Governor Dinwiddie recommended to the board of trade an extensive cordon of forts, to cover the entire frontier of the colonies from Crown Point to the country of the Creek Indians. His project was to pay for these forts and support their garrisons by a land and poll tax, levied on all the colonies by an act of parliament. Washington advised that Virginia should guard her frontier by additional forts about fifteen miles apart. Fort Loudoun was erected at Winchester, the key of that region, under his superintendence. It was a square with four bastions; the batteries mounted twenty-four guns; a well was sunk, mostly through a bed of limestone; the barracks were sufficient for four hundred and fifty men. Vestiges of this fortification still remain. Winchester, after the erection of Fort Loudoun, increased rapidly, owing to its being the rendezvous of the Virginia troops: in 1759 it contained two hundred houses.
It is remarkable that as late as the year 1756, when the colony was a century and a half old, the Blue Ridge of mountains was virtually the western boundary of Virginia, and great difficulty was found in completing a single regiment for the protection of the inhabitants of the border country from the cruel irruptions of the Indians. Yet at this time the population of the colony was estimated at two hundred and ninety-three thousand, of whom one hundred and seventy-three thousand were white, and one hundred and twenty thousand black, and the militia were computed at thirty-five thousand fit to bear arms.
Dinwiddie wrote to Fox, (father of Charles James,) one of the secretaries of state: "We dare not venture to part with any of our white men any distance, as we must have a watchful eye over our negro slaves, who are upwards of one hundred thousand." Some estimated them at one hundred and fifty thousand, equal in number to the whites, but the smaller estimate is probably more correct. The increase of the blacks was rapid, and many lamented that the mother country should suffer such multitudes to be brought from Africa to gratify the African Company, "and overrun a dutiful colony." As to the question whether enslaving the negroes is consistent with Christianity, the Rev. Peter Fontaine remarks: "Like Adam, we are all apt to shift off the blame from ourselves and lay it upon others; how justly, in our case, you may judge. The negroes are enslaved by the negroes themselves before they are purchased by the masters of the ships who bring them here. It is, to be sure, at our choice whether we buy them or not; so this, then, is our crime, folly, or whatever you will please to call it. But our assembly, foreseeing the ill consequences of importing such numbers among us, hath often attempted to lay a duty upon them which would amount to a prohibition, such as ten or twenty pounds a head; but no governor dare pass such a law, having instructions to the contrary from the board of trade at home. By this means they are forced upon us whether we will or will not. This plainly shows the African Company hath the advantage of the colonies, and may do as it pleases with the ministry." "To live in Virginia without slaves is morally impossible," and it was a hard task for the planter to perform his duty toward them; for, on the one hand, if they were not compelled to work hard, he would endanger his temporal ruin; on the other hand, was the danger of not being able, in a better world, to render a good account of his humane stewardship of them.[495:A]
A long interval of tranquillity had enervated the planters of Virginia: luxury had introduced effeminate manners and dissolute habits. "To eat and drink delicately and freely; to feast, and dance, and riot; to pamper cocks and horses; to observe the anxious, important, interesting event, which of two horses can run fastest, or which of two cocks can flutter and spur most dexterously; these are the grand affairs that almost engross the attention of some of our great men. And little low-lived sinners imitate them to the utmost of their power. The low-born sinner can leave a needy family to starve at home, and add one to the rabble at a horse-race or a cock-fight. He can get drunk and turn himself into a beast with the lowest as well as his betters with more delicate liquors." Burk, the historian of Virginia, who was by no means a rigid censor, noticing the manners of the Virginians during the half century preceding the Revolution, says: "The character of the people for hospitality and expense was now decided, and the wealth of the land proprietors, particularly on the banks of the rivers, enabled them to indulge their passions even to profusion and excess. Drinking parties were then fashionable, in which the strongest head or stomach gained the victory. The moments that could be spared from the bottle were devoted to cards. Cock-fighting was also fashionable."[495:B] On the same pages he adds: "I find, in 1747, a main of cocks advertised to be fought between Gloucester and James River. The cocks on one side were called 'Bacon's Thunderbolts,' after the celebrated rebel of 1676."
The pay of the soldiers in 1756 was but eight pence a day, of which two pence was reserved for supplying them with clothes. The meagre pay, and the practice of impressing vagrants into the military service, increased much the difficulty of recruiting and of enforcing obedience and subordination. Even Indians calling themselves friendly did not scruple to insult and annoy the inhabitants of the country through which they passed. One hundred and twenty Cherokees, passing through Lunenburg County, insulted people of all ranks, and a party of Catawbas behaved so outrageously at Williamsburg that it was necessary to call out the militia.
Although Governor Dinwiddie was an able man, his zeal in military affairs sometimes outstripped his knowledge, and Washington was at times distracted by inconsistent and impracticable orders, and harassed by undeserved complaints. It was indeed alleged by some, that if he could have withstood the strong interest arrayed in favor of Washington, the governor would rather have given the command to Colonel Innes, although far less competent, and an inhabitant of another colony, North Carolina. Dinwiddie's partiality to Innes was attributed, by those unfriendly to the governor, to national prejudice, for they were both natives of Scotland.[496:A] Yet it appears by Dinwiddie's letters that he urgently pressed the rank of colonel on Washington.[496:B] Washington, in his letters to Speaker Robinson, complains heavily of the governor's line of conduct, and Robinson's replies were such as would widen the breach.[496:C] The tenor of the governor's correspondence with Washington, in 1757, became so ungracious, peremptory, and even offensive, that he could not but attribute the change in his conduct toward him to some secret detraction, and he gave utterance to a noble burst of eloquent self-defence. Dinwiddie's position was indeed trying, his measures being thwarted by a rather disaffected legislature and an arrogant aristocracy, and the censures thrown upon him, coming to us through a discolored medium of prejudice, ought to be taken with much allowance. However this may be, harsh and rather overbearing treatment from a British governor, together with the invidious distinctions drawn between colonial and British officers in regard to rank, naturally tended to abate Washington's loyalty, and thus gradually to fit him for the great part which he was destined to perform in the war of Independence.
Lord Loudoun, the newly-appointed governor of Virginia, and commander-in-chief of the colonies, now arrived in America, and called a conference of governors and military officers to meet him at Philadelphia. Washington, by the rather ungracious and reluctant leave of Dinwiddie, attended the conference. Yet Dinwiddie, in his letters to Loudoun, said of him: "He is a very deserving gentleman, and has from the beginning commanded the forces of this Dominion. He is much beloved, has gone through many hardships in the service, has great merit, and can raise more men here than any one." He therefore urged his promotion to the British establishment.[497:A] Washington had previously transmitted to the incompetent Loudoun an elaborate statement of the posture of affairs in Virginia, exhibiting the insufficiency of the militia and the necessity of an offensive system of operations. But Loudoun determined to direct his main efforts against Canada, and to leave only twelve hundred men in the middle and southern provinces. Instead of receiving aid, Virginia was required to send four hundred men to South Carolina. The Virginia Regiment was now reduced to a thousand men. Colonel Washington, nevertheless, insisted that a favorable conjuncture was presented for capturing Fort Du Quesne, since the French, when attacked in Canada, would be unable to re-enforce that remote post. This wise advice, although approved by Dinwiddie, was unheeded; and the campaign of the North proved inglorious, that of the South ineffectual. Toward the close of the year, Washington, owing to multiplied cares, vexations, and consequent ill health, relinquished his post, and retired to Mount Vernon, where he remained for several months.
In January, 1758, Robert Dinwiddie, after an arduous and disturbed administration of five years, worn out with vexation and age, sailed from Virginia not much regretted, except by his particular friends. A scholar, a wit, and an amiable companion, in private life he deservedly won esteem. The charge alleged against him of avarice and extortion in the exaction of illegal fees, appears to have originated in political prejudice, and that of failing to account for sums of money transmitted by the British government, rests on the unsupported assertions of those who were inimical to him. His place was filled for a short time by John Blair, president of the council.
The Rev. Samuel Davies, by invitation, preached to the militia of Hanover County, in Virginia, at a general muster, on the 8th of May, 1758, with a view to the raising a company for Captain Samuel Meredith. In this discourse Davies said: "Need I inform you what barbarities and depredations a mongrel race of Indian savages and French Papists have perpetrated upon our frontiers? How many deserted or demolished houses and plantations? How wide an extent of country abandoned? How many poor families obliged to fly in consternation and leave their all behind them? What breaches and separations between the nearest relations? What painful ruptures of heart from heart? What shocking dispersions of those once united by the strongest and most endearing ties? Some lie dead, mangled with savage wounds, consumed to ashes with outrageous flames, or torn and devoured by the beasts of the wilderness, while their bones lie whitening in the sun, and serve as tragical memorials of the fatal spot where they fell. Others have been dragged away captives, and made the slaves of imperious and cruel savages: others have made their escape, and live to lament their butchered or captivated friends and relations. In short, our frontiers have been drenched with the blood of our fellow-subjects through the length of a thousand miles, and new wounds are still opening. We, in these inland parts of the country are as yet unmolested, through the unmerited mercy of Heaven. But let us only glance a thought to the western extremities of our body politic, and what melancholy scenes open to our view! Now perhaps while I am speaking, now while you are secure and unmolested, our fellow-subjects there may be feeling the calamities I am now describing. Now, perhaps, the savage shouts and whoops of Indians, and the screams and groans of some butchered family, may be mingling their horrors and circulating their tremendous echoes through the wilderness of rocks and mountains."[499:A] There appears to be some resemblance between this closing sentence and the following, in Fisher Ames' speech on the western posts: "I can fancy that I listen to the yells of savage vengeance and the shrieks of torture. Already they seem to sigh in the western wind; already they mingle with every echo from the mountains."[499:B]
