THE COLONISATION OF MARYLAND AND THE CAROLINAS
"Maryland is a province not commonly knowne in England, because the name
of Virginia includes or clouds it, it is a Country wholy belonging to
that honorable Gentleman the Lord Baltamore."[67] Such is the
description of the colony that now comes before us, and at the time it
was penned John Hammond, the writer, told the truth. The colony had
arisen under rather peculiar circumstances, which neither resembled the
foundation of Virginia nor the settlement of the Pilgrim Fathers. In
1632 Charles I. granted to George Calvert, first Lord Baltimore, an
ill-defined tract of territory to the north of Virginia. Baltimore was
an old hand at colonisation, for he had some years previous attempted to
form a settlement in Newfoundland which had not been successful. David
Kirke, who took over the Baltimore lands there, said that Newfoundland
agreed with all God's creatures except Jesuits and schismatics, and that
a great mortality among the former tribe had driven Baltimore away.
Whether this was the true reason, or whether, as it has been proposed,
Baltimore was practically driven out by the Presbyterians, it is hard to
decide. His next trial as a colony founder was made in the more
southern lands of Virginia, but here his Roman Catholicism was sternly
opposed by the English Church party. Under these circumstances his
Maryland colony seemed likely to flourish, for there were neither
schismatics nor churchmen, nor Presbyterians, but only Indians to
contend against. Before the first Lord Baltimore could accomplish
anything he died, but the grant was transferred to his son Cecil. The
charter is an important one, for by it the Proprietors gained both
territorial and political rights; the freemen or representative assembly
were to be consulted, and with their advice the Proprietor could enact
laws. All places of worship were to be consecrated according to the
Church of England, and so the Roman Catholic faith had only a
subordinate position in a colony which owed its foundation to a true
upholder of that belief. From the very first Maryland was better off
than several of the other colonies, as the Crown divested itself of the
right of levying taxes within the province; but in other respects the
constitution was normal, consisting of a governor and two chambers, the
proprietor possessing the privilege of creating councillors.
Leonard Calvert, brother of the second Lord Baltimore, sailed to take
possession in 1633, accompanied by two Jesuit priests and three hundred
emigrants. These colonists were neither gaol-birds nor religious
fanatics; they had been selected with great care and were well provided.
One of the Jesuits, Father White, has left on record his _Impressions_
in which he says that the colony was founded with a definite religious
and educational purpose. "We had not come thither for the purpose of
war, but for the sake of benevolence, that we might imbue a rude race
with the precepts of civilisation, and open up a way to heaven, as well
as impart to them the advantages of remote regions."[68] When the
settlers came to the place of landing they "beheld the natives armed.
That night fires were kindled through the whole region, and since so
large a ship had never been seen by them messengers were sent everywhere
to announce 'that a canoe as large as an island had brought as many men
as there was trees in the woods.'"[69] From this moment and onwards the
relations with the natives were always friendly. The small independent
landowners being free from this danger, at first, lived happy and
contented lives, but they were gradually crushed out of existence by
large estate-holders working with gangs of indentured labourers.
The people of Virginia looked with some scorn upon their modern
neighbours, and it was not long before a quarrel took place. The Isle of
Kent lay in such a position off the coast that under Baltimore's patent
it ought to have been included in the province of Maryland. But in 1625
the Virginians had settled there for trading purposes, and were
determined not to be brought under the yoke of Baltimore's
proprietorship. Two years after the establishment of Maryland, the Isle
of Kent was under the rule of William Clayborne, a strong Protestant, a
contentious man, who was described by his enemies as "a pestilent enemie
to the wel-faire of that province and the Lord Proprietor."[70]
Calvert, anxious to establish the rights of his brother, sent two ships
to the Isle of Kent, and these were attacked by the crew of a pinnace
belonging to Clayborne, lives being lost on both sides. The quarrel
continued with so much fervour that it became merged in the greater
struggle of the Civil War. Calvert was granted by the King letters of
marque for privateering purposes, and he took good care to prey upon his
enemy, Clayborne, whose friend Ingle had been furnished with similar
letters from Parliament. Thus having placed the quarrel which was really
personal under the banners of King and Parliament, the two rivals
contended with each other.
The Parliamentary forces were, at first, successful; Ingle and Clayborne
invaded Maryland, seized St Mary's, and Calvert was obliged to fly. But
with assistance from Governor Berkeley of Virginia, he returned and
drove out the Clayborne faction which had disgusted the people by its
incapacity and greed. The quarrel ceased for a short time, owing to
Calvert's death; but it was not long before it was renewed. Lord
Baltimore appointed as his deputy William Stone, an ardent nonconformist
and Parliamentarian, who repaid the Proprietor's generosity by leaguing
with the people of the Isle of Kent. Traitor though he was, it is to be
remembered that during his period of rule one good act was passed.
Maryland was already celebrated for its toleration, but in 1649 it was
still further enacted that a Christian was not to be "in any ways
molested or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion,
nor in the free exercise thereof."[71]
For the peace of their minds and the preservation of their property
Stone and the settlers acknowledged the Parliamentary commissioners,
including Clayborne, who landed in 1652. They first displaced Stone, but
realising that he was popular, and thinking that it would be
advantageous for them, reinstated him. Stone, however, once more proved
a trimmer, and sided with the Proprietor; his late followers deserted
him and turned to Clayborne. On the establishment of the Protectorate in
1654 Lord Baltimore asserted his rights, claiming that he now held from
the Protector Cromwell, and declaring that the commissioners' privileges
had ceased. Clayborne and his companions were not the men to take such a
rebuff as this. "It was not religion, it was not punctilios they stood
upon, it was that sweete, that rich, that large country they aimed
at."[72] With this desire, according to a contemporary, Clayborne
asserted his authority by disfranchising the Roman Catholics and
forbidding the oath of loyalty to the Proprietor. William Stone, stung
to resistance and filled with importance as the representative of Lord
Baltimore, took up arms and was defeated by the Protestant party at
Providence in 1655. Many of Stone's followers were executed, and their
property confiscated; Stone himself was sentenced to death, but was
reprieved. Clayborne's party now seemed triumphant, but the home
authorities refused to bestow upon him the Isle of Kent, and within two
years the Protector restored to Baltimore his proprietorship of
Maryland. Trouble still continued, and in 1659 Josias Fendall, the
Proprietor's Governor, so worked upon the members of Assembly that they
claimed full legislative rights and complete independence of the
Baltimore family.
At the Restoration the quarrel came to an end, and Lord Baltimore
re-established his rights with nothing more than a mere show of force.
Philip Carteret was appointed Governor, and during his term of office a
mint was set up in the colony. He was succeeded in 1662 by Charles
Calvert to the alarm of the Protestant inhabitants, who sent an
extraordinary document to the Lord Mayor and London merchants entitled,
"_Complaint from heaven with a hue and cry and a petition out of
Virginia and Maryland, to the King and his Parliament against the
Barklian and Baltimore parties. The platform is Pope Jesuit determined
to overthrow England with fire and sword and destructions, and the
Maryland Papists to drive us Protestants to purgatory._"[73] These,
however, were purely imaginary troubles, and a more real one fell upon
both Virginia and Maryland on August 27, 1667, when a terrific gale
destroyed in two hours four-fifths of their tobacco and corn, and blew
down 15,000 houses. On the whole Virginia suffered perhaps more than
Maryland, but neither colony was really subject to such perils; and
both, during the first fifteen years of Charles II.'s reign, enriched
themselves as well as the Proprietor or the Crown by the fertility of
their soil. This period of prosperity, however, gave way to one of
unrest.
By the death of Cecil, Lord Baltimore in 1675, Charles Calvert, the late
Governor, succeeded as heir to the family titles, estates and
proprietorship of Maryland, the latter being placed under his deputy,
Thomas Notley. The Proprietor was not at first upon the best of terms
with the home government. He was severely reprimanded by the Privy
Council for the imprisonment and assassination of a collector of
customs. It is not hinted that Baltimore had any actual hand in this
crime, but it is thought that he connived "at least _ex post facto_ in
his murder." No sooner had the Proprietor got over this difficulty, than
he fell out with the settlers, who were caused much uneasiness in 1681
by the limitation of the franchise to those freeholders of 50 acres or
those owners of other property of the value of £40. A spirit of unrest
was therefore abroad, and there were not wanting those who were ready to
snatch the opportunity and pose as patriots against the aggression of
the Proprietor. Josias Fendall, who had already tried to deprive the
Baltimore family of their rights, and who had now become an unworthy
demagogue, leagued with John Coode, a clergyman, and revolted. The
insurrection, as such, was short-lived. But exciting events were taking
place in England, and Coode again seized his chance when news of the
Revolution of 1688 drifted across the Atlantic. He placed himself at the
head of the Association for the Defence of the Protestant Religion, and
in 1689, pretending that he was serving William III., seized in the
King's name the government of Maryland. The King bestowed some signs of
favour upon this clever rebel, but his designs were soon discovered, and
the government of Maryland was radically changed. In 1691 the colony was
placed under the direct control of the Crown; the political rights of
the Proprietor were annulled; the Church of England was established, and
the Roman Catholics were persecuted.
The first royal Governor was Francis Nicholson, who had served elsewhere
successfully, but was regarded with suspicion and dislike by many of
the inhabitants of Maryland. Gerald Slye's accusations against
Nicholson, in May 1698, give some idea of this dislike, and are of some
interest as an indication of the means used by an ignorant colonist to
discredit the Governor in England. A few of the accusations will show
how utterly foolish these complaints were. Slye began by asserting that
"all thinking men are amazed that such a man should have twisted himself
into any post in the government, for besides his incapacity and
illiteracy, he is a man who first in New York, then in Virginia, and at
last in Maryland, has always professed himself an enemy to the present
King and government." The next charge was that the Governor "makes his
chaplain walk bareheaded before him from home to church." This is
further extended by the fact that he "usually makes his chaplain wait
ten or twelve hours for service so that often morning prayer is said in
the evening." But there are more charges concerning Nicholson's
treatment of his chaplain, for he, "a pious and good gentleman, the
credit of the clergy in this province, happening one day by the
Governor's means [to be] a little disguised in drink"[74] was suddenly
summoned to conduct Divine Service. And so charge after charge of the
same absurd character were brought against Nicholson not so much because
of his ill-doing, but because he had the misfortune to be Governor.
The people of Maryland were not content until in 1715 the fourth Lord
Baltimore became a Protestant, and by his conversion it was held that
his full rights had revived. Fourteen years later the Proprietor's
title obtained an everlasting memorial in the foundation of the city of
Baltimore as a port for the planters. The restoration of the Calverts to
their former rights was by no means advantageous to the religious life
of the colony. The fourth lord was a hanger-on of Frederick, Prince of
Wales, while the fifth to hold the title was a notorious profligate.
These men insisted on exercising their right of clerical patronage
without any regard to the welfare of the Church. Thus George Whitefield,
who visited the colony in 1739, failed to arouse religious fervour. His
preaching in Maryland was far less successful than it had been in
Virginia. The former colony he found in "a dead sleep," and to use his
own words, he "spoke home to some ladies concerning the vanity of their
false politeness, but, alas! they are wedded to their quadrille and
ombre."[75]
If the Marylanders were conspicuous for their irreligion, they were
equally noticeable for their industry. A large number of German
emigrants had come to the colony, and had started a continuous movement
of extension towards the West. To these Germans is entirely due the
improved state of the country, and the better means of communication
even beyond the mountains. But the rolling westward of the Maryland
population brought the colony into close touch with the power of France;
and like the other colonies it was destined, about the middle of the
eighteenth century, to contend against the policy of the French King, by
which, if it had been successful, the seaboard colonies would have been
deprived of the possibility of further expansion towards the Pacific.
The history of the Carolinas only resembles that of Maryland in the fact
that they were both proprietary colonies. The swampy and low-lying coast
to the south of Virginia had, in the early years of colonisation,
offered little temptation to settlers, and long remained uninhabited by
Englishmen or Spaniards. Certainly in 1564, Laudonnière, a Huguenot
gentleman and naval officer, attempted a plantation at Port Royal in
South Carolina, and named his fortress Caroline, "in honour of our
Prince, King Charles";[76] but it was an absolute failure, and the
history of the fate of these Huguenots at the hands of the brutal
Spaniard, Menendez, is as well-known as the tremendous retribution which
followed his barbarous cruelty. Captains Amidas and Barlow, in 1584, at
the charge and direction of Sir Walter Raleigh, visited this portion of
the North American continent, but nothing came of it, and "Caroline" was
left strictly alone as if a curse were upon the land. Adventurers from
Virginia at last broke down the old prejudices, and by the year 1625
landseekers and discoverers had penetrated as far south as the Chowan.
By a strange chance the country named by Laudonnière was destined in
1629 to receive much the same name from an Englishman for much the same
reason. In that year Sir Robert Heath obtained from Charles I. a grant
of land to the south of Virginia, which was called after the King "the
province of Carolina." No practical result, however, came from this
grant, and Carolina, as it may now be called, still remained uninhabited
except for the natives.
The first real charter to the Lords Proprietor of Carolina was dated the
24th March 1663, but owing to the previous grant of Charles I. numerous
legal steps had to be taken before matters were satisfactorily arranged.
The land between Virginia and Florida was now granted to eight
patentees, amongst whom were the Duke of Albemarle, the Earl of
Clarendon, Sir William Berkeley, but above all the Earl of Shaftesbury.
These Proprietors had political and territorial authority, but there was
also to be an assembly of freeholders with legislative powers. Twenty
thousand acres of land were reserved for the original Proprietors, but
at the same time a notice was issued inviting planters to settle in the
colony, promising one hundred acres to each settler within five years,
together with the privilege of residing in a land blest with the
doctrine of freedom of conscience. This notice was published not only in
England, but also in Barbadoes, the Bermudas, Virginia and New England,
so that the colonisation of the Carolinas was not only, nor even mainly,
undertaken by adventurers from the home country. On Albemarle River a
settlement was made from Virginia, which formed the nucleus of North
Carolina. Near Cape Fear the New Englanders also had a little colony
which was absorbed by a more prosperous settlement from Virginia.
Settlers soon came from Barbadoes, for there the news had been welcomed,
and hundreds of experienced planters showed themselves willing to accept
the offer of the Proprietors, and expressed a desire to come with their
negroes and servants. They had, no doubt, been tempted by the extra
inducements published in August 1663, when the Carolinas were advertised
as wonderfully healthy and a land capable of bearing commodities not yet
produced in other plantations as wine, oil, currants, raisins, silks,
etc. Most of the Barbadoes planters were afterwards absorbed in the
colony sent out from England forming the nucleus of South Carolina.
The history of the first year in the Carolinas is practically unknown,
except that in September the province was divided into two, and the
northern section seems to have been already settled. The growth of the
colony must have been steady, for in June 1665, Thomas Woodward,
surveyor for the Proprietors in Albemarle county, shows that the
population has increased, and that "the bounds of the county of
Albemarle, fortie miles square, will not comprehend the inhabitants
there already seated."[77] He continues to give the Proprietors
excellent advice, and recommends that they should show generosity if
they wish to encourage settlers; "so if your Lordships please to give
large Incouragement for some time till the country be more fully Peopled
your Honore may contract for the future upon what condition you please.
But for the present, To thenke that any men will remove from Virginia
upon harder Conditione then they can live there will prove (I feare) a
vaine Imagination, It bein Land only that they come for."[78] There were
however, others who continued to praise the colony, and one writer in
1670 says of Ashley River, "it is like a bowling alley, full of dainty
brooks and rivers of running water; full of large and stately
timber."[79] The reader can hardly refrain from wondering where the
resemblance to a bowling alley is to be found. Again the panegyrist says
in a somewhat peculiar sentence, "as of the land of Canaan, it may be
said it is a land flowing with milk and honey, and it lies in the same
latitude."[80] The Proprietors were very anxious to preserve this lovely
land for the "better folk," and in December 1671 Lord Ashley wrote to
Captain Holstead not to invite the poorer sort to Carolina, "for we find
ourselves mightily mistaken in endeavouring to get a great number of
poor people there, it being substantial men and their families that must
make the plantation which will stock the country with negroes, cattle,
and other necessaries, whereas others rely and eat upon us."[81]
Carolina's presiding genius and champion was Lord Shaftesbury's medical
adviser, secretary, and personal friend, John Locke. He is supposed in
1667 to have drawn up the Fundamental Constitutions which contained an
elaborate scheme of feudal government. Whether he did produce this
astounding document has never been conclusively proved, nor is it of
much value, since the principles contained in it were never enforced as
a working system, for they were neither adapted to the times nor the
conditions of a colony of freemen. By the year 1670 the elective
Assembly possessed the definite powers of appointing officers,
establishing law courts, and superintending the military defences of the
colony. These privileges did not prevent them committing a great blunder
by which the colony was converted into a paradise for the bankrupt and
the pauper, but a hell for the honest and willing settler. It was now
enacted that no colonist for the first five years after the true
foundation of the colony should be liable for any exterior debts; that
no newcomer need pay any taxes for his first year; and that marriage
should be regarded as valid if mutual consent should be declared before
the governor.
The northern section of the colony suffered most, and for fifty years
this part of Carolina was wearied by ever recurring disputes and
insurrections. "The colony indeed seems to have reached that chronic
state of anarchy when the imprisonment and deposition of a governor is a
passing incident which hardly influences the life of the community."[82]
Thus during the government of Thomas Eastchurch, who was sent out by the
Proprietors to Albemarle in 1677, there was much trouble. Eastchurch
appointed as his deputy the immoral Thomas Miller of the King's Customs.
"Now Miller had a failing, not as the Proprietors point out, the common
one of religious bigotry which had bred such dissension in New England,
but a weakness for strong liquor."[83] On his arrival he undertook to
model the Parliament, "no doubt with alcoholic readiness and assurance,
which proceeding we learn without surprise gave the people occasion to
oppose and imprison him."[84] Thereupon certain unscrupulous men took
Miller's place and began at once to collect the Customs and so defrauded
the Crown. For some short time angry words passed between the home
Government and the colony, but the storm was calmed by the restoration
of the King's duties. Eastchurch was succeeded by Culpeper, who
controlled affairs until Seth Sothel came out as governor in 1683. The
new ruler's rapacity and arbitrary conduct caused the Assembly to
depose and banish him, paying no attention to the feeble remonstrance of
the Proprietors.
Meanwhile the southern portion of Carolina, particularly the settlements
of Yeamans at Cape Fear and Sayle at Charleston, proved themselves more
orderly and promising than the anarchic Albemarle; and probably for this
reason the Proprietors displayed towards them more consideration. The
constitution which was granted to Charleston in 1670 was most liberal in
character, for not only were the freemen allowed to elect the members of
the House of Representatives, but they also possessed the privilege of
nominating ten out of the twenty councillors. As so many of the settlers
had come from Antiqua, "weary of the hurricane,"[85] or from Barbadoes,
they naturally reproduced their old methods of life, and having been
accustomed to slaves, they tried to force the Indians into servility;
but they found the Red Indian very different from the African negro, for
he was possessed of a proud spirit and remarkable cunning that saved him
from serfdom. The community of the South was one of wealthy traders who
generally lived in the capital, partly because of the fine harbour and
the insalubrious swamps inland, and partly because of the scheme of the
Proprietors by which every freeholder had a town lot one-twentieth the
extent of his whole domain.
The first governor was William Sayle, of Barbadoes, described in 1670 as
"a man of no great sufficiency."[86] It is very difficult at this
distance of time to deduce the character of this governor, for Henry
Brayne wrote, "Sayle is one of the unfittest men in the world for his
place"; and he then proceeded to call him "crazy."[87] On the other
hand, when Sayle died in 1671, being at least eighty years of age, he is
called "the good aged governor";[88] and the Council of Ashley River, on
March 4, 1671, recorded that he was "very much lamented by our people,
whose life was as dear to them as the hopes of their prosperity."[89]
Sayle's chief work during his short period of office was an attempt to
inculcate godly ways amongst the somewhat ungodly colonists. He urged
the Proprietors to send out an orthodox minister, and proposed the man
"which I and many others have lived under as the greatest of our
mercies."[90] He knew very well that some special inducement would have
to be held out to the Proprietors, and so uses the scriptural words,
"for where the Ark of God is, there is peace and tranquillity."[91]
Sayle was succeeded by Joseph West as governor in 1671, but his
appointment was only temporary, as Lord Shaftesbury in the autumn of
that year sent a commission to Sir John Yeamans. His unpopularity,
however, caused his deposition; and Joseph West was again nominated as
governor in 1674, a post which he filled with conspicuous satisfaction
and success for eleven years. While West was still in office, the Lords
Proprietor issued an order in December 1679 for the proper establishment
of Charlestown. "Wherefore we think fit to let you know that the Oyster
Point is the place we do appoint for the port-town, of which you are to
take notice and call it Charlestown, and order the meetings of the
Council to be there held, and the Secretary's, Registrar's, and
Surveyor's offices to be kept within that town. And you are to take care
to lay out the streets broad and in straight lines, and that in your
grant of town-lots you do bound everyone's land towards the streets in
an even line, and suffer no one to encroach with his buildings upon the
streets, whereby to make them narrower than they were first
designed."[92] Such was the town to which West welcomed the Huguenots
who were excluded from the colonies of their own country. The
Proprietors, too, appreciating the wisdom of their governor, afforded
the unhappy French means of cultivating their native produce of wine,
oil, and silk, so that they soon established new homes for their
distressed brethren, "who return daily into Babylon for want of such a
haven."[93] By the end of West's administration the Clarendon
settlements centering round Charlestown had become extremely well-to-do,
and the town government, which was of excellent character, administered
the affairs of about three thousand people. But the southern territory
fell into the evil ways of North Carolina; and after West's retirement,
which finally took place in 1685, a series of unsatisfactory governors
caused a continual bickering, ill-feeling, and well nigh insurrection.
Sothel, whose bad government in Albemarle was already known in the
south, was appointed governor in 1690; but after a year the southern
settlers, taking example from their northern brethren, drove him out.
The Proprietors at last found that they had had enough of this
disgusting incompetence and anarchy. The Locke Constitutions had failed
in every way; a change must be made; and it appeared that an
amalgamation of North and South under one governor might have the effect
desired. Their first choice of an administrator was most unsuccessful;
Philip Ludwell of Virginia found he had a hard task before him in
restoring peace out of chaos and anarchy. The task was too much for him,
and having proved himself incapable was succeeded by a Carolina planter,
Thomas Smith, in 1692. Bickering and quarrels continued; Indian attacks
were occasionally met and dealt with; but the southern Spaniards were an
ever present danger that made Smith's rule no sinecure. After three
years Joseph Archdale, a quaker, and one of the Proprietors, came out as
governor, but after a few months in the colony he was succeeded by his
nephew, Joseph Blake. The benign rule of both these governors gave at
last to the Carolinas a peace which they had not known for twenty years.
The Huguenots were once again welcomed by Blake, and although they had
been steadily settling in the Carolinas, particularly since the
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, yet they now obtained a more
hearty welcome and complete toleration. So much had Blake's government
done for the Carolinas that the royal special agent in 1699 records, "if
this place were duly encouraged, it would be the most useful to the
Crown of all the Plantations upon the continent of America."
There were, however, two external dangers to which the Carolinas were
exposed at the very moment they seemed to have obtained internal peace.
The first was the new French settlement on the Mississippi; the second
was the fear of Spanish aggression from Florida. The French danger was
never really very extreme, and the Carolinas escaped many of the horrors
of New England history. But the Spanish peril was true enough, for as
early as 1680 a party of Scotch Presbyterians were routed from their
little settlement at Port Royal, and this was regarded by the Carolina
settlers as a just cause of complaint and an insult to his Majesty King
Charles. To their great disappointment in 1699, when Edward Randolph was
sent out to make investigations concerning Spanish intrusions, he
brought with him no troops for their protection. At the beginning of the
eighteenth century, therefore, it appeared best to the settlers that for
their own defence they should take offensive action.
The war of the Spanish Succession, or, as it was called in the colonies,
Queen Anne's war, had broken out, and rumours had reached the settlers
of a coming Spanish onslaught. To meet this, James Moore, a political
adventurer, but a very brave and capable man, led 500 English and 800
Indian allies into Spanish territory and took the unprotected town of St
Augustine; but the fort, which was used as a last stronghold, resisted
him for three months, and as he was unprovided with siege guns, he was
obliged to retire on the appearance of a Spanish man-of-war. Nothing
daunted, but rather elated with their previous success, a larger raid
was made in 1704. Sir Nathaniel Johnstone was now governor, and he
commissioned Colonel Moore to attack Apalachee, eighty miles to the west
of St Augustine. In this action Moore was again successful, as Colonel
Brewton records that "by this conquest of Apalachee the Province was
freed from any danger from that part during the whole war."[94] The
Spaniards, however, did not remain idle, and in 1706, in alliance with
the French from Martinique, with a fleet of ten sail and a force of 800
men attacked Charlestown. The inhabitants were terrified, and their
anguish was intensified by the horror of a severe outbreak of yellow
fever. Many of them, therefore, fled from the town, but Sir Nathaniel
Johnstone routed the combined forces of France and Spain and captured no
fewer than 230 prisoners.
Factious quarrels within the Province itself now threatened the safety
of the settlers. Since 1691 North and South Carolina had been united
under one governor, but the custom had been established that the
northern portion of the colony was always under the administration of a
deputy. In 1711 Thomas Cary disputed with Edward Hyde as to which held
the office; it was decided in favour of the latter. The purely personal
quarrel drove Cary to forget his feelings of patriotism, and flying from
Carolina he stirred up the Tuscarora Indians, who, with fiendish
delight, attacked a small settlement of Germans from the Palatinate.
South Carolina, where the supreme governor dwelt, immediately dispatched
an army to the assistance of the North, with the effect that apparent
peace was gained and the army was no longer required. Immediately upon
its withdrawal, however, the Tuscaroras again fell upon the helpless
people; this was too much, vengeance must be taken; and this fierce
Indian tribe was practically decimated and forced to migrate north.
Although the Treaty of Utrecht was signed in 1713, and the Spanish War
of Succession came to an end, yet there was little hope of peace in the
West as long as either side allied with the Indians. The fate of the
Tuscaroras may have stimulated the Yamassee Indians to revenge in 1716.
In April, headed by Spaniards, they massacred about eighty inhabitants
of Granville County, South Carolina. Charles Craven, the governor,
proved himself a man of vigour, activity, and stern resolve, and by his
efforts within a few months the colony was assured of safety, and there
was apparent peace between the settlers of Carolina and the Spaniards of
Florida.
In the winter of 1719 that perpetual love of dissension, and dislike of
any federal action, was once more manifested by the Assembly of South
Carolina. The governor was a son of Sir Nathaniel Johnstone, and he had
done his best for the Proprietors, but unlike the northern portions the
South now disowned all proprietary rule and elected a governor under the
Crown. The home authorities immediately sent out Francis Nicholson, a
capable colonial official who had already had experience in New York,
Virginia, and Maryland. Ten years later the Proprietors accepted the
inevitable, and being compensated financially, handed over the Carolinas
to the Crown. They probably never regretted the bargain, as in 1739 the
war against Spain once more jeopardised the existence of the English
settlements in the south, the inhabitants of which were in chronic fear
of murder and rapine. The chief Spanish attack was made in 1742, when an
army of 5000 landed at St Simon's, owing to the failure of Captain Hardy
to intercept the enemy's fleet. The expedition was unsuccessful; the
colonists held their own; eighty prisoners were brought into
Charlestown; and the Spaniards retired.
The share taken by the two Carolinas in American history during the next
few years was far less than that of other colonies, but will be dealt
with in another chapter. The great interest of the early history of the
Carolinas is that the colony won for itself against very considerable
odds the rights of local government and freedom from the shackles of the
Proprietors. The settlers exhibited from first to last that full
determination which is peculiarly associated with those of English stock
to control their own destiny without the leading-strings of a few,
perhaps benevolent, but generally misguided, human beings, whose powers
have been conferred upon them by chance. The settlers of the Carolinas
were a dogged type of men who faced external dangers with courage and
good sense, distinctly contradictory of their pig-headed, factious,
anarchic spirit in all internal affairs.
FOOTNOTES:
[67] Hammond, _Leah and Rachel_ (London, 1656), p. 20.
[68] White, _A Relation of the Colony of the Lord Baron Baltimore in
Maryland_ (ed. 1847).
[69] _Ibid._
[70] Hammond, _ut supra._
[71] Bozman, _History of Maryland, 1633-60_ (1837), vol. ii. p. 661.
[72] Hammond, _ut supra._
[73] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1661-1668, p. 119.
[74] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1697-1698, p. 246.
[75] _Letters_, vol. i. p. 135.
[76] _Hakluyt's voyages_ (edit. 1904), vol. ix. p. 17.
[77] Saunders, editor of _Colonial Records of North Carolina_, p. 99.
[78] _Ibid._, p. 100.
[79] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 186.
[80] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 187.
[81] _Ibid._, p. 297.
[82] Doyle, _Cambridge Modern History_ (1905), vol. vii. p. 35.
[83] Fortescue, _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p. ix.
[84] _Ibid._, p. ix.
[85] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 620.
[86] _Ibid._, p. 130.
[87] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 137.
[88] _Ibid._, p. 187.
[89] _Ibid._, p. 169.
[90] _Ibid._, p. 70.
[91] _Ibid._, p. 86.
[92] _Calendar of State Papers_, Colonial, 1677-1680, p. 455.
[93] _Ibid._, p. xi.
[94] _Historical Collections of South Carolina_ (New York, 1836).