Part 4

On April 1st, 1657, Richard, Robert and Charles Gorsuch, sons and co-heirs of John Gorsuch, “P’fessor in Divinity,” petitioned the Court of Lancaster County, Va., that their sister Katherine Whitby might be their guardian for “such estate as doth in any ways belong to them in England,” and that Francis Moryson [afterwards governor of Virginia] be their guardian for Virginia. Shortly afterwards all of these boys removed to the Eastern Shore of Maryland. The records of that colony not only make notice of them, but also show that they had another brother Lovelace Gorsuch, and a sister Anne, who married Thomas Todd, of Mockjack (now Mobjack) Bay, Gloucester County, Va.

The Quaker records of West River, Maryland, contain the records of the marriage, in 1690, of Charles Gorsuch, “son of John and Anne Gorsuch, of the Kingdom of England, deceased,” and Anne Hawkins. In 1669, Charles and Lovelace Gorsuch confirmed title to certain land which had been granted to Lovelace Gorsuch in 1661. On Jan. 13, 1676–7, Mrs. Anne Todd made a deed to her children and appointed her brother, Chas. Gorsuch, trustee. It seems certain that that John Gorsuch, the “P’fessor in Divinity,” was identical with Rev. John Gorsuch of Walkhome, who married Anne, daughter of Sir William Lovelace, of Kent, and that one of his daughters, Ruth, married William Whitby, of Virginia, while another, Anne, married Thomas Todd, of the same colony. This explains at once why Thomas Todd was appointed, as stated by Governor Lovelace, guardian to William Whitby, Jr. Young Whitby was the nephew of Todd’s wife.

When these facts are made clear the rest of the identification of Governor Lovelace seems easy. Sir William Lovelace, of Kent, the father of Mrs. Anne Gorsuch, was also the father of Richard Lovelace, the poet. The other sons of Sir William were “Col. Francis” (of “Lucasta”), Thomas and Dudley. The Dictionary of National Biography only knows of Col. Francis Lovelace, that he served the Royalist Cause in Wales and commanded Caermarthen from June, 1664, until it was captured by Langhorne in October, 1645. From Governor Lovelace’s friendship with Berkeley it seems very probable that it was indeed he (and not the son of Lord Lovelace as stated in the D. N. B.) who received license from the Council in 1650 to go to Virginia, and who in May, 1652, was sent by Berkeley to inform Charles II. of the surrender of Virginia to the Parliamentary forces.

Francis Lovelace and the members of the Gorsuch family evidently came in the large royalist emigration to Virginia during the Civil War.

In conclusion it may be worth while to trace Governor Lovelace’s kinsman and protégé, William Whitby.

William Whitby, the elder, the husband of Ruth Gorsuch, lived in Warwick County, Va., and was Speaker of the House of Burgesses in 1653. He received two considerable grants of land, one in Warwick, where he lived, and another on Potomac Creek.

The son resided in Middlesex County, Va., and appears to have led an uneventful life, and to have died unmarried. His will, as that of “William Whitby, of Pyanketank River in the County of Middlesex, planter,” was dated July, 1676, and proved July 23, 1677. He gave “to Major Robert Beverley £100, Mrs. Mary Kibble [Keeble] £100, and my brother, Joseph Summers £200, all out of a rent due me out of Kent in England”; John Cocking to have 700 acres, and John Wright 500, both on Moratico Creek; his land on Potomac Creek to be divided equally between his brother, Joseph Summers, and Mrs. Mary Kibble, and also makes a bequest to Thomas Todd. Summers and Beverly, executors.

The following chart shows the relationship which would seem from the records cited to be correct:

Sir Wm. Lovelace= of Kent | +----------+-----------+----+------+----------------+ | | | | | Rev. John Gorsuch=Anne Francis Richard Thomas Dudley | Governor of the served in N. Y. served in N. Y. | New York Poet under Gov. under Gov. | Lovelace Lovelace | --+-------+------+---------+----------+------------+---------+--------+--------+---- | | | | | | | | | Daniel John William Katherine Ruth Anne Richard Charles Robert m. m. m. Lovelace —Whitby Wm. Whitby Thos. Todd of Va. of Va.

W. G. STANARD.

RICHMOND, VA.

NOTE—Since the above was written I have recalled the account of “The Interment of William Lovelace, N. Y., 1671.” This, in mentioning Thomas and Dudley Lovelace, as brothers of the Governor, corroborates the genealogy I have given.—W. G. S.

THE INFLUENCE OF SLAVERY ON THE OLD SOUTHERN CIVILIZATION

Now that the “Old South” has passed away as utterly as the ancient kingdoms of Babylon and Assyria, before the very memory of her shall have faded from the earth, it may not be without interest to thoughtful readers to endeavor to trace the cause which produced the striking dissimilarity between her civilization and that of the Northern States of the Union. That such dissimilarity existed is beyond dispute; it only remains, therefore, to attempt to explain it. Beginning National life, as did the thirteen original colonies, under the same general conditions; with the heritage of a common origin, a common language, and a common faith, what influence was it which, within the term of a hundred years, was potent enough to effect so great a change in the habits, the manners, and the character of the people of the two sections?

Was the institution of Slavery mainly responsible for this result? I believe that it was.

While due allowance must be made for climatic and other local conditions, the institution of slavery, in its direct and indirect effects upon the Southern people, appears to be by far the most important factor in the equation.

Let us briefly consider the subject. On the colonial history of the Southern States, it is unnecessary to dwell. Suffice it to say, that while thoroughly imbued with the spirit of independence and taking a leading part in the struggle of 1776, in this course the South was actuated by a desire to assert its abstract rights, and to stand loyally by its sister colonies of the North, rather than by any personal grievance, or feeling of animosity towards the Mother Country.

Between the Southern States themselves, there were strongly marked differences, each possessing its own distinctly individual character. But in essentials, the family likeness between them was strong enough to make any one member of the group a typical representative of the whole, so far as the outside world was concerned. Bound indissolubly together by that common bond,—the institution of slavery,—in politics they were equally united. From those early days when the American Government was in its formative stage, down to the period of the Civil War in 1861, the South stood always a solid unit for republican principles as imbodied in the Constitution of the United States, and exemplified in the cardinal Southern doctrine of “States’ Rights.”

The term “democracy” as applied to the South is a total misnomer, and its application furnishes one of the many curious anomalies to be found in American political history. But this history is too tangled a skein to be unravelled here. Enough to say that the Old South was never a democracy, properly so called; on the contrary, it was an oligarchy of the most pronounced and exclusive type, its population being sharply divided into two classes, patrician and plebeian—the governing and the governed. Nay more, although nominally the entire white population belonged in the first category (and was therefore eligible for public office), practically the franchise was confined to the educated and property-holding class alone, the “poor whites” of the South being too numerically weak and insignificant to be an appreciable power in politics.

Thus it came about that, from first to last, in this fundamental particular the South differed from every other section of the Republic; and this difference was the direct result of the Institution of Slavery.

Secondly: The economic conditions existing at the South were totally unlike those in other parts of the country. The Old South was, emphatically, a community of agriculturists; and of all modes of making a livelihood agriculture is the one least liable to violent fluctuations and sudden collapse. It is true that in the South wealth never rolled up into the millions, and, judged by present standards, bank accounts were by no means imposing in round numbers; but all the real advantages and immunities that wealth can give were enjoyed by the Southern people who, as a class, were in possession of an assured income sufficient not only for the supply of their necessities, but for the gratification of their tastes as well. And in those days there was a solidity and a stability about men’s financial affairs which effectually removed from them the pressure of anxiety for the future, and protected them from that feverish, harassing mental strain only too well-known elsewhere.

And here again, we come face to face with that basal fact—“the institution”—on which rested the whole industrial system of the South.

Again: The intimate relation necessarily existing between economic and social conditions would lead us to infer that conservatism was the great law of Southern society. And in truth, permanence and continuity were its most marked characteristics. The fluctuations and vicissitudes which formed so striking a feature of Northern social life were practically unknown at the South. From generation to generation, men occupied the same habitations, pursued the same callings and held the same place in the community; and, as a rule, the father’s social status determined that of the son, and the son’s son after him. Thus was created and preserved a social atmosphere only attainable under these peculiar conditions; and the effect of such a social environment upon the whole tone of the people may readily be conceived.

In the South, for example, the spirit of commercialism was noticeably absent. Wealth was not there regarded as the “be all” and the “end all” of existence—the standard by which to measure the sum of human achievement. Nor was a money value affixed to the thousand and one little services passing current in the community. These were regarded simply as small social courtesies due from neighbor to neighbor, and were freely rendered and as freely accepted, without a thought of pecuniary obligation on either side.

An equally distinguishing characteristic of Southern society was the position universally accorded to woman. Southern chivalry has frequently been made a target for ridicule, as a “survival” from the Dark Ages; but the elevating and refining influence it exercised upon the public tone was assuredly a most salutary one. And although, in the light of later developments, it must be conceded that the old Southern idea of woman’s helplessness and absolute dependence upon man for support and protection, savored somewhat of Quixotism, the spirit of knight-errantry fostered thereby was a wholesome one, in that it acted both as an incentive to exertion and as an antidote to selfishness. Even the “code of the duello,” while of course indefensible in principle, had something to be urged in its favor for, beyond doubt, it exerted a restraining influence over a hot-blooded people and made for order in the land.

I have said that as a political entity the South consisted of two classes—the governing and the governed. In its social structure, however, it was far more complex. Tier above tier rose the social pyramid, ever narrowing as it neared the apex, on which delectable elevation rested those favored mortals “born in the purple,” placidly secure in their social preeminence. Society, that inevitable product of civilization, is, all the world over, composed of orders and degrees, but whereas at the North these several gradations merged almost imperceptibly one into another, at the South they were divided by very sharply drawn lines of demarcation. The tradesman, the artisan, the mechanic stood quite apart from the professional classes and the landed-proprietors. In every age and in every clime talent will assert itself and rise to the top; and to this rule the South was no exception. But comparatively speaking, south of Mason and Dixon’s line there were to be found few “self-made” men, and those few were almost without exception, men intellectually gifted, who had climbed the social ladder by the rounds of fame rather than of fortune.

This, however, is a digression; our present purpose being, not to uncover, fold by fold, the inner intricacies of Southern society, but to present a broad and inclusive view of that society as a whole, and as contrasted with the society of other sections. Perhaps this may best be done by treating the subject somewhat in detail.

In a recent criticism of a Western poet the reviewer remarked that whatever the poet’s shortcomings might be, his descriptions of homely rural life must strike a responsive chord in the hearts of his readers all over the country, carrying them back to scenes and phases of life with which in youth they were familiar. Now, as a matter of fact, not a single one of these allusions could awaken an answering echo in a Southern breast! Descriptions of farm life with its round of labors performed by the fanner’s own hands, might be interesting reading enough to the Southerner, but the interest would be that of novelty not of familiarity. For never in the days of his youth had he himself “driven the plough,” or joined as a worker in the jocund mirth of a “harvest home.” Neither would he recognize in the portraiture of the “village worthies” the companions of his own youth; and rustic wit and rustic manners were equally apart from his personal experiences.

Not by any means that the lot of the Southern planter was always easier than that of the Northern farmer. Hard work most generally fell to his share. Early to rise and late to rest, he toiled as arduously and as unremittingly as his Northern brother, but the toil was of a different sort. It consisted not in literally putting his own shoulder to the wheel, but in training, directing, and supervising the labors of others, and often (hardest and most harassing work of all) in contriving how to supply the wants of his numerous dependants. Supreme autocrat within his own domain, the very consciousness of his power created in him a sense of responsibility, which produced a strength and gravity of character and a certain dignity of bearing. Born to control, from his cradle the Southern land owner was trained to regard himself as the natural protector, provider, and friend of the weak and the helpless. Thus, while the environment of the Northern farmer was calculated to make him think first of his own personal needs and his duty to himself, that of the Southern planter as naturally impressed upon him the duty he owed to those by whom he was surrounded.

Such was his work. His pleasures consisted chiefly in field-sports—hunting, fishing, riding, boating—he was usually a keen sportsman and a capital rider and sometimes, though not so frequently, a great reader as well.

If for the most part not scholars, however, Southern men could at least generally lay claim to a collegiate education. And whether it was due to vague recollections of classic lore, and lingering memories of Alma Mater, or to the tone of the home atmosphere by which they were surrounded (which is, after all, the truly effective educating influence), certain it is that, as a rule, their manners were polished and their modes of expression those of the “classes,” not of the “masses.”

The Southern matron was noted for her administrative rather than for her executive ability. Not that, generally speaking, her days were passed in idleness; on the contrary, her life was usually a full and beneficent one, including not only her domestic avocations—among which may be mentioned the now well-nigh forgotten accomplishments of cookery and fine needlework—but the many good offices of a Lady Bountiful which she graciously dispensed among her numerous dependants; plantation life affording ample scope for her activities in this direction. But the menial drudgery of a household did not devolve upon its mistress; and, in consequence, she had at her command an abundant portion of that leisure which—while not a _sine qua non_ as regards strictly intellectual acquirement—is undoubtedly essential to the cultivation of the mental graces. Truth to say, as a class, Southern women were more distinguished for their soft femininity and finished refinement of manner than for their erudition. By which I am far from implying that they ignored grammar; much less that—in common with their male relatives—they used the negro-dialect. As a matter of fact indeed, by no people was purer _dictionary_ English spoken, than by the upper-class in the Old South.

In its whole internal arrangement and frictionless daily routine the homelife of the South much more nearly resembled that of the English gentry, than that of the dwellers in the Northern States of the Union. Thanks to “the institution,” the household machine was too complex a mechanism ever to be thrown completely out of gear, the direful domestic problems so often confronting the Northern housewife being at the South entirely unknown. And as conditions, homely and trivial in themselves, sometimes exert an influence on things seemingly beyond their sphere, it may be that that large hearted, free-handed hospitality for which the Old South was famed, was in part at least, the result of this feeling of stability about the domestic foundations.

H. E. BELIN.

CHARLESTON, S. C.

(_To be continued._)

[Illustration: [Fleuron]]

ANTHONY WALTON WHITE, BRIGADIER IN THE CONTINENTAL ARMY

The subject of this memoir descended from an ancient and honorable West of England family, noted for six generations for its military predilections. The first Anthony of whom we have particulars was a zealous partisan of Charles I., and left England for Virginia after the establishment of the Commonwealth; but, stopping at Bermuda, decided to remain there, where he became a member of the Government. The second Anthony returned to England and under William III. became a lieutenant-colonel and served at the battle of the Boyne. In reward for services, he was appointed a member of the King’s council, and Chief Justice of the Bermudas; an office which descended to his eldest son, Leonard, who entered the British Navy and served with distinction. The third Anthony, Leonard’s eldest son, came to New York about 1715, married a Miss Staats, and died soon afterwards, on the voyage to Bermuda. His only son, Anthony (IV.), after holding various civil offices in the State of New Jersey, entered the army and was a lieutenant-colonel in 1751. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Lewis Morris, governor of New Jersey, by whom he had the subject of our sketch, Anthony, the fifth of the name—his middle name coming from his godfather, the celebrated William Walton, of the “Walton House,” in the present Franklin Square, New York City. Anthony was born July 7, 1750, at the family residence near New Brunswick, N. J.

The family aptitude for officeholding secured him, in due time, several posts of honor and profit under the Crown, and up to the outbreak of the Revolution he pursued the ordinary routine life of a country gentleman of large property; when the hereditary love of arms, and a sincere attachment to the cause of country, transformed him into the ardent patriot. In October, 1775, he was appointed an aide to Washington,[8] and in February, 1776, became Lieutenant-Colonel of the Third N. J. Battalion. In this capacity he was actively engaged in service at the North until 1780, when he was transferred to the First Regiment of Cavalry, and ordered South, to assume general command of the cavalry in that department.

In July, 1780, despairing of receiving the promised aid from the State of Virginia, and anxious to join the army under Gates, then in South Carolina, Colonel White procured on his own personal credit, the funds necessary to remount and support for a short time, two regiments; with which he marched to join Gates—fortunately too late to share in the defeat at Camden (and yet, that same rout might have been a victory, had a sufficient force of cavalry been among Gates’ men). In 1781, White was ordered to Virginia to coöperate with Lafayette’s force against Cornwallis, and several times skirmished with Tarleton. In the winter of 1781–2, he was again in the Carolinas, opposed to him; and in the operations of Wayne at Savannah, May 21, 1782, Colonel White by his bold and adroit conduct, contributed largely to the success which followed. After the evacuation of the city by the enemy, he returned to South Carolina, and entered Charleston, where his noted generosity was exemplified by his becoming security for the debts of the officers and men of his command, who were in want of almost all the necessaries of life.

They agreed to repay him in tobacco—then the only currency of any stable value—which was to be delivered to him at Charleston on a fixed date. Owing partly to the failure of the crop that year, and partly to the inability of his beneficiaries to carry out their part of the agreement, he had to part with a large part of his Northern property, at a ruinous sacrifice. In the spring of 1783, he was married to Margaret Ellis, a young girl of only fifteen, but who is described as of remarkable accomplishments, as well as of wealth and beauty. After the conclusion of hostilities, he returned to the North and settled in New York City to spend the remainder of his life, as he hoped, in tranquil enjoyment of well-earned repose, and regain his former affluence; but was unhappily persuaded by his old army friends to join them in a speculation which, as the only responsible member of the organization, nearly ruined him as a result.

In 1793 he removed from New York to his native New Brunswick, where he spent the rest of his life. He was destined, however, to be once more called to arms; being appointed by Washington, in 1794, to command the cavalry in the expedition under Henry Lee, against the Western insurgents; in the delicate management of which duty, he not only won the esteem and gratitude of the inhabitants of the region which was the scene of the insurrection, but the gratitude even of the prisoners whom he was obliged to take to Philadelphia. He then petitioned Congress for repayment of the large sums he had advanced to the State of Virginia—but unsuccessfully; and though his last years were clouded by the loss of almost all the wealth which was once his, he endured the reverses of fortune with the courage of an ancient Roman. His homestead at New Brunswick was frequently the resort of the leading men of the day—and Kosciuszko was there nursed through a severe sickness, by the unremitting care of Mrs. White and her daughter, which he gratefully acknowledged, in letters still owned by the great-granddaughter of General (as he became) White, Miss Bellita Evans of New Brunswick. General White was a member of the Society of the Cincinnati,[9] his insignia of which is now owned by his descendant, Mr. Anthony Walton White Evans.[10]

General White’s grave, in the cemetery of Christ Church, New Brunswick, is inscribed:

BRIG. GEN. ANTHONY WALTON WHITE, _who departed this life on the 10th of February, 1803 in the 53d year of his age, Rests beneath this monumental stone_.

_He was an affectionate husband, a tender parent, a sincere and generous friend, a zealous and inflexible Patriot and a faithful, active and gallant officer in the Army of the United States during the Revolutionary War._

APPENDIX