The foundations of American nationality

Front matter

Oass _zJ-55_ Book_L

COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Preface To Volume I

Forty years have now passed since George Bancroft closed his History of the United States with the establishment in 1789 of our present federal system. Since that time the work of many competent historians has served to establish a better balance; colonial history can no longer claim anything like the relative attention which it received in the days of Bancroft and his contemporaries. It is, nevertheless, certain that the characteristic institutions and ideals of the United States cannot be fully understood without tracing them back to their beginnings in colonial times and on European soil.

It is equally certain that the scientific student of American origins is no longer content with the older interpretations. For the past three decades, such scholars as Channing, Turner, Andrews, Beer, and Osgood have exploited new materials, suggested new points of view, and often made necessary the abandonment, or at least the reconsideration, of time-honored traditions. It seems worth while, therefore, to take a new account of stock — to trace in a single volume, for the general reader as well as for the student, the main outlines of our earlier history as they now appear after a quarter-century of research and discussion. Any such survey must of course be provisional only, because many phases of the subject have not yet been adequately investigated. The author has tried to write without bias, whether for or against traditional views, and with an open mind for new facts and new theories of interpretation.

With the general tendency of recent historical literature toward fuller recognition of economic and social, as disviii PREFACE TO VOLUME I

tinguished from strictly political, history, the author is in full sympathy; and the allotment of space has been planned accordingly. It is well known also that many phases of colonial history have been given new meaning by relating this development more closely to that of the great empire of which the colonies formed only a part, though an increasingly important part. With full recognition of this imperial background, the author has nevertheless felt justified in emphasizing those aspects of colonial experience which seem most significant for the subsequent development of the American nation.

The brief bibliographical notes at the end of each chapter have been prepared for readers rather than for investigators; the latter will necessarily search for additional material through the standard bibliographical aids and in the footnotes of secondary authorities dealing with special periods or topics. For every chapter some illustrative material from the sources is indicated; but, in general, the lists do not include extensive documentary publications, such as legislative journals or statutes. It is obviously unpossible also to make more than a very limited selection from the great mass of monographic and periodical literature which has been published, especially during the past three decades.

While assuming full responsibility for all errors of omission or commission, I am under special obligations to Professor Carl Russell Fish of the University of Wisconsin, who read the volume in manuscript, and to my colleague. Professor Laurence M. Larson of the University of Illinois, who read the first proof.

EvARTS B. Greene

The most essential works of general reference for the period covered by this volume are the following:

Channing, E., Hart, A. B., and Turner, F. J., Guide to the Siudy and Reading of American .History, Boston, 1912. The best introduction to the bibliography of American history. Channing, E., A History of the United States, 5 vols, so far issued, N. Y., 1905-1921. (Cited as Channing, United States.) The first three volumes are the leading authority on this period. Hart, A. B., Editor, The American Nation: A History. 28 vols., N. Y., 1904-1908. Each volume has a separate author and the first ten volumes cover this period. Useful both for narrative and bibliography. (Cited by individual authors.) WiNSOR, J., Editor, Narrative and Critical History of America. 8 vols., Boston, 1884-89. (Cited as Winsor, America.) Deals mainly with the period before 1789. Written many years ago but still indispensable, especially as a guide to the sources of information. The most important of the older authorities covering the whole field is Bancroft, G., History of the United States \_14g2-178g]. Author's last revision 6 vols., N. Y., 1883-1885. (Cited as Bancroft, United Stales.) Largely superseded but still useful on many topics. A. Johnson, Editor, Chronicles of America, New Haven, 1918-1921 has some interesting volumes on the colonial period. (Individual volumes are cited by author and title.)

The following one-volume books cover the colonial era: Andrews, C. M., The Colonial Period (Home University Library), N. Y., 1912 (A brief summary by a leading authority); C. Becker, Beginnings of the American People, N. Y., 1915 (Suggestive); Bolton, H. E. and Marshall, T. M., The Colonization of North Atnerica, 1492-1783, N. Y., 1920 (Brings out the international background of English colonization). Useful collections of sources are: MacDonald, W., Select Charters Illustrative of American History, 1606-1775, N. Y., 1904, and his Select Documents Ulustrative of the History of the United States, N. Y., 1909. These are cited as Select Charters, and Select Documents. (A less complete collection is his Documentary Source-Book of American History, 1606-igij, N. Y., 1916.) Hart, A. B., American History Told by Conis.

X GENERAL REFERENCES

temporaries, 4 vols., N. Y., 1897-1901. (Cited as Hart, Contemporaries.) Stedman, E. C. and Hutchinson, E. M., Library of American Liter ature, II vols., N. Y., 1888-1890. J. F. Jameson, Ed., Original Narratives of Early American History is a more extensive series for the seventeenth century.

A good collection of maps with suggestive notes on historical geography is Fox, D. R., Harpefs Atlas of American History, N. Y., 1920. There are also some very convenient maps in Shepherd, W. R., Historical Atlas, N. Y., 1921; and in Muir, R., Hammond's New Historical Atlas for Students, N. Y. Avery, E. M., History of the United States, 7 vols., Cleveland, 1904-1910, has many excellent illustrations.

Contents

PAGE

General References ix

CHAPTER

Chapter I The European Inheritance

The development of the people now politically organized The in the United States of America is in a very true sense a part background. of European history; for it is the record of European enterprise on American soil, of the transfer to a new environment of social habits and ideals which, though greatly changed by American conditions, are still essentially a phase of European civilization. The true starting point for the history of the United States is not, therefore, the study of aboriginal America, nor even the process by which America became known to Europeans; it is rather the European world from which the colonists came, the stock of traditions and prejudices which they inherited from their fathers, and the special characteristics of the age in which tliey lived.

More definitely still, we must first try to understand the English England and the Englishmen of the early seventeenth cen- °"^^^" tury. It is indeed true, as Thomas Paine said in his Common Sense, that America is the child not of England only but of Europe; nevertheless, our earlier history is primarily concerned with the emigration, and adaptation to American life, of English men and English institutions. It was in 1606, three years after the death of Queen Elizabeth, that the founders of the first successful English colony in America set out from the mother country. The foundation of twelve of the thirteen colonies which afterwards formed the United States of America was mainly the work of men then living,

England in 1606.

Population.

their children, and their grandchildren. The social experience of these three generations, in the country from which most of them came, determined to a large extent their outlook upon life and the institutions which they founded in the New World.

To understand the England of 1606, we must get rid of many associations which gather , about the British world power of the present day. When James I was crowned in 1603, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland did not exist. In the English Parliament of that day only England and Wales were included. Though James I, King of England, was also James VI, King of Scotland, the two kingdoms were distinct, and for a hundred years more Scotland was regarded by Englishmen as a foreign country. Ireland was a half-foreign dependency, with a subordinate parliament of its own but without representation in the English Parliament. Indeed Ireland was itself considered a proper field for colonization and in the seventeenth century the northern province of Ulster was settled by Scotchmen and Englishmen, partly displacing the native Irish. The Indian Empire of to-day was still undreamed of and there were no ''dominions beyond- the seas," except the shadowy claims to North America based upon the discoveries of the Cabots and a few unsuccessful attempts at settlement. In the British colony planting of the early seventeenth century, Scotchmen, Irishmen, and even Welshmen were of minor importance; for the pioneers of New England and the Chesapeake colonies alike, the mother country was England proper.

The population of England in 1606 was hardly five million, a small fraction of the present number. Even then, however, it was commonly believed that the country was overcrowded and needed an outlet for its surplus population. Sir George Peckham, a well-known promoter of colonization, declared that since England had for a long

ENGLISH SOCIETY 3

time enjoyed peace and freedom from serious pestilence, "there are at this day great numbers (God he knoweth) which live in such penurie and want, as they could be contented to hazard their lives, and to serve one yeere for meat, drinke, and apparell only, without wages, in hope thereby to mend their estates." During the latter part of the sixteenth century, the natural increase of population was reenforced by immigrants from the Continent, especially Protestants from the Netherlands who had been driven from home by the intolerance of Philip II.

The people of England in 1606 were divided quite dis- Social tinctly into social classes. One contemporary writer names four of these classes. First come the "gentlemen," including not only the nobility of various grades but also "they that are simplie called gentlemen." Among the latter were counted the landed gentry, scholars, professional men, and military officers. It was one of the essential marks of a gentleman that he could live without manual labor. Second in order were the merchants, who had increased decidedly in numbers and importance during the Tudor period and were thought by the country people to be responsible for the higher cost of living. The third class were the yeomen or small farmers, who by good management often became prosperous, so that their sons at least might receive the benefits of university education, "live without labour," and so rise into the class of gentlemen. At the bottom of the social scale were the peasants in the country and the mechanics and smaller tradespeople in the towns. This last class did not count for much politically, having "neither voice nor authoritie in the commonwealth"; they were "to be ruled and not to rule over." Nevertheless, they were called upon to fill minor offices in towns and country parishes,

England was still mainly an agricultural country, but it Economic was passing through radical economic changes which affected "^*^^'^^^*^' almost every element of the population. In the southeastern

Joint-stock companies.

Economic changes.

counties especially, from which many of the American colonists came, woolen manufactures were developing strongly; their growth and protection against undesirable competition was an important phase of British policy during the colonial era. Furtliermore, the discovery of America, the mcreased supply of precious metals, and the constantly broadening opportunities for trade at home and abroad were developing a strong mercantile class who were not only able to live well but ready to invest their capital in profitable enterprises abroad as well as at home. The advantages of combination were already recognized and many joint-stock companies were chartered by Elizabeth and James I for the purpose of carrying on foreign trade. Among the companies so organized were the Muscovy Company, first chartered in 1555, a few years before the accession of Elizabeth, to carry on trade with Russia; the Eastland Company, chartered in 1579 for the Baltic trade; the Turkey Company in 1581; and the East India Company, which, beginning in 1600 as a trading company only, became a great political power in the next century and laid the foundations of the British empire in India. London was the chief commercial port, but Bristol, Plymouth, and many smaller towns now rarely heard of played a large part in the seagoing commerce of the time.

Economic expansion brought important changes in the relation of various classes to each other. In the towns, the guild system was breaking down and the distinction between the employer who furnished the capital and the employee who worked for wages was becoming more fixed. The new commercial spirit also affected the country. Through the buying up of confiscated monastery lands and in various other ways, country estates were coming into the hands of more aggressive and businesslike, but often unscrupulous landlords, recruited in part from the merchant class. Even when the ownership of these estates remained in the hands

ECONOMIC CHANGES 5

of an old family, the actual management was put into the hands of a new type of leasehold farmers who were naturally determined to make the business pay. These changes affected seriously the status of the agricultural population. Under Landlord the old manorial organization, the relation between landlord and tenant had been determined more by custom than by formal contract. Serfdom had practically disappeared and the tenant held his land chiefly on condition of certain customary payments; so long as these conditions were met, his rights in the soil were nearly as secure as those of the landlord himself. Furthermore there were on every manor considerable tracts of land, pasture and woodland for instance, in which all the tenants had common rights. To the new landlord, these customary arrangements often seemed to interfere with efficient and profitable management of the estate. So, as the expanding woolen industry increased the demand for raw wool, he began to inclose common lands for his exclusive use and sometimes to convert arable land into pasture. Sometimes also the old customary tenure was converted into leases which gave the landlord a better opportunity to drive hard bargains with his tenants and evict them when they failed to meet his terms. The result was a temporary lessening of the demand for agricultural labor, the depopulation of many communities, and the development of a large vagrant class. So the statesmen of the Tudor period were troubled by the problems of pauperism and the crime that naturally follows.

Thus in the economic changes of the sixteenth century, as inequalities, in many others before and since, the advantages of progress were unequally shared. While the commercial middle class was gaining in wealth, others were growing poorer; and, as prices rose, men of moderate means, as well as the very poor, were troubled by the increasing cost of living. In conditions like these contemporary writers found some of their chief arguments for colony planting.

King and Parliament.

Constitutional issues.

The Englishmen of 1606 lived under a monarchy and few of them thought any other form of government possible or desirable. At the head of the system stood the King, who came to his throne by right of hereditary descent and had the loyal support of nearly all his subjects. Nearly everyone, too, was willing to allow the King and his Council a freedom in the exercise of royal power quite impossible at the present day. Nevertheless, intelligent Englishmen generally believed that the King's power was not unlimited, that new taxes should not be laid nor miportant changes made in the law without the consent of Parliament. This Parliament was not, however, representative of all classes but chiefly of those described as "gentlemen." The House of Lords included the greater nobility and the bishops of the national church. The country members of the House of Commons were chosen by the freeholders, who included beside the gentry the more independent of the farmer class. In the boroughs, the m^erchants had some representation, but the number of voters was generally small.

Throughout the seventeenth century. Englishmen disagreed sharply as to the exact boundary between the King's prerogative and the authority of Parliament. Under the Tudor kings, the royal power was greatly increased, partly because such rulers as Henry VIII and Elizabeth were strong and, on the whole, popular leaders of the nation. The common man profited in many ways from a strong central government which could preserve order and restrain the violence and injustice of the landowning aristocracy. The commercial classes also profited by the growth of royal authority which was used in many ways to promote their interests. During the latter part of Elizabeth's reign, however, the so-called "country party," including both country gentlemen and members of the mercantile class, began to insist more strongly on the rights of the House of Commons. James I and his son Charles I met these rising demands with

POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS 7

the theory of "divine right," asserting that the King received his crown independently of the national will and had certain ''prerogative" rights which were above the law and could not be controlled by Parliament. These controversies, increasing in violence, combined with religious issues to bring on the great Civil War and the execution of Charles I. Finally the Revolution of 1688 established the sovereignty of Parliament as the foundation principle of English constitutional law.

An important part of the work of government was done Courts of

mstiicc

by the national courts of justice, all of which, from the justices of the peace in the various counties to the great courts of the King's Bench and Common Pleas, were composed of judges appointed by the King and removable by him at his pleasure. Gradually during the Middle Ages the King's judges, going out into the country on their "circuits," had built up, on the foundation of ancient customs, the great fabric of national law, displacing in large part the special jurisdictions of the feudal lords and the church. In these national courts, criminal cases were tried and jus- The "comtice administered in civil suits according to certain well-recognized principles of the "common law," including the right of the defendant to a jury trial and the right of every individual not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Though these principles were generally acknowledged, there were still great differences of opinion about their application. Englishmen were not always free from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment by order of the King; the King's influence over the judges was often so great as to prevent impartial justice; and there was much complaint about the irregular proceedings of the Star Chamber and other special courts which developed out of the King's Council. As a matter of fact, however, these irregular methods were sometimes used to protect the common man against his more powerful neighbor.

Local

government.

The county.

The parish.

Under the close supervision of the King's Council, a large share of the public business was done through the local governments, of which the most important were the county, the parish, and, for the urban areas, the boroughs. The most influential officers of the county government were the justices of the peace. These were appointed by the King and could be removed by him; but as a matter of fact they were usually the leading gentlemen of the county in v^^ealth, social standing, and influence. Sitting together as a court of "quarter sessions" they not only tried judicial cases but also did much that is now done by American county boards, including the levy of county taxes. One important authority exercised by the justices was that of fixing wages; in this, as in other matters, they naturally kept in view the interests of their own landowning class. The chief executive officer of the county government for ordinary purposes was the sherifi', who, like the justices, was usually a man of somie wealth and social standing. A more imposing personage was the lord lieutenant, a leading nobleman of the county, who commanded its military forces. The landowners of the county had an essential part in the system: they served as jurymen in the courts and they could also vote for the knights of the shire who represented them in the House of Commons.

For the country population the parish was important. This was originally an agency for church government, and its principal officers, the churchwardens and vestrymen, v/ere elected in the parish meeting to take charge, with the clergyman, of the spiritual as well as the civil interests of the community. The ordinary police duties of the parish were performed by the constable, who was sometimes chosen by the parishioners, sometimes by the justices, and sometimes by the lord of the manor in which the village was included. Just before the colonial era began, the parish was given another task, that of caring for the poor within its

THE GOVERNING CLASSES 9

limits. For all these purposes money was needed, and the parish rate, or tax, was collected from the inhabitants. An important factor in the life of almost every parish was the principal landowner, or lord of the manor, from whom the inhabitants held their land by various forms of tenure. The judicial authority of the manorial lord was gradually disappearing, but he was commonly a justice of the peace and his personal influence in the social and political life of the people was very great.

The people of the urban areas and even of some small The country towns were organized in boroughs; these were °^^^ ' based on royal charters, some of which went back to the early Middle Ages. There was no uniform system. Mayors and aldermen were chosen in different ways, sometimes by the taxpayers, sometimes by a restricted class of so-called "freemen"; in many places the governing group was a "close corporation," filling vacancies in its own membership. In general the borough governments were controlled by a comparatively small number of persons.

Thus whether we look at national government by King Aristocracy, and Parliament, or local government by justices of the peace and borough corporations, the English people lived under a political system which was sharply aristocratic. Generally speaking, it was the business of noblemen, other gentlemen, and to a certain extent of the richer middle class, to govern the country; it was the business of others to be ruled. Even a revolutionary leader like Oliver Cromwell believed that the distinction between "gentle" and "simple," between the "gentleman" and the common man, was desirable and should be preserved. It was, in fact, carried over to the New World by the colonists of New England and Virginia alike. Distinct as were the social classes, the barri- Class barers between them were not impassable. The sons of yeomen impassable. and merchants might, and often did, as the result of their own achievements or those of their fathers, become gentlelO THE EUROPEAN INHERITANCE

men; on the other hand, the younger sons of the landed gentry sometimes became city merchants. In this respect, as in many others, English society was freer than that of France, Spain, or Germany. It must never be forgotten, either, that England was then the only important European nation with an efficient system of national representation.

The An essential part of EngUsh life was the national church.

chii°^! In the Middle Ages, England had been united with the rest

of western and central Europe in the great Catholic Church of which the Roman Pope was the visible head. Partly under the influence of the Protestant Reformation on the European continent, partly from personal and political motives on the part of the Tudor sovereigns and their ministers, and partly as the result of a nationalistic movement against foreign control, England had lately broken away from the Church of Rome and reorganized its ecclesiastical constitution on national lines. In theory at least, every man born in England inherited the duty of loyalty to the church as he did that of loyalty to King and Parliament. Church and state were now more closely united than ever before. The King was the ''governor" of the church, under God; as such he appointed the bishops and other principal church officers. Parliament also had its share in the government of the church; for theological tests and forms of worship, though framed by the clergy, were formally embodied in statute law. The freedom of the church was thus restricted, but these limitations were offset by some important privileges. The bishops sat in the House of Lords, and, in addition to the tithes charged upon the land, there were parish rates which all subjects were obliged to pay. No other religious body had any legal standing. Those who professed other forms of religion were subjected to various legal disadvantages or penalties, and all men were required to attend the services of the established church.

CHURCH AND STATE II

Nearly everyone agreed that there should be a state The

church, that it was the business oi the state to support and gyste^^

defend the true kind of Christianity. Englishmen differed Episcopal widely, however, as to wliat true Christianity was and how

the church ought to be governed. Generally speaking, the policy of the government and of those who controlled the church after the separation from Rome was to keep as far as possible the old usages. The church was to be governed as before by bishops and archbishops; there was to be as little change as possible in doctrine; and the forms of service, though now spoken in English instead of in Latin, were taken with some changes and additions from the service books of the medieval church.

There were, however, two classes of Englishmen who Roman were not satisfied with these arrangements. Many conserva- Catholics, tive people still opposed the separation from Rome and regarded the Pope as the supreme head of the church. They looked back with affection to the imposing ceremonial of the old days and regretted the changes which had been made in ritual and in doctrine. At the opposite extreme were the radical Protestants, or Puritans, who had been much Puritans, influenced by Calvin and other leaders of the Reformation on the Continent. To them the Roman Church seemed utterly corrupt and they believed that the Church of England ought to be made a thoroughly Protestant institution. Not all Puritans held the same opinions, but in general they stood for what they considered a simpler and more Biblical form of religion with fewer forms and ceremonies and more emphasis on preaching. Though still for the most part laymen or clergymen in the established church, they were usually not in sympathy with the existing episcopal system of government and wished either to reduce the pov/er of the bishops or to abolish it altogether, substituting a representative system like that advocated by Calvin and the Presbyterians of Scotland.

Conformity enforced by the state.

Puritans and Separatists.

English civilization in 1606.

In organizing tlie Church of England efforts were made to conciliate both these opposing parties and find a middle way in which all could walk together; but in the end everyone was expected to conform to the established system. When James I came to the throne there was some hope that he might show more sympathy with the Puritans; but these expectations were disappointed, and a severely repressive policy was adopted. Toward the Catholics, James was personally more conciliatory, partly because he wished to cultivate friendly relations with Spain, then the leading Catholic power. The discovery of a Catholic conspiracy, however, and the intense popular feeling against the Roman Church led to more or less ntful persecution of its members during the early years of American colonization.

Though nearly all Englishmen believed in an established church, including most of the Puritans, who wished to transform the church or even to be let alone in it rather than to withdraw altogether, there v/ere small Puritan congregations here and there v/hich felt quite differently. They were soon divided into various sects, but in general they believed that the Church of England was so thoroughly corrupt that all truly Biblical Christians must separate from it. Instead of wishing to establish a national state church, they believed that each local congregation of true believers should be self-governing, choosing its own ministers and other officers. In 1606 this party was too small to exert much influence, but every measure which made it more difficult for Puritans to remain in the church without giving up their convictions increased the number and influence of the "Separatist" element.

The civilization of England at this period was in some respects lower and in some respects, perhaps, higher than that of the present time. In contrivances for controlling natural forces and increasing physical comfort, even the wealthiest classes were not able to command what is easily

Facing 13

CIVILIZATION AND CULTURE within the reach of the ordinary man to-day. Indeed, the

seventeenth century was in this respect worse off than the

later Roman Empire. Government was less careful then

than now to protect the life and property of the citizen

against arbitrary treatment. Distinctions of rank also

interfered seriously with the progress of the humbler classes.

The idea that the state was bound to provide free education Education.

for all the children of the community would have seemed

quite strange in that day, and the church was much more

important in this field. Education was the privilege of a

comparatively small group.

Nevertheless, it is easy to overemphasize these deficiencies. The great universities of Oxford and Cambridge, with their rich endowments built up by the gifts of liberal men and women through many generations, were on the whole well adapted to the training of churchmen, scholars, and statesmen. Endowments for schools were common during the Middle Ages, and interest was stimulated by the scholars of the Renaissance period. In the early years of the seventeenth century many parishes had schools of their own, supported by endowments or public contributions or by a combination of these methods, and the somewhat meager records at hand indicate a rapid decrease in the rate of illiteracy. Among the ruling classes there was, perhaps, a keener intellectual life than at the present time. The great awakening which began with the Italian Renaissance reached its height in England at the close of the sixteenth century; the names of Bacon in science and Shakespeare in literature are hard to match in any time. The fact that Shakespeare was the most popular dramatist of his age suggests that the average playgoer may have stood on at least as high a level of taste and intelligence as his present-day successor.