Page images
PDF
EPUB

§ 161]

BACON'S REBELLION

131

These sturdy, honest people were vilified, of course, especially after the failure of the rebellion, by aristocratic contemporaries. One Virginian gentleman refers to them as " Tag, rag, and bobtail." Another declared that Bacon "seduced the Vulgar and most ignorant People (two thirds of each county being of that Sorte) Soe that theire whole hearts and hopes were set upon him." Another describes the rebels as "a Rabble of the basest sorte of People whose condicion was such as by a chaunge could not admitt of worse. . . not 20 in the whole Route but what were Idle and will not worke, or such whom Debaucherie or Idle Husbandry has brought in Debt beyond hopes or thought of payment ... who, for the Ease of the Poore, will have no taxes. [and] talk openly of shareing men's Estates."

[ocr errors]

When the rebellion began, popular clamor forced the governor to dissolve his fossilized Assembly. In the election of a new one, the restrictions upon the franchise were largely ignored, and a democratic body was chosen. One peevish gentleman declared, "Such was the prevalency of Bacon's Party that they chose, instead of Freeholders, Free men that had but lately crept out of the condition of Servants (which were never before Eligible) for their Burgesses."

161. The new Assembly is known as Bacon's Assembly, and its admirable attempts at reform are called Bacon's Laws. Manhood suffrage was restored; a representative Board was established in each county to act with the Justices in all matters of taxation and local legislation; the exemptions of the privileged families were abolished; fees were strictly regulated; and various minor abuses were corrected.1

Bacon himself stood for an even more democratic program. Soon after the meeting of the Assembly he held a convention of his party at "the Middle Plantation," and there issued a proclamation in the name of "the Commons of Virginia," signing it "Nath Bacon, Gen'l By the Consent of the People." This document (Source Book, No. 107) denounced the group of Berkeley's favorites as "sponges" that had sucked up the

1 See Source Book, No. 106, for these laws. Cf. also No. 108 for explana tions by the counties after the Rebellion had been crushed.

public treasure, and as "juggling parasites," and declared all who sheltered them to be "traitors to the people."

162. While Bacon was still in full tide of success, a sudden fever carried him off — and the Rebellion collapsed, for want of a leader. Berkeley took a shameful vengeance, until removed by the disgusted King. At the King's command, the next Assembly declared all "Bacon's laws" void; and so the "freehold" franchise was restored, to continue two centuries.1

[ocr errors]

163. Henceforth all leadership belonged to the small class of great planters. Each man of this class was not merely a country gentleman, supervising the farming of large estates: he was also a merchant, with huge warehouses and with agents in England. He sold in England not only his own tobacco, but also much of that of the small planters about him; and, in return, he imported all manufactured articles used on his plantations and on theirs, except the simple implements turned out by the plantation's own carpenter and blacksmith. He was also a lawyer, and a leader in society and in politics. He was usually one of the ruling "Justices" of his county, and one of the vestry of his parish; and, if he did not sit in the governor's Council, he was pretty sure to be a Burgess—or at least to control the election of a Burgess.

164. Much has been said above (§ 155) on the admirable qualities of this ruling class. One darker feature remains to be made plain. These men gave a large part of their time to the public service, and none of their offices had salaries. In time of public peril, too, they were always ready to give fortune and life freely for the public need. But in ordinary times, many of them paid themselves indirectly for their devotion to the public service by what would to-day be called graft. They controlled the political machinery; and they saw nothing wrong in filling their pockets, and their friends' pockets, out of the public resources.

1 In 1736 a "freehold" for voting purposes was defined to be the ownership of 100 acres of wild land, or 50 acres of improved land, or a house and lot in a town, the house to be not less than 24 feet square. Just before the American Revolution, these requirements were cut down one half.

§ 166] THE ARISTOCRACY RE-ESTABLISHED

133

Taxes were paid commonly in tobacco. The "Receiver" was some one of the coterie of great planters. It was easy for him to accept from friends and other influential taxpayers a poorer grade of tobacco than he would take from a smaller planter. All tobacco so received was afterward sold for the treasury. The English government tried earnestly to have the Receiver sell at auction; but he usually managed to sell "by private arrangement"- often at a half or a third of the market value-to friends or associates. It was by so holding together and exchanging "favors" that the aristocracy maintained their power.

165. Especially was the public land a source of private riches. Governor and Assembly readily made grants of wild land to almost any applicant; but law required the grantee to establish a certain number of settlers on each grant within ten years-one settler to every hundred acres —or the grant had to be declared forfeited. To locate and survey a tract cost somewhat, and to "settle" a large tract was impossible except to the wealthy. And the wealthiest had ways to shift this burden.

In 1688, Colonel William Byrd secured a grant of more than three thousand acres. He failed to "settle" it; but he was the chief officer of the colonial landoffice, and he managed to keep back the declaration of 'forfeiture until 1701. Then the tract was re-granted at once to his close friend, Nathaniel Harrison, who, after a decent interval, deeded it back to Byrd for another ten years' chance to settle. Another time, Byrd got nearly six thousand acres; and having failed to settle in the ten years, he had it transferred to his son. These grants were the foundation of one

of the greatest Virginia family estates.

166. The small farmer in Virginia, after Bacon's failure, had only one political power: once a year or once in two years he could vote for a member of the Assembly. Elections took place at the county courts, and became social gatherings also, with feasting and sports-wrestling, running, shooting at the mark-and sometimes with brutal rough-and-tumble fights. The speechmaking at these gatherings by rival candidates afforded no mean political training; and as large a part of the free White population came out to vote in Virginia as in New England. But the common Virginia farmer voted on a much smaller range of matters, and much less often, than the common

New England farmer. The common Virginian had no voice in the many questions of local government that were discussed and settled in the New England town meeting, nor any part even in choosing local officials - which was so large a part of

New England politics.

[ocr errors]

167. Excursus: The Virginia County and the New England Town. After 1691 (§ 153), the central governments of Massachusetts and Virginia grew more and more alike, but the local governments grew farther and farther apart; and the influence of local government upon society is so great that Virginia as a whole grew more aristocratic, and Massachusetts more democratic.

We have traced the story of the development of the two types of local government; but we ought also to notice that the difference between them was largely based on physical differences between the two colonies (§§ 2, 3). In Virginia the soil, climate, and products made it profitable to cultivate large plantations by cheap labor under overseers. In Massachusetts, with its sterile soil, farming was profitable only when a man tilled his own ground, with at most one or two servants work

ing under his own eyes. In Virginia, therefore, population became scattered, while in New England it remained grouped ir little farm villages. In Virginia, the people could not easily come together for effective action. The county became the political unit, and control fell naturally to the wealthy planters in small Boards. New England had no counties for some time, and then only for judicial districts. The town remained the political unit; and all the people of the town came together frequently, to take part in matters that concerned their common life. The Virginia type of local government developed the most remarkable group of leaders that the world has ever The New England type trained a whole people to democracy by constant practice at their own doors.1

seen.

1 The Middle colonies, whose story we take up in the next chapter, developed an intermediate type of local government with both towns and counties; and this mixed type became the common one in most of the West at a later day (American History and Government, § 76).

§ 170]

NEW YORK TO 1690

135

EXERCISE.A freeholder came of age in 1661 in Virginia: how old must he have been before he could cast his first vote? (§ 156.) Let members of the class propose lists of questions on this chapter so far, naming the "sections" of this book or the "numbers" in the Source Book where answers may be found. Compare § 167 with §§ 2 and 3.

FOR FURTHER READING.-Andrews, Colonial Self-Government, 202231, or Channing, II, 82-91, or Becker, Beginnings, 71-80. Fiske's Old Virginia (II, 1-130, 174-267) gives a delightful but longer treatment. The Source Book contains much material: No. 108, not referred to in notes above, is especially valuable.

IV. NEW COLONIES, 1660-1690

168. New Jersey was part of the territory conquered from the Dutch (§ 145). Soon after 1660, too, the beginnings of settlement were made in the Carolinas. In both districts the settlers waged sturdy constitutional struggles for self-government, ignoring or opposing the proprietary claims. The story cannot be told here. Some features of New York and Pennsylvania history, however, demand attention.

169. While New York was the Dutch New Netherlands, the people had no self-government whatever. The colony was a huge plantation (like early Virginia) under the arbitrary rule of the " Director General " and his Council, appointed in Holland. There were a number of great landlords (patroons) in the colony; and, in local affairs, each patroon had great authority over the villages of settlers on his lands. 170. The only promising movement for self-government under Dutch rule came from English immigrants. Four English towns had been established on Long Island while it was claimed by

[graphic]

THE "HALF MOON" in which Henry Hudson sailed up the river named for him, laying the basis for the Dutch claim. From an old Dutch drawing.

« PreviousContinue »