USA > South Carolina > Oconee County > The Old Stone Church, Oconee County, South Carolina; > Part 3
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
I referred you to a granite slab in one corner of the build- ing, at the rear, which shows when it was erected, and you wrote me that the date inscribed thereon was 1797. Then the church building was erected by the Hopewell congrega- tion in the lifetime of old John Miller, the printer, and with his full knowledge and consent; and that they did so upon his promise that they should have a sufficient amount of land for their church building and a cemetery, is an irresistible inference. Without it the congregation never would have taken the action they did, and that this was well understood in the family will be shown by facts hereafter stated.
I was anxious to see the will of John Miller, the printer, because I thought it might contain some reference to this
26
THE OLD STONE CHURCH
condition of his affairs, as he himself had never made a deed to the congregation for the land on which they erected their church building. This will is dated the 16th of May, 1807, two years before his death, and the only clause in it having any reference to the subject matter of inquiry is in these words: "I give and bequeath to my two sons, John Miller and Crosby Wilks Miller, my plantation on the Eighteen Mile Creek, to be equally divided between them, or as they may agree," and he appointed these two sons and his friend, Col. John B. Earle, the executors of his will.
In Book O., p. 430, I found the record of an agreement between John and Crosby W. Miller for the partition of a tract of land containing 623 acres, which they allege that John Miller, the father of the said John and Crosby W. Mil- ler, had devised to them by his will; said land lying on both sides of the Eighteen Mile Creek, and on which both of them then resided, each taking the share which fell to him in the division. This agreement is dated September 23, 1819.
Then again, in Book S, p. 320, I found the record of an- other agreement between John and Crosby W. Miller about the dividing line. This agreement is dated 17th August, 1826. What the necessity was for any new agreement be- tween them about the dividing line is not explained by this instrument, as it should have been. I shall give you the substance of it, as it throws light on some other matters. It contains the same recital as the foregoing agreement between them, viz: that John Miller, father of the said John and Crosby Miller, having by his will devised to them a tract of land containing by a resurvey 296 acres, adjoining land on which Crosby Miller now lives, on a branch of Eighteen Mile Creek, commonly known as Meeting House Branch, and on which tract the meeting house now stands. Sixteen and three-quarter acres John and Crosby have made a title to the congregation com- monly known as the Hopewell congregation, for the purpose of a meeting house and burying ground, which
27
THE OLD STONE CHURCH
16 3-4 acres is on the side which by the dividing line falls to C. W. Miller, but for which he is allowed half the number of acres taken out of the whole tract. In this division Crosby took that part on which the meeting house stands, and adjoin- ing the land on which he lived. This is all badly enough expressed, and I have been led to believe that these papers were never drawn up by a lawyer, if so he was certainly not a skillful one. There is no record of the deed of John and Crosby to the congregation, that I could find, and, therefore, the "meets and bounds" of the 16 3-4 acres cannot be given. But they recite in the above paper that they had made a deed to the congregation for the same, and that is all the evidence there is of the fact. Their deed to the congregation was undoubtedly made after the death of their father in 1809, because his will had no effect to vest this land in them till his death.
These papers plainly show that John and Crosby Miller were the sons of John Miller, the printer, and if these facts were summarized in their chronological order, I think the following statement contains the true history of the "Old Stone Church:" The tract of land on which their building stands was granted to John Miller, the printer, in 1785. In 1797 the Hopewell congregation, in the lifetime of John Miller, the printer, with his full knowledge and consent, erected their church building; and, as I have said, that they did so upon his assurance that they should have enough of the land for their building and a cemetery is an inference irresistible, otherwise the congregation would not have acted as they did. This makes it manifest to me that John Miller, the printer, himself donated the land to the church. By his will he gave the tract of land on which the church building and cemetery stood to his two sons, John and Crosby. From the erection of the church building in 1797 to the death of John Miller, the printer, in 1809, was a period of 12 years, during which time the church building and cemetery were standing there with the full knowledge and consent of John
3-0. S. C.
28
THE OLD STONE CHURCH
Miller, the printer, and these two sons, John and Crosby W., in order to carry out the understanding between the congre- gation and their father, executed a title to the congregation for 16 3-4 acres, as they allege in their agreement for a parti- tion of the same between themselves. This, I am satisfied, is a true history of the matter.
You at one time asked me about the dead who were buried there. I have recently heard that Generals Pickens and An- derson are among the number. If so, their history is to be found in Ramsay's History of South Carolina, a book I once had and would lend you, but some friend borrowed it and never returned it, as borrowers of books generally do. An- derson and Pickens Counties derived their names from these two gentlemen.
Hoping that my labors may profit you,
I am, very respectfully, (Signed) A. T. BROYLES.
South Carolina, Oconee County.
The above plat represents the Old Stone Church lot, situate in the State and County above named. At the request of H. P. Sitton and M. M. Hunter, representatives of the Pendle- ton Presbyterian Church, I have this day surveyed the above lot and find it to contain sixteen and 94-100 acres (16 94-100) and to have the boundings, marks, bearings and distances shown above.
(Signed) J. P. SMITH, Surveyor.
March 13, 1894.
SENECA, S. C., May 10, 1894.
The above is a true copy of plat and certificate of plat of Old Stone Church lot made by J. P. Smith, and is entered in this book by me for convenience of the Old Stone Church and Cemetery Association.
B. F. SLOAN, Secretary and Treasurer O. S. C. & C. Association.
CAMPBELL'S LAND.
N STONE
STONE.
5.58°W. 12.90
LUCY ROBINSON'S
LAND
OLDSTONE CHURCH
S.29E.
12.90
ROAD
STAKE
N56.30E
STAKE
S
16.94 ACRES. OLD STONE CHURCH LOT. UGH DEN.
UPSMITH SURVEYOR
IGEN
13.22
POX IN.
CEMETERY
ROAD
LAND
MAS EMMA ROCHESTERS
13.13 MRS.R. CROCHESTER'S LAND.
MRS. LANIER'S LAND.
30
THE OLD STONE CHURCH
JOHN MILLER, THE PRINTER,
THE FOUNDER OF THE PENDLETON WEEKLY MESSENGER.
(The News and Courier, Charleston, Wednesday morning, December 25, 1889).
An interesting sketch of this pioneer newspaper man of the upper section of South Carolina. His connection with the letters of Junius.
(Major A. T. Broyles, in the Anderson Journal.)
In compliance with your request, I herewith send you a biographical sketch of John Miller, who about the beginning of the present century published, at Pendleton, Miller's Weekly Messenger, the first newspaper ever published in this County. This paper he continued to publish until the year 1806, when its name was changed to the Pendleton Messen- ger, which was afterwards so ably edited by Dr. F. W. Symmes and Governor Francis Burt.
John Miller was an Englishman, and resided in the city of London. He was one of fifteen parties who owned the London Evening Post, as the account book of that paper shows, and was connected with it from 1769 to 1780. This account book, which was most neatly kept, together with many other interesting manuscripts, have been kindly fur- nished me for the purposes of this sketch by Mr. S. F. W. Miller, his great-grand-son, by whom they have been care- fully preserved. From this account book it appears to have been the practice of the partners to appoint a committee of their number from time to time to examine these accounts, and in 1775 Henry Sampson Woodfall, the publisher of the celebrated Letters of Junius, was one of the committee ap- pointed at that time, showing that he was also a partner. The letters of Junius, however, were published by Woodfall in the Daily Advertiser. The object of these letters was to de- nounce official corruption wherever it existed, whether in the
31
THE OLD STONE CHURCH
Ministry, the Parliament, or the Judiciary, and to hold it up to the odium and execration of the English people. The author, whoever he was, was undoubtedly a man of splendid genius, and the boldness and intrepidity with which he used his polished weapons, sparing neither rank nor station, cannot fail to command the admiration of mankind. For simplicity, force and elegance of diction these letters are unsurpassed by any other compositions in our language.
Who the author really was is even to-day a matter of spec- ulation, but he undoubtedly despised the honors of author- ship, for in assigning all his right, title and interest in these letters to Woodfall as fully and effectually as it was possible for any author to do, no doubt as a reward for what he had suffered by their publication, he declared that he alone was the repository of his own secret and that it should die with him. At last he addressed one of these letters to George III., the King himself. It was first published by Woodfall in the Daily Advertiser, and immediately thereafter it was re- printed by John Miller in the London Evening Post, and by Almon, a book-seller.
Without going into details further than may be necessary to show the importance of the issues involved and the interest which these cases excited, Lord Campbell's account of the matter is simply this : That the Attorney General at once filed criminal information against all three of these parties. In the case against Almon, who was defended by Sergt. Glyn, it was not denied that the letter was a libel, but it was insisted that the purchase of the letter at the shop of Almon, who was a bookseller and publisher of pamphlets, from a person in the shop acting as his servant, with his name on the title-page as publisher, was not sufficient evidence to convict Almon of the publication. But Lord Mansfield instructed the jury that in the absence of any proof that Almon was not privy or assent- ing to it, a sale of the letter by Almon's servant was prima facie evidence of a publication of the matter, and the jury found a verdict of guilty.
32
THE OLD STONE CHURCH
In the case of Woodfall a different course was pursued. There was no doubt of his liability as publisher, but it was denied that the letter was libellous, and the grand dispute which then arose was whether the libellous character of the paper was a question for the jury, or one of law exclusively for the Court. Lord Mansfield held that the simple inquiry for the jury was whether the defendant printed and published the letter charged in the information as libellous. Having done their duty in this respect, the question whether the paper was a libel or not was a question of law for the Court. The jury were out many hours, but having at length agreed they were taken in coaches from Guildhall to Lord Mansfield's house in Bloomsbury square, where the foreman rendered in a verdict of "Guilty of the printing and publishing only."
The legal result of this finding being doubtful, Lord Mans- field granted a new trial, but Woodfall was from that time safe, as there was not a jury in London that would have found a verdict of "guilty" against the publisher of Junius. On the trial of John Miller, Lord Campbell says: "Half the population of London were assembled in the streets sur- rounding Guildhall, and remained several hours impatiently expecting the result. Lord Mansfield had retired to his house, and many thousands proceeded thither in a grand procession when it was announced that the jury had agreed. At last a shout proceeding from Bloomsbury square and reverberated from the remotest quarters of the metropolis, proclaimed a verdict of not guilty."
These three famous cases were tried in the latter part of the year 1770, a short time before our Declaration of Inde- pendence. A summary of the law as laid down by Lord Mansfield was that the jury were not only limited to the simple inquiry whether the defendant printed and published the paper charged to be libellous, but that in making up their verdict upon the issue they had no right to inquire into the intention of the de- fendant, as in other criminal prosecutions, or into the
33
THE OLD STONE CHURCH
innocence or criminality of the paper charged to be malicious and seditious, because these were questions of law for the Court, to be determined by the Court upon the mere reading of the record. This he maintained had been the law of Eng- land from the Revolution of 1688, and that no complaint had ever been made of it, until the reign of George III.
There was no doubt of the sincerity and honesty of his convictions, and that he was sustained by precedent. But it is evident that the law was founded upon the notion of imposing some limitations and restraints upon the freedom of the press, because if the jury were permitted to inquire into those matters which were held to be questions of law for the Court, they would have been at once invested with the power of deciding questions of law, as well as the facts, in a libel case, and this it was apprehended would lead to a freedom of discussion that would be subversive of law and order. The law thus laid down was denounced as an invasion of the province of the jury, an attack upon the liberty of the press, and dangerous to the liberties of the people. In fact, it would seem that very little of the public attention had been attracted to this condition of the law of libel until the time of Junius, when these three prosecutions were commenced. His letters had been read with universal applause, and no doubt the great name of Junius aroused much of the public interest which was manifested in these cases. But they also involved an important constitutional principle, and their trial was therefore attended by an intense public excitement. The question was an important one, and brought into requisition the talent and learning of some of the most distinguished men in England.
It may not be an uninteresting digression to say that no man ever won a more splendid forensic victory than that which was achieved by Lord Camden over the great Lord Mansfield, when he challenged him to a discussion of his law of libel. Lord Camden had said that if he could obtain a copy of the opinion, and it should appear to him contrary to
34
.THE OLD STONE CHURCH
the known and established principles of the Constitution, he would not scruple to tell the author of his mistake boldly and openly in the House of Lords. Lord Mansfield there- upon caused a copy of the opinion in the case of Woodfall to be filed with the assistant clerk of the House.
Lord Camden, after inspecting it, said that he considered this action as a challenge directed to him personally, and that he accepted it. "He (Lord Mansfield) has thrown down the gauntlet and I take it up. His doctrine is not the law of England, and I am ready to enter into the debate whenever the noble lord will fix a day for it. I desire and insist that it shall be an early one." Lord Mansfield was much confused by the questions propounded by Lord Cam- den as the basis of the debate. Aware of the strong alliance which existed between Lord Camden and Lord Chatham, who would be aided by the Duke of Richmond and other allies, and that he himself had no one to give him the slight- est assistance in the debate, his courage forsook him and he seemed so much distressed that the matter was allowed to drop.
Lord Mansfield himself lived to see the day when his doctrine on this subject was subverted by Mr. Fox's Libel Bill, and that Bill and Lord Campbell's Libel Bill, which was subsequently passed, have settled the law of libels sub- stantially upon its present basis. The important constitu- tional principle thus established is contained in Section 8 of the Declaration of Rights, Article I., of our present State Constitution, which, among other things, declares that in all indictments for libel the jury shall be judges of the law and the facts, a doctrine which is now universally recognized in this country.
These three cases which led to this result have passed into history ; and although John Miller, the subject of this sketch, was only a defendant in one of these prosecutions, in which he was sought to be victimized by an administration which regarded freedom of speech as dangerous to the safety of
1845963
35
THE OLD STONE CHURCH
the State, yet even in this capacity he is entitled to his share of the celebrity these cases have acquired. His name has been thus associated with the settlement of a very important constitutional question, and with the freedom of the press.
Disgusted, no doubt, with a country where it was deemed criminal to publish an appeal to the King to mediate between his Ministry and the people, and to afford his subjects that redress they were entitled to demand, he left his native shores and arrived in Philadelphia in January, 1783, shortly after the news of the evacuation of Charleston in December, 1782, had been received in England. Our delegation in Congress at that time consisted of Edward Rutledge, Thomas Haywood, Thomas and Arthur Middleton, and by them he was sent to Charleston to be printer to the State. There he commenced the publication of the South Carolina Gazette and General Advertiser, and in his prefatory address he said that his ambition could not have been more truly gratified than by finding himself the printer of the Common- wealth of South Carolina.
His family followed him to Charleston, and reached there in November, 1783. Mr. William L. King, in his little work entitled "The Newspaper Press of Charleston," gives an account of him, and makes many extracts from his editorials, which are very creditable to him. He sold the Gazette and Advertiser to Timothy & Mason and went to Pendleton about the year 1785, for during that year he obtained from his Excellency, Benjamin Guerard, a grant for a tract of land containing 640 acres on Eighteen-mile Creek, which, as the writer is informed, was on both sides of said creek, on the road from Pendleton to Fort Hill.
There has been placed in my possession a copy of the City Gazette, of Charleston, containing a communication dated "Pendleton County, Washington District, September 25, 1795," made by John Miller, corresponding secretary of the "Franklin or Republican Society of Pendleton County," asking the publication of the preamble and resolutions pre-
36
THE OLD STONE CHURCH
pared by him for the society, and adopted by the several brigades at the Governor's Reviews, denouncing the treaty concluded in 1794 by Mr. Jay with England and expressive of strong sympathy with France. At the request of General Washington, Mr. Jay resigned the Chief Justiceship of the Supreme Court of the United States to effect this treaty, but it was bitterly denounced in the United States Senate and in many parts of the country.
There is a memorandum in Miller's own handwriting, stating that in 1795 he had made proposals for the publica- tion of a newspaper, but that the project had been postponed until now that the rapid increase of population in the back country had rendered it practicable. There is no doubt that it was then he commenced the publication of Miller's Weekly Messenger, but as the memorandum is without date, it is impossible to fix the precise time.
John Miller died at Pendleton in 1809, and was buried at the "Old Stone Church." He left behind him many highly-respected descendants, most of whom reside in Anderson County. His son John, who assisted him in the publication of the Pendleton Messenger, had five sons and as many daughters. One of these sons was also named John, who remained in this county, and was the father of Mr. S. F. W. Miller and Dr. Thaddeus Miller. The other sons all removed West. The daughters were Miss Jane Miller, who died at Pendleton, Mrs. Charlotte Kay, Mrs. Duke, Mrs. Sharpe and Mrs. Wilson. Mrs. Elizabeth Sharpe was the mother of Elam Sharpe, who married Governor Hayne's daughter; Dr. Marcus L. Sharpe, our fellow-townsman, Edwin Sharpe, and Miss Elizabeth Sharpe, who married the Rev. John M. Carlisle, and these are his descendants so far as I have been able to ascertain.
37
THE OLD STONE CHURCH
JOHN MILLER AND HIS DESCENDANTS.
(BY MRS. JULIA MILLER-BROWN, DENVER, S. C.) .
Three John Millers are buried at the Old Stone Church ; father, son and grand-son. The first John Miller was born in London, England, about 1730 ; he was one of the fifteen partners who owned and published The London Evening Post and The Advertiser at the time that the famous "Junius Letters" were published in those papers. He with two other partners, Henry Sampson Woodfall and Mr. Almon, were tried for libel before the General Assizes in London in 1775 for publishing those letters. History says that the largest crowd ever seen assembled in the house and in the streets of London during the trial and evinced the greatest enthusiasm when they were found "Not Guilty." These three men, Henry Sampson Woodfall, Mr. Almon and John Miller, no doubt knew who was the author of the Junius Letters, but the secret died with them. Many believed that John Miller himself was the author, as his handwriting and that of the manuscript of the "Junius Letters" were very much alike. John Miller's penmanship is very neat and peculiar as is shown by the ledger kept by him of The London Evening Post from 1769 to 1778, which ledger well preserved is still in the possession of his descendants in this vicinity.
In 1782 he came to America, landing at Philadelphia. From there he came with his family to Charleston, S. C., in 1783 and began the publication of the South Carolina Gazette and General Advertiser, one of the first papers ever published in the State. After the treaty with the Indians in this part of the country he was given a grant of 640 acres of land by Gov. Benjamin Guerard, the land lying on both sides of Eighteen Mile Creek near Pendleton and including the site on which the Old Stone Church now stands. He, or his son, Crosby Miller, deeded* the site to the Trustees of the Hope-
*See paper by Major Broyles on the donation of the land, p. 25.
38
THE OLD STONE CHURCH
well Church. After getting this grant of land he and his family moved from Charleston to Pendleton in 1785; this was then known as Pendleton District. Here he commenced the publication of The Pendleton Weekly Messenger, and continued to own and publish it until his death, in 1809. It was the first paper published in upper South Carolina.
After his death, his son, the second John Miller, took pos- session of the paper and published it until his death, in 1822. This second John Miller was born in the city of London in 1770, and came with his father to Charleston in 1783. He married Jane Gray, in 1791; to them were born twelve chil- dren ; many of them are buried beside himself and his wife in the Old Stone Church-yard.
The third John Miller was one of these twelve children. He was born in Pendleton, in 1794. He was for thirty years a printer in The Pendleton Messenger office, and was known generally as Printer John Miller. In 1818 he married Lydia Ann Perdreau, ward and adopted daughter of Col. Samuel Warren, who was a brave soldier in the Revolutionary War and a man of wealth and culture. John and Lydia Miller had six children; she died in 1862 and he in 1876. Both of them, with four children, are buried at the Old Stone Church. One of their daughters, who is buried there, mar- ried Patrick J. Miller, one of the Scotch-Irish Millers of Abbeville, in no way related to the English Miller family.
Crosby Miller and two of his wives are buried there; he was the son of the first John Miller. These Millers are buried in the northeast corner of the graveyard nearest to the church. Only a few of the graves have tomb-stones.
The Sarah Calhoun Miller buried near the middle of the grave-yard was first married to a Mr. Ledbetter, and was the mother of Col. Daniel Ledbetter, a Confederate soldier of Orr's Regiment, who was killed at the Second Battle of Ma- nassas. Her last husband was John C. Calhoun Miller, a descendant of the Scotch-Irish Calhouns and Millers, of Abbeville, and one of the Signers of the Ordinance of Seces-
39
THE OLD STONE CHURCH
sion, as a member of the Legislature from Pickens and Oco- nee Counties ..
Note by the Editor: Mrs. Browne writes in a private letter : "The information I give you is reliable, culled from data in my possession. I am the great-great-grand-daughter of the first John Miller, great-grand-daughter of the sec- ond John Miller, grand-daughter of the third John Miller, and daughter of Sarah J. Miller, all of whom are buried in the Old Stone Church-yard. My mother married Patrick J. Miller, my father, who was a brother of John Calhoun Mil- ler, whose wife is buried also in this grave-yard."
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.