holston, who
were too numerous to be removed, and their particular case
was to be referred to Congress.
The Indians were to give up all persons guilty of capital
oflences to be punished by the CTnited States, just as its own
citizens were. And article 7 provides :
*'If any citizen of the United States, or person under their protection,
shall commit a robbery or murder, or other capital crime, on any Indian,
such offender or offenders shall be punished in the same manner as if the
murder or robbery, or other capital crime, had been committed on a citi-
zen of the United States ; and the punishment shall be in presence of some
of the Cherokees, if any shall attend at the time and place, and that they
may have an opportunity so to do, due notice of the time of such intended
punishment shall be sent to some one of the tribes.
The innocent were not to be punished for the guilty; if the
treaty was violated, war was to be preceded by a declaration
of hostilities. The United States alone was to regulate trade
with the Indians, and until the pleasure of Congress was known
aU traders were at liberty to visit them. The Indians were to
give notice of any "designs which they may know or suspect
to be formed in any neighboring tribe or by any person whoso-
ever against the power, trade, or interest of the United States
of America." This was designed against the Spaniards. They
were given the right to send a deputy to Congress when they
thought proper, and the hatchet was to be buried forever.
After signing the treaty Martin and Mcintosh set out for
their homes, leaving Hawkins and Pickins to settle affairs with
the Indians. But Martin, learning that the Choctaws were
coming to meet them to make a treaty, returned on Decem-
ber 27. The Choctaws had arrived on the 26th in a naked
and destitute condition, after having traveled nearly 500 miles
and suffering many hindrances from the Spaniards and Creeks.
It was first found necessary to clothe them, and on the 3d of
January, 1786, a treaty was signed.
January 10 they signed a treaty with the Chickasaws at the
same place. The Chickasaws granted a circle 5 miles in diam-
eter at the Muscle Shoals for a trading postj the Choctaws
448 A^IERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
gave 3 posts each 6 miles square. In all other respects, after
defining the boundaries of the separate nations, the terms ot
these treaties are the same as that made with the Cherokees,
except that the Chickasaws and Choctaws are asked to sur-
render no prisoners and were not invited to send a delegate to
Congress. *
The relations with the Cherokees were at that time the most
pressing. The Cherokee Hopewell treaty was a compromise.
It is evident that the commissioners sought to conciliate both
the Spaniards and the Cherokees. They sought to lessen the
horrors of Indian warfare and this was reduced for the next
year. They knew that the treaty would make them enemies
among the whites. " Through the whole of our negotiations,"
they write, " we have paid particular attention to the rights
and interest of the United States as far as our abilities compre-
hended them, regardless, of the adjoining Statest. The Geor-
gia commissioners protested that the treaty of Hopewell was
" a manifest and direct attempt to violate the retained sover-
eignty and legislative right of this State," and that the com-
missioners " did attempt to exercise powers that are not dele-
gated by the respective States to the United States." William
Blount said that the boundary fixed by the treaty was differ-
ent from that fixed by the assembly of North Carolioa in 1783
and was therefore ^' a violation and infringement of her legis-
lative rights," that some of the lands ceded to the Indians had
been granted to Eevolutionary soldiers and that others had
been sold. On July 12, 1786, Governor Caswell writes John
Sevier that the people of North Carolina are making ^' a very
great clamor respecting the conduct of Col. Blount at the
Indian treaty, though I am satisfied he did everything in his
power to prevent the same taking place, so much to the disad-
vantage of this State if carried into effect." But he concludes
that Congress will come to tlie opinion that this treaty is so
repugnant to the rights of the States *' that they will not con-
sider us, by any means bound to abide by those treaties."
The Indians had in the beginning claimed most of Ken-
tucky and Tennessee with a considerable part of Georgia,
South Carolina, and North Carolina. They were induced to
give up their claims to Transylvania and to consent to such
a boundary as would, in the opinion of all, leave all the people
* Indian Treaties of the United States to 1837, pp. 8-17.
t American State Papers, Indian Aifairs, i, 48-52.
■■ WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 449
IH in the Cumberland section outside of the Indian territory.
IH The commissioners agreed to remove a few families who had
II gone within the Indian bounds but those who had settled
|B between French Broad and Holston were too numerous for
|H them to agree positively to their removal. This was a source
IH ^^ discontent to the Indians. They said there were 3,000
II of these settlers and noted their disposition to encroach still
II ftirther on their preserves. They maintained that they had
IB never sold the land and that the settlers were there in defiance
11 of their protest. On the other hand the whites were angry
because any favors had been shown the Indians and because
there were not further curtailment of their territory.*
' But the boundaries thus fixed by the treaty of Hopewell
"were the most favorable it was possible to obtain from the
latter [Oherokees] without regard to previous purchases and
pretended purchases made by x)rivate individuals and others.
Although the Indians yielded an extensive territory to the
United States, yet, on the other hand, the latter conceded to the
Oherokees a considerable extent of territory that had already
been purchased from them by private individuals or associa-
tions, though by methods of more than doubtful legality." t
Eeference is had here to the treaties made by the State of
* Some of the writers whom I liave consulted represent the views of the
whites only, and we find the treaty denounced and mi8iuterj)reted. Put-
nam, Middle Tennessee, 239, warps the seventh article, which, as the con-
text clearly shows, was intended to put the power of punishing offenders
against the Indians into the hands of the States, when he says it clothed
the savages " with judicial and executive powers of a startling character."
Gilmore, either too indifferent or too careless of the truth to go to the
original record, copies Putnam instead and even forgets to mention that
clause of the treaty which refers the case of the settlers on the French
Broad tract to Congress. John Sevier, 61-63; See American State papers,
Indian Affairs, i, 38-52; Indian Treaties of United States to 1837. The
three treaties were ratified by Congress April 17, 1786. It may he of
interest for these gentlemen to know also that in the treaty signed by
William Blount with the Cherokees in 1791 and in the treaty signed by
Knox in 1794 the article in regard to felonies was not altered and the one
in regard to trespassing still reads : '' If any citizen of the United States,
or other person not being an Indian, shall settle on any of the Cherokee's
lands, such person shall forfeit the protection of the United States, and
the Cherokee's may punish him or not as they please."— American State
Papers, Indian Affairs, i, 124.
i Charles C. Royce: ^'The Cherokee Nation of Indians" in report of
Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-'84, pp. 152, 153 et seq. See also Ramsey's Tenn.,
[| 463, 499.
I S. Mis. 104 29
ii
li
450 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Franklin in 1785 witli a part of tlie young men of the Chero-
kees. The old Cherokees declined to come because they heard
that the 13 States were to hold a treaty with them, the young
men present admitted their inability to treat and declined to
do so but agreed to refer the case of the intruders to their
headmen (see p — ). The intruders remained on the lapd and
served as a basis for further aggressions. Many entries had
been made of this land and settlement made on it. These par-
ties even claimed that the State had actually purchased it
of them. Gen. Martin writes Governor Henry that North
Carolina had treated for no lands since 1777.*
There were many purchases by private parties, but neither
North Carolina nor the Confederation recognized them as
binding just as they had refused to recognize the treaties of
the so-called Frankhn State.
But trespasses continued and the Indians met the coming
settlers by constant pilfering. In 1788 the trespassing had
become so unbearable that on September 1 of that year Con-
gress by proclamation forbade all such unwarrantable intru-
sions and warned those who had settled in the territory, except
those between French Broad and Holston, to depart j at the
same time the Secretary of War directed that a sufficient body
of troops be in readiness to march from the Ohio for the pro-
tection of the Cherokees "whenever Congress shall direct the
same. " On the 7th of July, 1789, the Secretary remarked :
" The disgraceful violation of the treaty of Hopewell, with the
Cherokees, requires the serious consideration of Congress. If
so direct and manifest contempt of the authority of the IJnited
States be suffered with impunity, it will be in vain to attempt
to extend the arm of government to the frontiers. The Indian
tribes can have no faith in such imbecile promises, and the
lawless whites will ridicule a government which shall, on paper
only, make Indian treaties and regulate Indian boundaries." t
Trouble was also caused by the anomalous position of North
Carolina which was not then in the federal union. "The Com-
missioners for negotiating with the Southern Indians may be
instructed to transmit a message to the Cherokees, stating to
them, as far as may be proper, the difficulty arising from the
local claims of North Carolina, and to assure them that the
*Life of Henry. There is certainly no evidence that North Carolina
had purchased any land of th« Cherokees.
t American State Papers, Indian Affairs, i., 53; Royce, 160-161.
WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 451
United States are not unmindful of the treaty of Hopewell j
and as soon as tlie difficulties which are at present opposed to
the measure shall be removed the Government will do full
justice to the Cherokees."* North Carolina adopted the Fed-
eral Constitution in 1789, and this trouble was relieved. In
August, 1790, Washington is still speaking of carrying into
effect the terms of the treaty of Hopewell.
But treaties, remarks, and proclamations were alike in vain.
It was an effort, with justice on its side, to stem that flood of
Englishry which has since come to dominate the New World.
Justice they did not havej power and the capacity for improve-
ment they did have. The white intruder is ordered off Indian
lands with as little effect to-day, and the inferior man, be he
Indian or negro, will eventually go down in this struggle. The
fittest survive.
XV — THE STATE OF FRANKLIN.
In 1784 the division between North Carolina and that part
of her territory west of the mountains became more and more
marked. The East delayed to discharge debts incurred in
carrying on Indian wars, was slow in providing for their defense,
and the organization of the courts was not sufficient to meet
the requirements of justice. The West complained of these
inadequate provisions and the East retorted with the extrava-
gance of the West. In April, 1784, this territory was ceded to
the Confederation. The settlers, no longer under the govern-
ment of the State and not yet under the Confederation, deter-
mined to set up for themselves. This they did, beginning with
a convention in Jonesboro in August, 1784. They formally
declared their independence of North Carolina, organized a
government of their own, and called themselves Franklin.
Martin was a member of the August convention. He was on
the committee to take into consideration the state of public
affairs, including the question of the cession by North Carolina.
He opposed the scheme of a separate government from the
first. He does not appear to have voted on the question of
independence of North Carolina, nor was he a member of the
second convention of the State of Franklin.t
* American State Papers, Indian Afiairs, i, 53 ; Royce, 55.
+ See Ramsey's Tenn., 282-288, for the account of the organization, with
names, etc. ; also Haywood, Chap. vi.
■if
452 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
i
When this secession became known to North Carolina her
assembly repealed the act of cession, established a superior court
for the four Tennessee counties,* appointed an assistant judge
and an attorney- general, formed them into a military district,
and made Sevier a brigadier-gen eral.t This prompt redressing
of wrongs satisfied many, including Sevier, who advised the
people to proceed no further in their separation. But in sj^ite
of this the more radical held a convention, organized a gov-
ernment, and elected John Sevier governor. He accepted this
office and became the only governor of the State of Franklin. |
The organization of the State of Franklin was not directed
" The Tennessee counties were erected as follows : Washington in 1777,
Sulivan, 1779, Greene and Davidson, 1783.
+ Ramsey : Tennessee, 220.
tIMd., 282, et seq., Mr. James R. Gilmore, in his hero-worshipping book,
''John Sevier as a Commonwealth Builder," does great injustice to Mar-
tin. He says (p. 56) that Martin "had been one of the earliest and most
active promoters of the new State ; but somehow, when it came to be organ-
ized, he had, much to his chagrin, found himself, like Tipton, without any
official position whatever." This statement is entirely wrong. Ramsey
says, 342, that Martin was an officer of the State of Franklin. He prob-
ably alludes to his membership in the convention of August, 1784. Col.
Campbell says he was *'at his own solicitation" chosen a member of
the Privy Council (Cal. Va. State Papers, iv, 31). Martin says he was
elected without his consent, and we know that he refused to serve.
" Col. Campbell made use of many arguments to draw me over to that
party, by saying he wondered I would not Join them, as it would be much
to my Interest, as I had a body of Valuable Lands in powell's Valley ; that
as soon as the new State would take place I might have a county Laid off
there and the court-house on my Land, and convenient to the Seat of Gov-
ernment. My reply to him was, that as long as I appeared in public char-
acter, I did not look altogether at private Interest" (Ibid., iv, 54). He
also writes to Governor Caswell under date of September 19, 1785: "I
find myself under some concern, in reading that part wherein I am con-
sidered a member of the new State. I beg leave to assure your Excellency
that I have no part with them, but consider myself under your immediate
direction, as agent of the State of North Carolina until the Assembly shall
direct otherwise." (Ramsey's Tenn., 318.) In Henry's Life of Patrick
Henry we find a letter to Martin, written October 4, 1786, giving an
extensive exposition of the reasons why Franklin should be abandoned.
The two men were great friends, and this letter doubtless did much
to strengthen his view, but Martin's mind was made up before this, as
we have seen. In a letter to Governor Randolph in 1788 Gen. Martin
announces the dissolution of the State and intimates that it had been
done largely through his influence (Cal. Va. State Papers, iv, 452). Gov-
ernor Henry was of the opinion that the State of Franklin was due to
Spanish intrigues.
WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 453
against North Carolina alone, but Virginia as well. Ool.
Arthur Campbell was anxious to secure the secession of Wash-
ington and Montgomery counties, Virginia, and their union
with Franklin 5 but Sevier, the soul of the Franklin move-
ment, was not so inclined. He writes to Henry, July 19, 1785 :
" Although we have been forced into measures for separating
from Carolina, I think it necessary to inform you that we will
on no account encourage any part of the people of your State
to join us, nor will we receive any of them unless by consent
of your State. We reverence the Virginians, and I am confi-
dent the legislature here will at all times do everything to
merit their esteem." *
But, although the government of Franklin was established,
there was not union among the people, nor did the State of
North Carolina yield her claims of jurisdiction over the terri-
tory. There were rival courts and rival sets of officers, who
browbeat each other and took possession of the public records
by turns, while others, noting the steady intrusion of the
whites, foreboded a new Indian war. f
Col. Martin writes from Chota, September 19, 1785, to Gov-
ernor Henry; "The people in the new State are much divided:
several of their members refused at their last assembly to take
seats. They have attempted to get representatives from these
towns [Cherokee], I suppose, to augment their numbers, as
they "might have a representative in Congress ; but that attempt
was baffled."!
The influence of Martin is indicated by the position of Sulli-
van County in which he resided. Sullivan and Hawkins were
for the old State, Washington for the new. The history of
Franklin is the history of the Southern Confederacy in minia-
ture— a house divided against itself can not stand. Finally,
the conciliatory attitude of North Carolina and her promise to
make a new State as soon as the people were ready for it gave
the State of Franklin a fatal blow.§ In 1787 we find Col.
Martin a representative from Sullivan County in the assembly
of North Carolina. 1 1 This assembly appointed him brigadier-
general of the North Carolina militia in the western or Wash-
ington district. His commission dates from December 15, 1787.
This put him at the head of the military in Tennessee. In this
* Calendar Virginia State Papers, iv, 43. ^ Ramsey : Tennessee, 369.
t Ramsey : Tennessee, 359. II Ihid, 389.
t Calendar Virginia State Papers, iv, 53.
454 A.MERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
capacity it was his duty to summon Sevier and his party in the
name of the State of North Carolina to lay down their arms.
Here was a difficult and dangerous duty. Sevier and the
Franklin men were in arms under color of an Indian campaign.
There had already been an armed conflict between the two
forces. It was the duty of Martin to prevent a further conflict,
if possible, and at the same time to enforce the laws of North
Carolina. To Governor Eandolph he writes: "Am now doing
everything in my power to prevent any further disputes
between the old and new State, which I hope to effect, as little
mischief is as yet done, only two men killed and six wounded."
And to Governor Martin from the Long Island, March 24,
1788:
Sir : The confusion of this country induces me to lay before your Excel-
lency, by express, our present situation, which is truly alarming.
I sent, on Saturday last, to Sevier and his party, requiring them to lay
down their arms, and submit to the laws of North Carolina, but can get
no answer, only from Col. Joseph Hardin, which I forward; though I
know that on Friday last they met in convention to concert some plan.
The bearer of my express to them informs me, that he understood that
Sevier had gone toward French Broad, since the 10th instant ; that Col.
Kennedy, with several others, had gone the same way, to carry on an
expedition against the Cherokee Indians, which, I am well assured, wish
to be at peace ; except the Chickamauga party, which could be easily
driven out of that country, if your excellency should recommend it. I am
somewhat doubtful, that Sevier and his party are embodying, under the
color of an Indian expedition, to amuse us, and that their real object is
to make another attack on the citizens of this State ; to prevent which, I
have ordered the different colonels to have their men in good order, until
I can hear from your Excellency ; at which time I hope you will give me
directions in what manner to proceed, in this uncommon and critical situa-
tion ; for which I shall wait, till the return of the express, before I shall
take any decisive steps.
Should the Franks still persist to oppose the laws of this State, would
it not be well to order Gen. McDowell to give some assistance? as a few
men from there will convince them that North Carolina is determined to
protect her citizens.*
But that Martin was anxious to avoid the bloodshed that
might ensue on a collision between the new State and the old
State authorities is manifest from his letter to Col. Kennedy,
one of Sevier's lieutenants, March 21 :
I am greatly distressed and alarmed at the late proceedings of our coun-
trymen and friends, and must beg your friendly interposition, in order to
bring about a reconciliation, which, you well know, was my object in
accepting the brigadier's commission. I am, perhaps, as little afraid of
* Ramsey : Tennessee, 417.
WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 455
stepping forth in the field of action as any other man ; but I would be
sorry to imbrue my hands in the blood of my countrymen and friends, and
will take every method in my power to prevent anything of that nature.
In our present situation, nothing will do but a submission to the laws of
North Carolina, which I most earnestly recommend to the people. You
well know that this is the only way to bring about a separation, and
also a reconciliation for our worthy friend [Sevier], whose situation at
this time is very disagreeable. I most sensibly feel for him, and will go
very great lengths to serve him. Pray see him often and give him all the
comfort you can. * * * *
" There were few," remarks Eamsey, " even of the adhe-
rents of the old State, whose feelings and wishes in reference
to Sevier were not in exact consonance with those expressed
by Gen. Martin in this letter. Its tone, its moderation, its wis-
dom, its sympathy for a soldier and a patriot constitute the
highest eulogy upon his own good sense, his patriotism, and his
good feelings" (416). t Several letters also passed between
Martin and Sevier on the question. These seem to have had
the desired effect, for Martin writes Governor Eandolph in
April, 1788, "I am happy to inform your excellency that the
late unhappy dispute between the State of ^N^orth Carolina and
the pretended State of Franklin is subsided."
Thus Martin, by a wise and conservative policy, ended
tumult and violence and prevented what might have been
under other circumstances a civil war. The State of Frank-
lin had died a natural death.
It would have been well had the government of North Caro-
lina been as wise as its agent and allowed the question to
drop. But instead they determined to try Sevier for treason,
and in July, 1788, Governor Johnston, of I^orth Carolina,
instructs Martin to order out a sufficient number of the militia
of Washington district to assist the sheriff in arresting any
* Ramsey : Tennessee, 416.
tBut Mr. Gilmore in his book on Sevier says that " a comparison of the
two letters is enough to show his [Martin's] deep duplicity, for in every
particular one letter contradicts the other. As subsequent events show,
Martin's sole motive in inviting Kennedy was to detach him from Sevier ;
his aim in addressing the governor [Johnston, of North Carolina] was to
prepare that official's mind for proceedings against the Franklin leader on
a charge of high treason; hence Martin's insinuation that Sevier was
levying troops to attack the citizens — a charge which he must have
known to be outrageously false" (p. 169-171). These remarks furnish a
good illustration of the way personal sympathies warp the interpreta-
tion of documents. For the value of Mr. Gilmore's books historically the
reaUer is referred to the criticisms in Roosevelt's Winning of the West.
456 i«VIERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
persons "guilty of treasonable practices against the State."
This, of course, meant Sevier. A warrant was issued against
him by Judge Spencer, of North Carolina, but at first no
attempt was made to arrest him. He happened to be in Jones-
boro during the presence of Gen. Martin. Col. Tipton heard
of it, collected a small guard and arrested him near by at the
house of a Mend.* Gen. Martin's letter to Governor John-
ston, on March 24, 1788, seems to have been partly responsible
for this move, but this was before the settlement of their
troubles. It does not appear that he had any hand in his
actual arrest. Sevier was conveyed to Morganton, N. C;
was rescued while the court was in session by a band of over-
mountain men and returned home. He was prosecuted no
further, and in 1789, by special enactment, was pardoned and
restored to citizenship.
XVI. — MARTIN AS AGENT OF NORTH CAROLINA AND OF THE
UNITED STATES.
During all this quarrel Martin was acting as Indian agent
of North Carolina, with his headquarters on the Long Island
of Holston. During the greater part of the time he was agent
for Virginia also. These were trying days to the agent. The
Indians had certain rights which it was his duty to enforce
and this brought him into conflict with the whites. It is true
that he was on the losing side of the struggle, as all men have
been who have attempted to limit the English occupation of
America, but it does not follow that he is to be condemned
because of his position. Then, too, his relations with the
State of Franklin were not such as to make him acceptable
to a large part of the western folk. And to make the problem
more complex, the machinations of the Spanish are to be added.
They were constantly instigating the Cherokees, Creeks, and
Chickasaws to hostilities. Various filibustering expeditions
were fitted out to attack the Spanish forts.t These had to be
looked after and suppressed. The Spanish and French from
* PLelan, 99. It is evident that Winn, the Superintendent of Indian
Affairs, advised the arrest of Sevier. (See Am. Sta. Papers, Ind. Aff., 1, 55.)
If we are to take the account of Haywood (ed. 1891, 203, 204), it is equally
clear that Martin had neither desire nor intention of arresting Sevier.
t See Martin's letters of April 14, July 20, August 10, 30, 1783, and Gov-
ernor Harrison's instructions August 21.
WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 457
New Orleans were undertaking to engross the Indian trade,
the Spanish sought to get exclusive control of the Mississippi,
and the governor of New Orleans sent orders to the Chicka-
saws to remove all traders from the country except such as
should take the oath of allegiance to the Catholic King.*
At the same time the Cherokees reported that the northern
Indians had their emissaries among the southern Indians and
were endeavoring to form an alliance against the United States.
The British agents were in favor of this movement and so were
the Spaniards.!
We see then the imperative necessity of keeping the Cher-
okees quiet. This could not be done if the whites were allowed
to trespass at pleasure upon their lands. The work of the
agent was frequently paralyzed by these intruders, and every
Indian outbreak after 1776 can be traced to intrusion (MSS.).
In 1787 he was further hampered by the Franklin authorities,
who "opened the land ofi&ce for that part of the land lying
between French Broad and Tennessee which the legislature
of North Carolina ceded to the Cherokee Indians. The people
are settling as far as the banks of the Tennessee, and have
improved on the south side of the river to the great disgust of
the Indians; in short, they seem to take every step that appears
most productive to a war with those people." {
The efforts of Martin to protect the rights of the Indians
brought down the wrath of the Sevier party upon him, and in
this generation that of Sevier^s worshipers. These men, short-
sighted and incapable of seeing the question in its broader
relations, said that Martin was a friend to the Indians and
therefore no better ^han they. So a party of some fifty men
gathered and traveled some 30 miles with the intention of kill-
ing him. When they reached the Holston they halted and sent
eight or ten forward to reconnoiter. Col. Martin had in the
meantime learned their purpose. He went out to meet them
heavily armed, demanded their business, and said he would
shoot down the first man who moved his gun. They protested
that they had no hostile intentions. He finally invited them
into the house; they went in and drank, sent for their comrades
who had been left behind, and the whole affair, owing to his
* Ramsey : Tennessee, 336.
+ Ibid., 337. American State Papers, Indian Affairs, i, 39.
t Calendar Virginia State Papers, iv, 256.
458 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
courage and presence of mind, ended in a frolic instead of a
tragedy.*
The years 1786 and 1787 were to the borderers full of wars
and rumors of wars. Each side committed offenses against
the other, and Martin, as agent, had to bear the burden of the
quarrels, whichever side was in fault. He made long and
frequent expeditions into the nation to see how they did and
what their feeling was toward the whites. He used all his
efforts to keep them at peace, and while thus nursing the
Cherokees kept an eye on the Creeks and was from time to
time in their country. The Creeks were then under the
leadership of McGillivray, and in October and November,
1877, made an expedition against Cumberland. McGillivray's
plan was to attack Kentucky and to extend the war to all
the frontiers of Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. He
was carrying on peace negotiations with Georgia to amuse
them and intended making it so hot for the States that they
would consent to receive the Creek Confederacy as a separate
State. In October, 1787, it was reported that the Creeks were
on their way against Holston.
On the 3d of October Martin writes Governor Henry from
Chota that the governor of the Floridas was giving aid to the
hostile Creeks ; that an army of Georgia was in motion against
them ; that the Cherokees were much pleased at this and might
be induced to give their assistance. He had been twice through
the Nation and was on the point of starting again. ^^I shall
spair no pains to keep them in good humor, though they are
very uneasy about their lands j the people of North Carolina
have settled within 5 miles of their town. They beg that you
will write to Congress in their favor."
Dr. James White was appointed superintendent of Indian
* I have no idea that Sevier was in any way responsible for this attempt,
but Martin's firmness in the matter of FrankHn, plus the fact that they rep-
resented opposite sides on the question of Indian encroachments, widened
the breach that had already begun between these two patriots and which
seems to have continued through the remainder of their career. This hos-
tility was not peculiar to Martin and Sevier by any means. All of these
leaders, as Eoosevelt points out, show more or less of the same spirit, and
it was a natural one. There seems to have been no hard feeling on Mar-
tin's part. He writes Sevier in October, 1788, and says: ''Our Interest
are or ought to be so jointly Concerned that the strictest friendship Should
Subsist, which is my Earnest Desire." But this was not the case and the
charges of conspiracy which Sevier propagated kept them apart.
WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 459
W
H affairs for the Southern department November 29, 1786. It
■ seems that Col. Martin had been a candidate for this position,
H and in April, 1785, Governor Martin, of North Carolina, had
H certified that as Indian agent for North Carolina he had dis-
H charged his duties to the satisfaction of the assembly and the
H executive, '^and hath also conducted himself among those
■ Indians in such a manner as to gain their general esteem and
good will. He appears to be a gentleman well versed in Indian
affairs and discovers great capacity in the management of
IB them." Governor Henry recommended him also.* He was
probably defeated through the influence of the frontier settlers.
With this appointment Virginia ceased to employ an agent.
K Governor Eandolph writes Martin January 31, 1787: "The
executive, having approved your conduct in the Indian depart-
ment, were desirous of still engaging your services. But after
revising their powers since the appointment made by Congress
of a superintendent, they are under the disagreeable necessity
of informing you that they are disabled from longer continu-
ing your office." Martin's connection with Virginia thus came
to an end after nearly ten years of service. He continued to
act as Indian agent for North Carolina, and as we have seen
was appointed the same year brigadier-general of its militia.
The way his failure to receive the superintendency was
received by some of the best men in the State is shown by the
following letter from Hugh Williamson, the historian :
New York, June 23, 1788.
Sir : On the middle of May I arrived here. I had then been 3 years out
of Congress and could not liave taken my seat sooner. Doct White had
been gone a fortnight before my arrival and an Agent had been ap-
pointed for the Southern Department. It is true that the appointment
is said to be merely temporary, but nobody here has ever attempted to
convince me that the appoinment was prudently made. It is alleged
that the Agent appointed, as in all appointments formerly made, is alto-
gether unacquainted with the management of Indians. Having a full
Persuasion that you have a considerable acquaintance with the Indians
and interest among them, I wished to see you in that Department, but the
door seemed to be shut; there was, however, one mode remaining by
which our State at least might have the benefit of your Influence among
the Indians ; this was by giving you the seperate Charge of the Cherokees,
&c. Mr. Carrington of Virg, and Mr. Brown, a lawyer from the Western
Part of the State, were both informed of your attention to Indian affairs
and zealously promoted this measure, but my Collegue Mr. Swan who
had been inoculated could not attend steadily in Congress till on the last
* Calendar Virginia State Papers, iv, 24-25.
460 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
week and on Friday last you was chosen. While the Agent formerly ap-
pointed for the Southern Department continues, you are to hold a subor-
dinate Place, but to receive your Instructions from Congress with the
allowance of 500 Dlrs. p aun : I think it probble on the next year the
whole Duties of the Southern Department will be in your hands, for I am
persuaded that on the Rem- of this year we shall have the satisfaction
to find that the Indians under your Care conduct themselves without
offence to the Citizens of the United States. I hope in particular that our
Friend in Davidson County will experience the benefit of your attention
to the safety of themselves, their Wives and children.
I beg you to observe that I have no sort of claim to thanks for any
attention I have shown to this business, for in all votes that I give, as a
Servant of the State, I am careful not to be influenced by private attach-
ments ; I constantly wish to promote such men to Office as I think will
serve the public best. If you should be the means of saving the Lives of
any of our fellow Citizens I shall have the Reward that I covet, the appro-
bation of my own mind.
Wishing that your appointment may be productive of Benefit to the
State and Honor & Profit to yourself, I am, Sir, Your most obedt. Servt.,
Hu Williamson.
To Genl. Martin.
XVII. — MARTIN'S CHEROKEE CAMPAIGN OF 1788.
Early in 1788 the Oherokees again became restless. They
made an attack on Col. Bledsoe's station on Cumberland, and
it was threatening enough to induce him to send an express to
Hillsboro, K 0.^ for aid.* They made attacks in Davidson
and Sumner counties, killed people on the Kentucky road, and
took prisoners in Hawkins. The day before Christmas they
had made an attack on Gen. Martin's plantation on Tugaloo,
killed two men, and took some of his horses. The French from
Detroit were also taking possession of the bend of Tennessee,
were building blockhouses, had Indians with them, and were
giving alarm. And the Cherokees were doing mischief on
Holston. '^I have been much pressed to carry on an expedi-
tion against the Oherokees," writes Martin, "but am unwilling
to do anything of that kind without authority, though I fear
it will be out of my power to keep the people back much
longer." t
Congress in the meantime had already appointed Eichard
Winn superintendent of Indian affairs for the Southern
Department to fill out the time of Dr. White, but this does
not seem to have helped the situation much, and on June 20,
1788, as a kind of last resort, they appointed Martin agent for
* Calendar Virginia State Papers, iv, 395.
ilhid., IV, 395, 428, 432.
WAR OF THE EEVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 461
■■ WA
IB the Cherokee Nation for six months. This was the first
II appointment he had received from Congress. He was to act
■I ^^ subordination to the superintendent and was to receive
■" $500 a year. He was to investigate the grievances of the
Cherokees and report them to Congress. August 20, 1788,
he was also made agent for the Chickasaws, with similar pow-
^^, ers and limitations.
IB He responds to the letter of Secretary Knox announcing his
" appointment, from Henry County, Ya., on the 10th of July:
Sir: Your letter of tlie 23d of last month came to my hand this day. I
observe its contents with due attention, and do sincerely lament that
Congress did not at any earlier period give me, or some other person,
whose attention was to the interest of the United States, a power sooner,
I, as Indian affairs now stand tho' the department in which I am
I acquainted, I fear it will be difficult to answer the expectations of Con-
B gress, which with ease I could have done some time past.
H Gen. Martin then gives a detail from memory of the condi-
B tion of Indian affairs :
W At the last session of Assembly of North Carolina, I was appointed
" Brigadier-General of Washington District, which comprehends all that
part of the territory illegally called Franklin, also Cumberland Settle-
ments, the nearest to the Chickasaw tribe of Indians. In consequence of
my appointment on the 20th of April last, I set out in order to take
command of that trust reposed in me, also to put the constitutional laws
in execution which had been dominant [dormant?] for some considerable
time, much to the prejudice of that remote part. On the 24th I reached
the lower settlements on Holston river, where I found a number of men
in arms in order to attack the Cherokee towns, in consequence of a man
& boy being killed at that place a few days before.
Martin was certain that this killing was not the work of
the Cherokees, and persuaded the whites to investigate. They
chose four men, and these with Martin went to the Indian
towns and found that the killing was done by Creeks. The
whites were satisfied and Martin prevailed on the Indians to
remain in their towns and plant corn. But <' about the 15th
of May a family was killed within 9 miles of Chota, the chief
town of the Cherokees, on the lands reserved by the Legisla-
ture of !N'orth Carolina for those Indians, on which limits they
are placed by the commissioners by the direction of Congress."
Two parties were then raised for the chastisement of the
Pl Cherokees. Martin met one of them and turned it back. The
other attacked one of the friendly towns and the Indians
hearing of it put Martin under guard to await further devel-
opments. Little harm was done and Martin was set at liberty.
462 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
#
The killing was found to be the work of the Creeks and of the
Chickamaugas. He continues :
The Chickamauga and Creek Indians had, five days before this afifair
happened, taken a boat richly laden, going down the Tennessee river,
and had put all on board to death except three. That those friendly
Indians do not shew a desire to conceal the faults of their own people
where they transgress. That as the Chickamauga Indians had actually
joined their arms & force to co-operate with the Creek Indians, they tho'
friendly Indians, gave up cheerfully all claim below Tlighwassee river to
be punished as the white people thought proper. But all above wish to
be at peace. Though those passages between the Indians and white peo-
ple I used my endeavors to bring them to a reconciliation, from which
actings both parties appeared to me to be reconciled.
On the 24th I left the towns, and coming to French Broad river, about
thirty-five miles from Chota, I got intelligence of a certain Mr. Sevier,
who acted as Governor in the Spurious State of Franklin, that was raising
men to cut off the Cherokee Indians. Immediately finding this to be the
case, I returned back to the Indian towns, and moved off my negroes,
horses, &c., without taking my leave of the Indians. * * ^^ As I came
forward I met Mr. Sevier on his way. I endeavored to prevail on him to
return back, but all to no purpose. I am well informed since he found no
Indians in the town. * * *
The Convention of North Carolina sets on Monday next — I being one of
that body shall attend : From thence set out for the Cherokee towns «&, exert
every nerve to discharge the trust reposed in me. * * * i bave had
messages from the Chickasaw Indians to come down and see them, know-
ing that I was appointed Agent over them by the State of Georgia, also
over the Cherokees at the same time. I fear that they are neglected, as
the Cherokees have been, the Spaniards will draw them over to their inter-
est. I beg leave to inform you that the French «fe Spanish traders at the
Muscle Shoals are drawing off the Indian interest very fast. They are
building strong houses, & will be very strong shortly. Several of those
traders were in Chickamauga in May last.
Most of the offenses were thought to be the work of the
Chickamaugas. These were the most warlike and intractable
part of the Cherokees. They had their origin in a secession
from the older towns. At the time of Christian's campaign
against the Cherokees in 1776, one of their chiefs, called Dra-
gon Canoe,* or Cheuconnasse, a man of large and powerful
frame, coarse and irregular features, keen and smart, but of
strong prejudices, vindictive, and cruel, and at that time about
twenty- three years old, seceded from the national councils of
the Cherokees because they were too much disposed toward
* The name is also written Dragging Canoe by Ramsey and others. But
John Redd, a member of Martin's company in 1776, wrote L. C. Draper
that the proper form was as given above.
r
I
WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 463
peace, drew off a number of the Indians with him, particularly
the younger and more warlike members, and established them-
selves on Chickamauga Creek, near the whirl in the Tennessee
Biver, and about 100 miles below the mouth of the Holston.*
In 1782 they abandoned Chickamauga Creek, thinking it in-
fested with witches j a part returned to the old towns, others
moved 40 miles down Tennessee and founded what were after-
wards known as the lower towns on Tennessee.t They gave
an asylum to the British and Tories, were trained by them,
drew recruits from the more warlike young men of the neigh-
boring tribes and from desperate whites. The whole became
a band of fearless outlaws and were protected by almost inac-
cessible mountain fortresses.
But without orders from the Federal Government Martin
hesitated to move, and the people were clamorous for a cam-
paign. On May 9, 1788, the crew of a richly laden boat going
down Tennessee to Cumberland was decoyed by the Chicka-
mauga and Creek Indians and all were either killed or made
prisoners.! A good many murders and robberies had been
committed on the frontiers of Cumberland and Kentucky, and
on the Kentucky road by the Chickamaugas and Creeks; per-
sons had been killed at Clinch, Grassy Yalley, and other
places; 150 horses had been stolen; frontiersmen had been
driven off their lands and had to seek the forts. There was
no hope of reclaiming them so long as they remained detached
from their nation, and, under the advice of the principal chiefs
of the Cherokees, of the governor of North Carolina, and of
his subordinates. Gen. Martin determined on a campaign. An
army of some 800 men was called out, of which Sullivan was to
furnish 100, Washington 200, Greene 400, and Hawkins
100.§ They pursued the Indians, devastated a good deal of
their country, and suffered but little loss. The Indians there-
upon, after their usual fashion, betook themselves to the
mountains. The troops arrived at Lookout Mountain, not far
from the present Chattanooga, too late to cross that night.
* Royce, 115.
tAmerican State Papers, Indian Affairs, i, 432.
tSee his letter to Knox in Ihid., i, 46, 48.
§ This is the number and the proportion whicli the officers of Washing-
ton district advised should be called out. The Martin MSS. say the num-
ber was 1,000; Haywood and Ramsey, 517, say 450; Job, one of Martin's
men, says 500.
464 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
#
The crossing was difficult, consisting of a narrow defile. A
detachment was sent ahead to take possession of the pass
until morningj but the Indians had already anticipated them,
fired on the party, and drove them back. That night the
Indians were reinforced. Early in the morning a large division
was advanced to find their way. From the nature of the
ground they had to march mostly in zigzag fashion and in
single file, the officers leading. The Indians were posted to
great advantage and poured down on them a sudden and dis-
astrous fire ; many were killed, including several officers. Great
confusion ensued, and the place was such that it was impos-
sible to rally the men until they got to the foot of the mountain.
Some even ran off to the encampment. The balance of the
troops refused to come up at the order of the commander and
began to break up into independent squads. Gen. Martin was
obliged to recall the advance and retreat. After a while they
were again united and returned home together. It was impos-
sible to pursue the savages, for they had suffered much for
want of provision, and there was no great hopes of a supply, *
and a part of tlie men plead against going beyond the pass,
urging that it would be another Blue Lick affair.
This expedition was a failure from a combination of cir-
cumstances, but Gen. Martin was never blamed for a lack of
courage or skill, t The assembly of 1789 passed an act pro-
viding for their payment and they were discharged from
service, t
Gen. Martin and the field officers of Washington district
immediately met (October 9) and devised a plan for a new
campaign. Fifteen hundred men were to be drafted out of the
district, and each captain was to see that his men were well
armed and had ten days' provision. But dispatches came
while they were still in session from Secretary Knox requiring
* American Museum for October, 1788 (iv, 303, 391). This account is
somewhat different from that given above, which follows the Martin MSS.
It says the army was 450 in number.
t These troops, says Gilmore, were the followers of Sevier, the rival and
enemy of Martin, therefore had no confidence in him and refused to follow
him. But it is hard to think this the only explanation of their conduct.
Men who had spent their lives in fighting the Indians would hardly run
the risk of exposing themselves to the charge of cowardice and thus
tarnishing a long career of bravery to gratify the spite of one commander
against another.
X Iredell's Revision, 1791, 693.
WAE OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 465
them to cease from all campaigns against the savages. Martin
then went into the Indian country and had several talks with
their chiefs. But his work was made of no effect by the
hostility of the Indians to the whites, who were still after their
lands.* The action of Congress was so unsatisfactory to the
western people that in January, 1789, they met in convention
and drew up resolves to Congress, in which they proposed to
raise men by subscription to defend themselves on the Indian
land.t
The end of the dominion of North Carolina in the west was
now drawing near. " We are rid of a people who were a pest
and a burthen to us," writes Maclaine to Iredell. | The assem-
bly of 1789 repealed the law establishing an Indian agency for
North Carolina across the mountains, for it had just ceded
the territory to the United States, and Gen. Martin went
out of commission as the territory went out of the hands of
North Carolina.§ His term of service as agent for the United
States also expired this year, and he became a private citizen
for the first time since 1774.
XVIII.— MARTIN AND THE SPANIARDS.
In 1789 Martin was in his forty- ninth year and was a private
citizen. His first wife had died in 1782 and in 1784 he had
married Susannah Graves, a young woman of about 22. But
* American State Papers, Indian Affairs, i, 46-48.
ilhid. Gilmore says they had always served in these campaigns at their
own expense till now, and animadverts on Martin because they n»ow asked
pay from the State for their services. Had Gilmore thought on this point
he would have seen that it reflected not on Martin, who no doubt asked
pay for the soldiers because they demanded it, but on the followers of
Sevier themselves, who, according to his theory, were not only willing to
put their neighbors to the burden of a war tax, but even to risk their
reputation for courage. Furthermore, the payment of men engaged in
these Indian expeditions was a regular thing — in theorj^ at least. Gov-
ernor Blount writes Sevier from Philadelphia, August 28, 1793: "All the
pay rolls of your brigade have been audited and reported on and the pay-
ment secured but no payments as things are arranged can be made here," —
American State Papers, Indian Affairs, i, 38. Haywood (p. 70) speaks of
pay as early as 1778.
tMcRee's Iredell, ii, 275.
^ Martin was not removed from his office of brigadier general as Gilmore
states (p. 217). See Iredell's Revision, 691. Nor did "the same legisla-
ture" proceed "at once to commission Sevier as brigadier general, and to
place him in supreme military command beyond the mountains."
S. Mis. 104 30
466 jmmeeican historical association.
increasing years and increasing family did not crush his
adventurous spirit. In 1787 he had visited Georgia with the
intention of removing thither with his family.* In 1789 he
returned to that State and had in the meantime received a
letter from Alexander McGillivray, in which he says, "If I can
serve you I will cheerfully do it." t He was now on his final
mission for the United States. On the 2d of July, 1789, he
writes from Tugaloo, in Georgia, to Patrick Henry: f
I attended tlie Intended Treaty with tlie Cherokees ye 25 last month at
french broad river, $ wheare the Commissioners waited 12 Days over the
time appointed for holding the Treaty without hearing a word from the
Indians, they then Decampt I went on to meet the Creeks * * * I am
told that Genl Mathews is making Interest for to get in a Relation of his
to be superintendent Sc I suppose will say much about the letter I wrote
to McGilvery.
McGillivray was a Creek chief and was thought to be in the
service of the Spaniards. Of his letter to him, Gen. Martin
writes to Patrick Henry under the date of January 18, 1790:
Respecting the letter that has made such a noise, if Ever I had the In-
terest of the states at hart, never more than at that Time, if you will be so
Obliging as to Charge your memory, you will I Trust Remember that
when you was Governor last, I informed you that I Reed letter from
McGillavray advising me to Come there if he Could serve he Cheerfully
would also a message from the Governor of pansaccla Desiring I would Come
there without loss of time, I immediately sent to you for your advice in
that matter which was not to Go myself but to send some person to Try
to find out what his Business might be perhaps some scheme might be
forming against the united states. * * * Your advice to me as Governor
of Virginia was a principal reason why I kept up a Communication with
McGillavray, by which I obtained many points of Information & had the
Spaniards made any attempt on the united states I am well assured I should
have Got Information in time to give publick notice before any Blow Could
be struck.
Martin had his rivals in the Western country, men who were
anxious for his position. He had his enemies, too, men who
were willing to make use of any means, however despicable, to
supplant him. They thought they now had him and began an
investigation of his conduct under the auspices of the North
OaroUna legislature.
* Calendar Virginia State Papers, iv, 268.
t Ibid., IV, 454.
XFoT these letters of Martin's I am indebted to W. W. Henry, esq., of
Richmond, Va. They will be found in the Life, Correspondence, and
Speeches of Patrick Henry.
$Thi8 proposed treaty was the work of Winn. See American State
Papers, Indian Affairs, i, 48.
WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 467
P
■■ WAl
IH In reply to these charges Governor Henry writes a very
IH strong letter to E. H. Lee on January 29, 1790, in behalf of
IH Martin, in which he reviews his career and the charges against
IH him, and urges his appointment as Indian agent.
IH * * * I beg leave again to trouble you on the subject of General
I^B Martin's application for the agency of Indian affairs to the south. This I
I^K do at his most earnest request. Indeed the allegations against him seem to
■^T call for some vindication of his conduct, which would be easily affected
but for the great distance from the seat of government. You will see by
the papers which I inclose that he has brought on an enquiry into his
conduct, & how it has terminated, and that Govr. Martin has written to
the President in his favor, and has sent to General Martin a copy of what
I he wrote. I shall here relate the substance of his communication to me
when I was last in the Executive, and while he acted as superintendant
for this state of Indian affairs. He [General Martin] informed me McGil-
vray had several times sent him word to make him a visit and carry on a
correspondence, and at length wrote him a letter, which he put into my
hands, the substance of which was as above. He desired my opinion on
the matter. I encouraged him so far to cultivate McGilvray as, if possi-
ble, to fathom his views and keep the Indians from our people; at the
same time by means of the Indians or others to discover the extent and
nature of McGilvray's connections with the Spaniards. I am satisfy'd
Mr. Martin proceeded on this idea : for he quickly satisfyed me of the
Spanish policy respecting the Indians, sending me a commission given to
a Creek Indian by a Spanish governor constituting him an officer. How
necessary it must be to discover these and similar practices with the Indian
tribes, it is easy to see ; & that the interest of the U. States and of this
state required, that McGilvray's ill designs, if he had any, should be
turned against him. General Martin's conduct so far as I could discern
in that affair was really praise-worthy. He frequently gave me intelli-
gence of Creek Indian affairs, and of the intercourse between other Indians
and the Spaniards that was interesting. I am satisfyed the correspondence
as above took its origin as I have stated, and that General Martin in no
respect turned it to the prejudice of any American state or citizen, on the
contrary that Jie made it subservient to the purpose of gaining useful intel-
hgence. How cruel then is it thus to blast the Reputation of a public
servant, whose employment in a peculiar manner exposed him to the hatred
and malevolence of the many intruders on Indian rights, and these indeed
I believe he has constantly opposed, as they are constantly attacking him
in one shape or other.
And on February 8, he incloses papers to Lee which were
to be so used "as may seem to wipe away the aspersions thereon
on the person intended to be ruined in the public opinion.
You will find the same party also endeavored to ruin his son,
Wm. Martin, by accusing him of joining the Indians in their
murdering parties," (in, 416), and this letter, he said, was writ-
ten "in justification of one to whom I do think great injustice
has been done respecting this affair.'^
468 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
In the same way, William Blount, the newly appointed gov-
ernor of the Southwest Territory, signed a report exonerating
Martin from any wrong in writing the letter to McGillivray,
and the result of the legislative investigation was a triumph-
ant vindication of Martin. The governor of ISTorth Carolina
also wrote a strong letter urging his appointment as Indian
agent. The proceedings of the legislature were laid by Mar-
tin before the Secretary of War and by him before the Presi-
dent. Knox writes Martin under date of September 11, 1790 :
The investigation and decision made by the legislature of North Caro-
lina, on the complaints exhibited against you will be sufficient to place
your conduct in writing to Mr. McGillivray, in a proper point of view.
This decision must be satisfactory to your friends, and will probably
silence your enemies — as Governor Blount is invested with the office of
superintendant of the Southern district, I flatter myself you will render
him all the information and Services in your power.
But the vindication came too late. Martin's enemies had
done their work. Martin writes Governor Henry under date
of January 4, 1791: "The other deposition alluded to was
exhibited by Mr. Sevier in order to answer his ends. These
were the reasons, I have been told, that Congress did not con-
tinue my appointment, to the very great injury of the frontiers
of this State." * * * i^i the same way these charges
probably lost him the appointment as governor of the South-
west Territory.
As soon as the cession of Tennessee was formally ratified
by Congress a temporary form of government similar to that
of the Northwest Territory was established. The governor
was made Indian agent and was authorized to transact all
business with them in a more absolute manner than former
agents had been authorized to do. This then was an office
of much importance, and Martin was urged for it by Henry,
who says to him in a similar connection: "It will be hard
indeed if a Sevier should be preferred to you." * He was urged
also by Lee, Grayson, Bland and others, t
Thus, while Martin was acting on the best advice with refer-
ence to the Spaniards and with the hope of doing service to
the States, his purpose was misrepresented by his enemies.
Governor Mathews, of Georgia, made charges of treasonable
correspondence, and a certain Ballew, " a man of infamous
character, who is set on by Mr. Savier," and who, having got-
* American State Papers, Indian Affairs, iii, 409-412.
t See Lee's letter to Henry, June 10, 1790.
WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST— WEEKS. 469
ten a few fugitive Clierokees together, was by means of forged
papers trying to pass off as their business agent, repeated and
reiterated the charges, while others said he had instigated the
Indians to war.* So great was the hostility with which some
of the parties regarded him, that he replies to an invitation
from Governor Henry in 1790 to go to the Chickasaw country
and attend to some purchases he had made there, " I Don't
think it will answer any valuable purpose unless I had some
appointment from Congress, in the Indian department, as
Savier & Belew has their Eyes on that spot of Ground » * *
should any be there on that Business without Some authority
from Congress, their life might be in danger without answer-
ing any Desirable purpose."
That in aU this struggle for lands Martin had been largely
unmindful of self in his zeal for the public is shown in letters
from Governor Henry, who writes him about a purchase which
had been made by himself and others in the Bend of Tennessee,
January 25, 1790, "knowing that you have spent the prime of
your days in serving the public, & that after all the Hazards
you have run, that you have not acquired so much property
as many others would have done in your situation, I was
desirous to throw something in your way by which some fine
land would have been offered to you in our purchase." He
writes again 10 March, 1790.
You have spent your prime of life & have doue nothing capital for your-
self—It is now time to look about you and avail yourself of your knowl-
edge of the Indians & their Country & do something for your self * * *
For I think you might do more as a private man than if you were in office.
You have all along surported Government according to your Duty. And
now you will find perhaps that some raw man who makes his Court in
person, or who by some Northern Interest is become known, will prob-
ably step in — I would really go to New York & know at once what you
have to depend on — or I would go & reside in Franklin & try to avail
my self of 'the Chance that is now offering of securing Lands South
westerly— This I think is a Duty you owe your self & Family, & it is
your Right to have some of those Benefits you have so often hazarded
your life to secure. * ^ *
XIX. — MARTIN A TRADER AMONa THE CHEROKEES.
But all these drawbacks and disappointments had little
influence in taming the adventurous spirit of Martin. About
1789 he removed to the frontiers of Georgia, established a fort,
took an active part in suppressing Indian hostilities, and was
* Life of Henry, iii, 397.
470 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
#
elected to the legislature of Georgia. He also engaged in
trade with the Cherokees. He seems to have continued this
business through the year 1793, and it seems sustained some
heavy losses, perhaps from Indian depredations. But the
spirit of care which he had been accustomed to exercise did
not forsake him. In November, 1790, he writes that the Chicka-
maugas were threatening Eussell County, Ya., and June 6,
1791, Blount writes him from the treaty ground near the
mouth of the French Broad Eiver : " * =» * Eeports have
prevailed to your disadvantage that are happily contradicted
in decided Terms by Mr. Ore and Mr. Hacket and Capt.
Fauche witnesses your endeavors to put the Indians in the
proper way of Thinking for which I return you Thanks, pray
continue them. * * * "
XX. — MARTIN IN THE MILITARY SERVICE OF VIRaiNIA.
On the 11th of December, 1793, Governor Henry Lee, of Vir-
ginia, commissioned Martin brigadier-general of the Twelfth
Brigade of Virginia militia. Martin was elected to this posi-
tion by the assembly over a Mr. Clay, a good speaker, an ex-
member of Congress, and of considerable popularity.
The cause of this action was the whisky insurrection, and
the occasion was said to be ^'pressing." In August, 1794, a
detachment of 2,816 men was formed in the first division of
Virginia militia, of which Gen. Jones's brigade district was
to furnish 901 men with officers, Gen. Meade's 564, Gen. Car-
rington's 676, and Gen. Martin's 675. September 1, 1794, 833
additional were to be raised, of which Martin was to furnish
3 captains, 3 lieutenants, 3 ensigns, 12 sergeants, 6 drums and
fifes, 180 rank and file. These troops were to be organized,
armed, and equipped and to be held in the most perfect read-
iness to march at a moment's notice.
It seems that the purpose for which this expedition was
organized was not liked by all sections of Virginia. They no
doubt had a good deal of a fellow-feeling with the insurgents,
for we find that on October 4, 1794, Martin was instructed to
institute "legal proceedings against all delinquences under
the requisitions of the United States, which have arisen within
your brigade district," and Edward Carrington, the U. S.
agent, says that mutinies happened in some of the counties
that composed Martin's district. This so delayed matters that
the troops did not reach Winchester until the 22d of October,
WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 471
when they should have been there on the 1st. They were
•therefore of no service, were paid off, and discharged. Car-
txington recommended an investigation. This seems never to
[have been made, because, probably, the whisky insurrection
lad come to an end about this time and because the temper of
the people would not allow it. There was no charge against
■ Tartin.
XXI. — MARTIN A BOUNDARY COMMISSIONER.
The boundary between Kentucky and Virginia had come up
for settlement in 1795. The Kentucky commissioners were
John Coburn, Eobert Johnson, and B. Thurston. The Vir-
ginia commissioners were Judge Archibald Stuart, Chan-
cellor Creed Taylor, and Gen. Joseph Martin.
The Kentucky commissioners claimed the northeast fork of
^Bandy as their boundary and a row began. The Kentucky
legislature approved the claims of its representatives and
directed them to proceed no further " unless the legislature of
Virginia (by their acts) show a disposition to settle the busi-
ness in an amicable way.* The matter seems to have been
settled, for we find them agreeing to meet at the fork of the
Big Sandy October 1, 1799, for further work.
The boundary between Tennessee and Virginia had never
been fixed. Various efforts had been made to fix it while
Tennessee was still a part of North Carolina. Fry and Jeffer-
son had carried it as far west as what has been since known
as the Laurel Fork of Holston, and in 1779 Thomas Walker
and Daniel Smith for Virginia, with Eichard Henderson and
James Smith for North Carolina, met and agreed to resume
Fry and Jefferson's line. But they soon fell into disagreement
and after abusing each other in the orthodox manner char-
acteristic of the boundary commissioners of these two States,
Henderson ran another line 2 miles to the north of Walker's.
These lines represented the . respective claims of the States,t
and the matter remained unsettled. In 1790 Martin was sent
to North Carolina to get matters straight. He got the
assembly to refer it to a committee: ^' I found it very Difficult
to Collect the Committee Being obliged to do the duty of a
door-keeper, by applying personally to every one, & soliciting
* Calendar Virginia State Papers, viii, 330.
t Ibid., IV, 365.
472 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
them to attend." * The Oarolinans would do nothing. In 1802
commissioners were appointed to settle the line between Vir-
ginia and Tennessee, Joseph Martin, Creed Taylor, and Peter
Johnston representing Virginia, while John Sevier, Moses
Fiske, and George Koutlege appeared for Tennessee. Brice
Martin was one of the surveyors. The commissioners now
effected a compromise under which they ran a third line, equi-
distant from the other two, from the summit of White Top
Mountain westward to the top of Cumberland Mountain. This
survey was ratified by the two States in 1803, and has since
been their boundary.!
XXII. — ESTIMATE OF MARTIN.
The career of Gen. Martin was now drawing to a close.
Despite his opposition to Sevier and his abortive State of
Franklin, the regard in which the people of Sullivan County,
among whom he had lived and worked for twelve years, held
him is shown clearly by the fact that they sent him as their
representative to the North Carolina assembly in 1784 and
1787. They chose him to serve them also in the Hillsboro
convention in 1788. This convention discussed the adoption
of the Federal Constitution and postponed action, neither
ratifying nor rejecting, until certain amendments were passed.
Martin was with the minority that favored immediate ratifica-
tion. He was also a member of the Fayette ville convention in
1789, when the Constitution was adopted. A creek in Lee
County, Va., near Martin's Station, was called for him, and
that this confidence was general is shown equally as clearly
by his Virginia neighbors when they called the county seat of
Henry, in which he was then living, Martinsville, in his honor
in 1791.
He was elected to the Virginia legislature from Henry
* Calendar Virginia State Papers, v, 242; vi, 106, 125.
t See sketcli of this survey by John Allison in Knoxville Weekly Tribune,
July 11, 1888. It is interesting to note in this connection that on February
24, 1886, the assembly of Virginia instructed her governor to bring suit, if
necessary, against Tennessee to secure the removal of this line to the south-
ward. The suit was brought in the Federal court in 1889. The attorney-
general of Virginia claimed that a serious conflict of jurisdiction had
arisen, especially over matters connected with Bristol, Tenn., and Good-
son, Va. ; he asked that the agreement of 1803 be declared null and void,
and that Virginia be quieted in possession of the disputed territory. In
an elaborate opinion delivered on the third of April, 1893, Justice Field
declined to grant the prayer of Virginia.
WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 473
IH County for nine successive years, 1791-1799, and possibly
IH served several years after tliat— until he thought it best to
IH retire on account of age. Here he took a high stand for
11 ^^t^^^^y? foresight, and firmness of purpose. He was a strong
IH supporter of Madison in the Virginia resolutions in 1798 and
IH ^'^^^- ^^ ^^® ^^^^ ^^ office, but never aspired higher than his
acknowledged merits gave him the right, and this is perhaps
I the cause of his popularity with his neighbors. He might
have been a member of Congress, but thought this higher than
he could fill with honor to himself and honor to the country —
a model worthy of our imitation to-day.
After the Tennessee survey Gen. Martin seems not to have
been again in public life. He removed from Smith Kiver to
Leatherwood Creek, in the same county, devoted himself to
his domestic concerns, and had accumulated a considerable
estate. This consisted largely of negroes and land lying in
Virginia and Tennessee. During the summer of 1808 he made
a long journey to the West on private business. He visited
many of the scenes of his early years and also his former friends,
the Cherokees. He returned in the fall much fatigued and
debilitated, and died of paralysis in Henry County, Va., on
the 18th of December, 1808, and was buried with masonic and
military honors. His widow, by whom he had eleven children,
lived at the family seat until its destruction by fire in 1836,
and died there November 9, 1837, in the seventy-fourth year
of her age.
Gen. Martin represented the physical characteristics of his
family. He was 6 feet in height, weighed more than 200 pounds,
was of prepossessing appearance, with bland and courteous
manners. In disposition he was energetic, with a good deal of
a roving element that drove him to the wild life of the forest
and well fitted him for the theater that became his by choice.
He became bald many years before his death, and for many
years wore a heavy chin beard which he plaited and hid beneath
his shirt. He was fond of fine clothes, but held tenaciously on
to old styles, the small clothes, long stockings, short knee
buckles, the wide back, straight breasted coat, skirted vest,
and neck stock with the buckle.
He was easy and sociable with equals and inferiors, grave,
dignified and commanding with superiors; temperate in habits,
was never drunk, and never took more than a social glass;
never sick, never lost blood from a lancet, and lost no teeth.
In his domestic relations he was reserved, and seldom entered
474 J^ERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
into the lighter and gayer life of the family, and this reserve
was maintained to a considerable extent with his oldest son
after the latter had attained distinction. Gen. Martin's most
conspicuous talent was in Indian diplomacy. His military
career was within a limited sphere. Had he had a wider field
the talent might have been more developed. In partisan war-
fare against the Indians ability to command was needed less
than strategic ability and personal bravery. This quality he
had to the fullest; he was recklessly brave; he knew no such
word as fear. His daring is illustrated by an incident that
happened near the Eye Cove fort on Clinch Eiver in the
spring of 1777. The settlement in Kentucky had been attacked,
and had sent couriers to Virginia for aid. These fell into an
ambuscade just beyond the Eye Cove, and one was slain, but not
before he wounded his antagonist. The wounded Indian was
traced by his blood to a cave; Gen. Martin entered and killed
him, although the Indian was armed with a gun and had the
advantage of darkness. This reveals far more bravery than
the more famous story of Putnam and the wolf.
Martin was a man of strong feelings, with many personal
likes and dislikes. He made mistakes and he made enemies,
but no charge can be maintained against him that he at any
time sought his interest more than the public good. ]N"or did
he ever hesitate to sacrifice personal popularity for what he
believed to be the right, a most notable instance of which we
see in his course in connection with the State of Franklin. He
was willing to suffer the abuse and misrepresentation which the
Franklinites heaped upon him, and bided his time for the vin-
dication of the right. He numbered among his friends many
of the best men of the day. His military ability was clearly
recognized by his fellow pioneers, Bledsoe, Campbell, Christian,
Shelby, Donelson, Hawkins, Pickens, and others, while the
letters from Governor Henry, Governor Harrison, Governor
Eandolph, and others from Virginia, from Governors Caswell
and Martin, of North Carolina, and Blount, of Tennessee, in-
dicate the highest esteem and respect. His correspondence
was large and with the best men of the country.
XXIII.— THE IHARTIN FAMILY.
Gen. Martin was the second generation in America and the
third son in a family of 5 sons and 6 daughters. We know
very little of his brothers and sisters. One of them, Brice,
WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 475
lamed for the ship in which their father came to America
and which has since been a family name, was with Gen. Martin
on many of his Indian campaigns. He took up lands under
Henderson & Co. in Powell's Yalley, near Beaver Dam Creek,
some 8 miles from Martin's Station. He was at the Long
Island of Holston for a while with his brother, and in 1802, he,
or his nephew of the same name, was one of the surveyors to
the Tennessee and Virginia Boundary Commission. He did
not marry until late in life and died in Tennessee in 1816. He
had two sons.
Gen. Martin was twice married. He first married about
1762 Sarah Lucas and had seven children. She died in Henry
County, Ya., of smaU-pox, March 17, 1782. We do not know the
exact order of these children. It was, perhaps, as follows :
Susannah, born 1763, married Jacob Burnes, who had been
in the employ of Martin at the Long Island of Holston. He
seems to have been a man of little character. He died in Octo-
ber, 1832. She died at Col. Martin's in Smith County, Tenn.,
June 16, 1844. Col. Martin describes her as a woman of great
personal worth. They had one son, probably other children.
WiUiam was born in Orange County, Ya., I^ovember 26,
1765, died of pleurisy in Smith County, Tenn., I^ovember 4,
1846. He was a farmer and had a family of eight sons and
two daughters. He went on an expedition against the Indians
with some of Col. Wm. Campbell's men in 1781; was in Pow-
ell's Yalley in 1785 and remained on the frontier for two years.
He shared the hardships of the settlers and protected them
with the company of rangers under his command. He was
sometimes stationed in a fort, was sometimes j)ursuing maraud-
ing parties of Indians, sometimes opening up channels of travel,
by which emigrants could more easily reach the forming set-
tlements.* He was sent to middle Tennessee, via Kentucky,
about 1787 in charge of a company of men by the State of North
Carolina and continued in command about two years. He then
returned to Yirginia, married at 25 and removed to Tugaloo,
Pendleton District, South Carolina, in 1791. He was a mem-
ber of the South Carolina legislature and lived there until
1798, when he migrated to the Cumberland, settled at Dixon's
Springs, Smith County, and remained there the balance of his
life. He was a member of the Georgia legislature in 1787. In
1800 he was engaged in surveying the Indian boundary, in
* Ramsey : Tennessee, 477.
476 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
1804 was a Jefferson elector, a Madison elector in 1808. He
was in the Tennessee legislature in 1812-'13, and was vice-
president of the Whig convention of 1844. In the war of 1812
he was elected lieutenant-colonel of the Second Eegiment of
Tennessee Volunteers. He served in the Natchez campaign
and in that against the Creeks. At Talladega, after the wound-
ing of Col. Pillow, Martin took command and was conspicuous
for his good conduct. Owing to a conflict of opinion as to the
date of expiration of their time of service some of the Tennessee
regiments, including that of Col. Martin, undertook to return
home after the 10th of December, 1813. This caused his char-
acter to be attacked by anonymous scribblers in the public
press and caused him to publish "The Self-Vindication of
Col. William Martin against certain charges and aspersions
made against him by Gen. Andrew Jackson and others, in
relation to sundry transactions in the campaign against the
Creek Indians, in the year 1813." It appeared at Nashville in
1829, at the time when Jackson was at the height of his popu-
larity. Many of the officers conversant with the affair were
still living, but no one was found to dispute the accuracy of
the statements. It was republished about 1850.*
Elizabeth married Carr Waller; died 1805; left four children.
Brice born 1770; died December 30, 1856; married Malinda
Purkins, in Smith County, Tenn., 1811; was at New Orleans
and was promoted major; was also in the Creek war; had five
children.
Polly married Daniel Hammack. He died in 1829; she was
still living about 1840.
Martha married William Cleveland, died about 1818 ; left two
sons and other children.
Nancy married Archelus Hughes; died about 1835; left six
or eight children.
Gen. Martin married in 1784 Susannah Graves. She died
March 9, 1837, in her 74th year. They had eleven children, per-
haps in the following order :
Joseph, born September 22, 1785; known as Col. Joseph;
married Sally Hughes (born April 30, 1792) April 27, 1810; a
member of the Virginia assembly in 1809 and of the constitu-
tional convention of 1829-^30; a farmer by profession; died
in Henry County, Va., November 3, 1859; he had eight daugh-
ters and four sons.
* Nashville, 8vo., pp. 48.
WAR OF THE REVOLUTION IN THE WEST — WEEKS. 477
Jesse was in the war of 1812; a farmer iu Henry County;
married, first, Annie Armistead and had one son; second,
Cecelia Eeid, and had eight sons and a daughter; died about
1835. She died August 26, 1875, aged 83.
Thomas W. went to Tennessee ; married Miss Carr, of North
Carolina.
Louis went to Tennessee; saw military service; died in Lin-
coln County, Mo., about 1850; married Miss Eucker,
Alexander died in Lincoln County, Mo., about 1850; mar-
ried Miss Carr, of North Carolina.
John Calvin was living near Woodberry, Tenn., March 20,
1842; saw military service; married Miss Rucker.
George married, first, Miss Starling; second. Miss Watkins;
had several children; he served in the Virginia legislature;
removed to North Carolina about 1840 and died about 1860.
Sally married Rev. Samuel Armistead February 7, 1807;
died about 1813, leaving three sons.
Susannah (for Gen. Martin kept up the Puritan custom of
giving the same name to more than one child) married George
King; was a widow and living in Virginia about 1840.
Polly married Reuben Hughes; died 1839; left one son, per-
haps other children.
Patrick Henry was taken to Tennessee by his half brother
Brice and was educated by William and Brice; he studied law
and went to the bar about the beginning of the war of 1812.
But he left this to join Jackson's army; was with him nearly
the whole time and died after his return from New Orleans.
XXVII -THE ANNALS OF AN HISTORIC TOWN.
By PROF. F. W. BLACKMAR,
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS.
479
:!'
THE ANNALS OF AN HISTORIC TOWN.
By F. W. Blackmar.
It sometimes happens in the making of a commonwealth
that a certain small and obscure community bears such an
important part in a great struggle as to justly earn for itself
historic renown. It becomes the initial point of the contest,
the key to the situation, or perhaps the point at which turns
the tide of triumph. To such conditions may be referred the
modest town of Lawrence, well-known in Kansas as the " His-
toric City. " There was a time when the thoughts of the people
of the Eepublic was centered on this town, then an insignifi-
cant appearing frontier hamlet. Its local interests became
territorial interests, and its deeds of national significance.
While one part of the people of the States were gloomy over
defeat, another exultant over victory, and both conjecturing
over the future, the thoughts and dreams of men were being
verified on the prairies of Kansas. While they talked on
certain propositions, the pioneers of Kansas struggled and
fought over them. The national life had lapsed into distrust
and inaction 5 the representatives of the people in Congress
assembled had shunned a great moral question. They had
staked out a territory in the wilderness of the West and said,
this is a duelling ground; here the struggle shall be settled.
'^The field of battle was thus removed from the halls of Con-
gress to the plains of Kansas. * National issues were referred
to a local community to settle. But the nation did not escape
so easily, for the attempt to shift this responsibility to the
plains of Kansas caused an agitation that eventually precip-
itated the whole nation in a great struggle, and dearly it paid
for the evasion of the question.
One scarcely realizes as he now looks upon this conserv-
ative rural town of 10,000 inhabitants, that it could have been
* Robinson : The Kansas Conflict, p. 6.
S. Mis. 104 31
481
482 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
tbe scene of the confusion and strife which history records;
that its local life could once have been of so much national
importance J that this quiet scene could have been a national
duelling ground. But looking from the front of the main
building of the University of Kansas, situated on Mount
Oread, rising 200 feet above the town, the eye beholds a land
of marvelous beauty. Well improved farms of great fertility,
fields of corn and wheat alternating with orchards laden with
fruit, and the wooded copse, greet the eye in every direction.
The valley of the Kaw and the rolling plains are covered with
the homes of a happy and prosperous peeple. The town at
the foot of the hill on the north and east is symbolical of quiet
and peaceful home life. But in the memory of men who walk
the streets of the town in the pursuits of the peaceful arts
great changes have been wrought before their eyes. Indeed,
they were the actors in the scenes which made these great
changes. To them this peaceful scene is alive with historic
interest; the past to them is a record of struggles, of strife,
of war, of bloodshed, and of a final victory.
Close in on the brow of the hill, a short distance from where
the university now stands, are the ruins of a fort, erected to
withstand the invaders of Price. At the other end of the
hill was located the fort to defend against the border ruffians.
A few rods in front, on the eastern slope of the hill, once stood
the house of Governor Eobinson, burned in the sack of Law-
rence. To the left of Blue Mound is the site of the town of
Franklin, once famous as a rendezvous of the enemies of Law-
rence. Near it flows the Wakarusa, on whose banks mustered
the Kansas militia, formed largely of Missourians, in the
famous Wakarusa war. In front and two miles toward the
east is Oak Hill cemetery, where rest scores of fallen heroes,
where sleep in a single grave seventy victims of the Quantrell
raid. Prominent in the town are buildings where once were forts
and fortifications. The Eldridge house rises on the ruins of
the old Free State hotel. To complete the historic picture, it
may be stated that the university at first bore the significant
title of the Free State College.
Fifty years ago this lovely land was in the possession of the
Shawnee Indians. It was then a landscape of wild beauty,
alternating with prairie, and forest, and winding stream.
Forty-three years ago the scene was vivified and the stillness
broken by a continuous line of emigrants winding their way on
THE ANNALS OF AN HISTORIC TOWN — BLACKMAR. 483
the old California road toward the el dorado of the Pacific
slope.* Four years later the first company of Lawrence
settlers pitched their tents on the north brow of Mount Oread.
Thirty-eight years ago the Lawrence association and the Free
State men were in arms, arrayed against the hordes of Missouri
in the Wakarusa war. Soon after the town was sacked and
burned by the border rufBans. Two years thereafter the
regular Federal troops were- called out by Governor Walker
to put down the Inhabitants of a "rebellious town." It was
alleged that the town was in a state of revolution against
Territorial authorities. Thirty years ago the town of Law-
rence was sacked and burned by Quantrell and his ruffians,
and the year following the town was fortified against the Con-
federate army under Price, which fortunately came no farther
than Kansas City. Thus, in ten years of continuous strife
and toil, the town was built. The events of Bennington,
Saratoga, and Boston of old-time glory did not exceed in
patriotism, courage, and suffering the sturdy and persistent
settlers of this town and its environs. 'Not, indeed, could any
of these towns recount the atrocious deeds and the horrible
scenes which characterized the early history of Lawrence.
The people of Lawrence were to fight over again the war for
political and religious liberty begun so long ago in New Eng-
land. Their deeds were the prologue to the last drama of
nation-building.
Owing to its peculiar position and relations the history of
Lawrence is worthy of special treatment, and it will be the
object of this paper to present some salient features of this
early life, the events of which began in 1854. It was on
August 1 of this year that the first party of emigrants, 29 in
number, sent out by the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Com-
pany arrived at the site of Lawrence and pitched their tent
village on the northern point of Mount Oread. They came to
St. Louis by rail and thence to Kansas City by boat, and then
proceeded with ox teams to Lawrence. They were met at St.
Louis by Dr. Charles Eobinson, the agent of the company, who
gave them substantial assistance, and then returned to the East
to conduct the second party westward.! Dr. Eobinson and
* One of these parties, in which was Dr. Charles Robinson, camped on the
present site of the university. Dr. Robinson remembered the place and
later directed the pioneers of the Emigrant Aid Association to this spot.
t Andreas: History of Kansas, p. 312.
484 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Mr. Charles Branscombe, as ageots of tlie company, had visited
Kansas in July, 1854, for the purpose of selecting a country
for settlement. They chose the Kaw valley, near the present
site of Lawrence. The emigrants pitched their tents on the
hill overlooking the valley, and on this spot partook of their
first meal in Lawrence. Mr. Fuller, one of the emigrants,
inscribed upon his tent the name of Mount Oread in honor of
Mount Oread Seminary, of Worcester, Mass., which was
founded by Eli Thayer, the founder and benefactor of the
Emigrant Aid Company. The hill on which they camped
retained this name ever afterwards. After the first meal, the
emigrants, in true New England style, held a town meeting in
which was discussed the feasibility of locating at this place.
After due deliberation it was decided by a majority to build a
town at this locality, on the supposition that the Massachu-
setts Emigrant Aid Company would make this the basis of
their operations in the Territory.* Consequently the company
proceeded to stake out claims in accordance with the methods
in vogue.
In the meantime Dr. Eobinson had returned to Massachu-
setts and started with the second party of emigrants, number-
ing 67, which was increased along the route, 21 joining the
company at Worcester, 8 or 10 of this group being women and
children.t The spirit with which these people left their native
land to settle in a new country was characteristic of the Pil-
grims and Puritans of New England. They were not forced
to leave their homes on account of personal oppression, but
they went to better their economic condition, and at the same
time to build up civil and religious freedom in a new land.
While in the station at Boston they sang Whittier's well-known
hymnf on the Kansas emigrants, of which two stanzas are
given here:
We cross the prairies as of old
The pilgrims crossed the sea,
To make the West as they the East
The homestead of the free.
We go to plant the common schools
On distant prairie swells,
And give the Sabbaths of the wild
The music of her bells.
* Springfield Republican, August, 1854. t Andreas, 311.
t Whittier's Poems, Vol. iii, p. 177.
THE ANNALS OF AN HISTORIC TOWN — BLACKMAR. 485
They also sang a hymn written for the occasion, the first lines
)f which are as follows : *
We'll seek the rolling prairies,
The regions yet unseen.
Nor stay our feet unweary
By Kansas' flowing stream ;
And then with hands unfettered
Our altars we will raise,
With voices high uplifted
We'll sing our Maker's praise.
At the station at Worcester the Hon. William 0. Bloss pre-
jnted the company with a handsomely bound Bible on which
was inscribed: ^^To establish civil and religious liberty in
Kansas." While these people were anxious to transplant and
perpetuate New England institutions they were not wanting
in that practical thrift which characterized the early New Eng-
land settlers; they were interested in the fertile lands of Kan-
sas. Truly they sought to establish civil and religious liberty
in Kansas and at the same time to enter and possess the prom-
ised land. The process was to establish homes, to develop
the resources of the country, that free institutions might
flourish.
The Kansas and Nebraska bill, or the Douglas bill, had
removed the seat of freedom's struggle to Kansas and these
hardy pioneers were to occupy a new position in the strife.
The Emigrant Aid Company were sending out free men who
would make Kansas a free State, but they must become bona
fide settlers, tilling the soil, building towns, and forming gov-
ernments. But they sought the freedom of others. The ora-
tor of the quarter-centennial celebration of the settlement of
Kansas well says :
The pioneers who became trusted leaders among the Free- State hosts
were men who could not rest in their old comfortable homes when the
demon of human slavery was clutching at freedom's rightful heritage.
Many of them were the sons of the old anti-slavery agitators, and had
learned from childhood to hate slavery and to love freedom and to claim it
as the right of all men, races, and conditions. t
After the arrival of the second party the two were joined
and speedily came to an agreement about claims. The first
party were to receive compensation for the work already done,
* Andreas, 313.
+ Col. S. N. Wood in quarter-centennial address at Topeka.
486 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
the second party joining them in the distribution of claims.
Then followed the process of building a town from the founda-
tion. A town site was selected and surveyed, being 2J miles
along the river, and 1 J miles from the river south. A sufficient
number of farm lots were surveyed to give each settler a claim
of 160 acres. Choice of claims were to be made in order of the
highest bids made. This money paid was to go into a city
fiind. The highest bid made was $327, and the total amount
bid was $5,040.*
One-half of the city lots were to be distributed among the
settlers and one-fourth retained by the association and the
remaining fourth kept for gratuitous distribution to those
who would agree to build homes upon them and make other
improvements, within a certain date.
On the 18th of September the town association was organized.
As there was yet no Territorial government the settlers were
practically without government and law save only as they were
a law unto themselves. The town was named Lawrence in
honor of Amos A. Lawrence, the patron and officer of the Mas-
sachusetts Emigrant Aid Company, and the Lawrence Asso-
ciation was formed of all the settlers. No charter could be
obtained from a higher authority, so a simple democratic organ-
ization, with a constitution and officers, was formed. The ordi-
nary simple forms of municipal government were adopted, and
rules of registration of claims, conditions of membership, etc.,
were determined. The officers were president, vice-president,
secretary, treasurer, register of deeds and claims, and clerk
of court, surveyor, marshal, board of arbitrators, and coun-
cilmen.t This remarkable association continued in vogue for
nearly three years as practically the only government the new
town had. Under the circumstances it was sufficient, and when
a better government was needed the citizens made a charter
for themselves and reorganized the city government. For
several months the association held a meeting once each week,
and all the settlers who were members of the association
attended these meetings. There was no representative govern-
ment, as the officers worked on the committee plan. Finally
the meetings occurred but once each month. Lands were
* Sufficient time was given for the payment of the money so as to aflford
the poor as well as the rich ample opportunity for land. Subsequently it
was voted that this money should not be collected.
t AndreaS; p. 313.
THE ANNALS OF AN HISTORIC TOWN BLACKMAR. 487
[reserved for schools, a college, and for State buildings. As the
municipal records of this early period are lost the rulings of
the association can not be definitely determined. However, one
[ruling, characteristic of the people, is worthy of notice; that
f was, the adoption of the Maine liquor law in the town. This
was the beginning of prohibition in the State of Kansas, a short
time after the entrance of the first settlers. For a time it was
enforced, but carelessness and violations prevailed, until finally
the women of the town made a temperance crusade which was
of great service in the enforcement of the law. In this law and
in nearly all other laws we find the customs and laws of New
England prevailing.
At first Lawrence was but a city of tents, with a single cabin
on the site. A writer describes the city soon after its settle-
ment:
A few tents were pitched on the high ground overlooking the Kansas
and Wakarusa valleys, others were scattered over the level bottoms below,
but not a dwelling was to be seen. It was a city of tents alone. * * *
Two very inteUigent ladies from Massachusetts had united their forces
and interests and had taken boarders. In the open air on some logs of
wood two rough boards were laid across for a table, and on washtubs,
kegs, and blocks, they and their boarders were seated around it. This
was the first boarding house in the city of Lawrence.
Soon tents were replaced by log cabins, and after the arrival
of the sawmill, board houses were made (mansions of the
luxurious plutocrats of the young city). * Eeligious services
were held on October 1, and on this day a Bible class was
organized, and on the 15th Plymouth Church was organized,
with Kev. S. Y. Lum as pastor.
Considerable difficulty arose over the settlement of disputed
claims. Soon after the passage of the Douglas bill, which
provided for squatter sovereignty in Kansas, the citizens of
Missouri who were determined to make Kansas a slave State
rushed across the border and staked out claims on all of the
desirable land, determined to hold it against all comers. Most
of these returned to their homes, but registered their claims in
an office in Missouri. Prior to the establishment of the town
site in Lawrence, several of these claims had been taken on the
ground later occupied by the town. But when the emigrants
arrived and laid out the town only two of the squatter sover-
* The Emigrant Aid Company sent a sawmill to Lawrence, but it was a
long time in coming. In the meantime another steam mill was purchased
in Kansas City and moved, frame and all, to Lawrence.
488 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
eigns were on the ground. One claim was purchased and paid
for 5 the other claimant, Mr. Baldwin, refused to sell. Subse-
quently the other sovereigns returned and a bitter strife, aris-
ing out of property rights, followed. Two tents, one occupied
by John Baldwin, and the other by a citizen of Lawrence, were
pitched upon the same lot, each of whom claimed to be the
lawful owner. Mr. Baldwin gathered his Missouri friends in
arms about him and threatened the sons of Massachusetts.
Mr. Baldwin had interested some parties in his claim and he
with others proceeded to lay out a rival city called Excelsior
on the site of Lawrence. This led to open hostilities, a tent
of one of the settlers was seized and packed into a wagon, the
men standing guard with their rifles. The New Englanders
recaptured the tent, and then Baldwin threatened to have 200
armed Missourians on the spot in a short time. That night
the Lawrence settlers organized the '^regulators," and the
next day the Missourians assembled and at 4 o'clock sent the
following note as the beginning of hostilities :
Kansas Territory, Octoler 6.
Dr. Robinson :
Yourself and friends are hereby notified that you will have one-half
hour to move the tent which you have on my undisputed claim. If the
tent is not moved within one-half hour we shall take the trouble to move
the same.
John Baldwin and Friends.
The following reply was immediately sent :
To John Baldwin and Friends:
If you molest our property you do it at your peril.
C. Robinson and Friends.*
John Baldwin and friends thereupon concluded to retire
from the scene of active hostilities. The real truth of the
matter was that neither party had any legal right to the land
at the time the contention arose, except the right of possession,
as the lands were then in the legal possession of the Shawnee
Indians, with whom a treaty had been made, but the Indian
title to the land would not expire until October 9 of that
year — some say September 28. The Proslavery men who had
rushed in upon the territory of Kansas before the Indian
* The originals in this strife were all or nearly all Free-State men. Pro-
slavery men interfered and tried to bring on a collsion. It was merely a
struggle over property rights between the Free-State men of Missouri and
the New Englanders.
THE ANNALS OF AN HISTORIC TOWN BLACKMAR. 489
[tie had expired had no legal claim to the landj neither had
'the Lawrence association. The plan advocated by Dr. Eobin-
son was to let each settler be protected until a legal decision
could be had. But as the laws expressly stated that " sections
and fractions of sections included within the limits of any
incorporated town every portion of the public land which has
been selected for a site for a city or town, and every parcel or
lot of land actually settled and occupied for the purposes af
trade and not agriculture" was not subject to preemption,*
le Lawrence association expected the decision in their favor
^hen it came to a legal test, although Baldwin had a prior
claim. Doubtless this would have been the decision had not
^the question been settled otherwise.
Dr. Eobinson went East in February to conduct the spring
emigration to Lawrence. During his absence the contest was
settled by compromise. The town site was limited to 640 acres
and the land secured by locating an Indian float on the site.t
The land was divided into 220 shares, 100 of which were given
to the 4 or 5 men who disputed the title with the association,
110 were retained by the Lawrence settlers, and 10 set apart
for school purposes.l There was really no need of this change,
which necessitated the resurvey of the town upon a smaller
and narrower basis.
On the 19th of October Governor Eeeder arrived in Law-
rence. He was appointed the first Territorial governor of Kan-
sas, and had arrived at Leavenworth on October 7th. On his
way to Fort Eiley he visited Lawrence, where he was well
received, it being a great day in the city of tents. The city of
Lawrence numbered about 200 inhabitants and they all assem-
bled to welcome the governor. Addresses, toasts, speeches,
a dinner and general good cheer made this a day long to be
remembered in the annals of the town.
The young city continued to grow and thrive. Emigrants
poured in from New England and other Northern States, some
to remain in the town or vicinity and others to press on further
* Preemption laws of 1841, sec. 10, Revised Statutes, 1873, p. 417.
t Three hundred and twenty acres was the limit of preemption for a
town site, but the excess of land was preempted by individuals who
would later turn it over to the town corporation. In the settlement of
Indian claims certain Indians received certificates of land, which called
for a section to be located within certain bounds. These were called
Indian floats. They could be purchased and located.
X Robinson : Kansas Conflict, p. 88.
490
AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
west. Six months after tlie arrival of the first emigrants Law-
rence contained fifty dwellings, two boarding houses, a saw
and planing mill, a butcher's shop, and two stores. What a
strange sight it must have been — houses made of lumber,
houses of shakes, sod houses, grass-covered houses, log houses,
and houses of tarred canvas. But they sheltered a prosperous
and hopeful community of 400 persons, a community of ster-
ling character and worth. Four religious societies and one
literary association with a library were already formed.* Two
newspapers, Kansas Free-State papers, were established at
this time, the Kansas Pioneer, edited by John and J. L. Speer,
and the Herald of Freedom, edited by G. W. Brown. The
first number of the former was printed in Medina, Ohio, and
the first number of the latter at Conneautville, Pa. That the
contest between Free State and Proslavery men was fully
set, is illustrated by the attempts of John Speer to print his
paper on Kansas soil. He took the copy of the first number
of his paper to the office of the Kansas City Euteri^rise
to have it printed, but when it was ascertained to be a State
paper Judge Story, the publisher of the Enterprise, refused to
print it. Mr. Speer met with the same experience at the office
of the Leavenworth Herald. He was finally obliged to print
his paper in his old home in Medina, Ohio, in the territory of
the northwest, in the government of which the first ordinance
against slavery was enacted. The office of the Herald of
Freedom was prepared for work January 1, 1855.
With all this fair beginning in the foundation of a city,
troubles began to deepen, clouds began to appear, and these
hardy pioneers were to test their strength in the adherence
to the purposes for which they came to Kansas. Their princi-
ples were not in sympathy with the Federal Government at
this time, which was under the control of the slave power.
The Territorial government was about to fall into the hands of
the same power dominated by the inhabitants of Missouri, who
were determined to make Kansas a slave State. The inhabi-
tants of Lawrence were for peace, not war, but were always
ready to act on the defensive when their principles and their
homes were at stake. The town represented the largest Free
State community in Kansas, and as such incurred the special
hatred of the Proslavery element and particularly those of
persons along the border counties of Missouri. The struggle
Andreas, p. 316.
THE ANNALS OF AN HISTORIC TOWN — BLACKMAR. 491
'^as yet to come and the people of Lawrence must defend them-
)lves.
The attempt at Territorial organization defined the situation
and precipitated the struggle. Governor Eeeder made his
first election proclamation November 10, 1854, which con-
tained the list of election districts and polling places. The
law setting forth the qualifications of voters was published
with the proclamation. It provided that any free male person
of 21 years of age and who was an actual settler was entitled
to vote. On the day preceding the election the residents of
Missouri passed over the line and became ^^ actual residents"
of Kansas for a day. After voting they returned to their
homes in Missouri. By this means 1,724 fraudulent votes out
of a total of 2,833 were cast and Mr. Whitfield, the Proslavery
candidate for delegate to Congress, was elected.* Mr. Whit-
field would doubtless have received a majority without the
aid of the Missourians, for at this time the majority of the citi-
zens of the Territory were Proslavery.
In the election of a Territorial legislature of March 30,
1855, the same fraudulent process was carried on and an entire
Proslavery ticket elected. Armed bands from Missouri took
charge of election precincts, overawed certain judges and
appointed others. The returns were carefully canvassed by
Governor Eeeder and a new election declared in the districts
having illegal procedure. In the Lawrence district 1,000 men
came in wagons and on horseback on the evening preceding
the election and on the following morning. They were well
armed and under the command of Claiborne F. Jackson, of
Missouri. They openly asserted that they had come to the
Territory to elect a legislature to suit themselves, and after-
ward openly boasted that they had done so. At Lawrence
they selected one judge to represent Missouri and then, refus-
ing to take the oath, voted in squads. Lawrence district at
this time possessed, by the census of 1855, 369 voters, but there
were cast at this election 1,034 votes, 781 for the Proslavery
candidates and 253 for the Free Soil candidates.!
A new election was ordered for May 25 for those districts
in which there was evidence of fraud. In every district but
one the decisions of the former elections were reversed. But
when the legislature assembled at Pawnee on July 2, 1855,
* Report of the Congressional Committee, p. 39.
t Reports of the Special Committee on the Troubles in Kansas, p. 13.
492 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
they repudiated the second election and unseated the members
elected at that time, although they had bona fide certificates
from the Governor. This proslavery legislature proceeded
to organize, then removed the place of meeting to Shawnee,
near the Missouri border, against the appointment and veto of
the governor, and then proceeded to enact laws unparalleled
in the history of the United States for their injustice and bar-
barity. They were copies of the laws of Missouri, with such
additions as would make them especially obnoxious to the
free-soil people of Kansas. These laws of the so-called ^^ bogus "
legislature were ignored by the Free State men. They re-
garded the election fraudulent, the legislature illegal, and con-
sequently the laws unconstitutional and unworthy of any con-
sideration. The strife continued and open and secret violence
was the order of the day. The papers of Missouri and the
pro-slavery papers of Kansas exulted over the election.
The Leavenworth Herald of April 6, headed a column as
follows :
''All Hail."
The Proslavery party victorious.
We have met the enemy and they are ours.
Veni, vidi, vici.
Free White State party used up.
The triumph of the proslavery party is complete and overwhelming.
Come on Southern men ! Bring your slaves and fill up the Territory.
Kansas is saved! Abolitionism is rebuked, her fortress stormed, her flag
draggled in the dust, etc.
From this time on the only issue in Kansas was antislavery
V. proslavery. The people of Lawrence desired to make a
free State of Kansas by peaceful means. They were to live
brave, moral, and patriotic lives, and build up a government
by the legal votes of honest citizens. They had been out-
voted by fraud, and while they would never come in contact
with the Federal Government and its laws, they would be ready
at any time to defend their rights against invasion. They
were usually classed as abolitionists, but with two or three
exceptions they were not. Mr. Stearns was an avowed aboli-
tionist and disagreed with the position of the Free State men.
The abolitionists of the East disagreed with them and con-
demned the action of the Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Com-
pany. Wendell Phillips said :
Why is Kansas a failure as a free State? I will tell you. You sent out
there some thousand or two thousand men— for what? To make a living,
to cultivate the 160 acres, to build houses ; to send for their wives and
THE ANNALS OF AN HISTORIC TOWN — BLACKMAR. 493
their children; to raise wheat; to make money; to build sawmills; to
plant towns. You meant to take posession of the country, as the Yankee
race always takes possession of a country — by industry, by civilization,
by roads, by houses, by mills, by churches. But it will take a long time ;
it takes two centuries to do it.*
It took barely teu years to complete the work.
Long before this the ^ew York Tribune had observed ;
The great battle between freedom and slavery is gradually approaching.
Yet the country is everywhere quiet, and public tranquility undisturbed.
Not ever the distant rumble of the tempest is heard. The little cloud
that denotes it hovers only over a handful of people in the far West. In
Kansas alone exists the speck that foreshadows the coming storm. +
Whatever assistance the abolitionists may have rendered in
precipitating a great national struggle, those in Kansas were
of no great help to the cause of freedom in that State. They
seemed to desire to bring about a collision between the set-
tlers of Kansas and the Federal authority and thus convert a
localized question into a national issue. The action of the Free
State men of Lawrence was conservative ; they did not wish
local issues turned into national ones. They sought to make
Kansas a free State and that was all for the time being.
Free State men were murdered in cold blood. Quarrels over
claims led to atrocious deeds. Both the Free State and the Pro-
slavery parties had their secret organizations. A collision
was inevitable. One Coleman, a proslavery man, murdered
Dow, a member of the Free State j)arty. A border ruffian by
the name of Jones, postmaster of Westport, Mo., and sheriff
of Douglas County, came with an armed posse to arrest one
Branson, whom it was alleged might avenge the death of Dow
by making way with the accomplice of Coleman, Harrison
Buckley by name. Branson was arrested, but soon after rescued
by a party of Free State men. After their rescue they marched
to Lawrence, and Lawrence received the credit of the rescue,
although but one Lawrence man was in the party. The sheriff
called upon Governor Shannon for the militia to support him.
A great commotion was made about the resistance of the law
by " sixty or seventy " armed men.f The Governor called out
the militia, which was an excuse for the armed mobs of Mis-
souri to join it. They passed over the line and a proslavery
* Liberator, August 10, 1855.
tNew York Tribune, April 15, 1855.
t There were fifteen in the sheriff's party and just fifteen in the rescuing
party.
494 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
army besieged the antislavery town of Lawrence. The town
of Lawrence began to put on a war-like appearance. Five
redoubts were soon built and everything prepared for defense.
The border ruffians had long threatened the destruction of
the town, and had waited for an opportunity. It came at
last. One little circumstance seemed to be in their way. On
May 23 the steamer Emma Harmon had, among other freight,
five boxes labeled "' books.'^ On opening these boxes, which
were billed to the Lawrence association, they were found to con-
tain one hundred Sharpe's rifles capable of discharging 1,000
shots per minute.* These gave the citizens of Lawrence a
means of defense. As soon as the town was besieged Free State
men, well armed, came pouring in from every direction to help
defend the town. All business was suspended and the little
city became a military camp. It was soon reported to the
sheriff and the governor that 1,000 men heavily armed were
intrenched for the defence of Lawrence. The governor wrote
to Leavenworth for United States troops, which did not reach
the scene of war. It would have been a great disappointment
to the border ruffians had they come, for they wished to
destroy Lawrence. Finally the citizens of Lawrence sent the
following dispatch to Governor Shannon :
To His Excellency Wilson Shannon, Governor of Kansas Territory,
Sir : As citizens of Kansas Territory we desire to call your attention to
the fact tliat a large force of armed men from a foreign State have assembled
in tlie vicinity of Lawrence, are now committing depredations upon our
citizens, stopping wagons, opening and appropriating their loading, arrest-
ing and detaining travelers upon the public road, and that they claim to do
this by your authority. We desire to know if they do appear by your
authority, and if you will secure the peace and quiet of the community
by ordering their instant removal, or compel us to resort to some other
means and to a higher authority.
Signed by Committee.
Messrs. Lowry and Babcock, who bore this message success-
fully through the hostile lines and presented it to the gov-
ernor, had an opportunity to enlighten his excellency on the
situation. The result was that he came to Lawrence to view
the situation and saw at once that it would be impolitic and
unjust to attack Lawrence. Accordingly, they at once set him
to the task of getting rid of his mob militia. A treaty of peace
was finally signed and the militia gradually dispersed, not
without committing depredations, for this was their regular
* Robinson : The Kansas Conflict, 128.
THE ANNALS OF AN HISTOEIC TOWN — BLACKMAR. 495
habit. Governor Shannon was well received at Lawrence, and
returned a friend to the citizens. Atchison, Stringfellow, and
Jones and their ruffian band were greatly disappointed at not
having a chance to destroy Lawrence. The Wakarusa war
thus happily ended, the Lawrence people gave themselves up
to rejoicing. Only one Free-State man, Thomas W. Barbour,
lost his life in this war, and he was foully murdered in the
open highway as he was on his way to his home. This deed
created great excitement and very nearly precipitated a strug-
gle for vengeance. But the war thus closed was but the begin-
ning of a great struggle.
It was in the defense of Lawrence that John Brown first ap-
peared with the Free-State men. He had been in the Territory
for several weeks. On December 7, late in the afternoon, he
and his four sons came to Lawrence in a wagon, all armed and
equipped for the war. He was disappointed that the war was
so easily settled without a bloody victory. The ruffians who
desired the sack of Lawrence found an opportunity somewhat
later to carry out their designs.
The winter of 1855-^56 was a very cold one, which caused much
suffering and inconvenience, but with the opening of spring
immigration set in vigorously and the town assumed its wonted
life. There was a lull in the storm of strife, and the Free- State
people hoped it might be permanent. The Free- State Hotel
had been completed, and the Congressional committee was
within its walls holding an investigation of the fraudulent
elections. An unfortunate circumstance renewed the strife.
Sheriff Jones was passing the night in Lawrence, during which
he was shot and wounded. This led to an attack of the Pro-
slavery forces under, nominally, the command of Donaldson.
He, as United States marshal, was serving writs upon citizens
of Lawrence. After he was through Sheriff Jones led his
armed hosts upon the defenseless town, destroyed the offices
of the Herald of Freedom, and the Free-State newspapers, also
the Free-State Hotel. Private property was destroyed and
the people pillaged. Lawrence made no resistance, because it
was ostensibly under the command of the IJnited States mar-
shal, and possibly because the strong men were absent or were
under arrest. Jones had his revenge, but the sack of Law-
rence was the beginning of a long and cruel guerilla warfare.
But it is not necessary to recount these bloody scenes.*
*The losses incurred in the sack of Lawrence amounted to $200,000.
496 ^EEICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
After the close of the Wakarusa war the Territory became
a continual scene of carnage and strife. Marauding bands,
bent on pillage and destruction of life and property, were organ-
ized by both the Free- State and Proslavery parties. The Free-
State men had learned to take the aggressive, although they
moved as independent bodies seeking revenge and not author-
ized by any constituted authority of the party. Atrocious deeds
were committed by both parties in the name of cruel, relentless
revenge. Lawrence, though seldom if ever guilty of encourag-
ing overt acts, was nevertheless the center and support of the
Free- State sentiment; consequently the city was credited with
everything done against the Proslavery people. It was the
desire of the Missourians to destroy the despised town. To
"wipe out Lawrence" was their common expression. But in
spite of their determination the city grew and flourished.
Again, on September 14, 1856, Lawrence was confronted with
the militia, largely composed of Missouri Eangers, who were
about to march against the city and destroy it. They had at
least 2,500 men and Lawrence was almost defenseless. But
the little city mustered such fighting forces as were available,
every man, woman, and child being determined to fight and not
to surrender. Fortunately Governor Geary was in command
and had issued a proclamation to disperse the volunteer army.
The skirmish between the Missourians and the defenders of
Lawrence began on the evening of September 12. In the morn-
ing the cannon of the United States troops frowned upon Mount
Oread, and Governor Geary in person intercepted the moving
hostile army and disbanded it. Although they had received the
proclamation of the governor, they were determined to march
on Lawrence and destroy the despised Abolitionists. Thus was
war happily averted and the town grew and flourished.
The bogus legislature which met in 1855 passed an act incor-
porating the town of Lawrence and granting it the same
chartered rights as were accredited to the town of Leaven-
worth.*
The people of Lawrence, ignoring the laws of the bogus leg-
islature, never organized the town under this charter. In the
second legislature, which was Proslavery and also deemed ille-
gal, a second charter was granted the town.t The Free-State
convention had been called and the Free- State constitution
* Territorial Laws of 1855, pp. 822, 837.
t Laws of Kansas Territory, 1857, p. 343.
THE ANNALS OF AN HISTORIC TOWN — BLACKMAR. 497
idopted. The Free- State town of Lawrence again failed to
[organize under the charter granted by the Proslavery legisla-
[ture. The citizens of Lawrence would obey the ]N"ational laws,
)ut they recognized no Territorial laws as binding when enacted
)y their enemies through fraud. As the town grew rapidly,
they were in great need of a municipal organization; they
therefore assembled and created a charter and city organiza-
tion on July 13, 1857.* They first applied to the Topeka legis-
lature for a charter, which was not granted. After taking this
step the citizens gave the following address to the public :
To the people:
In presenting the accompanying charter, it may not be improper for
your committee to state a few of the reasons which seem to render the
organization of a city government not only proper hut imx^erative. It
wiU hardly be disputed that the people are the only true and legitimate
fountain of all human government. Political and social rights are not
dependent upon the gifts of organizations, but are inherent in the people.
As all governments, whether state or municipal, depend primarily upon
the will of the people, and exist only for their protection and convenience,
it follows that, in the absence of constituted authorities and organized
governments, the people are left to act in their primary and independent
capacity, and form a government for themselves.
Such is the condition of the people of Lawrence with reference to their
political affairs. For more than two years we have lived without law.
Owing to the orderly and peace-loving character of our citizens, we have
happily been preserved so far from many of the evils which would usually
be incident to such a situation. As our population, however, increases
and the city fills up, the necessity for some municipal organization is
every day becoming more and more apparent.
Police regulations are necessary for the preservation of order and peace ;
sanitary measures are essential to the preservation of health ; we are
unprotected against the ravages of fire ; in short, all the varied necessities
of a rapidly growing city demand a municipal government.
The only point of embarrassment in this movement arises from the
unhappy condition of political affairs in our Territory. Under ordinary
proceeding the more regular method would be to obtain a charter from the
Territoriaf authorities. As the Territorial government, however, in no
sense represents the people of Kansas, was not elected by them and can
have no right to legislate for them, we can not accept of a charter from it.
There is, therefore, left us only the alternative of a charter springing
directly from the people, or continuance in our present unorganized con-
dition. Under these circumstances you have seen fit to instruct us to
present a charter, have discussed its provisions in a preliminary assem-
blage, and now prepare to submit it to full vote of the people for approval
or rejection.
* See Private Laws of Kansas Territory, 1858, p. 187.
S. Mis. 104 32
498 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
In the event of its adoption, it is believed that the beneficial effects of a
city government will be so apparent to all that no good citizen will be
inclined to dispute its authority or resist its claims. As its action will be
purely local, and have reference merely to our own internal affairs, no
collision is apprehended with any other organization claiming to exercise
general jurisdiction in the Territory.
J. Blood.
Col. S. W. Eldridge.
G. "W. Hutchinson.
C. Stearns.
George Ford.*
Here we have repeated the old struggle for self-government
against usurpers and oppressors. It was this determination
to have a government that was legitimate and just and sup-
ported by the people that led the Free State men to ignore the
irregular and partial government of the pro- slavery party and
led to the calling of the Free State convention, the formation
of a Free State constitution, and the final triumph of the Free
State party. The people of Lawrence were a conservative
law-abiding people. They were ready to submit to Federal
authority and did so peaceably, sometimes to their utmost
detriment, but they ignored governments which seemed to them
spurious. The careful obedience to the Federal authority, and
the continued determination to ignore spurious local govern-
ment, made Kansas a free State, and Lawrence was the center
of this determined action.
It will be observed by reading the above document that the
Lawrence association, as an organization, might have been an
excellent temporary arrangement, but was not adequate to the
needs of a growing city; also, if the citizens of Lawrence
could attend to their local government, regardless of the
assumed higher authority, they were mistaken. The associa-
tion ignored two charters, one granted in 1855 and another in
1857, because they claimed that the law-making power was not
legally constituted. If in the final settlement of affairs it should
be determined that the Territorial laws were legitimate and
authoritative, the citizens of Lawrence would have been found
outside of the law: as it was, they were in a state of rebellion
against the assumed authorities. Such is the close relation of
successful revolution to treason, of anarchy to a free democ-
racy.
Governor Walker issued a long proclamation in which the
offense of this conservative community was greatly magnified.
* Quoted from Andreas, p. 326.
THE ANNALS OF AN HISTORIC TOWN — BLACKMAR. 499
[e defines tlie act, if carried out, as treasonable, and assures
them tliat they stand "upon the brink of an awful precipice,
and," says he, " it becomes my duty to warn you before you take
the fatal leap into the gulf below." As the citizens of Lawrence
had not heeded his admonitions and communications before this,
he would call out the troops. Accordingly, Governor Walker
appeared before Lawrence in command of 400 United States
dragoons. He declared the town under military law, and pro-
hibited communication with the adjacent country without
escort. The United States army remained patiently at its
post for several weeks. The citizens of Lawrence were careful
not to interfere with it nor to show any sign of rebellion against
United States authority. After a few weeks the troops were
withdrawn by order of the President. Thus ended the filibus-
tering attempt to coerce the people of Lawrence into the gov-
ernor's way of thinking on municipal government. The citizens
of Lawrence continued their municipal life under a charter of
their own making.
February 11, 1858, the legislature repealed the act granting
a charter to Lawrence, and passed an act legalizing the
charter adopted by the citizens July 13, 1857.* The citizens'
charter, together with eleven ordinances passed by the council,
were approved. The government of the people had triumphed.
Soon after an act amending the charter was passed t and
again in 1860 the laws and ordinances were consolidated and
amended.!
The subsequent progress of Lawrence, the establishment
and development of schools and churches, the details of its
municipal government, as well as its industrial progress,
may not be recorded here. Nor is it possible at present to
dwell upon the horrible details of the eventful day of the
21st of August, 1863, when Quantrell and his ruf&an bands
burned and pillaged the town and murdered a large number
of the inhabitants. Lawrence to-day, after these years of
carnage and strife, ranks as an educational center of the
West, as a substantial town of homes, churches, and schools,
of a peace-loving and law-abiding people, the even tenor of
whose lives is that of a staid New England town. Such are
the transformations within the lifetime of a single generation.
* Private Laws of Kansas Territory, 1858, p. 187.
t IMd., p. 207.
I Ihid., 1860, p. 130.
XXVIII -CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARD A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMER-
ICAN HISTORY, 1888-1892, ADAPTED FROM REPORTS
TO THE "JAHRESBERICHT DER GESCHICHTS-
WISSENSCHAFT," OF BERLIN.
By JOHN MARTIN VINCENT, Ph. D.,
OP JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY.
501
CONTENTS.
Page.
sneral history and bibliography 507
Constitutional history 509
Religious history 515
History of civilization 517
History by periods :
1. Discovery, Colonial 521
2. Revolution 524
3. Under the Constitution 527
4. Civil war 528
Local History :
New England —
Massachusetts 534
Connecticut 536
Vermont 536
New Hampshire 537
Maine 537
Rhode Island 538
Middle States —
New York 538
Pennsylvania 539
New Jersey 540
Delaware 541
Southern States —
Maryland 541
District of Columbia 542
Virginia 542
West Virginia 543
North Carolina 543
South Carolina 543
Georgia 543
Florida 543
Alabama 544
Mississippi 544
Louisiana 544
Tennessee 544
Kentucky 544
503
504 f CONTENTS.
Local History — Continued.
Western States — Page.
Ohio 545
Indiana 546
Illinois 546
Michigan 547
Wisconsin 547
Minnesota 547
Iowa 547
Missouri 547
Kansas 548
Colorado 548
Dakota 548
Montana 548
Pacific States 548
British America 550
Biography 552
Biography, general and collective 571
PREFATORY NOTE.
The data used in this bibliography were originally collected
for reports upon the literature of American History made to
foreign periodicals, the Revue Historique of PariSj and the
Jahresbericht der Geschichtswissenschaft of Berlin, for which
purposes only the more important titles were required.
The accumulations of five years have here been arranged
in one classified list, divided into the same broad subjects that
were used in the annual reports, and combining books with
periodical literature. The abbreviations used in references to
magazine articles correspond to those adopted for the Annual
Index of the American Library Association.
505
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY 1888-1892.
By John Martin Vincent.
k
GENERAL HISTORY AND BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Adams, Henry. Historical Essays. New York, Scribner's. 12mo. pp. (3)
422. 1891.
Adams, H. B. with J. M. Vincent, W. B. Scaife. Seminary Notes on
Recent Historical Literature. (Johns Hopkins University Studies.
8th Series, Nos. 11 and 12.) Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press. Svo.
pp. (2) 105 (3). 1891.
American Diplomacy. Spectator lxv, p. 532.
American Republic, A Memorial Volume of American History. 1492-1892.
Chicago, W. Iliff & Co. pp. 100.
Angell, J. B. Diplomacy of the United States, Winsor's America, vii,
pp. 461-527. 1888.
Barnes, M. S. and Earle, Studies in American History. Boston, Heath.
12mo. pp. (10) 431. 1891.
BowKER, R. R. and A. I. Appleton, American Catalogue, founded by F.
Leypoldt, 1884-1890. New York, Publisher's Weekly, pt. 4.
BowKER, R. R. United States Government Publications, 1884-90. New
York, Publisher's Weekly. 1891.
Brown, E. and A. Strauss, A Dictionary of American Politics, comprising
Accounts of Political Parties, Measures, and Men. New York, A. L.
Burt. 12mo. pp. 556. 1889.
Bryce, J. Social Institutions of the United States ; reprinted from the
"American Commonwealth." New York, MacMillan &, Co. 8vo.
pp. (9) 298. 1889.
Carlier, a. La R6publique Americaine. fStats Unis. Paris, Hachette.
8vo. 1890.
Catalogue of the Library of the Southern Society of New York. New
York, G. P. Putnam's Sons. 1890.
Chambers, H. E. Higher History of the United States for Schools and
Academies. 1889.
Cheney, J. V. Cataloguing United States Public Documents in the San
Francisco Public Library. Library Journal, Suppl. xvi, p. 61.
Clark, A. Howard. Bibliography of published works of members of the
American Historical Association for the years 1890, 1891, and 1892.
Annual Reports of the American Historical Association for 1890, 1891,
and 1892. Washington, Government Printing Office, pp. 117-160,-
411-463; 213-303. 1891, 1892, 1893.
Clement, E. W. The United States and Japan. Mag. Am. Hist., xxviii,
pp. 129-131. 1889.
CouTANT, R. B. Bibliographic Notes on Poems and Ballads relating to
Major Andr6. Mag. Am. Hist., xxviii, pp. 217-221.
Eggleston, E. History of the United States and its People. New York,
Appleton. pp. X, 398. 1888.
507
608 AJIERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Eggleston, E. a First Book in American History, with special reference
to lives and deeds of great Americans. New York, Appleton. 12mo.
pp. (7) 203. 1889.
Ellis, G. E. The Loyalists and their Fortunes. Diplomacy of the United
States, pp. 185-215. 1888.
Ford, P. L. A partial bibliography of the published works of members of
the American Historical Association. Reports of the American His-
torical Association. Washington. 1890.
Ford, W. C. (Editor). The Writings of George Washington. New York,
G. P. Putnam's Sons. 14 vols. (Dial, ix, p. 309.) 1889.
Foster, W. E. References to the Constitution of the United States.
Boston, Society for Political Education. 1890.
Fulton, C. History of the Democratic Party, from Thomas Jefferson to
Grover Cleveland. Lives of Cleveland and Stevenson. New York,
P. F. Collier. 8vo. pp. 600. 1889.
Griffin, Appleton Prentiss Clark. Bibliography of Historical Societies
of the United States and British America. Annual Reports of the
American Historical Association for 1890 and 1892. Washington,
Government Printing Office, pp. 163-267; 307-619. 1891,1893.
Griffis, W. E. Relations between the United States and Japan. Mag.
Am. Hist., xxvii, pp. 449-455.
Hart, A. B. Epoch Maps illustrating American History. New York,
Longmans, Green & Co. 1889.
Hedges, C. Speeches of Benjamin Harrison. New York, Lovell, Coryell
«fe Co. pp. (2) 580. ib. N. Y., U. S. Book Co., pp. 580.
HosaiER, J. K. Life of young Sir Henry Vane. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin.
pp. (29), 581. 1888.
Huguenot Society of America. Proceedings, Vol. ii. New York. Hu-
guenot Society, pp. 188. 1S91.
An IMPORTANT RESULT of the Chilean difficulty. Methodist Rev. (N. Y.),
March-April. 1892.
Jameson, J. F. The history of historical writing in America. Boston,
Houghton. 12mo. pp. (4) 160. 1891.
Johnston, A. History of political parties, Winsor's America, vii, pp. 267-
294. 1888.
Johnston, A. The United States ; its history and Constitution. New York,
Scribner's Sons. 12mo. pp. (5) 286. 1889.
Jones, A. T. Two Republics ; or Rome and the United States of America.
Battle Creek, Mich., Review and Herald Pub. Co. pp. (3) 895. 1889.
Lamb, Mrs. M. J. American Historical Association. Mag. Am. Hist., xxiii,
p. 89.
Lodge, H. C. Historical and Political Essays. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin
& Co. pp. (5) 213. 1889.
Lossing, B. J. Our country; a household history of the United States.
New York, Amies Pub. Co. 4to, 2 vols. 1888.
Mabie, H. W. and M. H. Bright. The memorial story of America, 1492-1892.
Philadelphia, J. C. Winston & Co. pp. (6) 851. 1892.
MacCoun, T. An historical geography of the United States. New York,
MacCoun. 12mo, 44 maps, pp. 46. 1889.
I
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 509
McMaster, J. B. a history of the people of the United States from Revo-
lution to civil war. New York, Appleton. 1889.
Meigs, M. C. Growth of the population of the United States in 200 years.
Science, xv, p. 114.
NiTOBE, I. Intercourse between the United States and Japan. Baltimore,
Johns Hopkins University Press. 8vo. 1890.
Oldham, E. A. America must be called Columbia. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvii,
pp. 429-431.
Pattox, J. H. Four hundred years of American history. New York,
Fords, Howard &. Hulbert. 2 v., pp. (5) 614; (2) 618. 8vo. 1889.
Payne, E. J. History of the New World called America. New York,
Macmillan. 8vo, v. 1, pp. (27), 605. 1889.
Peattie, E. W. Story of America ; romantic incidents of history from the
discovery to the present time. Chicago, R. S. King Pub. Co. pp.
(14), 666. 1889.
Raleigh, T. Lessons of American history. Contemporary Rev.,LXii, p.
525.
Rhodes, J. F. History of the United States from the compromise of 1850.
New York, Harper. 2 v., pp. (10) 506; (9) 541. 1889.
Ridpath, J. C. United States ; a history of the United States of America
from the aboriginal times to the present day. New York History Co.
pp. 789. 1889.
School History of the United States ; abridged and compiled from the
most reliable sources. New York, Benziger Bros. 12mo. 1889.
Shaw, W. B. Index of State legislation 1890-'91— 1892-'93 (Bulletins New
York State Library). Albany, State Library.
Shelton, J. D. The ends of the century; how they differ and how they
blend. Mag. Am. Hist., xxviii, pp. 98-111.
Shbpard, E. M. the Democratic party. New^York, Appleton. pp. 437-462.
1889.
Stillj^, C. J. Archivum Americanum in the consistory court of the Arch-
bishop of Upsal. Pennsyl. Mag., xv, pp. 481-485.
Symoxds, H. C. a study in United States history based on ** Elements of
United States history." New York, B. W. Harrison, pp. (3) 76.
1889.
The United States and Chile. Spectator, No. 3, 318. pp. 156-158.
Warfield, E. D. The expansion of the United States. Mag. Am. Hist.,
xxvii, pp. 272-280.
WiLLOUGHBY, W. F. Statistical publications of the U. S. Government.
Annals Am. Acad. Pol. and Soc. Sci., ii, p. 236.
WiNSOR, J. Narrative and critical history of America. Boston, Houghton,
Mifflin & Co. 4to, 8 vols. 1889.
WiNSOR, J. London archives of American history. Nation, lii, p. 258; id.,
America in Italian Libraries, ih., liii, p. 9.
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
Admire, W. W. Political and legislative handbook of Kansas. Topeka,
Crane. 8vo, pp. 440. 1891.
Amendment to the Interstate Commerce Act approved March 2, 1889.
Philadelphia, T. «fe J. W. Johnson, pp. 15. 1889.
510 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Arkansas, The constitution of the State, framed and adopted by the con-
vention which assembled at Little Rock, July 14, 1874, and ratified by
the people of the State at the election held Oct. 13, 1874, with an ap-
pendix, etc. Little Rock, Press Pr. Co. pp. 399. 1891.
Atkinson, E. Progress of the nation. Forum, vi, pp. 125-143.
Baker, C. W. Monopolies and the people. New York, G. P. Putnam's
Sons. 12mo., pp. (13) 263.
Baker, A. J. Annotated Constitution of the United States. Chicago, Cal-
laghan. Svo, pp. (87) 279. 1891.
Bbasley, C. O. Evolution of the United States Constitution. Mag. Am.
Hist., XXI, pp. 504-511.
Becher, F. a. Fundamental principles of government of the United
States. Mag. Am. Hist., xix, pp. 65-69.
Benton, I. H. The veto power in the United States, what is it? Boston,
A. C. Getchel. pp. 58. 1888.
Bierbower, Q. Further applications of our national principles. Baptist
Quar. Rev., xiv, pp. 411-430.
BoLLES,A. S. Financial history of the United States. Vol. iii. New York,
Homans. pp. 585. 1888.
BORGEAUD, C. Pr^mi^res constitutions de la D^mocratie Am^ricaine:
Ann. de TEcole Libre, des Sciences Politiques 6 (1891) pp. 1-24.
BOUTMY, E. Studies in constitutional law, France, England, United States.
New York and London, Macmillan. 12mo, pp. (14) 183. 1891.
BoYER, Joseph A. Legal Dictionary of the United States and Canada.
Philadelphia, Boyer. Svo. pp. (8) 368. 1892.
Bradford, G. Congress and the Cabinet. Annals Amer. Acad., ii, pp.
289-299.
Brown, E. and A. Strauss, Dictionary of American Politics. New York,
A. L. Burt. 12 mo., pp. iii, 556. 1888.
Bryce, J. The American Commonwealth. New York, Macmillan. 2 vols.
Svo. 1891.
Bryce, L. S. Misrepresentation in Congress. No. Am., cxlviii, p. 184.
1889.
Bryce, J. Legal and constitutional aspects of the New Orleans lynching
a£fair. New. R. iv, p. 385. 1891. Same Art. Liv. Age, CLXXXiv, p.
579.
Bryce, L. S. Errors in the United States and France. No. Am., CXLViii,
p. 344.
Bullock, W. E. Evasions of the Constitution. Nation, liii, p. 494.
Burgess, J. W. Political science and comparative constitutional law.
(Systematic series.) Boston, Ginn. 2 vols. (Atlant. Lxvii, pp. 694;
New Eng., liv, pp. 479 ; Nation, N. Y., liii, pp. 240). Svo. pp. (19), 337.
1690 (1891).
Burgess, J. W. Law of the electoral count. Pol. Sci. Q., in, pp. 633-653.
Burke, W.E. Federal finances. Boston and Chicago, Heath. 12mo. pp.
(4)263. 1891.
Caldwell, H. C. The American jury system. Am. Law Rev., xxii, p. 853.
Carson, H. L. History of the Supreme Court of the United States. Phil-
adelphia, Huber., xvi. Svo, pp. 761. 1891.
Chambrun, a. de. Droits et libert^s aux l^tats-Unis ; leurs origines et leurs
progr^s. Paris, Thorin. pp. 542. (Nation, N. Y., lii, p. 503.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 511
Centennial of a revolution, an address by a revolutionist. New York,
Putnam. 16mo, pp. 171. 1888.
Cocker, W. J. The Government of the United States. New York, Harper.
pp. 274. 1889.
COHN, M. M. An introduction to the study of the Constitution; a study
showing the play of physical and social factors in the creation of
international law. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press. 8vo. pp. (10)
235. 1892.
Colby, J. F. Necessity for uniform State laws. Forum, xiii. pp. 541-553.
CONKLLNG, F, A. Abuses of the veto power. Forum, viii. p. 555. 1890.
COOLEY, T. M., etc. Constitutional history of the United States, as seen
in the development of American law. (Political Science Lectures,
1889.) New York, Putnam's, pp. 296. 1889.
CoOLEY, T. M. Treatise on the constitutional limitations which rest upon
the legislative power of the States of the American Union. 6th ed.
Boston, Mass. Little, Brown & Co. 1890.
Cox, S. S. Three decades of Federal legislation. New York. 1888.
COXE, A. C. Relief for the Supreme Court. Forum, vi. p. 567.
CoxE, A. C. Government of aliens. Forum, vii. p. 597.
Curtis, G. Constitutional history of the United States. New York. Har-
per. 2 vols. 8vo. 1889.
Curtis, R. H. Important Federal statutes Annotated. Chicago, Cal-
laghan. pp. (7) 203. 1891.
DiNSMORE, L. J. Daniel Webster and the growth of constitutional science.
Univ. Q., XLViii, p. 424. 1891.
Dunbar, C. F. Financial precedents followed by Alex. Hamilton. Q. Jour.
Econ., Ill, pp. 32-59.
Edmunds, G. F. Corrupt political methods. Forum, vii, p. 349.
Ely, R. T. Taxation in American States and cities. New York, Crowell.
12mo, pp. (5) 544. — id., Problems of to-day. New York. Crowell.
12mo, pp. (7) 222. 1888.
Evolution of partisan removals from oiSfice. Nation, New York, xlviii,
p. 499.
Field, D. D. Theory of Government of the United States. North Amer.
Rev., CLvi, pp. 543-558.
FiSKE, J. Civil government in the United States, considered with some
reference to its origins. Boston, Houghton. 12mo. 1890.
Ford, P. L. Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States. 1787-88.
Brooklyn, Ford, pp. (6) 451. 1888.
Gardiner, S. R., ed. Constitutional documents of the Puritan revolution,
1628-1660. New York City, Macmillan. 1890.
GOTTSBERGER, F. Principles and Purposes of our Form of Government as
set forth in our public papers of Grover Cleveland. New York, G. G.
Peck. 12mo. 1891.
Greene, R. A. The future of American Institutions. Univ. Q., XLVI, p.
194. 1889.
Griffin, M. J. The Diary of a Visitor in New York during the Election of
the President of the United States. Murray's Mag., v, p. 87.
Hare, J. I. C. American Constitutional Law. Boston, Little, Brown «fe
Co. 2 vols. (Nation, N. Y., xlviii, p. 412). 1889.
512 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Hart, A. B. The Shire in the American Colonies. Chant., xiv, p. 274.
Hart, A. B. Introduction to the Study of Federal Government. (Harvard
Hist. Monographs, 2.) Boston, Ginn. 8vo. pp. (2), 200. 1891.
Henry, P. and J. Adams, On Government Making. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXVII, pp. 54-59.
Henry, W. H. F. The Voice of the People. Danville, Sherrill. 8vo. pp.
850. 1891.
Hewes, F. W. Citizens' Atlas of American Politics. 1789-1888. New
York, Scribner. Fol. pp. 56. 1888.
Hinsdale, B. A. Education in the State Constitutions. Educa., x, 91, 168.
1889.
Hoar, G. F. Government in Canada and the United States. Am. Antiq.
Soc. Proc, VII, pp. 178-201.
HOLST, Dr. V. His Critics: Nation, xlvii, p. 71.
HoLST, H. VON. Constitutional and political history of the United States.
8 vols. Chicago, Callaghan. 1889. (Nation, N. Y., L, p. 53.)
Hosmer, J. K. Short History of Anglo-Saxon freedom. New York City,
Scribner. 12mo. 1890.
How TO elect a President of the United States. Atlan., lxiii, p. 428.
Howard, G. E. Local constitutional history of the United States. J. H.
U. Studies. Extra Vol. iv. Baltimore, N. Murray, pp. (12), 526.
(Dial, x, p. 135; Nation, xlix, p. 276; Sat. Rev., lxviii, p. 389).
1889.
Howard, G. E. On the development of the King's Peace and the English
local peace-magistracy. Lincoln, Neb., Howard. 1891.
Hurd, J. The Union-State. New York. Van Nostrand. 1890.
Iles, G. The liquour question in politics. New York. pp. 27. 1889.
Interstate Commerce Commission, United States. Reports and Deci-
sions, V. II. New York, Strouse. pp. (9) 705. 1889.
Jameson, J. F. Did the fathers vote? N. Eng. Mag., i, p. 484.
Jameson, J. F. (Editor). Essays in Constitutional History of United States,
1775-'89. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 8vo. 1889. Contents:
The predecessor of the Supreme Court, J. F. Jameson; The movement
towards a second constitutional convention, in 1783, E. P. Smith; The
development of the Executive Departments, J. C. Guggenheimer;
The Period of Constitution-Making in the American Churches, W. P.
Trent; The Status of the Slave, 1775-'89, J. R. Brackett.
Jenks, E. Constitutional experiments of the Commonwealth. New York
City, Macmillan. 1890.
Johnson, E.R. River and harbor bills. AunalsAm. Acad., ii, pp. 782-^12.
Johnson, E. R. River and harbor bills. Annals Am. Acad., pp. 48-80.
Johnson, R. A Perilous Balance. North Am. Rev., cxlvi, pp. 424-429.
Johnston, A. The American Party Convention. N. Princ, vi, pp. 60-72.
Justice AND Jurisprudence. Inquiry concerning Constitutional Limi-
tations of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth Amendments. Phila-
delphia, Lippincott. 1890.
Killing of Judge D. S. Terry. Nation, N. Y., xlix, p. 142.
KiNGSLEY, W. L. The Gentleman in Politics. N. Eng., li, p. 135.
Landon, J. S. Constitutional History and Government of the United
States. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin. 8vo. 1889.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 513
Latrobe, F. C. City Government of Baltimore. 1889. Baltimore, Sun
Office, pp. 25. 1889.
Laveleye, E. Db The Perils of Democracy. Blackw. Mag., cxlvi, p. 276.
Lefroy, a. H. F. British, versus the American System of National Gov-
ernment. Toronto, Williamson. 12mo. pp. 42. 1891.
)DGE,H.C. (Editor). The Federalist. New York, Putnam. 12mo. pp
86. (Spec, LXi, p. 1226; Mag. Am. Hist., xx, p. 340.)
jOWELL, C. R. English and American Federalism. Eel. Mag., ex, p. 564.
Lynch-Law, Origin of the Term. Spec, Lxii, p. 511. 1889.-
Martin, A. Mission of the Republic. No. Am., xlix, p. 685. 1889.
Mason, E. C. Veto Power. Boston, Ginn. id., Defense of the Veto Power.
Forum, ix, p. 530.
McMaster, J. B., and F. D. Stone. Pennsylvania and the Federal Con-
stitution. Philadelphia, Hist. Assn. of Pa., pp. (6), 803. 1889.
McMaster, J. B. A Century of Interpretation of the United States
Constitution. Cent., xxxvii, p. 366.
McPherson, E. Handbook of Politics (annual). Washington, Chapman.
Maxwell, S. Relief of the United States Supreme Court. Am. Law Rev.,
XXIII, p. 958.
Mendenhall, J. W. Constitutional Basis of the Republic. Meth. R.,
XLIX, p. 673. 1889.
MerwiNj H. C. Government by the People. Atlan., Lxin, p. 433. 1889.
Miller, S. F. Lectures on the Constitution of the United States. New
York and Albany, Banks. (Nation, N. Y. liii, p. 494). 8vo. pp. (21),
765.
Mills, J. W. Constitutional Annotations. Chicago, Myers. 1890.
MoREY, W. C. Genesis of a Written Constitution. Annals Amer. Acad.,
I, pp. 529-557.
Nelson, H. L. The Government and its Creditors. Atlan., lxiv, p. 508.
Nelson, H. L. Power of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Atlan., lxiv, p. 64.
Norton, C. L. Political Americanisms. New York and London, Long-
mans. 1890.
NicOL, D. Political Life of our Time. New York, Appleton. 2 vols. 1889.
Oberholtzer, E. p. The American Referendum. (Law-making by Pop-
ular Vote.) Annals Amer. Acad., ii, pp. 324-344.
Ordronaux, J. Treatise on Constitutional Law and Constitutional
Limitations. Philadelphia, Johnson. 8vo. pp. 696. 1891.
Osgood, H. L. Political Ideas of the Puritans. Pol. Sci. Quar. vi, pp.
1-28, 201-231.
Pavey, G. M. American Republics; Their Diflferences. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXIII, p. 74, id. Modem State Constitution., i&., p. 152.
Pence, C. R. Construction of the Fourteenth Amendment. Am. Law
Rev., XXV, p. 536.
Perkins, R. A. Commerce and the Constitution. Mag. Am. Hist., xxi,
' pp. 305-309.
Phelps, E. J. Constitution of the United States. 19th Cent., xxiii, pp.
397, 441.
Progress of electoral reform. Nation, N. Y., xlviii, p. 460.
S. Mis. 104 33
514 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Pryor, R. A. The sufi&cieucy of the constitutional amendments. Forum,
IX, p. 266.
Reed, T. B. Rules of the House of Representatives. Cent., xxxvii, p.
792.
Reform of House of Representatives by constitutional amendment.
Nation, xlvi, p. 4.
Rice, A. T. Reform of present political corruption. No. Am., cxlviii, p.
82. 1889.
RiCHMAN, I. B. Law and political fact in the United States. Atlan., lxiv,
p. 205. 1889.
Roberts, W. The administration of justice in America. Fortnightly
Rev., XLi, pp. 91-108. 1892.
Robinson, J. H. Original features in the Constitution of the United
States. Annals Amer. Acad., i, p. 203.
Rogers, H. W. International extradition. Forum, vi, p. 612.
Rupert, W. W. Guide to the study of the history and Constitution of
the United States. Boston, Ginn., pp. (3) 130. 1888.
Sawyer, I. Opinion in the matter of David Neagle. San Francisco, pp.
60. 1889.
Schwab, J. C. History of the New York property tax. Baltimore, Md.
Amer. Econ. Assoc. 1890.
Scruggs, W. L. The Monroe doctrine.
Mag. Am. Hist., xxvi, p. 39]\
ad States. Coire«S"p., lvi, p. 5i
Shaw, A. State legislatures in the United States. Coitwmp., lvi, p. 555.
Small, A. W. Beginnings of American nationality. Baltimore, Md.
Johns Hopkins Univ. (Dial (Ch.), xi, p. 152.) 1890.
Smith, G. Spoils of office. Forum, viii, p. 28.
Snow, F. Cabinet government in the United States. Annals Am. Acad.,
Ill, pp. 1-13.
Stanwood, E. a history of Presidential elections. Boston, Houghton,
Mifflin & Co. 12mo. pp. (3), 492. 1892.
Sterne, S. Constitutional history and political development of the United
States. (4threv.ed.) New York, Putnam. 12mo. pp. (20), 361. 1888.
Stickney, a. The political problem. New York, Harper. 1889-90.
12mo. pp. (4), 189.
Stone, F. D. Ordinance of 1787. Pennsyl. M., xiii, p. 309. 1889.
Stringfellow, H. Interstate commerce law. Am. Law Rev., xxiii, p.
84.
Swiss and American Constitutionalism. Nation, N. Y., liii, p. 291.
Taussig, F. W. Some aspects of the tariff question. Q. Jour. Econ., iii,
p. 259. 1889.
Taussig, F. W. Tariff history of the United States. New York, Putnam.
12mo. pp. (8), 269. F. W. Taussig, The tariff 1830-1860. Q. Jour.
Econ., II, pp. 314—347.
Taylor, H. The origin and growth of the English constitution. Boston,
Houghton, M. & Co., pp. (39), 616. 1889.
Thorpe, F. N. Recent Constitution making in the United States. AnnalS
Amer. Acad., ii, p. 145.
Thorpe, F. N. Civil rights guaranteed by the State constitutions.
Educa., JX, p. 601. 1889.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 515
TiEDEMANN, C. G. Unwritten Constitution of the United States. New
York City, Putnam. 12mo. 1890.
[Tucker, J. R. Virginia in the Supreme Court. North Am. Rev., cxlvi,
pp. 674-680.
]Tyi>er, L. G. Parties and patronage in the United States. (Questions of
the Day, Ser. No. 68.) New York, Putnam. 12mo. pp. (3) 133. 1891.
■Webster, P. Acquisition of citizenship. Am. Law Rev., xxiii, p. 759.
Webster, P. Law of citizenship historically treated. Albany, Bender.
1890.
Wenzell, J. Comparative view of the Executive and Legislative Depart-
ments of the United States, France, England, and Germany. Boston,
Heath, pp. (3), 81. 1891.
i Whitridge, F. W. Rotation in office. Pol. Sci. Quar., iv, p. 279. 1889.
[WiLLOUGHBY, W. W. and W. F. Government and administration of the
United States. (Johns Hopkins Univ. Stud., 9th ser., Nos. 1-2.) Balti-
more. 8vo. pp. 143. 1891.
[Wil^ON, W. State and Federal Government of the United States. Boston,
D. C. Heath. 12 mo. pp. 313. 1889.
[Wilson, G. G. Town and city government in Providence. Providence,
Tibbits & Preston, pp. (3), 77. 1889.
' WoODBURN, J. A. States of the United States, made from colonies. Chaut.,
XIV, p. 270.
RELIGIOUS HISTORY.
Allen, A. V. G. Jonathan Edwards. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin & Co.
16mo. pp. 401. (Dial., x, p. 166; Nation, N. Y., xlix, p. 314.) 1889.
Allen, J. L. Trappists monks in Kentucky. Cent., xxxvi, p. 483.
Bodley, J. E. C. Catholic democracy in America. Baltimore, Murphy.
8vo. pp. 77. 1891.
Briggs, C. a. The Quakers, have they prevailed? Bib. Sac, xlvii,
p. 325.
Broadus, .1. A. The first thirty years of the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary. Baltimore, Wharton. 12mo. 1890.
Buckingham, E. Religion of the Puritan Fathers. Unita. Rev., xxxiv,
p. 330.
Bushnell, J. E. Church growth in America. Luth. Q., xviii, p. 213.
C ARROW, CD. Introduction of Methodism into Pennsylvania. Penn-
syl. Mag., XII, p. 200. 1888.
Clarke, R. H. Christian Norsemen in America. Am. Cath. Q., xiv, p. 598.
Collin, N. A brief account of the Swedish mission from its commence-
ment until its cessation. Pennsyl. M., xvi, pp. 349-358.
Cook, J. Decadence of Unitarianism in Boston. Our Day, vi, p. 377.
CoxE, A. C. Historic Presbyterians. Church Rev., lix, p. 11.
Cutler, M. Church-going in New York City, 1887. Mag. Am. Hist., xix,
p. 321.
Dorchester, D. Christianity in the United States. N. Y., Philipps &, H.
pp. 795. 1888.
Eaton, A. W. H. The Church of England in Nova Scotia and the Tory
clergy of the Revolution. New York, Whitaker. 12mo. pp. (14),
320. 1891.
Eggleston, E. Church in the colonies. Century, xxxvi, p. 107.
516 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Ferguson, H. Quakers in New England. Church Rev., liii, p. 82.
Fogg, J. S. H. Witchcraft in New Hampshire, 1656. New Eng. Reg., xliv,
p! 181.
FOY, p. L. The first Roman Catholic congress. Am. Cath. Q., xiv, p. 542.
Frothingham, O. B. Boston Unitarianism, 1820-1850. New York City,
Putnam. 12mo. 1890.
GiDDiNGS, E. J. American Christian Rulers. New York, Bromfield. pp.
610. 1890.
GiLDERSLEEVE, B. L. The creed of the Old South. Atlantic Monthly,
LXix, pp. 75-87.
Gracey, L. L. Beginnings of the American Thanksgiving Day. Chau-
tauquan, xvi, pp. 174-176.
Greeley, C. Christian evolution of the United States. N. Eng., li, p. 275.
Hale, E. E. America's earliest Thanksgiving Days. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXVIII, pp. 431-432.
HiLDEBURN, C. R. Records of Christ Church, Philadelphia. Baptisms,
1709-1760. Pennsyl. Mag., xv, pp. 486-492; xvii, pp. Ill, 363.
Hill, H. A. History of the Old South Church, Boston. Boston, Hough-
ton, Miflin, & Co. 2 v. 1890.
Kay, S. a. M. Mormonism. Baptist Rev., x, p. 172.
Kennedy, J. H. Early days of Mormonism. New York, Scribner. 12mo.
pp. (6), 275 (And. R., x, pp. 321; Lit. W. (Bost.), xix, pp. 357).
Leonard, D. L. Growth and decay of Mormon power. And. Rev., x,
p. 549.
Linn, J. B. The Reformed Church in America; a retrospect, 1791-1891.
Ref. Q., xxxviii, p. 467.
Ludlow, J. M. Presbyterianism in America. Cosmopol., ix, p. 350.
McCoNNELL, S. D. History of the American Episcopal Church. New
York, Whitaker. 1890.
Manley, D. The Catholic Church and the Indians. Cath. World, July,
1892.
Mason, G. C. Annals of Trinity Church, Newport, R. I., 1698-1821.
Newport, Carr., pp. 364. 1890.
Mather, F. G. Early New England choirs. Am. Mag., viii, p. 310.
Merrian, H. B. Philosophical aspects of the school of 1830. And. Rev.,
XV, p. 263.
Papers of the American Society of Church History. Vols, i, ii. New
York, Putnams. (Ref. Q.,xxxvi, p. 533.) 1890-1891.
Patton, J. H. Institution of Thanksgiving Day, 1623. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXIV, p. 445.
Patton, J. H. The triumph of the presbytery of Hanover ; or the sepa-
ration of church and state in Virginia. N. Y., Randolph. 12mo. pp.
(8), 137. 1888.
Peabody, a. p. Early New England Unitarians. Unita. R., xxxi, p. 193.
Perry, W. S. General ecclesiastical constitution of the American
Church. (Bohlen Lectures, 1890.) New York, Whitaker. 12mo.
pp. (5), 291. 1891.
Petrie, G. Church and state in early Maryland. Baltimore, Johns Hop-
kins Press. 8vo. pp. (3), 50. 1888.
Political History of Polygamy and Utah. Our Day, i, p. 192.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 517
ffiSTON, J. S. Roman Catholicism in America. Am. Cath. Q., xvi, p. 396.
CCORDS of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia.
Vol. II. 1886-88. Philadelphia. Pub. by the Society, pp. 406. 1889.
)MAN Catholicism in the United States. Baltimore Centenary. Dub.
Rev., cv, p. 135; Cath. World, li, p. 373 (C. de Meaux); Ed. Rev.,
CLXXi, p. 476; Liv. Age, lxxxv, p. 451. 1890.
[Ross, A. H. Church and state in New England. Effects upon American
Congregationalism. Bibliotheca Sacra, lxix, pp. 213-239. 1888.
SCHAFF, P. Creed revision in the Presbyterian churches. New York,
Scribner. 1890.
jSCHAFF, p. Church and state in the United States. New York, Putnam,
pp. (8), 183. (Also in Papers of the Am. Hist. Assoc, Vol. ii, No. 4.)
1888.
[Bheedy, M. M. Roman Catholics and the school question. Cath. World,
XLix, p. 649.
[jSiNGLETON, R. The colonial meeting house. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvi, p. 434.
Jtump, a. Living issues before the Lutheran Church in America. Luth.
Q., XIX, p. 347.
lUSDELL, S. G. The religious factor in the Republic. Meth. Rev.,
XLIX, p. 679.
Was John Wesley the father of American Methodism? Meth. Rev., li.,
p. 618.
'"eeks, S. B. The religious development in the province of North Caro-
lina. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press. 8vo. pp. (2), 68. 1888.
[Wetmore, S. State support of religion m Massachusetts Bay. Church
Review, Lii, p. 49.
WiLLARD, A. R. The New England Meetinghouse and the Wren Church.
New Engl. Mag., i, p. 497. 1890.
Wolf, E. J. Lutheran Church (American) one hundred years ago. Luth.
Q., XIX, p. 242; id., Hist, of the Lutheran General Synod; ib., xiv,
p. 20.
HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION.
BACH QUESTIONS— SOCIAL PROBLEMS.
Abuse of divorce. Amer., xviii, p. 199.-
Adams, C. K. Recent historical work in the colleges and universities of
Europe and America. Mag. Am. Hist., xxiii, p. 111. (Also in Papers
of the American Historical Association.)
Allen, William F., and D. E. Spencer, Higher education in Wisconsin.
Washington, Govt. Print. Office, pp. 68. 1889.
American Magazines. Spec, lxiii, p. 268.
An Appeal to Pharaoh; the negro problem and its radical solution.
New York, Fords, Howard &. Hulbert. 12mo. pp. (4), 205. 1889.
Arnold, M. Civilization in the United States. Boston, Cupples & Hurd.
12mo. pp. (4), 192. 1888. (Lit. World, xix, p. 168; North Amer. Rev.,
CXLVi, p. 515; And. Rev., ix, p. 512; Our Day, i, p. 478. Liv. Age,
CLXXVii, p. 285; Eel. M., ex, p. 689.)
Baldwin, R. S. A bit of college history. Mag. Am. Hist., xxviii, pp»
280-284.
518 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Barnard, C. The Swiss in America. Chaut., viii, p. 363.
Barrows, S. J. The evolution of the Afric-American. New York, Apple-
ton. 12mo. pp. 30. 1891.
Barrows, W. The Indian side of the Indian question. Boston, Lothrop.
BOYNTON, H. V. Washington, D. C, Our National University. Chaut.,
IX, p. 569.
Blackmar, F. W. Indian education. Annals Am. Acad., ii, pp. 813-837.
Blackmar, F. W. History of Federal and State aid to higher education
in the United States. Washington, D- C, Bureau of Eduo. 1890.
Brackett, J. R. The negro in Maryland. Johns Hopkins Univ. Stud.
Extra Vol. vi. Baltimore, N. Murray, pp. 268. 1889.
Brackett, J. R. Progress of the negro in Maryland. Johns Hopkins Univ.
Stud. Ser. 8. No. 7-9. 1890.
Broadley, a. G. Negroes of the South. National, xiii, p. 45.
Browne, A. G. American, Latin, and Saxon. Atlan., lxiv, p. 834.
Bruce, P. A. The plantation negro as a freeman. New York, Putnams.
12mo. pp. 262. 1889.
Bruce, W.C. Negro problem. Baltimore, Murphy . 8vo. pp.33. 1891.
Bush, G. G. History of education in Florida. Washington Govt. Print.
Off. pp. 54. 1889.
Cable, G. W. The negro question in the United States. Contemp., liii,
p. 443. 1888.
Cajori, F. The teaching and history of mathematics in the United States.
Washington, D. C. Bureau of Educ. 1890.
.Carnachan, J. G. The Scotch in America. Chaut., viii, p. 303.
Caswell, H. S. Our life among the Iroquois Indians. Boston, Congre-
gational Pub. Soc. 12mo. pp. (11), 321. 1892.
Centenary of Georgetown College. Amer., xvii, p. 311.
Chamberlaln, J. Municipal institutions in America and England. The
Forum, xiv, pp. 367-381.
Civilization, Social order, and morality in the U. S. A. Blackwood's
Edin. Mag., cli, pp. 617-637.
Clark University. Science, xiv, p. 462.
Clowes, W. L. Black America. New York and London, Cassell. 12mo.
xiii,pp. (10), 240. 18;)1.
CONTE, J. Le. The race problem in the South. New York, Appleton.
12mo. pp. (2), 349-402. 1892.
Cook, J. New duties of the New South. Our Day, iii, p. 452.
Co WEN, P. Jews in the United States. Chaut., ix, p. 604.
Crocker, J. H. The problems in American society. Some Social Studies.
Boston, G. H. Ellis, pp. (3), 293. 1889.
Crocker, J. H. Educating forces in America. Unita. R., xxxiv, p. 20.
Crummell, a. Africa and America. Springfield, Willey. 8vo. pp. (3),
466. 1891.
Dabney, C. M. Advance of education in the South. Cosmopolitan, Xlll,
pp. 531-542.
Davis, A. M. The exhibitions of Harvard College prior to 1800. New
Eng. Hist, and Gen. Reg., XLVI, pp. 233-246. 1891.
Dawes, H. L. Bill for excluding Chinese. Forum, vi, p. 526.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 519
Hke, S. W. Progress of divorce reform. Andover Rev., xi, p. 427.
USAPPOiNTMENTS of America. Spec., lxiii, p. 233.
►UBBS, J. German life and culture in America. Ref. Q., xxxv, p. 453.
>URFEE, W. F. Development of American industries since Columbus.
Pop. Sci. Mo., XXXVIII, p. 145.
Iaton, J. College growth in Ohio. Educa., ix, p. 433.
Url of Meath, Anglo-Saxon unity. Fortn., lv, p. 615. 1891.
^Early American literature. Overland, n. s., xiv, p. 549.
(Fairchild, J.H. Co-education at Oberlin. Bib. Sac, xlvi, 443.
First American protest against slavery. Pennsyl., M. xiii. p. 265.
Foster, W. E. Some Rhode Island contributions to the intellectual life
of the last century. Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc, viii, pp. 103-133.
Uullieur, (H.). l^tudes Am^ricaines. Paris, Plon. 12mo. pp. 299. 1891.
JODKiN, E. L. The negro and the Republican party. Forum, vii, p. 246.
Joode, G. B. Origin of the national scientific and educational institu-
tions of the United States. New York, Putnam. 1890.
fGooDYEAR, W. H. Influence of Greek architecture in the United States.
Chautauquan, xvi, pp. 3-11, 131-151.
JOSSE, E. Forty immortal American authors. Critic, xvii, pp. 107, 123.
[alsteaDjM. National conceits of the United States. No. Am., cxlix,
p. 550.
Hawthorne J., and L. Lemmon, American literature. Boston, Heath.
12mo. pp. (14), 319. 1891.
Hayward, a. G. Education in the South.* Harper, lxxix, p. 224.
History of cooperation in the United States. Johns Hopkins' Studies in
Hist, and Polit. Science. Series 6, pp. 540. 1888.
HoLLEY, W. W. The race problem and other critiques. Essays. Buffalo,
C.W.Moulton. 16mo. pp.144. 1892.
Howard, T. D. Before and after emancipation. Unit. Rev., xxx, pp. 136-44.
HuFFCUT, E. W. Jurisprudence in American universities. Annals Am.
Acad., II, pp. 488-493. 1891.
The Irish in America. Spec, lxii, p. 566.
Irish vote in the United States. Amer., xvii, p. 214.
Jay, J. The demand for education in American history. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXV, p. 99.
Jones, C. E. Education in Georgia. Washington, Govt. Print. Off. pp.
143. 1889.
Kirk, J. W. The first news message telegraph. Scribner, xi, pp. 652-657.
Knight, G. W., and J. R. Commons, History of higher education in Ohio.
Washington, Gov. Pr. Office, pp. (6), 258. 1891.(1892.)
Knortz, K. Gesch. d. amerikan. Litteratur. Berlin. 2 vols. pp. 432
and 491. (Dlz., xxxvm, p. 1377.) 1891.
Lamb, M.J. Progression in steam navigation, 1807-1892. Then and now.
Mag. Am. Hist., xxviii, pp. 161-182.
Leclerc, M. Choses d'Amdrique. Paris, Plon. 12mo. pp.277. 1891.
Lillie, L. C. Two phases of art in America. Harper, Lxxx, p. 206.
Lloyd, W. H. S. English and American journalism. Writer, iii, p. 55.
Lodge, H. C. Washington's conception of the future of America. Mag.
Am. Hist., xxiii, p. 160.
Marriage and divorce in the United States. Church Q., xxviii, p. 512.
McPherson, J. H. T. History of Liberia. Johns Hopkins Univ. Stud.,
9thser.,No.lO. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press. 8vo. pp. (2), 61. 1891.
520 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Mathew, W. Negro intellect. No. Am., cxlix, p. 91.
Mathews, "W. S. B. ed. hundred years of music in America. Chicago,
Howe. pp. 720. 1890.
Mayo, A. D. Southern women in the recent educational movement in the
South. Washington, Gov. Print. Office, pp.300. 1892.
Meriwether, Colyer. History of higher education in South Carolina,
with a sketch of the free school system. Washington, Gov. Print.
Office, pp. 247. 1889.
Meyer, Annie N. Woman's work in America. New York, Holt. 12mo.
pp. 457. 1891.
MONTEFIORE, A. Among the Americans. Temp. Bar, Lxxxvii, p. 493.
Moore, G. H. The first theater in America. Mag. Am. Hist., xxi, pp.
58, 59.
Morgan, J. S. Negroes: Shall they rule? Forum, vi, p. 586.
Negro conflicts in South Carolina. Nation, N. Y., xlviii, pp. 278, 323,
340.
Negroes, Color prejudice. Nation, N. Y., xlix, p. 26.
Negro Question in America, Spec, lxii, p. 709.
New York Charities Directory, A Classified and Descriptive Directory to
the Charitahle and Beneficent Societies and Institutions of the City
of New York. New York, Charity Organ. Soc. of N. Y. City. pp.
(10), 400. 1890 (1891).
Norton, C. E. Intellectual Life of America. N. Princ, vi, p. 312.
Page, T. N. Literature in the South since the War. Lippincott, xlviii,
p. 740. 1891.
Pancoast, H. S. The Intellectual Life of America. Andover R. , xi, p. 161.
Peabody, R. S. Architecture and Democracy. Harper, lxxxi, p. 219.
Perkins, F.C. Cornell University. New York, Wiley. 16mo. p. 93. 1891.
Progress among the Negroes. Nation, N. Y., xlviii, p. 461. Spec, lxii,
p. 852.
Rice, J. M. Our Public School System. Bufi'alo, Cincinnati, and other
large cities. Forum, vols, xiv-xvi.
Richardson, C. F. American Literature, 1607-1885. Vol. ii. New York,
Putnam, pp. (3) 456. 1888.
Ritter, F. L. Music in America. New York City, Scribner. 1890.
Robertson, R. S. The Scotch in America. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvii, pp.
42-50.
Roosevelt, T. Recent Criticism of America. Eel. Mag., cxi, p. 577.
RuFFiN, F. G. The Negro as a Political and Social Factor. Richmond,
Randolph & English, pp. 32. 1888.
Scarborough, W. S. The Future of Negroes. Forum, vii, p. 80.
Schuyler, E. Italian Immigration. Pol. Sci. Q., iv, p. 480.
Scotch-Irish Society of America, Proceedings and Addresses of the Third
Congress at Louisville, Ky., May 14-17, 1891. Nashville, Barbee Sc
Smith. 8vo. pp. 328.
Seilhamer, G. O. History of the American Theater before the Revolution.
Globe Printing House. 4to. 1888.
Shaffer, M. L. Creole Women. Chautauquan, xv, pp. 346-347.
Shaler, N. S. Sense of Honor in Americans. No. Am., cxlix, p. 205.
Smith, G. J. Synopsis of English and American Literature. Boston,
Mass. Ginn. 1890.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY VINCENT. 521
Spencer, E. The Successful Novel of 1836. Horse Shoe Robinson. Mag.
Am. Hist., XXVIII, pp. 131, 199, 299, 381, 465.
Speranza, C. L. Italians in the United States. Chant., ix, p. 346.
Stedman, E. C, and E. M. Hutchinson (Editors), A Library of American
Literature from the Earliest Settlement to the Present Time. New
York, C. L. Webster, pp. 582. 1889.
Storrs, R. S. Sources and Guarantees of Progress of the United States.
Mag. Am. Hist., xxiv, p. 241.
Swift, M. J. University Extension. Overland, xiv, p. 43.
Thayer, J. B. American Indians and the Dawes Bill. Atlantic, lxi, p. 315.
Thomas, H. E. The Welsh in the United States. Chant., viii, p. 238.
Thompson, S. Lessons of Emigration. National, xiii, p. 369.
Tourgee, a. W. Shall White Minorities Rule? Forum, vii, p. 143.
The Ulsterman in America. Spectator, lxviii. pp. 869-870.
Watterson, H. The Negro in America. Chautauquan, xv, pp. 20-23.
Welsh, A. H. Digest of English and American Literature. Chicago,
Griggs. 12mo. 1890.
White, A. D. The Need of Another University. Forum, vi, p. 465.
White, G. Philosophy of American Literature. Boston, Ginn. 12mo. pp.
4, 66. 1891.
Williams, A. B. Voting of Negroes. Amer., xvii, p. 203.
Wong Chin Foo. Chinese in the United States. Chaut., ix, p. 215.
Wright, C. D. A Report on Marriage and Divorce in the United States,
1867 to 1886. Washington, Gov. Print. Office, pp. (4), 1074. 1889.
HISTORY BY PERIODS.
DISCOVERY, COLONIAL.
Adams, H. B., and H. Wood. Columbus and his Discovery of America.
Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins Press. 8vo. pp. (3), 88. 1892.
American Colonies, 1669-1674. Ath., ii, p. 156.
Andrews, C. M. The River Towns of Connecticut : A Study of Wethers-
field, Hartford, and Windsor. Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies. 7-9. Bal-
timore, pp. 142. 1889.
Bates, W. C. A Boston Writing School before the Revolution. Mag. Am.
Hist., XXI, p. 499.
Blake, H. A. Where did Columbus first land in 1492? Eclectic Mag., lvi,
pp. 673-683; Nineteenth Cent., xxxii, pp. 536-552.
Brown, A. The English Occupancy of North America. Atlantic Monthly,
Lxx, pp. 465-476.
Brown, Alex. Genesis of the United States. Boston, Houghton. 2 vols.
1151 (Mag. Am. Hist., xxvi, p. 58; Eng. H. R., vi, p. 790; Nation, lit,
p. 285).
BuRNEY, J. History of the Buccaneers of America. New York and London,
Macmillan. 8vo. pp. (15), 382. 1891.
Byers, S. H. M. Ballad of Christopher Columbus. Mag. Am., Hist, xxv, p.
293.
Celebration of the Completion of the National Monument to the Pilgrims
at Plymouth. Plymouth, Avery, pp.176. 1889.
Chamberlain, M. The Belknap Papers in the Mass. Hist. Soc. Nation, m,
p. 304.
522 Al^ERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Clark, A. L. Vinland and Norumbega. New Eng. Mag., iv, p. 261.
Curtis, "W.E. The Columbus Monuments. Chautauquan, xvi, pp. 138-
145.
Dawes, A. L. Indian Territory. Harper, lxxvi, pp. 598-605. 1891.
DbCosta,B.F. Pre-ColumbianDiscoveryof America by the Welsli. New
Eng. Reg., xlv, p. 15.
Deposition of Thomas Pound, 1689 (as to piracy). N. Eng. Reg., xlv,
p. 215.
DiLLARD, R. Declaration of Independence by a Colonial Church. Mag.
Am. Hi&t., xxviii, pp. 401-411.
Discovery of America. Edinburgh Rev., clxxvi, pp. 147-174. 1891.
Dodge, M. A. (Pseud. Gail Hamilton), The Lion's Side of the Lion Ques-
tion. N.Am. Rev., cxlvi, pp. 294-309.
DuBois, B. H. Did the Norse discover America! Mag. Am. Hist., xxvii,
p. 369.
Duke of Hamilton's Power of Attorney, 1726. N.E. Reg., xlv, p. 71.
DuTTO, L. A. Las Casas' Narrative of the Voyage of Discovery. Cath.
World, October, 1892.
Early Settlers in English America. Blackw., cl, p. 424. 1891.
Eggleston, Edward. Note on the Completion of Mr. Parkman's Work.
Century Mag., xlv, p. 46.
Emerson, G. H. The Making of the United States. Univ. Q., xlviii, p. 49.
Erving, J. Colonial Memories and their Lesson. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvii,
pp. 325-329.
Fisher, G. P. The Colonial Era. New York, Scribner. pp. (15), 348.
Fiske, W. Icelandic Discovery of America. Nation, lii, p. 54.
FiSKE, J. The Discovery of America, with some Account of Ancient Amer-
ica and the Spanish Conquest. Boston, Houghton, Miflin & Co. 2v.
8vo. pp. (35), 516, (24) 631. 1892.
Ford, P. L. Writings of Christopher Columbus descriptive of the Discov-
ery and Occupation of the New World. New York, C. L. Webster &
Co. pp. (6), 255. 1891.
Ford, W. C. Franklin's Articles of Confederation Nation, xlviii, p. 261.
Ford, W. C. Office-Holding in the Colonies. Nation, xlix, p. 28.
Gaffarel, p. Histoire de la d^couverte de I'Am^rique depuis les origines
jusqu'a la mort de Christoph Colomb. Paris, Rousseau. 2 v. 8vo.
Rev. Hist., pp. 50, 157-63. 1891.
Glover, A. K. Was America discovered by the Chinese ? Mag. Am. Hist.,
xxvii, pp. 30-37.
GooDE, G. B. The first American ship. Mag. Am. Hist., xxv, p. 392.
GooDLOE, D. R. The birth of the Republic. New York, Belford, Clarke
& Co. 12mo. pp. 400. 1889.
GuiLLEMARD, F. H. H. Life of Ferdinand Magellan and the first circum-
navigation of the globe. (World's Great Explorers. ) 1480-1521. New
York, Dodd, Mead & Co. 12mo. pp. (7), 339. 1891.
Hakes, H. The discovery of America by Christopher Columbus. Wilkes-
barre, Bauer & Son. 16mo. pp. 132. 1892.
Hale, E. E. Domestic and social life in the colonies. Chant., xiv, p. 135.
Hale, E. E. Domestic and social life of the colonists. Chautauquan,
XIV, pp. 523-528.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 523
Harrison, S. F. Glimpse of the siege of Louisburg. N. Eng. M., n. 8.,v.,
p. 261.
Harvey, A. The enterprise of Christopher Columbus. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXVII, pp. 1-17, 98-114.
Hinsdale, B. A. First English foundation in America. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXVI, p. 211.
Hoar, G. F. Three essentials of Puritanism. Our Day, iv, p. 231.
Horsford, E. N. Defenses of Norumbega. Boston, Houghton. 4to. 1891.
HowLEY, M. F. Landfall of John Cabot. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvi, p. 267.
Lamb, M. J. Group of portraits of Columbus. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvi, p.
241.
Letters of Nathaniel Noyes to William Henshaw, 1774-75. N. Eng. Reg.,
XLiv, p. 140.
McDonald, Z. Relic of Braddock's Field. Mag. Am. Hist., xxii, p. 411.
MacLean, J. P. Pre-Columbian discovery of America. Am. Antiq., xiv.
pp. 33, 87, 139, 189, 271.
Markham, a. H. Sir John Franklin and the Northwest Passage. (World's
Great Explorers.) London, G. Philip, 12 mo. pp. (7), 324. 1891.
(Dublin R., cix, p. 266-282 ; Ac, XL, p. 149. )
Mays, T. J. Future of American Indians. Pop. Sci. Mo., xxxiii pp. 104-
108.
Merriman, T. M. The Pilgrims, Puritans, and Roger Williams vindicated,
and his sentence of banishment ought to be revoked. Boston, Brad-
ley & Woodruff. 12mo. pp. (12), 312. 1892.
MooNEY, J. A. Columbus, the Christ-bearer. New York, Cath Pub. Co.
16mo.
Otto, Count de Mosloy, Memoirs of the discovery of Columbus. The
first criticism written in America, 1786. Mag. Am. Hist., xxviii, p.
358.
Nicola Y, J. G. The French and Indian war. Chautauquan, xv,pp. 10-14.
Nicola Y, J. S. The downfall of New France, Chautauquan, XV., pp.
269-273.
Norse Discovery of America. Scot. R., xviii, p. 341.
Paton, W. a. First land discovered by Columbus. Lippinc, xlviii,
p. 502.
Parkman, F. Capture of Louisburg by the New England militia. Atlant. ,
Lxvii, pp. 314, 514.
Pelt, D. van. The start of the Pilgrims from Delfshaven. N. Eng. Mag.,
n. 8., V, p. 325.
Poole, W. F. Columbus and the finding of the New World. Chicago.
20 mo. pp.19. 1891.
Potts, W. J. Original documents, 1677 to 1761. New Eng. Hist, and Gen.
Reg., XLVi, pp. 172, 173.
Pyle, H. Buccaneers and marooners of America. New York, McMillan,
12mo. pp.403. 1891.
Rawle, W. B. Where is the original of the charter of Charles II to Wm.
Penn for the province of Pennsylvania f Pennsyl. M., xvi, pp. 86-92.
SCAiFE,W. B. America: Its geographical history, 1492-1892. Baltimore,
Johns Hopkins Press. 8vo. pp. (7), 176. 1892.
Scruggs, W. L. How England forced the slave upon America. Mag. Am.
Hist., XXVIII, pp. 32-42.
524 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Still^, C. J. American colonies as penal settlements. Pennsyl. M., xii,
p. 457.
Tarducci, Fr. Life of Christopher Columbus (from the Italian). Detroit,
Brownson. 8vo. 2 vols. pp. (10), 375; (10), 369. 1891.
Taylor, W. W. England's struggle with American colonies. Mag. Am.
Hist., XXII, p. 121.
Thomas, C. Pre-Columbian literature of North America. A Study. Mag.
Am. Hist., XXVIII, pp. 27-32.
Thomas, C. The Dutch in America. Chaut., xiii., p. 205.
Thwaites, R. G. The colonies, 1492-1750. (Epochs of Am. Hist.) New
York and London, Longmans & Co. 16mo. pp. (15), 301. 1891.
Underwood, F. H. Quabbin: The story of a small town; with outlooks
upon puritan life. Boston, Lee & Shepherd. 12mo. pp. (6), 376. 1893
(1892).
Valentini, p. J. J. The landfall of Columbus at San Salvador. Am.
Antiq. Soc. Proc, viii, pp. 149-152.
Webster, Daniel. First Bunker Hill oration. Boston, Leach, S. and S.
pp. 60. 1889.
WiNSOR, J. Christopher Columbus. Boston, Houghton. 8vo. pp. (8),
674. 1891. (Dial, xii, p. 265; Sat. R., Lxxii, p. 671.)
Wolfe's Victory. Battle of Quebec. Chautauquan, xv, pp. 383, 384.
AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
Balch, T. French in America during the War of Independence of the
United States, 1777-1783. Philadelphia, Porter & Coates. 8vo. pp.
(15), 243. 1891.
Bacon, W. I, The Continental Congress. Mag. Am. Hist., xx, pp. 17-38.
Baker, W. S. The camp by Schuylkill Falls. Pennsyl. M., xvi, pp. 28^1.
Baker, W. S. Exchange of Gen. Charles Lee. Pennsyl. M., xv, p. 26.
Baker, W. S. Itinerary of Washington, 1779-1783. Pennsyl. M., xiv,
pp. Ill, 253. XV, pp. 41, 291.
Baldwin, M. M. The Declaration of Independence in Savannah, Ga. Mag.
Am. Hist. XX, p. 203.
Black, R. M. Ethics of the Declaration of Independence. Annals Am.
Acad. Pol. and Soc. Sci., ii, p. 138.
BOYNTON, H. The world's greatest conflict. Boston, Lothrop. 16mo.
1890.
Captivity of a British Surgeon. Mag. Am. Hist., xx, p. 421.
Capture of Stony Point, July, 1779. From manuscript written by Maj.
(afterward Gen.) William Hull. Mag. Am. Hist., xxviii, pp. 182-185.
Chamberlain, N. H. Campaign of Gen. John Burgoyne, 1777. N. Eng.
Mag. (n. s.), IV. p. 198.
Claims of American loyalists. Pennsyl. M., xv, p. 350.
Coutant, R. B. Action at Tarrytown, 1781. Mag. Am. Hist., xxiv, p. 358.
De Lance y, E. F. King George's personal policy in England. Mag. Am.
Hist., XX VII, pp. 431-449.
Dinsmore, L. J. Samuel Adams and the American Revolution. Univ.
Quar., XL VIII, p. 295.
Diplomatic correspondence ofthe American Revolution. Washington,
Government Printing Office. 1892. 8vo. 6 vols.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 625
1)0NI0L, H. Hist, de la participation de la France a I'^tablissement des
Etats-Unis d'Am^rique. Paris, Picard. 4to. pp.721. 1890. (Pop.
Sci. Quar., vi, pp. 551-554.)
DuRAND, J. New materials for the History of the American Revolution.
New York, H. Holt. 12mo. pp. 311. 1889.
FiSKE, J. The critical period of American History. 1783-1789. Boston,
Houghton & Mifflin. 12mo. pp. (17), 368. 1888.
FiSKE, J. From King's Mountain to Yorktown. Atlant., lxvi, p. 789. Id.,
Disasters of 1780, i&., p. 337.
FiSKE, J. Beginnings of American Revolution, ib., 61, pp. 398-415. Atlan-
tic. Id.. First crisis in American Revolution, %b., pp. 498-520. Id.,
The eve of the Declaration of Independence, ib., lxii, pp. 612-632.
FiSKE, J. The War of Independence. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin & Co.
12mo. pp. (6), 200. Id., Washington's Campaign of 1776, Atlan., lxiii,
p. 20. Id., The Invasion of Northern New York, 1777, ib., p. 398. Id.,
The American Revolution, ib., p. 601. Id., Monmouth and Newport
Campaigns, ib., LXiv, p. 463. Id., Border Warfare of the Revolution,
ib., p. 813.
FiSKE, J. The American Revolution. Boston, Houghton. 2 vols. (Nation,
Liii, p. 72 ; Dial (Ch. ), xii, p. 135). 12mo. pp. (21) 344 ; (12) 305. 1891.
Ford, P. L. Affaires de TAngleterre et de I'Am^rique, 1776-'80. Pennsyl.
M., XIII, p. 222.
Ford, P. L. The Association of the First Congress. Pol. Sci. Quar., vi, pp.
613-624.
Fowler, R. L. Historical Houses and Revolutionary Letters. Mag. Am.
Hist., XXIV, p. 81.
Franklin, Benjamin. Complete Works. New York, Putnam. 10 vols.
1888.
Fraser, J. A. Battle of Queenstown Heights. Mag. Am. Hist., xxiv, p. 203.
Green, S. A. American prisoners taken at Battle of Bunker Hill. New
Eng. Reg., xlii, p. 168.
Grisby, H. B. History of the Virginia Federal Convention of 1788, Vol. ii.
(Virginia Hist. Coll. ( n. s. ), Vol. x. ) Richmond, Va., Hist. Soc, pp.
411. 1891.
Hale, E. E. Franklin in France. 2 vols. Boston, Roberts. (Dial, (Ch.)
pp. (9) 204.) 1888.
Hall, Henry. Yearbook of societies of descendants of Patriots of the
American Revolution. New York, The Republic Press. 1890.
Hart, A. B. Formation of the Union, 1750-1829. New York, Longmans,
Green & Co. Pp. (20) 278. 1888.
Haynes, E. C. The siege of Yorktown. Chautauquan, XV, p. 3-9.
Hayward, E. F. Some romances of the Revolution. Atlan., lxiv, p. 627.
Heron, W. Letter from Clinton's Original Secret Record of the American
Revolution. Mar. 4, 1782. Mag. Am. Hist., xx, pp. 329-332.
Hessians in the American Revolution. Pennsyl. M., xv, p. 218.
Hunnewell, J. F. Illustrated Americana of the Revolution. Am. Antiq.
Soc. Proc, VII, pp. 371-381.
Kelley, M. E. Tariff acts under the Confederation. Quar. J. Econ., ii,
pp. 473-481.
Kingsley, L. Yale College in the Revolution. N. Eng., xlix, p. 349.
526 ^ERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Lamb, M. J. Historic homes and landmarks. White Plains in the Revo-
lution. Mag. Am. Hist., xxviii, pp. 241-272.
Loyalist's Account of certain occurrences in Philadelphia after Corn-
wallis's surrender at Yorktown. Penusyl. M., xvi, pp. 103-107.
Maclay, E. S. Early victories of the American Navy. Cent., xli, p. 79.
Mellick, a. D. New Jersey Militia in the Revolution. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XIX, p. 340.
Memorial of the American patriots who fell at the Battle of Bunker Hill.
Boston, published by the City Council. 4to., pp. 274. 1889.
MSS. relating to American Revolution. Ath., i, p. 78.
Nicola Y, J. G. The Battle of Monmouth. Chautauquan, xiv, pp. 515-522.
NicOLAY, J. G. The Battle of Ticonderoga. Chautauquan, xv, pp. 143-146.
Peabody, a. p. Boston Mobs before the Revolution, Atlantic, lxii, pp.
321-332.
Philips, M. Headquarters of Washington and Wayne in Pennsylvania.
Lippincott, xlviii, p. 487.
Poole, W. F. Persistence of historical myths. Dial (Ch.), xi, p. 143.
Porterfield, C. Memorable attack on Quebec, December 21, 1775. Mag
Am. Hist., XXI, pp. 318, 319.
Public Characters in 1786. Mag. Am. Hist., xxiv, p. 287.
Raymond, M. D. Washington at Tarrytown, 1783. Mag. Am. Hist., xxv,
p. 247.
Record of Connecticut men in the American Revolution. Hartford, Conn.
4to. 1889.
Redpath, J. C. Battle of Trenton. Chant., xiv, p. 259.
RosENGARTEN, JOSEPH G. (Translator), The Battle of G^rmantown de-
scribed by a Hessian officer. Pennsyl. M., xvi, pp. 197-201.
Society of Old Brooklynites. List of about eight thousand prisoners of
''Jersey" prison ship. 8vo. pamphlet.
Sons of the American Revolution. Yearbooks of State Societies of Sons
of the American Revolution in Connecticut, District of Columbia,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, etc. 1890-
1892.
Still:i&, C. J. Comte de Broglie, the proposed Stadtholder of America.
Pennsyl. Mag., xi, pp. 369-405.
Stone, W. L. Letters of the Brunswick and Hessian officers during the
American Revolution. Albany, Munsell. 8vo. pp. 269. 1891.
Storming of Stony Point, 1779. Military operations, 1780. Burning of
Washington, 1814. (Three unpublished letters.) Mag. Am. Hist.,
xxvii, pp. 465-469.
Unreconstructed Loyalists in Boston. Atlant., lxvti, pp. 571, 858.
Walworth, Mrs. E. H. Battles of Saratoga, 1777. Albany, Munsell. 8vo.
pp.191. 1891.
Welling, J. C. The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence. Mag. Am.
Hist., xxi, pp. 221-233.
Wilcox, C. M. The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence. Mag. Am.
Hist., xxi, pp. 31-45.
Williams, W. Incidents in the history of the Honorable Artillery Com-
pany. Boston, Laughton. 1888.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 527
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION:
lDAMS, H. History of the United States of America during the Adminis-
trations of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. New York, Scrib-
ner. 12mo. 9 vols. (Nation, li, pp. 405,424.)
Adams, H. Rejection of Monroe's Treaty. John Quincy Adams in the
Senate. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvii, pp. 339-342.
Allen, J. H. Anti- Slavery : A reminiscence. Unita. R., xxxvi, p. 194.
Baillie, Col. An Englishman's Notebook in 1828. Mag. Am. Hist., xix,
p. 424.
Bancroft, G. History of the Battle of Lake Erie and Miscellaneous
Papers. New York, Bonner. 16mo. pp. (4) 264. 1891.
Barrows, W. Eighty-eight years running a Boundary Line. Educ, xii,
p.l.
BONSAL, L. Post-Revolutionary movement of slaves Southward. Nation,
XLVi, pp. 135, 136.
BowEN, C. W. History of the Centennial Celebration of the Inauguration
of George Washington as first President of the United States. New
York, Appleton. pp. 650. 1892.
BowNE, E. S. American girls' life in 1800. Sat. R., LXVI, p. 183.
Brooks, E. S. The battle of Lundy's Lane. Chautauquan, xv, pp. 263-269.
Buchanan, J. Messages of President Buchanan. New York, J. B. Henry.
pp.328. 1888.
Carson, H. L. The first United States Congress. Pennsyl., M., xiii,
pp. 129.
Clarke, S. C. Hull's surrender at Detroit, 1812. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvir,
pp. 343-367.
Curry, J. L. M. The acquisition of Florida. Mag. Am. Hist., xix., pp.
286-301.
Davis, S. M. The Louisiana Purchase. Chautauquan, xiv, pp. 658-659.
Deming, C. Brisbane's Journal of Travels in the United States in 1801-'02.
Atlant., LXVI, p. 381.
Elliott, O. L. The Tariff Controversy in the United States, 1789-1833.
FiSKE, J. The French Alliance and the Conway Cabal. Atlan., lxi v, p. 220.
F0RD,W. C. Trade of Great Britain with United States. Report of a
Committee of the Lords of the Privy Council, January, 1791. Wash-
ington, Department of State. 8vo. pp. 79. 1888.
Ford, W. C. The Writings of George Washington. New York, Putnam.
12 vols. 8vo. 1889.
FORMAN, S. S. Journey down the Ohio and Mississippi in 1789-'90. Cin-
cinnati, Claj-ke. 12mo. pp. 67. 1888.
Ganong, W. F. St. Croix. Northeast Boundary of United States. Mag.
Am. Hist., XXVI, p. 261.
Green, T. M. The Spanish Conspiracy. Cincinnati, Clarke, pp. 406.
(Mag. Am. Hist., xxvi, p. 78.)
Hazleton, G. W. Federal and Anti-Federal. Mag. Am. Hist., xxm, p. 25.
Hewes, F. W. History of Political Parties of America. Chaut. , xi v, p. 149.
Howland, K. M. Virginia's Statesmen in 1788. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvui,
pp. 59, 60.
Hunt, G. South Carolina and Nullification. Pol. Sci. Quar., vi, pp. 232-247.
528 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
KiRKLAND, J. The Chicago Massacre in 1812. Mag. Am. Hist., xxviii, p.
111.
Laugel^ a. Talleyrand in London and America. Nation, ui, p. 27.
Leonard, D. L. The Progress of the United States, 1830-1840. Bib. Sac,
XLVi, p. 209.
LOVETT, R. M. Jeflferson and the Louisiana Purchase. N. Eng. M,, i, p.
569.
Maclay, W. Journal of William Maclay, U. S. Senator from Pennsylva-
nia, 1789-1791. New York, Appleton. (Nation, Lii, p. 221 ; Dial (Ch.),
XII, p. 78.)
Maclay, E. S. Laurels of the American Tar in the War of 1812. Cent.,
XLi, p. 205.
Moore, M.V. Some Recollections of Slavery. N. Eng., M. (n. s. ), iv, p. 23.
Morse, A. D. The Democratic Party. Pol. Sci. Quar., vi, pp. 593-612.
MuNSON, L. E. The Louisiana Purchase. N. Eng., Lin, p. 105.
Oglesby, T. K. Georgia and the Constitution. Mag. Am. History, xxi,
pp. 487-493.
Patton, J. H. One Hundred Years of National Life, 1789, 1889. Mag.
Am. Hist., XXVI, p. 341.
Peabody, a. p. Slavery as seen by a Northern Man in 1844. And. R.,
XVI, p. 155.
Poole, W. F. Western Land Cessions to the United States. (Dial. (Ch).,
VIII, pp. 285-288.)
RiDPATH, J. C. Perry's Victory on Lake Erie. Chautauquan, xv, pp. 135,
143.
ScHENCK, E. H. Burning of the Steamboat Lexington, 1840. Mag. Am.
Hist., XXV, p. 415.
SCHOULER, J. History of the United States of America under the Consti-
tution. New York, Dodd, Mead «fc Co. 12mo. 5 vols. (Nation, xnx,
p. 55.; 1891.
Social Life and Literature Fifty Years Ago. Boston, Cupples. 12mo.
pp. (5)96. 1888.
Spencer, E. Napoleon I and Peace with America, 1800. Mag. Am. Hist.
XXVI, p. 298.
Stone, W. L. Trip from New York to Niagara. 1829. Mag. Am. Hist., xx,
pp. 315, 229, 489.
Thompson, C.J. Columbus Day One Hundred Years Ago. Chautauquan,
XVI, pp. 189-193.
Wallace, W. B. Lines attached to a Petition to Congress in 1826. Mag.
Am. Hist., XXVIII, p. 199.
Welling, J. C. Slavery in the Territories Historically Considered. Mag.
Am. Hist., XXVII, pp. 132, 142, 196, 211.
Whigs of 1832. Nation, l, pp. 48, 68.
Whitcher, W. F. New Hampshire and the Federal Constitution. Granite
Mo. XI, pp. 203, 209. 1888.
Wordsworth and Southey on Slavery. Nation, 1892, p. 446.
OiriL WAR.
Allan, W. The Army of Northern Virginia in 1862. Boston, Houghton,
Mifflin & Co. 8vo. 1892.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 529
Allen, S. P. Down in Dixie; Life in a Cavalry Regiment in the War
Days; from the Wilderness to Appomattox. Boston, Lothrop. pp.
498. 1892.
Appleton, N. Harvard College during the War of the Rebellion. N. Eng.
Mag., IV, p. 3.
Baker, S. T. Fort Sumter and its Defenders ; Illustrated Poem in Eleven
Cantos. Buffalo, C. W. Moulton. 8vo. pp. 64. 1888.
Bancroft, F. Efforts at Compromise, 1860-'61. Pol. Sci. Q., vi, pp. 401-423.
Beauregard, G. T. Commentary on the Campaign and Battle of Manas-
sas. New York, Putnam. 8vo. pp. (16) 187. 1891.
Beecher, H. W. Patriotic Addresses in America and England, 1850-1885.
New York, Fords Howard & Hulbert. pp. (5) 857. 1887.
Bigelow, J. France and the Confederate Navy, 1862-1868. New York,
Harper. 12mo. pp. (10) 247. (Nation, xlvii, p. 457.)
Bigelow, J. Confederate Diplomatists and their Shirt of Nessus. Cent.,
XLII, p. 113.
Bigelow, J., Jr. Principles of Strategy, illustrated mainly from American
Campaigns. New York, Putnam, pp. 200. 4to. 1891.
BOWEN, J. L. Massachusetts in the War, 1861-1865. Springfield, Bryan.
pp. 1050. 1890.
Brixton, W. Civil War on the Border. New York, Putnam. 1890.
Campbell, J. A. Reminiscences and Documents relating to the Civil War
during 1865. Baltimore, Murphy. 1887. pp. 68. 1888.
Campbell, J. A. A View of the Southern Confederacy from the Inside.
Nineteenth Cent., xxxviii, p. 950.
Cable, G.W. Ed.,AUnionWoman'sDiaryintheSouth. Cent., pp.38, 93L
Celebration of Gettysburg. Nation, xlvii, p. 27.
Civil War of the United States. Ed. R., clxxiii, p. 400.
Clason, a. W. The Fallacy of 1860. Mag. Am. Hist., xix, pp. 314-320.
Clews, H. Great Britain and the Southern Confederacy. No. Am., cxlix,
p. 215.
Coffin, C. C. Redeeming the Republic: Third Period of the War of the
Rebellion, 1864. New York, Harper, pp. (11) 478. 1889.
Cox, J. D. Why the Men of '61 fought for the Union. Atlantic Monthly,
LXLX, pp. 382-395.
Cox, J. D. U. S. Grant and the Potomac Army. Nation, xlvii, p. 276.
Crocker, L. B. Story of the Fifty-fifth Illinois Infantry. Normal, 111.,
Augustine. 1887. pp. 520.
Crowninshield, B. W. History of the First Regiment of Massachusetts
Cavalry Volunteers. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 8vo. 1888.
Dana, C. A. Some Unpublished History of the War. N. Am. R., cliii, p.
240.
Davis, J. Lord Wolseley Answered. No. Am., cxlix, p. 472.
Davis, J. Short History of the Confederate States of America. Boston,
Belford. 1890.
DeLeon, T. C. Four Years in Rebel Capitals. Mobile, Ala., Gossip Pr.
Co. 1890.
Dodge, T. A., and C. A. Patch. Valor and Skill in the U. S. Civil War.
Cent., XL, p. 144.
S. Mis. 104 34
530 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
DoDGE; D. Home Scene at tlie Fall of the Confederacy. Atlantic Monthly,
LXix, pp. 661-671.
Dodge, D. Cave-dwellers of the Confederacy. Atlant., lxviii, p. 514.
DOUBLEDAY, A. Gettysburg Made Plain. New York, Century. 12mo.
pp. 59.
Duffy, E. History of the One hundred and fifty-ninth Regiment N. Y.
S. V. New York, P. P. Harper. 1890.
Elliott, G. The Confederate ram Albemarle. Cent., xxxvi, pp. 420-440.
Emilio, L. F. History of the Fifty-fourth Regiment of Massachusetts Vol.
unteer Infantry, 1863-1865. Boston Book Co. pp. (15), 409. 1888.
Forbes, E. Thirty Years After; an Artist's Story of the Great War.
Philadelphia, Fords, Howard & Hulbert. pp. (1), 79. Fol. 1891.
Fox, W. L. Regimental losses in the American civil war, 1861-1865.
Albany Pub. Co. 4to. pp. 600. 1889.
Fry, J. B. Lord Wolseley answered. No. Am. cxlix, p. 728.
Galwey, T. E. Fredericksburg and the assault on Marye's Heights. Cath.
World, L, pp. 367.
Gordon, A. C. Hard times in Southern Confederacy. Cent., xxxvi, pp.
761-771.
Halstead, M. (U. S. Civil War) Confederate pictures. Cosmopol., ix, p.
496.
Harris, T.M. The assassination of Lincoln ; the great conspiracy. Bos-
ton, American Citizen Co. 12mo. 1892.
Hart, A. B. The defeat of the South in the civil war. N. Eng. Mag., n. s.
V, p. 363.
Hayden, H. E. Lincoln's restoration policy for Virginia, 1865. Mag. Am.
Hist., XXII, pp. 487-488.
Hedrick, M. a. Incidents of the civil war. Lowell, Huse. 4to. pp. 179.
Hendrick, J. R. Noncombatant's war reminiscences. Atlan., lxiv, p.
449.
Herr, G. W. Episodes of the civil war. San Francisco, Bancroft. 1890.
Irwin, R. B. The history of the Nineteenth Army Corps. New York, Put-
nam. 8vo. 1888.
ISHAM, A. B., and others. Prisoners of war and military prisons. Cincin-
nati, R. Clarke. 1890.
Johnson, R. Short history of the war of secession, 1861-1865. Boston,
Ticknor. pp. 14, 552. 1888.
Johnson, R. N., and C. C. Buel, Battles and leaders of the civil war.
New York, Century Co. 4to. 1888.
The Kinston Whitehall and Goldsboro (N. C.) Expedition, December,
1862. New York, W. W. Howe. 16mo. pp. (12), 92. 1891.
Knox, T. W. The Republican Party and its leaders : a history of the
party from its beginning to the present time ; lives of Harrison and
Reid. New York, P. F. Collier. 8vo. pp. 600. 1888.
Le Comte de Paris, History of the civil war in America, vol. 4. Phil-
adelphia, Porter & Coates. pp. (17), 681. (Dial, ix, p. 33; Nation,
XL VII, p. 379.)
Lee, a. E. Battle of Gettysburg. Columbus, Smythe. pp. 46. 1888.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 531
BETTER from the Secretary of War transmitting an exhibit of documents
touching the history of the Negro in the American Colonies and of
his military service. Washington, Gov. Print. Off. pp. 3. 1888.
jEWIS, G. History of Battery E, First Regiment Rhode Island Light
Artillery in the war of 1861 and 1865 to preserve the Union. Provi-
dence, Snow & Farnham. pp. (11), 540. 1888.
Logan, J. A. Volunteer soldiers of America. Chicago, Peale. pp. 706.
1888.
Lowell, J. R. Political essays. Boston, Houghton, Miflin, 12mo. pp.
(6), 326. (Atlan., lxii, p. 274; Dial (Ch.), ix, p. 95.)
jONG, J. D. The Republican Party, its History, Principles andPolicieSi
New York, M. W. Hazen. pp. 427. 1888.
[cMaster, J. B. The North in the War. Chautauquan, xv, pp. 152-158.
[cMaster, J. B. The abolition of slavery in the United States. Chautau-
quan, XV, pp. 24-28.
[arine,W. M. Relations of Maryland to the Union during the late civil
war. Baltimore, James & Co. pp. 12. 1889.
[gran, F. E. Col. Rose's Tunnel at Libby Prison. Century, xxxv, pp.
770-790.
[ORRIS, G. History of a volunteer regiment (Wilson's Zouaves). New
York, Veteran Volunteer Pub. Co. 8vo. pp. (7), 160. 1891.
)akley, J. M. From Libby Prison to Freedom. Lippinc, xli, p. 812.
)GLEsby, T. R. Britannica answered and the South vindicated. Mont-
gomery, Alabama Pr. Co. 8vo. pp. 60. 1891.
)hio Commandery of Military Order Loyal Legion. Sketches of war
history, 1861-1865. Cincinnati, Clarke & Co. 3 vols.
*atton, J. H. Reconstruction. Mag. Am. Hist., xx, pp. 204-218.
*HISTERER, F. New York in the war of the rebellion. New York, Phist-
erer. 8vo. pp. 532. 1891.
*ORTER, D. D. Naval history of the civil war, including all the opera-
tions in conjunction with the Navy. New York, Sherman Pub. Co.,
pp. 800. 1889.
Robertson, R. S. Escape of Grant and Meade, 1864. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XIX, pp. 249-251.
iOPES, J. C. The Civil War as we see it now. Scrib. M., ix, p. 776.
JEoss, E. G. The Impeachment Trial (President Johnson). Scribner's
Mag., XI, No. 4, pp. 519-525.
lOY, J. F. Negroes in the Civil War. N. Eng. Reg., li, p. 353.
5HALER, N. S. The Border State Men of the Civil War. Atlantic Monthly,
LXix, pp. 245-258.
Jhelton, W. H. Prisoners of the United States civil war : A hard road to
travel out of Dixie. Cent., xl, p. 931.
Sheridan, P. H. Last days of the civil war. N.Am. Rev., cxlvii, pp.
270-280.
She rman, W. T. Grand strategy of the civil war. Century, xxxv, pp^
582-598.
Stiles, R. Lincoln's restoration policy for Virginia. Mag. Am. Hist.,
xxii, pp. 209-223.
Stuart, A. H. H. Leading incidents of first popular movement in Vir-
ginia, 1865, to reestablish peaceful relations between Northern and
Southern States. Richmond, Randolph & English, pp. 72. 1888.
532 -AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Thompson, S. M. Thirteenth Regiment, New Hampshire Volunteers.
Boston, Houghton. 1888.
TiEMANN, W. r. History of the One Hundred and Fifty-ninth Regiment,
New York State Volunteers, 1862-1865. New York, Tiemaun. 8vo.
pp. 188. 1891.
Trobriand, R. Four years with the Army of the Potomac. Tr. G. K.
Dauchy. Boston, Ticknor. pp. (19), 757. 1888.
VORIS, A. C. Charleston in the reT)ellion. Cincinnati, R. Clarke, pp.
(2), 49. 1888.
War of the Rebellion, Official records of the Union and Confederate
Armies. Series l, 43 volumes accompanied by atlas, 24 parts. Wash-
ington, U. S. War Dept.
Watson, W. Life in Confederate army. Is'ew York, Scribner & Welford.
12mo.
Watterson, H. The Southern Confederacy. Chautauquan, xv, pp. 147-
152.
WiLLARD, S. Myth of the Confederacy. Nation, liv, p. 227.
Williams, 6. W. A history of the negro troops in the war of the rebel-
lion, 1861-1865. New York, Harpers, pp. (16), 353. 1888.
Wilson, N. Confederate makeshifts. Overland, xiii, p. 71.
Wilson, J. G., and T. M. Coan. Personal recollections of the war of the
rebellion. New York, Wiley. 8vo. 1891.
Wise, J. S. The West Point of the Confederacy. Cent., xxxvii, p. 461;
id., boys in the Battle of New Market, Va., May 15, 1864; ib., p. 461.
Wood, A. E. Burning of Columbia, S. C. North Am. Rev., CXLVI, pp. 40(^
404.
Wyeth, J. A., and W. R. Holloway. Treatment of Confederate prisoners.
Cent., XLii, p. 757.
Wyman, L. C. Antislavery reminiscences. Atlan., lxiv, p. 164.
Viscount WoLSELEY, An English view of the Civil War. No. Am., cxlviii,
p. 538; CXLix, pp. 30, 446, 594, 713.
LOCAL HISTORY.
For the publications of the various State Historical Societies see the
Bibliography compiled by Mr. A. P. C. Griffin in the Reports of the Ameri-
can Historical Association for the years 1890 and 1892.
Topics relating to Local History will be found also under Colonial His-
tory, page 521, above, and under Biography, page 552, below.
NEW ENGLAND.
Bartlett, a. L. Transformation of New England. Forum, vii, p. 634.
Buckley, J. M. Witchcraft. Cent. Mag., xxi, pp. 408-422.
Deane, C. Remarks on Hubbard's map of New England. Cambridge,
Wilson, pp.12. 1888.
Dexter, H. M. Pilgrims in Leyden, New Eng. Mag., i, p. 49.
Drew, T. B. A monument to the Pilgrims. New Eng. Mag., i, p. 77.
Ferguson, C. New England primer, 1690. Mag. Am. Hist., xx, pp. 148,
149.
Finley, J. H. Trading companies (Holland and Massachusetts Bay com-
panies). Chautauquan, xiv, pp. 403-407; 529-533.
^BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 533
JFiSKE, J. The beginnings of New England; or, the Puritan theocracy in
its relation to civil and religious liberty. Boston, Houghton, Milflin
& Co, 12mo, pp. (15) 296. 1889.
^Goodwin, J. A. The Pilgrim Republic. Boston, Ticknor. 1888. (Nation,
XLVii, p. 35.)
'Green, S. A. Population of Groton at different times, with some notes on
the provincial census of 1765. Cambridge, Wilson, pp. 8. 1888.
[ Earle, a. M. The Colonial meetinghouse in New England. Atlant., LXVii,
p. 191.
Earle, A. M. The Sabbath 1 n Puritan New England. New York, Scrib-
ner. 12mo, pp. 335.
[Ellery, W. Journey to Philadelphia from Dighton, Mass., 1778. Pennsyl.
Mag., XII, p. 190.
[Hale, E. E. Life of the Pilgrims in common. New Eng. Mag., i, p. 27.
[historical American road. Chamb., lxvii, p. 721.
[Humphrey, F. A. How New England was made. Boston, Lothrop. 1890.
[jiLLSON, C. Early New England arbitration. Mag. Am. Hist., xix, pp.
435, 436.
[Johnson, A. E. Developmentof education in New England. AndoverR.,
XIV, p. 383. 1890.
fKlNGSLEY, W. L. The historic forces which gave rise to Puritanism. New
Haven (Tuttle, Morehouse «fe Taylor), pp. 66. 1888.
[KiNGSLEY, W. L. New England towns in Colonial times. N. Eug. Reg., L, p.
149. 1889.
.Lamson, D. F. Emigration from New|EngIand to New Brunswick, 1763-'64.
Mag. Am. Hist., xxv, p. 118.
Lyon, I. W. Colonial turniture of New England. Boston, Houghton. 8vo.
1891.
Mead, E. D. The message of Puritanism for this time. New Eng. Mag., iv,
p. 462.
MOWRY, A. M. John Calvin's influence on the New England town meeting.
New Eng. Mag., n. s. ii., p. 101.
New England Puritans. Blackw., cl, p. 823.
Palfrey, J. G. History of New England. Boston, Little, Brown & Co.
5 vols. 1890.
Perkins, C. E. A study of Puritanism. Unita. R., xxx, pp. 289-306.
Prayers of the Puritans. Atlant., lxvii, p. 853.
Puritans in fiction. N. Eng., liv, p. 139.
Seward, W.H. Story of a journey to New England in 1831. Mag. Am.
Hist., XXVI, p. 376.
Smyth, E. C. The French-Canadians in New England. Am. Antiq. Soc.
Proc, VII, pp. 316-337.
Storrs, F. The Puritan spirit. Boston, Cong. S. S. and Pub. Soc. 1890.
Tuttle, C.W. Capt. Francis Champernowne, the Dutch conquest of
Acadie and other historical papers. Boston, J. Wilson. 4to, pp. 426.
1889.
Underwood, F. H. Awakening of New England. Contemp., Liv, pp.
257-278.
Wall, C. A. The Puritans versus the Quakers. Worcester, Seagrave.
pp. 70. 1888.
Weeden,W.B. Economic and social history of New England. Boston,
Houghton, Mifflin «fc Co. 12mo, 2v. 1890.
534 Imerican historical association.
MASSACHUSETTS.
Acts and Eesolves, public and private, of the Province of the Massachu-
setts Bay. Boston, State Printer. 7 vols., 4to. 1892.
Adams, C. F. Three episodes of Massachusetts history : the settlement of
Boston Bay ; the Antinomian controversy ; a study of church and town
government. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 2 vols. 1892.
Adams, C. F., and C. P. Cranch, 250th anniversary of the church in Quincy,
Mass. N. Eng. Mag., i, p. 263.
Adams, C. F. Municipal government; lessons from the experience of
Quincy, Mass. The Forum, xiv, pp. 282-292.
Adams, S. Letter to the town of Boston, 1769. N. Eng. Reg,, p. 27.
Barber, A. D. The alleged persecution of Massachusetts, or justice to the
Pilgrims. The New Englander, xx, pp. 255-266. 1892.
Bartlett, a. L. Annals of Old Haverhill, Mass. N. Eng. Mag., ii, p. 522.
Brayley, a. W. History of the Boston fire department. Boston, Dale,
pp. 156. 1890.
Bridgman, R. L. Ten years of Massachusetts. Boston, Heath. 12 mo.
pp. 127. 1888.
Briggs, L. V. Shipbuilding on North River, Plymouth County, Maes.
Toronto (Canada), Briggs. 1890.
BUSH,G. G. History of higher education in Massachusetts. Washington,
Gov. Pr. Off. 8vo., pp. (2), 445. 1888.
Carrick, J. Slavery in New York and Massachusetts. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXI, p. 156.
Centenary of Massachusetts Historical Society. Mag. Am. Hist., xxv, pp.
250-253.
Chamberlain, N. Y. Yarmouth, Mass. N. Eng. M., i, p. 301.
Clark, G. F. History of the temperance reform in Massachusetts, 1813-83.
Boston, Clark & Carruth. 12 mo, pp. (11), 268. 1888.
CoDMAN, J. Second story of Old Charlestown, Mass. N. Eng. Mag., in, p.
796.
Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society. Vol. in. Boston,
Hist. Assoc, pp. 579. 1889.
Dana, R. H. The practical working of the Australian system of voting in
Massachusetts. Phila. Am. Acad. Pol. and Soc. Sci. pp. 18. 1888.
Daniels, G. F. History of the town of Oxford, Mass. Oxford, G. F. Dan-
iels. 8vo, pp. 846. 1888.
Davis, A. M. Search for the first building for Harvard College. Atlant.,
LXVI, p. 211.
Diaz, A. M. A pilgrimage to Plymouth, Mass. New Eng. Mag., i, p. 1.
Douglas, C. H. J. Financial history of Massachusetts from the organi-
zation of the Massachusetts Bay Company to the American Revolution.
New York, Columbia Coll. Studies, pp. (2) 148. 1892:
Dyer, C. N. History of the town of Plainfield, Mass. Northampton, Mass.,
Gazette Co. pp. 187. (Mag. Am. Hist., xxvi, p. 479.)
Ellis, G. E. The Puritan age and rule in the Colony of Mas sachusetts Bay,
1629-'85. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin & Co. pp. (19), 576. 1888. (Unit.
Rev., XXX, p. 221; Nation, xlxii, p. 35.)
Fogg, J. S. H. Original documents relating to Boston, Mass. New Eng.
Hist, and Gen. Reg., xlvi, pp. 121-123; 254-257.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY VINCENT. 535
Fogg, J. S. H. Inuholders in Boston in 1714. N. Eug. Reg., XLlii, p. 59.
Forest, H. P. De (and E. C. Bates). History of Westborough, Town Hist.
Co. 8vo., pp. 500. 1891.
Fowler, S. P. Inscriptions at Dan vers, Mass. New Eng. Reg., XLiv,pp. 147,
279.
Oilman, A. The story of Boston ; a study of independency. New York,
Putnams. 12mo., pp. (8) 507. 1889.
Glimpses of Pilgrim Plymouth. Plymouth, Burbank. 12mo. 1891.
Grimke, a. H. Antislavery Boston. N. Eng. M., iii, p. 441.
Gould, E. P. Political study in Medfield, Mass., 1798. New Eng. Mag., i,
p. 672.
Hale, E. E. Story of Massachusetts. Boston, Lothrop. 8vo.,pp. (4) 359.
1892.
HaWKES, N. M. First iron works in America, Lynn, Mass., 1642. Mag.
Am. Hist., XXII, p. 404.
Hunnewell, J. F. A century of town life (Charlestowu, Mass., 1775-1887).
Boston, Little, Brown & Co. 1888.
HUNTOON, D. Y. V. Deaths in Milton, Mass. N. Eng. Reg., xliv, p. 43.
Jackson, G. A. Land system of Moses in Massachusetts. New Eng.
Mag., Ill, p. 113.
Lexington Historical Society. Proceedings and papers relating to
Lexington, Mass. Lexington Hist. Soc, v. i. 1890.
Lodge, H. C. Boston (Historic Towns). New York and London, Longmans.
12mo., pp. (40), 242. (Nation, liii, p. 56; Mag. Am. Hist., xxvi, p. 79.)
Mack AY, J. Harvard College. Proposals for a President, 1671. New Eng.
Reg., XLiii, p. 354.
Merriam, J. M. Historical burial places of Boston and vicinity. Am.
Antiq. Soc. Proc, vii, pp. 381-418.
Moore, G. H. Bibliograpl^ical notes on witchcraft in Massachusetts.
Worcester, pp. 32. 1888.
Moore, G. H. Memoranda concerning the Massachusetts laws of 1648.
New York ; printed for the author, pp.16. 1889.
Nevins, W. S. Stories of Salem witchcraft. N. Eng. Mag., n. s., v, p. 517.
Records of the town of Plymouth, v. i, 1636-1705. Boston, W. B. Clarke.
Records of the town of Plymouth, 1636-1705. Plymouth, Avery & Doten.
pp. (16), 347. 1889.
Rice, F. P. Worcester town records, 1784-'88. Worcester, Society of An-
tiquity, pp. 136. 1890.
Slade, D. D. Site of Fort Massachusetts. Mag. Am. Hist., xx, pp. 281-285.
Staples, C. A. Two old-time ministers of Lexington, Mass. Unita. R.,
xxxiv, p. 97.
Stark, J. H., and S. Green. Antique views of ye towue of Boston. Bos-
ton, Cupples & Hurd. 4to., pp. 378. 1888.
Suffolk Deeds. Liber iv, v, vi. Boston, city goverument. 3 vols. 8vo.
1888-1892.
Talbot, E. Old West Church of Boston. New Eng. Mag., ii, p. 174.
Teelb, a. K. History of Milton, Mass. Boston, Rockwell & Churchill.
pp. (14), 668. 1888.
Temple, J. H. History of North Brookfield, Mass. N. Brookfield, H.
Knight, pp.800. 1888.
536 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
I
Town Records of Manchester, 1636-1736. Salem, Mass., Press Pub. Co.
pp. 211. 1889. (N. E. Bibliop., vi, p. 1.)
Town Records of Brookline, Mass., 1872-'84. 1888. pp. 731, i. 111.
TUCKERMAN, C. K. By-gone days in Boston. No. Am. R., cl, p. 88.
Upham, C. E. Salem witchcraft in outline. Salem, Salem Press. 16mo.,
pp. (11) 161. 1891.
Watson, M. Plymouth, Mass. In Plymouth Woods. N. Eng. M., i, p. 20.
1890.
White, Z. L. The first owner of Boston, Mass. Am. Mag., vii, p. 707.
Whitfield, E. Homes of our forefathers in Boston, England, and in Bos-
ton, New England. From original drawings. Boston, Whitfield.
4to., pp. 138. 1891.
WiNSOR, J. Boston and Governor Shirley in 1741. Mag. Am. Hist., XX,
pp. 368-371.
CONNECTICUT.
Andrews, C. M. Origin of Connecticut towns. Annals Am. Acad. Pol.
Soc. Sci. I, p. 165.
Bartlett, C. a. H. British invasion of Connecticut. (Historic Cannon-
balls and Houses.) Mag. Am. Hist., xix, pp. 185-199.
Blake, W. P. History of Hamden, Conn. New Haven, Price, Lee & Co.
pp. (8), 350. 1888.
Commemoration of the settlement of New Haven, 1638-1888. New Haven,
68 pp.
COLEY, J. E. Slavery in Connecticut. Mag. Am. Hist, xxv, pp. 490-492.
Connecticut Colonial Records, vols, xiii-xv, 1768-1776. Hartford.
1885-1890.
Connecticut in the Revolution. N. Eng., liii, p. 401.
Deming, C. Town rule in Connecticut. Pol. Sci. Q., iv, p. 408.
DowNES, W. H. Milford, Conn. N. Eng. Mag., i, p. 268.
Johnston, A. History of Connecticut. Vol. x of the American Common-
wealths. With map. (Boston) London, 1887. 16mo.
Levermore, C. H. Pilgrim and Knickerbocker in Connecticut Valley. N.
Eng. Mag., i, p. 173. C. H. Levermore, Guilford, Conn., 1639-1889;
N. Eng. Mag. i, p. 405.
Sanford, E. B. History of Connecticut. Hartford, Scran ton. 12mo., 381
pp. 1888.
SCHENCK, E. H. History of Fairfield, Conn. pp. (45) 492. 1889.
Steiner, B. C. Statistics of the Connecticut election sermons. New Eng.
Hist, and Gen. Reg. xlvi, pp. 123-127.
Record of Connecticut men in the war of the Rebellion, 1861-1865. 4to.
Hartford. 1889.
Record of Connecticut men in the war of the Revolution, war of 1812,
and war with Mexico. 4to. Hartford. 1889.
Report of the Secretary of State and the State Librarian on ancient
court records. 1889.
VERMONT.
Benedict, G. G. Vermont in the Civil War. Burlington, Free Press. 2 v.,
pp. 1428. 1889.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 537
J^CONANT, E. Civil Government and Constitution of Vermont. Rutland,
Vt., Tuttle. 12mo., pp. 100. 1891.
Downs, C. A. Vermont-New Hampshire controversy, 1777-^78. Granite
Mo., II, pp. 320 and 349. 1888.
French, J. M. Massacre at Westminster, Vt., 1775. N. Eng. M. n. s v p
318. * •'••''•
Heaton, J. L. Vermont : The Fourteenth State. Mag. Am. His., xxiil, p.
140.
Heaton, J. L. Story of Vermont. Boston, Lothrop. pp. 319. 1889.
Steiner, B. C. An earlycombat in Vermont. Mag. Am. Hist., pp. 215-216.
NEW HAMPSHIRE.
Acts and laws of the Province of New Hampsire, 1696-1725. State
Printer. 4to., pp. 171. 1888.
Acts and laws of the Province of New Hampshire, 1761. State Printer.
4to., pp. 282. 1888.
Batchellor, a. S. Early State Papers of New Hampshire, including the
Constitution of 1784, Journals of the Senate and House of Represen-
tatives, and Records of the President and Council from June, 1784, to
June, 1787. Manchester, J. B. Clarke, V. xx, 8vo, pp. 930. 1888.
Bell, C. H. History of the town of Exeter, N. H. Exeter, pp. 469. 1888.
Chase, F. A history of Dartmouth College and the town of Hanover.
(Ed. J. K. Lord.) Vol. i. Cambridge, Wilson. 8 vo., pp. 694. 1891.
Coit, J. H. Memorial of St. Paul's School, Concord, N. H. New York,
Appleton. 8 vo. 1891.
Early History of Lebanon, N. H. Granite Mo., xii, p. 117.
Hammond, J. W. Slavery in New Hampshire. Mag. Am. Hist., xxi, p.
62.
Little, W. History of Weare, N. H., 1735-1888. Lowell, Huse. pp. (10),
1064. 1888.
McClintock, J. N. History of New Hampshire. Boston, B. B. Russell,
pp. 720. 1889.
Dean, B. A. Friends in Brentwood, N. H. New Eng. Hist, and Gen. Reg.,
XLVi, pp. 252-254. 1888.
Sanborn, F. B. New Hampshire. Granite Mo., xii, p. 171.
Thompson, M. P. Anti-Roman Catholic laws of New Hampshire. Cath.
World, Li, p. 22.
State and Provincial papers. Vols, xiv-xviii. Edited by J. W. Ham-
mond. 8vo. 1885-1890.
Vols, xiv-xvi. Roll of the soldiers of the Revolutionary War. vols, i-iii.
Vols, xvii-xviii. Miscellaneous Provincial and State Papers.
MAINE.
Baxter, J. P. Documentaryhistoryof the State of Maine. Vol.iv. Port-
land, Brown, Thurston & Co. pp. 506. 1889.
Elwell, E. H. Schools of Portland from the earliest times to 1886. Port-
land, Marks, pp. 37. 1888.
Maine Wills, 1640-X760 (Sargent). Portland, Thurston, pp. 965. 1890.
Cammon,E.P. The early history of Maine. Cath. World, Nov., 1892.
538 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Trask, W. B. Petition of the inhabitants on Kennebec River, in 1755, for
protection. N. Eng. Reg., xliv, p. 202.
Varney, G. J. Brief history of Maine. Portland, McLellan. 12mo., pp.
366. 1888.
York Deeds (Sargent), books 1-6. Portland, Thurston. 6 v. 1890.
Maine Historical Soc. Collections. Documentary history of Maine. Vols.
ii-iv. 8vo. Portland, 1884-1889.
RHODE ISLAND.
Hamey, G. L. Rhode Island and the United States Constitution. New
Eng. Mag., ii, p. 272.
Payne, C. H. Dorr war in Rhode Island. New Eng. Mag., ii, p. 389.
Pawtucket, R. I., and the Cotton Centennial. New Eng. Mag., in, p.
139.
Rider, S. S. Rhode Island in Bryce's American Commonwealth. Nation,
XLViii, p. 204.
MIDDLE STATES.
NEW YORK.
Bernheim, a. C. Party organizations in New York City. Pol. Sci., iii,
pp. 96-122.
Black, C. A. History of municipal ownership of land on Manhattan Island
to the sales by the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund in 1884. New
York, Columbia Coll. Studies. Vol. i. No. 3, pp. (4) 83. 1888.
Brooks, E. S. The story of New York. Boston, Lothrop. pp. iii, 311.
(Story of the States Series, No. 1.) 1888.
Clark, E. History of the Seventh Regiment of New York. New York,
Frank S. Kennedy. Vols, i and ii. 1890.
Clarke, George, the great landholder of New York City. Mag. Am.
Hist. XXII, p. 246.
Cooper, J. F. Financial condition of New York in 1833. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXII, p. 328.
Davis, W. J. Historical sketch of Christ Church, N. Y. City. Mag. Am.
Hist., XIX, pp. 58-64.
Dougherty, T. H. Constitutions of New York State. Pol. Sci. Q., ill, p.
488.
Emmet, T. A. Rare picture of early New York City. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXIII, p. 14.
Gerard, J. W. Impress of nationalities upon New York City. Mag. Am.
Hist., XXIII, p. 40.
Guernsey, R. S. New York City and vicinity during the War of 1812-15.
8vo. New York, C. L. Woodward. Vol. i.' 1889.
Hendrick, W. Brief history of the Empire State. Syracuse, N. Y., Bar-
deen. 12mo. 1890.
Hildeburn, C. R. Issues of New York City Press in 1693-1751. Pennsyl.
M., XIII, pp. 90, 207.
Hopkins, A. G. Early transportation between Albany and Buffalo. Mag.
Am. Hist., XIX, pp. 302 and 401.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 539
Irish Home Rule in New York City, 1870-90. Quart. R,, CLXXi, p. 260.
Kemble, Col. Stephen. Capture of New York City, 1776. Mag. Am.
Hist., xxiii, p. 493.
Lamb, M. J. Beginnings of the city of Troy. Mag. Am. Hist., XXVIII,
pp. 1-20.
Lamb, M. J. New York's great object lesson. Mag. Am. Hist., xxviii, pp.
321.
Lamb, Mrs. M. J. Golden age of colonial New York City. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXIV, p. 1.
Lamb, Mrs. M. J. Life in New York City fifty years ago; Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXIII, p. 177.
Lamb, Mrs. M. J. The historical homes and landmarks of New York
City. Mag. Am. Hist, xxi, pp. 1 and 177.
LossiNG, J. B. History of the Empire State : A complete and continuous
history of New York, the Empire State, from the earliest times down
to the present. 8vo. New York, Funk and Wagnalls, 1887.
Morris, J. J. Capture of New York from the Dutch. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XIX, p. 233.
Pasko, W. W. Old New York, a journal relating to the history and antiq-
uities of New York City. New York, W. W. Pasko. 1889.
Roberts, E.H. New York (American Commonwealths). Boston, Hough-
ton. 12mo., 2 vols. 1888.
Roosevelt, Th. New York (Historic Towns). New York and London,
Longmans. 12mo.,pp (13) 232. 1891.
RUNK, E. J. Revolutionary Newburgh. Mag. Am. Hist., xxiv, p. 382.
Sanial, L. Proposed division of New York State. No. Am., cxlviii, p. 85.
Stevens, J. A. Taverns of old New York City. Harper, Lxxx, p. 842.
Stone, W. L. A trip from New York to Niagara in 1829. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXI, p. 46.
Todd, C. B. Story of the city of New York. New York, Putnam. 12mo.,
pp. xix, 478. (Great Cities of the Republic Series.) 1888.
Trip to Niagara in 1835. Mag. Am. Hist., xxii, p. 331.
Tuckerman, C. K. Some old New Yorkers. Mag. Am. Hist., xxiii, p. 433.
Turner, C. P. The pioneer period of western New York. Rochester,
Darrow. pp. 78. 1888.
Welch, S. M. Home history, recollections of Buffalo, 1830-'40. New York,
Peter Paul & Bro. 1890.
Welch, S. M. Home history (Buffalo). Buffalo, P. Paul. 8vo., pp. (7)
423. 1891.
Werner, E. A. Manual for the use of the Legislature of New York.
Albany, Weed, Parsons &, Co. 16mo., pp. 781. 1891.
Werner, E. A. Civil list and constitutional Hist, of New York. Albany,
Weed, Parsons & Co. 8vo., pp. 805. 1891.
Wilson, J. G. The memorial history of the city of New York, from its
first settlement to 1892. New York History Co. 2 vols. 1892.
Wilson, J. G. Old New York. Cosmopolitan, xii, pp. 313-323.
PENNSYLVANIA.
Account of Pennsylvania. Mag. Am. Hist., xxiii, p. 326.
Applegarth, a. C. Quakers in Pennsylvania. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins
Press, pp. (3) 84. 1888.
540 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Articles of the Frankfort Company, 1686. Pennsyl. M., xv, p. 205.
BiNNEY, C. C. The merits and defects of the Pennsylvania ballot lavr of
1891. Philadelphia. Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci., pp. 19-39.
Brotherhead, W. Forty years among the old booksellers of Philadel-
phia. Philadelphia, Brotherhead. 16mo., pp. 122. 1891. 1
Buckley, E. P. Library of a Philadelphia antiquarian. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXIV, p. 388.
Civil and ecclesiastical affairs in Pennsylvania in 1698. Pennsyl. M,,
XIII, p. 216.
Clason, a. W. Pennsylvania Convention, 1788. Mag. Hist., xxv, pp. 215,
226.
CONDIT, U.A. History of Easton, Pa. Easton, Condit. pp.500. 1890.
CORBIT, W. F. Philadelphia wills. Pennsyl. M., xv, p. 191.
Directory of Friends in Philadelphia, 1757-1760. Pennsyl. M., xvi, pp.
219-238.
Election Law of Pennsylvania, being the Baker ballot bill. Philadel- T
phia, J. W. Johnson, pp. 32. 1888. ''
Etting, F. M. An historical account of the old State House of Pennsyl- ?
vania, now known as the Hall of Independence. Philadelphia, Porter
& Coates. pp. (10) 221. 1888.
Growth of Pennsylvania. Amer., xxi, p. 185.
Hildeburn, C. R. Records of Christ Church in Philadelphia. Pennsyl. M.,
XIII, p. 227; XV, p. 228. j|
Jenkins, H. M. Prerailway trips to northern Pennsylvania. Pennsyl. F
Mag., XIV, p. 313.
KULP, G. B. Families of the Wyoming Valley. Kulp. 3 v. 1890.
Lloyd, H. W. Inscriptions on gravestones in St. Peter's Episcopal Church
yard. Great Valley, East Whiteland, Chester County, Pennsylvania.
Pennsyl. M., xv, pp. 440-449. V*
Michener, H. C. a corner of colonial Pennsylvania. Mag. Am. Hist., f
XXVII, pp. 225-230. >)'
Pennsylvania Archives. Edited by W. H. Egle. Vols, xiii-xiv. 8vo. :^
1887-1888. .;
Pennypacker, S. W. The first mayor of Philadelphia. Pennsyl. M., XV, ^
p. 344. i
Shoemaker, T. H. A list of the inhabitants of Germantown and Chesnut
Hill in 1809. Pennsyl. Mag., xv, pp. 449-480; xvi, p. 42-63.
Still^, C. J. Pennsylvania and the Declaration of Independence. Penn-
syl. Mag., XIII, p. 385. u
Wharton, A. H. Log college and early Presbyterianism in Pennsylvania '.'i
Lippinc, XXIV, p. 418. 1889. %
Wyoming Historical and Geological Society. "i
Vol. III. S. Reynolds, a biographical sketch of E. L. Dana. 8vo. 1889. 4
Vol. IV. G. B. Kulp, Coal : its antiquity, discovery and early devel- |j
opment in the Wyoming Valley. 8vo. 1890. ;sj
1
NEW JERSEY. "!■
Archives of the State of New Jersey. Series i. Edited by W. A. White-
head. Vols. VIII, IX, X. 8vo. General Index to Series i., 10 vols., by ,.
F. W. Ricord. 8vo. Newark. 1888. '
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY VINCENT. 541
Minutes of the convention holden at Trenton, 11th Dec, 1787. 4to. Tren-
ton, 1788; reprinted, 1888.
Cleveland, E. J. Sexton's book of the First Church of Elizabeth, N. J.
N. Eng. Reg., xliv, pp. 264, 357. 1890.
Hill, T. Traveling on horseback in New Jersey and Pennsylvania in 1799.
Pennsyl. Mag., xiv, p. 189.
Mellick, a. D . Story of an old farm. Somerville, N. J., Unionist-Gazette.
1890.
DELAWARE.
SCHARF, J. T. History of Delaware. 1609-1888. Philadelphia, L. J.
Richards. 2 vols. 1888.
Taylor, W. W. Some of the beginnings of Delaware. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXII, p. 393; W. W. Taylor, Wilmington, Del, settled by the Swedes,
1638; Mag. Am. Hist., p. 393.
SOUTHERN STATES.
Southern Historical Papers. Vol. xvi. Richmond, So. Hist. Soc.
pp. 464.
GiLMORE, J. R. On the outposts, 1780. Harper, lxxvi, pp. 420-426.
Grady, H. W. The New South. New York, Bonner. 12mo. 1890.
Herbert, H. A. Z. B. Vance, J. J. Hemphill, and others. Why the solid
South? Baltimore, R. H. Woodward. 12mo. p. 467. 1890.
Oswald, F. L. The New South. Chautauquan, xv, pp. 541-554.
Stakely, C. a. Introduction of the Negro into the United States. Mag.
Am. Hist., XXVI, pp. 349-363.
Tower, P. Slavery unmasked ; or. Three Years in Eleven Southern States.
Rochester, E. Darrow. 12mo.
MARYLAND,
Archives of Maryland, Vol. vi. Edited by W. H. Browne. Correspond-
ence of Gov. Horatio Sharpe. Vol. I, 1753-*57. Baltimore, Md., Hist.
Soc. 4to. pp.580. 1888.
Archives of Maryland, Vol. vii. Edited by W. H. Browne. Proceedings
and acts of the General Assembly of Maryland, Oct. 1678-Nov. 1683.
Baltimore, Md., Hist. Soc. 4to., pp. 647. 1889.
Archives of Maryland, Vol. viii. Edited by W. H. Browne. Proceed-
ings of the council of Maryland, 1687-1693. Baltimore, Md., Hist.
Soc. 4to. pp. 587. 1890.
Archives of Maryland, Vol. ix. Edited by W. H. Browne. Correspond-
ence of Governor Horatio Sharpe, Vol. ii. 1757-1761. Baltimore, Md.,
Hist. Soc. 4to. pp. 580. 1890.
Archives of Maryland, Vol. x. Edited by W. H. Browne. Judicial and
testamentary business of the provincial court, 1649-1657. Baltimore,
Md., Hist. Soc. 4to. pp. 586. 1891.
Archives of Maryland, Vol. xi. Edited by W. H. Browne. Journal of
the Maryland Convention, July 26-Aug. 14, 1775. Journal and corre-
spondence of the Maryland Council of Safety, Aug. 29, 1775-July 6,
1776. Baltimore, Md., Hist. Sjc. 4to. pp. 585. 1892.
542 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
i
Bibb, A. B. American colonial architecture of Maryland and Virginia.
Am. Arch., xxv, p. 279 ; xxvi, p. 71.
Black, J. W. Maryland's attitude in the struggle for Canada. Baltimore,
Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies, pp. (2), 73. 1888.
Brooks, W. G. Cecilius Calvert and Maryland toleration. Cath. World,
Lii, p. 67.
Calvert Papers, No. 1. (Fund Publication No. 28, Md. Hist. Soc.)
Baltimore, John Murphy, pp. 334. 1889.
Harrison, S. A. Memoir of J. L. Bozman, the first historian of Maryland.
Baltimore, Md. Hist. Soc. pp. 69. 1888.
Johnson, B. T. The founding of the Eastern Shore. Baltimore, Sun, p.
18. 1888.
Report of the Society for the History of tlie Germans iu Maryland 1887-
'88. Baltimore, pp. 75. 1888.
Rowland, K. M. Women of Maryland and French officers during the Rev-
olution. Atlant., Lxvi, p. 651.
Steiner, B. C. History of university education in [Maryland. (Johns
Hopkins Univ. Studies, 9th series.) Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press.
8vo. pp. 73-114. 1891.
Uhler, p. R. History of Baltimore public libraries. Lib. J., xv, p. 335.
Vaux, G. Settlers at Marion, Maryland. Pennsyl.Mag., xiii. p. 446.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Adkins, M. T. The Bladensburg duelling ground Mag. Am. H., xxv.
pp. 18-34.
Todd, C.B. The story of Washington, the national capital. New York,
Putnams. 12mo. pp.416. 1889.
TuCKERMAN, C. K Reminiscences of Washington, D. C. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXI. p. 310.
VIRGINIA.
Virginia Historical Collections, Vols, vii-viii. Abstract of proceedings
of the Virginia Company, 1619-1625.
Vol. XIX. History of the Virginia Federal Convention of 1788, by H.
B. Grigsby, Vol. i. 8vo. Richmond. 1888-1890.
Bowyer,J. T. Witch of Jamestown (Va.) Richmond, Va., Randolph &
E. 12mo.
Ford, W. C. JeflFerson's constitution of Virginia. Nation, LI, p. 107; i(f..
Colonial Education in Virginia, ih., p. 357.
Henry, W. W Patrick Henry in the Virginia Convention, 1788. Mag.
Am. Hist., XXVII. pp. 211-213.
HowisON, R. R. The Old Dominion. Mag. Am. Hist., xxviii, pp. 123-125.
Johnston, F. Memorials of Old Virginia clerks. Lynchburg, J. P. Bell.
1888. 12mo. pp.405.
Neill, E. D. The Jamestown Church Myth. Nation, lii, p. 71.
Porter, L. H. Popular government in Virginia, 1606-1776. Mag. Am.
Hist., XIX, pp. 479-498.
Rowland, K. M. Mount Vernon Convention, 1785. Pennsyl. Mag,, ii, pp.
410-425.
Trent, W. P. English culture in Virginia. Baltimore, N. Murray, pp.
143. (Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies, Vol. vii, pt. 5-6.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 543
Upshur, T. P. Quaint Virginia records. Pennsyl. M., xvi, pp. 64-74.
Virginia in 1775-76 : Mag. Am. Hist, xxiii, p. 339.
Waddell, J. A. Annals of Augusta County, Va. Richmond, Randolph &
English, pp. (7), 460. 1888.
Weeks, S.B. Raleigh's settlements on Roanoke Island. Ma^. Am. Hist.,
XXV, pp. 127-139.
Weeks, S. B. Slave insurrection in Virginia, 1831, Mag. Am. Hist., pp.
448-458.
Williams, M. C. Cumberland River. The Homespun Ajje. Mag. Am.
Hist. XXV, pp. 239-243.
WEST VIRGINIA.
Lewis, V. A. Historyof West Virginia. Phila., Hubbard, pp. 744. 1890.'
NORTH CAROLINA.
DiLLARD, R. The historic tea party of Edenton, 1774. Incident in North
Carolina connected with taxation. Mag. Am. Hist., xxviii p. 81.
Smith, C. L. History of education in North Carolina. Washington, Bureau
of Education, pp. 179. 1888.
Weeks, S. B. The duelling code in North Carolina: xxvi, pp. 443-456.
Weeks, S. B. Press of Mag. Am. H. North Carolina in the eighteenth
century. Brooklyn, Hist. Print. Club, 4to. pp. 80. 1891.
SOUTH CAROLINA.
Allen, W. Governor Chamberlain's administration in South Carolina.
New York, Putnam, xiv, pp. 544. 1888. (N. Eng. xlix, 73.)
Bachman, C. L. John Bachman, d. d.. Pastor of St. John's Lutheran
Church, Charleston, S. C. Charleston, Bachman. 12mo. 1890.
Collections of the Hist. Soc. of South Carolina. Vol. iv. Charleston,
Walker, Evans «fe Cogswell Co. 1887. pp. (7), 305.
Yearbook of the city of Charleston, 1887, etc. Charleston, Lucas, R. &
Co. pp.424. 1888.
GEORGIA.
Jackson, G. A. Spoliation of Cherokee Indians in Georgia. Atlant., LXv,
p. 394.
Jones, C. C, jr. Kings, presidents, and governors of Georgia in 1732-1889 ;
Mag. Am. Hist, xxii, p. 307.
Jones, Charles C. Georgians during the war between the States. Augusta
Chronicle, pp. 34. 1889.
SCOMP, H. A. Georgia, the only free colony. Mag. Am. Hist, xxii, p. 280.
Smith, V. The old and new Georgia. Chaut., ix, p. 536.
Strahan, C. M. University of Georgia. N. Eng. Mag., in, p. 52.
Wilson, A. History and picturesque Savannah. Boston, Photogravure
Co. pp. 258. 1889.
FLORIDA.
Chambers, H. E. A short-lived American State. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvii,
p. 24.
ScAMMON, E. P. Recollections of Florida and the South. Cath. World,
February, 1892.
SCAMMON, E. P. The South before, during, and after the war. Cath.
World, ]^arch, 1892.
544 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. i
f
ALABAMA.
Clark, W. G. History of education in Alabama, 1702-1889. Washington,
D. C, Bureau of Education. 1890.
MISSISSIPPI.
Davis, R. Recollections of Mississippi and Mississippians. Boston,
Houghton, Mifflin & Co., pp. (5), 446. 1889.
LOIJISIANA.
CoOLEY, T. M. The acquisition of Louisiana. Indianapolis, Bowen Mer-
rill & Co. 1887.
Doniphan, J. Discovery and settlement of Louisiana. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXVIII, pp. 346-351.
Howe, W. W. Municipal history of New Orleans, Baltimore, N. Murray,
pp. 34. (Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies, Vol. vii, part 4.) 1884.
Thompson, M. Story of Louisiana. Boston, Lothrop. 1889.
WiGMORE, J. H. Story of the jurisprudence of Louisiana. Am. Law Rev.,
XXII, pp. 890.
TENNESSEE.
Bower, L. F. The State of Franklin. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvi, pp. 48, 49.
Fowler, J. S. East Tennessee one hundred years ago. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XX, pp. 43-47.
Humes, T. W. The loyal mountaineers of Tennessee. Knoxville, Ogden.
pp. 400. 1888.
Merriam, L. S. Appointment of a receiver for Nashville, Tenn. Am. Law
Rev., XXV, p. 393.
Phelan, J. History of Tennessee. Boston, Houghton. 12mo.,pp. (6), 478.
1888. (Nation, xlvii, p. 420; Dial (Ch.), ix, p. 154.)
Thurston, G. P. Antiquities of Tennessee and the adjacent States. Cin-
cinnati, Clarke. 1891.
Thurston, G. P. New discoveries in Tennessee. Am. Antiq., XIV, pp.
95-101.
KENTUCKY.
Allen, J. L. County court day in Kentucky. Harper, lxxix, p. 383.
Brown, J. M. Political beginnings of Kentucky. Louisville, Ky., Mor-
ton. 1890. (Dial (Ch.), xi, p. 152; Nation, N. Y., li, p. 93.)
Connelly, E. M. Story of Kentucky (Story of the States). Boston, Loth-
rop. 1891.
Filson Club, The centenary of Kentucky. Proceedings at the celebra-
tion by the Filson Club, June 1, 1892, of the one hundredth anniver-
sary of the admission of Kentucky as an independent State. Cincin-
nati, R. Clarke & Co. pp. (2) 200. 1888.
Green, T.M. Historic families of Kentucky. Cincinnati, R. Clarke, pp.
293. 1889. (Nation, xlviii, p. 333.)
Heaton, J. L. The fifteenth State. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvi, pp. 103-107.
Lamb, M. J. The making of a State. Discovery and settlement of Ken-
tucky. Mag. Am. Hist., xxviii, pp. 50-54.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — ^VINCENT. 545
Perrin, W. H. Pioneer press of Kentucky. (Filson Club Pubs., No. 3.)
Louisville, J. P. Morton. 4to. pp. 93. 1888.
Warfield, E. D. Constitutional aspect of Kentucky's struggle for auton-
omy. Mag. Am. Hist., xxiii, p. 363.
Wilson, A. E. Thrilling adventure of a Kentucky pioneer. Mag. Am.
Hist., XXI, p. 252.
WESTERN STATES.
Campbell, D. Centennial of Northwest Territory. Mag. Am. Hist., xix,
p. 200.
Cross, R. T. Pike's expedition into the Territory of Louisiana, 1806.
Mag. Am. Hist., xxv, p. 140.
Dawes, E. C. Scioto purchase in 1787. Mag. Am. Hist., xxii, p. 470.
DUDDLESTON, A. C. Fort Harrison in History. Mag. Am. Hist., xxviii,
pp. 20-27.
EwiNG, T. Address at the centennial celebration of the settlement of the
Northwest Territory. Marietta, pp. 16. 1888.
Fur Trade in America. Spectator, No. 3, 341. p. 57.
Hinsdale, B. A. The old Northwest. New York, MacCoun, pp. (6), 440.
(Dial (Ch.), IX, 79; Nation, xlvi, 513).
Laws of the territory of the United States northwest of the Ohio River,
1798. Cincinnati, R. Clarke. 1890.
McMaster, J. B. The struggle for the West. Lippincott's Mag., pp. 758-
771. 1892.
Merriam, J. M. Legislative history of the ordinance of 1787. Worcester,
Hamilton. 8vo., pp. 42. 1888.
MOORB, C. What New England gained by holding the Northwest posts.
Mag. Am. Hist., xxviii, pp. 189-196.
Murphy, V. R. Across the plains in the Donner party, 1846. Cent., xlii,
p. 409.
Roosevelt, T. The winning of the West. New York, Putnam's Sons. 2
vols., pp. (13) 352; pp. (3) 427. 1889. (Atlantic, lxiv, p. 693; Dial, x,
p.71; Spec, lxiii, p. 440; Sat. R., Lxvin, p. 466.)
RoziER, F. A. History of the early settlement of the Mississippi Valley.
St. Louis, St. Louis News Co. 12mo. 1890.
Shields, G. O. Battle of the Big Hole ; history of Gibbon's engagement
with Nez Percys Indians. New York, McNally & Co. 12mo., pp.
120. 1889.
Swan, C. Northwestern country in 1797. Mag. Am. Hist., xtx, pp. 74-77.
Thwaites, R. G. Historic waterways. Chicago, McClurg. 16mo., pp.
(3), 296. 1888.
The West: Where does it commence? Atlan., lxiii, pp., 283.
Wood, W. A. The territory west of the Mississippi. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXVII, pp. 298-305.
WOODBURN, J. A. states made from Territories. Chautauquan, XIV, pp.
411, 533.
OHIO.
Andrews, I. W. Marietta colony of 1788. N. E. Reg., xlii, pp. 349.
Black, A. The story of Ohio. Columbus, Smythe. 12mo., pp. 210. 1888.
S. Mis. 104 35
546 AI>JERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Canning, E. W. B. Incidents of border life in Ohio. Mag. Am. Hist., XX,
pp. 121,122.
Cutler, J. P. Founders of Ohio; brief sketches of the forty-eight
pioneers. Cincinnati, R. Clarke. 1888.
Fairchild, J. H. How the fathers builded in Ohio. Educa., ix, pp. 151-
160.
Fernow, B. Ohio Valley in colonial days. Albany, Munsell. 1890.
Howe, H. Historical collections of Ohio. 3 vols. Columbus, H. Howe &
Son. 1889-'91.
King, R. Pioneers of Ohio. Atlan., lxii, p. 559.
King, R. Ohio, first fruits of the Ordinance of 1787. (American Common-
wealths). Boston, Houghton. 12mo., pp. v, 427. 1888.
Lamb, M. J. Marietta, Ohio., 1788-1888. Mag. Am. Hist., xx, pp. 169-192.
Lee, a. E. Ohio seventy years ago. Mag., Am. Hist., xix, pp. 224-232.
Ohio River. (From Universal Mag. 1757.) Mag. Am. Hist., xx, pp. 235-
239.
Shepherd, H. A. The antiquities of Ohio. Reprint from Popular His-
tory of Ohio. Cincinnati, Yorston. 4to., pp. 135. 1889.
Shepherd, H. A. Antiquities of the State of Ohio. Cincinnati, R. Clarke.
1890.
Stewart, E. D. Memories of the crusade. Uprising of the women of
Ohio, 1873, against the liquor crime. Columbus, Ohio, Hubbard.
4to., pp. 550. 1889.
Venable, W. H. Footprints of the pioneers in the Ohio Valley. Cincin-
nati, Clarke. 12mo., pp. (3), 128. 1888.
Venable, W. H. Beginnings of literary culture in the Ohio Valley.
Cincinnati, R. Clarke. 8vo., pp. (15) 519. 1891.
Waggoner, C. History of the City of Toledo and Lucas County, Ohio.
Toledo. 1888. pp. 956.
INDIANA.
Dunn, J. P., Jr. Founding of Vincennes Post. Mag. Am. Hist., xx, p. 143.
Dunn, J. P. Indiana (American Commonwealths). Boston, Houghton,
Miflin & Co. 12mo., pp. (8), 453. 1888.
Indiana Historical Society Pamphlets, No. 4. Indianapolis, Bowen-Mer-
rill. 12mo., pp. 32. 1888.
Robertson, R. S. Educational development in the Northwest. Begin-
nings and vicissitudes of an Indiana library. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvii,
pp. 280.
Woodburn, J. A. Higher education in Indiana. (Bureau of Educ. Cir-
cular No. 10.) Washington, Bureau of Education. 8vo.,pp. 198.
1891.
ILLINOIS.
Barton, H. J. Elements of civil government of Illinois. New York, Sil-
ver, Burdett & Co. 16mo. 1892.
KiRKLAND, J. Story of Chicago. Chicago, Dibble Pub. Co. pp. 500.
1892.
MiKKELSEN, M. A. The Bishop Hill colony : a religious communistic set-
tlement in Henry County, 111. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, pp.
(2) 80. 1892.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 647
Moses, J. Illinois, historical and statistical. Vol. i. Chicago, Fergus
Printing Co. pp.551. 1889. (Mag. Am. Hist., xxii, p. 262.)
MICHIGAN.
Bingham, S. D. Early history of Michigan, with biographies of State
officers, members of Congress, j udges, and legislatory . 8vo. Lansing.
1888.
McLaughlin, A. C. History of higher education in Michigan. Washing-
ton, Bureau of Educ. pp. (2) 179. 1892.
Michigan Pioneer Collections. Vols, xii-xiii. Lansing, Thorp &
Godfrey, pp. 711, 655. (Mag. Am. Hist., xxii, p. 520.)
WISCONSIN.
Carter, J. The old town of Green Bay, Wis. Mag. Am. Hist., xxiii, p. 376.
Collections of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. Vols, x, xi.
Madison, pp.558. 1888.
Hebberd, S. S. Wisconsin under French dominion. Midland Pub. Co.
1890.
Kirk, T. H. French post at Trempeleau, 1685. Mag. Am. H., xxii, p. 498.
Kirk, T. H. Fort Perrot, Wis., 1686. Mag. Am. H., xxn, p. 498.
Lewis, T. H. The old French post at Trempeleau, Wis. Mag. Am. H., xxii,
p. 204.
Luchsinger, J. The planting of the Swiss colony at New Glarus, Wis.
Madison, State Hist. Soc. of Wis. pp. 334-382. 1892.
Spencer, D. E. Local government in Wisconsin. Baltimore, Md., Johns
Hopkins Univ. Press. 1890.
Thwaites, R. G. The State Historical Society of Wisconsin. Lib. J.,
XVI, p. 203.
Thwaites, R. G. Story of Wisconsin. Boston, Lothrop. 1890.
Turner, F. J. Character and influence of the Indian trade in Wisconsin.
(John Hopkins Univ. Studies, 9th ser., Nos. 11 and 12.) Baltimore,
John Hopkins Press. 8vo. pp. (2) 94 (3). 1891.
MINNESOTA.
Neill, E. D. Explorations of Groseilliero and Radisson. Mag. West. Hist.
VII, p. 223.
Heard, I. V. D. Hennepin and tJie early history of Minnesota, Mag.
West. Hist. VII., p. 223.
TUKE, J. H. Irish emigrants in Minnesota. 19th Cent., xxv., p. 431.
IOWA.
Dye, Mrs. E. E. The historical capitol of Iowa. Mag. Am. H., xxi ,p. 443.
Harsha, W. J. The story of Iowa. Omaha, Nebr., Central West. Co.
8vo. pp. (3) 341. 1890 (1891).
Miller, S. F. Iowa. Harper, lxxix, p. 165.
MISSOURI.
Carr, L. Missouri, a bone of contention. (American Commonwealths).
Boston, Houghton. 16mo. pp. (8), 377. 1888.
548 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Adams, F. G., ed. Transactions of the State Historical Society of Kansas.
Topeka, Kans. Pub. House, v. 4. 1890.
Thayer, Eli. A history of the Kansas crusade; its friends and foes.
New York, Harper. 12mo. pp. (20) 294. (Dial, x, p. 164).
COLORADO.
Boyd, D. History of Greeley and the union of Colorado. Greeley, Greeley
Tribune Pub. Co. 1891.
DAKOTA.
McClure, p. F, Dakota. Harper, lxxviii, p. 347.
MONTANA.
MUNSON, L. E. Montana as it was, and as it is. N. Eng. Reg., li, p. 96.
PACIFIC STATES.
Bancroft, H. H. California as an outpost of civilization. Mag. Am.
Hist. XXVI, p. 201.
Bancroft^ H. H. Chronicles of the Builders of the Commonwealth. San
Francisco, Hist. Co. 8vo. Vols, i-vii and index. 1891-92 (Mag.
Am. H., XXVI, p. 239).
Bancroft, H. H. History of the Pacific States of North America. San
Francisco Hist. Co. 38 vols.
Bancroft, H. H. California eras. Lippincott's Mag., pp. 391-398.
Bidwell, J. Reminiscenses of the conquest of California. Overland, n.
8. XVI, p. 561.
Bidwell, J. First emigrant train to California. Cent., xli, p. 106.
Bidwell, J. Life in California before the gold discovery. Cent., xli, p.
163.
Bidwell, J. Fremont in the conquest of California, Cent., xli, p. 518.
Blackmar, F. W. Spanish coloaiization in the Southwest. Johns Hop-
kins Univ. Studies, viii, pp. 122-193; Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press.
pp, 79. 1890.
Blackmar, F. W. Spanish institutions of the Southwest. Baltimore,
Johns Hopkins Press. 8vo. pp. (24) 353. lUus. 1891.
Ellicott, J. M. Should we possess Lower California. Overland, n. s., xvi,
p. 473.
Fitch, G. H. How California came into the Union. Cent., XL, p. 775.
Fremont, J. B. Origin of the P^xplorations of J. C. Fremont. Cent., XLi,
p. 766.
Fr:6mont, J. C. Conquest of California. Cent., xli, p. 917.
Fremont, F. P. Fremont in California. Lippincott's Mag., pp. 811-813.
Fremont. J. B. Far-west sketches. Boston, Lothrop. 12mo. 1890.
Fry, J. B. Comments on the Custer battle. Cent. Mag., xliii, pp.
385-387.
Godfrey, E. S. Custer's last battle. Cent. Mag., xliii, pp, 358-384.
Griffin, G. B. Historical Society of Southern California. Vol. ii, pt. i.
Documents from the Sutro Collection. Los Angeles, StoU & Thayer
Co. pp. (4) 213. 1892.
Henshaw, H. W. Missions and Mission Indians of California. New Eng.
M., I, p. 691.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 549
HiTTELL, T. S. Discovery of gold in California. Cent., xli, p. 525.
HiTTELL, H. T. History of California. 2vo. (San Francisco) London.
1886.
Howard, O. O. Close of Piute and Bannock wars. Results. (Indian War
Papers.) Overland, xi, n. s., pp. 101, 192. 1891.
Hutchinson, H. Early Days in Southern California. Longmans, xv, p.
63. (Same article in Eel. M., cxiii, p. 773.)
Ladd, H. O. The story of New Mexico. Boston, Lothrop. pp. (11) 474.
1892.
LOCKHART, A. J. The Williams massacre, Oregon, 1851. Overland, xii,
n. 8., p. 398.
McDouGALL, Mrs. J. Woman's log ot 1849. Overland, n. s., xvi, p. 273.
McGehee, M. a personal narrative of the terrible experiences of the
fourth expedition of Fremont. Cent., xli, p. 771.
Merry, W. L. Commerce of San Francisco, past, present, and future.
Overland, xi, n. s., p. 369.
Moses, B. The establishment of municipal government in San Francisco.
Baltimore, N. Murray, pp. 84. (John Hopkins Univ. Studies., vol.
VII, parts 2, 3.) 1889.
Norman, L. Popular history of California from earliest period of dis-
covery to present time. San Francisco, Bancroft & Co, pp. (6) 216.
3889. New edition.
O'Meara, J. Editors of early California. Overland, n. s., xiv, p. 489.
O'Meara, J. Critical period of the history of California, 1846. Overland,
n. s., XIV, p. 625.
Palmer, J. W. Pioneer days in San Francisco. Cent. Mag., XLiil, pp.
541-560.
Parkman, F. Discovery of the Rocky Mountains. Atlan., lxi, pp. 783-793.
Pelton, J. C. First public school in California. Overland, n. s., xviii,
p. 399.
Pratt, J. H. To California in 1849 by Panama. Cent., xli, p. 901.
Resume of the Explorations of John C. Fremont. Cent,, xli, p. 759.
RoYCE, J. The Fremont legend. Nation, lii, p. 423.
San Francisco. Chamb. J., lxvi, p. 38.
Sherman, W. T. The San Francisco vigilantes. Cent., xliii, p. 296.
Sherman, W. T. Old times in California. No. Am., cxlviii, p. 269.
Shinn, C. H. New England in California. New Eng. M., i, p. 614.
Shinn, C. H. Spanish pioneer houses of California. Mag. Am. H., xxiii,
p. 353.
Shinn, C. H. Documents on California. Mag. Am. H.,xxv , pp. 394-402.
Shinn, C. H. Pioneer families in California. Cent., xli, p. 377.
Shinn, C. H. Early books and magazines of California. Overland, xii,
n. 8., p. 337.
Shinn, C. H. The Palestine of California. Overland, xiii, p. 13.
SwASEY, W. F. Early days and men of California. Oakland, Cal., Pacific
Press. 8vo. pp. 406. 1891.
Thompson, J. E. Overland staging on the thirty-second parallel in the
fifties. Overland, xii (n. s.), p. 177.
Thorpe, F. T. Washington and Montana; have they made a mistake in
their conEtitution f Cent., xvii, p. 504.
550 AFRICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Trip to California in 1849. Overland, xiii, p. 407.
VallejO, G. Ranch and mission days in Alta-Califomia. Cent.^ xix, p.
183.
A^vsSAULT, F. I. Beginnings of California. Overland (n. s. ), xvi, p. 287.
Wells, H. L. The sage-brush rebellion. Overland, xiii, p. 253.
Woods, Washington (State) constitution, with marginal notes and full
index. Seattle, W. H. Hughes & Co. 1890.
Winchester exploring expedition in Oregon, 1850. Overland (n. s. ), xvii,
p. 475.
BRITISH AMERICA.
ACLAND, E. A. Politics in Canada, 1888. 19th Cent., xxiii, p. 403.
Aiken, W. B. Bourinot's history of Canada. Annals Am. Acad. Pol.
and Soc. Science, i, p. 480.
Beaugrand, H. The attitude of the French in Canada. Forum, vii, p.
521.
Bender, P. Commercial union with Canada. Mag. Am. Hist., xix, p. 21.
BouRiNOT, J. G. Manual of the constitutional history of Canada. Mon-
treal, Dawson. 12mo, pp. (10), 238. 1888.
BOURINOT, J. G. Once famous Louisburg. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvii, pp. 177-
196.
BOURINOT, J. G. English character of Canadian institutions. Contem-
porary Rev., LXii, pp. 590-608. 1892.
BOURINOT, J. G. Federal Government in Canada. Johns Hopkins Univ.
Stud. Series vii, Nos. 1, 2. Baltimore, N. Murray, pp. 172. 1889.
BouRiNOT, J. G. Canadian studies in comparative politics. Montreal,
Dawson. 4to. 1890.
Brymner, D. Report of the Canadian archives, 1888-1892. Ottawa, Cham-
berlain, 5 vols., 8 vo, 1889-1893.
Canada and United States. Forum, vi, p. 231; Sat. R., lxvi, pp. 282, 310;
Our Day, ii, p. 379; Spec, lxi, p. 1280. Electric, ex, p. 639. Westm.
Rev., cxxix, p. 133.
Commercial Union with Canada. Nation, xlvi, p. 50.
Cook, J. Political union with Canada. Our Day, iv, p. 145.
CURRIE, J. A., and D. A. Coe. Canada and British imperial federation.
Our Day, iv, p. 81.
Deans, J. The antiquities of British Columbia. Am. Antiq., xiv, pp.
41-45.
DORAN, J. I. Our fishery rights in the North Atlantic. Phila., Allen,
L. & S. p. 67. 1888.
Eaton, A. W. First church founded by New England people in King's
County, Nova Scotia. New Eng. Hist, and Gen. Reg., xlvi, pp. 219-
226. 1888.
Fotheringham, T. F. Romanism as a factor in the politics of Canada.
Presb. Rev., x, p. 229.
Frazer, J. B. Jesuit estates act in Canada. Our Day, iv, p. 443.
Gray, J. H. Commercial union with Canada. Overland, n. s., xi, p.
136.
Greswell, W. p. History of the Dominion of Canada. New York,
Macmillan. 1890.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 551
Greswell, W. p. Geography of the Dominion of Canada and Newfound-
land. Oxford, Clarendon Pr. 16 mo. 1891.
Griffin, W . The annexation of Canada ; is it desirable ? Mag. Am. Hist.
XXI. p. 122. ''
Hamilton, J. C. Slavery in Canada. Mag. Am. Hist., xxv, p. 233-238.,
(Abstract Transactions of Canadian Inst., July 3, 1890.)
Hannay, J. Loyalists in New Brunswick. N. Eng. M., iv, p. 297.
Harte, W. B. Annexation of Canada. Forum, vi, p. 361.
Hetson, G. R. Church and state in Canada. Andover Rev., xvii pp
476-487. 1892. *' '
fliND, H. Y. University of King's College, Windsor, Nova Scotia. New
York, Church Rev. Co. 1890.
History of Canada. Westm., cxxxv, p. 480.
Houston, W. Documents illustrative of the Canadian constitution.
Toronto, Carswell, pp. XXII, 339. (PoL Sci. Q., vi, p. 730.) 1891.
HOWLEY, F. M. Ecclesiastical history of New Foundland. Boston,
Doyle & Whittle, p. 426. 1888.
HOWLAND, O. A. (Canada), The new empire: reflections upon its origin
and constitution, and its relation to the Great Republic. New York
The Baker & Taylor Co. pp. (9) 608. 1892.
Jackson, S. British Columbia. Chant., ix, p. 408.
KiNGSFORD,W. History of Canada. London, Trubner. 1889-1890.
Lodge, H.C. The fisheries question. N. Amer. Rev., cxlvi, p. 121.
Love, J. M. Government of Canada. Forum, vii, p. 645.
LiNDSEY, C. Rome in Canada: ultramontane struggle for supremacy
over the civil power. Toronto, Williamson & Co. pp. (47) 398. 1889.
LuGRiN, C. H. Canada and the United States. Cent., xxviii, p. 236.
McCoRD, F. A. Handbook of Canadian dates. Montreal, Dawson. 12mo.
pp.102. 1888.
Marquis of Lorne, Provincial home rule. (Home rule in Canada.)
Contemporary Rev., lxii. pp. 258-262. 1888.
Marquis of Lorne, Obstacles to Canada. Forum vi, p. 634.
Monro, J. E. C. The constitution of Canada. Cambridge Univ. Press.
pp. (36) 356. 1889.
Morrill, J. S. The annexation of Canada; is it desirable? Forum, vi;
p. 451.
The National Development and destiny of Canada. Quart. R., CLXix,
p.l.
Nansen, F. First crossiug of Greenland. London and New York, Long-
mans. 2 V. 1890.
NiCOLAY, J. G. The first annexation of Canada. Chautauquan, xiv, p.
650.
O'SULLIVAN, D. A. Quebec under early British rule. Am. Cath., Q. xiii,
p. 629.
OXLEY, J. M. Hudsons Bay. Amer. Mag., vii, p. 399.
OxLEY, J. M. Canadian view of the fisheries question. Our Day, i, p.
132. 1888.
The Senate and the fisheries treaty. Nation, xlvi, p. 399,420.
Senator Frye on the fishery treaty. Nation, xlvi, p. 482.
Scott, E. G. French Canada. Atlan., lxiv, p. 343.
552 AjMERican historical association
Shea, J. G. Jesuit estates in Canada. Am. Cath. Q., xiii, p. 322.
ScHURMAN, J. G. Manifest destiny of Canada. Forum, vii, p. 1.
SiMONYi, E. History of polar expeditions. Budapest, Kilian., pp. 312.
1890.
Smith, J. T. Truth about the French in Canada. Cath. World, XLix,
p. 433.
Smith, G, Canada and the Jesuits. Macmil. Mag., lx, p. 470.
Smith, G. Canada and the Canadian question. New York and London.
Macmillan, pp. x, 325. (Pol. Sci. Q., vi, p. 559; Acad. 11 April, 1891.)
Stewart, G., Jr. Canadian view of the fisheries treaty. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XIX, p. 416.
TUPPER, E. S. Historic Quebec. Chautauquan, xv, pp. 422-428.
Warner, C. D. Comments on Canada. Harper, lxxviii, p. 520.
WiMAN, E. The destiny of Canada. No. Am., cxlviii, p. 665.
Withrow, W. H. Canadian literature. Chaut., viii, p. 211.
White, Z. L. An American view of the fisheries question. Westm.
Kev., cxxix, p. 82.
BIOGRAPHT.
[Arranged alphabetically by subjects.]
Gould, E. P. John Adams as a schoolmaster. Educa., ix, p. 503.
Daniel, F. Some colonial and revolutionary correspondence ox Thomas
Adams. Harper, Lxxxi,p.205.
Flagg, J.B. The life and letters of Washington Allston; w.th Repro-
ductions from AUston's pictures. New York, Scribner. pp. 17-435.
Ammen, D. The Old Navy and the New. Philadelphia, Lippincott. pp.
553. 1891.
Dykeman, J. O. The last twelve days of Maj. John Andr6. Mag. Am.
Hist., XXI, p. 49 J XXII, p. 494.
Haines, H, Execution of Maj. Andr^. Eng. Hist. R., v, p. 31.
Lamb, M. J. Tribute to I. W. Andrews. Mag. Am. Hist., xix, pp. 517-518.
Eaton, I. I.W.Andrews. N. E. Reg.,XLn, p.341.
FiSKE, J, Treason of Benedict Arnold. Atlant., lxvi, p. 505.
LovEJOY, G. N. Arnold's residence in Philadelphia. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXVII, pp. 50-51.
Powell, J. W. S. F. Baird. Science xi. Supplement.
Green, S.S. George Bancroft. Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc, vii. pp. 237-257.
Bryan, E. A. Sketch of John Bandollett, 1758-1837. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXVII. pp. 51-54.
Buckley, J. M. H. W. Beecher at Liverpool, 1863. Cent., xv, pp. 240-243.
Howard, J. R. Henry Ward Beecher. Philadelphia, Fords, Howard &
Hulbert. 12mo. 1891. Last MS. of H. W. Beecher. pp. 308-311.
Brett, R. T. W. Belcher. New York, Dutton. 1890.
Ellis, G.E. Jeremy Belknap Atlant., lxvii, p. 643.
Lawley, F. Judah Philip Benjamin. Athenaeum, i, p. 599.
BiDDLE, H. D. Owen Biddle. Pennsyl. M., xvi, pp. 299-329.
BiRNEY, W. James G. Bimey and his Times. New York, Appleton.
12mo. 1890. (Nation, L, p. 206.)
An American Statesman: The works and words of James G. Blaine.
Philadelphia, A. R. Keller Co. 12mo. p. 535.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 553
Stoddard, R. H. George Henry Boker. Lippincott, xlv, p, 856.
Stoddard, R. H. George Henry Boker. Critic, xxvi, p. 22.
Leland, C. G. George Henry Boker. Amer., xix, p. 392.
RuGGLES, M. B., and E. P. Doherty. Pursuit and death of John Wilkes
Booth. Cent., xxxix, p. 443.
Adams, H. B. Abb6 Brasseur de Bourbourg. Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc, vii,
pp. 274-290.
Drew, T. B. Celebrating the birth of William Bradford. Mag. Am. Hist.,
xxm, p. 227.
WiNSOR, J. With Bradford and John Harvard. Nation, New York, lii,
p. 67.
Page, J. David Brainerd, Apostle to the North American Indians. (Mis-
sionary Biographies, Ser. No. 3.) Chicago, Revell. 12mo. 1891.
Savidge, E. C. Life of Benjamin Harris Brewster. Philadelphia, Lippin-
cott, 12mo. 1891.
Deming, C. Journal of William Brisbane. Atlant., lxvi, p. 381.
Slade, D. D. Henry Bromfield, with Portrait. N. Eng. Mag., ii, p. 3.
Bowen, J. E. The Rev. Henry Bronson. N. Eng. Mag., iii, p. 492.
Garrison, W. P. Capt. John Brown, practical Shepherd. Andover R.,
XIV, p. 578.
Garrison, W. P. Capt. John Brown, preludes of Harpers Ferry. And.
R., XV, pp. 55, 309.
HOLST, H. VON. John Brown. Boston, Cupples & Hurd. 12mo. 1888.
Poindexter, p. Trial and execution of Capt. John Brown. Lippincott,
XLiii, p. 123.
Brown, John. The Abolitionist. Macmil.,Lviii, pp. 443-452.
Robinson, Mrs. H. H. Nicholas Browne, of Reading, and Descendants.
N. Eng. Reg., xliv, p. 281.
Benton, J. W. C. Bryant. Unita R., xxxiii, p. 346.
BiGELOW, J. William CuUen Bryant. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin & Co.
16mo. 1889.
BiGELOW, J, William Cullen Bryant. Boston, Mass., Houghton, Mifflin
& Co, 1890. (Dial. (Ch.) xi, p. 31.)
Lamb, Mrs. M. J. W. C. Bryant in History. Mag. Am. Hist., xxiii, p. 1.
Crandall, C. H. Saratoga Monument of Gen. J. Burgoyne. Am. Mag.,
VIII, p. 415.
Butler, B. F. Autobiography and personal reminiscences of Maj. Gen. B.
F. Butler. Boston, A. M. Thayer &, Co. 8mo. pp. (5) 1154. 1892.
Personal recollection of P. Butler, with Reminiscences by his Daugh-
ter and others. Cincinnati, Ohio, Standard Pub. Co., pp. (2) 346.
Harrison, C, C, Col. Wm. Byrd, of Westover, Va. Cent., xx, p. 163.
Browne, W. H, George Calvert and Cecilius, Baron Baltimore, of Balti-
more. New York City, Dodd. 12mo. 1890.
Blackwell, S. E. a Military Genius ; Life of Anna Ella Carroll, of Mary-
land. Washington, S. E. Blackwell. 16mo. pp. (16), 168. 1892.
Lamb, Mrs. M. J. Home of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, with portrait.
Mag. Am. Hist., xxii, p. 353.
Kelly, T. L. Bishop John Carroll. Am. Cath. Q., xiv, p. 60.
554 AM^ICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Shea, J. G. Life and Times of Rev. J. CarrolL New York, Cath. Pub. Soc.
1888,
Carter, R. Robert Carter, his Life aud Work, 1807-1889. New York, Ran-
dolph. 1891.
Srygley, F. D. Seventy years in Dixie. Recollections, sermons, and say-
ings of T. W. Caskey and others. Nashville, Gospel Advocate Pub.
Co. 12mo. pp.400. 1891.
McLaughlin, A. C. Lewis Cass. (American Statesmen Ser.) Boston,
Houghton. 12 mo. pp.363. (Mag. Am. Hist., xxvi, p. 160; Pol. Sci.
Quar. , VI, pp. 556 -559. )
DiDiER, E. L. Salmon P. Chase. Chant., xi, p. 182.
Childs, G. W. Recollections. Philadelphia, Lippincott. 12mo.
Recollections of G. W. Childs. Lippincott, xliii, p. 861.
Realp, J. jr., Rufus Choate, The Inspired Advocate. Arena, ii, p. 333.
Clap, Thomas. President of Yale College. N. Eng., lv, p. 427.
Clarke, J. T. Autobiography, diary, and correspondence. Boston, Hough-
ton. 12mo. 1891.
Staples, C. A. Rev. Jonas Clark, of Lexington, Mass. Unita. Rev., xxxiv,
p. 97.
Jenkins, C. F. John Claypoole's memorandum book. Pennsyl. M., xvi, p.
178.
Clews, H. Twenty-eight years in Wall street, 1888. N. Y., Irving Pub.
Co. pp. 700.
Lamb, M. J. The Ingham portrait of DeWitt Clinton. Mag. Am. Hist.,
xxvii, pp. 321-325; id., Prince Henry, the navigator; t&., xxvii, pp.
37-42.
Helps, A. Life of Columbus, the discoverer of America. New York, Mac-
millan & Co, 12mo. pp. (16) 262. 1892.
Johnston, R. M. The Royal patroness of Columbus. Cath. World, Jan.,
1892.
Spaulding, J. L. Columbus. Cath. World, October, 1892.
Wise, D. W. The character of Columbus. Methodist Rev.
Jefferson, S. Columbus. An Epic poem, giving an accurate history of
the great discoverer in rhymed heroic verse. Chicago, S. C. Griggs &
Co. 12mo. pp.239. 1892.
Innes, a. Life and adventures of Christopher Cohimbus. New York, F.
A. Stokes & Co. pp. (5), 147. 1892.
Dickey, J. M. Christopher Columbus and his monument Columbia. New
York and Chicago, Rand, McNally & Co. 12mo. pp. (3) 397. 1892.
Currier, C. W. Columbus and La Rabida. Cath. World, August, 1892.
Adams, C. K. Some recent discoveries concerning Columbus. Mag. Am.
Hist., xxvii, pp. 161-177.
Adams, C. K. Christopher Columbus; his life and his work. New York,
Dodd, Mead & Co. 12mo. pp. (12) 257. 1892.
BiERSTADT, A. Columbus in Romance. Mag. Am. Hist., xxviii, pp.
272-280;
Brooks, E. S. The true story of Christopher Columbus. Boston, Lothrop
Co. 8vo. pp. (3) 187. 1892.
Castelar, E. Christopher Columbus. Century Mag., xliv, pp. 123-134,
280-289, 351-364, 584-596, 683-694, 920-928.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 555
Davey, R. The boyhood and youth of Columbus. Eclectic Mag., LVI, p.
733; Nat. R., xx, pp. 215-228.
Curtis, W. E. The Columbus portraits. Cosmopolitan, xii, pp. 251-267.
DuTTO, L. A. The birthplace of Columbus. Cath. World, January, 1892.
DuTTO, L. A. When was Columbus born? Cath. World, February, 1892.
DuTTO, L. A. Columbus' ancestry and education, Cath. World, March,
1892.
DUTTO L. A. Columbus in Portugal, Cath. World, April, 1892.
DuTTO, L. A. Columbus in Spain, Cath. World, May, 1892.
Hartley, I. S. Roscoe Conkling; his home in Utica. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XX, p. 79-103.
Ingersoll, R. G. Memorial oration on Roscoe Conkling. (Also) Chaun-
cey M. Depew's oration at the Grant anniversary. New York, J,
Buckley. 16 mo. 1892.
Narrative of John Connolly. Pennsyl. M., xiii, p. 153.
Beers, H. A. James Fenimore Cooper. 1789-1889. Critic, xv, p. 125.
TuCKERMAN, F. Thomas Cooper, of Boston, and his descendants. N. Eng.
Reg., XLiv, p. 53. 1890.
Hill, H. A. Thomas Coram in Boston and Taunton. Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc,
VIII. p. 133-149.
Randolph, A. D. F. Leaves from the journal of Frederick S. Cozzens.
Lippinc, XLV, p. 739.
Tiffany, N. M. William and Ellen Craft, fugitive slaves. N. Eng. M., i,
p. 524.
Letters of Col. George Croghan. Pennsyl. M., xv, p. 429-440.
Howard, O. O. Gen. George Crook. Chant., xi, p. 325.
King, C. Last battle of Gen. Geo. A. Custer. Harper, lxxxi, p. 378.
Cutler, J. P. Life and times of Ephraim Cutler. Cincinnati, R. Clarke.
(Nation, N. Y., li, p. 59.) 1890.
Manasseh Cutler. Life, journals, and correspondence. Cincinnati,
Clarke. 2 vols. (Lit. World, xix 102; Dial (Ch.), ix, 61; Nation,
XL VII, 172.) 1888.
Adams, C. F. Richard Henry Dana. Boston, Mass., Houghton, Miflin &
Co., 12mo. 2 V. 1890.
Clark, W. Gen. William Richardson Davie, 1756-1820. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXVIII, p. 415-431.
Bancroft, A. C. (editor). Life and death of Jefferson Davis. New York,
Ogilvie. 12mo. 256 p. 1889. Jefferson Davis. Sat. R., lxviii, p. 681.
Jefferson Davis. Nation, N. Y., xlix, p. 470.
Davis, Mrs. J. Jefferson Davis, Ex-President of the Confederate States.
Boston, Belford. 1890.
Life and reminiscences of Jefferson Davis. Baltimore, R. H. Woodward.
1890.
Daniel, J. W. Oration on the life, services, and character of Jefferson
Davis. Richmond, Va. Randolph. 1890.
MiNNiGERODE, C. Jefferson Davis. Albany, N. Y., West. 1890.
Wilson, J. H. and W. P. Stedman. Pursuit and capture of Jefferson
Davis. Cent., xvii, p. 586. 1890.
Todd, J. A. H. B. Dawson. N. Eng. Reg., xliv, p. 233.
Tribute to the memory of Charles Deane. Boston, Mass. Hist. Soc,
pp. 31.
556
AMEiyCAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Slade, D. D. Autobiography of Maj. Gen. Daniel Denisou. New Eng.
Hist, and Gen. Reg., xlvi, pp. 127-133.
RiDPATH, J. C. Washington C. DePauw. Meth. R., l, p. 383.
Declaration of Comte D'Estaing to his countrymen in North America,
1778. Mag. Am. Hist., xxii, p. 427.
Dexter, H. M. Lit. W. (Bost.), xxi, p. 441.
Cook, F. G. John Dickinson, of Pennsylvania. Atlant., Lxv, p. 70.
Stille, C. J. Life and times of John Dickinson. Philadelphia, Lippin-
cott. (Nation, N. Y., Lii, pp. 405, 427; Pennsyl. Mag., xv, p. 1; Dial
(Ch.), XII, p. 71.)
Wharton, A. H. John Dickinson. Lippincott, xlvii, p. 657.
Tiffany, F. Life of Dorothea Lynde Dix. Boston, Mass., Houghton,
Miflin & Co. 12mo. 1890.
Clarke, W. N. Ebenezer Dodge. Bapt. R., xii, p. 323.
Aldrich, C. Anecdotes of Grenville M. Dodge. Mag, Am. Hist., xxiv, p.
310.
Martyn, C. William E. Dodge. New York City, Funk .fe Wagnalls, 12mo.
1890.
Life and times of Frederick Douglass, written by himself. Boston, De
Wolfe, Fiske & Co. 8mo. pp. 752. 1892.
Journal of Mrs. Henry Drinker, 1777-78. Pennsyl. M., xni, p. 298.
Rowland, K. M. Letters of Ann Dulany. Atlant., Lxvi, p. 651.
Thomas, O. Thomas Durant. Cong. R., iv, p. 244.
Eaton, Amos, with portrait. Pop. Sci. Mo., xxxviii, p. 113.
Crooker, J. H. Psychological study of Jonathan Edwards. N. Eng. M.,
n. 8. II, p. 150. 1890.
McCook, H. C. Jonathan Edwards as a naturalist. Presb. ife Ref. R., I,
p. 393.
Wellman, J. W. Allen's Life of Jonathan Edwards. Our Day, V, pp.
195,288.
Smyth, E. G. Jonathan Edwards. Andover R., xiii, p. 285.
Elliots of Kittery, Me., and South Carolina. N. Eng. Reg., XLiv,p. 112.
Elliott, Capt. John, of Boston, 1722. N. E. Reg., xlv, p. 278.
Woodbury, C. J. Ralph Waldo Emerson talks with a college boy. Cent.,
xvii, p. 621.
Lerch, C. H. Ralph Waldo Emerson. Ref. Q., xxxvii, p. 94.
Lerch, C. H. The prose of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Ref. Q., xxxvii, p.
240.
Lerch, C. H. Ralph Waldo Emerson as a poet; Ref. Q., xxxvii, p. 379.
Sanborn, F. B. Ralph Waldo Emerson and his friends in Concord. New
Eng. Mag., iii, p. 411.
Badger, H. C. Agnosticism of Ralph Waldo Emerson. Unita. R., xxxiii,
p. 94.
Church, W. C. Life of John Ericsson. New York, Scribner, 2v. 1890.
Church, W. C. John Ericsson, the engineer. Scribner M., vii, pp. 169, 336.
Curry, J. L. M. Diplomatic services of G. W. Erving. Mag. Am. Hist.,
xxiii, p. 313.
Farwell, W. B. Place of Gen. J. C. Fremont in California history. Over-
land, n. 8., pp. 519, 575.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 557
Edwards, A. Gen. J. C. Fremont. Chaut., xii, p. 60.
ROYCE, J. Gen. J. C. Fr6mont. Atlant., lxvi, p. 548.
Wright, G. F. Charles Grandison Finney. (American Religious Leaders. )
Boston, Houghton. 12mo. 1891.
Carne, W. F. John Fitzgerald, aide-de-camp of General Washington.
Cath. World, l, p. 437.
Benjamin, S. G. W. Franklin's unpublished letters to Strahan. Atlantic,
LXI, p. 21.
BiGKLOW, J. Life of Benjamin Franklin. Phila., Lippincott, 3 vols. 1888.
BiGELOW, J. Home of Franklin in France. Century, xni, pp. 741-754.
Hart, C. H. Benjamin Franklin in French allegory. Cent., xix, p. 197.
McMaster, J. B. Benjamin Franklin as a man of letters (American men
of letters). London, Kegan Paul. 1888. (Ath., ii, p. 129; Ac, i, p.
300.)
Morse, J. T. Life of Benj . Franklin (American statesmen series) . Boston,
Houghton, Miflin & Co. 16mo. pp. (6), 428 (AndoverR., xii, p. 556.)
Franklin, Washington, and Lincoln. Atlan., lxiv, p. 707.
Thompson, H. F. A letter of Miss Rebecca Franks, 1778. Pennsyl. M.,
XVI, p. 216-218.
Wells, H. L. Who was the pathfinder? (Fremont?) Overland, n. s., xvi,
p. 242.
French, J. M. Lieut. William French and his descendants. N. Eng.
Reg., XLiv, p. 367.
Frothingham, O. B. Recollections and impressions, 1822-1890. New
York, Putnam. 12 mo. 1891.
Gallaudet, E. M. Life of T. H. Gallaudet. New York, Holt. 12 mo. pp.
(8), 339. 1888.
Gardiner, C. C. ed. Lion Gardiner and his descendants, 1599-1890. St.
Louis, A. Whipple. 210 p. 1890.
Garrison, W. P. and F. J. William Lloyd Garrison, 1805-1879. 4 vols.,
8 vo. New York, Century Co. (Ath., ii, p. 445; Nation, xlix, p. 293;
Unita. R., xxxii, p. 506; Atlan., lxiv, p. 841.)
Grimke, a. H. William Lloyd Garrison, The abolitionist. (American
Reformers ) New York, Funk & Wagnalls. 12mo. 1891.
Hammond, I. W. Garrisons in the West Regiment of Middlesex. N. Eng.
Reg., XLiii, p. 370.
Smith, G. Wm. Lloyd Garrison, A moral crusader. Macmil. Mag., lxii,
p. 18. (Eel. M., cxiv, p. 850; Liv. Age, clxxxv, p. 625.)
Gaylord, R. E. Life and labors of Rev. Reuben Gaylord. Cong. S. S.
and Pub. Soc. 1890.
Neill, E. D. John Gibbon in 1659. N. Eng. Reg., xliii, p. 430.
Goodwin, J. J. The Goodwins of Hartford, Conn. Hartford, Brown.
1891.
Julian, G. W. Life of Joshua R. Giddings, Chicago, McClurg. 8vo.
pp. (2), 473. 1892.
Gilbert, B. Narrative of the captivity and sufferings of Benjamin Gil<
belt and his family, Lancaster, Pa., Zahm. pp.38. 1890.
Life and labors of H. W. Grady. New York, Goldthwaite. pp. 450.
1890.
558 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Badeau A. (U. S.) Grant, in peace. Hartford, Scranton. ^^Nation, XLVi,
286; Nation, xlvi, 230.)
TucKERMAN, C. K. Personal recollections of U. S. Grant. Mag. Am.
Hist., XX, p. 109-114.
Grant, U. S. Reasons for accepting the Presidency. North Am. Rev.,
CXLVI, p. 558.
Childs, G. W. Recollections of Gen. Grant. Philadelphia, Collins Pr.
House. 18mo. pp. 107. 1890.
Hageman, H. Gen. Grant. New York, Hageman. pp. 26. 1890.
Stanton, T. U. S. Grant and the French. Mag. Am. Hist., xxii, p. 502.
Harris, J. C. Henry W. Grady, his life, writings, and speeches. New
York, Cassell. 1890.
Halstead, M. Horace Greeley. CosmopoL, viii, p. 460.
SoTHERAN, C. Horace Greeley and other pioneers of American socialism.
New York, Humboldt Pub. Co. 12mo. pp. (14), 343. 1892.
Zabriskie, F. N. Horace Greeley, the editor. New York, Funk & Wag-
nails. 1890.
Depew, C. M. Address at the Unveiling of the statue of H. Greeley.
Our Day, VI, p. 342.
Greene, G. W. Life of Nathanial Greene. Boston, Houghton. 3v., 12mo.
1890.
Dana, J. D. Biographical memoir of Prof. Arnold Guyot. Washington, D.
C, Smithsonian Inst. 1890.
Jones, C. C. Lyman Hall. Mag. Am. Hist., xxv, p. 35.
Bishop, C. E. Alexander Hamilton. Chaut., ix, p. 225.
Boutell, L. H. Alexander Hamilton, the constructive statesman. Chi-
cago, McClurg. 12mo. 1891.
Powell, E. P. Alex. Hamilton. Arena, iii, p. 578.
Sumner, W. G. Alexander Hamilton. New York City, Dodd. 12mo.
1890.
Morse, A. D. Alexander Hamilton. Pol. Sci. Q., V, p. 1.
Eaton, A. W. H. The Hamiltons of Berwick, Maine, and Nova Scotia,
New Eng. Reg., xliv, p. 361.
Fisher, J. F. Andrew Hamilton, of Pennsylvania. Pennsyl. M., xvi, pp.
1-27.
Knight, E. Hannibal Hamlin, an old-fashioned statesman. Overland,
n. s., XVIII, p. 519.
Mead, E. D. John Hampden: Did he come to New England? N. Eng. M.,
I, pp. 41, 165.
Staples, C. A. Rev. John Hancock, of Lexington, Mass. Unita. R., XXXIV,
p. 97.
Harding, C. Sketch of Chester Harding. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin &
Co. 1890.
Hartley, J. W. David Hartley and the American Colonies. Mag. Am.
Hist., XXIV, p. 426.
Hadley, a. Life of Walter Harriman. Boston, Houghton. 1888.
Griffis, Wm. E. Townsend Harris, first American Minister to Japan.
Atlantic Mo., lxx, pp. 161-173.
Wallace, L. Life of General Harrison (incl. life of L. P. Morton, by G.
A. Townsend). Philadelphia, Hubbard Bros. 32mo. pp.578. 1888.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 569
Shaw, C. L. Joseph Hawley, the Northampton statesman. Mag. Am.
Hist., XXII, p. 489.
Lewin, W. N. Hawthorne. Acad., xxxviii, p. 285.
Hawthorne, J. N. Hawthorne. <' Elixir of Life," and methods of work.
Lippincott, XLV, pp. 66, 224, 412, 548.
Woods, Kate G. N. Hawthorne's first printed article. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXIII, p. 237.
BOWEN, J. E. Brief correspondence with Paul Hamilton Hayne. Lippin-
cott, XLVi, p. 368.
Link, S. A. Paul Hamilton Hayne. pp. 85. (Reprinted from Quart. Rev.
ofM.E. Church, South. April, 1889.) 1889.
Gammell, W. and E. G. Robinson, Life of R. G. Hazard. Providence,
Reid. pp. 36. 1888.
Dean, J. W. Biographical sketch of John P. Healy. New Eng. Hist, and
Gen. Reg., xlvi, pp. 2C7-211.
Crafts, W. A. Gen. William Heath. N. Eng. Mag., iii, p. 513.
Elliot, W. Life of Father Hecker. New York, Columbus Press. 1891.
Allen, J. H. Henry Frederic Hedge. Unita. R., xxxiv, p. 281. (Lit. W.
(Bost.), XXI, pp. 292, 304; Nation, N. Y., li, p. 165; Critic, xvii, p.
100.)
Bradley, A. G. Patrick Henry. Macmillan's Mag. (London). March,
1892.
Henry, W. W. Patrick Henry : Life, correspondence, and speeches. New
York, Scribner. 8vo. 3 vols. Vol. i, pp. (19), 622; 1891. Vols, ii,
III. pp. (15), 652; (3), 672; 1892.
HiGGiNSON, T. W. Life of Francis Higginson, first minister in the Mas-
sachusetts Bay Colony. (Makers of America.) New York, Dodd,
Mead & Co. 16mo. 1891.
Extracts from the diary of Jacob Hiltzheimer, of Philadelphia, 1768-
179^. Pennsyl. M., xvi, pp. 93-102, 160-177.
Staples, C. A. Rev. Enos Hitchcock, a chaplain of the Revolution.
Unita. R., xxxv, p. 267.
Will of Charles Hoare, 1638. N. E. Reg., xlv, p. 285.
Hodge, M. D. Commemoration of forty-five years of service. Charles-
ton, Whittet & S. 12mo. 1890.
Clark, W. Career of Gen. James Hogun, one of North Carolina's Revolu-
tionary officers. Mag. Am. Hist, xxviii, pp. 284-288.
Hart, A. B. Hermann von Hoist. Pol. Sci. Q., v, p. 677.
Kasson, F. H. Mark Hopkins, with portrait. N. Eng. M., iii, p. 3.
Allen, A. V. G. Dr. Samuel Hopkins. Atlant., lxviii, p. 767.
Bishop, C. E. Sam Houston. Chaut., x, p. 438.
Bruce, H. Life of Gen. Houston, 1793-1863. (Makers of America, ser.)
New York, Dodd. 12mo. 1891.
Edwards, H. Some relics of John Howard, the philanthropist. Mag.
Am. Hist., xxviii, pp. 288-296.
Sanborn, F. B. Dr. S. C. Howe, the philanthropist. (Am. Reformers.)
New York, Funk & Wagnalls. 12mo. (Nation, liii, p. 219.)
Glenn, J. A. William Hudson, Mayor of Philadelphia, 1725. Pennsyl.
M., XV, p. 336.
Lloyd, H. W. Hudson family records. Pennsyl. M., xvi, pp. 108-110.
560 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
COUTANT, R. B. Heroism of Capt. George Hurlbut, at Tairytown, 1781.
Mag. Am. Hist, xxiv, p. 358.
Hale, E. E. Anne Hutchinson. N. Eng. Mag., iii, p. 191.
Hyslop, J. H. Rowland G. Hazard. Unita. R., xxxiv, p. 222.
BiNNEY, H. Jared IngersoU. Pennsyl. Mag., xiv, p. 223.
Letter of Washington Irving. Ath., i, p. 632.
Manigault, G. E. Military career of Gen. G. Izard. Mag. Am. Hist.,
xxvi, p. 457.
Dyer, O. Life of Gen. Andrew Jackson. New York, Bonner's Sons. 12mo.
pp. (5), 378. 1892.
Letter of Andrew Jackson. Chaut. xii, p. 477.
Foley, J. P. The outdoor life of Andrew Jackson. Outing, xiii, p. 437.
Turner, H. S. Andrew Jackson and David Crockett. Mag. Am. Hist.,
xxvii., pp. 385-388.
Sketch of the life of Gen. Henry Jackson. New Eng. Hist, and Gen.
Reg., XL VI, pp. 111-114.
Jackson, M. A. Life and letters of Gen. T. J. Jackson. New York, Har-
per. 12mo. 1891.
Field, H. M. Stonewall Jackson. Harper, lxxxiii, p. 907.
Jay, J. Writings and correspondence. 4vol8.,8vo. New York, Putnam. i
Pellew, G. John Jay. Boston, Houghton. (Dial (Ch.) xi., p. 111.)
Jay, J. Writings and correspondence of John .lay. New York City, Put- J*
nam. Vol. i. (Dial (Ch.) xi, p. 111.) "
William Jay. Cong. R., iv, p. 1.
Autobiography of Joseph Jefferson. Cent., xvii, pp. 3-803; xviii, pp.
135-814.
AuroBlOGRAPHYof Joseph Jefferson. New York Century Co. (DiaKCh.)
XI, p. 237; Nation, N. Y., li, p. 386).
Adams, H. B. Thomas Jefferson and the University of Virginia. Wash-
ington, Bureau of Educ. pp. 308. 1888.
Ford, P. L. Thomas Jefferson in undress. Scribner's, xn, pp. 509-517.
Henderson, J. C. Thomas Jefferson's views on public education. New
York, Putnam. 12mo. 1890.
Powell, E. P. A study of Thomas Jefferson. Arena, iii, p. 712.
Little, C. J. Thomas Jefferson. Chaut., xiv, p. 141.
Tompkins, H. B. Bibliotheca Jeffersoniana. New York, Putnam, pp.
187. 1888.
A New (pen) Portrait of Thomas Jefferson. Overland, u. s., xvi. p.
547.
An Unpublished Letter of Thomas Jefferson. N. Eng., liii, p. 573.
CULLOM, R. S. Extracts from the j oumal of William Jennison, jr. Penn-
syl. M., XV, p. 101.
Aldrich, C. Eloquence of Andrew Johnson, 1861. Mag. Am. Hist., XXV,
p. 47.
TuCKERMAN, C. K. Personal recollections of Andrew Johnson. Mag. Am.
Hist., XX, pp. 39-42.
Griffis, W. E. Sir Wm. Johnson and the Six Nations. (Makers of
America) New York, Dodd, Mead & Co. 12mo. 1891.
Young, C. A. Alexander Johnston. Critic, xv, p. 56.
Cox, J. D. Gen. Joseph E. Johnston. Nation, lii, p. 255; liii, p. 433.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OP AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 561
DwiGHT, T. W. Flag of the United States and John Paul Jones. Mag.
Am. Hist., XXIV, p. 269.
Funeral of John Paul Jones. Atlant., lxv, p. 712.
Perry, A. Col. John Jones. N. Eng. Reg., xliv, p. 158.
RiDPATH, J. C. Paul Jones and the capture of the Serapis. Chautauquan,
XIV, pp. 643-649.
Fowler, F. Memoir of Dr. Thomas P. Jones. J. Frankl. Inst., cxxx, p. 1.
Bates, J. L. Alfred Kelly, of Ohio. Cincinnati, Clarke, pp.210. 1888.
Wilson, Annie E. Simon Kenton ; a pioneer and his corn patch. Mag.
Am. Hist., XXIII, p. 450.
BUSHNELL, C. I. Journal of Capt. Nathaniel Knight, sr. N. Eng. Reg.,
XLIV, p. 200.
Aldrich, C. Capt. A. A. Larrabee; an early West Pointer. Mag. Am.
Hist., XXV, p. 371.
Eraser, J. La Salle's homestead at Lachine, Province of Quebec. Mag.
Am. Hist., XXIV, p. 447.
Letters of Henry Laurens, 1775. Mag. Am. Hist., xxv, p. 459.
Myers, F. A. John Law, of Indiana. Mag. Am. Hist., xxv, p. 409.
Lawrence, W. Life of Amos Lawrence, with extracts from his diary
and correspondence. Boston, Houghton, Miflin & Co. pp. (10), 289.
1888.
Lea, J. H. Lee family, of Virginia. N. Eng. Reg., xliv, p. 103.
Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee. No. Am. R., cl, p. 55.
Preston, M. J. Gen. R. E. Lee after the war. Cent., xvi, p. 271.
Cook, F. G. Richard H. Lee. Atlant., lxvi, p. 23.
Thomas Sims Lee, Governor of Maryland, 1779-83. Cath. World, l, p.
776.
Wright, M. J. Governor Merri wether Lewis. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvi, p.
135.
BiNNEY, H. William Lewis. Pennsyl, Mag., xiv, p. 3.
Badger, A. J. B. The early home of Abraham Lincoln. Chautauquan,
XV, pp. 477-478.
Butterworth, H. In the boyhood of Lincoln; a tale of the Tunker
schoolmaster and the times of Black Hawk. New York, Appleton.
8vo. pp. (7), 266. 1892.
Herndon, W. H. and J. W. Weik. History and personal recollections of
A. Lincoln. New York, C. Belford & Co. 12 mo., 3 vols. 1889. (Lit.
W., XX, p. 253; Nation, xlix, p. 173).
NiCOLAY, J. G. and J. Hay. Life of Abraham Lincoln. Century Mag.,
continued through vols, xi-xvii.
NiCOLAY, J. G. and J. Hay. Abraham Lincoln. New York, Century Co.
10 vols. 1890.
SCOVEL, J. M. Personal recollections of Abraham Lincoln. Lippincott,
XLIV, p. 244.
Brooks, N. Abraham Lincoln. New York, Putnam. 12mo., pp. xii, 476.
1888.
TUCKERMAN, C, K. Personal recollections of A. Lincoln. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XIX, pp. 411-415.
Speed, J. Assassins of A. Lincoln. North. Am., cxlvii, pp. 314-319.
S. Mis. 104 36
562 amj:rican historical association.
NiCOLAY and Hay, A. Lincoln ; a history. Reviews and criticisms. (Pol.
Sci. Q., VI, pp. 711-724; Quar., clxxiii, p. 333; Atlant., lxvii, p. 721;
Westm., cxxxv, p. 635 ; ib., cxxxvi, pp. 1, 124, 255 ; Spec, lxvi, pp. 563,
628; Nation, lii, pp. 13, 34. Jahresbericht der Geschichtswissenschaft.
13,111,315.)
Abraham Lincoln's Pen and voice. Cincinnati, R. Clarke. 12mo.
1890.
Abraham Lincoln as a colonizationist. Nation, N. Y., l, p. 91.
Locke, D. R. Humor of Abraham Lincoln. Mag. Am. Hist., xxiv, p. 52.
Hay, J. Life in the White House in the time of Abraham Lincoln. Cent.
XLi, p. 33.
Memoranda on the life of Abraham Lincoln; Century Mag. XL, p. 305.
Coffin, C. C. Abraham Lincoln. New York, Harper, pp. (10), 542.
Conway, M. D. Manuscript of Abraham Lincoln. Nation, Liv, p. 356.
Forbes, A. Abraham Lincoln as a strategist. North Am. Rev., clv, pp.
53-68, 160-170.
Herndon, W. H. and J. W. Weik, Abraham Lincoln; the true story of
a great life. New York, Appleton, 2 vols., 12mo.,pp. (28), 331; (7),
348. 1892.
McClure, a. K. Abraham Lincoln and men of our war times. Philadel-
phia, J. W. Keeler «fe Co., 8vo., pp. 470. 1892.
Putnam, M. L. The Children's Life of Abraham Lincoln. Chicago,
McClurg & Co., 12mo. pp. 2-290. 1892.
Scovel, J. M. Personal recollections of A. Lincoln. Overland, n. s., xviii,
p. 497.
Nicola Y, J. G. Personal appearance of A. Lincoln. Cent., xlii, p. 932.
Greeley, H. An estimate of Lincoln. Cent., xlii, p. 371.
Chittenden, L. E. The faith of Lincoln. Harper, lxxxii.
Chittenden, L. E. Lincoln and the sleeping sentinel. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXV, p. 405.
Chittenden, L. E. Recollections of President Lincoln and his adminis-
tration. New York, Harper. 1891.
Maynard, Mrs. N. C Was Abraham Lincoln a Spiritualist? Philadel-
phia, Hartranft, 1891.
Bancroft, F. Lincoln and Seward and their latest biographers. Pol. Sci.
Q. VI, pp. 711-724.
French, C. W. Abraham Lincoln, the liberator. (American Reformers.)
New York, Funk & Wagnalls. 12mo. 1891.
SCHURZ, C. Abraham Lincoln. Boston, Houghton, M. & Co. 12mo. 1891.
Chase, C. A. William Lincoln. Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc, vii, pp. 424-436.
Aldrich, C. Dr. Lewis F. Linn, of Missouri. Mag. Am. Hist., xxviii, pp.
54-57.
Delafield, M. L. Col. Henry Beekman Livingston. Mag. Am. Hist. p.
256.
Portrait of Philip Livingston. Mag. Am. Hist., xxiii, p. 361.
Livingston, E. B. Livingstons of America. Mag. Am. Hist., xxv; p. 416.
Schuyler, J. James Livingston. Mag. Am. Hist., xxi, p. 71.
Longfellow, S. LifeofH. W. Longfellow. Boston, Houghton. 3 vols.
(New Edition.) 1891.
Newton, H. A. A memoir of Elias Loomis. Washington, Gov. Pr. Of. pp.
742-770.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY VINCENT. 563
DwiGHT, T. Elias Loomis. N. Eng. M.,.li., p. 310 and lii, p. 555.
Newton, H. A. Elias Loomis. Am. J. Sci., cxxxix, p. 427.
List of papers by Elias Loomis ; Am. J. Sci. cxxxix, app.
Curtis, G. W. James Russell Lowell ; an address. New York, Harper.
20mo. pp. (2), 64. 1892.
Lowell, J. R. Tributes to, see Poole's Index, iii, pp. 259-260.
Fowler, R. L. Lieut. A. C. Ludlow and the Chesapeake. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXV, p. 269.
Christopher Ludwig, Baker-general in the Army of the United States
during the Revolutionary war. Pennsyl. Mag., xvi, pp. 343-348.
Scott, E. G. Gen.McClellan. Atlantic Mo., lxx., pp. 1-14.
RiDENBAUGH, Mary J. Biography of Ephraim McDowell, M. D. New
York, Webster. 1891.
McCULLOCH, H. Men and measures of half a century. New York, Scrib-
ner, pp (23), p. 542. (Dial (Ch.), ix, p. 240.)
McMiCHAEL, W. P. Diary of Lieut. James McMichael, of the Pennsylvania
Line, 1776-1778. Pennsyl. M., xvi, pp. 129-159.
Mann, H. Life and works. Boston, Lee & Shepard. 12mo. 5 vols. 1891.
Greenwood, J. M. Gen. Francis Marion. Education, xi, p. 61.
Marsh, C. C. (compiler). Life and letters of G. P. Marsh. Vol. i. New
York, Scribner. (Nation, xlvii, p. 213.)
Bradley, J. P. St. Memin's portrait of Chief Justice John Marshall.
Cent., xvi, p. 778.
Dean, J. W. Was Cotton Mather a Fellow of the Royal Society? New
Eng. Hist, and Gen. Reg., xlvi, pp. 114-117.
Wendell, B. Cotton Mather, the Puritan priest (Makers of America).
New York, Dodd, Mead & Co. 12mo. 1891.
Lamb, M. J. Cotton Mather. Mag. Am. Hist., xxv, p. 245.
Rensselaer, M. Van. Lieut. Gen. John Maunsell, 1724-1795. Mag. Am.
Hist., xxvii, pp. 419-429.
CORBIN, D. F. M. Life ofM. F. Maury. New York, Scribner & Welford.
pp. 326. 1888.
Wright, M. J. Return Jonathan Meigs, 1801-1891. Mag. Am, Hist.,
XXVIII, pp. 125-129.
Ancestors of Gyles Merrill. N. Eng. Reg., xlv, p. 304.
Watts, H. M. General Henry Miller. Pennsyl. M., xii, p. 425.
Page, W. G. Zerviah Gould Mitchell, descendant of Massasoit. N. Eng.
Mag., n. 8., Ill, p. 642.
Moody, G. Life's retrospect. Cranston &, Son. 12mo. 1890.
Bell, J. W. James Appleton Morgan. N. Eng. Mag., i, p. 457.
Clark, F. G. Robert Morris. Atlant., lxvi, p. 607.
Letter of Robert Morris to J. Nicholson, 1797. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvi, p.
71.
Morris, G. Diary and letters of Gouverueur Morris. New York, Scrib-
ner. 2 vols. 1888.
Roosevelt, T. Gouverneur Morris. (American Statesmen). Boston,
Houghton. 12mo. pp. (9), 370. 1888.
Chamberlain, D. H. John Lothrop Motley. N. Eng. M., lii, p. 297.
564 AMURICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Curtis, G. W. Correspondence of J. L. Motley. New York, Harpers.
2 vols. 4 to. (1889.) (Atlantic, LXiii,p. 706; Blackwd., cxlv, p. 561;
Liv. Age, CLXXXi, p. 242; Quar. Rev., clxviii, p. 972; Ac, xxxv, p.
177; Athen., I, p. 271; Spec, lxii, p. 404; Nation, xlviii, p. 409.)
Newton, W. W. Dr. Muhlenberg. Boston, Mass., Houghton, Mifllin &
Co. 12mo. 1890. (Dial (Ch.), xi, p. 87.)
Appel, T. Life and work of John W. Nevin. Philadelphia, Reformed Ch.
Pub. House, pp. 800. 1890.
Faber, W. F. J. W. Nevin. And. R., xvi, p. 11.
Cooper, H. Extracts from the order-book of Capt. John Nice, Thirteenth
Pennsylvania Line. Pennsyl. M., xvi, pp. 359-362.
Bruce, H. Life of Gen. Oglethorpe. New York, Dodd, Mead & Co. 12mo.
1890.
Jones, C. C. Oglethorpe as a landed proprietor in Georgia. His cottage
home. Mag. Am. Hist., xxviii, pp. 196-198.
Lathrop, G. p. John Boyle O'Reilly. Critic, xvii, p. 82.
Young, A. John Boyle O'Reilly. Chaut., xii, p. 339.
Roche, J. J. John Boyle O'Reilly. CosmopoL, ix, p. 768.
John Boyle O'Reilly. Lit. W. (Bost.), xxi, p. 271.
John Boyle O'Reilly. Letters to a friend. Atlant., lxvi, p. 572.
Roche, J. J. Poetry of John Boyle O'Reilly. N. Eng. M., i, p. 126.
Greenwood, I. J. The Otis family, of Montreal, Canada. New Eng. Hist.
and Gen. Reg., xlvi, pp. 211-212.
Conway, M. D. Thomas Paine and Gouvemeur Morris in Paris. Nation, W
Conway, M. D. First essay of Thomas Paine; Nation, lii, p. 175.
Conway, M. D. Military services of T. Paine in the Revolution ; Nation,
Liii, p. 387. I
Ingersoll, R. G. Thomas Paine. North American Rev., clv, pp. 181-195. £
Lii, p. 455. 3
Lamb, Mrs. M. J. Amasa J. Parker. Mag. Am. Hist., xxiv, p. 197. y
Stewart, S. B. Theodore Parker. Unita. R., xxxii, p. 114.
A memoir of William Kitchen Parker. Washington, Gov. Pr. Of. pp. 772-
m. r
Lowell, J. R. Francis Parkman. Cent. Mag., xlv, pp. 44-45.
Underwood, F. H. Francis Parkman. Liv. Age, clxxvii, p. 579.
LoRiNG, G. B. Vindication of General Samuel H. Parsons. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XX, pp. 286-303.
Paton, J. G. John G. Paton, Missionary to the New Hebrides. New York
City, Carter. 12mo. 1890.
Lee, J. H. The Penn family. Pennsyl. Mag., xiv, pp. 50-281. ™
Lea, J. H. Genealogical gleanings, contributory to a history of the fam- M
ily of Penn. Pennsyl. M., xvi, pp. 330-342. %
Griffis, W. E. Matthew C. Perry. Boston, Mass., Houghton. 1890. T.
Mead, E. D. A monument to Wendell Phillips. N. Eng. Mag., iii, p. 535.
Martyn, C. Wendell Phillips. New York City. Funk & Wagnalls, 12mo.
1890.
Harrison, H. William Pinkney, fifth bishop of Maryland. Baltimore
Gushing. 16mo. 1891.
Autobiography of R. Pond. Pennsyl. M., xiii, p. 430.
Vail, C. D. Eliphalet Nott Potter. Church R., lvii, p. 239. ^
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 565
Troth, S. Richard Preston, sr., Puritan Quaker of Maryland, grandfather
of Samuel Preston, mayor of Philadelphia. Pennsyl. M., xvi, pp.
207-215.
Prime, S. I. Autobiography and memorials. New York, Randolph, pp.
xiii,385. 1888.
Stebbing, W. Sir Walter Raleigh ; A biography. New York, Macmillan
ifeCo. 8vo. pp. (9), 415. 1892.
Conway, M. D. Omitted chapters of history disclosed in the life and
papers of Edmund Randolph. Now York, Putnam, pp. (6), 401. 1888.
(Dial (Ch), IX, p. 290.)
Evans, A. G. John Randolph of Roanoke and his slaves. N. Eng. Mag.,
n. 8., V, p. 442.
AsTOR, W. W., E. PiERREPONT, W. T. Sherman, etc. Tributes to Allen
Thomdike Rice. No. Am., cxLix, p. 110.
Rice, Allen Thorndike. Critic, xiv, p. 260.
RiDEiNG, W. H. Allen Thorndike Rice, with portrait. No. Am., cxLVni.
p. 652.
Gladstone, W. E. Allen Thorndike Rice. No. Am., cxlix, p. 247.
Letters of Lieutenant John Richardson, 1776. Pennsyl. M., xvi, pp. 202-
206.
Rittenhouse, David. Pop. Sci. M., xxxvi, p. 835.
Bayard, T. F. Proceedings on unveiling the monument to CsBsar Rodney
and oration delivered on the occasion. Wilmington, pp. 74. 1889.
Unpublished letter of Dr. Benjamin Rush, 1793, contributed by Col.
Charles C. Jones. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvii, pp. 68-69.
Hubbard, J. M. Eugene Schuyler. Nation, N. Y., li, pp. 147, 190.
Aldrich, C. Characteristic order of Gen. Winfield Scott. Mag. Am. Hist.,
xxiv, p. 352.
Sellers, H. W. Extracts from the dairy of Nathan Sellers, 1776-1778.
Pennsyl. M., pp. 191-196.
Seward, F. W. Story of the life of William H. Seward. New York,
Derby & Miller. 3 vols. 1891.
Lamb, M. J. A great public character. Mag. Am. Hist., xxv, p. 349.
TuCKERMAN, C. K. Personal recollections of W. H. Seward. Mag. Am.
Hist., XIX, pp. 499-503.
Grimke, a. H. Robert G. Shaw and his black regiment. N. Eng. M., i,
p. 675.
McClennan, C. Notes on the personal memoirs of P. H. Sheridan. St.
Paul, W. E. Banning, pp. 77. 1888.
Morris, W. O. Memoirs of Gen. P. H. Sheridan. Nation, xlviii, p. 100.
Memorial of P. H. Sheridan from the City of Boston. Boston, City Govt.
pp. 117. 1889.
Sheridan, P. H. Personal memoirs. New York, Webster. 2 vols. 1888.
Burr, F. A., and R. J. HiNTON. Life of Gen. P. H. Sheridan. 1888. Provi-
dence, Reid. pp. 445.
Sherman, R. E. Letters of two brothers. Passages from the correspond-
ence of General and Senator Sherman. Cent. Mag., xlv, pp. 88-100,
425, 892.
Cox, J. D. Gen. W. T. Sherman. Nation, lii, p. 153.
Forbes, J. M. Recollections of Sherman and Porter. Nation, lii, p. 192.
566 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Civil career of W.T. Sherman. Spec, lxvi, p. 721.
Ropes, J. C. Gen. W. T. Sherman. Atlant., lxviii, p. 191.
Little, W. C. The Sherman of early days. Overland, n. s., xvii, p. 358.
Sherman, M. E. Letters of W. T. Sherman. Cosmop., xii, pp. 64, 187.
Gen. Sherman on the Power of the pen. Critic, xviii, p. 116.
Last speech of Gen. Sherman. Cent., xlii, p. 189.
Gen. W. T. Sherman. North Amer. Rev., cxlvi, pp. 416-423.
Clarke, W. B. T. L. Shipman, in memoriam. New London, Starr Conn.
pp.21. 1889.
Journal of Maj. F. Skelly, Charleston, S. C, 1779. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvi,
pp. 152, 392.
Samuel Slater and the cotton industry. N. Eng. Mag., iii, pp.139, 167.
Henry, W.W. Defense of Capt. John Smith. Mag. Am. Hist., xxv, p. 300.
William and Lucy Smith. By H. Loomis. And. R., xiv, p. 25; by N.
Porter, N. Eng., lii, p. 32; by G. S. Merriam, ib., p. 130.
Bell, J. W. Governor W. Smith, of Virginia. New York, Moss Engraving
Co. 1891.
Raymond, M. D. Col. Wm. S. Smith. Mag. Am. Hist., xxii, p. 74.
Adams, H. B. Pioneer work of Jared Sparks. Mag. Am. Hist., xx, pp.
69-74.
Parkman, F. Letters of Washington and Dr. Sparks. Nation, xlvi, p.
136.
Stanton, W. A. Stanton family. A record, genealogical, biographical,
statistical, of Thomas Stanton, of Connecticut, and his descendants,
1635-1891. Albany, Munsell. 8vo. pp. 613. 1892.
Parton, J. Thaddeus Stevens. Chaut., viii, p. 539.
Read, M. The Hon. Francis Aquilla Stout. Mag. Am. Hist., xxviii, pp.
432-450.
McCray, F. T. The life work of the author of Uncle Tom's Cabin. New
York, Funk & Wagnalls. 12mo. pp. (6), 440. 1889.
Stowe, C. E. Life of Harriet Beecher Stowe. Boston, Houghton, Mifllin
& Co. pp. 530. 1889.
Harriet Beecher Stowe. By A. M. Symington. Sunday M., xix, p.
614; W. Lewin, Acad., xxxvii,p. 162; E. P. Allen, Lippincott, xlvi, p.
261; E. P. Anderson, Dial (Ch.), x, p. 336; Sat. R., LXix, p. 324; Na-
tion, N. Y., L, p. 34; Spec, lxiv, p. 266; Ath., i, p. 41.
McCray, E. Y. Harriet Beecher Stowe and Uncle Tom's Cabin. Mag. Am.
Hist., xxiii, p. 16.
Thompson, R. E., ed. Life of George H. Stuart. Stoddard. 1890.
Grimke, a. H. Life of Charles Sumner, the scholar in politics. New
York, Funk «fe Wagnalls. 12mo. pp. (2), 415. 1892.
Battle, J. P. Career of Brig. Gen. J. Sumner. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvi, p
415.
Stoddard, R. H. Bayard Taylor. Lippincott, xliii, p. 571.
Carter, J. C. Samuel J. Tilden. Atlantic Mo., lxx, pp. 433-446.
Hodges, J. Life and character of Samuel J. Tilden. Baltimore, Foley
pamphlet, pp. 19.
Portrait of Mrs. James B. Toler. Mag. Am. Hist., xxiii, p. 108.
Stovall, p. a. Robert Toombs, statesman, speaker, soldier, sage. New
York, Cassell Pub. Co. 8mo. pp. 396. 1892.
I
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY — VINCENT. 567
Hyde, C. H. A historian in color (John Trumbull ). Mag. Am. Hist.
XXVIII, pp. 296-299.
Letter of Gen. B. Tupper to Gen. R. Putnam, 1792. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXV, p. 503.
Tyng, C. R., comp. Record of the life and work of Stephen H. Tyng and
history of St. George's Church. New York City, Button. 1890.
Bancroft, G. Martin VanBuren; to the end of his public career. New
York, Harper «fc Co. 8vo. pp. (5), 239. 1889. (Lit. Digest, i, No. 2.)
Shepard, E. M. Martin Van Buren. (American Statesmen.) Boston
Houghton. 16mo. pp. (6), 398. 1888. (Dial. (Ch.), ix, 100.)
Van Siclen, G. W. Hooper C. Van Voorst, with portrait. Mag. Am.
Hist., XXII, p. 455.
Plarr, V. Sir Henry Vane. Macmil., lxii, p. 450.
Singleton, R. Bishop J. M. Wainright. Mag. Am. Hist., xxiii, p. 481.
Lamb, M. J. M. R. Waite. Mag. Am Hist., xx, pp. 1-16.
Walker, F. A. Amasa Walker. N. E. Reg., xlii, p. 133.
De Costa, B. F. John and Simon Ferdinando Walker in Maine, 1579-'80.
N. Eng. Reg., xliv, p. 149.
Wallack, L. Memories of fifty years. Scrib. M., iv, pp. 411, 582, 719.
Baker, W. S. Itinerary of Gen. Washington from June 15,1775, to Decem-
ber 23,1783. Pennsyl. Mag., xv, pp. 394-428.
Egle, W. H. Letter of Gen. Washington to Joseph Reed, president o
Pennsylvania, 1779. Pennsyl. M., xvi, pp. 83-85.
Writings of George Washington. Edited W. C. Ford. New York, Put-
nam. 14 vols., 8vo. 1889-1893.
Hart, C. H. Original portraits of Washington. Cent. M., xliii, p. 593-
599.
Ford, W. C. The Washington pedigree. Nation, liv, p. 131.
Ford, W. C. The Washington genealogy. Nation, liv, p. 373.
Neill, E. D. The ancestry and earlier life of George Washington. Penn-
syl. M., XVI, pp. 261-298.
Toner, J. M. The youth of George Washington. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvii,
p. 378.
Tyler, J. G. One of Washington's letters. Mag. Am. Hist.,xxviii, pp. 60-
63.
Washington, E. B. The mother and birthplace of Washington. Cent.
Mag., xliii, p. 830-842.
Toner, J. M. Washington and his mother, xxviii, pp. 368-372.
Toner, J. M. Excerpts from account books of Washington. Pennsyl. M.,
XVI, pp. 75-82.
The First Portrait of Washington. Pennsyl. M., xvi, pp. 257-260.
George Washington. Loan Exhibition. Memorial Arch. Critic, xiv,
p. 237.
FoRD,W. C. Forged letters of George Washington. Nation, xlix, p. 427;
Ford, W. C. George Washington as an employer of labor. Nation, XLix,
p. 227.
Cotton, J. S. The English ancestry of George Washington. Accad.,
xxxvi, p. 269; id., Nation, xlix, pp. 306.
Baker, W. S. Rare prints of George Washington, by C. W. Peale. Penn-
syl. M., xiii, p. 257.
568 AMiyMCAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
Letter to George Washington, 1793. Mag. Am. Hist., xxii, p. 506.
Harrison, C . C . George Washington in New York in 1789. Cent. , xxx vii,
p. 850.
George Washington's letters on agriculture to Sir .John Sinclair, 1792-
1797. Mag. Am. Hist., xxi, p. 330.
Conway, M. D. George Washington and Rev. Jonathan Boucher. Lip-
pincott, XLiii, p. 722.
Lamb, Mrs. M. J. George Washington and some of his contemporaries.
Mag. Am. Hist., xxi, p. 273.
Harrison, C. C. George Washington at Mount Vernon after the Revolu-
tion. Cent., xxxvii, p. 834.
Conway, M. D. George Washington. Footprints in Washington land.
Harper, lxxviii, p. 738.
De Peyster, J. W. Portrait of George Washington. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXI, p. 296.
Whitmore,W. H. The pedigree of George Washington. Nation, N. Y.
XLViii, p. 522 ; XLix, p. 53.
Daniel, F. S. A visit to the Washington estate. Harper, lxxvi, pp.
517-524.
Johnston, A. George Washington. Encyc. Britann., xxiv, p. 387.
Hale, E. E. Life of George Washington. New York. Putnam. 12mo.
1888.
Ford, W. C. George Washington, how he became commander-in-chief.
Nation, xlviii, p. 481.
Baldwin, M. M. George Washington and William the Silent. Mag. Am.
Hi8t.,xxii, p.41.
Starbuck, C. C. George Washington. Andover R., xii, p. 221.
Cochrane, J. The unpublished letters of Washington, in facsimile.
Mag. Am. Hist., xxi, p. 119.
Wharton, A. H. The New York residence of George Washington in 1789.
Lippincott, xliii, p. 741.
Hart, C. H. Original portraits of George Washington. Cent., xxxvii,
p. 860.
Signature of George Washington. Science, xiii, p. 316.
Washington's church, 1789-1889. Critic, xiv, p. 131.
Washington Memorial Arch. Critic, xiv, pp. 276, 324; xv, p. 11, 104,
115-315.
Lamb, Mrs. M. J. Washington as President, 1789-'90. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXI, p. 89.
Talleyrand on Washington. Critic, xiv, p. 22.
Lamb, M. J. George Washington. Mag. Am. Hist., xix, pp. 97-113.
Unpublished letters of Washington. Mag. Am. Hist., xix, pp. 114, 162,
255.
Moore, G. H. Washington as an angler. Mag. Am. Hist., xix, p. 144-149
Lamb, M. J. Unpublished portraits of George Washington. Mag. Am.
Hist., XIX, p. 273-285.
Howard, C. H. C. A relic of George Washington. Mag. Am. Hist., xix,
p. 339.
Read, I. M. Diary of George Washington, August, 1781. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XX, pp. 56-60.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY VINCENT. 569
Robin, C. C. A Frenchman's estimate of Washington, 1781, Mag. Am.
Hist., XX, pp. 137-139.
Letters of Washington, 1782-1785. Mag. Am. Hist., xx, p. 140-143.
Lamb, M.J. Inaugration of Washington. Mag. Am. Hist., xx, p. 433; id.,
Portraits of Washington by R. Peale; ih., p. 485-488.
Conway, M. D. Origin of the epithet, "Father of his Country." Mag.
Am. Hist., XX, p. 495.
King, C. George Washington. Un. Serv. M., ii, pp. 9, 179.
Hale, E. E. P. Freneau and Washington. Critic, xiii, p. 49.
Foley, J. B. Outdoor life of Washington. Outing, xiii, p. 99.
Lodge, H. C. George Washington. Boston, Houghton, Mifflin &. Co.,
12mo. 2 vols. (Nation, XLix, pp. 96-114.)
ScUDDER, H. E. George Washington: An historical biography. Boston,
Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 12mo. pp. 423. 1889.
BOWEN, C. W. The inauguration of George Washington. Cent., xxxvii,
p. 803.
McMaster, J. B. Centennial of the inauguration of George Washington.
Harper, lxxviii, p. 671.
Coffin, C. C. Centennial of the inauguration of George Washington.
Chant., IX, p. 401.
Centennial of the inauguration of George Washington. Critic, xiv,
pp. 199, 225.
Washington Loan Exhibition, New York, 1889. Ath., i, p. 702.
Lamb, Mrs. M. J. Story of the Washington Centennial. Mag. Am. Hist.,
xxii, p. 1.
Depew, C. M. George Washington. Oration at Memorial Arch : Our Day,
III, p. 542.
Whitmore, W. H. Rev. Lawrence Washington, of Purleigh. Nation, liii,
p. 275.
Toner, J. M. Wills of the American ancestors of Washington. N. E. Keg.,
XLV, p. 199.
Toner, J. M. Washington as a promoter of inventions. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXV, p. 496.
Conway, M. D. Washington's rules of civility traced to their sources and
restored. New York, U. S. Book Co. 1891.
Prince de Broglie. Pen portraits of Washington. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvi,
p. 439.
Conway, M. D. The earliest Washingtons in Virginia. Nation, lii, p.
235. Td., Washington and the imprisonment of T. Paine; lb., p. 475;
id., Washington and Frederick the Great, with the story of a mythi-
cal sword. Cent., xli, p. 295. Id., English ancestry of G. Washing-
ington. Harper, lxxxii, p. 877.
Plumley, G. S. George Washington at the Columbus Exposition. Mag.
Am. Hist., xxiii, p. 323.
Conway, M. D. Wills of Col. John and his son Lawrence Washington.
Nation, N. Y., li, pp. 477, 499.
Lodge, H. C. G. Washington's conception of America's future. Mag.
Am. Hist., xxiii, p. 160.
Ordway, J. K. George Washington's interest in education. N.Eng.M.,
II, p. 347.
Baker, W. S. Itinerary of George Washington, 1775-1783. Pennsyl. M.,
XIV, pp. lU, 253.
570 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
George Washington's letters in 1775 to his secretary. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXIII, p. 414.
Mead, E. D. The mother of George Washington. N. Eng. Mag., i, p. 449.
Cleveland, E. R. Archibald Robertson and his portraits of the Wash-
ingtons. Cent., xl, p. 3.
Conway's Mount Vernon and George Washington. Nation, N. Y., l, p.
300.
Hart, C. H. Original portraits of George Washington. Cent., xl, p. 26.
George Washington's Visit to New England in 1789. N. Eng. Mag., i,
p. 345.
Washington Memorial Arch. Critic, xvi, pp. 23, 325.
Armstrong, W. Washington relics from private collections. Cent., XL,
p. 14.
Clare, W. Ancestral home of the Washingtons. Eng. lUustr. Rev., viii,
p. 143.
Cleveland, E. R. Portraits of the Washingtons and Archibald Robertson.
Cent., XL, p. 3.
Waters, H.F. Ancestry of George Washington Nation, N. Y., l, p. 93.
Id., Ath., 1890, I, p. 170.
Murray, J. O. Francis Way land (Am. Religious Leaders). Boston,
Houghton. 12mo. (Nation, liii, p. 128.
King, H. An hour with Daniel Webster. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvii, pp. 455-
465.
Wood, W. A. Daniel Webster's visit to Missouri, 1887. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XIX, pp. 513-516.
Sketch of Wm. F. Weld. N. E. Reg., xlv, p. 115.
Knight, A. A. Frances Deering, wife of Gov. John Wentworth. N. Eng.
Mag.,n.8., IV, p. 391.
Washington Ancestry, F. A. Winder, Ath., ii, pp. 99. H. F. Waters, N.
Eng. Reg., xliii, p. 379; xliv, p. 73.
Lamb, M. J. Career of Benjamin West. Birth of the tine arts in Amer-
ica. Mag. Am. Hist., xxvii, pp. 217-222.
Trask, W. B. Letters of Col. Thomas Westbrook. N. Eng. Reg., xliv,
p. 23-352.
Letters of Col. Thomas Westbrook, 1723-'24. N. Eng. Reg., xlv, pp. 28,
267.
Whitman, W. Autobiographia, or the story of a life. New York, C. L.
Webster & Co. 12mo. pp. (5), 205. 1892.
Whitsitt, W. H. Life and times of Judge Caleb Wallace. (Filson Club
Publications, No. 4). Louisville, J. P. Morton. 4to. pp. 151. 1888.
WiLHELM, Baron Innhausen and Knyphausen. Pennsyl. M., xvi, pp.
239-245.
Allen, W. F. Roger Williams. Unita R., xxxv, p. 20.
Banning, H. E. Story of Roger Williams retold. Mag. Am. Hist., xxiv,
p. 312.
Letters of Roger Williams, 1629. N. Eng. Reg., xliii, p. 315.
Waters, H. F. Genealogical notes on Roger Williams. N. Eng. Reg.,
XLIII, p. 295.
Curtis, G. T. Reminiscences of Nathaniel Parker Willis and Lydia Maria
Child. Harper, lxxxi, p. 717.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AMERICAN HISTORY VINCENT. 671
Stoddard, R. H. Nathaniel Parker Willis. Lippincott, xlv, p. 101.
Cook, G. F. James Wilson. Atlan., lxiv, p. 316.
TwiCHELL, J. H. John Winthrop, first governor of the Massachusetts
colony (Makers of America). New York, Dodd, Mead & Co., 12mo.
1891.
CroOker, J. H. John Wise, the forgotten American.
VIII, pp. 393-408.
Andover R., xii, p, 201.
Nation, xlix, p. 27.
Critic, XV, p. 10.
Acad., XXXVI, p. 55.
Mag. West. Hist.,
Character of T. D. Woolsey.
Memorials of T. D. Woolsey.
Memorials of T. D. Woolsey.
Memorials of T. D. Woolsey.
DWIGHT, T
p. 143.
Thayer, T. H
Address at the funeral of T. D. Woolsey. N. Eng. Reg., li,
Theodore D wight Woolsey. Atlan., lxiv, p. 557.
BIOGRAPHY, GENERAL AND COLLECTIVE.
American Ancestry. Albany, N. Y., Munsell. 7 vols. 1890.
Anecdotes of eminent Americans (Franklin, Randolph, Choate, Thad.
Stevens, and Andrew Jackson). Chautauquan, xv. pp. 650-651, etc.
National Cyclopedia of American biography: Being the history of the
United States as illustrated in the lives of the founders, builders
and defenders of the Republic, etc. New York, J. T. White & Co.
8vo. Vol. 1.
Bancroft, H. H. Chronicles of the builders of the Commonwealth : his-
torical character study. San Francisco, History Co. Vols. 3, 4. pp.
(8)650; (9)649.
Bodge, G. M. Soldiers in King Philip's War. N. E. Reg. in vols, xli to
XLV.
Carpenter, F. G. Our chief justices of the bench. North. Am. Rev.
CXLVii, pp. 205-218.
CULLUM, G. W. Biographical register of the ofi&cers and graduates of the
U. S. Military Academy. Boston, Houghton. 1891.
COLLUM, R. S. History of the U. S. Marine Corps. Philadelphia, Ham-
mersly. 1891.
Doniphan, J. A group of Missouri's giant lawyers. Mag. Am. Hist.,
XXVII, pp. 213-217.
Egle, W. H. Sketches of members of Pennsylvania Convention, 1787.
Pennsyl. Mag., xi, pp. 497-500.
Farrar, F. W. America's share in Westminster Abbey. Harper, lxxvi,
pp. 298-309.
Frost, J. Presidents of the United States from Washington to Cleveland.
Boston, Lee & Sheppard. 12mo. pp. 547. 1888.
Gordon, L. L. From Lady Washington to Mrs. Cleveland. Boston, Lee &
Sheppard. 12mo. pp. (3), 448. 1888.
Greene, R.H. Brown University alumni who have held official posi-
tions. N. Eng. Reg., XLiii, p.375.
Greene, R. H. Columbia College alumni who have held official positions.
New Eng. Reg., xliii, p. 311.
Greene, R. H. Alumni of Princeton College who have held official posi-
tions. New Eng. Reg, xliii, p. 47.
572
AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION.
9
Hall, H. Yearbook of the societies of descendants of the Revolution.
New York, Printing Co. 1891.
Heitman, F. B. Historical register of the U. S. Army. Washington, Office
of the Nat. Tribune, pp. 900. 1890.
Herringshaw, T. W. Local and national poets of America. Chicago, Am.
Pub. Assoc, pp. 1,000. 1890.
Jones, C. C, jr. Biographical sketches of the delegates from Georgia to
the Continental Congress. Boston, Houghton, Miflin & Co. 8vo.
pp. (11), 211. 1891.
LossiNG, B. J. Hours with the living men and women of the Revolution;
a pilgrimage. New York, Funk «fe Wagnalls. 1889.
Low, S. Distinguished sons of Columbia College. Mag. Am. Hist., xxv,
p. 249.
Pavey, G. M. a century of United States Cabinet ministers. Mag. Am.
Hist., xxiii, p. 386.
Peabody, a. p. Harvard graduates whom I have known. Boston, Mass.,
Houghton, Miflin & Co. 12mo. 1890.
Prescott, B. F. Portraits of New Hampshire public men : New Eng. Reg.,
XLiii, p. 34.
Rasay, C. E. S. Ancient and honorable artillery company. Mag. Am.
Hist., XXI, p. 456.
Richmond, E.J. The world's women ; or woman first and last, and what
she has done; a collection of biographies of notable and noble
women in every age and country. New York, Hunt & Eaton, pp.
568. 1892.
Schuyler, J. Institution of the Cincinnati. New York, Brentano. 2 vols.
1888.
Smith, G. American statesmen. Nineteenth Century, xxiii, pp. 93-114,
881-892; xxiv, pp. 262-275. Same art. Eel. M. ex, p. 290.
Stephen, L. Dictionary of national biography. (A Mor.) London,
Macmillan. 38 vols.
Stoddard, W. O. W. H. Harrison, John Tyler and James K. Polk (Lives
of the Presidents), New York Stokes, 12mo. pp. (6), 280; id., L. Tay-
lor, M. Filmore, F. Pierce, and J. Buchanan. (Lives of the Presi-
dents), New York, Stokes, 12mo. pp. (6), 104; id. Abraham Lincoln
and Andrew Johnson (Lives of the Presidents), New York, Stokes,
12mo. pp. (8), 357; id., Grover Cleveland (Lives of the Presidents),
New York, Stokes. 12mo. pp. (6), 263. 1888.
Thayer, W. M. From farmhouse to white house. Boston, Earle. pp.
501. 1890.
TowNSEND, V. F. Our Presidents. New York, Worthington. 4to. 1888.
Upton, H. T. Our early Presidents, their wives and children. Boston,
Lothrop. 1890.
Correspondence of Varnum and Putnam, 1788. Mag. Am. Hist, xix, pp.
519-22.
Waters, H. F. Genealogical gleanings in England. A series of articles
in the New Eng. Reg. vols, xli-xlv.
Wilson, J. G. and J. Fiske. Appleton's cyclopaedia of American biogra-
phy. New York, D. Appleton. 1887-^88. 6 vols., 8vo. 1888.
INDEX.
Abnaki names in Maine, 105.
Abnaki words compared with Clii-
nese, 106.
Acadie, Dutch conquest of, 533.
Acland, E. A., 550.
Adair's History of North American
Indians, 420.
Adalbert, Archbishop, 108, 110.
Adalgarus, Icelandic jurisdiction
of, 108.
Adams, C. F., 534, 555.
Adams, Charles Kendall, 4, 12, 517,
554.
Adams, F. G., 548.
Adams, George B., 12.
Adams, Henry, 12, 23, 507, 527.
Adams, Herbert B., 3, 12, 152, 507,
521, 553, 560, 566.
on proceedings of Chicago meet-
ing, 8.
Adams, John, 17, 233, 293, 373, 375,
376, 512, 552.
Adams, John Quincy, 17, 218, 290,
292, 296, 378, 379, 527.
Adams, S., 534.
Adams, Samuel, 373.
Adams, Thomas, Revolutionary let-
ters of, 552.
Addison, towns named for, 41.
Adkins, M. T., 542.
Admire, W. W., 509.
Adzer, Archbishop, of Lund, 109.
Africa, early Portuguese explora-
tions of, 113, 116.
Afric-American, evolution of, 518.
Agapetus, Roman pontiff, 108.
Aikin, W. B., 550.
Alabama,history of education in,544.
purchase, 439.
treaty, 18.
Alamance, battle of the, 422.
Alaska, purchase of, 383, 390.
Albany and Buffalo, early trans-
portation between, 538.
Albemarle, Confederate ram called,
530.
Alcaic, fairs held at, 130.
Alcudia, Duke de la, 345.
Aldrich, C, 556, 560, 561, 562, 565.
Alexander the Great, 121.
Algonkin names in Maine, 106.
Algonquin Indians, 407.
Aliens, government of, 511.
Allan, W., 528.
Allegheny Mountains as boundary
for United States, 339.
Allen, A. V. G., 515, 559.
Allen, J. H., 527, 559.
Allen, J. L., 515, 544.
Allen, S. P., 529.
Allen, W., 543.
Allen, W. F., 570.
Allen, William F., 517.
Allison,* John, 472.
Allston, Washington, life and letters
of, 552.
Alphonso V, King of Portugal, 114.
America, called Columbia, 509.
Confederate States of, 529.
disappointments of, 519.
Dutch in, 524.
English colonists in, 302.
French in, 524.
geographical history of, 523.
historical writing in, 508.
individualism in, 223.
legislative assembly in, 301.
memorial story of, 508.
naturalization in, 319.
Norse discovery of, 523.
pre-Columbian discovery of, 523,
Presbyterianism in, 516.
Reformed Church in, 516.
American Historical Association,
annual reports of, 507, 508.
bibliography of members of, 507,
508.
American colonies, England's strug-
gle with, 524.
American history, a first book in,
508.
American institutions, future of,
511.
American Revolution. (^See Revolu-
tion, American.)
Connecticut loyalists in, 337.
Hessians in, 525.
in the West, 407.
Americans, a composite race, 388.
Ammen, D., 552.
573
574
INDEX.
Andalusia, forests of, 128.
Andr^, Major, John, last days of,
552.
Andrews, C. M., 521, 536.
Andrews, I. W., 545, 552.
Angell, Dr. James B., 3, 4, 12, 507.
inaugural address l)y, 13, 14.
on recognition of diplomatists by
historians, 13.
Anglo-Saxon freedom, 512.
Anglo-Saxon historical literature,
29.
Annexation, commissioners ap-
pointed on, 372.
in United States, 369.
President Cleveland on, 387.
Anthropology, relations of, to his-
tory, 86.
Antinomian controversy, 534.
Appel, T., 564.
Applegarth, A. C, 539.
Appleton, A. I., 507.
Appleton, N., 529.
Arbitration, early New England, 533.
Archer, Congressman, of Maryland,
277.
Archer, Congressman, of Virginia,
269, 270.
Archives, Government, 28.
national, appeal for preservation
of, 32.
national, value of, 27.
Architecture, and democracy, 520.
colonial, of Maryland and Vir-
ginia, 542.
Greek, influence of, 519.
ArgalFs Guifte, representations
from, 308.
Arizona, purchase of, 381, 390.
Arkansas, constitution of, 510.
slavery in, 290.
Armistead, Annie, 477.
Armistead, Rev. Samuel, 477.
Armstrong, W., 570.
Army, Continental, Canadian regi-
ment raised for, 372.
Army of the Potomac, 532.
Army posts, 211.
Arnold, 70.
Arnold, Benedict, treason of, 552.
Arnold, M., 517.
Arnold, Dr. Thomas, definition of
history by, 46, 52.
Art, two phases of, in America, 519.
Artillery Company, Ancient and
Honorable, 572.
Artillery Company, Honorable, 526.
Arts, fine, importance as a study, 83.
Astor, W. W., 565.
Aster's American Fur Company, 203.
Atkinson, E., 510.
Aubiers, Count de la Roche des, 19.
Augusta County, Va., annals of, 543.
Auscarius, archbishop of Hamburg,
107.
Australian voting in Massachusetts,
534.
Azurara, Gomez Eannes de, 114.
Bachman, C. L., 543.
Bachman, Rev. John, 543.
Bacon, quoted, 69.
Bacon, Francis, 395.
Bacon, W. I., 524.
Badeau, A., 558.
Badger, A. J. B., 561.
Badger, H. C, 556.
Bagehot, Walter, 71, 407.
Bahamas, plans for purchasing, 373.
Baillie, Colonel, 527.
Bainbridge, towns named for, 41.
Baird, S. F., 552.
Baker, A. J., 510.
Baker, C. W., 510.
Baker, S. T., 529.
Baker, W. S., 524, 567, 569.
Balch, T., 524.
Baldwin, Congressman, 267.
Baldwin, John, 488.
Baldwin, M. M., 524, 568.
Baldwin, R, S., 517.
Baldwin, Simeon E., 8.
on historic policy of United States
as to annexation, 396.
Ball, John, 155.
Baltimore, city government of, 513.
history of public libraries of, 542.
Bancroft, A. C, 555.
Bancroft, F., 529, 562.
Bancroft, Frederic, 5.
Bancroft, George, 57, 103, 527, 552,
567.
Bancroft, Hubert Howe, 4, 61, 548,
571.
Bancroft, tows named for, 41.
Bandollett, John, 552.
Banning, H. E., 570.
Barbeyrac on treaties, 22.
Barber, A. D., 534.
Barbour, Congressman, on citizen-
ship, 269.
Barbour, Senator, of Virginia, 260,
262.
Barebones Parliament of 1653, 396.
Barnard, C.,518.
Barnes, M. S., 507.
Barrows, S. J., 518.
Barrows, W., 518, 527.
Bartlett, A. L., 532, 534.
Bartlett, C. A. H., 536.
Barton, H. J., 546.
Batchellor," A. S., 537.
Bates, E. C, 535.
Bates, J. L., 561.
Bates, W.C, 521.
Battle, J. P., 566.
INDEX.
575
Baxter, James Phinney, 5, 11,12.
on pre-Columbian discoveries in
America, 103.
Bayard, Thomas F., 565.
Beasley, C. O., on Constitution, 510.
Beaugrand, H., 550.
Beauregard, G. T., 529.
Becher, F. A., on principles of gov-
ernment, 510.
Bedford, Mr., on State representa-
tion, 238.
Beeclier, Henry Ward, 529, 552.
Beecher, Lyman, 225.
Beers, H. A., 555.
Beeson, Jacob, 96.
Belcher, T. W., 552.
Belknap, Jeremy, 552.
Belknap papers, 521.
Bell, C. H., 537.
Bell, J. W., 563, 566.
Bellemont, Lord, 325.
Bender, P., 550.
Benedict, G.G., 536.
Benjamin, Judah Philip, 552.
Benjamin, S. G. W., 557.
Benton, J., 553.
Benton, I. H., on veto power, 510.
Benton, Thomas H., 219.
Benton, towns named for, 40.
Berkley, Governor, 315.
Bermuda, address from, to Congress,
370.
Bermuda, plans for purchasing, 373.
Bermuda Islands, plans to unite
with United States, 371.
Bernheim, A. C, 538.
Beverly, England, revolt at, 157.
Biard, Father, in Maine, 106.
Biarni, the Norseman, 103.
Bibb, A. B., 542.
Bibliography of American biogra-
phy, 552.
American history, 532.
Canadian history, 551.
Maryland history, 541.
Massachusetts history, 534.
New York history, 538.
Pennsylvania history, 539.
Virginia history, 542.
Biddle, H. D., 552.
Biddle, Owen, 552.
Bidwell, J., 548.
Bierrower, Q., 510.
Bierstadt, A., 554.
Bigelow, J.,557. ,
Bigelow, J., jr., 529.
Bigelow, T., 529, 553.
Bingham, S. D., 547.
Binney, C. C, 540.
Binney, H., 560, 561.
Biography, bibliography of Ameri-
can, 552.
cyclopaedia of, 571.
dictionary of, 572.
Birney, James G., 552.
Birney, W., 552.
Bishop, C.E., 558, 559.
Bishop Hill colony, 546.
Black, A., 545.
Black, C. A., 538.
Black, J. W., 542.
Black, R. M., 524.
Blackmar, F. W., 8, 518, 548.
on history of Lawrence, Kans.,
481.
Blackstone on denization, 323.
on social compact, 176.
Blackwell, S. E., 553.
Bladensburg duelling ground, 542.
Blaine, James G., 552.
Blaine, towns named for, 40.
Blake, H. A., 521.
Blake, W. P., 536.
Blatchford, E. W., 11, 12.
Blanca, Count de Florida, 341.
Bledsoe, Col., 464.
Bledsoe, Maj., in Revolutionary war,
425.
Blood, J., 498.
Bloss, William C, 485.
Blount, Senator, of Tennessee, 359.
Blount, William, 439, 446, 448, 468.
Bodge, G. M., 571.
Bodley,J.E.C.,515.
Boilvin, Nicholas, 195.
Bojador, Cape, 120.
Boker, George Henry, 553.
Bolles, A. S., on financial history,
510.
Bonney, Charles C, 9.
Bonsai, L., 527.
Books, historical, making of, 65.
Boone, Daniel, 213, 408, 416.
Boone, Col, A. J., 213.
Booth, John Wilkes, 553.
Borgeaud, C, 510.
Boston, antique views of, 535.
historic burial places of, 535.
fire department, history of, 534.
first owner of, 536.
letter to, 1769, 534.
Norumbega near, 104.
original documents relating to,
534.
schools of, before Revolution, 521.
Unitarianism in, 1820-1850, 516.
Boucher, Rev. Jonathan, 568.
Boundary between Kentucky and
Virginia, 471.
of North Carolina, 448.
southern, of United States, 338.
Bourbourg, Abb6 Brasseur de, 553.
Bourinot, John George, 12, 550.
Bourne, Edward Gaylord, 5.
on Prince Henry, 113.
Boutell, Lewis H., 6, 231, 558.
on Roger Sherman in Federal
Convention, 231.
576
INDEX.
Boutray, E., on constitutional law,
510.
Bo wen, Clarence W., 11, 12, 527, 569.
treasurer's report by, 10.
Bowen, J. E., 553, 559.
Bowen, J.L.,529.
Bower, L. F., 544.
Bowker, R.R.,507.
Bowne, E. S., 527.
Bowyer, J. T., 542.
Boyd, D., 548.
Boyer, Joseph A., 510.
Boynton, H., 524.
Boynton, H.V.,518.
Boys, John, 308.
Brackett, J. R., 512, 518.
Bradford, G., on Congress and the
Cabinet, 510.
Bradley, A. G., 559.
Bradley, J. P.. 563.
Bradley, I. S.;406.
Bradford, William, 553.
Brainerd, David, apostle to Indians,
553.
Brandenburg, Germany, 408.
Bray ley, A. W., 534.
Brentwood, N. H., friends in, 537.
Brett, R., 552.
Brewster, Benjamin Harris, 553.
Brewster, Jonathan, 144.
Brewster, Elder William, 144.
Briarly, Mr., on State representa-
tion, 235.
Bridgewater, England, revolt at,
157.
Bridgman, R. L., 534.
Briggs, C. A., 515.
Briggs, L. v., 534.
Bright, M. H., 508.
Brisbane, William, 553.
British Columbia, antiquities of,
550.
Jackson on, 551.
British invasion of Virginia in 1780,
408.
Britton, W., 529.
Broadley, A. G., 518.
Broadus, J. A., 515.
Brock, R. A., 406.
Broglie, Count de, 526.
Broglie, Prince de, 569.
Bromfield, Henry, 553.
Brookline, records of, 536.
Brooklynites, society of old, 526.
Brooks, E. S., 527, 538, 554.
Brooks, N., 561.
Brooks, W. G., 542.
Brotherhead, W., 540.
Brough, John, 98.
Brown, Alexander, 521.
Brown, Congressman, of Kentucky,
279.
Brown, E., 507, 510.
Brown, G. W., 490.
Brown, John, in Kansas conflict,
495.
Brown, Capt. John, 553.
trial and execution of, 553.
Brown, J. M., 544.
Browne, A. G., 518.
Browne, Nicholas, and descendants,
553.
Browne, W. H., 541.
Bruce, H., 559, 564.
Bruce, P. A., 518.
Bruce, W.C, 518.
Brush, Congressman, 279.
Bryan, E. A., 552.
Bryant, William Cullen, 553.
Bryant, towns named for, 41.
Bryce, Mr., on standing committee,
Bryce, James, 507, 510.
Bryce, L. S., 510.
Brymner, Douglass, 550.
Buccaneers of America, 521.
Buchanan, J., 527.
Buchanan, James, life of, 572.
President, message of, 527.
on Cuban annexation, 382.
Minister, on Clayton-Bulwer con-
vention, 381.
Bucke, Rev. Richard, sketch of, 308.
Buckingham, E, 515.
Buckley, E. P., 540.
Buckley, J. M., 532, 552.
Buell, Gen., 98.
Buffalo and Albany, early transpor-
tation between, 538.
Bullock, Leonidas Henly, 416.
Bullock, W. E., 510.
Bunker Hill, Ainerican prisoners at,
525.
memorial of patriots of, 526.
oration on, 524.
Burgess, J. W., 510.
Burgoyne, Gen. John, 524.
Burke, cited, 168, 169.
Burke, on the social contract, 171.
Burke, W. E., 510.
Burnes, Jacob, 475.
Burney, J., 521.
Burns, towns named for, 41.
Burr, F. A., 565.
Burrill, Senator, of Rhode Island,
260.
Bush, G. G., 518, 534.
Bushnell, C.J., 561.
Bushnell, J. E., 515.
Bute, Fort, 333.
Butler, Gen. B. F., 553.
Butler, P., 553.
Butterworth, H., 561.
Byers, S. H. M., 521.
Byrd, Col. William, 553.
Byron, towns named for, 41.
Cabral, Portuguese explorer, 113.
Cabinet government, 514.
I
INDEX.
577
Cable, G. W, 518, 529.
Cabot, John, landfall of, 523.
Cade's rebellion in England, 158.
Cadillac, La Mothe, in Illinois
county, 192.
Caill^res, as a diplomatist, 20.
Cajori,F.,518
Caldwell, Alexander, 94.
Caldwell, H. C. , 510
Calhoun, towns named for, 40
California, conquest of, 548.
discovery of gold in, 549.
early books of, 549.
first emigrant train to, 548.
frontier advance in, 205.
history of, 548, 549.
New England in, 549.
pioneer families in, 549.
purchase of, 381, 390.
Spanish pioneer houses in, 549.
Calixtus Second, 109.
Calvert, Cecilius, Baron Baltimore,
542, 553.
Calvert, George, 553.
Calvert papers, 542.
Calvin, John, influence of, on New
England, 533.
Calvo, on South American Treaties,
22.
Cambridge, England, revolt at, 157.
Cameron, Alexander, 422.
Campbell, Col. Arthur, 429, 432, 433,
452, 453.
Campbell, D., 545.
Campbell, Douglas, 137.
Campbell, J. A., 529.
Campbell, Col. William, 475.
Canada, address to, by Congress, 370.
agents sent to, regarding annexa-
tion, 371.
annexation of, 388, 551.
archives of, 550.
attitude of French in, 550.
bibliography of history, 551.
Bourinot's history of, 550.
church and state in, 551.
commercial union with, 550.
Congress appeals to, for union,
373.
constitution of, 551.
constitutional history of, 550.
correspondence with, 370.
extent of, 389.
Federal government in, 550.
French, 551.
geography of, 551.
government of, 512, 551.
Jesuit estates in, 552.
Maryland's attitude in struggle
for, 542.
politics in, 550.
provisional government set up,
372.
S. Mis. 104 37
Canada, Romanism in, 550, 551.
slavery in, 551.
Canadian dates, handbook of, 551.
Canadian literature, 552.
Canning, E. W. B., 546.
Canterbury, England, revolt at,
154, 157.
Capital punishment for theft, 94.
Capp, William, sketch of, 307.
earlier, A., 507.
Carlyle, 72.
Carlyle, definitions of history by,
46.
Carmichael, William, commissionei
to Madrid, 344.
Carnachan, J. G., 518.
Came, W. F., 557.
Carolina, settlement of, 202.
Caroliuas, naturalization in, 324.
Carolini, Fort, captured, 336.
Caroudelet, Baron de, 350, 354.
Carondelet, Governor-General, 342.
Carpenter, F. G., 571.
Carrick, J., 534.
Carrington, Edward, 470.
Carrington, Mr., of Virginia, 459.
Carroll, Mr., on State representa-
tion, 241.
Carroll, Anna Ella, 553.
Carroll, Charles, home of, 553.
Carroll, Rev. J., 554.
Carroll, Bishop John, 553.
Carroll County, 191.
C arrow, CD., 515.
Carson, H. L., 510, 527.
Carson, Kit, 213.
Carter, J. C, 566.
Carter, R., 554.
Carter, Robert, life and works of,
554.
Cashey, T. W., 554.
Cass, Lewis, 554.
Castelar, E., 554.
Castile, council of, 125.
Caswell, Governor, 439, 443, 448,
452.
Caswell, H. S., 518.
Catholic democracy in America, 515.
Catholicism in America, 517.
Catholics naturalized, 326.
Cave family, 409.
Centa, campaign of, 117.
Prince Henry at, 120.
Chalmers, quoted, 325.
Chamberlain, D. H., 563.
Chamberlain, J., 518.
Chamberlain, M., 521.
Chamberlain, N. H., 524.
Chamberlain, N. Y., 534.
Chamberlain's administration in
South Carolina, 543.
Chambers, H. E., 507, 543.
Chambrun, A. de, 510.
578
INDEX.
Champernowne, Francis, 533.
Charities directory of New York,
520.
Charles, King, the fifth, 131.
Charles City, representatives for,
306.
Charleston in the Rebellion, 532.
Charleston, S. C, year book of, 543.
Charlestown, Mass, 534.
Charlestown, Va., 94.
Chase, C. A., 562.
Chase, F., 537.
Chase, Salmon P., 554.
Cheney, J. V., 507.
Cherokee Strip, 442.
settlement of, 412.
Cherokees, campaign against, in
1780, 429.
commission to treat with, 433.
in American Eevolution, 407, 420.
Georgia, 543.
languages of, 421.
towns of the, 421.
treaty with, 1775, 416.
uprising of, 460.
Chicago, annual meeting at, 3,.
history of, 546.
Chickamauga Indians, 430.
troubles with, 462.
Chickasaw Bluffs, Ellicott at, 350.
Chickasaw Indians, 420, 435.
treaty with, 436.
Chickasaw Nation, 422.
Child, Lydia Maria, 570.
Childs,G.W., 554,558.
Childs, Susannah, 409.
Childs family, 409.
Chilean difficulty, result of, 508.
Chilhowee, destruction of, 430.
Chinese, discovery of America by,
522.
exclusion of, 518.
in the United States, 521.
Chinese words compared to Abnaki,
106.
Chistowee, destruction of, 430.
Chittenden, L.E., 562.
Choate, Rufus, 554.
Choctaw Indians, 420.
treaty with, in 1786, 447.
Chota, destruction of, 430.
Christian, Major Gilbert, 430.
Christian, Col. William, 424, 432,
436.
Christian doctrine, history of, 69.
scientific study of, 71.
Christian evolution in United
States, 516.
Christian rulers, American, 516.
Christianity in United States, 516.
Prince Henry's labors for, 121.
study of, 74.
Chronology, study of, 86.
Church, W.C., 556.
Church and state in Canada, 551.
English, 182.
Episcopal, history of, 516,
Jamestown, 542.
growth of in America, 515.
histories of, 70.
in the colonies, 515.
Lutheran, 517.
Cincinnati, institution of, 572.
Citizenship, acquisition of, 515.
before Revolution, 319.
in States, 270.
laws of, 515.
Civil government, Fiske on, 511.
Civil rights under State constitu-
tions, 514.
Civil society, rights of, 170.
Clap, Thomas, 554.
Clare, W., 570.
Clark, A. Howard, 12, 507.
Clark, A. L., 522.
Clark, Col., of Sevier's company,431.
Clark, E., 538.
Clark, F. G., 563.
Clark, Gen., 435.
Clark, G. F., 534.
Clark, Rev. Jonas, 554.
Clark, R.H., 515.
Clark, W., 555, 559.
Clark, Walter, 406.
Clark, W.G., 544.
Clarke, George, 538.
Clarke, John, 99.
Clarke, J. T., 554.
Clarke, S. C, 527.
Clarke, W. B., 566.
Clarke, W. N., 556.
Clason, A, W., 529, 540.
Clav, Henry, 254, 272, 274, 276, 393.
called ^'Pacificator," 280.
elected Speaker, 258.
on admission of Maine, 259.
on public domain, 219.
towns named for, 40.
Claypoole, John, 554.
Clayton-Bulwer convention in 1850,
381.
Clement, E.W., bibliography of, 507.
Cleaveland, Benjamin, 411.
Cleveland, E. J., 541.
Cleveland, E. R., 570.
Cleveland, President Grover, 511.
life of, 508.
on annexation, 387.
Cleveland, William, 476.
Clews, H., 529, 554.
Clinch River, battle at, 428.
Clinton, De Witt, 292, 554.
Clinton, towns named for, 40.
Clowes, W. L., 518.
Coan, T. M., 532.
Cobb, Congressman, of Georgia,
amendment by, 271.
Coburn, John, 471.
INDEX.
57!
Cochrane, J., 568.
Cocke, Capt., 445.
Cocker, W. J., 511.
Codman, J., 534.
Coe, D. A., 550.
Coeducation at Oberlin, 519.
Coffin, C. C, 529, 562, 569.
Cohn, M. M., 511.
Coit, J. H., 537.
Colbert-Croiss^, 20.
Colby, J. F., 511.
Coley, J. E., 536.
College, Columbia, alumni of, 571.
Georgetown, 518.
Harvard, duringwar of rebellion,
529.
Princeton, alumni of, 571.
Yale, in Revolution, 525.
William and Mary, founded, 311.
Collin, N., 515.
Collum, R. S., 571.
Colmeiro on mercantile doctrines,
131.
Colonial architecture of Maryland
and Virginia, 542.
Colonial furniture of New England,
533.
Colonial Governments, growth of,
200.
Colonial history, bibliography of,
521-524.
Colonial meetinghouse, 533.
Colonial shires, 512.
Colonial towns of New England,
533.
Colonies, church in the, 515.
first eleven, position of, 369.
naturalization in, 328.
Colonists, domestic and social life
of, 522.
Colorado, frontier advance in, 205.
history of, 548.
Columbia College, distinguished
sons of, 572.
Columbus, Christopher, 521, 523.
and La Rabida, 554.
birthplace of, 555.
in romance, 554.
life of, 524, 554.
monuments, Curtis on, 522.
portraits of, 555.
towns named for, 41.
writings of, 522.
Commerce, and the Constitution,
513.
interstate, 509.
Commissioners on annexation ap-
pointed, 371.
Committee of grievances, 394.
of religion, 394.
on national archives, 4.
standing, origin of, 393.
system of Parliament, 394.
Commons, House of, standing com-
mittee in, 393.
Commons, J. R, 519.
Commonwealth, American, Bryce,
on, 510.
Conant, E., 537.
Condit, U. A., 540.
Confederacy, New England, 138.
Southern, 530.
Confederate army, Watson on, 532.
Confederate prisoners, treatment of,
532.
Confederates, 234.
Confederation, Articles of, 232, 237,
243,371.
Franklin's articles of, 522.
New England, 144.
Congress, and the Cabinet, 510.
first, standing committees in, 393.
first United States, 525, 527.
misrepresentation in, 510.
Congress with Indians of South-
west, 342.
Conkling, F. A., 511.
Conkling, Roscoe, 555.
Connecticut, British invasion of,
536.
Colonial records of, 536.
colony in Louisiana, 336.
colony in New England Confed-
eration, 145.
first settlement of, 144.
history of, 536.
in the Revolution, 536.
loyalists of, durin gRevolution, 336.
naturalization in, 327.
origin of towns of, 536.
representatives from, 240.
river towns of, 521.
slavery in, 536.
town rule in, 536.
Connell, John, 94.
Connelly, E.M., 544.
Connolly, John, 555.
Constitution, commerce and, 513.
compromise of, 233.
English, origin of, 514.
evasions of, 510.
fugitive slave clause of, 252,
genesis of written, 513.
Jefferson's, of Virginia, 542.
Federal, effect of, 374.
Federal, Rhode Island, 538.
Constitution, United States, 181,
184.
annotated, 510.
evolution of, 510.
pamphlets on, 511.
study of, 511.
Constitutional amendments, 514.
Constitutional annotations, 513.
Constitutional history, local, 512,
of United States, 511, 512.
680
INDEX.
Constitutional law, 510, 511.
Constitutional limitations, Cooley
on, 511.
Constitutional science, growth of,
511.
Constitutions, American, 510.
New York State, 538.
State, education in, 512.
Contarini, as a diplomatist^ 19.
Continental Army, Canadian regi-
ment raised for, 372.
Convention, American party, 512.
Clayton-Bulwer, 381.
Federal, debates in, 233,
Conway,M. D., 562, 564, 565, 567, 568,
569.
Cook, F.G., 556, 561, 571.
Cook, J., 515, 518, 550.
Cooley, T. M., 544.
on Constitution, 511.
Cooper, H., 564.
Cooper, James Fenimore, 538, 555.
Cooper, towns named for, 41.
Cooper, Thomas, and descendants,
555.
Cooperation, history of, 519.
Coram, Thomas, 555.
Corbin, D. F. M., 563.
Corbit, W. F., 540.
Cornell University, 520.
Cornwallis, Lord, defeat of, 428.
Cotton, J. S., 567.
Cotton, early exportation statistics,
293
first exported in 1791, 292.
Cotton centennial, 538.
Cotton culture, spread of, 220.
westward extension of, 204.
Cotton gin, invention of, 292.
Coutant, R. B., 507, 524, 560.
Covarrubias, Diego de, 128.
Co wen. P., 518.
Cox, J. D., 529, 560, 565.
Cox, S. S., on Federal legislation,
511.
Coxe,A. C.,511,515.
Cozens, Frederick S., 555.
Craft, William and Ellen, 555.
Crafts, W. A., 559.
Cranch, C. P., 534.
Creek Indians, 420, 435.
■war with, 458.
Crimean war, results of, 20.
Crisman, Isaac, 425.
Crocker, J. H., 518.
Crocker, L. B., 529.
Crockett, David, 560.
Croghan, Col. George, 555.
Cromwell, Richard, 397.
Cromwell's Parliament, 396.
Crook, Gen. George, 555.
Crooker, J. H., 556, 571.
Cross, R. T.. 545.
Crowninshield, B. W., 529.
Crozat, Sieur Anthony, 192.
Crummell, A., 518.
Cuba, appropriation for purchase
of, 382.
Cuba, on annexation of, 379.
Culbertsons Bottom, 415.
CuUom, R. S., 560.
Cullum, G. W., 571.
Cumberland Gap, exploration of,
412.
Cummings, Sir Alexander, 420.
Currie, J. A., 550.
Currier, C.W.,554.
Curry, J. L. M., 4, 12, 527, 556.
Curtis, G., 511.
Curtis, G. T., 570.
Curtis, G. W., 563, 564.
Curtis, George William, 148.
Curtis, R. H., 511.
Curtis, W. E., 522, 555.
Curtis, William E., 9.
Custer, Gen. Geo. A., 555.
Custer battle, 548.
Cutler, Ephraim, life and times of,
555.
Cutler, J. P., 546,555.
Cutler, M., 515.
Cutler, Manasseh, 98, 555.
Dabney, C. M., 518.
Dakota, Indian wars in, 205.
history of, 548.
Dale, Sir Thomas, 305, 310.
Dana, C. A., 529.
Dana, J. D., 558.
Dana, R. H., 534.
Dana, Richard Henry, 555.
Daniel, F., 552.
Daniel, F. S., 568.
Daniel, J. W., 555.
Daniels, G. F., 534.
Danielson, Timothy E., 98.
Dan vers, Mass., inscriptions at, 535.
Dartmouth College, history of, 537.
Darwin, towns named for, 41.
D'Avaux, Count, 19.
Davenport, John, of New Haven
colony, 144.
Davey, R., 555.
Davis, A. M., 518, 534.
Davis, J., 529.
Davis, Jefferson, 551, 561.
Davis, R., 544.
Davis, S. M., 527.
Davis, Thomas, 308.
Davis, W. J., 538.
Davis, Gen. William Richardson,
555.
Dawes, A. L., 522.
Dawes, E.C., 545.
Dawes, H. L., 518.
Dawes bill, and American Indians,
521.
Dawson, H. B.,555.
INDEX.
581
Dean, E. A., 537.
Dean, J. W., 559, 563.
Deane, Charles, 555.
Deans, J., 550.
Decatur, towns named for, 41.
Declaration of Independence, by
Colonial Church, 522.
Pennsylvania and, 540.
De Costa, B.F., 522, 567.
Deering, Frances, 570.
De Forest, H. P., 535.
De Harlay, aa a diplomatist, 20.
DeKalb, towns named for, 41.
Delafield,M.L.,562.
DeLancey, E.F.,524.
Delaware, representatives from,
240.
Scharf's history of, 541.
Delaware Indians, 202.
De Leon, T. C, 529.
De Lolme on Magna Charter, 302.
De Martens, cited, 22.
Deming, C, 527, 536, 553.
Democracy, growth of, 221 ,
Democracy, perils of, 513.
Democratic party, 509.
history of, 508.
Denison, Maj. Gen. Daniel, 556.
Denization, 321, 325.
Denmark, Christianity introduced
into, 107.
De Pauw, Washington C, 556.
De Peyster, J. W., 568.
Depew, Chauncy M., 555, 558, 569.
D'Estaing, Comte, 556.
De Soto, places named for, 41.
Detroit, Hull's surrender at, 527.
De Witt, John, 147.
De Witt, surveyor-general of New
York, 36.
Dexter, H. M., 532, 556.
Dias, Dinis, 116.
Diaz, A.M., 534.
Dickey, J. xM., 554.
Dickinson, John, 231, 232, 2,34, 556.
Didier,E.L.,554.
Diesterweg on history, 49.
Dighton rock, inscriptions on, 103.
Dike, S. W., 519.
Dillard, R., 522, 543.
Dinsmore, L. J., 511, 524.
Diplomacy, American, 507.
Diplomatic history, importance of,
22.
Diplomatics, relations of, to his-
tory, 86.
Diplomats, historical recognition
of, 13.
Diplomatists, important work of, 18.
District of Columbia, history of, 542.
slavery in, 253.
Divorce, abuse of, 517.
reform in, 519.
statistics of, 521.
Dix, Dorothea Lynde, 556.
Doctorate, historical, requirements
for, 80, 84.
Doddridge, Philip, 94.
Dodge, D., 530.
Dodge, Ebenezer, 556.
Dodge, M. A., 552.
Dodge, T. A., 529.
Dodge, William E., 556.
Doherty, E. P., 553.
Domesday Book, 30.
Donelson, John, 435, 439, 440.
Doniol, H., 525.
Doniphan, J., 544, 571.
Donner party crossing the plains,
545.
Doran, J. I., 550.
Dorchester, D., 515.
Dorr war in Rhode Island, 538.
Doubleday, A., 530.
Dougherty, T. H., 538.
Douglas, towns named for, 40.
Douglass, C. H. J., 534.
Douglass, Frederick, 556.
Douglass bill in Congress, 485.
Downes, W.H.,536.
Downs, C.S., 537.
Downs, Will iam, 440.
Dowse, Thomas, 307.
Dragon canoe, 423, 462.
Drake, Sir Francis, 395.
Draper, 70.
Draper, Lyman C, 405.
Drew, T. B., 532, 553.
Drinker, Mrs. Henry, 556.
Drummond furna* e, 193.
Dubbs,J.,519
Dubois, B.H., 522.
Dubuque, Julien, 193, 194.
Dubuque County, 191 .
Duddleston, A. C, 545.
Dudley, Thomas, 144.
Duffy, E., 530.
Dulany, Ann, 556.
Dumont, on Treaties, 22.
Dunbar, C. F., 511.
Dunn, J. P., 546.
Dunmore, Lord, 415.
Durand, J., 525.
Durant, Thomas, 556.
Durfee, W. F., 519.
Dutch conquest of Acadie, 533.
Dutch influence in New England
colonies, 147.
Dutto, L. A., 522, 555.
Dwight, T., 563, 571.
Dwight, T. W., 561.
Dye, Mrs. E. E., 547.
Dyer, C.N., 534.
Dyer,0., 560.
Dykeman, J. O., 522.
Earle, A. M., 533.
Easton, Pa., history of, 540.
582
INDEX.
Eaton, Amos, 556.
Eaton, A. W., 550.
Eaton, A. W. H., 515, 558.
Eaton, I., 552.
Eaton, J., 519.
Eaton, Senator, of Tennessee, 261.
Eaton, Theophilus, 144.
Economic liistory of New England,
534.
Economic Science, study of, 83.
Edenton, tea party of, in 1774, 543.
Edgecote, battle at, 159.
Edmunds, G.F., 511.
Education, development of, in New
England, 533.
higher, in Indiana, 546.
higher, in Ohio, 5 19.
higher, in South Carolina, 520.
in Georgia, 519.
in State Constitutions, 512.
in the South, 518, 519, 520.
Educational institutions, history of,
519.
Edwards, A., 557
Edwards, H., 559.
Edwards, Jonathan, 515, 556.
Eggleston, Edward, 507, 515, 522.
Egle, W. H., 540, 567, 571.
Eldridge, Col. S. W., 498.
Election, Presidential, 511, 512.
history of, 514.
Election law of Pennsylvania, 540.
Elections, English committee, 394,
395.
Electoral college, power of, 277.
Electoral count, law of, 510.
Electoral reform, progress of, 513.
Elk Eidge, as name of town, 35.
EUery, W., 533.
EUicott, Andrew, appointed sur-
veyor-general, 349.
reception of, by Spaniards, 351.
EUicott, J. M., 548.
Elliot, W., 559! ^
Elliots of Kittery, Me., 556.
Elliott, G., 530.
Elliott, Capt. John, 556.
Elliott, O. L., 527.
Elliott, towns named for, 41.
Ellis, G. E., 508, 534, 552.
Ellsworth, Oliver, on Senate suf-
frage, 241.
on slavery, 246,
on State representation, 238.
Elwell, E. H., 537.
Ely, R. T., 511.
Emancipation, before and after, 519.
Emerson, Caleb, 98.
Emerson, G. H., 522.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 556.
Emerson, definition of history by,
46.
on history, 49.
Emerson, towns named for, 41.
Emerton, Ephraim, 5.
on historical doctorate, 79.
Emigration, Thomson on, 521.
to New Brunswick, 533.
Emigrant Aid Company, 483.
Emilio, L. F., 530.
Emmet, T. A., 538.
England, naturalization in, 320.
popular uprisings in, 151.
preservation of archives of, 28, 29.
English, Capt., 413.
English committee system, 394.
English in United States, 301.
English possessions in America, 337.
English revolts of 1381, 158.
of 1450, 159.
of 1469, 159.
Erati language, 421.
Eric, the Norseman, 105.
Ericsson, John, 556.
Erie, Lake, battle of, 527.
Erie, Lake, Perry's victory on, 5*^8.
Erie canal, opening of, 204.
Erving, G. W., 556.
Erving, J., 522.
Escorial, erection of, 132.
Essays, historical, 507.
Estramadura, agriculture of, 126.
forests of, 128.
Etting,F.M.,540.
Eustis, Congressman, of Massa-
chusetts, 269, 271.
Evans, A. G., 565.
Everett, Edward, on annexation of
Cuba, 382.
Ewing, T., 545.
Executive and legislative depiirt-
ments, 515.
Executive departments, develop-
ment of, 512.
Exeter, N. H., history of, 537.
Extradition, international, 514.
Faber, W. F., 564.
Fairchild, J. H., 519, 546.
Fairfield, Conn., history of, 536.
Farmers, pioneer, 215.
Farming frontier, advance of, 206,
211.
Farrar,F.W.,571.
Farwell, W. B., 556.
Fauche, Capt., 470.
Faulin, William, 423.
Federal government, study of, 512.
Federal convention, debates in, 233.
Roger Sherman in, 231.
Federal legislation, three decades
of, 511.
Federalism, English and American,
513.
Federalists, end of the, 292
Ferdinand, King, 127.
INDEX.
683
Ferguson, H., 516.
Fernow, Berthold, 546.
Ferrar, William, 307.
Field, D. D., ou theory of govern-
ment, 511.
Field, H.M., 560.
Fillmore, Millard, life of, 572.
Fillmore, President, on annexation
of Cuba, 381.
Filson Club, celebration by, 544.
Finances, Federal, 510.
Financial history of the United
States, 510.
Finley, J. H., 532.
Finney, Charles Grandison, 557.
Fish, Secretary, 388.
Fisher, George P., 6, 165, 522.
on Jefferson and the social com-
pact theory, 163.
Fisher, J. F., 558.
Fisheries question, American view
of, 552.
Lodge on, 551.
j^ishery rights in North Atlantic,
550.
Fiske, J., 511, 522, 525, 527, 533, 552,
572.
Fiske, Moses, 472.
Fiske, W., 522.
Fitch, G. H., 548.
Fitzgerald, John, 557.
Flassan, cited, 23.
Flag, United States, 561.
Flagg, J. B., 552.
Fletcher, Governor, 325.
Florida, acquisition of, 527.
education in, 518.
history of, 543.
movement of frontier in, 203.
original extent of, 337.
purchase of, 373, 377, 390.
plans to unite with the United
States, 371.
proposed invasion of, 359.
surrender of, 337.
Florida treaty, 17.
Florida, west, 334.
boundary of, 340.
ceded to Spain, 340.
Flour Gap, Va., 417.
Floyd, Congressman, of Virginia,
277, 278.
Fogg, J. S. H., 516, 534, 535.
Foley, J. P., 560, 569.
Foot, Congressman, of Connecticut,
276.
Forbes, A., 562.
Forbes, E., 530.
Forbes, J. M., 565.
Ford, George, 498.
Ford, Paul Leicester, 508, 511, 522,
525 560.
Ford, Worthington C, 508, 511, 522,
527, 567, 568.
Forman, S. S., 527.
Fort Chiswell, Va., 417.
Fort Harrison, in history, 545.
Fort Loudon, 420.
Fort Patrick Henry, 424.
Fort Pitt, 410.
Foster, W. E., 508, 519.
Fotheringham, T. F., 550. •
Fowler, F., 561.
Fowler, J. S., 544.
Fowler, R. L., 525, 563.
Fowler, S. P., 535.
Fox, W. L., 530.
Foy,P.L.,516.
France, preservation of archives of,
31.
France, against annexation in
United States, 374.
Frankfort Company, 1686, 540.
Franklin, Benjamin, 233, 234, 238,
252, 371, 376^ 525, 557.
Franklin, Dr., in Canada in 1776,
372.
Franklin and Jay debates, 16.
Franklin, Sir John, 523.
Franklin, State of, 444, 451, 544.
Franklin's Articles of Confederation
522.
Frasier, F., 561.
Frasier, J. A., 525.
Frazer, J. B., 550.
Freedom, Anglo-Saxon, 512.
Constitutional, 170.
National, history of, 152.
Freedmen, transportation of, 383.
Freeman, Dr., 181.
Freeman, Edward, 137.
Free school system in the South,
520.
Free-soilers, 253.
Frdmont, J. B., 548.
Fremont, Geu. J. C, 556. 557.
explorations of, 549.
fourth expedition of, 549.
in conquest of California, 548.
French, C. W., 562.
French, J. M., 537, 557.
French, Lieut. William, 557.
French Canada, 551.
French in America, 301.
French in Canada, 550, 552.
French-CanadiansinNew England,
533.
French language, study of, 81.
French traders in Wisconsin, 195.
Freneau, P., 569.
Friends in Brentwood, N. H., 537.
Friends in Philadelphia, 540.
Froissart, Sir Jean, 153.
Frontier, American, advance of, 202.
history of, 199.
attempts to regulate, 224.
Frontier, Indian traders, 208.
Frontier, national tendencies of, 219
584
INDEX.
Frost, J., 571.
Frothingham, O. B., 516.
Froude, Mr., 71.
Fry, J. B., 530, 548.
Frye, W. P., 551.
Fulton, C, 508.
Fur trade in America, 545.
Gaffarel, P., 522.
Galena, 111., history of, 195.
Gallatin on Louisiana negotiation,
377.
Gallaudet, E. M., 557.
Gallaudet, T. H., 557.
Galvan, Antonio, 118.
Galvez, Don Bernardo de, 336.
Galwey, T. E., 530.
Gammell, W., 559.
Ganong, W. F., 527.
Garden's Histoire des Trait^a de
Paix, 19.
Gardiner, C. C, 557.
Gardiner, J. B., 98.
Gardiner, Lion, 557.
Gardiner, S. R., 511.
Gardoqui, Don Diego de, 342, 344.
Garfield, towns named for, 41.
Garnett, Thomas, 313.
Garrison, William Lloyd, 557.
Garrison, W. P., 553.
Garrison, W. P., and F. J., 557.
Gates, Sir Thomas, 305.
Gaullieur, H., 519.
Gaylord, Rev. Reuben, 557.
Gaylord, R. E., 557.
Gayoso, Governor, 354, 363.
Geary, Governor, of Kansas, 496.
Genet, Citizen, plans of, 359.
Geography, study of, 86.
Georgia, delegates from, to Conti-
nental Congress, 572.
Cherokee Indians in, 421, 543.
education in, 519.
expansion of, in 1783, 439.
history of, 543.
Representatives from, 240.
settlement of, 203.
University of, 543,
Georgisch, on treaties, 22.
Gerard, J. W., 538.
German influence on colonies, 201.
German language, study of, 81.
German settlements in New York,
202.
Germans in America, 519.
in Shenandoah Valley, 202.
Germantown, battle of, 526.
Germantown, Pa., list of inhabi-
tants in 1809, 540.
Germany, ancient, 408.
freeman in, 152.
Gerry, Elbridge, 234, 240, 246.
Gervinus, definition of history by,
46, 52. ^ ^'
Gettysburg, battle of, 529, 530.
Ghent, pacification of, 139, 140.
Gibbes, Lieut., 308.
Gibbon, 57, 65, 70, 72.
Gibbon, John, 557.
Giddings, E. J., 516.
Giddings, Joshua R., 557.
Gilbert, B., 557,
Gildersleeve, B. L., 516.
Gilman, A., 535.
Gilmore, J. R., 540.
Gilmore, James R., 452.
Gindely's thirty year war, 19.
Gladstone, W. E., 565.
Gladstone on Constitution of Amer-
ica, 137.
Glasgow, James, 440.
Glen, Governor, of South Carolina,
420.
Glenn, J. A., 559.
Glover, A. K., 522.
Gnupson, Eric, 109, 110.
Goes, Damiao, on Prince Henry,
118.
Gomez, on conquest of Guinea, 113.
Gomez, Diego, expeditions by, 116.
Gomez, Dioguo, quoted, 117, 119.
Goncalvez, voyage of, in 1443, 114.
Goode, G. Brown, 12, 519, 522.
Goodloe, D. R., 522.
Goodwin, J. A., 533.
Goodwin, J. J., 557.
Goodwins, of Hartford, Conn., 557.
Goodyear, W. H., 519.
Gookin, E. L., 519.
Gordon, A. C, 530.
Gordon, L. L., 571.
Gos8e,E.,519.
Gottsberger, F., 511.
Gould, E. P., 535, 552.
Gourgainy, Mr., 308.
Government, civil, Fiske on, 511.
Federal, study of, 512.
first principle of, 138.
growth of colonial, 200.
in Canada and United States, 512.
making, Henry, on, 512.
United States, principles and pur-
poses of, 511.
United States, publications, 507,
509.
United States, theory of, 511.
Gracey, L. L., 516.
Grady, H. W., 541, 557.
Grady, Henry W., 558.
Grant and Meade, escape of, 531.
Grant, Gen. U.S., and Potomac army,
529.
life of, 558.
Grant, President, on annexation of
San Domingo, 385.
Grant County, 191.
Graves, Susannah, 465, 476.
Graves, Capt. Thomas, 307.
INDEX.
585
Gray, J. H., 550.
Great Britain, secret treaty with,
in 1782, 340.
trade of, with United States, 527.
Greek architecture, influence of, 519.
Greeley, C, 516.
Greeley, H., 562.
Greeley, Horace, life of, 558.
Greeley on Missouri compromise,
264.
Green, Griffith, 98.
Green, John Richard, 70.
Green, S., 535.
Green, S. A., 525, 533.
Green, S. S., 552.
Green, T. M., 527, 544.
Green Bay, Wis., history of, 547.
Greene, G. W., 558.
Greene, Nathaniel, 558.
Greene, Gen. Nathaniel, 432, 434.
Greene, R. A., 511.
Greene, R. H., 571.
Greenland, Christianity in, 108.
discovery of, 108.
first crossing of, 551.
Norse discoveries in, 106.
Grenville, Lord, 359.
Greenwood, I. J., 564.
Greenwood, J. M., 563.
Greswell, W. P., 550, 551.
Griffin, Appleton Prentiss Clark,
508, 532.
Griffin, G.B., 548.
Griffin, M. J., 511.
Griffin, W., 551.
Griffis, W. E., 508, 558, 560, 564.
Griffith, James, 94.
Grimke, A. H., 535, 557, 565, 566.
Grisby, H. B., 525.
Groseilliers in Dubuque, 191.
Groton, Mass., population of, 533.
Grund, on Americans, 204.
Gryndecobbe, William, 157.
Guernsey, R.S., 538.
Guggenheimer, J.C.,512.
Guilford Court-House, battle of,
428.
Guillemard, Col., 354, 355.
Guillemard, F. H. H., 522.
Guinea, discovery and conquest of,
114.
Guizot, 70.
Guyon, Capt., at Natchez, 363.
Guyot, Prof. Arnold, 558.
Hadley, A., 558.
Hagerman, H., 558.
Haines, H., 552.
Hakes, H., 522.
Hale, E., 516.
Hale, Edward Everett, 522, 525, 533,
560, 568, 569.
Hall, H., 572.
Hall, Henry, 525.
Hall, Lyman, 558.
Halstead, M., 519, 530, 558.
Hamburg, early rules of, 108.
treaty of, 19.
Hamden, Conn., history of, 536.
Hamey, G. L,, 538.
Hamilton, Alexander, 40, 234, 376,
511,558.
Hamilton, Gail, 522.
Hamilton, J. C, 551.
Hamilton, Sir William, definition of
history by, 46.
Hamlin, Hannibal, 558.
Hammack, Daniel, 476.
Hammond, J. W., 537, 557.
Hampden, John, 558.
Hanchach, John, 158.
Hancock, John, 558.
Hanna, Rev. Mr., at Ellicott's camp,
356.
Hannay, J., 551.
Hanno, voyage, 118.
Hanover, N. H., history of, 537.
Hardin, Col. Joseph, 454.
Harding, Chester, 558.
Hare, J. LC, 511.
Harpswell, Maine, 105.
Harriman, Walter, 558.
Harris, J. C, 558.
Harris, Townsend, 558.
Harris, T. M., 530.
Harrison, Benjamin, life of, .508, 530,
558.
on annexation of Hawaii, 387.
Harrison, C. C, 553, 568.
Harrison, Governor, 434, 438, 442.
Harrison, H., 564.
Harrison, S. A., 542.
Harrison, S. F., 523.
Harrison, W. H., life of, 572.
Harrison, William Henry, 253,
Harsha, W.J.,547.
Hart, A. B., 12, 508, 525, 530, 559.
Hart, A. R., 512.
Hart, C. H., 557, 567, 568, 570.
Hart, David, 416.
Hart, Nathaniel, 416.
Hart, Thomas, 416.
Harte, W. B., 551.
Hartford, Conn.,. 521.
Hartley, David, 558.
Hartley, LS., 555.
Hartley, J. W., 558.
Harnack, 74.
Harvard, John, 304.
Harvard College, 137
exhibitions of, 518.
first building at, 534.
Harvard graduates, 572.
Harvey, A., 523.
Haskins, Charles, 6.
Haskins, C. H., 12.
Hatch, Edwin, on Christian history,
73.
586
INDEX.
Haverill, Mass., annals of, 534.
Havana and Florida, 337.
Hawaii, annexation of, 387.
Hawkes, N. M., 535.
Hawkins, Benjamin, 445.
Hawles, Sir John, 167.
Hawley, Joseph, 559.
Hawthorne, J., 519, 559.
Hawthorne, Nathaniel, 559.
Hawthorne, towns named for, 41.
Hay, J., 561, 562
Hay den, H. E., 530.
Hayne, Paul Hamilton, 559.
Haynes, E. C, 525.
Haynes, Governor, 145.
Havward, A. G., 519.
Hay ward, E. F., 525.
Haywood, quoted, 432.
Hazelton, G. W., 527.
Hazard, E.G., 559.
Hazard, Rowland G., 560.
Healy, JohnP..559.
Heard, I. V. D., 547.
Heard, Stephen, 440.
Heath, Gen. William, 559.
Heaton, J. L., 537, 544.
Hebberd, S. S., 547.
Hecker, Father, life of, 559.
Hedge, Henry Frederic, 559.
Hedges, C, 508.
Hedrick, M.A.,530.
Hegel, on history, 50.
Hehn, Victor, 212.
Heitman, F. B., 572.
Helps, A., 554.
Hemphill, J. J., 541.
Henderson, J. C, 560.
Henderson, Richard, of North Caro-
lina, 416.
Hennepin, and history of Minnesota,
547.
places named for, 41 .
Hennepin, map of, 192.
Hendrick, J. R. 530.
Hendrick, W., 538.
Henricus, representatives from, 307.
Henry, of Knighton, 153.
Henry, Patrick, 185, 405, 424, 438,444,
512, 542, 558, 559.
Henry, Prince, as a geographer, 118.
as a scientist, 121.
character of, 120.
results of work of, 119.
the navigator, 113.
will of, 119.
Henry the Fowler, 408.
Henry, W. H. F, 512.
Henry, William Wirt, 4, 7, 12, 301,
406, 466, 542, 559, 566.
on first legislative assembly in
America, 301.
Henshaw, H. W, 548.
Heraldry, relations of, to history, 86.
Herbert, H. A, 540.
Herder, influence of, 71.
Herndon, W. H, 561, 562.
Heron, W., 525.
Herr, G. W., 530.
Herringshaw, T. W., 572.
Hertslet on British treaties, 22.
Hetson, G.R., 551.
Hewes, F. W., 512, 527.
Hiawassee, destruction of, 430.
Higginson, Francis, 559.
Higginson, T. W., 559.
Hildeburn, C. R., 516, 538, 540.
Hildreth, 57.
Hildreth, Samuel P., 98.
Hill, H. A., 516, 555.
Hill, T., 541.
Hiltzheimer, Jacob, 559.
Hind, H. F., 551.
Hinsdale, B. A., 7, 331,.512, 523, 545.
on first Southern boundarv of
United States, 331.
Hinton, R.J., 565.
Historical Congress at Chicago, 3.
Historical doctorate, requirements
for, 79.
Historical literature, notes on, 507.
Historical register of U. S. Army,
572.
Historical societies, bibliography
of, 508. " ^
Historical study, requirements for,
83.
Historian, qualifications of, 89.
History, American, 509.
lessons of, 509.
London archives of, 509.
studies in, 507.
History as arranged by publishers,
61.
as a science, 86.
as biography of society, 53.
as politics of the past, 181.
authorship in, 65.
auxiliary sciences of, 86.
Christian, 73.
church, 516.
constitutional, 509.
cooperative investigation in, 61.
definition of, 45.
degree of doctor of, 80, 81.
politics in, 186.
truth, the criterion of, 49.
United. States, elements of, 509.
Hitchcock^ Rev. Enos, 559.
Hittell, H. T., 549.
Hittell, T. S., 549.
Hoar, George F., 4, 12, 512, 523.
Hoare, Charles, will of, 559.
Hobbes, on social compact theory,
166.
Hodge, M. D., 559.
Hodges, J., 566.
Hogg, James, 416.
Hogun, Gen. James, 559.
INDEX.
587
Holland and Massachusetts Bay
Comi)anies, 532.
Holland, influence of, on New Eng-
land, 144.
Holley, W. W., 519.
Holloway, W. R., 532.
Holmes, 57.
Holmes, Congressman, of Massachu-
setts, 259, 262.
Holmes, Lieutenant, 144.
Holmes, Mr., of Massachusetts, 291.
Holstein, Marquez de Souza, 113.
Hood, Capt., 413.
Hooker,. doctrine of, 165.
Hooker, on origin of society, 173.
Hooker, Thomas, 144, 145.
Hopewell, treaty of, 436, 442.
Hopkins, A. G., 538.
Hopkins, Mark, 559.
Hopkins, Samuel, 559.
Horsford, E. N., 523.
Hosmer, J. K., 508, 512.
House of Kepresentatives, rules of,
514.
Speaker's power in, 513.
Houses, historical, 525.
Houston, Sam, 559.
Houston, W., 551.
Howard, C. H. C, 568.
Howard, G. E., 512.
Howard, John, 559.
Howard, J. R.. 552.
Howard, O. O., 549, 555.
Howard, T. D., 519.
Howe, H., 546.
Howe, S. C, 559.
Howe, Samuel G., 385.
Howe, W.W., 544.
Howison, R. R., 542.
Howland, K.M.,527.
Howland, O. A., 551.
Howley, F. M., 551.
Howley, M.F.,523.
Hubbard, J. M., 565.
Hudson, places named for, 41.
Hudson, William, 559.
Hudsons Bay, 551.
Huffcut,E.W.,519.
Huguenot Society of America, 508.
Hughes, Archelus, 476.
Hughes, Sally, 476.
Hughes, Reuben, 477.
Humboldt, towns named for, 41.
Humes, T.W., 544.
Humphrey, F. A., 533.
Hunnewell, J. F., 525, 535. ^
Hunniwell, James F., 313.
Hunt, G., 527.
Huntington, Gov. Samuel, 93.
Huntoon, D. Y. V., 535.
Hurd, J.,512.
Hurlbut, Capt. George, 560.
Hutchinson, Anne, 560.
Hutchinson, E. M., 521.
Hutchindon, G. W., 498.
Hutchinson, H. H., 549.
Hutton, Richard, 395.
Hyde, C.H., 567.
Hy8lop,J.H.,560.
Iceland, Norse colonization of, 107.
Icelandic discovery of America, 522.
lies, G., on liquor question, 512.
Illinois, early lead mining in, 191.
histories of, 546.
Indians of, 192.
lead mines in, 191.
march of Spaniards across, 338.
movement of frontier in, 203.
Impeachment trial of President
Johnson, 531.
Independence, Declaration of, 173.
delay in adopting, 373.
in Georgia, 524.
Independence, Mecklenburg decla-
ration of; 526.
Independence Hall, history of, 540.
Indiana, histories of, 546.
march of Spaniards across, 338.
movement of frontier in, 203.
Indiana Historical Society, 546.
Indian education, 518.
Indian Territory, Dawes on, 522.
wars in, 205.
Indian trade in Wisconsin, 547.
Indian traders' frontier, 208.
Indian trading posts, 210.
Indian treaties of the United
States, 448.
Indian wars in Dakota, 205.
Indians, Algonquin, 407.
American, and the Dawes bill, 521.
British agents among, 422.
Cherokee, 407, 420.
Congresses held with, in 1784, 342.
in American Revolution, 407, 420.
frontier life of, 201.
future of, 523.
Iroquois, 209, 407, 518.
Sac and Fox, 195.
Shawnee, at war in 1774, 415,
Industrial independence, 216.
Industries, historical, 57.
Ingersoll, Jared, 560.
lugersoll, R. G., 555, 564.
Innes, A., 554.
Institutions, early Germanic, 183.
Insurrection, punishment for, 95.
Intellectual traits, 226.
International extradition, 514.
Interstate Commerce Commission,
512.
Interstate commerce law, 514.
Iowa, history of, 547.
free schools in, 185.
Iowa County, 191.
Iredell, James, on rejection of Con-
stitution, 375.
588
INDEX.
Ireland, Parliament committees for,
396.
Irish emigrants in Minnesota, 547.
Irish in America, 519.
Irish vote in United States, 519.
Iroquois Indians, 209, 407.
Irving, Washington, 560.
towns named for, 41.
Irwin, R. B., 530.
Isabella, Qneen, 127.
Isham, A. B., 530.
Islef, bishop of Scaltholtd, 110.
Israel, Joseph, 98.
Italian immigration, 520.
Italians in United States, 521.
Italy, historical archives of, 31.
Izard, Gen. G., 560.
Jackson, Gen. Andrew, 41, 378, 560.
Jackson, Claiborne F., 491.
Jackson, G. A., 535, 543.
Jackson, George E., 195.
Jackson, Gen. Plenry, 560.
Jackson, John, sketch of, 308.
Jackson, M. A., 560.
Jackson, S., 551.
Jackson, Stonewall, 560.
Jackson, Gen. T. J., 560.
Jacquerie in France, 151.
Jamaica, memorial to King from,
371.
James City, representatives for, 306.
Jameson, J. Franklin, 8, 508, 512.
on origin of standing committees,
393.
Jamestown, Va., council at, 303.
Jamestown, witch of, 542.
Jay, John, 12, 342, 343, 560.
at Madrid in 1779, 338.
on diplomatic history, 23.
on education in American history,
519.
treaty by, in 1795, 292, 359.
Jay, William, 560.
Jayme of Majorca., 119.
Jefferson, Joseph, autobiography of,
560.
Jefferson, S., 554.
Jefferson, Thomas, 173, 174, 344, 376.
administration as President, 390.
on social compact theory, 165.
on University of Virginia, 560.
Governor, 443.
letters by, 174, 175.
letter from, about Cuba, 380.
life of, 560.
on annexation of Cuba, 379.
on equal rights, 386.
purchase of Louisiana by, 377.
towns named for, 41.
Jekyl, Sir Joseph, 167.
Jenkins, C. F., 554.
Jenkins, Sir Leoline, 20.
Jenkins, H. M., 540.
Jenks, E., 512.
Jersey, East, naturalization in, 324.
Jesuit estates in Canada, 552.
Jesuit estates act in Canada, 550.
Jews in United States, 518.
Jews naturalized, 326.
Jillson, C, 533.
Jo Daviess County, 191.
John of Gaunt, of England, 158.
Johns Hopkins University, 137.
Johnson, Andrew, 560.
life of, 572.
impeachment trial, 531.
on annexation of St. Thomas, 384.
Johnson, A. E., 533.
Johnson, E. R., 512.
Johnson, Col. James, 195.
Johnson, R., 512, 530.
Johnson, R. N., 530.
Johnson, Robert, 471.
Johnson, Sir William, 560.
Johnson, W. S., 236.
Johnston, A., 508, 512, 536, 568.
Johnston, Alexander, 560.
Johnston, F., 542.
Johnston, Governor, 455, 456.
Johnston, Gen. Joseph E., 560.
Johnston, Peter, 472.
Johnston, R. M., 554.
Johnston, William, 416.
Johnston, William Preston, 45.
on the definition of history, 45.
Jonas, An grim, 107.
Jones, A. T., 508.
Jones, C. C, 543, 558, 564, 565.
Jones, C.C, jr., 543, 572.
Jones, C. E., 519.
Jones, Col. John, 561.
Jones, John Paul, 561.
Jones, Dr. Thomas P., 561.
Jordon, Samuel, sketch of, 307.
Journalism, English and American,
519.
Joutel, 192.
Julian, G. W., 557.
Jurisprudence in American Univer-
sities, 519.
Justice, administration of, 514.
Kanawha River, settlements on, 202.
Kansas, handbook of, 509.
history of crusade in, 548.
and Nebraska bill, 485.
. conflict, history of, 481.
Kasson, F. H., 559.
Kaw, valley of the, 482.
Kay, S. A. M., 516.
Kelly, Alfred, 561.
Kelly, T. L., 553.
Kelley, M. E., 525.
Kemble, Col. Stephen, 539.
Kennedy, Col., 454.
Kennedey, J. H., 516.
Kenton, Simon, 561.
INDEX.
589
Kentucky, and Virginia boundary,
471.
an independent State, 285.
centenary of, 544.
frontier of, 202.
historic families of, 544.
history of, 544.
pioneer press of, 545.
purchase of part of, 416.
Trappist monks in, 515.
Kiccowtan, Va., called Hampton,
311.
representatives from, 307.
King, C, 555, 569.
King, George, 477.
King, H., 570.
King, Hon. John A., 12.
King, Mr., on State representation,
240.
on antislavery question, 287.
King, E., 546.
King, Rufus, 264, 284, 287.
King Philip's war, 571,
Kingsford, W., 551.
Kingsley, definition of history by,
46, 52.
Kingsley, L., 525.
Kingsley, W. L., 512, 533.
Kings Mountain, battle of, 409, 411,
423.
Kings Mountain campaign, 427.
Kinsey, Congressman, of New Jer-
sey, 262, 263.
Kird, t. H., 547.
Kirk, J. W., 519.
Kirkland, J., 528, 546.
Knickerbocker in Connecticut Val-
ley, 536.
Knight, A. A., 570.
Knight, E., 558.
Knight, G. W., 519.
Knight, Capt. Nathaniel, 561.
Knortz, K., 519.
Knox, Gen., towns named for, 41.
Knox, Secretary, 461.
Knox, T. W., 530.
Knoxville, Tenn., 426.
Knyphausen, Baron, 570.
Koch on treaties, 22.
Kohlrausch's history of Germany,
19.
Kosciusko at Saratoga, 31.
Kriehn, George, 6, 151.
on English uprisings in the mid-
dle ages, 151.
Kulp, G. P., 540.
Ladd, H. O., 549.
Lafayette, Marquis de, 341.
towns named for, 41.
Lafayette County, 191.
La Hontan, journals of, 191.
Lalmos, Manuel Gayoso de, 351.
Lamb, Mrs. Martha J., 508, 519, 523,
526, 539, 544, 546, 552, 553, 554,
563, 564, 565, 567, 568, 569.
Lamson, D. F., 533.
Land in Western United States, 213.
Landed rights in England, 152.
Land sales in Transylvania, 418.
Landon, J.S., 512.
Landlords and tenants in England.
160. '
Larrabee, Capt. A. A., 561.
La Salle, homestead of, 561.
places named for, 41.
Las Casas, narrative of, 522.
Lathrop, G. P., 564.
Latin, study of, 81.
Latrobe, F. C, 513.
Laugel, A., 528.
Laurens, Henry, to John Adams,
573.
Laurens, letters of, 561.
Laveleye, E. de, 513.
Law, John, 192, 561.
Lawley, F., 552.
Lawne, Capt. Christopher, 308.
Lawrence, Amos, 561.
Lawrence, Amos A., 486.
Lawrence, W., 561.
Lawrence, Kans., appeal for charter
by, 497.
disputed title to, 489.
history of, 481.
Laws, poor, of England, 160.
Lea, J. H., 561, 564.
League, Hanseatic, 130.
Lebanon, N. H., 537.
Lecky, 70.
Leclerc, M., 519.
Le Conte, J., 518.
Lee, A. E., 530.
Lee, Gen. Charles, 524.
Lee, Governor Henry, 470.
Lee, J. H., 564.
Lee, Robert E., 561.
Lee, R. H., letter to, 467.
Lee, Richard H., 561.
Lee, Richard Henry, 173.
Lee, Thomas Sims, 561.
Lee family, 561.
Lefroy, A. H. F., 513.
Legal dictionary of United States,
510.
Legar6, secretary, on Hawaiian
Islands, 387.
Le Guis, on early lead mining, 193.
Leif, the Norseman, 103.
Leipsic, fairs at, 130.
Leland, C. G., 553.
Lemmon, L., 519.
Leonard, D. L., 516, 528.
Lerch, C.H., 556.
Le Seuer at Mississippi lead mines,
192.
Lessing, influence of, 71.
590
INDEX.
Levermore, C. II., 536.
Lewin, W., 559.
Lewis, G., 531.
Lewis, Governor Meriwether, 561.
Lewis, V. A., 543.
Lewis, William, 561.
Lewis family, 409.
Lexington, steamboat, burning of,
528.
Liberia, blacks transported to, 383.
history of, 519.
Liberty, civil and religious, 533.
Liberty party, 252.
Libraries, public, of Baltimore, 542.
Lightfoot, 74.
Lillie, L. C, 519.
Lincoln, Abraham, assassination of,
530, 561.
boyhood of, 561.
early home of, 561.
history of, 561, 562.
humor of, 562.
life of, 572.
on transportation of blacks, 383.
Lincoln, Obadiah, 98.
Lincoln, William, 562.
Lindsey, C, 551.
Link, S. A., 559.
Linn, J. B., 516.
Linn, Dr. Lewis F., 562.
Liquor law in Kansas, 487.
Liquor question in politics, 512.
Liston, Mr., British minister, 359.
Literature, American, library of,
521.
Literature, early American, 519.
Literature in the South, 520.
Little, Charles J., 5, 69, 560.
on history of Christian doctrine,
69.
Little, W., 537.
Little, W.C, 566.
Littestere, John, 158.
Livermore, Congressman, of New
Hampshire, 274, 276.
Livingston, 376.
Livingston, E. B., 562.
Livingston, Col. Henry Beekman,
562.
Livingston, James, 562.
Livingston, Philip, 562.
Livingstons of America, 562.
Lloyd, H. W., 540, 559.
Lloyd, W.H.L., 519.
Local history, bibliography, 532.
Locke, D.R., 562.
Locke, John, 171, 172, 173.
Locke, on social compact theory,
165.
Locke, quoted, 174.
Lockhart, A. J., 549.
Lodge, Henry Cabot, 508, 513, 519,
535, 551.
Logan, John A., 531.
Logan, J. H., history of South Caro-
lina, 421.
Log College, Pennsylvania, 540.
Lollard revolts in England, 158.
London, march against, in 1381, 154.
London company, petition to, 309,
314.
Long, John D., 531.
Longfellow, 57.
Longfellow, S., 562.
Longfellow, H. W., life of, 562.
Long Island Flats, battle of, 423.
Long Island of Holston, 416.
Longueville, Due de, 19.
Lookout Mountain, 463.
Loomis, Elias, memoir of, 562, 563.
Loomis, H., 566.
Lord, Abner, 96, 98.
Loria, Italian economist, 207.
Loring, George B., 564.
Lossing, B. J., 508, 539, 572.
Louisburg, 523.
Louisburg, once famous, 550.
Louisiana, Connecticut colony in,
336.
history of, 544.
movement of frontier in, 203.
Pike's expedition to, 545.
proclamation of governor of, 354.
purchase of, 377, 390, 528, 544.
Spanish possession of, 337.
treaty with France, 253, 286.
Love, J. M., 551.
Lovejoy, G. N., 552.
Lovett, R. M., 528.
Low, Seth, 572.
Lowell, C. R., 513.
Lowell, J. R., 531, 563.
Lowell, James Russell, 563, 564.
Lowndes, Mr., of South Carolina,
262, 263, 266, 270, 291.
Loyalists, and their fortunes, 508.
Connecticut, suft'erings of, 337.
in Louisiana, 336.
in New Brunswick, 551.
Lucas, Sarah, 410, 475.
Luchsinger, J., 547.
Ludlow, Lieut. A. C, 563.
Ludlow, J. M., 516.
Ludwig, Christopher, 563.
Lugrin, C. H., 551.
Lundy's Lane, battle of, 527.
Lunig, on Italian treaties, 22.
Lum, Rev. S. Y., 487.
Luttrell, John, 416.
Lyman, on diplomatic history, 23.
Lyman, Gen., American loyalist,
337.
Lyman, Gen. Phineas, 333.
Lyman, Thaddeus, 333.
Lynch law, 513.
Lyon, I. W., 533.
McCarthy, Justin, 20.
INDEX.
591
McClennan, C, 565.
McClellan, Gen., 563.
McClintock, J.N., 537.
McClure, A. K., 562.
McClure, P.F.,548.
McConnell, S. D., 516.
McCook,H.C., 556.
McCord, F. A., 551.
MacCoun, T., 508.
McCray, E. Y., 566.
McCray, F. T., 566.
McCurioch, H., 563.
McDonald, Z., 523.
McDowell, Ephraim, 563.
McDowell, Gen., 454.
McGehee, M., 549.
McGillivray, chief of Creeks, 458,
466.
Mcintosh, Lachlan, 445.
Mcintosh, Lachlin, jr., 440.
McLane, Congressman, of Del-
aware, 269.
MacLean, J. P., 523.
McLaughlin, A. C, 547, 554.
McMaster, J. B., 12, 509, 513, 531, 545,
557, 569.
McMichael, Lieut. James, diary of,
563.
McMichael, W. P., 563.
McPherson, E., 513.
McPherson, J. H. T., 519.
Mabil, H. W., 508.
Macaulay, 57.
Macaulay, on social compact, 167.
Mack family, 409.
Mackay, J.,535.
Mackintosh, on social compact, 167.
Mallay, E. S., 526, 528.
Maclay, W., 528.
Macy, Jesse, 6, 181.
Madison, James, 234, 238, 240, 376.
on relation of history to politics,
181.
Madison, letter from Jefferson to,
174.
Madison, towns named for, 41.
Madrid, forests of, 127.
Magellan, Ferdinand, life of, 522.
Magna charta of England, 166, 184.
Maii, Cardinal, 31.
Maine, admitted as a State, 258, 264.
documentary history of, 537.
history of, 537, 538.
Maine bill, amendments to, 261.
Maine Historical Society, 106.
Maine liquor law in Kansas, 487.
Maine wills, 1640-1760, 537.
Major, R. H., on Prince Henry, 113,
119.
Manassas, battle of, 529.
Manchester, records of, 536.
Manhattan as name for New York,
40.
Manhattan Island, history of, 538.
Manigault, G. E., 560.
Manley, D., 516.
Mann, H., 563.
Manshac, bayou, 333.
Maps, on American history, 508.
Marco Polo, 118.
Marcy, Secretary, 23, 387.
Marietta, Ohio, fugitive slave at, 96.
Marietta colony of 1788, 545.
Marine, W. M., 531.
Marine Corps, U. S., history of, 571.
Marion, Gen. Francis, 563.
Marion, Gen., towns named for, 41.
Marion, Md., settlers of, 542.
Markham, A. H., 523.
Marquette, journals of, 191.
places named for, 41.
Marquis of Lome, 551.
Marriage and divorce statistics, 521.
Marsh, C. C, 563.
Marsh, G. P., life of, 563.
Marshall, Chief Justice John, 563.
Marshall, John, on acquisition of
land, 377.
Martin, A., 513.
Martin, Alexander, 477.
Martin, Brice 472, 476.
Martin, Elizabeth, 476.
Martin, George, 409, 477.
Martin, Governor, 442, 443.
Martin, Jesse, 477.
Martin, John Calvin, 477.
Martin, Capt. Joseph, 420.
Martin, Col. Joseph, 476.
Martin, Gen. Joseph, 405.
and war of the Revolution in the
West, 407.
on boundary commi8sions,471, 472.
and the Spaniards, 465.
as Indian agent, 425.
early years of, 409.
marriage of, 410.
Martin, Louis, 477.
Martin, Luther, 234, 236, 243.
Martin, Martha, 476.
Martin, the historian, 349.
Martin, Nancy, 409, 476.
Martin, Patrick Henrv, 477.
Martin, Polly, 476, 477.
Martin, Sally, 477.
Martin, Susannah, 475.
Martin, Thomas W. 477.
Martin, William, 4^5, 417, 409, 432,
475.
Martin family, 408, 474.
Martin's Hundred, representatives
from, 308.
Martins Station, settlement of, 414.
Marty n, C, 564.
Maryland, bibliography of history
of, 541.
church and State in, 516.
committee system in, 398.
naturalization in, 327.
592
INDEX.
Maryland, negro in, 518.
representatives from, 240.
slavery in, 253.
special legislation in, 326.
Maryland Council of Safety, 1775,
541.
Maryland's attitude in struggle for
Canada, 542.
Mason, E. C, 513.
Mason, Edward G., 12.
Mason, G. C, 516.
Mason, George, 173.
Mason and Dixon's Line, 294.
Massachusetts, bibliography of his-
tory of, 534.
financial history of, 534.
Fort, site of, 535.
in New England Confederation,
145.
in war of rebellion, 529.
naturalization in, 326.
representatives from, 240.
story of, 535.
witchcraft in, 535.
Massachusetts Bay and Holland
Companies, 532.
Massachusetts Emigrant Aid Com-
pany, 483.
Massachusetts Historical Society,
Centenary of, 534.
Massacre, Chicago, 528.
Mather, Cotton, 563.
Mather, F. G., 516.
Mathew, W., on negro dialect, 520.
Mathews, Governor, of Georgia, 434,
468.
Mathews, W. S. B., 520.
Matthias, Arch-duke, 139, 141.
Maunsell, Lieut. Gen. John, 563.
Maury, M. F., life of, 563.
Maxwell, S., 513.
Maycock, Capt. Samuel, 306.
Maynard, Mrs. N. C, 562.
Mayo, A. D., 520.
Mays, T. J., 523.
Mazarin, 19.
Mead, E. D., 533, 558, 564, 570.
Meade and Grant, escape of, 531.
Mediaeval history, study of, 84.
Mediaeval revolutions, 151.
Medina del Campo, fairs held at, 130.
forests of, 127,
Medina de Rioseco, fairs held at, 130.
Meigs, Jonathan, 563.
Meigs, M. C, 509.
Mellich, A. D., 526, 541.
Mendenhall, J. W., 513.
Mercer, Congressman, of Virginia,
263.
Mericoneag, Me., 105.
Meriwether, Colyer, 520.
Merrian, H.B.,516.
Merriara, J. M., 535, 545.
Merriam, L. S., 544.
Merrill, Gyles, ancestors of, 563.
Merriman, T. M., 523.
Merry, W, L., 549.
Merwin, H. C, 513.
Mesta, council of, 126.
Methodism in Pennsylvania, 515.
Mexican war, Connecticut men in,
536.
Mexico, mines of, 337.
Meyer, Annie N., 520.
Michigan, biography of eminent
men of, 547.
history of, 547.
march of Spaniards across, 338.
Michigan pioneer collections, 547.
Michener, H. C, 540.
Middle Ages, English uprisings in,
151.
Migne's Patrology of the Latin
Fathers, 109.
Mikkelsen, M. A., 546.
Miller, Gen. Henry, 563.
Miller, S. F., 513, 547.
Mills, J. W., 513.
Milford, Conn., history of, 536.
Milman, 70.
Milton, 58.
Milton, towns named for, 41.
Milton, Mass., deaths in, 535.
Mining frontier, social conditions
of, 206.
Minnigerode, C, 555.
Minnesota, early history of, 547.
Indian wars in, 205.
Irish emigrants in, 547.
Minor family, 409.
Minorities, ruling by, 521.
Miro, Governor, of Louisiana, 342.
Missionary activity, 225.
Mississippi, recollections of, 544.
Mississippi River, act of Congress
concerning, 366.
contest for, between England and
Spain, 341, 342,
free navigation of, 338.
Georgia's claim to, 364.
right of United States to, 347.
use of, 347.
Mississippi Valley, farming frontier
in, 206.
French possessions in, 337.
lead in, 191.
Missouri, L., 547.
Missouri, constitution adopted, £65.
history of, 547.
lead mines in, 191.
movement of frontier in, 203.
on admission of, 273.
slavery in, 263, 283.
Missouri bill, amendment to,257, 258.
Missouri committee, report of, 273.
Missouri compromise, 251, 258, 262.
significance of, 289.
Mitchell, Zerviah Gould, 563.
INDEX.
593
Mohawk River, settlements on, 202.
Monarchy, divine origin of, 166.
Monks, trappist, in Kentucky, 515.
Monmouth, battle of, 526.
Monopolies, Baker on, 510.
Monro, J. E.G., 551.
Monroe, James, elected President,
278.
Monroe, President, letter from Jef-
ferson to, 380.
Monroe, towns named for, 41.
Monroe doctrine, 514.
Montana, constitution of, 549.
history of, 548.
Montefiore, A., 520.
Montesquieu and Rousseau, 166.
Montgomery, Gen., terms named for,
41.
Monument to the Pilgrims, 521, 532.
Moody, G., 563.
Moody, J. A., 523.
Moore, C, 545.
Moore, Sir George, 395.
Moore, G. H., 520, 535, 568.
Moore, M. V., 528.
Moore, Si- William, 395.
Moran,r.E., 531.
Morey,W,C., 513.
Morgan, James Appleton, 563.
Morgan, J. S., 520.
Moriscos, overthrow of the, 125.
Mormonism, history of, 516.
Morrill, J. S., 551. •
Morris, G., 531,563.
Morris, Gouverneur, 234, 240, 241,
375, 376, 563.
Morris, J. J., 539.
Morris, Robert, letter of, 563.
Morris, W. O., 565.
Morse, A. D., 528, 558.
Morse, John, 440.
Morse, J. T., 557.
Morton, L. P., 558.
Moses, B., 549.
Moses, Bernard, 6.
on Spain in 16th century, 125.
Moses, J., 547.
Motley, 57, 65.
Motley, John Lothrop, 563, 564.
Mount Vernon convention, 1785, 542.
Mowry,A.M.,533.
Muhlenberg, Dr., 564.
Mumps, William, 418.
Munson, L. E., 528, 548.
Miinster, congress at, 16, 18.
Murphy, V. R., 545.
Murray, J. O., 570.
Muter, Col. George, 431.
Myers, F. A., 561.
Nansen, F., 551.
Napoleon 1, 528.
Natchez, evacuation of, by Span-
iards, 364.
S. Mis. 104 38
Natchez, governor of, 351.
population of, 353.
Surveyor-General Ellicott at, 351.
United States troops at, 363.
Nationalists, 234.
Nationality, composite, 215.
National legislation, effects on, 217.
Naturalization in America, 319, 321.
in England, 320.
in Maryland, 327.
in New Jersey, 327.
in New York, 327.
in Pennsylvania, 327.
in Rhode Island, 327.
Navassa, island of, discovery of, 383.
Naumkeag, etymology of word, 105.
Navigation, steam, progress in, 519.
Navy, American, victories in, 526.
Nagle, David, 514.
Nebraska, University of, 137.
Necho, Pharaoh, 118.
Negro, and Republican party, 519.
history of the, 531.
in America, 521.
introduction into United States,
541.
Negro conflicts in South Carolina,
520.
Negro dialect, 520.
Negro problem, 518.
Negro question in America, 520.
Negro voting, Williams on, 521.
Negroes, future of, 520.
in the civil war, 531.
progress among, 520.
Neill, E. D., 542, 557.
Neill, Edward Duffield, 547, 567.
Nelson, H, L., 513.
Nevin, John W., life of, 564.
Nevins, W. S., 535.
New Brunswick, loyalists in, 551.
New England emigration to, 533.
Newburg, N. Y., in the Revolution,
539.
New England, bibliography of his-
tory of, 532.
church and state in, 517.
supposed Norse remains in, 103.
New England confederation, 144,
146.
New England legislature, standing
committees, in, 393.
New England primer, 532.
New England towns, colonial, 533.
Newfoundland, ecclesiastical his-
tory of, 551.
extent of, 389.
geography of, 551.
New Hampshire, early acts and laws
of, 537,
history of, 537.
public men of, 572.
Representatives from, 240.
slavery in, 537.
594
INDEX.
New Hampshire, Statepaper8of,537.
witchcraft in, 516.
New Hampshire-Vermont contro-
versy, 1777, 537.
New Hampshire Volunteers, 13th
Eegiment, 532.
New Haven Colony, settlement of,
144.
New Haven, Conn., 250th anniver-
sary of, 536.
New Jersey, archives of, 540.
committee system in, 399.
naturalization in, 327.
Representatives from, 240.
New Mexico, history of, 549.
purchase of, 381.
New Orleans, ceded to Spain, 376.
held by Spain, 337.
municipal history of, 544.
Spanish fort at, 30.
Newport, old tower at, 103.
Newton, H. A., 562, 5^3.
Newton, W.W., 564.
Newton, towns named for, 41.
New York, bibliography of history
of, 538.
committees in, 399.
constitution of state, 538.
denization in, 325.
naturalization in, 327.
history of Seventh Regiment of,
538.
property tax in, 514.
Representatives from, 240.
New York City, capture of, from
Dutch, 539.
capture of, 1776, 539.
charities directory, 520.
memorial history of, 539.
taverns of, 539.
New York Volunteers, One hundred
and fifty-ninth Regiment, 532.
Nez Percys Indians, 545.
Nicholson, Governor, 420.
Nicol, D, 513.
Nicolay, J. G., 523, 526, 551, 561,
562.
Niebuhr, 57.
Nimeguen, treaty of, 16, 20.
Nitobe, J, 509.
Nomenclature, American Historical,
35.
Norman, L., 549.
Norse Colonization of Iceland, 107.
Norse Discovery of America, 103,
522.
Norsemen, Christian, in America,
515.
early voyages, 103.
North Brookfield, history of, 535.
North Carolina, boundary of, 448.
committee system in, 399.
dealings with Cherokees, 434.
duelling in, 543.
North Carolina, history of educa-
tion in, 543.
in eighteenth century, 543.
in the Revolution, 422.
land office of, 443.
religious development in, 517.
Representatives from, 240.
settlers from, 416.
State of Franklin in, 451.
Northwest, history of, 545.
Northwest, the old, 545.
orthwest Territory, centennial of,
545.
Norton, C. E., 520.
Norton, C. L., 513.
Norumbega, defenses of, 523.
supposed location of, 104.
Vinland and, 522.
Nova Scotia, agents sent to, regard-
ing annexation, 371.
applying for annexation, 371.
Church of England in, 515.
New England church in, 550.
plans for purchase of, 573.
plans to unite, with United States,
371.
Numismatics, relations of, to his-
tory, 86.
Oakley, J. M., 531.
Oberholtzen, E. P., 513.
Oberlin, coeducation at, 519.
Office holding in the Colonies, 522.
Oglesby, T. K., 528.
Oglesby, T. R., 531.
Oglethorpe, General, life of, 564.
Ohio, ordinance of 1787, 98.
Ohio, college growth in, 519.
first fugitive slave case in, 93.
founders of, 546.
higher education in, 519.
historical collections of, 546.
histories of, 545.
Ohio river, as boundary for United
States, 339.
settlements on, 202.
Oldham, E. A., bibliography of,
509.
Old South Church, Boston, 516,
O'Meara, J., 549.
Orange, Prince of, 173.
Orcadeans, inhabitants of the Ork-
neys, 110.
Ordinance of 1787, 98, 545.
Ordronaux, J., 513.
Ordway, J. K., 569.
Oregon, Williams massacre, 549.
Oregon, Winchester exploring ex-
pedition, 1856, 550.
Oread, Mount, 483.
Oregon, frontier advance in, 205.
O'Reilly, John Boyle, 564.
Orkney Islands, 110.
Osgood, Prof., 222.
i
INDEX.
595
Osgood, H. L., 513.
Osnabriich, treaty of, 18.
Ostend manifesto, 382.
O'SuUivan, D. A., 551.
Oswald, Mr., paper submitted to,
by Franklin, 374.
Oswald, F. L., 541.
Oswald and Stracbey debates, 16.
Otari language, 421.
Otis family of Montreal, 564.
Otto, Count De Mosloy, 523.
Overton family, 409.
Oxenstiern of Sweden, 19.
Oxford, Mass., history of, 534.
Oxley, J. M., 551.
Pacific States, history of, 548.
Page, J., 553.
Page, Thomas Nelson, 520.
Page, W. G., 563.
Paine, T., imprisonment of, 569.
Paine, Thomas, 564.
Palaiography, relations of, to his-
tory, 86.
Palatine Germans in Shenandoah
Valley, 202.
Palfrey, J. G., 533.
Palmer, J. W ., 549.
Pancoast, H. S., 520.
PangoPango, coaling station at, 386.
Paris, Comte de, 530.
Paris, negotiations for peace in 1782
at, 339.
Paris, treaty of, 16.
Parker, Amasa J., .^^64.
Parker, Congressman, of Massachu-
setts, 262, 271.
Parker, Theodore, 564.
Parker, William Kitchen, 564.
Parkman, 65.
Parkman, F., 523, 549, 566.
Parkman, Francis, 564.
Parliament, Barebones, 396.
committee system of, 394.
Cromwell's, 397.
Parsons, General Samuel H., 564.
Parties and patronage, 515.
Parton, J., 566.
Pasko, W. W., 539.
Patch, C. A., 529.
Paton, J.G., 564.
Paton, W. A., 523.
Patterson, Mr., of New Jersey, 234,
235
Patton,'j. H., 509,528,531.
Pavey, G. M., 513, 572.
Pawlett, Capt. Thomas, sketch of,
308.
Pawtucket, R. I., and the cotton
centenial, 538.
Payne, C. H., 538.
Payne, E. J., 509.
Peabody, A. P., 516, 526, 528, 572.
Peabody, R. S., 520.
Peace magistracy, English, 512.
Peale, C. W., 567.
Peasants, uprising of, in England,
Peattie, E. W.,509.
Pedro, Dom, 118.
Pellew,G.,560.
Pelton,J.C.,549.
Pence, C.R., 513.
Penn, Abraham, 415.
Penn, William, 322.
Penn family, 564.
Pennsylvania and the Constitution,
513.
bibliography of history of, 539.
committees in, 398.
denization in, 325.
ecclesiastical affairs, 1698, 540.
German settlements in, 202.
Methodism in, 515.
naturalization in, 327.
quakers in, 539.
representatives from, 240.
Pennsylvania convention, 1788, 540.
Pennypacker, S. W., 540.
Pensacola, capture of, by Galvez,
i 336.
I People, voice of the, 512.
I Pequot war in New England, 1637,
i 145.
; Perkins, C. E., 533.
I Perkins, F. C, 520.
I Perkins, R. A., 513.
I Perrin, W. H., 545.
Perrot, Nicholas, at Dubuque, 192.
Perry, A., 561.
Perry, Commodore, towns named
for, 41.
Perry, Matthew C, 564.
Perry, W.S., 516.
Perry's victory on Lake Erie, 528.
Peru, mines of, 337.
Petrie, G., 516.
Phelan,J.,544.
Phelps, E. J., 513.
Philadelphia, records of Christ
church, 516.
Spanish commissioners at, 345.
Philadelphia wills, 540.
Philip, King, the second, 128, 131,
132.
Philips," M., 526.
Phillips, Wendell, 492, 564.
Philosophy, degree of doctor of, 79.
study of, 81.
Phippe. Robert, 158.
Phister'er, F., 531.
Pickering, Secretary of State, 358,
359, 360.
Pickins, Andrew, 445.
Pierce, F., life of, 572.
Pierrepont, E., 565.
Pierse, Thomas, 304, 306.
Pike's expedition to Louisiana, 545.
596
INDEX.
Pilgrim monument at Plymouth,521.
Pilgrim repuLlic, 533.
Pilgrims in Connecticut A'alley, 536.
Pilgrims in Leyden, 532.
Pinckney, Congressman, speecli of,
274, 281.
Pinckney, Gen. C. C, 238.
Pinckney, Mr. C, on State represen-
tation, 238.
Pinckney, Thomas, 348.
at court of Spain, 345, 346.
Pinkney, William, 564.
Pinkney, Senator, of Maryland.
Piute and Bannock wars, 549.
Pittsylvania militia, 420, 424.
in Shawnee war, 415.
Pjepscot, Maine, 105.
Plainfield, Mass., history of, 534.
Plarr, V., 567.
Plumbey, G. S., 569.
Plymouth, Mass,, glimpses of, 535.
pilgrimage to, 534.
Plymouth, records of, 535.
Plymouth Colony in New England
Confederation, 145.
Plymouth pilgrims, 208.
Poindexter, P., 553.
Point Pleasant, battle of, 415.
Poland and Sweden, truce between,
19.
Polar expeditions, history of, 552.
Polentine, John, 307.
Polignao, as a diplomatist, 20.
Political Americanisms, 513.
Political history of the United
States, 512.
Political parties, history of, 508.
Politics, American, dictionary of,
507, 510.
present, 185.
relation of history to, 181.
the gentleman in, 512.
Polk, James K., life of, 572.
Polk, President, attempt to pur-
chase Cuba by, 380.
Pollock, Oliver, 335.
Polygamy, history of, 516.
Pond, R., autobiography of, 564.
Poole, Robert, interpreter, 313.
Poole, Dr. William F., 3, 4, 9, 12,
523, 526, 528.
Pooley, Rev. Greville, 307.
Pope, Lieutenant, 353.
Popular uprisings in England, 151.
Porter, Admiral David D., 531
Porter, L. H.,542.
Porterfield, C, 526.
Portland, Me., schools of, 537.
Portuguese explorations under
Prince Henry, 114.
Pory, John, sketch of, 306.
Potter, Eliphalet N, 564.
Potts, W. J., 523.
Pound, Thomas, deposition of, 522.
Power, political, 177.
Powell, Ambrose, 412.
Powell, E. P., 558, 560.
Powell, Capt. Nathaniel, 305.
Powell, Capt. William, 306, 313.
Powell, J. W., 552.
Powells Valley, settlement of, 411,
412, 416, 436.
Powers, Thomas, 365.
Pradier-Fod^r^, 17
Pratt, J. H., 549.
Pre-Columbian discoveries in Amer-
ica, 103.
Prentiss, Charles, 98.
Prentiss, Thomas L, 98.
Presbyterianism, early, in Penn-
sylvania, 540.
Prescott, 57, 58, 65.
Prescott, B. F ,572.
President, electoral vote for, 276.
President, plans for election of, 244,
245.
Presidential elections, 511, 512, 514.
Presidents, United States, 571.
Prester, John, 116.
Preston, Colonel, 415.
Preston, J. S., 517.
Preston, M. J., 561.
Preston, Richard, sr., 565.
Preston, William, 432.
Priest, William, 418.
Primate Plegmund, 29.
Prime, S. 1., 565.
Prince Henry, the navigator, 113.
Providence, R. I., town and city
government, 515.
Pry or, R. A., 514.
Public domain, 218.
Public school system. Rice on, 520.
Pulaski, towns named for, 41.
Puritanism, historic forces originat-
ing, 533.
Puritans in fiction, 533.
New England, 533.
political ideas of, 513.
prayers of the, 533.
Puritan fathers, religion of, 515.
Puritan revolution 1628-1660, 511.
Puritan theocracy, 533.
Purkins, Malinda, 476.
Putnam, Gen., 567.
Putnam, Gen. Israel, 333.
Putnam, M. L., 562.
Putnam, Rufus, 98.
Putnam, Gen. R., 567.
Pyle, H., 523.
Quakers in New England, 516.
Quakers in Pennsylvania, 539.
Quakers, Philadelphia directory of
1757, 540.
Briggs on, 515.
Quantrell raid, 482.
Quebec, appeal to, by Congress, 370.
I
1
INDEX.
597
Quebec, attack on, 526.
battle of, 524.
historic, 552.
plans for purchasing, 373.
plans to unite with United States,
371.
under British rule, 551.
Queenstown, battle of, 525.
Radisson in Dubuque county, 191,
192.
Raiatee, destruction of, 430.
Raleigh, T., 509.
Raleigh, Sir Walter, 395, 565.
Raleigh, places named for, 41.
Rancher's frontier, 211.
Randolph, A. D. F, 555.
Randolph, Edmund, 565.
Randolph, Governor, 452.
Randolph, John, 277, 279.
Rasay, C. E. S., 572.
Rawle, W. B., 523.
Raymond, M. D., 526, 566.
Read, I. M., 568.
Read, M., 566.
Realf, J.,jr.,554.
Rebellion, records of, 532.
Rebellion, war of, 529.
Reciprocity, treaty of, in 1875, 387.
Redd, Major John, 405, 417, 462.
Redpath, J. C, 526.
Reed, T. B., on rules of the House,
514.
Reeder, Governor, 489, 491.
Reid, Whitelaw, life of, 530.
Religion, committee of, 394.
Religious and civil liberty, 533.
Religious history, bibliography of,
515.
Rembert, legate of Iceland, 108.
Removals from office, evolution of,
511.
Representatives, House of, repre-
sentation in, 241.
Republic, American, 507.
Republic, Dutch, 138, 139.
Revolution, descendants of patriots
of, 525, 572.
Revolution, illustrated Americana
of, 525.
Revolution, American, Boston mobs
before, 526.
Cherokees in, 420.
Connecticut in, 526, 536.
correspondence of, 524.
in the West, 407.
loyalists in, 337.
men and women of, 572.
New Jersey militia in, 526.
results of, 18.
romances of, 525.
sons of the, 526.
southern campaign, 428.
Spanish operations during, 338.
Revolution, American, Tory clergy
of, 515. '
Yale college in, 525.
Revolutionary War, close of, 375.
Rhea, Mr., of Tennessee, 291.
Rhode Island and the Federal Con-
stitution, 538.
Rhode Island, Dorr war in, 538.
naturalization in, 327.
representatives from, 240.
Rhodes, J. F., 509.
Rhodes, Mr., on diplomatic history,
Rice, Allen Thorndike, 514, 565.
Rice, F. P., 535.
Rice, J. M., 520.
Richman, J. B., 514.
Richmond, E. J., 572.
Richardson, 59.
Richardson, C. F., 520.
Richardson, Lieut. John, letters of,
565.
Ricord, F. W., 540.
Rideing, W. H., 565.
Ridenbaugh, Mary J., 563.
Rider, S. S., 538.
Ridpath, J. C, 509, 528, 556, 561.
Rights and liberties, origin of, 510.
Rioseco, Medina de, 130.
Rittenhouse, David, 565.
Ritter, F. L., 520.
River and harbor bills, 512.
Roanoke Island, Raleigh on, 543.
Roberts, E. H., 539.
Roberts, Senator, of Pennsylvania,
260.
Roberts, W., 514.
Robertson, Archibald, 570.
Robertson, General, 415.
Robertson, James, 426.
Robertson, R. S., 520, 531, 546.
Robin, C.C., 569.
Robin, of Redesdale, 159.
Robinson, Dr. Charles, 483.
Robinson, E. G., 559.
Robinson, Governor, of Kansas, 482.
Robinson, J. H., 514.
Robinson, Mrs., H. H., 553.
Roche, J. J ., 564.
Rochester, castle of, captured, 154.
Rocky Mountains, discovery of, 549.
Rogers, H. W., 514.
Rogers, Thorold, on work and
wages, 161.
Rolfe, John, sketch of, 305.
Roman Catholic archives relating
to America, 107.
Roman Catholic Congress, 516.
Romanism in Canadian politics, 550.
Roosevelt, Theodore, 421, 520, 539,
545, 563.
Ropes, J. C, 531, 566.
Rosalie, Fort, 332.
Rosengarten, Joseph G., 526.
598
INDEX.
Eosingham, Ensign, 308.
Eoss, A. H., 517.
Eo88,E.G.,531.
Eousseau, Burke on, 171.
Eousseaii and Montesquieu, 166.
Eousseau, on the social contract,170.
Eoutlege, George, 472.
Eowland, Kate Mason, 542, 556.
Eoy,J.F.,531.
Eoyce, Charles C, 448.
Eoyce, J., 549, 557.
Eozier, F. A., 545.
Eucker, Capt,, 413.
Eucker, Miss, 477.
Euffin, F. G., 520.
Euggles, Benjamin, 98.
Euggles,M.B.,553.^ ^^ ^ ^ .
Eunic inscriptions in NewEnglana,
103.
Eunk, E. J., 539.
Eupert, W. W., 514.
Eush, Dr. Benjamin, 565.
Eussell, Gen.,444.
Eutherford, Gen. Griffith, 424, 439.
Eutledge, Mr., on State representa-
tion, 240.
Eye Cove, battle of, 428.
Eyswick, treaty of, 16, 20.
St. Augustine, Spanish fort at, 30.
St. Clair, Gen., towns named for, 41.
St. Genevieve as a lead market, 193.
St. John, plans for purchasing, 373.
proposed annexation of, 371, 384.
St. Joseph, Mo., seizure of, in 1780,
338.
St. Louis, convention at, 265.
Spanish operations at, 338.
St. Preux, on treaties, 23.
St. Thomas, proposed annexation of,
384.
Sabbath in Puritan New England,
533.
Sacheverell, trial of, 167.
Sagadahoc, Me., 105, 106.
Sagas of the Norsemen, 107.
Sagres, nautical school at, 119.
Salamanca, fair held at, 130.
Salmon, Lucy M., 5, 137.
on union of Utrecht, 137.
Salt springs, 212.
Salvins, of Sweden, 19.
Sanborn, F. B., 537, 556, 559.
San Domingo, annexation of, urged,
385.
reasons for not annexing, 386.
Sandwich Islands, civilization intro-
duced, 387.
Sanford, E. B., 536.
San Francisco, history of commerce
of, 549.
public library, 507.
vigilantes, 549.
Sanial, L., 539.
San Lorenzo, treaty of, 348, 352.
Saratoga, battles of, 526.
Kosciusko at, 31.
Sargeant, Congressman of Pennsyl-
vania, on State constitutions,
267.
Sargent, Winthrop, governor of
Mississippi, 366.
Sattogo, destruction of, 430.
Savannah, Ga., history of, 543.
Savidge, E. C. , 553.
Sawyer, I., 514.
Saxon Chronicle, 29.
Saxons in England, 152.
Scaife, W. B., 507, 523.
Scammon, E. P., 537, 543.
Scarborough, England, revolt at,
157.
Scarborough, W. S., 520.
Schaff, P., 517.
Scharf, J. T., 541.
Schell, Eobert, 12.
Schenck, E. H., 528, 536.
Schoell's history of treaties, 22.
Schouler, J., 528.
Schouler, Dr. James, 4.
on historical industries, 57.
Schurman, J. G., 552.
Schurz, Mr., 292, 293.
Schurz, Carl, 562.
Schuyler, E., 520.
Schuyler, Eugene, 565.
Schuyler, J., 562, 572.
Schwab, J. C, 514.
Scioto, purchase in 1787, 545.
Scomp, H. A., 543.
Scotch in America, 518, 520.
Scotch-Irish, settlements of, 202.
Scotch-Irish society of America, 520
Scotland, Parliament committees
for, 397.
Scott, Congressman, 258, 261, 265,
283
Scott, E.G., 551, 563.
Scott, John, 255.
Scott, Senator, on preemption law,
219.
Scott, Sir Walter, 59.
Scott, Gen. Winfield, 565.
Scovel, J. M., 561, 562.
Scruggs, W. L., 514, 523.
Scudder, H. E., 569.
Segovia, fairs at, 130.
Seilhamer, G. O., 520.
Seitego, destruction of, 430.
Sellers, Nathan, 565.
Sellers, H. W., 565.
Seminole Indians, 420.
Sepbrantz, Sir William, 154.
Serapis, capture of, 561.
Serfdom, deathblow to, 158.
in England, 152.
Sevier, Mr., 462.
Sevier, arrested for treason, 456.
Sevier, in Cherokee campaign of
1780. 429.
INDEX.
599
Sevier, John, 432, 439, 440, 452, 472.
Sevier, Robert, 432.
Seville, fairs held at, 130.
Seward, F. W., 565.
Seward, Secretary, on annexation of
Hawaii, 387.
treaty of, with Denmark, 384.
Seward, W. H., 533.
Seward, William H., 565.
Shaffer, M. L., 520.
Shaler, N., 520.
Shaler, N. S., 531.
Shannon, Governor Wilson, of Kan-
sas, 493.
Sharp, Samuel, 306.
Sharpe, Governor Horatio, 541.
Shaw, A., 514.
Shaw, C. L., 559.
Shaw, Robert G., 565.
Shaw, W. B., 509.
Shawnee war of 1774, 415.
Shawnese Indians, 202.
Shea, J. G., 552, 554.
Sheedy, M. M., 517.
Shelby, Evan, 432.
Shelby, Governor, 426.
Shelby, Isaac, 435.
Shelley, Walter, sketch of, 307.
Shelton, J. D., 509.
Shelton, W. H., 531.
Shenandoah Valley, settlement of,
202.
Shepard, E. M., 509, 567.
Shepherd, H. A., 546
Sheridan, P. H., 531, 565.
Sheridan, General, towns named for,
41.
Sherman, M.E., 566.
Sherman, R. E., 565.
Sherman, Roger, 232, 233, 234, 235.
Sherman, Roger, in Federal Conven-
tion, 231.
on slavery, 246.
Sherman, Senator, 565.
Sherman, W. T., 531, 549, 565, 566.
Shields, G. O., 545.
Shinn, C. H., 549.
Ship, first American, 522.
Shipman, T. L., 566.
Shire in American colonies, 512.
Shoemaker, T. H., 540.
Short, William, commissioner to
Paris, 344.
Shull, Jesse W., 195.
Sickelmore, Capt,, 313. ^
Sidney, Algernon, 166.
Simms, William, 413.
Simonyi, E., 552.
Sinclair, Sir John, 568.
Singleton, R., 517, 567.
Sintra, Gon^alo de, 117.
Sismondi, on history, 46, 52.
Slade, D. D., 535, 553, 556.
Slater, Samuel, 566.
Slave insurrection in Va., 543.
Slave trade, 252, 253.
acts for suppression of, 93.
Slavery abolished in District of Co-
lumbia, 383.
and the Missouri Compromise,
JiOL,
discussed in Federal Convention.
246. '
first American protest, 519.
in Canada, 551.
in Connecticut, 536.
in New Hampshire, 537.
in New York and Massachusetts,
534. '
in United States, 251.
recollections of, 528.
right of Congress to restrict, 295.
Wordsworth and Southey on,
528.
Slavery question in Kansas, 490.
Slavery restrictions in States, 281.
Slaves, census of, 288.
fugitive, 555.
fugitive, in Ohio, 93.
fugitive, punishment of, 94.
not property in international law,
286.
punishment of, 95.
recognized as property, 93.
Slavic people in Germany, 408.
Small, A. W., 514.
Smith, Congressman from South
Carolina, 267.
Smith, C.L., 543.
Smith, Daniel, 471.
Smith, E. P., 512.
Smith, G., 514, 552, 557, 572.
Smith, G. J., 520.
Smith, Capt. John, 313, 566.
Smith, J. T., 552.
Smith, Lucy, 566.
Smith, Sir Thomas, 394.
Smith, v., 543.
Smith, Gov. W., 566.
Smith, William, 566.
Smith, William Henry, 5.
on first fugitive slave case in
Ohio, 93.
Smith, Col. Wm. S., 566.
Smyth, E. C, 533.
Smyth, E. G., 556.
Smythe's Hundred, representatives
from, 307.
Snow, F., on cabinet government,
514.
Social compact, doctrine of, 173.
Social compact theory, Fisher on,
165.
Social development on the frontier,
206.
Social history of New England, 534.
Sotheran, C, 558.
South, creed of the old, 516.
600
INDEX.
South, education iu the, 519, 520.
literature in the, 520.
the new, Grady on, 541.
South Carolina, Cherokee Indians
in, 421.
higher education in, 520.
history of, 543.
Indian attack on, 422.
Logan's history of, 421.
negro conflicts in, 520.
nullification in, 527.
representatives from, 240.
historical society of, 543.
Southern Confederacy, 532.
Southern historical papers, 541.
Spain, archives of, 30.
at war with England, 337.
depopulation of, 125.
economic condition of, 125.
forests of, 128.
industries of, 128.
New, in America, 337.
textile industries of, 129.
treaty with in 1779, 338.
Spangenburg, Bishop, 212.
Spaniards and Gen. Martin, 465.
Spaniards and the Cherokees, 442.
Spaniards in America, 301.
Spanish institutions in southwest,
548.
Spanish minister in 1797, 358.
Spanish pioneer houses in Califor-
nia, 549.
Spanish, trouble with, in West, 457.
Spaulding, J. L., 554.
Sparks, Jared, pioneer work of, 566.
Speaker of the House, power of, 513.
Speed, J., 561.
Speer, John and J. L., 490.
Spelman, Capt. Henry, 313.
Spence, William, 306.
Spencer, D. E., 517, 547.
Spencer, E., 521, 528.
Spencer, Herbert, 46, 50, 53.
Speranza, C. L., 520.
Sphragistics, relations of, to history,
86.
Spoftord, Ains worth R., 4, 35.
on American historical nomencla-
ture, 35.
Spotswood, Governor, expedition
by, 202.
Springs, salt, 212.
Stacy, Robert, 308.
Stakely,C.A.,541.
Standing committee system, origin
of, 394.
Stanley, Dean, 69, 70.
Stanton, T., 558.
Stanton, W, A., 566.
Stanton family, genealogy of, 566.
Staples, C. A., 535, 554, 558, 559.
Starbuck,C.C.,568.
Stark, Gen., towns named for, 41.
Stark, J. H., 535.
Starling, Miss, 477.
Start, Cora, 7.
on naturalization, 319.
State and Federal government, 515.
State constitutions, education in,
512.
State legislation, index of, 509.
State legislatures, 514.
State of Franklin, 451.
State taxation, 511.
States, citizenship in, 270.
equal representation from, 242.
equal rights of, 267.
free, 254.
named by British, 38.
named by French, 58.
named by Spaniards, 38.
named for Indians, 38.
representation in, 233.
rights of, 182.
Senators from, 232.
slave, 254.
Statesmen, American, 572.
Stearns, C, 498.
Stebbing, W., 565.
Stedman,E.C.,521.
Stedman, W. P., 555.
Steiner, B. C, 536, 537, 542.
Stephen, L., 572.
Stephens, Sir James, definition of
history by, 46.
Sterne, A., 514.
Stevens, J. A., 539.
Stevens, Thaddeus, 566.
Stevenson, Adlai E., life of, 508.
Stewart, E. D., 546.
Stewart, G., jr., 552.
Stewart, S. B., 564.
Stickney, A., 514.
Stiles, R., 531.
StilM, Dr., 231.
Still6, C. J., 509, 524, 526, 540, 556.
Stoddard, R. H., 553, 566, 571.
Stoddard, W. O., 572.
Stone, F. D., 514.
Stone, W. L., 526, 528, 539.
Stony Point, capture of, 524.
Storrs, Congressman, of New York,
261.
Storrs, F., 533.
Storrs, R. S., 521.
Story, Judge, of Kansas, 490.
Stout, Hon. Francis Aquilla, 566.
Stovall, P. A., 566.
Stowe, C. E., 566.
Stowe, Harriet Beecher, 566.
Stowe, John, annals by, 153.
Strabo, report by, 118.
speculative views of, 113.
Strahan, C. M., 543.
Strauss, A., 507, 510.
Straw, Jack, 158.
uprising under, 154.
INDEX.
601
Stringfellow, H., 514.
Strong, Congressman, of New York,
258.
Stuart, A. H. H., 531.
Stuart, Judge Archibald, 471.
Stuart, George H., life of, 566.
Stuart, Henry, 422.
Stuart, John; 422.
Stump, A., 517.
Sumner, Charles, 287, 385, 566.
Sumner, E. P., 558.
Sumner, Brig. Gen. J., 566.
Sumter, Fort, 529.
Sumter, Thomas, 410, 411.
Supreme Court, predecessor of, 512.
relief for, 511.
Virginia in, 515.
U.S., history of, 510.
Swasey, W. F., 549.
Sweden and Norway in paganism,
107.
Swedish mission, history of, 515.
Swift, M. J., 521.
Swiss and American constitutional-
ism, 514.
Swiss colony at New Glarus, 547.
Swiss in America, 518.
Switzerland, confederacy of, 138.
Symington, A. M., 566.
Symonds, H. C, 509.
Syrgley,F.D.,554.
Talbot, E., 535.
Talleyrand, 528.
Talleyrand on Washington, 568.
Tallmadge, Mr., on Missouri com-
promise, 297.
Tallmadge, James, 255.
Tanfield, Mr., 395.
Tangiers, Prince Henry at, 120.
Tarducci, Fr., 524.
Tariff controversy, 527.
Tariff history of United States, 514.
Tariff question, Taussig on, 514.
Tarrytown, battle of, 524.
Washington, at, 526.
Tate, Mrs. Fanny M., 405.
Taussig, F. W., 514.
Taxation and representation, 287.
Taxation in American States and
cities, 511.
Taxes in England in 1381, 153.
Taylor, Bayard, 566.
Taylor, Chancellor Creed, 471, 472.
Taylor, Col., 436.
Taylor, Congressman, of New York,
258, 261, 262, 267.
Taylor, H., 514.
Taylor, W.W., 524, 541.
Teele, A. K., 535.
Telassee, saved from destruction,
430.
Telegraph, first news, 519.
Tellico, destruction of, 430.
Tellico, Fort Loudon at, 420.
Temperance in Massachusetts, 534.
Temple, J. H., 535.
Temple, Sir William, 20.
Tennessee, and Virginia boundary,
472.
antiquities ofl 544.
cession of, 468.
frontier in, 202.
history of, 544.
loyal mountaineers of, 544.
one hundred years ago, 544..
purchase of part of, 416.
Ramsay's annals of, 417.
settlement of, 409.
Tennyson, 57.
Territorial restriction of slavery,
291
Terry, Judge D. S., 512.
Terry family, 409.
Texas admitted, 379.
Texas applies for admission, 378.
Thanksgiving Day, history of, 516.
Thayer, Eli, 484, 548.
Thayer, J. B., 521.
Thayer, T. H., 571.
Thayer, W. M., 572.
Theater, American, before Revolu-
tion, 520.
Theater, first in America, 520.
Thirty years' war, 16.
Thomas, C, 524.
Thomas, H.E., 521.
Thomas, Isaac, 423.
Thomas, O., 556.
Thomas, Senator, 260, 262.
Thomas of Walsingham, 153.
Thompson, C. J., 528.
Thompson, H. F., 557.
Thompson, J. E., 549.
Thompson, M., 544.
Thompson, M. P., 537.
Thompson, R. E., 566.
Thompson, S., on emigration, 521.
Thompson, S. M., 532.
Thorfinn, a Norse voyager, 104.
Thornton, Sir Edward, 388.
Thorpe, F. N., 514.
Thorpe, F. T., 549.
Thorvald, the Norseman, 103.
Thumelech, naturalized, 327.
Thurston, B., 471.
Thurston, G. P., 544.
Thwaitn, Reuben G., 6, 12, 406, 524,
545, 547.
on early lead mining in Illinois
and Wisconsin, 191.
Ticonderoga, battle of, 526.
Tiedemann, C. G., 515.
Tiemann, W.F.,532.
Tiffany, F., 556.
Tiffany, N.M., 555.
Tilden, Samuel J., life of, 566.
Tipton, Colonel, 456.
602
INDEX.
Todd, C. B., 539, 542.
Todd, J. A., 555.
Toledo, forests of, 128.
Toler, Mrs. James B., 566.
Tomlinson, Joseph, 99.
Tomlinson, Joseph, jr., 94.
Tompkins, Daniel D., 278.
Tompkins, H. B., 560.
Toner, J. M., 567, 569.
Toomhs, Eobert, 566.
Tories during American Revolu-
tion, 422.
Tory clergy of the Revolution, 515.
Toscanelli, speculative views of, 113.
Tourgee, A, W., 521.
Tower, P., 541.
Town rule in Connecticut, 536.
Towns, American, biblical names
of, 37.
classic names of, 37.
Eastern names for, 37.
mythological names of, 37.
Dutch names for, 38.
English names for, 37.
French names for, 38.
German names for, 38.
Indian names for, 39.
Spanish names for, 38.
Townsend, G. A., 558.
Townsend, V. F., 572.
Transylvania, history of, 416.
Indians give up rights in, 448.
purchase of, 416.
Transylvania Company, 418.
Trask, W. B., 538, 570.
Trantsmandorf, 19.
Treason, punished by death, 95.
Treaties, historic, 16.
history of, 19, 22.
Treaty, American, 331.
Clayton-Bulwer, 389.
Monroe, rejection of, 527.
of Hopewell, 436, 442.
of John Jay in 1796, 360, 361.
with England, 1795, 292.
with Spain in 1779, 338.
with Spain in 1795, 348.
Trempeleau, old French post at, 547.
Trent, W. P., 512, 542.
Trenton, battle of, 526.
Trenton, N. J., convention of, 1787,
541.
Trescot, on diplomatic history, 23.
Trimble, Senator, of Ohio, 261.
Trinity Church, Newport, 516.
Trobriand, R., 532.
Troth, S., 565.
Trusdell, S. G., 517.
Tucker, J. R., 515.
Tucker, Capt. William, 307.
Tuckerman, C. K., 536, 539,542, 558,
560, 561, 565.
Tuckerman, F,, 555.
Tuke, J. H., 547.
Tupper, Gen. B., 567.
Tupper, E. S., 552.
Turenne and Condd, 16.
Turner, C. P., 539.
Turner, Frederick J., 5, 12, 547.
on American frontier history, 199.
Turner, H. S., 560.
Tuskeego, destruction of, 430.
Tuttle, C. W., 533.
Twine, John, 304, 306.
Twitchell, J. H., 571.
Tyler, John, life of, 572.
Tyler, Gov. John, 97, 98, 99.
Tyler, J. G., 567.
Tyler, L. G., 515.
Tyler, President, on annexation of
Texas, 379.
Tyler, Wat, 158.
capture of, 156.
uprising under, 154.
Tyng, C. R., 567.
Tyng, Stephen K., 567.
Uhler, P. R., 542.
Ulsterman in America, 521.
Underwood, F. H., 524, 533, 564.
Unitarianism, Boston, 516.
decadence of, 515.
Unitarians, New England, 516.
United States, and annexation, 369.
and Chile, 509.
and Japan, relations between,
507, 508, 509.
area of, 389.
Brisbane's travels in, 527.
church and state in, 517.
civilization in, 517.
civil war of, 529.
Constitution of, 508.
diplomacy of, 507, 508.
expansion of, 509.
growth of population in, 509.
historical geography of, 508.
history of, 528.
history of people of, 509.
negro question in, 518.
northeast boundary of, 527.
result of adoption of Constitution
of, 374.
school history of, 507, 509.
social institutions of, 507.
southern boundary of, 331.
western boundary of, 339.
University, National, 518.
White on need of another, 521.
University extension, 521.
University of Cambridge, 154.
Upham, C. E. , 536.
Upsal, Archbishop of, 509.
Upshur, T. P., 543.
Upton, H.T.,572.
Utah, frontier advance in, 205.
Utrecht, treaty of, 16, 20.
union of, 137.
I
INDEX.
603
Vail, C. D., 564.
Valentini,P. J. J.,524.
Valladolid, fairs at, 130.
Vallejo, G., 550.
Van Beverning as a diplomatist, 20.
Van Buren, Martin, 567.
Vance, Zebulon B., 541.
Vane, Sir Henry, 508, 567.
Van Pelt, D., 523.
Van Rensselaer, M.. 563.
Van Siclen, G. W., 567.
Van Voorst, Hooper C, 567.
Varney, G. J., 538.
Vassault, F. I., 550.
Vatican, historical treasures of, 31.
Vaux, G., 542.
Veer, G. de, or Prince Henry, 113.
Velho, Gonzalo, 118, 121.
Venable, W. H., 546.
Vergennes, Count de, 339.
Vermont, civil government of, 537.
Vermont in the civil war, 536.
Vermont- New Hampshire contro-
versy, 1777, 537.
Vespucius, Americus, 105.
places named for, 41.
Veto power, 513.
abuses of, 511.
in United States, 510.
Vice-President, electoral vote for,
276.
Vienna, treaty of, 20.
Villalon, fairs held at, 130.
Vincennes, convention at, 253.
Vincent, John Martin, bibliography
of American history by, 501.
Vinland, and Norumbega, 522.
Norse mention of, 109, 110.
Virginia, and Kentucky boundary,
471.
Army of, in 1862, 528.
bibliography of history of, 542.
British invasion in 1780, 408.
committee system in, 398.
denization in, 325.
English culture in, 542.
in 1775-76, 543.
in the Supreme Court, 515.
Magna Charta of, 303.
Martin family of, 408.
naturalization in, 324.
popular government in, 542.
records of, 543.
Representatives from, 240.
settlement of, 202.
slave population of, 288.
slavery in, 253.
uprising against Indians, 424.
Virginia assembly, ofi&cers of, 314.
on taxes, 315.
Virginia clerks, memorials of, 542.
Virginia committee of safetv, 420.
Virginia Company, 1619-1625, 542.
Virginia Company of London, 310.
Virginia convention, history of, 525.
Virginia delaration of rights, 173.
Virginia Federal convention of 1788,
542.
Volmar, Dr., as a diplomatist, 19.
Von Hoist, Dr., 217, 512.
on slavery, 293.
Von Hoist, H., 553, 559.
Von Hoist on State rights, 282.
Von Hoist, Professor, 200.
Voris, A. C, 532.
Voting, Australian, in Massachu-
setts, 5*34.
history of, 512.
negro, 521.
Waddell, J. A., 543.
Wade, Senator, commissioner to
San Domingo, 385.
Waggoner, C, 546.
Wain Wright, Bishop J. M., 567.
Waite, M. R., 567.
Wakarusa war, 482.
Walker, Amasa, 567.
Walker, F.A.,567.
Walker, Ferdinando, 567.
Walker, Governor, 483, 498.
Walker, John, 567.
Walker, Dr. Thomas, 412.
Wall, C. A., 533.
Wallace, Judge Caleb, 570.
Wallace, L., 558.
Wallace, W. B., 528.
Wallenstein and Tilley, 16.
Waller, Carr, 476.
Waller family, 409.
Walnut Hills, Lieut. Pope at, 354.
evacuation of, by Spaniards, 364.
Walworth, Mrs. Ellen Hardin, 4, 12,
27, 526.
on value of national archives, 27.
War, civil, episodes of, 530.
French and Indian, 523.
Mexican, expenditures in, 390.
prisoners of, 530.
Seminole, expenditures in, 390.
Ward, Betsy, 423, 427.
Ward, Nancy, patriotism of, 422, 427,
431.
Warde, Capt., 308.
Warfield, E. D., 509, 545.
Warner, CD., 552.
Warren, Gen., towns named for, 41.
Wars of the roses in England, 160.
Warwick, the king-maker, 159.
Washer, Ensign, 308.
Washington and Montana, constitu-
tions of, 549.
Washington Citv, history of, 542.
Washington, E. 15., 567.
Washington, George, ancestry of,
569, 570.
bibliography of articles on, 568,
569.
604
INDEX.
Washington/George, birthplace of,
567.
centennial inauguration of, 569.
diary of, 1781, 568.
itinerary of, 524, 567.
memorial arch to, 568, 570.
pedigree of, 567, 568.
portraits of, 567, 570.
rare prints of, 567.
towns named for, 41.
signature of, 568.
writings of, 508, 527, 567.
youth of, 567.
Washington's conception of Amer-
ica's future, 519.
Washington, Col. John, will of, 569.
Washington, Lawrence, will of, 569.
Washington, Kev. Lawrence, 569.
Washington, Mary, 567.
Washington treaty of 1871, 18.
Watauga Country, Tenn., 417.
Watauga settlement, 409, 422.
Waters, H.F., 570, 572.
Watson, M., 536.
Watson, W., 532.
Watterson, H., 521, 532.
Watts, H.M., 563.
Wayland, Francis, 570.
Wayne, Gen., 354.
Weare, N. H., history of, 537.
Webster, Daniel, 511, 424, 570.
on annexation, 376.
towns named for, 40.
Webster, P., 515.
Weeden, W. B., 533.
Weeks, Stephen B., 517, 543.
on Gen. Joseph Martin and war
of revolution in the West, 407.
Weik, J. W., 561, 562.
Welch, S, M., 539.
Weld, William F., 570.
Welling, J. C, 526, 528.
Wellman, J.W., 556.
Wells, H. L., 550, 557.
Wellsburg, Va., 94.
Welsh, A. H., on American litera-
ture, 521.
Welsh in the United States, 521.
Wendell, B., 563.
Wendic people in Germany, 408.
Wentworth, Gov. John, 570.
Wenzell, J., 515.
Werner, E. A., 539.
West, Benjamin, 570.
West, Capt. Francis, 305.
Westboro, Mass., history of, 535.
Westbrook, Col. Thomas, 570.
Western frontier, history of, 199.
Westminster, Vt., massacre in 1775,
537.
Westphalia, peace of, 17, 18.
West Virginia, history of, 543.
Wethersfield, Conn., 521.
Wetmore, S., 517.
Wharton, A. H., 540, 556, 568.
Whigs of 1832, 528.
Whitcher, W. F., 528.
White, Andrew D., 12, 521.
commissioner to San Domingo,
385.
White, Dr. James, 458.
White, Z. L, 536.
Whitehead, W. A., 540.
Whitfield, Mr., of Kansas, 491.
Whitfield, E., 536.
Whitman, W., 570.
Whitmore, W. H., 568, 569.
Whitney, Eli, inventor of cotton
gin, 292.
Whitridge, F. W., 515.
Whitsitt, W. H., 570.
Whittier, 57.
Wickham, Rev. William, sketch of,
306.
Wigmore, J. H., 544.
Wilhelm, Baron Innhausen, 570.
Willard, A. R., 517.
Willard, S., 532.
Williams, A. B., on negro voting,
Williams, G. W., 532.
Williams, John, 416, 418.
Williams, Joseph, 432.
Williams, M. C, 543.
Williams, Roger, letters of, 570.
Williams, W., 526.
Williamsburg, college at, 311.
Williamson, Gen. Andrew, 424.
Williamson, Hugh, 459.
Willing, Capt., 335,
Willis, Nathaniel Parker, 570, 571.
Willoughby, W. F., 515.
Wilcox, C. M., 526.
Wilson, A., 543.
Wilson, A. E., 545.
Wilson, Annie E., 561.
Wilson, G. G., 515.
Wilson, James, 571.
Wilson, J. G., 532, 539, 572.
Wilson, J. H., 555.
Wilson, Mr., on state representa-
tion, 238.
Wilson, N., 532.
Wilson, W., 515.
Wilson, Woodrow, 393.
Wiman, E., 552.
Winchester exploring expedition,
550.
Winder, F. A., 570.
Windsor, Conn,, 521.
Winn, Richard, 460.
Winsor, Justin, 412, 509, 524, 536,
.^53.
Winthrop, John, 571.
Wisconsin, early lead-mining in,
191.
education in, 517.
frontier advance in, 205.
INDEX.
605
Wisconsin, history of, 547.
Indians of, 192.
Indian trade in, 547.
lead mines in, 191.
local government in, 547.
Swiss colony in, 547.
under French dominion, 547.
Wisconsin Historical Society, 405.
Wise, D. W., 554.
Wise, John, 571.
Wise, J. S., 532.
Witchcraft, Buckley on, 532.
in New Hampshire, 516.
Salem, 535, 536.
Withrow, W. H., 552.
Wolf, E. J., 517.
Wolfe's victory, 524.
Wolseley, Lord, 529, 530.
Wolseley, Viscount, 532.
Women, notable, 572.
Southern, 520.
Wood, H., 521.
Wood, Col. S. N., 485.
Wood, W. A., 545, 570.
Woodbridge, Dudley, 98.
Woodbridge, William, 98.
Woodburn, James A., 7, 515, 545, 546.
on Missouri Compromise, 251.
Woodbury, C. J., 556.
Woods, Kate G., 559.
Woolsey, T. D., 571.
Worcester, records of, 535.
Wrawe, John, 158.
Wright, C. D., on marriage and di-
vorce, 521.
Wright, G. F., 557.
Wright, M. J., 561, 563.
Writing, historical, religious phe-
nomena in, 72.
Wroth, Robert, 395.
Wyeth, J. A., 532.
Wyman, L. C, 532.
Wyoming Historical and Geological
Society, 540.
Wyoming Valley families, 540.
Yadlein River, settlements on, 202.
Yarmouth, Mass., 534.
Yazoo frauds, 364.
Yeardley, Sir George, 302, 303, 304.
Yelverton, Serjeant, 395.
York, England, revolt at, 157.
York, Me., deeds, 538.
Yorktown, King's Mountain to, 525.
siege of, 525.
victory at, 18.
Young, A., 564.
Young, C. A., 560.
Yrujo, Carlos Martinez de, 358, 362.
Zabriskie, F. N., 558.
i
I
0
J
I
1
E
American Historical
172
Association
A6
Report
1893
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
C