Please wait...
AUTHOR: LOUIS H. ROPER
TITLE: THE UNRAVELING OF AN ANGLO-AMERICAN UTOPIA IN SOUTH CAROLINA
SOURCE: The Historian v58 p277-88 Wint '96
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited.
THE SOUTH HAS RISEN AGAIN in the historiography of colonial British America as recent treatments of the Anglo-American scene have placed the Southern colonies in the center of the North American colonization process. The early South manifested "the ideal of the pursuit of happiness by independent people that provided significant opportunities for success" in the first British Empire. This "ideal," in turn, generated both the evolution of Anglo-American societies and the emerging acquisitive, competitive, and individualistic sentiments that purportedly came to pervade the North American mind. According to some historians, this Anglo-American rush to riches, which South Carolina exemplified according to another analysis, reflects the mercantilistic responses held by "hegemonic groups" with their "modern or rational market-oriented or capitalist" mindset to the economic growth of northwestern Europe between 1650 and 1750.(FN1)
Such historiographic contributions properly assign the South a more appropriate place in colonial British America. The English colonization process, as the example of South Carolina demonstrates, required the transplanting of fundamental social and cultural beliefs--the early modern English mindset--that established the behavioral parameters for life and community in colonial British America. This controlling set of perspectives included five attitudes of special importance to the development of Anglo-America: a lack of enthusiasm for moving to the "New World"; a presumption of the innate superiority of the English; a belief in a hierarchical society comprising "producers" and "drains"; a contempt for manual labor; and a recognition that one's "estate" determined one's social and political status. These views combined with a West Indian parentage and unfavorable demographics to create an archetypal New World society based on slave labor, staple agriculture, and "plantation" life in "that celebrated Carolina."(FN2)
The history of English colonization, though, reveals a general disinterest in overseas settlement prior to 1754. The English preferred to undertake joint-stock trading ventures or, better yet, to subsidize privateering voyages rather than feeding, housing, and shipping boatloads of whining ne'er-do-wells to faraway locales. Although colonial theorists daydreamed about a coordinated, economically integrated empire supporting a wealthy and majestic Britannia, the Crown, whose means rarely met its ends, did not pursue "mercantilist" or "imperialist" goals during the early modern period. The sovereign granted lands that it lacked both the resources and the inclination to improve to individuals whom it desired to acknowledge. The conveyance of these lands did not diminish the royal domain and placed all of the risks on the shoulders of the grantees. At the same time, if a plantation took root, England would receive vital revenue from the importation of colonial products and rid itself of noisome social deviants such as Brownists, Quakers, and "papists."(FN3)
Carolina presents an excellent example of the lack of coordination and "economic rationality" in British imperial activities during the colonial period. Far from being settled in accordance with a mercantilist dictum to further the cultivation of staple crops under metropolitan supervision, this colony presented yet another opportunity for a sovereign to shower favor, in the form of faraway North American lands, on faithful subjects at no cost to the royal revenue. The eight recipients of the 1663 provincial charter were scarcely compatible. Their joint involvement reflected the intricacies of Restoration politics rather than an urge to integrate the territory into the empire. Two proprietors were Presbyterians who had risen to prominence during the Civil War and Interregnum as supporters of Oliver Cromwell. Four others had supported the monarchy against Cromwell, although these four also fought among themselves. Ten years after Charles II created the proprietary grant, due to death and disinterest only two of the original eight lords maintained a hand in Carolina colonization.(FN4)
One of the remaining two proprietors, Anthony Ashley Cooper, the future earl of Shaftesbury, held high hopes for the plantation. Under his direction, a series of promotional pamphlets flowed into England and Ireland, extolling the virtues of Carolina. These tracts noted how settlers might cultivate olives, wines, figs, and "silkes" to relieve England's dependence on potentially hostile Mediterranean nations for those commodities, a concept first articulated by the godfather of mercantilism, Richard Hakluyt, in the later 1500s. Ashley envisioned his province as a model for English society to follow: landholdings providing social and political weight; parliaments, chosen by the colony's freeholders, participating with the proprietary representatives in the legislative process--a celebration of unity between governors and governed; religious toleration preventing sectarian bickering and attracting Dissenters to the new settlement; and chartered towns serving as bustling commercial entrepôts for the surrounding region.(FN5)
These tracts played largely to deaf ears, and a decline in English population after 1650 lessened the pressure to move overseas in search of a better life. Despite the alleged healthfulness of Carolina's air ("being seated in the most temperate clime" like "the Bermoodoes"); the richness of the soil ("a most Fertile and flourishing Region"); the absence of customs duties on wine, silk, raisins, currants, oil, olives, and almonds produced in the colony; the establishment of an English-style government with a governor, an elected assembly, and "a Constitution of Government, whereby is granted Liberty of Conscience"; and, perhaps most important, the availability of large tracts of land at nominal rates, few English moved to Carolina.(FN6)
Those who read often knew better than to believe the glowing portraits painted in promotional literature (through either letters or word of mouth from the disillusioned), or they were disinclined to hazard their meager fortunes on an ocean voyage to a strange land. Descriptions of life (or perhaps, more accurately, death and disaster) in early Carolina offered, for example, in the letters from agents for the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel who succumbed to the rigors of colonial life would have given anyone contemplating migration some second thoughts. Most of the English people who migrated to Carolina came from the overcrowded West Indies.(FN7)
Although the Carolina advertising campaign failed to attract settlers from the British Isles, it did manifest what "the respectable sort"--the objects of proprietary appeals--deemed important in early modern England. The authors of these pamphlets appealed to those who desired to improve their "estate"--an individual's social, political, and economic situation customarily reflected in the income derived from landed wealth. Carolina's leaders had no desire to attract social "drains" to their colony; however, migrants who "with a little industry might better themselves" suited Carolina's needs admirably. New arrivals would provide vital labor as indentured servants. After their term expired, they could metamorphose into planters and then become pillars of the maturing community. Ashley regarded only "considerable men" as desirable settlers because "the rest serve onely to fill up Numbers and live upon [the proprietors]." Thus, Article 66 of the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, drawn up by Ashley's secretary-physician as a blueprint for colonial government in 1669, restricted membership in the Carolina Parliament to men owning five hundred or more acres of land.(FN8)
To attract such settlers, one pamphleteer praised Carolina's temperate physical, political, and religious climate in 1682. He listed "the most useful people adapted and fitted to carry on the Settlement," including "Mechanicks and Artificers of all sorts" (excluding lawyers) and "all such [as] are skilful in Cattel, and Agriculture." He noted that "these are the People that may enrich themselves, and build up Estates in a short time, whereby to make their Lives, and Posterity happy." In 1710, another tract sought bigger game: a prospective planter with £100 sterling could easily establish an estate "of above 30£ a Year"; ten times the investment would yield ten times the return. In 1712, another writer informed his readers that the prudent investment of £100 in Carolina land, slaves, and other commodities would result in a plantation more valuable than an English equivalent worth £30 per annum; £1,000, properly employed, would produce a New World estate worth £400 annually.(FN9)
The promise of such sums does not necessarily indicate rampant acquisitiveness and individualism on the part of the early modern English. Rather, these tracts sought to promote a society that equated opportunity with land ownership--a more medieval than modern concept. This offer of income-producing estates not only offered a traditional window of opportunity for prospective Carolinians but set out the stakes for a society of English strangers in a strange land.
The dearth of "weighty" colonists also forced an alteration of proprietary expectations for an Anglo-American utopia. Ashley's Carolina dream of legions of industrious servants toiling under the watchful, yet paternal, eye of a native aristocracy before joining colonial society as yeomen farmers came to naught. The West Indians who settled Carolina, already familiar with the social and economic benefits of slavery for Anglo-American planters, carried their variation of the early modern English worldview to their new home. They also imported Africans in such numbers that South Carolina had only 4,080 white residents out of a population of 9,580 in 1708--almost forty years after the colony was founded. Landed estates still provided the basis for social and political importance in Carolina, but slaves performed most of the drudge work on plantations (thereby freeing their masters for labors more suitable for "gentlemen") and became a significant source of status as well. Furthermore, West Indian cum Carolina planters saw the new colony as a vital extension of their lucrative island estates--both a secure source of food and an outlet for surplus population, white and black. The precise constitution of the society took a decided second place in the planters' minds. By the end of the seventeenth century, Anglo-Carolinians, following the West Indian sugar model, were employing rice--their conduit for eighteenth-century wealth--as a staple crop for European export. These planters may have plugged themselves into a worldwide commercial marketplace, but they did not pursue international agribusiness as a life goal. Nor, except for Charles Town, did they congregate in towns.(FN10)
The Carolinians never ratified Ashley's Fundamental Constitutions. Before 1710, they spent their time raising livestock and cultivating maize and other subsistence crops for export rather than producing those commodities--"that is to say, Silks, Wines, Currants, Raisins, Capers, Wax, Almonds, Oil, and Olives"--that the colony's charter granted to the tender care (and profit) of the proprietors. The colonists also took every opportunity to draw from the proprietary storehouse while avoiding their quitrent obligations and ignoring instructions from faraway London.(FN11)
Because the task of building a model society in South Carolina proved beyond the will and the means of its proprietors, the leading colonists relied on their own resources to re-create England in their new world. They excluded the propertyless and those who lacked English citizenship from positions of influence. They assumed that those Englishmen whose land produced the greatest incomes must invariably occupy the colony's political offices and set the cultural norms for their province. The society created by the planters was relatively fluid, but its leaders--as adherents to the prevailing mindset of the English nation on both sides of the Atlantic--deemed themselves superior to people of other cultures, be they "savage," "papist," "despotical," or otherwise "deluded." People from other European backgrounds had to fit themselves into the social and political framework devised by Carolina's English founders.
The architects of colonial South Carolina society marginalized those whom they deemed "unworthy" of status, prima facie--women, blacks, Native Americans, indigent white males, foreigners, and itinerants. These folk held no property and had no stake in society, they supposedly had no appreciation of liberty, and they threatened the "proper" order of things. They should have no official voice in the development of Carolina. White males of non-planter background could achieve prominence by subscribing to this "proper" order. Thus, for example, the Quaker Governor John Archdale and the Huguenot families of Manigault and Ravenal rose to high station in the colony.(FN12)
Unfortunately for these social planners, the demographics of their province made their labors Herculean. Most Europeans arrived in colonial British America as indentured servants. In South Carolina, Scots, Irish, "Ulstermen," French, Germans, and Swiss, among others, answered the colony's call for servile labor. Anglo-Carolinians only slightly preferred Irish, French, or German to African or Native American labor. According to the English, the Irish--"wild," "indolent," and "popish"--were little better than slaves. Ferocious warfare between Irish and English in 1641-49 and 1688-91 did little to dispel English attitudes toward their Gaelic neighbors. Other Europeans, though Protestant, were unfamiliar with "true" English religion and, like the Catholic Irish, did not appreciate English liberties and English government because they hailed from "despotic" principalities. They therefore threatened, albeit to a lesser extent than did the "barbarous" Africans or Irish, an establishment such as Carolina, which was constructed on English tenets of "freedom" and "liberty."(FN13)
A group of alarmed planters objected vociferously when the proprietors tried to lure French Huguenot refugees to South Carolina after Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes in 1685. Rather than welcoming their oppressed fellow Protestants, the Carolinians "began to execute the laws of England respecting aliens in their utmost rigour against them." Quite simply, "their haughty spirit could not brook the thoughts of sitting in assembly with the rivals of the English nation for power and dominion, and of receiving laws from Frenchmen, the favourers of a system of slavery and absolute government." To eliminate this prospect, the Carolina assembly quickly passed legislation preventing French nationals from either owning property or voting, and it invalidated all marriages performed by any minister not consecrated by the Church of England. The proprietors' attempt to intervene on behalf of the Huguenots only hardened the colonists' suspicion toward the "alien menace" to South Carolina's liberties. Anti-French feeling did not begin to diminish until the Huguenots had demonstrated their good character during the War of the League of Augsburg (King William's War); it fully abated after the residents of Charles Town repelled a combined French and Spanish invasion force in 1707.(FN14)
Another blow to the establishment of the model society was that Carolina planters could never rely on indentured servants to fulfill their labor needs: their colony had to compete with Pennsylvania's more favorable social and meteorological climate in the face of a stagnating pool of potential English migrants. This situation furthered the development of race-based slavery in the province. The West Indians who populated Carolina, already recognizing the "benefits" of slavery, brought their slaves with them and quickly dominated the nascent colony. To repeat the West Indian success story, they immediately assigned Native Americans and Africans to the same subordinate position on the social and cultural ladder that persons of color generally occupied in the English-speaking world during the early modern period. Slavery presented a double advantage: it offered supervision and an example for folk who lacked experience with the best (English) society, and it assured labor-poor colonies of a supply of manual workers. The shapers of Anglo-American societies, including South Carolina, viewed slavery as an acceptable, often necessary, means of maintaining order over "savage" people of color. With the "unsuitable" people performing the "unsuitable" tasks in perpetuity, the planters had need neither to depend on unreliable servants nor to dirty their own hands in maintaining their preeminent social status. Moreover, some could use the slave trade to augment their estates by capturing and selling Native Americans to Caribbean masters.(FN15)
In South Carolina as in the West Indies, however, slavery became too successful to suit its practitioners. The factors discussed above--poor demographics, English disinterest in colonization, and the general disdain for manual labor--meant that planters felt obliged to rely largely on slaves, both African and Native American, to perform the drudge work of the colony. Ironically though, the consequent prospect of residing in a "Negro country" increasingly loomed larger and seemed to pose a grave threat, in the minds of the planters, to native liberties. South Carolina's "black majority" also generated a constant fear of slave revolt among the planters.(FN16)
"Free" persons of color in the colony maintained a tenuous existence in a social netherworld between whites and slaves. Some manumitted individuals achieved a bit of prosperity within the African American community generally; others, who lacked skills or connections or whose papers became lost, did not fare so well. Anglo-Carolinians generally treated the free black population more harshly than other Anglo-Americans did because of their fears about the high ratio of black to white in the colony. The Carolina Assembly also proscribed miscegenation, claiming that a larger "colored" population corresponded to a graver threat to liberty. As a result, colonial South Carolina had a smaller ratio of free blacks to slaves than other colonies did, although Charles Town maintained a small, but apparent, free black population throughout the early period. The town's "colored" market and other gathering places provided cover for escapees and encouraged "mischievous" behavior among slaves, according to the prevailing white view.(FN17)
Native Americans were also involved with the colony from the early days of settlement. When the loss of stores placed the English settlement in extremity, trade with the locals for fish supplemented the settlers' ration of peas and insured the survival of the colony. Perhaps benefitting from the experience of other settlements, Ashley, for one, recognized from the first that Carolina required good relations with neighboring Native Americans. He dispatched Dr. Henry Woodward, who had an abiding interest in the Native Americans and had spent some time living with various southeastern tribes, to serve South Carolina as ambassador to the Native Americans. Woodward's efforts laid the groundwork for the lucrative deerskin trade between South Carolina and the surrounding nations, with Charles Town as its center, that continued well into the eighteenth century.(FN18)
Native Americans benefitted considerably less from this trade than the whites did. The deerskin trade helped the colony get on its feet economically before rice culture developed. Charles Town became the largest Anglo-American settlement between Philadelphia and Bridgetown in the eighteenth century. A number of the tribes or bands that had lived in the Carolina coastal plain at the time of Charles Town's founding in 1670 either disappeared altogether or merged with neighbors in an effort to combat the effects of disease and warfare (with other Native Americans as well as whites).
Relations between Anglo-Carolinians and their Native American neighbors periodically turned stormy: war broke out in 1680 with the Westo nation, in 1711 with the Tuscarora, and again in 1715 when "ye treacherous Yamassees" devastated the country between Port Royal and Charles Town. The Native Americans did not "disappear overnight"; only the defeat of the Cherokees in 1762 and the reduction of the Catawbas cleared the Carolina frontier for white settlement. The impact of interaction with Europeans on the societies and cultures of the southeastern tribes remains sketchy. However, these peoples endured a considerable culture shock and suffered territorial loss within a century of the English arrival at Charles Town.
The diversity of the population of early South Carolina, including Africans and Europeans of various backgrounds, further reflected the failure of the proprietary effort to attract industrious and worthy English to the province. Yet, the experiences of the non-planter elements of this society developed, as they did throughout Anglo-America, in response to the colony's prevailing mindset. Native Americans provided the sickly infant settlement with a respirator by virtue of their trade, caught "runaway" slaves, and allied themselves with the English against the French. Africans performed most of the hard labor in the construction of plantations and the establishment of rice as a staple crop. Yet these peoples saw their independent cultural identities eroded by the English. Those who formerly spoke Sewee, Wateree, and Waxhaw or Ibo, Hausa, and Kongo had to learn Catawba, Gullah, and English in order to survive in their new worlds. Most white residents of South Carolina adopted planter values enthusiastically or at least without reservation. The non-white occupants were forced, by their subordinate station as defined by Anglo-America, to accept a modicum of Englishness or perish..
The lack of prominent English in the colony, aggravated by initially high death rates due to disease and malnutrition, generated something of a sociopolitical free-for-all that eroded the proprietary ideal. In the initial absence of traditional clientage and patronage networks, people formerly of "little account" prospered and even assumed the mantle of superiority. South Carolina suffered jolts between 1670 and the British guarantee of independence in 1783: the wars with Native American neighbors, a slave revolt in 1740, a dispute with the proprietors over religious establishment in 1705-6, the overthrow of proprietary rule in 1719, and the War of Independence, including a bitter civil war, from 1775 to 1781.
These differences did not reflect the fundamental agitation represented by Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia. Essentially factional in nature, Carolina's conflicts never threatened the preeminence of either the planter order or the hierarchical perspective that sustained that order. The nature of migration had prevented the precise re-creation of "traditional" English society with a titled aristocracy in this "promised land." Yet, the New World did not fundamentally alter the social and political conceptions that accompanied the founders of Carolina as cultural baggage because the people who held the greatest estates--determined in most of Anglo-America by one's land and slave holdings--were still expected to lead that society.(FN19)
In 1808, an early modern Anglo-American mentality still held sway in South Carolina and became its most successful manifestation in North America. Planters in the Charles Town district on the eve of the revolution enjoyed a per capita wealth of £2,337.70. David Ramsay, the celebrated early historian, a revolutionary of South Carolina, and a member of the planter elite, reflected that the new state's society consisted of four groups: planters, farmers, cottagers, and squatters.
The planters have large incomes--live at their ease--enjoy much--suffer little--are high minded, and possess much of that dignity of character which constitutes an independent country gentleman--but seldom engage in arduous pursuits to the accomplishment of which much time, patience, and long continued exertions of mind or body are necessary--or if they engage in them, rarely persevere till the object is fully attained.
Farmers, owners of "few or no slaves," had "less brilliant" virtues, "but their vices are fewer than those of the planters." Although the yeomen "depend more on their own exertions," they "have greater internal resources to meet extraordinary emergencies" than those at the top of the ladder.(FN20)
Cottagers, devoid of slaves and "unwilling to work with those of other people, and unable to procure the place of overseer," had lived in a generally miserable state. "Without the incitement of profitable industry to stimulate their exertions, they seldom extended their labors beyond the point" of subsistence. As a result, "much idleness and consequently vice was attached to their character." The emergence of the cotton culture after the revolution brought better prospects for them:
It rewards their labors with a large share of the comforts of life without the degradation which must have often attached to them while laboring, not for themselves but as appendages to planters or large farmers and as fellow-laborers with their slaves. They now work their own lands--raise provisions and cotton with the help of their children, and daily acquire consequence in society.(FN21)
The squatters, according to Ramsay, inhabited the lower strata of the social pyramid. Instead of settling on "the vast tracts of poor land with which Carolina abounds," these folk took up residence "on any man's land--paying no rent--cultivating very little or no ground," where they lived "ostensibly in hunting, but often in shooting down the domestic animals of their industrious neighbors." Even so, Ramsay foresaw a brighter future because the Methodists "had influence on many of this class so far as to induce them to engage in regular active industry," which reduced the number of "squatters" and increased the number of "industrious cottagers or farmers" in South Carolina.(FN22)
Ramsay's account of Carolina society reminded readers of the attitudes held at the top of this edifice. First, Ramsay recognized slave ownership as an important measurement of status, in conjunction with landholdings, as well as the soundest means of avoiding manual labor for a white person. Second, he failed to include the roles of black people (other than as property), Native Americans, or working women in South Carolina.
Ramsay's view tracked with the mindset found in early Carolina. One planter had complained to the proprietors about the conduct of a parliamentary election in 1706:
that contrary to the Rights and Privileges which we ought to enjoy, the last Election of Members ... was managed with greater Injustice to the Freemen of this Province than the former. For at this last Election, Jews, Strangers, Sailors, Servants, Negroes, and almost every French Man in Craven and Berkly County came down to elect, and their Votes were taken and the Persons by them voted for, were returned by the Sheriff, to the manifold wrong and prejudice of the other Candidates.(FN23)
Thus, from the planter perspective, South Carolina had developed into as ideal a society as one could hope for in the first British Empire. Slavery and staple income supported gentlemen in their estates so that they could devote their attentions to provincial (and, later, state) affairs; however, slaves had to be "kept in their place" because racial demographics made the planters nervous. Yet, this elite was not static: a white man who aspired to the sociopolitical pinnacle could make enough money as a merchant to buy a rice plantation, retire from commerce, and undertake the gentlemanly occupation of politics--the accepted formula for social advancement in early modern England and its colonies.
Having created their utopia and convinced most of their direct "inferiors"--merchants and smaller planters--of the efficacy of the West Indian/South Carolinian variation on the English plantation model, the great planters and their supporters saw no reason to change either their cultural attitudes or the social system that had produced those attitudes. To have done so, in their view, would have been the highest folly. The voluntary demolition of their hierarchy and abdication of governmental responsibility by the elite would have invited "anarchy": "negroes," most significantly, and other "barbarous people" might have gained control of Carolina at the expense of men of substance. This prospect constituted the gravest threat, in the view of South Carolina's leaders and those who shared their ideals, to those principles of liberty that were the God-given right of every early modern Englishman. These views were to harden in the future.
These folk did not foresee that revolutionary circumstances would present a fundamental challenge to their "perfect" version of Anglo-American society. The founding of a new nation under the Enlightenment's rubric of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for "all men" included a newly conceived geographical union, severed from its West Indian roots, whose socioeconomic worldview--once vital, if not central, to Anglo-American development--soon acquired a disagreeable, if not putrid, aftertaste.
Added material
Louis H. Roper is assistant professor of history at the State University of New York at New Paltz. The author thanks Larry Hauptman, Mark I. Reisman, Don Roper, John Waters, and Mary Young for reading and commenting on this essay. The John Carter Brown Library partially defrayed research costs.
Joel Gascoyne made "A New Map of the Country of Carolina" in 1682 for the earl of Shaftesbury's promotional campaign.
FOOTNOTES
1 J. P. Greene, Pursuits of Happiness: The Social Development of Early Modern British Colonies and the Formation of American Culture (Chapel Hill, 1988), 207; P. A. Coclanis, "The Rise and Fall of the South Carolina Low Country: An Essay in Economic Interpretation," Southern Studies 24 (1985): 145-6.
2 L. H. Roper, "Conceptions of America: South Carolina and the Peopling of a Wilderness" (Ph.D. diss., University of Rochester, 1992), chap. 2.
3 Roper, "Conceptions of America," chap. 3.
4 R. Hutton, Charles II: King of England, Scotland, and Ireland (Oxford, 1989), 120.
5 Fundamental Constitutions of 1 March 1670, Articles 1-79 and 110-15; concerning towns, Articles 92-94; on religion, Articles 95-109, in North Carolina Charters and Constitutions, ed. M.E.E. Parker (Raleigh, N.C., 1963), 165-84.
6 R. Horne, "A Brief Description of the Province of Carolina" [London, 1666], in Narratives of Early Carolina, 1650-1708, ed. A. S. Salley (1911; reprint, New York, 1967), 66; J. Archdale, "A New Description of that Fertile and Pleasant Province of Carolina" [London, 1707] in Salley, Narratives, 208; S. Wilson, "An Account of the Province of Carolina" [London, 1682] in Salley, Narratives, 166.
7 F. J. Klingberg, ed., The Carolina Chronicle of Dr. Francis Le Jau, 1706-1717 (Berkeley, 1956); "Rev. Samuel Thomas, Letters, 1702-1710," South Carolina Historical Magazine 4 (1903): 221-30, 278-85; A. J. Schmidt, ed., "Hyrne Family Letters," South Carolina historical Magazine 63 (1962): 150-7; J. P. Purry, "Description of the Province of South Carolina ..." [London, 1731], in Historical Collections of South Carolina, ed. B. R. Carroll, 2 vols. (New York, 1836), 2:121-40; A. B. Faust, "Swiss Emigration to the American Colonies in the Eighteenth Century," American Historical Review 22 (1916-17): 21-44.
8 L. Cheves, ed., The Shaftesbury Papers and Other Records Relating to Carolina and the First Settlement on Ashley River Prior to the Year 1676, vol. 5 of Collections of the South Carolina Historical Society (Charleston, 1897), 361 (hereafter, Cheves, Collections).
9 R[obert] F[erguson], "The Present State of Carolina, with Advice to the Settlers," pamphlet, John Carter Brown Library, Providence, R.I. (hereafter Brown Library), 21; T. Nairne, "A Letter from South Carolina" [London, 1710] and J. Norris, "Profitable Advice for Rich and Poor" [London, 1712], in Selling America; Two Seventeenth-Century Descriptions of South Carolina, ed. J. P. Greene (Columbia, S.C., 1989).
10 Peter H. Wood, Black Majority: Negroes in Colonial South Carolina from 1670 through the Stono Rebellion (New York, 1974), 144.
11 "Charter to the Lords Proprietor of Carolina, June 30, 1665," in Parker, North Carolina Charters and Constitutions, 98; Cheves, Collections, 5:437-8.
12 J. Boone, "The Case of the Church of England in Carolina Humbly Offer'd to the Consideration of both Houses of Parliament," London, 1706, pamphlet, Brown Library.
13 See for example E. Spenser, The Present State of Ireland (1596; reprint, Ithaca, N.Y., 1966).
14 A. Hewat, An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of ... South Carolina and Georgia, 2 vols. (London, 1779), 1:110-13.
15 Wood, Black Majority, 37-40.
16 Hewat, Historical Account of South Carolina, 1:120-2.
17 Wood, Black Majority, 195-207.
18 Cheves, Collections, 5:183, 186-94, 225, 245, 262; R. Sandford, "A Relation of a Voyage on the Coast of the Province of Carolina" [London, 1666], and H. Woodward, "A Faithfull Relation of my Westoe Voiage," in Salley, Narratives, 125-34; H. N. Sainsbury, ed., Documents in the British Public Record Office Relating to South Carolina, 5 vols. (Atlanta, 1928-47), 1:112-14.
19 [F. Yonge], "A Narrative of the Proceedings of the People of South Carolina in the Year of 1719," London, 1726, pamphlet, Brown Library.
20 Greene, Pursuits of Happiness, 147.
21 D. Ramsay, The History of South-Carolina, From the First Settlement in 1670 to the Year 1808, 2 vols. (Charleston, 1809), 2:413-14
22 Ramsay, History, 2:414-15.
23 J. Ash, "The Present State of Affairs in Carolina," London, 1706, pamphlet, Brown Library.
WBN: 9601502994003