History of the National Flag of the United States of America Part 2

"Andrew, S., the Apostle: the patron saint of Scotland.

"The arms attributed to him, and emblazoned on the banner bearing his name, are azure, a saltire argent."[23]--See Fig. 3, Plate I., Arms of Saint Andrew; and for the banner of Saint Andrew, Fig. 4, Plate I.

[23] Ibid. p. 9.

"Union Jack: the national flag of Great Britain and Ireland.

"The ancient national flag of England was the banner of St. George (argent, a cross gules), to which the banner of St. Andrew (azure, a saltire argent), was united (instead of being quartered, according to ancient custom), in pursuance of a royal proclamation, dated April 12, 1606. An extract from this proclamation follows:--

"Whereas, some difference hath arisen between our subjects of South and North Britain, travelling by seas, about the bearing of their flags: for the avoiding of all such contentions hereafter, we have, with the advice of our council, ordered, that henceforth all our subjects of this Isle and kingdom of Great Britain, and the members thereof, shall bear in their maintop the red cross, commonly called St. George's Cross, and the white cross, commonly called St. Andrew's Cross, joined together, according to a form made by our heralds, and sent by us to our admiral, to be published to our said subjects; and in their foretop our subjects of South Britain shall wear the red cross only, as they were wont; and the subjects of North Britain, in their foretop, the white cross only, as they were accustomed."[24]

[24] Parker. Terms used in British Heraldry, p. 315.

The union of the crosses described above may naturally be called the _king's colors_, though in fact, as James was king both of Scotland and England, the national flags of either of those kingdoms would also be the king's colors, in an extended sense; but would be likely to be designated as the red or white crosses, or the crosses of St. George or St. Andrew, while this form prepared by the heralds, and only prescribed for "subjects travelling by seas," would be by those subjects called, _par excellence_, the king's colors.

"There is," says Sir N. H. Nicholas, "every reason to believe that the flag arranged by the heralds on this occasion was the same as, on the union with Scotland [1707], became the national banner." It may be emblazoned azure, a saltire argent surmounted by a cross gules, edged of the second. (See Fig. 5, Plate I.) The white edging was no doubt intended to prevent one color from being placed upon another; but this precaution was, to say the least, unnecessary; for surely no heraldic rule would have been broken, if the red cross had been placed upon the white satire. The contact of the red cross and blue field would have been authorized by numerous precedents. This combination was const.i.tuted the national flag of Great Britain by a royal proclamation, issued July 28, 1707.[25]

[25] Note by AUTHOR.--This white edging would, however, show the union of the two flags, which otherwise might not have been apparent. We are told, in De Foe's History of the Union, that great jealousy for the ancient banners of their respective kingdoms, was shown both by Scots and English.

"No further change was made until the union with Ireland, January 1, 1801, previous to which instructions were given to combine the banner of St. Patrick (argent, a saltire gules) with the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew. In obedience to these instructions, the present National Flag of Great Britain and Ireland was produced."[26]--See Fig.

6, Plate I.

We would observe that, as this last form of the _union_ was only adopted in 1801, which was the first time that a change was made in the flags proscribed in 1707, it is only of interest as completing the account of the Union Jack.

"The word Jack is most probably derived from the surcoat, charged with a red cross, anciently used by the English soldiery. This appears to have been called a jacque, whence the word jacket, anciently written jacquit."[27]

[26][27] Parker. Terms used in British Heraldry, pp. 315-16.

We desire to impress this last remark upon the mind of the reader, as, in the course of our inquiry, we shall meet more than once with allusions to the "Jack," the "St. George's Jack," &c., and to invite special attention to the fact that the badge on the clothes of the soldiery furnished a badge to the flag of their country. Thus the cross of St. Andrew, worn by the Scots, was emblazoned on the banner of Scotland, and the cross of St. George, worn by the English soldiery, was emblazoned on the banner of England.

This last, the national flag of England, the Red Cross flag, has now, for us, especial interest.

A singular circ.u.mstance furnishes us with proof that this Red Cross flag was in use in the colonies. We find in the "Journal of John Winthrop, Esq., the first governor of the Colony of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay,"

the following memoranda in reference to it:--

"Anno 1634, November 5.] At the Court of a.s.sistants, complaint was made by one of the country (viz., Richard Brown, of Watertown, in the name of the rest), that the ensign at Salem was defaced, viz.: one part of the red cross taken out. Upon this, an attachment was issued against Richard Davenport, ensign-bearer, to appear at the next court to answer. Much matter was made of this, as fearing it would be taken as an act of rebellion, or of like high nature, in defacing the king's colors;" [_i.e._ the Banner of St. George;] "though the truth were, it was done upon this opinion, that the red cross was given to the King of England, by the pope, as an ensign of victory, and so a superst.i.tious thing, and a relic of antichrist. What proceeding was hereupon, will appear after, at next court in the first month; for by reason of the great snows and frosts, we used not to keep courts in the three winter months."[28]

[28] Winthrop's New England, vol. i. p. 146.

"Anno 1685, mo. 1, 4.] A General Court at Newtown."

"Mr. Endecott was called to answer for defacing the cross in the ensign; but, because the court could not agree about the thing, whether the ensigns should be laid by, in regard that many refused to follow them, the whole case was deferred till the next general court; and the commissioners for military affairs gave order, in the mean time, that all ensigns should be laid aside," &c.[29]

[29] Ibid. vol. i. pp. 155-6.

"Anno 1685, mo. 3, 6.] A General Court was held at Newtown, where John Haynes, Esq., was chosen governor; Richard Bellingham, Esq., deputy governor; and Mr. Hough, and Mr. Dummer, chosen a.s.sistants to the former; and Mr. Ludlow, the late deputy, left out of the magistracy.

The reason was, partly, because the people would exercise their absolute power, &c., and partly by some speeches of the deputy, who protested against the election of the governor as void, for that the deputies of the several towns had agreed upon the election before they came, &c. But this was generally discussed, and the election adjudged good."[30]

[30] Ibid. vol. i. pp. 158.

"Mr. Endecott was also left out, and called into question about the defacing the cross in the ensign; and a committee was chosen, viz.: every town chose one (which yet were voted for by all the people), and the magistrates chose four, who, taking the charge to consider the offence, and the censure due to it, and to certify the court, after one or two hours time, made report to the court, that they found the offence to be great, viz.: rash and without discretion, taking upon him more authority than he had, and not seeking advice of the court, &c.; uncharitable, in that he, judging the cross, &c., to be a sin, did content himself to have reformed it at Salem, not taking care that others might be brought out of it also; laying a blemish, also, upon the rest of the magistrates, as if they would suffer idolatry, &c., and giving occasion to the state of England to think ill of us. For which they adjudged him worthy admonition, and to be disabled for one year from bearing any public office; declining any heavier sentence because they were persuaded he did it out of tenderness of conscience, and not of evil intent."[31]

[31] Winthrop's New England, vol. i. p. 158.

"The matter of altering the cross in the ensign was referred to the next meeting (the court having adjourned for three weeks), it being propounded to turn it to the red and white rose, &c."

[We have seen, under our first notice of the Cross of St. George, that "its use was, for a while, nearly superseded (in England) by the roses, but revived upon the termination of the wars between the rival houses."] "And every man was to deal with his neighbors to still their minds, who stood so stiff for the cross, until we should fully agree about it, which was expected, because the ministers had promised to take pains about it, and to write into England to have the judgment of the most wise and G.o.dly there."[32]

[32] Winthrop's New England, vol. i. p. 158.

"Anno 1635, mo. 12, 1.] At the last General Court it was referred to the military commissioners to appoint colors for every company; who did accordingly, and left out the cross in all of them, appointing the king's arms to be put into that of Castle Island, and Boston to be the first company."[33]

[33] Ibid. vol. i. p. 180.

"Anno 1636, mo. 8, 15.] Here arrived a s.h.i.+p called the St. Patrick, belonging to Sir Thomas Wentworth [afterwards the great Earl of Strafford], deputy of Ireland [_i.e._ viceroy], one Palmer, master.

When she came near Castle Island, the lieutenant of the fort went aboard her and made her strike her flag, which the master took as a great injury, and complained of it to the magistrates, who, calling the lieutenant before them, heard the cause and declared to the master that he had no commission so to do. And because he had made them strike to the fort (which had then no color abroad), they tendered the master such satisfaction as he desired, which was only this, that the lieutenant, aboard their s.h.i.+p, should acknowledge his error, that so all the s.h.i.+p's company might receive satisfaction, lest the lord deputy should have been informed that we had offered that discourtesy to his s.h.i.+p which we had never offered to any before."

"Mo. 8, 31.] One Miller, master's mate in the Hector, spake to some of our people aboard his s.h.i.+p, that, because we had not the king's colors at our fort, we were all traitors and rebels, &c. The governor sent for the master, Mr. Ferne, and acquainted him with it, who promised to deliver him to us. Whereupon, we sent the marshal and four sergeants to the s.h.i.+p for him, but the master not being aboard they would not deliver him; whereupon, the master went himself and brought him to the court; and, the words being proved against him by two witnesses, he was committed. The next day the master, to pacify his men, who were in a great tumult, requested he might be delivered to him, and did undertake to bring him before us again the day after, which was granted him, and he brought him to us at the time appointed. Then, in the presence of all the rest of the masters, he acknowledged his offence, and set his hand to a submission, and was discharged."

We will break the thread of this extract to introduce this curious paper, which, taken from the _Colonial Record,_ i. 179, we, find given at length in a note to Winthrop's _New England_.

"Whereas I, Thomas Millerd, have given out most false and reproachful speeches against his majesty's loyal and faithful subjects, dwelling in the Ma.s.sachusetts Bay in America, saying that they were all traitors and rebels, and that I would affirm so much before the governor himself, which expressions I do confess (and so desire may be conceived) did proceed from the rashness and distemper of my own brain, without any just ground or cause so to think or speak, for which my unworthy and sinful carriage being called in question, I do justly stand committed. My humble request, therefore, is that, upon this my full and ingenuous recantation of this my gross failing, it would please the governor and the rest of the a.s.sistants to accept of this my humble submission, to pa.s.s by my fault, and to dismiss me from further trouble; and this, my free and voluntary confession, I subscribe with my hand, this 9th June, 1686."

We now resume our extract from Winthrop.

"Then the governor desired the masters that they would deal freely, and tell us, if they did take any offence, and what they required of us.

They answered, that in regard they should be examined upon their return, what colors they saw here; they did desire that the king's colors might be spread at our fort. It was answered, we had not the king's colors. Thereupon, two of them did offer them freely to us."

This was about June, 1636, and we have seen that it was only in the year 1635, that the commissioners for military affairs had ordered the red cross ensigns to be laid aside; hence, it is altogether improbable that they could not have procured one of these, but, what we have styled the king's colors _par excellence_, being prescribed only for s.h.i.+ps, was not likely to be owned by the colonial authorities. Its device, a modification of the cross, about which the question had arisen, might possibly have served as a device to relieve the tenderness of the consciences of the authorities, and would also enable the masters to say, on their return, that they had seen the king's colors spread at the castle at Boston.

As we see above, "it was answered we had not the king's colors.

Thereupon, two of them did offer them freely to us. We replied, that for our part, we were fully persuaded that the cross in the ensign was idolatrous, and, therefore, might not set it up in our ensign; but, because the fort was the king's, and maintained in his name, we thought his own colors might be spread there. So the governor accepted the colors of Captain Palmer, and promised they should be set up at Castle Island. We had conferred over night with Mr. Cotton, &c., about the point. The governor, and Mr. Dudley, and Mr. Cotton, were of opinion that they might be set up at the fort upon this distinction, that it was maintained in the king's name. Others, not being so persuaded, answered that the governor and Mr. Dudley, being two of the council, and being persuaded of the lawfulness, &c., might use their power to set them up. Some others being not so persuaded, could not join in the act, yet would not oppose, as being doubtful, &c."[34]

[34] Winthrop's New England, vol. i. p. 187.

"Anno 1636, mo. 4, 16.] The governor, with consent of Mr. Dudley, gave warrant to Lieutenant Morris, to spread the king's colors at Castle Island, when the s.h.i.+ps pa.s.sed by. It was done at the request of the masters of the ten s.h.i.+ps which were then here; yet with this protestation, that we held the cross in the ensign idolatrous, and, therefore, might not set it up in our own ensigns; but this being kept as the king's fort, the governor and some others were of opinion that his own colors might be spread upon it. The colors were given us by Captain Palmer, and the governor, in requital, sent him three beaver-skins."[35]

[35] Winthrop's New England, vol. ii. p. 344.

The following order of the Court of Ma.s.sachusetts, leads us to conclude that these colors, or those containing the king's arms, were continued in use until they were likely to bring the colony under the displeasure of the Parliament of England, which, in arms against the king, used the Red Cross flag, or St. George's banner. We then find the colony of Ma.s.sachusetts giving orders on this matter as follows:--

"Ma.s.sACHUSETTS RECORDS, 1651.[36]

"Forasmuch as the court conceives the old English colors now used by the Parliament of England to be a necessary badge of distinction betwixt the English and other nations in all places of the world, till the state of England shall alter the same, which we much desire, we being of the same nation, have, therefore, ordered that the captain of the castle shall presently advance the aforesaid colors of England upon the castle upon all necessary occasions."

[36] Hazard, vol. i. p. 554.

These extracts show the importance attached to _colors_ in those times.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Pl. II.