desired to secure an asylum abroad for the persecuted members
of her church in England, Charles directed the patent to be
issued. It was prepared by Lord Baltimore himself; but before
it was finally executed that truly great and good, man died,
and the patent was delivered to his son Cecilius, who
succeeded as well to his noble designs as to his titles and
estates. The charter was issued on the 20th of June, 1632, and
the new province, in honor of Queen Henrietta Maria, was named
'Terra Mariæ'—Maryland."
J. McSherry,
History of Maryland,
introduction.
"The boundaries of Maryland, unlike those of the other
colonies, were precisely defined. Its limits were: on the
north, the fortieth parallel of north latitude; on the west
and southwest, a line running south from this parallel to the
farthest source of the Potomac, and thence by the farther or
western bank of that river to Chesapeake Bay; on the south by
a line running across the bay and peninsula to the Atlantic;
and on the east by the ocean and the Delaware Bay and River.
It included, therefore, all the present State of Delaware, a
large tract of land now forming part of Pennsylvania, and
another now occupied and claimed by West Virginia. The charter
of Maryland contained the most ample rights and privileges
ever conferred by a sovereign of England. It erected Maryland
into a palatinate, equivalent to a principality, reserving
only the feudal supremacy of the crown. The Proprietary was
made absolute lord of the land and water within his
boundaries, could erect towns, cities, and ports, make war or
peace, call the whole fighting population to arms, and declare
martial law, levy tolls and duties, establish courts of
justice, appoint judges, magistrates, and other civil
officers, execute the laws, and pardon offenders. He could
erect manors with courts-baron and courts-leet, and confer
titles and dignities, so that they differed from those of
England. He could make laws with the assent of the freemen of
the province, and, in cases of emergency, ordinances not
impairing life, limb, or property, without their assent. He
could found churches and chapels, have them consecrated
according to the ecclesiastical laws of England, and appoint
the incumbents. All this territory, with these royal rights,
'jura regalia,' was to be held of the crown in free socage, by
the delivery of two Indian arrows yearly at the palace of
Windsor, and the fifth of all gold or silver mined. The
colonists and their descendants were to remain English
subjects. …
{2092}
The King furthermore bound himself and his successors to lay
no taxes, customs, subsidies, or contributions whatever upon
the people of the province. … This charter, by which
Maryland was virtually an independent and self-governed
community, placed the destinies of the colonists in their own
hands. … Though often attacked, and at times held in
abeyance, the charter was never revoked."
W. H. Browne,
Maryland,
chapter 2.
The intention to create a palatine principality in Maryland is
distinctly expressed in the fourth section of the charter,
which grants to Lord Baltimore, his heirs and assigns, "as
ample rights, jurisdictions, privileges, prerogatives,
royalties, liberties, immunities, and royal rights … as any
bishop of Durham, within the bishoprick or county palatine of
Durham, in our kingdom of England, ever heretofore hath had,
held, used, or enjoyed, or of right could, or ought to have,
held, use, or enjoy."
J. L. Bozman,
History of Maryland,
volume 2, page. 11.
ALSO IN:
H. W. Preston,
Documents Illustrative of American History,
page 62.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1633-1637.
The planting of the colony at St. Mary's.
"Cecil, Lord Baltimore, after receiving his charter for
Maryland, in June, 1632, prepared to carry out his father's
plans. Terms of settlement were issued to attract colonists,
and a body of emigrants was soon collected to begin the
foundation of the new province. The leading gentlemen who were
induced to take part in the project were Catholics; those whom
they took out to till the soil, or ply various trades, were
not all or, indeed, mainly Catholics, but they could not have
been very strongly Protestant to embark in a venture so
absolutely under Catholic control. At Avalon Sir George
Calvert, anxious for the religious life of his colonists, had
taken over both Catholic and Protestant clergymen, and was ill
repaid for his liberal conduct. To avoid a similar ground of
reproach, Baron Cecil left each part of his colonists free to
take their own clergymen. It is a significant fact that the
Protestant portion were so indifferent that they neither took
over any minister of religion, nor for several years after
Maryland settlements began made any attempt to procure one. On
behalf of the Catholic settlers, Lord Baltimore applied to
Father Richard Blount, at that time provincial of the Jesuits
in England, and wrote to the General of the Society, at Rome,
to excite their zeal in behalf of the English Catholics who
were about to proceed to Maryland. He could offer the clergy
no support. … The Jesuits did not shrink from a mission
field where they were to look for no support from the
proprietary or their flock, and were to live amid dangers. It
was decided that two Fathers were to go as gentlemen
adventurers, taking artisans with them, and acquiring lands
like others, from which they were to draw their support. …
The Maryland pilgrims under Leonard Calvert, brother of the
lord proprietary, consisted of his brother George, some 20
other gentlemen, and 200 laboring men well provided. To convey
these to the land of Mary, Lord Baltimore had his own pinnace,
the Dove, of 50 tons, commanded by Robert Winter, and the Ark,
a chartered vessel of 350 tons burthen, Richard Lowe being
captain. Leonard Calvert was appointed governor, Jerome Hawley
and Thomas Cornwaleys being joined in the commission." After
many malicious hindrances and delays, the two vessels sailed
from Cowes, November 22, 1633, and made their voyage in
safety, though encountering heavy storms. They came to anchor
in Chesapeake Bay, near one of the Heron Islands, which they
named St. Clement; and on that island they raised a cross and
celebrated mass. "Catholicity thus planted her cross and her
altar in the heart of the English colonies in America, March
25, 1634. The land was consecrated, and then preparations were
made to select a spot for the settlement. Leaving Father White
at St. Clement's, the governor, with Father Altham, ran up the
river in a pinnace, and at Potomac on the southern shore met
Archihau, regent of the powerful tribe that held sway over
that part of the land." Having won the goodwill of the
savages, "Leonard Calvert sailed back to Saint Clement's. Then
the pilgrims entered the Saint Mary's, a bold, broad stream,
emptying into the Potomac about 12 miles from its mouth. For
the first settlement of the new province, Leonard Calvert, who
had landed, selected a spot a short distance above, about a
mile from the eastern shore of the river. Here stood an Indian
town, whose inhabitants, harassed by the Susquehannas, had
already begun to emigrate to the westward. To observe strict
justice with the Indian tribes, Calvert purchased from the
werowance, or king, Yaocomoco, 30 miles of territory. The
Indians gradually gave up some of their houses to the
colonists, agreeing to leave the rest also after they had
gathered in their harvest. … The new settlement began with
Catholic and Protestant dwelling together in harmony, neither
attempting to interfere with the religious rights of the
other, 'and religious liberty obtained a home, its only home
in the wide world, at the humble village which bore the name
of St. Mary's' [Bancroft, i, 247]. … The settlers were soon
at work. Houses for their use were erected, crops were
planted, activity and industry prevailed. St. Mary's chapel
was dedicated to the worship of Almighty God, and near it a
fort stood, ready to protect the settlers. It was required by
the fact that Clayborne [a trading adventurer and a member of
the Virginia Council], the fanatical enemy of Lord Baltimore
and his Catholic projects, who had already settled on Kent
Island, was exciting the Indians against the colonists of
Maryland. The little community gave the priests a field too
limited for their zeal. … The Indian tribes were to be
reached. … Another priest, with a lay brother, came to share
their labors before the close of the year 1635; and the next
year four priests were reported as the number assigned to the
Maryland mission. Of their early labors no record is
preserved. … Sickness prevailed in the colony, and the
missionaries did not escape. Within two months after his
arrival Father Knolles, a talented young priest of much hope,
sank a victim to the climate, and Brother Gervase, one of the
original band of settlers, also died. … Lord Baltimore's
scheme embraced not only religious but legislative freedom,
and his charter provided for a colonial assembly. … In less
than three years an assembly of the freemen of the little
colony was convened and opened its sessions on the 25-26th of
January, 1637. All who had taken up lands were summoned to
attend in person." Some of the resulting legislation was
disapproved by the missionaries, and "the variance of opinion
was most unfortunate in its results to the colony, as
impairing the harmony which had hitherto prevailed."
J. G. Shea,
The Catholic Church in Colonial Days,
chapter 2.
ALSO IN:
J. L. Bozman,
History of Maryland,
chapter 1
W. H. Browne,
George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,
chapters 3-4.
{2093}
MARYLAND: A. D. 1634.
Embraced in the palatine grant of New Albion.
See NEW ALBION.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1635-1638.
The troubles with Clayborne.
William Clayborne "was the person most aggrieved by the
Maryland charter. Under a general license from Charles I. to
trade, he had established a lucrative post on Kent Island. The
King, as he had unquestioned right to do under the theory of
English law, granted to Lord Baltimore a certain tract of wild
land, including Kent Island. Clayborne had no legal right
there except as the subject of Baltimore; but, since his real
injuries coincided with the fancied ones of the Virginians
generally, his claim assumed importance. … There was … so
strong a feeling in favor of Clayborne in Virginia that he was
soon able to send an armed pinnace up the Chesapeake to defend
his invaded rights at Kent Island, but the expedition was
unfortunate. Governor Calvert, after a sharp encounter,
captured Clayborne's pinnace, and proclaimed its owner a
rebel. Calvert then demanded that the author of this trouble
should be given up by Virginia; but Harvey [the governor], who
had been in difficulties himself on account of his
lukewarmness toward Clayborne, refused to comply. Clayborne,
however, solved the problem in his own way, by going at once
to England to attack his enemies in their stronghold. … On
his arrival in England he … presented a petition to the
King, and by adroitly working on the cupidity of Charles, not
only came near recovering Kent Island, but almost obtained a
large grant besides. After involving Lord Baltimore in a good
deal of litigation, Clayborne was obliged, by an adverse
decision of the Lords Commissioners of Plantations, to abandon
all hopes in England, and therefore withdrew to Virginia to
wait for better times."
H. C. Lodge,
Short History of the English Colonies in America,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
J. L. Bozman,
History of Maryland,
volume 2, chapter 1.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1643-1649.
Colonial disturbances from the English Civil War.
Lord Baltimore and the Puritans.
The struggle of parties incident to the overthrow of the
monarchy and the civil war, in England, was attended in
Maryland "with a degree of violence disproportionate to its
substantial results. It is difficult to fasten the blame of
the first attack definitely on either party. In 1643 or 1644
the King gave letters of marque to Leonard Calvert
commissioning him to seize upon all ships belonging to the
Parliament. It would seem, however, as if the other side had
begun to be active, since only three months later we find the
Governor issuing a proclamation for the arrest of Richard
Ingle, a sea-captain, apparently a Puritan and an ally of
Clayborne. … Ingle … landed at St. Mary's [1645], while
Clayborne at the same time made a fresh attempt upon Kent
Island. Later events showed that under a resolute leader the
Maryland Royalists were capable of a determined resistance,
but now either no such leader was forthcoming, or the party
was taken by surprise. Cornwallis, who seems to have been the
most energetic man in the colony, was absent in England, and
Leonard Calvert fled into Virginia, apparently without an
effort to maintain his authority. Ingle and his followers
landed and seized upon St. Mary's, took possession of the
government, and plundered Cornwallis's house and goods to the
value of £300. Their success was short-lived. Calvert
returned, rallied his party, and ejected Clayborne and Ingle.
The Parliament made no attempt to back the proceedings of its
supporters, and the matter dwindled into a petty dispute
between Ingle and Cornwallis, in which the latter obtained at
least some redress for his losses. The Isle of Kent held out
somewhat longer, but in the course of the next year it was
brought back to its allegiance. This event was followed in
less than a twelvemonth by the death of the Governor [June 9,
1647]. Baltimore now began to see that in the existing
position of parties he must choose between his fidelity to a
fallen cause and his position as the Proprietor of Maryland.
As early as 1642 we find him warning the Roman Catholic
priests in his colony that they must expect no privileges
beyond those which they would enjoy in England. He now showed
his anxiety to propitiate the rising powers by his choice of a
successor to his brother. The new Governor, William Stone, was
a Protestant. The Council was also reconstituted and only two
Papists appeared among its members. … Furthermore he [Lord
Baltimore] exacted from Stone an oath that he would not molest
any persons on the ground of their religion, provided they
accepted the fundamental dogmas of Christianity. The Roman
Catholics were singled out as the special objects of this
protection, though we may reasonably suppose that it was also
intended to check religious dissensions. So far Baltimore only
acted like a prudent, unenthusiastic man, who was willing to
make the best of a defeat and save what he could out of it by
a seemingly free sacrifice of what was already lost. … The
internal condition of the colony had now been substantially
changed since the failure of Ingle and Clayborne. The Puritan
party there had received an important addition. … A number
of Nonconformists had made an attempt to establish themselves
on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay. … The toleration which
was denied them by the rigid and narrow-minded Anglicanism of
Virginia was conceded by the liberality or the indifference of
Baltimore. The precise date and manner of their immigration
cannot be discovered, but we know that by 1650 their
settlement was important enough to be made into a separate
county under the name of Ann Arundel, and by 1653 they formed
two distinct communities, numbering between them close upon
140 householders. All that was required of them was an oath of
fidelity to the Proprietor, and it seems doubtful whether even
that was exacted at the outset. They seem, in the unsettled
and anarchical condition of the colony, to have been allowed
to form a separate and well-nigh independent body, holding
political views openly at variance with those of the
Proprietor. To what extent the settlers on the Isle of Kent
were avowedly hostile to Baltimore's government is doubtful.
But it is clear that discontent was rife among them, and that
in conjunction with the new-comers they made up a formidable
body, prepared to oppose the Proprietor and support the
Parliament. Symptoms of internal disaffection were seen in the
proceedings of the Assembly of 1649."
J. A. Doyle,
The English in America: Virginia, Maryland, &c.,
chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
G. P. Fisher,
The Colonial Era,
chapter 5.
{2094}
MARYLAND: A. D. 1649.
The Act of Toleration.
Religious liberty was a vital part of the earliest common-law
of the province. At the date of the charter, Toleration
existed in the heart of the proprietary. And it appeared in
the earliest administration of the affairs of the province.
But an oath was soon prepared by him, including a pledge from
the governor and the privy counsellors, 'directly or
indirectly' to 'trouble, molest, or discountenance' no 'person
whatever,' in the province, 'professing to believe in Jesus
Christ.' Its date is still an open question—some writers
supposing it was imposed in 1637; and others, in 1648. I am
inclined to think the oath of the latter was but 'an augmented
edition' of the one in the former year. The grant of the
charter marks the era of a special Toleration. But the
earliest practice of the government presents the first, the
official oath the second, the action of the Assembly in 1649
the third, and to advocates of a republican government the
most important phasis, in the history of the general
Toleration. … To the legislators of 1649 was it given … to
take their own rank among the foremost spirits of the age.
Near the close of the session, … by a solemn act [the 'Act
Concerning Religion'], they endorsed that policy which ever
since has shed the brightest lustre upon the legislative
annals of the province. … The design was five-fold:—to
guard by an express penalty 'the most sacred things of God';
to inculcate the principle of religious decency and order; to
establish, upon a firmer basis, the harmony already existing
between the colonists; to secure, in the fullest sense,
freedom as well as protection to all believers in
Christianity; and to protect quiet disbelievers against every
sort of reproach or ignominy."
G. L. Davis,
The Daystar of American Freedom,
chapters 4-7.
"In the wording of this act we see evident marks of a
compromise between the differing sentiments in the Assembly.
… It was as good a compromise as could be made at the time,
and an immense advance upon the principles and practice of the
age. In reality, it simply formulated in a statute what had
been Baltimore's policy from the first. … From the
foundation of the colony no man was molested under Baltimore's
rule on account of religion. Whenever the Proprietary's power
was overthrown, religious persecution began, and was checked
so soon as he was reinstated."
W. H. Browne,
Maryland,
chapter 4.
ALSO IN:
W. H. Browne,
George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,
chapter 8.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1650-1675.
In Puritan times, and after.
"To whatever causes … toleration was due, it worked well in
populating Maryland. There was an influx of immigration,
composed in part of the Puritans driven from Virginia by
Berkeley. These people, although refusing the oath of
fidelity, settled at Providence, near the site of Annapolis.
Not merely the Protestant but the Puritan interest was now
predominant in Maryland, and in the next Assembly the Puritan
faction had control. They elected one of their leaders
Speaker, and expelled a Catholic who refused to take an oath
requiring secrecy on the part of the Burgesses. … Yet they
passed stringent laws against Clayborne, and an act reciting
their affection for Lord Baltimore, who had so vivid an idea
of their power that he deemed it best to assent to sumptuary
laws of a typically Puritan character. The Assembly appears to
have acknowledged the supremacy of Parliament, while their
proprietary went so far in the same direction that his loyalty
was doubted, and Charles II. afterward appointed Sir William
Davenant in his place to govern Maryland. This discreet
conduct on the part of Lord Baltimore served, however, as a
protection neither to the colonists nor to the proprietary
rights. To the next Assembly, the Puritans of Providence
refused to send delegates, evidently expecting a dissolution
of the proprietary government, and the consequent supremacy of
their faction. Nor were they deceived. Such had been the
prudence of the Assembly and of Lord Baltimore that Maryland
was not expressly named in the Parliamentary commission for
the 'reducement' of the colonies; but, unfortunately,
Clayborne was the ruling spirit among the Parliamentary
commissioners, and he was not the man to let any informality
of wording in a document stand between him and his revenge.
… Clayborne and Richard Bennet, one of the Providence
settlers, and also a commissioner, soon gave their undivided
attention to Maryland." Stone was displaced from the
Governorship, but reinstated after a year, taking sides for a
time with the Puritan party. "He endeavored to trim at a time
when trimming was impossible. … Stone's second change,
however, was a decided one. Although he proclaimed Cromwell as
Lord-Protector, he carried on the government exclusively in
Baltimore's interest, ejected the Puritans, recalled the
Catholic Councillors, and issued a proclamation against the
inhabitants of Providence as factious and seditious. A
flagrant attempt to convert a young girl to Catholicism added
fuel to the flames. Moderation was at an end. Clayborne and
Bennet, backed by Virginia, returned and called an Assembly,
from which Catholics were to be excluded. In Maryland, as in
England, the extreme wing of the Puritan party was now in the
ascendant, and exercised its power oppressively and
relentlessly. Stone took arms and marched against the
Puritans. A battle was fought at Providence, in which the
Puritans, who, whatever their other failings, were always
ready in a fray, were completely victorious. A few executions
and some sequestrations followed, and severe laws against the
Catholics were passed. The policy of the Puritans was not
toleration, and they certainly never believed in it.
Nevertheless, Lord Baltimore kept his patent, and the Puritans
did not receive in England the warm sympathy they had
expected." In the end (1657) there was a compromise. The
proprietary government was re-established, and Fendall, whom
Baltimore had appointed Governor in place of Stone, was
recognized. "The results of all this turbulence were the right
to carry arms, the practical assertion of the right to make
laws and lay taxes, relief from the oath of fealty with the
obnoxious clauses, and the breakdown of the Catholic interest
in Maryland politics. Toleration was wisely restored. The
solid advantages were gained by the Puritan minority at the
expense of the lord proprietary.
{2095}
In the interregnum which ensued on the abdication of Richard
Cromwell, the Assembly met and claimed supreme authority in
the province, and denied their responsibility to anyone but
the sovereign in England. Fendall, a weak man of the agitator
species, acceded to the claims of the Assembly; but Baltimore
removed Fendall, and kept the power which the Assembly had
attempted to take away. … Maryland did not suffer by the
Restoration, as was the case with her sister colonies, but
gained many solid advantages. The factious strife of years was
at last allayed, and order, peace, and stability of government
supervened. Philip Calvert, an illegitimate son of the first
proprietary, was governor for nearly two years, and was then
succeeded [1661] by his nephew, Charles, the oldest son of
Lord Baltimore, whose administration lasted for fourteen. It
would have been difficult to find at that time better
governors than these Calverts proved themselves. Moderate and
just, they administered the affairs of Maryland sensibly and
well. Population increased, and the immigration of Quakers and
foreigners, and of the oppressed of all nations, was greatly
stimulated by a renewal of the old policy of religious
toleration. The prosperity of the colony was marked."
H. C. Lodge,
Short History of the English Colonies,
chapter 3.
ALSO IN:
J. Grahame,
History of the United States (Colonial),
book 3 (volume 1).
D. R. Randall,
A Puritan Colony in Maryland.
(Johns Hopkins University Studies, 4th series, no. 6).
W. H. Browne,
George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert,
chapters 8-9.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1664-1682.
Claims to Delaware disputed by the Duke of York.
Grant of Delaware by the Duke to William Penn.
See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1682.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1681-1685.
The Boundary dispute with William Penn, in its first stages.
See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1685.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1688-1757.
Lord Baltimore deprived of the government.
Change of faith and restoration of his son.
Intolerance revived.
Lord Baltimore, "though guilty of no maladministration in his
government, though a zealous Roman catholic, and firmly
attached to the cause of King James II., could not prevent his
charter from being questioned in that arbitrary reign, and a
suit from being commenced to deprive him of the property and
jurisdiction of a province granted by the royal favour, and
peopled at such a vast expense of his own. But it was the
error of that weak and unfortunate reign, neither to know its
friends, nor its enemies; but by a blind precipitate conduct
to hurry on everything of whatever consequence with almost
equal heat, and to imagine that the sound of the royal
authority was sufficient to justify every sort of conduct to
every sort of people. But these injuries could not shake the
honour and constancy of Lord Baltimore, nor tempt him to
desert the cause of his master. Upon the revolution [1688] he
had no reason to expect any favour; yet he met with more than
king James had intended him; he was deprived indeed of all his
jurisdiction [1691], but he was left the profits of his province,
which were by no means inconsiderable; and when his
descendents had conformed to the church of England, they were
restored [1741] to all their rights as fully as the
legislature has thought fit that any proprietor should enjoy
them. When upon the revolution power changed hands in that
province, the new men made but an indifferent requital for the
liberties and indulgences they had enjoyed under the old
administration. They not only deprived the Roman Catholics of
all share in the government, but of all the rights of freemen;
they have even adopted the whole body of the penal laws of
England against them; they are at this day [1757] meditating
new laws in the same spirit, and they would undoubtedly go to
the greatest lengths in this respect, if the moderation and
good sense of the government in England did not set some
bounds to their bigotry."
E. Burke,
Account of the European Settlements in America,
part 7, chapter 18 (volume 2).
"We may now place side by side the three tolerations of
Maryland. The toleration of the Proprietaries lasted fifty
years, and under it all believers in Christ were equal before
the law, and all support to churches or ministers was
voluntary; the Puritan toleration lasted six years, and
included all but Papists, Prelatists, and those who held
objectionable doctrines; the Anglican toleration lasted eighty
years, and had glebes and churches for the Establishment,
connivance for Dissenters, the penal laws for Catholics."
W. H. Browne,
Maryland,
chapter 11.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1690.
The first Colonial Congress.
King William's War.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;
and CANADA: A. D. 1689-1690.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1729-1730.
The founding of Baltimore.
"Maryland had never taken kindly to towns, and though in Queen
Anne's reign, in conformity with the royal wish, a number were
founded, the reluctant Assembly 'erecting' them by batches—42 at
once in 1706—scarcely any passed beyond the embryonic stage.
… St. Mary's and Annapolis, the one waning as the other
waxed, remained the only real towns of the colony for the
first 90 years of its existence; Joppa, on the Gunpowder, was
the next, and had a fair share of prosperity for 50 years and
more, until her young and more vigorous rival, Baltimore, drew
off her trade, and she gradually dwindled, peaked, and pined
away to a solitary house and a grass-grown grave-yard, wherein
slumber the mortal remains of her ancient citizens. Baltimore on
the Patapsco was not the first to bear that appellation. At
least two Baltimores had a name, if not a local habitation,
and perished, if they can be said ever to have rightly
existed, before their younger sister saw the light. … In
1729, the planters near the Patapsco, feeling the need of a
convenient port, made application to the Assembly, and an act
was passed authorising the purchase of the necessary land,
whereupon 60 acres bounding on the northwest branch of the
river, at the part of the harbor now called the Basin, were
bought of Daniel and Charles Carroll at 40 shillings the acre.
The streets and lots were laid off in the following January,
and purchasers invited. The waterfronts were immediately taken
up."
W. H. Browne,
Maryland,
chapter 12.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany, and Franklin's Plan of Union.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1755-1760.
The French and Indian War.
See
CANADA: A. D. 1750-1753, to 1760;
OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754, 1754, 1755;
NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1749-1755, 1755;
and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.
{2096}
MARYLAND: A. D. 1760-1767.
Settlement of the boundary dispute with Pennsylvania.
Mason and Dixon's line.
See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1760-1767.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1760-1775.
Opening events of the Revolution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1775;
and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1776.
The end of proprietary and royal government.
Formation and adoption of a state constitution.
"In Maryland the party in favor of independence encountered
peculiar obstacles. Under the proprietary rule the colony
enjoyed a large measure of happiness and prosperity. The
Governor, Robert Eden, was greatly respected, and to the last
was treated with forbearance. … The political power was
vested in a Convention which created the Council of Safety and
provided for the common defence. This was, however, so much
under the control of the proprietary party and timid Whigs
that, on the 21st of May [1776], it renewed its former
instructions against independence. … The popular leaders
determined 'to take the sense of the people.' Charles Carroll
of Carrolton, and Samuel Chase, who had just returned from
Canada, entered with zeal into the movement on the side of
independence and revolution. Meetings were called in the
counties. … Anne Arundel County declared that the province,
except in questions of domestic policy, was bound by the
decisions of Congress. … Charles County followed,
pronouncing for independence, confederation, and a new
government. … Frederick County (June 17) unanimously
resolved: 'That what may be recommended by a majority of the
Congress equally delegated by the people of the United
Colonies, we will, at the hazard of our lives and fortunes,
support and maintain.' … This was immediately printed. 'Read
the papers,' Samuel Chase wrote on the 21st to John Adams,
'and be assured Frederick speaks the sense of many counties.'
Two days afterward the British man-of-war, Fowey, with a flag
of truce at her top-gallant mast, anchored before Annapolis;
the next day, Governor Eden was on board; and so closed the
series of royal governors on Maryland soil."
R. Frothingham,
The Rise of the Republic,
pp. 525-527.
"Elections were held throughout the state on the 1st day of
August, 1776, for delegates to a new convention to form a
constitution and state government. … On the 14th of August
this new body assembled. … On the 3d of November the bill of
rights was adopted. On the 8th of the same month the
constitution of the State was finally agreed to, and elections
ordered to carry it into effect."
J. McSherry,
History of Maryland,
chapter 10.
See, also,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1776-1779.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1776-1783.
The War of Independence, to the Peace with Great Britain.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776, to 1783.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1776-1808.
Anti-Slavery opinion and the causes of its disappearance.
See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1776-1808.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1777-1781.
Resistance to the western territorial claims of states
chartered to the Pacific Ocean.
Influence upon land-cessions to the United States.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1787-1788.
Adoption and ratification of the Federal Constitution.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1813.
The coast of Chesapeake Bay harried by the British.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1812-1813.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April).
Reply of Governor Hicks to President Lincoln's call for troops.
See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL)
PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S CALL TO ARMS.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April).
Secession activity.
Baltimore mastered by the rebel mob.
Attack on the Sixth Massachusetts Regiment.
See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (APRIL) ACTIVITY OF REBELLION.
MARYLAND: A. D. 1861 (April-May).
Attempted "neutrality" and the end of it.
General Butler at Annapolis and Baltimore.
See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY: MARYLAND).
MARYLAND: A. D. 1862 (September).
Lee's first invasion and his cool reception.
The battles of South Mountain and Antietam.
See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).
MARYLAND: A. D. 1863.
Lee's second invasion.
Gettysburg.
See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).
MARYLAND: A. D. 1864.
Early's invasion.
See
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (JULY: VIRGINIA—MARYLAND).
MARYLAND: A. D. 1867.
The founding of Johns Hopkins University.
See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1867.
----------MARYLAND: End----------
MARZOCCO.
"'Marzocco' was the name given to the Florentine Lion, a stone
figure of which was set up in all subject places and the name
shouted as a battle-cry by their armies. It is said to be
derived from the Hebrew, 'Mare' (form, or appearance, or
aspect) and 'Sciahhal,' 'a great Lion.'"
H. E. Napier,
Florentine History,
volume 4, page 103, foot-note.
MASANIELLO'S REVOLT.
See ITALY: A. D. 1646-1654.
MASKOKI FAMILY OF INDIANS.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.
MASKOUTENS,
MASCONTENS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SACS, &c.
MASNADA,
See CATTANI.
MASON, John, and his grant in New Hampshire.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.
MASON AND DIXON'S LINE.
See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D. 1760-1767.
MASON AND SLIDELL, The seizure of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (NOVEMBER).
MASORETES,
MASSORETES
MASORETIC.
When the Hebrew language had ceased to be a living language
"the so-called Masoretes, or Jewish scribes, in the sixth
century after the Christian era, invented a system of symbols
which should represent the pronunciation of the Hebrew of the
Old Testament as read, or rather chanted, at the time in the
great synagogue of Tiberias in Palestine. It is in accordance
with this Masoretic mode of pronunciation that Hebrew is now
taught."
A. H. Sayce,
Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments,
chapter 3.
"Massora denotes, in general, tradition … ; but more
especially it denotes the tradition concerning the text of the
Bible. Hence those who made this special tradition their
object of study were called Massoretes. … As there was an
eastern and western, or Babylonian and Palestinian Talmud, so
likewise there developed itself a twofold Massora,—a
Babylonian, or eastern, and a Palestinian, or western: the
more important is the former. At Tiberias the study of the
Massora had been in a flourishing condition for a long time.
Here lived the famous Massorete, Aaron ben-Moses ben-Asher,
commonly called Ben-Asher, in the beginning of the tenth
century, who finally fixed the so-called Massoretic text."
Shaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.
{2097}
MASPIANS, The.
One of the tribes of the ancient Persians.
M. Duncker,
History of Antiquity,
book 8, chapter 3.
MASSACHUSETTS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.
----------MASSACHUSETTS: Start--------
MASSACHUSETTS:
The Name.
"The name Massachusetts, so far as I have observed, is first
mentioned by Captain Smith in his 'Description of New
England,' 1616. He spells the word variously, but he appears
to use the term Massachuset and Massachewset to denote the
country, while he adds a final's' when he is speaking of the
inhabitants. He speaks of Massachusets Mount and Massachusets
River, using the word also in its possessive form; while in
another place he calls the former 'the high mountain of
Massachusit.' To this mountain, on his map, he gives the
English name of 'Chevyot Hills.' Hutchinson (i. 460) supposes
the Blue Hills of Milton to be intended. He says that a small
hill near Squantum, the former seat of a great Indian sachem,
was called Massachusetts Hill, or Mount Massachusetts, down to
his time. Cotton, in his Indian vocabulary, says the word
means 'a hill in the form of an arrow's head.' See, also,
Neal's 'New England,' ii. 215, 216. In the Massachusetts
charter the name is spelled in three or four different ways,
to make sure of a description of the territory."
C. Deane,
New England (Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 3, page 342, footnote).
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1602.
The Bay visited by Gosnold.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1605.
The Bay visited by Champlain.
See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
The Pilgrim Fathers.
Whence and why they came to New England.
See INDEPENDENTS OR SEPARATISTS.
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
The voyage of the Mayflower.
The landing of the Pilgrims.
The founding of Plymouth colony.
The congregation of John Robinson, at Leyden, having, after
long efforts, procured from the London Company for Virginia a
patent or grant of land which proved useless to them, and
having closed a hard bargain with certain merchants of London
who supplied to some limited extent the means necessary for
their emigration and settlement (see INDEPENDENTS, OR
SEPARATISTS: A. D. 1617-1620), were prepared, in the summer of
1620, to send forth the first pilgrims from their community,
across the ocean, seeking freedom in the worship of God. "The
means at command provided only for sending a portion of the
company; and 'those that stayed, being the greater number,
required the pastor to stay with them,' while Elder Brewster
accompanied, in the pastor's stead, the almost as numerous
minority who were to constitute a church by themselves; and in
every church, by Robinson's theories, the 'governing elder,'
next in rank to the pastor and the teacher, must be 'apt to
teach.' A small ship,—the 'Speedwell,'—of some 60 tons
burden, was bought and fitted out in Holland, and early in
July those who were ready for the formidable voyage, being
'the youngest and strongest part,' left Leyden for embarkation
at Delft-Haven, nearly 20 miles to the southward,—sad at the
parting, 'but,' says Bradford, 'they knew that they were
pilgrims.' About the middle of the second week of the month
the vessel sailed for Southampton, England. On the arrival
there they found the 'Mayflower,' a ship of about 180 tons
burden, which had been hired in London, awaiting them with
their fellow passengers,—partly laborers employed by the
merchants, partly Englishmen like-minded with themselves, who
were disposed to join the colony. Mr. Weston, also, was there,
to represent the merchants; but, when discussion arose about
the terms of the contract, he went off in anger, leaving the
contract unsigned, and the arrangements so incomplete that the
Pilgrims were forced to dispose of sixty pounds' worth of
their not abundant stock of provisions to meet absolutely
necessary charges. The ships, with perhaps 120 passengers, put
to sea about August 5/15, with hopes of the colony being well
settled before winter; but the 'Speedwell' was soon pronounced
too leaky to proceed without being overhauled, and so both ships
put in at Dartmouth, after eight days' sail. Repairs were
made, and before the end of another week they started again;
but when about a hundred leagues beyond Land's End, Reynolds,
the master of the' Speedwell,' declared her in imminent danger
of sinking, so that both ships again put about. On reaching
Plymouth Harbor it was decided to abandon the smaller vessel,
and thus to send back those of the company whom such a
succession of mishaps had disheartened. … It was not known
till later that the alarm over the 'Speedwell's' condition was
owing to deception practised by the master and crew. … At
length, on Wednesday, September 6/16, the Mayflower left
Plymouth, and nine weeks from the following day, on November
9/19, sighted the eastern coast of the flat, but at that time
well-wooded shores of Cape Cod. She took from Plymouth 102
passengers, besides the master and crew; on the voyage one
man-servant died and one child was born, making 102 (73 males
and 29 females) who reached their destination. Of these, the
colony proper consisted of 34 adult males, 18 of them
accompanied by their wives and 14 by minor children (20 boys
and 8 girls); besides these, there were 3 maid-servants and 19
men-servants, sailors, and craftsmen,—5 of them only
half-grown boys,—who were hired for temporary service. Of the
34 men who were the nucleus of the colony, more than half are
known to have come from Leyden; in fact, but 4 of the 34 are
certainly known to be of the Southampton accessions. … And
whither were they bound? As we have seen, a patent was secured
in 1619 in Mr. Wincob's name; but 'God so disposed as he never
went nor they ever made use of this patent,' says Bradford,—not
however making it clear when the intention of colonizing under
this instrument was abandoned.
{2098}
The 'merchant adventurers' while negotiating at Leyden seem to
have taken out another patent from the Virginia Company, in
February, 1620, in the names of John Peirce and of his
associates; and this was more probably the authority under
which the Mayflower voyage was undertaken. As the Pilgrims had
known before leaving Holland of an intended grant of the
northern parts of Virginia to a new company,—the Council for
New England,—when they found themselves off Cape Cod, 'the
patent they had being for Virginia and not for New England,
which belonged to another Government, with which the Virginia
Company had nothing to do,' they changed the ship's course,
with intent, says Bradford, 'to find some place about Hudson's
River for their habitation,' and so fulfil the conditions of
their patent; but difficulties of navigation and opposition
from the master and crew caused the exiles, after half a day's
voyage, to retrace their course and seek a resting-place on
the nearest shore. … Their radical change of destination
exposed the colonists to a new danger. As soon as it was
known, some of the hired laborers threatened to break loose
(upon landing) from their engagements, and to enjoy full
license, as a result of the loss of the authority delegated in
the Virginia Company's patent. The necessity of some mode of
civil government had been enjoined on the Pilgrims in the
farewell letter from their pastor, and was now availed of to
restrain these insurgents and to unite visibly the
well-affected. A compact, which has often been eulogized as
the first written constitution in the world, was drawn up. …
Of the 41 signers to this compact, 34 were the adults called
above the nucleus of the colony, and seven were servants or
hired workmen; the seven remaining adult males of the latter
sort were perhaps too ill to sign with the rest (all of them
soon died), or the list of signers may be imperfect. This
needful preliminary step was taken on Saturday, November
11/21, by which time the Mayflower had rounded the Cape and
found shelter in the quiet harbor on which now lies the
village of Provincetown; and probably on the same day they
'chose, or rather confirmed,' as Bradford has it, … Mr. John
Carver governor for the ensuing year. On the same day an armed
delegation visited the neighboring shore, finding no
inhabitants. There were no attractions, however, for a
permanent settlement, nor even accommodations for a
comfortable encampment while such a place was being sought."
Some days were spent in exploring Cape Cod Bay, and the harbor
since known as Plymouth Bay was chosen for the settlement of
the colony. The exploring party landed, as is believed, at the
famous Rock, on Monday December 11/21. "Through an unfortunate
mistake, originating in the last century, the 22d has been
commonly adopted as the true date. … Tradition divides the
honor of being the first to step on Plymouth Rock between John
Alden and Mary Chilton, but the date of their landing must
have been subsequent to December 11 [N. S. 21]." It was not
till the end of the week, December 16/26, that the Mayflower
was anchored in the chosen haven. "The selection of a site and
the preparation of materials, in uncertain weather, delayed
till Monday, the 25th [January 4, N. S.] the beginning of 'the
first house for common use, to receive them and their goods.'
Before the new year, house-lots were assigned to families, and
by the middle of January most of the company had left the ship
for a home on land."
F. B. Dexter,
The Pilgrim Church and Plymouth Colony
(Narrative and Critical History of America,
volume 3, chapter 8, with foot-notes).
"Before the Pilgrims landed, they by a solemn instrument
founded the Puritan republic. The tone of this instrument and
the success of its authors may afford a lesson to
revolutionists who sever the present from the past with the
guillotine, fling the illustrious dead out of their tombs, and
begin history again with the year one. These men had been
wronged as much as the Jacobins. 'In the name of God. Amen. We
whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread
Sovereign Lord King James, by the grace of God of Great
Britain and Ireland, defender of the faith, etc., having
undertaken, for the glory of God and advancement of the
Christian faith, and honour of our king and country, a voyage
to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia,
do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of
God and of one another, covenant and combine ourselves
together into a civil body politic for our better ordering and
preservation, and for the furtherance of the ends aforesaid;
and by virtue hereof to exact, constitute, and frame such just
and equal laws, ordinances and acts, constitutions and
offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet for
the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due
submission and obedience.' And then follows the roll of
plebeian names, to which the Roll of Battle Abbey is a poor
record of nobility. There are points in history at which the
spirit which moves the whole shows itself more clearly through
the outward frame. This is one of them. Here we are passing
from the feudal age of privilege and force to the age of due
submission and obedience, to just and equal offices and laws,
for our better ordering and preservation. In this political
covenant of the Pilgrim fathers lies the American Declaration
of Independence. From the American Declaration of Independence
was borrowed the French Declaration of the Rights of Man.
France, rushing ill-prepared, though with overweening
confidence, on the great problems of the eighteenth century,
shattered not her own hopes alone, but nearly at the same
moment the Puritan Republic, breaking the last slight link
that bound it to feudal Europe, and placing modern society
firmly and tranquilly on its new foundation. To the free
States of America we owe our best assurance that the oldest,
the most famous, the most cherished of human institutions are
not the life, nor would their fall be the death, of social
man; that all which comes of Charlemagne, and all which comes
of Constantine, might go to the tombs of Charlemagne and
Constantine, and yet social duty and affection, religion and
worship, free obedience to good government, free reverence for
just laws, continue as before. They who have achieved this
have little need to talk of Bunker's Hill."
Goldwin Smith,
On the Foundation of the American Colonies
(Lectures on the Study of History).
ALSO IN:
W. Bradford,
History of Plymouth Plantation
(Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
4th series, volume 3), book 1.
Mourt's Relation,
or Journal of the Plantation at Plymouth;
edited by H. M. Dexter.
J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 1, chapter 3.
{2099}
MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1621.
The first year of the Plymouth Colony and its sufferings.
The Pierce patent.
The naming of Plymouth.
"The labor of providing habitations had scarcely begun, when
sickness set in, the consequence of exposure and bad food.
Within four months it carried off nearly half their number.
Six died in December, eight in January, seventeen in February,
and thirteen in March. At one time during the winter, only six or
seven had strength enough left to nurse the dying and bury the
dead. Destitute of every provision, which the weakness and the
daintiness of the invalid require, the sick lay crowded in the
unwholesome vessel, or in half-built cabins heaped around with
snow-drifts. The rude sailors refused them even a share of
those coarse sea-stores which would have given a little
variety to their diet, till disease spread among the crew, and
the kind ministrations of those whom they had neglected and
affronted brought them to a better temper. The dead were
interred in a bluff by the water-side, the marks of burial
being carefully effaced, lest the natives should discover how
the colony had been weakened. … Meantime, courage and
fidelity never gave out. The well carried out the dead through
the cold and snow, and then hastened back from the burial to
wait on the sick; and as the sick began to recover, they took
the places of those whose strength had been exhausted." In
March, the first intercourse of the colonists with the few
natives of the region was opened, through Samoset, a friendly
Indian, who had learned from fishermen on the more eastern
coast to speak a little English. Soon afterwards, they made a
treaty of friendship and alliance with Massasoit, the chief of
the nearest tribe, which treaty remained in force for 54
years. On the 5th of April the Mayflower set sail on her
homeward voyage, "with scarcely more than half the crew which
had navigated her to America, the rest having fallen victims
to the epidemic of the winter. … She carried back not one of
the emigrants, dispiriting as were the hardships which they
had endured, and those they had still in prospect." Soon after