PART II

RACIAL TRAITS

CHAPTER IV

THE NEW ENGLANDER

INASMUCH as the New England type, by emigration to New York State and thence westward through the Mississippi Valley to the Pacific Coast, has become the predominant type of America, it is well to consider its almost exclusively English origin; its harsh Calvinistic theology dominating its government; its adoption of the common school system and its remarkable use of the town meeting. Carlyle wrote, "Hail to thee, poor little ship Mayflower, of Delft-Haven! poor common-looking ship, hired by common charter party for coined dollars; calked with mere oakum and tar; provisioned with vulgarest biscuit and bacon; yet what ship Argo, or miraculous epic ship built by the sea gods, was other than a foolish bumbarge in comparison? Golden fleeces or the like these sailed for, with or without effect; thou, little Mayflower, hadst in thee a veritable Promethean spark; the life spark of the largest nation on our earth, so we may already name the transatlantic Saxon nation. They went seeking leave to hear sermon in their own method, these Mayflower Puritans; a most honest indispensable search; and yet, like Saul the son of Kish, seeking a small thing, they found this unexpected great thing. Honor to the brave and true! they verily, we say, carry fire from heaven, and have a power that themselves dream not of. Let all men honor Puritanism, since God has so honored it."1 Bancroft writes, "In the cabin of the

Mayflower, humanity recovered its rights, and instituted government on the basis of 'equal laws' for 'the general good.""1 It is perhaps superfluous to describe the qualities, good and bad, of the middle-class Englishmen, who founded and expanded the larger colony of Massachusetts Bay, or of the yeoman class of English who founded and for many years kept separate the older but smaller colony of Plymouth, beginning with the Mayflower Pilgrims of 1620. Professor Hockett says: "The great body of the Puritan immigrants belonged to the middle class of small farmers, tradesmen, and craftsmen who felt the continual pressure of poverty. . . . Social distinctions, almost wanting in Plymouth, were marked in Massachusetts Bay.. The gentry belonged to the social rank which in England composed the majority in the House of Commons and as country squires or magistrates held the county offices. Many of them, especially the clergymen, were trained in the universities. They were aristocrats by tradition and profession. They were brave and honorable idealists, but they belonged to a narrow and bigoted age. Social distinctions were to them real indexes of worth." 2 The country squires of England went chiefly to Virginia, where their aristocratic character and tendencies found congenial soil in the climate, productions, labor, and their natural habits. They are considered later.

The characteristics of the various classes of English are described in Emerson's "English Traits," which though somewhat flattering shows the bad as well as the good. The English dislike the criticisms but as usual profess to be indifferent. The "Encyclopædia Britannica" says Emerson's "English Traits" might be called "English Traits and American Confessions" — a remark which signifies much as to English Traits. The best trait of the average Englishman, high or low, whatever rut fate may have shot him into by birth or chance, was that he stuck and did his best by conscientious thorough work, and obstacles only increased his pertinacity: Grasping the English certainly were,

and when once in possession, would not let go until torn limb from limb. They were hard to deal with but abided by their contracts once made. They despised tricks and prided themselves on fair dealing, although grasping to the last degree. They worshiped the pound sterling more than the American ever worshiped the dollar. They loved a fight, and, while sympathizing with the under dog, wished the fight to go to a finish. Centuries of conflict and punishment made them respect the law and the privileged classes. Every man looked down on those below him and expected to be looked down on by those above him. Yet they gave liberty, insisted on law and order, freed the slave, built up free political institutions, opened opportunity, and protected life, liberty, and property. They were a reticent race but steadfast to the end. They were natural colonizers and carried their laws with them. Where they planted they stayed, and woe to him who tried to drive them out. As Cooper says, "When the Englishman finally sees and seizes a thing, he takes it with the whole of his weight, and wastes no breath in telling you he has taken hold." Their religion did not interfere much with their habits, but they were obstinate in adherence to form and ceremony and use and wont. Their tenacity in what they undertook has never been surpassed by any people, not even the Romans. These were the men who founded Jamestown in 1607, Plymouth Colony in 1620, and Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629, and who to the number of twenty thousand emigrated to New England between 1630 and 1640. Yet in 1670 all New England had but 60,000 people, while Virginia alone had 40,000. Fiske points out that in 1640 the population of New England was purely and exclusively English. As Palfrey says, the population of 26,000 that had been planted in New England by 1640 "thenceforward continued to multiply on its own soil for a century and a half in remarkable seclusion from other communities." 2 A few Scotch were sent to Boston by Cromwell in 1652; a few Huguenots came to Massachusetts about 1685.

1

In 1718 about 750 Scotch-Irish settled; some at Londonderry, New Hampshire; some in Boston; some at Worcester; and some near Portland; several hundred more on the Kennebec River in Maine. These, however, did not mix well with the New England Puritans, and a little later most of them moved to the other colonies southward. Lodge wrote: "Another feature of the New England character which helped to increase the love of political independence and self-government, was the keen dislike of foreigners and great pride of race. Except the few French Huguenots of the seventeenth century, who were gladly welcomed in New England, no foreigners came among them. They hated Papists, and Irish, and Frenchmen with a bitter hatred. Even the Scotch Presbyterians of Londonderry were distrusted and disliked, because papacy was suspected in all who came from Ireland." 1 For nearly two centuries after 1640, namely, from 1640 to 1820, there was no considerable migration to New England. Fiske says that the New England settlers were "homogeneous in character to a remarkable degree, and they were drawn from the sturdiest part of the English stock. In all history there has been no other instance of colonization so exclusively effected by picked and chosen men. . . . 26,000 New Englanders of 1640 have in two centuries and a half increased to something like 20,000,000. From these men have come at least one-fourth of the present population of the United States." 2 Savage states that in 1800 ninety-eight per cent. of New Englanders could trace their origin to England exclusively. Later the French Canadians, Irish, and Italians flocked in. In Massachusetts, in 1920, of the white population of 3,852,356 only 1,230,773 were of native parentage, while 2,170,792 were foreign born or of foreign parentage. Of the foreign born the Irish were 17%; the Italians about 11%; French Canadians 10%; other Canadians 14%. Orth says: "The process of racial replacement is most rapid in the smaller manufacturing towns. In the New England mills the Yankee gave way

to the Irish, the Irish gave way to the French Canadian, and the French Canadian has been largely superseded by the Slav and the Italian. Every one of the older industrial towns has been incrusted in layer upon layer of foreign accretions, until it is difficult to discover the American core." 1

The New Englanders left England largely on account of religious persecution. They are charged with founding a theocracy which controlled the state and which treated all dissenters harshly and intolerantly. The charge is largely true, but it is well to consider two causes and the results. The first cause was that England and Englishmen had never been under any other system. The Catholic Church was the state church in England until Henry VIII established the Episcopal Church and then that Church became the state church and prescribed all others. The Puritans (i.e. the English Protestants) began under Wycliffe and the Lollards in the fourteenth century; received their name and the Calvinistic doctrines in the sixteenth century; tried to displace the English Church as the state church in the seventeenth century; disappeared gradually as Independents in England when Cromwell died; and withered away as Presbyterians in England when the Toleration Acts followed the expulsion of the Stuarts. In New England the Puritans were of the type known as Congregationalists and made their religion the state religion. They set up a theocratic government, the ministers being practically the government. "The government,' says Forman, "established by the Puritans of Massachusetts was virtually a theocracy, for no man could be a freeman of the colony unless he was a member of some Puritan church. This left the government in the hands of men who believed that human affairs should be conducted in accordance with the words of the holy writ. Since the theocracy was virtually independent of England, it could rule with a high hand, for there was nothing to withstand its power. And it did rule with a high hand. The clergy were all-powerful in temporal as well as in spiritual mat