Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow QUERY VI A notice of the mines and other subterraneous riches; its trees, plants, fruits, &c. - The Works, vol. 3 (Notes on Virginia I, Correspondence 1780-1782)

Return to Title Page for The Works, vol. 3 (Notes on Virginia I, Correspondence 1780-1782)

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Topic: The American Revolution and Constitution

QUERY VI A notice of the mines and other subterraneous riches; its trees, plants, fruits, &c. - Thomas Jefferson, The Works, vol. 3 (Notes on Virginia I, Correspondence 1780-1782) [1905]

Edition used:

The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal Edition (New York and London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1904-5). Vol. 3.

Part of: The Works of Thomas Jefferson, 12 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


QUERY VI
A notice of the mines and other subterraneous riches; its trees, plants, fruits, &c.

I knew a single instance of gold found in this state. It was interspersed in small specks through a lump of ore of about four pounds weight, which yielded seventeen pennyweights of gold, of extraordinary ductility. [42] This ore was found on the north side of Rappahanoc, about four miles below the falls. I never heard of any other indication of gold in its neighborhood.

On the Great Kanhaway, opposite to the mouth of Cripple creek, and about twenty-five miles from our southern boundary, in the county of Montgomery, are mines of lead. The metal is mixed, sometimes with earth, and sometimes with rock, which requires the force of gunpowder to open it; and is accompanied with a portion of silver too small to be worth separation under any process hitherto attempted there. The proportion yielded is from 50 to 80 pounds of pure [43] metal from 100 pounds of washed ore. The most common is that of 60 to 100 pounds. The veins are sometimes most flattering, at others they disappear suddenly and totally. They enter the side of the hill and proceed horizontally. Two of them are wrought at present by the public, the best of which is 100 yards under the hill. These would employ about 50 laborers to advantage. We have not, however, more than 30 generally, and these cultivate their own corn. They have produced 60 tons of lead in the year; but the general quantity is from 20 to 25 tons. The present furnace is a mile from the ore-bank and on the opposite side of the river. The ore is first waggoned to the river, a quarter of a mile, then laden on board of canoes and carried across the river, which is there about 200 yards wide, and then again taken into waggons and carried to the furnace. This mode was originally adopted that they might avail themselves of a good situation on a creek, for a pounding mill: but it would be easy to have the furnace and pounding mill on the same side of the river, which would yield water, without any dam, by a canal of about half a mile in length. [44] From the furnace the lead is transported 130 miles along a good road, leading through the peaks of Otter to Lynch’s ferry, or Winston’s on James river, from whence it is carried by water about the same distance to Westham. This land carriage may be greatly shortened, by delivering the lead on James river, above the blue ridge, from whence a ton weight has been brought on two canoes. The Great Kanhaway has considerable falls in the neighborhood of the mines. About seven miles below are three falls, of three or four feet perpendicular each; and three miles above is a rapid of three miles continuance, which has been compared in its descent to the great fall of James river. Yet it is the opinion, that they may be laid open for useful navigation, so as to reduce very much the portage between the Kanhaway and James river.

A valuable lead mine is said to have been lately discovered in Cumberland, below the mouth of Red river. The greatest, however, known in the western country, are the Missisipi, extending from the mouth of Rock river 150 miles upwards. These are not wrought, the lead used in that country being [45] from the banks on the Spanish side of the Missisipi, opposite to Kaskaskia.

A mine of copper was once opened in the county of Amherst, on the North side of James river, and another in the opposite country, on the South side. However, either from bad management or the poverty of the veins, they were discontinued. We are told of a rich mine of native copper on the Ouabache, below the upper Wiaw.

The mines of iron worked at present, are Callaway’s, Ross’s, and Ballendine’s on the South side of James river; Old’s on the North side, in Albemarle; Miller’s in Augusta, and Zane’s in Frederic. These two last are in the valley between the Blue ridge and the North mountain. Callaway’s, Ross’s, Miller’s, and Zane’s make about 150 tons of bar iron each, in the year. Ross’s makes also about 1600 tons of pig iron annually; Ballendine’s 1000; Callaway’s, Miller’s, and Zane’s, about 600 each. Besides these, a forge of Mr. Hunter’s, at Fredericksburgh, makes about 300 tons a year of bar iron, from pigs imported from Maryland; and Taylor’s forge on Neapsco of Patowmac, works in the same way, but to what extent I am not informed. [46] The indications of iron in other places are numerous, and dispersed through all the middle country. The toughness of the cast iron of Ross’s and Zane’s furnaces is very remarkable. Pots and other utensils cast thinner than usual, of this iron, may be safely thrown into, or out of the waggons on which they are transported. Salt-pans made of the same, and no longer wanted for that purpose, cannot be broken up, in order to be melted again, unless previously drilled in many parts.

In the western country, we are told of iron mines between the Muskingham1 and Ohio; of others on Kentucky, between the Cumberland and Barren rivers, between Cumberland and Tannissee, on Reedy creek near the Long island, and on Chesnut creek, a branch of the great Kanhaway, near where it crosses the Carolina line. What are called the iron banks, on the Missisipi, are believed, by a good judge, to have no iron in them. In general, from what is hitherto known of that country, it seems to want iron.

Considerable quantities of black lead are taken occasionally for use from Winterham in the county of Amelia. I am not able, however, to give a particular state of the [47] mine. There is no work established at it; those who want going and procuring it for themselves.

The country on James river, from 15 to 20 miles above Richmond, and for several miles northward and southward, is replete with mineral coal of a very excellent quality. Being in the hands of many proprietors, pits have been opened, and, before the interruption of our commerce, were worked to an extent equal to the demand.

In the western country coal is known to be in so many places, as to have induced an opinion, that the whole tract between the Laurel mountain, Missisipi, and Ohio, yields coal. It is also known in many places on the North side of the Ohio. The coal at Pittsburg is of very superior quality. A bed of it at that place has been afire since the year 1765. Another coal-hill on the Pike-run of Monongahela has been afire ten years; yet it has burnt away about twenty yards only.

I have known one instance of an Emerald found in this country. [48] Amethysts have been frequent, and chrystals common; yet not in such numbers any of them as to be worth seeking.

There is very good marble, and in very great abundance, on James river, at the mouth of Rockfish. The samples I have seen were some of them of a white as pure as one might expect to find on the surface of the earth: but most of them were variegated with red, blue, and purple. None of it has been ever worked. It forms a very large precipice, which hangs over a navigable part of the river. It is said there is marble at Kentucky.

But one vein of limestone is known below the Blue ridge. Its first appearance, in our country, is in Prince William, two miles below the Pignut ridge of mountains; thence it passes on nearly parallel with that and crosses the Rivanna about five miles below it, where it is called the South-west ridge. It then crosses the Hardware, above the mouth of Hudson’s creek, James river at the mouth of Rockfish, at the marble quarry before spoken of, probably runs up that river to where it appears again at Ross’s iron-works, and so passes off south-westwardly by Flat creek of Otter river. It is never more than one hundred yards wide. [49] From the Blue ridge westwardly, the whole country seems to be founded on a rock of limestone, besides infinite quantities on the surface, both loose and fixed. This is cut into beds, which range, as the mountains and sea-coast do, from south-west to north east, the lamina of each bed declining from the horizon towards a parallelism with the axis of the earth. Being struck with this observation, I made, with a quadrant, a great number of trials on the angles of their declination, and found them to vary from 22°. to 60°. but averaging all my trials, the result was within one-third of a degree of the elevation of the pole or latitude of the place, and much the greatest part of them taken separately were little different from that; by which it appears, that these lamina are, in the main, parallel with the axis of the earth. In some instances, indeed, I found them perpendicular, and even reclining the other way; but these were extremely rare, and always attended with signs of convulsion, or other circumstances of singularity, which admitted a possibility of removal from their original position. These trials were made between Madison’s cave and the Patowmac. [50] We hear of limestone on the Missisipi and Ohio, and in all the mountainous country between the eastern and western waters, not on the mountains themselves, but occupying the vallies between them.1

Near the eastern foot of the North mountain are immense bodies of Schist, containing impressions of shells in a variety of forms. I have received petrified shells of very different kinds from the first sources of Kentucky, which bear no resemblance to any I have ever seen on the tide-waters. It is said1 that shells are found in the Andes, in South-America, fifteen thousand feet above the level of the ocean. This is considered by many, both of the learned and unlearned, as a proof of an universal deluge. To the many considerations opposing this opinion, the following may be added. The atmosphere, and all its contents, whether of water, air, or other matters, graviate to the earth; that is to say, they have weight. Experience tells us, that the weight of all these together never exceeds that of a column of mercury of 31 inches height, which is equal to one of rain water of 35 feet high. If the whole contents of the atmosphere, then, were water, [51] instead of what they are, it would cover the globe but 35 feet deep; but as these waters, as they fell, would run into the seas, the superficial measure of which is to that of the dry parts of the globe, as two to one, the seas would be raised only 52½ feet above their present level, and of course would overflow the lands to that height only.2 In Virginia this would be a very small proportion even of the champaign country, the banks of our tidewaters being frequently, if not generally, of a greater height. Deluges beyond this extent, then, as for instance to the North mountain or to Kentuckey, seem out of the laws of nature. But within it they may have taken place to a greater or less degree, in proportion to the combination of natural causes which may be supposed to have produced them. History renders probably some instances of a partial deluge in the country lying round the Mediterranean sea. It has been often1 supposed, and it is not unlikely, that that sea was [52] once a lake. While such, let us admit an extraordinary collection of the waters of the atmosphere from the other parts of the globe to have been discharged over that and the countries whose waters run into it.2 That lake3 may thus have been so raised as to overflow the low lands adjacent to it, as those of Egypt and Armenia, which, according to a tradition of the Egyptians and Hebrews, were overflowed about 2300 years before the Christian æra; those of Attica, said to have been overflowed in the time of Ogyges, about 500 years later; and those of Thessaly, in the time of Deucalion, still 300 years posterior.4 But such deluges as these will not account for the shells found in the higher lands.1 Besides the usual process for generating shells by the elaboration of earth and water in animal vessels, may not nature have provided an equivalent operation, by passing the same materials through the pores of calcareous earths and stones? As we see calcareous drop-stones generating every day by the percolation of water through lime-stone, and new marble forming in the quarries from which the old has been taken out, which is said to be the case in the quarries [53] of Italy. Is it more difficult for nature to shoot the calcareous juice into the form of a shell, than other juices into the forms of Chrystals, plants, animals, according to the construction of the vessels through which they pass? There is a wonder somewhere. Is it greatest on this branch of a dilemma, or on that which supposes the creation of such a body of water, and its subsequent annihilation? Have not Naturalists already brought themselves to believe much stranger things? Thus, they seriously concur in the opinion that those immense hills and plains of marble to be found in every quarter of the globe, nay the very foundation of the earth itself, which is of limestone in large tracts of this country, and probably of others, and has been found here to continue solid to the depth of 200 feet, farther than which we have not penetrated, that these, I say, and all other calcareous bodies, are animal remains. Monsieur de Voltaire, who seems first to have suspected that shells might grow unconnected with animal bodies, specifies an instance in a particular place in France, which has never yet, as far as I have heard, been disproved or denied. [54]

There is great abundance (more especially when you approach the mountains) of stone, white, blue, brown, &c., fit for the chisel, good milstone, such also as stands the fire, and slatestone. We are told of flints, fit for gunflints, on the Meherrin in Brunswic, on the Missisipi between the mouth of the Ohio and Kaskaskia, and on others of the western waters. Isinglass or mica is in several places; loadstone also; and an Asbestos of the ligneous texture, is sometimes to be met with.

Marle abounds generally: A clay, of which, like the Sturbridge in England, bricks are made, which will resist long the violent action of fire, has been found on Tuckahoe creek of James river, and no doubt will be found in other places. Chalk is said to be in Botetourt and Bedford. In the latter county is some earth believed to be Gypseous. Ochres are found in various parts.

In the limestone country are many caves, the earthy floors of which are impregnated with nitre. On Rich creek, a branch of the Great Kanhaway about 60 miles below the lead mines, is a very large one, about 20 yards wide, and entering a hill a quarter or half a mile. The vault is of rock, from 9 to [55] 15 or 20 feet above the floor. A Mr. Lynch, who gives me this account, undertook to extract the nitre. Besides a coat of the salt which had formed on the vault and floor, he found the earth highly impregnated to the depth of seven feet in some places, and generally of three, every bushel yielding on an average three pounds of nitre. Mr. Lynch having made about 1000 pounds of the salt from it, consigned it to some others, who have since made 10,000 lb. They have done this by pursuing the cave into the hill, never trying a second time the earth they have once exhausted, to see how far or soon it receives another impregnation. At least fifty of these caves are worked on the Greenbriar. There are many of them known on Cumberland river.

The country westward of the Alleghaney abounds with springs of common salt. The most remarkable we have heard of are at Bullet’s lick, the Big bones, the Blue licks, and on the North fork of Holston. The area of Bullet’s lick is of many acres. Digging the earth to the depth of three feet the water begins to boil up, and the deeper you go, and the drier the weather, the stronger is the brine. A thousand gallons of water [56] yield from a bushel to a bushel and a half of salt, which is about 80 lb. of water to one lb. of salt; but of sea water 25 lb. yield one lb. of salt. So that sea water is more than three times as strong as that of these springs. A salt spring has been lately discovered at the Turkey foot on Yohogany, by which river it is overflowed, except at very low water. Its merit is not yet known. Dunning’s lick is also as yet untried, but it is supposed to be the best on this side the Ohio. The salt springs on the margin of the Onondago lake are said to give a saline taste to the waters of the lake.

There are several Medicinal springs, some of which are indubitably efficacious, while others seem to owe their reputation as much to fancy and change of air and regimen, as to their real virtues. None of them having undergone a chemical analysis in skilful hands, nor been so far the subject of observations as to have produced a reduction into classes of the disorders which they relieve; it is in my power to give little more than an enumeration of them.

The most efficacious of these are two springs in Augusta, near the first sources of James [57] river, where it is called Jackson’s river. They rise near the foot of the ridge of mountains, generally called the Warmspring mountain, but in the maps Jacksons mountains. The one distinguished by the name of the Warmspring, and the other of the Hot-spring. The Warmspring issues with a very bold stream, sufficient to work a grist-mill and to keep the waters of its basin, which is 30 feet in diameter at the vital warmth, viz. 96°. of Farenheit’s thermometer. The matter with which these waters are allied is very volatile; its smell indicates it to be sulphureous, as also does the circumstance of its turning silver black. They relieve rheumatisms. Other complaints also of very different natures have been removed or lessened by them. It rains here four or five days in every week.

The Hot-spring is about six miles from the Warm, is much smaller, and has been so hot as to have boiled an egg. Some believe its degree of heat to be lessened. It raises the mercury in Farenheit’s thermometer to 112 degrees, which is fever heat. It sometimes relieves where the Warmspring fails. A fountain of common water, issuing within a few inches of its margin, gives it a singular ap-[58]pearance. Comparing the temperature of these with that of the Hot-springs of Kamschatka, of which Krachininnikow gives an account, the difference is very great, the latter raising the mercury to 200°. which is within 12°. of boiling water. These springs are very much resorted to in spite of a total want of accommodation for the sick. Their waters are strongest in the hottest months, which occasion their being visited in July and August principally.

The Sweet springs are in the county of Botetourt, at the eastern foot of the Alleghaney, about 42 miles from the Warm-springs. They are still less known. Having been found to relieve cases in which the others had been ineffectually tried, it is probable their composition is different. They are different also in their temperature, being as cold as common water: which is not mentioned, however, as a proof of a distinct impregnation. This is among the first sources of James river.

On Patowmac river, in Berkeley county, above the North mountain, are Medicinal springs, much more frequented than those of Augusta. Their powers, however, are less, the waters weakly mineralized, and scarcely [59] warm. They are more visited, because situated in a fertile, plentiful, and populous country, better provided with accommodations, always safe from the Indians, and nearest to the more populous States.

In Louisa county, on the head waters of the South Anna branch of York river, are springs of some medicinal virtue. They are not much used however. There is a weak Chalybeate at Richmond; and many others in various parts of the country, which are of too little worth, or too little note, to be enumerated after those before-mentioned.

We are told of a Sulphur-spring on Howard’s creek of Greenbriar, and another at Boonsborough on Kentuckey.

In the low grounds of the Great Kanhaway, 7 miles above the mouth of Elk River, and 67 above that of the Kanhaway itself, is a hole in the earth of the capacity of 30 or 40 gallons, from which issues constantly a bituminous vapour1 in so strong a current as to give to the sand about its orifice the motion which it has in a boiling spring. On presenting a lighted candle or torch within 18 inches of the hole it flames up in a column of 18 inches in diameter, and four or five feet [60] height, which sometimes burns out in 20 minutes, and at other times has been known to continue three days, and then has been still left burning.2 The flame is unsteady, of the density of that of burning spirits, and smells like burning pit coal. Water sometimes collects in the basin, which is remarkably cold, and is kept in ebullition by the vapor issuing through it. If the vapor be fired in that state, the water soon becomes so warm that the hand cannot bear it, and evaporates wholly in a short time.1 This, with the circumjacent lands, is the property of his Excellency General Washington and of General Lewis.

There is a similar one on Sandy river, the flame of which is a column of about 12 inches diameter, and 3 feet high. General Clarke, who informs me of it, kindled the vapour, staid about an hour, and left it burning.

The mention of uncommon springs leads me to that of Syphon fountains. There is one of these

lf0054-03_figure_008

near the intersection of Lord Fairfax’s boundary with the North mountain, not far from Brock’s gap, on the stream of which is a grist-mill, which grinds two bushels [61] of grain at every flood of the spring; another, near the Cow-pasture river, a mile and a half below its confluence with the Bull-pasture river, and 16 or 17 miles from Hot-springs, which intermits once in every twelve hours; one also near the mouth of the North Holston.1

After these may be mentioned the Natural Well on the lands of a Mr. Lewis in Frederick county. It is somewhat larger than a common well; the water rises in it as near the surface of the earth as in the neighboring artificial wells, and is of a depth as yet unknown. It is said there is a current in it tending sensibly downwards. If this be true, it probably feeds some fountain, of which it is the natural reservoir, distinguished from others, like that of Madison’s cave, by being accessible. It is used with a bucket and windlass, as an ordinary well.

A complete catalogue of the trees, plants, fruits, &c. is probably not desired. I will sketch out those which would principally attract notice, as being 1. Medicinal, 2. Esculent, 3. Ornamental, or 4. Useful for fabrication; adding the Linnæan to the popular [62] names, as the latter might not convey precise information to a foreigner. I shall confine myself too to native plants.

  • 1. Senna. Cassia ligustrina. Arsmart. Polygonum Sagittatum.Clivers, or goose-grass. Galium spurium.Lobelia of several species.Palma Christi. Ricinus.Jamestown weed. Datura Stramonium.1Mallow. Malva rotundafolia.Syrian mallow. Hibiscus moschentos.Hibiscus Virginicus.Indian mallow. Sida rhombifolia.Sida abutilon.Virginia marshmallow. Napæ hermaphrodita.Napæ dioica.Indian physic. Spiria trifoliata.Euphorbia Ipecacuanhæ.Pleurisy root. Asclepias decumbens.Virginia snake-root. Aristolochia serpentaria.Black snake-root. Actæ racemosa.Seneca rattlesnake-root. Polygala senega.Valerian. Valeriana locusta radiata.Gentiana, Saponaria, villosa & centaurium.Ginseng. Panax quinquefolium.Angelica. Angelica sylvestris. [63]Cassava. Jatropha urens.
  • 2. Tuckahoe. Lycoperdon tuber. Jerusalem artichoke. Helianthus tuberosus.Long potatoes. Convolvulas batatas.Granadillas. Maycocks, Maracocks, Passiflora incarnata.Panic. Panicum of many species.Indian millet. Holcus laxus.Holcus striosus.Wild oat. Zizania aquatica.Wild pea. Dolichos of Clayton.Lupine. Lupinus perennis.Wild hop. Humulus lupulus.Wild cherry. Prunus virginiana.Cherokee plumb. Prunus sylvestris fructu majori. Clayton.Wild plum. Prunus sylvestris fructu minori. Clayton.Wild crab apple. Pyrus coronaria.Red mulberry. Morus rubra.Persimmon. Diospyros virginiana.Sugar maple. Acer saccharinum.Scaly bark hiccory. Juglans alba cortice squamoso. Clayton.Common hiccory. Juglans alba, fructu minore rancido. Clayton. [64]Paccan, or Illinois nut. Not described by Linnæus, Miller or Clayton. Were I to venture to describe this, speaking of the fruit from memory, and of the leaf from plants of two years growth, I should specify it as Juglans alba, foliolis lanceolatis, acuminatis, serratis, tomentosis, fructu minore, ovato, compresso, vix insculpto, dulci, putamine tenerrimo. It grows on the Illinois, Wabash, Ohio, and Missisipi. It is spoken of by Don Ulloa under the name of Pecanos, in his Noticias Americanas. Entret. 6.Black walnut. Juglans nigra.White walnut. Juglans alba.Chesnut. Fagus castanea.Chinquapin. Fagus pumila.Hazlenut. Corylus avellana.Grapes. Vitis. Various kinds, though only three described by Clayton.Scarlet strawberries. Fragaria virginiana of Millar.Whortleberries. Vaccinium uliginosum.?Wild gooseberries. Ribes grossularia.Cranberries. Vaccinium oxycoccos.Black raspberries. Rubus occidentalis.Blackberries. Rubus fruticosus.Dewberries. Rubus cæsius. [65]Cloudberries. Rubus Chamæmorus.Linden, or lime. Tilia Americana.
  • 3. Plane tree. Plantanus occidentalis. Poplar. Liriodendron tulipifera.Populus heterophylla.Black poplar. Populus nigra.Aspen. Populus tremula.Red flowering maple. Acer rubrum.Horse-chesnut, or Buck’s-eye. Æsculus pavia.Catalpa. Bignonia catalpa.Umbrella. Magnolia tripetala.Swamp laurel. Magnolia glauca.Cucumber-tree. Magnolia acuminata.Portugal bay. Laurus indica.Red bay. Laurus borbonia.Dwarf-rose bay. Rhododendron maximum.Laurel of the western country. Qu. species?Wild pimento. Laurus benzoin.Sassafras. Laurus sassafras.Locust. Robinia pseudo-acacia.Honey-locust. Gleditsia. 1. β.Dogwood. Cornus florida.Fringe, or snow drop-tree. Chionanthus virginica.Barberry. Barberis vulgaris.Redbud, or Judas-tree. Cercis canadensis. [66]Holly. Ilex aquifolium.Cockspur hawthorn. Cratægus coccinea.Spindle-tree. Euonymus Europæus.Evergreen spindle-tree. Euonymus Americanus.Itea Virginica.Elder. Sambucus nigra.Papaw. Annona triloba.Candleberry myrtle. Myrica cerifera. called ivy with us.Dwarf laurel. Kalmia angustifolia. called ivy with us.Kalmia latifolia.Ivy. Hedera quinquefolia.Trumpet Honeysuckle. Lonicera sempervirens.Upright honeysuckle. Azalea nudiflora.1Yellow jasmine. Bignonia sempervirens.Calycanthus floridus.American aloe. Agave virginica.Sumach. Rhus. Qu. species?Poke. Phytolacca decandra.Long Moss. Tillandsia Usneoides.
  • 4. Reed. Arundo phragmitis. Virginia hemp. Acnida cannabina.Flax. Linum virginianum.Black, or pitch-pine. Pinus tæda. [67]White pine. Pinus strobus.Yellow pine. Pinus virginica.Spruce pine. Pinus foliis singularibus. Clayton.Hemlock spruce fir. Pinus canadensis.Arbor vitæ. Thuya occidentalis.Juniper. Juniperus virginica (Called cedar with us.)Cypress. Cupressus disticha.2Black Oak. Quercus nigra.White oak. Quercus alba.Red oak. Quercus rubra.Willow oak. Quercus phellos.Chestnut oak. Quercus prinus.Black jack oak. Quercus aquatica. Clayton. Query?Ground oak. Quercus pumila. Clayton.Live oak. Quercus virginiana. Millar.Black birch. Betula nigraWhite birch. Betula alba.Beach. Fagus sylvatica.Ash. Fraxinus americana.Fraxinus novæ angliæ. Millar.Elm. Ulmus americana.Willow. Salix. Query species?Sweet gum. Liquidambar stryaciflua. [68]

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 prisoner1 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 hemispheres2 ; 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 celebrated2 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 another3 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 times1 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 preserved4 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 forte2 :” 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 Buffon1 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 work1 : “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. Ours153.7*410
Elk. Elan. Original palmated1
Red deer. Cerf288.8*273
Fallow Deer. Daim167.8
Wolf. Loup69.8
Roe. Chevreuil56.7
Glutton. Glouton. Carcajou
Wild Cat. Chat sauvage†30
Lynx. Loup cervier25.
Beaver. Castor18.5*45
Badger. Blaireau13.6
Red fox. Renard13.5
Gray fox. Isatis
Otter. Loutre8.9†12
Monax. Marmotte6.5
Vison. Fouine2.8
Hedgehog. Herisson2.2
Marten. Marte1.9†6
oz.
Water rat. Rat d’eau7.5
Weasel. Belette2.2
oz.
Flying squirrel. Polatouche2.2†4
Shrew mouse Musaraigne1.[85]

II. ABORIGINALS OF ONE ONLY

europe.america.
lb.lb.
2In 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 boar280.Tapir534.
Mouflon. Wild Sheep56.Elk, round horned†450.
Bouquetin. Wild goatPuma
Lievre. Hare27.6Jaguar218.
Lapin. Rabbit3.4Cabiai109.
Putois. Polecat3.3Tamanoir109.
Genette3.1Tammandua65.4
Desman. Muskratoz.Cougar of North-America75.
Ecureuil. Squirrel12.Cougar of South-America59.4
Hermine. Ermin8.2Ocelot
Rat. Rat7.5Pecari46.3
Loirs3.1Jaguaret43.6
Lerot. Dormouse1.8Alco
Taupe. Mole1.2Lama
Hampster.9Paco
ZiselPaca32.7
LemingServal
Souris. Mouse.6Sloth. Unau27.½
Saricovienne
Kincajou
Tatou Kabassou21.8
Urson. Urchin
Raccoon. Raton16.5
Coati
Coendou16.3
Sloth. Ai13.
Sapajou Ouarini
Sapajou Coaita9.8
Tatou Encubert
Tatou Apar
Tatou Cachica7.
Little Coendou6.5
Opossum. Sarigue[86]
Tapeti
Margay
Crabier
Agouti4.2
Sapajou Sai3.5
Tatou Cirquinçon
Tatou Tatouate3.3
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
Surikate2.
Mink†2.
Sapajou. Sajou1.8
Indian pig. Cochon d’Inde.1.6
Sapajou Saïmiri1.5
Phalanger
Coqualain
Lesser gray squirrel†1.5
Black squirrel†1.5
Red squirrel10. oz.
Sagoin Saki
Sagoin Pinche[87]
Sagoin Tamarinoz.
Sagoin Ouistiti4.4
Sagoin Marakine
Sagoin Mico
Cayopollin
Fourmillier
Marmose
Sarigue of Cayenne
Tucan
Red Moleoz.
Ground squirrel4.

III. DOMESTICATED IN BOTH

Europe. lb.America. lb.
Cow763.*2500
Horse*1366
Ass
Hog*1200
Sheep*125
Goat*80
Dog67.6
Cat7.[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. That1 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 us1 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 says3 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. Daubenton4 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 says7 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 the2 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 account5 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 the1 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 Daubenton1 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 anatomist1 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 hog2 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. Daubenton3 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 bravery2 ; 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 to1 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 uttermost1 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 the2 ‘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.Buffon1 oiseaux.
1This 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.
1In the edition of 1787 is here inserted: “Motacilla regulus | Regulus cristatu 3.13 | Wren. 1058.”
Lanius tyrannusMuscicapa coronâ rubrâ1.55Tyrant. Field martin8.398
Vultur auraButeo specie Gallo-pavonis1. 6Turkey buzzard1.246
Falco leucocephalusAquilla capite albo1. 1Bald Eagle1.138
Falco sparveriusAccipiter minor1. 5Little hawk. Sparrow hawk
Falco columbariousAccipiter palumbarius1. 3Pigeon hawk1.338
Falco furcatusAccipiter caudâ furcatâ1. 4Forked tail hawk1.286.312
Accipiter piscatorius1. 2Fishing hawk1.199
Strix asioNoctua aurita minor1. 7Little owl1.141
Psittacus CaroliniensisPsittacus Caroliniensus1.11Parrot of Carolina. Parroquet11.383
Corvus cristatusPica glandaria, cærulea, cristata1.15Blue-jay5.164
Oriolus BaltimoreIcterus ex aureo nigroque varius1.48Baltimore bird5.318
Oriolus spuriusIcterus minor1.49Bastard Baltimore5.321
Gracula quisculaMonedula purpurea1.12Purple jackdaw. Crow blackbird5.134
Cuculus AmericanusCuculus Caroliniensis1. 9Carolina cuckow12.62
Picus principalisPicus maximus rostro albo1.16White bill woodpecker13.69
Picus pileatusPicus niger maximus, capite rubro1.17Larger red-crested woodpecker13.72
Picus erythrocephalusPicus capite toto rubro1.20Red-headed woodpecker13.83
Picus ouratusPicus major alis aureis1.18Gold-winged woodpecker. Yucker. [126]13.59
Picus CarolinusPicus ventre rubro1.19Red-bellied woodpecker13.105
Picus pubescensPicus varius minimus1.21Smallest spotted woodpecker13.113
Picus villosusPicus medius quasi-villosus1.19Hairy woodpecker. Spec. woodpecker13.111
Picus variusPicus varius minor ventre luteo1.21Yellow-bellied woodpecker13.115
Sitta Europæa Sitta capite nigro1.22Nuthatch10.213
Sitta capite fusco1.22Small Nuthatch10.214
Alcedo alcyonIspida1.69Kingfisher13.310
Certhia pinusParus Americanus lutescens1.61Pine-Creeper9.433
Trochilus colubrisMellivora avis Caroliniensis1.65Humming bird11.16
Anas CanadensisAnser Canadensis1.92Wild goose17.122
Anas bucephalaAnas minor purpureo capite1.95Buffel’s-head duck17.356
Anas rusticaAnas minor ex albo & fusco vario1.98Little brown duck17.413
Anas discors. δQuerquedula Americana variegata1.10White face teal17.403
Anas discors. δQuerquedula Americana fusca1.99Blue wing teal17.405
Anas sponsaAnas Americanus cristatus elegans1.97Summer duck17.351
Anas Americanus lato rostro1.96Blue wing shoveler17.275
Mergus cucullatusAnas cristatus1.94Round crested duck15.437
Columbus podicepsProdicipes minor rostro vario1.91Pied bill dopchick15.383
Ardea HerodiasArdea cristata maxima Americana3.10Largest crested heron14.113
Ardea violaceaArdea stellaris cristata Americana1.79Crested bittern14.134
Ardea cæruleaArdea cærulea1.76Blue heron. Crane [127]14.131
Ardea virescensArdea stellaris minima1.80Small bittern14.142
Ardea æquinoctialisArdea alba minor Caroliniensis1.77Little white heron14.136
Ardea stellaris Americana1.78Brown bittern. Indian hen14.175
Tantalus loculatorPelicanus Americanus1.81Wood pelican13.403
Tantalus alberNumenius albus1.82White curlew15.62
Tantalus fuscusNumenius fuscus1.83Brown curlew15.64
Charadrius vociferusPluvialis vociferus1.71Chattering plover. Kildee15.151
Hæmatopus ostralegusHæmatopus1.85Oyster-catcher15.185
Rallus VirginianusGallinula Americana1.70Soree. Ral-bird15.256
Meleagris Gallopavo1Gallopava Sylvestrisxliv.Wild Turkey3.187.229
Tetrao VirginianusPerdix Sylvestris Virginiana3.12American partridge. American quail4.237
Urgallus minor, or kind of Lagopus23. 1Pheasant. Mountain partridge3.409
Columba passerinaTurtur minimus guttatus1.26Ground dove4.404
Columba migratorioPalumbus migratorius1.23Pigeon of passage. Wild pigeon4.351
Columba CaroliniensisTurtur Caroliniensis1.24Turtle. Turtle dove4.401
Alauda alpestrisAlauda gutture flavo1.32Lark. Sky lark9.79
Alauda magnaAlauda magna1.33Field lark. Large lark6.59
Sturnus niger allis superné rubentibus1.13Red-wing. Starling. Marsh blackbird5.293
Turdus migratoriusTurdus pilaris migratorius1.29Fieldfare of Carolina. Robin redbreast5.426
9.257
Turdus rufusTurdus rufus1.28Fox-colored thrush. Thrush5.449
Turdus polyglottos3Turdus minor cinereo albus non maculatus1.27Mocking bird [128]5.451
Turdus minimus1.31Little thrush5.400
Ampelis garrulus, βGarrulus Caroliniensis1.46Chatterer6.162
Loxia CardinalisCoccothraustes rubra1.38Red bird. Virginia nightingale6.185
Loxia CæruleaCoccothraustes cærulea1.39Blue gross beak8.125
Emberiza hyemalisPasser nivalis1.36Snow bird8.47
Emberiza OryzivoraHortulanus Caroliniensis1.14Rice bird8.49
Emberiza CirisFringilla tricolor1.44Painted finch7.247
Tanagra cyaneaLinaria cærulea1.45Blue linnet7.122
Passerculus1.35Little Sparrow7.120
Passer fuscus1.34Cowpen bird7.196
Fringilla erythrophthalmaPasser niger oculis rubris1.34Towhe bird7.201
Fringilla tristisCarduelis Americanus1.43American goldfinch. Lettuce bird7.297
Fringilla purpurea1.41Purple finch8.129
Muscicapa crinitaMuscicapa cristata ventre luteo1.52Crested flycatcher8.379
Muscicapa rubraMuscicapa rubra1.56Summer red bird8.410
Muscicapa ruticillaRuticilla Americana1.67Red start8.349
9.259
Muscicapa CaroliniensisMuscicapa vertice nigro1.66Catbird8.372
Muscicapa nigrescens1.53Black cap flycatcher8.341
Muscicapa fusca1.54Little brown flycatcher8.344
Muscicapa oculis rubris1.54Red-eyed flycatcher8.337
Motacilla SialisRubicula Americana cærulea1.47Blue bird [129]19.308
Motacilla trochilus, βOenanthe Americana pectore luteo1.50Yellow breasted chat6.96
Parus bicolorParus cristatus1.57Crested titmouse10.181
Parus AmericanusParus fringillaris1.64Finch creeper9.442
Parus VirginianusParus uropygeo luteo1.58Yellow rump10.184
Parus cucullo nigro1.60Hooded titmouse10.183
Parus Americanus gutture luteo1.62Yellow throated creeper
Parus Caroliniensis1.63Yellow titmouse9.431
Hirundo PelasgiaHirundo cauda aculeata Americana4. 8American swallow12.478
Hirundo purpureaHirundo purpurea1.51Purple marten. House marten12.445
Caprimulgus Europæus, αCaprimulgus1.08Goatsucker. Great bat12.243
Caprimulgus Europæus, βCaprimulgus minor Americanus3.16Whip 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, whose1 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 us2 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

[1 ]Altered to “Muskingum” in edition of 1787.

[1 ]In the edition of 1853, a paragraph is here inserted, as follows:

“Adjacent to the vein of lime stone first mentioned, or at least to some parts of it, is a vein of Slate of greater breadth than that of the lime stone, sometimes mixed with it. The neighborhood of these veins of lime stone, and slate, and of lime stone and schist, between the North Mountain and Blue Ridge, coincides with the following observations of Bouguer, while in Peru: Le marbre est tres commun sur le bord de plusieurs de ces rivieres: on y voit aussi des rochers d’ardoise & j’ai souvent eu occasion d’y observer le grande affinité qu’il y a entre ces deux sortes de pierre. J’avois deja fait cette remarque dans la Cordeliere. Les rochers de marbre et d’ardoise s’y touchent souvent, et j’en ai vu qui etoit ardoise par une extremité et marbre parfait par l’autre. Toutes les fois qui qui’il survient un nouveau sur pierreux analogue à l’ardoise et en unit les feuilles, il rend tout le rocher plus compacte et plus dur; le rocher cesse d’etre de l’ardoise pour devener du marbre. Une pierre également distribuée par feuilles qu’on nomme schite, est aussi sujette à cette transformation. Quelquefois ce ne sont pas simplement des feuilles qui se soudent entr’elles un quartier de cette pierre se joint comme au hazard avec au autre. Si le tout est ensuite exposé à l’action du gravier & des cailloux roulés par un eau courante, et qu’il reçoive, une sorte d’arrondissement qui le rende à peu près sylindrique, il prend toutes les apparences d’un tronc d’arbre; et il est meme quelquefois très difficile de ne s’y pas tromper. Je fus très faché de ne pouvoir porter avec moi une de ces-especes de tronc que je trouvai dans une ravine entre Guanacas et la Plata, au pied d’une colline nommé la Subida del Frayle. C’etoit un morceau de marbre qui avoit 20 pouces de longueur sur 17 ou 18 de diametre; on distinguoit comme, les fibres du bois, la surface presente des noeuds de diverses formes; le conteur meme du tronc etoit également propre à en imposer. Il y avoit un enfoncement d’un coté qui formoit un angle rentrant, et une saillie du coté opposé. Je ne sçavois qu’en penser, de meme que les personnes qui m’accompagnoient. Je ne reussis enfin a me decider, qu’en jettant les yeux sur d’autres quartiers de schite que etoient auprés, qui commençoient á prendre les memes apparences, mais qui n’etoient pas encore dans un etat à pouvoir jetter dans l’erreur, et au contraire m’eclairerent sur la nature du morceau de marbre. On pretend qu’entre les differens bois c’est le gayac qui se petrifie le plus aisement. On m’assuroit que je verrois audessou de Mompox une croix dont tout le haut de l’arbre etoit encore de ce bois pendent que le bas etoit reellement de la pierre à fusil. Plusieurs personnes m’affirmerent en avoit tiré du feu. Lorsque je passai dans cet endroit on me confirma la meme chose; mais on m’ajouta qu’une crue extraordinaire avoit fait tomber la croix dans la riviere, il y avoit 6 à 7 ans. Page xciii.”

[1 ]In the edition of 1853 is a footnote, as below:

“On whose authority, it has been said? Bouguer, the best witness respecting the Andes, speaking of Peru, says: ‘On n’y distingue aucun vestige des grandes inondations qui ont laissé tant de marques dans toutes les autres regions. J’ai fait tout mon possible pour y decouvrir quelque coquille, mais toujours inutilement apparamment que les montagne du Perou sont trop hautes.’ Bouguer, xv. See 4 Clavigera, Div. 3, § 1. See 2 Epoques, 268. 1 Epoques, 415.”

[2 ]In the edition of 1853 is a footnote reference to “2 Epoques, 378.”

[1 ]2. Buffon Epoques, 96.—T. J.

[2 ]In the edition of 1787 is here added:

“Or without supposing it a lake, admit such an extraordinary collection of the waters of the atmosphere, and an influx from the Atlantic ocean, forced by long-continued Western winds.”

[3 ]In the edition of 1853 this passage reads, “That lake or that sea.”

[4 ]In the edition of 1853 a footnote adds:

“Five deluges are enumerated by Xenophon, the author of the tract de Equivocis in these words: ‘Inundationes plures fuere. Prima novimestris inundatio terrarum sub prisco Ogyge. Secunda niliaca menstrua, sub Ægyptiis Hercule et Prometheo. Bimestris autem, sub Ogyge Attico in Achaia. Trimetris Thessalica, sub Deucalione. Par Pharonica, sub Proteo Aegyptio in raptu Helenæ.’ ”

[1 ]The text from this point to the end of the paragraph Jefferson cancelled in 1786, printing two new leaves which he substituted by insertion in place of the pages 52–4 of the original, in some copies (cf. note, p. 339). This change was embodied in the edition of 1787. The new text was as follows:

“A second opinion has been entertained; which is that, in times anterior to the records either of history or tradition, the bed of the ocean the principal residence of the shelled tribe, has, by some great convulsion of nature, been heaved to the heights at which we now find shells & other remains of marine animals. The favourers of this opinion do well to suppose the great events on which it rests to have taken place beyond all the æras of history; for within these certainly, none such are to be found; & we may venture to say further that no fact has taken place, either in our own days, or in the thousands of years recorded in history, which proves the existence of any natural agents, within or without the bowels of the earth, of force sufficient to heave, to the height of 15,000 feet, such masses as the Andes. The difference between the power necessary to produce such an effect, & that which shuffled together the different parts of Calabria in our days, is so immense, that, from the existence of the latter we are not authorized to infer that of the former.

“M. de Voltaire, has suggested a third solution of this difficulty (Quest. encycl. Coquilles) he cites an instance in Touraine, where, in the space of 80 years, a particular spot of earth had been twice metamorphosed in to soft stone, which had become hard when employed in building: in this stone, shells of various kinds were produced, discoverable at first only with the microscope, but afterwards growing with the stone. From this fact, I suppose, he would have us infer that besides the usual process for generating shells by the elaboration of earth and water in animal vessels, nature may have provided an equivalent operation, by passing the same materials through the pores of calcareous earths and stones: as we see calcareous drop stones generating every day by percolation of water through limestone, and new marble forming in the quarries from which the old has been taken out; and it might be asked whether it is more difficult for nature to shoot the calcareous juice into the form of a shell, than other juices into the forms of chrystals, plants, animals, according to the construction of the vessels through which they pass? There is a wonder somewhere. Is it greatest on this branch of the dilemma; on that which supposes the existence of a power of which we have no evidence in any other case; or on the first which requires us to believe the creation of a body of water, and it’s subsequent annihilation? The establishment of the instance, cited by M. de Voltaire, of the growth of shells unattached to animal bodies, would have been that of his theory. But he has not established it. He has not even left it on ground so respectable as to have rendered it an object of enquiry to the literati of his own country. Abandoning this fact therefore, the three hypotheses are equally unsatisfactory; & we must be contented to acknowledge that this great phenomenon is as yet unsolved. Ignorance is preferable to error: & he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.”

[1 ]Altered in edition of 1853 to: “a gaseous stream so strong as to give to the sand,” etc.

[2 ]In edition of 1853 is a footnote reference to “2 Epoques, 138, 139.”

[1 ]In the edition of 1853 is here inserted: “This gaseous fluid is probably inflamable air, the hydrogene of the new chemistry, which we know will kindle on mixing with the oxygenous portion of the atmospheric air, and the application of flame. It may be produced by the decomposition of water or of pyrites, within the body of the hill.”

[1 ]In the edition of 1853, a paragraph is here inserted, as follows:

“We are told that during a great storm on the 25th of December, 1798, the Syphon Fountain, near the mouth of the North Holston, ceased and a spring broke out about 100 feet higher up the hill.”* Syphon fountains have been explained by supposing the duct which leads from the reservoir to the surface of the earth to be in the form of a syphon, a, b, c, where it is evident that till the water rises in the reservoir to d, the level of the highest point of the syphon, it cannot flow through the duct, and it is known that when it once begins to flow it will draw off the water of the reservoir to the orifice a, of the syphon. If the duct be larger than the supply of the reservoir possibly the force of the waters and loosening of the earth by them, during the storm above mentioned, may have opened a more direct duct as from e to f, horizontally or declining, which issues higher up the hill than the one fed by the syphon. In that case it becomes a common spring. Should this duct be again closed or diminished by any new accident, and both springs be kept in action from the same reservoir.”

[1 ]“There is a plant or weed, called the Jamestown weed (Datura pericarpiis erectis ovatis. Linn.) of a very similar quality. The late Dr. Bond informed me, that he had under his care a patient, a young girl, who had put the seeds of this plant into her eye, which dilated the pupil to such a degree, that she could see in the dark, but in the light was almost blind. The effect that the leaves had when eaten by a ship’s crew that arrived at Jamestown, are well known. (An instance of temporary imbecility produced by them is mentioned. Beverl. H. of Virg. b 2, r 4.)”—Charles Thomson, in appendix.

[1 ]In the edition of 1853 is added: “Azalea viscosa.”

[2 ]In the edition of 1787 is here inserted: “White cedar. Cupressus Thyoides.”

[1 ]In the edition of 1853 this note is added: “Qu. If known in Europe before the discovery of America? Ramusio supposes this to be the grain described by Diod. Dic. L. 2, in his account of the travels of Iambulus, in the following passage: ‘Φύεσθαι γὰρ παῤ αύτοῖς ϰὰλαμον πολύν, φέροντα ϰαρπὸν δαψιλῆ, παρεμφερῆ τοῖς λευϰοῖς ὀρόβόις [Ceci bianchi.—Ital. Ers. Franc.] τοῦτου ο[Editor: illegible character]ν συναγαγόντες βρέχουσιν ἐν ὕδατι θερμ[Editor: illegible character], μ[Editor: illegible character]χρις [Editor: illegible character]η τὸ μ[Editor: illegible character]γεθος ἔχωσιν ὡς ὠοῦ περιστερᾶς. ἔπειτα συνθλὰσαντες ϰαὶ τρίψαντες ἐμπειρως ταῖς χερσί, διαπλὰττούσιν ἄρτονς. οὔς ὀπτήσατες σιτοῦυτατ, διαφόρους ὄντας τῆ γλυϰυτι.’ Ramusio says of the maize ‘in Italia, ai tempi nostri, [1550] é stato, veduto “la prima volta,” and the Island in which it was found by Iambulus was Sumatra.—1. Ramus. 174. The Maison rustique says that Turkey Corn came first from the West Indies into Turkey, and from thence into France.’—L. 5, c. 17. Zimmerman says: ‘Il tire son origine des pays chauds de l’Amerique.’ Zoologie geographique, page 24. ‘Il frumentone fu dalla America in Ispagne, e quindi in altri pæsi della Europa.’ ‘Dalli Spagnuoli di Europa e di America è chiamato il frumentone col nome Mais, preso dalla lingua Haitina che si parlava nella isola oggidi appellata Spagnuola, o sia di S. Domenico.’—Clavigero i., 56. ‘Il frumentone, biada dalla providenza accordata a quella parte del mondo in vece del frumento dell Europa, del riso del Asia, e del miglio d’Africa.’—a. Clavig., 218. Acosta classes Indian Corn with the plants peculiar to America, observing that it is called ‘trigo de las Indias’ in Spain, and ‘Grano de Turquia’ in Italy. He says, ‘De donde fue el Mayz a Indias, y porque este grano tan provechoso le llaman en Italia Grano de Turquia mejor sabre preguntárlo, que dezirlo. Porque en efecto en los antiquos no hallo rastro deste genero, aunque el Milio que Plinio escrive aver venido a Italia de la India diez años avia, quando escrivio, tiene alguna similitud con el Mayz, en lo que dize que es grano, y que nace en caña, y se cubrede hoja, y que tiene al remate comuncabellos, y el ser fertilissimo, todo lo qual no quadra con el Mijo, que comunmente entienden por Milio, en fin, repartio el Criador a todas partes su gobierne; a este orbe dio el triga que es el principal sustento de los hombres; a aquel de Indias dio el Mayz, que tras el trigo tiene el sequndo lugar, para sustenta de hombres, y animales.’—Acosta 4, 16.”

[1 ]In the edition of 1853 this note is added: “Les Pommes de terre sont indigenes en Guiane.”—Zimmerman, Zool. Geogr., 26. “La Papa fu portata in Messico dall’ America Meridionale, suo proprio pæse.”—1. Clavigero, 58.

[1 ]“Indian corn” is omitted in edition of 1853.

[1 ]In the edition of 1853 “by the Indians” is inserted at this point.

[1 ]In the edition of 1853 is a footnote: “Clavigero says: ‘Non ni sovviene che appo qualche nazione Americana visia memoria o degli elefanti, o degli ippopotami, o d’altri quadrupedi di si fatta grandezza. Non so che fin ora, fra scavamenti fatta nella Nuova Spagna, siasi mai scoperto, un carcamo d’Ippopotamo, e quel ch’ è piu, ne anche un dente d’elefante.’—125.”

[2 ]In the edition of 1853 is a footnote: “2 Epoques, 276, in Mexico; but 1, Epoques, 250, denies the fact as to S. America.”

[3 ]In the edition of 1853 is a footnote reference to: “22 Buffon; 2. Epoques, 230.”

[1 ]In the edition of 1853 is a footnote: “2. Epoques, 232. Buffon pronounces it is not the grinder either of the elephant or hippopotamus, ‘mais d’une espece la premier et la grande de tous les animaux terrestres, qui est perdue.’ ”

[2 ]Hunter.—T. J.

[3 ]D’Aubenton.—T. J.

[1 ]Altered to “an animal six times the cubic volume” in edition of 1853.

[2 ]In the edition of 1853 is a footnote reference to: “Xviii. 178: xxii. 121.”

[3 ]In the edition of 1853 is a footnote: “Qu? See 2. Epoques de Buffon, 231, 234.”

[4 ]In the edition of 1853 the words “in life” are here inserted.

[1 ]In the edition of 1853 the following passage is here interpolated:

“M. de Buffon considers the existence of elephant bones in Northern regions, where the animal itself is no longer found, as one of the leading facts which support his theory, that the earth was once in a liquid state, rendered so by the action of fire, that the process of cooling began at its poles, and proceeded gradually towards the torrid zone, that with this progress the animals of warm temperature retired towards the equator, and that in the present state of that progress the globe remains of sufficient warmth, for the elephant for instance, in the tropical regions, only to which therefore they have retired, as their last asylum, and where they must become extinct when the degree of warmth shall be reduced below that adapted to their constitution. How does it happen then that no elephants exist at present in the tropical regions of America, to which those of the Ohio must have retired, according to this theory?”

[1 ]In spite of the soundness of these arguments, Buffon did not yield to them. Jefferson wrote to Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785: “I have never yet seen Monsr. de Buffon. He has been in the country all the summer. I sent him a copy of the book, have only heard his sentiments on one particular of it, that of the identity of the Mammoth & Elephant. As to this he retains his opinion that they are the same.”

[2 ]Buffon, xviii. 112., edn. Paris, 1764.—T. J.

[1 ]xviii. 100, 156.—T. J. [In the edition of 1853 this note is elaborated to:] “Xviii. 100, 156. ‘La terre est demeurée froide, impuissante a produire les principes actifs, a developer les germes des plus grands quadrupedes, auxquels il faut, pour croitre et se multiplier, toute la chaleur, toute l’ activité que le soleil peut donner a la terre, amoureuse.’—Xviii. 156. ‘L’ardeur des hommes et la grandeur des animaux dependent de la salubrité de la chaleur de l’air.’—Ib. 160.”

[1 ]viii. 134.—T. J.

[1 ]In the edition of 1853 is a footnote:

“ ‘Tout ce qu’il y a de colossal et de grand dans la nature, a eté formé dans les terres du Nord.’ 1. Epoques 255. ‘C’est dans les regions de notre Nord que la nature vivante s’est elevée a ses plus grandes dimensions.’—Ib. 263.”

[2 ]In a latter to Chastellux, June 7, 1785, Jefferson further argues on this question as follows:

“I will beg leave to say here a few words on the general question of the degeneracy of animals in America. 1. As to the degeneracy of the man of Europe transplanted to America, it is no part of Mons. de Buffon’s system. He goes indeed within one step of it, but he stops there. The Abbé Raynal alone has taken that step. Your knowledge of America enables you to judge this question, to say whether the lower class of people in America, are less informed & less susceptible of information than the lower class in Europe; and whether those in America who have received such an education as that country can give, are less improved by it than Europeans of the same degree of education. 2. As to the Aboriginal man of America, I know of no respectable evidence on which the opinion of his inferiority of genuis has been founded but that of Don Ulloa. As to Robertson, he never was in America, he relates nothing on his own knowledge, he is a compiler only of the relations of others, and a mere translator of the opinions of Mons. de Buffon. I should as soon therefore add the translators of Robertson to the witnesses of this fact, as himself. Pauw, the beginner of this charge was a compiler from the works of others; and of the most unlucky description; for he seems to have read the writings of travellers only to collect and republish their lies. It is really remarkable that in three volumes 12mo. of small print it is scarcely possible to find one truth, and yet that the author should be able to produce authority for every fact he states, as he says he can. Don Ulloa’s testimony is the most respectable. He wrote of what he saw, but he saw the Indian of South America only, and that after he had passed through ten generations of slavery. It is very unfair, from this sample, to judge of the natural genius of this race of men; and after supposing that Don Ulloa had not sufficiently calculated the allowance which should be made for this circumstance, we do him no injury in considering the picture he draws of the present Indians of S. America as no picture of what their ancestors were 300 years ago. It is in N. America we are to seek their original character. And I am safe in affirming that the proofs of genius given by the Indians of N. America, place them on a level with whites in the same uncultivated state. The North of Europe furnishes subjects enough for comparison with them, & for a proof of their equality. I have seen some thousands myself, and conversed much with them, and have found in them a male, sound understanding. I have had much information from men who had lived among them and whose veracity and good sense were so far known to me as to establish a reliance on their information. They have all agreed in bearing witness in favour of the genius of this people. As to their bodily strength their manners rendering it disgraceful to labour, those muscles employed in labour will be weaker with them than with the European labourer; but those which are exerted in the chase, and those faculties which are employed in the tracing of an enemy or a wild beast, in contriving ambuscades for him, and in carrying them through their execution, are much stronger than with us, because they are more exercised. I believe the Indian then to be in body & mind equal to the white man. I have supposed the black man, in his present state, might not be so, but it would be hazardous to affirm that, equally cultivated for a few generations, he would not become so. 3. As to the inferiority of the other animals of America, without more facts I can add nothing to what I have said in my Notes. As to the theory of Mons. de Buffon that heat is friendly & moisture adverse to the production of large animals, I am lately furnished with a fact by Doctor Franklin which proves the air of London & of Paris to be more humid than that of Philadelphia, and so creates a suspicion that the opinion of the superior humidity of America may perhaps have been too hastily adopted. And supposing that fact admitted, I think the physical reasonings urged to shew that in a moist country animals must be small, and that in a hot one they must be large, are not built on the basis of experiment. These questions however cannot be decided ultimately at this day. More facts must be collected, and more time flow off, before the world will be ripe for decision. In the meantime doubt is wisdom.”

[1 ]It is said that this animal is seldom seen above thirty miles from shore, or beyond the 56th degree of latitude. The interjacent islands between Asia and America admit his passing from one continent to the other without exceeding these bounds. And in fact, travellers tell us that these islands are places of principal resort for them, and especially in the season of bringing forth their young.—T. J.

[1 ]In the edition of 1853 this passage is altered to read:

“Kalm tells us that the moose, original, or palmated elk of America, is as high as a tall horse; and Catesby that it is about the bigness of a middle-sized ox. I have seen a skeleton 7 feet high, and from good information believe they are often considerably higher. The Elk of Europe is not two-thirds of his height.”

To this passage in the edition of 1853 is appended the following footnote: “This sentence in the first edition began as follows: ‘Kalm tells us that the Black Moose or Renne of America is as high as a tall horse,’ &c. The author corrected it as in the text, appending a marginal note in these words: ‘This is not correct. Kalm considers the Moose as the Elk, and not as the Renne. Musu is the Algonkin name of the Original, or Elk.’—I. xxvii.”

[2 ]I. 233, Lon. 1772.—T. J.

[1 ]Ib. 233.—T. J.

[2 ]I. xxvii.—T. J.

[3 ]XXIV. 162.—T. J.

[4 ]XV. 42.—T. J.

[5 ]I. 359. I. 48, 221, 251, II. 52.—T. J.

[6 ]II. 78.—T. J.

[7 ]I. 220.—T. J.

[1 ]XXVII. 63. XIV. 119. Harris, II. 387. Buffon, Quad. IX. I.—T. J.

[2 ]In the edition of 1853 is here inserted the word “Renne.”

[3 ]The word “roe” is omitted in the edition of 1853.

[1 ]In the edition of 1853 is a footnote: “Even Amer. Vesp. says he saw lions and wild bears in America.—Letters, page 77. He saw a serpent 8 braccie long, and as thick as his own waist.—Liii.”

[1 ]Quad. IX. 158.—T. J.

[2 ]XXV. 184.—T. J.

[3 ]Quad. IX. 132.—T. J.

[4 ]XIX. 2.—T. J.

[5 ]Quad. IX. 41.—T. J.

[1 ]In the edition of 1853 this end of the sentence reads: “the palmated kind is confined to the more Northern latitudes.”

[2 ]The descriptions of Theodat, Denys and La Hontan, cited by Monsieur de Buffon, under the article Elan, authorize the supposition that the flat-horned elk is found in the northern parts of America. It has not however extended to our latitudes. On the other hand, I could never learn that the round-horned elk has been seen further north than the Hudson’s river. This agrees with the former elk in its general character, being, like that, when compared with a deer, very much larger, its ears longer, broader, and thicker in proportion, its hair much longer, neck and tail shorter, having a dewlap before the breast (caruncula gutturalis Linnæi) a white spot often, if not always, of a foot diameter, on the hinder part of the buttocks round the tail; its gait a trot, and attended with a rattling of the hoofs; but distinguished from that decisively by its horns, which are not palmated, but round and pointed. This is the animal described by Catesby as the Cervus major Americanus, the stag of America, le Cerf de l’Amerique. But it differs from the Cervus as totally as does the palmated elk from the dama. And in fact it seems to stand in the same relation to the palmated elk, as the red deer does to the fallow. It has abounded in Virginia, has been seen, within my knowledge, on the eastern side of the Blue Ridge since the year 1765, is now common beyond those mountains, has been often brought to us and tamed, and its horns are in the hands of many. I should designate it as the “Alces Americanus cornibus teretibus.” It were to be wished, that naturalists, who are acquainted with the renne and elk of Europe, and who may hereafter visit the northern parts of America, would examine well the animals called there by the names of gray and black moose, caribou, original and elk. Monsieur de Buffon has done what could be done from the materials in his hands, toward clearing up the confusion introduced by the loose application of these names among the animals they are meant to designate. He reduces the whole to the renne and flat-horned elk. From all the information I have been able to collect, I strongly suspect they will be found to cover three, if not four distinct species of animals. I have seen skins of a moose, and of the caribou; they differ more from each other, and from that of the round-horned elk, than I ever saw two skins differ which belonged to different individuals of any wild species. These differences are in the color, length, and coarseness of the hair, and in the size, texture, and marks of the skin. Perhaps it will be found that there is, 1, the moose, black and gray, the former being said to be the male, and the latter the female; 2, the caribou or renne; 3, the flat-horned elk, or original; 4, the round-horned elk. Should this last, though possessing so nearly the characters of the elk, be found to be the same with the Cerf d’Ardennes or Brandhitz of Germany still there will remain the three species first enumerated.—T. J. [In the edition of 1853 this is followed by:] “See Catesby and Kalm—reason to believe that the moose is the palmated elk or original.”

[1 ]Kalm ii. 340, i. 82.—T. J.

[1 ]The Tapir is the largest of the animals peculiar to America. I collect his weight thus! Monsieur de Buffon says, XXIII. 274, that he is of the size of a Zebu, or a small cow. He gives us the measures of a Zebu, ib. 94, as taken by himself, viz. five feet seven inches from the muzzle to the root of the tail, and five feet one inch circumference behind the fore-legs. A bull, measuring in the same way six feet nine inches and five feet two inches, weighed six hundred pounds, VIII. 153. The Zebu then, and of course the Tapir, would weigh about five hundred pounds. But one individual of every species of European peculiars would probably weigh less than four hundred pounds. These are French measures and weights.—T. J.

[1 ]VII. 432.—T. J.

[1 ]VII. 474.—T. J.

[2 ]In Williamsburg, April. 1769.—T. J.

[3 ]VIII. 48, 55, 66.—T. J.

[1 ]XVIII. 96.—T. J.

[2 ]IX. 41.—T. J.

[3 ]In the edition of 1853 is a footnote: “Perros en la Espanola han crecido en numero y en grandeza, desuerte, que plaga de aquella isla.—Acosta iv. 33.”

[1 ]XXX. 219.—T. J. In the edition of 1853 is a further reference to: “xviii, 121.”

[2 ]1 Clavigero, 118.—Footnote in edition of 1853.

[3 ]XVIII, 146.—T. J.

[1 ]Amer. Vesp., 13: “Fuora di misura lussurosi,” &c., 108.—Footnote in edition of 1853.

[2 ]Amer. Vesp., 30, 31, 39, 75, “Di buono sforzo, e digrande animo.”—Ib., 78.—Footnote in edition of 1853.

[1 ]Sol Rodomonte sprezza di venire

Se non, dove la via meno è ficura.—Aristo, 14, 117.—T. J.

[2 ]In so judicious an author as Don Ulloa, and one to whom we are indebted for the most precise information we have of South America, I did not expect to find such assertions as the following: “Los Indios vencidos son los mas cobardes y pusilanimes que se pueden vér:—se hacen inōcentes, se humillan hasta el desprecio, disculpan su inconsiderado arrojo, y con las suplicas y los ruegos dán seguras pruebas de su pusilanimidad.—ó lo que resieren las historias de la Conquista, sobre sus grandes acciones, es en un sendito figurado, ó el caracter de estas gentes no es ahora segun era entonces; pero lo que no tiene duda es, que las Naciones de la parte Septentrional subsisten en la misma libertad que siempre han tenido, sin haber sido sojuzgados por algun Principe extraño, y que viven segun su régimen y costumbres de toda la vida, sin que haya habido motivo para que muden de caracter; y en estos se vé lo mismo, que sucede en los del Peru, y de toda la América Meridional, reducidos, y que nunca lo han estado.” Noticias Americanas, Entretenimiento, xviii. § 1. Don Ulloa here admits, that the authors who have described the Indians of South America, before they were enslaved, had represented them as brave people, and therefore seems to have suspected that the cowardice which he had observed in those of the present race might be the effect of subjugation. But, supposing the Indians of North America to be cowards also, he concludes the ancestors of those of South America to have been so too, and, therefore, that those authors have given fictions for truth. He was probably not acquainted himself with the Indians of North America, and had formed his opinion from hear-say. Great numbers of French, of English, and of Americans, are perfectly acquainted with these people. Had he had an opportunity of inquiring of any of these, they would have told him, that there never was an instance known of an Indian begging his life when in the power of his enemies; on the contrary, that he courts death by every possible insult and provocation. His reasoning, then, would have been reversed thus: “Since the present Indian of North America is brave, and authors tell us that the ancestors of those of South America were brave also, it must follow that the cowardice of their descendants is the effect of subjugation and ill treatment.” For he observes, ib. § 27, that “los obrages los aniquillan por la inhumanidad con que se les trata.”—T. J.

[1 ]A remarkable instance of this appeared in the case of the late Colonel Byrd, who was sent to the Cherokee nation to transact some business with them. It happened that some of our disorderly people had just killed one or two of that nation. It was therefore proposed in the council of the Cherokees that Colonel Byrd should be put to death, in revenge for the loss of their countrymen. Among them was a chief named Silòuee, who, on some former occasion, had contracted an acquaintance and friendship with Colonel Byrd. He came to him every night in his tent, and told him not to be afraid, they should not kill him. After many days’ deliberation, however, the determination was, contrary to Silòuee’s expectation, that Byrd should be put to death, and some warriors were dispatched as executioners. Silòuee attended them, and when they entered the tent, he threw himself between them and Byrd, and said to the warriors, “This man is my friend; before you get at him, you must kill me.” On which they returned, and the council respected the principle so much as to recede from their determination.—T. J.

[1 ]In the edition of 1853 is a reference to: “‘Vivono cento cinquanta anni.’—Amer. Vesp., iii. Amer. Vesp., 13.”

[1 ]In the edition of 1853 is a footnote as follows: “Amer. Vesp., 13. ‘Sono donne molto generative,’ &c.”

[2 ]In the edition of 1853 an addition is here made to the text, as follows: “This practice commenced with the Spaniards with the first discovery of America.—[See Herrera, Amer. Vesp.].”

[3 ]“Amer. Vesp., 9.”—Footnote in edition of 1853.

[1 ]xviii., 146.—T. J.

[2 ]Linn. Syst. Definition of a Man.—T. J.

[1 ]The accuracy of this narrative was challenged by Luther Martin, a son-in-law of Cresap, in a Baltimore paper, March, 29, 1797. Upon Jefferson’s attention being called to this he wrote to Governor John Henry of Maryland, as follows:

Philadelphia, December 31, 1797.

“Dear Sir,—Mr. Tazewell has communicated to me the inquiries you have been so kind as to make, relative to a passage in the Notes on Virginia, which has lately excited some newspaper publications. I feel, with great sensibility, the interest you take in this business, and with pleasure, go into explanations with one whose objects I know to be truth and justice alone. Had Mr. Martin thought proper to suggest to me, that doubts might be entertained of the transaction respecting Logan, as stated in the Notes on Virginia, and to inquire on what grounds that statement was founded, I should have felt myself obliged by the inquiry; have informed him candidly of the grounds, and cordially have co-operated in every means of investigating the fact, and correcting whatsoever in it should be found to have been erroneous. But he chose to step at once into the newspapers, and in his publications there and the letters he wrote to me, adopted a style which forbade the respect of an answer. Sensible, however, that no act of his could absolve me from the justice due to others, as soon as I found that the story of Logan could be doubted, I determined to inquire into it as accurately as the testimony remaining, after the lapse of twenty odd years, would permit, and that the result should be made known, either in the first new edition which should be printed of the Notes on Virginia, or by publishing an appendix. I thought that so far as that work had contributed to impeach the memory of Cresap, by handing on an erroneous charge it was proper it should be made the vehicle of retribution. Not that I was at all the author of the injury; I had only concurred, with thousands and thousands of others in believing a transaction on authority which merited respect. For the story of Logan is only repeated in the Notes on Virginia, precisely as it had been current for more than a dozen years before they were published. When Lord Dunmore returned from the expedition against the Indians, in 1774, he and his officers brought the speech of Logan, and related the circumstances of it. These were so affecting, and the speech itself so fine a morsel of eloquence, that it became the theme of every conversation, in Williamsburg particularly, and generally, indeed, wheresoever any of the officers resided or resorted. I learned it in Williamsburg, I believe at Lord Dunmore’s; and I find in my pocketbook of that year (1774) an entry of the narrative, as taken from the mouth of some person, whose name, however, is not noted, nor recollected, precisely in the words stated in the Notes on Virginia. The speech was published in the Virginia Gazette of that time, (I have it myself in the volume of gazettes of that year,) and though it was the translation made by the common interpreter, and in a style by no means elegant, yet it was so admired, that it flew through all the public papers of the continent, and through the magazines and other periodical publications of Great Britain; and those who were boys at that day will now attest, that the speech of Logan used to be given them as a school exercise for repetition. It was not until about thirteen or fourteen years after the newspaper publications, that the Notes on Virginia were published in America. Combating, in these, the contumelious theory of certain European writers, whose celebrity gave currency and weight to their opinions, that our country from the combined effects of soil and climate, degenerated animal nature, in general, and particularly the moral faculties of man, I considered the speech of Logan as an apt proof of the contrary, and used it as such; and I copied, verbatim, the narrative I had taken down in 1774, and the speech as it had been given us in a better translation by Lord Dunmore. I knew nothing of the Cresaps, and could not possibly have a motive to do them an injury with design. I repeated what thousands had done before, on as good authority as we have for most of the facts we learn through life, and such as, to this moment, I have seen no reason to doubt. That any body questioned it, was never suspected by me, till I saw the letter of Mr. Martin in the Baltimore paper. I endeavored then to recollect who among my contemporaries, of the same circle of society, and consequently of the same recollections, might still be alive; three and twenty years of death and dispersion had left very few. I remembered, however, that General Gibson was still living, and knew that he had been the translator of the speech. I wrote to him immediately. He, in answer, declares to me, that he was the very person sent by Lord Dunmore to the Indian town; that, after he had delivered his message there, Logan took him out to a neighboring wood; sat down with him, and rehearsing, with tears, the catastrophe of his family, gave him that speech for Lord Dunmore; that he carried it to Lord Dunmore; translated it to him; has turned to it in the Encyclopedia, as taken from the Notes on Virginia, and finds that it was his translation I had used, with only two or three verbal variations of no importance. These, I suppose, had risen in the course of successive copies. I cite General Gibson’s letter by memory, not having it with me; but I am sure I cite it substantially right. It establishes unquestionably, that the speech of Logan is genuine; and that being established, it is Logan himself who is author of all the important facts. ‘Colonel Cresap,’ says he, ‘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.’ The person and the fact, in all its material circumstances, are here given by Logan himself. General Gibson, indeed, says, that the title was mistaken; that Cresap was a Captain, and not a Colonel. This was Logan’s mistake. He also observes, that it was on another water of the Ohio, and not on the Kanhaway, that his family was killed. This is an error which has crept into the traditionary account; but surely of but little moment in the moral view of the subject. The material question is, was Logan’s family murdered, and by whom? That it was murdered has not, I believe, been denied; but it was by one of the Cresaps, Logan affirms. This is a question that concerns the memories of Logan and Cresap; to the issue of which I am as indifferent as if I had never heard the name of either. I have begun and shall continue to inquire into the evidence additional to Logan’s, on which the fact was founded. Little, indeed, can now be heard of, and that little dispersed and distant. If it shall appear on inquiry, that Logan has been wrong in charging Cresap with the murder of his family, I will do justice to the memory of Cresap, as far as I have contributed to the injury, by believing and repeating what others had believed and repeated before me. If, on the other hand, I find that Logan was right in his charge, I will vindicate as far as my suffrage may go, the truth of a Chief, whose talents and misfortunes have attached to him the respect and commiseration of the world.

I have gone, my dear Sir, into this lengthy detail to satisfy a mind, in the candor and rectitude of which I have the highest confidence. So far as you may incline to use the communication for rectifying the judgments of those who are willing to see things truly as they are, you are free to use it. But I pray that no confidence which you may repose in any one, may induce you to let it go out of your hands, so as to get into a newspaper: against a contest in that field I am entirely decided. I feel extraordinary gratification, indeed, in addressing this letter to you, with whom shades of difference in political sentiment have not prevented the interchange of good opinion, nor cut off the friendly offices of society and good correspondence. This political tolerance is the more valued by me, who consider social harmony as the first of human felicities, and the happiest moments, those which are given to the effusions of the heart. Accept them sincerely, I pray you, from one who has the honor to be, with sentiments of high respect and attachment, dear Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant.”

From this time, Jefferson corresponded in many directions to obtain proof on the subject, and succeeded in securing a number of depositions and narratives relating to the frontier disturbances. A portion of these most favorable to Jefferson’s account, he printed in pamphlet form, three years later, with the title of:

An/Appendix/to the/Notes on Virginia/Relative to the Murder of Logan’s Family./ By Thomas Jefferson: / Philadelphia: / Printed by Samuel H. Smith./M,D,CCC./ [8vo. pp. 51].

This Appendix was included in all subsequent editions of the Notes on Virginia, but as it has little relation to Jefferson, the present editor merely prints Jefferson’s introduction to the documents and his conclusion.

“Introduction to Appendix.

“The Notes on Virginia were written, in Virginia, in the years 1781 and 1782, in answer to certain queries proposed to me by Monsieur de Marbois, then secretary of the French legation in the United States; and a manuscript copy was delivered to him. A few copies, with some additions, were afterwards, in 1784, printed in Paris, and given to particular friends. In speaking of the animals of America, the theory of M. de Buffon, the Abbe Raynal, and others presented itself to consideration. They have supposed there is something in the soil, climate, and other circumstances of America, which occasions animal nature to degenerate, not excepting even the man, native or adoptive, physical or moral. This theory, so unfounded and degrading to one-third the globe, was called to the bar of fact and reason. Among other proofs adduced in contradiction of this hypothesis, the speech of Logan, an Indian chief, delivered to Lord Dunmore in 1774, was produced, as a specimen of the talents of the aboriginals of this country, and particularly of their eloquence; and it was believed that Europe had never produced anything superior to this morsel of eloquence. In order to make it intelligible to the reader, the transaction, on which it was founded, was stated, as it had been generally related in America at the time, and as I had heard it myself, in the circle of Lord Dunmore, and the officers who accompanied him; and the speech itself was given as it had, ten years before the printing of that book, circulated in the newspapers through all the then colonies, through the magazines of Great Britain, and periodical publications of Europe. For three and twenty years it passed uncontradicted; nor was it ever suspected that it even admitted contradiction. In 1797, however, for the first time, not only the whole transaction respecting Logan was affirmed in the public papers to be false, but the speech itself suggested to be a forgery, and even a forgery of mine, to aid me in proving that the man of America was equal in body and in mind, to the man of Europe. But wherefore the forgery; whether Logan’s or mine, it would still have been American. I should indeed consult my own fame if the suggestion, that this speech is mine, were suffered to be believed. He would have just right to be proud who could with truth claim that composition. But it is none of mine; and I yield it to whom it is due.

“On seeing then that this transaction was brought into question, I thought it my duty to make particular inquiry into its foundation. It was the more my duty, as it was alleged that, by ascribing to an individual therein named, a participation in the murder of Logan’s family, I had done an injury to his character, which it had not deserved. I had no knowledge personally of that individual. I had no reason to aim an injury at him. I only repeated what I had heard from others, and what thousands had heard and believed as well as myself; and which no one indeed, till then, had been known to question. Twenty-three years had now elapsed, since the transaction took place. Many of these acquainted with it were dead, and the living dispersed to very distant parts of the earth. Few of them were even known to me. To those however of whom I knew, I made application by letter; and some others, moved by a regard for truth and justice, were kind enough to come forward, of themselves, with their testimony. These fragments of evidence, the small remains of a mighty mass which time has consumed, are here presented to the public, in the form of letters, certificates, or affidavits, as they came to me. I have rejected none of these forms, nor required other solemnities from those whose motives and characters were pledges of their truth. Historical transactions are deemed to be well vouched by the simple declarations of those who have borne a part in them; and especially of persons having no interest to falsify or disfigure them. The world will now see whether they, or I, have injured Cresap, by believing Logan’s charge against him; and they will decide between Logan and Cresap, whether Cresap was innocent, and Logan a caluminator?

“In order that the reader may have a clear conception of the transactions, to which the different parts of the following declarations refer, he must take notice that they establish four different murders. 1. Of two Indians, a little above Wheeling. 2. Of others at Grave Creek, among whom were some of Logan’s relations. 3. The massacre at Baker’s bottom, on the Ohio, opposite the mouth of Yellow Creek, where were other relations of Logan. 4. Of those killed at the same place, coming in canoes to the relief of their friends. I place the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, against certain paragraphs of the evidence, to indicate the particular murder to which the paragraph relates and present also a small sketch or map of the principal scenes of these butcheries, for their more ready comprehension.”

The various documents are then printed, and the whole concluded by a summary as below:

“From this testimony the following historical statement results:

“In April or May, 1774, a number of people being engaged in looking out for settlements on the Ohio, information was spread among them, that the Indians had robbed some of the land-jobbers, as those adventurers were called. Alarmed for their safety, they collected together at Wheeling Creek. Hearing there that there were two Indians and some traders a little above Wheeling, Captain Michael Cresap, one of the party, proposed to waylay and kill them. The proposition, though opposed, was adopted. A party went up the river, with Cresap at their head, and killed the two Indians.

“The same afternoon it was reported that there was a party of Indians on the Ohio, a little below Wheeling. Cresap and his party immediately proceeded down the river, and encamped on the bank. The Indians passed him peaceably, and encamped at the mouth of Grave Creek, a little below. Cresap and his party attacked them and killed several. The Indians returned the fire, and wounded one of Cresap’s party. Among the slain of the Indians were some of Logan’s

lf0054-03_figure_009 family. Colonel Zane indeed expresses a doubt of it; but it is affirmed by Houston and Chambers. Smith, one of the murderers, said they were known and acknowledged to be Logan’s friends and the party themselves generally said so; boasted of it in the presence of Cresap; pretended no provocation; and expressed their expectations that Logan would probably avenge their deaths.

“Pursuing these examples Daniel Great-house, and one Tomlinson, who lived on the opposite side of the river from the Indians, and were in habits of friendship with them, collected, at the house of Polke, on Cross Creek, about 16 miles from Baker’s Bottom, a party of 32 men. Their object was to attack a hunting encampment of Indians, consisting of men, women, and children, at the mouth of Yellow Creek, some distance above Wheeling. They proceeded, and when arrived near Baker’s Bottom, they concealed themselves, and Great-house crossed the river to the Indian camp. Being among them as a friend, he counted them, and found them too strong for an open attack with his force. While here, he was cautioned by one of the women not to stay, for that the Indian men were drinking, and having heard of Cresap’s murder of their relations at Grave Creek, were angry, and she pressed him in a friendly manner, to go home; whereupon, after inviting them to come over and drink, he returned to Baker’s, which was a tavern, and desired that when any of them should come to his house he would give them as much rum as they would drink. When his plot was ripe, and a sufficient number of them were collected at Baker’s, and intoxicated, he and his party fell on them and massacred the whole, except a little girl, whom they preserved as a prisoner. Among these was the very woman who had saved his life, by pressing him to retire from the drunken wrath of her friends, when he was spying their camp at Yellow Creek. Either she herself, or some other of the murdered women, was the sister of Logan, very big with child, and inhumanly and indecently butchered; and there were others of his relations who fell here.

“The party on the other side of the river, alarmed for their friends at Baker’s, on hearing the report of the guns, manned two canoes and sent them over. They were received, as they approached the shore, by a well-directed fire from Great-house’s party, which killed some, wounded others, and obliged the rest to put back. Baker tells us there were twelve killed, and six or eight wounded.

“This commenced the war, of which Logan’s war-club and note left in the house of a murdered family was the notification. In the course of it, during the ensuing summer, a great number of innocent men, women, and children, fell victims to the tomahawk and scalping knife of the Indians, till it was arrested in the autumn following by the battle at Point Pleasant, and the pacification of Lord Dunmore, at which the speech of Logan was delivered.

“Of the genuineness of that speech nothing need be said. It was known to the camp where it was delivered; it was given out by Lord Dunmore and his officers; it ran through the public papers of these States; was rehearsed as an exercise at schools; published in the papers and periodical works of Europe; and all this, a dozen years before it was copied into the Notes on Virginia. In fine, General Gibson concludes the question for ever, by declaring that he received it from Logan’s hand, delivered it to Lord Dunmore, translated it for him, and that the copy in the Notes on Virginia is a faithful copy.

“The popular account of these transactions, as stated in the Notes on Virginia, appears, on collecting exact information, imperfect and erroneus in its details. It was the belief of the day; but how far its errors were to the prejudice of Cresap, the reader will now judge. That he, and those under him, murdered two Indians above Wheeling; that they murdered a large number at Grave Creek, among whom were a part of the family and relations of Logan, cannot be questioned; and as little that this led to the massacre of the rest of the family at Yellow Creek. Logan imputed the whole to Cresap, in his war-note and peace-speech: the Indians generally imputed it to Cresap: Lord Dunmore and his officers imputed it to Cresap: the country, with one accord, imputed it to him: and whether he were innocent, let the universal verdict now declare.”

The whole question was again very fully discussed in Brantz Mayer’s Tah Gah Jute; or, Logan and Cresap, where certain evidence that had been suppressed by Jefferson is given. After a careful study of the controversy, it becomes evident that Jefferson’s account, in implicating Cresap, was unfounded in fact, and had Jefferson confessed his error, he would have acquitted himself of any responsibility for the false statement, for he merely, as George Rogers Clark wrote, repeated what was popular rumor of the day “on a subject which I know he was not the Author of.” But in subsequent editions the original version is unchanged, and by Jefferson’s suppression of proof against his view, he became truly answerable for the statement. How far this deception was induced by the personal and political antipathy between himself and Martin cannot be decided, but the whole matter was used as political ammunition by both parties, and presumably produced the usual verity that political controversy is famous for. Even in the latest revision of the Notes on Virginia, Jefferson made no change in the statement; but Washington, in the text he printed in his edition of Jefferson’s writings, took the liberty of changing the paragraph, to read:

“In the spring of the year 1774, a robbery was committed by some Indians on certain land-adventurers on the river Ohio. The whites in that quarter, according to their custom, undertook to punish this outrage in a summary way. Captain Michael Cresap, and a certain Daniel Greathouse, leading on these parties, surprised, at different times, travelling and hunting parties of the Indians, having their women and children with them, and murdered many. Among these were unfortunately the family of Logan, a chief celebrated in peace and war, and long distinguished as a friend of the whites”

Aside from the controversy over Cresap’s implication in the death of Logan’s kin, were the questions of the authenticity of the speech as reported by Jefferson, and the nativity of the maker. The earliest known version of the speech is contained in a letter from James Madison to William Bradford, dated January 20, 1775. A slightly varying version was printed in the Virginia Gazette of February 4, 1775, and was extensively copied by other papers. There are slight verbal variations in both from that printed by Jefferson, but none such as discredit his text. It is thus evident that the speech is thoroughly authentic. As to the origin of Logan, the balance of positive evidence seems to indicate that he was a half-breed; even without the additional generalization that the holding of Indians as slaves in the early colony days, the frequent capture and adoption of white children by the savages, as well as the less obvious mixture of races caused by the character and condition of the frontiersman and the moral standards of the Indians, had left few full-blooded Indians in the regions of white settlement and exploration. The superiority of the Indian in combating with the whites in the last fifty years of the eighteenth century, over the earlier periods, though the relative proportion of numbers had been entirely reversed, proves the change the race had undergone, and possibly explains an eloquence nowheres mentioned by the early travellers in America.

[1 ]“Monsieur Buffon has indeed given an afflicting picture of human nature in his description of the man of America. But sure I am there never was a picture more unlike the original. He grants indeed that his stature is the same as that of the man of Europe. He might have admitted, that the Iroquois were larger, and the Lenapi, or Delawares, taller than people in Europe generally are. But he says their organs of generation are smaller and weaker than those of Europeans. Is this a fact? I believe not; at least it is an observation I never heard before.—‘They have no beard.’ Had he know the pains and trouble it cost the men to pluck out by the roots the hair that grows on their faces, he would have seen that nature had not been deficient in that respect. Every nation has its customs. I have see an Indian beau, with a looking-glass in his hand, examining his face for hours together, and plucking out by the roots every hair he could discover, with a kind of tweezer made of a piece of fine brass wire that had been twisted round a stick, and which he used with great dexterity.—‘They have no ardor for their females.’ It is true they do not indulge those excesses, nor discover that fondness which is customary in Europe; but this is not owing to a defect in nature but to manners. Their soul is wholly bent upon war. This is what procures them glory among the men, and makes them the admiration of the women. To this they are educated from their earliest youth. When they pursue game with ardor, when they bear the fatigues of the chase, when they sustain and suffer patiently hunger and cold; it is not so much for the sake of the game they pursue, as to convince their parents and the council of the nation that they are fit to be enrolled in the number of the warriors. The songs of the women, the dance of the warriors, the sage council of the chiefs, the tales of the old, the triumphal entry of the warriors returning with success from battle, and the respect paid to those who distinguish themselves in war, and in subduing their enemies; in short, everything they see or hear tends to inspire them with an ardent desire for military fame. If a young man were to discover a fondness for women before he has been to war, he would become the contempt of the men, and the scorn and ridicule of the women. Or were he to indulge himself with a captive taken in war, and much more were he to offer violence in order to gratify his lust, he would incur indelible disgrace. The seeming frigidity of the men, therefore, is the effect of manners, and not a defect of nature. Besides, a celebrated warrior is oftener courted by the females, than he has occasion to court; and this is a point of honor which the men aim at. Instances similar to that of Ruth and Boaz* are not uncommon among them. For though the women are modest and diffident, and so bashful that they seldom lift up their eyes, and scarce ever look a man full in the face, yet, being brought up in great subjection, custom and manners reconcile them to modes of acting, which, judged of by Europeans, would be deemed inconsistent with the rules of female decorum and propriety. I once saw a young widow, whose husband, a warrior, had died about eight days before, hastening to finish her grief, and who, by tearing her hair, beating her breast, and drinking spirits, made the tears flow in great abundance, in order that she might grieve much in a short space of time, and be married that evening to another young warrior. The manner in which this was viewed by the men and women of the tribe, who stood round, silent and solemn spectators of the scene, and the indifference with which they answered my question respecting it, convinced me that it was no unusual custom. I have known men advanced in years, whose wives were old and past childbearing, take young wives, and have children, though the practice of polygamy is not common. Does this savor of frigidity, or want of ardor for the female? Neither do they seem to be deficient in natural affection. I have seen both fathers and mothers in the deepest affliction, when their children have been dangerously ill: though I believe the affection is stronger in the descending than the ascending scale, and though custom forbids a father to grieve immoderately for a son slain in battle. ‘That they are timorous and cowardly,’ is a character with which there is little reason to charge them, when we recollect the manner in which the Iroquois met Monsieur —, who marched into their country; in which the old men, who scorned to fly, or to survive the capture of their town, braved death, like the old Romans in the time of the Gauls, and in which they soon after revenged themselves by sacking and destroying Montreal. But above all, the unshaken fortitude with which they bear the most excruciating tortures and death when taken prisoners, ought to exempt them from that character. Much less are they to be characterized as a people of no vivacity and who are excited to action or motion only by the calls of hunger and thirst. Their dances in which they so much delight, and which to an European would be the most severe exercise, fully contradicted this, not to mention their fatiguing marches, and the toil they voluntarily and cheerfully undergo in their military expeditions. It is true, that when at home, they do not employ themselves in labor or the culture of the soil; but this again is the effect of customs and manners, which have assigned that to the province of the women. But it is said, they are averse to society and a social life. Can anything be more inapplicable than this to a people who always live in towns or clans? Or can they be said to have no ‘republic,’ who conduct all their affairs in national councils, who pride themselves in their national character, who consider an insult or injury done to an individual by a stranger as done to the whole, and resent it accordingly? In short, this picture is not applicable to any nation of Indians I have ever known or heard of in North America.”—Charles Thomson in Appendix.

In the edition of 1853, a footnote adds: “No writer equally with M. De Buffon, proves the power of eloquence and uncertainty of theories. He takes any hypothesis whatever, or its reverse, and furnishes explanations equally specious and persuasive. Thus in his xviii volume, wishing to explain why the largest animals are found in the torrid zone, he assumes heat as the efficient principle of the animal volume. Speaking of America, he says: “Le terre y est froide impuissante a produire les principes actifs, a developer les germes des plus grandes quadrupedes auxquels il faut, pour croitre et se multiplier, toute la chaleur toute l’activité que le soleil peut donner a la terre amoureuse.” Page 156. “L’ardeur des hommes, et la grandeur des animaux dependent de la salubrité, et de la chaleur de l’air,” Ib. 160. In his Epochs again when it is become convenient to his theory to consider the bones of the mammoth found in the coldest regions, as the bones of the elephant, and necessary to explain how the elephant there should have been six times as large as that of the torrid zone, it is cold which produces animal volume. ‘Tout ce qu’il y a de colossal et de grand dans la nature, a eté formé dans les terres du Nord.’ 1 Epoques, 255. ‘C’est dans les regions de notre Nord que le nature vivante s’est elevee a ses plus grandes dimensions.’ Ib., 263.”

[1 ]In connection with this, it is amusing to quote an anecdote told to Jefferson by Franklin, in Jefferson’s own words: “The Doctor told me at Paris the . . . following . . . of the Abbé Raynal. He had a party to dine with him one day at Passy, of whom one half were Americans, the other half French, and among the last was the Abbé. During the dinner he got on his favorite theory of the degeneracy of animals, and even of man, in America, and urged it with his usual eloquence. The Doctor at length noticing the accidental stature and position of his guests, at table, ‘Come,’ sayd he, ‘M. L’Abbé, let us try this question by the fact before us. We are here one half Americans, and one half French, and it happens that the Americans have placed themselves on one side of the table, and our French friends are on the other. Let both parties rise, and we will see on which side nature has degenerated.’ It happened that his American guests were Carmichael, Harmer, Humphreys, and others of the finest stature and form; while those of the other side were remarkably diminutive, and the Abbé himself particularly, was a mere shrimp. He parried the appeal, however, by a complimentary admission of exceptions, among which the Doctor himself was a conspicuous one.”

[1 ]Has the world as yet produced more than two poets, acknowledged to be such by all nations? An Englishman only reads Milton with delight, an Italian, Tasso, a Frenchman the Henriade; a Portuguese, Camoens; but Homer and Virgil have been the rapture of every age and nation; they are read with enthusiasm in their originals by those who can read the originals, and in translations by those who cannot.—T. J.

[1 ]There are various ways of keeping truth out of sight. Mr. Rittenhouse’s model of the planetary system has the plagiary appellation of an Orrery; and the quadrant invented by Godfrey, an American also, and with the aid of which the European nations traverse the globe, is called Hadley’s quadrant.—T. J.

In the edition of 1853 an addition is made to this note as follows: “Huyghens gave the first description of an instrument of the former kind, under the name of Automatom Planetarium.—2 Montucla, 485.”

[1 ]In a later edition of the Abbé Raynal’s work, he has withdrawn his censure from that part of the new world inhabited by the Federo-Americans; but has left it still on the other parts. North America has always been more accessible to strangers than South. If he was mistaken then as to the former, he may be so as to the latter. The glimmerings which reach us from South America enable us to see that its inhabitants are held under the accumulated pressure of slavery, superstition and ignorance. Whenever they shall be able to rise under this weight, and to show themselves to the rest of the world, they will probably show they are like the rest of the world. We have not yet sufficient evidence that there are more lakes and fogs in South America than in other parts of the earth. As little do we know what would be their operation on the mind of man. That country has been visited by Spaniards and Portuguese chiefly, and almost exclusively. These, going from a country of the old world remarkably dry in its soil and climate, fancied there were more lakes and fogs in South America than in Europe. An Inhabitant of Ireland, Sweden, or Finland would have formed the contrary opinion. Had South America then been discovered and seated [sic] by a people from a fenny country, it would probably have been represented as much dryer than the old world. A patient pursuit of facts, and cautious combination and comparison of them, is the drudgery to which man is subjected by his Maker, if he wishes to attain sure knowledge.—T. J.

[1 ]In the edition of 1853 is a footnote: “The Bald Coot or Coot, is the Fulica of Linnæus, and the Foulque of the Encyclop. Meth. differing from the description of the latter only in the color of its feet and legs, which are olive green, without any circle of red, and that of the bill a faint carnation, brown at the point, and the membrane on the forehead of a very dark purple. It is distinguished from the Gallinula chloropis Poule d’eau, Water-hen, Hydro-gallina, chiefly by the festooned web bordering the toes.”

[2 ]“Wren” is struck out in edition of 1787.

[1 ]Altered to “which” in edition of 1787.

[1 ]In the edition of 1853 is a footnote: “See Herrera, Dec. 1, 1. 10, c. s. ‘Descubierta Yucatan, se hallò abundania de cera y miel.’ And ib. c. 9. ‘Ay abispas y abexas, como las de Castilla, aunque estas son menores, y pican con mas furia.’—Ib. Dec. 2, 1. 3, c. i.”

[1 ]In the edition of 1853 is a footnote: “See 1 Clavigero, 107. ‘En los terminos de Guayaquil ay abejas, que enxambran y criam miel en el hucco de los arboles son poco mayores que moscas, la cera y miel que labran es rubia y aunque tiene buengusto no es tal como el de Castilla.’ Herr. 5, 10, 10.”

[2 ]1. 126.—T. J.

[3 ]An additional paragraph is added in the edition of 1853, stating: “We have it from the Indians also that the common domestic fly is not originally of America, but came with the whites from Europe.” To this is subjoined the following footnote: “We have the same account from South America. Condamine in his Voyage de la riviere Amazones, pa. 95, says: ‘Divers Indiens ont rapporté qu’ils avoient vu sur les bords de la riviere de Coari dans la haut des terres, un pays decouvert, des mouches et quantité de betes à cornes, objects nouveaux pour eux, et qui prouvent que les sources deces rivieres arrosent des pays voisins des colonies Espagnoles de haut Perou.’”

[1 ]In the edition of 1853, a paragraph is here inserted, as follows:

“We are told that during a great storm on the 25th of December, 1798, the Syphon Fountain, near the mouth of the North Holston, ceased and a spring broke out about 100 feet higher up the hill.”* Syphon fountains have been explained by supposing the duct which leads from the reservoir to the surface of the earth to be in the form of a syphon, a, b, c, where it is evident that till the water rises in the reservoir to d, the level of the highest point of the syphon, it cannot flow through the duct, and it is known that when it once begins to flow it will draw off the water of the reservoir to the orifice a, of the syphon. If the duct be larger than the supply of the reservoir possibly the force of the waters and loosening of the earth by them, during the storm above mentioned, may have opened a more direct duct as from e to f, horizontally or declining, which issues higher up the hill than the one fed by the syphon. In that case it becomes a common spring. Should this duct be again closed or diminished by any new accident, and both springs be kept in action from the same reservoir.”

[1 ]“Monsieur Buffon has indeed given an afflicting picture of human nature in his description of the man of America. But sure I am there never was a picture more unlike the original. He grants indeed that his stature is the same as that of the man of Europe. He might have admitted, that the Iroquois were larger, and the Lenapi, or Delawares, taller than people in Europe generally are. But he says their organs of generation are smaller and weaker than those of Europeans. Is this a fact? I believe not; at least it is an observation I never heard before.—‘They have no beard.’ Had he know the pains and trouble it cost the men to pluck out by the roots the hair that grows on their faces, he would have seen that nature had not been deficient in that respect. Every nation has its customs. I have see an Indian beau, with a looking-glass in his hand, examining his face for hours together, and plucking out by the roots every hair he could discover, with a kind of tweezer made of a piece of fine brass wire that had been twisted round a stick, and which he used with great dexterity.—‘They have no ardor for their females.’ It is true they do not indulge those excesses, nor discover that fondness which is customary in Europe; but this is not owing to a defect in nature but to manners. Their soul is wholly bent upon war. This is what procures them glory among the men, and makes them the admiration of the women. To this they are educated from their earliest youth. When they pursue game with ardor, when they bear the fatigues of the chase, when they sustain and suffer patiently hunger and cold; it is not so much for the sake of the game they pursue, as to convince their parents and the council of the nation that they are fit to be enrolled in the number of the warriors. The songs of the women, the dance of the warriors, the sage council of the chiefs, the tales of the old, the triumphal entry of the warriors returning with success from battle, and the respect paid to those who distinguish themselves in war, and in subduing their enemies; in short, everything they see or hear tends to inspire them with an ardent desire for military fame. If a young man were to discover a fondness for women before he has been to war, he would become the contempt of the men, and the scorn and ridicule of the women. Or were he to indulge himself with a captive taken in war, and much more were he to offer violence in order to gratify his lust, he would incur indelible disgrace. The seeming frigidity of the men, therefore, is the effect of manners, and not a defect of nature. Besides, a celebrated warrior is oftener courted by the females, than he has occasion to court; and this is a point of honor which the men aim at. Instances similar to that of Ruth and Boaz* are not uncommon among them. For though the women are modest and diffident, and so bashful that they seldom lift up their eyes, and scarce ever look a man full in the face, yet, being brought up in great subjection, custom and manners reconcile them to modes of acting, which, judged of by Europeans, would be deemed inconsistent with the rules of female decorum and propriety. I once saw a young widow, whose husband, a warrior, had died about eight days before, hastening to finish her grief, and who, by tearing her hair, beating her breast, and drinking spirits, made the tears flow in great abundance, in order that she might grieve much in a short space of time, and be married that evening to another young warrior. The manner in which this was viewed by the men and women of the tribe, who stood round, silent and solemn spectators of the scene, and the indifference with which they answered my question respecting it, convinced me that it was no unusual custom. I have known men advanced in years, whose wives were old and past childbearing, take young wives, and have children, though the practice of polygamy is not common. Does this savor of frigidity, or want of ardor for the female? Neither do they seem to be deficient in natural affection. I have seen both fathers and mothers in the deepest affliction, when their children have been dangerously ill: though I believe the affection is stronger in the descending than the ascending scale, and though custom forbids a father to grieve immoderately for a son slain in battle. ‘That they are timorous and cowardly,’ is a character with which there is little reason to charge them, when we recollect the manner in which the Iroquois met Monsieur —, who marched into their country; in which the old men, who scorned to fly, or to survive the capture of their town, braved death, like the old Romans in the time of the Gauls, and in which they soon after revenged themselves by sacking and destroying Montreal. But above all, the unshaken fortitude with which they bear the most excruciating tortures and death when taken prisoners, ought to exempt them from that character. Much less are they to be characterized as a people of no vivacity and who are excited to action or motion only by the calls of hunger and thirst. Their dances in which they so much delight, and which to an European would be the most severe exercise, fully contradicted this, not to mention their fatiguing marches, and the toil they voluntarily and cheerfully undergo in their military expeditions. It is true, that when at home, they do not employ themselves in labor or the culture of the soil; but this again is the effect of customs and manners, which have assigned that to the province of the women. But it is said, they are averse to society and a social life. Can anything be more inapplicable than this to a people who always live in towns or clans? Or can they be said to have no ‘republic,’ who conduct all their affairs in national councils, who pride themselves in their national character, who consider an insult or injury done to an individual by a stranger as done to the whole, and resent it accordingly? In short, this picture is not applicable to any nation of Indians I have ever known or heard of in North America.”—Charles Thomson in Appendix.

In the edition of 1853, a footnote adds: “No writer equally with M. De Buffon, proves the power of eloquence and uncertainty of theories. He takes any hypothesis whatever, or its reverse, and furnishes explanations equally specious and persuasive. Thus in his xviii volume, wishing to explain why the largest animals are found in the torrid zone, he assumes heat as the efficient principle of the animal volume. Speaking of America, he says: “Le terre y est froide impuissante a produire les principes actifs, a developer les germes des plus grandes quadrupedes auxquels il faut, pour croitre et se multiplier, toute la chaleur toute l’activité que le soleil peut donner a la terre amoureuse.” Page 156. “L’ardeur des hommes, et la grandeur des animaux dependent de la salubrité, et de la chaleur de l’air,” Ib. 160. In his Epochs again when it is become convenient to his theory to consider the bones of the mammoth found in the coldest regions, as the bones of the elephant, and necessary to explain how the elephant there should have been six times as large as that of the torrid zone, it is cold which produces animal volume. ‘Tout ce qu’il y a de colossal et de grand dans la nature, a eté formé dans les terres du Nord.’ 1 Epoques, 255. ‘C’est dans les regions de notre Nord que le nature vivante s’est elevee a ses plus grandes dimensions.’ Ib., 263.”

[*]A note to this new paragraph, as above starred, is:“See Pleasant’s Argus, August 16, ’99; that this disappeared December 25, ’98, on which day a spring broke out 100 feet higher up the hill.”

[*]When Boaz had eaten and drank, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of corn; and Ruth came softly, and uncovered his feet, and laid her down. Ruth, iii. 7.