1676] Bacon's Rebellion 121 were obliged to buy them off as well as they could. The new rulers of England also enforced the Navigation Acts with more vigor than the Puritans had done, and by new enactments (p. 104) interfered with the tobacco trade and caused a serious diminution in the price of that staple. Virginia petitioned for relief, but received none. The royalist faction naturally gained the ascendency in Hart's Conthe colony at the Restoration; they made sharp laws against temporaries, I, No. 70. religious dissenters, paid no attention to education, and very little to the provisions for religious services. Corruption and extortion prevailed in all branches of the government, and no election to the assembly was held for fourteen years. Then this ancient legislative body, which had been in existence since 1660, enacted a law greatly restricting the franchise, and it was proposed to hold a new election under this act. Affairs were in a critical condition when the Indians became very restless. The governor took little interest in plans for protecting the colonists, and was believed to be more concerned for the prosperity of the natives than he was for the safety of the settlers, as he received the net proceeds of the duties on the furs exported. 94. Bacon's Rebellion, 1676. Nathaniel Bacon, an able and popular man, now stepped forward and assumed charge of the war with the savages. Berkeley, on his part, declared Bacon and those who abetted him to be rebels; this declaration was the signal for a general uprising. It is probable that the chastisement of the natives was only a pretext for stirring up rebellion; the leaders in the movement really seem to have had more at heart the reformation of the institutions of Virginia. It is useless to follow the course of this revolt: wherever Bacon appeared, he was successful, but as soon as his back was turned, Berkeley gained the upper hand. Before long Bacon died, and the excitement came to a sudden and opportune end. There are indications to the effect that Bacon hoped to unite other colonies with Virginia in re Bacon's Rebellion, 1676. Winsor's America, III, Stedman and Virginia to 1700. Win sor's America, V, 263265; Stedman and Hutchinson, II, 265; sistance to the royal authorities. Fortunately, his death occurred before any definite steps were taken, and before the colonists had embroiled themselves directly with the English government. The most lamentable thing about Bacon's Rebellion was that it prevented the granting of a charter giving the Virginia colonists the government of the province on substantially the same terms on which the people of Connecticut and Rhode Island governed themselves. 95. Virginia, 1677-1700.- Sir William Berkeley avenging himself too severely on his enemies, was recalled in disgrace. Virginia then fell into the hands of a most rapacious set of governors, Lord Culpeper, Lord Howard of Effingham, Sir Edmund Andros, and Sir Francis Nicholson. The only important event of their time was the founding of William and Mary College, named after its temporaries, royal patrons, the king and queen of England (1692). Hart's Con I, No. 89. King Fiske's New Its founder was the Rev. James Blair, who desired to establish an institution in which young Virginians might be educated for the ministry of the Established Church. Little was realized in this respect, but the college provided a fair training for those young Virginians who could not go to a Northern college or to England for an education. 96. Overthrow of the Massachusetts Charter. The years 1675-76, which were so eventful in the history of Virginia, were even more important in the annals of New England, for then occurred a terrible struggle with the natives, which is known as King Philip's War, from the name of the Old South Leaflets, Indian chief who organized the movement. The contest VIII, No. 4; resulted in the crushing overthrow of the Indians; it also greatly diminished the capacity of the New England colonies for resistance to the renewed attacks of their enemies in England. The chief cause of complaint on the part of the English authorities was the non-observance of the Navigation Acts. The independent attitude of the New Englanders during King Philip's War also aroused the suspicion and resentment of the English government, and this ani Stedman and Hutchinson, 1684] Overthrow of Massachusetts Charter 123 mosity was not at all lessened by the purchase of Maine by the Massachusetts Bay Company. All these things, added to the remembrance of the attitude of Massachusetts toward the commissioners in 1664, impelled the English monarch once more to take up the contest with that colony. attack on Massachu setts, 167684. Fiske's New England, 253 266. In 1676 a new personage appeared upon the scene: his Renewed name was Edward Randolph, and he came ostensibly as a messenger, bringing a letter from the king, in which the action of Massachusetts as to the Navigation Acts and other matters was made the subject of vigorous complaint. In reality, Randolph came over to spy out irregularities in the conduct of the government, on which a suit could be founded for the revocation of the Massachusetts charter. He had no difficulty in discovering many unlawful proceedings, and he drew up a report stating the results of his observations. This document is exaggerated in many ways; but, in the broad outlines at least, it is true to the life. It was now the latter part of the reign of the second Charles; his authority had largely increased in England. The attack on Massachusetts was part of a general scheme for the consolidation of all the colonial governments, save Pennsylvania and Carolina, under the direct control of the crown; had the plan been carried out, the whole power of the EnglishAmerican colonies would have been wielded by one hand, for the proprietaries of the two provinces to be spared were friends of the later Stuarts. The consummation of this scheme would have led to a great increase in the power of England to resist French aggressions, and to a corresponding diminution in the ability of the colonists to withstand the encroachments of king and of Parliament. After a prolonged legal contest, the Massachusetts charter Massachuwas annulled (1684) and the government of Massachusetts setts charter was confided to Joseph Dudley, son of one of the founders of the colony. It was hoped that this appointment would conciliate opposition; as a matter of fact, it only gave the leaders of Massachusetts time to organize resistance to the annulled, 1684. Hart's Contemporaries, I, No. 135. Andros in land. Fiske's home government. Dudley was soon superseded by Sir Edmund Andros, once governor of New York, and later of Virginia. 97. The "Stuart Tyranny in New England." — Sir Edmund Andros was a faithful servant of bad masters. The period of his rule is often described as the "tyranny land, 267- of Andros"; but the epithet is misplaced, as he merely carried out his instructions, for whose provisions he was 271; Wen dell's Cotton Mather. Old South Leaflets, 2d series. Sir Edmund Andros in no wise responsible. He was directed to exercise in Massachusetts functions similar to those wielded by the governor in the conquered province of New York. All power was vested in him and his council; but the latter was so subservient that it is correct to say the governor possessed sole authority. No provision was made for any representative legislative body: An dros decreed laws, levied taxes, executed the law, and, through judges who owed their appointments to him, exercised judicial power. Many of his acts, which seemed harsh to the Puritans of that time, do not appear so severe to us. For instance, he compelled witnesses to kiss the Bible when they took an oath to give true testimony, and he insisted that those whose titles to land were defective should have them confirmed by himself, as representative of the king. But Andros's methods of performing his duties were most ungracious. It was unseemly that no 1689] "Glorious Revolution" in America 125 proper facilities could be obtained for the celebration of The dominion of New England, 1688. Hart's Contemporaries, I, 122. Andros. 272; Stedman and Hutchinson, 98. The "Glorious Revolution" in America. The news Overthrow of of the landing of William of Orange, in November, 1688, reached Boston in March, 1689, and his successful ousting England, of James II was probably known to the leading opponents of Andros not long after. At all events, on the morning of April 18, the town was full of armed men; Andros was II, 72; arrested and placed in confinement, and the commander of an English frigate, which happened to be in the harbor, was compelled to strike her topmasts and send her sails on shore. A provisional government was then established under the old charter, and William and Mary were proclaimed king and queen. Connecticut and Rhode Island also resumed their old charter governments. *Hart's Contemporaries, I, No. 136. |