Hallowed Heritage: The Life of Virginia

by Dorothy Margaret Torpey

The following summer, in 1755, Washington returned with a larger army to the Ohio area. Two regiments, one thousand, of British regulars had been sent from England under the command of General Edward Braddock. These soldiers arrived at Alexandria from England, and Washington, having been assigned as an aide-de-camp to General Braddock, joined them there. A conference of five royal Governors—Dinwiddie (Virginia), Morris (Pennsylvania), Sharp (Maryland), DeLacey (New York) and Shirley (Massachusetts)—was held at the Carlyle House in Alexandria on April 14 to formulate plans for the protection of the western frontier against the French and Indian raids along the Ohio River. After much discussion, a campaign plan was adopted whereby General Braddock was to capture Fort Duquesne and expel the French from the Ohio Valley. At this same conference, the suggestion was made that the British Ministry could levy taxes on the colonies to help pay the expense of the war.

Braddock and his troops marched westward from Alexandria into western Pennsylvania near Fort Duquesne through dense wilderness from April 12 to July 9. General Braddock had been accustomed to fighting the European tactics way, but he was wholly unfamiliar with Indian and ambush fighting. Washington anxiously warned Braddock of ambush possibilities, but Braddock continued to have his army march in regular step in close order and in full uniform regalia through the underbrush. Indian scouts daily reported the progress of Braddock's army to the French at Fort Duquesne. When the British troops were within eight miles of the fort, they were attacked by the French and the Indians. The Virginia soldiers, many of whom were experienced in wilderness fighting, ran for cover behind the trees. Braddock, however, ordered his men to keep their formation and fire simultaneously. Thus, they were easy targets for the French and the Indians. Finally, they became so frightened at this unusual type of fighting that they broke ranks and tried to flee. Half of Braddock's 1600 troops were killed or wounded, Braddock himself being fatally wounded in action. This defeat occurred on July 9, 1755.

In addition to this military slaughter, numerous Cherokee Indian raiding parties took place from 1759-1760 in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia where homes were burned and men, women and children were killed unmercifully. Washington was put in charge of this frontier campaign with his headquarters at a fort in Winchester. Eventually, the General Assembly of Virginia raised troops of its own for its defense. The General Assembly then passed a law whereby a "Scalp Market" was established, and anyone bringing male scalps of hostile Indians above the age of twelve years to the market would receive ten pounds per scalp in 1755 to forty-five pounds per scalp in 1758 when the law expired. In July, the British General John Forbes with a large number of English soldiers and some Cherokee allies went to Fort Duquesne via Philadelphia. They were rejoined in September by Colonel Washington. Fort Duquesne was finally won by the English and colonial and Indian soldiers, and Washington, himself, raised the British flag over its ruins on November 25, 1758, ending the Indian attacks also on the frontier. Fort Duquesne had its name changed to Fort Pitt in honor of William Pitt the Elder, a British statesman, who had given ample support to Virginia's colonial policies. Thus, the inhabitants of Virginia played their role in the French and Indian War, apparently a misnomer because the war was actually fought between the French and the Indians and the British and the Indians.

In December 1763, Patrick Henry distinguished himself as a young lawyer by challenging the authority of Parliament and the King in a case commonly called the "Parsons' Cause." The Church of England was the established church of Virginia, and the people were taxed for the parsons' salaries. Because coin money was scarce in the colonies, Virginia, like the other colonies, had adopted the custom of paying their clergymen in tobacco. One disadvantage of this system was the fluctuation of the value of the tobacco, based upon the law of supply and demand. Whenever there was a tobacco crop failure, the value of tobacco increased considerably. This occurred in 1758 when there was so little tobacco available that the House of Burgesses passed a law stating that all debts payable ordinarily in tobacco might be paid in money at the rate of two pence per pound of tobacco. The parsons' salary was 16,000 pounds of tobacco. When the above law was passed allowing the parsons to be paid in money, they felt that it was unfair because tobacco at that time was more valuable at the rate of six pence per pound of tobacco than the money value itself. Furthermore, the parsons had had to accept the same amount of tobacco when the prices had previously declined. King George agreed with the parsons and requested that they be given their 16,000 pounds of tobacco or else a sum of money equivalent to the amount which 16,000 pounds of tobacco would be worth. Such an order was contrary to the law passed by the House of Burgesses and was a continuation of a custom which England had been using of "disallowing" a law passed by the colonial legislature. The Burgesses refused to accept the "disallowing" of their law; in turn, the parsons, knowing that the King had favored their opinion in the matter, took their problem to the Hanover County Court as they believed they were entitled to the back pay for the time which the House of Burgesses' law was in effect. The court had ruled that the parsons were entitled to the back pay and was ready to proceed with the problem of deciding upon the amount which it believed was due each parson.

When this case was first brought to the court for consideration, the individual citizens of the colony tried to obtain the services of a lawyer who would fight against the parsons. Since such a lawyer would be fighting not only against the parsons but against the King himself, some of the lawyers, when asked to act as attorney against the parsons, refused the offer. Patrick Henry, who was only twenty-seven at the time and practically an unknown individual as far as law was concerned, accepted the offer. The self-educated Hanover County resident surprised the people in the court when he began to speak, at first hesitatingly and then most confidently. He first criticized the parsons for trying to take advantage of the scarcity of the tobacco which caused its extraordinarily high price. He then dared to speak against the British Parliament and the King for usurping the power of "disallowing" a law passed by the Virginia legislature. The following quotation illustrates the strong language which he used to express his attitudes in these matters: "The king, by ... disallowing acts of this salutary nature, from being the Father of his people degenerates into a Tyrant, and forfeits all the rights to his subjects' obedience." Thus, he questioned the right of the King to veto a colonial law. He followed these words with comments concerning the rights and privileges of the colonists and the unjust taxing of the colonists for goods brought to the Virginia Colony from England. The jury handed down the verdict that the parsons were entitled to their back pay but awarded damages of one penny to each parson. As a direct result of this case, Patrick Henry became famous and he became a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses shortly afterward. He had dramatically, though unexpectedly, expressed the attitude of most of the colonists toward Parliamentary and royal control of their colony.

In spite of Patrick Henry's strong protests against the taxes imposed upon the colonists, Parliament passed the Stamp Act in 1765 whereby the colonists were required to put stamps of differing value upon wills, deeds, mortgages, newspapers, almanacs, advertisements, college diplomas and all other legal documents. This tax was not directly levied for protection as the regular duty tax on imports had been but was levied for revenue purposes. The revenue from the sale of these stamps was to be used in paying the governmental cost in the territory acquired from the French and Indian War and for defending the colonists. Previous acts and taxes had affected a comparatively small number of colonists and usually only one or two social classes. The Stamp Act, however, affected practically every class, particularly editors, lawyers and parsons who usually exert strong influence upon any group of people. The Stamp Act was the controversial issue at the time Patrick Henry became a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses. Some of the members felt that Parliament had the right to tax the colonists and others felt that it was illegal for them to do so. Patrick Henry offered five resolutions against the Stamp Act to the effect that the "General Assembly of the colony have the only sole and exclusive right and power to levy taxes." A fiery discussion then occurred over these resolutions, and, after hearing the heated arguments on both sides on May 29, 1765, Patrick Henry rose in the House and described Virginia as being tethered in chains under the rule of Parliament and the King. Then he shouted: "Caesar had his Brutus, Charles I, his Cromwell, and George III...." Here he was interrupted by cries of "Treason! Treason!" Very calmly he finished the sentence by saying "may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it!" Patrick Henry's brilliant oratory persuaded public opinion again, and his "Virginia Resolves" against the Stamp Act were passed by a majority of one vote. Such a small majority seems insignificant, but these Resolves were publicized throughout the colonies and played an important part in creating serious opposition to England throughout the British colonies. Soon similar resolutions were adopted in the other colonies.

The first Colonial Congress was called to meet in New York City in October 1765 to form a plan of resistance to the Stamp Act. Although delegates from nine colonies attended, Virginia was not represented because the Virginia legislature had adjourned before Massachusetts had sent its invitation circular to her. However, Virginia approved a three point program of this "Stamp Act Congress" at its next legislative session: namely, a Bill of Rights, a statement of grievances and the principle of no taxation without actual representation. The colonists believed that, since they had no actual representation in Parliament, there could be no taxation except that authorized by their individual legislatures. Therefore, the members of the Stamp Act Congress adopted petitions to the King, the House of Commons and the House of Lords asking repeal of the Stamp Act. This congress was the first significant step in the direction of unity for the British colonies in America. In addition to this orderly method of opposition, in some of the colonies mob violence, rioting and even personal molesting of the stamp officials took place.

On February 8, 1766, the Northampton County Court severely opposed the Stamp Act by stating that "the said act did not bind, affect or concern the inhabitants of this colony, inasmuch as they conceive the same to be unconstitutional, and that the said several officers may proceed to the execution of their respective offices, without incurring any penalties by means thereof."

On February 27, 1766, a group of one hundred and fifteen planters met at Leedstown in the Northern Neck to publicly oppose the Stamp Act. A series of resolves or resolutions written by Richard Henry Lee but presented by Thomas Ludwell Lee, his brother, were passed by those present. These resolves condemned the Stamp Act and defiantly acclaimed the rights which they considered essential to civil liberty. These resolves are usually referred to as the Leedstown or Westmoreland Resolves because they were presented at Leedstown which is located in Westmoreland County. In March of the same year a pamphlet, entitled "An Enquiry into the Rights of the British Colonies," was written and circulated by Richard Henry Bland which strongly opposed the Parliamentary measures and stated that the colonies were bound to England directly by the King and not by Parliament. Therefore, Bland concluded that Parliament technically had no jurisdiction over the American colonies.

Finally, on March 18, 1766, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act but at the same time passed the Declaratory Act stating that Parliament had the authority to pass laws for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever." In their triumph over the repeal of the Stamp Act, many of the colonists overlooked the strong, powerful wording of the Declaratory Act.