., I . u ’ ‘ . ._ THE MERCHANTS-OF COLONIAL CHARLESTON; ., ; 680-1756 . ‘ " Thesis far the. Degree of‘Ph.Di.' ' . MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY STUART OWEN .STUMPF ‘ . 1971 ' f v ¢-. ..o.....- ‘ . LiuKAk Y Michigan State University }ht5l3 This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Merchants of Colonial Charleston, 1680-1756 presented by Stuart Stumpf has been accepted towards fulfillment . of the requirements for _HLD_-_ degree in Hig tory n I I f. -. f it. 82 ‘ ‘ x S LEE: .fl-“fi a L ’ ,-' Add ’1’ . Major professor 5 Date M— 0-169 ‘. “fir- (I) (I) 9 ID Q It' I" ABSTRACT THE MERCHANTS OF COLONIAL CHARLESTON, 1680-1756 BY Stuart Owen Stumpf The purpose of this study has been to describe and to account for the particular functional roles which were assumed by the merchants of colonial Charleston. A merchant has been defined as an individual whose primary business interests have been determined to have been based upon the wholesale importation, exportation, and distri- bution of goods. Although, this was not strictly a behavioral study, an effort has been made to follow a behavioral approach wherever practicable. The objective has been to determine the merchants' interpretations of the situations in which they found themselves, to analyze their behavior in these situations, to define the situ- ations as seen by the observer, and to trace the conse- quences of their actions. The chief problem has been to determine the inter-relationship between their roles. The conclusions reached have been based chiefly upon research .- r~ -'-:. . -~.. -._' v a- ‘ Q - . _. -.. : 0‘"? .......¢. :vvb‘ .— M. u . R s . q .- . , . ’ .‘V -..--. yu----~ C C .-..- .. , ~ - ’~a-Q :p— "’ -.-~_.. a..- . .-.- .-, ’_ ' - - ‘_ ~ .""‘.~v .0- v_ - .. ~-"‘V'. V‘~ ,: '.--"‘~ on--- a a .. q .- - _ A . \-.1 pa. ...“-~ .-H r u... h s ‘_' ‘bh Pr». '. b..- :-- - . O ‘u 0...“ '~ a Q , v..- \C. '-.. y" s- . ‘0._ "o 9 .- u- 'u . ‘ c.“ A“ ‘_ h‘I .' ¢ . I 3‘. A 'D ”‘— s 5. ~ r Q.‘ .‘ a .a o {‘5 ‘- ‘vA-.‘ ~ .‘u' “=- ‘i‘ H, . n .- .‘: Stuart Owen Stumpf into the surviving public and private documents from the colonial period. During the first decade after the founding of South Carolina in 1670 a rudimentary external commerce developed and an Indian trade soon flourished. However, because no special skills were as yet required to deal in trade commodities, because the colony could not yet support rigidly distinct economic groups, and possibly because the proprietors sought to maintain some control over the provincial economy, a merchant class failed to emerge immediately. The changes which made possible the development of a merchant class came in the closing years of the seventeenth century when an expansion occurred in the Indian trade and rice became the primary agricultural staple. The Charleston merchants came from a variety of backgrounds, but their responses to opportunities were relatively standardized. They engaged in the sale of imported goods, the purchase for exportation of staples, the Indian trade, the slave trade, shipowning, and money lending. Most merchants agreed upon the necessity for stabilizing the turbulent political climate of the colony. Yet they could seldom bring themselves to coordinate their responses for effective action. Charleston's merchants took a leading part in the clashes over political and economic issues which troubled the colony during the years from 1700 to 1730. an' ,a. . pp. ~fl. A. 4 I; l I. .... .vntboov b no I ~|.I.'. 7' ' on - ‘ ' ..n.v.¢oo o ‘ 3H FF ' bl‘ by a "-IIV' {Au-v‘l“ t".'F . anon." .vuI-nb Out. 0 v “D ‘Afirao~p~ ‘ a u . ‘nb n... wVA.U\.-.ao-l 5‘»- A v' Q Q “"=“ e ‘ on... .v'd-..‘ 3 \- O "u. ‘ 1 .‘ Fa Fl" at. "-- .-u...v :rvogaava‘ - . o I u w m. :- ..Q-l. “v“ .4" ~‘ w.:V;.A" "f‘" 4- ‘ no-.. “\ ' 54" ." " v.1.-g _ ‘¥ ‘0!- - “-e :51; RA . ' ‘N‘.. t- N ”an “mung”: :Cr .A-.'.V ’"50: A '-~.. u, 6p..- gnu...‘ UV.GV - l:.‘ ”v ‘ "'v_ .F ‘;-— uvb_‘. “.L,AVC. ’ v. y . . :‘QD ~_‘ .- 5.1”...“ Q = 35 each I. ”g "c::. bu" ‘ . A. _”:er .. . y. :h’e. . s F ' . t." V: ,P’ s“'«;“ 1' v .I .I . I‘A.x bu I', A I u. I .‘VOAS +0 ya ‘ _. UV ‘ ‘ ’u A y‘ :1 s‘ v '5 .. :Qa'.‘:: . o " "71"" 1 vs; a‘s: § .15 .. u Nst t‘ru.‘>‘ u ‘4 ES 3‘” m new. “ Y E‘Vcav- U 31:,3“ ‘ U‘Vv ‘ Y 35:.“ 'II-l' ‘Ke dCh E(“r-es» . "is. Stuart Owen Stumpf TEhe conflicts over pr0prietary rule and paper currency tespecially led to factionalization. These battles were Inainly fought with Charleston merchants at the heads of tine competing factions. Most merchants ultimately assigned their loyalities to a moderate coalition which sought to restore political stability and with it economic pros- perity. Led by such merchants as Samuel Wragg, the moderates worked out a compromise on the paper money question. The year 1730 marked a significant alteration jJ) conditions for the merchants. A moderate administration cxnrtributed toward the stabilization of provincial policies. Henceforth there were few clashes between planters and Imerchants as each recognized their complimentary economic Ingles. Furthermore, many planters retired from active participation in politics, thus leaving most leadership positions to be filled by merchants. The expansion of the :rice market increased demands for imported goods and aslaves which also improved opportunities for the merchants. The most troublesome political issue had been put to rest as virtually everyone accepted the necessity of a stable local currency. The outbreak of war with Spain interrupted the :flow of Charleston's commerce. The local merchants*were .3130 hit hard by a prohibitive duty on imported slaves. ‘A severe depression lasted for the duration of the war as war-related activities failed to substitute for a trade -~ V. _~ ' “a ' f-u-a a as! s ' ‘c A U‘ u- s u... v n .“r . ~v‘ p... 2.. .. a.--‘..¢--¢- —- It‘- ' ans-c-Au H: r;a :U' 00' '0'.-. do. 6 I ~ '. . HP .-:" 5"‘3" gm . ...-.-.,”___‘ a . ~ . ' .2. .:.A‘ ‘- .— .-.-‘.‘v~ vdoc .._ ._ u. ‘:;".v" 5 v- . .—---‘ ' - ...'_ ‘. ‘ '~—~ ."“ -¢._ ‘5 " v- '”'"-§u d. "”‘h- . ‘ “31.61" ~ .- .....a ‘H -H~ , .. ‘_ . ‘v ‘1! a. .‘ ‘o. \. 5-.- ‘-~. .‘.‘~: Stuart Owen Stumpf damaged by disrupted markets, high transportation costs, and an agricultural depression. However, the political position of the merchants within the provincial government remained intact, surviving only infrequent challenges. At the return of peace in 1748, South Carolina experienced an economic recovery. Eventually, as Charleston's commerce surpassed its former levels of prosperity, the merchants gained additional confidence in both themselves and their colony. When war again threatened in the mid-1750's, the faith in their abilities to furnish the province with economic and political leadership remained unshaken. en. .a w... ‘~ V” vs .3 nus uh .l ii..|.l, «n- .l THE MERCHANTS OF COLONIAL CHARLESTON, 1680-1756 BY Stuart Owen Stumpf A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History 1971 .1 -—..',‘ ~;‘ , 'v-l F. o.“ . n- . a". y a. ‘ \\_ v“ -."-' \' I... “w flu“. \ "51'". or. " 'll. 5 ‘I- a Q ['5 ©Co right by STSXRT OWEN STUMPF 1971 , Q fl;;" ’1 \rosu- .v u '. ...._.~ Afip:.l‘ c. 5.... “my. . ‘ . .0! f. c"_."-. - .I'.: ' V wag-- . ..-.p ‘nr‘u.flfi n, ‘4 ”a .. w-.. .v‘-‘._- V :.f.P'.:“r-u r: fir .Lh.-.\‘- V.. V- v‘ . n . ‘- .. ..oAun~I-~ “"‘C‘ ‘ ~ .— -: -£"-.‘-..j ‘3‘- ._fi . ' t-.. .5 .p "‘f "~ “"9 . .‘ Q h :‘I ::*."n "“‘-.._, y ‘ ~ Y’s, ayes hue. v..: 5 , - . ‘ N" O...” D-VAF f‘ ‘5-» A 5.‘V.‘ V 5.. ~ A ‘ ‘ N ' rm. 5 vVQVos' Cv“: “- =. e i-..‘., “in; c ' 4_. , . *a ‘5 Q 1‘ ‘ k' Vv-l . - suuot§§“v Dr‘ ‘. A £ U“-‘: m: (VEI‘LIQ‘ C. A a b. y§~°° PREFACE Charleston's merchants during the colonial period constituted an unique group within the plantation society of South Carolina. These individuals, who derived their fortunes chiefly from the wholesale importation and exportation of trade goods, served their town and province by extending useful commercial services. Not only did they see to the wholesale distribution of goods, but the Charleston merchants also provided a reservoir of talent from.which much of the social and political leadership of the colony could be drawn. Urban-centered and possessing many of the same values, attitudes, and personality traits which might be found among their counterparts in the more northernly British colonies, the Charleston merchants were, nevertheless, an integral part of their distinctive society. Like the merchants of New England and of the middle colonies, those of South Carolina were responsible for much of the economic dynamism within their province. Also in common with commercial figures elsewhere, the merchants of Charleston were unable, during the period covered by this study to unite into an effective lobbying force. Despite many similarities the Charleston merchants ii .- u g..- . vfl" :F- .'.’ o'- .---~-' ‘ d to o .__-a .-',~n ,.-. -o" ....—v ... I—A v-o- - --~.v-¢~“" .... a . .L w. a. .3 e . . u. a“. .1 u}. 3. E Q. E .3 v“ a. .3 .p.. . . .u 9 v .. III-n, .1" faced an unique set of conditions and circumstances which greatly shaped their responses, so that this study offers yet another portrait of economic behavior in a plantation society. This study had focused upon the manner in which the merchants of colonial Charleston interacted with their society in its formative stages and during the first half of the eighteen century. The effort has been made to look into and explain the responses which they made to the ever-changing conditions of the Carolina society. A reading of Robert F. Berkhofer's, A_Behavioral Approach to Historical Analysis (New York, 1969), suggested some methods for use in analyzing the behavior of this important economic group. I have followed wherever possible his basic procedures for historical analysis by attempting to determine the merchants' interpretation of their situation, to discover their actual behavior in the situation, to define the "real" situation, and to trace out the conse- quences of the merchants' responses. The two questions with which I had most frequently to come to grips were: In what ways did the business posture of the Charleston merchants influence their roles in the politics and in the general society? Also how did the merchants' other societal roles affect their commercial careers? An explanation of some stylistic procedures may be in order. In quotations I have expanded abbreviations, iii '.s gov-v. 3-“- a - ‘ A .- .v‘ f ._ - .AQ‘O‘S“ VJ . :u‘--- .- Q ‘ .- VO- R‘ “ .-...;' VA 5 "..:'».. .. ‘ O y- . ' 0"? ‘3. I " 4 a --- IDO‘OAI‘ . pv- ‘ A ”*5" .3. ‘H; : -IIU -0. a ‘ ’ - ”in" w t" t: :.‘..:- - -‘. ‘ a- Q ‘Q ua~~ (PG ‘ F’v . .. -..nv-.n ~~----..‘ h . . . ‘ .-.. -.;-" '.'.‘ An .- .— .'-.-'.~". on‘vl. I .ayA O h:..,‘ “A- — H I ...,.-y A .._‘.‘_ ‘.V- . . ‘ '" “ l n ;'— ,5" \O-vv u..- DU . v-1 - .‘fl'o ‘ -.:-.un‘.‘j H; “e I .' _ ‘ . ‘3'“‘2" be erg v.- -qui‘ 5V 5.‘_ ‘ hp.,'. ' ’u \c. . ~.' ogv‘ 04- .'_v :ES‘: ‘ ‘— r...t‘p~".. ’ .~ 1..1-n:5.] L;:yav ‘ ‘ y \ 5'. c . .ny. [a v‘ ‘ ~ V‘ .L‘Cr-A'4 a ...‘ . VVy . a”. .- ‘_ h‘v' s48, o.d'e :“v §“‘. 0 J) (D l" 1 h ‘4 ~ n'. “=-2'-a;1 q . s.” r~ & n‘ .. HJ-‘e ~ ~ . C D “. .‘ . ... :I‘Qll,“ ~... i‘d.. Q ‘Zpfis‘. ‘\ 7“ h ' a "h 1“ 'k ' rm, _ x .a- h: lite: h ‘ 'TL». 3‘ a . ' l P. S a” e»- 5': ~ -.~ JEH‘ ‘ t’QrLu '- ‘4 .,. O" ‘HCP in addition to modernizing spelling and punctuation whenever it did not detract from the obvious intent of the original writer. With names given more than one spelling, I have chosen the one most commonly used. Charleston (except in titles or direct quotations) has been given its modern spelling to distinquish it from the original settlement which was referred to as Charles Town. Further- more, I have not converted the pre-l752 dates from Old Style to New Style, but I have treated January 1, as the beginning date of each year. For their assistance and many kindnesses, I am indebted to the many peOple that I have encountered in the course of my research. The staffs of the Michigan State University Library, the Michigan State Library, the Uni- versity of Michigan Library, and the William L. Clements Library have furnished invaluable aid. In South Carolina I received cheerful and tireless assistance from those entrusted with the collections of the South Carolina Historical Society, the Charleston Library Society, the South Caroliniana Library of the University of South Carolina, and the South Carolina Department of History and Archives. Owing largely to the people who serve at the above institutions, research into the history of colonial America is an enjoyable experience. I am also grateful to the Department of History at Michigan State University which nominated me for a fellowship that greatly iv a ... 1 ... .. .3 :. .2 ft . . 2 . 2. E. I E C I .2 A. a: S .7. 5 S T. . a. p: C. ub .. . av :- 2: . . a s .. .a. . c. lllll'Vy If I. 4 : . I. X a. a I e a: v .... as.» v7. 1. a .2 u e k» :— g . v 5. :u 4v. S u. : ... ~ .. .3 .: uu : .q ‘ a U A! --I facilitated my research. To Professor Richard M. Jellison who introduced me to the disciplined study of early American life, I owe a great deal. I must also thank Professor and Mrs. Robert E. Brown for their assistance in the early stages of this study. Professors James H. Soltow and Thomas L. Bushell have most thoughtfully guided my career as a graduate student and in the progress of this dissertation. Professor William B. Hixson sat in on the defense of this dissertation for which I am grateful. To Professor Robert E. Wall who directed this dissertation goes my deep gratitude for his good advice and many efforts on my behalf. To my wife, Carolyn, for her research assistance, patience, and understanding I can never adequately express my appreciation. Stuart Owen Stumpf East Lansing, Michigan May 3, 1971 >— A'.P v .H" 'v‘ u r. 0 Po RC C ...... p 3 FJ nJ S w . V. 2.. ... HQ «14 :. . c F. pr «:1 VJ 7 er. A-» v a a; .i I l. E .3 .c 3 . D. . Y we I A a mpg P.J .- I 3. 2. .J E E 1.. 3.. T- u... .5. . . 1.. §.¢ \Mu wl.‘ M . M c CU v.“ .. .. .. .. 3 .. . v . 113,31 .13. Fa Pi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PROLOGUE. THE EARLY YEARS, 1670—1690 . . . . . . 1 Chapter I. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHARLESTON MERCHANTS, 1690-1700 C I I C C O O O C O O O O 38 II. A PERIOD OF COMMERCIAL ADJUSTMENT, 1700-1730 C O O O O O I O O O O O O 66 III. THE YEARS OF POLITICAL STRESS, 1700-1730. . . 98 IV. THE GROWTH OF PROSPERITY AND POLITICAL STABILITY, 1730-1741 . . . . . . . . . 156 V. WAR, DEPRESSION, AND RECOVERY, 1742-1756. . . 207 VI. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY . . . . . . . . . . . 271 vi . , c ‘> QQHOU 9 .: r... .' A 3.5 crn‘a - 5‘»..a V .L IF: Table 1. LIST OF TABLES Commercial Characteristics of Charleston Merchants Active in Trade for at Least Ten Years, 1700-1730 . . . . . . . Data Compiled for Fiscal Year 1735-1736 . . Comparison of Advertising with Ranking Among Importers. . . . . . . . . . . Freight Rates, 1740-1754 . . . . . . . Merchants Paying Over £50 in General Duties. Merchants Advertising in the SCG, 1745-1754. vii Page 75 172 172 219 246 246 AHR Easterby and Green, eds., Commons Journals Donnan, ed., Documents EHR Carroll, ed., Historical Collections Historical Statistics HST McDowell, ed., Indian Books LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS American Historical Review J. H. Easterby and Ruth S. Green, eds., The Colonial Records of South Carolina, Series I: The Journal§_of the Commons House of Assembly, 1736:I750 (9 vols., Columb'fi, 1951-1962) . Elizabeth Donnan, ed., Documents Illustrative History pf the Slave Trade Eg_America T4 vols., Washington, 1935). Economic Historngeview B. R. Carroll, ed., Historical Col- lections 9: South Carolina Embracing Many Rare and Valuable Pamphlets, and Other Documents, Relation to the History o£_That State, From Its FiEEt Discovery to Its Independence ip_the Year 1776 TZ-VOls” New York, 1836). United States Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States Colonial Times E5 1957 (Washing- ton, 1960). '__ Huguenot Society of South Carolina, Transactions. William L. McDowell, Jr., The Colonial Records pf South Carolina, serIES II: Journals 9f_the Commissione?§_§:f§§§ Indian Trade, Se tember 20, 1710- August gg, 1718 iColumbis, 15555 and Documents Relatingto Indian Affairs, Ma _2__1_, ysp—August—Z, 1754 (Columbfa, 958). viii l o «3 ~ . w“ a a. r. o. u‘ r: 2‘ o. ' ~\- I I v. J. I . . Tu— "2 .3 “_e. I; .11 _s. 2‘ on. ._— n u a v o . n." J» .u. .e. as. I S 3 I o. o .v 2.. .3 I e t 0 .nd .»u I .5 a. S e S t. e no. r n n: C. L. 5» M~u~..:..‘ h.» .3. ~.. .: :. III-"EIUKHFI o S ‘3 ‘3 u e a S I Q. I .C t e r .1 3. C a. Av a .v a: a. f. s. a . V. :. JAH JEBH JSH Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Papers SCG SCHM S.C. Pub. Reg . Cheves, ed., Shaftesbury Papers Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes WMQ Journal g£_American History, prior known as Mississippi Valley Historical Review. Journal g£_Economic and Business History. Journal g£_Southern History. Philip M. Hamer, George C. Rogers, Jr., and Maude E. Lyles, eds., The Papers 9: Henry Laurens (Columbia, 1968- ). South Carolina Gazette (Charleston). South Carolina Historical Magazine, formerly known as South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine. Records $3 the British Public Record Office Relatin to South Carolina, '1§_"6‘3‘-'1'78'3'Ts—Tvoi132', facsimile, 31 vols., microfilm, Columbia, 1928-1955). Langdon Cheves, ed., The Shaftesbury Papers and Other Records Relaging pg Carolina Prior Eg_the Year 1676, Vol. V, of South Carolina Historical Society, Collections (5 vols., Charleston, 1857-1897). Thomas Cooper and David J. McCord, eds., The Statutes aE_Large g£_South Carolina (10 vols., Columbia, 1837-1841). William and Mar Quarterly, third series, unless otherw1se noted. ix l r. i 3 c. .. _ . C. .1 C V. I C V. .3 S t i h e. C. C 1 e e. t b .3 I .2 .1 e O T. .3 t E r i t l .3 t E on .3 C k.“ a .L I t t r l .l t u: I n... I. I C I .5. .C a 0 .fi .1 C C e. t S t C c i .5. S a l t a. X 1. S .. I F. P. I I. 1 1r... 5 VI .3 +. I: C T. k.“ I. a .3 3. VI... A q . . . w... x a“. P~ Sea 2% .5... a: u v . .1 . . .2 . .. . ... a. In .I. e... av“ .M... .us ..... .s-N H... PROLOGUE THE EARLY YEARS, 1670-1690 Early in the month of April, 1670 an expedition sent out by the True and Absolute Lords Proprietors of Carolina arrived at a site known to the local Indians as Kiawah, to the Spanish as the Bay of San Jorge, and soon to be known to the English as Charles Town. It was not the original intention of either proprietors or settlers that the bay formed by the juncture of the Ashley and Cooper Rivers should be the location for their colony. The Port Royal district previously had been selected, so it was there that the colonists first landed. The proximity of the Spanish and their allied Indians, together with the entreaties of the Cassique or Chieftain of the Kiawah, convinced the English that the northernly bay would prove the more secure site.1 With defense a primary consider- ation, the colonists by-passed the exposed Oyster Point (the eventual location of Charleston) in favor of Albemarle Point, a few miles further up the Ashley River. There old Charles Town was erected and the life of the colony was to be centered for almost ten years.2 The voyage which began in London during the preceding August followed several years of plans, delays, exploratory voyages, and some false starts.3 The impetus for the establishment of the Carolina colony had two sources. One originated on the island of Barbadoes where rapidly changing social and economic conditions were leaving a surplus population of persons experience in colonization and eager for an opportunity to acquire status, power, and fortune.4 The other originated in the England of the Restoration where Charles II owed consider- able political and financial debts to his supporters. It remained for the ambitious Barbadian planter and former Royalist officer, Sir John Colleton, to connect them. Exploiting his contacts with the Duke of Albemarle and Lord John Berkeley, Colleton brought together a group which consisted of himself, Albemarle, Berkeley, Berkeley's brother--Sir William, the Earl of Craven, the Earl of Clarendon, Sir George Carteret, and the Earl of Shaftesbury --Anthony Ashley Cooper.S To these eight the Crown saw fit to issue a royal charter conveying to them the land on the North American continent between thirty-one and thirty-six degrees north latitude. Dated March 24, 1663, the charter granted to the proprietors political sovereignty over as well as ownership of the land.6 e p- t“ p- VII—l-‘n ,.¢-" .:.a&--- ‘..‘— N...‘ rn" .1!» C33: .a‘.’:' - _fi. ...-o pk. Pu *- , . .-"' 59"; .o‘vOV-r v . '--'\-Q. "v“..v‘ .".‘-. H-U¢~s ' o “5‘ \ovd D 5..» ..~"‘ fit- ..-e aid 4 .I'n Illrl , ‘5... "l' .nH .r‘ .nu no Q. 9 Au 0 ‘ b n§~ n. I The proprietors' earliest intentions for Caro- lina remain unclear. Despite their initial enthusiasm they neither contributed funds nor set down plans for the development of their new resource. Efforts were made to recruit groups of settlers from the older colonies, but little else was done. They apparently hoped to profit through the collection of rents without an investment on their own part.7 Not until 1669 when Lord Shaftesbury assumed the leadership of the proprietary efforts was substantive progress registered. Unlike previous efforts, Shaftes- bury's program obtained financial backing from their Lordships. Furthermore, settlers were brought together in England to provide a nucleus for recruitment of individuals and groups from the older colonies. In addition a frame of government to guide the infant colony was prepared by Shaftesbury in collaboration with his friend, physician, and secretary, John Locke.8 Shaftesbury's apparent intention for the colony was to develop a quasi-feudal society based upon the ascendancy of a landed gentry. Disciplies of Harrington, Shaftesbury and Locke sought to establish a stable political society which after the decades of turmoil in England appeared to them as it did to most thinking men of their age, to be the chief goal of government. In order ’to achieve this goal, they attempted to erect a balance a... n -“ A“ ‘ f‘ evCobv'A.‘V VA Ca '5. .“; P" HO. _.-.~ 0 . .U- Ii.--' - EZYLSLC Rf.“ A"! «v-4-c" ‘ .. .. .-J fin‘ 4" «”5, ‘4' .- ‘. in. “see was es: G’f‘ "‘- Ov_- 114 9" H" .‘ ‘fx .8 P. t— u between economic and political power. This was to be accomplished through the agency of the colony's Fundamental Constitutions. Carolina was to be the prototype of the whig society which Shaftesbury desired for England.9 Envisioning a predominately rural society, Shaftesbury and his colleagues sought to eliminate from the new colony the lawyers who were made necessary in England by an increasingly complex system of laws.10 Likewise, merchants, persons whose wealth was obtained chiefly from the wholesale import, export, and distribution of goods, were suspect. Sophisticated enough to recognize that commerce was essential to the staple-producing agriculture he hoped would develop, Shafesbury nevertheless sought to retain as much as was possible of the trade of the colony in the hands of the proprietors.11 While favoring an agrarian society the pro- prietors desired that their subjects, at least during the colony's early years, not follow the example of the Virginians by dispersing over the countryside. Rather, they ordered the planters to settle in townships and to work the neighboring fields as did the New Englanders. Centralization would provide more security, avoid incon- venience, and additionally make easier the tasks of government and quit rent collections.12 “‘1 PH “ Dy 0 .44 r~a a. V. c .4 e .4 .‘4 PL 3 o o . . c a C s We L. V t I\ u l T . .T f a. m .J em 1 C c. a c . .F e f .a .l t .1 r u r x c . a. t r C. C t .r. n r f .r. t 5 Ms. c e . h. s .. _. C s s r t O i e r. n v. . a. S e \, S e a R 3 F. C. .a a r 3. S cm .1 O r S e YU b w r. 9 PV V. .v‘ V. F» 3.“ o* C C» n; f n3 Int 1 r a G» r S .p” r». C. a. s. . .n . . Am .1 C t a e f S 0 e .. . t 5. w e. C e . C .1 S n. r. t r .f. S .3 w u“ . . e a... r a. a» r. l .l u. G. I O u. +5 f e «a Fu '0 o "I S .7. N: ?.b A» y Fig :« 2‘ A“ Md ‘L t 0 ha 59 S .. 3 I .1 w. . . no a. u“ r 1.. h“ r. 1. .¢ f e. .v A e . . 3 a. C. .l .t E 3 . e. .r... .c 3. . e O S . a r a. J" 2" J“ . . e" n... ... e. u; n. . . r. a. nu u... m. we 7. \MW‘ .9.» n. ... .... I . . 2 2. . .. , .. r." .._ .2 x .. a ”.3. m L ....... .em ..:. .2... .... .E be... .3.“ ...... n... 4a.. .. . .3 .. . . . . . . 2. . . :. .: .J ..... .1 ...\. ..... .5 w II Landing at Albermarle Point on the Ashley River, the colonists on board the Carolina (the flagship of the fleet of three which had originally left England in August, 1669) immediately set about preparing their defensive posture. Fortifications were built, the male settlers were organized into a militia, and a martial 13 While the discipline was imposed on the infant colony. early Carolinians could be an unruly people at times, there was little complaint raised against their regimented existence. For one colonist wrote, they had "settled in the very chaps of the Spaniard."14 Later that first spring the colony was further strengthened by the arrival of the Carolina's companion vessel, the Three Brothers, carrying 15 the remainder of the original party. An abortive Spanish attack during the summer of 1670 demonstrated to the colony the value of their military preparations.16 It soon became evident to the colonists that while seeing to their defensive posture they were slighting their agricultural efforts. This was aggravated by the fact that most of the inhabitants were townsmen unprepared for the rigors of frontier existence}.7 A resulting food shortage made necessary the importation of provisions from Virginia and Barbadoes. In order to pay for these provisions the planters were forced into increasingly deeper indebtedness to the proprietors' store. The failure to become a self- sustaining colony and the demands on the part of colonists I I. C. .3 v» C. v. C c. -A'.‘ n v uv'u—‘uod-lu. ~VA. . v..- . ‘ AA“, 'V-cds' .. L C; .1 in a .6 a .v for more credit with no likelihood of short-term repayment tended to strain their relationship with even the patient Shaftesbury.18 A further cause for disappointment among both pro- prietors and colonists was the inability to discover a marketable agricultural staple commodity immediately.19 It was as staple producers that Virginia and Barbadoes, the two models for the Carolina project, had achieved their economic prosperity. Those involved in the new settlement hoped to hit upon some article which would prove highly profitable. Various experimental crops were tried. Among these were cotton, indigo, rice, ginger, sugar cane, grapes, and olives, as well as citrus, pomegranate, and fig trees. None, even the first three crops which South Carolina later 20 grew so profitably, did well. Tobacco grew well, but could not compete with that of the well-established 21 Of all Chesapeake colonies in the English market. connected with the colony only Sir Peter Colleton, a Barbadian planter, merchant, and heir to Sir John Colleton's proprietary share, recognized that until the colonists could supply their own food needs it was unreasonable to expect them to devote time for serious efforts with trial crops.22 Until such time as staples or provisions could be exported from the colony, articles had to be found which would pay, at least in part, for imported items. Lumber and forest products provided such stop-gap export LES- “. _.n~. _... v ¢a b ..\V v“‘ w:25 1:115 19 ‘ s _ nnb ‘ ---~I.Ab a O as. 571‘ V-u.£¢ 525 c" ,,... “‘5‘ . I. v- S .4 _- a“; .“ commodities. Ships bringing immigrants from the West Indies would return with cargoes of lumber, clapboards, staves, and naval stores.23 While the colony at Charles Town was meeting with but slight success, it continued to attract large numbers of new colonists particularly from Barbadoes. In less than two years the colony had achieved a population of 406. A better than four-fold increase over the original complement of ninety-three carried by the Carolina.24 From the point of view of the proprietors the immigration of the Barbadians was a mixed blessing at best. Experienced and determined planters and traders, they were individuals accustomed to having their own way in provincial affairs. Contempuous of the inexperienced English, and feeling little or no loyality toward the proprietors, they formed a faction which sought to dominate the political life of the colony and to increase their own fortunes in the process.25 Typical of the individualistic Barbadians were Bernard Schenckingh and Edward Middleton. Schenckingh arrived in Carolina before December 1672 from Barbadoes where he had been a planter, merchant, and shipowner. He soon set to acquiring land, obtained commissions in the militia and as justice of the peace. On his native island, Schenckingh was connected with a group of "inter10pers," importers of slaves directly from Africa in violation of the legal monopoly of the Royal African Company. During that age when proprieties were loosely defined, legal barriers often failed to deter men bent on advancing their interests. Although there exists only slight evidence to indicate that Schenckingh established himself as a merchant in Carolina, in all likelihood he followed the prevailing practice by diversifying his 26 Middleton was of a family long economic activities. prominent on Barbadoes and later of considerable importance in South Carolina. A member of the Council he undoubtedly stood, as did his relative Arthur, with the anti-proprietary Goose Creek faction of the Barbadians. Though Middleton was a planter and shipowner he was labeled neither but was ranked as a gentleman.27 III The political climate of the first decade did little to contribute either to economic progress or to the development of a merchant class. Although they erected no legal barriers against the merchants, the proprietors certainly gave no encouragement to private traders. In their expectations of quick profits, the proprietors only grudgingly contributed toward the colony's growth. Furthermore, they demanded rapid repayment of debts owed to their store. The continuing problem of debts embittered 28 both sides. Finally conflicts even grew up over the Indian trade. The traffic in Indians slaves alarmed the (D . j 7' revs . “PP3~ n.,-..- vii. . c Q -a ' cv f. f ‘ fir: -r-IVQIEH in Lia- 7.. "' ‘ ' ‘9’ 5.. v v . '0‘ f" a A a Eb-vr~‘ “----va- ~ . - .- . . n” “on. .- "“h — -----A.&a..50 c.te S‘ .. A t ‘ . 3.0:: ',' C *‘e - H . -‘~ - ‘A-u. I be. I; 363:0 I“ 4‘ .. Lans . h.) ~a‘_‘. .. . -.. _-' A. -‘_“ ‘ . . 0 v“ SLL‘a- Cr. - -‘ ' ‘- CV ‘ . ‘V‘ 5 IO :35- P.“ R w“-‘v..: ‘v.. proprietors. Apparently at least one governor, Joseph west, and many of the colony's other political leaders were involved in this practice. As might be expected little could be done to quash this commerce, so that the prOprietors' efforts only served to exasperate the Carolinians. The settlers further resented the proprietary monopoly of the highly profitable trade with the neighbor- ing Westo Indians.29 Even after the colony's domestic political situation achieved some degree of stability, the settler's relationship with the proprietors remained strained. The colonists, themselves, seemed more intent on devoting their chief efforts to political quarrels and factionalization than upon economic expansion. With the exception of Joseph West who commanded the first fleet of 1669-1670 and who served twice as acting governor, and later as governor, the chief executives of the colony's first decade did little to recommend them. The first governor, William Sayle, was a man of over eighty years and perhaps senile. Concerned chiefly about the spiritual well being of the colony, Sayle demonstrated as much distress over the prevalence of loose morals as he did the chronic shortage of provisions. His passing in 1671 was regretted by few.30 The succession of Joseph West, however, was viewed with disfavor by the large Barbadian faction. The Goose 10 Creek men soon coalesced around Sir John Yeamans, one of the provincial nobility. Sir John and his faction rapidly proved to be a disruptive influence in Carolina politics. Controversy abated for a time with the announcement in the spring of 1672 that Yeamans had been commissioned governor because of his "noble" rank.31 The calm which followed Yeamans' elevation proved to be brief. The new governor, who was extensively engaged in the importation of food for sale on his own account, mismanaged the colony's food supply. Facing shortages Sir John increased food imports charging them to their Lordships' account. Simultaneously some colonists alledged that the governor profited from the inflated prices. So serious did the situation become that popular revolts appeared likely. United with the colonists in their suspicions of the governor, the proprietors com- missioned west to supersede him. Yeamans died in August, 1674 before news of his dismissal arrived.32 With the year 1674 the colony's situation improved considerably as a result of west's sound judgment and a political truce offered by the Barbadians whose dominance in the council and parliament he evidently agreed not to challenge. west, a former London merchant, before succeeding to the governorship operated the experimental farm established by the proprietors. Although he apparently engaged in the Indian slave trade, West served his employers and the colony loyally, a fact which they .— O‘— e ~t “V w‘ 4 18V31 the ‘O‘J In lar ‘ an -,-.: b' 8 us" “ - ; £,“."'e t .- :-. (‘6'? V ”q -un .-..e- “' “ .A~‘ -«-J€""o v. ‘Voa '._.ovl v.4 .v’“ ..-“" '- ' .-" (Pa ‘9 ‘4 w l 5 tribes . F‘\ ll recognized by elevating him to the provincial nobility.33 Stable political conditions interacted with an improved economic picture to make the second half of the decade more productive than the first. IV Of crucial important to the development of early Carolina was the Indian trade. From the first rum, weapons, and other manufactured articles were exchanged for deer skins with the coastal tribes. The skins supplemented by furs were sent directly to England in order to pay the colonists' pressing debts. Indian slaves were also acquired by the traders who for the most part shipped them to the west Indies., DeSpite objections in both England and Carolina, the traffic in Indian slaves continued into the eighteenth century.34 In large measure the success of Charles Town's commerce with the Indians was due to the efforts of Dr. Henry Woodward. Remaining in Carolina after the departure of a 1666 exploratory voyage, he lived with various tribes until the arrival of the Carolina colony. Skilled in the varius dialects and at the diplomacy of the natives, Woodward worked out a series of defensive and trade treaties with the two coastal tribal groups, the 35 Charles Town's trade was confined Cusabos and Coosas. to the immediate area until 1674 when WOOdward expanded its range through an alliance with the Westoes, a fierce, av: $4.. er a, ‘ insticn r4 b 5.-.}8 . b ' r k3!" .. a Q at '0 ‘YR‘ . pfiodop ..-v; P? § _iI‘O. - n a O . . . - ‘ a~ v~55~ +7! ‘ £5.03: C..:S ‘L Ltd bl.— .' v- 3.115 Cf t "H‘. ’ . :6- N“- - . :v-. C ‘ l ‘.- 12 interior tribe. This agreement freed the colony from any threat of extinction at the hands of the Indians, provided a sturdier buffer against the Spanish Indians than had earlier ones with the fickle coastal tribes, and brought in greater quantities of skins and slaves.36 The major drawback to this arrangement was that the proprietors soon sought to establish a monopoly over the Westo trade. As might be imagined the restrictions were both resented and ignored by the settlers. Eventually the colonists resorted to the rather drastic expedient of exterminating the Westo tribe and with it the proprietary monopoly.37 In the products of the Indian trade, deer skins in particular, the Carolina colony had its first real staple. Soon patterns of trade began to emerge which gave the settlement a place, however small at this time, in the Atlantic trading community. To the west Indies lumber, Indian slaves, and after about 1674 provisions were sent. In return the islands shipped rum and molasses accompanied in the early years by foodstuffs, but later in the decade by a few Negro slaves. The mother country contributed manufactured articles for use by the colonists themselves and in the Indian trade. She received from the settlers deer skins and later naval stores.38 For the struggling colony, 1674 was a noteworthy year. As was previously stated the westo treaty of that year greatly expanded the area and volume of the Carolina o. o ‘ I ‘- were 8 C.— tar atLCn of ;._-u- .- p‘ -J.‘ ‘- - .- Ou‘ “- "' -..r-..er St; ., t“ .u." on “w' . fut. I. ', _s'A " ~I “ 13 Indian trade.39 The year also witnessed the development of the settlement's agriculture to such a point that provisions were exported. Large-scale cattle raising led to surplus quantities of beef available for shipment to the West Indies. Still another contribution to the colony's economic develOpment was the production and exportation of tar, pitch, and turpentine. While the quality of these naval stores left something to be desired, they further stimulated the growth of South Carolina.40 Although a profitable agricultural staple had yet to be discovered, the economy of the colony would progress rapidly after the middle of the first decade. A consider- able maturation had yet to be undergone, but that would have to await the large scale production of rice just prior to the turn of the century.41 Until that stage was attained or in its place a carrying trade established, the emergence within Carolina of a distinct group of merchants was unlikely.42 During the early years of the Carolina colony there was very little economic specialization on the part of the colonists. The frontier outpost at Charles Town simply was too small and too poor for the support of rigidly distinct professional groupings. A settler's plantation did not have to be far from Charles Town to allow him to engage in the Indian trade without leaving his own land. Furthermore, at this time, one could readily travel into the port town with his surplus in . .a-.. A I “) .....-- .1 . C. .. l . S I I e "3 1n“ .1 t 3 +1. Li. a. .. . he arrir V § I .C .q.‘ .5 .l ‘3 14 order to deal directly with the ships' captains or super- cargoes. These early planter-traders, regardless whether they came from England, Barbadoes, or other colonies, usually retained their contacts with the merchants "back home" to whom they could consign goods. Until an agri- cultural staple was found or the Indian trade grew more complex, the simple marketing arrangements sufficed.43 Diversification of one's economic interests remained the rule throughout the first decade and for some years to follow. An excellent example of its application can be seen in the career of Stephen Bull. A young English lawyer, he arrived aboard the Carolina with five servants and his younger brother, Barnaby. In time, Bull became a large planter and member of the Council. However, during the first decade of the settlement's existence, he mixed surveying, care of the colony's ordinance, and Indian trading. It was as an Indian trader that Stephen Bull established his fortune. Consigning the deer skins he received to his brother John, a London merchant, Bull helped in the establishment of South Carolina's first major export commodity. Later, Bull did the colony a service comparable to Dr. WOodward's by expanding to the north Charles Town's influence over the Indian trade.44 Nevertheless, a few individuals, because of their involvement in commerce, can be classified as "merchants." In most instances they had established themselves in trade before coming to Carolina.45 Men such as John Godfrey, 9 CT. 5- . Afi.‘ ‘.' va‘ ' ’I.’ . . .. 9- ‘1‘ _z. as. "‘ e I o‘ -' ...¢-- ' V-) ' . a. .0"' — - .3 - .-' . .-. q A 5 ES as €777 a~9~ U- --,- - -.._,- 15 George Thompson, Edmund Gibbons, and Bernard Schenckingh had been active on Barbadoes. Christopher Smith and Samuel Trot were from Bermuda. Two men, Richard Chapman and Mitchael Smith arrived from New York. The first decade saw relatively few merchants immigrating from England.46 Two of the four who did, Joseph West and Andrew Percevall, came for what might be called political reasons in their capacities as employees or deputies of the proprietors.47 In a large majority of the cases, the merchants acquired varying amounts of land and in all probability engaged in planting as well as commerce.48 Slightly under one third 49 of the group held political office. It should be reiterated that, although these men called themselves merchants, participated to some extent in commerce, and were known locally as merchants, most could not have been readily distinguished from their neighbors. The chief differences between Bernard Schenckingh or George Thompson, who were categorized as merchants, and Stephen Bull or James Moore, who were not, was that the former had con- nections with shipping and were engaged in commerce before coming to Carolina. Bull and Moore, on the other hand, devoted their chief efforts to the Indian trade and had no . . . 50 prior experience in commerce. V Toward the final years of the decade, the inhabit- ants of Charles Town grew weary of their first choice as to ' ”or“ 5.26 o: the co.c.._ v w . I ' '3" ""12! that me 5'»- n- v- ‘ . I . ‘ 10 ~.. 7 _Am * " '1: .o-.. LCUH- in \v" - ~,! ‘ or” tip-:7 ::.::...., ...... sh unis: .;::.e is name t'e r. to Increasmg-y 313'. a “VP?“- rt‘w ' fsu.!e.h.d-j F v _ V" -.:—‘ 9‘1 'rers' 1"“h .. .. ‘7, ~.‘::2 t" :" 9‘. v a a. 4" D‘b‘ . ..‘ _ F'v "N ._; .O v-y. V's. argears t0 :.,_ ‘:“::ab‘-x . ‘_ ‘1] 5‘43th :, 16 the site of the colony's chief town. It had been selected in order that the settlement would not be exposed to direct attack from sea. While the town's defenses were adequate the port facilities definately were not. There was little room in the immediate area for expansion. The unhealthy marsh which nearly encompassed the village did little to make the region habitable.51 Increasingly the settlers viewed with favor Oyster Point, a promentary at the confluence of the Ashley and Cooper Rivers. Inhabited since the colony's earliest days, in 1672 the original owners received other land in exchange so that the peninsula might be surveyed and town lots laid 52 It was not long before individuals out for future use. began to transfer to Oyster Point. The chief reason for the move appears to have been that the new town was more favorably situated for commerce. This furnishes some further evidence of a rising if still embryonic mercantile interest.53 By December, 1679, so many, in fact, had left Charles Town that the proprietors (who like the colonists were losing interest in the old town) ordered the pro- vincial offices to be moved. Furthermore, they transferred to the new site the name Charles Town. Unlike the first town the streets were to be laid out in . . . broad and straight lines and that in your grant of town lots you do bound everyone's land toward the streets in an even line and to suffer no one to encroach with his building upon the streets whereby to make them narrower than they were first designed.54 The proprietc , . .u-o. n-v- ‘ F H ;.L.~Avn-.aj - 1 7.8 COIC VH‘ . I V ‘ \ 1 Q ‘ r. 32:29:: for a new. .. =5 . J F_. on: ‘ '- - 433.137.1515. - ..~. - o o gl"'e a1 2;: ’ n s M 3: -rarl-s .39.:29 .’ ‘ a ,,. . .-:-c-e:1. naicr. ::.e nurse: of Nip: k A leading r §:-;“vv~ I ""3”! “as even V'- Tlfin S‘A‘fn ‘ .- ‘b‘atlc.. r- ::::HE"P:: +.; _ . ‘V‘ 5..th ‘ 56.1 c. . ‘ 5“ «d1 artls4 “‘8 . “ by In 57 f- . =;~g "ue-r'ent “ 509‘“ h ‘t I". . d‘ "“h ‘.‘:‘l ‘h ‘ .‘Urb.‘ A”. ,_ .- s— “~ 4“ s. ‘13" 17 The proprietors, who had at one time considered abandoning the colony and starting afresh with another, now hOped for a new beginning in their relationship with 55 the colonists. They ordered Governor West to . . . give all possible encouragement to the building of Charles Towne at the Oyster Point as we formerly directed. Which if it once arrives to any consider- able number of inhabitants will draw a plentiful trade and be a great security to the whole settlement.56 A leading member of the Barbadian faction, Maurice Mathews, was even more enthusiastic: The situation of this town is so convenient for public commerce that it rather seems to be the design of some skillful artists than the accidental position of nature. Other contemporary observers echoed Mathews' sentiments.58 Thus old Charles Town faded into oblivion and a new one emerged. Ideally situated for commerce the new settlement soon became one of the leading cities in British North America and an element in the Atlantic trading community. VI The move from the old settlement to Charleston did not immediately transform the Carolina economy. The port town grew, developed, and even prospered after sorts, yet the products and patterns of trade remained remarkably stable for yet another decade. As in the first years of the colony's existence, trade passed, for the most part, through the hands of unspecialized individuals or directly from planter to ship's captain. Reflecting this immature I .4, o . h F. v v a n . a b- S 6 . «i l S r: r we m.“ r e e a a C . a E L e ‘nu ~C NJ. .1 C . Pd 6 — . 2 l C t C .d C .5 7. a c a. a e v. Y. 6L C a. 1 «rd. I by t e C h. 2 l m... . u c. T l D n . ... e t 3 S C S D. O. l X C ”J C I .l v 4 . . a a - n . . I «.1 l t n. :. C up” .w. M.” C “a m... .D ”a. C V. v L . E JG... 2.. mu "3 a. C V. Cl .3 S w . .3 S. o . n v . . QC «3 5. .. a i . 5 .3 :— 8. .(u . a r” .L n... ... .. .: I .1 n. .. i .u 1 L .3" J .2... .3 .... iv ‘- b d in'v’es tar; . "ED 0': t § .C.‘ ..." "fifj‘ 18 state of commercial development was the prevalence of the Indian slave traffic and of dealings with pirates who frequented the coast. Among the factors which contributed toward keeping Charleston's commerce at a rudiamentary level was the unsystematic nature of the early Indian trade. Local in its scope, small in its scale of operation, and controlled largely by planter-traders who were members of the Goose Creek faction, the trade during those early years was carried on in a desultory fashion. As long as planters such as Maurice Mathews, John Boone, and Thomas Smith could conduct a trade in deer skins and Indian slaves literally without leaving their plantations or dispatching parties of traders, wholesale import and export merchants who would invest in, organize, and expand the Indian trade were superfluous. The common practice, during the colony's first two decades, was to send out from the plantation Indian hunters who would supply the planter-trader with sufficient skins to conduct a satisfactory, if limited, exportation of pelts. Such a hunter could average between one hundred 59 and two hundred skins per year. Still other Indians lured by the trade goods would bring into the plantation 60 deer skins and slaves. The planter-trader would then arrange for the sale of the skins to a captain, or he 61 would consign them to a British merchant. The slaves '1‘.‘ ‘f '1'".er 3 L_ Q .- . ' ,‘ ::;.: :e 6 1:21:63» .0: 'f":a7‘ S r'fi.’ ...: .gadvh V I. -- '5"‘fi?‘ fit-:9 (I .. Hun—by“ ~¢A¢u \ Q Q I . 1.....-1, ..,.... " “I e .‘....a-4..y .Lo.-¢. .. ‘ '0 ova-‘7; R: n twaiéuua a 5‘ . :'. . s.” A?’Y’“r~~-. -l V““"-U 9 n .:"‘;":\'A.. “a...“ ‘. S r5... V‘s l. .; ‘F‘ . I . r5 . Nu -..,e‘ yri}. ‘hn; .. ...-s Dr:H*- ‘ - ‘Vb- 19 could be exported, sold within the province, or worked on the trader's own plantation. The slaughter of deer, not to mention that of the Indians, in the immediate vicinity eventually eliminated this plantation-based trade. However, it provided a profitable income supplement for some years while incidentally retarding the expansion and organization of the Indian trade. The traffic in Indian slaves, while highly profit- able, contributed negatively toward the organization and expansion of the trade by merchants. Leaving in their wake tremendous human losses and devastation, the slave raids and intertribal wars which were necessary to a continuance of this practice were hardly condusive to the expansion of 62 Yet while Carolina Indian slaves the deer skin trade. remained a valuable export commodity and the supply was relatively cheap the Indian slave trade continued. From Boston to Barbadoes and within South Carolina, Indian slaves were used with varying degrees of success.63 It is significant that foremost in both aspects of the Indian trade were the planters of the Goose Creek faction.64 Dealing in skins and slaves, the interests of these men conflicted in this as in so many instances with those of the proprietors who sought to abolish the Indian slave trade and possibly to reassert the proprietary 65 monopoly of the Indian trade. To the Goose Creek men this was but an other example of proprietary meddling in ‘Iflu mrr‘.-.. .';-r: V ‘f. ' -' u : $222155th a-.a. "'3'?” a vain; .. v‘ovI-VH h':.os|) {Yf‘l' filo ..o-.' 55V“. V I u I ’ . ‘QA' :' :. :::.. “C.“ C- - 1,. "" m 4 . L':.:. 11115 dCt ';"7'-:., 1 -_ V ...o.v.uua‘s a3 .. 919:” ““433. and J :5: sang-.35 C0: 3"“:9: ....Du0r' JC:Sa "‘_: \ . t'iu. n _ dd‘&v Alad t‘rlc \ :Lhfl mm, A“; Z': FA 00‘ :VCSQ C C re “E V'brwse ' I v. '"S h ‘Sv’e 0.: « .‘TQv‘r‘ru bfi‘Juri 0‘. ng h a.“ ‘ 20 the domestic affairs of the colony, and what was worse it threatened a valuable portion of their incomes.66 In an attempt to isolate the private Indian traders (some of whom also were found to have been involved with pirates) from political influence, the proprietors dis- missed from office all of those engaged in the Indian slave trade. This action may have temporarily stalled such individuals as Maurice Mathews, James Moore, Arthur Middleton, and John Boone, but even this is doubtful. The most serious consequence of this action was the dismissal of Joseph west from the Governor's office.67 With West gone the domestic political compromise broke down. West's successor, Joseph Morton, was unable to act. Others were tried as chief executive, but proved equally inept.68 So chaotic had the situation become that in 1685 the pro- prietors were willing to modify their opposition to the 69 The Indian slave trade in order to reappoint West. situation, however, had deteriorated to such a point that the Goose Creek faction would not settle for the old compromise. After a year's fruitless efforts, West 70 This time resigned and was again succeeded by Morton. a measure of stability was attained by the governor simply overlooking both the continuance of the Indian slave trade and the proprietary orders for even token reform.71 With the appointment of James Colleton as governor late in 1686, the proprietors found a man who would enforce their strictures against the Indian slave trade. While he 'IHA‘O"H 'ZS ."* woos-J0 ‘ ‘°" a . A ‘ .. ~-:”‘Fa arc: ' y...~o¢0vi' n- -:.A.'pl gcr 'ren p. u‘o'voi & b “ “ ”2.9.31 .. ... :i.-.'owu& slvavus ........ ,1 CA U ......uue~a kur 88‘ 362536 r. 6'19! 1'. .:vn. . '.' | ‘ -«~.-.u.ir.s CE = Yet ano‘ '1 (n ‘ . J a? -"‘v. I “A .“‘u '-;as;\—'! a . as *ar ha: ' I ; D "4“; ‘Or a __ f‘ §...V Cf '1 1 ‘ H‘WQEI‘nm Agj «L .‘o ”10:17.12 1 r.- ‘u‘l Eh: ‘ h n O 9:111 21 successfully suspended both it and the trade with pirates, Colleton was not an adept politican. Outmanuevered, undermined, and ultimately overthrown, the governor was no match for men determined to maintain the economic and 72 The commerce in Indian slaves political status quo. continued for several years, but as the volume and range of the deer skin trade expanded the traffic in slaves became an ever more distant secondary element in the Carolinians' dealings with the Indians.73 Yet another indication of the immaturity of Caro- lina commerce was the readiness with which persons within the colony dealt with pirates and foreign privateers:74 During this era the distinctions between peace and war, privateering and piracy, were often unclear. A state of quasi-war had existed in the Caribbean between England and Spain for almost a century. Anyone who made an occupation of plundering Spanish ships and colonies would receive a warm welcome in an English colony. When formal wars ended with European treaties, they might continue for years in the Western Hemisphere, and when peace was announced the switch from privateering to piracy was but a small step. From Charleston were shipped few valuable articles that pirates desired so the temptation to raid the Carolina coast was not yet present. While probably few Carolinians actually participated in piracy or at this early date even privateering, it soon became known that ships could enter and clear with few questions asked. In exchange for c'" H... . L. and“ SH .‘yLH .— a. An n...~4u v-I . . .bo. . .uu . . “J . . C. a C a. S O a» l 9. r r v. C l C . r. .C r S ... t C. 3 .1. an” E . e C O D. e t a “w no no «G e s c .C O. P e a. ..l.. MW :4 b e :1 .nu . . «1 #L O I S e a L C O 7 5 . C t V r . 3 Au 5 Lu .5 a .3 . an I P. #L w . t 0 e mi a V CJ T. a .3 t a .3 e . .. 1 n1. 0 an ru 1 h... a a.“ a. .3 .. . a. A v r. L s O» .Pu .1. oJ V1 .11 WA .. x n. Pu «alu an r. A: ..a r .71 a: 5. n9. LL NMJ . . . . q.» .3 . . C» o . ~14 A: a . Po L . 2‘ u .. .. .. .r~ .. u. :. ... 5» .rd .3 v. I a... w.“ 3* v c . u .. 2g w .a p. . u I r: :u in» . . . . u A T. .... ... ... L a .u u-.. .. .. u... .. .. i u‘ IIII III! Hill’s”- d all cor: - 7 a \-i ;‘| 6 22 Spanish coin ships of unknown circumstances would pro- vision, water, and fit out without hindrance in South Carolina.75 As with the Indian slave trade, others might be involved, but it was the Goose Creek planters who were the most deeply engaged. Among the leadership of the Barbadian faction, James Moore and John Boone especially combined their dealings in planting, Indian trading, and commerce with pirates to good advantage. To the typical planter-trader there was no phase of commerce that was illegitimate. All aspects of trade were viewed as merely different operations by which an individual could secure a livelihood, of little concern to government, and especially no business of the proprietors.76 The proprietors took no notice of the colonists' questionable dealings with pirates until 1684. In that year privateers sailing under French commissions, but operating out of Charleston, attacked Spanish shipping. As England was nominally a neutral power, the Spanish protested to the Crown. An Order in Council was issued to the prOprietors demanding that their subjects desist from any and all commerce with pirates and foreign privateers. A law modeled upon the Jamacian anti-piracy statute was to 77 Lord Craven, as be passed by the colony's legislature. Palatine or senior proprietor, responded by denying the culpability of the Carolinians. Furthermore, he asserted that the only pirates known in South Carolina were hanged (‘rr V“ fl e actui .' fiaa‘: .. afie- Th '2";7 m. v~v:‘0 ?' avvv‘ O on.u-" ‘ O r h Ch n. -rm nu to ~.. .. ru hrs a. I I a .t. c0 r5 an u .\ "Q 0 \Il‘ . l “I a” Hrw My“ a. 5.“ av“ .91- Au 0;» MW h“ We a.“ M4 2 t P t m.» "M .0”. V. a. .D m a .9. x: ml. 1‘ ":1 .l “U "fl 9‘ . I‘d. F)» I!“ u . t 1“ N no . u v ”H“ .u» o u .n i c.» u u ”um nu pun .Dm A-cv vs .I .- An: I 1 O c I I fii‘ll‘I ‘1; II p- \ I H nor's a. to the Li. R Q, ~- 59... u I e:- A“ “ "A. m and E"- c 23 as examples.78 However, in their letters to the Caro- linians the proprietors recognized the existence of the pirate trade. Orders for the passage of the "Jamacian law" were issued and complied with by the Assembly.79 The actual suppression of the trade was another matter. This issue together with the problem of the Indian slave trade became embroiled in the factional politics of the day. Evidence of their own governor's (Robert Quarry) involvement with pirates led to his dismissal in March, 1685, but did not end the harboring of pirates. Despite the proprietors' frequent calls for prosecutions the 1685 act was too vague for enforcement in the face of popular indifference. During his second term of office Morton, as he did with the Indian slave trade, gave up all efforts at enforcement.80 By 1687 times had changed. Governor Colleton pushed through the Assembly a more stringent anti-piracy law and enforced it.81 This action together with the governor's attempts to suppress the Indian slave trade and to halt raids against St. Augustine did little to endear him to the Goose Creek men. Colleton was consistently circumvented in the Assembly and Council by the opposition. In the fateful year 1689, he was overthrown and eventually expelled from the province. Political power passed to Seth Sothel, a proprietor, who had recently been expelled from the Albermarle colony in North Carolina. Backed by the Goose Creek faction, Sothel reopened the pirate trade, ; i v . vhf-V T'- U . row—15v ‘.' C “a -CI' . - a quQ‘ 5" .“u&a.n .:'. o. .l .l p“ C. :,.. n. .. ‘ . .c 1 I 1 A a. p o ~ . H r.“ I .n p o. .3 V4 cc 0 e S I C n .. . E e L c S 7 n... L“ .l l +. .l I Z 6 ~ ex. .7... 8 S 0 LL + . c; n a.“ C; 0 DC "I .1 é nu . e l a E I e o e .0 u «C no wu O t l O f r Dr. a.” r. .a a a: a D. C LL an L; C 0 LL 2. ad .5 e a Wu 5 S r is l AJ .3 Y. Hu .1 . ~fl.u r a: Q» m - Au e S .H& a I A I u ‘ .b .a .c 1.... er.‘ V. . fi~b b - Iv t v.41 05 {FIN 4‘ I H v A: u: o. .d 5.. 2‘ .uu «an vk n .61» Va .u uh 2" in -\u A v V“ n... G ' Vt nu. ud. ‘It .«I« \“ qfil ...... ..: .u .. .f. -2 .. .. .. ..... 2... u... ...:. u... ... m. .3. 24 82 but its day had passed. By 1694, Governor Thomas Smith could report that the trade with pirates had been sup- 84 Pirates continued to haunt the coast of South pressed. Carolina for some time, however, they were no longer seen in a favorable light by the colonist whose trade they increasingly hindered.84 VII In spite of South Carolina's somewhat retarded development, its second decade was by no means commercially stagnant. Contemporary observers noted the expansion of the trade in provisions, cattle, and forest products.85 Destined primarily for the West Indies, this trade occupied about a dozen ships, a few of which were built and owned in 86 The deer skins sent to England contributed Carolina. toward payment of the unfavorable balance of trade with the mother country. Furthermore, while the dealings with pirates may have had their faults, they did bring to Charleston specie which provided still another means of repayment.87 Despite political turmoil the concern which all parties displayed for improving the economic situation of the colony was evidenced in the fact that over two- thirds of the legislation passed during Colleton's troubled administration concerned commerce.88 Reflective of the slight improvement in the volume and value of Charleston's trade was the appointment in 1685 of a customs officer to collect Crown revenues and to l':"‘° 5L8 x3.»- u...~.vv V“ .gp-vA - u=s "' ‘ .._..:.' J Jan - 4 . ‘ . ‘nara r fir". ......:C O. obs- . "ur- arc $.05, :lgs. C u 9..” '. g - . H V' u:... C. 8.. . (1. F'U-v ”‘1‘.“ J .hh. "tn‘lah ‘l ~éa~ . ‘ly lu'JClv I l h "‘m. ‘“:hEro+ . b ' Jf \ —~:auln c “g urcr" w - .k ¢l§1;6d C] “wally ' ho: 3*...th W. " Erica"; a :: ‘C~; u“ 25 enforce the Navigation acts. To the colonist this sign of progress was unwelcome and Collector George Muschamp was ignored or obstructed whenever possible.89 The prospects of the province also improved as a result of an influx of new settlers. The proprietors had undertaken a promotional campaign aimed specifically at English religious dissenters and Huguenot refugees. Between 1682, when the effort was begun, and 1685 about five hundred dissenters immigrated to South Carolina.90 Along with approximately five hundred Huguenots whose arrivals were more spread out over time, the newer settlers comprised a significant portion of the population.91 Among the newer Carolinians were a few who had previously been merchants. There were some whose contacts in the merchant and artisan communities of London allowed them to set up in trade. Joseph Blake, the nephew of the famous Admiral Robert Blake, used his connections to become heavily involved in commerce, planting, and politics.92 A Huguenot, Josias Du Pré, was lucker than most in escaping from France with considerable capital as well as 93 More established credit in England and the West Indies. typically, however, the newer arrivals, both English and French, engaged in planting during their first years in South Carolina.94 Another ethnic group that arrived in the province during the 1680's was composed of Scottish covenanters. ._‘,:.‘“N a toxin 8 ”Inn-3 :e;:litical anf 52:;ally in he 22:56 to the s; axicrity to est: 2:15: Charlest: :::;e:ate, each : :z’.er.96 Few we Szzttis‘r. settler: 33:93 off by n in.‘ 581181 Ca 7-" mediate .A u w. f0\ rid air: V“: ‘1’: 26 1"ounding a town at Port Royal, the Scots posed a danger to the political and economic influence of the Carolina colony eSpecially in the Indian trade. The proprietors had granted to the sponsor of this project, Baron Cardoss, the authority to establish a colony distinct from their govern- ment at Charleston. Despite orders that the two groups cooperate, each sought to gain the advantage over the other-.96 Few were dismayed in Charleston when in 1686 the SCOttish settlement was destroyed and the inhabitants driven off by the Spanish.97 South Carolina was approaching the end of its Second decade, but substantial economic progress had yet to be attained. If the province was to escape the fate of econOrnic stagnation which was rapidly overtaking its sister colony immediately to the north, an agricultural staple had to be found and the Indian trade expanded. These were to be accomplished during the final decade of the seventeenth c: entury. With these developments the colony was to r . eglSter progress and to witness the emergence of a d ‘ . 3‘ stlnct merchant group- NOTES 1"Nicholas Carteret's Relation, 1670:" Lord Shaftesbury to Joseph West, November 1, 1670, Langon Cheves, ed., The Shaftesbury Papers and Other Records Relatin t_:9_ Carolina and the first Settlement on the AShley River Prior; to the Year 1676, Vol. V of—Sout—T Caro- 1na Histoficfi SociEty, Collections (5 vols., Charleston, 1857—97), 168, 210. Hereafter cited as Cheves, ed., Shaftesbury Papers. To avoid confusion regarding S a tesbury's various titles, I have followed the practice of Previous writers in consistently referring to him as Shaftesbury. Edward McCrady, The Histor of South Carolina Under the Proprietary Government? 16'70-171§_(New York, WfTT6-128. M. Eugene Sirmans, Colonial South Caro- lna. A Political History, 1663-1763 (Chapel Hill, 1966), Joseph I. Waring, The First Voyage and . 16 ,‘H. ement at Charles Town, 1670-1680, Trlcentennlal Settl Booklet No.7 (Columbia, 1970Y. 23-26. 2Ibid., 23-25. McCrady, PrOprietary Government, 129‘130. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., l9. Wa. . 31bid., 6. McCrady, Proprietary Government, 79-93. Sorlng, Lharles Town, 14-21. Wesley Frank Craven, T_h_e_ W Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, 1607-1689, and- I of A Histor o_f_ the South, ed. Wendell H. Stephenson 324 E. Merton Coulter (1W vols., Baton Rouge, 1949- ‘334. Robert Sandford, "A Relation of the Province of " Alexander S. Shalley, ed., Narratives of Early Ori inal Narratives ofEarly car . ' . Nna, 1650-1708, in g _ History, ed. J. Fran lln JamesongYNew York, 1911), - etil—can W.— Harlow, A Histor of the Barbadoes, ls 4Vincent T. _ __ 1926), 152-153, 169-173. George Louis Be\:5‘1685 (Oxford, le o The Old Colonial System, 1660-1754 (reprint ed., 2 s - , Gloucester, Mass., 1958T, II, 1-46, 177-182. 27 28 Craven, Southern 5Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 4-5. Colonies, 322-323. Charles M. Andrews, The Colonial Period 1934-38), III, of American History_(4 vols., New Haven, R's-18f 6Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 5. Andrews, Colonial Period, III, 187-192. In 1665 the area covered by the c aurter was broadened to include the territory between 29° north latitude. A copy of the second charter and 36°30 ' whixih.embodied all the provisions of the first except for R. Carroll, ed., additional land can be found in B. Historical Collections o_f_ South Carolina Embracing Many Rare and Valuable Pamphlets, and Other Documents, Relating of That State, From Its First DISCOvery to to the History __ Ihnde endence in the Year 1776 (2 vols., New York, 3353 1§365_LT_7, II, 7-5 .— 7"Artic1es of Agreement" and the Barbadian Adventurers], January 7, 1664, Cheves, ed, o Shaftesbury Papers, 29-32. McCrady, Prgarietary 79-81, 92-93. Craven, Southern Colonies, Warring, Charles Siownalnnment, T22‘334. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 6. &. 14-15. Louise F. Brown, The First Earl of Shaftesbury 1933), 150-151. Sirmans, ColofiIaIS.C., 7. [between the Proprietors (hmew' ‘York, 9Shaftesbury to Governor and Council, June 10, 468. Brown, 1675 , Cheves, ed. , Shaftesbury Papers, Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 7-15. For ihaftesbur , 151-16? Mess favorable views of Shaftesbury's Eforts see: wccrady, Proprietary Government, 94-112; and David Duncan allaoe, South Carolina: A Short History, 1530-1948 (chapel HIT, l§"")"‘"‘51 , 25-26'.’ 10Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 12-13. 11"Instructions to West," [July, 1669] Cheves, ed., Brown, Shaftesbury, 162, 170. S “!13E§UEesbury_Papers, 125-127. 12"Instructions to Governor and Council," JU1Y 27: JL 669, Shaftesbury to Sir John Yeamans, April 10, 1691, ember 18, 1761, Cheves, ed., Shaftesbury Papers, fept 21‘123, 315, 344. McCrady, Propffetary Government, 7. (:11 135haftesbury to Yeamans, September 18, 1671, saives, ed., _Silaftesbury Pa ers, 342-344. Alexander S. ley, ed., Journal 9f_ the Grand Council o_f_ South Carolina, v-H T -—.\.-"'_ HTEYS 5981 h 14 Jose; :ES'ea" S: VnFr: Cb-‘4' 16" {"39 -'IAD:A " IV :rldw": .‘e‘e fr:: 4“!- . 4“. 323 I ~a . Sa.-6' {‘2 7 ‘ CU! “n ‘ 5"." Uw-e 6' i‘ "416‘; v! "_ htOL ' se-Jto 3,4 “MG ‘ ‘ . lyric a“: h Shaf“ :« 6.301' and Cr 1.; p3“ 29 1671-1680, 1691- 1692 (2 vols., Columbia, 1907-1916), Oct. 26, 1671, I, 10- 12, 35- 37. For a description of the town and its fortifications based upon recent archeological surveys see: Waring, Charles Town, 26-48. 14Joseph Dalton to Shaftesbury, Sept. 9, 1670, Cheves, ed., Shaftesbury Papers, 183. 15McCrady, Proprietary Government, 122-125. 16Verner W. Crane, The Southern Frontier, 1670- 1732 (Durham, N. C. , 1928), 10-11. Governor and Council to Pr0prietors, Sept. 9, 1670, Cheves, ed., Shaftesbury Papers, .178- -l79. , l7Henry Brayne to Shaftesbury, Nov. 9, 1670, Ibid., 214 Thomas Newe to his father, May 29, 1682, "Letters of Thomas Newe from South Carolina, 1682, " A_M_R, XII (1907), 324—325. 18Salley, ed., Grand Council Journal, Feb. 10, 1672 , June 6, 1672, I, 26- -,27 34. West to Sir Peter Colleton, Sept. 15, 1670, Shaftesbury to West, May 23, 1674 , "Memoranda," Sept. and Nov., 1670, Proprietors to GoVezlrnor and Council, May 18, 1680, Cheves, ed., Shaftes- bur Pa ers, 446— 447, 264, 256-260, 435-438. Beer. 01d Colonlal s stem, 177. Maurice Mathews to ?, May 18, 1680, Mt in South Caroliniana Library, 5. (3 19Shaftesbury to west, May 23, 1674, Proprietors to OVernor and Council. May 18, 1674, Cheves, ed., Shaftes- m Papers, 447, 437, 53 20"Instructions to Joseph West," [July, 1669] ltephen Bull to Shaftesbury, Sept. 16, 1670, _2_[___bid., 23~127, 193. IL 2J'Shaftesbury to Sir Peter Colleton, Nov. 27, 672 , Ibid. , 416. David Duncan Wallace, A History of _S____outh m (4 vols., New York, 1934), I, 89. Si 22Colleton to Locke, March 3, 1673, cited in r1“ans, Colonial S.C., 21. 23Wallace, South Carolina, I, 79- -80, 89. McCrady, ‘E75~9I2rietary Government, 15 4- 155. Yeamans to Lord Dudley, 15, 1670, Great Britain, Public Record Office, .aoc" .. ‘7“..5 tr, ,3? n . - I U o a .tv do ‘ ' ’- n—lr-“V‘, \‘2 'u‘ ' ' _ ‘-__,_,....- A .‘I -112 ‘9' vv- «U 0 a. Twal c 7 Iv-vo-O“- v. \-"’ C:?P~ Uh-..‘ 54-6.4- ‘ ~h‘ idg‘..y‘a' v‘ 6' A .’ “A . ‘ .15. ‘5 ‘-- L . mm. a he; 0f ‘- A“. Q ......-al 5. x _ "c I u—P'N ‘ _e C. p, A ' u ‘ rw- " . hug- "Jll D” K ‘ d" ‘ " v: 21' H 0 cu U‘.ly' “’3‘ o 7‘“. ‘- .....: r24». .7‘ h. Si ‘H ‘ ‘.V.n-¢S’ CA \J \ 23: R .1 v rovernor ar P i L ’1 a“! Paf-IEI: ‘ ‘V‘ . U ‘C‘chll . :CA I r‘: oIXerd Occ‘ i‘ n a ‘7‘ - f) ‘d Vvi .' g a. 30 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and 1889), 131-132. Captain Wgst Indie—3, 1669-1674 (London, Brayne to Proprietors, Nov. 15, 1670, Cheves, ed., §haftesbury Papers, 269. 24Dalton to Shaftesbury, Jan. 20, 1672, Ibid., McCrady, Proprietary Government, 121. Slrmans, 381-382. 22. Agnes Leland Baldwin, First Settlers pf Cfiolonial S.C., South Carolina, 1670-1680, Tricentennial Booklet No. 1 Although extremely useful this (Columbia, 1969), iii-iv. work is difficult to cite as the pages on which the main body of the "census" are found were not numbered. 79. Sirmans, 25Wallace, South Carolina, I, "The Barbadians COlonial S.C., 27-29. John P. Thomas, Jr., in Early Carolina," SCHM, XXXI (1930), 75-92. 2 "Schenckingh, Barnard," Baldwin, First Settlers, George C. Rogers, Jr., Evolution o_f_ a Federalist, William Lou hton Smith of Charleston, 1758-1815 (Columbia, 1962i, 2*\g~"Petition of‘thfioyal African Company," Nov. 22, 1676, d Stede and Stephen Gascoigne to Royal African Edwar EOmPany, May 24, 1677, Elizabeth Donnan, ed., Documents llustrative of the Histoy CE the Slave Trade 1_:9_ America £3 \rc>ls., Washington, 1930-35), I, 222-225. Alexander S. aflley, ed., Records (E the Secretary 91:: the Provijn_c_e_, 2112 ster of the Province of South Carolina, 1671-1675 the Re ' F _ 91 _ Columbia, 197'4), Dec. 19, 1672, 56-58. 27"Middleton, Edward," Baldwin, First Settlers. 27. Slrmans, Colonial S.C.: 28Shaftesbury to west, May 23, 1674, Proprietors to SOVernor and Council, May 18, 1674, Cheves, ed., Shaftes- cur-y Papers, 446-447, 437. Proprietors to Governor and Iicyuulcil, April 16, 1677, Records ip_the British Public ecOrd Office Relatin to—Sou'tT Carolina, 1663-1783 l_Vols. microfilm, Columbia} 1928-55), \ 1 ' (5 vols. , facsimile, Recs. I ' 53-54. Hereafter cited as S.C. Pub. 29Shaftesbury to Stephen Bull, Aug. 13, 1673, 427. Crane, Southern cheVes, ed., Shaftesbury PaperS: . I‘Ontier, 17-21. Almon W. Lauber, Indian Slavery 1.3 (Dnial Times Within the Present Limits pifthe United §o\l—-— Rig—(New York, 1913), 103-106. 30William Sayle to Shaftesbury, June 25, 1670, 1670, Cheves., Stephen Bull to Shaftesbury, Sept. 12: a] (D (I) LA) ‘7 o :1 a IA. :..'E"‘1".r " C -‘ V-’ H - I" “V ;‘-r FAA “. “:95. p 3: C»- :n ‘ 31 ed., Shaftesbur Papers, 171-173, 195. Waring, Charles Town, 34-37. Si rmans, Colonial S.C., 25-27. 31Thomas, SCHM, xxx1 (1930), 79, 81. Sirmans, 32Shaftesbury to Colleton, Nov. 27, 1672, Pro- prietors to Governor and Council, May 18, 1674, Cheves, ed. , Shaftesbury Papers, 416, 435-438. Aug. 13, 1674, Salley, ed., Grand Council Journal, I, 70. 33Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 29. Henry A. M. Smith, "Joseph West, Landgrave and Governor," SCHM, XIX (1918) 189—193. Mabel L. Webber, "Joseph West, Landgrave and Governor," SCHM, XL (1939), 79-80) 34Lord Craven to Board of Trade, [July, 1687] S.C. “51¢ 5e33, II, 200. —— R 35Crane, Southern Frontier, 6-7. Sandford, ..A elation." Salley, ed., Narratives, 105. V 36Henry Woodward, "A Faithful Relation of My Westoe oyage," Salley, ed., Narratives, 125-134. 37Crane, Southern Frontier, 17-21. Bi 38Eugene Sirmans, Jr., "Masters of Ashley Hall: A C c39¢E‘aphical Study of the Bull Family of Colonial South PiFolina, 1670-1737 (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, ..C1nceton University, 1959), 34. T[homas]. A[Sh]., coarolina: or a Description of the Present State of that Gauntry, and the Natural Excellencies Thereof . . ." Marroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 64-69, 71-72, 82. Phthews to ?, May 18, 1680, South Caroliniana Library otostat, 5-8. [Alexander Hewatt] , An Historical Account o __ - 3% t\he_ Rise and Progress o_f_ the Colonies of South Carolina 9d Hepfint ed., 2 vols., Spartahhurg, S.C., 1\ Geor ia 3 S (6) 2 fi8-90 . McCrady , Prgprietary Government , 171 , 39See above pages 11-12. 4o[Hewatt], Historical Account, I, 88-90. Sirmans, col _ mlal S.C., 23-24. __ Vl‘ . ._..._v;£ u...j I. A a " coerated f 23531 hlth t eatablis‘n a wi 3:29:32): and C 13. or Car: “3.3: Re'yupfi '-:1 “ i» '1" ($153 .135 "‘:a¥&or.:l s 32 41On the development of rice as a staple commodity see: A. S. Salley, "The Introduction of Rice Culture into South Carolina,” Bulletin No. 6 (Columbia: 1919), 3-23; and McCrady, Proprieta£y_Government, 348-349. 42While South Carolinians engaged in shipping (hiring the first and subsequent decades, the tonnage owned and! operated from within the colony never proved sufficient to»"MII 267- 5‘ .. 6’1.' Lne Stat "31151 ‘ r: .a’ 153 35 72Ibid., 45-49. Proprietors to James Colleton, Oct. 18, 1695, S.C. Pub. Recs., II, 292-293. 111-115. 73Crane, Southern Frontier, 74In some cases native South Carolina historians have attempted to play down the extent of the dealings McCrady and Wallace between the colonists and pirates. both minimized the significance of this trade and attempted to excuse the Carolinians. McCrady, Proprietary Government, 251-262. Wallace, Earlier writers from the clergyman, Hewatt to the novelist, Simms, felt no urgency to apologize for their colony and [Hewatt], Historical Account, I, of state in this regard. 90-92, 115-116. William Gilmore Sims, The HTstor __ EkJuth Carolina . . . (2nd ed., Charleston, 1842), 78-79. Ik‘contemporary comment on the pirate trade is found in: Newe to father, May 29, 1682, Aug. 23, 1682, A_HR, XII, 324-327. One of the better treatments of this aspect of South Carolina's history, based on source presumably no Cnlger in existence is Rivers, Sketch, 146-147. 75Shirley Carter Hughson, The Carolina Pirates and Cc>-'l..<:>nia1 Commerce, 1670-1740 (Baltimore, 1894), 13-20. 76£bid., 24-25. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., Iprietors to Colleton, March 3, 1687, S.C. Pub. Recs., 40-42. II . 186. Sketch, 146. Order in Council, March 13, 77Rivers, I, 272. 1684, S.C. Pub. Recs., <3. 78Craven to the Committee of Trade and Plantations cf the Privy Council, May 27, 1684, Ibid., 1, 284-285. ‘13Eiven's apologies were made despite the fact that he had cmeived a letter informing him that Sir Thomas Lynch, he G'Q\?ernor of Jamaica, had information on the harboring of Letter to Lord Craven, Efirates in South Carolina. received] May 21, 1684, Ibid., 1, 283. . 79Proprietors to Robert Quarry, June 3, 1684, 287-294. Thomas Cooper and David J. McCord, Ibl QQ\" 1' <:: 53., The Statutes at Large 9£_South Carolina (10 vols., Qlumhia, 1836-184IY, II, 7-9). Proprietors to Governor and Council, March 13, II, 31, 39-40. Proprietors to l 685, S.C. Pub. Recs., 36 Morton, Sept. 10, 1685, Ibid., II, 89-90. Proprietors to Governor and Council, Feb. 15, 1686, Ibid., II, 121-124. [Hewatt], Historical Account, I, 92. 81Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, II, 25-27. "Instructions to James Colleton," March 3, 1687, S.C. Pub. Recs. ' II, 177-183. 82Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 44-49. Hughson, Caro- lina Pirates, 29-30. 83ggig., 37. Smith to proprietors, Nov. 29, 1693, S.C. Pub. Recs., III, 112. 84Hughson, Carolina Pirates, 44. 85Newe to father, May 17, 1682, May 29, 1682, AHR, XII, 322-325. [Ash], "Carolina," Carroll, ed., Historical .Sklllections, II, 82. Wilson, "An Account," Ibid., II, -15*-35. 86Ibid., 24. 87Newe to father, Aug. 23, 1682, AHR, x11, 325-327. 88McCrady, Proprietary Government, 225. Cooper and ba<3Clord, eds., Statutes, II, 39-38. Of special interest was Eirl act passed July 23, 1687 which set prices on export §g<>nmmodities in order that they might serve as legal tender. IDIIEE prices were: corn-2s. per bushel; Indian pease-Zs. per uShel; English peas-3s. per bushel; pork-205. per hundred eight; beef-2d. per pound; tar- 55. per barrel. Ibid., JEZE.. 37. ‘H’ 89McCrady, Proprietary Government, 211, 213, 222. Gallace, Short History, 56. Rivers, Sketch, 147-148. Seorge Muschamp to Lords of the Treasury, April 11, 1687, ESF:LSEL Pub. Recs., II, 194-195. ProPrietors to Colleton, (21:. I6, 1687, Ibid., II, 224-255. 'Ei. 90Wallace, South Carolina, I, 95-96. For an 'rléilysis of the effort by the proprietors see: Hugh T. Lg fler, "Promotional Literature of the Southern Colonies," 531E351, xxx111 (1967), 15-19, 24-25. 53 91Arthur Henry Hirsch, The Huguenots 9£_Colonia1 ‘-45219th Carolina (Durham, 1928), 13-20. "E ‘5 zCra ‘ h ll-i at... ." ,-~<-crh¥ Q a... Ix Ins 37 92Crane, Southern Frontier, 24, 38, 45. 93St. Julien Ravenal Childs, "Exports from Charles wan, 1690," HST, LIV (1949), 30-34. 94Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 40-41. Hirsch, Huguenots, 11-13. Petition of Rene Petit and Jacob Guerard, [March, 1679], S.C. Pub. Recs., I, 77. 95George Pratt Insh, Scottish Colonial Schemes, 1620-1686 (Glasgow, 1922), 186, 199-202. 96Ibid., 206-211. Deposition of Henry Woodward and John Edenburgh, May 5, 1685, S.C. Pub. Recs., II, 61-64. 97Insh, Scottish Colonial Schemes, 210-211. "Spanish Depredafi—ons, 1686," SCHM, XXX (1929), 81-89. ‘ TEE C 'or' .:~.esent a t ‘D‘pl ‘ Multilth . tr 2 “k h" atyEaranm 23M CHAPTER I ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHARLESTON MERCHANTS , 1690-1700 The closing years of the seventeenth century represent a transitional stage in the colony's development. The period as a frontier outpost with a slightly better than subsistence agriculture was passing. A new level of economic maturity was rapidly being attained. The Indian trade expanded far beyond the immediate boundaries of the Settlement. Furthermore, the small scale operations and relative inefficiency of the early years were giving way to a greater systemization of this branch of trade. A more profound, if less spectacular, improvement was the e1“ergence of rice as the agricultural staple of the colony. These two developments brought with them a host of changes which revolutionized the social, economic, and political l:it‘fes of the province. Not the least of the changes was the appearance within South Carolina of a distinct merchant SIIt‘CDup operating out of Charleston. 38 H ("f ' 1‘ “J o , 1 - '3‘5" 'H‘ F c.2vd bon'dé on .:.:;a:. slaves [3: flag; 5. .. k ' -OOVd- :1"“’ t: «-1 fiho I'ECC 5:93:36 as 2:358 was to .584 . V‘SSths: . VJ. J "N 39 I It has long been recognized that the Charleston- based Indian trade passed through several distinct phases. The plantation trade of the early years could serve but for a brief period before the local supplies of deer and Indian slaves were depleted. Among the planter-traders were those such as Joseph Blake, James Moore, and Stephen Bull who recognized the transitory nature of the Indian commerce as it then existed. If South Carolina's Indian trade was to continue and if the province was to be more than a coastal enclave, commercial expansion was necessary. Soon after the destruction of the westo tribe and with it the attempted proprietary monopoly, Carolinans ScNight to establish a trade with the interior tribes. Explorers, including Dr. Woodward, went out to lay the 1:)"~"5'-SJ'.s for a wider trade in slaves and deer skins. By the end of the colony's second decade contacts had been made with the Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, as well as various minor tribes of what is the present southeastern United States. While it was not until after 1690 that this are-de assumed large proportions, its importance was :- ecognized earlier. At the turn of the century the M - lssissippi had been reached and the Tennessee served as a _ " Road to Carolina" for both traders and tribesmen.3 The greatly expanded Indian trade not only contri- b uted to the provincial economy, but it also established 3 ‘ _ ..P [‘"h I 'F‘ r "l: VQ‘U‘¢64¢~. SEEiiIZ: to o: d . ‘ ‘ 1 ”1:19 Chal é Vie t0 E:€€t :3 COTE Out A: " i' ‘ in 40 a virtual sphere of influence over the interior. The Spanish domination was challenged and thrown back to the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of Florida. However before they retreated completely, the Spanish eliminated the Scottish rival of the Carolina colony. Their broadened trade was, during the last decade of the seventeenth century, to bring the Carolinians face to face with the French who were seeking to establish themselves at New Orleans and Mobile. 131 the challenge of France the Charleston-based traders were to meet their most severe test and, for the most part, to come out the better.5 Much of the credit for the enlargment of South Cal-‘Irolina's Indian trade goes to the planter-traders such as Joseph Blake and James Moore. As governor for six years (1694-1695, 1696-1700), Blake, who had heavily invested in the trade, used the authority of his office to promote that phase of the colony's economy. Perhaps not always ScEli‘upulous, he nevertheless did a great deal to bring order James Moore not to the expanding and often chaotic trade. Or11y was among the first planters to send out trading parties to obtain skins and slaves, but he also engaged E>eJ:‘sonally in exploratory trips into the interior. In QQ:Llaboration with Maurice Mathews, one of the most active Qf the older planter-traders, Moore prospected for mines as well as trade in the back country. The mining scheme Qame to naught in the face of provincial and proprietary .:',Y.“" 2" h‘it 1i.v.éobb ‘o4 Other 1 23""; ‘ -""SI but] a . “'54,... :~~uv..Linate 1y a '7‘ 1here a: V y- a u nFu .“l._ 6158 were 1" ‘~SV1dual Pla.. 41 resistance, but Moore made the first known contact by a Carolinian with the Cherokee.7 Other planter-traders, who had previously engaged in the Indian trade, soon began to send out frontiersmen to trade for them. Typical of these planters who supple- mented their incomes through the Indian trade was the irascible Landgrave Thomas Smith who did so much to disrupt provincial politics. Smith hired and equipped trading lparties, but, as nearly as can be determined, remained Exredominately a planter to whom the Indian trade was a Valuable side operation.8 Still other of the older Planter-traders followed the example of Stephen Bull who increasingly devoted his chief efforts to planting and land speculation while maintaining but a passing interest in the Indian trade.9 There are several explanations as to why fewer planters were becoming involved in the Indian trade. The jLIixiividual planter-trader could not consistently spend away 131C13m.his plantation the long periods required by the expanded trade. Necessarily he either hired frontiersmen ‘tl‘z' make trips into the interior or competed in bidding for ‘t:11£eir goods with his fellow planters and the Charleston rueIt‘chants. In either case his operating costs were bound ‘t:<3 increase over those of the earlier local trade. The Islckontiersmen, who composed the increasing numbers of ‘j‘1tdinerant lesser traders, hired themselves out to the planter-traders and merchants. They were often drunken, :1! V,— -___ '5‘ IQPOA-b—‘A“‘ -—- k... : .(I'UU'O-V“- . . "car ‘1'“; .v-a'vt L‘s..- . ’:"”"‘.pf: ‘r‘ Ivaunav‘ ‘Q a k 7':"5 ‘- '2'"5~O~ s I ~“‘ ‘ V‘v- .- ‘ .v ..c _‘~ ‘- -n... 3‘ I!" ft'». .- o}. ' 15 9“. a; . y b ‘“'U‘O.‘ b ' . .‘A 42 crude, and brutal men. Undisciplined and chronically indebted the frontier traders presented a taxing managerial problem to their employers. Furthermore, larger initial investments, the speculative nature of the trade, and the longer time required before a substantial profit could be returned forced from the trade many of the smaller operators.10 While planter-traders such as Smith, Blake, and Moore continued in the Indian trade until the outbreak 0f the Yamasee War in 1715, an ever increasing share of the trade went to the Charleston merchants.11 In the decades immediately before and after the tUrn of the century, merchants were drawn from overseas by the improving commercial prospects of South Carolina. In addition to those previously in the province, they exploited the opportunities afforded by the expanded Indian trade. From England came men such as Samuel Eveleigh of Bristol, John Fenwicke, and Samuel Wragg of London to participate in the Indian trade as well as other aspects of South 12 ea~rolina commerce. John Abraham Motte, his brother Isaac, Benjamin Godin, and Benjamin de la Conseillere were Iillguenot refugees who were active in the Indian trade.]’3 Arnong those whose families had earlier settled in the p“rovince as planters and planter-traders, but who turned 1:9 commerce were Thomas Broughton and Peter St. Julian.14 The new arrivals were usually connected in various ways with English merchants or, in the case of the Huguenots, 43 with friends and relatives operating out of London.15 With access to capital or credit through their correspondents in England, the Charleston merchants could order the necessarily larger volumes of goods called for by the expanded Indian trade without straining their resources. Furthermore, with few significant exceptions the commercial interests of these men were usually diversified to such an extent that a bad year in the Indian trade might be compen- .sated for in their returns of rice or naval stores.16 A regular pattern for the expanded Indian trade “His soon established. Down to Charleston every spring would <=Cnne the frontier traders with their pack trains. In the port town they would obtain the cloth, rum, implements, arms, and ammunition for which their Indian customers $1Jpjplied them with deer skins. The merchant who hired or :Eiillanced the trader would see to the grading, pricing, and packing of the skins as well as to their shipping and c=<>l'1signment.l7 Usually packed in wooden hogsheads which (zéilrried approximately five thousand pounds of skins each, .t111£e heavier and better deer skins were sent to England and (2’1511en re-exported to Germany. The skins of lesser quality rtlj-syht be sent to the northern colonies.18 While perhaps 013 less value than the shipments of beaver and other furs, .t:11Ee deer skins from South Carolina made a valuable contri- b\Zl‘tion to Britain's commercial empire. This fact was :t?€3<:ognized by the inclusion of deer skins on the list of Q1'11.lmerated articles.19 In no small way did the marketing 'fl 6 -~ 4‘ ad a _...-\-. ,- ..,“n\v -~y§ A”? § ‘:.J~vd‘ -1“: late 7 A? it 9'1 8k ..-,_ £.. Pu I 1483* JE: J \v 44 skills of Carolina and British merchants contribute to the advantage which the traders possessed over their French rivals by being able to offer better goods at cheaper prices.20 II The long search for an agricultural staple on which to anchor the provincial economy was rewarded at last with the introduction (or rather reintroduction) of rice.21 While the exact means and dates of this revolution in the agriculture of South Carolina remain impossible to fix, the best evidence suggests that the variety which later flourished was brought into the colony during the middle or late 1680's, and that experimentation continued until about 1695 before the production of rice became widespread 22 Edward Randolph, who visited South and profitable. Carolina late in the 1690's, found little favorable to report except that: They have now found the true way of raising and husking rice. There have been above 300 tuns shipped this year to England besides 30 tuns more to the [West Indian] Islands.23 To market this new staple was evidently beyond the means of either the planters or the older traders, for soon a new group of merchants arose to deal with this aspect of South Carolina's economy. With the discovery of rice as a profitable staple, the demand for Negro slaves increased tremendously. Negroes had been brought into South Carolina from the first tears usually triers. Howe :een occupied. 22:11. their to] 5:538: inpcrt f‘egrz‘es couple :2 :thers besi gctential mar} ZPPCftm‘it‘ o: 5561' Carolin: :3: Still more Predominate ti Ethan“ Sel ‘Cr LO! " 45 years usually from the west Indies and usually in small numbers. However rice required a much larger labor force than did cattle-raising, lumbering, and the growth of provisions at which black and red slaves had previously been occupied. The severe conditions of rice culture soon took their toll of Indian slaves necessitating still further imports of black men.24 The increased demand for Negroes coupled with the legal opening of the slave trade to others beside the Royal African Company led to a larger potential market.25 To the Charleston merchant fell the opportunity of arranging for the supply and sale of slaves. A few Carolinians engaged in the direct trade with Africa, but still more established the pattern, which was to predominate throughout the colonial period, of local merchants selling the slave cargoes on a commission basis for London and Bristol firms.26 A further stimulus to the provincial economy resulted from the outbreak of King William's War in 1689. This first in a series of world-wide conflicts which pitted England against France renewed the interest within South Carolina in the production of naval stores. The strategic importance of pitch, tar, and turpentine led the British government in 1705 to grant a bounty on their exportation to the mother country. While South Carolina's naval stores never attained the quality which the Admiralty d‘esired, their production provided a valuable supplement tC> the provincial economy.27 With 0: mutation cf except naval : the colony dz: 8 .a....,‘, 17 t ':oo.‘.! 0 e . ' . .p'A"-~hf" n— wuxndlt tn: a Pfi’ilslons, be “lid not ‘ave 5"” L. _ k~m8 Snortc Ha: ‘ “e 1690' L .0 M a“! Spec»: Hui '~:"o My, pla Rt «1.. h,‘c .Se 7191'] k '0‘ the; ‘vL r ascetic. ‘\ AR 46 With other aspects of the economy expanding the exportation of provisions, leather, and forest products (except naval stores) declined in relative importance to the colony during the last decade of the seventeenth century. Yet these were to continue to be exported throughout the colonial period primarily to the West Indies. Of additional importance was the fact that the growth of provisions, beside the staple rice, meant that the colony would not have to import foodstuffs in all but times of extreme shortage.28 III Among the most significant changes wrought by the improved economic conditions was the emergence within South Carolina of a distinct merchant group. By no means homogeneous with regard to their backgrounds, interests, politics, and religious beliefs, the merchant community of Charleston would henceforth constitute a vital and distinct element in the life of the colony. Previous Carolina merchants were, in most cases, indistinguishable from the planters of the province. Even into the decade of the 1690's there were several who still were not tied to any specific profession. Seeking wealth through law, trade, planting, politics, or any combination thereof, these men were within the matter of a few years to lose their ascendency in commerce to the merchants of Charleston. After 1690 the distinction was to be made increasingly A?“ ..o :nr‘V’c .z: ut-e'\— " ova Ir! F‘,“ :u v-3-L4 “.V‘H‘Vlou V‘f“ A "V 'Loiv- :1 a 11 V. . 5448 act"; 3151‘. +:.. ‘ e 501 47 between planter and merchant (an individual whose income was derived primarily from the wholesale import, export, and distribution of goods). Despite intermarriage of planting and mercantile families, investment in and oper- ation of plantations by merchants, the eventual recognition of the complimentary roles which each group served in the provincial economy, and, except for a few periods of crisis, relatively little planter-merchant discord, the inhabitants of South Carolina would continue throughout the colonial period to distinguish members of the merchant community from the remainder of the population. Among the first to recognize the opportunities presented by the now booming community were the sea captains who frequented Charleston. Having acquired knowledge of commercial affairs from their experience as agents for their vessel's owners and shippers or in trade on their own account, the seamen would easily recognize the advantage which a resident merchant would possess over a transitory ship captain or supercargo. Cargoes might be assembled prior to the expected arrival and turn around time for the ship greatly shortened. Furthermore, surplus items could be stored in the resident merchant's warehouse, while the captain would be forced to retain the goods or 29 One of these sailors who turned to sell them at a loss. merchant was William Rhett, captain and possibly owner of the Providence. Following his arrival and establishment :in business at Charleston in 1694, Rhett continued at sea «’0‘. ...o O . . r,» ”a i‘ ’ a .. . . a a.” C a. C C :1 .— . 9b a .u. .u‘ in .3 .. .3 ... I .: :c e. e v. ;. .é v. .2 a. a” I z. A.“ . 1 z. a. .2. s. .3 .4. c c . .vo Ga. 3. «a. .n« .e. “QICe’ ~ Us._ Lilch inc .n V, “fit. ‘ . . ' ,~§ f.-"' 2 I - CO- 'V‘Uotl O 1 A}. 48 until just after the turn of the century leaving his wife, Sarah, to serve as resident factor. Active in politics, Rhett headed a strong political faction until his death in 30 1723. There is also evidence to suggest that he engaged 31 in the direct slave trade with Africa. Other sea-farers, particularly from New England and London, recognized the potential of the colony's expanding commerce.32 Several of the newer, more specialized merchants were connected with English commercial families or firms. Sent out to set themselves up in trade or to represent the home firm locally, these individuals were involved in organizing a more regular trade between mother country and colony. Edmund Bohun, a merchant and member of an English dissenting family settled in the province during the last decade of the seventeenth century to engage in trade.33 Jonathan Amory arrived shortly before 1690. In many respects Amory represents the transitional character of the merchants just prior to the turn of the century. While there is little doubt that Amory's primary interest was in commerce, he combined it with a wide range of activities which included planting, land speculation, politics, and ownership of a tanyard. Like his friend and possible business associate Rhett, Amory was active in provincial politics. 'However, unlike Rhett, he was a political moderate who sought not only to gain from office but to aid in establishing a more stable political climate in which the economy could flourish.34 Another sent out from England ———— :IHT-r _M A, .4 . ,1, v ‘ A 3:133. H15 C“ 23:33: . Hal/11“.? J .14. . ' ‘c-x' . -he acqulsl t1 :‘re newer me rch South Carolina q 5Y1: ---leigh, Thoma III O alatt , and P re Newccre "'f‘v- "UV“ t n he scene . sane cases, mad d wEre I \. nEY " to t} 49 was Joseph Boone, son of a London merchant. Arriving in Charleston in 1694, Boone operated in the trade with London. His connections with English merchants gave Boone a strong advantage during his terms as provincial agent in England. Having made his fortune in commerce, Boone turned to the acquisition of land for planting and speculation.35 Several other English merchants were attracted to Charleston shortly before and after 1700. Among the more prominent of the newer merchants who later became so influential in South Carolina were Samuel Wragg, John Fenwicke, Samuel Eveleigh, Thomas Pinckney, Tweedie Somerville, Richard Splatt, and Francis Yonge.36 Newcomers were not the only merchants to appear upon the scene. The sons of planters and tradesmen, in some cases, made the transition to commerce. Robert Tradd, the son of a joyner, and Peter St. Julian, whose family were planter-Indian traders, were two such who became merchants. In the case of St. Julian and Thomas Broughton the transformation was made through their involvement in the Indian trade.37 To the Huguenot refugees, some of whom had been in South Carolina for a considerable time and some of whom were new to the colony, the improved state of the pro- vincial economy presented opportunities to engage in trade. For the earlier arrivals such as Pierre Perdriau, Jacques Le Serurrier, Josias Du Pré, and Isaac Mazyck, the export of provisions to other North American colonies and the 5:31 their homel firsthers, Gabrie kxflina as coo; bet-re they had :raie with Eng; tdplanter bef 3‘33“? the more 3&339 Baudoir; Landon fir: '54: For t] ‘fio ~19 more ti“; an.“ 0‘ L t] +1. ‘qe “a . ‘J r» lsat 5111: 50 west Indies as well as the trade with pirates (at least in the case of Du Pré) had provided them with a profitable livelihood.38 Still others spent their early years away from their homeland accumulating capital. The Manigault brothers, Gabriel and Pierre, worked in England and South Carolina as coopers, carpenters, distillers, and planters before they had sufficient means to establish a regular trade with England.39 John Guerard, likewise, was a weaver and planter before he joined a firm of fellow Huguenots.40 Among the more recent arrivals were Benjamin Godin and George Baudoin who were each associated with a different London firm.41 For the French refugee engaged in commerce there were more than the usual obstacles. He often met with suspicion and resentment from his neighbors of English origin. This was particularly true with the outbreak of King William's War and the frontier rivalry with the French. In addition to these obstacles throughout the last decade of the seventeenth century a local interpretation of the Navigation Acts hindered or prevented naturalized subjects from participation in shipping.42 Regardless of their origins the newer merchants brought to the economy of South Carolina a degree of organization and sophistication which it had previously lacked. Made possible chiefly because of the expansion of the Indian trade and the introduction of rice as the staple crop of the colony, the development of the p U ed in b u a l p Uy.J.-I ,ston 1381 transiti A . . . . ‘7 ...‘¢ -. '0 .gi' , . .A.. of the on?“ .n.. s Opti 11". . . ., - .-.Ll .’A~ i 1 ht ‘w'i .‘Ifi ‘Uua d U ‘ i . n7. V* 65p . \ ~ A- ‘— 'd D's, W «~.e the I“. 51 Charleston merchant group provided the marketing apparatus necessary for the proper distribution of these commodities. The transition from the generalized traders of the seventeenth century to the wholesale merchants who pre- dominated in the eighteenth was still incomplete at the turn of the century, yet the process was certainly well underway so that the new century found the South Caro- linians optimistic and relatively prosperous.43 IV The improved status of the provincial economy brought with it problems as well as blessings. In most cases political solutions were the only feasible remedy. While the necessity for remedial legislation was often recognized, domestic political lassitude, bickering, and conflicting interests worked to sabotage reform. In other cases problems arose due to an uneven and possibly corrupt enforcement of the Navigation Acts by colonial officials. Following the removal of Sothel as governor by the proprietors, South Carolina was fortunate in having a series of governors who did much to promote the growth of its economy as well as to heal the factionalization prevelant on the political scene. A large factor in the pacification of political life was the development of a moderate party in which all but the extremists in any faction were accommodated. Brought together by the excesses of Sothel, the desire for a degree of political :‘zierates usual :f the provrnce 2::nants and p .:r.a:::a:1 :0 ry , :-=rl:e , and 1 ate -:::ons House (2 ”"135. they beli Dental Structuy «5131' turmoi l V I ‘In. ms formatiVE T " ‘0- .C..21-han AITOI‘Y imth A I 9 Logan.“6 NOt the 52 stability, and the improving state of the economy, the moderates usually worked with the governors for the benefit of the province. Among the moderate group were several merchants and planter-Indian traders. These included Jonathan Amory, George Logan, Thomas Broughton, Joseph Blake, and later James Moore. Often those involved in trade such as Amory and Blake provided the party with its 45 During the administration of Governor leadership. Archdale the moderates increasingly worked through the Commons House of Assembly. Asserting the activist role which they believed this body was to play in the govern- mental structure, they nevertheless succeeded in avoiding major turmoil. Among the leaders of the Commons during this formative decade from 1692 to 1703 were the merchants Jonathan Amory (Speaker 1692-1693, 1696-1699), William Smith, James Le Serurrier Smith, Thomas Broughton, and George Logan.46 Not the least of the problems faced was that of regulating the abuses in the expanded Indian trade. The Indians were often ruthlessly exploited by the traders, yet all previous efforts to exert any controls over the Indian trade had come to naught. Governors Ludwell, Smith, and Archdale had some success in mitigating the worst abuses of the Indian slave trade, but it was beyond the power of any man to keep the frontier traders under 47 control. The situation was recognized in 1698 by the Commons to have been "a grievance to the settlement and ::overturn t“. ":2 various pr =“::L;::t of th 537-3 those in :rctlen was la alization whic ‘33: until 1707 receSSlty for Zn” lonCler la the transitiOn azd size of th‘ CC‘Mh "“Odi tie s we 9' rflh tentatigr‘ 53 prejudicial to the safety thereof."48 The abuses, it was felt, could not long go unchecked with the French seeking to overturn the English in the back country. Unfortunately the various proposals brought forward failed to take account of the conflicts of interest and mutual suspicions among those involved in the trade. Furthermore, the problem was later entangled with the rebirth of faction- alization which followed Governor Blake's death in 1700. Not until 1707 was an effective reform act passed instead of in the previous decade when the problem first emerged.49 By then it was too late to prevent the retribution which was to come in the destructive Yamasee War. Reflecting the colony's expanded trade was the necessity for regulatory legislation. These were among the longer lasting if less spectacular achievements during the transitional decade of the 1690's. The Commons saw fit to attempt the standardization of the method of packing and size of the barrels in which most of the colony's commodities were shipped. This move was made to preserve the reputation of South Carolina's exports which in the case of beef and pork had come under suspicion in the West Indies. By this and subsequent acts, offical "measurers" were appointed and the packer's duties and fees were 50 regulated. Other acts passed during this period which concerned commerce provided legal remedies for debt collection, established the value of foreign coins, and adjusted the ceiling for interest rates at 10 per cent.51 .he expense of f lazing the Indie. was to be defra". flee: skins and :' cider specified Of all ‘ \ _YA'. A .“‘VA-u ale (:0ch S Liprc-ve i t s e c c 54 The expense of fortifying Charleston harbor and of regu- lating the Indian trade (if ever a reform law was passed) was to be defrayed through the payment of export duties on deer skins and furs. Later import duties on liquor and other specified items were added.52 Of all the governors of this period and the most successful was John Archdale who served between 1695 and 1696. Urging religious toleration and political moderation, Archdale composed South Carolina politics and did much to improve its economic picture. Through his efforts the colony's complicated land system was set in order and a 53 While successful in comprehensive slave code adopted. dealing with most of the problems which beset the province, Archdale was unable to lessen the rampant Francophobia present among the Carolinians. Resented because of their over-representation in the Assembly and their commercial success, the Huguenots did not help matters with the desire of some to return to France. To preserve political stability Archdale and the proprietors felt obliged to acquiesce in the colonist's demands that the representation in the Commons of Craven County (the Huguenot stronghold) be curtailed.S4 Ironically, Archdale who was among the least avaricious of all the colonial governors of South Carolina was charged by Edward Randolph with complicity in illicit trade. While vehement in his accusations, Randolph failed to cite specific charges against Archdale. Furthermore, he p . v. o I 3 . . .3 T. L“ E . . .. . ,. u .d a. W .Z 5 .C v. .. ... .2 a. a. 4. 3 v. :. v. z. 0 . ”I . . .. . a v 6 . c . .— 55 it is difficult to imagine the stauch Quaker, who so selflessly promoted South Carolina long after his family's proprietary share had been sold, involving himself with pirates and in fraud as Randolph alleged.55 Under Archdale's successor, Joseph Blake, there exists evidence that points to "customs racketeering" along the lines which Oliver M. Dickerson found in a later period. Blake took care not to upset the political balance within the province, but he was not above using his office to advance the economic interests of his family and friends. Blake and the clique which surrounded him (some of whom were the colony's larger merchants and Indian traders) involved themselves in some questionable activi- 56 ties. One of their schemes was a proposal for a cartel to dominate the recently expanded Indian trade.57 Through their domination of the local Admiralty Court, the Blake group carried out what Edward Randolph labeled, "a fine trade of seizing and condemning vessels." Unlike his charges against Archdale, in this instance Randolph cited specifics.58 Involved with Blake were Edmund Bellinger, Col- lector of Customs, and Joseph Morton, Judge of the Admiralty Court. Bellinger, who earlier as Attorney- General had opinioned that even naturalized French could not engage in shipping and commerce as it would violate the laws of trade, was considerably more sanguine in enforcement than was usually the case with colonial officials.59 His ‘5’... f... -v-~ t b V ~‘O‘ f‘r" . Vo- Cs 3 .l p: s . 7.. v. .u 2‘ a. I. RI .J u... ”or: wfiu P .w‘ v-L the A. 3‘ Ru .3 C "V‘ 5“- !‘ ~ Y . H *4 fit l \ 56 diligence or possibly avariciousness, as he profited from convictions, was such that he once secured the condemnation of a ship for violating the provision that three-fourths of the crew be English or colonial because the ship's cook, a Negro slave, upset the legal proportion. Such strained prosecutions led the proprietors to warn that the Navi- gation Acts were not meant "to deprive honest men of their "60 Joseph Morton, whose father had ships and goods. earlier failed to enforce the laws against the harboring of pirates, himself became keen for the rigid enforcement of the Navigation Acts.61 In actual operation the group's scheme was simple yet potentially profitable. Blake and Bellinger would charge a likely vessel with some violation of the Navi- gation Acts. The case would then be brought before Judge Morton. An exhaustive examination of the ship and its papers might find something amiss in those of even the most conscientious captain. After a trial in which the ship and its cargo be condemned, the plaintiffs would receive their legal share for prosecuting the case and the court would appoint George Logan, a leading merchant who was also a member of the clique, to appraise the value of the ship and cargo. Logan would undervalue the prize so that friends could buy it cheaply in order to resell it at the true worth. While the captain and owners might appeal the case to England, remedy was slow, expensive, and uncertain. In the mean time, the ship and its cargo were scattered. : -:c p-n'u ha‘d. 'v.» .~_ ----~I' u: -- a- —“ -bs‘- , A- Q :v—~¢ _ -...‘._ o‘.c‘ ] -._~ t‘v\.. ~-‘ ‘. ‘ V‘v (I) H" .57 ~ ‘~ 57 Even had it been ordered that restitution be made, the low valuation protected to some extent the clique's profits in the matter.62 The extent to which this operation was put into use remains impossible to determine. There were at least two instances during the four years of Blake's second administration and, if Randolph is to be believed, perhaps more vessels were charged but let off when their captains agreed to pay half of their appraised worth.63 V Soon after the death of Blake in 1700, South Carolina was again gripped by political turmoil. At first the rebirth of factionalization was largely due to a struggle among the former followers of Blake over the succession. It quickly turned into a deep political feud which divided the colony along sectarian lines.64 The political unrest during the years following the turn of the century could not completely disrupt the results of the economic transformation which took place during the last decade of the seventeenth century. The expansion of the Indian trade and the development of an agricultural staple provided the basis for extensive commercial activity. To see to the smooth operation of the ever-increasing trade which flowed into and out from Charleston, a group of merchants had evolved. Concerned chiefly with the wholesale importation, exportation, and distribution of goods, they gave a sense of direction to v . A 3" '- - umuoba.‘ .p-... ,. h-v ‘ -. . 58 Charleston's commerce which it had previously lacked. Despite political crises and economic setbacks, the merchants of Charleston would step forward to provide the province with economic and political leadership. u!» . u a u 1. cu .- t In ‘ s E r . at i. it‘ . C C n Lu a. UJ P» we 3‘ .1. A: C ~\:J a: re 3.. . 4 he nsv an... «x E I .C .. . a .3 no?” a. s. . z. E a. «,7. w. ... 2‘ NJ .3 r. a. r a. Z : Cu #3 .3 m . A.- ~--.. . A .5 .1. . . a NOTES 1Crane, Southern Frontier, 117-121.. 2Ibid., 24, 37-38. Sirmans, Colonial s.c., 56. Sirmans, "Masters of Ashley Hall," 34. Edward Randolph to Board of Trade, March 16, 1699, S.C. Pub. Recs., IV, 88-95 I 3Crane, Southern Frontier, 22-46. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 577' Verner W. Crane, "The Tennessee River as a Road to Carolina: the Beginnings of Exploration and Trade," JAH, III (1916), 3-18. For a contemporary description of the Indian trade and its expansion see: Archdale, "Description," Carroll, ed., Historical Col- lections, II, 93-94, 119. 4Insh, Scottish Colonial Schemes, 210-211. Carne, Southern Frontier, 44-18, 64-66, 69-75. 5Verner W. Crane, "The Southern Frontier in Queen Anne's War," AHR, XXIV (1919), 379-395. Thomas Nairne to [Earl of Sunderland], July 10, 1708, S.C. Pub. Recs., V, 193-196. 6Randolph to William Blathwayt, April 8, 1699, Robert Noxon Toppan, ed., Edward Randolph, Including His Letters and Official Papers . . . 1676-1703, Publications g:_thg_Prince SocietyT7 vols., Boston, 1898-1909), VII, 553-555. Blake's role in the employment of Jean Couture, a coureur des bois, and other explorers who expanded the Carolinian influence into the interior is examined in Crane, Southern Frontier, 42-44. 71bid., 40-41. 8Landgrave Thomas Smith to Board of Indian Com- missioners, March 25, 1714, Minutes of the Board of Indian 59 ‘7'- “V‘ If! J. d-4. . -QQOF"; :: ':-‘ w»— L. “up..- ' ‘. s I... .A " )1 ,gJ‘vv) I 1- ' ‘ "n-u A H V O-‘.*‘b‘{. - . us“ 1 4.4“}; H'VVHSY‘h u V‘t... A..‘ r " ‘mt‘r. IA . . ‘ '9-5611. " 1 ""3313 0: P .. “in. L .A‘scellé V, . “er a 60 Commissioners, May 6, 1714, William L. McDowell, Jr., ed., Colonial Records g£_South_Carolina, Series II: Journals of the Indian Trade, 1710-1718 (Columbia, 1955), 52-56. _— Hereafter cited as Indian Books, I. 9Sirmans, "Masters of Ashley Hall," 34, 149-150. loMcCrady, Proprietary_Government, 345-346. Wallace, Short History, 42. Rivers, Sketch, 52-54, 56. Crane, Southern Frontier, 110, 116, 120-121, 123, 126-128. No price list for trade goods has survived for the seventeenth century, but a list for the years 1716 to 1718 has been compiled by Crane. Ibid., 332-333. llIbid., 120. 120n Eveleigh see: Ibid., 108, 121-123; and his obituary in the South Carolina Gazette, March 30, 1738. Henry A. M. Smith, "Wragg of South Carolina," SCHM, XIX (1918), 121-123. D. E. Huger Smith, "The Tattnal and Fenwick Families of South Carolina," SCHM, XIV (1913), 14. 13Myra J. Hutson, "Early Generations of the Motte Family of South Carolina," HST, LVI (1951), 57-58. Hirsch, Huguenots, 192-195. l4McDowell, ed., Indian Books, I, 356. Crane, Southern Frontier, 120. 15Benjamin Godin and his partner, Benjamin de la Conseillere, were associated with Godin's kinsman, Stephen Godin of London. Hirsch, Huguenots, 145. Will of Benjamin Godin, Dec. 26, 1747, Wills, Inventories of Estates, and Miscellaneous Records, VI, 85-88. SEQ, April 27, 1748. 16The quantity of deer skins exported fluctuated over the years due to a number of factors beyond the control of the merchant and trade, principally intertribal war. Thus even if he desired to specialize in the Indian trade, a Charleston merchant would have to diversify his commercial activities beyond the Indian trade. Crane, Southern Frontier, 111, 120. An additional factor was involved as In shipping South Carolina commodities captains and merchants sought to load rice and deer skins in the same cargo as the smaller, heavier rice barrels compli- mented the bulkier but lighter hogsheads of deer skins. George Louis Beer, British Colonial Polic , 1754-1765 (reprint ed., Gloucestor, Mass.: 1955), 222. 1.. b. V . n .u a v 3‘. "Y. “C ”a A\- ..P‘v la ..\ . i r“ I a u‘b “ 2 = «(w .. .J .2 .r I try - 08..“ r. J 'v v. ‘ u .-.E 'v1 ‘1 ta ‘V P» A\v C n . n\v and a. a . l.“ n ¥ is”. 61 17Crane, Southern Frontier, 108-109. Lewis Cecil Gray, Histor 9§_Agriculture £n_the Southern States to 1860 (2 v0 5., Washington, 1933), I, 135-136. 18Crane, Southern Frontier, 111-112. 19Lawrence A. Harper, The English Navigation Acts, A Seventeenth Centur Experiment in_SociEl Engineering (New York. 1939), 398-399. 20Nairne to [Sunderland], July 10, 1708, S.C. Pub. Recs., V, 193-197. Wallace, South Carolina, I, 108. 21Gray, Agriculture, I, 52-54. Salley, "Intro- duction," Bulletin, No. 6, 3-4. 22Ibid, 4-6. 23Randolph to Board of Trade, May 27, 1700, S.C. Pub. Recs., IV, 189-190. 24Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 60. Lauber, Indian Slavery, 244-245, 285-287. 25[Thomas Nairne], "A Letter From South Carolina . . . ," American Culture Series (microfilm, Ann Arbor: 1956), 17. Donnan, ed., Documents, IV, 255. Elizabeth Donnan, "The Slave Trade into South Carolina Before the Revolution," AHR, XXXIII (1928), 804-805. Sirmans, Colonial South Carolina, 60. 26Donnan, "Slave Trade," AHR, XXXIII, 808-810. William Rhett was one of the few South Carolinians to engage in the slave trade directly with Africa. Donnan, ed., Documents, II, 2. 27Gray, Agriculture, I, 153. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 73-74. 28John Lawson, A_New Voyage to Carolina . . . , March of America Facsimile Series, No. 35 (Ann Arbor: 1966),-4-5. [Nairne], “Letter," American Culture Series, 16. J. Oldmixon, "The History of Carolina . . . ," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 454. Archdale, "Description," Ibid., II, 93. 4THewatt], Historical Account, I, 95-96. McCrady, Proprietary Government, 350. ”u..- .- .— F Q..-‘.os T.- wl' b; 2,;v- ' ““rlf 5!! mm rs.) (") ’1 A) '1 (. (n DI D m) 1 62 29Rogers, Evolution of a Federalist, 5. 3OBarnwell Rhett Heyward, "The Descendents of Col. William Rhett of South Carolina," SCHM, IV (1903), 37. 31Donnan, ed., Documents, II, 2. 32Rogers, Evolution 9: a Federalist, 2-5. 33McCrady, Proprietary Government, 299-300. 34Gertrude Euphemia Meridith, The Descendents 9: Hugh Amory, 1605-1805 (London, 1901), 25-35. Will of Jonathan Amory, Nov. 23, 1697, Amory Family Papers, microfilm in the Charleston Library Society. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 70, 72. 3SMcCrady, Proprietary Government, 428. Oldmixon, "History of Carolina," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 426. Henry A. M. Smith, "Baronies of South Carolina," SCHM, XIII (1912), 73-75. 36On Wragg, Fenwicke, and Eveleigh see above: 12. For background on Pinckney and his family consult: Harriett Horry Ravenal, Eliza Pinckney (New York, 1896), 72-74; Warrants, III, 52; and McCrady, Proprietary Govern- ment, 261-262. Information on Somerville is found {nihis will, Miscellaneous Records, CC, May 7, 1734, S.C. Archives, and in Anne King Gregorie, ed., Records g£_thg Court g£_Chancery of South Carolina, 1671-1779, Vol. VI of American Legal Records (Washington, 1950), 348-350. For Splatt see: Richard Splatt and Co. to Samuel Barons, July 20, 1720, S.C. Pub. Recs., VIII, 34-35. Finally on Yonge see: M. Eugene Sirmans, "The South Carolina Royal Council, 1720-1763," WMQ, 3rd series, XVIII (1961), 392. 37"Trad, Richard," Baldwin, First Settlers. South Carolina Gazette, March 10, 1733. Wills, 1729-1731B, - , S.C. Archives. The will of the elder Pierre of Peter de St. Julian in which is given some of the family background has been reprinted in Robert Wilson, ed., "Wills of South Carolina Huguenots," HST, XI (1904), 34-44. For more on St. Julian see: Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 126n; Crane, Southern Frontier, 120; and Warrants, III, 134, 185, 224. Broughton's careers in politics and the Indian trade are described in Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 78, 89, and Crane, Southern Frontier, 92, 120-121. (A) «n .. . 4“:an no.“-hld u- . "P- Y TH — ~p‘n E “:0, 'na.\' .3"): an A. q . “‘a "O'u--.b 1‘. . '.Fvv :— I G‘ ' V. .00 1!) /,,, (. (. ‘ 3 '0 U i 63 38Information on these and other merchants of Huguenot extraction can be found in: Childs, "Exports," HST, LIV, 30-34; Wilson, ed., "Wills," HST, XIXVII (1903- 1910); and Hirsch, Huguenots, 186-188. —__ 39Maurice A. Crouse, "The Manigault Family of South Carolina, 1685-1783" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1964), 1-17. 40Will of John Guerard. June 10, 1714, Wills, 1711-1718, 64-69, S.C. Archives. 41Will of George Baudoin, June 22, 1695 in Wilson, ed., "Wills," HST, X, 48-49. [Obituary of Benjamin Godin], SCG, April 27, 1748. Crane, Southern Frontier, 108-121. Hirsch, Huguenots, 145. 4222;93' 115-118. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 61-62. 43Lawson, New Voyage, 3-5, 81-82. Archdale, "Description," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 97. [Nairne], Letter, American Culture Series, 15-17, 35. Oldmixon, "History," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 454. Randolph to Board of Trade, March 16, 1699, §;C. Pub. Recs., IV, 92. Governor and Council to Board of Trade, Sept. 17, 1708, S.C. Pub. Recs., V, 203-210. 44Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 50-54, 61-63. 451bid., 70-71. 46;bid., 67-71. Jack P. Greene, The Quest for Power: The Lower Houses of Assembly in the Southern Royal Colonies, I689-1776 (ChapET Hill, 1963), 447-488. 47McDowell, ed., Indian Books, I, vii, x. Records from a later period describe thegbrutal and exploitive nature of many of the traders. Complaints of the Yamasee to the Indian Commissioners, July 27, 1711, Oct. 25, 1712, Ibid., I, 10-11, 37-38. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 53-54. Crane, Southern Frontier, 141-143. Proprietors to Governor and Council, Dec. 20, 1697, S.C. Pub. Recs., III, 234. 48Sept. 28, 1698, Alexander S. Salley, ed., Journal of the Commons House 9f_Assembly, 1692-1735 (21 vols., Columbia, 1907:1946), 1698, 118. - ‘5' (I) (I) ll. / ""73. 64 49Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 77-82, 89-92, Crane, Southern Frontier, 142-150. Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, II, 309-316. 50Ibid., II, 55-57. Proprietors to Archdale, June 28’ 16§5' S.C. P111). ReCSo' III, 159-1600 51Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, II, 61-62, 72-73. 521bid., II, 64-68, 110-112, VII, 6-7. 53McCrady, Proprietary Government, 277-286. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 61-71. [HewattT, Historical Accoun Account, I, 131. Archdale, "Description," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 100-115. 54Ibid., Proprietors to Archdale, Jan. 29, 1696, S.C. Pub. Recs., III, 167. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 61-62. Hirsch, Huguenots, 118-119. SSRandolph, "Articles of High Crimes and Misde- meansors," [submitted], March 24, 1701, S.C. Pub. Recs., V, 5. Randolph had been in South Carolina in 1697 and 1699 when he presumably made the observations which he recorded. Randolph to Board of Trade, March 16, 1699, Ibid., IV, 88-95. Proprietors to King in Council, Nov., 1696, Ibid., III, 179. Minutes of the Board of Trade, Aug. 12, 1696, Ibid., III, 176. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 71-72. 56Oliver M. Dickerson, The Navigation Acts and the American Revolution (Philadelphia, 1951). Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 71-74. Randolph, "Articles," March 24, 1701, S.C. Pub. Recs., V, 5. 57Randolph to Blathwayt, April 8, 1699, Toppan, ed., Randolph Letters, VII, 553-555. Sirmans, Colonial S.C.,472. Crane, Southern Frontier, 142. 58Randolph to ?, May 27, 1700, S.C. Pub. Recs., IV, 165. Unlike Randolph's charges against Archdale, in the case of Blake, he cited specific details. Furthermore, in at least two cases documents have survived to substanti- ate a great portion of Randolph's accusations. Randolph, "Articles," March 24, 1701, Ibid., V, 5. For the case of the Cole and Bean Galley, see: Ibid., IV, 138-181. The incident involving the seizure of the Turtle in 1697 is documented in Donnan, ed., Documents, IV, 249-250. 65 59Randolph to Board of Trade, March 16, 1699, s.c. Pub. Recs., IV, 93. Proprietors to Archdale, Jan. 29, 1696, Ibid., III, 166-168. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 62, 72. 60Proprietors to Archdale, Jan. 29, 1696, S.C. Pub. Recs., III, 169. 61Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 43. Morton to Board of Trade, Aug. 29, 1701, S.C. Pub. Recs., V, 17-19. 62Randolph, "Articles," March 24, 1701, Ibid., V, 5. Randolph to ?, May 27, 1700, Ibid., IV, 165-166. 631bid., IV, 166. 64Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 76-77. CHAPTER II A PERIOD OF COMMERCIAL ADJUSTMENT, 1700-1730 Charleston's merchants continued into the eighteenth century the trend whereby they assumed a more significant economic role within the community. Overseeing the com- mercial operations of their particular segment of the Atlantic trading network, the merchants achieved positions inside South Carolina of both power and prestige. The expanding trade and reoccurring crises of the first three decades of the new century brought to these men numerous problems, but they also presented the merchants with opportunities to demonstrate their value to the province. I Important to the emergence of the provincial merchants was the development of the city of Charleston. As South Carolina's only port of entry until 1711 and throughout the colonial period the single urban trading center south of the Chesapeake whose importance was more than intra-colonial, Charleston grew steadily and extended 66 ’_-.b‘ C i.-'-'-‘ 14 :6 4 I VI. U a ‘i .r\ l c . va I ”A a» r§ e . . E v. .. .3 I. a r. .a. "v4 .1 L“ a. we. 3‘ 1a a. . rs. ~d4 “ . P14 and .Pu v. Du rv. . . by. ad» .3 n v o o o v 2‘ .: 2‘ av. (w J in. afclin am (i \v 67 its economic influence over a wide sphere.l Through its position on the main trade routes, its strategic location as a frontier outpost, and its locally produced commodities, Charleston both drew to itself and sent out a substantial trade.2 More than one contemporary observer commented not only upon the brisk pace of this trade, but also upon the apparent prosperity which it engendered.3 Most accounts of the city during the early eighteenth century commented upon Charleston's distinctive appearance, regular streets, and the "genteel sort of people" who inhabited the town.4 Even at this early date Charleston was developing an unique life style, an unusual blend of provinciality and urbaneness.5 Perhaps Professor Bridenbaugh was correct in his analysis that to a consider- able extent the social life of early Charleston reflected a parvenu quality. The alternating periods of economic boom and bust, the precariousness of life in the sub- tropical climate, and the frequency of war as well as threats of slave insurrections did little to moderate social temperment. The desire of most of the populace was to attain and display wealth and power.6 While not all Carolinians shared this world View certainly enough did to cause the rector of Charleston's St. Philip's parish to report, "the generality of people here are more mindful of getting money and their wordly affairs than they are of books and learning."7 g. ‘nn .“ ...~ -A- a q -n ~01“ -vv“- . .. or- ... 0--.. J! fie: A - A“ L- . . ~“‘k-IL 68 Throughout the colonial period Charleston lacked an official town government.8 The Commons House of Assembly, in which Charleston was under-represented, retained authority over general policy decisions regarding the city, while St. Philip's parish elected the various local officials who oversaw the rudiamentary municipal functions.9 As early as 1685, the Assembly legislated for and regulated conditions within the port town. This act, with its subsequent extensions and revisions, provided the basis for the establishment of a watch and for the orderly settlement of the city. The stated purpose of this act was to provide a proper environment conducive to trade.10 In general the Assembly was careful to consult, through its members from St. Philip's parish, with the inhabitants of Charleston and particularly with the merchants before enacting matters which vitally concerned the city.11 At the annual Easter Monday meeting of the parish, the local officers were elected. In South Carolina, and especially in Charleston, the churchwardens and vestrymen were charged with civil as well as ecclesiastical adminis- trative functions. They carried out provincial elections, executed the provisions of the poor law, and in general were responsible for the maintenance of local government. Later, for Charleston, additional parish officers were created to fulfill specific needs. Among these were: the commissioners of the highways, the commissioners of the market and workhouse, the firemaster, the wood measurers, --.- »-.l_ .iad: a. F V H‘ a.“ u“$ b t.- 69 and the official packers.12 As the parish records demon- strate, in selecting these officers the inhabitants of Charleston almost invariably looked to the merchant community for civic leadership.13 II From their shops on Broad Street or their ware- houses on the Bay, the commercial operations of the Charleston merchants were based. No longer the un- specialized planter-trader of the previous era, the typical early eighteenth-century merchant was urban- centered, often active in community affairs, and visibly prosperous. Furthermore, his involvement in commerce over and above his other economic concerns meant that he was readily distinguishable from his noncommercial neighbors. Early in the century one observer noted that fully 12 per cent of the adult, white, male population were engaged in 14 Included in this the commercial sector of the economy. group, undoubtedly, were retailers and clerks as well as wholesale import-export merchants. However, it was to the last named that South Carolinians looked for commercial leadership. During the years prior to the political and economic uncertainties of the 1720's Charleston merchants achieved a notable independence of action. Having acquired the reputation as "fair, frank, traders" whose commodities were dispatched quickly and with care, their ‘ 4 -..-.- .I 3 org fif‘ Cttv u‘nw r!‘ n A y- 1 \nncc ‘ S .cq-p‘ ‘V -. s PU no. 3.. C .0 my and Y. n . L A is i . y- 4. tel Ca \— s I. “fibV 1A ' Q'I vi ., . f--, be.» 70 15 goods found ready markets. DeSpite fluctuations and a few setbacks, the production of South Carolina rice, naval stores, and deer skins increased in the years after 1700.16 With economic expansion went increased white immigration, further importations of black slaves, and an ever greater market for manufactured goods. The chief result for the wholesale merchant was heavier demands for the goods and services which he provided.17 Another factor which enabled the merchants of Charleston to operate quite independently was the existence of a small but substantial carrying trade which was owned 18 Several Charleston merchants and operated locally. throughout the colonial period engaged in shipowning. However, it was during the years from 1700 to 1730 that the carrying trade from Charleston had its greatest impact upon the provincial economy.19 In most instances shareholding partnerships would form around one of the more active mercantile firms in order that risks might be shared and individual losses minimized. Furthermore, this practice would allow those merchants to invest in shipping who otherwise did not possess sufficient capital to operate on their own. A recent analysis of Charleston shipowning prior to 1737 has found that among the larger merchants about whom the clusters of shareholding activity centered were: the Wragg brothers, the Holmes family, John Fen- wicke, Gibbon and Allen, and Godin and de la Conseillere.20 71 At the same time there existed a few exceptional indi- viduals such as William Rhett who operated a number of vessels without partners.21 This practice, however, was becoming increasingly rare. The Charleston-based fleet provided the local traders not only with valuable in- vestment opportunities, but what is more it made the merchants less dependent upon "foreign" shipping over whose cargoes and schedules they had less control. In the aftermath of the relative decline of the Charleston carrying trade following 1730, there was a lessening of options available to the merchant and, partially as a consequence, a decline in their commercial independence.22 While the provincial merchant was more than simply a factor or agent of his British counterpart, his business contacts in the mother country were crucial to his success. These men would supply the Charleston merchant with goods or credit as well as arrange for the sale of his com- modities. For his services the Charlestonian would receive a commission of 5 per cent of the sale price on most items, but 10 per cent, less various charges, on slave sales. The pattern for trade with the mother country was much the same as in his dealings with the merchants of other colonies with the significant exception that British merchants had access to more substantial capital, controlled more shipping, and dealt in those goods which were in greatest demand in South Carolina--manufactured articles and Negro slaves.23 - 1 _v' -.0 v- an» -‘vob nun. r- ‘5‘ T"; n F A a. .3 .1 .c 1 T. t. a a C . S u“ . . . c e C a C a T. a: 2‘ Au .. A A: .hu a . In «C Va 6 a: a a n . . . a: at T. : 1 Lb ~ 3 v 2 :r. a w. it 72 As was the case earlier in the colony's development, British and Carolina merchants were often related. Men such as the father of Edmund Brailsford who handled his son's business affairs in England or Stephen Godin who represented his brother's partnership were examples of the close relationship which existed between family ties and business connection. Yet another instance involves the case of Samuel and Joseph Wragg whose uncle, a prominent London merchant, probably furnished them with the capital either to begin their careers in London or else to establish themselves in Charleston. Both Wraggs married the daughters of a Huguenot merchant assuring contacts among that particular ethnic group which was so prominent in trade. Samuel Eveleigh was from a Bristol commercial background and evidently well established before emi- grating to America.24 The exact origins of many South Carolina merchants remains impossible to fix with any degree of certainty. As mentioned in a previous context some were sons of planters or planters themselves who saw opportunities in commerce, some were formerly planter-traders in the Indian trade, but it appears likely that at this period many, if not most, of the prominent Charleston merchants had roots in Great Britain where they had relatives or friends who were also in trade. In addition, we also know of some individuals who were specialists in the commodities Aumhr‘ ',.-v-\ n a QR nw‘ r'v-\l.- -,,£ WU.» on DA“ on “‘q “"u C: .71 73 exported from South Carolina that first arrived in the colony as representatives of London or Bristol firms.25 Examining certain aspects of the careers of the more prominent Charleston merchants during the last years of proprietary rule and the first decade under the Crown reveals certain basic patterns. .Most typically the Charleston merchant of the early eighteenth century oper- ated with one or more partners; he was engaged in the Indian trade; he owned shares of locally-based ships; he maintained regular contacts with "foreign" (most commonly British) merchants; he might singularly or in partnership own and operate a plantation either as a commercial investment or for social status; and finally he might lend 26 To the merchants of this era the money out at interest. commercial opportunities which presented themselves were remarkably similar. Therefore it is perhaps not surprising that in their response they differed only slightly in emphasis and degree. One prototype of an early eighteenth-century, Charleston merchant was William Gibbon. With his partner, Andrew Allen, Gibbon conducted a prospering trade throughout most of the first quarter of the century. Together they operated a fleet of at least eight ships, owned a substantial Goose Creek plantation with its slaves, animals, and equipment as well as business prOperty in Charleston, lent money at interest, carried out an import-export trade, and were involved in the '1‘." .. 'on ~ .o“- -. u R‘ ah ~ bonny ”Au-n— UV..- (1 Va. U 3 H) - ‘ ‘- F. V 74 Indian trade. Not only were the activities of the firm of Gibbon and Allen diversified, they were also extensive in scope. In all phases of commerce they stood among the top ranks. While Gibbon and his partner doubtless dealt in slaves, there exists no evidence to demonstrate that they were extensively engaged in that particular aspect of commerce.27 Throughout his career Gibbon was a political moderate. On the vital issues of his day (paper currency, proprietary rule, and the chartering of Charleston) he made known his views and participated in the events which took 28 Both in the Assembly and on the Council, place about him. his service has been rated by modern analysts to have been of the second rank. However, in his acceptance of political office and in his taking public positions on crucial matters, Gibbon, who was known as a man of .substance and of sound judgment, was in fact demonstrating a form of leadership.29 Like Gibbon, Benjamin de la Conseillere was one of the most active merchants during the early eighteenth century. With his long-time partner, Benjamin Godin, and various other who joined them at various periods, his firm participated in commerce, shipping, the Indian trade, and money lending. Through Godin's relatives in London, they traded heavily with the mother country. Although widely respected within the province, de la Conseillere was a hardfisted businessman to whom contracts were sacred regardless of extenuating circumstances and paper currency -.AK-. ,l'l.ll II 1! nun-h. - ~l clou> :I.—. J}. .o)¢ 6 -Iuli, Ill llil . I .< l...‘: .nrit .nn. 0"- .IV-Auv Hob t_- ulu .10....flh'ukuu — Ia . -vi 'BEF-Uv . - v... . ~n§ ‘L. .uo>wzuu< .U.m .ooc«>oum uo nouuwulzu .omn .H .nxoom coupon ..vo .Auoloootu .n0>«zuu¢ .U.m .mNsmuhahu .uocuuooao uo vuooomo .vunu v .uo>wnuu< .U.m .uoc«>oum uo sou-«0030 .~on .uH~>x .013 ..~«ocaou ->om .O.w. .ncmsuwm .oavlmhv .owvuomv .uoaom uOu amuse .ocoouun .qo>w:uu< .U.m .oo:«>0um mo ecu-«ooau 75 va mm on v« mm - an pm Have? x X x x x x x cm ‘0’“; oh" x x x u x x x .n .601»: or x .n .053»; .mn x x x .z .vosue .vn x x x x .504: .uuaaam .nn x x x x coo .ocwuxm .Nn x x x x x 32:. £33 .2 x x .m .ccwasn .um .on x x x x x x .un ..63 .uuonu .oN x x x x x .um 25. .305. .3 x .9 .aocxocwm .h~ x .x .saoccouom .mm x x x x x .A .aoouo>~nam .mu x . x x x x .xo~< .auulmm .v« x x x x .< .6 .oqul .nN x x x .H Juana: .2 x x x x .4 303938. .- x x x x .m .uasmchot .ON x x x x .nuo .uaoo0wcdt .oa x x x x x ouuooo .Gomoq .on x x x x :zon .v>o~q .ha x x x x .caum .uzonusumuq .e« x x x x nuauonu .Hawz .ma x x x x x .uo ..=¢um .nosaoz .va x x x x x .um :53. .nulaoz .nu x x .H anon .ouuuooo .«H x x x x x x x deadflcom .cwooo .ua x x x x x x x sewage: .connwo .oa x x x x x Sam .zowo~o>u .¢ x x x x x 312:. .Co .a x u x oaoflcun 3339:: .o .2. x x x x x x :eEuncom .ouoaaw0ncoo n~ no .0 x x x vcsaoa .UuOuuHHoum .m x x snouoo .ocoom .v x x x Unozuwm .uu0unouuon .n x x x x x acuooHu .:0H~¢ .~ on x x u x x 393:4 .co:< 4 oceans Gonna oucwnmuzm c>ucox ocouaoauanu nnau>oa «Auvuosuuaa can: u>u~w cu chaocH cu v0:)o you; ooumuso noodun> we saw: oo>~o>a~ ou>~o>=~ pang nowuwaom cu counuuao voczo ooooocu .onhuIGOhH .nuao» :08 undo; an new ovens nu o>duu< nucdzouo: acuaOHuozu uo uoauaquouoondzu ~dw0ulll00l:.u man‘fi i . . A“ TL ,- no bad . dun-‘3" \vA ‘ ‘Vh/ q 1 .un vat VF. got-V vuv .... b u a .k— 5» 1'1 C’a’e V ...e I ~ 5 fl 76 30 The same determination with was but a species of fraud. which he conducted business, de la Conseillere carried over into politics where he headed in the Assembly and later on the Council, the extreme hard-money faction.31 Not all of Charleston's merchant community oper- ated on as large as scale as Gibbon and de la Conseillere. Robert Tradd, like other of his colleagues, participated in shareholding, the export trade, the Indian trade, real estate (in his case town lots), and money lending. However, Tradd took no permanent partners preferring to operate in loose, temporary associations with other merchants. The magnitude of Tradd's activities never reached the proportions of some, but at his death he left a comfortable estate which he acquired through commerce.32 Other merchants deviated from the typical pattern to varying degrees, but few drastically. Gabriel and Pierre Manigault were more specialized than most of their colleagues in that they apparently took no part in the Indian trade and much of their direct trade with Britain 33 Samuel Eveleigh had a great deal in common was in wine. with other large Charleston merchants. He traded in agri- cultural commodities, owned some shipping, and possessed excellent business contacts in Bristol where his career began. Nevertheless, he was unusual in the emphasis which he placed upon the Indian trade.34 While the responses of the individual merchants to the commercial opportunities which presented themselves 77 might vary slightly in emphasis and in degree, taken collectively they combined to erect patterns of trade. These served the colony well during the first quarter of the eighteenth century and with slight adjustments they would continue to operate for the remainder of the colonial period. The economy of South Carolina which had improved as a result of changes occurring toward the close of the seventeenth century was expanding at a tremendous rate. Exports of rice from Charleston increased better than tenfold in the decade from 1699 to 1709.35 Despite recession, war, and political instability the production and exportation of South Carolina's chief staple continued to increase so that in 1728, thirty years after the first reported exports, better than 12,000,000 pounds were 36 Although the quantities of shipped from the province. deer skins sent abroad fluctuated from year to year due primarily to the uncertainties of this branch of trade, its importance to the colony remained great. Any decline in its relative significance to the provincial economy was compensated for in its political and social repercussions as well as its comparatively stable absolute economic status.37 Naval stores provided the province with its third category of staples during this era. Unfortunately these were profitable for shipment to England only because of an imperial subsidy. Although important to many in the province, especially the smaller planters, the production 78 of naval stores never achieved the significance of either rice or deer skins. The expiration of the subsidy in 1725 and its subsequent replacement by one with more stringent quality controls further pushed them into the background. After 1730 naval stores became purely a supplementary item.38 The above mentioned three commodities, although the most important were not the only goods to be exported from South Carolina. More than thirty separate items were shipped from Charleston. As might be expected their significance to the provincial economy varied considerably. Prominent among these were: potash, hemp, linseed oil, flax, tobacco, silk, tallow, cow hides, furs, almonds, several varities of fruits, myrtle wax, medicinal herbs, lumber and wood products, pork, beef, butter, peas, corn, safflower, and soap.39 To arrange for the sale or exchange of the colony's products and their distribution was the function of the Charleston merchant. In order to obtain the articles or credits needed by the Carolinians, the merchants engaged in a wide ranging network of trade. South Carolinians had entered this network early in their development. However as the economy of the province expanded with the increased production of its staples (in this regard particularly rice) so too did its role within this trading community. Likewise as the commercial importance of South Carolina grew so did that of those who handled the trade of the province, its merchants. awnaor VOVXA vVVA I 33.2‘1811‘ 79 To England went most of the barrels of rice and naval stores, hogsheads of deer skins, and lesser quantities of other goods. The exact amount of shipping occupied in this transoceanic trade during the earliest years of the eighteenth century remains difficult to fix with any certainty. It would seem, however, for the years between 1700 and the destructive Yamasee war approximately twenty ships (some of them owned and operated by Carolinians) were annually engaged in transporting goods between Charleston 40 and Great Britain. The years from May, 1717 through June, 1721 saw a yearly average of fifty-five ships clearing Charleston for the mother country.41 A recent observer has correctly noted a clear trend which indicates that the total trade between the province and Britain was steadily increasing during the years from 1717 to 1737.42 London proved to be the chief British reception center for Charleston's exports with Bristol as a distant second.43 The importance of London-backed Charleston merchants during these years and before 1717, perhaps indicates that the metropolitan traders were merely maintaining an ascendency which they had earlier possessed.44 From the first, Carolinians had traded with other 45 This British colonies on the North American continent. trade, particularly with the New England colonies, although small in comparison with that to the mother country contri- buted to the development of Charleston commerce. All told Charleston's North American trade represented a substantial . pthv'. 1 7 5.1. -L' b ' of; E with All”. 2. a. .a I ~ 'v 80 portion of the city's commerce during the first quarter of the eighteenth century. At the same time its relative importance was declining. Rice, Indians slaves, cheap deer skins, hides, and leather were the principal items of this trade. They were exchanged for fish, flour, slaves, beer, and assorted articles.46 Charleston's trade was especially tied to Boston during the early eighteenth century. Surviving records indicate that Boston ranked third in the frequency of destinations behind London and Bristol. Both New England and South Carolina ships exchanged visits on a fairly 47 In part the position of Boston relative regular basis. to the Charleston trade might be laid to the ready market which South Carolina goods found there. Another factor which cannot be ignored were the associations, often based upon family ties, between Charlestonians and New England- ers. Thomas Amory, the son of the merchant-politican, Jonathan Amory, settled in Boston just prior to 1721. 48 There he established his commercial operations. Amory's wife, Rebeckah, served as the factor for her kinsmen, the Holmes family who were formerly of Boston but later 49 In still other cases settled in Charleston as merchants. no family ties were necessary as was seen in Amory's dealings with the Huguenot firm of Godin and de la Conseillere.50 A further explanation for the associations between the merchants of Charleston and of New England rests upon the fact that New Englanders had during the ....A,.4 v'hrta "an. A“. l () (n NF‘ '0. 'L’ 81 seventeenth century dealt extensively with North Carolina. As that colony's trade was increasingly attracted to 51 While as time Charleston so too were the shrewd Yankees. wore on other North American cities acquired an important share of Charleston's trade, the ties between the Charleston merchants and their Boston colleagues remained.52 Philadelphia was another North American city with which Charleston's contacts were frequent. However during the years before 1720 its importance was less than that of Boston.53 This could be explained by the more established contacts between Charleston and Boston, as well as by the fact that South Carolina did not yet have to import large quantities of flour which were Philadelphia's chief export. After 1720 and for the remainder of the colonial period the Quaker city occupied a predominate place among the conti- nental cities which engaged in trade with Charleston. Perhaps this was again due to its exportations of wheat and flour.54 New York City, with its substantial Huguenot population, might be expected to have held a key position in the Charleston trading network. While the two cities did exchange goods, the infrequency of these contacts suggests that it was of less significance than was the 55 trade to either Boston or Philadelphia. One interesting aspect of the commerce between New York and Charleston was the existence of a small export trade in slaves to New York which a few Charleston merchants conducted.56 ,- Q. __. VW ~ r b... ‘ n C R . Vfi'ly ‘ " in- R \0' f 9.. \ ‘v E In 82 South Carolina's first commercial relations had been established with the West Indies. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that Charleston's exports to the Caribbean, primarily provisions and lumber, continued their important contribution to the provincial economy. Barbados, the "homeland" of so many early Carolinians, was the most frequent port of call for ships clearing Charleston for the islands. Among other English Caribbean territories which traded with Charleston merchants were Antigua, Jamaica, St. Christophers, the logwood settlements in Honduras as 57 The commodities most well as Bermuda in the Atlantic. frequently transported were: beef, pork, corn, rice, peas, and lumber products. Among the large number of goods brought into Charleston from the islands included: sugar, molasses, and salt. Also brought in for re-exportation were items such as logwood (for cloth dyes), pimento, tortoise shell, and surplus sugar or molasses.58 The importance of the West Indies trade to South Carolina varied over time. During the earliest years of the colony's existence, this trade was perhaps the sustaining influence in the develOpment of the provincial economy. However, with the emergence of rice culture and the expansion of the Indian trade, Charleston's exports to England superseded it. Furthermore, in the first quarter of the eighteenth century occurred the period in which the trade of South Carolina with other continental colonies was at its zenith, leaving the West Indian trade in a . ,.-A' ‘ ._. o. v- Q-RF o‘bd' "Ffl r ~41: \ 63A,. uoau~ .F- t..-_ (L) "v '§ 4" ‘1- § 1. ' A_J 83 lower relative position of importance. In the years after 1720, as Charleston's continental trade receded somewhat, the Caribbean trade which was stable once again attained a greater relative position in the Carolina trade network.S9 Charleston merchants also did some business with those of foreign lands or their possessions. The extent of this trade, however, remains unclear. In so far as the Navigation Acts were concerned, there was nothing ille- gitimate about this trade as long as enumerated commodites were not exchanged and the trade was conducted in English or colonial shipping. A substantial trade apparently grew up between the Portuguese Azores and Charleston in which wine was exchanged for barrel staves and other wood 60 In the Caribbean, Dutch, Danish, and French products. islands exchanged goods with the Charleston merchants. Even the hated Spanish outpost at St. Augustine traded with the Carolinians.61 Among the more promising of Charleston's commercial prospects was a direct trade in rice between that city and the Iberian peninsula. This was cut off in 1706 by the enumeration of rice. Henceforth shipments were required to touch first at the mother country before proceeding to Spain and Portugal. The additional costs and extra time taken allowed rice of other areas to compete in the market with the Carolina staple. To the Carolinians this was a double blow as it not only eliminated a potential market but also aggravated an economic recession within the colony. South Carolina's planters, public r-' '0...“ floccv 0"P. 5" 0‘- -~.-p a ,- “-~.' " F‘G s-v‘~.‘ ‘ ‘ -b— 4 ‘o be. . "Vt-7o, "v' . 1"}- vl‘e 84 officials, and especially her merchants were to spend the next twenty years in an effort to persuade the imperial authorities to permit an exception in their case. When in 1730, they gained permission for the direct transit of rice, the advantage had been lost and the Iberian market, although a heavy consumer of South Carolina rice, never proved as profitable as earlier anticipated.62 The extent to which illicit trade was carried on by Charlestonians is an unknown quantity. The bulkiness of the colony's export commodities would render them difficult to smuggle under the best of conditions, but, as the over- whelming majority of trade flowed through the close-knit commercial community of Charleston where all were certain to know the activities of his neighbor and this could not 63 Inward smuggling of compact, long have escaped comment. valuable items in order to avoid provincial import duties doubtless occurred. Even in this regard the lack of any significant number of convictions argues that this practice 64 It was the practice for could not have been widespread. one political figure in letters to British officials to state that his opponents were guilty of clandestine trade. William Rhett, in his capacity as Surveyor General of Customs, wrote to the Commissioners of Customs to charge Governor Craven and Samuel Eveleigh among others with illicit trade. It is noteworthy that these men were among his bitterest rivals and that he failed to substantiate his charges. A few years later Governor Francis Nicholson l '7‘!- . than u a..." RA 'v‘- . ‘v-‘a -..~ ‘0- h.. 85 likewise retorted with similar allegations concerning his opponents including old Rhett.65 IV Although from the earliest years South Carolina merchants had been involved in the slave trade, prior to the introduction of rice culture the demand within the colony for imported Negro slaves had not been great. The small-scale planting, the Indian trade, and the forest industries had not required a large servile force. Indian prisoners and sporadic importations of blacks from the west Indies had sufficed.66 The Royal African Company, which before 1698 had a monopoly on England's African slave trade, had neither attempted to supply South Carolina with Negroes nor had seriously made an effort to interfere with the few independent dealers operating between South Caro- lina and the west coast of Africa.6.7 As the growing of rice became more prevalent and the production assumed large proportions, the demand on the part of the planters for more slaves grew significantly. While the merchants stepped up their importations after the turn of the century, they were barely able to keep up with the expanding market. A report by the Board of Trade in 1709 stated that, although South Carolina and New York together needed one thousand new Africans annually, this demand was not being met. The Board further noted that the Royal African Company was unable to deal with the ‘3 86 situation and that independent British and colonial merchants were assuming most of this trade.68 As slave importations increased a pattern of oper- ations soon evolved in which the Charleston merchant functioned successfully. In most cases the local trader would receive a consignment of slaves to be sold by him on a commission basis. The standard rate for his services in this regard was 10 per cent of the sale price from which he deducted the coasting fees and various operating charges.69 For the merchant cash sales were infrequent. Previous to 1732 payment was usually received by the dealer in rice at some future date. The Charleston merchant would then remit the balance to his London correspondent. However after that date requirements were tightened so that two-thirds of the sale price was to be returned to England within a year of the transaction and the balance sent at the close of the second year. In either case the system worked well for the merchants on both sides of the ocean as there were few instances of long outstanding accounts and it failed to diminish demand.70 An element which influenced the slave trade into South Carolina was the provincial import duty on slaves. First instituted in 1703, this tax served primarily as a revenue producing device but it also, during periods of crisis when further importations of blacks were feared, acted as a prohibitive tariff. In normal times, however, the duty did not seriously interfere with commerce or 87 become a major political issue.71 At one point during the 1720's the question of whether the importing merchant or the purchaser was to pay the duty was raised. For some time the problem threatened to strain the relations between planter and merchant. It was eventually resolved that the importer should nominally pay the duty while passing on the cost in the initial purchase price.72 Although data on the merchants involved in the slave trade and their operations remains sparse for the years before 1730, it is apparent that this period was crucial to the development of the South Carolina slave trade. It was at this time that many of the contacts were established between Charleston and British merchants interested in this aspect of commerce. This was especially important as henceforth local merchants did not involve themselves in the direct trade with Africa upon their own accounts.73 While some merchants were taken into these operations by their British colleagues as lesser partners, most profits were to accrue to the Charlestonians through their commission from sales. As a result of the large amounts of capital which went into the slaving voyages, it was essential for the Englishmen to be certain that their South Carolina operatives were men of established credit. This perhaps explains why, though most Charleston merchants were involved to some extent, extensive activity in the slave trade was limited to the larger merchants. The :cllabo: t0 the :0 be 5: Caroline ‘35 app. 88 smaller merchants were left with the indirect slave trade through the west Indies.74 Of the earlier merchants who dealt in the slave trade, among the most heavily involved were Samuel and Joseph Wragg. In 1724 Joseph, operating apart from his brother accounted for the importation of approximately 75 Perhaps in 20 per cent of the Negroes imported. collaboration with his brother, in 1722, Samuel proposed to the Royal African Company that he be granted a contract to be supplied with 300 slaves yearly for sale in South Carolina. The contract was awarded and the initial effort was apparently successful. Subsequently the plan fell through as the company was unable to consistently supply the required numbers of slaves.-76 As methods of supply improved and demand for slaves increased after 1720 the slave trade became an intergral aspect in the commercial life of Charleston. A group of merchants whose importance was re- flected in the broadened commerce of the province emerged upon the scene. These men found careers in trade which demonstrated their personality traits--pragmatic, assertive, and expansive. They were in large measure responsible for the changing situation in South Carolina and at the same time resolved to seize the opportunities presented by those changes. NOTES 1Carl Bridenbaugh, Cities in the Wilderness: The First Century of Urban Life in America, 16 625-1742 (New— York, 1955), 332- -336, 344, 347- -348, 362. Wallace, South Caro- lina, I, 286- 287. 2Converse Clowse, "The Charleston Export Trade, 1717-1737 (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1963), 13. George C. Rogers, Jr., Charleston in the Agg_of the Pinckne 5 (Norman, 1969), 3- 4. Lawson, New Vo a e, ‘§;5 IFayrer Hall, ] The Importance of the British Plantations in America to This Kingdom (London: 1731), 62- 65. Archdale, "Description," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 97. Thomas Amory to Adam Cusack, Jan. 3, 1720, in the Amory Family Papers, microfilm in the Charleston Library Society, reel I. 3Nathaniel Uring, A History of the Voyages and Travels of Capt. Nathaniel_ Uring (London, 1716), photostat 1n the South Caroliniana’Library, 334- -337. Lawson, Ng!_ Voyage, 2. [Hall, ] British Plantations, 65-68. Not everyone was inclined favorably toward—the situation of Charleston. Thomas Amory, among others, noted the un- healthy climate and exposed frontier location as reasons for not settling there. Amory to Cusack, Jan. 3, 1720, Amory Papers, I. A good commentary on the problem of disease in early Charleston is found in John Duffy, "Yellow Fever in Colonial Charleston," SCHM, LII (1951), 189-197. 4Lawson, New Vo a e, 2. Uring, Travels, 334- 337. Oldmixon, "History, Carro 1, ed., HistoricaIC Collections, 447-450. 5Frederick P. Bowes, The Culture o§_Early Charleston (Chapel Hill, 1942), 4-12. 6Carl Bridenbaugh, Myths and Realities, Societies o£_the Colonial South (New York, 1963), 76-79, 99, 115. 89 90 7The Rev. Gideon Johnston to the Lord Bishop of Sarum, Sept. 20, 1708, in Frank J. Kingberg, ed., Carolina Chronicle; Thg_Pa ers o£_Commissary Gideon Johnston, 1707- 1716 (Berkeley: 6), 19-30. The Rev. Edward Marston to Dr. Thomas Bray, Feb. 2, 1702, S.C. Archives, SPG Mss. A, reel 1, no, 60. In these characteristics the South Carolinians were simply reflecting attitudes common to Englishment of the Georgian period. See: J. H. Plumb, The First Four Georges (New York, 1957), 14, 29-30. 8Rogers, Charleston, 19-22. 91bid., St. Philip's parish, Vestry Books, 1732- 1774 (2 vols., St. Philip's Parish House), see Vol. I of the Vestry Books in particular. The tax list given in S.C. PuE. Recs., IX, 23, demonstrates that for a substantial portion of the colonial period Charleston and its neighbor- ing parishes were, at least numerically, insufficiently represented in the Assembly. 10Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, VII, 1-3. 11For an example of the manner in which this consultation process was carried out see: Nov. 14, 1716, Salley, ed., Journals of the Commons, 1716, 167. 12Rogers, Charleston, 20-22, Vestry Books, I. 13While no parish records have survived for the years prior to 1732, those for the years following that date reveal what appears to have been an established pattern of mercantile predominance in the choices for the offices of vestryman, churchwarden, firemaster, as well as commissioner of the market and the workhouse. Artisans were usually selected to be the wood measurer and official packer. No clear pattern was discernable regarding the post of commissioner of the Highways. Vestry Books, 1732- 1755, I. George C. Rogers makes a similar conclusion regarding the occupations of the holders of these offices. Rogers, Charleston, 20-21. 14Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 104-105, Wallace, South Carolina, I, 389, 394} [Nairne,] "Letter," American Culture Series, 44. 15Lawson, New Voyage, 3-5. 91 16Gray, Agriculture, I, 153, 155, 277-279, Crane, Southern Frontier, 112. 17Governor N. Johnson and Council to Board of Trade, Sept. 17, 1708, S.C. Pub. Recs., V, 203-210. "Memorandum," 1706, Ibid., V, 152-154. [Nairne], "Letter," American Culture Series, 15-16, 44. [Hewatt], Historical Account, I, 95-96. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 57-58. "Negroes Imported into South Carolina, 1706-1724," Donnan, ed., Documents, IV, 255. Evarts B. Greene and Virginia D. Harrington, American Po ulation Before the Federal Census of 1790 (New York 1932), 172-179. 18Port of Charles Town, Record of Clearings, 1717- 1721 (no pagation). Governor N. Johnson and Council to Board of Trade, Sept. 17, 1708, S.C. Pub. Recs., V, 206. Clowse, Charleston Export Trade, 103, 110, 144:145, 154. At least one Englishmen considered the competition of the Charleston-based fleet serious enough to protest a pro- vincial law which gave a discount on the export duty to locally owned vessels. Michael Cole to Board of Trade, Oct. 20, 1701, S.C. Pub. Recs., V, 25-26. 19Clowse, "Charleston Export Trade," 103, 110, 201bid., 117-127. 21 Ibid., 124. Between 1717 and 1721 Rhett oper- ated a total of five vessels. Record of Clearings, 1717- 1721. 22Clowse, "Charleston Export Trade," 110. 23Wallace, South Carolina, I, 389-392. Of par- ticular interest in’6bserving this relationship are the surviving records of bonds and business papers found in the S.C. Archives, Register of the Province. See par- ticularly in this regard a bond certificate concerning John Guarad (Guerard?) and his dealings with two London merchants: Feb. 20, 1705, Register of the Province, 1704- 1709, 37-39, S.C. Archives. Another example of this connection can be seen in the surviving business corre- spondence. For example: Richard Splatt and Co. to Samuel Barons, July 20, 1720. S.C. Pub. Recs., VIII, 34-35. Board of Trade to King, Sept. 8, 1721, Ibid., IX, 65-76. On the English background of many of these merchants: a--. .3 :5 a. T.“ . I .. I . as v. I“ .u“ an»... “I“ .u\:..4~. My. New ... We; at .7: C .1 .L 7.. I . . . . . an .4 .N P. a. r to P... «Q C .9. “G a». Ca .7. pl: .2 e. . r t a» r; I ah. .. a u.“ U... bl... . u an a {To In.l.\~ P.»u\ce We vs 1 Q..\ v ‘HA. ..~. AU . a as 92 Sirman, Colonial S.C., and Chapter I, 11-12. Benjamin Godin and Benjamin de la Conseillere to Thomas Amory, April 3, 1721, Amory Papers, I-A. 24"Correspondence Between Edmund Brailsford and His Father," SCHM, VIII (1907), 151-163. Hirsch, Hu uenots, 145. Nicholson to Board of Trade, Nov. 12, 1723, S.C. PEE. Recs., X, 173-174. Smith "Wragg of South Carolina," SCHM, XIX, 121-123. SEE, March 30, 1738. 25Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 104. 26See Table 1. 27Record of Clearings, 1717-1721. McDowell, ed., Indian Books, I, 356. "Gibbon and Allen Articles of AgreementII—May 1, 1722, S.C. Archives, Wills, 1722-1726, 249-252. "A True Abstract Taken from the Town Tax List," received May 30, 1723, S.C. Pub. Recs., X, 92. 28On the paper currency issue, Gibbon worked with the more militant John Fenwicke in pushing for greater emissions of currency.' In the events leading up to the rebellion against the proprietors he refused to sit on the "reformed" Council and later took part in the revolutionary Assembly. Gibbon was also one of those who supported the incorporation of Charleston, serving as the city's first mayor in 1722. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 149, 126n. Edward McCrady, The History of South Carolina Under the Royal Government, 1719-1776—7New York, 1899), 40-41. Session Laws, JuIy 27, I72I, (signed 1722), S.C. Archives. 29Greene, Quest for Power, 479. M. Eugene Sirmans, "The South Carolina Royal Council, 1720-1763," WMQ, XVIII (1961), 380n. “_— 30Record of Clearings, 1717-1721. McDowell, ed., Indian Books, I, 356. Clowse, "Charleston Export Trade," . Anne King Gregorie, ed., Records of Ehg_Court of Chancer of South Carolina, 1671-1779, i3 American Legal Records, VI'Twashington, 1850), VI, 245-247. Hirsch, Huguenots, 145-146. 31Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 110-111. Greene, Quest for Power, 477. Iv. {all . :. .Z—.: .6. .fl. 7.. .1 no: :\ a!» an‘ v H «\U H. v. \ .1 :4 v ‘l. x.— e "d .1 Nu rm Cs .‘I\ M}.\ 93 32Record of Clearings, 1717-1721. McDowell, ed., Indian Books, I, 356. Will of Robert Tradd, July 21, 1731, Wills, 1729-1731B, 743-749, S.C. Archives. 33Crouse, "Manigault Family," 1-17. 34Crane, Southern Frontier, 108, 121-123. SCG, March 30, 1738. McDowell, ed., Indian Books, I, 356. Record of Clearings, 1717-1721. 35Gray, Agriculture, I, 284-286. United States Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times go 1957 (Washington, 1960), 768. See in particular Series Z:262 and 2:275. 361bid. 37Rivers, Sketch, 52-54. Crane, Southern Frontier, 116-117, 202. "An Account Showing the Quantity of Skins and Furs Imported . . . 1698 to . . . 1715," S.C. Pub. Recs., VI, 134-136. 38"Memorial of the Agents of South Carolina," Feb. 25, 1717, S.C. Pub. Recs., VII, 5-8. Gray, Agri- culture, 153-156. 39"A Memorandum" April 22, 1706, S.C. Pub. Recs., V, 152-155. Governor N. Johnson and Council to Board of Trade, Sept. 17, 1708, Ibid. V, 203-210. Francis Yonge, "A View of the Trade of South Carolina," [Feb., 1723], Ibid., 2-11. [Hall,] British Plantations, 62-63. 4oArchdale, "Description," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 97, in 1707 reported that seventeen ships sailed between Great Britain and South Carolina. [Nairne], "Letter," American Culture Series, 15, claimed a yearly average of twenty-two a few years later. Governor Nathaniel Johnson commented on the value of this trade but failed to state specifically the member of vessels involved. Governor N. Johnson and Council to Board of Trade, S.C. Pub. Recs., V, 203-210. 41Record of Clearings, 1717-1721. 42Clowse, "Charleston Export Trade," 83. now“ 94 43Ibid., 84. Record of Clearings, 1717-1721. 44On the importance of London and other British merchants to Charleston commerce during the earlier period see: Chapter I, 42-44, 48-49. 45Proprietors to King, May 22, 1679, S.C. Pub. Recs., I, 79-80. 46See the lists of cargoes in Record of Clearings, 1717-1721. Governor N. Johnson and Council to Board Trade, Sept. 17, 1708, S.C. Pub. Recs., V, 205-206. 47Record of Clearings, 1717-1721. Lawson, New Voyage, 165. 48 E. Chester to Thomas Amory and William Rhett, Jr., Dec. 21, 1719, Thomas Amory to Adam Cusack, Jan. 3, 1720, Amory Papers, I. 49"Account Current with Francis Holmes," Ibid., I. "Holmes Letters," Ibid., I-E. 50Godin and de la Conseillere to Amory, April 3, 1721, Ibid., I. 51Lawson, New Voyage, 165. 52Among the Charleston merchants who retained close contacts with their Boston counterparts at a later date were Henry Laurens and Robert Pringle. Henry Laurens to Thomas Savage, Nov. 11, 1747 in Philip M. Hamer, et al.. eds., The Papers of Henrpraureng (Columbia, 1968), I, 80-82. Robert Prifigle to Peter Faneul, April 16, 1739, in Letterbook of Robert Pringle, 1737-1745 (4 vols., type- script in South Carolina Historical Society), I, 79. 53While Boston was the destination for eighty-two ships clearing Charleston during the period from 1717 to 1721, Philadelphia was the goal for only thirty-four. Record of Clearings, 1717-1721. Clowse, "Charleston Export Trade," 87. 54The Rev. Brian Hunt to Bishop Gibson, Oct. 3, 1723 in William Wilson Manross, ed., The Fulham Pa ers in Lambeth Palace Library (Oxford, 1965), 136. The llStS of .~ - . -\- A a a A. o AW» Two. r: T: r.“ Al. T r 1;). ‘ ,-U N 5“ Rd 95 origins of goods paying import duties during the years after 1735 shows an impressive number of cargoes origi- nating in Philadelphia. The Treasurer's Books, 1725- 1773 (4 vols.), S.C. Archives. 55During the years from 1717 to 1721 only twenty- six ships cleared Charleston for New York. Record of Clearings, 1717-1721. 56"Negroes Imported into New York, 1715-1765," Donnan, ed., Documents, III, 462-510. 57Barbadoes accounted for approximately 40 per cent of all shipping between Charleston and the west Indies during the years 1717 to 1721. Record of Clearings, 1717- 1721. ' 58Archdale, "Description," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 93. Lawson, New Voyage, 81-82. THall], British Plantations, 63, 67. {Nairne}, "Letter," American Culture Series, 16, 39. ”Memorandum," April 22, 1706, S.C. Pub. Recs., V, 152-155. Governor N. Johnson and Council to Board of Trade, Sept. 17, 1708, Ibid., V, 204- 225. Yonge, "A View," [Feb. 1723], Ibid., X, 2-11. 59Clowse, "Charleston Export Trade," 90, 110. 60[Nairne], "Letter," American Culture Series, 17. Lawson, New Voyage, 81-82. Record of Clearings, 1717-1721. eligig,, [Hall], British plantations, 18. 62Governor N. Johnson and Council to Board of Trade, Sept. 17, 1708, S.C. Pub. Recs., V, 205. Joseph Boone to Board of Trade, [1721], Ibid, IX, 41-42. Yonge, "A View," [1723], Ibid., X, 2-11. Gray, Agriculture, I, 284-286. Clowse, "Charleston Export Trade,“ 88. 63Ibid., 9-10. John Lloyd to William Popple, Dec. 30, 175§, S.C. Pub. Recs., V, 230. . 64An examination of the records of the South Caro- lina Admiralty Court reveals less than a dozen convictions during the years from 1716 to 1730. Another possible explanation for the scarcity of convictions if the lack of enforcement. While there exists some evidence of laxity on the part of the officials, it was usually in their 96 interest to be zealous in prosecuting offenders. For examples of cases invOlving smuggling see: South Carolina Court of Admiralty Records (microfilm), Sept. ZS-Oct. 15, 1717, A, 126-138, 142-153; June 30-July 12, 1729, B, 586-633. "The Case of the Betty," July, 1715, S.C. Pub. Recs., VI, 190—210. 65A number of persons used this tactic against their political enemies. Joseph Morton and Robert Quarry used it against James Moore in the dispute over the governorship in 1701. The elder Rhett employed it frequently against the anti-proprietary forces and still later against Governor Nicholson. Nicholson even used it against Rhett to retaliate. Morton to Board of Trade, Aug. 29, 1701, Ibid., V, 17-19. Quarry to Admiralty, Aug. 28, 1701, Ibid., V, 27- 28. Rhett to Commissioners of Customs, Dec. 21,1719, Great Britain, Calendar of Treasury Papers, 1714- 1719 (London, 1883), V, 487- 488. Nicholson to ?, Oct. 16, 1722, S.C . Pub. Recs., IX, 147-150. Nicholson to Carteret, Jan. 13, I1723I,Ibid., IX, 101-102. 66"Report on the Trade to Africa," [1709], Donnan, ed., Documents, IV, 243. Greene and Harrington, Popu- lation, 173. 67"Report on the Trade to Africa," [1709], Donnan, ed., Documents, II, 63. Donnan, "Slave Trade into South Carolina," AHR, XXXIII, 804-805. 68"Report on the Trade to Africa," [1709], Donnan, ed., Documents, II, 63. W. Robert Higgins, "The South Carolina Negro Duty Law" (unpublished M.A. thesis, Uni- versity of South Carolina, 1967), 19. 69Henry Laurens to Samuel and William Vernon, June 12, 1756, Donnan, ed., Documents, III, 168-170. Donnan, "Slave Trade into South Carolina," AHR, XXXIII, 808-811. 70%., 814. SCG, March 9, 1738, 71Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, II, 200-206. 72"Petitionof the London and Bristol Merchants," received March 24, 1730, S.C. Pub. Recs., XIV, 75-76. William Chapman to Board of Trade, March 25, 1730, Ibid., XIV, 79. "Instructions to Governor Robert Johnson, 97 1730, Ibid., XIV, 208-209. Cooper and Mccord, eds., Statutes, III, 670-671. 73Donnan, "Slave Trade into South Carolina," AHR, XXXIII, 804 , 810 . 74Higgins, "Negro Duty Law," 102-104, 109-110. 5Donnan, "Slave Trade into South Carolina," AHR, XXXIII, 805. ' 76"Minutes of Committee of the Royal African Company," 1722-1727, Donnan, ed., Documents, IV, 268-272. "Minutes of Committee of Correspondence and Trade of the Royal African Company 1724-1727, Ibid., II, 309, 315-316, 327-328, 340. CHAPTER III THE YEARS OF POLITICAL STRESS, 1700-1730 To the Carolinians the era from 1700 to 1730 was one in which the promise that many had seen in South Caro- lina was approaching realization. Yet there existed a number of problems which, at the same time, endangered the development of the provincial economy. The rapid expansion of commerce and enlarged importance of the Charleston mercantile community had taken place despite, and in some instances was responsible for, the emergence of weak or problem areas within the economy. The Charleston merchants were handicapped in carrying out their busineses not merely by the volitile situation in the Indian trade, and the interference of pirates with shipping, but also by the periodic recessions as well as by the chronic political instability of South Carolina under the proprietors. Maintaining a position of importance within the province which only the largest planters could rival, these merchants expressed attitudes and represented interests which carried considerable weight both in Charleston and in the outlying parishes. In both the Commons House of 98 e .- 'V' R \ =VEvlfJ g. 99 Assembly and the Council, the merchants served in the first ranks.1 In spite of what one might view as their essential community of interest, Charleston merchants failed either to act as a conscious, consolidated group or to agree upon specific remedies for the problems with which they were mutually concerned. This did not of course preclude an individual from claiming to speak for the entire mercantile interest of Charleston. Often, in such cases, allegations of wide backing for an individual's or group's views were inversely proportional to his actual support.2 While they might not agree unanimously upon particular measures, the merchants generally recognized the problems which con- fronted them. Tacitly they might have agreed that their economic interests and those of the entire province were associated with their efforts to promote the locally produced commodities, to expand the markets of Carolina goods, and to stabilize the domestic political climate in order that commerce might prosper. I For the Charleston merchant few areas of commerce were more potentially rewarding than the Indian trade. The expansion of this trade late in the seventeenth century had made it a profitable asset to the merchant and to the provincial economy in general.3 Increasingly the manage- ment of the Indian trade fell to a number of Charleston own-1 .. '. 100 merchants rather than the planter-traders who first exploited the potential which the broadened trade pre- sented.4 Through their managerial skills, large stocks of imported goods, credit resources, and easy access to English markets through their commercial contacts, the wholesale merchants of Charleston were in an advantageous position. Furthermore, the merchants profited both from sales of trade goods to the Indians through the hired frontier trades or independent operators, as well as in their role in the sale and distribution of deer skins.5 The problem for the merchants in this case arose not from the necessity to promote their product or to expand their markets. Regarding the Indian trade, the merchants and the provincial government, which was concerned about the situation for political as well as economic reasons, feared potential damage to this segment of the economy that would result from an Indian war. If the frontier trade returned good profits, it was at the same time an investment of some risk. As there was no effective regulatory agency in the back country, the exploitation and abuse of the Indians by the frontier traders were notorious.6 All groups within the colony recognized the magnitude of the problem, but little could be done to correct the situation in the face of opposition led by Governor Nathaniel Johnson and the vested interests of the planter-traders.7 Finally in 1707 through the co- operation of the planters, who would receive the brunt of 101 Indian retaliation in the event of war, and merchants such as Samuel Eveleigh and Richard Beresford, who feared the disruption to commerce, a reform measure was passed into law. A board of Indian trade commissioners was established and the post of Indian agent was inaugurated with Thomas H Nairne, a leading advocate of reform, receiving the appointment. For some time, however, the problem was to continue to plague the colony.8 . In 1710 the Indian Commission first met. According to law its functions were to supervise the agent, to hear appeals on his decisions rendered as chief magistrate in the Indian territory, to license traders, and to gather information on conditions in the back country.9 The board had a full compliment of nine members who were selected because of their familiarity with the Indian trade. Promi- nent politicians, militia officers, frontier planters, and merchants were most commonly appointed to the commission.10 On the first board four members were merchants, one was a large planter, and four were militia officers who were probably also frontier planters. Significantly, there were no planter-traders and few actual Indian traders who occupied positions on the board.11 Although they were forbidden, during their terms in office, to engage in the Indian trade, the merchant members of the board acted on matters in such a way as they believed consistent with commercial interests.12 In fact the entire commission appeared intent upon preserving the 102 long-term advantages which accrued to the colony as a result of an orderly, peaceful, and thus prospering trade. They sought to remove the traders who cheated the tribesmen 13 The and to punish those who had committed crimes. commission and its agents achieved some degree of success in correcting obvious problems such as the accumulation of Indian debts to traders and the maintenance of a licensing system. However, the problem of enforcing trade edicts in a large, wild expanse of territory among suspicious Indians and hostile frontier traders remained accute.14 In April, 1715 the feared retribution was exacted when the Yamasee and other tribes, at the instigation of the Creeks, fell upon the frontier traders and attacked plantations.15 With their families and slaves the planters fled to Charleston. For a period the only secure area was that immediately adjacent to the city. Agriculture came to a virtual halt, until the efforts of the entire province could be mobilized to defeat the allied tribes.16 By 1717 the war had sputtered to a conclusion. The planter- traders suffered severely and were virtually eliminated 17 The Charleston from future involvement in the trade. merchants also suffered directly as a result of the war, but in addition they lost because of the disruption of agriculture by the flight of the planters. Rice remained unharvested outside the parishes neighboring Charleston, and the provision trade to the west Indies was hard hit as the colony faced a domestic food shortage. The total 103 losses to South Carolina were 400 lives and £116,000 sterling.18 The task of rebuilding was a large one for the province. The lack of interest on the part of the pro- prietors for the fate of their province and their reluctance to aid in a program of reconstruction only served to increase the colonist's bitterness toward proprietary rule.19 One of the first measures taken up in 1716, while the war was still underway, was a proposal for reforming the Indian trade. A drastic remedy seemed in order. A public monopoly to control the trade, although rejected a decade earlier, was now to be tried.20 In June, 1716 the law charging the Indian trade commission with operating a public corporation to trade with the Indians was approved. While at a later date and under less pressing circumstances some Charleston merchants expressed the view that such a strong measure was unnecessary, at the time of its passage the act evidently drew consider- able support from the commercial community.21 The new commission constituted to manage the public corporation was composed of men with considerable experi- ence in Indian affairs. Four of the members were merchants who were previously active in the Indian trade, while three were planters.22 The board met quite frequently as management of a large enterprise would require. In order to purchase goods for trade, the commission received bids from the Charleston merchants for contracts to supply -4} 104 specific items. Payment would be made in deer skins, in cash, or, for especially large orders, notes for future payment in deer skins. Surplus deer skins or furs would 23 The commission made an effort be sold at public auction. to limit commerce between Indians and whites to Specified "factories" at strategic locations. This innovation did not last long as soon the commission was sending out trusted agents among the tribes for trading purposes.24 As a general rule the Charleston merchants worked well with the commission. They appeared to have appreci- ated the fact that they could charge the corporation higher rates for goods bought on credit as well as the increased security to the province and to their investments resulting 25 from stricter regulation of the Indian trade. The notable exception was the firm of Godin and de la Conseillere whose excessively high prices forced the com- 26 This mission to turn elsewhere for certain supplies. partially explains the efforts of Stephen Godin in London to secure a proprietary veto of the reform law. Suc- cessful in this endeavor, he led the movement for complete abolition of the public corporation's involvement in the 27 While few merchants were as vehement in Indian trade. their opposition as were Godin and de la Conseillere, many doubtless felt by 1721 that the emergency had passed and the corporation had served its purpose. Private traders, Properly regulated, could be safely allowed to return among the Indians . 28 )‘AFOI- .— lvAA bu ... :anq‘ ‘uu.'. 105 The public corporation faced other problems as well. The cartel possessed insufficient credit. Provided by the assembly with only £5000 currency to back its ventures, the commission had to turn to the merchants for additional credit. There was a general suSpicion that various merchants were exploiting this advantage to over- charge.29 Confined to frontier garrisons by the repeal of the 1716 law, the trade narrowed until by 1724 it was negligible. The board of commissioners was replaced in that same year by a single commissioner with subordinate agents.3o With the return of the private Indian trade, South Carolina had come full circle. Although in the past they had differed among themselves as to the means by which to accomplish their goals, the Charleston merchants had sought a peaceful expansion of the Indian trade. Prominent merchants had served on the Commission and merchant- politicans had been in the forefront of trade reform. When the prolongation of abuses in the private trade endangered the very existence of the province, the merchants joined With others to support the establishment of a public monopoly. However, when, for a variety of reasons some of Which were selfish, a segment of the mercantile community Obtained the ultimate downfall of the publicly-controlled tnade, the merchants of Charleston re-entered this sphere Ofcommercial activity. Once more the merchant took a direct part in financing the trader, and exchanging his 106 imported goods for deerskins which he then exported. At the same time, lessons had been learned. The merchants and the traders were willing to accept stringent measures to safeguard the well-being of the Indian trade. The licensing system was tightly enforced, and traders were now restricted to specific tribal towns where their activities could be scrutinized.31 In addition, merchants with vital interests in the Indian trade, such as Samuel Eveleigh, did what they could to promote better relations.32 By the close of the decade of the 1720's South Carolina probably had the most efficient and equitable regulatory system for the Indian trade in the southern colonies. Just as important for the merchants, however, exports of deer skins had attained, and in some years surpasses, their pre-war levels.33 Still another disruptive influence upon Charleston commerce was that of the pirates who infested the South Atlantic coastal waters. Conditions had changed from the earlier years in which the sea robbers might obtain a welcome in South Carolina. With the expansion of Charleston's commercial activity, the ships entering and leaving the harbor now became attractive targets for pirates. Teach, Bonnett, and others kidnapped wealthy persons from vessels, made transportation of valuable articles hazardous, and through their activities forced up the prices of imported goods. Requests to the prOprietors era,- Ii-..”- . :Ira’fi lioy v 107 and to the British government for aid failed to bring any significant response.34 By the year 1718 the situation had reached crisis proportions. Under the leadership of Colonel William Rhett and Governor Robert Johnson, the province put together successive expeditions which drove the infamous Blackbeard from the Carolina shores and captured the pirates, Worley and Bonnett.35 Through the virtual elimination of the pirates from their coasts, the South Carolinians gave evidence that their colony's prosperity was based upon legitimate commerce. Aspersions which formerly might have been justified as to the dealings between Charlestonians and pirates were obviously no longer supportable. At the trials of the captured pirates before the Admiralty Court of the colony, South Carolinians re- membering the depredations and harm to the provincial economy had reason to be severe. The merchants especially suffered, but now it was their turn to exact tribute. Several participated in the trials as assistant judges, or on the grand and petit juries. Of the sixty pirates captured in the 1718 expeditions, all but ten paid the supreme penalty.36 With the strong actions taken by the Carolinians in 1718, and with the belated stationing of a Royal Navy frigate at Charleston after 1719, pirates ceased to be a serious problem for the province}.7 Furthermore, the AAA" V 1e . vvv . . mm, pupyé'u q I Igvng' viga$u 108 cooperation and enterprise displayed in the locally- initiated efforts to destroy the pirates added to the Carolinians' reservoir of confidence which soon would be drawn upon in order that they might rid themselves of what they believed to be another obstacle to their development, proprietary rule. The merchants, in particular, had reason to be bitter toward the absence of efforts on the part of the proprietors to protect the commerce of their colony. II Not all of South Carolina's economic problems were of such a cataclysmic nature as the Yamasee War or called for the drastic remedy of a naval expeditionary force such as the pirate nuisance required. To the Charleston merchant they were nearly as serious. However in instances such as these the merchant might better use his resources and influence to deal with the situation than in one which called for military force. One of the most severe weaknesses of the pro- vincial economy was in the area of naval stores production. Although larger planters produced pitch, tar, and turpen- tine, it was from the smaller plantations that most of 38 The lesser planters were these commodities originated. chiefly interested in maximizing yields with a minimal labor force. Consequently the quality of their products suffered. Shortly after the turn of the century complaints 'v~ . . ..3 (I) I 109 began to be heard as to the poor standards of these goods.39 The British authorities, who had previously supported the efforts to produce naval stores in South Carolina, increasingly became cautious. The Admiralty actually sought to avoid using the South Carolina tar and pitch as they were often dirty, unfinished, and burned ship's ropes.40 Recognizing that if the bad reputation continued a valuable export commodity would be lost, the Charleston merchants took up the cause of promoting the colony's naval stores. Through pamphlets, letters, and petitions the merchants sought to influence the British officials. When the subsidy on naval stores exportation was threatened with non-renewal, the provincial authorities urged that efforts be stepped up to secure its continuance. During their respective terms as provincial agent in London, the Charleston merchants, Richard Beresford, Joseph Boone, and Francis Yonge, strove to convince the Board of Trade that South Carolina's naval stores were equal to those from the Baltic regions.41 Parliament proved unresponsive to promotional efforts and required that after September, 1724 the more laborious Swedish methods of production be used in order to collect the subsidy.42 As a result of this change in imperial policy profits from naval stores production declined sharply contributing in part to an economic 110 recession which beset the colony during the middle years of the 1720's.43 The South Carolinians continued their attempts to have the unrestricted bounty renewed. Samuel Wragg led the movement from London, but his attempts proved fruitless until 1730. In that year he obtained the desired renewal. Unfortunately, by that date South Carolina's principal producers of naval stores, the smaller planters, had suffered severely in the economic chaos. Naval stores continued to be exported from Charleston although their importance had declined drastically. Henceforth, North rather than South Carolina would dominate the production of these articles in southern British North America.44 After the rapid agricultural expansion during the first decade of the eighteenth century, the planters, seeking to increase further their production of rice, had imported larger numbers of slaves to be paid for on 45 Yet, at best there would be a lag of a few credit. years before a commensurate gain in rice exportations could be registered. Furthermore, the Yamasee War brought a serious setback to staple production. Even when the increased rice yields were harvested and sent out from the province, the gains would go for naught unless the market for this product could be expanded.46 To the Carolinians the solution to this problem appeared obvious. Great Britain had only to remove rice from the list of enumerated commodities which could be 111 shipped only to the mother country. Prior to its enumer- ation in 1705, South Carolina rice had found a significant market in Portugal. There was reason to believe that, if transport time and costs could be cut by direct shipments instead of first touching in England as required by law, this market might be regained. Northern Europe, like the Iberian peninsula, was a large marketing region, but few dared hope to attain direct access to that market. All concerned realized that in order to secure the approval of the imperial authorities the South Carolinians had to demonstrate that Great Britain would benefit from the exemption to the Navigation Acts in addition to the advantage which the province would gain.47 The task of securing the exemption for rice fell chiefly to the members of the Charleston commercial community. Their efforts were strongly supported by the provincial government which appointed Charleston merchants as its agents in London. A campaign was undertaken to obtain parlimentary approval for shipping rice directly to 48 C I I 0 Private pressure was maintained in Spain and Portugal. order to secure the desired relief, but the political unrest during the years of greatest anti-prOprietary sentiment prevented strong public action. In 1721 Joseph Boone submitted a report to the Board of Trade entitled, "Reasons Humbly Offered for Taking Off the Enumeration of Rice from Carolina." Boone hit hard at the point that the .- Ir. Ito. ,4 e u c _AHJ V. a flu.» FL ‘L 112 British market for rice was glutted while the Portuguese were turning elsewhere for their supplies. He went on to argue that British shipping would also benefit from the exemption as increasingly South Carolina's transoceanic 49 Francis Yonge, trade was transported in British bottoms. Boone's successor as provincial agent and himself a retired Charleston merchant, likewise wrote a pamphlet aimed toward influential British officials and merchants. Yonge maintained that the refusal to allow the exemption of rice was as harmful to British trade as it was to South Carolina's.50 Working with other Charleston merchants then in London, Yonge and Samuel Wragg convinced their British counterparts to present a petition to the govern- 51 On both sides of the ment in support of the measure. Atlantic pressure for the exemption was kept up during the 1720's. Despite severe political conflicts in South Carolina, planters, merchants, and government officials agreed upon the necessity for the expansion of the rice markets. Finally in 1730, due chiefly to Samuel Wragg's skillful mobilization of the London merchants, South Caro- lina rice gained direct access to the Iberian markets.52 For the merchants who had spearheaded the efforts, they had again demonstrated their importance of the province through their influence in Great Britain. 113 III Potentially paper currency and the controversy which surrounded it represented to the Charleston merchant the most serious aspects of the economic crises which threatened the colony at various times during the early eighteenth century. While only a few feared currency in itself as a threat to their economic well-being, most merchants viewed with alarm the political antagonisms which were generated from the diSpute. They feared not only the economic repercussions, but also they were anxious to avoid controversy which might isolate them from other segments of the colonial society and raise challenges to their leadership role in the community. More than any other issue paper currency demonstrated the lack of group cohesiveness found among Charleston's merchants. Key figures such as George Logan and John Lloyd, on the one side, and Benjamin de la Conseillere and William Rhett, on the other, failed to agree upon the proper course of action for the commercial community. In the end they, like most of their fellow merchants, responded in a manner which appeared, to them, consistent with their individual economic and political interests. At the same time a significant portion of the mercantile group, led by Samuel and Joseph Wragg, was beginning to comprehend that, if their participation in the leadership of the community was to be maintained and prosperity restored, the controversy 114 had to be moderated, interests had to be compromised, and the domestic political situation had to be stabilized. Paper currency had been in use in South Carolina since 1703 when bills of credit were used to pay public creditors of a military expedition to St. Augustine.53 As a frontier colony South Carolina was regularly faced with the problem of financing expeditions against the Spanish, French, or various Indian tribes. Harbor and frontier fortifications called for constant maintenance and expansion.54 Despite efforts to attract gold and silver coins by over-valuation, the Carolinians had little success in keeping enough bullion in the colony to act as a medium of exchange.55 It soon became obvious that paper currency could serve as the necessary medium and at the same time pay public creditors on a deferred basis. Subsequently additional currency was emitted in 1707 and 1708. There was little or no significant depreciation prior to 1710 when South Carolina bills were exchanged with sterling at a ratio of 150 to 100.56 Leading Charleston merchants such as George Logan, John Fenwicke, Samuel Wragg, and even Benjamin de la Conseillere,at this point, recognized the contribution that paper currency was making to the economic development of South Carolina. They joined with leading planters to 57 support still another emission in 1711. In fact no organized opposition to currency had yet appeared within 115 the province. Only slight rumblings of discontent were heard among isolated individuals such as the clergyman, Francis LeJau.58 The fact that the rate of exchange remained relatively stable during the first decade of its use in South Carolina was due largely to three factors. The first was a trade between colony and mother country which was not grossly imbalanced. A second reason was the restraint which the Carolinians exercised in printing currency. A third possible reason was the confidence which creditors had that these bills would be retired eventually. The stability of the currency, at this date, made it at- tractive to merchants whose accounts with their British counterparts were in sterling while their local affairs were carried in currency. Many Charleston merchants, particularly those heavily indebted to British merchants, would suffer severely if the currency was permitted to depreciate.59 After 1708 circumstances changed with the increased purchases by planters of imported slaves. Since they were not immediately able to increase production, a trade imbalance resulted. Although brief, this could have been a factor in the depreciation of currency which took place between 1712 and 1716.60 Still another possible expla- nation for the depreciation was the establishment in 1712 of a land bank. The bank promptly emitted 550,000 of local currency and by 1716 had tripled the total amount in 116 circulation. The land bank was a well-organized enter- prise, but it had failed to halt the rate of depreciation which by 1717 had reached a ratio of four to one.61 Within a year of its founding the land bank had raised the first significant opposition to paper currency in South Carolina. Although the measure had passed into law without dissent, a group headed by Chief Justice Nicholas Trott and William Rhett now feared that further depreciation of the provincial currency would impair the incomes from their own and their supporters' many political offices. The elder Rhett, besides a profitable career in commerce, held a number of lucrative offices. Together with Judge Trott, he had built a strong faction based in Charleston. Drawing support from placement, clergymen (whose incomes were fixed in depreciating currency), some merchants, and a few planters, their group formed the bulk of those who now opposed currency and were inclined favorably toward a continuance of proprietary rule.62 They were further strengthened by their influence with the prOprietor's secretary, Richard Shelton, to whom the pro- prietors had virtually turned over the management of the 63 Recognizing the impossibility of defeating colony. paper currency within South Carolina where it enjoyed strong popular support, the Trott-Rhett faction turned their efforts to Great Britain. In their struggle the opponents of paper money were aided by a number of Charleston merchants whose most 117 vehement spokesmen was Benjamin de la Conseillere. Having grown disillusioned by the concepts of a land bank and fearful of even further depreciation, these merchants sought to persuade their London contacts to back Shelton's attempts to have the land bank act vetoed.64 The pro- prietors responded in 1715 by ordering the assembly to reconsider its paper-money policy and to retire the previously emitted bills as quickly as possible.65 Although some merchants in South Carolina and still more in Great Britain feared that trade would suffer unless the amount of currency in circulation was cut dramatically, others felt that a local currency for the province was both necessary and expedient. This group, which a modern historian has labelled the moderates, recognized that since very little specie was available for domestic transactions a substitute in the form of paper bills of credit was a partial remedy. They also believed that, with the balance of trade turning in South Caro- lina's favor, depreciation could be curtailed.66 Perhaps yet another reason for the position of the moderates on fiat money was that among their ranks were found some of the more active politicians. Men such as Samuel Eveleigh, George Logan, Samuel Wragg, and John Lloyd were unwilling to sacrifice political influence for but a temporary economic advantage.6.7 Although the balance of trade was in South Caro- lina's favor by 1717, pirate raids and the Yamasee War had , A! ha a} st: (D tfi 118 brought to the province unforeseen expense and disruption. The defense expenditures still further necessitated emissions of currency. The rapid fluctuation in the exchange rate again alarmed many, but the bulk of the moderate merchants together with the majority of the planters remained steadfast in their faith. Increasingly, however, defections took place, and those who had come to question the use of currency turned to the proprietors to overcome the financial irresponsibility of the Commons House of Assembly where the paper-money faction was strong. Encouraged in their opposition by de la Conseillere and urged by Trott and Rhett to look upon the proprietors as their last hope, these Charleston merchants continued to favor proprietary rule after a majority of Carolinians had 69 Their joined in the movement for a royal government. trust was rewarded in 1718 when the proprietors, as a part of a general program to tighten their control over the province, ordered Governor Robert Johnson to veto all further emissions of currency and to see to the retirement of all bills in circulation.7° Announced together with a series of unpopular "reforms" as well as going beyond the desires of all but the extreme critics of paper money, the proprietary order had an extremely negative impact. To the extent that the proprietors retained any support within the colony after 1718, it was found among the hard-money men.72 68 119 After the rebellion against proprietary authority, the assembly which accomplished this feat acted upon what it saw as an immediate and pressing matter, the paper-money situation. In 1720 an act was passed which brought the total amount in circulation to £80,000.73 It might be supposed that Charleston's merchants united in opposition to the 1721 act. This was not the case as no major opposition appeared, except among the extreme hard-money faction who were largely discredited because of their proprietary sympathies. Those merchants who participated in the overthrow of proprietary rule (significantly moderates or even prOponents of paper currency) did not fall out with their non-commercial colleagues on this question. In fact in the new Assembly and interim Council which passed the legislation the merchants were active in the leadership.74 The London merchants who traded to Charleston remained, for the most part, unconvinced as to the necessity for currency. Led by Stephen Godin, a group of them fought against any proposal which would not provide for a decrease in the amount circulated. Upon receiving word that the Assembly was considering the 1721 act, they petitioned the Board of Trade that no further currency laws be permitted. They argued that currency was issued by South Carolina under "specious circumstances" and that its true intent was to defraud creditors.75 120 Godin was undoubtedly working in conjunction with his brother, Benjamin, and Benjamin de la Conseillere who led the opposition within the province. Even in London Godin's efforts against the currency act of 1721 did not achieve a great deal of success. Outside the immediate Godin-de la Conseillere-Guerard and Bell-Cole (the Coles had long been critical of South Carolina on several counts) associative groups, merely nine English merchants who traded with Charleston signed the petition.77 Undoubtedly the failure of more British merchants to support Godin's petition was due to the influence of the moderate Charleston merchants. In 1722 the economy of South Carolina received a severe blow just as the situation was displaying signs of improvement. Heavy rains and floods had damaged that year's rice crop. In the years which followed, the impact was intensified by a decline in the profitability of naval stores.77 To many planters (especially the smaller ones in the outer parishes) the cure for all of the colony's economic problems lay in the printing of more currency. They reasoned that the lack of an adequate medium of exchange was responsible for their inability to pay either 78 their debts or their taxes. At no time did any of the paper-money advocates openly urge that more currency be issued in order that they might pay their debts with 79 depreciated money. While after 1722 the movement originated outside Charleston and had roots in the 121 discontent of the planters, the promoters of paper currency looked to such merchants as John Lloyd and William Dry for legislative leadership.80 Predictably the opposition to paper bills of credit was centered within the commercial community among those who had consistently opposed fiat money. Benjamin de la Conseillere, now a member of the Council, played skillfully upon the fears of other merchants who were increasingly inclined to favor his views. Working with Richard Shelton and Stephen Godin in England, de la Conseillere attempted to subvert the currency laws.81 Within the ranks of the Charleston merchants there was still the third group whose attitudes toward currency were loosely defined but generally favorable. These moderates desired a sufficient amount of currency for the colony and at the same time sought to avoid further depreciation. To this group, which included the Wragg brothers, Othniel Beale, John Fenwicke, William Gibbon, and Paul Jenys, the currency act of 1721 in its final form was the ideal compromise. Future currency measures, however, would be regarded suspiciously.82 Late in 1722 tensions were raised by the intro- duction of another current bill this time providing for an additional 543,000 of currency. This brought an immediate response from a normally passive segment of the mercantile group who joined with the remnants of the old Trott-Rhett proprietary faction to petition the assembly against the ‘1‘ 2‘ re ‘ v n1. FV Vi ‘- 122 bill. The petitioners represented a substantial portion of the moderate group, but few of the larger and more politi- cally active merchants signed. Possibly the less politi- cally naive saw in this paper the hand of Godin and de la Conseillere. The tone of the petition was harsh and its argument ran that paper currency was a hindrance to trade and that the failure to retire the bills as they came into 83 The the hands of the government was a breach of faith. Commons House responded by arresting the signers for impuning its integrity. It declared the petition false and scandalous. After being held in custody for a little over a week the merchants who signed the petition apologized and were released.84 With the petitioners sufficiently chastened, the Assembly passed on to the upper house a bill which would emit the additional £43,000. The Council agreed with the lower house's sentiments but believed the sum too great. In a compromise worked out in February, 1723 by Governor Nicholson both houses agreed that the major portion of the provincial currency should be called in for reprinting, that a scheme was to be established for the eventual retirement of all the paper currency, and finally that an additional £40,000 was to be issued.85 Once again the incohesiveness of the merchants of Charleston was demonstrated by the currency question. A few, chiefly Fenwicke and Gibbon, found the currency act of 1723 satisfactory and not seriously prejudicial to their .I (7’ (D 43. 123 jJnterests. Despite its rural origins, the program for Imore currency found in John Lloyd and William Dry, both Charleston merchants, its leading spokesmen in the Assembly.86 However, a significant number of merchants, :anluding some moderates, believed that the new law upset 'the previous balance. At last and perhaps reluctantly they joined with the other opponents of paper currency to engage Richard Shelton as their agent to lay their case Ibefbre the British authorities. Shelton not only worked for the disallowance of the 1723 act, but he also sought 'the veto of the 1721 act as well.87 His success in both effbrts alienated many moderates especially the Wragg Ibrothers who henceforth were committed to a moderate jposition on the currency question and would be bitter enendes of Shelton, de la Conseillere, and the Godins.88 News of the repeal of both acts shocked and dismayed the colony. Governor Nicholson, the Assembly, and the Council all protested to the British authorities.89 A solution to the lack of an adequate medium of exchange was not quickly forthcoming. The Assembly failed to agree as to the desirability of making commodities legal tender. The merchants expressed their opposition as the value would fluctuate with supply. All groups in the Assembly joined in agreeing that, in order to carry out domestic trans- actions, currency worth at least the equivalent of 90 £20,000 sterling was required. While obligated to sink 124 the currency issued since 1720, both houses agreed to a plan which retired the bills as slowly as possible.91 Another agricultural depression struck the colony in 1725 further complicating the uncertain economic picture. Spurred by the crisis the spokesmen for the paper-money faction in the assembly pressed for the issuance of still more currency. The Council, in which the moderates and hard-money men held the upper hand was reluctant to take the action which would have appeased the proponents of currency. As the demands for more currency increased so likewise did the intransigence of the Council. It became apparent that Nicholson's successor, President of the Chauncil Arthur Middleton, was inept and unable to compose tflne differences. The Council increasingly challenged by thus Assembly looked to de la Conseillere for guidance. Ir; a report which the Council sent to the Board of Trade, d£3 la Conseillere argued that although the upper house had CC>nsistent1y opposed paper currenct (a serious misrep- reSentation of that body's previous position on the CELIE-istion) , the fiat money had been forced upon the colony by Nicholson and the Assembly. To insure that the hard- mOriey position would be known in Great Britain, the el'i‘lzzremists on the Council had Stephen Godin chosen as that b0dy's special agent.93 With South Carolina experiencing the most severe 13°litical and economic crisis of the colonial period, it 125 appeared that no solution could be attained without the intervention of British authorities. In order to assure that this intervention took the proper forms all parties in the dispute looked toward representing their views before the home government. While the most vocal in expressing themselves, the Charleston merchants' inability to speak with one voice impaired their influence in this regard. The moderates, alienated by the Godins and still somewhat suspicious of the extremists in the paper- currency faction, found an able spokesman at last in Samuel Wragg. Recognizing the necessity for cooperation if the success of the hard-money people was to be avoided, the paper-money faction cooperated with the moderates to secure the appointment of Wragg as provincial agent. This was to foreshadow additional cooperative efforts. IV In the thirty years after the opening of the eighteenth century, South Carolina experienced a series of political disruptions that contributed negatively to its commercial development. IThe unrest first took form as an extreme factionalization of domestic politics based primarily upon sectarian lines. By the time that the Yamasee War had struck the colony, sentiment against pro- prietary rule provided fuel for still another crisis situation. With the proprietors overthrown, the decade of the 1720's witnessed political controversy as well as 126 economic dislocation. Throughout these years of "break- down" apparently irreconciable factions grew up which pitted South Carolinians against one another so that political instability threatened to destroy the province which they had struggled to build. To the Charleston merchant this was an era of great significance. As businessmen the economic implications of political unrest were obvious to them in the form of economic instability, particularly fluctuating prices and exchange rates. Among this segment of the population there was considerably diversity of opinion upon what were the proper remedies for the situation in which the merchants found themselves. All, however, would have agreed that it was the duty and function of the provincial government to act in order that political and economic stability be restored. Of further meaning for the Charleston merchants was that these crises occurred during the same years in which many of the merchants were making themselves felt as a vital factor within the political structure of the colony. The controversy thus engendered provided a challenge to the merchants‘ role in politics and splintered their ranks. Following the death of Governor Blake in 1700, his clique of followers split over the succession. The quarrel soon enlarged into a more generalized power struggle between dissenters and Anglicans.94 With the outbreak in 1702 of Queen Anne's War (the War of the 127 Spanish Succession) the dispute became more vehement. Action against the French and Spanish outposts was called for, but neither side would trust the other sufficiently to conduct a permanently successful operation. Governor James Moore's expedition failed in its primary mission of seizing St. Augustine, but it did manage to lay waste to several Spanish settlements, and spend £4000 sterling more than had been authorized.95 Another issue brought to the fore by the war, although nearly lost in the shuffle of factional dis- sension, was the reform of the Indian trade. The dissenters (with the exception of the planter-traders within their ranks) joined with a number of moderate Anglican planters and merchants to press for reform.96 The new governor, Sir Nathaniel Johnson, an extremist Anglican and closely associated with the planter-trader interest held up passage of a reform bill until 1707. At that Johnson virtually forced the Assembly to bribe him to secure the bill's passage.97 With an Assembly which was divided about equally between the two sects, Johnson faced deadlocks on most issues. In 1704 he met this situation by slipping through the Commons House in which the Anglicans had a slight majority, the rather drastic expedient of an act whereby dissenters were, in effect, excluded from sitting in that body.98 The dissenters promptly appealed to the British authorities, however it was not until two years later that the Crown ordered the proprietors to veto the 128 act. Chief credit for obtaining the repeal went to the merchant Joseph Boone whose commercial stature and contacts in London were influential.99 The years of sectarian factionalization and those which immediately followed were ones in which the merchants expanded the process which had begun in the last years of the seventeenth century of political participation. In the Commons House of Assembly the planters still remained the most prevalent occupational group with Charleston merchants being sent increasingly. The merchant-politicans were not merely back-benchers, they participated in the leadership of the Assembly as well.100 They likewise served with distinction in the Council.101 Yet with significant exceptions such as the extremists of the "church party," Thomas Broughton and William Rhett, and Joseph Boone, on the side of the dissenters, the merchants took little part in most aspects of the sectarian controversy. They instead constituted a group which sought order and stability in provincial politics.102 As the sectarian problem appeared to abate by 1712, the political climate was troubled by new issues. From the earliest years there had existed hostility against the rule of the prOprietors. The neglect for the welfare of their "subjects," interference in what South Carolinians saw as local matters, and escessive political favors granted to favorites had all been sources of discontent. After 1712 the situation further deteriorated 129 as more and more individuals and groups looked toward the Crown to assume responsibility for the province. As mentioned in a previous context a good amount of antagonism was directed at the proprietors because of their support for the Trott-Rhett faction. This clique opposed the use of paper money and sought to exploit the advantages which their influence with the proprietors had presented to them. Using their influence to gain support in Charleston, Rhett and Trott had their followers elected to the Assembly.103 It was not long before other persons of influence in the colony came to resent Trott's virtual veto over legislation and Rhett's power in the Commons House. When in 1716 Rhett was not returned to the Assembly, his opponents took advantage of the situation to secure passage of an election law which forbade placemen from holding elective office. This struck particularly hard at Rhett and his supporters who held a number of lucrative positions.104 As if the stranglehold which the proprietors had given Trott and Rhett was not enough, their callous indifference, and in some cases overt hostility to the colonists during the Yamasee War aroused furor. The Caro- linians complained that the proprietors "are neither able nor willing to afford assistance to this Province as is absolutely necessary to preserve it from ruin and 105 desolation." During the war itself the defense contri- bution of the pr0prietors had been negligible, and after 130 the war they refused to accept reports on the degree of damage to which the colony had been victim.106 Although the proprietors reluctant acceptance of the inevitable on the paper-money question found some favor among its critics, this brought them only a residue of support and could not affect the suspicions of many.107 In the months just prior to the outbreak of the Yamasee War and then again in its aftermath, discontented South Carolinians gave vent to their feelings in petitions to the Crown. Asking for "protection," the vaguely-worded petitions hinted to the imperial officials that the province was in serious danger unless proprietary control was terminated. Both petitions originated in the Assembly, however the second was signed by over five hundred white, adult males (over 50 per cent of that segment of the population in 1717).108 While the signatures furnish an excellent indication of the extent of anti-proprietary sentiment, the fact that only thirty-six of the signers were merchants perhaps indicates that as late as 1717 many 109 The were not as yet prepared to take a public position. problem of paper money, in part, accounts for the failure of some merchants to take a stand against proprietary rule. It further appears that these merchants were convinced that Governor Johnson was attempting to stabilize con- ditions. If he could win over the proprietors to support his efforts, the situation might be saved for them. The 131 merchants, or at least many of them, were willing to extend to the governor the opportunity. Convinced that South Carolina was not as severely disrupted by the pirate raids and Indian war as the colonists claimed, the proprietors acted to crush what they saw as a factions opposition. Trott and Rhett had per- suaded them that they had only to reform the colonial government and to veto certain laws in order to gain the upper hand. In particular, the proprietary faction claimed broad support among the commercial elements of Charleston who alledgedly were striving to oppose the anti-commercial planters.110 While Rhett and Trott may have had some basis for stating that the merchants were still sympathetic to proprietary rule, the very policies which they advocated could only succeed in driving the merchants into the opposition camp. Despite the warnings of Governor Johnson, who was attempting to pursue a course of conciliation and compro- mise, the proprietors had resolved to act. In July, 1718 they vetoed the Indian trade law of 1716 and the election act of 1716. They also denied the right of the province to levy duties on imported British articles, as well as refusing to recognize the authority of the Commons House to nominate certain provincial officers.111 Not long afterward Johnson was ordered to see that outstanding currency was called in and that no more grants of land be 132 made. When the governor failed to carry out his in- structions explicitly, he was reprimanded by the pro- prietors who at the same time offered public thanks to Judge Trott for his loyality.112 Johnson's efforts had attracted considerable support from many Charleston merchants who previously had been neutral. They were grateful for his attempt to cool off the paper-currency controversy in the Assembly. The proprietors clumsy and ill-timed interference was resented at this point.113 According to Francis Yonge, merchant, councilor, and agent, the year 1719 marked a turning point as during that year any proprietary sentiment that remained among the merchants as a group turned into opposition. Yonge cited as one of the chief reasons the resentment by the merchants of the virtual dictatorship which the proprietors had permitted Trott to erect over the provincial legal system.114 The final blow came in June, 1719 when the Council was reorganized so that three members who had opposed the proprietary "reform" programs were dismissed and a fourth was censured.115 Evidently hoping to gain support among the merchants, the proprietors now gave that group a majority on the Council. The plan was so blatant that three of the newly appointed merchants refused to serve. Since four others on the newly appointed Council were then in England, that body fell into the hands of the pro- prietary partisans Nicholas Trott and Charles Hart who 133 worked with the hard-money advocates Ralph Izard, Jacob Stur, and Benjamin de la Conseillere. The control of the Council by this crew could hardly be reassuring to those who sought to stabilize the political life of the colony.116 When in November, 1719 rumors reached Charleston concerning a planned Spanish invasion, Governor Johnson was forced to call for elections so that a new Assembly could make the necessary appropriations (the previous Assembly had been dissolved by order of the proprietors). The opposition to a continuance of proprietary rule now organized for action. The rebels met and requested Johnson to assume control of the colony in the King's name. The governor was notified of the proposal by a committee consisting of a planter, a merchant, and a lawyer. Despite his expressed sympathy for the plight of the province, Governor Johnson called for the rebels to disperse.117 The Assembly convened on December 10, 1719 with the rebels in control. They declared themselves to be a "Convention, delegated by the people, to prevent the utter ruin of this government, if not the loss of the province until his Majesty's pleasure be known." The "reformed" Council was declared to be an unconstitutional body by the Convention. It also selected James Moore, Jr., to be acting governor, and sent off to the mother country another petition requesting that South Carolina be transformed into a royal colony.118 134 An analysis of the membership of the Convention and interim Council offers some clue as to the nature of the leadership of the anti-proprietary rebellion. The new Council consisted of a balance between planters and merchants with one lawyer.119 The Convention, in which the revolt was centered, selected a merchant, Thomas Hepworth, as its speaker. In all there were seven prominent merchants in the Convention (approximately 30 per cent of that body).120 Whatever may have been their previous attitude toward proprietary rule, by late in the year 1719 a substantial group of Charleston merchants had decided to oppose its continuance. With the rebel government firmly entrenched in Charleston, it now took steps to convince the British government that the colony's situation was as serious as was maintained. Petitions and reports were sent to per- suade the authorities that the proprietors were unfit to rule such a vital province. Crucial to these efforts were the activities of Francis Yonge. In London, Yonge published pamphlets which presented the colonist's views on the rebellion and their feelings on the role of the province within the empire.121 Less than a year after the rebellion, the Privy Council directed that South Carolina "be forthwith taken provisionally into the hands of the Crown." The Board of Trade was to select a governor, to prepare his 135 instructions, and to nominate a Council. Francis Nicholson proved to be the choice for the governorship.122 Aware that the prOprietors efforts to "pack" the Council had been a factor in igniting the rebellion, Nicholson persuaded the Board of Trade to balance the membership of that body as nearly as possible among the competing political factions and various economic groups. The rebels of 1719 predominated with eight members, and among them were three merchants who had been active in the opposition to the prOprietors, William Gibbon, James Kinlock, and Francis Yonge. A fourth merchant, Benjamin de la Conseillere, not long afterward was selected despite his oppostion to currency and his alledged sympathy for prOprietary rule. To this body were also appointed four former proprietary men, all planters or placement and all, 23 Over the decade which but one, were hard-money men.l followed the rebellion, the Council gained power and prestige in large measure because of popular respect for its membership. This goodwill was to be dissipated as the active councilors took increasingly extreme positions on currency and politics in general, and as the moderates withdrew to the background.124 In the CommonsHouse of Assembly the majority of members were still planters, but the leadership in that house fell to merchants such as John Fenwicke, Thomas Hepworth, John Lloyd, and William Dry. The merchant, William Rhett, Jr., succeeded his father as head of the 136 remnants of the proprietary faction. The Assembly was constantly seeking to broaden its powers and in so doing came into conflict with the Council. Nicholson proved successful in working with both houses, but under his successor, Middleton, the whole political process approached chaos.125 Among Governor Nicholson's programs for South Carolina was the incorporation in 1722 of Charleston as Charles City and Port. There has survived no evidence to indicate whether widespread enthusiasm for or opposition to this measure existed either in the Assembly or Council. After its passage a group of Charleston citizens made known their opposition. Based upon the charter of New York City, the act of incorporation limited participation in municipal affairs to a closed group. Those named by the act to govern the city were all prominent merchants, lawyers, 126 While many of Charleston's most placement, or artisans. active and wealthiest merchants participated in the civic government, many were excluded, particularly those of Hugunenot descent. In addition former rebels and former proprietary men were found on both sides of the question of incorporation. When over one hundred of the opposition petitioned the British authorities to disallow the act, 127 The impetus their appeal was heard and the act vetoed. for the incorporation of Charleston came primarily from Nicholson, but a number of townsmen who were active in political life may have attempted to use it in order to 137 consolidate their positions. There was among this group a number of merchants as there were also found among the opponents. A true muncipal government for Charleston had to wait until after the War of Independence as there was no great demand for it during the remainder of the colonial period.128 Nicholson's plans also called for a reconstruction of the provincial court system. He sought the establish- ment of district and county courts outside of Charleston. Such a program found great favor among the planters who had previously resented Judge Trott's control of the judicial system centered in Charleston. Furthermore they hoped to avoid the delay, inconvenience, and expense involved in handling all the legal matters in the capital city. Additionally they had come to resent what they saw as the 129 Most of the legal monopoly of the Charleston lawyers. merchants, on the other hand, favored a retension of legal centralization. They did not want a return to the former practices under Trott, yet they feared the difficulty of debt collection in the newer regional courts. For them there was little to fear from a lawyers' monopoly and they, in fact, felt a community of interest with the legal profession.130 By the middle years of the 1720's, an agricultural depression had struck particularly hard at the smaller planters. Paper currency had again become an issue which threatened a further polarization between and within the 138 colony's occupational groups. The emotions aroused were injected into the debate over the decentralization of the court system.131 To add to these problems, Governor Nicholson was called home in the midst of the crisis to answer charges lodged against him by the elder_Rhett some years previ- ously. When the governor left the colony in 1725, he remained popular with all but a few hard-money merchants and former proprietary men such as Benjamin de la 132 Nicholson had dealt with numerous and Conseillere. taxing problems. For the most part, his administration had confronted but had not solved the crisis in which South Carolina was mired. In 1727 the provincial economy hit its lowest ebb. Threatened with ruin many planters formed associations which called for suspension of taxes and a moratorium on debt collections. Riots broke out over the countryside and by the close of 1728 the authority of the government was confined to the vicinity of Charleston.133 V Desiring above all else a stabilization of the political and economic situation within South Carolina, late in the 1720's moderate Charleston merchants looked for a means by which to accomplish this goal. Joseph Wragg, together with other moderate merchants and a few planters, sought at least to temporarily alleviate the currency and credit crisis by organizing a private bank. Issuing 139 private bills worth £50,000, their action aided the colony 134 By their actions they indicated, as well: greatly. their willingness to accept the necessity for paper currency as a local medium of exchange. In local politics moderates once again worked with the paper money advocates to isolate and render ineffective their mutual opponents in the hard-money faction.135 In order to deal permanently with the situation action by the imperial authorities was required. To see that it took the desired lines, the Assembly appointed a moderate then living in London, Samuel Wragg to be pro- vincial agent. Wragg cooperated with Robert Johnson, the former proprietary governor who remained a popular figure in South Carolina, to secure Johnson's appointment as governor.136 They also obtained the approval of the Board of Trade for Johnson's "township scheme." By this plan currency due to be retired was allowed to recirculate, and income from provincial customs duties was to go into a fund for aiding in the settlement of poor, Protestant refugees in frontier townships. South Carolina would, as a result of this plan, have a local medium of exchange 137 Finally approved worth approximately £100,000 currency. in September, 1730 even London merchants, many of whom had previously signed petitions opposing the use of currency in South Carolina, joined in its support.138 To secure his position when he arrived in South Carolina, Johnson saw that three moderates (two merchants, one planter) were 140 appointed to the Council in place of two extremists Benjamin de la Conseillere, for the hard-money faction, and Thomas Smith, for the paper money block.139 Although South Carolina had suffered severely both politically and economically, a potential was present which a stable political situation would help realize. As they came to recognize their mutual interests a coalition was formed by moderate merchants and planters. There had never existed a wide social division between these groups, and they both saw the necessity for a certain amount of currency. With that question resolved, there was little basis for political division. All South Carolinians (with the significant exception of the black population) could now look forward to a new era of expansion and prosperity. None were more hopeful than the Charleston merchants. NOTES lGreene, Quest for Power, 475-488. Sirmans, "South Carolina Royal Counc1l," WMQ, XVIII, 376, 392. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 104. 2A notorious example of this was the instance in 1717 when William Rhett protested against the import duties and compromise currency act of 1717 in the name of the Charleston merchants. In fact the merchants generally accepted the necessity for these measures. Rhett to Com- missioners of Customs, Dec. 31, 1717, S.C. Pub. Recs., VII, 104-106. 3Rivers, A_Sketch, 52-54. Crane, Southern Frontier, 120-121. Governor Nathaniel Johnson and Council to Board of Trade, Sept. 17, 1708. S.C. Pub. Recs., V, 207. 4Wallace, Short History, 42. 5Crane, Southern Frontier, 123. 6McDowell, ed., Indian Books, I, viii, 4, 10-11. 7Dec. 20, 1706, Jan. 31, Feb. 8, 1707, Salley, ed., Commons Journal, 1706-1707, 35-37, 39-43. Crane, Southern Frontier, 146-149. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 90-92 0 8Ibid., 89-90. Crane, Southern Frontier, 148-149. McDowell, ed., Indian Books, I, 4, 10-11. 9Ibid., I, 1-4. Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, II, 309-316. 141 142 10The minutes of every board meeting contained a listing of the members present, thus membership has been relatively easy to determine. See for example the first meeting of the commissioners on Sept. 20, 1710: McDowell, ed., Indian Books, I, 3. Crane, Southern Frontier, 150-151. llFor membership of the Indian Trade Commission from 1710 to 1716: McDowell, ed., Indian Books, I, 3, 5, 28-29, 59' 60, 69. 12Ibid., I, 69-70. l3Ibid., I, viii-ix, 14-16. Crane, Southern Frontier, 150. 14"Instructions to Traders," Aug. 3, 1711, and the sessions of Sept. 21, 1710, and May 6, 1714, in McDowell, ed., Indian Books, I, 14-16, 4, 56. 15George Rodd to ?, May 8, 1716, S.C. Pub. Recs., VI, 74-85. Crane, Southern Frontier, 167-180. 161bid., 183-190. 17Ibid,, 120, 165-167. COOper and McCord, eds., Statutes, III, 91. 18LeJau to Secretary of S.P.G., May 10, 1715, Frank J. Klingberg, ed., The Carolina Chronicle of RE; Francis LeJau, 1706-1717 (Berkeley, 1956), 152-154. 1rMemorial of Joseph Boone and Richard Beresford," Feb. 22, 1717, S.C. Pub. Recs., VII, 7. Richard Beresford to ?, April 27, 1717, Ibid., VII, 19. "The Case of the Colony of South Carolina," [1717], Ibid., VII, 245. Robert Johnson to Board of Trade, Jan. 12, 1720, Ibid., VII, 234. 19Petition of the Commons House, Aug., 1715, Ibid., VI, 116-117. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 115-116. LeJau to Secretary S.P.G., May 14, 1715, Klingberg, ed., LeJau Chronicle, 156. . 20June 29, 1716, April 13, 1717, Commons Journals, V, 146, 316, S.C. Archives. 143 21Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, II, 677-680. McDowell, ed., Indian Books, I, 325-329. Ibid., I, 69-70. London Merchants to Board of Trade, Oct. 27, 1720, S.C. Pub. Recs., VII, 226-229. Crane, Southern Frontier, 198. 22The merchants on the board were: George Logan, John Fenwicke, Jonathan Drake, and Francis Yonge. The three planters were Ralph Izard, John Barnwell, and George Chicken. McDowell, ed., Indian Books, I, 69. 23l§£§y 1, X, 71, 79, 83, 90-91, 107-108, 118, 131. 24£bid,, I, 24, 73-74, 98-105. Crane, Southern Frontier, 194-197. 25McDowell, ed., Indian Books, I, 69-70, 90-91. 26In the session of July 14, 1716, the board failed to come to an agreement with Godin and de la Conseillere. Henceforth, the firm's name failed to reappear in the Indian Books as merchants with whom the public corporation did business. Ibid., I, 71, 79. 27? to [Stephen Godin], Dec., 17, 1717, s.c. Pub. Recs., VII, 71-73. London Merchants to Board of Trade, Oct. 27, 1720, Ibid., VIII, 226-229. 28Crane, Southern Frontier, 198-199. 29McDowell, ed., Indian Books, I, x, 81. Letter of June 13, 1718 cited in Crane, Southern Frontier, 197. 30Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, III, 141, 229. 31Crane, Southern Frontier, 200—203. 32£2i§., 121-123. SCG, June 10, 1732. 33See: Appendix A, Tables I, II, and III, Crane, Southern Frontier, 328-330. 34Edmund Brailsford to father, [1710], "Brailsford Correspondence," SCHM, VIII, 154-156. William Tredwell Bull to Bishop Robinson, Nov. 18, 1718, Manross, ed., 144 Fulham Pa ers, 133. William wye to the Rev. Dr. Astry, June 2 , 1718, Ibid., 133. Governor Robert Johnson and Council to Board of Trade, Oct. 21, 1718, S.C. Pub. Recs., VII, 164. Governor and Council to Board of Trade, Dec. 12, 1718, Ibid., VII, 167-168. Johnson to PrOprietors, June 18, 1718, Ibid., VII, 134-136. [Hewatt], Historical Account, I, 141, 235-236. 35The most complete account of the expeditions against the pirates is found in: Hughson, Carolina Pirates, 69-128. Hughson based his narrative largely upon the South Carolina Admiralty Court Records and a con- temporary pamphlet, Tr als 93 Major Stede Bonnet and Other Pirates (London, 1719). 36 250-299. South Carolina Admiralty Court Records, A, 37a. Burckett to William Popple, April 20, 1719. S.C. Pub. Recs., VII, 185. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 125. 38Gray, Agriculture, I, 153-156. 39Johnson to Board of Trade, Dec., 1719, S.C. Pub. Recs., VII, 222. Yonge, "A View," [1723], Ibid., X, 2-ll. 40Proprietors to Johnson, March 12, 1719, Ibid., VII, 176-177. Johnson to Board of Trade, Dec., 1719, Ibid., VII, 222. 41Yonge, "A View," [1723], Ibid., X, 2-11. Johnson to Board of Trade, Jan. 12, 1720, Ibid., VII, 233-250. Board of Trade to King, Sept. 8, 1721, Ibid., IX, 65-76. Memorial of Boone and Beresford, Feb. 25, 1717, Ibid., VII, 5-8. Certificate to Board of Trade, March 2, 1717, Ibid., VII, 12. Gray, Agriculture, I, 155-156. 42Ibid., 156. 43"Representation of the Inhabitants of South Carolina," [1727], S.C. Pub. Recs., XII, 211-214. Arthur Middleton to Nicholson, May 4, 1727, Ibid., XII, 202-205. William Guy to Secretary of S.P.G., April 24, 1729, SPG Mss. A., 236. 44Gray, Agriculture, 1, 156-157, 285. 145 45"Negroes Imported into South Carolina, 1706- 1724," Donnan, ed., Documents, IV, 255. 46Gray, Agriculture, I, 284. Yonge, "A View," [1723], S.C. Pub. Recs., X, 2-11. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 133. 47Boone to Board of Trade, [1721], S.C. Pub. Recs., IX, 41-42. Horatio Walpole to Popple, Sept. 28, 1722, Ibid., IX, 140. Yonge to Popple, Dec. 10, 1722, Ibid., IX, 170-171. 48Gray, Agriculture, I, 284-285. 49 IX, 41-42. Boone to Board of Trade, [1721], S.C. Pub. Recs., SOYonge, "A View," [1723], Ibid., x, 2-11. 51Walpole to Popple, Sept. 28, 1722, Ibid., IX, 41-42. 52Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 162. Gray, Agriculture, 1, 285. Gray has suggested that the importance of the Iberian market has been exaggerated. His studies indicate that only 26 per cent of the rice exported to Europe was destined for southern Europe, most going instead to the north. Ibid., I, 286. 53Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, II, 206-212. 54Richard M. Jellison, "Paper Currency in Colonial South Carolina: A Reappraisal," SCHM, LXII (1961), 135. sslbidf, 135. Minutes of the Board of Trade, July 22, 1701, S.C. Pub. Recs., V, 11, 13-14. 56Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, II, 302-302, 320-323, 324-327, 352-354, 366. An interesting and for the most part reliable account of the early history and problems of the use of paper currency in South Carolina is found in [William Bull I], "Account of the Rise and Progress of the Paper Bills of Credit in South Carolina," 1739, Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, IX, 766-799. 146 S7Ibid., IX, 766-799. Richard M. Jellison, "Paper Currency in Colonial South Carolina, 1703-1764" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1952), 55. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 109-110. 58LeJau to John Chamberlain, April 20, 1714, and LeJau to Secretary SPG, April 20, 1714, Klingberg, ed., LeJau Chronicle, 138-141. 9[Bull], "Account of Paper Bills," Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, IX, 768-770. Jellison, "Reap- praisal," SCHM, LXLL, 135. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 109-110. On the value of South Carolina imports and exports for this period there are no definative figures. One source of statistics which appears reliable, Charles Whitworth, State of Trade of Great Britain in Its Impgrts and Exports, ProggeSSively From the Year 1697 (London, 1776), has been reprinted in U. S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics, series Z: 31- 32, 757. Whitworth used the records of the British Inspector General of Customs' Ledgers. These have been checked and corrected, where necessary, by the editors of Historical Statistics. One possible problem in the use of these figures is the uncertainty as to whether or not the value of slave importations into South Carolina was included. 60"Negroes Imported into South Carolina, 1706- 1724," Donnan, ed., Documents, IV, 255. If the previous trade imbalance during the years from 1708 to 1711 was in fact to blame for the depreciation of the currency and its fluctuating value as was the case in similar situations in other provinces (see: Joseph A. Ernst, "Colonial Currency: A Modest Inquiry Into the Uses of the Easy Chair and the Meaning of the Colonial System of Freely- Floating Inter- national Exchange," Explorations in Entrepreneurial History, 2nd series, VI (1969), 187- 197), then the seriousness of the situation might depend upon the length and intensity of the lag between increased sources of production (i.e., slaves and land in use), and the resulting increases in production. The fact that the exports exceeded imports after the middle years of the decade indicates that the reat of depreciation should have been slowed or reversed. This might well have been the case but for other factors which led to an increase in the money supply, most notably such as the expenditures necessitated by the Indian war and the pirate menace. Historical Statistics, Z: 31-32, 757. See also Jellison's discussiOn on the subject in his "Reappraisal," SCHM, LXII, 136-137. 147 61Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, II, 389. Jellison, "Reappraisal," SCHM, LXII, 136. 62Ibid., 136. Sirmans, Colonial s.c., 110. Francis Yonge, "A Narrative of the Proceedings of the PeOple of South Carolina in the Year 1719," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 147. 63 Ibid., II, 149. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 106. 64gpig,, 110. Yonge, "Narrative," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 146-147. 65 345-351. S.C. Archives, Feb. 9—11, 1715, Commons Journals, 66Jellison, "Reappraisal," SCHM, LXII, 137. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 121-122. Yonge, "Narrative," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 147-148. 67Greene, Quest for Power, 34-35, 475-488. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 110-111. 68Robert Daniel, et al., to Boone and Beresford, Aug. 20, 1715, S.C. Pub. Recs., VI, 128, 133-134. Also see page 115 and note 60. On the favorable balance of trade by this date consult: Historical Statistics, Z: 31-32, 757. 69Rhett to Commissioners of Customs, Dec. 31, 1717, S.C. Pub. Recs., VII, 104-106. Letter from Charleston, Nov. 14, 1719, Ibid., VII, 218-219. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 110. Yonge, "Narrative," Carroll, ed., Historical Col- lections, II, 147, 149. 70Proprietors to Governor and Council, Sept. 4, 1718, S.C. Pub. Recs., VII, 156-157. 7lSirmans, Colonial S.C.., 122. 72Ibid., 122, 125. Yonge, "Narrative," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 154, 156-157. Letter from South Carolina, Nov. 18, 1719, S.C. Pub. Recs., VII, 220-221. Proprietors to Governor Johnson, June 19, 1719, Ibid., VII, 193. 148 73Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, III, 97-121. Although passed by the Assembly in 1720, the act was not signed and did not become law until 1721. 74Richard Splatt and Co. to Samuel Barons, July 20, 1720, S.C. Pub. Recs., VIII, 34-35. John Loyd to '0), Feb. 2’ 1721' Ibid. ' IX, 12-18. 75Petition of London Merchants to Board of Trade, Get. 27' 1720' Ibid., VIII, 226-2290 76Ibid. On the hostility of the Coles for the province see: Michael Cole to Board of Trade, Feb. 17, 1702, Ibid., V, 25-26. 77Yonge to Popple, Dec. 10, 1722, S.C. Pub. Recs. IX, 170-1710 Yonge, "A View," [1723], Ibid., X, 2-11. 78Eugene Sirmans has analyzed the origins, compo- sition, and programs of the paper-money faction. Basing his conclusions largely upon the petitions in the S.C. Pub. Recs. (particularly volumes XII and XIII), he has concluded: that the party was substantially agrarian, but led by prominent merchant-politicians; that they were persons who found themselves caught in a depression situation with no adequate medium of exchange; and that to these peOple paper currency offered the only feasible alternative. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 145-146. Jellison takes a somewhat differ- ent position regarding the role of the merchants, but it is in substantial agreement with Sirmans on most points. Jellison, "Reappraisal," SCHM, LXII, 139-147. For an older, "Sound-money," interpretation see: Edward McCrady, The Histor of South Carolina Under the Royal Government, 1719-1776—(New York, 1899), 9-11. 79"Report and Proceedings upon the Petition [of the Charleston Merchants] by the Lower House of Assembly," Dec. 6, 1722, S.C. Pub. Recs., IX, 191-192. "Representation of the Inhabitants of South Carolina," [1727] Ibid., XII, 211-214. 80$.C. Archives, Nov. 23, Dec. 5, 1722, May 15, 25, 1725, Commons Journals, VI, 76-81, 97, VIII, 209, 210-211. William Guy to Secretary S.P.G., April 24, 1729, §£§. Mss., A, 22, 236. 81Nicholson to Board of Trade, Oct. 14, 1723, S.C. Pub. Recs., X, 174. Nicholson to Board of Trade, 149 Nov. 12, 1723, Ibid., X, 195-200. Nicholson to Board of Trade, Jan. 20, 1724, Ibid., XI, l6-18. "The Memorial of the [London] Merchants and Others," [1723], Ibid., X, 87-91. 82Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 147. 83S.C. Archives, Dec. 6, 1722, Commons Journals, VI, 99-100. "The Memorial of the Merchants and Other Inhabitants of Charles City and Port," Dec., 1722, S.C. Pub. Recs., IX, 179-190. 84Dec. 8, 13-14, Commons Journals, VI, 112-114, 122-126, S.C. Archives. "Report and Proceedings Upon the Petition by the Lower House of Assembly," Dec. 6, 6-14, S.C. Pub. Recs., IX, 191-193, 194-203. 85Dec. 14-15, 1722, Commons Journals, VI, 126—127, S.C. Archives. [Bull], "Account of Paper Bills," Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, IX, 775. Ibid., III, 188-193. 86Nicholson to Board of Trade, Nov. 12, 1723, S.C. Pub. Recs., X, 195-200. Nicholson to Board of Trade, Jan. 20, 1724, Ibid., XI, 16-18. 87"The Memorial of the [London] Merchants and Others," [1723], Ibid., X, 87-91. Board of Trade Minutes, June 5-July 26, 1723, Ibid., X, 111-112, 125-127. Order in Council, Aug. 27, 1723, Ibid., X, 137-138. Four letters by Nicholson to the Board of Trade (Oct. 14, Nov. 12, 15, 1723, and Jan. 20, 1724) are particularly useful on this problem. Ibid., X, 173-174, 195-200, 210-221, XI, 16-18. 88Nicholson to Board of Trade, Oct. 14, 1723, Ibid., X, 173-174. "The Humble Address of His Majesty's Justices," Dec. 8, 1724, Ibid., XI, 373-378. S. Godin to Board of Trade, July 26, 1729, Ibid., XIII, 339-340. Clowse, "Charleston Export Trade," 127. 89Arthur Middleton and James Moore, Jr., to Board of Trade, Nov. 15, 1723, S.C. Pub. RecsL, X, 206-209. Nicholson to Board of Trade, Nov. 15, 1723, Ibid., X, 210-211. Petition of the Commons House of Assembly, Feb. 15, 1724, Ibid., XI, 19-22. 90Petition of the Commons House of Assembly to King, Feb. 15, 1724, Ibid., XI, 19-22. Petition of the 150 Commons House of Assembly and the Council to King, May 13, 1725, Ibid., XI, 312-313. 91Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, III, 219-221. 92May 27, June 1, 1725, Salley, ed., Commons Journal, 1725, 123-124, 141. The best account of the developments involved in the conflict between the assembly and Council is found in Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 151-159. 93Ibid. Council to Newcastle, Dec. 19, 1728, S.C. Pub. Recs., XIII, 230-235. Representation of the CounCil, Dec. I9, 1728, Ibid., XIII, 270-335. 94Council Minutes, Sept. 11, Ibid., V, 70-71. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 76-77. Hirsch. Huguenots, 113-114. 95Crane, Southern Frontier, 74-76. Aug. 26, 28, 29, Sept. 1, 1702, Salley, ed., Commons Journal, 1702, 80, 84-87, 89. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 85. Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, II, 206-212. 96See above pages: 96-97. 97Dec. 20, 1706, Salley, ed., Commons Journal, 1706-1707, 35-37. McCrady, Proprietary Government, 453. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 93-94. 98C00per and McCord, eds., Statutes, II, 232-235. 99Oldmixon, "Carolina," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 450. McCrady, Proprietary Government, 428. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 87-88. 100Of a total membership of fifty-four between the years 1700 and 1715, twenty Assembly members were merchants. Of these eleven were classified as of the first rank. Greene, Quest for Power, 34-35, 475-488. 101There exists no adequate compilation of Council members for the prOprietary period such as exists for the Assembly in Greene, Quest for Power, 475-488, or for the Council during the royal period in Sirmans, "The South Carolina Royal Council," WMQ, XVIII, 392. Scattered references to Council members are found in the S.C. Pub. Recs. Among the prominent merchants who served on the 151 Council were Francis Yonge, Richard Beresford, and Samuel Eveleigh. 102Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 104-105. 103Ibid., 105-107. Yonge, "Narrative," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 148-149. 104Ibid., 11, 149, 151-152. Samuel Eveleigh to ?, Oct. 9, 1715, S.C. Pub. Recs., VI, 120. Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, II, 683-691. 105Yonge, "Narrative," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 145-146. T. Broughton to Boone and Beresford, April 28, 1716. S.C. Pub. RecsLJ VI, 177-188. Address from the Assembly, 1715, Ibid., VI, 166-168. 106Proprietors to Governor and Council, March 3, 1716, Ibid., VI, 151. Proprietors to Governor and Council, Sept. 4, 1718, Ibid., VII, 156-157. Johnson to Pro- prietors, June 18, 1718, Ibid., VII, 134-136. Yonge, "Narrative," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 146. 107Ibid., II, 146-147. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 116-117. Sirmans possibly overestimated the extent of mercantile support for the proprietors on the basis of an "Extract of a Letter dated from Charles Town," Nov. 14, 1719, S.C. Pub. Recs., VII, 218-219. While this letter alledged considerable support on the part of the merchants, it was obviously written by a proprietary sympathizer attempting to convince the British authorities as to the popularity of the proprietors. As Sirmans recognized (Colonial S.C., 116, 126), by 1719 and perhaps a good deal earlier the major portion of the commercial community had adopted an anti-proprietary attitude. 108"Humble Address" of the Commons House to King, received Nov. 30, 1716, S.C. Pub. Recs., VI, 258-260. "Humble Address of the Representatives and Inhabitants of South Carolina," Feb. 24, 1717, Ibid., VII, 128-130. David McCord Wright (compiler), "Petitioners to the Crown Against the Proprietors, 1716-1717," SCHM, LXII (1961), 88-95. 109Approximately 6 per cent (36 out of 611) of the signers were merchants. Ibid. The percentage of white, adult males who were engaged in various aspects of commerce was estimated a few years previously at 12 per cent. [Nairne], "Letter," American Culture Series, 44. 152 110Address of the Commons House, 1716, S.C. Pub. Recs., VII, 10. Rhett to Commissioners of Customs, Dec. 21, Calendar of Treasury Papers, V, 487-488. Johnson to Proprietors Dec. 27, 1719, S.C. Pub. Recs., VII, 227- 229. Yonge, "Narrative," Carroll, ed., Historical Col- lections, II, 157-158, 160. 111Proprietors to Governor and Council, July 22, 1718, S.C. Pub. Recs., VII, 143-148. 112Proprietors to Governor and Council, Sept. 4, 1718, Ibid., VII, 156-157. Yonge, "Narrative," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 158. 113Ibid., II, 154. Johnston to Proprietors, Dec. 27, 1719, S.C. Pub. Recs., VII, 227-229. 114Yonge, "Narrative," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 151-152, 154, 156. 115Ibid., II, 160. Proprietors to Johnson, June 19, 1719, S.C. Pub. RecsLJ VII, 193. The dismissed councilors were two merchants, Thomas Broughton and James Kinlock, as well as one planter, Alexander Skene. Francis Yonge, the fourth councilor, received a reprimand. 116Yonge, "Narrative," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 160. Sirmans, Colonial S.C.., 126. 117Yonge, "Narrative," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 160-182 is the standard source for infor- mation on the rebellion. Johnson's explanation of the events tends to confirm Yonge's account. Johnson to Pro- prietors, Dec. 27, 1719, S.C. Pub. Recs., VII, 227-229. For the opposing view see the extracts of two letters (Nov. 14, 18, 1719) found in Ibid., 218-219, 220-221. 118Johnson to Proprietors, Dec. 27, 1719, Ibid-r VII, 227-229. 119Commons House and Council to Board of Trade, Dec. 24, 1719, Ibid., VII, 223-226. 120Enclosed with Johnson's dispatch of Dec. 27, 1719 was a list of the members of the Convention. Ibid., VII, 230-232. Among the merchants involved were John 153 Fenwicke, Richard Beresford, George Logan, John Gendron, Thomas Hepworth, Jonathan Drake, and John Rave. 121Council and Commons House to King, Feb. 3, 1720, Ibid., VII, 271-299. Richard Splatt and Co. to Samuel Barons, July 20, 1720, Ibid., VIII, 34-35. Petition of the Inhabitants of South Carolina to King, [1720], Ibid., VIII, 37-38. "A True State of the Case Between the In- habitants of South Carolina and the Proprietors," [1720], Ibid., VIII, 11-23. Yonge, "Narrative," Carroll, ed., Historical Collections, II, 143-144, 190-192. 122 VIII, 36. Order in Council, Aug. 11, 1720, S.C. Pub. Recs., 123Sirmans, "South Carolina Royal Council," WMQ: XVIII, 381-382. 124Ibid., 382. John Lloyd to Temple Stanyarn, May 28, 1725, S.C. Pub. Recs., XI, 318. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 138-139. 125 475-488. Ibid., 139-141. Greene, Quest for Power, 126Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, IX, 49-57. The copy of the act passed July 27, 1721, has been reproduced in the microfilm edition of the Session Laws, B 2, 2a, 135-140. This copy contains a list of the aldermen, Councilmen, and other officials. Fourteen merchants, by far the largest occupational group, were among those named to govern the city. 127S.C. Archives, Aug. 3, 1722, Commons Journal, II, 73. "Memorial in Behalf of . . . the Inhabitants of Charles Town," Jan., 1723, S.C. Pub. Recs., X, 1. Order in Council, June 24, 1723, Ibid., X, 115-116. The principal supporters and Opponents of incorporation are listed in "A True Abstract of the Town Tax List," 1723, Ibid., X, 92. Bridenbaugh was in serious error when he claimed that the opposition was centered in the planter's distrust for the merchants. Few, if any, planters took part in the opposition as it was predominately urban centered. Bridenbaugh, Cities ip_the Wilderness, 304. 128Rogers, Charleston, 50-51. 154 129Petition of Council and Commons House, Feb. 3, 1720, S.C. Pub. Recs., VII, 285. Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, VII, 166-176. 13o"Considerable Charles Town Merchant of London Merchant," April 25, 1727, S.C. Pub. Recs., XII, 201. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 154. 131Middleton to Nicholson, May 4, 1727, S.C. Pub. Recs., XII, 202-205. Nov. 23, Dec. 10, 15, 1726, March 4, 8, 1727, Salley, ed., Commons Journal, 1726-1727, 13, 32-33, 38, 157, 158. Dec. 22, 1726, Jan. 13, 1727, Ibid., 46-47, 67-70. 132Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 150-151. Address of the Council, Jan. 14, 1725, S.C. Pub. Recs., XI, 290-291. 133Middleton to Nicholson, Sept- 14, 1727' Iéiér' XII, 241-243. Middleton to Newcastle, May 17, 1728, Ibid., XIII, 44-47. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 154-157. 134Charleston merchant [Benjamin de la Conseillere] to Sir Alexander Cumming, May 23, 1730, S.C. Pub. Recs., XIV, 117-120. The merchants involved were identified and the operations were described in: Committee report on Currency, MarCh 5, 1737, in J. H. Easterby, ed., 223 Journal of the Commons House p£_Assembly, November l0, l736-Jun§_Z:—I737, The Colonial Records pf South Carolina (Columbia, 195I), 309-310. 135Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 159-160. 136Townsend to Board of Trade, Nov. 22, 1729, S.C. Pub. Recs., XIII, 394. Board of Trade Minutes, July 23, 31, Dec. 2, 1729, Ibid., XIII, 243-245. 137Board of Trade Minutes, Feb. 4, March 12, 13, 24, 25, 1730, Ibid., XIV, 2-6. Johnson to Board of Trade, March 7, 1730, Ihid., XIV, 54-57. Johnson to Board of Trade, March 15, 1730, Ibid., XIV, 61-68. 138"Merchants Trading to South Carolina," to Board of Trade, Feb. 4, 1730, Ibid., XIV, 32-33. Crane, Southern Frontier, 292-294. 155 139Johnson to Newcastle, April 28, 1730, S.C. pub. Recs., XIV, 88. Order in Council, Oct. 1, 1730, Ibid., XV, 282. CHAPTER IV THE GROWTH OF PROSPERITY AND POLITICAL STABILITY, 1730-1741 With the opening of the new decade and the appointment of a new administration in 1730, the prospects for recovery by South Carolina improved considerably. The tensions and turmoils of the previous years were, for the most part, set aside in an effort to achieve a political consensus between planter and merchant and to exploit the economic opportunities which now presented themselves. All of the colony's vital signs indicated that recovery was imminent and that the factors were present which indicated renewed vigor on the part of the provincial economy. The Charleston merchants could especially look toward the coming years with relief. The previous decade had presented too many undesirable challenges to their positions within the political and economic leadership of the province. However with an invigorated economy and a peaceful political climate, they could operate to maximum advantage. 156 157 I For a number of years the Charleston merchants, as well as other South Carolinians, had sought a return to prOSperity. The promise, briefly realized after the intro— duction of rice as a staple crop, had remained unfulfilled for several years due largely to internal dissensions and constricted markets for the commodities of the colony. The first breakthrough to alter this unfavorable situation had been achieved in 1730 with the granting of an exemption to the Navigation Acts which allowed the province to ship rice directly to Europe, south of Cape Finisterre.l Other agents as well contributed to the restoration of prosperous conditions. Among those which most directly concerned Charleston's commercial community were: the expansion of private landownership; an increase in demand for imported slaves; some degree of stability in the Indian trade; and the need for credit on the part of the planters in order that they might extend their activities. The merchants took the initiative in coping with this series of situations and for them the 1730's were mainly years of success and bounty. Granted the exemption for their rice, the Caro- linians immediately increased their production and exportation of the commodity so that within two years their shipments of rice out of the province had risen by 149 per cent.2 Looming large in this picture were exportations to southern Europe (chiefly Portugal and 158 Spain) which in 1731 accounted for 13 per cent of the total rice exports from Charleston.3 The increased production of rice failed to halt the rise of prices received for that staple which increased steadily throughout most of the decade.4 The historian of southern agriculture, Lewis Gray, has demonstrated that the long-term advantages of the Iberian market were overstated during the eighteenth century. He has estimated that over the course of the entire colonial period 74 per cent of South Carolina's European exports were destined for northern Europe through 5 At the same time, Gray's figures should Great Britain. not obscure the immediate importance to the province resulting from the south European exemption. The increased demand for rice on the part of this new marketing region stimulated production of what was becoming a sagging commodity.6 It also led to an increase in land under cultivation and was partially responsible for setting off a land boom.7 To further meet the demand, planters enlarged their capital investments in slaves, the importations of which increased dramatically during the decade following the exemption.8 One contribution of the exemption which is impossible to measure, but nevertheless was significant, was the improvement in community morale among both planters and merchants.9 159 The other commodities of the province, following the lead of rice, also improved their situations during the 1730's. Naval stores, for many years the weak area of the economy, made a substantial recovery during the decade. Unfortunately they were never able to recover completely from the chaos of the previous years and the temporary 10 Deer skins, the primary removal of the imperial subsidy. product of the Indian trade, made gains in the volume shipped from South Carolina over previous years' exports. The process of reconstruction in this area of the economy after the disasterous earlier period was now virtually complete. However new problems appeared as increased costs and export duties made profits from the Indian trade marginal for the merchants. In addition competition from the new colony of Georgia threatened to cut off the Charleston merchants from involvement in one of their oldest commercial operations.11 None benefited more from the improvement in trade conditions than the Charleston merchant. Whether oper- ating as an agent for a British merchant or independently, the merchants profited in their roles as the distributors of the staple commodities. When acting on a commission basis the local merchants would receive shipments of articles (primarily manufactured goods) consigned to them by their British correSpondents. Ideally the goods would be sent on a vessel owned by the shipper. The local merchant would then arrange for the sale and distribution, 160 preferably on a wholesale basis. If this proved to be impossible, he might then retail the goods or else have them sold at public auction. The merchant would then make his remittance, most often in local commodities at current market prices, to his British counterpart. He would also arrange to have his commission of 5 per cent credited to his account.12 The independent merchant did not hesitate to act as a commission agent. Most merchants, in fact, did a substantial part of their business in this manner. Many had begun their careers as factors for the British merchants, and throughout the years the dividing line 13 The principle distinguishing charac- remained unclear. teristics between independent merchant and true factor were that the merchant would more often order goods for eventual sale on his own account, and that he would ship provincial commodities to the mother country, or more often in these cases to other colonies, for sale by the merchants of those parts on a commission thus reversing the previ- ously described relationship.14 The Charleston merchant had other functions to perform as well as those which immediately concerned the importation and exportation of goods. He was often responsible for collecting a cargo for the ship in which 15 the goods had been consigned to him. At times he would serve as the local attorney or debt collector for his 16 "foreign" contacts. Yet other instances found him 161 attempting to promote a mutually advantageous commercial 17 Finally he would serve as a valuable source of project. intelligence to his correspondents regarding local market and political conditions, a service which he would expect them to reciprocate.18 Despite the essentially simple nature of eighteenth- century commerce, numerous complications could and often did arise for the merchant. Orders for certain articles might be confused or, more commonly, delayed. Damage in transit was a reoccurring problem. The correspondents would occasionally leave him with unmarketable merchandise which the merchant might have to dispose of to their mutual disadvantage. Weather and political conditions were two factors over which the merchant had little control, but either of which could seriously hinder trade.19 On viewing the improving situation of South Caro- lina, the British merchants acted to ease credit to their agents in Charleston.20 They did insist, however, that local business practices be altered somewhat so that they would receive their remittances at a more rapid rate than 21 Like their counterparts had previously been the case. in Charleston, the British merchants benefited in several ways by the improvement in conditions: the goods which they handled were in greater demand; their shipping was profitably occupied in the transoceanic trade; and they found an expanded market for slaves. 162 The growth of political stability and agricultural expansion after 1730 led to an intensified demand for newly 22 The Charleston merchants lost no time imported slaves. in making their British correspondents aware that they were anxious to import slaves on a more regular basis than had been the case in previous years. The British slave dealers sought to limit their transactions in these oper- ations to the larger and more commercially active Charles- 23 This ton merchants whose credit was well established. restriction of the slave trade to a relatively few merchants was necessary because of the large investment of time and capital which merchants on both sides of the Atlantic had in these ventures. Such important dealings could not be left in the hands of any but those colonial merchants who had proven to be the most experienced and trustworthy.24 Crucial to the smooth operation of the slave- trading network, the Charleston merchant's functions were standardized but flexible enough if the use of personal discretion seemed warranted. The British merchants required the Charlestonians, with whom they did business, to return payment promptly within two years. They also demanded that the coast commissions of the captains and the half-wages of the crews while the vessels were in port be deducted from the local merchants 10 per cent com- mission. They further stated that bad debts on the slave sales must be made good by the Charleston merchants.25 163 Furthermore, although the import duties on slaves had been transferred to the initial purchase price, the importing merchant still nominally paid the tariff.26 Henry Laurens, whose firm was the largest importer of slaves during the colonial period, once described the local practices for two merchants on St. Christophers: Our common method of selling slaves, arrive at what time they will, is for payment in January or March following. If they are a very fine parcel purchasers often appear that will produce the ready money in order to command a preference. The engagements we enter into in the slave trade are these, to load the ship with such produce as can be got, pay the coast commissions and men's half-wages and to remit the remainder as the payments shall grow due. Confined as it was to the larger merchants, the slave trade was difficult for smaller and less established merchants to enter. The most recent investigations into the Charleston end of the Atlantic trading network have revealed that 90 per cent of imports during the years from 1735 to 1775 were made by eighteen of the largest im- porters (in actuality these were the reshuffling combi- nations of what were essentially eight commercial houses). The merchants involved in the slave trade, although it doubtless required a good deal of their time and energy, were by no means specialists in this branch of commerce alone. They engaged in a widely diversified range of merchantile activities.28 To the smaller Operators were left the occasional cargoes, odd lots, and less significant importations from the West Indies and other colonies.29 164 The magnitude of one's commercial operations and his credit standing were not always the crucial aspects in getting into the slave trade. Perhaps the most important single factor was to have commercial contacts among the British merchants involved in the slave trade. Robert Pringle had been an established merchant in Charleston for some years, but he did not attempt to enter this branch of commerce until he had acquired a partner well known to the 30 Similarly Henry Laurens, when Liverpool slavers. beginning his mercantile career, entered the slave trade only after forming a partnership with George Austin, an established Charleston merchant with contacts in Liverpool.31 Charleston merchants were exporters as well as importers of slaves. While slightly less than 10 per cent of Negroes imported were reshipped out of the province, the actual numbers involved were substantial. Philip Curtin, the leading authrotiy on the statistical aspects of the slave trade, has estimated that 46 per cent of all Negroes brought into British North America during the years from 1701 to 1775 were imported through South Caro- lina. Most of the re-exported slaves were sent to Georgia and North Carolina, but other colonies, including some foreign possessions, received them as well.32 The merchant typically had little difficulty in disposing of the newly imported slaves. Merchants found, 165 over time, that larger lots sold easier and to better 33 advantage than smaller bunches. Most recent imports were sold at public auction, the advertisements for which were 34 South printed in the Gazette which preceded the sale. Carolinians had a set of prejudices against Negroes from certain parts of Africa, whom they felt diSplayed unde- sirable characteristics. Most sought after were Senegambians, Angolans, and tribesmen from the "Windward coast." Merchants who brought in others were in a diffi- cult situation unless their's were the only ones on the market at that time.35 Charleston merchants who engaged in the slave trade were subject to virtually no moral censure. In fact, if anything, their involvement was a status symbol which denoted membership in the elite of the commercial com- munity. Eighteenth-century South Carolinians would have concurred with a modern writer who has concluded that the province benefited greatly from the slave trade and without its extensive operation South Carolina could not have developed as it did.36 During the 1730's the Charleston merchant who managed to accumulate surplus capital might invest it in a variety of commercial activities. He might enter into a partnership with a British firm either on a permanent or a temporary basis. Benjamin Savage, who was among the more active members of the merchant group, evidently had a more or less permanent arrangement with his "partner," 166 Joseph Tyler of London.37 Some Carolinians were taken into slaving voyages or other ventures organized from the mother country. These associations might function either for a single operation or for a period of time.38 Domestic investment could take the form of participation in local enterprise. At least one joint-stock company was formed by CharleSton merchants to operate in the Indian trade. This non-chartered corporation, John Fenwicke and Company, met annually to elect officers and to settle accounts.39 Still other opportunities for commercial investment lay in shareholding in the vessels of the Charleston-based carrying trade. Although declining during the 1730's and confined mostly to the coastal and West Indian trades, shipping which was owned and operated from Charleston continued to attract the interests of local merchants. William Lassere, Thomas Wright, Joseph Shute, and John Watsone were among the prominent merchants who continued 40 to invest in shipping. Shipbuilding and repair, although not as great as in the northern colonies, were also 41 There were also opportunities for sources of investment. the Charleston merchant to move out into subsidary com- mercial operations. Branch outlet stores and warehouses were opened at Beaufort and Georgetown, the secondary ports of the province, and in Georgia. Often the merchants of the lesser ports stood in a similar relationship to the Charleston merchants as did the traders of the pro- vincial capital to those of Great Britain. The 167 Charleston merchant might also operate country stores at various points throughout the colony.42 In the absence of modern banking, the functions now assigned to these institutions fell chiefly to the merchants. The discounting of letters of credit (compa- rable to modern checking services), the serving as agencies of deposit for financial resources, and the extending of credit at interest were all services provided by the 43 With the legal rates of interest at colonial merchant. 10 per cent, money lending provided those merchants with surplus capital a logical extension to both their com- mercial and financial operations.44 While Charleston merchants had been active money lenders since at least the turn of the century, the expansion carried out by the planters taking place in an atmosphere of relative security during the 1730's was backed in large measure by the credit which the merchants 45 extended to them. In many instances it was likely that no currency or specie actually changed hands, but rather that the merchant issued a letter of credit to the debtor or that credit was simply extended for goods or slaves 46 purchased from the merchant-banker. Shopkeepers likewise received loans from the merchant to obtain goods from him to sell at retail.47 Debts were often negotiated in the form of a mortgage with specified property, such as land or slaves, offered as security.48 In other cases, bonds 168 were arranged which provided for a penal sum, usually double the principal, which was forfeited unless the principal and interest were paid by a specified date.49 Money lending appears to have been carried out in the normal course of business activities. Generally the more extensive the trader's commercial involvement, the more deeply was he engaged in the loaning of money at interest. Certain firms such as Joseph Wragg and Company (later Wragg and Lambton), Cleland and Wallace, as well as Jenys and Baker were among the largest importers of slaves, paid the greatest sums of import duties, and were, perhaps consequently, also among the largest extenders of credit in the province during the late 1730's.50 The favorable situation of the rice market had led to an extensive land boom. Planters sought to increase production by enlarging the amount of land under culti- vation. However there existed confusion regarding land titles, grants, and quit rents. Governor Robert Johnson sought to administer the land system fairly and to minimize the frequent misunderstandings that occurred. He also worked toward the establishment of frontier townships which were to help in populating the province and at the same time provide security on the frontier. Johnson's efforts in both objectives were at best qualified successes.51 The confusion in the land office and the failings in the provincial quit rent law had left openings whereby speculators might profit. For the most part, the 169 acquisitions of land were undertaken by planters who sincerely wished to expand the land under cultivation or 52 There merchants who planned to invest in plantations. were those, on the other hand, like Landgrave Thomas Smith who claimed and attempted to dispose of 27,000 acres, and a group headed by the royal surveyor-general, James St. John, composed of placement, lawyers, and at least one merchant, Job Rothmahler. St. John's group claimed to be the champion of the small planters, but it actually sought to sabotage Johnson's administration of the land distri- bution system to its own advantage.53 Among those who attempted to speculate in real estate, but not on as an extensive or as an unscrupulous basis as did Smith or St. John were a number of Charleston merchants. The exact extent of land speculation by members of the mercantile community is difficult to 54 An examination of the land records, par- determine. ticularly the Memorial Books, the Grants, and the Index to Grants, for the years 1732 through 1737 when acquisitions of land were especially heavy reveals that a number of large, block grants of 1,000 acres or more were issued to merchants such as the Atkin brothers, John Fenwicke, Benjamin Godin, Ribton Hutchinson, Anthony Mathews, Samuel Prioleau, Isaac Mazyck, and Joseph Wragg.55 John Cleland was probably the Charleston merchant most active in real estate speculation. His wife had 170 inherited much of the land upon which Georgetown, South Carolina was built. Cleland's combined Operation allowed him to retire from active business in 1740, twenty years before his death. The extent to which his wealth was obtained through his real estate dealings is uncertain, although it appears to have beenconsiderable.56 While a few merchants sought during the land boom to profit from land speculation, many more obtained land with the intention of establishing plantations or adding to those which they previously acquired. Since most South Carolina rice plantations were operated in relatively small units of usually less than five hundred acres, the grants to merchants such as Othniel Beale, James Crokatt, John Gendron, Alexander Parris, and Alexander Nisbett among others appear to fall into this category.57 Charleston merchants had been owning and operating plantations since before the turn of the century. After 1730, however, many more individuals whose primary inter- ests remained in commerce turned also to planting. A major consideration was the profitability of rice plan- tations during the period of prosperity. One hallmark of the successful Charleston merchant had always been to diversify his investments. In this regard a plantation would appear to have been a relatively stable long-term investment. Furthermore in the Carolina society ownership of land had come to connote higher social prestige. While commerce remained highly prestigous, planting represented 171 an identification with the province and that one was not a transitory character who would make his fortune and then return to the mother country. By the 1740's more merchants upon retiring remained in South Carolina instead of returning to Great Britain.58 The ethnic composition of the Charleston merchant group changed slightly as more merchants of Scottish origin established themselves in trade. Robert Pringle and James Crokatt were only among the more prominent traders of Scottish descent.59 English merchants such as George Austin were continually attracted to South Carolina as were men from other colonies such as Joseph Shute and Robert Ellis from Philadelphia.60 To a great extent the old prejudices against Huguenots who engaged in trade were a thing of the past. Gabriel Manigault, Benjamin Godin, and Peter Horry were among those of French ancestry who took their rightful places among the commercial elite.61 Native-born Carolinians, particularly the sons of merchants, also engaged heavily in commerce. John Guerard, John Allen, and Richard Hill were examples of sons who followed their fathers into trade.62 A contribution to the rationalization of commerce was made in 1732 with the establishment of a weekly newspaper in Charleston, the South Carolina Gazette. The Gazette provided the local merchants with an advertising medium, posted the prices current of local commodities, listed the entrances and clearances of vessels, as well as 172 TABLE 2.--Data Compiled for Fiscal Year 1735-1736. Ranking Among Percentage Ranking Percentage Twenty of Total Out of of Total Merchant Importers Paid Ninety Paid Jenys & Baker 1 25 3 6.9 B. Savage & Co. 2 21.4 20 1.2 J. Wragg & Co. 3 16.4 12 2.5 B. Godin 4 13.6 1 7.3 W. Wallace 5 12.5 9 3.2 Total 88.9 21.1 Source: Treasurer's Books, Journal A, 1-4, 24-27, 10, 32, S.C. Archives. TABLE 3.--Comparison of Advertising with Ranking Among Importers. Ranking in Amount of Ads General Import for the Merchant Duty Paid Fiscal Year Ranking Ads Yeomans & Escott 2 9 2 6 John Shute 26 l4 l9 8 J. Wragg 12 4 8 1 Gabriel Manigault 5 3 l 4 Source: Treasurer's Books, Journal A, 1-4, 24-27, 72-74, 86-88, S.C. Archives. 173 contained some local and foreign news. Advertising rapidly became a common business practice, as merchants would list a wide variety of items for sale. Slave sales especially were brought to the attention of the public through the newspaper.63 Most Charleston merchants were more or less regular advertisers, and in Some cases those who did so frequently were found to be the larger merchants. However, there was no definite correlation between scale of oper- ations and frequency of advertising. Indeed, active mercantile firms such as Yeomans and Escott were heavy advertisers, but so were lesser merchants such as Joseph Shute. Among those who advertised infrequently were such established merchants as Gabriel Manigault and Joseph Wragg, who seldom did so unless he had slaves to sell.64 The Gazette also provided a forum for members of the community to express their views on questions such as the introduction of a new strain of rice, the issuance of more paper money, and mercantile participation in the political process.65 One of the more interesting pieces was by a merchant who urged the reader to be "careful . . . in his language of a merchant" less: . . . a merchant [be] hurt in his credit; and him who every day lived, literally added to the value of his native country, undone by one who was only a burther and blemish to it. Since everybody knows . . . it may possible be in the power of a very shallow creature to say the ruin of the best family in the most opulent city. . . . He went on to warn: 174 How little does the giddy prater imagine, that an idle phrase to the disfavor of a merchant, may be as pernicious in the consequence, as the forgery of a deed to bar an inheritance would be to a gentleman.66 These were sentiments with which the majority of Charleston merchants could agree. 'II After more than two decades of contensions between hard and soft money men, proprietary supporters and those who desired the establishment of a royal government, as well as the mutual suspicions and recriminations that passed between the various economic groups of the pro- vince, South Carolinians were determined to avoid further devisive tumults.67 This objective, in part, was rendered possible by the recovery of the provincial economy. As Robert Weir has recently observed: Economic plenty bound the community together in several ways. It not only lessened competition among groups for a portion of its benefits, but it also fostered upward social mobility by individuals. As a result, the distance etween social classes was never very wide, . . .6 Increasingly planters, merchants, and other Carolinians recognized that their roles complimented one another. Consequently friction between these groups was to diminish as the economy developed further.69 Another factor in building this consensual framework for provincial politics was the widespread acceptance of a body of political beliefs known as the "Country Ideal." This elitist idealogy maintained that class or group 175 interests were of less importance in motivating political action than was the conflict between the legislative and the executive branches of the government.70 Operating throughout the colonial period in South Carolina, this body of thought became particularly relevant to the Caro- linians in the years after 1730 when economic plenty, intermarriage between planting and mercantile families, and a decline in religious and ethnic prejudices (except, of course, for those against the colony's black popu- lation) had diminished the countervailing pressures against it.71 In this decade also began the process of retirement from active participation in political leadership by many of the influential planters. Into this gap came an increasing number of merchants. During the 1730's slightly over half of the membership of the Commons House (twenty- one out of forty-one) was composed of merchants. They were particularly prominent in the leadership of that body. Two of the five Speakers of the Assembly and approximately half of the "first rank" were active in Charleston commerce (seven of the first rank were merchants, five were lawyers, and four were presumably planters).72 The reasons for the important positions which the Charleston merchants held within the leadership group in the lower house, and for that matter in the entire political structure, are readily explained. With no deep basis for inter-group discord the planters increasingly 176 looked toward the Charleston merchants, and to a slightly lesser extent, the lawyers for direction. The merchants were eager to respond to this opportunity. Devoted, as were the planters, to the "Country Ideal," it fell to them to see that the often exacting legislative business was carried out in order to avoid encroachments by the ex- ecutive upon the property and civil rights of themselves and the other colonists. Seeking further social status and accustomed to the tedium which legislative business often entailed, the merchants, whose interests were vitally affected by the political well—being of the province, were generally more unsparing of themselves in their political activities. Their commercial contacts with Great Britain as well as other colonies made the merchants aware of developments outside South Carolina in addition to giving them sources of information and influence not available to others in the province. Furthermore, their year-round residence in Charleston made frequent attendance at and participation in meetings more feasible. This proved to be a factor when rural parishes elected Charleston-based merchants to serve as their representatives.73 The Council as well as the Commons House of Assembly saw a preponderance of its membership drawn from the ranks of the Charleston merchants (seven of the twelve councilors who held positions in the upper chamber 74 during the decade were engaged in commerce). This continued a trend begun earlier, but whose beneficial 177 influences were largely dissipated by the ill will aroused by the hard-money merchants during the middle of the previous decade. Nominated by the governor, reviewed by the Board of Trade, and appointed by the Privy Council, the members of the South Carolina Royal Council had to satisfy criteria as to their wealth and to their loyality.75 Regarding the first category, there were several merchants who could meet the standards imposed, and as to the second there was not yet reason to question that Carolinians were among the most loyal of Britain's colonists. Family connections also played a part in selecting prospective councilors. Certain established planting families had an edge in this regard toward securing appointments. However, as merchants intermarried with these dynasties this obstacle lessened. Through their connections with the British merchants who influenced the Board of Trade, the Charleston merchants further increased their advantages in being named to sit on the Council.76 Charleston merchants held other offices of impor- tance within the province. Among these was the post of Commissary General, whose function was to see to the procurement of supplies for the provincial government.77 It was natural that from the ranks of the merchants would come likely candidates for this position. Peter Taylor, an influential merchant-politician, became the first Commissary upon his appointment in 1735. He quickly tired 78 of the office and stepped down in 1737. In that year 178 John Dart, another Charleston merchant long active in the Indian trade, was chosen for the post. Dart held it continuously until his death in 1754.79 Of even more importance to the colony was the position of Public Treasurer. The holders of this office throughout most of the colonial period were, with few exceptions, notoriously inept at managing public funds.80 In the eighteenth century it was not looked upon as corruption for an official who handled public money to comingle it with his own. Problems could and did arise, however, when the treasurers were unable to meet public and private obligations.81 Such an incident occurred in the early part of the decade when Alexander Parris, Public Treasurer since 1712, went bankrupt. Parris had behind him a long career in both politics and commerce, but this did not prevent him from making mistakes. As nearly as can be determined, Parris had been using public money to pay his personal debts since 1727 when his books were last audited. By 1731 he owed to the province a total of 82 To deal with this crisis the colonial £40,000 currency. government passed a special appropriations act which issued public orders (non-legal tender currency paying an annual interest rate of 5 per cent). Parris was required to pay back his debt, but that would require several years and in the meantime he remained in office until 1735.83 There was possibly some speculation in the public orders by Joseph Wragg, the prominent merchant, and some of his 179 colleagues. Certainly by 1743 most of these interest- bearing certificates had come into the hands of Wragg who may have used his position on the Council to good advantage in this instance.84 Gabriel Manigault was more successful as Public Treasurer than was Parris. 'For eight years, from 1735 to 1743, Manigault did a creditable job in performance of his office. Not only did he straighten out the public accounts and move to collect the import duties on Negroes which Lieutenant-Governor Broughton had allowed favored merchants to defer paying, but Manigault also demonstrated that the treasurer's office could be operated efficiently without bankrupting either the colony or himself. During his term in office, Manigault received a total of 517,459 in salary a u I a 8 and comm1351ons for his serv1ces. 5 The example of Manigault was apparently lost on his successor, the merchant Jacob Motte, whose affairs as Public Treasurer were nearly as confused as those of Parris.86 Despite the essential compromise over paper currency which was worked out by Samuel Wragg and Governor Johnson, the problem remained difficult to put to rest. For one thing the mishandling of public funds by Parris had necessitated a dg-fagtg_enlargement in the currency circulated within the colony. Added to the 540,000 outstanding from the debt were interest and other ex- penditures which totaled £59,500 currency. This amount 180 was covered by an emission of public orders in the appropriations act of 1731.87 There does not appear to have been any particular sentiment within the colony against the measure as it was regarded by planter and merchant alike as crucial to the financial stability of the province.88 The old feelings, however, remained in the background. Beginning in 1733 there appeared in the Gazette a number of letters which debated the merits of paper currency. The writers proposed various schemes whereby the amount in circulation could be increased and at the same time depreciation avoided. The following years saw a renewed interest in the question as reflected by the increase in such letters.89 In Great Britain, on the other hand, merchants remained suspicious regarding the continued use of paper currency in South Carolina. In petitions to the Board of Trade, they protested against both it and the import duty on Negro slaves. The merchants of the mother country, unlike those of the colony, were particularly disgruntled at the appropriations act of 1731. They also desired to have the Township Fund supported in another manner than through duties on slaves.90 It has been suggested that they did not object to the concept of the Fund but sought to have the Negro duty used to retire the currency in circulation. While they may have used this argument, the British merchants also complained about the tariff on 181 slaves regardless of its use. To them it was but another intolerable interference with British trade.91 Governor Johnson sought to present the colony's side to the Board of Trade when he defended the duty on Negroes and the appropriations act to that body. Johnson distinguished between the views on the currency question of the British merchants, which he believed doctrinaire and ill-advised, and those of the Charleston merchants which he saw as pragmatic in dealing with this vital question. He claimed that, "most of the merchants here think their friends are prejudicing themselves by en- d."92 The Board of deavoring to have that law disanulle Trade, perhaps susceptible to British commercial pressure, remained skeptical, but the Privy Council was sympathetic. Eventually both bodies agreed that the Negro duty law (for the purpose of supporting the Township Fund) and the appropriations act be allowed to remain on a probationary basis.93 Johnson recognized that, in order to keep the merchants in both Great Britain and South Carolina content, he would have to see that the district court concept was discarded. This aroused little emotion as the plan had not worked to anyone's advantage and had only aided in the disruption of politics. At the governor's urging the Assembly modified the court act of 1726 to allow the selection of the site for the trial to go to the plaintiff, thus benefiting the Charleston merchants in debt cases. Simultaneously he let it be known to the Board of Trade 182 that the disallowance of the 1726 act would be welcome. The act was disallowed in 1732.94 While Governor Johnson lived the political climate remained tranquil, but upon his death in May, 1735, Lieutenant Governor Thomas Broughton proved incapable of preserving political stabiility to the degree that his predecessor had.95 In the resulting uncertainity, proponents of more paper currency seized the opportunity to again raise the issue. Writing in the Gazette one advocate suggested that as much as £300,000 of new bills be issued so that there be sufficient currency to pay debts.96 The legislative response was not long in coming. In May, 1736 a bill was introduced which provided for the emission of £210,000 in currency £100,000 being reissued 7 To back their old bills with £110,000 in new currency).9 program the Assembly later submitted a report in which the history of the use of currency in South Carolina was received and defended.98 Although the old, irreconcilable factions failed to reappear, a significant number of individuals, which included many merchants who had formerly been moderates, registered their objections both in the Council and to the Board of Trade. The division in both Commons House and Council were close but the bill passed both chambers.99 It appears that the merchants were divided on the question. Joseph Wragg, hardly a dispassionate observer as he 183 bitterly opposed the act, concluded that the "trading interest here made all the opposition in their power."100 However given their positions of importance in both Houses it would have been difficult to obtain passage for the measure without some degree of support by the merchant- politicians. In the case of the Council, two of the three r7 merchants who were active in that chamber opposed the 101 bill. The majority of Charleston merchants evidently recognized the need for currency but feared that doubling H the amount in circulation would lead to depreciation.102 The Board of Trade proved responsive to mercantile pressure from both sides of the Atlantic. Discovering technicali- ties upon which it could base its recommendations, the Board suggested the act be disallowed, which it was.103 The question of paper currency had been settled for the time. Nowhere nearly as much bitterness as in former times had been aroused. However the mere fact that the issue had been allowed to proceed along the road to controversy as far as it did indicated that, despite their predominance in the legislative branches of the colonial government, Charleston's merchants were unable to put aside completely devisive issues. The resurrection of the currency problem must also be laid, in part, to the poor leadership of Broughton. Through diminishing his influence in the Assembly with petty squabbles, he was unable to exert any when a critical situation arouse such as the paper currency problem.104 184 Broughton also involved the colony in a dispute over the Indian trade with the infant colony of Georgia in behalf of certain Charleston merchants. Governor Johnson had been influential in obtaining aid for the new "buffer" colony. With other Carolinians he had encouraged James Oglethorpe and others in their efforts. A duty of three F pence per gallon was levied on rum. The money raised was to aid in the settlement of the southernmost British 105 colony. Johnson also did everything in his power to see that Charleston merchants who traded with the Creeks (Georgia's principle tribe), cooperated with the Indian agents of Georgia.106 Broughton, who as a planter-trader had led the opposition to reform in the Indian trade, was sympathetic to those merchants who opposed the younger colony's interference in what they saw as their established trade.107 Following Johnson's death the merchants, apparently led by John Fenwicke, George Austin, Othniel Beale, and Benjamin Godin revealed their strategy. They made known their views to the Assembly, Council, and Board of Trade. Broughton who supported the merchants almost immediately adopted an intransigent position which made compromise impossible.108 The motivation on the part of the merchants for raising this issue were readily decernable. While their returns from the Indian trade remained a valuable aspect of the commercial activities, the margin for profit was 185 being constricted due to competition from Georgians who were closer to the sources of supply and by the South Carolina export duties of three pence per deer skin.109 In one fiscal year, 1735, the Charleston merchants had paid out over £2000 currency for deer skin export duties.110 The duties as well as the license fees for traders went chiefly to maintain South Carolina's strict regulatory system, which gave still another competitive advantage to the Georgians. Furthermore, certain traders were running- up large debts in South Carolina and then fleeing to Georgia to escape payment or prosecution. The final blow came when the Indian agent for Georgia, Patrick MacKay, arrested a number of traders who possessed South Carolina 111 This was too much for the merchants who licenses only. now (perhaps a bit self-righteously) protested. Backing the merchants all the way Broughton refused offers by the Georgians to compose their differ- ences between the two colonies. Convinced of his support among Charleston's commercial group, the acting governor pressed the Commons House for passage of an act of indemnity which would provide up to £2000 currency to any South Carolina trader whose goods had been seized by the Georgians for want of a license from that colony.112 Despite considerable opposition which included Speaker Paul Jenys (whose firm ironically was the second largest exporter of deer skins in 1735), the act of indemnity was approved when Broughton refused to allow the Assembly to 186 adjourn until it was passed and the dispute was referred to the British authorities.113 The merchants opposed to Georgia and others of Broughton's supporters gained control of the Assembly in late 1736. Jenys was defeated for re-election and the path was cleared for their program. The new lower house strongly denounced Georgia's actions against the Carolina traders thus keeping the controversy alive for another year, but the death of Broughton and the threat of a Spanish invasion did much to bring the two provinces together. Finally in 1738 the British authorities instructed both colonies to allow the licensed traders of the other permission to operate in both.114 The merchants' role in the political process was a vital one for the province as well as for themselves. Their leadership and political diligence provided an impetus for the resolution of the critical issues which faced the colony. As increasingly planters and other Caro- linians deferred to the commercial groups for political as well as economic leadership, the merchants displayed an awareness of the responsibility which fell to them. While some may have felt as did Robert Pringle (in his case the position of churchwarden) that the burdens of office were incommensurate with the social prestige or any material benefit derived from it, the merchants continued to be 115 drawn upon to serve. The sentiments which many Carolinians, of both commercial and non-commercial Franz-:1:- .._ A 3‘ ' 187 backgrounds, possessed when they looked toward the Charleston merchants found expression in an article in the Gazette: This province like the mother country derives its chief strength and riches from trade, wherefore whatever methods (in our power) can thereto prove beneficial ought to be followed. A great many members in this House as may be seen by several excellent laws have had a just, true, and theoretical idea of commerce, but those who are immediately and actually engaged, and continue to be engaged in trade, may certainly be supposed to give many proper hints, as they ought to be better judges of the concerns of it, and of the consequence[s] which flow from particular laws made relative thereto, than those who are unskilled in the practice, and have their learning, therein only from books and casual conversation. The City of London is so sensible of the necessity of such a maxim that, although in that august assembly, the senate of Great Britain, there are many of great universal wisdom, yet they constantly choose four gentlemen who shine in many respects, but to be qualified for that important station, they must be actual traders, and who continue to trade whilst they are members. The nation in general has found the benefit of that prudent method; as those members have of late years made bold, honest stands in defence of liberty and trade. . . . As we attempt to resemble Great Britain in our political government to all laudable practices of any part of that kingdom proper to be followed in this colony ought to be examples to us. Let us therefore embrace this occasion to choose a man . . . who is now and has been long practicing the affairs of commerce; and besides such skill . . . he ought to be a man of solid sense, truly honest and versed man.116 III While the decade of the 1730's had fulfilled much of the long-awaited promise of commercial prosperity, it closed on a discordant note. The years after 1737 saw potential problems arrive upon the scene to endanger both the political settlement and the well-being of the province. 188 The Township Fund again became a source of contension when it was revealed that Broughton's mis- management had bankrupted it. This problem rapidly evolved into a struggle for influence between the upper 117 Conditions calmed after 1739 when and lower houses. problems relating to currency and the Township fund were at length set aside. After that date the practice of issuing non-legal tender public orders and tax certificates became acceptable to all in view of the necessity for military and other expenditures. Furthermore, as Sirmans has pointed out, confidence in the "resiliency" of the currency increased when, after a brief recession in 1739 and 1740, paper money demonstrated its ability to fluctuate 118 In addition with the value of the colony's exports. to these factors much of the controversy went out of this question when, in 1741, the provincial Chief Justice ruled, in a case involving debts to the estate of Paul Jenys, that obligations contracted for in sterling values should be paid for in the equivalent value of currency at the time of the debt regardless of subsequent depreciation. This decision, with its insurance against depreciation removed the chief fears of the merchants and other creditors thus further contributing to a removal of currency from political controversy.119 In 1739 there occurred in South Carolina a serious slave insurrection. Throughout the decade there had been an increase in alarms at the growing numbers of black 189 slaves, but little sentiment for curtailing imports or reforming the slave system. At the close of the decade the colony's Negro population was slightly less than half again that of its white.120 Escapes and attempts to escape were more frequent until finally in September, 1739 a major rebellion erupted. ‘Before it was put down forty slaves and twenty whites were killed.121 The entire colony ' was now ready for a drastic revamping of its entire slave 1 system. A new slave code was passed and the enforcement system tightened.122 So alarmed had the Carolinians become that in 1740 they passed a prohibitive duty of £100 currency per adult on the further importation of slaves. The law, which was renewed continuously until 1751, virtually eliminated this 123 While it was nearly phase of commercial activity. disastorous to such merchants as Robert Pringle, who was attempting to enter the slave trade, most merchants were apparently inclined to support the "protective tariff." There was a complete absence of protest from the com- mercial community. Those, who were planters as well, certainly realized that the situation was volitile. Furthermore, after the massive importations of the 1730's, the merchants surely most have seen satisfied that the market was satiated.124 The year 1739 was to bring yet another difficulty for the Carolinians. In the autumn of that year a state 190 of war between Great Britain and Spain was announced in the province. This, the War of Jenkins' Ear (later the War of the Austrian Succession or King George's War), was to last for several years and would seriously interfere with 125 the commercial life of the colony. For some time there had been tension on the southern frontier. The Spanish in Florida had interfered with English shipping and had 126 encouraged slaves to flee. Seeing the opportunity to rid themselves of this menace, the colonists lent consider- able support to the futile effort of Oglethorpe to seize St. Augustine. After the debacle of his 1740 invasion attempt, South Carolina and Georgia engaged in polemics against one another while the war efforts of each suffered.127 Finally, in addition to war and insurrection, a serious fire broke out in the heart of Charleston's com- mercial district on November 18, 1740. Before it could be extinguished over £250,000 sterling demage had been done by the fire. In all over three hundred houses, shops, and warehouses had been destroyed.128 In 1742 a committee, appointed to survey the damage and to distribute the parliamentary grant of £20,000 sterling, reported its findings. It recommended that a division of the grant proceed on the basis of one-third of the assessed damage. The committee report shows that 68 per cent of the fire losSes were suffered by those who can be identified as 129 merchants. Among the greatest sufferes as a result of 191 fire were George and Samuel Eveleigh (merchants and heirs of the prominent merchant Samuel Eveleigh I) whose firm received £2994 which indicates that their losses amounted 130 to almost £9000 sterling. While few suffered to this extent there were a total of sixteen merchants whose r~ losses exceeded £3000 sterling.131 Some merchants such as Robert Austin and William Pinckney were never able to recover sufficiently from this blow to their commercial 132 careers. A small portion of the fire losses were possibly made good by "The Friendly Society." Founded in 1735 by a group of prominent Charleston merchants, this was the first attempt at a fire insurance company in the colonies. Unfortunately it had but a brief existence as the magni- tude of losses in the great fire was such that the Society was unable to meet its obligations and went bankrupt.133 In spite of this series of setbacks, Charleston's merchants could look back upon the 1730's as the years of South Carolina's economic coming of age. The years which were to follow with war and a serious agricultural depression presented hardships and problems for the merchants. Given these and other challenges, they would endeavor to improve upon their economic, political, and social positions within the province. The lessons learned and the confidence gained during the prosperous years had prepared them to face the new decade on its own terms. NOTES lGray, Agriculture, I, 285. 2From 32,384 barrels exported in 1729, rice L shipments had increased to 48,337 barrels in 1731. An average barrel at this date held approximately 420 pounds of rice. SCG, Nov. 8, 1735. Historical Statistics, series Z: 267, 768. A problem in the comparison of the export statistics arises from the fact that the editors of the Gazette evidently took the figures from the local customs office which computed their data from November 1, of each year. The British customs officers, however, used December 24, as the date. Ibid., series 2: 262-280, 768, SCG, Nov. 8, 1735. South Carolina, A2_Account of Sundry Goods of the Produce g£_thI§7Province Exported, From the Several—Ports Within the Said Province, From the First of_ November, 1738, to the First of November, 1739, with the Number of Vessels Entered and—Cleared at Each Port, as Also From Whence Arrived and Where Bound (Charleston, 1739). 3Historical Statistics, series 2: 267, 273, 768. Clowse, "Charleston Export Trade," 70-72, estimates that for the years 1734-1737, 25 per cent of all South Carolina rice went to the Iberian peninsula. 4George Rogers Taylor found that rice prices increased at irregular intervals from six shillings sterling per hundred pounds in 1732 to slightly over ten shillings in 1738. Chart I, Annual Prices of Rice at Charleston, 1732-1791, in George Rogers Taylor, "Wholesale Commodity Prices at Charleston, South Carolina, 1732-1791," JEBH, IV (1932), 358, 372. Despite the fact that the prices are supposedly listed in South Carolina currency, Professor Taylor has acknowledged to this writer that an error occurred and that the values were actually computed in sterling. 192 193 5Gray, Agriculture, I, 286. 6Historical Statistics, series Z: 267, 273, 275, 768. SCG, Nov. 8, 1735. Clowse, "Charleston Export Trade, 31' 70-72, 880 7Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 167, 170. Taylor, "Wholesale Prices,"7JEBH, IV, 360-361, 372. F- 8 The annual average number of Negroes imported into the colony from 1730 to 1738 was 2,953. Indications are that, with the exception of two years the figures for which are lost, the 1720's annual average was only 621 Negroes imported. Donnan, "Slave Trade," AHR, XXXIII, 804, 807. Donnan, ed., Documents, IV, 278-2807— Historical Statistics, series Z: 303, 770. 9Rogers, Charleston, 3, 11. McCrady, Royal Government, 143. Wallace, Henry Laurens, 21-22. The improvement in popular outlook is mirrored in the corre- spondence of the merchants. Conditions had changed drastically from those of the early 1720's when Richard Splatt reported on events and expressed a desire to leave the province. Richard Splatt and Co. to Samuel Barons, July 20, 1720, S.C. Pub. Recs., VIII, 34-35. During the 1730's things hadgimproved when merchants such as Robert Pringle could report favorably. Pringle to James Hunter and Co., April 2, 1737, Pringle Letters, I, 92. 10SCG, Nov. 8, 1735. Account g£_Imports, 1739. Historical Statistics, series Z: 304-307, 770. Clowse, 1'Charleston Export Trade," 15, 32, 46. llSCG, Nov. 8, 1735. Memorial of Benjamin Godin and others, July 4, 1735, S.C. Pub. Recs., XVII, 421. Samuel Eveleigh to James Oglethorpe, Nov. 20, 1734, cited in Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 187. Pringle to Thomas Williams, March 19, I738, Pringle Letters, I, 75-76, comments upon the fact that goods for the Indian trade, in this case guns, if priced too high will move very slowly. Rivers, A Sketch, 52-53. Clowse, "Charleston Export Trade," 15. 12 Wallace, South Carolina, I, 389-390. McCrady, Royal Government, 143. Pares, "Merchants and Planters," EHR, Supplement No. 4, 29-31. 13Rogers, Evolution of a Federalist, 8-9. 194 14Wallace, Henry Laurens, 50-52. The business correspondence of such a merchant as Robert Pringle or, for an earlier period, Henry Laurens provides an idea of how the system functioned. Both of these men would act in either capacity as the situation warranted. See in this regard: Pringle to Humphrey Hill, July 4, 1738, Pringle to John Frying, April 2, 1737, Pringle Letters, I, 15-16, 5-6; and Laurens to William Penn of St. Augustine, Dec. 24, 1767, cited in Wallace, Henry Laurens, 50, Laurens to Richard Grubb, Feb. 19, 1748, Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Papers, I, 113-115. 15Pringle to James Hunter and Co., April 2, 1737, Pringle to John Erving, May 4, 1737, Pringle Letters, I, 9-10, 80-83. 16Pringle to Michael Thompson, March 19, 1738, ., I, 76-77. Laurens to James Crokatt, March 12, 1748, Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Papers, I, 120. l7Pringle to Peter Faneuel, April 16, 1739, Pringle to John Erving, May 8, 1740, Pringle Letters, I, 79, 189. 18Pringle to John Richards, Sept. 26, 1739, Pringle to Charles Gooie, April 19, 1740, Ibid., I, 19Pringle to Andrew Pringle, Sept. 22, 1740, Ibid., II, 243-245. In this letter Pringle warned his brother that his ship, the Susannah, would "get a bad name here, by having goods damaged every voyage." He also urged his brother to ship goods in smaller packages as they would be easier to sell. Pringle, like others of his colleagues, was occasionally "stuck" with shoddy merchandize. Pringle to Jonathon Medley, April 2, 1737, Ibid., I, 1-2. The relation between trade and political stability was apparent in Pringle's complaint that "trade suffers very much here at present for want of a good governor to put the laws in execution." Pringle to Samuel Saunders, Oct. 22, 1740, Ibid., II, 253-254. 20[Hewatt,] Historical Account, II, 14. 215cc, March 9, 1738. 195 22Donnan, "Slave Trade," AHR, XXXIII, 807. Pringle to Charles Gooie, April 19, 1740, Pringle Letters, I, 173. SCG, March 9, 1738. Higgins, "South Carolina Negro Duty LEW?" 19. 231bid., 102, 104-108. In a session at the South Carolina Tricentennial Commission Symposium on "The Place of the Southern Colonies in the Atlantic World," March, 1970, W. Robert Higgins presented a paper entitled "Charleston and the Atlantic Slave Trade," in which he used {. much of the data taken from his earlier work. Higgins | based much of his material from his research into the 1 Treasurer's Books, S.C. Archives. These records in fact provide a major source of information on the extent to which particular merchants were involved in the slave Q trade. ' 24Higgins, "South Carolina Negro Duty Law," 2-5. Treasurer's Books, Journals A, B, C, 1735-1776, S.C. Archives. See also: Table 2. 258cc, March 9, 1738. 26See above: p. 87. 27Laurens to Smith and Clifton, May 26, 1755, Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Papers, I, 255-256. 28Higgins, "South Carolina Negro Duty Law," 104. Donnan, Slave Trade," AHR, XXXIII, 809. 29Higgins, "South Carolina Negro Duty Law," 118. 30pringle to Michael Lovell, April 24, 1740, Pringle Letters, I, 204-206. 3J'Laurens to John Knight, Jan. 20, 1749, Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Papers, I, 204-206. 32Higgins, "Negro Duty Law," 119-120. Philip D. Curtin, The Atlantic Slave Trade: A_Census (Madison, 1969), 158. 33Donnan, "Slave Trade," AHR, XXXIII, 816. 196 34See for example the add of Joseph Wragg and Company in the SCG, Oct. 30. 1736. 35Curtin, Atlantic Slave Trade, 150, 156-157. In this regard examine Curtin's Table 45 on page 157 which computes the origins of South Carolina's imported slaves for the years from 1733 to 1807. 36Higgins, "Negro Duty Law," 102: 122‘124' r. 37Pringle to Ann TOpham, June 30, 1739, Pringle 5 Letters, I, 101-102. 38Donnan, "Slave Trade," AHR, XXXIII, 809-810. 1' Laurens to Isaac Hobhouse, March 16, 1749, Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Papers, I, 227. 395cc, May 19, 1733, May 10, 1735. 40Register of the Port of Charleston, 1734—1765, S.C. Archives. 41George C. Rogers, while noting the presence of shipbuilding and the involvement of some merchants in this activity, has pointed out that the profitable nature of planting and commerce diverted funds which otherwise might have gone to investments in manufacturing. Rogers, Charleston, 15-16, 24. 42Ibid., 11-12. George C. Rogers, Jr., The Histogy 9£_Georgetown County, South Carolina (Columbia, 1970), 47-54. SCG, Sept. 23, 1732, mentions a store at "Red Bank" maintained by the firm of Nisbett and Kinlock. Another item specifies that the goods of Elisha Dobee, who operated a store in Georgia, were seized for debts owed to Yeomans and Escott, Beale and Cooper, as well as several other Charleston firms. Ibid., July 27, 1734, Aug. 3, 1734. For an example of an agreement to operate a country store at Dorchester, see "Indenture Quadripartite," March 25, 1722, Charleston County Deeds, E, 148-166, S.C. Archives. 43W. T. Baxter, "Accounting in Colonial America," in A. C. Littleton and B. S. Yamey, eds., Studies ip_the History gf_Accounting_(Homewood, 111., 1956), 27-287. 197 44Pringle to James Hunter and Co., Dec. 22, 1738, Pringle Letters, I, 51. Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, II, 61-62. In 1748 the legal rate of interest was reduced to 8 per cent. Ibid., III, 709-710. 5Mortgages indentures between James Moore, Jr., and Thomas Broughton, Lewis Pasquerou, and John Guerard, Charleston Merchants, March 21, 1710, Register of the Province, 1708-1712, 104-107; and Bond of Thomas Cary to Alexander Parris, Dec. 16, 1713, Ibid., 1714-1719, 197, are two examples of earlier money-lending activities by Charleston merchants. The records of bonds and mortgages for the 1730's and subsequent decades are valuable sources in this regard. Mortgage Books, Miscellaneous Records, 15 vols., KK through PP deal with the years 1735-1742, S.C. Archives. 46This was evidently true of a number of debts contracted by planters to the firm of Wragg and Lambton in 1735 and 1736. Ibid., KK, 10-14, 57-60, 89-90, 134-135, 137-138, 159-160, 233-234, 243-245. 47Bond of Hugh Wine, Beaufort storekeeper, for £3000 to Thomas Jenys, Jan. 20, 1740, Mortgage Books, PP, 9-10, S.C. Archives. Bond of Kenneth McKenzie and James Fraser, Augusta storekeepers, to Binford and Osmund, et al., Ibid., PP, 175-178. 48Mortgage of J. E. Plowden to Joseph Wragg and Richard Lambton, Nov. 10, 1737 for £640.5.0, five slaves were used as security. Ibid., KK, 10-11. 49Bond of Ann Clements to Richard and Thomas Shubrick, Sept. 12, 1741, Ibid., PP, 312-313. 50The extensive activities of these and other firms are documented in: Ibid., KK through PP. 51The land boom and resulting confusion, as well as Johnson's efforts at its administration, has been described in: Sirman, Colonial S.C., 167-177; Richard P. Sherman, Robert Johnson, Pppprietary 5 Royal Governor 9: South Carolina (Columbia, 1966), 107-117, 136-138: McCrady, Royal Government, 121—144; Wallace, Short History, 149-156; and Robert L. Meriwether, The Expansion pf South Carolina, 1729-1765 (Kingsport, Tenn., 1940), 17-18, 34-35, 53-54, 66-69, 79-89. 198 521bid., 24. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 174-175. S3SCG, Oct. 7, 1732. AS Sirmans has correctly pointed ouET—Wallace and other historians have been taken in by the St. John group's claims to represent the small planter. They were not only attempting to profit from surveying fees, but also they were intent upon acquiring large amount of land for themselves. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 177-182. Sherman, Robert Johnson, 143-161. Wallace, South Carolina, I, 325-329. The controversy between the Johnson administration and the St. John faction may be following in: SEE, Oct. 28, 1732, April 21, 28, May 12, 19, June 2, 16, 23, 30, July 7, 14, 1733; and in various petitions, letters, and reports found within the S.C. Pub. Recs., XVII, 110, XV, 136-138, XVI, 43-48, XV, 149—158, 161-185, 189-197, 206-213, XVII, 185-189, XIX, 53, 171-175, XV, 240-246, XV, 230-231, XVI, 328-329, XVII, 286-296, 299-302, XIX, 71, XXVI, 164, XVI, 79-80, XVII, 287-288. 54To obtain this information, one would first have to gather data on the amount of land acquired by the merchants during these years. He would then have to determine among other facts whether it was developed into agricultural land or left undeveloped, or whether it was kept for some time or sold immediately. While this would not be impossible it would be difficult given the confusion of the land situation during those years, as well as the often incomplete nature of the land records. Perhaps with quantitative techniques, such a study of land speculation would be possible. 55The relevant materials are found in the S.C. Archives: Memorial Books, 1711—1775, 15 vols.; Quit Rent Books, 1733-1774, 5 vols.; Grants, [1670]-1775, 46 vols.; Plats, 1731-1775, 23 vols.; and Mesne Conveyances, 1719- 1800, 156 vols. For the purposes of this study the most useful material has been obtained from the S.C. Archives, Index to Grants, which lists the grantee, the acreage, and the general location of the grant. Samuel and Joseph Wragg at one time considered obtaining 12,000 acres in. order to establish a settlement. Board of Trade to Privy Council, Nov. 24, 1736, S.C. Pub. Recs., XVIII, 79-81. 56Rogers, Georgetown County, 32-33, 35. Henry A. M. Smith, "Georgetown, the Original Plan and the Earliest Settlers," SCHM, IX (1908), 85-101. SEE, Jan. 25, July 10, 1735. Miscellaneous Records, II (1751-1754), 276-279, S.C. Archives. Sirmans, "South Carolina Royal Council," WMQ, XVIII, 392. 199 57Index to Grants, S.C. Archives. 58[Hewatt,] Historical Account, II, 129-130. 'Wallace, Henry Laurens, 21-22. Inventory of Paul Jenys Estate, Feb. 20, 1746, Inventories, LL, 190-193, S.C. Archives. Inventory of Benjamin Godin Estate, June 20, 1749, Ibid., MM, 107-111. 59Brief biographical sketches of Pringle and Crokatt is found in Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Papers, I, 2n. On Pringle see: Mabel L. Webber,—"Journal of Robert Pringle, 1746-1747," SCHM, XXVI (1925), 21-30, 93-112; and Henry A. M. Smith, "Entries in the Old Bible of Robert Pringle, SCHM, XXII (1921), 25-33. 60Information on Austin is found in Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Papers, I, l76n-l77n. Shute's career is briefly described in: Henry A. M. Smith, "Hog Island and Shute's Folly," SCHM, XIX (1918), 92. On Robert Ellis' activities: Pares, Yankees and Creoles, 18. 61Maurice A. Crouse, "Gabriel Manigault, Charleston Merchant," SCHM, LXVIII (1967), 220-231. [Peter Horry] Ledger Book, Charles Town, 1740-48, S.C. Archives. Rogers, Georgetown County, 48n. ‘ 62Will of Andrew Allen, March 29, 1735, Wills, III, 221-228, S.C. Archives. On Hill and Guerard see: [Guerard,] to Charles Hill II, Nov. 8, 1752, S.C. Historical Society, [John Guerard] Letter Book, 1752-1756. 63Hennig Cohen, The South Carolina Gazette, 1732- 1775 (Columbia, 1953), 3-16. For examples of advertising see the ads of Lewis Lormier and William Baker: SCG, March 9, 1734. *—_ 64See Table 3. 65sec, Oct. 21, 1732, March 24, 31, April 7, 1733, Nov. 7, 1741, "Postscript." 6GIbid., Jan. 29, 1732. 67Daniel Dwight to Sec. SPG, Dec. 21, 1730, SPG Papers, Mss. A, 23. 200 68Robert M. weir, "'The Harmony We were Famous For': An Interpretation of Pre-Revolutionary South Caro- lina Politics," WMQ, XXVI (1969), 480. 69Ipi§,, 479-480. [Hewatt,] Historical Account, II, 294. Pares, "Merchants and P1anters,“EHR, Supple- ments No. 4, 36-37. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 164-167. Rogers, Charleston, 19, Wallace, Henry Laurens, 21-22. 70The country idealogy and its relationship to colonial politics, in general, is commented upon in: Bernard Bailyn, The Idealogical Origins 9£_the American Revolution (Cambridge, 1967). For its implications for South Carolina see: Weir, "Pre-Revolutionary South Caro- lina Politics," WMQ, XXVI, 473-501. 711bid, 480-484. 72Greene, Quest f E Power, 459-460, 475-489. The merchants among the "first rank" of South Carolina politicans were: Othniel Beale, Jacob Bond, John Dart, Paul Jenys, John Lloyd Isaac Mazyck, and Peter Taylor. Paul Jenys and John Lloyd were both Speakers. Sirmans noted this movement but argues persuasively that it took place following the "transitional" Assembly of 1731-1733, and that it did not completely get under way until after 1737. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 246n. 73Ibid., 246-249. Weir, "Pre-Revolutionary South Carolina Politics," WMQ, XXVI, 484-485. Paul Jenys sat for the rural parish of St. George Dorchester, while John Lloyd and Peter Taylor represented ST. James Goose Creek. It is probable that they held land in these parishes as well. Greene, Quest for Power, 481, 486. 74Sirmans, "Royal Council," WMQ, XVIII, 392. 7SIbid., 373, 376, 384. 761bid., 379-380, 392. 77W. Roy Smith, South Carolina 33 a Royal Province, 1719-1776 (New York, 1903 , 411-412. Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1736-1739, 638. 78Smith, South Carolina, 1719-1776, 411-412. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 247. Greene, Quest for Power, 480. SCG, April 5, 1735. 201 79Smith, South Carolina, 1719-1776, 411. Greene, Quest for Power, 477. Will of John Dart, Aug. 15, 1750, Wills, VII, 268-271, S.C. Archives. Inventory of the John Dart Estate, Inventories, R, 305-307 Dart was a frequent advertiser in the Gazette, during the years from 1732 to 1748. In the early 1730's, he backed, with two other Charleston merchants, a country store at Willtown. SCG, Aug. 25, 1733. Easterby, Commons Journal, 1736-1739, 638. 80Smith, South Carolina, 1719-1776, 411. 81Wallace, Short History, 248. For British examples of this practice see: J. H. Plumb, Sir Robert Walpole, Th3 Making p£_a Statesmen (London, 1956), 204-209. William Pitt proved the exception to the established practice on both sides of the Atlantic when he refused to accept interest on funds at his disposal when he served as Paymaster of the Forces. Basil Williams, The Whig Supremacy, 1714-1760 in Sir George Clark, ed., The Oxford Histor of En land (2nd. ed. revised by C. H. Stuart, Oxford, 1962), 337-338. 82Treasurer's Books, Ledger A, fol. 69, 99, 122, S.C. Archives. Crouse, "Manigault Family," 40-43, 48-49. 83Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, III, 334-341. Smith, South Carolina, 1719-1776, 411. 84Nov. 30, 1749, Dec. 1, 1749, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1749-1750, 308-309, 309-310, "State of Paper Currency in South Carolina," Feb. 26, 1743, S.C. Pub. Recs., XXI, 106-108. 85"Memorial of Gabriel Manigault." Feb. 23, 1737, Committee Report, Feb., 1737, March 2-4, 1737, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1736-1739, 242, 244, 269-271, 276, 278-283. Treasurer's Books, Ledger B, fol. 1, 2, 12. Crouse, ”Manigault Family," 44, 53, 73. 86Wallace, Short History, 248. 87Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, III, 334-341. 88Richard M. Jellison, "Antecedents of the South Carolina Currency Acts of 1736 and 1746," WMQ, XVI (1959), 556-558. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 166. 202 89§E§3 March 24, March 31, April 7, April 21, 1733. 90Memorials of Merchants Trading to South Caro- lina, Jan. 14, 1732, Dec. 6, 1733, S.C. Pub. Recs., XV, 86, XVI, 213. William Wood to A. Popple, Sept. 10, 1734, Ibid., XVII, 32-38. 1Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 200. The comments of Robert Hume, former Speaker of the Assembly and lawyer, before the Board of Trade appear to support Sirmans' views. Minutes of the Board of Trade, Jan. 4, 1734, S.C. Pub. Recs., XVI, 222-223. At the same meeting, however, representatives of London and Bristol merchants appeared to raise their objections to a continuation of the duties on any grounds. Ibid., XVI, 222-224. The agent of the British merchants makes a similar point in: William Wood to A. Popple, Sept. 10, 1734, Ibid., XVII, 32-38. 92Johnson to Newcastle, Nov. 15, 1731, Ibid., xv, 50-54. P. Fury to Board of Trade, Dec. 3, 1734, Ibid., XVII, 196-226. Johnson to A. Popple, May 24, 1734, Ibid., XVI, 336-337. Remonstrance of the Governor, Council, and Commons House of Assembly, [considered] July 23, 1734, Ibid., XVI, 374-383. 93Board of Trade to Privy Council, July 23, 1734, Ibid., XVI, 367-373, 383. Order in Council, Oct. 13, 1735, Ibid., XVII, 358-359. 94Johnson to Board of Trade, Nov. 14, 1731, Ibid., XV, 36-37. Order in Council, July 21, 1732, Ibid., XV, 139-140. 95Broughton was Johnson's brother-in-law, but displayed none of the political wisdom of his relative. As a leading planter-trader earlier in the century he had opposed trade reform and had been one of the extremists of the Anglican party. [Hewatt,] Historical Account, I, 311. Crane, Southern Frontier, 92, 146-148. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 8§_§6' l§2-186o 96 SCG, March 17, 1736. 97Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, III, 423- 430. Dec. 10, 1736, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1736-1739, 62-63. Jellison, "Antecedents,1r WMQ, XVI, 561. 203 98March 5, 1737, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1736-1739, 291-320. 99Petition of London Merchants, [considered] Feb. 4, 1737, S.C. Pub. Recs., XVIII, 193-195. May 24, 25, 29, 1736, Upper House Journal, VI, 257-258, 259, 270-272, S.C. Archives. 100Wragg to Isaac Hobhouse, June 9, 1736, in George C. Rogers, ed., "Two Joseph Wragg Letters," SCHM, LXV (1964), 16-17. 101Protest of Middleton, Kinlock, and Wragg, May 29, 1736, Upper House Journal, VI, 270-272. lOZWragg to Hobhouse, June 9, 1736, Rogers, ed., "Wragg Letters," SCHM, LXV, 16-17. 103Board of Trade to Privy Council, July 13, 1738, S.C. Pub. Recs., XIX, 220-222. Order in Council, March 30, 1739, Ibid., XX, 15. Minutes of Board of Trade, July 6, 1738, Ibid., XIX, l6. 104Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 182-184. lOSIbid., 187-188. Treasurer's Books, Ledger B: 1-2, JournaI A: 3'9- 106Johnson to Oglethorpe, Jan. 28, 1735, cited in Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 188. Sirmans had access to letters and records found in unpublished volumes of The Colonial Records of Georgia at the Georgia Department of History and Archives as well as the Egmont Papers in the University of Georgia Library. 107Crane, Southern Frontier, 146-148. Broughton to Board of Trade, Oct., 1735, S.C. Pub. Recs., XVII, 396-403. 108Samuel Eveleigh to Oglethorpe, July 7, 1735, cited in Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 188. Dec. 3, 10, 15, 1736. Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1736-1739. 30, 59-60, 72-103. April 9, 1736, Upper House Journal, VI, 224-226, S.C. Archives. Memorial of Benjamin Godin, et al., July 4, 1735, S.C. Pub. Recs., XVII, 412-421. Broughton to Magistrates [Of Georgia,] July 29, 1735, cited in Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 189. 204 109Although from shipping their former position of importance, profits from the Indian trade still accounted for approximately one-fifth of return payments to Great Britain made by the colony. SCG, July 3, 1736. Samuel Eveleigh to Oglethorpe, Nov. 20, 1734, Samuel Eveleigh to William Jefferies, July 4, 1735, both cited in Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 187. Valuable information such as the rates of import and export duties of South Carolina for this period is found in an enclosrue of a letter from Johnson to Board of Trade, [Nov. 14, 1731] S.C. Pub. Recs., XV, 87-94. 110Treasurer's Books, Journal A, ll-12, 33. 111Broughton to Board of Trade, Oct., 1735, S.C. Pub. Recs., XVII, 396-403. Memorial of Benjamin Godln, et al., July 4, 1735, Ibid., XVII, 412-421. "Appendix to the Report of the Commlttee Appointed to Examine into the Proceedings of the People of Georgia, No. 24," Dec. 15, 1736, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1736-1739, 133-134. Wragg to Hobhouse, June 30, 1736, Rogers, ed., "Two Joseph Wragg Letters," SCHM, LXV, 17-19. 112Petition of Assembly and Council, July 17, 1735, S.C. Pub. Recs., XVIII, 83-101. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 189-190. 113Ibid. Treasurer's Books, Journal A, 11-12, 33. 114Dec. 15, 1736, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1736-1739, 72-157. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 190-191, 194. 115Pringle to Andrew Pringle, May 20, 1740, Pringle Letters, II, 204. 116"To the Electors for the Parish of St. Philip, Charlestown," SCG, Nov. 7, 1741, "Postcript." 117March 2-4, 1737, Feb. 1, March 6, 11, 1738, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1736-1739, 269-283, 439- 440, 513, 537. Dec. 15, 1737, Feb. 4, 1738, Upper House Journal, VII, 16, 65. 18Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 206. Taylor, "Commodity Prices," JEBH, IV, 360, 372. Throughout most of the decade of the 1730's the rate of exchange between currency and sterling stood at 700 to 100. However by 1738 it had moved 205 up to 800 to 100, returning to slightly over 700 to 100 the following year. It remained at this level with slight fluctuations throughout most of the remainder of the colonial period. See the chart on exchange rates in Wallace, Short History, 136. 119Hext vs. Executors of Jenys, Court of Common Pleas Judgment Books, 1740-1741, 265-273, S.C. Archives. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 206. 120Greene and Harrington, American Population, 174, cite figures which indicate that by the year 1740 the white population reached 20,000 while the black population was around 39,000. 121The Gazette for these years contains numerous ads for runaways. Bull to Board of Trade, Oct. 5, 1739, S.C. Pub. Recs., XX, 179-180. 122Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, VII, 397-417. M. Eugene Sirmans, "The Legal Status of the Slave in South Carolina, 167-1740," JSH, XXVIII (1962), 462-473. 123Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, III: 555-568: 670-671, 739-751. Higgins, "Negro Duty Law," 24-25. 124Pringle to Samuel Sanders, April 2, 1740, Pringle to Charles Goie, April 19, 1740, Pringle Letters, I, 166-168, 172-174. 125SCG, Sept. 8, 1739. 126Middleton to Nicholson, Sept. 14, 1727, S.C. Pub. Recs., XII, 241. Bull to Newcastle, May 9, 1739, Ibid., XX, 40-41. March 5, 1737, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1736-1739, 293. 127The South Carolina version of the events surrounding the failure is found in: Ibid., 1741-1742, 78-247. 123Nov. 20, 1740, Feb. 26, 1741, Ibid., 1739-1741. 408, 508. SEE, Nov. 20, 1740. Petition of the Charles Town Inhabitants, Nov. 22, 1740, S.C. Pub. Recs., XX, 327-330. Petitions of the Assembly, July 26, 1740, July 2, 1741, Ibid., XX, 300-308, 369. 206 129H. Legge to A. Popple, June 14, 1741, Ibid., XX, 367-368. Jan. 27, May 26, May 28, 1742, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1741-1742, 352, 528, 534, 540-541. Kenneth Scott, "Sufferers in the Charleston Fire of 1740," SCHM, LXIV (1963), 209-211. l3“Ibid. lBlIbid 132William Pinckney's losses were over £1200 sterling which ultimately forced him into bankruptcy. Ibid., 211. Rogers, Charleston, 30-31. Robert Austin also faced eventual bankruptcy as his lossess were over £3200 sterling. Scott, "Sufferers," SCHM, LXIV, 209. SEE, July 2, 1753. 133Rogers, Charleston, 30-31. Wallace, Short History, 192. SCG, Jan. 3, Feb. 7, 1736, Feb. 5, 1741. CHAPTER V WAR, DEPRESSION, AND RECOVERY, 1742-1756 When, in 1739, news that a state of war existed between Great Britain and Spain reached South Carolina, most of the colonists were elated. The time had arrived, they believed, to remove the influence which was inciting their slaves, to establish their own province on a more secure basis by pushing back still further the frontier with Spanish Florida, and to profit from a war the objectives of which were as much commercial as political.1 However by 1748, when cessation of hostilities was announced, the South Carolinians, particularly those engaged in commerce, were just as sincerely relieved to see the struggle end. The conflict had brought with it no quick triumphs, but instead trade was constantly harassed by the enemy bringing disruption to the provincial economy. Among the more perceptive were those who saw that the depression was related to war, and that at peace the colony would again prosper.2 207 208 I The war had no sooner been announced than the Charlestonians began to consider methods by which to gain from it. This was completely in character with eighteenth-century Englishmen and Americans who viewed war as a splendid opportunity to crush one's national rivals and, at the same time, to secure economic advantages.3 Privateering, government contracts, and a general increase in the amount of money in circulation could lead to favorable commercial conditions for the trading interest at this important colonial port. Among the most obvious means available to the eighteenth-century merchant for acquiring quick profits during time of war was the privateering voyage. The Charleston merchants lost no time in securing from Lieutenant-Governor Bull the letters of marque which enabled them to outfit vessels against the Spanish. Despite hugh potential earnings, these Operations were highly speculative ventures requiring relatively large investments with no certainty as to profits.4 Few Charleston merchants were able or willing to take the risks that William Lassere, owner of the priva- teer sloop Sea Nymph, did early in the war. Without partners or minor investors, Lassere operated his vessel rather successfully. Within three months after securing the proper papers, the Sea Nymph captured a Spanish sloop 209 which together with its cargo was appraised at £1382 currency.5 More often the local merchants who were interested in privateering joined with others of a like mind. Men such as Robert Pringle, George Inglis, and William Hopton preferred to share the risks as well as any potential profit rather than to follow Lassere's more speculative example.6 Persons other than merchants were, at times, found among the shareholders, but merchants were con- sistently chosen from the ranks of investors to manage or otherwise to organize the venture.7 The problems associ- ated with privateering activities often could be complex and extremely troublesome as the letters of Robert Pringle demonstrate in this regard.8 While merchants and other Charlestonians continued to invest in privateers throughout the war, the initial enthusiasm did not last. By midway through the war, backers were unable to secure firm financial support. In 1744 two privateering vessels, financed by a group in which Robert Pringle was active were unable to generate interest among potential investors. When this became apparent, the organizers discovered that they could not even unload the shares to which they themselves had subscribed.9 The case of these two ships, the Recovery and the Assistance when taken with the decline in issuance of letters of marque later in the war, leads one to the 210 conclusion that there was a considerable lessening of interest in the Charleston-based privateers. Few investors were spectacularly successful in this form of endeavor. A surprisingly low number of Spanish and later French (that country formally entered the war in 1744) vessels were brought before the Charleston Admirality Court. In the nine years of actual warfare only twenty-one enemy ships captured by Charleston privateers were condemned as prizes. The quality as well as the quantity of most of the captures by the privateers was commented upon by a merchant who found it to have been poor.10 Those who profited most from the capture of Spanish commerce were the officers and men of the Royal Navy vessels stationed at Charleston. The final two years of the war saw at least four rich vessels captured and condemned before the Charleston Admirality Court by the H.M.S. Tartar and H.M.S. Aldborough.ll One officer, Captain Thomas Frankland of the H.M.S. Rppg, was par- ticularly reknown for his captures and their value.12 It is unlikely that any of Charleston's privateers were as successful in preying upon enemy trade as were the Royal Navy warships. The local merchants did benefit, however, from the influx of bullion brought in by these captures. It was quickly returned to the mother country in order to pay for goods required by the colony's sagging economy.l3 211 The opportunities presented to the Charleston merchants with the increase in expenditures by the provincial and royal governments as a part of their war efforts represented another area of operation. While it is doubtful that the Charlestonians gained as much as a result of the war as did such northern merchants as Thomas Hancock, they, nevertheless, stood to benefit from the increase of money in circulation.14 One firm, Nickleson and Shubrick, was able through their influence in London to secure the profitable appointment as "agent victuallers" 15 The for the Royal Navy ships stationed at Charleston. operations of this firm as naval suppliers and general merchants expanded during the 1740's so that late in that decade John Nickleson and Richard Shubrick could remove to London where each established himself as a substantial 16 To most local merchants such lucrative merchant. appointments were not forthcoming from the royal govern- ment. Because of the limited military action on the southern frontier only a few Charleston merchants obtained comparably large contracts to supply the British army. From the earlier days of the colony, Charleston merchants had furnished supplies for use of the pro- vincial government. Presents to Indian allies, con- struction materials for fortifications, and from time to time necessary military supplies were all examples of purchases made by the colonial government of South 212 Carolina.l7 During time of war these expenditures were often quite heavy. To meet its obligation for the fiscal year 1743-44, the Commons House appropriated £59,261 currency. This was over twice the amount spent in 1737-38, £22,401 currency.18 By the 1740's the procedure whereby the province procured necessary items from the local merchants was standardized. The Commissary would obtain the goods from the dealer, presenting him in turn with a certificate. The merchant would submit this when the colony's accounts were called in for review by a committee of the Commons House. The committee would then examine the records to see that the goods were as ordered, delivered on time, and the certificate was valid. If the examination turned up no discrepancy, the committee would recommend to the Assembly that provision be made in the annual tax bill to settle the merchant's account.19 The merchant would probably not receive his payment in specie or even legal tender currency, but rather non-legal tender public orders or tax certificates. As these in effect circulated as currency and were redeemable in payment of taxes there was little complaint on the part of the merchants in this regard.20 Most Charleston merchants, particularly in the larger and more active firms, at one time or another did business with the provincial government. There appears to have been few instances of large contractors "cornering the market" in government purchases. While the amounts 213 paid out to commercial firms for the goods and services which they provided were a substantial part of the pro- vincial budget (anywhere from between 12 per cent and 27 per cent of the total during the early war years), these 21 This can be seen varied drastically from firm to firm. in the 1748 purchase by South Carolina of two sloops to patrol its coastal waters. Accounts for outfitting these vessels ranged from an appropriation of £1443 currency for Gabriel Manigault to £11.3.9 for William WOodrup.22 It is most likely that the volume of business which a merchant did with the government was dependent upon the goods he handled. Furthermore, the magnitude of his contracts with the colony were apparently proportional to the scope of his commercial activity. In the instance of the two sloops, cited previously: Manigault was among the largest merchants in Charleston at this period (he ranked first in the amount of general duties paid in the fiscal years 1745-46, 1747-48, and 1749-50).23 Woodrup, on the other hand, was in the early stages of his mercantile career. After serving for several years as captain of the Mapy, a brigantine which regularly sailed between London, Charleston, and Portugal, WOOdrop settled in Charleston. Although eventually he came to be regarded as an "eminent merchant of this town," in 1747-48 he ranked in the second half of those paying general duties.24 It is possible that political influence enabled some merchants to enjoy advantages in securing the 214 business of the provincial government. This doubtless occurred in a few instances, but the wide distribution of government purchases over virtually the entire range of the Charleston commercial community suggests that this was not the usual case. Furthermore, neither the surviving public records for the war years nor private correspondence suggest the possibility that this took place on a broad scale. Under normal peacetime conditions there were little motivation and few regular opportunities for the Charleston merchants to engage in illicit trade. The profitablility of legitimate commerce was such that few were led into questionable practices. This is not to say that such practices never occurred. However, despite the sporadic laxity of Charleston's customs officers and a geographical situation favorable to smuggling, the rarity of illicit trade was commented upon by the often suspicious, Governor James Glen.25 When war disrupted the usual patterns of trade some merchants turned to smuggling and fraudulent uses of 26 The opportunities to profit from flag of truce vessels. illicit trade were prevalent. St. Augustine was to a great extent dependent upon the British colonies for provisions. While ships for other colonies were perhaps the chief offenders, an investigating committee of the Assembly learned that South Carolina vessels were found to be sailing into the enemy port. The committee gathered 215 evidence against two Charleston firms, Peter Commett and Lloyd and Company. In Commett's case there existed sufficient evidence to recommend prosecution.27 Even prior to the committee's disclosures, the Commons House had taken up the question of illicit trade. Seeking especially to prevent abuses by vessels returning prisoners under flags of truce, that body passed, late in 1744, a bill stringently regulating what and how much such vessels leaving from South Carolina could carry.28 Popu- lar sentiment in the form of the presentment of pro- vincial grand jury similarly attacked the fraudulent use 29 of flags of truce. As a result of the uproar, one ship captain, a relative of a prominent merchant, was sent to 30 For the remainder of the war, the London for trial. Commons House was accutely sensitive to the "ill conse- quences" of any trade between the flags of truce and the enemy. In its report to the governor, the Assembly urged that in future contracts to return prisoners clauses be inserted to prevent trading with the enemy.31 A still greater cause for alarm to the Commons House were Spanish flag of truce vessels which entered Charleston. They were regarded as serious threats to the security of the ports and its trade in addition to offering opportunities to the unscrupulous. The representatives were understandably incenses when they learned that one such ship had payed out 9000 Spanish dollars to the merchants, Roche and Colcock, for goods and provisions 216 which were smuggled aboard under cover of darkness.32 That such abuses occurred during the course of the war is hardly surprising. However, despite these violations and the frequent complaints of some imperial and provincial officials, South Carolina merchants, when compared to other American colonists, took little part in illicit trade. The advantages gained as a result of the war by those who benefited from government contracting, priva- teering, or smuggling were more than offset by the disruption to the commercial life of the province. Spanish privateers, based at St. Augustine and Havanna, took a heavy toll in British and colonial shipping off the coast of South Carolina. From the first years of the war, the enemy commerce raiders captured or scattered a number 33 of trading vessels. Patrols by the Royal Navy and the frequent use of convoys failed to halt heavy losses until 34 late in the war. When the French entered the war the colonists were even more fearful of the impact upon trade.35 In April, 1745, the Gazette observed that during the previous year Spanish privateers had been particularly busy in the neighboring waters. Notices of such activities 36 So serious had the situation continued for sometime. become that at various times during the course of the war Charleston merchants took the unusual step of hiring privateers to search out and to destroy enemy privateers 217 in adjacent waters rather than to sail with the intention of capturing enemy trade.37 In the later stages of the war the situation improved slightly when two sloops were fitted out by the provincial authorities in order to patrol the coast regularly. These protective measures were never completely successful as trading vessels entering and clearing Charleston were harassed well into the last year of the war.38 Outright captures by enemy privateers were not the only obstacles to trade with which Charleston merchants had to contend. The activities of the commerce raiders had sent insurance and freight rates soaring. This was particularly severe as the goods usually shipped from South Carolina were heavy and bulky which meant that now they would be marginally profitable due to the drastic 39 The merchants could increase in transportation costs. often obtain a reduction in their insurance premiums during wartime if their ships traveled in convoys or took safer routes, but freight rates remained high cutting into profits.4o Rice especially suffered a decline in the amount exported to the mother country as the war progressed. Since it was the chief staple of the province, the economic impact was devastating.41 The attention paid to insurance rates on both Sides of the Atlantic reflected the importance which it assumed for the eighteenth-century merchant. The Charleston merchant usually insured his cargoes with a 218 London merchant. In many cases the metropolitan general merchants with whom he did business had expanded their commercial operations into this profitable sideline. This was true in the case of both Samuel Touchett and James Crokatt.42 During time of war the rates might be as low as 12 per cent of the cargo's value under the most favor- able conditions but more typically fluctuated between 15 and 20 per cent.43 The war brought a variety of minor annoyances to plague the merchant in addition to the major ones. Temporary embargoes on shipping during periods of threatened invasions kept all but the most audacious captains from sailing without clearance papers.44 Another problem was the impressment of seamen by the Royal Navy warships stationed at Charleston. Merchant ships had difficulty finding or keeping crews when press gangs were about. Furthermore, the inavailability of sailors forced seamen's wages higher. The Charleston merchants, already concerned about shipping costs, were sufficiently aroused to protest to their British colleagues.45 The war furnished many of the Charleston merchants with unparalleled opportunities for economic advancement, but the problems it raised were responsible for the ruin of some. For every John Nickleson who prospered directly as a result of the wartime conditions, there also were men like Francis Holmes and William Pinckney who were unable 219 TABLE 4.--Freight Rates, 1740-1754. Date Rate Per Tona Sept., 1740 £3.10.0 Dec., 1742 3.12.6 Jan., 1744 4.10.0 Dec., 1744 6.0.0 April, 1745 ' » 6.10.0 June, 1747 5.0.0 Nov., 1747 7.0.0 May, 1748 6.10.0 June, 1748 5.10.0 June, 1755b 2.0.0 aPrices quoted in sterling. bDuring period of nominal peace. Source: Pringle to Andrew Pringle, Sept. 22, 1740, Dec. 17, 1742, Jan. 21, 1744, Pringle Letters, II, 243, III, 447, 620. Pringle to David Chesebrough, Dec. 17, 1744, Ibid., IV, 764. SCG, April 15, 1745. Laurens to James Crokatt, June 24,—1747, June 10, 1748, Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Papers, I, 10, 145. Laurens to John Nlckle- son, Nov. 5, 1747, Ibid., I, 70. Laurens to Richard Grubb, May 12, 1748, Ibid., I, 135. Laurens to Thomas Mears, June 27, 1755, IBld., I. 273. to survive financially the depressed economic state of affairs. That so many were able to maintain their level of mercantile activity during the war years was in large . 46 measure due to their resourcefulness. II Throughout most of the decade of the 1740's, South Carolina's economy was in a chronically depressed state. The merchants of Charleston were especially hard hit by this reversal in the state of affairs. Rice and 220 other commodity prices declined steadily until the later years of the war. High freight and insurance rates, occasioned by the activities of the Spanish and French privateers, further reduced the profit margins for the merchants handling riCe. The enemy also disrupted shipping destined for the colony thus increasing the cost of imported goods as well. The slave trade, in the past an important area of investment which stimulated the entire provincial economy was closed (except for brief intervals) throughout the decade. Furthermore, the real estate boom had ended after a period of extensive land acquisition. Planters and merchants, who had previously invested in plantations or speculated in land, were now satiated and attempted to dispose of their surplus holdings. In addition to these other factors, the war had made tenuous the relations between the Carolinians and their neighboring tribes. This was serious as even the threat of war in the back country was sufficient to disturb the flow of deer skins down to Charleston.47 The South Carolinians recognized that their difficulties were due chiefly to the war. While un- doubtedly the province would have experienced some setbacks during these years, the recession in the rice trade, the high costs of imported goods, and the increased costs of transportaion were directly related to the wartime conditions. Alternate forms of commercial activity 221 produced by the war such as privateering and government contracting had failed to compensate the merchants for the slack in the usual patterns of trade. Commenting afterward Governor James Glen summarized what was obvious to the Charleston merchants: "This province was brought to the brink of ruin by the last French war."48 In 1738 the colony had a foretaste of things to come when rice production fell off and the rate of exchange (possible responding to pressure from an unfavor- able balance of trade with the mother country) rose. As a result this brief recession stirred considerable alarm among commercial people.49 A good harvest in the autumn of 1738 brought a rapid recovery. The exchange rate returned closer to its former level of 700 to 100 where it hovered for most of the remainder of the colonial period.50 The quick recuperation demonstrated to all that the provincial economy was capable of a greater flexibility than was hitherto believed. This, in part, may account for the confidence in the eventual restoration of prosperity which several Charleston merchants displayed during the troublesome years. Their conduct contrasted dramatically with the earlier periods of difficulties when some merchants intransigently adopted positions, others threatened to remove themselves from the province, and only a segment of the mercantile community worked to compose differences and lead the colony out of de- pression.51 222 A substantial portion of the problems were due to the fact that so much of the welfare of the province rested on the chief staple, rice. While its was not a single crop economy, South Carolina's certainly relegated to rice an emphasis which meant that any interference with the normal marketing conditions would have severe reper- cussions for the colony. In the years from 1741 to 1746, when wartime conditions most drastically imposed upon the province, the demand for rice upon the Charleston market fell as did its price. From a moderately substantial monthly mean of 7.4 sterling shillings per hundredweight in 1741, the price tumbled to 2.2 sterling shillings in 1746. Only in the last two years of the war, 1747 and 1748, did the prices, which the planters obtained and subsequently the merchants received in commissions, re- verse the trend and turn upward.52 The other items which the colony produced and the merchants exported (lumber, provisions, and deer skins) still contributed to the provincial economy, but the demands for these were relatively constant so that they could not fill in for the sagging role of rice in the export picture.53 These commodities were also bulky with a low value per volume, which during time of war, made their exportation another marginally profitable operation. The market for South Carolina's naval stores, on the other hand, did improve as a result of the war. However, they 223 proved inadequate when it came to stimulating the economy to recovery.54 The planters began to search out for and to experiment with new crops. South Carolina needed an agri- cultural commodity of high value with a small volume. Indigo, successfully adapted for the province by Eliza Lucas Pinckney, fit the specifications ideally. Driven by the low rice prices, the planters quickly turned their attention to the new crop.55 By late in 1744 it was readily apparent to the local merchants that a greater degree of agricultural diversification, particularly toward indigo, was potenti- ally of great benefit for their trade. However, Robert Pringle wrote to his brother, a London merchant, that it was not necessary for his colleagues to go to any great lengths in order to convince the planters of the worth of indigo.S6 So enthusiastic for the purple dye had the Carolinians become that, in the first year (ending November 1, 1747) when exports of it were reported, over 46,000 pounds of indigo were shipped from Charleston. Even more impressive was the fact that in the year which followed the amount almost tripled to over 135,000 pounds.57 The merchants joined in the movement which sought to obtain for South Carolina a parliamentary subsidy for indigo. The governor and Assembly led the way in this 224 endeavor with an appeal to the imperial authorities for such a grant. Glen and the members of the lower house also attempted to gain permission for the colonists to export rice directly to northern Europe as long as the war lasted. In the first phase of the program they were successful obtaining in 1749 a bounty on indigo, but in the second they met failure.58 That the introduction of indigo contributed sub- stantially to the restoration of prosperous conditions in South Carolina is without question. From this period until the attainment of independence, indigo remained a major staple. However it must be recognized that this improvement reached fruition only after the depths of the wartime depression had been passed.59 With commercial investment narrowed or closed by the war, by the prohibitive duty on slave importations, and by the generally depressed economic conditions, a few Charleston merchants began to explore alternatives to commerce. Manufacturing was one possibility, but high wages and limited markets meant that there were few actual possibilities in this regard. Shipyard operations and related activities such as the manufacture of rope were among those in which certain merchants involved 60 From time to time Charleston merchants might themselves. also operate distilleries, tanyards, or sawmills. However, in most instances these were but sidelines. Few 225 Charlestonians responded to the crisis of the 1740's by turning toward manufacturing. One group of merchants and lawyers attempted a dramatic innovation in the state of affairs in 1743 by forming a company for operating a silver mine in the Indian territory. The company was composed of approximately forty persons who distributed among themselves some seventy shares at £500 currency. Maintaining the strictest secrecy, the company, which included certain assemblymen and councilors, offered shares to both the Duke of New- castle, Secretary of State for the Southern Department, and Peregrine Fury, the provincial agent.61 When the news of the group and its objectives broke, the plan for the silver mining company encountered public opposition. A number of merchants such as Robert Pringle who was adamant against the mine, joined with planters such as Dr. John Rutledge. Pringle claimed that the mine would hamper the agricultural and commercial development of South Carolina. In particular he urged that steps be taken to prevent the operation of the mine. The only individuals, he maintained, that favored the scheme were those who were directly involved in it.62 The Assembly officially considered the matter in October, 1743. At the behest of Rutledge, it was referred to his Committee for the State and Defense of the Province. To further the investigation two prominent merchants, William Cattell and Benjamin D'Harriette, were added to 226 the committee. The investigative report by the committee complained of the secrecy of those involved who refused to testify. Merely the barest essentials were obtained. It was learned that among the most active shareholders were the merchants Jacob Motte, Mathew Roche, John Dart, and the lawyer James Graeme. When summoned to testify these four men argued that the affair was strictly a private concern. For their "unsatisfactory and evasive" responses the group was found in contempt of the Commons House. This was especially noteworthy as Dart and Graeme were members of that chamber. The report concluded that the proposed silver mine constituted a threat to the security of the province as it endangered relations with the Indian tribes. It went on to state that the operation of the mine would divert resources from trade causing a further decline in "the value of our staple." Further investigation confirmed the Assembly's suspicions that "what they have in hand is not properly authorized nor calculated for public good."63 The Commons House decided to state its concern in this matter to the king, the governor, and the Council. In its petition to the Crown, the Assembly reiterated its contention that the mine would turn the Indians to the side of the French.64 The Council, undoubtedly influenced by the mine shareholders within its ranks, responded by denying that the operation constituted any threat to the security of the province.65 Lieutenant Governor Bull was 227 at first noncommittal, but he eventually promised the Assembly that he would take any steps necessary to protect the "welfare of the province."66 The opponents both within and without the lower house were apparently satisfied for the clamor soon died. Not one to take changes, Robert Pringle urged that the British merchants join in protesting to the imperial authorities against the mine. This was not required, as even Pringle later admitted, for the mining company gave up since the costs of operation were prohi- bitive.67 Few Charleston merchants were sufficiently dissillusioned with the state of affairs during the war years either to remove themselves from traditional com- mercial activity either by investing in such operations as mining and manufacturing or by leaving South Carolina. The negative responses of certain merchants to the silver mine scheme indicated that these merchants believed no dramatic economic transformations were required. The more per- ceptive recognized that after the war, when the costs of transportation were stabilized, the demand for their primary staple would regain its former vigor. In addition indigo, late in the decade proved to be a valuable supple- mentary commodity. It was also known that eventually the high tariff on imported Negroes would be removed thus restoring to the merchants a valuable segment of their commercial activities. They had, so they believed, merely to wait out the war in order to secure relief. 228 III During the period of economic uncertainty which accompanied the war, the merchants of Charleston paid particular attention to the political aspects of life in the province. In the variety of political issues which came to the fore during the war years, those persons engaged in the wholesale importation and exportation of goods continued to make known their feelings and to act upon them.68 To be sure they constituted no monolithic block. When it was proposed to him that Charleston's merchants should join together in order to lobby and other- wise to protect their interests, Robert Pringle discounted the possibility of joint action by them. He believed . . . there is so little good harmony among persons in trade as in this town of Charles Town. I for my part have taken a good deal of pains to make them sociable and to have a good understanding amongst themselves but all to no purpose . . .69 As in previous crisis situations they often split over specific issues and programs. Yet there were remarkably few instances of serious confrontations between different segments of the commercial community. Their general, tacitly-accepted program for political action to promote economic recovery, if such it can be labeled, was to wait out the war, to seek broader markets for the colony's staples, and to cooperate with members of other economic groups in order to aid in the colony's survival. As they had in the past members of the Charleston commercial community participated in provincial politics. 229 Substantially over half of the membership of the Commons House of Assembly during the years from 1740 to 1748 were merchants. In the leadership ranks of the lower house merchants were particularly prominent. As the studies of Greene and. Sirmans have demonstrated, the Charleston merchants who sat in the Assembly were among those who provided consistent legislative leadership. Men such as Peter Taylor, Isaac Mazyck, John Dart, and Gabriel Manigault exercised a high degree of influence upon the political life of South Carolina much as they did to its commercial well-being.70 Rarely in these years did the backbenchers, who were mostly planters, rise up to challenge their legislative leaders on crucial points.71 Similarly merchants comprised the largest economic group sitting in the Council. Although subject to internal disputes, to feuds with the governors, and to challenges by the Assembly, the Council maintained a steady front when it believed itself or its authority questioned. Edmund Atkin, the vocal merchant whose conservative criticism of South Carolina's political institutions at times aroused the ire of his colleagues became the chief spokesman for the Council.72 In an attempt to act upon the economic plight of the colony, the Assembly in response to a motion by Peter Taylor, a merchant who was long active among the leadership of the lower house, in May, 1744 appointed a committee to 230 investigate "the distressed state and decay of the rice trade," as well as the means by which to remedy it. Perhaps because they better than anyone else understood the implications of the stagnated trade, six merchants were selected for the committee.73 After meeting with a similar committee of the Council, the Assembly's committee took some time to prepare their report. Their statement recognized the connection between the decline in rice prices, the high freight and insurance rates, and the war. To meet the crisis the committee suggested that, among other things, Parliament be requested to allow direct shipments of rice to the whole of the European continent.74 All elements within the Assembly and in the pro- vince as a whole apparently concurred in the findings and suggestions of the report. Certainly no public officials, either elected or appointed, spoke against it and no petitions were sent to the mother country by any segment of the population opposed to the suggestions. In the following years the two provincial agents submitted to the British authorities both a general petition asking for defense and economic assistance, and a report entitled, "Reasons . . . for Granting Liberty to Export Rice directly from South Carolina to any Foreign Port . . ."75 The Board of Trade and Commissioners of Customs were slow to respond to the colonist's requests. They were uncertain as to the impact upon British commerce when so great a departure from the principles of the Navigation 231 Acts was permitted. Even, in 1746, when the Council and Assembly at the urging of Governor Glen confined the proposed changes to the duration of the war, the home government remained hesitant. The personal appeal of Glen 76 was also unable to elicit an immediate response. When at last the Board did act, it rejected the South Caro- linian's pleas with the argument that since the high costs of transporting rice were a consequence of the war nothing it could do would improve the situation.77 IA The colonists were doubtless dismayed by the failure of tne imperial authorities to allow the expansion of their rice markets. Planter and merchant alike had hoped for an alleviation of their economic difficulties through this means. In contrast to other instances in which the Charleston merchants were effective in obtaining desired changes, they were unable to exert an influence. In this case their goals ran counter to those of the British merchants in whose interest it was to have vessels, transporting rice bound for northern Europe, touch first at the mother country.78 Although at times in the history of the province paper currency was a most controversial issue, the emotional impact had diminished considerably by the early 1740's. As the economic crisis resulting from the war deepened, some colonists began to consider the monetary condition of the province at least a factor contributing to the unhealthy state of the economy. In contrast to 232 previous experience, the impulse for further issues of paper money now came from Charleston where many merchants believed that the scarcity of money in preportion to the volume of trade was aggravating the economic situation. These merchants evidently desired to secure more specie for circulation within the colony. However, failing that, they would be open to further emissions of currency. The merchants were soon joined by a substantial segment of the planters.79 The Assembly, in turn, took quick notice of this sentiment. The local political leaders were also aware of the existence of a movement within Parliament to prohibit the colonies from emitting currency. To the Assembly such an action would be disasterous for South Carolina.80 In 1746 the Commons House finally produced a bill which provided for the reissuance of £100,000 and a new printing of £110,000. To avoid the pitfalls encountered by earlier acts, the backers of paper currency were careful to take into account and remedy previous objections. Within South Carolina there was no substantial opposition to the act.81 Although Charleston merchants found nothing objectionable in the act, those of Great Britain did for they made known their sentiment to the Board of Trade. The Board continued to weight the matter for some time before deciding that further emissions of currency were unnecessary.82 Once again South Carolinians had presented 233 a solid front on an issue which they believed would relieve conditions with the province. However, they failed, as before, when their proposals ran counter to the interests of British merchants. A consensus was not attained, however, on every political issue which the province faced in the 1740's. ET At certain times and over specific issues something like L the old divisions would develop. One such issue which ! threatened to pit merchant against planter involved a change in the taxing procedure. In 1744 the Assembly grew suspicious that certain Charleston merchants were in part evading their taxes by making false statements to the assessors. All taxpayers were required to take an oath maintaining that their returns were complete, but the merchants were now required to take a special oath swearing to the amount of money they had at interest.83 To the merchants the special oath was an insult and an imposition. They believed that the new tax bill would be "very pernicious and injurious to trade." Several letters were written to the Gazette protesting the oath, and a group petitioned to Governor Glen against the new measures.84 However, as Robert Pringle observed, there was little chance of effective action against the change as the "country members" of the Commons House had the support of Glen and that many merchants would "draw back" from protesting to the mother country.8S 234 When the Council which was sympathetic to the objecting merchants opposed the innovation, a constitutional conflict between the two legislative chambers developed. Eventually the mercantile majority on the Council split over the issue resulting in passage for the special oath provision. While Edmund Atkin, Joseph Wragg, and Richard Hill, remained adamently opposed, two other merchants, James Kinlock and William.Middleton, joined the councilors who supported the oath. The shift by these men might be explained by the fact that they also operated large plan- tations (as did two of the opponents). It was more likely that they represented a segment of the commercial community which no longer saw the special oath as an imposition. The controversy continued for some time due to the steadfast- ness of Edmund Atkin in maintaining what he saw as the prerogatives of the Council.86 A number of recent studies have demonstrated that most of the political controversies of this period were primarily constitutional struggles between the governor, Council, and Assembly rather than having at their base essential social and economic differences. This grew out of the "quest for power" by the Assembly, the efforts of the Council to maintain its institutional integrity in the face of challenges by both the governor and the Assembly, as well as Governor Glen's desires to enhance his personal prestige and fortune in addition to the authority of his 235 office.87 By their concern for the economic and political welfare of the province (which they saw as synonymous with their own interests) the merchants of Charleston were involved in the political struggles of the day. During the previous decade most politically-conscious Carolinians had come to accept the implication of the "Country Idealogy," which transformed the nature of local politics. By 1743 the problems which emerged were no longer the results of competition among political factions, economic groups, or ethnic communities. They arose when one branch of the government perceived a challenge to its traditional authority by one or both of the others. The Commons House in particular was sensitive to what it believed to be encroachments upon its roles, but was nevertheless aggressive in its attempts to expand its own authority. The leaders of the Assembly, be they planters, merchants, or lawyers, were equally assertive in this respect.88 The first of several constitutional disputes between the Assembly and the Council took place in March, 1743 when Gabriel Manigault submitted his resignation as Public Treasurer. Manigault had served the colony well in that office, but now felt it necessary to devote more 89 The Commons House time to his personal business. believed that it had the sole right to submit nominations for this important post. Selecting Jacob Motte, one of its members and a merchant of long standing, the lower chamber refused to concede that the Council should also - . _ L.%.t..ottluaf$zlflf,1.l§€ .. ......:€.. 1.. : .. .. .. 236 share in the nomination. The Council, on the other hand, nominated Othniel Beale, a prominent merchant who ironically was a leading member of the Assembly. Both sides refused to compromise, but neither would accept the counter- proposals of the other.90 A resolution to the stalmate emerged only after an extremely questionable bargain was struck between Motte and Beale providing that Motte share i his gains from the office for a specified term of years. When this deal was called into question the Assembly voiced little opposition. The members were not especially concerned as to how their nominee obtained the office, but that he was the one selected.91 Throughout the decade of the 1740's and into the remaining years of colonial rule the Commons House and the Council continued to bicker over their respective positions in a variety of issues. While the struggle lasted the politically active merchants stood in the forefront of the respective chambers. None did more so than Edmund Atkin whose 1745 "Report on the Constitution" stated the Council's position in its struggle with the lower house. Atkin, who with his brother, John, operated a leading commercial house in Charleston was exceptioned only in the vehemance with which he stated his position. The contro- versy over the special tax oath especially brought out his wrath.92 The right of the Council to amend money bills, and that chamber's role in the nomination and appointment of 237 provincial officers proved the chief problems. From 1753 to 1756 the Assembly and the Council were engaged in an extremely disruptive dispute over their respective roles in the appointment of provincial agents. Before it was resolved the Council's legislative functions had been 93 Furthermore, after 1756 local drastically curtailed. inhabitants were no longer chosen as a matter of course to the upper house. Merchants and planters were still chosen, but an unusually high percentage (40 per cent) of the appointments made during the period from 1756 until independence were placemen. As the influence and prestige of that body declined so too did the desirability of a Council appointment. Henry Laurens among others refused the office, a thing unheard of at an earlier time.94 Although for a time after his arrival in December, 1743 (almost five years after his appointment) Governor Glen had enjoyed the support of the Commons House, he eventually came into conflict with that branch. It was in the area of Indian affairs that the governor's inexperi- ence and ineptitude betrayed him. The Assembly had long regarded this area as falling under its sway. By con- trolling appropriations it maintained an indirect veto over actions with which it disapproved. When, in a period of deteriorating relations between the Carolinians and the Cherokees, Glen refused to cooperate with the Assembly, the lower house henceforth stiffened its attitude toward the governor. Continuous crises between the red and white 238 men on the frontier kept this issue before the province for some time while Glen and the Assembly tested the per- sistence of the other.95 Even prior to the disputes between Glen and the Commons House, certain Charleston merchants had lost confidence in Glen. They believed him to be weak and indecisive as well as no friend to South Carolina com- merce. To some extent these men may have reflected the sentiments of British merchants who from the start were opposed to the governor's appointment. That Glen tried hard to please the merchants is without question. He sought aid to improve harbor defenses, he urged that more Royal Navy warships be assigned to the Charleston station, and he also acted promptly to see that provincial patrol craft guarded the coastal waters. But in virtually all that he did Glen was unable to avoid controversy and alienation of key segments of the colonial population.97 Governor Glen's ineptitude in the management of persons and events was evident in the efforts to open a trade with the Choctaw tribe. In 1746 South Carolina's trade with the Cherokees was temporarily disrupted by the threat of war. If the Indian trade was to remain a vital part of the provincial economy new areas had to be opened. That same year the Choctaws, traditional allies of the French, approached some Carolina traders with 98 offers of a commercial and military alliance. Glen, who was alert to any opportunities to increase his wealth, 239 granted a legal monopoly to a commercial firm which specialized in the Indian trade. Known locally as the "Sphinx Company," because of its secret arrangements, the firm was actually Charles McNair and Company. One easily can imagine that other Charlestonians and their traders g... were none too happy with this situation. McNair and his associates mismanaged the operations so that the promised 9 presents and trade goods were never sufficient and late 1 in delivery to the back country. The Choctaws were irrate and returned to their French allies.99 Despite warnings that this would occur unless the Choctaw trade was opened to all, Governor Glen stubbornly refused to allow any but McNair's traders to deal with the Choctaws until it was too late.100 Later both the Assembly and the Council investigated the affair amid charges and counter-charges by the par- ticipants. The governor had by that time changed his account of the events and had abandoned McNair. When pressed for an explanation of his role in the affair, Glen conveniently misplaced the Indian Books which covered the period involved. The controversy soon merged into a general constitutional struggle between Council, Assembly, and Glen. The Council led by Atkin, was especially critical of the governor, but the Commons House believed further investigation to be useless without the Indian 101 Books. In spite of its failure to take substantial action against Glen as a result of the Choctaw affair, the 240 Assembly was more than ever suspicious of the pervasive influence of the executive. The years from 1748 through 1756 saw Governor Glen constantly at odds with the lower house. The Charleston merchants who had been excluded from participation in the Choctaw trade now had even more reason for hostility to Glen.102 In subsequent years members of the Charleston commercial community continued to provide political as well as economic leadership. Fewer were selected to the Council than in the past, but until the mid 1750's they were probably the most influential group in that Chamber. In the Commons House, the leadership continued to be drawn from all elements of the provincial elite, but particularly from among the Charleston merchants. Those men who were at the initial stages of their business careers in the 1740's arrived upon the political scene during the following decade. They were to enlarge upon and to continue the momentum built up by the constitutional struggles of the 1740's.103 IV To the Charlestonians the news of the peace which ended King George's War brought with it an obvious sense of 104 The disruption to the commercial life of the relief. province had implications for the colony's inhabitants, but none more so than the merchants. Although they continued to support the war effort through to the final stages, the 241 Charlestonians believed that the best interests of South Carolina would be served when an "honorable peace" was at last obtained. The peace arranged in 1748 proved to be relatively brief, but during the years from 1748 to 1756 there occurred an economic recovery which restored the province to its former level of prosperity.105 Recovery from the wartime depression was rapid, but not immediate. Rice, despite the prolonged decline both in price and demand, remained South Carolina's chief staple. Starting in the last full year of the war, 1747, and continuing into the mid-1750's, rice prices rose irregularly.106 Production and exportation took longer to expand beyond their wartime levels. However, by 1751, Charleston's exports of rice reached the highest level in seven years and in 1755 the 100,000 barrel mark had been 107 To a considerable extent surpassed for the first time. the improved situation for rice can be laid to the return of peacetime freight and insurance costs. As these charges declined it became more profitable for the Charleston merchants and their foreign correspondents again 108 to handle rice. No longer did the merchants have to search out markets or push the commodity upon British traders hoping not to suffer a 1053.109 Indigo, which was first introduced as a supple- mentary crop during the war, continued to have an important place within the provincial economy. The return of peace failed to undermine its significance, although production 242 fell off slightly during the years from 1752 to 1754. Charleston merchants continued their promotional efforts for this commodity pointing out to their British colleagues the improvement which had taken place in the quality as well as the volume of production.110 Charleston merchants further benefited from the reopening of the slave trade into South Carolina. Techni- cally the prohibitive duty, in spite of periodic lapses, had been in effect since 1741 and lasted through 1751. However, in 1749 the demand for more slaves increased to such an extent that Charleston merchants again began to import Negroes.111 The mortality rate of South Carolina's slaves was such that despite natural increase the black population remained relatively stable during the period of the high tariff. As long as the province was suffering from the depression there was little necessity to secure more field labor, but with the improvement in prospects the planters recognized that they would soon need more slaves.112 The slave trade had been and, once it was re- established on a large scale, would again be among the most financially rewarding phases of commercial life in Charleston. Firms such as Austin and Laurens, Middleton and Brailsford, and Inglis, Pickering, and Wraxall lost no time regaining for Charleston its reputation as one of the 113 best markets for slaves in British North America. From a mere seventy-two slaves brought into the province 243 in 1749, the local merchants were, by the fiscal year 1751- 52 importing 831. In 1752 over a thousand Negroes were imported, a figure which was surpassed every succeeding 114 Even the threat of war with France year until 1762. did not seriously hinder the slave trade. As Henry Laurens pointed out, even if rice prices should suffer during another war, the planters would continue to require more ; 115 slaves to produce indigo. Certain aspects of the slave trade remained unchanged from previous years. The methods by which slaves were supplied to and marketed by the Charleston merchants were as before the prohibitive duty. Furthermore the most extensive involvement in the slave trade was still limited to a few merchants. In the odd numbered fiscal years from 1751-52 to 1759-60 no more than fifteen firms imported 116 In 1753-54, one firm, Austin slaves in any single year. and Laurens paid 45 per cent of the import duties on Negroes. During that same fiscal year the four largest importers of slaves remitted 88 per cent of the total while the nine other importing firms paid the remainder.117 Not every phase of commerce prospered during the 1750's. The Indian trade suffered as a result of the troubled state of relations with certain tribes. Once again Governor Glen's inability to deal adequately with these affairs, the expansion of some whites into Indian territorites, and the machinations of dishonest traders threatened to bring upon the colony an Indian war. Although 244 a war scare in 1751 proved to be but a temporary incon- venience to trade, the conditions were deteriorating to the extent that neither Glen nor his successor as governor, William Henry Lyttelton, were able to prevent the Cherokee War later in the decade. With this war, the role of the ‘ Indian trade in the affairs of Charleston merchants E 118 ceased to have great significance. Having overcome certain setbacks and aware that eventually war would erupt on the North America continent between Great Britain and France, the Charleston merchants, nevertheless displayed confidence in future economic of South Carolina. New men were embarking upon mercantile careers, established merchants were taking on partners, and extending the range of their operations.119 Henry Laurens, in soliciting business for his new partnership with George Austin, informed Foster Cunliffe, a Liverpool merchant, of the good prospects for the province: Wine from Madeira and rum and sugar from Barbadoes and the Leeward Islands are always in demand at Caro- lina and generally yield a good account. I can venture to assure you there is a prospect of good sales for Negroes in that province as rice promises fair to be a good commodity, the quantity heretofore exported being greatly reduced by out attention to the indigo and we have good reason to hope for success in the last article and that it will make a very considerable addition in our remittances to Great Britain.120 Merchants also increased the importations further indicating an economic recovery. This was reflected in the amount of the general duty on sundry merchandise which they imported. In the last year of the war, 1748, local 245 merchants paid to provincial government over £6000 currency for these general duties. The following year that figure shot up to over £9600 currency. After 1751 it never again dropped below £11,000 currency and usually increased with each succeeding year.121 In addition the number of merchants who paid minimum of £50 currency for the general import duty increased from an average of 22.6 for the even - 2“. —‘\ numbered fiscal years, 1739-40 to 1747-48, up to 28 for . 122 1749-50 to 1755-56. It should be kept in mind that these figures do not cover importations from Great Britain which were not taxed. However the value of British exports to both North and South Carolina (one may reason- able assume that the largest proportion went to South Carolina) indicated a significant increase in the value of those products purchased in the colony.123 The upturn in business conditions is also seen in the greater frequency with which individual merchants and firms advertised in the Gazette. In the last three full years of war, 1745 to 1747, an annual average of thirty-three commercial firms advertised on a fairly consistent basis. However, starting in 1749 and continuing until 1754 an annual average of fifty-seven firms regularly advertised.124 Having attained the structure which it did in the decade of the 1750's, the commercial life of Charleston remained substantially the same through most of the remainder of the colonial period. Charleston continued 246 TABLE 5.--Merchants Paying Over £50 in General Duties. No. of No. of Fiscal Year Merchants Fiscal Year Merchants 1739-40 16 1749-50 20 1741-42 23 1751-52 28 1“ 1743-44 22 1753-54 35 1745-46 20 1755-56 29 . 1747-48 32 E Annual Average No. 22.6 28 Source: Treasurer's Books, Journal A, 125-127, 140-143, 182-185, 197-199, 236-240, 252-255, 290-294, 305-308, 344-346, 355-358, Journal B, ll-l3, 22-26, 56-60, 67-70, 93-97, 103-107, 131-134, 140-143, S.C. Archives. TABLE 6.--Merchants Advertising in the SCG, 1745-1754. Year No. Year No. 1745 37 1749 64 1746 28 1750 50 1747 33 1751 n 53 Annual 1752 58 Average 33 1753 64 1754 34 Annual Average 57 Source: SCG, 1745-1754. 247 as the single large metropolitan center south of Virginia. Its role and significance were recognized not only by the colonists but also by British merchants and government officials. The volume of trade increased and certain personal changes took place in view of deaths, retirements, and emigrations. However many of the new men who replaced them were sons, nephews, former apprentices, or clerks. As might be expected they adopted the commercial ar- rangements and most of the attitudes of the previous generation.125 In 1756 war was declared between Great Britain and France. Although fighting had actually been going on upon the North American continent for some time, South Carolina was only indirectly involved. The Cherokee War of 1759 and 1760 was but a side show to the major operations.126 Charleston's commercial life was not seriously handicapped as it was during the previous war. After the war subtle changes took place in the attitudes of many Carolinians, including some leading merchants. Satisfied with the status quo, they viewed attempts to alter the fundamental political and economic relationship of the colony to the mother country as a serious danger. As they had in the past Charleston's merchants provided leadership in an era of crisis.127 NOTES lPringle to John Richards, Sept. 26, 1739, Pringle Letters, I, 131. 2Glen to Board of Trade, Jan. 19, 1748, S.C. Pub. Recs., XXIII, 36-38. Glen to Robert Dinwiddie, Mar. 13, 1754, McDowell, ed., Indian Books, II, 478. Dec. 8, 1744, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1744-1745, 270-271. 3Plumb, The First Four Georges, 14. 4S.C. Admiralty Court Records, D, contains the records of the issuance of several etters of marque and of the required bonds. 51bid., D, 305-326. 61bid., 0, 329-334, 399-403. Pringle to Andrew Pringle, Feb. 6, 1743, Pringle Letters, III, 626. SCG, Aug. 24, 1747. 7A physician, James Irwin, and two other non- merchants were partial owners of the privateer Isabella Galley along with two merchants, Robert Pringle and George Ing ls. S.C. Admiralty Court Records, D, 339-403. Pringle to Andrew Pringle, Feb. 6, 1744, Mar. 18, 1745, Pringle Letters, III, 624-627, IV, 812. 8Pringle to Andrew Pringle, Nov. 19, Dec. 6, 22, 1744, Jan. 19, 1745, Ibid., IV, 745-746, 756, 775, 789. 9Pringle to Andrew Pringle, Dec. 6, 1744, Mar. 18, 1745, Ibid., IV, 756-758, 812-813. SCG, May 26, 1746. 1OS.C. Admiralty Court Recores, D. Pringle to Richard Thompson, June 11, 1740, Pringle Letters, II, 208. 248 249 11Register of the Port of Charleston, S.C. Archives. 12Pringle to Andrew Pringle, Jan. 19, 1745, Pringle Letters, IV, 790. Rogers, Charleston, 31-34. Jan. 26, 1745, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1744-1745, 311-312. 13Rogers, Charleston, 33. "Abstract of an Act Passed in South Carolina in 1746 . . . ," inclosed in a F" letter of P. Fury, Jan. 22, 1748, S.C. Pub. Recs., XXIII, ' 56-57. 14W. T. Baxter, The House pf Hancock, Business 12. Boston, 1724-1745 (Cambridge, Mass., 1945), 74, 80:82, 92-107. “a 04 - 'I J 15Pringle to Andrew Pringle, April 17, 1742, Pringle Letters, II, 361. 16Smith, "Barionies," SCHM, XVIII, 8-9. SCG, May 4, 1747, Feb. 1, 1748. Information concerning this firm and its subsequent history may be found in: Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Papers, I, 9n. 17Nov. 8, 1707, Commons Journal, III, 90-91, S.C. Archives. Nov. 8, 1725, TreasurerTs Books, Ledger A, fol. 6, 12, S.C. Archives. 18April 17, 1744, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1744-1745, 105-114. In apportioning the tax burden throughout the colony, the Assembly each year estimated that portion of the colony's wealth which was located in Charleston. The city's inhabitants were then assessed that fraction of the total tax bill, usually from one- seventh to one-fifth. For instance, in 1743-44, Charleston residents paid one-sixth of the taxes. May 19, 1744, Ibid., 162. Treasurer's Books, Ledger B, 2, 10, S.C. Archives. 19In this regard see the accounts of Samuel and George Eveleigh as well as that of William Stone for 1740: Jan. 28, Mar. 4, 31, May 1, 1740, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1739-1741, 149, 209, 229, 233. 279-280, 284-285, 318-319, 324. 20Jellison, "Antecedents," WMQ, XVI, 566-567. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 205-206. 250 len the lists of government contractors there appears to have been a wide distribution over the entire range of the commercial community with no obvious instances of large contracts consistantly awarded to the same firms. Exact estimates of the colony's payments to merchants for their goods and services remains difficult to fix. However, in the fiscal year 1740-41 they received between 11 and 17 per cent of the total (£5000 to £7500 currency). In 1743-44 the amount paid to merchants dropped to between f1_ 13 and 20 per cent. These years may be atypical but only in the amounts spent by the province which were especially heavy due to the war. Mar. 20, 1741. Mar. 1, 1742, April 28, 1743, April 17, 1744, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1739-1741, 537-543, 1741-1742, 445-446, 1742-1744, 391-403, 1744-1745, 105-114. ._ -I ll. ' M'v-L' 22June 9, 1748, Easterby and Green, eds., Ibid., 1748, 297-299. 23Treasurer's Books, Journal A, 290-294, 305-308, 344-349, 355-358, Journal B, 11-13, 22-26, S.C. Archives. 24Ibid., Journal A, 344-349, 355-358. SCG, May 22, June—S, 1736, Nov. 3, 1758. “" 25[James Glen,] A_Description 93 South Carolina; . . . (London, 1761), 48. 26George Louis Beer, British Colonial Policy, 1754-1756 (Gloucester, Mass., 1958), 89-93, describes how the flag of truce vessels successfully carried out their illicit operations during the following war. 27Bull to Newcastle, Nov. 22, 1743, S.C. Pub. Recs., XXI, 217-218. Feb. 21, 1745, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1744-1745, 353-355. 28Dec. 7, 1744, Jan. 26, Feb. 16, 21, 1745, Ibid., 1744-1745, 268-270, 315—320, 353-355. "“‘ 29Presentments of the Grand Jury of the Province, March 20, 1745, S.C. Pub. Recs., XXII, 73. 30Pringle to Andrew Pringle, June 11, 1744, Pringle Letters, IV, 693. Glen to Newcastle, July 14, 1744, S.C. Pub. Recs., XXI, 391-393. 251 31May 21, 1745, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1744-1745, 527. 32Jan. 26, Feb. 16, 21, 1745, Ibid., 1744-1745, 315-320, 338, 353-355. ““’ 33Pringle to Samuel Saunders, Oct. 22, 1740, Pringle Letters, II, 254. Pringle to Andrew Pringle, M7 June 17, 1742, Ibid., II, 369-370. Petition of Governor, Council, and Commons House of Assembly to King, May 11, 1745, S.C. Pub. Recs., XXII, 88-93. Glen to Board of Trade, Sept. 22, 1744, Ibid., XXI, 404-405. 34Glen to Capt. Hamer of the H.M.S. Flamborough, 1 Jan. 7, 1745, Ibid., XXII, 28-29. Petition of Governor, ’ Council, and Commons House of Assembly, Jan. 30, 1748, Ibid., XXIII, 62-65. Glen to Board of Trade, Jan. 19, 1748, Ibid., XXIII, 37-38. Glen to Board of Trade, April 14, 1748, Ibid., XXIII, 112-115. Jan. 22, 1748, Easterby and Green, eds., Commons Journal, 1748, 14. 35Pringle to Andrew Pringle, Nov. 14, 1743, Pringle Letters, III, 593. 36§g§, April 15, 1745, June 15, Aug. 14, 24, 1747. One of the passengers on a vessel which was seized by a Spanish privateer was Robert Pringle. The account of his capture is noted in Mabel L. webber (annotator), "Journal of Robert Pringle, 1746-1747," SCHM, XXVI (1925), 107-108. Laurens to James Crokatt, June 24, 1747, Hamer, et al, eds., Laurens Papers, I, 11. Laurens to Alexander Watson, Nov. 7, 1747, Ibid., I, 73. 37Laurens to James Crokatt, Aug. 18, 1747, Ibid., I, 43. July 1, 1741, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1741-1742, 76-77. 38Jan. 22, June 9, 1748, Ibid., 1748, 297-299. As late as May, 1748 Spanish privateers continues to harass the Carolina coast, if not as successfully as before. Laurens to James Crokatt, May 18, 1748, Hamer, et al, eds., Laurens Papers, I, 137. 39Pringle to Andrew Pringle, July 5, 1743, Pringle Letters, III, 563. Henry Laurens later commented that the freight rates had reached the previously unheard of highs of 6.17 and 7.5 per ton during the war. Laurens to Thomas 252 40Laurens to James Crokatt, June 3, 24, July 10, 1747, Mar. 17, 1748, Ibid., I, 4-5, 9, 25, 122. 41Taylor, "Commodity Prices," JEBH, IV, 358-360, 372. 42Laurens to Lewis De Rossett, Oct. 12, 1755, Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Pa ers, I, 358. Laurens to James Crokatt, June 24, 1747, I 1 ., I, 9. Ibid., I, 14n. 43Laurens to James Crokatt, June 10, 1748, Ibid., I, 143-144. Laurens to Lewis De Rosset, Oct. 12, 1755, Ibid., I. 358. 44Pringle to Thomas Hutchinson and Co., Sept. 4, 1742, Pringle Letters, II, 394. 45Pringle to Richard Partridge, Jan. 29, 1742, Ibid., III, 475. 46For the bankruptcy of Francis Holmes see Henry Laurens' letter to Pomeroys and Streatfield, July 25, 1748, Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Papers, I, 158-159. The bankruptc1es of Pinckney and others are noted in Rogers, Charleston, 30-31. 47Taylor, "Commodity Prices," JEBH, IV, 372. Donnan, "Slave Trade into S.C.," AHR, XXXIII, 807. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 265-269. 48Dec. 8, 1744, Easterby, eds., Commons Journal, 1744-1745, 270-271. Glen to Dinwiddie, Mar. 13, 1754, McDowell, ed., Indian Books, II, 478. 49Historical Statistics, series 2: 276, 768. Gray, Agriculture, I, 288-289, II, 1022. Taylor, "Commodity Prices, JEBH, IV, 358. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 206. 50Historical Statistics, series Z: 276, 768. Wallace, Short History, 136. Pringle to John Richard, Dec. 27, 1738, Pringle Letters, I, 49-50. 51Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 205-207. 253 52Pringle to Andrew Pringle, July 5, 1743, Pringle Letters, III, 563. Pringle to David Chesebrough, Dec. 17, 1744, Ibid., IV, 764. Taylor, "Commodity Prices," JEBH, IV, 360, 362-363, 372. 531bid., 355, 358-359. Pringle to William wessell, Jan. 27, 1741, Pringle Letters, II, 280. Glen to Board of Trade, Jan. 19, 1748, S.C. Pub. Recs., XXIII, 36. In S4Pringle to Henry Jonathan Brock, June 28, 1744, Pringle Letters, IV, 698-699. Historical Statistics, series Z: 304-307, 770. ‘2).- 55SCG, Oct. 8, 1744. Gray, Agriculture, I, 289, 292-294. Wallace, Short History, 189-190. Slrmans, Colonial S.C., 269. . 56Pringle to Andrew Pringle, Sept. 21, Nov. 19, 1744, April 4, 1745, Pringle Letters, IV, 726, 747, 818. 57§E§1 Nov. 9, 1747, Oct. 31, 1748. 58Sept. 26, Nov. 22, 1746, Jan. 22, 27, 1748, Mar. 31, 1749, Easterby and Green, eds., Commons Journal, 1746-1747, 17-18, 41-42, 1748, 14, 28-29, 1749-1750, 17-18. Glen to Board of Trade, Aprll 28, 1747, S.C. Pub. Recs., XXII, 272-275. Fury to Board of Trade, Mar. 4, 1746, Ibid., XXII, 139. "Reasons for . . . Granting a Bounty . . . ," Jan., 1748, Ibid., XXIII, 43-52. Board of Trade to Glen, June 15, 1748, Ibid., XXIII, 124-124. Laurens to Richard Grubb, Feb. 19, I1748,] Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Pa ers, I, 114. Laurens to James Crokatt, Aug. 24, 1748, Ibid., I, 169-170. Gray, Agriculture, I, 328-329. sglpigf, I, 292-294. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 275. 60Wallace, Short History, 191. Rogers, Charleston, 15-16. 61Pringle to Andrew Pringle, Oct. 19, 1743, Pringle Letters, III, 573. 62Oct. 7, 1743, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1742-1744, 470-471. 254 63Oct. 7-8, 10-11, 1743, Ibid., 1742-1744, 470-477. 64Oct. 12-13, 1743, Ibid., 1742-1744, 478-482. 65Oct. 14, 1743, Ibid., 1742-1744, 483-484, 487. 66Oct. 14, 1743, Ibid., 1742-1744, 488. 67Pringle to Andrew Pringle, Mar. 19, July 20, 1744, Pringle Letters, IV, 648, 712-713. 68That Charleston merchants forcefully expressed themselves on political personalities and issues is seen in Robert Pringle's charge that Governor Glen was "no friend to trade," because of his support for a change in the taxing procedures. Pringle to Andrew Pringle, May 30, 1744, Pringle Letters, IV, 585. Similarly in the dispute between the Commons House and the Council over the selection of a colonial agent, Henry Laruens made known his strong support of James Crokatt to continue in that position. Laurens to Rawlinson and Davison, Sept. 24, 1755, Hamer, et al, eds., Laurens Papers, I, 344. 69Pringle to Andrew Pringle, Nov. 19, 1744, Pringle Letters, IV, 746. 70Greene, Quest for Power, 475-488. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 247-249. 71The backbenchers were capable of revolting against their legislative leaders from time to time. Sirmans cited three specific instances. Ibid., 248. He pointed to the increasing proportion of the taxes to be paid by Charleston residents from one-sixth to one-fifth of the total in 1742. However the change was based upon new estimates of the wealth of the province which found that fraction of the colony's income-producing property to be located in Charleston. The committee which prepared this report was in fact dominated by merchants and lawyers by a margin of nine to four over the planters. Feb. 27, Mar. 3, 4, 1742, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1741-1742, 445, 458-460, 463-464. Sirmans also believed that in opposing the silver mine the planter-politicians were rebelling, but, as we have seen, several merchants also took this position. Pringle to Andrew Pringle, Oct. 19, 1743, Pringle Letters, III, 573. Finally, in the problem of the reduction of the ceiling on interest rates, he perhaps had a point as some 255 merchants opposed the reduction from 10 to 8 per cent. Laurens to William Stone, May 18, 1748, Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Papers, I, 139. 72Sirmans, "S.C. Royal Council," WMQ, XVIII, 376, 379-381, 392. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 236-239. Edmund Atkin, "Wrong Practices in the Government of South Caro- lina," in Jack P. Greene, ed., "South Carolina's Colonial Constitution: Two Proposals for Reform," SCHM, LXII ”5 (1961), 74-78. 73May 24, 1744, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1744-1745, 172. 74 Dec. 8, 1744, Ibid., 1744-1745, 270-271. 7SIbid. Inclosure in Fury and Fenwicke to Board of Trade, Nov. 2 , 1745, S.C. Pub. Recs., XXII, 115-123. 76Sept. 16, Nov. 22, 1746, Easterby and Green, eds., Commons Journal, 1746-1747, 17-18, 41-42. Glen to Board of Trade, April 28, 1747, S.C. Pub. Recs., XXII, 272-275. 77Board of Trade to Glen, June 15, 1748, Ibid., XXIII, 123-125. 78William Wood to Thomas Hill, June 19, 1746, Ibid., XXII, 162-163. 79Jellison, "Antecedents," WMQ, XVI, 564-565. Mar. 11, 1743, May 16, 1744, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1742-1744, 290-291, 1744-1745, 142-145. 80Dec. 7, 1744, Ibid., 1744-1745, 254-255, 257. 81Cooper and McCord, eds., Statutes, III, 671-677. "Abstract of an Act Passed in South Carolifia in 1746, For Emitting £210000 in Paper Bills of Credit," S.C. Pub. Recs., XXIII, 55-61. Fury to John Pownall, Jan. 22, 1748, Ibid., XXIII, 53-55. Glen to Board of Trade, Dec. 23, 1749, Ibid., XXIII, 426-441. 82Board of Trade to Glen, JUne 15, 1748, Nov. 15, 1750, Ibid., XXIII, 123-125, XXIV, 168-169. Lamb to Board of Trade, Dec. 14, 1748, Jan. 31, 1749, Ibid., XXIII, 256 270-275, 282. Board of Trade to King, June 6, 1753, Ibid., XXV, 234, 272-288. Jellison, "Antecedents," WMQ, XVI, 565. 83May 25-26, 28-29, 1744, Easterby, ed., Commons 84Pringle to Andrew Pringle, May 30, 1744, Pringle Letters, IV, 685. SCG, June 11, 18, July 4, 1744. ET: 85Pringle to Andrew Pringle, May 30, July 20, 1744, _ L Pringle Letters, IV, 685, 712-713. ; 86May 26, 1744, May 7, 1745, Upper House Journal, 5., XII, 79-87, XIII, 118-174, S.C. Archives. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 258-262. 87Ipig3, 256-314. Greene, Quest for Power, 53-65. Weir, "Pre-Revolutionary S.C.," WMQ, XXVI, 474—479, 433- 498. "“ 88Ibid., 479-488. 89Crouse, "Gabriel Manigault," SCHM, LXVIII, 222. Pringle to Andrew Pringle, May 19, 1743, Pringle Letters, III, 534. Mar. 23, 31, 1743, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1742-1744, 312, 349. 9°Mar. 31, April 1, 1743, Ibid., 1742-1744, 349, 355, 358-359. Mar. 23, April 28, 29, 1743, Upper House Journal, X, 52-53, 91-94, S.C. Archives. 91April 30, May 3, 1743, Easterby, ed., Commons Journal, 1742-1744, 414-415, 422-423. 92May 7, 1745, Upper House Journal, XIII, 118-174. S.C. Archives. 93Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 295-314. 94Sirmans, "S.C. Royal Council," WMQ, XVIII, 389-390, 392. Sirmans found ten appointments to the Council to have taken place between 1756 and 1776, three merchants, three planters and four placemen. This among other things indicates a shift in policy. See also: 257 William Bull II to Hillsborough, Nov. 30, 1770. S.C. Pub. Recs., XXXII, 372. 95The deterioration of relations between the Indians and the South Carolinians is the subject of a "Memorial of John Fenwicke," received April 9, 1745, Ibid., XXII, 40-56. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 271-273. 96Pringle to Andrew Pringle, May 30, 1744, Pringle Letters, IV, 685. - 97Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 195, 270-276. Glen to Newcastle, July 2, 1714. S.C. Pub. Recs., XXI, 378-382. Glen to Board of Trade, Sept. 22, 1744, April 28, 1747, Jan. 19, 1748, April 14, 1748, Dec. 23, 1749, March, 1753, Aug. 26, 1754, Ibid., XXI, 235-241, 399-406, XXII, 272-279, XXIII, 36-42, 112-115, 426-441, XXV, 174-214, XXVI, 106-115, SEE, July 9, 16, 25, 29, Aug. 1, 8, 1748. 98Glen to Board of Trade, Sept. 29, 1746, S.C. Pub. Recs., XXII, 199-204, May 26, 28, 1747, Easterly, edT) Commons Journal, 1746-1747, 282-283, 296. Norman W. Caldwell, "The Southern Frontier during King George's War," Jgfi, VII (1941), 43-46. 9Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 267. 100Ibid., 268. 101Ibid., 284. May 16, 23, June 1, 1749, Easterby and Green, eds., Commons Journal, 1749-1750, 96, 178, 183-184, 271. May 15, 16, 19, 23, 24, 1750, Commons Journal, XXV, 621-625, 666-669, 681-690, 696-699. 102Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 284-285. 103Ibid., 311-312. 104The Peace of Aix-la-Chappelle which ended the war was signed October 20, 1748, but its announcement was not proclaimed in Charleston until June 12, 1749. SEE, June 19, 1749. Earlier, a cessation of hostilities had been announced. SCG, Aug. 15, 1748. 105Laurens to Richard St. John, Mar. 19, 1748, Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Papers, I, 125. 258 106Taylor, "Commodity Prices," JEBH, IV, 373- 107Historical Statistics, series Z: 262-275, 768. 108 Laurens to Smith and Clifton, May 26, 1755, Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Pa ers, I, 256, Laurens to Peter Furnell, June 12, 1755, I, 2 2. 109Pringle to Andrew Pringle, July 5, 1743, Pringle Letters, III, 561-564. Pringle to James Archbold, Dec. 24, 1743, Ibid., III, 608-609. " F'f' ‘ . En" 110Laurens to Richard Patteson, Sept. 24, 1755, Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Papers, I, 341-342. Laurens Pd to Sarah Nlckleson, Aug. 1, 1755, Ibid., I, 310. 111Higgins, "Negro Duty Law," 29-30. At certain times slaves were brought in when the law establishing the heavy tariff lapsed and before it could be renewed. Pringle to Andrew Pringle, Nov. 19, 1744, Pringle Letters, IV, 747-748. 112Laurens to John Knight, Jan. 20, 1748, Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Pa ers, I, 205. Historical Sta- tlstlcs, series Z: 30 , 770. Greene andiHarrington, American Population, 174-175 found that in 1739 the black population of South Carolina was 40,000, but by 1749 it had declined to 39,000. 113The records of the number of slaves brought in, the importer, and the amount of duty paid on the slaves are found in: Treasurer's Books, Journals A and B, S.C. Archives. For a ranking of the slave importers on the basis of the amount of duty paid over the course of the colonial period after 1735 see: W. Robert Higgins, "Charles Town Merchants and Factors in the External Negro Trade, 1735-1775," SCHM, LXV (1964), 205-217. 114Historical Statistics, series Z: 303, 770. 115Laurens to Devonshire, Reeve, and Lloyd, July 4, 1755, Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Papgrs, I, 286. 116Laurens to Smith and Clifton, May 26, 1755, Ibid., I, 255-257, Higgins, "Negro Duty Law, 104-110. Treasurer's Books, Journal B, 64, 73, 97, 110, 136, 146, 175, 187, 233, 248, S.C. Archives. 259 117Ibid, Journal B, 97, 110, S.C. Archives. 118Anthony Dean to Cornelius Doharty, May 1, 1751, "Memorial of Robert Browning and Others," Nov. 22, 1751, James Beamer to Glen, April 26, 1752, Governor Glen's "talk" with the Creek chiefs, May 31, 1753, McDowell, ed., Indian Books, II, 72-73, 148-151, 256-257, 394-408, Raymond Demerd and John Stuart to Lyttelton, July 11, 1757, William Henry Lyttleton Papers, Clements Library. Sirmans, F“' Colonial S.C., 301, 324-325; 119Laurens to Sarah Nickleson, Aug. 1, 1755, Hamer, et al., ed., Laurens Papers, I, 309. Laurens to Francis Bremar, Dec. 23, 1748, Ibld., I, 188-189. Laurens L to George Austin, Dec. 17, 1748, Ibid., I, 182-185. .4- 120 Laurens to Foster Cunliffe, Jan. 20, 1749, Ibid., 121Treasurer's Books, Ledger B, 32, 37, 48, 51, 57, 61, 62, 67, 72, 76, 80, S.C. Archives. Two exceptional years were 1754 and 1756 when the income from general duties declined below that of the preceding years. However, in neither case were these declines substantial or did they have a lasting impact. 122Table 5. 123Historical Statistics, series Z: 32, 757. 124Table 6. 125Leila Sellers, Charleston Business 92 the Eye pf the American Revolution (Chapel Hill, 1934). 126Rogers, Charleston, 37-43. Robert M. Weir, "An Most Important Epocha‘: The Coming of the Revolution in South Carolina, Tricentennial Booklet Number 5 (Columbia, 1970), 1-11, 25-28. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION This study has focused upon the functional roles assumed by the Charleston merchants from the early years of the colony until the period immediately preceding the French and Indian War. During this era South Carolina experienced unprecedented if irregular commercial develop- ment. To the resident merchants based at Charleston were offered opportunities to serve both themselves and their colony by political and economic leadership. Because of its urban center and its port facilities the plantation society of South Carolina differed from those which developed elsewhere in British North America. The emergence of a resident merchant group made for a distinct pattern of economic behavior.1 Although in periods of social and economic stress, planter-merchant antipathy was present, for the most part South Carolina's planters and merchants recognized the complimentary roles of each other. As was the case with their counterparts in the northern colonies, Charleston's merchants functioned as their society's dynamic economic element.2 To the merchants fell 260 261 the tasks of maintaining the high levels of commercial prosperity through the promotion of local staples and the expansion of overseas markets. In securing these objectives, they had the advantages of contacts with influential British commercial figures and their own strategic positions within the province. From the days when merchants first appeared upon the commercial scene in Charleston, they had been involved in provincial politics. In part this was an outgrowth of the social and economic positions which they held in a deferential society, and in part it was the result of their efforts to stabilize the frequently turbulent politics of the province in order to provide a more suitable climate for further economic growth. While most members of the commercial community might agree with these general objectives, they failed to demonstrate any unanimity as to specific programs. The differences among Charleston merchants, whether based upon commercial rivalries, personal feelings, or political ambitions, prevented unification into an effective, homogeneous block. The years which immediately followed the founding of South Carolina in 1670 were ones in which a simple commerce developed. The infant colony traded chiefly with the more established English settlements in the West Indies and elsewhere in North America. An important, if still small, trade also existed between South Carolina and the 262 mother country. Among Indians and whites a trade was quickly begun in which the Carolinians received deer skins and Indian slaves. While the provincial agriculture was unspecialized and the Indian trade confined to the immediate vicinity, a distinct commercial group failed to evolve. There were in the colony persons from commercial backgrounds who engaged in trade, but in most instances they were involved in other activities to the extent that they could not be distinguished from their neighbors. At this early date no special knowledge and few outside contacts were required of potential traders. Furthermore South Carolina was not yet sufficiently developed to support rigidly distinct economic groups. Finally the proprietors hoped to establish a society of landed estates in which professional groups were not required, and in which they could perhaps maintain control over the trade of the province. In 1680 the main settlement was shifted to Oyster Point where Charleston was founded. Advantageously situated, Charleston soon developed into one of the important centers of the Atlantic trading network. During the closing years of the seventeenth century significant transformations occurred which altered the structure of the provincial economy. The first of these changes was an expansion of the Indian trade far beyond the immediate area of settlement. This increase in the range of the 263 Carolina Indian trade meant that larger quantities of deer skins and slaves were brought into Charleston. As this trade expanded so likewise did the complexity of the management, supply, and marketing problems associated with it. The planter-traders who carried out the expansion were usually incapable of dealing with the new problems. During the same period the agriculture of the province became more specialized with the successful introduction of rice as a staple crop. These developments made possible the emergence of a distinct merchant group at Charleston. Possessing the technical knowledge, skills, and overseas contacts, the merchants were ideally situated to market the colony's commodities and to insure a regular supply of imported goods. Despite the fact that they came from diverse backgrounds, the Charleston merchants had a number of factors in common.3 Regardless of ethnic affiliation or place of origin, the merchants had to know and be known by their colleagues overseas. They had access to credit extended to them primarily by London or Bristol com- mercial firms. Understanding the workings of the vast Atlantic trading system, the Charleston merchants supplied goods which were in demand but did not compete with those of other regions in the network. They possessed the experience required for the management of men and accounts. In addition their responses to the economic conditions presented by the colony were relatively standardized. 264 They were primarily concerned in the wholesale (but to some extent the retail as well) distribution of imported goods, the purchase of agricultural commodities for exportation, and the Indian trade. To a priviledged few was offered the opportunity to enter into the slave trade on a large scale. In varying degrees the merchants also engaged in money lending, shipowning, and such non-commercial pursuits as planting and land speculation. Over a period of time, personalities, issues, and events came and went, but the basic patterns of Charleston commerce remained for most of the colonial period essentially as developed by the earlier merchants. The early merchants also established a pattern for those who followed with their involvement in provincial politics. In the midst of unstable personal, sectarian, and ethnic conflicts which prevailed in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the merchants who par- ticipated in politics failed to exert a great influence. However during the later years of proprietary rule, as clear issues emerged and the necessity for consistent political leadership became clear, the merchants came to the fore. In the conflicts over reform of the Indian trade, paper currency, and proprietary rule, many merchants took positions which they believed would secure the interests of commerce. However failing to attain an united response, the merchants stood out among the leadership of the competing factions. Their failure to unite for effective 265 action contributed to the prolongation of the bitter factional disputes particularly over paper money. The political and economic turmoil of the 1720's severely tested the abilities of the Charleston merchants. The provincial economy remained in a depressed state throughout most of the decade. Many smaller planters were demanding that the provincial government act to relieve their plight. Finding spokesman in merchants such as William Dry and John Lloyd, they advocated further emissions of paper currency. At the other extreme stood a faction composed of those who were opposed to the use of paper money in general and to further issues of currency in particular. This hard-money group was led by Benjamin de la Conseillere, a prominent Charleston merchant, and it was composed primarily of merchants. Between either pole were a large body of moderates, among whom were found the bulk of the commercial community. Fearing the outbreak of general planter-merchant hostility and recognizing the need for sufficient local currency at a stable rate of exchange, these merchants rallied around the efforts of Samuel and Joseph Wragg, both merchants, to influence imperial policy in the prOper course. The Wraggs, especially Samuel, demonstrated how colonial merchants were able to mobilize their commercial connections to shape opinions in the mother country. Samuel Wragg successfully outmaneuvered the agent of the hard-money faction by obtaining the support of a number of London merchants for 266 a compromise solution to the paper-money question, for an exemption from the Navigation Acts which would permit the direct shipment of rice to southern Europe, and for the appointment of a governor who was satisfactory to the moderates. The influence of the British merchants, and indirectly the Charleston merchants, proved decisive in the conversion of the Board Of Trade to the compromise program. With the settlement of the paper-money controversy and the installation of the moderate Johnson administration in 1730, South Carolina politics calmed considerably. The moderate merchants had demonstrated their ability to provide political leadership within the province as well as to influence the actions and policies of Great Britain regarding South Carolina. Planters and merchants, for the most part, ceased to view one another as potentially hostile forces. They had at last come to recognize the compli- mentary roles each group played within the provincial economy. As local political conditions stabilized, planters increasingly withdrew from active participation in govern- ment. To the Charleston merchants were left many of the burdens and opportunities of political leadership. For most of the remainder of the colonial period, the Charles- tonians functioned as the predominate force within the Commons House of Assembly. Devoted to the "Country Idealogy" of protection for legislative and civil rights 267 against the encroachments of executive authority, the merchant-politicians took seriously their political responsibilities. In the Council as well the merchants remained the predominate element until the period of the French and Indian War. The economic recovery during the 1730's did much toward contributing to the growth of political stability. For this factor too, the Charleston merchants deserve a large portion of the credit. Through their efforts an expansion of the rice market had been obtained. With rice in greater demand, the province prospered again. The prosperity brought to South Carolina large volumes of trade goods and cargoes of slaves to be sold by the local merchants. During the period from 1737 to 1748, the Charleston merchants and the colony in general suffered from a series of economic setbacks. The outbreak of war with Spain interrupted the flow of goods into and out from Charleston. As high freight and insurance rates in addition to the disrupted market conditions cut into the demand for South Carolina commodities, an agricultural depression struck hard at the provincial economy. Furthermore the fear of servile rebellions was such that a prohibitive duty was imposed on the importation of slaves. Although cause for initial optimism the war had failed to produce sufficiently profitable related activities to compensate for the 268 interference with trade. Despite their somewhat shaken confidence and the failures of a few, the commercial responses of the merchants were substantially unaltered and their leadership roles were maintained throughout these years of trial. At the return of peace in 1748, South Carolina experienced a dramatic recovery. Commercial output ultimately surpassed former levels of prosperity as the demand for the local commodities grew. The wartime intro- duction of a second staple, indigo, also contributed toward the renewed prosperity. The reopened Slave trade meant still another area of commercial activity in which to engage. When war again threatened during the mid-1750's, Charleston merchants retained their confidence in the ability of the provincial economy to survive and to prosper. The social status of the merchant remained assured, his business continued to flourish, and his position within the political elite was established. Previously merchants upon securing their fortunes might follow the examples of Francis Yonge, Samuel Wragg, and James Crokatt by retiring to Great Britain.4 However during the 1740's a new generation of merchants had achieved business maturity. Natives of the province, a considerable number such as Benjamin Smith, Henry Laurens, and Christopher Gadsden possessed a strong sense of 269 identification with South Carolina and to some extent with the American colonies as a whole.5 Having assured themselves of an ascendant position, they were loath to accept challenges to their status regardless of its source. Despite the commercial prosperity of the merchants within the mercantile system of Great Britain, the Charleston merchants were prepared to join with other Carolinians when the mother country appeared to embark upon a new policy which would threaten the provincial status quo.6 NOTES lFor descriptions of economic behavior by the various economic groups in other plantation societies see: Aubrey C. Land, "Economic Base and Social Structure: The Northern Chesapeake in the Eighteenth Century," JEE, XXV (1965), 639-654; James H. Soltow, "Scottish Traders in Virginia, 1750-1775," EHR, XII (1959), 83-98; James H. Soltow, "The Role of Williamsburg in the Virginia Economy, 1750-1775," WMQ, 3rd series, XV (1958), 467-482; and Richard Pares, "Merchants and Planters," EHR, Supplement No. 4. 2Bernard Bailyn, The New England Merchants ip_the Seventeenth Century (New York, 1964), vii. 3Rogers, Charleston, 4-5. Studies of the colonial merchants of other regions do not indicate that their subjects were of such diverse backgrounds. Consult for example: Bailyn, New England Merchants; Frederick B. Tolles, Meeting House and Counting House, the Quaker Merchants 9f Colonial Philadelphia, 1682-1763 (New York, 1963); and Benjamin W. Labaree, Patriots and Partisans, the Merchants 9£_Newberryport, 1764-1815 (Cambridge, Mass., 1962). 4Rogers, Charleston, 38-39. Wallace, Short History, 194-195. 5Ibid., 256. Laurens to Devonsheir, Reeve, and Lloyd, Aug. 20, 1755, Hamer, et al., eds., Laurens Papers, I, 322. 6Rogers, Charleston, 39-44. Jack P. Greene, "Gadsden Election Controversy and the Revolutionary Movement in South Carolina, JAH, XLVI (1959), 469-492. Sirmans, Colonial S.C., 356-357. 270 BI BLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY BI BLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY This study of the merchants of early Charleston has been based in largest measure upon the manuscript and printed source material from the colonial period. Of particular importance have been the public records of the province from both the periods of proprietary as well as royal government. While portions of these have been published the bulk remain in manuscript at the South Caro- lina Archives. I have found the Treasurer's Books, 1725- 1773, 4 vols., South Carolina Archives to have been especially useful in obtaining information on duties paid, taxes, and government expenditures. Also pertinent were the Records of the Secretary of the Province and of the Register of the Province, 1671-1719, South Carolina Archives. An early segment from these documents has been published in Alexander S. Salley, ed., Records p£_gpg‘ Secretary p£_the Province and pf the Register g£_the Province, 1671-1675 (Columbia, 1944). The Secretary of the Province was responsible for recording legal documents of various kinds, so that his records contain numerous wills, bonds, business documents, and public papers. At a later 271 272 date these were recorded in the Miscellaneous Records, 1732-1790, at the South Carolina Archives. Among the various classes of documents included with the Miscel- laneous Records are: Wills, 1733-1783, 16 vols.; Inventories [of Estates], 1736-1784, 20 vols.; and Mortgages, 1736-1766, 15 vols. Under the auspices of the W.P.A. these were copied in typescript, bound, and loosely titled, Wills, Inventories of Estates, and Miscellaneous Records, 1671-1868, 100 vols. These volumes may be found in the South Carolina Archives and at the Probate Court Office, Charleston County Courthouse, in Charleston. The Indian trade was an important aspect of South Carolina's commercial life. The provincial records pertaining to it cover but a small fraction of the colonial period, but these have been given an excellent treatment in William L. McDowell, Jr., ed., Colonial Records 9: South Carolina, Series II: Journals 9: the Indian Trade, 1710-1718 (Columbia, 1955), and Documents Relative pp_Indian Affairs, 1750-1754 (Columbia, 1958). The shipping records of the province similarly tell us much of Charleston commerce. Important in this respect were: Register of the Port of Charleston, 1734-1765, 2 vols., South Carolina Archives; The Port of Charles Town, Record of Clearings, 1717-1721, South Carolina Archives; and the South Carolina Shipping Returns, Colonial Office Records, Series 5, vols. 508-511, which may be examined on microfilm at the South Carolina 273 Archives. The Records of the South Carolina Court of Admiralty, 1716-1763, 5 vols., are found at the Federal Records Center, East Pointe, Georgia, but are available on microfilm through the National Archives, Washington, D.C. The legislative journals have provided much information beyond that which concerned only the hectic political life of the colony. Alexander S. Salley has edited some of these. They include: Alexander S. Salley, ed., Journal 9£_the Grand Council g£_South Carolina, 1671-1680, 1682 (2 vols., Columbia, 1907), and Journal 2: the Commons House 9f_Assembly gf_South Carolina, 1692-1735 (21 vols., Columbia, 1907-1946). Salley's editorial work on the Commons Journals leaves much to be desired. Researchers will want to consult the Journal of the Commons House of Assembly, 1692-1775, in the South Carolina Archives. I have used the microfilm put out by the State Records Microfilm Project. More easily used and more informative is the J. H. Easterby and Ruth S. Green, eds., Colonial Records pf South Carolina, Series I: The Journals g£_the Commons House p£_Assembly, 1736-1750 (9 vols., Columbia, 1951-1962). Of less importance, but two series of documents which should be consulted because of the important place of the merchants on the Council were the: Journal of the Upper House, 1721-1774, South Carolina Archives; and the JOULnal of His Majesty's Honourable Council, 1734-1774. 274 Court and other legal records have proved to be worthwhile sources. For a compilation of the laws of colonial South Carolina see: Thomas Cooper and David J. McCord, eds., The Statutes_g£ Large pf South Carolina (10 vols., Columbia, 1836-1841). The records of the various provincial courts are found in: Anne King Gregorie, ed., Records pf the Court 9: Chancery 9: South Carolina, 1671-1779, Vol. VI of American ngal Records (Washington, 1950); Court of Ordinary Records, 1672-1692, South Carolina Archives; and Records of the Proceedings of the Court of Common Pleas, Judgment Books, 1733-1791, 16 vols., and Judgment Rolls, South Carolina Archives. The land records of colonial South Carolina are difficult to work with but contain considerable information. The more useful are the Grants, [16701-1775, 46 vols., with an easily used and informative Index; the Memorial Books, 1711-1775, 15 vols.; the Quit Rent Books, 1733-1774, 5 vols.; and Plats, 1731-1775, 23 vols. All of the land records cited may be found at the South Carolina Archives. The only published land records are Alexander S. Salley, ed., Warrants for Land ip_South Carolina, 1672-1711 (3 vols., Columbia, 1910-1915). Other forms of local records have proven useful to the researcher. For the early years, Langdon Cheves, ed., The Shaftesbury Papers and Other Records Relating E9 Carolina and the First Settlement pp the Ashley River Prior 275 Ep_the Year 1676, South Carolina Historical Society, Collections, V (1897), consists of official and semi- official correspondence and papers pertaining to the Charles Town settlement. Charleston had no local government throughout the colonial period. Those municipal services . which existed were provided by St. Philip's parish. The St. Philip's Parish Vestry Books, 1732-1795, 2 vols., St. Philip's Parish House, Charleston, record those functions of government which the parish assumed. Other church records have also been useful, particularly the Register of the Independent or Congregational Church of Charleston, 1732-1796, at the South Carolina Historical Society. British public records have been important to this study for the insights which they have offered regarding the nature of relations between the colony and the mother country. Most useful has been the collection known as Records ip_the British Public Record Office Relating pp. South Carolina, 1663-1782 (36 vols., Columbia, 1928-1955). The first five volumes of the series have been published in facsimile, while the remaining are available on microfilm. Also helpful have been the Great Britain, Public Record Office, Calendar 9£_State Papers, Colonial Series, America and the West Indies, 1574-1738 (44 vols., London, 1862-1969); Great Britain, Public Record Office, Calendar 9: Treasury Papers, 1557-1728 (6 vols., London, 1868-1889); and Great Britain, Public Record Office, 276 Calendar 9: Treasury Books and Papers, 1729-1745 (5 vols., London, 1897-1903). There exist comparatively few letter collections pertaining to proprietary South Carolina. Most have reference to contemporary politics, but they often comment upon social and economic conditions within the colony. The first of these is a photostat of a letter from Maurice Mathews, dated May 18, 1680, in the South Caroliniana Library. The South Caroliniana Library also possessed the Peter Colleton Letters, all from the year 1684. Among the early letters which have been published are: "Letters of Thomas Newe from South Carolina, 1682," American Historical Review, XII (1907), 322—327; "Letters from John Stewart to William Dunlop," South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, XXXII (1931), 1-33, 81-114, 170-174; and Robert Noxon Toppan, ed., Edward Randolph, Including His Letters and Official Papers, 1676-1703, Prince Society Publications, XXIV-XXXI (1898-1909). The clergymen of early South Carolina through their letters furnish yet other sources of information. The SPG Manuscripts, South Carolina Archives; and William Wilson Manross, ed., The Fulham Papers ip_the Lambeth Palace Librapy, American Colonial Section, Calendar and Indexes (Oxford, 1965) are interesting collections. The letters of two Carolina clergymen have been published. They are: Frank J. Klingberg, ed., Carolina Chronicle: The Papers p£_Commissary Gideon 277 Johnston, 1707-1716 (Berkeley, 1946); and by the same editor, The Carolina Chronicle 9£_Dr. Francis §g_Jau, 1706-1717 (Berkeley, 1956). For the years under the royal government there exist several private letter collections which contribute to our knowledge of the Charleston merchants. The most r important are the Papers of Henry Laurens in the South Carolina Historical Society. These consist chiefly of business letters, receipts, personal letters, and political 7 papers. The Laurens Papers have been microfilmed and are in the process of publication. I have used the excellent edition by Philip M. Hamer, George C. Rogers, Jr., and Maude E. Lyles, eds., The Papers gf_Hen§y Laurens, Volume One: Sept. 11, 1746-Oct. g1, 1755 (Columbia, 1968). More volumes in this series will be soon forthcoming, but until then the complete series on microfilm will suffice. Only slightly less important is the Letterbook of Robert Pringle, 1737-1744, 4 vols., typescript at the South Caro- lina Historical Society. This will soon be issued in published form as a part of the South Carolina Tri- centennial Editions. Pringle's Journal, his will, and a few of his letters have been printed in: Mabel L. webber, ed., "Journal of Robert Pringle, 1746-1747," South Caro- lina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, XXVI (1925), 21-30, 93-112; and Mary Pringle Fenhagen, ed., "Letters and Will of Robert Pringle (1702-1776)," South Carolina 278 Historical and Genealogical Magazine, L (1949), 91-100, 144-155. The Amory Family Papers, at the Library of Congress are an important collection for the early eighteenth century. I have used the microfilm copy in the Charleston Library Society. Also beneficial was "Corre- spondence Between Edmund Brailsford and His Father," §pppp_ Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, VIII (1907), 151-163. The South Carolina Historical Society possesses a Letterbook, 1752-1754, which appears to have been that of John Guerard, the prominent Charleston merchant. The Society also has two business letters of Guerard's among its Miscellaneous Manuscripts. A letter from the firm of Hill and Guerard is printed in "Rice Shipments in 1743," South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, XIII (1912), 230-231. It is disappointing that the Wragg family of merchants left so few business documents in the Wragg Family Papers, 1722-1810, South Carolina Historical Society, but George C. Rogers, Jr., has edited "Two Joseph Wragg Letters," South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXV (1964), 16-19, in which that leading merchant offers his views on various topics. The William Henry Lyttelton Papers, 1751-1760, at the William L. Clements Library are chiefly concerned with politics, but they do consist of some items which refer to commerce. Scattered items of interest are found in the Manigault Family Papers, 1750- 1786; Mazyck Family Papers; and Charles Pinckney Letters, 1737-1751; all located at the South Caroliniana Library. 279 Letters and papers concerning the involvement of the South Carolina merchants in the slave trade are found in Elizabeth Donnan, ed., Documents Illustrative p£_the History g£_the Slave Trade pp America (4 vols., washington, 1930-1935). Account books, ledgers, and receipts also furnish serviceable information. The Waste Book No. A, 1749-1751, of Austin and Laurens in the Henry Laurens Papers, microfilm reel 18, offers a daily, running account of the firm's business activities. Another source is the [Peter Horry] Ledger Book, 1740-1748, South Carolina Archives. The South Caroliniana Library has the Alexander Fraser Receipt Book, 1761-1762; the Richard Splatt Manuscript, 1726; the Henry Varnor Manuscript, 1744-1753; a Charleston Account Book, 1725-1733; and the photostat of a Journal, 1702-1715, kept by John Evans who was a Virginia Indian trader in the Carolina back country. At the South Carolina Historical Society may be found a Charleston Merchant's Daybook, 1764-1766. Alexander S. Salley has edited, "Documents Concerning Huguenots, 1686-1692," Huguenot Society of South Carolina, Transactions, XXVII (1922), 70-76, which includes several business papers. A number of the contemporary descriptions and narratives have been brought together in published col- lections. Bartholomew Rivers Carroll, ed., Historical Collections pf South Carolina Embracing Many Rare and 280 Valuable Pamphlets, and Other Documents, Relating pp_the History g£_that State, From Its First Discovery E9_Its Independence, £p_the Year 1776 (2 vols., New York, 1836), consists of several works which have been helpful to this study. Among them: Samuel Wilson, "An Account of the g Province of Carolina in America," (London, 1682); T[homas] Alsh], "Carolina," (London, 1682); John Archdale, "A New Description of that Fertile and Pleasant Province of 1 Carolina," (London, 1707); John Oldmixon, "The History of g Carolina," (London, 1708); and [Francis Yonge,] "A Narrative of the Proceedings of the People of South Carolina in the Year 1719," (London, 1726). Another important compilation is Alexander S. Salley, ed., Narratives pf_Early Carolina, 1650-1708, in J. Franklin Jameson, ed., Original Narratives pg Early American History (New York, 1911). This edition partially duplicates Carroll's, but it contains other selections as well, including Henry Woodward, "A Faithful Relation"; and John Ash, "The Present State of Affairs" (London, 1706). James Glen's "A Description of South Carolina" (London, 1761), is found in Chapman J. Milling, ed., Colonial South Carolina: Two Contemporary Descriptions . . . (Columbia, 1951). The impact of many of the early accounts is examined in Hugh T. Lefler, "Promotional Literature of the Southern Colonies," Journal g£_Southern History, XXXIII (1967), 3-25. Other contemporary descriptions relative to colonial South Carolina are: John Lawson, A_New Voyage 281 pp Carolina (London, 1709), March gf_America Facsimile Series, Np, 3§_(Ann Arbor, no date); [Thomas Nairne,] "A Letter from South Carolina," (London, 1710), in the American Culture Series, microfilm, and on microcard [Fayrer Hall,] The Importance pf the British Plantations ip_America pg this Kingdom (London, 1731). An unusual but interesting item is Klaus G. Loewald, ep_el,, trans. and eds., "Johann Martin Bolzius Answers a Questionnaire on Carolina and Georgia," William and Mapy Quarterly, 3rd series, XIV (1957), 218-261, XV (1958), 228-252. The political views of an eighteenth-century merchant are expressed in Jack P. Greene, ed., “South Carolina's Colonial Constitution: Two Proposals for Reform," South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXII (1961), 72-81. Few sources contribute more to an understanding of Charleston's commercial life than the South Carolina Gazette (Charleston), 1732-1782. This newspaper contained commercial news, prices current, advertisements, and some political news. The best eighteenth century history for the pre-revolutionary period is [Alexander Hewatt,] Ap_Historica1 Account pf_the Rise and Progress g£_the Colonies gf_South Carolina and Georgia (2 vols., reprint ed., Spartanburg, 1962). First published in London in 1779, this work was, for the era, well researched and balanced in its treatment. Bibliographies and research guides have Contributed greatly in locating and understanding the source materials. 282 Robert J. Turnball, Bibliography g£_South Carolina, 1563- 1950 (5 vols., Charlottesville, 1956) lists the essential bibliographic information for items and to some extent furnishes descriptions. Two works by J. H. Easterby are beneficial: South Carolina Bibliographies, N2, 1, Guide Ep_the Study and Reading 9: South Carolina History, Topical Lists (Columbia, 1949); and South Carolina Bibli- ographies, Np, 2, Guide pg the Study and Reading 9: South Carolina History (Columbia, 1950). For guidance in using the printed colonial records of South Carolina, I have consulted, Jack P. Greene, "The Publication of the Offical Records of the Southern Colonies," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, XIV (1957), 268-280. For a listing of the colonial public records on microfilm see: William Sumner Jenkins, §.§2$§E.EQ the Microfilm Collections 9: §g£1y_8tate Records (Washington, 1950). The early works available in microprint are listed in: Charles Evans, ep_al,, American Bibliography (14 vols., Chicago, 1903- 1959); and Thomas D. Clark, ed., Travels ip_the Old South: A Bibliography (3 vols., Norman, 1956-1959). Philip M. Hamer, A_Guide Eg_Archives and Manuscripts ip the United States (New Haven, 1961) and John Hammond Moore, ed., Research Materials ip_South Carolina (Columbia, 1967) have both been of use in locating some materials which have not been published or otherwise copied. 283 General studies of the colonial period have been helpful in finding the place of South Carolina in the boarder development of the British colonies in North America. These have usually followed the pattern set in Herbert L. Osgood, The American Colonies ithhe Seventeenth Century (3 vols., New York, 1904-1907), and by the same author, The American Colonies $2 the Eighteenth Centupy (4 vols., New York, 1924) which are concerned overwhelmingly with political and constitutional questions. Charles M. Andrews, The Colonial Period g£_American History (4 vols., New Haven, 1934-1938), expands slightly upon Osgood's approach, although he does so with more thoroughness and grace of style. In his Old Colonial System, 1660-1754 (2 vols., reprint., Gloucester, Mass., 1958) and British Colonial Policy, 1754-1765 (New York, 1907), George Louis Beer traced the development of the mercantilistic empire. South Carolina's early years are covered well in Frank wesley Craven, The Southern Colonies ip the Seventeenth Century, in wendell Holmes Stephenson and E. Merton Coulter, eds., A_History g£_the South, I (Baton Rouge, 1949). Most histories of colonial South Carolina have failed to go beyond an analysis of political events or institutions. This is particularly evident in Edward McCrady, The History gf_South Carolina Under Proprietary Government, 1670-1719 (New York, 1897), and The History pp South Carolina Under the Royal Government, 1719-1776 284 (New York, 1899). Along these same lines is William Roy Smith, South Carolina g§_§_Royal Province, 1719-1776 (New York, 1903). David Duncan Wallace's The History pf South Carolina (4 vols., New York, 1934), and South Carolina: .5 Short History, 1530-1948 (Chapel Hill, 1951) are markedly better in going beyond mere'political narrative. William James Rivers, §_Sketch g£_South Carolina Ep_the Close 2: the Proprietary Government py_the Revolution pf 1719 (Charleston, 1856) is important chiefly for the documents which it contains that have been lost. Two recent political studies, Jack P. Greene, The Quest for Power: The Lower Houses pf Assembly ip_the Southern Royal Colonies, 1689-1776 (Chapel Hill, 1963), and M. Eugene Sirmans, Colonial South Carolina, A_Political History, 1663-1763 (Chapel Hill, 1966), are both first-rate works. Eugene Sirmans has also written a number of articles on South Carolina political history. Among these are: "The South Carolina Royal Council, 1720-1763," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, XVIII (1961), 373-392; and "Politics in Colonial South Carolina: The Failure of Proprietary Reform, 1682- 1694," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, XXIII (1966), 33-55. For the membership of the anti-proprietary movement see the listing in David McCord Wright, comp., "Petitioners to the Crown against the Proprietors, 1716- 1717," South Carolina Historical Magazine, XLII (1961), 88-95. New insights into the nature of politics in 285 colonial South Carolina are suggested by Robert M. weir, in "'The Harmony we were Famous For': An Interpretation of Pre-Revolutionary South Carolina Politics," William and Quarterly, 3rd series, XXVI (1969), 473-501. werks dealing with the economic history of the colonial era have been most beneficial. The impact of the mercantile system upon the colonies is dealt with in, Lawrence A. Harper, The English Navigation Laws (New York, 1939). The Atlantic trading community is the subject of D. A. Farnie, "The Commercial Empire of the Atlantic, 1607-1783," Economic History Review, 2nd series, XV (1962); and Bernard Bailyn, "Communications and Trade: The Atlantic in the Seventeenth Century," Journal 9; Economic History, XIII (1953), 378-387. Two studies by Richard Pares, "Merchants and Planters," Economic History Review, Supplement No. 4 (1960), and Yankees and Creoles (Cambridge, 1956), have furnished substantial insights into the workings of commercial figures in plantation societies. The same might be said of Audrey C. Land. "Economic Base and Social Structure: The Northern Chesapeake in the Eighteenth Century," Journal pf_Economic History, XXV (1965), 639-654; and James H. Soltow, "Scottish Traders in Virginia, 1750-1775," Economic History Review, XII (1959), 83-98. Also helpful is Stuart Bruchey, The Roots 9:. American Economic Growth, 1607-1861, Ap_Essay ip_Social Causation (New York, 1965). To some extent I have patterned this study upon works dealing with the merchants of other 286 areas. Among these are: Bernard Bailyn, The New England Merchants ip_the Seventeenth Century (New York, 1964); W. T. Baxter, The House g£_Hancock, Business i2 Boston, 1724-1775 (Cambridge, Mass., 1945); and Benjamin W. Labaree, Patriots and Partisans, The Merchants gf_Newbury- port, 1764-1815 (Cambridge, Mass., 1962). The specialized subject of accounting practices is treated in W. T. Baxter, "Accounting in Colonial AmeriCa," in A. C. Littleton and B. S. Yamey, eds., The History g£_Accounting (Homewood, Ill., 1956), 272-287. The question of paper currency was naturally of vital concern to the Charleston merchant. There have been a number of investigations into this topic. One of the earliest of the modern studies is Curtis P. Nettels, Tpe Mgpey_Supply g£_the American Colonies Before 1720 (Madison, 1934). Two articles, E. James Gerguson, "Currency Finance: An Interpretation of Colonial Monetary Practices," William and Marnguarterly, 3rd series, X (1953), 153-180, and Joseph A. Ernest, "Colonial Currency: A Modest Inquiry Into the Uses of the Easy Chair and the Meaning of the Colonial System of Freely-Floating International Exchange," §§plorations ip Entrepreneurial History, 2nd series, VI (1969), 187-197, have aided in the comprehension of this complex subject. Richard M. Jellison's articles, "Paper Currency in Colonial South Carolina: A Reappraisal," South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXII (1961), 134-147, 287 and "Antecedents of the South Carolina Currency Acts of 1736 and 1746," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, XVI (1959), 556-567, have treated the specific currency problems of South Carolina. The economic well-being of South Carolina was dependent upon the colony's agriculture. Lewis Cecil Gray, History g£_Agriculture ip_the Southern States Eg_1860 (2 vols., Washington, 1933) is an older work, but it remains the best treatment of its subject. More narrow in their approaches are: C. Robert Haywood, "Mercantilism and South Carolina Agriculture, 1700-1763," South Carolina Historical Magazine, LX (1959), 15-27; Justin Williams, "English Mercantilism and Carolina Navel Stores, 1705- 1776," Journal pg Southern History, I (1935), 169-185; and Alexander S. Salley, "The Introduction of Rice Culture into South Carolina," South Carolina Historical Commission, Bulletin fig, g (1919), 3-23. There are few statistical studies of colonial Charleston's trade. This makes the relative few all the more significant. They are: George Rogers Taylor, "Wholesale Commodity Prices at Charleston, South Carolina, 1732-1791," Journal gf_Economic and Business History, IV (1932), 356-377; Charles Joseph Gayle, "The Nature and Volume of Exports from Charleston, 1724-1774," South Carolina Historical Association, Proceedings, 12§1_ (1940), 25-33; and Converse Clowse, "The Charleston Export Trade, 1717-1737," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1963). Useful commercial 288 statistics have been compiled in the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics p£_the United States: Colonial Tipe§_pg_12§1 (Washington, 1960). Shirley Carter Hughson, The Carolina Pirates and Colonial Commerce, 1670- 1119 (Baltimore, 1894) is more concerned with the sup- pression of piracy in the region than its impact upon commerce. Leila Sellers, Charleston Business gp_the Eye f the American Revolution (Chaptel Hill, 1934) is disap- pointing and not always trustworthy in detail. The position of South Carolina on the southern colonial frontier and its Indian trade greatly influenced the course of development for the colony. Verner w. Carne, The Southern Frontier, 1670-1732 (Durham, N.C., 1928), and John R. Alden, John Stuart and the Southern Colonial Frontier, 1754-1775 (Ann Arbor, 1744) remain the authorities on this subject. The particular problems of Indian relations and trade during time of war are the subject of: Verner W. Carne, "The Southern Frontier in Queen Anne's War," American Historical Review, XXIV (1919), 379-395; Norman W. Caldwell, "The Southern Frontier During King George's war," Journal 9: Southern History, VII (1941), 37-54; and David H. Corkran, The Cherokee Frontier: Conflict and Survival, 1740-1762 (Norman, 1962). Although it pays scant attention to trade, Chapman J. Milling's, Red Carolinians (Chapel Hill, 1940), is the standard treatment of local Indian life. 289 Slavery and the slave trade exerted a considerable impact upon the commercial life of Charleston, Philip D. Curtin, The Atlantic Slave Trade, §_Census (Madison, 1969) is a recent attempt to use quantitative methods to answer a number of questions concerning the nature of this trade. 5% An older, but still useful study is Elizabeth Donnan's "The Slave Trade into South Carolina before the Revolution," American Historical Review, XXXIII (1928), 804-828. W. Robert Higgins has contributed to our knowledge of the ' extent to which certain persons were involed in the importation of slaves with his article, "Charleston Merchants and Factors Dealing in the External Negro Trade, 1735-1775," South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXV (1964), 205-217, as well as in his unusually fine thesis, "The South Carolina Negro Duty Law," (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of South Carolina, 1967). Another important study is M. Eugene Sirmans, "The Legal Status of the Slave in South Carolina, 1670-1740," Journal 9: Southern History, XXVIII (1962), 462-473. Indian slavery also was an important aspect of the early South Carolinian economy. The best treatment of this topic remains Almon W. Lauber, Indian Slavery i2 Colonial Times within the Present Limits g: the United States (New York, 1913). Sanford Winston's brief article, "Indian Slavery in the Carolina Region," Journal pg Negro History, XIX (1934), 431-440, adds little to Lauber's findings. White indentured servants were not 290 very common in South Carolina, but some merchants did import them for profit. Warren E. Smith, White Servitude ip_Colonial South Carolina (Columbia, 1961), treats its subject in a sketchy manner. Few studies have appeared on South Carolina's land system. In a group of articles on land ownership under the general title, "The Baronies of South Carolina," South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, XI-XVIII (1910-1917), Henry A. M. Smith has provided some useful information for this study. Robert K. Ackerman, "Colonial Land Policies and the Slave Problem," South Carolina Historical Association, Proceedings, 1965 (1965), 28-35, has examined the relationship between the two. Robert L. Meriwether, The Expansion g§_South Carolina, 1729-1765 (Kingsport, Tenn., 1940) is concerned with thesettlement of the middle and back country of the province. There have been several studies which have dealt with aspects of the social history of colonial Charleston. One of the best is Thomas Jefferson Werhenbaker, 222. Golden Age g£_Colonial Culture (2nd rev. ed., New York, 1949). Carl Bridenbaugh's Myths and Realities, Societies pg the Colonial South (Baton Rouge, 1952), is an inter- esting portrayal of the Carolina society. Another view is offered by Frederick P. Bowes, The Culture g£_Early Charleston (Chapel Hill, 1942). Arthur M. Hirsch, The Hugpenots g; Colonial South Carolina (Durham, N.C., 1928), 291 elaborates upon the role of the ethnic group. The contri- bution to the colonial community made by its newspaper is the subject of Hennig Cohen, The South Carolina Gazette, 1732-1775 (Columbia, 1953). Charleston has been the subject of several urban studies. George C. Rogers, Jr., Charleston in_the Age of E? I the Pinckneys (Norman, 1969), stands out as the best. Carl Bridenbaugh, Cities in_the Wilderness: The First Century 9£_Urban Life in_America, 1625-1742 (New York, 1938), r recognizes and describes the important place held by Charleston. In a brief sketch, "Charleston Two Hundred Years Ago," Emory University Quarterly, XIX (1963), 129- 136, M. Eugene Sirmans analyzes the possible origins of Charleston's distinctive life-style. Two articles by Henry A. M. Smith, "Charleston--The Original Plan and the Earliest Settlers," South Carolina Historical and Gene- alogical Magazine, IX (1908), 12-27, and "Charleston and Charleston Neck; The Original Grantees and the Settlements Along the Ashley and Cooper Rivers," South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, XIX (1918), 3-76, provide information on land ownership in and about the city. Background information on the settlement of South Carolina has been found in a number of secondary works. Shaftesbury's colonial schemes and proprietarv politics are narrated in Louise Fargo Brown, The First Earl of 292 Shaftesbury (New YOrk, 1933). The Barbadian influence on the infant colony is seen in John P. Thomas, Jr., "The Barbadians in Early South Carolina," South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, XXXI (1930), 75-92. The standard work on seventeenth-century Barbadoes remains, Vincent T. Harlow, A History 9f the Barbadoes, 1625-1685 (Oxford, 1926). The earliest developments in the settling of the province have been the subject of two recent studies: Agnes Leland Baldwin, First Settlers 9f South Carolina, 1670-1680, Tricentennial Booklet N9. 1 (Columbia, 1969); and Joseph I. Waring, The First Voyage and Settlement 35 Charles Town, 1670-1680, Tricentennial Booklet N9. 3 (1970). An older study, Alexander S. Salley, The Early English Settlers 9f South Carolina (Columbia, 1946), is largely outdated. The brief history of the Scottish colony at Port Royal is told in George Pratt Insh, Scottish Colonial Schemes, 1620-1686 (Glasgow, 1922). There have been relatively few biographical studies of eighteenth-century South Carolinians. These have been confined primarily to the colonial governors. Stephen Saunders Webb, "The Strange Career of Francis Nicholson," William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, XXIII (1966), 513-545; Richard P. Sherman, Robert Johnson, Proprietary 3 Royal Governor 9: South Carolina (Columbia, 1966); and Mary P. Carter, "Governor James Glen of Colonial South 293 Carolina: A Study in British Administrative Policy" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA, 1951), have been concerned with political developments and only incidently with other aspects of colonial life. Although it deals with a post-colonial figure, George C. Rogers, Jr., William Loughton Smith gf Charleston (1758-1812) (Columbia, 1962), contains the valuable background information on the mercantile Smith family. The only Charleston merchant to be accorded a book-length biographical study is Henry " Laurens. David Duncan Wallace, The Life 9: Henry Laurens, With 3 Sketch 9f the Life 9f Lieutenant-Colonel John Laurens (New York, 1915), is useful despite the fact that it slights Lauren's business career. Maurice A. Crouse, "Gabriel Manigault: Charleston Merchant," South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXVIII (1967), 222-231, offers a glimpse at the career of one of Charleston's more suc— cessful merchants. The lives of the Wragg brothers, Samuel and Joseph, are briefly examined in Henry A. M. Smith, "Wragg of South Carolina," South Carolina His- torical and Genealogical Magazine, XIX (1918), 121-123. Two prominent South Carolina families of the colonial period have been examined in multi-generational family biographies: Eugene Sirmans, Jr., "Masters of Ashley Hall: A Biographical Study of the Bull Family of South Carolina, 1670-1737" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1959); and Maurice Crouse, "The 294 Manigault Family of South Carolina, 1685-1783" (un- published Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1965). Another family history, but one which supplies little more than genealogical information is Gertrude Euphemia Meridith, The Descendents 9f Hugh Amory, 1605- 1805 (London, 1901). Both the South Carolina Historical Magazine and the Huguenot Society of South Carolina, Transactions, contain numerous genealogical articles relating to Charleston merchants and their families. For the citations of those which I have used, see the chapter notes. -I IIIIIIIIHII I I I