An even more significant indication of the shift in power in the government was the provision in one of the acts of the a.s.sembly of 1643 that appeals from the General Court (composed of the Governor and Council, all appointees of the Crown) should be made to the Grand a.s.sembly (composed of the representatives of the people plus the Governor and Council).
Still another demonstration of the _de facto_ shift in power from the Crown to the people was the third act of the 1643 a.s.sembly which declared that the Governor and Council "shall not lay any taxes or impositions upon this collonie their lands or comodities otherwise then by the authority of the Grand a.s.sembly to be leavied and imployed as by the a.s.sembly shall be appointed." The first such law had been pa.s.sed in March 1624 and renewed in February 1632. The process of wresting control of the purse strings from the representatives of the Crown was to be a long-drawn-out process in America, as indeed it was in England. In Virginia the battle was won without a fight either because the Governors were unable to oppose the power of the Burgesses or because they identified their interests with those of the people. In the case of the rights won by the people of Virginia during Sir William Berkeley"s governorship, these seem to have been the results as much of the Governor"s benevolence as of the Burgesses" power.
The colony also took its economic welfare into its own hands in the early years of Berkeley"s administration. Dutch traders were encouraged by an act which made it free and lawful for any Dutch merchant or shipowner to bring merchandise into the colony and to take tobacco out of it. Means were provided to ease the difficulty caused by the requirement that the Dutch give security for payment of the King"s customs at the port of London.
THE GREAT Ma.s.sACRE AND INDIAN WAR, 1644-1646
On April 18, 1644, occurred the second great Indian ma.s.sacre in Virginia"s history. Opechancanough, King of the Pamunkey Indian confederation, planned and executed the ma.s.sacre, which most historians attribute to the steadily increasing pressure exerted by the English on the Indians" lands. The white population had increased from 3,000 in 1630 to 8,000 in 1640, and more were pouring in yearly. Nearly four hundred English, living in exposed areas of the colony, reportedly lost their lives in the ma.s.sacre. The gallant young Berkeley, as proficient a soldier as he was a playwright and courtier, struck back hard at the Indians. The entire colony was put on a war footing. Campaigns, usually by small mobile forces, were conducted against the Indians where they could be found. The June a.s.sembly pa.s.sed an act for "perpetuall warre with the Indians" promising to "pursue and root out those which have any way had theire hands in the shedding of our blood and ma.s.sacring of our people."
As in the case of so many Indian wars, there was a difference of opinion as to which Indian nations were guilty of the attack. The a.s.sembly"s act attempted to restrict reprisals to those who had actually perpetrated the ma.s.sacre. Some individuals, however, like Col. William Claiborne, seem to have desired to extend the reprisals to the Indians living between the Rappahannock and the Potomac, where the land interests of Claiborne and others were concentrated at this time.
Little progress was made in defeating the enemy in the early months of the war. The a.s.sembly, meeting in June 1644, foreseeing ruin and desolation unless the colony could be furnished with a greater supply of arms and ammunition, entreated Governor Berkeley to return to England and implore His Majesty for a.s.sistance to the country. The a.s.sembly also commissioned Mr. Cornelius Lloyd as agent for the colony to obtain what supplies he could from the Dutch plantation in Hudson"s River, from the Swedish plantation on the Delaware, and from the New England settlements.
It does not seem, from the records available, that either mission was successful. Governor Berkeley found England involved in full-scale war between the forces of the King and those of Parliament. Instead of receiving aid from the King, Berkeley lent his own a.s.sistance to the King"s cause in his English campaigns. Berkeley returned to Virginia a year later.
The mission of Virginia"s agent to the northern colonies apparently met with similar lack of success. Governor John Winthrop of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay attributed the ma.s.sacre to Virginia"s expulsion of certain "G.o.dly ministers" sent from New England a short time before, and told the Virginia agent that Ma.s.sachusetts could not spare the powder requested.
When Ma.s.sachusetts" princ.i.p.al powder store shortly thereafter blew up, Winthrop wondered whether G.o.d"s wrath might not have been kindled against the Bay Colony for her refusal to provide powder to fellow Englishmen in need.
The war with Opechancanough continued throughout the fall and winter of 1644 and into the spring of 1645. At the a.s.sembly of February 1645 provision was made for sending out the usual military parties. But in addition three forts were ordered built: one in the Pamunkey territory, one at the falls of the James, and a third along the Chickahominy.
Efforts were made to see that the expenses of the war were equitably shared. The settlers at Northumberland, on the south bank of the Potomac, were ordered to contribute to the cost of the war on the north side of the James. Chickacoan, as the area was known at first, had served for several years as a rallying point for Protestants disaffected with the government of Lord Baltimore, but this was the first official notice of the settlement by the Virginia a.s.sembly. Settlement along the Potomac was significant, of course, because it placed a body of citizens farther from effective control than any had been in the past. It had been hard enough for Harvey to control the citizens on the south side of the York River; now two broad rivers, the York and Rappahannock, lay between the frontier settlements and Jamestown.
The a.s.sembly of February 1645 found time to deal with matters other than the conduct of the war. It pa.s.sed an act providing "That Free trade be allowed to all the inhabitants of the collony to buy and sell at their best advantage." Because some questions had been asked by the merchants of London concerning a rumored prohibition of trade with them, it was thought fit to explain that Virginia"s free trade extended to them as to other Englishmen.
Following Sir William Berkeley"s return from England June 7, 1645, vigorous measures were taken to end the protracted war with Opechancanough, and a new a.s.sembly was called to reform abuses which had sprung up. This a.s.sembly met in November and pa.s.sed reform laws which demonstrate the concern Berkeley had for satisfying all the legitimate grievances of the people. Action was taken against innkeepers who charged unreasonable rates and fraudulently mixed their wines and liquors with water. Similar action was taken against millers who overcharged the people. Attorneys at law who charged fees for their services were expelled from office, the colony having become outraged at their exactions. The prohibition against professional attorneys continued for a number of years before it was finally relaxed. Strict regulations were inst.i.tuted to curb the abuses of administrators of deceased persons and orphans. Because of the trouble and charge to plaintiffs and defendants of coming to Jamestown to attend the General Court, county courts were allowed power to try all causes at common law and equity. The tradition that appeals should lie from county courts to the General Court and from the General Court to the a.s.sembly was reaffirmed. General poll taxes, which had been reintroduced, were abolished on the grounds that they were "inconvenient" and had "become insupportable for the poorer sorte to beare." All levies were ordered to be raised "by equall proportions out of the visible estates in the collony." Exemptions from taxation extended to members of the Council were canceled for the duration of the war. It is not hard to imagine the praise that would have been heaped on the initiator of such reforms, had it seemed that they were the result of a democratic uprising.
In March 1646 the a.s.sembly met again. The policy of building forts had evidently been considered successful enough to encourage the a.s.sembly to order another, Fort Henry, constructed at the falls of the Appomattox for the defense of the inhabitants on the south side of the James River and to deprive the Indians of their fishing in the area. The war had been going on for a year and a half and the enemy forces were still not destroyed. The a.s.sembly, considering the vast expense that the conflict had caused and considering "the almost impossibility of a further revenge upon them, they being dispersed and driven from their townes and habitations, lurking up and downe the woods in small numbers, and that a peace (if honourably obtained) would conduce to the better being and comoditie of the country," authorized Capt. Henry Fleet, the colony"s interpreter, and sixty men, to go out and try to make a peace with Opechancanough. If they could not make such a peace, they were to erect a fort on the Rappahannock River or between it and the York.
The "break" in the war came with the daring capture of Opechancanough himself by Governor Berkeley. Berkeley, who frequently led the troops of the colony in the field, was apprised of the Indian leader"s whereabouts, and with characteristic boldness led a troop of men in a raid on his headquarters. The raid was successful: Opechancanough was captured and brought back to Jamestown. The old chief, said to be over 100 years, acted the part of Emperor of the Indian confederation with grave dignity. The historian Robert Beverley tells us that one day the nearly blind warrior heard "a great noise of the treading of people about him; upon which he caused his eye-lids to be lifted up; and finding that a crowd of people were let in to see him, he call"d in high indignation for the Governour; who being come, Opechancanough scornfully told him, that had it been his fortune to take Sir William Berkeley prisoner, he should not meanly have exposed him as a show to the people." Berkeley accepted the rebuke, and ordered him treated with all the dignity due his position as the leader of many Indian nations.
Unfortunately the life of Opechancanough was shortly after snuffed out by one of his guards who shot him in the back, despite his defenseless condition.
Peace was concluded with Necotowance, Opechancanough"s successor, by the first act of the October 1646 a.s.sembly. The treaty is a doc.u.ment of historic importance. Under its provisions Necotowance acknowledged that he held his kingdom from the King of England and that his successors might be appointed or confirmed by the King"s Governors. Twenty beaver skins were to be paid to the Governor yearly "at the going away of the geese" in acknowledgment of this subjection. Necotowance and his people were given freedom to inhabit and hunt on the north side of York River without interference from the English, provided that if the Governor and Council thought fit to permit any English to inhabit the lower reaches of the peninsula, where land grants had been made before the ma.s.sacre, Necotowance first should be acquainted therewith. Necotowance in turn surrendered all claim to the land between the falls of the James and the York rivers downward to Chesapeake Bay. Indians were not allowed on this land unless specially designated as messengers to the English. Similarly it was a felony for an Englishmen to repair to the north side of the York River except temporarily under special conditions authorized by the Governor.
The significance of the treaty lies in the fact that the Indians were to be treated as equals, with equal rights to live on the land with the English and to enjoy the rights of human beings. They were no longer considered as vermin to be exterminated whenever the opportunity presented itself. For the first time in Virginia"s history, the Indian was considered to have an unquestioned legal right to the land. The setting aside of a reservation for the Indians into which English intrusion was forbidden marked the end of the "perpetual enmity" policy of earlier days. When differences arose, they might still be settled by peace or by war, but the right of either side to exist would not be questioned.
Despite the improvement in the status of the Indian nations occasioned by the treaty of 1646 it proved impossible to preserve their rights in the face of the enormous increase in English population. The fate of the eastern Indians proved identical to the fate of their western brothers in the nineteenth century, when white population increased around the areas set aside for Indian occupancy. But in Virginia the attempt was made to establish a fair settlement, and Governor Berkeley honestly and courageously labored to keep faith with the Indians, even though he lost popularity and eventually his position as a result.
The a.s.sembly of October 1646 also provided for the maintenance of the forts built during the war. This was done by granting the land on which they were built, plus adjoining acres, to individuals who would guarantee to maintain the forts and to keep a certain number of men constantly on the place. By this method the valuable forts of the colony were preserved, yet the people were spared the heavy taxes that would normally have been necessary to maintain them.
The a.s.sembly made further provision that those who had settled along the Potomac in Northumberland should not be allowed to avoid taxes as they had done during the war. The English in this remote area had evidently ignored the act of the February 1645 a.s.sembly which attempted to tax them, and followed instead their own interests, free from any effective control by Virginia"s government during the conflict with Opechancanough.
Finally the October a.s.sembly enacted the strictest and most democratic voting law ever made in Virginia. Not only were all freemen (as well as covenanted servants) allowed to vote, but they were fined 100 pounds of tobacco for failing to do so. This act seems to have continued in effect until 1655 when the a.s.sembly prohibited freemen from voting unless they were also householders.
THE ADMINISTRATION OF BERKELEY IN 1647-1648: TRADE AND EXPANSION
Following the war Virginia returned to its two great peacetime interests--trade and expansion. In the a.s.sembly of April 1647 Berkeley, the Council, and the Burgesses joined in a declaration which reveals the extent to which the colony relied on Dutch traders. It noted that "absolute necessities" had caused earlier a.s.semblies to invite the Dutch to trade with the inhabitants of Virginia, "which now for some few yeares they have injoyed with such content, comfort and releife that they esteeme the continuance thereof, of noe lesse consequence then as a relative to theire being and subsistence." Rumors had been raised, the declaration went on, that by a recent ordinance of Parliament, all foreigners were prohibited from trading with any of the English plantations "which wee conceive to bee the invention of some English merchants on purpose to affright and expell the Dutch, and make way for themselves to monopolize not onely our labours and fortunes, but even our persons." The declaration noted the baneful effects on the colony of the greed of the English merchants and pointed out that by ancient charter and right the inhabitants of Virginia were allowed to trade with any nation in amity with the King. It would be inconceivable that Parliament would abridge this right "especially without hearing of the parties princ.i.p.ally interested, which infringeth noe lesse the libertye of the Collony and a right of deare esteeme to free borne persons: _viz._, that no lawe should bee established within the kingdome of England concerninge us without the consent of a grand a.s.sembly here."
But since they had heard nothing officially concerning the rumored act, "wee can interprett noe other thing from the report, then a forgerye of avaritious persons, whose sickle hath bin ever long in our harvest allreadye." To provide for Virginia"s subsistence the Governor, Council, and Burgesses ordered that the right of the Dutch nation to trade with Virginia be reiterated and preserved, and her traders given every protection.
Virginia"s other great problem, that of unregulated expansion, was dealt with by the Grand a.s.sembly of November 1647 in an extraordinary way. The Governor, Council, and Burgesses ordered that persons inhabiting Northumberland and "other remote and straying plantations on the south side of Patomeck River, Wic.o.komoko, Rappahannock and Fleets Bay" be displanted and removed. They justified this act on the basis of frequent instructions from the King to Berkeley and the Council directing that the planters not be allowed to scatter themselves too widely, and also because they considered such settlement "pernicious" and "destructive"
to the peace and safety of the colony, animating the Indians to attack, and thus imbroiling the country in troublesome and expensive wars. Since winter was approaching, the inhabitants were allowed one year to remove themselves to the south side of York River.
The same session of the a.s.sembly authorized Capt. Edward Hill and others to establish, at the head of Rappahannock River, a military and trading outpost which was deemed valuable to the peace and safety of the colony.
Hill and his a.s.sociates were to provide forty men to man the fort which was not to exceed five acres at most, on pain of having the grant revoked.
It was a brave and sensible policy which Berkeley and the a.s.sembly pursued, but one that was destined to be overridden by the power, self-interest, and numbers of the thousands of new members of the colony, both those being born in Virginia in ever-increasing numbers, and those who had left behind them the civil strife of England. In less than a year the a.s.sembly enacted that the tract of land between the Rappahannock and Potomac rivers should be called Northumberland and that it should have power to elect Burgesses. The reasons of "state" that had convinced the a.s.sembly of November 1647 to order the utter dissolution of the Northumberland settlements were thus thrown to the winds by the next a.s.sembly. No doubt the pressure of the inhabitants, would-be inhabitants, and speculators, in addition to the difficulty of enforcing the decision, caused the repeal of the act. The restraining hand of the Governor was never again to be felt as it had been in the period following the 1646 peace. The explosive growth of settlement in Virginia had proved impossible to control.
The justification of the settlement south of the Potomac River was not the only victory of the people in the a.s.sembly of October 1648. Upon the representation of the Burgesses to the Governor and Council complaining of the worn-out lands and insufficient cattle ranges of the earlier settlements, the Governor and Council, after long debate, joined the Burgesses in authorizing settlement on the north side of the York and Rappahannock rivers. The act declared, however, that "for reasons of state to ... [the Governor and Council] appearing, importing the safety of the people in their seating," no one was to go there before the first of September of the following year. Surveys of the area were allowed at once, however, and land patents were authorized to be taken out. The act making it a felony to go to the north side of York River was repealed.
The settlers" and speculators" victory was complete. Reasons of "policy"
and "state" proved only of sufficient power to delay the inevitable.
EXECUTION OF CHARLES I AND CAPTURE OF COLONY BY PARLIAMENTARY FORCES, 1649-1652
On January 30, 1649, King Charles I was beheaded by the Parliamentary forces. It was a logical climax to the turmoil into which English inst.i.tutions and values had been cast by the long years of civil war that preceded the deed. The execution of the King shocked Englishmen as well as foreigners. The reaction of the Virginians came in the form of Act I of the a.s.sembly of October 1649 which hailed "the late most excellent and now undoubtedly sainted king," denounced the perpetrators of the deed, and declared that if any person in the colony should defend "the late traiterous proceedings ... under any notion of law and justice" by words or speeches, such person should be adjudged an accessory _post factum_ to the death of the King. Anyone who expressed doubt, by words and speeches, as to the inherent right of Charles II to succeed his father as King of England and Virginia, was likewise to be adjudged guilty of high treason.
The death of Charles I left the Parliamentary forces supreme in England.
Some royalists retired to the continent of Europe, and some came to Virginia. England became a Commonwealth without a King; Oliver Cromwell was later named Protector. The new government, after consolidating its power in England, attempted to extend its control over the colonies, some of which, like Virginia, continued to demonstrate their loyalty to royal authority. On October 3, 1650, Parliament, as a punitive measure, prohibited the trade of the colonies with foreign nations except as the Parliamentary government should allow. "This succession to the exercise of the kingly authority," wrote Jefferson later, "gave the first colour for parliamentary interference with the colonies, and produced that fatal precedent which they continued to follow after they had retired, in other respects, within their proper functions."
The reaction of the Virginia Burgesses to this act was as violent as their reaction to the beheading of Charles I. Their temper on both occasions owed much to the eloquence of their Governor, and to the admiration in which he was held by the people. In March 1651 they met to consider the Parliamentary threat to their beliefs and to their livelihood. Sir William Berkeley spoke to them on the subject of Parliament"s claim to speak for the English nation. Said the Governor:
If the whole current of their reasoning were not as ridiculous, as their actions have been tyrannicall and bloudy, we might wonder with what browes they could sustaine such impertinent a.s.sertions: For if you looke into it, the strength of their argument runs onely thus: we have laid violent hands on your land-lord, possessed his manner house where you used to pay your rents, therfore now tender your respects to the same house you once reverenced.... They talke indeed of money laid out on this country in its infancy: I will not say how little, nor how centuply repaid, but will onely aske, was it theirs?... Surely Gentlemen we are more slaves by nature, then their power can make us if we suffer our selves to be shaken with these paper bulletts, and those on my life are the heaviest they either can or will send us.
Berkeley was confident that if Virginia put up a determined resistance, the new English rulers would beg the colony to trade with them. He compared the state of England with the state of Virginia, to the disadvantage of the former. The Parliamentary government of England, he a.s.serted, did not represent the will of the people who would not endure their "slavery, if the sword at their throats did not compell them to languish under the misery they howrely suffer." As for Virginia, "there is not here an arbitrary hand that dares to touch the substance of either poore or rich." Berkeley called on the Burgesses to support his stand against the act, asking:
What is it can be hoped for in a change, which we have not allready?
Is it liberty? The sun looks not on a people more free then we are from all oppression. Is it wealth? Hundreds of examples shew us that industry and thrift in a short time may bring us to as high a degree of it, as the country and our conditions are yet capable of: Is it securely to enjoy this wealth when gotten? With out blushing I will speake it, I am confident theare lives not that person can accuse me of attempting the least act against any mans property. Is it peace?
The Indians, G.o.d be blessed round about us are subdued; we can onely feare the Londoners, who would faine bring us to the same poverty, wherein the Dutch found and relieved us; would take away the liberty of our consciences, and tongues, and our right of giving and selling our goods to whom we please. But Gentlemen by the Grace of G.o.d we will not so tamely part with our King, and all these blessings we enjoy under him; and if they oppose us, do but follow me, I will either lead you to victory, or loose a life which I cannot more gloriously sacrifice then for my loyalty, and your security.
The speech being ended the House of Burgesses, unanimously with the Governor and Council, agreed to reject the Parliamentary act of October 3, 1650, as illegal, and to continue in allegiance to King Charles II, always praying for his restoration to the throne and for the repentance of those who, "to the hazard of their soules" opposed him. The a.s.sembly proclaimed that they would continue to trade freely with all persons of whatever nation who came to trade with them, not excluding the Londoners.
This a.s.sertion of Virginia"s traditional freedom and rights was, of course, a direct challenge to the Parliamentary government. In the fall of 1651 that government determined to chastise the rebellious colony and subject it by force. A fleet was dispatched in October to conquer Virginia and Barbados, another rebellious colony. Robert Dennis, Richard Bennett, Thomas Stegge, and William Claiborne were chosen commissioners to take over the government of Virginia once it had been conquered.
Bennett and Claiborne were living in Virginia at the time.
Part of the fleet arrived in Virginia waters in January 1652. Berkeley called upon the people to prepare for resistance. One thousand troops, it is said, gathered in James City for the purpose. Five hundred Indian allies of the colony promised their aid. Berkeley denounced the leaders of the Parliamentary expedition as b.l.o.o.d.y tyrants, pirates, and robbers.
He warned the Virginians that, if they did not repel the attack, their land t.i.tles would be thrown into doubt and they would be brought under a company of merchants who would order them at their pleasure and keep them from trade with all others. To counteract the Governor"s influence, the Parliamentary commissioners circulated letters and declarations throughout the country denying any such evil intentions. Finally, on January 19, they sent a summons to the Governor and Council to surrender, and set sail from the lower reaches of the James to Jamestown. A milder answer than expected was returned, setting forth various demands and privileges desired by the Virginians.
The commissioners" reply to these proposals was favorable enough to cause Berkeley to call an a.s.sembly, and negotiations were entered into between the Governor, Council, and Burgesses on the one hand, and the Parliamentary commissioners on the other. Articles of submission were agreed upon which were honorable to both sides, Virginia receiving guarantees of the privileges of freeborn people of England, authority for the Grand a.s.sembly to continue to function, guarantees of immunity for acts or words done or spoken in opposition to Parliament, guarantees of the bounds of Virginia, of the fifty-acre headright privilege, and of the right to "free trade as the people of England do enjoy to all places and with all nations according to the lawes of that commonwealth."
Special provisions were made which allowed the Governor and Council to refrain from taking any oath to the Commonwealth for one year and guaranteed them for one year from censure for speaking well of the King in their private houses. Berkeley and the Council were given leave to sell their estates and quit Virginia, either for England or Holland. No penalties were to be imposed on those who had served the King.
The commissioners of Parliament considered that they had been lucky to reduce the colony without bloodshed, even though forced to agree to such mild terms. At the same time the event suggests that the bitterness which existed in England between Roundheads and Cavaliers was not quite so extreme in the colonies, where little blood had been shed for the cause of either. The colonies had interests of their own which ran counter to those of the mother country, whether in the hands of King or Parliament. Governor, Council, and Burgesses in Virginia were closer to each other economically and politically than they were to their respective counterparts in England. What held the colonies to the mother country was not self-interest but ties of historical tradition and racial patriotism. The execution of Charles I and seizure of the colony by the Parliamentary fleet loosened these ties. The Crown, symbol of continuity with past ages of English subjects and of unity among all the King"s realms, was now not only removed but denounced by those who had done the deed.
Virginia never showed sympathy for those who had killed the King, and the a.s.sembly took to heart Governor Berkeley"s warning of 1651 that the blood of Charles I "will yet staine your garments if you willingly submit to those murtherers hands that shed it." It is true that following the surrender the Parliamentary commissioners agreed with the representatives of the people on a provisional government for Virginia, but the bonds that held Virginia to England had lost much of the cement of love and tradition. Local and self-interest were now to dominate to a great extent Virginia"s actions. Such motives had always been latent, and indeed active. But under royal government, the Governor could often exert a countervailing force to prevent such interests from overriding the interests of nation and morality.
Under the terms of the settlement the Grand a.s.sembly was to continue to function, and the a.s.sembly and commissioners agreed that Richard Bennett, one of the commissioners, should act as Governor for a year. It was expected that orders would shortly arrive from England establishing new patterns of government. Such instructions were especially necessary to determine the role and authority of the Governor and Council, formerly appointed by the King. The new rulers in England were made aware of the need for a new policy for the colonies, but they never found time to make the necessary decisions. At intervals the colonists were informed that Cromwell had not forgotten them and that His Highness would soon let them know his pleasure. But instructions never came except spasmodically and inadequately. The merchants who stood to gain from the Navigation Act of 1651, which generally excluded foreign ships from the colonies and attempted to restrain colonial trade with foreign countries, complained at the failure of the colonists to obey the act and demanded that orders be sent to enforce it, but no adequate provisions were ever made.
Thus the colony was left to its own devices during the period. Virginia traders paid little attention to Parliamentary restrictions on their commerce. They insisted that the provision of the Articles of Surrender allowing them free trade with all nations according to the laws of the Commonwealth did not prevent them from trading with foreigners. They argued that since the first article of the surrender agreement guaranteed them the rights of freeborn Englishmen, an act discriminating against them in matters of trade because they happened to live in the colonies was illegal. Dutch ships called often, though perhaps not so frequently as some have believed, and individual Virginians traded as they pleased with the Dutch and English colonies in America.