USA > North Carolina > History of North Carolina: The Colonial and Revolutionary Periods 1584 1783, Volume I > Part 5
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49
Though not so intended these changes were favorable to the development of democratic institutions. In the first place they removed from the midst of the people's representatives the restraining influence of a body of legislators entirely ir- responsible to the people and representing interests distinct from the people's interests and not infrequently hostile to them. But it also brought about a change of even greater importance. The Lords Proprietors had lodged with the gov-
44
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
ernor and Council the power of making laws "by and with the advice and consent" of the people, or their representatives. Thus the representatives of the proprietary interests, not the representatives of the people, enjoyed the right of initiating legislation, and the latter could consider no measures except such as were presented to them by the former. The popular party naturally grew restive under this restriction and early began to demand the "power of proposeing in the parlia- m [en]t without passing the Grand Councell first." After the withdrawal of the governor and deputies, and the organiza- tion of the representatives of the people into a separate and distinct house, it was not possible to deny to the latter one of the most important rights appertaining to a legislative body. Thus the House of Commons became in a real sense a representative democratic institution.
In 1663, the Lords Proprietors instructed Governor Berke- ley to organize a government in their province and to give to the "Governor or Governors and Councill or Councillors power by and with the advice and consent of the freeholders or freemen or the Major parte of them there deputyes or del- ligates to make good and wholesome laws" for the colony. This was the authority under which met the first law-making body in the history of North Carolina. It seems to have been an example of pure democracy; to it came not the represen- tatives of the people, but the people themselves. Representa- tive government was introduced by the Concessions of 1665 in which the people were instructed to elect representatives to the General Assembly. The number of delegates, who were to be chosen on the first day of January of each year, was fixed at twelve. In 1670, Albemarle County was divided into four pre- cincts-Chowan, Pasquotank, Perquimans, and Currituck- each to be represented in the General Assembly by five dele- gates. Later as other precincts were erected and given the right to send to the Assembly two delegates each, the number increased until it reached twenty-eight-the highest number reached under the proprietary government. Regular sessions were held biennially, but the governor and Council could con- vene, prorogue, or dissolve sessions at will. As long as the Assembly sat as a single chamber, the governor, or his deputy, had the right to preside; after the separation into two houses, each house elected its own officers. The speaker of the House of Commons was the highest official in the province in whose selection the people had any voice either directly or indirectly. Usually, therefore, the place was filled by the leader of the popular party. The House of Commons had the right to de-
45
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
cide contests involving the election of its members, to expel members, to compel attendance upon its sessions, and to initi- ate all measures levying a tax or carrying an appropriation. It was fully conscious of its responsibilities and obligations as the popular branch of the colonial government, keenly jealous of its rights and privileges, and quick to resent any encroach- ment by any other branch of the government. Through a proc- ess of evolution the General Assembly, from a position of weakness and subservience to the executive, came to be the chief factor in the government, while the House of Commons, as the only branch of the colonial government in which the people were represented, acquired such an ascendency as to become practically the Assembly.
The judicial system under the proprietary government embraced a general court, precinct courts, a court of chan- cery, an admiralty court, and in some instances the Council. For several years after the settlement of the colony, the only court was composed of the governor and Council. With the erection of precincts and the creation of precinct courts for local business, the older tribunal became known as the General Court. In addition to its other business it was the appellate court of the colony. In 1685 the Lords Proprietors deter- mined to take the business of this tribunal out of the hands of the governor and Council. They accordingly instructed the governor to appoint "four able, discreet men" as justices who, together with a sheriff, should hold this court. Several years passed, however, before this order was carried into effect; the governor and Council were holding the General Court as late as 1695, but sometime between that date and 1702 the court was organized as the Proprietors had directed. In 1712 another forward step in its organization was taken wlien a chief justice was appointed who held his commission directly from the Lords Proprietors. He presided over the court which was thereafter composed of a variable number of as- sociates. A curious custom which prevailed during the early years of the court permitted justices temporarily to discard their judicial character and to come down from the bench to represent clients before the court. Subsequently this practice was forbidden by law. The court met three times a year and sat at different times as a court of king's bench, common pleas, and exchequer and as a court of oyer and terminer, and general gaol delivery. Indictments were brought "in the name of our Sovereign Lord the King" who was repre- sented by an attorney-general. The court also exercised cer- tain non-judicial functions such as directing the repair of
€
46
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA .
roads, the appointment of ferrymen, the regulation of fares at ferries, and, by direction of the General Assembly, the apportionment of taxes and the ordering of the payment of the public indebtedness. Its chief executive officer was the sheriff or provost marshal. Precinct courts were held by justices of the peace who were appointed by the governor and Council. Their jurisdiction extended to civil suits involv- ing less than fifty pounds. They also exercised such non- judicial duties as caring for the public highways, creating road districts, appointing constables, granting franchises for mill sites, and other similar local matters. With their clerks were recorded, usually in open court, the marks by which settlers distinguished their cattle, horses, and hogs. The governor and Council held the chancery court; they also probated wills, received and examined accounts of administrators and execu- tors, tried public officials for misconduct in office, and heard ap- peals from the General Court. The Admiralty Court was com- posed of a judge and subordinate officials who were appointed by the Admiralty Court in England to whom they were obliged to report.
CHAPTER IV
WARS AND REBELLIONS
The history of Albemarle as a distinct colony was marked by discontent, tumult, and rebellion. Grievances were real and numerous. The uncertainty as to the terms on which the settlers held their lands; the studied indifference and neglect of the Lords Proprietors; the persistent rumor that Albe- marle. was to be given over to Sir William Berkeley as sole proprietor; the instability of the proprietary government; the depredations of hostile Indians; the attempts to enforce the navigation acts and to collect the king's customs,-all these things combined to produce dissatisfaction and strife.
Perhaps nothing gave the people more concern than the land question. Ambition to become landowners, as has been stated, was the inducement that had brought most of them to Albemarle. Land was their chief form of wealth and what- ever tended to render their holdings insecure produced alarm and unrest. The terms on which they were to hold their lands, the people thought had been determined by the Great Deed of Grant, a document which they held to be "as firm a Grant as the Proprietors own Charter from the Crown." Such was the importance attached to it that the Assembly ordered it to be recorded not only in the office of the secretary of the col- ony, but also in every precinct in Albemarle, and appointed a special custodian into whose keeping the original itself was committed. This view, however, was not shared by the Lords Proprietors ; they held the Great Deed to be a revokable grant which they could annul at will, and from time to time they issued instructions to their governors inconsistent with its provisions. Although the Great Deed fixed quit rents at a farthing per acre, in 1670 the Lords Proprietors instructed Governor Carteret to collect quit rents at the rate of "one halfe penny of lawful English money" per acre; and in 1679, they directed Governor Harvey to fix the amount at a penny. Moreover, the Fundamental Constitutions provided that quit
47
48
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
rents for each acre in Carolina should be "as much fine silver" as was in one English penny. It was these frequent changes, doubtless, that gave rise to a rumor, which created wide- spread apprehension in Albemarle, that the Lords Propri- etors "intended to raise the Quitrents to two pence and from two pence to six pence per acre." The people too began to ask whether the Fundamental Constitutions repealed the Great Deed. Apprehension that they might be so interpreted aroused opposition to the Fundamental Constitutions, and some of those who subscribed that document felt it necessary to protest that in so doing they should "not be disanulled" of the rights they enjoyed under the Great Deed. The Lords Proprietors, who could find no record of the Great Deed in their London office, were disposed to deny its existence alto- gether; but the Albemarle Assembly promptly ordered a cer- tified copy of the original to be sent to them "which convinced the Proprs that it was a firm Grant and they let the dispute drop." To make matters worse, by still further increasing the feeling of insecurity, as late as 1678 the Albemarle plant- ers had never received from the Lords Proprietors any pat- ents for their holdings. Timothy Biggs writing to them de- clared that the fact that the "the people have no assurance of their Lands (for that yet never any Patents have been granted under your Lordships to the Inhabitants) is matter of great discouragement for men of Estate to come amongst us be- cause those already seated there have no assurance of their enjoyment."
This strange oversight probably arose from the indiffer- ence which the Lords Proprietors felt toward Albemarle. They had been keenly disappointed at the slow growth of the colony. That the settlers had not quickly pushed across Al- bemarle Sound, cleared plantations on the Pamlico and the Neuse, and opened communications by land with the Ashley River colony, appeared to them to be evidence of a slothful- ness of disposition and disregard of their interests that augured ill for the success of the colony, or for its value to them. This, they frankly declared to the Albemarle Assem- bly, "has bine the Cause that hitherto we have had noe more Reguard for you as lookinge upon you as a people that neither understood your own nor regarded our Interests." Having spent no money on Albemarle, they considered that they lost nothing by leaving that colony to shift for itself while they devoted their attention and resources to the de- velopment of the more promising settlement on Ashley River.
49
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
To Albemarle, struggling bravely against the forces of nature and the savages of the wilderness, this studied neglect was in itself a grievance, and prominent colonial leaders pro- tested against the injustice of it. Thomas Eastchurch, speak- er of the Assembly, informed the Lords Proprietors that en- terprising settlers had made several attempts to carry out their wishes, but each time had been frustrated by the Pro- prietors' own agents who did not want their trade with the Indians disturbed by further settlements among them; and Timothy Biggs, deputy-collector, made bold to tell them that "notwithstanding you have not bene out as yet any thing upon that County in ye Province called Albemarle yet ye Inhabi- tants have lived and gott Estates under ye Lord's there by their owne Industry and brought it to the capacity of a hope- full Settlement and ere these had it had your Lord's smiles and assistance but a tenth part of what your Southern parts have had It would have beene a Flourishing Settlement." The Lords Proprietors were convinced of their error and in a frank and generous letter to the Assembly unreservedly con- fessed the injustice they had done the colony.
At the same time, the Lords Proprietors laid to rest the rumor that they were planning to turn Albemarle over to Sir William Berkeley. Color had evidently been given to this report by their neglect of Albemarle coupled with their great industry in promoting their Ashley River colony. The peo- ple of Albemarle would probably have objected to being sub- jected to any single proprietor; when that proprietor was to be Sir William Berkeley, who was at that very time giving an indication of his true character by his dealings with Ba- con's Rebellion, their objection would unquestionably have taken the form of forcible opposition had it become neces- sary. That they were greatly disturbed by the rumor is cer- tain; the Assembly adopted a remonstrance against the pro- ject and dispatched it to England by a special messenger. In this matter, if in no other, the Lords Proprietors were able to give their people complete satisfaction. In the first place, they said, it was their purpose to maintain and preserve the people of their colony in all their "English Rights and Liber- ties"; in the second place, Albemarle was valuable to them in the development of the rest of their province; for these reasons, they assured the Assembly, "wee neither have nor ever will parte with the County of Albemarle to any person whatsoever But will alwayse maintaine our province of Caro- lina entire as itt is."
Vol. 1-4
50
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
Much of the trouble in Albemarle would never have arisen had the Lords Proprietors been able to establish and main- tain a strong, stable government, and to place properly quali- fied men in charge of it. Their failure to establish such a government has already been discussed. As it was, many of the defects in the system could have been greatly minimized had it been administered by men of prudence, ability, and character. But such men were rare. The Lords Proprietors themselves complained that it was "a very difficult matter to gitt a man of worth and trust" to accept the office of gov- ernor, and they were generally unfortunate in the men who represented them in that capacity. Some were weak, others ambitious, covetous, and unscrupulous. Constant strife and tumult marked the administrations of Carteret, Jenkins, Mil- ler, Eastchurch, and Sothel. Carteret growing tired of his thankless task abandoned the colony leaving "ye Governmt there in ill order & worse hands." Jenkins was deposed from office by a dominant faction in the General Assembly. Miller after a brief career of misgovernment and crime was over- thrown by armed rebels and forced to flee the country. The same rebels met Eastchurch at the Virginia boundary and although he bore a commission from the Lords Proprietors, forbade his entering Albemarle to assume his office. And Sothel, whose career of crime and tyranny was rivaled only by that of Miller, was like Miller driven from power and banished the province. Some of these uprisings were in- spired by the righteous indignation of the people against tyranny and oppression; others had no higher origin than personal animosities and factional rivalries. But whatever their inspiration they were all the results of a political sys- tem that was too weak and unstable to command either re- spect or fear.
From such a government the settlers could expect no pro- tection against hostile Indians. Fortunately there was no powerful tribe to contest the possession of the Albemarle re- gion with the whites. There were, however, small tribes who committed many depredations on the settlements and twice in the history of Albemarle made war on them. In 1666 an outbreak of hostilities imperilled the life of the infant settle- ment, but peace was restored before any great losses were sustained. Nine years later a more serious war broke out with the Chowanoc Indians. When first known to the whites, in 1584-85, these Indians, then the leading tribe in that re- gion, occupied the territory on both sides of the Meherrin
51
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
and Nottoway rivers about where they come together to form the Chowan. Although their number had greatly dwindled during the century that followed, they were still formidable when white men first began to erect their cabins along the Chowan. At first they offered no opposition to the coming of the whites, and after the creation of the proprietary entered into a treaty by which they "submitted themselves to the Crown of England under the dominion of the Lords Propri- etors." This treaty they faithfully observed until 1675. In the summer of that year the hostile tribes in Virginia, who were endeavoring to stir up a general Indian war against the whites, sent emissaries to induce the Chowanocs to go on the warpath. The Chowanocs were easily persuaded and without warning struck swiftly and effectively in the usual Indian fashion. William Edmundson, the Quaker preacher, writing of his visit to North Carolina in 1676, referring to the beginning of this Indian outbreak, says : "I was moved of the Lord to go to Carolina, and it was perillous travelling, for the Indians were not yet subdued, but did mischief and murdered several. They haunted much in the wilderness be- tween Virginia and Carolina, so that scarce any durst travel that way unarmed. Friends endeavored to dissuade me from going, telling of several who were murdered."
. The settlers flew to arms, and for more than a year waged "open war" upon their enemies. Both sides suffered heavy losses. In the midst of the struggle the whites received timely aid from Captain Zachariah Gillam, a well-known New Eng- land trader, who arrived in Albemarle from London in his armed vessel, the Carolina, with a supply of arms and am- munition. Thus strengthened they pushed the war more vigor- ously than ever and finally, as the Council said, "by Gods as- sistance though not without the loss of many men," they "wholly subdued" their formidable foes and drove them from their lands on the Meherrin which were thereupon "resigned into the immediate possession of the Lords Proprietors of Carolina as of their province of Carolina."
Returning from the war against the Indians, the people under the leadership of George Durant, took advantage of their being organized and under arms to demand from the colonial authorities redress of certain grievances growing out of the enforcement of the navigation acts. This was the be- ginning of that popular uprising which historians have incor-
52
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
rectly called Culpepper's Rebellion. . It was occasioned by England's commercial policy. Other causes doubtless ac- centuated the trouble, but the primary cause was the Naviga- tion Act-"that mischievous statute with which the mother country was busily weaning from itself the affections of its colonies all along the American seaboard." 1 "The purpose of the Navigation Act "was to foster the development of na- tional strength by an increase of sea power and commerce." As it affected the colonies, it restricted their carrying trade to vessels of English, Irish, and colonial ownership and for- bade the shipment of certain articles, including tobacco, else- where than to England, Ireland, or some English colony. Ex- perience soon showed, from the British merchant's point of view, that the statute contained one serious defect. It per- mitted tobacco, which was subject to a heavy duty when im- ported into England, to be shipped from one colony to an- other free of duty. Thus the colonial consumer enjoyed a decided advantage over the British consumer. Moreover- and this is where the rub came-when the colonial merchant, evading the Navigation Act, re-shipped to foreign countries tobacco on which he had paid no duty, he was able to under- sell his British competitor who was compelled to add to the price which he charged the foreigner the import tax which he himself had paid to the Crown. The Navigation Act was so imperfectly enforced in the colonies, that this competition became a matter of serious concern to British merchants who finally complained to Parliament about it. In 1673, therefore, Parliament came to their relief by passing an act which levied export duties on certain articles when shipped from one col- ony to another. On tobacco this duty was fixed at a penny a pound which was to be collected by officials of the Crown.
The passage of this act, which was approved by the Lords Proprietors, alarmed the Albemarle planters. Tobacco was their chief article of export; New England was their princi- pal market. Of their yearly crop, amounting to more than a million pounds, but little found its way, or could find its way directly to England. Poor harbors and shifting sands made the navigation of tlie Carolina waters too difficult and danger- ous for large vessels engaged in trans-Atlantic trade, but the lighter draft coastwise ships of the New England traders were not seriously hindered by these obstacles. The trade of Al- bemarle accordingly was largely controlled by a few enter- prising and not overly scrupulous New England skippers. That
. 1 Fiske : Old Virginia and Her Neighbours, Vol. II, p. 280.
53
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
this was economically bad for Albemarle, the Lords Propri- etors understood better than the planters, "itt beinge," they said, "a certaine Beggery to our people of Albemarle if they shall buy goods at 2ª hand and soe much dearer than they may bee supply'd from England and with all sell there Tobac- co and other Commodities at a lower rate then they could do in England." What the Lords Proprietors did not under- stand was that Nature, not man, had determined the course of the trade of Albemarle. For instance, in 1676, they di- rected the governor, "in order to the Incourageinge a Trade with England," to send them an exact account of the depth of water in the several inlets and at places where ships could load and unload "for this has bine soe concealed and uncer- tainely reported here as if some persons amongst you had joyn'd with some of New England to engross that poore trade you have and Keepe you still under hatches." It was, then, with the expectation that the Navigation Act would destroy this New England monopoly of the Albemarle trade and build up a direct trade between Albemarle and the mother country, that the Lords Proprietors gave it such hearty support. Our historians generally have condemned their policy because they have misunderstood the purpose of the Navigation Act. Had its purpose, and its only result, been "to secure more funds for the deplenished purse of a needy sovereign," 2 it would have received scant sympathy from the Lords Proprietors; it was not to their interest to impoverish their colony for the benefit of the Crown. But the real purpose of the act was not to produce a revenue; it was to establish direct trade rela- tions between the colonies and the mother country, and the Lords Proprietors understood clearly enough the advantages their colony would derive from such relations. It was the hope of securing these advantages for their colony, and not the desire of collecting a revenue for the Crown, that inspired them to take so much interest in enforcing the act of 1673, as, on the other hand, it was the fear of this result that moved the New England traders, and those Albemarle planters who were associated with them, to offer such a vigorous opposition.
In following the course of this opposition, which finally broke out in open rebellion, we are led into the obscure mazes of colonial politics from which it is difficult at times to extri- cate ourselves with certainty. To a large extent the revolt against the enforcement of the Navigation Act was but the
2 Ashe : History of North Carolina, Vol. I, p. 113.
1
54
HISTORY OF NORTH CAROLINA
continuation of a factional strife that had long been waging in Albemarle. In 1673, two parties were contending for su- premacy. One led by Thomas Eastchurch controlled the lower house of the General Assembly of which Eastchurch was speaker. Closely allied with him were Timothy Biggs, dep- uty of the Earl of Craven, and Thomas Miller whose tyranny was the occasion for the outbreak. Of the other party, though John Jenkins, acting governor, was nominally the leader, the real head and front was George Durant who completely dom- inated the governor. "Of all the factious persons in the Country," declared his opponents, "he was the most active and uncontrollable." Prominent among those who acknowl- edged his leadership, besides Jenkins, were Valentine Byrd who, it was said, "drew the first sword" in the revolt, and John Culpepper, who, declared his enemies (and he had many of them), was "never in his element but whilst fishing in troubled waters," and who gave his name to the rebellion of 1677. The contest between these two factions had already reached a point of great bitterness when it became intensified by the issues arising out of the efforts to enforce the act of 1673.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.