USA > Virginia > The planters of colonial Virginia > Part 5
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18
There existed in England a widespread impression that the servant, upon securing his freedom, was entitled by law to fifty acres of land. This appears to have been a mistake aris- ing from a misapprehension of the nature of the headright, which belonged not to the servant himself, but to the person who paid for his transportation. In many cases the indentures do not state the exact rewards to be received by the new freed- man, but only that they are to accord with "the custom of the country," a very elastic term which could be construed by the master to suit his own interest.6 John Hammond, in his Leah and Rachel, strongly advised the immigrant before affixing his signature to the indenture to insist upon the inclusion of a clause specifically providing for the payment of the fifty acres.7 But the importance which attaches to this matter lies as much in the servant's expectation as in its fulfilment. Whether or not he received his little plantation, he believed that he was to get a tract of land, a very extensive tract it must have seemed to him, which would assure him a good living and make it possible for him to rise out of the class to which he belonged.8
In 1627 the Virginia General Court issued an order which is significant of the attitude of the colony itself to the freed- men. "The Court, taking into consideration that the next en-
62
THE PLANTERS OF '
sueing year there will be many tenants and servants freed unto whom after their freedom there will be no land due, whereby they may without some order taken to the contrary settle and seat themselves . .. have ordered that the Governor and Council may give unto the said servants and tenants leases for terms of years such quantities of land as shall be needful."9 Thus, at this period at least, not only was it expected in the colony that servants would become land holders, but it was felt that for them not to do so was a matter of such grave concern as to require the special attention of the Government.
After all, however, the key to the situation must be sought in the history of tobacco culture and the tobacco trade. To- bacco was the universal crop of the colony and upon it every man depended for his advancement and prosperity. If the market was good and the price high, the planters flourished; if sales fell off and the price was low, they suffered accord- ingly. It is evident, then, that the ability of the freedman to secure a position of economic independence hinged upon the profit to be derived from his little tobacco crop. It does not matter whether he worked as a wage earner, tenant or free- holder, in the end the result would be the same. If the re- turns from his labor greatly exceeded his expenses, his sav- ings would make it possible for him to establish himself firm- ly in the class of the colonial yeomanry. On the other hand, if he could wring from the soil no more than a bare subsis- tence, he would remain always a poor laborer, or perhaps be forced to seek his fortune in some other colony. Thus if we are to understand the status of the freed servant and the hope which he could entertain of advancement, it is necessary to turn our attention once more to economic conditions in the colony. First, we must determine the amount of tobacco the, freedman could produce by his unassisted labor; second, the price he received for it; third, how much he had to give the
63
COLONIAL VIRGINIA
merchants in exchange for their wares; and finally, the margin of profit left after all expenses had been paid.
Despite a marked divergence of testimony regarding the amount of tobacco one man could cultivate, we are able to de- termine this matter with some degree of exactness. In 1627 the King, in outlining a plan to take into his own hands the entire tobacco trade, proposed to limit the imports to 200 pounds for each master of a family and 125 for each servant.10 To this, however, the planters entered a vigorous protest, claiming that the quantity was "not sufficient for their main- tenance." They in turn suggested that the King take a total of. 500,000 pounds a year, which for a population of 3,000 meant 167 pounds for each inhabitant, or perhaps about 500 pounds for each actual laborer.11 Again in 1634 it was pro- posed that the Crown purchase yearly 600,000 pounds of Vir- ginia tobacco.12 As the population of the colony at that date was about 5,000, this would have allowed only 120 pounds for each person, and once more the planters protested vigor- ously.13 It would seem that both of these offers were based not so much upon the amount that one man could raise as upon the quantity which could be sold in England at a certain price. In fact it is probable that even so early as 1628 the average output of one freedman was not less than 1,000 pounds. It is interesting to note that in 1640, soon after Gov- ernor Francis Wyatt's arrival from England, it was found that the excessive crop of the previous year had so clogged the market that upon the advice of the merchants the Govern- ment was "forced to a strict way of destroying the bad and halfe the goode."14
The author of A New Description of Virginia, published in 1649, claims that one man could plant from 1,600 to 2,000 pounds a year.15 As the pamphlet presents a somewhat opti- mistic picture of affairs in general in the colony, this estimate
64
THE PLANTERS OF
must be taken with some reserve. More trustworthy is the statement of Secretary Thomas Ludwell in 1667 that 1,200 pounds was "the medium of men's yearly crops."16
At all events, it is evident that the planter, even when en- tirely dependent upon his own exertions, could produce a goodly crop. It is now necessary to ascertain what he got for it. In the second and third decades of the Seventeenth cen- tury the price of tobacco was very high. The first cargo, con- sisting of 20,000 pounds consigned in the George, sold for no less than £5,250, or 5s. 3d. a pound.17 No wonder the leaders of the London Company were pleased, believing that in the Indian weed they had discovered a veritable gold mine! No wonder the settlers deserted their pallisades and their villages to seek out the richest soil and the spots best suited for tobacco culture! The man who could produce 200 pounds of the plant, after all freight charges had been met, could clear some £30 or £35, a very tidy sum indeed for those days. It was the discovery that Virginia could produce tobacco of excellent quality that accounts for the heavy migration in the years from 1618 to 1623. In fact, so rich were the returns that certain persons came to the colony, not with the intention of making it their permanent residence, but of enriching themselves "by a cropp of Tobacco," and then returning to England to enjoy the proceeds.18
But this state of affairs was of necessity temporary. Very soon the increasing size of the annual crop began to tell upon the price, and in 1623 Sir Nathaniel Rich declared that he had bought large quantities of tobacco at two shillings a pound.19 This gentleman felt that it would be just to the planters were they to receive two shillings and four pence for the best varieties, and sixteen pence for the "second sort." In the same year Governor Wyatt and his Council, in a letter to the Virginia Company, placed the valuation of tobacco at
65
COLONIAL VIRGINIA
eighteen pence a pound.20 Three years later, however, the Governor wrote the Privy Council advising the establishment in Virginia of a "magazine" or entrepot, where the merchants should be compelled to take the tobacco at three shillings a pound.21 This proposal did not seem reasonable to the King, and when Sir George Yeardley came over as Governor for the second time he was instructed to see to it that "the merchant be not constrained to take tobacco at 3. P. Pound in exchange for his wares," and to permit him to "make his own bar- gain."22
Apparently not discouraged by this rebuff, in 1628 the Gov- ernor, Council and Burgesses petitioned the King, who once more was planning to take the trade into his own hands, to grant them "for their tobacco. delivered in the colony three shillings and six pence per pound, and in England four shill- ings."23 This valuation undoubtedly was far in advance of the current prices, and King Charles, considering it unreason- able would not come to terms with the planters. In fact, it appears that for some years the price of tobacco had been de- clining rapidly. In May, 1630, Sir John Harvey wrote the Privy Council that the merchants had bought the last crop with their commodities at less than a penny per pound,24 and two years later, in a statement sent the Virginia Commission- ers, he claimed that the price still remained at that figure.25
It may be taken for granted, however, that this estimate was far below the actual price. The planters showed a de- cided tendency to blow hot or cold according to the purpose in view, and in these two particular statements Sir John was pleading for better treatment from the merchants. Yet it is reasonably certain that tobacco was at a low ebb in the years from 1629 to 1633, and sold at a small fraction of the figures of the preceding decade.26 The Governor repeatedly wrote asking for relief, while in the Assembly attempts were made
66
THE PLANTERS OF
to restore the market by restricting the size of the annual crop.27 27
Yet things must have taken a favorable turn soon after, for in 1634 the planters informed the King's Commissioners that they would not sell him their tobacco at less than six pence in Virginia and fourteen pence delivered in England.28 Later the King wrote to the Governor and Council that the rate had recently "doubly or trebly advanced."29 This is substantiated by the fact that the Commissioners, in 1638, allowed the planters "4d. a pound clear of all charges," despite which they complained that in an open market they could do better.30
In 1638 several prominent Virginians estimated that on an average during the preceding eleven years they had received not more than two pence for their tobacco, but here again it is probable that there was some exaggeration.31 In 1649 the author of A New Description of Virginia stated that tobacco sold in Virginia for three pence a pound.32 All in all it seems that prices in the early years of the settlement varied from five shillings to a few pence, that a disastrous slump occurred at the end of the third decade, followed by a rapid recovery which brought the rate to about three pence, at which figure it remained fairly constant for twenty-five years or more throughout the Civil War and most of the Commonwealth periods.
The return which the Virginia farmer received from his one staple crop was determined by a number of factors over which he himself had but little control. Had he been per- mitted to seek his own market and drive his own bargain free from the restraining hand of the British Government, no doubt he would have secured a much better price. But from the moment it became apparent that the Virginia tobacco rivalled in flavor that of the Spanish colonies and could com- mand as ready a sale throughout Europe, the trade was sub-
67
COLONIAL VIRGINIA
jected to various regulations and restrictions which proved most vexatious to the colony and elicited frequent and vigor- ous protests. Neither James nor Charles had any idea of per- mitting free trade. In their prolonged struggle with the lib- eral party both saw in tobacco a ready means of aiding the Exchequer, and so of advancing toward the goal of financial independence. These monarchs were by no means hostile to Virginia. In fact, both took great interest in the tiny settle- ment upon the James, which they looked upon as the begin- ning of the future British colonial empire. Yet they lent too willing an ear to those who argued that tobacco might be made to yield a goodly revenue to the Crown without injury to the planters.
The policy adopted by the early Stuart kings and adhered to with but minor changes throughout the colonial period con- sisted of four essential features. First, the tobacco raised in the plantations should be sent only to England; second, upon entering the mother country it must pay a duty to the Crown; third, Spanish tobacco should be excluded or its importation strictly limited; lastly, the cultivation of the plant in England itself was forbidden.
In the years when the colony was still weak and dependent upon the mother country this program was not unfair. The prohibition of tobacco growing in England, however unneces- sary it would have been under conditions of free trade, was felt by the planters to be a real concession, while the restric- tions upon foreign importations saved them from dangerous competition at the very time when they were least able to com- bat it. Nor were they seriously injured by the imposition of the customs duties. The planters themselves imagined that the incidence of this tax fell upon their own shoulders and that they were impoverished to the full extent of the revenues de- rived from it. But in this they were mistaken. The duty, in
68
THE PLANTERS OF
the last resort, was paid not by the planters but by the British consumers. The colonists were affected adversely only in so far as the enhanced price of tobacco in England restricted the market.
On the other hand, the prohibition of foreign trade was a very real grievance and elicited frequent protests from the planters. Dutch merchants paid high prices for the Virginia tobacco and offered their manufactured goods in return at figures far below those of the British traders. The Virginians could not understand why they should not take advantage of this opportunity. "I humbly desire to be informed from your honors," wrote Governor Harvey to the Virginia Commission- ers in 1632, "whether there be any obstacle why we may not have the same freedome of his Majesties other subjects to seek our best market."33
But Harvey was attacking what already had become a fixed policy of the Crown, a policy which was to remain the corner- stone of the British colonial system for centuries. The Gov- ernment had, therefore, not the slightest intention of yielding, and from time to time issued strict orders that all colonial to- bacco, whether of Virginia or the West Indies, be brought only to England or to English colonies. When Sir William Berke- ley was appointed Governor in 1642 he was instructed to "bee verry careful that no ships or other vessels whatsoever depart from thence, freighted with tobacco or other commodities which that country shall afford, before bond with sufficient se- curities be taken to his Majesty's use, to bring the same di- rectly into his Majesty's Dominions and not elsewhere."34
Despite the insistence of the British Government in this matter, there is abundant evidence to show that the Virginians continued to indulge in direct trade with the continent for many years after the overthrow of the Company. In 1632 Governor Harvey wrote that "our intrudinge neighbours, the
69
COLONIAL VIRGINIA
Dutch, doe allow us eighteen peance p. pound" for tobacco, while a few months later we find him reporting the attempt of John Constable and others "to defraud his Majesty of his duties by unloading in the Netherlands."35
With the advent of the English Civil War and throughout the Commonwealth period Virginia enjoyed a large degree of independence and found it possible to trade with the Dutch almost with impunity. Even the strict Berkeley seems to have felt it no disloyalty for the planters to seek foreign markets for their staple while the mother country was torn by the con- tending armies of King and Parliament. And so the mer- chantmen of Flushing and Amsterdam pushed their prows into every river and creek in Virginia and Maryland, taking off large quantities of tobacco and giving in return the celebrated manufactured goods of their own country. At Christmas 1648, if we may believe the testimony of the author of A New Description of Virginia, there were trading in the colony ten ships from London, two from Bristol, seven from New England and twelve from Holland. In 1655 the statement was made that "there was usually found intruding upon the plan- tation divers ships, surruptitiously carrying away the growth thereof to foreign ports to the prejudice of this Common- wealth."36
Thus in the years prior to the Restoration Virginia was never fully subjected to the operation of the British colonial system. When the price of tobacco in the London market fell lower and lower, the planters might and often did find relief by defying the King's commands and trading directly with the Dutch.37 And this benefitted them doubly, for not only did they strike a better bargain with the foreign traders, but every cargo of tobacco diverted from England tended to relieve the market there and restore prices. In fact there can be little doubt that the frequent violations of the trade re-
70
THE PLANTERS OF
strictions of this period alone saved the colony from the pov- erty and distress of later days and made possible the pros- perity enjoyed by the planters.
It must be noted also that of the tobacco sent to England itself, a part was reshipped to foreign countries. In 1610 a law was enacted for the refunding of all import duties upon articles that were re-exported. This drawback applied also to colonial products, but under Charles I an exception was made in their case and the privilege withdrawn. In conse- quence the importers made a vigorous protest in Parliament, and the King, in 1631, modified his policy by ordering that of the nine pence duty then in operation, six pence should be re- funded when the tobacco was shipped abroad. In 1632 the drawback was increased to seven pence leaving the total duty paid by the merchants who traded through England to foreign countries two pence a pound only.38 Although this consti- tuted a most serious obstacle to trade and at times aroused the merchants to bitter protest, it by no means completely blocked re-exportation. So great were the natural qualifica- tions of Virginia for producing tobacco, that it was possible to purchase a cargo from the planters on the James, proceed with it to London, pay there the two pence a pound duty, re- ship it to the continent and sell it there at a profit.39 Although this trade was not extensive, it must have had an important influence in maintaining prices and in bringing prosperity to all classes in the colony.
Thus Virginia, contrary to the wishes of the mother coun- try and in defiance of her regulations, enjoyed for its staple product in the years prior to 1660, a world market. Whether by direct trade or by re-exportation from England a goodly share of the annual crop was consumed in foreign countries, a share which had it been left in England to clog the market, would have reacted disastrously upon all concerned.
71
COLONIAL VIRGINIA
It is apparent, then, that in the first half century of its existence Virginia was the land of opportunity. The poor man who came to her shores, whether under terms of inden- ture or as a freeman, found it quite possible to establish him- self as a person of some property and consideration. We may imagine the case of the servant who had completed his term and secured his freedom at any time during the third decade of the Seventeenth century. As we have seen, it was an easy matter for him to secure a small patch of land and the tools with which to cultivate it. By his unassisted efforts, if he ap- plied himself steadily to the task, he could produce a good crop of tobacco, consisting perhaps of some 400 pounds. This he could sell to the merchants for from two shillings to six pence a pound, or a total of from fio to £40.40
In the years from 1630 to 1640, when the price of tobacco seems to have stabilized itself at from two to three pence, cases of such extraordinary returns must have been of less frequent occurrence, but to some extent lower prices were off- set by larger crops. If our freedman in 1635 could raise 800 pounds of leaf and dispose of it for four pence, his in- come would be £13.6.8; in 1649, by producing 1,000 pounds, he could sell it at three pence for £12.10.0. In fact, it is not too much to say that the average annual income from the labor of one able worker at any time prior to 1660 was not less than £12. When we take into consideration the fact that the planter produced his own food, and that out of the proceeds of his tobacco crop he paid only his taxes and his bills to the English importers, it is evident that he had a goodly margin of profit to lay aside as working capital.
It must not be forgotten, however, that this margin was greatly reduced by the high cost of clothing, farm implements and all other articles brought from across the ocean. The long and dangerous voyage from London to the Chesapeake
72
THE PLANTERS OF
made the freight rates excessive, while the merchants did not scruple to drive a hard bargain whenever possible. The let- ters of the Governors are filled with complaints against the exactions of these men. "This year the Merchants have bought our tobacco with their commodities at less than a penny the pounde," Harvey wrote in 1630, "and have not shamed to make the planters pay twelve pounds Sterlinge the tunn freight home."41 Two years later he complained that a certain Captain Tucker had just sailed leaving his stores well stocked with goods, but with "instructions to his factors not to sell but at most excessive rates."42 In 1628, the Governor, Council and Burgesses, in a petition to the King, declared that for years they had "groaned under the oppression of uncon- scionable and cruel merchants by the excessive rates of their commodities."43 Six years later Governor Harvey stated that all things which "come hither" are sold at "thrice the value they cost in England."44
It is obvious, however, that after all expenses had been paid, a goodly margin of profit was left, a margin perhaps averag- ing some three or four pounds sterling. The provident and industrious immigrant, a few years after the conclusion of his term, might well lay aside enough to make it possible for him in turn to secure a servant from England. This accomplished, he at once rose into the class of employers and his future ad- vance was limited only by his capabilities and his ambition.
We would naturally expect to find, then, that during these years a large percentage of those who came to the colony under terms of indenture, sooner or later acquired land, per- haps bought servants, and became persons of some standing in the colony. Certainly the opportunity was theirs. It will be interesting therefore to study the early records in order to glean what evidence we may concerning this matter. If the servants graduated in any appreciable numbers into the planter
73
COLONIAL VIRGINIA
class, the patents, wills, inventories, land transfers and muster rolls could hardly fail to yield some evidence of the fact.
Turning first to the earliest period, we find that of the la- borers who were imported by the London Company to culti- vate the public lands, a fair proportion became proprietors and were regarded by later comers with especial esteem as "ancient planters." At the termination of their service they were granted 100 acres and when this was fully cultivated re- ceived another tract of the same extent. To the apprentices bound out to tenants even more liberal treatment was accorded, for they were provided with a year's store of corn, a house, a cow, clothing, armor, household utensils, farm tools and as much land as they could till.45
The guiding hand of the Company was missed by the freed- men after the revoking of the charter, for the Governors seem to have left them to shift for themselves. Yet this fact did not prevent many from forging ahead, acquiring land, and in some cases positions of trust in the Government itself. In Hotten's Immigrants is published a muster roll for the year 1624 of all the settlers in Virginia, in which servants are carefully dis- tinguished from freemen.46 By following, as well as the im- perfect records of the period permit, the after careers of the former, it is possible to determine with a fair degree of ac- curacy to what extent the small farmer class at this period was recruited from persons coming to the colony under terms of indenture.
Of the forty-four Burgesses who sat in the Assembly of 1629, no less than seven-John Harris, William Allen, Wil- liam Popleton, Anthony Pagett, Richard Townsend, Adam Thoroughgood and Lionell Rowlston-were listed as servants in the muster of 1624.47 Thus some sixteen per cent of this important body, the Virginia House of Commons, at this time was made up of men who five years previously had been work-
74
THE PLANTERS OF
ing out their passage money. Among the thirty-nine members of the House of 1632, six appear as servants in the muster- Thomas Barnett, Adam Thoroughgood, Lionell Rowlston, Thomas Crump, Roger Webster and Robert Scotchmon. Whether there were other members who came over under terms of indenture but secured their freedom before 1624, we have no means of determining.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.