CHAPTER XII. THE TWO CAROLINAS.1 That remarkable outburst of colonizing energy which followed the Restoration was not without its effect on the history of Vir Fresh impulse towards coloniza tion after the Restoration. ginia and Maryland. There, however, it led to little more than an increase of administrative vigor. It had more conspicuous and abiding results in the conquest of New York, the settlement of Carolina and the ex 1 The material for the early history of Carolina is abundant, yet hardly satisfactory. We have no contemporary writer like Smith, nor even one of the inferior authority of Beverley. The first printed book on the subject is called A Brief Description of the Province of Caro lina, published in 1666. This contains a description of the country, and a short account of the proceedings of the settlers in 1664. This was followed in 1682 by a full account written by Thomas Ash, who had been sent to report on the colony on behalf of the crown. We have also a confused and rambling history of the colony up to 1707, by John Archdale, an ex-Governor. All these, together with other pamphlets bearing on the early history of the colony, are published in the second volume of Carroll's Historical Collection of South Carolina, New York, 1836. To make up for the deficiency of printed authorities, the English archives are unusually rich in papers referring to Carolina. There are letters and instructions from the Proprietors, individually and collectively, and reports sent to them by successive governors and other colonial officials. It is remarkable, however, that while we have such abundant material of this kird, there is a great lack of records of the actual proceedings of the local legislatures in North and South Carolina. In North Carolina we have no formal record of legislative proceedings during the seventeenth century. In South Carolina they are but few and scanty till after the overthrow of the Proprietary Government. Moreover, the early archives of Carolina, though abundant, are necessarily somewhat confused. The northern and southern colonies, while practically distinct, were under the government of a single corporation, and thus the documents relating to each are almost inextricably mixed up. Again, while the Proprietors were the governing body, the colonies in some measure came under the supervision of the Lords of Trade and Plantations, and at a later day of the Board of Trade. Thus much which concerns the colony is to be found in the Entry Books of the latter body, while the proprietary documents themselves are to be found partly among the Colonial Papers, partly in a "pecial department containing the Shaftesbury Papers. The earliest printed records of Carolina that I have been able to discover are contained in Cooper's Laws of South Carolina, Columbia, 1837. Even this only gives the titles of enactments till 1685. In North Carolina we have no printed record of legislation under the Proprietary Government, except in Trott's Collection, and this only preserves those that refer to church matters. Turning to later authorities, we have one of great value in Mr. Rivers's Sketch of the His PROPRIETARY GRANT OF CAROLINA. tension of our dominion in the West Indian Islands 329 It may seem, perhaps, strange that such an evil tree as the reign of Charles II. should have borne any good fruit. But the political and moral depravity of the age must not blind us to its redeeming features. The generation which witnessed the foundation of the Royal Society, which led the vivid and many-sided life portrayed by Pepys, and which furnished Dryden with the models for Zimri and Achitophel, had at least no lack of activity and power. The foreign policy of Cromwell had revived that national spirit of enterprise and self-reliance which had animated the Elizabethan heroes, and which had faded under the spiritless tyranny of James. Ever since the downfall of the Virginia Company the passion for colonization had slumbered, save when it was awakened by religious enthusiasm, or when some isolated adventurer like Calvert renewed the traditions of an earlier generation. Now, however, the colonizing impulse sprang up anew, almost as fresh and vigorous as in the days of the great queen. There was indeed less romance and less enthusiasm about this revival. The spirit of the missionary and the crusader had a smaller share in it, the quest for gain a greater. Yet the later movement, like the earlier, aimed at something beyond mere profit, and found its supporters among the greatest statesmen and philosophers of the age. The grant In March, 1663, eight patentees, among whom were Albemarle, Clarendon, Ashley, and Sir William Berkeley, obtained a grant of all the land between the southern frontier of of Carolina. Virginia and the river St. Mathias in Florida.1 The charter differed conspicuously from any similar instrument which had preceded it. Like Calvert's patent, it gave the Proprietors absolute sovereignty over the territory, with only a vague reservation of the rights of the king, embodied in the clause that the tory of South Carolina, to the close of the Proprietary Government, Charleston, 1856. He has done for that colony what Mr. Bozman did for Maryland, though in a less diffuse form. He has constructed a consecutive narrative out of the archives of the colony, without indeed much attempt to incorporate his narrative into an artistic whole. This, while diminishing the value of the book from a literary point of view, enhances it as a magazine of authentic facts. In every case Mr. Rivers has so indicated his authority as to make the task of verification easy, and in many instances he has printed the original documents in an appendix. Chalmers's Political Annals of the United Colonies is a valuable authority as preserving some documents referring to Carolina which appear to be no longer extant. This portion of his work is published in Carroll's Collection. Williamson's History of North Carolina, Philadelphia, 1812, is largely founded on original documents, and probably, like the works of Stith and Beverley, embodies valuable local traditions. 1 Colonial Papers, 1663, March 24. A full abstract is given in Mr. Sainsbury's Calendar. province and its inhabitants were to be subject immediately to the crown of England. In one important matter the Proprietors were emancipated from the common law of England. They were specially empowered to grant liberty of conscience. In this we can perhaps trace one of the earliest symptoms of the attempted alliance between the court party and the Nonconformists. The Proprietors were, furthermore, invested with the right of making war, and with all powers needful for that purpose, and they might impose taxes and confer titles of honor, provided they were such as did not already exist in England. So far the rights conferred on the Proprietors were as ample as those given to the founders of Maryland. important difference. Baltimore's absolute as against his subjects. Reservation of popular rights. But there was one charter made him The rights of self government which the people of Maryland afterwards acquired were obtained by usage and mutual agreement, and found no place in the original constitution of the colony. The charter of Carolina expressly provided for assemblies of the freeholders, and only invested the Proprietors with temporary and conditional powers of legislation. Two years later this charter was recast. The only difference in the new instrument was that the limits of the territory were extended and defined with more precision.1 Heath's The land conferred upon this newly-constituted body was not unexplored nor even unoccupied territory. In 1629 Sir Robert, Sir Robert afterwards Chief Justice, Heath had obtained a grant grant. from Charles I. of land to the south of Virginia. His intention seems to have been to break this up by subletting it to others, who were to carry out the practical details of settlement. One portion was to be occupied by a body of French Protestants.3 Another was granted to Vassall, whose name appears more than once at a later date in the history of Carolina. No settlement, however, was made. Heath's grant remained a dead letter, and was formally revoked in favor of the new patentees. All that 1 Colonial Papers, 1665, June 30. 2 Heath's patent itself does not seem to be extant; but there are repeated references to it in the Colonial Papers of 1629 and 1630, and also at the time of the later grant. 8 There are several documents extant referring to this settlement, including the agreements between Heath and the Baron de Sancé, who organized the French settlement, and the regu lations drawn up by the latter for his colony. Colonial Papers, 1630, March. 4 Colonial Papers, 1630, May. 5 This was done by an order in Council, August 12, 1663. It is among the Shaftesbury Papers. FOUR DISTINCT SETTLEMENTS. 331 remained was the name of Carolina, which the loyal gratitude of Heath had bestowed on his territory.1 Emigration from the other Though Heath's patent had led to no results, the territory granted to Albemarle and his colleagues was not without English settlers. The circumstances of its occupation show that we are entering on a new phase of colonial history. colonies. The colonizing power of the mother country was in a measure exhausted. The causes which had set on foot the great movement for colonization early in the century were spent, and the civil war, though it may have called out a restless spirit of enterprise, had, by lessening the population and relieving civil and religious grievances, done away with the chief incentives to emigration. But as the resources of the mother country failed, the colonists themselves began to fill the gap. The settlements in their turn began to expand and to throw out new offshoots. New England, Virginia, and Barbadoes all began to overflow, and each had a share in furnishing the population of Carolina. Before going further, it may be well to clearly enumerate the different settlements in the territory of Carolina. The various I. A settlement from Virginia on Albemarle River, within the which became the nucleus of North Carolina. settlements Carolina. territory of II. A settlement from New England near Cape Fear, which dispersed and was absorbed into No. I. III. A settlement from Barbadoes, also near Cape Fear. IV. A settlement from England at Charlestown. This more than once changed its site, absorbed No. III. in the course of its wanderings, and finally grew into South Carolina. from New Before going into the history of the more successful attempt from Virginia, it may be well to dispose of the short-lived and unThe colony prosperous settlement of the New Englanders. The England. names of its founders, and even its precise date, are unknown. The earliest mention of it in any contemporary document is in a petition dated August 1, 1663, addressed to the Proprietors by some planters from Barbadoes who wished to settle in the same neighborhood. From this we learn that the New England emigrants were then dissatisfied with their new abode, and had sent home reports disparaging the country. A few scattered references in the archives of Massachusetts and elsewhere show us the colony struggling and unprosperous, and a tradition lin 1 The name is used in the earliest documents concerning Heath's patent. 8 Colonial Entry Book, No. xx. p. 12. • Hutchinson states in a foot-note to his History of Massachusetts (vol. i. p. 260), that a gered on in Carolina that a quarrel with the Indians, provoked by the settlers themselves, led to their final dispersal.1 The first from The early history of the settlement from Virginia is fuller, though even here we have nothing like a continuous record. The first authentic traces of emigration are connected with names emigrants which recall the heroic and romantic age of Virginian Virginia. history. A son of Sir George Yeardley was perhaps the first Virginian who attempted to find a home beyond the southern Loundary of his own colony. His exploits there are recounted in a letter addressed to a surviving member of the house of Ferrar. He depicts himself living alone among the savages, and combining the functions of a trader and a missionary in a manner more often found among the French settlers on the Canadian lakes than on the English frontier.2 lished by The path thus opened was followed up, and more than one entry in the annals of Virginia tells us that the government enGovern- couraged adventurers to explore the lands to the south." ment estab- There is nothing, however, to show the precise date at Berkeley. which the first body of settlers from Virginia established themselves within the borders of Carolina. But it is clear that their earliest settlement tallied nearly in time with the grant to Albemarle and his colleagues. The first official recognition of their presence is a commission dating from September, 1663, which authorizes Berkeley to appoint two Governors, one for the settlement on the northeast of the Chowan River, the other for that to the southwest. The name of the river at the same time was changed to Albemarle in honor of the senior Proprietor. The Governors thus constituted were to have the power of appointing all officials excepting the Secretary and Surveyor, and of making laws with the consent of the freemen. This commission was amplified aud explained in a set of formal instructions to Berkeley and in a letter addressed to him by the Proprietors. They explain that their motive for constituting collection was made in New England for the distressed settlers of Cape Fear. We shal come across another reference to the destitute state of the settlement. There is also a letter from Vassall, who had a pecuniary interest in the colony, in which he speaks of the loss of the country. Colonial Papers, 1667, October. 1 Lawson's History of North Carolina, p. 74. 2 This letter is given in Anderson's History of the Colonial Church, ed. 1856, vol. ii. p. 309. Hening, vol. i. pp. 262, 422. This commission and the instructions accompanying it are copied into Colonial Entry Book, No. xx. p. 34. |