PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 6/01 cJCIRC/DatoDuepBS-p. 15 COLONIAL COMMERCE: RACE, CLASS AND GENDER.IN.A LOCAL ECONOMY, ALBBMBRLE, NORTH CAROLINA, 1663-1729 By Kristi A” Rntz-Rdbbins A.DISSERIAIION Submitted to Hflcmignn Stat. University In partial fulfillmnnt of the requiranants For the doqroo of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY quartnnnt of History 2003 ABSTRACT COLONIAL COMMERCE: RACE, cuss AND GENDER m A LOCAL zcouom, mm, non-rs CAROLINA, 1663-1729 By Kristi A. Rutz—Robbins Colonial Commerce explores the ways men and women, whites, blacks, and Indians and merchants, traders, laborers and planters interacted together in the Albemarle region of North Carolina. Analysis of colonial documents, such as county court records, debt receipts and merchant accounts along with political letters reveals a vigorous local economy in early colonial North Carolina that transcended race, class and gender. Local markets supported a lucrative transatlantic trade in skins and “goods and wares.” Local trade brought blacks, whites, and Indians and men and women of different classes into numerous economic relationships with one another. Such contact fostered cycles of cooperation and conflict reflected in North Carolina’s unstable political history and complicates our understanding of divisions in race, class and gender in the local economy of early colonial America. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the librarians and archivists at the Michigan State University Library, the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Library, Archives and Southern Historical Collection and the North Carolina State Archives for their help providing me the required primary source material for this dissertation. I am grateful for the teaching opportunities Michigan State University gave me throughout the course of my graduate school experience and the intellectual and supportive colleagues I found there. I especially want to thank a number of the faculty who assisted my in a variety of ways throughout my program. First I thank Dr. Gordon Stewart for welcoming me into the program, supporting me along the way and giving me critical support during the dissertation writing phase. I also thank Dr. Richard Thomas for his thought provoking seminar early on during my graduate career which refocused my academic life forever in wonderful ways. I thank him for his perpetual support through the years and timely words of encouragement during hard parts. Dr. Samuel Thomas guided me through my first solo teaching experience in the second year of my program with great wisdom and genuine care. He continued to support me with the same care and concern the remainder of my program advising, editing, and encouraging me along. I am eternally grateful for his professionalism and friendship. Several other faculty members deserve my gratitude for their help in the creation and finalization of the dissertation. I thank Dr. Darlene Clark Hine and Dr. Wilma King for their fabulous seminars in which I developed the questions and intellectual foundations that led to my dissertation topic. I am thankful for the timely and thoughtful comments on my dissertation given by Dr. Morgan Sweeney and Dr. Laurent DuBois. I also thank Dr. Lisa Fine for her assistance as graduate director in seeing me to the end of the doctorate program. Lastly, I thank Dr. Christine Daniels for her undying enthusiasm about colonial America, her belief in my abilities from the very beginning of my program and her willingness to let me find my way through the documents at the end. Her intellectual insight made working with her very rewarding. I am a better scholar because of these people, and as always the faults in this document are mine alone. To my friends and family I owe special thanks, praise and gratitude for the years of sympathy, love, encouragement, welcome distraction, and focused attention. I especially thank my parents, Miriam and Earl Rutz for iv encouraging my love of learning and for their unwavering belief in me. I am grateful to my sisters, Carrie Burdick- Rutz and Mari Mitchell and my brother—in-laws, Jerry Burdick-Rutz and Daniel Mitchell, for making my life fun and for their help in watching my children while I researched and wrote. My in-laws, Larry and Patty Robbins, and sons, Brian, Michael and Mark, have been wonderfully welcoming and supportive through the years and I appreciate them immensely. To my two wonderful childcare providers, Kori Brown and Julie Eatmon, whom I thank for the love and joy they gave my children and constant reliability in coming to work which made it possible for me to write without worrying. Finally, thanks to my children, Josh and Katie who kept me focused on life and the joys of childhood. And to my husband, Dan, who unfailingly went through every step of my graduate program with me, I am forever grateful for your constant love and support. PREFACE In colonial America economic activities of blacks, whites and Native Indians created a context for cultural interaction. Local trade was central to the colonial experience. Traditional colonial economic history largely focuses on export economies and transatlantic trade. Community studies briefly survey local economies usually in the context of politics and culture. Changing patterns of local trade are linked to changing local politics, multicultural exchange and women’s economic and political positions over the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth century. Scholars have begun to integrate Indians, blacks and whites into colonial narratives. However, more scholarship is needed in order to make regional comparisons between the ways men and women, whites, blacks, and Indians and merchants, traders, laborers and planters interacted in local economies. This study of the Albemarle region of northeastern North Carolina between 1663 and 1729 analyzes colonial documents, such as court records, government correspondence, merchant accounts, journals, diaries and archeological studies to reveal the political, racial and gendered characteristics of this local economy. I argue vi that local trade brought blacks, whites, and Indians and men and women of different classes into numerous economic relationships with one another and that the merchant classes were dependent on such trade relationships. Local trade supported participation in the transatlantic economy and fostered cooperation with political allies, both Native Indian and English, as well as conflict with political and economic competitors. North Carolina’s unstable political history marks the degree to which a network of local merchants defended their political positions of power. In Chapter 1, “For her Sweetheart”: Marriage, Merchant Alliances and Political Power, I argue that local merchants tied to the colonial Atlantic world supplied English goods to the local community. The Albemarle Sound river system allowed the region to function as an urban market center without a major port city. Accusations of government officials involvement in piracy, illegal collection and non-collection of shipping tariffs and government established monopolies in the Indian trade point to the centrality of merchants in local politics. A local merchant alliance, in part created through marriage ties, struggled to maintain their positions in the local colonial government. This struggle led to both the Culpeper and Cary Rebellions. In Chapter 2, “Promises of Great Rewards”:.Merchants, Indian Traders and the Skin Trade, I argue that Indians supplied local traders, merchants and planters with skins in exchange for various European goods. This skin trade supported the expansion of English settlement in Albemarle. Indian and merchant alliances point to the centrality of Indian-White trade connections as a central feature of diplomatic relations. King Tom Blunt diplomatically negotiated trade and peace between the North Carolina government and his Indian towns during the Tuscarora War, and successfully maintained his towns status as an English ally and trade partner. This and the illegal frontier Indian trade activity during the war, points to the vital importance of the Indian trade to both Native American and English communities. The lucrative nature of the trade gave enormous power to merchants exporting skins. In Chapter 3, “Indebted by Account”: Courts and Credit in the Local Economy, I argue that courts served as places to verify and collect debts across all classes. A series of court cases sometimes linked a chain debt suits back to the initial prosecutor, thus canceling out portions of debt without money or goods ‘in kind’ being transferred. More commonly, one suit, often in response to the settlement of estates, spurred a chain of debt collections. Such cases vfi point out the interconnected economic ties that bound colonists to each other. Merchants, traders and tavern keepers kept accounts with each other and with artisans, planters and Indians within the community. Cases such as these reveal complex economic ties among and between all classes in this early colonial frontier region. In Chapter 4, “The Custom of their House: Tavern Keepers and Local Trade, I argue that taverns, also called ordinaries, provided a center for local exchange in this colonial community without a major urban center. Tavern keepers served as part time merchants and credit houses, exchanging corn, pork and tobacco for provisions, dry goods and spirits. Tavern keepers brought debt suits to court revealing the range of credit they extended throughout the local community. The ‘ordinary' cases that came to court point to the extensive network of local trade established by tavern keepers. That court was held at taverns during this period increases the importance of taverns as centers of law, politics and economic exchange. In Chapter 5, “By her Bill”: Wbmen in the Local Economy, I argue that during the initial years of settlement colonial women played various visible roles in the local economy. Women came to court to as attorneys for their husbands settling trade debts. Women also came to k. were court to settle debts contracted through their own economic activities such as tavern keeping, whaling, the skin trade and retailing dry goods. Importantly, white and black women engaged in trade with each other regardless of law and probably in greater numbers than the records allude to. In Chapter 6, “To Trucke, Deale & Trade”: Black and White Trade in a Comparative Perspective, I argue that black slaves engaged in trade, legally and illegally, with tavern keepers, artisans and merchants in Albemarle. Carolina laws increasingly regulated interracial trade as slavery expanded. Enforcement, however, was up to the community and community customs dictated the enforcement or lack of enforcement of such laws. Irregularly enforced racial boundaries created social and economic realities that conflicted with established legal frameworks. Ultimately, black slaves created independent economic niches that remained established for centuries in North Carolina. Throughout Colonial Commerce I present a complex local economy that belies any simplistic understandings of trade in the early colonial period. Pervasive networks of local trade linked colonists to each other and to the larger Atlantic markets. Native Indians, blacks, and whites, both men and women, participated in various ways in a local economy that centered along rivers, in homes and taverns. IECTRC 2""R 'P‘. 'VA .4. A. “'T‘ Hm .‘FH‘ Vans; ‘ TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 CHAPTER 1: “FOR HER SWEETHEART”: MARRIAGE, MERCHANT ALLIANCES, AND POLITICAL POWER. . . . . . . .23 CHAPTER 2: “PROMISES OF GREAT REWARDS”: MERCHANTS, INDIAN TRADERS AND THE SKIN TRADE. . . . . . 53 CHAPTER 3: “INDEBTED BY ACCOUNT”: TRADE, COURTS, CREDIT IN THE LOCAL ECONOMY. . . . . . . . . 95 CHAPTER 4: “THE CUSTOM OF THEIR HOUSE": TAVERN KEEPERS AND LOCAL TRADE. . . . . . . 125 CHAPTER 5: “BY HER ACCOUNT”: WOMEN IN THE LOCAL ECONOMY. . . . . . . . . 161 CHAPTER 6: “TRADE, TRUCK, BORROW OR LEND”: BLACK AND WHITE TRADE IN A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE. . . . . . . . 201 CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .231 WORKS CITED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 xii v‘Ccu. u€Il= -9 ,fi r v, y- .‘ ya “hr . LLL‘OI . L. v « A U c & «C . . QC » \ v x ‘ a J 0.5 . h“ a.“ e H ‘ah F...“ a 6 \~‘ ~ adv.“ l C . W... T d «It . I .- ., .d .92.. INTRODUCTION Studying the early colonial period with a focus on economics and social-political relationships the Albemarle, North Carolina community reveals marked economic, social and cultural diversity across region and time. Initial periods of economic expansion do not occur at the same chronological time for all colonies. They were not settled at the same time, and so initial developmental stages occurred during different periods depending on the colony studied. For example, European expansion in Albemarle, Carolina as the northeastern region of North Carolina was called in the seventeenth century, began two generations after initial European settlement in Virginia. This multi- temporal, multi—regional approach to the colonial world aids in understanding processes of change, particularly in terms of race relations. Nevertheless, the 16803, or more generally the last quarter of the 17th century coincides with a number of major transformations in the colonies. Importation of English labor declined. Shipments of slave labor to the Chesapeake accelerated rapidly. A firmly established Barbados sugar industry pushed small planters into the Carolinas. Expanding slave laws marked increasing racial. l I lid 1 Ph will VOAU J am“ 3836! d chanc 4 OHC EC .8386 mid av Run A L .r A 2» « t at a... H... mm division between white laborers and black slaves. Philadelphia begins to become an economic center, which will outstrip Boston and increase the linkages of trade among the colonies. The problem with such overarching generalization is that regional difference and processes of change are lost. McCusker and Menard note the “pattern of economic change in British America varied widely by region and over time.”1 The export and domestic markets are two different lenses from which to View colonial history. In studying Albemarle's local economy during the proprietorship years, 1663-1729 through court records, journals and accounts the centrality of trade to the settlement process stands out. McCusker and Menard argue, “Overseas commerce did not merely make colonial life comfortable: it made it possible.”2 They emphasize the fact that the colonies were not self-sufficient and point to the central importance of foreign trade in the domestic economy. Roughly twenty percent of total income was derived from commodity exports. The export economy was really sets of colonial economies linked with London and not really linked together until 1John L. McCusker and Russel R. Menard, The Economy of British America, 1607-1789 (Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture by the University of North Carolina Press, 1985), pp. 9. 21bid., pp. 71. late 1700: the succe: Albemarle later the late sete decades 1 importer its colon became ma 900ds in: the rise far the c scale of EXPorts} late 1700s. The development of the export economy fueled the success of the British colonies. For example, in Albemarle the lucrative nature of the skin trade and then later the tobacco trade fueled settlement expansion in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Over a few decades in the mid 16005 England went from being a major importer of tobacco and sugar to being an exporter of both, its colonies were now economic assets and increasingly they became market assets as exports of English manufactured goods increased between 1700-1770.3 T.H. Breen argues for the rise in imported English manufactured goods in trade for the colonies staple exports adding that increases in scale of production allowed tobacco planters to expand exports.4 North Carolina's per capita trade values lag behind those of Virginia. Roger Ekirch argues, “Shortages of 3For some key older works see Davis, “English Foreign Trade, 1770- 1774,” Historical Economic Review, (1964) and McCusker, “The Current Value of English Exports, 1697-1800, William and Mary Quarterly, (1971); Egnal, “The Economic Development of the Thirteen Continental Colonies 1720-1775” William and Mary Quarterly (1979) and Kulikoff, “The Economic Growth of the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake Colonies,” Journal of Economic History (1979) McCusker and Menard cover this too and really are the best place to get a good overview of the older literature to their publication date. 4T. H. Breen, “An Empire of Goods: The Anglicization of Colonial America, 1690-1776 Journal of Business Studies, 25(1986). Lois Green Carr, and Russell Menard “Land, Labor and Economies of Scale in Early Maryland,” adds to this argument by including the expanding grain export economy into the picture. See also, Lois Green Carr and Lorena Walsh, “Economic Diversification and Labor Organization in the Chesapeake, 1650-1820" syst .wua QC capital, labor, and a marketable cash crop all combined to render the economy less productive than the plantation systems of Virginia and South Carolina,” adding that Carolina’s jagged coastline hindered shipping.5 However, perhaps the total amount of trade is less important than the social structure, alliances and conflicts generated by local trade. Also, accusations of illegal trade indicate that a fair amount of North Carolina’s trade slipped by undocumented. Some illegal trade was prosecuted, such as the case concerning John Pettiver who brought a shallop through the Port of Roanoke with a two ton load of “Sundry Goods and Merchandizes.” He unloaded without making an entry in the port or getting the permits for payment of customs in Virginia.6 However, a report to the Lords of Trade in London complained, “The inlet of Roanoake is frequented with small vessels trading to & from the West India Islands. Pyrats & runaway Servants resort to this place from Virginia etc,” indicating that many traders slipped by customs.7 Another such complaint written to the 5A. Roger Ekirch, “Poor Carolina”: Politics and Society in Colonial North Carolina, 1729-1776 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981), pp. 3. 6William S. Price, North Carolina Higher-Court Records, 1702-1708 The Colonial Records of North Carolina, Second Series, Vol. IV (Raleigh, North Carolina: Departments of Cultural Resources Division of Archives and History), pp. 106. Hereafter stated as Higher-Court Records. This case dates from July 1704. 7Ibid., pp. 467. collect Y tercha rth Re A ‘\ urbn {I am .u If C... A . . I . o . as. I . . . ~ T... C e S C. d... C. c... .. i 5. r F. El ,. I 6 Fl. 4 a v .. a c 2.. Q r I E E .l t \ 5 a: 1 ~ a .x+ By. «C v; . 1 .NJ 1?. .5... Q. a . . N..- Qo L a v Qt . ‘ p, ... p, . A . .. .. at .. .. .d 1,. «T x L. e n A .... x Lord's proprietors accused Captain Valentine Bird, the collector at the time, of “suffer[ing] the New England Traders to load and carry away the Tobacco of the Country without paying the said Duties,” revealing that local merchants with political power allowed those within their kinship and trade alliances to avoid making customs payments.8 The Pasquotank, Chowan, and Roanoke rivers come to sea together in Albemarle Sound, one of several inlets along an irregular coastline. Albemarle is the northernmost sound of North Carolina, just south of the Chesapeake. As Albemarle Sound meets the Atlantic shifting sand banks form barriers between the Albemarle community and the sea. These outer banks were a notable and influential geographic feature of North Carolina coastal settlements. Atlantic waves created and recreated these sand reefs whose ebbs and flow 8Ibid., pp. 257, 292. Valentine Bird “appointed Collector who went on collecting ye same until the yeare 1676 In which yeare there being A warr with yet Indians & the people of the said Countrey for yet reason in armes they were perswaded by Geo. Durant, Valentine Bird the Collector & one White with others to fforce the Governor to remitt to the New England men ( by whose hands were brought to them all sorts of English Comodities) three farthins of the said 1d Plb the said Durant having then a considerable quantitie of Tobacco to receive & which hee was to ship for New England.” 292. The colonial parliment made during culpeper disorder included Tho. Collen Speaker, James Blunt, Anthony Slocum, Jon Vernham, Henry Bonner, Jon Jenkis, Sam. Pricklove, Willm Therrill, Caleb Calloway, Alexamder Lillington, Willm Crawford Vallentine Bird William Jenings, Tho. Jarvies, Enoch Bilings, Rich Sanders, Patrick White & Willm Sears. The Court was made up of Jon Jenkins, Willm Craford, James Blunt, Patrick White and Valantine Bird with Richard Foster as chief Judge, pp. 273. George Durant was Attorney General, pp 282. Such merchant alliances produced governmental instability during the initial two generations of settlement. 5 .C 85 C03: sometimes made shipping difficult. Ekirch argues, “Because of the economic burdens imposed by their poor port facilities, North Carolinians conducted a considerable trade through neighboring Virginia and South Carolina. All told, only about a half of the colony’s trade went through its own ports.”9 However, Joseph Goldenberg argues, that despite the problems with North Carolina’s port, the region still ‘engaged in a fair-sized trade with coastal, West Indian and European ports.”10 Smaller ships like sloops and schooners were the more common trading vessel and he argues much of the trade was conducted with New England, rather than London.11 A smaller number of larger British owned vessels, which were probably built in North Carolina, conducted trade between Britain and the colony.12 Over the course of the colonial period, shipping rose significantly across the colonies. Ekirch, argues “it was estimated that the annual value of goods exported through North Carolina ports averaged L76,000 sterling by 1768- 1770, as opposed to only L8,000 in 1736.”13 A comparison to 9Ekrich, pp. 16. 10Joseph Goldenberg, “Names and Numbers: Statistical Notes on Some Port Records of Colonial North Carolina." American Neptune, 29(3), 1969, pp. 155. 111b1d., pp. 156. 12Ibid., pp. 158. 13Ekrich, pp. 17. See also, James F. Shepherd and Gary M. Walton, Shipping, Maritime Trade, and the Economic Development of Colonial North America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), pp. 47. 6 IES q VLF A.\ 0 an: «.3 3 . .‘J average annual value of exports for the years 1768-1772 shows North Carolina’s annual exports valued at L152,000, Virginia’s at L731,000, and South Carolina’s at L447,800. At one count during this period the white population for North Carolina was 30,025, for Virginia 259,272 and 49,047 for South Carolina. Thus, the value of exports per white resident in North Carolina was L1.17, for Virginia L2.82 and South Carolina L9.13.“ However, if Goldberg is right and half of North Carolina’s exports went through other ports its export value would be closer to L300,000 making North Carolina's per capita export value nearer to L2.34 per person and thus nearly equivalent to Virginia’s per capita export value. Lack of centralized port facilities made North Carolina town development take a different course than South Carolina's, Charleston, Virginia’s Alexandria, Pennsylvania’s Philadelphia, Massachusetts's, Boston or New York’s, New York City. North Carolina’s towns remained small through the mid—eighteenth century with none developing into a major port city. William Byrd II wrote about Edenton, the largest town by the mid 17005, l4Ekirch, pp. 18. small at An tae dot and its part of even 5: the lo< 5:.- describing “may be forty or fifty houses, most of them small and built without expense.”15 Analysis of the export economy must be compared with the domestic economy. Production for the domestic market and items purchased for personal use make up the larger part of the colonial economy. Betty Pruitt argues that even supposedly self-sufficient colonial farmers engaged in the local market and therefore were not truly self— sufficient?16 Menard, Carr and Walsh find the same involvement by planters in the domestic economy in late 17th century Maryland.l7 Richard Bushman argues that geographically market production was a greater force along rivers which provided easier market access.18 Thus, Albemarle’s river system promoted planter participation in local markets, even without urban growth. Demographics also influences social, political and economic development. James Axtell, for example, studies the early period with an emphasis on contact between white Europeans and Indians. He defines a frontier as a contact 15Louis B. Wright, ed., The Prose Works of William Byrd of Westover: Narratives of a Colonial Virginian (Cambridge, Mass., 1966), pp. 207. l6Betty Pruitt, “Self-Sufficiency and the Agricultural Economy of Eighteenth-Century Massachusetts, William and Marygguarterly, 41 (3) 1984, pp. 333-364. 17Lois Green Carr and Loren S. Walsh, “The Planter's Wife: The Experience of White Women in Seventeenth-Century Maryland,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser. 39 (1977), pp. 542-571. 18Richard Bushman, “Markets and Composite Farms in Early America,” William and Mary Quarterly 55(3), 1998, pp. 351-374. 8 arena whe1 generally group est their own trontier. the defee arena where multiple autonomous societies engage in generally egalitarian mutual cultural exchange. Once a group establishes hegemony and other groups' control over their own destiny is compromised, the region is no longer a frontier. According to this definition, Albemarle until the defeat of the Tuscarora was a frontier community. Axtell argues that Indian communities adapted creatively to Euroamerican culture.19 Europeans depended on Indians for food, tobacco, labor, transportation, military alliances, sexual/social partners. Indians adopted technology, clothing and alcohol into their society and with contact came deadly diseases. Once the balance of cultural exchange tipped towards Europeans, a new phase in the sequence of development began. This was true for North Carolina, but this tipping in balance of power occurred much later in this colony than in Maryland or Virginia. During the late seventeenth century around 150 Meherrin Indians and 200 Chowanoc, Pasqoiutank, Poteskeet and Yeopim Indians lived within the borders of English settlement.20 The southern banks of Albemarle Sound marked the edge of 19James Axtell, The Invasion Within: The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985). 20Peter H. Wood, “The Changing Population of the Colonial South: An Overview by Race and Region, 1685-1790” in Peter H. Wood, Gregory A. Waselkov, and M. Thomas Hatley, eds., Powhatan's Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989): pp, 38, 43-46. 9 English - this sou luscorot in the c relation regions leaders . restrict; Sound aCC English colonization to 1713: the Tuscarora Indians occupied this southern and southwestern region.“~ Prior to the Tuscorora war, 30,000 Tuscarora and Algonquian Indians lived in the coastal Carolina region.‘22 The Tuscarora pursued trade relations and allowed English settlement in the northern regions of the Albemarle Sound area. In 1672, Albemarle leaders and Tuscarora chiefs reached an agreement in restricting English settlement south of Roanoke (Albemarle) Sound and the Chowan river.23 English settlers had moved into the area from Virginia in the 16503. Possibly the oldest land grant record in North Carolina was that made by the King of the Yeopim Indians to George Durant for land on the Perquimans River and Roanoke sound.24 The English numbered only a few hundred in the 16703. Lord Culpeper estimated the Tuscarora in 1683 somewhere near 7,000, at least twice that of Albemarle English settlement at the time, implying that 21Thomas Parramore, “The Tuscarora Ascendancey “The North Carolina Historical Review Vol. LIX (4) 1982, pp. 315. 22Wood, “The Changing Population,” pp. 38, 43-46. 23Donald W. Meinig, The Shaping of American, Vol. I Atlantic America, 1492-1800 (New Haven Conn.,: Yale University Press, 1986) pp. 147,307- 309, 312-131 and H. Roy Merrens, Colonial North Carolina in the Eighteenth Century (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1964) PP. 20. 24William Saunders, ed., The Colonial Records of North Carolina, Vol. I, (Raliegh N.C. 1886 and Willmington, N.C.: Broadfoot Publishing 1993). Hereafter cited as Colonial Records. 10 the Engli balance 0 actively settlene: colonial towns we: li‘.€ Indians ; history‘s eliminat, the English numbered only a few thousand if that.25 The balance of power lay with the Tuscarora as colonists actively courted the deerskin trade. Expanding English settlement by land purchases from neighboring Indians and colonial grants meant that by 1709 at least fifteen Indian towns were included in the colony, most in Bath County.26 The demographic collapse of most eastern woodlands Indians populations in the 17the century is significant. Mitchell argues that the 16803 were a watershed in colonial historyd27 Indian resistance on the coast had been eliminated and slavery had been securely established in the Chesapeake. North Carolina, however, did not reach this moment of watershed until the early 17003. Settled as a frontier zone of Virginia, Albemarle county attracted English colonists seeking land from more established colonial regions, principally Virginia. Settlements incentives for those arriving before January 1, 1665 were eighty acres for every armed freeperson and spouse and servant men coming in and “for every weaker Sarv't he or she hath brought or sent or shall bringe or send as afores’d as woemen children and slaves above the age of fowerteene yeares, forty acres like measure And for 25Parramore, pp. 313. 26Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 743. 27Mitchell,“The Colonial Origins of Anglo-America.” 11 every Christian Serv't is brought or sent within ye said time to his or her proper use and behoofe when their time For or Sarvitude is expired forty acres of like measure.” colonists who arrived in the second year of settlement, In thirty acres was granted for each slave brought in.28 the colony granted forty acres for a man At the the third year, twenty for weaker servants or slaves. servant, expiration of indentured servants term of service, Christian servants were to be given twenty acres. In court planters recorded headrights for servants and Thus seen from these records, slaves as well as family. North Carolina built a black as well as a white population. Black men and women arrived from the beginnings of colonial Presumably most came as settlement as servants or slaves. slaves, Virginia having already set a precedent for black Imported blacks rarely were named, but rather slavery. listed as “negro”; if they were named, no last names were Symons proved 5 given as they were for the presumably English servants. For “Wm. example, one court record stated, Ifiicyhts, Wm. Symson, Robert Smith, Emanuel Altooy, Maria a Later neegro transport, Hannah Symson freedom right.”29 \ 2&3 SJ‘Sgblonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 87—88; thirty acres was given for thQVes brought in during the second year of settlement and twenty for 2 99 third year. 1 6%gher-Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 11 This example came from March 12 headrigh' For exar' toionist Sarah Be PL ' CAI-18:0: ‘ l ‘QC'( .3. AC UL hZ-n ‘u headright records often did not record even first names. For example one court session granted headrights to several colonists bringing in black men, women and children. John Bently imported “Richard Bently Jean Bently Mary Bently Sarah Bently a negre Boy a Negroe Woman an Indian Boy.” Christopher Butler brought in “his wife & tow children and a negroe girl.” Edward Mayo got rights for “Edward May Senr Eward Mayo Junr Sarah May Ann Mayo Elizabeth Mayo three Negroes John Nixon Em Nixon Ann Nixon Affica Pike Samuel Pike in all thirteene.” Mr.Patrick Baly recorded “himself Lucy Harvey an Negroe Woman Margrett Hamelton two Rights John Hudson Simon Daxter”3O Incoming families usually brought in one or two black Slaves along with family members and a few English Servants. In another instance, recorded in January l696a“Thoma3 Speight proved tenn Rits Whoes Names are under WI‘etten vix himselfe Richard Malone Nich Perru John Morres Eli Zabeth Morres John Morres Juner William Morres Mare Marres Nathaniel Rave Fone a Negro.” Fone, like most blacst, was listed last, which given the order for listing of I‘lames, was lowest social strata. This was also the case for Francis Foster who “proved Six Rits Whose names are under Wretten William ffoster John ffoster Elizabeth 3\ C) SQ\lonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 394-396. 13 ffoster ffrancis ffoster Jeane Wetman a Negro Hanna.”31 A few incoming colonists brought in greater numbers of and interestingly their status can not always be blacks, “Anne Stuart Ser proveth inferred as slave. For instance, 6 rights viz four negroe one English servt and Virgill Simons”32 This is interesting because the English servant is .not named either and the negroes could very well have been :servants by this wording. Other entries point to similar “James mills proves his right to assumptions, for instance, eeikght hundred and fifty acres of land by the importacon of Geor Sutton and his wife Nthanl Jmes Mills. Edw Conquest, Josehp Sutton, Mary Gosby Eliz Sutton, Wm Hague Sutton, anrtuianiell Marker, one Neg servt, James Hunds Jon Pinck and his wife Jane Garrett, Jno Overton Joseph Pitts/’33 This SuQQests James Mills brought in a negro servant, not a Slave, because he or she was not listed as just “negro,” as Inc>13€3 Icommon, for example that of Samuel Swann who “Sheweth 'tt1E35tl he hath Right to 640: acres of Land for the IIUHF>C>rtation of 13: persons Into this Countrey (viz.) Samuel 53 V'Eirlrh and Sharah his wife, William, Samuel, Samson, Henry \ 311 32 bid” pp. 480. 33 id., pp. 415. In the September court of 1694. %nial Records, Vol. I, pp. 436. 14 and Thoma. Swann, Eliza Hunt Tom, Mary, Hannah, Elizabeth and Jane Negroes/’34 Negro women initially dominated black imports according to headright records. Typical entries followed that of Thomas Speight who imported “Mary Speight Sen Ditto Jun John Hetterter Mary Fitt Garrat Elizabeth Do Negro Hannah & himselfe/’35 Another reads, “Dennis Macclendon praying to prove Rights to a Hunderd Acres of Land by the Importacon of two persons visl Michael Downing & Habelle a Negro & is admitted/’36 The following year “Isaac Wilson by his Subscripcon proves Rights to Twelve hundred acres of Land by the Importacon of Mary Coasman Eliz. Boasman, John Morris Richard Ruckman, Negroe Phebe Indian Mall Negore Patt Negro Maria James White 2 Anne Barker Geroge Baits 2 my wife Rebekah Ratcliffe George Rice Richard Gove Simon Alderson Joseph Canerle Richard Turner, William Barnstable John Hooks Isaac Ricks & Abraham Ricks.” 37 Each of these families imported family members, servants and one black woman except for Isaac Wilson who imported three black W0 . men and one Indian women. \ 34 . 3511\1931er-Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 82. Ga\0\lonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 582. This case is from 1703. Mary Fitt andrat later shows up in court as Speight’s servant on bastardy charges 36 given additional time. 373%0nia1 Records, Vol. I, pp. 618. January 1704/5. bid” pp. 652. January 1705/6. 15 These headright claims underscore the make up of a multiracial dependent class. Plantations were peopled with black and Indian servants and black and Indian white, “we have slaves. By 1710, a letter from Rev. Adams claimed, in this parish of Caratauk five hundred and thirty-nine souls, whereof ninty-seven are Negroes, one Quaker, and according to five or six of no professed religion.” Thus, 11iS count around 1 in 6 persons was black.38 In 1721, a Euapresentation of the Board of Trade to the King Upon the £3teate of his Majesty’s Plantations in America reported, “We sires not thoroughly informed of the number of Inhabitants, totit. according to the best accounts we could get the number C>f7 13ersons in their Tythables or Poll Tax were not long 'Slilicze about 1600 of which about one third were Blacks.“39 This meant that the black population was in continual CC>l'ltaict with the white population and that most whites had regL11ar contact with blacks, either their own servants or ESJ‘Ei‘Jes or their neighbors. The population figures are sparse. Four thousand white EDEECDIDle were estimated in 1694.40 Historian Alan Watson \ :38 39Ibido, pp. 722. 40Q\Ql_onial Records, Vol. II, pp. 419. Onna Spindel, “Women's Civil Actions, 1670-1730” The North Carolina Eli “Storical Review, LXXI (2) 1994, pp. 154. She cites Evarts B. Greene Virginia D. Harrington, American Population before the Federal Q Cl Q I‘SUS of 1790 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932) pp. 156; and 16 concludes that in 1700 there were approximately 10,000 inhabitants. By 1720 there were 21,000 inhabitants. In 1729 when the North Carolina was purchased from the Lords Proprietors, the population was estimated at 36,000.41 Watson estimates the black population at 1,000 in 1705 and 6,000 in 1730. Thus in the early eighteenth century the ratio of black to white was 1 in 6.42 Slaves, he argues, tvere found in 37 percent of the eastern counties' families.‘43 This means that blacks lived closely among the rvtrite population rather than in slave quarters with large ratinfloers of other blacks. North Carolina followed a demographic pattern somewhat similar to that of the Chesapeake. Until the late 16703, servants outnumbered .SjléaXIes nearly five to one, but by 1700, slaves outnumbered isealf‘fiants by over three to one in Maryland. Even so, only ‘t‘V<3131;y percent of farmers owned slaves, and of these ninety peIZ‘CZent only owned one or two.“4 The society created was stratified. In Bertie county, North Carolina, the western edge of Albemarle, Watson found ‘t rIEiTZ “the poorest 30 percent of the population owned 1.7 \ Ge Rezrge Burrington to Board of Trade January 1, 1733, in Colonial 1i7:-JE:5g§, Vol. III, pp. 433, 4 Zwatson, Society in Colonial North Carolina, pp. 3-4. 4 Bibidolpp‘ 6. 44Mbid., pp. 20 Ch ltchell and Groves, North America: The Historical Geography of a Wig Continent, (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Littlefield 1987) 17 percent of the wealth and the richest 10 percent, 58.8 percent.”45 A majority of planters owned less than 250 acres in 1735 quitrent lists. Ekrich argues “Few owned more than 1,000 acres, and only four in excess of 5,000.” He argues that “A 1720 Perquimans County tax list, itemizing both landholders and nonlandholders, reveals that nearly three- quarters, or 72 percent, of all household heads owned land. 21 recent study of slightly earlier tax lists has arrived at a: similar figure for neighboring Pasquotank County as well EiS :for Perquimans.” In Pasquotank, more than 63% of the (pnsgrulation did not own slaves in 1739. None held over ten and most being 1-5 slaves.46 However stratified, the class and racial structure was £3t:i.J;l fluid to some extent. This extent is debated in the historiography. Jordan argues that slavery and racism were :irit:earrelated forces and enslavement was an ‘unthinking Clea<3itsion.” He places heavy emphasis on English notions of \ ‘c>t11Iers' and beliefs in social hierarchy generated from the gIteiat chain of being that developed from the scientific c: . . . . . (Innlnunity. He paid little attention to economic forces w . 1‘1:L<2h provided important justification for slavery.47 \ 455 46 atson, Society, pp. 8. 47 lfirch, pp. 20-21. Ne lnthrop D.Jordan, White Over Black: American Attitudes toward the to 1550—1812 (1968). 18 1‘ L, wil' I ‘1 C) (J‘ r) P“ .Ir- Edmund Morgan analyzing the way in which slavery replaced indentured servitude as the dominant form of labor in the Chesapeake argues that racism was a product of slavery.48 T.H. Breen and Stephen Innes echo this argument giving evidence for increasing racism in the seventeenth century Virginia eastern shore.‘49 Breen writes, “The status of black men in mid-seventeenth century Virginia remains cabscure; a few were free, some were indentured servants and nuast were probably slaves. After 1660 the Virginia ;lex;islature began to deprive black people of basic civil irikghtsm The problem with this interpretation is that it :reeJhies too heavily upon statue law as opposed to social practice, and dismisses the fact that some whites and k>J—Ei<:ks cooperated-even conspired together— until the late 167 Os.”5° The servant and slave conspiracies and rebellions (>1? tflne 16603-16803 included white and black laborers and bléick slaves. Economic status marked this group in the eyes of the planters. Interracial coupling created complex social realities fkln:‘thering the development of a multicultural strata of £3 . . C><31Lety. For instance Watson argues that “John Carruthers \ 4i3 4 SEdmund Morgan, American Freedom, American Slavery (1975) On - H. Breen and Stephen Innes, “Myne Owne Ground” : Race and Freedom Nrginia’s Eastern Shore, 1640-1676 (New York: Oxford University 50383, 1980). reen, “A Changing Labor Force and Race Relations,” pp. 7. 19 Stanly, a prosperous mulatto, was generally assumed to be the son of wealthy merchant John Wright Stanly.”51 Such realizations are important to understanding North Carolina society's racial fluidity. Black, White and Indian sexual unions and family formations blur the borders of raCial separation. Indians had contact with both white traders and black traders, and through these contacts marriages and §liaisons further tied the white, black and Indian cxmnmunities together. James Merrel argues, “Meeting with ZAfdno-American became more common after 1700 when blacks fircnn the colonies of Virginia and Carolina began entering ‘tlie: Piedmont to exchange European goods for native deerskins. Most of these men were probably owned by white tlrwacders. Whatever their status in colonial society, it Se'EBITIS likely that upon reaching Indian territory they left lea(Baldistinctions behind. As Peter Wood has shown, fl:.c>1‘1'tier conditions were not conducive to the maintenance (Di? Ei racially segregated, rigidly hierarchical slave S3P’ES‘tI.em.”52For example one of the first English families to es . . . Eitl1lle in Albemarle, the Durants, married into the Yeopim II . . . r1<3£1an community.53 However, the Indian status of their \ 5511‘? :2 atson, Society, pp. 27. GErrel, “Racial Education of the Catawba Indians” Journal of Southern W, 50(3), 1984, pp. 367. I. Qonial Records, Vol. 20 spouses was not noted until April 1714, when “Jno Durant a Yawpim Indian” brought forward a case arguing “that when he was out against the Indian Enemy under the command of Mathew Midgette, the Said Durant tooke an Indian Slave Woman. “ The court ruled the slave woman belonged to Durant, not Midgette.54 Jonothan’s previous court cases did not leave record of racial identity. Such multiracial family alliances complicate simplistic assumptions about race in the early colonial period. The same point can be made regarding women’s position in North Carolina early colonial society. Watson notes that “in seventeenth-and early —eighteenth century North Carolina married women may not have been too severely disadvantaged. In the colony’s developing frontier society widowhood and remarriage were frequent, the legal system was in its infancy, and public life was less institutionalized. As a result, domestic and public roles were less distinct and more subject to overlap.” He also found that as the century progressed and North Carolina became more settled “women in and beyond marriage found fewer opportunities to participate in the legal system” This he blames on the increasing rigidity of the English Common law, the appearance of professional attorneys and 54Higher-Court Records, 1709-1723, pp. 481. 21 the “increasing separation of private and public spheres of life”“’Therefore when George Durant put his “loving [wife] Ann Durant to bee my true and lawful Attorniee To aske deamaund sue for ]leavy] Recover and Receive of all and every maner of person or personmall many of debt or debts either by bill bond or account and likewise all other maner of goods ware or Chattles that are or properly may belonge to meem" she clearly had more economic independence within the family than is generally recognizedr56.Ann legally represented her husband, and at the same time hosted court in her home.57 Studying the intersection of commerce, with race, class and gender brings forward the outlines of a multicultural colonial society and economically interdependent classes. Indians were active in the local economy through the animal skin trade and local provision trade. The skin trade tied local merchants to the broader Atlantic world and brought in English goods. Planter merchants, tavern keepers and pack traders dispersed these goods throughout the community and served as middlemen for local provision exchange. Black slaves engaged in tacitly ‘ 55Watson, Society, pp. 24. 56Higher-Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 8. She represented George until October 1685, pp. 361. 57Higher-Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 11, 358, and 360. 22 accepted economic exchanges. Such activities complicated black white boundaries. Predominantly, white women and black slave women engaged in such trade. That women, both white and black, were most heavily associated with marketing underscores women’s central role the local economy. Women ran taverns which served as a center of local exchange for corn and pork and skins, provisions, dry goods and spirits. Such centrally placed women hosted court and played larger public roles in colonial society that generally assumed. Thus, local trade patterns fostered complicated race, class and gender relations in this early colonial community. 23 Chapter 1 “FOR HER SWEETHEART”: MARRIAGE, MERCHANT ALLIANCES AND POLITICAL POWER In late seventeenth and early eighteenth century North Carolina, merchant networks created and maintained through marriage ties and personal loyalties connected the local colonial economy with the British transatlantic economy. Transatlantic merchants supplied goods on credit to local farmers, planters, shopkeepers and traders. Jacob Price notes, “It was claimed as early as 1733 that only about one-third of the tobacco shipped to Britain came on the consignment system; the rest came on British account, presumably acquired through store trade or direct purchase.”J Court records and letters reveal social and political conflict between merchants and between merchants and local buyers. Political turmoil dividing the merchant community, such as the Culpeper and Cary Rebellions, interrupted coastal and transatlantic trade. The Albemarle region figured more prominently in the coastal economy of the seventeenth century than it later would in the mid to late eighteenth century. For this reason, Albemarle is often overlooked as a subject of ‘ lJacob Price, “Buchanan and Smith, 1759-1763: A Different Kind of Glasgow Firm Trading to the Chesapeake,” William and Mary Quarterly, 40 (1983) 3-41. 24 colonial study. Albemarle’s increasing economic marginality in the eighteenth century was due in part to closure of the Currituck inlet after the hurricane of 1693, the progressive filling of the Roanoke inlet, the political conflict of the Cary Rebellion between 1708-1711, the devastation of the Tuscarora War in 1712 and the rise of a wealthier society based on slavery in the Cape Fear region bordering South Carolina. Political power shifted away from Edenton southward in the eighteenth centuryfiHowever, from intial European settlement until the transfer of the colony from the Proprietors to the Crown in 1729, the Albemarle region was the center of North Carolina trade. Two processes fostered the growth of British trade in the American colonies: the growth of British export trade and the “consumer boom” in the eighteenth century. In 1701, the American colonies received only thirteen percent of English exports and reexports. By 1733, the colonies received thirty three percent of the British export trade.3 This growing export trade is evident in the early colonial 2John L. McCusker and Russell R. Menard, The Economy of British America, 1607-1789 (Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), pp. 131-133. In the Chesapeake region, which Albemarle most closely resembled in geography and economy and demographics, the extensive river systems in the region made the developement of a densely populated urban center unnecessary to economic develoment, pp.170 David Hancock, Citizens of the World: London Merchants and the liltigration of the British Atlantic Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge LJniversity Press 1995), pp. 29. 25 my“ hat Uta O. f iv: \ T :- SW C ‘h ~G\_ ‘r C Cl”. court records of the Albemarle region. Vast proliferation of debt suits point to increasing consumer demands and reciprocal credit relationships, as well as the effects of a depression in the tobacco industry during these years. Historian David Hancock argues that “During the eighteenth century, British factories began producing pottery, ceramics, glassware, cutlery, leather, and paper goods at 4 He also unprecedented rates and in unprecedented volumes.” notes “an increasing profusion of commercial information between 1688 and 1768.”5 Such literature helped promote orders for English goods. The structure of trade between the American colonies and Britain relied on merchants who represented planters as factors and on independent merchants. Hancock argues that the 16603 witnessed a rise in the number of merchants serving colonial interests and that “most international merchants, whether or not they were involved in the American trade, were ‘in some respects Factors’; indeed as ‘Ibid., pp. 29. 5Ibid., pp. 33. See also Paul Langford, A Polite and Commerical People: Eggland, 1727-1783 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). The increasing advertisement of commercial goods is documented in John J. McCusker and Cora Gravesteijn, The Beginnings of Commercial and Eganacial Journalism: The Comodity Price Curents, Exchange Rate §¥irents, and Money Currents of Early Modern Europe (Amsterdam: NEHA 991). 26 mar»: His I .Ir. 1 r1 . , l S w u . mm 5 S S h.‘ I C“ ‘ Fl ‘ t. the author of a popular trade directory noted, it was ‘very hard to distinguish the Merchants that are not Factors.”6 Such transatlantic merchants supplied North Carolina traders, tavernkeepers and shopkeepers with “Goodes and Wares” in exchange primarily for furs, tobacco and pork. Historian Joseph Goldenberg writes, “Despite poor harbors and navigational hazards, North Carolina engaged in a fair- sized trade with coastal, West Indian and European ports.”7 Using port records from 1771-1776, Goldenberg found that sloops and schooners were the most common trading vessel. In this five year period, four hundred and fifty vessels traded from the Roanoke Port. Most common were New England owned trading vessels, and consequently “the major portion of North Carolina’s coastal trade was conducted with New England.”8 Larger British owned vessels, which were probably built in North Carolina, conducted trade between Britian and the colony.9 North Carolina’s local economy functioned similarily to those of other North American colonies characterized by small holdings, those on the New England frontier and the 6Ibid., pp. 124. 7Joseph Goldenberg, “Names and Numbers: Statistical Notes on Some Port Records of Colonial North Carolina,” American Neptune, 29(3), 1969, pp. 155. :Ibid., pp. 156. glbid., pp. 158. See Capt Godfrey’s shipment for an example of such .rade. 27 Chesapeake.10 Kevin Sweeney, in his analysis of a merchant family, the Williams, of western Massachusets, notes that “Merchants and professionals such as the Williamses played important roles as mediators and brokers within the local exhange system and between the local market economy and the larger regional and inter-colonial economies.”11 Based on this Western Massachusetts family’s account book, Sweeney argues that “well-to-do farmers regularly used local market exchanges to acquire basic foodstuffs such as wheat and beef.”12 In the Chesapeake region, which North Carolina most closely resembled, the store system and the consignment sytem operated simultaneously. But, as Price indicates, both models left the region dependent on British merchants. He argues “neither [model] has any place for independent merchants in the Chesapeake, though we know that there were such from the earliest days of w McCusker and Menard, 138-140. They argue that planters ‘often engaged in trade and they provided capital to provincial merchants.’ However, they argue that until 17603 these merchants were primarily factors for British firms. This does not seem to be true of seventeenth century North Carolina. Law suits by British firms appear by the early 17003, but prior to this the suits were brought to court by merchants representing themselves and who were landed in the colony. Kevin Sweeney, “Gentlemen Farmers and Inland Merchants: The Williams Family and Commercial Agriculture in Pre-Revolutionary Western Massachusetts,” Dublin Seminar for New England Folklife, 20 (1986), pp. 6. Ibid., pp. 67. 28 settlement.”13 Such independent merchants traded on small ‘ For instance, Price argues, “The best known accounts.l example of the primarily retail type is William Cuninghame & Co., whose postwar debt claims consisted overwhelmingly of accounts owing under L10 each.”15 Such independent practices were similar to those of merchants in South Carolina too. Using a Charleston merchant, John Guerard, to charaCterize merchant planters, historian Gary Nash found that “The goods were sold to planters and shopkeeps from Guerard’s stores, sales which were supported by regular advertisements in the South Carolina Gazette.”16 Small debt suits were common in the North Carolina courts and point to numerous small independent merchants rather than agents of British merchant houses. North Carolina merchant planters most commonly brought small debt suits to court. Many of these debts were called in during the settlement of estates and so provide glimpses of trade that otherwise would have been finished and recorded in long lost accounts. For example, Mary Porter and her son John Porter, executors of Mary’s late husband's will, brought John Salley to court for fifty pounds eight ¥ l3Price, “Buchanan and Simson,” pp. 3. ::McCusker and Menard, pp. 133-134. l6Price, “Buchanan and Simson," pp. 4. RJC. Nash, “Trade and Business in Eighteenth-Century South Carolina; The Career of John Guerard, Merchant and Planter,” South Carolina fflistorical Magazine, 96(1), 1995, pp. 16. 29 shillings and a penny in skins at two shillings per pounds for “Divers wares and Goods & Marchandizes.”17 A majority of colonial merchants traded on small scales, and many only for brief times. Zahedieh found in examing the 1686 London port books 1,800 persons participating in colonial trade.18 Of these, sixty percent of merchants exported goods worth less than L50, similar to the Williams family of Massachusets. Half of the merchants recorded in 1686 do not appear in the previous or following year. Zahedieh argues that “the leading colonial merchants of 1686 were ‘new men’ not only in the sense of having built up capital through accumulation in trade but also in the sense that only around one-third of the group were born in London.”19 Colony based merchants facilitated the export of British goods to the colonies. Zahedieh argues that of the fifty eight merchants studied, a vast majority concentrated trade to one colonial port. He argues “this strong specialization by port stemmed from the overwhelming necessity of firm reliable credit networks dependent on little more than the fragile ties of reciprocity and l7Colonial Records, Vol. II, pp. 116. l“Zahedieh, “Making Mercantialism Work: London Merchants and Atlantic Trade in the Seventeenth Century,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society [Great Britian] 1999, pp. 146. w . Ibid., pp. 148. 3O reputation and the difficulty of maintaining more than very few such relationships.”20 In Albemarle for example, Captain John Hecklefield brought a debt suit in 1703 against Captain Richard Sanderson for ten pounds. Hecklefield also prosecuted a suit against William Nicholson and got an attachment against his estate. Another merchant Nathenial Chevin bought John Blish to court in 1713 for a debt of eleven pounds. The court that Blish pay “ye Sume of Eleven pounds with Costs al Esx.”21 Chevin also brought suit against James Fleming for debt of three pounds five shillings and four pence.22 John Blish himself was a merchant and on being prosecuted for debt due to Chevin he prosecuted George Cooper for a debt of three pounds one shilling and three pence.23 Blish also brought suit against John Powell for forty shillings.“ These merchants lived in North Carolina and had land holdings. They were colony based merchants who trade on small scale within their community. These colony based merchants shipped to and from an economy centered along the river systems that supplied the 20Ibid., pp. 154. 21Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 97. 22Ibid., pp. 99. 23Ibid., pp. 101 and 107. 2‘Ibid., pp. 101. 31 Albemarle Sound.25 In letters from Mr. Blair's Mission to North Carolina he described the settlement pattern as such: “this precinct, as they are all bounded with two rivers, and those rivers at least twenty miles distanct, without any inhabitants on the road, for they plant only on the rivers, and they are planted in length upon those rivers at least twenty miles.”26 Accusations that colonists protected and supported international pirates, Spanish and French traders as well as British suggest that the river systems were central to the local economy and functioned as an urban market center, illegal as well as legal. For example, a letter from Edward Randolph described, “the swift Frigat being drove out of Virginia by storm and coming a shore upon the sands in that Province, the Inhabitants Robb’d her . tis a place which receives Pirates, Runaways, and Illegal Traders.”27 Furthermore, he explained, “the inlet of Carituck lies conveniently for carrying away the Tobacco made in the Southern parts of Virginia. The inlet of Roanoake is frequented with small vessels trading to & from the West India Islands. Pyrats & runaway Servants resort to this place from Virginia etc.“8 Trade along such a river ¥ 25Harry Roy Merrens, Colonial North Carolina in the Eighteenth Century: A Study in Historical Geography (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1964) pp. 33. RColonial Records, Vol. I., pp. 602. "Ibid., pp. 527. 28Ibid., pp. 467. 32 system was difficult to regulate, and control of trade was a pivotal issue in local politics. Indeed, like control of trade, control of the colonial government was a question brought to royal court by trade advisors many times in the eighteenth century. Control over trade was central to North Carolina’s political turmoil. A 1705 letter to the Queen reporting on the proprietary and charter governments in America described the region as such: “they have assumed to themselves a power of making Laws contrary & repugnant to the Laws of England, and directly prejudicial to Legal Tradem There colonies are the refuge and retreat of Pirates and Illegal Traders and the receptacle of Goods Imported thither from Foreign parts, Contrary to Law.”9 A similar description fifteen years later suggests little change, and warned “The Government of the Province having for many years been a very disorderly on this becomes a place of Refuge for all the Vagabonds whom either Debt or Breach of the Laws have driven from the other Colonies on the Continent and Pirates have too frequently found entertainment amongst them.”30 ”Ibid., pp. 633. 3oColonial Records, Vol. II., pp. 420. 33 The political disorder in early Carolina stemmed from merchant planters struggles for local political power. Control of trade brought potential for great profits, either through making allowances for piracy, selling goods at high prices, or letting ships pass without payment of duties. The proprietors and the assembly enacted laws to try to regulate trade, but realistically merchant alliances determined actual functioning of such laws. In the Acts of the Assembly of Albemarle confirmed in January 1669 -70, “An Act Against Ingrocers” stated, “Whereas divers adventurers have transported Commodyties into this County which hath binn engrossed by some particular persons to retaile again at unreasonable rates to the Inhabitants of this Countym” Ten thousand pounds of tobacco was the fine for “sell[ing] and retaile[ing] againe at unreasonable ”M No cases come to court under rates to the Inhabitants. this law. In order to centralize the collection of duties, tariffs and customs, and to control pricing, a fine was set for every ton loaded or unloaded anywhere else but in a port town.32 No cases came to court under this law either, but two major political uproars, the Culpeper and the Cary k “Ibid., pp. 185. ”Ibid., pp. 202. 34 rebellions, drew out accusations that tarrifs were not collected, along with accusations of piracy among government officials. For example, Robert Holden wrote to the commissioners of customs in June of 1679, reporting that “about H dozen traders of this place with their complices receive the greatest part of the production of tobacco in the County of Albemarle in the Province of Carolina annually & a person whom through their interest with the people have factiously made on Mr. Culpeper (a Gentleman I Know not) the Collector of his Majesty's Customes.” Holden accused them of “such notorious pranks with the specious pretences of doing justice and preserving the King’s rightsm they have liberty without further examination here to carry the same (tobacco) to Ireland, Holland, France, Spain or any other place under the notion of fish and such like goods by which the trade is so diverted from the true rules of Commerce that trafique in this Western world.”33 Control of trade was a central issue in the Culpeper rebellion of 1677. Thomas Miller stated in an affidavit in court that “hee had gotten into his custody sundry specialties and other effects of Tobacco received to the quantity of 8 or 900 hogsheads together with sundry other ”Ibid., pp. 244-245. 35 European Goods seized as illegally imported to the value of 1200L sterling.” These were taken from him in a rebellion contrived by, “Richard Foster, John Culpeper and several others and that the said John Culpeper assuming the title of Collector of his Ma’tys Customs took the same into his custody & embezzled greate part thereof if not the whole and suffered vessels illegally to trade.”34 Another such complaint written to the Lord’s proprietors accused Captain Valentine Bird, of “suffer[ing] the New England Traders to load and carry away the Tobacco of the Country without paying the said Duties.”35 Thus, the Culpeper rebellion was about control of trade as much as control of government.36 However, Mattie Parker argues that “In considering the causes of the Albemarle uprising of 1677, the constitution crisis of the colony should be given emphasis. Although "Ibid., pp. 255. 3sIbid., pp. 257, 292. Valentine Bird “appointed Collector who went on collecting ye same until the yeare 1676 In which yeare there being A warr with yet Indians & the people of the said Countrey for yet reason in armes they were perswaded by Geo. Durant, Valentine Bird the Collector & one White with others to fforce the Governor to remitt to the New Englandmen ( by whose hands were brought to them all sorts of English Comodities) three farthins of the said 1d Plb the said Durant having then a considerable quantitie of Tobacco to receive & which hee was to ship for New England.” pp. 292. Parliment made during culpeper disorder included Thomas Collen as Speaker, James Blunt, Anthony Slocum, Jon Vernham, Henry Bonner, Jon Jenkins, Sam Pricklove, William Therrill, Caleb Calloway, Alexamder Lillington, William Crawford Vallentine Bird, William Jenings, Thomas Jarvies, Enoch Bilings, Rich Sanders, Patrick White & Williamm Sears. The Court was made up of Jon Jenkins, William Craford, James Blunt, Patrick White and Valantine Bird with Richard Foster as chief Judge. 36Mattie Erma Parker, “Legal Easpects of ‘Culpeper’s Rebellion,” North Carolina Historical Review, 15(2), 1968, pp. 11-27. 36 other factors probably were involved in the colonists’ actions, they appear to have been of secondary importance.”37 Lapses in the Fundamental Constitution and delays in delivering commissions fostered competion for leadership, but powerful and competing local merchant communities were involved in delaying the commissions and creating the opening for multiple interpretations of authority. John Jenkins and Thomas Eastchurch each claimed legitimate control of the local government. The collector of duties and tariffs, Thomas Miller, acting in place of Eastchurch, had assumed leadership during Eastchurch’s delay in arriving in Albemarle. He was desposed by Jenkins supporters who gave the position of collector to Thomas Culpeper. Merchants George Durant, Capt. Gillam, Thomas Porter, James Blunt, Valentine Bird, Thomas Cullen, and Richard Foster supported the Jenkins government. The constitutional crisis created the opening for governmental dispute, but the merchants involved knew the power of the positions they tried to control. On the death of Eastchurch in Virginia, a new appointment to the governorship by the proprietors left the Jenkins government intact. The proprietors appointed fellow prorietor Seth Sothell to the ”Ibid., pp. 127. 37 governorship, but he was kidnapped by pirates and they appointed John Harvey in his place.38 This appointment of a local planter/merchant as deputy governor quieted the divisive factions within the colony for a while. Harvey, although a Jenkins supporter, had not been centrally involved in the ousting of Miller. Harvey, however died in 1679 and Jenkins, then a member of Harvey’s council, was elected by the assembly as acting governor. On his release in 1681 from the pirates, Seth Sothell took up his appointment as governor until 1689. While he was away in 1684 and 1685, a prominent powerful Quaker, John Archdale, performed the duties of of deputy governor.39 His fellow proprietors advised Sothell on his appointment to consult Archdale before making colonial appointments. Archdale’s religious and familial trading associations figured heavily in the coming Cary Rebellion. Merchant networks based in religious networks assisted in transatlantic trade, and the Quaker networks were central to trade politics in North Carolina. As Zahedieh argues, “Ready-made trust networks were clearly important tools for the aspiring merchant but for most people they 38Colonial Records, Vol. II, pp. xi, and Higher-Court Records, 1670- 1696, pp. lvii, lviii. 39Stephen Jay White, “From the Vestry Act to Cary’s Rebellion: North Carolina Quakers and Colonial Politics.” The Southern Friend: The North Carolina Friends Historical Society, 8(2), 1986, pp. 6. 38 were confined to kin networks.”40 Furthermore, he argues, religious networks helped Quakers and Jews “spread their II trade more widely. For instance, communication networks between Quaker Meetings would provide “detailed business information about their own members but also good general intelligence.“1 Hence the centrality of Carolina Quakers within Atlantic trade networks. Within this larger world made small by such trade ties, the proprietors in 1691 authorized two separate legislatures for the Carolinas with a deputy governor for North Carolina who was supposed to be secondary to the governor in Charles Town.42 In 1699, Henderson Walker was elected as president of the Council and acting deputy governor. He replaced William Harvey. On Walker’s death in 1703, Robert Daniel replaced him as deputy governor.43 A year later he was removed because he was so unpopular with the large number of Quakers in the colony.44 Thomas Cary was named deputy governor in his place. He was a Charles Town merchant and step son-law to John Archdale. However, Cary alienated a faction of Quakers by enforcing an oath of allegiance to sit in the legislature. So in 1706, John 4oZahedieh, pp. 154. “Ibid., pp. 155,156 and 158. 42White, “From the Vesty Act,” pp. 4. ”Ann Walker, Henderson’s widow married Edward Moseley. Her marriage and family ties clearly reveal that the Culpeper alliance still held power. 44Ibid., pp. 8-9. 39 Porter went to England representing the Quakers to lodge a complaint to the proprietors. He returned with a commission for new appointments of proprietory deputies. The council was authorized to elect a president to act as deputy governor in Cary’s place. However, on Porter’s return, William Glover now acted as deputy governor and Cary had moved back to South Carolina. Glover however, also refused to accept Quakers on the council without an oath and Porter and his Quaker alliance turned back to Cary and formed a new council elect Cary as president and acting deputy. The legislature was elected, and the Cary faction maintained control from 1708- 1711 (John Porter had never given Glover the new instructions from the lords proprietors which meant Cary by law was still governor). Emanuel Lowe, John Archdale’s son- in-law, was appointed to the land office.45 Glover was supported by Colonel Thomas Pollock and Cary by speaker of house, Edward Mosely. This Cary, Porter, Mosely, Lowe faction held control until 1710 when the Lord’s proprietors appointed an independent governor for North Carolina, Edward Hyde, a cousin of Queen Anne. ”Ibid., pp. 12-13. 40 Hyde's respectability and declining support for Cary enabled his easy transition to governor in 1712.46 But Hyde then declared that all proceedings of Cary’s courts in the past two years void and laws nullified. The assembly petitioned for the removal of Cary, Porter and Moseley from share in the government. Cary’s faction withdrew support from Hyde and kept all records and symbols of office from Hyde’s appointees.“7 When Hyde sought to arrest Porter and Cary he was blocked by Cary's heavily fortified house and armed ships, one being Emmanuel Lowe's, the Quaker son-in- law of John Archdale. With assistance from Governor Spotswood of Virginia Hyde arrested the Cary faction. In 1711, Cary and his supporters were freed without a trial in England and Cary returned to North Carolina. Hyde was instructed by the Lords Proprietors to not punish any party participating in the Cary Rebellion. Shortly thereafter Cary moved to the West Indies.48 Pollock, a supporter of Glover against Cary, was governor in 1712, but Edward Moseley continued as a prominent figure in North Carolina government leading the “Ibid., pp- 13-14. "Ibid., pp. 15. 4'White,“From the Vestry Act,” pp. 18-19. 41 Assembly in 1715. He was an Assembly member until appointed member of the Council in 1734.49 Court records from these years of unrest reveal alliances among the merchants involved. For example, Jacob Overman again came to court having a deed of sale from Colonial Thomas Cary to James Tookes and Colonial Edward Moseley proved by Mr. Thomas Parris.50 A court record from 1713 tells us that Tookes was a merchant. In this suit Moseley represents Tookes further solidifying the bonds between them.51 Parris was a councilman and tavern keeper whose tavern was a central site of much of the turmoil and intrigue of the Cary rebellion. A generation earlier Thomas Harris’ tavern had featured prominently in the Culpeper rebellion. In a deposition Diana Harris, wife of Thomas Harris “saithe that Thomas Miller being in hir house in discourse s’d y't of all Religions in the world the Cavallers are the veriest rogues & Thomas Will answered why soe & Thomas Miller replyed againe how can there be righteous dealing when ye King hath his hand in a whores placket & furthter saith ”52 not. That desposition strongly suggests the Harris’s 49Colonial Records, Vol. II., pp. xi, and Vol. IV., pp. XI-XIII. Moseley died in 1749. ”Ibid., pp. 103. ”Ibid., pp. 105. ”Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 316. 42 allied with Jenkins, Porter, Foster, Culpeper, Durant and Gillam faction. Diana was not the only woman involved in the uproar. An affidavit by Henry Hudson declared,“That in July ‘75 this deponent being att the house of one Mr Jo’n Jenkins in Albemarle County in Carolina did then and their both here and see a designe Contriveing and Carrying on by Jo'n Culpeper Thomas Wills and the s’d Jenkins wife against Mr. Thomas Miller privately in the s’d Jenkins Lodging & chamberm designe was to lay the s'd Miller under’ the imputation of speaking treasonable worldsm which accusation the s’d Miller ws commited in irons a prisoner by ye s’d Jenkins.”53 Merchant wives not only involved themselves in the local power struggles, but through marriage they maintained and strengthened alliances. For example, on the death of Thomas Harris, his widow, Diana, married William Foster, presumably the son of Richard Foster of the Culpeper rebellion. William in his own right signed a petition to the Lords of Trade a few years later. In 1694, Sarah Culpeper, widow of John Culpeper, married Patrick Henley.54 Patrick Henly recalled over a bottle of wine at his house “in some discourse I 53Colonial Records, Vol. I., pp. 290. 54Higher-Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 22. 43 told him [Richard Plater] m that his brother Harry meaning Henry Palin had procured or was a great Instigator in his sister having Henderson Walker for her sweet heart.”55 Thus, Walker, Plater and Palin allied through expected marriage ties, assisted each other in trade. Through these alliances we see some continuity between the two rebellions. Sarah Culpeper married Henley, associate of merchants Walker, Palin and Plater who in turn would be supportive of Cary. Similar marriage and familial ties fostered trade bonds among those opposed to Cary’s Rebellion. For example, former governor and proprietor Seth Sothell’s widow married Colonel Lear, a close affiliate of Thomas Pollock who supported Glover against the Cary coalition.56 Anna Lear was executor of her deceased husband Seth's estate. In turn, her death left Col. Lear her executor. On his death, Captain Thomas Godwin brought a case to court against Pollock for goods due Godwin from Lear’s estate claiming a debt due him from Southell’s estate.57 Another, more unusual, example of a trade alliance marriage case reveals that merchant James Blount, “unlawfully married with Mary Daugher of Mr. Nich Tyler 55Higher-Court Records, 1696-1701, pp. 529. “Higher-Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 134. ”Higher-Court Records, 1697-1701, pp. 23. At that same April 1697 court session Godwin brought a suit in behalf of Anna’s estate for “the sum of three hundred pounds Due for the work of five slaves for the space of two years and more,” pp. 24. 44 having before married with Katherine Daugther to the said Nicholas and sister to the said Mary.” James was to be whipped and Nicholas Tylor as “great promoter” of the marriage was bound to the court on good behavior and no longer eligible for government positions. Capt. Thomas Blount “great promoter etc. “was given the same punishment.58 Blount and Tyler were trade associates, and closely tied by marriage. The marriage of Alice Walker, widow of former governor Henderson Walker, to Edward Moseley reveals much about the marriage and familial ties among local merchant supportive of Cary. She wrote an extensive prenuptual document ensuring her agreements on marrying Moseley would be binding in court. In August 1705, Edward bound himself for one thousand pounds to Samuall Swann or Jonothan Lillington ensuring that he would faithfully execute her wishes. Such an agreement reveals further community ties between Anna Walker and Samual Swann and Jon Lillington.59 Anna was the ”Higher-Court Records, 1697-1701, pp. 469. ”Higher-Court Records, 1702-1708, pp. 202. The document stated, “in Consideration of the estate of the Said Walker” Edward “not having any Land or Tenements whereupon to settle a Joynture to the Said WalkermTherefore The Condition of this Obligation is Such that if the Above bound AnneWalker Should happen to Survive the Said Edward Moseley that then he the Said Edward Moseley in his last Will and Testament shall leave unto her in Money plate Jewells Slaves or household Stuff the full Summe of 500L without any Manner of Charge Limitation or Incombrance whatsoever And also that the above bound Edward Mosely shall at any tyme during the Said marriage permit the said Anne to make and putt her last will and Testament in writeing tand therein to give 45 sister of Samual Swann for she gave him power of attorney in March 1705, recording “Ann Walker widow and Executix of Honorable Henderson Walker esqr. have made ordained and deputed, and In my Staed and place by these present Constituted my Loveing Brother Samuel Swann of the precinct of Pequimans my true and lawfull attorney for me and In my name, and to my use and behoofe to Aske, Demand, Recover, and Reievall and all mannyer Singular Debts, duties, and Sums of money porke or Corne or any other Commodities goods, ware, or Merchandizes as are or Shall be due or oweing unto me the said Ann Walker..”60 Susannah Hasell was Ann's mother. Her sisters were Mrs. Mary Vailand and Mrs. Sarah Porter, according to Edward Moseley's will.61 The Swann family engaged in extensive merchant activity. Court records reveal small debts characteristic of colonial based merchants. For example in January 1698-9, “Mager Samuel Swann Shewen that Beniamen Gidden Is Indebted to him two pound eight Shillings and sigh pence Halfe penney.” Swann also brought suit against Richard Bachelder, “In a plea of debt ye sd Bachelder Confesed Judgement ordered that Richard Bachelder pay to Mager and Bequeath unot any person or person whatwover any Summe or Summes not Exceeding five hundred pounds.” 6oHigher-Court Records, 1702-1708, 177-178. 6|Bryan Grimes, North Carolina Wills and Inventories, (Raleigh Edwards & Broughton Printing Company 1912), pp. 316. 46 Samuel Swann two Hundred and fifty pounds of pork With Cost Alex Excec.”62 Thomas Swann likely was a son of Major Swann. He also engaged in trade as one document suggests, “his Suite agt James McDaniell in a plea of Debt [for] the full Sume of four pounds Six Shillings & five pence.”63 Knowing that Anna was formerly a Swan helps extend our knowledge of the Porter, Cary, Archdale, alliance to include Moseley, Swan, Walker, and Lillington. Other documents suggest that merchants Bird, Tookes, Clark and Palin and Plater and tavernkeeper/shopkeeper, Thomas Parris also traded within this alliance.64 Thomas Parris proved a deed of sale from Col Thomas Cary to James Tookes and Col Edward Mosely by his oath.65 Several months earlier Parris had proved by oath a power of attorney from Nathanial Pirkins of Boston to Captain Jonothan Pettiver which reveals connections between local trade networks and the larger atlantic world.66 Boston merchants were principle trade partners and numerous cases reveal local connections through power of attornies and debt suits increasingly by the early 62Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 521-524. 63Colonial Records, Vol. II, pp. 103. 6“Higher-Court Records, 1696-1701, pp. 529. Palin and Plater were brothers. Their sister was once the sweetheart of Henderson Walker. Their sister may have been widow Judith Clark. Walker later married Anna. The courtship either ended or Judith died. 6SColonial Records, Vol. II, pp. 103, July 1713. 66Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 81. 47 eighteenth century. For example, in July 1713, “A Boston Merchant” Nathaniel Pirkins lost a claim for seven pounds three shillings and six pence of fresh pork from John Mixon. Mixon claimed the obligation had been for the Pitch not pork.67 In 1694, Samuell Shrimpton “of Boston in New England Merchant have nominated made ordained and appointed and by these presents in my place and stead doe put and constitute my trusty friend Rich. Plater of roanock Merchant my true sufficient and Lawfull attorney for me.”68 In another case Thomas Handry a merchant of Boston gave power of attorney to John Palin.69 He then had John Palin bring a suit against Richard Morton “Late of the precinct of Coratuck Tailour” for one pound seventeen shillings and a penny for a note dated January 16, 1711. An attachment was made to the estate of Morton.7o In yet another example of the Boston-North Carolina merchant connection, John Boddard having left Curituck for Boston by November 1694 declared himself a merchant “justly Indebted and owing unto John Boreland of Boston” thirty pounds. He bound himself “to pay or cause to be paid or delivered unto Mr. Thomas Steel in North Carolina or in his absence to Mr. Thomas Pollock of North Carolina Merchants 67Colonial Records, Vol. II, pp. 99. 6sHigher-Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 48. ”Colonial Records, Vol. II, pp. 104. 7oIbid., pp. 106. 48 twenty Barrells of good and well salted and pickled porke of thirty one Gallons gage per Barrell for the account of the said John Boarland.” “ Thus, we find that Pollock and Steel were business partners who kept accounts running with John Boarland of Boston. John Rickard, a local merchant acted as “Attorney of Thomas Selby of Boston in New England” in 1723. Rickard prosecuted “an Originall Attachment against the Estate of William Dowers late of Edenton in Chowan precinct for the Sum of ten pounds” for Selby in order to settle“ an Account.”72 Carolina Merchants also traded with merchants from Bermuda. In one such case the court “Ordered that ye Honorable Danl Akehurst esqr be requested and hereby impowered to take acct of wt Goods belonging to Mr Robison and Mr. Duncombe Bermuda Merchants are in ye custody of Mr John Philpott and made delivery thereof to them ye sd ”” Such Caribbean connections were Robison and Duncombe. directed towards Bermuda in limited numbers. Merchants in the colony also conducted direct trade with London. For example, one letter from missionary Urmstrong reported that "Higher-Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 103. 72Higher-Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 207. 73Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 437. 49 “Captn Godfrey (who to the Great astonishment of every body is come a second time with a small ship from London)”.” In the Albemarle economy, merchant trade ties to local taverns provided links between the colonial community and the Atlantic world. In one case, “Capt Henderson Walker and Col William Wilkinson Exr to Majer Alex Lillington desesed” brought suit for a debt of fifteen pounds and one shilling and four pences in pork against Diana White. She at the time ran a prominent tavern in the community and had for many years.75 Diana contracted with numerous merchants and probably ran a small shop within her tavern as was common during the period. For example, Diana along with (or pushed to by) her new husband Thomas White, brought suit in 1695 against Mr. Richard Plater arguing that he “hath at diver's time Contracted account with the said Diana whilest she was sole and with the said Thomas White for meat and drinke and other Comoditys to [the] value of Eight ponds Nineteen shillings in porke as by his account.”76 It is the other “Comoditys” that draws attention and curiosity here. Plater we know from other records was a merchant tightly aligned with the Walker, Palin, Moseley alliance. 74Colonial Records, Vol.11, pp. 247. 75Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 489. 76Higher-Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 169. 50 Several decades later another case reveals a prominent tavernkeepers trade contacts. William Badham “Assignee of Collonel Thomas Harvey of perquimons in the province aforesyd by William Little his Attorney come to prosecute his Suite against John Rickard of Edenton in the precinct of Chowan Merchant and Thomas Parris of the sayd Town and precinct Ordinary keeper” for a debt of two hundred pounds.77 Thus, Thomas Parris partnered in trade with John Rickard who sometimes represented Thomas Selby of Boston. Thomas Parris’s trade connections with Moseley, Cary, Jenkins, Porter Swan, and Walker connections put his tavern in the center of the colonial merchant system and political power and turmoil, just as Thomas and Diana tavern had been a central site of the Culpeper rebellion. Local merchants wielded considerable economic and political power in the colonial Albemarle community. Through intermarriage among business associates and friends, they maintained tight trade networks that collectively struggled to maintain control over the local government within the legitimate structure of British colonial government. The merchant community through transatlantic trade contacts supplied British “Goodes and Wares” to tavernkeepers, shopkeepers, Indian traders and "Ibid., pp. 206. 51 planters. In turn, such contacts generated the loyalty that allowed political struggles for power to erupt beyond the confines of the merchant elite. For example, a 1711 letter reveals that “Mr. Porter one of Cary’s pretended Council was with the Tuscaruro Indians, endeavoring by promises of great rewards to engage them to cut off all the Inhabitants of that part of carolina that adhered to Mr. Hyde.”78 The especially lucrative Indian trade figured heavily in trade and politics in the early colonial period, as well as in political turmoil brought about by competing merchants. 78Coloniai Records, Vol. I, pp. 781-783. 52 Chapter 2 “PROMISES OF GREAT REWARDS": IMERCEANTS, INDIAN TRADERS AND THE SKIN TRADE In the summer of 1703, Thomas Barcock declared in a court deposition “he gave to tom Harriss an Indian a sow Shots and after he had had itt a Considerable time it Run from him and was Gott amongst Mathew Winns hoggs and the Indian Coming to me Desired me to go to Mathew Winns with him to gett the Shote.” Winn agreed to return the shoat, but Harris “never had it til Daniell Phillips Recovered it Ill by a Warrant from Jno. Jenkins. This incident reveals several aspects of Indian-English relations in the early colonial period. First, the English and Indians engaged in mutually beneficial trade. Second, many Indians living within and closest to English settlements in Albemarle region were Christianized, at least in name. Thirdly, Indians used the colonial court system and English allies when necessary to protect their rights. For example, John King, “an Indian” lodged a complaint in court “that John Parish and William Godfrey hath offered some abusse to him and other Indians.” Parish and Godfrey were ordered to lHigher-Court Records, 1702-1708, pp. 54. A shoat is a growing pig. 53 appear at the next court.2 Both the above cases point to sources of Anglo-Indian conflict, but also cooperation. Ultimately, conflict over land brought the Tuscarora to war in 1711.3 The Tuscorora war furthered the racialization of European ideology, and lead to the movement of a large faction of the Tuscorora north to join the Iroquois. Indian and English alliances, and kinship networks based on trade complicate generalizations about the conflict. In the midst of the war, King Tom Blunt’s alliance with the English against the warring Tuscarora faction point to the maintenancence of Carolina-Tuscarora trade alliances even during the war. Inconsistent identification of people based on nationhood or race poses a serious problem when studying early colonial documents. English records generally do not denote tribal affiliation among individuals identified as “indian”. This tends to homogenize the multiple Native Indian communities colonists dealt with and understood as distinct entities. Even more confusion results when no race is signified in one record and we assume the person to be white, but another record labels the person an ‘indian.’ 2Higher-Court Records, 1670-1696, PP. 178. October, 1695. 3David H. Corkran, The Carolina Indian Frontier, Tricentennial booklet number 6 (University of South Carolina Press: Columbia, South Carolina 1970). 54 Similar ambiguity of racial identity exists when the same person is noted in one record as an “Indian" and in a subsequent record as a “negro”. Such confusion, as in the case of Mr. Woresely's servant Pompey, highlights the complicated relationships among Indians, English colonists, and blacks in early colonial North Carolina. On November 4, 1718, the North Carolina council received an account that “a great body of Indians are now about Bath Town that they have seized Mr. Worseleys daughter and sonn with a white servant and Negroe.” As it turned out, the “whole affair [was] a Villianous confederacy of Mr Worseleys Children and servants with his slave Pompey in order as it is believed to keep the said Slave from the deserved punishment due to him for former Roguerys of this kind done by the said Pompey.” In the end, the son, John Woreley was sentenced to receive 39 lashes on his bare back and the servant, Nathaniel Ming, the one “discouvering the above said Roguery,” to have 29 lashes on his back at the same time and place. The council fined Mary Worseley ten pounds.4 The council also recomended “that all possible means be used towards apprehending and takeing the aforesaid Indian slave either Dead or alive and 4Colonial Records Vol. II, pp. 357-358. 55 in case he should be taken alive that the Governor desired to bring the said slave to speedy Justice.” King Blount was to be told of the matter and asked to encourage his Indians to apprehend Pompey.5 Thus, Pompey’s racial ambiguity points to the complexity of identity in the early colonial period. Pompey was either Indian or African descent, or both. That the Indians bore the brunt of the initial accusations surrounding the disappearance points to existing tension between the colonists and the Indians. Yet, despite the tensions the English council sought help from Tuscarora allies in recovering Pompey. Such intercultural/interracial relationships of various sorts were central to the early colonial life. Alliances did not rest solely on race, trade and kinship played important mediating roles. Such complicated relations are the result of the demographics of the region. In the mid 16003 approximately 30,000 Tuscarora and Algonquian Indians lived in the coastal Carolina region. In the Albemarle region of North Carolina, approximately 150 Meherrin Indians, who were Iroquoian speaking, lived on the Meherrin river. The Chowanoc on the Chowan River and the Pasquotank, Poteskeet, 5Ibid., pp. 313-315. 56 and Yeopim Indians, all part of the earlier Weapomeoc confederacy, lived north of the Albemarle sound and numbered about 200.6 Thomas Parramore argues that the Tuscarora from 1654-1712 “defined the limits of English settlement in North Carolina.” He writes, “the Tuscarora hunted and traded on the Virginia frontier to the headwaters of the Potomac, and not infrequently, to the shores of Chesapeake Bay itself, despite efforts by Virginia to prevent such activity.”7 The Tuscarora pursued trade relations and allowed English settlement in the northern regions of the Albemarle Sound area. In 1672, Albemarle leaders and Tuscarora chiefs reached an agreement restricting English settlement south of Albemarle. This remained the southernmost boundary of English settlement for the next thirty years.8 English settlers had moved into the area from Virginia in the 16503. Possibly the oldest land grant record in North Carolina was that made by the King of the Yeopim Indians to George Durant for land on the Perquimans River 6Peter H. Wood, “The Changing Population of the Colonial South: An Overview by Race and Region, 1685-1790” in Peter H. Wood, Gregory A. Waselkov, and M.Thomas Hatley, eds., Powhatan’s Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast ( Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989), pp. 38, 43-46. 7Thomas Parramore, “The Tuscarora Ascendancey,” The North Carolina Historical Review, LIX (4) 1982, pp. 315. HIbid., pp. 307-309, and 312-313. 57 and Roanoke sound, known in the nineteeth century as Durant’s Neck.9 The English numbered only a few hundred in the 16703 and Lord Culpeper estimated the Tuscarora in 1683 somewhere near 7,000, at least twice that of Albemarle English settlers at the time.10 The balance of power lay with the Tuscarora. Expanding English settlement by land purchases from neighboring Indians and colonial grants meant that by 1709 at least fifteen Indians towns were included in the colony, most in Bath County.11 The Native Indian population seriously declined during the early years of English colonization. Epidemics swept through the colonies wiping out entire villages of Indians. In 1696 and 1698 influenza outbroke alongside smallpox across the south.12 Serious disease epidemic was recorded in the Carolinas again in 1718f13 In 1701, John Lawson in his travels through the North Carolina upcountry noted the heavy loss in the Indian population. He wrote, “there is not the sixth Savage living within two hundred Miles of all 9Colonial Records, Vol. I. 10Parramore, pp. 313. 11Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 743. 12Timothy Silver, A New Face on the Countryside: Indians, Colonists, and Slaves in South Atlantic Forests, 1500-1800, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990)75 and Merrel “The Indians New World: The Catawba Experience, “ William and Maryyguarterly, 3“’ser., 41 (1984) pp. 542. 13John Duffy, Epidemics in Colonial America (Baton Rouge 1995) pp. 82- 83. 58 tn f i ’1' ’*I1‘) our Settlements, as there were fifty Years ago.”14 Thus by, 1720 the colony’s population was estimated at approximately 18,000 whites, 3,000 blacks with only several thousand Indians remaining. Therefore, approximately 1 in 6 persons were black and 1 in 9 persons were Indian. By 1730, the white population was over 30,000, blacks numbered 6,000 and Indians fewer than a thousand.15 Some of this decline occurred as a result of the migration of a majority of the Tuscarora north to the Iroquois following the Tuscarora War. The remaining Indian communities increasingly lived alongside English colonial settlements as Albemarle settlement spread across the newly vacated lands. Many other Indians lived within the English community as workers, indentured servants and slaves. Headrights for colonist in Albemarle during the initial years of settlement reveal little about these Indians than their presence within families entering the colony. For example, Caleb Calloway entered four rights, one for “an Indian boy.” John Bently recorded importation of “Richard Bently 14John Lawson, A New Voyage to Carolina. ed., Hugh Talmage Lefter (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1967) pp. 232. 15Higher-Court Records, 1724-1730, pp. xii. The numbers vary immensely. Colonel Pollock estimated in 1717 that there were 2,000 tithables. Thus, maybe 9,000 black and white people in all. Gov. Burrington in 1730 estimated 30,000 whites and 6,000 negroes. See Saunders, Vol, II, xvii. Thus the range reported for 1720 is wide, 9,000 to over 21,000. 59 Jean Bently Mary Bently Sarah Bently a negre Boy a Negroe Woman an Indian Boy.”16 Some Indians contested their status as servant or slave in court. The case of Alexander “an Indyan” was one of a few that came court. In October 1705, Alexander came to prosecute his suite against Juliana Lakar. He argued that in May of 1692 “by A certaine writing obligations contracted to & with the Defendant to Serve her the Defendant the full time & term of twelve yeares m att the end or Expiracon of the Sd terme [he] was to be free & att Liberty.” He argued in court that he served one year over that time and sought damage of ten pounds and “an Ordere for his freedom.” Juliana claimed she never engaged in such a contract for his freedom. The jury of twelve found for Alexander Saunders.17 Other Indians in the community were clearly slaves. In one court case dated March 31, 1713, Nathaniel Chevin prosecuted Colonial William Reed Esquire for 29 pound five shillings for the public work done by Chevin’s Indian slaves.18 In another, John Blish accused Captain Richard Sanderson of keeping an Indian woman slave named Ann and 16Colonial Records, Vol. I, 394. This was recorded in court February 1693(4) . 17Ibid., pp. 626-627. 18Colonial Records, Vol. II, pp. 95. 60 one female child that Blish claimed as his own inheritance and declared damages of sixty pounds. The jury found for Blish, but only for thirty pounds and Sanderson filed for a stay of judgement.19 Indians living in the households in Albemarle were not always slaves. For example, in the 16903 Henry Norman complained that his “man Servent an Indian called Georg West” ran away in the past September taking with him, a canoe a gun, a blanket, clothing and carpentry tools. 20He may have joined the maroons living in Dismal Swamp.21 Such runaways like George and Pompey, and hundreds others from North Carolina and Virginia sparked fears among the Carolina and Viriginia governments that unity among the escapees to the Dismal Swamp would provide fuel for colonial rebellions. One record described anxiety over “hundreds of idle debters, theeves, Negros, Indians and English servants” who would from the Swamp “make Inroads and dayly Incursions, whence great mischief may follow which may better be foreseene and prevented than after remedied, for considering the vast coast and wild woods of the backside of Virginia they may come from Maryland & the 19Ibid., pp. 113-114. 20Rigger—Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 326. 21See Leaming, Hidden Americans: Maroons of Virginia and the Carolinas, (Garland Publishing: New York & London) 1995. 61 ’flz However Wilderness between Virginia and Albemarle. worrisome such relations proved, Indian trade relationships dominated council concerns more so than that of escaped slave and servant ‘mischief’ or contested master-servant relationships. The first trade contact between the English and Indians in the Southern region took place in 1584 on Roanoke Island.23 Indians approached the English ships and traded fish for a hat, shirt and wine. A couple days later more exchanges took place. Captain Arthur Barlowe reported, “we fell to tading with them, exchanging some ”24 In things we had for Chammoys, Buffe, and Deere skinnes. 1654, a Tuscarora chief told the English of a “very rich “ Spaniard, “having about thirty in family, seven wherof are Negroes” who lived among the Tuscarora.25 Thus, the Tuscarora were familiar with European trade possibilities to some extent. These contacts were the precursors to the very lucrative Indian trade. Establishing a monopoly on this Indian trade was one of the proprietors early goals for the colony. Instructions sent to the governor by the proprietors in 1676 commanded the colonial government “to 22Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 261. 23This was not the Native Americans’ first contact with Europeans two European ships foundered in the Outer Banks earlier. See Silver, 68. “Ibid., pp. 68. 25Parramore, pp. 311. 62 observe the rules of strict justice and friendship and amity with the neighbour Indians you are to take spetiall care to prohibite all trade and comerce between the Indians and any others that are noe freeholders of our Province of Carolina.”26 Intercultural contact through trade, diplomacy, intermarriage and enslavement created a tenuous symbiotic relationship between local Indians and the English. In August 1697, William Lees John Spilman John Hardy and Henry Hayes and Dorothy Stills “bought som venson of som Indans.”27 The next day they claimed Indians “Came Creping up in the bushes and fired at us and shott Henry Hays throu the shoulder.” A majority of trade contact, however, ended on more positive mutually beneficial terms. King Tom Blount’s and residents of his town of Tuscorora Indians figure heavily in the colonial records. He sought council 26Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 231. See page 187 also for similar concerns. 27Higher Court-Records, 1696-1701, pp. 126-127. They had come away with the “Goods and Chattels of the said William Steel her said Husband viz. One Bed, one Rug, one Blankett, two bolsters, one bag and Corne, one sifter one small Rope [one] brass kettle, a pott, and pott hookes, one Jug, two treys, one bowle, tow bowles, one pail, one hammer, a parcel of nailes, one fring pan, one broad ax, andnarrow ax, a Runlett of soape, a firkin of soape, four bottles, one Lignum Vita morter and pestell, (one gun> three firelock Guns, one cake of talloe, one sheet, four Spooones, one striped serge coat and briches, one lookinglass, one trunk, one smoothing Iron, a brass ladel, a canlestick, and saveall, two plates, one pewter dish, one pepper box, and Olignum Vita Cup, one small jug, and a Canoe and Sailes and one Chest being of theValue of eight pound did take and carry away.” 63 help with English violation of land boundaries, and assitance against enemy Indians. The English sought his alliance during the Tuscarora war and enlisted his aid in recovering runaways and lost livestock. King Blunt's Indian town was tied through trade to the Albemarle settlement and products from the Indian trade made up a significant part of the North Carolina’s early colonial export. Trade networks that Blunt worked so carefully to preserve were not new to Indian communities in Carolina. Coastal Carolina Indians already participated in trade with neighboring tribes, and thus Europeans fit into established trade practices.28 Indians fit foreign goods into existing cultural patterns, but as James Merrell noted, intercultural exchange led to a dependency on European 29 goods in daily life, and that was new. Furs, primarily deerskin were traded for cloth, hats, axes, and nails.30 Rum increasingly became a trade item, as did guns.31 28Silver, pp. 69. 29Merrell, pp. 551. 30Higher-Court Records, 1702-1708, pp. xx. Traders such as John Lawson, and Micajah Perry, a London merchant dealt in furs. 31Silver, pp. 87-91. See also James Axtel, The European and The Indian: Essays In the Ethnohistory of Colonial America (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1981), pp. 257; Merrell, pp. 549—550 and Michael Morris, “South Carolina’s Board of Indian Commissioners and the Struggle to Contorl the Public Indian Trade,” Proceedings of South Carolina Historical Association (1998) pp. 52. 64 William Byrd wrote in 1728, “The Goods of the Indian Trade consist chiefly in Guns, Power, Shot, Hatchets (which the Indians call Tomahawks) Kettles, red & blue Planes, Duffields, Stroudwater blankets, and some Culary wares, Brass Rings and other Trinkets.”32 But even as Indians gained greater dependency on European trade goods, they were not duped consumers. As Merrell wrote, “If hoes were too small, beads too large, or cloth the wrong color, Indian traders refused them.”33 While Europeans remarked over the number of skins exchanged for a metal dish or copper kettle, Indian traders looked on the goods as luxury items and worth the exchange of common items such as skins.34 Such trade was so important that by 1701 Lawson wrote that the Tuscororas protected their English trade, “hating that any of these Westward Indians should have any Commerce with the English, which would prove a Hinderance to their Gains.”35 The Tuscorora Indians expanded their sphere of trade during the mid seventeenth century after the English 32William. K. Boyd, ed., William Byrds’ Histories of the Dividing Line Betwixt Virginia and North Carolina, (New York: Dover Publications) pp. 298, 300, 302. 33Merrell, pp. 549. See also Michael Morris, The Bringing of Wonder: Trade and the Indians of the Southeast 1700-1783, (Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn, 1999), pp. 7. 34Silver, pp. 68. 35Lawson, pp. 64. 65 defeated the Powhatans who were protectors of competing Carolina coastal Indian groups. The Tuscarora's subsequent increased hunting territory made them suppliers of skins to Virginia’s Indian trade. By the late 16003 the Tuscaroras supplied Mississippi Valley and Great Lakes Indians with European goods.36 North Carolina proprietors courted this already established trade network and promoted the Indian trade within the colony. With the founding of North Carolina the Proprietors immediately secured revenue from a very profitable Indian trade. This trade was significant to the prosperity of the fledgling colony. In the Acts of the Assembly of Albemarle Rattified and Confirmed by the Proprietors the 20th January 1669, the “Act prohibiting strangers from trading with the Indians,” reasoned that “as much as there is often recourse of Strangers from other parts into this County to truck and trade with Indians” justified preventing “strangers” trading with any neighboring Indians that belong to the country.37 Proprietors John Archdale, Thomas Archdale, Craven (Palatine) Ashely and P. Colleton and Thomas Amy, wrote private instructions to Collonel Philipp Ludwell, Governor of Carolina in November 1691, “Whereas it hath been 36Silver, pp. 72. 37Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 187. 66 insinuated to us in a paper signed by Andrew Percivall Robert Qurry Ralph Izzard George Muchamp John Harris and John Berresford That James Colleton Esqr our late Governor did sett up Martiall Law thereby to better Ingrosse the Indian trade to himself you are to make strict Inquiry into that matter upon Oath and give us yor report thereof in ”38 writeing. In a later letter, they advised “You are to suffer all persons that will freely to trade with the Indians.”39 Carolina colonists accusations of the governor’s monopoly and concerns over illegal Indian traders during the Tuscorora war point to the vital importance of the Indian trade to Albemarle colonists. Between 1702-1708 the Indian trade grew in North Carolina.40 32,724 Beaver skins alone were exported to England in 1702.“’Looking at South Carolina’s trade 1699- 1715, merchants exported approximately 54,000 skins a year, peaking in 1706 when 160,000 skins were exported.‘42 While on a smaller scale than South Carolina’s trade, North 38Ibid., pp. 381. Jon Harris was Diana Harris Foster White’s son, the tavernkeeper. This suggests that John, and his mother may have been involved in some degree with the Indian trade. Given that they ran the tavern together for several years and that taverns were centers for trade. 39Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 383. 4OHigher-Court Records, 1702-1708, pp. xx. 41Higher-Court Records, 1711-1723, pp. xvii; Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 873-874. 42Michael Morris, “South Carolina’s Board of Indian Commissioners and the Struggle to Control the Public Indian Trade,” Proceedings of South Carolina Historical Association. (1998) pp. 49. 67 Carolina’s trade was still significant. Historian Michael Morris argues “it was the wealth acquired from the Indian trade in deer skins which allowed South Carolinian planter to later invest in rice and indigo plantations and African Slaves.”43 Something similar can be argued for North Carolina. Jacob Price notes “there was sizable commerce with tribes inside the province [North Carolina].” Though the scale of Indian trade was not as large as that of South Carolina, it was greater than some historians argue.44 The profitability of the Indian trade gave traders some degree of influence within the government, enough so that the Proprietors of Carolina wrote, they “with a bowl of punch get who they would chosen to the parliament and afterwards who they would chosen to the Grand Council.”45 Indian traders, like those out of Charleston, generally permanently lived in Indian towns. These traders often took Indian wives. A credit agency based in London supplied credit to local colonial merchants who in turn supplied the goods, often trading goods for skins to be taken in next winter’s hunt.46 One of the earliest documented traders in Albemarle was William West who 43Morris, “Indian Commissioners,” pp. 49. “Higher-Court Records, 1702-1708, xxii. 45Morris, “Board of Indian Commissioners,” pp. 49. “Ibid., pp. 50. 68 employed Richard Booth in 1667 “to go in a Canoe with Certain goods & to the Maherine Indians Towns.” Booth went with “one Jno Browne and a certain Weyanoake Indian called Tome Frusman.”47 Glimpses, like this, of the Indian trade can be gleaned from the court records. The primary transactions were unrecorded, but the Europeans who traded with the Indians appeared with the skins in court and provided the bare outlines of a thriving Indian trade. Another early skin trader was Captain Zachariah Gilliam. He answered charges brought by Thomas Millar, then collector of duties for region, that he had not paid his customs. Gilliam declared he had paid the King his custom in England. "Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 661-662. Edward Moseley took a desposition in January of 1707, during the Virginia and North Carolina border dispute that reveals early trade in the region. He recorded, “Richard Booth at aged sixty three years of thereabout who on his Oath on the Holy Evangelist taken saith that in or about the year 1661 this Deponent came into Virginia and served Major Merrit six years (who then lived about Twenty miles from the Weyanoake Indian Town the Weyanoks living very near a plantation that now belongs to Collo Harrison betwixt Blackwater River & Weyanoake and the Nottoway Indians removing nigher to it has since in this Deponent memeroy gained the name of Nottoway River by the Virgininans) And this Deponent further saith that in the year 1667 he being employed by one William West to go in a Canoe with Certain goods & to the Maherine Indians Towns one Jno Browne and a certain Weyanoake Indians called TomeFrusman being in the Canoe with him as they went down Blackwater River thisDeponent then being a Stranger in those parts any other than by hearawayt enquired what river that was they first mett with on their Right Hand they answered it ws Wyenaokae and Opposite to the Rivers mouth was a field belonging to the Weyanoakes it being then about one of the Clock in the afternoon this Depoinent enquired how far it was to Maerine River they answered they should get there beofe sun down which they did accordingly whereby this Deponent Computed it was about thirteen miles by Waters and this Deponent further sith that he never understood that the Weyanoake Indians ever lived to the Southward of tha River.” 69 Gilliam had “sold his goods for Tobacco & Skins” and had 8 This points to large paid near two thousand pounds custom.4 amounts of imported English goods coming into the colony in 1680 in trade for skins and tobacco predominantly. Skins also served as money in exchanges. For example, in October 1687, John Bunten acknowledged a debt to William Rigg for “one hundred and fourteen pounds and seven pence Currant mony of England” to be considered paid by the “sume of fivety and seven pounds seven pence Currant money of England, In Beaver at three shillings per pound Oater at four shillings per kin Old bucks drest at two shillings per skin does skins drestt at eighteen pence per skin Fox and Wild Cate skins at twelve per skin.”49 Riggs engaged in the fur trade for about ten more years until his death. A debt of one deceased William Steven to William Riggs, also deceased, listed Wm. Duckenfeld Esqr, and Thomas Gilliam as administrators and executors. The case stated Steven that “Purchaced the ssaid cloathes of the aforesaid Rigg in his Lifetime for Making of Indian Coats to the Value of twelve pounds.” Alexander Mackfarland and Mr. John Bird proved 48Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 287—309. Miller had been imprisoned on Gilliam ship, after boarding to try to sieze it. Customs and the Indian trade seemed to play a larger part in this rebellion than previously stated. 49Higher-Court Records, 1697-1701, pp. 247. 7O this debt.50 Thus, Rigg supplied Stevens the material to trade with and presumably arranged for the shipping of the acquired skins, possibly through Gilliam and Duckenfield. It is significant that Gilliam and Dunckelfield were the administrators of Rigg’s estate. Gilliam had brought thousand of pounds of English trade goods into North Carolina in one shipment in 1679 and probably gave Riggs goods on credit for later shipments of skins supplied by Riggs. Dunkenfield brought the estate of Colon Jno Lear, who was executor of Madam Anna Lear, to court saying that Anna Lear “by her bill bearing date of the 30w‘day of November 1694 became bound To pay to the Said William Riggs twenty eight drest skins.”51 From the documents, it appears that Anna Lear also participated in the Indian trade. Sothell’s estate inventory was given over to Thomas Pollock until John Lear gave security to pay all debts against the estate. Anna had originally been executor, but she died leaving John her executor. The estate listed “three hundered and eighteen gallans of Rum and spirits twinty one Bushells of slat forty eight pounds of Bair skins ninty siven drest buckskins one hundered and twinty six drest deer skins twinty nine [illegible] skins fourteen pounds of waid., pp. 477. This case came to court in October 1698. 51Ibid., pp. 470. 71 Baver fourteen Fox skins foureen Catts skins one pair of Milstones, six hundered pounds of shoot fify pounds of ”w’The extensive number of skins points to powder siven. considerable engagement in the Indian trade. Colonel Thomas Pollock played an important part in the Indian trade by supplying goods on credit to Indian traders. In 1694, Pollock entered “his peticon against the estate of Thomas Hawkins Deced for ye sume of ten pounds four shillings in skins to be paid at ye Virignia rate.”53 Thus, Thomas Hawkins traded among the Indians with goods gotten on credit from Pollock. Sixteen years later, in 1710, Pollock wrote Mr. Chevin that he had “a few skins to send out by the first opportunity, would intreat the favour of your advise whether Mr. Porter in carrying out his skins hath not opened their eyes to the illegality of the Assembly, and whether many not send out some without paying their unreasonable and illegal duty.” Thus, we know that Pollock shipped skins, and Porter also. Gilliam, Pollock and Porter were a few of many suppliers to the Indian trade. A case from July 1699 suggests that Doctor Godfrey Spruill of Albemarle who 52Ibid, pp. 39. Executor was Anna Lear, his widow. She married John Lear. 53Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 452. 72 declared himself “justly indebted” to Captain William Randolph was a trader financed through Randolph. Spruill agreed to pay Randolph, “thirty two pounds sixteen shillings and five pence sterling in Indians Goods or truck in season ...he is to give true account of what he gave to the Indians for the Same.”54 In July 1702, Doctor Godfrey Spruill as Assignee of Mrs. Ann Pope Came to prosecute his sute against Mr. Wm Duckenfield and “Declars for the sum of £10 1 s. in skins and produces a Bill under the Hand and seal of the said Duckenfeld to Richard Pope in his Life time Late Husband of the Assignee Ann Pope.”55 Previously, in the summer of 1700 Dorothy Busskin of Nancemond County in Virginia also brought Wm. Duckenfield to court for debt of 9 pounds sterling in “well Drest buck and Do skins (as by his bill under Hand and seale beareing Date August 24 1699 will appear) she sought 20 pounds in damages.56 Duckenfield also administered Lear's and Rigg’s estates. Both colonists heavily engaged in the Indian trade as it appears did Duckenfield. William Duckenfeild brought Capt. Richard Smith to court for a debt of twenty nine doe skins and a separate debt suit against Smith for six pound ten 54Higher-Court Records, 1696-1701, pp. 351. 55Higher-Court Records, 1702-1708, pp. 31. 56Higher-Court Records, 1697-1701, pp. 395. 73 skillings in dear skins or porke.S7 Thus, Randolph and Duckenfeild engaged with several colonist in trading Indian goods. Captain Richard Smith, an apparent Indian trader, returned often to court. He shifted his supplier multiple times apparently because he refused to pay on his account. In June 1695, Richard Smith was in debted six pound sterling “to be paid in drest Buck skins at ttwo shillings per [piece] and Drest Doe skins at eighteen pence per 8 Richard refused to pay. In [piece]” to Patrick Gomacke.5 June 1697, Smith was in debt six pounds to be paid in buckskins at the rate of two shillings a skin or doe skins at the rate of eighteen pence the skin to Mr Patrick Gormack again.“’In October 1697, Smith had not paid Colonel William Wilkison the “Accounts for three pound to be paid in skins at the Rate of two shillings for bucks and eighteen pence for does.”60 Wilkeson and Gormack supplied Smith with goods for the Indian trade. In July 1700, three years after his small scale Indian trade, Richard Smith of Bath was in debt to Robert Quary and the Pensylvania ”Ibid., pp. 132. 58Ibid., pp. 48. 59Ibid., pp. 9-10. 60Ibid., 84. That same year Colonel William Wilkeson brought Mr. Thomas Lepper for “sum of forty two shillings to be paid in drest dear skins.” At standard rate. And the sume of fifty eight shillings and two pence to be paid in porke. Pp. 171. 74 Company for one hundred and thirty three pound sterling, a significantly larger amount than previously. The debt would be void when Smith (and heirs) paid Quarry and Company “the Just Summ of sixty six pound nineteen shillings and nine pence halfpenny In Indian goods.”61 In August 1700, Nicholas Tylor recorded receiving of Richard Smith “Nineteen Pounds fourteen shilins Eleaven pence halfpeny which is in partitorn] the within mentioned Obligation.”62 Tylor received skins for Quarry and the Pennsylvania company. A 1701 account listing Richard Smith, “debtor per contra credit” to a total of 172 £ 5 shilligs 3 pence to Colonel Robert Quary, listed goods given over for trade: “44 pounds of shott, 1 dozen small Knives, 2 dozen bottles, 6 brass Ketters, 2 pounds of flints 118 pounds of shott, 2 barrel of powder, 2 pair of ble plains 1 pair red plains 1 pair stript duffella, 2 pair of blew plains, 66 pounds of tobacco 200 gallons of rum, 5 bras kettles, 1 pound virmillion and 1 ound red led, 6 dozen fish hooke, 700 flints 2 hogshead of tobacco.” Smith seems to have paid 66 L 16 s 9 pence and half penny to the account. He returned 238 gallons of rum, 118 pounds of shott, 22 bottles, 25 gallon of rum, 116 pounds of shott, 4 dozen fish hookes.” 61Ibid., pp. 534. 62Ibid., pp. 535. 75 In August 1700, he got credit for 18 £ 14 s and 1 pence half peny for a total of “80 buck, 119 does 9 raccones, 14 fox and cat skins, 3 mustratt 2 otter and 5 ponds 6 ounces of beaver.” On February 19 1700/1, he brought in “49 does, 29 bucks, 8 pricketts, 4 racoons, 1 cat and 1 bear” totalling 7 pounds 3 shillings and 10 pence. On Febrary 21 his unspecified skins amounted to 83 pounds 15 shillings and 10 pence. In May fifteenth he brought in 26 pounds of beaver 34 fox and catt, 29 racoon 2 wolves 2 bear, 3 otter, 21 pounds of beaver, 41 pricketts 194 does and 140 buck for credit of 40 £ 7 shillings and 11 pence. He returned 10 guns, 21 buckles and 31/2 dozen Spring tongs.“’In the fall 1706, Nicholas Tylor again reported receiving seven pounds and eight shillings of skins and fur from Mr. Richard Smith. In April 1700 Smith’s payment was “for the use of Colonel Robert Quary and Company.” Tylor wrote, “August the 2: 1700 Then Receive of Mr. Richard Smith 80 buckskins 119 doeskins 9 Raccoons 14 Foxes 3 Muskratts 2 Otters Beaver: 3 pounds 6 ounces for the use of Colon Robert Quary and Company.” The sum totaled 18 pounds 14 shillings and 10 pence % penny. He received similar skin deposits on August 22, 1701. December 31 1701, January 13 1702/3 and September 63Higher-Court Records, 1702-1708, pp. 419-420. 76 1704.64 Thus, Tylor was a middle merchant in the Indian trade between Smith and Quarry of the Pennsylvania Company. Other merchant houses increasing engaged in siginificant Indian trade in Albemarle. In Febrary 1702/3, Frederick Jones of James City County in Virginia and Company Merchant in London complained against Thomas Dereham for debt of 247 pounds 8 shililings threepence “in Skinns and Furrs at a certain price there in mentions and Two hundres and Ten pounds Ten [torn] and Six pence in ”“ However, Jones's London Company was Country Commodities. not the only supplier for Thomas Dereham. In January 1705/6, John Porter brought a debt suit against Levy Trewhitt and Thomas Derham for 11 pounds 3 pence in drest em They were ordered deer skins, hides tallow and small furs. to pay at the summer court. Porter we know from Pollocks 1710 letter to Chevin also engaged in shipping skins out of the colony. Dereham, like Smith, had numerous suppliers both of English goods and skins. Other merchant and trader names only come up once in the records, suggesting that others engaged in the Indian trade in a more temporary manner. For example, in July 6"Ibid., pp. 450-451. 65Ibid., pp. 53. “Ibid., pp. 266, 276. 77 1699, James Damerell came to court for debt to Mr. John Durant for “thirteen does skins of the value of thirty nine shillings as by his bill bearing date the 12m‘day of February 1697/8”67 Durant aswe know from a letter, labeled himself a merchant, and probably took in skins as part of his general trade. In this case Damerell took out credit with Durant. In October 1713, Mary Porter widow and John Porter executors of late will and testament of Jonothan Porter brought suit against Jno Salley for “the Sume of fifty pounds Eight Shillings & a peny in Skins at two Shill per pounds : for Divers wares Goods & marchandizes by their sd Jno Porter Decd: Sold and Agreed for to & With ye Eft.”68 Jonothan Porter’s death reveals another occasional or more consistently supplied participant in the Indian trade, Jonathan Salley. A deposition by Henderson Walker, dated July 1701, declared “Wheras Compliant is made to me by one Langstone an Indian that Richard Skiner unjustly Deteins from the Complainant the sum of six pounds which to him the said u 69 Indian is Justly Due. This is the only available record that named an Indian, though we know that Indians were the 67Higher-Court Records, 1697-1701, pp. 340. 68Colonial Records, Vol. II, pp. 116. 69Higher-Court Records, 1697-1701, pp. 523. 78 invisible other half of the contact. Langstone successfully sought payment for the skins and furs traded to Skinner in the English courts. Another case points to some of the problems with regulating the Indian trade. John Doe informed on Charles Gee for importing “Diver Goods and Comoditys illegally, and “hath not delivered to the Governor of this Province or to any person of Officema true Inventorymbut hath Traded and purchased Skins in this province with other Goods Soe unlawfully Imported”.70 William Frayly of Chowan declared he “Sw Charle Gee trade with John Hawkins for the Value of ten pounds and paid him in podwer shott Linnen and other goods”71 John Hawkins was probably the son of Indian trader Thomas Hawkins who in 1694 on his death owed Colonel Thomas Pollock, “ten pounds four shillings in skins to be paid at ”n Charles Smith swore that Charles Gee ye Virignia rate.. was at the house of Capt Barow and “that he [Gee] Brought five horse Loads of Goods and had sold all the rest for 70Higher-Court Records, 1702-1708, pp. 470-471. ”Seaven Hatchetts: Four Yards of Blew Duffells: Twentypounds of powder ten Yards 8 red plaines: twelve Yars three quarters Blew Ditto: twenty two Yards three quarter Blew Ditt: Nineteen Yards quarter Blew Ditt: Nineteen Yards and thre quarters Rich Ditt: one Gun Lock two Doz. Flints two pr. Sizers Six Yards Blew Duffells six Yards Blew Ditto Ketles quart 10 H pound Fourteen pound M of powder Four Yards 8 Dowles halfe a pound of Browne thred Fyfty five pound andhalfe of [Shortt]. 71Higher-Court Records, 1702-1708, pp. 472. Case from November 1705/6 court. 72Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 452. 79 skins and mony Except what he had there on horse back and was come there to dispose of the raminder part and Farther Delareing he had no clerance from Virgina nor had not any Leave of any in their Government to trade, but hoped it was ”B Smith may well be the son of prominant Indian no Crime. trader Richard Smith. Incoming traders traded from horses and they stopped at various homes to trade. Such diffuse trading is 74 difficult to regulate. A case against Indian John Cope for breaking and entering Thomas Pollock's house supports the centrality of homes to trading.75 Pollock we know regularly shipped skins, and thus brought in large amounts of trade goods in exchange. The jury found Cope not guilty. Taverns also served as sites of exchange. At general court in Edenton in October of 1725, Margaret Scott, wife of an Edenton innholder, Bartholomew Scott, was accused of stealing “a parcel of drest Deerskins out of Capt. John Gibs’s Boat of the valoue of fifty shillings.” The Jury found her not guilty, but she had to pay the fees.“76 Gibbs may have collected skins from traders at the tavern or 73Higher-Court Records, 1702-1708, pp. 472. 74Planter-traders maybe what we see in Carolina. Planters engaging in the Indian trade alongside farming. Merchant-traders then traded for the skins with planters, traders and Indian traders. '”Colonia1 Records Vol. II, pp. 473, 644. From a 1722 court case. “Ibid., pp. 597, 601-602. 8O merely stopped on his way to a shipping point for a drink. Whatever the case, Margaret certainly had the means to trade them out. If she did steal them, she traded them successfully without detection. Even if she did not, Gibbs thought her capable of doing 30. Store keepers also engaged in the Indian trade. For example, in 1727, Francis Pugh claimed an Indian slave of his, named March, was “detained and kept from him by King Blount.” Since Pugh ran a store, his Indian slave may have been sent out to trade, thus making storekeepers participants in the Indian trade. However, the case points to tensions within the community. Tom Blunt’s Tuscorora had survived as English allies despite the Tuscorora war, but mutual distrust continued to haunt the relationship. In 1727, King Blount, “Cheif man of the Tuskaroooroes,” attended court to answer charges that his people had killed some Saponnee Indians of Virginia. Blount denied this, saying that “it was done by the Northern Indians that had Revolted from him and now lived as Pirates and Robbers.”" Such tension was only one incident in a long stream of conflict. Despite mutually beneficial trade relations, land conflicts progressively elevated tensions within the white 77Ibid., pp. 674. 81 and Indian communities. In 1694, a group of Chowan Indians complained in court “they are much unjured by the English seating soe near them Ordered that no more entry or settlement of land be made higher than the planticons wich are alreddy seated above the old towne Creeke and yt wt entreis are already made and not yet settled shall be void.”78 By 1701, increased frontier settlement west of Chowan sparked conflict with the Meherrin, a community loosely affiliated with the Tuscarora.‘79 Samuel Norton claimed “The People are all willing to pay the Indans for the Lands but they Demand Such great Rates that they Canot by of them.80 Increasing pressure on Indian land by English settlement and inability or unwillingness to pay for such privileges built up tensions beyond that which could be repaired by trade dependency. Indeed, trade itself did not always result in improved diplomacy. Trade conflicts alienated factions of the neighboring Indian communities. In October 1704, William Powell wrote the Governor a letter complaining that a group of Indians with King Louther came to his house and took “several things that we miss: they have Taken all my 78Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 432. 79Parramore, pp. 318. 80Old Albemarle County North Carolina Records, pp. 32. 82 aminition. King Louther strook me with a how: I Told him I would Tell yr; honour: of itt he said you might kiss his arsez” Powell believed Jon Elderedge instigated the incident by telling them the letter Powell had given the govenor from John Lawson would cut them off from buying and trading for ammunition.81 With tensions rising, John Easter complained that two Indians set their dog on his hogs and killed one. William Lewis warns “Patrick an Indian Designes to Kill the Sheriffe when Ever he sees him In the Woods.”82 Colonial civil disorder, such as the Cary Rebellion disrupted the Indian trade and divided loyalties among the Indians as well as among the English. For example, Colonel Spotswood wrote to the Board of Trade in 1711 from Virgina, “My Lords” “He [Cary] is there gathering a greater force and threaten to bring down the Tuscorure Indians to his assistance. I have sent what Maherine could be spared from our Guard ships to the assistance of that Government, Mr. Cary has threatened to act another Antigua Tradedy, to which his own desperate Circumstances and the wretched Crew he had gott together seem like enough to prompt him.”83 The Meherine allied with Virginia and Hyde's Carolina 81Ibid., pp. 30. 82Ibid., pp. 31. 83Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 781-783. 83 government and parts of the Tuscarora supported the Cary faction. Such divisions were likely the result of personal trade ties. Indian traders were prominent in the Cary Rebellion. For example, one report stated, “there being some Affidavitts sent in hither to prove that Mr. Porter one of Cary’s pretended Council was with the Tuscaruro Indians, endeavoring by promises of great rewards to engage them to cut off all the Inhabitants of that part of carolina that adhered to Mr. Hyde. The Indians own the proposel was accepted by their young men; but that their old men who have the greater sway in their Councils being of their own nature suspicious, that there was some trick intended them or else directed by a superior Providence, refused to be concerned in that barbarous design.”84 In 1703, “rumors that a trio of Negro fur traders from Virginia were trying to incite the Tuscarora, (evidently those south of Pamlico River) ‘to cutt off [destroy] the Inhabitants of Pamlico and Neuse’”circulated.%' Instances such as these point to the significant influence of traders in diplomatic relations between Indian communities and the colonists. 8“Ibid., pp. 781-783. 85Parramore, pp. 318. 84 As the Cary Rebellion ended and the Tuscorora War began, the seeds of armed conflict and discontent sprang to fruition. The Tuscarora villages north of Pamlico River under Chief Tom Blunt and those south of river under Chief Hancock split in alliance.86 Hancock's Tuscarora attacked the Bath settlements. Governor Spotswoods wrote, in October 8, 1711, “some of the Towns of the Tuscaruro and other Indians on the Frontier of North Carolina did on the 22m'of last month commit a barbarous massacre on Her Majesty's subjects of that Province and still continue to made war against that Government.” He prohibited any trade with the Tuscarora to prevent the Tuscorora from having “the means to go to war.”87 However, the Tuscarora no longer functioned as one cohesive government. King Tom Blunt and his town sought to preserve their English alliances. Parramore noted “It seems likely that the neutrality of Tom Blunt stemed from the hope of safe-guarding the well-established commerce of the northern Tuscarora with their white neighbors in North ”88 Carlina and Viriginia. A letter from Thomas Pollock to the governor of Virginia stated, “Tom Blount seemed to be 86Ibid, pp. 323. 87Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 808. 88Parramore, pp. 323. 85 very earnest for peace, and to have a trade as formerly, which I utterly denied him, unless he would engage to bring in Hancock, and cut off all these that had any hand in killing and robbing the inhabitants here, and bring in their scalps.” Blount had expressed lack of ammunition as a problem in this endevor. Pollock promised ammunition to Blount if he brought in twelve hostages from each town or fort.89 Blunt, in return for recognition as King of all Tuscarora, captured and turned over Hancock who was executed by colonial authorities.90 Blount’s alliance with the Carolina government was further cemented when the council recorded, “It appeareing to this Board that there will be a necessity of a small quantity of Corne to be raised for the support of King Blounts Indians who are employ'd in the service of the Government.”91 Blount was successful in maintaining his ties with the English community during the war. The surrounding colonies of Virginia and South Carolina did not cease engaging in the Indian trade during the war. Governor Spotswood of Virginia wrote to Thomas Pollock that the Tuscaroro “surpised & rob’ed our Traders 89Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 880. 9C’Paramore, pp. 325. 91Colonial Records Vol. II, pp. 117. 86 going to the Western Indians” He expressed concern over “trouble lest the enmy have by this means, got a great amount of ammunition than could have wished.”92 Spotswood explained to the Lords of Trade that “the same body of Indians meeting with our traders as they were going with a cargo of goods of the value of £1000 and upwards to traffique with the western Indians, fell upon them and plundered them of all they had.”93 Thus, the war disrupted trade beyond the Carolina borders, but did not stop it. The Indian trade supplied critical amounts of ammunition to the Indian communities, even during war. For example, in 1679, a report stated “Captain Thomas Cullum frequently sells powder, shot and fire-arms, as well to those Indian nations that are not as those that are in amity with the English.”94 The same happened during the following wars. In 1715, several merchants trading to Carolina wrote the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, “We the Agents of Carolina and Merchants trading thither, begg leave to acquaint your Lordships that We have an Account of several considerable Quantitis of Indians trading guns, which are bespoke and orderd to be 92Ibid, pp. 26. 93Ibid., pp. 49. See the complicated ties between Indians and Europeans and various Indians against each other. 94Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 258. Thomas Cullen was part of the Jenkins government of the Culpeper Rebellion. 87 got ready for Virginia we hav too much Reason to fear that their private Indians Traders will have more regard to their own gain, than the security of their distressed Neighbors, or the Publick good: and will endeavour to make their advantages byselling arms and ammunition to our Indian Enemies.”95 The war did not end trade relations although the numbers of Indians declined with the migration of a large number of Tuscarora north. A Representation of the Board of Trade to the King Upon the State of his Majesty’s Plantations in America in 1721 stated “there are about 1000 Savages dispersed in several parts between Carolina and Virginia from whom were have not much apprehend Provided your Majesty’s Governors of those Provinces live in that perfect Harmony and good understanding which they ought to maintain with each other and do justice to these poor people who seldom give first Offence.”96 The loyalities tested but maintained in war allowed a continuation of the Indian trade with the few Indian communities remaining in Albemarle. In 1715, the year the war ended, Thomas Pollock was back in court prosecuting a suit against Jonathan Slocumb and Mary his wife, 95Colonial Records, Vol. II, pp. 201. 96Ibid., pp. 422. 88 administers James Blunt’s estate, for twenty six pounds sixteen shillings and two pence “to be paid in Buck an Doe Skins Well Dressed.”97 In March 1723, “John Hitaw King of Chief man of the Chowan Indians [came] by Edward Moseley his Attorney to prosecute an Orginial Attachment granted him by Christopher Gale Esq Cheif Justice against the ”% These two Estate of John Sale for sums of Eleven pounds. cases reveal the personal trade ties that produced the factions in the Tuscarora war. Competition for control of the colonial government among the supplying merchants threatened the trade to some factions of the Tuscarora and other Indian towns. Thus, the fractures that land pressure created finally split open in the face of trade stoppages. As settlement curtailed hunting and the deer population declined due to the skin trade, Indians turned to trading in land, pots, baskets and such.99 Around 1722, a large part of the southern band of the Tuscorora went north to join the Iroquois Confederacy. The remaining 97Higher-Court Records, 1709-1723, pp. 81, 186. In July 1711, Nathaniel Chevin proscuted his suit agianst John Slocum for debt (‘as Assignne of Nichlas Tyler of Pamplico) for two pound one Shlling and Eight pence to be paidin good drest buckkinsm” and a debt against James Blount (as Assignee of Nichlas Tyler) for one pound two shillings and four pence inskins. Thus it appears that Blount worked for Tyler, who from earlier records took in goods for the Pennsylvania Company. 98Ibid, pp. 364. This is probably the same Jno Salley that owed Jno Porter money in 1713 and the same Jno Sale that Ann Durant dealt with. 99Merrell, pp. 560. 89 Tuscarora left North Carolina for New York in 1802.100 The declining significance of the Indian trade to the local economy reduced competition among the English and Indians for trade contacts and at the same time reduced incentives for interpersonal contact. These contacts had been an important source of cultural exchange. Indeed, the significance of the Indian trade lies in the cultural exchange that it fostered. Indian women played a central role as cultural mediators. Bruce White argues, “the evidence suggests that leading traders often married the daughters of Ojibwa leaders.” This was common feature of the India trade throughout the colonies. Intermarriage gave traders powerful alliances within the Indian community and the Indian community ties to English trade.101 Parramore argues there “is also evidence of some intermarriage between northern Tuscarora and whites and at least partial adoption of European life-styles by those ([102 living nearest the Albemarle settlement. Intermarriage 100Higher-Court Records, 1709-1723, pp. xxix. 101Bruce White, “The Woman Who Married a Beaver” Ethnohistory vol. 46, No. 1 (Winter 1999). 130. See also, Susan Sleepersmith, “Women, Kin, and Catholicism: New Perspectives on the Fur Trade,” Ethnohistory, 47 (2), 2000, pp. 424; Jennifer S.H. Brown, Strangers in Blood: Fur Trade mepany Famiilies in Indian Country (Norman, OK, 1980); Sylvia Van Kirk, “The Custom of the Country: An Examination of Fur Trade Marriage Practices,” Essays on Western History, ed. Lewis H. Thomas (Edmonton, 1976). 102Parramore, pp. 323. For example, “Peter Gansett, an Indian living near the mouth of the Roanoke River mouth ca. 1701-1706 was apprenticed to 9O probably promoted such adaptations. John Lawson found most traders in Carolina had “an Indian ‘bed-fellow’” for many reasons.” Alliances, clan protection, knowledge of language :W3 English and customs proved valuable assests in a partner. traders in the south married Indian women. Morris argues that their daughters were the mixed blood wives of the Indian Agents in the later colonial period as the Indian trade became more centralized in South Carolina.104 People of Indian and English descent disappeared into English society. More recently, several studies have shown that the fur trade marked cultural compromise in which native Americans and Europeans made accommodations in order to engage in 5 mutually benefitial trade.10 Contact produced cultural change in all the communities involved. Robert West, with the ‘consent of his mother Mary Lee, wife of Daniel Leigh of Chowan prec., planter'” Mary may or may not have been Indian, but she was now the wife of a planter. One or both of Peter's parents were Indian. See, Margaret M. Hofman ed.. Chowan Precinct, North Carolina 1696-1723 Genealogical Abstracts of Deed Books (Weldon, N.C. Roanoke NewCompany, 1972) pp. 7,8,25. 103Morris, The Bringing of Wonder, pp. 27. 104Morris, The Bringing of Wonder, pp. 30-31. His chapter on Mary Musgrove and Nancy Ward highlights the centrality of Indian women and mixed blood women to colonial trade. Their invisibility in the historical record is problematic for historians. 105See Harold Innis, The Fur Trade in Canada (Toronto 1970); Carolyn Gilman, Where Two Worlds Meet;: The Great Lakes Fur Trade (Saint Paul, MN 1982) and Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Egpublics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815 (New York 1991). 91 One example of cultural influences lies in the archeological records of “Chesapeake” tobacco pipes. Scholars initially attributed “Chesapeake” tobacco pipes found in archeological sites in Virginia and Maryland to the multi-cultral plantation environment in Virginia and Southern Maryland and the interaction between early African slaves and English indentured servants.106 The pipes fell out of the archeological record with the institutionalization of black slavery and the declining interracial contact on plantations. However, Dana Magoon has since found “Chesapeake pipes in northeastern North Carolina in a site without European trade goods. These “Chesapeake” pipes were nearly identical to those in Virginia and Maryland that were attributed to Africans. Thus, the pipes were locally produced by Native American populations. Informal localized trade relationships resulted in Indian pipes being used by the English and Africans on 107 North Carolina plantation sites. As Daniel Usner wrote, 106James Deetz, Flowerdew Hundres: The Archaeology of a Virginia Plantation, 1619-1864 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1993). PP. 83 107Magoon, “’Chesapeake’ Pipes and Uncritical Assumptions: A View from Northeastern North Carolina, ”North Carolina Archaeology! 48 (1999), 48 118-120. See also Daniel Moer, “Chesapeake Creoles: The Creation of Folk Culture in Colonial Virginia,” in The Archaeology of 17m-Century Virginia ed., Theodore R.l Reinhart and Denis J. Pogue (Special 92 “Marketing systems reveal a good deal about the relationships among the various groups that compose a society.”108 He stated one of the problems with frontier studies and consequently that of Indian studies is that “the economic activities of Indian and colonial societies have long been separated by prevalent conceptualizations of frontiers either as boundaries between primitive and commercial economies or as transitional zones through which stages of economic development rapidly progress.”109 He particularly takes note of food marketing, noting that through food marketing Indians, Africans and Europeans engaged in contact that transformed all the respective cultures. Thus, when William Lees John Spilman, John Hardy, Henry Hayes and Dorothy Stills “bought som venson of som Indans” and when Thomas Barcock swore that he had “given” Indian Tom Harris, “a sow Shote,” they participated in one of the often hidden aspects of Indian English ‘ PUblication 30, Archeological Society of Virginia, Dietz Press: fiéchmond 1993), PP. 105-166. Daniel Usner, Indians Settlers, & Slaves in A frontier Exchange E30‘0nomy: The Lower Mississippi Valley Before 1783, (University of North Calrolina: Chapel Hill 1990), pp. 191. He cites, Sidney W. Mintz’s mgrks. Ibid., pp. 191. 93 relations, that of daily small trade and exchange in food stuffs. no Therefore, the Indian fur trade existed alongside local exchanges in household goods and foodstuffs. English settlers engaged in local trade with Indians living in and around the colonial plantations. Trade alliances and intermarriage formed bonds that promoted diplomatic relationships between the nations. However, white pressure on Indian lands and internal political rifts raised tensions that ultimately divided the Tuscorora. The Indian trade complicated race relations and local politics. War remains historically the most visible of English-Indian contact, yet trade represented the greater colonial experience. Most importantly, the Indian trade was a significant part of the local economy. Merchants supplied local credit based on the lucrative nature of the Indian trade. Credit in turn supported the further economic development of the colony. 11Oflgher-Court Records, 1696—1701, pp. 126-127 and Higher-Court Records, 17 02-1708, pp. 54. 94 Chapter 3 “INDEBTED 3! ACCOUNT”: TRADE, COURTS AND CREDIT IN THE LOCAL ECONOMY When Deborah Ross declared “Mothius Towlor Came to Markit and mto the [best] of hir knowlidg that Timothy Pead Gave noe abus by words or action upon the a Count of any 1 she participated in power or any other wayes to Mothiues,” a court case that, along with many others, reveals the centrality of colonial courts to trade. The case for which Deborah testified came to court in March of 1694, when Mathias Towler brought his license for “the Whale then Petishond about” claiming that Timothy Pead and Charles Thomas took the whale from him. Whale products were among the lead staples of Albemarle in the seventeenth century, and colonists produced hundreds of barrels of whale oil a year.2 A 1715 law regulating staple commondity prices valued a barrel of whale oil at 10 pounds 10 shillings. 3 1Higher Court Records, 1670-1690, pp. 60. 2Marcus Simpson Jr. and Sallie W. Simpson, “The Pursuit of Leviathan: A History of Whaling on the North Carolina Coast,” The North Carolina Historical Review, LXV(1),1988, pp. 6-7. In 1668, Peter Colliton produced 80 barrels of oil. Earlier in 1672-1673 he shipped several times, in total one hundred and ninty five barrels of whale oil “wch I Conceive may have Cleered about 25. s p barrel.” In 1730, the King’s tenth of sixty barrels of oil and and 800 wt. of bone was valued at EOOL. pp. 13. Clark, The State Records of North Carolina Vol. XXIII, Laws 1715-1776, 1G<>ldsboro, N.C. Nash Brothers 1886-1907)pp. 54. “For establishing a Celttainty in Trade & in the payment of Publick Levys all Debts due or ‘fllich hereafter mayt become due on account of the Publick or to any 95 If thirty to fifty barrels were average yields for one right whale, and six to nine whales a year was an average catch, then Mathias and Timothy's dispute concerned a significant amount of money.4 The court granted Mathias permission to retake the whale (tried or untried) and took Pead and Thomas into custody.5 However, the following court reversed the action against Pead and Thomas.6 The court then charged Towler with “feloniously taking of eight Barrels belonging to Timothy Pead.” But, after testimony from Ann Ross, Inhabitant or foreignor trading among us or in our private dealing amongst ourselves or otherwise howsoever athe Debt being contracted or due in Money not expressing Sterling such persons or persons to whom such money shall be due shall take & receive of the same any Specie hereafter expressed & all the Rates herby appointed ..” 1 0 Whale Oil per Barl 1 10 Porke per barrel 2 5 1 10 Pitch (Full Gauged per Barl. £ 3. d. Tobacco pr th 0 10 O Indyan Corn per Bush. 1 8 Wheat “ “ 3 6 Tallow Tried, pr lb. 5 Leather Tanned & Uncured, prlb 8 Beaver & other Skins pr lb. 2 6 Wild Cat Skins per piece 1 0 Butter per lb. 6 Cheese per lb. 4 Buck & Doe Skins (raw) per lb. 9 “ “ ( drest) per lb. 2 6 Feathers per lb. 1 4 O 0 0 0 Beef per barrel 4Simpson, pp. 16—17. 5Higher Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 18. Commercial whaling took place in North Carolina from the earliest years of the colony until the twentieth century. The earliest licenses granted the rights “to enjoy the privilege to make use of all the whales that shall be cast up or that they can use anyways to kill or destroy, between the inlet of Roanoak and the inlet of Caretuck.” Simpson 6. However, in 1681 the Lords Proprietors authorized the inhabitants to take whales for their own use. This was extended for another twenty years again in 1691. 6Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 419 and Higher Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 42-43. 96 Debora that s have t given agreen them.” Thomas worke the asl Barrel labour her Co The co three Deborah’s sister, “to whom the Barrells did then belong” that she “gave her consent that the 3d Matias Towler should have the Barrel pay her for them and that her consent was given to ye sd Towler for the 3d Barrells before any agreemet was made with the 3d Timothy Pead concerning them,”.As a result, the court discharged Mathias Towler. Ann Ross is testimony backed up a petition by Charles Thomas “that he the said Charles Thomas had done ten dayes worke upon the whale.” Anne Ross then argued that she “with the assistance of some of her owne family tried up three Barrell of oyle out of the whale m and that she did other labour about the said whale And that Mathias Towler had by her consent and upon promis of pay seven barrels for all.” The court ordered Towler pay her fifty one shillings and three pence.7 This case shows the centrality of courts and the “promis of pay” in the functioning of the local economy. Colonial courts served as places to verify and collect debts.8 Networks of local trade and exchange existed in the ¥ 7Ibid., 419. Charles Thomas received payment of ten shillings. Pead was paid two shillings six pence. See, Craig Muldrew, “Credit and the Courts: Debt Litigation in a Seventeenth Century Urban Community, The Economic Histornyeview, New Series, 46 (1) 1993, pp. 23-38. This study focuses on England 1683- 1686. Muldrew found “Even though the poorer members of the town came into the court to sue less frequently than wealthier plaintiffs, when they did sue, they sued their richer neighbours, as well as other poorer peoplem Thus, in social and economic terms, credit was a leVeling force within the community. Rich and poor alike were bound by 97 early colonial frontier south and Albemarle colonists drew on existing patterns of trade.9 Local markets operated on credit systems.10 When debt collection was “in kind,” sterling equivalents assigned by the assembly provided regulation of the colonial staples, tobacco, pork and corn, the general items of trade.11 Merchants, tavernkeepers and craftpersons kept accounts for members of the local community and each other. Bills of exchange functioned as reciprocal bonds of indebtedness and needed to trust one another. True, the poor were more indebted to the wealthy, and credit did not ultimately alter the power of wealth, but the wealthy were still indebted to the poor to a considerable degree.” pp. 34. He argues that merchants and trade depended on credit. Over 80% The Court of Common Pleas cases dealt with debt suits. pp. 24 Carolina colonists brought their familiarity with English legal systems to the colonies. 9See, Michael Merril, “Putting Captialism in Its Place, “William and Mary Quarterly, 52 1995, pp. 315-326 for a discussion of the debate over markets and capitalism in the colonial world. Bettye Hobbs-Pruitt, “Self-sufficiency and the Agricultural Economy of Eighteenth-Century Massachusetts,” William and Mary Quarterly 41, 1984, pp. 333-364 and Daniel Vickers, Farmers & Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work inEssex County Massachusetts, 1630-1850 (Chapell Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994) and Micheal Kenneday, “Cash for his turnips”: Agricultural Production fo Local Markets in Colonial Pensylvania, 1725— 1783, Agricultural History, 74 (3) 2000, pp. 587-608 looks at agricultural production that goes to market. Studies on the nineteenth century Old South like Gavin Wright’s Political Economy of the Cotton g§9uthz Households, Markets and Wealth in the Nineteenth Century (New York 1978) argue that small farmers practiced “safety-first” farming 43nd did not risk full scale commercial agriculture and thus avoided Ckebt to merchants and creditors. See also, Allan Kulikoff, “The Titansition to Captialism in Rural American,” William and Mary Qliarterly, 46, 1989, pp. 120-144. ESee, Price “Buchanan and Smith, 1759-1763: A Different Kind of Glasgow Ftirm Trading to the Chesapeake,” William and Mary Quarterly 40 (1983) 3‘-41 and Jacob Price, Capital and Credit in British Overseas Trade: The Zigggy from the Chesapeake (Cambridge, 1980)pp. 127-136. These studies on u“idigenous merchants trading on credit supplied by English and Scottish fierchants focus on the latter half of the eighteenth century. See footnote 3 . 98 money debts debt 5 money often ending up in the hands of a third party.12 When debts were called in court, they often triggered subsequent debt suits. Most scholarly attention has focused on credit and the retail trade in the second half of the eighteenth century 3 Kevin Sweeney, in in New England and the Middle colonies.1 his study on Western Massachusetts, argued “notes of hand, orders and receipts generated by such transactions operated as a circulating medium of exchange with a longevity that outlasted the original transaction creating the debts.”14 Debts “by account” fill retail ledgers. Roger Wunderlich, in his study of a seventeenth century Long Island whaling company ledger, found similar use of credit.15 Michael Kennedy found the same among mill stores in Pennsylvania in the early eighteenth century.16 12See Daniels, Christine, “Wanted Blacksmith Who Understands the Art of Plantation Work: Artisans in Maryland 1700-1810,” William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, L(4), 1993, pp. 754 and 759. See, Price “Buchanan and Smith,” pp. 3-41; Jacob Price, Capital and Credit 127-136. Maika, Dennis, “The Credit System of the Manhattan .Merchants in the Seventeenth Century Part III” Halve Maen, 64(1) 1991, .PEL 10 and Dennis Maika, “The Credit System of the Manhattan Merchants 111 the Seventeenth Century Part II” Halve Maen,63(3), 1990, pp. 5-7. 4Sweeney, “Gentlemen Farmers,” pp. 67 5Roger Wunderlich, “The Pigskin Book,” Long Island Historical Journal, 3 (1), 1990, pp. 17-28. Wunderlich points out that such a credit system i£3 viewed by Daniel Vickers and other scholars as exploitive because it <1i;d not allow whalers the opportunity to buy goods from anyone but the <3C1mpany store. Others, like Elizabeth Little, argue that “it was simply a IJractical response to the shortage of currency in the colonial iconomy” pp. 23. Kennedy, pp. 587-608. 99 ofte CI€C four Studies on credit in the southern colonies are most often focus on Charleston. Southern colonists relied on credit in order to engage in the market. Tommy Thompson found that “Maryland planters bought goods and carried out other business transactions on credit throughout the year.”17 Michael Woods, in his study on Charleston, noted a dominance of merchants as litigants in debt suits, but significant numbers of planters and others as well.” Nash's study on one merchant-planter, John Guerard of Charleston found that Guerard traded in the mid seventeenth 17Tommy Thompson, “Debtors, Creditors, and the General Assembly in Colonial Maryland” Maryland Historical Magazine, 72 (1), 1977. By 1682 debtors were allowed to pay creditors in beef, pork, bacon, wheat, oats, barely, Indian corn, pease, or beans. In 1720 the law shifted allowing debt in money or tobacco to be paid in kind only after the debtor was imprisoned for nonpayment. (61). A Virginia study by Emory Evans, “Private Indebtedness and the Revolution in Virginia, 1776- 1796,” William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 28 (3), 1971 notes that in 1776 Virginias had over 2,000,000 pounds in debt, about half of the total American indebtedness. He notes that the consignment method of marketing tobacco in practice since 17503 had resulted in increasing indebtedness to English merchants. He argues, “indebtedness was an expected and accepted consequence of an agrarian economy” What he does not address are forms of local credit and exchange. Given the large amount of credit circulating it would be expected that lower and middling planters and farmer and merchants also engaged in trade through credit systems. 18Michael Woods, “The Culture of Credit in Colonial Charleston,” South Carolina Historical Magazine, 99(4) 1998, pp. 364-365. He notes the various forms of credit applied, from trading in debt, credit networking among relatives and friends, and payment on accounts with Inerchants. Woods, Neal and Muldrews articles provide the best survey <>f how credit operated in a community. Yet, the studies on South (Carolina are on Charleston, a commercial city, not on the surrounding aggricultural communities that supplied the staple crops and C<>mmondities to the regional urban centers. Thorp and Kennedy provide tfle best studies of local markets in nonurban region, but do little in addressing the credit system they operated under. For Chesapake étZUdies see Charles G. Steffen, “The Rise of the Independent Merchant 111- the Chesapeake: Balitmore County, 1660-1760” Journal of American lfliggtggy LXXVI, 1989, pp. 9-33; Price, “Buchanan & Simpson,” See Priice's footnote 5 for inland trade and backcounty New England merchant StLhdies, noting that most cover the revolutionary period. 100 ce SC cr EC WC CE] Crr 191 , .. rm 3 .... . . a a... L... .. . \i‘ EN» 10 me ca; be be‘ century between London merchants and local planters. He sold goods to planters and shopkeepers predominantly on credit. His movement between merchant activity and planter activity point to the fluidity of economic endeavor between local merchants and the planter class.19 T.R. Breen argues merchants were part of the rural community and at least 75% were capable of producing tobacco. Thus, like John Guerard of Charleston, rural merchants functioned in several capacities. This helps explain one of the key differences between the Caribbean and the South. In a comparison between Montserrat and South Carolina in the mid-eighteenth century, David Hancock found that loan money in South Carolina originated in South Carolina 86 percent of the time and the loans were greater in number and smaller than those of Monserrat. He argues that “In South Carolina, there existed a large class of lenders that facilitated ’”0 Such small amounts of transfers of capital and credit. credit supplied locally characterize North Carolina’s lending economy. Lenders were not limited to merchants, artisans also Vvorked on account. Locally given credit allowed for market CDrientation in a cash poor period and region. Trade 1 9Nash, “Trade and Business” pp. 6-29. David Hancock, “'Capital and Credit with Approved Security’”: Financial Markets in Monterserrat and South Carolina, 1748-1775” Egflness and Economic History, 23(2), 1994, pp. 81. 101 QC «:4 ‘.l.\ ..a all .e.‘ . networks and credit tied North Carolina's community to each other. In this sense, colonists drew on domestic credit practices transfered from England. Muldrew’s analysis of court of pleas records from early eighteenth century England shows marked credit extended between all classes of people. Richard Sheridan argues that economic historians have overlooked the importance of the domestic economy in the colonies.21 McCusker and Menard, who supporting a staple-centered economic approach to colonial studies, also note a neglect 2 While a lack of towns characterized the of local markets.2 Albemarle region of North Carolina in the eighteenth century, this does not mean the region lacked a market system. C.J. Farmer, looking at country trade in Southside Virginia in the eighteenth century, found that the dominance of tobacco as the export staple created no need for towns. He argues that trade took place on plantations, courthouses and ferry sites rather than in urban areas.23 21Richard Sheridan, “The Domestic Economy” in Jack P. Greene and J.R. Pole Colonial British America: Essays in the New History of the Early Modern Era. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984), pp. 43. Foreign trade made up only about 9-12 percent of the gross output of the colonies. 22McCusker and Menard, pp. 77-79. See also Nash, pp.3-29. 23Charles J. Farmer, “Persistence of Country Trade: The Failure of Towns to Develop in Southside Virginia during the Eighteenth Century” Journal of Historical Geograpry, 14(4), 1988, pp. 331-341. He argues that country trade has been looked at as a precusor to the development of urban systems. He faults J.B. Price, Coulter and H.R. Merrens for 102 Farme where plan: focal meet . local local suppc: Carol~ great the ge this C member 1719. l AlbemaJ fifty-E 5nd CIe Farmer argues that an “open-country neighborhood pattern where a variety of activities were located on adjacent plantationsmin response to the proximity of important local focal points, primarily courthouses and ferries” served to u That is exactly how the meet community marketing needs. local economy in Albemarle functioned. Credit given by local merchant planters, tavernkeepers and artisans supported a local market system in early colonial North Carolina without the presence of a town center, due in great part to the extensive river system that characterizes the geography of this region. Carolina's courts mitigated debt disputes rising from this credit system. Held in local taverns and community member’s homes, at least until a courthouse was built in 1719, the court migrated throughout the region. In Albemarle in 1684 and 1685, forty-nine creditors brought in fifty-six debtors to court. Seven people were both debtors and creditors. Thus, ninety—three different people came to court to settle accounts. The population of English in the region at the time ranged from just over a thousand to possibly 4000. Historian Alan Watson has concluded that in 1700 there were delegating “country trade” or “decentralized trade” as peripheral to development of the Americas. ”Farmer, pp. 333. 103 appr: inhat from 36,0C 1729 the p thousr be ble 308 b: centu: debt 5 forty and C: 9647 p hides, approximately 10,000 inhabitants. By 1720 there were 21,000 inhabitants. In 1729, when North Carolina was purchased from the Lords Proprietors, the population was estimated at 36,000.”’Most historians of North Carolina quote Watson's 1729 figure. Thus, extrapolating backwards, in the 16803 the population probably could not have exceeded a few thousand, and of that a quarter could have been expected to be black slaves. Jeffery Crow estimates 1,871 whites and 308 blacks in Pasquotank and Currituck counties in 1710. In any given two year period of the late seventeenth century, nearly one hundred people appeared in court on debt suits. Thus, somewhere between one and ten to one in forty people sought court assistance in matters of trade and credit in the 16803. In the two year period studied, 9647 pounds of tobacco, 4,667 pounds of pork, 50 pounds of hides, 8.5 barrells of Indian corn, 3£, 3 s and 6 “out of the Cropp,” 500 foot of pine plank, one cow and calf, one canoe and 202£ 189s 45p in debts were called for in court. Even when trade took place in goods this translated to a value in sterling. For example, at court in January 1698[9], Samuel Swann brought Benjamen Gidden in for a debt of two pounds eight shillings and six pence and a half penny. The court ordered “two Hoggs and a parsel of corn” 25Watson, Society in Colonial North Carolina,pp. 3-4. 104 be “attached at his Sute.” The court then directed the Marshal to “deliver ye two Hoggs and Soe Much Sheld Corn At twenty pence bushel as Will pay ye sd debt With Cost and trobel of Shellen and to deliver ye Same At Burroses ’”6 Thus the court assigned the corn a value of 25 Landen. pence of bushel. By 1715, the assembly had assigned a value of 2L 5 shillings to a barrel of pork, and a bushel of Indian corn at 1 shilling 8 pence, when used as payment for debts.27 Pork and tobacco were the two most common forms of exchange when accounts were settled in kind rather than sterling. These goods reflect the dominant export staples of the colony at the time. For example when Samual Swann sued Richard Bachelder the court ordered Bachelder pay to Swann “two Hundred and fifty pounds of poork With Cost Alex ’fle Several decades later, Mr Fredrick Jones brought a Excec. suit against Thomas Collings for thirty-three shillings and two pence “to be paid in Pork at the house of Peter ’flg In another example, Jacob Overman brought Godfrey. George Scarbrough in for one pound seventeen shillings and six pence in fresh pork and William Scarbrough for one 26Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 521. 27See foonote 3. 28Colonial Records, Vol. I, p. 521. The case came to court in 1689. 29Ibid., pp. 610. 105 pound two shillings and eight pence fresh pork.‘30 Thus, debt repayment took place in pork, but the debt was counted in sterling. Porke and tobacco were not the only goods used in exchange. Corn was also exchanged. For example, Frederick Jones prosecuted a Suite aginst John Gray in “A plea of Debt for two pounds tenne Shillings & three pence “payable in Corne or porke” Gray was ordered to pay this with 31 costs. Then Jones “by Godfrey his attorney” prosecuted Thomas Houghton for two pounds 9 shillings and eight pence. 32 Jones The court put an attachment on Houghton’s estate. lost his suit against Houghton and had to pay costs.33 All Houghton’s debts were noted payable in corn and pork. In another case, Samuel Holland, a merchant of Boston, brought a suit against Issac Wilson for forty-four pounds fourteen shillings and six pence, “payable in good ..34 merchantable wheat, Porke or Pitch as in & by an account. In other cases the debt payment was split between goods and 30Colonial Records Vol. II, pp. 92-93. The case came to court in 1713. 31Colonial Records, Vol. I, 610. 32Ibid., pp. 609. 33Ibid., pp. 610. In the Tuscorora war his house was attacked, but the Indians “wer beat off and none of our people killed,” Colonial Records Vol. I, pp. 882. Frederick Jones is listeds as “Capt Fredrick Jones” when named a vestry member of the Eastern Parish of Chowan Precinct in 1715. Colonial Records, Vol. II, pp. 207 In 1718, Jones sought a lapse Of patent for Mr. Lewis Conners of Virginia tract of land of 640 acres and a lapse was granted. Colonial Records, Vol. II, pp. 318. In 1722 §i3 estate came to court. 4leonial Records, Vol. 11, pp. 84. 106 sterling, as case of Christopher Butler who brought suit against James Fisher. The court ordered that Fisher pay Butler “three pound two Shillings and Six pence and a young Cow and Calfe with Cost.”35 Of the seventy-three cases of debt in the years 1683 and 1684, 35 of the cases recorded the amount sought. Of this thirty-five, sixteen were for goods in kind. Payments of tobacco lead with seven accounts to be paid in pounds of tobacco, three suits were to be paid in pounds of pork and three in corn. The remaining three were for plank, a gun, tools and a partial crop (of corn). Seventeen of the cases were recorded in sterling, but given the law of 1715, recording sterling values for staples of the colony, these may also have been paid in kind:36 Nearly ten years later, over the two year period of 1693 and 1694, of the seventy- five identifiable debt suits, fifty-four were for known amounts. Sterling amounts were recorded for twenty-nine cases with one case settled for part sterling, part pork. Only two cases recorded values of tobacco, eight cases in pork and four cases in other goods or chattels. The records for the year 1670-1694 are spotty. During this span, 233 debt suits passed through court with most 35Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 531. Case came to court in January 1699(00]. 36Higher-Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 342—365. 107 accounts recorded in sterling. Thus, after 1683, on average half of the cases were paid in kind, half in sterling. Until February of 1684 nearly all suits were paid in pounds of tobacco. Bills of exchange were important records in trade. For example, in September of 1694, William Duckenfield, acting as assignee of Henry Gawler, brought action against Patrick Henley who was the new husband of Sarah Culpeper, widow of John Culpeper. John Culpeper, in April 1683, had “oblige[d] himselfe to pas good sufficient bille of exchange whensoever thereto required to be paid at the porte or cytty of london unto Henry Gawler his order or assignee in consideration of the sume of five pounds seven ([37 shillings. John Culpeper died before he could pass his “bille of exchange,” and this unmet account reveals a chain of connection between local planters, local merchants and London merchants. Such bills sometimes passed to third parties. For example, Robert Moline was indebted to the Whites for “ye sume of thirty six shillings by bill passed to ye said Diana one of ye Plaintifs Whilst shee was sole upon ye acct of Thomas King and further saithe that ye said Robert Moline did assume and Promis to pay upon ye acct of ye said 37Ibid., pp. 22. 108 Thomas King wt further acct ye said Thomas King should contract.” Moline said he had not. However, the court “Ordered yt the said Robert Moline pay unot ye the said Thomas White and Diana his wife the sum of thirty six shillings in porke alias Excecution”38 Thus, Thomas King’s debts with Diana White were paid by Moline. King was in debt 10L to Moline before he fled. In another example, Jacob Overman came to court having a deed of sale from Colonial Thomas Cary to James Tookes & Colonial Edward Moseley proved by Mr. Thomas Parrisf39 In a deposition dated August 13, 1735 Cullen Pollock wrote, “I gave Your Bond of Stephen Andrews’s to my Bro: I overlooked another Debt for ye sad Andrews to my Bro: ‘tis 375L for ye Hire of some Negros: I think my Borther has no Note of Hand for Ys: Mony: My Bror.”40 This exchange took the form of bond between two third parties. The settling of estate debts in court provides another momentary window into the local economy. These cases show a range of credit from shillings to large amounts of 38Colonial Records, Vol. I, 449. At the previous court, in 1694[5] Jonothan Toomy was charged with helping Thomas King leave the country without paying the 10L he owed to Moline, but the court found no cause for action, Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 445. Thomas King also signed a petition asking for help in suppressing the Culpeper rebellion in 1680. Also, King was accused of stealing from Diana Foster, who we know later as Diana White, but was not convicted. Colonial Records, Vol. I, 397. William Foster at the time was Diana’s husband, he also signed the 1680 petition. 39Colonial Records Vol.11, pp. 103, July 1713, ”Old Albemarle County North Carolina Records, pp.168. 109 sterling in bills of exchange or by account. In February of 1683, when Mr. Thomas Finckley’s estate came to court, Mr. Francis Toms and Mr. Joshua Lamb both filed debt suits against the estate. While the outcome of Toms’ case is not known, the next court found Finckley’s estate in debt to Lamb for 42L 3 shillings and 6 pence.41 When Joshua Lamb's estate came to court in September 1694 his wife, Mary serving as administrator was ordered to the pay his debt to Q The estate of Jonothan William Collins of 10L sterling. Crosland came to court in November 1693 in suits by Alexander Lillington for “22 shillings in porke by Bill” and Caleb Calloway for “7s 3 p in porke and H of a Bore Barrow”, an unlisted amount due to Mr. Thomas Harvey and “8 £ by Account” to Mr. Thomas Gillam. Goods were traded “on account” as each of these probate settlements suggest. Other cases provide a more complete picture of the credit system by recording contra accounts. For example, “The Humble petiton of Mr. John Porter Sheweth that Mr. Thomas Swan is justly Indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of three pound eight shillings and six pence and is departed out of this Gvovernment therefore the petioner prays an Attachement against his Estate ” “Higher Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 342, 346. ”161d, pp. 26. 110 the acc “1697 1 July 21 August the account read: “1697 [torn] Thomas Swann debtor [illegible] July 28th to 11 34 Sugar 8d. 0: 7:6 To 4 gallons rum 1: 4'0 August 14”To [illegible] by your [rent] To 2 M yds. of broadcloth at 30 s. yd 3:15:O To 3 5 yds. fine lenen 1:01:O To 1 firing pen 0:12:0 To 2 Knifes 0:02:6 To 1 quart run 0:01:6 7 03:6 Contra is Creditor Per a bill by Mr. Miller 3:15:0 Per Mr. Plater 1: 5:0 Rest dew 3: 8:6 1 5:0 2 03:6"43 Swann himself had credit from Plater and a bill of Mr. Miller’s. This canceled out some of his initial debt. In another example, Seth Southell debtor to an unknown person recorded owing 1 L 15 shillings for “Bring[ing] Brick from Tho. Hawkins” among other accounts for tar, taking Negroes and carrying a horse, for a total of 4£ 10 shillings. But due to “Per Contra Cr” of 230 pounds of Pork at 1 pound seven shillings 6 pence, and to 1 pound of wool valued at 1 shilling there was only “Due to balance 3£ 1 shillings 6 ”44 pence. In another case, Christopher Butler lost a suit against James Fisher, “ye Jury on thare Oathes Say thay ”Higher Court Records, 1697-1701, pp. 254. “Higher Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 448. 111 ballence Shilling Tat keepers estate t Robert 1 contract 0f forty court or half per came and COparnte ACCOUnt. aCCOunt Ano similar the Whit 3.31 ballence ye Account and finds for ye defendant Six Shillings and two pence With Cost.”45 Tavern keepers also kept accounts on credit. Tavern keepers Thomas and Diana White brought Jonothan Spencer's estate to court February of 1694[5]. The White’s claimed Robert Kitching was “Indebted to ye plaintiffs by acct contracted with ye sd Diana whilest shee was sole tha sume of forty five shillings and nine pence half peny.” The court ordered Kitching pay the 45 shillings nine pence and half penny. When “ffrances Kitching one of ye defendts came and produceth in Court an account against Jno Harris Coparnter with the said Diana in Balance of ye said Account.” The suit was dismissed.46 Thus, Harris had an account with Spencer or the Kitchings. Another case brought to court by the Whites shows similar credit extention. In the case against Robert Moline the Whites declared Moline indebted, “by his account contracted wth ye said Diana Whilest shee was sole ye sum of Four pounds seven shillings and one penny.” Here again, accounts were balanced with payments in part. In this case, Moline produced “an Account in balance of ye acct brought against him” so that the amount “due to ye said ”Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 533. ”Ibid., pp. 441. 112 Thomas White and Diana his wife ye sums of twelve shillings And ye said Moline upon his Oath further saith that upon demand made by ye said Thomas White he the said Robert Moline tendered his account with payment of ye Ballance.” The suit was dismissed and the White’s paid charges.47 Thus, Moline had a contra account, and had paid the balance when requested. Between July 1691 and February 1692 when she hosted court, Diana recording taking in accounts totalling four hundred and twenty two pounds and five shillings and 7 pence. Debts settled in court were sometimes given as credit accounts at local stores. In a court petition by Cullen Pollock, he suggested speedily assessing whether “their could be an attachment sent now he[one Stephen Andrew owing Pollock’s brother money] has to ye Value of 3 or 400£ in ’A8 In another goods wch: he had credit for at Pughs Store. instance, Mrs. Clarke, who received a payment from John Philpot to John Robison, served as credit when Philpot promised “to pay or Cause to be paid unto Mr. John Robison or order. The Full Sume of Fourteene pounds Seaventeene 47rbid, pp. 449. ”Old Albemarle Counry North Carolina Records, pp. 168. Case dated August, 1735. 113 shillings and Six pence In good Sound Merchantable Porke Att Mrs. Clareks now Dwelling House in Newbegine Creeke.”49 Counter suits against the creditor also took place in court revealing multiple directions of credit within the community. For example, the court ordered that “Mary Albertson & Nathaniel Albertson pay unto Nathaniel Nicholson as much porke as will fill A Barrell two Sow Two Baros of his wife prOper marke & one Barow Specifyed in the Inventory with Costs a1 Exo.50 Following this ruling “Upon Peticon of Mary Albertson & Nathaniel Albertson praying to prove an acct against the Estate of Sarah Nicholson.” The case was rejected, however, some counter suits were more successful. For example the debt suit and counter suits of Captain Jeremiah Goodridge and Captain Frederick Jones reveal credit exchange. Goodridge first called in a debt 51 from Jones in 1703. The case was refered to the next court in July, where Jones responded he had not the “Declaration ’”2 Given that he was listed as “Late of London” indue time. may imply he operated as a merchant representative. At the same court, Jones filed a counter suit stating “ffredrick Jones & Comp Comes per Mr. Peter Godrey their Attr to prosecute their sute against Jeremiah Gooedridge” for 49Higher Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 446. 50Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 618. 51Ibid., pp. 585. 52Ibid., pp. 590. 114 1000£.fi{ An attachment was granted to Goodridges estate. Goodridge came back to court in October and successfully got an attachment to Jones’s estate for Jones debt due to him.54 Cycles of trading debt with third parties also effectively cancelled out debts without goods or sterling changing hands. Often debtors called into court for an unpaid debt tried to collect on their own extensions of credit. For example, in September 1694, Madam Susanah Heartely brought a 55.At the same court Sarah case to court against Thomas Hawkins. Culpeper relict of John Culpeper married to Patrick Henley was being sued for debt of 5L.“5The Whites, sued Patrick Henley 49 shillings for debt along with several other people.”' Henley then sued Susanah Heartley for a debt of twelve pounds.58 Which Heartley would have paid from the funds she sought to collect on a debt from Hawkins. Such suits did not always work as the debtor hoped. Hawkins pleaded too sick to come to court in a suit of debt to Patrick Henley for twelve pounds “by account produced in Court”59 At the next court she asked for particulars on sum of 53Ibid., pp. 590 and 586. 54Ibid., pp. 594. 55Higher Court Records, 1670-1696, 20. 56Ibid., pp. 22. 57Ibid., pp. 26. 58Ibid., pp. 26. 59Ibid., pp. 34. 115 60 twelve pounds which Patrick Henly claimed. The following spring the suit was dismissed and Henley had to pay costs.61 Another instance of cyclical debts took place in September 1694. The White’s called a in debt in court from Cornelius Lerry. Lerry was ordered to pay three pounds, seven shillings and one penny in pork with costs of the suit. Subsequently, Lerry called in Richard Bentley for debt of sixteen pounds four shillings and nine pence which Bentley “oweth by account” and for “one Grubbing hoe, one pair of Carpenter Cumpases, one Hogshead one Wrest one Coopers Berier.” The court ordered Bentley to pay Lerry eight shillings and six pence with cost of the suit. As for the debt of sixteen pounds four shillings and nine pence, Bentley claimed and the court allowed to pass that he was not notified in time.62 Lerry did not receive enough from Bentley to pay the Whites account in full, but did collect money to cancel part of the debt. Yet another case, Captain Henderson Walker, executor to Alexander Lillington, brought a suit against James Oats in January 1698-9 for thirty two shillings and four pence and halfe penny in pork. Later in that same court, a petition from James Oats proved Benjamen Gidden was 60Ibid., 64. 61Ibid., 90. 62Ibid., 28-33. 116 indebted to Oates for five pound seventeen shillings and three pence. Oats obtained an attachement against Gidden’s estate for three sheep a two year old heifer, a gun and “pasel” of wooden lumber.63 Thus, Oats was able to pay the sum he owed to Lillington’s estate. In the March 1713 court, The court John Blish “marcht” pay Nathaniel Chevin “ye Sume of Eleven pounds with Costs al Esx.”64 John Blish then accused Captain Richard Sanderson of being possessed of an Indian woman slave named Ann and one female child which Blish claimed as his own inheritance and declared damages of sixty pounds against Sanderson. The jury found for Blish, but only for thirty pounds and Sanderson filed for a stay of judgement.65 At the next court held July of 1713, Blish prosecuted George Cooper for a debt of three pounds, one shilling and three pence. Blish also brought suit against John Powell for forty shillings.66 While Blish's suit against Cooper was deferred until the next court session when Cooper did not appear. The marshall, who failed to bring Cooper and Powell into court was ordered to pay the three pounds on shilling and three pence with costs. The marhsall petitioned for an 63Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 521. 64Colonial Records Vol. II, pp. 97. 65Ibid., pp. 113-114. 66Ibid., pp. 101. 117 attachment on Cooper’s estate.67 Blish’s attorney asked that the marshall pay two pounds for failing to bring Powell. The marshall again asked for and received an attachment to Powell's estate. Thus, over subsequent court sessions, Blish received judgements that would have covered the debt Chevin had brought Blish to court to pay. In 1721, William Badham assignee of Thomas Harvey prosecuted merchant, John Rickard, and tavernkeeper, Thomas Parris, for the “Sum of two hundred pounds which to him they owe and unjustly detaine etc.”68 Rickard then prosecuted the estate of William Dowers for ten pounds “as attorney to Thomas Selby of Boston in New England “for the balance of an Account settled on or about May the tenth”.69 Thus, calling in of debts triggered additional calling in of debts to cover the accounts. While the bulk of the cases list no goods, but rather a sterling amount, some of the cases provided more detail. For example, Deborah and Ann Ross's testimony concerned payment for work done in tying up the whale oil.‘70 In addition to whalers, various specialists in carpentry also brought suits and were sued for debts in court. For example, Robert Kitching complained in court that “James 67Ibid., pp. 107. 68Higher—Court Minutes, 1670-1696, pp. 206. 69Ibid., pp. 207. 7OColonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 419. 118 Wilson alias Alexander Raymrefuseth to preforme an agreement made with the Plantif for layin a loft in an house of the said Robt. Kitching, for and in consideration of sixteen shillings to the defendant in hand paid.”“‘ John Jones did carpentry work for James Carron and brought him to court for five pound 13 shillings. John Jones also brought a suit against Samuel Swann for “Carpenter Worke” of sixteen poundsx72 Artisans also accrued debts, as in the case of John Wilson, a cooper who owed ordinary keepers Diana and Thomas White, eight pounds, five shillings and seven pence.'73 In addition, surveyors, oystermen, bakers, periwig makers, tailors, spinsters and weavers all came to court in various functions related to community trade networks. For instance in July 1699, “Upon a complaint of Mager Samuel Swann that Johnathun Tailer Stands Indebted thirty three Shillings and fower pence for a sirvay” the court ordered that “Mr Calleway, executor of Johnathun Tailer pay Mager Swann the sum with costs.”74 In August 1727, William Cook, owner of “a small decft Vessesl and known as an “Oyster Man,” and William Rowden, a baker, were called to court to pay their debts. Both lived and traded 71Higher—Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 23. 72Higher-Court Records, 1697-1701, pp. 53-54. 73Higher—Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 79. 74Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 524. 119 in Edenton.'75 When “Jacob Overman of ye precinct of pascotank weaver” who prosecuted George Scarbrough “for a debt of seventeen shillings and six pence by his bill under his hand.” The court ordered Scarbrough to pay the debt. We assume that George owed Jacob money for weaving done by Jacob.‘76 Thus, artisans and craftsperson also extended credit for their work. Wills in addition to court cases provide a means to looking into networks of credit. People such as, merchant Thomas Pollock, specify the payment to unpaid debts in their wills. Pollock’s will, of April 1721, made note of debts that never went to court when he record the need to pay “mr. Coke, the Bricklayer, wages for making, Laying the Bricks in the chimneys, seller, underpinning, and doeing al the other worke agreed.” Here we find Mr. Coke laid bricks for Pollock for which labor Pollock had yet to pay him. Pollock also recorded work done by a carpenter, Mr. West who also worked on a house for Cullen. Pollock wanted him :Colonial Records, Vol. II, pp. 715. Colonial Records, Vol. II, 96—97. Overman employed at least one slave. See case: “Jacob Overman: of ye precinct of pasquotank; by Edward Moseley [a lawyer used often] his attorney comes to pros his Information against William Willson Lawyer” mDid on or aboute ye 20th day of December ano; 1712/13 without ye leave or knowledge of him ye fiaid Jacob Sell & Deliver unto a Man Slave to him belongen named petter a Trurckey Cock to ye value of five Shillings to ye Grate Damage of him Ye Said Jacob”. The Jury found Willson guilty and ordered Willson to Ffiry Overman ten pounds. Overman accepted forty shillings and remitted tC>.remainder on the condition that Willson pay the accruing costs for the suit . 120 paid for “the covering the house, doeing the Cormant Windows, and making upe the Gavell end of the Sd. House.”77 Other wills provide glimpses of the goods that were available to the community and account for some of the debts recorded. In looking at inventories, one sees the wide range of goods traded during the early to mid-colonial period in North Carolina. Merchant Captain Valentine Bird’s estate was valued at about £583..78 One hundred and one different items were listed, including: “2 dozen & 4 Course Napkinsm23 round and square bottles, 51 pewter Dishesm. 1 dozen pewter plates 1 Tankard and 1 Dozen Silver Spponsm2 hair brushes and 10 chairs,” among kitchen supplies, four bed rugs, two feather beds, nine sheets, a table and several chests and trucks with drawers, books and many more goods. In 1717, Mary Porter, wife of a prominent merchant, left to her daugher, Elizabeth Porter, “Six Silver Spoons, each weighing Ten Shillings, Sterling at least; and one Iron Pott & Pott hooks, and Twelve T” To her son Joshua she left” Soup Plates. “one Ticken feather bed, and bolster, and Two Pillow, one feather bed covered with Canvas and bolster, and one Pillowe, three pillow cases Suitable, two pair fiane Sheets, Two pair Coarse Sheets, one Set of Red watered Curtains and Wallons, one Spotted worsted Rugg, Red Rug, Two pair good Blankets, l Flowered Bed Coverlid, Bestead that Stood in the Hall Chamber, Six Rusialether Charis, :LMth Carolina Wills and Inventories, pp. 342-347. Ibid., pp. 472-474. Ibid., pp. 357-360. 79 121 one one of the large looking glasses, and my largest and one middling Iron pott, the large Andirons, a large double brass Skillet and Trevit, one brass Candlestick, one pari brass Scales and Weights, on pair of Stilliards, two Diaper towels, a pewter mustard pott, the Coarsest of brass riddles, my Dantzick locks Chests, a lime Sifter, a Case of Knives and forkes, a Cross cut Sawe , a writeing Desk, four Pewter Prringers, one earthen Porringer, ten Pewter Plates, 1 Iron pestle, 1 Ash Table, 1 large Soup Pewter dish, one large shall Dit, one middle sized Dto, 1 large and 1 small Pewter bason, 2 Earthenware bason, and 2 Pewter D, one Set of Wedges and Six wooden Chairs, 2 Joint Stooles to wodden turned Chares, 2 Iron trammels 1 ss butter (?) 1 small brass Ketle, l pewter Chamber pott, Mill Salt, 1 Iron Chafing dish, a pari Cloth brush afroe,a nd Currying m..”8° Amazingly this was only a small amount of the goods she owned. Both Bird and Porter were from successful merchant families, but such inventories also hint at the goods colonists purchased through them.“‘ A few remaining accounts from the seventeenth century show specific goods. For example, John Phillpot, “debtor” by an account dated October 1694, purchased muslin, a knife, stockings, needels, linnen, rum, sugar, and shoes.‘32 William Glover purchased shoes, rum, powder and shot, soap, tools, linen, blanket, thread, cloth, buttons, silk, and writing paper. Richard Nailor recorded a debt to the Planters in April :0Ibid., pp. 359. See, Lois Green Car and Lorena S. Walsh, “Changing Lifestyles and Consumer Behavior in the Colonial Chesapeake” in Of Consuming Interest. They noted that beginning in 16808 in the Chesapeake a change in material culture among the elite towards owning an increased number of éuxury goods. .Eigher-Court Records, 1670—1696, pp. 447. 122 of 1696 for eight monthes sixteen days “diet” and for a debt “To John Clark nailers maite for deyett washing, one pare of stockings,..one pair of showesm 8 pounds 7 pence.”83 Death itself could produce an account. For example, “Mr. Rober Cannon Deceased” was debtor to Mrs. Ann Durant for attendance at two pounds ten shillings, and charges for coffin making of seventy foot plank and one hundred nails, and for clothing of “one Holland shirt, one Holland sheet, one handkerchief and cap, two qrts. rum and funeral charges” for a total of ten pounds.84 Many of the goods traded related to clothing and diet, such as in the case of John Bacheler, a debtor in 1698 whose account survived. He owed Blaney for: To A [caster ] hatt 1:00:00 To one paire of wosted stockings 06:06 To 2 kinfes 0:01:06 To 1 pair of shoo Buckles 0:00:06 To 1 Inkhorn and 3 Nedles 0:01:06 1:10:00 Wee Whose Name are under written weare present and doe atest upon oath that John Blaney delivered the above mentioned goods unto John Bacheller: witness our hands one the day above mentioned,”85 Another account recorded purchases of a canoe and cloth. “Cornale Hartely debter November the 20 1691 To a new Connew 04-00-00 To Hanaballs Haskings bill for 03-09-00 :Ibid., pp. 448—450. 85Ibid., pp. 448-450. “\lgfler-Court Records, 1697-1701, pp. 228. 123 And by Tho. Evens you made yourself debter to me 01-11-02 $366362 """" An Account of Goods I had of Mr. Hartley and a bill turnd over to him To 8 yards and 3 quartrs of Sharge at 6 shillings 02—12-06” “ Thus, in late seventeenth and early eighteenth century North Carolina colonists engaged in trade, used the courts to secure their credit system in ways not generally attributed to such early frontier colonial communities. In 1719 the courthouse was finished. Although for a few years court occasionally drifted over to the nearby tavern. Shops and taverns surrounding the courthouse centralized part of the local economy. By the 17205, the port town of Edenton was established and the region took on some of the centralized settlement characteristics of a community surrounding a port town. But trade had taken place in the absence of a town, the market for goods independent variable of town settlement. Before 1719, taverns served as court and shop, making taverns as central to the local economy as credit and court systems. 86Ibid., pp. 113. 124 Chqptor 4 “THE CUSTOM OF THEIR HOUSE": TAVERN KEEPERS AND LOCAL TRADE In September of 1694, Diana and Thomas White complained in court that Thomas Hassold withheld from them “reasonable account of certain debts book accounts and writing belonging to the Ordnary kept at the house of the said Diana.”1 Diana’s marriage to Thomas White sparked a series of litigation that helps reveal the multifaceted trade functions of tavernkeepers in early colonial Albemarle. In a deposition filed the fifteenth of August, Diana and her new husband complained that Hassold had agreed to a copartnership with Diana for “holding and keeping an Ordnary” at her house, where “Diana held and kpt and Divers Debts to the common use and profit of the said Tho. Hassold and the said Diana as well upon the Publick account as from divers the Inhabitants of this County was Made and remain due.” Thomas Hassold, however, withheld the contract and the tavern accounts from the Whites “intending 1William S. Parker, Jr., ed., North Carolina Higher-Court Records, 1670- 1696, (Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, Raleigh, North Carolina: 1774),pp. 25. Hereafter listed as fligher-Court Records. Ordinaries also called taverns, public houses, dram shops, and inns provided a center for local exchange in this early COlonial commuity. I use tavern, when at first the colonist called them Ordinaries or inns simply because tavern is the term most people are fanuliar with. 125 the Plantifs to defraud the Writing the aforesaid contract ’fl Without the accounts the and agreement between them. Whites could not collect debts at large, nor know what was due Diana as specified in the contract. The Whites asked the court for 100 pounds in damages. Diana's case and others like it reveal several aspects of the local economy. First, taverns, trade and the court system were intertwined in the early colonial period.3 Tavern keepers regularly hosted court until 1716 when court moved to the Edenton courthouse. Even then court migrated to the local tavern out of habit. Tavernkeeper’s brought debt suits resulting from trade to court hosted by them, another tavernkeeper or merchant. Second, taverns also functioned as credit houses and shops. Therefore, as one of the central institutions in early colonial society, tavernkeepers served multiple community functions and facilitated community trade. Most studies on taverns have focused on drinking and culture, ‘Ibid., 77. 3Scholars sometimes point to a distinction between taverns and ordinaries based on size lodging and amenities offered. See Paton Yoder, “Tavern Regulation in Virginia: Rationale and Realilty” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 87(3), pp. 262. Others make reference to a distinction but discuss them interchangeably. See, Bruce Daniel, “Another Type of Meeting House: Puritan Ordinaries and Provincial Taverns in Colonial New England, “New England Journal of History, 52(2), 1994, pp. 19 and Alan Watson, “Ordinaries in Colonial ?aStern North Carolina,” North Carolina Historical Review. 58(1), pp. -22. 126 rather than the significant commerial role of tavernkeepers. Third Diana 5 central presence affirms early colonial women s participation in community trade relationships. Women, as acted in the public realm. While taverns tavern keepers, women played a remained a central hub of trade and the court more active and public role in their community than generally assumed. Other scholars note the centrality of taverns to community life, and a few remark on taverns courthouse role in the early colonial period and later in frontier regions. alcohol trade and Most scholarship is focused on tavern culture, political culture. See, David Weir Conroy, In Public Houses: Drink and (Chapel Hill: the Revolution of Authority in Colonial Massachusetts University of North Carolina Press, 1995)and Peter Thompson, Rum Punch & Revolution: TaverngOing & Public Life in Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia (University of Pennsylvania Press: 1999). Conroy argues 'that taverns “became a public stage upon which colonist reSisted and addressed changes in their society. Indeed, in these :initiated, liouses men gradually redefined their relationships with figures of 11. Thompson argues that in Philadephia “tavern gOing authority, ” pp. :initiated political as well as social change in the City ” He ciocuments the variety of taverns, pp 19 Like his study, most of the sscholarship on taverns “explain the meaning of the legal economic and ' ° the services ssoc1al standing of Philadelphia’s various public houses, the uses to which they were put' and the degree tzhese houses provided; tJO which these factor both influenced on anothers and changed over tiime,” pp. 6. He argues over the second half of the 18th century (Zlmanges in tavern use reflected larger societal changes visible in IDWJblic spaces where conflict and tension displayed fissures in class ‘JTGElations. His and other studies focus on drink and the drinking trade 'Eirhd culture. See also: Kym S. Rice, Early American Taverns' For the .lgiEggertainment of Friends and Strangers (Chicago: 1983), Mark Edward LI¥<31mder and James Kirby Martin, Drinking in America: A History (New Er(Drk, 1987) and W. J. Rorabaugh, The Alcoholic Republic: An American .égllféidition. (New York, 1979). :E;€averal studies on taverns have suggested the importance of taverns to establishing and maintaining cultural norms. See, Peter Clark, The 1200-1830 (London, New York, 1983; E§E§__gglish Alehouse; A Social History, bli‘éina Z. Rockman and Nan A. Rothschild, “City Tavern, Country Tavern: “ Historical Archaeology, XVIII (2), Alaysis of Four Colonial Sites, 127 Studies on the court system neglect the role of taverns during the early colonial years, or the role of courts in trade patterns.6 In Virginia in the eighteenth century, C.J. Farmer notes that courthouses and taverns were sites for trade.7 While he does not comment on court being held in taverns, he does link their respective roles in the community. Daniel Thorp recorded a county justice holding magistrates court at a North Carolina Moravian tavern as late as 1763.8 Historian Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's community study on rural Maine of the eighteenth century notes that 1984) and Conroy, In Public Houses. See also, Sarah E. Sargent, Elixabeth and Thomas Roper, “Proprietors”: Tavern Keeping in Colonial Virginia,” Virginia Cavalcade, 48(1) 1999, pp. 4—13. While this study is focused on the later eighteenth century, the proximity of taverns to courthouses was noted. gAaG. Roeber, “Authority, Law, and Custom: The Rituals of Court Day in Tridewater, Virginia, 1720 to 1750” William and Mary Quarterly, Third £3eries, 37(1), 1980, pp. 29-52. Roeber writes, “The courthouse was Llocated at a crossroads near the center of the county, on a green with 51 tavern or ordinary close at hand. By the 17203, the old wooden frame czourthouses were giving way to new building that wer the boasts of the sshires.” His work is centered on the later courthouses and he gives no eavidence nor citations for his assumptions about earlier courts. In SSouth Carolina, John E Douglas in “Judiciary Without Jurisdiciton: A SSOuth Carolina’s Experiment With a County and Precinct Court System, 3.720-1730” South Carolina Historical Magazine, never discussed where tzhe courts were being held. Donna Spindel, “The Administration of 'Clrindnal Justice in North Carolia, 1720-1740, The American Journel of QEgggal History, XXV (1981), pp. 141—162 studies crime in North Carolina, ik>llt it too refers to the court being held but not where the court EiCtually was held. That the place was not the focus of these studies, ]:>th silence assumes that court was always held at courthouses and this yes not the case. (:3-.J. Farmer, “Persistence of County trade: The Failure of Twons to l:)€3Velop in Southside Virginia during the Eighteenth Century,” Journal QEEEELyHistorical Geography, 14(4)1988, pp. 332. I:>Einiel Thorp, “Taverns and Tavern Culture on the Southern Colonial :E;i1:<3ntier: Rowan County, North Carolina, 1753—1776,” The Journal of -‘£EZL££hern History, LXII (4) 1996, pp. 675. 128 9 taverns functioned as courthouses. New Hampshire historians, Donna-Belle and James Garvin argue, “Provincial government in New Hampshire began in the tavern and remained centered there until after 1750.” .After this period they note that taverns still remained a center of political and business discussion, arguing, that “even with these impressive private rooms available [governor’s house and lieutenant governor's house], both Council and Assembly met most often in public housesmalmost until the inauguration in 1767 of John Wentworth, New Hampshire's last royal governor, most of the public business of the province was carried out in a succession of Portsmouth taverns.”10 For example, Thomas Packer, followed by his son, Thomas Packer Jr., owned a tavern, built in 1696, that served government functions throughout the 17005. Packer 116d built two rooms at one end “court house and Council C2hamber.” The Council ordered the tavern fortified as a gyarrison in 1705. 9Iuaurel Thatcher Ulrich, A Midwife's Tale: The Life of Marcha Ballard E§ed on Her Diary 1785-1812. (Vintage Books, 1990) pp. 99, 144—145, While this book covers a later time period it can be argued that the frontier conditions of the two communities make them suitable for parallel study. Court was held in Hallowell at Pollard’s Tavern until 790 when a courthouse was finally built. Mrs. Pollard was one of Me rtha's daughters. The tavern was also the center of social life for gounger folks. Donna-Belle Garvin and James L Garvin , On the Road North of Boston: Ifsa&‘év§Hampshire Taverns and Turnpikes (New Hampshire Historical Society, ), pp. 129. 129 Holding court in a tavern was not without problems. In July, 1701 the Assembly resolved that, “The Publicque Afairs of theHouse of Representatives being much Obstructed by Persons Sitting and Lying on the bed, Voted That Whosever hence forward Either Sitt or ly Down Shall forfeit three pence To the house.” In 1723, Packer's daughter inherited a lifetime tenancy along with the tavern license and “the building continued to serve at least some governmental functions until the 17403.” Hosting court was not without risks either. For instance, “when, Ann Sylton submitted her bills for providing ‘house room, firewood & candles' to the Inferior Court of Common Please, the Superior Court, and the juries from 1753—1755, she included a L5.0.0 charge for ‘Breaking windows, Chairs, &c.’”11 'Taverns in Albemarle functioned like taverns in frontier aareas in the colonies to the north. In Albemarle court took place at local taverns on and off Ifrom initial settlement in the 16708 until the 17203. Although -P1istorian Alan Watson noted, “The first recorded petition for 15311 ordinary in Perquimans at the county courthouse was in 1739 13’37 Samuel Palmer,” ordinared operated long before this 1\ L 3 130 12 petition. An act of Assembly in 1712 set aside land in Queen Annes Town, which would later be known as Edenton, for a courthouse and other public buildings. The first recorded use of the courthouse was July 31, 1716. However, later that day 13 the court met at William Branch’s house. The next five sessions of court were held at Branch’s house. In 1718 when the court was finally fully held at the courthouse, Branch had bought land in town near the courthouse. In July of 1719 William Branch “was brought to court for selling “Liquor and ”14 Victuals contrary to the Law of this Province. He apparently did not have the required license, but, his case was w William Branch’s tavern was the last at which dismissed. court was hosted regularly. A string of tavernkeepers hosted court from the 16803 to 17203. From 1689-1694 Diana Harris Foster White hosted court Idearly continuously. She brought her debt cases to court suhile she was hosting the court in her tavern, just as several czourt hosts would later do. Her cases were more unusual than tlhe others for two reasons. One, the number of cases brought 15t>rward in such a short period of time was greater than other ‘tléivernkeepers. Two, she was a woman, and one of four women \ 12 L 3"Watson, “Ordinaries,” pp. 74. Marc Brodsky, The Courthouse at Edenton: A History of the Chowan County Courthouse of 1767, (Chowan County Edenton: North Carolina 1989) Colonial Records, Vol. II, pp. 363, 369-370. Ibid., pp. 402-403,. IS 131 who hos court 1 D: busines busines husband brought 1670 he debt ca know f0 d€posit the kin Case, J “being never w would b her Own thereab placed Se tavern who hosted court without their husbands, although the other court hosts had wives. Diana's unfortunate marriage, and her bad luck in a business partner resulted in a more detailed account of business at a court tavern. She kept the tavern with her prior husband, Thomas Harris, as early as the 16703. Thomas Harris brought a suit against Herman Smewin in the September court of 16 1670 held at the house of Samual Davis. This was probably a debt case resulting from Harris’ trading or tavernkeeping. We know for sure that he and Diana married by 1673, when depositions taken in 1676 in the case of Thomas Miller against the king, named her has as the wife of Thomas. In the same case, John Culpeper signed a similar deposition, stating that “being at the house of Thomas Harri3m[Miller declared] It never was good time in England since the King came in nor ever \uould be so long as there was a King in England.” Diana in tier own deposition stating, “Diana Harris aged 32 yearers or t:hereabouts saith that Thomas Miller being in hir house.” .EDlaced herself centrally in the running of the house. Several other depositions imply that the Harris’ hosted a ~tlc‘ivern from 1673-1675 where much of the turmoil and riotous SEDeech of the Culpeper Rebellion took place. At that time, \ 15 figher-Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 4. 132 William Cockin, Thomas Willis and Jonothan Nixon were present. John Davis, also a court host, recalled Millers speech at his own house. Nixon “did heare a discourse between on Patrick Jackson and Thomas Miller, “at ye House of Francis Godfrey.” John Dye also attested to this latter exchange.17 Such political discussions and turmoil are well attributed to taverns in the later eighteenth century. The 16703 were politically chaotic in North Carolina. A break in court records until the 1680’s coincided with the turmoil represented by these depositions. When records are again available, we learn that Thomas Harris, Diana White's first husband, died sometime prior to March 1680 when letters of administration were granted to William Foster, her second husband. The court appointed Mr. Durant, Mr. Hinkely, Capt. Crawford and Thomas Harvery as appraisers.18 In November, 1681, luis estate came to court for a debt to Francis Godfrey’s eestate of “one thousand one hundred and sixty pounds of UFobacco and by account one hundred seventy and two pounds of l7Solonial Records, pp. 314-317. “The deposition of Diana Harris aged 32 yeares or thereabouts saith that Thoms Miller being in hir house in discourse 3d yt of all Religions in the world the Cavallrs are the veriest rogues & Thomas Willis answered why soe & Thomas Miller replyed agine how can there be righteous dealing when ye King hath his hand in 5‘ bvhores placket & further saith not.” Davis hosted the court in July and September 1670, May court of 1673 was held at Francis Godfrey’s. Wer Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 3,4, 6. The only other court lsted is held in 1681 at George Durants, the next listing is at Jno. {13a rris 1691, pp. 11, 15. figher Court Records, 1670-1696,pp. 9. 133 Toba thre mar hims Acco Dian In 1 John host tave Suit Onc Tobacco and beside two Thousand of eight penny Nailes and three hundred of ten penny nailes.” William Foster, in “marrying the Relict of the said Thomas Harris and possessing himself with his said Estate” settled the debt.19 William Foster died sometime between 1681 and 1689. According to a petition by Thomas Tull Humbley, John Harris, Diana's son, hosted the February fourth 1689 court session.20 In 1691 with the return to consistent court recordkeeping, John, or Jonothan as he is also called, Harris regularly hosted court that year.”’ At this point Diana was running the tavern with him, or more likely for him, since the following suit named her and not her son. A deposition entered in court on September 6, 1694 stated, “Thomas Clark plantif declares 19Ibid., pp. 10-11. The debt was owed to Francis Godfrey, deceased and William Therrill his adminstrator and guardian of his two grandchildren. Francis Godfrey must have had guardianship over the grandchildren. John Godfrey was to choose his own guardian. He may have been an underaged son, but old enough to choose, or an older grandchild. The case does not specify, pp. 10-11. That same year 1680 William signed a petition to King Charles 2“ claiming they suffer from the rebellion and that the Kings customs are drained by the rebels, Sothwell as Governor has been ineffectual and they see help in repressing the rebels. Twenty-nine men signed the document. (including Thomas King). Thomas Millar, collector of customs also petitioned the King for help, “it now appears that some of theords dsigne no other then te continuance of the present state of thisng there under the rebels, who stil continue prosecutieing your Petioner for his escape, «and all thosewho hve opposed them by heavy fines imprisonment Banisment $1033 of Eares &cmall this merely to justify the said Rebellion, and gliscourage all persons fromseekeing any redress,” pp. 305-308. oHigher-Court Records, pp. 74. A nonsuit was declared, but he was E>etitioning a later court for nonpayment of costs and thus recounted :ihe original suit and location in a deposition to the court. Ibid., pp. 13,15. Court was also held in May and February of 1690/1691 at: “Jonathan Harris’s house.” 134 against Thomas White and Diana his wife in an action of the case for that whereas the Defendant Dianah then knowne by the name of Diana Foster being in Copartnerhsip with John Harris her sonne in keeping of an Ordinary the Plantif On or about the yeare 1691 did sell and deliver to the said John Harris a quantify of beef.” John agreed to pay 4L 5 shillings in “Merchantable pork convenient at Yawpim."22 At some point after 1691, Diana Harris Foster took Thomas Hassold on as a business partner. This partnership, combined with her subsequent marriage to Thomas White, would later result in an unusual cluster of court appearances. While in partnership with Thomas Hassold, Diana hosted several courts in 1693 and 1694.:23 At one of these sessions she met and later married Thomas White. Following this marriage, records indicate Thomas White hosted court during the 1694 year.‘24 He died three years later after throwing Diana out of her house and ruining her financially.25 22Ibid., pp. 58. 23Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 392, 399; Higher Court Records, 1670- 1696, PP. 20. 24Higher Court-Records, 1670-1696, pp. 21, 23. Colonial Records, Vol. I, pun 405, 423 and 442. Court was held at Whites, in September 1694, thvember 1694, February 1694[1695], That February he also hosted the (Zourt of Chancery. Need to list case that uses her former ame of Efioster. See court action listing Diana as his wife. In 1697 Diana PVhite is in court making an oath on the inventory of her desceased ggusbands Thomas' estate. Higher Court Records, Vol. II, pp. 26. Higher Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 429-430. “To the honorable Coart n offending, shall immediately, by Order of the Court kDeafOre whom such Conviction shall be, receive, at the I~3ublic Whipping Post, on his or her bare Back, Thirty :Léasshes, well laid on, for the First Offence, in Lieu of the ESEiin Fine.”41 None of the cases against illegal taverns in tillee courts had sufficient evidence (or willing witnesses) 11<3 convict. A half century later the situation remained unchanged. DEiiniel Thorp cited backcounty North Carolina cases of William Temple Coles and John Lowrance. He noted Cole, “who 3\‘ 9 l qubld” 79. “Ibid., 182. Ibid., 184. 139 was named to the county court in 1769, ran an unlicensed tavern himself until 1774, when he first obtained a license.” Both the men brought suits for “the nonpayment of debts incurred through the purchase of liquor in quantities that could only be sold with a license, which Iieither plaintiff had at the time of the sales.”42 This rnay have been the case for William Branch, who had hosted (:ourt in the years immediately preceding the building of tide courthouse. This certainly was true of ordinarykeeper Thomas Ekarris. Like Diana Harris Foster White twenty years fiaairlier, Parris ran a tavern that functioned as a center of J—Cxoal politics. In 1725, the court ordered payment of 15L tZCD Thomas Parris for a dinner served to the Council during Eiri April 15 1724 session. (William Reed, Christopher Gale, J'OhnLovick, Edward Moseley, Thomas Harvey, John Blount, “Prlcmas Pollock, Arthur Goffe and Robert West were council \ 42 Thorp, “Taverns and Tavern Culture,” pp. 670. Philadelphia taverns also had similar rules. See, Thompson, A Social History of Philadelphia W, licensing varied by colony. Fees were collected from tavern lcenses granted by the courts. Rice, Early American Taverns, pp. 61. In Philadelphia in 1686 at least 6 taverns were documented, by 1756 ere were a little over on hundred. Thompson, Rum Punch and \Revolution, pp. 2. This dramatic rise follows the sizable increase in e city population during the early 18th century. One in ten houses $0101 liquor, legally or illegally. See Thompson, pp. 134-136. In Boston in 1765, 1 in every 13 houses was licensed. This worked out to roughly public house for every 116 in habitants. Conroy, In Public Houses, pp. 142. 140 under C place 1‘ the tax In 1725 Richard Woods a Parris are all Place n Decembe then 31 Open th the Say CockbuI “SUSann he: hus] GeOrge 1 0f the . under Governor George Burrington.)43 Court no longer took place regularly at local taverns, as in Diana’s day, but the tavern remained a central political element. Parris figured centrally in local political turmoil. In 1725, the court accused Burrington of speaking, “Sr. IRichard is no more fitts to be Govenor than a Hog in the DVoods and that he is a Noodel and an ape & also to Thomas Eharris then present he the sayd George did say Damn You Tom sure all your Countrymen such Fooles.” This incident took EDlxace nine months prior to a riot that occurred early Burrington attacked Everard's house, and December of 1725 . tlkuen also the house of Thomas Parris, “attempting to break <>Emen the doors of his house and threatened to murther him tlheesayd Thomas and his Family and particularly Adam C:Ockburne Esq: Collector then a Lodger in his house. “53113annah, Thomas’ wife, also “abused” ran for help to save hEir'husband who was being beaten by Cornelius Harnett under C=7€3 court. Diana was engaged in some form of trade beyond \ 55 SSThOrp, “Taverns and Tavern Culture,” pp.662. 57Ibid., pp. 668. bid., pp. 674. 145 tavernkeeping as early as 1689 when the court recorded Diana’s suit against “Jno. Tumy” “for a sadell thirty shillings being Due by on a Count.” She signed the complaint October 21, 1689, “Dianah Foster” with her X mark}58 A later court document while not pertaining to the sale of goods, suggests that Diana had goods to be stolen. ZIn this instance, Thomas King was “Indited for feloniously satealing severall Goods from Mrs.Diana ffoster.” 59 The debt suits brought forward in the 16903 by Diana aarud her third husband Thomas White give some insight into 'tlie accounts she kept in the community. For example, frliomas and Diana brought “an action against John Wilson of Pascotanck Precinct Cooper in a Plea of the case For that tZhesaid Wilson refuseth to render to them the summe of Eflinght pounds five shillings and seven pence which is due to t:hemby account contracted to Diana the Wife of the said 13110. White in her Widdowhood.”“’ln February 1695 the court Earrested Robert Kitching on the complaint by the White that I163 was “Indebted to ye plaintiffs by acct contracted with tyre sd Diana whilest shee was sole tha sume of forty five 53}Iillings and nine pence half peny.” He agreed on the debt 58 _ Eligher-Court Records, 1670-1696, 425. She brought suit as Diana I?Oster. CC.>lonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 397. Wr—Court Records, 1670-1696, pp. 23. 60 146 only t “that Robert Ballanc Whites had no; but the aCCOunt EXtende COUI‘t i Shillin tWenty- and was ordered to pay it. In another suit, against Robert Moline for an “account contracted wth ye said Diana Whilest shee was sole ye sum of Four pounds seven shillings and one penny and he produceth his account.” However, Robert then “produceth an Account in balance of ye acct,” leaving only only twelve shillings left to be paid. Moline then argued “that upon demand made by ye said Thomas White he the said Robert Moline tendered his accout with payment of ye ”m Thus the court dismissed the suit and the Ballance. VVhites had to pay the costs. Robert Moline next argued he knad not made a promise to pay the account of Thomas King, hunt the court ruled against him and he had to pay the eaczcount of thirty-six shillings in pork to the Whites.62 Many other cases point to the amount of credit Diana €3>- shervuas married to him, or William Reed's daughter did so. Tkue fact that the family ran a tavern, illegally, made ‘* cross racial sexual liaisons probable. Greater social fluidity in racial hierarchy obtained in early North Carolina than would be true by the nineteenth century.18 Blacks and whites had close and daily contact with each other, working side by side, or spending evenings at a tavern as in the case of the Reeds. North Carolina's frontier status and political turmoil during the later 17u‘century and early 18fl'century further complicated the developing racial hierarchy. In the 1703 elections, Joseph Boone, a merchant, complained to Parliament that “all sorts of people, even servants, Negroes, Alians, Jews 16Colonial Records, Vol. II, pp. 551. :LHeinegg, pp. 494. Breen and Innes, Myne Owne Ground, Chapter 2. 238 . . . . 1 arui Ccnmnon.sailors were admitted to vote in Elections.”9 In 171fi5 true Assembly passed a law that “no Negro Mullatto or Indians” could vote for members of the Assembly.20 This law follrnuad closely on the heels of the Cary alliance’s loss of pmnwer. This alliance included the Durant and Blount iinmilies, with their ties to the local Indian communities. leit7ll, Cary and his supporters were freed without a trial in England and Cary returned to North Carolina. The new governor was instructed by the Lords Proprietors not to punish any party participating in the Cary Rebellion.m' The Porters and Edward Moseley, the Durants and the Blounts, participated in colonial politics for many more years. The stories imbedded in early colonial documents reveal the extent to which early colonial frontier regions participated in both the transatlantic and intercolonial economies. Both of these economic realities, particularly the domestic trade between colonies, have been overlooked by economic historians. Local merchants tied Albemarle tightly to the intercolonial and transatlantic economy. Irmal merchants also struggled to maintain control over ]rmal government, and ignore increasing attempts at 19Colonial Records, Vol. I, pp. 639. 20Colonial Records, Vol. II, pp. 215. 21White,“From the Vestry Act to Cary's Rebellion,” pp. 18-19. 239 metropolitan British supervision. Their struggles over pmilitixual power reflect the lucrative nature of the skin trade that originally drove this economy. The frontier ruaturxe of the community fostered blurring of racial boundaries and assumptions about gender roles. Inconsistent denrnxitions of race complicated understandings of race relatjxmns in the very early colonial period. Increasingly l_ rigid laws after 1715 divided the community more clearly along racial boundaries. The same transformation in social roles for women also took place at the opening of the eighteenth century. Women participated more heavily in trade in the early colonial period than they would by the mid-eighteenth century. Studying the intersection of trade with race, class and gender underscores the multicultural, transatlantic society that formed the foundations of the economic world that would become the American colonies. 240 WORKS CITED Primary Sources Bird, William, William Byrds’ Histories of the Dividing Line Betwixt Virginia and North Carolina, William Boyd, ed“, UKaleigh, North Carolina Historical Commission, 1929) The Prose Works of William Byrd of Westover: Narratives of a Colonial Virginian. Louis B. Wright, ed., (Cambridge, Mass., 1966), Bird, William, (ZLark, walter, ed., The State Records of North Carolina: iLaws 1715-1776, XXIII, (Goldsboro, N.C. Nash Brothers 1886- 1907) Carter, Landon, The Diary of Colonial Landon of Sabine Hall, 1752-1778. Jack Greene, ed., (University Press of Virginia, 1965) .‘I- Lawson, John, A New Voyage to Carolina. ed., Hugh Talmage Lefter (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1967) Gates, Henry Louis, ed., The Classic Slave Narratives, (Penguin Putnam Inc: New York, 1987) Grimes, Bryan, North Carolina Wills and Inventories, (Raleigh Edwards & Broughton Printing Company 1912) Margaret M. Hoffman ed. Chowan Precinct, North Carolina 1696-1723 Genealogical Abstracts of Deed Books (Weldon, N.C. Roanoke New Company, 1972) Olde Albemarle County North Carolina Miscellaneous Records 1678-ca. 1737. MattuaErma Parker ed., North Carolina Higher-Court ReconkL 1670-1696, (Department of Cultural Resources, InviSUXIOf Archives and History, Raleigh, North Carolina: 1774) , North Carolina Higher-Court Records, 1696 —1701, Empammmnt of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, Raleigh, North Carolina: 1774) 241 , North Carolina Higher-Court Records, 1702—1708, (Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, Raleigh, North Carolina: 1774) VtLLliam.S. Price, Jr. ed., North Carolina Higher-Court Records, 1709-1723, (Department of Cultural Resources, Ilivision of Archives and History, Raleigh, North Carolina: 1774) Robert S. Cain ed, North Carolina Higher-Court Records, 1724-1730, (Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, Raleigh, North Carolina: 1774) William L. Saunders, The Colonial Records of North Carolina, Vol I, (Raleigh: P.M. Hale, Printer to the State, 1886 and Wilmington, N.C, Broadfoot Publishing Company 1993) William L. Saunders, The Colonial Records of North Carolina, Vol II, (Raleigh: P.M. Hale, Printer to the State, 1886 and Wilmington, N.C, Broadfoot Publishing Company 1993) William L. Saunders, The Colonial Records of North Carolina, Vol III, (Raleigh: P.M. Hale, Printer to the State, 1886 and Wilmington, N.C, Broadfoot Publishing Company 1993) William L. Saunders, The Colonial Records of North Carolina, Vol IV, (Raleigh: P.M. Hale, Printer to the State, 1886 and Wilmington, N.C, Broadfoot Publishing Company 1993) Southern Historical Collection, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill Archives, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 242 F Secondary Sources Aileen B. Agnew, “Retail Trade of Elizabeth Sanders and the “Other Consumers of Colonial Albany,” The Hudson Valley Regional Review, 14, no.2 (1997) 35-55 Axtel, James, The European and The Indian: Essays In the Ethnohistory of Colonial America (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1981), The Invasion Within: The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985) James Axtell, “The White Indians of Colonial America,” in Peter C. Mancall and James H. Merrell eds., American Encounters: Natives and Newcomers from European Contact to Indian Removal, 1500—1850 (New York and London: Routledge, 2000) 324-350. Beckles, Hilary, A History of Barbadoes: From Amerindian Settlement to Nation-State, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge 1990), , Afro—Caribbean Women & Resistance to Slavery in Barbados (London: Karnak House 1988) Berlin, Ira, Many Thousand's Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1998) Berlin, Ira and Philip D. Morgan, eds. The Slaves' Internal Economy Independent Production by Slaves in the Americas (London: Frank Class 1991) Boydston, Jeanne, “The Woman Who Wasn’t There: Women’s Market Labor and the Transition to Capitalism in the United States,” Journal of the Early Republic, 16, no. 2 (1996) Breen, T.H. and Stephen Innes, “Myne Owne Ground” : Race and Freedom on Virginia’s Eastern Shore, 1640-1676 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980) Breen, T.H., “A Changing Labor force and Race Relations In Virginia 1660—1710” Journal of Social History [Great Britain] 7, no. 1 (1973) 3-25 243 , “Baubles of Britain’: The American Consumer Revolutions of the Eighteenth Century,” Past and Present, 19 (1988) ,”An Empire of Goods: The Anglicizaition of Colonial America, 1690-1776,” Journal of British Studies, 25 (1986) Brodsky, Marc, A History of the Chowan County Courthouse of 1767, (1989) Brodsky, Marc, The Courthouse at Edenton: A History of the Chowan County Courthouse of 1767, (Chowan County Edenton: North Carolina 1989) Brown, Jennifer, Strangers in Blood: Fur Trade Company Families in Indian Country (Norman, OK, 1980) Bushman, “Markets and Composite Farms in Early America” William and Mary Quarterly 55 no. 3, (1998), 351-374 Campbell, John, “ As ‘A Kind of Freeman'?: Slaves’ Market- Related Activities in the South Carolina Up Country, 1800- 1860,” The Slaves' Internal Economy: Independent Production by Slaves in the Americas, ed. Ira Berlin and Philip D. Morgan (London: Frank Cass, 1991) Cultivation and Culture: Labor and the Shaping of Slave Life in the Americas, eds. Ira Berlin and Philip D. Morgan (University Press of Virginia, 1993) 243—275, Carr, Lois Green, “Emigration and the Standard of Living: The Seventeenth Century Chesapeake” Journal of Economic History, 52 no. 2 (1992) 271-291. Carr, Lois Green and Lorena S. Walsh “Changing Lifestyles and Consumer Behavior in the Colonial Chesapeake” in Of Consuming Interest: The Style of life in the Eighteenth Century, eds., Cary Carson, Ronald Hoffman, and Peter J. Albert (Charlottesville: Published for the United States Capitol Historical Society by the University Press of Virginia, 1994) Carr, Lois Green, Russell Menard, and Lorena Walsh, Robert Cole’s World: Agriculture and Societ in Early Maryland, (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1991) 244 Carr, Lois Green and Lorena Walsh, “Economic Diversification and Labor Organization in the Chesapeake, 1650-1820”) in Work and Labor in Early America, ed., Stephen Innes, (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1988) Carr, Lois Green and Russell Menard, “Land, Labor and Economies of Scale in Early Maryland,” Carr, Lois Green and Loren S. Walsh, “The Planter’s Wife: The Experience of White Women in Seventeenth-Century Maryland,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3d Ser. XXXIV (October 1977) 542-571 Carr, Lois Green, Russell Menard and Lorena Walsh in “A Small Planters’ Profits: The Cole Estate and the Growth of the Early Chesapeake Economy” William and Mary Quarterly(1983) Clark, Peter. The English Alehouse; A Social History, 1200— 1830 (London,New York, 1983) Cleary, Patricia. “’She Will Be in the Shop’: Women’s Sphere of Trade in Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia and New York,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of Historyyand Biography, CXIX, No. 3 (July 1995) 183-202 Conroy, David Weir. In Public Houses: Drink and the Revolution of Authority in Colonial Massachusetts (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995) Corkran, David, The Carolina Indian Frontier, Tricentennial booklet number 6 (University of South Carolina Press: Columbia, South Carolina 1970). Cott, Nancy. The Bonds of Womanhood: Women's Sphere in New England, 1780-1835 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977). Daniel, Bruce “Another Type of Meeting House: Puritan Ordinaries and Provincial Taverns in Colonial New England,” New England Journal of History, 52, no. 2 (1994) Daniels, Christine, “Wanted Blacksmith Who Understands the Art of Plantation Work: Artisans in Maryland 1700-1810,” William and Maryguarterly, Third Series, L no. 4 (October, 1993) 245 , “Liberty to Complaine” Davis, “English Foreign Trade, 1770-1774” Historical Economic Review, (1964) Deetz, James, Flowerdew Hundres: The Archaeology of a Virginia Plantation, 1619-1864 (University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville (1993) Duffy, John, Epidemics in Colonial America (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press 1953 and 1995) Douglas, John E., in “Judiciary Without Jurisdiction: A South Carolina’s Experiment With a County and Precinct Court System, 1720-1730,” South Carolina Historical Magazine Evans, Emory “Private Indebtedness and the Revolution in Virginia, 1776-1796,” William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 28 no 3 (Jul. 1971) A. Roger Ekirch , “Poor Carolina”: Politics and Society in Colonial North Carolina, 1729-1776 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981) Egnal, “The Economic Development of the Thirteen Continental Colonies 1720-1775,” William and Maryyggarterly (1979) Farmer, Charles J., “Persistence of Country Trade: The Failure of Towns to Develop in Southside Virginia during the Eighteenth Century” Journal of Historical Geography, 14 no 4 (1988) 331—341 Galenson, David W., White Servitude in Colonial America: An Economic Analysis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981) Gallman, James, “Determinants of Age at Marriage in Colonial Perquimans County, North Carolina, William and Mary Quarterly, 3d Series, number 39 ( January 1982) Garvin, Donna-Belle and James L Garvin, On the Road North of Boston: New Hampshire Taverns and Turnpikes (New Hampshire Historical Society) 1988 246 Gaspar, David Barry Bondsmen and Rebels: A Study of Master- Slave Relations in Antiqua,(Durham and London: Duke University Press 1985) Gilman, Carolyn, Where Two Worlds Meet;: The Great Lakes Fur Trade (Saint Paul, MN, 1982) Genovese, Eugene, Roll Jordan Roll: The World the Slaves Made (Vintage Books 1972) Goldenberg, Joseph, “Names and Numbers: Statistical Notes on Some Port Records of Colonial North Carolina.” American Neptune, 29 no 3(1969) 155-166 Gundersen, Joan Rezner and Gwen Victor Gampel, “Married Women’s Legal Status in Eighteenth Century New York and Virginia, “ William and Mary Quarterly, 3d Ser XXXIX (January 1982) 114-134 Gundersen, Joan Rezner. “The Double Bonds of Race and Sex: Black and White Women in a Colonial Virginia Parish,” The Journal of Southern History, LII, no. 3 (August 1986)351- 372 Hancock, David, “’Capital and Credit with Approved Security’”: Financial Markets in Monterserrat and South Carolina, 1748-1775” Business and Economic History, 23 no. 2 (Winter 1994) Citizens of the World: London Merchants and the Integration of the British Atlantic Economy (Cambridge University Press 1995) Handler, Jerome, and Frederick Lange, Plantation Slavery in H a0 u' ..F-T”-p‘ITV1 .‘11 Barbados: An Archaeological and Historical Investigation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978) Hobbs-Pruitt, Bettye “Self-sufficiency and the Agricultural Economy of Eighteenth-Century Massachusetts,” William and Mary Quarterly 41 (April 1984), Hodes, Martha, White Women, Black Men: Illicit Sex in the Nineteenth Century South, (New Haven: Yale University Press 1997) Hoff, Joan Law, Gender, and Injustice; A legal History of U.S. Women (New York 1991); 247 Innis, Harrold, The Fur Trade in Canada: An Introduction to Canadian Economic History (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1970, 1999) Jennings, Francis. The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest (Chapel Hill: published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture by the University of North Carolina Press, 1975) Jensen, Joan M. Loosening the Bonds: Mid-Atlantic Farm Women 1750-1850 (Yale University Pres 1986) Jordan, Winthrop D. in White Over Black: American Attitudes toward the Negro 1550-1812 (Chapel Hill, Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture4 at Williamsburge, Va., by the University of North Carolina Press, 1968) Kennedey, Michael, “Cash for his turnips”: Agricultural Production for Local Markets in Colonial Pennsylvania, 1725-1783, Agricultural History, 74 no 3 (2000) Kerber, Linda. Women of the Republic: Intellect & Ideology in Revolutionary America, (Chapel Hill; University of North Carolina Press 1980) Kulikoff, Allan. “The Transition to Capitalism in Rural American,” William and Mary Quarterly, 46 (Jan. 1989) , The Economic Growth of the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake Colonies,” Journal of Economic History (1979) Langford, Paul, A Polite and Commercial People: England, 1727-1783 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) Leaming, Hug,. Hidden Americans: Maroons of Virginia and the Carolinas, (Garland Publishing: New York & London, 1995) Lender, Mark Edward and James Kirby Martin, Drinking in America: A History (New York, Free Press 1987) Lewis, Johanna Miller. “Women Artisans in Backcountry North Carolina, 1753-1790,” The North Carolina Historical Review, LXVIII no 3 (July 1991), 214-235 248 Lichtenstein, Alex. “‘That Disposition to Theft, with Which They have Been Branded’: Moral Economy, Slave Management, and the Law,” Journal of Social History 21 (1988) and Cultivation and Culture: Labor and the Shaping of Slave Life in the Americas, eds. Ira Berlin and Philip D. Morgan (University Press of Virginia 1993). Littlefield, Daniel C. “Continuity and Change in Slave Culture: South Caroina and the West Indies,” Southern Studies 26 no 3—4 (1987) Magoon, “’Chesapeake’ Pipes and Uncritical Assumptions: A View from Northeastern North Carolina” North Carolina Archaeology 48 (1999) 107-126. Maika, Dennis, “The Credit System of the Manhattan Merchants in the Seventeenth Century Part III” Halve Maen, 64, no 1 (1991) . “The Credit System of the Manhattan Merchants in the Seventeenth Century Part II” Halve Maen, 63 no. 3 (1990) Gloria L. Main, “Widows in Rural Massachusetts on the Eve of the Revoltuion” in Ronal Hoffman and Peter J. Albert, eds, Women in the Age of theAmerican Revolution (Charlottesville, 1989) 67-90 _____: “Gender, Work, and Wages in Colonial New England,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3d series 5 (1994) Martin, Ann Smart “Identity, Consumption, and Domestic Space, 1770-1850” Tenth Berkshire Conference on the History of Women, (June 1996) McCusker, John L. “The Current Value of English Exports, 1697-1800, William and MaryQuarterly (1971) McCusker, John L. and Russell R. Menard, The Economy of British America, 1607-1789 (Chapel Hill: Published for the Institute of Early American History and Culture by the University of North Carolina Press, 1985) McCusker, John J. and Cora Gravesteijn, The Beginnings of Commercial and Financial Journalism: The Commodity Price Currents, Exchange Rate Currents, and Money Currents of Early Modern Europe ( Amsterdam, NEHA 1991) 249 McDonald Roderick, The Economyfiand Material Culture of Slaves: Goods and Chattel on the Sugar Plantations of Jamaica and Louisiana (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1993) McDonnell, Lawrence, T., “Money Knows No Master: Market Relations and the America Slave Community in Winfred B. Moor, Jr. et al., eds., Developing Dixie: Modernization in a Traditional Society (New York, 1988) McLaughlin, Jack, Jefferson and Monticello: The Biography of a Builder, ( Henry Holt and Company: New York 1988) Meinig, Donald W, The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 years of History, Vol. I Atlantic America, 1492-1800 ( New Haven Conn. Yale Univeristy Press, ; 1986) # Merrel, James H., “The Indians New World: The Catawba Experience, “ William and Mary Quarterly, Balser., 41 (1984) , “Racial Education of the Catawba Indians” Journal of Southern History, 50 no 3 (1984)363-384. Merril, Michael, “Putting Captialism in Its Place, “ William and Mary Quarterly, 52 (April 1995): Menard, “From Servants to Slaves: the Transformation of the Chesapeake Labor System” Southern Studies 16 no 4(1977) 355-390. Merren, Harry Roy Colonial North Carolina in the Eighteenth Century: A Study in Historical Geography (Chapel Hill, N.C., University of North Carolina Press, 1964) Miller, “Tryphena Newton Cooke,” Textiles in New England: Four Centuries of Material Life, Dublin Seminar for New England Folklife Annual Proceedings 18 through 20, June (Boston: Boston University 1999) Mintz, Sidney. Caribbean Transfomations (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co. 1974); , “Caribbean Marketplaces and Caribbean History,” Nova Americana 1 (1978) 250 , The Jamaican Internal Marketing Pattern: Some Notes and Hypotheses,” Social and Economic Studies 4 (1955) , “Internal Marketing Systems as a Mechanism of Social Articulation,” Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society (1959) , “Slavery and the Rise of Peasantries ,” Historical Reflections 6 (1979) , “The Role of the Middleman in the Internal Distribution System of a Caribbean Peasant Economy, “ Human Organization, 15, (1956) 18-23 , and Douglas Hall, The Origins of the Jamaican Mitchell, Robert D. and Paul A. Groves, North America: The Historical Geography of a Changing Continent. (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Littlefield 1987) Mitchell “The Colonial Origins of Anglo-America” North America: The Historical Geography of a Changing Continent. (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Littlefield 1987) Moer, Daniel “Chesapekae Creoles: The Creation of Folk Culture in Colonial Virginia,” in The Archaeology of 17uk- Century Virginia ed. Theodore R. Reinhart and Denis J. Pogue ( Special Publication 30, Archeological Society of Virginia, Dietz Press: Richmond 1993) Morgan, Edmund Sears American Freedom, American Slavery: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: Norton, 1975) Morgan, Philip D., “Work and Culture: The Task System and the World of Lowcountry Blacks 1700 to 1880,” William and Mary Quarterly 39 (October 1982) . “The Ownership of Property by Slaves in the Mid Nineteenth Century Low Country, “ Journal of Southern History 49 (1983) Morgan, Phillip D. Slave Counterpoint: Black Culture in the Eighteenth-Century Chesapeake and Lowcountry (Chapel Hill: Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, University of North Carolina Press 1998). 251 Morris, Michael. The Bringing of Wonder: Trade and the Indians of the Southeast 1700-1783, (Westport Conn.,:Greenwood Press, 1999) Morris, Michael. “South Carolina’s Board of Indian Commissioners and the Struggle to Control the Public Indian Trade,” Proceedings of South Carolina Historical Association. (1998) Muldrew, Craig. “Credit and the Courts: Debt Litigation in a Seventeenth Century Urban Community, The Economic History Review, New Series, 46 1 (Feb 1993) Mullin, Micheal. Africa in America: Slave Acculturation and Resistance in the American South and the British Caribbean, 1736—1831 (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992) .Nash, R.C. “Trade and Business in Eighteenth-Century South Carolina; The Career of John Guerard, Merchant and Planter” South Carolina Historical Magazine, 96 no. 1 (January 1995)6-29 . “Urbanization in The Colonial South: Charleston, South Carolina as a Case Study,” Journal of Urban History, 19 no 1 (November 1992) 3-29 Norton, Mary Beth. Liberty’s Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750-1800 (Boston: Little, Brown 1980) . “The Myth of the Golden Ages” in Carl Berkin and Mary Beth Norton, eds., Women in America (Boston, 1979) 37- 47 . “A Cherished Spirit of Independence: The Life of an Eighteenth-Century Boston Businesswoman,” ed Carol Ruth Berkin and Mary Beth Norton, Women of America: A History, (Boston Houghton Mifflin Company) Offutt, “The Limits of Authority” 252 Olwell, Robert. “‘Loose, Idle and Disorderly,’: Slave Women in the Eighteenth-Century Charleston Marketplace,” David Barry Gaspar and Darlene Clark Hine eds., More Than Chattel: Black Women and Slavery in the Americas (Indian University Press: Bloomington and Indianapolis) Parramore, Thomas. “The Tuscarora Ascendancey “ The North Carolina Historical Review, LIX no.4 (October 1982) Perry, James. The Formation of a Society on Virginia’s Eastern Shore, 1615-1655 (Chapel Hill, N.C. 1990). Price, Jacob, “Buchanan and Smith, 1759-1763: A Different l Kind of Glasgow Firm Trading to the Chesapeake, “ William _« and Mary Quarterly 40 (1983) 3—41 1 , Capital and Credit in British Overseas Trade: The . View from the Chesapeake (Cambridge: Cambridge University 1“ Press, 1980) Pruitt, Bettye, “Self-Sufficiency and the Agricultural Economy of Eighteenth-Century Massachusetts, William and Mary Quarterly 41 no 3 (1984) 333-364 Rice, Kim, Early American Taverns: For the Entertainment of Friends and Strangers (Chicago, 1983) Rockman, Diana and Nan A. Rothschild, “City Tavern, Country Tavern: An Analysis of Four Colonial Sites, “ Historical Archaeology, XVIII no 2 (1984) Roeber, A.G. “Authority, Law, and Custom: The Rituals of Court Day in Tidewater, Virginia, 1720 to 1750” William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 37 no 1 (January, 1980) Rothenberg, Winifred Barr, From Market-Places to a Market Economy: The Transformation of Rural Massachusetts, 1750— 1850 (Chicago, 1992) Rorabaugh, W. J., The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition. (New York, 1979) Salmon, Marylynn, “Life, Liberty, and Dower’: The Legal Status of Women after the American Revolution” in Carol R. Berkin and Clara M. Lovett, eds. Women, War and Revolution (New York: Holmes & Meier, 1980) 253 , Women and the Law of Property in Early America (Chapel Hill, N.C. 1986) Sargent, Sarah E., “Elizabeth and Thomas Roper, “Proprietors,: Tavern Keeping in Colonial Virginia,” Virginia Cavalcade, 48 no. 1 (Winter 1999) Schweringer, Loren, “Slave Independence and Enterprise in South Carolina, 1780-1865,” South Carolina Historical Magazine, 93 no 2 (1992) Schlotterbeck, John T. “The Internal Economy of Slavery in Rural Piedmont Virginia,” The Slaves’ Internal Economy; Independent Production by Slaves in the Americas, eds., Ira Berlin and Philip D. Morgan (London, Frank Cass, 1991) 1‘“ Shamas, Carol. “How Self—Sufficient Was Early America,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 13 (2) 247-272 (1982) James F. Shepherd and Gary M. Walton, Shipping, Maritime Trade, and the Economic Develgpment of Colonial North America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972) Sheridan, Richard, ‘The Domestic Economy” in Jack P. Greene and J.R. Pole ed., Colonial British America: Essays in the New Historyyof the Early Modern Era. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984). Silver, Timothy, A New Face on the Countryside: Indians, Colonists, and Slaves in South Atlantic Forests, 1500-1800, (Cambridge University Press, 1990) Simpson, Marcus Jr. and Sallie W. Simpson, “The Pursuit of Leviathan: A History of Whaling on the North Carolina Coast,” The North Carolina Historical Review, 88 (1) 1-51 Sleepersmith, Susan. “Women, Kin, and Catholicism: New Perspectives on the Fur Trade” Ehthnohistory, 47 no. 2 (Spring 2000) 423-452 Smith, Daniel Scott, “The Demographic History of Colonial New England” Journal of Economic History, 32 no 1 (1972) 165-183 Smith, Daniel Glack, Inside the Great House: Planter Family Life in Eighteenth—Century Chesapeake Society (Ithaca New York 1980) 254 Spindel, Donna. “The Administration of Criminal Justice in North Carolina, 1720-1740, The American Journal of Legal History, XXV (1981) 141-162 ., “Women’s Civil Actions in the North Carolina Higher Courts, 1670-1730,” The North Carolina Historical Review LXXI no. 2 (April 1994) 151-173 Sturtz, “As Though I My Self Was Present” Steffen, Charles G. “The Rise of the Independent Merchant in the Chesapeake: Baltimore County, 1660-1760” Journal of American History LXXVI ( 1989) 9-33 Stine, Linda France, Melanie Cabak, and Mark Groover, “Blue Beads as African Cultural Symbols,” Historical Archeology (30 (3) (1996) 49-75. Sweeney, Kevin. “Gentlemen Farmers and Inland Merchants: The Williams Family and Commercial Agriculture in Pre- Revolutionary Western Massachusetts” Dublin Seminar for New England Folklife, 20 (1986) Thompson, Peter. Rum Punch & Revolution: Taverngoing & Public Life in Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia (University of Pennsylvania Press: 1999) Thompson, Tommy “Debtors, Creditors, and the General Assembly in Colonial Maryland” Maryland Historical Magazine, 72 no 1 (Spring 1977) 3—17 Thorp, Daniel “Taverns and Tavern Culture on the Southern Colonial Frontier: Rowan County, North Carolina, 1753- 1776,” The Journal of Southern History, LXII no. 4 (November 1996) 661—686 . , “Doing Business in the Backcountry: Retail Trade in Colonial Rowan County, North Carolina,” William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, 48 no 3 (July 1991) 387-408 Ulrich, Laurel Thatcher, A Midwife's Tale: The Life of Marcha Ballard based on Her Diary 1785-1812, (Vintage Books, 1990) 255 , Good Wives: Image and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England 1650—1750, (Vintage Books, 1991) , “Wheels, Looms, and the Gender Division of Labor in Eigteenth—Century New England” William and Mary Quarterly, 3d Series, LV no 1 (January 1998) 3-38 Usner, Daniel, Indians Settlers, & Slaves in a frontier Exchange Economy: The Lower Mississippi Valley Before 1783, (University of North Carolina: Chapel Hill 1990) Van Kirk, Sylvia, “The Custom of the Country: An Examination of Furt Trade Marriage Practices,” Essays on Western History, ed., Lewis H. Thomas (Edmonton, 1976) Vickers, Daniel, Farmers & Fishermen: Two Centuries of Work in Essex County Massachusetts, 1630-1850 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994) Vlach, John, “Afro-American Domestic Artifacts in Eighteenth-Century Virginia” Material Culture, 19 no 1 (1987) 3-23 Walsh,Lorena, “Slaves and Tobacco” ? Walsh, Lorena, “Staying put or Getting Out: Findings for Charles County Maryland” William and Mary Quarterly, 44 no 1 (1987) 89-103 Watson, Alan, “Ordinaries in Colonial Eastern North Carolina,” North Carolina Historical Review 58(1) 1-22. , Society in Colonial North Carolina (Raleigh, N.C. Division of Archives and History 1975) , “Women in Colonial North Carolina: Overlooked and Underestimated,” The North Carolina Historical Review Vol. LVIII, (January 1981) White, Bruce, “The Woman Who Married a Beaver” Ethnohistory 46 no 1 (Winter 1999) 109-147. White, Richard, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Rppublics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815 (New York: Cambridge University Press 1991). 256 White, Stephen Jay, “From the Vestry Act to Cary’s Rebellion: North Carolina Quakers and Colonial Politics.” The Southern Friend: The North Carolina Friends Historical Society, 8 no 2 (1986) Wood, Betty, Women's Work, Men’s Work: The Informal Slave Economies of Low Country Georgia, (The University of Georgia Press: Athens and London 1995) Michael Woods, “The Culture of Credit in Colonial Charleston,” South Carolina Historical Magazine, 99 no 4 (October 1998) 358-380. Wood, Peter, H. “The Changing Population of the Colonial South: An Overview by Race and Region, 1685-1790” in Peter H. Wood, Gregory A. Waselkov, and M.Thomas Hatley, eds., Powhatan’s Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989) Wood, Peter, Black Majority: Negroes in Colonial South Carolina from 1670 through the Stono Rebellion,(New York: W.W. Norton & Company 1974) Wright, Gavin, Political Economyyof the Cotton South: Households, Markets and Wealth in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Norton 1978) Wunderlich, Roger, “The Pigskin Book, ” Long Island Historical Journal, 3 no 1 (1990) 17-28 Paton Yoder, “Tavern Regulation in Virginia: Rationale and Reality” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 87 no 3 (1979) Zahedieh, “Making Mercantialism Work: London Merchants and Atlantic Trade in the Seventeenth Century” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society [Great Britain] 9 (1999) 143- 158. 257 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11]]iquyu111111er 2493 85