r living here in 1775, that deduce their origin from the
kingdom of England, i.e., the southern part of Great Britain,
excluding also the principality of Wales, to exceed ninety-eight
in a hundred.'

'A more homogeneous stock cannot be seen, I think, in any so
extensive a region at any time, since that when the ark of Noah
discharged its passengers on Mount Ararat, except in the few
centuries elapsing before the confusion of Babel.'

So much for the idle slander that New England has no records nor
homogeneity.

As to the other alleged stigma of Puritanism. Could Virginia maintain
her claim to a Cavalier ancestry instead of failing on even a
superficial scrutiny, the contrast attempted to be drawn between Puritan
and Cavalier is based on a fallacy. When these colonies were
established, the distinction was a political one as clearly as the
succeeding divisions of Whig and Tory. In those days the gentry were the
leaders--the Puritan was as much a gentleman in the technical English
sense as the Cavalier. To take an instance which will strike our
Virginia friends, who quote the Fairfaxes and Washingtons: Lord Fairfax,
the Puritan, married the daughter of Lord Vere, 'a zealous Presbyterian
and disaffected to the king.' Their daughter married the gay Cavalier,
duke of Buckingham.

The Washingtons were connections, and rather humble ones, of the
Spencers. Yet the latest account of the families show Henry Lord Spencer
'standing by the side of the Lords Northumberland and Essex, and the
other noblemen who were afterward the leaders of the Parliament during
the civil war.'

Puritan and Cavalier! The phrase only means that those, both of gentry
and yeomanry, who had sufficient brains to understand liberty, and the
courage to fight for it, combined and forever broke the chains of royal
or oligarchical oppression. If the gentry were a minority in the party,
so much the less reason to boast of such an ancestry.

Still, as no point in a contest should be thrown away, let it be avowed
that Puritanic New England could always display a greater array of
'gentlemen by birth' than Virginia, or even the entire South. This is
said deliberately, because we know whereof we speak. If the fact be of
service in any way, it can easily be substantiated. A list of such names
as I can at present remember is longer than any list I have been able to
collect from Southern publications. These are, Adams, Amory, And