The following were found in Virginia when first visited by the English; but it is not said whether of spontaneous growth or by cultivation only. Most probably they were natives of more southern climates, and handed along the continent from one nation to another of the savages.
Tobacco. Nicotiana.
Maize. Zea mays. 1
Round potatoes. 1 Solanum tuberosum.
Pumpkins. Cucurbita pepo.
Cymlings. Cucurbita verrucosa.
Squashes. Cucurbita melopepo.
There is an infinitude of other plants and flowers, for an enumeration and scientific description of which I must refer to the Flora Virginica of our great botanist Dr. Clayton, published by Gronovius at Leyden, in 1762. This accurate observer was a native and resident of this state, passed a long life in exploring and describing its plants, and is supposed to have enlarged the botanical catalogue as much as almost any man who has lived.
Besides these plants, which are native, our Farms produce wheat, rye, barley, oats, buck wheat, broomcorn, and Indian corn. 1 [69] The climate suits rice well enough, wherever the lands do. Tobacco, hemp, flax and cotton, are staple commodities. Indico yields two cuttings. The silk-worm is a native, and the mulberry, proper for its food, grows kindly.
We cultivate also potatoes, both the long and the round, turneps, carrots, parsneps, pumpkins, and ground nuts (Arachis). Our grasses are Lucerne, St. Foin, Burnet, Timothy, ray, and orchard grass; red, white and yellow clover; greenswerd, blue grass, and crab grass.
The gardens yield muskmelons, watermelons, tomatas, okra, pomegranates, figs, and the esculant plants of Europe.
The orchards produce apples, pears, cherries, quinces, peaches, nectarines, apricots, almonds, and plumbs.
Our quadrupeds have been mostly described by Linnæus and Mons. de Buffon. Of these the Mammoth, or big buffalo, as called by the Indians, must certainly have been the largest. Their tradition is that he was carnivorous, and still exists in the northern parts of America. A delegation of warriors from the Delaware tribe having visited the governor of [70] Virginia, during the present revolution, on matters of business, after these had been discussed and settled in council, the governor asked them some questions relative to their country, and among others, what they knew or had heard of the animal whose bones were found at the Saltlicks, on the Ohio. Their chief speaker immediately put himself into an attitude of oratory, and with a pomp suited to what he conceived the elevation of his subject, informed him that it was a tradition handed down from their fathers, “That in ancient times a herd of these tremendous animals came to the Bigbone licks, and began an universal destruction of the bear, deer, elks, buffaloes, and other animals which had been created for the use of the Indians; that the Great Man above, looking down and seeing this, was so enraged that he seized his lightning, descended on the earth, seated himself on a neighboring mountain, on a rock of which his seat and the print of his feet are still to be seen, and hurled his bolts among them till the whole were slaughtered, except the big bull, who presenting his forehead to the shafts shook them off as they fell; but mis-[71]sing one at length, it wounded him in the side; whereon, springing round, be bounded over the Ohio, over the Wabache, the Illinois, and finally over the great lakes, where he is living at this day.” It is well known, that on the Ohio, and in many parts of America further north, tusks, grinders, and skeletons, of unparalleled magnitude, are found in great numbers, some lying on the surface of the earth, and some a little below it. A Mr. Stanley, taken prisoner 1 near the mouth of the Tanissee, relates that, after being transferred through several tribes, from one to another, he was at length carried over the mountains west of the Missouri to a river which runs westwardly; that these bones abounded there, and that the natives described to him the animal to which they belonged as still existing in the northern parts of their country; from which description he judged it to be an elephant. Bones of the same kind have been lately found, some feet below the surface of the earth, in salines opened on the North Holston, a branch of the Tanissee, about the latitude of 36½°. north. From the accounts published in Europe, I suppose it to be decided that these are of the same [72] kind with those found in Siberia. 1 Instances are mentioned of like animal remains found in the more southern climates of both hemispheres 2 ; but they are either so loosely mentioned as to leave a doubt of the fact, so inaccurately described as not to authorize the classing them with the great northern bones, or so rare as to found a suspicion that they have been carried thither as curiosities from the northern regions. So that, on the whole, there seem to be no certain vestiges of the existence of this animal farther South than the salines just mentioned. 3 It is remarkable that the tusks and skeletons have been ascribed by the naturalists of Europe to the elephant, while the grinders have been given to the hippopotamus, or river horse. 1 Yet it is acknowledged that the tusks and skeletons are much larger than those of the elephant, and the grinders many times greater than those of the hippopotamus, and essentially different in form. Wherever these grinders are found, there also we find the tusks and skeletons; but no skeleton of the hippopotamus nor grinders of the elephant. It will not be said that the hippopotamus and elephant came always to the same spot, the former to deposit [73] his grinders, and the latter his tusks and skeleton. For what became of the parts not deposited there? We must agree then, that these remains belong to each other, that they are of one and the same animal, that this was not a hippopotamus, because the hippopotamus had no tusk nor such a frame, and because the grinders differ in their size as well as in their number and form of their points. That this was not an elephant, I think ascertained by proofs equally decisive. I will not avail myself of the authority of the celebrated 2 anatomist who, from an examination of the form and structure of the tusks, has declared they were essentially different from those of the elephant; because another 3 anatomist, equally celebrated, has declared, on a like examination, that they are precisely the same. Between two such authorities I will suppose this circumstance equivocal. But, 1. The skeleton of the Mammoth (for so the incognitum has been called) bespeaks an animal of five or six times 1 the cubic volume of the elephant, as Mons. de Buffon has ad-[74]mitted. 2 2. The grinders are five times as large, are square, and the grinding surface studded with four or five rows of blunt points: whereas those of the elephant are broad and thin, and their grinding surface flat. 3 3. I have never heard an instance, and suppose there has been none, of the grinder of an elephant being found in America. 4. From the known temperature and constitution of the elephant, he could never have existed in those regions where the remains of the mammoth have been found. The elephant is a native only of the torrid zone and its vicinities. If, with the assistance of warm appartments and warm cloathing, he has been preserved 4 in the temperate climates of Europe, it has only been for a small portion of what would have been his natural period, and no instance of his multiplication in them has ever been known. But no bones of the mammoth, as I have before observed, have been ever found further south than the salines of Holston, and they have been found as far north as the Arctic circle. Those, therefore, who are of opinion that the elephant and mammoth are the same, must believe, 1. That the elephant known to us can exist and multiply in the [75] frozen zone; or, 2. That an internal fire may once have warmed those regions, and since abandoned them, of which however the globe exhibits no unequivocal indications; or, 3. That the obliquity of the ecliptic, when these elephants lived, was so great as to include within the tropics all those regions in which the bones are found; the tropics being, as is before observed, the natural limits of habitation for the elephant. 1 But if it be admitted that this obliquity has really decreased, and we adopt the highest rate of decrease yet pretended, that is, of one minute in a century, to transfer the northern tropic to the Arctic circle, would carry the existence of these supposed elephants two hundred and fifty thousand years back; a period far beyond our conception of the duration of animal bones left exposed to the open air than these are in many instances. Besides, though these regions would then be supposed within the tropics, yet their winters would have been too severe for the sensibility of the elephant. They would have had too but one day and one night in the year, a circumstance to which we have no reason to suppose the nature of the elephant fitted. However, it has been demon-[76] strated that, if a variation of obliquity in the Ecliptic takes place at all, it is vibratory, and never exceeds the limits of 9 degrees, which is not sufficient to bring these bones within the tropics. One of these hypotheses, or some other equally voluntary and inadmissible to cautious philosophy, must be adopted to support the opinion that there are the bones of the elephant. For my own part, I find it easier to believe that an animal may have existed, resembling the elephant in his tusks, and general anatomy, while his nature was in other respects extremely different. From the 30th degree of South latitude to the 30th of North, are nearly the limits which nature has fixed for the existence and multiplication of the elephant known to us. Proceeding thence northwardly to 36½ degrees, we enter those assigned to the Mammoth. The further we advance North, the more their vestiges multiply as far as the earth has been explored in that direction; and it is as probable as otherwise, that this progression continues to the pole itself, if land extends so far. The center of the Frozen zone then may be the Achmé of of their vigour, as that of the torrid is of the elephant. Thus na-[77] ture seems to have drawn a belt of separation between these two tremendous animals, whose breadth indeed, is not precisely known, though at present we may suppose it about 6½ degrees of latitude; to have assigned to the elephant the regions South of these confines, and those North to the Mammoth, founding the constitution of the one in her extreme of heat, and that of the other in the extreme of cold. When the Creator has therefore separated their nature as far as the extent of the scale of animal life allowed to this planet would permit, it seems perverse to declare it the same, from a partial resemblance of their tusks and bones. But to whatever animal we ascribe these remains, it is certain such a one has existed in America, and that it has been the largest of all terrestrial beings. 1 It should have sufficed to have rescued the earth it inhabited, and the atmosphere it breathed, from the imputation of impotence in the conception and nourishment of animal life on a large scale: to have stifled, in its birth, the opinion of a writer, the most learned, too, of all others in the science of animal history, that in the new world, [78] “La nature vivante est beaucoup moins agissante, beaucoup moins forte 2 :” that nature is less active, less energetic on one side of the globe than she is on the other. As if both sides were not warmed by the same genial sun; as if a soil of the same chemical composition was less capable of elaboration into animal nutriment; as if the fruits and grains from that soil and sun yielded a less rich chyle, gave less extension to the solids and fluids of the body, or produced sooner in the cartilages, membranes and fibres, that rigidity which restrains all further extension, and terminates animal growth. The truth is, that a Pigmy and a Patagonian, a Mouse and a Mammoth, derive their dimensions from the same nutritive juices. The difference of increment depends on circumstances unsearchable to beings with our capacities. Every race of animals seems to have received from their maker certain laws of extension at the time of their formation. Their elaborative organs were formed to produce this, while proper obstacles were opposed to its further progress. Below these limits they cannot fall, nor rise above them. What intermediate station they shall take may de-[79] pend on soil, on climate, on food, on a careful choice of breeders. But all the manna of heaven would never raise the Mouse to the bulk of the Mammoth.
The opinion advanced by the Count de Buffon 1 is, 1. That the animals common both to the old and new world are smaller in the latter. 2. That those peculiar to the new are on a smaller scale. 3. That those which have been domesticated in both have degenerated in America: and 4. That on the whole it exhibits fewer species. And the reason he thinks is, that the heats of America are less; that more waters are spread over its surface by nature, and fewer of these drained off by the hand of man. In other words, that heat is friendly, and moisture adverse to the production and development of large quadrupeds. I will not meet this hypothesis on its first doubtful ground, whether the climate of America be comparatively more humid? Because we are not furnished with observations sufficient to decide this question. And though, till it be decided, we are as free to deny as others are to affirm the fact, yet for a moment let it be supposed. The hypothesis, after this supposition, proceeds to [79] another; that moisture is unfriendly to animal growth. The truth of this is inscrutable to us by reasonings à priori. Nature has hidden from us her modus agendi. Our only appeal on such questions is to experience; and I think that experience is against the supposition. It is by the assistance of heat and moisture that vegetables are elaborated from the elements of earth, air, water, and fire. We accordingly see the more humid climates produce the greater quantity of vegetables. Vegetables are mediately or immediately the food of every animal; and in proportion to the quantity of food, we see animals not only multiplied in their numbers, but improved in their bulk, as far as the laws of their nature will admit. Of this opinion is the Count de Buffon himself in another part of his work 1 : “en general il paroit que les pays un peu froids conviennent mieux à nos boeufs que les pays chauds, et qu’ils sont d’autant plus gros et plus grands que le climat est plus humide et plus abondans en paturages. Les boeufs de Danemacrk, de la Podolie, de l’Ukraine et de la Tartarie qu’habitent les Calmouques sont les plus grands de tous.” 1 Here then a race of animals and one [81] of the largest too, has been increased in its dimensions by cold and moisture, in direct opposition to the hypothesis, which supposes that these two circumstances diminsh animal bulk, and that it is their contraries heat and dryness which enlarge it. But when we appeal to experience, we are not to rest satisfied with a single fact. Let us, therefore, try our question on more general ground. 2 Let us take two portions of the earth, Europe and America for instance, sufficiently extensive to give operation to general causes; let us consider the circumstances peculiar to each, and observe their effect on animal nature. America, running through the torrid as well as temperate zone, has more heat collectively taken, than Europe. But Europe, according to our hypothesis, is the dryest. They are equally adapted then to animal productions; each being endowed with one of those causes which befriend animal growth, and with one which opposes it. If it be thought unequal to compare Europe with America, which is so much larger, I answer, not more so than to compare America with the whole world. Besides, the purpose of the comparison is to try an hypothesis, which [82] makes the size of animals depend on the heat and moisture of climate. If, therefore, we take a region, so extensive as to comprehend a sensible distinction of climate, and so extensive too as that local accidents, or the intercourse of animals on its borders, may not materially affect the size of those in its interior parts, we shall comply with those conditions which the hypothesis may reasonably demand. The objection would be the weaker in the present case, because any intercourse of animals which may take place on the confines of Europe and Asia, is to the advantage of the former, Asia producing certainly larger animals than Europe. Let us then take a comparative view of the Quadrupeds of Europe and America, presenting them to the eye in three different tables, in one of which shall be enumerated those found in both countries; in a second, those found in one only; in a third, those which have been domesticated in both. To facilitate the comparison, let those of each table be arranged in gradation according to their sizes, from the greatest to the smallest, so far as their sizes can be conjectured. The weights [83] of the large animals shall be expressed in the English avoirdupoise pound and its decimals; those of the smaller, in the same ounce and its decimals. Those which are marked thus*, are actual weights of particular subjects, deemed among the largest of their species. Those marked thus†, are furnished by judicious persons, well acquainted with the species, and saying, from conjecture only, what the largest individual they had seen would probably have weighed. The other weights are taken from Messrs. Buffon and D’Aubenton, and are of such subjects as came casually to their hands for dissection. This circumstance must be remembered where their weights and mine stand opposed; the latter being stated not to produce a conclusion in favor of the American species, but to justify a suspension of opinion until we are better informed, and a suspicion, in the meantime, that there is no uniform difference in favor of either; which is all I pretend. [84]
A comparative View of the Quadrupeds of Europe and of America
I. ABORIGINALS OF BOTH
Europe lb. | America lb. | |
---|---|---|
1 “Original moose palmated” in edition of 1853. | ||
Mammoth | ||
Buffalo. Bison | *1800 | |
White Bear. Ours blanc | ||
Carribou. Renne | ||
Bear. Ours | 153.7 | *410 |
Elk. Elan. Original palmated 1 | ||
Red deer. Cerf | 288.8 | *273 |
Fallow Deer. Daim | 167.8 | |
Wolf. Loup | 69.8 | |
Roe. Chevreuil | 56.7 | |
Glutton. Glouton. Carcajou | ||
Wild Cat. Chat sauvage | †30 | |
Lynx. Loup cervier | 25. | |
Beaver. Castor | 18.5 | *45 |
Badger. Blaireau | 13.6 | |
Red fox. Renard | 13.5 | |
Gray fox. Isatis | ||
Otter. Loutre | 8.9 | †12 |
Monax. Marmotte | 6.5 | |
Vison. Fouine | 2.8 | |
Hedgehog. Herisson | 2.2 | |
Marten. Marte | 1.9 | †6 |
oz. | ||
Water rat. Rat d’eau | 7.5 | |
Weasel. Belette | 2.2 | |
oz. | ||
Flying squirrel. Polatouche | 2.2 | †4 |
Shrew mouse Musaraigne | 1. | [85] |
II. ABORIGINALS OF ONE ONLY
europe. | america. | ||
---|---|---|---|
lb. | lb. | ||
2 In the edition of 1853 is a footnote: “There exists in the Western and mountainous parts of Pennsylvania an animal which seems to be nearer the hare than our whabus. The meat is black, and an individual weighed 39½ oz. avoird. while the whabus is an animal of white meat, and weight about 29 oz.; the fur of the former is white as is the case with most animals in countries abounding with snow.” | |||
Sanglier. Wild boar | 280. | Tapir | 534. |
Mouflon. Wild Sheep | 56. | Elk, round horned | †450. |
Bouquetin. Wild goat | Puma | ||
Lievre. Hare 2 | 7.6 | Jaguar | 218. |
Lapin. Rabbit | 3.4 | Cabiai | 109. |
Putois. Polecat | 3.3 | Tamanoir | 109. |
Genette | 3.1 | Tammandua | 65.4 |
Desman. Muskrat | oz. | Cougar of North-America | 75. |
Ecureuil. Squirrel | 12. | Cougar of South-America | 59.4 |
Hermine. Ermin | 8.2 | Ocelot | |
Rat. Rat | 7.5 | Pecari | 46.3 |
Loirs | 3.1 | Jaguaret | 43.6 |
Lerot. Dormouse | 1.8 | Alco | |
Taupe. Mole | 1.2 | Lama | |
Hampster | .9 | Paco | |
Zisel | Paca | 32.7 | |
Leming | Serval | ||
Souris. Mouse | .6 | Sloth. Unau | 27.½ |
Saricovienne | |||
Kincajou | |||
Tatou Kabassou | 21.8 | ||
Urson. Urchin | |||
Raccoon. Raton | 16.5 | ||
Coati | |||
Coendou | 16.3 | ||
Sloth. Ai | 13. | ||
Sapajou Ouarini | |||
Sapajou Coaita | 9.8 | ||
Tatou Encubert | |||
Tatou Apar | |||
Tatou Cachica | 7. | ||
Little Coendou | 6.5 | ||
Opossum. Sarigue | [86] | ||
Tapeti | |||
Margay | |||
Crabier | |||
Agouti | 4.2 | ||
Sapajou Sai | 3.5 | ||
Tatou Cirquinçon | |||
Tatou Tatouate | 3.3 | ||
Mouffette Squash | |||
Mouffette Chinche | |||
Mouffette Conepate | |||
Scunk | |||
Mouffette. Zorilla | |||
Whabus. Hare. Rabbit. | |||
Aperea | |||
Akouchi | |||
Ondatra. Muskrat | |||
Pilori | |||
Great gray squirrel | †2.7 | ||
Fox squirrel of Virginia | †2.625 | ||
Surikate | 2. | ||
Mink | †2. | ||
Sapajou. Sajou | 1.8 | ||
Indian pig. Cochon d’Inde. | 1.6 | ||
Sapajou Saïmiri | 1.5 | ||
Phalanger | |||
Coqualain | |||
Lesser gray squirrel | †1.5 | ||
Black squirrel | †1.5 | ||
Red squirrel | 10. oz. | ||
Sagoin Saki | |||
Sagoin Pinche | [87] | ||
Sagoin Tamarin | oz. | ||
Sagoin Ouistiti | 4.4 | ||
Sagoin Marakine | |||
Sagoin Mico | |||
Cayopollin | |||
Fourmillier | |||
Marmose | |||
Sarigue of Cayenne | |||
Tucan | |||
Red Mole | oz. | ||
Ground squirrel | 4. |
III. DOMESTICATED IN BOTH
Europe. lb. | America. lb. | |
---|---|---|
Cow | 763. | *2500 |
Horse | *1366 | |
Ass | ||
Hog | *1200 | |
Sheep | *125 | |
Goat | *80 | |
Dog | 67.6 | |
Cat | 7. | [88] |
I have not inserted in the first table the Phoca, 1 nor leather-winged bat, because the one living half the year in the water, and the other being a winged animal, the individuals of each species may visit both continents.
Of the animals in the 1st table, Mons de Buffon himself informs us [XXVII. 130, XXX. 213,] that the beaver, the otter, and shrew mouse, though of the same species, are larger in America than Europe. This should therefore have corrected the generality of his expressions XVIII. 145, and elsewhere, that the animals common to the two countries, are considerably less in America than in Europe, ‘et cela sans aucune exception.’ He tells us too, [ Quadrup. VIII. 334, edn. Paris 1777] that on examining a bear from America, he remarked no differ-[89]ence, “dans la forme de cet ours d’Amerique comparé a celui d’Europe,” but adds from Bartram’s journal, that an American bear weighed 400 lb. English, equal to 367 lb, French; whereas we find the European bear examined by Mons. Daubenton, [XVII. 82,] weighed but 141 lb. French. That 1 the palmated Elk is larger in America than in Europe, we are informed by Kalm. 2 a Naturalist, who visited the former by public appointment, for the express purpose of examining the subjects of natural history. In this fact Pennant concurs with him. [Barrington’s Miscellanies. ] The same Kalm tells us 1 that the Black Moose, or Renne of America, is as high as a tall horse; and Catesby, 2 that it is about the bigness of a middle sized ox. The same account of their size has been given me by many who have seen them. But Mons. Daubenton says 3 that the Renne of Europe is about the size of a Red-Deer. The Wesel is larger in America than in Europe, as may be seen by comparing its dimensions as reported by Mons. Daubenton 4 and Kalm. The latter tells us, 5 that the Lynx badger, Red fox, and Flying squirrel, are the same in America as in Europe; by [90] which expression I understand, they are the same in all material circumstances, in size as well as others: for if they were smaller, they would differ from the European. Our gray fox is, by Catesby’s account, 6 little different in size and shape from the European fox. I presume he means the red fox of Europe, as does Kalm, where he says 7 that in size ‘they do not quite come up to our foxes.’ For, proceeding next to the red fox of America, he says, ‘they are entirely the same with the European sort.’ Which shows he had in view one European sort only, which was the red. So that the result of their testimony is, that the American gray fox is somewhat less than the European red; which is equally true of the gray fox of Europe, as may be seen by comparing the measures of the Count de Buffon and Mons. Daubenton. 1 The white bear of America is as large as that of Europe. The bones of the Mammoth which has been found in America, are as large as those found in the old world. It may be asked, why I insert the Mammoth, as if it still existed? I ask in return, why I should omit it, as if it did not exist? Such is the economy of nature, that [91] no instance can be produced, of her having permitted any one race of her animals to become extinct; of her having formed any link in her great work so weak as to be broken. To add to this, the traditionary testimony of the Indians, that this animal still exists in the northern and western parts of America, would be adding the light of a taper to that of the meridian sun. Those parts still remain in their aboriginal state, unexplored and undisturbed by us, or by others for us. He may as well exist there now, as he did formerly where we find his bones. If he be a carnivorous animal, as some Anatomists have conjectured, and the Indians affirm, his early retirement may be accounted for from the general destruction of the wild game by the Indians, which commences in the first instance of their connection with us, for the purpose of purchasing matchcoats, hatchets, and firelocks, with their skins. There remain then the 2 buffalo, red deer, fallow deer, wolf, roe, 3 glutton, wild cat, monax, vison, hedgehog, marten, and water rat, of the comparative sizes of which we have not sufficient testimony. It does not appear that Messrs de Buffon and [92] Daubenton have measured, weighed, or seen those of America. It is said of some of them, by some travellers, that they are smaller than the European. But who were these travellers? Have they not been men of a very different description from those who have laid open to us the other three quarters of the world? Was natural history the object of their travels? Did they measure or weigh the animals they speak of? or did they not judge of them by sight, or perhaps even from report only? Were they acquainted with the animals of their own country, with which they undertake to compare them? Have they not been so ignorant as often to mistake the species? 1 A true answer to these questions would probably lighten their authority, so as to render it insufficient for the foundation of an hypothesis. How unripe we yet are, for an accurate comparison of the animals of the two countries, will appear from the work of Mons. de Buffon. The ideas we should have formed of the sizes of some animals, from the information he had received at his first publications concerning them, are very dif-[93]erent from what his subsequent communications give us. And indeed his candor in this can never be too much praised. One sentence of his book must do him immortal honour. ‘J’aime autant une personne qui me releve d’une erreur, qu’une autre qui m’apprend une verité, parce qu’en effet une erreur corrigée est une verité.’ 1 He seems to have thought the cabiai he first examined wanted little of its full growth. ‘Il n’etoit pas encore tout-a-fait adulte.’ 2 Yet he weighed but 46½ lb., and he found afterwards, 3 that these animals, when full grown, weigh 100 lb. He had supposed, from the examination of a jaguar, 4 said to be two years old, which weighed but 16 lb. 12 oz., that when he should have acquired his full growth, he would not be larger than a middle-sized dog. But a subsequent account 5 raises his weight to 200 lb. Further information will, doubtless, produce further corrections. The wonder is, not that there is yet something in this great work to correct, but that there is so little. The result of this view then is, that of 26 quadrupeds common to both countries, 7 are said to be larger in America, 7 of equal [94] size, and 12 not sufficiently examined. So that the first table impeaches the first member of the assertion, that of the animals common to both countries, the American are smallest, “et cela sans aucune exception.” It shows it is not just, in all the latitude in which its author has advanced it, and probably not to such a degree as to found a distinction between the two countries.
Proceeding to the second table, which arranges the animals found in one of the two countries only, Mons. de Buffon observes, that the tapir, the elephant of America, is but of the size of a small cow. To preserve our comparison, I will add, that the wild boar, the elephant of Europe, is little more than half that size. I have made an elk with round or cylindrical horns an animal of America, and peculiar to it; because I have seen many of them myself, and more of their horns; and because I can say, from the best information, that, in Virginia, this kind of elk has abounded much, and still exists in smaller numbers; and I could never learn that the palmated kind had been seen here at all. 1 I suppose this confined to the [95] more northern latitudes. 2 I have made our hare or rabbit peculiar, believing it to be [96] different from both the European animals of [97] those denominations, and calling it therefore by its Algonquin name, Whabus, to keep it distinct from these. Kalm is of the same opinion. 1 I have enumerated the squirrels according to our own knowledge, derived from daily sight of them, because I am not able to reconcile with that the European appellations and descriptions. I have heard of other species, but they have never come within my own notice. These, I think, are the only instances in which I have departed from the authority of Mons. de Buffon in the construction of this table. I take him for my ground work, because I think him the best informed of any Naturalist who has ever written. The result is, that there are 18 quadrupeds peculiar to Europe; more than four times as many, to wit. 74 peculiar to America; that the 1 first of these 74 weighs [97] more than the whole column of Europeans; and consequently this second table disproves the second member of the assertion, that the animals peculiar to the new world are on a smaller scale, so far as that assertion relied on European animals for support; and it is in full opposition to the theory which makes the animal volume to depend on the circumstances of heat and moisture.
The IIId. table comprehends those quadrupeds only which are domestic in both countries. That some of these, in some parts of America, have become less than their orignial stock, is doubtless true; and the reason is very obvious. In a thinly-peopled country, the spontaneous productions of the forests, and waste fields, are sufficient to support indifferently the domestic animals of the farmer, with a very little aid from him, in the se-[99]verest and scarcest season. He therefore finds it more convenient to receive them from the hand of nature in that indifferent state, than to keep up their size by a care and nourishment which would cost him much labour. If, on this low fare, these animals dwindle, it is no more than they do in those parts of Europe where the poverty of the soil, or the poverty of the owner, reduces them to the same scanty subsistence. It is the uniform effect of one and the same cause, whether acting on this or that side of the globe. It would be erring, therefore, against this rule of philosophy, which teaches us to ascribe like effects to like causes, should we impute this diminution of size in America to any imbecility or want of uniformity in the operations of nature. It may be affirmed with truth, that, in those countries, and with those individuals in America, where necessity or curiosity has produced equal attention, as in Europe, to the nourishment of animals, the horses, cattle, sheep, and hogs, of the one continent are as large as those of the other. There are particular instances, well attested, where individuals of this country have imported good breeders from England, and have [100] improved their size by care in the course of some years. To make a fair comparison between the two countries, it will not answer to bring together animals of what might be deemed the middle or ordinary size of their species; because an error in judging of that middle or ordinary size, would vary the result of the comparison. Thus Monsieur Daubenton 1 considers a horse of 4 feet five inches high and 400 lb. weight French, equal to 4 feet 8.6 inches and 436 lb. English, as a middle-sized horse. Such a one is deemed a small horse in America. The extremes must therefore be resorted to. The same anatomist 1 dissected a horse of 5 feet 9 inches height, French measure, equal to 6 feet 1.7 English. This is near 6 inches higher than any horse I have seen: and could it be supposed that I had seen the largest horses in America, the conclusion would be, that ours have diminished, or that we have bred from a smaller stock. In Connecticut and Rhode Island, where the climate is favorable to the production of grass, bullocks have been slaughtered which weighed 2500, 2200, and 2100 lb. nett: and those of 1800 lbs. have been [101] frequent. I have seen a hog 2 weigh 1050 lb. after the blood, bowels, and hair had been taken from him. Before he was killed, an attempt was made to weigh him with a pair of steel-yards, graduated to 1200 lb. but he weighed more. Yet this hog was probably not within fifty generations of the European stock. I am well informed of another which weighed 1100 lb. gross. Asses have been still more neglected than any other domestic animal in America. They are neither fed or housed in the most rigorous season of the year. Yet they are larger than those measured by Mons. Daubenton 3 of 3 feet 7¼ inches, 3 feet 4 inches, and 3 feet 2½ inches, the latter weighing only 215.8 lb. These sizes, I suppose, have been produced by the same negligence in Europe, which has produced a like diminution here. Where care has been taken of them on that side of the water, they have been raised to a size bordering on that of the horse; not by the heat and dryness of the climate, but by good food and shelter. Goats have been also much [102] neglected in America. Yet they are very prolific here, bearing twice or three times a year, and from one to five kids at a birth. Mons. de Buffon has been sensible of a difference in this circumstance in favour of America. 1 But what are their greatest weights, I cannot say. A large sheep here weighs 100 lb. I observe Mons. Daubenton calls a ram of 62 lb. one of the middle size. 2 But to say what are the extremes of growth in these and the other domestic animals of America, would require information of which no one individual is possessed. 3 The weights actually known and stated in the third table preceding will suffice to show, that we may conclude on probable grounds, that, with equal food and care, the climate of America will preserve the races of domestic animals as large as the European stock from which they are derived; and, consequently, that the third member of Mons. de Buffon’s assertion that the domestic animals are subject to degeneration from the climate of America, is as probably wrong as the first and second were certainly so.
That the last part of it is erroneous, which affirms that the species of American quadru-[103] peds are comparatively few, is evident from the tables taken together. By these it appears that there are an hundred species aboriginal in America. Mons. de Buffon supposes about double that number existing on the whole earth. 1 Of these Europe, Asia, and Africa, furnish suppose 126; that is, the 26 common to Europe and America, and about 100 which are not in America at all. The American species, then, are to those of the rest of the earth, as 100 to 126, or 4 to 5. But the residue of the earth being double the extent of America, the exact proportion would have been but as 4 to 8.
Hitherto I have considered this hypothesis as applied to brute animals only, and not in its extension to the man of America, whether aboriginal or transplanted. 2 It is the opinion of Mons. de Buffon that the former furnishes no exception to it. 3
‘Quoique le sauvage du nouveau monde soit à-peu-près de même stature que l’homme de notre monde, cela ne suffit pas pour qu’il puisse faire une exception au fait général du rapetissement de la nature vivante dans tout ce continent: le sauvage est foible petit par les organes de la génération; il n’a ni poil, ni barbe, [104] nulle ardeur pour sa femelle; quoique plus léger que l’Européen, parce qu’il a plus d’habitude à courir, il est cependant beaucoup moins fort de corps; il est aussi bien moins sensible, cependant plus craintif et plus lâche; il n’a nulle vivacité, nulle activité dans l’ame; celle du corps est moins un exercice, un mouvement volontaire qu’une nécessité d’action causée par le besoin; ôtez lui la faim et la soif, vous détruirez en même temps le principe actif de tous ses mouvemens; il demeurera stupidement en repos sur ses jambes ou couché pendant des jours entiers. Il ne faut pas aller chercher plus loin la cause de la vie dispersée des sauvages de leur éloignement pour la société: la plus précieuse étincelle du feu de la nature leur a été refusée; ils manquent d’ardeur pour leur femelle, par consequent d’amour pour leurs semblables; ne connoissant pas l’attachment le plus vif, le plus tendre de tous, leurs autres sentimens de ce genre, sont froids languissans; ils aiment foiblement leurs pères et leurs enfans; la société la plus intime de toutes, celle de la même famille n’a donc chez eux que de foibles liens; la société d’une famille à l’autre n’en a point du tout; dès lors nulle réu-[105]nion, nulle république, nulle état social. La physique de l’amour fait chez eux le moral des mœurs; leur cœur est glacé, leur société froide leur empire dur. Ils ne regardent leurs femmes que comme des servantes de peine ou des bêtes de somme qu’ils chargent, sans ménagement, du fardeau de leur chasse qu’ils forcent, sans pitié, sans reconnoissance, à des ouvrages qui souvent sont au dessus de leurs forces; ils n’ont que peu d’enfans; ils en ont peu de soin; tout se ressent de leur premier défaut; ils sont indifférents parce qu’ils sont peu puissans, cette indifférence pour le sexe est la tâche originelle qui flétrit la nature, qui l’empêche de s’épanouir, qui détruisant les germes de la vie, coupe en même temps la racine de la société. L’homme ne fait donc point d’exception ici. La nature en lui refusant les puissances de l’amour l’a plus maltraité et plus rapetissé qu’aucun des animaux.’
An afflicting picture, indeed, which for the honor of human nature, I am glad to believe has no original. Of the Indian of South America I know nothing; for I would not honor with the appellation of knowledge, what I derive from the fables published of them. These I believe [106] to be just as true as the fables of Æsop. This belief is founded on what I have seen of man, white, red, and black, and what has been written of him by authors, enlightened themselves, and writing among an enlightened people. The Indian of North America being more within our reach, I can speak of him somewhat from my own knowledge, but more from the information of others better acquainted with him, and on whose truth and judgment I can rely. From these sources I am able to say, in contradiction to this representation, 1 that he is neither more defective in ardor, nor more impotent with his female, than the white reduced to the same diet and exercise; that he is brave, when an enterprise depends on bravery 2 ; education with him making the point of honor consist in the destruction of an enemy by strategem, and in the preservation of his own person free from injury; or, perhaps, this is nature, while it is education which teaches us to 1 honor force more than [107] finesse; that he will defend himself against a host of enemies, always choosing to be killed, rather than to surrender, 2 though it [108] be to the whites, who he knows will treat him well; that in other situations, also, he meets death with more deliberation, and endures tortures with a firmness unknown almost to religious enthusiasm with us; that he is affectionate to his children, careful of them, and indulgent in the extreme; that his affections comprehend his other connections, [109] weakening, as with us, from circle to circle, as they recede from the centre; that his friendships are strong and faithful to the uttermost 1 extremity; that his sensibility is keen, even the warriors weeping most bitterly on the loss of their children, though in general they endeavor to appear superior to human events; that his vivacity and activity [110] of mind is equal to ours in the same situation; hence his eagerness for hunting, and for games of chance. The women are submitted to unjust drudgery. This I believe is the case with every barbarous people. With such, force is law. The stronger sex therefore imposes on the weaker. It is civilization alone which replaces women in the enjoyment of their natural equality. That first teaches us to subdue the selfish passions, and to respect those rights in others which we value in ourselves. Were we in equal barbarism, our females would be equal drudges. The man with them is less strong than with us, but their woman stronger than ours; and both for the same obvious reason; because our man and their woman is habituated to labor, and formed by it. With both races the sex which is indulged with ease is the least athletic. An Indian man is small in the hand and wrist, for the same reason for which a sailor is large and strong in the arms and shoulders, and a porter in the legs and thighs. They raise fewer children than we do. The causes of this are to be found, not in a difference of nature, but of circumstance. The women very frequently attending the men in [111] their parties of war and of hunting, child-bearing becomes extremely inconvenient to them. It is said, therefore, that they have learned the practice of procuring abortion by the use of some vegetable; and that it even extends to prevent conception for a considerable time after. 1 During these parties they are exposed to numerous hazards, to excessive exertions, to the greatest extremities of hunger. Even at their homes the nation depends for food, through a certain part of every year, on the gleanings of the forest; that is, they experience a famine once in every year. With all animals, if the female be illy fed, or not fed at all, her young perish; and if both male and female be reduced to like want, generation becomes less active, less productive. To the obstacles, then, of want and hazard, which nature has opposed to the multiplication of wild animals, for the purpose of restraining their numbers within certain bounds, those of labour and of voluntary abortion are added with the Indian. No wonder, then, if they multiply less than we do. Where food is regularly supplied, a single farm will show more of cattle, than a whole country of forests can of buffalos. The [112] same Indian women, when married to white traders, who feed them and their children plentifully and regularly, who exempt them from excessive drudgery, who keep them stationary and unexposed to accident, produce and raise as many children as the white women. 1 Instances are known, under these circumstances, of their rearing a dozen children. An inhuman practice once prevailed in this country, of making slaves of the Indians. 2 It is a fact well known with us, that the Indian women so enslaved produced and raised as numerous families as either the whites or blacks among whom they lived. It has been said that Indians have less hair than the whites, except on the head. But this is a fact of which fair proof can scarcely be had. 3 With them it is disgraceful to be hairy on the body. They say it likens them to hogs. They therefore pluck the hair as fast as it appears. But the traders who marry their women, and prevail on them to discontinue this practice, say, that nature is the same with them as with the whites. Nor, if the fact be true, is the consequence necessary which has been drawn from it. Negroes have notoriously less hair than the [113] whites; yet they are more ardent. But if cold and moisture be the agents of nature for diminishing the races of animals, how comes she all at once to suspend their operation as to the physical man of the new world, whom the Count acknowledges to be ‘à peu près de même stature que l’homme de notre monde,’ and to let loose their influence on his moral faculties? How has this ‘combination of the elements and other physical causes, so contrary to the enlargement of animal nature in this new world, these obstacles to the development and formation of great germs,’ 1 been arrested and suspended, so as to permit the human body to acquire its just dimensions, and by what inconceivable process has their action been directed on his mind alone? To judge of the truth of this, to form a just estimate of their genius and mental powers, more facts are wanting, and great allowance to be made for those circumstances of their situation which call for a display of particular talents only. This done, we shall probably find that they are formed in mind as well as body, on the same [114] module with the 2 ‘Homo sapiens Europæus.’ The principles of their society forbidding all compulsion, they are to be led to duty and to enterprise by personal influence and persuasion. Hence eloquence in council, bravery and address in war, become the foundations of all consequence with them. To these acquirements all their faculties are directed. Of their bravery and address in war we have multiplied proofs, because we have been the subjects on which they were exercised. Of their eminence in oratory we have fewer examples, because it is displayed chiefly in their own councils. Some, however, we have, of very superior lustre. I may challenge the whole orations of Demosthenes and Cicero, and of any more eminent orator, if Europe has furnished any more eminent, to produce a single passage, superior to the speech of Logan, a Mingo chief, to Lord Dunmore, when governor of this state. And as a testimony of their talents in this line, I beg leave to introduce it, first stating the incidents necessary for understanding it. In the [115] spring of the year 1774, a robbery and murder were committed on an inhabitant of the frontier of Virginia, by two Indians of the Shawanee tribe. The neighbouring whites, according to their custom, undertook to punish this outrage in a summary way. Col. Cresap, a man infamous for the many murders he had committed on those much injured people, collected a party and proceeded down the Kanhaway in quest of vengeance. Unfortunately a canoe of women and children, with one man only, was seen coming from the opposite shore unarmed, and unsuspecting an hostile attack from the whites. Cresap and his party concealed themselves on the bank of the river, and the moment the canoe reached the shore, singled out their objects, and at one fire, killed every person in it. This happened to be the family of Logan, who had long been distinguished as a friend of the whites. This unworthy return provoked his vengeance. He accordingly signalized himself in the war which ensued. In the autumn of the same year a decisive battle was fought at the mouth of the Great Kanhaway, between the collected forces of the Shawanese, Mingoes and Delawares, and [116] a detachment of the Virginia militia. The Indians were defeated and sued for peace. Logan, however, disdained to be seen among the suppliants. But lest the sincerity of a treaty should be distrusted, from which so distinguished a chief absented himself, he sent, by a messenger, the following speech, to be delivered to Lord Dunmore.
“I appeal to any white man to say, if ever he entered Logan’s cabin hungry, and he gave him not meat; if ever he came cold and naked, and he cloathed him not. During the course of the last long and bloody war Logan remained idle in his cabin an advocate for peace. Such was my love for the whites, that my countrymen pointed as they passed, and said, ‘Logan is the friend of white men.’ I had even thought to have lived with you, but for the injuries of one man. Colonel Cresap, the last spring, in cold blood, and unprovoked, murdered all the relations of Logan, not sparing even my women and children. There runs not a drop of my blood in the veins of any living creature. This called on me for revenge. I have sought it: I have killed many: I have fully glutted my vengeance: for my coun-[117] try I rejoice at the beams of peace. But do not harbour a thought that mine is the joy of fear. Logan never felt fear. He will not turn on his heel to save his life. Who is there to mourn for Logan?—Not one.” 1
Before we condemn the Indians of this continent as wanting genius, we must consider that letters have not yet been introduced among them. Were we to compare them in their present state with the Europeans North of the Alps, when the Roman arms and arts first crossed those mountains, the comparison would be unequal, because, at that time, those parts of Europe were swarming with numbers; because numbers produce emulation and multiply the chances of improvement, and one improvement begets another. Yet I may safely ask, how many good poets, how many able mathematicians, how many great inventors in arts or sciences, had Europe, North of the Alps, then produced? And it was sixteen centuries after this before a Newton could be formed. I do not mean to deny that there are varieties in the race of man, distinguished by their powers both of body and mind. I believe there are, as [118] I see to be the case in the races of other animals. I only mean to suggest a doubt, whether the bulk and faculties of animals depend on the side of the Atlantic on which their food happens to grow, or which furnishes the elements of which they are compounded? Whether nature has enlisted herself as a Cis- or Trans-Atlantic partisan? I am induced to suspect there has been more eloquence than sound reasoning displayed in support of this theory; that it is one of those cases where the judgment has been seduced by a glowing pen; and whilst I render every tribute of honor and esteem to the celebrated Zoologist, who has added, and is still adding, so many precious things to the treasures of science, I must doubt whether in this instance he has not cherished error also by lending her for a moment his vivid imagination and bewitching language. 1
So far the Count de Buffon has carried this new theory of the tendency of nature to belittle her productions on this side the Atlantic. Its application to the race of whites transplanted from Europe, remained for the Abbé Raynal. 1 “On doit etre etonné (he says) que l’Amerique n’ait pas encore produit un bon poëte, [119] un habile mathematicien, un homme de genie dans un seul art, ou seule science.” 7. Hist. Philos. pa. 92, edn. Maestricht, 1774. “America has not yet produced one good poet.” When we shall have existed as a people as long as the Greeks did before they produced a Homer, the Romans a Virgil, the French a Racine and Voltaire, the English a Shakespeare and Milton, should this reproach be still true, we will inquire from what unfriendly causes it has proceeded, that the other countries of Europe and quarters of the earth shall not have inscribed any name in the roll of poets. 1 But neither has America produced “one able mathematician, one man of genius in a single art or a single science.” In war we have produced a Washington, whose memory will be adored while [120] liberty shall have votaries, whose name will triumph over time, and will in future ages assume its just station among the most celebrated worthies of the world, when that wretched philosophy shall be forgotten which would have arranged him among the degeneracies of nature. In Physics we have produced a Franklin, than whom no one of the present age has made more important discoveries, nor has enriched philosophy with more, or more ingenious solutions of the phænomena of nature. We have supposed Mr. Rittenhouse second to no astronomer living; that in genius he must be the first, because he is self taught. As an artist he has exhibited as great a proof of mechanical genius as the world has ever produced. He has not indeed made a world; but he has by imitation approached nearer its Maker than any man who has lived from the creation to this day. 1 As in philosophy and war, [121] so in government, in oratory, in painting, in the plastic art, we might show that America, though but a child of yesterday, has already given hopeful proofs of genius, as well as of the nobler kinds, which arouse the best feelings of man, which call him into action, which substantiate his freedom, and conduct him to happiness, as of the subordinate, which serve to amuse him only. We therefore suppose, that this reproach is as unjust as it is unkind; and that, of the geniuses which adorn the present age, America contributes its full share. For comparing it with those countries where genius is most cultivated, where are the most excellent models for art, and scaffoldings for the attainment of science, as France and England for instance, we calculate thus. The United States contains three millions of inhabitants; France twenty millions; and the British islands ten. We produce a Washington, a Franklin, a Rittenhouse. France then should have half a dozen in each of these lines, and Great Britain half that number, equally eminent. It may be true that France has: we are but just becoming acquainted with her, and our acquaintance [122] so far gives us high ideas of the genius of her inhabitants. It would be injuring too many of them to name particularly a Voltaire, a Buffon, the constellation of Encyclopedists, the Abbé Raynal himself, c. c. We therefore have reason to believe she can produce her full quota of genius. The present war having so long cut off all communication with Great Britain, we are not able to make a fair estimate of the state of science in that country. The spirit in which she wages war, is the only sample before our eyes, and that does not seem the legitimate offspring either of science or of civilization. The sun of her glory is fast descending to the horizon. Her Philosophy has crossed the channel, her freedom the Atlantic, and herself seems passing to that awful dissolution whose issue is not given human foresight to scan. 1 [123]
Having given a sketch of our minerals, vegetables, and quadrupeds, and being led by a proud theory to make a comparison of the latter with those of Europe, and to ex- [124] tend it to the Man of America, both aboriginal and emigrant, I will proceed to the remaining articles comprehended under the present query.
Between ninety and an hundred of our birds have been described by Catesby. His drawings are better as to form and attitude than coloring, which is generally too high. They are the following: [125]
BIRDS OF VIRGINIA
Linnæan Designation. | Catesby’s Designation. | Popular Name. | Buffon 1 oiseaux. | |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 This column of references to Buffon was first given in the edition of 1787. | ||||
1 “1 Clavigero, 85.”— Footnote in edition of 1853. | ||||
2 “The Pheasant is rarely or not at all found beyond North Carolina. The Grouse is first seen in the upper parts of Maryland, in Pennsylvania, and in the country north of Ohio, and thence northwardly.—[Capt. Mer. Lewis.)”— Footnote in edition of 1853. | ||||
3 “Clavigero says that in Mexico ‘vi sono i rinomati virignoli,’—1., 88.”— Footnote in edition of 1853. | ||||
1 In the edition of 1787 is here inserted: “Motacilla regulus | Regulus cristatu 3.13 | Wren. 1058.” | ||||
Lanius tyrannus | Muscicapa coronâ rubrâ | 1.55 | Tyrant. Field martin | 8.398 |
Vultur aura | Buteo specie Gallo-pavonis | 1. 6 | Turkey buzzard | 1.246 |
Falco leucocephalus | Aquilla capite albo | 1. 1 | Bald Eagle | 1.138 |
Falco sparverius | Accipiter minor | 1. 5 | Little hawk. Sparrow hawk | |
Falco columbarious | Accipiter palumbarius | 1. 3 | Pigeon hawk | 1.338 |
Falco furcatus | Accipiter caudâ furcatâ | 1. 4 | Forked tail hawk | 1.286.312 |
Accipiter piscatorius | 1. 2 | Fishing hawk | 1.199 | |
Strix asio | Noctua aurita minor | 1. 7 | Little owl | 1.141 |
Psittacus Caroliniensis | Psittacus Caroliniensus | 1.11 | Parrot of Carolina. Parroquet | 11.383 |
Corvus cristatus | Pica glandaria, cærulea, cristata | 1.15 | Blue-jay | 5.164 |
Oriolus Baltimore | Icterus ex aureo nigroque varius | 1.48 | Baltimore bird | 5.318 |
Oriolus spurius | Icterus minor | 1.49 | Bastard Baltimore | 5.321 |
Gracula quiscula | Monedula purpurea | 1.12 | Purple jackdaw. Crow blackbird | 5.134 |
Cuculus Americanus | Cuculus Caroliniensis | 1. 9 | Carolina cuckow | 12.62 |
Picus principalis | Picus maximus rostro albo | 1.16 | White bill woodpecker | 13.69 |
Picus pileatus | Picus niger maximus, capite rubro | 1.17 | Larger red-crested woodpecker | 13.72 |
Picus erythrocephalus | Picus capite toto rubro | 1.20 | Red-headed woodpecker | 13.83 |
Picus ouratus | Picus major alis aureis | 1.18 | Gold-winged woodpecker. Yucker. [126] | 13.59 |
Picus Carolinus | Picus ventre rubro | 1.19 | Red-bellied woodpecker | 13.105 |
Picus pubescens | Picus varius minimus | 1.21 | Smallest spotted woodpecker | 13.113 |
Picus villosus | Picus medius quasi-villosus | 1.19 | Hairy woodpecker. Spec. woodpecker | 13.111 |
Picus varius | Picus varius minor ventre luteo | 1.21 | Yellow-bellied woodpecker | 13.115 |
Sitta Europæa | Sitta capite nigro | 1.22 | Nuthatch | 10.213 |
Sitta capite fusco | 1.22 | Small Nuthatch | 10.214 | |
Alcedo alcyon | Ispida | 1.69 | Kingfisher | 13.310 |
Certhia pinus | Parus Americanus lutescens | 1.61 | Pine-Creeper | 9.433 |
Trochilus colubris | Mellivora avis Caroliniensis | 1.65 | Humming bird | 11.16 |
Anas Canadensis | Anser Canadensis | 1.92 | Wild goose | 17.122 |
Anas bucephala | Anas minor purpureo capite | 1.95 | Buffel’s-head duck | 17.356 |
Anas rustica | Anas minor ex albo fusco vario | 1.98 | Little brown duck | 17.413 |
Anas discors. δ | Querquedula Americana variegata | 1.10 | White face teal | 17.403 |
Anas discors. δ | Querquedula Americana fusca | 1.99 | Blue wing teal | 17.405 |
Anas sponsa | Anas Americanus cristatus elegans | 1.97 | Summer duck | 17.351 |
Anas Americanus lato rostro | 1.96 | Blue wing shoveler | 17.275 | |
Mergus cucullatus | Anas cristatus | 1.94 | Round crested duck | 15.437 |
Columbus podiceps | Prodicipes minor rostro vario | 1.91 | Pied bill dopchick | 15.383 |
Ardea Herodias | Ardea cristata maxima Americana | 3.10 | Largest crested heron | 14.113 |
Ardea violacea | Ardea stellaris cristata Americana | 1.79 | Crested bittern | 14.134 |
Ardea cærulea | Ardea cærulea | 1.76 | Blue heron. Crane [127] | 14.131 |
Ardea virescens | Ardea stellaris minima | 1.80 | Small bittern | 14.142 |
Ardea æquinoctialis | Ardea alba minor Caroliniensis | 1.77 | Little white heron | 14.136 |
Ardea stellaris Americana | 1.78 | Brown bittern. Indian hen | 14.175 | |
Tantalus loculator | Pelicanus Americanus | 1.81 | Wood pelican | 13.403 |
Tantalus alber | Numenius albus | 1.82 | White curlew | 15.62 |
Tantalus fuscus | Numenius fuscus | 1.83 | Brown curlew | 15.64 |
Charadrius vociferus | Pluvialis vociferus | 1.71 | Chattering plover. Kildee | 15.151 |
Hæmatopus ostralegus | Hæmatopus | 1.85 | Oyster-catcher | 15.185 |
Rallus Virginianus | Gallinula Americana | 1.70 | Soree. Ral-bird | 15.256 |
Meleagris Gallopavo 1 | Gallopava Sylvestris | xliv. | Wild Turkey | 3.187.229 |
Tetrao Virginianus | Perdix Sylvestris Virginiana | 3.12 | American partridge. American quail | 4.237 |
Urgallus minor, or kind of Lagopus 2 | 3. 1 | Pheasant. Mountain partridge | 3.409 | |
Columba passerina | Turtur minimus guttatus | 1.26 | Ground dove | 4.404 |
Columba migratorio | Palumbus migratorius | 1.23 | Pigeon of passage. Wild pigeon | 4.351 |
Columba Caroliniensis | Turtur Caroliniensis | 1.24 | Turtle. Turtle dove | 4.401 |
Alauda alpestris | Alauda gutture flavo | 1.32 | Lark. Sky lark | 9.79 |
Alauda magna | Alauda magna | 1.33 | Field lark. Large lark | 6.59 |
Sturnus niger allis superné rubentibus | 1.13 | Red-wing. Starling. Marsh blackbird | 5.293 | |
Turdus migratorius | Turdus pilaris migratorius | 1.29 | Fieldfare of Carolina. Robin redbreast | 5.426 |
9.257 | ||||
Turdus rufus | Turdus rufus | 1.28 | Fox-colored thrush. Thrush | 5.449 |
Turdus polyglottos 3 | Turdus minor cinereo albus non maculatus | 1.27 | Mocking bird [128] | 5.451 |
Turdus minimus | 1.31 | Little thrush | 5.400 | |
Ampelis garrulus, β | Garrulus Caroliniensis | 1.46 | Chatterer | 6.162 |
Loxia Cardinalis | Coccothraustes rubra | 1.38 | Red bird. Virginia nightingale | 6.185 |
Loxia Cærulea | Coccothraustes cærulea | 1.39 | Blue gross beak | 8.125 |
Emberiza hyemalis | Passer nivalis | 1.36 | Snow bird | 8.47 |
Emberiza Oryzivora | Hortulanus Caroliniensis | 1.14 | Rice bird | 8.49 |
Emberiza Ciris | Fringilla tricolor | 1.44 | Painted finch | 7.247 |
Tanagra cyanea | Linaria cærulea | 1.45 | Blue linnet | 7.122 |
Passerculus | 1.35 | Little Sparrow | 7.120 | |
Passer fuscus | 1.34 | Cowpen bird | 7.196 | |
Fringilla erythrophthalma | Passer niger oculis rubris | 1.34 | Towhe bird | 7.201 |
Fringilla tristis | Carduelis Americanus | 1.43 | American goldfinch. Lettuce bird | 7.297 |
Fringilla purpurea | 1.41 | Purple finch | 8.129 | |
Muscicapa crinita | Muscicapa cristata ventre luteo | 1.52 | Crested flycatcher | 8.379 |
Muscicapa rubra | Muscicapa rubra | 1.56 | Summer red bird | 8.410 |
Muscicapa ruticilla | Ruticilla Americana | 1.67 | Red start | 8.349 |
9.259 | ||||
Muscicapa Caroliniensis | Muscicapa vertice nigro | 1.66 | Catbird | 8.372 |
Muscicapa nigrescens | 1.53 | Black cap flycatcher | 8.341 | |
Muscicapa fusca | 1.54 | Little brown flycatcher | 8.344 | |
Muscicapa oculis rubris | 1.54 | Red-eyed flycatcher | 8.337 | |
Motacilla Sialis | Rubicula Americana cærulea | 1.47 | Blue bird [129] 1 | 9.308 |
Motacilla trochilus, β | Oenanthe Americana pectore luteo | 1.50 | Yellow breasted chat | 6.96 |
Parus bicolor | Parus cristatus | 1.57 | Crested titmouse | 10.181 |
Parus Americanus | Parus fringillaris | 1.64 | Finch creeper | 9.442 |
Parus Virginianus | Parus uropygeo luteo | 1.58 | Yellow rump | 10.184 |
Parus cucullo nigro | 1.60 | Hooded titmouse | 10.183 | |
Parus Americanus gutture luteo | 1.62 | Yellow throated creeper | ||
Parus Caroliniensis | 1.63 | Yellow titmouse | 9.431 | |
Hirundo Pelasgia | Hirundo cauda aculeata Americana | 4. 8 | American swallow | 12.478 |
Hirundo purpurea | Hirundo purpurea | 1.51 | Purple marten. House marten | 12.445 |
Caprimulgus Europæus, α | Caprimulgus | 1.08 | Goatsucker. Great bat | 12.243 |
Caprimulgus Europæus, β | Caprimulgus minor Americanus | 3.16 | Whip poor Will [130] | 12.246 |
Besides these we have,
The Royston crow. Corvus cornix.
Crane. Ardea Canadensis.
House swallow. Hirundo rustica.
Ground swallow. Hirundo riparia.
Greatest gray eagle.
Smaller turkey buzzard, with a feathered head.
Greatest owl, or night hawk.
Wet hawk, which feeds flying.
Raven.
Water Pelican of the Mississippi, whose pouch holds a peck.
Swan.
Loon.
Cormorant.
Duck and mallard.
The Widgeon.
Sheldrach, or Canvas back.
Black head.
Ballcoot. 1
Sprigtail.
Didapper, or dopchick.
Spoon-billed duck.
Water-witch.
Water-pheasant.
Mow-bird.
Blue Peter.
Water-Wagtail.
Yellow-legged Snipe.
Squatting Snipe.
Small Plover.
Whistling Plover.
Woodcock.
Red bird, with black head, wings and tail.
Wren. 2
And doubtless many others which have not yet been described and classed.
To this catalogue of our indigenous animals, I will add a short account of an anomaly of nature, taking place sometimes in the race of negroes brought from Africa, who, though black themselves, have, in rare instances, white children, called Albinos. I have known four of these myself, and have faithful accounts of three others. The cir-[131] cumstances in which all the individuals agree are these. They are of a pallid cadaverous white, untinged with red, without any colored spots or seams; their hair of the same kind of white, short, coarse, and curled as is that of the negro; all of them well formed, strong, healthy, perfect in their senses, except that of sight, and born of parents who had no mixture of white blood. Three of these Abinos were sisters, having two other full sisters, who were black. The youngest of the three was killed by lightning, at twelve years of age. The eldest died at about 27 years of age, in child-bed, with her second child. The middle one is now alive, in health, and has issue, as the eldest had, by a black man, whose 1 issue was black. They are uncommonly shrewd, quick in their apprehensions and in reply. Their eyes are in a perpetual tremulous vibration, very weak, and much affected by the sun; but they see better in the night than we do. They are of the property of Col. Skipwith, of Cumberland. The fourth is a negro woman, whose parents came from Guinea, and had three other children, who were of their own color. She is freckled, her eyesight so weak that she is obliged [132] to wear a bonnet in the summer; but it is better in the night than day. She had an Albino child by a black man. It died at the age of a few weeks. These were the property of Col. Carter of Albemarle. A sixth instance is a woman of the property of a Mr. Butler, near Petersburg. She is stout and robust, has issue a daughter, jet black, by a black man. I am not informed as to her eyesight. The seventh instance is of a male belonging to a Mr. Lee of Cumberland. His eyes are tremulous and weak. He is tall of stature, and now advanced in years. He is the only male of the Albinos which have come within my information. Whatever be the cause of the disease in the skin, or in its coloring matter, which produces this change, it seems more incident to the female than male sex. To these I may add the mention of a negro man within my own knowledge, born black, of black parents; on whose chin, when a boy, a white spot appeared. This continued to increase till he became a man, by which time it had extended over his chin, lips, one cheek, the under jaw, and neck on that side. It is of the Albino white, without any mixture of red, [133] and has for several years been stationary. He is robust and healthy, and the change of color was not accompanied with any sensible disease, either general or topical.
Of our fish and insects there has been nothing like a full description or collection. More of them are described in Catesby than in any other work. Many also are to be found in Sir Hans Sloane’s Jamaica, as being common to that and this country. The honey-bee is not a native of our continent. Marcgrave, indeed, mentions a species of honey-bee in Brazil. 1 But this has no sting, and is therefore different from the one we have, which resembles perfectly that of Europe. The Indians concur with us in the tradition that it was brought from Europe; but when, and by whom, we know not. The bees have generally extended themselves into the country, a little in advance of the white settlers. 1 The Indians, therefore, call them the white man’s fly, and consider their approach as indicating the approach of the settlements of the whites. A question here occurs, How far northwardly have these insects been found? That they are unknown in Lapland, I infer from Scheffer’s information, that the Lapland-[134] ers eat the pine bark, prepared in a certain way, instead of those things sweetened with sugar. “Hoc comedunt pro rebus saccharo conditis.” Scheff. Lapp. chap. 18. Certainly if they had honey, it would be a better substitute for sugar than any preparation of the pine bark. Kalm tells us 2 the honey-bee cannot live through the winter in Canada. They furnish then an additional remarkable fact first observed by the Count de Buffon, and which has thrown such a blaze of light on the field of natural history, that no animals are found in both continents, but those which are able to bear the cold of those regions where they probably join. 3
Under the latitude of this query, I will presume it not improper nor unacceptable to furnish some data for estimating the climate of Virginia. Journals of observations on the quantity of rain, and degree of heat, being lengthy, confused, and too minute to [135] produce general and distinct ideas, I have taken five years’ observations, to wit, from 1772 to 1777, made in Williamsburg and its neighborhood, have reduced them to an average for every month in the year, and stated those averages in the following table, adding an Analytical view of the winds during the same period. [136]
Fall of rain, etc., in inches. | Least and greatest daily heat, by Fahrenheit’s thermometer. | WINDS. | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N. | N.E. | E. | S.E. | S. | S.W. | W. | N.W. | Total | |||
Jan . . . | 3.192 | 38½ to 44 | 73 | 47 | 32 | 10 | 11 | 78 | 40 | 46 | 337 |
Feb . . . | 2.049 | 41 . . 41½ | 61 | 52 | 24 | 11 | 4 | 63 | 30 | 31 | 276 |
March . | 3.95 | 48 . . 54⅓ | 49 | 44 | 38 | 28 | 14 | 83 | 29 | 33 | 318 |
April . . | 3.68 | 56 . . 62½ | 35 | 44 | 54 | 19 | 9 | 58 | 18 | 20 | 257 |
May . . . | 2.871 | 63 . . 70½ | 27 | 36 | 62 | 23 | 7 | 74 | 32 | 20 | 281 |
June . . | 3.751 | 71½ . . 78¼ | 22 | 34 | 43 | 24 | 13 | 81 | 25 | 25 | 267 |
July . . . | 4.497 | 77 . . 82½ | 41 | 44 | 75 | 15 | 7 | 95 | 32 | 19 | 328 |
August | 9.153 | 76¼ . . 81 | 43 | 52 | 40 | 30 | 9 | 103 | 27 | 30 | 334 |
Sept. . . | 4.761 | 69½ . . 74½ | 70 | 60 | 51 | 18 | 10 | 81 | 18 | 37 | 345 |
Oct. . . . | 3.633 | 61¼ . . 66½ | 52 | 77 | 64 | 15 | 6 | 56 | 23 | 34 | 327 |
Nov . . . | 2.617 | 47 3/4 . . 53½ | 74 | 21 | 20 | 14 | 9 | 63 | 35 | 58 | 294 |
Dec . . . | 2.877 | 43 . . 48 3/4 | 64 | 37 | 18 | 16 | 10 | 91 | 42 | 56 | 334 |
Total . . | 47.038 | 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. | 611 | 548 | 521 | 223 | 109 | 926 | 351 | 409 | 3,698 |
1 [137] The rains of every month, (as of January, for instance,) through the whole period of years, were added separately, and an average drawn from them. The coolest and warmest point of the same day in each year of the period, were added separately, and an average of the greatest cold and greatest heat of that day was formed. From the averages of every day in the month, a general average was formed. The point from which the wind blew, was observed two or three times in every day. These observations in the month of January, for instance, through the whole period, amounted to 337. At 73 of these, the wind was from the North; 47 from the Northeast, c. So that it will be easy to see in what proportion each wind usually prevails in each month; or, taking the whole year, the total of observations through the whole period having been 3,698, it will be observed that 611 of them were from the North, 558 from the North-east, c.
Though by this table it appears we have on an average 47 inches of rain annually, which is considerably more than usually falls in Europe, yet from the information I [138] have collected, I suppose we have a much greater proportion of sunshine here than there. Perhaps it will be found, there are 1 twice as many cloudy days in the middle parts of Europe, as in the United States of America. I mention the middle parts of Europe, because my information does not extend to its northern or southern parts.
In an extensive country, it will of course be expected that the climate is not the same in all its parts. It is remarkable, that proceeding on the same parallel of latitude westwardly, the climate becomes colder in like manner as when you proceed northwardly. This continues to be the case till you attain the summit of the Alleghaney, which is the highest land between the ocean and the Missisipi. From thence, descending in the same latitude to the Missisipi, the change reverses; and, if we may believe travellers, it becomes warmer there than it is in the same latitude on the sea-side. Their testimony is strengthened by the vegetables and animals which [139] subsist and multiply there naturally, and do not on the sea-coast. Thus Catalpas grow spontaneously on the Missisipi, as far as the latitude of 37°, and reeds as far as 38°. Perroquets even winter on the Sioto, in the 39th degree of latitude. In the summer of 1779, when the thermometer was at 90°. at Monticello, and 96°. at Williamsburg, it was 110° at Kaskaskia. Perhaps the mountain, which overhangs this village on the North side, may, by its reflection, have contributed somewhat to produce this heat. The difference of temperature of the air at the sea coast, or on the Chesapeak bay, and at the Alleghaney, has not been ascertained; but contemporary observations, made at Williamsburg, or in its neighborhood, and at Monticello, which is on the most eastern ridge of the mountains, called the South West, where they are intersected by the Rivanna, have furnished a ratio by which that difference may in some degree be conjectured. These observations make the difference between Williamsburg and the nearest mountains, at the position before mentioned, to be on an average 6⅛°. of Farenheit’s thermometer. Some allowance, however, is to be made for the difference of [140] latitude between these two places, the latter being 38°.8′.17″. which is 52′.22″. North of the former. By contemporary observations of between five and six weeks, the averaged and almost unvaried difference of the height of mercury in the barometer, at those two places, was .784 of an inch, the atmosphere at Monticello being so much the lightest, that is to say, about 1/37 of its whole weight. It should be observed, however, that the hill of Monticello is of 500 feet perpendicular height above the river which washes its base. This position being nearly central between our northern and southern boundaries, and between the bay and Alleghaney, may be considered as furnishing the best average of the temperature of our climate. Williamsburgh is much too near the south-eastern corner to give a fair idea of our general temperature.
But a more remarkable difference is in the winds which prevail in the different parts of the country. The following table exhibits a comparative view of the winds prevailing at Williamsburg, and at Monticello. It is formed by reducing nine months observations at Monticello to four principal points, to wit, [141] the North-east, South-east, South-west, and North-west; these points being perpendicular to, or parallel with our coast, mountains and rivers; and by reducing in like manner, an equal number of observations, to wit, 421 from the preceding table of winds at Williamsburg, taking them proportionably from every point:
N. E. | S. E. | S. W. | N. W. | Total. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Williamsburg | 127 | 61 | 132 | 101 | 421 |
Monticello | 32 | 91 | 126 | 172 | 421 |
By this it may be seen that the South-west wind prevails equally at both places; that the North-east is, next to this, the principal wind towards the sea coast, and the North-west is the predominant wind at the mountains. The difference between these two winds to sensation, and in fact, is very great. The North-east is loaded with vapour, insomuch, that the salt-makers have found that their crystals would not shoot while that blows; it brings a distressing chill, and is heavy and oppressive to the spirits. The North-west is dry, cooling, elastic, and animating. The Eastern and South-eastern breezes come on generally in the Afternoon. They have ad-[142] vanced into the country very sensibly within the memory of people now living. They formerly did not penetrate far above Williamsburg. They are now frequent at Richmond, and every now and then reach the mountains. They deposit most of their moisture, however, before they get that far. As the lands become more cleared, it is probable they will extend still further westward.
Going out into the open air, in the temperate, and warm months of the year, we often meet with bodies of warm air, which passing by us in two or three seconds, do not afford time to the most sensible thermometer to seize their temperature. Judging from my feelings only, I think they approach the ordinary heat of the human body. Some of them, perhaps, go a little beyond it. They are of about 20 to 30 feet diameter horizontally. Of their height we have no experience, but probably they are globular volumes wafted or rolled along with the wind. But whence taken, where found, or how generated? They are not to be ascribed to volcanos, because we have none. They do not happen in the winter when the farmers kindle large fires in clearing up their grounds. [143] They are not confined to the spring season, when we have fires which traverse whole countries, consuming the leaves which have fallen from the trees. And they are too frequent and general to be ascribed to accidental fires. I am persuaded their cause must be sought for in the atmosphere itself, to aid us in which I know but of these constant circumstances: a dry air; a temperature as warm, at least, as that of the spring or autumn; and a moderate current of wind. They are most frequent about sun-set; rare in the middle parts of the day; and I do not recollect having ever met with them in the morning.
The variation in the weight of our atmosphere, as indicated by the barometer, is not equal to two inches of mercury. During twelve months’ observation at Williamsburg, the extremes were 29, and 30.86 inches, the difference being 1.86 of an inch; and in nine months, during which the height of the mercury was noted at Monticello, the extremes were 28.48 and 29.69 inches, the variation being 1.21 of an inch. A gentleman, who has observed his barometer many years, assures me it has never varied two inches. Cotemporary observations made at Monticello and Williams-[144] burg, proved the variations in the weight of air to be simultaneous and corresponding in these two places.
Our changes from heat to cold, and cold to heat, are very sudden and great. The mercury in Farenheit’s thermometer has been known to descend from 92°. to 47°. in thirteen hours. 1
It was taken for granted, that the preceding table of averaged heat will not give a false idea on this subject, as it proposes to state only the ordinary heat and cold of each month, and not those which are extraordinary. At Williamsburg, in August 1766, the mercury in Farenheit’s thermometer was at 98°. corresponding with 29⅓ of Reaumur. At the same place in January 1780, it was 6°. corresponding with 11½ below 0. of Reaumur. I believe 1 these may be considered to be nearly the extremes of heat and cold [145] in that part of the country. The latter may most certainly, as that time York river, at Yorktown, was frozen over, so that people walked across it; a circumstance which proves it to have been colder than the winter of 1740, 1741, usually called the cold winter, when York river did not freeze over at that place. In the same season of 1780, Chesapeak bay was solid, from its head to the mouth of the Patowmac. At Annapolis, where it is 5¼ miles over between the nearest points of land, the ice was from five to seven inches thick quite across, so that loaded carriages went over on it. Those, our extremes of heat and cold, of 6°. and 98°. were indeed very distressing to us, and were thought to put the extent of the human constitution to considerable trial. Yet a Siberian would have considered them as scarcely a sensible variation. At Jenniseitz in that country, in latitude 58°.27′. we are told that the cold in 1735 sunk the mercury by Farenheit’s scale to 126°. below nothing; and the inhabitants of the same country use stove rooms two or three times a week, in which they stay two hours at a time, the atmosphere of which raises the mercury to 135°. above nothing. [146] Late experiments shew that the human body will exist in rooms heated to 140°. of Reaumur, equal to 347°. of Farenheit’s, and 135°. above boiling water. 1 The hottest point of the twenty-four hours is about four o’clock, P. M., and the dawn of day the coldest.
The access of frost in autumn, and its recess in the spring, do not seem to depend merely on the degree of cold; much less on the air’s being at the freezing point. White frosts are frequent when the thermometer is at 47°. have killed young plants of Indian corn at 48°. and have been known at 54°. Black frost, and even ice, have been produced at 38½°. which is 6½ degrees above the freezing point. 1 That other circumstances must be combined with this cold to produce frost, is evident from this also, on the higher parts of mountains, where it is absolutely colder than in the plains on which they stand, frosts do not appear so early by a considerable space of time in autumn, and go off sooner in the spring, than in the plains. I have known frosts so severe as to kill the hickory trees round about Monticello, and yet not injure the tender fruit blossoms then in bloom on the top and higher parts of the [147] mountain; and in the course of 40 years, during which it had been settled, there have been but two instances of a general loss of fruit on it; while in the circumjacent country, the fruit has escaped but twice in the last seven years. The plants of tobacco, which grow from the roots of those which have been cut off in the summer, are frequently green here at Christmas. This privilege against the frost is undoubtedly combined with the want of dew on the mountains. That the dew is very rare on their higher parts, I may say with certainty, from 12 years observations, 2 having scarcely ever, during that time, seen an unequivocal proof of its existence on them at all during summer. Severe frosts in the depth of winter prove that the region of dews extends higher in that season than the tops of the mountains; but certainly, in the summer season, the vapors, by the time they attain that height, are become so attenuated as not to subside and form a dew when the sun retires.
The weavil has not yet ascended the high mountains.
A more satisfactory estimate of our climate to some, may perhaps be formed, by noting [148] the plants which grow here, subject, however, to be killed by our severest colds. These are the fig, pomegranate, artichoke, and European walnut. In mild winters, lettuce and endive require no shelter; but, generally, they need a slight covering. I do not know that the want of long moss, reed, myrtle, swamp laurel, holly, and cypress, in the upper country proceeds from a greater degree of cold, nor that they were ever killed with any degree of cold, nor that they were ever killed with any degree of cold in the lower country. The aloe lived in Williamsburg, in the open air, through the severe winter of 1779, 1780.
A change in our climate, however, is taking place very sensibly. Both heats and colds are become much more moderate within the memory even of the middle-aged. Snows are less frequent and less deep. They do not often lie, below the mountains, more than one, two, or three days, and very rarely a week. They are remembered to have been formerly frequent, deep, and of long continuance. The elderly inform me, the earth used to be covered with snow about three months in every year. The rivers, which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do so now. This [149] change has produced an unfortunate fluctuation between heat and cold, in the spring of the year, which is very fatal to fruits. From the year 1741 to 1769, an interval of twenty-eight years, there was no instance of fruit killed by the frost in the neighborhood of Monticello. An intense cold, produced by constant snows, kept the buds locked up till the sun could obtain, in the spring of the year, so fixed an ascendancy as to dissolve those snows, and protect the buds, during their development, from every danger of returning cold. The accumulated snows of the winter remaining to be dissolved all together in the spring, produced those overflowings of our rivers, so frequent then, and so rare now.
Having had occasion to mention the particular situation of Monticello for other purposes, I will just take notice that its elevation affords an opportunity of seeing a phænomenon which is rare at land, though frequent at sea. The seamen call it looming. Philosophy is as yet in the rear of the seamen, for so far from having accounted for it, she has not given it a name. Its principal effect is to make distant objects appear [150] larger, in opposition to the general law of vision, by which they are diminished, 1 I knew an instance, at Yorktown, from whence the water prospect eastwardly is without termination, wherein a canoe with three men, at a great distance was taken for a ship with its three masts. I am little acquainted with the phenomenon as it shows itself at sea; but at Monticello it is familiar. There is a solitary mountain about 40 miles off in the South, whose natural shape, as presented to view there, is a regular cone; but by the effect of looming, it sometimes subsides almost totally in the horizon; sometimes it rises more acute and more elevated; sometimes it is hemispherical; and sometimes its sides are perpendicular, its top flat, and as broad as its base. In short, it assumes at times the most whimsical shapes, and all these perhaps successively in the same morning. The Blue ridge of mountains comes into view, in the North East at about 100 miles distance, and approaching in a direct line, passes by within 20 miles, and goes off to the South-West. This phænomenon begins to shew itself on these mountains, at about fifty miles distance, and continues beyond that as far as [151] they are seen. I remark no particular state, either in the weight, moisture, or heat of the atmosphere, necessary to produce this. The only constant circumstances are its appearance in the morning only, and on objects at least 40 or 50 miles distant. In this latter circumstance, if not in both, it differs from the looming on the water. Refraction will not account for the metamorphosis. That only changes the proportions of length and breadth, base and altitude, preserving the general outlines. Thus it may make a circle appear elliptical, raise or depress a cone, but by none of its laws, as yet developed, will it make a circle appear a square, or a cone a sphere.
The following table shows the number of persons imported for the establishment of our colony in its infant state, and the census of inhabitants at different periods, extracted from our historians and public records, as particularly as I have had opportunities and leisure to exa-[152] mine them. Successive lines in the same year show successive periods of time in that year. 1 I have stated the census in 2 different columns, the whole inhabitants having been sometimes numbered, and sometimes the tythes only. This term, with us, includes the free males above 16 years of age, and slaves above that age of both sexes. A further examination of our records would render this his-[153] tory of our population much more satisfactory and perfect, by furnishing a greater number of intermediate terms. Those, however, which are here stated will enable us to calculate, with a considerable degree of precision, the rate at which we have increased. During the infancy of the colony, while numbers were small, wars, importations, and other accidental circumstances render the progression fluctuating and irregular. By the year 1654, however, it becomes tolerably uniform, importations having in a great measure ceased from the dissolution of the company, and the inhabitants become too numerous to be sensibly affected by Indian wars. Beginning at that period, therefore, we find that from thence to the year 1772, our tythes had increased from 7209 to 153000. The whole term being of 118 years, yields a duplication once in every 27¼ years. The intermediate enumerations taken in 1700, 1748, and 1759, furnish proofs of the uniformity of this progression. Should this rate of increase continue, we shall have between six and seven millions of inhabitants within 95 years. If we suppose our country to be [154] bounded, at some future day, by the meridian of the mouth of the Great Kanhaway, (within which it has been before conjectured, are 64,491 square miles) there will then be 100 inhabitants for every square mile, which is nearly the state population of the British islands.
Here I will beg leave to propose a doubt. The present desire of America is to produce rapid population by as great importations of foreigners as possible. But is this founded in good policy? The advantage proposed is the multiplication of numbers. Now let us suppose (for example only) that, in this state, we could double our numbers in one year by the importation of foreigners; and this is a greater accession than the most sanguine advocate for immigration has a right to expect. Then I say, beginning with a double stock, we shall attain any given degree of population only 27 years, and 3 months sooner than if we proceed on our single stock. If we propose four millions and a half as a competent population for this state, we should be 54½ years attaining it, could we at once double our numbers; and 81¾ years, [155] if we rely on natural propagation, as may be seen by the following table.
Proceeding on our present stock. | Proceeding on a double stock. | |
---|---|---|
1781 | 567,614 | 1,135,228 |
1808¼ | 1,135,228 | 2,270,456 |
1835½ | 2,270,456 | 4,540,912 |
1862¾ | 4,540,912 |
In the first column are stated periods of 27¼ years; in the second are our numbers at each period, as they will be if we proceed on our actual stock; and in the third are what they would be, at the same periods, were we to set out from the double of our present stock. I have taken the term of four million and a half of inhabitants for example’s sake only. Yet I am persuaded it is a greater number than the country spoken of, considering how much inarable land it contains, can clothe and feed without a material change in the quality of their diet. But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? [156] It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet from such we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it [157] their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures. But, if they be not certain in event; are they not possible, are they not probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience 27 years and three months longer, for the attainment of any degree of population desired or expected? May not our government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable? Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here. If they come of themselves they are entitled to all the rights of citizenship; but I doubt the expediency of inviting them by extraordinary encouragements. I mean not that these doubts should be extended to the importation of useful artificers. The policy of that measure depends on very different considerations. Spare no expence in obtaining them. They [158] will after a while go to the plough and the hoe; but, in the mean time, they will teach us something we do not know. It is not so in agriculture. The indifferent state of that among us does not proceed from a want of knowledge merely; it is from our having such quantities of land to waste as we please. In Europe the object is to make the most of their land, labor being abundant; here it is to make the most of our labor, land being abundant.
It will be proper to explain how the numbers for the year 1782 have been obtained; as it was not from a perfect census of the inhabitants. It will at the same time develope the proportion between the free inhabitants and slaves. The following return of taxable articles for that year was given in.
53,289 | free males above twenty-one years of age. |
211,698 | slaves of all ages and sexes. |
23,766 | not distinguished in the returns, but said to be tytheable slaves. |
195,439 | horses. |
609,734 | cattle. |
5,126 | wheels of riding-carriages. |
191 | taverns. [159] |
There were no returns from the 8 counties of Lincoln, Jefferson, Fayette, Monongalia, Yohogania, Ohio, Northampton, and York. To find the number of slaves which should have been returned instead of the 23,766 titheables, we must mention that some observations on a former census had given reason to believe that the numbers above and below 16 years of age were equal. The double of this number, therefore, to wit, 47,532 must be added to 211,698, which will give us 259,230 slaves of all ages and sexes. To find the number of free inhabitants we must repeat the observation that those above and below 16 are nearly equal. But as the number 53,289 omits the males below 16 and 21 we must supply them from conjecture. On a former experiment it had appeared that about one-third of our militia, that is, of the males between 16 and 50, were unmarried. Knowing how early marriage takes place here, we shall not be far wrong in supposing that the unmarried part of our militia are those between 16 and 21. If there be young men who do not marry till after 21, there are many who marry [160] before that age. But as men above 50 were not included in the militia, we will suppose the unmarried, or those between 16 and 21, to be one-fourth of the whole number above 16, then we have the following calculation:
53,289 | free males above 21 years of age. |
17,763 | free males between 16 and 21. |
17,052 | free males under 16. |
142,104 | free males of all ages. |
284,208 | free inhabitants of all ages. |
259,230 | slaves of all ages. |
543,438 inhabitants, exclusive of the 8 counties from which were no returns. In these eight counties in the years 1779 and 1780, were 3,161 militia. Say then,
3,161 | free males above the age of 16. |
3,161 | free males under 16. |
6,322 | free females. |
12,644 free inhabitants in these 8 counties. To find the number of slaves, say, as 284,208 to 259,230, so is 12,644 to 11,532. Adding the third of these numbers to the first, and the fourth to the second, we have, [161]
296,852 | free inhabitants. |
270,762 | slaves. |
567,614 inhabitants of every age, sex and condition. But 296,852, the number of free inhabitants, are to 270,762, the number of slaves, nearly as 11 to 10. Under the mild treatment our slaves experience, and their wholesome, though coarse food, this blot in our country increases as fast, or faster than the whites. During the regal government we had at one time obtained a law which imposed such a duty on the importation of slaves as amounted nearly to a prohibition, when one inconsiderate assembly, placed under a peculiarity of circumstance, repealed the law. This repeal met a joyful sanction from the then sovereign, and no devices, no expedients, which could ever be attempted by subsequent assemblies, and they seldom met without attempting them, could succeed in getting the royal assent to a renewal of the duty. In the very first session held under the republican government, the assembly passed a law for the perpetual prohibition of the importation of slaves. This [162] will in some measure stop the increase of this great political and moral evil, while the minds of our citizens may be ripening for a complete emancipation of human nature. 1
The following is a state of the militia, taken from returns of 1780 and 1781, except in those counties marked with an asterisk, the returns from which are somewhat older. [162]
[164] Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50, is enrolled in the militia. Those of every county are formed into companies, and these again into one or more battalions, according to the numbers in the county. They are commanded by colonels, and other subordinate officers, as in the regular service. In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county, but ranks only as a colonel in the field. We have no general officers always existing. These are appointed occasionally, when an invasion or insurrection happens, and their commission determines with the occasion. The governor is head of the military, as well as civil power. The law requires every militiaman to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service. But this injunction was always indifferently complied with, and the arms they had, have been so frequently called for to arm the regulars, that in the lower parts of the country they are entirely disarmed. In the middle country a fourth or fifth part of them may have such firelocks as they had provided to destroy the noxious animals which infest their farms; and on the [165] Western side of the Blue ridge they are generally armed with rifles. The pay of our militia, as well as of our regulars, is that of the Continental regulars. The condition of our regulars, of whom we have none but Continentals, and part of a battalion of state troops, is so constantly on the change, that a state of it at this day would not be its state a month hence. It is much the same with the condition of the other Continental troops, which is well enough known.
Before the present invasion of this state by the British under the command of General Phillips, we had three vessels of 16 guns, one of 14, five small gallies, and two or three armed boats. They were generally so illy manned as seldom to be in a condition for service. Since the perfect possession of our rivers assumed by the enemy, I believe we are left with a single armed boat only. 1 [166]
When the first effectual settlement of our colony was made, which was in 1607, the country from the sea-coast to the mountains, and from the Patowmac to the most southern waters of James river, was occupied by upwards of forty different tribes of Indians. Of these the Powhatans, the Mannahoacs, and Monacans, were the most powerful. Those between the sea-coast and falls of the rivers, were in amity with one another, and attached to the Powhatans as their link of union. Those between the falls of the rivers and the mountains, were divided into two confederacies; the tribes inhabiting the head waters of Patowmac and Rappahannoc, being attached to the Mannahoacs; and those on the upper parts of James river to the Monacans. But the Monacans and their friends were in amity with the Mannahoacs and their friends, and waged joint and perpetual war against [167] the Powhatans. We are told that the Powhatans, Mannahoacs, and Monacans, spoke languages so radically different, that interpreters were necessary when they transacted business. Hence we may conjecture, that this was not the case between all the tribes, and, probably, that each spoke the language of the nation to which it was attached; which we know to have been the case in many particular instances. Very possibly there may have been anciently three different stocks, each of which multiplying in a long course of time, had separated into so many little societies, 1 the principles of their government being so weak as to give this liberty of all its members.
The territories of the Powhatan confederacy south of the Patowmac, comprehended about 8000 square miles, 30 tribes, and 2400 warriors. Captain Smith tells us, that within 60 miles of James town were 5000 people, of whom 1500 were warriors. From this we find the proportion of their warriors to their whole inhabitants, was as 3 to 10. The Powhatan confederacy, then, would consist of about 8000 inhabitants, which was one for every square [168] mile; being about the twentieth part of our present population in the same territory, and the hundredth of that of the British islands.
Besides these were the Nòttoways, living on Nottoway river, the Mehèrrins and Tùteloes on Meherrin river, who were connected with the Indians of Carolina, probably with the Chòwanocs. [169]
The preceding table contains a state of these several tribes, according to their confederacies and geographical situations, with their numbers when we first became acquainted with them, where these numbers are known. The numbers of some of them are again stated as they were in the year 1669, when an attempt was made by the assembly to enumerate them. Probably the enumeration is imperfect, and in some measure conjectural, and that a farther search into the records would furnish many more particulars. What would be the melancholy sequel of their history, may, however, be argued from the census of 1669; by which we discover that the tribes therein enumerated were, in the space of 62 years,
reduced to about one-third of their former numbers. Spirituous liquors, the small-pox, war, and an abridgement of territory to a people who lived principally on the spontaneous productions of nature, had committed terrible havoc among them, which generation, under the obstacles opposed to it among them, was not likely to make good. That the lands of this country were taken from them by conquest, is not so general a truth as is supposed. I [170] find in our historians and records, repeated proofs of purchase, which cover a considerable part of the lower country; and many more would doubtless be found on further search. The upper country, we know, has been acquired altogether by purchases made in the most unexceptionable form.
Westward of all these tribes, beyond the mountains, and extending to the great lakes, were the Massawòmecs, a most powerful confederacy, who harrassed unremittingly the Powhatàns and Manahoàcs. These were probably the ancestors of tribes known at present by the name of the Six Nations.
Very little can now be discovered of the subsequent history of these tribes severally. The Chickahòminies removed about the year 1661, to Mattapony river. Their chief, with one from each of the Pamùnkies and Màttaponies, attended the treaty of Albany in 1685. This seems to have been the last chapter in their history. They retained, however, their separate name so late as 1705, and were at length blended with the Pamùnkies and Màttaponies, and exist at present only under their names. There remain of the Màttaponies three or four men only, and they [171] have more negro than Indian blood in them. They have lost their language, have reduced themselves, by voluntary sales, to about fifty acres of land, which lie on the river of their own name, and have from time to time, been joining the Pamùnkies, from whom they are distant but 10 miles. The Pamùnkies are reduced to about 10 or 12 men, tolerably pure from mixture with other colors. The older ones among them preserve their language in a small degree, which are the last vestiges on earth, as far as we know, of the Powhatan language. They have about 300 acres of very fertile land, on Pamunkey river, so encompassed by water that a gate shuts in the whole. Of the Nottoways, not a male is left. A few women constitute the remains of that tribe. They are seated on the Nottoway river, in Southampton country, on very fertile lands. At a very early period, certain lands were marked out and appropriated to these tribes, and were kept from encroachment by the authority of the laws. They have usually had trustees appointed, whose duty was to watch over their interests, and guard them from insult and injury. [172]
The Mònacans and their friends, better known latterly by the name of Tuscaròras, were probably connected with the Massawòmecs, or Five nations. For though we are 1 told their languages were so different that the intervention of interpreters was necessary between them, yet do we also 2 learn that the Erigas, a nation formerly inhabiting on the Ohio, were of the same original stock with the Five Nations, and that they partook also of the Tuscaròra language. Their dialects might, by long separation, have become so unlike as to be unintelligible to one another. We know that in 1712, the Five nations received the Tuscaròras into their confederacy, and made them the Sixth nation. They received the Mehèrrins and Tùteloes also into their protection: and it is most probable, that the remains of many other of the tribes, of whom we find no particular account, retired westwardly in like manner, and were incorporated with one or the other of the western tribes. 1 [173]
I know of no such thing existing as an Indian monument; for I would not honor with that name arrow points, stone hatchets, stone pipes, and half shapen images. Of labor on the large scale, I think there is no remain as respectable as would be a common ditch for the draining of lands; unless indeed it would be the Barrows, of which many are to be found all over this country. These are of different sizes, some of them constructed of earth, and some of loose stones. That they were repositories of the dead, has been obvious to all; but on what particular occasion constructed, was a matter of doubt. Some have thought they covered the bones of those who have fallen in battles fought on the spot of interment. Some ascribed them to the custom, said to prevail among the Indians, of collecting, at certain periods, the bones of all their dead, wheresoever deposited at the time of death. Others again supposed them the general sepulchres for towns, conjectured to have been on or near these grounds; and this opinion was supported by the quality of the lands in which they are found, (those constructed of earth being generally in the softest and most fertile meadow-grounds on [174] river sides,) and by a tradition, said to be handed down from the aboriginal Indians, that, when they settled in a town, the first person who died was placed erect, and earth put about him, so as to cover and support him; that when another died, a narrow passage was dug to the first, the second reclined against him, and the cover of earth replaced, and so on. There being one of these in my neighborhood, I wished to satisfy myself whether any, and which of these opinions were just. For this purpose I determined to open and examine it thoroughly. It was situated on the low grounds of the Rivanna, about two miles above its principal fork, and opposite to some hills, on which had been an Indian town. It was of a spheroidical form, of about 40 feet diameter at the base, and had been of about twelve feet altitude, though now reduced by the plough to seven and a half, having been under cultivation about a dozen years. Before this it was covered with trees of twelve inches diameter, and round the base was an excavation of five feet depth and width, from whence the earth had been taken of which the hillock [175] was formed. I first dug superficially in several parts of it, and came to collections of human bones, at different depths, from six inches to three feet below the surface. These were lying in the utmost confusion, some vertical, some oblique, some horizontal, and directed to every point of the compass, entangled and held together in clusters by the earth. Bones of the most distant parts were found together, as, for instance, the small bones of the foot in the hollow of a scull; many sculls would sometimes be in contact, lying on the face, on the side, on the back, top or bottom, so as, on the whole, to give the idea of bones emptied promiscuously from a bag or a basket, and covered over with earth, without any attention to their order. The bones of which the greatest numbers remained, were sculls, jaw bones, teeth, the bones of the arms, thighs, legs, feet and hands. A few ribs remained, some vertebræ of the neck and spine, without their processes, and one instance only of the 1 bone which serves [176] as a base to the vertebral column. The sculls were so tender, that they generally fell to pieces on being touched. The other bones were stronger. There were some teeth which were judged to be smaller than those of an adult; a scull, which on a slight view, appeared to be that of an infant, but it fell to pieces on being taken out, so as to prevent satisfactory examination; a rib, and a fragment of the under jaw of a person about half grown; another rib of an infant; and a part of the jaw of a child, which had not cut its teeth. This last furnishing the most decisive proof of the burial of children here, I was particular in my attention to it. It was part of the right half of the under jaw. The processes, by which it was articulated to the temporal bones, were entire, and the bone itself firm to where it had been broken off, which, as nearly as I could judge, was about the place of the eye tooth. Its upper edge, wherein would have been the sockets of the teeth, was perfectly smooth. Measuring it with that of an adult, by placing their hinder processes together, its broken end extended to the penultimate grinder of the adult. This bone was white, all the others [177] of a sand color. The bones of infants being soft, they probably decay sooner, which might be the cause so few were found here. I proceeded then to make a perpendicular cut through the body of the barrow, that I might examine its internal structure. This passed about three feet from its centre, was opened to the former surface of the earth, and was wide enough for a man to walk through and examine its sides. At the bottom, that is, on the level of the circumjacent plain, I found bones; above these a few stones, brought from a cliff a quarter of a mile off, and from the river one eighth of a mile off; then a large interval of earth, then a stratum of bones, and so on. At one end of the section were four strata of bones plainly distinguishable; at the other, three; the strata in one part not ranging with those in another. The bones nearest the surface were least decayed. No holes were discovered in any of them, as if made with bullets, arrows, or other weapons. I conjectured that in this barrow might have been a thousand skeletons. Every one will readily seize the circumstances above related, which militate against the opinion, that it covered the bones [178] only of persons fallen in battle; and against the tradition also, which would make it the common sepulchre of a town, in which the bodies were placed upright, and touching each other. Appearances certainly indicate that it has derived both origin and growth from the accustomary collection of bones, and deposition of them together; that the first collection had been deposited on the common surface of the earth, a few stones put over it, and then a covering of earth, that the second had been laid on this, had covered more or less of it in proportion to the number of bones, and was then also covered with earth; and so on. 1 The following are the particular circumstances which give it this aspect. 1. The number of bones. 2. Their confused position. 3. Their being in different strata. 4. The strata in one part having no correspondence with those in another. 5. The different states of decay in these strata, which seem to indicate a difference in the time of inhumation. 6. The existence of infant bones among them.
But on whatever occasion they may have been made, they are of considerable notoriety among the Indians; for a party passing, about [179] thirty years ago, through the part of the country where this barrow is, went through the woods directly to it, without any instructions or inquiry, and having staid about it for some time, with expressions which were construed to be those of sorrow, they returned to the high road, which they had left about half a dozen miles to pay this visit, and pursued their journey. There is another barrow much resembling this, in the low grounds of the South branch of Shenandoah, where it is crossed by the road leading from the Rock-fish gap to Staunton. Both of these have, within these dozen years, been cleared of their trees and put under cultivation, are much reduced in their height, and spread in width, by the plough, and will probably disappear in time. There is another on a hill in the Blue ridge of mountains, a few miles North of Wood’s gap, which is made up of small stones thrown together. This has been opened and found to contain human bones, as the others do. There are also many others in other parts of the country. 1
Great question has arisen from whence came those aboriginals of Ame-[180] rica? 1 Discoveries, long ago made, were sufficient to show that the passage from Europe to America was always practicable, even to the imperfect navigation of ancient times. In going from Norway to Iceland, from Iceland to Grœnland, from Grœnland to Labrador, the first traject is the widest; and this having been practised from the earliest times of which we have any account of that part of the earth, it is not difficult to suppose that the subsequent trajects may have been sometimes passed. Again, the late discoveries of Captain Cook, coasting from Kamschatka to California, have proved that if the two continents of Asia and America be separated at all, it is only by a narrow streight. So that from this side also, inhabitants may have passed into America; and the resemblance between the Indians of America and the eastern inhabitants of Asia, would induce us to conjecture, that the former are the descendants of the latter, or the latter of the former; excepting indeed the Esquimaux, who, from the same circumstance of resemblance, and from identity of language must be derived from the Grœnlanders, and these probably from some of the northern parts of the old continent. A knowledge of their [181] several languages would be the most certain evidence of their derivation which could be produced. In fact, it is the best proof of the affinity of nations which ever can be referred to. How many ages have elapsed since the English, the Dutch, the Germans, the Swiss, the Norwegians, Danes and Swedes have separated
from their common stock? Yet how many more must elapse before the proofs of their common origin, which exists in their several languages, will disappear? It is to be lamented, then, very much to be lamented, that we have suffered so many of the Indian tribes already to extinguish, without our having previously collected and deposited in the records of literature, the general rudiments at least of the languages they spoke. Were vocabularies formed of all the languages spoken in North and South America, preserving their appellations of the most common objects in nature, of those which must be present to every nation barbarous or civilized, with the inflections of their nouns and verbs, their principles of regimen and concord, and these deposited in all the public libraries, it would furnish op-[182] portunities to those skilled in the languages of the old world to compare them with these, now, or at any future time, and hence to construct the best evidence of the derivation of this part of the human race. 1
I will now proceed to state the nations and numbers of the Aborigines which still exist in a respectable and independent form. And as their undefined boundaries would render it difficult to specify those only which may be within any certain limits, and it may not be unacceptable to present a more general view of them, I will reduce within the form of a Catalogue all those within, and circumjacent to, the United States, whose names and numbers have come to my notice. These are taken from four different lists, the first of which was given in the year 1759 to General Stanwix by George Croghan, Deputy agent for Indian affairs under Sir William Johnson; the second was drawn up by a French trader of considerable note, resident among the Indians many years, and annexed to Colonel Bouquet’s printed account of his expedition in 1764. The third was made out by Captain [183] Hutchins, who visited most of the tribes, by order, for the purpose of learning their numbers in 1768; and the fourth by John Dodge, an Indian trader, in 1779, except the numbers marked*, which are from other information. [184]
But apprehending these might be different appellations for some of the tribes already enumerated, 1 I have not inserted them in the table, but state them separately as worthy of further inquiry. The variations observable in numbering the same tribe may sometimes be ascribed to imperfect information, and sometimes to a greater or less comprehension of settlements under the same name. [191]