FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[314]35 Eliz., c. 1, stat. 4, p. 841-843;Parl. Hist., p. 863; Strype'sWhitgift, p. 414, &c.; Neale'sPuritans, vol. i., p. 526, 527, quoted by Bancroft, vol. i., p. 290.[315]"TheGospel Advocateasserts that 'the judicial law of Moses being still in force, no prince or law ought to save the lives of (inter alios) heretics, willful breakers of the Sabbath, neglecters of the sacrament without just reason.' Well may the historian of the Puritans (Neale) say, 'Both parties agreed in asserting the necessity of a uniformity of public worship,and of using the sword of the magistrate in support of their respective principles.' It should never be forgotten by those who are inclined to blame the severe laws passed against these Nonconformists, that the English government was dealing with men whose avowed wish and object it was not simply to be tolerated, but to subvert existing institutions in Church and State, and set up in their place those approved by themselves."—Godley'sLetters from America, vol. ii., p. 135.[316]"The most noisy advocate of the new opinions was Brown, a man of rashness, possessing neither true courage nor constancy. He has acquired historical notoriety because his hot-headed indiscretion urged him to undertake the defense of separation.... Brown eventually purchased a living in the English Church by conformity."—Bancroft'sHistory of the United States, vol. i., p. 287.[317]"But, although Holland is a country of the greatest religious freedom, they were not better satisfied there than in England. They were tolerated, indeed, but watched. Their zeal began to have dangerous languor for want of opposition, and being without power and influence, they grew tired of the indolent security of their sanctuary. They were desirous of removing to a country where they should see no superior."—Russell'sModern Europe, vol. ii., p. 427."They were restless from the consciousness of ability to act a more important part on the theater of the world ... they were moved by an enlightened desire of improving their condition ... the honorable ambition of becoming the founders of a state."—Bancroft'sHistory of the United States, vol. i., p. 303.[318]This was a promise from James I., who had now succeeded to the throne of England.[319]"A strongly-marked distinction exists between the Southern and Northern Americans. The two extremes are formed by the New Englanders[320]and the Virginians. The former are certainly the more respectable. They are industrious, frugal, enterprising, regular in their habits, pure in their manners, and strongly impressed with sentiments of religion. The name Yankee, which we apply as one of reproach and derision to Americans in general, is assumed by them as their natural and appropriate designation.[321]It is a common proverb in America, that a Yankee will live where another would starve. Their very prosperity, however, with a certain reserve in their character, and supposed steady attention to small gains, renders them not excessively popular with those among whom they settle. They are charged with a peculiar species of finesse, called 'Yankee tricks,' and the character of being 'up to every thing' is applied to them, we know not exactly how, in a sense of reproach. The Virginian planter, on the contrary, is lax in principle, destitute of industry, eager in the pursuit of rough pleasures, and demoralized by the system of negro slavery, which exists in almost a West Indian form. Yet, with all the Americans who attempt to draw the parallel, he seems rather the favorite. He is frank, open-hearted, and exercising a splendid hospitality. Both Cooper and Judge Hall report him as a complete gentleman; by which they evidently mean, not the finished courtier, but the English country gentleman or squire, though the opening afforded by the political constitution of his country causes him to cultivate his mind more by reading and inquiry. A large proportion of the most eminent and ruling statesmen in America—Washington, Jefferson, Madison—were Virginians. Surrounded from their infancy with ease and wealth, accustomed to despise, and to see despised, money on a small scale, and no laborious exertions made for its attainment, they imbibe from youth the habits and ideas of the higher classes. Luxurious living, gaming, horse-racing, cock-fighting, and other rough, turbulent amusements, absorb a great portion of their life. Although, therefore, the leisure enjoyed by them, when well improved, may have produced some very elevated and accomplished characters, they can not, taken at the highest, be considered so respectable a class as their somewhat despised northern brethren; and the lower ranks are decidedly in a state of comparative moral debasement."—Murray, vol. ii., p. 394.[320]Descendants of the Puritans.[321]"The word Yankees (which is the Indian corruption of EnglishYengeese) is both offensive and incorrect as applied to any but New Englanders."—Godley'sLetters from America.[322]"James I. ranked among their party, as much as he was able by severe usage, all those who stood up in defense even of civil liberty."—Bolingbroke'sRemarks upon English History, p. 283.[323]"In memory of the hospitalities which the company had received at the last English port from which they had sailed, this oldest New England colony obtained the name of Plymouth. The two vessels which conveyed the Pilgrim fathers from Delft Haven were theMayflowerand theSpeedwell. The Mayflower alone proceeded to America."—Bancroft, vol. i., p. 313.[324]"Under the influence of this wild notion, the colonists of New Plymouth, in imitation of the primitive Christians, threw all their property into a common stock."—Robertson'sAmerica, book x. One of the many errors with which the volume of Robertson teems. There was no attempt at imitating the primitive Christians; the partnership was a consequence of negotiation with British merchants; the colonists preferred the system of private property, and acted upon it, as far and as soon as was possible.—Bancroft'sHistory of the United States, vol. i., p. 306.[325]"The remonstrances of the Virginia corporation and a transient regard for the rights of the country could delay, but could not defeat, a measure that was sustained by the personal favorites of the monarch. King James issued to forty of his subjects, some of them members of his household and his government, the most wealthy and powerful of the English nobility, a patent, which in American annals, and even in the history of the world, has but one parallel. The territory conferred on the patentees in absolute property, with unlimited jurisdiction, the sole powers of legislation, the appointment of all officers and all forms of government, comprised, and at the time was believed to comprise, much more than a million of square miles: it was, by a single signature of King James, given away to a corporation within the realm, composed of but forty individuals."—Bancroft, vol. i., p. 273.[326]"The very extent of the grant rendered it of little value. The results which grew out of the concession of this charter form a new proof, if any were wanting, of that mysterious connection of events by which Providence leads to ends that human councils had not conceived."—Bancroft, vol. i., p. 273.The Grand Council of Plymouth resigned their charter in 1635.[327]"The circumstance which threw a greater luster on the colony than any other was the arrival of Mr. John Cotton, the most esteemed of all the Puritan ministers in England. He was equally distinguished for his learning, and for a brilliant and figurative eloquence. He was so generally beloved that his nonconformity to the ritual of the Established Church, of which he was a minister, was for a considerable time disregarded. At last, however, he was called before the ecclesiastical commission, and he determined upon emigration, 'Some reverend and renowned ministers of our Lord' endeavored to persuade him that the forms to which he refused obedience were 'sufferable trifles,' and did not actually amount to a breach of the second commandment. Mr. Cotton, however, argued so forcibly on the opposite side, that several of the most eminent became all that he was, and afterward followed his example. There went out with him Mr. Hooker and Mr. Stone, who were esteemed to make 'a glorious triumvirate,' and were received in New England with the utmost exultation. It was doubtless a severe trial to these ministers, who appear really to have been, as they say, 'faithful, watchful, painful, serving their flock daily with prayers and tears,' who possessed such a reputation at home and over Europe, to find that no sooner did any half-crazed enthusiast spring up or arrive in the colony, that the people could be prevented only by the most odious compulsion from deserting their churches and flocking to him in a mass. Vainly did Mr. John Cotton strive to persuade Roger Williams, the sectary, that the red cross on the English banner, or his wife's being in the room while he said grace, were 'sufferable trifles,' and 'Mrs. Hutchinson and her ladies' treated his advice and exhortations with equal disregard and contempt. One of them sent him a pound of candles to intimate his need of more spiritual light. This was then the freedom for which his church and his country had been deserted."—Mather; Neale; Hutchinson.[328]"Robertson is astonished that Neale (see Neale, p. 56) should assert that freedom of religious worship was granted, when the charter expressly asserts the king's supremacy. But this, in fact, was never the article at which they demurred; for the spirit of loyalty was still very strong. It seems quite clear, from the confidence with which they went, and the manner in which they acted when there, that, though there was no formal or written stipulation, the most full understanding existed that very ample latitude was to be allowed in this respect. We have seen on every occasion the vast sacrifices which kings were willing to make in order to people their distant possessions; and the necessity was increased by the backwardness hitherto visible."—Murray'sAmerica, vol. i., p. 249.[329]During the year 1635 we find the name of John Hampden joined with those of six other gentlemen of family and fortune, who united with the Lords Say and Brooke in making a purchase from the Earl of Warwick of an extensive grant of land in a wide wilderness then called Virginia, but which now forms a part of the State of Connecticut. That these transatlantic possessions were designed by the associates ultimately, or under certain contingencies, to serve as an asylum to themselves and a home to their posterity, there is no room to doubt; but it is evident that nothing short of circumstances constituting a moral necessity would have urged persons of their rank, fortunes, and habits of life to encounter the perils, privations, and hardships attendant upon the pioneers of civilization in that inhospitable clime. Accordingly, they for the present contented themselves with sending out an agent to take possession of these territories and to build a fort. This was done, and the town called Saybrook, from the united names of the two noble proprietors, still preserves the memory of the enterprise. They finally abandoned the whole design, and sold the land in 1636, probably.—Miss Aikin'sLife of Charles I., p. 471. Bancroft, vol. i., p. 384.[330]"In one of these embargoed ships had actually embarked for their voyage across the Atlantic two no less considerable personages than John Hampden and his kinsman, Oliver Cromwell."—Life of Hampden, by Lord Nugent, vol. i., p. 254. London, 1832.Lord Nugent has fallen into the vulgar error, an invention, probably, of the Puritan historian, and unanswerably disproved by a reference to Parliamentary records. See Miss Aikin'sLife of Charles I., vol. i., p. 472; Bancroft'sHistory of the United States, vol. i., p. 411. The exultation of the Puritan writers on the subject is excessive. They ascribe all the subsequent misfortunes of Charles I. in connection with the scheme of Providence to this tyrannical edict, as they call it.—Russell'sModern Europe, vol. ii., p. 237. See Bancroft'sHistory of the United States, vol. i., p. 412."Nothing could be more barbarous than this! To impose laws on men which in conscience they thought they could not comply with, to punish them for their noncompliance, and continually revile them as undutiful and disobedient subjects by reason thereof, and yet not permit them peaceably to depart and enjoy their own opinions in a distant part of the world, yet dependent on the sovereign: to do all this was base, barbarous, and inhuman. But persecutors of all ages and nations are near the same; they are without the feelings and the understandings of men. Cromwell or Hampden could have given little opposition to the measures of Charles in the wilds of North America. In England they engaged with spirit against him, and he had reason to repent his hindering their voyage. May such at all times be the reward of those who attempt to rule over their fellow-men with rigor: may they find that they will not be slaves to kings or priests, but that they know the rights by nature conferred on them, and will assert them! This will make princes cautious how they give themselves up to arbitrary counsels, and dread the consequences of them."—Harris'sLife of Cromwell, p. 56.[331]"Mr. Dudley, one of the most respectable of the governors, was found, at his death, with a copy of verses in his pocket, which included the following couplet:"'Let men of God in court and churches watchO'er such as do a toleration hatch"—Chalmers.[332]"The cutting the hair very close, which seemed supported by St. Paul's authority, was the chief outward symbol of a Puritan. In the case of a minister, it was considered essential that the ear should be thoroughly uncovered. Even after the example of Dr. Owen and other eminent divines had given a sanction to letting the hair grow, and even to periwigs, a numerous association was formed at Boston (where Mr. John Cotton was pastor), with Mr. Endicot, the governor, at their head, the members of which bound themselves to stand by each other in resisting long hair to the last extremity. Vane, a young man of birth and fashion, continued for some time a recusant against the uncouth test of his principles, but at last we find a letter congratulating him on having 'glorified God by cutting his hair.'"—Hutchinson'sMassachusetts, quoted by Murray.[333]One of Williams's disciples, who held some command, cut the cross out, and trampled it under foot. This red cross had nearly subverted the colony. One part of the trained bands would not march with, another would not march without it.—Mather, Neale, &c., quoted by Murray.[334]The town of Providence, now the capital of Rhode Island, was founded by Williams. The Indian name was Mooshausick, but he changed it to Providence in commemoration of his wonderful escape from persecution.—Arfwedson, vol. i., p. 224.[335]Mather, vol. vii., ch. ii.; Neale, ch. i., p. 138; Hutchinson, p. 37, 39.[336]Ibid.[337]"Mr. Controller, Sir Harry Vane's eldest son, hath left his father, his mother, his country, and that fortune which his father would have left him here, and is for conscience' sake gone into New England, there to lead the rest of his days, being about twenty years of age. He had abstained two years from taking the sacrament in England, because he could get nobody to administer it to him standing."—Strafford Letters, September, 1635, quoted by Miss Aikin,Life of Charles I., vol. i., p. 479."Sir Harry Vane returned to England immediately after the loss of his election. His personal experience of the uncharitableness and intolerance exercised upon one another by men who had themselves been the victims of a similar spirit at home, seems to have produced for some time a tranquilizing effect upon the mind of Vane. He was reconciled to his father, married by his direction a lady of family, obtained the place of joint treasurer of the navy, and exhibited for some time no hostility to the measures of the government. But his fire was smothered only, not extinguished."—Miss Aikin'sLife of Charles I., vol. i., p. 481."After the Restoration of Charles II., Sir Harry Vane suffered death upon the block. (See Hallam, vol. ii., p. 443.) The manner of his death was the admiration of his times."—Bancroft, vol. ii., p. 40.[338]Boston was the capital of Massachusetts, and the center of the most fervent Puritanism."Boston may be ranked as the seat of the Unitarians, as Baltimore is that of the Roman Catholics, and Philadelphia that of the Quakers.... No axiom is more applicable to the pensive, serious, scrutinizing inhabitant of the New England States than this: 'What I do not understand, I reject as worthless and false;' so said one of the most learned men of Boston to me. 'Why occupy the mind with that which is incomprehensible? Have we not enough of that which appears clear and plain around us?' ... The greater part of the Bostonians, including every one of wealth, talents, and learning, have adopted this doctrine."—Arfwedson, vol. i., p. 179."In Boston all the leading men are Unitarians, a creed peculiarly acceptable to the pride and self-sufficiency of our nature, asserting, as it does, the independence and perfectibility of man, and denying the necessity of atonement or sanctification by supernatural influences."Though every where in New England the greatest possible decency and respect with regard to morals and religion is still observed, I have no hesitation in saying that I do not think the New Englanders areligiouspeople. The assertion, I know, is paradoxical, but it is nevertheless true, that is, if a strong and earnest belief be a necessary element in a religious character: to me it seems to be its very essence and foundation. I am not now speaking of belief inthe truth, but belief in something or any thing which is removed from the action of the senses.... I am not trusting to my own limited observation in arriving at this conclusion; I find in M. de Tocqueville's work an assertion of the same fact. He accounts for it, indeed, in a different way.... What I complain of is, not the absence of nominal, but of real, heartfelt, unearthly religion, such as led the Puritan Nonconformists to sacrifice country and kindred, and brave the dangers of the ocean and the wilderness for the sake of what they believed God's truth. In my opinion, those men were prejudiced and mistaken, and committed great and grievous faults; but there was, at least, a redeeming element in their character—that of high conscientiousness. There was no compromise of truth, no sacrifice to expediency about them; they believed in the invisible, and they acted on that belief. Every where the tone of religious feeling, since that time, has been altered and relaxed, but perhaps nowhere so much as in the land where the descendants of those Pilgrims lived."—Godley'sLetters from America, vol. ii., p. 90, 133.[339]"The arbitrary will of the single tyrant, the excesses of the prerogative, seem light when compared with their (the Puritans') more intolerant, more arbitrary, and more absolute power."—Commentaries on the Life and Reign of Charles I., vol. iii., p. 28, by I. D'Israeli. London, 1830.[340]Mather affirms that the Quakers used to go about saying, "We deny thy Christ: we deny thy God, whom thou callest Father, Son, and Spirit; thy Bible is the word of the devil." They used to rise up suddenly in the midst of a sermon, and call upon the preacher to cease his abomination. One writer says, "For hellish reviling of the painful ministers of Christ, I know no people can match them." The following epithets bestowed by Fisher on Dr. Owen are said to be fair specimens of their usual addresses: "Thou green-headed trumpeter! thou hedgehog and grinning dog! thou tinker! thou lizard! thou whirligig! thou firebrand! thou louse! thou mooncalf! thou ragged tatterdemalion! thou livest in philosophy and logic, which are of the devil." Even Penn is said to have addressed the same respected divine as, "Thou bane of reason and beast of the earth." When the governor or any magistrate came in sight, they would call out, "Woe to thee, thou oppressor," and in the language of Scripture prophecy would announce the judgments that were about to fall upon their head.—Neale, cap. i., p. 341-345. Mather, b. vii., cap. iv. Hutchinson, p. 196-205.[341]"Sir Matthew Hale burned two persons for witchcraft in 1664. Three thousand were executed in England during the Long Parliament. Two pretended witches were executed at Northampton in 1705. In 1716, Mrs. Hicks and her daughter, aged nine, were hanged at Huntingdon. The last sufferer in Scotland was in 1722, at Dornoch. The laws against witchcraft had lain dormant for many years, when an ignorant person attempting to revive them by finding a bill against a poor old woman in Surrey for the practice of witchcraft, they were repealed, 10 George II., 1736."—Viner'sAbridgement.[342]Neale, vol. ii., p. 164-170. Mather, vol. ii., p. 62-64.Arfwedson says, "Close to the town of Salem is Beverley, a small, insignificant place, remarkable only in the annals of history as having formerly contained a superstitious population. Many lives have here been cruelly sacrificed, and the barren hill is still in existence where persons accused of witchcraft were hung upon tall trees. Tradition points out the place where the witches of old resided. Cotton Mather records in a work, truly original for that age, that the good people who lived near Massachusetts Bay were every night roused from their slumbers by the sound of a trumpet, summoning all the witches and demons."—Cotton Mather'sMagnalia; Arfwedson, vol. i., p. 186."And thrice that night the trumpet rang,And rock and hill replied;And down the glen strange shadows sprang—Mortal and fiend—a wizard gang,Seen dimly, side by side."They gathered there from every landThat sleepeth in the sun;They came with spell and charm in hand,Waiting their master's high command—Slaves to the Evil One."—Legends of New England.[343]"During the war with Philip, the Indians took some English alive, and set them upright in the ground, with this sarcasm: 'You English, since you came into this country, have grown considerably above ground; let us now see how you will grow when planted into the ground.'"—Narrative of the Wars in New England, 1675.-Harleian Miscellany, vol. v., p. 400.[344]"The Pequods were a powerful nation on the Connecticut border, who could muster a thousand warriors. The English might have found it difficult to withstand them but for an alliance with the second most powerful people, the Narragansets, whose ancient enmity to the Pequods for a time prevailed over their jealousy of the foreigners. But at length, when the Pequods were nearly exterminated, the Narragansets, seeing the power of the strangers paramount, began to side with their enemies. The Indian chiefs began to imitate the English mode of fighting, and even to assume English names, with some characteristic epithet. One-eyed John, Stone-wall John, and Sagamore Sam, kept the colony in perpetual alarm. But their most deadly and formidable enemy was Philip, sachem of the Wampanoags. No Indian was ever more dreaded by civilized man. A century and a half has now elapsed since this hero of Pokanoket fell a victim to his own race, but even to this day his name is respected, and the last object supposed to have been touched by him in his lifetime is considered by every American as a valuable relic. This extraordinary man, whose real name was Metacom, succeeded his brother in the government of the Wampanoags. The wrongs and grievances suffered by this brother, added to those which he had himself experienced from the English colonists, induced him to engage in a war against them. The issue might, perhaps, have been less doubtful, had not one of his followers defeated his plans by a premature explosion before he had time to summon and concentrate his warriors and allies. From this time no smiles were seen on his face. But though he soon perceived that the great enterprise he had formed was likely to be frustrated, he never lost that elevation of soul which distinguished him to the last moments of his life. By his exertions and energy, all the Indian nations occupying the territory between Maine and the River Connecticut, a distance of nearly 200 miles, took up arms. Every where the name of King Philip was the signal for massacre and flames. But fraud and treason soon accomplished what open warfare could not effect; his followers gave way to numbers; his nearest relations and friends forsook him, and a treacherous ball at last struck his heart. His head was carried round the country in triumph, and exposed as that of a traitor; but posterity has done him justice. Patriotism was his only crime, and his death was that of a hero."—Arfwedson, vol. i., p. 229.[345]"This was not the case in the earlier and more northern settlements, where Mather mentions a clergyman who, from the pulpit, alluded to this as the main object of his flock's coming out, when one of the principal members rose and said, 'Sir, you are mistaken; our main object was to catch fish.'"—Murray'sAmerica."To this day the Council of Massachusets, in the impress of their public seal, have an Indian engraven, with these words: 'Come over and help us,' alluding to Acts, xv., 9."—Narrative of the Wars in New England, 1675.Harleian Miscellany, vol. v., p. 400.[346]"Among these was the celebrated Eliot. Notwithstanding the almost incredible hardships endured by Eliot during his missionary labors, he lived to the age of eighty-six. He expired in 1690, and has ever since been known by the well-earned title of Apostle to the Indians."—Missionary Records, p. 34.Dr. Dwight says of him, "He was naturally qualified beyond almost any other man for the business of a missionary. In promoting among the Indians agriculture, health, morals, and religion, this great and good man labored with constancy, faithfulness, and benevolence which place his name not unworthily among those who are arranged immediately after the apostles of our Divine Redeemer." Eliot translated the Holy Scriptures into the Indian language. In 1661, the New Testament, dedicated to Charles II., was printed at Cambridge, in New England, and about three years afterward, it was followed by the Old Testament. This was the first Bible ever printed in America; and, though the impression consisted of 2000 copies, a second edition was required in 1685.—Ibid., p. 27."When at Harvard College, a copy of the Bible was shown me by Mr. Jared Sparks, translated by the missionary, Father Eliot, into the Indian tongue. It is now a dead language, although preached for several generations to crowded congregations."—Lyell'sAmerica, vol. i., p. 260."Eliot had become an acute grammarian by his studies at the English university of Cambridge. Having finished his laborious and difficult work, the Indian grammar, at the close of it, under a full sense of the difficulties he had encountered, and the acquisition he had made, he said, 'Prayers and pains, through faith in Christ Jesus, do any thing.'"—Life of Eliot, p. 55."The Honorable Robert Boyle often strengthened Eliot's hands and encouraged him in his work—he who was not more admirable among philosophers for his discoveries in science, than he was beloved by Christians for his active kindness and his pious spirit."—Ibid., p. 64."Nor was Eliot alone. In the islands round Massachusetts, and within the limits of the Plymouth patent, missionary zeal and missionary enterprise were active; and the gentle Mayhew, forgetting the pride of learning, endeavored to win the natives to a new religion. At a later day, he took passage for New England to awaken interest there, and the ship in which he sailed was never more heard of. But such had been the force of his example, that his father, though bowed down with the weight of seventy years, resolved on assuming the office of the son whom he had lost, and till beyond the age of fourscore years and twelve, continued to instruct the natives, and with the happiest results. The Indians within his influence, though twenty times more numerous than the whites in their immediate neighborhood, preserved an immutable friendship with Massachusetts."—Bancroft'sHist of the United States, vol. ii., p. 97. SeeMissionary Records;Life of Eliot; Mayhew'sIndian Converts; T. Prince'sAccount of English Ministers.[347]"History has no example to offer of any successful attempt, however slight, to introduce civilization among savage tribes in colonies or in their vicinity, except through the influence of religious missionaries. This is no question of a balance of advantages—no matter of comparison between opposite systems. I repeat that no instance can be shown of the reclaiming of savages by any other influence than that of religion. There are two obvious reasons why such should be the case: the first, that religion only can supply a motive to the governors, placed in obscure situations, and without the reach of responsibility, to act with zeal, perseverance, and charity; the other, that it alone can supply a motive to the governed to undergo that alteration of habits through which the reclaimed savage must pass, and to which the hope of mere temporal advantage will very rarely induce him to consent." This position is well stated in the words of Southey: 'The wealth and power of governments may be vainly employed in the endeavor to conciliate and reclaim brute man, if religious zeal and Christian charity, in the true import of the word, be wanting.'—Merivaleon Colonization, vol. i., p. 289.[348]"The attempt to organize an Indian priesthood at this period failed altogether, the converts possessing neither the steadiness nor the sobriety requisite for the holy office. The duty, therefore, devolved upon European teachers, who in many cases scarcely obtained the wages of a day laborer, and that very precariously. The formation, however, of a society in England for the propagation of the Gospel in this settlement, and pretty liberal contributions raised in the principal towns, in some degree remedied these evils. After the lapse of a few more generations, the Indian character, in its slow but steady upward progress under the teaching of devoted and enlightened Christian ministers, underwent a change so effectual, that the native teachers and preachers of the present day may well bear comparison in zeal, piety, and eloquence with their European colleagues."—Catlin'sAmerican Indians; Cotton'sAmerican Lakes.[349]"The Indians about this time (1653) obtained the appellation of 'Praying Indians,' and the court appointed Major Daniel Gookin their ruler."—Life of Eliot, p. 53.

[314]35 Eliz., c. 1, stat. 4, p. 841-843;Parl. Hist., p. 863; Strype'sWhitgift, p. 414, &c.; Neale'sPuritans, vol. i., p. 526, 527, quoted by Bancroft, vol. i., p. 290.

[315]"TheGospel Advocateasserts that 'the judicial law of Moses being still in force, no prince or law ought to save the lives of (inter alios) heretics, willful breakers of the Sabbath, neglecters of the sacrament without just reason.' Well may the historian of the Puritans (Neale) say, 'Both parties agreed in asserting the necessity of a uniformity of public worship,and of using the sword of the magistrate in support of their respective principles.' It should never be forgotten by those who are inclined to blame the severe laws passed against these Nonconformists, that the English government was dealing with men whose avowed wish and object it was not simply to be tolerated, but to subvert existing institutions in Church and State, and set up in their place those approved by themselves."—Godley'sLetters from America, vol. ii., p. 135.

[316]"The most noisy advocate of the new opinions was Brown, a man of rashness, possessing neither true courage nor constancy. He has acquired historical notoriety because his hot-headed indiscretion urged him to undertake the defense of separation.... Brown eventually purchased a living in the English Church by conformity."—Bancroft'sHistory of the United States, vol. i., p. 287.

[317]"But, although Holland is a country of the greatest religious freedom, they were not better satisfied there than in England. They were tolerated, indeed, but watched. Their zeal began to have dangerous languor for want of opposition, and being without power and influence, they grew tired of the indolent security of their sanctuary. They were desirous of removing to a country where they should see no superior."—Russell'sModern Europe, vol. ii., p. 427."They were restless from the consciousness of ability to act a more important part on the theater of the world ... they were moved by an enlightened desire of improving their condition ... the honorable ambition of becoming the founders of a state."—Bancroft'sHistory of the United States, vol. i., p. 303.

"They were restless from the consciousness of ability to act a more important part on the theater of the world ... they were moved by an enlightened desire of improving their condition ... the honorable ambition of becoming the founders of a state."—Bancroft'sHistory of the United States, vol. i., p. 303.

[318]This was a promise from James I., who had now succeeded to the throne of England.

[319]"A strongly-marked distinction exists between the Southern and Northern Americans. The two extremes are formed by the New Englanders[320]and the Virginians. The former are certainly the more respectable. They are industrious, frugal, enterprising, regular in their habits, pure in their manners, and strongly impressed with sentiments of religion. The name Yankee, which we apply as one of reproach and derision to Americans in general, is assumed by them as their natural and appropriate designation.[321]It is a common proverb in America, that a Yankee will live where another would starve. Their very prosperity, however, with a certain reserve in their character, and supposed steady attention to small gains, renders them not excessively popular with those among whom they settle. They are charged with a peculiar species of finesse, called 'Yankee tricks,' and the character of being 'up to every thing' is applied to them, we know not exactly how, in a sense of reproach. The Virginian planter, on the contrary, is lax in principle, destitute of industry, eager in the pursuit of rough pleasures, and demoralized by the system of negro slavery, which exists in almost a West Indian form. Yet, with all the Americans who attempt to draw the parallel, he seems rather the favorite. He is frank, open-hearted, and exercising a splendid hospitality. Both Cooper and Judge Hall report him as a complete gentleman; by which they evidently mean, not the finished courtier, but the English country gentleman or squire, though the opening afforded by the political constitution of his country causes him to cultivate his mind more by reading and inquiry. A large proportion of the most eminent and ruling statesmen in America—Washington, Jefferson, Madison—were Virginians. Surrounded from their infancy with ease and wealth, accustomed to despise, and to see despised, money on a small scale, and no laborious exertions made for its attainment, they imbibe from youth the habits and ideas of the higher classes. Luxurious living, gaming, horse-racing, cock-fighting, and other rough, turbulent amusements, absorb a great portion of their life. Although, therefore, the leisure enjoyed by them, when well improved, may have produced some very elevated and accomplished characters, they can not, taken at the highest, be considered so respectable a class as their somewhat despised northern brethren; and the lower ranks are decidedly in a state of comparative moral debasement."—Murray, vol. ii., p. 394.

[320]Descendants of the Puritans.

[321]"The word Yankees (which is the Indian corruption of EnglishYengeese) is both offensive and incorrect as applied to any but New Englanders."—Godley'sLetters from America.

[322]"James I. ranked among their party, as much as he was able by severe usage, all those who stood up in defense even of civil liberty."—Bolingbroke'sRemarks upon English History, p. 283.

[323]"In memory of the hospitalities which the company had received at the last English port from which they had sailed, this oldest New England colony obtained the name of Plymouth. The two vessels which conveyed the Pilgrim fathers from Delft Haven were theMayflowerand theSpeedwell. The Mayflower alone proceeded to America."—Bancroft, vol. i., p. 313.

[324]"Under the influence of this wild notion, the colonists of New Plymouth, in imitation of the primitive Christians, threw all their property into a common stock."—Robertson'sAmerica, book x. One of the many errors with which the volume of Robertson teems. There was no attempt at imitating the primitive Christians; the partnership was a consequence of negotiation with British merchants; the colonists preferred the system of private property, and acted upon it, as far and as soon as was possible.—Bancroft'sHistory of the United States, vol. i., p. 306.

[325]"The remonstrances of the Virginia corporation and a transient regard for the rights of the country could delay, but could not defeat, a measure that was sustained by the personal favorites of the monarch. King James issued to forty of his subjects, some of them members of his household and his government, the most wealthy and powerful of the English nobility, a patent, which in American annals, and even in the history of the world, has but one parallel. The territory conferred on the patentees in absolute property, with unlimited jurisdiction, the sole powers of legislation, the appointment of all officers and all forms of government, comprised, and at the time was believed to comprise, much more than a million of square miles: it was, by a single signature of King James, given away to a corporation within the realm, composed of but forty individuals."—Bancroft, vol. i., p. 273.

[326]"The very extent of the grant rendered it of little value. The results which grew out of the concession of this charter form a new proof, if any were wanting, of that mysterious connection of events by which Providence leads to ends that human councils had not conceived."—Bancroft, vol. i., p. 273.The Grand Council of Plymouth resigned their charter in 1635.

The Grand Council of Plymouth resigned their charter in 1635.

[327]"The circumstance which threw a greater luster on the colony than any other was the arrival of Mr. John Cotton, the most esteemed of all the Puritan ministers in England. He was equally distinguished for his learning, and for a brilliant and figurative eloquence. He was so generally beloved that his nonconformity to the ritual of the Established Church, of which he was a minister, was for a considerable time disregarded. At last, however, he was called before the ecclesiastical commission, and he determined upon emigration, 'Some reverend and renowned ministers of our Lord' endeavored to persuade him that the forms to which he refused obedience were 'sufferable trifles,' and did not actually amount to a breach of the second commandment. Mr. Cotton, however, argued so forcibly on the opposite side, that several of the most eminent became all that he was, and afterward followed his example. There went out with him Mr. Hooker and Mr. Stone, who were esteemed to make 'a glorious triumvirate,' and were received in New England with the utmost exultation. It was doubtless a severe trial to these ministers, who appear really to have been, as they say, 'faithful, watchful, painful, serving their flock daily with prayers and tears,' who possessed such a reputation at home and over Europe, to find that no sooner did any half-crazed enthusiast spring up or arrive in the colony, that the people could be prevented only by the most odious compulsion from deserting their churches and flocking to him in a mass. Vainly did Mr. John Cotton strive to persuade Roger Williams, the sectary, that the red cross on the English banner, or his wife's being in the room while he said grace, were 'sufferable trifles,' and 'Mrs. Hutchinson and her ladies' treated his advice and exhortations with equal disregard and contempt. One of them sent him a pound of candles to intimate his need of more spiritual light. This was then the freedom for which his church and his country had been deserted."—Mather; Neale; Hutchinson.

[328]"Robertson is astonished that Neale (see Neale, p. 56) should assert that freedom of religious worship was granted, when the charter expressly asserts the king's supremacy. But this, in fact, was never the article at which they demurred; for the spirit of loyalty was still very strong. It seems quite clear, from the confidence with which they went, and the manner in which they acted when there, that, though there was no formal or written stipulation, the most full understanding existed that very ample latitude was to be allowed in this respect. We have seen on every occasion the vast sacrifices which kings were willing to make in order to people their distant possessions; and the necessity was increased by the backwardness hitherto visible."—Murray'sAmerica, vol. i., p. 249.

[329]During the year 1635 we find the name of John Hampden joined with those of six other gentlemen of family and fortune, who united with the Lords Say and Brooke in making a purchase from the Earl of Warwick of an extensive grant of land in a wide wilderness then called Virginia, but which now forms a part of the State of Connecticut. That these transatlantic possessions were designed by the associates ultimately, or under certain contingencies, to serve as an asylum to themselves and a home to their posterity, there is no room to doubt; but it is evident that nothing short of circumstances constituting a moral necessity would have urged persons of their rank, fortunes, and habits of life to encounter the perils, privations, and hardships attendant upon the pioneers of civilization in that inhospitable clime. Accordingly, they for the present contented themselves with sending out an agent to take possession of these territories and to build a fort. This was done, and the town called Saybrook, from the united names of the two noble proprietors, still preserves the memory of the enterprise. They finally abandoned the whole design, and sold the land in 1636, probably.—Miss Aikin'sLife of Charles I., p. 471. Bancroft, vol. i., p. 384.

[330]"In one of these embargoed ships had actually embarked for their voyage across the Atlantic two no less considerable personages than John Hampden and his kinsman, Oliver Cromwell."—Life of Hampden, by Lord Nugent, vol. i., p. 254. London, 1832.Lord Nugent has fallen into the vulgar error, an invention, probably, of the Puritan historian, and unanswerably disproved by a reference to Parliamentary records. See Miss Aikin'sLife of Charles I., vol. i., p. 472; Bancroft'sHistory of the United States, vol. i., p. 411. The exultation of the Puritan writers on the subject is excessive. They ascribe all the subsequent misfortunes of Charles I. in connection with the scheme of Providence to this tyrannical edict, as they call it.—Russell'sModern Europe, vol. ii., p. 237. See Bancroft'sHistory of the United States, vol. i., p. 412."Nothing could be more barbarous than this! To impose laws on men which in conscience they thought they could not comply with, to punish them for their noncompliance, and continually revile them as undutiful and disobedient subjects by reason thereof, and yet not permit them peaceably to depart and enjoy their own opinions in a distant part of the world, yet dependent on the sovereign: to do all this was base, barbarous, and inhuman. But persecutors of all ages and nations are near the same; they are without the feelings and the understandings of men. Cromwell or Hampden could have given little opposition to the measures of Charles in the wilds of North America. In England they engaged with spirit against him, and he had reason to repent his hindering their voyage. May such at all times be the reward of those who attempt to rule over their fellow-men with rigor: may they find that they will not be slaves to kings or priests, but that they know the rights by nature conferred on them, and will assert them! This will make princes cautious how they give themselves up to arbitrary counsels, and dread the consequences of them."—Harris'sLife of Cromwell, p. 56.

Lord Nugent has fallen into the vulgar error, an invention, probably, of the Puritan historian, and unanswerably disproved by a reference to Parliamentary records. See Miss Aikin'sLife of Charles I., vol. i., p. 472; Bancroft'sHistory of the United States, vol. i., p. 411. The exultation of the Puritan writers on the subject is excessive. They ascribe all the subsequent misfortunes of Charles I. in connection with the scheme of Providence to this tyrannical edict, as they call it.—Russell'sModern Europe, vol. ii., p. 237. See Bancroft'sHistory of the United States, vol. i., p. 412.

"Nothing could be more barbarous than this! To impose laws on men which in conscience they thought they could not comply with, to punish them for their noncompliance, and continually revile them as undutiful and disobedient subjects by reason thereof, and yet not permit them peaceably to depart and enjoy their own opinions in a distant part of the world, yet dependent on the sovereign: to do all this was base, barbarous, and inhuman. But persecutors of all ages and nations are near the same; they are without the feelings and the understandings of men. Cromwell or Hampden could have given little opposition to the measures of Charles in the wilds of North America. In England they engaged with spirit against him, and he had reason to repent his hindering their voyage. May such at all times be the reward of those who attempt to rule over their fellow-men with rigor: may they find that they will not be slaves to kings or priests, but that they know the rights by nature conferred on them, and will assert them! This will make princes cautious how they give themselves up to arbitrary counsels, and dread the consequences of them."—Harris'sLife of Cromwell, p. 56.

[331]"Mr. Dudley, one of the most respectable of the governors, was found, at his death, with a copy of verses in his pocket, which included the following couplet:"'Let men of God in court and churches watchO'er such as do a toleration hatch"—Chalmers.

[331]"Mr. Dudley, one of the most respectable of the governors, was found, at his death, with a copy of verses in his pocket, which included the following couplet:

"'Let men of God in court and churches watchO'er such as do a toleration hatch"—Chalmers.

[332]"The cutting the hair very close, which seemed supported by St. Paul's authority, was the chief outward symbol of a Puritan. In the case of a minister, it was considered essential that the ear should be thoroughly uncovered. Even after the example of Dr. Owen and other eminent divines had given a sanction to letting the hair grow, and even to periwigs, a numerous association was formed at Boston (where Mr. John Cotton was pastor), with Mr. Endicot, the governor, at their head, the members of which bound themselves to stand by each other in resisting long hair to the last extremity. Vane, a young man of birth and fashion, continued for some time a recusant against the uncouth test of his principles, but at last we find a letter congratulating him on having 'glorified God by cutting his hair.'"—Hutchinson'sMassachusetts, quoted by Murray.

[333]One of Williams's disciples, who held some command, cut the cross out, and trampled it under foot. This red cross had nearly subverted the colony. One part of the trained bands would not march with, another would not march without it.—Mather, Neale, &c., quoted by Murray.

[334]The town of Providence, now the capital of Rhode Island, was founded by Williams. The Indian name was Mooshausick, but he changed it to Providence in commemoration of his wonderful escape from persecution.—Arfwedson, vol. i., p. 224.

[335]Mather, vol. vii., ch. ii.; Neale, ch. i., p. 138; Hutchinson, p. 37, 39.

[336]Ibid.

[337]"Mr. Controller, Sir Harry Vane's eldest son, hath left his father, his mother, his country, and that fortune which his father would have left him here, and is for conscience' sake gone into New England, there to lead the rest of his days, being about twenty years of age. He had abstained two years from taking the sacrament in England, because he could get nobody to administer it to him standing."—Strafford Letters, September, 1635, quoted by Miss Aikin,Life of Charles I., vol. i., p. 479."Sir Harry Vane returned to England immediately after the loss of his election. His personal experience of the uncharitableness and intolerance exercised upon one another by men who had themselves been the victims of a similar spirit at home, seems to have produced for some time a tranquilizing effect upon the mind of Vane. He was reconciled to his father, married by his direction a lady of family, obtained the place of joint treasurer of the navy, and exhibited for some time no hostility to the measures of the government. But his fire was smothered only, not extinguished."—Miss Aikin'sLife of Charles I., vol. i., p. 481."After the Restoration of Charles II., Sir Harry Vane suffered death upon the block. (See Hallam, vol. ii., p. 443.) The manner of his death was the admiration of his times."—Bancroft, vol. ii., p. 40.

"Sir Harry Vane returned to England immediately after the loss of his election. His personal experience of the uncharitableness and intolerance exercised upon one another by men who had themselves been the victims of a similar spirit at home, seems to have produced for some time a tranquilizing effect upon the mind of Vane. He was reconciled to his father, married by his direction a lady of family, obtained the place of joint treasurer of the navy, and exhibited for some time no hostility to the measures of the government. But his fire was smothered only, not extinguished."—Miss Aikin'sLife of Charles I., vol. i., p. 481.

"After the Restoration of Charles II., Sir Harry Vane suffered death upon the block. (See Hallam, vol. ii., p. 443.) The manner of his death was the admiration of his times."—Bancroft, vol. ii., p. 40.

[338]Boston was the capital of Massachusetts, and the center of the most fervent Puritanism."Boston may be ranked as the seat of the Unitarians, as Baltimore is that of the Roman Catholics, and Philadelphia that of the Quakers.... No axiom is more applicable to the pensive, serious, scrutinizing inhabitant of the New England States than this: 'What I do not understand, I reject as worthless and false;' so said one of the most learned men of Boston to me. 'Why occupy the mind with that which is incomprehensible? Have we not enough of that which appears clear and plain around us?' ... The greater part of the Bostonians, including every one of wealth, talents, and learning, have adopted this doctrine."—Arfwedson, vol. i., p. 179."In Boston all the leading men are Unitarians, a creed peculiarly acceptable to the pride and self-sufficiency of our nature, asserting, as it does, the independence and perfectibility of man, and denying the necessity of atonement or sanctification by supernatural influences."Though every where in New England the greatest possible decency and respect with regard to morals and religion is still observed, I have no hesitation in saying that I do not think the New Englanders areligiouspeople. The assertion, I know, is paradoxical, but it is nevertheless true, that is, if a strong and earnest belief be a necessary element in a religious character: to me it seems to be its very essence and foundation. I am not now speaking of belief inthe truth, but belief in something or any thing which is removed from the action of the senses.... I am not trusting to my own limited observation in arriving at this conclusion; I find in M. de Tocqueville's work an assertion of the same fact. He accounts for it, indeed, in a different way.... What I complain of is, not the absence of nominal, but of real, heartfelt, unearthly religion, such as led the Puritan Nonconformists to sacrifice country and kindred, and brave the dangers of the ocean and the wilderness for the sake of what they believed God's truth. In my opinion, those men were prejudiced and mistaken, and committed great and grievous faults; but there was, at least, a redeeming element in their character—that of high conscientiousness. There was no compromise of truth, no sacrifice to expediency about them; they believed in the invisible, and they acted on that belief. Every where the tone of religious feeling, since that time, has been altered and relaxed, but perhaps nowhere so much as in the land where the descendants of those Pilgrims lived."—Godley'sLetters from America, vol. ii., p. 90, 133.

[338]Boston was the capital of Massachusetts, and the center of the most fervent Puritanism.

"Boston may be ranked as the seat of the Unitarians, as Baltimore is that of the Roman Catholics, and Philadelphia that of the Quakers.... No axiom is more applicable to the pensive, serious, scrutinizing inhabitant of the New England States than this: 'What I do not understand, I reject as worthless and false;' so said one of the most learned men of Boston to me. 'Why occupy the mind with that which is incomprehensible? Have we not enough of that which appears clear and plain around us?' ... The greater part of the Bostonians, including every one of wealth, talents, and learning, have adopted this doctrine."—Arfwedson, vol. i., p. 179.

"In Boston all the leading men are Unitarians, a creed peculiarly acceptable to the pride and self-sufficiency of our nature, asserting, as it does, the independence and perfectibility of man, and denying the necessity of atonement or sanctification by supernatural influences.

"Though every where in New England the greatest possible decency and respect with regard to morals and religion is still observed, I have no hesitation in saying that I do not think the New Englanders areligiouspeople. The assertion, I know, is paradoxical, but it is nevertheless true, that is, if a strong and earnest belief be a necessary element in a religious character: to me it seems to be its very essence and foundation. I am not now speaking of belief inthe truth, but belief in something or any thing which is removed from the action of the senses.... I am not trusting to my own limited observation in arriving at this conclusion; I find in M. de Tocqueville's work an assertion of the same fact. He accounts for it, indeed, in a different way.... What I complain of is, not the absence of nominal, but of real, heartfelt, unearthly religion, such as led the Puritan Nonconformists to sacrifice country and kindred, and brave the dangers of the ocean and the wilderness for the sake of what they believed God's truth. In my opinion, those men were prejudiced and mistaken, and committed great and grievous faults; but there was, at least, a redeeming element in their character—that of high conscientiousness. There was no compromise of truth, no sacrifice to expediency about them; they believed in the invisible, and they acted on that belief. Every where the tone of religious feeling, since that time, has been altered and relaxed, but perhaps nowhere so much as in the land where the descendants of those Pilgrims lived."—Godley'sLetters from America, vol. ii., p. 90, 133.

[339]"The arbitrary will of the single tyrant, the excesses of the prerogative, seem light when compared with their (the Puritans') more intolerant, more arbitrary, and more absolute power."—Commentaries on the Life and Reign of Charles I., vol. iii., p. 28, by I. D'Israeli. London, 1830.

[340]Mather affirms that the Quakers used to go about saying, "We deny thy Christ: we deny thy God, whom thou callest Father, Son, and Spirit; thy Bible is the word of the devil." They used to rise up suddenly in the midst of a sermon, and call upon the preacher to cease his abomination. One writer says, "For hellish reviling of the painful ministers of Christ, I know no people can match them." The following epithets bestowed by Fisher on Dr. Owen are said to be fair specimens of their usual addresses: "Thou green-headed trumpeter! thou hedgehog and grinning dog! thou tinker! thou lizard! thou whirligig! thou firebrand! thou louse! thou mooncalf! thou ragged tatterdemalion! thou livest in philosophy and logic, which are of the devil." Even Penn is said to have addressed the same respected divine as, "Thou bane of reason and beast of the earth." When the governor or any magistrate came in sight, they would call out, "Woe to thee, thou oppressor," and in the language of Scripture prophecy would announce the judgments that were about to fall upon their head.—Neale, cap. i., p. 341-345. Mather, b. vii., cap. iv. Hutchinson, p. 196-205.

[341]"Sir Matthew Hale burned two persons for witchcraft in 1664. Three thousand were executed in England during the Long Parliament. Two pretended witches were executed at Northampton in 1705. In 1716, Mrs. Hicks and her daughter, aged nine, were hanged at Huntingdon. The last sufferer in Scotland was in 1722, at Dornoch. The laws against witchcraft had lain dormant for many years, when an ignorant person attempting to revive them by finding a bill against a poor old woman in Surrey for the practice of witchcraft, they were repealed, 10 George II., 1736."—Viner'sAbridgement.

[342]Neale, vol. ii., p. 164-170. Mather, vol. ii., p. 62-64.Arfwedson says, "Close to the town of Salem is Beverley, a small, insignificant place, remarkable only in the annals of history as having formerly contained a superstitious population. Many lives have here been cruelly sacrificed, and the barren hill is still in existence where persons accused of witchcraft were hung upon tall trees. Tradition points out the place where the witches of old resided. Cotton Mather records in a work, truly original for that age, that the good people who lived near Massachusetts Bay were every night roused from their slumbers by the sound of a trumpet, summoning all the witches and demons."—Cotton Mather'sMagnalia; Arfwedson, vol. i., p. 186."And thrice that night the trumpet rang,And rock and hill replied;And down the glen strange shadows sprang—Mortal and fiend—a wizard gang,Seen dimly, side by side."They gathered there from every landThat sleepeth in the sun;They came with spell and charm in hand,Waiting their master's high command—Slaves to the Evil One."—Legends of New England.

[342]Neale, vol. ii., p. 164-170. Mather, vol. ii., p. 62-64.

Arfwedson says, "Close to the town of Salem is Beverley, a small, insignificant place, remarkable only in the annals of history as having formerly contained a superstitious population. Many lives have here been cruelly sacrificed, and the barren hill is still in existence where persons accused of witchcraft were hung upon tall trees. Tradition points out the place where the witches of old resided. Cotton Mather records in a work, truly original for that age, that the good people who lived near Massachusetts Bay were every night roused from their slumbers by the sound of a trumpet, summoning all the witches and demons."—Cotton Mather'sMagnalia; Arfwedson, vol. i., p. 186.

"And thrice that night the trumpet rang,And rock and hill replied;And down the glen strange shadows sprang—Mortal and fiend—a wizard gang,Seen dimly, side by side.

"They gathered there from every landThat sleepeth in the sun;They came with spell and charm in hand,Waiting their master's high command—Slaves to the Evil One."—Legends of New England.

[343]"During the war with Philip, the Indians took some English alive, and set them upright in the ground, with this sarcasm: 'You English, since you came into this country, have grown considerably above ground; let us now see how you will grow when planted into the ground.'"—Narrative of the Wars in New England, 1675.-Harleian Miscellany, vol. v., p. 400.

[344]"The Pequods were a powerful nation on the Connecticut border, who could muster a thousand warriors. The English might have found it difficult to withstand them but for an alliance with the second most powerful people, the Narragansets, whose ancient enmity to the Pequods for a time prevailed over their jealousy of the foreigners. But at length, when the Pequods were nearly exterminated, the Narragansets, seeing the power of the strangers paramount, began to side with their enemies. The Indian chiefs began to imitate the English mode of fighting, and even to assume English names, with some characteristic epithet. One-eyed John, Stone-wall John, and Sagamore Sam, kept the colony in perpetual alarm. But their most deadly and formidable enemy was Philip, sachem of the Wampanoags. No Indian was ever more dreaded by civilized man. A century and a half has now elapsed since this hero of Pokanoket fell a victim to his own race, but even to this day his name is respected, and the last object supposed to have been touched by him in his lifetime is considered by every American as a valuable relic. This extraordinary man, whose real name was Metacom, succeeded his brother in the government of the Wampanoags. The wrongs and grievances suffered by this brother, added to those which he had himself experienced from the English colonists, induced him to engage in a war against them. The issue might, perhaps, have been less doubtful, had not one of his followers defeated his plans by a premature explosion before he had time to summon and concentrate his warriors and allies. From this time no smiles were seen on his face. But though he soon perceived that the great enterprise he had formed was likely to be frustrated, he never lost that elevation of soul which distinguished him to the last moments of his life. By his exertions and energy, all the Indian nations occupying the territory between Maine and the River Connecticut, a distance of nearly 200 miles, took up arms. Every where the name of King Philip was the signal for massacre and flames. But fraud and treason soon accomplished what open warfare could not effect; his followers gave way to numbers; his nearest relations and friends forsook him, and a treacherous ball at last struck his heart. His head was carried round the country in triumph, and exposed as that of a traitor; but posterity has done him justice. Patriotism was his only crime, and his death was that of a hero."—Arfwedson, vol. i., p. 229.

[345]"This was not the case in the earlier and more northern settlements, where Mather mentions a clergyman who, from the pulpit, alluded to this as the main object of his flock's coming out, when one of the principal members rose and said, 'Sir, you are mistaken; our main object was to catch fish.'"—Murray'sAmerica."To this day the Council of Massachusets, in the impress of their public seal, have an Indian engraven, with these words: 'Come over and help us,' alluding to Acts, xv., 9."—Narrative of the Wars in New England, 1675.Harleian Miscellany, vol. v., p. 400.

"To this day the Council of Massachusets, in the impress of their public seal, have an Indian engraven, with these words: 'Come over and help us,' alluding to Acts, xv., 9."—Narrative of the Wars in New England, 1675.Harleian Miscellany, vol. v., p. 400.

[346]"Among these was the celebrated Eliot. Notwithstanding the almost incredible hardships endured by Eliot during his missionary labors, he lived to the age of eighty-six. He expired in 1690, and has ever since been known by the well-earned title of Apostle to the Indians."—Missionary Records, p. 34.Dr. Dwight says of him, "He was naturally qualified beyond almost any other man for the business of a missionary. In promoting among the Indians agriculture, health, morals, and religion, this great and good man labored with constancy, faithfulness, and benevolence which place his name not unworthily among those who are arranged immediately after the apostles of our Divine Redeemer." Eliot translated the Holy Scriptures into the Indian language. In 1661, the New Testament, dedicated to Charles II., was printed at Cambridge, in New England, and about three years afterward, it was followed by the Old Testament. This was the first Bible ever printed in America; and, though the impression consisted of 2000 copies, a second edition was required in 1685.—Ibid., p. 27."When at Harvard College, a copy of the Bible was shown me by Mr. Jared Sparks, translated by the missionary, Father Eliot, into the Indian tongue. It is now a dead language, although preached for several generations to crowded congregations."—Lyell'sAmerica, vol. i., p. 260."Eliot had become an acute grammarian by his studies at the English university of Cambridge. Having finished his laborious and difficult work, the Indian grammar, at the close of it, under a full sense of the difficulties he had encountered, and the acquisition he had made, he said, 'Prayers and pains, through faith in Christ Jesus, do any thing.'"—Life of Eliot, p. 55."The Honorable Robert Boyle often strengthened Eliot's hands and encouraged him in his work—he who was not more admirable among philosophers for his discoveries in science, than he was beloved by Christians for his active kindness and his pious spirit."—Ibid., p. 64."Nor was Eliot alone. In the islands round Massachusetts, and within the limits of the Plymouth patent, missionary zeal and missionary enterprise were active; and the gentle Mayhew, forgetting the pride of learning, endeavored to win the natives to a new religion. At a later day, he took passage for New England to awaken interest there, and the ship in which he sailed was never more heard of. But such had been the force of his example, that his father, though bowed down with the weight of seventy years, resolved on assuming the office of the son whom he had lost, and till beyond the age of fourscore years and twelve, continued to instruct the natives, and with the happiest results. The Indians within his influence, though twenty times more numerous than the whites in their immediate neighborhood, preserved an immutable friendship with Massachusetts."—Bancroft'sHist of the United States, vol. ii., p. 97. SeeMissionary Records;Life of Eliot; Mayhew'sIndian Converts; T. Prince'sAccount of English Ministers.

Dr. Dwight says of him, "He was naturally qualified beyond almost any other man for the business of a missionary. In promoting among the Indians agriculture, health, morals, and religion, this great and good man labored with constancy, faithfulness, and benevolence which place his name not unworthily among those who are arranged immediately after the apostles of our Divine Redeemer." Eliot translated the Holy Scriptures into the Indian language. In 1661, the New Testament, dedicated to Charles II., was printed at Cambridge, in New England, and about three years afterward, it was followed by the Old Testament. This was the first Bible ever printed in America; and, though the impression consisted of 2000 copies, a second edition was required in 1685.—Ibid., p. 27.

"When at Harvard College, a copy of the Bible was shown me by Mr. Jared Sparks, translated by the missionary, Father Eliot, into the Indian tongue. It is now a dead language, although preached for several generations to crowded congregations."—Lyell'sAmerica, vol. i., p. 260.

"Eliot had become an acute grammarian by his studies at the English university of Cambridge. Having finished his laborious and difficult work, the Indian grammar, at the close of it, under a full sense of the difficulties he had encountered, and the acquisition he had made, he said, 'Prayers and pains, through faith in Christ Jesus, do any thing.'"—Life of Eliot, p. 55.

"The Honorable Robert Boyle often strengthened Eliot's hands and encouraged him in his work—he who was not more admirable among philosophers for his discoveries in science, than he was beloved by Christians for his active kindness and his pious spirit."—Ibid., p. 64.

"Nor was Eliot alone. In the islands round Massachusetts, and within the limits of the Plymouth patent, missionary zeal and missionary enterprise were active; and the gentle Mayhew, forgetting the pride of learning, endeavored to win the natives to a new religion. At a later day, he took passage for New England to awaken interest there, and the ship in which he sailed was never more heard of. But such had been the force of his example, that his father, though bowed down with the weight of seventy years, resolved on assuming the office of the son whom he had lost, and till beyond the age of fourscore years and twelve, continued to instruct the natives, and with the happiest results. The Indians within his influence, though twenty times more numerous than the whites in their immediate neighborhood, preserved an immutable friendship with Massachusetts."—Bancroft'sHist of the United States, vol. ii., p. 97. SeeMissionary Records;Life of Eliot; Mayhew'sIndian Converts; T. Prince'sAccount of English Ministers.

[347]"History has no example to offer of any successful attempt, however slight, to introduce civilization among savage tribes in colonies or in their vicinity, except through the influence of religious missionaries. This is no question of a balance of advantages—no matter of comparison between opposite systems. I repeat that no instance can be shown of the reclaiming of savages by any other influence than that of religion. There are two obvious reasons why such should be the case: the first, that religion only can supply a motive to the governors, placed in obscure situations, and without the reach of responsibility, to act with zeal, perseverance, and charity; the other, that it alone can supply a motive to the governed to undergo that alteration of habits through which the reclaimed savage must pass, and to which the hope of mere temporal advantage will very rarely induce him to consent." This position is well stated in the words of Southey: 'The wealth and power of governments may be vainly employed in the endeavor to conciliate and reclaim brute man, if religious zeal and Christian charity, in the true import of the word, be wanting.'—Merivaleon Colonization, vol. i., p. 289.

[348]"The attempt to organize an Indian priesthood at this period failed altogether, the converts possessing neither the steadiness nor the sobriety requisite for the holy office. The duty, therefore, devolved upon European teachers, who in many cases scarcely obtained the wages of a day laborer, and that very precariously. The formation, however, of a society in England for the propagation of the Gospel in this settlement, and pretty liberal contributions raised in the principal towns, in some degree remedied these evils. After the lapse of a few more generations, the Indian character, in its slow but steady upward progress under the teaching of devoted and enlightened Christian ministers, underwent a change so effectual, that the native teachers and preachers of the present day may well bear comparison in zeal, piety, and eloquence with their European colleagues."—Catlin'sAmerican Indians; Cotton'sAmerican Lakes.

[349]"The Indians about this time (1653) obtained the appellation of 'Praying Indians,' and the court appointed Major Daniel Gookin their ruler."—Life of Eliot, p. 53.

The principal characteristics of that colonization by which the vast republic of the West was formed, have been exhibited in the settlement of Virginia and Massachusetts. The other states were stamped with the impress of the two first, and in a great measure peopled from them. Rhode Island and the rest of the New England states were founded by those who had fled from the religious persecutions of Massachusetts, with the exception of Connecticut, which owes its origin chiefly to the spirit of adventure and the search for unoccupied lands. The first settlers divided this last-named state among themselves without the sanction of any authority, and then proceeded to form a constitution of unexampled liberality. They had to bear the chief burden in the Indian war, on account of their advanced and exposed position; but Connecticut prospered in spite of every obstacle. Several Puritans of distinction sought its shore from England. Charles II., on his restoration granted a most liberal charter, and it continued to enjoy the benefits of complete self-government till Massachusetts was deprived of her charter by James II., when Connecticut shared the same fate. At the Revolution, the younger state, more fortunate than her neighbor, was restored to all the privileges formerly enjoyed.

The states of New Hampshire and Maine were originally founded on Loyalist and Church of England principles. Sir Ferdinand Gorges and John Mason, the most energetic member of the Council of Plymouth, undertook the colonization of these districts, but their tyrannical and injudicious conduct stunted the growth of the infant colonies, and little progress was made till the religious dissensions of Boston swelled their population. Violent and even fatal dissensions, however, distracted this incongruous community, till the government of Massachusetts assumed the sway over it, and re-established order and prosperity. Gorges and Mason disputed for many years the rights of authority with the new rulers; nor was the question finally settled till Massachusetts was deprived of her charter, when a royal government was established in New Hampshire.

The important state of New York was founded under very different auspices from those of its neighbors. In 1609, Henry Hudson, while sailing in the service of the Dutch East India Company, discovered the magnificent stream which now bears his name. A small colony was soon sent out from Holland[350]to settle the new country, and a trading post established at the mouth of the river. Sir Samuel Argall, governor of Virginia, conceived that this foreign settlement trenched upon the rights granted by the English crown to its subjects, and by a display of superior force constrained the Dutch colony to acknowledge British sovereignty [1613];[351]but this submission became a dead letter some years later, when large bodies of emigrants arrived from the Low Countries [1620];[352]the little trading post soon rose into a town, and a fort was erected for its defense. The site of this establishment was on the island of Manhattan;[353]the founders called it New Amsterdam. When it fell into the possession of England, the name was changed to New York. Albany[354]was next built, at some distance up the Hudson, as a post for the Indian trade, and thence a communication was opened for the first time with the Northern Indian confederacy of the Iroquois, or the Five Nations.

Charles II., from hatred to the Dutch, as well as from the desire of aggrandizement, renewed the claims of England upon the Hudson settlements, and in 1664 dispatched an armament of 300 men to enforce this claim. Stuyvesant, the Dutch governor,[355]was totally unprepared to resist the threatened attack, and after a short parley agreed to surrender. The settlers were, however, secured in property and person, and in the free exercise of their religion, and the greater part remained under their new rulers. In the long naval war subsequently carried on between England and Holland, the colony again passed for a time under the sway of the Dutch, but at the peace was finally restored to Great Britain. James, then Duke of York, had received from his brother a grant of the district which now constitutes the State of New York. On assuming authority, he appointed governors with arbitrary power, but the colonists in assertion of their rights as Englishmen, stoutly resisted, and even sent home Dyer, the collector of customs, under a charge of high treason, for attempting to levy taxes without legal authority. [1681.] The duke judged it expedient to conciliate his sturdy transatlantic subjects, and yielded them a certain form of representative government. In 1682, Mr. Dongan was sent out with a commission to assemble a council of ten, and a house of assembly of eighteen popular deputies. The new governor soon rendered himself beloved and respected by all, although at first distrusted and disliked, as professing the Romish faith. New York was not allowed to enjoy these fortunate circumstances for any length of time; the capricious and arbitrary duke, on his accession to the crown, abrogated the colonial constitution; shortly afterward the state was annexed to Massachusetts, the beloved governor recalled, and the despotic Andros established in his stead. [1686.] At the first rumor of the Revolution of 1688, the inhabitants, led by a merchant of the name of Leisler, rose in arms, proclaimed William and Mary, and elected a house of representatives. The new monarch sent out a Colonel Slaughter as governor, whose authority was disputed by Leisler; however, the bold merchant was soon overcome, and with quick severity tried and executed. [1691.] The English Parliament, more considerate of his useful services, subsequently reversed his attainder, and restored the forfeited estates to his family. [1695.] With the view of aiding the resources and progress of the colony, 3000 German Protestants, called Palatines, were subsequently conveyed to the banks of the Hudson, and subsisted for three years, at a great expense, by England. These sober and industrious men proved a most valuable addition to the population.[356]

New Jersey was formed from a part of the original territory of New York. Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret were the proprietors, by grant from James [1664]: they founded the new state with great judgment and liberality, establishing the power of self-government and taxation. The Duke of York, however, on the reconquest of the country from the Dutch, took the opportunity of abrogating the Constitution: the colonists boldly appealed against this tyranny, and with such force, that the duke was led to refer the question to the judgment of the learned and upright Sir William Jones, who gave it against him. [1681.] James was obliged to acquiesce in this decision till he ascended the throne, when he swept away all the rights of the colony, and annexed it, like its neighbors, to the government of Massachusetts. After the accession of William, New Jersey was entangled for ten years in a web of conflicting claims but was finally established under its own independent Legislature.

The State of Maryland was so named in honor of Henrietta Maria, the beautiful queen of Charles I., to whose influence the early settlers were much indebted. Religious persecution in England drove forth the founders of the colony; but in this case the Protestants were the instigators, and the cruel laws of Queen Elizabeth's reign against the Roman Catholics were the instruments. Lord Baltimore, an Irish peer, and other men of distinction in the popish body, obtained from Charles I., as an asylum in the New World, a grant of that angle of Virginia lying on both sides of the River Chesapeake, a district rich in soil, genial in climate, and admirably situated for commerce. An expedition of 200 Roman Catholics, many among them men of good birth, was sent under Mr. Calvert, Lord Baltimore's brother, to take possession of this favored tract. [1634.] Their first care was to conciliate the Indians, in which they eminently succeeded. The natives were even prevailed upon to abandon their village and their cleared lands around to the strangers, and to remove themselves contentedly to another situation.

Maryland was most honorably distinguished in the earliest times by perfect freedom of religious opinion. Many members of the Church of England, as well as Roman Catholics, fled thither from the persecutions of the Puritans. The Baltimore family at first displayed great liberality and judgment in their rule; but, as they gained confidence from the secret support of the king to their cherished faith, their wise moderation seems to have diminished. However, the principal grievance brought against them was, that they had not provided by public funds for Church of England clergymen as fully as for those of their own faith, although by far the larger portion of the population belonged to the flock of the former. The unsatisfactory state of morals, manners, and religion in the colony was attributed to this neglect. At the Revolution, the inhabitants of Maryland rose with tumultuous zeal against their Roman Catholic lords, and published a manifesto in justification of their proceedings, accusing Lord Baltimore's government of intolerable tyranny. These statements, whether true or false, afforded King William an opportunity to assume the colonial power in his own hands, 1691, and to deprive the Calverts of all rights over the country, except the receipt of some local taxes.[357]

For a long time but few settlers had established themselves in that part of North America now called Carolina;[358]of these, some were men who had fled from the persecutions of New England, and formed a little colony round Cape Fear [1661]; others were Virginians, attracted by the rich unoccupied lands. After the restoration of Charles, however, the energies of the British nation, no longer devoted to internal quarrels, turned into the fields of foreign and colonial adventure. Charles readily bestowed upon his followers vast tracts of an uncultivated wilderness which he had never seen; and Monk, duke of Albemarle, the Earl of Clarendon, Lords Berkeley and Ashley, Sir George Carteret, and a few others, were created absolute lords of the new province of Carolina. [1663.] Great exertions were then made to attract settlers; immunity from prosecution for debt was secured to them for five years, and, at the same time, a liberal Constitution was granted, with a popular House of Assembly. The proprietors, anxious to perfect the work of colonization, prevailed upon the celebrated Locke to draw up a system of government for the new state, which, however excellent in theory, proved practically a signal failure.[359]The principal characteristic of the scheme was the establishment of an aristocracy with fantastic titles of nobility,[360]who met with the deputies in a Parliament, where, however, the council solely possessed the power of proposing new laws. The whole colonial body was subject to the Court of Proprietors in England, which was presided over by a chief called the Palatine,[361]possessing nearly supreme power. The sturdy colonists neglected, or deferred for future consideration, every portion of this new Constitution that appeared unsuitable to their condition, alleging that its provisions were in violation of the promises that had induced them to adopt the country.

Carolina for a long time progressed but slowly. The colonists had no fixed religion,[362]and their general morals and industry were very indifferent. They drew largely upon the resources of the proprietors without giving any return, and when at length that supply was stopped, they resorted to every idle and iniquitous mode of raising funds. They hunted the Indians, and sold them as slaves to the West Indies, and their sea-ports became the resort of pirates. These atrocious and ruinous pursuits soon reduced them to a state of miserable poverty, and the baneful influence of a series of profligate governors completed the mischief. One of these, named Sette Sothel,[363]was especially conspicuous for rapacity and injustice. [1683.] His misrule at length goaded the people into insurrection; they seized him, and were about to send him as a prisoner to England, but released him on a promise of renouncing the government, and leaving the colony for a time. After these and some other commotions, they succeeded in re-establishing their ancient charter in its original simplicity.

Carolina now began to improve rapidly, from the influx of a large and valuable immigration. The religious freedom that had been secured under the old charter was continued unrestricted even under Mr. Locke's complicated Constitution. Many Puritans flocked in from Britain to seek refuge from the persecutions of Charles II., and by their steadiness and industry soon attained considerable wealth. New England had also furnished her share to the new settlement of useful and energetic men who had been expelled by her Calvinistic intolerance. But the narrow-minded jealousy of the original emigrants soon interrupted the prosperity of the colony. Under the hypocritical plea of zeal for the Church of England, to which their conduct and morals were a scandal, they obtained, by violent means, a majority of one in the Assembly, and expelled all dissenters from the Legislature and government. They even passed a law to depose all sectarian clergy, and devote their churches to the services of the established religion. The oppressed Dissenters appealed to the British Parliament for protection. In the year 1705, an address was voted to the queen by the House of Commons, declaring the injustice of these acts, but nothing was done to relieve the colony till in 1721, when the people rose in insurrection, established a provisional government, and prayed that the king, George I., would himself undertake their rule. He granted their petition, and soon afterward purchased the rights of the proprietors. [1727.][364]

In the year 1732 a plan was formed for relieving the distress then severely pressing upon England by colonizing the territory still remaining unoccupied to the south of the Savannah. Twenty-three trustees, men of rank and influence, were appointed for this purpose, and the sum of £15,000 was placed at their disposal by Parliament and by voluntary subscription. With the aid of these funds about 500 people were forwarded to the new country, and some others went at their own expense. In honor of the reigning king, the name of Georgia was given to the new settlement. The lands were granted to the emigrants on conditions of military service, and a large proportion, of them were selected from among the hardy Scottish Highlanders and the veterans of some German regiments. Besides being the advance guard of civilization in the Indian country, the colony was threatened with the rival claims of the Spaniards in Florida, the boundaries of whose territory were very vague and uncertain. Happily for Georgia, Mr. Oglethorpe, the original founder of the settlement, succeeded in establishing a lasting friendship with the powerful Creek Indians, the natives of the country; but the Spaniards never ceased to alarm and threaten the colony till British arms had won the whole Atlantic coast. Owing to this disadvantage, and still more to certain humane restrictions upon the Indian trade,[365]no great influx of population took place until 1763, when peace restored confidence, and men and money were freely introduced from England.

One of the most important of the great American states that declared their independence in 1783, was, with the exception of Georgia, the latest in its origin. Under the wise and gentle influence of the founders, however, it progressed more rapidly than any other. When time and reflection had cooled the ardor and softened the fanaticism of the early Quakers, the sect attracted general and just admiration by the mild and persevering philanthropy of its most distinguished members. The pure benevolence and patient courage of William Penn was a tower of strength to this new creed; well born, and enjoying a competent fortune, he possessed the means as well as the will powerfully to aid in its advancement. He endured with patience, but with unflinching constancy, a continual series of legal persecutions, and even the anger of his father, until the unspotted integrity of his life and his practical wisdom at length triumphed over prejudice and hostility, and he was allowed the privilege of pleading before the British Parliament in the cause of his oppressed brethren.

William Penn inherited from his father a claim against the government for £16,000, which King Charles gladly paid by assigning to him the territory in the New World now called Pennsylvania,[367]in honor of the first proprietor.[368]This was a large and fertile expanse of inland country partly taken from New York, New Jersey, and Maryland. It was included between the 40th and 43d degrees of latitude, and bounded on the east by the Delaware River. The enlightened and benevolent proprietor bestowed upon the new state a Constitution that secured, as far as human ordinance was capable, freedom of faith, thought, and action. He formed some peculiar institutions for the promotion of peace and good will among his brethren, and for the protection of the widow and the orphan. By his wise and just dealings with the Indians,[369]he gained their important confidence and friendship: he sent commissioners to treat with them for the sale of their lands, and in the year 1682 met the assembled chiefs near the spot where Philadelphia now stands. The savages advanced to the place of meeting in great numbers and in warlike guise, but as the approach of the English was announced, they laid aside their weapons and seated themselves in quiet groups around their chiefs.[370]Penn came forward fearlessly with a few attendants, all unarmed, and in their usual grave and simple attire; in his hand he held a parchment on which were written the terms of the treaty. He then spoke in a few plain words of the friendship and justice that should rule the actions of all men, and guide him, and them, and their children's children. The Indians answered that they would live in peace with him and his white brothers as long as the sun and moon shall endure. And in the Quaker's parchment and the Indian's promise was accomplished the peaceful conquest of that lovely wilderness, a conquest more complete, more secure and lasting, than any that the ruthless rigor of Cortes or the stern valor of the Puritans had ever won.

The prosperity of Pennsylvania advanced with unexampled rapidity.[371]The founder took out with him two thousand well-chosen emigrants, and a considerable number had preceded him to the new country. The orderly freedom that prevailed,[372]and the perpetual peace with the Indians,[373]gave a great advantage to this colony; emigration flowed thither more abundantly than to any other settlement, and thus, although of such recent origin, this state soon equaled the most successful of its older neighbors.

Back to Index Next