Huguenots Flee France Perhaps the most noteworthy and influential non-British group was the French Huguenots. Totaling 10,000 at most, their significance and participation in the colonies was quite out of proportion to their numbers. Largely persons of education and conviction, these strict Calvinists left their homeland solely for conscience's sake. 45 Beginning with the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 up to around 1750, thousands of Huguenots, mostly from the middle and artisan class, 46 sought refuge in and around the cities of Boston, Charleston and New York (founded New Rochelle, New York). Unlike some other non-English groups, the Huguenots merged freely into the general population, rather than establish specific colonies of their own. Coming from the most Nordic parts of France (the west coast and Normandy), 47 the Huguenots rapidly assimilated into the cultural fabric of Anglo-Saxon America. 48 During the struggle for independence, second generation Huguenots such as Frances Marion and John Jay markedly distinguished themselves as soldiers and statesmen for the patriot cause. POPULATION MAKE-UP BY 1775 Total of White Population and National Origins From the facts we have reviewed, we are able to make a reasonable estimate of the population make-up and determine the national origins of our colonial settlers. Out of a total white population of approximately 2,000,000 souls, numbered at the outbreak of the War of Independence in 1775, we find that 1,500,000 were of straight English descent, while 300,000 were of related British stock; nearly 200,000 were of non-British but mostly Germanic and kindred origin. Accordingly, more than 90 percent of the white population was British in origin 49 and Nordic in race, and perhaps 99 percent was Protestant in faith! 50 It is also worth noting, that of the fifty-six gentlemen who signed the Declaration of Independence, we find thirty-four were classified as Episcopalians, twelve as Congregationalists, five as Presbyterians, two as Quakers, including one Baptist, one Roman Catholic, and one unidentified. 51 It appears that all were Nordic in race, Saxon or kindred in origin, and all, except for perhaps two, were Protestant in their persuasion. Colonial Population Chiefly Derived from the Germanic Tribes Noted historian, George Bancroft, long recognized as the "Father of American History," described the character and make up of our colonial population as that chiefly derived from the Germanic (Saxon and kindred) race 52 --famed for its "love of personal independence." He further stated that the majority of the American families that emigrated from the British Isles were not of "the high folk of Normandie," but were of the free Saxon yeomanry. 53 This explains the preponderance of American names like Smith, Taylor, Baker, Mason, Carpenter, Cooper and Freeman, and the remarkable ability of these Americans to build a free-enterprise system based upon the trades and agriculture. |
NON-WHITE GROUPS IN COLONIAL AMERICA In colonial times, the formidable North American Indian wandered through the thick and gloomy forests of our frontier, while the negro began to rapidly populate the southern plantations. On the eve of independence, the black man had become a considerable fraction of the population, amounting to more than one-sixth of the total. But, he then formed a servile class, fenced off from the white majority by a strict color line, and had no direct influence upon the times. 54 Likewise, the Indian was kept outside the mainstream of Anglo-Saxon civilization, and, he also, had no direct bearing upon the forging of our national life. Thus, both groups were a negligible factor, politically and religiously. Our colonial forebears held strict Calvinist views regarding racial separation. The acts of integration and amalgamation were, more often than not, considered unbiblical and therefore inconceivable. Regrettably, we can thank revisionist history for providing much misinformation concerning the role of these two non-white groups and their respective relationship with the white colonists. No doubt, the presence of these two diverse races has fueled revisionists with the notion that America was multicultural from her beginning. Introduction of Negro Servants and Slaves in the Colonies It is questionable whether the early English colonists ever desired the importation of negroes for labor. The vigorous Saxon, as pioneer and yeoman, was generally inclined to perform his own labor. The notorious event of 1619, however, upset that inclination, when a Dutch man-of-war carrying booty and twenty African slaves entered the James River. Its captain, forbidden to land, threatened to throw overboard his negro captives. Reluctantly, the English authorities at Jamestown consented to purchase the blacks. 55 At once, the sad epoch foreshadowed the relentless and systematic dumping of cheap negro labor to come upon these shores. The negro race, from its introduction, was regarded with disgust, and its union with whites forbidden under ignominious, penalties. 56 Those modern writers who glorify the mulatto as carrying in his veins the "blue blood of Virginia royalists,” would be surprised to read that such miscegenation -according to actual records-occurred largely between black slave women and the lowest, most unintelligent white servants. 57 Even so, the unassimilable negro placed an immediate strain upon the small English colonies. Fortunately, the demand for black slave labor in early colonial times was far less than indentured servants. In 1683, for example, indentured servants in Virginia outnumbered black slaves four to one. 58 In 1689, there were about 12,000 white indentured servants in Maryland and Virginia together, compared to only 5000 negro slaves. 59 In addition, many of the first negroes imported were considered servants and not legal slaves. 60 The wholesale dumping of negro slave labor on the English colonies did not begin until the 18th century. In 1714, there were only 59,000 negroes in colonial America, but by 1754, there were nearly 300,000! 61 Most were concentrated in the South where his labor was more in demand. Here, the negro was best suited; he could endure the excessive heat of the sultry fields and the burning sun of the semi-tropics. Almost all the tobacco exported from Maryland and Virginia and all the rice and indigo of Carolina were the fruit of his toils. 62 By 1776, there were almost 500,000 negroes in the American colonies, totaling nearly twenty percent of the population! 63 Nevertheless, colonial America, as a whole, was always opposed to the African slave trade. 64 Maryland, Virginia, and even Carolina, alarmed at the excessive production and consequent low price of their staples, at the heavy debts incurred by the purchase of slaves on credit, and at the dangerous increase of the black population, each showed a preference for the immigration of white labor instead. 65 The records of colonial legislation are full with laws designed to restrict importation of black slaves. On April 6, 1776, the first Continental Congress gave legal expression to the well-formed opinion of the country by resolving "that no slaves be imported into any of the thirteen united colonies-” 66 This opinion was shared by many of the leading families of Virginia, including those of Washington, Madison and Jefferson. In addition, many believed that slavery altogether should be abolished-and the black man, once freed, should be repatriated. Only certain leaders of the far South-Georgia and South Carolina, who then admitted that their states could not survive economically without slave labor, wished to see this peculiar institution survive. It is unfortunate that many blacks today have swallowed the untruths perpetuated by the antichrist public education system, and still blame the ancestors of all white Americans for this former condition. In reality, the African slave trade was but the collaborate effort of an avaricious few. Blacks would be surprised to know that the Newport merchant, London banker, West Indian trader, British parliament and Crown, and even negro chieftains, each benefited more from the lucrative trade than the average southern planter! Furthermore, the institution of negro slavery was not the invention of the white man, but that of his own race! The earliest accounts of Africa bear witness that negro chieftains held men of their own kind as slaves and sold them to others. 67 Marketing of these slaves was not welcome in most colonial settlements, North and South, and their forced introduction certainly fueled one of the major grievances against the British Crown. Today the racial strife of our urban centers, is but the sour fruit of the African slave trade. Because of certain media agitators and revisionists, the history of the American Indian has been distorted to almost mythical proportions. The red-white struggle which followed the settlement of the English colonies arose from an irrepressible conflict between two distinct races. |
Indian Population and Characteristics From the beginning, the Amer-Indian was the essential hunter and gatherer. To support an average-sized family in the hunting and gathering stage, it took almost several square miles. 68 When European colonizers arrived in the early 17thcentury, the Indian population was estimated to be between 500,000 and 750,000, with 220,000 in California alone. 69 Perhaps no more than 200,000 lived east of the Mississippi. 70 Fierce internecine warfare and disease routinely kept their population low. With such scanty numbers, much of the country remained virtually uninhabited! 71 The notion of America as the "ideal society," prolific and great-until the "coming of the white man"-is very misleading indeed. To begin with, the American Indian was a redoubtable warrior. Cruel, cunning and patient, he was able to endure extreme fatigue and pain. An Indian brave could travel up to eighty miles in a single day, yet was inclined to periods of indolence and slothfulness, and often starved in the midst of plenty. He was honorable, generous and hospitable, yet undependable and even treacherous at times. 72 He shared with the white race many of the general characteristics of mankind, yet he was clearly distinct in his reason and ethics. 73 Indian Relations with the Colonists Such differences were realized by many of the colonists, including the English. Although French Catholics saw no serious objections to a policy of fraternization and even intermarriage with the Indians, the English Calvinists-particularly the Puritans-found it unscriptural, and therefore impossible. 74 In fact, contact with the Indian, and later the negro, merely strengthened the race consciousness already inherent in the English and other British settlers. In contrast to the Latin colonies, English wives shared the perilous adventure with their husbands of planting Christian settlements in the new world. 75 In regard to the plague which decimated one Indian tribe around Plymouth before the Pilgrims had landed, a Puritan characteristically noted that, "by this means Christ made room for His people to plant.” 76 Thus, in New England there was little missionary zeal in converting these native heathen. The Reverend John Eliot in Massachusetts did attempt in evangelizing them, and so did Roger Williams of Rhode Island. Neither, however, were able to change the minds and habits of the New England tribes. The fruits of the diligent efforts of both the Jesuits and Quakers were also inconsiderable. 77 |
Land Ownership and the Indian Tribes The first strain in red-white relations began with the alleged ownership of the vast hunting and fishing lands, and the various claims made by the English charters. Indian resistance to cession of these lands was often placated by offer or transaction of purchase, and later by outright conquest. 78 Beginning in early colonial times, numerous attempts were made to justly purchase tracts of land from the Indian chiefs. Frustration often ensued, as the Indian held distinct views regarding land use and ownership. Disposed to a nomadic and communal life of hunting and gathering, he was not accustomed to or amendable to the ways of the property-minded white settlers. Often, his responses were vague and elusive, requesting the colonists to seek permission from a strange assortment of "ghosts and spirits," as was the case with the so-called "sacred" hunting grounds of Kentucky and Tennessee. 79 Moreover, fierce rivalry existed among the various Indian tribes, therefore it was not uncommon for the Cherokee to sell land occupied by the Creek, or the Iroquois to encourage settlement of land inhabited by the Delaware. Above all, we should remember that the Saxon's main motive for colonization was Biblical--to occupy and improve the land for agricultural purposes, and thus, "divide" it among the individual families, "for an inheritance.” 80 Only in this way could the land be made productive. Unlike the communistic system, popular among the Mongolian and Asiatic peoples, the Biblical method of land use supported a healthy "increase" in population. Border Warfare and the Frontier Not all land deals proposed were honorable and not all white settlers were honest. From the back counties of Pennsylvania and particularly North Carolina came roaming thieves, desperadoes and border ruffians who repeatedly beguiled and plundered the Indians and other whites impartially. 81 These wanton acts instigated the Indians into retaliating on innocent whites, thus precipitating border warfare. Further excited by the French in Canada, and later the British, many young braves were unwilling to limit revenge to these few despicable characters. 82 Along the frontier, a merciless type of warfare was therefore waged, undistinguished in its, "destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions!" From King Philip's War on, the American Indian was looked upon with distrust and reaction. For more than a century, the colonial frontier was in constant vigil against Indian attack. Systematically, Indian war parties raided and plundered American settlements, and its inhabitants were brutally tortured and killed. The details of prisoner torture were horrible and far too revolting to repeat. 83 Even the terrible assaults made by the Assyrians against ancient Israel were not so fiendishly cruel. Among our western settlers, the Indian came to be regarded as a "devilish man," and "savage." Such depredations, however, did not deter the dangerous undertaking of settling the frontier. To the contrary, it aided the formation of American unity, by keeping the settlements closely knit, and thus prevented settlers from spreading out too thin and too rapidly, as might have occurred if the continent had been uninhabited. 84 A similar condition existed in the second millennium B.C., when the Israelites under Moses and Joshua sought to drive out the inhabitants of Canaan land. By the War of Independence, most of the American leadership was determined to remove the Indian menace which remained beyond the Appalachians. Beginning with Washington and culminating with Jackson, whole tribes were expelled and relocated to the territories west of the Mississippi by the United States military. The diaries of soldiers who knew and fought the Indians contained few words of regret. It is only in recent times that the true nature of the conflict has been conveniently repressed, and the Indian looked upon purely as a victim of white aggression. What nation since the commencement of the Christian era, ever rose from savage to civilized without Christianity? E.D. Griffin |
No comments:
Post a Comment