Was the not, by his foresight and energy, completed the French expulsion in 1760, the colonies themselves must have done it at no very distant date. It is said, but on doubtful authority, that Choiseul, the French minister who made the Treaty of Paris, remarked that England would do well to leave Canada to France in order that the danger of a French and Indian attack might keep the English colonies dependent on the mother country. It is certain that the idea was often mentioned in 1762. It was so strongly urged by the English interests in the West Indies in order to induce the government to retain all the French islands there, that Franklin wrote a pamphlet to show that it was badly founded. The colonies, he said, were so divided by mutual distrust and varying interests that they would never unite against England. Such might have been the case for many years had not a headstrong king forced them to a union in defense of rights they held dearer than any of the interests which had caused their dissensions. Two Indian wars came as an aftermath of the struggle against France. After the outbreaks of 1711-1716, the Cherokees remained at The Cherokees Begin Hostilities. peace with the English; but the efforts of the French had due influence in arousing their suspicions. A party went rather unwillingly with Forbes against Fort Duquesne, 1759, and some of them deserted. A group of the deserters on their return killed twenty-two whites in North Carolina, and another band stole a number of horses. The whites retaliated by killing the Indians, whereupon the Indians fell on the settlements and slew whom they found. Governor Lyttleton of South Carolina now called out troops and marched to the Indian country with 1500 poorly equipped soldiers. Before he started he was joined by thirty Cherokee chiefs who said they were come to make peace. They had been promised personal immunity, but Lyttleton forced them to go with him to the frontier, and when the murderers of the whites were not delivered up by the tribes, he detained as hostages these envoys of peace, who had trusted his promise. Although he made a new treaty, he was hardly back in Charleston before depredations were resumed. The commandant of the frontier fort in which the hostages were detained was lured out of the gate on pretense of a parley and murdered, and the garrison, angered by this cruelty, slew the hostages. The war now became general. Lyttleton was no longer governor, but Bull, acting in his place, sent forward, 1760, Colonel Montgomery The Campaigns of 1760 and 1761. with 1650 men, three-fourths of whom were regulars who had opportunely arrived at Charleston. They burned the lower Cherokee towns and killed or captured more than a hundred persons, but were fiercely engaged in an attempt to cross the mountains and fall back to the seaboard, whence the regulars returned to New York to take part in the campaign against Montreal. Their departure encouraged the Indians and sealed TWO INDIAN WARS 131 the fate of Fort London. The post had been unwisely built in an exposed position beyond the Alleghanies, and its garrison of 200 men could not be relieved. Hunger at last overcame them and they surrendered on condition that they should return home in safety. But the Indians pursued them, slew twenty-six, and took the others prisoners. By 1761 troops could be spared from the north, and General Amherst sent Colonel Grant with 1200 Highlanders to complete the pacification of the Indian country. Grant, joined by militia and friendly Indians until his army numbered 2600, won a costly victory over the Cherokees in June, and then proceeded to destroy their towns and the growing crops. This was a heavy blow, and the chiefs sued for peace. The treaty that followed did not remove Cherokee resentment, as their support of the British showed in the war of the Revolution. In the war of 1760 and 1761 both North Carolina and Virginia raised troops to protect their borders; but the work of vengeance which forced the Cherokees to make peace was done by the regulars, marching from Charleston and aided by the South Carolina militia. Pontiac 1764. Detroit and The second conflict with the Indians was the Pontiac War. The Indians of the Northwest recognized their doom when the British seized and held the French posts, and to save themselves formed a confederacy under Pontiac, a capable and ambitious warrior of the Ottowas. Emissaries of France told them that the French would return and subdue the British garrisons, and this gave the red men courage to strike while the new lords of the country were weak. The confederacy was well organized, each tribe promising to fall on and destroy the post nearest to it. The attack was made in May, 1763, and the result was that ten posts from Bedford, Pennsylvania, to Michilimackinac, at the entrance of Lake Michigan, fell to the savages, most of them being entered through treachery, and the garrisons murdered. Detroit and Fort Pitt, however, were warned and held out. The former received supplies by water and defied its foe, though Pontiac himself led the force which invested its land approaches. The latter was saved by Colonel Bouquet. This officer had seen seven years' service against the Indians and knew well how to fight them. He was in Philadelphia when the trouble began, and was ordered to relieve Fort Pitt with 500 Highlanders. Moving rapidly, he approached the scene of Braddock's defeat on August 5. Here he was surrounded by Indians at Busby Run, and fought fiercely until nightfall. Next morning the Indians resumed the battle, when by a feigned retreat Bouquet drew them into a heedless charge on his bag- The End of gage train, and turning at the proper moment drove them the War. off in great disorder. Four days later Fort Pitt was reached and relieved, but Bouquet must wait for reënforcements before he could march into the Indian country beyond it. following year, with 1500 men, he marched without opposition into Fort Pitt. In the what is now southeastern Ohio as far as the upper Muskingum and made treaties of peace with the Indians of that region, rescuing 200 captured settlers. In a great council at Fort Niagara the Indians of the lake also made a treaty of peace in which they ceded to the English a strip four miles wide on each side of the Niagara river. Pontiac remained hostile until convinced that there was no hope of aid from the French, and in 1766 he, with other recalcitrants, made an unwilling submission at Oswego. Three years later he was slain in the forest near St. Louis by another Indian to whom an English trader had promised a barrel of rum. He was one of the ablest and most patriotic men of his race. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE Bancroft, History of the United States, 10 vols. (1834-1874), and Hildreth, History of the United States, 6 vols. (1849-1852), the older standard works on the colonial period and still important; but better and fresher are the volumes in The American Nation (A. B. Hart, Editor). On the period described in this chapter the volumes are Greene, Provincial America (1905), and Thwaites, France in America (1905). Channing, History of the United States, vol. II (1908), is excellent, and great praise must be awarded to Avery, History of the United States and its People, 7 vols. (1904-). Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, 8 vols. (1888-1889), has some very good chapters and very valuable references. Chalmers, Introduction to the History of the Revolt of the American Colonies, vol. I (1782). Vol. II (1845), a British work of much ability and generally regarded as the best contemporary general history of the colonies. The author was a king's officer in America, and after his return to England had access to important papers. Lodge, Short History of the English Colonies (ed. 1902) is a useful summary. The State Paper Office, London, contains in manuscript a vast collection of letters from British Colonial officials, the most important source of our colonial history. Some of the states have published all or parts of this material, notably New York in Documents Relative to Colonial History, 14 vols. and index (18561883); New Jersey, in Documents Relating to Colonial History, 22 vols. (18801902); North Carolina in Colonial Records, 10 vols. (1886-1890). The British government is slowly publishing calendars with the title, Calendars of State Papers, Colonial Series: America and West Indies, 14 vols. (1860-1910). See also Force, Tracts and Other Papers, 4 vols. (1836-1846). For English history and policy during this period see: Lecky, England in the Eighteenth Century, 8 vols. (1878–1890), a judicious discussion; Cobbett, Parliamentary History of England, 36 vols. (1806-1820); Egerton, Short History of British Colonial Policy (1897); Beer, Commercial Policy of England towards the American Colonies (Columbia University Studies, III, 1893); Ibid., The Old Colonial System, 1660-1754, 2 vols. (1912); Ibid., British Colonial Policy, 1754-1765 (1907); Kellog, The American Colonial Charter (Am. Hist. Assn. Report, 1903, vol. I); and Lord, Industrial Experiments in the British Colonies of North America (Johns Hopkins Univ. Studies, Extra, 1898). For the development of institutions within the colonies the best work is Osgood, The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, 3 vols. (1904-1907). Good monographs are: Greene, The Provincial Governor in the English Colonies of North America (Harvard Hist. Studies, 1898); McKinley, Suffrage in the Thirteen English Colonies (Univ. of Penn. Publications, series in History, 1905); and Miller, Legal Qualifications for Office (Am. Hist. Assn. Report, 1899). For the history of individual colonies the following are convienent and generally reliable: Palfrey, History of New England, 6 vols. (ed. 1890); Belknap, History of BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE 133 New Hampshire, 3 vols. (1784-1792); Barry, History of Massachusetts, 3 vols. (1858-1864); Arnold, History of Rhode Island, 2 vols. (ed. 1899); Trumbull, History of Connecticut, 2 vols. (ed. 1898); Fiske, Dutch and Quaker Colonies, 2 vols. (1899); Smith, History of New York (1757 and various later editions); Brodhead, History of New York, 2 vols. (1871); Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary Province (1901); Fiske, Old Virginia and Her Neighbors, 2 vols. (1898); Campbell, History of Virginia (1860); Ashe, History of North Carolina, vol. I (1908); McCrady, South Carolina under Proprietary Government (1897); Ibid., South Carolina under Royal Government (1899); and Jones, History of Georgia, 2 vols. (1883). On the French in Canada and their conflict with England the best American work is Parkman's standard series, France and England in the New World, 12 vols., in many editions. The sub-titles are: Pioneers of France in the New World (1865); Jesuits in North America (1867); La Salle (1869); The Old Régime in Canada (1874); Frontenac and New France under Louis XIV. (1877); A Half-Century of Conflict, 2 vols. (1892); Montcalm and Wolfe, 2 vols. (1884); and The Conspiracy of Pontiac, 2 vols. (1851). Kingsford, History of Canada, 10 vols. (18871898), is the best English authority. It lacks Parkman's readable qualities, but is more concise. Corbett, England in the Seven Years' War, 2 vols. (1907), is excellent; Miles, History of Canada under the French Régime (1872), is a good short work, and Winsor, From Cartier to Frontenac (1894), is valuable for its treatment of explorations. The French side of the war is presented in Faillon, Histoire de la Colonie Française en Canada, 3 vols. (1865); Ferland, Cours d'histoire du Canada, 2 vols. (1861-1865); and Garneau, Histoire du Canada, 4 vols. (ed. 1882-1883). For the last struggle for Canada see: Wood, The Fight for Canada (1906); Bonnechose, Montcalm et la Canada Française (1877); Martin, Montcalm et les Dernières Années de la Colonie Française (ed. 1898). For early Louisiana see Gayarré, Louisiana under French Dominion, 4 vols. (ed. 1904); Fortier, History of Louisiana, 6 vols. (1904); and Villiers du Terraget, Les Dernières Années de la Louisiane Française (1903). For Independent Reading Fiske, Old Virginia and Her Neighbors, 2 vols. (1898); Madam Knight, Journal, 1704-1705 (ed. 1865), relates chiefly to New England; Byrd, Writings of Colonel William Byrd of Westover in Virginia, Esq. (Bassett ed., 1901); Parkman, La Salle (1869); Ibid., Montcalm and Wolfe, 2 vols. (1884); Wright, Life of Wolfe (1864); Guénin, Montcalm (1898); Halsey, The Old New York Frontier, 2 vols. (1882); Grace King, New Orleans (1895). CHAPTER VII SOCIAL PROGRESS IN COLONIES THE CONDITIONS OF SETTLEMENT THE desire to own land was the impelling cause of most of the early migration to America. Land was sold cheap, but the amount one Distribution of the Land. person might buy was sometimes restricted. Free distribution to settlers was usually made. Such allotments, "importation rights," were as large in some colonies as fifty acres for each adult brought in, and they were allowed to male indented servants at the expiration of term of service. In the South, where money crops could be raised, the tendency was to own large farms; for though the men of a community were usually poor at first, some would be thrifty and would eventually buy up and consolidate into large holdings what had originally been a series of small farms. In New England agriculture was not as profitable as in the South, the soil was stony, the crops were not abundant, and the farms were small. Where the farms were large, population was widely dispersed, and where they were small it was denser. Roads. In all the colonies the settlers first took up the richest land, generally along the rivers. This was advantageous because the rivers were the best means of transportation. In the southern colonies, in which streams abounded, the land between them came slowly into settlement. This "ridge land" was the home of the poorer people, and the result was that roads came slowly into existence. When constructed, they were merely traced through the forest and became very difficult in wet weather. In the compact settlements of the North roads were early laid out, bridges were built, and inns were provided. But land traveling was not comfortable before the revolution in any part of the colonies. The New In the royal colony land was granted by the governor and council in the name of the king, in a proprietary colony it was granted either directly or indirectly by the officers exercising a similar jurisdiction. In New England the assembly created trustees of a town with authority to grant the land to settlers. The trustees then met and selected the site for the meetinghouse, reserving a portion of the land for a common, and assigning the lots around it. Land not granted was held by the town for common use, as grazing, the taking of firewood, and wood for necessary buildings. From the compact nature of New England settlements the |