development succumbed to utilitarianism. They do not necessarily conflict, but the question today is, which shall control? Broad culture by a knowledge of literature, history, philosophy, political economy, and government is one thing; the pursuit of gain and of achievement for glory or profit is another thing. Shall the lawyer, doctor, public man, newspaper man, manufacturer, merchant, and banker be proficient only in his one craft, or shall his foundation be a general culture and keen sense of duty? The pendulum has swung widely in different parts of the country and in different cities, but indifference to everything, except one particular gainful pursuit, is becoming less and less an American reproach. The professional schools are raising their standards by requiring a preliminary collegiate education. From the technical schools the man of general information reaches the high positions of trust in great enterprises. Even in public life the higher walks are generally reserved for men of broad education. It is true that the great mass in the great cities seek training for utility only and ideals have little to do with it. But that is not New England Puritanism.

Nor has Puritanism been alone in forming the character of the nation. Virginia shares in that glory. While the Virginian has never been a profound scholar, yet the Virginia type of character has equaled that of Massachusetts. And after all it is the type of man that determines the worth of a nation. Massachusetts and Virginia both contributed to the evolution of the typical composite American- the American of the West. Hence it is to the South that we now turn.

CHAPTER V

THE SOUTHERNER

It is generally said that the English Cavalier went to Virginia, while the English middle classes went to New England. As to New England this was true. The few aristocrats who went there, like Sir Henry Vane, one of the best, soon left. Cold, sterile New England called for men who were willing to endure privation, labor, want, and struggle. America profited by the vicissitudes of contending factions in England. During the latter part of the reign of Charles I, the Cavaliers persecuted the Puritans and so the latter emigrated to New England to the number of 20,000 from 1629 to 1642 when the Civil War in England began. When Charles I was decapitated in 1649, the tables were turned and Cavaliers emigrated to Virginia and its population increased to 23,000 by 1670. Fiske says that probably over 1000 Cavaliers went in one year 1649, and that Washington, Marshall, Madison, and Monroe were of "Cavalier families that came to Virginia after the downfall of Charles I."1 Washington's great-grandfather came over from England in 1657 and was a man of wealth and influence, a leading judge and member of the House of Burgesses. Very few of these Cavaliers, however, were from the nobility. They were from "the country gentry, merchants and tradesmen and their sons and relatives, and occasionally a minister, physician, a lawyer, or a captain in the merchant service." 2

The Virginia colonists were not all Cavaliers by any means. Roundheads came also and became small farmers in western Virginia. The tide-water shores, however, were the natural home for a land-owning aristocracy, disassociated from trade and

commerce. The very crops led to large plantations of tobacco, and farther south, rice and indigo. Society naturally divided itself into the great and the little, and when cotton became King, as it did after the Yankee Whitney invented the cotton gin, slavery grew apace and widened the gulf between rich and poor. In New England, except Rhode Island, primogeniture and entail were abolished in the beginning, and property on death was divided equally among all of the children, except that in New England for a time the eldest son received a double portion. In Virginia the large estates were kept together by entail until 1776 and primogeniture until 1785, when they were abolished at the instance of Jefferson.1

New England, like Virginia, had "indented servants" servants bound to service for a period of period of years without pay, but these in New England were few in number and soon became free and independent producers, while in Virginia indented servants increased, wealth became more and more influential, large, widely separated plantations of tobacco engrossed the land, towns did not grow, varied industry did not exist, shipping and commerce were in outside hands, the small planter could not compete in raising tobacco, and hence there arose a landed aristocracy.

America owes much to that landed aristocracy. It produced men of the very highest type in establishing free governmental institutions, but in the long run it was fatal to Virginia itself, where the fields became impoverished by excessive use. Slavery flourished in Virginia because its great plantations required concentrated physical labor. But it did not flourish in New England, where the cold climate and sterile soil yielded small returns. There manufacturing, fishing, and shipping were turned to.

Back in the interior of the South different conditions prevailed from those on the tide-waters. In early colonial times western Virginia was settled by Scotch, Scotch-Irish, and Germans from western Pennsylvania, and these with the older small

farmers outnumbered the tide-water aristocracy. They were poor, but not "poor whites," as that term is used. Hildreth says that in 1705 in Virginia there were from ten to thirty men on each of the four great rivers, from whom were chosen the council, assembly, justices, and other officers of government. In other words, they controlled the province. Hildreth further says that in 1704: "The same causes which tended in Virginia to build up a local aristocracy, operated also in Maryland. The cultivation of tobacco enriched a few; but the great proportion of the planters, 'a careless, unthinking sort of folk,' were degraded by ignorance and overwhelmed with debt." 1

But the backwoodsmen had their own ideas and individuality. They were the ones who sent Patrick Henry to the House of Burgesses. Governor Spotswood said in 1723 that in several counties the people were bent on "excluding the gentlemen from being burgesses, and choosing only persons of mean figure and character." But Adams in his History of the United States says: "Nowhere in America existed better human material than in the middle and lower classes of Virginians. As explorers, adventurers, fighters, wherever courage, activity, and force were wanted, they had no equals; but they had never known discipline, and were beyond measure jealous of restraint. With all their natural virtues and indefinite capacities for good, they were rough and uneducated to a degree that shocked their own native leaders. Jefferson tried in vain to persuade them that they needed schools. Their character was stereotyped, and development impossible."2 Speaking of Virginia in 1776, Bancroft wrote: "Its people, having in their origin a perceptible but never an exclusive influence of the cavaliers, had sprung mainly from adventurers, who were not fugitives for conscience' sake, or sufferers from persecution, or passionate partisans of monarchy. The population had been recruited by successive infusions of Scotch-Irish Presbyterians; Huguenots, and the descendants of Huguenots; men who had been so attached to Cromwell or

to the republic, that they preferred to emigrate on the return of Charles the Second; Baptists, and other dissenters; and in the valley of Virginia there was already a very large German population. Besides all these, there was the great body of the backwoodsmen, rovers from Maryland and Pennsylvania, not caring much for the record of their lineage.” 1

North Carolina was also settled largely from Pennsylvania - English, Scotch-Irish, besides Scotch, Swiss, French Protestants, and Moravians.

As to South Carolina Adams says that there "the interesting union between English tastes and provincial prejudices, which characterized the wealthy planters of the coast, was made more striking by contrast with the character of the poor and hardy yeomanry of the upper country. The seriousness of Charleston society changed to severity in the mountains. Rude, ignorant, and in some of its habits half barbarous, this population, in the stiffness of its religious and social expression, resembled the New England of a century before rather than the liberality of the Union. Largely settled by Scotch and Irish immigrants, with the rigid Presbyterian doctrine and conservatism of their class, they were democratic in practice beyond all American democrats." 2 The western part of South Carolina was settled largely by Scotch-Irish from North Carolina, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and they struggled for supremacy with the rich planters of Charleston and the sea-coast.

In Georgia the early colonists were German Lutherans, Piedmontese, Scottish Highlanders, Swiss, Portuguese, and English. Then in 1752 the main tide of immigration set in from the Carolinas and Virginia.

But slavery largely stopped white immigration to the South after colonial times. The South thenceforth relied on its own native white stock for increase of the white population. The result is that the white stock of 1776 in the South has preserved its identity and purity more clearly than in any other section of