rO ^A 0^ ^o'': ,^ 9., 95 \~'\<^' % 4 J-^^"\^ % cP^ f % %^ "rO^ <^'0^ \<^ '\.^^' : ^^ ^n r:X/ v> * ^ - '■' ,' ^ ^;^.;v:^ v^\ V J ^> o\ ■^^0^ %.o< o' ■ %"'• 0' .^ ^^"^. V .0^ ..^^ : -^^0^ ; .4^^^ .^ <^N^ ^V ^. .;w^\^^^N -^ .^-^^^"'^-^ .^^^r:-^-^ .^^^^'-^^ %.^^^■ ^%. .A<^ /A\e\^= %.ax^' 'i/^'S ^ -\'f« 0^ , ^^ ,.^" ^>.o^ ; r o, '^:=*^^^.^ ,^^ ^'c^ ^>i.>^\" ^N .v^^ ^^..<^^'^ .^v ^ %v ^^^0^ ^^^ ' <^"-^\^..^ &' .^ ^^^S ^^ 0^ -^0^ THE EEVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA By H. J. ECKENRODE, Ph.D. ASSOCIATE FKOPESSOR OF ECONOMICS AND HISTORY IN RICHMOND COLLEGE BOSTON AND NEW YORK HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY 1916 1/5 £7: COPYRIGHT, 1016, BY HAMILTON J. KCKENRODE ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Published March iQib 41 -./^- MAR 20 1916 /v ■ / 2- ^^ PREFACE The present work is chiefly based on the original sources of information in the archives department of the Virginia State Library. This great collection has been used before, of course, and some of the papers are in print, but I think that no one but myself has ever examined it exhaustively with a view to such a book as The Revolution in Virginia. I have given references to the manuscript collection as it is now classified in those specific cases where references may be of use; in the case of generahzations I have fol- lowed the inferences which I have drawn from my study of the mass of material. I am under obligations to Mr. William G. Stanard, of the Virginia Historical Society; Dr. W. E. Dodd, of the University of Chicago; Dr. D. R. Anderson, of Richmond College; and Dr. Douglas S. Freeman, for reading the manuscript and making useful suggestions. My debt to Mr. James D. Wise, who spent much time in aiding me to make revisions, is so great that I am at a loss to devise a fitting acknowledgment. H. J. ECKENRODE. iX CONTENTS I. Beginning of the Revolution .... 1 II. The Radicals 32 III. The Struggle for Norfolk . . . .58 IV. The County Committees 96 V. Convention and Committee of Safety . . 123 VI. The Democratic Republic 157 VII. Rule of the Council 174 VIII. The Fall of Jefferson 195 IX. Spread of Disaffection 232 X. Military Operations 261 XI. End of the War 276 XII. The Progress of Democracy .... 294 Index 303 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA CHAPTER I BEGINNING OF THE REVOLUTION The American Revolution was a movement with two distinct aspects. On one side it was marked by the union of hitherto independent communities and the beginning of common institutions and of a common life. The other phase witnessed the progress of the revolt within the colo- nies themselves and the creation of their individual gov- ernments. The method of historians in treating of the Revolution generally has been to take the most striking incidents in the history of the colonies in the years imme- diately preceding 1776 and join them to an account of the workings of the Continental Congress and the campaigns of the Continental army. The internal growth of the new- made States is almost entirely ignored, probably because in some instances it is not well known. But in this stage of American history, when the national life was so feeble, the progress of events in Massachusetts and Virginia was more important than the deliberations of Congress. No adequate account has been given of the spiritual change which came over Massachusetts and Virginia in the Rev- olutionary epoch and which had such great influence on the development of the nation. Because the early history 2 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA of the individual States has not been well worked out, there are certain hiatuses in our histories, such, for in- stance, as the lack of an account of the origin of the Demo- cratic Party. Historians give us the impression that it sprang full-grown from the head of Jefferson, that he was its creator. But the Democratic Party had come into existence in an undefined way before the great political genius of Jefferson laid hold of it and moulded it to his purposes. Jefferson was a Virginian and the Democratic Party as a political movement with real purposes was hkewise a Virginia product; the story of its rise is one of the most interesting chapters of Revolutionary history. In a brief analysis, the Revolution was the result of the "clash between imperial expansion and colonial develop- ment — two forms of progressivism — just as the Puritan Revolution was the outcome of the conflict of expanding monarchy with the growing idea of popular rights, mainly expressed through religion. In Virginia the colonial con- stitution had become well defined before the middle of the eighteenth century. Based on the fine old principle of the Englishman's inherent right of self-government, it had acquired certain fixed positions without much refer- ence to strict logic. It was really the result of a long con- test; the history of Virginia, hke that of the other colo- nies, is little more than a series of disputes with the royal governors, who served the colony greatly in some ways and in other ways were out of touch with colonial fife and needs. Parliament exerted a variable control over the colo- nies, from time to time passing taxation-without-repre- sentation statutes, but generally leaving the provincials suflBciently alone to cause itself to be looked on admir- BEGINNING OF THE REVOLUTION 3 ingly as the palladium of liberty. As a matter of fact, the causes of the Revolution were practical far more than theoretical. The colonies endured Parliamentary super- vision so long as this was not too vigorous; customs laws were of small account while smuggling went unchecked. Only when the British government attempted to enforce its customs acts and ventured to impose other and bur- densome taxes, hke the Stamp Act, did the taxation-with- out-representation protest appear; then the provincials, with all of Englishmen's gravity in asserting a paradox, denied the Parliamentary right of taxation. 1 If we think they may have been deficient in argument while right in principle, it should be remembered that the king's lawyers produced good precedents in the ship-money case in 1637. In a political struggle both sides always prove themselves right by any number of constitutional citations, but, nev- ertheless, the victory of one side carries with it far more right and happiness than the triumph of the other. Opposition to the British government did not begin with the Stamp Act in 1765. Before this time the colony had on many occasions successfully resisted the royal au- thority; indeed a legislature noted for its independence had existed in Virginia since 1619. In 1635 this assembly forcibly sent the royal governor Harvey back to England because it resented his efforts to enlarge his powers. Vir- ginia tardily and reluctantly acquiesced in the rule of Commonwealth and Protectorate, and, on the other hand, broke out in 1676 in open rebellion against its Cavalier governor, who sought to play the tyrant. Ten years later, in 1686, the House of Burgesses refused to allow the gov- ernor and council to lay a tax, and it did not favor the 4 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA establishment of a post-oflSce in America by act of Par- liament. The high spirit of the Virginia assembly quickened in the eighteenth century with the colony's rapid growth in wealth, population, and culture. The governors of that period found themselves continually at odds with the House of Burgesses in attempting to secure votes of money; Dinwiddle even had difficulty in obtaining sup- plies for the French-and-Indian War. This dual govern- ment by royal governor and local assembly resulted in the attachment of certain constitutional powers to either party, with a neutral zone between, while outside of both loomed the vague, ill-defined claims of Parliament. The governor was selected by the king and represented him. Along with the ordinary executive routine, he appointed most of the colonial officials ; called out the militia against the Indians and made treaties with them ; suggested legisla- tion and approved or vetoed bills, but with a final reserva- tion to the Privy Council; sat as chief judge in the general court; and, finally, inducted clergymen of the established church into parishes — though he had not the power of appointing them. The governor's council, which acted in the threefold capacity of consulting executive body, the highest court and the upper chamber of the legislature, was appointed for Hfe by the British Privy Council on the governor's nomination, and was generally under his influence. The House of Burgesses, the representative branch of the assembly, consisted of two members for each county and single members for boroughs. It initi- ated money bills in the manner of the House of Commons and was the most important and powerful branch of the BEGINNING OF THE REVOLUTION 5 colonial government, successfully asserting its rights and privileges on many occasions in opposition to the governor and council. With the increase of the number of counties in the eight- eenth century and the rise of a large class of landed proprietors whose main public ambition took the form of representing fellow countrymen in Wilhamsburg, the House of Burgesses grew greatly in power and prestige. Virginia in its earlier period had been a more or less demo- cratic community and it always contained a sturdy small- farmer class, tenacious of its self-respect. Lyon G. Tyler has pointed out that, while in New England the poor man was addressed as "goodman," in Virginia he insisted on his right to "mister." But the eighteenth century saw the rise of a strong aristocracy, based on the possession of the comparatively valuable lands of the tidewater section tilled by white indented servants and negro slaves. Ownership of great tracts of cleared lands and abundance of cheap labor en- abled the planters, in spite of the wasteful agricultural system then in vogue, to raise large enough crops of to- bacco to leave a considerable surplus above expenses. The settlers had gone from England to Virginia for the same reason that settlers go everywhere — to make a living. After the first hard age of settlement, when men struggled to subdue nature and lived and died toiling re- lentlessly, there succeeded a period of relaxation, enjoy- ment, and growing refinement, wherein the descendants of successful land-patentees and tobacco-growers gave themselves an English education, found pleasure in society and sport, and took to politics as a means of gaining 6 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA influence and distinction. And since the Virginia colonists, unlike those of New England, were fully in accord with the feelings of the majority of Enghshmen, they were without dissenter ideas in religion or politics. It was natural, therefore, that they should take as their ideal of imitation the Enghsh country gentleman, whose thoughts and habits, considering the necessary differences between England and Virginia, they reproduced with remarkable jSdehty. This planter class, generally fairly well informed for the times and enjoying considerable leisure, possessed great power among a poor and ignorant population: they took over almost as a right the local offices, and the ambi- tion of the ablest or most pushing led them to the House of Burgesses. The majority of planters did not, of course, profit by their opportunities. Many of them, in the fervor of their liking for English country life, merely wasted their means and leisure in sport and dissipation. Horse-racing for large stakes flourished in Virginia between 1730 and 1775, and at the beginning of the Revolution a considerable number of large landholders had ruined themselves by gambling and high Hving. Many estates were on the mar- ket. But the colonial system, with all its great drawbacks, offered a wonderful chance of development to ambitious and willing men. Politics was a respectable career, and not a business as it is so often nowadays; it invited the best men. The planter had a sufficient and tolerably se- cure income derived from his crops; he could give much time to reading and public affairs without private injury, because he usually had an overseer to superintend the labor of his slaves; and gradually there developed a race BEGINNING OF THE REVOLUTION 7 of politicians remarkable for their combination of theo- retical training with practical experience — men well read in English law and history, and, later, open to the great liberal tendencies of the middle eighteenth century. The^ liberal movement, which influenced America as well as western Europe, had the effect in Virginia of disturbing that deep-rooted idolatry of English institutions which had given birth to the Virginia aristocracy. A typical product of eighteenth-century liberalism in Virginia was George Mason, the broad-minded and capable thinker who wrote the constitution of 1776. The House of Burgesses was largely made up of plant- ers, who were Enghshmen in feeling, but who neverthe- less asserted the dignity and independence of the body in which they sat in opposition to attempts or imagined attempts of the British authorities to stretch their juris- diction. They were reinforced about the middle of the century by another self-willed element actually hostile to the imperial government, the representatives from the new middle and western counties. This piedmont and mountain section was much more democratic in feeling and much less cultured and wealthy than the east, even for the standard of those days. The western or " upland " members for many years were too few and inexperienced to do more than vote with the controlling majority led by skilled politicians, but they were never quite in har- mony with the tidewater and eventually asserted them- selves successfully against it. Several serious clashes with the royal government in the decade preceding the Stamp Act illustrated the grow- ing independence and self-consciousness of the House of 8 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA Burgesses. When Governor Dinwiddle in 1753 attempted on his own initiative to levy a fee of a pistole for signing land patents, the Burgesses protested in the memorable and prophetic words of Richard Bland: "The rights of the subject are so secured by law, that they cannot be deprived of the least part of their property but by their own consent." The governor in reply claimed that he was acting according to the king's instructions and strictly within the king's rights over vacant lands, but the House refused to accept his explanation: it declared that those who paid the pistole fee would be regarded as betrayers of the people, and thereby established a precedent for se- curing uniformity through holding offenders up to public obloquy later used with great effect in suppressing Tory- ism. The British Privy Council, when appealed to as tlie final authority in the fee dispute, allowed the Burgesses to have their way. Before the passage of the Stamp Act the British government at times incUned to be almost too conciliatory towards the colonies. It is probable that the House of Burgesses was mistaken in the pistole contention, for the title to vacant lands was unquestionably vested in the king, and the governor as the royal representative was hardly outside his rights in levying a fee. Still, it had not been demanded before, and the Virginians felt that advantage was being taken of a technical right to introduce a new and insidious custom and a possible precedent for future taxes. This controversy was the prelude to a much more im- portant dispute hinging on the king's power of interference with colonial legislation. The colonial constitution, as has been noted, recognized three powers in the state — king, BEGINNING OF THE REVOLUTION 9 Parliament, and local assembly. The king's power was mainly, though not entirely, delegated to the governor, who received instructions from home outlining his pol- icy; these instructions were regarded as law. ParUamen- tary authority was by general colonial consent limited to the regulation of commerce. Needless to say, the exten- sive right of regulating commerce when interpreted in the loose construction fashion might seem to sanction al- most any stretch of governmental jurisdiction, but as a matter of fact Parhament was not inclined to be unduly vexatious before 1760. Most colonial ills flowed from other sources. The assembly, which was the strictly local branch of government, exercised wider powers than modern law- making bodies — executive and judicial as well as legisla- tive. At first the small upper house, representing a few aUied families, held a dominating position, but as the col- ony grew in age and population the House of Burgesses more and more tended to become the important chamber. The council was Tory in feeling, while the Burgesses cher- ished the Whig tradition of Enghsh liberty, and its inde- pendent-minded leaders were bound to come into conflict with the British government as soon as the latter should attempt to stretch its prerogatives. The first important controversy between colony and home government, however, did not result from Parlia- mentary taxation, but from the royal authority as exer cised in colonial legislation. The Church of England es- tablishment in Virginia, the miniature state chiu-ch of the colony, furnished the occasion, and the conflict decided the long-debated question whether the control of the es- 10 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA tablishment lay finally with the assembly or the British officials. In 1758 the assembly passed an act which par- ticularly affected the ministers of the established church and aroused their ire. This so-called "Twopenny Act" compounded debts and the salaries of ofhcials, which were payable in tobacco by legal regulation, in money at the rate of twopence a pound. The measure was possibly nec- essary on account of the low price of tobacco and the weight of taxation due to the French-and-Indian \Yar, then in progress, but the assembly had passed a similar law in 1755 and seemed about to establish a rule of scaling down salaries w^hen tobacco was high without providing any com- pensation when it fell below the normal, as it frequently did. The state-supported clergy, who naturally objected to this heads-I-win-tails-you-lose system, appealed to Eng- land and succeeded in enlisting the services of the Bishop of London, the colonial diocesan. The bishop took up the cudgels in a letter denouncing the Virginia government. The final stage in the passage of a colonial law was the king's assent, but the assembly hastened to put the Two- penny Act into effect upon securing the governor's ap- proval, without waiting to hear from England, although the act altered a statute which the king had approved. In other words, the Virginia assembly dared to legislate on its own authority and in practical disregard of the king. The Bishop of London hinted that such action was in the nature of treason; it was at least not strictlj'^ constitutional. In answer to the bishop's letter two high-spirited Vir- ginians, Landon Carter and Richard Bland, sprang to the defense of the assembly and there followed a merry war of pamphlets, in which John Camm, president of William and BEGINNING OF THE REVOLUTION 11 Mary College, supported the side of the clergy. In this dispute the theory of tlie colonial constitution was first clearly defined by the chief writer i)articipating, Richard Bland. 1 /Richard Bland, of Prince George, deserves a word of mention, since he more than any other man was the author of the Revolution in Virginia, i He was born in 1710 and died in 1776, spanning the whole preliminary period of the Revolution in his mature manhood. His education was of peculiar value for these critical decades from 1755 to 1775; after a preliminary course in William and Mary he studied history and law at the University of Edinburgh, and was probably the best constitutional lawyer in the colonies. He saw with great clearness and astuteness on just what grounds the legal resistance to the British policy might be effectively placed and most of the remonstrances emanating from the House of Burgesses were his work. In personality Bland was of that type of Virginian which is best illustrated by the figure of George Mason, that type considered characteristically Virginian, — half prac- tical farmer, half classical scholar and lawyer ; genial, well- mannered, personally somewhat untidy and careless of clothes. ^Bland defended the assembly's action in setting aside a law approved by the king on the plea that action was some- times necessary before the king's will could be learned. *'Salus populi, suprema lex," he impudently quoted. In brief, the colony had to consider its own best interests, even at the expense of constitutional forms. But the royal council, to which Virginia's action was not especially * H. J. Eckenrode's Separation of Church and State in Virginia, 24 et seq. 12 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA palatable, "disallowed," that is, vetoed the Twopenny Act, and left the clergy the remedy of suing in the courts for the difference between their money commutations and their salaries in tobacco according to the prices cur- rent in 1758. Several ministers took advantage of this decision to bring suit and some judgments were obtained. One of the cases came up in Hanover Court in 1763, with the parish minister, Maury, the plaintiff. Patrick Henry, then an obscure young lawyer, represented the defendants, who were the vestry. In the speech delivered on this oc- casion, Henry boldly asserted Bland's doctrine, put for- ward three years earlier, that the assembly had the right to pass necessary legislation wdthout interference from England. He even went so far as to declare, in terms that simply thrilled his audience, that the king in vetoing a reasonable and beneficial measure had forfeited the right to his subjects' obedience. This speech, which is generally regarded as the beginning of the Revolutionary movement in Virginia, actually marks the end of an agitation lasting for five years. Henry played Luther to Bland's Erasmus, carrying to their conclusion the principles which the con- stitutional lawyer had outlined in his pamphlet of 1760. As it happened, the seed fell on prepared ground. The once solidly Episcopalian Hanover County was now full of dissenters, and Presbyterians largely manned the jury, which brought in a nominal verdict of one penny damages. It proved the ruin of the clerical cause. Virginia rang with Henry's name and the great body of people, who had hitherto viewed the matter with indifference, now took sides against the preachers. This outburst of enthusiasm led in later times to an obscuring of the actual issues BEGINNING OF THE REVOLUTION 13 involved, and Henry was presented somewhat in the light of a tribune combating class privilege. In truth, however, the Twopenny Act had been devised by the ruling clique in the House of Burgesses, which would have been incon- veniently taxed if the ministers had been paid according to the letter of the law. The dissenters did play a part, but it was subordinate. Henry's real importance in the case consisted in the coujp by which he turned a quarrel of the House of Burgesses and the courts into a general political issue. It was Henry's great work, as the "Par- sons' Cause" first showed, to enlist the body of Virginia people in the Revolutionary movement, which, without him, would have taken a different direction. The clergy were defeated in the Virginia courts by the popular clamor raised by Henry; the British Privy Council also ruled against them on some technicality when appeals were carried to that body. Though the dispute had thus ended in the complete discomfiture of the clergy, the war of pamphlets continued for several years longer; John Camm, the clerical leader, exchanged fire again and again with Bland and Carter. Camm believed that the control of the Virginia estabhshment belonged properly to the king, not to the assembly; and this unpopular theory, along with the clergy's unsuccessful appeal from the Vir- ginia courts to the Privy Council, tended to alienate many persons from the state church and foster the growth of dissent in eastern Virginia. Presbyterians and Baptists now appeared in numbers in even the most conservative counties. Bland, in his later pamphlets in the Twopenny case, and in his "Inquiry into the Rights of the British Colonies," 14 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA published in 1766, advanced beyond his first position, until he came to assert that all men born under an English gov- ernment are subject only to laws made with their own con- sent.^ In his Stamp Act pamphlet of 1766 he ingeniously outlined the distinction between the external government of England and the internal government of the assembly and between external and internal taxation, basing the colonial right to internal self-taxation on the common law, which follows the Englishman around the world, as well as on specific grants in royal charters. He defined, probably more clearly than any other colonial writer, the difference between the external authority of Parliament to pass acts for the regulation of commerce and the internal power of the assembly to levy any tax it might see fit, which distinction has survived in the American Constitution of 1787. This difference between "external" and "internal" government, rather ridiculous to Charles Townshend and not altogether convincing to-day, was an ingenious effort of the colonial mind to offer some real objection in law to the encroach- ments of the British ministry. From the Pistole Fee to 1776 Bland was busy in occupying defensive positions against England, and these were none the less effective that they sometimes happened to be novel. j Opinion in Virginia over the "Parsons' Cause" had been practically unanimous except for the parsons, who natu- ifally viewed the constitution in another light. But in 1765, with the crisis brought on by the Stamp Act, party differ- ences began to appear for the first time. On this occasion the middle and western sections rose to a place of influence never afterwards lost. The country beyond the Blue Ridge ^ Colonel Dismounted, 21a. BEGINNING OF THE REVOLUTION 15 was being rapidly settled by non-English races — Germans and Scotch-Irish — who had little of the Virginian rev- erence for Anglican institutions. The Presbyterian and democratic Scotch-Irish were reinforced by the piedmont country between the tidewater and the mountains, which had also been affected by dissent and democracy. Counties were being formed, and all that the new section needed was a vigorous and self-assertive leader. At length he appeared. (Before Patrick Henry's debut in the assembly in 1765, Virginia was ruled by a coterie of eastern members — an astute, far-seeing, and experienced group of politicians, of whom the chief was John Robinson, speaker of the House of Burgesses and treasurer of the colony. Robinson be- longed to the type which controls a conservative com- munity; he was well connected, rich, polished, genial, and possessed of fair mental powers. He ruled inter 'pares by virtue of his popularity and a certain force of character. This group led by Robinson had governed with consider- able efficiency and usually managed to overreach the gov- ernor and get their way with the home administration. But in 1764 they had been appalled by the declaratory act preceding the Stamp Act, which laid down the doctrine of the Parliamentary right of taxing the colonies. The House of Burgesses registered a dignified though emphatic protest, but Parliament, in disregard of colonial objections, passed the Stamp Act in the following year, 1765. Patrick Henry took his seat in the House as a member for Louisa at the May session of 1765, when the news of the act was fresh .1 Robinson and his group had long held undisturbed pes- 16 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA session of the House of Burgesses, but Henry, instead of containing himself in the presence of the silk-stockinged and self-important gentlemen from the tidewater, as might have been expected of a newcomer ignorant of the legis- lative "ropes," signalized his entry by assuming the cham- pionship of popular measures. A good opportunity stood at hand, but one which only a man of nerve would take. The ruling clique in Virginia, like all ruling cliques, could not entirely refrain from abusing a long lease of power. John Robinson partly owed his commanding place to an accommodatiag disposition, for it had been his habit to lend the public funds to friends on their personal security. As he was a man of large wealth for the times, the colony apparently did not run much risk of loss by this procedure, while a number of free-living, money-spending politicians and planters profited by the use of the treasury as a bank until Robinson became involved for a great amount. The situation finally became so serious that the speaker and his friends devised a plan of securing specie from England and lending it to planters on land security; this would have enabled Robinson to transfer to the treasury the securities he held for the public money loaned. Henry boldly fell athwart the scheme,^ and, according to Jeffer- son, defeated it, though the journal shows that the bill actually passed the House of Burgesses and was lost in the council. In the debate on the loan-office Henry gained a valuable ally in Richard Henry Lee, another ambitious politician of radical predilections, who succeeded in bring- ing about an investigation of the treasury. This cut-and- dried performance resulted in Robinson's vindication for 1 William Wirt's Life of Patrick Henry, 53. BEGINNING OF THE REVOLUTION 17 the time being, but on his death in 1766 a defalcation of more than one hundred thousand pounds came to hght. Nevertheless, the parties implicated looked out for them- selves so cleverly that they were not called to account, and Robinson, being dead, could not protect himself, A large part of his estate was sold for the benefit of the colony, which was not entirely reimbursed. The names of the borrowers never came to light, but the scandal had some effect on popular opinion and assisted in paving the way for the rise of a novus homo. (The loan-office was quickly crowded into the back- ground by weightier measures, for at this same session of 1765 Patrick Henry took the lead in opposition to the Stamp Act. He precipitated a sensational crisis by sud- denly introducing in the House a set of resolutions which openly and indignantly denied the right of Parliament to tax the colonies. It was the best-judged move of his whole wonderful career, and, in effect, the beginning of the American Revolution. At this time the colonies had taken no stand on the taxation question and their future action was uncertain, yet, if the right of taxation was not to be conceded, definite and emphatic protest was imperative. With all deference for modern American writers who make out such a good case for the British government, it should be observed that the Stamp Act, no matter on what excel- lent legal grounds it might stand, was a genuine measure of oppression. It was a subtle tax, affecting almost every relation of life. If it had been tamely submitted to, any governmental tyranny might have been expected. The plea of levying a tax on America for colonial defense should not blind us to the obvious intention of the British gov- 18 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA ernment also to milk the fat American cow for its own benefit. The boldness of the resolutions and the violence of Henry's speech alarmed the circle of eastern planters, who were as much opposed to the Stamp Act as the orator, but who preferred to carry on their opposition in the time- honored method of respectful petition. At a later date and in a period of glorification of the Revolution, it was claimed that Henry won a victory over the "court" or British faction in the House of Burgesses. As a matter of fact, no English party existed in Virginia at this time or afterwards. The nearest approach to such a party was the coimcLl, which was closely allied to the governor, but the council's influence had been steadily declining for some years and had practically disappeared by the Revolution. Certainly no English party had a place in the House of Burgesses, if by that term is meant a group willing to subordinate the colony to the will of the British govern- ment. The leaders acting against Henry to defeat his reso- lutions were Speaker Robinson, Edmund Pendleton, Pey- ton Randolph, Robert Carter Nicholas, Richard Bland, and George Wythe, all of whom with the exception of Robinson became active revolutionists a decade later. The speaker, it is true, stood near the governor, Fauquier, and was, so to speak, in touch with the home government, but it is almost certain that he would have sided with his associates if he had been living in 1775, since he had taken the lead in protests and in the first committee of corre- spondence. Assertion of colonial rights was nothing new to the House of Burgesses; it had always been a singularly independent body. It had thwarted Governor Dinwiddle BEGINNING OF THE REVOLUTION 19 consistently, it had asserted itself in the "Parsons' Cause" and in the Pistole Fee, and in 1764 it had memorialized against the declaratory act preceding the Stamp Act. Landon Carter, George Wythe, Richard Bland, Peyton Randolph, and others of the so-called "court" party formed the committee to draw the protest. No view could be more mistaken than that Henry originated the spirit of resistance to British claims in the Virginia House of Burgesses; that spirit had always existed., But if he did not initiate the opposition, he did show the wisdom of immediate and emphatic action. With his unrivaled faculty for seizing the psychological moment, Henry rightly judged that the time had passed for re- spectful representations to the "best of kings" and that the hour of rough and vigorous action had arrived. The speech he made in defense of his resolutions was startling and seditious in the extreme. After a stormy debate of two days, May 29-30, 1765, the resolutions, somewhat amended, passed the House. Jefferson, loitering in the lobby watching the scene instead of attending his classes at William and Mary, describes the fat and excited Peyton Randolph as rushing past him swearing that he would have given five hundred guineas for a single vote to help defeat Henry. Yet this man, who so passionately resented the orator's bold stand on the Stamp Act, afterwards be- came the speaker of the Revolutionary House of Burgesses and of conventions, and the first president of the Conti- nental Congress. Robert Carter Nicholas, who a year later succeeded Robinson as treasurer, was an important Revo- lutionary leader, as was Edmund Pendleton, chairman of the Committee of Safety and president of the constitu- 20 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA tion-making convention of 1776. George Wythe, another of Randolph's associates, played a prominent part in the creation of the State government and is credited by Jeffer- son as being the only man in Virginia sharing his own extreme views of the colonial constitution. Richard Bland had been the most effective literary representative of colonial rights. Jefferson admits that there was no difference in principle on the Stamp Act resolutions between the opposing parties in the House of Burgesses, but merely a difference on the question of their expediency. "They were opposed," he says, "by Randolph, Pendleton, Nicholas, Wythe, and all the old members whose influence in the House had till then been unbroken."^ The resistance of the tidewater planters was due to two things — to the leadership of a member outside of the old circle and, in greater part, to Henry's irreverent allusions to the king. The Virginian of that day, however much he might object to the policy of the British ministry, entertained a profound respect for the person of the sovereign; and the sentence which is almost all of the great speech that has come down to us — "Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third" — was drowned in the cries of "Treason" rising from a deeply shocked assembly. That rebellious speech startled a wider audience than the cham- ber which heard it; it ran through the colonies and gave rise to the agitation ending in Parliament's repeal of the offending statute. The Virginia leaders had intended a constitutional protest ^ Wirt's Life of Patrick Henry, 60. Jefiferson's Works (Memorial edition), XV, 168. BEGINNING OF THE REVOLUTION 21 against the Stamp Act; they did not wish to commit the colony to a resistance that the British government might construe as treason. The event showed that the orator was right, not they, and that a bold face intimidated the min- istry where mildness and the spirit of conciliation would only have confirmed it in its course. So perhaps it is not to be wondered at that writers of succeeding generations, imbued with the prevailing democratic ideas and viewing the events of 1765 retrospectively, should have translated the conservative ring of planters and lawyers, which was thoroughly patriotic in temper if cautious in action, into a party advocating submission to England, and Henry, the agitator and incendiary, into an innovator forcing a decla- ration of colonial rights through a hostile House. We are further informed that the public so fully indorsed Henry and condemned his opponents that at the ensuing election for the assembly of 1766 many delegates who voted against the resolutions failed of reelection.^ A number of changes did take place in the personnel of the succeeding House of Burgesses, but the rejected conservatives mu^t have been very minor victims, since in no case was a conservative leader defeated. More than this, Peyton Randolph, the leading conservative, was elected speaker in place of John Robinson — a strange victory indeed for the patriots to have won over the "court" party. An explanation of Vir- ginia politics in the decade preceding the Revolution on the theory of a "court" or British party leads to a di- lemma. We are led to conclude that Patrick Henry, by the sheer force of genius, prevailed on the planters to stand ^ W. W. Henry's Patrick Henry, i, 110. Journals, House of Burgesses (Virginia State Library), 1766-69, nc. 22 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA up for rights to which they had been indifferent before, or that he forced them because of his popularity to advocate principles they did not believe in. They were enlightened by the rather unlearned Henry on the subject of constitu- tional law, or were driven by fear of the populace into that basest of opportunism, insincere revolution. The whole history of the House of Burgesses — proud, independent, and tenacious of its privileges — speaks against such a theory. In fact, it was not Henry who influenced the conserva- tive leaders so much as it was the conservative leaders who furnished him with thunder. The orator began his career by putting into practice in his Hanover speech the arguments Richard Bland had introduced to the small reading public in the pamphlet of 1760. Henry's eloquence metamorphosed the reasoning of the constitutional lawyer into clear common speech. Again, in 1765, he endued with all the fire of his passion the protests which the House of Burgesses had made in 1764 in rather tame phraseology. In neither case was there a difference of principle; in both, all the difference in the world in power and effect. The great crisis of 1765 did not, therefore, witness the beginning of the resistance to the British policy; that re- sistance had begun long before and was properly the re- sult of the colony's rapid development into a strong and populous state. None the less, Henry's appearance on the stage was a momentous event in American history, for it marked the spread of the spirit of revolt from the assembly to the body of the people, and the rise of the Democratic Party. Henry was the inspirer and first leader of that party, which under Jefferson grew beyond the boundaries BEGINNING OF THE REVOLUTION 23 of Virginia and finally triumphed in the nation at large. Before 1765 tendencies existed in Virginia, but no parties — hardly even factions. Legislative action lay in the hands of a group of large planters, and such opposition as existed did little more than express the discontent of westerners and the protests of dissenter preachers against the order of society. After 1765 there were two more or less clearly defined parties — the conservatives headed by the old leaders, and the democrats, or more properly, the pro- gressives, led by Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee. Party names did not exist, but there was true party action, and the opponents, though agreeing mainly in their con- stitutional views, differed widely as to ways and means. Accordingly as one faction or the other predominated, the Revolution in Virginia went forward rapidly or moved cautiously and in the hope of reconciliation with England.^ Patrick Henry, who overthrew the old order and brought in the new, is the most striking figure in Virginia history. In a measure he was aided by circumstances, but the chief factor in the coup d'etat was his own overmastering per- sonality. The hour and the man coincided. Henry con- trolled a majority in the House of Burgesses, where inar- ticulate opposition to the "ring" had been powerless, and he became a rallying figure for all the elements of dissent and revolution. The council, which recruited its mem- bership from a circle of families in the Williamsburg neigh- borhood, had drawn away in recent years from the House of Burgesses and the planter class in general. The "con- ciliar" families more and more tended to form a separate circle elevated above the other planters. Their sympa- thies were English, and they would have become active 24 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA Tories if the great body of planters, who viewed them with jealousy and distrust, had not been in the saddle. As it was, they became lukewarm patriots and participated in the Revolution in order to save themselves. We look back on this period with the knowledge of what happened. But the effect of Henry's stand against Parliament was not so striking as immediately to deter- mine the public attitude on the issue. The courts practi- cally negatived the Stamp Act by making various excuses for doing business without stamps and threatened to shut up shop altogether. Northampton Court even went so far as to declare the Stamp Act unconstitutional, the first instance in American history of such a declaration. The fate of the act depended, however, not upon court deci- sions, but upon popular opinion, and in the interim be- tween the adjournment of the assembly and the date set for the new law to go into effect — November 1, 1765 — quite a few Virginians applied for office under the tax com- mission in the impression that it would soon begin its work. No less a patriot than Richard Henry Lee had sought an appointment. This was an unfortunate step and one his friends were put to pains to explain, although Lee was really not so much to blame as might appear at first sight. The Burgesses had exhausted their resources of protest without impressing the British government, and the gen- eral belief in the summer of 1765 seems to have been that submission was inevitable. Benjamin Franklin thought so and made no effort to dissuade a kinsman who came to ask his advice about seeking a tax office. The crisis was indeed grave. If the colonists believed that acceptance of the Stamp Act was preferable to the risks of resistance, a BEGINNING OF THE REVOLUTION 25 loyalist party would have arisen in Virginia, as well as in other colonies, having the same interests as the British government. Signs are not wanting that many men in Virginia were willing to ally themselves with the royal government and prosper in its shadow. While the House of Burgesses had resisted every effort of the governor to increase his authority and had even asserted itself against the royal prerogative, these contests were only skirmishes compared to a clash with Parliament over the fundamental right of taxation. This fall of 1765, when the question of the Stamp Act was decided, was the critical moment in the American Revolution; all that followed was the direct result of the stand then taken. And it soon became clear that Patrick Henry had done a greater work than inspire a party in a legislative chamber; he had fired the people of all the colo- nies into passionate resistance to the British government. When the commissioner convoying the first consignment of stamps, a Virginian named Mercer, arrived in Williams- burg, the populace rose and demanded that he resign his office. This was on October 30, 1765, just before the Stamp Act became operative, and the scene was the most memo- rable the little Virginia capital had ever witnessed.^ An excited crowd gathered before the coffee-house, which opened on the wide thoroughfare named, with such charm- ing grandiloquence, "the Duke of Gloucester Street." The governor, accompanied by the speaker and other offi- cials, went thither to greet the newly arrived stamp com- missioner and found him on the point of being mobbed. ^ Journals, House of Burgesses (Virginia State Library), 1761-65, LXIX. 26 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA A crowd composed of the best citizens of Williamsburg and planters of the neighborhood loudly threatened to "rush in," and the speaker interposed his ample person before the governor to ward off possible missiles from the representative of the majesty of England. Mercer was in actual danger for a time, but he promised to give a prompt answer to the demand for his resignation and Fauquier's coolness quieted the rioters, who finally allowed the stamp commissioner to go off under his guardianship. Next day the prudent Mercer resigned. This outburst was no demonstration of the lower classes, but of the well-to-do and intelligent planters, who now definitely took sides against England. Owing to a simi- larity of feeling among the planters of eastern and southern Virginia, they acted unitedly, and because of their local power and influence they carried all classes with them into the Revolution. Henry had aroused the people generally; he had particularly stirred the younger and liberally in- clined country gentlemen, and they were not afraid to use violence to gain their way. The Williamsburg disturbance was followed by the or- ganized and effective resistance of experienced politicians. Richard Henry Lee, who was astute enough to know that he had made a mistake almost as soon as he made it and quickly withdrew his application for a tax position, went to the extreme of opposition when he saw which way the wind blew. His excellent talents as a conspirator showed to advantage, when early in the next year, in February, 1766, he organized in his own county of Westmoreland the first "association," ^ that form of boycott destined to * Virginia Historical Register, ii, 16. BEGINNING OF THE REVOLUTION 27 give the British government endless trouble and to serve as the immediate forerminer of war in 1774. This "asso- ciation" bound the subscribers to import no goods from England until the Stamp Act had been repealed, and while it did not immediately prove useful because hardly needed under the circumstances, it remained a valuable precedent for future service. Repeal quickly followed from the emphatic protests of the colonies. The Stamp Act could not have been enforced without troops and the British ministry had no wish to resort to extremities. This show of weakness was fatal to the authority of the government. The colonies had learned that Parliament could be intimidated into giving way and never forgot the lesson: they went on to resist all further assertions of the English right of taxing the colonies, no matter on what ground. A now definitely developed pa- triot party in Virginia had learned, too, that uniform ac- tion might be secured by exerting pressure on the individ- ual counties, and for this reason there never was a Tory party in Virginia. The west was solidly patriotic because it was raw, democratic, and dissenter; the east was as solidly patriotic because the planter class, convinced that its welfare lay in opposition to England, overawed the con- siderable but widely scattered loyalist element, which was helpless in the face of a well-organized majority in every community. The bonfires and bell-ringings over the repeal of the Stamp Act might have been spared. The Enghsh adminis- tration, though it had abandoned the attempt to enforce a truly burdensome, income-producing tax, was not pre- pared to renounce the principle of taxation. It substituted 28 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA the Townshend Acts of 1767, which were based on the the- ory admitted by the colonists themselves of the Parlia- mentary right to regulate commerce; duties were laid on tea, glass, paper, and lead shipped into America. The struggle immediately recommenced, and the House of Burgesses, in April, 17C8, adopted a complaint written by Richard Bland that the Townshend duties amounted to an exercise of "internal" control and so were unconstitu- tional, which was an extension of the doctrine of "internal " power to cover the whole field of taxation and a distinct advance over the former position of the provincials. But the Americans of those days were too English to be much disturbed by inconsistencies; with marvelous facility they contrived to raise constitutional objections to every new assertion of authority on the part of the ministry. Indeed, the colonists were so thoroughly aroused by the real men- ace of the Stamp Act that they were determined to sub- mit to no new taxes of any kind. It is not for us to blame them. Liberty cannot be made strictly dependent on a series of constitutional precedents; law seldom measures the real issues at stake in history. However defective the fathers may have been in logic, — and that they were sometimes defective we must admit, — nevertheless, they stood for the principle of self-government against the world- old system of arbitrary rule. In the following year, in May, 1769, the House of Bur- gesses again protested against the British policy, with the result that Lord Botetourt, the governor, immediately dissolved it. The members nominally obeyed; in reality they merely adjourned to a private house, where they elected Speaker Randolph chairman and performed the first BEGINNING OF THE REVOLUTION 29 act of real rebellion. Borrowing Richard Henry Lee's scheme of three years earlier, they adopted a non-impor- tation agreement which specifically boycotted slaves, wines, and British manufactures. George Mason, who was not then a member of the assembly, drew this paper and George Washington presented it.^ Peyton Randolph, who had led the fight against Patrick Henry over the Stamp Act resolutions, acted as ringleader in this conspiracy against the home government. It is true that the non- importation agreement adopted then did not have any marked immediate effect, but the boycott method of re- sistance was carried a point further in June, 1770, when an "association" was formed between the Burgesses and the leading merchants of Virginia. At this stage of the taxation controversy, the economic interests of the col- ony, commercial as well as agricultural, stood in united opposition to the British policy. This association bound subscribers not to import from Great Britain, after Sep- tember 1, 1770, spirits, foodstuffs, certain manufactures, oils and paints, or to receive into keeping any of the prohibited imports after June 25, 1770. Goods imported in conform- ity with the association might be sold, but prices were not to be advanced because of restrictions laid on trade. In order to carry it into effect committees of five should be chosen in each county, with authority to publish the names of violators of the agreement and to examine the books of offending merchants. The first name signed to the as- sociation was that of Peyton Randolph; the next, that of Andrew Sprowle, of Norfolk, chairman of the trade and leading merchant of the colony. Then followed Robert 1 W. W. Henry's Patrick Uenry, i, 168. 30 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA Carter Nicholas, Richard Bland, Edmund Pendleton, Archibald Gary, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., and many others. At the same time the Virginia traders formed an organization at Williamsburg to further the association. A committee of 125 business men from all parts of the colony was appointed for the purpose of dehberating on the political situation.^ While planters and traders thus joined hands in support of colonial liberties, one order of men remained somewhat in sympathy with the British government. The clergy had been disheartened by the Privy Gouncil's abandon- ment of their cause in the Twopenny case. They had yielded to their fate without resignation, because they felt they were in the right, but their evident helplessness did not tend to encourage them to engage in other disputes with the assembly. Nevertheless, a few irreconcilable spirits, led by John Camm, president of William and Mary College, had the courage to defy public sentiment in an- other issue. Virginia was still mainly Anglican in religion, though dissent was rapidly growing at the expense of the establishment, but the Anglicans quite as much as dissent- ers opposed the foundation of a colonial episcopate, that scheme of the northern Anglican clergy. Opposition to an episcopate on the part of Virginia Episcopalians was polit- ical, of course, not ecclesiastical; they feared that an offi- cial like a bishop might lend a dangerous support to the ministerial plan to control the colonies. Under Camm's influence, James Horrocks, the comflaissary in Virginia, called a convention of ministers to debate the episcopate, ^ Virginia Historical Register, m, 81. BEGINNING OF THE REVOLUTION 31 but only a handful responded and their interest was obvi- ously lukewarm. Camm's desire to strengthen the move- ment for a bishop therefore came to naught. He had, how- ever, displayed his own Tory and High Church principles and his action subjected the Episcopal ministers in Virginia to the suspicions of a part of the populace, when, as a matter of fact, many of them were patriots and a few were Revolutionary leaders. This abortive attempt to draw the clergy into an ill-timed movement strikingly illustrated the unanimity of public opinion in the colony at that time; Anglicans joined hands with dissenters in opposing a po- litical scheme masquerading under the name of religion. CHAPTER II THE RADICALS The colonies were now drawing together for a union in defense of their liberties; their action was no longer local, but taken with reference to the common interests. When a special court of inquiry was established in Rhode Island in 1773, with power to send accused persons out of the colony for trial, the progressives in the Virginia House of Burgesses resolved to take steps to bring about a general Continental understanding. For the past few years the conservative and progressive factions had almost lost identity in the oneness of opposition to England, but with the close approach of the Revolution their differences again appeared. In March, 1773, diu-ing the session of the assembly, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas Lightfoot Lee, with Dabney Carr and Thomas Jefferson, two promising young men of the party, thinking that the conservative leaders were insufficiently zealous to be left the initiative, hit on the plan of forming intercolonial committees of correspondence.^ The measure easily passed the House of Burgesses; the committee appointed consisted of Speaker Randolph, Nicholas, Bland, Pendle- ton, Benjamin Harrison, Dudley Digges, and Archibald Cary, conservatives, and Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, Jefferson, and Carr, progressives. Thus while the radicals succeeded in inaugurating their policy, the older faction controlled the committee. ' ^ Henrj^'s Patrick Henry, i, 160. THE RADICALS 33 This first intercolonial intelligence bureau, owing its inception to the fertile brain of Richard Henry Lee, did much to bring the scattered American communities into a harmonious policy. The colonies were kept well informed and gave Massachusetts prompt and effective support in her troubles. When the news of the Boston Port Bill reached Williamsburg in the midst of a session of the as- sembly, the progressive leaders, Henry, the Lees, and Jef- ferson, summoned a caucus of their followers and again took the bit in their teeth. "^ They fixed up a plan for a day of fasting on the date when the Port Bill became effective, and induced Robert Carter Nicholas to introduce the reso- lution, reasoning that his weight and position would carry it through. Fast days were not much in the Virginia fash- ion, and Henry and Jefferson in proposing to celebrate one showed that they were conscious imitators of the Long Parliamentarians. In the excitement of the hour elderly conservatives stood hand in hand with the younger pro- gressives and passed the fast resolution without opposi- tion. Dunmore, the governor, dissolved the assembly on May 25, 1774, which was all that a shocked governor could do. The Burgesses, as before, gravely accepted dissolution in form and forthwith retired from the official state house to the Williamsburg tavern, where in that so-called Apollo room, dedicated to colonial mirth and revel, they put Peyton Randolph in the chair and adopted another boy- cott association, besides taking the fateful step of decidmg to propose a general congress of the colonies. Philadel- phia was suggested as the place and September 5, 1774, ^ Jefferson's Works (Memorial edition), i, 19. 34 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA as the date. The meeting also issued a call for the election of delegates from the counties to a convention of the col- ony at Williamsburg on August 1, 1774. In this unoflScial meeting in the tavern, where senti- ments might be expressed without fear of interruption, the differences between conservatives and progressives again came to the surface. The radicals, led by Henry, Mason, and Richard Henry Lee, with Nicholas temporarily aiding them, made the sweeping proposal of stopping payment of British debts, ceasiug both importation and exportation and closing the courts, measures of open rebellion. The conservatives, led by Paul Carrington, supported by Car- ter Braxton, Thomas Nelson, Jr., and Peyton Randolph, advocated payment of debts and continuance of exporting.^ As an association forbidding exporting as well as import- ing was adopted, victory lay with the progressives, though debt-collecting was not prohibited. The colony responded to the association and the call for a meeting by electing delegates to the August Convention (who were for the most part members of the House of Bur- gesses) and appointing local committees to enforce the boycott. The first of these committees, so far as is known, were formed in the Virginia towns in May and June, 1774.^ Dunmore (afterwards Shenandoah) County also elected a committee on June 16, 1774, and Fairfax on June 18, at a meeting over which George Washington presided. Other counties followed, but in many of them the meetings did not elect committees, but remained content with approv- ing the non-intercourse association and selecting delegates to the convention. * Magazine of History (1906), 3, 153. ^ American Archives, i, 417. THE RADICALS 35 I^This August Convention, patriotically perspiring in the midsummer heat, adopted a more extreme association, which bound subscribers not to import British manufac- tures and products and slaves after November 1, 1774, and to cease exporting tobacco after August 10, 1775, if England did not meantime come to terms. Furthermore, merchants were required to sign the association on pain of boycott, and subscribers, violating the association and detected by county committees, were to be publicly branded as "inimical" to America. This sweeping em- bargo shows all the way through the hand of Richard Bland, who earlier in the summer, at the meeting in his own county of Prince George, had outlined a non-intercourse scheme in almost the words used by the August Conven- tion.^ The August meeting of 1774 marks the actual beginning of the Revolution in Virginia. The members of the House of Burgesses, under the moderatorship of Peyton Ran- dolph, quietly ignored the governor and proceeded to put into effect as a popular convention what they would other- wise have done as a legal assembly. Acting as direct rep- resentatives of the people, the convention, besides fram- ing the association, elected Randolph, Bland, Pendleton, and Benjamin Harrison, conservatives, and Washington, Henry, Jefferson, and Richard Henry Lee, progressives, as delegates to the Continental Congress. At the assembling of the Congress in September, 1774, the strong Virginia delegation made a deep impression, and Peyton Randolph, that portly gentleman whose des- tiny it was to head so many bodies, legal and treasonable, * American Archives, i, 490. 36 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA was elected president. The Virginia progressives led the Congress in proposing bold measures; indeed, ratrick Henry, in his fire-brand fashion, declared that govern- ment in America was dissolved, and that the colonies, being reduced to a state of nature, were (according to the doctrine of Rousseau) free to enter into a new system of political contract.^ Richard Henry Lee, father of boy- cotts, advanced non-intercourse as the needed panacea to cure the inflamed British public mind, and Congress adopted a stringent Continental Association forbidding the importation of British goods and the exportation of American products to British territories after certain dates. County and town committees were to carry the association into effect and impose on offenders the pen- alty of being published in the newspapers as "enemies of America," the "undesirable citizens" of that place and period. Congress, in passing such a resolution and the colonies in undertaking to enforce it, assumed a power to which they had no legal claim whatever. The Continental Con- gress, which represented the people of the colonies rather than governments, was a frankly revolutionary body, and the Association was economic war preceding bloodshed. The great boycott adopted by Congress was almost the same in detail as that drawn up by the AugTist Convention in Virginia, and was shrewdly, one might almost say, cyni- cally, calculated to intimidate the imperial government by striking at the EngUshman's proverbially sensitive pocket nerve. This lengthy and tedious document bound the colonies ^ John Adams's Life and Work, ii, 360. THE RADICALS 87 to refrain from imi)orlin^' IJritlsh ^oods after Dcccni])or 1, 1774, — unless I'liarauli liaci in the mean time relented, — and to cease exporting products after September 10, 1775. American manufactures were to be encouraged in every way known to an age }>efore the Ijirth of "infant indus- tries" and paternal g<)vernm(;nt. Goods brought in be- twe(!n December 1, 1774, and February 1, 1775, should l)e reshipi)ed or d(;liver(Ml to local commitLces for disposal and invoices brought in after February 1, 1775, must be re- turned unoi)ened. To enforce these laws, styled (with unconscious irony) "recommendations," Congress directed the appointment of committees in each town and county with inquisitorial and j)unitive powers. Tlie punishment prescribed — i>ublication of offenders in the newspapers — was mucli more serious than it sounds, because in the excited condition of j)u})lic opinion it meant nothing less than a mild form of outlawry. The Revolution })egan with the enforcement of the Continental Association, which was, in reality, rebellion. At this time the people of the colonies were overwhelm- ingly in favor of resistance; the Tory element was small. It was only when the failure of the commercial war be- came apparent and real war began that a genuinely loyal- ist party arose in the colonies; then the importance of the issue, dwarfing in the eyes of the colonists many griev- ances, brought over to the British side the merchant class, which found itself in ire across the world to 40 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA secure certain positions for its owti safety; it was the deter- tnination of a proud, easy-going, liberty-loving commu- nity, conscious of its importance in America and of its small importance in English eyes, to maintain its old independ- ence and increase it. Chafing even during the French- and-Indian War at any exertion of royal authority, the Virginians were not prepared to admit the Parliamentary claims put forth in 176-i. Patrick Henry had appealed to this colonial jealousy and sense of difference, this vague and subconscious feeling of nationalism, in 1765, and the feeling once aroused never died out. The people of ^'i^- ginia beheved that the home government had determined in the Stamp Act to bring them to " chains and slavery," and thought that acquiescence in any tax whatever would mean the concession of a principle which would end in colonial exploitation for the benefit of England. Accus- tomed to self-government and to a freedom we cannot understand to-day, the planters were prepared to take the risks of resistance rather than to submit to any curtailment of their rights or any check to their development. They began the war reluctantly and without thought of separa- tion from England, but to secure their former freedom; separation was a measure reluctantly adopted only when it became apparent that it was inevitable. And indeed, in the closing weeks of 1774), when the Virginians began their active resistance, they had no great expectation of going to war at all. It should not be overlooked that the Continental Association, while an active war measure, was intended to secure a peaceful settlement of the diffi- culties between colonies and ministry. The Association was an attempt to bulldoze Britain into another such con- THE RADICALS 41 cession as followed the Stamp Act agitation, the provin- cials judf^iiiK tliat if they could make tlicir disjjlcasurc expensive enough to British commercial interests they would gain their point. The plan succeeded so far that it brought the British traders to clamor for an understand- ing with the colonics, but it failed to affect the government, which this time stood firm. War ensued and was to some extent the result of a mutual miscalculation. The Asso- ciation, intended really as a peace j)olicy, was a conserva- tive much more than a progressive scheme. Its leading advocate was not Henry or Jefferson, but Bland, whose outline Congress adopted. The bolder minds among the progressives seem to have understood that war was inevi- table; and l'atri(;k Ilcnry was ready for it early in 1775, be- fore the first shot had been fired at Lexington and while the conservatives were still sanguine of a peaceful settlement. But Henry was the most far-sighted man of his generation. With prompt enthusiasm the conservatives proceeded to obey the recommendations of the Continental Associa- tion, forming committees through all eastern Virginia. Like the August Convention, the committees had no legal existence : nevertheless, the convention had wielded more than the powers of the House of Burgesses, because un- trammeled by hostile governor and council, and the com- mittees also exerted very great actual authority. The old constitution quietly expired in the least violent of rev- olutions. This lack of jar was due to the fact that the class in control of affairs wrought the change; no social upheaval attended the overthrow of British sovereignty. Members of the House of liurgesses simply became dele- gates to the Virginia Convention of 1774, which inaugu- 4S THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA rated the Revolution; and in the same way, justices, ves- trymen, and other prominent persons formed the new county committees. Thus the old government was elimi- nated from Virginia, while all the time the governor sat in his residence at Williamsburg, " the Palace," imagining that everything would come right again. At first, indeed, the Revolutionary movement followed time-honored precedents. On court-days in November and December, 1774, the farmers of eastern Virginia met as usual and, crowded on the court-house green, heard the orators they had always listened to hold forth on the ini- quities of the British ministry and the endangered liberties of America. As might have been expected, they ended by appointing these same leading citizens as local committee- men to secure the "observation of the Association." It was the local gentry, not demagogues, who fanned the flame of revolution in the tidewater.; It was they, as we are told, who turned balls and parties into patriotic festivi- ties, putting heads together over tables, after the imme- morial custom of revolutionists, and drunkenly roaring out liberty songs. ^ A critical and unfriendly observer at a mass meeting to hang Lord North in effigy \^Tote that the great body of the crowd present remained looking quietly on at the scene, while a few cheering and swearing gentle- men supplied all the enthusiasm. ^ That violent leader, Archibald Gary, put up a large pole at Williamsburg deco- rated with a bag of feathers and bucket of tar as a little hint to any who might be found wanting in patriotism or discretion.' ^ Fithian's Journal, 96. * American Archives, i, 970. . » Magazine of Uistory (1906), 3, 156. THE RADICALS 43 r The leaders of the conservative party were conspicu- ous in the formation of county committees. Edmund Pen- dleton, the chief who afterwards succeeded Peyton Ran- dolph, was elected chairman of the Caroline Committee on December 8, 1774; Paul Carrington, chairman of the Charlotte Committee; Archibald Cary, of the Chester- field Committee; Robert Carter Nicholas, of the James City; Joseph Jones, of the King George; Peyton Randolph, of the Williamsburg Committee, on which Nicholas and George Wythe also served; Richard Bland, of the Prince George; Landon Carter, of the Richmond; Benjamin Harrison, of the Charles City.^ The county committee system in the east was completely dominated by the old leaders, to whom is largely due its extraordinary efficiency as an instrument to secure uniformity of sentiment by means of encouragement on the one hand and repression on the other. The first local committees, modeled on the colonial committees of correspondence, began to be formed in the summer of 1774 after the appointment of the Baltimore Committee of Correspondence. Alexandria, on May 28, 1774, elected a committee to correspond with the Mary- land metropolis, and three days later, on May 31, Dum- fries 2 also appointed a committee. Fredericksburg came next, on June 1, 1774. ^ After the May meeting of the assembly, when an association was adopted, the local committees of correspondence enlarged their activities to include the enforcement of the boycott, thereby antici- pating the committees formed in the fall at the instance 1 William and Mary Quarlerhi, v, 101-00, and 245-55. * Calendar of Virginia Stale Papers, viii, 61. ^ lOid., viii, 54. J 44 THE IIF.VOUITION IN VIIK^INIA of (\u><^n'ss. TIk^ Himifrios puhlic meeting, (in -Time (», 1771, insh'uele«l ils (•omuiiUee of eorrespondeiice lo lake ii|) llie new duties; * in other plaees where eoinmillees ex- isted th(>y i)r(»I>;d>ly nssnined them ns a matter of eotirse. A mcuMiu!^ at Woodstock, in l)unn\ore County, on June IS. 1771. eU'et(Ml ii commit lee lK)th to eorres])ond and to en- force the associatitin," and at some time in June a simihir connnittee canu" into hcini!; in N«>rt\)lk. l*'airfax, StalTord, antl Kre probably unty, on I>ecem- ber r>. This l.-ist ci^mmittet* was tin* second appointed for the <'ounty. Then in rapid succession came Trincess .\nne. FiSsex, (\iroline, I'rince William. King and (^ueen, North- anii>Ion. Charles City, Orange, .\ccon\ac. King George. lsl(> of Wight, and W'illiamsburg. all appointed in Deeem- bcr. 177 1.. Many other lounties selected their bodies early in 177.'). * /Imrncdfi Airliii^s. i. .SHS. » //ii(/,. i. -117. THE RADICALS 45 111 Iho first luonlhs of nolivily the town niul o>in\ty oomiiulloos workoii as iiidopomltMit t>rg;ini/,alit>iis. uitlioul ivlVroiu'c to any central aulhorily. Tlioy onforetMl the iioii- iniporlation ami oxj)orlalion tlirections of the AsstH-ialioii, nuMcilossly ro[)rossotl ant i-i)al riot ic opinion, tMu-onra^nl Uovolutionary sontimonl, anil pr(>i)arr(l llic toiony for arnieci resistance to Kn^lantl. A surprisin<;ly small unionnt of mob violence accompanied the repressive measuivs. A crowd from Willianishnrjj;, in May, 177 l, boarded ;i ship containing lea, destroyed the j)rohibiled freif:;ht, and at- templetl ti> bnrn the vessel bnl withont snecess. In gen- eral, the local nuichines run ttu) smoothly to need violence. The courts had put up shutters and the usual comity ad- ministration was comi)letely suspended, but justices and other local t)(ricials, under the title of committeemen, con- tiimed to exercise their powers, greatly enlarged; they assumcil an inquisitorial authority over the life of the connnunity. As a loyalist sadly lanuMiled: " I'very thing is managed by connnittee, setting and pricing goods, im- printing books, forcing some to sign scandalous <'onces- sions and by such bullying conduct they exi)ect to bring Covernment to their own terms." ' History was rapidly made in the s])ring of 1775. The House of Htu'gesses, acting again as a convenlion, without governor or council, met in TNlarch, 177r), in the village of Kichmontl, where it could deliberate with more fr(>edoni than in Williamsburg under the governor's shadow. The tension in IJoston, almost at breaking-point, ukuIc the meeting of even more than ordinary importance, since, in view of the evident failure of the Continental Associa- 1 Mayitzine of History (ll)O(i), 3. 167. 46 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA tion to coerce the British ministry, war had passed from the region of possibiUty to that of immediate probability. The strong men of the colony mustered in force. They were flushed with excitement and conscious of great im- pending events, and they broke out into a violent party disagreement as to the course to pursue. The conserva- tives, despite the fruitlessness of their commercial policy, still hoped for an understanding with England; the pro- gressives were prepared for immediate war and revolution. The struggle in the convention was precipitated over a pacificatory declaration "that it is the most ardent wish of this colony (and they are persuaded of the whole conti- nent of North America) to see a speedy return of those halcyon days, when we lived a free and happy people." * Immediately after the adoption of this useless, if pious, prayer, Patrick Henry rose to move that the colony be at once put in a state of defense. This bold challenge was accepted by the conservative leaders. Bland, Pendleton, Nicholas, Benjamin Harrison, and Willis Riddick, who feared lest the sympathy of the Whig Party in England and Parliament, upon which the conservatives now hung their hopes, might be alienated by the threat of force. They still dreamed that the manufacturing interests of England would succeed in moving the government and averting war, much as the Confederates fondled the delu- sion that the stoppage of the cotton supply would force Europe to intervene in the war between North and South. Furthermore, they pointed out that the colony was in no condition to go to war with the first military and naval power in the world. Henry answered them in the most 1 William Wirt's Lije of Patrick Henry, 116. THE RADICALS 47 famous of his speeches. Scouting the idea of a peaceful accommodation, the great agitator pleaded for military preparation and ended his appeal with that world-thrilling sentence: "Give me liberty or give me death." ^ It was a speech that stirred the patriot party in all the colonies, and, naturally, excited the disgust of Tories, who wrote home that the orator had denounced "the king as a tyrant, a fool and puppet and Englishmen and Scots as a set of wretches sunk in luxury who were unable to look the brave Americans in the face." ^ Henry's arming resolutions, which were supported by Washington, Jefferson, and Richard Henry Lee, and aided by all his own matchless eloquence, barely passed the convention by a vote of 65 to 60,' showing the strength of the conservative opposition. The committee appointed to prepare a plan of defense was, however, predominantly progressive. Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, Andrew Lewis, Wilham Christian, Thomas Jefferson, and Isaac Zane were of this faction, while the conservatives were represented by Robert Carter Nicholas, Harrison, Pendleton, and Riddick.^ The personnel of the committee, largely agitators and western fighting men, appeared to guarantee vigorous military action, but party strife prevented it.^ It seems apparent that the raising of a military force was only the first part of Henry's plan, which, we are informed, intended nothing less than com- plete revolution and the assumption of government by ^ William Wirt's Life of Patrick Henry, 120-23. * Magazine of History (1906), 3, 158. * Ibid., 3, 158; not exactly reported. < Wirt's Life of Patrick Henry, 124. * Magazine of History (1906), 3, 155. 48 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA the convention, including the appointment of magistrates under new commissions and the levying of taxes. His bold and direct mind saw little wisdom in the efforts of con- servatives to maintain a show of respect for the royal rep- resentative at Williamsburg while preparing at Richmond for open rebellion. But the conservatives, in their loyalty to the constitution and their shrinking from war with Eng- land, preferred to be inconsistent rather than revolution- ary : although they sat in a convention without legal author- ity, considering war measures against England, they were nevertheless ready to come together again at the gover- nor's call as the legitimate assembly of the colony. Henry sought to rend asunder this benighted constitutionalism, which had no meaning now, and gain the advantages that come from taking a firm initiative, but the conservatives, who clung instinctively to the connection with the crown, succeeded in putting off the catastrophe a httle longer. Nicholas, Harrison, Bland, and Riddick worked together strenuously to this end. As a result of the united and determined conservative opposition,^ the March Convention bore little fruit and the Revolution did not formally begin in Virginia before the battle of Lexington, as would have been the case if Pat- rick Henry had had his way. The history of the Revolu- tion in Virginia throughout 1775 is a repetition of the clash in the March Convention, the conservatives time and again postponing decisive action in their efforts to prevent war and secure a peaceful settlement according to their ideas of the colonial constitution. This anomalous condi- tion of a country in actual but unrecognized rebellion con- 1 Magazine of History (1906), 3, 158. THE RADICALS 49 tinued until late in the summer. The courts were closed, militia companies drilled at every court-house, and the county committees busied themselves in hunting out and suppressing British sentiment wherever it appeared : Dun- more, however, remained undisturbed in his "Palace" at Williamsburg. Seldom has history presented a more illogical picture. Yet, in spite of the conservative fear and distrust of Henry's radicalism, the two wings of the patriot party worked together in some respects. The progressive wing, led by Henry, Jefferson, Mason, and the Lees, made con- cessions to the older, English-loving faction, which gen- uinely dreaded revolution though hostile to the British policy. The conservatives, in turn, cooperated with the radicals in necessary undertakings, such as the crushing of the individual Tories scattered through the colony. These, if left to themselves, might have combined to form a party: obedience to the Continental Association was demanded and dissent was repressed effectively. The chief conces- sion made by the progressives to the conservatives was non-interference with Dunmore, whom the older men continued to regard as the legitimate head of the state. Undisturbed as he was, the one policy left Dunmore was masterly inactivity : he had no military force at his disposal and such authority as he still possessed was by grace alone. Dunmore, however, mistaking the forbearance of the Virginians for timidity, determined to overawe them by a sudden and audacious stroke. On the night of April 20, 1775, a squad of marines from the king's ship Magdalen, lying in the James River near by, carried a quantity of powder from the colony powder-house in Williamsburg on 50 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA board the ship. The next morning, when the townsfolk learned that their magazine had been rifled, they appeared in the streets in arms, only to quiet down finally under the representation of the town officials that the powder would be restored. The council respectfully requested the governor to return the colony's property and were met with the transparent excuse that it had been removed for fear of a slave rising and would be sent back when needed. Peyton Randolph and Robert Carter Nicholas played a great part in making this evasion palatable to the Williams- burgers, who, respecters of persons and dignitaries as they were, could become riotous on occasions. A wild rumor sent them to arms a second time a day or two later, but their excitement at last subsided and the incident seemed closed. The inland people were not so easily calmed as the tractable population of the capital. The news of the pow- der seizure spread through the colony and created great excitement. Some hundreds of volunteers from northern and western Virginia met at Fredericksburg, ready to descend on Dunmore, while at other muster-places the militia gathered in considerable numbers.^ But Peyton Randolph, working to quiet the agitation, wrote around in the name of the town corporation that the governor had pledged himself to return the powder and advised strongly against violence. The musters, therefore, melted quickly away and left the victory seemingly with Dunmore. His lordship, nevertheless, had been sufiiciently alarmed by the stir to issue, on May 3, 1775, a proclamation repeating the slave-insurrection bugaboo. As might have been ex- ^ C. R. Lingley's Transition in Virginia from Colony to Commonwealth, 67. An excellent study of this period. THE RADICALS 51 pected, the county committees which then ruled Virginia received with contempt this bungling essay in fiction; still, they were for the most part conservative enough in temper to accept the explanations of the patriot leaders at Williamsburg as satisfactory. At this juncture, however, the agitator who appeared at every crisis, who had stirred the colony in the "Par- sons' Cause" in 1763 and again in the Stamp Act debate in 1765, seized the Heaven-born opportunity for vigorous action. Rousing the Hanover Committee by his fiery words, Patrick Henry marched on Williamsburg at the head of the county volunteer company. The act was less rash than it seemed : not only could Henry count on a large and devoted following throughout Virginia, but the move- ment was so well timed that it completely unnerved Dun- more, who had no troops behind him. When the orator, with the ever-growing mob of armed men that hastened to him from all sides, drew near Williamsburg, the governor sent him a message apparently offering payment for the powder. In any event, Henry received from a royal officer a sum of money for the powder and thereupon turned his men homeward. He professed satisfaction with the result, but, in reality, he had been checkmated in the greatest ef- fort of his career. There can be little doubt that he marched on Williamsburg prepared to take advantage of Dun- more's folly by seizing the government and inaugurating the Revolution without further delay; but the conserva- tive leaders in Williamsburg, who strove almost frantically to stave off the crisis,^ brought such strong pressure to bear on him that he abandoned his plan in the interests of 1 Magazine of History (1906), 3, 159. 52 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA harmony. The governor continued to hold his place after the gunpowder incident solely because of the rather ill- judged procrastination of the conservatives and their ex- cessive tenderness for constituted authority. Dunmore now gave another and supreme illustration of his weak and unstable character, which oscillated be- tween timidity and temerity according as pressure was applied or withdrawn. England has been fortunate for the most part in her choice of official representatives in her colonies and vassal nations; they have usually been men of ability, and occasionally of insight and feeling. (Was there ever an administrator who surpassed Raffles of Java?) But the British government had not acted with its accustomed discrimination in selecting the Scots Earl of Dunmore as governor of Virginia at a critical time like 1771. He succeeded two able and popular men, Fauquier and Botetourt, who had done everything possible to recon- cile colony with mother country. Dunmore, also, in his rather flaunting way, had courted popularity with some degree of success, although his plan to prevent revolu- tionary activity by proroguing the assembly, whenever the House of Burgesses became seditious, had wearied the Virginians without interfering with their programme. The governor was mad enough, as soon as Henry's back was turned and his force dispersed, to issue a procla- mation branding him an outlaw and warning the people against aiding and abetting him. As Henry was the idol of the hour — the leader of the colony as no other Vir- ginian had ever been — and as Dunmore had no military force whatever, such a fiery pronunciamento, coming on the heels of an abject backdown, was worse than foolish. THE RADICALS 53 Whatever his reason, Henry calmly ignored the proclama- tion, which would have served him as an excellent pre- text for attacking Dunmore in earnest. Consideration for the conservatives probably kept him from acting, but he may have decided that it was higher wisdom to allow the inevitable to occur without his personal in- terference. Owing to this reluctance of the conservatives to pre- cipitate action, their hopeless crying of peace when there was no peace, the curious situation in Virginia continued for a month longer. Dunmore even called a meeting of the assembly for June 1, 1775, to secure the reopening of the courts and consideration of Lord North's compromise proposals. It is likely that he at last realized that his pol- icy of embarrassing the colony by refusing to convene the legislature had merely resulted in his own practical elimi- nation from affairs. The Revolutionary movement, far from halting in the vacation of the assembly, had in fact progressed faster, because unhampered. The Burgesses were too experienced a breed of politicians to be check- mated by so obvious a ruse as prorogation. Durmiore was finally able to perceive this. The Virginians of that day were either Englishmen and lacking in a sense of humor, or they had become Ameri- cans and had acquired it in a high degree. For, with war in full blast in the North and the colony in arms, the Revolutionary Convention of March, 1775, including Henry, actually met at the governor's order on June 1, 1775, as the House of Burgesses. The House as the con- stitutional lower body of the assembly gravely consid- ered the acts it had performed in its other role of rebellious 54 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA convention and duly pronounced them good.^ It did not, however, gratify the governor by reopening the courts. The schedule of fees to be charged in judicial proceedings had to be regularly reenacted; and in the absence of such authority no fees could be charged or business transacted ^ — an ingenious constitutional device to secure the sub- serviency of the courts to the House of Burgesses. The Burgesses rejected North's conciliatory offer to accept the assurances of the colonies that they would contribute to the defense of the British Empire; the Revolution had gone too far to be stopped by anything short of a complete renunciation of the right of taxation by Parliament. Even the conservatives, anxious as they were to preserve peace, demanded this much. Feeling against Dunmore rose to such a height in the House of Burgesses that, according to report, Richard Bland, the erstwhile conservative, actually suggested hanging him and was warmly supported in this extraordi- nary proposal. 3 What was more alarming than these out- bursts, a force of riflemen, known as " shirtmen " from their long hunting-frocks, so different from the conventional European garb of the tidewater, had reached Williams- burg from the piedmont counties, and Dunmore fled with his family on board the Fowey at Yorktown. Still attempt- ing to play the governor from his floating headquarters, he sent demands to the assembly from time to time. On June 21, 1775, the disgruntled Burgesses, who were almost morbidly anxious to preserve constitutional forms with- out regard to circumstances, forwarded to the governor a ^ Lingley's Transition in Virginia from Colon;/ to Commonwcallh, 71. 2 Ibid., 70. * Magazine of History (190G), 3, 100. THE RADICALS 55 last protest against his absenteeism and concluded their work without him,^ adjourning to meet again on October 21, 1775. The constitutional figment was now worn thread- bare; since the acts passed by the assembly were not legal without Dunmore's approval, it was evident that Virginia, in spite of her conservatism, had come to the point of undisguised revolution. The colonial assembly never met again. On October 21, and at two subsequent dates, there came together a handful of Burgesses, too few to make a quorum.'^ The House of Burgesses, in its role of conven- tion, assumed both the executive and legislative functions. Yet so strong was the force of legal practice and consti- tutional principles in Virginia, so deep-rooted the attach- ment of the older conservatives to England, that one more effort was made to legalize the proceedings of the conven- tion. As lute as January, 1776, when Dunmore was a defeated fugitive and the Committee of Safety ruled in his stead, the governor wrote Richard Corbin, president of the council, — himself somewhat of a Tory, — express- ing a wish to act as mediator between the colony and Eng- land.' Corbin sent this letter to the Committee of Safety, which declined to consider Dunmore's offer, but referred it to the next meeting of the House of Burgesses. Corbin then went to Williamsburg in February, 177C, to consult the Committee of Safety, and, with its consent, visited Dunmore on board his shij) for the purpose of inducing him to commission the president of the convention as acting governor for the adjourned meeting of the assembly. Dun- more refused to grant the commission, thus frustrating * I/in^loy's Transition, etc., 74. "^ Ibid., 75. ^ Virginia Gazette (Alexander rurdie), March 1, 1770. ^ 56 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA the last eflfort of the conservative leaders to continue the government under the colonial constitution. The convention that met on July 17, 1775, disregarded the fugitive governor, now become an active enemy, and at once proceeded to put the colony on a war-footing. It directed the enlistment of two regiments of troops and attempted to provide an efficient militia system. Further- more, it filled an imperative need by creating a revolu- tionary executive, that junta known as the Committee of Safety. In the absence of several of the most noted leaders, sent as delegates to Congress, Peyton Randolph, Harri- son, Henry, JeflFerson, Wythe, and Richard Henry Lee, the highest vote for committeeman was given Edmund Pendleton, who thereby became chairman. He, with Richard Bland, who declined to go to Congress, Paul Car- rington, Dudley Digges, Carter Braxton, John Page, and John Tabb, conservatives, and George Mason, Thomas Ludwell Lee, William Cabell, and James Mercer, pro- gressives, composed the Committee of Safety. The elec- tion was a conservative triumph, owing partly to the ab- sence of Richard Henry Lee and Jefferson, both of whom were in Philadelphia, and, even more, to the loss of Pat- rick Henry, who aspired to military glory as colonel of one of the Virginia regiments. Since Mason, the one strong progressive member of the committee, was absent from most of its meetings, direction of affairs fell into the hands of the conservatives under the leadership of Edmund Pendleton, the chairman. This transfer of power from pro- gressives to conservatives, with some of the aspects of a coup d'etat, led to the postponement of hostilities with THE RADICALS 57 Dunmore for some months. Indeed, the year might have expired peacefully but for the headiness of the ex-governor, who left the Committee no choice but war. With the pro- gressive leaders out of the way, at the election of the Com- mittee of Safety the conservative faction succeeded in getting the executive power in its own hands and so de- ferred the final step in the breach with England; they doubtless hoped for some eleventh-hour victory of peace to satisfy colonial demands and yet leave the British Em- pire intact. The conservatives never realized, as Henry and Jefferson did, that such a dream was the one impos- sible thing. CHAPTER III THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK The only phase of the Revolutionary War in Virginia in which the few open loyalists played any active part was in the struggle around Norfolk in the closing weeks of 1775. That any residents of the colony dared side with England was solely on account of Dunmore's presence at Norfolk with a small fleet of men-of-war and a handful of British regulars. His active supporters in the colony were confined to the mercantile class, shippers and their clerks and dependents — the same class that supported British authority in all the colonies because it saw that war with England meant commercial ruin. Fortunately for the patriots Norfolk was a small town of about six thousand inhabitants and the local trading interest of inconsiderable numbers; otherwise, Virginia would have had to contend with a center of disaffection like Philadelphia, a seaport which must inevitably have fallen into British hands on account of its accessibility to sea-power and inaccessibility to the rest of the colony. The royal governor, after abandoning his "Palace" at Williamsburg, in June, 1775, made his way to Norfolk, where he remained rather inactive for several months for lack of troops to help him to reestablish himself. The Revolutionary government, under the direction of the con- servative Committee of Safety, had no wish to disturb him as long as he kept reasonably quiet. Military policy dic- tated that Dunmore should be attacked without delay. THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK 59 for he had no land force of any sort until the latter part of July. The progressive element would have liked well enough to begin hostilities, but it seems probable that the conservatives still hoped that England would concede the colonial demands and end the dispute. In this hope they were making their last stand for peace. Dunmore's headquarters were at Gosport, a village on the Elizabeth River above Norfolk, destined in later days to be the site of the United States navy yard from which the Merrimac ventured forth on her famous career. At first the governor had at hand only the sailors and marines of the frigates Mercury and Mars,^ but he was afterwards reinforced by sixty men of the Fourteenth Regiment of the line, and eventually by a hundred more of the same regiment. This was a force too small to be of importance in itself, but valuable as a nucleus for building up some sort of military organization. Owing to the reluctance of the Virginia Revolutionary government to take the initia- tive, he was allowed time to gather a small and motley company of recruits, mostly Scotch clerks and runaway negroes. With these he soon succeeded in making himself a good deal of a nuisance. The county committees along the Chesapeake are said to have begun the war by their rigid enforcement of the Continental Association, but the actual beginning of hostilities resulted from British activities in August, 1775. In that month Captain Squier, of the sloop-of- war Otter, cruised in the Chesapeake and its tributaries, plundering plantations and carrying off provisions and slaves. He conducted this annoying warfare in ship's » Magazine of History (1906), 3, 160. 60 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA tenders and confined himself chiefly to raiding for provi- sions in the neighborhood of Norfolk; occasionally, how- ever, a coasting schooner was seized and held as a prize. The earliest show of violence occurred on September 2, 1775. On that date Squier, while apparently engaged in one of his chicken-stealing expeditions along the Bay, had his tender driven ashore near Hampton by a storm. The exasperated inhabitants took advantage of the op- portunity to appropriate the guns and burn the tender, but without offering to injure or detain the crew. Squier made repeated demands for the return of the stores and finally went to Hampton with several tenders. He at- tempted a landing, but a brisk fire from one of the houses drove him off with a loss of two killed and two wounded.^ This beginning of hostilities, together with Dunmore's threatening attitude, compelled the Revolutionary gov- ernment to move against Norfolk. The Committee of Safety gradually gathered a considerable body of militia at Williamsburg, consisting in large part of riflemen, who were expert marksmen with considerable experience in bush fighting and by far the most eflBcient soldiers the col- ony possessed. These troops, when organized into two regiments, formed a fairly well-trained force. During the summer a strange condition of affairs existed in Norfolk. The rigid enforcement of the non-exportation policy had ruined business and greatly lessened the early enthusiasm for the colonial cause displayed by the mer- chants of that place. Besides, the presence of Dunmore, even though he took no active measures against the pa- triots, made necessary a policy of loyalism or neutrality 1 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, xrv, 133. THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK 61 on the part of those who remained at home. Dunmore, in one way and another, during his stay at Norfolk man- aged to gain a considerable number of adherents in that region and to cause the revolutionists no little uneasiness. But his resources were too small to be of much use in a serious conflict with the provincial forces. He had about three hundred British regulars, some sailors, a handful of Scotch merchants and clerks gathered from Norfolk and Portsmouth, and about two hundred slaves, ignorant for the most part of the use of arms. However much hope Dunmore's natural optimism may have aroused in him, the Norfolk loyalists did not delude themselves as to the seriousness of their position. They heard with growing dismay the reports from Williamsburg, whither the up- country riflemen were flocking in numbers, and wrote pessimistic letters home to Scotland. In this preliminary period before the beginning of un- disguised war, Norfolk was reduced almost to a condition of blockade by the county committees along the Chesa- peake. Communication between that town and Hampton and Williamsburg was cut and no person might travel in and out of Norfolk without a pass. Suspicious characters were not allowed to come within thirty miles of the place ; newspapers were held back from it; and ships coming from that direction could not go up the rivers. A small trade of some sort continued, but many of the Norfolk people, alarmed by the situation and by the reported threats of the colonial troops at Williamsburg, moved into the coun- try with their families and effects.^ ^ Andrew Sprowle's letter in Miscellaneous Papers of the Committee of Safety and the Convention of 1775. Virginia State Library. 62 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA For some months Dunmore made no attempt to take possession of Norfolk, but contented himself with remain- ing on his ships in the harbor and assuming a rather over- awing attitude. Naturally there was some irritation. In spite of the town's small size it boasted a mob, which, unlike the merchants, was more or less patriotic in feeling. A loyalist named John Schau, who had made himself obnoxious, was roughly mishandled — apparently afford- ing the only instance in Virginia of violence offered to Tories during the early part of the Revolution. Even this outrage was probably due to the presence of the British, who frequently visited Norfolk from their ships and in- clined to carry things with a high hand. Early in August a few soldiers took possession of a store in Gosport be- longing to Andrew Sprowle, the leading merchant in the colony. Sprowle, by quietly submitting to this quartering on his property or by a generally lukewarm and loyalist attitude, awakejied the suspicions of the Norfolk borough committee, and he was summoned to appear before it and give an explanation of the use of his house by the British. Instead of obeying, Sprowle replied that the sol- diers had insisted on escorting him to the committee meet- ing in order to protect him from Schau's fate, but added that he refused the escort for fear of provoking a disturb- ance. As an alternative he suggested that the committee visit him under a pledge of safe conduct on board of one of the warships or at his house in Gosport. The committee must have believed that he had been coerced, for, in its reply of August 21. 1775, it approved of his behavior and thanked him for the information given. "In the mean time," it wrote, "they see the fatal necessity of your sub- THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK 63 mitting to this Arbitrary & Unprecedented Act of Tyr- anny — a cruel situation indeed when every petty Officer in His Majesty's service assumes the Authority of an Absolute Monarch, and the private property of a peace- able Citizen is seized upon as Lawful prey." ^ Sprowle's case is a sad example of what usually hap- pens to prominent citizens caught between the upper and lower millstones of civil conflict. He had no real partisan- ship, merely desiring to live in peace; but it was not pos- sible in Norfolk for a man of his position to occupy a neu- tral attitude during the latter months of 1775. Sprowle could not bring himself to abandon his property and seek safety in the interior like the majority of Norfolk people of patriot sympathies. He stuck by his goods and paid for it; for Dunmore later came ashore and quartered his retinue on him, and, when the approach of the Vir- ginia troops forced an evacuation, ended by carrying the merchant with his family aboard the British fleet. There he was treated with inhumanity, till, worn out by his mis- fortunes and sufferings, he died on ship some months later. By a former marriage Sprowle's wife had a son, John Hun- ter, who had accepted a commission in the British army and was then a prisoner in American hands. On the pre- tense of letting her see her son, but really to get rid of her, the governor allowed the widow to visit Norfolk. The Committee of Safety, considering her a dangerous per- son, ordered her back to Dunmore, and he in turn refused to receive her. The poor shuttlecock at length escaped from an impossible situation by sailing for England. ^ ^ Miscellaneous Papers of the Committee of Safety and the Convention of 1776. * Legislative Petitions. Norfolk (B4228). Virginia State Library. 64 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA Dunmore ventured on his first act of aggression in Nor- folk in the latter part of September, 1775. One morning a boatload of grenadiers and marines landed there, sur- prised a printing establishment which had been issuing revolutionary pamphlets and manifestoes, and carried off both press and printers. A crowd of several hundred peo- ple watched the proceedings without daring to interfere. The militia, when called out, failed to respond in any numbers, and the British went back to their ship full of contempt for provincial valor. ^ The Williamsburg gov- ernment is said to have blamed the Norfolk people for making no fight,^ but with the frigates lying in the har- bor ready to open fire, the local soldiery could have done nothing. Nevertheless, the affair gave Norfolk a black mark among the patriots. Loyalists complained in their let- ters that the provincials were breathing out threatenings against the town and predicted that it would be destroyed unless help came from England. In anticipation of this fate, a good part of the population moved into the interior or sailed for the British Isles. Anthony Warwick, a Tory, reported that a third of the people had gone away, carry- ing most of their property. Deep apprehension prevailed among those who remained. After the attack on the printing-press, Dunmore went on to seize persons conspicuous for activity in the pa- triot behalf, among them John Goodrich, who had re- cently brought powder into the colony for the Committee of Safety. Goodrich, a man of rather low moral nature, ^ Miscellaneous Papers, 1775-1776 (Virginia State Library). * Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, xiv, 134. THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK 65 was so wrought upon by Dunmore's threats or promises that he changed sides — most disastrously for himself. The governor also began to put pressure on the people of the Norfolk neighborhood to declare for the royal cause, while in retaliation the county committees blockaded the town more and more rigorously. A Tory, writing on November 10, 1775, vividly describes the difficulties cre- ated by the committees : — It is not now possible for any of our Countrymen to travel the Country without a pass from Committees or Commanding offi- cers, which none of them can procure & indeed its difficult for even the Natives to get permission to come here; so that we receive no Intelligence of what is doing in the Country except by water & none but the Tenders belonging to the Men of War are allowed to come up to this place. ... It is now certain that the provincials are on their march from Williamsburg for this place or Norfolk, it is uncertain which, tho it is generally believed they come with a professed Intention of destroying by fire both Towns . . . the whole Country are anxious to have these Towns destroyed as they think them places of refuge for those who are Inimical to what they call the Liberties of America; & true it is there are not so many Inhabitants now in both Towns but what are avowed Tories & have publicly declared themselves friends to Government & willing to take up arms in its defence. Peti- tions and addresses are daily presented to the Governor by the Inhabitants of Norfolk & the Country around it praying that they may be presented with arms to assist in the defence of them- selves & of Government & some of them have taken those who are most troublesome in their neighborhood & brought them on Bd the Man of War where they are detained prisoners & will soon be sent to Boston for their tryal.^ The royal governor, partly by flattering and raising the hopes of the loyally inclined and partly by hectoring the * Miscellaneous Papers, 1776-1776. 66 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA neutral, collected a small levy of auxiliaries — possibly two hundred in all. In addition to these, several hundred runaway and kidnapped slaves were armed and uniformed; but time and officers were lacking to turn them into effi- cient troops, and we are told that the British regulars greatly disliked serving alongside them.^ Dunmore offered commissions in the service with great liberality, but found few takers. Among the handful who accepted was Josiah Philips, afterwards noted as a loyalist outlaw operating in this district. The governor also directed town meetings to be held in Norfolk from time to time for the purpose of arousing enthusiasm for the British cause, at one of which he was formally invited to take possession of Norfolk. John Woodside, who seconded this motion in the meet- ing, thereby gained the reputation of being "inimical" and was afterwards refused recompense for his property destroyed at the burning of Norfolk: the other loyalists who suffered by it shared the same fate.^ While people of importance were lured by flatteries or coerced by threats into espousing the British side, the sailors and marines worked on the lower classes along the shores of the Bay, endeavoring to wean them from their lukewarm allegiance to the province, or at least to keep them indifferent. The Northampton Committee com- plained to Congress of this practice; they declared that the British tenders, plying along the Eastern Shore, as- sured the fishermen that nobody had to fear the British except the committeemen and leading patriots, and that the men who urged them to take up arms were their » Miscellaneous Papers, 1775-1776. 2 Legislative Petitions. Norfolk (B4265). THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK 67 greatest enemies. These advances made some impression. While people of property were in the main well affected to the American cause, many feared to declare their sen- timents openly until a force arrived to assist them: ^ in southeastern Virginia, the lower classes for the most part remained indifferent or hostile to the Revolution until the end of the war. Hostilities may be said to have begun about the middle of November. If the initiative had devolved on the reluc- tant Committee of Safety, there is every reason to suppose that the year would have passed without fighting. Such a result would have been greatly to Dunmore's advantage; even though the provincial levies were preparing for con- flict and so improving with time, his own force was as yet too small to engage in a real struggle: he had only one chance and that was that a breeze might blow through the Capes a few transports carrying a British regiment. Until this happened his cue was to lie low. But Dunmore thought that boldness was his best policy. By this time he had succeeded in collecting a mixed and untrustworthy force of negroes, Scotch loyalists, and Nor- folk and Princess Anne militiamen who had absolutely no stomach for fighting on either side. Trusting to this undisciplined band and his few regulars, the governor ventured to make open war and thus forced the Commit- tee of Safety in self-defense to attack him. Unable to re- main inactive any longer, the Williamsburg government put its troops into motion along the south side of James River in October, 1775. About the same time two militia colonels, Anthony Lawson and Joseph Hutchins, gathered * Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, xiv, S853. 68 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA at Kempsville that part of the Princess Anne and Norfolk militia that remained true to the colonial cause. Kemps- ville, the county seat of Princess Anne, is a village on the headwaters of the East Branch of the Elizabeth River, a few miles southeast of Norfolk. Being at the intersection of several roads, it was a place of some strategic impor- tance in a country where roads were few and swamps abounded. Dunmore, in turn, sallied forth from Norfolk on November 14, 1775, with about one hundred and fifty grenadiers and fifty or more loyalists and negroes, and marched to Great Bridge on the South Branch of the Elizabeth River, twelve miles due south of the town. He had been led to take this step by a report that a party of North Carolina militiamen had advanced thither for the purpose of supporting the Virginia troops,^ and also pos- sibly by a rumor of the coming of the dreaded " shirtmen." ^ But as neither Carolinians nor the detachment from Wil- liamsburg had reached Great Bridge, Dunmore turned east along the edge of a large forest to Kempsville, where he had learned the local militia were gathered in some force. The colonial troops, about three hundred in all, had taken post in the woods along the highway, and were prepared for resistance. When the head of the marching column came in sight some distance down the road, the militiamen fired a volley, but without effect. The regu- lars, returning the fire, drove their opponents from cover into the river near by, with a loss of several killed, several drowned, and fifteen or twenty prisoners, including Law- son and Hutchins.^ The affair was an easy triumph of 1 Virginia Gazette, January 20, 1776. 2 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, xiv, 387. » Ibid., XIV, 256. THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK 69 regulars over undrilled and half-hearted fanners and fish- ermen, but the participants on the British side made much of it as an omen of future success and a specimen of Vir- ginia valor. The soldiers jocularly asserted that Hutchins had been captured because he was too drunk to run away with his followers. The night following the skirmish the grenadiers and negroes broke into the houses in the hamlet and insulted the owners, apparently without restraint by Dunmore. A woman who had been frightened by an armed negro ap- pealed to the governor for protection. "Why, madam," he nonchalantly replied, "this is a provoking piece of inso- lence, indeed, but there is no keeping these black rascals within bounds. It was but the other day that one of them undertook to personate Captain Squier, and actually ex- torted a sum of money from a lady in his name. But we must expect such things, whilst this horrid rebellion lasts.'* He then asked: "But, pray, madam, where is your hus- band all this time?" The woman replied that she did not know and, furthermore, could not tell when she would see him. "Well, madam, when you do," said Dunmore, "you must be sure and tell him, for me, that this is no time for a man like him to be out of the way. His Majesty wants his service, and I will give him any place he will name, if he will come in and join us. But join us he must." ^ The first successes in a war, trifling as they usually are, have an effect altogether disproportionate to their impor- tance. Dunmore signalized his victory by erecting the king's banner at Kempsville next day — a performance recalling the planting of the standard by Charles I at * Lower Norfolk County Antiquanj, ii, 133. 70 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA Nottingham. The immediate neighborhood and some of the poor Pungo fisher-folk who had run away the day before came in and took the oath of allegiance. The people of the county, aware of their helplessness or impressed by Dun- more's success, also took the oath in considerable numbers and wore on their breasts the British badge of red. The price of red cloth rose in the Norfolk stores, and the woman who had interviewed Dunmore at Kempsville was shocked to have her husband come home wearing the familiar scarlet. "Oh!" she said, "is it come to this? Believe me, I would rather have seen you dead than to have seen you with this red badge." "Pshaw!" he answered, "do you think it has changed my mind? Don't you see how Dun- more is carrying all before him, and, if I can save my prop- erty by this step, ought I not in common prudence to wear it, for your sake and the children?" ^ Menaces were mixed with flatteries to induce the back- ward to take the oath. Matthew Phripp, a prominent merchant, who was forced into subscribing, was roundly rated by Dunmore for not coming in before. ^ The potent conjurer was fear. The governor, indeed, succeeded so well in his coercive policy that on November 15, 1775, he took the step of declaring martial law, ordering all loyal men to repair to the standard under the penalty of being considered traitors and proclaiming freedom to the slaves and indented servants of rebels. The brush at Kempsville, together with the proclama- tion of martial law, had the immediate effect of inducing a large proportion of the population of Norfolk and Princess ^ Lower Norfolk County Antiquary, n, 136. 8 Miscellaneous Papers, xiv, 256. THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK 71 Anne to take the oath. Tories noted with exultation the sudden change of sentiment in the countryside. It was even asserted that the two counties had come in bodily except for a few formerly active patriots, to whom Dunmore, by way of making an example, refused to tender the oath.^ Unquestionably the citizens of Norfolk went to great lengths to show their loyalty on Dunmore's return to town from Kempsville. An entertainment regaled the weary and triumphant party and the British standard was erected before the court-house, while the timid and time-serving strove with each other to reach the Bible and swear alle- giance. ^ Andrew Sprowle, a conservative witness, stated that about five hundred men had taken the oath at Nor- folk.' Probably others came in later, for an optimistic Tory asserted that "Treason had not one Abettor in the extensive county of Princess Anne." Dunmore himself declared (with evident exaggeration) that three thousand people had sworn,* and added that with a few more men he would march on Williamsburg. With the exception of Isle of Wight, where Dunmore's adherents were crushed, serious signs of disaffection to the patriot cause began to appear in the whole lower country. Men in Norfolk and Princess Anne who had taken a prom- inent part as revolutionists were driven into hiding to es- cape the visitations of the British and negroes. The Isle of Wight patriots retaliated by tarring and feathering the conspicuous loyalists, which frightened others into taking refuge with Dunmore.^ * Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, xiv, 249. * Ibid., XIV, 256. 3 ihid., XIV, 387. * Virginia Gazette, January 24, 1776. ^ Calendar of Virginia State Papers, 3, 92. n THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA The situation was undeniably one of danger for the col- ony. If at this time, as might well have chanced, a British regiment had arrived under the command of a competent officer, there is no telling the result. The willingness of so many under a little urging to take the oath of allegiance to the king is evidence that no great enthusiasm for the Ameri- can cause animated the inhabitants along the lower Chesa- peake. The coming of troops, entailing a prolonged and doubtful military struggle, might have changed indiffer- ence into royalist partisanship; and a Tory party would have arisen in Virginia as in other colonies. The energies of the Revolutionary government would have been largely expended on the internal contest at the very time when the resources of the colony were most needed to maintain the American arms in the North. From this situation Vir- ginia and the Confederation were saved by the speedy col- lapse of Dunmore's defense — a collapse due largely to want of support from the home government, which forgot for some critical months that the governor of Virginia still existed and flew the British flag. The fall of the royal governor was also owing in no small measure to himself. A weak and commonplace man put in a position of extreme difficulty, it is small wonder that he blundered in making those obviously opportunist moves which always seem wisdom to his kind. By pro- claiming freedom to the slaves and indented servants of rebels, Dunmore probably hoped to embarrass the planters with a servile rising at the same time that he secured re- cruits for himself. He may also have imagined that many slave-owners would declare for him in order to preserve their blacks or prevent an insurrection. As a result of the THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK 73 proclamation a few hundred runaway slaves joined him, and these he furnished with arms and attempted to drill into soldiers. Later on a few hundred more came to his support and, together with the slaves he kidnapped, sailed away in his ships. These negroes, some of them savages almost ignorant of English, were of little service. The great majority of slaves, fortunately for themselves, re- mained quietly at home attending to their work. As the price of this paltry accession of force, Dunmore became detested throughout the colony. He completely demonstrated the fallacy of attempting to incite slave ris- ings — a policy which the home government had looked to as a means of paralyzing the resistance of the South. Possibly some of the negroes were suflSciently intelligent to doubt the advantages of freedom gained by violence : at all events, hesitation was wisdom here, since the majority of blacks who joined Dunmore, after being used as drudges in his fleet, died of smallpox or were carried off and never heard of again. Runaway negroes who took arms under Dunmore were not put to death by the patriots when captured, as would have been the case if they had risen of their own accord. A few of them were sold in the West Indies; but the greater part were sent to penal servitude in the lead-mines in southwestern Virginia, where they served the American cause with considerable effectiveness. The proclamation of freedom to slaves destroyed the last vestige of influence remaining to Dunmore. It did more: it made him the best-hated man in the colony and settled all the colonists' scruples about making war on him; it converted into active patriots the large class which, having something to lose, came to the conclusion that it 74 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA was better ofif under the Revolutionary regime than under the royal administration. In fact, Dunmore's policy, by displaying the representatives of Britain in the character of incendiaries and enemies to society, had the paradoxical effect of converting the Revolutionists into the champions of law and order. The Committee of Safety, which without legal title had ruled Virginia solely through moral author- ity, was recognized henceforth by almost the entire popu- lation as the de jure government of the colony. Dunmore's performances at Norfolk at length forced the Committee of Safety to move against him. Edmund Pendleton, the chairman, was practically the directing head of this body and as such the most powerful man in Virginia during the latter part of 1775. Patrick Henry, in deserting the convention to become colonel of the First Virginia Regiment, and Jefferson and Lee, through their absence in Philadelphia, left the conservative party in power, with the result that the Revolution almost stood still in the fall of 1775. The Committee of Safety, indeed, actively supervised the work of the local committees in crushing disaffection, but, inconsistently enough, hesi- tated to attack Dunmore. His depredations, however, left it no recourse. On October 24, 1775, ^ the committee, after a lengthy discussion of the various hostile acts he had been guilty of, such as harboring fugitive slaves, seiz- ing a slave woman and other private property, and arrest- ing and carrying on board his ships several patriots, de- cided to send the Second Regiment of the line and the Culpeper battalion to the neighborhood of Norfolk as an * Miscellaneous Papers of the Committee of Safety and the Convention of 1776. THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK 75 observation force. Even then, apparently, the committee had no definite intention of precipitating a conflict if it could be avoided. This decision to send the Second Regiment instead of the First was important, inasmuch as it meant the passing over in favor of a subordinate commander of Patrick Henry, colonel of the First Regiment and ranking officer of the Virginia forces. While it is likely that Pendleton and his associates in the Committee of Safety naturally preferred an actual soldier like William Woodford to a politician entirely without military experience, they were also influenced by other considerations. Pendleton, the leader and best representative of the conservative party, had been opposed to Henry on many occasions beginning with 1765, so that the head of one faction was acting as the superior and director of the head of the other. Under the circumstances it is not to be wondered at that the popular orator was denied the opportunity of cementing his great- ness by winning a military reputation. Thus the conserva- tives gave him his final checkmate. Woodford possessed some ability as a commander and won a victory over Dunmore that, by the fame and popu- larity it gave him, served to show what it would have meant to a striking personality like Patrick Henry. While W^oodford was winning laurels, Henry ingloriously idled at Williamsburg with a command put to no more serious labor than guard-mounting. In his impatience the orator wondered whether it would ever be called on to do any- thing more as long as he remained its commander, for he realized that the conservatives feared his popularity.* * Henry's Patrick Henry, i, 333. 76 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA Indeed the committee was almost openly hostile. Although Henry was the superior officer, he ceased to receive re- ports from Woodford, who preferred to report directly to the committee. That body did not discourage his in- subordination. The Virginia force was afterwards joined by a North Carolina contingent under Colonel Robert Howe and he assumed command of the joint army, thereby completely doing away with Henry's shadow of authority. The latter attempted to assert himself and failed. He then appealed to the Committee of Safety, which decided that Woodford ought to report to him, but receive orders either from itself or the convention.^ In this way the demo- cratic leader saw himself quietly negatived in military affairs and relegated to garrison duty in a place where a battle was little likely to occur. Distrust of Henry's mili- tary ability was not confined to the Committee of Safety; Washington shared it and regretted his continuance in the service, and Congress passed him over to appoint Robert Howe and Andrew Lewis brigadier-generals. Hurt by this treatment, Henry resigned his commission and returned to civil life. It was a final choice, for he never went back to the army. By leaving it, he played a great part in the founding of the Commonwealth of Virginia, of which he became the first governor, and rendered im- portant service to the American cause in an administra- tive capacity; but his chief work was done before the war began, and possibly he made a mistake in returning to politics. When the technical ignorance and general medi- ocrity of the American officers are recollected, there seems no reason why a man so audacious, determined, and master- 1 Henry's Patrick Henry, i, 343. THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK 77 f ul as Patrick Henry should not have made a successful brig- ade commander. Politics and war have much in common. Woodford, the choice of the triumphant conservative faction, slowly made his way towards the recreant Nor- folk. On November 25, 1775, he arrived with his body of riflemen at Suffolk, in Nansemond, at the same time that his advance, under Lieutenant-Colonel Scott, camped within seven miles of Great Bridge on the South Branch of the Elizabeth River. In this region a large part of the inhabitants had declared for the royal cause, and Scott arrested several Tories, among them one Jim Inness, who had made himself prominent in Dunmore's behalf. Eight suspected persons, several of them women, were arrested at Suffolk by local patriots and turned over to Woodford on his arrival. Scott reported that most of the British troops had withdrawn from Great Bridge, leaving the post garrisoned by negroes and Tories. He desired leave to cross the South Branch of the Elizabeth River below Great Bridge and take this force in reverse, but Woodford cau- tiously refused to run the risk unless his subordinate was certain of the information. Detained at Suffolk by the need of replenishing his arms, the Virginia commander sent forward two companies under Major Alexander Spotswood to reinforce Scott. Woodford, in his report to the Commit- tee of Safety, repeated the account so often given of the gen- eral disaffection of the people of that section to the American cause, but added that he had heard they had begun to fall away from Dunmore since the coming of the colonial troops and that it was believed that few of them would fight. ^ ^ Miscellaneous Papers, 1775-1776. Woodford's letter of November 26, 1776. Woodford's letters are printed in the Richmond College Histoid ical Papers, no. 1. 78 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA Undoubtedly Woodford carried out the wishes of his superiors in moving deUberately. He may also have had military reasons: he had been lately reinforced by the Nansemond militia and by a handful of gentlemen volun- teers, and a body of North Carolina militia was en route to join him. Altogether this would give him a force suffi- cient for his purposes. The appearance of a respectable body of provincial troops in the Chesapeake region at this time was of great importance. Dunmore's continued suc- cess, even in trifles, would in all probability have inaugu- rated a bitter civil war in the tier of southeastern counties, with a disastrous effect on the whole colony, but Wood- ford's arrival obviated this situation. He directed Scott to offer protection to all who would come in, including those who had taken Dunmore's oath, and to pledge him- self to seize no private property except arms and ammuni- tion. With the colonial troops at hand and Dunmore in a bellicose humor, a collision was evidently approaching. In view of the greatly superior strength of the provincials, it was rather expected that Dunmore would relinquish Norfolk without a fight, and it is possible that he would have done so but for the skirmish at Kemps ville. That petty triumph seems to have deluded the governor into the belief that he might be able to make a successful de- fense. Accordingly, he garrisoned a block-house at Great Bridge, which commanded the approach to Norfolk from the south, and threw up earthworks for a space of a half or three quarters of a mile immediately behind the town. These works were mere shallow entrenchments, washed down by each rain; and the difficulty of holding them with a few hundred men, mostly raw recruits, was apparent THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK 79 even to the untrained military perceptions of the Norfolk Tories, who gloomily anticipated the approach of the back- woods marksmen. But Dunmore, assuming his best air of confidence, prepared for battle. In deciding to make a stand at Norfolk, Dunmore acted with his characteristic unwisdom. True, Norfolk was commanded by the sea, but it could also be attacked by land and a considerable force was now converging for that purpose. Since the provincial army could be indefinitely increased while the governor had only a handful of trust- worthy troops, the continuance of the defense was de- pendent on the arrival of reinforcements from England; and this, in view of the siege of Boston, then under way, was not an immediate probability. Dunmore had small chance of holding the town. He might have been justi- fied, however, in making the effort provided he had no other resort, no stronger position. But he did have it. There was one part of the colony where the party com- manding the sea might hold out indefinitely and that was the Eastern Shore, the peninsula jutting down from Maryland. This section, the "Kingdom of Accomac," displayed little more patriotic enthusiasm than Norfolk, and Dunmore, with his fleet and his few regulars, could have overpowered the resistance in the southern end of the peninsula, Northampton, and have secured a base of operations from which it would have been diflficult to dis- lodge him. As long as the British fleet swept the Bay, the Virginians must have had to make a great detour through Maryland in order to reach him. The Northampton Committee, realizing the peril of the Eastern Shore, feared and expected that Dunmore 80 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA would descend upon it.* But, fortunately for Virginia, the governor preferred to gamble on the chance of being able to thwart the superior numbers of his enemy by some lucky blow. Possibly, too, he felt that withdrawal from Norfolk might be fatal to his prestige. At all events, he decided to hold his ground. Great Bridge, where he hoped to check the provincials, was the most important strategic point near Norfolk. The South Branch of the Elizabeth River, running in a southeasterly direction, flows languidly through a marsh and was here spanned by a bridge, from which causeways stretched in both directions to firm ground. Two islands rose above the swamp at the ends of the bridge : on the one to the north Dunmore had built his fort; the other con- tained only a few shanties. The stockade was supplied with two four-pounders and several swivels and wall -pieces, and was garrisoned by runaway negroes officered by ser- geants of regulars and Scotch Tories from Norfolk.^ Wood- ford, advancing from Suffolk about the first of December, reached Great Bridge and took position on the south side of the river. Immediately the cannon of the fort opened on the provincials, who replied with rifle fire. One Virginian was killed; the loss on the other side was unknown, but probably greater. Desultory skirmishing went on for sev- eral days along the banks of the river from Great Bridge towards Norfolk, and both parties attempted to seize and hold all the boats on their side; the provincials to secure a means of passing Great Bridge, the loyalists to prevent ^ Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, xrv, 250. 2 Miscellaneous Papers, 1775-1776. Woodford's letter of December 4, 1775. THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK 81 any such flank movement. Woodford, who had cannon coming up with the North Carolina reinforcement, was reluctant to force the passage of the stream in the face of the enemy, and threw up breastworks near a church some distance back from his end of the causeway. Seeing that the houses on the south island furnished excellent cover for riflemen in a contest with the fort, some slaves crossed the river in the night of December 3, 1775, and set fire to them. The following night Woodford retaliated for the burning of the houses by sending across the river a scouting party which fired a building, killed one or two negroes, and took several of them prisoners. The provincial oflficers were anxious to execute the slaves by way of example, but the commander decided to leave their fate to the con- vention.^ Two nights later, on December 6, Woodford sent another detachment across the river to attack the enemy's boat guards lower down stream. The riflemen surprised a mixed force of whites and blacks and routed it with a loss of five killed and several wounded and pris- oners. ^ Finally, the governor, when he found that the post at Great Bridge was seriously threatened, sent his regulars out from Norfolk to attack the colonial force. His fortifi- cations back of the town were now pretty well completed and mounted about fifteen pieces of artillery. He had also made every effort to raise recruits: Joshua Whitehurst and Charles Henley, two prominent Tories, were dis- patched through the country with an armed party, to order the militiamen into Norfolk and to lay requisitions * Miscellaneous Papers, 1775-1776. Woodford's letter of December 5, 1775. 2 Woodford's letter of December 7, 1775. 82 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA of money and supplies upon people of means. Few men were obtained, though probably a good deal of plunder rewarded the raiders.^ The British force at Great Bridge numbered about 500 men, but only the 200 regulars of the Fourteenth Regi- ment were trustworthy; the 300 negroes and loyalists served chiefly to swell the array. Woodford's command contained about 700 men; of whom 430 belonged to the Second Regiment and the rest were minute-men, ^ A skir- mish-line of provincials occupied earthworks thrown up along the edge of the swamp, about 150 yards from the bridge : the main force lay encamped near the church sev- eral hundred yards farther back. Woodford's position, approachable only by a narrow causeway, offered in that day of short-range firearms the best possible advantage to the defenders and every dis- advantage to the attackers, who had to advance in closed file and without opportunity to deploy. Nevertheless, the regulars received orders to cross the bridge and take the breastwork by storm. On the morning of December 9, 1775, the colonial troops awoke to the discharge of cannon and musketry from the fort. A lull followed, and then were heard the voices of the British oflScers calling their men to arms. Presently the enemy's force, with the regulars in front and the loy- alists and negroes in the rear, crossed the bridge to the south island. A picket stationed there by Woodford was soon driven in and the remaining houses set ablaze. Mean- time the Virginians in the trenches were keeping up a brisk » Miscellaneous Papers, 1775-1776. Titus Meanwell's letter of Decem- ber 7, 1775. * Woodford's letter of December 10, 1775. THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK 83 fire and some little confusion ensued among the Tories and negroes. Leaving them behind on the island, 120 regulars under command of Captain Fordyce advanced resolutely along the causeway leading to the earthworks. These were held by 100 riflemen, and the officer in charge ordered them to reserve their fire until the enemy came within fifty yards. At this range the provincials opened with deadly effect, sweeping the causeway almost from end to end. Fordyce, though wounded, continued to lead on his men until he went down struck by a dozen balls. The sur- viving British, unable to face the withering fire, fell back precipitately to the island, where they rallied and replied to the Americans with two field-pieces that had been hauled across the bridge from the fort. As soon as he saw the repulse of the regulars, Woodford brought up his main force to the entrenchments, and the British there- upon retreated over the bridge into the fort. Woodford, with his habitual caution, awaited another attack, but the abandonment of the fort on the night after the engagement showed the completeness of his victory. Although the action had been a mere skirmish as regards the numbers engaged and the losses, it had important con- sequences. Nearly all the regulars had been killed or wounded, and the loyalists and negroes were demoralized. Of more consequence still, Dunmore himself was utterly dismayed by the catastrophe and abandoned all thought of further defending Norfolk. The next day 200 North Carolinians arrived, bringing the patriot force up to nearly 900 men. On December 12, another detachment of North Carolina militia, led by Colo- nel Robert Howe, joined the Virginia army. On Decem- 84 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA ber 11, Woodford had issued a proclamation to the people of Norfolk and Princess Anne disclaiming any intention of molesting those who had taken the oath of allegiance to England, but at the same time he took care to send a force to Kempsville to seize all persons leaving Norfolk after the action at Great Bridge.^ A number of Tories and British deserters were arrested, among them a Scotch loyalist named Hamilton, who had served at the fort. By way of punishment, Woodford handcuffed him to a captive black. The joint force, under Woodford and Howe, marched on Norfolk, something more than one thousand strong. It met with no sign of resistance and entered the town in the night of December 14, 1775. ^ In passing through the dark streets the troops were fired on and three men were wounded, but Dunmore, with his remnant of regulars, his runaway slaves, and a number of Tories, had fled aboard the ships, which still lay in the harbor. More than a hun- dred prisoners, mostly loyalists and negroes, were the fruits of the occupation of Norfolk: some of them were sent to Williamsburg by a court of inquiry for trial before the convention then sitting. The American commanders offered protection to the townspeople on condition of immediate submission, and no depredations seem to have been committed by their soldiers. Nevertheless, the gen- eral feeling in Norfolk favored the royal cause, and the magistrates carried a copy of Woodford and Howe's proc- lamation to Dunmore on board his ship. Meanwhile Woodford made no effort to annoy the ships lying a little distance offshore, though the riflemen patrolled » Woodford's letter of December 10, 1775. ^ Ibid., December 14. 1775. THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK 85 the harbor and captured a snow carrying salt to the fleet. 1 For some days the ships in the harbor and the troops along the shore were satisfied to watch each other quietly; the people, uncertain of the outcome, cautiously refrained from showing partisanship on either side. Woodford re- ported that they were thoroughly disaffected without hav- ing any inclination whatever to fight: only a few gentle- men received the provincial troops with any cordiality.^ Meanwhile distress reigned in the fleet, whither a number of loyalists had hurried with their wives and children at the news of Woodford's approach. The warships, ill-pre- pared in the best of times for passengers, at this juncture lacked everything to make life comfortable; and the women and children suffered greatly. Finally, the harassed loyal- ists petitioned the American commanders for leave to come on shore. The latter answered that the women and children might land on certain conditions, but that the men would be held as prisoners subject to the judgment of the convention in their cases. Few Tories were willing to accept such terms. Through the last days of the year the hostile forces continued to do nothing but watch each other. The British ships still received supplies from the town by landing boats at a distillery and ropewalk on the outskirts and at other points. Howe recommended that these places which served as supply posts be destroyed, but nothing was done. Dunmore, on his part, had the effrontery to com- plain to the town authorities that his boat crews had met with ill-treatment. Strange as it may seem, a town meeting » Woodford's letter of December 17, 1775. ^ Jbid., December 16, 1775. 86 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA discussed this complaint at length, and a motion was made to allow boats to come ashore for provisions, but it was rejected. Dunmore can hardly have been so foolish as to suppose that the colonial commanders would allow him to receive supplies from Norfolk unopposed; it is probable that he merely sought an excuse for the action he had already determined on. At all events, early in the afternoon of January 1, 1776, the British ships, drawn up in a line before the town, opened fire on it with more than a hundred guns. Under cover of the cannonade, which lasted with little intermission throughout the afternoon and night, sailors landed and set fire to houses at several places. The riflemen posted along the water-front drove off the landing-parties, but not before the wooden build- ings near the wharves were blazing. From time to time, in the confusion of the scene, boat crews came ashore, only to be driven back immediately to the water. The defenders suffered no greater loss from the bombardment than a few men wounded, but several of the wretched in- habitants, rushing out through the streets in the winter night to get beyond the range of the guns, were killed by cannon balls. ^ The fires, begun by balls or landing-parties, spread with great rapidity, because the provincial soldiers, instead of attempting to extinguish them, seized the opportunity to plunder and destroy on their own behalf, determined, as they said, "to make hay while the sun shines." ^ Break- ing into rum-shops and warehouses, many of them soon became drunk and went in gangs from house to house, * Miscellaneous Papers, 1775-1776. Robert Howe's letter of January 7, 1776. 2 Legislative Petitions. Norfolk (B4328). THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK 87 smashing in doors, dragging out spoils, and then applying the torch. Household goods of every kind were sold in the streets for a song to anybody willing to buy. The de- struction caused by the ships was confined to the water- front, but the Virginia soldiers involved the whole place in the catastrophe. On January 2, 1776, when the firing had ceased, the riflemen continued the work of rapine without interference on the part of their officers — appar- ently even with their connivance. Only on the third day did Woodford put an end to the sack by forbidding the burn- ing of houses under severe penalty, but by that time more than two thirds of Norfolk was in ashes. In February, 1776, the remainder was destroyed by order of the conven- tion in order to deprive Dunmore of shelter. The responsibility for the burning of Norfolk rests upon both Dunmore and the provincial troops. Although, ac- cording to the evidence, the riflemen wrought by far the greater share of the ruin, the governor began the work of destruction. The testimony, indeed, is very conflicting, but the statements of Woodford and Howe, who wished to absolve themselves from blame in a discreditable busi- ness, are probably more completely ex 'parte than those of the numerous witnesses who gave detailed accounts of the havoc made by the American soldiers. Furthermore, the mayor and council of Norfolk declared to the assembly, on November 16, 1776, that most of the destruction was the work of the troops.^ The commissioners appointed by the government in 1777 to investigate the matter substan- tiated this account with striking figures. They declared that Dunmore had burned 32 houses on November 30, » Legislative Petitions. Norfolk (B4188). 88 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA 1775, and only 19 on January 1, 1776. The soldiers, on the other hand, had destroyed 863 houses, and 416 more had been destroyed by order of the convention.^ The bombardment of Norfolk was a crowning piece of stupidity. Dunmore could not have hoped to drive out an overwhelming and mobile force by a mere cannonade and he had no troops to use in following up this act of aggres- sion. Under such circumstances, his firing on the town was a mere act of revenge for being driven out of the col- ony — the mean retaliation of a man unable in any other way to return fancied injuries. The full measure of his folly may be seen when it becomes evident, in the light of the commissioners' report, that he played into the hands of his enemies. Norfolk was the one place in Virginia where the king had supporters and where the royal gov- ernor had been given a warm reception; and, when he turned his guns against it, he insured the ruin of his own friends. An open seaport and difficult of access from the interior, it could have been kept from falling into British hands only by the constant presence of a large force, which the colonial government could not afford to maintain in an isolated position. Sooner or later a fleet with troops on board was bound to sail in and turn Norfolk once more into a busy port and a center of British influence. This the Williamsburg authorities saw clearly enough, but it is most unlikely that they would have ventured in cold blood on the odious course of destroying the town as a precau- tionary measure. That Norfolk, when the fleet at last ar- rived, was a mere heap of ruins instead of a convenient base of operations on the Southern coast was due to Dun- ^ Report of Commissioners. MS. in Virginia State Library. THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK 89 more's ill-considered anger, which gave his astute oppo- nents the chance to do their work and cast the odium on him. Dunmore was destined always to be outwitted. Howe expressed the sentiment of the provincial army a few days later in reporting that his men had burned the obnoxious distillery where the British landed. The de- struction of Norfolk, he said, would be beneficial to the public. It was a place the enemy could seize at any time, inhabited by a population wholly given up to trade and without devotion to the American cause. If held by the British, it would have continued importing prohibited goods and thus would have neutralized the Continental Association in two colonies.^ There was general satisfac- tion that it was no more. The relative position of the ships and the troops re- mained the same after the destruction of the town; the fleet rode at anchor and the riflemen skulked along the shore looking for shots. Occasional brushes between them and landing-parties of sailors relieved the tedium. On January 21, 1776, two of the men-of-war, the Liverpool and Otter, opened a heavy fire on the ruins to cover a party which set fire to a few buildings still standing near a wharf. A sharp skirmish followed between sailors and "shirtmen" in which both sides lost a number killed and wounded.'^ At last, on February 6, 1776, the provincials abandoned Norfolk, after sending away the poor people still living there, burning all the remaining houses and demolishing Dunmore's entrenchments. The troops were quartered at Kempsville, Great Bridge, and Suffolk, points more ^ Robert Howe's letter of January 6, 1777. ' Virginia Gazette, January 26, 1776. 90 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA accessible than Norfolk and easier to provision.^ Shortly afterwards the frigate Roebuck arrived with some troops and enabled Dunmore to take possession of the village of Portsmouth across the Elizabeth River from Norfolk.^ From this place as a base he sent out along Chesapeake Bay tenders and ships, which took a number of American vessels as prizes and occasionally made raids on the planta- tions along the water. In spite of these successes, how- ever, Dunmore's position was most precarious, as provi- sions were scarce and jail fever raged in the fleet. Nor did the tenders on their marauding expeditions always have it one way. In April, 1776, a tender captured a New Eng- land schooner in the Rappahannock, but was attacked in turn by sailboats manned by people of the neighborhood and escaped with diflSculty after abandoning the prize.^ Moreover, two of the ships, the Liverpool and Roebuck, suffered rough handling in an engagement with row-galleys in the upper Chesapeake. The patriot government now prepared to make another effort to rid the country of Dunmore. On March 29, 1776, Charles Lee, major-general in the Continental service, arrived at Williamsburg to take command of all the forces in Virginia, Continental and local. He immediately began to organize his troops and attempted to raise a cavalry force, which was especially needed. When the organiza- tion was sufficiently complete, he advanced to Norfolk, and on May 20, 1776, fought a skirmish from the shore with the ships. A few days later, Dunmore, after dis- mantling some new entrenchments he had raised, sailed away with his whole following.^ Charles Lee had mean- 1 Virginia Gazette, February 9, 1776. 2 /j^-^.^ February 23, 1776. » Ibid.. May 3, 1776. < Ibid., May 24. 1776. THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK 91 while gone to Portsmouth, where he busied himself in crushing disaffection. Washington's eccentric second in command excited as much amusement by his long green trousers, called " sherry- vallies," and his litter of dogs ^ — habitual sharers of his bedroom — as his supposed military talents and experience aroused admiration. One of his first acts on reaching Portsmouth was to urge the Committee of Safety to deport the inhabitants of Prin- cess Anne in order to break communications between the countryside and Dunmore's fleet. The committee there- upon decreed that all people living within a line drawn from Great Bridge to Kempsville and thence to the ocean should remove into the interior, as well as all the people within the two counties who had repaired to Dunmore's standard. Dissatisfied with this measure, which was not carried out in all its harshness, Lee ventured to demolish the houses of several well-known loyalists in Portsmouth by way of salutary example, as he reported to Edmund Pendleton in a letter of May 4, 1776: — Sir: As I consider it my duty to make a report of every transaction that is not merely and purely military to the Committee I hope They will excuse my not having done it before, but as They were yesterday so employed in the busyness of the Princess Anne Petition, I thought it might be troublesome to enter upon the subject. As I found that the Inhabitants of Portsmouth had univer- sally taken the oaths to Ld Dunmore, and as the Town was, I believe justly, reputed the great channel through which his Lord- ship received the most exact and minute intelligence of all our actions and designs I thought it incumbent on me and agreeable ^ Lower Norfolk County Antiquary, i, 99. 92 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA to the spirit of your instructions to remove the People without exception, for even the Women and Children had learnd the art and practic'd with address the Office of Spies, — a considerable quantity of valuable articles were found in the houses of Mes'rs Sprowl, Goodrich and Jemmison as molasses salt and other things were wanted by the Public — I have order'd the Officer command- ing the Party to make out an inventory of these articles which are to be laid before your Board. As the Town of Portsmouth will afford so convenient shelter and quarters to the Enemy on the supposition They make this part of the world their object, itwou'd (strictly speaking) be per- haps right and politick to destroy it totally — but I thought it a matter of too serious concern for me to execute without the in- junction or sanction of the Committee — the houses indeed of some of the most notorious Traitors I ventur'd to demolish with the view of intimidating the neighborhood from trifling any longer or flying in the face of your ordinances — for unless I have been grossly misinformd these People have been Encouraged from no examples having been made, into a most barefaced open intercourse with the Enemy — Sprowls Goodrich's Jemmisons and Spaddens houses have on this principle been demolishd — the last Gentleman (Spadden) is now a Prisoner at Suffolk accused and I am told convicted of having been on board Ld Dunmore's fleet, since his acquittal by the Committee of Norfolk. As We had undoubted intelligence that Dunmore's Fleet and Army were amply and constantly supplied with provisions and refreshments of every kind from that tract of Country lying be- tween the Southern and Eastern Branches, as well as from Tan- ners Creek, and that the positive ordinance levell'd by the Con- vention against this species of treason was totally contemn'd and disregarded and as it is a notorious truth that from an habit- ual commission of any criminal act be it ever so heinous. He who commits it at length persuades himself that there is no crime in it at all — These Worthies not only every day more constantly and openly carried on this dangerous and pernicious commerce but even (as it is said) justified it in their conversation. I say. Sir, considering these circumstances, it appear'd to me absolutely THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK 93 necessary as it did to the other Officers and the Committee of Gentlemen from Suffolk to take some vigorous step on the spot which might intimidate the whole knot of these miscreants from this pernicious commerce — a Mr. Hopkins infamous for his principles and conduct and who has a son now a soldier in Ld Dunmores Army was fortunately the Man detected — He was seiz'd in his return from the Fleet where He had been with a supply of provisions — He at first prevaricated and perjured him- self very handsomely, but at length, not indeed untill He was impeachd by his Companion, confess'd — the sentiments of the Committee and of the other officers concurring with my own — We determined after having secur'd the furniture to set his house on fire in his presence — this step was not perhaps consistent with the regular mode prescrib'd of proceeding — but there are occasions when the necessity will excuse a deviation from the regular mode of proceeding — and this I hope will appear to the Committee to be one of these occasions when irregularity is excusable — I must, here. Gentlemen, beg leave to repeat my assurances that if ever in my military capacity I shou'd fall into any measure which is more properly within the Province of the Civil, it must entirely proceed from mistaken inadvertency, never from design — and that when this happens, so far from being offended at the admonitions, or even reprimands of the Committee that I shall think myself obliged to them.^ The effects of this patriotic arson are not known, but Dunmore had ended his career in Virginia, and Toryism, never very strong as a force, was now completely crushed. The governor found an opportunity to make a final blun- der before vanishing from the scene. Sailing out of Nor- folk Harbor, with ships crowded with runaway and stolen negroes and wretched refugees, he cast anchor at Gwynn's Island off the Gloucester shore. On this island — suffi- ciently large for prolonged occupation — Dunmore landed » Miscellaneous Papers, 1775-1776. 94 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA his disease-stricken crews and threw up fortifications, for- getful of the fact that his ships lay within easy cannon-range of the mainland. The appearance of Dunmore's sails was the signal for a muster in strength of the local militia. It lacked the means for immediate attack, but James Barron, captain in the Virginia navy, dealt Dunmore a heavy blow by capturing a transport filled with Highlander troops bound up the Bay for Gwynn's Island. This was the pre- lude to the end. By the beginning of July a large num- ber of militiamen had gathered opposite the island, com- manded by Andrew Lewis, an officer of great experience in Indian warfare and of much natural military talent. On July 9, 1776, Lewis opened a cannonade on the fleet lying off the island and on the entrenchments. The ships suffered severely from the fire and were soon forced to slip cables and hurriedly put out, leaving behind most of the effects that had been landed.^ Want of boats alone prevented the Virginians from pushing over to the island and taking many prisoners. Next morning, when they had gathered enough boats to visit the island, they were horror- stricken to find it literally covered with the dead and dying, the victims of smallpox and jail fever. The dirty, crowded ships had become floating lazarettos. Exiled from Gwynn's Island, Dunmore tried to land on St. George's Island in Maryland, but was beaten off by militia. He plundered and burned several plantation houses along the Potomac and again attacked St. George's Island, with no better luck. Despairing of finding a refuge in the Chesapeake, he stood down the Bay with all his fleet and sailed out of the Capes and American history. 1 Virginia Gazette, July 12, 1776. THE STRUGGLE FOR NORFOLK 95 So intense was the dislike Dunmore inspired that he remained for several generations under the calumny of legend. Although he enjoyed considerable popularity before 1775 and entertained at the "Palace" in Williams- burg, where the local gentry loved to meet his charming wife and swains to worship his young daughters, he had by 1776 become an enemy to society, the instigator of slave insurrection and the robber and plunderer. As usual in such cases, his sufficiently numerous errors and sins did not satisfy. Tradition made him out the secret betrayer of the colony in the Indian war of 1774, who incited the savage to lay waste the frontier in order to weaken resist- ance to the imperial authority. And in this guise of an- archist and assassin the last English governor has come down almost to our own times. CHAPTER IV THE COUNTY COMMITTEES The easy triumph of the Revolution in Virginia was primarily due to thorough organization. The sentiment of the colony was, beyond doubt, overwhelmingly patri- otic, but it is conceivable that a considerable loyalist, or neutral, faction might have existed if public opinion had been less forcefully translated into action. The county committees, composed of prominent and experienced men working with a perfectly definite aim, crushed disaffection in the beginning with a ruthless efficiency that left British sympathizers no alternative but exile or quiet submission. Local committees of correspondence sprang up in Vir- ginia in 1774. Late in the year, in conformity with the recommendation of Congress, county committees were or- ganized to carry into effect the Continental Association, that boycott designed to force the English government to terms by loss of trade. The earliest of these local commit- tees arose in the eastern counties, showing that no class was so eager to support Congress as the large landowners. Reluctant as they were a year later to go to war, they were now foremost in the boycott, because to their minds it was legal and entirely consistent with attachment to the crown. These tidewater planters, men trained in politics and affairs, inaugurated the committee system and the com- mercial resistance to Britain and thus inadvertently led the colony into the very thing they dreaded. The local THE COUNTY COMMITTEES 97 committees played an important part in the life of the com- munity from the very start. Their authority, if not legal, was yielded by general consent and was extensive in scope. They were chosen by the freeholders of the counties as- sembled at the court-houses, virtually in the same way that the Burgesses were elected; and these mass meetings seem to have passed ojBf usually without incident — much more like the routine pollings for members of the assembly than incipient rebellion. The committees, consisting for the most part of prominent and trusted men, stood for law and order even though they themselves were untrammeled by ordinary legal restraints. The selections generally rep- resented spontaneous popular choice, but sometimes they were arranged after practical political methods with which the present generation is only too familiar. Thus, some of the people of Chesterfield in August, 1775, complained to the convention that the county committee had been elected by a mere handful of voters, who did not clearly understand its importance, and that as a consequence several unworthy members had been chosen. They there- fore requested another election.^ Similarly, in Hanover the complaint arose that tellers of the ballots at the elec- tion took it upon themselves to exclude persons actually elected in favor of others not receiving a majority.^ Usu- ally in the eastern counties men of the conservative faction that had so long ruled Virginia predominated in the com- mittees. This was fortunate for the Revolution. Begun under the auspices of the upper classes, the body of the people came into it as a matter of course, and with few ^ Legislative Petitions. Chesterfield (A4072). * Journal of the May Convention of 1776, H. 98 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA misgivings. Furthermore, the local rulers were able to employ ostracism — at first their only weapon — with far greater restraint and success than men without posi- tion could possibly have done. In their hands it proved a formidable instrument in the early stages of the Revolu- tion for suppressing faint-hearted royalists and bringing about at least a show of harmony. The committees began their work with great energy and admirable system. Counties were divided into districts and each district was assigned to a subcommittee of the county committee. Owing to the care for detail observed, practically the whole population of the colony was sub- jected to an espionage, which, though it employed no regular spies, was exceedingly efficient. Not only viola- tions of the Continental Association, but disaffection of any kind, even careless words, met with prompt investi- gation. The only alternative for the offender, besides sub- mission, was exile; for exile naturally followed as the result of the odium cast on those openly published as hostile. In the vacation of regular tribunals, closed by the Revolution, the committees not only exercised the functions of a court of wide jurisdiction, but enjoyed executive powers as well. Since they ordinarily included a considerable proportion of justices of the peace, the suspension of courts had very little effect on good order. Seldom has a great political revolution been attended with less violence than the close of the British administration in Virginia and the opening of the republican era. The first case of disaffection acted on by a committee, so far as known, was not a prosecution for a violation of the Continental Association, but for an expression of opin- THE COUNTY COMMITTEES 99 ion. On November 8, 1774, the Westmoreland Commit- tee, including some of the most prominent persons in the colony, sat in judgment on David Wardrobe, a Scotch school-teacher, who had written home rather indiscreetly about local conditions. Through inadvertence or a mis- understanding, the letter was published, and was now laid before the committee as a contribution to the columns of a Glasgow newspaper. Wardrobe had charged the planters with taking the lead in one of those effigy-burn- ings so dear to the heart of the eighteenth century, and had described the common people as showing no enthusi- asm for the roasting of Lord North, There was sufficient truth in the charge to exasperate the committee, which summoned the school-teacher to appear before it. He admitted that the letter was partly his, whereupon the committee, preserving that euphemistic form so character- istic of the leaders of the Revolution, "expressed a desire" that the vestry of Cople Parish should deprive Wardrobe of the use of the vestry-house as a schoolroom and that parents sliould withdraw their children from his school. Wardrobe was further ordered to write a retraction of his letter and to appear again before the committee at a later date. He wrote the apology, but not in terms satisfactory to the committee, and failed to make his appearance at the appointed time; so that the gazettes presently recom- mended that the poor pedagogue be "regarded as a wicked enemy of America and be treated as such." ^ The ruin of this Scotchman was sufficient evidence of the * American Archives, i, 970. Another early case was that of Paul Thilman, a notice concerning which, dated November 12, 1774, was pub- lished in the Virginia Gazette. 100 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA unpleasant results likely to attend a free expression of opinion, even in a private letter. The committees, so prompt to punish unkind criticism of Revolutionary meth- ods, were of course not behindhand in enforcing the boy- cott provisions of the Continental Association. The slight- est violation of any of the articles brought an immediate summons to the offender to appear before the commit- tee and explain his conduct. Those summoned seldom failed to come and defend themselves as in a court of law, for failure to appear or to show proper contrition meant being published in the newspapers as "inimical to the liberties of America" — a serious penalty. The great ma- jority of people acquiesced in the repressive methods of the committees, or at least complied outwardly with their demands. Country gentlemen enforced the Association; but its burdens fell chiefly on the merchants, a small but fairly prosperous class beginning to be of some importance in the colony. The latter could not be expected to show any great enthusiasm for a measure so ruinous to them as the Association; yet they were powerless to resist in the face of the numbers and organization of the planters, who were bent on worsting the English government by means of a commercial war and at any cost. The great majority of Virginia merchants were attached to Great Britain, no less by interest than by their Scottish birth and training. They had come to America to make their fortunes, and had settled in Norfolk, or in some of the other small towns scattered through the colony, or ran stores at cross-roads and endured the condescension of the planters, who looked on trade much as did their squire brethren in old England. These traders faced with a natural lack of ardor the pros- THE COUNTY COMMITTEES 101 pect of indefinite suspension of business and probable ruin. The political thinkers were the i)lanters. Living a life of comparative leisure and educated chiefly in the direction of law and politics, they drew from the pages of Locke and Sidney theories of republicanism and precedents for rev- olutionary activity. This all-powerful agricultural inter- est was able to overawe the merchants, who were quite as hostile to the Revolution as the commercial classes in the Northern colonies, but had no large towns like Philadel- phia or New York to serve as centers of influence. The attempts of merchants to evade or resist the Asso- ciation were promptly punished, as the scanty notices in the gazettes grimly show. It was practically impossible to escape the minute inspection of the subcommittees, which were kept well informed of the conduct and sentiments of every individual in their bailiwicks. Nor did they hesitate at the most intrusive pryings in order to enforce the Asso- ciation. To prevent any advance in the price of goods — a cardinal sin in the Association catechism — the com- mitteemen rode from store to store examining ledgers: increase in prices or refusal to open books they punished by warning people to have no further dealings with the offenders. Thus in Caroline, on December 10, 1774, the subcommittees appointed to inspect merchants' books reported that some of the merchants had willingly shown their accounts and had been found to observe the Associa- tion, while others had refused to allow their books to be seen and were suspected of disobedience. The county com- mittee then warned the people, " as they would avoid being considered the Enemies to American Liberty, not to have any Dealings with these merchants until they shall give 102 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA the Satisfaction required." ^ Under this threat the obsti- nate merchants allowed their books to be examined and were found to have obeyed the Association. ^ In Char- lotte a merchant who refused to open his books for exami- nation was punished by having his customers warned against him. Tea, of course, was anathema, both to the Association and to patriotic citizens. In Northampton the committee assigned Littleton Savage to receive such tea as remained in the county, which the people surrendered to the amount of four hundred pounds. Some gentlemen, in their enthusiasm, brought their tea to the court-house, requesting that it be publicly burned, "in which reason- able request," the narrator states, "they were instantly gratified." ^ A great and often involuntary violation of the Associa- tion was the reception of goods after the date fixed as the limit for importation. There were many such cases. In Henrico, Robert Pleasants informed the committee that he had received imported goods after the time expiration, whereupon the committee ordered that his goods, together with other lots, be sold as directed by the Association.^ The same thing happened at Hampton, where George Graham delivered up goods recently come to him.^ Goods were also sold in Norfolk. Indeed, in the early part of 1775 the Association seems to have been faithfully enforced in the last-named place and to have so continued as long as the local committee exercised supervision. In deference to the strong patriotic feeling Captain Howard Esten, about to put to sea, applied for a certificate that he had ^ Virginia Gazette, January 14, 1775. ^ jud,, February 4, 1775. » Ibid. * Ibid., February 11, 1775. ^ Ibid., January 28, 1775. THE COUNTY COMMITTEES 103 taken nothing on board his ship except a ballast of lumber.^ Sales of condemned goods seldom brought more than cost and often less, but occasionally they yielded a profit, which was devoted to the Boston sufferers. The profit on the sale in January, 1775, of Andrew Woodrow's imports into King George amounted to £19 14s.^ The case of Dr. Alexander Gordon, of Norfolk, attracted much attention. He had received a consignment of medicines that he refused to turn over to the local committee for sale, insisting on keeping it for himself. The Norfolk Committee conse- quently advertised him as a violator of the Association. It meted out even more severe condemnation to John Brown, a Norfolk merchant, who — strange namesake of him of Ossawatomie — violated the Association most flagrantly by importing slaves and concealing their arrival. Upon the discovery of this importation Brown denied having given the order for the purchase, a statement subsequently proved false by his letter-book. The committee then de- clared that he had "willfully and perversely violated the Continental Association." ' Captain Sampson, of the snow Elizabeth, was likewise advertised for violating the non-importation regulation. He had brought in a cargo of salt, and the Association required that cargoes should be carried back whence they came : instead, the captain at- tempted to carry away a shipload of lumber, and, on being summoned by the committee, appealed for protection to a British warship in the harbor. The committee imme- diately denounced him as an enemy to American liberty.^ Exportation was watched as carefully as importation. * Virginia Gazette, January 14, 1775. * Ibid., January 28, 1775. « Ibid., March 25, 1775. * Ibid., April 15, 1775. 104 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA The Nansemond committee in August, 1775, tried two merchants of Suffolk, Donaldson and Hamilton, on the charge of shipping provisions to Boston contrary to a non- exportation resolution of the New York Committee of Correspondence which had been acceded to by several other provinces. The merchants proved that their ship- ment was intended for Antigua, but that the brig carrying it had been taken into Boston Harbor by a British cruiser. The same men were tried on a second charge of shipping butter and hemp to Boston in April, 1775, and again ac- quitted, as they showed that the New York importation resolution had not been passed at that date.^ Prices of commodities were also watched with jealous eyes. In Surry a complaint was lodged against Robert Kennan for selling salt, a necessity diflScult to obtain, at an advanced price. Upon Kennan's acknowledgment of his fault the committee recommended people not to deal with him.^ Merciless as the committees were in enforcing the Asso- ciation, it does not appear that they were often unjust. On the contrary, they sometimes acted in defense of the accused whom they believed innocent. The case of John Parsons was not singular: he was a shipbuilder, and was reputed to have landed and stored goods at Urbanna in Middlesex. The Middlesex Committee on examination found the tale to be false and published a statement in the gazettes exonerating Parsons.^ If the offenses taken cognizance of by the county com- mittees had been limited to those set forth in the Conti- nental Association, little more could be said in criticism of * Virginia Gazette, August 26, 1775. « Ibid.. August 22, 1775. ' Ibid., June 19, 1775. THE COUNTY COMMITTEES 105 these bodies than that they discharged their duties some- what over-zealously. Even this criticism would have to be qualified, for revolution by its very nature cannot toler- ate differences of opinion: it means the victory of a part of the population over another part — a triumph of or- ganization no less than of arms. The local committees in Virginia, as well as in other colonies where political dis- sent was potentially dangerous from a military point of view, were driven to suppress loyalist opinion. Commit- tees summoned offenders for intemperate speeches and punished them as ruthlessly as for actual violations of the Association, which in time came to be regarded as a law rather than a boycott. Examinations of persons for po- litical opinions occurred in all parts of the colony, proving that there were everywhere people attached to Great Brit- ain. Social position and wealth — in all other ways a very great power in Virginia — failed usually to protect such of- fenders, who long before the Declaration of Independence were regarded as traitors. The first test of Revolutionary politics hinges on the Continental Association. It was not enough to obey that promulgation; strict patriotism de- manded a willingness to sign it and the use of respectful language regarding its often vexatious demands. Austin Brockenbrough, who hastily put his name to the Associa- tion and afterwards repented at leisure, was summoned for the offense of attempting to prejudice people against it. Losing his temper, he defied the committee and was or- dered to appear before it next court day. When he failed to come, he was published as an enemy. '^ In Middlesex, Thomas Haddon was advertised as "inimical "for refusing ^ American Archives, i, 337. 106 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA to sign the Association and casting reflections on it.^ John Saunders, a law student, who was either aloof in spirit or a victim of a legal conscience, refused to sign patriotic resolutions drawn up by the Princess Anne meeting of July, 1774, called to choose delegates to the August con- vention. Later, when the Virginia Association was read to the people, he again refused to conform. As a last test, the Continental Association was tendered him, and this he likewise declined, alleging "that the way of procedure was illegal." This led the county committee to appoint a delegation to wait on Saunders and urge him to retract his statement: on account of his youth, the committee averred, it "desired to deal gently with him." Asked if his words had not been inadvertently spoken, he replied that they had not. A friend then persuaded the obstinate loyalist to put his name to the Association, but he immediately added a big "No"; and the committee, worn out, branded him as a public enemy. Benjamin Dingly Gray, another non- associator, and Mitchell Phillips, a militia captain who had exerted his influence to prevent men from signing the Association, shared his fate.^ Allan Love, brought before the Brunswick Committee on the charge of "uttering in- jurious and reproachful expressions," was acquitted. The Pittsylvania Committee, in May, 1776, summoned one John Pigg before it on the complaint that he had drunk tea and exclaimed against the measures of Congress. Pigg did not come and was declared "a traitor to his country and inimical to American liberty."^ The clergy of the Anglican establishment generally sym- * American Archives, i, 668. ^ ibid., i, 76. • Virginia Gazette, June 1, 1775. THE COUNTY COMMITTEES 107 pathized with the colonists, but were vexed somewhat by dread of rebeUion against the head of the Church. Occasionally they came into conflict with Revolutionary sentiment. The most noted case was that of John Agnew, minister of; Suffolk Parish, Nansemond, who treated his congregation to a sermon from that text so dear to consti- tuted authority, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." ^ He was expelled in consequence by his pa- rishioners, who doubtless remembered that Caesar had his Brutus — and very properly, according to Patrick Henry. The Nansemond Committee published Agnew as "inim- ical" and his conduct was judged so serious as to be re- ferred to the Committee of Safety, which ordered him to provide security for his good behavior. Not being able to do this in any other way, the minister offered to turn over his land and slaves, an offer the committee accepted with a benediction: "Tis hoped all remembrance of his former conduct be forgotten, and that his future will be such as to recommend him to y^ enjoyment of peace and harmony with the society." Somewhat different was the case of John Wingate, an Orange minister, who suffered from a tyrannical use of the inquisitorial power of the county com- mittee. Wingate had in his possession certain pamphlets reflecting on Congress, which the committee, "desirous to manifest their contempt and resentment of such writings and their authors," requested him to surrender. He refused on the ground that the pamphlets did not belong to him. The committee promised to make good the loss to the owner and burned them.^ 1 Virginia Gazette, March 25, 1776, and J. B. Dunn's History of Nanse- mond County. 2 Virginia Gazette, April 15, 1775. 108 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA Passing beyond expressions of opinion, committees at- tempted to regulate the lives of people to an extraordinary- degree, and even went to the point of trying to enforce lit- erally the article of the Association forbidding gambling. What is stranger still, a community given up to horse- racing and passionately devoted to card-playing, actually endured this puritanical interference in private affairs. Committees published a number of men for gambling, but inclined graciously to pardon those who expressed contri- tion. The committees not only regulated the opinions of their respective counties, but cooperated with other bodies in cases involving several jurisdictions. Such cooperation was made necessary by the absence in the spring and sum- mer of 1775 of any regularly constituted officials with general powers; the local committees were the only act- ing official bodies. By mutual understanding committees confined themselves strictly to their own territories and carefully observed the rights of other localities. The Nor- folk Committee, in May, 1775, communicated to the Prince George Committee the facts in the case of James Marsden, charged with bringing in a puncheon of linen after the expiration of the time allowed for importation and with furnishing ship-captain Fazakerly with pork by order of Captain Charles Alexander. The last-named person ap- peared before the Prince George Committee and apologized for his conduct. He confessed he had brought in the linen and pork inadvertently, claiming he had given the order on Marsden to pay Fazakerly conditionally on the con- vention's consent to the exportation of food. This exami- nation was sent to the Norfolk Committee, which referred the case back to Prince George on jurisdictional grounds. THE COUNTY COMMITTEES 109 The Prince George Committee then decided that Alexander had violated the Association and declared him an enemy. ^ In the same way the Essex organization, in April, 1776, considered a case of importation that had already been tried by the Gloucester Committee, and, accepting the latter's verdict, published the offenders, John and George Fowler, as enemies of America. ^ Local committees in December, 1774, and the early part of 1775, acted wholly on their own responsibility, with no other guide or authority than the Continental Association. The king's governor still lived in his official residence in Williamsburg and still went through the form of conduct- ing the administration with the aid of his council. The assembly, which alone could have directed the committees, had not sat for some time and Dunmore showed no hurry to summon it. Apparently he shared the view of James II that revolutions can be impeded by legal obstacles. James II had thrown the Great Seal into the Thames : Dunmore refused to call the assembly. The county committees con- sequently enjoyed unlimited authority in their districts. Dunmore, much alarmed, wrote to Lord Dartmouth that the committees overhauled merchants' accounts and even went so far as to swear the men of the independent mili- tary companies to take all orders from them. The Norfolk Committee, in May, 1775, published an indignant denial of the charge of inquisition, but Dunmore had told nothing but the truth. The committees did take it upon themselves to investigate everything and they were backed by armed force. The militia system, fallen into decay since the French- and-Indian War, was replaced by volunteer companies of » Virginia Gazette, October 28, 1775. 2 Ibid.. June 14, 1776. 110 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA minute-men, the first of which seems to have been raised in Prince Wilham. Several of them were organized before the end of 1774, and by the summer of 1775 thirty or more existed.'' This force was in complete sympathy with the local committees and if necessary would have used arms in their support: a number of these companies mustered to march to Williamsburg at the time of Dunmore's theft of the powder. Modeled on the old militia system, the minute-men no more disturbed the sedate character typi- cal of the Revolution in Virginia than did the committees composed of justices and other unmelodramatic revolu- tionists. It has been observed that the county and borough com- mittees in their first months of activity worked as entirely independent bodies, though with a harmonious purpose. The convention of March, 1775, took the first step towards the formation of a new government by recommending the adoption of a military organization based on the unob- served militia law of 1738.^ It also somewhat hastened the crisis by practically closing the courts; but the colony con- tinued under the rule of committees until August 17, 1775, when the convention elected a Revolutionary executive, the Committee of Safety. This body, under the powers granted by the convention and assumed by itself, became the central authority, occupying much the same place for the whole colony that the committees did for the coun- ties. It gave orders to committees and armed forces and settled questions that were referred to it from the local bodies. The latter were glad to shift responsibility to a higher tribunal and rendered implicit obedience to its de- 1 Lingley, 106-07. 2 Ibid.. 129. THE COUNTY COMMITTEES 111 cisions. Under the control of the Committee of Safety, the county committees grew even more pertinacious and effective in rooting out and suppressing disaffection and still more drastic in their methods. Sternness was prob- ably inevitable. The actual break with England had come and was attended by a sudden change in the attitude of many people, who were zealous enough in opposing Par- liamentary taxation, but shrank from a military struggle. The convention, by a necessary war measure, now of- fended this element. The trading interest in Virginia cen- tered largely at Norfolk, Hampton, and Suffolk. Hitherto it had patiently and loyally borne the hardships of non- importation, partly solaced by the privilege of exporting Virginia products to British markets. The merchants, mostly Scotchmen, at first displayed genuine sympathy for the American cause, and the Norfolk Committee was behind none in activity in enforcing the Association. But when war actually broke out in 1775 the views of many of these men changed. While believing that the colonies had grievances, they preferred to swallow them rather than to come into open conflict with Great Britain. To add further to their embarrassment, the convention, on July 24, 1775, struck a heavy blow at commerce. By the terms of the Continental Association exportation to Great Britain and her dependencies was to cease on September 10, 1775, unless the British government acceded to colonial demands. The Virginia merchants, with this limit in view, had made extensive contracts for products, chiefly provi- sions. To their consternation the convention ordered that no provisions be sent out of the colony after August 5, 1775, that no quantities of necessaries be stored in towns near 112 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA navigable waters, and that all contracts for exportation be considered null and void. The local committees were com- missioned to carry this order into effect.^ In view of the fact that war had begun and battles were being fought in the North, this procedure was eminently- wise. It was rank folly to supply the enemy with food or to store it in quantity within easy reach of his cruisers. At the same time the prohibition put a quietus on the colony's expiring trade and moved the Norfolk merchants to protest. Their petition, which was read in convention on August 1, 1775, recited their extensive contracts with planters for grain and the number of foreign ships chartered to carry it — all based on the limit, September 10, 1775, ex- pressly set forth in the Continental Association. The con- vention, in stopping exportation, had acted with great haste, and "without allowing time or opportunity for the trading interest of the colony to know that such a measure was in agitation, much less to lay their objections before this Convention." Large quantities of grain and provisions would be thrown on their hands and their vessels, on arrival, must remain idle. Furthermore, the embargo gave a trade advantage to other colonies which had not stopped expor- tation. The appeal ended with these frank words: "If provincial Conventions undertake the regulation of con- tinental concerns and that during a Session of the Congress itself, the only choice we have left us is to lament the vio- lation of public faith and order, and flattered as we have been into deceitful expectations, to sit down the melan- choly spectators of our own destruction." ^ Twenty-eight 1 Journal of the July Convention of 1775, 6. 2 Legislative Petitions. Norfolk (BllSG). THE COUNTY COMMITTEES 113 firms signed this document, and it doubtless expressed the sentiments of others too cautious to sign. In addition to this, the committee of Norfolk Borough instructed those of its members who were also delegates in the convention to secure a reconsideration of the prohibitory resolution. The committee, arguing that the prohibition allowed no time for business adjustment, warned the convention that it was "under some apprehension that so cheerful an obedience will not be paid to this distressing injunction, as our con- stituents are ever desirous to pay to all the decisions of that honorable body; and that we humbly request that the said Resolution will be repeald, at least so far as to give time for vessels that are now loading to take in their cargoes." ^ The convention sternly rebuked the petition- ers. It declared that the merchants' petition reflected on the convention and tended to destroy the confidence of the people of the colony in their representatives; that the resolution had not been passed in haste, and that the mer- chants of Norfolk and Portsmouth could not expect meas- ures of vital concern to the colony to be suspended until they had been consulted. The committee of Northampton County had also pleaded against the stoppage of imports, although its language was less expostulatory and it limited its requests to a modi- fication of the resolution. The Northampton people, ac- cording to the committee, had made contracts to deliver large quantities of maize, and reasonably wished exporta- tion to the West Indies to continue.^ This petition and that of the Norfolk Committee, in contradistinction to that of ' Miscellaneous Papers of the Committee of Safety and the Convention of 1775. 2 Legislative Petitions. Northampton (B4853). 114 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA the merchants, were approved as "decent and respectful," and, in deference to them, the convention allowed exporta- tion of maize of the last year's crop to continue until Sep- tember 10, provided security was given the county com- mittees not to ship the grain north. ^ This dispute, apparently disposed of by the convention, marks the beginning of the detachment of the mercantile interest from the colonial cause. For the remainder of the Revolution the Norfolk region never showed anything of its early patriotism and spirit of cooperation with the rest of the colony. It was a defection that might have been fraught with serious consequences but for the incompe- tence and tactlessness of the man in whose hands fate had placed the charge of British authority. Through the early part of the Revolution the convention exercised supreme power. When not in session it was rep- resented by the Committee of Safety, which acted as the executive. Among the latter 's functions was that of court of appeals for the county committees, though the conven- tion remained as a kind of final tribunal in exceptional cases. Spurred on by the Committee of Safety, the county committees worked with even greater vigor and eflSciency than before. With the beginning of war the inquisitorial methods necessarily became more severe in the passage from the economic to the military stage of resistance, and disaffection was suppressed by law in place of merely being banned by public opinion. In the lower counties especially, the danger of Dunmore's presence led the committees to employ means that at other times would have seemed unworthy. Not only were speeches of disaffected persons 1 Journal of the July Convention of 1776, 10. THE COUNTY COMMITTEES 115 regarded as sufficient grounds for trial, but mails were tampered with in the search for evidence. Walter Hatton, of Accomac, was brought before the county committee for writing a seditious letter, and, at his own request, was sent on to the Committee of Safety for examination. On his tendering an apology for the letter, the committee dropped the case against him.^ In this letter Hatton had made the following statement: — It is now, and has been for some time past, an established rule to break open all letters either going from or directed to any offi- cer in the service of the Crown. It was with difficulty, I will assure you, that now I am able to transmit them, as my going from Accomac to this place [Norfolk] was opposed by upwards of 300 people of the county, who will not allow any vessel to come to this place, for fear of supplying the ships of war, and other troops, with provision; and I will assure you, that I am doubtful whether I may not be obliged to take a shelter on some of the ships, or at least on this side the bay, during the confused usurpation of power that an officer of the customs, if only he acts with spirit, or as his duty and oath bind him, that he will immediately fall under the lash of the damn'd committees, et cet., who on such occasions will show them as little mercy as they themselves may expect in the future world. The Caroline Committee seized suspected letters sent from Port Royal, ^ and the Nansemond Committee, not even sparing women, summoned Betsey Hunter, on Novem- ber 22, 1775, to answer the charge of having written letters to her brother in Norfolk informing him of military prep- arations at Suffolk and Smithfield. The woman denied that she had intended to give intelligence, but the committee decided otherwise and published her, along with Mary and 1 Virginia Gazette, February 26, 1776. ^ Ibid., March 1, 1776. 116 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA Martha Wilkinson, who were privy to the letters, as "ene- mies to America." The Accomac Committee tried Captain Custis Kellam for using improper language concerning the people of Boston, but let him off on his apologizing.^ So close was the scrutiny to which everybody was subjected and so injurious the suspicion of disaffection, that we find one Watkins, of Halifax, publishing a statement in the newspapers that he had gone on board Dunmore's ship solely on private business and had resisted the governor's efforts to seduce him from the patriot cause. ^ Such an in- cident was sufficiently absurd, but surely the climax of rev- olutionary effervescence was reached in the case of Richard Harrison, of Petersburg, who was haled before his commit- tee for the high crime and misdemeanor of feasting bounti- fully on May 17, 1776, which had been proclaimed a solemn fast day. Harrison expressed his regret and declared he had forgotten it was a fast : he, and five others who had dined with him, were thereupon forgiven.^ Towards the end of 1775 and in the early months of 1776, the committees along the Chesapeake shore in the neighborhood of Hampton attempted to blockade Norfolk and adopted measures strangely like those used by local committees in the French Revolution. Persons going to and from Norfolk were required to show passes, failing which they were liable to be locked up in jail or sent to Williamsburg as suspected loyalists. Passports were re- quired of all travelers through the tidewater region. "It is not now possible," wrote an Englishman from Ports- mouth, on November 10, 1775, "for any of our Country 1 Virginia Gazette, March 1, 1776. « Ibid., March 22, 1776. 8 Ibid.. June 7, 1776. THE COUNTY COMMITTEES 117 men to travel the country, without a pass from the Com- mittees or Commanding oflScers, which none of them can procure." ^ Another Tory tells of a trip he made to Hamp- ton, where he was kept a prisoner by the local committee all night and examined in the morning. The punishment of holding convicted loyalists up to pub- lic condemnation in the gazettes, at one time exceedingly efficient, was superseded in December, 1775, by an ordi- nance of convention "establishing a mode of punishment for the enemies of America in this colony." ^ This ordi- nance provided that all white men who had been in arms against the colony and failed to surrender themselves in two months, or any who might thereafter assist the enemy, should be imprisoned at the discretion of the Committee of Safety, which was also empowered to seize their estates and apply the income to the public service. Slaves taken in arms against the colony or voluntarily attending the enemy were threatened with the dire punishment of being sold in the West Indies, or otherwise disposed of for the benefit of the colony. The Continental Association was continued in force and strengthened by a clause forfeiting imported goods and the ships employed. An admiralty court of three judges was established to carry these forfeitures into effect; and the Committee of Safety received directions to name five members of each local committee as commis- sioners to conduct jury trials of offenders against the Association. The Committee of Safety constituted the appellate court, and further was given the pardoning power. In May, 1776, the convention increased the penalties » Miscellaneous Papers, 1776-1776. » Hening's Statutes, ix, 101. 118 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA for Toryism to forfeiture of estate and indefinite imprison- ment, although a part of the sequestrated property was to be applied to the support of the families of the owners.^ The convention also adopted, on May 27, 1776, a test oath to be offered by local committees to all suspects. This oath bound the subscriber to aid the government of Virginia in the war, not to assist the enemy in any way, and to reveal conspiracies and plots. Refusal to take this oath was punished by seizure of arms and ammunition. ^ Following the establishment of the test, the Halifax Committee, on June 20, 1776, offered the oath to six men, who refused to take it and were waited on for their arms.^ A number of Fredericksburg merchants and other disaffected persons were ordered disarmed at the same time.^ In Northumber- land several men rejected the oath and suffered disarma- ment,^ and in Pittsylvania seven or eight persons declined the test. The Caroline Committee offered the oath to James Miller and a dozen other suspects, who refused and were advertised as inimical. There is no doubt [the committee said] but these monsters of ingratitude will be pleased with this notification of their attach- ment to the jurisdiction of Great Britain, serving to recommend them as fit instruments to enslave their American benefactors; and consequently proper objects of royal munificence; a large portion of which, perhaps, will fall to the man whose name stands foremost in this black list, as a reward for his disapprobation of and opposition to publick measures, sufficiently manifest, we think, in his refusing to qualify as a justice of the peace, in not complying with a requisition of Convention to contribute to the 1 Henhufs Skilutes, rx, 130. > Journal of the May Convention of 1776, 26. » Vinjinia CuizcUc, July 5, 1776. * Ihid., August 23, 1776. « Ibid., September 27, 1776. THE COUNTY COMMITTEES 119 purchase of arms and ammunition, and in not voting at elections of delegates and committees. i This bitter arraignment shows how the irritation of pa- triots against the disaffected was growing with the prog- ress of the war. The man who heads the "black list" is denounced for refusing to accept office, failing to contribute to the fund for supplies, and absenting himself from elec- tions. No overt act of any sort is charged against him. At Falmouth the King George Committee disarmed a few non- jurors. So much for examples. The same process must have been repeated in nearly every trading community in Virginia, although the records have not come down to us. In each case a little group of men, suspected of lukewarmness or hostility towards the patriot cause, but usually not asser- tive in expressing opinions, was brought to the surface as "inimical" by the net of the test oath. Few open enemies of the Revolution remained in Virginia after the spring of 1776. Most of them had left in 1775, despairing of the royal cause or fearing to be involved in the struggle; the gazettes of that year are full of the " I-intend-for-England " of merchants appealing for the settlement of debts. Later, in 1776, when the patriot party passed from suppression of disaffection to refusal to tolerate dissent, the remainder of the trading class went into exile. A few who persisted in lingering were forcibly expelled. The merchants and planters of British sympathies who left Virginia in 1775 and 1776 probably may be counted by hundreds. They were men of character and property, and in many instances of considerable education, and ' Virginia Gazette, December 6, 1776. 120 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA altogether formed the most energetic element in the colony. Their loss was irrei)iirable; and it was many years before Virginia again possessed an active and enterprising com- mercial class. This was part of the price j)aid for the Revolution and was inevitable. In a revolutionary state no room existed for serious difference of political opinion; there was the alternative of submission or exile. The com- mercial Tories, scattered far and wide through an agrarian population, remained helpless in the face of the patriot majority; in Norfolk alone they dared strike a blow for the king. If there had been towns of any size in Virginia, with royal forces to occupy them, or if there had been at Nor- folk a fifth part of the army Howe wasted in idleness at Boston in the winter of 1775-7C, the history of the Revo- lution in Virginia and of the Revolution in general might have been different. But the home government, apparently interested only in the Boston situation, allowed its parti- sans in Virginia to be crushed or driven into exile with- out an effort to defend them, thus enabling the planters thoroughly to organize the colony for the Revolution and to render the most essential aid to the insurgent army in the North. Arnold, with a small command, did incalculable damage in Virginia in 1781 ; and Cornwallis, in his invasion, seriously, if ephemerally, affected the sentiment of eastern Virginia. Two or three regiments under a capable ofBcer might have accomplished far more in the closing days of 1775, when the large latent opposition to the Revolution would have grown into a Tory party if the king had shown his ability to i)rotect his own. In the absence of protection, the disaffected were forced either to leave Virginia or to become lukewarm revolutionists, giving a perfunctory sup- THE COUNTY COMMITTEES 121 port to the patriot cause. The patriot party, composed of the great majority of planters and the piedmont and west- ern farmers and hunters and led by men trained in admin- istration, allowed the loyalists no chanee to eoiicontratc at any point. The means employed to accomplish this end were the local conunittees, which exercised an almost despotic power from December, 1774, to the summer of 177C. They acted with an intelligence and thoroughness that modern political organization cannot surpass, and they succeeded so well in their task that surface observers are tempted to believe that in Virginia alone of the colonies British sentiment hardly existed. This is a mistake. The truth is that the committees did not allow British senti- ment a chance to develop, and hardly even to exist. ^ It will be observed from the foregoing account that the Revolution was hardly a popular movement in its incep- tion. The body of the people were not greatly aroused, when, in the last weeks of 1774, the committees began their work of enforcing the observance of the Continental Asso- ciation. That boycott was distinctly the weapon of the planters, and the cooperation of the other classes of the community in the regulating proceedings of the commit- tees was secondary. The poor people of eastern Virginia — small farmers and others — began to take fire in the spring of 1775 as the result of Patrick Henry's activities. To them, unlike the planter class, the Revolution meant something more than resistance to England; it awakened feelings of antagonism to the order of society itself — feelings which have always 1 One committee journal, that of Cumberland, is extant, though muti- lated, in the Virginia State Library. 122 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA existed among men, but which largely remained inarticulate until the coming of the French pliilosophers of the eight- eenth century. The poor in Virginia usually enjoyed a fair abundance of food, but they were housed in hovels and were utterly illiterate and to ajarge extent sunk in bru- tal dissipation. With resistance to the authority of England in progress and with the new French idea of equality in the air, it is not surprising that the poorer classes began to hope for a rise in their condition and a larger share in the govern- ment. Their participation in the Revolution marks the end of the first act in the great revolt, which had been distin- guished by the labors of the committees directed wholly to the conservative end of abating British encroachments on colonial liberty. CHAPTER V CONVENTION AND COMMITTEE OF SAFETY The convention which met in July, 1775, found itself faced by the necessity of raising troops and preparing for war. 13y this time many companies of minute-men existed in Virginia, but the militia expected to serve only in emer- gencies. To meet the need of a permanent force, the con- vention passed an ordinance for raising two regiments of regulars and a number of companies of riflemen for border defense. There was no money in the Virginia treasury, however, and regular taxation was in abeyance during the Revolutionary crisis. An untrained assembly might have hesitated in finding ways and means, but this convention of experienced legislators went on to assert its sovereignty by laying a special levy. Carriages, tithables, land, ordi- nary licenses, marriage licenses, and legal writs were taxed to provide the money for arming, equipping, and paying the troops and paying the delegates in the Continental Con- gress. As some time must elapse before such taxes would come in, while money was immediately needed, the con- vention voted an issue of £350,000 of treasury notes. These were secured in the first place by the special taxes and finally by the whole property of the colony solemnly pledged by the convention. The keynote of Revolutionary finance was thus struck at the beginning. The first paper money commanded a good exchange value for some time, but subsequent issues caused 124 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA rapid depreciation until the nadir was reached in 1782, when Virginia paper was worth about one to one thousand in specie. The English government, probably with wisdom, had opposed colonial paper money, and this issue of 1775 is one of the evidences of open revolution. The convention met the need for an executive when, on August 17, 1775, it elected a Committee of Safety, endowed with considerable powers. The break with the colonial regime was now complete, for the royal governor, regarded up to this time as head of the state, gave way to another and frankly revolutionary executive. The conven- tion itself was only the House of Burgesses acting in an un- precedented capacity, but the administrative junta called into being had no association with the past. It was born of a necessity completely beyond the scope of constitu- tional limitations. The Committee of Safety, in its political complexion, represented the conservative wing of the patriot party as against the progressives led by Henry and Jefferson. As has been stated before, the use of party appellatives in describing the factions existing in Virginia before the rise of definite political organizations is not entirely accurate, but genuine divergencies require the employment of names. In the convention of July, 1775, conservatives and progres- sives were in strong conflict, — the one side pressing for sweeping measures and open war, the other endeavoring to stave off the inevitable struggle to the last moment. The revolutionary party, which was about equal in strength to its opponents, put forward Patrick Henry for colonel of the First Virginia Regiment, and, as such, ranking officer of the Virginia forces. Although Hugh Mercer, afterwards killed COMMITTEE OF SAFETY 125 at Princeton, led him on the first ballot, Henry's friends managed to elect him; but his antagonists, foiled in their effort to prevent his election, consistently hampered his action through the administrative power of the Committee of Safety. This body without exception was composed of men of substance and position. Six members came from the tide- water counties, three from the south side, one from the piedmont, and one from the west. A glance thus shows that the preponderant eastern element secured the success of its policies by electing a majority of the committee from its own ranks. Seven of the eleven members, I'cndlcton, Bland, John Page, Paul Carrington, Dudley Digges, Carter Braxton, and John Tabb, may be classed as con- servatives, leaving as progressive representatives George Mason, Thomas Ludwell Lee, William Cabell, and James Mercer. Mason, probably the foremost member in point of ability, seldom attended meetings and the direction of affairs fell into the hands of Edmund Pendleton, the con- servative leader. Bland, who might have disputed the primacy with him, was old and in declining health. Pendle- ton, as both president of the convention and chairman of the Committee of Safety, occui)ied a imique position. With Jefferson, Henry, and Richard Henry Lee out of Vir- ginia politics for the time being, he was the most influential man in the government. Because of his ascendancy, the Williamsburg administration held off from war long after hostilities had begun elsewhere; they still hoped against hope for a reconciliation with England. Such an event woukl have been welcome to Pendleton provided it could be had on terms honorable to America. As this could not VH) TUK REVOLUTION IN VIIKJINIA Im*. Iir hrnvcly pl.'iycd liispnri in I In* UcvoliilioM. I'ciidlrlon is 11. li^MiiT ill nijiiiy wjiys rcscnihliii;^ I )isr.u'li. Like Dis- raeli Ik' liii brriiiiH' I lie jinlciil (IcfciKKr «»r \\\c ruling' cliiss wliicii JU'('<'pU*li«' iiinii. Il«' iK'licviMl in f^ovtMiiiiuMil by f^ifiilltMiUMi uiid Iiiul IK) syiMpjilliy for llic greni (1 mid which .IcIVcrsoii was hilcr lo ^iiidc (o a. liiighly (h'sliiiy . Ih'spcnl nnich of his can'cr in resist- ing allaeks on Ihe I'lninhlin^; social order <»!" lluM'oIonial ii>!;e and (l llu' Connniliee of Safety with [he powers needed |)\' a \ igorons exeeiit iv<' in lime of war. II was ,";i\ (Ml coiilrol of troops in liu> Held and the militia, and had authority to s<'cnre arms and ainninnilion whereviM' tln'y eonld he found. It mi';hl enter into ne>:;o- liali»»ns with other <'olonies for military snp|)ort and was lo»'arry on a eorrespoiis. This last-named thlly de\«Io|)ed into a general Niipervision of these committees. The <'on\ ciil ion imposed on loyalists the |uMiallies of impri,s«)iiment and sei/.ui*e of estates at the discri'lion of the Commit le<" of Safely. Serv- ice in the militia, was re»|nired of all al)l«> l»o*li<'d men of mil- itary age «'xc<'pl. Ilritons horn, who nii;';hl remain nenlral. Owing to the iiillii(>iie(« of Milnmnd rendleton. the (\)m- mitl<>c of Safely used its powers with cxInMiie cantion in |1m> Slimmer of 177.'>. To him Dnnmorc was still Ihe lawful goNtrnor. to he respected as such. Hesides taking no steps COMMITTEK OK SAKl/PY H7 nf];;iins! nuniiion', (lie coimniHci' I;iritif^, niid fcodiii'^ I lie troops niisod hy llu' coiivciilioii ;iiul in f';«Mliiif; iiilo llic Held M j))irt of llic luililiii. I'lUHUvslioiiMhly llic Williiniislmrf^ juiilii y iiiid iiit('lli;;tMi((«. I»ul it nlso nllowcd liiiH« for Duii- inorc lo^ol nMiifon-iMiuMils niul rod at Ini^tli l>y l)iiiniion'*s d<»pivdalioiis on projuM-fy and arn'sls of paliiols lo niakt' a. tlrnioiislnilion; and. on OcIoIxt 'ii, 177.'>, dtnidcd lo send troops lo Norfolk. Diinniorc iM<>an- timo worked coittiiial Iroops move thai lliey nacJHMl lli«> vio\vers uliicli sliould not be assi'rted too vij!;orously. Wlieii the eonvniber I, 177r>, u whole host of eomplaints and appeals awaited it ; a wide- sjuj^ad feeling existed that the <'onvenlion was tln'sole nuthorily able lo U;\y nud <-oiii|)l;iiM(' left to local bodies. Slill, lli<« C'onnnitte(^ of Safety had refiaincd, save in a few aggra- vated (rases, from using the license granted to it of hiipris- oning loyalists and taking possession of their estates. Under these circumstances action by the convention was neces- sary and unavoidable, (^itations of naines go to prove that in spite of the extreme disadvantages they were under there • IVlilions to llic ("oiivciilioii iiikI Comiiiillrc of Siifcly, Miircli to Uoci-iuluT, 1775. ••' LcKisliilivc- IVlilions. ICli/,ulu-lli Cily (AM38). • Ibid. Warwick. COMMJTTEK OK SAFICTY 129 wore a Rood umtiy loyalists in Virf(l willi every reverse of tlie Ameriean aruis until a genuine p.'irly iiiijjlit have eoiiK' into existence. The chief men of Tory inclinations in Virj^inia, were John l{.and piinlon to those who had already taken anus and were willing; lo surrender themselves. "^ It also enlcred on Ihe task of considering the cases of individual loyalisls. There was actual treason as well as disall'ection. Deposi- tions made concerning John Dew, a shipmaster, recently arrt\sted in the Rai)i)ahaiuioek Iliver, showed that he had attempted to corrupt a j)atriot force at PVedericksburg by picturing the sujHM-ior comforts enjoyed by troops in the British service. "'I'hc King," he said, "foiuid his soldiers four new shirts & a good suit of cloaths, paid for their washing, & 3/0 shillings ])cr week (hiy, free Quarters & advised them to goe to the (lovernor." ^ On December 10, 1775, the convention reapi)ointed Ihe ConnniLlee of Safety, with two chiinges, Joseph Jones and Thomas Walker replacing (icorgc Mason aii Journal of the V.onvndion of Ihrrmhtr. 177 f,, (Jfl. * IVlilions lo liic Convciilion uud Cuiimiillcc of Sufcly, Marcli lo December, 1775. 132 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA and the hitter's son: they were ordered into eonfinement waiting exiiiiiiiuition. The Curohiie ('onniiiLtee re])()rted that it liJid seized the effeets of another Norfolk Tory, Thomas IIej)l)urn, then in arms against the coh)ny. Yet, in s})itc of the widcsj)read disaffection in the Norfolk dis- trict and the number of Tories sent to WiUiamsburg for trial, the convention acted with commendable modera- tion. While county connnittces crushed liritish synii)a- thizers without mercy, the convention, like the Connnif tee of Safety, proceeded cautiously in in(lictin<;' severe i)unish- mcnts. As has been stated, the greater number of irrec- oncilable royalists left Virginia before the end of 1775, but a part of this non-native mercantile class was willing neither to submit quietly to the Revolution nor to go into exile; they were hostile to the patriot party and openly in sympathy with Dunmore. Some of these men had gone further at Norfolk in the king's behalf than could be easily explained on the ground of constraint; and the convention, in view of this fact, withdrew the consent granted by the July Convention for British-born residents to remain neu- tral. It charged them with violating the Continental Asso- ciation, giving intelligeu{;e to the enemy and furnishing him with provisions, propagating falsehoods injurious to the patriot cause, inciting slaves to rebellion and leading them in arms against the colony. No citizens were any longer to be exempt from the burdens and dangers of defending the country. Able-bodied men declining so necessary a duty were to be permitted (at the pleasure of the C(mnnittee of Safety) to leave: ^ those who had taken arms against the American cause, or otherwise com])r()mise(l themselves, 1 Journal of the Convcniion of December, 1776, 70. COMMITTEE OF SAFETY 133 woro denied this privilege. The eolony thus laid down the principle that all citizens nni.st ran^^e themselves frankly on its side or n ealed, and people who had paid it and who were also good Americans were to be reimbursed out of their future taxes.^ While the assembly by various acts and tests drove out * Legislative Petitions. Essex (A5349). ^ Jhid. Prinr-e William. • Ibid. Charlotte (A3993). * Hening, x, 194. 184 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA of Virginia the class not in sympathy with revolution, it by no means succeeded in suppressing the spirit of disaffection. It was, indeed, wise mercilessness to expel the Scotchmen who might have acted otherwise as the nucleus of a hostile faction, but such a policy could not prevent the spread of discontent among the native population, part of which, though nominally patriotic, had no enthusiasm for the cause. By the summer of 1777 the early zeal had pretty well cooled everywhere, and the length and expense of the war were having their effect on the faint-hearted, who mur- mured against the heavy taxes. In July it was reported to the council that emissaries of the enemy, sometimes in the guise of commissary officers, were going around offering extravagant prices for commodities, in order to depreciate the currency, and discouraging the people by injurious reports of the condition of Washington's army.^ On the Eastern Shore, cut off from the mainland and open to British raids, many of the negroes had run away to the enemy and some of the white inhabitants were suspected of treasonably aiding them. To remedy this the council advised the removal of suspects from the Eastern Shore to the interior of the State, and it further directed the Norfolk and Princess Anne authorities to send the disaffected from those counties to Williamsburg except such as might be prosecuted at home under the treason law. Disaffected or criminal inhabitants assisted the enemy's privateers in plundering along the Chesapeake shores. In September, 1777, Captain Barron, of the Virginia navy, captured one Dunbar, of Gloucester, who had made himself notorious as a freebooter.'^ » Council Journal (1777-78), 37. « Virginia Gazette. October 3, 1777. RULE OF THE COUNCIL 185 The council was driven in August, 1777, under the im- mediate fear of an English invasion, to take further steps against the disaffected. It issued an order to militia com- manders at all stations to require persons refusing to take the oath of allegiance, or "suspected of evil designs," to remove ten miles from any camp, garrison, or place where the enemy might be. The order affected a good many people, and the assembly, at its meeting in the fall, fearing that the executive had acted unconstitutionally, passed a special act of immunity. As the expected invasion failed to materialize, the council rescinded the order and per- mitted those who had been driven from their homes to return on giving parole. At the same time a number of persons arrested on the Eastern Shore and sent to Williams- burg were released on taking the oath. Cases of disaffection continued to be fairly numerous in 1778. Edward Ker, a justice of Accomac County, was re- moved from his oflBce on the charge of being inimical, and William Montague, of Lancaster, was refused a commission as justice on similar grounds.^ One Yerby, a Lancaster militia captain, had the audacity to deliver a French vessel to British warships in the Rappahannock, though his com- pany had been mustered for its protection. The council ordered the arrest of the offenders and reimbursed the ship- master. Traitors like Yerby occasionally ran the risk of violence. Robert Parker, in May, 1778, complained to the assembly that on account of an unjust suspicion of his be- ing inimical the militia had burned his house and a court- martial had sentenced him to five years' imprisonment.^ 1 Coundl Journal (1777-78), 217. 2 Journal, House of Delegates (May, 1778), 10. 186 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA The government pardoned him. The council, indeed, continued to treat offenders with considerable leniency. Prisoners, instead of being confined in jail or forced to leave the State, were frequently paroled within certain limits. The assembly, more susceptible to popular opinion, was more inclined to rigor. As if the laws were not already severe enough, the House of Delegates, in October, 1778, considered a bill "to expel from the Commonwealth, and to prevent in future the return of persons who have shewn themselves inimical to America." ^ This measure had been immediately suggested by protests from Norfolk and the neighboring counties declaring that there were still people living in the State who considered themselves subjects of the king and asking for their expulsion. The bill passed a second reading and then failed. The House of Delegates heard the appeal for admission to the State of a number of persons who had come from New York to Hampton in a flag-of -truce vessel. Most of them had been abroad and now wished to return to Vir- ginia. Charles Mortimer, who had gone to England in 1775 and who claimed to have befriended American prisoners there, was allowed to enter the State on taking the oath of allegiance. Alexander Trent, returned from being educated abroad, and Elizabeth Muir were also admitted. Other immigrants or returning Virginians who were considered "unfriendly to the rights and liberties of America" failed to secure the same privilege. ^ Such exclusion may seem harsh, but the policy of banishing and keeping out loyalists was pursued more rigorously in other States. Massachu- setts even wished to cooperate with Virginia in the exclu- » Journal, House of Delegates (October, 1778), 9. * jnci^^ 40. RULE OF THE COUNCIL 187 sion of each other's loyalist exiles, but the scheme came to nothing. The year 1779 saw the beginning of the saddest, and to us, after the long lapse of time, the most regrettable feature of the Revolution — general confiscation. Hundreds of estates in all parts of Virginia, comprising many thousands of acres, had been left vacant by their refugee owners, who in most cases were Britons that had left the country at the outbreak of the war, or were Virginians living abroad and represented by relations or agents. These estates were now condemned by escheators and sold for amounts of depre- ciated currency representing a very small value in specie. The forfeitures, as in the case of almost all similar seizures, brought in little to the State, but greatly benefited pur- chasers, and there can be small doubt that much corruption and injustice were practiced and that many estates were wrongfully condemned and sold. Occasionally confiscation had occurred early in the Revolution. Thus, Dunmore's property was sold in 1776, and the council, on November 16, 1776, heard the appeal of James Parker from a decision of the Accomac commissioners' court directing the sale of his estate and condemning him to imprisonment during the war, an unusually severe sentence. The council confirmed the decision and sent Parker to New London on parole, as he had accepted a commission from Dunmore.^ Property seized before this time had been chiefly marine, taken under direction of Congress, though ordinances of the convention sanctioned the forfeiture of estates of persons aiding the enemy. Few estates, however, were confiscated under this authority, and forfeiture was not immediately adopted by » Council Journal (1776-77) 233. 188 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA the permanent government when it came into power late in 1770. An act of 1777 put the hinds, slaves, stock, and other property of British subjects, including debts, into the hands of commissioners to manage in the interest of the State. ^ Debts due British subjects might be paid into the treasury and the government would give discharge. This act affected hundreds of people, especially the debt clause. Planters stood indebted to British firms for great amounts, and many of them took advantage of the opportunity to rid themselves of their obligations in depreciated paper. The government made little by these transactions and at the same time laid up trouble for itself against the time when England demanded a reckoning for its merchants. After- wards the act was repealed, probably because it was seen to be little better than repudiation. The assembly, in May, 1779, passed from guardianship to confiscation. The act "concerning escheats and forfei- tures" "^ voided the titles of all property of aliens held by commissioners and directed the government to institute forfeiture proceedings. One month was allowed native claimants of such estates to file their pleas, after which limit the old titles were forever barred, though claims might be advanced on the money proceeding from the property sales. The act also defined British subjects, who were all Britons living outside the United States on April 19, 1775, — the date of Lexington, — and who had not since then proved their allegiance to the United States; all persons residing in the country at that time who had ad- hered to the enemy or who had joined them. Immediately after the confiscation measure, the assembly aimed what * Hening, ix, 377. ^ Ihii., x, 67. RULE OF THE COUNCIL 189 was intended as a finishing stroke at the few loyalists who continued to linger in Virginia. The House of Delegates, in June, 1779, passed a resolution directing the governor to banish all Tory refugees and take means to prevent the return of persons designated as British subjects.^ The House further considered, but failed to pass, a resolution for disarming "all [)ers()ns inimical or disaffected to the liberties of America," which directed local committees to search for suspects and tender them a stringent oath.^ The essential injustice of confiscation as a policy and its cruel hardships soon became apparent. As long as commis- sioners held estates in trust, owners might hope to get them back some day, even though sadly i)lundered and depreciated, but with the condemnation and sale of prop- erty all chance of recompense practically disappeared; the needy State would not be able for years to pay to own- ers accidentally sold out the money obtained from sales, which were beggarly amounts at best. Escheators took great license in their proceedings; every estate deserted by its owner for any reason whatever was liable to seizure and forfeiture, and many innocent persons suffered loss. One case illustrates a number. Lucy Ludwell, a Virginia woman, while in England, had married John Paradise, a Greek. The couple continued to live in England and con- fided the care of Mrs. Paradise's Virginia estate to an agent. Paradise, not having been naturalized in England, was not a Briton, but nevertheless his property in Surry and York Counties, Virginia, was condemned, though the court had not found him a British subject.^ An inquisition » Journal, IIou.sc of DdcigJites (May, 1779), 08. * Executive communicationa, 1770. ' Legislative Petitiona. Surry. 190 THE. REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA in James City found both husband and wife to be British subjects and condemned their property in that county. Notwithstanding many confiscation proceedings and many sales, the State derived small profit, partly because land auctions conducted in war-time in a country without currency could hardly bring in a large return, and partly be- cause the government allowed obstacles to be put in the way of forfeiture ^ and seemingly made little effort to prevent fraud in the conduct of the sales. The chief effect of con- fiscation, so futile as far as the State was concerned, was to pass over to astute neighbors abandoned lands and lands of uncertain ownership at purely nominal prices; it is doubt- ful whether the returns in badly depreciated paper were worth the trouble of conducting sales. If the government had required payment in articles of value, like tobacco and provisions, some good would have resulted; as it was, many people, hardly a handful of whom were active enemies, lost their Virginia lands and thereby paved the way for the rise of numerous small farmers to affluence. This was one of the most important social results of the Revolution. In the early years of the war the Virginia government was actively engaged in suppressing loyalism, but it was not called on to deal with insurrection. The State was in no great danger of internal disturbance so long as it re- mained uninvaded by the British. From the fall of Dun- more to 1780 the council was disturbed by only one instance of disaffection serious enough to threaten any military results. This was in the celebrated case of Josiah Philips. ^ There was little noteworthy about the man. He was a ' Executive communications, 1779. * American Historical Review, i, 445, et seq. RULE OF THE COUNCIL 191 laborer living in Lynhaven Parish, Princess Anne, the one really Tory county. Philips himself had little concern with political issues; he was an ignorant and brutal man who took advantage of the opportunity offered by disturbed conditions to plunder his neighborhood, and if it were not for the fact that the government regularly attainted him of treason he might be passed over with a few words. Philips accepted a commission from Dunmore early in the war, because British commissions were going begging and might serve as warrants for miscellaneous acts of violence. He gathered a small band of followers, whites and runaway slaves, and began to plunder the isolated and swamp-covered country on the border of Virginia and North Carolina. By the summer of 1777 he had become so notorious that John Wilson, the much-tried Norfolk county-lieutenant, reported that he and a dozen others were threatening people and doing mischief.^ The council thereupon, on June 20, 1777, advised the governor to offer a reward for his capture. Philips was arrested and the government paid the reward. But he either escaped or was released and soon made himself a genuine nuisance. His band now included about fifty men, a force of sufficient size for plundering a thinly settled community. The council, on May 1, 1778, directed the authorities and militia in Princess Anne, Norfolk, and Nansemond to cooperate for his capture. Militia was or- dered out but failed to arrest the criminals, and Wilson advised the removal of certain families in league with them. The Philips gang was accused of committing robbery, arson, and murder. The council sent Wilson's letter to the » Council Journal (1777-78), 19. 192 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA assembly and ordered a company of regular troops to the scene of disturbance.^ The House of Delegates was so moved by the letter that it feared that an insurrection was about to break out in the Norfolk region, known to be luke- warm or hostile towards the Revolution. Consequently, it decided, on May 28, 1778, that Philips and his followers were guilty of treason and should be attainted if they did not surrender before a certain date. Jefferson undoubtedly inspired these proceedings, the precedent for which, like so many other Revolutionary precedents, came from the English Civil War. The bill of attainder passed the House and Senate without opposition; it named June 30, 1778, as the last day of grace. ^ PhiHps did not surrender, but was hunted down by the State troops. Several of his band were captured and several others killed,^ among the latter one Will, a negro, who had distinguished himself for ferocity. Will was shot under the attainder, which, of course, made the attainted out- laws, but Philips, when captured, was not immediately executed as might have been expected, since no trial was necessary. Instead of proceeding under the attainder, the government indicted him in the general court, on October 23, 1778, for robbery of twine and hats; two of his asso- ciates were tried with him for the same offense. All three were found guilty of felony, condemned to death, and executed on December 4, 1778. There was nothing very remarkable about Philips's at- tainder. The assembly claimed and exercised wide powers, and the treason laws allowed large scope. Probably when 1 Council Journal (1777-78), 260. ^ Hening, x, 463. ' Council Journal (1777-78), 310. RULE OF THE COUNCIL 193 the government recovered from its fright and realized that Philips was only an ordinary robber instead of a traitor seeking to light the torch of loyalist revolt, it preferred to use ordinary legal measures in place of the attainder. ^ The point about the case that has excited comment is its curious sequel. In 1788, when the Virginia Convention was debating the adoption of the Federal Constitution, Edmund Randolph arose one day and declared that Josiah Philips had been the victim of an act of attainder, under which he had actually suffered death. ^ This astounding statement came from no less a person than the former attorney-general, who had conducted the prosecution of Philips in the general court on the charge of robbery. Stranger still, Patrick Henry next day defended the ex- ecution of Philips under the attainder, forgetting the reg- ular trial. Randolph's motive in making his statement is evident, for he was endeavoring to discredit the Revo- lutionary government of Virginia in the interest of the new Federal plan by displaying its tyranny and arbitrary methods. He probably counted on Henry's forge tfulness of the facts, and if so he calculated well. The former gover- nor's memory had failed him as to the trial, but it was less at fault than might appear. Many irregularities had oc- curred in connection with Philips. Will had been hunted down like a mad dog under the attainder and several others suffered a like fate. A slave named Bob, belonging to the estate of James Wilson, had been tried in Norfolk court in August, 1778, convicted of treason and robbery and exe- cuted; he was in all probability a member of the Philips ^ Tucker's Blackstone, i, appendix, 293. * American Uisiorical Review, i, 449. 194 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA gang.* It may well be that Henry confused these cases with that of Philips himself. The destruction of this band quieted the uneasy south- east for a time. The sternness of the government and its evident intention to proceed to extremities in the case of actual insurrection overawed any malcontents who might have been disposed to raise the British standard. At the close of Patrick Henry's administration, the gov- ernment under the new constitution was firmly established. While the law was undergoing radical change at the hands of JefiFerson, administration did not differ much from the colonial period. This continuance of tradition was due to the council, which conducted the routine business conserva- tively and intelligently. Unfortunately, it did not realize that a reorganization of the whole administrative system was essential for a government engaged in carrying on a long and exhausting war. 1 Legislative Petitions, Norfolk (B4223). CHAPTER VIII THE FALL OP JEFFERSON No man was ever more successful in moving with the spirit of his age than Jefferson, who, by way of reward, received all the honors his country could bestow and the veneration of successive generations of his countrymen. It seems hard to realize, then, that the great exemplar of democracy in the mid-channel of his career narrowly es- caped shipwreck complete and utter. That he did escape and finally triumphed was due not to dexterity or power of will, but to his capacity for expressing the ideals of the age in which he lived. He survived, not so much because he was a skillful politician as because he was a vivid writer. Thomas Jefferson was elected governor of Virginia on June 12, 1779, succeeding Patrick Henry, the first governor under the Commonwealth, who retired to the country in broken health. Jefferson had already succeeded Henry in something more important than the oflSce itself — the leadership of the progressive or democratic party in Vir- ginia. He had changed the Revolution from a struggle for external political liberty into a movement for social re- form, and in so doing displaced Henry from his chieftain- ship. The orator had sunk into a secondary place, while Jefferson had grown to be the leading figure in the State. His election to the governorship was a tribute to his activ- ity as a revolutionist and reformer, as well as his natural reward as the head of the victorious democratic party. 196 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA At the moment of his election Jefferson wielded an in- fluence such as no Virginian had ever possessed. He had carried out great reforms in spite of conservative opposi- tion and had won the confidence and support of the great mass of poor and obscure men throughout Virginia. It is likely that the conservatives, who nominated John Page to oppose him, apprehended that his tenure of the executive chair would result in a further extension of his (to them) pernicious influence. "In a virtuous and free State," Jefferson said in his speech of acceptance, " no rewards can be so pleasing to sensible minds, as those which include the approbation of our fellow citizens. My great pain is, lest my poor endeavors should fall short of the kind expecta- tions of my country." ^ If there is a power which some- times playfully inspires merely formal utterances, turning them into prophetic, that power lay behind these words. Never were the flattering apprehensions of a successful candidate on assuming office better justified. Within the short space of two years Jefferson, in the judgment of a majority of the people, had fallen signally short of their expectations and an investigation of his administration was formally proposed in the assembly. This complete reversal of public opinion, which tumbled the democratic chieftain from his great position to the depths of apparent ruin, with impeachment in sight, re- sulted from the easy triumphs of the British arms in Vir- ginia in the latter period of the war. In what measure the patriot disasters were due to circumstances that Jefferson could not be expected to control and to what extent to his own mistakes and weakness cannot be exactly estimated, ' Journal, House of Delegates (May, 1779), 31. THE FALL OF JEFFERSON 107 but an examination of the evidence shows that he was cer- tainly not free from blame. Jefferson was bitterly censured at tlie time. Hostile critics, both conservatives and pro- gressives, did not hesitate to charge him with incapacity and neglect, leading us to believe that his own faults were at the bottom of the military collapse in Virginia in 1781. On the other hand, his worshipful admirers, such as his biographer, Randall, looking back at these events from the period of final triumph and apotheosis, insist that he was wholly the victim of circumstances, and not, in the least degree, at fault. And his conduct was viewed in a third light. In the later years of Jefferson's career, when the unsatisfactoriness of his administration in Virginia was re- membered but remembered vaguely, party writers, seeking ammunition to fire at him from their failing guns, invented the legend of his cowardice, because of his enforced flight before the British army, a legend which that writer so skilled in misrepresentation, Goldwin Smith, was glad to rake up against his memory. "As governor of Virginia in the war he had shown lack of nerve if not of courage." * The accusation of cowardice was hardly contemporary and may be dismissed, but the charge of incompetence and neg- lect was so strongly urged and generally accepted in those dark days when Virginia lay at the mercy of every invasion of the enemy, that Jefferson came within a measurable distance of the end of his political career, since imi)ressions gained in a moment of crisis, however unjust, are likely to be lasting. The question put is whether this criticism, that the governor failed to provide for the defense of the Commonwealth and allowed himself to be caught without » The United States, 135. 198 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA means of resistance, was just in the main, or whether he had done all that a man coukl be reasonably exj)ected to do, as his defenders allege, and merely earnetl the inevitable blame i)oured out on the ruling powers when a state suffers military disaster. In the first i)laee, it is necessary to note that the governor in the last years of the war had an exceptionally diflicult position to fill. After three years of constant warfare, the resources of the State, which had been expended without reserve for Washington's army, the Southern department, and other military purposes, were greatly diminished. Specie was gone, paper almost worthless, and taxation bore heavily on the peoi)le, who by this time had lost most of their enthusiasm for liberty. The conditions for making a successful resistance to the British arms were, therefore, much less favorable in 1780 and 1781 than earlier, when it is probable that an advance on Williamsburg would have met with stout opposition. Besides, the government of Virginia, unaccustomed before the Revolution to violent strains, was so imperfectly organized that administration in all departments, and particularly in the military, was exceedingly inefficient. Furthermore, the constitutional limitations of the governor's authority greatly hampered his action in all crises which might happen to coincide with a vacation of the assembly, the one powerful branch of government. The constitution-makers, in providing safe- guards against a tyranny, succeeded in furnishing the State with a weak executive to carry it through a doubtful and protracted war. Still another cause contributed to the helplessness of the State, giving the enemy a chance to march and plunder from one end to another absolutely THE FALL OF JEFFERSON 199 undisturbed. In the earlier years of the war a respectable force of senii-regtilars had been inaintained in Virginia for local defense, but in 1778, owin^ to the h)sses sustain(Ml by the Virginia reginients in the Continental line, and also, j)ossibly, to economy, the two State regiments were sent northward to complete the Continental quota; liome de- fense was left largely to the militia. When these potent facts are taken into consideration and given their full weight, it still certainly a|)i)ears that Jeffer- son did not do all that an able and practic-al man might have done to j)rei)are for invasion, for that was a calamity wliich might have been seen to be inevitable once the British began to operate on a large scale in the South. An earnest effort to contjuer the South sooner or later nmst lead to an atta(;k on the great Southern Common W(;alth; the warning was amjile and should have b(;en heeded. When the enemy did come at last, they met no opjjosition worthy of the name. The whole country lay at their mercy. Right here it is just to acquit Jefferson of neglect of duty. Few more conscientious and industrious executives ever lived; he was always engrossed in the details of his office, and if he erred, as it clearly seems he did, he erred from want of judgment and driving power rather than from any la(;k of z.eal or la!)or. His failure to arrange an adequate defense of the State was apparently due in large i)art to two causes. Foremost came Jefferson's penchant for strict constitutionalism, for strict construction ideas did not originate with the Federal Constitution, !)ut descended from the colonial period. TIh; Revolutionary War was mainly a war of strict construction [)atri()ts against broad construction imperialists. It was this exaggerated respect 200 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA for the Virginia constitution which prevented Jefferson from using strong means of doubtful legality at times when it is more expedient to go than to reflect upon the exact order of the going. The other reason for his failure to do his full duty lay in his inability to grasp the principles on which military operations are successfully conducted; to the last Jefferson was a man quite without military under- standing, a deficiency even more unfortunate when he be- came President of the United States than it had been when he was governor of Virginia. Both of these failings arose from the fact that he was a doctrinaire and not a man of action; he was a shrewd and successful practical politician and political leader, but he was anything but a good ad- ministrator. In agitation the doctrinaire need not be a man of action, for doctrinaires keep the world alive, but in war, which is the conflict of brute force, the man of action is demanded. But as it happens Moses frequently occupies the place of Joshua. Jefferson owed a great part of his success to his limita- tions, which, however, inevitably hampered him in other ways. His mind was exceedingly alert in the realm of special observation, but he formed his opinions on general questions early in life and seldom changed them. Thus, it is unlikely that the French Revolution shocked his serene faith in the ultimate truth of his political principles. Likewise, he came early to the belief that the proper defense of a free and virtuous people is in its militia rather than in trained soliders, an idea which was somewhat shaken by his unhappy Revolutionary experience, but which seems to have survived in him until the time of his Presidency. The ideal of a people rising spontaneously to defend its hearth- THE FALL OF JEFFERSON 201 stones is one thing; the reality of a mob of untrained, half- armed farmers attempting to oppose regulars is sadly different. Jefferson never understood that efficiency in war, like efficiency in everything else, is only secured by preparation. For the first year of his governorship the democratic chief had no very serious problem to face. He discharged the duties of his office faithfully, working with great zeal to support the American armies, North and South. The fragmentary records show him busy over the many matters within his sphere. They also illustrate his fundamental in- capacity as an administrator in stormy times. The chief difficulty confronting the State in 1779 was that of raising money to meet the Continental requisitions and the ex- penses of the State government; heavy taxation was re- quired. A scientifically managed government might have handled the agricultural resources at its disposal so as to remain in a more or less sound condition, though the feat would have been difficult. The Virginia treasury was in great confusion, and administration while honest was un- economical; Virginia paper depreciated much more than was necessary, for the amount was not very great in com- parison with the wealth of the State. In order to meet the emergency, various financial expedients were tried, among them the confiscation of the estates of royalists and the debts due British merchants. But in order to enforce land sales, vigorous governmental action was imperative. This was not forthcoming, as Jefferson's letter to the assembly in October, 1779, shows: — It becomes my duty to guard the Assembly against relying in their calculations for any great & immediate supplies from 202 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA hence, facts have come to our notice which give great reason to believe that the traverse and other pleadings justly allowed by the law for saving the rights of those who have real or probable appearance of right is perverted to frustrate or delay the effects, by being put in on grounds either frivolous or false and by that means throwing the subject into a course of legal contestation which under the load of business now in the doquet of the general court, may not be terminated in the present age, in one instance we are certified by the clerk of the general Court that the estate is claimed by the Steward: tho' this very man undertook to act as Commissioner of the Estate under the sequestration law by our api)ointment, & has himself personally rendered annual ac- counts to us of the ])roceeds of the estate as tlie estate of a British subject; yet his claim, palpably false as it is, in order to obtain the ceremony of being adjudged so, is to go through all the formalities of regular litigation, before the estate can be ex- posed to sale. ... I thought it my duty to guard the General Assembly against any deception in tlieir expectations from these funds. ' This letter is honorable to Jefferson in that it shows the republican magistrate determined to act with strict legality under all circumstances, but at the same time this fear of taking the initiative, this dependence upon the legislature for vigorous action in war-time had serious drawbacks. The governor could not or would not put pressure on the courts to proceed rapidly with the confiscation cases, and mean- time the State went lacking a fund which must come to it eventually and which was badly needed at the moment. Nothing could better show Jefferson's passion for legality and his incapacity for swift and direct means. The finances of the State were in bad condition. On May 20, 1780, sixteen counties of the sixty-odd had not * Executive communications, 1779. THE FALL OF JEFFERSON 203 paid the taxes due in the fall of 1779, and nine others liad returned no assessments, but had paid in i)art, while eight more liad neither returned assessments nor paid anything. In other words, thirty-three of the counties — half the State — had failed to meet their obligations, in si)ite of the fact that the demands made on Virginia for the sujjport of the Northern army were now supplemented by calls to aid the South. So bad was the financial situation that the committee of ways and means of the House of Dele- gates, on November 27, 1779, proposed radical retrench- ment : — The deranf^cd state of the army, and the ruinous situation of the navy, hath greatly enhanccul tlie expense of maintaining the one, & suhtraeted from that little defenee which was expeeted to be derived from the other; whilst the accumulated charge of both, creates an article of exi)enditure which hath already re- duced your finances to difficulty, and is too enormous to be supported. The committee recommended a reduction of the number of ships in the navy, of commands in the army and of officers, without a reduction in the number of privates. Recruiting was to cease and the existing force was to con- tinue at the least possible expense.^ Jefferson was thus forced to struggle with an economiz- ing legislature if he wished to increase or even save the Virginia military establishment. If he had so struggled and failed, the blame would not have been his, but the assembly's; as a matter of fact, he made no opposition, at least no recorded opi)osition, to this niggardly and suicidal folly. He cither bowed before the assembly's will, or, as is * Executive communications, 1779. 204 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA likely, failed to realize the importance of building up the Virginia forces; or, as is possible, he believed that the American armies could not be supported while the local defense was strengthened. If so, he paid a great price for his mistake. Yet it must be noted in justice to him that he did what he could without taking any action vigorous or aggressive enough to produce genuine results. He worked to raise and equip recruits for the South, now seriously threatened by the British, and also attempted to establish a gun-factory on the James River of a size sufficient to supply the great demand for arms. He proposed to the governors of North and South Carolina to divide the great Cherokee hinter- land into three jurisdictions, in order effectually to suppress those troublesome Indians, a much more practical solution of frontier difficulties than the sending of expeditions by the individual States against the whole scattered nation. He wrote to the French minister assuring him that prepara- tion would be made to receive and support a French de- tachment in Virginia. In a letter to Samuel Huntingdon he enumerated the difficulties of providing an adequate force even for the guarding of the Saratoga prisoners : — We liave hitherto been unable to raise more than about the half of a Battalion of infantry for guarding the Convention Troops at the same Post. The defieieneies have been endeavored to he supplied with Militia. Congress have had too much experi- enee of the radical defects and inconveniences of militia service to need any enumerating them. Our assembly, now sitting, have in contemplation to put the garrison regiment on such a footing as gives us hopes of filling it by the next summer. In the mean- time a Battalion which we are raising for our immediate defence may be spared to do garrison duty this winter, and as but a small THE FALL OF JEFFERSON 205 part of it is raised as yet, and not probable that it will be com- pleted within any short time, we sui)pose that with Co1(j. Taylor's regiment it will not exceed the number required to guard the Troops.^ Furthermore, Jefferson, on November 30, 1779, antici- pated his famous policy of later days by laying an embargo on provisions in order to avoid supplying the enemy and to secure food for the American armies. ^ This proclamation was in no wise a stretching of the gubernatorial authority, since the governor enjoyed a warrant from the assembly. In a letter to Congress about the same time he laid bare the pressing need of means of defense and apologized for retaining five thousand stands of arms intended for Con- gress, on the ground that they were sorely needed in Vir- ginia, where the arsenal had no more than three thousand muskets on hand. From this evidence it is apparent that Virginia was in a serious condition in 1779, both financially and from the point of view of military equipment, and while Jefferson zealously grappled with the great task to which he had been called, we lack in him any urgent realization of the dangers of the situation or knowledge of remedies. His messages to the assembly dealt with details, failing to convey what they should have accurately and forcefully done — an account of the weakness and unpreparedness of the State and pro- posals for drastic military measures. Jefferson enjoyed great influence with the legislature, which had elected him governor and looked to him for advice, and it probably would have extended his powers to meet the occasion or adopted effective means of raising money and supplies. 1 Writings of Jefferson (Ford), ii, 277. « Ibid., u, 281. 200 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA Anyway, he should have pleaded for a stronger poliey, and he did not do so. Not only did the governor f;iil lo understand the State's danger; he also faileower- less the constitution nuiy have endeavored to make him. It would have been a great, perhaps an imi)ossible, task to provide an adequate defense for the State, but Jefferson seems not to have nuide the effort. A situation is bad when all men feel it to be so and all men felt the situation to be bad in 1780. For one thing, elliciency in the military department was made impossible by the division t)f ad- ministration among several branches of government — the governor and council, the board of war and the assembly, which last alone had the power to do anything effective. The board of war, although entrusted with important TIIK FALL OF JEFFERSON 207 executive functions, consisted of nu niipuid connnission of tliree men. This body, jiware of tlie ^rowinj^ eriticisni of military niuna^ernent, asked the House of I)ele^at(!s in Deceinher, 1775), for pay and anthority. "^rhereiipon tlic legislature voted the board of war salaries and ordered it to report to the governor, which it had not done formerly. These ehanges do not seem to have resulUsd in any improve- ment, and the board was abolisluul at the most (critical period of 178L Finally, military affairs w(;re turned (|ver to an ex-line officer, William Davics, who condncUid them with much more ability than liad been the case; before. Board of war and governor were incapable alike in war administration. It never seems to have occurred to Jefferson that a small, well-drille Ford, n, 33S. 212 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA military' service and could still be rallied to the standards in considerable numbers by popular and energetic officers, provided they were allowed abundance of time. But it was even more apparent that the Virginia militia could not be got into the field in time to check a quickly conducted raid into the interior. This lesson the British put into practice the following year. The invader Leslie finally sailed away, giving the State a brief breathing-spell. Breathing-spell it could only be, for the intention of carrying the war into Virginia was so ap- parent that William Lee, writing from Europe, had warned Jefferson of it. But notwithstanding the fact that a return of the enemy was practically assured and might be looked for at any moment, nothing was done to provide a per- manent force of troops; the whole militia gathering was allowed to go home. It must be added, though, that the difficulty of keeping militia in the field more than a few weeks was very great. This was largely due to an absolute want of understanding of war. Men called into the army nowadays go expecting to serve for some time; men in the Revolutionary days went out to shoot their blunderbusses and rifles at the enemy if there chanced to be an enemy and then expected to return home to get in the hay. Having no knowledge of war, they could not understand that it might be well to stay in service and learn something about it. As the militia could only be brought out with difficulty and after some time, and as the government had absolutely nothing else to depend on in case of need, a speedy courier service was essential; it must get intelligence of a raid at the earliest possible hour. This courier service was needed in only one line, from Hampton Roads to Richmond, be- THE FALL OF JEFFERSON 213 cause the enemy could not make a sudden descent excejit by Cliesu,i)eiike Bay. A j)urlial and ini])crfect intcllij^cnce system liad existed earlier, but Jefferson discontinued it, so that the government had no oth(T means of f^ainin/^ infor- mation than what j)rivate j)atriotism might suj)i)ly. 'J'h(; governor's attention was drawn, in the closing weeks of 1780, to a distant and, under the circumstances, imprac- tical operation — George Rogers Clark's proposed expedi- tion against Detroit. This was designed primarily as a defensive measure for the frontier, but the frontier, while harassed by the Indians, was in nothing like so nmch danger as the east, where an English army might aj)pcar at any moment. The blow fell at last, taking Jefferson, as might have been expected, quite unawares. He received information that a fleet liad been seen off Willoughby Point two days l>efore.^ The news did not come dirf^ctly to the gov<'rnor, but to Thomas Nelscm, who intermitt(;ntly commanded tln^ mili- tia when it was in the i'nM and lived (juietly at honu; in the intervals. Jefferson, uncertain whether the fleet was French or British, procrastinated several days and failed to issue a militia call until January 2, when he got definitt; intelligences that the ships were hostik;. If, as in Octo])er, 1780, lh(; British had waltcA in the vicinity of Norfolk for a week or two and engaged in robbing near-by plantations, — which was j)roba!>ly what Jefferson expected, — there would have been time enough to raise a force of militia and give it a crude organization. But Benedict Arnold, who c:ommanded tlu; detachment, upset all calculations by mov- ing up the James River with sudi celerity as to reveal the ' Ford. n. 302. 214 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA utter unprcparcdness of Virginia. On January 4, 1781, the enemy ncarcd Richmond, and now that it was too hite Jefferson made hurried demands for the miUtia of whole counties, besides workinj^ hard to save the stores in town. He even had a horse fall under him from fatigue. The next day, January 5, the British reached the capital of Virginia, which they plundered for two days; when they had finished, they fell back down the James. Several thousand militia had at length gathered, a force which might have saved Richmond if raised a few days earlier, as Arnold's com- mand was small and com])osed of inferior troops. The enemy, without meeting molestation, slowly withdrew to Portsmouth, where they encamped. They left behind them not only ruin, but bitter humiliation. Jefferson had, with- out doubt, done his best, but tluit was not all that a clear- headed man of action might have done. "For want of in- telligence," he wrote, "may be ascribed a groat part of, if not the whole of the Enemy's late successful incursions to this place." ^ But, obviously, the government was at fault in not securing the means of gaining intelligence. In war the enemy does not come with letters of introduction. To provide for tlie invasion the governor had ordered out militia from twenty -three coimtics, amounting on paper to nearly five thousand men, though arms were lacking for a large number. Baron Steuben had now superseded Muh- lenberg as Continental commander in the State, but this was not an especially fortunate change; the foreign soldier did not imdersland the j)eculiaritics of the native Virginian and was more of a drillmaster than general or adniinislra- tor. Arnold had established himself at I'ortsmouth and was » Ford, n, 417. THE FALL OF JEFFERSON 215 always to be feared; fortunately for the Americans, the British commander-in-chief j)rcferrcd an arrogant, thick- headed rcguhilion oflicer hke PliiHips to the briUiunt traitor. Notwithstanding the grave danger threatening the State and the chaotic condition of things in Virginia, Jefferson wrote, on January 16, 1781: "It shall be my en- deavor to suffer this invasion to divert as httle as possible of our Supplies for the Southern Army." ^ This sentiment was eminently patriotic, but not equally practical. Indeed, one of the most trenchant criticisms passed on JcfFerson was that he sacrificed the Statt; for the sake of the Southern army, which was so far true that Virginia, after the junc- tion of Arnold and ('ornwallis, was in greater immediate danger than the South. The conquest of Virginia in 1781, witli her resources, would probably have meant the down- fall of the American cause. Overmastering circumstances comi)elled Jefferson to give first plac;e to home needs, and on January 19 he directed the manager of the lead mines to send all the lead on hand to Richmond instead of one half to the South as he had previously ordered.^ Even in the crisis Jefferson the legalist showed forth. The assembly had passed an act for requisitioning food, clothing, and wagons within a certain time limit. This limit had expired when the governor, in disregard, wrot its Execution though at a later Date than is prescribed. . . . The 1 Governor 'a Letter-Book (1781), 26. '•' Ibid.. 43. 216 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA Time of doing this is a Circumstance only and the Principle is sound both in Law and Policy. Substance and Circumstance is to be regarded whUe we have so many Foes in our bowels and environing us on every Side. He is a bad citizen who can enter- tain a doubt whether the law will justify him in saving his Coun- try or who will Scruple to risk himself ia support of the spirit of a Law where unavoidable Accidents have prevented a literal compliance with it. So far Jefferson would go in illegality, but no farther. On January 23, 1781, he ordered a meeting of the assembly for March 1, 1781, instead of the date to which it stood ad- journed, with an explanation of the critical condition of affairs and the desperate need of money and troops.^ Some legislative aid, he declared, was necessary for the enforce- ment of the acts for securing recruits and supplies. Acts upon acts needed to enforce anything do not bespeak a strong administration. He presently gave another illustration of his dependence on the assembly, which was more commendable in peace than in the midst of a war ever growing more doubtful and dangerous. The State's crying need was a regular mili- tary force, and efforts to fill this want, including conscrip- tion, had failed, partially because the government would do nothing harsh. A former officer in the Continental line, Alexander Spotswood, now came forward with a plan for raising a mixed command of infantry and cavalry for the State service under Continental regulations. This legion was to be called into the field for an indefinite period for in- struction and in case of actual invasion, but should remain at home on furlough when not needed.^ The plan might not have worked, but it offered a great advantage over the * Ford, 11, 434. ^ Executive ('(,mmuiiications, 1781. THE FALL OF JEFFERSON 217 militia system by providing a well-equipped force prepared to remain in service for a considerable length of time, and at least it deserved a trial in the absence of better sugges- tions. But Jefferson wrote Spotswood: — I received your favour containing a proposition for raising a Legion for the defence of the State: as there are several parts of it which are beyond the powers of the executive to stipulate I shall do myself the pleasure of laying it before the Genl. Assembly whom we have been obliged to convene on the first of March next.^ Thus was cold water thrown on a plan which might have furnished the State an organization of some value in the trying times soon to follow. Apparently Jefferson did not understand that a delay of a month or two in war-time may be a serious matter; he could not be unconstitutional in any emergency. The following weeks were full of labor for him. Greene and Cornwallis steadily moved towards Virginia and it was evident that another and much more serious invasion was imminent. Jefferson made every exertion to strengthen Greene; he summoned the militia in great numbers to join the latter and abandoned conscription for the Continental army in the mean while. The government supplied the levies with necessaries under an act imposing a tax levied in tobacco and provisions. At the same time the militia of the eastern counties was called to Williamsburg to cooperate with the French, who had put in their appearance in Chesapeake Bay. The executive message to the assembly when it met in March, 1781, outlined the situation, but made no pressing recommendations. The legislature quite 1 Letter-Book (1781), 61. 218 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA failed to rise to the need, merely ordering the raising of two legions on Sjjotswood's j)lan and creating more paper money. Jefferson, who realized the danger little better than the lawmakers, seems to have been satisfied with this entirely inadequate provision. On March 3, 1781, he showed that he had failed to grasp the situation in a letter he wrote to the North Carolina assembly : — I assure you tliat wc have been so very far from entertaining an idea of witlioldiug succours from you on account of the invasion of our State that it liad l)een determined that the regular Troops raised & not at that time marc;lied should nevertheless proceed to your assistance & that we would oppose the Army in our own country with militia.* This policy, wise enough as long as Greene stood between Virginia and Cornwallis, became highly disadvantageous when Greene elected to march South and leave Virginia to the defense of the militia, which even Jefferson by this time had somewhat lost faith in. The governor, aware that affairs were anything but right, did not know how to better them. He himself ex- plained to Lafayette the weakness of his government when the latter was ordered to Virginia as the Continental com- mander there : — Mild Laws, a People not used to prompt obedience, a want of provisions of War & means of procuring them render our orders often ineffectual, oblige us to temporize & when w'e cannot accomplish our object in one way to attempt it in another.^ "Oblige us to temporize!" This is a picture of the democratic leader afraid of sternness rather than of the strong executive who uses severe remedies for desperate • Ford. n. 479. « Ibid., u, 493. THE FALL OF JEFFERSON 219 diseases. As a matter of fact, the temper of the people until the beginning of 1781 was generally loyal, and sacrifices were often willingly made. Illustrating this is a stateiricnt of Jefferson's, made to Richard Henry Lee in connection with the power of requisitioning horses given a certain quartermaster: — lie applied for militia to aid him in the execution of the powers. We knew that an armed force to imj)ress horsc^s was nnne(;essary as it was new. Tlie fact has been, that our citizens, so far from requiring an arrne<] foret; f(jr this purj)ose, liave parted from their horses too easily, !)y deHv(;ring tli(;m to every man who .said he was riding on public business, and assumed a right of impressing.* And several months later, on May 30, 1781, Major John Nelson wrote Jefferson : — When in Carolina, I did myself the honor to write to you resp(!cting the 4th Troop of Horse wliicli was originally voted to be raised for my Corps, & afterwards disbanlican magistrate as he loved to dream it, but still he had not suc- ceeded in the difficult position of war executive, with its demands of clear insight and forcible action, and the weight ' Executive communications, 1781. * Ford, iii, 43. 224 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA of public opinion was against him. Or, as Jefferson put it in his memoirs: — From a beUef that under the pressure of the invasion under which we were then laboring, the public would have more con- fidence in a military chief, and that the military commander, being invested with civil power also, both might be wielded with more energy, promptitude and effect for the defence of the State, I resigned the administration at the end of my second year.^ It was a confession of defeat. Jefferson retired at the height of invasion and in the face of a perfect storm of hostile contention; for the time being his influence was dead. The assembly, driven from Richmond by Corn- wallis and from Charlottesville by Tarleton, hastened over the mountains to Staunton, endeavoring to find some way to save the State. The natural and obvious means sug- gesting itself was to strengthen the powers of the governor at the expense of the constitution, or to appoint a dictator, as some preferred to call it. Jefferson bitterly opposed this plan. The very thought alone [he wrotel was treason against the people; was treason against mankind in general: as rivetting for- ever the chains which bow down their necks by giving to their oppressors a proof, which they would have trumpeted through the universe, of the imbecility of republican government, in times of pressing danger, to shield them from harm.^ But the weakness of republican government in a crisis had already been displayed, or, more properly, the weak- ness of the Virginia constitution, and a temporary dicta- torship was rather in the nature of a remedy than of a reversion. Henry was suggested as dictator, along with 1 Randall, i, 346. * Ford, in, 234. THE FALL OF JEFFERSON 225 Washington and Greene and perhaps others, but the scheme failed. Jefferson states that it " wanted a few votes only of being passed," though the Journal shows no record of any kind on the subject. Possibly Jefferson was thinking of the committee of the whole rather than of the official action of the House of Delegates. It was to this dictator- ship party that Randall credits the criticisms of Jefferson nearly ending in his impeachment: the biographer would have us believe that these criticisms were designed for the purpose of getting rid of Jefferson and making way for the dictator. Such a statement carries its own refutation. The fact that Virginia had been mercilessly raided by the enemy for a year without being able to make the least retaliation and was now in actual danger of subjugation amply ex- plains the criticisms of the executive; it would have been extraordinary if he had not come in for wholesale condem- nation. To give point and shape to the attack on Mr. Jefferson [Randall goes on to say] to give it popular effect, charges were thrown out against his official conduct, on the floor, at the legis- lative meeting at Staunton, and an inquiry into his conduct was demanded. George Nicholas, one of the members from Mr. Jefferson's own county, a very honest, but at that time a very young and impulsive man, was the spokesman on this occasion.^ Nicholas, it should be noted, was not a conservative, but a man of democratic leanings, who later became one of the principal followers of Jefferson and Madison. What could be a stronger proof of the intense dissatisfaction with Jefferson's rule existing at the moment than that such a man should move an investigation? On June 12, 1781, the 1 Randall, i, 351. 226 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA House of Delegates "Resolved, That at the next session of Assembly an inquiry be made into the conduct of the Executive of this State for the last twelve months." ^ This extract from the Journal sounds brief and bald, but it is in reality of high importance. Jefferson then commanded in Virginia something of that idolatrous regard which he later received from the nation as a whole. The vote of censure, therefore, was vastly more significant in his case than it would have been in that of an ordinary official ; it was the people turning against their tribune. This was the low-water mark of Jefferson's career. With his admirers turning against him what might he hope for in the future ? For the moment he was saved by a combi- nation of circumstances. Few of the conservatives were present in this House of Delegates of less than sixty mem- l)ers; they were mostly at home in the east where the in- vasion raged. Again, the pressure of war made a lengthy investigation impossible just then and it was postponed to what was hoped would prove a more leisured season. Be- sides, Jefferson still had followers who were faithful to the death and they worked for him. Thus, the democratic chieftain escaped the danger immediately threatening him, but with prestige quite gone; for the time being the man who had been revered because he expressed the ideals of his age better than any other man suffered the imputation of lacking ordinary capacity in affairs. On the same day of the investigation motion, June V2, 1781, Jefferson's suc- cessor was elected. Randall and Girardin, both writing under Jefferson's inspiration years afterwards when the democrat had fully come into his own, labor to show that he » Journal, House of Delegates (May, 1781), 15. THE FALL OF JEFFERSON 227 might have been elected governor by the assembly for the third successive year allowed by the constitution if he had so desired — nay, more, that he was actually obliged to per- suade delegates to vote against himself in order to obtain a majority for Thomas Nelson. Says Randall: — Jefferson's friends insisted on reelecting him. His confidential friends (those who understood his feelings and unalterable de- terminations) strenuously opposed this on the ground that he had patriotically divested himself of his office to heal divisions in the Legislature, and that he ought to be allowed to carry out hia wishes; and that now, accusations having been brought against him and a hearing agreed upon, his honor required him to meet his assailants without the advantage of official position. These considerations induced a considerable body of his friends to vote for General Nelson, and it required their votes, in addition to those of the recent advocates of another man, to elect Mr. Jefferson's candidate over himself.* This may be a partially truthful statement of the case, for no man ever inspired deeper devotion than Jefferson, but at best it is highly colored. It seems probable that the governor did not desire reelection; but it also appears al- most certain that he could not have been reelected if he had. His open candidacy in all likelihood would have brought to a head the threatened investigation of his administration, from which, in the irritated and unjust state of the public mind, he must have emerged with small credit. With his customary adroitness he made the most of a trying situa- tion by declaring that he gave way, or "resigned," as he afterwards expressed it, in favor of a man conversant with military affairs. Nevertheless, Jefferson received some votes in the senate, although Thomas Nelson, Jr., was > Randall, i. 352. 228 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA easily elected governor to succeed him. Nelson's election was something in tlie nature of a revolution; for the first time since the establishment of the Commonwealth a con- servative held the chief place. First Patrick Henry, then Jefferson, — and after him his favorites might have been expected to succeed, as later in the presidential succession, but his failure as an executive changed the course of politics. In the emergency the assembly chose an amateur soldier believed to be able to cope with the emergency without regard to his views on the rights of man. That Jefferson should have been replaced by one not his follower is the best evidence of the magnitude of his defeat. The leader retired to one of his farms, thoroughly discredited for the time and no doubt with gloomy thoughts as to the future. Nor was his decline a temporary affair, as the Jeffersonian hero- worshipers maintain. He returned to Congress the fall after and went abroad as a minister for several years, thus cutting loose from Virginia politics while the humiliations the State had endured under his rule remained a matter of fresh remembrance. The effect of his removal from Virginia was remarkable. The democratic party was for the time being overborne by the conservatives, now under the leadership of Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, who had parted company with Jefferson and abandoned progressive policies. The conservative Benjamin Harrison was elected governor to succeed Nelson, who resigned after Yorktown. Lee and Henry disputed the leadership of the assembly for two years, and then in 1784 joined hands in an attempt to stay the progress of liberalism by establishing state support of religion. The conservative party, which had revived in the THE FALL OF JEFFERSON 229 reaction following Jefferson's overthrow, gave the pro- gramme hearty support and a most exciting and impor- tant political struggle followed. It, indeed, proved to be a turning-point in the history of Virginia. The conservatives failed, beaten by the spirit of the age rather than by the skill of their opponents. Jefferson, whose name was re- membered as the first great advocate of social reform, returned from France to find his party more powerful than ever and his own failure as an administrator for- gotten. Strange — the logic of history. Thomas Nelson, Jeffer- son's successor, proved to be the man for the crisis. He was a commonplace planter of some small military knowledge, much energy and great devotion to duty, and further was not handicapped by any especial veneration for the consti- tution. Although the assembly at Staunton invested the governor with greatly enlarged powers, including the right to call out the State forces at pleasure, impress every- thing necessary for military purposes, control the quarter- master's department, banish disaffected persons and con- stitute special courts, it was felt that Nelson had exceeded his warrant. He had acted with rough vigor, getting into the field a large number of militia, and, what was of more importance, raising subsistence for the French-American army at the siege of Yorktown. Later in the fall, when the surrender of Cornwallis had removed the danger threaten- ing the State, the assembly legalized Nelson's administra- tion, which had plainly been unconstitutional.^ He had been in effect what some people wanted to make Patrick Henry in 1770 and again in 1781 — a military dictator. He » Hening, x, 478. 230 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA had seized supplies and necessaries wherever he found them without regard to that constitutional check, the council, which Jefferson had always so scrupulously consulted in his acts; he had, in short, considered nothing but the imme- diate need of the hour. And he had been successful. On the other hand, Jefferson was associated with the greatest humiliation Virginia has ever known, and Virginians are proud. The State has suffered invasion and on a far greater scale than in 1781, but never again what it suffered then — war without honor. The people grew indignant when they saw a small force of the enemy marching and plundering with absolute impunity, and the government flying from place to place before a troop of cavalry. Nelson had come into power at this time of depression and within a few months led the State forces in person to the glorious victory of Yorktown. Military reputation is undoubtedly one of the greatest of American political assets. It would not have been won- derful then if Jefferson had fallen into obscurity and lived out his life in retirement and Nelson won lasting accession to office. Just the reverse happened. Nelson resigned the governorship late in 1781 and never appeared in the politi- cal field again. Jefferson returned to Virginia, a political prophet of unlimited influence, and it was his predomi- nance in Virginia which afterwards enabled him to become the founder of the Democratic Party and the third Presi- dent. All his mistakes and disasters were forgotten, only his reforms recalled. He could afford to wait in France, far from his native heath, until the time came for him to return into his own. He had no need to fight his way back to power and popularity, for his earlier career worked for him. THE FALL OF JEFFERSON 231 It was not to his activity, not to his political acuteness, not to his services in Washington's government that the great democrat owed his rehabilitation and mastery, but to the "Zeitgeist." He was identified with one of the great move- ments of the human sj)irit, and this l)eing so, his past fail- ure, with all its gall, was put out of remembrance. For had he not written : " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created e(iual ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"? CHAPTER IX SPREAD OF DISAFFECTION While loyalism was conspicuous in the cast at tlic be- ginning of tlie war, it hardly made an ai)j)carance in tlie west until the i)rol()ngati()n of the struggle began to try the patience of tlu; p(!ople. At first the frontier enthusiastically favored the Revolution and sent a large number of riflemen to swell the patriot forces. But the pressure of war, the in- terru[)tion of trade, the heavy taxes collected from back- woodsmen unaccust(mied to i)ay taxes, the worthlessness of the currency, and the vjirious Tory influen(;es brought to hear gradually taintcul the country bordering on western North Carolina and made some impression on the whole mountain region. In 1775 and 1776 Toryism was practi- cally non-existent in the west, but as 1777 wore away with- out l)ringing success to the American arms, the western country began to sliow the effects of doubt and (hscouragc- mcnt. Hamilton's loyulist proclamations, sent out from Detroit all along the frontier, made waverers, and British agents carried the royal oath of allegiance through the back settlements of Virginia and Pennsylvania and found many timid subscribers. In Augusta William Hinton raised a band of seventy- five men, to whom he administered the British oath.^ On August bS, 1777, Hinton visiird the house of one David Harned with some armed followers and indulged in much 1 Virginia Gazette, October 29, 1777. SPREAD OF DISAFFECTION 'Z'M lr('tis()iial)lc ^iiscoiiiulc, declaring' "liiiiisclf in I'avor of lli|)ears lUv, court iH>le and four other rii\i:;leaders.^ One by one the last of the Hampshire insurgents were taken or surrendered; they claiuHxl to have been n\isled through ignorance to op- pose the taxes and the draught, which was an outworn but cfTective plea. Eventually even the leaders wore pardoned. » Citlrndar of J'irginia Shift' Pa}vrs. u. iS5. « Lctler-Book (HSl), 49. » Council Journal {\1S1-Si). i\. SPREAD OF DISAFFECTION 249 The Hampshire outbreak was merely symptomatic of the discom"agement prevalent in western Virginia and of the resentment caused by war taxes and draughting; what the people endured without murmuring in the Civil War seemed an intolerable burden in the Revolution. The draughts were especially resented and met with frequent resistance. In Augusta and Rockingham the people gathered for the drawings seized the lists and destroyed them. "I don't know where this may stop," wrote Major Thomas Posey, "if there is not a timeous check, in Hanging a few, for examples to the rest." ^ But the government would shed no blood and offered a pardon to the rioters who would return to their duty. The latter thereupon surrendered the ringleaders, William Ward and Lewis Baker. In June, 1781, Augusta court found Ward and Baker guilty of levy- ing war against the Commonwealth and held them for trial by a special committee the council appointed. In Bedford also a number of men combined to defeat the draught. James Calloway, the county-lieutenant, over- awed them and imprisoned their leaders in Bedford jail. A court-martial sentenced several of them to serve six months in the army, but they all managed to escape.^ Reports from the southwest in June, 1781, stated that parties of Tories and deserters lurked in Montgomery and Washington Counties,^ and in July, William Preston de- clared that more than half of the Montgomery people were disaffected and that their numbers were growing. Wliigs could not be induced to enter militia service for fear of the Tories and Indians. ^ Calendar of Virginia State Papers, ii, 107. 2 Co7mcU Journal (1781), 115. * Calendar of Virginia State Papers, n, 184. 250 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA In the east the situation in 1781 was almost as bad. The eastern people suffered as much as the west from taxes and draughts, and, in addition, were exposed to the depreda- tions of the enemy and of quartermasters and other official and unofficial extorters. Indeed, the east offered a better opportunity for resisting the government than the west, for the presence of British troops in the former section during the greater part of the year gave encouragement to every kind of treasonable and seditious practice. There was much malingering, much shirking of duty, much secret inter- course with the enemy and some rioting and plundering, but no party or semblance of a party arose, as in North and South Carolina, to advocate the royal cause. The soli- darity of the planter class on the American side remained practically unaffected, even though the evils of war were bringing out the weakness or lack of patriotism of many individuals of that type which all the world over is apt to bow the head to whatever cause happens to have the upper hand for the time being. But such men do not found parties. The records of the year are full of accusations of treason and Toryism; overt acts were not wanting and a handful of men actually made war on their State. Trials followed and many convictions of treason, but in the end mercy in- variably triumphed, sometimes at the expense of justice. The government used great moderation in these critical months in dealing with those guilty of treason and dis- affection. There was some excuse for harshness, too. The British commanders, following the inexcusable custom they had introduced in the South, paroled unarmed citizens and threatened them with death if taken in arms against Eng- SPREAD OF DISAFFECTION 251 land at any subsequent time. Matthews seems to have been the first British commander to employ the system in Virginia; he paroled a number of Nansemond non-com- batants in 1779, and Arnold and Cornwallis greatly ex- tended it. As this practice, if systematically carried out and generally regarded, would have left it in the power of a mere raiding party of cavalry permanently to neutralize half a State, Jefferson could not, of course, put up with it. He accordingly required persons who had accepted paroles and intended to observe them to go within the British lines, where they belonged. Such action on his part was imperative; the government could not allow whole sections of the population to become paralyzed by a perversion of military usage. ^ The governor's decision put the inhabitants in the line of march of the British army in a most distressing quan- dary. Peacefulness was no protection whatever; unarmed planters and small farmers engaged in looking after their affairs and offering no pretense of resistance were forced to give their paroles not to serve in the American army at any time in the future, or were liable to be shipped off to New York to endure the horrors of the British prisons, al- most unparalleled in history. On the other hand, if they gave parole and later were called into the field with the militia, they might be executed in case of capture. Jeffer- son retorted to this threat by threatening to execute an equal number of British prisoners in his hands, and it does not appear that Cornwallis murdered any citizens of Virginia under pretext of breaking parole as he murdered unfortunate Carolinians. Jefferson further attempted to » Council Journal (1781), 11. 252 " THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA make paroling difficult by isolating British posts as much as possible. In May, 1781, he asked the assembly to pro- hibit citizens from going within a certain distance of en- campments of the enemy, and to provide a method for the speedy trial of persons caught furnishing the enemy with supplies or acting as guides. This was necessary, he de- clared, because the military authorities had no power over civilians and could not prevent people from staying in their homes and submitting to the enemy's demands in order to save their property.^ The assembly thereupon extended the jurisdiction of court-martials over civilians guilty of intercourse with the enemy. The government had an even more serious embarrass- ment in the rapidily growing spirit of lawlessness in tide- water Virginia. Jefferson wrote to Colonel Innes in May, 1781, that people in James City and York had committed acts amounting to treason and misprision of treason, al- though they had covered their tracks so well as to leave no legal proofs. He directed Innes to carry suspects before justices of the peace for ordinary legal investigation and ship them off to Richmond if so ordered by the court, but if evidence was lacking and there seemed danger of rescue simply to seize them without investigation and send them to Henrico jail. A dangerous outbreak against authority occurred on the Eastern Shore in April, 1781. This section, isolated and largely at the mercy of sea power, had al- ways contained many British sympathizers and lukewarm patriots. Besides the necessary burdens of the war, like taxes and militia drawings, the people had suffered from unceasing ravages of privateers and plunderers, who were, 1 Letter-Book (1781), 31. SPREAD OF DISAFFECTION 253 for all practical purposes, simply pirates. In addition the government allowed several successive tax levies to pile up on Accomac and Northampton taxpayers without warning, and a militia draught proved the last straw. On April 20, 1781, a mob of several thousand men, armed with clubs and poles, met at Accomac Court-House for the purpose of opposing the draught. George Corbin, the act- ing county-lieutenant, attempted to quiet the rioters, but, finding his efforts useless, postponed the drawing to a later date. On this occasion the crowd again assembled in force and refused to listen to Corbin's pleading for obedience to the law. Once more the draught was not held.^ Thereupon confusion reigned on the Eastern Shore. Leading citizens advised their neighbors not to pay taxes; tax collectors refused to make collections or hand over money already received to the commissioners; others were threatened for attempting to collect. Corbin feared to use force to restore order, but the ringleaders in the riot were tried by court-martial and sentenced to serve as soldiers for the duration of the war. The court-martial referred John Curtis and William Garrison, the only men of posi- tion among the malcontents, to the council for trial. Corbin vividly described the situation on the Eastern Shore : — With the enemy's barges continually hovering around over Sea and Bay coasts, threatening to burn and plunder all who should oppose their wicked designs. The disaffected daily in- creasing by their clandestine trade with the British at Portsmouth, their threats thrown out against all who shall fail to apply for protection and accept the proposed mercy, in the British proc- lamations, which have been industriously and artfuUy circu- lated and enforced.^ 1 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, n, 99. ^ /jj-j_^ ^^ 135_ 254 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA An even more serious occurrence followed this disturb- ance. The disaffected, who were constantly becoming bolder because unmolested by the distracted government, had taken to robbing remote plantations and attempting to gain the assistance of the slaves. A planter accidentally surprised one of the conspirators while engaged in winning over some negroes and was shot dead. This outrage was too much for the patience of the people; they rose in arms, forced a confession from a slave, and hanged three of the plunderers.^ The lynching was revenged by a descent on Pungoteague of British barges, commanded by one Robin- son and manned chiefly by negroes. A handful of local militia turned out and drove off the raiders after a brief skirmish. The latter took to their boats, followed by the militia, who continued the pursuit up Chesapeake Bay for four days and nights, but without overtaking them. The patriots retiu-ned in no complaisant humor and a court- martial proceeded to try John Lyon, rector of St. George's Parish, Accomac, for aiding the enemy and discouraging the militia from taking arms against Robinson's raiders. The case against Lyon looked bad, since he had gone on board Robinson's barge at night, though apparently un- willingly. He received a fair trial, and the sentence of five years' imprisonment imposed was strictly within the law; there could be no doubt of Lyon's open Toryism. Yet the minister bore a good character and was popular with his parishioners, some of whom petitioned the governor for a remission of his sentence to exile. John Cropper, the county-lieutenant, however, reported that Lyon deserved a halter. 2 Cropper sent the worst offenders in the Accomac ^ Calendar of Virginia State Papers, u, 340, 412. 2 Council Journal (1781). 250. SPREAD OF DISAFFECTION 255 outbreak, Lyon, John Curtis, William Garrison, and five others, as prisoners to Richmond, with a recommendation of leniency. The government was mild and changed Lyon's imprisonment to residence in the country twenty miles from Richmond, eventually allowing him to return to Accomac. The whole tidewater section was becoming distracted, a prey to raiders all along the shores of rivers and bays, honeycombed with intrigue and full of secret traitors, who were too few in number in any one place or too fearful of public sentiment to act openly. The New York privateers in Chesapeake waters paid no attention to the political views of their victims, robbing good loyalists as wilUngly as rebels. Ralph Wormeley and Philip Grymes were among the former class. Wormeley's splendid estate at Rosegill was plundered by privateersmen, who found guides and assistants in the plantation negroes. Wormeley and other sufferers from this raid appealed to Leslie, com- manding the British force at Portsmouth, to control his privateers, and Leslie returned some slaves and other stolen property.^ The privateersmen on the British side were difficult to restrain, for they were pirates in every- thing but name; they used New York as a refuge and the Union Jack as a cover for indiscriminate robbery and out- rage. They were for the most part Americans, chiefly from New York, but also from Maryland and Virginia — fisher- men, coast sailors, marine vagrants, who seized the un- rivaled opportunity for crime offered by Chesapeake Bay and its numberless inlets. In the early years of the war the Virginia navy had kept these water-thieves in check, but * Calendar of Virginia State Papers, n, 405. 256 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA the navy came to an end in the invasion at the beginning of 1781, and the pirates enjoyed full scope. Conditions in tidewater Virginia had become distressing by the summer of that year and continued so throughout 1782. Constant arrests and trials in 1781 showed the extent of disaffection and the deep public discouragement. Local militia commanders, invested with the powers of martial law, strove to suppress the discontented whom the ubi- quitous and energetic county committees had once so effectually terrorized. Cases of disaffection were numer- ous. Archibald Ritchie, of Tappahannock, the loyalist, happening to send a letter by the same messenger used by a privateer captain in Tappahannock jail, had his papers seized and sealed.^ Fauntleroy Dye, an ex-tobacco-inspec- tor of Richmond County, had fallen into the hands of the enemy in 1779 and returned home somewhat later with a considerable sum of money, which naturally excited sus- picion in the community. Dye, who had become thoroughly tainted during his captivity, began to use his influence to persuade his neighbors to resist militia calls and to hold private meetings of a doubtful character at his house. Learning this, Major Joel, with a party of mounted volun- teers, went into Richmond, arrested one Ti£Be, "a most notorious promoter of sedition," and surrounded Dye's house, where he took a few armed Tories, who had " in open contempt of the laws of their country, bid defiance to the county lieutenant, and held constant meetings of the disaffected." ^ A court-martial at Leedstown found Dye guilty of giving intelligence to the enemy and encouraging 1 Council Journal (1781), 359. 2 Calendar of Virginia State Papers, ii, 155. SPREAD OF DISAFFECTION 257 desertion, and sentenced him to prison for the period of the war. Caution was necessary to escape suspicion in the sum- mer of 1781, so general were the reports of disaffection. Because of communications carried on with the British at Portsmouth for the return of property taken by priva- teersmen, which led to suspicions of a widespread system of intelligence among loyalists, the government ordered the local authorities to arrest a number of persons along the Rappahannock and seize their papers: Ralph Wormeley, Jr., Philip Grymes, and about twenty others, some of them prominent merchants. These arrests had little effect in stemming the tide of discontent ever strengthening through the year. Amos Weeks reported from Princess Anne that there were many disaffected in the county, whom he wished to bring to justice. Thomas Newton confirmed his account: — The County of Princess Anne has neither civil or military law in it — they are striving to collect their militia — to-morrow will determine their numbers to turn out — murder is committed and no notice taken of it for want of some support up the Coun- try — a few desperate fellows go about in the sea Coasts and large Swamps and do mischief in the nights. Every one who appears active against them is the object of their fury.^ Other counties in the neighborhood were as bad. With the British established at Portsmouth and sending out detachments into the surrounding country to build posts, the natural Toryism of southeastern Virginia reappeared. Josiah Parker, the militia commander in Isle of Wight, re- ported that some there visited the enemy and that many ^ Calendar of Virginia State Papers, u, 451. 258 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA Norfolk, Princess Anne, and Nansemond people had been paroled by the British on their own request, although only- twelve men in Nansemond had actually taken arms with them. Feeling ran so high between Tories and patriots in this region that violence followed; how much it is ha^rd to say; the records speak vaguely of murder as being com- mon, but specific instances are not so easy to find. One revolting crime is recorded. A militia captain named Nott, in scouting through Nansemond, fell into an ambush set by some local Tories and was mortally wounded. The am- bushers put him in a cart and were on their way to the nearest British post when a squad of American dragoons fell upon them, retook the dying man, and captured the leader of the party, Dempsey Butler, a deserter from the militia and all-round bad character.^ Farther up the coast, in Gloucester, Sir John Peyton expressed a belief that the enemy were in communication with Gwynn's Island and Middlesex and that the people were generally inclined towards Toryism. Constant accusations of treason came to the council and many prisoners, some innocent, some unquestionably guilty. Benjamin Bronson and Warwood Burt, of York, were bailed to appear before the council on the charge of treason, and John Warden, against whom in- formation had been lodged, gave bond of twenty thousand pounds of tobacco to appear.^ On October 12, 1781, during the siege of Yorktown, the council dismissed a number of suspects on their expressing contrition and giving security to furnish each a soldier for the war. What was in some respects the most remarkable trial * Calendar of Virginia Stafe Papers, ii, 189. 2 Council Journal (1781), 212. SPREAD OF DISAFFECTION 259 case of Toryism during the Revolution was that of "Billy," a mulatto slave tried and condemned to death by Prince William court in May, 1781, "for aiding and abetting and feloniously and traitorously waging and levying war against the Commonwealth, in conjunction with divers of the same, in an armed vessel." ^ Two of the judges dis- sented on the ground that a slave, not being a citizen of the State, owed it no allegiance and so could not commit trea- son. This was a new doctrine, fruit of Revolutionary humanitarianism. Slaves had been tried and executed for treason in the colonial period; a notable case had occurred in 1710, and a slave was executed for robbery and treason in Norfolk in 1778. Mann Page, the executor of the estate owning "Billy," appealed to Jefferson for a reprieve, which was granted, and later petitioned the legislature for his pardon, on the ground that his conviction of treason was illegal. 2 The committee appointed to consider the appeal concurred, and it is probable that the slave was pardoned, though the end of the case is obscure. So far-reaching had been disaffection in Virginia that the public jail at the end of November, 1781, was filled to its utmost capacity with persons awaiting trial for political offenses. William Rose, the keeper, reported that seven men had been committed to jail on the governor's order, but that it would be impossible to keep them in so confined a space, along with the number already in prison, without endangering their lives, whereupon they were released on bail. On December 4, 1781, thirty-two loyalists captured at Yorktown and elsewhere were in the Richmond jail, * Calendar of Virginia State Papers, n, 90. * Journal, House of Delegates (May, 1781), 11. 260 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA besides other prisoners. This overcrowding in a small con- fine led the council to take measures for a jail delivery. The governor reported that the prisoners were so closely quartered that their lives were actually in danger and the council discharged them. It could afford to be magnanimous. The war was over in effect; the peril past. But that dangerous discontent and open treason were progressing in 1781 to the point of threatening the activities of the government in waging the war cannot be doubted. There was no semblance of a Tory party, but everywhere were doubt, dissatisfaction, and a disinclination to make sacrifices. The victory of Yorktown rescued Virginia from a serious situation. CHAPTER X MILITARY OPERATIONS The later military movements in Virginia have been so frequently described and in such detail that a further pro- longed study would be superfluous; yet a general account of the operations of the war cannot well be excluded from any broad narrative of the Revolution. After Dunmore's ex- pulsion the offensive operations of the Virginia govern- ment ended. Its military activities were confined to fur- nishing supplies and troops for the Continental army, and it made little effort to provide for home defense. Militia organization actually became less ejQficient as the war pro- gressed. There was need, too, for a mobile and trained militia. Virginia was not invaded for several years, but the Chesapeake was terribly raided by privateers through the entire contest and the Indians were always threatening and occasionally dangerous. The Indian menace seemed great for a moment in 1776, when both the Creeks and Cherokees were carrying on hostilities against the borders of the Southern colonies. The arrival of a British force at this moment would have made the red men's assistance valuable; the British did not come and the Americans were able to put down the Indians. South Carolina roughly suppressed the Creeks, and the three Southern colonies then turned in concert against the Cherokees who were raiding Virginia as far as |he Blue Ridge. Virginia sent out an expedition under Colonel Isaac Christian which traversed the wilderness far •262 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA into the present State of Tennessee and endured extraor- dinary hardships. It met with no resistance, however, as the Cherokees were awed by the size of the force, and, after witnessing the destruction of some of their towns, sued for peace. Christian's raid made such an impression on these savages that they remained comparatively quiet for the rest of the war. The Enghsh, absorbed in their efforts to conquer the North, had allowed their allies to be subdued without assistance. And so long as the towns of Philadelphia and New York and the line of the Hudson remained the British objective, little heed was paid to the South. It was only after Burgoyne had surrendered at Saratoga and Howe had evacuated Philadelphia that the new commander-in-chief. Sir Henry Clinton, began to meditate an attack on the prosperous and undefended South. Sooner or later a Southern war would lead to an invasion of Virginia, the chief Southern State and the natural base of supplies for armies operating in the Carolinas. The British harassed the Commonwealth with several severe raids before making it the scene of regular campaigns. Command of the sea gave them the option of selecting any point along the coast for attack, and no country could be more inviting to water expeditions than Virginia, with its deeply indented shore and its numerous broad rivers. In the realization of these facts, Clinton sent an expedition from New York in May, 1779, under Admiral Sir George Collier.^ The fleet an- chored in Hampton Roads on May 9, and Collier, with Matthews, who commanded the troops on board, lost little time in attacking Portsmouth, where the patriots * Campbell's History of Virginia, 696. MILITARY OPERATIONS 263 had built a stout log-work on the Elizabeth River dignified by the name of Fort Nelson. With usual colonial fatuous- ness in military matters, they had left it open in the rear, so that the British by landing troops behind it exposed the Americans to attack. The garrison precipitately retreated and the enemy occupied Portsmouth without fighting. From this point as a center they sent out raiding parties in various directions, one of which captured Suffolk, the chief de'pot of military supplies in Virginia. Apparently the State government selected this exposed town in the belief that Virginia enjoyed immunity from British at- tempts. A militia force of two thousand had gathered at Suffolk, but it dispersed on the approach of the redcoats. Naval stores in large quantity and thousands of barrels of pork were destroyed, and then the expedition returned to New York. The rulers at Williamsburg had made a hasty attempt to meet the raid by calling out militia and holding two thousand recruits about to be sent to the Continental army. When Collier abandoned Portsmouth, they were suflBciently reassured to forward the recruits to South Carolina along with two troops of horse. The assembly passed a totally ineffective act for raising forty-five hun- dred volunteers by way of salving its conscience and gave the question little further thought. It did go so far, how- ever, as to ask for a detachment of the French fleet to guard the unprotected Chesapeake waters. If this request had been granted, the State would have escaped losses from privateers and organized raids like Collier's which finally came to endanger the American cause. But the French fleet was kept at Newport, where it accomplished 264 THE REVOLUTION IN VIRGINIA notliing, while Virginia was left oi)en to assaults by forces of any si/e. In October, 1780, a British expedition of three thousand men conunanded by General Leslie landed at Portsmouth. Leslie was not primarily engaged in raiding, but in estab- lishing communication with Cornwallis in the Carolinas, and his ravages were not widespread. After a stay of about a month at Portsmouth and Sulfolk, he sailed for South Carolina to reinforce CA)ru\vallis. Militia in considerable numbers had gathered to oppose him, but according to the customary hand-to-mouth method of the Virginia govern- ment it disi)ersed on the disappearance of the immediate clanger. Collier's and Leslie's unopposed occupation of Virginia ports [)rei)ared the way for a much more serious enterj)rise; the State's evident helplessness encouraged the British to push raids into the interior. Clinlon chose Bene- dict Arnold to connnand the next expedition, which en- tered the Virginia Capes on December 30, 1780. Instead of stoi)[)ing at Portsmouth as the British com- manders had done j)reviously, Arnold boldly stood up the James with his force of sixteen hundred men. There was no army to op|)ose him; the j);itri()ts had thrown u]) earth- works at points along the river, an^ ^^i*,^^'^^ .r:^ <:>.^'*-\c^ rO^ \:^K^^^ <^^^ A .% ^^^^ •'%, .,.,v %0' ti .i' '.>i:;^- -% s ^ ^0^ % % s^ .0^ _:?- G^ . •:/' ^ "-^^li^' X* -0.1 '•P. 0< •> '^\'^ c,^ -^^ 0^ rO * .i ■:('■.. '■' .0^\.-o, ^^ ^0 Of ^ <^:'^"^^\/.^-'^,< A^ 0^ .' .. ^^ 0^ .v.. tCV .^ dc '^^o^ =^^0^ * ' ^^ n^ %-a< ^^^^- # %..^^ : ^-t^ % ,^V ^^ ^q^, ^^^ . -r^^ .,^ C'^'-'"e.i'%.'''^ * -co \.^^ V* A .^ ^- * <5. ^^ ^v^-^'v-= ^^ :W-:,' \.^ .vvv= v/ ,.„ % ^^ -^ 0^ ,0^ ,.^^ ^ '. c^^^ >:^' Q vv/: A't '<>^.^^ ,v .---^^' ^-.r:^ :--'^^"-^