to that of the other settlers. The states of Ohio and Michigan, and even a large part of the state of New York, offer striking instances of this moral superiority acquired by the people of New England; but it would be wrong thence to conclude that their own habits do not undergo an important metamorphosis, or that, in their new relations in the western states, they merely act as reformers, without being, in turn, influenced by the character of their fellow settlers. The change, however, is altogether for the better. Their patriotism, instead of being confined to the narrow limits of New England,

a fault with which they have been reproached as early as the commencement of the revolutionary war, partakes there more of a national character. The continued intercourse with strangers from all parts of the world, but more particularly from the different states of the union, serve in no small degree to eradicate from their minds certain prejudices and illiberalities with which they have but too commonly been reproached by their brethren of the south. Tolerance, the last and most humane offspring of civilization, is, perhaps, the only virtue of which the New Englander is usually parsimonious; but even this seems to improve and to thrive in the western states; and I have no hesitation to say, that, in this respect, the inhabitants of those districts are by far more emancipated than those of the Atlantic states, whatever advantages the latter may possess with regard to refinement of manners. I know of no better specimen of human character than a New Englander transferred to the western states."

p. 70, n. 2: History of Hillsdale County, Michigan, by Evarts and Abbott (1879), p. 243.

p. 72, n. 1: Essay on Wealth by Ralph Waldo Emerson.

p. 73, n. 1: See History of the United States by Henry Adams (18891917), Vol. 1, p. 115.

p. 73, n. 2: With Americans of Past and Present Days by J. J. Jusserand (1916), p. 68.

p. 74, n. 1: History of the United States by Henry Adams (1889-1917), Vol. 1, pp. 115-117.

p. 75, n. 1: Beginnings of the American People by Carl Becker (1915), pp. 179, 180.

p. 75, n. 2: History of the United States by Richard Hildreth (1848–1852), Vol. 2, p. 378.

p. 77, n. 1: The Winning of the West by Theodore Roosevelt, Dakota Edition (1908), Vol. 1, p. 121.

p. 78, n. 1: The Old World in the New by Edward A. Ross (1914), p. 13. p. 78, n. 2: Frederick J. Turner in the Settlement of the New West said: "New England, after the distress following the War of 1812 and the

hard winter of 1816-1817, had sent many settlers into western New York and Ohio; the Western Reserve had increased in population by the immigration of Connecticut people; Pennsylvania and New Jersey had sent colonists to southern and central Ohio, with Cincinnati as the commercial centre. In Ohio the settlers of middle-state origin were decidedly more numerous than those from the South, and New England's share was distinctly smaller than that of the South. In the Ohio legislature in 1822 there were thirty-eight members of middle-state birth, thirty-three of southern (including Kentucky), and twenty-five of New England. But Kentucky and Tennessee (now sufficiently settled to need larger and cheaper farms for the rising generation), together with the up-country of the South, contributed the mass of the pioneer colonists to most of the Mississippi Valley prior to 1830. Of course, a large fraction of these came from the Scotch-Irish and German stock that in the first half of the eighteenth century passed from Pennsylvania along the Great Valley to the up-country of the South. Indiana, so late as 1850, showed but ten thousand natives of New England, and twice as many persons of southern as of middle-states origin. In the history of Indiana, North Carolina contributed a large fraction of the population, giving to it its 'Hoosier' as well as much of its Quaker stock. Illinois in this period had but a sprinkling of New Englanders, engaged in business in the little towns. The southern stock, including settlers from Kentucky and Tennessee, was the preponderant class. The Illinois legislature for 1833 contained fifty-eight from the South (including Kentucky and Tennessee), nineteen from the middle states, and only four from New England. Missouri's population was chiefly Kentuckians and Tennesseeans." Rise of the New West (1906) in The American Nation Series, Vol. XIV, pp. 143, 144. A. M. Simons in Social Forces in American History (1920) says (pp. 191, 192) "Stephen A. Douglas, discussing the admission of Kansas in the United States Senate, February 29, 1860, spoke as follows of the immigration into Illinois prior to 1830: 'The fact is that the people of the territory of Illinois, when it was a territory, were about all from the southern states, particularly from Kentucky and Tennessee. The southern end of the state was the only part at first settled. . . . The northern part . . . was then in the possession of the Indians, and so were northern Indiana and northern Ohio; and a Yankee could not get to Illinois at all, unless he passed down through Virginia and over into Tennessee and Kentucky. The consequence was that 99 out of 100 of the settlers were from the slave states."

p. 78, n. 3: Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed. (1911), Vol. XXIV, p. 430. p. 80, n. 1: Old Virginia and Her Neighbors by John Fiske (1901), Vol. 2, P. 457.

p. 81, n. 3: By reason of the unjust laws restricting and even prohibiting trade in the American Colonies it was considered no reproach to smuggle. Faulkner says, "It was estimated that in 1700 one-half of the trade of Boston was in violation of the law. David A. Wells, writing on the American Merchant Marine in Lalor's Cyclopædia of Political Science, says of the colonial merchants, 'Nine-tenths of their merchants were smugglers. Onequarter of all the signers of the Declaration of Independence were bred to commerce, to the command of ships and to contraband trade. Hancock, Trumbull (Brother Jonathan), and Hamilton were all known to be cognizant of contraband transactions and approved of them. John Hancock was the prince of contraband traders, and with John Adams as his counsel, was appointed for trial before the admiralty court in Boston at the exact hour of the shedding of blood at Lexington, in a suit for $500,000 penalties alleged to have been incurred by him as a smuggler."" See American Economic History by H. U. Faulkner (1924), text and also note i on p. 147. J. Franklin Jameson in his American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement (1926), says (pp. 82, 83): "In the long list of American grievances against the British government, not the least had been the series of petty enactments by which it had been sought to confine the colonies to the production of raw materials, while England monopolized the manufacturing industries of both countries. So early as 1699 the woollen manufactures of New England had become large enough to attract the attention of old England. An act was passed in that year to prevent, under heavy penalties, the export from the colonies, or from colony to colony, of any 'Wool, Woolfells, Shortlings, Morlings, Wool Flocks, Worsted, Bay or Woollen Yarn, Cloath, Serge, Bays, Kerseys, Says, Frizes, Druggets, Cloath Serges, Shalloons or any other Drapery, Stuffs or Woollen Manufactures whatsoever.' In 1719 the House of Commons resolved 'that the erection of manufactories in the colonies tends to lessen their dependence on Great Britain.' The plentiful supply of beaver in the colonies led to a considerable manufacture of hats. In 1732 an act of Parliament was passed which forbade the exportation of hats from the colonies, and prohibited any hatter from taking more than two apprentices. The iron manufacture grew. England welcomed the increased supply of pig and bar iron, but wished absolutely to engross to herself all further manufactures. In 1750 Parliament prohibited the erection of any rolling-, slitting-, or plating-mill, and all manufacture of steel." See also Bancroft's History of United States, Vol. 5, pp. 265, 267, 25th ed. (1834-1862); also Hildreth's History of United States, Vol. 2, pp. 213, 297, 352, 431, (1848–

1852). In short the unjust laws of England in colonial times led to universal smuggling, and England did not seriously attempt to enforce those laws in America. So little attention was paid to them that the governmental expense in collecting import duties was about equal to the receipts. Walpole's administration winked at smuggling. Bancroft's History, ch. 23, p. 383. p. 81, n. 4: See Scotch-Irish in America by Henry James Ford (1915), p. 208.

p. 81, n. 5: History of the United States by Richard Hildreth (1848–1852), Vol. 1, 2nd Series, p. 373.

p. 82, n. 1: See History of the United States by George Bancroft, 25th ed. (1834-1862), Vol. 3, Ch. 23, p. 370.

p. 82, n. 4:

The English in Ireland by James A. Froude (1873), Vol. 1,

P. 394.

p. 83, n. 1: p. 83, n. 2: P. 262.

Id., Vol. 2, pp. 125, 126.

History of England by William E. H. Lecky (1878), Vol. 2,

p. 83, n. 3: Immigration and Americanization, edited by Philip Davis (1920): Emigration from the United Kingdom by Stanley C. Johnson, P. 95.

p. 84, n. 1: American Revolution by John Fiske (1901), Vol. 2, p. 200. p. 84, n. 2: A Political and Social History of the United States by Homer C. Hockett (1925), p. 60.

p. 84, n. 3: The Development of the United States from Colonies to a World Power by Max Farrand (1918), p. 19.

p. 84, n. 4: Old Virginia and Her Neighbors by John Fiske, Vol. 2, p. 373, De Luxe Edition (1901).

p. 85, n. 1: Essentials of Americanization by Emory S. Bogardus (1919), pp. 121 and 124.

p. 85, n. 2: See American Social History as recorded by British Travellers, edited by Allan Nevins (1923): Chapter on The War-Torn South by David Macrae, p. 472.

p. 85, n. 3: American Revolution by John Fiske (1901), Vol. 2, pp. 200,

201.

p. 86, n. 1: Readings in the Economic History of American Agriculture, edited by Louis B. Schmidt and Earle D. Ross (1925): The Colonial Frontier by Frederick J. Turner, p. 122.

p. 86, n. 2: The North American Idea by James A. MacDonald (1917), pp. 109, 110.

p. 87, n. 1: The Spirit of America by Henry Van Dyke (1910): The Soul of a People (Conference I), p. 22.

p. 88, n. 1: See The Scotch-Irish in America by Henry J. Ford (1915),

P. 575.

p. 89, n. 1: American Revolution by John Fiske (1901), Vol. 1, p. 236. p. 91, n. 1: History of the English Colonies in America by Henry Cabot Lodge (1881), pp. 329, 330.

p. 91, n. 2: A History of American Immigration (1820-1924) by George M. Stephenson (1926), p. 55.

p. 92, n. 1: Dutch Republic by John L. Motley, Netherlands Edition (1900), Vol. 5, pp. 115-117.

p. 92, n. 2: Famous Nations (1881), Vol. 9, p. 379.

p. 92, n. 3: See The Puritan in Holland, England and America by Douglas Campbell (1892), Vol. 2, p. 357.

p. 93, n. 1: History of the American Civil War by John William Draper (1867-1870), Vol. 1, p. 173.

p. 93, n. 2: Dutch and Quaker Colonies by John Fiske (1901), Vol. 2, p. 415.

p. 94, n. 1: British-American Relations by James D. Whelpley (1924), pp. 149, 150.

p. 95, n. 1: The United States as a Neighbour from a Canadian Point of View by Sir Robert Falconer (1925), pp. 8, 9.

p. 96, n. 1: These United States, edited by Ernest Gruening (1924): Louisiana by Basil Thompson, pp. 205, 206.

p. 96, n. 2: The Winning of the West by Theodore Roosevelt, Dakota Edition (1908), Vol. 3, p. 34.

p. 97, n. 1: The United States and Canada by George M. Wrong (1921), P. 33.

p. 98, n. 1: History of the United States by George Bancroft, 25th ed. (1834-1862), Vol. 2, pp. 179, 180.

p. 98, n. 2: Id., Vol. 2, p. 177.

p. 98, n. 3: See French Blood in America by Lucian J. Fosdick (1906), p. 224.

p. 99, n. 1: History of the United States by Richard Hildreth (18481852), Vol. 2, p. 223.

p. 99, n. 2: Selective Immigration by James J. Davis (1925), p. 21. p. 99, n. 3: French Colonists and Exiles in the United States by J. G. Rosengarten (1907), Introduction, pp. 11, 12.

p. 99, n. 4: See French Blood in America by Lucian J. Fosdick (1906), P. 431.