 This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit librivox.org. Read by ML Cohen, Cleveland, Ohio, May 2007. History of the United States by Charles A. Beard and Mary Ritter Beard. Part 1, The Colonial Period, Preface. As things now stand, the course of instruction in American history in our public schools embraces three distinct treatments of the subject. Three separate books are used. First, there is the primary book, which is usually a very condensed narrative with emphasis on biographies and anecdotes. Second, there is the advanced text for the seventh or eighth grade, generally speaking, an expansion of the elementary book by the addition of 40 or 50,000 words. Finally, there is the high school manual. This too ordinarily follows the beaten path, giving fuller accounts of the same events and characters. To put it bluntly, we do not assume that our children obtain permanent possessions from their study of history in the lower grades. If mathematicians followed the same method, high school texts on algebra and geometry would include the multiplication table and fractions. There is, of course, a ready answer to the criticism advanced above. It is that teachers have learned from bitter experience how little history their pupils retain as they pass along the regular route. No teacher of history will deny this. Still, it is a standing challenge to the existing methods of historical instruction. If the study of history cannot be made truly progressive, like the study of mathematics, science, and languages, then the historians assume a grave responsibility in adding their subject to the already overloaded curriculum. If the success of historical texts are only in large editions of the first texts, more facts, more dates, more words, then history deserves most of the sharp criticism which it is receiving from teachers of science, civics, and economics. In this condition of affairs, we find our justification for offering a new high school text in American history. Our first contribution is one of omission. The time-honored stories of exploration and the biographies of heroes are left out. We frankly hold that if pupils know little or nothing about Columbus, Cortez, Magellan, or Captain John Smith by the time they reach the high school, it is useless to tell the same stories for perhaps the fourth time. It is worse than useless. It is an offense against the teachers of those subjects that are demonstrated to be progressive in character. In the next place, we have omitted all description of battles. Our reasons for this are simple. The strategy of a campaign or of a single battle is a highly technical and usually highly controversial matter about which experts differ widely. In the field of military and naval operations, most writers and teachers of history are mere novices. To dispose of Gettysburg or the wilderness in ten lines or ten pages is equally absurd to the serious student of military affairs. Anyone who compares the ordinary textbook account of a single Civil War campaign with the account given by ropes, for instance, will ask for no further comment. No youth called upon to serve our country in arms would think of turning to a high school manual for information about the art of warfare. The dramatic scene or episode so useful in arousing the interest of the immature pupil seems out of place in a book that deliberately appeals to boys and girls on the very threshold of life's serious responsibilities. It is not upon negative features, however, that we rest our case. It is rather upon constructive features. First, we have written a topical, not a narrative history. We have tried to set forth the important aspects, problems, and movements of each period, bringing in the narrative rather by way of illustration. Second, we have emphasized those historical topics which help to explain how our nation has come to be what it is today. Third, we have dwelt fully upon the social and economic aspects of our history, especially in relation to the politics of each period. Fourth, we have treated the causes and results of wars, the problems of financing and sustaining armed forces, rather than military strategy. These are the subjects which belong to a history for civilians. These are matters which civilians can understand, matters which they must understand, if they are to play well their part in war and peace. Fifth, by emitting the period of exploration, we have been able to enlarge the treatment of our own time. We have given special attention to the history of those current questions which must form the subject matter of sound instruction in citizenship. Sixth, we have borne in mind that America, with all her unique characteristics, is part of a general civilization. Accordingly, we have given diplomacy, foreign affairs, world relations, and their reciprocal influence of nations their appropriate place. Seventh, we have deliberately aimed at standards of maturity. The study of a mere narrative calls mainly for the use of the memory. We have aimed to stimulate habits of analysis, comparison, association, reflection, and generalization. Habits calculated to enlarge as well as inform the mind. We have been at great pains to make our texts clear, simple, and direct. But we have earnestly sought to stretch the intellects of our readers to put them upon their mettle. Most of them will receive the last of their formal instruction in the high school. The world will soon expect maturity from them. Their achievements will depend upon the possession of other powers than memory alone. The effectiveness of their citizenship in our republic will be measured by the excellence of their judgment, as well as the fullness of their information. CAB, MRB, New York City, February 8, 1921. End of preface. History of the United States. Charles A. Beard, Mary Ritter Beard. Recording by John L. White. History of the United States by Charles A. Beard and Mary Ritter Beard, Part 1, Chapter 1. The Great Migration to America. The tide of migration that set in toward the shores of North America during the early years of the 17th century was but one phase in the restless and eternal movement of mankind upon the surface of the earth. The ancient Greeks flung out their colonies in every direction, westward as far as Gaul, across the Mediterranean and eastward into Asia Minor, perhaps to the very confines of India. The Romans, supported by their armies and their government, spread their dominion beyond the narrow lands of Italy until it stretched from the heather of Scotland to the sands of Arabia. The Teutonic tribes from their home beyond the Danube and the Rhine poured into the empire the Caesars and made the beginnings of modern Europe. Of this great sweep of races and empires, the settlement of America was merely a part. And it was, moreover, only one aspect of the expansion which finally carried the peoples, the institutions and the trade of Europe to the very ends of the earth. In one vital point it must be noted, American colonization differed from that of the ancients. The Greeks usually carried with them affection for the government they left behind and sacred fire from the altar of the parent city. But thousands of the immigrants who came to America, disliked the state and disowned the church of the mother country. They established compacts of government for themselves and set up altars of their own. They sought not only new soil to till, but also political and religious liberty for themselves and their children. The Agencies of American Colonization It was no light matter for the English to cross 3,000 miles of water and found homes in the American wilderness at the opening of the 17th century. Ships, tools and supplies called for huge outlays of money. Stores had to be furnished in quantities sufficient to sustain the life of the settlers until they could gather harvests of their own. Artisans and laborers of skill and industry had to be induced to risk the hazards of the New World. Soldiers were required for defense and mariners for the exploration of inland waters. Leaders of good judgment, adept in managing men had to be discovered. Altogether such an enterprise demanded capital larger than the ordinary merchant or gentleman could amass and involved risks more imminent than he dared to assume. Though in later days after initial tests had been made wealthy proprietors were able to establish colonies on their own account, it was the corporation that furnished the capital and leadership in the beginning. The Trading Company English pioneers in exploration found an instrument for colonization in companies of merchant adventurers which had long been employed in carrying on commerce with foreign countries. Such a corporation was composed of many persons of different ranks of society, noblemen, merchants and gentlemen who banded together for a particular undertaking, each contributing a sum of money and sharing in the profits of the venture. It was organized under royal authority. It received its charter, its grant of land and its trading privileges from the king and carried on its operations under his supervision and control. The charter named all persons originally included in the corporation and gave them certain powers in the management of its affairs including the right to admit new members. The company was in fact a little government set up by the king. When the members of the corporation remained in England, as in the case of the Virginia Company, they operated through agents sent to the colony. When they came over the seas themselves and settled in America, as in the case of Massachusetts, they became the direct government of the country they possessed. The stockholders in that instance became the voters and the governor, the chief magistrate. Four of the thirteen colonies in America owed their origins to the trading corporation. It was the London Company created by King James I in 1606 that laid during the following year the foundations of Virginia at Jamestown. It was under the auspices of their West India Company chartered in 1621 that the Dutch planted the settlements of the new Netherlands in the valley of the Hudson. The founders of Massachusetts were Puritan leaders and men of affairs whom King Charles I incorporated in 1629 under the title The Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England. In this case, the law did but incorporate a group drawn together by religious ties. We must be knit together as one man, wrote John Winthrop, the first Puritan governor in America. Far to the south, on the banks of the Delaware River, a Swedish commercial company in 1638 made the beginnings of a settlement christened New Sweden. It was destined to pass under the rule of the Dutch and finally under the rule of William Penn as the proprietary colony of Delaware. In a certain sense, Georgia may be included among the company colonies. It was, however, originally conceived by the moving spirit James Oglethorpe as an asylum for poor men, especially those imprisoned for debt. To realize this humane purpose, he secured from King George II in 1732 a royal charter uniting several gentlemen including himself into one body politic and corporate known as the trustees for establishing the colony of Georgia in America. In the structure of their organization and their methods of government the trustees did not differ materially from their regular companies created for trade and colonization. Though their purposes were benevolent, their transactions had to be under the forms of law and according to the rules of business. The Religious Congregation A second agency which figured largely in the settlement of America was the religious brotherhood or congregation of men and women brought together in the bonds of a common religious faith. By one of the strange fortunes of history, this institution founded in the early days of Christianity proved to be a potent force in the origin and growth of self-government in a land far away from Galilee. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul we are told in the Acts describing the church at Jerusalem. We are knit together as a body in a most sacred covenant of the Lord by virtue of which we hold ourselves strictly tied to all care of each other's good and of the whole wrote John Robinson, a leader among the pilgrims who founded their tiny colony of Plymouth in 1620. The Mayflower Compact, so famous in American history, was but a written and signed agreement incorporating the spirit of obedience to the common good which served as a guide to self-government until Plymouth was annexed to Massachusetts in 1691. Three other colonies, all of which retained their identity until the eve of the American Revolution likewise sprang directly from the congregations of the faithful. Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Hampshire, mainly offshoots from Massachusetts. They were founded by small bodies of men and women, united in solemn covenants with the Lord who planted their settlements in the wilderness. Not until many a year after Roger Williams and Ann Hutchinson conducted their followers to the Narragansett Country was Rhode Island granted a charter of incorporation 1663 by the Crown. Not until long after the congregation of Thomas Hooker from Newtown blazed the way into the Connecticut River Valley did the King of England give Connecticut a charter of its own, 1662, and a place among the colonies. Half a century elapsed before the towns laid out beyond the Merrimack River by immigrants from Massachusetts were formed into the royal province of New Hampshire in 1679. Even when Connecticut was chartered, the parchment and sealing wax of the royal lawyers did but confirm rights and habits of self-government and obedience to law previously established by the congregations. The towns of Hartford, Windsor and Weathersfield had long lived happily under their fundamental orders drawn up by themselves in 1639. So had the settlers dwelt peacefully at New Haven under their fundamental articles drafted in the same year. The pioneers on the Connecticut shore had no difficulty in agreeing that the scriptures do hold forth a perfect rule for the description and government of all men. The Proprietor, a third and very important colonial agency, was the Proprietor or Proprietary. As the name associated with the word property implies, the Proprietor was a person to whom the King granted property and lands in North America to have, hold, use and enjoy for his own benefit and profit with the right to hand the estate down to his heirs in perpetual succession. The Proprietor was a rich and powerful person prepared to furnish or secure the capital, collect the ships, supply the stores and assemble the settlers necessary to found and sustain a plantation beyond the seas. Sometimes the Proprietor worked alone, sometimes two or more were associated like partners in the common undertaking. Five colonies, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and the Carolinas, owe their formal origins, though not always their first settlements, nor in most cases their prosperity to the Proprietary system. Maryland, established in 1634 under a Catholic nobleman, Lord Baltimore, and blessed with religious toleration by the act of 1649, flourished under the mild rule of Proprietors until it became a state in the American Union. New Jersey, beginning its career under two Proprietors, Berkeley and Carterette in 1664, passed under the direct government of the Crown in 1702. Pennsylvania was, in a very large measure, the product of the generous spirit and tireless labors of its first Proprietor, the leader of the friends, William Penn, to whom it was granted in 1681 and in whose family it remained until 1776. The two Carolinas were first organized as one colony in 1663 under the government and patronage of eight Proprietors, including Lord Clarendon, but after more than half a century, both became royal provinces governed by the king. End of chapter one. Recording by John L. White, New Orleans, Louisiana, johnwhiteaudio.com This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. This reading by Kara Schallenberg. History of the United States by Charles A. Beard and Mary Ritter Beard. Part one, chapter two. The Colonial Peoples. The English. In leadership and origin, the thirteen colonies, accepting New York and Delaware, were English. During the early days of all, save these two, the main, if not the sole, current of immigration was from England. The colonists came from every walk of life. They were men, women, and children of all sorts and conditions. The major portion were yeoman, or small landowners, farm laborers, and artisans. With them were merchants and gentlemen who brought their stocks of goods or their fortunes to the New World. Scholars came from Oxford and Cambridge to preach the gospel or to teach. Now and then the son of an English nobleman left his baronial hall behind and cast his lot with America. The people represented every religious faith, members of the established Church of England, Puritans who had labored to reform that church, separatists, baptists, and friends who had left it all together, and Catholics who clung to the religion of their fathers. New England was almost purely English. In the years between 1629 and 1640, the period of arbitrary Stuart government, about 20,000 Puritans immigrated to America, settling in the colonies of the far north. Although minor additions were made from time to time, the greater portion of the New England people sprang from this original stock. Virginia, too, for a long time, drew nearly all her immigrants from England alone. Not until the eve of the revolution did other nationalities, mainly the Scotch Irish and Germans, rival the English in numbers. The populations of later English colonies, the Carolinas, New York, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, while receiving a steady stream of immigration from England, were constantly augmented by wanderers from the older settlements. New York was invaded by Puritans from New England in such numbers as to cause the Anglican clergymen there to lament that free thinking spreads almost as fast as the Church. North Carolina was first settled toward the northern border by immigrants from Virginia. Some of the North Carolinians, particularly the Quakers, came all the way from New England, tarrying in Virginia only long enough to learn how little they were wanted in that Anglican colony. The Scotch Irish. Next to the English in numbers and influence were the Scotch Irish, Presbyterians in belief, English in tongue. Both religious and economic reasons sent them across the sea. Their Scotch ancestors, in the days of Cromwell, had settled in the north of Ireland once the native Irish had been driven by the conqueror's sword. There the Scotch flourished for many years, enjoying in peace their own form of religion and growing prosperous in the manufacture of fine linen and woollen cloth. Then the blow fell. Toward the end of the 17th century their religious worship was put under the ban and the export of their cloth was forbidden by the English Parliament. Within two decades 20,000 Scotch Irish left Ulster alone for America and all during the 18th century the migration continued to be heavy. Although no exact record was kept it is reckoned that the Scotch Irish and the Scotch who came directly from Scotland composed one sixth of the entire American population on the eve of the revolution. These newcomers in America made their homes chiefly in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas. Coming late upon the scene they found much of the land immediately upon the seaboard already taken up. For this reason most of them became frontier people settling the interior and upland regions. There they cleared the land, laid out their small farms and worked as sturdy yeoman on the soil, hardy, industrious, and independent in spirit sharing neither the luxuries of the rich planters nor the easy life of the leisurely merchants. To their agriculture they added woolen and linen manufacturers which, flourishing in the supple fingers of their tireless women, made heavy inroads upon the trade of the English merchants in the colonies. Of their labors a poet has sung, O willing hands to toil, strong natures tuned to the harvest song and bound to the kindly soil, bold pioneers for the wilderness, defenders in the field, the Germans. Third among the colonists in order of numerical importance were the Germans. From the very beginning they appeared in colonial records. A number of the artisans and carpenters in the first Jamestown colony were of German descent. Peter Minuit, the famous governor of New Motherland, was a German from Vaisal on the Rhine, and Jacob Leisler, leader of a popular uprising against the provincial administration of New York, was a German from Frankfurt on mine. The wholesale migration of Germans began with the founding of Pennsylvania. Penn was diligent in searching for thrifty farmers to cultivate his lands, and he made a special effort to attract peasants from the Rhine country. A great association known as the Frankfurt Company bought more than twenty thousand acres from him, and in 1684 established a center at Germantown for the distribution of German immigrants. In old New York Rhinebeck on the Hudson became a similar center for distribution. All the way from Maine to Georgia inducements were offered to the German farmers, and in nearly every colony were to be found, in time, German settlements. In fact the migration became so large that German princes were frightened at the loss of so many subjects, and England was alarmed by the influx of foreigners into her overseas dominions. Yet nothing could stop the movement. By the end of the colonial period the number of Germans had risen to more than two hundred thousand. The majority of them were Protestants from the Rhine region and South Germany. Wars, religious controversies, oppression, and poverty drove them forth to America. Though most of them were farmers, there were also among them skilled artisans who contributed to the rapid growth of industries in Pennsylvania. Their iron, glass, paper, and woollen mills dotted here and there among the thickly settled regions added to the wealth and independence of the province. Unlike the Scotch Irish, the Germans did not speak the language of the original colonists or mingle freely with them. They kept to themselves, built their own schools, founded their own newspapers, and published their own books. Their clannish habits often irritated their neighbors and led to occasional agitations against foreigners. However no serious collisions seemed to have occurred, and in the days of the Revolution German soldiers from Pennsylvania fought in the Patriot armies side by side with soldiers from the English and Scotch Irish sections. Other nationalities. Though the English, the Scotch Irish, and the Germans made up the bulk of the colonial population, there were other racial strains as well, varying in numerical importance but contributing their share to colonial life. From France came the Huguenots fleeing from the decree of the King which inflicted terrible penalties upon Protestants. From Old Ireland came thousands of native Irish, Celtic in race and Catholic in religion. Like their Scotch Irish neighbors to the north, they revered neither the government nor the Church of England imposed upon them by the sword. How many came, we do not know, shipping records of the colonial period show that boatload after boatload left the southern and eastern shores of Ireland for the New World. Undoubtedly thousands of their passengers were Irish of the native stock. This surmise is well sustained by the constant appearance of Celtic names in the records of various colonies. The Jews, then as ever engaged in their age-long battle for religious and economic toleration, found in the American colonies not complete liberty, but certainly more freedom than they enjoyed in England, France, Spain or Portugal. The English law did not actually recognise their right to live in any of the Dominions, but owing to the easygoing habits of the Americans, they were allowed to filter into the seaboard towns. The treatment they received there varied. On one occasion the mayor and council of New York forbade them to sell by retail, but on another prohibited the exercise of their religious worship. Newport, Philadelphia, and Charleston were more hospitable, and their large Jewish colonies, consisting principally of merchants and their families, flourished in spite of nominal prohibitions of the law. Though the small Swedish colony in Delaware was quickly submerged beneath the tide of English migration, the Dutch in New York continued to hold their own for more than a hundred years after the English conquest of 1664. At the end of the colonial period over one half of the one hundred seventy thousand inhabitants of the province were descendants of the original Dutch, still distinct enough to give a decided cast to the life and manners of New York. Many of them clung as tenaciously to their mother tongue as they did to their capacious farmhouses or their Dutch ovens, but they were slowly losing their identity as the English pressed in beside them to farm and trade. The melting pot had begun its historic mission. End of Chapter 2 Read by Kara Schellenberg on May 11, 2007, in Oceanside, California. This is the LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. History of the United States by Charles A. Beard and Mary Ritterbeard, Part 1, Section 3 The Process of Colonization Considered from one side, colonization, whatever the motives of the immigrants, was an economic matter. It involved the use of capital to pay for their passage, to sustain them on the voyage, and to start them on the way of production. Under this stern economic necessity, Puritans, Scotch-Irish, Germans, and all were alike laid. Immigrants who paid their own way Many of the immigrants to America in colonial days were capitalists themselves in a small or a large way and paid their own passage. What proportion of the colonists were able to finance their voyage across the sea is a matter of pure conjecture. Undoubtedly, a very considerable number could do so, for we can trace the family fortunes of many early settlers. Henry Cabot Lodge is authority for the statement that the settlers of New England were drawn from the country gentlemen, small farmers, and yeomanry of the mother country. Many of the immigrants were men of wealth. As the old lists show, and all of them with few exceptions, were men of property and good standing. They did not belong to the classes from which immigration is usually supplied. For they all had a stake in the country they left behind. Though it would be interesting to know how accurate this statement is or how applicable to the other colonies, no study has as yet been made to gratify that interest. For the present, it is an unsolved problem, just how many of the colonists were able to bear the cost of their own transfer to the New World. Indentured servants. That at least tens of thousands of immigrants were unable to pay for their passage is established beyond the shadow of a doubt by the shipping records that have come down to us. The great barrier in the way of the poor who wanted to go to America was the cost of the sea voyage. To overcome this difficulty, a plan was worked out whereby ship owners and other persons of means furnished the passage money to immigrants and returned for their promise, or bond, to work for a term of years to repay the sum advanced. This system was called indentured servitude. It is probable that the number of bond servants exceeded the original 20,000 Puritans, the Yeoman, the Virginia gentlemen, and the Huguenots combined. All the way down the coast from Massachusetts to Georgia were to be found in the fields, kitchens, and workshops, men, women, and children serving out terms of bondage, generally ranging from five to seven years. In the proprietary colonies, the proportion of bond servants was very high. The Baltimore's, Penn's, Cartourette's, and other promoters anxiously sought for workers of every nationality to till their fields for land without labor was worth no more than land in the moon. Hence the gates of the proprietary colonies were flung wide open. Every inducement was offered to immigrants in the form of cheap land and special efforts were made to increase the population by importing servants. In Pennsylvania, it was not uncommon to find a master with 50 bond servants on his estate. It has been estimated that two-thirds of all immigrants into Pennsylvania, between the opening of the 18th century and the outbreak of the revolution, were in bondage. In the other middle colonies, the number was doubtless not so large, but it formed a considerable part of the population. The story of this traffic in white servants is one of the most striking things in the history of labor. Bond men differed from the serfs of the feudal age in that they were not bound to the soil but to the master. They likewise differed from the negro slaves in that their servitude had a time limit. Still, they were subject to many special disabilities. It was, for instance, a common practice to impose on them penalties far heavier than were imposed upon freedmen for the same offense. A free citizen of Pennsylvania who indulged in horse racing and gambling was let off with a fine. A white servant guilty of the same unlawful conduct was whipped at the post and fined as well. The ordinary life of the white servant was severely restricted. A bond man could not marry without his master's consent, nor engage in trade, nor refuse work assigned to him. For an attempt to escape, or indeed for any infraction of the law, the term of service was extended. The condition of white bond men in Virginia, according to Lodge, was little better than that of slaves, loose indentures and harsh laws put them at the mercy of their masters. It would not be unfair to add that such was their lot in all other colonies. Their fate depended on the temper of their masters. Cruel, as the system was in many ways, it gave thousands of people in the old world a chance to reach the new, an opportunity to wrestle with fate for freedom and a home of their own. When their weary years of servitude were over, if they survived, they might obtain land of their own or settle as free mechanics in the towns. For many a bond man, the gamble proved to be a losing venture because he found himself unable to rise out of the state of poverty independence into which his servitude carried him. For thousands, on the contrary, bondage proved to be a real avenue to freedom and prosperity. Some of the best citizens of America have the blood of indentured servants in their veins. The transported in voluntary servitude. In their anxiety to secure settlers, the companies and proprietors having colonies in America either resorted to or connived at the practice of kidnapping men, women, and children from the streets of English cities. In 1680 it was officially estimated that 10,000 persons were spirited away to America. Many of the victims of the practice were young children, for the traffic in them was highly profitable. Orphans and dependents were sometimes disposed of in America by relatives unwilling to support them. In a single year, 1627, 1,500 children were shipped to Virginia. In this gruesome business there lurked many tragedies and very few romances. Parents were separated from their children and husbands from their wives. Hundreds of skilled artisans, carpenters, smiths, and weavers utterly disappeared as if swallowed up by death. A few thus dragged off to the New World to be sold into servitude for a term of five or seven years later became prosperous and returned home with fortunes. In one case a young man who was forcibly carried over the sea lived to make his way back to England and establish his claim to a peerage. A kind of the kidnapped, at least in economic position, were convicts deported to the colonies for life and lieu of fines and imprisonment. The Americans protested vigorously but ineffectually against this practice. Indeed they exaggerated its evils for many of the criminals were only mild offenders against unduly harsh and cruel laws. A peasant called shooting a rabbit on a lords estate or a luckless-serving girl who perloined a pocket handkerchief was branded as a criminal along with sturdy thieves and incorrigible rascals. Other transported offenders were political criminals, that is persons who criticized or opposed the government. This class included now Irish who revolted against British rule in Ireland, now Cavaliers who championed the king against the Puritan revolutionists. Puritans in turn dispatched after the monarchy was restored and Scotch and English subjects in general who joined in political uprisings against the king. The African slaves, rivaling in numbers in the course of time, the indentured servants and whites carried to America against their will were the African Negroes brought to America and sold into slavery. When this form of bondage was first introduced into Virginia in 1619 it was looked upon as a temporary necessity to be discarded with the increase of the white population. Moreover it does not appear that those planners who first brought Negroes at the auction block attended to establish a system of permanent bondage. Only by a slow process did chattel slavery take firm root and become recognized as the leading source of the labor supply. In 1650, 30 years after the introduction of slavery there were only 300 Africans in Virginia. The great increase in later years was due in no small measure to the inordinate zeal for profits that ceased slave traders both in old and in New England. Finding it relatively easy to secure Negroes in Africa they crowded the southern ports with their vessels. The English Royal African Company sent to America annually between 1713 and 1743 from 5 to 10,000 slaves. The ship owners of New England were not far behind their English brethren in pushing this extraordinary traffic. As the proportion of the Negroes to the free white population steadily rose and as whole sections were overrun with slaves and slave traders, the southern colonies grew alarmed. In 1710 Virginia sought to curtail the importation by placing a duty of five pounds on each slave. This effort was futile for the royal governor promptly vetoed it. From time to time similar bills were passed only to meet with royal disapproval. South Carolina in 1760 absolutely prohibited importation but the measure was killed by the British Crown as late as 1772 Virginia, not daunted by a century of rebuffs sent to George III a petition in this vein. The importation of slaves into the colonies from the coast of Africa have long been considered as a trade of great humanity and under its present encouragement we have too much reason to fear will endanger the very existence of Your Majesty's American dominions. Deeply impressed with these sentiments we most humbly beseech Your Majesty to remove all those restraints on Your Majesty's governors of this colony which inhibit their assenting to such laws as might check so very pernicious a commerce. All such protests were without a veil. The Negro population grew by leaps and bounds till on the eve of the revolution it amounted to more than half a million. In five states, Maryland, Virginia, the two Carolinas in Georgia, the slaves nearly equaled or actually exceeded the whites in number. In South Carolina they formed almost two thirds of the population even in the middle colonies of Delaware and Pennsylvania about one fifth of the inhabitants were from Africa. To the north the proportion of slaves steadily diminished though chattel servitude was on the same legal footing as in the south. In New York approximately one in six in New England one in fifty were Negroes including a few freedmen. The climate, the soil, the commerce and the industry of the north were all unfavorable to the growth of a servile population. While slavery though sectional was a part of the national system of economy, northern ships carried slaves to the southern colonies and the produce of the plantations to Europe. If the northern states will consult their interest they will not oppose the increase in slaves which will increase the commodities of which they will become the carriers said John Rutledge of South Carolina in the convention which framed the constitution of the United States. The riches apart enriches the whole and the states are the best judges of their particular interest responded Oliver Ellsworth the distinguished spokesman of Connecticut. End of Section 3 This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org History of the United States Charles A. Beard and Mary Ritter Beard Part 1 Section 4 Chapter 2 Colonial Agriculture, Industry and Commerce The Land and the Westward Movement The Significance of Land Tenure The way in which land may be acquired, held, divided among heirs, and bought and sold exercises a deep influence on the life and culture of a people. The feudal and aristocratic societies of Europe were founded on a system of landlordism which was characterized by two distinct features. In the first place the land was nearly all held in great estates each owned by a single proprietor. In the second place every estate was kept intact under the law of primogeniture which at the death of a lord transferred all his landed property to his eldest son. This prevented the subdivision of estates and the growth of a large body of small farmers or free-holders owning their own land. It made a form of tenancy or servitude inevitable for the mass of those who labored on the land. It also enabled the landlords to maintain themselves in power as a governing class and kept the tenants and laborers subject to their economic and political control. If land tenure was so significant in Europe it was equally important in the development of America where practically all the first immigrants were forced by circumstances to derive their livelihood from the soil. Experiments in Common Tillage In the New World with its broad extent of land awaiting the white man's plow it was impossible to introduce in its entirety and over the whole area the system of lords and tenants that existed across the sea. So it happened that almost every kind of experiment in landed tenure from communism to feudalism was tried. In the early days of the Jamestown colony the land, though owned by the London company was tilled in common by the settlers. No man had a separate plot of his own. The motto of the community was All were supposed to work in the fields and receive an equal share of the produce. At Plymouth the pilgrims attempted a similar experiment laying out the fields in common and distributing the joint produce of their labour with rough equality among the workers. In both colonies the communistic experiments were failures. Angry at the lazy men in Jamestown who idled their time away and yet expected regular meals Captain John Smith issued a manifesto. Everyone that gathereth not every day as much as I do the next day shall be set beyond the river and forever banished from the fort and live there or starve. Even this terrible threat did not bring a change in production not until each man was given a plot of his own to till not until each gathered the fruits of his own labour did the colony prosper. In Plymouth where the communal experiment lasted for five years the results were similar to those in Virginia and the system was given up for one of separate fields in which every person could set corn for his own particular. Some other New England towns refusing to profit by the experience of their Plymouth neighbour also made excursions into common ownership and labour only to abandon the idea and go in for individual ownership of the land. By degrees it was seen that even the Lord's people could not carry the complicated communist legislation into perfect and wholesome practice. Feudal Elements in the Colonies Quit Rents, Manners and Plantations At the other end of the scale were the feudal elements of land tenure found in the proprietary colonies in the seaboard regions of the south and to some extent in New York. The proprietor was in fact a powerful feudal lord owning land granted to him by royal charter. He could retain any part of it for his personal use or dispose of it all in large or small lots. While he generally kept for himself an estate of baronial proportions it was impossible for him to manage directly any considerable part of the land in his dominion. Consequently he either sold it in parcels for lump sums or granted it to individuals on condition that they make to him an annual payment and money known as Quit Rint. In Maryland the proprietor sometimes collected as high as nine thousand pounds equal to about five hundred thousand dollars today in a single year from this source. In Pennsylvania the Quit Rints brought a handsome annual tribute into the exchequer of the Penn family. In the royal provinces the King of England claimed all revenues collected in this form from the land a sum amounting to nineteen thousand pounds at the time of the revolution. The Quit Rint, really a feudal payment from freeholders was thus a material source of income for the crown as well as for the proprietors. Wherever it was laid however it proved to be a burden, a source of constant irritation and it became a formidable item in the long list of grievances which led to the American Revolution. Something still more like the feudal system of the Old World appeared in the numerous manners or the huge landed estates granted by the crown, the companies, or the proprietors. In the colony of Maryland alone there were sixty manners of three thousand acres each owned by wealthy men and tilled by tenants holding small plots under certain restrictions of tenure. In New York also there were many manners of wide extent most of which originated in the days of the Dutch West India Company when extensive concessions were made to patroons to induce them to bring over settlers. The Van Rensselaer, the Van Cortland, and the Livingston Manners were so large and populous that each was entitled to send a representative to the provincial legislature. The tenants on the New England Manners were in somewhat the same position as serfs on old European estates. They were bound to pay the owner a rent in money and kind, they ground their grain at his mill, and they were subject to his judicial power because he held court and meted out justice in some instances extending to capital punishment. The manners of New York or Maryland were, however, of slight consequence as compared with the vast plantations of the Southern Seaboard. Huge estates, far wider and expanse than any European barony, and tilled by slaves more servile than any feudal tenants. It must not be forgotten that this system of land tenure became the dominant feature of a large section and gave a decided bent to the economic and political life of America. The Small Freehold In the upland regions of the South, however, and throughout most of the North, the drift was against all forms of servitude and tenancy and in the direction of the freehold. That is, the small farm owned outright and tilled by the possessor and his family. This was favored by natural circumstances and the spirit of the immigrants. For one thing, the abundance of land and the scarcity of labour made it impossible for the companies, the proprietors or the crown to develop over the whole continent a network of vast estates. In many sections, particularly in New England, the climate, the stony soil, the hills, and the narrow valleys conspired to keep the farms within a moderate compass. For another thing, the English, Scotch-Irish, and German peasants, even if they had been tenants in the old world, did not propose to accept permanent dependency of any kind in the new. If they could not get freeholds, they would not settle at all. Thus they forced proprietors and companies to bid for their enterprise by selling land and small lots. So it happened that the freehold of modest proportions became the cherished unit of American farmers. The people who tilled the farms were drawn from every quarter of Western Europe, but the freehold system gave a uniform cast to their economic and social life in America. Social effects of land tenure Land tenure and the process of Western settlement developed two distinct types of people engaged in the same pursuit, agriculture. They had a common tie in that they both cultivated the soil and possessed the local interest and independence, which arise from that occupation. Their methods and their culture, however, differed widely. The southern planter on his broad acres tilled by slaves resembled the English landlord on his estates more than he did the colonial farmer who labored with his own hands in the fields and forests. He sold his rice and tobacco in large amounts directly to English factors who took his entire crop in exchange for goods and cash. His fine clothes, silverware, china and cutlery he bought in English markets. Loving the ripe old culture of the mother country he often sent his sons to Oxford or Cambridge for their education. In short, he depended very largely for his prosperity and his enjoyment of life upon close relations with the old world. He did not even need market towns in which to buy native goods for they were made on his own plantation by his own artisans who were usually gifted slaves. The economic condition of the small farmer was totally different. His crops were not big enough to warrant direct connection with English factors or the personal maintenance of a core of artisans. He needed local markets and they sprang up to meet the need. Smiths, Hatters, Weavers, Wagon Makers and Potters at neighbouring towns supplied him with the rough products of their native skill. The finer goods bought by the rich planter in England the small farmer ordinarily could not buy. His wants were restricted to staples like tea and sugar and between him and the European markets his community was therefore more self-sufficient than the seaboard line of great plantations. It was more isolated, more provincial, more independent, more American. The planter faced the old east. The farmer faced the new west. The westward movement. Yeoman and planter nevertheless were alike in one respect. Their land hunger was never appeased. Each had the eye expert for new and fertile soil and so north and south as soon as a foothold was secured on the Atlantic coast the current of migration set in westward creeping through forests across rivers and over mountains. Many of the later immigrants in their search for cheap lands were compelled to go to the border but in a large part the pathbreakers to the west were native Americans of the second and third generations. By curiosity and the lure of the mysterious unknown and hunters, fur traders and squatters following their own sweet wills placed the trail opening paths and sending back stories of the new regions they traversed. Then came the regular settlers with lawful titles to the lands they had purchased, sometimes singly and sometimes in companies. In Massachusetts the westward movement is recorded in the founding of Springfield in 1636 and Great Barrington in 1725. By the opening of the 18th century the pioneers of Connecticut had pushed north and west until their outpost towns adjoined the Hudson Valley settlements. In New York the inland movement was directed by the Hudson River to Albany and from that old Dutch center it radiated in every direction particularly westward through the Mohawk Valley. New Jersey was early filled to its borders the beginnings of the present city of New Brunswick being made in 1681 and those of Trenton in 1685. In Pennsylvania as in New York the waterways determined the main lines of advance. Pioneers pushing up through the valley of the Scoilkill spread over the fertile lands of Berks and Lancaster counties laying out reading in 1748. Another current of migration was directed by the Suscahana and in 1726 the first farmhouse was built on the bank where Harrisburg was later founded. Along the southern tier of counties a thin line of settlements stretched westward to Pittsburgh reaching the upper waters of the Ohio while the colony was still under the Penn family. In the south the westward march was equally swift the seaboard was quickly occupied by large planters and their slaves engaged in the cultivation of tobacco and rice. The Piedmont Plateau lying back from the coast all the way from Maryland to Georgia was fed by two streams of migration one westward from the sea and the other southward from the other colonies Germans from Pennsylvania and Scotch Irish furnishing the main supply. By 1770 Tidewater Virginia was full to overflowing and the back country of the Blue Ridge and Shenandoah was fully occupied. Even the mountain valleys were claimed by sturdy pioneers. Before the declaration of independence the oncoming tide of home-seekers had reached the crest of the Alleghenies. Beyond the mountains pioneers had already ventured harbingers of an invasion that was about to break in upon Kentucky and Tennessee. As early as 1769 that mighty Nimrod, Daniel Boone curious to hunt buffaloes of which he had heard weird reports passed through the Cumberland Gap and brought back news of a wonderful country awaiting the plow. A hint was sufficient. Singly, in pairs and in groups settlers followed the trail he had blazed. A great land corporation the Transylvania Company emulating the merchant adventures of earlier times secured a huge grant of territory and sought profits and quit rents from lands sold to farmers. By the outbreak of the Revolution there were several hundred people in the Kentucky region. Like the older colonists they did not relish quit rents and their opposition wrecked the Transylvania Company. They even carried their protests into the Continental Congress in 1776 for by that time they were our Embryo 14th colony. End of section 4 This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org History of the United States by Charles A. Beard and Mary Ritter Beard Part 1 Part 5 Industrial and Commercial Development Though the labor of the colonists was mainly spent in farming there was a steady growth in industrial and commercial pursuits. Most of the staple industries of today not omitting iron and textiles have their beginnings in colonial times. Manufacturing and trade soon gave rise to towns which enjoyed an importance all out of proportion to their numbers. The great centers of commerce and finance on the seaboard originated in the days when the King of England was Lord of these Dominions. Illustration Domestic Industry Handles Textile Manufacturing as a Domestic Industry Colonial Women in addition to sharing every hardship of pioneering often the heavy labor of the open field developed in the course of time a national industry which was almost exclusively their own. Wool and Flaks were raised in abundance in the north and the south. Every farmhouse says Coman was a workshop where the women spun and wove the surges curses and Lindsay Woolsey's which served for the common wear. By the close of the 17th century New England manufactured cloth and sufficient quantities to export it to the southern colonies and to the west Indies. As the industry developed mills were erected for the more difficult process of dyeing, weaving and fulling but carding and spinning continued to be done in the home. Of New Netherland, the Swedes of Delaware and the Scotch Irish of the interior were not one whit behind their Yankee neighbors. The importance of this enterprise to British economic life can hardly be overestimated. For many a century the English had employed their fine woolen cloth as the chief staple in a lucrative foreign trade and the government had come to look upon it as an object of special interest and protection. When the colonies established both merchants and statesmen naturally expected to maintain a monopoly of increasing value but before long the Americans instead of buying cloth especially of the course of varieties were making it to sell. In the place of customers here were rivals. In the place of helpless reliance upon English markets here was the germ of economic independence. If British merchants had not discovered it in the ordinary course of trade observant officers in the provinces would have conveyed the news to them. Even in the early years of the 18th century the royal governor of New York wrote of the industrious Americans to his home government. The consequence will be that if they can clothe themselves once not only comfortably but handsomely too without the help of England they who already are not fond of submitting to government will soon think of putting in execution designs they have long harbored in their breasts. This will not seem strange when you consider what sort of people this country is inhabited by. The iron industry almost equally widespread was the art of ironworking one of the earliest and most picturesque of colonial industries. Lynn, Massachusetts had a forge and skilled artisans within 15 years after the founding of Boston. The smelting of iron began at New London and New Haven about 1658 in Litchfield County, Connecticut a few years later at Great Barrington Massachusetts in 1731 and nearby at Lenox some 30 years after that. New Jersey had ironworks at Shrewsbury within 10 years after the founding of the colony in 1665. Ironforges appeared in the valleys of the Delaware and the Susquehanna early in the following century and Ironmasters then laid the foundations of fortunes in a region destined to become one of the great iron centers of the world. Virginia began ironworking in the year that saw the introduction of slavery. Although the industry soon lapsed it was renewed and flourished in the 18th century Governor Spotswood was called the tubal cane of the old dominion because he placed the industry on a firm foundation. Indeed it seems that every colony except Georgia had its iron foundry. Nails, wire, metallic wear, chains, anchors, bar and pig iron were made in large quantities and Great Britain by an act in 1750 encouraged the colonists to export rough iron to the British Isles. Shipbuilding Of all the specialized industries in the colonies, shipbuilding was the most important. The abundance of fur for masts, oak for timbers and boards, pitch for tar and turpentine and hem for rope made the way of the shipbuilder easy. Early in the 17th century a ship was built at New Amsterdam and by the middle of that century shipyards were scattered along the New England coast at Newburyport, Salem, New Bedford, Newport, Providence, New London and New Haven. Yards at Albany and Poughkeepsie in New York built ships for the trade of that colony with England and the Indies. Wilmington and Philadelphia soon entered the race and outdistance New York though unable to equal the pace set by New England. While Maryland, Virginia and South Carolina also built ships, Southern interest was mainly confined to the lucrative business of producing ship materials, fur, cedar, hemp and tar. Fishing The greatest single economic resource of New England outside of agriculture was the fisheries. This industry started by hardy sailors from Europe long before the landing of the pilgrims flourished under the indomitable seamanship of the Puritans who labored with the net and harpoon in almost every quarter of the Atlantic. Look! exclaimed Edmund Burke in the House of Commons, at the manner in which the people of New England have of late carried on in the whale fishery. Whilst we follow them among the tumbling mountains of ice and behold them penetrating into the deepest frozen recesses of Hudson's Bay and Davis's Straits, while we are looking for them beneath the Arctic Circle, we hear that they have pierced into the opposite region of polar cold that they are at the antipodes and engaged under the frozen serpent of the South, nor is the equinoctial heat more discouraging to them than the accumulated winter of both poles. We know that whilst some of them draw the line and strike the harpoon on the coast of Africa, others run the longitude and pursue their gigantic game along the coast of Brazil. No sea but what is vexed by their fisheries. No climate that is not witness to their toils. Neither the perseverance of Holland nor the activity of France, nor the dexterous and firm sagacity of English enterprise ever carried this most perilous mode of hard industry to the extent to which it has been pushed by this recent people. The influence of the business was widespread. A large and lucrative European trade was built upon it. The better quality of the fish caught for food was sold in the markets of Spain, Portugal and Italy, or exchanged for salt, lemons and raisins for the American market. Other grades of fish were carried to the West Indies for slave consumption and in part traded for sugar and molasses which furnished the raw materials for the thriving rum industry of New England. These activities in turn stimulated shipbuilding steadily enlarging the demand for fishing and merchant craft of every kind and thus keeping the shipwrights, caulkers, rope makers and other artisans of the seaport towns rushed with work. They also increased trade with the market. However, out of the cash collected in the fish markets of Europe and the West Indies the colonists paid for English manufacturers. So an ever-widening circle of American enterprise centered around this single industry, the nursery of seamanship and the maritime spirit. Oceanic commerce and American merchants. All through the 18th century the commerce of the American colonies spread in every direction until it rivaled in the number of people engaged and the profits gleaned the commerce of European nations. A modern historian has said the enterprising merchants of New England developed a network of trade routes that covered well nigh half the world. This commerce destined to be of such significance in the conflict with the mother country presented broadly speaking two aspects. On the one hand it evolved the export of raw materials and agricultural produce. The southern colonies produced for Mexico, rice, tar, pitch, and pine. The middle colonies grain, flour, furs, lumber, and salt pork. New England fish, flour, rum, furs, shoes, and small articles of manufacture. The variety of products was in fact astounding. A sarcastic writer while sneering at the idea of an American union once remarked of colonial trade. What sort of dish will you make? New England will throw in fish and onions, the middle states of Virginia will add tobacco. North Carolina, pitch, tar, and turpentine. South Carolina, rice, and indigo, and Georgia will sprinkle the whole composition with sawdust. Such an absurd jumble will you make if you attempt to form a union among such discordant materials as the 13 British provinces. On the other side, American commerce involved the import trade consisting principally of English and continental assets brought from the West Indies supplied the flourishing distilleries of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. The carriage of slaves from Africa to the southern colonies engaged hundreds of New England sailors and thousands of pounds of her capital. The disposition of imported goods in the colonies, though in part controlled by English factors located in America, employed also a large and diverse group of merchants, the Amerys, Hancocks, and Fanules of Boston, and the Livingstons and Lowe's of New York. In their zeal and enterprise they were worthy rivals of their English competitors, so celebrated for worldwide commercial operations. Though fully aware of the advantages they enjoyed in British markets and under the protection of the British Navy, the American merchants were well aware of the importance outside interference. Illustration, the Dutch West India warehouse in New Amsterdam, New York City. Measured against the immense business of modern times, colonial commerce seems perhaps trivial. That, however, is not the test of its significance. It must be considered in relation to the growth of English colonial trade in its entirety, a relation which can be found in the great of England, including that to the colonies, was in 1704, 6,509,000 pounds sterling. On the eve of the American Revolution, namely in 1772, English exports to the American colonies alone amounted to 6,024,000 pounds sterling. In other words, almost as much as the whole foreign business of England two generations before. In this date, colonial trade was but one-twelfth of the English export business. At the second date, it was considerably more than one-third. In 1704, Pennsylvania bought in English markets goods to the value of 11,459 pounds sterling. In 1772, the purchases of the same colony amounted to 507,909 pounds sterling. In short, Pennsylvania imports increased 50 times in 68 years, amounting in 1772 to almost the entire export trade of England to the colonies of the opening of the century. The American colonies were indeed a great source of wealth to English merchants. Intercolonial commerce. Although the bad roads of colonial times made overland transportation difficult and costly, the many rivers and harbors along the coast favored a lively water-borne trade among the colonies. The Connecticut, Delaware, and Susquehanna rivers in the north and the many smaller rivers in the south made it possible for goods to be brought from and carried to the interior regions in little sailing vessels with comparative ease. Sloups laden with manufacturers domestic and foreign collected at some city-like Providence, New York, or Philadelphia, skirted the coasts, visited small ports, and sailed up the navigable rivers to trade with local merchants who had, for exchange, the raw materials which they had from neighboring farms. Larger ships carried the grain, livestock, cloth, and hardware of New England to the southern colonies where they were traded for tobacco, leather, tar, and ship timber. From the harbors along the Connecticut shores there were frequent sailings down through Long Island Sound to Maryland, Virginia, and the distant Carolinas. Growth of towns. In connection with this thriving trade and industry there grew up along the coast a number of prosperous commercial centers were soon reckoned among the first commercial towns of the whole British Empire, comparing favorably in numbers and wealth with such ports as Liverpool and Bristol. The statistical records of that time are mainly guesses, but we know that Philadelphia stood first in size among these towns. Serving as the port of entry for Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Western Jersey, it had drawn within its borders just before the revolution about 25,000 inhabitants. Boston was second in rank with somewhat more than 20,000 people. New York, the commercial capital of Connecticut and Old East Jersey, was slightly smaller than Boston, but growing at a steady rate. The fourth town in size was Charleston, South Carolina, with about 10,000 inhabitants. Newport, in Rhode Island, a center of rum manufacturer and shipping stood fifth with a population of about 7,000. Baltimore and Norfolk were counted towns. In the interior, Hartford and Connecticut, Lancaster and York and Pennsylvania and Albany and New York, with growing populations and increasing trade, gave prophecy of an urban America away from the seaboard. The other towns were straggling villages. Williamsburg, Virginia, for example, had about 200 houses in which dealt a dozen families of the gentry and a few score of tradesmen. Inland county seats often consisted of nothing more than a courthouse, a prison, and one wretched in to house judges, lawyers, and litigants during the sessions of the court. The leading towns exercised an influence on colonial opinion all out of proportion to their population. They were the centers of wealth, for one thing, of the press and political activity for another. Merchants and artisans could readily take concerted action on public questions arising from their commercial operations. The towns were also centers for news, gossip, religious controversy, and political discussion. In the marketplaces the farmers from the countryside learned of British policies and laws, and so mingling with the townsmen were drawn into the main currents of opinion which set in toward colonial nationalism and independence. References J. Bishop History of American Manufacturers E. L. Bogart Economic History of the United States P. A. Bruce Economic History of Virginia 2 Volumes E. Semple American History and its Geographical Conditions W. Whedon Economic and Social History of New England 2 Volumes 1. Is land in your community parceled out into small farms? Contrast the system in your community with the feudal system of land tenure. Are any things owned and used in common in your community? Why did common tillage fail in colonial times? 3. Describe the elements akin to feudalism which were introduced in the colonies. 4. Explain the success of freehold tillage. 5. Compare the life of the planner with that of the farmer. 6. How far had the Western frontier advanced by 1776? 7. What colonial industry was mainly developed by women? Why was it very important to both the Americans and to the English? 8. What were the centers for ironworking? Shipbuilding? 9. Explain how the fisheries affected many branches of trade and industry 10. Show how American trade formed a vital part of English business. 11. How was interstate commerce mainly carried on? 12. What were the leading towns did they compare in importance with British towns of the same period? 13. Research topics Land tenure Common Industrial history Revised edition pages 32 through 38 Special reference Bruce Economic History of Virginia Volume 1 Chapter 8 Tobacco planting in Virginia Calendar Economic History of the United States Pages 22 through 28 Colonial agriculture Common Pages 48 through 63 Calendar Pages 69 through 74 Reference J.R.H. Moore Industrial history of the American people Pages 131 through 162 Colonial manufacturers Common Pages 63 through 73 Calendar Pages 29 through 44 Special reference Whedon Economic and Social History of New England Colonial commerce Common Pages 73 through 85 Calendar Pages 51 through 63 78 through 84 Moore Pages 163 to 208 Lodge Short history of the English colonies Pages 409 to 412 229 to 231 312 to 314 End of Section 5 This is the LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Leon Meyer History of the United States By Charles A. Beard and Mary Ritter Beard Part 1, Chapter 6 Social and Political Progress Colonial life, crowded as it was at the hard and unremitting toil, left scant pleasure for the cultivation of the arts and sciences. There was little money in private purses or public treasuries to be dedicated to schools, libraries, and museums. Few there were with time to read long and widely, and few were still who could devote their lives to things that delight the eye and the mind. And yet, poor and meager as the intellectual life of the colonists may seem, by way of comparison, heroic efforts were made in every community to lift the people above the plain of mere existence. After the first clearings were opened in the forest, those efforts were redoubled, and with lengthening ears told upon the thought and spirit of the land. The appearance during the struggle with England of an extraordinary group of leaders familiar with history, political philosophy, and the arts of war, government, and diplomacy itself bore eloquent testimony to the high quality of the American intellect. No one, not even the most critical, can run through the writings of the distinguished Americans scattered from Massachusetts to Georgia. The Adamses, Ellsworth, the Morrises, the Livingstons, Hamilton, Franklin, Washington, Madison, Marshall, Henry, the Randolphs, and the Pinkneys, without coming to the conclusion that there was something in American colonial life which fostered minds of depth and power. Women surmounted even greater difficulties than the men in the process of self-education, and their keen interest in public issues is evident in many a record like the letters of Mrs. John Adams to her husband during the Revolution. The writings of Mrs. Marcy Otis Warren, the sister of James Otis, who measured her pen with the British propaganda, and the Patriot newspapers founded and managed by women. The Leadership of the Churches In the intellectual life of America, the Churches assumed a role of high importance. There were abundant reasons for this. In many of the colonies, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New England, the religious impulse had been one of the impelling modos in stimulating immigration. In all the colonies, the clergy, at least in the beginning, formed the only class with any leisure to devote to matters of the spirit. They preached on Sundays and taught school on weekdays. They led in the discussion of local problems and in the formation of political opinion, so much of which was concerned with the relation between church and state. They wrote books and pamphlets. They filled most of the chairs in the colleges. Under clerical guidance, intellectual and spiritual, the Americans received their formal education. In several of the provinces, the Anglican Church was established by law. In New England, the Puritans were supreme, notwithstanding the efforts of the Crown to overbred their authority. In the middle colonies, particularly, the multiplication of sex made the dominance of any single denomination impossible. And in all of them there was a growing diversity of faith, which promised in time a separation of church and state and freedom of opinion. The Church of England. Virginia was the stronghold of the English system of church and state. The Anglican faith and worship were prescribed by law, sustained by taxes imposed on all, and favored by the governor, the provincial counsellors, and the richest planters. The Establish Church, says Lodge, was one of the appendages of the Virginia aristocracy. They controlled the vestries and the ministers, and the parish church stood not infrequently on the estate of the planter who built and managed it. As in England, Catholic and Protestant dissenters were at first laid under heavy disabilities. Only slowly and on sufferance were they admitted to the province, but when once they were even covertly tolerated, they pressed steadily in until, by the revolution, they outnumbered the adherents of the Established Order. The church was also sanctioned by law and supported by taxes in the Carolinas after 1704, and in Georgia after that colony passed directly into the crown in 1754. This inspired the fact that the majority of the inhabitants were dissenters. Against the protests of the Catholics it was likewise established in Maryland. In New York too, notwithstanding the resistance of the Dutch, the Established Church was fostered by the provincial officials, and the Anglicans embracing about one-fifteenth of the population exerted an influence all out of proportion to their numbers. Many factors helped to enhance the power of the English church and the colonies. It was supported by the British government and the official class sent out to the provinces. Its bishops and archbishops in England were appointed by the king, and its faith and service were set forth by acts of parliament. Having its seat of power in the English monarchy, it could hold its clergy and missionaries loyal to the crown, and so counteract to some extent the independent spirit that was growing up in America. The church always a strong bulwark of the state, therefore had a political role to play here as in England. Abel bishops and far-seeing leaders firmly grasped this fact about the middle of the eighteenth century and redoubled their efforts to augment the influence of the church and provincial affairs. Unhappily for their plans, they failed to calculate in advance the effect of the methods upon dissenting Protestants, who still cherished memories of bitter religious conflicts in the mother country. Puritanism in New England If the established faith made for imperial unity, the same could not be said of Puritanism. The Plymouth Pilgrims had cast off all allegiance to the Anglican church and established a separate and independent congregation before they came to America. The Puritans, assaying at the first task of reformers within the church soon after their arrival in Massachusetts, likewise long off their yoke of union with the Anglicans. In each town a separate congregation was organized, the male members choosing the pastor, the teachers, and the other officers. They also composed the voters in the town meeting where secular matters were determined. The union of church and government was thus complete in uniformity of faith and life prescribed by law and enforced by civil authorities. But this worked for local autonomy instead of imperial unity. The clergy became a powerful class, dominant through their learning and their fearful denunciations of the faithless. They wrote the books for the people to read, the famous Cotton Mather having 383 books and pamphlets to his credit. In cooperation with the civil officers they enforced restrictive observance of the Puritan Sabbath, a day of rest that began at six o'clock on Saturday evening and lasted until sunset on Sunday. All work, all trading, all amusement and all worldly conversation were absolutely prohibited during those hours. A thoughtless maid servant who, for some earthly reason, smiled in church, was in danger of being banished as a vagabond. Robert Pike, a devout Puritan, thinking the sun had gone to rest, ventured forth on horseback one Sunday evening and was luckless enough to have a ray of light strike him through a rift in the clouds. The next day he was wrought into court and fined for his, quote, ungodly conduct, with persons accused of witchcraft the Puritans were still more ruthless. When a mania of persecution swept over Massachusetts in 1692, 18 people were hanged, one was pressed to death, many suffered imprisonment and two died in jail. Just about this time, however, there came a break in the uniformity of Puritan rule. The crown and church in England had long looked upon it as disfavor, and in 1684 King Charles II annulled the old charter of the Massachusetts Bay Company. A new document issued seven years later rested from the Puritans of the colony the right to elect their own governor and reserved the power of appointment to the king. It also abolished the rule limiting the suffrage to church members, substituting for it a simple property qualification. Thus a royal governor and an official family, certain to be Episcopalian in faith and monarchist in sympathies, were forced upon Massachusetts, and members of all religious denominations if they had the required amount of property were permitted to take part in the elections. By this act in the name of the crown the Puritan monopoly was broken down in Massachusetts and that province was brought into line with Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire where property, not religious faith, was a test for the suffrage. ROTH OF RELIGIOUS TOLERATION Though neither the Anglicans of Virginia nor the Puritans of Massachusetts believed in toleration for other denominations that principle is strictly applied in Rhode Island. There under the leadership of Roger Williams Liberty and Matters of Conscience was established in the beginning. Maryland by granting in 1649 freedom to those who profess to believe in Jesus Christ opened its gates to all Christians and Pennsylvania, true to the tenets of the friends gave freedom of conscience to those who confess and acknowledge the one almighty and eternal God to be the creator, upholder, and ruler of the world. By one circumstance or another the Middle Colonies were thus early characterized by diversity rather than uniformity of opinion. Dutch Protestants, Huguenots, Quakers, Baptists, Presbyterians, New Lights, Moravians, Lutherans, Catholics, and other denominations became too strongly entrenched and too widely scattered to prevent any one of them to rule if it had desire to do so. There were communities and indeed whole sections where one or another church prevailed, but in no colony was a legislature steadily controlled by a single group. Toleration encouraged diversity and diversity in turn worked for greater toleration. The government and faith of the dissenting denominations conspired with economic and political tendencies to draw America away from the English state. Presbyterians, Quakers, Baptists, and Puritans had no hierarchy of bishops and archbishops to bind them to the seat of power in London. Neither did they look to that metropolis for guidance and interpreting articles of faith. Local self-government and matters ecclesiastical helped to train them for local self-government and matters political. The spirit of independence which led dissenters to revolt in the old world, nourished as it was amid favorable circumstances in the new world, made them all the more zealous in the defense of every right against authority imposed from without. End of chapter 6 This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. History of the United States by Charles A. Beard and Mary Ritter Beard, Part 1. Section 7 Schools and Colleges Religion and Local Schools One of the first cares of each Protestant denomination was the education of the children in the faith. In this work, the Bible became the center of interest. The English version was indeed the one book of the people. Farmers, shopkeepers, and artisans, whose life had once been bounded by the daily routine of labor, found in the scriptures not only an inspiration to religious conduct, but also a book of romance, travel, and history. Quote. Legend and annul. End quote. Says John Richard Green. Quote. War song and psalm, state role in biography, the mighty voices of prophets, the parables of evangelists, stories of mission journeys, of perils by sea and among the heathen, philosophic arguments, apocalyptic visions, all were flung broadcast over minds unoccupied for the most part by any rival learning. As a mere literary monument, the English version of the Bible remains the noblest example of the English tongue. End quote. It was the King James Version just from the press that the pilgrims brought across the sea with them. For the authority of the established church was substituted the authority of the scriptures. The Puritans devised a catechism based upon their interpretation of the Bible, and very soon after their arrival in America, they ordered all parents and masters of servants to be diligent in seeing that their children and wards were taught to read religious works and give answers to their religious questions. Massachusetts was scarcely twenty years old before education of this character was declared to be compulsory and provision was made for public schools where those not taught at home could receive instruction in reading and writing, illustration, a page from a famous schoolbook. In Adam's fall we sinned all, heaven defined the Bible mind, Christ crucified for sinners died, the deluge drowned the earth around, Elijah hid by ravens fed, the judgment made Felix afraid, and illustration. Outside of New England the idea of compulsory education was not regarded with the same favor, but the whole land was nevertheless dotted with little schools kept by dames, itinerant teachers, or local Parsons. Whether we turn to the life of Franklin in the north or Washington in the south, we read of tiny schoolhouses where boys and sometimes girls were taught to read and write. Where there were no schools, fathers and mothers of the better kind gave their children the rudiments of learning. Though illiteracy was widespread, there is evidence to show that the diffusion of knowledge among the masses was making steady progress all through the eighteenth century. Religion and Higher Learning Religious motives entered into the establishment of colleges as well as local schools. Harvard, founded in 1636, and Yale, opened in 1718, were intended primarily to train learned and godly ministers for the Puritan churches of New England. To the far north, Dartmouth, chartered in 1769, was designed first as a mission to the Indians and then as a college for the sons of New England farmers preparing to preach, teach, or practice law. The College of New Jersey, organized in 1746 and removed to Princeton eleven years later, was sustained by the Presbyterians. Two colleges looked to the established churches as their source of inspiration and support. William and Mary founded in Virginia in 1693 and King's College, now Columbia University, chartered by King George II in 1754 on an appeal from the New York Anglicans alarmed at the growth of religious dissent and the Republican tendencies of the age. Two colleges revealed a drift away from sectarianism. Brown established in Rhode Island in 1764 and the Philadelphia Academy, forerunner of the University of Pennsylvania, organized by Benjamin Franklin, reflected the spirit of toleration by giving representation on the Board of Trustees to several religious sects. It was Franklin's idea that his college should prepare young men to serve in public office as leaders of the people and ornaments to their country. Self-education in America Important as were these institutions of learning, higher education was by no means confined within their walls. Many well-to-do families sent their sons to Oxford or Cambridge in England. Private tutoring in the home was common. In still more families there were intelligent children who grew up in the great colonial school of adversity and who trained themselves until in every contest of mind and wit they could vie with the sons of Harvard or William and Mary or any other college. Such, for example, was Benjamin Franklin, whose charming autobiography, in addition to being an American classic, is a fine record of self-education. His formal training in the classroom was limited to a few years at a local school in Boston, but his self-education continued throughout his life. He early manifested a zeal for reading and devoured, he tells us, his father's dry library on theology, Bunyan's works, defo's writings, Plutarch's lives, Locke's On the Human Understanding and innumerable volumes dealing with secular subjects. His literary style, perhaps the best of his time, Franklin acquired by the diligent and repeated analysis of the spectator. In a life crowded with labours, he found time to read widely in natural science and to win single-handed recognition at the hands of European savants for his discoveries in electricity. By his own efforts he attained an acquaintance with Latin, Italian, French, and Spanish, thus unconsciously preparing himself for the day when he was to speak for all America at the court of the King of France. Lesser lights than Franklin, educated by the same process, were found all over colonial America. From this fruitful source of native ability, self-educated, the American cause grew great strength in the trials of the Revolution. For more information and to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org Recording by Chris Chapman History of the United States by Charles A. Beard and Mary Ritter Beard Part 1, Chapter 8 The Colonial Press The Rise of the Newspaper The evolution of American democracy to a government by public opinion, enlightened by the open discussion of political questions, was in no small measure aided by a free press. That too, like education, was a matter of slow growth. A printing press was brought to Massachusetts in 1639, but it was put in charge of an official censor and limited to the publication of religious works. Forty years elapsed before the first newspaper appeared, bearing the curious title, public occurrences both foreign and domestic, and it had not been running very long before the government of Massachusetts suppressed it for discussing a political question. Publishing, indeed, seemed to be a precarious business, but in 1704 there came a second venture in journalism, the Boston Newsletter, which proved to be a more lasting enterprise because it refrained from criticizing the authorities. Still, the public interest languished. When Franklin's brother, James, began to issue his New England Courant about 1720, his friends sought to dissuade him, saying that one newspaper was enough for America. Nevertheless, he continued it and his confidence in the future was rewarded. In nearly every colony, a gazette or chronicle appeared within the next 30 years or more. Benjamin Franklin was able to record in 1771 that America had 25 newspapers. Boston, led with five, Philadelphia had three, two in English and one in German. Censorship and restraints on the press. The idea of printing unlicensed by the government and uncontrolled by the church was, however, slow in taking form. The founders of the American colonies had never known what it was to have the free and open publication of books, pamphlets, broadsides and newspapers. When the art of printing was first discovered, the control of publishing was bested in clerical authorities. After the establishment of the state church in England in the reign of Elizabeth, censorship of the press became a part of royal prerogative. Printing was restricted to Oxford, Cambridge and London and no one could publish anything without previous approval of the official censor. When the Puritans were in power, the popular party, with a zeal which rivaled that of the Crown, sought in turn to silence royalist and clerical writers by a vigorous censorship. After the restoration of the monarchy, control of the press was once more placed in royal hands where it remained until 1695 when parliament by failing to renew the licensing act did away entirely with the official censorship. By that time political parties was so powerful and so active and printing presses were so numerous that official review of all published matter became a sheer impossibility. In America, likewise some troublesome questions arose in connection with freedom of the press. The Puritans of Massachusetts were no less anxious than King Charles or the Archbishop of London to shut out from the prying eyes of the people, all literature not meet for them to read and so they established a system of official licensing for presses which lasted until 1755. In the other colonies where there was more diversity of opinion and publishers could set up in business with impunity, they were nevertheless constantly liable to arrest for printing anything displeasing to the colonial governments. In 1721, the editor of the Mercury in Philadelphia was called before the proprietary council and ordered to apologize for a political article and for a later offence of a similar character he was thrown into jail. A still more famous case was that of Peter Zenger a New York publisher who was arrested in 1735 for criticizing the administration. Lawyers who ventured to defend the unlucky editor were deprived of their licences to practice and it became necessary to bring an attorney all the way from Philadelphia. By this time the tension of feeling was high and the approbation of the public was forthcoming when the lawyer for the defence exclaimed to the jury that the very cause of liberty itself not that of the poor printer was on trial. The verdict for Zenger when it finally came was a signal for an outburst of popular rejoicing. Already the people of King George's province knew how precious a thing is the freedom of the press. Thanks to the schools few and scattered as they were and to the vigilance of parents a very large portion perhaps nearly one half of the colonists could read. Through the newspapers, pamphlets and almanacs that streamed from the types the people could follow the course of public events and grasp the significance of political arguments. An American opinion was in the process of making an independent opinion nourished by the press and enriched by discussions around the fireside and at the taverns. When the day of resistance to British rule came government by opinion with hand for every person who could hear the voice of Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams there were a thousand who could see their appeals on the printed page. Men who had spelled out their letters while pouring over Franklin's poor Richard's almanac lived to read Thomas Paine's thrilling call to arms. End of chapter 8 This is a LibriVox recording and all LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org History of the United States by Charles A. Beard and Mary Ritter Beard Part 1 Section 9 The Evolution in Political Institutions Two very distinct lines of development appeared in colonial politics. The one exalting royal rights and aristocratic privileges was the drift toward provincial government through royal officers appointed in England. The other leading toward democracy and self-government was the growth in the power of the popular legislative assembly. Each movement gave impetus to the other with increasing force during the passing years until it last the final collision between the two ideals of government came in the War of Independence. The Royal Provinces Of the 13 English colonies 8 were royal provinces in 1776 with Governors appointed by the King. Virginia passed under the direct rule of the Crown in 1624 when the Charter of the London Company was annulled. The Massachusetts Bay Corporation lost its charter in 1684 and the new instrument granted seven years later stripped the colonists of the right to choose their chief executive. In the early decades of the 18th century both the Carolinas were given the provincial instead of the proprietary form. New Hampshire severed from Massachusetts in 1679 and Georgia surrendered by the Trustees in 1752 went into the hands of the Crown. New York transferred to the Duke of York on its capture from the Dutch in 1664 became a province when he took the title of James II in 1685. New Jersey after remaining for nearly 40 years under proprietors was brought directly under the King in 1702. Maryland, Pennsylvania and Delaware although they retained their proprietary character until the Revolution were in some respects like the royal colonies for their Governors were as independent of popular choice as were the appointees of King George. Only two colonies Rhode Island and Connecticut retained full self-government on the eve of the Revolution. They alone had Governors and legislators entirely of their own choosing. The chief officer of the royal province was the Governor who enjoyed high and important powers which he naturally sought to augment at every turn. He enforced the laws and usually with the consent of a council appointed the civil and military officers. He granted pardons and reprieves he was head of the highest court he was commander-in-chief of the militia he levied troops for defense and enforced martial law in time of invasion war and rebellion. In all the provinces except Massachusetts he named the counselors who composed the upper house of the legislature and was likely to choose those who favored his claims. He summoned, adjourned, and dissolved the popular assembly or the lower house he laid before it the projects of law desired by the crown and he vetoed measures which he thought objectionable. Here were in America all the elements of royal prerogative against which Hamden was protested and Cromwell had battled in England. Illustration. The Royal Governor's Palace at Newburn The colonial governors were generally surrounded by a body of office seekers and hunters for land grants. Some of them were noblemen of broken estates who had come to America to improve their fortunes. The pretensions of this circle graded on colonial nerves and privileges granted to them often at the expense of colonists from secular antipathy to the British government. Favors extended to adherence of the established church displeased dissenters. The reappearance of this formidable union of church and state from which they had fled stirred anew the ancient wrath against that combination. The Colonial Assembly Coincident with the drift toward administration through royal governors was the second and opposite tendency, namely a steady growth in the practice of self-government. The voters of England had long met accustomed to share in taxation and lawmaking through representatives in parliament and the idea was early introduced in America. Virginia was only 12 years old 1619 when its first representative assembly appeared. As the towns of Massachusetts multiplied and it became impossible for all the members of the corporation to meet at one place, the representative idea was adopted in 1633. The river towns of Connecticut formed a representative system under their fundamental orders of 1639 and the entire colony was given a royal charter in 1662. Generosity as well as practical considerations induced such proprietors as Lord Baltimore and William Penn to invite their colonists to share in the government as soon as any considerable settlements were made. Thus by one process or another every one of the colonies secured a popular assembly. It is true that in the provision for popular elections the suffrage was finally restricted to property owners or taxpayers with a leaning toward the free hold qualification. In Virginia the rural voter had to be a free holder owning at least 50 acres of land if there was no house on it or 25 acres with a house 25 feet square. In Massachusetts the voter for member of the assembly under the charter of 1891 had to be a free holder of an estate worth 40 shillings a year at least or of other property to the value of 40 pounds sterling. In Pennsylvania the suffrage was granted to free holders owning 50 acres or more of land well seated, 12 acres cleared and to other persons worth at least 50 pounds in lawful money. Restrictions like these undoubtedly excluded from the suffrage a very considerable number of men particularly the mechanics and artisans of the towns who were by no means content with their position. Nevertheless it was relatively easy for any man to acquire a small free hold so cheap and abundant was land and in fact a large proportion of the colonists were landowners. Thus the assemblies in spite of the limited suffrage acquired a democratic tone. The popular character of the assemblies increased as they became engaged in battles with the royal and proprietary governors when called upon by the executive to make provision for the support of the administration the legislature took advantage of the opportunity to make terms in the interest of the taxpayers. It made annual not permanent grants of money to pay official salaries and then insisted upon electing a treasurer to dole it out. Thus the colonists learned some of the mysteries of public finance as well as the management of rapacious officials. The legislature also used its power and money grants to force the governor to sign bills which he would otherwise have vetoed. Contests between legislatures and governors. As may be imagined many and bitter were the contests between the royal and proprietary governors in the colonial assemblies. Franklin relates an amusing story of how the Pennsylvania assembly held in one hand to bill for the executive to sign and in the other hand the money to pay his salary. Then with sly humor Franklin adds quote My courteous reader take pet at our proprietary constitution for these our bargain and sale proceedings in legislation. It is a happy country where justice and what was your own before can be had for ready money. It is another addition to the value of money and of course another spur to industry. Every land is not so blessed end quote. It must not be thought however that every governor got off as easily as Franklin's tale implies. On the contrary the legislatures like Caesar fed upon meat that made them great and steadily encroached upon executive prerogatives as they tried out and found their strength. If we may believe contemporary laments the power of the crown in America was diminishing when it was struck down altogether. In New York the friends of the governor complained in 1747 that quote the inhabitants of plantations are generally educated in republican principles. Upon republican principles all is conducted. Little more than a shadow of royal authority remains in the northern colonies. End quote. Quote. Here quote echoed the governor of South Carolina the following year quote. Leveling principles prevail the frame of the civil government is unhinged. A governor if he would be idolized must betray his trust. The people have got their whole administration in place. The election of the members of the assemblies by ballot not civil posts only but all ecclesiastical preferments are in the disposal or election of the people. End quote. Though baffled by the leveling principles of the colonial assemblies the governors did not give up the cases hopeless. Instead they evolved a system of policy and action which they thought could bring the optional provincials to term. That system traceable in their letters to the colonists. One. The royal officers in the colonies were to be made independent of the legislatures by taxes imposed by acts of parliament. Two. A British standing army was to be maintained in America. Three. The remaining colonial charters were to be revoked and government by direct royal authority was to be enlarged. Such a system seemed plausible enough to King George III and to many ministers of the crown in London. With governor's courts and independent of the colonists they imagined it would be easy to carry out both royal orders and acts of parliament. This reasoning seemed both practical and logical. Nor was it founded on theory for it came fresh from the governors themselves. It was wanting in one respect only. It failed to take account of the fact that the American people were growing strong in the practice of self-government and could dispense with the tutelage of the British ministry no matter how excellent it might be and how benevolent its intentions. References A. M. Earl, Home Life in Colonial Days A. L. Cross The Anglican Episcopate and the American Colonies Harvard Studies E. G. Dexter, History of Education in the United States C. A. Dunaway Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts Benjamin Franklin, Autobiography E. B. Green The Provincial Governor Harvard Studies E. A. McKinley The Suffrage Franchise in the 13 English Colonies Pennsylvania University Studies M. C. Tyler History of American Literature During the Colonial Times in two volumes Questions 1. Why is leisure necessary for the production of art and literature? How may leisure be secured? 2. Explain the position of the church in colonial life 3. Contrast the political roles of puritanism and the established church 4. How did diversity of opinion work for toleration? 5. Show the connection between religion and learning in colonial times 6. Why is a free press such an important thing to American democracy? 7. Relate some of the troubles of early American publishers 8. Why is a free press such an important thing to American publishers? 8. Give the undemocratic features of provincial government 9. How did the colonial assemblies help to create an independent American spirit in spite of a restricted suffrage? 10. Explain the nature of the contest between the governors and the legislatures Research Topics Religious and Intellectual Life Lodge Short History of the English Colonies 1. In New England Pages 418-438 465-475 2. In Virginia Pages 54-61 87-89 3. In Pennsylvania Pages 232-237 253-257 4. In New York Pages 316-321 1. Interesting source materials in heart American history told by contemporaries Volume 2 Pages 255-275 276-290 The Government of a Royal Province, Virginia Lodge, Pages 43-50 Special Reference E.B. Green, the Provincial Governor Harvard Studies The Government of a Proprietary Colony, Pennsylvania Lodge, Pages 230-232 Government in New England Lodge, Pages 412-417 The Colonial Press Special Reference G.H. Payne History of Journalism in the United States 1920 Colonial Life in General John Fisk Old Virginia and her neighbors Volume 2 Pages 174-269 Elson History of the United States Pages 197-210 Colonial Government in General Elson Pages 210-216 End of Section 9