Читать книгу Sex and Race, Volume 3 - J. A. Rogers - Страница 8

Chapter One

MIXED MARRIAGES AS SEEN BY THE LAW -- ANCIENT AND EARLY HISTORIC

“Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.” Deuteronomy, 7:3.

RULING classes and stronger peoples from time immemorial have prohibited marriage of their members with groups they considered socially inferior. Their object was three-fold: To have a permanently “inferior” group whose labor could be exploited at a minimum of cost; to be able to cohabit freely with the women of the weaker groups, and thus breed more of the latter to be exploited; and to sustain their ego and their morale by having an under-privileged class to look down upon.

This procedure was not at all racial. Black and brown peoples have used it against other blacks and browns; whites against whites; yellows against yellows; blacks and browns against whites; and whites against blacks and browns. It was simply and solely a case of the strong against the weak.

The Code of Manu, one of the oldest law-books of the world forbade the marriage of a Brahman, or “twice-born’ ‘individual, with a Sudra, or artisan. Should a Brahman woman so far forget herself as to have a child by a Sudra, the child sank to the Chandala caste, “the lowest of mortals,” who was so despised that if he sat on a seat used by a Brahman he was to have his buttocks slit. Manu also considered a woman who had red, or golden hair, inferior, and marriage with her by any of the three upper castes was forbidden (Chap. Ill, 8). A Brahman was sometimes black and a Sudra sometimes fair, and both might have had a Negro strain. Social position, not color, was the criterion. Caste distinctions in marriage still prevail in India.

The ancient Egyptians must undoubtedly have forbidden marriage with the Jews because when the latter first arrived in Egypt as visitors, and not yet slaves, the Egyptians thought it “an abomination” to break bread with them (Genesis, 42:32). In spite of the high favor shown to Joseph, the Egyptians regarded the Jews as “an abomination” when they came to settle in Egypt because they were shepherds, and relegated them to Goshen (Genesis, 45:34). The Egyptians, like the Jews, were then of mixed white and Negro strain.

Four centuries later when the Jews arrived in Palestine and had conquered that land they followed the example set by Abraham of non-marriage with the peoples there. The latter, however, were according to the Bible of the same original stock as the Jews, namely, the family of Noah. But true to the policy of the conqueror the Jews reserved the right to cohabit with and make concubines of the virgins of the beaten Canaanites, after killing the mothers and the fathers (Numbers, 31:17,18; Deuteronomy 7:2,3).

But these prohibitions against marriage did not work. Some very prominent Hebrews married “strange women.” Samson married Delilah, a Philistine; Boaz married Ruth, a Moabitess, ancestress of David; David married Maachah, a Geshurite and Bathsheba, a Hittite; Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter and had so many other non-Jewish wives that there was a revolt against him led by Jeroboam (1 Kings, Chaps. 11-14). He even appears to have lost his throne because of them (Eccles. 1:12). Ahab married Jezebel of Sidon. In fact there was once so general an intermarriage of the Jews with the Canaanites, Hittites, and other peoples, that, according to the Bible, Jehovah sold them into bondage to the king of Mesopotamia for eight years (Judges 3:5-8).

Moses, it is true, married an Ethiopian woman and Joseph, an Egyptian one, but both had been adopted by those people and had been cut off from contact with their own. Later, when Moses found himself again among his people he was roundly scolded by Aaron and Miriam, his brother and sister, because his wife was non-Jewish (Numbers 12:1-16).

The mixing of Jews with non-Jews went on in spite of all laws. After the return from the Babylonian captivity, we find the prophet, Nehemiah, telling how he cursed those who had “transgressed against our God” by taking non-Jewish wives, and how he smote such, pulled their hair, and broke up their families (Neh. 31;17,18). The prophet Ezra, too, in a fit of fanaticism, tore his garment and his beard at seeing how the “holy seed” of Israel had married with the Canaanites, a people of similar “race,” and gives a list of the Jews he compelled to leave their wives and children because the latter had not been born into the faith (Ezra, Chaps. 9 & 10).

Purity of religion, not of “race,” was the motive behind these restrictions because the Jews who had been very much mixed before they left Egypt were much more so in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. The idea behind the objection was that the child of parents who were of mixed faiths might have ideas of his own about religion. Such children were barred from entering “the congregation of the Lord,” even when they were mixed with favored nations as the Egyptian and the Edomite (Deut. 23:8). For instance there was the case of Shelomith, a Jewish woman, who had a son by an Egyptian. This son, while still in the wilderness, had an argument and a fight with a Jew over religion and was ordered stoned to death by Moses (Leviticus 24;10.14).

As regards marriage with Gentiles there are still orthodox Jews who feel as strongly against it as did the prophets of Israel.

Mixed Marriages in Rome

In Rome, there were severe laws against the marriage of patricians, or aristocrats, with plebians,¹ a people of the same color, but of the working class. There was also the bar of nationality. However, in 444 B.C., the plebians won the right to marry with the patricians through the Canuleian Law but the restrictions against the non-Roman continued into the Christian era. If say, a white Roman had a child by a white Englishwoman, the child was regarded precisely as was one of a white Virginian and a Negro woman in slavery days. Such offspring even though white were called Hybridae, or mixed-blood, the same term used for mules. If the English mother were free, her child ranked just one degree above a slave; if she were a slave, her child also was a slave. The same held true if a black Roman married an Ethiopian.

No matter how high-born the foreigner, he or she could not contract a legal marriage with a Roman. Gibbon says, “The blood of a king could never mingle in legitimate nuptials with the blood of a Roman, and the name of Stranger degraded Cleopatra and Berenice to live the concubines of Mark Anthony and Titus.”² Cleopatra was queen of Egypt; and Berenice, the wife of King Herod, who had been captured by Titus in the conquest of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

With the coming of Christianity in Rome, the ban against marriage took a religious turn. Northern whites, as the Scandinavians, Germans, and English, could not marry a Christian Roman, white or black, because they were regarded as heathens. For instance, an Irishman could contract such a marriage because the Irish were Christians. “There was,” says Oswald Spengler, “not the slightest difficulty about an Irishman in Constantinople marrying a Negress if both were Christians.”³

There was such an absence of color prejudice that when Pope Vitalian (657-672 A.D.) wanted someone to head the Church in England and become the first archbishop of Canterbury, he selected a Negro, Hadrian.⁴ When Hadrian declined and suggested another, the Pope sent Hadrian along as practical supervisor of Theodore who had been given the post.

The Emperor Justinian married his Negro cook to a noble Roman lady, an honor that would have been denied a German or Russian prince.⁵ The white princes of the North, says Gibbon, were very eager to contract marriage with the aristocrats of the South, which latter undoubtedly included some mulattoes and blacks. Liuprand, bishop of Cremona, who saw the Roman Emperor, Nicephorus Phocas, said that he was in color a Negro.^5b The Emperor Constantine, says Gibbon, was so opposed to unions of Christians with even the white kings of the North that he had the prohibition written in “irrevocable law” on “the altar of St. Sophia,” Christendom’s then most exalted shrine.

In his decree Constantine used language on national and religious dissimilarities which resembles that of certain scientists and legislators of our day when speaking of “race.” He said, to quote Gibbon, “Every animal, says the discreet emperor, is prompted by nature to seek a mate among the animals of his own species and as the human species is divided into various tribes by the distinction of language, religion, and manners, a just regard to the purity of descent preserves the harmony of public and private life; but the mixture of foreign blood is the fruitful source of disorder and discord.”⁶ Purity of descent, we find here, is based not on “race” but on similarity of culture.

Later, the Jews, who in their days of power had called themselves “God’s Chosen People,” as the Chinese called themselves “Sons of Heaven,” were to get a dose of their own medicine. The Romans of the time of Juvenal, first century A.D., made slaves of them and treated them very badly. As for marriage, Christian Rome severely banned marriage of one of them with a Christian, white or black. The earliest English code, that of the seventh century A.D., forbade any union of Christian and Jew, and inflicted a penance of as high as twelve years on any woman who had illicit sex relations with a Jew.⁷ A Spanish law of 1348 condemned to death any Jew going with a Christian woman, even though she were a prostitute. In Avignon, France, the penalty for the same was a fine of twenty-five French pounds and the loss of a limb “for each offense.” The outlawing of any sexual relations between Jews and Christians was revived by Hitler in 1935.

WHO IS A NEGRO? EUROPEAN TYPES—GERMAN

I Leopold I, Emperor of Germany, by Thomas of Ypres (New York Public Library Coll.) Compare his features with those of Kamehameha II, on opposite page.

WHO IS A NEGRO? OCEANIC TYPE

II. Kamehameha II of Hawaii (Compare his features with those of Leopold I, Emperor of Germany, on opposite page).

Whites of the Same Race and Religion Who Could Not Marry

In northern Europe white peoples also had laws banning marriage between themselves and other whites of the same religion and nationality but of the lower class. Professor E. A. Ross says: “Thus among the Saxons of the eighth century social divisions were cast-iron and the law punished with death the man who should presume to marry a woman of rank higher than his own. The Lombards killed the serf who ventured to marry a free woman, while the Visigoths and Burgundians scourged and burned them both …”⁸

The English upper class of the eleventh century treated white women of the lower class in a manner that reminds one of how their descendants, the Virginia colonists, treated black women. William of Malmesbury, English historian of the twelfth century, tells how the nobles used “to sell their female servants when pregnant and after they had satisfied their lust either to public prostitution or foreign slavery.” He tells of another noblewoman who used to buy up the most beautiful slave girls and sell them at a profit in Denmark.⁹

When the Normans ruled England they regarded the Anglo-Saxons, a whiter complexioned people than they, in the same manner as the Americans slaveholders regarded the Negroes. Macaulay says: “In the time of Richard I the ordinary imprecation of a Norman gentleman was: ‘May I become an Englishman.’ His ordinary form of indignant denial was: ‘Do you take me for an Englishman?’ In no country has the enmity of race been carried farther than in England. In no country has that enmity been more completely effaced.”

Of the marriage of the Norman king, Henry I, to Edith, an Anglo-Saxon princess, Macaulay says it “was regarded as a marriage between a white planter and a quadroon girl would now be regarded in Virginia.”¹⁰

During the Middle Ages, and well into the eighteenth century, the Catholics, who were then in power forbade whites who were of the faith to marry whites who were not of the faith. This was particularly so in Spain, Austria, Italy and France. Marriage between Catholic and non-Catholic is still either forbidden or frowned on by the Catholic Church.

The English and the Irish

None of the above-mentioned prohibitions, however, reached the severity of the ban against the marriage of English to Irish, who were then both Catholic. The Statutes of Kilkenny issued in 1367 by Edward III of England show how far one white group can go in prohibiting marriage with another white group. The worst that Virginia has to offer between that of white and black is almost beneficent in comparison. The English soldier in Ireland, cut off from all women, except Irish ones, who dared to have an amour with an Irishwoman, was guilty of high treason, the punishment for which was death in the most horrible manner. He was “half-hanged, cut down, disembowelled alive and forfeited his estate.¹¹ Under Cromwell, too, there were heavy penalties against an Englishman for taking an Irish wife. Soldiers who had an amour with an Irish girl were severely flogged.

According to Ringrose’s Marriage and Divorse Laws of the World (1924), the following marriages are still illegal: In Servia between Christian and non-Christian; in Sweden, heathens and atheists with Christians; in Morocco and Persia between Moslem and Jew. In all of the lands above-mentioned, with the exception of France during the time when the white colonists of Haiti had considerable influence there, no prohibition existed against the marriage of white and black on racial grounds. Portugal, the European land which had the largest percentage of Negroes, never had a color line.

Primitive dark-skinned peoples also had, and still have, anti-miscegenation laws. Among the Balinese, for instance, the penalty for marrying out of one‘s own caste was death, a punishment which the Dutch later had changed to imprisonment.¹²

In West Africa, the Mandingoes, once a ruling people, objected for centuries to marriage with the Kru, another black people. It is said they still do. Much the same is true of certain other African peoples.

Irish, Quakers, and Jews in Colonial America

The United States has probably never had a law against the marriage of one white group to another white group, but it had what amounted virtually to one in the case of three groups: the Irish, the Quakers and the Jews.

The Puritans of New England, it seems, brought with them their hostility to the Irish. In 1652, when David Sellacke, a ship captain merely permitted some Irish members of his crew to come ashore in Boston he was heavily fined. It appears they had only done so to bring ashore one of their sick. Sellacke’s fine was later remitted but he was ordered to see that the Irishman was taken aboard as soon as he got well. Martha Benton, a housewife, was given permission to import two servants from Ireland provided she could prove they were of English ancestry. In 1654, Virginia forced all Irish into bondage for five years, and later classed them with aliens. Maryland, between 1704 and 1720 passed twelve laws against the Irish, one of which increased the tax on any importation of them to five pounds sterling. South Carolina offered a bonus of thirteen pounds for every colonist brought in but he was not to be Irish; and on May 10, 1729, Pennsylvania barred all Irish.

In August 1834, mobs in Boston beat every Irish person found on the street, burnt their homes and the Ursuline Convent at Charlestown. On September 12, 1837 when the Montgomery Guards (named after General Montgomery, Revolutionary War hero) appeared to march in a parade, they were ordered home, and when they did not go, they were stoned by the mob.

In Philadelphia during the whole month of May 1844, the Irish were mobbed. On July 4th the same year there was another riot in that city, which lasted for three days in which cannon were used in the streets, more than a hundred persons killed or wounded; and two Irish churches and two rectories burned.

In New York City attempts were made to burn down St. Patrick’s Cathedral. It was saved only by stationing sharpshooters at the windows. So great was the hatred of the Irish that the Negroes were forgotten. Scharf and Westcott say, “The spirit of riot and disorder which for some years had vented itself upon Negroes and mulattoes found an entirely new object.” In the cities of the North in apartments and stores the sign “No Irish need apply” was frequently seen.¹³

WHO IS A NEGRO? FILIPINO, AUSTRALIAN, ETHIOPIAN AND AMERICAN TYPES

III. Upper left to right: Filipino girl, and Australian Bushwoman. Lower: Ethiopian girl and the late Mrs. Ida B. Wells Barnett, Chicago suffrage leader. The first three are not considered Negroes; the last one is. She is American.

The Quakers

The white Quakers in Massachusetts were treated with great barbarity. It is safe to say that they ranked even lower than the Negroes, because while the Negroes were permitted to enter the colony and, according to an order of May 27, 1652, were trained in the militia—there were no jim-crow companies, then — the Quakers were forbidden to enter the colony at all and came in only by stealth. Any ship captain, who brought in a Quaker from Europe was liable to a fine of twenty pounds sterling, a large sum in those days. On December 3, 1658, one man was fined nine pounds for attending a Quaker meeting, and on September 4, 1656, another was fined five pounds for entertaining one in his house. There was also a heavy fine for selling, or hiring, a horse to a Quaker. In other words, though they were the most civilized and humane of the white colonists—they had met the Indians unarmed and had bought, not stolen, their lands and food—they were virtually outlaws. Those who refused to leave the colony were stripped to the waist, regardless of sex, tied to the tail of a cart and whipped through the town. They were branded on the face and hand with the letters “H” or “R”; their tongues were pierced with red-hot irons; they were banished to slavery in the West Indies; and if they returned after being once expelled from the colony, were hanged. Three men and one woman once suffered this fate together. Needless to say that when there was a fine of forty shillings an hour (about $40 in the value of our time) for having a Quaker in your house that marriage between a white Puritan and a white Quaker, both of whom were usually English, was unthinkable.¹⁴

The Jews

The Jews, too, were not welcome in America. In Spanish America, especially Mexico and Peru, they were met with all the horrors of the Inquisition. As late as 1639, they were burnt at the stake.

WHO IS A NEGRO? HOTTENTOT-BUSHMAN TYPES

IV. Left to right: Two Grimaldi carvings of about 15,000 B. C., showing the steatopygy, or development of fat on the buttocks. Venus Kallipygos, or the celebrated Hottentot Venus of the last century, from a model of her in the Museum d’Ethnologie, Paris. (Winchell). A living Hottentot woman of the Kalahari, South Africa. (See also No. 5, Sex and Race, Vol. I.)

None of the North American colonies wanted them. Peter Stuyvesant tried to drive them out of New York. He wanted, he said, none of “the deceitful race—such hateful enemies and blasphemers of Christ … to infect and trouble the new colony.” In 1685, Jewish worship was forbidden in New York, nor could Jews buy land even for a burial-ground. It was not until 1730 they were permitted to own a synagogue.

In 1737, it was only cool heads that prevented a massacre of them in New York. During a contest for a seat in the Assembly between Phillips and Van Horne, the latter made an anti-Semitic speech, in which he depicted in such violent language the sufferings that the Jews were supposed to have inflicted on Christ, that the mob was roused to anti-Semitic frenzy. The Jews saved their lives by staying away from the polls. Later they were disfranchised. A writer of the times said, “The unfortunate Israelites were content to lose their votes could they escape with their lives.”¹⁵

In Massachusetts, Maryland, Virginia, and elsewhere there were restrictions against them, too. Virginia classed them with Negroes and Moslems, and forbade them to buy white people. Had there been no Negroes in America, or had the Negroes been in sufficiently small numbers to have been absorbed by the whites as they had been in England, Portugal, and France, the Jews would undoubtedly have occupied the place of persecution now held by the Negroes, and the laws now extant against blacks, would be fixed on them. The American people, if we are to judge by its psychology, needs some group on which to fix its hate—a scapegoat—someone to look down on. The members of the various emigrant groups coming from Europe where they had been looked down upon for centuries found that one of the joys of the New World was that they could now despise someone else. The Irish, for instance, held in contempt for centuries, assumed an air of great superiority over the Negroes. In 1863, they led in the massacre of Negroes in New York City. Indeed they were, to within twenty years ago, the worst enemies of the Negroes in the North, with the Poles, another long oppressed people, the next.

In 1920, the Ku Klux Klan revived for a few years anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism on a nation-wide scale. Both are still strong in certain areas, North and South.

1 Bailey, T. P. (Race Orthodoxy in the South, pp. 350-55. 1914) gives a parallel between the plebians of Rome and the Negroes in the South as based on Coulanges’ The Ancient City.

Martial, Roman writer of the first century A.D. in his eulogy of Caeser (III), tells of the great diversity of races living in Rome, among them being peoples from the Nile and “woolly-haired Ethiopians.”

It is highly probable that the earliest patricians were of a lighter color than the plebians. The former, it seems, were chiefly of European stock, or natives, while the latter were mostly of Eastern “blood.” Prof. Tenney Frank estimates that 90 percent of the plebians were Orientals (Race Mixture in the Roman Empire, Amer. Hist. Rev. Vol. 21, p. 690. 1916). These Orientals were largely from lands conquered by Rome, or lands from which the Roman slave-dealers bought their slaves, that is, they were chiefly Moors, Numidians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Sudanese. The island of Delos, off the coast of Greece was the great slave mart of the Roman Empire, and peoples of all colors were bought and sold there.

Great numbers of these Eastern people were brought in to re-populate Rome after the devastations of Hannibal in the third century B.C. After the invasion of Britain, France, Belgium and other northern lands by Julius Caesar, whiter-skinned peoples were also brought in hordes to Rome. These Northern whites seemed to have ranked lowest in the social scale for we find Cicero advising his friend, Atticus not to buy British slaves, because he said they could not be taught.

The patricians undoubtedly had some Oriental strain too, but it might have been more thinned out. Though they claimed descent from the gods some of the most illustrious of them had servile names as Porcia (swine) and Asinia (ass). As regards race” some revealed it in their surnames as Maurus (Moor); Fuscus (dusky) and Niger (Negro). No less than three Roman emperors were named Niger, one of whom married a daughter of a king of England (See Sex and Race, vol. 1, p. 86. 1941).

2 Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol. 3, Ch. 44, p. 174. 1831. 4 vols. Tacitus Book XII, 53.

3 Decline of the West, Vol. 2, p. 69. 1932. Also R. F. A. Hoernle very rightly says, “In ancient Greece and Rome there is no trace of any colour prejudice, whether in sexual or in any other human relations. In the Middle Ages and right into modern times what mattered in dividing men against each other was their religion, but not their race or the color of their skin.” (Race Mixture and Native Policy in South Africa in Schapera, I, Western Civilization and the Natives of South Africa, pp. 263-280. 1934). Had there been color prejudice then it certainly would have been recorded along with the national, tribal, and religious ones.

4 Lappenberg says that the Pope “wishing to set over the Anglo-Saxon bishops a primate devoted to his views, venerable by age and experience and distinguished by his rare knowledge and learning” offered “the dignity to an African, named Hadrian, a monk of Niridano, near Monte Cassino in the kingdom of Naples, who declining the honor for himself, recommended as worthier of it the monk, Theodore, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, a man eminently qualified by his attainments. The recommendation was adopted by the pontiff on condition that Hadrian should accompany the primate to England.” (History of England under the Anglo-Saxons, Vol. 1, p. 172. 1845). To these two men England owed the real beginnings of her culture.

Bede, the Venerable, first English historian, who lived in the time of Theodore and Hadrian, and probably knew them both, says of Hadrian, “uir natione Afir,” that is, he was one of the “African nation.” (Historiae Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, Book 4, ch. 1). At the time “race” was not used as we use it now but “nation” was. A black man was said to be of the African nation. Margaret Murray, a much later English writer, refers to Hadrian twice as “Hadrian the Negro.” She says, “Theodore of Tarsus with the aid of Hadrian the Negro organized the Church of England in the seventh century.’ (God of the Witches, p. 6. 1933). Africans in our days are at once thought of as Negroes and there is no proof that it was otherwise then. Hadrian died in England and was buried in St. Augustines Chapel, Canterbury.

Either Theodore or Hadrian had very short hair because Bede says that the hair took four months to grow in order “that it might be shorn in the shape of a crown for he had the tonsure of St. Paul.” As worded by Bede, it might mean either man. Some writers have translated it to mean Theodore and others, Hadrian.

5 (a & b). See sources in Sex and Race, Vol. 1, p. 118. 1941.

6 Gibbon, Vol. 4, Chap. 53, pp. 13-14.

7 Ancient Laws and Institutes of England. Theodori Arch. Cant. XVI, 35. It read: “Si qua Christiana faemina a perfidis Judaeis munera suscipit, ac cum eis voluntarie fornicationem fecerit, annum integrum separatur ab aeclesia et cum magna tribuationate vivat; deinde ix. annos poeniteat. Si autem liberos genuerit xii. annos poeniteat,” etc., etc.

8 Caste and Class. American Jour. of Sociology, Vol. 22, pp. 749-50. 1917. Professor Ross adds: “Even to female beauty and charm the caste line may show itself adamant. The daughter of a rich American who marries a titled European is rarely admitted to the husband’s rank. She is made to feel the farmer’s or workingman’s blood in her veins, the taint of usefulness in her ancestors. The American wife of a high-caste Austrian is not invited to homes of her husband’s friends, nor recognized socially.”

I saw an example of this snobbery as practiced against Americans in 1930 at Addis-Ababa. Among the visitors to Haile Selassie’s coronation were the titled daughter of a former viceroy of India and one of New York’s social set, who is related to one of America’s great millionaires. Both ladies travelled together, stopped at the same hotel and were being invited together everywhere, as at the receptions at the French and Italian legations. However, at the reception given to the Duke of Gloucester, son of George. V, by the British Legation the American woman was not invited though her name had been given in by the American Minister. She was much hurt by the snub. “To think,” she said to me, “that Lady —— and I are both travelling together and she was invited and I left out.”

9 History of the Kings of England, pp. 255, 230 (trans. by John Sharpe. 1915). For the manner in which the Southern masters did the identical thing to colored and near-white women in the nineteenth century see chapter, “Slaveholders and Their Trade with Houses of Prostitution” in Sex and Race, Vol. 2.

10 History of England, pp. 13-14. 1849.

11 Prendergast, J. P., The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland, pp. 40, 143, 1868.

12 Hirschfeld, M., Mand and Woman, p. 114. 1935. F. A. Sweetenham says that Malay men had the strongest objection to a Malay woman loving, or marrying with, a Chinese. Sometimes the Chinese was killed; sometimes the woman. It was never so bad, he says, “if a Malay had a Chinese woman.” (British Malaya, p. 147. 1929).

13 Records of Massachusetts Bay Colony, Oct. 19 and 26, 1652; Hart, A. B., Commonwealth History of Massachusetts. Vol. 4, pp. 488-92; Vol. 5, 517-21. 1927; Haynes, G. H., The Cause of Know Nothing Success in American Hist. Rev. 1897-8. Vol. 2, pp. 67-82; Cullen, J. B., The Irish in Boston. 1899; Roberts, E. F., Ireland in America, pp. 82-3. 1931; McGuire, J. F., The Irish in America. 1863; Scharf and Westcott, History of Philadelphia. Vol. 1, pp. 663-73. 1884.

14 Records New Plymouth Colony, Dec. 3, 1658; Sept. 4, 1656; Laws New Plymouth Colony, June 10, 1660. Records Massachusetts Bay Colony Oct. 26, 1652; Oct. 19. 1652; Oct. 14, 1656; Oct. 8, 1662; Oct. 2, 1678. Palfrey, History of New England, Vol. 2, pp. 460-484. 1860.

15 Familiar Hist. of the Evangelical Churches of N. Y., pp. 156-9. 1839. Henning’s Statutes of Virginia, Vol. 5, Chap. 14, art. 9, p. 550. Lebeson, A. L., Jewish Pioneers in America, p. 46. 1931.