USA > South Carolina > The history of South Carolina under the proprietary government, 1670-1719, V.1 > Part 28
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
The first statutory provision relating to slaves in Caro- lina was an act in 1686 prohibiting trading with them, either white or black, servants or slaves. The facility with which goods and provisions could be stolen by ser- vants and slaves having access at all times to their mas- ters' stores was the cause of this provision. No one was allowed to buy or sell, bargain or contract, with any of
1 Cdenday State Papers, Colonial (Sainsbury). 1689-74, 004.
2 See article entitled "Slavery in the Province of South Carolina, 1670-1770," by Edward McCrady. Annual Report of the American Hist. 1380., 1805, 631-873.
359
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
them without their masters' privity and consent.1 The next, an act of 1687, related to white servants coming from Europe or other parts of America. To prevent frauds between masters and servants arriving in the prov- ince without indentures or contracts, it provided that those coming from Europe under the age of ten years should serve until they arrived at the age of twenty-one years ; under the age of fifteen years and above ten should serve seven years ; above the age of fifteen years should serve five years. A less time of service was prescribed for those coming from Barbadoes or other parts of Amer- ica.2 In 1691 these acts were revised. Servants absent- ing themselves were required to serve additional time for every day of absence. On the other hand, it was pro- vided that if any master, under the pretext of correction, unreasonably whipped or abused a servant, the Grand Council might set such servant free or make such order as they should deem just : so, too. the master was required to provide good and wholesome food for his servants under penalty.3
In the year 1688 two important enactments had been made in Barbadoes in regard to negro slaves. The first was an act of April 29, declaring negro slaves real estate and not chattels, -- and providing that they should de- scend to the heir and widow of an intestate according to the manner and custom of lands of inheritance held in fee-simple .* The second was a revision of the slave code. of the island of August 8th.5 These aets formed the basis of the first code upon the subject in South Caro-
1 Statutes of So. Ca., vol. II, 22.
2 1717. 00.
% Ibid., 52.
4 The Laws of Barbadoes, London, 1694 (Act No. 42), Library Hist. Soc., Penn.
& Ibid., No. 82.
360
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
lina. In 1690. in Sothell's administration, an act was passed, the draft of which was evidently made upon these Barbadian enactments. Indeed, the South Carolina statutes follow and adopt not only the main feature of these laws, but the phraseology as well.1
The provision in regard to the devolution of negro prop- erty, i.e. that in cases of intestacies it should descend as real estate, and not as personal property, was adopted in a modified form. After providing that all slaves should have convenient clothes, and that no slave should be freed by becoming a Christian, the statute went on to enact that slaves should not be resorted to in the first instance for the payment of debt, but only when other goods and chattels of the debtor were not sufficient to satisfy the demand of the creditor; that then only so many as were necessary for the purpose should be sold; and that in the settlement of estates negroes and slaves should be ac- counted for as freehold. Negroes were nevertheless always returned as personal property in the inventories of intes- tates' estates, as the records of the Ordinary's office in Charleston abundantly show. This condition continued until 1740, when it was declared that negroes and Indian slaves should be reputed and adjudged in law to be chat- tels personal.2
The principal other provisions of this code were the restriction of the slave to the limits of his master's planta- tion or premises except when accompanying the master, or with his ticket of leave in writing upon each occasion of his going abroad : the severe punishment of slaves for the
1 Statutes of So. Ca., vol. VII, 343, 344.
2 Ibid., 317.
Under the provisions of the revised code of 1705 of Virginia. the slave was also declared to be real estate unless held by a merchant who was seeking to sell him, in which case he was decided to be personalty. Bruce's Economic Hist. of Va., vol. II, 98.
·
361
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
striking of a white man, extending to branding, burning mutilation, and even death upon repeated offences: the arrest and commitment of runaways; the constant search of the houses of slaves for arms, which they were not al- lowed to have, and for stolen goods; the mode of trial of slaves for crimes and misdemeanors. i.e. by a court of two justices and three freeholders instead of by jury, and the punishments prescribed, which were not, in general, greater than those inflicted upon white men for similar offences.
The worst feature of the code was the inadequate protection afforded by the terms of the statute to the life and limb of the slave. The provision in regard to this. was that if any slave, by punishment from the owner for running away or other offence, should suffer in life and limb, no person should be liable to the law for the same ; but if any one out of wilfulness, wantonness, or bloody- mindedness should kill a slave, upon conviction he should suffer three months' imprisonment and pay the sum of £50 to the owner; a servant killing a slave was to be whipped nine and thirty lashes, and to serve the master of the slave four years, a person was not to be punished for killing a slave stealing in his house, if the slave refused to submit.1 These provisions practically placed the life or death of the slave in the hands of the master. But this terrible power was in a great measure neutralized and controlled by the master's interest. To kill or injure his slave, whether for doing so the master was punished or exculpated by the law, was to impose upon himself a pecuniary fine to the extent of the slave's value. The effec- tive motive of interest came into the protection of the negro's life. It has been pointed out that in Barbadoes under this law, while the blacks four times outnum- bered the whites, homicide among the whites, though
1 Statutes of So. Ca, vol. VII, 343-347.
362
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
of rare occurrence and punished in the same exemplary manner as at the Old Bailey, was of more frequent occur- rence than the murder of a slave by a freeman.1
Such were the main features of the slave code brought over by the Barbadians and adopted by the Carolinians. However harsh they may appear to the reader of- the present day, it must be remembered that the penal codes under which white men then lived in England and else- where were scarcely less so.2 Granting the subordina- tion of slavery, the prohibition of slaves' going beyond the limits of their masters' plantations was no more than that applied to soldiers and sailors, whose liberties do not extend beyond the camp, barrack, or ship. So, too, in regard to the provision as to a slave striking a white man. "Is the soldier who fights the battle of his country and lifts his hand against his commanding officer," asks the historian of Barbadoes, "more criminal or punished with less severity than the audacious slave who strikes his master? Is the gallant sailor who upholds the nation's glory and protects it by his valor and prowess subject to a milder punishment, if in a moment of unguarded resent- ment he should strike the officer whose orders he is bound to obey? No; an ignominious death awaits the rash offender ; his former services are forgotten and he is consigned to a premature grave for his temerity, while the slave lives to repeat his crime and exult in his audacity."3
The scheme of the Court of Justices and Freeholders was taken also from the Barbadian act. And in regard to that statute it was observed that the form of trial it provided was in all respects competent to the administra- tion of justice, "and candid men," continues the author
1 Hist. of Barbadoes (Poyer). 134, 135. 2 Blackstone's Com .. vol. IV (Sharswood ed.), 377. 3 The History of Barbadoes (Poyer), 138.
363
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
just quoted, "may probably think that a tribunal consist- ing of two magistrates and three jurymen may be as capable of deciding justly as the military and naval courts martial which are allowed to decide upon the lives of freemen." 1 In this connection it may be remarked in passing that in the whole system of government brought over from Barbadoes, with its interwoven military organi- zation and slavery, there is a strong flavor and element of martial law - thus the chief executive officer of the court was not styled High Sheriff as Locke's Constitutions pro- posed, but Provost Marshal.
1 The History of Barbadoes (Poyer), 140.
CHAPTER XVI
1700-1703
DURING the first thirty years of the province, the poli- tics of the colony had turned upon the recognition or re- pudiation of the Fundamental Constitutions of Locke: the terms and regulations of the grants of land ; the collection of quit-rents ; and on the one hand the determined strug- gle of the people in Carolina to control their own affairs, and on the other the languid efforts of the distant Pro- prietors. exerted in a desultory and careless manner. to maintain their authority. How impotent the Proprietors were, Sothell had shown when he assumed the govern- ment without his co-proprietors' consent and held it in defiance of their wishes until by his conduct he had dis- gusted the people whose cause he had assumed to espouse.
The original colonists had passed away with the old century and new men appeared to control the political affairs of the province.
The Fundamental Constitutions were soon to be practi- cally abandoned. save as a harmless amusement of the Pro- prietors in bestowing some few more provincial titles. But the colonists, more restless than ever under the inefficient rule of the Proprietors, were encouraged by the government at home to oppose it. With new men. new questions were to arise and new policies to be pursued; to end in the overthrow of the Proprietary Government and the surren- der of the charter. These questions and policies were all
364
24
365
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
involved in those of the mother country, and to under- stand the coming events in Carolina, we must take a brief glance at the affairs in England out of which they grew.
For Europe in general the Peace of Ryswick of 1697 was little more than a truce, -a truce to end in the war of the Spanish succession. The accession of the Duke of Anjou, the grandson of Louis XIV, to the Crown of Spain might not. of itself, have aroused popular feeling in Eng- land to such an extent as to warrant William in declar- ing war, had not Louis XIV taken the occasion to expel the Dutch garrisons from the fortress of the Netherlands, which they had occupied since that treaty, and to replace them in February, 1701, by French troops. The people of England at this time were utterly averse to war. But bitter as the strife was between Whig and Tory, there were two things upon which Whig and Tory were agreed : neither would suffer France to occupy the Spanish Netherlands; neither would endure a French attack on the Protestant succession which the Revolution of 1688 had established. The seizure of the Dutch barrier, and the disclosure of a new Jacobite plot, brought the Parliament of 1701. a Parliament mainly of Tories. at once to William's support in his demand for a withdrawal of the French. While England was still clinging desperately to the hope of peace. Louis, who had acknowledged William as King and pledged himself to oppose all attacks on his throne, in September. 1701, entered the bedchamber at St. Ger- main's where James the Second was breathing his last, and promised to acknowledge his son, at his death. as King of England, Scotland. and Ireland. This act of the French King put an end to any question between Whig and Tory. Every Englishman supported William in his open resent- ment of the insult. The Grand Alliance was formed September, 1701, against France and Spain ; and the new
366
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Parliament, which met in 1702, though still Tory, was now as much for war as the Whigs - an army was immediately raised, and Marlborough was sent with it to Flanders. William died on the 8th of March, 1702, and upon the accession of Anne war was at once begun.
The victory of Blenheim, on the 13th of August, 1704, aided to bring about a great change in the political aspect of affairs. The Tories, who were now in power, were pressing hard the defeated Whigs; the Whigs, however, still controlled the House of Lords. But the Tories, if willing to support the war abroad, were resolved to use the accession of a Stuart, or Queen Anne, to secure their own power at home. They resolved, therefore, to make a fresh attempt to create a permanent Tory majority in the Commons by excluding nonconformists from the munici- pal corporations which returned the bulk of the borough members, whose political tendencies were, for the most part, Whig. The test which prevailed, of receiving the sacrament according to the ritual of the Church of Eng- land, effective as it was against Roman Catholics. was not so against Protestant dissenters, who evaded it by par- taking of the communion in a church once in a year, and subsequently attending their own chapels ; in doing which, they were protected by the Toleration Act. This was called "occasional conformity "; and it was against this practice that the Tories introduced a test which, by exclud- ing the nonconformists, would have given them the com- mand of the boroughs. But it was rejected by the Whig House of Lords as often as it was sent up to them.1
These great affairs in Europe were all reflected in America, and the course of events in Carolina closely followed those in England.
Among the leaders who now appeared were some of I Green's Hist. of the English People, vol. IV, 70-89.
367
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
great ability. Moore and Daniel, though not among the first settlers, had each been in the province for some years and had already taken an active part in its affairs. The more recent comers who were to be prominent in the stirring events to follow were Sir Nathaniel Johnson, Nicholas Trott, William Rhett, Edmund Bellinger, and John Barnwell.
With James Moore we have already had some casual acquaintance as one of the leaders of the opposition to Colleton, and whom, with Robert Daniel, the Proprietors excluded from their pardon, and more lately as an ad- venturous explorer of the province, who, though again in the Council of the Proprietors, was ready, according to Randolph. to betray their interest. But Randolph, it must be remembered, was reckless in his charges against the best of the colonists. not only in Carolina, but in every other province. This James Moore was supposed to be the son of Roger Moore, one of the leaders of the rebellion in Ireland in 1641, and an inheritor of the rebellious blood of his sire. He had married a daughter of Sir John Yeamans, by whom he had a large family.1 He was one of "the Goose Creek men" against whom Ludwell had been warned.
Robert Daniel had come from Barbadoes in 1679. He had first appeared in the struggle against Colleton in 1680; and though, with Moore. he had been excluded from the Proprietors' pardon, had so recovered his posi- tion with their Lordships that we find him in 1698 in London in conference with them upon a new set of Constitutions for the regulation of the government, and coming back bringing not only these new Constitutions, but a patent appointing him Landgrave.
Sir Nathaniel Johnson was altogether the person of
1 Wheeler's Reminiscences of No. Ca., 49.
368
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
highest position who had yet come into the province. He was of Keeblesworth, in the bishopric of Durham, had been a distinguished soldier and a member of Parlia- ment. He was a faithful follower and supporter of the Stuarts, and at the time of the abdication of James II was Governor of the Leeward Islands, residing at Nevis, then the most flourishing of that group of islands. Re- fusing to take the oaths to William and Mary, he had been removed from his position, and had come to Caro- lina.1 Here he had devoted himself to the development of industries in the province, especially, as we have seen. to the making of silk, and had also greatly encour- aged the planters in the cultivation of rice and other agricultural experiments. These enterprises and his mili- tary character had given him great popularity. For some reason. it has appeared, he was viewed with jealousy by the Proprietors upon his first coming into the province.
Nicholas Trott2 was a lawyer of London of great learn- ing and unbounded ambition, and withal of little prin- ciple. He had been sent by the Proprietors of Carolina to Providence (now Nassau). one of the Bahama Islands within their grant, to supplant Cadwallader Jones, the Governor there. against whom there were charges of mis- government and high treason. Randolph accused Trott of harboring and encouraging pirates, as Jones, he charged. had done before him. But this was Randolph's common charge against all the Governors of the colonies. Trott was, however, also complained of to King William because of his arbitrary conduet, but he remained Gov-
1 British Empire in Am .. vol. II. 198, 244.
2 " The Trotts of Beccles were worshipful men in the time of Charles the first. Mathew Trott was register of the Court of the Commissary of Suffolk and a Nicholas Trott had the living of Ringsfield in 1663." - Introductory Memoir to the Diary and Autobiography of Edmund Bohun, Ksy., xxvi.
369
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
ernor of Providence until 1697, when he was recalled,1 and upon his return to England was appointed Attorney General of Carolina, to which place he came in 1698.
William Rhett is said to have been born in London in 1666, and to have come to Carolina in 1694 with his wife and one child.2 He was a seaman, for we find on record a power of attorney, dated September 7. 1699, from John and Nicholas Trott of London to Governor Blake and others in Carolina, to collect from Captain William Rhett "all such sums of money goods wares merchandise negro slaves, gold. elephants teeth wax effects and things whatsoever " which the said Captain William Rhett had in his hands " on account of their being part owners of the ship Providence burthen 150 tons, whereof the said William Rhett is commander."3 Rhett was a man of violent temper, but of great courage and ability, and was to render the colony the most brilliant services.
Daniel. Johnson. Trott, and Rhett were all strong and high churchmen. Edmund Bellinger first appears as deputy of Thomas Amy in 1697. then as Surveyor General and Landgrave in 1698; having with Robert Daniel been in London the latter year in consultation with the Proprietors upon the last draft of the Constitutions.+ John Barnwell was a gentleman of Dublin, of influential connections, who had come to Carolina led by a spirit of adventure, and soon became the Deputy Secretary of the colony.
Possessed of great abilities and clothed with extensive powers, Mr. Trott came recommended especially to Gov- ernor Blake, and immediately attained an influential posi-
! British Empire in Am. vol. I, 476, vol. II, 428-430 ; Colonial Rec- ords of No. Ca., vol. 1, 466.
" Ramsay's Hist. of So. Ca., vol. II. 507.
3 Probate officer, Charleston. Book Miscellaneous Records, 1694-1704.
4 Coll. Hist. Soc. of So. Ca .. vol. 1, 144, 145.
2 B
370
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
tion. Notwithstanding his official character as Attorney General under the Proprietors. he appears to have been elected to the Assembly as representing the "country party " as it was termed. that is, the party of dissenters who were principally located in Colleton County. Here he at once exhibited the antagonism which marked his subsequent career. The Governor and Council on the one hand, and the Assembly or House of Commons on the other, had now separated and sat in distinct houses, com- municating with each other by messengers and committees of conference. In a conference of committees from the Council and Assembly February 19. 1700, on a bill regu- lating the Court of Admiralty, Governor Blake, who pre- sided, was insisting upon a certain point when Mr. Trott interrupted him with the remark: "With submission to your honor, you are too fast; we are not come to that point yet," and without disclaiming an intention to offend, declared in reply to such a charge his right to freedom of speech. since he recognized Mr. Blake, in this instance, only as one of a committee, and not in his character of a Proprietor and Governor of the province. The confer- ence was dissolved, and Blake refused to meet the com- mittee again if Trott should be present. The matter was referred to the Assembly, and they resolved " that any manager appointed by this house have freedom of speech as it is their undoubted right." 1 In this first con-
troversy, however rude Trott may have been. and negli- gent of the courtesy due the Governor, it cannot be questioned that the Assembly was right in standing up to its representative on a committee of conference. If the Governor had condescended to act as one of such a com- mittee on the part of the Council, he should not have expected to carry there the overawing dignity of his official
1 ITist. Sketches of So. Ca. (Rivers), 102.
371
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
character. He was there. as the Assembly correctly held, merely as one of his Council, with whom their representa- tive had the right freely to discuss the matter in hand unembarrassed by the official character of the Governor.
Another question now also arose between the Governor and his Council on the one side and the Assembly on the- other. Upon the death of Mr. Ely, the Receiver General, the Governor and Council claimed the privilege of nomi- nating his successor until the pleasure of the Proprietors was known. The Assembly, on the other hand, insisted that it belonged to them. This occasioned several mes- sages between the two houses, and much altercation en- sued. The Upper House appointed the man of their choice ; the Lower House resolved that the person so appointed was no public receiver, and that whoever should presume to pay money to him as such, should be deemed an infringer of the Assembly and an enemy of the coun- try. Trott now made the point that the Governor and Council could not be called an Upper House, though they thus styled themselves, as they differed in the most essen- tial circumstances from the House of Lords in England. and persuaded the Assembly to call them "the Proprietors' deputies." This question, as to the character of the Gov- ernor's Councils in the enactment of laws, thus started, con- tinued not only through the Proprietary, but through the Royal Government as well, and was the subject of a bitter controversy between William Henry Drayton and Sir Egerton Leigh, when the Revolution of 1776 put an end to the discussion. But in the end, as at the begin- ning, it was one more of the name or title of the body than one of substance. The Governor and Council, from an early period to the end of the Royal Government, sat as a separate body, without the consent of which no law could be passed. Trott himself had first recognized it as
372
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
such when, as a member of a committee of conference, he had met a like committee of the Council. His conduct to Governor Blake was justifiable, if at all, only on that very ground -and on no other.
But Trott had already given other cause of offence. He was not only Attorney General, but was naval officer as well, and had incurred Governor Blake's displeasure because of his alleged partiality as the prosecuting officer of the port, and upon this charge Blake suspended him from exercising the function of either office.1 Randolph, the King's Collector of Customs, however, who had not long before reported the Bahama Islands as under Trott's administration a common retreat for pirates, now espouses his cause and writes to the Lords Commissioners of Trade charging a conspiracy between Governor Blake, his brother-in-law Morton, the Judge of Admiralty, and Logan and Bellinger, in seizing and condemning vessels, and buying them in upon sale at half their value; and declares that Nicholas Trott was turned out of his place - though he had the commission of his Majesty's customs as well as that of the Proprietors - because he was dili- gent and faithful to his trust, and to make room for a creature of the Governor.2
At this juncture at the close of the year 1700.3 Governor Blake died, and Trott had no difficulty in persuading the next Assembly to resolve that there were no sufficient rea- sons for his suspension and to request his reinstatement, which was granted, though with some reluctance by his friend, the successor of Blake; this hesitation was occa- sioned, it was charged, by Trott's opposition to too flagrant
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.