Students and Graduates of the College of William and Mary

Home , Flat Hat Club, John Johns, Raleigh Tavern

STUDENTS AND GRADUATES OF THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY

1756 TO 1765: PLANTATION OWNERS, PLANTERS, MERCHANTS, AND

POLITICIANS

By Barbara T. Courtney A.S., 1994, Nursing, Norfolk State University B.S., 1995, Nursing, Norfolk State University M.S., 1997, Nursing-Community Health, Old Dominion University

A Dissertation Submitted to

The Faculty of The Graduate School of Education and Human Development Of The George Washington University In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Education

August 31, 2011

Dissertation directed by

Sharon A. McDade Former Associate Professor of Higher Education Administration and Director, Fellows Program, American Council on Education

The Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington

University certified that Barbara T. Courtney has passed the Final Examination for the

degree of Doctor of Education as of July 28, 2011. This is the final and approved form of

the dissertation.

STUDENTS AND GRADUATES OF THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY

1756-1765: PLANTATION OWNERS, PLANTERS, MERCHANTS, AND

POLITICIANS

Barbara T. Courtney

Dissertation Research Committee Sharon A. McDade, Former Associate Professor of Higher Education Administration and Director, Fellows Program, American Council on Education

Marilyn Wesner, Assistant Professor of Human and Organizational Leadership, Committee Member

Ralph Kidder, Vice President for Financial Affairs and Treasurer, Marymount University, Committee Member

iii

Dedication

This study is dedicated to two people, my husband Jim whose patience and faith in my educational adventures over the last 20 years has been truly amazing and Dr.

Sharon McDade who continued to believe in my work. Without their support and encouragement this study would have not been completed.

Acknowledgements

It is with humble gratitude that I acknowledge once again the committee members who guided me through this work: Dr. Sharon McDade, Chair, Dr. Ralph Kidder, and Dr.

Marilyn Wesner. In addition, thank you Jason E. Johnson, Assistant Professor of Higher

Education Administration, George Washington University, and Linda Eisenmann,

Provost and Professor of Education and History, Wheaton College, for your helpful assistance as members of the examining committee; your interest and suggestions have been greatly appreciated.

Thank you to the Swem Library of the College of William and Mary, the Special

Collection specialists, and staff, the Rockefeller Library in Williamsburg for their interest and support, and all of the volunteers of local community historical societies who answered my requests for information.

Abstract of Dissertation

Students and Graduates of the College of William and Mary 1756-1765: Plantation Owners, Planters, Merchants, and Politicians

The purpose of this study was to explore the contributions to society by attendees at the

College of William & Mary (CW&M) and their contributions to the economic growth of

the Colony of Virginia from 1756-1765. The problem of practice was that without

knowing the individual contributions of the students it is not possible to understand the

impact of the colonial higher education experience. The problem of research was the lack

of information on the educational experiences of CW&M student and their individual

contributions; on what its students did after college, and thus on their contributions to

Virginia. The study employed an interpretive paradigm within a case study research

design using qualitative historical methods through genealogy and historical research.

The population of this study was drawn from 822 students, then narrowed to 79 student

who attended the CW&M after Statutes of 1756. This group was narrowed to 15 who had

completed four or more years of study between 1756 and 1765. These students were from

8 of the 18 counties east of the Fall Line commonly called the Tidewater Region. The key

findings of the study were from the bio-sketch of each student and their direct male ancestors since the family settled in the Virginia Colony. The student portion of the bio- sketch includes their background (demographics, stratum of society, geographic location,

and preparation for college), student experiences, (curriculum, co-curriculum, and

teaching methods) during the period of the study and after graduation accomplishments.

The limitations of this study involve the colonial time frame, a CW&M data base

hampered by the loss of records by fire, and the destruction of records from the

Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Important findings include student diversity that crossed class, financial, and geographic boundaries; multiple college preparation venues; curriculum change through pedagogy; co-curricular student experiences; and the vast array of post-college accomplishments. This is the first study of colonial higher education that uses a bio-sketch of the subject and their ancestors to document collegiate experiences and educational outcomes.

vii

Table of Contents

Dedication ...... iv

Acknowledgements ...... v

Abstract of Dissertation ...... vi

CHAPTER 1: THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY...... 1

Problem of Practice ...... 2

The Research Problem ...... 6

Minutes of the President and Masters ...... 7

Williamsburg in Colonial Times/The Virginia Gazette ...... 7

Family Histories ...... 8

Institional History ...... 8

Thomas Jefferson’s Writings ...... 9

The Gap in the Literature ...... 9

Theoretical Framework ...... 10

Research Questions ...... 10

Significance of Study ...... 12

CHAPTER 2: INSTITUTIONAL HISTORIES-COMPARISONS OF THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY AND HARVARD...... 14

The College of William & Mary – A History ...... 14

Founding and Early Years of CW&M ...... 15

Challenges ...... 27

Political ...... 27

Funding ...... 28

Importance of Education ...... 32

Preparation for Attendance ...... 34 viii

CW&M College Education from the Revolutionary War to the 21st Century ...... 37

Post Revolutionary War ...... 39

19th Century...... 41

20th Century...... 43

21st Century ...... 45

Harvard College ...... 46

17th Century...... 48

18th Century...... 62

Comparisons of the CW&M and Harvard College ...... 66

CHAPTER 3: BIO-SKETCHES OF THE CW&M STUDENTS ...... 71

Edward Bland...... 71

Family Involvement in the Colony ...... 71

Background ...... 76

Attendance at the College of William and Mary ...... 76

Vocations ...... 77

Other Considerations ...... 81

William Bland ...... 83

Family Involvement in the Colony ...... 84

Background ...... 84

Attendance at the College of William and Mary ...... 85

Vocations ...... 86

Incidents that Reflect Service and Controversy ...... 87

Other Considerations ...... 89

Nathaniel Burwell of Carter’s Grove and Carter Hall (Son of Carter Burwell) ... 90

Family Involvement in the Colony ...... 92

Attendance at the CW&M ...... 98

Vocations ...... 99

Other Considerations ...... 101

Nathaniel Burwell, Isle of Wight County (Son of Robert Burwell) ...... 101

Family Involvement in the Colony ...... 102

Attendance at the CW&M ...... 103

Vocations ...... 104

Other Considerations ...... 105

Beverley Dickson (Dixon) ...... 105

Family Involvement in the Colony ...... 106

Background ...... 108

Attendance at the College of William and Mary ...... 109

Vocations ...... 110

Other Considerations ...... 114

Cole Digges ...... 114

Family Involvement in the Colony ...... 115

Background ...... 123

Attendance at the College of William and Mary ...... 124

Vocations ...... 125

Other Considerations ...... 127

Benjamin Harrison ...... 128

Family Involvement in the Colony ...... 129

Background ...... 134

Attendance at the College of William and Mary ...... 135

Vocations ...... 137

Other Considerations ...... 140

James Johnson ...... 140

Family Involvement in Colonial Politics and Government ...... 141

Background ...... 143

Attendance at the CW&M ...... 145

Vocations ...... 146

Other Considerations ...... 146

Thomas Massie ...... 146

Family Involvement in the Colony ...... 147

Background ...... 150

Attendance at the College of William and Mary ...... 151

Vocations ...... 154

Private Citizen...... 156

Other Considerations ...... 158

James McClurg ...... 159

Family Involvement in Colonial Politics and Government ...... 160

Background ...... 162

Attendance at the College of William and Mary ...... 163

Vocations ...... 165

Other Considerations ...... 170

Augustine (Austin) Moore ...... 170

Family Involvement in Colonial Politics and Government ...... 171

Background ...... 180

Attendance at the College of William and Mary ...... 180

Vocations ...... 185

Other Considerations ...... 187

Bernard Moore Jr...... 190

Family Involvement in Colonial Politics and Government ...... 190

Background ...... 190

Attendance at the College of William and Mary ...... 191

Vocations ...... 193

Other Considerations ...... 195

Hugh Nelson ...... 196

Family Involvement in Colonial Politics and Government ...... 197

Background ...... 202

Attendance at the College of William and Mary ...... 203

Vocations ...... 205

Other Considerations ...... 211

Philip Smith ...... 212

Family Involvement in Colonial Politics and Government ...... 213

Background ...... 217

Attendance at the College of William and Mary ...... 218

Vocations ...... 219

Other Considerations ...... 223

John Tyler ...... 223

Family Involvement in Colonial Politics and Government ...... 224

xii

Background ...... 225

Attendance at the College of William and Mary ...... 226

Vocations ...... 227

CHAPTER 4: COLONIAL STUDENT EDUCATION FINDINGS...... 230

Student Background ...... 230

Student Demographics ...... 231

Cross-case Comparison ...... 242

Preparation for College ...... 244

Tutoring and Private Schooling ...... 246

Grammar School ...... 247

Cross Case Comparison ...... 252

Student Experiences in the CW&M Philosophy School...... 253

Curricular Experiences...... 253

Cross-case Comparison ...... 268

Co-Curricular Student Experiences ...... 269

Cross-Case Conclusion ...... 280

After-Graduation Accomplishments ...... 281

Accomplishments by Stratum of Society ...... 281

Political Accomplishments ...... 284

Military Accomplishments...... 286

Cross-Case Comparison ...... 288

Conclusions ...... 288

What Do We Know ...... 291

Diversity of Students at CW&M...... 291

xiii

College Preparation ...... 296

Curriculum ...... 296

Co-curricular Student Experience ...... 298

Post Collegiate Accomplishments ...... 301

Limitations of the Study...... 302

Recommendations ...... 305

Recommendations relating to the CW&M ...... 305

Recommendations relating to Other Colonial Colleges...... 308

Conclusion ...... 308

REFERENCES ...... 310

Appendix A, Methodology ...... 350

Appendix B, Education in Colonial Virginia: Influence of William and Mary College 388

Appendix C, Details from Minutes of President and Masters ...... 392

Appendix D, Revised Statutes of 1756 ...... 400

Appendix F, Listing of Subjects from the College of William & Mary ...... 414

Appendix G, Statistics and Comparisons of Student College Preparation and Higher Education ...... 418

Appendix H, Stratum of Society—Father of Student ...... 421

Appendix I, Subject Vital Statistics ...... 422

Appendix J, Tuition Sources by Student and Past Due in 1778 ...... 424

Appendix K, Maps ...... 425

Appendix K, Maps Continued ...... 427

Appendix L, Preparation Environment for the Philosophy School ...... 429

Appendix M, Cross-Case Comparison of Student Education ...... 430

Appendix N, Cross Comparisons: Father and Sons Lifetime Achievements ...... 431 xiv

Appendix O, Cross Case Analysis of Military Contributions Comparing Son and Father of all Subjects ...... 432

Appendix P, Analysis of Philosophy School Attendance during Employment Period of Dr. William Small at the CW&M ...... 433

Appendix Q, Cohorts by year from 1756 to 1760 at the College of William and Mary 435

CHAPTER 1: THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to explore the contributions to society by attendees at

the College of William & Mary (CW&M) and their contributions to the economic growth

of the Colony of Virginia, from 1756 through 1765. The problem of practice is that

without knowing the individual contributions of the CW&M students to the

Colony/Commonwealth of Virginia, it is not possible to understand the impact of the

colonial higher education experience. There is scholarship on individual aspects of

colonial colleges, society, economic growth, agriculture, religious life, government, and

support of education (Adams, 1887; Andrews, 1937; Brown & Brown, 1964; Isaac, 1982;

Stanard, 1917; Wright, 1964). However, there is a lack of information on the educational

experiences CW&M students and their individual contributions; on what its students did after college, and thus on their contributions to Virginia.

The foundation of this study is an embedded case study based on posits that

CW&M students (a) were products of their education, and (b) as alumni, they served as

agents of the social and economic growth of Virginia. This case study design employs the

interpretive paradigm and qualitative historical methods using primary, secondary,

genealogical, and biographical sources to document, through individual contributions of

CW&M alumni to the social and economic growth of the Colony. (Appendix A,

Methodology)

This chapter presents the problem of practice and the research problem, along

with a description of the types of 18th century materials generally available as resources on the history of higher education followed by the theoretical framework, and the

research questions. In addition, this chapter describes the significance of this work 1

Problem of Practice

There are many claims extolling the importance of colonial colleges to the

creation of Colonial North America. However, formal histories of higher education fail to document such claims with biographical evidence pertaining to of individual students.

Tyler, L. G., (1898), lists names, individual committee assignments, and college

affiliation related American colonies but no where in the literature can the researcher find

biographical evidence with regard to individual students at the CW&M that outlines their

ancestors and personal contributions to social and economic growth of the colony of

Virginia during the colonial period.

Historians (Butts & Cremin, 1953; Hoeveler, 2002; Lucas, 2006; Rudolph, 1990;

Smith, 1910; and Thelin, 2004) give credit to colonial college endeavors with Smith,

1910 stating:

[CW&M] becomes at once clothed with all the dignity of an institution which has made a profound impression on the destinies of a powerful nation . . . such were three of the sons [referring to three: Jefferson, Marshall and Monroe], to name only the most eminent, who, when their minds were most sensitive to impressions, sat at the feet of this Alma Mater and who, by the achievements of their after lives, reflected extraordinary distinction on her teaching. (p. 401)

However, naming three eminent sons does not provide the documentation to support the claim for the substantial impact of the leadership roles taken by CW&M attendees.

Historical research has provided inadequate documentation to substantiate the relationship between the colonial colleges, specifically the CW&M, leadership in the colony and new nation. In recent years, historians have become increasingly bold in making assumptions about leadership development without demonstrating its application by students. Thelin (2004) called the “colonial college . . . an insurance policy

guaranteeing that . . . favored young men would acquire not only literacy but also a sense of leadership and service by about their twentieth birthday” (p. 26), while Lucas (2006) gave credit to the colonial college for its “self appointed mission to prepare a learned and pious clergy . . . , [and] raising up successive generations of political leaders committed to the common welfare” (p. 112). These thoughts may have come from Rudolph’s work of 1990 in which he quoted the CW&M Royal Charter of 1693 saying that “youth . . .

[were to be] piously educated in good letters and manners” (p. 7) and concluded that the

Virginia Colony expected to draw upon this pool of students for its public servants.

This study shows that during the mid 18th century (1756-1765), the student population of the CW&M generally consisted of native-born scholars who were third- generation Virginians or from families of even longer standing in the New World. A few documents from this period support leadership development as a component of higher education.

Examples to support leadership development at CW&M come from two of

Thomas Jefferson’s letters. The first is dated August 7, 1785 in Paris to Dr. Price, in which Jefferson emphasized how a CW&M education contributed to leadership development and the public good: “The College of William and Mary, in Williamsburg . .

. is the place where are collected together all the young men of Virginia, under preparation for public life” (The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826, n.d.).

Secondly, Jefferson wrote to John Banister, Jr. on October 15, 1785, again from Paris, in response to Banister’s inquiry “on the best seminary for the education of youth.”

Jefferson’s summation argument for an American education vs. a European education was “an American coming to Europe for education loses in his knowledge, in his morals, 3

in his health, in his habits, and in his happiness” (Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-

1826). Jefferson is an important voice in documenting confidence in the education

provided by the CW&M and its role of preparing students for public life and leadership.

Claims regarding the CW&M’s service and leadership to the public good also

came from the historian Lyon Tyler. In his article on “Education in Colonial Virginia:

Influence of William and Mary College,” Part V (Tyler, 1898, July), Tyler described the

participation of the CW&M alumni in the “formation and development of Virginia and

the Union” (p. 1). His argument was supported by data showing 33% of the membership

in “representative bodies of Virginia and the Union” (p. 1), prior to the Revolutionary

War, had attended CW&M or were alumni (Appendix B – Colonial Influence Prior to the

Revolutionary War). Tyler’s research has been an important ingredient in claims of

importance regarding the involvement of CW&M attendees in the economic, political,

educational, and cultural spheres of Virginia.

Tyler (1898, July) bolstered his claims on the influence of the CW&M to Colonial

Virginia by naming former students in an effort to show their collective contributions to

the colony. For example, among Tyler’s list of legislative committee members who were associated with the CW&M from 1756 through 1765 were Richard Bland, Benjamin

Harrison, Walter Jones, and Edmund Pendleton. Another example in Tyler (1898, July) was two CW&M attendees (James McClurg and Benjamin Grymes [Grimes]) (one of

which James McClurg is a subject in this case study) who were active in local and

colonial government. McClurg was a delegate of the Federal Convention (Constitutional

Convention) in 1787. He attended the CW&M from 1756-1763, where he completed

Grammar School and earned a BA. Records show that he then graduated from the 4

University of Edinburgh in medicine (Andrews, 1937). In 1779, he became the first

“professor of Anatomy and Medicine” (p. 323) at the CW&M. His esteemed and celebrated accomplishments were noted in the inscription that appears on his tombstone in old St. John’s Churchyard in Richmond, VA recorded by Tyler, (1898, January):

Having studied his profession in the most celebrated schools of Europe, [He] distinguished himself even in youth by the elegance and ability of his writings, and he was early placed, by common consent, at home and abroad, in the highest rank among its professors, which he occupied for half a century. (p. 180)

Benjamin Grymes [Grimes], according to Tyler (1898, January), was a lieutenant

of Spotsylvania County and a member of the House of Burgess from 1767-1769. He was

the son of John Grymes [Grimes], Receiver General of Virginia. Benjamin was a

neighbor of George Washington, who lived in Mount Vernon at Eagles Nest, near the

present day King George, VA., and east of Fredericksburg. Correspondence between

Grimes and Washington reflected their admiration and respect for one another as neighbors and military men (Jackson & Twohig, 1976). As the examples noted above from Tyler’s research suggest, at least some of the pre-Revolutionary War students made notable contributions to the transformation of the colony into a commonwealth in a new nation. Although Tyler’s research was helpful in bolstering claims of the importance of the CW&M, it did not fully document students or explore their experiences during their college years that might have contributed to their later leadership for the public good.

Despite the many general claims made by historians for the importance of colonial colleges to leadership in the creation of this country, there is little documentation, beyond that of Tyler (1898, July), of the actual and individual contributions of specific attendees at the CW&M. While historians tend to concentrate on major figures such as Thomas

Jefferson and George Washington (who attended but did not graduate from the CW&M)

and note the importance of CW&M faculty members such as George Wythe and William

Small to the education of the students, there is little documentation on attendee contributions.

Therefore, the problem of practice is that without knowing the individual contributions of CW&M students to the Colony/Commonwealth of Virginia, it is not possible to understand the impact of the colonial higher-education experience.

The Research Problem

There is scholarship on individual aspects of colonial colleges’, society, economic growth, agriculture, religious life, government, and support of education (Adams, 1887;

Andrews, 1937; Brown & Brown, 1964; Isaac, 1982; Stanard, 1917; Wright, 1964).

However, there is a lack of information on the student experience and the individual contributions of students; therefore, it is not possible to understand fully the impact of colonial higher education at the CW&M. There are six basic sources that are generally used when referring to CW&M: (a) Minutes of the President and the Masters, (b) excerpts by J. A. Osborn (1935) on Williamsburg from the Virginia Gazette, initially published by William Parks owner and editor, (c) family histories, (d) institutional histories of CW&M, (e) Thomas Jefferson’s writings and (f) the William and Mary

Quarterly. None refer to the student experience, nor do they cite individual contributions.

However, they do provide background for this study. What follows is a characterization of each resource, its purpose, coverage, and limitations.

Minutes of the President and Masters

Minutes during the period of this project show a pattern of references to personnel and financial matters. Students were mentioned only in conjunction with College and

Grammar School personnel issues, as the original purpose of these materials was to document faculty meetings. Two students who later figured prominently in society were mentioned in minutes as they related to discipline issues. (Appendix C, Minutes of the

President and Master for the period of 1756 to 1765.)

Williamsburg in Colonial Times/the Virginia Gazette

William Parks’ Virginia Gazette, the first newspaper in the area (launched in

1736), originally presented news, opinion, and court records from England. Gradually it incorporated news from the Virginia Colony, poetry, and advertisements. During the period of this study, subsequent owners were William Hunter from 1751-1761 and

Joseph Royle from 1762-1765 (Virginia Gazette, n.d.).

In 1935, Osborne compiled and edited excerpts from the 17th and 18th centuries into a book, Virginia Gazette, which provides a glimpse into life in Williamsburg. During this period the reported news on the college, as reprinted in Osborne’s book, concerned the faculty and property belonging to the CW&M. In 1935, Osborne compiled and edited excerpts from the Virginia Gazette, of the17th and 18th centuries into a book. It provides a glimpse of the life in Williamsburg during the period through shared news, poetry, and advertisements for the arts, and reports news on the college concerning the faculty and property belonging to the CW&M. For the period of this study the sources for the

Virginia Gazette have not been consistently mined nor analyzed for background on student life at the CW&M. 7

Family Histories

Family histories provide useful insights into the lives of individuals within

families. Generally, these are self-published with the purpose of sharing information

about ancestry and major events in a family and are generally based on oral history, thus making them one of many valuable sources for basic information. Although many family

histories mention college attendance, especially if it is notable (i.e., CW&M) as in the

case of the Page and Carter families, most follow the pattern of fact retrieval from a

written source such as a bible which tends to decreases their value as family linage tends

to follow the most important member of multi generational families, thereby limiting

their value. Nonetheless, they were useful as a research guide in this project.

Institutional Histories

Institutional histories provide useful overviews of the evolution of the CW&M,

but typically provide little insight into the actual experiences of students. As examples,

Button and Provenzo (1989), Earnest (1953), Herbst (1982), Hoeveler (2002) and

Morpurgo (1976) have produced major publications about the CW&M, but none

addressed issues of students lives. Their work was generally for the scholar of higher education or institutional history and focuses on the historical significance and chronology of events. However, Morpurgo’s (1976) work on the “life story” (p. 1) of

CW&M reached beyond the usual historical significance and chronology of events by incorporating English and Scottish influences and went into great detail on administrative and faculty discourse. However, his comments on students were limited. While Morpurgo and others presented important descriptions of the College during the period of this study, the student was not the focus of these historical works. 8

Thomas Jefferson’s Writings

Jefferson wrote only one book, Notes on the State of Virginia (1787). “It is recognized today as the best single statement of Jefferson’s principles; the best reflection of his wide-ranging tastes and talents” (Peden, 1982, p. v). The text of the 1982 edition

“is basically that of the first regularly published edition in English, which was issued by the London bookseller John Stockdale in 1787 with Jefferson’s authorization” (Peden, p. v). It provides facts and information related to the people, the environment, and the land of Virginia from 1756-1779. The edited edition of 1982 also contains marginal notes made by Jefferson on the original copy. Jefferson addressed the CW&M, but only to describe what he saw as shortfalls in the education process. However, while his work is fundamental in understanding Williamsburg during the period of this study, it does not provide student-related information that would be beneficial for this study.

The Gap in the Literature

The literature review for this study has shown there is a lack of information on the

CW&M student. The context of education literature is poor, generally coming from the

Minutes of the President and Masters, and the Statutes. The student experience and student demographics have not been mined; local newspapers, diaries, correspondence, and family Bibles of and relating to the graduates are not present in the literature. Family and student biographical sketches with the intending to describe the student and life at the

CW&M in general are not in the literature.

In addition, the literature has failed to take account of many sources of documentation on the student, student life, or the post-graduation experience. These valuable resources have expanded as families discover historical materials and then 9

donate them to archives, thus making them available for research. In other words, the

history of higher education as a discipline has shown little interest in students of the

CW&M unless their accomplishments were of historic proportions, as in the case of

Thomas Jefferson.

Therefore, the lack of published information combining the contributions by

student ancestors, the educational experience, and the individual contributions of students

to the colony of Virginia, makes it impossible to understand fully the impact of higher

education at the CW&M during the colonial period.

Theoretical Framework

This study did not employ a specific theoretical framework. “Historians [are]

more interested in only using theories if they support specific facts. . . [and therefore

theory] does not play a vital role in historical research because it de-emphasizes the

uniqueness of past events, as well as the role of individuals who helped to shape those

events” (McDowell, 2002, p. 22). In addition, construction of a theory in the

interpretation of primary and secondary sources “does not play a value-free role in explaining historical change” (p. 22). Therefore, this case study is not theory-driven but based on a framework of questions and sub-questions.

Research Questions

The main research question guiding this study is: What were the contributions to society by the attendees at the College of William and Mary (CW&M) and their contributions to the economic growth of the Colony of Virginia, from 1756 through

1765?

Operationalization of the main research question is through the following sub- questions:

1. What was the context of the CW&M education from 1756 through 1765 in

terms of the:

a. role of college education in Virginia society,

b. political climate in support of the CW&M, and

c. funding from the Colony for the CW&M?

2. What was the student experience at CW&M from 1756 through 1765 in terms

of:

a. facilities,

b. student life,

c. curriculum and learning experience, and

d. job training/career positioning?

3. What were the backgrounds of the students at CW&M in terms of:

a. stratum of society,

b. geographic distribution,

c. student preparation for college, and

d. tuition sources?

4. What did the students do after graduation in terms of:

a. jobs and careers,

b. involvement in the Colony/Commonwealth (politics, government

positions, etc), and

c. involvement in community life (church, volunteer organizations, etc)? 11

To connect the pedagogic experience at the CW&M to the building of Virginia’s

social and economic environment during the period of this study, it is necessary to

research the context of education for its students before and during attendance at the

CW&M, as well as the students’ backgrounds, college experiences, and accomplishments after they left the College.

Significance of Study

Literature has implied the importance of CW&M students to the formation of the

United States (Letters of Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826; Lucas, 2006; Thelin, 2004;

Tyler, 1898). More recent writers on colonial colleges (Lucas, 2006; Thelin, 2004) have agreed that the “self appointed mission [was] to prepare a learned and pious clergy; and it did actively pursue the announced goals of raising up successive generations of political leaders committed to the common welfare” (Lucas, p. 112). In other words, historians have agreed that leadership was an important goal of college education, but these same historians have failed to demonstrate students’ leadership roles through their life activities.

This study will significantly add to the body of knowledge in three ways: First, it will document student educational experiences during the Colonial period, thereby providing historical knowledge of the CW&M undergraduate. Second, it will confirm through biographic and genealogical sources the activities of each graduate profiled as they relate jobs, careers, and involvement in colonial/commonwealth politics, and community life. In other words, this study will provide data on leadership within the community by connecting the attendees’ student experience and their post-graduation accomplishments. Finally, this project will be beneficial to the early history of higher 12

education in America, as it will surpass the traditional brick-and-mortar institutional viewpoint and give a human context to the study of higher educational history.

CHAPTER 2: INSTITUTIONAL HISTORIES-COMPARISONS OF THE

COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY AND HARVARD

The College of William and Mary (CW&M) has a history and a setting based on its Royal Charter which was granted by King William and Queen Mary of England in

1693. While it was not the first institution of higher education in the colonies (Harvard was founded in 1637), it was the first to be officially sanctioned by England, but second to “remain faithful to the British model . . . formed on the theory that . . . [a] college, legally and formally as well as practically, should consist of the resident group of academic officers” (Kirkpatrick, 1926, p. 95). A brief history of the CW&M into the 21st century and further background on the challenges of colonial support, political climate, and funding will enhance the understanding of the CW&M. In addition, student preparation for an academic environment and the development and refinement of the curriculum and pedagogy will present triumphs of the educational system and help provide a background for the student bio-sketches that are embedded within this case study. In addition, included in this chapter, in an effort to examine a broader view of higher education during the colonial era, is a brief history of Harvard from its inception to just prior to the Revolutionary War, followed with a comparison of the two institutions in the colonial era.

The College of William & Mary – A History

The College of William & Mary is the second oldest college in the United States, preceded only by Harvard (“Harvard Guide” & “College of William and Mary Historical

Facts”). The history of CW&M as an institution of higher learning is tied to the economy and events of the original Virginia Colony. The plantation system that dispersed centers 14

of society throughout the vastness of the colony, the diminished income from decreased

enrollment and funding revenue, the shortage of faculty, the Revolutionary War, and

ultimately the movement of the center of Virginia society in 1780 from Williamsburg to

Richmond (Peden, 1954), all played primary roles in the early history of the CW&M.

This section will provide a brief outline of the history of CW&M from its founding through the 21st century.

Founding and Early Years of CW&M

The story of the founding of higher education in the Virginia Colony has many twists and turns, beginning with a planned university at Henrico on the James River

(Land, 1938; Motley, 1901). The Virginia Company of London gave instructions in 1618 to Governor-Elect George Yeardley, “whereby a suitable place at Henrico could be chosen and set aside for establishing a university” (Land, 1938, p. 475). Land was designated, funds were solicited and collected, and brick makers engaged (Land, 1938;

Motley, 1901). On Good Friday morning, March 22, 1622, however, “the Indians executed a skillfully conceived massacre of the English” (Land, p. 493) [before construction was initiated] “which came very near annihilating the Colony itself”

(Stanard, 1917, p. 266). The Virginia Company charter was revoked a year later and all plans for a university were discarded (Andrews, 1937).

Therefore, the CW&M although a replacement for Henrico, came from the continued and sustaining dream of the Church of England clergy (Parker, 1921) of the

Virginia Royal Colony for an institution of higher learning (Motley, 1901). In 1661, the

Virginia Assembly proposed a college to be established to train “able and faithful ministers of this country” (Butts & Cremin, 1953, p. 83). Despite the assembly’s 1661 15

proposal for a college, during the next 30 years, education activity in Virginia consisted

of the establishment of small free schools for “children of the poor” (Stanard, 1917, p.

267). It was not until 1690 in a meeting at Jamestown that Reverend James Blair proposed further discussion for higher education. Blair, an ordained Episcopal minister of the Church of Scotland was sent to the colony in 1685 by Henry Compton, the Bishop of

London, to preach in Varina, Virginia (Motley, 1901).

It would not be until 1690 that higher or collegiate education was again a topic of

great importance in the colony. In February of the year 1690 a group of “Gentlemen” . . .

[met to discuss] . . . the establishment of a college in Virginia [with] the meeting . . .

convened by John Page (Honble [sic] Colonell [sic] Page) . . . the next year a board of

trustees was created and [a] petition prepared with a view to securing a charter from the

Crown” (Andrews, 1937, p. 170-171). The plan was to found three schools: grammar, philosophy, and divinity. Lt. Governor Francis Nicholson, of the Colony of Virginia, endorsed this plan and fundraising efforts began immediately within the colony and among merchants who were doing business with the colony. In the spring of 1691, the

Reverend James Blair, as a representative of the Bishop of London, traveled to England to deliver the request to obtain a charter for an educational institution from King William and Queen Mary of England. With a request from the House of Burgesses and Governors

Council Blair reviewed the charters of similar institutions (Zech, 2001). While the true origins of the charter are not known, Morpurgo (1976) posited that “Trinity College,

Dublin, was in many senses the one that in its foundation was most obviously the predecessor for the College in Virginia” (p. 3) while Rudolph (1990) declared, “Queen’s at Oxford was the model for William and Mary” (p. 24), and Thelin (2004) made a case 16

for the influence of the Scottish universities in the initial governance and structure of

CW&M. It appears Reverend Blair used what he considered the best of each institutional

structure in his drafting of the proposed charter.

The Royal Charter was issued in the name of King William and Queen Mary on

February 8, 1693, and included funding schemes that would enable perpetual support by

the Crown with additional income derived from agriculture on land given to the College.

The financing plan was drawn from English heritage based on land, taxes, and private

endowments as resources–resources that were not yet available in the young Colony of

Virginia (Zech, 2001). In addition, the charter appointed Reverend Blair as president for

life, a position he held until his death in 1743 (Royal Charter, 1693, Section III).

In the fall of 1693 the General Assembly of the colony set aside the stated

location within the Royal Charter “on the south of the York river, on the land late of

Colonel [not readable] Townsend, deceased, now in the possession of John Smith, near

the port appointed or laid out for York county” (Section I) further defined in Section I,

the General Assembly exercised its right,

If by reason of unwholesomeness, or any other cause, the said place shall not be approved of, wheresoever [sic] else the General Assembly of our Colony of Virginia or the major part of them shall think fit within the bounds of the aforesaid colony. (Section I)

and gave the order to build “as near the church [Bruton Parish] now standing in Middle

Plantation old fields as convenience will permit” (College of William & Mary, Historical

Facts, [CWMHF], n.d., p. 2). The Bruton Parish land was a gift from John Page in 1678, to erect “a good church to take the place of two indifferent ones in the parish” (Page,

2000, p. 14). In 1694, in an existing building on the newly purchased land, with Reverend

Mongo (Mungo) Inglis (Ingles) as headmaster, Mr. Mullikin as usher, and writing master,

the Grammar School of CW&M was founded. Building began on the land with a

cornerstone laid in 1693 (Peden, 1954). In August 1695 the first bricks were placed for

the College Building, later called the Main Building and now know as the Christopher

Wren Building. The first students used this building for education and living purposes.

From 1700 to 1704, the students also shared the space in the Main Building with the

Colonial General Assembly while a new capital building was being built in Williamsburg

(Morpurgo, 1976).

The first college students were John Allen, Henry Harrison, Orlando Jones, and

John Jones (Swem & Land, 1941). They were introduced to the public and dignitaries on

May 17, 1699, for “Scholastick [sic] Exercises” (p. 165), by President Blair. He presented

them as examples of meeting the mission approved in the Charter of 1693, to “train

ministers of the Gospel, to educate the youth of the colony in good letters and manners,

and propagate the Christian faith among the Indians.” Records show Henry Harrison,

John Jones, and Orlando Jones graduated in 1698 and John Allen in 1699 (Swem &

Land, 1941). By the turn of the 18th-century, the CW&M was established as a college

and had produced its first graduates. These first graduates were the culmination of the

efforts expended since the founding of the colony and the revived efforts of Reverend

James Blair.

Blair-proponent of education. The Reverend James Blair was an alumnus of

Edinburgh University, M.A. (Marischal College) Class of 1673 (Motley, 1901), and spent his early years in London getting close to people of influence and enlarging his circle of acquaintances. He was especially interested in men who were influential in the “Church 18

and State” and were in positions of political power (Morpurgo, 1976, p. 26). He used

those connections to his advantage when Henry Compton, Bishop of London and future

Chancellor of the CW&M, was looking for “churchmen for Virginia” (p. 26).

In 1685 Blair became one of those churchmen for Virginia when he was sent to

Varina, in the Virginia Colony, to take over and expand the duties of the Reverend

Patrick Copeland, also an alumnus of Marischal College (Motley, 1901). Copeland had

been the driving force behind the attempts to establish a college at Henrico. Blair’s

presence in the Varina parish, which was thinly populated but rich in agricultural

resources, gave Blair responsibilities that he took seriously and provided him an

opportunity to exert political authority. His opportunities were further expanded when six

years after his arrival (1691) he was appointed as the Bishop’s Commissary or assistant to

the Bishop in London (Rouse, 1971). He reached an even greater permanency and instant

upward status, with his marriage in 1687 to Sarah, daughter of Benjamin Harrison, the

patriarch of one of the leading families in the colony. Through Blair’s marriage, he soon

found himself related to the Burwells and Ludwells and moving in the same social circles

as the Ferrars, Randolphs, Cockes, and Byrds, at the time some of the richest planter

families in the colony (Motley, 1901). Thus, Blair became an extremely well-connected person in the social and political circles of the colony.

Blair worked hard to have the political arena favor his project of building a school for higher education. For those politicians who did not believe in his project or refused to

become involved, he was not averse to using gossip among his acquaintances in London

and the colony to affect their political downfall. “At no time did Blair find it easy to

cooperate with any of his designated co-workers, and the fact that he was partly 19

responsible for the recall to England of three governors (Andros, Nicholson, and

Spotswood) speaks volumes for the intensity of the struggle that developed” (McCullock,

1947, p. 72; Motley, 1901). Blair had become a very important force within the colonial political environment especially after his appointment as “the bishop’s commissary and spokesman chosen over all Virginia’s settlers to go to England and petition their

Majesties for a college and theological school” (Rouse, 1971, p. 44). However, even his work to obtain acceptance of his project to build a school “to consist of a grammar school teaching Latin and Greek, an undergraduate college, and a divinity school” (Rouse, 1971, p. 43) would not take place without adequate funding which came to be a constant challenge.

As the history continues, between 1699 and “before 1720,” (records for specific years are lost), (Swem & Land, 1941), 31 students attended the CW&M. Two left in

1701, (Thomas Bouth [Booth] and Lewis Dortch) and an additional 11 left in 1705, the year a fire consumed a large portion of the Main Building. The Main Building was rebuilt between 1710 and 1716, while the remaining 18 students continued their studies off- campus (Osborne, 1981).

A second building, Brafferton, named in honor of the funding source, was completed in 1723 with income from the Honorable Robert Boyle’s legacy invested in the Brafferton Manor (Cooke, 1875; Goodson, et al.,1993) located in the “North Riding of Yorkshire” England (“Brafferton Manor”, 1910). The building was used to house the

Indian students (Morpurgo, 1976) and ultimately, a small library. It was a “handsome house and had twelve rooms” (Motley, 1901, p. 38).

The first College Statutes were prepared in 1727 by Reverend Blair and Stephen

Founce, an original trustee, as they made preparations to meet the mandates of the

Charter and take the college out of the hands of the Board of Governors appointed by the

House of Burgesses to pass control to the President and Masters advised by a Board of

Visitors as called for in the Charter. The statutes (or guidelines for the academic and

administrative functions of the college) were “based wholeheartedly upon the only

models which were acceptable to most Virginians; the administrative pattern commonly

used in British universities” (Morpurgo, 1976, p. 80). They were signed and witnessed in

London on June 24, 1727, prior to the transfer from the founding charter to the President

and Masters in 1729. They were printed by William Parks, owner of the Virginia Gazette

in 1736 (Blair & Fouace, 1914).

The transfer of the CW&M by the Crown to the President and Masters took place

on August 15, 1729 (Journal of the Meetings of the Presidents and Masters of William

and Mary College, 1893, January, p. 130-131). Although the document was dated

February 27, 1729, a note in the minutes of August 16, 1729, acknowledges [but does not explain] “Great delay ensued in respect to the transfer,” (p. 130). While the charter contained the purpose, name, faculty positions, governing structure, trustees by name

(also called governors), suggested location, monetary support, and authority to transact business and solicit funds, it also contained an unspecified period to build and develop the College and looked toward the future with this statement in Section II:

until the said college shall be acturally [sic] erected, founded and established, and upon this trust and intention, that so soon as the said college shall, according to our royal intent be erected and founded . . . shall by good and sufficient deeds and assurances in law give, grant and transfer to the said President and masters, or professors, or their successors . . .” (Royal Charter, Section II, n.d). 21

This section provided for the transfer once the original terms (a president and six full professors [masters] and the college erected, founded, and established) were met.

This brought even greater power to Reverend Blair as the Board of Governors was replaced and a Board of Visitors took their place as an advisory board (Herbst, 1982;

Morpurgo, 1976). It was no longer “governed by its Corporation [Board of Governors], but by . . . [a] senate of nonresident layman” (Herbst, 1982, p. 35). The initial statutes of the CW&M, written by Reverend Blair (Motley, 1901) and Stephen Founce (Morpurgo,

1976) were revised in 1756 under the presidency of Reverend Thomas Dawson (1755-

1760), who was the first President who was a graduate of the CW&M.

The re-write of the Statutes of 1727 was initiated on April 26, 1752, by the Board of Visitors during the tenure of President William Dawson (d. July 20, 1752). The incentive for his request was to sort out the “confusing and often conflicting regulations”

(Morpurgo, 1976, p. 118) that had been added over the years. Rudolph (1977) agrees with

Morpurgo (1976) stating the re-write was simply a “function of [the] organization [to update an old document]” (p. 3), implying that this was a typical bureaucratic act of doing an update and refreshing a document that was 30 years old.

While there are no extant records of the minutes of April 26, 1752, nor of ensuing discussions and/or debates, what is known; (a) the proposals for changes were given in the committee report dated December 6, 1752; (b) there was a second meeting, date unknown; and a final meeting on March 29, 1756, where the Statutes were “maturely debated, agreed to, and established” (Statutes, 1908, p. 240). A comparison of the 1727

Statutes with those of 1756 show the Philosophy School, Divinity School, and the Indian

School curricula were not amended except to extend the period of time for a Philosophy

School degree (Bachelor of Arts) from 2 to 4 years. While the administrative portion of

the statutes were slightly changed as follows: (a) the President’s responsibility for

Theology lectures decreased from monthly to quarterly, (b) The president’s salary increased from £150 to £200, (c) the responsibility for determining the receiptant of scholarship moved from the President and Masters to the Board of Visitors, and (d) the

Bursar/Treasurer’s salary was changed from being based on collections to “what the

Visitors think reasonable” (Statutes, 1908, p. 253). It is interesting that so few administrative changes were made. It can be speculated that either not much had changed, not much was perceived to need changing, or that the administrative side of the house was not the focus of the revision process.

However, another way to look at this situation was that the Board of Visitors and

faculty were in discussion, perhaps even disagreement, about changes that had been

evolving or that members of the Board and faculty were asking to take place in the

college. Although there is no documentation of the discussions underlying the process of

producing the statutes, the inability of the faculty to produce a new document over the

period of 3 years and 4 months seemed to signal that there was unrest, and given now

(and discussed elsewhere in this document) what is known about the evolving context of

higher education then, it can be speculated that a key issue in the discussions about the

statues had to do with change at the CW&M.

Perhaps the uncompromising stance by the faculty gave them a feeling of comfort

and power as they dealt with William Stith (President from August 13, 1752 until

September 19, 1755), President Dawson’s replacement after his death. However, it was 23

the student who needed a new pedagogy as noted by Randolph (1977), “William Small discovered that the traditional use of recitations as a way of teaching and examining at the same time did not work” (p. 42). Even though the faculty could see the need for a change, they failed to acknowledge it in a written document (Rudolph, 1977), as the

Revised Statutes of 1756 provided no step forward in pedagogy (Morpurgo, 1976) (See

Appendix D, Revised Statutes of 1756).

The period of the Revolutionary War (1775-1783) brought severe challenges to the College. Some students and faculty members (Henley and Gwatkin), with loyalties to the British Crown chose to return to England (Morpurgo, 1976). CW&M tried to maintain classes during the war. Although students and faculty were exempt from military duty, many from both groups were active in militia companies in counties surrounding Williamsburg. The students formed and maintained their own militia with

“Rev. James Madison, a CW&M professor, as captain” (CWMHF, n.d., p. 2). After the

Board of Visitors removed Reverend John Camm from presidency during the early part of the Revolutionary War (Morpurgo, 1976),

Camm moved to his parish in York County where he died two years later. In September of 1777, as a newly ordained Bishop of the Church of England, Madison made a commitment to succeed Camm as President for one year . . . [Which ultimately was] extended to thirty-five [years]. (p. 180)

James Madison, as the new president, inherited brick and mortar, but the school was unable to “continue as if the [Revolutionary War] was just another local crisis”

(Morpurgo, p. 171). Everyone had left to join the war effort.

Although the College was not physically destroyed during the final battles of the

Revolutionary War at nearby Yorktown, the war had taken its toll. “The . . . last of the

students had ‘all turned Soldiers’ . . . [and] on 18 January 1781,” President Madison

wrote despondently to his cousin, ‘The University is a Desert” (Morpurgo, 1976, p. 202).

On “18 April Williamsburg . . . suffered the humiliation of British troops on the Duke of

Gloucester Street” (Morpurgo, 1976, p. 20).

It [CW&M] stayed open but shut down temporarily to house American and French troops during the siege of Yorktown. Friendly though these troops were, the Colleges’s [sic] magnificent Christopher Wren building was accidentally set on fire by the French. The Revolution also consumed the College’s English endowment funds, the colonial tobacco tax, which had been assigned to the College, and the western lands, which has long been an important source of revenue. And along with all of this, the capital was moved from Williamsburg to Richmond. (Rudolph, 1990, p. 34)

Williamsburg, the CW&M, and its citizens suffered the ultimate humiliation – once the hub of commerce and political power was removed, it was now a country town impoverished by the war.

The period after the Revolutionary War brought additional formal changes to the

College. Thomas Jefferson had made his concerns widely known regarding the curriculum of the College (Peden, 1954), beginning with his numerous ideas as outlined in his Notes on the State of Virginia (Waldstreicher, 2002). The Virginia General

Assembly appointed Jefferson, a member of the Committee of Revisors, in 1776. The committee “had within its frame of reference the consideration of an entire legal, social, and administrative structure for Virginia” (Morpurgo, 1976, p. 185). Jefferson sought to support the CW&M “from the very first meeting” (p. 185). All members of the committee agreed that their work “included a responsibility to codify the status of

William and Mary within the Commonwealth . . . [offering] reappraisal and careful

reform” (p. 185). He proposed three bills that not only addressed the CW&M, but the

entire education system of Virginia (Peden, p. 289). However,

The project was too far ahead of its time to succeed more than partially, but though the Bill [Bill No. 80 in the ‘Report of the Committee of Revisors’] did not pass, Jefferson was elected to the Board of Visitors of the College early in his governorship and was thus able to introduce a number of his desired reforms. (p. 289)

In late 1779, when Jefferson was governor of Virginia and a member of the CW&M

Board of Visitors, it

became a university, [the first in the U.S.] the grammar and divinity schools were discontinued, and a professor of anatomy and medicine, and the first American chairs of law and policy and modern languages were established. The elective system of studies was introduced . . . the first such program in the United States. George Wythe, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, became the first professor of law and police [policy], the first chair of law in North America. John Marshall, later Chief Justice of the United States, was briefly one of George Wythe’s early students. (CWMHF, n.d., p. 2-3)

The goal of preparing ministers was replaced by the second quarter of the 18th century to

address other educational needs, such as medicine and law. Isaac (1982) attributed the change to a shift from the principles in the foundation to “instruments that maintained the social order, such as the law and learning” (p. 135-136).

The Colonial period was an era of creation, adjustment, and refinement for the

College. It progressed in steps from the original Charter in 1693, (a) statutes to re-

organize in 1727, (b) the transfer in 1729, (c) a revision of the statutes in 1756 and (d) the

transformation into a university in 1779. It survived the fiery destruction of its Main

Building in 1705. Subsequent rebuilding, and the addition of other buildings to

accommodate students and faculty, enabled the College to grow. In addition, it survived

the Revolutionary War, which ended in major battles in nearby Yorktown (Rudolph,

1990). After the War there were significant changes in curriculum, faculty, and

educational mission. Men such as Thomas Jefferson and George Wythe were influential

in refining the goals and objectives of the College (Andrews, 1937) as they took on roles

of leadership at the college.

Challenges

The colonial period was one of struggle for the CW&M but it prevailed. It took

time to be accepted as an alternative to higher education in the British Isles, but the

CW&M became reputable as a viable college (Morpurgo, 1976). The low enrollment,

fires, and financial concerns were addressed as Blair continued building and rebuilding

until his death in 1743. After his death, the Reverend William Dawson (1743-1752) and

Reverend William Yates (1761-1764) continued on the same theme.

The political and funding support of the college took a back seat to the early

expansion of the colony. The colony, founded as a business venture with shareholders

expected a profit. Basic education, but certainly not higher education, was not a

perquisite in the production of goods for England. As the population of mainly men

shifted with the importation of women and the growth of families, pressure from the

clergymen in the colony developed over a period of decades to provide education in the

colony. Not only was the concept of an academic environment, similar to those found in

England and Scotland, treated with distain, funding was difficult in light of the

sentiments of its perceived lack of importance.

Political

The initial comments regarding a College by the clergy were handled within the colonial political structure (government) as a part of the “domestic dissension” (Rouse, 27

1971, p. 48) that forced the Church of England to abandon the colony “for nearly eighty

years” (p. 48). Early colonial Virginia records show “countless enactments by the

Virginia Assembly . . . [of] the colony’s interest in spiritual matters” (p. 48) as Virginians

“were left to find their own way” (p. 48) on religious matters. Even with latter political

support to legislate religion and treatment of the ministry, the early political climate in

support of education in the Colony of Virginia changed little.

The politicians in 17th century Virginia were generally immigrants to the colony.

They were young and gave allegiance to the Crown. “Some . . . were younger sons of

respectable English gentry. . . [while] others were self-made men who were able to take

advantage of the opportunities they found in Virginia to acquire wealth and reputation”

(Greene, 1986, p. 5). However, regardless of their status, there was a general lack of

personal respect as social standing and wealth, prerequisites for English public office,

were not a requirement in the colony. In the late 1680’s and 1690’s the population mix

shifted from free men and male indentured servants to families. The colony began to

produce its own progeny, the political system gradually changed, and society became

more stable (Greene, 1986). Into this mix entered the Reverend James Blair, who was to

become a key player in the creation and early years of the CW&M.

Funding

Funding for the CW&M took many different forms during its history. The nature

and volume of funding and the financial status of the college were directly related to the

financial situation of the colony.

Fundraising between 1688 and 1689 (it must be noted the date of the CW&M

Charter (1693) is used as the founding date which contrasts to Harvard which uses as its 28

founding date the initiation of fundraising (1636) as authorized by the Massachusetts legislature) brought £2500 to the coffer for an endowment (Hornsby, 1936), which was gathered through missionary enterprise from the merchants of London. Part of the initial funding was from the spoils of pirating by Edward Davis, Lionel Delawafer, and John

Hinson, arrested in 1688. After three years of court proceedings, the treasure was returned to the three men, less £300 sterling, to help found the College (Tennant, 2006).

The funding for the College was originally based on the formula used at Oxford,

Cambridge, and Trinity Colleges and was dependent on private and public donations in three categories: land, endowment, and tax income (Zech, 2001). However, this plan, drawn from English heritage, based on these formulas did not work in the Colony of

Virginia. Resources from long-established interests were not available in the new young colony (Zech, 2001).

Therefore, further fundraising was needed – and took numerous forms, often relating to the unique financial features of Virginian society. One form of funding came from taxes on hogsheads (See Appendix E - Word List) of tobacco in Virginia and the neighboring colonies. In addition, a portion of the taxes on liquor was stipulated for the purchase of books for the library (Library of the College of William and Mary, July 1910, p. 48). Schemes connected with the issuance of surveying and peddlers’ licenses, tolls, funds for Indian education from the Brafferton Manor, and gifts of money for educational materials (Zech, 2001) were also used to support the College. In the original Charter of

1693, two parcels of land of 10,000 acres each were given by the Crown to enable quit rent income. In April 1718 the General Assembly gave the College £1000 “for support of scholars [and to] expand land and slave holdings” (Hening, n.d., p. 74) to be called 29

Nottoway (Zech). On this land, slaves grew cash crops for the benefit of the College.

Additionally, the school received small bequests from estates that usually were restricted for scholars, buildings, or equipment for instruction. The College rented space for a dancing school, and bookplates were sold to raise money (Morpurgo, 1976). No amount of creative work to bring in funds was truly successful. By 1735, with the College in debt

£1,000, Reverend Blair was forced to use his London connections to try to obtain money from the Colonial Governor and Council. This attempt met with failure, as the response declared that the funds were “for the service of the Government” (Morpurgo, p. 104).

Finding sources for funding was a difficult task compounded by the lack of oversight of the College finances. The Board of Visitors asked John Blair Jr., great- nephew of James Blair, to examine the College accounts (1755-1765) overlapping the period of this study. This accounting, hand-written by Blair Jr. and found in the College papers, was printed in the William & Mary Quarterly (W&MQ) (1903, January) with notations by the editor (Lyon, L. G.) of the publication. The accounting shows sums due the College that were paid late, never requested, never collected or accounted for properly, resulting in “her annual disbursements . . . vastly exceed[ing] the whole annual produce of all her funds” (Blair Jr., p. 150).

The continual financial deficit became a topic of concern as noted in the

December 9, 1763, Minutes of the President and Masters (Journal of the Minutes of the

President and Masters, 1895, July). Tenants were disposing of CW&M property (land) without the knowledge or approval of the college and some were not paying the quit rents

(Zech, 2001). In addition, the market for tobacco, (a commodity frequently used as payment of fees and quit rents and stored in a rented CW&M warehouse for future sale), 30

had diminished (Zech, 2001). A handwritten audit of accounts for a 10-year period prior to 1765 by John Blair Jr., (who was the Bursar in 1765) at the request of the Board of

Visitors, resulted in the opinion that “her annual Disbursements will vastly exceed the whole annual Produce of all her Funds” (Blair, Jr., 1903, p. 150). The report included notations asking for guidance for resolution or new regulations concerning handling of future transactions with regard to a number of individual items (Blair, Jr.).

The Reverend James Blair, who became the driving force behind the formation of the CW&M, used his passion, family ties, and attitude to bring the initial successful formation of higher education to the colonial capital of Williamsburg. He was not a person who was generally liked but had followers in the planter and political circles of the colony in the late 17th century, many of whom accepted and understood his passion for higher education as they joined in his quest.

It would be helpful to assume that Blair’s followers realized that with the growth and expansion of the colony an educated populace was needed to conduct the business of commerce and government, but that reasoning cannot be found in historical records.

While it may be difficult to understand the true nature of Blair’s passion, he knew that religious lives of the colonists needed to be tended by ministers and that finding recruits who could adapt to conditions in the colony from England and Scotland had proven unsuccessful. Ministers needed to be from the colony and educated in the colony. Thus, education was primary for the success of the colony. It is also believed that Blair was also driven by a combination of his religious beliefs with a desire for power, status, and life long employment. His personal history substantiates these observations as it can be found

that he was not immune to using his power to influence individuals, groups, the crown

and the colonial government to give money or assets to the CW&M (Rouse, 1971).

In support of the CW&M, Reverend Blair used his power and influences in two

ways. First, he forged agreement in the political arena on the importance of education,

which provided the rational and impetus for the founding of the CW&M. Second, he

further used this power to secure funding from multiple sources to support the creation of

the CW&M. The funding sources he secured, each unique to the colonial structure, were

in the name of the religious health of the populace. Blair was able to foresee the need for

education as the colony grew and he was able to convince important patriarchs to agree.

It was in this early period of the colony that the need for building morals and valves coupled with education was foremost on the minds of the proponents of education for the continuance of the wealth, the stature of the colony, and its exports to England

(Morpurgo, 1976).

Importance of Education

As the colony became increasingly populated an important issue for wealthy colonists was the establishment of a family, the building of a plantation or business, and the education of the male members of the family. The patriarch saw the importance of education as his own role in society and government on the parish, county, and colony levels expanded with the colony’s growth. It was important to prepare for the continuance

of wealth and stature (Morpurgo, 1976). One method of preparation is seen in actions

taken to find an educational venue close to home to instruct son(s) for advanced or higher

education. Initially, in the 17th century and early 18th century, advanced or higher

education would be pursued in an English or Scottish university. However, after the 32

founding of the CW&M (1693), there was a venue within the colony, though initially it was only a grammar school, where instruction in language and mathematical skill, essential for religious and commercial intercourse with England, was provided.

The building of skills in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, was a vital accomplishment for colonial education. Latin was the language of business in England and in the colony.

Even a plantation owner needed to be proficient in Latin to conduct business in the colony and abroad. Greek and Hebrew were the languages of religion, and members of an educated clergy needed to master these additional languages (Dillard, 1951).

It is worth remembering that education not only included the development of skills, but also the reinforcement of morals and values. This can be seen in Letters to His

Son on the Art of Becoming a Man of the World and a Gentleman, 1751, by Philip

Dormer Stanhope, the Earl of Chesterfield, as he writes to his son in Paris from London, on May 10, 1751,

I would, by all means, have you go now and then, for two or three days, to Marechal Coigny’s at Orli; it is but proper civility to that family, which has been particularly civil to you, and moreover, I would have you familiarize yourself with, and learn the interior and domestic manners of, people of that rank and fashion. I also desire that you will frequent Versailles and St. Cloud, at both of which courts you have been received with distinction. Profit of that distinction and familiarize yourself at both. Great courts are the seats of true good-breeding; you are to live at courts, lose no time in learning them. (p. 46)

Additionally, Morpurgo, 1976, notes “the responsibility of the [school] Master extended far beyond the classroom” (p. 82) as is noted in the language of the Statutes codified in

1736, written by James Blair and Stephen Fouace, and included in the Statutes of 1756, printed in 1758:

Special care likewise must be taken of their Morals, that none of the Scholars presume to tell a lie, or curse or swear, to talk or do anything obscene, or quarrel 33

and fight, or play at Cards or Dice, or set in to Drinking, or do any thing else that is contrary to good Manners. (p. 82)

Education was a vital link in society as it helped to maintain and improve the economy, social structure, and expansion of the colony. While higher education was available in the English and Scottish universities, as the colony developed parents began to seek educational venues in the Virginia colony for the preparation, Grammar School and higher education of their male children. Not only did the venues provide education, but a holistically approached to social, moral, and value education that was necessary for a civil society.

Preparation for Attendance

Unless a student entered the Grammar School at the age of 8, it was imperative that some preparation for entry begin at home. Few students completed a full 7 years of grammar school; therefore, it was necessary that they were able to read and write before beginning the rigors of Greek, Latin, and other necessary skills for promotion to the

Philosophy School. After 1729 students who were prepared, entered the Philosophy

School at age 15. Students needed to demonstrate skill in writing and speaking Greek and

Latin before they were promoted to the CW&M. Few parents had the skill or time necessary to prepare a child for the rigors of education at the CW&M.

The search for qualified tutors in England, Scotland, and within the colonies was difficult, but not impossible. Once a suitable tutor was employed it was not unusual to share the expense with friends and neighbors whose children would come to the tutor’s location on a daily basis for instruction or board with the family. As an example, at the

Chelsea Plantation of the Moore family, in a letter written by Elizabeth Henry Aylett,

(daughter of Patrick Henry and wife of Philip Aylett) she describes her visit to the abandoned Chelsea Plantation home about 1820-1830, saying “There is a study in which school was kept” (Aylett, E., Charles Campbell Papers, Swem Library Archives (Special

Collections) at the College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA 65C17, Box 27,

Folders 20). While the letter does not describe or visualize the books upon the shelves, family collections could be extensive in the upper strata of society. Libraries of the time became status symbols, with some wealthy planters owning a few hundred to over a thousand volumes, including the finest classical works. These books were routinely used by tutors to educate their young students and many became donations to the College upon their deaths (“Library of the College of William and Mary”, July 1910; Hockett, 1955).

Examples of planter libraries included: those of (a) Colonel William Byrd of

Westover, 3,625 volumes -“believed to be the largest collection” (Hockett, 1955, p. 216);

(b) Reverend William Dunlop of Stratton Major Parish, “several thousand volumes in most arts and sciences” (“Libraries in Colonial Virginia”, January 1896, p. 156); (c)

Honorable Philip Ludwell of ‘Greenspring’ inventory: “4 book cases, 1 trunk, 1 box of books worth £250, 1 Desk and Book Case £6; 1 sett [sic] of globes and 1 pocket compas

£5; 13 pictures; 1 reading desk, etc” (p. 156); (d) John Hood, “a valuable library of entertaining and instructive books of the best editions and in a good case” (p. 156); (e)

George Davenport, a “ large collection of law books”(p. 156); and (f) Reverend Thomas

Horrocks, “a variety of valuable books and a number of sermons by the most celebrated authors” (Libraries in Colonial Virginia, 1896, January, p. 156). Libraries were prized in the colony and contained a large variety of books and instruments for scientific learning all perfect for education by a tutor. 35

An alternative to home tutoring was private school which provided basic grammar education for college admission or an administrative role related to the assets of property

(land and chattel). One such school was founded by Donald Robertson (b. September, 27,

1717 d. 1783) “who came from Scotland and had a school near Aylett’s Warehouse”

(“Inscriptions from Tombstones”, 1901, p. 175)] “on a farm overlooking the Mattapony

River, about four miles above the present Dunkirk Bridge, [on the King and Queen side

(p. 175)] . . . where King and Queen County and King William County converge” (Boyd-

Rush, 2003, p. 1). It is said “that Robertson shaped the thinking . . . and helped prepare . .

. [students] for advanced study” (p. 2). Before opening his school he is believed to have been a tutor for Colonel John Baylor’s family (“Donald Robertson’s School,” 1925,

April). Robertson’s account book shows what subjects he taught to each student. As an example: “James Taylor & Francis Taylor to English, Edmund Pendleton to Latin, or

Reuben Gatewood to Arithmetic” (p. 197). The most famous name within the account book covering the years from 1758 to 1769 is James Madison. However, there are certainly entries for other known families during the time frame of Robertson’s account book: Moore, Taylor, Harrison, Robinson, Innes, Semple, and Burwell. An example from this case study is John Tyler who spent two years, 1753 to 1755, at the Grammar School of the CW&M, after which he left to attend the school of Donald Robertson where he mastered language skills. He returned to the college at the age of 15, entered the

Philosophy School in 1760, graduated in 1764/65 and continued studies in law with

Robert Carter Nicholas in Williamsburg (Tyler, 1884-1886). Tyler’s experiences at

Robertson’s school gave him a solid background for his educational endeavors.

It was understood that basic rudiments of education at the time, reading and

writing in Greek, Latin and Hebrew, provided a pathway to the colleges in Europe and to

the colonial college at Williamsburg (CW&M). As the Colonial Virginia population

grew, higher education became increasingly desirable; beyond helping men to run and

manage the vast estates but also for preparing students for participation in local and

colony government (Ordway, 1890).

Education also stressed “duties toward others” (Walsh, 1935, p. 330), and soon

those who had attended and those who had graduated from the CW&M were in demand

for top positions within the colony (Walsh. 1935). “The students . . . were drilled in the

principles of morality which fostered a sense of right and wrong and thus helped to create

a public conscience” (p. 346), in other words, preparing the student for life and service to

the Colony and the Commonwealth. As if supremacy in public office were foreshadowed,

“greater emphasis was laid upon law and politics [at the CW&M] at an earlier date then

elsewhere in this country” (Meriwether, 1907, p. 60).

The Colonial period was an era of creation, adjustment, and refinement for the

College. It progressed in steps from the original Charter of 1693 to, (a) statutes to re- organize in 1727, (b) the transfer in 1729, (c) a revision of the statutes in 1756 and (d) the transformation into a university in 1779. It survived the fiery destruction of its Main

Building in 1705. Subsequent rebuilding, and the addition of other buildings to accommodate students and faculty, enabled the College to grow.

CW&M College Education from the Revolutionary War to the 21st Century

Although the focus of this study is on the Colonial period of the CW&M, it is

helpful to have an overview of the institution’s full history. 37

The period of the Revolutionary War (1775-1783) brought severe challenges to the College. Some students and faculty members (Henley and Gwatkin), with loyalties to the British Crown, chose to return to England (Morpurgo, 1976). CW&M tried to maintain classes during the war. Although students and faculty were exempt from military duty, many from both groups were active in militia companies in counties surrounding Williamsburg. The students formed and maintained their own militia with

“Rev. James Madison, a CW&M professor, as captain” (CWMHF, n.d., p. 2). After the

Board of Visitors removed Reverend John Camm, because of his Loyalist sympathies, as president during the early part of the Revolutionary War (Morpurgo, 1976),

As the new president, Madison inherited brick and mortar, but the school was unable to

“continue as if the [Revolutionary War] was just another local crisis” (Morpurgo, p. 171).

Everyone had left to join the war effort.

Although the College was not physically destroyed during the final battles of the

Revolutionary War at nearby Yorktown, the war had taken its toll. The . . . last of the students had ‘all turned Soldiers’ . . . [and] on 18 January 1781, President Madison wrote despondently to his cousin: ‘The University is a Desert” (Morpurgo, 1976, p. 202). On

“18 April Williamsburg . . . suffered the humiliation of British troops on the Duke of

Gloucester Street” (Morpurgo, 1976, p. 20).

endowment funds, the colonial tobacco tax, which had been assigned to the College, and the western lands, which has long been an important source of revenue. And along with all of this, the capital was moved from Williamsburg to Richmond. (Rudolph, 1990, p. 34)

Williamsburg, CW&M, and its citizens suffered the ultimate humiliation -- once the hub of commerce and political power was removed, it was now a country town improvised by the war.

Post Revolutionary War

The period after the Revolutionary War brought new changes to the College.

After the War there were significant changes in curriculum, faculty, and educational mission. Men such as Thomas Jefferson and George Wythe were influential in refining the goals and objectives of the College (Andrews, 1937) as they took on roles of leadership at the college.

Thomas Jefferson had made his concerns widely known regarding the curriculum of the College (Peden, 1954), beginning with his numerous ideas as outlined in his Notes on the State of Virginia (Waldstreicher, 2002). The Virginia General Assembly appointed

Jefferson, a member of the Committee of Revisors, in 1776. The committee “had within its frame of reference the consideration of an entire legal, social, and administrative structure for Virginia” (Morpurgo, 1976, p. 185). Jefferson sought to support the CW&M

“from the very first meeting” (p. 185). All members of the committee agreed that their work “included a responsibility to codify the status of William and Mary within the

Commonwealth . . . [offering] reappraisal and careful reform” (p. 185). He proposed three bills that not only addressed the CW&M, but the entire education system of

Virginia (Peden, p. 289). However,

the project was too far ahead of its time to succeed more than partially, but though the Bill [Bill No. 80 in the ‘Report of the Committee of Revisors’] did not pass, Jefferson was elected to the Board of Visitors of the College early in his governorship and was thus able to introduce a number of his desired reforms. (p. 289)

In late 1779, when Jefferson was governor of Virginia and a member of the CW&M

Board of Visitors, it

The goal of preparing ministers was replaced by the second quarter of the 18th century to

address other educational needs, such as medicine and law. Isaac (1982) attributed the

change to a shift from the principles in the foundation to “instruments that maintained the

social order, such as the law and learning” (p. 135-136).

In 1784 the General Assembly vested title to “public lands in and near

Williamsburg and Jamestown” (CWMHF, n.d., p. 3), not used by the State, to the

College. This expanded the College’s opportunity for growth. However, the surveyor fee scheme and other revenues prior to the Revolutionary War that had provided some income to the College, were diverted or eliminated making the College land rich and cash poor (Morpurgo, 1976; Rudolph, 1990; Zech, 2001).

The College needed money . . . only six years after the Assembly had presented the property . . . it was estimated that the College had at its disposal only one- quarter of the income . . . it had enjoyed [during the years before the Revolutionary War] . . .William and Mary was close to bankruptcy. (Morpurgo, 1976, p. 214)

Morpurgo (1976) credited the continuation of the College to the reopening of the

Grammar School in 1792 by Rev. James Madison, president of CW&M during this period, and the infusion of students from other areas of the United States, drawn to the

CW&M by its well-known faculty (e.g., Wythe and Tucker as Professors of Law), and the “Virginian dream of a successful institution of higher education” (p. 216). CW&M, at this time in its history, was described as “battered, shabby, improvised, and reduced in scale” (p. 216). Morpurgo continues:

While not resplendent, CW&M overcame its appearance by providing intellectual stimulation by well-known faculty members. Thereby, continuing its reputation as an “integral part of the fabric of Virginia society . . . [and a] contributor to American nationhood. (p. 216)

19th Century

The first half of the 19th century was full of uncertainty, challenge, and enrollment highs and lows. The Capital, and much of the energy of Williamsburg, moved to Richmond in the first quarter of the 19th century (Rudolph, 1990). Despite talk of moving the CW&M to Richmond in an effort to increase enrollment, the college remained in Williamsburg and enrollment grew (CWMHF, n.d., p. 1). Enrollment, as shown in “CW&M Historical Facts”, (CWMHF) was 140 in 1836, the “largest in the history of the College” (p. 2). In the period between 1848 and 1849 (during the presidency of Robert Saunders, Jr., 1846-1848), there was dissension between the Board of Visitors, the faculty and the citizens of Williamsburg centered on the administration of

College affairs. During this time, graduation was suspended, except for the law school.

By 1849, “only 21 students [were] enrolled at the College. Enrollment was increased during the presidency of the Right Reverend John Johns and in 1854, (his final year);

enrollment had increased to 82” (p. 3). Thus, the first half of the 19th century was not a stable period for the College.

The second half of the 19th century was equally traumatic. Despite the commitment of support from John Tyler (b. 1790 d. 1862), a student from 1806 through

1807 and President of the US from 1841 to 1845 (White House, n.d., p. 1) (also Rector and Chancellor at the CW&M from 1840-1842) (CW&M, Rectors of Visitors, 1.3), the

College and its faculty felt the destructive impact of the Civil War and its aftermath. In

May of 1861, the CW&M “President Ewell, the professors and nearly all the students entered the Confederate army” (CWMHF, n.d., p. 1). In succession, both Confederate and

Federal troops occupied the College. The College Building (Main Building) was used as a Confederate barracks and hospital for a period in 1861-1862 (p. 1). On May 5, 1862,

Williamsburg was taken by Federal troops, and the Brafferton building was used as quarters for the “commanding officer of the Union garrison occupying the town” (p. 2).

In that same year, the College building was “set on fire by drunken soldiers of the 5th

Pennsylvania Cavalry” (p. 2). Classes resumed in the fall of 1865 in the Brafferton

Building. However, in July of 1868, classes were suspended until repairs could be made to the buildings. The work was completed by October 1869, with classes resuming on

October 13 (CWMHF, n.d.). Finally, in 1881, the College was closed due to lack of funding. Seven years later, in 1888, the General Assembly of Virginia

approved an appropriation of $10,000 to the College for training male public school teachers. It also enlarged the Board of Visitors by mandating that ‘ten additional and associate visitors’ be appointed by the governor; the superintendent of public instruction would serve as an ex officio member. (CWMHF, n.d., p. 3)

Despite significant efforts by Lyon G. Tyler, (son of U.S. President John Tyler and the

CW&M president from 1888-1906) that were effective on a small scale; the College was

not able to increase its resources. By the end of the 19th century, it continued to survive

but was “limited by available finances to a small but able teaching staff” (p. 4).

20th Century

The original charter was transferred to the Commonwealth of Virginia on March

5, 1906, and approved by the Faculty and Board of Visitors on March 8/9, 1906,

(CWMHF, n.d.) with the newly appointed Board of Visitors “vested with all rights and

powers conferred by the provisions of this act and by the Ancient Royal Charter of the

College” (p. 1). Given the financial resources of the state and new leadership through the

Board of Visitors, a building program commenced beginning in 1907 with the first library

building. This was followed by men’s and women’s dormitories, and a new gymnasium.

In September 1920, the Law School (closed since 1861) reopened. In 1922, the College

announced the creation of the Marshall-Wythe School of Government and Citizenship.

The expansion of the college overshadowed the slow decline of the City of Williamsburg,

as building continued on the campus with the addition of a dining hall, a science building,

dormitories, and a general classroom building. In 1928, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. funded the first restoration project for the college. The first building (College Building, Main

Building and finally named the Christopher Wren Building) was restored to reflect its appearance during the 1716 -1859 period after the devastating fires 1705, 1859 and 1862.

Additional building and restoration in the late 1920’s through the 1930’s produced an

infirmary and three dormitories, an office and classroom buildings, and the refurbishment

of the Brafferton exterior. With the expansion and restoration “College buildings and 43

grounds increased in value . . . [ten fold] and enrollment increased from 333 to 1,269”

(CWMHF, n.d., p.3). The transfer to the State of Virginia gave the CW&M the

opportunity to continue its heritage as an integral part of the founding history of America.

In 1943, during World War II, The Naval Training School for Chaplains and the

Army Specialized Training Program in basic engineering opened, soon to be followed by

The Institute of Early American History and Culture, co-sponsored by the College and

Colonial Williamsburg (CWMHF, n.d.). During the 1940’s and 1950’s a continuation of

the expansion of the brick and mortar of the College and increased scholarly activity

brought recognition to the College from the political and academic communities

(CWMHF, n.d.).

In the 1960’s and 1970’s, the CW&M saw the demand for increased education

and authorized its first doctoral degrees in the fields of physics, marine science, and

education (CWMHF, n.d.). The creation of more programs of study, and an increased

student body, generated continuous building. Mills E. Godwin, Jr., an alumnus and two-

term Virginia governor, was the driving force behind this expansion. He spoke of the

CW&M in the following terms on January 11, 1969, at the presentation of the

Constitutional Revision for Virginia in the Great Hall of the Wren Building, “The setting

for the historic presentation was particularly appropriate [because], so intimately

associated is the name of William and Mary with our country, that we might well symbolically refer to this institution as the Alma Mater of a Nation.” (p. 8). The College also became a political venue for presidential candidate exposure and increased its social responsibilities to the area and the world through its outreach to alumni, the community, state, and the world. In 1981, Charles, the Prince of Wales, spoke to a full-capacity group 44

in the Phi Beta Kappa Memorial Hall and returned to visit in 1993, the 300th anniversary

of the university. In 1983, the Press Center for the Summit of Industrialized Nations met

in William and Mary Hall, and in 1988, the Democratic candidates for President debated

in that same venue. Over its history, the College has hosted 17 U.S. Presidents.

In the 20th century, the expansion of resources under state designation and new

leadership provided the catalyst for growth. As the student population increased and the

demand for postgraduate education became greater, building programs and graduate

educational programs brought renewed interest in the CW&M.

21st Century

In the 21st century, the CW&M rankings, as published most recently on August

17, 2010, by the U.S. News and World Report placed it 6th among all public universities

and 31st overall among the nation’s best and 75th among all the universities in the world.

Statistics published by their department of Institutional Research show that in the fall of

2010 there were 5,862 undergraduates, representing 73.3% of the total student population

of 8,000. The published graduation rate, based on a 4-year cohort for fall of 2003, was

83%, while the 2004-2010 (6 years) graduation rate is 90%. The fall 2010 enrollment for

graduate school represented 17.4% of the total enrollment with the balance of 9.3%

representing students enrolled as unclassified or in professional programs. Alumni of the

college are in all 50 states in addition to U.S. territories.

The population of the CW&M in the fall of 2010, as reflected in the previous

student statistics, continues the role as described by Dr. W. Melville Jones, Dean of the

Faculty at the CW&M at the time, in his address delivered on Charter Day, 1961 (the

268th Anniversary of the Granting of the Royal Charter [on] February 8, 1693), he 45

phrased the contribution of CW&M in these words . . . “this College played a steadily

increasing role in intellectual and political life of the colony and later of the new nation

that came into being” (Jones, 1961, p. 9).

CW&M has had an illustrious history. It was at the forefront of the creation of higher education for the colonies, second to Harvard. Even during its early history,

“although few gentlemen enjoyed an extensive education, educated men [of that society] influenced their entire class” (Kulikoff, 1986, p. 279). The CW&M as an institution has contributed far beyond the number of students it has educated.

Harvard College

Early education at Harvard College stands in contrast to that of CW&M in key issues and processes. While the origins of each college were many years and miles apart, this review of Harvard in colonial society will shed light on the earliest higher education in America as it grew in two very different colonies, one founded on the desire for religious freedom by the Puritan sect and the other founded on the premise of profit, from the labor of the settlers, indentured servants and later slaves, by English investors.

Harvard, established by the Puritans as the first institution of higher education in the colonies began “with the first official recorded step toward [its] establishment . . . on

October 28, [1636]” (Morison, 1936, p. 5). It was in 1636 that a legislative act by the

Great and General Court of Massachusetts (GGCM) recognized the need for higher education with the promise of funding a total of £400. However, it was not until

“November 15, 1637, that the college was ordered [by the Great and General Court of

Massachusetts] to be at Newtown, and five days later a committee of six magistrates and six ministers, the first Board of Overseers, was appointed by the [same] Court to take 46

order for a colledge at Newtown” (p. 6). It is this initiative that actually created Harvard.

Herein, lays an initial difference between how history documents Harvard versus the

CW&M. History and Harvard itself, documents that institution’s founding as happening in 1636 with the legislative act that authorized £400 for the college. Conversely, commonly used by historians and the CW&M itself, that institution’s founding is 1693,

the date of its charter by the British Crown. This date excludes the various initial steps

taken to establish an institution of higher education in Virginia.

What follows allows a greater view of higher education and its processes when

compared to the origins to the CW&M. While the origins of each were many years and

miles apart, this review of Harvard in colonial society will shed light on the earliest

higher education in America from two colonies, one founded on the desire for religious

freedom by the Puritan sect and the other founded on the premise of profit from the labor

of the settlers by English investors.

Both colleges were predicated on education of the clergy and the general model

for each came from the English colleges of Cambridge (e.g., Emanuel College) and

Oxford University. However, Harvard not only was educating clergy, but also the

administrators of the colony; immediately started with higher education (1637) as

students were prepared off-site; was within educated populace; was chartered by the

Court of the colony; and developed alumni that were loyal and monetarily supported the

institution.

The early history of Harvard exhibits parallels with many of the conditions and

problems that the CW&M encountered during the same period of its growth. The

colonies each encountered the domination by landed gentry and Kirkpatrick (1926) notes

the,

distribution of the populations and the nature of her industry made conditions much alike in both colonies. The CW&M did have, however, a distinct advantage as the Charter was given by the Crown and so was never in question. (p. 96)

However, the origin of each colony distinctly shaped its role in higher education. A brief

history of Harvard College enables a comparison up to the Revolutionary War

corresponding to the time frame of this work.

17th Century

The founders of New England had education foremost in mind as they began to

settle the colony, mainly because their civil and religious rights that had been repressed in

England, France, and the Netherlands (Chamberlain, 1900). They were interested in

perpetuating their religious ideals and infusing those ideals into all facets of life in their

New England society. While the northern colony was settled after Virginia, the influx of

college-educated men became a primary factor in the founding of what would become

Harvard University. A short history follows.

Sixteen years before the founding of Harvard, a Royal Grant for the area known as New England was issued to the Council for New England (Council). The Council made no serious effort to colonize the land and willingly granted a charter in 1628 to a group of Puritan merchants who organized as the New England Company. In March of

1629, to make the title of the land more secure, the group managed “to obtain a royal charter, thus confirming the grant and changing the name of the company to the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England (Morgan, 1958). “On October

20, 1629, the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Company [the title of the meeting 48

of members], after nominating four candidates for governor . . . [picked John Winthrop by a] general vote and full consent” (Morgan, 1958, p. 49) and on April 8, 1630, with the flagship Arbella, the Puritan merchants, their families, and followers began the trip to the

New World. In 1633, an additional 10 shiploads of immigrants came to New England followed by 49 shiploads between 1634 and 1635. The population grew from 900 in 1630 to 11,600 in 1641 (Floyd, 1985).

The colony, “created by religious refugees from England . . . began as a closely known theocratic society in which all institutions, church, state, and education, were closely interwoven and designed to maintain the word and law of God” (Lipset &

Riesman, 1975, p. 15). They came because of the “belief that the Church of England should be purged of its hierarchy and the traditions and ceremonies inherited from Rome”

(Morgan, 1958, p. 7) and the belief that “God . . . demanded perfect obedience, and men must never cease trying to give it” (p. 18).

Of the original 400 settlers, over 100 were university scholars. Most of these scholars (70) were from a single college, Emanuel at Cambridge University) and the balance from Oxford (Richardson, 1876). They were “concerned in the first planting of our wilderness settlement with their churches, schools, colleges and printing presses during a period in which there was to be founded scarcely a single college bred man in all of the other English Colonies” (Ellis, 1884, p. 10). John Elliot, who came to the colony in

1631, a graduate of Jesus College in Cambridge, made the first appeal for a college while he was a preacher in Roxbury. At the quarterly meeting of the Great Court (Town

Meeting) (Court) held on “October 28, 1636 . . . it was agreed to give four hundred pounds towards a schoale [sic] or colledge [sic]” (Cremin, 1997, p. 42; Ellis 1884, p. 7); 49

£200 was to be given the next year and £200 when the work was finished while the next

Court was to designate the place and provide the building (Ellis, 1884). The sum was

more than half of the entire tax levy “for the colony in 1635 and almost one-quarter of that of 1636” (Floyd, 1985, p. 1). The tenacity of their effort aligns with the document

“New England’s First Fruits,” dated September 26, 1642, and printed in London in 1643, related by Ellis, 1884,

that as soon as they had builded [built] their houses, and provided for necessary food, for God’s worship, and for civil government, the next thing we longed for and looked after was to advance learning and to perpetuate it to posterity. (p. 6)

Puritans also felt that “not only preachers, but government officials must be educated; because it was expected that secular administrators would be guided by the same principles and insights that directed the ministers” (Floyd, 1985, p. 1). Ellis (1884) summed up the mission: “To provide a succession of ministers for the multiplying churches was the chief intent [and this transitioned into] the need of college-bred men for other ranges of service” (p. 12). They were graduates whose initial intention was the ministry, but who found themselves in high places of magistracy.

Harvard supplied the Colony of New England with civic and religious leaders while it attempted to bring “Christian goals as defined by the Puritans . . . free of corruption of prelacy, empty ritual and human vanity that, they believed, had so bedeviled the English universities” (Bailyn, Fleming, Handlin & Thernstrom, 1986, p. 8).

Floyd (1985) also “marvels at the early action on so bold an undertaking as founding a college, a matter that any other group probably would have deferred until times were settled, the population larger and the economy stabilized” (p. 1). Religion was imbedded

into life in the New England Colony with expectations that each human being would be

guided by secular values.

The Reverend Nathaniel Eaton, who attended Trinity College in 1630 at

Cambridge, England, and went on to study at the University of Franeker in the

Netherlands (Hart, 1886), held the office of the President, with an official title of

Professor or Master. His responsibilities included building and planting as well as

teaching and purveying (purchasing) (Vaille & Clarke, 1875). The first class began on

November 15, 1637 (Vaille, 1875), with a group of four students between the ages of 14

and 18. They were enrolled in a 3-year course that was based on the 2000-year old classical curriculum. In addition to disputations and declamation there were prayers and scripture reading twice a day (King, 1878). The course of study encompassed the Holy

Scriptures and Christian theology as known and understood by the churches of New

England, with some of the best known Latin and Greek authors, Hebrew, logic, and philosophy with a small amount of mathematics (King, 1878).

The physical location for the beginning of the first class in November 1637 is not known. However, it is known that subsequently the Peyntree House, built in 1633 for

William Peyntree, perhaps later owned by Comfort Starr (Floyd, 1985) was acquired by the College. Chamberlain (1900) noted,

he enclosed about an acrea [sic] of land [that included the Peyntree house] with a high plaing [stockade fence that Floyd (1985) reports to be 6 ½ feet high] set out thirty apple trees and according to Governor Winthrop, had many scholars, the sons of gentlemen and other of the best note in the county. (p. 47)

The house ultimately contained Eaton’s family and servants, and provided

accommodations for as many as 10 students.

History documents the Peyntree House was poorly built and required replacement in 8 years because of structural problems (Floyd, 1985). The next building to be erected was the “Old College” building, begun during Reverend Nataniel [Nathanial] Easton’s tenure (1637-1639). This was the first building for academic purposes. John Friend of

Ipswich (Floyd, 1985) began construction in 1638 on the promise of £400 from the colonial government. The building was not totally completed until 1645 at a cost of about

£1,000, a quarter of which had been “scraped together in small donations from colonists and sympathizers in England” (Floyd, p. 6).

The college, conceived in 1636, was the precursor to what became Harvard

College on March 13, 1639, and is now known as Harvard University. On November 15,

1637, the next Court designated the location as “Newetowne” (Cremin, 1997, p. 43),

“New Towne” (Ellis, 1884, p. 7) and in May of 1638, the name was changed to

Cambridge in honor of the place “where many of the principal men of the colony received their education” (Pierce, 1845, p. 3). It is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States, its first class having graduated in 1642.

In 1639, Reverend Eaton was dismissed from his position and banished to

Virginia for stealing college funds. J.C. Wise in Early History of the Eastern Shore

(1911) related that “Nathaniel Eaton . . . came to Accomac [sic] after his dismissal from

Harvard [in] 1639 to be a parish clerk” (p. 261). History does not reflect if the funds stolen were from the construction of the “Old College” building or from donations from such notables as Reverend John Harvard.

The gratitude for the gift from Reverend John Harvard was so great that the

College was named after him (Chamberlain, 1900, p. 46), thereby securing “the 52

development of The School . . . in [to] the College” (Vaille & Clarke, 1875, p. 25).

Harvard, who left half of his estate, inherited at his mother’s death, “£799, 17s, 2d . . . toward the erection of a college . . . also left his entire library, 320 volumes of classical, philosophical, and theological” (Ellis 1884, p. 9). All but one of the 5,600 volumes housed in Harvard Hall, (erected with donations from friends), its contents, and a cabinet of apparatus (King, 1878) perished in the fire of January 24, 1764. After the fire, the only remaining volume(s) were those that had been borrowed from the library [overnight], a transgression that saved the relic(s) of the original Harvard book collection (Ellis, 1884;

Morison, 1935). Harvard’s philanthropy brought forth more donations and “after him another gave £300; others after them cast in more” (Smith, R., 1986, p. 16). In addition

Harvard’s library donation brought “volumes by Chrysostom and Pelagius, Duns Scotus and Aquinas, Luther and Calvin, Homer and Plutarch, Horace and Pliny, Bacon and

Camden, they were the first real teachers in the College” (Vaille, 1875, p. 25).

The class of 1642 benefactor was Henry Dunster, the first President and second

Master, “a thirty-year old graduate of the University of Cambridge who had just arrived at Boston” (Morison, 1936, p. 10; Walsh, 1935) in 1640. Overcoming two years of near depletion of the colony caused by the Civil War in England, Morison (1936) describes the situation:

Puritans stopped emigrating; many already in New England returned home to get into the fight; and without the weekly arrivals of hungry hordes of well-to-do people, the bottom fell out of the stock [cattle] market. Ruined planters skipped the country to escape their debts, and for a few years, until Yankee ships found new markets in the West Indies, New England had the depressing aspect of a boom town that has fallen flat. (p. 11)

The first commencement on the second Tuesday of August 1642 consisted of nine

graduates. An attempt was made to discourage graduates from returning to England;

however, it is written that they thought that by returning they could “improve their parts

and abilities in the service of the Colonies” (Chamberlain, 1900, p. 49). Subsequently, it

was found the more educated they were, the less “contented they were to stay in New

England. Their fathers had instigated their educational process, but once given their mind, they ‘swing back’ to the attraction of the mother country” (Vaille, 1875, p. 30).

On August 27, 1640, the Reverend Henry Dunster became Harvard’s first official president. He continued to hold the job for 14 years during which time he “virtually single-handedly . . . converted an infant institution of uncertain future into a thoroughly acceptable college with every prospect for survival” (Cremin, 1997, p. 47). The College grew in spite of the difficulties of a heavy workload, hardly any funds, and the decay of college buildings (Vaille, 1875). Dunster urged the court to provide more generously for the maintenance and repair of the building, and suggested that each family in the colony

contribute annually one shilling for its support (Chamberlain, 1900). In 1644, the General

Court appropriated £150 to build a new house for President Dunster. At this time, an

ordinary house would have cost no more than £50. By 1659, another building is

mentioned in the history of Harvard-the Indian College building.

Dunster believed in his mission to support and provide higher education to the

New England colony; working even longer hours to supervise the construction of a

building that would be called the “Old College, or simply Harvard College as this

building was called . . . it stood in the Yard behind the Peyntree House” (Morison, 1936,

p. 13). It contained living quarters for students and faculty, plus classrooms; a collegiate 54

environment. It must be noted that the building, according to Morison (1936) lasted only

35 years. Although not specifically described, it appears to have been built of wood.

Dunster’s educational mission was to bring to New England the quality of education he had known in England. He adopted “the standards and discipline of Oxford and Cambridge” (Walsh, 1935, p. 65) and according to Morison (1929),

The curriculum established by Dunster was strong on the classical and theological side; but it also included studies such as botany, physics, and astronomy that were no particular use to a minister of the gospel. There seems no doubt, then, that Harvard College was designed to develop character, to foster learning, and to train educated leaders for church and state. (p. 12)

After the first class of 1642 graduated, Dunster instituted a three year course of

study for a Bachelor’s degree incorporating “Liberal Arts, the Three Philosophies, and

the Learned Tongues” (Morison, 1936, p. 11) and an additional three-year course for a

Masters degree. This course of study was not amended until 1654 “when the tradition of a

seven years art course was adopted” (four years for a Bachelor’s degree and three years

for a Master’s degree) (Walsh, 1935, p. 65). It must be noted that CW&M, which did not

exist during this time; it did not institute a four-year B.A. until 1756. Bentinck-Smith

(Ed.), 1953 concludes in his book on Harvard that,

Dunster’s genius for organization was such that the curricula, the forms, and the institutions established under his presidency long outlasted his time and even his century . . . and the Charter of 1650 that he obtained . . . still serves as [the] constitution of the modern University. (p. 43)

However, even as the curriculum was defined and improved, there were still problems

with funding.

The major part of Harvard’s income in the 17th century was resplendent with

New England farming products; animals and food which were used to feed those housed

in the college building. Items that could not be used were cycled into money. Over time tax on ferry service was subscribed to the college, but “the financial structure of the

College remained precarious until near the end of the century, when Sir Matthew

Holworthy’s bequest of £1000 eased for a time the Treasurer’s problem” (Morison, 1936, p. 15-16).

It became more difficult to raise money. Finally, an appeal was made to the donors, the General Court and the “Commissioners of the United Colonies to make the

College a New England Institution” (Vaille, 1875, p. 30). Additionally, fundraising schemes were instituted to support the institution. One resulted in the nickname for

Harvard, the “corn college” (Cremin, 1997, p. 49), because every family was required to put a bushel of corn, or an equivalent, aside as a donation. In Piscataqua, New

Hampshire, the town support was in the form of direct grants of land and tax revenues.

Reverend Dunster sought support for scholarship, with Lady Anne Radcliffe Mowlson

(Moulson) (Pierce, 1833) donating £100 and a Mr. Bridges £50 (Pierce, 1833). Further support came from the diverted tolls of the Boston-Charlestown ferry (Pierce, 1833;

Smith, 1986). In addition, support in the form of rent came from land known as the

College Farm from approximately 1649 until the mid to late 18th century. It is not known if this land was owned by Harvard College or Reverend Dunster. What is known is that the land generated rent that was placed in the treasury of Harvard College (Hazen, 1883).

Harvard historical facts indicate that rent continued until 1775, while Hazen (1883) states that the land was sold to William Gleason about 1750. Regardless, the land was used to generate income for the support of the college; this income scheme was similar to that used by the CW&M. 56

In addition to fundraising, Reverend Dunster was the master instructor. He taught

the entire curriculum himself until 1643, when he hired two helpers who had graduated

the previous year (Cremin, 1997). Thus began the institution of tutors who were

appointed from the recent graduates. This practice of hiring tutors, and the expansion of

staff and students, continued until the College staff included the president, two or three

tutors, a steward, cook, butler, and several servants for 20 to 50 scholars.

The Grammar School, started in 1642, supplied many of the students for the

College. It was located next to the College and was specifically intended for the training

of the young scholars under the law of the General Court (Morgan, 1958). Scholars

attended grammar school and became proficient in the translation of classics into English; could read, speak, and write Latin, in prose and verse, and could conjugate verbs and

nouns in Greek. When they had reached perfection, they were allowed admittance to

Harvard (Chamberlain, 1900; Pierce, 1833). According to Cremin (1997) every student

was plainly instructed, strictly disciplined, and had to read the Scripture twice a day. It

was expected that quotes from the Bible would be utilized in the speech and writing of

the students as they pursued their subjects of grammar, rhetoric, logic, physics, ethics,

and metaphysics. In the early 1650’s additional ethic and metaphysics curricula were

added as an extension of the first year.

A formal charter from the General Court in the colony was obtained on May 31,

1650, signed by Thomas Dudley, Governor of the New England Colony (Harvard

Charter). The charter defined Harvard’s mission as “The advancement of all good

literature, arts and sciences, and the education of English and Indian youth in knowledge

and godliness” (Cremin, 1997, p. 48). The goal of education was to enable the student to 57

systematize coherently and contend expertly (Cremin, 1997). It was in 1653 that the

portion of the mission written and signed in 1650 was met with the admission of John

Sassamon, the first Indian student, a mentee of John Eliot, translator of the Bible in 1663

and a grammar book in 1666, into the language of the Native Americans of the area

(Harvard Historical Facts; History of the Office). The Bible–the first . . . printed in North

America–remained in use for almost two centuries” (History – Office of the President,

Charles Chauncy, p. 1). John Sassamon (student) was succeeded 12 years later by another

Native American, Caleb Cheeshahteaumauk, who completed his Bachelor’s degree in

1665 but died the following year of tuberculosis (Harvard Historical Facts & Morison,

1936).

During the period from 1640 through 1654, Dunster formed an institution that had

74 alumni; a charter granted by the General Court, a library of over 1,000 volumes and three buildings including the “Old College” building, and the auxiliary house known as

Goffe’s College, purchased in 1651 from Edward Goffe (Floyd, 1985) for student overflow. He used this period in the history of New England, depressed from the Civil

War in England, to bring life to Harvard. Dunster took the initiative to re-write the curriculum to provide “lectures, recitations, and other exercises . . . [so that he] could conduct them all . . . while [also] . . . concentrating on completing the college building”

(p. 12). Morison (1936) reflects on Cotton Mather’s writings and admits there could have been other options for educating the students during this time but the Colonial

‘government . . . [wanted the] student brought up in a more Collegiate Way of Living’ (p.

12).

During the period of 1654 to 1672, Charles Chauncy was president. Chauncy, a recently converted Puritan; mainly to obtain an “ecclesiastical living” (Morrison, 1936, p.

37), came to New England, where he was ostracized because of his strong feelings on baptism by total immersion and other strong opinions he expressed regarding church matters. Eliot, 1848 expresses the problem couched in a pleasant tone: “He was a Puritan who . . . has suffered persecution” (p. 17) for some of his beliefs were contrary to the church. Pier notes he agreed to repress some of his ideas to take the job of President of

Harvard, offered to him as he prepared to return to England to continue his ministry in

Ware, from which he came as the Puritan Church there had recently enjoyed a resurgence

(Morison, 1936; Peirce, 1833: Pier, 1913). He was a highly educated man and “admirably skilled in the learned languages . . . well acquainted with all parts of learning . . .

[especially his favorite] divinity (Peirce, 1833, p. 19).

Chauncy’s term as President was filled with problems, not of his own making, but from lack of funds, and poor construction of buildings previously erected. He was able to secure funding to build the Indian College, which was completed in 1665. However, by the end of his term both Harvard Hall and the newly erected Indian College had weathered so badly “they had become almost unfit for occupancy” (Pierce, 1833, p. 31).

Toward the end of his term (1672) things were bleak at Harvard College. Enrollment was down, funding was precarious, and the General Court had reduced its support (Pierce,

1833). Chauncy, never one to lose faith, embarked on a fund raising campaign to replace

Harvard Hall and prepared to leave his legacy to the next President, Leonard Hoar.

In 1672 Leonard Hoar became President of Harvard College, thus beginning a long line of “homegrown leadership” (History – Office of the President (History – OP), 59

Leonard Hoar, p. 1). Hoar had aspirations “in line with the most advanced educational

thought of the day” (Morison, 1936, p. 41) of “transforming Harvard into a major

research institution complete with chemical laboratories, a botanical garden and an

agricultural research station, and a mechanical workshop [a concept that was not realized]

until the 19th century” (History – OP, Leonard Hoar, p. 1). President Hoar’s other

inspiration which was completed during his tenure (1672-1675) was the student year

book or catalogue that was issued triennially and later every 5 years. After Hoar’s

resignation in 1675, Urian Oakes accepted a temporary appointment as acting President

overseeing the “completion of Old Harvard Hall in 1677 as a replacement for [the] ‘Old

College’ building” (History OP, Hoar, p. 1) which was destroyed by the fire on January

24, 1764 where all but one of the 5,600 volumes housed there perished in the fire. Oakes

was given a full appointment as President in February 1680 and died in on August 4,

1681. The office of the President remained vacant until the spring of 1682 when John

Rogers was installed, he died on July 12, 1684. Within a period of 10 years Harvard had a

total of three Presidents, two of whom, as indicated in the History of the President, were

barely able to address day-to-day issues of the college. It was an additional three years

before Increase Mather would be Acting President (1685-1686), Rector (1686-1692) and

finally President (1692-1701), of Harvard College.

Mather “wielded more ecclesiastical influence than any other person and was

better fitted to be the representative of the ruling elders, pastors, and teachers of the

preceding generation than any other individual among his contemporaries” (Eliot, 1848, p. 26-27). Born in the colony “he appears to have claimed and then the lead in all affairs

relating to the church, the state and the college” (p. 27. Although he never permanently 60

resided at the college as required, except for a short stay of “a few weeks” (p. 29) the institution was effectively led by two tutors, John Leverett and William Brattle (Eliot,

1848). It was also during this time donations continued to sustain Harvard. In addition,

Increase Mather’s salary was reduced based on the premise that a full salary “without a full equivalent in time and labor” (Eliot, 1848, p. 31) was not proper. During this period in history it was standard for ministers to take on several full time jobs and collect multiple salaries while giving cursory attention to each.

It was also during the time of 1696-1700 that several attempts were made to change the college charter. However the college continues to rely on the 1650 charter obtained by Dunster, and with a slight amendment, it is still in force in the 21st century.

Additionally, a new student building was funded by a personal donation of £1000 from

Governor Stoughton; perhaps the first of its kind in the colonies. This was followed by other donations, including a £500 bequest by Robert Thorner of London. Eliot (1848) gives credit to the support of Harvard by the colony, yet despite the sacrifice of the colony for the college, he attributes Harvard’s success to that “received from England . . .

[which exhibited] a still loftier and more disinterested love of learning, religion, and freedom which had been cultivated here, and which were anxiously looked for from what was once a remote outpost of civilization” (p. 31). Eliot substantiates this comment noting:

During the period of Mather’s presidency and influence, including three years after his resignation 1685-1704, there were educated at Cambridge [Harvard] . . . two who became chief justices, and five others who were judges of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, three judges of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, and two of that of New Hampshire, two governors, and two lieutenant governors of provinces, one president of Harvard, and one of Yale college. Besides these, one hundred thirteen ministers were prepared for the pulpits of New England; and thus 61

it appears that large provision was made here [at Harvard] for the support of the law and gospel. (p. 32)

In 1685 King Charles II, of England, requested that the colony surrender its charter with England. The matter took 4 years to resolve, but the conclusion was that

Reverend Increase Mather (then President of Harvard) traveled to England and by 1689 there was a new charter. This state of affairs then necessitated a new charter for Harvard

College, as well.

18th Century

Samuel Willard directed Harvard for six years from 1701 to 1707. He “succeeded to the powers and duties, though not to the title of president” (Eliot, 1848, p. 34). He was never inaugurated and functioned under the title of Vice President. During the years of his tenure, without regard to his lack of direct oversight, as had been exhibited by his predecessor,

The number of students remained about the same, liberality towards the school continued to show itself, and the education of the young men was largely directed, perhaps a little more so than usual towards preparation of the ministry of the gospel. (p. 35)

Willard, gets one line of mention in History of the Presidents [of Harvard College], describing his death in January 1708. At last there was a possibility that a President would be elected who had the ability to put Harvard back on track.

John Leverett held the presidency of Harvard during a period of time that is described by Eliot (1848) as “distinguished by the ability and success . . . [of] its administration and by the importance of the events [he was very familiar with Harvard, having served] as a student, tutor, and member of the Corporation [Board of Governors,

Visitors] (p. 35-36). His personal accomplishments were many including activities that 62

made him known as a “scholar, a man of science, and a man of affairs and acquaintance

with the world” (p. 36). His devotion to his alma mater and his connections increased

Harvard’s enrollment at a time when there was competition with a new New England

college, Yale. Leverett doubled the number of course offerings, notwithstanding the

decreased funding and built the Massachusetts Hall (Morison, 1929). In addition, two

non-sectarian professorships in Divinity and Mathematics were funded and established by

one benefactor (Morison, 1929). Thomas Hollis, a successful merchant, made his gift

without regard for personal religious affiliation but out of the love of learning and even

more unusual for the time, did so while he was alive, not through his will. “A few years

later . . . [he also] established [an additional] professorship of Mathematics and [added

one] in Natural Philosophy” (p. 43). As the college began to move into the mid-18th

century, student enrollment averaged 30 students per year (Eliot, 1848).

The design of Harvard’s Board of Governors (Visitors) must be noted in this

historical sketch of Harvard. The board consisted of professors and laymen. Eliot’s

(1848) conclusion on this arrangement is positive based on the importance of shared

governance and a committee format for administrative functions. However, as is

generally the case, opposition was prevalent, and opposition was prepared to voice their opinions after Leverett’s death in 1724. It must be noted the rule that prohibited the president from holding more than one full time appointment, mentioned previously, would again hinder the selection process for the president of the college. Many had seen its effects as President Leverett was forced to live in poverty during the later years of his appointment (Eliot, 1848).

As the college moved closer to the mid-18th century Harvard, a college that had supplied the New England colonies with administrators and ministers based on faith as practiced by the Puritans, often called Congregationalists (Stenerson, 1973), was suddenly faced with the establishment of two Episcopal churches, King’s Chapel and

Christ’s Church (Eliot, 1848). These churches were established by leadership that was in direct conflict with Puritan religious ideals. This was the first and early phase of the Great

Awakening in the northern colony. Eliot (1848) addresses the conflict:

The whole form and order of church government of the two sects, their whole habit of thinking and feeling upon religious subjects, were as far asunder as it would seem possible for men professing the same religion to carry them. The Puritans abhorred the title of Bishop, and the Episcopalians disdained to recognize any such officer as a teaching, or ruling, elder. (p. 56)

Not only did the settlers who remembered the primary reason for their flight from

England, but the whole community of Harvard College felt the intrusion of the Church of

England. Perhaps the boldest attack against the college was the insistence by the Rectors of King’s Chapel and Christ’s Church as described by Eliot (1848) that they

demanded to be admitted as teaching elders of the town of Boston . . . whose teaching elders were to constitute a part of the Board of Overseers [Governors/Visitors] of Harvard College. The question was argued more than once, and was, on each occasion settled by a decided vote against the applicants” (p.58).

This controversy seems to have consumed much of the period from 1725 to 1737.

While complaints were registered by the Board of Governors of the “declining and feeble state of the College” (p. 58) and while it may also be assumed this included the buildings and living conditions, Eliot (1848) attributes these complaints to “learning, diligence, perseverance and ability” (p. 58) of the instruction. However, donations increased and attention was given to instruction, as is verified by previous comments in 64

this Harvard review as to the numbers and accomplishments of the graduates of the period.

The conclusion of this review of Harvard ends just prior to the Revolutionary War

with the Reverend Edward Holyoke, who left his ministry in Marblehead, MA, to lead

the college for 32 years. During this extended period of time faculty problems seemed to

dominate the history of Harvard. Shortly (3 years) after Holyoke began his leadership of

Harvard, he, the faculty, and the institution of Harvard became targets of the sharp and

opinionated tongue of the Reverend George Whitefield (Pierce, 1833) an “itinerant

preacher” (p. 204) whose sole purpose appears to have been the degradation of Harvard

College and its accomplishments with untruths and innuendos (Pierce, 1833). However,

both Eliot (1848) and Pierce (1833) agree that even though Whitefield attempts were

bitter and prolonged, the institution of Harvard sustained its momentum financially and

educationally.

In January 1764 Harvard Hall, the center of literary and scientific resources for

the students, burned to the ground. The “legislature was in session; and in fact, Harvard

Hall was occupied by them at the time of the calamity” (Eliot, 1848, p. 69). The

governor, Harvard, and the Board of Governors were “prompt in appointing committees

to solicit aid” (p. 69). Harvard Hall was rebuilt, and later a chapel was also built with a family donation from London by a Mrs. Holden, the widow of Samuel Holden head of the Bank of England (Pierce, 1833). Harvard recovered in time to make intellectual

contributions to the Revolutionary period, as described by Morison (1929). Harvard

graduates and students were active during the war. Five graduates living in

Massachusetts signed the Declaration of Independence: John Hancock, Samuel Adams, 65

John Adams, Robert T. Paine and Elbridge Gerry, plus an additional 3 who were representing other areas of the New England colony. This is amazing considering that one-sixth of the graduates were purported to be loyal to the British monarchy (Morison,

1929).

In conclusion, several strengths enabled Harvard to bring higher education to the

New England colony. Perhaps the earliest was the instructional design that physically separated preparation for higher education (grammar school) from the higher-education students of the college. Others include the highly educated colonists who earned their living as merchants and understood the need for education; communities or towns as compared to the plantation structure of the Virginia Colony; religious principles that permeated all facets of life, and the understanding that knowledge was necessary for a society to thrive. But perhaps the greatest was the dedication and support of education with local control of the process, coupled with college leaders whose ideas helped to frame and expand higher education. These were all assets in the founding and continuation of Harvard. Morison (1953) notes, that Harvard College

established . . . on the edge of the wilderness, in a colony eight years sold, numbering less than ten thousand people, who had barely secured the necessities of existence; and with no help from any church, government, or individual in the Old World [continued to survive]. (p. 22)

Comparisons of the CW&M and Harvard College

While Harvard commenced its life many decades before the CW&M, there are many similar features in their early histories. The earliest settlers in both colonies conceived of a college for the higher education of its sons, and in both colonies there were false starts implementing that concept. Massachusetts created its college earlier than

Virginia, but the process of creating these colleges were plagued with similar challenges:

finding a location, securing funding, hiring an initial head (president) and faculty

(masters), and solving the preparation problem (grammar school preparation for students).

Both colleges served similar populations of colonists. While Virginia was home to larger numbers of large-scale landowners (plantation owners), Massachusetts was home to a comparable stratum of wealth derived from shipping and trade. The upper strata of both colonies either sent their sons back to England and Europe for higher education or needed a local college for their sons. Both Harvard and the CW&M served the need for local college education. Both colleges also claimed a goal of preparing clergy for the colony. Finally, both colleges initially sought to bring education to the

Native Americans of the colony, but this mission never gained much traction at either institution.

The curricula at the colleges also had similarities, as both were initially derived from the English colleges at which the founders and early settlers had obtained their own higher education. The trivium and quadrivium were the foundations for both institutions, and both struggled to update their curricula with the advent of the more modern scientific method of the Enlightenment.

Funding was a constant challenge at both institutions. The colonial government never provided enough funding to meet college needs. Tuition fees were paid directly to instructors. Room and board fees were charged to those students who lived at the colleges, but since some students lived at home or boarded in the community neither college were particularly good at fee collection. Presidents had to spend as much time 67

fundraising as they did teaching. In short, neither college had dedicated and/or reliable source of income and this was a constant challenge to both institutions during their early histories.

Both institutions were shaped by their localities and the colonies in which they were founded. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded for escape from religious intolerance in England, and thus religion played an important part in the early history of that colony and thus also in the early evolution of Harvard. While the Colony of Virginia was fundamentally a Church of England locale, religion was not as much of a driving and shaping force for the CW&M as it was for Harvard. However, ministers were instrumental in the founding and early shaping of both colleges, and religious foundations were important to both institutions.

Although the CW&M was founded by royal charter in 1693 and Harvard by colonial decree in 1637, both had close ties to the colonial governments. This was manifested in funding (although it was never enough), and in the involvement of colonial government officials in governance through Boards of Visitors and the like. Perhaps

Harvard had the advantage of being slightly removed from the day-to-day involvement of the colonial government in college business since Cambridge was physically at a distance from the capital in Boston. In contrast, the CW&M was a mile down the Duke of

Gloucester Street from the House of Burgesses in Williamsburg and thus the college and colonial government were intimately connected on many levels. Considered in another light, this proximity meant that government and politics were never far from the learning experiences of students at the CW&M, with the college often welcoming government officials and even housing sessions of the House of Burgesses. The distance between 68

Cambridge and Boston meant that these experiences were not as readily available to the

students of Harvard College. In addition, the students were “confined to the College and

the Yard (area surrounded by a fence) twenty-four hours per day” (Morison, 1936, p.28).

Thus, there were similarities and differences between the colleges.

While Meriwether (1907) perhaps best described Harvard and the CW&M during the colonial period by concluding from his analysis that even though both “return[ed] to the original sources [for their structure and curriculum], they are both cast in the same educational mold” (p. 60). However, social and economic stressors affected each colony differently depending on the purpose for colonization, the depth and influence of religion, financial support within the colony and abroad, and exposure to governmental and political processes. Harvard and the CW&M were each shaped by their settings and the people involved in founding higher education in each colony.

In conclusion, while Harvard was not sanctioned by England, its history, which began earlier than the CW&M’s, provides a parallel of higher education endeavors. Each institution strove to contribute to higher education in colonial America. The sketches of the first colonial colleges, the College of William and Mary (1693) and Harvard

University (1637), show that they were developed with similar primary missions: to educate students for the benefit of the colony, to provide clergy and to educate the

Indians. Even though they were conceived through different processes-CW&M was sanctioned through a Royal Charter by the reigning monarchs of England while Harvard was established by the colonizing religious sect-each contributed to the start of higher education in the colonies.

This chapter has established the setting of the CW&M by means of a comparison to Harvard, the two institutions being the second and first colleges respectively in the

Americas prior to the Revolutionary War. A more detailed overview of the CW&M was necessary to provide this embedded case study with details on the primary object of this work, higher education at the CW&M in the colony of Virginia. The political, funding, and colonial education sections of this chapter provided background and answer the initial sub-questions of the case: (a) the role of college education in Virginia society, (b) the political climate in support of the CW&M, and (c) funding from the colony for the

CW&M.

Amazingly, without consultation or collaboration, each participant in the founding of the two colleges applied their own educational experiences to the new institutions in the American colonies which resulted in a correlation of similarity. The two sketches, although they do not occupy the same exact timeframe, demonstrate this fact. Therefore, a case study of the CW&M in the colonial period would not be complete without a review of the history of Harvard prior to the Revolutionary period, which coincides with the period of this study.

CHAPTER 3: BIO-SKETCHES OF THE CW&M STUDENTS

This chapter contains the bio-sketches of the 15 students in this study. These students were chosen based on the information in the Methodology appendix of this study. A list of the students selected for this study is shown in Appendix F, Listing of

Subjects from the College.

Edward Bland

Edward Bland (b. December 16, 1746 d. February 5, 1796/7), younger brother of

William Bland (also a subject in this case study) and the son of the well-known Richard

Bland of the “James River Blands” (Bland Family Papers, Swem Library Special

Collections, College of William and Mary, 94BL59, Box 1, Folder 42, typewritten sheet within yellow clip, p. 4; Bland Family Papers, Swem Library Special Collections,

College of William and Mary, 94BL59, Box 2, Folder 11), attended the Grammar and the

Philosophy Schools at the College of William and Mary, arriving when he was 12 ½ years old and leaving on his 17th birthday after 2 years at the Philosophy School (Notes,

1921). He followed in his father’s footsteps in the cultivation of tobacco on his land (his property is not identified by name in government records), and although he participated in politics, he was not as interested in this pursuit as were previous male members of the

James River Blands, nor did he mature in his interest as they did, as shown in the ancestry review.

Family Involvement in the Colony

The Bland family had been settled in the colony for three generations prior to the birth of the subject of this study. Edward was preceded by Theodorick [great- 71

grandfather], Richard and Richard Jr., all active in colonial politics, as well as in county and parish duties that contributed to the growth of the colony.

Great-Grandfather. The first direct ancestor of Edward Bland in the Virginia colony was Theodorick Bland (Edward’s great-grandfather, b. January 18, 1629, d. April

23, 1671) who was born in Westover, England. He was “from the mercantile Blands

[who were] active in Spain prior to being attracted to the colonies” (Bland Family Papers,

Swem Library Special Collections, 94BL59, Box 1, Folder 42, typewritten sheet within yellow clip, p. 4). Theodorick and his descendants are known as the “James River

Blands” (Bland Family Papers, Swem Library Special Collections, 94BL59, Box 1,

Folder 42, typewritten sheet within yellow clip, p. 4; Bland Family Papers, Swem

Library, 94BL59, Box 2, Folder 11). He settled on the James River on the 2,000-acre

Westover Plantation, leased and then purchased (“Evidences Relating to Westover”,

1939; Mason, 1942) from the estate of Captain Thomas Pawlett, in Charles City County

(Bland T., 1840, p. 148; Tyler, S., 2000, p. 355), who received the property through a patent in 1637 from Sir John Harvey Knight, Captain General of Virginia (“Evidences

Relating to Westover”, 1939). It is important to note that “all of the more important plantations of the original Charles City county constituted parishes, in the beginning, but the first evidence of official recognition of their status as such is recorded in connection with Westover” (Mason, 1942, p. 123).

A church was built at Westover (Virginia Families Connecting with English

Pedigrees, 1906) and later “a court house and a prison for the county and parish” (Bland

T., 1840, p. 148; Bland Family Papers, Swem Library Special Collections, College of

William and Mary, 94BL59, Box 2, Folder 11; Tyler, S., 2000, p. 355) on land that was 72

patented in January 1637/8 (Mason, 1942) and deeded through the last will of Pawlett on

January 12, 1643: “I give and bequeath unto the Church of Westover Ten Acres of land”

(Evidence Relating to Westover, 1939, p. 194). Theodorick was “one of the king’s

council,” a group of men assembled to advise the Governor or Lieutenant Governor of

the Colony (Bland T., 1840, p. 148). This immigrant founder of the family in the colonies

died at age 41 (April 23, 1671).

Grandfather. Edward Bland’s grandfather (b. August 11, 1665, d. April 6,

1720), and father (b. May 6, 1710, d. October 26, 1776) were both named Richard. His

grandfather was married to Elizabeth Randolph in Scarborough in Yorkshire, England, in

1701 and was a member of the colonial House of Burgesses and Justice of the Peace in

Charles City and Prince George counties. In addition, he was a Vestryman of Bruton

Parish and on the Board of Visitors of the CW&M (Rossiter, 1953). He sold the family lands at Westover to William Byrd in 1688 and relocated the Bland family to Jordon’s

Point in Prince George County (Rossiter, 1953); a 350-acre parcel on the James River

(McCatney, 1988). Prior to the birth of Edward’s father, Richard, the family moved to

Williamsburg, where their second home, known then as the Bland/Wetherburn House,

was located at 406 E. Duke of Gloucester Street (Kibler Bland papers, Swem Library

Special Collections, College of William and Mary, 64.2K54, File 2). The family lived in

Williamsburg for 6 years before returning to Jordan’s Point. The house was sold on May

22, 1716 to Colonel Nathaniel Harrison, Esq. (Kibler Bland papers, Swem Library

Special Collections, College of William and Mary, 64.2K54, File 2; Rossiter, 1953).

Father. Edward’s father, Richard Bland (b. May 6, 1710 d. October 26, 1776)

received his education from his “mother and Rector of Martin’s Brandon [Parish and] . . . 73

his rudimentary education from a succession of roving tutors . . . perhaps, like his father

at a small private school” (Rossiter, 1953, p. 35). At age 9 he inherited Jordon’s Point

from his father. Richard [father] was a student at the CW&M about 1720 (Swem, 1941,

p. 8) and continued his schooling at the University of Edinburgh (Eckenrode, 1916; Once upon the James, n.d., (Booklet), Swem Library Special Collections, College of William and Mary, 94BL59, Box 1, Folder 39, p.18). Eckenrode (1916) continues, “His education was of peculiar value from these critical decades from 1755 to 1775 . . . after preliminary course[s] in William and Mary he studied history and law at the University of Edinburgh and was probably the best constitutional lawyer in the colonies . . . Bland was that type of

Virginian . . . half practical farmer, half classical scholar and lawyer; genial, well-

mannered, personally somewhat untidy and careless of clothes” (Eckenrode, 1916, p. 11).

The high regard of Richard Bland as a constitutional lawyer emanates from his

work prior to the Revolutionary War on his skillful approach to the colonial constitution

[between the King, Parliament and the colonial assembly known as the House of

Burgesses (HB)]. In 1758, the HB passed legislation that stipulated the rate for tobacco to

cash would be at two pence a pound [Twopence Act] referring back to the 1755

legislation regarding the conversion of tobacco to money for payment of “debts and

salaries of officials . . . payable in tobacco” (p. 10). This new legislation especially

affected the clergy because there was no sliding scale built into the legislation to

compensate for fluctuations in the price of tobacco. The clergy took their concerns to the

Bishop of England, who denounced the Virginia colonial government, and the Parliament

vetoed the act. Richard Bland and Landon Carter took exception with Bland, instituting

an in-depth look to clearly define the “theory of the colonial constitution” (p. 11). Despite 74

the wishes of the clergy, the HB felt they had the right to pass legislation that only affected the colony. However, with the veto of the Two Penny Act by the Royal Council

[Parliament], it became necessary for the clergy to sue the vestry when the price of tobacco increased. Bland’s ability to clearly and with “astuteness . . . [find] grounds . . .

[on which] legal resistance to the British policy might be effectively placed” (p. 11) was the beginning of the dissension both clerical and political, that fanned the flames of the

Revolutionary movement in the Virginia colony.

Richard [the father] was active in colonial government as a member of the

Virginia House of Burgesses from 1745-1775; Member of the Committee to remonstrate with Parliament concerning taxation and in 1748 Leader of that Committee; Signer of the

Non-Importation Agreement of 1769; Member of the Virginia Commission on correspondence, 1773; Delegate from Virginia to the Continental Congress 1774-1775;

Member of Congress 1775-1776; and author of several pamphlets, including Inquiry into the Rights of British Colonies the first published work stating colonial position on taxation (Pate, 1931). As for his military career, he earned the rank of Captain from his service in the Virginia Militia in 1758 from Prince George County. In addition, he served in the Virginia Colonial Militia (Bland Family papers, Swem Library Special Collection,

College of William and Mary, (94BL59) Box 1, Folder 10; Crozier, 2000).

Extant records of Price George County, home of Edward Bland, were almost completely destroyed during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars (Dorman, 1976).

Therefore, commentary and conclusions concerning Edward’s life, farming, and political endeavors have to be compiled mainly from information in government records, as Bland family papers and composite personal indexes of the period contain little information. 75

Background

Edward Bland was born on December 16, 1746 (Bland Family Papers, Swem

Library Special Collections, College of William and Mary, 94BL59, Box 1, Folder 42)

and died on February 5, 1795/96 [According to the Julian calendar] (Seeley, 1984). He

was the son of Richard Bland and Ann Poythress Bland of Jordon in Prince George

County, the 9th of their 12 children and brother of William Bland (also a subject in this

case study , from the extensive and well-known Bland family, early settlers of the colony of Virginia (Goodwin, 1927). Edward received his schooling, including 3 years of room and board (July 24, 1760 to December 16, 1763), at the College of William and Mary

(CW&M) (William and Mary Bursar Boarding Accounts 1754-1769), initially attending the Grammar School and then moving to the Philosophy School in the College when he was 15; leaving 2 years later on his 17th birthday (Notes, 1921, p. 29). He married

Elizabeth Cocke, who died in 1784, and married Lettice Jones on May 7, 1786 (Marriage bonds in Amelia County, 1906). Edward was active in the Parish of Martin’s Brandon, and in the late 1700s he served as a Church Warden (Spooner Papers, copy of minutes of

April 23, 1792 meeting of the Wardens voting for the approval of Reverend John Jones

Spooner as the Minister of the Parish. Swem Special Collections, Mss 39.2 Sp6). There are few existing records pertaining to Edward’s life. However, it is known that he raised tobacco in Prince George County for the majority of his adult life (Abercrombie, J. L.,

1992; Hall, 1931; Guide to Prince George, 1939; Schreiner-Yantis, 1987).

Attendance at the College of William and Mary

Edward attended school (1759-1763) with his brother William, arriving when he

was 12 ½ years of age and leaving on his 17th birthday (Notes, 1921). In Grammar 76

School he would have studied Greek and Latin, morals, and weekly sacred lessons, and he would have learned the Church of England Catechism in preparation for advancement to the Philosophy School (Statutes of 1756, 1908). Based on the Statutes of 1756 (1908) his course of study in philosophy would have included “Rhetoric, Logic, Ethics, Physics,

Metaphysics and mathematics” (Statutes of 1756, 1908, p. 248).

It must be noted that while the grammar curriculum included the religious curriculum, higher education did not include religious topics. The sequence of the curriculum is not known; however, it was designed for a 4-year baccalaureate degree.

Therefore, it cannot be assumed all of the topics of study would have been covered by the time Edward left CW&M on his 17th birthday. However, the teaching methods,

“disputations . . . declamations and themes on various subjects” (Statutes of 1756, 1908, p. 248), may have been as instrumental to the educational process as the topics.

Vocations

Information as to Edward’s job and career are not available in the historical literature. Therefore, the information presented here comes from a search of government records in which three of his business and political decisions are documented. It shows that Edward was primarily a farmer (the term is used to indicate that he did not have a self-supporting plantation (Hofstra, 1986) of tobacco on acreage in Prince George County who became involved in politics in the last 15 years of his life.

Job. After Edward left college his interests revolved around the tilling of the soil

(Weisiger, 1975). From an assessment of the Hopewell Airport property in Prince George

County by McCatney (1988) for the Virginia Division of Historic Landmarks, and from personal-property records from 1783 to 1796 by Weisiger, (1975), abstractor and 77

compiler, it can be determined the primary crop raised by Edward was tobacco. This is shown by Weisiger (1975), based on “tobacco notes at Davises Warehouse from October

1788 to September 1789” (p. 328), at Sturdivant and Marks dated September 8, 1789, and

“transfer notes at Hood’s Warehouse” (p. 551), a warehouse and shipping point on the plantation of John Hood (Guide to Prince George and Hopewell, 1936) dated October

1788 to October 1789 and recorded October 13, 1789. Tobacco or warehouse notes were used as currency during the late 18th century (Guide to Prince George, 1939), as the colony of Virginia was prohibited from printing money, and trade at the time did not bring in gold or silver (Garnett, 1910) as “tobacco was the medium of exchange” (p.

214). These transactions can also be shown through the ledger and daybook (1767-1784) of William Nelson (b. 1711, d. 1772), a merchant in Williamsburg.

Additional records dated April 22, 1782 show him acting in the capacity of Justice for “adjusting claims for property impressed or taken [good and services] for public service” (Abercrombie & Slatten, 1992, p. 799). Edward submitted his own warrant to his fellow Justices [of the Peace]: Nathaniel Harrison, Pleasant Cocke, Hartwell Raines

(Abercrombie & Slatten, 1992),

at a court held in Prince George County at the Courthouse on Monday April 22, 1782 agreeable to an act of assembly for adjusting claims for property impressed or taken for public service [during the Revolutionary War based on work completed or supplied by his farm as he submitted the] balance of his account for rations and forage to 28, February 1776. . . [for supplying] Colonel Clarkes Cavalry with forage £7.16s; £15.19s.10p [for] blacksmiths work; [provided] a waggon [sic] for hire – 18 days, £9.0; 130 pounds of park £2.12; forage for 40 horses £2.0; [black]smiths work £1.15s; and one waggon [sic] load of straw, 18 shillings. (p. 799)

Through this adjusting claims process of April 22, 1782 and May 19, 1782, the names of the brothers, Richard (McGhan, 1982), John, Edward, and Theodorick Bland, can also be 78

verified as residents and owners of farm property in Prince George County in 1782

(Abercrombie & Slatten, 1992).

The extant record above is the first on Edward’s farming activities prior to

personal property tax records of Prince George County for 1783 (Bland family papers,

Swem Library Special Collections, College of William and Mary, 94BL59, Box 1, Folder

11; Sereley, 1984; Weisiger, 1975). These documents show Edward residing on the same

piece of land from 1783 to his death in 1796/97. He is shown on the 1787 list as the

owner of “11 Blacks older than 16, 12 Blacks less an 16 years of age, 4 horses, mares,

colts, and mules, 22 cattle [and a 4-wheeled carriage]” (Schreiner-Yantis & Love, 1987, p. 909).

Based on a comparison of the personal property assets of his neighbors, Edward was the wealthiest person in his area of Prince George County. (Neighbors are judged by the date the surveyor assessed the personal property; those with the same assessment date are likely to reside in the same general area of the county. [Weisiger, 1975]); In addition, the estate of Edward’s first wife, Elizabeth Cocke (b. 1756, d. 1784), provided additional wealth. Located in Martin’s Brandon Parish, one of four “towns, hundreds or particular plantations” (Guide to Prince George County, 1939, p. 7; Weisiger III, 1975, p. 126).

The personal property records show ownership of “25 Blacks older than 16, 33 Blacks under the age of 16, 10 horses, mares, colts, and mules, and 38 head of cattle” (Schreiner-

Yantis & Love, 1987, p. 921). This list of personal property shows that the land was still being tilled and worked by the slaves; the estate was no doubt under Edward’s control.

All of the personal property assets on both properties were consistent with the primary crop of Prince George County: tobacco (Guide to Prince George, 1939, p. 10). 79

In addition to his property in Prince George County, Edward owned property in

Nottoway County, next to “300 acres owned on Cellar Creek,” sold by Peter Randolph on

June 6, 1799 (Torrence, 1917, p. 42). Deed Book # 2 from Nottoway County reflects

Edward’s death by using the word “orphan” in reference to his children (Torrence, 1917, p. 42).

Evidence from several sources indicates that Edward owned and ran successful

tobacco farms and controlled his deceased wife’s property. The assets as recorded by the

assessor (Weisiger III, 1975) show that Edward was a wealthy man.

Political Career. Edward’s involvement in politics, according to two extant

records, begins in March 7, 1782, when he was given the position of Justice of the Peace

for Prince George County (Hall, 1931); later (1784) he was voted into office as a member

of the House of Delegates of Virginia representing Prince George County.

From 1784 through 1786 he was a Representative from Prince George County in

the House of Delegates of Virginia (Leonard, 1978). Although his complete voting record

is not known, there is an extant record of his vote on June 21, 1784, the first session of

his elected representation (Leonard, 1978). In The History of the Virginia Federal

Convention of 1788 (Grigsby, 1891) in a sketch on Alexander White [should probably

identify him], Grigsby shows Edward Bland as an active participant in the voting process

to defeat a resolution put forth by Augusta County. A second instance reported in the

same work by Grigsby (1891), took place on November 3, 1785, a motion against seating

Benjamin Harrison (who was asking for an exemption to a boundary rule; Bland voted

against his request), his friend from childhood and peer at CW&M (Harrison of James

River, 1924). There is a final notation on a House of Delegate vote on December 17, 80

1785, when the Committee on Religion requested the insertion of “establishing religious freedom” (Grigsby, 1891, p. 33-34). One can surmise that Edward was a fair person and would have assented to the language ultimately drafted that “religious opinions of men are not within the range of legislation” (Grigsby, 1891, p. 33-34). However, he was not a delegate when the final vote was made in the October 1786 – January 11, 1787 session.

In addition, within the scant archival records (Weisiger, 1973) of Edward’s life there are two instances in which he examined estate accounts and notations on the sale of property, in 1790 and 1792 (Weisiger, 1975, p. 643). This demonstrates his peers’ trust in his ability to be fair and impartial in business dealings.

In summary, extant records, (Weisiger, 1973) determined that Edward followed his family in the production of tobacco in Prince George County. He was a Justice of the

Peace for Prince George County and was active in Virginia government as a

Representative in the House of Delegates of Virginia (Grigsby, 1891). Little documented history exists for Edward Bland, although several isolated incidents show that he was a contributor to his community and to the colony. His political decisions as a representative of the people in Prince George County were fair, and he contributed to the Revolutionary

War not through military labor (Cozier, 2000) but through what he knew best: the tilling of the soil.

Other Considerations

The loss of records from Prince George County “baulks the antiquary and

Genealogist and breaks the chain of discoverable title to all the large tract of country”

(Lassiter, 1897, p. 272). The loss is mainly attributed to the devastation caused in

Virginia by the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. However, Lassiter (1897) also attributes 81

these losses to the “carelessness of later clerks and frequent changes of the courthouse

location” (p. 272). He further explained that “what remained from the British incursions

of 1781 was destroyed or carried off bodily by the Federal soldiers in 1865” (p. 272).

Therefore, the extent of Edward Bland’s property is not known. Lassiter (1897) does explain that “members of the same family dwelt hard by each other, and fathers who had acquired a few hundred acres frequently encouraged the localizing tendency by deeds of

gift, partitioning the lands among their sons” (p. 281). However, when the 2,000 acres of

the Westover Plantation were sold to William Byrd in 1688 and the Bland family

relocated to Jordon’s Point in Prince George County, McCatney, (1988) noted the

Jordon’s Point property only consisted of 350 acres, certainly not enough to sub-divide to

support Edward and his three brothers, who are noted in this sketch as farmers.

Literacy was not common in the Virginia colony. Access to special tutoring and

live-in tutors was generally only available to those who had tobacco as a means to pay for

such services after basic needs were met. Even though it would seem the wealthy would

recognize this need, little benevolence in this period of history is found for education.

However, within the small clutch of available Prince George Records (Lassiter, 1897) the

1790 probated will of Colonel Theodorick Bland, brother of Edward, was found. He requested:

I give and bequeath to Robert Bolling, of Petersburg, Benjamin Harrison of Brandon, Peter Epes, Jerman Baker, St. George Tucker, Thos Griffin Peachy and Doctor Isaac Hall, in trust, two acres of ground fronting the church on the top of Blandford Hill, together with a street of one hundred feet wide to the east and one sixty feet wide to the south of the aforesaid lot on which two acre lot it is desired the Publick may erect a College for the Education of youth within fifteen years after my decease otherwise it is my desire that the said Lands shall revert to my nephew Robert Banister to him and his heirs forever. (p. 279)

Unfortunately this final request was not fulfilled by his widow Martha Bland.

The minimal records available in Prince George County diminish the ability of this biosketch to give a full picture of Edward Bland’s activities. However, what is known are his formal education, farming activities, and commitment to the governmental process after the Revolutionary War. Even these minimal details show that from his 17th year to the end of his life in 1796/7 at age 50, he contributed to the economic growth of the colony. He appears, from his known participation in the process of government, to have had moral and ethical values. While Edward did not contribute in the dramatic fashion of his father Richard Bland, he was a viable and important member of his community.

William Bland

William Bland (b. December 26, 1742 d. May 20, 1803), the son of Richard

Bland of Jordan , and older brother of Edward Bland is from the extensive and well- known Bland family, early settlers of the colony of Virginia (Goodwin, 1927; Lodge of

Masons, 1892). William completed a full course of study at the College of William and

Mary as a student in the Grammar School, the College, and the School of Divinity

(Goodwin, 1927; Notes, 1921). While the full scope of his religious work is not known, what is known is the prestigious appointment to the historic James City Parish;

(Goodwin, 1927) followed by religious service in Warwick Parish (Goodwin, 1927),

Elizabeth City Parish (Brydon, 1939), Elizabeth River Parish (Stewart, 1902), and an affiliation with St. Paul’s Church. The final three are in the present area of the City of

Norfolk, VA (Brydon, 1939; Lodge of Masons, 1892; Stewart, 1902).

William Bland’s career as a minister in Colonial Virginia is filled with service

and controversy. An understanding of his career path and passions for the religious health

of its inhabitants is perhaps best noted by Stewart (1902), as he describes Bland's

temperament while he ministered in Norfolk.

Parson Bland, as he was called, was a man of culture, an attractive preacher, very popular with some of the old families on account of his zealous patriotism during the Revolution, and an especial favorite with the sea-captains who frequented the borough, many of whom attended his week-day, as well as Sunday services. He was unfortunately a man of strong passions, and not as temperate in his habits as he should have been while in Norfolk. It is said he would repeatedly exhort his congregation to do as he told them and not as he did. (p. 202)

Stewart’s description of Bland’s disposition while in Norfolk provides almost a visual

creation of his life; outspoken and perhaps difficult and unrelenting for those who did not

ascribe to his views.

Family Involvement in the Colony

The Bland family was involved extensively in the colony. The contributions of

the original colonial settler Thedorick Bland, great-grandfather of the subject, and of

succeeding ancestors Edward and William, are in the bio-sketch of Edward, his brother.

Background

William Bland (subject), the son of Richard Bland and Ann Poythress Bland, of

Jordan in Prince George County, was born on December 26, 1742 (Lodge of Masons,

1892) and died on May 20, 1803 (Bland Family Papers, College of William and Mary,

Swem Library Special Collections, 94BL59, Box 1, Folder 42; Bland Family Papers, Will of William Bland, College of William and Mary, Swem Library, Special Collections,

94BL59, Box 2, Folder 13; Stewart, 1902). He received his schooling at the Grammar

School and College of William and Mary (William and Mary Bursar Boarding 84

Accounts). His first wife was Elizabeth Yates (d. 1772), daughter of CW&M President

William Yates (Goodwin, 1927).

Attendance at the College of William and Mary

William Bland enrolled in Grammar School in 1756 at the age of 14; moved to

the Philosophy School and began as a boarding student, on July 24, 1758, and continued

boarding until 1763 (William and Mary Bursar Boarding Accounts, 1754-1769), matching the 4-year curriculum of the official 1756 Statutes (Statutes of 1756, 1908).

After completing the higher-education curriculum, he continued his studies in the

Divinity School, graduating on July 25, 1763 (Notes, 1921). William had an intimate knowledge of the rigor of education at CW&M from his education and presence in the college environment from 1756 until 1763 and therefore might have looked for some levity during his tenure, perhaps as a member of the Flat Hat Club.

While there are no records to substantiate William Bland’s membership in the Flat

Hat Club (FHC), founded in 1750 at the CW&M, with the debating and oratorical skills necessary for Divinity School, it is likely he was a member. Descriptions of the club’s purposes indicate that it was not only a social club but a secret organization. That the members were seeking a broad education in addition to that offered by the CW&M is shown by a listing of books for the club’s library was prepared by the Reverend Thomas

Gwatkin, Professor of Mathematics, in 1772, with notations on those already in the club

library (The Flat Hat Society, 1917). The Club would have helped Bland develop his skill

at delivering sermons from the pulpit and added to his general knowledge.

The Flat Hat Club (FHC) is described by Carson (1965) as a “collegiate fraternal

society” (p. 1). It “met in the upper room of the tavern [with tales that the laughter 85

emitted by its members] shook the tavern” (The Flat Hat Club, 1917, p. 162). (The FHC was also known as the Flat Hat Society.) There is supposition expressed by “Thomas

Jefferson [in a letter] written to John D. Taylor [dated from Monticello, February 12,

1821] of Maryland . . . stating he [Jefferson] was a member [FHC], and that out of this club the Phi Beta Kappa, founded in 1776, might have arisen” (p. 161). (See the letter in

Irwin’s, Documents on the Origin of the Phi Beta Kappa Society. 1939, p. 477-478.)

The FHC, because of its [yes?] founding and association with students in the mid-

18th century, is so highly prized that the only known medal from the Club, which belonged to Colonel James Innes, a member, is inscribed on the Mace of the CW&M, completing the triad that also includes the “Botetourt Medal, 1771, and the original Phi

Beta Kappa medal, 1776” (Description of the Mace, 1923, p. 128).

Vocations

William Bland was ordained a minister in the Episcopal Church in 1767 in

England, as was the custom for ministers educated at CW&M during the time, and received the King’s Bounty [a monetary grant for those who agreed to serve in the

Virginia colony] on July 15, 1767 (Goodwin, 1927; Meade, 1857; Brydon, 1933). His first assignment was James City Parish, also known as the Main Church (Meade, 1857), a post he continued to hold for approximately 10 years (until 1777), when the rectorship was assumed by James Madison, D. D., a graduate of William and Mary College [the

CW&M] (Brydon, 1814; List of Parishes and the Ministers in Them, 1897; Meade,

1857). The Historical Register of Virginia in the Revolution (Gwathmey, 1979) lists

William Bland as a Chaplain in 1776. It is not known if he continued his position as pastor during this time frame or if Reverend James Madison was recruited to fill a vacant 86

position. The Episcopal Convention of 1785 (list of 1787) shows Bland represented the

Warwick Parish (Goodwin, 1927). Meade (1857) has the next record of Reverend

Bland’s ministry from 1786 to1790 at the Elizabeth City Parish in Elizabeth City County

(Brydon, 1939; Meade, 1857), and by the year 1800 Reverend Bland is shown as rector

of the Elizabeth River Parish (Stewart, 1902).

Incidents that Reflect Service and Controversy

Prior to the 1771 Anglican Convention, Bland became involved in a movement by

a small number of Anglican clergymen to establish an American Episcopate. One of the

leaders of the movement was John Camm of the CW&M; another was Reverend Thomas

Horrocks (Williamsburg – The Old Colonial Capital, 1907), who had been Master of the

CW&M Grammar School (Letters, 1897) and was acting as the Bishop’s Commissary in

Virginia, “called the convention of the clergy” (Williamsburg – The Old Colonial

Capital, 1907, p. 34). The actual incident is described by Colonel Richard Bland to

Thomas Adams, residing in England, in a letter dated August 1, 1771 (Virginia in 1771,

July 1899; Smith, 1940):

On June 4, 1771, a convention was held by the clergy of the Colony at the College of William and Mary. A resolution was drawn up and adopted by the convention which called for a committee to draw up an address to His Majesty requesting an American Bishop. (Virginia, p. 127-134; Smith, p. 97)

This small body of clergy, estimated to be 12 out of 100 American Anglican clergy, attended the convention. Of those 12, 8 voted for the resolution and 4 against. Reverend

William Bland and Reverend Richard Hewitt were among the dissenters (Smith, 1940).

The others were “Reverend’s Henley and Gwatkin, the 2 Professors of Philosophy [at the

CW&M]” (Virginia in 1771, 1899, July, 6, Bland, R. Letter of August 1, 1771, p. 130).

There was a concern if an English Bishop were appointed; he would side with the

Governor to the detriment of the colony (Beverley, 1855). It is interesting to note that by

1777, Reverend James Madison D.D. had replaced the Reverend Bland at the James City

Parish and in 1790 was also given the position of first Bishop of Virginia, which he continued to hold until 1812 (Brydon, 1939).

In 1774 Reverend William Bland aligned himself with an Association formed on

Friday, May 27, 1774 in the Apollo Room of the Raleigh Tavern in Williamsburg. Its intent was to oppose the British legislative process to stop commerce in the Boston

Harbor and the town of Boston. This action, taken by the British in response to the colonists’ refusal to pay taxes without consent or representation on tea delivered to the harbor “is, in our opinion, a most dangerous attempt to destroy the constitutional liberty and rights of all North America” (Coleman, 1896, p. 97). The resulting broadside (a banner that was posted) was signed by 89 members of the House of Burgesses, with additional support shown by the “clergy, subscribers, and other inhabitants of the colony and dominion of Virginia” (Coleman, 1896, p. 98). The Reverend William Bland was one of the signers.

In 1790 Reverend James Whitehead D.D., ordained in 1787 and rector of the

Elizabeth River Parish, also known as the Old Mother Church and later St. Paul’s

Episcopal Church (Saint Paul’s Episcopal Church Heritage, 2010), in Norfolk County,

“had a bitter controversy with Reverend William Bland, each claiming to be rector”

(Brydon, 1939, p. 421). However, the convention granted the rectorship to Whitehead

(Brydon, 1939; Stewart, 1902). Reverend Whitehead and “his supporters [ultimately] left the Old Mother Church of Elizabeth River Parish in the undisputed possession of 88

[Reverend William] Bland, his vestry and friends” (Stewart, 1902, p. 203). In 1794 Bland was relieved of his right to minister by Bishop Madison (Brydon, 1933).

In 1795 Reverend William Bland is found on a committee in the “County of

Norfolk, the town of Portsmouth, the Borough of Norfolk” (Padgett, 1936, p. 44) to

“prepare and report resolutions relative to the Treaty lately concluded . . . by John Jay on behalf of the United States, and Lord Grenville on behalf of Great Britain” (Padgett,

1936, p.44).

Other Considerations

During the research process other facts that may be relevant to this case study came to light, including significant considerations with regard to the life or economic status of the Bland family.

Richard, father of William, had a close association with the CW&M in his early formative years (Kibler Bland papers, Swem Library Special Collections, 64.2K54, File

2). Not only was he born and lived at the Bland Wetherburn House for 6 years, he was married there on March 21, 1729, when it was owned by Colonel Nathaniel Harrison Esq.

(Kibler Bland papers, Swem Library Special Collections, 64.2K54, File 2). This shows a close association with the Harrisons, whose grandson is also a subject of this case study.

The farm land of Jordan’s Point was severely affected by a flood in May 1771, and about the same time it is noted that the land is decreasing in nutrients necessary for the production of tobacco (Guide to Prince George and Hopewell, 1939).

Despite the fact the Bland family owned and ran property known as Jordon’s

Point that consisted of farming, shipping, tobacco warehouses, residents, etc., there is no

evidence that either William or Edward Bland, subjects of the case study, shared in any responsibility, wealth, or interest in the property (McCatney, 1988).

The Reverend William Bland, throughout his life, exhibited a passion for his faith and that of his followers. It appears, based on his comment, “to do as he told them [his congregation] and not as he did” (Stewart, 1902, p. 202), that Bland bore the family name with feelings of pride and power. Throughout his life Bland inserted himself in issues related to the church and his congregation. The “James River Blands” (Bland Family

Papers, Swem Library Special Collections, 94BL59, Box 1, Folder 42, typewritten sheet within yellow clip, p. 4; Bland Family Papers, Swem Library Special Collections,

94BL59, Box 2, Folder 11) immersed themselves in political processes that, as they evolved, prepared the colony of Virginia for independence, while history shows that

William was more dedicated to individuals and their religious health. However, he did not shy away from political battles, as demonstrated by his stance against the American

Episcopate and the British action to stop commerce in the town and harbor of Boston. He was a man of faith who tried to do his best for people as they struggled for religious comfort in the colony while attempting to preserve their rights.

Nathaniel Burwell of Carter’s Grove and Carter Hall (Son of Carter Burwell)

Nathaniel Burwell (b. April 15, 1750 d. March 29, 1814) son of Carter and Lucy

Ludwell Grymes, married Susannah Grymes (b. March 4, 1752 d. July 24, 1788) daughter of Philip and Mary Grymes of Brandon, on November 28, 1772. Her grandfather was John Grymes (b. 1693 d. November 12, 1748).

Carter Burwell, Nathaniel’s father, died when Nathaniel was very young, approximately 5 or 6 years of age. Nathaniel attended the CW&M, completing his degree 90

in March of 1772; he married Susannah Grymes nine months later. They had their first child, Carter, on October 16, 1773. At Nathaniel’s age of majority he inherited his father’s estate, Carter’s Grove, in James City County. Nathaniel was the County

Lieutenant of James City County and is known to have recruited for the Continental

Army (Continental Soldiers, 1927, p. 237).

Nathaniel and Susannah had 8 children: Carter (b. October 16, 773), Philip (b.

January 15, 1776), Lucy b. November 20, 1777), Nathaniel (b. February 16, 1779), Lewis

(b. January 4, 1781 and died at less than two years), William (b. July 14, 1782), Lewis (b.

September 26, 1783 and second of the name) and Robert (b. July 24, 1785) (Burwell

Bible, 1923). Susannah died on July 24, 1788, and approximately 6 months later, on

January 24, 1789, Nathaniel married his second wife, Lucy Baylor, widow of George W.

Baylor (half-sister of John Page) and second daughter of Mann Page. They had an additional 8 children. It was during this period that Nathaniel built Carter Hall in the

Shenandoah Valley of Frederick County, in the present location of Clarke County, which was formed in 1836 from Frederick County (Clarke County Virginia).

The family estate of Carter’s Grove was sold to Robert Thurston in 1787, probably at the time of Nathaniel’s move to Frederick County (now Clarke County). As reported on the Virginia African American Heritage Program website for Carter’s Grove, in 1782, just five years prior to the sale of the plantation, there were over 140 slaves

(men, women and children).(www.aaheritageva.org). The Burwells moved from the family estate at Carter’s Grove to Carter Hall which they built in Frederick County (now

Clarke County) after the Revolutionary War but prior to 1790 (Page, 2000).

Family Involvement in the Colony

The Burwell family was extensively involved in the colony of Virginia and became owners of over 26,000 acres of land in the colony. This ownership enabled them to exert power in government, the economy and social circles.

Great-Great-Grandfather. Sergeant-Major Lewis Burwell I (the “I” denotes the first of the Lewis Burwells in the colony of Virginia) (b. March 5, 1621 d. November 19,

1653 – some say 1658), (Lipscomb III, 1947). His will was proven the following

February 19, and recorded in York County. Lewis was the son of Edward Burwell (d.

1626) of Bedfordshire, England and Dorothy Bedwell (baptized October 19, 1591) and stepson of Roger Wingate. Wingate “was made Treasurer of Virginia [1639] and a member of the Council” (Brown 1994, p. 2) and died in 1640 or 1641while “he was living in Virginia with his wife Dorothy, with her son Lewis Burwell I and possibly with one or more of Dorothy’s other children” (Brown, p. 2).

Lewis accompanied his mother and stepfather Roger Wingate to Virginia about

1633 at the age of 12 (Blair, 1964). According to Blair (1964), Lewis, his mother, and his stepfather returned to England, only to come to the colony again prior to 1640, perhaps when his stepfather was appointed “treasurer of Virginia” (p. 307). Seven years later, in the spring of 1648, Lewis exercised headrights to an abandoned 1633 expedition to the colony that involved his stepfather, Edward Kingswell, and Thomas Vause. Wingate inherited the headrights at the death of Kingswell, “whose will was proved April 6, 1636”

(Blair, 1964, p. 307). Lewis, jointly with a remaining partner of Wingate and Kingswell,

Thomas Vause, were given “2300 acres on the York River” (Brown, p. 2). In June of the same year he claimed an additional 2350 acres for headrights that had been left to him in 92

his stepfather’s will, on the opposite side of the river but in the same location; in 1650 he placed another claim and received an additional 2100 acres (Brown, 1994). Additionally, his mother had “conveyed to . . . Lewis . . . all the rents due at her husband’s death”

(Blair, 1964, p. 308), and later, small areas of land came to Lewis as he was elevated in the local militia in which he served as a Sergeant-Major. Therefore, he acquired a total of

4400 acres of land that was divided by the York River (known as Carter’s Creek in

Gloucester County and King’s Creek in York County), plus other land given for his activity in the local militia.

Lewis married Lucy Higginson (b. 1626 d. November 6, 1675) (Page, 2000) in

1651. Secondly she married “the Honorable William Bernard of Isle of Wight and

Nansemond Counties and thirdly the Honorable Philip Ludwell, member of the

Governor’s Council and later governor of the Carolinas” (Lipscomb III, 1947, p. 171).

She was the daughter of Captain Robert Higginson, commander of the Middle Plantation in 1646 (Tyler, 1894), who was the son of Thomas Higginson (occupation painter/stainer) of London and Joanna Torksey. In 1652, while Lewis resided at “his home, Fairfield in

Gloucester County” (also known as Carter’s Creek) he was made Sergeant-Major in the militia. He died in 1653 and was buried at Fairfield. Later his body was moved to the

Abington Church in Gloucester, where his wife Lucy was placed next to him in death

(Harris, 1977). Lewis had been sick for some time, as he wrote in a letter to Walter

Broadhurst dated October 12, 1752: “[I]f I survive this my long sickness w’ch [sic] hath been of a yeare’s continuance” (“Two Seventeenth Century Letters”, 1902).

Lewis was made a Sergeant-Major of the militia in 1652. After his death in

November 1653, Lucy, his widow, married in December of the same year “Colonel 93

William Bernard and [after his death] third Colonel Philip Ludwell” (Tyler, 1894, p.

231).

Great-Grandfather. Lewis Burwell II (b. around 1651 d. December 19, 1710)

only son of Lewis Burwell and Lucy Higginson , of Carter’s Creek (a.k.a Fairfield) and

King’s Creek married Abigail Smith (b. March 11, 1656 d. November 12, 1692/3) (John,

1982). She was the daughter of Anthony Smith of Colchester, Essex (England) and

Martha Bacon and niece of Colonel Nathaniel Bacon of the Council. It was through this

lineage that Abigail became the heir to the Kingsmill plantation through Colonel

Nathaniel Bacon, the Counciller [sic] (Harris, 1977). This bequest began the Burwell

descendants’ move into James City County (Harris, 1977).

Lewis II lived at Queen’s Creek in York County with his wife and children until

1675, when his mother, Lucy Higginson died. He and Abigail began to build the house

called Fairfield located on Carter’s Creek in Gloucester County in 1692, on property

granted to his father in 1648. The house was finished in1694; however, Abigail died on

November 12, 1692 and never lived in the home (Lipscomb III, 1947). Lewis II and

Abigail had two living sons at the time of her death: “Colonel Nathanial [sic] Burwell, the eldest who inherited Fairfield, and James Burwell who lived at Kings Creek”

(Lipscomb III, 1947, p. 172).

In 1695 Lewis married Martha Lear Cole (b. 1668 d. August 4, 1704) and with her he had a third son, Lewis Burwell III (Lipscomb III, 1947). Martha was the daughter of Colonel John Lear of Nansemond County, who was also Secretary of the Council. She was the widow of Major William Cole (d. 11-12-1692) (Harris, 1977, Lipscomb III,

1947). 94

Lewis II, as the only child of his parents Lewis I and Dorothy Bidwell, is credited by Blair with being (1964) the designer of the Burwells’ fortune and social status. Blair writes, “[I]t was during his [Lewis II’s] life, and largely through his efforts that the position of the Burwells as one of the leading families of the colony would become assured” (p. 309). He was an extensive land-holder based on his father’s accumulation of land; a justice of Gloucester [County] in 1680 and a trustee of the CW&M in 1692. He was appointed, on a provisional basis, to the Council by the governor on August 21,

1700. Ratification by the English authorities took much longer and in fact by the time the order was completed, signed and presented to the Governor it was May 14, 1702. Burwell

“felt he could not accept” (Blair, 1964, p. 322). The reason he could not accept was based on his age and ill health. This response was drawn up and given to the Governor for his signature and finally accepted the last weeks of that year [1702] or the early weeks of

1703. History does not reveal if he participated during this provisional period or if it was necessary that the signed order be received before he was allowed to sit on the Council.

Blair (1964) lists the land owned by Burwell in 1704, 26,650 acres in 7 counties.

In 5 of those counties he was one of small number — 1, 2, 3, or 4 persons—who owned the largest tracts of land. The original immigrant had begun the process of gathering land, for land meant power. This was continued by Lewis II. Blair (1959) attributes these holdings to early settlement, as “by 1700 the good lands in the tidewater were taken up”

(p. 79). The sons of Burwell would take over the land, making the Burwell name even more common in the halls of government and leadership.

Lewis II had four sons: Bacon, the oldest, who died prior to his father in 1692; second Nathaniel (b. 1680 d. 1721 at age 41 years), third James (b. 1689 or 1690, d. 95

1718, Lewis the fourth son (b. 1698 d. September 6/7, 1744) (Lipscomb III, 1947). It is reported that his four-page will was almost exclusively devoted to the distribution of land and personal possessions (Blair, 1964). Within the will left by Lewis was a notation concerning his godson [this could also be a grandson, but it is doubtful as the child’s mothers name is Ellinor and Lewis did not have a daughter with that name.] His six daughters were: Joanah, Elizabeth, Lucy, Martha, Jane, and Martha June (John, 1982, p.

11-8). The bequeath context to the godson from the Burwell will in Records of York

County with a typewritten copy shown in John (1982) is as follows:

godson Will Burwell an infant about 4 years old (now under the care of William Davis and Ellinor his wife) if he live to the age of ten years shall be put to school at the Royall College of William and Mary for his good education . . . of either divinity Law or Phisick [medicine] . . . until he shall attain to the age or twenty- one . . . to be kept with decent apparel dyett [diet]. . . & lodging . . . becoming a Gent [man] son [garbled]. . . expence [expense]. . . disbursed & borne by my three son whom he directs to be educated at William and Mary College, in style (p. 11- 8)

In addition he states, “Should his children die without issue, his property in York, James

City, King William, etc., to go for establishing free schools, and a chair of Law,

Medicine, or Divinity in William and Mary College” (Tyler, 1894, p. 231). This is the first mention found in this study of a desire in this period, the early 18th century, for the establishment of Chairs of Law, Medicine in any context at the CW&M. During this period law, medicine and divinity would have been considered professional education.

Historians have usually attributed this recognition of the need for professional education other than Divinity to the changes in the population and economic status of the colonies in that period.

It is through the work of John L. Blair (1964) that history has provided a clue for

understanding the above statement in Lewis Burwell’s will. Lewis was a member of a group appointed by Governor Francis Nicholson in 1690 to obtain subscriptions for the building of the CW&M. In addition, he and others made personal pledges as an example to others of their commitment to higher education in the colony (Blair, 1964 & “Papers

Relating to the Founding of the College”, 1899).

Grandfather. Major Nathaniel Burwell, (b. October 14, 1680 d. August 1721) of

Carter’s Creek in Gloucester County, Property that was left to his wife at the death (1732) of her father, Robert (“King”) Carter). Nathaniel was the second son of Lewis Burwell II and Abigail Smith. Nathaniel and his wife Elizabeth Carter (daughter of Robert (“King”)

Carter (d. 1732) had four sons: Lewis (b. 1710 d. 15-[??] 1756), Nathaniel (b. 1712 d. before 1720), Carter (b. October 1716 d. May 1756), and Robert Carter (b. June 3, 1720 d. January 30, 1777). Nathaniel was a member of the Gloucester County militia and a member of the House of Burgesses in 1710 (Virginia Biography, 1915, p. 200).

Father. Carter Burwell (b. October 1716 d. May 1756) was married to Lucy

Ludwell Grymes on January, 16, 1738 (Burwell, 1961) at Brandon. She was daughter of

Honorable John Grymes and his wife Lucy Ludwell of the Brandon Plantation “on the

Rappahannock River in Middlesex County” (Burwell, 1961, p. 28). Carter studied at the

CW&M beginning in 1734. Their son Nathaniel is the subject of this bio-sketch. Little is known about Carter, father of the subject. He is shown as a Colonel in the militia and as a member of the House of Burgesses. He only lived to his 40th year, but prior to his death represented James City County in the House for the years 1742, 1750, 1753, and 1754.

It must be noted that upon the death of John Grymes, father of Carter’s wife Lucy, her husband, Carter [and Mann Page, the husband of another daughter] was given 97

“twelve hundred and fifty pounds sterling [and declared] the same to be in full of their

Wives portions of my estate”; the will of John Grymes probated on May 7, 1748, from a copy printed in the “Grymes of “Brandon”, 1919, p. 408).

Attendance at the CW&M

According to Swem (1941) Nathaniel attended the CW&M from 1756 to 1757, and again from 1759 to 1765. These dates would include Grammar School. The Bursar’s records for the College of William and Mary reflect room and board for the following dates: May 7, 1759 to April 24, 1766, March 25, 1768 to March 1769, from April 6, 1769 to April 6, 1770. It must be noted, based on the date of Nathaniel’s attendance dates according to Swem (1941), that Nathaniel would have been 6 years old when he first attended the Grammar School. This is unlikely.

It is believed that Nathaniel entered Grammar School at the age of 9. He then moved to the Philosophy School just prior to his 15th birthday on March 25, 1765, continuing for 13 months. He left the CW&M, returning on March 25, 1768, completing an additional 2 years in the Philosophy School, leaving a few days prior to his 20th birthday on April 6, 1770, thereby completing 3 years of undergraduate work. It is possible he moved from the Main/Wren Building and continued room and board in town for his final year of college, based on the premise his first child was not born until 1773, or that the Bursar’s books are not complete (Swem, 1941). This idea is further verified by the following from the minutes of the minutes of the President and Masters, dated

February 10, 1769: “James Horrocks President. Resolves that Mr. Nat: Burwell be removed to the Moral and Mathematic Schools” (p. 20) continuing into the minutes of

March 13, 1769, “Whereas, it appears to this society that Mr. Nat: Burwell has behaved 98

amiss to Mrs. Garrett, they have desired Mr. Camm to admonish him of the same and recommend to him better Behavior for the future” (p. 21). Later it still appears the

Nathaniel Burwell continued at the college from the following notation in the minutes of

December 10, 1771, “Resolved: That the room opposite the Nurse’s (after Nathaniel

Burwell leaves it) be kept for an Infirmary” (Journal, p. 232).

Therefore, based on the entries in the President and Masters Journal, Nathaniel

Burwell, son of Carter Burwell, finished his final year of college, earning his degree of

Arts Bachelor. Soon thereafter he married and on October 16, 1773, his son Lewis was born.

Bishop Meade, 1867, describes Nathaniel as a friend of Jefferson,

Zealous friend of the Episcopal Church and defended in the Legislator what he conceived to be her (the Episcopal Church) rights against those political friend with whom he agreed on all points. So zealous was he in her cause that some wished him to take Orders, with a view to bring the Bishop to Virginia. (p. 148)

Vocations

When Nathaniel finished his studies at the CW&M he provided leadership for

Carter’s Grove, the Burwell estate in James City County. While in James City County at

Carter’s Grove, Nathaniel was a Commissioner of Safety in 1772, (Hillman, 1966, p.

512), on the Committee of Safety in 1775 (Coleman, 1896) and on the committee for the survey of lands for Revolutionary Soldiers in 1784. In addition, while in James City

County he became a Lieutenant Colonel of James City County militia (date unknown).

He was also involved in politics as a Delegate in the House of Burgesses in 1781 for

James City County (“Historical Notes”, 1897).

He married his second wife, Lucy Baylor, on January 24, 1789, at the Mansfield

Plantation, her family home, shortly after the death of his first wife (July 24, 1788)

(Burwell, 1923) by whom he had 8 children. She was the widow of George Baylor and

second daughter of Mann Page. From 1792 until 1800, Nathaniel and his second wife

Lucy (the mother of an additional 8 children) built Carter Hall in the Shenandoah Valley

of Frederick County in the present location of Clarke County, which was formed in 1836

from Frederick County (Clarke County Virginia). The house was built on a 5800-acre plot of land inherited from Carter Burwell, his father. He, like many other Tidewater plantation owners and planters “was attracted to the fertile lands of the lower Shenandoah

Valley and decided to re-establish his seat on his Valley holdings” (Department of

Historic Registry (DHR), 1973, p. 3). He involved himself in the “commercial, social and religious life” (DHR, 1973, p. 3) of the area. As explained in the application for Virginia

Historic Registry (1973) and by Bishop W. Meade (1857) Nathaniel was involved in a partnership with his neighbor, Daniel Morgan, the Revolutionary hero, in establishing the nearby town of Millwood and operating the Burwell-Morgan Mill, there . . . later in life

he invited his financially depleted cousin, Edmund Randolph, former Virginia Governor

and Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson, to be a permanent guest at Carter.

Randolph died there in 1813 [just before the death of his benefactor]. (p. 3)

A great deal of history on the Burwell family has been written on the original immigrants of the first three generations, but it lacks depth on the generations of this subject and his father. The family was extremely wealthy based on the initial land holdings of the Great-great-grandfather and his descendants, Lewis Burwell I and II.

Although the families of the early generation were modest in size and kept the wealth

within a small group of descendants, the subject of this bio-sketch, Nathaniel, had a total 100

of 16 children by two wives. While it is not the intent of this work to look into the future,

the estate of Nathaniel must have been considerable and closely held. At his death it is

rumored he spread his assets generously to all of his children, not just his sons.

Other Considerations

Susannah’s father was Philip Grymes and her sister was Lucy, who married

General Thomas Nelson, brother of Hugh Nelson (subject). Her grandfather was also

named Philip Grymes and was the brother of Nathaniel Burwell’s mother, Lucy Ludwell

Grymes (b. 1697 d. 1749) daughter of Philip Ludwell, Esq. Their father, or the great-

grandfather of Susannah Grymes, was John Grymes (Meade, 1851, p. 370-371). In

addition, as a point of reference, there is also a confusing relationship between the two

Nathaniel Burwells. Nathaniel, of this sketch is the son of Carter Burwell of Carter’s

Grove and Carter Hall, while the other Nathaniel of this study is the son of Robert of

Burwell’s Bay on the James River in the Isle of Wight County. John, (1982), believes the

two men are related as “third cousins or second cousins once removed” (p. 51-1). In

addition to the two Nathaniel Burwells of this study, there is also another Nathaniel

Burwell, son of James Burwell who is not a sibling of Carter, father of Nathaniel (in this

bio-sketch), of Carter’s Grove.

Nathaniel Burwell, Isle of Wight County (Son of Robert Burwell)

Nathaniel Burwell (b. around 1748 d. March 30, 1802) of Burwell Bay, Isle of

Wight County, was the son of Robert Burwell and Susan Nelson (White, 1990 &

Burwell, 1994), of the Isle of Wight County. He was a grandson of Nathaniel Burwell

and Elizabeth Carter, daughter of Robert (“King”) Carter. Nathaniel’s (subject) great- grandfather was Major Lewis Burwell of Gloucester County and his grandmother was 101

Abigail Smith, niece and heiress of Colonel Nathaniel Bacon Esq. (“Isle of Wight County

Records” –supplemental Records – Wills, p. 313). There was a second wife by the name

of Martha, sister of Dudley Digges. War pension records show they were married on

September 8, 1775 (White, 1990).

Nathaniel attended Grammar School and two years in the Philosophy School at

the CW&M. His antics during his early years at the college were such they were written

in the Minutes of the President and Masters.

Family Involvement in the Colony

Nathaniel Burwell, the subject of this bio-sketch, was a cousin of Nathaniel

Burwell of Carter’s Gove and Carter Hall. He was the youngest son of Robert Burwell, who was the brother of Carter Burwell, both of whom were sons of Major Nathaniel

Burwell (b. October 14, 1680 d. August 1721). The boys came from a proud family whose progenitor, Lewis Burwell I, came to the colony in 1633 at the age of 12 with his mother and step-father. When Lewis I became of age, he began acquiring land which he willed to his son Lewis II. By1704 his son Lewis II owned over 26,000 acres. The information on the ancestors of Nathaniel’s father, Robert, is located in the bio-sketch of

Nathaniel Burwell of Carter’s Grove and Carter Hall.

Father. Robert Burwell, (b. June 3, 1720 d. January 30, 1777), the youngest son of Major Nathaniel Burwell and Elizabeth Carter, and granddaughter of Robert (“King”)

Carter (d. 1732). Robert and his first wife, Susan Nelson, had two children: Nathaniel, the subject of this bio-sketch (b. 1748 d. 1802) and Frances (b. 1750 d. 1787) “who was the first wife of Governor John Page” (Tyler, 1915, p. 164). Robert married Mary Braxton (b.

9-27-1734) about 1771. She was the daughter of George Braxton and Mary Carter 102

(Burwell, 1994).

Tyler (1915) states Robert was “educated at W & M” (Tyler, 1915, p. 164), however, this cannot be confirmed. He was a member of the House of Burgesses in 1752 and “one of the first trustees of [the town of] Smithfield, Virginia. In 1764 he was a member of the Council, an office he held until the Revolutionary War (Tyler, 1915).

In reviewing the Will of Robert, it is interesting to note he divided his 3,500 acres in Isle of Wight into 3 plantations. This fact is noted in an advertisement for the entire lot in the May 30, 1771, issue of the Virginia Gazette by Purdie and Dixon (p. 4) prior to the writing of his will. His will (“Isle of Wight Records, 1899, p. 311-313) also repeats a common theme in the wills of the period, debts for dowry contracted at the marriage of daughters are paid not at the time of the contract but in the will of the debtor (the father) with bequests of land. In this instance it reads, “my plantation Meadow Quarter to my son-in-law John Page, Esq., of Rosewell, in lieu of his wife’s portion of 1,000£ sterl., which I was by marriage contract obliged to give her” (p.311). Robert also had the opportunity to pass land in Frederick County to his son Nathaniel, but gave the land in trust to Thomas Nelson and John Page “to pay my debts, and after my debts paid to the use of my son Nat. Burwell for life, and after his decease to my grandson Robert Carter

Burwell” (p. 312-313). Land was and still is a valuable asset.

Attendance at the CW&M

Nathaniel began Grammar School at the age of 8 years on April 28, 1756, leaving on December 16, 1757 in his 9th year, He returned in his 11th year, completed the

Grammar School and moved to the Philosophy School, leaving at the age of 17 (February

28, 1759 to March 25, 1765) (Notes 1921 & Swem, 1941). 103

Nathaniel is mentioned in the July 22, 1766, minutes of the President and Masters of CW&M (Journal, 1895). He joined a group of friends that consisted of the Page boys

(Mann Sr. and John, sons of John Page of the North End) and Mann Page, Jr. (“half brother of Governor John Page of Rosewell”) (Journal, 1895, footnotes, p. 132).

Frequenting the Public Houses in town and going out of their bounds with leave. [It was determined] that they be reprimanded for the same and informed that if they do not behave better for the future, the Society will proceed with greater Rigour and rusticate [expel] them. (p. 132)

In addition, Mann Page and Nathaniel are mentioned in the same minutes for an additional incident that “highly incurs our displeasure by their indecent Behavior to the

President that occurred on Sunday night last, and that they be ordered to ask pardon for the same” (p. 132). The two boys were in a lot of trouble. Mann Page and Nathaniel were ordered to withdraw from the college and on the next day were sent home to their parents

“for one month” (Journal, 1895, p. 132). On July 26 Mann Sr. returned and “publickly

[sic] in the Common Room ask’d Pardon for the same before the President and Masters”

(p.132). Rules were rigid and enforced at the CW&M.

Vocations

Nathaniel’s primary job was to manage the property of his father, Robert, who died in January of 1777. After his father’s death Nathaniel received a portion of the family estate, 1040 acres, which he worked with 41 slaves given to him in his father’s will. Prior to the time of Nathaniel’s service to the Army and shortly after he completed his education at the CW&M he was the Clerk of Court from 1772–1787 (“Isle of Wight

County Records” (1988, p. 315). Williams (1967) reveals there were feelings in the Isle of Wight community that Nathaniel “departed from Isle of Wight because of his Tory

104

convictions . . . and left the office and its records to the care of Francis Young, his senior deputy clerk” (p. 310). This certainly sounds contrary to his Army service, which is reported to include the recruitment of soldiers from Isle of Wight County for the

Continental Army, where he served as Captain in the 1st Artillery Regiment of the

Continental troops. The dates of service are not known, but there is a date of February

1798 (White, 1998) in the war pension records. It is not known if this was the date he joined the Army or the date he left it however, he died in 1802 at the age of 54. The record in the pension files was generated on November 1837 by his widow Martha, who was 80 years of age and lived in Botetourt City, VA (White, 1990).

Other Considerations

It is hard to understand how Nathaniel, who was from a long line of ancestors in the colony of Virginia, would have developed sympathy for the British. Another interesting occurrence is that extant records do not show Nathaniel in the community between 1798 and his death in 1802. Might he have been killed in his service with the

Continental army? There are pension records available on the internet; however a search of these records and a possible conclusion are beyond the scope of this project.

Beverley Dickson (Dixon)

Beverley Dickson (b. Unknown/about 1745 d. September 6, 1787) (also known as

Beverley Dixon), of Williamsburg, was the son of Nicholas (d. April 1, 1770 in Bristoll

[sic] of Yorktown and Charlotte Dickson of Norfolk County. Charlotte was the daughter of Mary Corperew (unable to identify the father of Charlotte) (Dorman, 1981) and granddaughter of John Corperew (Will proven 1700, November 27) of Norfolk County

(McIntosh, 1914). Beverley was a student at the CW&M from August 19, 1760 through 105

March 25, 1764; a period of five months less than four years (Notes, 1921). Beverley was

a member of the Williamsburg Lodge of Masons (Williamsburg Lodge of Masons, 1892-

1893) until January 1783. Revolutionary War records (White, 1995) list Dickson as a “1st

Lieutenant in the 2nd Virginia Regiment” (p. 754), and Tarter (1977) shows that he

(Dickson) was “in [Captain] Nicholas’s company” (p. 302). Beverley married Miss Polly

Saunders on November 1, 1776 (Personal notices from the Virginia Gazette 1776-1777).

In addition, he followed the profession of his father, merchant, in partnership with his

mother, Charlotte, in Williamsburg after the death of his father (1770). Later Beverley

also accepted appointments as a naval officer (1777) and clothier (1779) for land and

marine troops during the Revolutionary War.

Family Involvement in the Colony

History does not provide ancestors in the direct lineage of Beverley Dickson. His

mother was from York County, where her father was a carpenter (Hatch, 1974). On his

father’s side, the Dickson, family history is not known. Thus Beverley’s family begins

with his father, a merchant.

Father. The father of Beverley [subject] was Nicholas Dickson (b. unknown d.

April 1, 1770), a merchant, who began his business in “Gloucester County in 1748 and by

1763 [he] was living in York County” (Goodwin, 1951, p. 6). Nicholas was married to

Charlotte, daughter of Robert Ballard (d. prior to July 1740), a carpenter, and Jane

Ballard of Yorktown. Robert purchased a property, Lot 13, on Yorktown’s main street in

1728, and contiguous lots 14 and 19 in 1731, (perhaps lot 20; however, no date is given), from Wilson Cary, son of Miles Cary of Warwick County (Hatch, 1974). After Robert’s death around 1740, his widow Jane married Matthew Hubbard and lived with him on the 106

property. “Eventually this home [and] lot [14] fell under the joint ownership of the three daughters” (Hatch, 1974, p. 4) of Robert and Jane Ballard: Jane, Henrietta, and Charlotte, each with a one-third interest.

When Charlotte married Nicholas, the father of Beverley Dickson, he moved into the Ballard home, which Charlotte, the youngest of the three children, now occupied.

Based on the estimated year of Beverley’s birth, 1745, it is safe to assume that Nicholas lived in Charlotte’s home for many years prior to June 1756, when records show

Nicholas bought out the one-third interest owned by daughter Henrietta Ballard Powell, whose husband was William Powell, a planter (Hatch, 1974, p. 4). The purchase of the final one-third interest owned by daughter Jane does not appear in the land records. By

1768 Nicholas was trying to sell the property.

Nicholas was trying to sell the property in Yorktown before he sailed to England; however, records show his efforts were not successful. Beverley, his son and heir, advertised the property and the adjoining lot (14) for sale in May of 1773 (Hatch, 1974, p. 4-5). It is interesting to note the colonial families associated with the lots on the same block in Yorktown. The adjoining parcel, Lot 12, was also purchased from Wilson Cary in 1728 by William Nelson, merchant, and resold in 1756 to Robert and Elizabeth

Burwell (p. 6). The location of the property on the main street of Yorktown was drawing prominent colonial families.

While little is known about the Dickson family, what is known reveals that

Nicholas owned the house and two adjoining lots in Yorktown, where he apparently lived prior to June 2, 1768, when he made arrangements to sail to England on the Hanbury with Captain Eden. This information comes from a notice he placed in the Virginia 107

Gazette on June 2, 1768, asking all persons who owed him money to repay or he would

turn the accounts over to “Mr. John Tazewell of Williamsburg, who will act as attorney

for me in my absence” (Virginia Gazette, 1768, June 2, p. 3). In addition, the notice also

mentioned his house, servants, household goods, and furniture were for sale or rent (

Virginia Gazette, 1768).

Nicholas Dickson’s reputation as a merchant leads one to believe that he moved

his business from Gloucester to Yorktown and then decided to move back to England in

1768. This conclusion is based on his advertisement regarding the payment of accounts

prior to sailing. The reason for his move back to England is not known, nor is it known

whether Charlotte and Beverley accompanied him there. Charlotte may have

accompanied him, with Beverley arriving after the death of his father, but this cannot be

verified. With the help of his mother, Beverley would fill his life with various jobs but

was primarily known as a merchant. After his father’s death, Beverley, with the help of

his mother and the funds from his father’s estate, began his mercantile career.

Background

Beverley Dickson (subject) was the son of Nicholas and Charlotte Dickson of

Yorktown. His father was a merchant in Yorktown from 1748 to 1768, prior to his move

to Bristoll [sic], England (Virginia Gleanings, 1935). His father’s death in England in

1770 and the settlement of his estate provided funds for credit from Savage-Norton of

England, enabling Charlotte and son Beverley to open a mercantile business in

Williamsburg specializing in menswear and jewelry. It was perhaps Nicholas’s desire to

have his son join him in business that prompted his father Nicholas to send his son

Beverley to the CW&M. The date of Beverley’s birth is not known. Therefore, it is 108

impossible to know at what age Beverley attended CW&M, thereby making it difficult to

determine if he attended the Grammar School, the Philosophy School or both.

Attendance at the College of William and Mary

Beverley was a student at the CW&M from August 19, 1760 through March 25,

1764; a period of five months less than four years. He lived at the college taking room

and board for the entire time. After leaving CW&M, he was charged for a short-fall on his food account of £0.17.4 ½, that was paid on July 8, 1773 (Notes 1770-1778).

Because the date of Beverley’s birth is not known, with what little historic information is available it is hard to determine if he attended the Grammar School or the

Philosophy School at the CW&M. However, based on his lifetime accomplishments and the trust placed in him by his peers, coupled with his date of entry into the CW&M,

August 19, 1760, it is reasonable to assume that Beverley turned 15 on August 19, 1760, the date he entered the CW&M. It was a common practice to transfer boys from the

Grammar School to the Philosophy School on their month and day of birth; therefore it is safe to assume Beverley was born on August 19, 1745. However, there are further decisions that must be made on the conclusion of his educational endeavors at CW&M.

The next group of assumptions is based on his completion of the requirements for graduation from CW&M. Beverley completed five months less than the full course of study required for a Bachelor’s degree. There are two possible explanations: (a) Beverley left because he had made progress in his studies and was ready to graduate, or (b)

Beverley did not have the ability to complete the course of study, or he became ill, or his family ran out of money, and was therefore asked to leave. There is nothing in the

Minutes of the President and Masters (1985) to indicate why he left the CW&M. 109

Based on the responsibilities in his adult life and the respect accorded him by the political community, his peers, and the community, a more likely conclusion is that

Beverley completed his course work early.

Vocations

Merchant, owner of property in Williamsburg and Yorktown, 1st Lieutenant in the

2nd Virginia Regiment in the Revolutionary War, and Naval officer of the (upper) James

River are just some of the activities in which Beverley, a well known fixture in

Williamsburg, engaged during his short life. (Deaths in Williamsburg, 1787; Personal

Notices from Virginia Gazette, 1902; White, 1995, & Williamsburg Lodge of Masons,

1892). In addition, he was a member of the Williamsburg Lodge of Masons from

September, 1773 through January 1783 (Williamsburg Lodge of Masons, 1892).

Merchant. After the death of Beverley’s father, Nicholas, in April of 1770,

Beverley and his mother, Charlotte, went to Bristol, England (Virginia Gazette, 1768,

June 2, p. 3), to visit and settle his affairs. While in England, arrangements were made with the mercantile firm of Savage-Norton for credit to be used in a planned haberdashery (men’s clothing) and jewelry business to be managed by Beverley. The business occupied a rented portion of a house know as the “Brick House” located on the

“south side of the Duke of Gloucester Street adjoining the capital square [in

Williamsburg]” (Stephenson, 1948, p. 4). This house had been owned by John Palmer,

Attorney at Law and Bursar of the CW&M, at the time of his death in 1760 (Stephenson,

1948), and was rented, per room, to various merchants.

The first advertisement for goods stocked by Beverley Dickson was on August

29, 1771 in the Virginia Gazette (Advertisements, 1771, August 29; Price, 1956). 110

Records indicate the property continued to be leased for business use even after it was sold in 1780. The tenure of Beverley Dickson’s business is not known. In 1772 his mother purchased the house across the street from the store for use as a house or a storehouse for merchandise. The property was known in the 19th century as the Morrison

House (Goodwin, M., 1951). Was his mother’s purchase of the house across the street a sign that the business was doing well, or did she want to be close to the business in an effort to assist her son? It is known that there were many merchants in the Virginia colony during the period from 1766 to1775, and therefore there as strong competition for goods and services (White, 1995).

On June 3, 1775, Beverley was with a group of boys (Boys of Williamsburg) led by Henry Nicholson, 14 years of age (The Williamsburg Companies, 1928), who attempted to vandalize the Powder Magazine in Williamsburg. Beverley, over twice the age of the boys, took the lead upon entry to its storage of guns and ammunition and tripped

a cord, communicating with two spring guns, [that] had been so placed that the arms could not be approached without touching it. One of the guns went off and wounded three of the intruders-one of them, a popular young man, named Beverley Dickson, quite seriously. (Tyler, 1907, p. 70)

The extent of his injuries is not known, but “seriously” may indicate that he was left with some type of impairment. All the same, records indicate the store continued operating and that Beverley was given additional work as a naval officer and clothier of land and marine troops of the Revolutionary War.

Naval Officer. Beverley was appointed the Naval Officer of the upper James

River (The Virginia Gazette, 1777, January 17) by the House of Delegates. (The upper

111

James River was designated as “from Hog Island upwards” (Beverley, 1855, p. 112).

Appointments were “generally selected not on account of . . . political opinions but from among the intelligent and educated of the community” (Palmer, 1875, p. xix). The best definition of his responsibilities is in a notice published in the January 17, 1777, the

Virginia Gazette by Jacob Wray, who was appointed the Naval Officer of the lower

James River at the same time:

Let all masters and owners of vessels, and other whom it may concern, know, that the Naval Office of this port is open, and the officer experts all the inward bound to enter according to the Laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, where they may have a Permit granted to proceed and dispose of their Cargoes in any Districts, Ports, or Places in the said Commonwealth; and that the outward bound, when they come to clear out, will take Care that they have proper Certificates for their Cargo, with a Ballast Master’s Certificate, signed and sealed according to Law. Pork, Beef, Flour, Tar, Turpentine, Pitch, and Ballast, & Certificates. The Master, Mate and Boatswain, must be at the Office to clear. (Signed Jacob Wray, Naval Officer. (p. 3)

The description above makes it clear the Naval Officer is an inspector of documentation and collector of permit fees from vessels using the waters of the Commonwealth. In addition, Beverley (1855) describes the office and the remuneration for the position:

The naval officers have their bounds according to the districts on the rivers, and so have the collectors. The profits of the first arise from large fees, upon the entering and clearing of all ships and vessels. The collectors have each a salary . . . according to their several districts . . . and have moreover, salaries of twenty per cent, on all duties they collect . . . and large fees for every entry and clearing. The naval officers’ other profits, are ten per cent duties, skins and furs, and also on the new imposts on servants and liquors when such duty is in being. (p. 113)

The term of office for the appointment is not available. At most Beverley could have occupied the office for 10 years, as he died on September 9, 1787. However, his term in office may have been shortened by his failure to forward revenue collected by the Upper

James River Naval Office. A list of delinquent Naval Officers in Palmer, 1875, “liable to

112

punishment under Act of Assembly of Session November 1781 – Beverley Dickson, Esqr

[sic] (noting he was a man of social standing) N. O. Upper District James River” (p. 363).

It must be noted that the list contains seven other Naval Officers who were delinquent,

including Jacob Wray, mentioned above.

In addition to his post as Naval Officer, Beverley was “appointed in mid July or

August 1779 . . . as a clothier for the land and marine troops of the State [of Virginia] by

the Board of War with the consent of the Executive” (Palmer, 1875, p. 469). He “entered

upon the duties of his office, and discharged them until about the month of June 1780,

when he resigned without having received either pay or privileges” (p. 469).

Beverley Dickson was well-regarded by his peers. He was nominated by the delegates for the Naval Officer position and recommended highly by his friend James

Innes as a Board of War member at the time of Beverley’s appointment as Clothier for

“land and marine” troops (Palmer, 4, p. 469). This responsibility suggests that he was still active in his store on the Duke of Gloucester Street in Williamsburg. What could have happened? Has Beverley become ill with a protracted illness and unable to carry out his responsibilities? All the same, Beverley purchased property close to his store in 1782.

Property Owner. The mercantile business owned by Charlotte and her son

Beverley Dickson occupied a rented portion of a house know as the “Brick House” located on the “south side of the Duke of Gloucester Street adjoining the capital square”

(Stephenson, 1948, p. 4). Beverley purchased, in 1782, two properties described as “on the Duke of Gloucester Street . . . with the corner lot facing the Governors House”

(Stephenson, 1950, p. 10). He continued to own this property until his death in 1787, and his estate was charged tax on the property until 1804 (Stephenson, 1950). 113

In conclusion, Beverley Dickson, whose father was a merchant in the Gloucester and Yorktown areas of the colony of Virginia, attended the CW&M for five months less than four years. Assumptions made regarding the content of his education are based on several pieces of historical evidence. He was well-regarded and liked in Williamsburg.

By virtue of his personal traits and education, he was able to expand his income as a merchant through appointments as a Naval Officer and provider of military clothing for the Revolutionary War. Of his wife, only her name is known, as history does not provide clues to her identity or to those of any children they may have produced. It is evident that

Beverley’s success was due not only to his efforts but to the influence of his collegiate friends, such as James Innes (CW&M 1770-1772), and perhaps influential customers of his mercantile business. Beverley contributed to the economic growth of his community, the colony, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Other Considerations

It is prudent to note that Beverley (Dixon) Dickson was not the son of Professor

Dixon as were John Jr., (1770-1772), Thomas (1769-1775), and William (1769-1773), who also attended the CW&M during the years noted (Swem, 1941).

Cole Digges

Cole Digges (b. October 11, 1744 d. May 20, 1777) was a child of Edward Digges

(d. 3-22-1769) of York County and his wife Anne Harrison Digges (b. 1719 d. 12-16-

1775) of York County, daughter of Nathaniel Harrison. His colonial ancestors go back four generations, to approximately the year 1650, when his great-great-grandfather

Edward Digges immigrated to the colony. In 1756, at age 11, Cole attended the Grammar

School of the College of William and Mary (CW&M) for less than 60 days, until he was 114

expelled for bad behavior (Minutes of the President and Masters, May 3, 1756). He returned at the age of 15 ½ to begin a course of study in the Philosophy School, where he was a boarding student from February 28, 1760, to March 24, 1765 (William and Mary

Bursar Boarding Accounts). He graduated in 1765 (Swem, 1941). Cole was born and lived his life in York County, at E. D.’s (Edward Digges) Plantation, later known as

Bellfield (Belfield), and served York County and the Colony as a representative in the

General Assembly House of Delegates (Leonard, 1978). He died at the age of 32 in

Williamsburg while attending a session of the House of Delegates on May 20, 1777,

(Virginia Gazette, 1777, May 23), as a representative from Warwick County.

Family Involvement in the Colony

The Digges family history goes back to the Virginia colonization in the mid- 17th century. While the contributions of Cole’s paternal ancestors to the political and governmental process in each generation are recorded, each generation had a relatively short life span, which perhaps limited their effect.

Great-Great-Grandfather. The great-great-grandfather of Cole Diggs was an important servant of Virginia, rising to the rank of governor. Governor Edward Digges

(b. about 1621 d. 3-15-1675/6) died at age 55. History does not record the name of his first wife, but it is known that his second wife was Elizabeth Page (d. 1691), reported to have been the sister of Colonel John Page (Tyler, 1893, p. 140). Governor Digges entered

Gray’s Inn on May 19, 1637. (Gray’s Inn is one of four Inns of Court, societies of students and practitioners of law in London, England. The experience at Gray’s Inn continues in the 21st century (Meyer & Dorman, 1987) as a prerequisite to examinations for barristers in England.) Edward immigrated to Virginia about 1650, purchasing 115

property (1250 acres) in the colony from “Captain John West and Anne his wife [in the]

Hampton Parish [York County] . . . on the westward side of a creek called West’s Creek

[a.k.a. Felgate’s Creek]” (Bellfield, 1903; Meyer & Dorman, 1987; Tyler, 1893, p. 140).

This property, originally known as E. D. Plantation (Edward Digges Plantation, later known as Bellfield or Belfield) was in York County, almost directly east of

Williamsburg.

Digges reached the pinnacle of Virginia colonial government, as he was

“appointed to the [Colonial] Council November 12, 1654 and served as governor for a 2- year term, from March 30, 1656, to March 13, 1658, and then sent to England as one of the agents of [the] Colony” (Bellfield, 1903; Meyer & Dorman, 1987; Tyler, 1893, p.

141). In addition he acted as a member of the court, as shown by an “opinion of the court

. . . an official interpretation which Governor Digges rendered in 1656” in the case of the

Will of Henry Woodhouse (Meyer & Dorman, p. 700). After he returned from England, he was again sworn as a member of the Colonial Council on April 19, 1670 and he may have held an additional title around June 1670. These new administrative responsibilities came during and just after the time (1660-1672) when slavery was legalized (Pedigree –

Diggs, 1893; Tyler, 1893).

As Governor, Digges faced many challenges, as illustrated by a topical review of the General Assembly House of Burgess request for legislation in the Colony during his tenure. Topics included: (a) relationships between whites and Indians, (b) professional licensing and reward for importation of ministers, (c) administrative expenses and salary issues, (d) collection of colony statistics, (e) economic decisions about values and currency, (f) issues regarding court jurisdictions, (g) poll tax to support parishes and 116

colonial government, (h) voting rights, (i) authority to leave the colony, (j) personal

trespassing and sexual behavior, and (k) the mandated proliferation of mulberry trees for

the experimental silk industry. Almost all topics relate to the formation of a civil society.

How many of these topics were formally submitted to the Colonial Council and then

submitted to the crown for approval is not known (Leonard, 1978).

In addition to his service to Virginia through governance, Digges also contributed

to expanding the colony’s economic base. He was very interested in bringing the

manufacturing of silk to the Colony (Bellfield, 1906; Meyer & Dorman, 1987; Tyler,

1893). This can be seen in his request to the House of Burgesses in December 1656 for a

mandate on the cultivation of Mulberry Trees to be planted 10 per 100 acres for the

anticipated silk trade (Leonard, 1978). In addition he cultivated tobacco that became

highly prized; described as “sweet scented tobacco . . . remarkable for its mild taste and

fine smell” (Bellfield, 1906, p. 38). It is said that the tobacco of Edward Digges would

bring £1 per pound, as opposed to general colony tobacco, which would bring 3 shillings.

Thus, he played a role in establishing two of colonial Virginia’s important cash crops.

Edward’s will was probated in Virginia on June 16, 1675 (county unknown) and in the Prerogative Count of Canterbury, England, in 1686 (Will of Edward Digges dated

August 28, 1669, Library of Virginia 1310, (41686), Richmond, Virginia.)

Edward Digges brought to the colony innovation and dedication to the land and its

economy. He was an adventurer in agriculture through the use and cultivation of

extraordinary fine tobacco seeds that produced the highest-quality tobacco, and also

through his interest in the production of silk. Edward contributed his educational

117

attainments in England to the colony through his leadership and dedication in the

governing process.

Great-Grandfather. Dudley Digges continued the example set by his father

Edward as industrious and politically active for the benefit of the colony.

Dudley Digges was born about 1665 and died January 18, 1710, at the

approximate age of 45. He was the second son and fourth child of Edward Digges and

Elizabeth Page. Dudley married Susannah Cole (b. 1674, d. 11-21-1708), daughter of

Colonel William Cole and his wife Ann Digges (Dudley’s niece) from Warwick County.

Dudley continued to live at Bellfield in York County; even after his elder brother William

(who lived in St. Mary’s County working as a merchant and planter (Meyer & Dorman,

1987) inherited the York county property at the death of their father, Edward. When

William died in 1698, “his son [Edward] rather quickly, in 1699, sold the property to

Dudley who had been in residence since his birth (Cole Digges House Historic Structures

Report, 2005, p. 1; Meyer & Dorman, 1987; Pedigree, 1893).

Like his father, Dudley provided service to his colony. He was a member of the

Warwick County Militia, a representative in the House of Burgesses for Warwick

County in 1695-1696, and served on the Virginia Colonial Council in 1698 (Meyer &

Dorman, 1987; Pedigree – Diggs, 1893; Tyler, 1893). In 1705 he was Virginia’s Auditor and Surveyor General (Pedigree-Diggs, 1893; Tyler, 1893). History does not explain why

Dudley, who lived in York County, was politically active in Warwick County. However,

Tyler (1893) contends the E. D. Plantation land traverses the boundary line of York and

Warwick County. This would account for the political activity in both counties.

118

Dudley was also known as “a merchant of good reputation and the Virginia agent

for the London merchant Micajah Perry” who would exclusively handle all ordering and

shipping of goods from London to the docks of Dudley Digges (Meyer & Dorman, 1987,

p. 252). Dudley continued the tradition begun by his father, Edward, of providing service

to Virginia and contributing to the economic well-being of the colony.

Grandfather. Continuing in the family tradition, Cole Digges [grandfather], for

whom the subject Cole Digges is named, also provided service to the colony. Cole

Digges (b. 1692 d. 1744), was born at Bellfield and died at age 52. Cole’s first marriage

was to Elizabeth Power, daughter of Dr. Henry Power of York County on September 16,

1728, and his second marriage (no date found) was to Mary Foliott of Hampton Parish

(Cole Digges House, Historic Structures Report, 2005; Tyler, 1893). Mary’s father was

the Rev. Edward Foliott. Cole and his first wife, Elizabeth, had five children: “Colonel

Edward, William, Dudley, Mary, and Susannah” (Pedigree, 1893, p. 145) and it is

through these children that the family line continued.

Like his ancestors, Cole Diggs provided extensive service to the colony of

Virginia, but unique in this family listing, he also provided service to CW&M. According to Stauffer (1934), he

was a burgess for York County for at least the year of 1718, lieutenant and commander in chief for the Counties of Elizabeth City, Warwick, and York, member of the Council from 1720 until his death in 1744, and sometime President of the Council. (p. 205).

Attesting to his apparent educational background, although his education is not documented in historic sources, on June 13, 1716 “Cole Digges took the oath as [a] visitor and Governor of the College of William and Mary”, in the Convocation Room of

119

the College (Cole Digges House, Historic Structures Report, 2005; Proceedings of the

Visitors of William and Mary College, 1716, p. 168-169).

While Cole demonstrated his leadership ability through his political and military service, it cannot be determined if Cole received formal higher education at the CW&M.

Fires and the general loss of records makes the attendee list both provisional and incomplete (Swem, 1941). The earliest attendee from the Digges family on the Swem list is Cole Digges, the subject of this bio-sketch. In addition to Cole’s (grandfather) leadership in the colony, he continued to add to his real estate holdings with the purchase in 1714 of John Martin’s property (Lot 42) in Yorktown, which included a home and a warehouse adjacent to the York River (the home in the 21st century is named after this

Cole Digges [grandfather of the subject]). This purchase added to his reputation as a merchant (Cole Digges House, Historic Structures Report, 2005). The warehouse operations were further expanded in 1729 to include a larger portion of the waterfront with another warehouse and wharf for loading and unloading merchandise (Cole Digges

House, Historic Structures Report, 2005). The operation of Cole’s plantations continued with his eldest son Edward (father of the subject) and next-eldest son William, each taking over day-to-day operations of Belfield and the Newport News in Warwick County, respectively. At Cole’s death he left additional York County acreage, lots in Yorktown purchased in 1726 (other than Lot 42), Yorktown Lot 42 and house, and the warehouse

[merchant] operations to his youngest son Dudley (Cole Digges House, Historic

Structures Report, 2005). Records are incomplete on the disposition of the properties; however, Dudley (youngest son of Cole mentioned above) was described as “not a business man following in the mercantile line” (Cole Diggs House, Historic Structures 120

Report, 2005, p. 4). This statement could indicate that Dudley was not the astute merchant his father had been, but there could be several other reasons for the comment:

(a) the business suffered because of economic problems, (b) there was a shift in the population, or (c) the expansion by Dudley was ill-timed.

Cole Digges, through inheritance and his own acuity added real estate and expanded the mercantile business on the shores of the York River. Although records are not available to show that Cole was educated at the CW&M, it is likely he was educated by a tutor either in the colony or in England and perhaps had some experience in higher education. Cole shared his knowledge of leadership in the government and military for the betterment of the Colony and the College.

Father. In addition to service to the government and the economy, which had become a tradition in the Digges family, Edward Digges added military service to the family pedigree. The father of Cole Digges [subject], Colonel Edward Digges (d. March

22, 1769) of Belfield on August 9, 1739 married Anne Harrison Digges (b. 1719 d.

December 16, 1775), the “daughter of Nathaniel Harrison of the Council” (Virginia

Gazette, 1739, August 10, p. 3). They raised their 13 children at Bellfield; however, 4 of the children died prior to their second birthday. Cole [subject] was the second son of

Edward and Anne to live to adulthood (William was the first).

Following family tradition, Edward [Cole’s father] was active in York County as a Justice of the Peace in 1734. He provided long service to the colonial government as a member of the “House of Burgesses 1736, 1744, 1748, 1751, and doubtless other years”

(Cole Diggs House, Historic Structure Report, 2005; Pedigree, 1893, April, p. 211). In

121

1734 he was commissioned a Lieutenant Colonel of the horse and foot, the first Digges to

provide military service to the Colony.

The family plantation (E.D. Plantation/Bellfield in York County), along with

property accumulated by Colonel Edward, was left at his death to his oldest son, William.

This original family land, the E.D. Plantation/Bellfield, remained in the Digges family,

owned by William, until close to the last decade of the 18th century (1789) or 20

additional years. During this time its primary crop changed from the original experiments

and slight success of silk to the famous tobacco [E. Dees], and finally wheat and Indian

corn (Bellfield, 1906).

As an insight into colonial Virginia’s inheritance practices, the will (probated

February 19, 1776) of Anne Harrison Digges, mother of Cole, took into consideration that her oldest son William had inherited the family’s land at the death of her husband,

Colonel Edward (d. 1769). She left Cole a glass clock and glass corner cupboard; the next son received a clock with a walnut case, and the youngest son received a large looking glass [mirror] in the drawing room. The girls each received a small piece of furniture with the residue (assumed to be personal items such as linen, clothing, and adornments

[jewelry] (Wright, F. E., 2005). From the immigrant great-great,-grandfather Colonel

Edward Digges, who inaugurated [OK?] the Digges family in the building of the Colony of Virginia in 1650, to Cole Diggs (b. 1744), the subject of this bio-sketch, a period of almost 100 years passed.

In conclusion, the Digges family made contributions in three areas: the economy

(agriculture and trade), college governance, and government service. In terms of the economy, the Digges family provided innovative ideas such as silk production, fostered 122

the demand and premium price of the mild and aromatic tobacco cultivated at E.D.

Plantation (now Bellfield), and developed and expanded the mercantile trade on the York

County waterfront (Bellfield, 1906). In addition, there were the interest and contributions

of Cole Digges [grandfather] to the CW&M. Cole [subject] and all of his direct male

ancestors contributed to the political process of the Colony.

In a phenomenon that affected all of the families of Virginia over the period of the

colony’s development, as the population of the Colony increased “few could belong to

the Council [and] the rest sought power as burgesses or as county justices of the peace, or

the two together” (Davis, 1978, p. 1519). Thus, while the original Digges (Edward)

served as Governor and Colonial Council member later members of the family provided

government service in their county, the House of Burgesses and later the House of

Delegates.

Background

Cole Diggs was the second son of Colonel Edward Digges. The scion of a

prosperous plantation family with a long history in Virginia, Cole Diggs followed in the family tradition of providing service to his colony. Despite an initial, troubled foray into education at CW&M, he graduated and then provided service to the colony. Cole was elected to the House of Delegates at a time when the colony was “without a government, without men, and without money” (Henings, 1821, p. iii). During the first session of his term (May 5 – June 28, 1777) in General Assembly - House of Delegates representing

Warwick County, he died doing the work of preparing the colony for independence

(Virginia Gazette, 1777, May 23).

123

Attendance at the College of William and Mary

While Cole Digges attended and graduated from the CW&M, his educational

experiences provide an interesting window into the colonial version of student discipline

and degree attainment challenges.

Cole Digges attended the CW&M Grammar School at age 11 in 1756 for less than

60 days, after which he was expelled for bad behavior, as described in the minutes of the

President and Masters, May 3, 1756:

Idleness and bad Behavior in general, but particularly for whipping ye [the] little Boys in ye Grammar School-for Obstinancy [sic] & Disrespect to ye grammar Master, & refusing to answer before ye [sic] President & Masters ye complaints made agt [against] ym [them]. (p. 257)

He returned almost three years later, on February 28, 1760, when he was 15½ years of age attending the CW&M Philosophy School and living on campus (Bursar’s Records;

Notes, 1921). Although Morpurgo (1976) discusses Cole’s reinstatement after his expulsion in 1756, no source is cited for his comment:

The Visitors, too, showed that they cared little for the cause and much for the quarrel. Though Cole Digges was reinstated as a student, James Hubard, whose case had been the ostensible reason for all this uproar was not returned to his post as an usher. (p. 124)

Cole spent 5 years on his collegiate course of study, attending the CW&M from

February 28, 1760, to March, 24, 1765, as a boarding student. (William and Mary Bursar

Boarding Accounts (1754-1769). No documentation was found that explained how Cole made the transition from his abandoned CW&M grammar school education to acquiring sufficient preparation for entry into the collegiate level. One possibility is that after having been expelled, he obtained private tutoring that enabled him to advance academically to readiness for admission to the Philosophy School. Another possibility is 124

that he spent a year in the Grammar school in order to acquire the skills for advancement.

There is nothing in the CW&M Grammar school records to document this, but it is known that the records of CW&M alumni are not complete (Swem, 1941). A third possibility is that because Cole’s academic preparation was not sufficient for the launch of his collegiate career, it took 5 years at the college for him to show adequate proficiency to earn his bachelor’s degree – perhaps a colonial example of remedial education being incorporated into collegiate-level education. A fourth possibility could be that the CW&M officials were generous in their attitude of support of Cole, since his grandfather had been a member of the CW&M Board of Visitors and Governors (Visitors were prominent members of society whose accomplishments were acknowledged by a seat on the Board, while Governors were men who were serving or had served the colony in a political position of power, most commonly in the House of Burgesses or the

Colonial Council) – perhaps a colonial example of special treatment for legacies and sons of families closely attached to the College.

Cole completed his course of study without garnering another disrespectful reference in the minutes of the President and Masters. Although it took 5 years, as shown by Swem (1941), any combination of the above possibilities could be the reason.

Vocations

The life of Cole Digges was brief – only 33 years (b. 1744 d. 1777). He died only one and a half years after his mother, Anne Harrison Digges. What little is known of

Cole’s life revolves around the CW&M incident as a Grammar School student in 1756, his ultimate admission to CW&M in 1760 and graduation in 1765, and an entry in the

State Auditor’s Papers for the Virginia State Troops in the Revolution (1920), of a 125

payment on February 23, 1776, for fodder (food for cattle and horses). This reflects his farming activities, probably in Warwick County.

Cole’s service in the General Assembly House of Delegates, where he met his untimely death in May 1777, is likely to have been have been monumental considering the intense activity needed for the restoration of government as a review of the legislation necessary for the reorganization of government without resources was overwhelming. Henings (1921) expresses it as follows:

The regal government, in the nervous language of the constitution, was totally dissolved; no other form had then been adopted; the militia laws had been suffered to expire; (a) and revenues of the crown were in the hands of its late officers, from which they were not extracted until a late period. (b) Thus the fathers of the revolution, when they dared to hazardous enterprise, found themselves without a government – without men, and without money. (p. iii)

A review of the topics covered during Cole’s attendance, May 5 through June 28, 1777, session revealed numerous topics with a demanding agenda. Some topics involved the militia: (a) regulating and disciplining, (b) how to speedily complete the quota of troops for the Continental Army, (c) the handling of deserters, and (d) the requirement of an oath of allegiance to the commonwealth of Virginia. Sources of money to fund the revolution were also discussed: (a) establishing a loan office to borrow money for the use of the United States and appointing a Commission to superintend the process, (b) establishing an office to borrow money for the commonwealth of Virginia, (c) an act to support credit issued by Congress and by the commonwealth, and (d) the ability of government to sue for lack of payment or failure to perform contractual service. In addition, commonwealth business needed to be addressed, such as (a) changes in boundaries of counties, (b) transportation, (c) vestry issues – disposal of a glebe (house

126

for the minister) and the dissolution of vestries in several parishes. There was the need for

the General Assembly – House of Delegates to set term limits (3 years) and legislate

down-time between terms, which was requested at one year. The encouragement of

enterprise at the salt works, the approval for the trustees of Hampden Sidney academy to

allow them to raise funds from a lottery, and to revive several public warehouses to

process for receipt and sale of tobacco (Henings, 1821)

Cole did not participate in the five Revolutionary Conventions that began on

August 1, 1774, alternating between Williamsburg and Richmond, but had he done so he might have been extremely vocal, given his family history of leadership in the colony.

Unfortunately, he died before being able to affect the political process.

It is impossible to say what Cole’s contribution to the Commonwealth of Virginia

would have been. Based on the history of his family in the growth and development of

the colony leading up to the Revolutionary War (his father died in 1769) it is likely he

would have been a moving force in the quest for independence.

Other Considerations

There is a second Cole Diggs [not Digges] (Lyon, 1893) who was born in 1748, a

descendant of the Maryland branch of the family from a time prior to Colonel Edward

Digges’ (great-great-grandfather of the subject) immigration to the Virginia Colony.

Careful research shows that this Cole Diggs is not the subject of this bio-sketch. The

article “Pedigree of a Representative Virginia Planter” (1893) with footnotes by its

author, L. G. Tyler, combines the Virginia [Digges] planter family history with that of the

Maryland (Davis, 1978) Diggs [note spelling] family. (See the letter on pages 153-154

from an unknown writer to William C. Digges, Esq. published in the article above.) In 127

addition, many relatives of both families have contributed to genealogical publications,

such as the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, and William and Mary

Quarterly. Combining the two families further distorts the Virginia [York County]

Digges family history. This confusion dates back to the time of Colonel Edward Digges’

(b. 1744) emigration from England, and perhaps before that. After the death of Cole

Digges of York County in 1777, the Cole Diggs of Warwick (b. 1748) represented the residents of Warwick County in the General Assembly House of Delegates from 1778 through 1783 and then again in 1788 (Leonard, 1978).

Once the intermingling of the families was recognized, the effort to separate the two Coles was begun. The first step involved the criteria for enrollment at CW&M to include or exclude Cole Diggs (b. 1748). Diggs did not meet the age requirement (15 years) for admission to the Philosophy School in 1760. From that decision criterion, life events, marriages, and issue were separated to obtain the family lineage in York County for the subject presented in this bio-sketch. This is one example of confusing combinations of family lineage of the Digges family. . While the two families may have been related in England, and the names William, Dudley, Edward, and Cole may have been common throughout the family’s history; careful research has isolated the York

County ancestry of the subject Cole Digges. This discovery also identified the confusion noted throughout the historical record in the spelling of the family name.

Benjamin Harrison

Benjamin Harrison of Brandon (b. February 13, 1743 d. August 7, 1807) was the

only living son (Epitaphs, 1899) of Colonel Nathaniel Harrison of Brandon and his first

wife, Mary Digges Harrison (daughter of Cole Digges and his wife Elizabeth – 128

grandparents of the subject Cole Digges of this case study). Benjamin attended the

College of William and Mary (CW&M) first as a grammar school student in 1756 and

then entered the Philosophy School after his 15th birthday on June 7, 1758, and graduated

on March 25, 1762, having completed the prescribed course of study as outlined in the

Statutes of 1756 (Statutes 1756, 1908), for a 4-year Baccalaureate degree (Swem, 1941).

Benjamin was active in Martin’s Brandon Parish and participated in county and the

colony politics. He lived for 64 years, always associated with the Brandon Plantation in

Prince George County, Virginia.

Records from Prince George County are minimal having been partially destroyed

during the Revolution and Civil Wars (Dorman, 1976). Information about Benjamin

Harrison’s college experience and participation in colonial and county government were

complied through existing government, church, and other records that reflect colonial

life.

Family Involvement in the Colony

The Harrison family has a long history in the colony of Virginia beginning in the

mid-17th century. It expands through five generations and two branches of the family that

became influential through land holdings and political power. In a 100-year period from

1745 to 1845, over 42 descendants of the emigrant Benjamin Harrison attended the

CW&M (Swem, 1941). Between 1756 and 1764, two descendents, bearing the same

ancestral name, attended the college: Benjamin Harrison of Wakefield and Benjamin

Harrison of Brandon [subject].

Great-Great-Grandfather. The family of Benjamin Harrison [subject] in the

Virginia colony originated with the arrival of his great-great-grandfather Benjamin 129

Harrison (birth and death dates unknown) who arrived prior to March 15, 1663/4 based on his signature on a document dated March 15, 1663/4 noting that he was Clerk of the

Council (Harrison, 1922, p. 408). He was initially granted 500 acres on the south side of the James River and then purchased an additional 200-acre parcel from John Davis contiguous to his grant. This plantation was originally in James City County, which was later annexed into Surry County and became known as Wakefield. The first Benjamin sired one son, also named Benjamin, with his wife Mary. This original emigrant to the

Virginia colony served as Clerk of the Council and as a member of the House of

Burgesses at the April 1642 session. The Wakefield Plantation was passed to Benjamin

[great-grandfather] at the death of his mother Mary in her will of March 1687/8, proven on Mary 29th 1688 (Harrison, 1922).

Great-Grandfather. Benjamin, the great-grandfather of Benjamin Harrison

[subject], was born on September 20, 1645, and died on January 30, 1712/3 (Harrison,

1922). Throughout his life his home would be at Wakefield in Surry County, with his religious home at Southwark Parish. In addition, he purchased property in Charles City known as Berkeley and was the initial purchaser of the Harrison family lands in Martin’s

Brandon from a patent for 5,000 acres given to Captain John Martin (b. 1579 d. 1631) on

January 29, 1616/17, for service to the Virginia Company (Southall, 1946). Martin’s

Brandon is described as “a borough on the south side of the river above upper Chippoake

Creek nearly opposite the mouth of the Chickahominy” (Southall, 1946, p. 23). This land should not be confused with Martin’s Hundred, which consisted of 80,000 acres located

“about seven miles below Jamestown, on the north side of [the] James River” (p. 23).

130

Benjamin’s great-grandfather actively participated in the governing process of the

colony as: Justice of Surry County in 1671, Sheriff in 1679, a representative in the House

of Burgesses for sessions in June 1680; November 1682; April 1692; September 1696;

and September 1698. Additionally, in 1698 he was placed on the Governor’s Council and

“remained a member of that body until his death [in 1712/3]” (Harrison 1922, p. 409). He

and his wife, Hannah, had five children, two girls, Hannah and Sarah, and three boys,

Nathaniel, Henry and Benjamin. In Benjamin’s (great-grandfather) will, Brandon and adjoining properties went to son Nathaniel (b. April 8, 1677 d. November 30, 1727),

[grandfather of subject], the Wakefield property to son Henry (b. 1692, d. September 24,

1732), and the Berkeley property in Charles City County, to son Benjamin (b. 1673 d.

April 10, 1710) (Will of Benjamin Harrison, 1922). The land records for the Berkeley property are not available because of the devastation in Charles City County during the

Revolutionary and Civil Wars (Harrison of James County, 1923); therefore it is difficult to know the exact location of the Berkeley Plantation. Cartographer, J. S. Hale, (1978) placed Berkeley on the Chickahominy River northeast of Westover (Plate 9 - 1750), but this cannot be verified because there is no extant deed.

The divisions of property in Benjamin’s will (great-grandfather) led to the family becoming associated with two plantations: Berkeley and Brandon.

Grandfather. Nathaniel, (b. April 8, 1677 d. November 30, 1727) grandfather of

Benjamin [subject] lived at Wakefield before and after his father’s death in 1712/3.

Records show he served as Justice of the Peace of Surry County in 1698 and as a representative in the House of Burgesses from 1699 to 1706. He also was a member of the Governor’s Council in 1713, County Lieutenant of Surry and Prince George County 131

in 1715, and Auditor General of the Colony around 1724. In addition, he served on the

Board of Visitors of the CW&M. Nathaniel inherited Brandon from his father and

acquired additional land by patent and purchase. From a non-resident owner in London

named Sadler he purchased some land, and on August 19, 1720, he acquired via a deed “a

moiety or halfe [sic] part of two tracts of land called Merchant’s Hope and Martin’s

Brandon” (Prince George County Records, 1897, p. 275) from Robert Richardson, who

received the land as part of an estate from “Thomas Quincy, late of the city of London”

(Lassiter, 1897, p. 275). After this purchase Brandon comprised about 7,000 acres.

Father. Colonel Nathaniel Harrison Esq. (b. 1703 d. October 1, 1791) of Surry and Prince George County (Epitaphs, 1899) was an extensive owner of land throughout the colony. In addition to his land in Surry (Charles City County) and Prince George counties, he owned land in Brunswick County consisting of 4,245 acres called New

Hope, on the southern border of the Virginia colony (Harrison, 1923, July; Harrison,

1924). He was a colonel in the military [militia?], initially joining in 1738 (Lassiter,

1897). He also held the office of Admiral of the James River and was on the Prince

George County Committee of Safety (Epitaphs, 1899; Lassiter, 1897). In addition to the offices mentioned, when Benjamin [subject] “declined election as a member of the first

Executive Council of the State in 1776, [his father] Nathaniel was, in that year, elected in his place” (Epitaphs, 1899, p. 235; Harrison, 1924, p. 200; Virginia Legislative Papers,

1909, p. 378).

Nathaniel and his first wife, Mary Digges (Harrison, 1924), had two boys who died as infants and a son Benjamin [subject] and daughter Elizabeth (b. 7-30-1737). Later

Nathaniel married Lucy Carter, daughter of Robert “King” Carter. She was the widow of 132

Henry Fitzhugh of Eagles Nest in Stafford (King George County). They both lived on her property until her death. They had no children of their own (Harrison, 1924).

It must be noted that although Brandon was a working plantation, it was without a plantation house. This was unusual. Hale, a cartographer (1978), for the year of 1750 lists

4 of 30 plantations that did not have a house. He also gave the land patented date and the original owner of each: Brandon, 1617, Nathaniel Harrison; Denbigh, 1622, Samuel

Matthews; Leeton Forest, 1718, Thomas Lee; and Martin’s Hundred, 1619, John Martin.

No doubt there was an overseer [manager], similar to Brandon, where there was a house for the overseer but not the grand house (Harrison, 1928) that was ultimately associated with Brandon in the late 1800s (Harrison, 1924). Toward the end of Nathaniel’s life, he began to think about moving his residence to Brandon; as mentioned above, he “did not live there regularly until late in life” (Harrison, 1924, p. 202). Legend recounts that

Nathaniel asked Thomas Jefferson to draw up a plan for a plantation house in 1788-1789,

2 years before his death (Harrison, 1924). However, the plan for the Brandon house attributed to Thomas Jefferson does not match the plantation house built at Brandon

(Harrison, 1924). Another theory is that the “present house may have been built for

Nathaniel Harrison’s son Benjamin at the time of his first marriage” (Harrison, 1924, p.

202). It is also interesting to note that apparently bricks were being accumulated at

Brandon in 1780 in anticipation of building a plantation house. This is shown in a notation in the Calendar of State Papers and Other Manuscripts (1883) concerning the fort being built at Hood’s plantation. It describes a shortage of the necessary bricks for completion (Palmer, 1883) and suggests a representative be sent to ask Benjamin

Harrison 133

who has a large quantity [of bricks] he will not probably use soon to purchase what are wanted from him . . . [the response was] his father was not home and son could not say whether he would dispose of any of his bricks or not (p. 373).

Could these be the bricks that were being held for use in the anticipated plantation house?

Despite the lack of a plantation house at Brandon, the Harrison family had accumulated wealth and status through their other holdings in the colony. Through the generations the family lived at Wakefield and Bellfield while using an overseer to accomplish the day-today running of Brandon.

Nathaniel did not participate as actively as had the previous generations in the governing process of the colony. Could that be because Nathaniel had investments in land, chattel, and business that provided income, or because he was simply not interested?

Background

Benjamin Harrison was the only living son of Colonel Nathaniel Harrison of

Wakefield in Surry (Charles City County) and Brandon (Price George County), and Mary

Digges Harrison (d. November 27, 1744, buried at the Denbigh Church in Warwick

County) daughter of Cole Digges of Bellfield in York County (Harrison, 1926). Benjamin was born on February 13, 1742/3, and died on August 7, 1807 (Epitaphs at Brandon,

1899). He lived the greater part of his life at Wakefield, moving to Brandon sometime just before or after his father’s death in October 1791, when he was in his late 40s or early 50s (Harrison, 1924). Benjamin began his studies in the Grammar School in 1756, moving to the Philosophy School at the age of 15 in 1758 and taking his room and board at the College during his entire educational experience (William and Mary Bursar

Boarding Accounts 1754-1769). 134

Benjamin was married twice; his first wife was Betsey Page, daughter of Mann

Page and Ann Corbin Tayloe (Meade, 1966). His second wife was Evelyn Bryd Taylor of the Bryd family (Byrd, 1930) who purchased Westover from the Blands in 1688

(Epitaphs, 1899; McCatney, 1988). Benjamin and Evelyn had three children: George E.

(b. September 1, 1797 d. January 19, 1839), Elizabeth Page (b. December 2, 1804 d.

November 27, 1836), and William (b. November 31, [November has 30 days] 1800 d.

September 22, 1870). Benjamin served his church in Prince George County and the colony of Virginia with friends and peers throughout his life.

Attendance at the College of William and Mary

Benjamin Harrison began his studies at the CW&M on June 7, 1756, as a student in the Grammar School. He passed the admission requirement of “due progress in their

Latin and Greek” (Statutes of 1756, 1908, p. 247) and in 1758 he entered the Philosophy

School to pursue studies in “Logic, Physics, Ethics, and Mathematics . . . [through] the process of disputations, declamations and themes . . . covering the subjects of Rhetoric,

Logick, Ethics, Physics, Metaphysics, and mathematics” (Statutes of 1756, 1908, p. 248).

He took his room and board at the CW&M (William and Mary Bursar Boarding

Accounts 1754-1769) and perhaps occupied the same room containing “2 beds, 2 pr

[pair] sheets, 2 pr [pair] blankets, and 2 ruggs [sic]” (Harrison of James River, 1923, p.

379), donated to the college by his grandfather Nathaniel Harrison (b. April 8, 1677 d.

November 30, 1727) and shown in the inventory of his estate dated July 15, 1728,

(Harrisons of James River, 1923) as personal property residing at the CW&M.

Benjamin might have been a member of the Flat Hat Club Society (FHC), which originated at the CW&M on November 11, 1750, with six members. It was a “collegiate 135

fraternal society” (Carson, 1965, p. 1) that “persisted until . . . [it] collapsed during the

Revolution” (Morpurgo, 1976, p. 134). College of William and Mary scholars have long believed it was the first secret society in the country and the roster of its members includes Thomas Jefferson (a student in 1760), and George Wythe (a student about 1746)

[Records do not show the extent of his attendance at CW&M] both of whom were friends of the Harrison family. It is the commonly held belief that the FHC was the precursor of the Phi Beta Kappa Society (PBKS) (Carson, 1965). However, “the PBKS went on to establish branches in other American colleges” (p. 2) while FHC did not.

Benjamin’s great-grandfather and grandfather were instrumental in colonial affairs, and the pride of achievement would have certainly passed through the generations to

Benjamin, encouraging his participation in the FHC.

The Harrisons of Brandon were great horsemen, owning thoroughbred horses at

Brandon. In the Virginia Gazette on March 15, 1787, the following notice appeared under

“Stallions Advertised”: “Pantaloon, the beautiful well bred imported horse of Benjamin

Harrison of Brandon is for sale” (Some Notes From the Virginia Gazette, 1927, p. 68). It is not conceivable that Benjamin owned and kept a horse at college. Although there was a stable on the college campus, it was only for the use of the President [as shown in the minutes of the President and Masters of March 31, 1761] (Journal of the Meetings, 1894).

Not only was there a rumor in the county concerning horse racing by the students, but this quote from Morpurgo (1976) collectively expresses the complaints of parents and residents of Williamsburg: “There was among the students, it was said, too much gambling, to much drinking and an excessive addiction to horse-racing” (p. 159).

136

An example of student horse ownership comes from an oral history by Mrs. Maria

Edwards, granddaughter of Judge Tyler (Gardiner, 1884-1896); it indicates that horses

were kept by students in Williamsburg,

Jefferson, Tyler, and one Frank Willis, of Gloucester County, prosecuted their studies in a room in the same house. Willis kept his horse in the cellar, and was a sort of wag in his way. He would come in sometimes at midnight, and finding Tyler and Jefferson hard at their studies, would teaze [sic] them by overturning the table at which they were sitting, and running off with their books. (p. 55)

While oral history tends to get cloudy over generations, as found when researching the

attendance of a Willis at CW&M, records show a Lewis Burwell Willis attended CW&M

in 1765. Could this person be the Frank Willis that Maria Edwards recalled? He was the

son of Robert Carter Willis (Tyler, 1896), descended from the emigrant Francis Willis,

who was “born in the parish of St. Fowlws als [also] St. Algate in the city of Oxford,

England, and emigrated as a young man to Virginia” (Tyler, 1896, p. 24-25). Jefferson

and Tyler would have been studying law under Wythe and Nicholas (Tyler, 1884-1886)

at the time of Lewis Willis’ attendance at the CW&M.

Vocations

Benjamin’s job throughout his lifetime was the management of Brandon. In

addition, he was a soldier and participated in county and state government. He also was

active in his church.

Military. Benjamin was a Lieutenant in Prince George County in 1777-1778

(Gwathmey, 1938). In addition, records also show two occasions when he provided

support for the military by providing supplies. The Calendar of State Papers Other

Manuscripts, edited by W. P. Palmer, (1883), lists the following orders to reimburse

Benjamin for help to the military. On Friday February 23, 1776, he was issued a warrant 137

for “£26.60 for provisions to a company of militia” (Palmer, 8, p. 96). Then on May, 17,

1782, there is an order for “fifty barrels of corn to the order of Benjamin Harrison Esq. of

Brandon in part for corn lent by him for the support of the Army when before York”

(Palmer, 3, p. 168). These records indicate Benjamin was a participant in the militia on the local level and supported the Revolutionary War with provisions from his plantation.

Political. His service to the colony began with his appointment to the Committee of Intelligence for Prince George County. The responsibility of committee members was

“to convey any alarm as speedily as possible to adjacent counties” (Coleman, 1897, p.

251). In the Virginia Gazette, July 5, 1776, as shown in the report Plan of Government,

Benjamin was chosen as a Counsellors of State by Patrick Henry Jr. Governor. He served with the following friends and peers John Page, Dudley Digges, John Tayloe, John Blair, and Benjamin Harrison of Berkeley, Bartholomew Dandridge, and Charles Carter of

Shirley. In addition, he was first elected from Prince George County as a member of the

House of Delegates on October 30, 1776, as shown in the Certification of Benjamin

Harrison Esq. of Brandon, as “duly elected [as a] delegate for the County of Prince

George” dated October 30, 1776, and signed by Peter Epes (Benjamin Harrison Elected,

1909, p. 378). This begins his career in the House of Delegates, which extends through

January 1807, the year of his death.

Additional contributions to the colony include his joint appointment with John

Tyler and William Randolph on October 7, 1782, as a Trustee of Lands to benefit the minor daughter of William Kennon (Henings, 1819-23, p. 147). In another instance, also in Hennings, (1819-23), he acted as a committee member to sell public lands to benefit the Treasury of the Commonwealth and the CW&M including 138

Palace lands adjunct to the City of Williamsburg and houses thereon . . . land near city called the Vineyards . . . lands near Jamestown in James City, also lots and houses that are commonwealth property. Lots and houses in Jamestown which are property of this commonwealth, and are not granted to individuals or appropriated at this time [October 1784] to some public uses shall be, and the same are hereby vested in the president and professors of the William and Mary University forever, with power to the said president and professors to sell or dispose thereof in any manner they shall judge best for the interest and advantage of the said university. (p. 405-406)

Benjamin was trusted by his peers and respected as demonstrated by his repeated election to political office. Brandon, his home, was considered for many decades to be one of the finest plantation homes in the colony, as described in A Peep at the Old

Dominion (1923, July).

The Civil War was devastating to the property. In a letter dated June 12, 1865

(Harrisons of the James, 1928, October) from Mrs. Isabella R. Harrison, wife of

Benjamin’s son George, [lived at Brandon after his marriage (Epitaphs, p. 235)] to her son, George E. Harrison, Jr., grandson of Benjamin Harrison [subject],

On reaching home the sight was mournful, and our Pennsylvania Driver could scare restrain his indignation at the evidences of his Confreres Barbarism. The house was devoid of windows and doors, with the exception of the dining room doors, and the front Hall doors. These though are pierced through with numerous Bullet holes. They were evidently used as a target from the Lawn. Half the wainscoting in the parlor has been torn down and most of the oak weatherboarding in the Hall and on the stairs to the Billiard room. The iron Balustrading around the Upper porticoes is entirely removed, the ground glass doors broken etc. (p. 394)

However, the land so carefully gathered over the generations, revered as a status symbol and used to support generations of the Harrison of Brandon families, was still intact.

Benjamin Harrison [subject] spent his lifetime continuing to build Brandon and gave service to his county, colony, and Commonwealth. He lived through the era of separation from the British crown and contributed to a new country using his formative 139

education at the CW&M. His association with school peers would continue throughout

his lifetime, as collectively they manifested the moral lessons and ideology of their

association with higher education at the CW&M.

Other Considerations

In the will of Benjamin Harrison (b. 1645 d. 1712/3) the Brandon property went

to son Nathaniel (d. 1727), the Wakefield property to son Henry (b. 1692 d.

September24, 1732, and the Berkeley property in Charles City County, to son Benjamin

(b. 1673 d. April 10, 1710) (Will of Benjamin Harrison, 1922). The Berkeley property

would ultimately be left to the grandson of Benjamin, who also received the Wakefield

property from his uncle Henry, who died without children. The Berkeley property passed

to Benjamin’s (b. 1673 d. 1710) son and then to his grandson (b, September 23, 1747 d.

April 24, 1791) who is noted in history as Benjamin Harrison of Wakefield, “The Signer”

of the Declaration of Independence and Governor of the State of Virginia, whose great-

uncle is the father of the subject of this bio-sketch.

James Johnson

James Johnson (b. Approx September 1743 d. Before May 4, 1820) of King

William County, son of James Johnson Sr. (mother unknown) and was a student at the

CW&M from September 5, 1756 to August, 1762, a period of 6 years (Swem, 1941). He

attended the Grammar School for 2 years, transferring to the Philosophy School at the

age of 15. He was charged for room and board from September 5, 1756 to March 29,

1760 and then again from April 4, 1761 to August 1762. A note in the Bursar’s books

states; “He was attending college all of the time to Sept 5, 1761, but boarding elsewhere

140

part of the time” (Notes 1753-1770, p. 35). He followed in his father’s footsteps and

raised cattle on land given to him by his father when he was about 26 years old.

James was married to Lucy Ammon (b. 11-27-1758 d. 1826) of New Kent county,

daughter of Christopher Ammon. He was much older than his wife by whom he had

several children: “Ammon Johnson [b. 1798 d. 4-29-1841]; Christopher Johnson, born

about 1780; a son, James; and Ann Johnson, born December 25, 1781, died September

25, 1819; married W. B. Lipscomb” (Harris, 1977; Ryland, 1955, p. 89).

Family Involvement in Colonial Politics and Government

Although historical records do not show direct involvement of the James

Johnson’s family in politics and government of the colony, the family appears through

land and court records to be a contributor to the economy of King William County and

products raised on their land that helped support the soldiers of the Revolutionary War.

Grandfather. The family of James Johnson (subject) goes back two generations

to 1701 when the subjects grandfather, James Johnson “was granted and a patent issued

to a tract [of land] which lay next to the Indian land in Pamunkey Neck” (Harris, 1977, p.

712). The grant consisted of 110 acres, eighty-eight acres of the land recently

relinquished through a treaty with the Pamunkey Indians on October 22, 1701 (Sparacio,

1996), plus another thirty acres. The land was granted “for the transportation of three

persons into this colony . . . with the stipulations yearly rent be paid at the “fee rent of

one shilling . . . yearly . . . [and if] his heires [sic] or assignes [sic] doe not seate [sic] or plant thereon within three years. . . it may be lawfull [sic] for an Adventurer or Planter to make choice thereof & seate [sic] thereon” (Sparacio, p. 35). James, within five months, assigns the patent to William Glover in March of 1702 (Lee, 1926, p. 74) for the sum of 141

“ten [sic] thousand pounds of sweet sent tobacco and casek [sic] to mee [sic]” (Sparacio, p. 36). This transaction provides James with currency of the era, tobacco, to finance his settlement in the colony. Glover subsequently sold the property in 1703 to Thomas

Magehee.

Only one year later, according to the 1704 tithe list (Harris, 1977) of King

William County, James Johnson owns 300 acres. This parcel of land purchasd by

Johnson is known as the Old Town Plantation and is in the same vicinity of the original grant and patent. The property might have been purchased with the tobacco payment from the patent transfer to William Glover. Ultimately the plantation would be surveyed showing it contained 381 acres “at the mouth of Savannah Creek, meandering along Old

Town Creek, which divides this land from Indian Town, to the mouth of Craney Creek”

(Harris, 1977, p. 712). It appears Johnson did not like the property granted to him, thus he sold it to purchase another property.

While history does not reveal the three persons he brought to the colony it is highly probable they were his wife and two children. The next Johnson descendent is known as James Johnson Sr. the father of James Johnson Jr. the subject of this bio-sketch

Father. James Johnson Sr. (d. 1-2-1800) and wife unknown, can also be described only through court records. It is known he conveyed property in the area of Old

Town, perhaps Old Town Plantation inherited from his father, to James [subject] in 1768.

There is also another mention of James Sr. [father] after his death, on February 15, 1800, involving his estate (Lee, 1926). A claim is made by James Sr.’s daughter, Mary Ann

Johnson Hilliard (Hillyard), filed through her husband Benskin Hilliard (Hillyard) of

New Kent, contending he (James Sr.) “made no provision” (Lee, 1926, p. 76) for her 142

prior to his death (Lee, 1926). To substantiate the claim by Mary Ann, through her husband Benskin, they rely on a document dated January 16, 1798, and filed with the court two years before the death of James Sr. Benskin and Mary Ann Hilliard swear to the Court of King William County of a promise made by her father and mother to pass property to her at his death, “103 acres . . . purchased of William Clayborne”, and

”known as Norman’s land in St. Johns Parish on the east side of the road leading from

King William Courthouse to West Point (Conolly, 2006, 76) at James Sr.’s death

(Conolly, 2006, p. 326). Apparently this transfer was not made after his death. This might indicate there was a family feud between James and his sister. However, it is through this record we know James Johnson Sr. had two children, Mary Ann and James

Johnson Jr., subject of this bio-sketch.

Background

While little is known about the Johnson family, what is known is that James Jr. and his sister Mary Ann were the only two children of James Sr. (wife unknown) who settled the lands known as the Old Town Plantation (Harris 1977; Lee 1926).

Approximately 7 years after James Jr. left the CW&M or 1769, James would have been approximately 26 years old, records show James Sr. deeded some of his land to James Jr.

(Lee, 1926); no doubt the 456 acres as shown on the tax rolls of 1782. Also included with the tax records of 1782 in King William County is James Sr. ownership of 745 acres

(Smith, 1926). In 1787 personal property tax rolls indicate James Sr. had 7 slaves over 16 and 5 under 16. He raised horses and mules, and had 12 head of cattle. James Jr. had 3 slaves over 16 and 3 under 16, also had 3 horses (colts & mules) and 16 head of cattle

(Schreiner-Yantis, 1987). 143

James married Lucy Ammon when Lucy was about 21 years old and he was

approximately 36 (Clarke, 1966). This difference in age was not unusual during the

colonial period. Their first child, Christopher, was born at Old Town Plantation in 1780.

This research was not able to determine if James Johnson Jr. delayed marriage because of

a commitment to the Revolutionary War, but records do show that from the land given to

him by his father he did supply the war effort with horse feed and bedding, plus cattle and one carriage valued at £650. Three whole cows were provided plus on various occasions a total of 950 lbs of beef to feed the troops. This assistance is documented through receipts presented as claims after the war (1-1780 to 5-1782) as compiled by

Abercrombie and Statten (1992). The introduction to their work by Brent Tarter

expresses his opinion that “persuasive evidence of the productivity of Virginia farms,

both large and small” (p. xii) can be gleaned from these records.

In addition to farming, records show James and his wife Lucy bought and sold

property. Perhaps one of the most interesting acquisitions is a property originally known

as Fish Hawl that is now known as Lester Manor. It is on the edge of the Pamunkey

Indian reservation as defined in 1943 (Mook, 1943). The date of purchase is not known.

What is know that upon the death of James Jr. he Willed the property to his son Ammon,

in addition there is a record dated May 4, 1820 in which “Ammon Johnson [and his] wife

Ann [pass the property] to Christopher Johnson, [his brother], [a] place known as Fish

Hawl [a/k/a Lester Manor] which Ammon Johnson inherited from his father, James

Johnson” (Lee, 1926, p. 77). While there is no verbal description of the property, “Notes

and Documents” (1990, October) has a 1909 picture of the interior of an area believed to

be the music room within the house. It is ornate with furnishings and draperies and shows 144

the Gray family and a child identified as James William Gray of Lester Manor with his nurse.

Attendance at the CW&M

During James’ time at the CW&M from September 5, 1756 until the month and year of August 1762, he took room and board at the college and at other times boarded in town. It is not known with whom he boarded. Supposition based on his boarding at the college and knowing that board was offered to the best and brightest combined with other events in his life lead this researcher to believe James may have first entered the

Grammar School at the age of 13 for a two year period beginning in September of 1756.

Then on September 5, 1758 he was promoted to the Philosophy School from September

5, 1758 continuing until to August 1762. While August is not the normal month for graduation which was held in March, James may have needed some additional tutoring to complete his course of study. This would mean he was 15 on September 5, 1758; therefore he may have been born on the same date in 1743 and died at the approximate age of 77. The “Notes” (1921) of the College for 1770-1778 show that on September 25,

1770 James had a balance due of £64/9/3 ¾. By March of 1783 this balance had grown to

£130 including interest. There is no notation it was paid.

There is very little historical evidence to document James Johnson’s time at the

CW&M. The most compelling evidence of the Johnson family from Old Town in the

County of King William comes from documents filed at the Court House of King

William County. Unfortunately during the Civil War, all but twelve record books were destroyed. It is from these remaining books of the period that an outline of their lives is constructed. 145

Vocations

James Jr. [subject] was an entrepreneur and in addition to his inheritance of the property known as Old Town Plantation, he and Lucy purchased property known as Fish

Hawl/Lester Manor. He bought and sold property, raised cattle and may have been involved in harvesting shell fish. His wealth from these endeavors and perhaps others is denoted by the carriage that was conscripted during the Revolutionary War and subsequently paid for as one of the claims James Jr. submitted between January 1780 and

May of 1782. Carriages were the premier form of transportation that only the very wealthy could afford.

Other Considerations

There are individuals named James Johnson from eleven counties, all during the time frame of this study. They are from: Amelia County, Brunswick County, Campbell

County, Charles City County, King and Queen County, Northhampton County,

Montgomery County, Orange County, Pitts County, Westmoreland County, and Wight

County. Careful research was done to isolate the James Johnson family of this bio-sketch.

Thomas Massie

Thomas Massie (b. August 22, 1747 d. February 2, 1834) the son of William

Massie (b. May 28, 1718, d. 1749) and Martha Macon (b. August 22, 1722 d. August 8,

1759) daughter of Colonel William Macon, was from New Kent County VA (Massie

Family, 1904-1905). Almost 8 years (January 1, 1759) after his father William died,

Martha, his mother, married Richard Bland of Jordon on the James River. Thomas and his older brother William began attending the CW&M on January 16, 1759, as students in

146

the Grammar School. Thomas left on January 16, 1760 and returned on April 4, 1761, continuing through March of 1763.

From 1763, when Thomas left the CW&M, to 1775, his activities are unknown.

However, by 1775 he had joined the military and was a Captain of the 6th Regiment of the Continental Army. He dedicated his succeeding years to the military in the

Revolutionary War, before and after he married Sarah Cocke in 1778. Records show he earned the rank of Major with the Second Virginia Regiment during the War, and then moved to Frederick County, now Nelson County, after the War (about 1780) where he founded industry and innovation. He died at his residence, Level Green, on February 2,

1834, at the age of 86 (Massie Family, 1904-1905; Meade, 1857).

Family Involvement in the Colony

The first Massie ancestor in the Colony was Peter Massie [great-grandfather of subject] who made the colony his descendants’ home (Virginia Quit Rent Rolls, 1704).

The Massie ancestors were active in parish and colonial governance, a tradition that continued in Thomas Massie’s [subject] life.

Great-Grandfather. Peter Massie, (b. unknown d. December 25, 1719) great- grandfather of the subject Thomas, arrived in the Colony in the latter part of 17th century and patented land in New Kent County, VA, in 1698. In addition to the property in New

Kent County, Peter purchased 1,790 acres on the Little Bird Creek in Goochland County that increased to 4,000 acres through the generations. Peter and wife (unknown) had three children: John, Thomas, and Charles (Massie Family, 1904-1905). He was elected the

Surveyor of Highways (as early as 1708) for St. Peter’s Parish in New Kent, holding the position until his death on December 25, 1719. 147

Grandfather. Thomas (d. 1732), the grandfather of the subject, married Mary

Walker on March 23, 1698/9. Mary was his second wife; the name of his first wife is not

known (Massie Family, 1904-1905). They had 11 children, 10 of whom lived to

adulthood (over age 21). Thomas was a vestryman at St. Peter’s parish in 1708, during

the leadership of Reverend Daniel Taylor Meade (Meade, 1857), keeping the position

until his death in 1732. In addition, he was a member of the House of Burgesses for New

Kent in 1723 to 1726, just after the time Lt. Governor Alexander Spotswood was driven

from office after repeated disagreements with the Colonial Council and House of

Burgesses. He was replaced by Hugh Drysdale on September 8, 1722 (Andrews, 1949:

Massie Family 1904-1905). It was also the time, as described by Andrews (1949), when the Virginia colony was making

further objections to the slave trade; but business interest in the mother country, powerful at court and with the Privy Council, supported the Royal African Company in their operations on the Dark Continent, and more and more Negroes were seized for transportation to America. (p. 199)

Additionally, after Drysdale became Lt. Governor, the importation of debtors and petty criminals commonly referred to during the colonial period as “convicts” (Andrews, 1949, p. 200) was also addressed. This was an important time in the history of the colony and

Thomas [grandfather] was a part of the debate within the House of Burgesses.

Father. William Massie (b. May 28, 1718 d. June 15, 1751) (Tombstones in New

Kent, 1967) was the father of Thomas Massie [subject]. He lived a short life; however his

assets from his ancestors were preserved and managed by his wife in order to support his

family after his death.

148

William was married to Martha Macon (b. August 12, 1722 d. August 8, 1759) daughter of Colonel William Macon from New Kent County and “Mary Hartwell, daughter of Captain William Hartwell of James City County” (Massie Family, 1904-

1905, p. 197). He was a representative to the House of Burgesses from New Kent County in 1748 and 1749 during a time when the colony had print communication, the Virginia

Gazette, the Maryland and Virginia border was defined, the Ohio Company was established for northwestern expansion by George II of England, and the Greenbrier Land

Company was formed for further southwestern expansion (Lewis, 1911). Virginia towns such as Fairfax, Alexandria, Chesterfield and Staunton were being formed, and their petitions were approved by the House of Burgesses. It was a time for growth and expansion of the colony; all recorded by Joshua Fry and Peter Jefferson on their 1749 map (Green, 1900).

William died at an early age (33 years) leaving his sons large tracts of land and chattel. As shown in his will, dated October 25, 1749, he left his son Thomas [subject] and his heirs the following lands (Massie Family, 1904-1905):

A tract of land containing Seven Hundred and ninety Acres be the same more or less lying on the little Bird in Goochland County, part of which was granted to me by Patent, the other part I purchased of David Massie. I also give to my Son Thomas and his Heirs my Tract of Land and Plantation where I now live Except the Tract of Land called Hardens which adjoins to the same, and which is given to my son William. I allso [sic] give to my said Son Thomas and his Heirs the other half of the above mentioned low and sunken ground Land on Chickahominy swamp purchased by my Father of William Allen as aforesaid.

I give to my son Thomas and his Heirs my Tract of Land on Black Creek which my Father purchased of Ashcroft, I allso [sic] give to my said Son Thomas and his Heirs my tract of land near the mouth of Black Creek containing one Hundred Acres be the same more or less which my Father purchased of John Foster. (p. 200-201)

149

In addition, Thomas received one half of the 43 slaves and tobacco crops (Massie Family,

1904-1905). William [father] had preserved the assets from his father and grandfather,

passing them to his two sons. History does not give a reason for the unusual distribution

of the majority share of property to the second-oldest son, and what makes it especially

unusual is the age of the children when William’s Will was written (Harris, 1977).

William’s early death (d. June 15, 1751 at age 33) was not unusual in the colony.

Martha Macon Massie was appointed as Executrix to manage the estate of her late

husband; a job she continued to perform for over 8 years as she raised her children.

Approximately 8 or 9 years after William’s death she married Richard Bland (January 1,

1759) but died eight months (August 8, 1759) after their marriage.

The history of family service to the community began with the subject’s great

grandfather Peter, who was surveyor of highways for St. Peter’s Parish in New Kent. His

son Thomas [grandfather] was a vestryman of St. Peter’s in 1708 and elected to the

House of Burgesses for New Kent County in 1722 and 1726, during a difficult time in

early colonial growth. His son, William’s [father] contributions to the colony also included service as a representative in the House of Burgesses, in 1748 and 1749. In addition, he amassed vast acreage that he willed to Thomas upon his death on June 15,

1751, when Thomas was approximately 4 years of age (Tombstones in New Kent

County, 1967).

Background

Thomas [subject] (b. August 22, 1747 d. February 2, 1834), was almost 4 years

old when his father William died in 1751, leaving his mother Martha a widow with two

young sons. History does not reveal the activities of the widow and her sons again until 150

1759, when she married Richard Bland of the Jordan Plantation on January 1, 1759.

Within two weeks (January 16, 1759), Thomas and his brother William began attending

the CW&M Grammar School with their step-brothers) William and Edward Bland (also subjects in this study). Thomas and William Massie’s mother, Martha, died on August 8,

1759, 8 months after her marriage to Richard Bland. Martha was buried next to the father of her children, William Massie. During this time records show that the oldest Massie boy, William, continued his schooling at the Grammar School of the CW&M, while the younger Thomas [subject] dropped out for 13 months.

At the death of his mother in 1759, Thomas inherited 1,790 acres on the Little

Bird Creek in Goochland County and the home place of the Massie family in New Kent

County. In addition, he received one half of the land on the Chickahominy Swamp on

Black Creek, plus land at the mouth of Black Creek of about 100 acres. He also received one-half of the 43 slaves and tobacco crops as shown in the will of his father William

Massie [in possession of the Virginia Historical Society] reprinted in the “Massie

Family,” 1904-1905, p. 199-202) all held in trust by his mother.

After his graduation from college little is known about Thomas until he began to involve himself in the effort for independence as a member of the military. He moved through the ranks, rising to major before he left the service. It can be assumed that before he was interested in politics, he was involved in the management of his inheritance.

Attendance at the College of William and Mary

Thomas attended the Grammar School at the CW&M for one year from January

16, 1759, through January 16, 1760 (age 12 years, 5 months) and then left for over a year.

He returned on April 4, 1761, four months prior to his 15th birthday, and remained at 151

school through March, 1763, when he was almost 16 ½ (Notes, (1921). He was a

boarding student (William and Mary Bursar Boarding Accounts 1754/70) while attending the CW&M. By all calculations, Thomas did not complete 4 years in the Philosophy

School at the college, although he attended 4 years, according to Swem (1941).

What was the intended purpose of education for Thomas? He had inherited assets

of land and chattel from his father at his death (1751), when he was almost 4 years of age.

These assets were surely put in trust administered by his mother, who was executrix of

William Massie’s will (Massie Family, 1904-1905). Martha Macon Massie [mother] died

9 years later just after Thomas began Grammar School. A review of the Grammar School curriculum is helpful to determine if Thomas was exposed to an education that would have enabled him to manage the assets left by his parents after their deaths.

The Statutes of 1756, published in 1758, are quite clear in their definitions for

Grammar School curriculum: (a) Latin and Greek Tongues will be taught, (b) books based on the law or custom of the schools of England, (c) education in morals) and no playing cards, or dice, no drinking or anything else contrary to good manners, and must learn the (d) Church of England Catechism in English and later in Latin (Statutes of

1756). Based on prerequisites for the Philosophy School the curriculum of the Grammar

School would need to meet the basic requirements of educational attainment. Therefore, in grammar school the requirements would be expanded beyond Latin and Greek to include reading and writing, basic mathematics including Roman numerals, and “the basic science of numbers” (Meriwether, 1907). It is noted that the CW&M did hire a

Professor of Mathematics who taught in the Grammar School and Mathematical School

(Tyler, 1905), thus showing the school’s intention of presenting the science of numbers in 152

the Grammar School. Is it possible that this basic education allowed Thomas [subject] sufficient education to handle the affairs of property management?

Further records show that Thomas returned to the CW&M on April 4, 1761, entering the Philosophy School and leaving 2 years later, at the end of March 1763. It has been noted in a previous biographical sketch that while the curriculum for the Philosophy

School is outlined in the Statutes of 1756 there are no documents within the time frame of this study that explain the pattern of content presentation in such a way as to allow a description of the exposure to it that Thomas would have had during his 2 years in the

Philosophy School (Statutes, 1756). However, Canby, (1941) does provide her opinion in the conclusion of A Note on the Influence of Oxford University upon William and Mary

College in the Eighteenth Century,

A further study of the methods of teaching the classics in the Oxford of the early eighteenth century might by inference point to the type of classical education dealt out in William and Mary College to many of the Virginian students’ later influential in our intellectual and political history. (p. 247)

Based on what is known of the curriculum in the Grammar School and the

College of William and Mary and Thomas Massie’s limited exposure (approximately 3 years) to the rigors of the educational venue, Thomas had tutoring either from a formal source or from his mother. However, considering the limited basic educational opportunities in the majority of the counties, and without knowing where Thomas lived after he left the CW&M grammar school, it is impossible to speculate about where he might have been tutored for his return to the CW&M Philosophy School in April 1761.

153

Vocations

Thomas had varied and exciting experiences in his adult life. He had a career in

the military; as a private citizen he contributed to his community; and as an innovator and

inventor he contributed to sustaining agriculture practices still used today. In addition, he

helped finance new technology that revolutionized the harvest of grain.

Military. The first evidence found to document Thomas’ activities after

graduation the CW&M was letter dated February 7, 1776, to Thomas Massie from the

Committee of Safety of Virginia acknowledging its contents of £72 as payment for recruiting services of solders for the 6th Virginia Regiment from New Kent County (in

1775) on behalf of the Committee of Safety in New Kent County (Journal of the

Committee of Safety of Virginia, 1776). In addition to the money he was given the title of

Captain. On March 5, 1776 Thomas Massie was reimbursed for the cost of the payroll for

his company through February 28, 1776 in the amount of £116.1.8 (Virginia State Troops

in the Revolution, 1920). In 1776, Thomas was a Captain (Massie Family, 1906-1907) in

the 6th Virginia force, and on February 20, 1778, he was noted as a Major in the 11th

Virginia force (Historical and Genealogical Notes and Queries, 1918; Massie Family,

1904-1905; Virginia Society of the Cincinnati, 1898; Virginia Soldiers in the Revolution,

1912). During the winter of 1780-1781 Thomas was the aide de-camps to General Nelson

at Yorktown until it fell to the Revolutionary force (Pension Declaration of Major

Thomas Massie, 1913). His assignments included the responsibilities of a Major and

sometimes of a Colonel (Massie Family, 1906-1907). He resigned from the military on

June 25, 1779 with the rank of Major (White, 1990; Virginia’s Soldiers in the Revolution,

1912). 154

Although he had resigned his officer’s commission in 1779, it appears that he still

had an association with the military, based on two pieces of correspondence: a letter

dated June 27, 1781, from Major John Pryor to Colonel William Davies that described

the movements of Thomas Massie in a military context (McRae, 1881): Letter from

Major John Pryor, Commander: Military Stores to Colonel William Davies (1781, June

27),

Major Thomas Massie just from Winchester, says that General Morgan is on his March with 3000 Riflemen – with this addition, if they arrive in time, I think our Lads will have the fingering some of his Lordships Baggage and plunder at least.

Additionally, in 1781 Thomas Massie was given authority by Governor Nelson, at the

request of General Daniel Morgan, to purchase a horse for his use at the cost of £35,000

of tobacco from “Colonel White who was ordered to the South” (McRae, 1881, p. 549).

Massie’s contributions to the Revolutionary War were rewarded by a gift of land, a

common practice for those of high rank and command.

He received 5,333.3 acres of land in Ohio and Kentucky for his service (Massie

Family, 1906-1907; Pension Declaration of Major Thomas Massie, 1913; White, 1995).

In addition to his inheritance from his father, William (Massie Family, 1904-1905),

Thomas accumulated vast acreage during his lifetime. Although documents were not found to substantiate all of the military contributions by Thomas, it can be shown based on the available documents pertaining to his pension request that his key posts and leadership were in fact tied to the remuneration of acreage (Pension Declaration of Major

Thomas Massie, 1913). It was not part of this research to detail military service, but from the records accessed, including his pension records, it is clear that his accomplishments were numerous. 155

Massie gave to his home colony and the commonwealth leadership for the military tasks that helped the colony to disengage itself from its founding county, Great

Britain.

Private Citizen.

After resigning his military commission Thomas returned to New Kent County where he became involved in county life. Thomas became a vestryman at the Church of

Frederick (Meads, 1857) and on August 11, 1778, (Virginia Council Journals, 1726-

1753) he married Sarah Cocke (Some Family Letters of the Eighteenth Century, 1908,

[foot note]; The Cocke Family of Virginia), who was from the Bremo plantation in

Henrico County (Miscellaneous Cocke Notes 1929; Pension Declaration of Major

Thomas Massie, 1913). Thomas and Sarah (b. 1760 d. 1838) had three sons, Thomas (b.

October 21, 1782), William (b. March 3, 1795), and Henry (b. October 16, 1784), (White,

1995). Around 1780, Thomas and Sarah moved from New Kent County to Frederick

County, the northwestern most county in 1760 (Pension Declaration of Major Thomas

Massie, 1913) after a trip to settle some business in the area. It was after that trip that they made the decision to move to Frederick County. In 1798 they left Frederick County and moved to Amherst County, which was part of Albemarle County in 1790 and is now

Nelson County (at the eastern line of the Blue Ridge Mountains), to a home he had built called Level Green, along the Tye River, on 3,111 acres purchased from the John Rose estate in 1795. In this setting he raised his family and contributed to the growth and prosperity of the community (Pollard, 1997). There is speculation the move was based solely on the beauty of the area. He settled where the land was fertile, not spent by constant tobacco planting that depleted the nutrients from the soil. There he raised wheat 156

and oats that were ground in his grist mill and also tobacco, using innovative farming

methods.

Nelson County Innovator and Inventor. The Massie empire began to grow due

to the mix of crops traditionally grown in western part of the colony. He built a large, three-and-a-half-story grist mill in Nelson County that operated from 1806 to 1940; one

of many in the Nelson County area (Pollard, 1997). In addition, his warehouse located on

the banks of the James River at Newmarket shipped products of the mill and tobacco

from his farming operations. A town grew around the mill site and was named Massie’s

Mill. Later the railroad laid track to the town that further expanded the opportunities for

the shipment of goods. At its peak the town was the center of the rail line and hub of the

timber industry in the area (Pollard, 1997). In Massie’s Mill there were several stores, a

bank, three factories, a planing mill, two hotels, and two churches (Pollard, 1997). With

Thomas Massie’s interest in agriculture, he grew grain and tobacco and “instituted crop

rotation and sought other methods to combat soil exhaustion and avoid the perils of

relying on one staple crop” (Stampp, 2001, p. 2). He also became interested in developing

an easier method for harvesting. In 1831 he helped finance McCormick’s invention of the

reaper. This invention reduced the man-hours necessary for harvesting (Pollard, 1997).

Massie had an inquisitive mind and funds to back innovative development.

The efforts of Thomas Massie continue to be recognized by the citizens of the

area through the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. Recent activity by the

planning district commission to conserve early homes of the area, including several of the

Massie family homes, into a historic district has drawn architectural historians and those

interested in early 19th-century building to the area (Pollard, 1997). Massie, orphaned 157

twice before he reached the age of 13, had the dual advantages of education at the

CW&M and property left by his father, William Massie.

Major Thomas Massie, born on August 22, 1747 in New Kent County, Virginia, died at his home, Level Green, on February 2, 1834 and was buried on his property

(Pension Declaration of Major Thomas Massie, 1913). His will reflected the vast land and material holdings he accumulated both through inheritance (Massie Family, 1904-

1905) and through his own efforts throughout his life. He was educated at the Grammar

School and College of William and Mary, but never completed the course of study necessary to graduate. However, even though history does not record tutoring or training he may have received from his mother and/or step-father Richard Bland, Thomas

Massie’s contribution to the colony, the commonwealth, and agriculture was monumental.

Thomas’ interest in the importance of independence of the Virginia Colony ultimately earned him the title of Major in the Revolutionary War. He managed the assets left by the early death of his father adding to those assets through purchase and rewards of land for his efforts in the military. He left the Tidewater area of the commonwealth and moved to Nelson County in the western portion of the state, again utilizing his intuitiveness and experience to build an industrial area that eventually became a town with employment for hundreds of people.

Other Considerations

Despite the trauma imposed by the loss of his parents and especially the loss of his mother soon after her marriage to Richard Bland, the tremendous influence of his mother in his early years is apparent in Thomas’ ability to focus his life. This sketch 158

shows Thomas dropping out of CW&M Grammar School for a year after the death of his mother; this is not surprising, as he was the younger of the two sons and no doubt felt a great loss. He then re-enrolled and completed 2 years in the Philosophy School before he felt compelled to return to the land on which he was raised. The historical record does not reflect what happened to the boys after the death of their mother. What can be inferred is that after the death of her husband, she handled the affairs of the Massie family property and raised Thomas to be an independent, educated individual and a person who cared for his fellow man. Even though he did not finish his degree, there is no doubt he was an educated man, perhaps the best-educated in Massie’s Mill.

James McClurg

James McClurg (b.1745/46 d. July 11, 1823) born in the county of Elizabeth City, the son of Dr. Walker McClurg and wife (unknown), James was an “accomplished scholar, and was especially noted for his classical learning” (McCaw, 1854, p. 4). He attended the Grammar School of the College of William and Mary and matriculated into the College on two separate occasions. James’ educational track was broken by an incident that appears in the Minutes of the President and Masters in October 1763. After college he went to Scotland, attending Edinburgh University to study medicine (“Some

Virginians Educated in Great Britain”, 1913).

Dr. James McClurg was a physician of note in Williamsburg and Richmond, VA.

His move to Richmond in 1783 aligned him with the mass movement of population from

Williamsburg to Richmond after the shift of the seat of government. He was known for the “admirable completeness of his education both general and professional . . . [and was]

159

the master of various languages” (McCaw, 1854, p. 5). Not only did he practice medicine, but he was also an educator and became involved in government.

Family Involvement in Colonial Politics and Government

James McClurg is the only subject of this study to be a first-generation colonial student. His father Walter McClurg was sent from England (the exact time of immigration is not known) to the colony of Virginia in response to the smallpox epidemics there and the concern the disease would spread to the colony of Virginia.

While little is known about Walter McClurg it is possible to provide basic facts and some background on the smallpox epidemics in the Tidewater area of the Virginia area.

History records a smallpox outbreak in Williamsburg in 1748, and Maxwell

(1955) notes “examples of inoculation before 1768 were scattered” (p. 269). The statistics for the outbreak of 1747/48 in Williamsburg show 687 people recovered and 53 died; of those at the CW&M, 41 developed the disease and 3 of them died: “a woman of 80, an infant, and Mr. Bryan” (Maxwell, 1955, p. 272-274). It is unknown if perhaps Mr. Bryan was the brother of Benjamin Bryan who attended the CW&M in 1754-55 (Swem, 1941).

Father. Walter McClurg (d. 1783) was a citizen of England and a surgeon in the

British Navy when he was sent to Hampton (Elizabeth City County). Little is known of his life. However, he was known as a “gentleman of wealth and prominence”, [and in]

1777/78 was the “first medical appointment by the state [of Virginia] in its independent capacity [and appointed] physician of the Hampton Small Pox Hospital” (McCaw, 1854, p. 3).

Prior to his appointment Walter is noted in the “List of Officers, Sailors, and

Marines of the Virginia Navy in the American Revolution” (1893) as appointed by the 160

Navy Board as a surgeon. While it seems unusual to have a native Englishman helping with the war effort, it appears Walter McClurg was no Tory; he had acclimated himself to the colony and had planned to make it his permanent home. The major responsibility of the Navy during the Revolution was to plan and execute defenses on the water against the

British (List, 1893). While the exact year of his arrival in the colony is not known, it can be concluded he arrived in the mid 1740s; therefore he would have been in the colony over 30 years at the time of the Revolutionary War and approximately 40 years at the time of his death in 1783.

Walter McClurg had two wives. He and his first wife (date of death is not known but correspondence from Reverend John Camm in 1766, July 24, show she is still alive) had two children, James and Elizabeth (“Betsy”), who married a Wickham, a

“distinguished lawyer of Richmond” (p. 179). His second wife was Rachel Westwood

King, (b. 1760, daughter of William Westwood), and the first wife of Henry King of

Norfolk, who died leaving 5 children (3 boys and 2 girls). Their oldest son Michael attended the CW&M (“King Family of Virginia”, 1907) one year from 1775-1776

(Swem, 1941). The King children were younger than the two children of Walter

McClurg.

Walter’s son James followed his father’s career and became a physician with an initial practice in Williamsburg, later moving to Richmond as the population shifted following the move of the capital to Richmond.

161

Background

James McClurg was the only son of Dr. Walter McClurg (d. 1783) and his first wife, whose name is unknown. History as reported by James McClurg’s great grand nephew, James B. McCaw (1854) indicates James’ father was from a “wealthy and prominent family” (p. 3). Kennedy (1911) states briefly that James’ father “was a surgeon in the British Navy who had been sent to Hampton [in the Virginia colony] where he lived many years” (p. 74), later opening a small hospital in Hampton in

Elizabeth City County where he provided inoculations for smallpox (Kennedy, 1911).

Emigrant records from 1661-1776, compiled by Coldham (1990-1993) do not list Walter

McClurg, nor does Dobson’s (1985) Directory of Scottish Settlers in North America:

Covering the Period from 1661-1776, therefore it can be assumed that he came to the colony on a British ship and was not considered an emigrant, which may make

Kennedy’s statements correct, although it could not be verified. In addition, resources do not address the birth date of James, his son.

According to what is known James was born just before or just after his parents arrived in the colony of Virginia (1745-1747). His father, a physician opened the

Hampton Small Pox Hospital in 1777-78 and held the first medical appointment by the state after its independence.

James married Elizabeth (b. 1761, d. 1815), of the Selden family of Hampton.

James and Elizabeth had two children Walter, a son who died at age 7 and a daughter

Elizabeth or “Betsy,” as she was called (McCaw, 1892).

162

Attendance at the College of William and Mary

James attended the CW&M on two separate occasions, as documented by Swem

(1941). His first term at the college was from July 18, 1756 to October 4, 1757, as a

student in the Grammar School. Born in 1745/6 (indicating he was born in the spring of

the year) he was in his 10th/11th year as he began the process of becoming accustomed to

the structured environment of formal schooling. He returned in May of 1758 and

completed another four plus years while he completed Grammar School and matriculated

into the college. As described by Tyler (1916), James tenure began in the same year as

Francis Fauqier, as described by Tyler, 1916:

as a devotee of the sciences and a Fellow of the Royal Society . . . the same year Dr. William Small came to Williamsburg as professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy . . . [who both] delighted in the society of young men, and at Fauquier’s table, where Small was a constant attendant, the youth of Virginia – Jefferson, Page, Walker and [James] McClurg – learned their lessons in the rights of man (p. 221)

He left the college on November 29, 1763, months after his 17th birthday (the month and day of his birth are not recorded) (Swem & Land, 1941). Although not shown in the

Bursar’s records, McCaw (1854) indicates James was “sent to England at 17 with his sister and it is said with the hope that his feeble constitution might be strengthened by the sea voyage, and his mind improved by foreign travel” (p. 4). No doubt the “feeble constitution” and “mind improvement” (Kimball, 1943, p. 43; McCaw, 1854, p. 4) are in regard to his discipline at the College, recorded in the October 6, 1763 minutes of the

President and Masters as follows:

That you John Walker, James McClurg and Walter Jones (on account of your injurious behavior on Tuesday Night last to a family in Town) are ordered to betake yourselves immediately to your friends in the country with such letters and c [so forth] as shall be deliver’d [sic] to you by the Society for them; and that you 163

do not presume to appear in College or the Town (after tomorrow) until the 10th day of November next when you are to return, and make such further Submission as the Society shall think preper [sic] ; otherwise you will be look’d [sic] upon as expell’d [sic] College. (p. 4)

The time period of the discipline notes James was suspended from college for a month.

Records show he left the college on November 29, 1763. This would indicate he came back to college for a 2- or 3-week period prior to his trip to England for his “feeble constitution and the improvement of his mind” (McCaw, 1854, p. 4).

McCaw (1854) writings continue the history of the incident above: “After his return [from his foreign travels] he went back to the CW&M [for the third time] when he graduated, and embraced the study of medicine” (p. 4). After graduation (the year of graduation is not known but it is likely it was two years after his return), McCaw (1854) indicates James “traveled to Scotland, enrolled in Edinburg [sic] College where he remained for several years” (p. 5) studying medicine, graduating in 1770 (“Medical Men of Virginia”, 1911). The classical education and years at the CW&M enabled James to become an accomplished researcher and writer, as well. His topics were medical in nature; the most famous, his “Essay on Bile,” was published in London in 1772, two

years after his graduation from medical school. He was then approximately 24 years of

age.

His attendance at the CW&M over three specific periods of time is not noted in

any of the CW&M Bursar books. However, Bishop Madison, President of the CW&M

from 1777 to 1812 and the first Bishop of the Episcopal Church in the colonies, boasts of

James McClurg in a letter to Dr. Miller (Professor in the Theological Seminary at

Princeton University), referring to James’ education at the CW&M (Miller, S., 1803)

164

Dr. McClurg, of our City (Williamsburg), was educated at this college. After completing the usual course here, he studied physic at Edinburgh; was a favorite pupil of the celebrated Black; and gain much applause by his treatise De Calore. (p. 491)

Three years after his graduation from medical school (1773), he returned to Williamsburg

to open a practice of medicine, beginning a more than 50-year period of service to the community (McCaw, 1854). He must have been the most eligible bachelor in town; it was not until May 22, 1779, at approximately 33 years of age, that he married Elizabeth

Selden (b. 1761).

Vocations

James McClurg appears to have chosen his career at an early age. Among the influences on his decision were no doubt his father, Dr. Walter McClurg, Governor

Fauquier, and Dr. William Small, as James was part of the small group who dined, debated, and played cards (Tyler, 1907) at the Governor’s under the mentoring of Dr.

William Small. James took his education seriously; McCaw (1854) recalls he was

noted for the admirable completeness of his education both general and professional [in addition to his] mastery of various languages and was, as commonly referred today, a life-time learner . . . his profound views of the philosophy of his art (medicine), his close attention to the minutiae of his profession, and his great practice sense combined to endow him with all the attributes of a great physician. (p. 5)

While the medical influence must have come from his father and mentor, Dr. William

Small, James did not have a single focus in life. Just as he had pursed many facets of higher education in his youth, as an adult he persisted in his lust for new experiences and new applications of his knowledge.

Soon after James completed his education in Scotland and returned to the colony in 1773, the Williamsburg Lodge of Masons was organized (November 6, 1773). 165

Williamsburg was the sixth Lodge in the area, preceded by Norfolk, Port Royal,

Blandford, Fredericksburg, and Hampton. Their records indicate that James McClurg was

a member from December 1774 through April 1783, the approximate time he moved to

Richmond (“Williamsburg Lodge of Masons”, 1892).

In addition to the establishment of his practice, he “later served as physician and

director general of the Revolutionary hospital in Williamsburg (Gibbs, 1994, p. 3).

During this time he was also supporting and educating his nephew, James Drew McCaw,

“who graduated at Edinburg in 1792, [later] joining . . . [Dr. James McClurg in his

practice while] residing at the McClurg house [in Richmond on the corner Of Grace and

6th Street]” (Hellier, 1994, p.2).

James owned lots in Williamsburg (Proprietors, 1902). The map, Plan of

Williamsburg, Virginia: After 1800 shows he owned eight lots (a city block), surrounded

by Nassau, France, Ireland and King Streets. Perhaps one was used for his home while he

was living in Williamsburg and another held a building for his medical practice. Were the

remainder investments? He was also soon involved at his alma mater as a professor.

In December of 1779 James Madison, as President of the CW&M, announced an

“introduction of elective studies” (CWMHF, n.d., p. 2-3) with the support of the Board of

Visitors (Hughes, 1922). The Grammar School was abolished; modern languages took the place of ancient languages, and the elective system was reorganized. The College that began from a grammar school was now frequently referred to as a University and was so designated on December 4, 1779 (Hughes, 1922). The divisions of the curriculum show

James Madison was President and Professor of Natural Philosophy and Mathematics;

George Wythe, professor of Law and Political Science; Dr. James McClurg, Anatomy 166

and Medicine; Robert Andrews, Moral Philosophy, Laws of Nature and Nations and Fine

Arts; and Charles Bellini, Modern Languages (Hughes, 1922). James’ appointment at the

CW&M continued until the “Chair of Medicine . . . a position he held until 1783 . . . was abolished” (Gibbs, 1994, p. 3).

In addition to his practice of medicine, he was now organizing and preparing lectures; one would assume he continued to keep his practice of medicine, and this premise is likely based on a letter from Dr. James McClurg to Governor Jefferson in

March 1799, requesting medicines and supplies for patients at the Marine Hospital in

Hampton, where Dr. McClurg was appointed by the Board of War to cover for the

“absence of their surgeon (Calendar of State Papers 1, p. 377). This appointment was surely not unexpected as he had served as Surgeon to the sailors and soldiers of the state since June 1776.

Not only did the instructional configuration change at the CW&M, but soon afterward, within the same month, the library was subjected to a new scheme of organization. In the minutes of December 30, 1779, it is “ordered that the library be arranged according to different branches of literature” (Minutes, 1907, p. 29). Changes were being made at the CW&M and Dr. James McClurg was involved in those changes as a faculty member for four years.

However, in 1783 James moved to Richmond as part of a large percentage of

Williamsburg’s population that followed the move of the seat of government. There the family lived at the “corner of Grace and 6th Streets” (Kennedy, 1911, p. 75; McCaw,

1892, p. 164).

167

On June 22, 1784, James McClurg and James Wood, the friend from the CW&M with whom he was expelled on October 6, 1763, “were elected by joint ballot of both

Houses, members of the Privy Council [Privy Council is also the Council, originally the

Governors Council] in place of John Marshall and Thomas Lomax [who] resigned” (p.

593). They took their oath of office on July 16, 1784. Their services were utilized as a committee of two in August 1786 to review the Auditor of Public Accounts and again in

1790 to review the financial transactions of the “Sinking Fund” administered by A.

Singleton. They performed this task again on May 11, 1791; both findings were “without incident” It must be noted his services and knowledge were greatly appreciated, as records show McClurg was still being paid as a member of the Council in 1793. In 1787 he was a member of the Constitutional Convention convened May 1787 in Philadelphia.

Evans (1957 notes, the delegates for the convention were appointed by a committee composed of

George Washington, Patrick Henry, Edmund Randolph, John Blair, James Madison, George Mason and George Wythe were subsequently chosen. Of this group Henry declined to serve, stating that he ‘smelled a rat,’ and Governor Edmund Randolph appointed Thomas Nelson in his place. Nelson also declined, and eventually Dr. James McClurg filled the position. (p. 369)

Even though James was not the first choice of the committee, he was finally picked no doubt for his intellectual abilities and his writing skills. It is about this time that James changed the focus of his medical practice and began to spend a great deal of time as a consultant to other physicians. McCaw (1854) explains that “in his later years and for a period of thirty years he removed himself from surgery and used his knowledge as a consulting physician” (p. 6).

168

In a letter to McClurg’s sister Elizabeth and shared by McCaw (1854) in his book titled James McClurg, MD, in 1790 James writes about his practice with these words:

“since the revolution [his practice has not been] favorable . . . . It may however, grow better, if by good government and tranquility, the people are allowed to emerge from the distresses occasioned first by the extravagance and then by war” (p. 9). It was perhaps these comments that led James to other avenues of business in Richmond.

Henning’s, historic work on the statutes of the government show that on

December 23, 1792, an act was passed to establish and issue stock for a bank in the City of Richmond. The administration of the bank was to be under the “superintendence of

James McClurg” (p. 599) and others. It is no doubt McClurg’s efforts on behalf of the citizens in his medical practice and his experience in government that resulted in his election to Mayor of Richmond.

It is also known James McClurg was Mayor of Richmond in 1800, as shown on three separate pieces of documentation: first, court records that document that evidence was heard and recorded by George Nicholson (recorder) in the case of a negro, which

James McClurg signed as Mayor; second, a letter written by James McClurg to the

Governor dated December 3, 1800; and third, a letter written the same day concerning the repair of a bell that was removed from a building, repaired and reinstalled at the expense of the government (Flournoy, 1890).

In conclusion, James McClurg was a highly educated man for the time period; he applied himself to his studies, becoming known as an accomplished scholar. He expanded his knowledge, which enabled him to assume positions of responsibility and authority in the Commonwealth and local government. He was respected for his fairness throughout 169

his career as a member of the Privy Council and the varied financial assignments throughout his many terms. Just as his immigrant father had done, he dedicated himself to the colony [and state].

Other Considerations

James McClurg mentored others in the science of medicine (“Original Letters”,

1895), as Dr. James B. McCaw relates in his history of his uncle James McClurg

(McCaw, 1892). The lineage of the McCaw family to 1854 represents four generations, all of which are known to be doctors. This interest in medicine can be attributed to Dr.

Walter McClurg, a Tory [his politics changed, though], who came to the colony as a representative of the British to help with the infestation of smallpox.

Augustine (Austin) Moore

Augustine Moore (b. about 1747 d. Before March 1777) had a short life but left his imprint on the colony through his service in the House of Burgesses as a representative from King and Queen County in the 1772-1773 and 1775-1776 sessions.

Austin, as he was called in school, attended the CW&M Grammar School for a short time in 1760-1761, returning in November 1762 to attend the Philosophy School from

November 22, 1762 until July 3, 1766. He married Judith Scandrett, daughter of Isaac

Scandrett (d. 1769), an Essex County merchant (Ryland, 1955). They lived at the Chelsea

Plantation in King William County until 1768 when they moved to a home in Essex

County (Ryland, 1955). She died before 1777 leaving their only child, Sarah Scandrett

Moore (b. 1766 d. 1818). Augustine’s second wife was Sarah Rind; there is no record of a child from this marriage. His will, dated January 20, 1777, was proven in Essex County on March 17, 1777 (Will, 1777, p. 72-73). The will, still residing in the records of the 170

Essex County Courthouse, indicates that Augustine lived in Essex County but owned the land where his mother was residing in King William County; this was the Chelsea

Plantation, given to him by his father, Bernard Moore, upon his death (1775-1777). The

Chelsea property continued in the Moore family: despite “the ups and downs of financial troubles, they [the Moore family] maintained the home with a degree of gentility”

(Harris, 1977, p. 617).

(Austin) [subject] the oldest son of Bernard Moore, willed Chelsea Plantation to his brother Bernard (Will of Augustine Moore, 1777, p. 72). His will does not mention his second wife, Sarah Rind, but does mention his daughter Sarah from his marriage to

Judith Scandrett and his four brothers, Bernard, John, Thomas (Tommy), and Alexander

(Andrew).

Family Involvement in Colonial Politics and Government

Austin’s colonial ancestors began with his grandfather Augustine Moore, who first visited the Virginia Colony as a young man to consider opportunities in the tobacco trade. Upon his return he was successful not only as a tobacco merchant but as a planter who raised “tobacco, indigo and other crops” (Harris 1977, p. 615). His son Bernard is the father of Austin, the subject of this biographical sketch. Both Augustine [grandfather] and his son Bernard contributed to the colony’s growth and prosperity, although Bernard, in his efforts to impress people with the family wealth and through poor decision-making lost the family fortune, while yet retaining his stature in the political arena.

Grandfather. Colonel Augustine Moore (b. 1685 d. July 28, 1743, will proven on August 18, 1743) of the Chelsea Plantation, was born in England and came to the colony of Virginia when he was about 20 years of age. Family tradition explains the 171

ancestors (Fontaine & Fontaine, 1911; Skyren, 1833) are described by Skyren (1833) as

“he [Augustine], was of the same family of Moore as that of the Mayor of London in the time of King Charles II” (p. 177).

Colonel Moore, merchant and first member of his family to settle in the colony, located the family seat and his business on the waterways of the Pamunkey and

Mattapony Rivers, on land that would become the Chelsea Plantation (Fontaine &

Fontaine, 1911). From this location Augustine built his fortune and established the family’s standing in the colony. Although the status and prestige of the family continued through succeeding generations, the bulk of the family fortune was lost in the next generation because of poor financial decisions by his son Bernard.

When Augustine came to Virginia in 1705, he “entered the tobacco trade” (Harris,

1977; Skyren, 1833, p. 177). He appears to have been a very successful tobacco merchant, as he was able to purchase the Chelsea Plantation land from the Graves family prior to his 1710 return trip to England on business (Harris, 1977). In later years

Augustine “gave most of his time to farming, growing tobacco and grain, and [he] was well known as a merchant in the overseas trade” (Harris, 1977, p. 615). “His wealth was reflected in the brick plantation house of the Chelsea estate” (Mr. Michael Johnson, personal conversation, September 19, 2010).

Because of the importance of the Chelsea Plantation brick house in Virginia history, it is useful to provide some explanatory information on the history of the home.

The first home on the Chelsea Plantation dates to 1709, as established by Michael

Johnson, Architectural Historian, of Charlotte, NC (personal conversation on September

19, 2010). He believes when Augustine purchased the property from the Graves family 172

there may have been (or was subsequently built) a wooden structure using the

impermanent post-in-hole construction method (the normal life of a house supported by a

wood foundation during this period was approximately 20 years). This purchase and the

possible building of the house indicate that Augustine had sufficient wealth in 1709 to

acquire property and construct a new house. On his return from his 1710 trip to England,

Augustine brought his bride, Mary Gage Woolley, to the Chelsea Plantation, and together

they lived in the wooden house. Mary did not have long to enjoy the splendor of the

Chelsea property, as she died at the birth of their first child in 1713 and was buried on the

Chelsea Plantation property (Will of Mrs. Elizabeth Macon, 1906).

As further evidence of his wealth, he and his second wife (Elizabeth Todd Seaton)

were the designers and builders of the first brick structure at Chelsea (1735). Their choice

of brick indicates their status and wealth, as bricks were still scarce as building material

(note: brick structures of this era were not faced with brick, but had walls that were four

to six bricks thick), evidenced by the fact this was only the third brick structure in the

colony. At a later point in time, the initial wooden structure was replaced (about 20 years)

by a brick wing which was perpendicular to the front section in approximately the same

position as the wooden structure. While Augustine would have only had a few years to

enjoy the splendor of the brick structure, his second wife Elizabeth “for many years . . .

[resided] at Chelsea and her children lived nearby” (Harris, 1977, p. 615).

The marriage of Augustine to Elizabeth Todd Seaton, which took place before

November 1715, was the second for both (Pleasants, 1917). She was the daughter of

Thomas Todd of Gloucester (d. 1722/3) and Elizabeth Bernard, who was the daughter of

Colonel William Bernard (Harris, 1977; Pleasants, 1917) and Lucy Burwell Bernard. To 173

her marriage with Augustine she brought George Seaton, a 4-year-old son (b. December

11, 1711 d. 1750), who was the only child from her first marriage to George Seaton, which took place about 1710 (Pleasants, 1917). After George became of age (over 21), he married Elizabeth Hill, on December 27, 1734, (Harris, 1977, p. 630). Elizabeth was the daughter of Leonard Hill of King William County.

Another piece of evidence of Augustine’s wealth is his care for his stepson

George Seaton. Augustine purchased the “Brick House [a plantation patented in 1693] . .

. from the Reverend John Fox . . . of Ware Parish, Gloucester County” (Harris, 1977, p.

628). Upon their marriage, or sometime during it, George and Elizabeth, (step-son and daughter-in-law) moved into this property. At Augustine’s death, he willed this plantation to his son Thomas Moore. Thomas then transferred a portion of the land, the house and out buildings to George Seaton (Harris, 1977) making him the owner of the property he had occupied with his family. This residence and plantation, referred to in Augustine’s will as the “brick house,” suggests how few and remarkable brick residences still were in

Virginia, because of their cost.

Augustine [grandfather] was a Colonel in the militia and Justice of the County

Court (Harris, 1977) in Elizabeth City County (date of service unknown), and is noted as

“a very rich planter” (Pleasants, 1917, p. 433). He “entered the tobacco trade . . . [had] a large warehouse, owned a great number of negroes, and by raising tobacco, indigo and other crops became immensely rich” (Fontaine & Fontaine, 1911, p. 177). He died at

Chelsea, and his will, dated January 20, 1742/43, was proven and probated on August 18,

1743, in King William County. The will shows extensive land holdings in “King

William, Gloucester, Caroline and Spotsylvania Counties” (Pleasants, 1917, p. 433), in 174

addition to a large estate of personal property (personal property consists of property

other than land: chattel holdings, livestock, household goods, farm goods and crops).

Chelsea Plantation was inherited by Bernard Moore, son of Augustine and father of

Austin [the subject of this bio-sketch], subject to property rights of his mother and his

siblings. Augustine was a very successful colonist, a merchant, plantation owner, and

planter who acquired great wealth during his life and served his colony as a Justice of the

County Court and Colonel of the militia of King William County.

Father. Bernard Moore, son of a well-to-do colonist Augustine Moore, started his life extraordinarily wealthy and evidently well-educated. He made some poor decisions throughout his lifetime which affected his wife and children before and after his

death.

Colonel Bernard Moore (b. around 1716 d. April 1775) married Ann Catherine

Spotswood (b. 1725 d. 3-1802), daughter of Major General Alexander Spotswood,

governor of the colony from 1712 to 1722. “About the time of their marriage” (around

1746), (Harris, 1977, p. 616), Bernard purchased from William Claiborne the Claiborne

family home at the Romancoke Plantation in New Kent County (Harris, 1977). Bernard

borrowed the money to purchase the plantation and home located “in Pumaukey Neck”

[sic] (Harris, 1977, p. 583) from his brother-in-law, John Robinson (Harris, 1977).

Robinson (d. 1766 and also known as The Speaker) married secondly (first wife unknown) Bernard’s sister, Lucy.

Based on Bernard’s family status in the colony and his marriage to a governor’s daughter, it is natural to assume that he was an educated person. According to records of the college compiled by Swem in 1941, Bernard Moore was a student at the CW&M 175

“about 1729” (Swem, 1941). While fires destroyed many records Swem (1941) was able to compile approximate attendance dates for the students of the early 18th century.

Records indicate Bernard [father] attended the CW&M “about 1720” (Swem,

1941). This same notation (“about”) is used for other students whose records were burned by one of the several fires through the college’s history: in 1705, 1859, and 1862

(Statutes, 1914; Swem, 1941). With this information it is difficult to know the extent of his education. Therefore, the years he spent at the CW&M and the curriculum he followed can only be suppositions. Prior to 1729 the college was staffed sufficiently to offer only a curriculum in the grammar school and mathematics. Based on Bernard’s birth about 1716 and his marriage in his early 20s, it is highly probable that he completed a full course of study at the CW&M that would have included grammar school until the age of 15, followed by “Two years before they attain to the Degree of Bachelor [sic], and

Four before they attain the Degree of Master of Arts” (Statutes, 1914, p. 289). Bernard was an educated man according to colonial standards and would have wanted the same education for his sons.

Bernard used his education and friendships to further his interests in business and colonial politics. Even after moving his family to their own residence at Romancoke

Plantation in New Kent County, Bernard gave service to King William County (site of

Chelsea Plantation). Bernard was a Justice of the Peace, Colonel in the militia of King

William County, and a representative of King William County in the House of Burgesses from 1744 to 1747, 1748-1749, 1758, 1761 and 1772. In addition, on May 28, 1756, he was chosen as a Captain of the Virginia Military Association (Historical and

Genealogical Notes & Queries, 1903). Additionally, he “was a vestryman in St. John’s 176

parish.” also in King William County (Harris, 1977, p. 616). At Bernard’s death in 1775,

his eldest son Augustine [subject] succeeded him as a Burgess (du Bellet, 1907).

A flaw in Bernard’s church and civil service was the habit of accumulating debt.

His debt became extreme on May 16, 1766, when John Robinson, brother-in-law, died before his 30th birthday. Bernard owed the Robinson estate £8,500 for his initial purchase

of the Romancoke Plantation. As was standard practice at the time, when an estate was

settled at death, all debts to the estate had to be reconciled. As context, this was a period

when many planters were having significant difficulties with crops and cash flow.

Tobacco yields were decreasing because the crops were not rotated and the land was

being robbed of essential nutrients. Consequently, it was very difficult for the wealthy,

who were accustomed to imported goods, to decrease their desire for English imports.

Although it is possible to speculate that Bernard was unable to raise cash to settle his

debts to the Robinson estate because of cash flow problems due to the prevalent crop

issues of the time, the fact remained that Bernard was seriously overextended financially,

and, in retrospect, probably should not have bought such a costly house. The purchase

may have given him a residence and plantation appropriate to someone of his social

standing and of the social standing of the daughter of a governor. However, unable to pay

the estate the outstanding balance, Bernard was forced to convey the lands to the administrator of Robinson’s estate. In December of 1768, in a further effort to pay the money he owed the Robinson estate, he ran a lottery scheme based on the collateral of personal property and land in an attempt to pay off the debt (Ryland, 1955; Harris, 1977).

Still in debt in January 1771, he advertised for sale to the highest bidder, Chelsea, the ancestral home of the Moore family, together with his personal estate and slaves; all of 177

which had been conveyed to trustees to pay his debts (Ryland, 1955). Later in the same

year Bernard wrote to his broker in London that the Chelsea Plantation was willed to his sons, showing there were no takers for the property and that Bernard’s financial situation remained perilous. Given the financial challenge to all planters in Virginia during this period, there may have been no one of sufficient wealth not also affected by the crop issues who was in a position to take over the property.

That Bernard was still in serious debt later in 1771 is evidenced by a letter from

Bernard dated September 28, 1771, in Virginia, to John Norton, Esq., merchant in

London (Mason, 1937):

when my Estate was sold to advance some moneys [sic] to purchase some Negroes for the support of my numerous family [sic] and am now obliged to pay him as fast as I can get it; I fully intended to have sent for the amount of money in goods, . . . [my wife] has now nothing left even to carry her to Church, if you will credit [sic] us for . . . [a chariot with the value of about 40 pounds] I will ship you more Tobol [tobacco] next Summer than will discharge the value. (p. 193-194)

It must be noted that the first line of the quotation above is not clear. It is difficult to

determine if property was sold “to purchase some Negroes for the support of my

numerous family” (Mason, 1937, p. 193) or if there was a mortgage placed on the

property that was demanded in full. In 1770, Bernard began to advertise the family

plantation, Chelsea in King William County, for sale (Wells, 1998). In 1771, the property

was again mentioned for sale in the Virginia Gazette. Whatever the meaning of these

events, it is evident that Bernard Moore [father], despite all outward appearances, was

broke, judging from his inability to utilize tobacco or sterling to pay his debts.

Despite Bernard’s activity in colonial politics and his education, he did not have

the ability to control either the economy or the crop yields. On the same day the above

178

letter was sent to John Norton, Bernard’s wife Anna also sent a letter to Norton, (via Mr.

Samuel Griffin). She pleaded with him to speak to her aunt (not identified) to provide

money in trust to pay for a carriage to take her to church (Mason, 1937). This clearly

demonstrates the financial challenges experienced by Bernard.

Whether there were no bids for the Chelsea property, or whether Bernard [father]

was able to find other means to save the property, is not clear. However, Chelsea

remained in the family and continued to entertain notable guests in spite of the financial

problems of the Moore family. Even after the death of Bernard [father] numerous well-

known men of the time period, such as Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jefferson, and George

Washington, stopped to visit, eat a meal, or stay overnight at the Chelsea Plantation

during the mid to late 18th century (Tyson, 2010). Bernard lived at Chelsea with his

family and his mother who died there in 1802. He left the property to two of his sons,

Andrew (d. 1828) and Thomas (d. 1796/97).

As previously mentioned, Chelsea, the ancestral home of the Moore family, remained in the family despite the financial problems of Bernard [father]. The history above shows that neither Bernard [subject] nor any of his brothers could depend on family money to support their families or enhance their careers.

In conclusion, Augustine (Austin) Moore was the grandson of Colonel Augustine

Moore, a well-known and respected merchant, Colonel in the militia, major landowner,

and builder of the Chelsea estate. Austin’s father Bernard, perhaps in an effort to emulate

his father’s success in the colony, invested in schemes and borrowed money that would

be his downfall, while at the same time serving the colony for almost 30 years in the

House of Burgesses. 179

Background

Austin Moore’s ancestors in colonial Virginia include his grandfather, Colonel

Augustine Moore who was the original builder of the Chelsea Plantation, the family home of the Moore family in King William County who was a merchant and planter.

Austin’s father was Bernard Moore, who inherited Chelsea at his father’s death and was involved in colonial government, in the militia, and a representative from King William

County in the House of Burgesses. While the educational background of Austin’s grandfather is not known, what is known is that Austin’s father attended the CW&M and developed an allegiance to the school by sending two of his five sons, Austin and

Bernard, for grammar and college education there.

Although Bernard and his brother Austin were fortunate to receive an education at the Grammar School and College of the CW&M, the bills for tuition and room and board were still outstanding after they graduated. Neither of Bernard’s sons was able to depend on family money for support.

Attendance at the College of William and Mary

Augustine (Austin) completed his studies in Grammar School and the Philosophy

School at the CW&M. Although unlike his brother Bernard, the records for his board do not indicate that he spent his entire educational experience housed on campus in the Main

(Wren) Building.

Austin attended the CW&M Grammar School from October 13, 1760 to October

13, 1761. He came back to CW&M to attend the Philosophy School on November 22,

1762, completing four years in the College on July 31, 1766 (Notes, 1921), a course of study that would result in a Baccalaureate degree (Statutes of 1756). The Bursar Boarding 180

Accounts for 1754-1769 show Austin boarded at the College for two years, between

March 22, 1762, and March 25, 1764 (Bursar Boarding Accounts 1754-1769). It is not known if Austin boarded in town from time to time or if this is an occasion where the

Bursar records are incomplete, as noted in 1921, “due to the imperfection of the books preserved, and the loss of others, the inclusive dates of board charged cannot be found for all students” (Notes, 1921, p. 27). This might be the situation with Austin Moore.

Nonetheless, he was one of the few students in this study who completed a four-year degree at the CW&M.

Austin was at the CW&M during the tenure of William Small (1758 to Sept 1764) during which time he had an effect on a great number of students. Clagett (2003) notes, that William Small, “was an important influence on a small group of preeminent

American intellectuals and political figures who would later play a central role in the founding of the United States” (p. 5). Small taught in the Grammar School and the

Philosophy School of the College and would have known and/or perhaps had interactions with Austin during his time at CW&M (1760-1761 and 1762-1766).

Small, recruited to the CW&M in mid-July 1758, left England in August and arrived in the colony approximately 10 weeks later after a “tedious and disagreeable voyage” (Clagett, 2003, p. 129), arriving at Yorktown in late September or early October.

The origins of his employment recommendation from Dr. Samuel Nichollas [sic], a subordinate to the Bishop of London, came through an associates friendship with Dr.

John Gregory, from whom Small received some of his medical training and who mentored Small at Marischal College in Aberdeen, Scotland (Clagett, 2003). Small, at age 21, was hired as the first non-ecclesiastic faculty member at the CW&M, initially to 181

teach mathematics in the Grammar School. He had attended Dundee Grammar School

and Marischal College and took medical training, receiving a medical diploma in London

through the recommendations of two physicians, Dr. John Gregory and Dr. John Elliott.

Small, subsequently promoted to teach in the Philosophy School of the College, brought

his educational background in the sciences, necessary for his medical training, to the

students in the higher educational portion of the curriculum (Clagett, 2003).

Small was formally sworn in as a faculty member on October 18, 1758, after

spending the short intervening time furnishing the bare quarters, “two rooms in the main

building” (p. 131), provided by the CW&M and obtaining the proper bed linen and

clothing for the climate (Clagett, 2003). The formal swearing-in ceremony is recorded in

the minutes of the President and Masters as an “Assent to the Articles of the Church of

England . . . and did also take the Oath, de fideli Adminstratione . . . [and] like

subscribed to the three Articles in the 30th Cannon” (“Journal of the Minutes of the

President and Masters”, p. 62-63). (It must be noted that ministers of the faculty

subscribed to the 36th Canon. It is not known if there is a transcription error from the

original document, as the minutes reflected the 30th Cannon. The 36th Cannon called for:

King’s Majesty under God is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm . . . the Book of Common Prayer . . . [will be used in] public prayer and the administration of all sacraments . . . [the] Book of the Articles of Religion . . . articles therein contain’d [sic], being numbers nine and thirty besides the Ratification, to be agreeable to the word of God. (p. 60-61)

Small would stay at the College almost six years.

During his tenure Small not only taught students in the traditional Scottish format learned from his own education at Marischal College, lecture instead of rote memorization, but also instilled in his pupils the desire to learn through application using 182

demonstration and experiment (Clagett, 2003). This process was used to train and enhance the student’s critical thinking skills. In an effort to further increase interest in science, Small founded an extracurricular club at the CW&M.

It was “rumored that Small founded a society in Williamsburg in 1759 for promoting scientific experiments” (Clagett, 2003, p. 155). This rumor is verified in

Stearns (1970) with discussions on the “Emergence of American Science” as it related to the small scientific community in Williamsburg as compared to “larger commercial centers such as Philadelphia, Boston, and Charles Town” (p. 554):

The College of William and Mary, especially between 1758 and 1764, when Dr. William Small, a Glasgow graduate in medicine, served as professor, first of mathematics and then of philosophy, was a lively scientific center to which the Lieutenant Governor, Francis Fauquier, F. R. S., lent prestige and support. Dr. Small led in the formation of a society founded at Williamsburg in 1759, modeled upon the Royal Society of Arts founded in London five years before, to encourage scientific experimentation and new discoveries, arts, and manufactures. (p. 554- 555)

While Austin’s interest in this small society is not noted in history, the biographical history of Thomas Jefferson (a mentee of William Small) and his experimental gardens was noted in a History Channel documentary on August 24, 2010. Details of Jefferson’s experimental processes with plants are a reflection of Dr. William Small’s scientific teachings. Another example of the use of the scientific process that can be attributed to

Dr. Small are in the writings of John Page (student at the CW&M in the college in 1761-

1762), from his memorandum book, Johannes (John) Page (1762) on simple experiments on electric conductivity (p. 204). It is evident that the rumor of the scientific society is true and that it so impressed those who were taught by Dr. William Small that they continued to reflect upon and utilize his teaching throughout their life.

183

Did Austin participate in Dr. William Small’s scientific society? History does not give the answer, as there are no minutes of the society, nor is the society mentioned in the minutes of the President and the Masters. Despite this lack of official documentation, there were opportunities available at the CW&M for learning and socialization. A student who was far from home, may have lived on campus, and perhaps wanted to participate in the activities of a college student, quite likely participated and perhaps did his own experiments on land inherited from his father after he returned home. Even if Austin did not participate in the scientific society, Small’s presence and methods would have had an influence and impact on all of the students at the CW&M.

Bernard’s, [father of subject], experiences in colonial higher education at the

CW&M would certainly account for his decision to send some of his sons to the college for an education more advanced than that which could be provided by a tutor. As noted above, he sent his son Bernard to the Grammar School and then to the Philosophy

School. But, despite Bernard’s [father] knowledge, his standing in the community, and his apparent desire to pass his assets on to educated sons, his failure to pay for their education and boarding expenses as they progressed through the CW&M would ultimately add to the burden of his past-due finances (Bursar Records). By the conclusion of Bernard and Austin’s education, on September 25, 1770, Bernard [father of the Moore brothers], had a balance due the CW&M of £96.14.3 ½ for tuition and board

(Notes, 1770-1778).

The time frame of Austin’s application of knowledge from his education at the

CW&M was shortened; he completed four years of college in 1766, and eleven years later (1777) he was dead. 184

Vocations

Augustine (b. about 1747 d. 1777) was the eldest son of Bernard Moore and Ann

Catherine Spotswood (de Bellet, 1907) and succeeded his father as a member of the

House of Burgess in 1772-1773 and 1775-1776. Educated at the CW&M Grammar

School and then promoted to the Philosophy School in November 1762, Austin completed four years of education that culminated in a Baccalaureate degree in July

1766.

While Ryland (1955) contends Augustine Moore and his wife Judith moved to the

Windsor Plantation 1768 in Essex County, records do not show that Augustine Moore owned the Windsor Plantation, and it is not mentioned in his will (Harris, 1977; Will of

Augustine Moore (Will, 1777). A search of the history of properties named Windsor

Plantation (Clayton family in Gloucester, now Mathews County), Windsor Forest

(Massie Family in New Kent County), and Windsor Shades (Wyatt family in New Kent

County) does not give information concerning the ownership and/or residency of

Augustine and/or Judith. Though there appears to be a connection to Windsor Shades through the Graves family, the same family from whom the founder of the Virginia family, Augustine Moore, purchased the Chelsea Plantation. In addition, the Windsor

Shades property was advertised for sale in the “Virginia Gazette of February 19, 1767”

(Harris, 1977, p. 202) (which would be 1768 under the old calendar) the approximate time frame of the purported move of Augustine from Chelsea to Windsor. The destruction of county records in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars resulted in the loss of the history of the period, leaving a gap in ownership of the Windsor Shades property

185

(Harris, 1977) which. Although ownership is a distinct possibility, it cannot be verified.

Additional threads in Augustine’s life also remain undocumented.

Even though Augustine’s brother Bernard was active in the military during the

Revolutionary War, there are no records to indicate Austin’s participation. Perhaps his

early death is some indication that he was not in good health and therefore was not able

to participate, or the lack of information could be attributed to the loss of records during

the period. However, he became politically active after the death of his father. Augustine

was elected to his father Bernard’s seat in the House of Burgesses after his death, as a

representative from King and Queen County for the 1772-1773 and 1775-1776 sessions.

However, this service was short-lived, as Augustine died in 1777, leaving a child whose mother, Judith, died in 1769.

Augustine was married and had one child from his first wife, Judith. Pleasants

(1917) identifies his second wife as Ann Rind (unable to verify). At the time of his death his will did not indicate he was married, as provisions were made only for his daughter

Sarah’s guardianship by “Charles Carter and John Walker, Esq.” (Will of Augustine

Moore, 1777, p. 72). Charles Carter was from the Shirley Plantation Carter family and married into the Moore family when Austin’s sister Ann became his second wife. It is most likely that John Walker was a CW&M school friend who attended the CW&M

Grammar School in 1754-1755 and CW&M Philosophy School in 1762-1763. However,

this fact cannot be authenticated.

Austin served in the House of Burgesses just before and after the death of his

father but appears to have led a quiet life. He attended the CW&M for Grammar and

Higher Education, married shortly after his graduation; soon thereafter having a daughter, 186

Sarah. Resources indicate he married twice, but this cannot be verified. However, judging

from the contents of his will he was not married at the time of his death. It is safe to

imagine that Austin would have contributed to the colony, especially with his educational

background, if he had lived longer, but he lived no more than 12 years after his

graduation from college. During that time he was elected twice to the House of

Burgesses, in 1772-1773 and 1775-1776. No other public service endeavors could be

located. It is hard to tell from historical records if the trauma of his father’s financial

misfortunes had any direct bearing on his desire to live quietly, but it is assumed he had

knowledge of the debt to the CW&M for his education and of the drama that ensued at

the death of John Robinson.

Other Considerations

Once again, families intertwine with one another and demand a quest by the

researcher for an explanation of their relationship as it unfolds in this work. Within many

families and extended families, children are given duplicate names. An example is the

Burwell sons [subjects] whose fathers were brothers and named their sons Nathaniel.

While the researcher has a natural tendency to try to place a subject within a specific

well-known environment, the true biographer follows the facts.

The Moore family in the colony expanded within several different family groups.

Written history reflects an intermingling of Moore family genealogy and duplication of

names across the family groups. A good reflection of the confusion within family groups

is evident in the William C. Moore article “Notes on Some Moore and French Families in

Virginia and Carolina in the Colonial Period” printed in the William and Mary Quarterly

(1937, July). Below is a short bio-sketch of Augustine Moore, who is noted in the 187

writings on Hugh Nelson as the young man who indentured himself to William Nelson to learn the merchant business and ultimately became a partner in Thomas Nelson Jr. and

Co. with Thomas Nelson Jr. (son of William Nelson) and Hugh Nelson.

The Augustine Moore of the biographical sketch above is not the Augustine

Moore (b. March 7, 1731 d. 1788) (DeMarco, 2006) who in 1746 (March, 16) indentured himself at the age of 14 to William Nelson, Merchant of Yorktown and became a partner in the firm of Thomas Nelson Jr. & Co. as described in the sketch of Hugh Nelson

[subject] contained in this body of work.

Throughout history, the Moore name is well known in Yorktown, VA and especially as it relates to the Moore home located on property known as Temple Farm.

The house is known as the headquarters for the siege of Yorktown against Cornwallis and was considered by Stevens (1938) “One of [the] worst victims of the siege of Yorktown .

. . which had many gaping holes in it, but was not hurt beyond repair” (p. 180). With

General George Washington leading the colonial soldiers (abt. 9,000) and Rochambeau the French army and navy allies (abt. 25,000) (Hatch, 1941; National Park Service, 2006)

Lord Cornwallis was defeated in the final battle of the Revolutionary War, which ended on October 17, 1781 (National Park Service, 2006). The “Moore House” was the location of the signing of the Articles of Capitulation by Cornwallis to end the siege of Yorktown by the English. The house came into the Moore family through the friendship of

Augustine Moore (the merchant) with the son of the builder of the house, Lawrence

Smith Jr.

The property dates back to a 1646 grant to Colonel George Ludlow, who willed the land at his death to his wife Mary Ludlow. After Ludlow’s death Mary married 188

Reverend Peter Temple (the property is therefore currently known as the Temple

property). After a while (no time frame given), Mary left Temple and moved with her

children to England. She sold a portion of the land to Lawrence Smith Sr. (Indian fighter,

member of the Colonial Council and lawyer), who in 1700 willed the property to his son

Lawrence Jr. (a Justice of the Peace and member of the Burgesses from York County). At

his death in 1739 Lawrence Jr. willed the property to his wife Mildred Reade Smith, who

at her death in 1754 willed the property to their son Robert and a third of her personal

estate to family friend and son-in-law Augustine Moore, from the Elizabeth City County

Moore family, and his wife Lucy (daughter of Lawrence Jr.). Augustine, born in 1736, was the son of Daniel Moore and his wife Mary Watts, daughter of John Llewellyn. His great Uncle was Augustine [subject] of the biographical sketch in this body of work (du

Bellet, 1907).

At his father Daniel’s death, in 1767, Augustine inherited two plantations and

ultimately a third, with personal property and chattel to run them. All were located a few

miles from Yorktown. Ten years later, Augustine purchased a portion (500 acres) of the

property owned and occupied by Robert Smith (son of Lawrence Jr.) that included not

only land but a house (a.k.a. Moore House). The three of them, Robert, Augustine and

Lucy, lived together in the house until around 1777 (du Bellet, 1907; Hatch, 1941;

Pleasants, 1917). This short-lived tenure of the family in the house established the property name of “Moore House”.

Augustine contributed to his York County community as a Justice of the Peace,

and a clerk of the County Court. Upon his death in 1788 he “willed his home” (Hatch,

189

1941, p. 297) to Thomas Nelson Jr. (there is no indication if the home included the 500

acres) to whom he had indentured himself in 1746 (Hatch, 1941).

Bernard Moore Jr.

Bernard Moore (Jr.) (b. about 1749/1750 d. unknown) of King William County

was the third son of Bernard Moore (Sr.) and Anne Catherine Spotswood, daughter of

Governor Spotswood, and the grandson of Augustine Moore, who first came to the

Virginia Colony in 1705. Bernard married Lucy Ann Heaberd Leiper of Henrico County, daughter of Dr. James Hamilton Leiper of Philadelphia, Chester County, PA and London,

(Harris, 1977) and his wife Elizabeth Smallwood, sister of General William Smallwood,

Governor of Maryland (Pleasants, 1917). He attended the Grammar School at the College of William and Mary from October 13, 1760, to October 13, 1761, with his brother

Augustine. Upon their return to the academic environment of the College in 1762,

Bernard continued in the Grammar School, finished in 1764, and moved into the

Philosophy School from 1764 to 1768, leaving on March 25 (Notes, 1758-1770). Bernard

[subject] as an adult lived with his family and extended family at Chelsea during his

lifetime, inheriting the plantation at the death of his brother, Austin (Augustine) in 1777.

Family Involvement in Colonial Politics and Government

Bernard and Augustine were brothers and therefore have the same ancestral

background.

Background

Bernard Moore (Jr.) was born about 1749-1750, the third son of Bernard Moore

(sr.) and Anne Catherine Spotswood married Lucy Ann Heaberd Leiper of Henrico

County (year unknown). He attended the Grammar School of the College of William and 190

Mary for 1 year from October 13, 1760 to October 13, 1761 with his brother. He returned

in 1762 and finished Grammar School in 1764, moving to the Philosophy School from

1764 to 1768. As an adult he lived with this family and extended family at Chelsea the

family plantation.

Attendance at the College of William and Mary

Bernard’s education included grammar and philosophy school at the CW&M and

perhaps law studies afterward. He attended the CW&M Grammar School with his older

brother Austin from October 13, 1760, through October 13, 1761 (Notes, 1758-1770).

They returned to the CW&M on November 22, 1762, and Bernard completed Grammar

School and four years of study in the Philosophy School, leaving on March 25, 1768

(Notes, 1758-1770). Although historical records do not contain an exact date of birth for

Bernard, it can be determined that he may have been born around 1749-1750. This would mean that his first experience at the CW&M occurred when he was 10 or 11 years of age.

When both boys returned to CW&M in 1762, Bernard would have finished Grammar

School (1764) and continued to the Philosophy School. He left 4 years later, on March

25, 1768 (records do not indicate he graduated, but the 4-year course of study would indicate he completed the requirements for a 4-year college education). During the time frame of Bernard’s education, the College supplied room and board (Bursar Boarding

Accounts). History hints at Bernard’s further legal education.

It appears that after completing his CW&M studies, Bernard went on to pursue a legal education through an internship with one of the noted lawyers of the colony, where he would have read the law and been tutored by a master (examples include George

Wythe and Robert Carter Nicholas) (Tyler, 1884-1886). This conclusion begins with 191

Kimball (1943), who introduces Bernard Moore, as a young friend of Thomas Jefferson

who “was only a few years Jefferson’s junior” (p. 79). Kimball explained “Jefferson

subjected himself to a merciless, self-imposed discipline . . . that is reflected in letters written at various times in his life to young friends about to embrace the profession of the law” (p. 79). The most informative of the letters written by Jefferson and explained by

Ford, (Editor), in Volume 9 of “Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 1807 – 1815” noted a young friend for whom he mapped a course of reading

For the use of a young friend whose course of reading was confided to me; and it formed a basis for the studies of others subsequently placed under my direction, but curtailed for each in proportion to his previous acquirements and future views. (p. 480)

The young friend referred to in the quote above was Bernard Moore, son of Bernard

[father] and grandchild of Colonel Augustine Moore of Chelsea in King William County

(Kimball, 1943).

Was Bernard contemplating the study of the law under Wythe that is inferred

from the comments in Thomas Jefferson’s letter? This mystery further unfolds when as

an adult, Bernard was appointed to the Court of the Admiralty (hearing cases and

adjudicating them on matters occurring on any body of water) on December 17, 1776,

(Tyler, 1898). This action further compounds the questions above, as Tyler (Tyler, 1884-

1886) failed to list Bernard as educated at the CW&M. Was this an oversight, or could

Bernard’s inquiry to Jefferson have been a reflection of the vistas opened through the

teachings of William Small, a mentor to several young scholars including Thomas

Jefferson, at the CW&M? Bernard would have not been in the Philosophy School during

the tenure of William Small. However, Bernard’s brother Austin was at the CW&M

192

during Small’s tenure and the influence may have passed through Austin to Bernard. In

spite of the information above, several questions regarding Bernard’s possible legal

education remain unanswered.

Vocations

Bernard [subject] was busy managing the Chelsea Plantation while tending to his

responsibilities for his children’s education, the vestry, the militia, and later the Court of

Admiralty.

Bernard spent the majority of his life running the Chelsea Plantation. This was not

an easy task. Plantations were isolated on large blocks of acreage with waterway landings

used for the import and export of goods and crops, mainly tobacco. The “plantation

operated . . . to create an orderly society and provide sustenance . . . for the planter and

his slaves [and] . . . the way to wealth lay in controlling land and labor” (Hofstra, 1986, p.

13). The plantation operated as a self-contained business producing all of the basics of

living within its boundaries by training “slaves in the skills of artisans . . . [examples

include] carpenters, coopers, sawyers, blacksmiths, tanners, curriers, shoemakers,

spinners, weavers, and knitters, and even a distiller” (Hofstra, 1986, p. 16). The owner

who could not control the expenses of their plantation and depended on imports from

England for basic necessities or luxury goods, soon found they had “outspent their credit .

. . [and were in] a downward spiral of chronic indebtedness” (Hofstra, 1986, p. 15).

Those who were having financial problems soon came to depend on the crops in the

future for repayment of their creditors (Evans, 1962). Unfortunately they discounted the

devastating effects of the weather, which during this period produced a flood and a

drought. Most plantation owners mixed the responsibilities of running a plantation with 193

civic duties, including politics and military, that kept them away from home for extended

periods, while religious service, usually within their parish, kept them close to home but

still took extraordinary amounts of time.

Bernard’s religious home was the St. John Parish, where he served from 1768 to

1770 on the Vestry Board that is responsible for the welfare of those who lived within the

parish boundaries (Harris, 1977). The minister of St. John’s, Reverend Henry Skyren (b.

1729 d. 1795) (Skyring), who became familiar with the Moore family, served at St. Johns from 1764 to 1787, when he was given another Parish in Hampton, VA. While at St.

John’s he did private tutoring for “Colonel Corbin of Lanesville” (Harris, 1977, p. 781) and later taught the children of Bernard and Lucy Leiper, Andrew (d. 1828), Thomas (d.

1828) and Lucy (d. unknown), no doubt in the schoolroom of Chelsea in the wing replacing the wooden structure approximately mid 19th-centurynoted by Mrs. E. H

Aylett’s memories of her visit.

Bernard was a private in the militia (White, 1995). No documentation was found

to establish when he entered the militia, when and if his militia unit entered the

Revolutionary War, or how long he served in the military. What is known is that Chelsea

Plantation, on the banks of the Mattaponi River (West Point, VA area) was, in 1781, the

encampment site (about 30 miles north of Yorktown) of General Lafayette (our French

ally who worked closely with General Washington) and his troops just prior to the joint

defeat by General Washington and General Rochambeau (another French ally) of

Cornwallis at Yorktown at the final battle of the Revolutionary War.

On December, 17, 1776, Bernard was appointed by Convention (a consensus of

the other members of the court), in conjunction with two others, as a judge of the Court 194

of Admiralty (handling cases of maritime law). It was a division of the Supreme Court of

Virginia, which consisted of the High Court of Chancery, General Court and Admiralty

Court. The judges included Richard Cary and William Holt; Cary was educated at the

CW&M prior to Bernard about 1750) (Swem, 1941). Previous appointees with the year of their appointment and college affiliation were: Benjamin Waller, 1778 – CW&M after

1720 (Swem, 1941); William Curle, 1778 - unknown; James Henry, 1778 – unknown; and John Tyler, 1785 – CW&M 1760 – 1764/5 (Tyler, 1898). The length of term for each of the appointments is not known (Tyler, 1898).

Notwithstanding the extensive contributions of his father, Bernard [subject] was active in his community as member of his Vestry Board, a private in the Virginia militia, and ultimately a judge for the Admiralty Court of Virginia. It appears he maintained a quiet presence at Chelsea, the ancestral home of the Moore family.

Other Considerations

The Moore lineage in England expanded into the colony through the emigration of several family groups. In an effort to trace family lineage confusion arises from intermingling of the family groups, which that is especially evident in the William C.

Moore article “Notes on Some Moore and French Families in Virginia and Carolina in the Colonial Period” printed in the William and Mary Quarterly (1937, July). The information in the Moore bio-sketch presented in this work is believed by the author to be an accurate representation of the ancestors of Bernard Moore the subject of this case study.

195

Hugh Nelson

Hugh Nelson (b. 1750 d. October 13, 1800) was born in Yorktown in the county of York. He was the third son of his father, William Nelson, and mother, Elizabeth

(Betty) Burwell, daughter of Nathaniel Burwell of Carter’s Creek plantation in

Gloucester County, VA., and Elizabeth Carter, “second daughter of Robert King Carter and Judith Armistead, his first wife” (Page, 2000, p. 161). Hugh was married on May 16,

1771, (Purdie and Dixon, Virginia Gazette, May 16, 1771) just 2 months after his graduation from the College of William and Mary (CW&M), to Judith Page (b. 1749), the sister of his brother Nathaniel’s wife, Jane (Page, 2000). Both wives (Judith and Jane) were daughters of the Honorable John Page of North End in Gloucester County and his wife Jane Byrd (Page, 2000). Hugh Nelson and Judith Page Nelson had seven children

(four girls and three boys).

Hugh became a student at the CW&M Grammar School at the age of 9 years. He progressed in the curriculum, moving from the Grammar School to the College on May

22, 1767, (Journal of the Meetings, 1896) graduating on March 25, 1771 (Notes 1770-

1778). The death of Hugh’s father in 1772 and his coming into his inheritance dictated the direction of his life after college. While his older brother Thomas (Tom) moved into the political and military arenas, and his other brothers were much younger and still in school, Hugh struggled to manage his father’s mercantile business jointly with Tom, who was frequently absent on colony business, as the economy of the colony declined, the

Revolutionary War began, and debtors were unable to pay their bills. It was not until later in his life that Hugh was able to enter politics, taking a place in the House of Delegates

196

from 1777-1780. Although he dreamed of going west, he never made the move and died in Yorktown in 1800.

Family Involvement in Colonial Politics and Government

The Nelson family sired from the immigration of Thomas Nelson from England has a rich history in the colony. Three generations of Nelsons exhibit the rise and fall of a mercantile business that was well known and respected on both sides of the Atlantic

Ocean.

Grandfather. Thomas Nelson (b. February 20, 1667 d. October 7, 1745) was born in Penrith, County of Cumberland, England and in 1700 was the first member of his family to immigrate to the colony of Virginia. He was the son of Hugh Nelson and his wife Sarah of Penrith, married February 1673/4 (Virginia Gleanings in England, 1909).

(Notes to Council Journal, 1925; Page, 2000). Thomas married first, about 1710,

Margaret Reade, granddaughter of Colonel George Reade (Notes to Council Journal,

1925) and had three children: William (b. 1711 d. November 19, 1772, father of subject who was a member of the Council and acting Governor of the Colony), Mary (b. about

1713), and Thomas (b. about 1716 d. 1782, uncle of the subject who was Secretary of

State and last President of the Council under the colony structure) (Virginia Gleanings in

England, 1906). After the death of Margaret (his first wife) between 1716, and 1721, he married secondly Fanny (Frances) Tucker Houston in 1721. Thomas and Fanny had one child, Sally (b. about 1722) (Page, 2000). Thomas was affectionately called Scotch Tom, based on his origins in the “North of England near Scotland” (Meade, 1857; Page, 2000, p. 155).

197

The colonial area of the colony, home to the Nelson family, was originally the

Charles River Shire, organized in 1634 by the Virginia Assembly House of Burgesses.

Nine years later the name was changed to York County after the Duke of York, King

Charles I’s second son, James (Historic Resources Survey, 2005). By the time Thomas

Nelson settled in York County permanently (Notes to Council Journals, 1925), Yorktown had been established and was known as the “principal port for the tobacco and slave trades serving the Virginia costal plain region” (Historic Resources Survey, 2005, p. 2).

Nelson [grandfather] established a home in the town first by building a small wooden house that was replaced about 1715 with a brick house nearby. History (Meade, 1857:

Page, 2000) repeats many stories of grand homes for the Nelson family with an illustrious history related to the growth and history of the area. These homes were no doubt related to his success as a merchant in Yorktown. Davis (1978) confirms one house built by

William Nelson circa 1740 (p. 1150) stating “the Nelson House at Yorktown has been mentioned . . . as neither a city (Williamsburg) mansion nor a plantation seat, but the home of a great merchant” (p. 1153). Davis further states, “of the first families of the

Chesapeake before 1776 . . . only the Nelsons of Yorktown seem to have been preeminently (though not exclusively) merchants” (p. 1574).

On August 15, 1728, Thomas Nelson presented a petition as shown in the

Virginia Council Journals from 1726-1753 (1925) to appropriate land that was open from

the Town and the River there . . . [is] a beach of sand which at high tide is overflowed, but nevertheless may with some expence [sic] and labour [sic] be made convenient for building warehouses for securing merchandise of great bulk & weight which through the steepness and height of the bank, cannot be easily conveyed into Town. (p. 181-182)

198

The Council agreed with his request, asking him to have the 80 square yards he desired surveyed and then ordered them (the 80 square yards) to be given to him by patent

(Virginia Council Journals 1726-1753, 1925).

Thomas Nelson [grandfather of the subject] appeared to have been very careful in his selection of a site for settlement, taking into consideration the trade and the port on the York River allowing him to build a successful retail and wholesale business for all goods necessary and desired for personal, household, and occupational use. He was well known and held public office as a Justice of the Peace for the county of York during his lifetime. At the time of his death (1745) Yorktown was in its most successful period. The

National Park Service, a division of the U.S. Department of the Interior (2006), reported that in 1750 the town “had 250 to 300 buildings and a population of almost 2,000 people”

(p. 1).

Yorktown was the perfect place for Thomas to raise his family and to earn the income to provide more than the bare necessities for living. A benefit of his financial security was the ability was to provide his sons with an education. His children and grandchildren became politicians of note in the ensuing years; his grandchildren attended the CW&M, while their father received an education in England.

Father. William Nelson (b. 1711 d. November 19, 1772), son of Thomas Nelson

[grandfather], merchant and immigrant to Yorktown in 1700, inherited the mercantile business from his father. He is noted as “the most prominent merchant in Virginia . . . also a very extensive land and slave owner” (Notes to the Council Journals from 1726-

1753, p. 189) and is also cited as “one of the greatest merchants (Griffith, 1970, p. 137).

The extent of his wealth is shown in his will proven on December 21, 1772 (p. 190-192). 199

William married Elizabeth (Betty) Burwell (d. 1798) (Torrance, 1965), daughter

of Nathaniel Burwell of Carter’s Creek plantation in Gloucester County, VA, and

Elizabeth Carter, “second daughter of Robert King Carter and Judith Armistead, his first

wife” (Page, 2000, p. 161). They had several children, but only six lived to adulthood:

Thomas (signer of the Declaration of American Independence, Governor of Virginia and

Major General in the American Army was tutored in the colony by “Reverend Yates of

Gloucester afterward President of William and Mary College in order to prepare him for

an English University [Hackney]” (Meade, 1857, p. 206). Thomas was a pensioner [“an

undergraduate who paid for his keep, unlike a scholar who was given it (Brydon, 1943, p.

349)] at Christ’s College, at Cambridge University), Dr. Nathaniel Nelson, Colonel Hugh

Nelson [subject], Robert Nelson, Judge William Nelson (Judge of the District Court) and

a daughter Elizabeth who married the Captain of the H.M.S. (His Majesty’s Ship) Ripon,

John Thompson, and moved to England. Each made an impact on the colony (Page,

2000), as did their father William.

William [father] is referred to as President Nelson (Meade, 1857), based on his membership and Presidency of the Governors Council and his leadership as Governor of the Colony between the death of Lord Botetcourt (1770) and the arrival of Lord Dunmore in 1771 (less than a full year). His main responsibility during this time was to handle the unfinished business of Botetcourt. A primary item was the concern about the land to the

West of the colony. The crown had been petitioned for several million acres to establish a new colony. The main concern was the possibility of “infringement on claims of

Virginia and grants of its two rival land companies, the Ohio and Loyal” (Evans, 1957, p.

154). It was difficult to balance the needs of the colony and the desires of England. 200

William had a long history of dedication to the colony, as shown by his membership on various government bodies until his death in 1772. He was on the

Colonial Council from 1744 until 1772, and prior to his appointment to the Council he was elected from York County in 1742 as a member of the House of Burgesses. His interests also included the CW&M (Notes to Council Journals, 1925), which is to be expected, as 4 of his sons attended the CW&M: Bob (Robert), Nat (Nathaniel), Hugh

[subject], and William (Swem, 1941).

In addition to his political activities, he was also a Visitor (member of the governing board) of CW&M (no dates available) and a supporter as noted in the following letter from the Nelson Letter Book printed in July 1898 in the William and

Mary Quarterly. The letter, dated July 2, 1772, to Samuel Martin, Esq. praised the opportunities at the college:

My 3 younger son’s Bob, Nat and William, are at College, where the opportunities of improvement are very good . . . My Brothers and Sister have 3 Sons, the eldest is clerk of Caroline, which is a profitable Place, the two youngest are at [the] college. (p. 39)

Perhaps the greatest contributions left by William Nelson are ledger books from the mercantile business spanning the years 1767 to 1784. They contain the transactions of

Yorktown residents: professionals (doctors), ship captains, and other merchants (William

Nelson Ledger and Daybook, 1767-1784). They not only show the merchant as a procurer of goods but illuminate his role in the monetary supply in the colony.

William Nelson helped provide a firm foundation for the colony of Virginia through his contributions to the economy and political process. He demonstrated leadership in politics throughout his life, but especially as Governor of the colony.

201

Nelson had a strong belief in higher education, making sure his sons were well educated.

He even changed his allegiance from an English education to colonial education at the

CW&M and promoted its virtues to his friends while serving on the Board of Visitors. He provided an opulent lifestyle for his family when he was alive; but at his death he burdened his family with his wishes for their monetary future in his will, which in conjunction with the economy destroyed 70 years of work.

Background

Hugh Nelson was the third generation of the Nelson family from Penrith, County of Cumberland, England. Thomas Nelson, his grandfather, had been to the Colony of

Virginia twice before he made it his home in 1700, settling in Charles County, which would later be York County (Meade, 1857). Thomas [grandfather] excelled as a merchant, selling personal, household, and business items wholesale from his warehouses on the York River and retail from his shops in Yorktown and Williamsburg. He had a small family by colonial standards, only four children by two wives (2 girls and 2 boys).

His two sons were active in both political and social circles. His oldest son William was the father of the subject, Hugh Nelson (Evans, 1957).

William inherited the mercantile business from his father and became known as

“The most prominent merchant in Virginia . . . also a very extensive land and slave owner” (Virginia Council Journals from 1726-1753, p. 189). William married Elizabeth

Burwell, daughter of Nathaniel Burwell of Carter’s Creek in Gloucester County. They had six children who lived to adulthood; one was Hugh Nelson [subject]. William is often noted in history as President Nelson, based on his membership and Presidency of the

Governors Council and his leadership, of almost one year in 1771-1772, as Governor of 202

the Colony. In addition to his political interests he supported and served the CW&M.

William died in 1772 leaving his extensive assets divided (although not equally) among his children.

The Nelson family, who were familiar with English education, soon became comfortable with education in the colony. William sent his younger sons to the CW&M, and recommended the experience to his friend Samuel Athawes, Esq. on July 8, 1771, in his comment; “Mr. Nat Burwell, son of Carter, is determined to pursue his studies at the

College till October 1772, a most commendable Resolution” (Nelson, 1898, p. 28).

The family’s education and experience in the mercantile business did little to shield it from the economic downturns in the colony caused by natural disasters and the fluctuation of the price of the principal export, tobacco.

Attendance at the College of William and Mary

Hugh Nelson (b. 1750 d. October 18, 1800) entered the CW&M Grammar School at the age of 9 on February 11, 1759 (Notes, 1753-1770). On May 22, 1767, the President and Masters of William and Mary College in the Journal of the Meetings (1896)

“resolved that the Senr [senior] class in the Grammar School consisting of the following

Young Gentlemen, Mr. Thomas Davis, Charles Grymes & Hugh Nelson be removed after

Whitsuntide to the Moral & Mathematic Schools” (p. 191). At the age of 17 he transferred to the Philosophy School and with the purchase of his cap and gown in 1771 it is known he graduated (William and Mary Bursar Boarding Accounts 1754-1769) on

March 25, 1771 (Notes 1770-1778). Hugh’s father William speaks highly of his son’s accomplishment in his letter of November 25, 1770, to William Cookson (from Nelson,

1898): 203

my second son, Hugh, now near of Age [21] with his Brothers, Bob & Nat, are at College; my youngest son, William, about 10 years of age, will be there next summer; for on these I promise myself much comfort in my old age, if it pleases God to spare us. (p. 25)

Normally Grammar School boys were moved to the Philosophy School at the age of 15.

Nothing can be found in historical records that explains why Hugh was 17 when he was

promoted to the College. A possible explanation could be confusion with a cousin of the

same name (son of Thomas Nelson Jr.) that was born in 1762 and died in 1836. In

reviewing the cousin’s birth date there can be no confusion with the date of Hugh Nelson

[subject], the son of William Nelson and his promotion to the Philosophy School at the

age of 17.

For the student who spent his entire preparatory study at the Grammar School of

the College the opportunity for learning was expansive. Dillard (1951), in her thesis on

the Grammar School of the College of William and Mary, argues that a window into the

educational offerings comes from a review of the texts. She concludes, “Reading,

declamation, ancient history, and geography” were taught (p. 72). The listing of the

required texts for reading, writing and mathematics follows: (a) Enticks’ New Speller, (b)

Nugent’s Pocket Dictionary of French and English, (c) Watson’s Horace, (d) Patrick’s

Terence’s Comedies,(e) Gignon’s New Speller, (f) Stockhouse’s Graccae Grammatics

Rudiments [sic], (g) Epistolary Correspondence Made Pleasant, and Easy, (h) Ashe’s

Introduction to Dr. Lowth’s English Grammar, (i) Addington’s Practical Treatise on

Arithmetic, (j) Wright’s Treatise on Fractions, (k) Fordyce’s Dialogues on Education,

two volumes . . . and (l) Familiar Letters on Various Topics, For Business and

Amusement (Dillard, 1951, p. 71). Although this list above does not include specific titles

204

of works of classical literature used for moral, religious and philosophical discussion, the

basic skills, an introduction to poetry, and a book of plays allow the scholar to learn and

utilize skills taught in the Grammar School.

William Nelson took an interest in the education of his sons (Dillard, 1951). In

1767 he ordered books and globes from his friend who owned John Norton & Sons, merchants of London and Virginia. These were probably for Hugh Nelson, or perhaps he was to share them with his younger brothers. It is not known why Nelson, a successful merchant, requested his friend John Norton to order these books and globes for his sons.

Only a few very wealthy families could afford to send their sons to the CW&M for a full course of study in the grammar and philosophy schools. Generally the student was sent to the Grammar School to reinforce education by a tutor in their home or in a rural school such as those kept by Donald Robertson or Reverend Yates. Yet others, even in the mid-18th century, were sent to England for basic pre-collegiate education at a very early age. Hugh Nelson represents an exception by going completely through the grammar and philosophy schools.

Vocations

Hugh graduated from college in March 1771, married within two months and moved into his father’s home. Soon thereafter he was helping his father in the Yorktown store because of the death of Mr. Dudley, his father’s long-time assistant. Hugh’s status as an educated individual led to his being made a member of the York Court (the capacity of his appointment is not known) (Evans, 1957). Within two years of Hugh’s graduation,

William Nelson [father] died, and Hugh found himself with increasing responsibilities, one of which was jointly running the mercantile firm with his brother Thomas Jr. In 1775 205

Hugh was a member of the militia, and in 1777 he was a member of the House of

Delegates representing Fauquier County. By 1779 Hugh was ready to leave his parents’

house in Yorktown/York County and move with his family to Frederick County.

However, as Hugh’s brother (Thomas) became more involved in the military and politics,

Hugh assumed greater responsibility for his own growing family, his brother’s family,

and his mother. At the age of 50, on October 13, 1800, Hugh died and was buried at

Yorktown.

Background. Hugh graduated from the CW&M in March 1771 (Notes 1770-

1778) and married Judith Page in May 1771 (Rind, 1900). He moved his wife into his

childhood home where he had been living with his parents since graduation. About this

same time his father, William, gave Hugh property in Frederick and Fauquier Counties to

generate income for his family. While Hugh may have considered leaving the house of

his parents and moving his wife and new daughter, born in the spring of 1772, west to

Frederick or Fauquier County, the death of his father in November 1772 caused any such

plan to be laid aside. Hugh and his brother Thomas were willed, as tenants in common,

the mercantile assets of their father. In addition, Hugh inherited the family home (subject

to his mother’s life estate) (Notes to Council Journals, 1925) and £2000 (Evans, 1957;

Page 2000). During this short time frame, Hugh had also made the commitment as a

member of the York County Court (Evans, 1957). As a man, 22 years of age, Hugh had

vast responsibilities.

Merchant. Hugh was working with his father in the mercantile business after graduation from college because of the death of his father’s assistant. However, within two years his father died, and Hugh and Thomas received the business as tenants in 206

common. Two years of knowledge did not enable Hugh to learn much about the financial side of the business and “Thomas began to feel as if he and Hugh were not as well acquainted with the business as they might wish” (Evans, 1957, p. 187). They conferred and decided to “take into partnership Augustine Moore, who had been indentured to their father around 1746 and who, after his indenture was completed, had continued to work for Nelson” (p. 187). They formed a new company, Thomas Nelson Jr. and Company

(TNJ&C).

Before the death of their father, the company was balancing their purchases with their payments to the “eleven English merchants, [from whom they purchased goods] most of them located in London, Bristol, and Liverpool” (Evans, 1957, p. 173). (The payments were from the sale of merchandise and tobacco grown on the land belonging to

William, their father, to cover personal purchases through the business (Evans, 1957). By

1775, Thomas Jr., Hugh, and their new partner Augustine Moore, even with collection efforts, which might net them 50% of the outstanding debt, the business had not reduced their debt enough to procure shipments from major suppliers except the Hunt brothers

(Thomas and Rowland), and they shipped only out of affection for Thomas and Hugh’s father (Evans, 1957). As early as June 9, 1773, the executors began posting notices in the

Virginia Gazette asking for payment of the outstanding balances due the business (Purdie and Dixon, 1773, June 10). Money was needed to pay bequests of £19,000 sterling to family members in their father’s will, to cover the investment of £7,000 by the company in the Dismal Swamp Company, made prior to William’s death, and to reduce receivables of £33,500 that would enable reordering from their suppliers.

207

The War was beginning to take shape; Thomas was active in politics and in 1773 was called away from the problems of TNJ&C to help deal with “forged notes among the circulating currency of the colony” (Evans, 1957, p. 183). Thomas and Hugh would soon be involved as members of the militia. “By the spring of 1775 [TNJ&C still owed]

£27,500 of the original amount” of receivables of £33,500 (Evans, 1957, p. 179) and bequests to some family members remained unpaid (Evans, 1957).

The business was selling off stock and finally Augustine Moore posted a notice in the Virginia Gazette of April 11, 1777 announcing the business was closing. It was not until 1784 that TNJ&C finally phased out of business, as shown by the ledgers (William

Nelson Ledger and Daybook). Not only were there physical hardships to life and property because of the War, but there was also economic hardship; previously wealthy landowners were unable to pay outstanding account balances because of the falling tobacco prices at TNJ&C (Evans, 1957). The repayment of debt to the creditors of

TNJ&C and personal debt incurred on behalf of the state for expenses of the War, especially by Thomas, was hard on both brothers. However, Hugh fared somewhat better than his brother, whose possessions were sold, including a small table and the family bible that rested upon it (Meade, 1857).

Military Career. Hugh was active in the War from the September 11, 1775, assembly at Williamsburg when a battalion of the “militia was formed [under the leadership of General Nelson [Hugh’s brother, Thomas] where “Champion Travis [was made] a Colonel, Hugh Nelson, [a] Lieutenant Colonel, [and] Samuel Harwood [a]

Major” (Tyler, 1884-1894, p. 64). The unit was known as “General Nelsons Corps of

Virginia Light Dragoons” (White, 1995, p. 1976). No pension file was available; 208

therefore his service record is not available. However, during this time business suffered

as Thomas (Hugh’s brother), became more involved in politics and the impending War

(Meade, 1857).

Hugh and his brother General Thomas Nelson used a great deal of the family fortune (land and slaves) to help fund the war efforts. While Hugh kept track of his expenditures, Thomas failed to do so, and as Meade (1857) writes,

It becomes not me to speak of the hundreds of thousands procured on his own credit for the use of the State, when not a dollar could be gotten on its own, nor how the account stood between them at the close of that war. He [General Thomas Nelson] certainly entered upon it very rich, and came out of it so poor that when a few years had passed away, and he was laid in the old graveyard at York, without a headstone or slab to mark the spot, his property, save [his] the old house in deserted York and some poor broom-straw fields in Hanover, was put up at public sale to pay the debts contracted in his county’s cause. (p. 211)

When Hugh returned from his service in the Virginia Light Dragoons, he embraced

religion and became a source of inspiration and benefactor to the people of Yorktown

(Meade, 1857). Despite the ongoing problems with the business, he shared what little he had with others. By the middle of 1777 Hugh was a member of the House of Delegates.

House of Delegates. On May 26, 1777, Hugh Nelson was a delegate for

Fauquier County in the Virginia House of Delegates. This was a pivotal time in the history of the Virginia colony, as it had declared its independence in 1776 and the first constitution for Virginia had been adopted at that time.

In 1779 Hugh looked at the possibility of moving to Frederick County, VA, as outlined in a letter of February 10 to Battaile Muse asking for assistance in finding suitable temporary housing. In that letter he describes his ideas for building a new house and outbuildings:

209

This plantation I shall expect my principal profit from – and if it could be handsomely maintained on that, besides making enough to purchase such things as were beneficiary towards housekeeping and cloathing [sic]. I think money might be laid up from this, and I should be satisfied. That I might not be a hindrance to the crops, I should take Linny and Charles for jobbers and either Nanny or Peggy from hence would be [cannot be read] to the crops there. (Letter)

Research has shown that even though this letter describes a plan, it is in fact an idea that never materialized. This conclusion is based on tax figures for 1787 in Yorktown and

Frederick and property sales by Hugh and Judith in Hanover County.

In 1787 the couple sold two pieces of property in Hanover County (Hanover lies partially on the northern border of Henrico County), 584 acres in May, and 300 acres in

October (Records of Hanover County, 1913). It is not known how Hugh and Judith came into possession of these properties. An assumption can be made they purchased them from Hugh’s brother Thomas when his property and possessions were sold.

In the census for personal property tax in 1787, property owned by Hugh in

Winchester Town, Frederick County was appraised and taxed with 26 Blacks under 16,

28 over 16, 11 horses, and 57 cattle (Schreiner-Yantis and Love, 1987, p. 499). In 1787 this property could have been generating some profit to support Hugh and his family in

Yorktown. It is noted there are no white people in this appraisal, as generally would be the case with an overseer. Perhaps the overseer lived on a farm close nearby. While Hugh did not live in the area, he was well known in both Frederick and Fauquier counties because of his donation of land in Frederick County for a church at Cunningham’s

Chapel (Meade, 1857).

In the York County personal property assessment the record for Hugh Nelson for the period of 1782-1787 shows “2 white persons and 27 slaves” (Fothergill & Naugle,

210

1966, p. 2). These figures coincide with the inventory and appraisement following his death on January 28, 1800/1801 for the town property (Hugh Nelson Will Inventory and

Appraisement, 1800/1801).

All of the above tax records and land sales show that Hugh and Judith stayed in

Yorktown. Perhaps the most definite document is Hugh’s will, written on September 16,

1790, with a renunciation dated January 20, 1800/1801 and an appraisement dated

January 28, 1800/1801, all filed in the Yorktown County Court.

Hugh Nelson, student, merchant, military officer, and member of the House of

Delegates, educated at the CW&M, although not a hero in recorded history like his ancestors and brother, worked hard to hold the family and business together at a time when the economy of the colony declined and war with England was on the horizon. He supported his country, his family, and members of his extended family through his inspiration and hard work. In reading his will it is quite clear that the financial burden placed upon the family in his father’s will was on his mind as he composed his own. It states that “debts shall be paid, that the remainder of my estate may be kept together for the benefit of my family during the Life of my wife, and that at her death it may be equally divided among my children that may then be living” (Nelson, 1800/1801, p. 545).

Other Considerations

Hugh Nelson [subject] should not be confused with Hugh Nelson (b.

September30, 1768 d. March 18, 1836), son of Thomas Nelson Junior [Hugh’s uncle and signer of the Declaration of Independence] and Lucy Grymes, who were married on July

3, 1762. He was a 1780 graduate of the CW&M and a lawyer. His first wife died (date unknown) and in 1799 he married Eliza Kinlock (child of Francis and Mildred Walker). 211

In1802 he moved to Albemarle County, living at the plantation Belvoir (originally Castle

Hill), the estate of his second wife’s grandfather, Dr. Thomas Walker. He died there on

March 18, 1836. This son of Thomas Nelson Junior is known as Hugh Nelson, Speaker

(Dodson, 1956). According to Dodson (1956), he was:

a member of the State Senate, 1786-92, 1797-1800; House of Delegates, 1793, 1805-09, 1828-29; Judge of the General Court, elected February 7, 1809; member of the U. S. House of Representatives, 1811-23; and Minister to Spain, 1823-24. (p. 47)

The custom of naming family members after ancestors forces the genealogist to be particularly attentive to dates and lines of descent in emigrant and colonial families, spending many hours of work in libraries and archives. It must be noted here the Nelson family Bible mentioned in this bio-sketch is now “in the possession of the Googin family in Campbell County, VA.” (Page, 2000, 170-171) and contains the record of Thomas

Nelson and Lucy Grymes, parents of Hugh Nelson above.

Philip Smith

Philip Smith (b. 1746 d. 1782) was the son of Baldwin Mathew Smith and his first wife Frances (Fanny) Burgess (d. 1762) and was born in Northumberland County in 1746

(Fothergill, 1925). He died before 1782 at the approximate age of 36, in Westmoreland

County. Phillip attended the CW&M for 4 years as a student in the Grammar School.

Philip’s family is noteworthy in history, as his ancestors date back to the early settlement of the Virginia Colony, and the Smith family name is extensive in historical writings about the Virginia colony. The Philip Smith of this bio-sketch was a great-great-grandson of Captain John Smith of Purton.

212

Family Involvement in Colonial Politics and Government

The history of the Smith family in the early history of the Virginia Colony runs deeply. Direct ancestors of Philip Smith begin with one of the early families in the

Virginia colony. The family continued their involvement in the affairs of the colony beginning with the great-great-grandfather John Smith.

Great-Great-Grandfather. John Smith (birth and death dates unknown) great- great-grandfather of Philip Smith [subject] was originally from Warwick county and was

Speaker of the House of Burgesses in 1657. He married the daughter of Richard and

Anna Bernard (date unknown). He is known as John Smith of Purton, in Gloucester

County, through a report of a plot in 1663 of “an alleged [up] rising . . . by the servants

[that] were exposed by [his servant] Berkenhead” (Tyler, 1895, p. 47). John was made a

Lieutenant Colonel in the local militia before 1674 and perhaps was involved in the

Indian Wars of 1675. In addition: “he was agent for Mr. Richard Tyler, of London, who had lands in Gloucester County, by the courtesy of England” (Tyler, 1895, p. 47). In 1676

John Smith is noted as follows: “During Bacon’s Rebellion, Smith [John] was one of the prominent men whom the great patriot compelled to take the oath of allegiance at Middle

Plantation on August 3rd” (Tyler, 1895, p. 47). John Smith was active in affairs of the colony in the mid-17th century. His son Captain John Smith was also prominent in

Gloucester County.

Great Grandfather. Captain John Smith of Purton (b. 1662 d. April 4, 1698) married on Feb 17, 1680 (Tyler, 1895), Mary [Warner] (b. Abt. 1664 d.11-12-1700), daughter of Colonel Augustine Warner of Warner Hall Gloucester County and his wife

Mildred Reade (du Ballet, 1907, p. 27 & 32). He was born at the family plantation, 213

Purton, in Gloucester County (du Ballet, 1907) and inherited the property at the death of

his father. John and Mary had seven children, one of whom was Philip Smith (b. June 1,

1695 d. 1743) [grandfather of the subject].

John was active in his county and parish as a Captain with the Provincial Militia

(a part-time military group that protects the citizens within the county) (du Ballet, 1907)

and in addition to his activities accumulated three large plantations during his lifetime,

one of which was Purton, received at the time of the death of his father, John Smith. In

addition to his military activities and accumulation of land, he was active in his Parish

church and in the CW&M.

In October 1691 he is shown as a “vestryman of the Petsworth [Petsoe] Parish”

and contributed for the Parish poor (du Ballet, 1907, p. 27). In addition, there is a direct

link between Captain John Smith and the CW&M, as Smith was one of the original

trustees; serving as “trustee and governor . . . from the date of its charter until his death”

in 1698 (du Ballet, 1907, p. 32).

After the death of Captain John Smith on April 4, 1698, his will was read. He left

the following properties to his three sons: John Smith (b. July 18, 1685 d. unknown ) was

left Purton in Gloucester County, Augustine Smith (b. 1689, d. June 16, 1774) was willed

Shooters Hill in Middlesex County, and Philip Smith ((b. June 1,1695), the grandfather of

the subject, inherited Fleets Bay in Northumberland County (Tyler, 1895).

Grandfather. Philip Smith (b. June 1, 1695 d. June 4, 1743) at age “48 years, 3

days” (Tyler, 1917, p. 190) married Mary Mathews on February 9, 1711, (du Ballet, 1907

p. 38) as recorded in the family Bible kept by Philip Smith [subject], his grandfather, great-grandfather John of Purton, and great-grandmother Mary Warner Smith (Tyler, 214

1895). Mary Mathews was the daughter of Baldwin Mathews (a York County Justice)

and great-granddaughter of Governor Samuel Mathews (Fothergill, 1925). After her

death, Philip married secondly Hannah Shapleigh on July 16, 1742, in Northumberland

County (Adventures of Purse and Person, 1987; “Marriage License Records of

Northumberland County, Virginia, from 1735-1795”, 1939). She brought to the marriage

“land, together with 23 slaves and household furniture, etc.” from her father (Virginia

Council Journals, 1924, p. 62). Philip died in 1743 (will written May 15, 1743 and proven

on July 11, 1744). He did not leave anything to Hannah Shapleigh, but left something to

his five daughters, Mildred, Elizabeth, Sarah, Jane and Susanna: £200, one feather bed &

plain furniture; daughter Mary (wife of Jesse Ball) received £5. The rest of his estate

went to his son, Baldwin Mathews [father of the subject] (duBallet, 1907), including 600

acres in Bruton Parish, York County, that was sold by son Baldwin Mathews on July 13,

1751 (Historical and Genealogical Notes, 1916). It is also noted in “Books in Colonial

Virginia” (1900) “that 2 large bibles . . . [and] 2 small do [same]., Tillotson’s Works,

Beverage’s Works, several books of law & physic [sic], books of husbandry, 6 prayer

books, and several other sort of books” (p. 302) were inventoried in the estate. It is

assumed the family Bible mentioned above is one of the large bibles inventoried.

The Philip Smith family lived on property inherited from his father (Captain John

above) at Fleets Bay in Northumberland County (du Ballet, 1907; Fothergill, 1925) (Note

that there are different pieces of land in the colony with similar-sounding names: Fleets in

Henrico County and Fleets Bay in Lancaster County (Dorman, 1987).

Philip was a vestryman at Petsworth (Petsoe) Parish in Gloucester from 1714-

1722 and the sheriff in 1715 (Notes and Queries, 1934). These positions were no doubt 215

held based on his rental (Quit Rent) of 700 acres in Gloucester County as shown by the

1704 listing (“Virginia Quit Rent Rolls, 1704”). In addition, he was known as Colonel

Philip Smith due to his appointment on June 12, 1739 as an officer in the Militia of

Northumberland County (Mr. Robert Jones, 1915).

Father. Baldwin Mathews Smith married Frances (Fanny) Fox Burgess (d. 1762) about December 1743 (Smith’s of Virginia, 1896). She was a daughter of Charles

Burgess (d. who was in the House of Burgesses in 1730 and owned over 17,000 acres of land. At his death, despite the legacies to his wife, all land was sold to pay the debts of

Charles Burgess (Henings, 1734) and Anne Fox (married on October 4, 1721),

(Fothergill, 1925; “Marriage Bonds in Lancaster County”, 1897). Fanny died in 1762, leaving two sons, Phillip and Edward, who were students at the CW&M (“Mathews

Family” 1897). Philip left the Grammar School at the CW&M in 1760, and Edward began school in 1762, staying until 1767 (Swem, 1941). After the death of their mother

(1762), Baldwin [father] posted a bond and was guardian of the boys. After Fanny’s death Baldwin [father] apparently remarried to Lucy (last name unknown), as shown in the Lancaster County, Virginia land records for 1770-1784 (Waske, 2009). His will also indicates that the property of Fleets Bay was left at his death “in trust for Lucy [who must be his second wife], widow of Baldwin Matthews Smith, Gent, deceased and her assigns during the natural life, remainder to the aforesaid Philip Smith, son of said B.M. Smith”

(p. 88).

From the bio-sketches above it can be seen the Smith Family of Purton and Fleets

Bay generally spent their time taking care of their property and running their plantations

216

while continuing community service and religious service to the church and the community.

Background

The background of Philip Smith [subject] is revealed through a series of events dealing with two properties, the first known as Pryor’s Plantation, the second called

Purton. The background of the property unfolds and reveals the history of the family and begins with the immigration of Philip Smith great, great, grandfather of the subject.

The date of the immigration of the Smith ancestors of Phillip [subject] is not known, but the original immigrant’s son married Anna, the daughter of Richard Bernard

(b. approx 1613, d. before 1652) and Anna B. Cordery Bernard (b. approx 1617, married

November 24, 1634 at St. Andrews in England (Tyler, 1894, July; Tyler, 1895, July;

Tyler, 1896, July). Richard and Anna came to the colony of Virginia (year unknown), and in 1647 Richard rented the property known as Pryor’s Plantation, intending to add to the

“old dwelling house and quartering houses and tobacco house . . . a new house” (Bernard

Family, 1896, p. 63). After the death of Anna’s husband Richard (about 1652), Anna B.

Cordery Bernard purchased the property from the heir of William Pryor’s estate,

Margaret Pryor Edwards and her husband Thomas Edwards of London (Bernard Family,

1896). A second deed recorded in York in 1662 stated that Anna B. Cordery Bernard was “now of Purton, in Petsoe Parish, in the county of Gloster [Gloucester] in Virginia, widow” (“Bernard Family”, 1896, July, p. 63). It is with this deed that the Bernard family name is associated with Purton, and soon it was also associated with her son-in- law, husband of her daughter Anna, Captain John Smith.

217

It is through these historic connections to the plantation known as Purton in

Gloucester County, formerly owned by Anna B. Cordery Bernard, that our subject’s great,-great-grandfather Captain John Smith of Purton, Petsoe (Petsworth) Parish, on the

York River, is identified (Tyler, 1895).

Attendance at the College of William and Mary

Philip Smith [subject] (b. 1746) attended the CW&M from June 29, 1756 to June

29, 1760. As with previous subjects in this study, June 29 must have been his birthday, as grammar students generally began on their birthday rather than at the beginning of a trimester, as was generally the practice in the School of Philosophy. This would have made Philip 10 years old at the time he entered the CW&M, older than many of the boys who were admitted at the age of 8, the minimum age (Dillard, 1921). He was 14 when he left, which indicates that he attended the Grammar School for 4 years. During his time in the Grammar School he was on a scholarship (his type of student was commonly called a foundationer student (Notes, 1921). It is not known who provided the funds for Philip’s education. The William and Mary Bursar Boarding Account book (Bursar, n.d.) does not show room and board for Philip Smith [subject]. Therefore, it can be assumed because of the great distance from Williamsburg to Northumberland County that Philip must have lived in town or he was not charged room and board as a foundation student. From the curriculum stated in the Statutes of 1736 and 1756, Dillard (1951) gives a view of the practical aspect of the Grammar School educational process and its application through an examination of the importance of the Greek and Latin language.

218

The beginnings of education in the colonies focused on the processes that were known from England up until 1749 and involved the extensive use of Greek for religious understanding and Latin as the cultural and business language. Dillard (1951) notes,

Doctors, lawyers, ministers, statesmen, and schoolmasters need it in their professions. Even minor officials, clerks and surveyors, found it necessary as deeds were often written in Latin. Greek and Hebrew were considered essential to a thorough understanding of the Bible and for the training of young men for the ministry. (p. 9) The movement away from the heavy use of Greek and Latin can be seen in the

Revised Statutes of 1756 and the strong opposition from the faculty in their statement entered in the Minutes of May 1770. Their statement is a proposed provision that would let the student candidate who failed the course work makes their appeal to the Visitors instead of the Masters. This opposition by the Masters was based on the contention that classical education could not be separated from the practical; that “to teach vulgar arithmetic and some practical branch of mathematics” [to the student without the attainment of a foundation of classical learning] would ‘qualify them for an inferior position in life” (Dillard, 1951, p. 50; Meeting, 1904-1905). Even with the mild concession of intensive classical language study in the 1756 statutes, the masters were still pushing for classical education similar to that of the English universities and were no doubt bringing that philosophy to the class room. While their response was based on a theory of pedagogy, it also quite clear the Masters did not want to relinquish their authority to judge the level of student educational attainment.

Vocations

Philip Smith [subject] (b. approx 1746 d. 1782) lived to be only 35/36 years of age. He left the CW&M Grammar School at age 14, and by the time he was 16 his

219

mother had died (1762). Within the next decade he would see the all the family estates

left by his father sold to satisfy the shortages of Speaker Robinson. It appears his brother

John’s sons, John and Edward, abandoned Purton Plantation and moved to Frederick

County near the town of Winchester, “using capital supplied by their aunt, Miss Martha

Jaquelin” (“The Smiths of Virginia: 1. Family of John Smith of Purton”, 1895, p. 96). In

addition, “Shooter’s Hill in Middlesex and Fleet’s Bay in Northumberland, are reported

to have been sold to satisfy the shortage of Speaker John Robinson” (p. 96). However, in

Wirt’s Life of Patrick Henry, a remembrance quoted contends Shooters Hill was saved,

but this was not proven and is outside the scope of this work.

The conclusion of the life of Philip Smith [subject] and his stepmother Lucy, who had life rights to Fleets Bay, has remained unwritten up until now. Phillip Smith married

Elizabeth Bushrod (spinster) about March 22, 1769, as shown by his bond recorded in the

Westmoreland Court House (Records 1776-1790) declaring a £2,000 debt to John

Augustine Washington (b. 1735 d. 1787) of Fairfield, brother of General George

Washington (“A Marriage Contract” 1907, January), upon Philip and Elizabeth’s marriage, to cover “real and personal assets” (Westmoreland County Records, 1776-

1790, p. 245) which she brought to the marriage. (A search has been conducted in an effort to determine the relationship of Elizabeth Bushrod to John Augustine Washington.

The most plausible explanation is that Elizabeth Bushrod was the sister of Hannah

Bushrod, of Westmoreland County, who married John Augustine Washington of

Fairfield, brother of General George Washington (McGroarty, 1925). The relationship of

Hannah and John to Elizabeth was further confirmed in the will of John Bushrod (d.

February 14, 1760) [Hannah’s father] proven on December 30, 1760, which leaves to 220

“daughter Hannah Washington 35 slaves, furniture and land . . . daughter Elizabeth

Bushrod land and 41 slaves” (Fothergill, 1925, p. 145). John Bushrod lived in Cople

Parish, in the lower part of Westmoreland County. The parish contained two churches:

one at the Yeocomico River and the other at the Nominy River both located in the lower

or eastern part of Westmoreland County. It must be noted that John Bushrod was buried

at his plantation Bushfield (Meade, 1857). In addition, the Washington’s (John and

Hannah) lived close to Philip and Elizabeth, as shown in Schreiner-Yantis’ (1987) book

on personal property in Westmoreland County in 1787. Groupings by the assessor’s date

of the survey show that Elizabeth and her sister Hannah were close neighbors (p. 1129).

Based on the bond document, Philip [subject] married, about the age of 26,

Elizabeth Bushrod, who was over 21 years of age (identified as a spinster) who possessed

a “considerable estate as well as real and personal” (Westmoreland Records, 1776-1790,

p. 245). This bond was recorded at the Westmoreland County Court House on October

28, 1780. (It was not unusual to record documents years after they were written. The

supposition is that it was recorded because Philip was sick or injured.)

Records do not exist that show specific public offices held by Philip Smith, and it

may be that he did not hold a public office. However, he was active politically, as shown

by his name being associated with the Westmoreland County Committee. He was a

member of the committee and is noted as being present at their meeting on January 31,

1775, at which they chose a “delegate to represent . . . [the] county in [the] Colony

Convention, at the town of Richmond, in Henrico County, on the 20th of March [1775]”

(Coleman, 1897; Westmoreland County (Virginia) Resolutions, 1912, p. 51), at the end of the meeting, the Lees, Richard Henry and Richard, Esq., “were unanimously chosen as 221

Delegates” (p. 51). Philip Smith was one of the 30 men designated “to see the

Association faithfully observed [and make sure] in . . . [Westmoreland] County, [all actions were followed] according to the direction of the Continental Congress” (p. 51).

He no doubt also attended and participated in the Committee meeting on May 23, 1775, where the resolution “that all their good offered for sale met the terms set forth by the

Association of the Continental Congress” (p. 54); after all, he was one of the members responsible to “faithfully observe” if the county followed the terms of the Continental

Congress.

Philip Smith died in the early months of 1782. An inventory of his estate dated

June 25, 1782, is in the Westmoreland Circuit Court Office Records of 1776-1790 (p.

193) and shows a value greater than £3,000, not including land. This inventory shows that Philip, settled in Westmoreland County (northwest of Northumberland County), had two properties: the main property containing his house and farming operation (not identified by name) and a second piece called Forest Quarter that housed 28 slaves, 54 cattle, 14 hogs; in addition, various equipment for the support of the animals and slaves.

The main piece of property (Could this have been Bushfield) was where Phillip and his family lived. This property housed 41 slaves, livestock (cattle, sheep, mules, and horses).

The household goods listed on the inventory show a home with imported furniture, china, silver, and accruements indicating a wealthy owner. Although it is not listed in the inventory of Philip’s estate, (the personal property survey for 1787, approximately 5 years after his death), his wife Elizabeth owned a four-wheeled carriage (Schreiner-

Yantis, 1987, p. 1117), the highest-status mode of transportation for the time period.

222

Philip Smith [subject], a grammar school student at the CW&M between 1756

and 1760, who left school at the age of 14 and whose mother died when he was 16, found

himself beset by financial tragedy when Speaker Robinson died and lands accumulated

through generations of his family were sold to satisfy debts to the Colony of Virginia. Yet within 10 years after the death of his mother he was marrying into the Bushrod family, which also had married into the family of George Washington, and lived in

Westmoreland County far from the Fleet’s Bay Plantation willed to his father Baldwin

Mathews Smith and subsequently willed to him upon the death of his father. While history does not hold all details of his life, and it is not known whether he completed any military service, what is apparent from his accomplishments is that he was a man who had some education and used it to rebuild his life of plantation owner and respected member of his community.

Other Considerations

The initial inability to identify Philip Smith’s family through the generations made it necessary to develop a different approach in tracing his direct heritage. In the processing of thinking about a possible route, it came to me one morning: follow the land. Once that approach was used the lineage became clear. It is yet another method of

tracing families through the generations.

John Tyler

John Tyler, the son of John (b. after 1707, d. August 1773) of James City County

(Notes, 1921) who was a builder by trade (Will of John Tyler, 1924; Williamsburg: The

Old Colonial Capital, 1907), was descended from the Tyler family that originally settled

in York County in 1645 (Tyler-Strother-Allen, 1926). John, the subject of this 223

biographical sketch, attended the Grammar School on a scholarship and Philosophy

School at the College of William and Mary, leaving in 1764/65 (Swem, 1941). His college friendships with Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and others influenced his vocation and political career as a legal authority, political leader, and advocate for education.

Family Involvement in Colonial Politics and Government

The Tyler family had been settled in the colony for three generations prior to the birth of the subject of this study. They were not a wealthy family but took pride in their work and participated as much as possible in the community based on their responsibility to support their families. The respect they garnered from the community passed to John

Tyler as a student at the CW&M on scholarship.

Great-Grandfather. The Tyler family legacy began with great-grandfather

Henry Tyler (b. 1604 d. 1672), who originally settled in York County in 1645. In 1653 he was living on the outskirts of Williamsburg and was York County Justice of the Peace.

He was married twice, to Mary who emigrated with him, and about 1658 to Anne who died on April 2, 1679. Anne was the widow of John Orchard. Henry and Anne had three sons: Henry (b. 1660 d. 1729), John, and Daniel (“Tyler-Strother-Allen”, 1926, p. 209).

Grandfather. Son Henry, grandfather of the subject, (birth and death unknown) was appointed as a member of the committee in 1699 to superintend the settlement and buildings of the emerging town of Williamsburg. He also served as one of the two church wardens at Bruton Parish. In addition, during his life he was a Bailiff, Constable, Justice of the Peace, High Sheriff, and Coroner of York County. Henry, the oldest son of his family married Elizabeth Chiles Page, granddaughter of Colonel John Page (Tyler- 224

Strother-Allen, 1926). From this marriage three children were born, John (b. 1707, d.

August 1773), father of the subject, Francis, and Henry (Tyler-Strother-Allen, 1926).

Father. John (b. 1707, d. August 1773) (Will of John Tyler, 1924; Williamsburg

– The Old Colonial Capital, 1907), the father of the subject, was a builder in

Williamsburg, erecting the Powder Magazine and two wings of the Bruton Parish Church

and finishing the palace building begun by Henry Cary. His political ambitions also

contributed to Williamsburg as an appointee to the House of Burgesses on May 2, 1727,

when he was around 21, the age of majority (Tyler-Strother-Allen, 1926). Twenty years

later his son John, the second son of several children he sired with Anne Contesse, would

be born on February 28, 1747.

Background

John Tyler, the son of John and Anne Contesse, the second son of many children,

was born on February 28, 1746/7, and died on January 25, 1819, at his plantation,

Greenway, near the Charles City Court House in Charles City County (Tyler, 1859). John

received his schooling at the Grammar School and College of William and Mary

(William and Mary Bursar Boarding Accounts 1754-1769). However, records show he

attended Donald Robertson’s School in 1759 [King and Queen County] in preparation for

his college admission in 1760 (Carson, 1965, p. 14). After college John studied law in

Williamsburg under Robert Carter Nicholas (Tyler, 1884-1886), receiving his license to

practice prior to 1772. Initially John practiced in James City County, and then in 1772

moved to Charles City County, where he opened a law practice (Kale, n.d.). In 1776, he married Mary Marot Armistead (daughter of Robert Book Armistead of York County and

Ann Shields (Shields Family, 1896) at the Weyanoke Church on the James River. Mary 225

was only 16 years old, while John was close to 30. They moved to the Marlee plantation

in Charles City County, whose name they changed to Greenway, where the family lived

for decades (Kale, n.d.; Tyler, L. G., 1884-1886).

Attendance at the College of William and Mary

John was “seven years of age [1754] when he entered the CW&M Grammar School

on Mrs [Sarah] Bray’s [widow of Captain Thomas Bray of New Kent (Tyler, L., 1907, p.

270) foundation” (Digges, 1892-1893, p. 212; Notes 1921, p.41; Tyler, L. G. 1884-1886,

p. 54). According to the CW&M records he attended Grammar School for 2 years from

March 25, 1753, to March 25, 1755, (Notes, 1921). Carson (1965) shows John further prepared himself for college by attending Donald Robertson’s school in King and Queen

County in 1759. In 1760 at the age 15, John returned to the CW&M to begin studies in the Philosophy School and completed the 4-year Baccalaureate degree (Swem, 1941).

At the same time John returned, Thomas Jefferson began his course of study at the CW&M (Kale, n.d.; Swem, 1941). Monsell (1939) describes Jefferson as a student at the CW&M and quotes Dabney Carr, who came to CW&M in 1761, as saying “He’s friendly with everybody” (p. 163). This is the same Dabney Carr who presented the resolution to appoint a Standing Committee of Correspondence and Inquiry to correspond with the other colonies as a way of gathering information on October 12, 1773, (Garnett,

1910).

It is perhaps this friendliness that launched a lifetime friendship between Tyler,

Jefferson, and Patrick Henry, a boyhood friend of Jefferson’s (Gordon, 1915; Patrick

Henry, 1926; Tyler, 1884-1886) that was no doubt strengthened by the common interest of Jefferson and Tyler in their study of law and Henry’s love of debate (Tyler, 1884- 226

1886; Patrick Henry’s Paper Cutter, 1926). While Tyler completed his 4-year degree at

the CW&M, Jefferson left the college after 2 years to pursue his study of law. However,

both men were living together in Williamsburg (Tyler, L. G. 1885-1896), Jefferson

studying with George Wythe (Tyler, 1884-1886) and Tyler under Robert Carter Nicholas

(Tyler, 1884-1886).

Vocations

After graduation in 1764, John studied law for many years under Robert Carter

Nicholas, a distinguished jurist and patriot during his youth. During this period it is

reported that John lived at the Semple House in Williamsburg (Kale, n.d.). After John obtained his license he practiced in James City County, and in 1772 moved to Charles

City County where he opened a law practice in Charles City, living temporarily with his sister and brother-in-law at their home (Indian Fields, 1990).

John Tyler, the lawyer, began to take leadership roles, the first of which was as a

member of the Committee of Safety for Charles City County in 1774. In addition, he

organized a local militia, holding the rank of Captain (Tyler, 1884-1886).

At the Convention of 1776 John was made the Judge of the Admiralty, an office he was appointed to again in 1786. The later appointment also [yes?] made him Judge of the first Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia (Tyler, 1884-1886; Tyler, 1859). In 1778 he became a member of the Legislature, holding responsibilities as Chair of the

Committee of Justice, Chair of the committee of the whole, and Speaker from 1781 to

1785. It is reported that he had a balanced approach in the Legislature on the military and financial matter of the American Revolution. In addition, he was elected Judge of the

General Court in 1788, a job in which he continued for 22 years and left to become 227

Governor from 1808 to 1811 (Tyler, 1859). During his term as Governor he was appointed to the Board of Visitors at the CW&M and in 1809 he established the Literary

Fund of Virginia intended for the education of the poor. After the governorship Tyler retired to his 1,200-acre plantation, Greenway, while still holding the position of District

Judge until his death (Tyler, 1884-1896).

After his death the Literary Fund would be asked, through an act by the

Legislature (February 24, 1815), to prepare a plan for public instruction in the state of

Virginia. This plan was presented on December 6, 1816, recommending three gradations of schools: Primary, Academies, and University. The state university concept was authorized on January 25, 1819. The system was not immediately enacted in its entirety.

However, the beginning of the primary and academy concept was begun with the funds of the Literary Fund (Tyler, 1884-1896).

Judge John Tyler died on January 6, 1813. His last will and testament (Will and

Inventory, 1909) show the extent of his accumulated wealth. He owned Greenway in

Charles City County and land in Kentucky. The expansive list of home furnishings for a house with five fireplaces includes, but is not limited to: over two dozen Windsor chairs, tables, mirrors, pictures, three bed sets, five beds and bolsters, and four bedsteads. In addition, the list mentions a library with 75 books described as broken volumes, 112 books described as good volumes on law, history, and Belles Letters, china, silver, kitchenware, and furniture. There were plantation utensils (outside equipment to run the farm), livestock and manpower consisting of 8 mules, 45 head of cattle, 66 sheep, 60 hogs, \ 12 goats and 39 Negroes (Will and Inventory, 1909). These assets show the extent of his wealth and Seager (1963) describes his character: 228

a distinguished man, A Revolutionary War Patriot, governor of Virginia and judge of the United State Circuit Court. He was congenital rebel and individualist, an intellectual child of the French Enlightenment devoted to person, idea, and political loyalty to his friend and contemporary Thomas Jefferson . . . these qualities and attitudes he passed undiluted to his son. (p. 50-15) John Tyler’s life reflects a devotion to colonial Virginia and thereafter the

Commonwealth of Virginia. From his humble beginnings as a student on scholarship at the CW&M to his ultimate accomplishments as Governor of the Commonwealth of

Virginia and Judge of the United States District Court in Virginia, he utilized [to do what?] his education and friendships with men who were instrumental in the development of an independent nation, many of whom he met at the College of William and Mary.

229

CHAPTER 4: COLONIAL STUDENT EDUCATION FINDINGS

This study resulted in a series of bio-sketches of students who attended the

CW&M from 1756 through 1765, and of their ancestors, some of whom also attended the

College. The study’s findings are derived from those bio-sketches. These sketches open a window to reveal students’ collective backgrounds, preparation for college, experiences at school, and life time accomplishments. Each section includes subtopics that are filled with information and examples providing personal data and comparisons via cross case analysis. This format enables the reader to place into perspective the biographical underpinning of the study.

The CW&M provided three types of education: Grammar School, Philosophy

School (Bachelor of Arts or AB), and a Master of Divinity (Master of Arts or AM). The

Grammar and Philosophy Schools were in the same CW&M Main building. The Master of Divinity educational environment is not known, but it did involve individual instruction which might have been in rooms on the second floor of the Wren Building

(Main Building) and field study at a parish. During the period of this study, curriculum for all levels of education was dictated by the Statutes of 1756.

Student Background

One of the important outcomes of this research was the discovery and articulation of an individual and collective profile of the Philosophy School student during the period of the study. This was accomplished by the means of bio-sketches of 15 students, all of

whom had completed four or more years at the College within the period of this study

(1756-1765). This profile includes student demographics, the stratum of society from

230

which these students came, their family financial status, the geographic location of each

student family, and the preparation of each student.

Student Demographics

The 15 students in this study were born between 1742 and 1750, with over half

surviving into the 19th-century. They were born during a time when the colony was

served by the newspaper, Virginia Gazette by William Parks and later, 1751 by William

Hunter, and a book-store, as “almost every Virginian of substance, be he a planter,

merchant, or parson owned a small collection of . . . books” (Morpurgo, 1976, p. 105).

Therefore, as children these students had been exposed to the written word. There was

paper money to supplement the traditional tobacco exchange, as government issued paper

became an accepted a medium of exchange as a result of the tobacco crop failures of

1755 and 1758. There was an opportunity for college education within the colony, the

same institution that some of their ancestors, fathers, and grandfathers had attended or

helped found. Appendix G, Statistics on College Preparation, Higher Education, and

Room and Board, provides specific comparative data regarding issues such as (a)

educational preparation, (b) age of entry into the CW&M, (c) years at the Grammar

School and the Philosophy School, (d) age of departure from the CW&M, (e) years of undergraduate education and whether graduation occurred, and (f) when and if the student took room and board at CW&M.

Stratum of Society. While this group of students generally came from powerful

families, not all could claim that heritage. The students at the CW&M during the period

of this study came from at least four identifiable strata of colonial Virginia society:

plantation owners, planters, professionals (lawyers and physicians), and craftsmen. 231

Rudolph’s history of American Colleges and Universities, (1962/1990) implies to the

general reader of the history of higher education that “men of practical inclination” (p.

20) were not drawn to colonial colleges. However, during the period of this study a

diverse group of students were exposed to a wide range of the professional and moneyed

social strata of the colony during their student years. (Appendix H, Stratum of Society by

Father’s Occupation).

The largest number of students (11 or 73.3%) came from the plantation owner

class: Edward Bland; William Bland; Nathaniel Burwell, (son of Carter Burwell);

Nathaniel Burwell, (son of Robert Burwell); Cole Digges; Benjamin Harrison; James

Johnson; Thomas Massie; Augustine Moore; Bernard Moore and Philip Smith (See

Appendix I – Students Vital Statistics). In the definition of that time, a plantation was an independent entity providing substance and goods from the land with the labor being provided by slaves or indentured servants and the owners. Davis (1978) describes the plantation class the most desirable, based on wealth and societal structure.

In the 1750’s . . . [plantations] were self-sufficient in foodstuffs, had the capacity to produce and process the staple crop, and depended on indentured or slave labor . . . centers of minor industries and crafts [and could also be] depots for the export crops of their nearest neighbors who had smaller acreage and no water transportation facilities. (p. 1580)

The fathers of some of the students owned many hundreds, even thousands, of acres. These acres had been given to their ancestors during the early settlement years of the colony. The land passed through the oldest sons of each generation by a process called entailed estates, a legislative enactment from English law and adopted by the colony, according to which estates were “held in fee tail and automatically passed from father to son [at death]. No debts could be charged against the entailed estates, and a 232

specific act of the Assembly was required before any portion of an estate could be sold”

(John, 1982, p. 41-3). In addition, there were fathers who had purchased or traded land and built plantations for their own benefit (e.g. James Johnson) or husbands who were fortunate to have wives who had been given lands by their fathers (e.g. Nathaniel

Burwell) that were not entailed. Non-entailed plantations tended to have fewer acres as large plantations were sub-divided among many sons and an occasional daughter. Thus, the largest group among the subjects of this study did, indeed, come from among the wealthiest and largest land-owners of the colony.

Another social class was that of the planters. A planter at this time was considered to be someone who owned his own land, farmed it with a few indentured or slave laborers, and sold crops to others to purchase the necessities of life. A distinction between a plantation and a planter’s farm was that a plantation was considered to be self- sufficient, while a planter needed to interact with the community to obtain necessities.

While none of the fathers of the students in this study came from the planter class, three

(20%) students, Edward Bland, Cole Digges, and Hugh Nelson became planters after leaving the CW&M.

A third social class was that of the merchants of the colony. Two (13.3%) students came from merchant families, Beverley Dickson and Hugh Nelson. A merchant ran a mercantile or trading establishment, typically located in towns. Merchants stocked the necessities of colonial living, and often served as conduits (or middle men) for commerce with England, running an “import/export business” (Davis, 1978, p. 1585). Of the two students who came from merchant families, one came from a well-known

233

merchant family (the Nelsons) located in Yorktown. The other student (Dickson) came from a modest merchant family located in Gloucester County.

A fourth social class was that of the professionals, which included lawyers, physicians and ministers. Two (13.3%) students are linked to this social stratum. One student, James McClurg, followed his father, Walter McClurg, into the medical profession, while William Bland, the son of Richard Bland, a plantation owner, was a minister.

A fifth social class was composed of craftsmen. Members of this class had specialty craft skills such as carpentry or metal work. John Tyler, one of the students in this study, may have had particular visibility among the students because of the reputation of his craftsman father. Tyler’s father, a builder and bricklayer, built the

Powder Magazine, finished the Palace Building begun by Henry Cary, and added two wings on the Bruton Parish Church, all in Williamsburg. Tyler attended the CW&M on scholarship, although the extent of this assistance is not known. (See Appendix J, Tuition

Sources by Student and Past Due in 1778).

The finding of a mix of social classes in this study seems unusual based on the current written history of higher education. Thelin (2004) states in History of American

Higher Education, “that class distinctions within the [Virginia Colony] were sharp and the colleges became increasingly distant from the world and experience of most

American families” (p. 25). This study has not found the extreme class distinctions as described by Thelin (2004). Diversity research in this study coupled with diversity research by Jack Greene (1959) (faculty member of the Department of History at the

Western Reserve University, a close friend and collaborator of Ryes Isaac) on the House 234

of Burgesses for a 50 year period in the mid-18th century does not support Thelin’s statement. Greene’s study from 1720 to 1776 found the House of Burgesses to be a very diverse political body. Davis (1978) supports Greene’s finding after doing his own investigation using Greene’s work as his data set. He found that the background of the representatives in the Virginia House of Burgess during the same time period, 1720 to

1776, represented a diverse strata of colonists, as “the legislators of the colonial era were not simply the wealthiest men of their day and that they represented a much wider distribution of domicile than did the rich of the 1780’s” (p. 1527).

The important finding from this discussion is that the enrollment at the CW&M was diverse and crossed class boundaries in a fashion similar to the largest elected political body of colonial residents in Virginia, the House of Burgesses, and that within the boundaries of social classes of that time, students at the CW&M during the same period were remarkably diverse

Financial Status. Social stratum was not necessarily the same as financial status.

Another way of looking at the family of a student is based on the father’s ability to pay fees and room and board. Fees for tuition were paid directly to the professor and acted as a supplement to his low base salary (Swem, 1959). Charges levied by the CW&M include room and board and other charges such as books, clothing, and care when the student was sick. This is further verified in the report made by Blair in 1903 on the “Finances of the

College in 1755-1765.” There is no category for fees or tuition due in Blair’s report.

Swem (1959) gives an overview of student tuition and bursars records:

There was no general tuition charge. Each student registered in a professor’s class and paid a fee to the professor. The combined amount paid to three or more professors would represent what would be the tuition charge of today [1959]. If a 235

student lived in the college (Wren) building, he paid for board and room . . . [without] a complete set of Bursar’s books [it is not known] who lived in the college building . . . there are only two bursars’ book extant, those for the years 1753 to 1777, and even these do not tell the whole story, because there were always a number of Williamsburg college boys who lived at home and also a few from out of the city who lived with friends in Williamsburg. (p. 207)

Not having the financial resources was not reserved for the poorer students such as the Dickson and the Tyler. Three families, from those who were students during the study’s period, were still indebted to the CW&M in 1778 (Notes, 1921). Nicholas

Dickson, a merchant and father of Beverley Dickson, owed the CW&M 17 shillings and

4.5 pence in 1778, 14 years after Dickson was last enrolled. James Johnson, Sr., father of

James Johnson, apparently made little attempt to pay for his son’s room and board, as the

£64/9/3.75 past due represented his son’s 5 years at £13 per year. His college experience consisted of 2 years in the Grammar School and 3 years in the Philosophy School. This balance remained unpaid 14 years after the son left the college. James Johnson, Sr. is only known through court records, which show that his land holdings were modest, and as such there would be a tendency to classify him as a planter. However, the records from

King William County indicate that his holdings were known as a plantation. Finally the

Moore brothers, Augustine (Austin) and Bernard, sons of Bernard Moore, plantation owner, had outstanding debt to the college in 1778 of £96/14/3.5, representing 2 years of room and board for Austin and 7 years for Bernard. Bernard, their father, started his life extraordinarily wealthy and evidently well educated. He paid one year of room and board for Austin’s grammar school and the first 9 months for Bernard’s grammar school, or a total of £21 for his son’s education. There is no extant record to show the Moore brothers were billed for this debt as is the practice in the 21st century. (See Appendix J – Tuition

236

Sources by Student Reflecting Past Due Balances in 1778). He made some poor decisions

throughout his life time that affected his wife and children before and after his death.

There are no extant records known to show payment of fees/tuition to the professors, nor

which students continued school without paying the fees.

John Tyler presents another example of financial resources as his father was a

craftsman. John received a scholarship from Mrs. Bray’s foundation as shown in the

Bursars Book (Notes, 1921, January) (for his 2 years at the CW&M grammar school

(March 1753 to March 1755). After his time at the grammar school, he was enrolled at

Donald Robertson’s private school for tutoring in 1759 (Carson, 1965). There is no indication that Tyler had a scholarship during his years at the Philosophy School. After

Tyler completed his studies, minutes of the President and Masters for January 19, 1769,

show the following resolution: “That good Security [to prove he is responsible] is

demanded of Mr. John Tyler for the balance of his account” (Minutes, 1904, p. 20). It is

not clear from the documentation or the wording whether this bill for the unpaid balance

of John Tyler’s college costs was sent to the father or the son, as both carried the same

name (Minutes, 1904). However, there is no record of Tyler taking room and board at the

college during his undergraduate education and his parents lived in or close to

Williamsburg, as shown by his father’s work on the various buildings close to the

College, Tyler might have lived at home during this time. Therefore, the charges

presumably were for books and supplies.

Social stratum did not guarantee financial stability. Even those families of the plantation class were pawns of the weather, fluctuations of the tobacco market, and land

productivity. What is clear is that the students came from families of diverse social strata 237

and financial situations, and that the financial situations of some families may have

altered dramatically while their sons were in college, due to the effects of nature on crop

growth, market conditions for crop sales, and bad financial decisions among family

elders. Alternatively, the CW&M seems to have aided the situations of families in

financial stress, both by providing scholarships in some form, and by being lenient, if not

negligent, in the pursuit of payment of fees.

The discoveries of this investigation challenge an assertion made by Rudolph

(1962/1990) that “the costs required available cash, something which many people of middling and lower class did not have.” (p. 20). The existence of “available cash” seemed not to have been a criterion of college participation nor a key factor in the decision as to whether a boy could or should go to college. The issue of who had means to pay for tuition was muddy and changed depending upon economic conditions and personal situation. The son of a craftsman (Tyler) could go to college with the help of scholarships; the sons of supposedly well-do-families could go to college and simply not pay their bills (an unintended scholarship of a different sort). In other words, Rudolph’s assertion seems not to match the evidence found in this study about the relationship of family finances to college attendance.

Geographic Location. Diversity in the colonial period was not only a factor of social strata or financial situation, but also of geographic location. There is an interesting insight about access to college that can be gleaned from the location of the homes of the students. (See Appendix K - Map of the Virginia Colony Counties 1761-1770 - Student

Home County). Of the 18 counties shown on the 1751-1760 map of the Virginia

Counties (Doran, 1987) students came from eight: (a) Elizabeth City County (1); (b) 238

Gloucester County (2); (c) James City County (1); (d) New Kent County (1); (e)

Northumberland County (1); (f) King William County (3); (g) Prince George County (3);

and (h) York County (3). All but two of these eight counties were clustered around

Williamsburg, suggesting that the distance to Williamsburg and CW&M may have

affected the families’ decisions to send their sons to college. The counties farthest from

the college were Northumberland (home of Baldwin Mathews Smith, father of Philip)

and Elizabeth City (home of Dr. Walter McClurg, father of James). Beyond the

distribution of students across counties, it is interesting that all the students home

counties had access to Williamsburg by water. This was an era when water transportation was typically easier and faster than overland travel (Andrews, 1949) as “plantations and

waterways, not townships and roads, defined the colonial world” (Thelin, 2004, p. 25) in

Virginia. (See Additional maps are in Appendix K.)

Road travel was subject to more challenges of weather and roadway conditions

and thus was more difficult and time-consuming, and less reliable than water travel.

Colonial roads started as bridle paths that usually retraced an Indian trail (“Colonial

Roads and Wheeled Vehicles,” 1899). As an example, the “road that passes by the

college up the Peninsula is the Indian trail to Rockahock on the Pamunkey” (p. 37) would

have been the route to Williamsburg. Surveyors of the highways, appointed by each

parish, were responsible for establishing roads and keeping them clear of brush.

Interconnecting routes included major sites such as churches, courthouses, ferries, homes,

and ordinaries. As the colony matured so did its roads. Paths became “cart ways” used for

the transportation of goods and tobacco to market, while those who owned plantations

generally lived on the water and had their goods delivered and picked up by ships that 239

came to their dock. Roads were typically beset with fallen trees, fencing, and other

obstructions that necessitated a deviation in the route. As modes of transportation

expanded, from horse to cart to two-or-four wheeled carriages, the demands on a roadbed dictated the condition of a particular road. The popularity of carriages increased for the wealthy. As an example, personal property tax lists included numbers of whites, slaves and hoofed animals in 1787 for Frederick, Prince George, and King William counties and

show the inclusion of a tax on carriages (Schreiner-Yantis & Love, 1987; Seeley, 1984).

Research shows in general that “traveling in Virginia before the Revolution was

very good [only] nine months of the year” (Colonial Road, 1899, p. 42) as during the

winter months or spring the rains turned the road to mud. Although roads leading to

Williamsburg were known to be passable all year, what constituted “passable” varied

daily and over the sections of the road between two points. That most roads leading into

Williamsburg, as the colonial capital, were passable most of the year allowed James

McClurg access to his parents’ home in Elizabeth City. In remote areas the average

traveler no doubt traveled his or her share of Indian and cart paths which made overland

travel time-consuming and dangerous. Although these counties would now be considered

close to Williamsburg, in colonial times these were considered long distances that

required arduous and complicated travel.

As difficult as travel was among the close-in counties to Williamsburg, there was

an area that was considered every more distant and difficult to reach. Virginia had an

imaginary line, the Fall Line, which divided the Virginia colony into two regions. This

imaginary north-south line begins at the head of the Potomac River, and travels south

down the Potomac River exiting were the river makes a hard turn to the east and marks 240

the limit of tidal influence. Its location is also often referenced based on the location of

various falls that make up-river navigation by ocean-going vessels impossible. (See maps

under Appendix K – Map of the Fall Line.) Virginians spoke of living above or below or west or east of the Fall Line. None of the students in the study group lived west or above the Fall Line.

By the era of this study, there were 17 documented settlements west of the Fall

Line or the farthest reaches of tidal influence. Most notable is Mt Vernon, settled in 1743 by Lawrence Washington, brother of George Washington, and located on the west side of the Potomac River. Gunston Hall, south of George Washington’s home, was settled by

George Mason, patented in 1657, and included a house by 1755. Further south along the north side of the tributary of the James River lies Tuckahoe settled by Thomas Randolph

(no date of settlement) while Varina, east of the Randolph home, was settled by James

Rolfe (house built in 1614). Wilton, east of the Randolph’s plantation, was settled by

William Randolph, with its house built in 1710. On the south side of the northern tributary of the James River lies Bermuda Hundred, patented in 1613 by Thomas Dale.

All of these settlements west of the Fall Line are recorded on Hale’s map of Plantations and Historic Churches dated 1750 (Hale, 1978). That these settlements could be documented, speaks to how few settlements existed were at the time of the students in this study, how self-sufficient each had to be to survive so far from other settlements, and how difficult travel among them must have been in an era when there were not sufficient settlements to do much about road maintenance and improvement.

The geographic locations of the students’ homes in this study were generally in the surrounding region near the CW&M. As previously stated, James McClurg was from 241

Elizabeth City County, but there was a direct and relatively well-cared for road that he probably traveled to reach Williamsburg. However, Philip Smith from Fleets Bay on the

Chesapeake Bay side of Northumberland County must have had a very difficult time coming to college. It is highly probable that if he had not been a foundation or scholarship student he would have not been able to attend the college. Based on family circumstances, he was only able to complete the Grammar School portion of his studies and therefore it will never be known if he would have completed the Philosophy School.

It is also not known whether the difficulty of his getting to the CW&M might have affected his families the decision that he discontinue his studies beyond Grammar School.

During the colonial history of CW&M geographic location was another aspect of diversity. Students who had attended the CW&M from counties considered to be close to

Williamsburg mixed with students whose families had moved westward. Thus, the

CW&M brought together students from all areas of the colony thus providing class and geographic diversity.

Cross-case Comparison

The students in this study came from diverse social, financial backgrounds. While

plantation stratum families interacted with each other (at least sufficiently to support the

expanse of intermarriage), it can be speculated that these interactions were not that

frequent. After all, by definition a plantation was self-sufficient; which meant the

inhabitants generally did not leave the plantation often unless they cared to do so for

social purposes. Plantation families may have had occasional interactions with similar

families in their own counties, but rarely those of more distant counties. When the House

of Burgesses or Council was in session wives tried to accompany their spouses to 242

Williamsburg. Over time many of the plantation class purchased lots in Williamsburg and

constructed houses that were run by servants in preparation for their visits and that could

have been used to house their sons during college.

The speculations about social strata and geographic interaction can reasonably be applied to the students from the other classes. The reality would have been that there were few opportunities for interaction within and across strata until the students entered the CW&M. Today, it is a short trip across the eight counties from which the students in this study emerged. However, through the lens of the study period, the students came from a diverse and isolating geography. The settlements beyond the Fall Line were mere

enclaves in comparison to the distribution of population southeast of the Fall Line where

towns such as Norfolk (Est. 1688), Hampton (Est. 1610) and Williamsburg (Est. 1699)

appear early in the colonial settlement.

The counties clustered in the Tidewater area were still considered diverse by the

inhabitants of the day. Waterways were the major connectors; roads that existed were

sparse and difficult to traverse. Thus, it was not easy for someone to travel from the

northernmost to the southernmost counties among the eight counties. Boys may have

made it home for the Christmas holidays, but probably not for any other holidays during

the academic year. The boys who boarded at the CW&M may not have seen their

families for months at a time, except for those whose fathers had business that brought

them to Williamsburg. It is improbable that a boy went home with a college roommate

for the Easter holidays. Distances were great; travel was difficult and costly, which likely

resulted in few trips home.

243

A key finding of this study is that attending the CW&M brought together these

diverse students and provided social interaction opportunities that may have had

profound effects on the students as they emerged into manhood and careers. The students

came from various social and finance strata, and geographic locations. One can imagine

debates in classes as students from rural and town backgrounds interacted with students

whose fathers owned thousands of acres of land and with those whose fathers sold goods.

It may have been well-known that the fathers of some of the boys could not pay the

tuition bills, and this would have contrasted with the situation of boys whose families

were most dramatically affected by the fall of the price of tobacco. While historic

documents do not record which boys became friends and maintained life-long

relationships, it can be reasonably speculated that the diversity of backgrounds

contributed to the richness of class discussions and out-of-class interactions and that these

affected how these boys thought about their future roles in the colony. In conclusion, the

students in this study were from diverse backgrounds and represented cohesion of social

classes living, studying, and socializing together.

Preparation for College

While the baccalaureate education is the focus of this study, students had to have appropriate preparation to be able to enter into the tier of schooling called the Philosophy

School at the CW&M. This section explores findings relating to pre-college preparation.

The goal of pre-college education was to prepare a boy for entrance to college, which required the ability to read and write Greek and Latin at a level commensurate with “the law and custom in England at that time” (Tyler, 1904, p. 72). Since few parents had the education or time to prepare their own sons for college, outside assistance was 244

employed in the form of tutors, private schooling, or enrollment in the CW&M Grammar

School. “At fifteen or thereabouts, he [the student] stood an [oral] examination before

the president and masters and ministers of the Colony skilled in learned languages, and

for satisfactory work was promoted to the philosophical schools” (Tyler, 1904, p. 72).

The skill building in languages, especially Latin, was important for the students used it in

the Philosophy School, where it had to be spoken (similar to a language immersion) “in a

conversational form . . . except during recreation periods” (Walsh, 1938, p. 107). Thus,

pre-college preparation was the key for advancement into the CW&M Philosophy

School.

Information from the bio-sketches contributes to better understanding of preparation issues. Of the 15 students in this study whose pre-college preparation is known, ten (68.8%), Edward Bland; William Bland; Beverley Dickson; Cole Digges;

James Johnson; Thomas Massie; James McClurg; Augustine (Austin) Moore; Bernard

Moore; and John Tyler received private tutoring. The other five (31.2%), Nathaniel

Burwell, (C); Nathaniel Burwell, (R); Benjamin Harrison; Hugh Nelson; and Philip

Smith, their pre-college preparation through the CW&M Grammar School. (See

Appendix L - Years and Environment in Preparation for the Philosophy School). Philip

Smith from Fleets Bay Plantation, a foundation (scholarship) student in Grammar School for 4 years, he did not attend the Philosophy School. He left the Grammar School (this may have been to help with his mother’s illness, his younger brother, or because of the long distance between his home and the College) at the age of 14 in 1760, and his mother died in 1762, when he was 16. Four year later he found himself beset further by financial tragedy when Speaker Robinson died in 1766 and lands accumulated through generations 245

of his family at Fleets Bay and Shooters Hill were sold to satisfy debts to the Colony of

Virginia.

The students who combined tutoring with grammar school spent an average of

1.76 years in the Grammar School, while students who used the Grammar School

exclusively for preparation averaged 4.90 years in the Grammar School. It is difficult to

judge the total time spent in preparation for the Philosophy School from these averages,

and it is impossible to equate the cost of tutors vs. the Grammar School. However,

tutored students spent 3.80 years in the Philosophy School, while those who attended

grammar school averaged 4.0 years indicating those who were tutored were able to

complete the curriculum in a shorter period of time. It would be reasonable to assume the

tutored students had more in-depth language skills and were therefore able to complete

their final oral exams in Latin more quickly than those who took their Latin in the

Grammar School.

Tutoring and Private Schooling

As detailed in Chapter 2, many families employed tutors to prepare their sons for college. It was not difficult in colonial Virginia to find qualified tutors from England and

Scotland. A family would hire a tutor for its own sons or share the expenses of tutors with neighbors and friends (Monaghan, 2005). Often the tutor boarded with one of the

families and space was set aside to be used as a school room. Family libraries provided

important support to home tutoring (“Library of the College of William and Mary,” 1910;

July & Hockett, 1955). Elizabeth Henry Aylett (daughter of Patrick Henry and wife of

Philip Aylett) described at Chelsea Plantation (home of the Moore family) “a study in

which school was kept” (Charles Campbell Papers, Swem Library Archives (Special 246

Collections) at the College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA 65C17, Box 27,

Folders 20).

One student in this study, John Tyler, attended a local private school in addition to, or as an alternative to private tutoring. A private school was typically headed by a master, and boys boarded in the master’s home during their studies. Perhaps the best-

known private school during the college-preparation period of the students in this study

was run by Donald Robertson (b. September 27, 1717 d. 1783) “who came from

Scotland and had a school near Aylett’s Warehouse” (“Inscriptions from Tombstones”,

1901, p. 175)] “on a farm overlooking the Mattapony River, about four miles above the

present Dunkirk Bridge, [on the King and Queen side (p. 175)] . . . where King and

Queen County and King William County converge” (Boyd-Rush, 2003, p. 1). Boyd-

Rush, 2003, concludes “that Robertson shaped the thinking [of the student] . . . and

helped prepare . . . [them] for advanced study” (p. 2). From his account books, it is

known, that he taught such subjects as English, Latin, and arithmetic. Sometimes he

taught these together as a full curriculum; other times he taught individual topics as an

area of specific focus for a student. His most famous student was James Madison, but his

account book for the time frame of this study included names such as Burwell, Harrison,

and Moore. In addition, John Tyler (who spent two years (1753-1755) at the CW&M

Grammar School, moved to Robertson’s school to master language skills before entering

the CW&M Philosophy School in 1760 at the age of 15 (Carson, 1965).

Grammar School

The Grammar School was attended by five (31.2%) of the 15 boys in this study,

Nathaniel Burwell, (son of Carter Burwell), Nathaniel Burwell, (son of Robert Burwell), 247

Benjamin Harrison, Hugh Nelson and Philip Smith. Grammar School is the only known public source of education to obtain the appropriate level of competence for admission to the School of Philosophy. By the mid-18th century the Grammar School had over 50 years of history and had developed a good reputation in the colony.

The CW&M Grammar School evolved as an educational destination for pre- college studies for many boys during the time of this study. In the fall of 1700, the school was housed in a temporary setting in “a schoolhouse, somewhat broken-down . . . [with]

£45 of College funds . . . devoted to setting this [building] in order” (Morpurgo, 1976, p.

40). The Grammar School was subsequently moved into the Main Building upon its completion. This move to better quarters speaks to the growing popularity of the

Grammar School during the early part of the century. Morpurgo (1976) estimates the

Grammar School enrolled about 30 students in the fall of 1700. By the middle of the 18th

-century, estimates run as high as 80-100 students in the Grammar School. In a letter dated in Virginia, August 18, 1753, to the King of England, President Stith of CW&M (d.

September 1755), a past Grammar School Master, gave an indication of the popularity of the Grammar School: “College is at present in a very peaceable & thriving Way . . . [and] has now more Scholars in it, than it has ever had from its first Foundation, with a fair

Prospect of its still farther increasing” (Ganter, 1940, p. 525). However, by 1756 that number had dropped due to the English war with France (the French and Indian War) on colonial soil. The French were fighting the English for control of the colonies in North

America, a situation that had been brewing since 1689. In an effort to protect the colonies, the English began to dominate colonial outposts, impose restrictions on trade, and place taxes on the colonies in an effort to reimburse themselves for their efforts. 248

Perhaps the final assault on the colonies came when their appeal to the “King for

permission to raise armies and monies to defend themselves” (as English subjects) was

denied (“The French & Indian War”, n.d.). Parents became even more concerned about

“sending their sons away from home” (Morpurgo, 1976, p. 118). Thus Grammar School

attendance at CW&M was affected by issues beyond educational preparation and ability

to pay.

There are three issues to be considered relating to Grammar School enrollments

during the period of this study. The first is the difficulty in establishing the enrollment

rosters and the number of students in the Grammar School for the period covered “as no

complete list of the grammar school students, before or after 1827, exists” (Swem, 1941,

p. 3). Students could attend the Grammar School without being registered with the

Bursar. Students who lived in town and did not need room and board (or whose parents

did not wish to pay for it) seem not to have been noted in the school’s records until

requirements for advancement to the Philosophy School were met or room and board was

desired.

Second, the fires at the CW&M in 1705, 1859, and 1862 destroyed documents,

including enrollment lists that diminished the ability to establish actual enrollments.

Swem (1941), who tried to document students and alumni of the CW&M, addresses the

problem in the forward to his work citing challenges he faced in his documentation

because of the fires and record-keeping lapses.

The third issue has to do with the quality of the Grammar School experience as preparation for the Philosophy School. The Master’s salary was minimal and his supplemental income depended on fees paid by each Grammar School student, which 249

was common practice during this time period. This practice encouraged the Grammar

School Master to have as many students as possible, for as long as possible (Morpurgo,

1976). This situation may have contributed to problems with documenting who was enrolled in each term.

Masters who inflated the enrollment to increase their fees also many have undermined the quality of instruction, as there appeared to be a high student-to-instructor ratio. The teaching employees of the Grammar School varied over time. At the minimum there were one Master and one usher (helper), although these were augmented, from time to time, by a second Master and one or two additional ushers (Morpurgo, 1976). Even with maximum staff (perhaps five) and as many as 100 students, there were 20 students for each adult/instructor. If only the Masters are counted as educators, then when the student body was at 100, there was a 1:50 teacher/student ratio. Another concern is the lack of space allotted for the Grammar School. Jefferson drew a plan around 1770 as a proposal for enclosing the college yard and doubling the square footage. The plan was given to Lord Dunmore about 1771 or 1772, but never executed (Swem, 1928). It shows the existing footprint of the Wren/Main Building with his proposal for expansion. As shown on Jefferson’s drawing the existing space for the Grammar School rooms are to the right of the front door to the main hallway of the building, or about two-thirds of the building to the right. The Philosophy School room is the other third to the right. On the left is a large staircase that takes up approximately 20% of the left front portion, the

Writing and Mathematics rooms equally divided the remaining area. In the right wing was the great Hall (one large room) and on the left is the Chapel (Swem, 1928). The assignment of the space within the Main/Wren Building, and the estimated 250

teacher/student ratios noted above suggest that there were large classes where instruction could not have been very efficient, individualized, or student-focused. This may be one reason the boys remained longer in the Grammar School to absorb the knowledge required to prepare for the entrance requirements at the Philosophy School.

Reverend Blair was particularly dismayed by his perception that boys remained at the Grammar School for too long, a problem that he also perceived to exist in England.

Morpurgo (1976) quotes a passage in a letter from Reverend Blair to Governor Nicholson

(no date given) in which he gave a reason for “establishing himself as President” (p. 33),

If it be left wholly to the Schoolmaster, he will be sure to make it easy enough for himself & will contrive to lead the scholars in such a method as will keep them in a great deal longer at school than they needed to be kept, only for his own advantage. Most of the Masters here in England keep their scholars seven years at the Latin which might be as well taught in four if they pleased. (p. 33)

Even with the issues presented, the Grammar School was full of students. While it is known that 5 of the 15 boys attended the Grammar School, there is the possibility that more also attended, but that cannot be established given the loss of key documentation. What we do know is that enrollments in the Grammar School were high, the number and quality of instructors may have been low, and the quality of education may have been stretched. All of this points to an educational experience that may not have been optimal, but may have been the best that was available for boys who did not have easy access to educational facilities or whose families could not afford private tutoring.

If a parent could not pay for Grammar School there were scholarships from both individual and designated funds for scholarship held at the College. There are four individuals listed in the Bursar records who provided scholarship from 1753 to 1770: 251

Mrs. Bray; Colonel Lightfoot; Colonel Hill; and Mrs. Harrison and three designated fund

sources: Assembly Foundation, Duty on Liquors; and Nottoway Foundation. From 1753

to 1770 the Assembly provided 3 scholarships, the Duty on Liquors, 6, and the Nottoway

Foundation 1. Two students in this study had the benefit of scholarships: Philip Smith

and James, Tyler (Notes, 1921).

Cross Case Comparison

Finding from this study was the fluidity of movement of boys between the different types of preparatory education. Although all of the boys (based on extant documentation) may have attended the Grammar School at some time; however, many

(68.8%) boys also experienced some part of their pre-collage education in other venues.

Unfortunately, documentation on these other types of education is difficult, if not

impossible to find. Families who hired tutors and turned rooms into classrooms did not

necessarily leave extensive documentation about these activities. It can be speculated that

home or local schooling was only used for early years, perhaps equivalent to grade school

today. When boys were old enough to be separated from their families, they may have

moved to private schools, to board at the Grammar School, or to stay in Williamsburg

boarding with family or friends to attend the Grammar School. It is not known how many

well-to-do families established homes in Williamsburg for a period of time when their sons were old enough to attend the Grammar School. This would have enabled the boys to live with family or servants while attending school.

Another aspect of his fluidity was the finding that boys moved between educational venues for focused study. That John Tyler attended Robertson’s school for focused preparation in languages seems analogous to students of today attending a prep 252

class for SAT’s. In colonial time, a student needed to be proficient in Latin and Greek to pass the CW&M entrance examinations, and also then to function at the Philosophy

School where lessons were taught entirely in Latin. It is easy to speculate that families

whose boys were deficient in one of the entrance examination areas might have sought

focused study to enhance skills in that field to ensure college entrance success.

Student Experiences in the CW&M Philosophy School

Today educators talk about the curricular and co-curricular experiences of a

college education (Jacobs, 2010). The colonial CW&M college educational experience

was no different. This section first summarizes what is known about the academic nature

of the Philosophy School, and then addresses the potential co-curricular activities of the

pupils addressed by this study.

Curricular Experiences

The actual topics studied by the students went beyond the curriculum topics

specified in the Revised Statutes of 1756. The curriculum areas were living embodiments

of knowledge that were shaped by the evolving nature of learning-by and the people who

taught that knowledge and by their articulation of pedagogy. Thus, the picture of what

the students in the study learned is a composite of the instructors, curriculum, pedagogy,

and length of study.

Masters and educators. Prior to the mid 18th century, the masters of the CW&M

were exclusively ministers recruited from England or from the local parishes of the

Colony. It was difficult for them to make the transition from their independence in the

parish environment to the college where they were closely watched, accountable, and

under constant stress living with and teaching a group of boys. From the perspective of 253

the President and Board of Visitors, the masters continued to exhibit their frustrations in their behavior as explained by Clagett (2003). Although the masters were “appointed

upon the recommendation of the Bishop of London . . . [but] confirmed by the Board of

Visitors, they [the masters] wished to be under the jurisdiction and protection of the

Bishop of London” (Clagett, 2003, p. 118-119). They joined together as a unit and “voted

as a block . . . acted as a unit . . . demanded . . . complained . . . bristled . . . and interfered

. . . [with] the management of the College” (p. 119). The culmination of their behavior

resulted in three of the faculty members (Reverends Robinson, Camm and Graham) being

fired on February 13, 1758. The Board of Visitors became frustrated and vowed their

next appointment would be a lay-man. In order to have enough professors to complete

the year, Reverends Gronow Owen and Jacob Rowe were hired in June of 1758 and in

the fall the Board hired its first lay-man, Dr. William Small. It would not be until June of

1761 that new faculty is again noted in the minutes of the President and Masters;

Reverends Owen and Rowe left and the Reverend Richard Graham was a new faculty

member; a year later Reverend James Horrocks joined the group.

Dr. Small was recruited as a “lay-man” in 1758 as the Board of Visitors “wanted to find a professor who was more malleable” (Clagett, p. 121). Contrary to the more cloistered and sequestered 18th century university life in Europe, the CW&M was one with the community. It was open to criticism, with students and instructors “exposed to full public view” (p. 123), since the CW&M was located in Williamsburg, the capital, which was a hub of political power in the colony. In an effort to maintain community and parental support and continue to receive monetary donations, it was vital that the school,

254

including its masters, maintain positive relationships with everyone and produce the best student possible.

Curriculum. The Revised Statutes of 1756 specified a curriculum of rhetoric, logic, ethics, physics, metaphysics, and mathematics. This was the same curriculum as laid-out in the previous Statutes of 1727. Historic documents refer to the “Philosophy

School” as the undergraduate arm of the CW&M, however, there is evidence the School may have functioned in two layers. While this layering was not specified in the Revised

Statutes of 1756, it may have been a practical solution to curriculum distribution, assignment of teaching roles to masters, and handling the numbers of students who needed to be managed through the educational process.

Putting practicality aside, the original curriculum of the historic philosophy school was divided into three groups: “Physics . . . arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy, Ethics . . . prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance (all qualities of character rather than subject of knowledge) [and] Logic . . . dialects and rhetoric (which were nearly the same)” (Meriwether, 1907, p. 44). However, Tyler (1905) notes that the

Philosophy School was divided into 2 parts: “the school of Natural Philosophy . . . and the school of Moral Philosophy” (p. 72). It is presumed that this division of topics involved two areas, not two specific schools. This layering to incorporate the methods of skill building and application was consistent with the classical trivium (the three roads – grammar, rhetoric and logic) and quadrivium, (four roads – arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy), the seven liberal arts and the “method of dealing with subjects” as understood at the time (Sayers, 1947, p. 5). This process provided the “tools for learning”

(Sayers, 1947, p. 5) followed by their application to specific topics. 255

While records do not tell us the exact teaching rotation of the curricular topics, what they do reveal is that there were two masters, each responsible for topics that were either skill building or applications of skills. Therefore, with students entering the

Philosophy School either at the beginning of the first trimester in March or on their 15th birthday, each professor would have students who needed to be taught on an individual basis and would therefore, be promoted individually. This division of the students into groups allowed for smaller classes thus providing more individual attention.

During the period of this study, the CW&M method of teaching the curriculum began to evolve beyond the methods specified in the Revised Statutes of 1756

“disputation, declamations and themes on various subjects” (Statutes , 1908, p. 248). In

1759 Dr. William Small started the science club and began the use of the scientific method involving, lecture, discussion, and demonstration which appears to have eventually permeated the pedagogy of the college.

In 1758 most of the faculty members were removed from their positions by the

Board of Visitors, and in 1759 Dr. Small, who had been at the CW&M just a few months as Mathematics Professor, reviewed the course load for the beginning of the school year.

The faculty assignments for the Philosophy School were described thus: “[Four] . . . professors teach moral philosophy, metaphysics, mathematics and divinity” (p. 137).

Small was the mathematics professor responsible for the sciences and moral philosophy which included rhetoric, logic, ethics and belles letters (Clagett, 2003).

Brown and Brown (1964. p. 277-278) question “what kind of education was best for people who would be masters of competent fortunes which they would be expected to improve by farming, merchandizing, or some other method besides the learned 256

professions [law, medicine, divinity & etc]” (p. 277-278). They furthered their discussion

based on a letter from James Maury to Robert Jackson in July of 1762, explaining his

idea of the educational needs of the Virginia Gentleman:

a smattering of geography and chronology, and a general knowledge of the laws, constitution, interest, and religion of his country. [However], there were very few fortunes in Virginia that could be considered affluent, so most men must do something to help in the support of themselves and their families. Since youths would generally be men of business, they should study the things that would aid them. But above all, Virginians differed in so many ways from Europeans [at this time] that a plan of education for Europeans would no more fit Virginians than an almanac calculated for London would fit Williamsburg. (p. 278)

While the Browns’ (1964) address educational issues only for the plantation class, by the mid 18th-century the “learned professions” were a class that had become more vital for the colony. The population required heath care, society needed lawyers to adjudicate disputes and ministers to care for the spiritual health of society. While training to become a gentleman would find acceptance in high social classes, practical knowledge and its application for the other social classes became a necessity for continued colonial growth.

Regardless of the impact on society, the plantation owner, the planter, merchant, politician, or professional, the development of the tools of education and their application remained the same. Curriculum change may have been difficult to instill in a group of educators whose primary focus was on theology, based in the history of the ancient world

(Meriwether, 1907). The curriculum did not change; it was the teaching methods that changed.

Teaching methods. During the initial period of this study, teaching methodology appears to have been of a static type that capitalizes on learning facts. This method of pedagogy did not reach to what we would call the higher levels of cognitive

257

development. The historians of CW&M education (Hoeveler, 2002; Tyler, 1905 &

Walsh, 1935) put great emphasis on the contributions of Dr. William Small who instilled at the CW&M a more varied teaching methodology that supported higher cognitive learning skills. However, it could be speculated that Small was an adherent of a movement across higher education of that time towards more active learning pedagogies, and that Small happened to be the educator who brought these to CW&M.

The revised Statutes of 1756 addressed teaching methods. Students were to be exercised in “disputations [debate], declamations [exercises in rhetoric or elocution], and themes [written papers] on various subjects, except the Bible” (The Statutes [1756],

1908, p. 248). This pedagogy aligned with what was “used in the eighteenth century

Oxford and Cambridge” (Canby, 1941, p. 247). These teaching methods conceived of knowledge as amassing facts and of rhetoric as repeating the great speeches and statements of others. However, by 1760, teaching methods had evolved from a rote memorization to what became known as the scientific method, consisting of lecture, discussion, and demonstration. This method of instruction would provide an avenue for developing higher levels of the cognitive process.

Although topical areas of education are dictated in the Statutes, and methods to judge competency were stipulated (debate, speaking, and written papers), academic freedom was implied. This was a perfect situation for Dr. William Small who was hired as a Master in the fall of 1758. Clagett (2003) asserts that William Small during this period brought to the CW&M instructional methods that affected the lives of the students.

It could be theorized that the Board of Visitors was looking for a person who could bring a new energy and develop ways to bring the scientific method of teaching to the college; 258

in fact the Board of Visitors had been looking for a layperson to break the cycle of

conflict that had been common place for many years at CW&M.

Small, who had trained at Marischal College in Scotland when teaching methods

were changing to incorporate rigor and a scientific basis (Rudolph, 1962/1990), was

moved to a position of responsibility over the CW&M curriculum within just a year of

his appointment. This move according to Clagett (2003), would affect many of the students with “substantial changes in teaching methods and the foci of learning . . . that would be instrumental in the formation of the United States” (p. 144). Clagett further explains:

Some scholars credit the influence of Small for the pedagogical changes that took place at the College of William and Mary in the mid-eighteenth century. Among the significant contributions made by Small was the introduction of the lecture- discussion-demonstration method, the teaching of belles-lettres [using the mind for speaking and writing], an emphasis on the scientific and practical aspects of natural philosophy, the introduction of scientific demonstrations and observations, the introduction of the Scottish Common Sense School of Philosophy, and a more republican view of government and more secular view of religion. (p. 153)

The Scottish origins or influence on the CW&M are a point of interest and debate among scholars. Beginning with the Statutes of 1727 Cremin (1970) sees the Scottish influence in five areas at the CW&M: (a) length of time required for degrees - 2 years for bachelor’s degree and 4 years for a masters, (b) “clearly defined duties of the two professors in the divinity school, (c) requirement of lectures, (d) prohibition of fee-taking

(for poorer students), and (e) students were left free to live away from the college if they chose” (p. 337). This contrasts with Walsh (1935) who did not see the Scottish educational philosophy influence commencing until the arrival of Dr. Small. In fact, in

Cremin’s work with Butts in 1953, they acknowledge the arrival of Dr. William Small

259

and credit his Scottish influence with the “formulation and application of a new method

of thinking, a new method of arriving at truth and acquiring knowledge, a new method of

human learning and intelligence . . . the scientific method . . . [whose] power became

most persuasive” (p. 54), permeated the CW&M during the period of this study. Dr.

William Small, “a man of broad education and developed intelligence” (Walsh, 1935, p.

110) was the perfect choice to lead the Masters at CW&M from the English model of

education into a model with broader application.

While the history of the CW&M may suggest that Dr. Small was the instigator of

the use of the scientific method of teaching/learning at this college, Stearns (1970)

provides information on the many opportunities available to the Masters prior to 1759 to

bring the scientific method to CW&M. Williamsburg in the late 17th and early 18th-

centuries had become a microcosm of scientific knowledge, especially as it revolved around botany or natural philosophy. Poor Richard’s Almanac, published between 1732

and 1767 in Philadelphia, PA, “constantly cultivated a scientific state of mind by its

occasional articles reflecting Franklin’s scientific interest” (Stearns, 1970, p. 506). This

was continued later in the century with Poor Richard by Richard Saunders. There were

lecturers who came to Williamsburg, as noted in the Virginia Gazette of January 9, 1745-

46 (p. 4 Column 1); a Dr. Spencer (unknown) gave a series of lectures at his house in

Williamsburg. Ebenezer Kinnersley (1711-1778), a “most able scientist” (Stearns, 1970,

p. 507) gave lectures that included scientific demonstrations as he “toured the colonies

from early in 1749 to the summer of 1753 (p. 509). John Clayton (1657-1725) and John

Bannister (1650-1692) were the first “Resident Naturalist[s]” of the colonies, both

Fellows of the Royal Society (FRS). They were touted as being “two of the most able 260

observers that they (the FRS) had in the colonial field” (Stearns, p. 186). During the

period of this study, Stearns (1970) observes:

that few professors of medicine or natural philosophy, and the itinerant popular lecturers made their living in scientific endeavors . . . [while] the majority of colonial scientists were amateurs whose livelihoods were won in the market place, on the plantation, in law, in the pulpit, in the classroom, or in the public service.” (p. 534)

Certainly interest in science and the scientific method was growing in the colonies,

including Virginia. That the Revised Statutes of 1756 did not reflect the new scientific method could be attributed to several reasons. On one hand, perhaps the Masters of the

CW&M at the beginning of this period simply were not part of this larger scientific conversation, and the external trustees needed to get rid of these Masters because they were not moving the college forward in accordance with new learning. This could explain the firing of the group of Masters and the desire to hire a lay instructor who might be less tethered to theology and might be more of an adherent of science. It could also be speculated that the Revised Statutes of 1756 grew from an internal struggle among the

Masters and Board of Visitors about what constituted knowledge and best practices in pedagogy. The part of the Revised Statutes that restated old views of curriculum and pedagogy may have been demanded as restatement of old views in an attempt to codify these against a tide that was already turning with new knowledge and teaching strategies.

Thus, the conservatives may have won the battle of the document but lost the war, as the old-view people were pushed out in favor of new-view masters. (It is interesting to note in the next Statute revision of 1792, teaching methods were not addressed.) While these considerations cannot be documented through the minutes of the Board of Visitors, it is not unlikely that such debates were going on behind the scenes, thus setting the stage for 261

the hiring of Small and for support for his initiatives once circumstances allowed him to

start changing the curriculum and teaching methods. The bottom line is that the students

in this study experienced the CW&M at a time when the curriculum and teaching strategies were changing at a rapid rate, resulting in a far different education than had been experienced by their fathers who had attended the CW&M before.

Length of degree. When the Statutes of 1756 replaced those written in 1727, the last paragraph specified that the undergraduate program was extended from 2 to 4 years to conform to the time frame for the AB degree at Oxford and Cambridge (Statutes of

1756).

The students in this study entered the CW&M Philosophy School with an expectation, according to the Revised Statutes of 1756, of 4 years of study to complete

their Baccalaureate degrees. The students remained in the Philosophy School on average

3.89 years, which was close to the stated framework of 4.0 years. Eleven students (79%)

completed a BA degree in the time frame of 3.5 to 4 years: William Bland, Nathaniel

Burwell (C), Beverley Dickson, Cole Digges, Benjamin Harrison, James Johnson, James

McClurg, Augustine Moore, Bernard Moore, Hugh Nelson and John Tyler.

The length of time spent by students at the CW&M can be considered through

several lenses. Cremin (1970) contends that “few students seem actually to have taken the bachelor’s degree during the eighteenth century” (p. 337). For example, Cremin (1970) notes that the CW&M “tended not to grant degrees” (p. 510) noting as his evidence that only one instance of a graduation ceremony could be found in the 9 years of covered by

this study. In contrast to Cremin’s assertion that it did not seem that many students

actually graduated, he did acknowledge that students “seemed to encounter little 262

difficulty in going on to professional study in the colonies and . . . its intimate

associations with the Virginia establishment, in Williamsburg, made it an early nursery of

able public servants” (p. 510).

There are other ways to look at this issue. Today, and perhaps even more so in

Cremin’s time, it is expected that college means progression through a curriculum of

defined, time-specific courses that, if pursued with discipline by a student, will result in

completion within a 4-year span, just in time for participation in a college’s annual

commencement celebration. However, CW&M did not have a prescribed course of

credit-and time-specific courses through which students marched to graduation. Instead,

it may be that students progressed through learning objectives at their own pace, with

graduation status based on a student’s ability and achievement rather than on a specific

length of time spent at the college. There are students in this study who spent less than

4.0 years in the Philosophy School, and 1 student, Cole Digges, who may have needed

more time to master the necessary educational objectives, spent 5 years in the Philosophy

School. However, this study shows that 79% of the study group did attend the Philosophy

School of the CW&M a significant length of time to achieve completion. Therefore, the data gathered from this study show that 11 students left the CW&M with 3.5 to 4.0 years of study and as evidenced by the retention of Cole Digges. Another interpretation of the data may be that students were released or achieved completion when they, the President and Masters, confirmed they had completed their course of study.

Another consideration may be that CW&M relied on a final oral examination as a holistic, competency-based assessment of a student’s readiness for graduation. Walsh

(1935) documents how in colonial education students learned to develop theses 263

statements and research support for such statements as practice for their oral defense. It is

quite likely that once a CW&M student reached the depth of research, understanding and

proficiency, he was allowed to conclude his course of study for a Bachelor Degree

through an oral defense. Much like for today’s doctoral students, such final oral

examinations may have been scheduled when the student was ready, and when the

student passed, the student left the college as a graduate.

Yet another consideration links to Cremin’s assertion that CW&M seemed to hold

few commencement ceremonies. There could be several explanations for this. One

explanation may be that documentation for such ceremonies were lost in the many fires that destroyed records. That no record exists when the documentation is scarce does not prove that such ceremonies did not take place. Also, if students finished their studies on an individual basis, there may have been an individualized celebration, and such things would not have risen to college documentation. Because students lived so far from home and travel was difficult, the idea of today’s commencement where families come from far and wide did not exist at that time. Perhaps upon graduation, boys returned home to heartfelt and boisterous celebrations at their homes, far away from official CW&M documentation. However, the most plausible explanation can be seen in the 1727 and

1756 Statutes of the College in the section Of the Terms to be Kept, that call for a public gathering of all of the students at the:

beginning of every term [every trimester] . . . all the schools and several classes in them should be examined in public, in the public hall, what progress they have made in the knowledge of those languages and arts in which they have been studying or should have studied. Let the examiners be the President and Masters; and likewise the Ministers, or any other learned men that please to afford their company at these examinations. (p. 254)

264

Based on the conclusions above and the facts presented, it can be speculated that students

who were almost ready to complete the program of study were identified at these public

examinations and after polishing for an additional trimester, were said to have graduated

and they returned home.

Because the records of the Bursar (Notes, 1921) were used to determine

attendance, a student may have moved into town for a period during his attendance at the

CW&M that would not be reflected in their records. While three or 21% of the study

group, Edward Bland, Nathaniel Burwell, (son of Robert Burwell); and Thomas Massie,

left before it appears they completed their course of study and one student in the study,

Philip Smith, was not able to attend undergraduate education because of family problems at his family’s plantation, Fleets Bay. Bursar records would indicate the three students above did not finish the program of study in the Philosophy School; however another scenario could possibly be that their achievement was accelerated to the point that they were able to take their oral exams early? However, as shown in the Statutes of the

CW&M 1727 and 1756, the assessment of the students was done at the beginning of each trimester and was competency and assessment based. Using the quotation above from the

Statutes, these competency examinations were determined on a holistic or individual basis for each student. One can imagine that these beginning-of-the-term exams may have been used as a screening device to determine the course of academic work for each student during that trimester. Also, it is speculated that through this beginning-of-the term assessment process, students who were near the end of their course of study and preparing to complete their oral examination, would be identified. In addition, it is reasonable to speculate they would then spend time being groomed for their orals, similar 265

to the process used for a student today who is completing a doctoral program. This oral examination would mark the completion of their studies.

This beginning-of-the-term competency-based assessment process seems to have been rather unique among the colonial colleges. Walsh (1935), in his survey of seven colleges (Harvard College, Yale College, The College of New Jersey, King’s College

(Columbia), The College of Philadelphia (University of Pennsylvania), The College of

Rhode Island (Brown), and The College of William and Mary) all but one, CW&M, used

Commencement thesis topics as the unifying lens to explore the curriculum of each institution. These statements were put on “broadsides [that] are often erroneously presumed to have been Commencement programs . . . very distinctly they were not, although Commencement programs grew out of them” (p. 17-Introduction). They are further described by Walsh (1935) as:

printed on broadsides (large sheet of paper some 20x24) and comprising lists of Latin propositions, one hundred or more in number in logic, grammar, rhetoric, as well as in natural, mental, moral philosophy and mathematics. These thesis sheets were printed for distribution among member of the audience who on Commencement morning might choose to take part in the Public Act which was held as the culminating exercise of the examination. (p. 13 – Introduction)

In essence, these broadsides served as advertising and notification to the community that a public oral examination of college students was going to take place.

Walsh (1935), attributed the lack of broadsides at CW&M, for this traditional rite of passage, to the fires that had so often devastated Wren Hall, the main CW&M building, However, could the lack of graduation announcements in the Virginia Gazette and the lack of notations in the Minutes of the President and Masters indicate the gathering of students at the beginning of each trimester was the Public Act that was held

266

at the CW&M in place of a graduation ceremony. Those who disagree may use the consistent ending of room and board on the 25th of March in various years as proof of a consistent graduation date. However, it must be noted the dates of each trimester varied based the religious dates fixed in conjunction with Easter. The only fixed date was

December 16, the end of the Trinity term (Statutes 1908).

It appears from the information in the Statutes, little knowledge on CW&M graduations, and the work of Walsh (1935) that the Public Act, the gathering of all students at the beginning of each trimester, was in fact not only an assessment of all students, but a recognition of those students who would finish their final trimester at the

CW&M.

Because the records of the Bursar (Notes, 1921) were used to determine attendance, a student may have moved into town for a period during his attendance at the

CW&M that would not be reflected in their records. While three or 21%, Edward Bland,

Nathaniel Burwell, (son of Robert Burwell); and Thomas Massie left before they completed their course of study and one student, Philip Smith, (one of the 15 students in this study) was not able to attend undergraduate education because of family problems at his family’s plantation, Fleets Bay. Another way of looking at the attendance records of the study group is by a comparison based on the number of completed trimesters. Each school year was divided into 3 parts (or trimesters), thus the three students may not have completed the full course of study, each missed on average 5 trimesters of study.

Time to degree analysis of the students in this study revealed that students (the

Bland brothers, Edward and William; the Burwell cousins Nathaniel (C) and (R); Cole

Digges; Benjamin Harrison; the Moore brothers, Austin and Bernard; and Hugh Nelson) 267

had an ancestor(s) as a Visitor or alumni. One might expect that if multiple family members attended CW&M, there must have been family support for college that included an expectation of degree completion. The advantage of a family member (FM) who was associated with the CW&M decreased the average time spent in the undergraduate or

Philosophy School (FM = 3.56 and subjects 3.89). Thereby showing students who had a male family member association with the CW&M decreased the average time necessary to complete the course of study.

Cross-case Comparison

The students in this study attended the CW&M at a time of great curricular and pedagogy transformation. It could be assumed that the Revised Statutes of 1756 codified educational transformations that were already in process in the years before their approval; that is, that the Revised Statutes codified change already in progress but the

Statutes of 1756 continued with the same language and change was unwritten. But the change seemed to continue over the next few decades as a more modern curriculum (new scientific knowledge) and more advanced pedagogy (e.g. the scientific method) were welcomed into the educational experience. Small, starting his job as Master in 1758 brought more changes. All of the students in this study experienced the CW&M education that resulted from the Revised Statutes, and all came into contact with Small in his capacity as a Professor of Mathematics or in the Philosophy School. (See M, Cross-

Case Philosophy School Attendance during the Employment of Dr. William Small, showing attendance at the time Small was at the college.)

It can also be speculated that the post-1756 curriculum, and the pedagogy after

Small’s arrival (1758) must have affected the students in this study in terms of what they 268

studied, how they studied, and what they took from those studies for application in their

post-CW&M lives in an expanding colony and in the pre-Revolutionary era of the country.

That only one student in this study group continued education with the Divinity

School suggests that the CW&M was not urgently addressing one of the original goals of the College, i.e., to produce ministers for the colony. Although the graduate education of the Divinity School is beyond the scope of this study, it can be presumed the main pathway (but possibly not the only pathway) into the Divinity was through the

Philosophy School, a yield of only one Divinity graduate out of 15 potential Philosophy

School students suggests that the pathway to the MA was not followed by many, and that

CW&M did not robustly produce ministers for the service of the colony.

Co-Curricular Student Experiences

The CW&M provided a range of learning experiences for its students that were outside the formal curriculum. Some of these experiences were curricularly related, including a science club that was faculty-sponsored. Other experiences were related to the typical social-time activities of the period and the special circumstances of being a college student in the colony’s capital city. Embedded in the bio-sketches are descriptions of various student experiences that seemed to best relate to the context of each student’s personal interests and educational experiences. History does not provide descriptions of which students participated in specific activities, but limited descriptions can be compiled from materials of that era. This section attempts to synthesize information about student experiences as these relate to the subjects in this study.

269

Red Hat Club. This society was an exclusive group of six members of the

CW&M that met and “drafted its charter in the Apollo Room of the Raleigh tavern, not on the college grounds” (Thelin, 2004, p. 22), in November of 1750 and continued until

1772. It is thought to be the precursor of the Phi Beta Kappa Society (fraternity)

(Morpurgo, 1976) and has been described by Carson (1965), as a “Collegiate fraternal society” (p. 1). It met in the meeting room above a local tavern and had its own library for exclusive use of its members. Not only was this a social club, but it helped shape the oratory and debate skills of its members. Only two members are extant in the literature:

Thomas Jefferson and George Wythe (Carson, 1965; The Flat Hat Club, 1917). However, it is reasonable to speculate that some of the 15 students in this study may have been involved in this club because (a) their connections with Jefferson and Wythe, (b) their interest in it and later careers that connected to oratory and debate success and (c) because at least some of the students had to have participated in the club for the club to lived through the period of the study.

Science Club. The science club was founded and mentored by William Small in

1759. Small, a Master at the CW&M, hired in 1758, had a great interest in the scientific nature of teaching and learning. He formed a “society [club] for promoting scientific experiments” (Clagett, 2003, p. 155). The club was “modeled upon the Royal Society of

Arts founded in London . . . to encourage scientific experimentation and new discoveries, arts, and manufactures” (Sterns, 1970, p. 544). There are no minutes or rosters of the society, nor is the society mentioned in the minutes of the President and Masters: therefore; therefore, without the work of Stearns (1970) and his narrative on John Clayton

(1694-1773) we would not have knowledge of its existence. Clayton’s father John had 270

been in the colony since 1705 when John [his son] joined him in 1720. The father was

“secretary of the Lieutenant Governor and later Attorney General of the colony . . . he

[the son] acquired land, became a well-to-do planter, and served as Clerk of Gloucester

County” (p. 556). However, in addition to his work for Gloucester County, he continued to gather, type, and identify Virginia plant species and contributed his interest and knowledge to and with the Royal Society of Arts in London. In the 1730s he prepared A

Catalogue of Plants, Fruits, and Trees Native to Virginia that was published as Flora

Virginica. With Clayton’s interest and knowledge and the support of Lieutenant

Governor, Francis Fauquier, and Williamsburg became “a lively scientific center”

(Stearns, 1970, p. 555).

The College of William and Mary, especially between 1758 and 1764, when Dr. William Small . . . served as professor, first of mathematics and then of philosophy [he] led in the formation of a society founded at Williamsburg in 1759, modeled upon the Royal Society of Arts founded in London five years before, to encourage scientific experimentation and new discoveries, arts, and manufactures. (p. 555)

Despite the lack of official documentation, the opportunity was available to all students for learning and socialization. Although there is no specific linkage of any of the students in this study to the Science Club, Thomas Jefferson is specifically mentioned as a member, and it is reasonable to speculate that several students may have participated, as

Small was a very popular CW&M instructor who seemed, by all accounts, to have drawn students into his scientific interests (Chandler, 1934; Doares, R., 2003; & Stearns, 1970).

Many students in this study, after they left the CW&M, continued to run family plantations or became planters. They would have used this scientific knowledge, especially as it related to the growth and cultivation of crops in Virginia. Since Small’s

271

Science Club operated during the period of this study, it is probable that some of the

students participated in the Science Club, or the Club would not have survived during this

period.

Political Experiences. Students were not given access to formal political

experiences; however, it is unlikely they were able to refrain or stay away from the

atmosphere of politics that was pervasive in Williamsburg during this period. CW&M’s

proximity to the center of government in the Virginia Colony is lauded by Cremin (1970)

and Rudolph (1962/1990), who support the importance of the CW&M educational

experience relating to how many politically influential men that completed their

education there.

At the time of this study (mid-18th century) Williamsburg was the capitol of the

colony, seat of the House of Burgesses, and home to the colonial governor. The political

atmosphere was heightened twice a year when, the House of Burgesses met. It is

reasonable to speculate that all of the meeting places of the town (taverns, homes of

citizens, Governor’s Palace, etc.) were electric with political discussion (Hoeveler, 2002;

Isaac, 1982; Morpurgo, 1976). While history does not reveal any structured class visits to

view and absorb the political process, the students did not even have to leave the

CW&M’s Wren Building to touch the politicians and political atmosphere. Politicians visited the halls of the Wren/Main Building on a regular basis as the government and the college continued to maintain a “comfortable relationship” (Morpurgo, 1976, p. 114).

The House of Burgesses was only a mile away, down the Duke of Gloucester Street, the

main thoroughfare of Williamsburg. Even the masters of the college were involved in

many political topics and had one seat in the House of Burgesses as outlined in the 272

statutes of the original charter; “This member of the colonial legislature was to represent

the college [House of Burgesses], and the college-not its lay advisors-was to elect him”

(House of Burgesses, 1766-1775, 1897; Kirkpatrick, 1926, p. 100). It is very plausible

that this representative was invited to the college on a regular basis or gave “guest

lectures” on the political process and the events of the most recent session, or even more

likely hosted Dr. Small and his group evening discussions or an evening meal.

While it is not within the scope of this study an extant listing of who represented

the CW&M (The College) follows from the Members of the House of Burgesses (1901):

1720 and 1722, Mr. Thomas Jones; 1738 – Attorney General Edward Barradall as vice

Sir John Randolph, deceased; 1742 – Edward Barradall; 1744 – 1745 Beverley Randolph,

vice Edward Barradall, deceased; 1750 – Beverley Randolph;1753 - The Attorney

General; 1754 – Peyton Randolph; 1755 – May session “ new writs were ordered for

William and Mary, in place of Peyton Randolph, appointed attorney general” (p. 253);

and from House of Burgesses 1766 to 1775, (1897) from 1766-1768- John Blair; 1769,

1770 & 1771- John Blair; 1772-1773-& 1774 – John Page (Rosewell); 1774-1775 and never afterwards – John Randolph. At this point the House of Burgesses was replaced by the House of Delegates.

The Masters on several occasions participated in the political uproar, especially

when the Two Penny Acts were passed by the House of Burgesses in 1756 and 1758, an

act instituted because of the tobacco crop failure in 1755 and 1758. The Two Penny Acts

converted tobacco, the accepted monetary exchange, to paper money at two pence a pound. After the price of tobacco increased to 6 pence a pound the House of Burgesses would not address in retrospect the difference of 4 pence (Morpurgo, 1976). The period 273

of this study was a time of unrest for the Masters of the CW&M as their salaries were

considerably decreased, at least in part, due these financial exchange issues.

Upon the arrival of William Small to the colony and his appointment as a Master at the CW&M, he began to cultivate a relationship with the Governor and his friends, often with students in tow. One particular student, Thomas Jefferson wrote about his experience and is quoted in Chandler (1934):

He most happily for me, became soon attached to me, and made me his daily companion when not engaged in the school; and from his conversation I got my first views of the expansion of science, and of the system of things in which we are placed. (p. 305)

It was during this intercourse while dining “at the Governors Palace, with the Page family at Rosewell, or . . . with close friends George Wythe, Peyton Randolph, or printer

William Hunter” (Clagett, 2003, p. 134-135) students listened and learned about the process of debate and governing. William Small’s approval by the Board of Visitors as a master at the college on October 18, 1758, and his subsequent appointment to the philosophical chair (Chandler, 1934) was perhaps the turning point in the education of the group of students in this study, as Small began to bring the scientific method of teaching to colonial Virginia. In addition, he “was the first who ever gave, in that college, regular lectures in Ethics, Rhetoric, and Belles Lettres” (Chandler, 1934, p. 305). It would be interesting to obtain a list of the students who were privileged to accompany Master

Small when he visited with the elite in town. Perhaps with this knowledge a connection could be developed between that experience and their lifetime accomplishments.

Many members of the House of Burgesses had relationships to the CW&M either as students, graduates, or having their own children enrolled at the CW&M,

274

(examples include Richard Bland, father of Edward and William Bland; William Nelson,

father of Hugh Nelson; and Bernard Moore, father of Austin and Bernard Moore).

Therefore, it seems safe to speculate that elected officials and students had many

occasions for connections. Although the college appears not to have provided structured

interactions with the political environment of Williamsburg, it is safe to assume that the

CW&M students profiled in this study were aware of politics and connected to the

political environment in many ways.

Social Experiences. Another category of experiences were those available on a

social level within Williamsburg. The college had a code of acceptable behavior. This

code as stated in the Statutes of 1756 asked the students to refrain from any behavior

“contrary to good manners” (Statutes of 1756, p. 247). In an effort to provide venues to

demonstrate good manners the students were exposed to theatre, arts, dancing, and

socializing at the homes of town residents. Theatre had been a part of Williamsburg

society, even in the early 17th-century. Davis (1978) speculates that theatrical

performances began as early as 1642 to 1677, as the governor at the time, Sir William

Berkeley, was a playwright. “Drama in the South in the first decade of the eighteenth century was both academic and professional. The College of William and Mary in 1702 was able to present its “younger Scholars,” perhaps those attending its grammar school, in two pastoral colloquies, the first at least being in English verse and the second in Latin or English” (p. 1284). The first professional theater building and company in

Williamsburg was built in 1716 (Davis, 1978). When the performances at the theater took place at the same time as the “convening of the House of Burgesses” (p. 1286) the seats were packed with interested patrons, as happened in 1736, as recorded by Thomas Jones, 275

who “wrote his wife . . . mentioning the performances of Cato, The Busy Body, and The

Beaux’ Stratagem” (p. 1287). In 1752 the Hallam company was an instant success–such that Davis reports it made “as much as £300 per performance” (p. 1289). Their success and the resulting debts put an end to the Hallam Company in Williamsburg and they moved on to New York. During the period of this study 1756 to 1765, Davis writes that

“no advertisements of performances appear in the extant the Virginia Gazette issues” (p.

1290) although it is believed there were occasional theatrical performances advertised using playbills.

In addition to the theatre and admittedly more stable than a group of actors, were the home music concerts. Many of the colonists could play the piano or string, or wind instruments. Colonists often held musical evenings for the pleasure of themselves and their guests. In addition, groups of musicians are known to have played outdoor concerts at “country mansions or public concerts” (p. 1259). It was at these occasions that students were expected to use their knowledge of belles-lettres (using the mind for speaking and writing) to impress the attendees. This was not only practice for the student but helped to promote the college.

As the French and Indian War (1754-1763) came closer to the City of

Williamsburg many of the theatre, arts, and dancing opportunities diminished.

Companies of traveling actors were not inclined to travel the roads in hostile areas, and dancing was relegated to times when the House of Burgesses assembled or at house parties. A dancing master employed from time to time at the college was less important as Britain and France fought for control of the British colonies in North America

(Morpurgo, 1976). 276

Any examination of student social experiences raises the issue of behavior

problems. A list of rules, from the August 29, 1754, minutes of the President and

Masters, was initiated based on the behavior of a Mr. Kemp, who may have been a

student or an usher–he is not listed as an alumni or faculty by Swem (1941)-and a Mr.

Holt who could be Randolph Holt (1752 to 1758), for harboring any College boys, and

Henry Harrison (1753-1754), a clerk in the office of Secretary Nelson who exhibited

“turbulent and bad Behavior” (Journal, 1893, p. 124). There may have been many more transgressions that will never be known, as the next page in the minute book is blank or missing. However, from the complaints came a list of rules that were ordered to be posted in several places: They begin, (a) cannot “saunter away his time upon any of the College

Steps or to be seen playing during School Hours, (b) [cannot] go into the kitchen or cause any disturbance there, (c) no victuals [food] whatever to be sent into Private Rooms” (p.

124). Following the last rule, the list continues for boys who were also taking room and board in the Main or Wren Building. The list as written had the agreement of all in attendance at the meeting of the President and Masters and was posted in several places around the school.

Small behavioral problems would be handled by the masters, who had the authority to deal with such infractions as they saw fit. Occasionally however, behavior problems were of a size or nature that the President and Masters felt it necessary to record the actions and punishments in their meeting minutes. An example can be seen in the

May 3, 1756, minutes and in the bio-sketch of Cole Diggs. He and Matthew Hubard

(Journal of Minutes, 1894), were exhibiting unacceptable behavior

277

including remarkable idleness and bad behavior in general but particularly for whipping the little boys in the grammar school –for obstinacy and disrespect to the Grammar Master & for refusing to answer before the president & Masters the complaints made against them. (p. 256)

This behavior was also brought to the attention of the Board of Visitors. In addition,

Matthew’s brother, James Hubard, who was an usher in the Grammar school at the time of the incident, was relieved of his position. Additional incidents recorded in the Minutes of the President and Masters during the period of this study include an incident in the

May 10, 1763, minutes of the President and Masters. John Hyde Saunders (student from1762-1763) was expelled for “imprudent and unheard of manner” toward the Master of the Grammar School; a second example involves James McClurg, a subject in this study. In the October 6, 1763, minutes, McClurg and two other students (John Walker and Walter Jones) were asked to leave the college immediately for 30 days because of a transgression against a family in town. McClurg returned after a hiatus of 1 year imposed by his father; the other two boys did not return. Additionally, as shown in the case of

Matthew Hubard, some behavior was brought to the attention of the Board of Visitors.

While the faculty was charged to protect and instill morals and values in the students, at times the faculty was as rowdy as the students, or more so (Morpurgo, 1976).

The responsibility of supervising the students and providing punishment for behavioral

infractions were one of the reasons masters (except the Grammar School master) were to

remain unmarried. In addition, the Masters were expected to take their room on the

second floor of the Wren/Main Building and their board with the students in the common

dining area. By living with the students, it was though that The Masters and faculty

278

would not only provide educational support, but keep a close eye on student behavior

(Morpurgo, 1976).

Off-campus social activities. The college became home to boys who had spent their early years in pursuit of outdoor activities, including hunting, fishing, horse racing, and all of the vices that go with these activities; the skirmishes over bragging rights, the betting on outcomes, the language and behaviors that typify behavior at an exclusively male events. Students also loved to play cards and gamble (Chandler, 1934). All were considered “contrary to good behavior” (Charter and Statutes of 1756, p. 256) and caused much distress to the residents of Williamsburg. Morpurgo (1976) quotes a collective expression of complaints of parents and the residents “There was among the students, it was said, too much gambling, to [sic] much drinking and an excessive addiction to horse- racing” (p. 159). Some students brought horses to school, although there was only one stable at the CW&M, and that was for the President, some found ways to keep horses in town (Tyler, 1884-1896). It was easy for those who took room and board in town; they would have the space to keep a horse, thus encouraging those who lived at the college to join them in horse racing.

Discipline of the student was difficult for the masters and on occasions they failed to discipline themselves. Clagett (2003) notes there was what was expected of the faculty in writing and “the reality of the situation” (p. 122). He continues, the

public expected the professors to be bachelors who would reside in college alongside their students, and be responsible for the student’s behavior both outside of the classroom as well as within . . . [however] most of the students were unlettered and immature [and] life at William and Mary took on the air of a grammar school. (p. 122)

279

Interesting observations, as the majority of the students of CW&M were in the Grammar

School.

In conclusion, while behavior was on the minds of the Masters, with discipline

given for infractions of the rules, it seems from the examples in the Minutes of the

President and Master and the Board of Visitor Minutes that disrespect was a major theme

when infractions were recorded and brought to the attention of the two governing bodies.

Additionally, there was a fine line that composed the town and gown dynamic

relationship. The town of Williamsburg collectively contained perhaps the largest group

of high society as defined by the colonists, a society that was intolerant of behavior that did not meet the standards of the era. Unlike the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, the

CW&M was new, and its campus was not as self-contained as those of the English

universities (Morpurgo, 1976). As a result, the students were in the town frequently. The

College had not developed the traditions, nor mellowed with time and as faculty-

structured opportunities decreased, unstructured activities filled the idle time of students

(Clagett, 2003).

Cross-Case Conclusion

While it is impossible to determine which students participated in the various

types of co-curricular activities, it is clear the rich variety of opportunities available to the

students made for a heady mix of learning experiences. These experiences would have

extended the social and professional networks of the students, their exposure to current

issues and politics, their enrichment in the arts, and their knowledge of science for

application to their plantations and farms. That so many experiences did exist suggests

280

that pursuit of a CW&M education was not a full-time occupation, and there was time and flexibility for co-curricular experiences.

After-Graduation Accomplishments

Bio-sketches of students in the study group highlight their known

accomplishments, as gathered from primary and secondary sources. Most of the students

in this study exceeded the accomplishments of their ancestors, while others were caught

in family issues that kept them from flourishing on their own. (See Appendix N, Student

Lifetime Achievements). Below begins a very brief view of the student subjects by class.

Accomplishments by Stratum of Society

Below is a glimpse of the subjects in this study categorized via the class system

previously presented. This overview provides the reader with a brief synopsis of their

accomplishments.

Plantation Owners. The Burwell cousins (both named Nathaniel) were able to

retain their status as plantation owners, although the land-based fortunes of their ancestors diminished over time as the tobacco economy declined. Benjamin Harrison continued in his father’s footsteps as a plantation owner and politician and served in the military. (This is not the Benjamin Harrison of Wakefield who was the signer of the

Declaration of Independence and Governor of the State of Virginia, and son of Henry

Harrison the brother of Nathaniel Harrison the father of the subject.)

The Moore brothers, Austin (Augustine) and Bernard, were from the Chelsea

Moore plantation family. Austin died at an early age, about 30 years. Austin’s will passed

the Chelsea plantation to his brother Bernard, who had continued his education after the

CW&M. Documents do not reveal if he was tutored by a lawyer in the colonies or if he 281

went to England for his law degree. Their father, Bernard invested in many schemes, most of which were not successful, and also became indebted to Speaker Robinson. This caused the downfall of several families, one being the Moore’s. Nonetheless, Bernard did serve his community as a lawyer for many years.

Thomas Massie, a subject of this study, inherited his family’s plantation, was in the military, and was a church officer. However, perhaps one of his greatest accomplishments was to recognize innovation as it affected his business interests-milling- by helping to finance Cyrus Hall McCormick’s vision of a machine to mechanically harvest grain in 1831. The reaper became the initial product for his company ultimately based in Chicago, International Harvester Co. (Forest Preserve, 1964, p. 2)

James Johnson continued his family’s legacy as a plantation owner and although the property did not contain many hundreds of acres, it was classified by the county as a plantation. Although it is not directly stated in what little is known about the family, the legal description of the topography of the plantation suggests he might have made a portion of his income through the harvesting of shell fish.

Planters. In general, the students in this study did well after leaving the CW&M.

Several of the students who had been raised on plantations, became planters. The Bland brothers took separate paths, with Edward moving from his family’s land and wealth to become a planter. In addition, Cole Digges continued the political involvement of his father, but he also left the family plantation to become a planter. Neither Edward nor

Cole were the first male child, therefore they did not inherit the family property, but smaller pieces that did not support a plantation.

282

Merchants. Beverley Dickson continued as a merchant like his father, but he also became involved in other appointed positions as a supplier of uniforms for the

Revolutionary War and an officer of river traffic collecting fees and tariffs.

Hugh Nelson continued his father’s mercantile business with his brother Thomas

Nelson (The General). Some historical accounts have Hugh moving west of the Fall Line after the collapse of the business. However, even though he ultimately represented

Fauquier County in the House of Burgesses because of the ownership of land. Neither he nor his family moved to the area. He stayed in the Tidewater area and supported his family, members of his extended family and the community.

Professionals. James McClurg continued in his father’s footsteps as a physician, but added education to his means of community service. In addition to his private practice, he became an educator at the CW&M, holding the first Chair of Medicine. Later he moved to Richmond when the capital left Williamsburg, and after his retirement from medicine, became the President of the Richmond Bank, and later, Mayor of Richmond.

William Bland earned his Masters in Divinity. His first assignment was at the

Bruton Church in Williamsburg. He had a controversial career but continued to minister to the poor in Norfolk, VA.

The final student in the sample is John Tyler, who was born into a family of craftsmen, went to Grammar School on scholarship, was fortunate to be tutored at Donald

Robinson’s school, excelled as an undergraduate, and completed his degree prior to studying under Robert Carter Nicholas for his law degree. He began his political career in

1776 as a Judge of the Admiralty, concluding it in 1811 after 3 years as Governor of

Virginia. His devotion to service as an elected official of the State of Virginia was part of 283

a long family history of service to the state and the United States. His grandson was John

Tyler, President of the United States from 1841 to 1845.

Philip Smith attended the CW&M for Grammar School as a foundation or

scholarship student and did not return to the Philosophy School. He left school when his

mother was ill, she subsequently died (1762). Four years later, the remaining family lost

everything when Speaker Robinson died. The family legacy from Captain John Smith of

Purton was sold to satisfy shortages of Speaker Robinson to the colony of Virginia.

According to Garnett (1910) Robinson loaned Treasury notes, “that were ordered by the

Assembly to be burned, It was claimed that his object was to relieve the financial distress

. . . but it was illegal . . . the report of the investigating committee . . . indicate[d] his

purpose . . . was to defraud” (p. 217). In Smith’s case, the securities held by Robinson included a mortgage on the property. The colony seized the Smith family’s Fleets Bay

and Shooters Hill properties and sold them to recoup some of the stolen money. Although

Philip completed Grammar School at the CW&M on scholarship, he was not able to

continue in the Philosophy School.

Political Accomplishments

Political involvement generally meant a seat on the Council or an elected position

in the House of Burgesses. A long held assumption is that these political seats were

generally held by members of the Plantation class. However, Greene’s work (1959) analyzed the “the structure of power within the [House of] Burgesses in the half century

[1720-1776] before the American Revolution” (p. 485). Within his work he ascertained 284

that the power of the House was centered in the Committee and elected leaders of the

House such as the Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Chairman. Out of the 630 possible candidates for his study Greene narrowed the focus to 110 men. The group consisted of

the Chair of the House and those members who chaired standing and other committees

over the 50 years of his study. For each of the 110 powerful members he did a listing of

the following: “Professional and economic interests, their social and family backgrounds

and connections, their political experience and education, their national origins and

religious affiliations, and the geographical distribution” (p. 487). Of the 110 leaders he

found that most were planters (he used this term to denote the planting and raising of

tobacco, not as a class), of which a third were “engaged in planting as a secondary

occupation” (p. 488).

The lawyers . . . thirty nine of the 110 were practicing lawyers . . . most of whom were planters on the side – were the next most numerous profession or occupational group. Other occupational groups were less prominent . . . [of the remaining thirteen] ten were merchants, two were physicians, and one was a teacher . . . Secondary occupations [included] . . . land speculation [to the West of the Colony] . . . a dozen participated in some form of mercantile activity . . . three engaged in mining . . . four were part-time surveyors . . . four were part-time soldiers [and] one was a part-time teacher. (p. 488)

Greene’s work, which focused on powerful representatives in the House of

Burgesses during the 50 year period beginning in 1720, is certainly substantiated by the findings in this study, that there was a mixing of classes in the colony, specifically in government and at the CW&M. Therefore, it was not unusual to find the student sample for this study to be a mix of classes. In addition, in this study, two students, John Tyler

(from the craftsman class) and James McClurg (from the professional class) were the first in their families to enter politics, thereby reflecting a continued interest in politics by the

285

student sample. An example of ancestral political participation for this study and in

Greene’s study is Richard Bland. (Note that Greene’s study included fathers of several of the students in this study, including: Bland, Burwell, Digges, Harrison, and Nelson.)

Richard Bland, father of Edward and William Bland, was perhaps the most involved in politics of any of the fathers in this study. Bland was in the House of

Burgesses, a leader of the committee to remonstrate with Parliament concerning taxation in 1748, a signer of the Non-Importation Agreement of 1769, on the Virginia

Commission of Correspondence, and Delegate to the Continental Congress 1774 to 1776.

His father served in the House of Burgesses before him and his grandfather had been a member of the Council.

It could be argued that students in the study group that became involved in politics did so because they were following family tradition, it could also be argued that political family tradition was enhanced by experiences at the CW&M, and the impressions made by Dr. William Small on the students in this group are reflected in the political involvement of the subjects. Political family tradition does not seem to be the deciding factor in the participation in the political process of the students in this study.

The most likely answer seems to be that all students were affected by their experience at the CW&M, coupled with the teachings of Dr. William Small and their environment in the capital of the colony. This assumption is based on the fact that students from the professional and craftsman classes became involved in the political process for the first time in the history of their family in the colonies.

Military Accomplishments

286

The students in this study did not all join the military to fight in the Revolutionary

War. Of the students, 7 had some involvement in the war, two of those in a professional capacity, and two in their local militia and three others who were members of Virginia troops. Thomas Massie, a Major/Colonel in the Virginia Troops and Hugh Nelson who was in General Nelson’s Corps of Virginia Light Dragoons. Some became involved in the fighting, while others provided supplies and food, Beverley Dickson provided clothing,

James McClurg medical care, and William Bland spiritual care. While it is not the purpose of this study to provide detailed Revolutionary War records, service in local militias was commonplace but that commitment, did not generally lead to military involvement in the War.

Hugh Nelson and Thomas Massie are two students who did join the fighting.

Nelson was with his brother’s battalion, the “General Nelson Corps of Virginia Light

Dragoons” (White, 1995, p. 1976), while Massie was with the 6th Virginia Regiment from New Kent County. Massie rose from Captain to Major during his service. At the end of the war Massie was aide de-camp to his brother, General Nelson, at the battle of

Yorktown until it fell to the Revolutionary force (Pension Declaration of Major Thomas

Massie, 1913). He resigned the military on June 25, 1779, as Major (White, 1990;

Virginia’s Soldiers in the Revolution, 1912).

Involvement in the military effort was provided by many of the study participants, some in a professional support role, such as medical and spiritual, while others such as

Bernard Moore, Benjamin Harrison, Nathaniel Burwell, and Beverley Dickson, provided needed supplies and food for the troops and their horses.

287

The contributions of those listed above to the Revolutionary War effort are known

from extant records. The untold contributions came through sacrifice, committee work,

and political contributions that did not associate itself to the military effort.

Cross-Case Comparison

The Cross-Case Analysis for military across the subject’s lifetime takes into

consideration roles, other than support, such as supplying food for the enlistees or for

their animals, by each student and his father. The format allows comparisons within each

group (student or father) and also provides a cross case analysis of participation and

achievements as they relate to rank or professional service. There were eight students

who gave their service either as a professional (2 – Minister and Physician) and six who

achieved rank. There were 7 fathers who achieved military rank, 1 father/son

(McClurg’s) pair were physicians and gave of their knowledge and time. In only 3 cases

in this study did the son and father both achieve military rank - the Burwells (2) and the

Harrisons (1) as shown in Appendix P - Military Contributions Cross Case Comparison:

Father and Son.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the findings of the study help to define and understand the CW&M

student during the time frame of this study and clear up some misconceptions about the

18th-century student with cross-case analysis and data driven appendices.

The bio-sketches, the foundation of this work, reveal that during the period of this study (1756-1765) the student population of CW&M was diverse in many ways.

Diversity included social strata, financial status, and geographic location. Contrary to some assumptions in the literature of the history of higher education, it was not only the 288

landed gentry male lineage who attended the CW&M. Greene’s (1959) work on diversity

in the House of Burgesses for a 50 year period prior to the Revolutionary War further

dilutes the landed gentry assumptions. While some students attended the Grammar

School to prepare for the curriculum of the Philosophy School, others used tutors or

private instruction in combination with the Grammar School for the experience of semi-

immersion in Latin to sharpen their skills. This study shows that students who had some

individual tutoring appear to have had a higher graduation rate.

The curriculum and pedagogy, as documented in the Statutes of 1756, appear to

have been mere guidelines, as students also had opportunities for learning in curricular

and co-curricular activities beginning in 1750 and expanded in 1759. These opportunities transcended the typical rote memorization techniques generally associated with this period.

Faculty was given latitude on texts and techniques of pedagogy which were expanded in 1760 when Dr. William Small was placed in charge of curriculum. The alternative teaching and learning techniques, many related to the scientific-method of education, are demonstrated in primary documentation (T. Jefferson and J. Page) when these students became adults. Political awareness was developed in the students through their interactions with the House of Burgesses and the college representative who initiated the students in the political process, a fact that has been little known. Co- curricular activities: clubs, politics, and social experiences joined together to expand the education at the CW&M during the mid-18th-century.

289

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study is to explore the contributions to society by attendees at the College of William & Mary (CW&M) from 1756 through 1765 and their contributions to the economic growth of the Colony of Virginia, from 1756 through 1765.

The study posits that CW&M students (a) were products of their education, and (b) as alumni, they served as agents of the social and economic growth of Virginia. To accomplish the study’s purpose, an embedded case study design in the interpretive paradigm and qualitative historical methods was employed using primary, secondary, genealogical, and biographical sources to document, through individual contributions of

CW&M alumni, contributions to the social and economic growth of the Colony. In short, this study acquired, applied, and interpreted information from a genealogical, and educational framework that contributed new findings to the history of higher education during the colonial period in Virginia. Fifteen students met the criteria of the study, and thus were profiled in detailed bio-sketches that included information on male ancestors, family home, college experience, and post-college activities. This approach is considerably different from the traditional written history of higher education as discussed by Bailyn (1960) where the original historians of higher education “had no capacity for surprise . . . the strange, and [or the] awkward” (p. 10) all of which are a part of this study. While it is acknowledged history written from predictable facts is less stressful, the enrichment of understanding through this work provides a view previously unknown and begins to address Bailyn’s (1960) concern on the lack of greater information on CW&M.

290

The student, the focus of this research, did not participate in the educational

process without unconsciously bringing imprinted knowledge and experiences from his ancestors. This is why it was important to expand the original concept of the study to include ancestors beginning with their settlement in the colony. This added richness and a greater understanding of paternal involvement in education, and also added knowledge about the forms of education available in the colonial period that contributed to integrating the student into their environment at the CW&M.

What Do We Know

This study provides important new findings in five areas: the diversity of students at CW&M, college preparation, curriculum change through pedagogy, co-curricular student experience, and the post-college accomplishments of students.

Diversity of Students at CW&M

This study found that the students at CW&M between 1756 and 1765 were remarkably diverse within the context of the times. This finding is important in the context of and in contrast to how current and esteemed historians of higher education characterize colonial higher education. By failing in large measure to focus on students,

Bailyn, 1960; Cremin, 1970; Rudolph, 1962/1990 & 1977; & Thelin, 2004 have contributed to the myth of the elite colonial students that has been unchallenged prior to this study.

As an example of this context, Thelin (2004), in his comprehensive history of

U.S. higher education, noted that in the colonial colleges “favored young men would

acquire not only literacy but also a sense of leadership and service by about their

twentieth birthday” (p. 26). By “favored young men” Thelin was referring to sons of the 291

wealthiest class of the colonies. Thelin’s comment about the “favored young men”

echoes in the major higher education history texts. In addition, Isaac’s (1982) work on

the transformation of Virginia described education at the Grammar School level “for the

sons of the gentry” and by 1750 he points to a “general anxiety among the leading gentry

about the future of the rising generation of the elite in society” (p. 130-131). While Lucas

(2006) admits “not nearly enough is known to permit firm judgments . . . [but] it has been

suggested that the early colonial . . . colleges included significant percentages of

enrollments drawn from working class families and farmers” (p. 335). While Lucas

(2006) does not make a statement he merely acknowledges the suggestion of diversity.

Rudolph (1962/1990) blames the lack of diversity on the curriculum “institutions

themselves helped to keep the people away. . . . curriculum was not of the sort that

appealed to men of practical inclinations [education] required available cash . . . many

people of middling and lower class did not have [cash and] distances were often

excessive” (p. 20).

It is true that the original Virginia colonists in the 17th century did form an elite

group, with many coming from wealthy English families with huge land grants. These

colonists were by virtue of their family ancestry in England and their possession of huge

tracks of land in Virginia, an elite group. However, by 1720, diversity had become

commonplace through the intermingling of classes and continued immigration. This

diversity was evident in the House of Burgesses, as documented by Greene’s (1959)

study covering more than 50 years of the Virginia House of Burgesses.

An important finding of this study was that students at the CW&M during the 9- year period between 1756 and 1765 were as diverse and crossed class, financial, and 292

geographic boundaries in a fashion similar to that of the House of Burgesses, the largest

body of colonial residents. In terms of social strata, eleven students came from the

plantation owner class. Although none of the fathers of the students in this study came

from the planter class, three students became planters after leaving the CW&M. Two

students came from merchant families. Two came from the professional class as sons of a

minister and a physician. Finally, one student came from the craftsman class, the son of a

builder and bricklayer.

Considered in another way, the students came from diverse financial situations,

since social status and financial situation were often not the same in a colony that rose

and fell economically based on the value of tobacco and was buffeted by the impact of

the French and Indian War. CW&M bursar documents (Notes, 1921) showed that as late

as 1778, three of the families who had sons in CW&M during the study period still owed

debts to the college for fees, evidence of their families stressed financial condition.

Another way to consider the financial diversity is from the perspective of scholarship support. From 1753 to 1770 as shown in the extant Bursar’s books, 10 scholarships were given from seven sources. Funding came from four individuals: Mrs.

Bray, Colonel Lightfoot, Colonel Hill and Mrs. Harrison and three designated funds:

Assembly Foundation (possibly funded through the House of Burgess, but documentation is unclear), Duty on Liquors, (a tax imposed by the House of Burgesses) and Nottoway

Foundation (money from the operation of a farm owned and operated by CW&M in

Nottoway County). The CW&M had means to provide scholarships for those who could not afford the Grammar School and, according to the CW&M Charter and the Statutes;

there was also a process for obtaining a scholarship for the Philosophy School. Although 293

if a scholarship was granted for the Philosophy School records were either destroyed in the various fires or destroyed in the occupation of the CW&M campus during the Wars.

Not finding evidence is not conclusive that Philosophy School scholarships did not exist; only that records are incomplete.

One student, John Tyler, the son of a craftsman, secured a scholarship to attend the Grammar School, although perhaps due to lost records, there is no indication that he had scholarship support for his attendance at the Philosophy School. The CW&M scholarship investment paid off. Tyler, born into a family of craftsmen, went to

Grammar School on scholarship, was tutored at Donald Robinson’s school, excelled as an undergraduate, and completed his CW&M AB degree prior to studying under Robert

Carter Nicholas for his law degree. He began his political career in 1776 as a Judge of the

Admiralty concluding in 1811 after 3 years as Governor of Virginia. His devotion to service as an elected official of the State of Virginia was one of a long family history of service to the state and the United States. His grandson was John Tyler the President of the United States from 1841 to 1845.

Geographic origin was another aspect of diversity among the CW&M students in this study. The students in the study group were generally from counties that were clustered around Williamsburg and had easy water access to the capital city. This suggests that the distance to Williamsburg and CW&M could have affected the decision of families to send their sons to college (Rudolph, 1962/1990). It also suggests how difficult travel was in this era, and thus how challenging it would have been for families of diverse and distant geographic areas to have crossed paths. Attendance at the CW&M provided opportunity for young men from distant parts of the colony, to meet, become 294

friends, and thus to be part of a network across the colony. Although outside the criteria of this study, it is useful to note that Thomas Jefferson attended CW&M from the farthest reach of the colony (Albemarle County, near the Blue Ridge Mountains). He added important geographic diversity to his class mates, and the networks of student friends that he made during his time at CW&M must have been helpful to him as he pursued his political life.

The ability to trace the lineage of each family through a bio-sketch in this work revealed a diversity that was envisioned by the founders in the Charter and Statutes that has not previously been revealed in the literature. Certainly powerful, wealthy, landed gentry families are well represented in the student sample between 1756 and 1765, the period of this study, however there was a diversity based on social status, financial status and geographic locations for the Philosophy School. A key finding for this study is that attending CW&M brought together these diverse students and provided social interaction opportunities that may have had profound effects on the students as they emerged into manhood and careers. This diversity across social strata, financial status, and geographic location challenges the concepts put forth by Rudolph (1962/1990) & Thelin (2004) and repeated in many historical treatments of colonial higher education that colonial era students were essentially homogenous. Each author has their own way of presenting the elite concepts of education in the colonial period. It appears as the “favored young men” as mentioned by Thelin (2004), while Isaac (1982) makes references to gentry, and a comment by Lucas (2006) that “not nearly enough is known” (p.335), this is coupled by

Rudolph’s blame for the lack of diversity on the curriculum insisting that college education in the colonial era was only for the elite. Instead, by focusing on students and 295

their ancestry rather than solely on the college’s records, the findings of this study show a rich diversity on many levels.

College Preparation

The preparation for the Philosophy School was based on the acquisition of a specific skill set that involved Latin, Greek (both spoken and written), morals, and the ability to recite the Church of England Catechism. These skills were tested by the

Masters and on occasion the President of CW&M; prior to admission to the Philosophy school (Statutes of 1756), as they were important to the completion of the undergraduate curriculum. The students in this work took three different journeys for mastery: (a)

Grammar School for an extended period of time within 8 and 15 years of age, (b) a combination of tutoring, and (c), private school. This study introduced two findings regarding college preparation. First, there was fluidity across attendance at these various types of college preparation paths. Students usually started with private tutoring at home, then moved either to a private school or to the CW&M Grammar School. However, there was also movement back and forth between private schooling for general education or tutoring in specific topics, and the CW&M Grammar School. A second finding was that those students who had a combination of tutoring and grammar school were more likely to complete the entire 4 year program in the Philosophy School.

Curriculum

Although the curriculum as prescribed in the Statutes of 1756 was not formally amended, the methods of pedagogy did change as the new scientific method of learning, lecture, discussion and demonstration was brought to the college in 1758 by its first lay, or non-minister, educator, Dr. William Small, who served at the CW&M from 1758- 296

1764. While the curriculum did not change, the methods used to present the material did

change. A new enlightened method of pedagogy, the scientific method, communicated

through lecture, discussion, and demonstration that enhanced students’ ability to think

critically. While the history of CW&M may suggest that Dr. Small was the instigator of

the use of the scientific based method of teaching/learning at this college, Stearns (1970),

provides information on the many opportunities available to the Masters prior to 1759 to

bring the scientific method to the College. Williamsburg in the late 17th and early 18th-

century had become a microcosm of scientific knowledge especially as it revolved around

botany or natural philosophy.

The Revised Statutes also changed the length of time for achievement of an AB

degree from 2 to 4 years. On average, the students in this study remained in the

Philosophy School at the CW&M for 3.89 years. While it might be reasonable to assume, that ancestors of the students in this study who were associated with the college as member of the board or as alumnus would have affected the average length of time spent in the AB program. However, this was not a factor.

Another finding of this study was how few of the students from the study period pursued divinity training. A key purpose of the colonial colleges was to produce ministers

to serve the colony. However, only one student of the 15 in the study group, over the 9

years of the study’s focus, pursued advanced training at the CW&M to become a

minister. At this rate of divinity training, the college was not making significant

contribution to the number of ministers in the colony.

The success of CW&M in training clergy for the Virginia Colony has been debated in colonial history. The history of The Episcopal Church in Virginia: 1607-2007 297

(Bond and Gundersen, 2007) declares that by “1775 it [CW&M] was the alma mater of more than half of all Anglican clergymen in the colony” (p. 32). A brief analysis of

Meade, W. (1857) “Meade’s Old Churches, Ministers, & Families” does not agree with

their findings, while Cremin (1970) admits there was a lack of clergymen [prior to 1778]

and blames this shortfall on the “absence of a colonial bishop” (p. 321). During the

period of this study only one Master of Divinity, William Bland, was an alumnus of

CW&M as shown in the bio-sketches for this study.

In sum, it can be speculated that the curriculum post-1756 and the pedagogy after

Small’s arrival (1758) must have affected the students in this study in terms of what they

studied, how they studied, how long they studied, and what they took from those studies

for application in their post-CW&M lives in an expanding colony and in the pre-

Revolutionary era of the country.

Co-curricular Student Experience

Students during the period of this study had available to them a wide array of co-

curricular learning experiences. These ranged from college-based clubs for debate and

science, exposure to the political and social scene of the colonial capital of Williamsburg

at a time of great political change and transition, and opportunity to participate in the

array of social activities available in Williamsburg including church, music, theater, and

sports. These finding challenges the concept suggested in the major texts on the history

of U.S. higher education that students led a somewhat monastic life of study and

attendance at chapel services (Morison, 1936; Statutes 1908 & 1914).

Two formal co-curricular activities were in place during the period of this study.

The Red Hat Club, a member only debating club and the pre-cursor to university 298

fraternities, provided an opportunity for students to learn and practice debate skills, and it

can be assumed that the current issues of the day provided fodder for the practice debates

of these students. The Science Club formed by Dr. William Small was based on a

“society [club] for promoting scientific experiments” (Clagett, 2003, p. 155). The club

was “modeled upon the Royal Society of Arts founded in London . . . to encourage

scientific experimentation and new discoveries, arts, and manufactures” (Sterns, 1970, p.

544). This club existed within the context of an environment in Williamsburg that was “a

lively scientific center” (Stearns, 1970, p. 555). It is easy to imagine guest lectures to the

club from local scientific luminaries such as John Clayton from Gloucester County who

prepared a catalog of native Virginia plants, fruits, and trees. The application of the scientific method can be seen in the writings of Thomas Jefferson and John Page to investigate the weather, crop growing, and other questions within the natural sciences.

In particular, it can be speculated that the students in this study had a great deal of

exposure to the potent political debates of the period, and had direct access to the major

political players in those debates. The CW&M Masters, and especially Dr. Small, were

well connected with the political life of the capital city. It is known that Dr. William

Small often took students with him to the House of Burgesses and to gatherings in the

homes of political leaders in Williamsburg, especially Peyton Randolph who was in the

House of Burgesses from 1754-1755 and was the CW&M House of Burgess

representative (and there after Attorney General) during the period of this study.

Although it is not known if the college took its students on what we now know as

structured field trips to the House of Burgess or the local court, it is safe to assume the

CW&M students profiled in this study were aware of politics and connected to the 299

political environment in many ways through the activities of the Masters and especially

Dr. William Small. Additionally, these informal experiences were coupled with formal co-curricular experiences. This unique combination of experiences contributed to higher education during the period and produced a student who was able to question, explore, and think critically. Rudolph (1962/1990) phrases his opinion on the unique opportunity for political knowledge at CW&M based on the connection of the main street of

Williamsburg, “Duke of Gloucester Street, extended from the capital building at one end to the college at the other; such an arrangement was both convenient and symbolic” (p.

14). It is easy to imagine that the exposure students had to the political debates and activities in Williamsburg during their college days groomed them to serve their local communities upon their post-college return home, and impacted their involvement in political and military service in their post-college careers.

The study of Belles Lettres was introduced into the curriculum at CW&M by Dr.

Small and the students developed to these skills through activities in Williamsburg.

Williamsburg hosted a theater and visiting theater groups. Many citizens and visitors to

Williamsburg played musical instruments, so musical performances in people’s homes were common. Dance, as formal events at the Governor’s Palace, or informally at the taverns or in people’s homes, was also common. The boys had exposure to and could participate in these arts activities as co-curricular learning opportunities.

These co-curricular activities contributed to the teaching/learning methods of the college and enhanced the application or demonstration portion of the scientific method.

They exposed the students to a much wider range of learning than documented in the curriculum listing of the Statutes and provided a social polishing that the students carried 300

with them in their post-college careers. Most importantly, these co-curricular activities grounded the students in such a way that they would provide service back to their colony after college completion. These opportunities within Williamsburg also assured that the students were exposed to the current political issues of the time and the major players in the colonial government who were enacting legislation on these issues. As students who were entering the career eras of their lives, they were probably well-grounded to continue their participation in political service – either as elected officials or as knowledgeable participants in local debate – as the colony became more involved in the process that led to the Revolutionary War.

Post Collegiate Accomplishments

A key feature of this study was its attempt to document the post-college experiences and contributions of the students. The post-college contributions of the subjects of this study were varied, yet substantial. Some returned to family plantations

and maintained these over time, while others started their own farms (the planter group),

and others served the colony as merchants and professionals. Perhaps John Tyler, the

boy who attended CW&M as a scholarship student, traveled the farthest in his post-

college career as he rose from a craftsman’s family to be governor of Virginia and

grandfather of a President of the United States. Although it is impossible to document

the actual role that their college educations played in their post-college careers, for those

who went on to professional roles, those careers would not have been easily possible

without a college foundation.

Taken as a whole, the post completion accomplishments of the study group are

impressive. There are threads of innovation revolving around science and industry (one 301

student supported the creation of the McCormick reaper to mechanically harvest grain).

Many students served their home counties, Virginia, and the new nation through political

service. As examples, Richard Bland had long service in the House of Burgesses and

served on key committees relating to the issues that led to the Revolutionary War. He

also served as a delegate to the Continental Congress. James McClurg moved with the

flood of population that followed the relocation of the capital to Richmond, and was

ultimately its mayor, while John Tyler became governor of Virginia. These students

emerged into manhood on the eve of the Revolutionary War. Eight had involvement in

the Revolutionary War, in the local militia, in the Virginia troops, or as suppliers of

goods to the military. In short, the student, through their CW&M education, matured

from a once traditionally English view of the world to world views involving advocacy and innovation that helped bridge the gap between the English colonies of Virginia to the

Commonwealth of Virginia, a part of the United States. The generation of students as

represented by this study began to question and debated topics as they pulled away from their English heritage.

The key themes uncovered in this study relate to diversity, geographic locations of the student population, college preparation, curriculum changes, the benefits of co- curricular activities, and the post collegiate accomplishments as compared to previous generations of the colony.

Limitations of the Study

This study employed historic research methods, and thus is limited by the standard issues of such methods. The limitations of this study have to do with the use and accuracy of a historical data base and other historical material for the bio-sketches. 302

The quality of published biographical information is varied and must be checked and double-checked for accuracy involving great blocks of time. The heart of the study was a painstaking pursuit of fact-based information on each student. This meant going beyond family-published reports on ancestors to a detailed, far-ranging search for fact-based historical data. The time-consuming task of searching archives adds time to the completion of a historic dissertation.

Thelin (2004) admits the “reconstruction [of] the academic life of colonial . . . students is surprisingly difficult” (p. 20). This study became practical because of the advent of the Internet. The documents needed for this study resided in archives and libraries that were far-flung across Virginia. Although many of these archives were visited, and often repeatedly, by the researcher, the recent creation of digital materials and listings made deeper and more comprehensive research possible. Most archives have digitized at least some of their holdings, and have placed on their websites inventories or descriptions of document caches, if not the actual digitized documents themselves. This made it much easier for the researcher to track down details and to triangulate data across sources. It also made it easier for this researcher to find research conducted by others that would otherwise have been tucked away in various archives and not easily located.

A challenge in researching people who lived centuries ago is that documentation is often unavailable. The loss of key CW&M records due to fires makes any research on the colonial era of the college frustrating. The study would not have been possible had it not been for the painstaking research by Swem (1941) who created the definitive roster of students at CW&M, with careful notations regarding lost bursar records and incomplete knowledge. Also frustrating were missing pages in the minutes of the meetings of the 303

Board of Visitors and of the Masters, such that the researcher could be certain that

additional information was missing but did not have enough information to know exactly

what was missing.

When the trail ran dry on some students, the researcher turned to tracking down

the land. This often provided the most reliable way to track the student’s post-college life.

The location of the will of the father gave information on what property had been left to the student. It is through the wills, some of which have survived over the centuries in county courthouses that were not burned during the Revolutionary or Civil Wars, clues were provided for additional areas of research. A particularly provident discovery was a reference book on existing colonial wills in Virginia with a corresponding microfiche cache (unknown to the volunteers) at the Rockefeller Library in Williamsburg. In addition, the researcher was not above paying county employees to find and copy information after their work hours.

Beyond the limitations of the existence of documentation and how much is extant after centuries, another limitation was the erratic nature of record-keeping by the

CW&M. For example, the CW&M had a policy of admitting students at 8 years of age

or older for the Grammar School and age 15 for transfer into the Philosophy School. Yet,

no record was found that listed birth dates. A condition for entry into the study was age

and enrollment during the study period. This information might reasonably have made

the group more cohesive, but it may have resulted in a smaller group. Because students

paid Masters directly for instruction, the financial records of the CW&M only record

payments of things such as room and board, books, supplies, and other fees. Thus, it is

difficult to actually determine which students lived at the college or boarded in the area, 304

whether they attended full- or part-time or whether they did focused study in a particular area (such as to polish skills in a language to prepare for their college examination).

There were no minutes or descriptions of college activities such as the Red Hat or

Science Clubs. Unfortunately, the tradition of college year books that listed each student and each student’s activities did not materialize until decades in the future. One wishes that someone at the CW&M during the colonial period of the college had been a busy- body recording more details from which future researchers could obtain a more nuanced picture of CW&M life.

While this study has its limitations, as noted above, the literature of colonial era higher education itself has been limited by the failure to focus on the student as the unit of analysis.

Recommendations

While this study provided far more detail about the students, their college lives, and their post-college careers than had previously been available, what is still not known is tantalizing. Thus, there are several areas that still need research to complete our knowledge of the CW&M during its colonial period, and to better understand the post- college life of its students.

Recommendations relating to the CW&M

Dr. William Small turned out to potentially be a major influence on the students of this study. Beyond the general outline of his life and some details about his service to the CW&M, surprisingly little is known. While Clagett (2003) has provided a great deal of information on Dr. Small, a more in-depth investigation into Small and his impact

305

from the perspective of the students at the CW&M would be an important contribution to our knowledge of the college during this period and his influence on his students.

This study could be complimented with a study on scholarships given to CW&M students and an investigation of records of any scholarships for Philosophy School students. Such research would be enhanced with biographical sketches of the recipients to ascertain the impact of the scholarship on college success and post-college careers.

Although only 2 of the 12 CW&M bursar books are known to exist, the information gleaned would add a valuable component to colonial education.

In a similar vein, more investigation into the CW&M Grammar School (germane to this study but not the focus of this study) and other means of college preparation would enrich our knowledge about how boys obtained basic educational formation. While there is some knowledge of private schools such as that run by Donald Robertson, they may be other private schools and tutors who also played important roles preparing boys for college.

This study brought together a great deal of information about the curriculum and co-curricular opportunities available to students at the CW&M during this study period.

Deeper investigation is warranted, particularly through letters, diaries, and other documents that students may have written from college to family and friends in which they wrote about the details of their college experiences. While some correspondence of this nature certainly exists, it more probably resides in archives and historical societies or in the private archives of families. Such correspondence may not yet be fully inventoried or digitized. Scrutinizing such correspondence may reveal more details about college life. 306

Conversely, there could be additional insights about the experiences of the

students from the letters or journals of some of the people who came to Williamsburg

during this period. It could be expected that those people who came to Williamsburg for

service in the House of Burgesses or for other business may have written about

attendance at various theater, arts, music, and political events in their letters home or in

their diaries in which they may have noted seeing college students in attendance or

engaged in activities. Similarly, those fathers who had sons at CW&M who had reason

to visit Williamsburg may have written in letters home or in diaries about seeing sons and

about activities shared with them. Thus, greater scrutiny of private correspondence and

diaries may reveal more details that can be woven into a greater tapestry of understanding

of co-curricular activities during this period.

It was not part of the sphere of this research to go into detailed research on the

military service of the subjects of this study, but further investigation could be possible.

Revolutionary War military unit rosters, pay authorizations, and other service

documentation are available in Virginia and in the National Archives. An increasing

amount of this information is being digitized. Future research into military service may

reveal that more of the subjects of this study were involved in local militias or Virginia

military units than research for this study revealed.

This study went backwards to document the education and civic contributions of

the ancestors of the study subjects, but did not go forward to look at the sons of the

subjects. There may be findings in the next generation in terms of college attendance and degree attainment that would provide a greater understanding of the current subject, such as letters that may recall a father’s experience during college. 307

A tantalizing discovery of this study was the dramatic impact that the death of

Speaker Robinson had on several of the families represented in this study. Of interest would be a complete history on Speaker Robinson. As Treasurer of the colony, his untimely death, and the tremendous damage caused by his actions, would be a useful contribution to understanding the economic history of the mid-18th-century in Virginia.

Lastly at the Swem library Special Collections department (the archives) there is a collection of 99 indentured agreements in the Fairfax Harrison Box 2, Folder 4 from

Prince William County, Dittengen Parish. A survey of these documents with a focus on the requirements of education within these indentures would greatly add to colonial theories on the reasons for public education in the mid 18th–century.

Recommendations relating to Other Colonial Colleges

It is recommended that this study format be replicated for other colonial colleges to offer the opportunity to compare and contrast the educational experiences of the colonial student. This would add knowledge to the current void in the literature of higher education and may continue to challenge what is considered to be common knowledge about the colonial college experience.

Conclusion

The 15 boys who attended CW&M between 1756 and 1765 lived through a multi- faceted learning experience that was far richer in curriculum, pedagogy, and co-curricular experiences that most higher education history texts currently suggest. As important as these educational experiences probably were as a foundation for their post-college careers, ultimately two issues may have been the biggest contribution to their maturation.

Just as we advocate the importance of a diverse student body to the educational growth of 308

today’s students, so, too, the diversity of CW&M students by social strata, financial

status, and geography may have been instrumental in teaching the students about the

mosaic of the population of Virginia at that time. Although we have no knowledge of

who shared lodgings or became friends, it is inevitable that through the closeness that

develops among class mates, the networks – social, political, and civic – of these students

must have been significantly larger and more useful as a result of their CW&M studies.

Similarly, the fact these boys were in college during one of the most exciting and robust periods in the political life of the colony must have had impact on them. Inevitably, they rubbed elbows with, observed, and even participated in the debates of the day about the issues that eventually led to the creation of a new country. As many of the key players of the creation of the new country came from Virginia, it can be surmised that these boys had at least met, if not knew well, those players, and thus were, post-college, part of the ongoing process that led to the creation of the new country.

Their college careers spanned a college that went from a very traditional English model to one that was advancing towards the scientific method and Enlightenment learning as modeled in Scottish higher education. In many ways, these boys, as students and then in their post-college lives, bridged the gap between the English colony of

Virginia to the Commonwealth of Virginia and the creation of a new country. Through their post-college civic engagements, they helped create the new country won through the

Revolutionary War. Their experiences at the CW&M were integral to the post-college people that they became and their impact on the Virginia colony.

309

REFERENCES

A peep at the Old Dominion. (1832, July). American Turf Register and Sporting

Magazine, 3(11), p. 550-555.

Abercrombie, J. L. & Statten, R. (Compilers and transcribers). (1992). Virginia

Revolutionary War claims. Athens, GA: Iberian Publishing Co.

Abercrombie, J. L., & Slatten, R. (1992). Virginia revolutionary publick [sic] claims.

Athens, GA: The Iberian Publishing Co.

About the Flat Hat. The Flat Hat: The College of William and Mary student voice since

1911. Retrieved from http://flathatnews.com/content/63370

Abstracts of Virginia land patents. (1894). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 1(4), pp. 436-452.

Adams, H. (1887). The College of William and Mary: A contribution to the history of

higher education, with suggestions for its national promotion. (Report No. 1-

1887). Washington DC: Circulars of Information of the Bureau of Education.

African American Heritage: Virginia African American Heritage Program.

www.aaheritageva.org

Andrews, M. P. (1937). Virginia: The Old Dominion. Richmond, VA.: The Dietz Press,

Inc.

Aylett, E. H. (About 1830-1840). Letter in Charles Campbell papers, Swem Archives

(Special Collections) at the College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA

65C17, Box 27. Folder 20.

Bailyn, B. (1960). Education in the forming of American society. Chapel Hill, NC:

University of North Carolina Press. 310

Bailyn, B., Fleming, D., Handlin, O., & Thernstrom, S. (1986). Glimpses of Harvard

past. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bellfield. (1906). The William and Mary Quarterly, 1(15), p. 36-39.

Benjamin Harrison elected member of the House of Delegates. (1909). The Virginia

Magazine of History and Biography, 17(4), p. 364-383.

Bentinck-Smith, W. (Ed.). (1953). The Harvard book: Selections from three centuries.

Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Beverley, R. (1855). The history of Virginia in four parts. Richmond, VA: J. W.

Randolph.

Blair, J. & Fouace, S. (1914, April). Statutes of the College of William and Mary:

Codified in 1736. William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, 22,

4, p. 281-296.

Blair, J. L. (1964). The rise of the Burwells. The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 72(3), p 304-329.

Blair, J. L. (1959). The rise of the Burwells. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). The College

of William and Mary: Williamsburg, VA.

Blair, J., Jr. (1903, Jan). Finances of the college in 1755-1765. William and Mary College

Quarterly Historical Magazine, p. 149-153.

Blair, John Jr. (1903). Finances of the College in 1755-1765. The College of William and

Mary Quarterly, 11(3), p. 149-153.

Bland family papers. Swem Library Special Collections (94BL59). College of William

and Mary. Williamsburg, VA.

311

Bland, T. (1840). Bland family papers: Being a selection from the manuscripts of Colonel

Theodorick Bland, Jr. (1840). Bedford, MA: Applewood Books.

Bland, T. (1840). Bland family papers: Being a selection from the manuscripts of Colonel

Theodorick Bland, Jr. Bedford, MA: Applewood Books.

Bond, E. L. & Gundersen, J. R. (2007). The Episcopal Church in Virginia. Richmond,

VA: The Episcopal Diocese of Virginia.

Books in colonial Virginia. (1900). The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography,

7(3), pp. 299-303.

Boyd-Rush, D. (2003). Molding a founding father. Retrieved from

www.jmu.edu/montpelier/2003Spring

Brafferton Manor. (1910, July). William and Mary Quarterly 19(1), p. 42-43.

Brewer, M. (2007). Northumberland County Virginia: Deeds, wills, inventories, etc.

1743-1749. Lewes DE: Colonial Roots.

Brown, A. ( n.d. ). Genealogy collection Massie family. Manuscripts and Rare Books

Department, Swem Library, College of William and Mary (Mss 39.4 G 29)

Williamsburg, VA: Swem Library.

Brown, R. E. & Brown, B. K. (1964). Virginia 1705-1786: Democracy or aristocracy?

East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Brown, S. E. (1994). Burwell: Kith and kin of the immigrant. Berryville, VA: Virginian

Book Company.

312

Brydon, G. (1939). A list of clergy of the Protestant Episcopal Church ordained after the

American Revolution, who served in Virginia between 1785 and 1814, and a list

of Virginia parishes and their rectors for the same period. William and Mary

Quarterly, 19(2), p. 397-434.

Brydon, G. (1933, Jan). The clergy of the established church in Virginia and the

Revolution. Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. p. 123-143.

Brydon, G. M. (1943). English education of Thomas Nelson, Jr. of Yorktown. The

Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 51(4), p. 347-350.

Burwell Family Papers, 1736-1786. (MS64.4) John D. Rockefeller Jr. Library.

Williamsburg, VA.

Burwell, G. H. (1961). Sketch of Carter Burwell (1716-1756). Millwood, VA: Self

Published.

Burwell, J. L. (1994). Burwell: Kith and king of the immigrant. Berryville, VA: Virginia

Book Company.

Burwell: Entries from family bible in the possession of Mr. George Burwell, Clarke

County. (1923). Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 31(1), p. 357-359.

Button, H. W. & Provenzo, E. F., Jr. (1989). History of education & culture in America

(2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Butts, F. & Cremin, L. (1953). A history of education in American culture. New York:

Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Byrd, W. III. (1930). Letters of the Byrd family. The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 38(1), p. 51-63.

313

Campbell, C. (1860). History of the colony and ancient dominion of Virginia.

Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Company.

Canby, C. (1941). A note on the influence of Oxford University upon William and Mary

College in the eighteenth century. The William and Mary Quarterly 2nd Series,

21(3), p. 243-247.

Captain John Martin of Brandon on the James. Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 54(1), p. 21-67.

Carson, J. (1965). James Innes and his brothers of the F. H. C. Charlottesville, VA:

University Press of Virginia.

Chamberlain, J. (Ed.). (1900). Harvard University: It’s history, influence, equipment and

characteristics with biographical sketches and portraits of founders, benefactors,

officers, and alumni. Boston: R. Herndon Company.

Chandler, J. A. (1934). Jefferson and William and Mary. The William and Mary

Quarterly, Second Series, 14(4), p., 304-307.

Charles Campbell Papers, Swem Library Archives (Special Collections) at the College of

William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA 65C17, Box 27, Folders 20

Charter and Statutes of 1756. (1758). Williamsburg, VA: William Parks.

Clagett, M. R. (2003). William Small, 1734-1775, teacher, mentor, scientist.

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Virginia Commonwealth University,

Richmond, VA.

Clark, P. E. (1966). Old King William home and families. Baltimore, MD: Regional

Publishing Co.

Clarke County, VA. Retrieved from http://genealogenie.net/clarke/howe.shtml 314

Cocke family of Virginia. (1896). The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 4, p.

431- 450.

Coldham, P. (1990-1993). The complete book of emigrants: Covering period from 1661-

1776, 2-4. Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co. Inc.

Cole Digges House, Historic Structures Report. (2005). National Park Service. Retrieved

from http://www.nps.gov/history/

Coleman, C. W. (1917). Genealogy of the Smith family of Essex County, VA. The

William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, 2594), p. 177-179.

Coleman, C. W. (Compiler). (1897, April). The county committees of 1774 -’75 in

Virginia. The William and Mary Quarterly Historical Magazine, 5(4), pp. 245-

255.

Coleman, C. W. (1896). The county committees of 1774-’75 in Virginia. The William

and Mary Quarterly, 5(2), p. 94-106.

Collection Rockefeller Library (PH 02.48): Williamsburg, VA: Rockefeller Library.

College of William and Mary. Rectors of visitors. Retrieved at www.swem.wm.edu

College of William & Mary. (n.d.). Historical facts. Retrieved March, 13, 2006, from

http://www.wm.edu/vitalfacts/

College of William & Mary. (n.d.). The College of William and Mary University: Fact

book 2007-2008. Williamsburg, VA: Office of Institutional Research.

College of William and Mary Bursar Records 1753-1777. Special Collections, (PH

02.48) Rockefeller Library, Williamsburg, VA.

Colonial roads and wheeled vehicles. (1899). The William and Mary Quarterly, 8(1), p.

37-42. 315

Conolly, B. R. (2006). King William County Virginia records 1702-1806. Athens, GA:

New Papyrus Publishing.

Continental soldiers. (1927, July). Tyler’s Quarterly Historical and Genealogical

Magazine, 9(1), p. 230-245

Cooke, J. E. (1875). William and Mary College. Scribner’s Monthly: An Illustrated

Magazine for the People, XL, 1, 1-15.

Cozier, W. A. (Ed.). (2000). Virginia colonial militia, 1651-1776. Baltimore, MD:

Genealogical Publications.

Crane, E. B. (1907). Historic homes and institutions and genealogical and personal

memoirs of Worchester County, MA. New York: The Lewis Publishing Co.

Cremin, L. (1997). College. In Goodchild, L. R. & Wechsler, H. S. (Eds). Ashe reader

series: The history of higher education (2nd ed.) (p. 35-52).

Cremin, L. (1970). American education: The colonial experience 1607-1783. New York,

NY: Harper & Row.

Davis, R. B. (1978). Intellectual life in the colonial south 1585-1763. (Vol. 3). Knoxville,

TN: The University of Tennessee Press.

Deaths in Williamsburg. (1787, September 6). Virginia Gazette.

DeMarco, C. (2006). Colonial families of York County, VA. (Vol. 1). Lewes DE: Colonial

Roots.

Department of Historic Registry. (1973). National registry of historic places inventory –

nomination form. www.dhr.virginia.gov

Description of the Mace. (1923, April). The William and Mary Quarterly, 3,(2), p. 126-

128. 316

Digges, E. (1892-1893). Pedigree of a representative. [Addenda by L. G. Tyler]. William

and Mary Quarterly Historical Papers, 1(1), p. 208-213.

Dillard, C. G. (1951). The grammar school of the College of William and Mary 1693-

1888. (Unpublished Masters thesis). College of William and Mary, Williamsburg,

VA.

Doares, R. (2003). A field spacious and untrodden: The Virginian society for the

promotion of usefull knowledge. Retrieved from:

www.history.org/foundation/journal/autumn03/society

Dobson, D. (1985). Directory of Scottish settlers in North America. Baltimore:

Genealogical Publishing Co. Inc.

Dodson, E. G. (1956). Speakers and clerks of the Virginia House of Delegates, 1776-

1955. Richmond, VA: State of Virginia.

Donald Robert’s School King and Queen County, VA., 1758-1769: Extracts from his

account book, 33(2), p. 194-198.

Dorman, J. F. (1981). Genealogies of Virginia families: From Tylers Quarterly Historical

and Genealogical Magazine, 1. Baltimore MD: Genealogical Publishing Co. Inc.

Dorman, J. F. (Ed.). (1987). Adventures of purse and person Virginia 1607-1624/5.

Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press, Inc.

Dorman, J. F. (Ed.). Prince George County. The Virginia Genealogist. 20(4), 294-296

Du Bellet, L. (1907). Some prominent Virginia families IV. Lynchburg, VA: J. P. Bell

Company, Inc.

317

Dudley Digges for the Council, to the Speaker of the House of Delegates. Letter dated

November 16, 1776, (1909). The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography,

17(1), p. 381-383.Goodson, S., Johnson, L., Sherman, R., Tate, T., & Walker, H.

(1993). The College of William and Mary: A history. Williamsburg: King and

Queen Press.

Earnest, E. (1953). Academic procession: An informal history of the American college

1636 to 1953. Indianapolis, IN: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.

Eckenrode, H. J. (1916). The revolution in Virginia. Boston & New York: Houghton

Mifflin Co.

Education in colonial Virginia: Part III- free schools. 1897-1898. William and Mary

Quarterly Historical Magazine, 1(6), p. 71-85.

Eliot, C. W. (1969). A turning point in higher education: The inaugural address of

Charles William Eliot, as President of Harvard College, October 19, 1869.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Eliot, S. A. (1848). Sketch of the history of Harvard College and of its present state.

Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown.

Ellis, G. (1884). A memorial of John Harvard: The gift to Harvard University of Samuel

James Bridge: Ceremonies of the unveiling of the statue, October 15, 1884 with

an address by George Edward Ellis. Cambridge, MA: John Wilson and Son.

Epitaphs at Brandon, Prince George County, VA (1899, June). The Virginia Magazine of

History and Biography, 6, p. 233-236.

Evans, E. G. (1962). Planter indebtedness and the coming of the revolution in Virginia.

The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, 19(4), p. 511-533. 318

Evans, E. G. (1957). The Nelsons: A biographical study of a Virginia family in the

eighteenth century (Doctoral dissertation). University of Virginia, Charlottesville,

Virginia. Retrieved from UMI Dissertation Services.

Evidences relating to Westover. (1939, July). Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 47(3), 191-217.

Flat Hat Club. (1917, January). The William and Mary Quarterly, 25(3), p. 161-164.

Flournoy, H. W. (1890). Calendar of Virginia State papers and other manuscripts. (1799,

January, 1 to 1807, December, 31). New York: Kraus Reprint Company.

Floyd, M. (Ed.). (1985). Harvard: An architectural history. Cambridge: Belknap Press of

Harvard University Press.

Fontaine, W. W. & Fontaine, S. (1911). Some Virginia families – Moore, Bernard, Todd,

Spotswood, etc. The William and Mary Quarterly, 19(3), p. 177-184.

Fontaine, W. W. & Fontaine, S. (1911). Some Virginia families – Moore, Bernard, Todd,

Spotswood, etc. The William and Mary Quarterly, 19(3), p. 177-184.

Ford, P. L. (Collector & Editor). (1898). Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 9. New York: G.

P. Putman’s Sons.

Forrest, W. (1853). Historical and descriptive sketches of Norfolk and vicinity: During a

period of two hundred years. Philadelphia, PA: Lindsay and Blakiston.

Fothergill, A. (1925). Wills of Westmoreland County, Virginia 1654-1800. (No city or

state): Appeals Press.

Fothergill, A. B. & Naugle, J. M. (1966). Virginia tax payers 1782-87. Baltimore:

Genealogical Publishing Co.

French and Indian war. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.ushistory.org 319

Galt family of Williamsburg. (1900). The William and Mary Quarterly. 8(1), p. 259-262.

Ganter, H. (1947). Jefferson’s beloved teacher. The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd

Series, 4(4), p. 505-511.

Ganter, H. L. (1940, October). Documents relating to the early history of the College of

William and Mary and to the history of the church in Virginia. The William and

Mary Quarterly, 2nd Series, 20(4), p. 524-544.

Garnett, J. M. (1910). The last fifteen years of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1761-

1776. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 18(2), p. 213-223.

Gewehr, W. M. (1930). The great awakening in Virginia, 1740-1790. Gloucester, MA:

North Carolina: Duke University Press.

Gibbs, P. A. (1994). Letter to Terry Edwards, Williamsburg Community Hospital, dated

June 29, 1994. Housed in the C. W. Rockefeller Library, Research Queries,

ZQF1994 06 29, Williamsburg VA.

Goodson, S., Johnson, L., Sherman, R., Tate, T., & Walker, H. (1993). The College of

William and Mary: A history. Williamsburg, VA: King and Queen Press.

Goodwin, E. L. (1927). The colonial church in Virginia. Milwaukee, WI: Morehouse

Publishing Co.

Goodwin, E. L. (1927). The colonial church in Virginia. Milwaukee, WI: Morehouse

Publishing Co.

Goodwin, M. (1951). Walthoe store house block 17, lot #58 east. Colonial Williamsburg

Foundation Library Research Report Series – 1379. Retrieved from

http://research.history.org

320

Gordon, A. (1915). John Tyler tenth President of the United States: An address by

Armistead C. Gordon at the dedication, October 12, 1915 at the monument

erected by Congress in Hollywood Cemetery, Richmond, VA., in memory of

President Tyler. Printed and bound by the Committee on Dedicatory Ceremonies.

Green, R. T. (1900). Genealogical and historical notes on Culpeper County, Virginia:

Embracing a revised and enlarged edition of Dr. Philip Slaughter’s History of St.

Mark’s Parish. Culpeper, VA: Exponent Printing Office.

Griffith, L. (1970 Rev.). The Virginia House of Burgesses 1750-1774. University AL:

The University of Alabama Press.

Grigsby, H. B. (1891). The history of the Virginia Federal Convention of 1788. (In the

collection of the Virginia Historical Society, New Series Vol. 10). 2. Richmond,

VA: Virginia Historical Society.

Grymes of Brandon. (1919). The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 27(3-4),

p. 403-413.

Guide to Prince George and Hopewell, (1939). Writers program of the Work Projects

Administration in the State of Virginia. American Guide Series.

Gwathmey, J. (1979). Historical register of Virginia in the revolution. Baltimore:

Genealogical Publishing Co. Inc.

Gwathmey, J. H. (1938). Historical register of Virginians in the Revolution. Richmond,

VA: The Dietz Press.

Hale, J. S. (1978). A historical atlas of colonial Virginia. Verona, VA: Old Dominion

Publication.

321

Hale, J. S. (Cartographer). (1978). A map of Virginia plantations & historic churches at

the zenith of the tobacco era in the year 1750. Plate 9 A. V. C. In J. S. Hale, A

Historical Atlas of Colonial Virginia. Verona, VA: McClure Press.

Hall, W. L. (Ed.) (1931). Journal of the Council of the State of Virginia December 1,

1782 – November 29, 1786 (Vol. 1-3). Richmond: The Virginia State Library.

Harris, M. H. (1977). Old New Kent County: Some account of the planters, plantations,

and places in New Kent County: Vol. 1. West Point VA: Self Published.

Harris, M. H. (1977). Old New Kent County: Some account of the planters, plantations,

and places in King William Count, St. John’s Parish: Vol. 2. West Point, VA: Self

Published.

Harrison of James River. (1928, October). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 36(4), p. 389-399.

Harrison of James River. (1928, April). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 36(2), p. 199-206.

Harrison of James River. (1927, January). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 35(1), p. 88-93.

Harrison of James River. (1926, October). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 34(4), p. 384-388.

Harrison of James River (Continued). (1924). Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 32, p. 302-304.

Harrison of James River. (1924, April). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 32(2), p. 199-202.

322

Harrison of James River. (1923, October). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 31(4), p. 361-380.

Harrison of James River. (1923, July). The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography,

31(3), p. 277-283.

Harrison of James River. (1923, April). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 31(2), p. 180-182.

Harrison of James River. (1922, October). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 30(4), p. 408-409.

Hart, A. (1886). What do we know about John Harvard? Harvard Monthly, 2(2), p. 43-

57.

Harvard Charter. Retrieved from: http://math.harvard.edu/history/charter

Harvard guide. Harvard Historical Facts. Retrieved from

www.http://news.harvard.edu/guide

Hatch, C. (1974). Yorktown main street. Historic resource guide. Colonial National

Historic Park. Denver, CO: Department of the Interior. Retrieved from:

Hatch, C. E. (1941). The Moore house: A national shrine. The William and Mary

Quarterly, 21(4), p. 239-317.

Hazen, H. A. (1883). History of Billerica, Massachusetts with a genealogical register.

Boston, MA: A Williams and Co.

Hellier, C. B. (1994). Letter to Laurie Feliciano dated May 24, 1994. Housed in the C. W.

Rockefeller Library, Research Queries, (ZQF1994 05 24a), Williamsburg VA.

Hening, W. (Ed.). (1810-1823). The statutes at large: Being a collection of all laws of

Virginia, 4, p.74. Richmond: J. W. Randolph 1810-1823. 323

Hening, W. W. (1823). The statutes at large: Being a collection of all the laws of

Virginia, 13. Philadelphia: Thomas DeSilver.

Hening, W. W. (Ed.). (1819-23). The statutes at large; being a collection of all the laws

of Virginia, from the first session of the legislature in the year 1619.

Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.

Henings (1969). The Statutes at large; being a collection of all the laws of Virginia, from

the first session of the Legislature in the year 1619 (Vol. 4, 1711-1736).

Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia.

Henings, W. W. (1821). The statutes at large (Vol. 9). Richmond, VA: J. G. Cochran.

Herbst, J. (1982). From crisis to crisis: American college government 1636-1819.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hillman, B. (Editor). (1966). Executive journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia,

(Vol. 6). Richmond, VA: Virginia State Library.

Historic resources survey of York County, Virginia (update summary of 2000 report).

(2005, July). Retrieved from: http://www.yorkcounty.gov

Historical & genealogical notes and queries. Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 10, p. 102-111.

Historical and genealogical notes and queries. (1918). The Virginia Magazine of History

and Biography, 26, p. 405-416.

Historical and genealogical notes. (1925). Tyler’s Quarterly Historical and Genealogical

Magazine 6, p. 213-215.

Historical notes and queries. (1897). The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography,

5(2), p. 215-222. 324

Historical Series. History Channel. (2010). Jefferson. [DVD]. Available from

http://www.historychannel.com

History of the office. History – Office of the President. Retrieved from

http://president.harvard.edu/history/history4

Hockett, H. (1955). The critical method in historical research and writing. New York:

The Macmillan Company.

Hoeveler, D. J. (2002). Creating the American mind: Intellect and politics in the colonial

colleges. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.

Hoeveler, J. D. (2002). Creating the American mind. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Hofstra, W. R. (1986). A separate place: The formation of Clarke County, Virginia.

White Post, VA: Clarke County Sesquicentennial Committee.

Hopkins, G. E. (1942). York county source book. Winchester, VA: York County

Hornsby, V. R. (1936). The higher education of Virginians in the colonial days.

(Unpublished master’s thesis), The College of William and Mary: Williamsburg,

VA.

House of Burgesses, 1766 to 1775. (1897). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 4(4), p. 380-386.

http:// www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books

Hughes, R. M. (1922). William and Mary: The first American law school. The William

and Mary Quarterly, 2(1), pp. 40-48.

Indian Fields. (1990, October 28). Richmond Times-Dispatch, p. F-3. Archives of the

College of William and Mary, (65T97, Group A, Box 1, 1716-1873).

325

Inscriptions from tombstones. (1901, January). William and Mary Quarterly, 9(3), p.

168-175.

Irwin, R. W. (1939, October). Documents on the origin of the Phi Beta Kappa Society.

The William and Mary Quarterly, 19(4), p. 476-478.

Isaac, R. ( 1982). The transformation of Virginia 1740-1790. Chapel Hill, NC: University

of North Carolina Press.

Isaac, R. (1982). The transformation of Virginia: 1740-1790. Chapel Hill: University of

North Carolina Press.

Isle of Wight County records. (1899).The William and Mary Quarterly, 7(4), p. 205-315.

Jackson, D. & Twohig, D. (Eds.). (1976). The diaries of George Washington: The papers

of George Washington, 2. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

Jacob, H. H. (2010). Curriculum 21: Essential education for a changing world.

Alexandria VA: American Society of Curriculum Development.

John, P. (1982). Burwell residents of King Creek: A plantation in York County colonial

VA. Self Published.

John, P. (1982). Burwell residents of Kings Creek: A plantation in York County colonial

Virginia. Self Published.

Jones, W. M. (1961). A president and six masters: An address delivered by Dr. W.

Melville Jones, on the 268th anniversary of the granting of the Royal Charter,

February 8, 1693. (Available from The College of William and Mary in Virginia:

Charter Day 1961).

Journal of the Committee of Safety of Virginia. (1776, February 7 to April 7). Calendar

of the Virginia State Papers and other Manuscripts, 8, p. 75. 326

Journals of the Council of Virginian in Executive Sessions, 1737-1763. p. 17.

Journal of the meeting of the President and Masters of the William and Mary College.

(1907, Jan). The William and Mary Quarterly, 15(3), p. 22-33.

Journal of the meeting of the President and Masters of the William and Mary College.

(1905, April). The William and Mary Quarterly, 13(4), p. 230-235.

Journal of the meeting of the President and Masters of the William and Mary College.

(1904, July). The William and Mary Quarterly, 13(1), p. 15-22.

Journal of the meetings of the President and Masters of William and Mary College.

(1896, January). The William and Mary Quarterly, 4(3), p. 187-192.

Journals of the Meetings of the President and Masters of William and Mary College.

(1895, July). The William and Mary Historical Magazine, 4(1), p. 130-132.

Journal of the Meetings of the President and Masters of William and Mary College.

(1895, July). William and Mary Quarterly, 4(1), p. 43-46.

Journal of the Meetings of the President and Masters of William and Mary College.

(1894, October). The William and Mary Quarterly, 3(2), p. 128-132.

Journal of the meetings of the President and Masters of the William and Mary College.

(1894, July). The William and Mary Quarterly, 3(1), p. 60-64.

Journal of the meetings of the President and Masters of the William and Mary College.

(1894, April). The William and Mary Quarterly, 2(4), p. 256-258.

Journal of the meeting of the President and Masters of the William and Mary College.

(1893, October). The William and Mary Quarterly, 2(2), p. 122-127.

Journals of the Meetings of the President and Masters of William and Mary College.

(1893, January). William and Mary Quarterly, 1, 3, p. 130-137. 327

Kale, W. (n.d.). Tyler family home, Greenway. Richmond Times-Dispatch. Swem Library

Special Collections, College of William and Mary, (65T97, Group A, Box 1,

1716-1873).

Kennedy, M. S. (1911). Seldens of Virginia and allied families, 1 & 2. New York, NY:

Frank Allaben Genealogical Company.

Kibler Bland papers. Swem Library Special Collections (64.2K54). Swem Library,

College of William and Mary. Williamsburg, VA.

Kimball, M. (1943). Jefferson the road to glory 1743 to 1776. New York, NY: Coward –

McCann, Inc.

King, M. (1878). Harvard and its surroundings (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Moses King Press

(Harvard College).

Kirkpatrick, J. E. (1926). The constitutional development of the College of William and

Mary. The William and Mary Quarterly Historical Magazine, Second Series, 6(2),

p 95-108.

Kulikoff, A. (1986). Tobacco & slaves: The development of southern cultures in the

Chesapeake 1680-1800. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Land, R. (1938, Oct.). Henrico and its college. The William and Mary Quarterly, 2(18),

4, p. 453-498.

Lassiter, F. R. (1897). Prince George County records. Virginia Historical Magazine, 4(3),

p. 272-292.

Lee, I. (1926). Extracts from King William County records. The William and Mary

Quarterly, 6(1), p. 72-78.

328

Leonard, C. M. (Compiler). (1978). The General Assembly of Virginia: July 30, 1619 –

January 11, 1978. Richmond VA: State Library.

Leonard, C. M. (Indexer). (1978). General Assembly of Virginia: A bicentennial register

of members. Richmond, VA: Author.

Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826. (n.d.) From Revolution to Reconstruction: A

hypertext on American history from the colonial period until modern times.

Retrieved from: http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jef140.htm

Letters. (1897). William and Mary Quarterly, 5(1), 149-159.

Lewis, V, A. (1911). Biennial report of the Department of Archives and History of the

State of West Virginia. Charleston, NC: The News-Mail Company.

Libraries in Colonial Virginia. (1896, January). William and Mary Quarterly, 4(3, p. 156.

Library of the College of William and Mary. (1910, July). William and Mary Quarterly,

19(1), p. 48-51.

Lipscomb III, L. Y. (1947). Lewis Burwell III of “Kingsmill”, York County, Virginia.

The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 55(2), p. 171-176.

Lipset, S. M., & Riesman, D. (1975). Education and politics at Harvard. New York:

McGraw-Hill Book Company.

List of officers, sailors and Marines of the Virginia Navy in the American Revolution.

(1893, July). The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 1(1), (pp. 64-75).

List of parishes and the ministers in them (from Purdie & Dixon’s Virginia Almanac for

1774). (1897). The William and Mary Quarterly, 5(1), p. 200-203.

Lodge of Masons (Williamsburg). (1892). William and Mary Quarterly, 1(1), p. 1-33.

329

Lucas, C. (2006). American higher education: A history (2nd ed.). New York, NY:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Lyon, L. G. (1915). Virginia Biography. New York, NY: Lewis Historical Publishing

Company.

Macrae, E. (1905, January). The Wallace family. The William and Mary Quarterly,

13(3), (p. 177-182).

Mann, R. (Editor). (1964). Reapers. (Bulletin 759) Cook County, Il: Forest Preserve

District of Cook County, Il.

Marriage bonds in Amelia County. (1907). William and Mary Quarterly, 15(1), p. 255-

264.

Marriage bonds in Lancaster County. (1897, October). William and Mary Quarterly, 6(2),

pp. 103-108.

Marriage contract: Wm. Augustine Washington to Alexander Spotswood. (1907,

January). The William and Mary Quarterly, 15(3), pp. 62-63.

Marriage license records of Northumberland County, Virginia, from 1735-1795: As

recorded in the clerk’s fee books. (1939). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 47(1), pp. 41-47.

Mason, F. N. (Compiler). (1937). John Norton & Sons: Merchants of London and

Virginia: Papers of their Counting House for the years of 1750-1795. Richmond,

VA: The Dietz Press.

Mason, F. N. (Compiler). (1937). John Norton & Sons: Merchants of London and

Virginia: Papers of their Counting House for the years of 1750-1795. Richmond,

VA: The Dietz Press. 330

Mason, G. C. (1942, April). The colonial churches of Charles City County, Virginia.

William and Mary Quarterly, 22(2), p. 114-135.

Mason, G. C. (1942, April). The colonial churches of Charles City County, Virginia.

William and Mary Quarterly, 22(2), p. 114-135.

Massie family (1906-1907). The William and Mary Quarterly, 15(1), p. 125-129.

Massie family. (1905, January). The William and Mary Quarterly, 13(1), p. 196-203.

Maxwell, W. Q. (Ed.). (1955, July). A true state of the smallpox in Williamsburg,

February 22, 1748. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 63(3), (p.

269-274).

McCartney, M. (2007). Virginia immigrants and adventures, 1607-1635: A biographical

dictionary. Baltimore, MD: Genealogical Publishing Company.

McCatney, M. W. (1988). History of Hopewell Airport property, Jordan’s Point Prince

George County, VA: Report of archival research. Richmond, VA: Virginia

Division of Historic Landmarks.

McCaw, J. B. (1854). James McClurg, M. D. with extracts from his writing. Richmond:

Colin and Nowland.

McCaw, J. B. (1892). McClurg descent. William and Mary Quarterly Historical Papers,

1, p. 164-16).

McDowell, W. H. (2002). Historical research: A guide. Great Britain: Pearson Education

Limited.

McGhan, J. W. (Indexer). (1982). Virginia will records. Baltimore, MD: Genealogical

Publishing Co.

331

McGroarty, W. B. (1925, April). Elizabeth Washington of Hayfield. The Virginia

Magazine of History and Biography, 33(2), pp. 154-165.

McIntosh, C. F. (1914). Brief abstract of lower Norfolk County and Norfolk County wills

1637-1710. Virginia: The Colonial Dames of America.

McIntosh, C. F. (1922). Brief abstract of lower Norfolk County and Norfolk County wills

1710-1753. Virginia: The Colonial Dames of America.

McRae, S. (Ed.). (1881). Calendar of Virginia State Papers and other manuscripts from

April 1, 1781 to December 31, 1781. New York, NY: Kraus Reprint Corporation.

Meade, W. (1857). Meade’s old churches, ministers, & families. Baltimore, MD:

Genealogical Publishing Company.

Meeting of the President and Masters of the William and Mary College (1904-1905).

William and Mary College Quarterly 13(3), pp. 150-154.

Members of the House of Burgesses. (1901). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 8(3), p 245-260.

Meriwether, C. (1907). Our colonial curriculum 1607-1776. Washington, DC: Central

Publishing Co.

Meyer, V. & Dorman, J. (Eds.). (1987). Adventures of purse and person Virginia 1607-

1624/5. Richmond VA: The Dietz Press, Inc.

Meyer, V. M. & Dorman, J. F. (1987). (Revised and edited). Adventures of purse and

person Virginia 1607-1624/5 (3rd Ed.). Richmond VA. The Dietz Press, Inc.

Middlekauff, R. (1961, January). A persistent tradition: The classical curriculum in

eighteenth-century New England. The William and Mary Quarterly, 18(1). P. 54-

67. 332

Miller, S. (1803). A brief retrospect of the eighteenth century. New York: T. and J.

Swords.

Minutes of the council and general court. (1921). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 29(3), pp. 292-302.

Minutes of the President and Masters (1907). The William and Mary Quarterly, 15(3),

pp. 22-33.

Minutes of the President and Masters. (1756, May 3). William and Mary College

Quarterly, 2(4), p. 256-258.

Miscellaneous Cocke notes. (1929). The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography,

37, p.231-241.

Monaghan, E. J. (2005). Learning to read and write in colonial America. Amherst, MA:

University of Massachusetts Press.

Monsell, H. A. (1939). Thomas Jefferson: A boy in colonial days. Indianapolis, IN: The

Bobbs-Merrill Company.

Mook, M. A. (1943). The ethnological significance of Tindall’s map of Virginia, 1608.

The William and Mary Quarterly, 23(4), p. 371-408.

Moore, W. C. (1937). Notes on some Moore and French families in Virginia and Carolina

in the colonial period. The William and Mary Quarterly, 17(3), 2nd Series, p. 372-

398.

Morgan, E. (1958). The puritan dilemma: The story of John Winthrop (O. Handlin, Ed).

USA: HarperCollins.

Morison, S. (1935). The founding of Harvard College. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press. 333

Morison, S. E. (1929). The history of Harvard. In A. Lawrence Lowell (Ed.). The history

and traditions of Harvard College (p. 9-37). Cambridge, MA: The Harvard

Crimson.

Morison, S. E. (1936). Three centuries of Harvard. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of

Harvard University Press.

Morison, S. E. (1953). John Harvard and the note of freedom. In W. Bentinck-Smith

(Ed.), The Harvard book (pp. 19-29). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Morpurgo, J. E. (1976). Their majesties’ royall colledge: William and Mary in the

seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Washington, DC: Hennage Creative

Printers.

Morton, L. (1941). Robert Carter of Nomini Hall: A Virginia tobacco planter of the

eighteenth century. Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg, Incorporated.

Motley, D. E. (1901). Life of commissary James Blair: Founder of William and Mary

College. In J. M. Vincent (Ed.) John Hopkins University Studies in Historical and

Political Science, 19(10). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press.

Mr. Robert Jones of Fleets Bay, Northumberland County, and some of his descendants.

(1915). The William and Mary Quarterly, 23(4), pp. 261-271.

National Park Service. (2006). Moore House. Retrieved from: http://nsp.gov/york

Nelson, H. (1779). Letter, 1779 February 10, to Battaile Muse. Special Collections

(PH001779Feb10). Williamsburg, VA: John D. Rockefeller Library.

Nelson, H. (1800/1801). Will, inventory and appraisement of Hugh Nelson. York County

Will Records 1783-1811 (Microfilm), Roll 12, pp. 545, 546, 549-552.

Williamsburg: John D. Rockefeller Library. 334

Nelson, W. (1898). Nelson letter book. The William and Mary Quarterly, 7(1), p. 25-30.

Nelson, W. William Nelson ledger and daybook, 1767-1784. Special Collections (Ms

2005.10). John D. Rockefeller Library, Williamsburg, VA.

Notes and documents. (1990). The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 98(4), p.

641-666.

Notes and queries. (1934). The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 42(1), pp.

59-71.

Notes relating to some of the students who attended the College of William and Mary

1753-1770. (1921, January). The William and Mary Quarterly, 2nd Series, 1(1), p.

27-41.

Notes relative to some of the students who attended the College of William and Mary,

1770-1778. (1921, April). The William and Mary Quarterly, 2nd Series, 1(2), p.

116-130.

Notes to Council journals. (1925). The William and Mary Quarterly, 33(2), p. 184-193.

November 16, 1776. (1909). The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 17(1), p.

381-383.

Once upon the James: A collection of portraits of the members of a family forgotten.

(n.d.) Swem Library Special Collections, The Bland Family Papers, (94BL59).

College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

Ordway, J. (1890, May). Washington’s interest in education. New England Magazine: An

Illustrated Monthly, 8(3). P. 347-357.

Original letters. (1895, July). William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine,

335

Osborne, J. (1935). Williamsburg in colonial times: Incidents in the lives of the English

colonist in Virginia during the 17th and 18th centuries as revealed in old

documents and files of the Virginia Gazette. Richmond VA: The Dietz Press.

Osborne, R. (1981). The College of William and Mary in Virginia, 1800-1827.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of William & Mary, Williamsburg,

VA.

Padgett, J. (Ed.). (1936). Letters of Thomas Newton, Jr. The William and Mary

Quarterly, 16(2), p. 38-70.

Page, J. (1762). Memorandum book Johannes Page AD 1762. Swem Library Special

Collections. College of William and Mary. Williamsburg, VA.

Page, R. C. M. (2000). Genealogy of the Page family in Virginia: Also a condensed

account of the Nelson, Walker, Pendleton and Randolph families, with references

to the Bland, Burwell, Byrd, Carter, Cary, Duke, Gilmer, Harrison, Rives,

Thornton, Wellford, Washington, and other distinguished families in Virginia (2nd

ed.). Harrisonburg, VA: C. J. Carrier Co.

Palmer, W. P. (1883). (Arranged and edited). Calendar of state papers & other

manuscripts, January 1, 1782 to December 31, 1784 (Vol. 3 & 8). Richmond:

Kraus Reprint Corporation.

Palmer, W. P. (Ed.). (1875). Calendar of state papers and other manuscripts 1652-1781,

3-4. New York: Kraus Reprint Corporation.

Palmer, W. P. (Ed.). (1883). Calendar of Virginia State papers: 1782, January, 1 to

December 31, 1784. Richmond, VA: Kraus.

336

Papers relating to the founding of the college. (1899). The William and Mary Quarterly,

7(3), p. 158-174.

Parton, J. (1872). College days of Thomas Jefferson. The Atlantic Monthly: A Magazine

of Literature, Science, Art, and Politics, 29(171), 16-33.

Pate, J. E. (1931). Richard Bland’s inquiry into the rights of the British colonies. The

William and Mary Quarterly, 11(2), p. 20-28.

Patrick Henry’s paper cutter. (1926). Tyler’s Quarterly Historical and Genealogical

Magazine, 8, 173-174.

Peden, W. (Ed.). (1954). Notes on the state of Virginia: By Thomas Jefferson. Chapel

Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Peirce, B. (1833). History of Harvard University from its foundation in the year 1636, to

the period of the American Revolution (J. Pickering, Ed.). Cambridge: Charles

Folsom.

Pension declaration of Major Thomas Massie (1913). The Virginia Magazine of History

and Biography, 21, p. 184-192.

Personal notices from the Virginia Gazette 1776-1777. The William and Mary Quarterly,

11, p. 93-98.

Pier, A. S. (1913). The story of Harvard. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Plan of government. (1776, July 5). Virginia Gazette, (75), p. 6.

Pleasants, J. H. (1917). The Gorsuch and Lovelace families. The Virginia Magazine of

History and Biography, 25(4), p. 431-445.

Pollard, O. (1997). Under the blue ledge: Nelson county, VA. Richmond VA: Dietz Press.

337

Prince George County Records. (1897, January). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 4(3), p. 272-292.

Proceedings of the Virginia Committee of Correspondence 1765. (1902). Virginia

Magazine of History and Biography, 9, p. 355-360.

Proceedings of the visitors of William and Mary College, 1716. (1896). Virginia

Magazine of History and Biography, 4(2), p. 161-175.

Proprietors of lots in Williamsburg in 1783. (1902, October). The William and Mary

Quarterly, 11(2), (pp. 114-115).

Purdie, A. & Dixon, J. (1773, June 10). Virginia Gazette. Williamsburg, VA.

Purdie, A. & Dixon, J. (Editors). (1771, May 30). Virginia Gazette. Williamsburg, VA.

Revolution through the Civil War: William Massie collection, Series G. Part 2.

(Microfilm Edition) Bethesda, MD: University Publications or available at

www.lexisnexis.com/thomasmassie

Richardson, C. (1876). Cambridge on the Charles. Harpers New Monthly Magazine, 52,

308, p. 191-208.

Rind, W. (1900). Personal notices from the Virginia Gazette. The William and Mary

Quarterly, 8(3), p. 187-191.

Rossiter, C. (1953). Richard Bland: The Whig in America. William and Mary Quarterly,

10(1), p. 33-79.

Rouse, P. (1971). James Blair of Virginia. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina

Press.

Royal Charter. (1693). Retrieved May 21, 2008 from

http://www.wm.edu.departments/special-collections/exhibits/ 338

Rudolph, F. (1962/1990). The American college & university: A history. Athens: The

University of Georgia Press.

Rudolph, F. (1977). Curriculum: A history of American undergraduate course of study

since 1636. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Ryland, E. H. (1955). King William County, Virginia: From old newspapers & files.

Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press, Incorporated.

Ryland, E. H. (Compiler and annotator). (1955). King William County, Virginia from old

newspapers & files. Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press, Inc.

Saint Paul’s Episcopal Church: Heritage (2010). Retrieved from

www.saintpaulsnorfolk.com/history

Saunders family, (1905-1906). The William and Mary Quarterly, 14, p. 145-150.

Sayers, D. (1947). The lost tools of learning. Retrieved at www.gbt.org/text/sayers

Schmidt, G. (1930). The old time college president. New York: AMS Press, Inc.

Schreiner-Yantis, N. & Love, F. S. (1987). The personal property tax lists for the year

1787 for Frederick County Virginia, (also Winchester Town). Springfield, VA.:

Genealogical Books in Print.

Schreiner-Yantis, N. & Love, N. (1987). Personal property tax lists for the year 1787 for

Prince George County, VA. Springfield VA: Genealogical Books in Print.

Schreiner-Yantis, N. (1987). Personal property tax lists for the year 1787 for King

William County. Springfield, VA: Genealogical Books in Print.

Seager, R. (1963). And Tyler too: A biography of John and Julia Gardiner Tyler. New

York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.

339

Seeley, B. (1984). Personal property taxes in Prince George County. Bland Family

Papers Swem Library Special Collections, (94BL59 Box 1, Folder 11). College of

William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

Seller, W. H., (Reviewer). (1953, April). Virginia’s mother church and the political

conditions under which it grew [By George Maclaren Brydon]. The William and

Mary Quarterly, 10(2), p. 254-259.

Shields family. (1896). William and Mary Quarterly Historical Magazine, 1(5), p. 118.

Skyren, J. (1833). Some Virginia families – Moore, Bernard, Todd, Spotswood. William

and Mary Quarterly, 19(1). p. 177-184.

Smith, G. C. (1940). An era of non-importation associations, 1768-73. The William and

Mary Quarterly, 20(2), p. 85-98.

Smith, M. M. (1998, October). Culture, commerce and calendar reform in colonial

America. William and Mary Quarterly, 55(4), p. 557-584.

Smith, R. (1986). The Harvard century: The making of a university to a nation. New

York: Simon and Schuster.

Smith, W. (1926). Land taxed in King William County in 1782. The William and Mary

Quarterly, 6(4), p. 326-328.

Smiths of Virginia: I. Family of John Smith of Purton. The William and Mary Quarterly,

4(2), pp. 95-101.

Some family letters of the eighteenth century, (1908). The Virginia Magazine of History

and Biography, 15, p. 432-436.

Some notes from the Virginia Gazette for 1787. Tylers Quarterly Historical and

Genealogical Magazine, 8, p. 67-68. 340

Some Virginians educated in Great Britain. (1913, April). The Virginia Magazine of

History and Biography, 21(2), pp. 196-199.

Southall, J. P. (1946, January). Captain John Martin of Brandon on the James. The

Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 54(1), p. 21-67.

Sparacio, R. & Sparacio, S. (1996). Virginia county court records – Record Book: King

William County, Virginia 1702-1705. No location: The Antient Press.

Spooner Papers 1786-1792. Spooner Papers Swem Library Special Collections, (Mss

39.2 Sp6). College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

Stampp, K. (Ed.). (2001). Records of ante-bellum southern plantation from the

Stanard, M. E. (1917). Colonial Virginia: Its people and customs. Philadelphia: J. B.

Lippincott Company.

Statutes of the College of William and Mary [1727] codified in 1736. (1914). The

William and Mary Quarterly Historical Magazine, 22(4), p. 281-296.

Statutes of the College of William and Mary in Virginia [1756]. (1908, April). The

William and Mary Quarterly, 16, 4, p. 239-256.

Statutes of the College of William and Mary in Virginia [1792]. (1911, July). The

William and Mary Quarterly, 20(1), p. 52-59.

Stauffer, W. T. (1934). The old farms. William and Mary Quarterly, 2-14(3), p. 203-215.

Stearns, R. P. (1970). Science in the British colonies of America. Chicago, IL: University

of Illinois Press.

Stenerson, D. C. (1973). An Anglican critique of the early phase of the great awakening

in New England: A letter by Timothy Cutler. The William and Mary Quarterly,

30(3), p. 475-488. 341

Stevens, W. O. (1938). Old Williamsburg. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.

Stewart, W. (Ed.) (1902). History of Norfolk County Virginia and representative citizens.

Chicago: Biographical Publishing Co.

Swem, E. (1941). Provisional list of alumni, grammar school students, members of the

faculty, and members of the Board of Visitors of the College of William and

Mary in Virginia from 1693 to 1888. Retrieved from

http://www.swem.wm.edu/SPCOL/provlist

Swem, E. G. (1959). The Lee Free School and the College of William and Mary. The

William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 16(2), p. 207-213.

Swem, E. G. (1928). Some notes on the four forms of the oldest building of William and

Mary College, The William and Mary Quarterly, Second Series, 8(4), p. 217-307.

Tartar, B. (1977, July). The orderly book of the Second Virginia Regiment: September,

27, 1775 – April 15, 1776. The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography,

85(3), p. 302-336.

Tennant, D. (2006). Out of the sea. The Virginian Pilot. Retrieved at:

www.pilotonline.com

Thelin, J. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore: The John Hopkins

University Press.

Tombstones in New Kent County (1967). Tyler, L. G. (Ed..). Tylers Quarterly Historical

and Genealogical Magazine 1, p. 58-59.

Torrance, C. (Compiler). (1965). Virginia wills and administrators. Richmond:

Genealogical Publishing Co.

342

Torrance, W. C. (1917). Nottoway County, Virginia: Some notes from the remaining

records. William and Mary Quarterly, 26(1), p. 41-49.

Two seventeenth century letters. (1902). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 9(3), p. 331-333.

Tyler, J. (1929, January). Tyler Genealogy by President Tyler (Letter from John Tyler to

John Ward Dean dated December 19, 1859. Tyler’s Quarterly Historical and

Genealogical Magazine, 10, p. 198-203.

Tyler, L. G. (1917). The Smiths of Virginia. The William and Mary Quarterly, 25(3), pp.

184-191.

Tyler, L. G. (1916). Virginia’s contribution to science. William and Mary Quarterly,

24(4), p. 217-231.

Tyler, L. G. (1915). Encyclopedia of Virginia biography. New York, NY: Lewis

Historical Publishing Company.

Tyler, L. G. (1914). Two John Smiths. William and Mary College Quarterly Historical

Magazine, 13(1), pp. 292-293.

Tyler, L. G. (1907, July). Williamsburg – the old colonial capital. William and Mary

College Quarterly Historical Magazine 16(1), p. 1-65.

Tyler, L. G. (1907). Williamsburg: The old colonial capital. Richmond, VA: Whittet &

Shepperson.

Tyler, L. G. (1905, October). Early courses and professors at William and Mary College.

William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, 14(2), p. 71-83.

Tyler, L. (1898). Education in Colonial Virginia: Influence of William and Mary College.

William and Mary Quarterly, (7)1, p. 1-9. 343

Tyler, L. G. (1898, January). Education in colonial Virginia. Part IV: The higher

education. William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, 4, 171-187.

Tyler, L. G. (1897, January). Willis family. The William and Mary Quarterly, 5(3), p.

171-176.

Tyler, L. G. (1896, July). Willis family. The William and Mary Quarterly, 5(1), p. 24-27.

Tyler, L. G. (1895, July). The Smiths of Virginia. The William and Mary Quarterly, 4(1),

pp. 46-52.

Tyler, L. G. (1884-1886). The letters and times of the Tylers. Richmond, VA: Whittet &

Shepperson.

Tyler, L. G. (1894, July). Inscriptions on old tombs in Gloucester Co., Virginia. The

William and Mary Quarterly, 3(1), pp. 28-43.

Tyler, L. G. (1894, April). Notes by the editor. The William and Mary Quarterly, 2(4), p.

230-236.

Tyler, L. G. (1894, April). Inscriptions on old tombs in Gloucester County Co. William

and Mary Quarterly. 2(4), p. 219-229.

Tyler, L. G. (1893, April). Pedigree of a representative Virginia planter, Edward Digges,

Esq. The William and Mary Quarterly, 1(4), p. 208-213.

Tyler, L. G. (1893, January). Pedigree of a representative Virginia Planter. William and

Mary Quarterly, 1(3), 140-154.

Tyler, S. B. (Ed.). (2000). 80% heaven bound: Deaths and burials in Charles City.

Charles City Historical Society.

Tyler-Strother-Allen. (1926). Tyler’s Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Magazine,

6, p. 258-259. 344

Tyson, J. A. (2010). Chelsea Plantation: King William County, Virginia. West Point

Guide. www.westpointguide.com

Vaille, F. & Clarke, H. (Eds.). (1875). The Harvard book: A series of historical,

biographical and descriptive sketches by various authors. Cambridge: Welch,

Bigelow and Company, University Press.

Virginia Council journals, 1726-1753. (1925). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 33(2), p. 175-182.

Virginia council journals, 1726-1753. (1927). The Magazine of History and Biography,

Virginia Council journals, 1726-1753: Volume 605-1418. The Virginia Magazine of

History and Biography, 32(1), pp. 1-64.

Virginia families connecting with English pedigrees, (1906). William and Mary

Quarterly, 15(1), p. 47-50.

Virginia Gazette. (n.d.). A History of the Virginia Gazette. [fact sheet]. Retrieved from

http://www.vagazette.com.

Virginia gleanings in England. (1909). The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography,

17(2), p. 187-188.

Virginia gleanings in England. (1935). The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography,

16, p. 63-71.

Virginia in 1711. (1899, July). The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. 6, p.

127-134.

Virginia legislative papers. (1909, October). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 17(4), p. 351-363.

345

Virginia quit rent rolls, 1704. (1923). The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography,

31, p. 215-231.

Virginia quit rent rolls. (1924). The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 32(4),

pp. 338-343.

Virginia Society of the Cincinnati. (1898, July). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 6(1), p. 22-29.

Virginia State troops in the revolution. (1920, July). The Virginia Magazine of History

and Biography, 28(3), p. 247-255.

Virginia’s soldiers in the Revolution. (1912). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 20, p 181- 194 & 267-281.

Waldstreicher, D. (Ed.). (2002). Notes on the state of Virginia: With related documents

by Thomas Jefferson. Boston/Bedford. MA: St. Martin’s Press.

Walsh, J. (1935). Education of the founding fathers of the republic: Scholasticism in the

colonial colleges: A neglected chapter in the history of American education. New

York: Fordham University Press.

Walsh, J. J. (1938). Education of the founding fathers of the republic: Scholasticism in

the colonial collages. New York: Fordham University Press.

Waske, T., (Compiler). (2009). Lancaster County, Virginia land records 1770-1784.

Lowes, DE: Colonial Roots.

Weisiger, B. B. III (1973). Prince George County VA. Wills and Deeds 1713-

1728. Self Published.

Weisiger, B. B. III (1975). (Abstractor and compiler). Prince George County, VA records

1733-1792. Self Published. 346

Wells, C. (1998). The multistoried house: Twentieth-century encounters with the

domestic architecture of colonial Virginia. The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 106(4), p. 353-418.

Wells, G. F. (1923). Parish education in colonial Virginia. In Teachers College,

Columbia University Contributions to Education, No 138. New York City:

Teachers College, Columbia University.

Westmoreland county (Virginia) resolutions: In Westmoreland County, VA., 1653-1912.

Part 1, Chapter 3. Richmond, VA: Whittet & Shepperson, Printers.

Westmoreland County Records, 1776-1790. Circuit Court of Westmoreland County, VA.

Inventory of the estate of Philip Smith dated June 15, 1782, p. 193, recorded on

October 1, 1783 & Bond of Philip Smith to John Augustine Washington dated

March 22, 1769, recorded October 28, 1780, p. 245. Montross, VA: Circuit Court.

White House. (n.d.). John Tyler Biography. Retrieved March 5, 2008 from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents.

White, V. D. (1995). (Transcriber). Index to Revolutionary War service records.

Waynesboro, TN: The National Historical Publishing Company.

White, V. D. (1995). (Transcriber). Index to Revolutionary War service records.

Waynesboro, TN: The National Historical Publishing Company.

White, V. D. (Abstractor). (1990). Genealogical abstracts of Revolutionary War

Waynesboro, TN: The National Historical Publishing Co.

White, V. D. (Transcriber). (1995). Index to Revolutionary War service records.

Waynesboro, TN; The national Historical Publishing Company.

347

White, V. D. (Transcriber). (1995. Index to Revolutionary War service records, 1.

Waynesboro, TN: The National Historic Publishing Co.

White, V. D. (Transcriber). (1998). Index to Revolutionary War Service Records.

Will and Inventory of Honorable John Tyler. (April, 1909). William and Mary College

Quarterly Historical Magazine, 1(17), p. 231-235.

Will of Augustine Moore. (1777). Circuit Court of Essex County (Will Book 13, p. 72-

73). Tappahannock, VA.

Will of Benjamin Harrison. (1922, October). The Virginia Magazine of History and

Biography, 30(4), p. 410-412.

Will of Edward Digges. (1669, August 8). (Call number 41686). Library of Virginia,

Richmond, VA.

Will of Elizabeth Macon. (1906). William and Mary College Quarterly Historical

Magazine, 25(4), p. 265-267.

Will of John Tyler. (1924). Tyler’s Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Magazine, 6,

p. 258-259.

William and Mary Bursar Boarding Accounts 1754-1769. Special Collections (PH02-48).

Williamsburg, VA: John D. Rockefeller Library.

William and Mary College Bursar Boarding Accounts 1754-1769 (1770). Special

William and Mary Quarterly, 14(2), p. 71-83.

William Nelson ledger and daybook, 1767-1784. Special Collections (MS2005.10).

Williamsburg, VA.: John D. Rockefeller Library.

Williams, K. B. (1979). Marriages of Amelia County, Virginia, 1735-1815. Baltimore:

Genealogical Publishing Co. 348

Williamsburg Companies. (1928). Tylers Quarterly Historical and Genealogical

Magazine 9, p. 46-47.

Williamsburg Lodge of Masons, (1892-1893). The William and Mary Quarterly, 1(1), p.

1-33.

Williamsburg Lodge of Masons. (1892, July). The William and Mary College Quarterly

1(1), (pp. 1-33).

Williamsburg-The Old Colonial Capital: Part 1-4 Middle Plantation. (1907, July).

William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine. 1(16), p. 1-65.

Wright, C. E. (2005). Revolutionary generation: Harvard men and the consequences of

independence. Boston: University of Massachusetts Press.

Wright, F. E. (Abstractor and Editor). (2005). York County Virginia, wills, inventories

and accounts (1760-1783). Lewes, Delaware: Colonial Roots.

Wright, L. (1964). The first gentlemen of Virginia: Intellectual qualities of the early

colonial ruling class. Charlottesville: Dominion Books.

Yates, W. (1895). Journal of the Meetings of the President and Masters of William and

Mary College. The William and Mary Quarterly, 3(3), p. 195-197.

Zech, K. A. (2001). “So well endowed”: Economic support of the College of William and

Mary during the colonial period. Unpublished master’s thesis, College of William

and Mary: Williamsburg, VA.

349

APPENDIX A, METHODOLOGY

This study explored the contributions to society and the economic growth of the

Colony of Virginia using a group of subjects who were students at the College of William

& Mary (CW&M) between 1756 and 1765. The study employed an interpretive paradigm

within a case study research design using qualitative historical methods. This chapter

presents the paradigm of inquiry and research design, the theoretical framework, and the

research questions. In addition it describes the population and sample, data sources and

locations, process of data collection and analysis, design issues, and the human consent

requirement.

Inquiry and Design

The paradigm for this study was interpretative. Within this framework a case study design was used to investigate the CW&M while using a set of boundaries (Yin,

2003) or research questions that provided insight, discovery, and interpretation. This qualitative historical method provided a “rich, ‘thick’ descriptive” case study (Merriam,

1998, p. 29).

Interpretative Paradigm

The paradigm, or frame for this case study, acted as the guide or plan to explain key factors and their relationships with each other. While specific definitions to describe a paradigm or frame vary by author, the range is from (a) a set of concepts, a framework, or assumptions that are used as a guide by Bentz & Shapiro (1998), to (b) a “set of general research questions with some notions about sampling, and some initial data gathering devices [and the] key factors, constructs or variables [with] the presumed relationships among them” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 17-16). 350

The interpretative paradigm used for this study was formed with “words”

(Creswell, 1994, p. 2) and utilized with the realization the researcher was interpreting the

meaning within the “lived experiences from the point of view of those who lived” (Clare

& Hamilton, 2003, p. 87). This interpretative paradigm came from the work of Wilhelm

Dilthey, using the thesis “that human discourse and action could not be analyzed with the

methods of natural and physical science” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 8). The

interpretative paradigm helped see “which events lead to which consequences and [to]

derive fruitful explanations” (p. 1). Through the analysis of the source documents, this

approach was “used to discover [an understanding] of meanings and actions” (p. 8) by

means of historical documents, with the researcher operating not simply as a collector

but, ultimately, as an expert in their interpretation.

The impact of the use of the interpretative paradigm allowed the written word of

the historical documents to bring a rich textual format of meaning to the colonial higher

educational experience at CW&M.

Case Study

The use of the case study research strategy enabled the exploration of a single entity or phenomenon that was bounded by time and activity. It allowed the collection of detailed information through a variety of data collection procedures during a sustained period of time (Yin, 2003), and is supported by Merriam (1998), who notes that a case study has a distinct and precise definition, “a thing, a single entity, a unit around which there are boundaries” (p. 27). There are three types of case study: explanatory, exploratory, and descriptive, and within these types the case study can be used in five different applications: to explain, to describe, to illustrate, to explore, and to evaluate 351

(Yin, 2003). The determination of the type of case study utilized depends on the research

question(s); however, a case can be made up of one or all of the strategies.

This study is historical and lends itself to the exploratory case study. The main

research question was to look at the historical context of higher education and the student

experience as well as background and after-graduation experiences from a group of graduates (15) with a focus of “what” was going on during the period of the study using the following question: What were the contributions to society and the economic growth of the Colony of Virginia made by students who attended the College of William & Mary from 1756 through 1765? While there are several sub-units of analysis, (primary and secondary data, genealogy, and biographical sketches), the primary focus is a biographical sketch of each member of the student sample, with a secondary genealogical focus on the student’s direct family lineage and their accomplishments since immigration to the Colony of Virginia.

There are five components of a case study design: (a) the questions, (b) the propositions, if any, (c) the unit(s) of analysis, (d) the logic linking the data to the propositions, and (e) the criteria for interpreting the findings (Yin, 2003). All of these components are represented in this case study.

Thus, this project utilized an exploratory case study design and the five components of case study design in which 15 graduates of the CW&M serve as individual case studies that are embedded within the larger case study of the CW&M during the colonial period.

352

Theoretical Framework

The use of a theory in the research of history has a tendency to limit inquiry and reduces the generalization of case study analysis (McDowell, 2002). Thus, the frame of this work was based on a set of questions and sub-questions.

Research Questions

The main research question for this study was: What were the contributions to society and the economic growth of the Colony of Virginia made by students who attended the College of William & Mary from 1756 through 1765? This question was explored through a series of four questions with sub-questions that formed the basis of this dissertation and provide the foundation for the individual bio-sketches and the conclusions of this case study. The questions include:

1. What was the context of a college education at the College of William &

Mary

a. role of education in Virginia society,

b. political climate in support of the CW&M.

c. funding from the colony for CW&M

2. What was the student experience in terms of

a. facilities

b. student life

c. curriculum and learning experiences and

d. job training/career positioning

3. What were the student backgrounds in terms of:

a. stratum of society 353

b. geographic distribution

c. student preparation for college, and

d. tuition sources.

4. What did the students do after being graduated in terms of:

a. jobs and careers,

b. involvement in colony/state (politics, government positions, etc), and

c. involvement in community life (church, volunteer organizations, etc.)?

To connect the pedagogic experience at the CW&M to the building of Virginia’s

social and economic circumstances during the period of this project, it was necessary to

research the context of education before and during the period in which the student

attended the college. To supplement the educational component, their background,

college experience, and accomplishment after graduation and throughout life are also

documented in the bio-sketch format. Additionally, each student subject’s direct ancestral

lineage, education, and accomplishments are documented to provide a greater

understanding of the social and economic conditions leading up to the time of the study.

Population and Sampling Strategy

The population and sampling process included a review of the entire population of

822 students who attended the CW&M for the period from 1700 to 1799. This section defines and explains the source of the population; outlines the sampling criteria, including the four steps used to refine the sample; and then presents the final sample.

Resource

The population for this study was obtained from the “Provisional List of Alumni and Grammar School Students, Members of the Faculty and Members of the Board of 354

Visitors of the College of William and Mary in Virginia from 1693 to 1888. “It was complied by “Earl Gregg Swem, Robert Hunt Land, and others in 1941” (Swem, 1941, p.

1) and is published on the CW&M Swem Library website. The most recent update of the list is from May 2, 1998, and according to the university archives it “has become an important resource for those searching for information” (p. 1) about students between

1693 and 1888. It also acknowledges the loss of information in the fires of 1659, 1662, and 1705, and states the “list is by no means a complete one” (Swem, 1941, p. 1); nonetheless it is the best available. It is from this list that data were extracted.

Population

The population for this study comprises all students of the CW&M from 1700 through 1799 as shown on the “Provisional List of Alumni and Grammar School Students of the CW&M” from 1693 through 1888 ” (Swem, Land & et al., 1941). While it is recognized the list is not complete due to the fires in 1705, 1659, and 1662, the list was compiled from “multiple sources, including minutes of the faculty from 1729 to 1784, bursars’ books, class books of professors, letters of professors and students, and newspapers” (Swem, p. 3), making it as complete as possible given the destruction of key records. The portion of the list covering 1700 through 1799 includes 822 names.

There are four specific rationales that shaped the final time frame for the selection of student subjects: (a) the historical time frame of an increased student population at

CW&M, (b) the inclusion of the CW&M Statutes of 1756 that called for a 4-year course of study as opposed to one of 3 years; (c) exclusion of the Revolutionary War period as a distraction to education, and (d) claims of the importance of colonial colleges to the creation of American as shown in the literature of higher education by renowned 355

historians (i.e., Button & Provenzo, 1989; Cremin, 1997; Earnest, 1953; Herbst, 1982;

Hoeveler, 2002; Isaac, 1982; Lucas, 2006; Meriwether, 1907; Rudolph, 1990; Thelin,

2004; Walsh, 1935; and Wright, 1964).

A series of steps were taken to initially define the population.

1. The selection process began by listing students by decade from 1700 to 1799.

2. After this list was complete, application of the criteria for inclusion began: (a)

students who did not fall under the Statutes of 1756 were eliminated, and

(b) students after 1776 were eliminated.

3. This process resulted in a listing that was put into increments based on the

date the student was admitted to the CW&M: 1756–1759, 1760–1764, 1765-

1769, and 1770–1774. It is from this list further refinement brought the

admission dates to 1756–1759 and completion dates from 1760–1765.

4. From this group the final criterion for selection was put in place—the

historical time frame of an increased student population at CW&M. It was

found that the years 1759 and 1760 had the greatest number of students: 24

and 25 respectively.

In an effort to be more expansive, without moving closer to the Revolutionary War, the

years 1756, 1757, and 1758 were included, bringing the total number of students to 79. It

was through the process above that a pool of 79 students was chosen to be included in the

sampling criteria (See Appendix .

Sampling Criteria

The final sample of 79 students needed to meet four criteria: matriculation from

1756 through 1760 (a 5-year period), Virginia as home colony, attendance at the CW&M 356

for 4 years, and continued life residency in Virginia.

First sampling criterion: Matriculation from 1756 through 1760. Application of this criterion yielded five groups of students who began their studies at the CW&M from 1756–1760. This produced a potential pool of 79 students. This sampling criterion was applied because it narrowed the focus of the study to a period between the adoption of the statute revisions, completed prior to the beginning of the school calendar year 1756

(in March of that year), and the commencement of the Revolutionary War, when attendance was disrupted. The CW&M had its largest attendance during this period compared to any other period prior to the Revolutionary War.

The two largest groups/cohorts included in the subset began their studies in 1759 and 1760, with 24 and 25 students, respectively. In an effort to increase the number of students in the subset, those who matriculated in 1756, 1757, and 1758 were added, bringing the total number of students in the subset to 79. (See Table 1)

Second sampling criterion: Virginia as home colony. The second sampling subset criterion included only students who claimed Virginia as their home. This is based on the work of Walsh (1935) who stated that the majority of the students enrolled at

CW&M came from the area known as Virginia;

colleges drew their students from their immediate surroundings . . . [and noted however] the College of Philadelphia drew from the lower counties of Pennsylvania but some were attracted to William and Mary in Virginia where they might be expected to go because that institution was under the discipline of the established Anglican Church. (p. 113)

357

Table 1

Number of Attendees from 1756-1760

Matriculation years 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 Totals

Number of students 7 14 9 24 25 79

Met sampling criterion 2 1 2 6 4 15

Percentage of attendees 29% 7.1% 22% 25% 16% 19.0%

Number chosen 2 1 2 6 4 15

Percentage of those chosen 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Students = records show these students attended the CW&M a total of four or more years. (See Appendix F). Information for this chart is from the Provisional List of Alumni and Grammar School Students of W&M from 1693 to 1888 (Swem, 1941). It must also be noted these records by admission of the author(s) are not complete. However, they contain all the known material.

Subsequently, no students in the final sample subset were found to be from outside the

Virginia Colony.

Third sampling criterion: Four-year attendance. Attendance at the CW&M for a 4-year period is the third criterion. The 4-year attendance requirement was established to document graduation from the CW&M with a baccalaureate degree and put in place to compensate for the lack of a listing of CW&M graduates during the time frame of the study. Of the 79 students in the subset, 19%, or 15 students, met the 4- year attendance criterion. (See Appendix F.)

Fourth sampling criterion: Continued residency in Virginia. The fourth criterion could only be applied during the research phase, when details about the lives of the students were determined, as this criterion involved identification of where subjects resided after leaving the CW&M. After leaving the CW&M, subjects may have left the 358

colony to pursue advanced education or careers in England or Europe or to move within

the colonies but out of Virginia. Since the study is about the contribution of CW&M students to Virginia, those who left the colony permanently would be removed from the sample. Those subjects who might have left for post-graduate education outside the colony and who then returned to spend the remainder of their lives in the Virginia Colony were included in the sample. Application of this final criterion completed the sample set.

The Final Sampling Frame

The sample subset composed of 79 students was reduced to 15 students who met all the sampling criteria. Table 1 presents the matriculation years outlining the number of students for each year and those who met the criteria for this case study.

Data Sources

This study employed document procurement and analysis of primary and secondary sources. Within these are genealogical and biographical sources. This section explains the types of sources used in this study (Table 2.).

Table 2

Data Descriptions

Source Description Type

Books, Journals, Books on history, genealogy, and biography, Secondary

and Dissertations and published dissertations. Journals of History

and biography. Published histories for

centennial celebrations of the CW&M, towns

and counties.

359

Community Newspapers, area histories (Counties, Primary &

Records communities, and towns). Secondary

County Records Vital & land records, tax lists, probate and court Primary

records including wills and estate inventories.

Family Records Family papers and published genealogy history. Primary and First Person Bibles, manuscripts, journals, diaries, notes, and

Remembrances letters.

Federal Records Census and poll records Primary

Institutional CW&M minutes of the President and Masters, Primary &

Records minutes of the Board of Visitors, Bursar Secondary

records, Charter, Revised Statutes of 1756,

memos, diary and notations by faculty &

President. Notes by student & faculty.

Dissertations on the CW&M (unpublished).

Promotional material.

Newspapers Articles, notices, reports involving students and Primary &

their families, faculty, Board members or the Secondary

President of the CW&M. Promotional material

of the era. Original copies published

dissertations and compilations of the local

newspapers in Williamsburg.

360

Personal Personal face-to-face expert interviews and Primary &

Interviews review of original sources including e-mail Secondary

correspondence.

State Records Family, colonial, and Commonwealth papers Primary &

and Board of Visitor minutes. Federal and State Secondary

Park information

Sources can be primary or secondary (Brundage, 2002). The designation of primary or secondary was not made based on the location of the source but on the format of the source, including documents procured over the Internet. There are eight types of primary sources (manuscript and published) and six types of secondary sources for this study.

Manuscript primary sources used in this study include “letters, diaries, and memoranda, usually intended as private, sometimes intimate documents, often published after the death of their authors” (Brundage, 2002, p. 17) such as wills. Additionally, primary sources include information printed from a family Bible or a series of letters printed for public understanding, such as Jefferson’s letters or those of Thomas Nelson as

Governor. Published primary sources include material that was written to be printed and made public, such as newspaper articles, autobiographies, and debates from governmental bodies such as Congress or the Virginia House of Burgesses, and census reports. Examples of secondary sources are books, essays, articles, dissertations, and conference papers (Brundage, 2002).

361

Data Locations

There are several places for finding historical documentation. The traditional sources—libraries, archives, and public historical venues—are now being challenged by the hundreds of documents and pieces of historical literature that have been put into digital form or scanned for availability on the Internet. (See Table 3 for summary of locations used in this study.)

Table 3

Locations for Primary and Secondary Data

Repository Location

College of William and Mary Williamsburg, VA

Historical Site Experts Virginia

John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Library Williamsburg, VA

Library of Congress Washington, D.C.

National Archives & Records Washington, D.C.

Administration

Swem Library & Archive Williamsburg, VA

Virginia Gazette Williamsburg, VA

Virginia Historical Society Richmond, VA

Virginia State Library & Archive Richmond, VA

Virginia’s Historical Sites Virginia

362

Repositories and Libraries

The repositories listed in Table 3 overlap in their ability to provide significant resources for this case study. The CW&M Swem Library has a newly-funded dedicated genealogy section that provided the initial resources for each case study based on the

Swem Index. The dedicated area also contains materials on associated topics including, for example, maps and military records. The area, with library tables, computer access, and comfortable chairs, enables the scholar to conduct in-depth research before consulting the second-floor stacks for references related to online research.

The ability to access the CW&M Library Catalogue online and at the library was a great asset in searching for further information and resources, as the CW&M catalogue is combined with the Rockefeller Library and the index for the Swem Archives. The online availability of the catalogue assisted in planning each visit to Swem.

The Swem Archives have many copies of original material from the Virginia

State Library and Archive and the Virginia Historical Society. The archives at Swem have enlarged their collection of original material from donations and copies from the state library and historical society, thus enabling this researcher to feel confident that relevant material from the mid-18th century has been discovered. Cataloguing efforts

were increased about 10 years ago, after the completion of the building renovation,

making documents easier to locate and request. The Swem archives also contain some

issues of the Virginia Gazette, with others on microfilm. In addition, many students at

CW&M have used the Gazette for theses and dissertations that are content specific. They

are a good resource. There are also two dedicated volumes of Gazette references. Another

asset within the main Swem Library is the dissertation section. Dissertations are housed 363

on the second floor but can be research by topic in the university online library catalogue.

They contain clues and resource information.

Local and geographically specific historical archives are also helpful. Resources

at these locations are generally limited. An example is the historical society library in

Chesapeake, Virginia. Chesapeake also has a large locked cabinet containing rare books

that have recently been inventoried. While local historical societies may be helpful, they generally contain information limited to their patron’s geographical boundary and interest. In addition, the society libraries are generally manned only during peak hours, by volunteers with extremely limited knowledge.

Experts

Various experts can also be helpful to a study such as this one. The historians employed by the Virginia Park Service write detailed assessments examining the history of ownership, topography, and historical sign significance for various areas in Virginia.

Architectural historians utilize only primary sources to develop a perspective of the property (land and buildings) and its owners. While assessments by the Park Service are generally available online, information from an architectural historian takes a one-on-one

relationship and the desire and ability of the historian to share primary information for the benefit of historical research. It is the combination of research by the two types of experts that enable a docent at a historical site to explain to the public the significance of the site.

Internet Resources

The Internet has become a rich source of historical documentation. Many libraries, archives, and museums have digitized large portions of their collections and made these and additional archived materials available to researches. A researcher can 364

have access to them without physically visiting brick-and-mortar sites. In addition, there are many Internet depositories that have digitized material and photo collections via PDF files, providing “an array of primary and secondary sources, along with archives of historical maps, photographs, and other images” (Brundage, 2002, p. 44) that otherwise would not have been accessible to this researcher. Online locations for data, other than those related to archives, libraries, and repositories are listed in Table 4.

Table 4

Internet Resources

Name URL

American History Association www.historians.org

History of Education Quarterly www.blackwellpublishing.com

History of Education Society www.ed.uiuc.edu/hes

John D. Rockefeller Jr. Library http://research.history.org/JDRLibrary.cfm

JSTOR – The Scholarly Journal Achieve www.jstor.org

Library of Congress www.loc.gov

Making of America www.cdl.library.cornell.edu

National Archives & Records www.nara.gov

Administration www.archives.gov

Virginia Genealogical Society www.vgs.org

Virginia Historical Society www.vahistorical.org

Virginia State Library & Archive www.lva.lib.va.us

University of Virginia Library www.uva.edu

365

The majority of the Internet sites above were valuable for visual material in the mid-18th century. However, documents generally housed in their Internet collections date from the mid-19th century and were not useful for this project. The most useful aspect of the

Internet sites above was the JSTOR and the Virginia Historical website. The ability to locate, review, and print key articles without leaving home saved a great deal of time and effort. This enabled out-of-town research to be guided by previous knowledge and a list of sources to be gleaned at the repository, thus saving time and travel expense.

Intertwined Process of Data Collection and Analysis

The collection and analysis of historical resources began with a plan (Yin, 2003) for access and concluded with the presentation of data from this work (Greenwood,

2000). The data collection foci of this study were: (a) the questions and sub-questions contained in the study, (b) the compilation of a family bio-sketch organized according to the direct male ancestors of each subject, and (c) a bio-sketch on each of the 15 subjects in the sample population. This plan allowed the emergence and development of themes within the sub-questions and the population that contributed to the richness of the work, and addressed through research and the data the purpose of the study: to explore the contributions to society and the economic growth of the Colony of Virginia made by the subjects at the College of William & Mary from 1756 through 1765. (See Table 5 for an overview of this process.)

366

Table 5

Design, Preparation, and Data Collection

Action Use

Design and Prepare Designed a data sheet to outline basic data necessary for

each subject and their direct male ancestors and wives,

including full name, dates of birth and death, location of

each, date of marriage(s) with name and parents, location,

information on parents to determine social status and

occupation if provided (basic demographic data.)

Prepare for Data Prepared physical and computer-based folder for each

Gathering repository containing the following: Directions

(www.mapquest.com), days and hours of operation, parking

access, rules of access, copy rules, computer accessibility,

and contact person (phone and e-mail address).

Used the Internet to search and print references. Compile

them for locations, i.e., Chesapeake, Swem Library, and

Rockefeller Library. Note each location and hold

information for use based on research schedule.

Used prepared folders, physical and computer based, to store

information on each subject. File folders were used for hand

notes and copies of journal articles taken from numerous

primary and secondary sources. Cards, 5x7 inches, were

367

Action Use

used to compile biographical references using the Swem

index codes and journal sources. These were stapled on the

front inside cover of the folders to eliminate the possibility

of their being misplaced. Folders contained all information

on each subject and his ancestors. Computer-based folders

were used to store all writing and edits for the subject and

ancestors.

Pre-Visit Research Used my educational institution faculty status for access to

JSTOR for key word searching to find all print material

within historic journals. Omohundro Institute of Early

American History and Culture also allows access only to the

William and Mary Quarterly with a yearly subscription.

Generally faculty access will allow a broad spectrum of

journal research opportunities.

Prepare for Visit Prepared a backpack with sufficient paper, writing materials

(pens, pencils and highlighters), APA text, recharged

batteries for computer if necessary, and sheets to gather

basic biographical data. When visiting archives I took my

digital camera for document photos, if allowed, with extra

batteries. Prepared a fanny pack for security with charged

cell phone, cash in small denominations, change tub for

368

Action Use

copying & parking, identification (driving license, ECU ID,

GWU ID, and library cards) and one credit card for

emergencies. Also brought spare glasses, magnifying glasses

(round and rectangular), and snacks. Wearing comfortable

clothes and shoes was important. Learn which repositories

will allow food to save time going out for lunch and

remember when using higher education locations, the

repository schedule will change based on the school

calendar. Made overnight arrangements when necessary via

Internet: www.expedia.com

Parking requirements were very important at various sites.

Inquired and purchased parking passes. Determine dates of

multiple visits, i.e., Tuesday and Thursdays, and purchased a

trimester pass for specific days of the week to conserve

money and time. I joined the CW&M Swem Library

Supporters to gain a library card to check out books (limit 10

at one time and cost $100.00 per year) and was able to get a

faculty limited parking permit for $3.00 per day. It was

worth the investment and effort. Travel times for distant

visits were based on traffic patterns to reduce traffic back-

ups. Perhaps one other important aspect that is generally not

369

Action Use

included is the fact that I made sure to schedule my pet sitter

months in advance using the parking pass as a guide.

Prepare Goals and objectives for each repository were set prior to

each visit to stay focused. A list of search items and

reference locations (from Internet search of repository

website) was prepared prior to each visit to save research

and staff time. This is especially important for repositories

that will not allow their material to be removed from the

premises (for example, the Rockefeller Library).

Develop An alternative repository visit plan was developed in case

plans for the day should become disrupted by a human or

environmental event. Local library history rooms are

especially quiet; I used the main library and history room in

Chesapeake, VA. It contains basic key data sources and also

allowed time to recheck sources, for planning, and for

sorting through intertwined family trees without interruption.

Heavy rain, winter road hazards, and etc., can be overcome

with a short trip and the use of a nearby facility kept my

research on schedule.

Arrive Arriving at the site with tools to start work shortly after they

open makes a good use of time and resources.

370

Action Use

Check On my initial visits to a repository I found a library associate

to use as a contact person for questions, document

procurement, and copying procedures in each primary

location. It therefore became important to use the same work

location at each repository, especially when it was a large

facility. These contacts at each work location would watch

for materials that might fit the scope of my research. The

archive staff would offer additional suggestions and help

when they felt comfortable with my work and its scope.

Share Copies were made of important/interesting archive material

that was valuable to the Chesapeake local historical society

library room, and I suggested donating the multiple old

historic reference books I have accumulated after I finish

writing my follow-up articles, in an effort to share and

increase their holdings. Most of the books came from

Amazon.com, which has a wonderful used-book site that

enables the purchase of important reference material at

reasonable prices.

Learn I quickly learned to make the data collection process more

streamlined based on the use of key data collections and

regional sources of published primary and secondary sources

371

Action Use

supplemented with archival data, thus developing a detailed

knowledge of their content.

Creating a bio-sketch for direct male ancestors. The direct male ancestors of each subject were captured in individual bio-sketches that combined detailed the history of the family from its immigration through the lifetime of the subject. The format of each bio-sketch followed a set pattern to enable comparison: Introduction; Background;

Attendance at the CW&M; Family Involvement in Colonial Politics and Government;

Jobs and Careers of the subject; and Other Considerations. This process enabled a schematic view of the family and resulted in the discovery of additional primary and secondary sources that further enhanced the richness of the data. Although not originally intended, the inclusion of the ancestor bio-sketches was necessary to show not only basic demographic data, including education, but the extent of the contributions made by the male ancestors. The ancestor information significantly enlarged the scope of work, and this step added richness and a greater understanding of the family and its impact on society and the economic growth of the colony.

Creating a bio-sketch for each subject. This step in the data gathering process involved compiling historical and biographical data to create a bio-sketch of each subject.

Particular attention was given to the educational experiences at the CW&M and their jobs and careers after graduation. When combined with the male ancestor’s bio-sketches, a history of the family emerged and patterns of involvement in the affairs of the Colony emerged. See Table 6 for the data-gathering process. 372

Table 6

Data Gathering for Bio-Sketches of CW&M Subjects and Their Ancestors

Activity Description and Use

Male Family Dates and location for birth, christening, marriage, death, place of

Direct Ancestors burial, parents with date and location, other wives, all children (to

and Attendees enable direct lineage to the subject) religion and church affiliation,

will information, with probate and inventory if available, names of

their children, birth dates and places, names of the mother of the

children and her date of death. Compiling this information from

more than one source enabled the researcher to triangulate resources.

Using the above demographic information, a rough family chart was

Sketching Family sketched to trace the family members in the colony through

Descent succeeding generations to the CW&M case study student. Several

sources were developed to determine the actual pattern of descent,

family Bibles, wills, published remembrances of friends and family

members, family histories compiled by family members, and work

by amateur and professional genealogists.

Once the lineage was determined, the next step was to gather

Male Family primary and secondary information to produce additional

Direct Ancestors information on the lives of the family and subjects, in order to and Attendees describe their contributions to the colony.

Each bio-sketch was a dramatic document that continued to be

373

Preparation of the updated and changed based on the entire body of information from

Bio-sketches all of the subjects and their ancestors. Events and opportunities were

inserted into each bio-sketch based on available experiences [not

clear] during their attendance in the higher education portion of their

CW&M experience.

In creating the biographies, it was important to be mindful of the three structures for biography: (a) chronological, (b) topical, and (c) mixed-media.

Chronological denotes a format that is based on a hierarchical pattern and topically relates to a planned order based on specific events of a person’s life, while a mixed-media format is for extensive biographical writing focusing on a famous individual in a detailed book format (Ambrosius, 2004).

The individual case-study biographies in this study utilized the chronological and topical formats as they relate the specific events of a person’s life. All information was presented chronologically within the topical divisions as described in Chapter 1 of this study and repeated below:

1. What was the student experience at CW&M from 1756 through 1765 in terms

of:

a. Facilities,

b. student life,

c. curriculum and learning experience, and

d. job training/career positioning?

2. What were the backgrounds of the students at CW&M in terms of: 374

a. Stratum of society,

b. geographic distribution,

c. student preparation for college, and

d. tuition sources?

3. What did the students do after graduation in terms of:

a. Jobs and careers,

b. involvement in the Colony/Commonwealth (politics, government

positions and etc.) and

c. involvement in community life (church, volunteer organizations, etc)?

The descriptions in each bio-sketch were as detailed as data sources allowed. It is from these individual bio-sketches that specific documented themes were derived to answer the research questions and sub-questions.

Organizing data in Excel. Using the underlying questions and sub-questions the data from all sources were spread into several topical data sets based on themes.

These Excel spreadsheets enhanced the presentation of data and the analysis process.

Analysis. The analysis began by pulling data sets that formed themes across generations. This enhanced the ability not only to understand the individual subject but to view the family as it related to a specific topic across generations, such as family military commitment. Additionally, life accomplishments for each generation were isolated and displayed on spreadsheets in an effort to view the fluctuating accomplishments by generation. These data sets allowed an understanding to be developed of the relationship between the sample group and their ancestors. The analysis format of comparison or cross-case analysis was used to enhance and to develop an understanding of the impact of 375

colonial higher education by examining the “similarities and differences” (Miles &

Huberman, 1994, p. 173) across the case studies, as this method “is good at finding specific, concrete, historically grounded patterns common to a small set of cases” (p.

174).

A set of Excel spread sheets was used to compile data related to the research questions. Much of the corresponding data were placed in charts, graphs, and tables that are referenced in the appendix.

1. Subject/Attendee demographic data

2. Subject educational data

3. Map showing geographical information

4. Ancestor data by generation related to lifetime accomplishments

5. Subject and family contributions by generation

a. Economic

b. Military

c. Political

6. Subjects’ land holdings and how acquired.

Each spreadsheet is broken into categories that provide a rich description of the family and subject. As an example, the area of birth for each attendee was broken down into counties to further define the geographic regions (Tidewater, West of the Fall Line, and

Other) of colonial Virginia. Political contributions were broken down into those at the parish level, county level, and colonial level. This breakdown by category is a pattern used throughout this study.

A second tool for gathering data from the individual case studies was the 376

Emergent Themes Excel Spread Sheet. This was used to document the emergent

themes/patterns on a case-by-case basis throughout the data-gathering and biographical

component of this study. At the conclusion of the data-gathering phase, the tools were

combined for further analysis from the emergent themes spread sheet and reported in

Chapter 4. Patterns with the emergent themes were then combined using cross-case analysis to further reduce the data for higher-level analysis.

After an interpretative synthesis on a case-by-case basis, the data from the life event and themes tools were combined into a content analysis summary table where

“broad patterns [can] be found across a wide variety of cases” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 174). The matrixes are guided by the research questions and used the “Cross Case

Analysis” method where the CW&M is considered the whole with the students as cases

(embedded) within the analysis (p. 175). Themes appeared that produced some consensus for each research and sub-question (p. 173-175).

Design Issues

Each research project is surrounded by design issues. Rubin & Rubin (1995) believe historical studies parallel the concepts of quantitative studies, while Erlandson,

Harris, Skipper & Allen (1993) make comparisons that validity in quantitative work equates to trustworthiness in qualitative research (p. 28-31 & 1-4). Lincoln and Guba

“refer[ed] to one set of criteria for judging the quality or goodness of qualitative inquiry” while continuing to reinforce the concept of trustworthiness (Schwandt, 2007, p. 299).

Historical research carries an especially heavy burden when dealing with resources over

250 years old. This study built on design issues in the qualitative realm, including internal validity (trustworthiness), reliability, and dependability. 377

Internal Validity (Trustworthiness)

In this historic work, validity equates to trustworthiness (Schwandt, 2007). The findings in this study “are backed by evidence” (p. 309) that provides justification for the interpretations. Trustworthiness in qualitative research is expressed through the “search for causes” (Stake, 1995, p. 37) to determine the “complex relationship among all that exists” (p. 37). This is especially important in the study of history, or of a specific historic event. The key concept regarding data gathering is internal validity (trustworthiness) through source verification and triangulation.

Source Verification. Truthfulness is enhanced by following a source to its origin. As an example, if an article was printed in The William and Mary Quarterly without an author listed, I knew it was written by the editor, L. G. Tyler. Within his articles he presents copious footnotes relating to individuals and events described in the article, generally with sources for his comments.

Early in my research I learned to depend only on my observations as the researcher. Therefore, a great deal of time and energy was expended following clues and threads left by others. Some threads could be completely verified, while others made it clear that researchers are human and make mistakes. These mistakes usually came from

Tyler’s policy of printing letters from those who believed they had the history of their family as passed down through generations. The problem in depending on this type of source is (a) it is not primary, and (b) the story usually includes a relative who is famous in history but not associated with their family tree. This is especially prevalent with very large families. In one very complicated search it became almost impossible to verify the 378

family tree as written by ancestors. After much thought, I decided to follow the land: By

using resources at the county and state level I was able to trace the land through the wills

of those who died on it, and was thus able to put together a family tree that was correct.

Through these efforts, sources were verified to ensure truthfulness in the data.

Triangulation. There are three concepts that can be used for triangulation: multiple sources, methods, and investigators (Merriam, 1998). In this study, triangulation was accomplished using multiple sources and methods to “construct plausible explanations” (p. 204)” and improve the accuracy of . . . judgment by collecting different kinds of data bearing on the same [themes] . . .” (Jick, 1979, p. 602). Although multiple investigators were not used, triangulation was achieved through peer examination and collaborative research methods.

Multiple methods. The use of multiple methods was built into the design of the study. Triangulation for this study brought together genealogical and biographical methods of inquiry. These methods were then situated within traditional historical narrative to tell the story of the educational experience at the CW&M during the era of this study. Thus, the first type of triangulation by multiple methods was met with the use of three separate research methods.

Secondly, multiple methods were employed to gather data for the bio-sketches of the students and their ancestors. Table 6 documents these multiple methods used to secure the truthfulness of each bio-sketch. Thirdly, multiple qualitative research methods were utilized to analyze the data for themes (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Merriam, 1998).

For example, data were organized thematically across spreadsheets and matrixes and visually tested in tables and figures. Thus, multiple methods were employed to achieve 379

triangulation as a contribution to internal validity (trustworthiness).

Multiple sources. Internal validity (trustworthiness) in this study was enhanced through the use of multiple sources, including a range of primary and secondary sources

(see Table 2) found in many locations (see Table 3). This researcher took into consideration all obtainable primary and secondary sources, as well as contributions from experts. For example, sources needed to compile a bio-sketch came from a family Bible, published primary documents by valid sources, remembrances from distant relatives or friends, and writings by previous researchers and experts. Scholars must scrutinize all conclusions to determine if there are errors or if conclusions need to be revised based on additional findings and the characteristics of the researcher (Schwandt, 2007).

Conclusions fluctuated and evolved as more sources were found and the bio-sketch grew in detail, and as the researcher gained greater depth of knowledge about the topic such that she could question more deeply the conclusions of materials that she uncovered

(researcher as the human instrument of analysis) (Merriam, 1998).

As an example, Hugh Nelson, a subject in this study, wrote a letter to a friend in Frederick County, west of the Fall Line, inquiring about building a house and moving his family to that area. The letter is housed at the Rockefeller Library in Williamsburg,

VA. This document led this researcher to believe he continued his quest and moved.

However, after considerable research—involving land records and information at the

Historical Society of the area, as well as a posting found on the Internet with a picture of his grave site in the area of his proposed home—it was determined that he had not moved to the area, but had only made an inquiry. He was not able to make the move due to obligations to his brother’s family. It took multiple sources and multiple methods of 380

research to find the facts and come to a trustworthy conclusion. The concept of

triangulation through multiple sources and methods was met in this research as

contribution to internal validity (trustworthiness).

Peer examination and collaborative research. A third type of triangulation is

through the use of multiple researchers. While only one researcher conducted this

research, peer examination contributed to the strength of the data-gathering process. The dissertation committee members provided peer examination as a substitute for multiple researchers. Committee members scrutinized the bio-sketches during the writing process.

One committee member is an historian, and another is an expert in genealogy. Also, peer consultation was obtained from members of the Special Collections staff at the

Rockefeller Library and the Swem Library, both in Williamsburg, VA, and from other historical experts. Collaborative research occurs when researchers share information from their individual projects to create a greater understanding of a topic. For example, I met with an historical architect who is the primary contact on history of the Moore family of the Chelsea Plantation. He resides in North Carolina, and through phone conversations, e-

mails, and a meeting we shared information, spent time in the archives, and continue to

keep in touch regarding my findings on the Moore family. The understanding that both of us now have of the Moore family is a combination of the individual work that we both brought to the topic. Thus, through peer examination and collaboration, the third type of triangulation was employed to contribute to the foundation of internal validity

(trustworthiness) in the data-gathering process.

Reliability/Dependability

The “extent to which [the] research findings can be replicated” (Schwandt, 381

2007, p. 263) is described for purposes of this study as dependability, or the “careful documentation of procedures to allow “results [that] are consistent with the data collected” (Merriam, 1998, p. 206). Dependability for this study is based on the resources in each chapter and copious references provided in the bio-sketches. This careful documentation of sources provides a guide for future researchers on the topic, and subject data and is [unclear] supported through triangulation and an audit trail.

To address the issue of dependability, resources were cross-checked through multiple historic sources for accuracy to determine their relevance. This was especially important because names of the period were repeatedly used throughout the generations; as examples: Augustine and Bernard Moore [subjects], sons of Bernard Moore should not be confused with Augustine Moore, employee and ultimate partner of Thomas Nelson, merchant; nor should Hugh Nelson [subject], son of William Nelson, be confused with

Hugh Nelson, son of Thomas Nelson, the subject’s brother. These problems were especially difficult when brothers were considerably older or younger than the subjects because the older brother was known to name one of his sons after his younger brother. It was therefore necessary to place the subject in his parental geographic location before attempting to construct a family tree. On many occasions it also became necessary to sketch several family trees until the right combination or flow emerged. Dates of birth and death were some of the clues that aided in this preliminary work. Initially computer software was used to diagram family trees, but that became so time-consuming that pencil and paper were easier. Rather than begin with the subject, the family tree was immediately narrowed by beginning with the first settler in the colony and working forward. This allowed a deeper understanding of the family as it emerged through the 382

building process. Even though this project utilized computer technology for data compilation, it was still necessary to use older technology to verify sources for the bio- sketches. Resources were obtained from extensive library collections, primarily from the

Swem library and the Rockefeller library. Material, such as the Virginia Gazette, obtained from digital collections was accessed as needed and printed for future reference.

Individual reference books, not standard genealogical collections, such as The William and Mary Quarterly or the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, were purchased where possible from used book resources through Amazon.com. Articles were printed and notations placed on the cover sheet for internal content. A filing system was established that allowed easy access to materials based either on a student subject or a topical area. A filing system sounds simple but required continued adjustment as the source material grew. Data sheets were established so the information could be entered throughout the process and checked for similarity and congruency.

Reliability was foremost for all information or documentation. It must be noted that in the original planning of this project, elaborate data sheets were devised to warehouse information. This process became unusable and was replaced by spiral note books that held banks of data from library and special collections. All information was compiled using an alphabetical listing of the subject’s name. As an example, all information from a specific source on Revolutionary War soldiers was listed by student subject in alphabetical the spiral notebook. When the information was used for a bio- sketch a line was drawn through the subject’s name with the data continuing to be housed in the notebook.

Triangulation. Data collection through multiple venues and sources was the basis 383

for triangulation of bio-sketches for each subject in this study. The output included the creation of a biographical sketch that addresses all direct male ancestors, beginning with the first to arrive in the colony of Virginia. Each sketch has a similar format that organized the data for analysis by topic and generation. The process allowed cross-case analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and strengthened the reliability and internal validity of this study (Merriam, 1998). Early in the formation of the biographical sketch format, input was solicited from the committee regarding a consistent template that would introduce the subject while bringing to the readers the history of higher education at the

CW&M. Considerable sharing, feedback, and revision between researcher and committee members yielded a template that ensured clarity and consistency across all of the bio- sketches.

Audit trail. Based on the interpretative qualitative historic case-study design of this study, an audit trail was essential for authentication and to provide an explanation for interpretative results (Merriam, 1998). The audit trail for this study is based on copious references that are carefully documented, hard copies of articles indexed in the subject’s file, and Excel charts that compiled data garnered from the research. Each bio-sketch detail is backed up with an audit trail of sources, notes about the discovery process, and comments about problems and challenges in the discovery process.

External Validity

External validity is “concerned with the extent to which the findings of one study can be applied to other situations” (Merriam, 1998, p. 207). External validity is strengthened by the audit trail techniques. The development of themes within this research allows the data to be utilized in a compact format to support other research on 384

higher education during the colonial period. The ability is called a “case by case transfer”

(Merriam, p. 211). To enhance this possibility, “rich, thick descriptions” (p. 211) within

this research provide the boundaries for this study and will enable a transfer of the

findings. As an example, this study could be replicated using other colonial institutions

of higher education, providing the ability to compare and contrast regionalism in higher

education in the 18th century.

Human Consent

In the determination of exclusion status, the following were reviewed: (a)

contribution to general knowledge, (b) obtaining information about living individuals, (c) intervention or interaction with individuals, and (d) individual identification. The results

of the application of the criteria to the parameters determined whether the information

gained is a contribution to general historical knowledge. While deceased individuals and

their ancestors will be identified with genealogical and biographical research, there will

not be an intervention or interaction with relatives currently living. Therefore, the

conclusion using the guidelines as set forth by the GWU Institutional Review Board was

this research is excluded from IRB review.

385

References

Bentz, V. & Shapiro, J. (1998). Mindful inquiry in social research. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Brundage, A. (2002). Going to the sources: A guide to historical research and writing

(3rd ed.). Wheeling IL: Harlan Davidson, Inc.

Clare, J. & Hamilton, H. (2003). Writing research: Transforming data into text.

Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone.

Cooper, J. (2004). Conception, conversation, and comparison: My experiences as a

biographer. In L. Ambrosius (Ed.), Writing biography: Historians & their craft

(p. 79-102). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Erlandson, D., Harris, E., Skipper, B., & Allen, S. (1993). Doing naturalistic inquiry: A

guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Greenwood, V. (2000). The researcher’s guide to American Genealogy (3rd ed.).

Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc.

Jick, T. (1979, Dec.). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in

Action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 4, p. 602-611.

McDowell, W. H. (2002). Historical research: A guide. Great Britain: Pearson Education

Limited.

Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data Analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: 386

Sage Publications, Inc.

Rubin, H. J. & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Schwandt, T. (2007). The Sage dictionary of qualitative inquiry (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks:

Sage Publications.

Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Swem, E. & Land, R. (1941). Provisional list of alumni, grammar school students,

members of the faculty and members of the board of visitors of the College of

William and Mary in Virginia from 1693 to 1688. Retrieved February 27, 2004,

http://www.swem.wm.edu/SpColl/Archives/provlist

Walsh, J. (1935). Education of the founding fathers of the republic: Scholasticism in the

colonial colleges: A neglected chapter in the history of American education.

New York: Fordham University Press.

Yin, R. (2003). Case study research design and methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

387

APPENDIX B, EDUCATION IN COLONIAL VIRGINIA: INFLUENCE OF

WILLIAM AND MARY COLLEGE

Stamp Act

Patrick Henry Private schools

Committee of Correspondence

(Appointed March 12, 1773)

Payton Randolph William and Mary College

Robert Carter Nicholas William and Mary College

Richard Bland William and Mary College

Richard Henry Lee Leed’s Academy, Yorkshire

Benjamin Harrison William and Mary College

Edmund Pendleton Private schools

Patrick Henry Private schools

Dudley Diggs William and Mary College

Dabney Carr William and Mary College

Archibald Cary William and Mary College

Thomas Jefferson William and Mary College

Eight of the 11 attended CW&M

Committee of Safety

Appointed by the Virginia Convention of 1775

Edmund Pendleton Private schools

John Page William and Mary College

Thomas Ludwell Lee (Not known) 388

Dudley Digges William and Mary College (?)

Carter Braxton William and Mary College

John Tabb England (?)

George Mason Private schools

Richard Bland William and Mary College

Paul Carrington William and Mary College

William Cabell William and Mary College

James Mercer William and Mary College

Six of the 11 attended CW&M

Committee for Framing the Virginia Declaration of Rights and State Constitution

Archibald Cary, Chairman William and Mary College

Meriwether Smith (Not known)

James Mercer William and Mary College

Henry Lee Princeton

Bartholomew Dandridge (Not known)

George Gilmer Scotland

Richard Bland William and Mary College

Dudley Digges William and Mary College(?)

Paul Carrington William and Mary College

Thomas Ludwell Lee (Not known)

William Cabell William and Mary College(?)

Joseph Jones (Not known) 389

John Blair Jr. William and Mary College

William Fleming William and Mary College

Henry Tazewell William and Mary College

Richard Cary William and Mary College

Cuthbert Bullitt (Not known)

William Watts (Not known)

John Banister England

John Page William and Mary College

Bolling Starke (Not known)

David Mason (Not known)

Richard Adams (Not known)

Thomas Read William and Mary College

Thomas Lewis Ireland

James Madison Princeton

Robert Rutherford (Not known)

George Mason (draftsman) Scotland

John Harvie Private schools

William Roscow Wilson Curle (Not known)

James Holt (Not known)

Eleven out of the 31 attended CW&M

390

Key Players in the Creation of the Declaration of Independence from Virginia

Author of the resolutions in Virginia Convention reported May 15, 1776, to instruct the

delegates of the Virginia in Congress to declare the United Colonies free and independent

States . . .

Richard Henry Lee Leed’s Academy, England

Author of the resolution in Congress for independence and author of the Declaration of

Independence

Thomas Jefferson William and Mary College

Signers of the Declaration of Independence from Virginia

George Wythe William and Mary College

Richard Henry Lee Leed’s Academy, Yorkshire

Thomas Jefferson William and Mary College

Benjamin Harrison William and Mary College

Thomas Nelson, Jr. Eton and Cambridge

Francis Lightfoot Lee Private tutors

Carter Braxton William and Mary College

Four out of the 7 above attended CW&M

Tyler, L. (July 1898). Education in colonial Virginia: Part V: Influence of William

and Mary College. William and Mary Quarterly, 7(1), 1-9.

391

APPENDIX C, DETAILS FROM MINUTES OF PRESIDENT AND MASTERS

Recap of Minutes of the CW&M from 1756 to 1764

All minutes are from microfiche in the achieves at the College of William & Mary labeled 1729-1784 C-9-D, M119. Some minutes are previously printed in the W&M Quarterly. The dates and the content of the official minutes were checked to make sure they correspond to the actual written record.

Date Names Facts March Rev Thomas Young Gentlemen when they leave the Grammar School 24, Dawson shall be in academic dress. 1756 Rev Tho Robinson Chaplain for the week will be the Dean for the Week. W. Preston R Graham John Canaria [?] Em Jones Gent NOTE: Rev. Thomas Dawson was elected by the Board of Visitors (see minutes of the Masters dated November 1, 1755). May 3, Rev. Tho Dawson Cole Diggs and Matthew Hubard expelled from College 1756 Rev. Tho Robinson for bad behavior & whipping of little boys in the grammar W. Preston School. For obstinacy and disrespect to the grammar R Graham master and refusing to answer before the president and Em Jones masters complaints made against them. No one is to associate with them or they will be looked upon as abettors and punished accordingly. Parents are to be told of the resolutions above; if the boys come on to the college grounds the Civil Magistrate will be called. Ancillary of above: Cole Digges son of Dudley Digges and Mary Hubard his wife. Cousin of Matthew and James Hubard (the usher) See W&MQ January 1893 for more information. See additional ancillary notes re: relatives. Sept Rev. Thomas Matthew Hubard removed from usher-ship. Appointed M. 27, Dawson, Rev. T. Stringer as Usher of the College. 1756 Robinson, R. Graham, J. Camm and E. Jones

392

Date Names Facts Dec Rev. Thomas Thomas Holt to remove fence he constructed on the 1756 Dawson, Thomas CW&M property, also level the ditch. If this is not done Robinson, Will he will be prosecuted for trespassing. Preston, Rich Mr Palmer to send letter or visit personally with those Graham, John who owe money to the college. If the account is not paid a Camm and EM suit will be filed. An advertisement is to be made Jones concerning the past due accounts. Major R. Taliaferro – proposal accepted to fence in the college yards and do work on the Presidents house. EM Jones is to sell the books on a list given to him for 75% of cost and to keep 10% for his trouble in selling and collecting the money. Ancillary – John Palmer is the bursar of the College. He is an attorney in Williamsburg. See ancillary information for genealogy and reference to Va Gasette of April ? 1775 and York County records. Februar Rev Wm [William] Demanded Robinson and Graham remove themselves y 13, Dawson, E. Jones from the college and deliver their keys to the school and 1758 Master of the Indian their apartments which they have previously refused to School do. From Graham they demanded the seal and papers belonging to the college. In addition the Order of the Visitors was delivered to them. Robinson, Graham and Camm late Masters remove themselves from the college – if they did not the full power of the college would be used to have them removed. No housekeeping services or food was to be given to them nor were any of their orders to be obeyed. Februar Rev Thomas William Davis appointed Master of the Grammar School y 15, Dawson, President, to replace Robinson. The necessary assent was given (39th 1758 & Emanuel Jones of Articles). the Indian School. April 7, Rev. Thomas Rev. Gronow Owen elected by Visitors and Governors 1758 Dawson, Master of the Grammar School. Assented to articles of the Em[m]anuel Jones Church of England. June Rev. Thomas Appointment of Edward Thompson of Helperly as 10, Dawson, President, Steward of the Brafferton Estate. 1758 Emanuel Jones, Gronow Owen, and Jacob Rowe. June Rev. Thomas Rev Jacob Rowe assent and Cannon June 17, 1758. 17, Dawson, President, 1758 Emanuel Jones and Rev Gronow Owen

393

Date Names Facts June Rev. Thomas Mr. Edward Thompson of Helperly be appointed Steward 20, Dawson, of the Brafferton Estate. 1758 Emanuel Jones, Gronow Owen, Jacob Rowe

August Rev. Thomas Gave William Taylor leave to collect rents due college 15, Dawson, President, from the Tenants in King William County, either in 1758 Emanuel Jones, Money or Tobacco or as he thinks proper. Gronow Owen, Jacob Rowe

NOTE: On September 2, 1755 at a meeting of the President and Master of W&M College [Present Rev William Stith, President, Mrs. Dawson, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Preston and Mr. Graham the following was resolved: 1. Tenants (King Wm County) will pay per 100 acres one cask 400 net weight of “good merchantable sweet-scented tobacco” 2. President and one Master visit plantations & do an accounting of the leases and determine if the tenants have complied with the written leases. 3. President and Masters have the right to increase or decrease the rent based on the financial needs of the college and that all leases they give will be binding. October Rev. W. Thomas Rev. Thomas Hatton recommended as Usher and chosen 11, Dawson, President, for office. 1758 Emanuel Jones, Gronow Owen, Jacob Rowe October Rev. Thomas William Small elected by the Visitors and Governors 18, Dawson, President, Professor of Natural Philosophy Asset and Cannon. 1758 Emanuel Jones, Gronow Owen, Jacob Rowe Decem Rev. Thomas Lease on lands owned in King William county be ber 14, Dawson, President, transferred from Col. Thomas Jones to Honorable Thomas 1758 Emanuel Jones, Nelon, Esq. (spelling is correct based on the minutes) Gronow Owen, Jacob Rowe and William Small

394

Date Names Facts March Rev. Thomas Order of March 26th 1758 by Visitors and 30, Dawson, President, Governors that Rev. Hatton, Usher of the Grammar 1759 Emanuel Jones, Schools be allowed to sit and eat at the Masters’ Tables. Gronow Owen, In addition because of his good service and high regard, Jacob Rowe and that the President and Masters cannot remove him from William Samll his position as Usher with first informing their allegations against him. William Taylor – he can sell the tobacco he has collected at the best price. In addition, he is asked to collect past due rents ASAP from the tenants in King William Count at 2

August Rev. Thomas Martha Bryan be appointed Housekeeper to the college in 28, Dawson President, place of Mrs. Owen deceased. 1759 Emanuel Jones, Quarterly Meetings: The first Thursday in March, June, Gronow Owen, September and December annually. Jacob Rowe, William Small

Februar Rev. Thomas John Blair Esq. be appointed Bursar of the College in y 21, Dawson, President, place of John ? (Unable to read the last name from the 1760 Emmanuel Jones, original minutes). Gronow Owen, Jacob Rowe, William Small March Rev. Thomas Mr. Robert Walton be appointed to overlook the College 13, Dawson, President, Quarter at Nottoway and that he be allowed the rate of 1760 Emmanuel Jones, twenty pounds for his trouble. Gronow Owen, William Small April Rev. Thomas Resolved that Mr. John Matthews be appointed overlook 16, Dawson, Emmanuel at the College Quarter at Nottaway as Mr. Walton has 1760 Jones, Jacob Rowe, resigned. and William Small June Rev. Thomas William Rowe be appointed Writing Master of the 27, Dawson, Emmanuel College in place of ______Davenport who has resigned. 1760 Jones, Gronow (Unable to read the first name from the original minutes). Owen and William Small Septem Rev. Thomas That in compliance with an order of the Governors and ber 25, Dawson, Emmanuel Visitors of the College, dated 16 August 1760. The Rev. 1760 Jones, William Jacob Rowe is unanimously desired to remove himself Small and William and his effects from the College by Monday the 29th Webb _____. That in addition be made to Rule 3 _____. (Unable to read from the original minutes.) Resolved – That Mr Manbys letter to his Honor the Governor concerning the Duty on Tobacco ____ to the plantations be referred to a future meeting. 395

Date Names Facts Septem Rev. Thomas Resolved that Mr. William Webb at a meeting of the ber 26, Dawson and Visitors and Governors held on the 16th of August 1760 1760 Emmanuel Jones. having been elected Master of the Grammar School in place of the Rev. Mr. Gronow Owen who resigned, did this day inter upon his _____ office and subscribe his allegiance to the 39 Articles of the Church of England. March Emmanuel Jones After the death of the Honorable ____ Rev & Mr. 10, and William Small Thomas Dawson, late President of the College, the 1761 Visitors having elected The Rev. & Mr. William Yates, President. He qualified himself according to the Statutes by inscribing his asent to the 39 articles of the Church of England in the following words: xxxx March Rev. William Yates, A nurse be provided to attend to the boys. 31, President, Build a stable on the college lot in Williamsburg for the 1761 Emmanuel Jones, use of the President. William Small June Rev. William Yates, John Saunders to build stables for the use of the President 26, President, on a lot belonging to the College. 1761 Emmanuel Jones, Mrs. Foster appointed Stocking Mender. William Small & Mr. William Taylor, Collector of the Rents in King Richard Graham William County to bring suit immediately against all tenants who are more the twelve months in arrears. Resolved that the feathers which are laying waste in the college be shipped off and that the money arriving be applied toward furnishing an infirmary. Emmanuel Jones be appointed librarian.

Aug 31, Rev. William Yates, Mrs. Isabella Cocke appointed housekeeper in place of 1761 President, Mrs. Martha Bryan, who has resigned. Emmanuel Jones, Daniel Wolstenholme, Esq. is approved to receive the William Small & duties of exported tobacco due by a Royal Grant to the Richard Graham College of W&M from the Majesty’s Collectors in Maryland.

396

Date Names Facts March Rev. William Yates, Rev James Horrocks elected at a meeting of the Board of 30, President, Visitors, qualified himself according to the statutes as 1762 Emmanuel Jones, Master of the Grammar School. He took the job on William Small, and February 15 but was qualified by the Governors and Richard Graham Visitors on March 29, 1762 and took the oath and subscribed his Assent.

(Note in minutes that the 6th Order on page 37 where every Master in the College, of inflicting discretionary punishment on every scholar in the college of what age, rank or quality has caused some disputes followed by the opinion of the President and Masters)

Society Opinion (President and Masters Quarterly meeting): The 6th order on page 37 means every Master has a right to inflict such punishment on a scholar behaving in an indecent and irregular manner, as he shall think proper. NOTE: William Small did not agree with the opinion expressed. Ancillary Information: “Scholars” wee the boys of the grammar school. The “students” took the philosophy courses.

July 9, Rev. William Yates, Mr. Arthur Emmerson is chosen Assitant Usher in the 1762 President, Grammar School. Salary £ 40 annually. Emmanuel Jones, William Small, Richard Graham and James Horrocks

Novem Rev. William Yates, Mr. Edmund Scarburgh, Surveyor of Accomack County ber 1, President, appears to have behaved very ill in his office, and that he 1762 Emmanuel Jones, be immediately removed from the same. William Small, Richard Graham and Mr. Nicholas Massenberg appointed Collector of the James Horrocks College Rents in Sussex County.

Lese granted for one lot of Lands belonging to the college, in the Town of Hampton, be granted to Thomas Forbes.

Februar Rev. William Yates. Thomas Forbes ___ lot in Hampton ____ revoke and grant y 1, President, to Carry Mitchell Esq of the ___ town. 1763 Emmanuel Jones, William Small and James Horrocks

397

Date Names Facts May Rev. William Yates, John Hyde Saunders has lately behaved himself in a very 10, President, imprudent and unheard of manner to the Master of the 1763 Emmanuel Jones, Grammar School- also to the President and Masters of the William Small, College. He refused to comply with the stated Rules Richard Graham, unless agreeable with his own opinion. He was asked to and James Horrocks. leave the college, but refused unless expelled. He was expelled. All student were notified not to entertain or associate with Saunders on college grounds or face severe punishment. If he does not leave a request will be made to the Civil Magistrate. Ancillary Information: John Hyde Saunders was afterwards a minister. He was a member in 1775 of the Revolutionary County Committee for Cumberland county and was an ardent patriot. There is a deed in York County Court which recites “John Hyde Saunders, son and heir of John Saunders, who was son and heir of John Saunders who patented lands in Goochland in 1690. The will of John Saunders, last named, was proved in York county, February 24, 1700, and mentions his children Christobel, wife of Samuel Waddow, John, Edward, Robert, George, Hardgrove and Peter Saunders. It disposes of a large estate in money, slaves, and land. Robert Saunders, President of William and Mary College, was son of Robert Saunders, a lawyer of Williamsburg, and was doubtless descended from this family. John Saunders, the father of John Hyde Saunders, married, it is presumed, a daughter of Robert Hyde, a lawyer in York county. The deed above was to Samuel Hyde, his son. October Rev. William Yates, Resolution passed that John Walker, James McClurg & 6, 1763 President, William Walter Jones (on account of your injurious behavior on Samll, Richard Tuesday night last to a family in town) are ordere to Graham, James betake yourselves immediately to your friends in the Horrocks and country with such letters & c as shall be deliver to you by Emmanuel Jones the society for them; and that you do not presume to appear in college or the town (after tomorrow) until the 10th day of November next, when you are to return and make such further submission as the society shall think proper; otherwise you will be looked upon as expelled from the college.

Ancillary Information: James McClurg and Walter Jones adopted Medicine as their profession and both attained great eminence, not only in their profession but as statesmen serving in the councils of the country during the Revolution and after it.

398

Date Names Facts Novem Rev. William Yates, Mrs. Garret be appointed Housekeeper of the College in ber 8, President, Richard place of Mrs. Cocke (note spelling in these minutes) 1763 Graham, James Horrocks, and Mr. Nicholson be allowed the usual salary of housekeeper Emmanuel Jones for his trouble from the time Mrs. Cocke was removed to this date.

Ancillary Information: James Nicholson, steward of William and Mary College, was born at Inverness, Scotland, in 1711, and died in Williamsburg, Janaury 22, 1773. He appears to have been remarkably esteemed, and his tomb in Bruton churchyard is a handsome one. Decem An Usher be advertised for. ber 9, An addition of £10 Sterling be made to the Assistant 1763 Teacher’s salary. That tenants of the college lands shall not be permitted to alienate or sell the whole or any part of their lots without the leave of the President and Masters, attested by the Seal of the College. That William Thompson, lately a student of the college be expelled. Whereas William Thompson, lately a student of this college, some time since in company with others was concerned in an act of no small violence and outrage in this town, and for this apprehensive of the punishment he so just deserved, deserted the college and his duty therein, and ever since refused to return and submit himself to the discipline, the President and Masters thought proper to direct: We, in order to discourage and prevent as much as lies in our power such very bad behavior in others for the future, do in this public manner expel the said Thompson from our society, and strictly forbid all our young gentlemen from entertaining, or associating with him under pain of a most severe animadversion & punishment.

January Rev. William Yates, Visitors and Governors of the college at a meeting held 20, President, Richard on the 18th (January) ordered the Rev. Richard Graham 1764 Graham, William and Rev. Camm to be reinstated in their former Small, James Professorships. Horrocks and Emmanuel Jones That if any of the tenants fail to settle according to their leases the Collectors (upon application to the President and Masters) will be permitted to supersede the leases and grant a new one to such Person as will agree to pay the arrears due on the former be punctual in settling his own.

399

APPENDIX D, REVISED STATUTES OF 1756

THE STATUTES OF THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY

THE PREFACE.

TOWARDS the cultivating the Minds of Men, and rectifying their Manners, what a mighty Influence the Studies of good Letters, and the liberal Sciences have, appears from hence, that these Studies not only flourished of Old amongst those famous Nations the Hebrews, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans; but in the latter Ages of the World likewise, after a great Interruption and almost Destruction of them, through the Incursions of the barbarous Nations, they are at last retrieved, and set up with Honor in all considerable Nations. Upon this there followed the Reformation of many Errors and Abuses in the Point of Religion, and the Institution of Youth to the Duties of Christian Virtues and Civility ; and a due Preparation of fit Persons for all Offices in Church and State. But no where was there any greater Danger on Account of Ignorance and want of Instruction, than in the English Colonies of America; in which the first Planters had much to do, in a Country over-run with Woods and Briers, and for many years infested with the Incursions of the barbarous Indians, to earn a mean Livelyhood with hard Labor. There were no Schools to be found in those Days, nor any Opportunity for good Education. Some few, and very few indeed, of the richer Sort, sent their Children to England to be Educated. And there, after many Dangers from the Seas and Enemies, and usual Distempers, occasioned by the Change of Country and Climate, they were often taken off by the Small-pox, and other Diseases. It was no Wonder if this occasioned a great Defect of Understanding, and all Sort of Literature, and that it was followed with a new Generation of men, far short of their Fore-Fathers, which, if they had the good Fortune, tho' at a very indifferent Rate, to read and write, had no further Commerce with the Muses, or learned Sciences ; but spent their Life ignobly at the Hoe and Spade, and other Employments of an uncultivated and unpolished Country. There remained still notwithstanding, a small Remnant of Men of better Spirit, who had, either had the Benefit of better Education themselves in their Mother-Country, or at least had heard of it from others. These Men's private Conferences among themselves being communicated to greater Numbers in the like Circumstances, produced at last a Scheme of a Free-School and C011ege, which was by them exhibited to the President and Council, in the Year 1690 ; a little before the Arrival of Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson, which was afterwards recommended by them with Applause to the next ensuing General Assembly. This Work so luckily begun, made a very considerable Progress under his Government. For, altho' being tied up by Injunctions, from my Lord Effinghain, Chief Governor, who was then in England, he was not allowed to call an Assembly so soon as he would, yet that designed good Work did not sleep in the mean Time ; for in that Interval of Assemblies he and the Council sent out Briefs, by which, and their own good Example, they invited and encouraged the Subscriptions of the Inhabitants. These Briefs were recommended to the Care and Management of Mr. Commissary Blair, a Minister, who had been one of the first Projectors of this good 400

Work, and was a little before this made Commissary to the Bishop of London; with the Help of his Surrogats some of the most creditable Ministers of the Country, and brought in Subscriptions to the Value of Two Thousand Pounds Sterling. Upon this followed that famous General Assembly of the Year 1691. This Assembly not only approved that Scheme of a College, as well fitted to this Country, but resolved upon an humble Petition to King William and Queen Mary, for a Charter to impower certain Trustees that they named, to found such a College, and that their Majesties would likewise assist in the Funds necessary for building the Edifices, and maintaining the President and Masters. To deliver this Petition, and to negotiate this whole Affair, they made Mr. Blair their Agent to solicit it at the Court of England. Tho' both the King and Queen were exceeding well inclined, and the good Bishops, especially Dr. Tillotson, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Dr. Compton, Bishop of London, gave all Assistance ; and Mr. Blair followed it with Diligence and Dexterity, it was a long Time before all the Difficulties, which were objected, were got over. But at last, after Two Years spent in that Service, an ample Charter was obtained, with several Gifts, both for Building and Endowment, for paying the President's and Master's Salaries ; and Mr. Blair, by Advice of the General Assembly in Virginia, and the Bishops in England, being made President of the College, returned to see all put in Execution. In which for many Years afterwards he was involved in a great Number of Difficulties, some of which threatened the total Subversion of the Design. Especially when in the Year 1705, the Buildings and Library were destroyed by Fire; and there was no Money to repair the Loss. Yet at Length, by Patience and good Husbandry of the Revenues, and, the Bounty of Queen Anne, the Work was finished a second Time to every one's Admiration. But to go on to another necessary Branch of this Design, which we are now about, other Obstructions being in good Measure removed, there seems to be nothing more necessary than that, according to the Advice of our most reverend Chancellor, Dr. Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury, some Rules and Statutes should be made for the good Government of the College, and of the President, and Masters, and Scholars, and all others, that either live in it, or are employed in the Management of its Affairs abroad, after mature Deliberation with the said Lord Archbishop, our Chancellor. But because in Progress of Time many Things will be found to be more expedient, when from small Beginnings the Col- lege shall have come to greater Perfection ; and some Things too will want to be corrected and altered, as future Cases and Circumstances may require: All these Things we are very willing to leave to the Visitors and 'Governors, for the Time being, to be added, diminished and changed, according to the different Circumstances of the College, for promoting the Study of the learned Languages, and liberal Arts, according to the Powers granted them by the College Charter. Only that nothing may be enacted, rashly, in the Heat of Disputation, no old Statute suddenly changed, or new One made ; we recommend it for a Rule in these Matters, that no new Statute be enacted or prescribed, until it has been duly proposed, read and considered at Two several Meetings of the Governors of the College.

401

Concerning the College Senate.

AS to the Number, Authority, and Power of the College Senate, in chusing the Chancellor, and the President, and Masters, and in appointing and changing of Statutes, all this is sufficiently set forth in the College Charter. From whence it is evident, how much depends upon them, and how far a good Election of them conduces to the good Government of the College. Therefore in the Election of all Visitors and Governors of the College, let such be preferred as are Persons of good Morals, and sound in the Doctrine of the reformed Church of England; and Friends and Patrons of the College and polite Learning; and Gentlemen in good Circumstances, such as by their Interest, if there be Occasion, can patronize and serve the College. Let the College Senate beware, that no Differences or Parties be held up and cherished, either amongst themselves, or the President and Masters ; and let them take Care that all Things be transacted quietly and moderately, without Favor or Hatred to any Person whatsoever. Let them maintain and support the ordinary Authority of the President and Masters in the Administration of the daily Government of the College, and let them refer all common domestick Complaints to them: And not suffer themselves to be troubled, except in Matters of great Moment, where there is some Difficulty to be got over, or some Corruption or ill Practice to be reformed, or a new Statute to be made, or some other weighty Business to be transacted. In the Election of a President or Masters, let them have a principal Regard to their Learning, Piety, Sobriety, Prudence, good Morals, Orderliness and Observance of Discipline, and that they be of a quiet and peaceable Spirit ; and let them chuse such Persons into the vacant Places without Respect of Persons.

Of the Chancellor.

THE Chancellor is to be the Meccenas or Patron of the College, such a One as by his Favor with the King, and by his Interest with all other Persons in England, may be enabled to help on all the College Affairs. His Advice is to be taken, especially in all such arduous and momentous Affairs, as the College shall have to do in England. If the College has any Petitions at any Time to the King or Queen, let them be presented by their Chancellor. If the College wants a new President, or Professor, or Master, out of Great Britain, let the College Senate rely chiefly on his Assistance, Advice, and Recommendation.

Concerning the President, and Masters, and Schools.

THERE are Three Things which the Founders of this College proposed to themselves, to which all its Statutes should be directed. The First is, That the Youth of Virginia should be well educated to Learning and good Morals. The second is, That the Churches of America, especially Virginia, should be supplied with good 402

Ministers after the Doctrinal and Government of the Church of England; and that the. College should be a constant Seminary for this Purpose. The Third is, That the Indians of America should be instructed in the Christian Religion, and that some of the Indian Youth that are well-behaved and well-inclined, being first well prepared in the Divinity School, may be sent out to preach the Gospel to their Countrymen in their own tongue, after they have duly been put in Orders of Deacons and Priests. For carrying on these noble Designs, let there be Four Schools assigned within the College Precincts ; of which, together with the Masters, or Professors, belonging to them, some Directions must be given. The Grammar School.

TO this School belongs a School-Master ; and if the Number of Scholars requires it, an Usher. The School-Master is One of the Six Masters, of whom, with the President, and Scholars, the College consists. But the Usher is not reckoned a Member of that Body. Let there be paid in yearly Salary to the School-Master, 'One Hundred and Fifty Pounds Sterling, and Twenty Shillings Sterling from each Scholar, by the Year, when there is no Usher. But if there be an Usher too in that School, let Fifteen Shillings be paid to the Master, and Five to the Usher ; and for a yearly Salary, let there be paid to the Usher, Seventy-five Pounds Sterling. But from the poor Scholars, who are upon any charitable College Foundation, neither the Master, nor Usher, are to take any School Wages ; but they are to be taught Gratis. In this Grammar School let the Latin and Greek Tongues be well taught. As for Rudiments and Grammars, and Classick Authors of each Tongue, let them teach the same Books which by Law or Custom are used in the Schools of England. Nevertheless, we allow the School-master the Liberty, if he has any Observations on the Latin or Greek Grammars, or any of the Authors that are taught in his School, that with the Approbation of the President, he may dictate them to the Scholars. Let the Master take special Care, that if the Author is never so well approved on other Accounts, he teach no such Part of him to his Scholars, as insinuates anything against Religion and good Morals. Special Care likewise must be taken of their Morals, that none of the Scholars presume to tell a Lie, or curse or swear, or talk or do any Thing obscene, or quarrel and fight, or play at Cards or Dice, or set in to Drinking, or do any Thing else that is contrary to good Manners. And that all such Faults may be so much the more easily detected, the Master shall chuse some of the most trusty Scholars for public Observators, to give him an Account of all such Transgressions, and according to the Degrees of Heinousness of the Crime, let the Discipline be used without Respect of Persons. As to the Method of teaching, and of the Government of the School, let the Usher be obedient to the Master in every Thing, as to his Superior. On Saturdays and the Eves of Holidays, let a sacred Lesson be prescribed out of Castalio's Dialogues, or Buchanan's Paraphrase of the Psalms, or any other good Book which the President and Master shall approve of, according to the Capacity of the

403

Boys, of which an Account is to be taken on Monday, and the next Day after the Holidays. The Master shall likewise take Care that all the Scholars learn the Church of England Catechism in the vulgar Tongue; and that they who are further advanced learn it likewise in Latin. Before they are promoted to the Philosophy School, they who aim at the Privileges and Revenues of a Foundation Scholar, must first undergo an Examination before the President and Masters, and Ministers skilful in the learned Languages ; whether they have made due progress in their Latin and Greek. And let the same Examination be undergone concerning their Progress in the Study of Philosophy, before they are promoted to the Divinity School. And let no Blockhead or lazy Fellow in his Studies be elected. If the Revenues of the College for the Scholars, are so well before-hand, that they are more than will serve Three Candidates in Philosophy, and as many in Divinity, then what is left let it be bestowed on Beginners in the Grammar School.

The Philosophy School.

FOR as much as we see now daily a further Progress in Philosophy, than could be made by Aristotle’s Logick and Physics, which reigned so long alone in the Schools, and shut out all other: therefore we leave it to the President and Masters, by the Advice of the Chancellor, to teach what Systems of Logick, Physicks, Ethicks, and Mathematicks, they think fit in their schools. Further we judge it requisite, that besides Disputations, the studious Youth be exercised in Declamations on Themes on various Subjects, but not any taken out of the Bible. Those we leave to the Divinity School. In the Philosophy School we appoint Two Masters or Professors, who for their yearly Salary shall each of them receive Eighty Pounds Sterling and Twenty Shillings Sterling a Year from each Scholar, except such poor Ones as are entertained at the College Charge, upon the Foundation; for they are to be taught Gratis. One of these Masters shall teach Rhetorick, Logick and Ethics, The other Physicks, Metaphysicks and Mathematicks. And that the Youth of the College may the more cheerfully apply themselves to these Studies, and endeavour to rise to the Academic Degrees, we do, according to the Form and Institution of the Two famous Universities in England, allot Four Years before they attain to the Degree of Batchelor, and Seven Years before they attain the Degree of Master of Arts.

The Divinity School.

IN THIS School let there be Two Professors with a Salary of One Hundred and Fifty Pounds Sterling to each ; they are to have nothing from the Students or Candidates of Theology. Let one of these Professors teach the Hebrew Tongue, and critically expound the literal Sense of the Holy Scripture both of the Old and New Testament.

404

Let the other explain the common Places of Divinity, and the Controversies with Hereticks ; and let them have Prelections and Disputations on those Subjects. And let the Students of Divinity divide their Time betwixt those Two Professors.

The Indian School.

THERE is but One Master in this School who is to teach the Indian Boys to read, and write, and vulgar Arithmetick. And especially he is to teach them thoroughly the Catechism and the Principles of the Christian Religion. For a yearly Salary, let him

have Forty or Fifty Pounds Sterling, according to the Ability of that School, appointed by the Honorable Robert Boyle, or to be further appointed by other Benefactors. And in the same School the Master may be permitted to teach other scholars from the Town, for which he is to take the usual Wages of Twenty Shillings a Year.

Concerning the President.

THAT every One may so much the more diligently wait upon his proper Office, besides the Six Professors or Masters, we have appointed a President to be Supervisor of the rest. Let there be chosen for a President, a Man of Gravity, that is in Holy Orders, of an unblemished Life, and good Reputation, and not under Thirty Years of Age. Of Ecclesiastical Benefices that have a Cure of Souls annexed, he shall not possess above One, and that of so near a Distance from the College, that it may not hinder his ordinary Care and Attendance upon the College. Let the _Election of him be entrusted with the Governors of the College. Besides Learning, and an unblemished good Life, Care must be taken that he be a Man of Prudence, and skilful in Business, and industrious and diligent in the management of all Affairs ; always preferring the Honor and Interest of the College, to his own or any other Person's Concerns. Let him have a watchful Eye over the other Masters and Professors, that they be not absent from their Employments. Let the Masters often examine the Scholars in his Presence ; and let him likewise often examine them a-part from their Masters, that both Masters and Scholars may be excited to greater Diligence in their Studies. Let him likewise have a Theological Lecture Four Times a Year in the Explication of Scripture, or some Theological Subject, or on some Controversy against Here-ticks. And let him take Care that the other Two Professors diligently attend their Lectures and Disputations. Let him diligently inspect into the Revenues and Expences of the College, and see that once a Year at least a full Account be perfected of all Receipts and Issues ; and that if there be Occasion for it, it be laid before the Visitors and Governors at their General Meeting. Whatever Business of the College requires Epistolary Commerce with any Persons, he must take Care to write it, especially to the Chancellor. He is to appoint the Times for the ordinary Meetings of himself and the MasteIrs, at which he is to preside. And to the End, that all Things past at these Meetings may be truly entered in Books by the Scribe of the Meeting, the President shall first read over 405

the Minutes, and if there be occasion, correct the Errors and Omissions : He must provide in due Time that the Edifices be duly kept up and repaired. And that the Visitors and Governors of the College may be the better informed of every thing relating to it, let the President be always allowed to be, and accordingly let him be present at all their Meetings and Councils. Let the President's yearly Salary be Two Hundred Pounds Sterling, with an House and Garden suitable to the Place, so soon as the College Revenues will bear all these Expences.

Of the ordinary Government of the College.

LET the ordinary Government of the College be in the President and the Six Masters, viz. the Two Professors of Divinity ; and the Two Professors of Philosophy, and the Master of the Grammar School, and the Master of the Indian School. Let the Power of calling, proroguing, and dismissing this Sort of Meetings be in the President. As to the Business to be treated of in these Meetings, in the first Place it must be their Care that all the Statutes of the College be diligently put in Execution. If any of the Statutes are found to be inconvenient, so as to want to be amended or changed, let them modestly propose all such desired Amendments to the General Meeting of the Visitors and Governors, and submit them to their Deliberation. Let all complaints and Grievances, which the Masters in their particular Schools cannot redress, be brought first to the President, and by him to the Meeting of the Masters. To this Meeting belongs the Election and Nomination of all Officers that are necessary or requisite for the College Business, such as the Usher in the Grammar School, the Bursar, the Library-keeper, the Janitor, the Cook, the Butler, and Gardener, the Writing-master, the Workmen for building or repairing; Bailiffs and Overseers. But in lesser Matters the President's Order by Word of Mouth may suffice. If any of the Statutes are not backed and fortified with due Penalties and Mulcts, the setting of such Mulcts and Penalties is referred to this Meeting of the President and Masters. Let all things in this Meeting, if possible, be transacted unanimously; if that cannot be, let the Decision be by Plurality of Votes. If the Votes are equal, the Side on which the President is, shall be taken for the major Part. In all Business of great Weight and Consequence especially if the President and Masters cannot agree, let the College Senate, consisting of the Visitors and Governors, be consulted ; and by their Determination let all the greater Differences be decided. For avoiding the Danger of Heresy, Schism, and Disloyalty, let the President and Masters, before they enter upon these Offices, give their Assent to the Articles of the Christian Faith, in the same Manner, and in the same Words, as the Ministers in England, by Act of Parliament are obliged to sign the Articles of the Church of England. And in the same Manner too they shall take the Oaths of Allegiance to the King or Queen of England. And further, they shall take an Oath that they will faithfully discharge their Office, according to the College Statutes, before the President and Masters, upon the Holy Evangelists. All this under the Penalty of being deprived of their Office and Salary.

406

Of the Scholars.

THERE are Two Sorts of Scholars ; one is of them who are maintained at their own Charge, and pay School Wages in the Schools where the Masters are allowed to take Wages as above; the other Sort is of those who are maintained at the College's Charge. As to the First Sort of Scholars, we leave their Parents and Guardians at Liberty whether they shall lodge and eat within the College or elsewhere in the Town, or any Country Village near the Town. For it being our Intention that the Youth, with as little charge as they can, should learn the learned Languages and the other liberal Arts and Sciences : If any have their Houses so near the College, that from thence the College Bells can be heard, and the public Hours of Study be duly observed, we would not by these our Statutes hinder them from boarding their own Children, or their Friends, or from lodging them at their own Houses. Nevertheless we hope that all Things relating to the Table or Lodging will be so well supplied within the College, that they can be no where cheaper or better accomodated. Let the spare Chambers of the College, over and above what are necessary for the President and Masters, and other Officers of the College, be let out at moderate Rents to the better Sort of the big Boys; and let the Money they yield be laid out in the Reparation of the Edifices of the College. Out of the Scholars let there be chosen to be put upon the Foundation, as many as the College can maintain out of the Funds allotted for that Purpose. And let them be thereafter diligently instructed and maintained, till they are put in Orders, and preferred to some Place and Office in the. Church. The Election of this Sort of Scholars let it be in the Visitors ; and in that Election let them chiefly regard, besides their Poverty, their Ingeniousness, Learning, Piety, and good Behaviour, as to their Morals. And the more any one of the Candidates excells in these Things, he has so much the better Title to be preferred; and let him be preferred accordingly.

Of the College Bursar or Treasurer.

BECAUSE the Circumstances of the College in this its Infancy, will not as yet admit of many Officers, who perhaps when it comes to be richer in Revenues, and has a greater Number of Students, will become necessary: Therefore referring the Rules concerning the Butler, Cook, Janitor, Library-keeper, Gardener, and other Officers, to the President and Masters, who are to direct their Offices and Salaries, as the College shall find them useful and necessary; we shall only at present lay down some Rules concerning the Bursar or College Treasurer. It belongs to the Bursar timely and diligently to gather in all the College Revenues, or whatever else is due to it ; and to keep the Money in a strong Chest. Likewise to pay to the President, Masters, or Professors, and the Foundation Scholars their several Salaries, and to pay all other College Debts and Expences honestly, and in due Time ; and to take Discharges and Receipts for every Thing. Let the Accounts of all Incomes and Disbursements be exactly entered in Account Books ; and after they are audited and examined once in Half a Year by the President and 407

Masters, that Examination, and their Discharge shall be entered in the same Count- Books, signed by the President's and Masters' Names. Let the President and Masters from Time to Time chuse a Man fit for this Business, such a one as is responsible, and well able to pay, and who shall likewise give good Security. For Salary he shall have whatever the Meeting of the Visitors shall think reasonable, according to the Trouble and Desert of each Bursar, besides his Expences in suing at Law for any Debts due the College, or any other Charges he has been out in Horses and Messages, or in recovering the College Dues, or carrying the Money from Maryland, or any other very remote Place. Of the Terms to be kept.

LET there be Three Terms for opening the Grammar and the Indian School. Let Hilary Term begin the first Monday after Epiphany, and end on Saturday before Palm-Sunday. Let Easter Term begin on Monday after the First Sunday after Easter; and let it end in the Eve of the Sunday before Whit-Sunday. Let Trinity Term begin on Monday after Trinity Sunday; and end on the Sixteenth Day of December. Let the other Schools observe the same Terms ; except only, that to the Philosophy and Divinity Schools we grant Vacation from St. James's Day to St. Luke's. And because by frequent Examination the Studies of Scholars are much promoted, we appoint that in the Beginning of every Term the Scholars of all the Schools and the several Classes in them should be examined in Public, in the public Hall, what Progress they have made in the Knowledge of those Languages and Arts in which they have been studying or should have studied. Let the Examiners be the President and Masters; and likewise the Ministers, or any other learned Men that please to afford their Company at these Examinations. For as much as the yearly Income of the of the College at present is so small, that it cannot answer all the above appointed Salaries, and the other Things that there will be Occasion to expend ; many Things are from Time to Time to be left to the Discretion of the Governors of the College ; that according to the Circumstances of the College, for the Time being, they may entirely cut off some Salaries, particularly those of the Hebrew Professor, and the Usher of the Grammar School ; and for a Time may lessen the Salaries of some other Professors and Masters, in Proportion to their Service and Residence. But when the College Revenues increase, and will bear it, they are all to be fully and timely paid. We the Subscribers James Blair, and Stephen Fouace, Clerks, being the major Part of the surviving Trustees for the College of William and Mary, in Virginia, having considered the necessity there was to make Statutes for the good Government of the said College, do approve and confirm the aforesaid Statutes contained in the Twelve* above written Pages; and appoint them to be passed under the College Seal. Reserving notwithstanding the Power given by the Charter to the Visitors and Governors of the same College, namely, that proceeding regularly they may add new Statutes, or may even change these, as their Affairs and Circumstances from Time to Time shall require. As to which nevertheless, especially in the arduous Affairs of great Weight and Moment, we are of Opinion that the Chancellor's Advice should be first taken.

408

Dated at London, the 24th Day of June, in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Seven. Stephen Fouace. James Blair. The following Regulations made by the Visitors were ordered to be printed immediately after the Satutes [sicl. T HAT all the Masters resident at the College do attend their respective Schools Day by Day (the usual Holidays and Vacation Times excepted.) And that the Divinity Professor do reside in the College. II. That the President and Masters be directed to keep up a strict Discipline among the Scholars. III. That no Repairs be made without the Consent of the President and Masters, and a Warrant to the Bursar for defraying the Charge thereof ; Nor any Invoices made out without the like Consent. IV. That each of the Masters, and Usher, do provide Firing and Candles for their Chambers, at their own Expence. That they respectively pay Fifty Shillings per Annum for their Washing, if they wash in the College. That the Masters and Scholars keeping waiting Boys pay Five Pounds per Annum for their Board. V. That for the future, if the Masters desire hot Suppers, they shall provide them at their own Expence. VI. That the President and Masters take Care to provide proper Quantities of Wheat and Corn, at such Seasons when they may be purchased upon the easiest Terms, and that only one Sort of Bread be used for the Masters and Scholars. VII. That one of the Masters, or the Usher, be always present with the Boys at Breakfast and Supper. *The original is in twelve great sheets, under the College seal.

FINIS.

409

APPENDIX E, WORD LIST

Advocate Works to protect the right of others.

Church Officer Holds a position with the Parish Church.

College President Responsible to the Senate/Board of Visitors for the finances and watching over the faculty, but had limited powers that related to the domestic affairs of the college as could be described of a superintendent (Cutts, 1935). Commonwealth The name Commonwealth was used for the new government when the constitution was adopted on June 29, 1776. Civic Servant Holds a position with the county government.

Colony/Dominion The official name of the government during colonial times. of Virginia Craftsman An artesian who works with tools to produce a product.

Creek “The term “creek” was used by the early settlers in the old English sense, and meant to them not a large brook or small river flowing into another body of water, but rather an arm of the sea making into the land”(WMQ 14,4 (Oct 1934), p. 340. CW&M A person who is a member of the Board of Visitors or Affiliation Governors of the College of William and Mary.

Educator A person who taught a program of study or courses at the CW&M.

Entailed Estates A legislative enactment from English law adopted by the Virginia Colony. Landed estates were held in-fee-tailed and automatically passed from father to son. No debts could be charged against entailed estates and a specific act of the Assembly was required before any portion of an estate could be sold (John, p. 41-3)

Esquire/Esq. Borrowed from the English where barristers (lawyers) were called Esquire.

Governor A person who has been elected by his peers to hold the highest office in the government of a state.

Graduate The term graduate is used for a student who completes the prescribed course of study in a college, has received a 410

baccalaureate degree from the institution and is considered an alumnus by the College.

Grammar School A school attended prior to admittance to an institution of higher education. The student was taught to conjugate Greek verbs and nouns (Chamberlain, 1900, p. 9, and Pierce, 1833, p. 42) read, speak, and write Latin in prose and verse and became proficient in the translation of classics into English.

Higher Education Higher education is schooling that resulted in a degree being granted for the accomplishment of a prescribed course of study.

Innovator A person who contributed to increased technology or expanded the economic base of a process to the benefit of the colony of Virginia.

Lawyer A person who studied the law from a distinguished jurist in the colony.

Merchant Owns, operates, or represents a mercantile firm selling goods at retail and/or wholesale prices.

Military Participates in and/or holds an officer title in the county, colonial or state military.

Minister Holds a Doctor of Divinity degree and ministers to their congregation.

Parish Office Holds an office of the Parish such as Surveyor of the Highways.

Plantation Owns and manages a plantation that is defined as an Owner independent entity providing substance and goods for the residents from their own labor and lands.

Planter Owns land, farms the land, and trades and sells to others for substance and goods.

Politician A person who hold a public office through the process of election by his peers.

President The daily running of the College was given to the President and the Masters within the power given by the Statutes. While the President 411

was a decision maker, for day-to-day affairs, the Masters participated in voting on “college officials, such as usher, writing master, bursar, librarian, janitor, cook, butler, gardener, workmen, bailiffs, and overseers. In ‘lesser matters’ the president could act alone” (Herbst, 1982, p. 35).

Professor Also called Masters, indicative of University Faculty rather than of college staff (Cutts, 1935).

Property A person who owns houses and/or lots located within a Owner recognized town. Example: Williamsburg or Yorktown.

Rector The chairman of the Board of Visitors. The distinct area as shown by a map dated 1751 prepared by Joseph

Region Fry and shown in the Appendix H of this work.

Scholars The boys of the Grammar School.

Students Those students who took the Philosophy course.

Stratum of Society A stratum of society is a layer of society that can be designated by one of two methods: socially or economically.

Tutor A tutor was a graduate, with a baccalaureate degree, whose job was to read to the junior pupils as directed by the institution’s Master or President. Harvard’s Reverend Henry Dunster first utilized the system in the colonies in 1642, taking it from the long recognized 13th Century Paris and northern European guild of masters/guild of students that was originally called universitas. Perkin explained in History of Universities, 1997, that the system evolved and was “imitated at Oxford and Cambridge” (p. 7) where many leaders and faculty for the Colonies received their education. It utilized graduates from the class of the previous years to tutor students and to give lectures or to supplement lectures of the faculty. This position was considered for its prestige, as the salary was negligible.

University In England the term University consisted of Chancellor, Masters and scholars as one corporation “and each of the colleges distinct and independent societies with their separate codes of laws. . . [and] are united by a common purpose [into to one entity]. The University is independent of the corporations of the Colleges, but the Colleges are hardly independent of the University” (Cutt, 1935, 412

p. 229)

Virginia Sir Walter Raleigh discovered the area in 1584 on his initial exploration giving it the name of Virginia after the “Virgin Queen” Elizabeth I. He attempted settlements in 1585 and 1587, the first at Roanoke Island. Neither was successful. With the defeat of the Spanish Armada by the English in 1588, Virginia was opened for permanent settlement. The London Company, headed by capitalist Sir Thomas Smythe, obtained the Charter to the area known as Virginia for the purpose of trade and settlement in 1606. Their first settlement in 1607 was at Jamestown. In 1609 a new charter was granted to the London Company that expanded the landmass to the Pacific Ocean. In 1612 when tobacco was first introduced and subsequently exported, it became the catalyst for the social and economic life. As the Colonies expanded, Maryland in 1632 and the Carolinas in 1663, the agriculture included tobacco, rice, and indigo, all of which were raised on large plantations by slaves that first arrived in 1619. The formation of government began with the first Colonial Assembly on July 30, 1619, at Jamestown, Virginia. This governmental form was nullified when the original Charter of Virginia was altered by English judicial process and the Colony became a Royal Province. This judicial move took the frame of government from the people and placed it in the hands of the English authorities through the appointment of a Governor by the King of England. However, the assembly continued to be the representative of the people (Harris, 1909).

413

APPENDIX F, LISTING OF SUBJECTS FROM THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM

& MARY

Name Dates Miscellaneous Bland, Edward 1759 – 1763

Bland, William 1758 – 1763

Burwell, Nathaniel 1759 – 1765 Son of Carter Burwell

Burwell Nathaniel 1759 – 1772 Son of Robert Burwell

Digges, Cole 1759 – 1765

Dickson, Beverly 1760 – 1764

Harrison, Benjamin 1758 – 1762 of Brandon

Johnson, James 1756 – 1762

Massie, Thomas 1759 – 1763

McClug, James 1757 – 1763

Moore, Austin 1760 – 1766

Moore, Bernard 1760 – 1769

Nelson, Hugh 1759 – 1770

Smith, Philip 1756 – 1760

John Tyler 1760-1765

414

APPENDIX G, STATISTICS AND COMPARISONS OF STUDENT COLLEGE PREPARATION AND HIGHER

EDUCATION

Name Education CW&M Grammar Age Years of CW&M Higher Age at Years of Room and Board Dates Preparation School College Education Depar- Higher Preparation ture Education Bland, Tutors 1759 to 12-16- 12.5 2.5 12-16-1760 to 12- 17 3 7-24-1760 to 12-16- Edward 1760 16-1763 1763

Bland, Tutors 7-24-1756 to 12- 13 1.5 12-16-1757 to 7- 21 5.5 7-24-1756 to 7-25- William 16-1757 25-1763 1763

Burwell, Grammar 5-7- 1759 to 3-25- 9 6 3-25-1765 to 4- 20 6 5-7-1759 to 4-24- Nathaniel School 1765 24-1766 1766; 3-25-1768 to 4- (Carter's Hill & 3-25-1765 to 4- 6-1770 & Grove) 6-1770

Burwell, Grammar 4-28-1756 to 12- 8 4.5 3-25-1763 to 3- 17 2 3-25-1763 to 3-25- Nathaniel School 16-1757; 25-1765 1765 (Burwell 2-28-1759 to 3- Bay) 25-1763

Dickson, Tutors/ None - 0 8-19-1760 to 3- 18 3.5 8-19-1760 to 3-25- Beverley Mother 25-1764 1764

Digges, Tutors 1756 – < 60 days; 11 < 60 days 2-28-1760 to 3- 21 5 2-28-1760 to 3-25- Cole Expelled 24-1765 1764

418

Name Education CW&M Grammar Age Years of CW&M Higher Age at Years of Room and Board Dates Preparation School College Education Depar- Higher Preparation ture Education Harrison, Grammar 6-7-1756 to 6-7- 13 2 6-7-1758 to 3 -25- 19 4 6-7-1756 to 3-25-1762 Benjamin School 1758 1762

Johnson, Unknown 9-5-1756 to 9-5- 13 2 9-5-1758 to 3-8- 19 3.5 9-5-1756 to 3-29- James 1758 1762 1760; 4-4- 1761 to 8- 1762 Also boarded off campus Massie, Tutors 1-16-1759 to 1- 11.5 1 4-4-1761 to 3-24- 17 2 1-16-1759 to 1-16- Thomas 16-1760 1763 1760; 4-4-1761 to 3- 24-1763

McClurg, Unknown 7-18-1756 to 10- 10 2.5 1760 to 11-29- 21 5 Boarded off campus James 4-1757; 1763; 1764 to 5-1758 to 1760 1766

Moore, Tutors 10-13-1760 to 10- 13 1 11-22-1762 to 7- 20 4 3-22-1762 to 3-25- Augustine 13-1761 31-1766 1764; Balance boarded off campus

Moore, Tutors 1-13-1760 to 10- 10 3 1764 to 3-25-1768 19 4 10-13-1760 to 10-13- Bernard 13-1761 1761; 11-22-1762 to & 11-22-1762 to 1768 1764

Nelson, Grammar 2-11-1759 to 5- 9 8 5-22-1767 to 3- 21 4 8-1760 to 3-25-1763; Hugh School 22-1767 25 - 1771 Balance boarded off campus

Smith, Grammar 6-29-1756 to 6- 10 4 None X X Boarded off campus Philip School 29-1760

419

Name Education CW&M Grammar Age Years of CW&M Higher Age at Years of Room and Board Dates Preparation School College Education Depar- Higher Preparation ture Education Tyler, John Grammar 3-25-1753 to 3- 7 2 1760 to 1764/5 20 4 Boarded off campus (The Judge) School; 25-1755 Donald Robertson's School in 1759

420

APPENDIX H, STRATUM OF SOCIETY—FATHER OF STUDENT

Student Name Craftsman Lawyer Merchant Plantation Planter

Owner

Bland, E. √ √

Bland, W. √ √

Burwell, N. (C) √

Burwell, N. (R) √

Dickson, B. √

Digges, C. √

Harrison, B. √

Johnson, J. √

Massie, T. √

McClurg, J. √

Moore, A. √

Moore, B. √

Nelson, H. √

Smith, P. √

Tyler, J. √

421

APPENDIX I, SUBJECT VITAL STATISTICS

Name Relation Parents Profession Location and Birth Death -ship County of Birth Bland, Brother Richard Bland Plantation Jordan Plantation 12-16-1746 2-5-1796/7 Edward Ann Poythress Owner Prince George County

Bland, Brother Richard Bland Plantation Jordan Plantation 12-26-1742 5-20-1803 William Ann Poythress Owner Prince George County

Burwell, Cousin Carter Burwell Plantation James City County 4-15-1750 3-29-1814 Nathaniel Lucy Grymes Owner son of Carter Burwell

Burwell, Cousin Robert Plantation Isle of Wight 1748 3-30-1802 Nathaniel Burwell Owner County son of Susan Nelson Robert Burwell

Digges, Edward Plantation Edward Digges 10-11-1744 5-20-1777 Cole Digges Owner Plantation A/K/A Ann Harrison Bellfield York County

Dickson, Nicholas Merchant Gloucester County Approx 9 - 6-1787 Beverly Dickson 8-19- 1745 (Dixon) Mary Corperew

Harrison, Nathaniel Plantation Wakefield Surry 2-13-1743 8-7-1807 Benjamin Digges Owner County & Brandon Mary Digges Prince George County

Johnson, James Johnson Plantation King William 9-1743 5-4-1820 James Sr. Owner County

Massie, William Plantation Windsor Forest 8-22-1747 2-2-1834 Thomas Massie Owner New Kent County Martha Macon

McClurg, Dr. Walter Physician Hampton 1745/1746 7-11-1823 James McClurg James City County Mother Unknown

422

Name Relation Parents Profession Location and Birth Death -ship County of Birth Moore, Brother Bernard Plantation Chelsea Abt. 1747 Before 3- Augustine Moore Owner King William 1777 (Austin) Ann Catherine County Spotswood

Moore, Brother Bernard Plantation Chelsea 1749-1750 Unknown Bernard Moore Owner King William Ann Catherine County Spotswood

Nelson, William Merchant York County 1750 10-13-1800 Hugh Nelson Yorktown Frances (Fanny) Burgess

Smith, Baldwin Plantation Fleets Bay 1746 Before Philip Mathews Owner Northumberland 1782 Smith Frances (Fanny) Burgess

Tyler, John Tyler James City 2-28-1746 1-25-1819 John (The Anne Contesse Judge)

423

APPENDIX J, TUITION SOURCES BY STUDENT AND PAST DUE IN 1778

Name Tuition Source Past Due in 1778*

Bland, Edward Parent

Bland, William Parent

Burwell, Nathaniel Parent (Carter)

Burwell, Nathaniel Parent (Robert)

Dickson, Beverley Parent £0/17/4.5

Digges, Cole Parent

Harrison, Benjamin Parent

Johnson, James Parent £64/9/3.75

Massie, Thomas Parent

McClurg, James Parent

Moore, Augustine Parent £96/14/3.5

Moore, Bernard Parent (included above)

Nelson, Hugh Parent

Smith, Philip Scholarship

John Tyler Scholarship

424

APPENDIX K, MAPS

The following map represents the location by county of each student in the study. In addition, the

CW&M is noted and the Fall Line in an effort to provide a perspective of the student at the college.

The map is by M. F. Doran, Plate 11, titled: Newly formed VA counties 1751-1760.

Doran, M. F. (1987). Atlas of county boundary changes in Virginia 1634-1895. Athens, GA:

Iberian Publishing Co.

425

426

APPENDIX K, MAPS CONTINUED

A map of the most inhabited part of Virginia containing the Province of Maryland with Part of

Pennsylvania, New Carolina, 1775. Dedicated to the Right Honorable George Dunk, Earl of

Halifax, First Lord Commissioner and to the rest of the Right Honorable Commissioners for

Trade and Plantations. This map is inscribed to their Lordships most obedient & most devoted humble servant Thos. Jefferys (Engraver, d. 1771). Publisher Sayer, Robert, 1725-1794,

Jefferson, Peter, 1708-1757 (Cartographer) and Fry, Joshus, (1700 (ca.) 1754), Cartographer.

Permission to use maps granted by the Swem Library, Special Collections, The College of

William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.

427

428

APPENDIX L, PREPARATION ENVIRONMENT FOR THE PHILOSOPHY SCHOOL

Name Preparation Grammar School Philosophy School n=9

Bland, E Tutors 2.5 3

Bland, W. Tutors 1.5 4

Dickson, B** Tutors/Mother 0 3.5

Digges, C. Tutors 0.3 < 60 days 5

Johnson, J. Tutors 2 3.5

Massie, T Tutors 1 2

McClurg Tutors 2.5 5

Moore, A Tutors 1 4

Moore, B Tutors 3 4

Tyler, J.* Tutors/Private School 2 4

Average 1.76 years 3.80 years

Name Preparation Grammar School Philosophy School

n=5 Burwell, N (C) Grammar 6 6

Burwell, N. (R) Grammar 4.5 2

Harrison, B Grammar 2 4

Nelson, H. Grammar 8 4

Smith, P.* ** Grammar 4 0

Average 4.90years 4.00 years *Tyler and Smith were foundation or scholarship students. ** Dickson did not attend Grammar School and Smith did not attend the Philosophy School.

429

APPENDIX M, CROSS-CASE COMPARISON OF STUDENT EDUCATION

Name Preparation Grammar Philosophy Masters Ancestor

Bland, E. T √ √ 0 √

Bland W. T √ √ √ √

Burwell, N. G √ √ 0 √

(C)

Burwell, N. G √ √ 0 √

(R)

Dickson, B. T 0 √ 0 0

Digges, C. T √ √ 0 √

Harrison, B. G √ √ 0 √

Johnson, J. T √ √ 0 0

Massie, T. T √ √ 0 0

McClurg, J. T √ √ 0 0

Moore, A. T √ √ 0 √

Moore, B. T √ √ 0 √

Nelson, H. G √ √ 0 √

Smith, P. G √ 0 0 0

Tyler, J. T √ √ 0 0 a T=Tutor, G=Grammar School

430

APPENDIX N, CROSS COMPARISONS: FATHER AND SONS LIFETIME

ACHIEVEMENTS

Categories Fathers Sons (Subjects)

Jobs and Careers

Businessman 1

Craftsman 1 0

Educator 1

Innovator 2

Lawyer 1 2

Merchant 2 3

Plantation Owner 7 8

Planter 4

Property Owner 1 2

Physician 1 1

Politics and Government

Civil Servant 4 4

Community Leader 1

Governor 1

Judge 2

Military 5 4

Politician 7 9

431

APPENDIX O, CROSS CASE ANALYSIS OF MILITARY CONTRIBUTIONS

COMPARING SON AND FATHER OF ALL SUBJECTS

Student Military Military Father Name Service Service

Bland, E. O Captain Militia > √ R. Bland

Bland W. √ < Minister Same

Burwell, N. √ Colonel Militia > √ C. Burwell (C) < Lt. Colonel Militia

Burwell, N. √ Colonel Militia > √ R. Burwell (R) < Artillery Regiment of the Continental Troops

Dickson, B. O O N. Dickson

Digges, C. O Lieutenant Colonel Horse & Foot > √ E. Digges

Harrison, B. √ Colonel Militia > √ N. Harrison < Lieutenant Militia

Johnson, J. O O J. Johnson

Massie, T. √ < Major/Colonel Virginia Troops O W. Massie

McClurg, J. √ British Navy Physician > √ W. McClurg < Physician & Director General of Williamsburg Hospital

Moore, A. O Colonel Militia > √ B. Moore

Moore, B. √ < Private Militia Same

Nelson, H. √ < Lieutenant Colonel O W. Nelson

Smith, P. O O B. M. Smith Tyler, J O O J. Tyler

432

APPENDIX P, ANALYSIS OF PHILOSOPHY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE DURING EMPLOYMENT PERIOD OF

DR. WILLIAM SMALL AT THE CW&M

Name 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1779 Bland, E. √ √ √ √ Bland, W. √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Burwell, √ √ √ √ √ N. (C) Burwell, √ √ √ N. (R) Digges, C. √ √ √ √ √ √ Dickson, √ √ √ √ √ B Harrison, √ √ √ √ √ B. Johnson, √ √ √ √ √ J. Massie, T. √ √ √ McClurg, √ √ √ √ √ √ √ J. Moore, A. √ √ √ √ √ Moore, B. √ √ √ √ √ Nelson, H. √ √ √ √ + 433

71 Smith, P. Tyler, J. √ √ √ √ √ √

Note: √ = Any portion of the year attended by a student in the Philosophy School is counted. √ = years in which Dr. William Small taught in the CW&M Philosophy School. P. Smith. did not attend the CW&M Philosophy School because of the illness and then death of his mother, and loss of family lands in the Robinson affair.

434

APPENDIX Q, COHORTS BY YEAR FROM 1756 TO 1760 AT THE COLLEGE

OF WILLIAM AND MARY

Name – Cohort 1756 Dates of Attendance Study Participant 1. Beverly, Henry 1756 –

2. Collier, Lachky 1756 About

3. Gist, Richard 1756 –

4. Johnson, James 1756 – 1762 Yes

5. Smith, Philip 1756 – 1760 Yes

6. Webb, John 1756 – 1757

7. West, William 1756 – 1757

435

Name – Cohort 1757 Dates of Attendance Study Participant 1. Armistead, James 1757 –

2. Aylett, John 1757 – 1758

3. Collins, Nicholson 1757 –

4. Dandridge, Nathaniel 1757 –

5. Finnie, William 1757 –

6. Harrison, Benjamin 1757 – of Wakefield

7. Lewis, Walter 1757 – 1760

8. McCarty, Daniel 1757 – 1760

9. McClug, James 1757 – 1763 Yes

10. Owen, Gronow 1757 – About

11. Owen, Robert 1757 –

12. Wallace, James 1757 –

13. Warrington, Francis 1757 –

14. Webb, William 1757 – About

436

Name – Cohort 1758 Dates of Attendance Study Participant 1. Armistead, Robert 1758 – of Gloucester

2. Binns, Charles 1758 – About

3. Bland, William 1758 – 1763 Yes

4. Diggs, Dudley 1758 –

5. Harrison, Benjamin 1758 – 1762 Yes of Brandon

6. Hornsby, Joseph 1758 –

7. Mallory, William 1758 – 1760

8. Nelson, John 1758 – 1761

437

Name – Cohort 1759 Dates of Attendance Study Participant 1. Ballard, William 1759 – 1760

2. Bland, Edward 1759 – 1763 Yes

3. Buckner, William 1759 – 1760

4. Burwell, John 1759 – 1760

5. Burwell, Nathaniel 1759 – 1765 Yes (son of Colonel Robert Burwell)

6. Burwell, Nathaniel 1759 – 1772 Yes (son of Colonel Carter Burwell)

7. Cole, William 1759 – 1760

8. Diggs, Cole 1759 – 1765 Yes

9. Diggs, William 1759 – 1760

10. Grymes, Benjamin 1759 – 1762

11. Grymes, Charles 1759 – 1762

12. Grymes, James 1759 -

13. Harrison, Burr 1759 – 1761

14. Harrison, Nathaniel 1759 – 1762 of Wakefield

15. Hollier, Simon 1759 – 1760

16. Hubard, John 1759 – 1762

17. Hubard, William 1759 – 1762

18. Massie, Thomas 1759 – 1763 Yes

438

Name – Cohort 1759 Con’t Dates of Attendance Study Participant 19. Massie, William 1759 – 1761

21. Nelson, Hugh 1759 – 1770 Yes

22. Taliaferro, William 1759 – 1760

24. Whiting, William 1759 – 1760 Yes

439

Name – Cohort of 1760 Attendance Dates Study Participant 1. Allen, Hudson 1760 – 1762

2. Ambler, Jacquelin 1760 – 1761

3. Bland, James 1760 -

4. Bland, Peter 1760 –

5. Broadnax, William 1760 – 1761

6. Cary, John 1760 – 1761

7. Cooke, Mordecai 1760 – 1762

8. Dixon, Beverley 1760 – 1764 Yes

9. Edmonds, Sterling 1760 – 1761

10. Emerson, James 1760 – 1763

11. Ewell, Jesse 1760 – 1762

12. Ewell, Thomas W. 1760 – 1761

13. Gilmer, George 1760 About

14. Harrison, Charles 1760 – 1761

15. Jefferson, Thomas 1760 – 1762

16. Jones, Walter 1760 – 1763

17. Leigh, John 1760 About

18. Meade, Everard 1760 About

19. Moore, Austin 1760 – 1766 Yes

20. Moore, Bernard 1760 – 1769 Yes

440

Name – Cohort 1760 Con’t Dates of Attendance Study Participant 21. Moseley, Bassett 1760 – 1762

22. Scott, Alex 1760 – 1761

23. Spotswood, Robert 1760 About

24. Tyler, John 1760 – 1765 About Yes

25. Westwood, William 1760 – 1761

441