from the very start; they were kinsfolk of the Covenanters; they deemed it a religious duty to interpret their own Bible, and held for a divine right the election of their own clergy. For generations their whole ecclesiastic and scholastic systems had been fundamentally democratic. . . ."-Roosevelt, Winning of the West, vol. i., pp. 102-106.

'Pitkin's Statistics, p. 583; Harper's Magazine, vol. li., p. 399.

John Adams gives the following estimate as one made by Congress in 1774: 'In the year 1774 there was much private conversation among the members of Congress concerning the number of souls in each colony. The delegates of each were consulted, and the estimates made by them were taken down as follows: New Hampshire, 150,000; Massachusetts, 400,000; Rhode Island, 59,678; Connecticut, 192,000; New York, 250,000; New Jersey, 130,000; Pennsylvania and Delaware, 350,000; Maryland, 320,000; Virginia, 640,000; North Carolina, 300,000; South Carolina, 225,000; total, 3,016,678.”— Works, vol. vii., p. 302. "Governor Pownall thinks that 2,142,037 would come nearest to the real amount [of whites] in 1774.”—Ibid., vol. vii., p. 304. See, also, Holmes's Annals, vol. ii., p. 533, etc. "An estimate of the white population of the States made in 1783 for purposes of assessment gives the number as 2,389,300 (American Remembrancer, 1783, part ii., p. 64).”—McMaster, History of the United States, vol. i., p. 9.

Pennsylvania Archives, First Series, vol. iv., p. 597.

10 History of the United States (1888), vol. iv., P. 62.

"The population of the New England States in 1790 was 1,009,408, or a little less than one-third of the total white population of 3,172,006. It is reasonable to assume that the population of the newer middle colonies increased more by immigration between 1776 and 1790 than that of New England, and we know that many New England people moved into the western colonies, particularly to New York and Ohio. It is therefore probable that an estimate of New England's population in 1776 fixing it at one-third of the whole cannot be far out of the way.

12 The following estimate of the white population in 1775, which does not vary much from that given in the table quoted, is found in Seaman's Essays on the Progress of Nations, New York, 1852, pp. 579-583: “Maine, 45,000; New Hampshire, 90,000; Vermont, 40,000; Massachusetts, 280,000; Rhode Island, 50,000; Connecticut, 195,000 [total for New England, 700,000]; New York, 175,000; New Jersey, 120,000; Pennsylvania, 275,000; Delaware, 35,000; Maryland, 160,000; Virginia, 360,000; North Carolina, 200,000; South Carolina, 90,000; Georgia, 25,000 [total, outside of New England, 1,440,000]; total for the thirteen colonies, 2,140,000." Mr. Seaman's estimate of the population of Maryland is perhaps based on a census taken in 1755, giving it 107,208 white inhabitants; but as there were but 208,649 whites in 1790, the population could not have increased as rapidly during the interim as in the other States, where it usually doubled in from twenty to twenty-five years. Hence, it is probable that 160,000 is too large an estimate for the population of Maryland in 1775, and, on the other hand, 134,000 (about 64 per cent. of the population in 1790) may be somewhat below the true figures. In New Jersey in 1830, out of a total white population of 299,667, there were about 44,000 communicants in the various churches, representing with their families perhaps 200,000 persons. Of these, 13,517 were Presbyterians; 15,567, Methodists; 6,000, Quakers; 4,173, Dutch Reformed; 3,981, Baptists; and 900, Episcopalians. It is safe to say the Presbyterians were chiefly Scottish; and likewise a considerable proportion of the Methodists and Baptists, because in the South, for instance, there are more persons of that blood in those two churches than in the whole membership of the Presbyterian Church. Smith, in his History of the Province of New Jersey, published in 1765, gives information respecting the number of the various congregations in the province, from which the following table is compiled: Episcopalians, 21; Presbyterians, 65; Quakers, 39; Baptists, 20; Seventh-Day Baptists, 2; Low Dutch Calvinists, or Reformed, 21; Dutch Lutherans, 4; Swedish Lutherans, 4; Moravians, 1; German Lutherans, 2; Separatists, 1; Rogerians, I; Lutherans, I ; total, 179. In Pennsylvania in 1760 there were 31,667 taxables

(Colonial Records, vol. xiv., p. 336). At that time a large part of the frontier inhabitants were not entered on the tax-lists (see Proud's History of Pennsylvania, vol. ii., p. 275, note). Delaware formed part of Pennsylvania prior to 1776, and was largely overrun by the Scotch-Irish before they reached the Susquehanna valley. A considerable part of western Maryland was settled by Scottish emigrants, as well as Cecil and Somerset counties on the Eastern Shore, and many districts around Baltimore. Jefferson states in his Autobiography (p. 31), that in 1776 a majority of the inhabitants of Virginia were Dissenters (at that time chiefly Presbyterians and Baptists), and as one-fourth of the total white population was in the upper country and west of the mountains (see Virginia Militia returns in 1782, annexed to chapter ix., Jefferson's Notes on Virginia), and that fourth almost to a man of Scottish ancestry, we may safely conclude that of the whole white population those people comprised nearly one-fourth. Williamson (History of North Carolina, vol. ii., p. 68) says that the Scottish race was the most numerous in the northwestern part of Carolina; and we know that they comprised nearly the whole of the population of Tennessee (then part of North Carolina). Ramsay says they were more numerous than any other race in South Carolina (History of South Carolina, vol. i., p. 20); and they likewise formed, if not a majority, at least a controlling element in the population of Georgia. To-day their descendants in the Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia form the most influential and presumably the most numerous element in the white population of those States; and in all probability the same thing is true of the native-born population of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. "When the first Continental Congress began its sittings, the only frontiersmen west of the mountains, and beyond the limits of continuous settlement within the old thirteen colonies, were the two or three hundred citizens of the little Watauga commonwealth. This qualification is put in because there were already a few families on the Monongahela [this is incorrect, because there were 7500 to 10,000 settlers in Westmoreland County, Pa., before 1776], the head of the Kanawha, and the Upper Holston; but they were in close touch with the people behind them. When peace was declared with Great Britain, the backwoodsmen had spread westward in groups, almost to the Mississippi, and they had increased in number to some twenty-five thousand souls, of whom a few hundred dwelt in the bend of the Cumberland, while the rest were about equally divided between Kentucky and Holston. These figures are simply estimates; but they are based on careful study and comparison, and, though they must be some hundreds, and maybe some thousands, out of the way, are quite near enough for practical purposes."-Roosevelt, Winning of the West, vol. ii., p. 370.

13" New York and Pennsylvania were so nearly divided—if their propensity was not against us- that if New England on one side and Virginia on the other had not kept them in awe, they would have joined the British."— Works of John Adams, vol. x., p. 63. This opinion of John Adams, which he affirmed more than once in the latter part of his life, was on one occasion mentioned by him in a letter to his old compatriot, Thomas McKean, Chief Justice of Pennsylvania, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and a member of every American Congress from that of 1765 to the close of the Revolution. "You say," wrote McKean in reply, "that... about a third of the people of the colonies were against the Revolution. It required much reflection before I could fix my opinion on this subject; but on mature deliberation I conclude you are right, and that more than a third of influential characters were against it " (Adams's Works, vol. x., pp. 63, 110).—Sparks, Washington, vol. ii., p. 496.

John Adams was of the opinion that only about a third of the people were averse to the Revolution, but in 1780 in his letters to Calkoen, written to secure Dutch sympathy, he flatly affirms that the Tories constituted not a twentieth of the population, which may mean that he thought the French alliance and the progress of the war had diminished at that time the body of its opponents.-Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, vol. vii., P. 187.

It is probably below the truth to say that a full half of the more honorable and respected

Americans was either openly or secretly hostile to the Revolution.—Lecky, England in the Eighteenth Century, vol. iv., p. 153.

14" Of the New England colonies Connecticut had the greatest number of Tories, and next in proportion to population was the district which was afterwards known as the State of Vermont.

“... In Virginia, especially after hostilities began, the Tories were decidedly less in number than the Whigs. In North Carolina, the two parties were about evenly divided. In South Carolina, the Tories were the numerous party; while in Georgia their majority was so great that, in 1781, they were preparing to detach that colony from the general movement of the rebellion, and probably would have done so, had it not been for the embarrassing accident which happened to Cornwallis at Yorktown in the latter part of that year."-Moses Coit Tyler, in American Historical Review, vol. i., p. 28 (October, 1895).

Considerable information in regard to the Loyalists may be found in Winsor's Narrative and Critical History of America, vol. vii., pp. 185-214, and in Sabine's Loyalists of the Revolution.

15 A strong contrast to the political apathy of these worthy men [the Germans of South Carolina] was to be found in the rugged population of the upland counties. Here, the small farmers of Scotch-Irish descent were, every man of them, Whigs, burning with a patriotic ardor that partook of the nature of religious fanaticism; while on the other hand the [Highland] Scotsmen who had come over since Culloden were mostly Tories, and had by no means as yet cast off that half-savage type of Highland character which we find so vividly portrayed in the Waverley novels.-Fiske, American Revolution, vol. ii., p. 165.

The single exception was that of some of the Highlanders in North Carolina at the beginning of the Revolution. Banished from Scotland for taking up arms for the Pretender, their pardon was conditioned on a solemn oath of allegiance to their sovereign. Such obligations they regarded with peculiar sacredness, and they had required the king to swear to the Solemn League and Covenant. Not feeling to any great degree the evils complained of by the other colonists, they were slow to engage in the contest. Some of them at first sympathized with and aided the royalists; but when the monarchical government came to an end, they became the fast friends and supporters of republican institutions. We may respect their moral principles, while we deplore their error of judgment, that led them at first to battle with freemen who were only demanding their rights.-Craighead, Scotch and Irish Seeds in American Soil, p. 315. See also Colonial Records of North Carolina, vol. v., pp. 1194-98.

16 See Appendix E (Parliamentary Examination of Joseph Galloway, March, 1779).

CHAPTER VII

AMERICAN IDEALS MORE SCOTTISH THAN ENGLISH

'T is difficult to understand the grounds for claiming that the credit for the conception or development of the principle of man's equality belongs to the English. So far as history and the observation of life reveal, that principle is not established in England to-day, nor even recognized by any more than a small part of its population. Still less was it the case more than a hundred years ago, either in England or in English colonies. The distinctions of caste remained longer as bitter realities in Massachusetts than they did in Virginia; and so far from either of those States being the first to introduce the principles of democracy, it does not seem to be overstating it to say that Quaker Pennsylvania, with two-thirds of its population non-Engglish, had more real freedom and political equality twenty years before 1787, than Massachusetts or Virginia had twenty years after that date. Neither can it be considered an exaggeration to say that those embryonic principles of civil liberty which first were brought to New England by the Pilgrims from Holland, then for one hundred and thirty years buried and forgotten in the sterile soil of later New England Puritanism, and which finally seemed to germinate spontaneously and produce such abundant fruit during the Revolutionary period, did not come chiefly from England, but came rather from the influence of the French writers, and from Switzerland and the Dutch Republic.

Prior to 1850 Massachusetts remained essentially English, and would be so to-day were it not for the large influx of foreign population during the past fifty years. If there is any one characteristic that distinguishes the Englishman more than another, it is his persistent assertion — and, where he is able, the maintenance of his own rights. This is doubtless a consequence of his Teutonic nature. It comes from the realization of his own intrinsic excellence, and from that spirit which prompts him to go out and subdue the earth. Unless constantly held in check, however, it is very easy for him to overstep the line between his own rights and the rights of others; and so far as he is free to act upon his own racial instincts, he does overstep this line. This is strictly in accordance with the theory of evolution. If the Englishman did not do so unto others it might be so done unto him. We see manifestations of this encroaching spirit, in all aspects of English life or history, from the time of Hengist and Horsa down to the time of Jameson's Raid, and from the days of John Smith and John Winthrop down to the days of the year 1901. It is this aggressive spirit which proudly points the way to the universal dominion of the so-called AngloSaxon race; and it is the one attribute without which the Anglo-Saxon's

further racial progress, according to his own view, would be impossible. Hence, to repeat, the Englishman has a greater regard for his own rights than for those of others. So truly is this the case, that the rights of his weaker neighbor are invariably sacrificed, whenever the two clash together. As a result, there can be no real equality among the English. There is not such a thing in England to-day, nor indeed any pretence of it. Socially, the distinctions of caste and rank are perhaps not so strongly marked there between the various classes as were those between master and slave in early America, but the distance between the high and the low is almost as great, and the abject wretchedness of the poorest class in England is far more noticeable. The opportunities of the individual are likewise restricted wholly to those of his particular class, and it is only by a miracle that he can ever hope to break through into a higher and better association.

Down to a few years before the Revolutionary War, the Englishman of New England did not differ greatly from his kinsmen at home. He had the same aggressive and independent nature, the same reverence for ecclesiastical and political power, the same suspicion, jealousy, and hatred of things not English, and the same bitter intolerance and persecuting spirit for all opinions not identical with his own. The Puritans who came to Massachusetts before 1640 soon forgot the lessons of forbearance and justice they had learned at home when persecuted for conscience' sake. They and their children retained the pride of caste, the arrogance, the narrow-mindedness, and the bigotry of the ruling class at home. They made laws prohibiting people of the poorer classes from wearing as good clothing as their superiors in wealth and position. They established a State church, and enforced conformity to its worship and universal contributions to its support, by means of the whipping-post, the jails, and the gibbet.' They limited suffrage to the members of the Established Church; and during most of the time they required qualifications for church-membership which were wholly secular and which had no connection whatever with religion.'

In all respects, their government prior to 1760 partook only of the nature of an ecclesiastical and aristocratic oligarchy, and it was more than sixty years after that time before the principle of equal rights became fully established in Massachusetts.'

In America, as in every other country, the first to appreciate the necessity for man's equality before the law were those who had suffered most from the perversions of justice. These were the early Pilgrims, the Quakers, the Catholics, the Baptists, and the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians. As a rule, the oppressed can better be relied upon to distinguish between right and wrong than the oppressors. They have a keener moral sense, and their more active exercise of nature's first instinct teaches them the necessity of giving due deference to the rights of their fellow men.

As we know, laws are but limitations upon arbitrary power; and the battle for man's industrial, political, and religious freedom has ever been a